Report of the Portfolio
Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development on Budget Vote 24: Justice
and Constitutional Development, dated 2 June 2011
The Portfolio Committee on
Justice and Constitutional Development, having considered Budget Vote 24:
Justice and Constitutional Development, reports as follows:
1.
Introduction
1.1.
The Budget Vote 24: Justice and Constitutional
Development has five programmes: The Department is directly responsible for the
Administration, Court Services and State Legal Services programmes; Programme 4
is the allocation to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), which accounts
separately for its spending, although the Director-General: Justice and
Constitutional Development is the accounting officer; and Programme 5 contains
the allocation to auxiliary services, including transfer payments to Legal Aid
South Africa (LASA), the Special Investigating Unit (SIU), the South African
Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) and the Public Protector (PP).
1.2.
The Department of Justice and Constitutional
Development, the National Prosecuting Authority, Legal Aid South
·
Department of Justice and Constitutional
Development – 29 March 2011.
·
National Prosecuting Authority – 30 March 2011.
·
Legal Aid
·
Special Investigating Unit – 30 March 2011.
·
South African Human Rights Commission – 16 March
2011.
·
Public Protector – 13 April
1.3.
Those who appeared before the Committee for the
briefings included:
·
Department of Justice and Constitutional
Development: Ms N Sindane (Director General); Dr K De Wee (COO) and Mr G
Hollamby.
·
National Prosecuting Authority: Adv. M Simelane
(NDPP);Adv N Jiba (DNDDP); Adv N Mokhatla (DNDDP).
·
Legal Aid
·
Special Investigating Unit: Mr W Hofmeyr (Head); Mr
S Sokupa (Portfolio Manager) and Ms S Muller (Head: Communications).
1.4.
With the exception of the Special Investigating
Unit, the Committee engaged extensively, in October 2010, with all the bodies
on their budgetary needs for the 2011/12 financial year, as well as on their
performance for 2009/10 and for the first quarter of 2010/11: The Committee’s
response to what it heard then are contained in its budgetary review and
recommendation report, dated 26 October 2010. The concerns expressed by
Committee then should be regarded as integral to the Committee’s evaluation of
this process.
1.5.
This report is divided in four parts:
·
Part 1 provides an overview of the overall
appropriation to the Vote for the medium term and notes additional amounts
allocated as a result of the recommendations in the budgetary review and
recommendation report.
·
Part 2 outlines the Department’s presentation to
the Committee, focussing mostly on its achievements in the previous financial
year, the key planned activities for 2011/12 and its challenges.
·
Part 3 summarises the NPA’s presentation to the
Committee on its strategic and annual plans and on its budget.
·
Part 4 contains a summary of the presentations of
LASA, the SIU, the SAHRC and the PP.
·
Part 5 provides a summary of key reporting
requirements.
·
All the presentations referred to in Parts 1-4 can
be obtained from the Committee secretary.
Part I Vote 24: Justice and Constitutional
Development
2.
Overview of the
Vote
Table
1: Overall programme allocation for the MTEF: 2010/11 – 2013/14
|
Budget 2010/11 – 2013/14 |
||||
|
Programme |
||||
|
R thousand |
2010/11 |
2011/12 |
2012/13 |
2013/14 |
|
Administration |
1 427.4 |
1 625.2 |
1 728.9 |
1 833.1 |
|
Court Services |
3 994.2 |
4 341.7 |
5 096.1 |
5 408.7 |
|
State Legal Services |
722.1 |
750.7 |
782.2 |
806.1 |
|
National Prosecuting Authority |
2 684.3 |
2640.3 |
2 770.7 |
2 914.6 |
|
Auxiliary and Associated Services |
1 959.5 |
2 055.7 |
2 296.4 |
2 446.7 |
|
Total |
10 787.5 |
11 413.6 |
12674.3 |
13 409.2 |
|
Direct charge for
Judges and Magistrates’ salaries |
1 929.8 |
2 104.1 |
2 401.8 |
2 575.7 |
|
Total |
12 717.2 |
13 517.6 |
15 076.1 |
15 984.9 |
2.1.
The main appropriation increases from R10.8 billion
in the 2010/11 financial year to R11.4 billion in 2011/12. This amount does not
include a direct charge against the National Revenue Fund of R2.1 billion for
judges and magistrates’ salaries, which brings the overall appropriation for
2011/12 to R13.5 billion.
2.2.
Although the overall allocation to the programmes
within the Vote increases in 2011/12 by a nominal 5.8% compared to 2010/11,
real growth is 0.96%.
2.3.
An amount of R245 million is added to the baseline
for 2011/12. Additional amounts are for the Presidential Initiative (R30
million); OSD Phase 2 - NPA and Justice (R45 million and R5 million
respectively); improved conditions of service (R247 million); and municipal services
(R64.4 million).
2.4.
The baseline, however, is reduced by R114 million
and R33.2 million as a consequence of the cancellation of the Third Party Fund
Public Private Partnership initiative and further savings effected by Cabinet,
respectively.
2.5.
The Committee recommended in the budgetary review
and recommendation report that the Department receive additional funds. As a
result, additional funds were allocated to the Department for:
·
Accommodation, specifically to build a high court
in
·
Information Communication Technology. The
Department had asked for R150 million for ICT to replace obsolete equipment and
to expand its network. Additional amounts of R100 million in 2012/13 and R110
million in 2012/13 are allocated for this.
2.6.
The Department did not receive additional funds for
improved security at courts, despite the Committee’s recommendation in this
regard, as this item could be accommodated within the baseline if prioritised.
2.7.
LASA also received additional funds to improve its
practitioner per court ratio, accommodate OSD funding and increase its civil
work. Additional amounts of R44.6 million, R90.8 million and R106.3 million are
allocated to LASA for increased capacity, improved conditions of service and
the implementation of phase 2 of the OSD for legally qualified professionals.
2.8.
The PP and the SAHRC received additional funds to
support their mandate: The PP is allocated additional amounts of R18.3 million,
R24.1 million and R27.8 million for increased investigative capacity, improved
conditions of service and municipal and accommodation charges; The SAHRC has
additional funds in the amount of R6.2 million and R13 million for increased
legal capacity, improved conditions of service and municipal and accommodation
charges.
Part 2
Department of Justice and Constitutional Development
3.
Overview of
Strategic Plan 2011 – 2016
3.1.
The Director-General presented the Department’s
strategic plan for the period 2011-2016. The Department has revised its strategic
plan 2011-2016 to comply with the National Treasury Framework for Strategic
Plans and Annual Performance Plans, which focuses on outcomes-based planning.
The Department is in the process of finalising its annual performance plan,
which will include targets that adhere to SMART principles.
3.2.
A number of challenges relating to financial
management, internal processes, customers and people-related issues
were identified:
·
Financial management - In past years, the Auditor
General has expressed qualified opinions relating to financial management and
non-compliance with procedures. Although there has been progress, indications
are that the Department may have a repeat finding on Third Party Funds for
2011/12.
·
Internal Processes - There has been an increase in
the number of fraud and corruption cases compared to previous years. The
Department is implementing the Minimum Anti-Corruption Capacity Requirements
(MACC) set as a public service anti-corruption standard, and is involved in
various public service anti-corruption forums and interventions driven by the
Justice Crime Prevention and Security (JCPS) Cluster. The Department is also
increasing capacity in enterprise risk management.
·
Customers - In the Master’s Office, the Department
has concluded a co-operation agreement with LASA to assist in the
administration of the estates of minors. The Master’s Office MOVIT project is
using the Home Affairs National Identification System (HANIS) to verify clients
so that the turnaround time for payments is reduced. In addition, the
Integrated Management System (ICMS Master) has been deployed to all 402
magistrate’s offices that deal with deceased estates. A Master’s turnaround
project is receiving attention. In addition, the Department will maximise the
information technology systems that have been implemented and initiate
disciplinary action where members of staff have committed fraud, as well as
refer matters to SAPS.
·
Service delivery - A turnaround strategy for
maintenance services will be implemented in 2011/12, including expediting
application procedures and processing, payments and punitive measures against
defaulters; Case backlog interventions are continuing in 2011/12.
·
People issues – These include the shortage of
skills in key areas; an oversupply of personnel in certain areas;
under-representation of women and people with disabilities, particularly at
senior management level; and low productivity and low morale.
3.3.
The strategic plan identifies four strategic goals
for the Department:
·
Goal 1: To increase the Department’s
accountability, effectiveness and efficiency. (Improved compliance with legal
and good practice requirements in respect of governance across all branches and
structures towards an unqualified audit.)
·
Goal 2: To improve the effectiveness and efficiency
in the delivery of justice service.(Courts and justice service points are
supported to improve finalisation rates, efficiencies and backlogs in respect
of all criminal, civil and family matters.)
·
Goal 3: To transform legal services to protect and
advance the interests of government and citizens and to promote constitutional
development. (The exposure of government to legal risk is reduced, citizens
have access to quality guardian and probate services, the state has access to
legal advice and services and constitutional development is promoted.)
·
Goal 4: To effectively coordinate the JPCS Cluster
in the delivery of Outcome 3. (The provision of effective coordination of the
cluster to enable the achievement of the 8 outputs that will result in the
successful delivery of Outcome 3: All people in
3.4.
Seventeen strategic objectives give effect to these
goals and are related to the three programmes that the Department administers
directly (Administration, Court Services and State Legal Services). These are
set out in greater detail below.
3.5.
The strategic plan refers to three (3) projects
that have been prioritised for 2011/12. These are to:
·
Achieve a ‘no audit qualification’ in 2012/13.
·
Service turnaround in maintenance services.
·
Service turnaround in the
Masters’ Branch.
3.6.
Key activities planned for
2011/12 that will give effect to these priority projects are as follows:
3.6.1.
Activities to achieve a ‘no
audit qualification’ in 2012/13 include-
·
The implementation of accounting systems that will
enable the Department to produce more credible financial statements.
·
The implementation of human resources systems that
will improve the management of leave, performance, etc.
·
The implementation of policies, processes and
procedures to improve controls across the Department.
·
The appointment of staff to implement financial
processes
·
The implementation of internal audit processes that
will provide early warning and carefully monitor high risk areas.
·
The full use of the support from National Treasury to
improve the Department’s financial maturity.
3.6.2. Maintenance service turnaround project-related activities prioritised
for the MTSF include -
·
Investigating Saturday courts for maintenance and
other family related matters.
·
Introducing mediation services for maintenance
matters.
·
Facilitating skills training for maintenance line
managers and front line staff on maintenance norms and standards and the
Maintenance Act.
·
Appointing additional maintenance investigators
over 3 years.
·
Facilitating the appointment of maintenance
complaints managers to fast track maintenance complaints received from the
Presidential Hotline and other sources.
·
Launching an improved media and awareness campaign.
·
Launching maintenance guidelines for the judiciary.
·
Introducing initiatives to address delays in the
service of maintenance process documents.
·
Facilitating proposals to urgently amend the
Maintenance Act to make provision for future maintenance, role clarification of
maintenance officers and maintenance prosecutors and a more effective way of
enforcing maintenance orders.
3.6.3. Prioritised activities to turnaround service in the Master’s branch
during 2011/12 include:
·
Online databases to address the credibility of the
administration of insolvent estates.
·
Automation of master’s services completed with
appropriate delegations to allow the approval of assistant masters in different
locations.
·
Appointment of frontline staff who can resolve
enquiries without escalations.
·
Implementation of training and the entrenchment of
a client-driven approach.
·
Improved professionalism.
·
Implementation of a communication strategy that
will help change perceptions of master’s offices, such as the negative
impression around fraud and corruption.
3.7.
The Department has the following major
infrastructure projects planned:
·
The Limpopo High Court in Polokwane (R417 million)
and the Mpumalanga High Court in Nelspruit (R407 million).
·
Building both courts will contribute to the
creation of jobs in the local construction industry and, once operational, will
need judicial officers and administrators.
3.8.
According to the Department, spending pressures
have affected the following areas adversely:
·
The Department has identified investment in
information technology as a key enabler. However, budget cuts have affected the
IT maintenance plan with the following consequences: Ageing servers and other
infrastructure; out of warranty servers that are a high operational risk; an
inadequate business continuity plan; and a slow network that impacts negatively
on turn-around in service delivery.
·
There have been incidents of serious crime against
staff members and the public (such as intimidation, murder, theft of state
assets, theft of dockets and court records, escapes and robberies with
aggravating circumstances.) To curb the costs of increasing security at service
delivery points, the Department is exploring the possibility of using the South
African National Defence Force to secure service delivery points.
·
The Department has a major challenge in addressing
the historical imbalances of the court infrastructure: prior to 1994, most
court services were not situated in townships or in rural areas. When the
Department decided to increase its services to previously excluded areas;
facilities were unsuitable, requiring major refurbishment. Unfortunately,
addressing the problem is complicated by the: Escalation of infrastructure
costs above inflation, which means the cash flow for building new courts is
often insufficient and results in construction being postponed; the need to
take into account the maintenance and accessibility programmes of existing
facilities; the use of the infrastructure budget for additional accommodation
where necessary; the growth in establishment and new services delivered.
·
There has been a significant increase in litigation
against the state that requires interventions such as the development of a
policy to manage state litigation and increased resources to the Office of the
State Attorney.
·
Other areas affected by budgetary constraints are:
Increasing the establishment of the lower courts and providing the judiciary
with adequate ‘tools of trade’; expansion of support personnel establishment
(interpreters, finance and supply chain management personnel) as well as
personnel performing quasi-legal functions; implementation costs of new and
proposed legislation; document and record management; adequate provision of
library services to the various courts; and the enhancement of constitutional
development programmes.
4.
Programme 1:
Administration
4.1.
The Administration programme provides
strategic leadership and improves internal control systems. Its objectives are
linked to Goal 1: Improved Governance.
4.2.
Performance is linked to the following objectives:
Improved corporate governance to achieve an unqualified audit for 2012/13; improved
management of fraud and corruption cases and improved human resource delivery.
Since the requirement that strategic and annual performance plans have SMART
indicators is new, not all objectives are measurable at present. This will be
corrected during 2011/12. All indicators, in the annual plan will be SMART.
|
Objective |
Indicator |
|
1.
Increased compliance with
prescripts to achieve and sustain an unqualified audit. |
Unqualified audit. |
|
2.
Improved management of
fraud and corruption cases |
Increased finalisation of fraud and corruption cases (Specific target
to be finalised after review of definitions). |
|
3.
Improved human resources
service delivery. |
Percentage of human resources services that meet full service
standards (Specific target to be finalised after baseline established). |
|
4.
Increased optimisation of
systems (automated and manual). |
Implementation of 11 systems identified in Information Technology
Plan. |
|
5.
Increased percentage of
outstanding TRC victims with access to reparations per TRC recommendations. |
Complete 90% of outstanding cases of living beneficiaries and 40% of
deceased beneficiaries by the end of five years. |
4.3.
Administration is allocated R1.6 billion for its
Ministry, Management, Corporate Services and Office Accommodation
sub-programmes. The programme grows in real terms by 8.64% in 2011/12 and
receives 14.2% of the overall allocation to programmes.
4.4.
Corporate Services, consisting of the Department’s
Human Resources, Finance and Information Technology branches, is allocated the
largest portion of the programme’s budget (R893 million or 55% of the
programme’s budget).
5.
Programme 2:
Court Services
5.1.
The Court Services programme provides for the
resolution of criminal, civil and family law disputes by providing courts with
administrative support and managing court facilities.
5.2.
Overall, Court Services accounts for 38% of the
allocation to programmes. The Programme receives R4.3 billion in 2011/12,
growing by 3.72% in real terms from R3.9 billion in 2010/11. Within the
programme, spending is prioritised towards the Lower Courts sub-programme,
which receives 60% (R2.6 billion) of the programme’s allocation.
5.3.
For 2012/13, Court Services has been allocated
additional amounts of R187 million for the appointment of more judges and
administrative support; R240 million to build new courts; R80 million to
increase court capacity and R85 million for the implementation of legislation
for vulnerable groups.
5.4.
Strategic objectives for the five-year period are:
|
Objective |
Indicator |
|
6.
Improved co-ordination of
the JCPS Cluster towards the delivery of Outcome 3. |
Meetings are held as per agreed schedule and ad hoc meetings as per
demand. |
|
7.
Improve finalisation of
activities in support of the outputs of Outcome 3. |
Achievement of all targets against each activity in the delivery agreement. |
|
8.
Improved delivery of
maintenance services. |
All maintenance service points meet service standards stipulated
(Service standards to be signed off). |
|
9.
Increased protection of
the rights of vulnerable groups. |
100% of policies and initiatives relating to legislation affecting
vulnerable groups finalised (See indicator definition). |
|
10.
Increased access to
justice services by underserviced communities. |
Increased utilisation of justice services by underserviced communities
(5-year target to determined). |
|
11.
Improved functionality of
justice service points. |
Percentage of justice service points meeting functionality standards
(Baseline study will determine targets). |
|
12.
Improved delivery of
services at courts. |
Percentage of courts meeting the stipulated turnaround times in
quasi-judicial services (Baseline study will determine targets). |
6.
Programme 3:
State Legal Services
6.1.
The State Legal Services programme aims to improve
legal services and to promote constitutional democracy. It is the smallest of
the Department’s three programmes, receiving R750.7 million or 6.6% of the
allocation to programmes.
6.2.
The major spending area for the programme is the
Masters of the High Court sub-programme, which receives R324 million or 43% of
the programme’s budget for 2011/12. A new focus is that of the Constitutional
Development sub-programme, which receives R 64.6 million or 9% of the
Programme’s allocation.
6.3.
Strategic objectives for the five-year period are:
|
Objective |
Indicator |
|
13. Improved delivery at the Master’s service points. |
100% of Master’s service points fully capacitated and automated by
2015/16. |
|
14. Increased efficiency in the provision of services to beneficiaries of
the Guardian’s Fund, trusts, as well as insolvent and deceased estates. |
100% of Guardian’s Fund, trusts, insolvency and deceased estates
matters finalised within timeframes stipulated. |
|
15. Promote constitutional development and strengthen participatory
democracy to ensure respect of fundamental human rights. |
Completion of the five-year programme on constitutional development. |
|
16. Provision of legal services to state organs. |
Level of capacitating of legal service branches (Target depends on the
baseline study to be determined in 2011/12). |
|
17. Improved policy and legislative framework for effective and efficient
delivery of justice services. |
Submission of all stipulated policy frameworks, legislation,
regulations, rules and research publications. |
7.
Committee’s
response
7.1.
Strategic
Planning
7.1.1.
The Committee has previously voiced its frustration
at the quality of the Department’s planning. Given that the Department’s
operational budget has been reduced over the MTEF from 2009/10 onwards and it
is experiencing spending pressures, careful planning with the necessary
prioritisation of what needs to be done, becomes even more important. Again,
this year, the Committee has had trouble in fairly assessing the Department’s
strategic plan for 2011/12 and beyond, which the Department conceded differs
substantially from previous plans as a result of the new National Treasury
guidelines for strategic and annual performance plans. The absence of an
operational plan, which clearly sets out the Department’s planned activities,
targets and projected spending, exacerbates the Committee’s difficulties in
this regard. Issues of continuity are a concern to the Committee and the
Committee questioned what has become of several of the key performance
indicators contained in the previous strategic plan. Also, many of the
indictors are not measurable at present, as the relevant baselines are still
being established. For now, this will hinder the Committee’s ability to
methodically monitor and evaluate the Department’s
performance.
7.1.2.
As mentioned above, the Department’s annual
performance plan for 2011/12 was not presented with its strategic plan and
budget - it was still being finalised. The Committee, therefore, was not
presented with details of the Department’s planned activities and targets for
the year, nor was projected spending for the year matched to operations. The
annual performance plan has since been tabled but the Department has not
briefed the Committee on its contents. The Committee would like the Department
to do so at the next quarterly meeting in July or August 2011.
7.1.3.
The Committee is disappointed that the Department
did not specifically address its concerns and recommendations contained in the
budgetary review and recommendation report for 2010. The Committee requests
that, in future, the Department ensure that it not only provide written reports
on specific issues requested by the Committee but also ensure that it routinely
addresses these when reporting quarterly.
7.2.
Governance and operational issues
7.2.1. The management of the Third Party Funds has led to the Department
receiving a qualified audit opinion since 2005/06. Unless the Department is
able to resolve its problems relating to Third party Funds it will not meet its
first priority which is receive a ‘no audit qualification in 2012/13’. The
Committee is concerned that the Department appears to have made little progress
in clarifying the legal status of the Third Party Funds or in finding a
convincing solution to their management. At the Budgetary Review and
Recommendation proceedings, in 2010, the Committee learnt that the Department
no longer intended to go ahead with the public private partnership (PPP), which
that it had been pursuing for several years, opting instead for an ‘in-house’
solution to manage the funds. Also, the Committee had been told before that
there was a need for legislation to clarify the status of these funds to allow
the Department to report them separately; then the Committee was informed that
the National Treasury had advised the Department that it should establish the
Funds as a trading entity. It is apparent that there has been little progress
since towards clarifying the Fund’s status: As the Department has not received
further advice from the National Treasury it has decided in the meantime to
proceed with drafting legislation. This legislation, the Committee was told,
would be similar to that establishing the Guardian’s Fund.
7.2.2. The budgetary review and recommendation report for 2010 recommended that the Department, with the National Treasury, present its
plan to resolve the management of these Funds, and that details of wasted costs
relating to the mothballed PPP initiative are provided (The Committee learnt
from the Department that its baseline has been reduced by R114 million for
2011/12; R119 million for 2012/13 and R126 million as a consequence of the
cancellation of the private-public partnership initiative but is unclear
whether these amounts have been in fact been reallocated to priority projects
within the Department). The Committee has been
unable to hold this meeting because of work pressures but regards it as a
priority. The Committee intends to schedule a meeting with both the Department
and the National Treasury on this issue in the next quarter, July - September
2011. At the meeting, the Department should also ensure that it addresses the
relevant resolutions of the Standing Committee on Appropriations.
7.2.3. ‘Improved human resource service delivery to all of the Department’s
customers’ is an objective. The Department admits that it is struggling to
address personnel issues: It is short of skills in critical areas (especially,
finance, risk management, internal audit and strategy); is not sufficiently
representative of women and persons with disabilities; and struggles with low
productivity and poor morale. For some time, the Committee has expressed its
concern at the high vacancy rate within the Department, although it
acknowledges that overall there has been progress – the vacancy rate is 9.2%
and 8.5%, if the judiciary is excluded. However, unacceptably high vacancy
rates at the senior management level and in critical occupations remain. Given
the Department’s focus on achieving a ‘no qualification’ audit opinion by
2012/13, the Committee is especially concerned at the high vacancy rate in the
Chief Financial Officer’s office, which was 24% at the end of February 2011. It
welcomes the appointment of three Chief Directors to that office in April 2011.
The position of the Chief Master of the High Court, however, is unfilled after
several years. The Committee believes that, unless the vacancies in management
are filled, the Department’s effective running is likely to be compromised.
Again, the Committee cannot help but make comparisons with LASA, which has a
recruitment rate of 94% and has made considerable effort to attract and retain
staff. The Committee requests that the Department provides a written plan with
targets and timeframes by 15 July 2011 and brief it at the next quarterly
meeting on how it intends filling all vacancies at senior management level. The
other human resource challenges identified by the Department should also be
addressed. The Committee, once more, specifically requests that the appointment
of a Chief Master of the High Court is prioritised.
7.2.4. The Department informed the Committee the improved management (and
speedy conclusion) of fraud and corruption cases is an objective. It intends to
address outstanding disciplinary and grievance cases and to increase capacity
so that the time taken to resolve these matters is reduced. It is focussing
especially on addressing instances of fraud and corruption in the Master’s
office and at courts. The Committee previously expressed its dissatisfaction at
the delays in finalising these matters, as well as its concern at the impact
that the lack of capacity in the Department has on its ability to prevent and
combat financial and other misconduct. Given the focus on tackling instances of
fraud and corruption within the JCPS cluster, the Committee is dismayed that
the Department appears to be in the very early stages of establishing a
baseline, still reviewing its definitions of ‘forensic investigations’,
‘fraud’, ‘corruption’ and ‘financial misconduct’. It is only once the baseline
has been established that improvements in the Department’s performance in
managing fraud and corruption cases can be assessed. Still, the Department is
asked to provide the Committee with a comprehensive written report on the
progress of its disciplinary and grievance matters, including a section that
deals specifically with cases of financial misconduct, by 30 June 2011. The
Committee also notes, with interest, the Public Service Commission (PSC)
findings that the most common forms of alleged corruption in the Department
involve fraud and bribery, mismanagement of government funds, abuse of
government resources and procurement irregularities. The PSC also found that
the Department’s dedicated Forensic Audit Unit faces capacity constraints.
7.2.5. Adequately securing courts and justice centres is a recurring challenge
for the Department. Incidents include arson, intimidation and theft of assets
and information. In its BRRR report, the Committee supported the Department’s
bid for additional funding to provide increased security at courts and justice
offices. The Committee could not establish with any certainty whether the
Department’s motivation for additional funding had been submitted to the
National Treasury. The Department, however, did not receive specific funds for
2010/11 for security, and will need to accommodate escalating security costs
within its baseline allocation. The Committee was also informed that the
Department is exploring the use of SAPS officers and SANDF members to provide
additional security at courts. Given the seriousness of the problem and the
attendant risks, the Committee is of the view that the Department should
prioritise this item in its budget and plan accordingly. In addition, the
Committee requests that the Department provide it with a written report by 15
July 2011 that provides full details of the extent of the problem; its plan
with targets and timeframes to address security problems at identified high
risk courts; as well as its plan to ensure adequate security at all courts and
other facilities in future. The Committee would also like to be briefed on this
matter at the next quarterly meeting in July or August 2011.
7.2.6. The Department informed the Committee that budget cuts have severely
affected the maintenance plan of its Information Technology infrastructure.
This has led to ageing servers and other infrastructure; out of warranty
servers that pose a high operational risk; an inadequate business continuity
plan; and slow networks impacting on turn-around in service delivery. Through
the Committee’s intervention, the Department will receive an additional R210
million for improvements to its IT systems over the MTEF. The Committee,
however, is unclear - given the key role that IT plays in strategies to improve
service delivery – regarding the extent to which the Department has as a matter
of course addressed the maintenance and upgrading of its IT infrastructure when
planning for expenditure.
7.2.7. The Committee requires further clarity regarding the nature of the
difficulties that the Department is experiencing in managing improvements to
ICT within the JCPS cluster. The need for improved co-ordination of
cluster-departments’ IT systems has been identified as being key to reducing
crime. The Department mentioned that the relationship between the Integrated
Justice System (IJS) and the State Information Technology Agency is especially
challenging. The Committee requests the Department to provide a written report
with targets and timeframes to address the difficulties it is experiencing by
15 July 2011 and brief the Committee at the next quarterly meeting in July or
August 2011.
7.3.
Court performance
7.3.1. The Committee noted that the Office of the Chief Justice has been
proclaimed a government Department. The Committee is unclear regarding the
accounting lines but wishes to emphasise the need to respect judicial
independence. It intends to invite the Chief Justice and heads of court to meet
with it in the near future to learn more of this new Department, as well as any
difficulties that may have emerged in its establishment.
7.3.2. The Committee has for some years expressed its dissatisfaction at
ongoing poor court performance despite many initiatives to improve the
situation, including projects to reduce case backlogs and to ensure more
efficient case management. It learnt that the Judiciary has agreed to the
introduction of performance targets in courts and that the Chief Justice has
taken on the responsibility of monitoring performance in all courts, including
the magistrates’ courts. The intention, this year, is to ensure that
performance standards are established. The Committee welcomes this and looks
forward to receiving regular progress reports. It asks that the Department
includes a progress report when it reports quarterly to the Committee,
beginning at the next meeting in July or August 2011. Before the meeting, the
Committee would like to have a written report by 15 July 2011 that gives
details of the strategy and actions planned to address this matter.
7.4.
Truth and Reconciliation Commission process
7.4.1. Parliament approved assistance measures for victims identified in terms
of the Truth and Reconciliation process. The Committee, however, is extremely
disappointed at the Department’s ongoing delay in giving effect to those assistance
measures which it must implement. The Committee was told that there has been
some progress in identifying and locating the descendants of beneficiaries: The
Department of Home Affairs and the Independent Electoral Commission have
assisted the Department in this regard. The Committee also learnt that some
regulations are close to being finalised. The Committee, however, finds the
lack of finality - after so long - unacceptable. It fails to understand how it
can be that the Department did not think before now to make use of existing
databases within government to locate beneficiaries. The Committee requests
that the Department provide it by 15 July 2011 with a comprehensive written
report providing details of the plan with targets and timeframes to resolve the
outstanding recommendations. The Department should also be prepared to brief
the Committee on progress at the next quarterly meeting in July or August 2011.
7.5.
State litigation and briefing patterns
7.5.1. The services of the Office of the State Attorney are of great importance
to national and provincial departments. Litigation against the state has
increased significantly recently as a result of citizens being more aware of
their rights; opportunism; a fragmented approach to the management of state
litigation and the absence of a framework making use of alternative dispute
resolution mechanisms. The strategic plan intends to curb the costs of
litigation by, among developing a framework for the efficient management for
state litigation; increasing the resources allocated to the office to improve
its capacity; preparing and implementing a standardised fee structure for
paying private counsel; and developing an alternative dispute resolution
mechanism process. The Committee also leant that the Department has difficulty
in collecting monies it disburses on behalf of client departments in legal
proceedings and is extremely concerned at the negative effect this has on its
budget. The Committee believes a policy framework that provides a uniform
approach to state litigation is long overdue and in its absence it is difficult
to redress the matter of briefing patterns to ensure representivity and
encourage the passing of knowledge and skills to less experienced
practitioners. In addition, the Committee specifically requests that the
Department, by 15 July 2011, give the details in writing of the practitioners
it briefs.
7.6.
Vulnerable groups
7.6.1. The increased access to justice of women, children and persons with
disabilities is a priority of government and of the Department. The Committee
welcomes initiatives such as the agreement with LASA to assist in the
administration of child-headed households. The Committee also notes that the
Child Justice Act has been in operation now for a year and the related national
policy framework is being implemented. There are also challenges of which the
Committee is acutely aware, for example, while part of the national Register of
Sex Offenders is complete, there are difficulties capturing the particulars of those
convicted of sexual crimes in the past. However, while there are several such
initiatives that are intended to improve access to justice for vulnerable
groups, it is difficult for the Committee to methodically evaluate how much
money is being spent or its impact. The Committee requests that the Department
report quarterly on its spending plan for vulnerable groups, starting at the
next quarterly meeting in July or August 2011.
7.6.2. The Committee welcomes the prioritisation of maintenance matters in the
Department’s strategic plan and the many planned initiatives to ensure
improvement in the delivery of maintenance services. The turnaround project
envisages the development of service standards. The Committee is firmly of the
view that more frequent and structured communication, possibly a forum, between
the Department and the NPA would assist greatly in addressing the many systemic
challenges that emerge relating to maintenance matters and in formulating the
required service standards.
Part 3 National
Prosecuting Authority
8.
Programme 4:
National Prosecuting Authority
8.1.
The National Director of
Public Prosecutions (NDPP), Adv M Simelane, presented the NPA’s strategic plan
2016 and annual performance plan 2011. The JCPS Service deliver agreement forms
the basis for the NPA’s planning. The NPA has identified relevant outputs and
has adopted the following strategic objectives:
|
JCPS Outcome
3: All people of |
|
|
Relevant JCPS
Outputs |
NPA’s
strategic objectives |
|
Reduce overall levels of serious crime and specifically the levels of
contact and trio crime (OUTPUT 1) |
1. Increased successful prosecution of serious crime. |
|
Improve CJS efficiency (OUTPUT 2) |
2. Improved collaboration with JCPS partners. |
|
Eradicate corruption, including bribery, by officials within the CJS
(OUTPUT 3) |
3. Improved prosecutions of JCPS officials charged with corruption. |
|
Manage the perception of crime (OUTPUT 4) |
4. Improved justice services for the victims of crime. |
|
Improve investor confidence (OUTPUT 5) |
5. Increased successful prosecutions of serious corruption. |
|
Address cyber crime (OUTPUT 8) |
6. Increased prosecution of cyber crime. |
8.2.
The annual performance
plan provides details of the indicators for each strategic objective, as well
as the activities. Specific activities planned to give effect to the
objectives include:
·
Re-engineering and modernising business processes
in and around courts to allow for a more efficient use of court time.
·
Finalising more criminal cases (by 2% each year).
·
Reducing case backlogs by 10% by 2014.
·
Increasing the number of cases finalised by
diversion and alternative ways by 20% by 2014.
·
Co-ordinating anti-corruption activities across the
CJS and the prosecution of corruption cases in the Cluster.
·
Successfully convicting 100 people with assets of
more than R5 million restrained.
·
Increasing the number of Thuthuzela Care Centres
from the current 25 to 30 in 2011/12; 35 in 2012/13 and 40 in 2013/14.
8.3.
The NPA’s budget 2011/12 is as follows:
|
R thousand |
2010/11 |
2011/12 |
|
Public Prosecutions |
1 972.7 |
1 900.8 |
|
Witness Protection Programme |
130.7 |
137.8 |
|
Asset Forfeiture Unit |
106.6 |
106.1 |
|
Support Services |
474.3 |
495.6 |
|
Total |
2 684.3* |
2 640.3 |
*This includes the additional allocation for the OSD-Phase II.
8.3.1.
The NPA is allocated R2.64 billion for the 2011/12
financial year. Overall, this is a decrease, in real terms, of 6.14%. Spending
for 2011/12 is prioritised to prosecution services.
8.3.2.
The Public Prosecutions
sub-programme provides for general prosecutions and several specialised prosecution
units, including priority crimes litigation, sexual offences and community
affairs and specialised commercial crime. The sub-programme receives R1.9
billion for 2011/12. This is the NPA’s largest sub-programme and makes up 73.5
% of its total allocation for 2011/12. In real terms, the sub-programme
receives 8.06% less than in 2010/11.
8.3.3.
The Witness Protection
sub-programme provides for protection, support and related services to
vulnerable witnesses and related people in judicial proceedings. The
sub-programme is allocated R137. 8 million for 2011/12. This is 5 % of the
NPA’s budget. In real terms, the sub-programme receives 0.6 % more than in
2010/11.
8.3.4.
The Asset Forfeiture
Unit (AFU) sub-programme is responsible for seizing assets that are the
proceeds of crime or have been part of an offence through a criminal or civil
process. The AFU receives R106 million for 2011/12, which is 4% of the NPA’s
overall budget. The amount the sub-programme is allocated decreases in real
terms by 5.04% compared to 2010/11.
8.3.5.
The Support Services
sub-programme provides corporate support services in terms of finance, human
resources, ICT, supply chain and risk management to the NPA. It receives R495
million, or 19% of the overall budget, which is 0.29 % less in real terms
compared with 2010/11.
8.4.
Key risks identified
include:
·
Since the 2006/07 financial year, the NPA has
received three qualified audit opinions and a disclaimer. Poor financial
controls and a culture of non-compliance with policies and procedures, as well
as a lack of guidelines on budget management have contributed to the
qualifications. Another factor is a weak control environment.
·
The NPA’s ability to fulfil its mandate effectively
is undermined by a lack of, or poor, co-ordination and co-operation across the
JCPS Cluster.
·
An inadequate budget to support delivery,
specifically in the lower courts, may greatly impact on the NPA’s ability to
provide quality prosecutorial services and on the resources available to staff.
This includes the provision of reasonable accommodation, minimum standards of
furniture and equipment and even stationary.
·
The shortage of suitably qualified, skilled and
competent personnel across most, if not all disciplines is a risk. The NPA has
struggled to attract staff in all disciplines and has struggled to reduce its
prosecutorial vacancy rate. The aspirant prosecutor programme has been the key
strategy to fill vacancies but has not had the desired result. Suitable
external candidates have not been found largely because of a lack of required
experience at higher levels. Although
·
The prosecutorial function is linked to high levels
of autonomous decision-making that can be abused if not monitored. A culture of
non-compliance can crate an environment in which corruption flourishes,
especially in critical processes such as supply chain management, The NPA has
not been good at addressing non-compliance or for disciplining speedily.
8.5.
Committee’s response
8.5.1.
The Committee notes that
the NPA has received a significantly reduced budget for 2011/12, receiving
almost 7% less in real terms than in 2010/11. The NPA told the Committee that
this may impact on service delivery. Budget constraints also result in prosecutorial
staff not having the required resources (this includes the provision of
reasonable accommodation, minimum standards of furniture and equipment and even
stationary), which creates stress within the working place and affects morale.
However, the Committee notes that the NPA, for its part, has failed to spend 9%
of the funds allocated to it in the 2010/11 financial year. The Committee is
not clear at this stage as to all the reason(s) for the underspending but
understands that it is largely the result of vacancies and the failure to
disburse all funds relating to the implementation of Phase II of the OSD. The
Committee has previously expressed its concern at the perceived complacency of
management. It intends to closely monitor actual spending against the
projections for the year as part of its quarterly reviews. The NPA will need to
put measures in place to address any potential negative effect as a result of
its reduced budget.
8.5.2.
The Committee is also
displeased that almost half of the amount allocated in 2010/11 for the
implementation of Phase II of the OSD has still to be disbursed, despite the
relatively small amounts concerned. However, the Committee learnt that some
money would have to be surrendered and individuals, who had not been paid, will
need to be accommodated from the baseline. Given the reduced budget, this, in
the Committee’s view, is undesirable.
8.5.3.
The Committee is
concerned that the vacancy rate in the NPA remains high (12% among prosecutors
and 15% in corporate services). The NPA conceded that its operation to recruit
more prosecutors has not had the intended results and that it will need to do
more to fill vacancies. In some areas there is a lack of expertise amongst the
prosecutors, which is exacerbated by an inability to retain skilled staff. The
NPA will need to do more in order to fill its vacancies. Again the Committee
cannot but compare unfavourably the NPA with LASA, which has a very high
recruitment rate and aims to be an employer of choice.
8.5.4.
The Committee is
concerned at the large number of informal mediations being used to resolve
cases, albeit that informal mediation typically occurs in domestic violence
matters and in less serious offences. As informal mediation is unregulated,
there is potential for the process to be abused. The NPA told the Committee
that it is monitoring the use of informal mediation to detect patterns that may
suggest abuse of prosecutorial discretion. The Department is finalising policy
guidelines but the Committee believes that there may be need for legislation to
regulate alternate dispute resolution methods that include both diversion and
informal mediation.
8.5.5.
At present, sexual
offence cases are heard in both dedicated and the mainstream courts. Thuthuzela
Care Centres are one-stop centres for rape care and also hear sexual offence
cases. The Committee welcomes the intention to build more Thuthuzela Care
Centres, is keenly interested in the project plans and would like to be
informed of progress at the quarterly reviews. Previous statistics presented to
the Committee indicated higher conviction rates at dedicated courts. However,
the NPA’s research suggests that these figures were skewed as these courts were
hearing other matters. Regardless, the statistics reveal significantly lower
conviction rates for sexual offence cases than for other criminal matters. The
Committee remains of the view that sexual offence cases require
special/dedicated skills but has been told that the judiciary is not in favour
of specialist/dedicated sexual offence courts, as it can lead to unequal
services and for reasons of career-pathing. The Committee feels that it needs
to look at the management of sexual offence cases in a more focused way. The
Committee intends to invite all relevant roleplayers – the Department, the NPA,
LASA and the judiciary – to meet with it in the next quarter, in July or August
2011, for this purpose.
Part 4 Auxiliary
and Associated Services
9.
Legal Aid
9.1.
LASA is allocated R1.15 billion for 2011/12, which
includes OSD funding. Its total budget for 2011/12 is R1.2 billion, of which
R867.8 million is for salaries; R30 million is for case backlogs; R96.6 million
is direct expenditure on Judicare, co-operation agreements and impact
litigation; R195.8 million is for operating expenses; and R17.7 million is for
capital expenditure.
9.2.
LASA has allocated its budget for 2011/12 as
follows:
|
Component of
the balanced scorecard |
Strategies |
Budget 2011/12 R’ 000 |
|
Client, community, stakeholder and shareholder |
1.
To deliver client focused and quality legal
services. 2.
To educate/ inform communities about the
Constitution and legal aid services. 3.
To contribute to building an efficient and
effective justice system, JCPS Cluster and to implement actions flowing from
the Criminal Justice System Review. 4.
To account timeously to Parliament and to the
Executive Authority. |
R833 268 |
|
Finance and sustainability |
5.
To maintain a sustainable and financially stable
LASA. 6.
To ensure good governance. 7.
To develop a strong and recognised LASA brand. |
R9 758 |
|
Business processes (internal) |
8.
To review business processes and ensure that the
efficient, effective, economic, client-centred, professional and independent. 9.
To develop accurate, relevant and timely
management information to inform business planning and decisions. 10.
To ensure sound financial management and
sustainable business processes. |
R2 535 |
|
Employee and organisational strategy |
11.
To expand the national footprint to increase the
capacity to deliver services and to support the delivery of legal services.
Staffing in support of delivery. 12.
To develop appropriate competencies. 13.
To implement people-centred resource management
with LASA an employer of choice. 14.
To maintain a positive organisational culture. 15.
To enhance the LASA IT platform. 16.
To build a learning and innovative organisation. |
R205 646 |
|
Additional programmes |
Depreciation; insurance (short term); municipal services; office
rental; telephone; travel and subsistence; other |
R156 927 |
|
Total |
R1 208 136 |
|
9.3.
LASA highlighted that it has the following key
finance and sustainability challenges:
·
The annual salary increases that were higher than
the government grant macro increase of 6% (70% of its budget goes to salaries).
·
Contract escalations were on average 12% which were
higher than the government grant macro increase of 6%.
·
Overall, its budget shows negative growth in real
terms.
·
It has been allocated inadequate funding to
implement new legislation, for example, the Child Justice Act, 2008.
9.4.
Committee’s
response
9.4.1.
LASA’s presentation of
its strategic and annual performance plan has, as in previous years, greatly
impressed the Committee. The work it does is laudable and, in the Committee’s
view, merits wider attention. It suggests that LASA be proactive in seeking out
opportunities to promote what it does.
9.4.2.
The Committee is
encouraged at the strong emphasis that has emerged on the ‘quality’ of the
services LASA provides. It is impressive that LASA engages in a process of
auditing the quality of the work done by its practitioners.
9.4.3.
The Committee supports
LASA’s goal of expanding its civil work and impact litigation; is aware of the financial
constraints that it faces in this regard; and believes that LASA should be
allocated more financial resources for this purpose.
9.4.4.
Farm dwellers receive
legal support from the Department of Rural Development and Land Affairs through
a judicare system. The Committee intends to look into this more closely as it
is unclear to it whether it would not be better to make use of LASA’s services.
9.4.5.
LASA has been extremely
innovative in expanding its reach. It has launched a call centre with toll free
number, which provides free legal advice to everyone, regardless of means. The
Committee welcomes this, and would like to be kept informed of the impact that
the call centre is having, as well as any challenges that the LASA may
experience, if any.
9.4.6.
The Committee supports
the LASA’s aim to reach to the rural poor. LASA has entered into co-operation agreements
to expand its national footprints. The Committee is interested in how effective
these are and would like to be informed of developments at quarterly meetings.
9.4.7.
The
Committee notes the potential overlaps between LASA and other entities in
promoting and educating the public of their rights: The SAHRC and the Justice
Department are already running education campaigns about the Constitution. The
Committee suggests that public awareness or education campaigns are
co-ordinated to ensure that resources are used efficiently and effectively.
LASA reassured the Committee that it is aware educating the public about the
Constitution was not its direct responsibility and is considering how best to
cooperate with the SAHRC and others on specific programmes.
10.
Special
Investigating Unit (SIU)
10.1.
The SIU is an independent, statutory body that
investigates corruption and maladministration and can institute civil legal
action to correct any wrongdoing. Each investigation it conducts is mandated by
a proclamation from the President.
10.2.
The SIU is funded by way of a transfer payment
from the Vote. In 2011/12, the SIU receives R193.6 million, a 7.9% increase in
real terms compared to 2010/11. The additional allocations for the MTEF provide
for investigative capacity and inflation.
10.3.
The SIU also generates income by charging client
departments for its investigations. In 2006/07, its projects accounted for 60%
of its total income. This has decreased to 44% in 2010/11: In 2010/11, it
generated revenue in the amount of R143.2 million. The SIU expects that its
self-generated revenue in 2011/12 will be approximately R151.6 million.
10.4.
The SIU’s strategic objectives have both an
external and an internal focus. The intended impact of its external objectives
is to strengthen strategic partnerships; increase the scope of operations; and
contribute directly to Outcome 3 (South Africans are and feel safe) and 12 (Efficient,
effective and development-orientated state). Specifically, its external
objectives are to:
·
Increase the impact of the SIU’s forensic services
in the public sector.
·
Achieve optimum institutional form.
·
Ensure excellent co-operation with law enforcement
partners and stakeholders.
10.5.
For the SIU to be able to achieve its external
objectives, the SIU’s internal strategic objectives are to:
·
Secure appropriate capacity and funding.
·
Align and improve systems and processes.
·
Invest in appropriate technology capacity.
·
Build an engaged, diverse and competent SIU.
·
Develop effective, accountable, and engaging
leadership.
10.6.
The SIU’s strategic environment takes into
account the following:
·
In 2009/10, the SIU found itself largely dependent
on partner funding. Given the global recession, this was risky. The SIU
concluded an intensive organisational development process to better capacitate
it and adopted a 3-5 year approach to strategic planning. A key focus was to
position the SIU as the forensic service provider to the state and to increase
projects and funding.
·
In 2010/11, the SIU formed part of the new
government initiatives to combat corruption. This has had a significant impact,
increasing its workload and funding. The SIU has also aligned its strategic
plan with outcomes-based approach of government and linked its work to Outcome
3 (Output 3) and Outcome 12 (Output 4).
·
A major focus has been to build more capacity
through recruitment and development initiatives to deal with investigations of
corruption. It also sources additional forensic investigators from the private
sector as a short t term interventions and skills transfer initiative.
10.7.
Overall, regarding performance, there has been a
significant change in the SIU’s focus from small, multiple cases to fewer,
complex, long term investigations into procurement. This coincides with
government’s new focus on procurement irregularities. The SIU is participating
in initiatives like the Anti-Corruption Task Team (ACTT), Multi Agency Working
Group on Procurement (MAWG) and the Special Anti-corruption Unit in the
Department of Public Service and Administration (Wasps).
10.8.
Government has set a target of successfully
convicting 100 people who have assets of more than R5 million obtained through
illicit means. This is a difficult target to achieve as there have been
approximately 5 such cases in the past 10 years. In 2010/11, there were 16 new
proclamations – the most ever in a single year. Two proclamations relating to
ongoing investigations were also extended.
10.9.
The following were identified as challenges to
dealing with corruption:
·
The PFMA provides accounting officers with control
of the investigation, disciplinary action, possible civil action or referral
for criminal actions, and the implementation of recommendations. This can be a
problem where the accounting officer fails to take action or is even
implicated.
·
Questions could be raised about the sustainability
and effectiveness of the SIU funding model. A possible solution is to adopt the
AGSA model where departments pay for the work done. Also, funding is always
raised as an excuse when departments did not want to investigated.
·
Delays in amendments to the SIU’s enabling
legislation that address, among others, the issue of the SIU’s locus standi in
pursuing civil litigation, restricts the SIU’s overall impact.
10.10.
Committee’s
response
10.10.1. The Committee commends the SIU for the exceptional work it is doing in
tackling fraud and corruption within government.
10.10.2. The Committee is concerned at the levels of fraud and corruption in government
departments and other bodies, suggested by the SIU’s workload. It agrees with
the SIU that it is encouraging that the government has accepted that corruption
is a problem. The fact that targets were set for the JCPS cluster reveal
determination to root out this problem.
10.10.3.
The Committee
understands that the Justice Department is bringing legislation to amend the
SIU’s enabling legislation to address any challenges when it pursues civil
litigation to make recoveries. It intends to follow up with the Department
precisely when the amending legislation will be tabled.
11.
South African
Human Rights Commission (SAHRC)
11.1.
The Commission is allocated R89 million for
2011/12, which it receives in the form of a transfer payment from
the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development. The allocation is
reflected under the Vote’s Programme 5: Auxiliary and Associated Services. The
allocation for 2011/12 has grown in real terms by 14.27% from R73 million in
2010/11.
11.2.
Despite the increased allocation of R89 million for
2011/12, the CEO highlighted that the Commission had identified an ideal budget
of R115 million. Still, within the budget allocated, its priorities are to:
·
Align its resources with its objectives.
·
Reduce personnel (Identified posts have been suspended
until restructuring process has taken place).
·
Ensure rental savings (the new Head office will
save approximately the Commission approximately R1.5 million each year.
·
Increase its capital expenditure, especially for
information technology infrastructure.
·
Continue with the trend of shifting spending
overall from corporate services to operations.
11.3.
The pressure of a limited budget and other resource
constraints has led the Commission to review its strategic plan. The latest
plan, encompassing the period 2011-2014, identifies five strategic
outcome-orientated goals. They are to:
·
Improve the quality of complaints handling
mechanism to enable greater access to and protection of rights, particularly by
the most vulnerable.
·
Improve the quality of monitoring, evaluation of
and reporting on the realisation of human rights by streamlining the
monitoring, evaluation and reporting processes to effectively measure the
realisation of human rights.
·
Inculcate a culture of human rights through human
rights advocacy by developing and implementing an effective and efficient human
rights advocacy plan.
·
Strengthen organisational efficiency to ensure the
effective and efficient utilisation of human and financial resources.
·
Improve communication and stakeholder engagement by
developing communication tools and key stakeholder relationships.
11.4.
There are six strategic objectives that flow from
the strategic outcome-orientated goals mentioned above. They are to:
·
Promote compliance with international obligations.
·
Position the Commission as the focal point for
human rights in
·
Strengthen advocacy and human rights awareness
training.
·
Advance the realisation of human rights.
·
Advance the right to equality and access to
information.
·
Improve the effectiveness and
efficiency of the Commission.
11.5.
All programmes relate to a particular strategic
objective, although the Commissioners’ and the Office of the CEO’s programmes
are cross-cutting.
11.6.
Programme
expenditure for 2011/12
|
Programme |
Budget R’000 |
Real % Change |
|
|
R million |
2010/11 |
2011/12 |
|
|
Human Rights Advocacy
Programme (Education and Training) |
6 477 |
14 562 |
114.53 % |
|
Legal Services Programme |
15 346 |
14 400 |
-10.46 % |
|
Research Programme |
6 467 |
7 494 |
10.57 % |
|
Parliamentary and
International Affairs Programme |
1 646 |
2 361 |
36.87 % |
|
Commissioners |
5 886 |
12 713 |
106.09 % |
|
Strategic Management |
3 042 |
7 473 |
134.41 % |
|
Financial Management |
4 976 |
4 674 |
-10.37 % |
|
Internal Audit |
1 218 |
2 550 |
99.77 % |
|
Human Resources |
9 280 |
5 118 |
-47.38 % |
|
Administration and SCM |
12 374 |
14 167 |
9.25 % |
|
Information and Communication |
7 656 |
3 554 |
-55.71 % |
|
Special Programmes |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0% |
|
Total |
74 368 |
89 066 |
14.28
|
11.6.1.
The Commissioners set the strategic direction and
the Secretariat (headed by the CEO) implements this. The Secretariat’s
operational component consists of the Human Rights Advocacy Programme
(Education and Training); Legal Services Programme; Research Programme and
Parliamentary and International Programme. Including the Commissioners, these
programmes account for 46% of the Commission’s budget. In 2010/11, operations
received 22% of the overall budget.
11.6.2.
Corporate programmes make up the rest (Financial
Management; Administration and Supply Chain Management; Human Resources;
Information and Communications and Internal Audit). These programmes receive a
smaller share of the overall budget than in previous years: In 2010/11,
corporate programmes were allocated 78.3% of the Commission’s resources but
receive only 54% in this financial year.
11.7.
Committee’s
response
11.7.1.
The Committee is very appreciative of the
Commission’s valuable work in promoting and protecting human rights. It notes
that the Commission’s co-operation with similar bodies elsewhere in the world
and, especially, in
11.7.2.
The Committee congratulates the Commission on the
quality of its plans; it acknowledges that there is a large difference between
the Commission’s ideal budget of R115 million, and its allocation for 2011/12.
However, the Commission’s allocation has increased by 14% in real terms from
2010/11, which is a significant amount. The Committee is pleased to learn that
the Commission’s planning has taken into account the need to adjust its
priorities to ensure that its budget is sufficient and that it has put in place
the necessary strategies to this effect. It notes the Commission efforts to
save costs, such as travelling economy class instead of business class,
centralised printers and fewer meetings over lunchtime to reduce catering costs.
11.7.3.
The Committee agrees that the amendments to the
Commission’s enabling legislation and outdated staff regulations are long
overdue. The Committee understands that Commission has commented on the
proposed amendments and will to follow up with the Department on its progress
in drafting the amending legislation.
11.7.4.
The Committee would like the Commission to brief it
specifically on its complaints mechanism at the next quarterly meeting in July
or August 2011.
11.7.5.
The Committee supports efforts to strengthen the
Commission’s relationship with Parliament. It is of the view that Parliament
would benefit if, as a matter of course, the Commission’s work was to be
brought to the attention of committees with a specific interest in the subject
matter. The Committee also suggests that in future the Commission not only
table its reports but notify it routinely of its publications.
11.7.6.
Furthermore, the Committee believes that the new
parliamentary unit dedicated to supporting the Chapter 9 and related
institutions can play a vital role in ensuring that the Commission’s work is
more widely disseminated. The Committee intends to meet with the unit to learn
more regarding its role.
11.7.7.
The Commission received an unqualified audit report
in 2009/10 but the Auditor-General raised certain issues regarding performance
management. The Commission has acknowledged that it did not have sound
performance management systems in place to monitor organisational performance
and that the Commission’s risk management processes continue to pose a
challenge. Budget constraints, however, have meant the Commission is unable to
appoint a Risk Manager. The Committee would like the Commission to include a
report on its progress in addressing the Auditor-General’s concerns when it
meets with the Committee in the next quarter.
12.
Public Protector
(PP)
12.1.
The PP is allocated R142 million in 2011/12. The
increase in its allocation from R120 million in 2010/11 (an increase in real
terms of 19%) is partly to fund what it is owed to the Department of Public
Works for leases. The bulk of the PP’s budget (70%) goes to personnel costs.
12.2.
The PP presented a revised Strategic Plan. The
vision, mission and mandate are unchanged.
12.3.
The PP has identified five strategic outcomes:
·
Accessibility to and trustworthiness by all persons
and communities.
·
Responsiveness to all complaints through
accountability and prompt remedial action.
·
Promoting good governance in the conduct of all
State affairs (through systemic transformation).
·
Effective and efficient business and support
systems and operations.
·
Optimal performance and service focused culture
with committed people.
12.4.
The strategic objectives that will guide the PP’s
operations for the next three-to-five years are:
·
Accessible to and trusted by all persons and
communities.
·
Prompt remedial action
·
Promotion of good governance in the conduct of all
state affairs.
·
An efficient and effective organisation.
·
Optimal performance and service focused culture.
12.5.
The PP indicated that it has the following
challenges:
·
The PP is still struggling to obtain the
co-operation of State institutions. It asked that Parliament consider requiring
that Ministers indicate in their annual reports any recommendations that the
Public Protector has made recommendations concerning their
Ministries/Departments and the action that has been taken to address the
recommendations.
·
The PP does not have adequate investigative
capacity, and there is a need to improve case management systems.
·
The need for improved/enhanced accessibility to all
persons and communities. A fully fledged call centre is also required.
12.6.
The PP appealed to the Committee to approve its new
structure and to direct National Treasury to fund the new posts.
12.7.
The PP deals with approximately 15 000 cases each
year. The resources available to it are inadequate. In terms of the provincial
split, the
12.8.
The PP specifically asked Parliament to consider
the following:
·
Recommending an increased allocation to the Public
Protector for resources primarily to increase accessibility and address
capacity constraints in investigations.
·
Providing continued support in the area of remedial
action.
·
Reviewing the determination of the remuneration and
other terms and conditions of the Deputy Public Protector.
·
Continuing to play a more visible role with regard
to monitoring State compliance and encourage respect for the Constitution, the
status of the PP and the rule of law.
·
Endorsing the new organisational structure of the
office and direct Treasury to immediately fund the structure.
12.9.
Committee’s
response
12.9.1. The Committee notes that the Public Protector’s budget has increased in real
terms by 19%, although the allocation may not be as much as the Public
Protector would have liked. The Public Protector told the Committee that a
large part of the increased allocation was for the implementation of the
Occupational Special Dispensation and to settle outstanding amounts owed to the
Department of Public Works. There was only R3 million available to increase
investigative capacity at the Office. While the Committee supports the work of
the Public Protector and is sympathetic to the pressures of the mandate, all
who account to the Committee have to plan carefully and look to ways to save as
they have been asked to do more with less.
12.9.2. The Committee remains of the view that the allocation to the
12.9.3. The Committee learnt that the Public Protector is developing an
accessibility framework, which will be presented once complete. This is a most
welcome initiative. The Committee had previously suggested that the Public
Protector look into using municipal facilities and Thusong Centres on agreed
dates to expand its reach and save on rental costs. The Public Protector told
the Committee that while the office is looking into the suggestions, it is
concerned at the possible blurring of boundaries between government structures
and the Public Protector. For this reason, the Public Protector is also looking
into the possibility of using post offices to increase its accessibility. The
Committee is also puzzled at the location of regional offices in Kuruman,
Vryburg and Upington, which are in close proximity. The Committee suggested
that the Public Protector look into relocating its regional offices to ensure
the most efficient and effective distribution of its resources.
12.9.4. The Committee would like to see communications with the Public Protector
strengthened: The quarterly meetings should assist. The Committee is keenly
interested in the Public Protector’s work and would like to be notified of any
reports or other publications that the Public Protector produces.
12.9.5. The Committee suggested that the Public Protector should also compile a
report, before the annual report process, indicating which departments or
ministries had not responded to its recommendations to assist Parliament in
bringing those who do not comply to account.
12.9.6. The Committee would like the Public Protector to provide more information
on the proposed new organogram, as well as on the proposed adjustment to the
remuneration of the Deputy Public Protector.
Part
5 Summary of reporting requirements
13.
The Committee requests that the Department of
Justice and Constitutional Development report to/brief it specifically on the
following:
|
Reporting matter |
Action required |
Timeframe |
|
Presentation
of annual performance plan 2011/12 (see paragraph 7.1.1.) |
Briefing |
At next
quarterly meeting – July or August 2011 (refer to Committee programme) |
|
Strategy and
action plan to address the management of Third Party Funds (see paragraph
7.2.2.) |
Briefing
together with National Treasury |
July or August
2011 (refer to Committee programme) |
|
Action plan to
address vacancies at senior management level, as well as other human resource
challenges identified by the Department (see paragraph 7.2.3.) |
Written report
with targets and timeframes |
15 July 2011 |
|
Briefing |
At next
quarterly meeting – July or August 2011 (refer to Committee programme) |
|
|
Progress made
on disciplinary and grievance matters, with special reference to cases of
financial misconduct (paragraph 7.2.4.) |
Written report
with actions taken |
15 July 2011 |
|
Strategy and
action plan to address security at courts (see paragraph 7.2.5.) |
Written report
with targets and timeframes |
15 July 2011 |
|
Briefing |
At next
quarterly meeting – July or August 2011 (refer to Committee programme) |
|
|
Strategy and
action plan to address problems relating to management of information
technology in the JCPS Cluster (see paragraph 7.2.7.) |
Written report
with targets and timeframes |
15 July 2011 |
|
Briefing |
At next
quarterly meeting – July or August 2011 (refer to Committee programme) |
|
|
Strategy and
action plan to address improved court performance, with special reference to
establishment of performance standards (see paragraph 7.3.2.) |
Written report
with targets and timeframes |
15 July 2011 |
|
Quarterly
briefings |
At next
quarterly meeting – July or August 2011 and quarterly thereafter (refer to
Committee programme). |
|
|
Strategy and
action plan to address the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation
Commission (see paragraph 7.4.1.) |
Written report |
15 July 2011 |
|
Briefing |
At next
quarterly meeting – July or August 2011 (refer to Committee programme) |
|
|
Details of
legal practitioners briefed by the Department in state litigation (see
paragraph 7.5.1.) |
Written report |
15 July 2011 |
|
Provide
detailed spending plan for vulnerable groups (women, children and persons
with disabilities) (see paragraph 7.6.2.) |
Quarterly
briefings |
At next
quarterly meeting – July or August 2011 and quarterly thereafter (refer to
Committee programme). |
|
Strategy and
action plan for improved management of sexual offence cases (see paragraph
8.5.5) |
Briefing
together with role-players |
July or August
2011 (refer to Committee programme) |
14.
Recommendations
The Committee, having considered the Budget Vote 24: Justice and
Constitutional Development, supports it and recommends its approval.
15.
Appreciation
15.1.
The Committee thanks the Minister and the Director
General and all officials who appeared before the Committee for their
co-operation.
15.2.
The Committee also thanks the National Director of
Public Prosecutions and his staff for their co-operation in this process.
15.3.
The Committee also wishes to thank the Public
Protector, the Chairperson and Commissioners of the South African Human Rights
Commission, the Chairperson of Legal Aid South
15.4.
The Committee regrets that the Law Society of
Report to be considered