report of the Portfolio
committee for justice and constitutional development on the department of
justice and constitutional development annual report 2006/07
Report of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development on
the Annual Report of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development,
dated 21 November 2007.
The Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development, having
considered the Annual Report of the Department of Justice and Constitutional
Development, reports as follows:
Introduction
On 24 October 2007, the Committee considered the 2006/07 Annual Report of the
Department of Justice and Constitutional Development.
The Department was represented by Adv M. Simelane, the Director-General; Ms S. Gomm,
Chief Finance Officer; Mr J. Johnson, Chief Director: Budgets; Mr B. Mbonani,
Director: Strategy; Dr K. De Wee, Chief Operations Officer; and Mr W.
Krause, Deputy Director in the National
Treasury.
This report should be situated in the context of the Committee’s 4th
quarter of 2007- programme, “Towards Finding a Necessary Balance Between our
Legislative and Oversight Roles”. The programme is based on our understanding
that although we have a huge legislative workload, we have to find the time and
space to play a more activistic oversight role; that our legislative and
oversight roles need to be complementary and reinforce each other.
The report first provides an overview of the Department’s presentation on its
Annual Report and then our responses in section 6.
The main concern of the Committee is how the Department performed in respect of each of its
programmes, especially in terms of its Strategic Plan and its specific targets
for the 2006/07 financial year under review.
1.6 While the report also deals
with the budget and finances of the Department, the main responsibility for
evaluating the Department’s financial performance rests with the more qualified
Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA), which does this through a
meeting with the Department each year to which our Committee is invited. SCOPA
considered the Department’s financial performance at a meeting on 31 October.
Unfortunately, this meeting coincided with a meeting of our Portfolio Committee
and we received far too late notice to call off our meeting. However, a member
of our Committee, Ms Carol Johnson, attended the SCOPA meeting and reported to
the Committee on 6 November. Excerpts from her report are carried in section 7
of this report. The Committee has decided to write to the Chairperson of SCOPA
and negotiate with him so that in future the Committee is given timeous notice
of meetings SCOPA holds to consider the Department’s financial performance - so that our Committee can attend these
meetings
General Progress
In order to ensure that justice is accessible, the Department has adopted the
following three key strategic priorities:
Enhancing access to justice for all, particularly the disenfranchised, poor and vulnerable.
Enhancing organisational efficiency: to improve the provision of access to
justice, the Department has focused on improving its organisational efficiency,
in particular the modernisation of its court systems.
Transforming justice, state and society: transformation of the judiciary and
the legal profession is a priority.
In respect of infrastructure investment, the Department reported the
following:
R308 million was spent on infrastructure in 2006/07.
R60 million was spent on upgrading existing facilities under the Repair and
Maintenance Programme (RAMP). A total of 301 courts are now registered on the
RAMP programme.
Six new court buildings are being constructed at Daveytown, Motherwell,
Colesberg, Tsakane, Sekgosese and Augrabies.
Major additions are in progress at the Supreme Court of Appeal in Mangaung,
Mitchell’s Plain, Ceres, Polokwane and Stanger.
In order to improve court security, the Department installed 126 X-ray
machines, 191 walk-through detectors and 19 close-circuit televisions. 154
courts were burglar-proofed and 124 courts were secured with perimeter fencing.
4 164 offices were provided with security services, while 346 offices were provided
with cash-in-transit services.
2.3 In terms of the “Access to
Justice Services” strategic priority, the Department reported the following:
A further 35 mobile courts were deployed to sites where the periodical courts
were being held - in police stations and correctional facilities.
The Department has increased awareness of the Equality Courts, the Victims’
Charter, and child and spousal maintenance. The success of Operation Isondlo, a
campaign that aims to raise awareness about maintenance among the general
public, is reflected in increased and improved services in the Maintenance
Courts.
2.4 In terms of the “Enhancing
Organisational Efficiency” strategic priority, the Department reported the
following:
There has been substantial progress in the modernisation and reform of the
administration and delivery of justice. For example, the e-Scheduler system is
being implemented in 446 courts, and 280 scanners were purchased and deployed
at various courts to assist with the scanning of relevant court documents.
The Video Postponement Project has substantially impacted on the remand of
court cases and lowered the risk of attempted escapes from correctional
facilities. In a period of 12 months, 4 899 remands were concluded without
detainees having to leave correctional facilities.
Digital recording systems were installed in the High Courts and are currently
being installed in Magistrate’s Courts.
Basic IT infrastructure has been rolled out to 94% of sites countrywide.
Further improvements have been made in the Master’s Offices in order to
modernise and improve services and
processes in deceased and insolvent estates.
The Department is automating the Guardians Fund. This has been rolled out to
three of the six Master’s Offices.
The Justice Deposit Account system (JDAS) was rolled out to three identified
sites. A fourth site is ‘work-in-progress’, while all nine regions are
presently engaged with rolling out the system to regional sites.
In terms of the “Transformation of Justice, State and Society” strategic
priority, the Department reported the following:
A Legal Services Sector Charter Steering Committee has been established to
draft the Legal Services Charter. A draft Charter has been developed for public
consultation, and the Department envisaged finalising the Charter in the
2006/07 financial year. However, this timeframe was not met because of the
extensive consultations with the legal profession. Nevertheless, the Department
reported that substantial progress has been made and that proper consultation
has taken place with the relevant role-players and stakeholders within the
legal profession.
A project office was established to advance the Review of the Criminal Justice
System. Plans of action were drafted and implementation commenced in June 2007.
In order to increase the pool of female judicial officers, 23 women were
selected to undergo a judicial education training programme in 2007/08.
Various Bills were introduced to Parliament, and others are ready for
introduction.
2.6 The
Department identified the following key challenges:
In view of insufficient funds there is always a backlog with respect to the
upgrading of courts. Accordingly, the Department has prioritised according to
need.
The Department also relies on the Department of Public Works to effect the
repairs/upgrading/maintenance, but does not have any control of that
Department’s timetable.
The building of new courts also presents a challenge as it is not always easy
to find available land that is suitable. This has proved to be particularly
problematic in
The Department acknowledges that the provision of security at all courts
remains a challenge. The Department has adopted an incremental approach. All
courts, however, have burglar bars and security doors.
The Department would like to see its responsibility with regard to the
collection of monies reduced as it believes that this does not form part of its
core function. The monies collected and paid out are not funds that belong to
the Department, but are usually funds that belong to third parties, such as
maintenance for children and spouses. In addition, this responsibility has
numerous challenges for the Department. For example, the Department must
provide cash-in-transit services. Another challenge relates to the potential
for fraud.
Communities are often unaware of the precise role of the Department and
sometimes confuse the Department’s responsibilities with that of the Departments
of Safety and Security and Correctional Services.
The Department largely uses outdated manual systems of reporting.
The lack of computer literacy is a major problem among staff.
The use of contract/temporary employees due to the demand for services poses
challenges.
The Department identified the need for tighter internal controls.
Approximately R14 million was lost on account of fraud.
3 Performance in terms of Programmes
3.1 In view of time constraints,
the Committee did not consider Programme 1 on “Administration”. As the National
Prosecuting Authoriy (NPA) has a separate Annual Report, and is to appear
before the Committee to present this Report, the Department did not report on
Programme 4 on the “National Prosecuting Authority”.
3.2 In terms of Programme 2 on
“Court Services”, the Department reported on court performance as follows:
The total number of new cases in lower courts was 1 055 971. Of these cases 328 286 were finalised (a
verdict was obtained for 284 030 cases and 44 256 were diverted) and 720 354
cases were removed. Removal refers to cases that are withdrawn, struck from the
roll or where warrants are issued due to the failure of the accused to appear
in court. About 68% of the cases were
removed.
The average conviction rate for all courts for 2006/07 was 86%. The conviction
rate in the District Courts declined marginally from 87% in 2005/06 to 86% in
2006/07. The Regional Courts increased their conviction rate from 71% in
2005/06 to 72% in 2006/07. In the High Courts the conviction rate remained 86%
for both 2005/06 and 20006/07.
The average court hours in the District Courts was 4 hours per day. This is a
marginal decrease from 4h08 in 2005/06. In the High Court the average court
hours remained the same as in 2005/06 - 3h20. In the Regional Courts there was
a decrease from 4h02 in 2005/06 to 3h55
in 2006/07.
The Department did not meet its target of 392 732 cases for finalisation in the
Lower Courts.. The Department reported
that 375 436 cases, including backlog cases, were finalised.
The number of outstanding cases in the Lower Courts at the end of March 2007
decreased from 204 051 in 2005/06 to 191 371 cases in 2006/07, of which 35 651
(19%) were backlog cases. However, the number of backlog cases has increased
from 33 958 cases in 2005/06.
In terms of vulnerable groups, the Department provided statistics of the number
of matters dealt with involving children and families in 2006/07. In the
Children’s Courts, emphasis was placed on the finalisation of foster care
applications with 35 409 children placed in foster care in 2006/07. A challenge
faced by the Department is the need for training of Children’s Court clerks,
particularly concerning the implementation of the Children’s Act. The
maintenance courts heard 99 504 formal maintenance inquiries, while 198 826
maintenance complaints were laid.
3.3 Key aspects of service delivery for
Programme 3 on “State Legal Services” included:
The State Law Advisors received 578 briefs, of which 566 were finalised.
The Legislative Drafting Unit scrutinised 87 Bills (49 new Bills and 38 Bills
carried forward from 2005). A total of 31 Bills were certified.
The Master of the High Court attended to 15 000 more deceased estates than the
previous year, in other words a 15% increase. The number of insolvency matters
is declining: approximately 17% fewer cases were reported than in the previous
financial year. The total number of receipts for the Guardian’s Fund was 15 738
valued at R710 million. This is an increase of 28% from 2005/06. The total
number of payments was 52 139 valued at R379 million. This is 14% more than the
previous financial year.
3.4 Key
aspects of service delivery for Programme 5 on “Auxiliary and Associated
Services” included:
The E-scheduler programme is being rolled out to 436 sites. This system
allows courts to enrol and schedule court cases electronically, as well as
extract information relating to case progress and court performance.
The Digital Nervous System III project has been successfully completed. This
project aimed at providing connectivity to smaller remote regions previously
overlooked. It includes ICT infrastructure, hardware, various applications, and
IT literacy training. The Department reported that 94% of sites were connected.
In terms of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Unit’s programme, R529
million was paid out to 15 610 beneficiaries, while 1 227 outstanding
beneficiaries are being traced. Draft regulations to allow for access to monies
in the President’s Fund were submitted for Ministerial approval. The remaining
monies are to be used for a variety of reparation purposes, including medical
benefits and other forms of social assistance and community rehabilitation.
4 Human
Resources
The staff establishment grew by 7.2% with the creation of 1 017 new posts. The
following vacant posts were filled: 345 clerks, 215 court managers, 142
maintenance investigators, 100 senior and family councillors and 85 maintenance
officers. 77 legal interns were appointed to fast-track maintenance backlogs
and 45 candidate attorneys were placed in the State Attorney’s office.
4.2 The Department has a
vacancy rate of 23%.
4.3 The number of employees for
critical occupations is 15 772. There
were 10 756 appointments and transfers within the Department, and 9 649 transfers
and terminations out of the Department. This resulted in a staff turnover rate
of 61.7%.
4.4 There were 304 misconduct
matters, of which 64 or 20% were for fraud. The Department told the Committee
that approximately R14 million may have been lost on account of fraud.
5. Financial
Statements
5.1 The revised estimate reflects that the
Department received an appropriation of R6.4 billion for 2006/07. However, as
the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) accounts separately for its spending,
the Department’s budget in fact amounted to R 4.893 billion, of which actual
expenditure was R 4.469 billion.
5.2 The Department underspent by
6,8% in 2005/06 and 8.7% in 2006/07.
Underspending occurred in all of the Department’s core programmes but mainly in
Administration (10.8%) and in Court Services (11.6%). The Department explained
that the underspending was as a result of staff turnover and vacancies, as well
as delays experienced in the filling of vacancies. There were also delays in the implementation of the
“Monies in Trust” project and underspending on capital works.
5.3 As was the case in 2005/06, the
Auditor General gave a qualified opinion on the financial statements. The basis
for the Auditor-General’s qualified opinion related to the Department’s administration
of Third-Party Funds (formerly referred to as “Monies in Trust”) and asset
management.
5.4 The
Third-Party Funds are reported on separately in Part 4d of the Annual Report.
The Auditor-General’s report in this regard expressed a disclaimer. However,
the Department’s administration of Third Party Funds has also impacted
negatively on the Auditor-General’s assessment of the Department’s financial
statements and performance, and formed part of the reason for the Department
receiving a qualified audit. As mentioned above, the Department administers
funds on behalf of third parties, for example, maintenance beneficiaries, the
National Revenue Fund and local authorities. This entails collecting funds on
behalf of others and then paying them over to those parties who are entitled to
receive the funds. Monies collected by the Department in respect of Third-Party
Funds include admission of guilt fines, bail monies, court fines, estate
monies, maintenance, state attorney monies, compensatory fines, deferred fines
and payments to court. According to the Auditor-General, internal controls in
respect of these Funds have been inadequate, and full and proper accounting
records have not been maintained since 1994. In 2002/03, “Monies in Trust”, as
Third Party Funds was known, was separated from the Vote account, hence the
separate report. In that financial year, the Auditor-General issued a
disclaimer in the absence of financial statements. In 2003/04, the Department
did not submit financial statements. The Department produced a partial set of
annual financial statements that covered the “Monies in Trust” operations for
March 2005. In 2005/06, the Department compiled a set of incomplete financial
statements. These statements were submitted late, in December 2006. The
Auditor-General has not informed the Department of his opinion on these
statements, but the Department anticipates that there will be a disclaimer as
the information received from many offices is incorrect or incomplete and
cannot be verified. As this situation continued during the 2006/07 financial
year, the Auditor-General issued a disclaimer of opinion. While the Department
recognised the need for improvements, it drew attention to the historical
context of the current challenges and stressed that it had to perform these
responsibilities on behalf of other departments and agencies. The Committee
responds to this in section 6.2 below.
5.5 The Department has excluded the
liability and bank balance relating to Third Party Funds in its financial statements,
resulting in a material misstatement of the financial statements. In the
emphasis of matter, the Auditor-General expressed the opinion that the lack of
effective and efficient financial management system of the Third Party Funds
resulted in the Department being unable to quantify, with certainty, the exact
liability and potential claims against the Department. The Department explained
to the Committee that the essence of the problem is that, historically, these
payments had been captured manually, but that the Department was now moving
from a manual to an electronic system. The Department also informed the
Committee that it has a strategy to deal with the problem by involving the
appointment of a service provider with an implementation date of June 2008. In addition, the Department is also rolling
out the Justice Deposit Account system. The Department feels that the problem
will be resolved by 2009/10. However, until such time as the Public-Private
Partnership for the management of “Monies in Trust” is implemented, this item
will remain a qualification.
5.6 As a result of ineffective
asset management, the Auditor-General was unable to confirm the accuracy of the
closing balance of the assets valued at R535 622 000. The Department told the
Committee that it has taken steps to address the problem. These include
training for asset controllers, the appointment of asset managers in the
regions, the use of scanners for
verification, spot checks by the National Office after asset verifications, and
where necessary, conducting disciplinary action.
5.7 In addition, attention was
drawn in the ‘emphasis of matter’ to the following issues:
Inadequate controls with regard to
information systems.
The declarations of interest of designated employees were not submitted to the
Department of Public Service and Administration within the required timeframes.
Material corrections are required to
the financial statements submitted for audit.
At the request of the Department, the
Auditor-General is conducting a special audit into the procurement process of
the award of a contract to a supplier. The results will be reported to
management separately.
The Auditor-General also drew attention
to the fact that the Department has not reported on all the predetermined
objectives as required by section 40(3)(a) of the Public Finance Management Act
(PFMA).
The Auditor-General was unable to
obtain all the quarterly reports. The Accounting Officer attributes this to a
lack of a clear policy and procedure framework to standardise, enforce and
guide performance reporting.
6. Committee’s Views and Recommendations
6.1 It is not possible for
the Committee to effectively monitor the Department’s performance through a
single three-hour meeting on its Annual Report, once a year. In considering
Annual Reports, moreover, we are reviewing performance over a previous
financial year. It is crucial to evaluate the Department’s performance on an
ongoing basis in terms of its Strategic Plan for a current financial year. The
Committee will therefore, as far as possible, consider quarterly progress
briefings from the Department as from the beginning of next year.
The Committee recognises the scope and magnitude of the tasks that the
Department has to attend to and is acutely aware of its capacity and other
constraints. One of the questions posed is whether the Department may have
taken on too many responsibilities.
Certainly, it is not clear to the Committee that the Department is
effectively prioritising its activities or sufficiently focussed on a set of
core functions. Is the Department being strategic enough in its allocation of
energy and resources to its different functions. Should the Department really
be taking responsibility for Third Party Funds, or should these be dealt with
by other public and private sector structures? The Committee will engage
further on these broader issues with the Department at its consideration of the
Department’s quarterly progress briefings next year and during the
consideration of the Department’s budget
for 2008/09.
Overall, the Committee feels that the Department’s performance during 2006/07
was, in the context of the various constraints, reasonable, if very uneven.
Obviously, the Department needs to improve, as the Director General also acknowledged.
Consistent with the issues raised in 6.2 above, the Committee will engage more
rigorously with the Department next year on how it is seeking to improve its performance.
The Committee feels that the measureable objectives or targets in the Department’s
Strategic Plan are not always suitably quantifiable or specific enough. The
Annual Report and the Department’s overview of it, presented to the Committee,
did not adequately relate the Department’s achievements to the objectives in
its Strategic Plan. The Committee feels that, in terms of the requirements of
the PFMA, the Department’s Annual Report should be more closely aligned to its
Strategic Plan and should be clearly drawing this link between the targets or
objectives set in the Strategic Plan and the actual performance of these
targets, as set out in the Annual Report.
The Committee would like to see an improvement in this regard next year.
The Annual Report provides a lot of information. Whilst the Committee is fully aware that an
Annual Report must provide specific information
to comply with the PFMA and other requirements we feel that
consideration needs to be given to making the Report more accessible and
user-friendly. Inadequacies in the Annual Report include:
The Report only provides statistics for court performance from April 2006 to
January 2007. It is therefore difficult for the Committee to monitor court
performance from one year to another.
The actual performance set out in the Annual Report does not always address the
indicators and targets set out in the Strategic Plan.
In some instances timeframes are not provided, making it difficult to assess
whether the Department has met its targets for 2006/07.
While in some cases explanations are provided for why targets are not met, this
is not done in all instances.
The Committee welcomes the Department’s progress in its modernisation and
reform of the court administration, in particular the e-Scheduler programme,
the digital recording systems, the IT infrastructure and the Video Postponement
Project referred to in sections 2.4 and 3.4 above.
6.7 The Committee also welcomes the
building of courts in townships, and the doing away of the periodical courts.
6.8 The Committee feels that the
Department’s
vacancy rate for 2006/07 of 23% was too high, as was the staff turnover rate of 61%. The vacancy rate for critical posts
is of particular concern as the reduction of criminal case backlogs is a
government priority and will have a negative impact on the delivery of justice.
The Committee’s concern is also shared by the Auditor-General, who notes that the Department does not have a Human Resources
Plan as required in terms of Public Service Act and regulations. However, at
the SCOPA briefing, it emerged that the vacancy rate has now come down to 12%
(see 7.2 below), which the Committee welcomes. The Committee would like the
Department, anyway, to report on progress on finalising its Human Resources
Plan at the Department’s first quarterly progress briefing next year.
As noted in section 3.2 above, about 68% of cases are
removed from the court roll. The Committee understands that there are many
reasons for the high removal rate of cases from the roll, including the quality
of the investigation of cases, delays in obtaining forensic results, the
accused absconding or witnesses disappearing (approximately 15 000 warrants of
arrest are issued each month for non-attendance at court), the complainant no
longer wanting to press charges, trifling cases that are thrown out of court or
simply struck from the roll, and the
inefficiency or inexperience of prosecutors, public defenders and presiding
officers. The Committee is acutely aware of the huge challenges in reducing the
extent of removals from the court rolls, but believes that there has to be incremental
progress in this regard and will monitor developments closely. In the first
quarter of next year, depending on the nature of the briefing on the Review of
the Criminal Justice System referred to in section 6.20 below, the Committee
will seek, together with the Safety and Security, Correctional Services and
other relevant portfolio committees, to organise a joint meeting with the
relevant Departments and other stakeholders, including the NPA, Legal Aid Board
and South African Police Services (SAPS), to consider the issues in greater
detail so as to better understand the strategies and programmes to address the
challenges and adopt an appropriate oversight programme in this regard.
The Committee notes, however, the high conviction rates averaging 86%, referred
to in 3.2 above, and commends the Department on this.
The Committee notes that case backlogs, particularly for criminal cases, have
not been reduced during the year under review. There has been a gradual decline
in court hours since 2004/2005 for all courts, both superior and lower.
However, the Committee is aware that court hours is not something over which
the Department has final and ultimate control, as the party’s legal representatives,
prosecutors or presiding officers can postpone matters, or adjourn court, for a
variety of different reasons.
The finalisation rate for the lower courts did not meet the target. With fewer
cases being finalised, the outstanding roll of all courts reached 210 000 and the number of backlog cases has
also grown. These matters will also be taken further during the briefing
proposed in 6.9 above.
6.13 Clearly, there has to be a
standardisation of the information captured across the criminal justice sector.
For example, at present, the SAPS reports on the number of complaints it
receives and the number referred to court. The Portfolio Committee on Safety
and Security has requested SAPS to include conviction rates in its Annual
Reports. However, this has proved to be difficult as the manner in which SAPS
measures and interprets its data is inconsistent with that of the Department of
Justice. The SAPS focuses on the disposal of dockets, whereas the Department of
Justice and the National Prosecuting Authority focus on the manner in which a
case is dealt with in court. The Committee stresses the need for consistency
and standardisation of capturing data across the criminal justice sector and
will monitor developments in this regard.
6.14 The Committee welcomes the
Department’s efforts with regard to vulnerable groups in general and children
in particular. The Committee is pleased to note that the Child Justice Bill,
which sets out the legislative framework for children in conflict with the law,
will shortly be introduced to Parliament.
The Committee will process the Bill expeditiously early in the new
year. The Committee also welcomes the
Department’s efforts in increasing awareness of the Equality Courts, Victims’
Charter and child and spousal maintenance, including through Operation Isondlo,
referred to in section 2.3 above.
6.15 Notwithstanding our reservations
about the Department’s role in Third Party Funds in section 6.2 above, the Committee is concerned that the
Department once more received a qualified audit opinion from the Auditor-General.
The basis for the Auditor-General’s qualified opinion related to the
Department’s administration of Third-Party Funds (formerly referred to as
“Monies in Trust”) and its asset management. The inadequate management of Third
Party Funds was partly why the Department receiving a qualified audit in
2005/06. While this is an inherited problem, the Committee notes with concern
the Auditor-General’s opinion that the lack of effective and efficient
financial management systems of the Third Party Funds resulted in the Department
being unable to quantify with any certainty the exact liability and potential
claims against the Department. While the Committee notes that this matter is
receiving attention and that progress appears to have been made, we will
continue to monitor developments.
6.16 The Committee notes that as a
result of ineffective asset management, the Auditor-General was unable to
confirm the completeness of or existence of assets and the accuracy of the
closing balance of the assets. The Committee expresses its concern about this.
The Committee notes, however, the Department’s steps to improve its management
of assets referred to in section 5.6 above and its asset audit action plan
referred to in section 7.4 below – and will monitor progress in this regard.
6.17 The Committee notes, in section 5.7 above, that the
Auditor-General drew attention to various ”emphasis of matter” issues – and
will monitor how the Department is responding to these matters.
6.18 The Committee notes that the
Department’s underspending has increased from 6,8% in 2005/06 to 8,7% in
2006/07. Spending spiked significantly in March 2007 just before the close of
the 2006/07 financial year. The movement of funds both into and within the Vote
is noteworthy, particularly the movement of funds from compensation of
employees to other line items. The Committee will monitor the Department’s
spending trends more actively in future. We will discuss how we could this most
effectively with Parliament’s Joint Budget Committee.
6.19 At its quarterly meetings with
the Department, the Committee will be interested in progress with regards to
the following financial issues:
The management of Third Party Funds.
Asset management.
The “matters of emphasis” referred to in section 5.7 above.
The Justice Deposit Account (“JDAS”) system.
Tightening of internal controls to reduce fraud.
The Guardian’s Fund.
The Department’s spending patterns and “in-year” monitoring of monthly
spending.
The special audit of the award of the contract referred to in section 5.7
The availability of quarterly reports to the Auditor General.
6.20 Within capacity, time and other
constraints the Committee will seek to pursue further with the Department
issues related to the following:
The Equality Courts.
The Legal Services Charter.
The Victims Charter.
Maintenance Courts.
Training of Children’s Court Clerks.
The lack of computer literacy within the staff
6.21 Shortly before the Committee
adopted this report, Cabinet approved an
overhaul of the criminal justice system that is aimed at much greater
co-ordination and integration, with a single vision, mission and set of
objectives for all the relevant departments. The new system will be developed
further at the Cabinet lekgotla in
January next year and set out by the President in his State of the Nation
Address. It would seem that the new integrated system seeks to address several
of the issues raised in this report. The Committee will, in consultation with
the Safety and Security, Correctional Services and other relevant Portfolio
Committees, organise a briefing on the Review of the Criminal Justice System
early next year. Depending on what emerges from this briefing, the oversight
programme that emerges from the issues raised in this section may have to be
adapted somewhat.
7. SCOPA Consideration of
Department’s Annual Report
As
mentioned in section 1.6 above, the Committee was represented at the briefing
where SCOPA considered the Department’s Annual Report. The key issues that
emerged in a report to our Committee on the meeting are referred to below.
The Director-General of the Department explained to SCOPA that some 1000 vacant
posts would be advertised shortly, and that the vacancy rate was down from 23%
at the end of the last financial year to
12% at the time of the SCOPA briefing.
The DG explained the Department had received two legal opinions on whether it
could report on Third Party Funds in separate financial statements, as opposed
to including them in the Department’s financial statements. There appears to be
a difference of opinion on this matter between the Department and the Office of
the Auditor-General. The DG provided copies of the Department’s Third Party
Funds Audit Action Plan, which includes the establishment of Justice Deposit
Accounts at courts and Masters’ offices.
The DG also provided copies of the Department’s Asset Audit Action Plan which
seeks to address the concerns of the Auditor- General about the Department’s
management of its assets.
SCOPA requested the Justice and Constitutional Portfolio Committee to:
Consider the policy issues related to Third Party Funds and seek to ensure that
the current problems do not continue if the function is handed over to another
agency.
Monitor the implementation of the Third Party Funds Audit Action Plan.
Monitor the implementation of the Asset Audit Action Plan.
Our Portfolio Committee will attend to the issues referred to in 7.5
above. The Department is requested to
report on progress in regard to these issues at the first quarterly progress
briefing next year.
8. Modest Oversight Programme
The issues raised in sections 6 and 7 above provide an important basis for
our oversight programme. But, of course, the Committee is acutely aware, as
indicated in our programme, “Towards Finding a Necessary Balance Between our
Legislative and Oversight Roles”, referred to in section 1.3 above, that as we
near the end of our five-year parliamentary term in April 2009, our legislative
workload will probably increase significantly.
The importance of oversight work cannot be over-emphasized; however, an
anticipated increase in legislative workload will affect our oversight
programme. While we cannot forego our oversight responsibilities, we will have
limited time, energy and space to fulfil this aspect of our role, and so will
probably have to have a much more modest oversight programme than might be
suggested by the issues raised in this report. We will, however, try to do as
much as we can.
9.1 Acknowledgements
The Committee expresses its appreciation to the Department for its co-operation
with the processing of the Annual Report.
The Committee expresses its appreciation to Ms Christine Silkstone of
Parliament’s Research and Information Unit for the initial report on which this
report substantially drew.