National Assembly - 17 June 2003
TUESDAY, 17 JUNE 2003 __
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
____
The House met at 14:03.
The Deputy Speaker took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayers or meditation.
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS - see col 000.
CELEBRATION OF YOUTH DAY AT EZINQOLENI
(Member's Statement)
Nk N R NTSHULANA-BHENGU (ANC): Sekela Somlomo, umphakathi waseZinqoleni namaphethelo ogwini oluseNingizimu neTheku kwaZulu-Natali izolo kuyilanga lomgubho wentsha lukazwelonke uhlanganele ezinkundleni zemidlalo kuyo le ndawo. Lapha intsha ibinyathelana. Bekukhona nabaholi bezinhlangano zombusazwe ezehlukene.
Kuyathokozisa ukusho ukuthi bonke abaholi abebehambele lo mcimbi bakhulume ngezwi eliloldwa, babeka umyalezo ocace bha othi: Ukuthula phambili, intuthuko phambili, intsha mayibambe iqhaza kuzo zonke ezinhlelo zikaHulumeni zokwakha kabusha leli zwe lethu esilithandayo. Izikhulumi ziphinde zagcizelela kakhulu isidingo sokuthi intsha isebenzise amathuba avulwe yinkululeko ilwe nobuphofu.
SinguKhongolose siyayihalalisela yonke intsha yalapha ezweni ngemigubho yayo ebe mihle kangaka ezweni lonke. Sithi kuyo: Phambili ngamavolontiya, asakhe ikusasa elingcono. [Ihlombe.] (Translation of Zulu paragraphs follows.)
[Ms N R NTSHULANA-BHENGU (ANC): Deputy Speaker, the community of Ezinqoleni and surrounding areas on the south coast of Durban, KwaZulu-Natal, gathered at a local sportsground to celebrate National Youth Day. The youth attended in large numbers and there were leaders from different political parties.
It is heartening to say that all the leaders who were present at this celebration spoke in one voice which gave a crystal clear message: Forward with peace, forward with development. The youth must take part in all the Government’s programmes meant to transform this, our dear country. Speakers also stressed the need for the youth to make use of opportunities presented to them by the attainment of freedom to fight poverty.
As the ANC, we congratulate all the youth of this country on the successful celebrations nationwide. We say to them: Forward with volunteers, let us build a better future. [Applause.]]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: In the course of that statement I became aware that that was a statement, not a notice of motion, so we will proceed with statements and then we will come to notices of motion. Any other statements?
ANOTHER DEATH IN PENSION PAYOUT QUEUE IN EASTERN CAPE
(Member's Statement)
Mrs G M BORMAN (DA): Deputy Speaker, yet another person has died waiting in a queue for a social grant payout in the Eastern Cape.
The ANC was quick to condemn the death, but their concern smacks of hypocrisy because it is the ANC provincial government which appointed Cash Paymaster Services (CPS) to distribute social grants, and it is the ANC Government which should have monitored this company from the start to ensure that they met the terms of the contract. The ANC has failed to do so. It has failed the poorest and most helpless amongst the people of the Eastern Cape.
Following three deaths in queues in February, the department deducted 10% from its payment to CPS, but services have not improved. How many deaths will the ANC accept before it enforces or terminates this contract?
The conditions under which pensioners and the disabled suffer to collect grants are appalling. The MEC for Social Development must take responsibility for these continued failures. She should have the courage to acknowledge her failure and resign. If not, she should be fired. [Interjections.]
SOUTH AFRICAN RUNNERS' DOMINATION IN THE 2003 COMRADES MARATHON
(Member's Statement)
Mr N S MIDDLETON (IFP): Madam Deputy Speaker, the Comrades Marathon was run from Pietermaritzburg to Durban yesterday, 16 June, and after being dominated by international runners in the previous years, it was very pleasing to see that South African athletes dominated this year’s men’s race in particular.
There are six South Africans, including the winner and one runner from Lesotho, who finished in the top ten in this year’s men’s race. We congratulate Fusi Nhlapo, the winner of the 2003 Comrades Marathon, as well as all other South Africans who finished in the top ten of the race as they have made us, as South Africans, very proud.
We further congratulate Zeph Luhabe who, at 76 years old, was the oldest man in the race and the last person to complete the race before the cut-off time.
Congratulations! South Africa, you have done us proud. [Applause.]
REDUCTION IN INTEREST RATES
(Member's Statement)
Dr J BENJAMIN (ANC): Madam Deputy Speaker, last week the Governor of the Reserve Bank announced a 1,5% cut in interest rates. Major banking institutions in the country followed suit by announcing reductions in their prime lending rates as well.
We believe that the reduction in interest rates will bring about joy and smiles on the faces of many of our debt-ridden South Africans, as well as produce a positive spin-off to the economy and improve prospects with regard to job creation.
We would like to take this opportunity to commend the Government of South Africa for the responsible, correct and principled manner in which it continues to handle the economy and finances of this country. Let the tide continue to turn. [Applause.]
PYRAMID SCHEMES DOUBLE IN NUMBERS IN SOUTH AFRICA
(Member's Statement)
Dr W A ODENDAAL (New NP): Madam Deputy Speaker, illegal deposit-taking investment schemes, commonly known as pyramid schemes, have almost doubled in numbers in South Africa over the past three years. Last year 25 such schemes were uncovered and investigated by regulatory organs of the state. The Kreon scandal must have acquired the dubious status of most notorious illegal multiplication scam for 2002.
Hundreds of well-meaning residents from Southern Gauteng were fraudulently robbed of R500-R900 million. Many victims who trusted swindlers with all their pension money have lost everything they had. Some areas seem to be more prone to such multilayered deposit schemes than others. The Vaal Triangle has even earned itself the name of Nile Valley because of the multitude of pyramid schemes that have been launched in this area in recent times.
Members of the public are warned against these fraudsters. Anybody suspecting any foul play from any unknown investment scheme is advised to contact the Special Financial Intelligence Centre, recently set up by the National Treasury in Pretoria, before they burn their fingers. [Applause.]
CORRUPT COURT OFFICIALS POCKET MILLIONS IN MAINTENANCE PAYMENTS
(Member's Statement)
Mrs R M SOUTHGATE (ACDP): Madam Deputy Speaker, shocking findings that scores of corrupt court officials are pocketing millions in maintenance payments, highlight yet again the fraud and inefficiency in South Africa’s maintenance system. Although receiving child support is often an issue of survival, particularly in rural areas, frustrated divorced and single women face never-ending difficulties in obtaining maintenance from defaulting husbands and fathers.
According to a recent Justice Department investigation hundreds of thousands of fathers are not paying maintenance. In Umlazi outside Durban, for instance, 60 000 men have maintenance orders against them, but just 8 000 fathers are actually paying. In Mitchells Plain in Cape Town only 5 000 of the 50 000 men with maintenance orders against them are paying. Even when fathers do pay maintenance there is no guarantee that the money will reach its intended beneficiaries.
Scores of court officials are being investigated after millions in maintenance payments have gone missing over a period of several years. Court administration is so shoddy that it is not even known how much money has been stolen from the courts, because they have not been audited for almost 50 years. Many women do not even go to the courts to get their money because of the difficulties involved, while those who do are forced to spend hours in long queues at magistrates courts in humiliating circumstances.
The ACDP welcomes the appointment of 55 maintenance investigators. However, we trust more will be appointed soon, as the present number of investigators is insufficient. Stringent steps are needed to enforce court orders to deduct maintenance from salaries. [Time expired.]
WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM
(Member's Statement)
Mr B M KOMPHELA (ANC): Deputy Speaker, the World Economic Forum on Sustainable Development took place in Durban last week. Among the issues discussed was the New Partnership for Africa’s Development e-school programme. The electronic initiative seeks to prioritise the youth for higher intervention programmes aimed at bridging the digital divide and building a more equitable global information society.
That the summit also placed on its agenda issues central to the role of the youth in the development of Africa is commendable, and should be encouraged. These initiatives carry with them the critically important prospect of harmonising education on the African continent. The ANC calls on social partners to work tirelessly towards the introduction of information and communication technology at all schools all over Africa. We have to address the problem of lack of infrastructure that hampers implementation in this regard. I thank you. [Applause.] POULTRY FARMING ON THE BRINK OF COLLAPSE
(Member's Statement)
Dr M S MOGOBA (PAC): Madam Deputy Speaker, we are a nation of meat eaters, and poultry is very high on our list of consumer needs. It is, however, unfortunate that many large scale producers of chicken, and many small scale farmers are closing down, as well as many abattoirs.
One factor leading to this is the high cost of feed, which has hit the small farmers. Another fairly disturbing factor is the large quantity of imported chicken on the market, particularly from Brazil. Foreign trade is good for a country, but if it takes place on such a scale that it destroys the local industry, we must raise the alarm that this might be a short-term convenience which is short-sighted and dangerous to the development of the country. This we feel calls for urgent investigation and review. Thank you.
INTERNATIONAL GRANT TO FORTIFY FOOD
(Member's Statement)
Mr G D SCHNEEMAN (ANC): Madam Deputy Speaker, the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition, a global alliance of public, private and civic sector organisations, among others Unicef, Bill and Melinda Gates, the World Bank and the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the UN, has approved a grant worth $2,8 million to South Africa to fortify maize and wheat flour.
In the light of the fact that maize and wheat flour form the staple diet of the majority of poor households in this country, and also that the serious risk of malnutrition amongst children is estimated at around 25%, food fortification programmes and other measures with similar intent could provide the cheapest way to improve the lives of the poor. We thank the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition for its generous grant, and call upon all humanity to work to eradicate malnutrition amongst the children of the world. I thank you. [Applause.]
CRIME STATISTICS MUST BE RELEASED
(Member's Statement)
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION (DA): Deputy Speaker, what does the hon Minister of Safety and Security have to hide? He believes Parliament and the people cannot be trusted with the news about crime, Big Brother will decide for us. He responded to my request for crime figures by saying three things. Firstly, he says the request was initialled and not signed. Secondly, some of the figures for earlier years are already available. Thirdly, he will release this year’s figures next August.
What he hasn’t done is to explain his refusal to release figures now. Why is he so hysterical about this? He has held these figures for months and South Africans live in a democracy, they are entitled to know the facts. [Interjections.] Go and read the Constitution; MPs need to know before the budget voting next Tuesday. If we are to tackle crime and bring it under control, we need to know the truth and to face the facts. The hon Minister can now choose, if he wants support for his budget he must take MPs, and the people of this country, into his confidence. [Applause.]
ESCAPE OF PRISONERS FROM COURTS
(Member's Statement)
Mr E T FERREIRA (IFP): Deputy Speaker, the IFP is particularly concerned about the rate of escapes from courts in South Africa. Prisoners and suspects attending court proceedings are under the supervision of the SA Police Service, therefore SAPS members at courts have the responsibility to safeguard awaiting-trial prisoners.
During the last few years hundreds, if not thousands, of prisoners escaped from police custody at court buildings. In many cases it has been proven that escapes were purely due to negligence, whereas some escapes took place with the help of SAPS members. We are particularly concerned about an escape that took place at Eshowe court last week. A murder suspect in a well-publicised case, the suspect being a certain Mr Zulu, escaped far too easily for us to believe that the police did not assist him. At the very least, it was an act of gross negligence.
After escaping from the dock, instead of the police, a female prosecutor gave chase, with police personnel giving chase afterwards. The reason for only joining the chase afterwards was that they first needed to get their firearms. We urge the Minister of Safety and Security to investigate the escape in question as a matter of urgency. We believe that there is more to this escape than meets the eye.
MA DE BRUIN HONOURED
(Member's Statement)
Ms M P MENTOR (ANC): Madam Deputy Speaker, Ma De Bruin of Pabalelo, Upington in the Northern Cape, was a death row prisoner and was one of the Upington 26 who were found guilty on the basis of common purpose for allegedly killing a policeman in Pabalelo at the height of the resistance to apartheid in the eighties.
She later got a stay of execution and was eventually released from prison with other political prisoners. She testified to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission as a survivor of a gross human rights violation by the apartheid state. The provincial government of the Northern Cape will be honouring Ma De Bruin in a two-day Mokete waThabo, which will take place on 28 and 29 June in Upington. She will then also receive her RDP house, which has additional fittings, like a geyser, ceramic tiles, a ceiling, a bathroom, bedrooms and a garage. All these additional fittings were made possible by patriotic white businesspeople in the Northern Cape who are keen to come to the party of reparation.
Other death-row trialists like the famous Delmas trialists and those who were involved in the Save the Patriots campaign and other MDM structures are also invited so that we should never forget. Thank you. [Applause.]
SUPPORT FOR BY-ELECTION IN STELLENBOSCH
(Member's Statement)
Mev M E OLCKERS (Nuwe NP): Mevrou die Adjunkspeaker, die Nuwe NP verwelkom die steun wat deur onder andere Dr Esther Lategan, wat ‘n paar jaar gelede medestigter was van die Nasionale Demokratiese Beweging, mnre Jan Boland Coetzee, Beyers Truter, Francois Malan en Jean Engelbrecht, almal wêreldbekende wynmakers, en mnr Albert Nothnagel, ‘n voormalige ambassadeur in Nederland, uitgespreek is in ‘n koerantadvertensie ter steuning van mnr Nick van Rensburg, Nuwe NP-kandidaat in die tussenverkiesing wat Woensdag, dus môre, in Wyk 5 in Stellenbosch gehou word. [Tussenwerpsels.]
Hierdie gebaar is weer eens ‘n bewys dat denkende mense met ‘n visie samewerkende regering in Suid-Afrika steun. Hierdie is persone met ‘n wêreldwye reputasie en invloed. Hulle wil saam bou met die Nuwe NP en die ANC om hierdie land die skitterende juweel van vreedsame naasbestaan op die kontinent te maak. [Tussenwerpsels.]
Hulle weet dat ons saam kan wen. Hulle besef en glo dat die politiek inklusief en nie isolerend moet wees nie. Ons in die Nuwe NP is trots om met mense soos hulle geassosieer te word. [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans member’s statement follows.)
[Madam Deputy Speaker, the New NP welcomes the support given by, amongst others, Dr Esther Lategan, who was co-founder of the National Democratic Movement a few years ago, Messrs Jan Boland Coetzee, Beyers Truter, Francois Malan and Jean Engelbrecht, all world-renowned wine makers, and Mr Albert Nothnagel, a former ambassador to the Netherlands, as expressed in a newspaper advertisement in support of Mr Nick van Rensburg, the New NP candidate in the by-election in Stellenbosch which is to take place on Wednesday, that is tomorrow, in Ward 5 in Stellenbosch. [Interjections.]
This gesture is once again proof that thinkers with a vision support co- operative governance in South Africa. They are people of international reputation and influence. Together they want to work with the New NP and the ANC to make of this country a shining jewel of peaceful co-existence on the continent. [Interjections.]
They know that together we can win. They realise and believe that politics should be inclusive and not isolationary. We in the New NP are proud to be associated with people such as them. [Applause.]]
CONDOLENCES TO UDM PRESIDENT BANTU HOLOMISA
(Member's Statement)
Mr J T MASEKA: Madam Deputy Speaker, the UDM extends its deepest and most sincere condolences to the UDM’s President, Bantu Holomisa, and his wife on the passing away of their daughter Nomsa. Nomsa was 21 years old and passed away during the early hours of Sunday, 15 June, Father’s Day.
With one so young, with her life stretching out before her, words fail to describe the loss. Our thoughts and prayers are with the Holomisa family. We hope that you will find consolation in this time of bereavement. I thank you.
RESPONSE TO EXPRESSION OF APPRECIATION FOR YOUTH, AND TO OTHER MATTERS RAISED
(Minister's Response)
The MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY: Deputy Speaker, I am responding to three questions.
Firstly, I would like to say to the hon Ruth Bhengu that there is so much that we need to express appreciation for to the youth. Indeed, our history is replete with instances in which the youth made very fundamental interventions which, among other things, brought us to where we are today.
In 1944 the ANC established the ANC Youth League. By 1949 that structure had formulated a strategy that was designed to give impetus to the programme of the liberation of our country. Indeed, when 1976 came around, it was again the youth that provided the spark that the ANC’s programmes, particularly its military programme, needed.
Of course, even …
Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is your point of order?
Mr M J ELLIS: On what issue is the hon Minister advising on matters … [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order, hon members. The hon member has the right to raise …
Mr M J ELLIS: The hon Minister is not the Minister in the Presidency who normally talks on youth affairs. It is not at all clear why this Minister is rising to speak on this particular point.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon Ellis, please let the Minister finish. He is responding to an issue raised by the hon Ruth Bhengu.
Mr M J ELLIS: Yes, Deputy Speaker, but as far as I understand, the hon Bhengu raised a point about youth and Youth Day. I do not understand why this hon Minister is responding to that issue.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member, this is at the discretion of the Chair, so let the Minister finish his statement.
Mr M J ELLIS: But, Madam Deputy Speaker, we have a … [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon Ellis, I am not arguing with you on this matter. Please take your seat.
Mr M J ELLIS: … we have a set of rules, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is in our rules. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon Ellis, please take your seat and let the Minister …
Mr M J ELLIS: With much reluctance, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon Ellis, you either take your seat or you leave the House. [Interjections.]
Please finish, hon Minister.
The MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY: At this point, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is once more the youth who are saying that they have a good programme that is going to take our people to a better future - to fight against all the ills that we have, and to fight against crime and the other ills we still have to fight.
I really wish to appeal to the DA: Please help the hon Douglas Gibson. The hon Douglas Gibson sent me a letter requesting statistics. He was requesting statistics for 2000, 2001 and 2002. I’ve responded to this. Now, he comes here to this House and he changes the very contents of that requesting letter. He is now saying that he wants statistics and questions why I am not releasing statistics, but he asked for specific statistics.
I am going to assist the hon Gibson with the statistics he wants, particularly because in his hurry to grab the headlines the other day he forgot to sign the requesting letter that he submitted to my office. [Laughter.] Now, he has another opportunity in which he can again make another request and tell me exactly what statistics he needs, and I will respond on that basis. He must indicate exactly what statistics he needs.
Then there’s the matter of the escape that occurred, a matter which the hon Ferreira raised. He’s correct - we are going to investigate. Quite clearly, from what he has said, something very wrong took place there. I would be pleased if he would supply us with just the initial information in order for us to conduct the necessary investigation. Thank you. [Applause.]
E-EDUCATION
(Minister's Response)
The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Hon Deputy Speaker, may I assure you that this is not the Mutt and Jeff show, because the Minister of Safety and Security and I invariably appear. I thank the hon Mr Komphela for his statement on the World Economic Forum and the emphasis on e-school programmes. Two features are important here. First, the co-operation between South Africa and the rest of Africa in the Nepad programme in e-education is enormously important, and the World Economic Forum recognises that.
We recognise, also, the remarkable degree of optimism the World Economic Forum had - from business, from politicians, from social scientists - about the future of South Africa and its role in Africa. So, we will assist in this by producing a White Paper on e-education which we are about to submit to Cabinet.
First of all, we shall submit the White Paper on exactly what we mean by the type of e-education in our schools, and how one rolls out this programme, especially in the context of developments in the telecommunications area in which additional licences are to be granted.
The second aspect concerns higher education. Some African countries have no higher education institutions or structures. That is why we are taking the initiative in terms of Nepad to call, at the beginning of next year, the first ever African conference on e-education, dealing with distance education.
South Africa has an important role to play, not as a coloniser, not as a profit-maker, but as a provider of assistance to our sister African countries on how they can use e-education in terms of broadcasting and in terms of getting access to the rural areas, averting the capital developments necessary. We are going to work very closely with the University of SA and, of course, with Unesco in organising this conference. The spill-over effect will be felt not only in higher education, but in the training of teachers as well.
I conclude by saying that we cannot supply computers and connectivity and leave it for the schools and universities themselves. These then become toys, toys that become disused. We must train teachers, as the first essential factor, so that teachers use the computer as a genuine teaching aid, not as a crutch to lean on. Too many computers are supplied by companies and government departments, but no training is supplied to teachers. We don’t want to use e-education as a substitute for contact between teachers and pupils, but the training of teachers is vital to this.
I thank the hon Komphela for bringing this to the attention of the House. We will be taking, as the Department of Education, important initiatives in this area. Thank you, Deputy Speaker.
NUTRITION AND THE IMPORTATION OF BRAZILIAN POULTRY
(Minister's Response)
The MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE AND LAND AFFAIRS: Deputy President, on the issue that was raised … [Interjections.] Deputy Speaker, I am sorry about that. Maybe, next time you will be one. [Interjections.]
I want to thank the member for raising the issue regarding the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition. As Government, we are glad about this gesture, because it fits in with our own integrated food security and nutrition programme which was adopted by Cabinet last year. Among other things, it deals with issues of nutrition and how we could complement that, not just in terms of production, but also to ensure that minerals that are essential in food content, but which are lost during the production cycle, can actually be fortified. So, the Department of Health has been working with the Department of Agriculture and the industry to see how we could improve at that level. We are very glad that the international organisation has actually come to the assistance of the Government programme in this regard.
Regarding the issue of the poultry problem, as raised by the hon Mogoba, we have been made aware of the challenge that the poultry industry faces. But the challenge that the poultry industry faces is a challenge that faces the livestock farmers in general around the issues of input costs.
The issues that relate to imports of Brazilian chickens, or any other chickens, is a matter that does raise issues of the challenges for South Africa’s agricultural sector in terms of its competitiveness worldwide, and also how, in our view, we use the structures that Government have put in place such as the Board on Tariffs and Trade, the Department of Trade and Industry, and the Department of Agriculture.
You would recall that at some stage when there was a problem regarding American chickens we were able, as Government, to work with the industry to deal with that challenge. I am sure that in this instance if the poultry industry was to indicate what the problems are with regard to the imports of chickens from Brazil, we can deal with the issues pertaining to that. Is it because they feel that the tariffs are too low or too high or because there is a subsidy involved? Thank you. [Applause.]
CHILD MAINTENANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY OF PARENTS
(Minister's Response)
The MINISTER OF DEFENCE: Madam Deputy Speaker, I thought Dr Motsoko Pheko was here because I wanted to congratulate him, but I will deal with that later. [Laughter.]
On the issue of maintenance, I think it is important that we must realise, as Government, that there are issues which we can deal with by way of law and arrest. But there are issues that we cannot deal with in that way. With regard to the issue of maintenance, Government has processes through which people are able to appeal to the courts. The mothers of children appeal to the courts and the courts then, of course, pass judgments through which people are ordered to look after their children. Beyond that, where there is no such situation, there are social welfare programmes where children who are without proper maintenance are accommodated.
The issue of moral regeneration comes in here. I think that the ACDP should really take this seriously. I am referring more to the hon Rhoda who has dealt with this issue. There is a need to tackle the problem at the level of social values and norms, to educate people. Parents must be able to recognise the fact that they don’t need to be arrested to look after their children, because if we lock them up in prisons there will be nobody to earn money to pay for the children. So, everything has been done by Government in this area. What is outstanding is the cultivation of men and women who recognise their responsibility in relation to their families and especially towards their children. Thank you. [Applause.]
CONGRATULATIONS TO FUSI NHLAPO ON WINNING THE COMRADES MARATHON
(Draft Resolution)
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Deputy Speaker, I move without notice:
That the House -
(1) notes that -
(a) yesterday, on 16 June 2003, Fusi Nhlapo, a runner from the Free
State, won the 2003 Comrades Marathon from Pietermaritzburg to
Durban; and
(b) Nhlapo's win emphasised the dominance of South Africans in this
marathon as they took seven of the top ten positions;
(2) believes that the courageous efforts by our athletes yesterday deserve a great round of national applause as it exemplifies the spiritual, mental and physical resilience that should, and does, constitute the defining feature of the character of our nation in transition, continually seeking to extricate itself from the doldrums of racist sterility, and consistently seeking to redefine its destiny as a beacon of the victory of the human spirit of ubuntu;
(3) congratulates Fusi Nhlapo, and the rest of South Africa’s team of runners on their sterling performance in this year’s Comrades Marathon; and
(4) is of the opinion that this beautiful victory by our athletes further demonstrates that we are indeed on course in making this an African century.
Agreed to.
SUSPENSION OF RULE 253(1)
(Draft Resolution)
USOSWEBHU OMKHULU WEQEMBU LENINGI: Sihlalo, ngaphandle kokufaka isaziso, ngiphakamisa ukuthi:
Le Ndlu-
(1) ike ikuyekise ukusebenza komThetho 253(1) ngesizathu sokuthi ukweThulwa kwesiBili kwesiChibiyelo somThethosisivivinywa wokuBhaliswa kwamaTayitele ezokuMbiwa phansi kuyokwenziwa zingakapheli izinsuku ezintathu emuva kokuba ikomidi seliwethulile umbiko walo. (Translation of Xhosa draft resolution follows.)
[THE CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Deputy Speaker, I move without notice:
That Rule 253(1) be suspended for the purposes of conducting the Second Reading debate on the Mining Titles Registration Amendment Bill [B 24 - 2003] (National Assembly - sec 75) before three working days have elapsed since the committee’s report was tabled.]
Agreed to.
APPROPRIATION BILL
Debate on Vote No 8 - National Treasury (Intelligence):
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before the Minister starts addressing the House, I would like to recognise the hon former Minister of Intelligence, Joe Nhlanhla, who is sitting in the House at the back there. [Applause.] Welcome, hon member.
The MINISTER FOR INTELLIGENCE: Madam Deputy Speaker, members, have you ever wondered why the taxi violence stopped? And what about terrorism in the Western Cape? Funny how we always notice things when they go wrong, rather than when they go right.
A group of dedicated people is working to make our country a safer place, investigating crimes like corruption, terrorism and sabotage; things you’d definitely notice if they did happen. So, the next time an ordinary day goes by, don’t forget just how extraordinary it is.
Here we are, another ordinary day, brought about by the extraordinary efforts of the intelligence community securing you - unseen, unknown and unacknowledged.
Today’s budget is dedicated to the youth of South Africa who are represented here by a group of young aspirant intelligence officers from the nine provinces, chosen because of their excellence. They are sitting over there. [Applause.] We are also joined here by the veterans of the intelligence community who, through the years, unknown, unseen, unacknowledged, have made it possible for you and I to sit here today and enjoy another ordinary day. May I welcome these people here. [Applause.]
About 10 weeks ago, maybe 11, my services provided me with an analysis of the Iraqi war. Their conclusion was sharp. This was two weeks before the invasion into Baghdad. They said to me that Baghdad would fall within a few days with the minimum of resistance. This was so at odds with what was playing itself out on the television news on a daily basis that it sounded rather preposterous, even to me. What, no resistance from Baghdad? Why, on a daily basis there was the then Iraqi Minister of Information, a feisty, spirited fellow, by any account, looking confident and convincing - convincing you, convincing me. It could not possibly be that they would surrender without any resistance.
The prognosis of our intelligence services could not be out of sync with
reality. They were adamant though, and as they sketched out the reasons why
they believed that this was the conclusion, it sounded even more
preposterous. You are certainly not taking that to Cabinet,'' I said to
them. Their answer was simple:Minister, trust us, have we ever misled
you?’’ Trust? The very word settled it for me, because indeed I trust them.
That word, so underrated within our present context of governance, and yet
so very crucial for our services. I regard myself as one very lucky
Minister. I trust my services. [Applause.]
I trust them, the same kind of trust that I dream I can help to establish between the services and South African citizens so we can build a partnership with society that is built on trust, for the good of our country. I trust their analyses, both foreign and domestic, because these have proved in the past to be solid and reliable, the kind that lays the basis for credibility.
I was not at that Cabinet meeting, otherwise I would not be recounting this. I hope it did take place. I’ll ask the Minister of Home Affairs if it did, or maybe the Minister of Defence. However, I amuse myself trying to conjure up the disbelief of my colleagues as they were told that Baghdad would surrender without any resistance. The rest is history. Baghdad fell with not much resistance, and the reasons the services gave me are those that are now common currency.
Our intelligence services are maturing into a reliable and most effective instrument of security of our time. I have journeyed across the land and seen the enthusiasm of our sons and daughters beckoning to us to take extreme pride in the steps we have taken from the time we proclaimed ourselves a free people. I have also seen the positive results of the impact of the resources, albeit very inadequate, that we plough into the services each year.
I can confidently assert that the intelligence community is a credible guarantor of security, stability and peace for our people and our country. It has integrity; and a composition that reflects our principle goal of creating an open, nonsexist and nonracial democratic South Africa. Over the last nine years we have traversed a very difficult terrain of transformation, navigating the convoluted process of striking an appropriate balance between representivity and competence, and finally emerged as one of the most able and competitive intelligence services within the global intelligence community. Without fear of contradiction, I can say here and now that we are one of the most completely transformed entities of this Government.
I say this as a reflection of the progress we have made since we tabled the last budget vote for the intelligence services. In the year under review we have implemented the most realistic strategic objectives that we set ourselves. To repeat what has now become a common realisation in the light of globalisation and the emergence of new global security threats, despite some setbacks, intelligence fulfils an unprecedented historic role for the progress and development of all nations of the world.
I am happy to report that the work of the co-ordination of the intelligence of various departments is steadily bearing fruit, and you can see that by the very presence of my colleagues, the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Safety and Security.
Co-ordinating the work of our intelligence services is a crucial responsibility for me. Buttressed by the re-enforced power of the National Intelligence Co-ordinating Committee, co-operation between the civilian, defence and crime intelligence services has increased with the pleasant result that the quality of our annual assessment has improved significantly. In fact, for the first time, our assessment this year received an excellent rating from the security cluster.
I must take this opportunity, therefore, to congratulate the heads of our crime and defence intelligence for the quality of the assessment. I have to add, however, that I’ve already congratulated the heads of the civilian services. [Applause.]
I believe that the quality of intelligence is determined by the quality of the policy-maker. As the intelligence community is challenged to provide information to policy-makers who are informed about their surroundings, we have to ensure that the quality of our work can rise above their frequent probes and provide them with value and quality.
We have similarly made remarkable achievements in the introduction of the issue of maritime security during the period of reporting. The matter of maritime security introduced a new, important and exciting element in our fold. During the period of reporting we have also managed to provide an integrated departmental contribution, which was prepared by South Africa as an official response to the United Nations Security Council.
One of our core functions is to fight against any threat to the state. There is no greater resource for this than the people of South Africa themselves. It is in recognition of the fact that the people of South Africa have struggled to build the democracy we live in that I am convinced we would continue to struggle to protect the democracy we have. Our people are our greatest asset, and we intend to harness that resource in the pursuit of one of our core functions, which is our counterintelligence mandate - a critical function to enhance security and an imperative to the stability and development of any country.
A number of activities to counter threats of espionage, terrorism and sabotage are performed by the services. The objective is to establish a state of security surrounding the personnel, information and assets of the state. Identifying the loopholes in the security system is perhaps a better way of explaining this function.
In line with our continued interdepartmental co-operation, the National Intelligence Agency has established a counterintelligence forum comprising itself, the SA Secret Service, the SAPS Division of Crime Intelligence and the SANDF Division of Defence Intelligence. This forum has identified seven broad priority areas of interest, informed by our threat perception. These are: political intelligence; terrorism; economic intelligence; counter intelligence; border intelligence; organised crime; drug trafficking; corruption and special events.
As part of this counterintelligence campaign, we will run awareness programmes aimed at bringing a national security responsibility message home to all South Africans. The message will be: You are the key to a secure South Africa. It will also mark the launch of a toll-free number for the NIA, for the people to volunteer and provide information and raise national security.
For this purpose we will be giving every MP a coffee mug, because we know how much coffee you drink. As you pour your hot water into the mug, there will be a message there for you, reminding you on a regular basis that you have the responsibility for your own intelligence. [Applause.] [Laughter.]
We have identified one clear and threatening danger, cyber threat. The world is increasingly dependent on computer networks for transportation, public safety, energy, communication - you name it. This makes for increasingly vulnerable governments, unless we build, as we grow, the necessary infrastructure to protect our systems against any possible cyber threat. At the moment we remain vulnerable.
When you consider that computers are less expensive than conventional weapons, more readily available and their ability for connectivity and penetration swift, then you realise that the scale of the problem is amazing. It is amazing precisely because these instruments are available to criminals and terrorists. What this demands of us is that we maintain a supreme advantage in key technologies. It is for this purpose that we have established the electronic communication security company called Comsec (Pty) Ltd, a company charged with the responsibility to develop cutting edge electronics communications technology and secure our communication.
One of the first tasks of the company would be to conduct security audits to prioritise Government departments at provincial and local levels. This is a strategic intervention which will also ensure that e-commerce in South Africa and e-governance can thrive without difficulty and threats posed by intrusion, cyber crime or cyber sabotage.
Alongside the creation of a secure electronics communications environment for state organs, is a need to uproot cyber criminals who seek refuge through the use of sophisticated encryption devices. To unmask them and to expose their criminal and unpatriotic plans, we will set up the offices of interception centres. I must make it unequivocally clear that these centres will be solely targeted at those who seek to undermine our national security, commit crimes and steal and sell strategic information belonging to the country.
The interception centres will interface with the telecommunications operators to provide law enforcement agencies only with judiciary approved interception products and services, as approved by Parliament through the Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication- related Information Act, Act 70 of 2002. At this point, may I just indicate that we are particularly concerned about the proliferation of private intelligence companies, which have tended to pose as private security companies or risk management consultants. We have discovered, over the years, that these companies have had unlimited access, paid for, to banking details, health details and personal details held at the Department of Home Affairs. This was a blatant infringement of the constitutional rights of the citizens of this country. We have concluded that there is a need to tighten our laws around this, in a clear and precise manner.
Let me first indicate that former members of the intelligence services are restricted from taking part in any of these activities by the Intelligence Services Act of 2002. Secondly, the private security companies that are involved in intelligence activities like private investigation, manufacturing, possession of and selling interception devices have to register with the Security Industry Regulatory Board, which falls under the political supervision of the Minister of Safety and Security in terms of the Security Industry Act of 2001.
The new Interception Act of 2002 prohibits the manufacturing, possession, selling and use of interception devices. The only structures that can manufacture, possess or sell these devices are the law enforcement agencies themselves and those private security companies registered in terms of the Security Industry Act. These authorised groups can intercept communications for the sole purposes of combating crime and the provision of emergency services. Any other person who engages in private security intelligence work outside the provision of these three laws commits a crime.
Intelligence is a secret state activity to understand any threat to national security, and thereafter to advise policy-makers on steps to counteract such threat. It is an activity performed by officers of the state for state purposes only. Secret collection, the use of information that is not publicly available, are the constitutive elements that would distinguish this from other intellectual activity.
Having given this broad definition of intelligence, it should be clear to all that there is no scope here for private intelligence activity for purposes of gain or profit. We are moving swiftly to outlaw any vestiges of such activity.
At this point I want to offer a word of advice to any members here, especially from the DA, who will not be coming back to the House next year, not to try going into the business of intelligence activity. [Interjections.] Try some other venture instead. And I see Dene Smuts cackling away; she can join an estate agency. That is the way to go , if you will not be coming back definitely not in intelligence activity. That is a very dangerous terrain to traverse. [Interjections.]
In all of this, our concerns refer to the protection of the constitutional rights to privacy of South African citizens. When state organs infringe on these rights, it is not for profit and that activity is very strictly governed by a number of laws. For example, should the services want to intercept anyone’s telephone conversation, they have to apply to a judge and prove that they have sufficient reason to believe that this has to be done in the national interest, and that the privacy of the individual will be given the necessary protection. Secondly, the Parliamentary Oversight Committee on Intelligence has a supervisory authority over those responsible for granting such access and powers of scrutiny over applications from Intelligence Services.
It has been necessary to provide these details so that members of the public can appreciate the checks and balances that our Intelligence Services are subjected to. Unfortunately these laws do not appear to govern the operations of private intelligence companies who, as we have discovered, will pay to access data that infringe on the personal lives of South African citizens. We have, therefore, resolved to put an end to this mindless invasion of privacy.
Our delivery machinery is focused on providing a comprehensive package of security and stability. In doing this, we are convinced that with such a package both Parliament and Government will be placed in a better position to deal effectively with complex issues, both nationally and internationally and in a sustainable way. Therefore, together with the tightening of the law on private intelligence companies, we are bringing before Parliament an amendment of the General Intelligence Law, which seeks to keep our delivery machinery watertight and clear up technical hitches which we have experienced in our current laws.
In the light of the forever changing objective environment in which our Intelligence Services compete and operate, it is necessary to review our national security policy, and to ensure that we strive towards national consensus on its meaning, our response to national security threats and the roles and mandates of our structures, ranging from law enforcement to security services. This process will be linked with the Intelligence White Paper review process that I announced last year. The two processes will lead to the update of the White Paper on Intelligence. This will be done in accordance with global and domestic security developments and challenges; the global security dispensation indicates that the nature of security and the international approaches and responses to security have shifted. The security problems beyond our borders have become our own problems. The global security considerations have changed considerably over the last three years, and therefore our understanding of security issues must reflect these changes.
The review of the White Paper on Intelligence will be a collective effort involving a partnership between Government and the public. We have a collective responsibility to ensure a peaceful and secure South Africa. We will therefore invite all organs of state and members of society to make their voices heard in this process. Its outcome will be a collective vision that will direct Government and the general public on how to create an environment of peace and stability and the role and function that our Intelligence Services will have to play in that process.
Our focus must be to provide a comprehensive framework that deals with security and stability, broadly incorporating measures of accelerated socioeconomic transformation. Civil society, therefore, will play an important role in the redefinition of national security. We call upon them to be actively involved in the process of reshaping the White Paper. We want to appeal, very directly, to each and every South African to understand that the security of this country is in their hands; very literally for MPs, the mug will be in your hands, reminding you daily that this is your responsibility.
Meanwhile, we have given the intelligence community new strategic capabilities, introduced more policy tools for efficiency and effectiveness and created additional and new control mechanisms for the purposes of institutional accountability. We have done so by processing four Acts through Parliament last year, which were necessary for us to ensure compliance with the laws of the land as we restructure to meet our new challenges. Taken together, these Acts promote the principle of integrated and co-operative governance, especially within the Justice, Crime Prevention and Security Cluster, which is key in countering national security threats.
This year we launched the South African National Academy of Intelligence (SANAI) and opened the Mzwandile Piliso Campus in Mafikeng on 28 February. The academy is responsible for providing training to members of the intelligence community and other related departments. This training will include conducting research to supplement the training function. This will be an institution of excellence that will contribute to the delivery of quality intelligence services, which are key in informing the decision- making processes of Government. The academy will contribute to conducting and commissioning independent, relevant and quality research that disseminates information on the theory and practice of the intelligence community through our own networks. The academy is already involved in the management and running of a cadet programme which seeks to bring into the intelligence community the best of the best amongst the youth - a sample of which we have with us today. The cadet programme will be driven by a systematic process of talent spotting, head hunting, and focused and dedicated training of our young people to bring much needed skills into the intelligence community.
We hope that through this process of the cadet programme we will ensure that never again will there be a skills shortage in our intelligence services. This is the only viable way to guarantee systematic replenishment of loss of skills in the light of the inevitable process of natural attrition.
Last year I indicated that I would be establishing a classification and declassification review committee. In keeping with this announcement, the committee has been set up, and the following distinguished academics, here with us today, constitute its membership. The eminent Prof Ben Magubane is the chairperson; an eminent scholar, Prof Norman Levy, of the University of the Western Cape is a member; the eminent Prof Paulus Zulu of the University of Natal is another member; and so is the learned Adv Jennifer Hutchinson-Wild. [Applause.] These eminent scholars are themselves individuals who are concerned that we conclude this work so that they themselves, and other academics, can have access to some of the information that we hold. We are certain that before the end of this year we will have completed the work that is underway.
This review committee is responsible for developing new criteria for the management and protection of access to information. It seeks to ensure that the various laws speak to one another as one business process, starting from access, then protection, up to the storage of information.
I must also add that one of the main challenges in this regard relates to putting in place a review process and mechanism to appraise existing classified records in order to consider them for reclassification, declassification and access. To this end, the review committee has made great progress following its inception. It has reviewed existing policy, received public input and representation on their terms of reference, consulted with various stakeholders, and collected data for their work.
The review committee, in doing its work, has kept regular contact with the public. From the outset the public was informed through the media on how the committee was going to do its work. This was followed up by a media advertisement inviting members of the public to make submissions. Furthermore, individuals and organisations were invited to brief the committee on specific topics. A research project on international best practice has been completed, and a variety of submissions received from the public have already been scrutinised.
From the progress report furnished by the review committee, I noted that most people want a comprehensive audit of the pre-1994 records to be conducted, and for the Protection of Information Act of 1982 to be replaced with a new law. We support this desire, which is receiving the Law Commission’s attention.
There has been a great deal of controversy around the issue of declassification, especially given the fact that one of these areas relates to TRC files. Opinions have been expressed that the intelligence services are in breach of the Promotion of Access to Information Act over this matter. Let me take this opportunity to put it on record that nothing could be further from the truth. We have the most liberal laws applying to the intelligence services compared to any other country in the world.
As we discharge our duties, our laws compel us to balance the disclosure of information with appropriate measures that secure the wellbeing of the State, Government and its people. We are aware that access to information cultivates a culture of participation in democratic processes and the actualisation of human rights of the citizens which are the foundation of our Constitution. But let me hasten to add that democratic accountability of this type goes hand in hand with responsibility, and our task is to ensure that we do not succumb to the populism of those who have ulterior motives.
I indicated last year that we would be setting up an intelligence services council on conditions of service. This has been established, and the councillors are here with us today. They are Dr Sigxashe, Mr Dick Knollys and Mr Mike Louw, who is a part-time councillor. All of these have been, at one time or another, DGs of the Intelligence Services, and are very able in discharging their responsibilities. I am sure that they will move decisively to make the intelligence community the best employer in the Public Service, leading us to the realisation of our vision of making our members intelligence cadres for life and patriots par excellence. I note that the Minister for the Public Service and Administration has left. I was about to say: `` Eat your heart out.’’
The Presidential Support Unit, which was established in November 2001 to support the presidency in the prevention, management and resolution of conflicts on the continent and elsewhere, has proved to be a very effective tool in support of foreign affairs. This unit not only complements foreign affairs, it also complements Nicoc, the intelligence co-ordination mechanism.
As we look back on a very productive year, we have been able to greatly enhance the capacity of our intelligence services. This capacity should be able to ensure that the intelligence community carries out its constitutional role with efficiency and integrity, in the areas where additional resources have been received. However, we still face some challenges. For instance, in the fight against international terrorism, we need to maintain the kind of level-headedness that assures that our integrity remains intact.
Our achievements could not have been realised were it not for the sterling work of the management of the intelligence community in changing the mindset of the general membership of the intelligence services. This has been the critical basis on which we could build a new intelligence community that upholds our Constitution, while at the same time adapting to change occasioned by events and significant developments elsewhere.
The joint standing committee also played a critical role in helping to assess the need for the intelligence community to grow, including providing support in this transformation.
Finally, bearing in mind that we are the guarantors of your ordinary day, we wish to turn the Chinese proverb on its head: May you never live in interesting times and, for as long as we are here guaranteeing your security, may you have many more ordinary days and may the only extraordinary experiences be of a personal nature. I thank you. [Applause.]
Dr S C CWELE: Sekela Sihlalo, amalungu ePhalamende ahloniphekileyo, izikhulu zeminyango yezobunhloli, amalungu ePhalamende angakwazi ukuthi abe nathi lapha kodwa enze umsebenzi omkhulu kuleli komiti lethu aseMkhandlwini weziFunda kaZwelonke, amanye engiwabona laphaya okuhlala khona izethameli zethu, ngiyabonga ukuthola leli thuba.
Inkulumo yami ngiyinikela kumaqhawe omzabalazo wenkululeko yaseNingizimu Afrika afana noComrade Joe Nhlanhla ohleli laphaya emuva. [Ihlombe.] Ngiyinikela kumalungu ezomshosha phansi nezobunhloli asebenza ngokuzikhandla ekwakheni isisekelo senkululeko ukuze kube nempilo engcono kithi sonke.
Namhlanje itshe ligaya ngomunye umhlathi. Kucace kuthe bha ukuthi lo Hulumeni wentando yeningi oholwa yi-ANC uletha ithemba kanye nempilo engcono kubo bonke abantu baseNingizimu Afrika. NakumiNyango yezobuNhloli lo moya wenguquko ufikile, ushaya ngolunye unyawo. Nakuba siyizwe elincane futhi elisakhula kwezomnotho, alikho izwe elingazishaya isifuba lithi lingcono kuneNingizimu Afrika kwezobunhloli. (Translation of Zulu paragraphs follows.)
[Dr S C CWELE: Deputy Chairperson, hon members, executives of the Department of Intelligence, members of Parliament who could not manage to be with us yet who have made a great contribution to this committee, and who are in the NCOP, some of whom I can see in the public gallery, thank you for this opportunity.
I dedicate my speech to the heroes of the struggle for the liberation of South Africa, such as Comrade Joe Nhlanhla sitting over there. [Applause.] I dedicate it to the members of the secret service and intelligence who work tirelessly to build a foundation for our freedom, so that there is a better life for all of us.
Today the tables have turned. It is crystal clear that this ANC-led democratic Government brings hope and a better life to all the people of South Africa. To the Department of Intelligence as well, the winds of change have come. Although we are a small and economically developing country, no country can boast that it is better than South Africa when it comes to intelligence.]
In short, despite our shoestring budget, we have successfully developed a world-class intelligence community. We have developed a professional service that operates under secrecy, but still upholds our democracy and the basic values of our human rights. The success of our intelligence services is grounded on professionalism, efficiency, effectiveness and more importantly, simplicity. I believe the co-ordination of our intelligence services is the best in the world. Even the super-powers and the developed economies continue to learn and draw from our experiences.
We must salute our intelligence services that adhere to the simple and effective principle of co-ordination. As a result we have not experienced any major intelligence failure, as witnessed on September 11 and elsewhere in the world.
We are the best in organising successful world events. We can name the conference of Num, the World Aids Conference, the World Racism Conference, the AU launch, the WSSD last year and other world sport events which have all been held successfully in South Africa. Nia, in particular, has demonstrated that it is among the world’s best in providing IT security as demonstrated by creating impenetrable walls during the World Summit on Sustainable Development. Regarding our external weighing, Sass remains the leading force in conflict resolution in Africa and elsewhere on the globe.
Defence intelligence provides the cutting edge intelligence for peace operations in Africa as a whole. Crime intelligence continues to lead in busting international drug syndicates and human smugglers. Our intelligence academy is playing a leading role in training our cadets and other people from the African continent. Despite all these successes, we still face several challenges.
We are witnessing a changing global challenge that threatens global security and the multilateral world order. Today there are more sophisticated international crime syndicates involved in activities such as money laundering and human and drug smuggling. New forms of terrorism and other forms of extremism are transcending multiple national borders. We see increasing unilateral actions coupled with hostile foreign policies by those who claim to be the super-powers of this world. We are witnessing new practices, such as cheque-book politics, by nations acting in terms of the UN mandate and framework.
To illustrate these challenges, let us look at the war in Iraq. Where are the weapons of mass destruction that the coalition forces were making claims about? Did the American and the British intelligence services lie about the weapons of mass destruction, or was their intelligence manipulated by the politicians? What was the role of business in this conflict, particularly that of American and British multinational companies? Lastly, but most importantly, what was the role of the intelligence oversight structures in those countries, and what are they going to do now? We can only hope that they will investigate these challenges and expose the truth.
It is against this background that our intelligence services are conducting their duties. In addition, the new world order has dictated to us that we should move away from the narrow focus of state security to a broader human security involving socioeconomic and environmental issues. Our intelligence has made significant strides in this regard. But clearly, more resources are needed to match these new mandates.
As I have said, the co-ordination of intelligence has improved significantly over the last financial year. This has been witnessed by the quality of their products and the timelessness of producing those products.
I now come to one of the most important issues that the committee is concerned about - the debate about national security. When we crafted our White Paper, we were under the impression that we as South Africans were on the same wave length when dealing with matters of national security. We assumed that there were national security issues which were not only a threat to individual liberties, but to our collective constitutional democracy. We further assumed that people from all sectors of our society would unite to fight these national security threats and defend our democracy.
However, the recent events and divergent views on what we regard as national security has led us to make a call for a national debate on what we regard as our national security concerns. We hope that this House will afford us this debate, and that the media, the academics and ordinary people will actively participate in it.
The question has been asked about the role of this Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence in ensuring that our intelligence services are operating within the confines of our Constitution and our democratic order. We are glad to report that the culture of respect for law, the Constitution and the basic human rights of all our citizens prevails within our intelligence services.
In line with the above, questions have been asked about why members of the executive, for example, decline replying to some of the questions, and refer them to the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence. The members of this House will remember that a few years ago the President asked this House to devise a mechanism for dealing with questions which may have a bearing on national security.
The practice thus far has been that all those questions are referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence where they are thoroughly interrogated until the committee is satisfied with the answers. Thereafter the chairperson of the committee briefs the members concerned without divulging details which may have a negative impact on our national security. A good example is a question which was raised by the hon Colin Eglin on my left.
I would like to reiterate that our committee is a multiparty committee, but we always endeavour to reach consensus. To date we have never voted on issues in front of the committee for deliberations.
Our committee has interacted with other administrative structures that have oversight over intelligence services. The office of the judge responsible for interceptions and monitoring, under the guidance of Judge Gordon, continues to ensure that the rights of our citizens are not unduly limited by our security services. We thank the guidance that is given by this office to our services, and we also appreciate the co-operation with the committee.
The office of the Auditor-General has interacted with the committee on several occassions during the last financial year. They have raised several issues, among which are the role or nonestablishment of the evaluation committee, the proper maintenance of the assets registered by the intelligence services, the taxation of foreign allowances and sources for intelligence services and the need to formalise the Presidential Intelligence Budget Appraisal Committee, Pibac. The committee is grappling with these issues, and they will appear in detail in our annual report to Parliament. The office of the Inspector-General is functional. We thank the Minister for appointing the critical staff in this office. The committee, last month, readvertised the post of Inspector-General after a poor response late last year. We are happy to announce that by the closing date, last Friday, we had an additional 42 new applicants for this important post. We thank members of political parties for raising public awareness, and we also thank the members of the media for assisting us in this regard.
This is one of the institutions that we created to ensure the functional accountability of all our intelligence services. It is accountable to the responsible Ministers, to Parliament through JSCI, and ultimately to the President. This post requires a South African of high integrity with a broad understanding of the oversight responsibility of intelligence services. The committee will be holding public interviews during the next few weeks in order to present a recommended candidate for approval by this House.
Lastly, I would like to touch on two issues that the committee will be seized by during the next few months. The first one is that of border security. I would like to announce that the committee is concerned about some aspects of our border security, and we will be conducting interviews in this regard and will come back with recommendations to Parliament.
The other matter of concern for the committee is the extent of the implementation of the Minimum Information Security Standard, the Miss policy document, by state departments. The committee is worried about theft of critical information, particularly computers, from some of our parastatals and state departments. The committee will be embarking on public hearings on this matter to assess the extent of the implementation of this policy document.
In conclusion, I would like to stress that the tide has turned in South
Africa within the intelligence services. While others, elsewhere in the
world, may be asking: Where is Bin Laden?'' orWhere is Saddam
Hussein?’’ here in South Africa we can safely say that those involved in
Pagad activities, and those involved in the Boeremag activities, are facing
the music in our courts or in our jails. [Applause.]
We would also like to issue a word of warning to those South Africans or other citizens who are involved in corrupt activities such as smuggling and gangsterism, namely, that Big Brother is watching. We will catch them. We support the budget vote. [Applause.]
Brig Gen P J SCHALKWYK: Hon Deputy Chairman, hon Minister, hon members, chairperson of our committee and colleagues on the committee, in the speech which I made in this House last year, we were in the aftermath of the attack on the two towers of the World Trade Centre in New York and on the Pentagon in Washington DC. During October of that year, we also had 10 terrorist attacks in the Gauteng Province.
We have had disturbing events taking place in the northern hemisphere this last month. There the people were letting down their guard on the terrorist threat, because they were telling themselves that things have cooled down now that the war in Iraq was over. In May of this year President Bush boasted to the world that Al Qaeda was on the run, and with that Al Qaeda struck. There were attacks in Riyad, in Chechnya and in Cassablanca. There were fears that the attacks were heading south. The UK cancelled flights to Kenya. New travel advisories to East Africa were issued.
Although these events were far away, we cannot ignore them. Today we are in the aftermath of these terrorist attacks and the war. The main driving force behind this Iraqi war was the supposed threat of weapons of mass destruction. One must assume that both President Bush and Prime Minister Blair had based their motivations and plans for the war on what their relative intelligence agencies had advised them. Slowly, but surely, it is transpiring that their intelligence services did not provide sufficient evidence of weapons of mass destruction to warrant this war.
Chairperson of the JSCI, you also touched on this subject. Intelligence can help win wars, but intelligence is more often an incomplete puzzle. Honest spies appreciate their own limitations, but their political masters often prefer certainty and no ambiguity. Any intelligence service needs integrity and objectivity - Minister, you did mention that - to speak the truth to power. They must be independent agencies which do not blow with the political wind.
Analysts are now speculating that the intelligence provided to the leaders has, as it is said, ``been sexed up’’, as quoted in Time Magazine, and manipulated to convey the wrong impression to warrant this war. The basic lesson for our intelligence services is that they must have quality staff who are honest and objective, and not influenced by politicians or party aspirations.
We are in the process of appointing an Inspector-General of Intelligence, which is to be ratified by this Assembly. In the light of what I have just said, it also implies that our IG must be a person of quality, must be honest, objective, and not a political pawn. Let us apply our integrity and the courage of our convictions when selecting our IG. Thank you. [Applause.]
Ms S C VAN DER MERWE: Deputy Chairperson, hon Ministers, hon members, the civilian intelligence services have been undergoing a thorough renovation in the past few years to streamline the services, to make them more efficient, and to effect a full transformation from instruments of repression and control and manipulation, to tools for building our country, our region and indeed our continent.
I say renovation, because there needs to be some breaking down of what there was, and some building up of new parts of the services, but ultimately what we seek to achieve - like a newly renovated house - are services which have increased in value.
There is no more appropriate time for the services to be doing such a renovation. The world is experiencing a series of shudders and pressures from global events, and none of us is immune to them. The integrity of the reports that our services produce is of utmost importance. The accuracy of information, its reliability and quality are paramount to this integrity, and to achieving our peace, security and development objectives.
Hon members will be well aware of the problems that face the oversight committees in the legislatures in the Unites States and in Britain with regard to the accuracy and integrity of their intelligence reports leading up to the invasion of Iraq. The value of the product of our services is crucial. The JSCI, as the oversight committee of this Parliament, will need to continue being vigilant in this regard.
While issues of the integrity of the intelligence product are common to all the services, I would like to address here today the work of the SA Secret Service, Sass, our external service, and the particular challenges that they face. Sass has made considerable progress in the last year in several areas, and part of the work of the oversight committee is to monitor such progress.
To name a few, Sass has agreed recently to focus on aligning its work, both in its structure and its functions, with the Department of Foreign Affairs. Both departments work abroad and it is necessary for them to work closely together to avoid duplication. To this end SASS and the DFA have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to prevent such duplication, and to work more closely with one another. The committee supports these moves, and regards this initiative as contributing to the better co-ordination of Government generally, and to the maximising of resources to support the interests of the country.
Secondly, Sass has embarked on a programme to review and upgrade its IT systems. The security of the communications environment is crucial to the services. A disaster recovery plan, which is long overdue, is being implemented and programmes are in place to improve the levels of computer skills amongst the members.
The JSCI has also been monitoring the Auditor-General’s reports on internal controls which have been improved in respect of assets. Lastly, efforts in the services to improve career-pathing and succession planning are welcomed.
Financial constraints are always a consideration, particularly in respect of Sass, which operate internationally. Their budget is directly affected by the fortunes of our currency. While watching the rand dip and dive - although I must add in recent months climb - Sass must try and plan and budget for its work, and on top of that, extend its representation abroad. So we as a committee are very mindful of the challenges that this poses for the services.
One of the outstanding issues that the committee is dealing with is the question of tax on allowances for members serving abroad. It is intended that the committee will engage with the Treasury on this matter to ensure a mutually agreeable solution to the problem.
Sass, like all government departments, takes its direction from national priorities. Through its central role in the formation of the African Union and the Nepad programme, South Africa has signalled its intention to work towards the building of a better Africa.
In this regard Sass has a vital support role to play in the country’s international endeavours, especially in our continental work. The effort of our secret service underpins the South African, and indeed the African Union, effort to achieve peace, stability and development on the continent.
It is pleasing that this focus on Africa has resulted in the addition of several new stations in Africa, based on identified national priorities. However, work must still be done to further increase the Sass representation abroad to ensure a presence in each of the stations identified as key for South African interests.
Sass has embarked on interactions with other services in Africa to exchange information and so forth. And in building our relationships with other African countries, members of the JSCI have also been involved in working with our counterparts on the continent to share information, and to learn about the work of other parliaments with respect to oversight and accountability of intelligence services. Although there is no other committee on the continent that is as established as the JSCI is to oversee the work of the services, there are other parliamentary committees dealing with security issues. Our committee members have interacted with MPs from Ghana, Nigeria and Egypt, and in this regard we are also planning some interactions with Malawian members of parliament.
The building of a better Africa is a key challenge for South Africa, and will once again involve the gathering and processing of accurate and timeous information. The efforts of Sass are central to our wellbeing as a nation, but also to the development of a new Africa.
Sass’s work supports the country’s efforts in priority areas in the SADC region, the Great lakes region, and works with multilateral institutions, such as the African Union, SADC formations and the United Nations.
As the chair has already mentioned, it is in no small measure due to the efforts of our services that, for example, the United Nations was able to hold the biggest ever global conference in Johannesburg last year, the World Summit on Sustainable Development. We need to salute the efforts of our services in the behind-the-scenes work that took place in order for such a huge and important conference to go off without incident. The same can be said for the launch of the African Union in July last year, and indeed for the World Cup Cricket. Through these efforts South Africa has gained a reputation for being well-organised and for being a desirable destination for world events. We can be justifiably proud of that. As I have said, key to the continued development of our SA intelligence services is the improvement of the accuracy, integrity and timeous presentation of information gathered and prepared in reports.
The JSCI will continue to monitor compliance of the services with their respective mandates, as well as progress made towards the realisation of the goals of all the services. At the same time, we will support them in the achievement of our mutual objectives, which are to ensure the security of Government and its institutions, and every citizen of this country.
We support the budget vote. Thank you. [Applause.]
Dr G G WOODS: Deputy Chairperson, it’s quite an arresting experience, standing up here to talk about something which I know absolutely nothing about. [Laughter.] The situation is that I am not a member of the intelligence committee. The IFP’s member just so happens to be a member of the NCOP, so he cannot participate this afternoon.
I did try to do some homework, however, and I went to ask him to tell me what it was about, but he told me he wasn’t allowed to tell me, because he is sworn to secrecy. [Laughter.] I didn’t give up there.
I started looking at what I had in my office and chatting to colleagues. I went through the estimates of expenditure for the coming year. There was no mention of the Ministry in there. I looked for the Ministry’s strategic study, and it doesn’t appear, Minister, that you put out a strategy document on what you intend to do over the next year. I looked back to last year to try and find the annual report, there wasn’t one either. [Laughter.] But, eventually when I looked at the Treasury’s strategic plan, I found a couple of figures there. And what I did learn was that the intelligence budget has been increased from something like R1,2 billion to R1,76 billion in the current year. So, it rises some 30%, and that seemed significant.
So, what I learnt is that a lot of money gets spent on intelligence and that they are intending to spend more. But what do we spend it on? That took me to the corridors where I spoke to members of a number of parties, unfortunately none from the intelligence committee. I learnt things about the need to stop bad guys from coming in from other countries - I think they called it counterintelligence; that globalisation was inviting all sorts of people to come and spy on us; and about the usual array of internal threats. I heard about a couple of them in an earlier speech, people like the Boeremag and Pagad. I just heard on the radio, half an hour ago, about another new grouping - some white extremists - who think they are God-sent to take over the country. So, just be careful there, Minister. [Laughter.]
From all that chit chat, I still don’t know what the Ministry does. The other half of the question concerns the money we are going to give the Ministry, and how well they spend it on whatever they spend it on. There again, whether they spend it economically, efficiently and effectively, I don’t know that either. So, in other words, whether we get value for the money, I’m not sure of that.
So, all in all, it might seem that I don’t know anything. But I would hasten to say there are a couple of things that I do know. The first is that the Minister and her department are very secretive when you try to find out things about them. The only other thing I can share with you is that the IFP supports the Vote. [Laughter.] [Applause.]
Ms M C LOBE: Deputy Chairperson, comrades and friends, when we commemorated the 27th anniversary of the Soweto uprising, now called Youth Day, we were reminded of our very painful past and further encouraged that never again shall a security system of this country be used to undermine human rights. This finds expression in Section 198 of the Constitution which, among other things, states:
National security must reflect the resolve of South Africans, as individuals and as a nation, to live as equals, to live in peace and harmony, to be free from fear and want and to seek a better life.
Our endeavour to seek a better life is also informed by the need to strive for a better world order; to expand further the frontiers of freedom, democracy, peace and unity; and to push back poverty, racism, oppression and exploitation.
The creation of a better world and a better Africa, therefore, requires liaison and co-ordination between our intelligence services and those on our continent and further afield. In my view, this is value for money.
The need to intensify co-operation in this regard cannot be overemphasised, particularly taking into account the 11 September incident in the United States and other acts of terrorism in other countries, including the Boeremag incidents in our own country.
It must be noted that terrorism is no longer against a particular country, but a new trend is emerging wherein extreme right-wing forces, and, on the other hand, some religious fundamentalists, are pursuing agendas that in the main undermine the vision of a new world order.
The need for our services to share information with their counterparts elsewhere, and the need to collect both strategic and technical intelligence is mandatory on our services and, therefore, requires even more resources.
This co-ordination and co-operation has yielded very positive results in busting some transnational crimes. For example, we have learnt, in the recent past, that vehicles were being hijacked and transported across our borders and that syndicates were selling them in foreign markets. Our services are breaking the backs of these international syndicates, and a lot of work has been done to effectively and accurately deal with this challenge.
Considerable strides have been achieved to curtail and bring to book the human smuggling syndicates. You will remember the recent story in the media regarding the illegal female immigrants, especially from the East, being used to work illegally in some brothels around the country. Our point of departure is that crime is a scourge that does not respect borders, with syndicates that have made the entire globe a theatre of their operations. Co-operation in this regard is, therefore, informed by the desire to complement one another, and not competition. Like my mom always says: no one of us is more beautiful than the rest of us.’’
The launch of the African Union and the adoption of Nepad have taken our vision of the African Renaissance to a new qualitative level. There is no doubt that this brings with it enormous challenges for our country and the continent, particularly noting the problems of violence and wars, dictatorship and despotic regimes, the need for sustainable development and economic growth, and the need for democracy and a culture of human rights.
Fully conscious of all the problems that still smite our continent, we firmly believe that these are African problems that shall be solved by Africans themselves. In view of this fact, our intelligence services will have to be empowered to meet these challenges, which include the effective utilisation of our database and other possibilities offered by the new technology, effective employment of our intelligence capacity and a reorientation towards changing Africa for the better; and in this regard working with the people as partners in a common battle.
This is a paradigm shift from the previous role of the apartheid security services that were used to undermine unity and to destabilise African states.
My colleagues have already mentioned that in the recent past South Africa hosted a number of international events, including the International Cricket Cup, the World Summit on Sustainable Development and the launch of the African Union. May I use this opportunity to thank our intelligence services for ensuring that these events occurred in a safe, secure and peaceful environment, and also for providing a world class service, that is today commended by different countries in the world.
In 2006 South Africa will be hosting the fifth International Intelligence Review Agencies Conference. The main objective of this conference is to enable countries to share information regarding intelligence oversight, because it is a relatively new phenomenon. As we have already said, the previous conference was attended by only South Africa from our continent, because we remain the only African country with a parliamentary intelligence oversight committee, a challenge that the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence is grabbing with both hands.
As a result thereof, the JSCI, with the assistance of our services, has been engaged in a programme of popularising the need for intelligence oversight on the continent, within the framework of changing Africa for the better. Most of the countries met by the JSCI have shown a keen interest in improving their intelligence oversight mechanisms. The fourth International Intelligence Review Agencies Conference will be held next year in the United States, and hopefully some African countries will participate.
In conclusion, we hold firmly to the conviction that the obligation to improve the quality of life of all citizens in order for them to use their talents to help our society flourish within a safe, secure and stable environment, is no doubt part of our core intelligence business.
This vision - the creation of a nonsexist, nonracial, democratic and united South Africa - inspired young people in 1976 to understand that freedom and justice is worth more than life itself. It is this very vision that today continues to inspire our men and women in the intelligence services to work even harder to ensure that you and I can enjoy the fruits of the liberation that the 1976 generation fought so hard for. I thank you. [Applause.]
Mrs M E OLCKERS: Deputy Chairman, these mugs that the Minister is going to give to all of us prove how good our spooks are. But I want to warn members not to drink their coffee while in conversation, because it listens and can hear what you are saying. [Laughter.]
The increase in the budgets of the National Intelligence Agency and the SA Secret Services, is welcomed by the New NP. This will enable Sass to have a presence at more foreign missions, which is an area that desperately needs the services that Sass provides. It is almost unthinkable how the foreign missions can operate fully and efficiently without such a presence in their respective countries.
The SA Secret Services are doing very efficient and effective work for South Africa, and we, from the New NP side, wish to congratulate the Director-General and his staff for the professional job they are doing. One area in the NIA, the National Intelligence Agency, which needs a great deal more funding is the vetting department. There are far too few people working in that area, and the pressures for security clearances are ever increasing with inter alia, special events that are taking place in South Africa more often. Once the Cape Town International Convention Centre has become officially operational, a much larger burden will rest on the vetting officials.
The many changes in senior intelligence services posts are also contributing factors. These jobs usually have deadlines, which make it all the more difficult. There is also a need for on-going security clearances for present staff, which are often neglected because of the shortage of qualified people to do the vetting. The latest development in the Scorpions’ human resources department is a case in point. The intelligence academy is in its first year, and it seems to be a great success. We wish them well and look forward to their first annual report.
The National Intelligence Co-ordinating Committee, Nicoc, has produced well- informed reports on current and future tendencies - both domestically and internationally. This is an area which has really produced better work and a smoother operation than in the past. Well done to the co-ordinator and his team. We were impressed with the quiet dedication of the staff of the NECC, especially the so-called back-room people who are doing a splendid job, and who are all world experts in their fields. They really constitute the essence of trust. There will always be a shortage of finances in an ever-growing area like intelligence. One only has to keep track of the cost of technology to appreciate this fact.
Therefore, the intelligence services cannot afford too much flexibility in spending money on luxuries and grandiose ideas and plans. Money is needed for operational expenses in the first place, and thereafter the nice-to- haves can be considered.
As the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence, that oversight function is our duty, and we must not be influenced otherwise. The cheapest type of war is good intelligence. One can only deliver that with the necessary tools and a great deal of dedication. We thank the intelligence community whose members are, with a few exceptions, doing their work with diligence and dedication.
We thank the hon Minister, Dr Lindi Sisulu, and her ministerial staff for their support to the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence. In this respect, a special thanks goes to Mr Dennis Nkosi, head of the Ministry for his unfailing assistance and professionalism towards us as a committee.
We want to thank our chairperson for all the work he has done and for taking over from the Deputy Minister of Home Affairs. We work well. South Africa is in good hands. [Applause.]
Mr D V BLOEM: Chairperson, Minister Sisulu, former Minister Joe Nhlanhla, members, senior management and members of the intelligence services - Comrade Joe, you must know that this committee salutes you. We will never forget what you have done for this country. [Applause.]
Today marks a crowning moment in the history of the South African intelligence community. Never before have members of the intelligence community achieved such a milestone in the writing of the national intelligence estimate. All are unanimous that the approval of the 2002 NIA marks the zenith of the attempts at providing the intelligence clients with such a satisfactory product.
All near SASS, defence and crime are clear that they have hit gold in this process. The previous chapter of minority reports and reservations are closed, never to return again. The challenge that Government faces is to ensure that crime intelligence, the face of the fist that we use in the fight against crime, does what it has to do in circumstances that are financially enabling, politically conducive and operationally supportive.
Crime intelligence is the first part, even before crime is committed. It is the key to the riddle of crime scenes, once crime is committed. Crime intelligence is the seeker and solver of the so-called perfect crimes. It is the personification of our quest towards ensuring that crime does not pay. Whilst this is the case, the resources at their disposal remain, in comparison to the rest of the intelligence community, a pittance.
As a country, we need to find ways in which we can better provide them with the capacity that will enable them to turn the turning tide even better. More has to be done and more can be done. This year the President enacted the National Strategic Intelligence Amendment Act. In this Act the President empowered crime intelligence to co-ordinate the crime intelligence collected by the various arms of the intelligence services. This means that crime intelligence, and only crime intelligence, will be best placed to put together all information that is crime related in order to advise Nicoc on a threat assessment pertaining to crime.
This is an important step in the quest for a scientific basis on which we can arrive at a threat assessment of the dangers that are posed by crime. No longer will we just rely on information available from one or some of the intelligence agencies to determine what the threats facing our country are.
In keeping up with the challenges at hand, I note and appreciate that crime intelligence has had a number of notable achievemnts. These include, amongst other things, the following: closure of several criminal syndicates that deal in drugs; recovery and arrest of members of vehicle syndicates; uncovering corruption and rightwing extremists that are bent on undermining our constitutional democracy.
Crime intelligence does this to enable the SAPS to prevent, combat and investigate crime, maintain public order, protect and secure the inhabitants of this country and their property, and uphold and enforce law.
The tide has turned, and we are using better and more effective security services in the crime fields. We are experiencing a better and more efficient and effective crime intelligence service. However, we should not be complacent. Complacency breeds inefficiency and leads to the faltering of organisations - private and public.
Crime intelligence has been able to overcome many of the negative reports registered against them by the Auditor-General. We noted that they have taken steps to better manage their assets, as is the case with the other arms of the intelligence community. In this regard they have corrected errors pertaining to the control of vehicles and incorrect allocation of budgets. We note that a fully fledged internal audit function has been established. The original shortage of staff has also been addressed.
What we need in South Africa is consensus on fighting crime. We need to put crime aside, outside the realm of narrow and sectarian politics. We have to avoid making crime an election programme. Some members have already started saying that we need 150 000 policepersons on the road. This call is influenced by a short-sighted approach which does not understand that police undercover work can only succeed if policepersons are enabled to operate like fish in the water. This will mean that they will be able to get the co-operation and support of the community to fulfil their mandate. One more home that is ready to open its doors to enable the police to survey criminals is one safer home, and one syndicate taken out of business. We all have to support this trend in a nonsectarian way.
As long as we fight elections on the back of the police and crime, we are just cutting our noses to spite our own faces. Let us close that chapter and move on, knowing that with our contribution, support and commitment, we are bringing a safer, more secure and prosperous South Africa into being. We will do the opposite at our own peril.
Let me raise a matter of concern that affects crime intelligence and the other arms of the intelligence community, namely, the taxation of sources. It is our considered view, as the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence, that these revenue raising measures need serious reconsideration. It cannot be that we allow people to play the lotto and take their winnings without tax deductions, and fail to be empathetic towards people whose payments advance national security.
This taxation is not in the national interest. I, therefore, call upon the Minister of Finance and the Commissioner of Sars to rethink and to seriously review this. Members, I believe it is not too late to reverse this decision. It might lead to the exposure of intelligence sources. It makes those that are supposed to co-operate with our intelligence services fear for their lives as a result of the possible exposure. This fear among sources is not in the national interest. It will affect our intelligence gathering capacity and the expansion our network. I thank you. [Time expired.]
Mr S ABRAM: Chairperson, hon Minister, heads of our services and colleagues, the National Intelligence Agency has come a long way since its inception since 1995. The journey through amalgamation, broadening its understanding of national security and finally reunderstanding its mandate in line with crime expectations and requirements, has not been easy. Through the length and breadth of these challenges, the resilience of the women and men of the establishment has been remarkable.
Amidst the uncertainties that come with change, they have stood committed to the ideal that the intelligence community is striving for. With its successes and challenges, the previous year has seen a similar commitment to succeed from NIA’s personnel. A case in point was a cancellation of leave for all members during the height of the hunt for, and the subsequent neutralisation of, the rightwing extremist threat during the period of October 2001 to January 2002.
Since 1995 the National Intelligence Agency’s work has been around terrorism, sabotage, subversion, espionage and organised crime, amongst other things. Such focus made sense at the time, as the country was in the process of protecting and consolidating the young and fragile democracy. However, it must be remembered that around 1995 and beyond, there were still pockets of violent tendencies in the country. We are aware that in KwaZulu-Natal there had been a chronic case of tensions leading to bloodbaths. To some extent Gauteng had imported some of the characteristics of the KZN profile, particularly on the East Rand, Katlehong and those places. While neutralising the threat of violence in KZN, this period also marks the uncovering of third force activities. Trends of right-wing extremism were not a far cry from some of these uncoverings.
Against the above background then, intelligence collection and reporting tended to align with the threat that presented itself. Hence the National Intelligence Agency’s collection and reporting slant seemed more politically inclined. The dictates of the day called for such inclination, as the client had to be advised holistically and accurately. It was clear that the above epoch would not last forever. Intelligence itself needed to continuously interrogate its relevance in terms of the sociopolitical and socioeconomic times, hence, the reunderstanding of NIA’s mandate ensued.
When we talk of the reunderstanding of the NIA mandate, we are not necessarily alluding to the previous misunderstanding of what the agency should have worked on. Rather, reunderstanding alludes to the refocusing of intelligence collection and reporting arms in line with the needs and expectations of the clients as they present themselves.
In 2000, the National Intelligence Agency underwent a process of reflection on the kind of work it had covered since its inception. How had the needs of the client changed, if at all, and what was the discrepancy between the two? This reflection demonstrated, indeed, that there was a discrepancy. This then led the agency to align itself with the needs of the expectations of the client. Six areas of intelligence interest then formed the basis for intelligence collection. These were counterintelligence, political intelligence, economic intelligence, border intelligence, organised crime and corruption, as well as special events. Each of the intelligence focus areas’ themes and priorities allowed such breakdown, in order for the agency to build a sufficiently microscopic picture so that the agency could give a comprehensive picture to the client.
In the wake of the threat of national and international terrorism, particularly in 2002, there came a need to add a seventh area of intelligence interest to our list, namely terrorism. To date, the agency collects on all seven areas of intelligence interest. The reunderstanding of NIA’s mandate also meant that the agency needed to restructure in order to be appropriately positioned to deliver a comprehensive product. Coupled with this restructuring process, the agency needed to move closer to the client, in order to be sufficiently attuned to his or her needs. This need led to the decentralisation of power from headquarters to each of the nine provinces. This allowed for strategic and tactical decisions to be made on the ground, and speedy response to be given to client requirements.
The reunderstanding, restructuring, and decentralisation processes have posed several challenges in the work of intelligence. I wish to highlight some of these. One of the most paralysing elements on the path of intelligence work continues to be the lack of vigilance and appreciation of security matters within Government. Government holds in its ambit sensitive state information, along with a wide range of resources and assets. The need for appropriate safeguarding is not matched with Government employees’ own sense of urgency around the need to protect. As long as we do not appreciate the significance of vigilance in our time, we will be at the mercy of those who do not have the best interest of South Africa’s development at heart.
Clandestine sabotage of Government initiatives is not impossible in this context. In fact, the intelligence picture has demonstrated foreign interest manifesting in a disguised manner within various institutions of South African interest. This matter cannot be overemphasised.
The labour intensive nature of intelligence work means that the agency cannot fully live up to its mandate while prioritising around fixed and limited resources. For the information of the hon Dr Woods, the budget for our National Intelligence Agencies, NIA and SASS is R1,2 billion. If you compare this to the budget of the CIA, which runs into scores of billions of dollars, and agencies in the UK, then, Sir, you can see how vulnerable we are.
For example, if we say NIA must establish the security competence of every Government employee, this means that millions of people need to be subjected to rigorous NIA processes. This process cannot take place without having adequately trained men and women in the agency. The proportion of this to the client departments and their employees, is laughable. The value of the human factor in intelligence can never be overemphasised. The failure of intelligence in the now historic events of 11 September indicates that, to a large extent, the human factor has been relegated to second place with overemphasis on technology and other vehicles for the intelligence trade craft.
As was the pattern during the last budget vote debate, the agency has had to prioritise critical posts to be filled, and could not embark on the ideal human resources generating process for the whole organisation. Such prioritising processes mean that more often than not the agency finds itself needing to spread scarce resources thinly across critical areas. Many a time this compromises the quality of the product and, hence, compromises service delivery to the client. In keeping with international trends of attaining particular skills for particular functions, the agency has found itself losing rare skills to more competitive offers. We have also lost our Deputy DG who is now the new DG of Home Affairs.
Continuous training and upgrading the skills of intelligence officers are also challenges, particularly in the context of demands on members posed by this reunderstood mandate. The intelligence agency finds itself in a highly sophisticated electronic environment. In order to keep up with the developments in this area, the agency requires adequate funding to keep up with the competitive environment in the intelligence world. It is even more imperative to be able to counter some of the espionage actions used against the agency.
I would like to say a word on the Inspector-General who is to be appointed very soon. The office of the IG, which will also have to act as a representative of both civil society and the services, will help to strengthen the understanding amongst our people of the objects of intelligence in this country. People from the broad citizenry will naturally be free to approach the office of the Inspector-General.
Before I conclude - not that I want to conclude, I still have a couple of pages, but unfortunately this thing is ticking away - may I congratulate the chairperson of the JSCI, as well as the previous chairperson, who has created a culture of an open-door policy which is running like a golden thread through the JSCI. I want to advise my friends on this side - the hon Schalkwyk is aware of all the processes that he has gone through where he brought sensitive matters to the attention of the JSCI - that it will be good for all of us and bode well for the national security of our country if we stop parading in front of certain properties and pose in front of the media and have photographs taken. I thank you. [Applause.]
Mr L M GREEN: Chairperson, hon Ministers and members, I rise in support of the National Treasury Vote. I also wish to take this opportunity to commend the good work done by all our intelligence services and the Ministry of Intelligence. I wish to use the few minutes at my disposal to highlight the critical importance of the gathering of financial intelligence and the role of the Financial Intelligence Centre.
National security, safety and ethical accounting practices are key elements of sound governance. Gathering of financial intelligence has become critical to South Africa in order to sustain our growing economy. At the heart of fiscal integrity is the availability of mechanisms to determine irregular fiscal practices. The Financial Intelligence Centre is such a mechanism to track down illegal financial transactions. The centre has its own website and provides information that should assist the public in making informed decisions about the level of crimes surrounding money laundering. The data will also assist in tracking the international path of illegal crime syndicates.
South Africa’s money laundering industry is estimated at about R70 billion a year. This is a huge sum of money that impacts on the security of the state. However, for the state to become adequately secure, its own service officials should be people of integrity, people who are above reproach. A recent article has highlighted the corrupt practices of a few officers in the Scorpion Investigations Unit. It is disconcerting when everything is done to cut down on crime that high profile units, such as the Scorpions, cannot be trusted to perform their work in the interest of society. Every area of South African society seems to be under of some or other criminal influence.
Efficient intelligence services are indeed necessary, but we need to ensure that we can back up the services with effective controls. With the increase of terrorism worldwide, financial intelligence becomes critical. However, we need to distinguish between paranoia and real threat by ensuring that our democracy is not undermined by international crime, terror syndicates or global political interests.
The Financial Intelligence Centre, the FIC, must be properly resourced with the proper personnel, with an understanding that a mandate is received from the South African public to serve their national best interest. South Africa should not be a tax haven for the money launderer, the professional gambler or the terrorist. It should also protect its own sovereign interest in the international market.
South Africa is unfortunately a soft target for criminals, therefore, everything needs to be done to bring our crime levels under control. The FIC has an important role to play, and we support its function and financial allocations in this budget. I thank you. Mr L T LANDERS: Chairperson, allow me to use this opportunity to pay tribute to the hon Joe Nhlanhla, most importantly for his efforts in helping to bring about the democratic order that we enjoy in South Africa, and secondly, for the intelligence dispensation that we are debating today. South Africa owes the hon Joe Nhlanhla a debt of deep gratitude. [Applause.]
Defence intelligence, which is the field I am going to cover today, is the primary intelligence organisation of the Ministry of Defence and the SA National Defence Force. This organisation continues to produce high quality, military related intelligence products in support of planning processes and operations. Some examples of these are defence intelligence deployments to the Great Lakes region in support of our Government’s initiative and SA National Defence Force operations. Other strategic successes, enjoyed by this organisation in the past year, have been the development of strategic partners through the means of intelligence liaison.
In order to measure client satisfaction in terms of the quality of defence intelligence products, the strategic step has been taken to produce operational and strategic intelligence products in an integrated manner, instead of separately. Other successes enjoyed by defence intelligence can be found in its efforts at rendering special services to our law enforcement agencies in support of their crime prevention strategy. We commend this organisation for these and other achievements.
Our defence intelligence service also faces challenges, one of which is a high level of natural attrition. Approximately 10% of defence intelligence’s workforce was lost to other state departments or the private sector. This is a large number of employees to lose, and is due to the perennial problem of remuneration not matching that of the competition. This forces this organisation to have to recruit and train new members to its required standards. Together with the need for new headquarters, defence intelligence desperately needs new information systems that are capable of supporting the organisation’s mobile operations. Although a plan for a new system has been drafted, its costs are such that the organisation will have to wait five years for its development, given the other priorities that exist within defence intelligence and the SA National Defence Force. Consequently, innovative solutions will have to be researched in order to bridge these priority gaps, and thereby fulfil the needs of defence intelligence.
This organisation also faces key transformation challenges, and the need to understand and practise good governance. This includes some serious problems created by certain defence intelligence structures, which it is hoped we will report on to Parliament in the very near future. Another serious problem is the fact that defence intelligence’s allocated budget figure is hidden within the budget of the SA National Defence Force, and is not clearly stated or shown. This is unacceptable to those of us who serve on the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence. The JSCI has given notice to defence intelligence’s top management that as of the year 2004 we expect this situation to be rectified.
In this regard the question before us is the following: Is the absence of a budget figure for defence intelligence reasonable and justifiable in an open, democratic society? We are of the firm belief that it is not. All other intelligence services in this country provide this information to the JSCI so that their budgets can be properly interrogated in keeping with the provisions of the Intelligence Services Oversight Act and the Public Finance Management Act, amongst others, in a manner that provides for accountability and yet still protects our national security.
The identification and assessment of threats lie at the heart of the intelligence profession. The primary task of intelligence is to warn the state and society about real or potential threats, hostilities, dangers, risks and crises, derived from whatever source or circumstance that may affect national security interests. We are informed that in practice the more precise nature of intelligence work should be viewed against the framework of national values and the domestic maturity of any country.
As national security is linked with regional and international security, a sound theory of national security should include the need for meaningful internationl co-operation, the promotion of world peace, as well as the security and wellbeing of mankind as a whole. Intelligence work should serve all these objectives in the common interest of a safe state and society.
This brings me to the vexing issue of the selective use of intelligence by certain policy-makers or decision-makers, and their need for intelligence to support already formed political and ideological conceptions. We are taught, however, that the effect of intelligence on policy formulation should never result from prescriptive or manipulative behaviour, but from the timeliness and accuracy of information, as well as the quality of intelligence estimates.
We then ask the question: On what basis was Iraq invaded and subsequently occupied? Did George W Bush ignore his own intelligence on whether or not Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction? The reason advanced for the invasion of Iraq was that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. These have not been found, and now one of George W Bush’s most avid supporters in this regard, Paul Wolfowitz, admits that the real reason for the invasion was that Iraq is afloat with oil which the United States’ economy, and George Bush’s cronies, desperately need.
Intelligence reports should be the rockbed upon which governments make decisions in order to advance their policies and to promote the stability and prosperity of not only their own citizens, but also that of others. Intelligence reports, however, cannot be manipulated by the wishes and the agenda of certain Washington think-tanks nor can intelligence reports be fused with obscure Ph D theses, as was done by Prime Minister Tony Blair. One of the consequences of this manipulation is that the value, credibility and integrity of future intelligence reports from British and American services will be profoundly diminished.
Given the fact that millions of people throughout the world believe that there is a case for the prosecution of Bush, Blair, Rice, Rumsfeld, et al, the United Nations Security Council’s recent decision to exempt the USA from the provisions of the international criminal court is unfortunate, to say the least. We are also informed that the respective oversight committees in Britain and America are conducting enquiries into this matter, and we look forward to the results that emanate therefrom. It would appear though, that in the minds of Blair, Bush, Condoleeza Rice and Rumsfeld, the end has justified the means.
In South Africa we look forward to a greater future, and we depend and rely upon our proud intelligence services to provide that future. I thank you. [Applause.]
The MINISTER FOR INTELLIGENCE: Deputy Chairperson, happily mine is not a very difficult job, because traditionally I have enjoyed the support of the intelligence community who’ve taken the path less travelled in these environments by ensuring that they supplement conflict with support, and confrontation with encouragement. I want to thank them for their contribution today.
I want to say to members here today that before we came to the Chamber, I had to ask the Speaker for permission to use hot water to make the particular demonstration that we had here. She told me: ``Listen, I would need to check our records to see just how much heat there is in the Chamber when you speak when you have the intelligence debate.’’ She checked and she came back and said it’s the most civil debate we’ve ever had in the Chamber. [Applause.] However, she asked me to please remove the hot water before the Minister of Justice and hon Johnny De Lange came. [Laughter.] I signed on the dotted line and I will remove the hot water.
The hon Woods is not here. I just wanted to tell him that should he ever be in doubt about what happens in any structure of Government, he should consult Hansard. It is the easiest thing to do. He will find the reports, year in and year out, by any Minister and the debates of the committees. Moreover, he will find that there is a report readily available, provided by the joint standing committee, for the public.
I need to indicate to him that the additional money we have been given is
not for additional work, it is actually to cover the cost of the additional
structures as we grow. And finally to hon Landers, you can trust us. We
don’t sex-up'' our documents; the only thing wesex-up’’ is our
intelligence officers. Thank you. [Applause.]
APPROPRIATION BILL
Debate on Vote No 24 - Justice and Constitutional Development:
The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Chairperson, hon members, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, over the past two or three weeks a few things that are of relevance to our justice system have happened. One of them was a statement made by the hon Jacob Zuma, the Deputy President of the Republic of South Africa, at Bonteheuwel. The other was a sudden resurgence of vigilantism in various parts of our country. The last one was a totally unexpected, unnecessary statement from eight judges president attacking the Minister for remaining silent when judges’ judicial independence and values of the Constitution were allegedly under attack and being undermined by so-called ill-informed politicians.
The common factor among all these is encapsulated in the following questions, among others: Are we as a country better positioned now, more than ever before, to enter the Nepad vision of an African century in which the broad and efficient dispensation of justice will help us create a humane society where peace, security and dignity will prevail over crime, fraud, corruption and the flagrant abuse of human rights and lawlessness? Bearing in mind that our justice system, and in particular our criminal justice system, faces relatively new challenges such as major organised crime, terrorism, drug trafficking and consumption, trafficking in human beings, money laundering, high levels of violent crime and rampant antisocial behaviour; are our laws, rules, procedures and sentencing principles enabling us to respond appropriately to the new worldwide problems and phenomena? Is the system sufficiently sensitive and responsive to the communities it serves? Do the people themselves, by and large, have confidence in it?
Within the time you have kindly allocated to me, I will attempt to deal with these questions. I shall, however, assume that hon members are aware of the numerous legislative and other interventions we’ve made to provide answers to some of them. Our President has enjoined his Cabinet to eliminate the silo effect of departmentalised governance by giving true effect to the cluster system. In effect, this means that departments have to co-operate more fully with one another, collaborate with civil society and pool and utilise resources more efficiently and effectively.
Hon members have already participated in the budget debates of my cluster colleagues. So it would probably be an opportune moment to highlight the importance of the integrated approach we adopt to our cluster’s work. The primary purpose of our cluster is to integrate our sectoral services from the police service at one end of the spectrum, through justice and social development - in the middle so to speak - to correctional services at the other end. In essence, this calls for the provision of a seamless client- centred approach with each skilled sector linking its work to the work of the other sectoral role-players.
The cluster Ministers meet weekly to get briefings on and debate crucial issues so as to ensure that political and operational messages are reinforced and carried through to our executive and middle level managers.
The criminal justice system operates as a collective of parts, and is underpinned by the axiom that we are only as strong as our weakest link. We need to identify the underbelly of the criminal justice system, take steps to strengthen it, and ensure that each link functions smoothly to ensure that South Africa becomes safer and more secure for all and attracts and retains more direct foreign and domestic investment. If we fail to do so, we shall not meet our growth targets, unemployment will rise, the youth, in particular, will become marginalsed, despondent and alienated as a result of the lack of opportunities and crime will in turn increase.
Over the past nine years the context for policy-makers has changed dramatically. Our constitutional democracy has elicited a fairly litigious response from the public as more and more people exercise their rights by seeking legal remedies in our courts. Our legal system, therefore, must respond to macroenvironmental and microenvironmental factors with a focus on solutions engineering within an integrated framework. Moreover, changes in one of the cluster departments could have a profound impact on the workings of another. For example, efficiency gains in the police service would imply an increase in the number of people entering the criminal justice system. Both the courts and the prisons would feel the effect.
However, this should not lead to a tacit acceptance that case backlogs would increase commensurately with an increase in the awaiting-trial prisoner population. The solution is to provide a balance in the relative efficiency of the participating departments through, for example, improved training, the application of appropriate technologies and the development of stronger linkages for improved communication between the various role- players.
It is our aim, as a cluster, to build greater trust and credibility for the entire criminal justice system to produce a response that affirms victims, witnesses and communities, and that works in the interest of justice. We will do this by, among other things, improving incrementally the quality of our policing services, ensuring more effective prosecutions, striving for a system where the punishment fits the crime, putting the victims and witnesses at the heart of the process, and assuring improved care and rehabilitation in and after prison.
As a cluster, we must vigorously implement initiatives which form the basis for the criminal justice strengthening programme. A vital component of this programme is the integrated case flow management system, a project launched to deal proactively with the huge backlog of both civil and criminal cases in our courts. This system will enable all role-players in the case management process to work jointly with a view to co-ordinating planning processes and utilisation of resources for greater impact and improved service delivery. This iniative is being strengthened by other projects, such as the integrated court centre project, the court management information system project and the operation centre.
Last year, when we introduced new information systems initiatives, I provided this House with a detailed report about the programme. To date, IJS court centres have been established at 39 lower courts throughout the country. The project has resulted in improved case preparation and reduced case cycle times. Court statistics show that the average cycle time of cases has declined from 110 to 74 days. The court management information system incorporates aspects such as the number of cases finalised per courtroom and per judicial officer, cases withdrawn, the proportion of cases disposed of and the number of new cases per courtroom and per judicial officer. Encouraged by the initial results, we have decided to extend the Southern Gauteng pilot project to the rest of the courts in Gauteng and all the courts that currently have IJS court centres. We intend to progressively expand the system to cover courts in other regions.
We must also increase our efforts in respect of plea bargaining. The House will know that the introduction and effective use of plea bargaining mechanisms have contributed to a gradual improvement in the disposal of cases in our courts. The full potential of this mechanism has not yet been achieved, and as training in this field reaches more of our prosecutors and courts, we remain confident that its impact on court rolls will become increasingly significant.
Our bail legislation also makes provision for a review of bail for offenders. The implementation of this provision needs to be intensified so that the number of awaiting-trial prisoners, quite a significant number of whom are in any event petty offenders, can be substantially reduced.
Other key solutions in this area should include alternative dispute resolution mechanisms and a simplification of the criminal procedure. A report, with some exciting recommendations, has already been completed by the SA Law Reform Commission. Some of the recommendations are: out of court settlements in criminal cases; improving the application of the Criminal Procedure Amendment Act, which is intended to create a filtering mechanism in respect of criminal appeals from the magistrates’ courts to the High Court and the establishment of customary courts on a sounder legal basis. These courts are inexpensive, simple, informal, accessible, and are conversant with the various communities and their laws, customs, pre-trial services and pre-trial conferencing.
In addition, we must ensure that our intersectoral task teams are functioning effectively. At all times departmental efficiency must be viewed as a function of cluster efficiency.
The department is currently putting into place a new programme called, Re Aga Boswa, which means: We are rebuilding. The programme calls for extensive business process re-engineering and a revision of organisational structures in our courts to improve efficiency and customer service. The court services delivery model seeks to devolve the budget and decision- making powers to the courts to empower them to their full potential. The implementation of the new model will result in phasing out the regional offices and the diversion of the capacity and resources currently residing there to the courts where they are sorely needed. This initiative signals a clear commitment to improving the management of our courts and instilling in their administration a more professional ethic and practice.
We are also accelerating the appointment of court managers and redefining the role of registrars of courts. During 2002, 18 new permanent judges were appointed and further appointments are being processed. An amount of R20 million has been set aside to increase the number of magistrates and prosecutors to cope with the escalating court rolls.
To deal with the case backlogs facing us, 3 027 Saturday and additional courts sat during the period January to September 2002. This amounted to 10 153 additional court days. These Saturday and additional courts finalised 27 570 cases from January 2002 to March 2003. More courts are encouraged to sit over weekends to reduce unacceptable case backlogs.
During 2002-03 we delivered new courts to our communities at an unprecedented rate. An amount of R211 138 000 was spent on establishing new courts at Botshabelo, Queenstown, Kroonstad, Khutsong, Khayelitsha, Blue Downs, Patensie and Middledrift. Ongoing extensions at various other courts ensured that our capital budget was put to the best possible use.
For many people in more privileged communities, the construction of a court in the neighbourhood might be taken for granted, but as witnessed earlier this year, the opening of our new court in Khayelitsha by our President saw the introduction of court services to the 700 000 residents of Khayelitsha who previously had to use other court service points at considerable transport cost to the many individuals who had to cover vast distances to reach them. [Applause.]
Building this court formed the cornerstone of the Khayelitsha community’s urban renewal plan and has had a catholic ripple throughout the community. A recent Sunday Times report summed it up quite succinctly, and I quote:
Consider what this means: Local police and prosecutors can conclude cases faster and for criminals the long arm of the law is nearby, sending a powerful message. For ordinary folk, having a court means that for the first time they have real access to the justice system. The building was built to attract, so the victims, when they see the court, see hope. Commercial and recreational developments are exploding with the court as their centre. These are all part of our President’s Urban Renewal Strategy, which will undoubtedly provide a fresh face for the settlements apartheid created throughout South Africa.
For this new financial year, an amount of R229 million has been allocated for capital works and R35 million for the upgrading of existing infrastructure. The construction of new court buildings is underway at Tembisa, Benoni, Boksburg, Scottburgh as well as Atteridgeville, Randburg, Pretoria North, Atamelang, Sasolburg and Sebokeng. Over and above this, we have set up three new courts and offices in the Johannesburg and Pretoria CBDs for specialised commercial crime cases. The specialised commercial crime courts, which have been a remarkable success since their inception, registered more than a 95% conviction rate in 2002. This year has seen the trend persist with a current average of more than five court hours per day.
We also continue to broaden access to justice for people through the legal aid justice centres and the utilisation of public defenders in our courts. Forty-six justice centres have been established to date, and an additional 23 are planned for the coming 18-month period.
Crime all over the world remains a problem which consumes huge amounts of resources, and which increases with the advent of new technology. For example, cyber crime is emerging as a major problem. Although we can re- engineer the criminal justice system to deal with all kinds of crime, we also need to address the root causes of crime. This entails having to identify the factors which give rise to crime. This process was started by the National Crime Prevention Strategy which stated that environmental design contributes to criminality. In respect of technology, it would of necessity mean that more creative ways of eliminating technology-based crime are devised.
However, we also need to acknowledge that poverty is a major cause of crime. This is partly borne out by the fact that many awaiting-trial prisoners are persons who cannot even afford to pay small amounts of bail, thereby causing overcrowding in our prisons. This is a major cause for concern. Government is acutely aware of its responsibilities in this regard.
Childcare grants are being progressively extended to cater for children between the ages of seven and fourteen. Steps have been taken to stimulate the economy. Housing programmes and land reform projects are being accelerated. And business, labour and the Government are involved in discussions on how to reduce unemployment, among other things.
It is apparent, therefore, that a holistic approach is needed to combat crime and that effecting improvements to the criminal justice system without eliminating the root causes of crime will not solve all our problems. The department is presently engaged in a consultation process with the judiciary and other key stakeholders regarding the rationalisation of the High Courts in terms of the Superior Courts Bill. We intend to ensure that High Courts are distributed in accordance with our political and constitutional boundaries, and we want to de-establish High Courts still constituted by the legislation of the erstwhile homelands. The rationalisation of the Labour Court is at an advanced stage, with legislation being prepared to integrate that court and the Labour Appeal Court into the High Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal dispensation.
Security in our courts is an ongoing challenge for our department with R23 million having been allocated to this item for the year 2002. Thirty-two thousand houses of judges in the Western Cape have now been secured. One hundred and eighty four offices received cash-in-transit services from private security companies at a cost of R8 million. A further R9 million was spent on the insulation of security fencing and lighting. The current budget allocation of R45 million for security services is still insufficient to meet the minimal security standards in our courthouses, and an increased annual amount is allocated over the three-year MTEF period.
The computerisation of the Guardians Fund has reached an advanced stage and will revolutionise the administration of the trust funds for minors. It is important to know that the Guardians Fund has grown by 18% this past year. From December 2002 the Masters assumed responsibility for the administration of the estates of black persons. This has led to the establishment of service points at all magistrates’ offices, putting additional strain on the training budget. The transition, though, has not caused as much disruption as we had anticipated. The situation is being managed well by the service points.
Corruption in the Masters’ offices is being weeded out via a vigorous internal audit mechanism and a system of improved controls. Ongoing training, specialisation in various services offered by the Masters and an improved oversight mechanism augur well for the future of these offices.
The National Prosecuting Authority has come a long way since its inception five years ago. This institution continues to set increasingly high standards of performance for itself, and monitors and enforces performance level agreements with singular determination. In order to facilitate improved service delivery in the Eastern Cape, an interim management team was established to assist the provincial government to alleviate backlogs and eliminate blockages in service delivery.
In addition the NPA initiated a law enforcement intervention component, the Joint Anticorruption Task Team, JACTT, which started operating in December 2002, and was established in terms of Act 74 of 1996. The National Director of Public Prosecutions and the Eastern Cape Provincial Commissioner of Police officially launched the project at the end of January 2003. This unit will continue to unclog the backlog of public service fraud and corruption cases and expose those corrupt elements who hold positions of trust, but abuse the trust that has been placed in them. The JACTT has, in a short period of time, had an impact on the fight against crime in the Eastern Cape. In March this year alone, about 110 people were arrested, 82 cases are currently on the roll and 171 cases are still being investigated.
It is also true that we will never win the war against crime unless we take the profit out of crime. The use of asset forfeiture to fight crime has been one of Government’s important innovations. The AFU has now initiated over 300 cases and frozen criminal assets worth nearly R500 million. There is already over R25 million in the criminal assets recovery account, and the law says we must spend this amount to fight crime. I will convene a meeting of the Committee of Ministers within the next few months to decide how best we can use this money. I see it as real justice when we take money from criminals and use it to fight their crime.
During 2002, the department saw the finalisation of 14 Bills in Parliament and introduced a further six pieces of legislation for consideration by the portfolio committee.
Law reform efforts will continue for the foreseeable future and we anticipate that a steady stream of legislation will be laid at Parliament’s door for consideration. Of particular note in this regard is the fact that, with effect from today, the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act of 2000 has come into effect. [Applause.] This Act will no doubt be conducive to the construction of a society founded on the core value of equality, to which all of us gathered in this House profess to be committed.
My department has placed a premium on the delivery of visible, quality services in a way that will make an impact on the lives of all South Africans. However, we also have concentrated our energies on putting our house in order. The department is evolving, albeit slowly, into one of the most admired Government departments in South Africa and one of the justice departments that is perceived to be best in the international arena. I wish to thank the director-general and his team for putting in place the architecture and machinery that will ensure optimal performance levels. We need to harness everyone’s energies within the department to ensure that we are a successful organisation. We have entered into a people’s contract for a better life.
Recently, the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development, as part of its mandate to consider the budget of the department, held hearings with all the relevant role-players, including the judiciary. Certain remarks were attributed to the hon Adv Johnny de Lange in the press, the chairperson of the portfolio committee, and provoked an unusual response from most of the judges president. Whilst I have not been provided with a copy of the statement released by judges president in response to the comments allegedly made by hon De Lange, I have read the newspaper reports.
In the first place, I need to categorically state that the Government unequivocally supports and respects the independence of the judiciary. We fully subscribe to the provisions of the Constitution in this regard. This is demonstrated by the Government having abided by all decisions given against it by our courts without taking any steps, legislative or otherwise, to circumvent those judgments. We believe that this is the hallmark of a true democracy.
In the second place, we are also fortunate in the sense that the judgments delivered by our courts, particularly the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court of Appeal and our High Courts are of an exceptionally high standard. Other jurisdictions, therefore, study these decisions. We have to maintain this high degree of professionalism and independence of the judiciary if our democracy is to thrive.
No plan or intention or inclination exists to undermine its independence and no steps are contemplated to do so. An informed and constructive public debate on the judiciary as an institution cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be said to be a threat to the institution and its independence.
What may certainly do our policy irreparable harm is a kneejerk, overtly rightwing, ideological reaction to the necessary debate. What we as a people must surely not countenance are occasionally snide ideological and political attacks launched on the executive by some judges cowering behind judicial independence. [Applause.] To us, and certainly to all intelligent and reasonable people, the much misused concept of judicial independence means only the following: that the integrity of this arm of the state must be guaranteed. By this we mean and expect that the judgments of the courts must be respected; that the orders of the courts must be enforced; that judges must be able to perform their judicial work without fear of adverse consequences flowing from their judgments and orders; and that not even a scintilla of a possibility of any reward for arriving at a particular result should be expected.
In my capacity as Minister, I meet with the judges from time to time to discuss matters of mutual concern. Some of the issues which are discussed relate to salaries, conditions of service generally and the whole question of the transformation of the judiciary. These discussions take place within the context of the constitutional separation of powers doctrine which exists in our country; our efforts to strengthen the role of the judiciary in protecting the rule of law; making South Africa safer and more secure for all; and creating a climate which facilitates, attracts and retains investment.
Our courts, particularly at the level of the higher courts, have a crucial role to play in bringing about change. Their judgments bind the lower courts. Those judgments have to be carefully considered on the basis of South African law; must develop the common law; reflect, where appropriate, internationally recognised legal principles; and contribute to the development of our jurisprudence. These courts need to be strengthened to ensure that they function professionally and efficiently at all times.
I was astounded by a statement in the Sunday Times which suggested that the DA believes that it is high time that the Minister, as hon De Lange’s political boss, ought to hold him on a leash. The statement, whatever its authorship, reflects worrisome ignorance of the fact that the legislature functions independently of the executive, which cannot prescribe to it. [Interjections.] It functions in terms of our Constitution which empowers the National Assembly, or any of its committees, to hold meetings and investigate matters which affect our country. I also wish to state categorically that I have not done or said anything that may be described as a repudiation of the chairperson of the portfolio committee. [Applause.] I have no authority and no mandate to do so.
With the few minutes still left I need to canvass the issue relating to the statement by the Deputy President. I think that all reasonable people must thank the Deputy President for highlighting the need for all of us to look into the criminal justice system. The Deputy President, who - it is useful to remember - was at the forefront of the fight for the section 35 rights, which we now so easily take for granted, would never pose a threat to those rights.
The Deputy President highlighted a very important debate which is not confined to our country. It’s a debate that is raging all over. It is acknowledged in democracies that criminal justice systems, which were put together with the best intentions of protecting the most vulnerable against the awesome powers of the state, tend to lag behind in many respects. Whether you like it or not, they tend to be less sensitive to the needs of the communities that they serve, and to the needs of witnesses and victims of crime. It is important, therefore, for us to look into our own laws, such as the Criminal Procedure Act, and see if, indeed, we cannot identify the sorts of weaknesses that we need to address.
The criminal justice systems of this world, not just South Africa’s, are also confronted with relatively new types of crime, such as cyber and organised crime, drug trafficking and trafficking in fellow human beings. We need to be able to respond to these and respond also to the relative strength of the criminal element and the network that this criminal element has spawned beyond our borders and, indeed, on a worldwide basis.
Once you understand the need for the work that has to be done, you will readily agree with me when I say: ``Makabulelwe uMsholozi - let Msholozi be thanked.’’ Even the DA acknowledges this. It acknowledges that, indeed, the tools at our disposal may no longer be adequate to respond to the problems that we face. As soon as, indeed, we have concluded this process we will, as this House, be looking at a Bill intended to ensure that we have proper legislation in place in order to deal with the crime of terrorism. It’s a must, and it’s one of the necessary tools that we must have. So, makabulelwe uMsholozi. [Let Msholozi be thanked.] Thank you very much. Kea leboga. [Applause.]
Adv J H DE LANGE: Chairperson, hon members, Ministers, comrades and friends, I rise today on behalf of the ANC in unconditional support of the Budget Vote of the Department of Justice.
As members are aware, the committee on justice is constitutionally enjoined and mandated to perform two core functions: firstly, to perform its task as a legislative authority in respect of legislation falling within the line function of the department; secondly, to perform its oversight functions and activities over the same department.
In the first few years the committee mainly concentrated on those functions emanating from our legislative task and over the last nine years we have passed 105 pieces of legislation, which comprises 3,3% of the legislation passed by this Parliament since 1994. In the last few years the committee has shifted gear and extended our work in respect of our oversight functions and activities, mainly in the form of public hearings, especially annually during the Budget Vote, and various oversight visits to the institutions administering justice. More recently, we have also extended these oversight visits beyond institutions administering justice to include those that form the core of the criminal justice system.
In May 2003, three delegations of our committee and the correctional services committee undertook cluster oversight visits to Johannesburg, Durban and Port Elizabeth for a week and a half, examining all aspects of the functioning of the criminal justice system in each of these cities in a holistic and integrated manner. These visits were incredibly insightful in identifying blockages in the criminal justice system, and engaging the relevant role-players at grass-roots level in respect of possible solutions.
Yes, we have many problems and yes, the system does not always function well or, even occasionally, at all. But let us not deny the fact that every day thousands of people work very hard, giving their utmost under very difficult circumstances, to make the criminal justice system work. In a few instances such efforts are either excellent or woeful, but in most instances they range from good to satisfactory, amounting to a criminal justice system which at least 90% of the time operates satisfactorily.
For this we owe a large debt of gratitude to the thousands of men and women who every day make this happen. I have found many of them to be honest, hardworking, patriotic South Africans who want to make our country a better place for all to live in, and are open to dialogue to find new and creative ways to make the criminal justice system function optimally. Particularly encouraging is the enthusiasm with which they have embraced our oversight work, both during public hearings and oversight visits, taking the opportunity to engage in our striving to find solutions to the myriad of problems facing us in the establishment of a properly functioning system.
In line with this approach, the committee has spent the last two weeks, from early morning to early evening, building on our oversight work and activities in public hearings with all the business units of the department, the Chief Justice and his delegation, the prosecuting authority, the Legal Aid Board, the Chapter 9 institutions and certain boards. Many of these 10 days were spent with the department, the Chief Justice and his delegation and the prosecuting authority, examining the administration, functioning, performance and productivity of our courts.
These public hearings were participatory and consultative in nature and, in my view, of a high quality, tackling the problems we face in our courts with honesty, openness and integrity, with the emphasis on reaching consensus around possible solutions. So much so that the Chief Justice requested that we institutionalise the annual appearance of the judiciary and the magistracy before this committee. We agreed and informed the Chief Justice that the committee would, furthermore, respond positively to any requests for him to appear before the committee in respect of any issue he wished to address.
Against this background, you would then understand my enormous surprise on Friday evening when I was called to comment on a rather hysterical attack on these public hearings. The statement apparently emanated from the hon Judge Hlophe and five judges president. It surprisingly firstly alleged that the justice committee and Government, during the course of the performance of our oversight functions in the last two weeks, had somehow interfered in the judiciary and undermined the independence of the judiciary. Secondly, they unleashed a scathing and unwarranted attack on the Minister for allegedly not defending them against these attacks.
Closer scrutiny of this statement reveals the following interesting facts: The Chief Justice and Deputy Chief Justice, as leaders of the judiciary, as well as our most senior judges, have not been cosignatories to this statement. Secondly, they have repudated and undermined the authority of the Chief Justice and the Deputy Chief Justice’s leadership in the judiciary, by abrogating for themselves the mantle of spokespersons of the judiciary and by way of the obvious bypassing and sidelining of their leaderships views in respect of this very critical issue.
Thirdly, the obvious omission from the statement that the leader of the judiciary, the Chief Justice, and his delegation had appeared before the committee for more than five hours the previous Monday and had amicably and without becoming hysterical engaged with members of the committee on all the issues that are now being raised by Judge Hlophe as an interference in the judiciary, stating the official position of the judiciary on all these issues clearly and unequivocally. I have a press statement here in which the Chief Justice responded on his visit and he said he had been treated there with nothing but courtesy and had not come across any comments that suggested members of the committee lacked respect for the judiciary. That is the Chief Justice.
Fourthly, the absence of even a single example of any member of the justice committee having tried to interfere with the exercise of the judicial functions of any judicial officer. Fifthly, all the so-called complaints merely relate to the members of the committee performing their oversight role during a public meeting in respect of the administrative, as opposed to the judicial, functions of our courts, as well as the efficient and effective functioning of the courts. The drafters of the statement relied for the facts on which they launched this attack entirely on the content of the media report, without trying to contact or verify any aspect they may have taken umbrage to with either the Minister, the chairperson or any member of the committee.
I strongly reject any suggestion or insinuation that the justice committee
or any of its members during the recent public hearings were or are
involved in scurrilous attacks on the independence, integrity and dignity
of the judiciary'', that weform part of an insidious attempt to
undermine the independence of the judiciary’’, are ``part of an insinuation
that judges are lazy, overpaid and that they need any form of supervision
of politicians’’ or in fact that the committee is involved in any other
imaginary or fanciful plot or subversive activity against any judicial
officer, the judiciary or its independence.
I want to further unequivocally reject any suggestion or insinuation that the committee, I as chairperson or any member of my committee, at any stage during the performance of our oversight functions, interfered or tried to interfere in the exercise of any judicial officer’s performance of his or her judicial functions. The track record of the judicial committee and Government speaks for itself since the advent of democracy. This Government has assiduously, since 1994, been removing any impediments or obstacles, legislatively or administratively, which could be seen as undermining the independence of the judiciary, and which are legacies of apartheid.
Our vision and stated policy has been the establishment of a single judiciary which fully adheres to and respects the constitutional injunction of the independence of the judiciary. I can state without any fear of contradiction that at no stage during the history of the judiciary of this country has the independence of the judiciary been so firmly entrenched, promoted and upheld as has been the case in the last few years. I, therefore, challenge any judicial officer or person who alleges even one instance of any politician interfering in the performance of the judicial functions of a judicial officer to step forward and inform us of such an instance. Obviously the statement of the judges does not contain such a specific averment.
I am very surprised that these judges president still do not seem to be aware of the definitive pronouncement of our Constitutional Court in respect of issues like the separation of powers between the three branches of government, especially the independence of the judiciary and the correct approach to be adopted by the respective branches of government in their interactions with each other, especially relating to public pronouncements. In the judgments, inter alia, of Saapil and Van Rooyen, these issues were fully canvassed and pronounced upon by the Constitutional Court.
Our Constitution, as confirmed by the Constitutional Court, rejects the notion of an absolute separation of powers - as is to be found in the United States - between the judiciary and other branches of government. Obviously, on the one hand, the independence of the judiciary in South Africa means that no one may interfere with the performance of any judicial function, by any judicial officer. When it comes to the judicial functions of the courts, presiding officers are only accountable to the Constitution and the law, and of course their conscience. On the other hand, in South Africa, differently from the United States, the situation is different when it comes to the performance of the administrative functions of the courts, or to put it differently, the effective and efficient functioning of our courts; in other words, what the taxpayers’ money is spent on in the courts.
These include issues like the capacity and productivity of our courts. Legally, the director-general of the department is held accountable for the functioning, administration and performance of our courts. This, of course, needs to be done in a sensible and flexible manner, with the participation of and whilst consulting with the judiciary. Therefore, when it comes to the administration and functioning of our courts, it is the preserve of the department to fulfil these functions in the manner described below, and not like in the United States where the courts themselves do so through their own independent administration.
I had thought that this debate had been laid to rest during the negotiation of our Constitution. However, there are still a few voices in our judiciary who advocate the introduction of the US model of separation of powers. Of course, it is their democratic right to do so. The matter, however, becomes problematic when they not only advocate their preferred option, but actually conduct themselves in such a manner as to suggest that we have such an absolute separation of powers in South Africa. Much of the present imbroglio, consciously or subconsciously, seems to stem from this flawed ideological point of departure.
Therefore, the justice committee annually - for the past 10 years, I may add - has engaged with the department and the judiciary and the magistracy through public hearings and oversight visits with all aspects of the administration, functioning and performance of our courts, including issues of capacity and productivity. We perform these oversight functions we are enjoined to perform in terms of the Constitution and the Rules of Parliament, with all the necessary sensitivity, diligence and vigour, without fear or favour.
I am not sure what precipitated this unprecedented and unseemly intervention this year, when this has been an annual event of the justice committee for the last 10 years, especially as the judiciary and the magistracy have willingly and enthusiastically participated in this oversight work of the committee for the last few years. If, as we are being accused of, the justice committee is busy interfering in the judiciary and undermining its independence, why would the Chief Justice and his delegation not only appear before the committee in the last few years, including this year, but in fact request the committee to institutionalise these activities? Why is it that we have encountered such widespread support and endorsement of our oversight activities of the administration and functioning of all aspects of our courts from the Chief Justice down to the most junior judicial officers, but we now have a few judges president inexplicably and intractably opposed to these salutary oversight practices?
What has precipitated this brouhaha, which has led these judges to arrive
at these high-sounding and incorrect conclusions like scurrilous
attacks'',insidious attempts’’, plots'',interference in the
judiciary’’ and ``utterances of ill-informed politicians’’. From the media
report there appears to be four issues that have raised these judges’ blood
pressure, and have led to these intemperate, ill-informed, ill-considered
and most unfortunate statements and conclusions which are unbecoming of a
member of the judiciary. I will deal with all these issues to set the
record straight, but I must point out that all three these issues were
fully canvassed with and responded to by the Chief Justice himself and his
delegation.
With regard to the sitting hours of our courts, our courts are supposed to be in session for five to six hours each day. However, at present our criminal courts, on average, are only in session as follows: at High Court level, three hours and twenty-five minutes; at regional court level, three hours and fifty-two minutes; and at district court level, four hours and five minutes.
Everybody, including the Chief Justice, is in agreement that this is a totally unacceptable state of affairs at all levels of our courts. In fact, much of our discussion with the department and the Chief Justice’s delegation centred on the reasons for this state of affairs and possible solutions or remedial action. A myriad of causes were identified. At no stage did anyone suggest that judicial officers are the only or even the main cause for this state of affairs, nor did anyone say or insinuate that laziness or incompetence on the part of the judicial officers had anything to do with this state of affairs. In fact, it was readily acknowledged that judicial officers find themselves at the end of the court process, and have a limited impact on delays or postponements.
The approach of the Chief Justice in this regard was readily acceptable, namely, that the judicial officers must take full control and responsibility for their courts. At present this is not always the case. Judicial officers must be responsible for their courts strictly commencing on time and adjourning at the end of the day. If any person is responsible for any delay, they should be brought before the court and fully account for their actions; this should be recorded and, if necessary, the necessary disciplinary action should be taken against them. I share the view that it is in this regard that judicial officers should share the responsibility for the unacceptably low hours actually spent in court receiving evidence. They must assert their control over their courts. It has got nothing to do with laziness or incompetence.
I also have many other issues. I’ve dealt with the salaries and the recess of courts, if anyone is interested, and the impropriety in respect of Saturday courts. If any of you are interested to look at this and what the committee actually has suggested and has proposed, you are more than welcome to read this. I’ll happily give it to you. [Interjections.]
Well, maybe you’ll be able to then at least be able to interact properly with the debate. For example, some members on this side haven’t.
Let me deal with my conclusion. It is obviously unprecedented and highly undesirable that these judges choose to make these serious allegations of interference in the judiciary through the media based merely on the content of media reports, without referring to the Minister or the committee, or even the President if they so wish, to clarify or verify any issue with which they may take umbrage. After all, the stock in trade of a judicial officer is to be a finder of fact. One can only speculate why they ignored every tenet of their training and profession in this instance.
Even more worrying and insidious is their obvious repudiation of or dismissive approach exemplified in respect of the leadership of the judiciary in the form of the Chief Justice. When dealing with these issues surrounding the independence of the judiciary, and particularly allegations of interference in the judiciary by politicians, surely all judicial officers should take their cue from their leaders in the judiciary and allow them to deal with such matters. The judiciary should in these instances speak with one voice.
Our Constitution provides clearly that the Chief Justice and the Deputy Chief Justice are the leaders of the judiciary and the magistracy. If fellow judicial officers, especially judges president, do not protect and uphold the Constitution, and do not respect and uphold the authority of the Chief Justice and the Deputy Chief Justice to act on behalf of and speak on behalf of the judiciary, especially in respect of matters affecting its independence, why do they expect the rest of the citizenry to do so? It does not matter how important, indispensable or aggrieved you regard yourself to be, no one is above the Constitution or above the law. It is unthinkable that certain of our judges president should so blatantly undermine the authority, the standing and leadership of the Chief Justice and the Deputy Chief Justice.
It is further imperative that the justice committee, and even Parliament as a whole, are not to be intimidated or cowed into submission by such unwarranted, unmandated and hysterical accusations by a few judges acting clearly without the apparent endorsement of the Chief Justice. [Interjections.] [Applause.] No matter how shrill and hysterical the outburst, we must be guided by the facts in this whole saga and not emotions. The justice committee and Parliament cannot accept or countenance a situation or any suggestion that any person or institution is above the law, or the Constitution, or that they are totally unaccountable.
Even judges are and should be held accountable, obviously not for the performance of their judicial functions, but most definitely for their role, duties and responsibilities within the administration, functioning and the performance of our courts, which are, after all, funded by taxpayers’ money. And of course they are accountable for their conduct in and out of court, which may amount to a transgression of the judicial code of ethics or any conduct unbecoming a judge, which may lead to disciplinary action. To this extent, the justice committee, and Parliament, cannot allow its constitutionally mandated oversight functions, as described above, over the functioning and performance of our courts to be limited or watered down because it causes some individual judicial officers some discomfort.
I must say that I hope that this will put an end to this very unseemly and unnecessary and unwarranted intervention that we’ve had over the last time. The justice committee and Parliament, with the participation of people like Dr Delport, Mrs Sheila Camerer and members from the other parties, vigorously every year engage the judiciary on these issues, and every year there has not been a problem. Suddenly one or two persons, who think themselves to be the self-appointed spokespersons of the judiciary, find that they should intervene like this. This is wrong and it’s unbecoming.
The authority of the Chief Justice, as the head of the judiciary, should be respected. We as a committee will keep on upholding and building on the independence of the judiciary. But there’s an old story: When you grew up, as a child, I think everyone’s father and mother used to say, ``You are not given respect, you have to earn respect’’. And I think our judiciary should also learn this.
Let me say when I say ``judiciary’’ I mean certain members of the judiciary, because the point is that we have found through all our oversight work that the vast majority of judicial officers do not agree with this kind of conduct. The vast majority of judicial officers in this country do an honest day’s work and try and make our courts function every day, and we should not let ourselves be distracted by a few individuals that feel that they would not want to do so and would not want to be under the authority of the Chief Justice.
I really am sorry that this is what has to happen in this debate, but I think we have to set the record straight on what has happened in the last few days. As I say, I have fully responded in this speech to all the accusations that have been made against us. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
Dr J T DELPORT: Mr Chair, I am going to speak to the theme: The withering of the spirit of the Constitution. The hon Nelson Mandela correctly called the Constitution a foundation which would remain but just that, unless we build thereon. [Interjections.]
His vision was to derive strength, trust and unity from the diversity of our languages, religions and cultural attributes. ``Everybody should feel part and parcel of our efforts to resolve the problems of South Africa’’, he said.
Our Constitution was born from the hopes and dreams and ideals that lived and still live in the hearts and minds of our people. That is the matrix from which it arose. That is the spirit of the Constitution.
There is no doubt that Mr Mandela was dedicated to the creation of a rainbow nation, a nation where everyone enjoyed fair and equal treatment and was free to live and work and achieve. That spirit is withering. [Interjections.]
Firstly, respect for the judiciary - the Constitution secures the independence of the judiciary. The spirit of the Constitution, on the other hand, requires the enhancement of respect for the judiciary. That is being undermined. Secondly, there is a move from affirmative action to so-called transformation. The Constitution allows what is commonly known as affirmative action - special measures to develop previously disadvantaged persons to reach their potential and thus achieve the enjoyment of all rights and freedoms. This has our support.
Nowhere, however, in the Constitution do we find that discrimination on the basis of colour or creed is allowed. And that is exactly what is presently being done in the name of transformation - a term which is a political term, not a constitutionally protected one.
For example: The Magistrates Commission shortlists applicants by way of awarding points. I have an extract from their recent minutes. They award points: three for experience; two for qualifications; three for race; and three for gender. If, therefore, the preference is given to a female applicant of a particular race, other candidates can achieve only five points, whereas those of the chosen race and gender immediately obtain six points. [Interjections.] Secondly, Resolution 7 of 2002 is being abused. In the Eastern Cape white officials are scattered, irrespective of the merits and of personal circumstances. A husband is transferred to one town, his wife to another. Do those affected feel, in the words of Mr Mandela, that he or she is part and parcel of our efforts to resolve the problems of South Africa? Is this the rainbow nation? Is it when Popcru objects to promotions, not because the appointees are unfit for office, but because they are white? And when policemen have to obtain court orders to get the promotions they are entitled to? [Interjections.]
A last example: A proper support programme for disadvantaged sportsmen would have achieved equality in sport with the wholehearted and enthusiastic support of all South Africans. But the hon Balfour says transformation is more important than winning. He imposes quotas. He says transformation overrides all other considerations. And what is the effect on those sportsmen who are denied the honour of reaching the top because of the Balfour policy? Must they accept that they are less than equal because of the colour of their skin? Is that not the very crude discrimination which the new Constitution wishes to destroy, never to rise again?
There is another move from freedom of religion to religious neutrality. Minister Kader Asmal says religions must be taught, not practised, in schools. The thrust of his policy is to educate the generation who subscribes to and is schooled in religious neutrality. Is that in line with Mr Mandela’s views that we must gain strength from the tapestry of our religions? [Interjections.]
From land restitution it is another move to land redistribution. Section 25 of the Constitution contains the principles of our land policy. Now legislation is tabled which is clearly the first step towards expropriation
- pure and simple. This shift is not only an attack on the spirit of the Constitution, it represents an attack on the very foundation of an economic policy based on the security of ownership.
I conclude. we must not allow the Constitution to be undermined. Equally important, we must not allow the spirit of the Constitution to be ignored or weakened. [Interjections.] On the contrary, we call upon the Government to embrace that spirit as the guiding star which will, for sure, guide South Africa to greatness. I thank you. [Applause.]
Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: Chairperson, I associate the IFP with the appreciation expressed to the Minister and his department and others for doing a good job. With exceptions here and there, we support the Budget Vote.
I wish to deal with only two matters, and then my colleague, Mr Vezi, will deal with other matters. The first issue I wish to raise is the inability of the Justice department to effectively deal with trial-awaiting prisoners. This problem is not a new one, and by now we should have found a permanent solution.
The worst effect of this solution is, of course, the overcrowding in prisons, where basic human rights are simply absent. I do not want to dwell on the awful and disastrous conditions caused by the overcrowding. What I do want to emphasise is the very wise and true saying which points an accusing finger at all of us: Show me the inside of your prisons and I will show you the level of your civilisation.
I sincerely hope that this problem will in future be tackled with definite plans, such as the Minister has told us about, and with conviction and determination and hard work. From our side, the IFP offers to assist as far as we can. The second aspect I wish to deal with is the extremely unfortunate public street fight between the justice portfolio committee, the judges and the Minister of Justice.
I was shocked by the fact that the people at the pinnacle of our justice system could allow themselves to be dragged into this unnecessary dogfight. No one applied the brakes. They just took off emotionally, all three of them. As far as we are concerned, all three parties are to be blamed for bringing justice into disrepute.
The portfolio chairperson, who is an excellent chairperson, whom I have been acquainted with for almost 10 years, unfortunately should have been more sensitive, less of a rammetjie-uitnek [swaggerer] and less emotional, as he was today. I want to say to him: ``Johnny, jy moet kalm word, man. [Johnny, you have to calm down, man.]’’ He overreacted so much that, in rugby language, he tried to score, place and drop. And I think that was the big mistake. I think Johnny should cool down.
The judges, on the other hand, should certainly have sought another dignified method to air their grievances. But lastly, the hon Minister should not have become a boxer in this ring. Instead, he should have been the wise man who calmed everyone down and put the matter to rest. I know he was a boxer in his young days. But now you are old. You have to pacify them, hon Minister. [Interjections.] You did not stop Johnny de Lange who was kicking, dropping and placing. You should have stopped him and pacified him. You should have relied on the Chief Justice to do this. The Chief Justice, thank God for that, played the wise, sensible and unemotional role. And to him we wish to say: ``Tien uit tien, regter Chaskalson.’’ [Ten out of ten, Judge Chaskalson.]’’
As a member of the Judicial Services Commission, I think the hon Chief Justice should consider a discussion of this matter at a session of the commission. All three of the parties of contestants are represented in the commission, namely, Mr de Lange, the hon Minister and some judges. That would be much more sensible and would achieve much more than a humiliating street fight.
Our judgment is as follows: All three parties are guilty of unwise action. We caution and discharge them on condition that we never see a judicial street fight again. And finally, we wish the Minister and all persons associated with the judiciary a wonderful new year - but never again a dogfight. Ms F I CHOHAN-KHOTA: Chairperson and hon members, let me begin by saying a few things on behalf of the ANC study group, which our chairperson does not know I am going to do, by the way.
The ANC study group, comrade Johnny, wants you to know that we completely and totally support you in your stance on this matter. [Applause.] We are agreed that you have been singled out by certain members of the judiciary, because your stance is our stance. It is the job of Parliament to oversee all public bodies, and the courts, the last time I checked, were public bodies. We will continue to do our work as Parliamentarians and we will continue to do so proudly, because those who suffer as a result of inefficiencies are the victims of crime, women and children.
In order to function optimally, the criminal justice system relies on many different role-players, as the Minister has said in his speech. In court there’s a presiding officer, a prosecutor, a legal representative, an interpreter, a bailiff, witnesses and, depending on the nature of the case, social workers, district surgeons, forensic and other experts. The absence or unpreparedness of any one of these individuals can cause a delay in the trial and its postponement. [Interjections.]
We don’t often … Sorry, is that better, Ntombazana? We don’t often realise that much of what goes on in the criminal justice system has everything to do with matters that happen outside the courtroom. The criminal justice system, in any society, is a conveyor belt of interlinked processes and role-players.
I wish to spend the rest of the time allocated to me, speaking about the crucial role played by sister departments at the beginning and at the end of the criminal justice system conveyor belt. This I will do with specific reference, where appropriate, to experiences we have had during our most recent oversight visits, together with members who serve on the correctional services portfolio committee.
Beginning with the Department of Safety and Security, we were privileged, as it has been said, to meet some of the finest South Africans during our visit. It served to remind us that, even while we are constantly bombarded with the idea that our police are inefficient and even corrupt, a typical average policeman or policewoman’s profile is that of a hardworking, committed, dedicated South African, committed to serving the public, often under very dangerous circumstances.
The emphasis on training in the police service is very telling. The first thing the delegation to the Eastern Cape was briefed on, without any prompting from us, was how many police had received specialised training and how many had not. This emphasis on training is particularly gratifying to us. However, much still remains to be done.
The police service has pockets of excellence, and these are generally found in the specialised units. The biggest challenge lies with the general investigation units. These units, by and large, do all investigations pertaining to matters other than those allocated to specialised units. The real backlogs are experienced here, and it doesn’t help that most of the experienced policemen and women avoid placement at these units because of the uncomfortable case loads and the sparse resources. Again, we think that training is crucial and that there needs to be a serious look at the kind of resources allocated to these units.
The second area of concern relates to the criminal record centres. These are where the SAP 69s are produced. Where an arrested person has no previous convictions, an SAP 69 can be produced within 48 hours. However, it sometimes takes up to 40 days.
It also seems, from what we were told, that there are very few fingerprint identification experts in the country. Many of our experienced people have either retired or have been poached by foreign countries. No doubt, our police force is still evolving and will continue to evolve for a while, but there are encouraging aspects and, already, there are signs of a world class outfit.
Let me now turn to some of the other role-players on the conveyor belt. The accused person, having been arrested by a member of the police force, now appears before the relevant magistrate and requests bail. The judicial officer finds, inter alia, that there is no flight risk and grants the person bail at a stipulated amount.
In the Port Elizabeth area, we found that 24 people who were given bail amounting to less than R100, were sitting in prison. Up to 256 people were doing the same, having been granted bail of less than R200, and 775 people were imprisoned because they could not afford bail of less than R500. A further 139 people were sitting in prison because of the fact that they could not afford to pay R1 000 set by the judicial officer. This totals a whopping 1 194 who are behind bars, not because they are a threat to society or because they pose a flight risk, but because they are poor. [Interjections.] No, you were not here five years ago. You can’t count.
These people account for 41,79% of all awaiting-trial prisoners in the PE area. One should, at this point, bear in mind that it is cheaper for the State to pay bail bonds for these categories of people than to pay for their continued incarceration.
It is clear that the amendment this Parliament passed to enable the Head of Prisons, together with the prosecutors, to bring an application for the release of these individuals, had not been used prior to our visit. We understand that in the three provinces visited by the delegation, such applications petitioning the release of these individuals will be made, if they haven’t already begun.
That this situation could have been avoided had our courts adopted a more responsible approach to bail applications, is clear. May we, amidst the current hue and cry from our very eminent and very independent judiciary, suggest very humbly that there is a better and more responsible way of doing things. At a bail hearing, when someone is found to be neither a flight risk, nor a risk to society, there should be some enquiry into his or her capacity to pay the bail set by the presiding officer. Our prisons are not meant to hold people simply because they are poor. The Department of Correctional Services tells us that our prisons are overcrowded. This is not news, but this is a serious matter that requires serious solutions in this constitutional state. We simply cannot have prisons that are 170% full or 219% full, as was reported by the delegation that visited KZN. Anyone who has not visited our prisons cannot understand the extent of the infringement on human dignity that overcrowding leads to.
However, when one sees children, nine to 12 years old, idling away the hours in these prisons, one can’t believe that it bodes well for our future as a country. Prisons are not places for children to be in. However, the Department of Social Welfare and Development does not have sufficient secure care facilities for children, and so they stay in prison. In the PE area alone, there were 291 children awaiting trial in prison. These are children who should not be there. These children are being exposed to all kinds of criminal and inhumane elements in those cold and miserable cells. More disturbing is the fate of 31 children who were originally sentenced to reform schools, but who have been in prison, some of them for up to four years - four years in prison - because there are no reform schools in the province of the Eastern Cape.
That urgent intervention is required in such matters cannot be overstressed. A national audit, Minister, I believe, is urgently required between the justice, correctional services, social welfare and education sectors, and children sentenced to reform schools should be placed in proper schools, so that we never again have to have the loss of a child’s whole future on our conscience.
While in the Eastern Cape, we found no secure care facilities for girl children or young women. This means that every time a woman has to await trial, she has to do so in prison. On the issue of reform schools again, in the Gauteng province, we were told, there are no reform schools for girls and young women. If this is the current situation in Gauteng, then there’s every possibility that the situation in other provinces is equally dire.
My time is limited, so let me conclude by saying that each department within the criminal justice cluster is a vital part of the conveyor belt. Though in some cases they have established formal links, the time has now come to establish formal protocols, and we want to dedicate our time for the rest of the year to actually drafting these protocols in Parliament. We hope we have your support for that, Minister. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
Adv D M BAKKER: Chairperson, this budget debate comes at a time when several controversial issues regarding our justice system are dominating the front pages of our newspapers. Although these controversial issues also need to be debated, we cannot afford our focus to be shifted from other, even more urgent, matters. After an absence of more than four years at portfolio committee meetings, it was interesting to attend some of the recent budget hearings. My initial reaction was that of shock and a sense that nothing had changed.
The hon chairperson of the committee, as he again proved today, was still tearing the department’s officials, and the hon Camerer, apart. Although the hon Camerer’s treatment might be just, the same can, very fortunately, not be said about the department and its officials. I soon realised that this budget is the result of proper, innovative and careful planning.
Dit is geensins verbasend dat die VSA se departement van justisie met groot lof van ons departement praat nie. ‘n Donasie van R160 miljoen vanaf die VSA in Augustus verlede jaar is baie goed aangewend, en die departement se ``justice footprint’’ word tereg beskryf as ‘n inisiatief van die hoogste standaard. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[It is by no means surprising that the USA’s department of justice speaks very highly of our department. A donation of R160 million from the USA in August last year has been employed very productively, and the department’s ``justice footprint’’ is rightly described as an initiative of the highest standard.]
This initiative includes the production of detailed maps that display the courts throughout the country, and reflect the most up to date position regarding their respective workloads and the levels of crime in each area. Combined with this is a financial model that identifies every single item of expenditure, prioritises the expenditure and ensures the identification of specific areas where financial support will have the greatest impact to achieve the best results in the fight against crime.
Die departement se toegewydheid wys op ‘n determinasie om misdaad te bekamp en veiliger gemeenskappe te bevorder. Hiervoor moet die Minister en sy hele departement, asook alle ander rolspelers, veral Business against Crime, gelukgewens en ten sterkste aangemoedig word. [The department’s dedication indicates a determination to fight crime and to promote safer communities. For this the Minister and his whole department, as well as other role- players, especially Business against Crime, must be congratulated and most strongly encouraged.]
Whilst recognising some of the department’s very good achievements, it is also true that our transformation and restructuring have not yet met all the challenges it is faced with. Many people are still weary of the changes and are not experiencing a swift, effective, accessible and efficient criminal justice system.
In the words of our Chief Justice:
The criminal justice system is like a chain - a problem in one link of the chain creates huge backlogs and unnecessary delays along the line.
Daar is ongelukkig nog baie skakels wat probleme verskaf. Sonder om betrokke te wil raak by die huidige kontroversie oor die onafhanklikheid van die regbank, is dit tog noodsaaklik dat die produktiwiteit van ons howe, in veral strafregsake, aangespreek word.
Is dit grondwetlik dat verhoorafwagtendes vir tot vier jaar aangehou word voordat hul verhore afgehandel word? Wat van hul grondwetlike reg op ‘n spoedige verhoor? Is dit menslik dat die slagoffers van seksuele misdrywe ‘n tweede keer voor howe gesleep word om weer te kom getuig oor die afskuwelike dade wat teen hulle gepleeg is nadat beskuldigdes in streekhowe reeds skuldig bevind is? In sommige gevalle gebeur dit selfs 18 maande nadat hulle die eerste keer getuienis gelewer het.
Hoekom moet getuies tot vyf en meer kere hof toe kom vir onnodige uitstelle? Waarom neem strafsake in die hoërhowe gemiddeld meer as 18 maande om afgehandel te word, en waarom is daar meer as 2 000 verhoorafwagtendes onder 18 jaar in aanhouding? Waarom word meer sake teruggetrek as wat afgehandel word? (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Unfortunately there are still my links that cause problems. Without wanting to become involved in the current controversy about the independence of the judiciary, it is nevertheless necessary that the productivity of our courts, especially regarding criminal cases, be addressed.
Is it constitutional for persons awaiting-trials to be detained for up to four years before their trials are finalised? What about their constitutional right to a speedy trial? Is it human for the victims of sexual crimes to be dragged before courts for a second time, to once again testify about the heinous deeds which have been perpetrated against them, after the accused have already been found guilty in regional courts? In some instances this even happens 18 months after they have testified for the first time.
Why must witnesses come to court five or more times for unnecessary postponements? Why do criminal cases in the higher courts on average take more than 18 months to be completed, and why are there more than 2 000 awaiting-trial prisoners under 18 years of age in detention? Why are more cases withdrawn than finalised?]
The question remains: Who is responsible for sorting out the criminal justice system? According to the Chief Justice, the responsibility lies with the police, the judiciary and correctional services. He also says that delays are a cause for concern for the whole judiciary, and he agrees that statistics should be updated and analysed by all the relevant role-players.
Our Constitution states that the National Assembly must - not can, must - provide for mechanisms to maintain oversight of the exercise of national executive authority and any organ of state.
An integrated approach to fighting crime means that all role-players are interdependent. The police, judges, magistrates, prosecutors and correctional services are all part of the chain, and a problem in one link makes the whole chain ineffective.
There are several other matters that need to be addressed urgently, like corruption and theft in our courts and in the prosecuting authority, but in the limited time available I would like to focus on the row over the new section 49 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
The mere fact that this amendment was approved almost five years ago and has still not been put into effect, illustrates that there is definitely a serious perception problem. Clearly, this issue needs to be resolved urgently so that both the police and the general public can know where they stand. As long as there is a perception amongst the police that they are under threat, there is a problem. The way to solve the problem is for all role-players to agree to amending the section in order to deal with the perceived threat to the police.
Unlike the DP/DA, my party voted against the amendment, because we believed that the amendment should not have introduced a normative concept of fault. It should rather have placed arresting officers and private individuals on the same footing, and adhered to the normal principles of liability or absence of mens rea, as well as the onus of proof.
A small amendment can rectify this. Then, the new section 49 will place sufficient emphasis on the protection of the suspects’ rights, and carefully balance these rights against the interests of the arresting officers and the administration of justice. In this way we can further enhance the integrated approach to fighting crime. I thank you.
The SPEAKER: Hon members, before proceeding with the debate, I have an announcement to make. I have to announce that Mr M F Cassim has vacated his seat in the National Assembly with effect from today, as his membership of the Peace and Justice Congress has been terminated. The Office of Deputy Chairperson of Committees has also been vacated. We will now proceed with the debate.
Ms N MAHLAWE: Madam Speaker, hon members, on Friday, 13 June the hon member Mrs Shilubana made a spine-chilling statement. She said that a man in Limpopo had savagely assaulted his wife, thereby cracking her skull. The woman died after she had been in a coma for a number of years.
We have read stories about human trafficking involving girls and women in the country and abroad. We all know the story of baby Tshepang, who was brutally raped by an elderly man. In the Eastern Cape a matric female student was abducted last year, gang-raped and repeatedly run over by a car until she died. A number of stories have been read about the rape of elderly women above the age of 70, and many have been killed in some provinces because they have been accused of witchcraft. We can go beyond the borders of this country and cite the story of the Nigerian woman, Amina Lawal, who has been sentenced to death by stoning for bearing a child outside of marriage. The question is: Where is the man who impregnated her?
We can go on ad infinitum with stories of victims of abuse who are all mostly children, women of all ages, the aged and people with disabilities. The Department of Justice and Constitutional Affairs collectively name these the vulnerable groups. I am going to closely examine measures that have been and are being taken by the department to address this endemic problem and link it, in my discussion, with the work of sexual offences courts and the work that is being done by the National Directorate of Public Prosecutions.
Before I can endeavour to enter into this, allow me to make observations on some realities which hamper the good intentions of the department. Firstly, the victimisation and sexual abuse of vulnerable groups occur within the home, in the community. It takes place in various forms, like assault, harassment, child rape, forced early marriages, genital mutilation, femicide, feminisation of poverty and low levels of literacy. Secondly, socioeconomic realities and limited access to and control over power and productive resources make women more vulnerable to all forms of violence. Thirdly, there is the existence of a strong veil of silence. Women are subjected and socialised to multiple legal systems, traditions and customs, and these create a major obstacle to a holistic and comprehensive approach to deal with this problem.
Communities are sometimes not properly sensitised about available remedies from and by the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development. I should also mention the lack of a co-ordinated approach by the various departments who have stakes in addressing these problems. For instance, safety and security, correctional services and the courts do not work together at all times to ensure speedy and effective handling of domestic violence cases and trials of juveniles. This issue of juveniles has been raised here - I don’t have to go into it again.
Added to this are the Chapter 9 institutions, like the Commission for Gender Equality and the SA Human Rights Commission, who are doing good work, but which most of the time do this work separately from their counterparts in the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development. There are generally widespread claims that the police do not arrive timeously when summoned to incidents of domestic violence. Reasons being cited include a lack of transport or a lack of personnel. This is not acceptable.
Correctional services keep inmates as young as eight, 10 or 12 years of age for a long time without trial. This has been alluded to, and I’m not going to go into detail. Some of these children are detained for petty cases, like stealing bread, food or cellular phones. A cluster-orientated approach cannot be overemphasised.
The department is conducting multidisciplinary training seminars on sexual offences in the provinces with funding received from the Canadian International Development Agency, Cida, for a total of 370 delegates, comprising prosecutors, police officials, NGO representatives, magistrates, doctors and social workers. For rural areas to also benefit from this process, Soca, together with the Department of Health, will train forensic nurses to provide these crucial services to ensure that rural children and women are not disadvantaged by their geographical positioning.
The specialist courts have led to speedier and more effective prosecutions of sexual offences. The Thuthuzela Multidisciplinary Care Centre at G F Jooste Hospital in Manenberg, Cape Town, was launched in July 2000 to render services to survivors of gender-based crimes. Over a six-month period a number of cases were processed at Thuthuzela. The pilot project has proved to be a resounding success in the implementation of a victim- centred approach.
With regard to the sexual offences section, the unit is in the process of facilitating a national judges’ summit which judges from the provincial High Courts and regional courts will attend. The key participants to this summit will also be judges from the United Kingdom, USA, Canada and Sweden. The unit will host a workshop on child pornography in order to develop expertise amongst prosecutors and investigators in the trafficking of child porn images on the Internet, chat rooms on the Internet and in profiling sex offenders. It will then build a data system of sex offenders and investigate these cases.
The unit is looking forward to the establishment of multidisciplinary care centres for victims of violence at the Chris Hani-Baragwanath Hospital, in Ntlaza and in Thohoyandou. Preparations for the running of these centres are in progress. There are public awareness campaigns in which the unit is in the process of implementing a public information and education campaign on sexual violence, and on ways of accessing the legal system. Cida will provide funding for this campaign. The main objectives are to restore public confidence in the criminal justice system, and to heighten public intolerance of gender-based crimes by encouraging the reporting of these offences.
With regard to domestic violence, the key function of the prosecutors in the intervention process is to effectively prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and to ensure that proper sentences are imposed. However, the national policy directives on domestic violence extend this prosecution role by instructing prosecutors to assist the victims of domestic violence, when approached for advice, by advising them of the relief available to them in terms of the Act.
The domestic violence section has as its priority focus the responsibility to ensure the reduction of secondary victimisation within the prosecutorial services, and to improve the conviction rate in these cases by establishing prosecution-driven victim support centres within the court building which will mainly respond to the needs of the victims in the criminal justice system in a sensitive way.
In terms of the Maintenance Act everybody is forced to support his or her own child. However, the unit has a section that oversees maintenance and related issues. Eighty maintenance officer positions have been created by the unit for prosecutors and 52 are already in place. Eleven courts that look into maintenance for children were established in 2002. The target is 39.
A national plan of action is being developed to guide all sectors required to implement the new Maintenance Act and to improve access to the maintenance system. The unit has been involved in drafting the Victim Charter, especially the sections dealing with service in the courts from the magistrates, clerks, interpreters, court orderlies and, very importantly, the prosecutors.
The Child Justice Bill is with the committee. The Bill looks at children, because it is clear that we cannot and should not keep young children or juveniles in prisons, otherwise we are creating a society that will be regretted in future. Thank you. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
The DEPUTY MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Madam Speaker and hon members, this budget debate takes place against the backdrop of yesterday’s Youth Day celebrations and the recognition that this particular sector of our population continues to find itself so vulnerable to the vagaries of poverty, violence and crime. Nonetheless, much has changed for the children and youth of this country since that wintry Soweto Day in June 1976 when they took to the streets in a potent demonstration of will and determination to achieve change and social justice.
With the decade of democracy fast approaching, a review of justice system reforms in South Africa since 1994 provides ample evidence of this Government’s determination to promote actively the interests of vulnerable groups such as the elderly, urban and rural African women and especially the interests of our children. Furthermore, by linking the process of judicial and legal reform with the objectives of achieving a just and equitable society, this Government acknowledges the centrality of the justice system to the transformation of our national community.
It also firmly acknowledges that achieving a just and equitable social order is a function of transformation within the judiciary and the justice system itself. Additionally, this decade of reform has been achieved within a framework of sustainability premised on a clear understanding that today’s resources should be utilised in a way that ensures that future generations have sufficient means to meet their hopes and aspirations.
The connection between crime and poverty is well established, but more significant perhaps, although less often mentioned, is the connection between poverty and vulnerability to crime. Poor women and children are more likely to be victimised, because they enjoy fewer protections, less privacy and fewer resources. Similarly, their resilience in the face of victimisation is considerably less, and they are less likely to get the necessary assistance to overcome it. Interventions, therefore, that provide protections for children, and the many caregivers who sustain them, are not only fundamental to our justice system, they are indispensable to the long- term development of this country’s people.
Justice has a tangible role to play in poverty alleviation. Not traditionally a component of justice’s work, poverty alleviation is a primary consideration in achieving a more effective and reliable maintenance system. A well-administered system has the potential to release significant numbers of women and children from the trap of poverty. If we were to achieve a mere 50% improvement in accessing maintenance for children, our department could make this one of the most significant contributions to the social and economic development of children in this country. In addition, we would be doing this without depleting the resources of the state. Furthermore, it is our belief that efficient and improved access to the maintenance system will reduce the burden on the child support and grant system and empower women, children and whole families in significant ways.
It is precisely because effective maintenance collection has the potential to ameliorate the debilitating impact of poverty on vulnerable groups that we are determined to make it work. Earlier this year our department launched its revised maintenance outreach programme, which includes educating people about their rights and responsibilities in respect of maintenance and child support. About 400 000 illustrated booklets in all the official languages have been distributed throughout the country, and five pilot educational workshops for communities are underway. A national roll-out campaign will begin once the pilot workshops have been evaluated. The appointment of the first 55 maintenance investigators, who commenced duty on 1 April, will complement the work of the additional maintenance prosecutors, whom the NPA has already made available in our courts.
Effective maintenance and order enforcement is vital for the empowerment of mothers and, of course, significantly improves the ability to provide appropriately for their children. The effective prosecution of maintenance defaulters is increasingly bringing the message home that failure to observe maintenance orders will no longer be tolerated. It might be apposite at this juncture to commend a Western Cape magistrate for the innovative manner in which he has dealt with some defaulters. Acknowledging the need for them to retain their own capacity, he has imposed periodic sentences on defaulters. This means that they will serve their sentences over weekends, thus allowing them to keep their jobs. Faced with the prospect of several weekends in jail, many of the defaulters have immediately settled all arrears.
We have entered into a public/private joint venture with the establishment of two people’s family law centres in Johannesburg and Cape Town, a third is envisaged for Durban later this year. Specific protocols for case management, client support and the early resolution of matters have been tried in these centres and tested for similar application in our courts. Law centre representatives and the department have established the task team for a comparative review of our existing family courts and the family law centres with a view to establishing best practice. Once this is completed, it will be used as a basis for specific legislation to support further roll out of family courts in future.
The task team has completed a blue print for a family court dispensation and R17,4 million has been set aside for this purpose. Phased in implementation is scheduled to commence during this financial year, and will see the strengthening of the current pilot projects in Johannesburg, Lebowakgomo, Port Elizabeth, Durban and Cape Town. It will also provide for the expansion of the family court dispensation to other courts.
Once again, we have the private sector to thank for their proactive participation in this exciting process. However, we need to move beyond merely bringing justice facilities to women and children. We need to address issues relating to the cost of litigation, the undue delays and excessive formalities within the legal process.
With respect to improving access to justice, it is our belief that small claims courts have a crucial role to play, and this is especially the case in rural areas. We now have a 142 small claims courts operating throughout the country, 25 of them designated to rural areas. The establishment of small claims courts is attributable to the services of the many attorneys and advocates who serve voluntarily as commissioners, and who are the driving force behind the process. I would like to take this opportunity to thank each and every one of them for their support and dedication. I would also like to thank those private-sector people that assisted the Ministry and department in determining a strategy for improved service delivery in the small claims courts over the past year.
It was just last week that I met with department officials and representatives of the Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope. We have agreed, in principle, to a joint venture, pursuant to that society’s recent resolution that each member shall contribute at least three working days to pro bono work per calendar year. A project to ensure that the pro bono contribution of the law society members is used to best advantage in our courts and other cluster structures will be established in the near future. An initiative to pilot the participation of students as legal assistants in the small claims courts has also been approved. I must thank the Cape Law Society and UCT’s Law Faculty for their valuable contributions to our process.
Strategic partnerships like these between ourselves, the private sector, the legal profession and academic institutions will contribute significantly to the improvement of our service delivery capacity. We are grateful to the many individuals, institutions and corporations that have demonstrated their support through constructive engagement and co- operation. We should also not forget the many nongovernmental and community- based organisations that volunteer in our courts. We salute their efforts and acknowledge their dedication. We know that many of these organisations suffer severe resource constraints, and that it is for this reason that we used Government’s 16 Days of Activism programme last year to raise funds for these organisations. We raised nearly R800 000, and the Foundation for Human Rights contributed as much to a ring-fenced fund dedicated to supporting organisations that work with victims of violence.
The Minister in his opening address of today’s debate contextualised the work of our department within the range of work performed by our safety and security cluster. The importance of interdepartmental co-operation and integrated work processes is perhaps most clearly demonstrated in the workings of our sexual offences courts. The department, the National Prosecuting Authority, the Department of Social Development and SAPS have established a close working relationship, and have developed a national strategy for the accelerated roll-out of sexual offences courts.
The focus of their effort is to provide a seamless service to our clients from the time that each case is reported right through to prosecution. To date, 40 sexual offences courts have been established in designated crisis areas and four Thuthuzela clinics are currently operational. The co- operation and assistance of the Health department has been invaluable in setting up these fine examples of service excellence where the victim is central to the process. Again, the participation of the private sector in enhancing our roll-out capacity must be acknowledged at this point.
Our policy with respect to domestic violence is premised on the direct link between violence and its palpably negative impact on the development of women and children. The response to domestic violence legislation has been overwhelming. Women and children are turning to our courts for protection in increasingly large numbers. As we speak, 2 427 protection orders for domestic violence cases have been processed by the Wynberg Court alone since the beginning of the year.
The successful implementation of this important legislation is, once again, highly dependent on the integrated efforts of the SA Police Services and the Departments of Justice and Social Development. Recent analysis by the Consortium on Violence Against Women on the domestic violence legislation has indicated that where high levels of co-operation exist between the responsible departments, significantly improved levels of service are experienced by the client. Ongoing training for officials in our courts and improved mechanisms for co-ordinating the work of all the role-players will continue to be the focus of our efforts to improve current service levels now and in future.
Recent United Nations statistical analysis have revealed that women perform two thirds of the world’s work, earn one tenth of the world’s income and own less than one hundredth of the world’s property. Our President, Thabo Mbeki, has insisted that gender equity is the litmus test for the advance we are making towards fundamental social transformation. It is for this reason that we are delighted to announce the designation of 62 courts as equality courts, all of which came into operation today. We strongly believe that these courts will serve as important mechanisms for righting the gender and racial wrongs and imbalances that continue to prevail in our society. We look forward to an expanded programme of operation over the coming financial year.
Our programme for judicial and legal reform is well on track. We can be proud of the fact that many of the rights-based laws passed by this House since 1994 are widely considered to be best practice examples of progressive lawmaking. Our challenge, as we go forward, will be to reduce the gap between ambitious legislative measures and practical delivery on the ground.
In closing, I wish to thank the Minister, the director-general, his exco and the Justice Board for their continued support. Thanks must also go to the officials and my office for their unflagging dedication. Finally, I would be failing in my duty if I did not recognise the sterling efforts of the justice portfolio committee and its chairperson. Thank you. [Applause.]
Mr S N SWART: Madam Speaker, it is undeniable that the levels of crime remain unacceptably high. Whilst we have to wait until August to obtain the exact crime figures, most South Africans are clearly overwhelmed and preoccupied with crime, its effects and how to combat it.
The callousness of the crimes, particularly the rapes and murders, has resulted in society calling for harsher measures, including the reintroduction of the death penalty - a call that the ACDP has consistently supported. Few would disagree that the judgment prohibiting the death penalty remains one of the most controversial decisions of the Constitutional Court. It is crucial for the court to be sensitive to public opinion and to retain public support for the exercise of its power, failing which it may lose legitimacy as an institution of South African public life.
According to Judge Dennis Davies, constitutional reviews are conducted by unelected judges who are in power to overturn the will of a democratically elected and accountable legislature, in terms of a process of interpreting abstract constitutional provisions. In short, the question arises as to how to account for and justify the curtailment of the operation of a democratic political system in favour of an unaccountable institution?
As far as the pattern in the media is concerned, the ACDP wishes to reiterate the fact that the independence of the judiciary, being one of the central pillars of our Constitution and the guardian of the rule of law, must be protected. We need only to look at Zimbabwe to see what happens to the rule of law when the independence of the judiciary is not safeguarded.
Having practised as an attorney for 15 years, I am fully mindful of the tremendous workload faced by members of the judiciary. My concerns, as well as those of the members of the justice committee, relate to the fact that the High Courts are only able to sit for an average of three hours and 25 minutes for a variety of reasons, often beyond the control of the presiding officer. At no time did we, as the ACDP, or for that matter any member of the justice portfolio committee, allege that judges only work for this period. Clearly, there is a huge amount of chamber work, and the recesses are inter alia used for the preparation of judgments and the reading of appeal records.
We wish to also disassociate ourselves, as the ACDP, from any insinuation that anyone said that judges are lazy and overpaid. My understanding of the discussions was that a number of issues were raised to address the backlogs of the court and the need to increase court hours per day for all courts, including the High Courts.
We as MPs and parliamentarians do, however, need to continue to monitor the courts and address issues contributing to increasing court backlogs. A particular concern, one that I raised in the committee, is the application of the minimum sentencing legislation by certain High Courts. I am particularly concerned with the practice that rape victims are being subjected to unnecessary further victimisation by not only having to give evidence in the regional court, but when the matter is referred to the High Court for sentencing, being recalled to give evidence a second time. This further victimisation is unacceptable and must be brought to an end. A solution to this problem would be to institute all such prosecutions, where there may be the imposition of a minimum sentence, in the High Court to avoid such secondary victimisation.
As far as the National Prosecuting Authority is concerned, the statistics indicate an increase from 756 000 last year to almost a million cases, which is a substantial increase. To assist the National Prosecuting Authority with their task of fighting crime, the following should be speedily considered: Firstly, as requested by the National Director of Public Prosecutions, the asset forfeiture legislation needs to be urgently beefed up. How is it possible that a fugitives from justice can contest asset forfeiture proceedings aimed at combating organised crime without subjecting themselves to the jurisdiction of the courts?
Secondly, last year I endorsed the call for legislative amendments to compel accused persons to divulge their defence in view of the obligation of the state to provide a copy of the police docket. This, together with plea bargaining and special initiatives such as Saturday courts, will go a long way to expedite the finalisation of cases.
In the last few seconds available to me, I want to raise the very serious issue relating to the department’s deposit account. It is disgraceful that corrupt officials are robbing the public by pocketing what could be millions of rands deposited for maintenance payments, bail money, fines and deceased estates.
The fact that accounts of many of the approximately 750 courts are in a state of chaos and that the amount of money that has been misappropriated is, according to the Chief Financial Officer, significant, is an issue of great concern. The state will in all likelihood be held liable to make good the losses that may run into many millions of rands. [Applause.]
Mr J T MASEKA: Madam Speaker, the UDM supports the hon Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development and the chairperson of the portfolio committee in recognising the constitutional independence of the judiciary. Furthermore, the UDM noted how these two persons reacted to various newspaper reports. The UDM commends the Chief Justice’s reports regarding his participation in the public hearing of the department’s budget.
The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development is to play an important role in that it is to uphold and protect the Constitution and the rule of law. The department has to make sure that justice is being done and is seen to be done.
Accessibility, fairness and speedy and cost effective administration of justice are some of the most important requirements that the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development should prioritise. To achieve these priorities the department has to have proper administration, efficient court services, state legal services, a national prosecuting authority and auxiliary associated services like the Scorpions, the Asset Forfeiture Unit and the Special Investigating Unit.
This Budget should be used to meet these priorities. It is disgusting to learn, at the end of the financial year, that an amount of money has been returned to the National Treasury as unused by the department, yet there are priorities that were not attended to.
The budget of this department is increased each year, but services rendered by it leaves much to be desired. Corruption, inefficiency and staff shortages are some of the main contributory factors to the poor service delivery in the department, and it is not doing enough to deal with these factors decisively. Taxpayers’ money are being used for purposes that are benefiting some individuals rather than the public.
This budget should be used effectively and efficiently to meet the requirements of this department by building the necessary buildings and structures that can be accessed by all. It must further employ and train enough staff that can render efficient and proper services to the public. Justice should be accessible to all, particularly in the previously disadvantaged areas.
Court buildings should be built where they are needed the most, like in the rural areas where there are no courts, and people have to travel long distances to access justice. In some instances cases are unnecessarily withdrawn as witnesses cannot reach courts because they are far, and they have no money to travel there.
It is also important that the issue of a witness fee should be looked into because of this unnecessary travelling. Cases are postponed and unnecessarily withdrawn after people have travelled long distances to various courts. This department is urged to act immediately to see to it that this type of exercises are addressed in a proper manner.
The UDM supports the budget.
Mr G B MANGWANISHE: Madam Speaker, hon members, there is no better way of honouring the 1976 generation of young people than the way in which we are doing today, namely reporting on the progress that we have made during the last 12 months in bettering the lives of our people, and presenting an action plan for the future and a plan on how we are going to finance it. Like them, we remain committed to creating a society where there will be no blacks, whites, coloureds or Indians, just proud South Africans.
It is on days like these, when we pass laws and budgets, that people of this country are able to say: We might be poor today, we might not have something to eat, but we remain convinced that the future is bright. Because we committed ourselves that, together with the ANC-led Government, we shall be agents of change, we shall be agents of change by bringing change into our own lives.
We made this commitment, knowing very well that this was not going to be an easy road. We refuse that people, who do not have our interest at heart, take advantage of our poverty by feeding us with negative thoughts, thoughts that suggest that we are failing as a nation, because they want our vote. The ANC came to the people of South Africa in 1999 and asked for a partnership to address the country’s problems. It did not tell the people of South Africa to fight back. It did not tell the people of South Africa to fight the poor, the vulnerable women and children. It asked the people of South Africa to be their own liberators. The result of this partnership is clear to all those who want to see.
I know that there are those who will decide not to see and not to hear. Because seeing good things and hearing good news is very painful to them. However, it is important for the nation to hear this good news. When the Legal Aid Board decided to move away from the judicare system and to provide legal assistance through salaried lawyers, it has been able to reduce the average cost per finalised matter from R1 404 to R699; thereby making allowance for more people to be helped.
At present 68% of all district and regional courts are covered by the local justice centres. Within this financial year, the Legal Aid Board will be able to link each justice centre to all district, regional and High Courts in its area of operations. Within this financial year, each justice centre will link with every prison in its area of operation. It will establish a system of consultation with awaiting-trial and sentenced prisoners.
A pilot project is underway to look at co-operation with advice offices to increase the link with communities. We are convinced that the Legal Aid Board is equal to the challenges facing them, namely, that of contributing and making the justice system work and of providing quality legal services to the poor.
Let me welcome and thank Judge Dunstan Mlambo, who is the new Chairperson of the Legal Aid Board, and the CEO, Ms Vidhu, Vedalankar, her management team and the staff of the Legal Aid Board for doing such good work. I would also like to thank the previous chairperson, Judge Navsa, and the previous CEO, Mr Ally, for a job well done. We also urge public bodies, especially departments, to comply with section 32 of the Access to Information Act, by submitting reports to the Human Rights Commission. It is only through such compliance that you will be able to see the impact of this legislation.
Despite the challenges we face in creating a better life for all we know that, in the end, the sun shall rise, despite destructive criticism from those who do not believe in the transformation of our country. But we are certain that the sun shall rise. I thank you.
Dr M S MOGOBA: Madam Speaker, hon Minister, I take part in this debate on behalf of my new leader, the President of the PAC, Dr Motsoko Pheko, whom we congratulate and wish every success in his term of office. [Applause.] The PAC supports the budget on Justice and Constitutional Development. In the limited time at my disposal, however, I want to raise a few issues in the context of international law, which our Constitution claims to recognise. According to the TRC there are only 22 000 victims of apartheid who will receive reparations. Is this logical out of a population of 40 million people who suffered the bestiality of apartheid in various ways and forms? According to President Thabo Mbeki only R30 000 will be paid as reparations to each of the victims of apartheid. This is about 2 500 British pounds. It is peanuts, well contrasted to the billions of dollars which were paid to the Jews after the Second World War, and to others in Japan, Korea, New Zealand, etc.
President Mbeki has also declared that freedom fighters who did not appear before the TRC for their armed anti-apartheid activities will be prosecuted. This raised the most disturbing question in international law. Does a crime against humanity apply to Africans? This does not seem to be the case in the context of the naked disregard of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, through which the United Nations declared apartheid a crime against humanity. Prosecuting the former freedom fighters will destabilise this country and open old wounds. The TRC has been based on the wrong legal premise. It is a fraud. If there is prosecution of former freedom fighters, the TRC will be more discredited.
Other matters which must be looked into are motor vehicle allowances for magistrates, their salaries and their conditions of service. There have been complaints about these matters for a long time. In a country where there is so much crime, this nation needs a well-equipped and satisfied magistracy. The department must respond positively to the needs of the magistrates. Some magistrates are relief magistrates. They need reliable transport and convenient accommodation. They often have to argue or wait for reimbursement for travel and accommodation. This does not do their morale any good. As late as 26 February 2003, the secretary of the Magistrates Commission in Pretoria was reminded about this matter on behalf of the subcluster heads or senior magistrates and head office.
The PAC is concerned about the extreme delay in paying the R888 000 which was recommended by the TRC for the 22 000 victims of apartheid, and hopes that this delay can be explained convincingly. Some victims have been desperate for their money, while others have died.
There has been a newspaper report that a Kenyan woman, Mrs Wanjiku Kamendere, awaited trial for 21 years. This is scandalous. This perversion of justice must be investigated. It does not present a good image of the justice system of any country. We trust that the recent rift between the judges and the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development will be resolved. We have a wonderful judicial system, and our judges and magistrates are important pillars of our democratic dispensation. I thank you. [Applause.]
Miss S RAJBALLY: Madam Speaker, it is sad to note the tension between our independent judiciary and Parliament, as we debate this vote. The MF sincerely hopes that matters will be settled and unison maintained in the best interests of South Africa. The Constitution governs supreme. An act in contravention to it is illegal. The independence of our three spheres are clear-cut in our Constitution. This independence, the MF feels, should be upheld at all costs. We cannot allow such childish tramping on toes and pointing of fingers. There are far more serious issues that our justice system needs to address. Here I want to compliment the chairperson of the portfolio committee on the action taken by him.
Change in our system has been gradual, and more speedy transformation would be greatly appreciated, but the MF does note the seriousness and the need for caution in transforming this sector. In consideration of this, the MF feels that patience needs to be adopted to ensure that efficient policies are put into place to manage our justice system correctly. The MF notes the many efforts and accomplishments of the department in its service to our people. However, the media often manages to paint a weak picture of our justice system.
The MF feels that leniency, in terms of crime, has to be graded. Our people need to be reassured that their safety and wellbeing is a priority, and that we are working hard at securing that. The MF also notes that our prisons are overcrowded, but feels that community threats need to be sentenced to do time, in the hope of rehabilitation, prevention and in order to instil confidence in our justice system.
Though the MF feels that the independence of our spheres are necessary for our democracy, a close working relationship between the three is important to ensure a system of checks and balances. The MF hopes that the budget allocated to the department for this financial year shall assist in the issues that it is facing. The MF supports budget vote 24. Thank you, Madam Speaker. [Applause.]
Mr G SOLOMON: Madam Speaker, with due respect to Dr Delport as a senior politician, I am somewhat baffled by the political discourse of the hon member regarding the justice system in the new South Africa. If he and his party are yearning for the certainties of the past, where the legal system was the main cog in the machinery of domination sustaining a privileged class, then it is completely out of context today.
The new democratic South Africa has a human rights based legal system, underpinned by a constitution and a Constitutional Court. Besides this, it is imperative that the justice system must be seen today in the realm of the economic and social realities in South Africa, including the stark poverty of many South Africans and the gross income and wealth disparities between black and white. Planning and re-engineering, in such a context, might face unexpected and unprecedented challenges - which we are experiencing. If we hope to transform, however, we must accept that the playing field must be levelled. There is no other way.
Nevertheless, one of the most serious challenges facing this Government was, and still is, the successful transformation of the justice system, and particularly the criminal justice system. In order to take up this challenge, eight business units have been identified under the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development and headed by the director-general. The most important of these units is the Business Unit: Court Services. The management of courts is also the core function of the department.
The tasks of this unit, briefly, are the following: the provision of court buildings, and equipping those buildings with the necessary resources and infrastructure; and most importantly, to manage these in order to facilitate, as speedily and cost-effectively as possible, the adjudication of criminal matters and the resolution of civil disputes reaching the court rolls. This applies to the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court of Appeal, the High Courts, specialised courts and the lower courts. In order to execute its task, the business unit is presently implementing what they call a major paradigm shift. What this means is that things will be done differently than before, and if properly executed, will yield better results.
The difference really is that the work will shift, as the Minister has indicated, from the centralised regional offices to court service centres at the courts, thereby implementing an integrated court management system at the point of action. It is at this point where the collective effort of the Cabinet cluster, safety and security converges. It is at this point where, depending upon the co-operation and the quality of the input of the various stakeholders of the cluster, we can realise the rights of an indigent mother to obtain maintenance for her children in a decent and dignified way and so preventing further breakdown in the social fabric which might lead to an escalation in violence and criminality.
It is at this point also where children, who unfortunately came into confrontation with the criminal justice system for committing various serious crimes, but at times for very petty dishonesty crimes, could have a speedy justice process. This would mean that he or she will not languish in jail as an awaiting-trial prisoner for weeks, months or even years, wasting away the potentially productive years of youth, or be denied an opportunity for education or productive work; or worse still, be exposed to abuse by hardened criminals and sucked up into the evil network of prison gangs.
It is also at this point where the department has the opportunity to unravel the overburdened court rolls and significantly improve the ratio between court hours and the completion of trials. It is quite clear that the success of this strategic plan of the Business Unit: Court Services is critically underpinned by the collaborative efforts of the key stakeholders of the cabinet cluster, safety and security.
In rolling out the strategic court management plan, the unit recognises that the people whom it serves, are the most important component. Therefore, physical accessibility to user-friendly courts is one of the key considerations. To give effect to this, a very complex and technical process is still under way in order to redefine jurisdictional boundaries which were complicated by apartheid, homelands and bantustan policies.
The principle of this operation is that all Government departments must align their service delivery boundaries, where possible, to the political boundaries, namely, provincial and municipal boundaries. It simply means that each province should be served by a High Court and that the service delivery of the SA Police Service must align with the magisterial districts proposed by the Department for Justice and Constitutional Development. Again we require the co-operative effort of provincial and local government affairs, the SA Police Service and Justice.
To come back to the activities of the business unit, the non-negotiable golden thread that runs through all the planning of the activities of this unit, is to level the playing field between services supplied to previously advantaged and privileged areas and communities, and the appalling condition of, and lack of services for the marginalised and underprivileged areas and communities, particularly women, children and the rural poor.
In 1999, the hon Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development visited various areas and investigated matters relating to court availability and efficiency. He found that the court building, for example, at Tembisa could not accommodate the provision for maintenance service. Indigent women had to travel a long distance to queue at the Kempton Park court. He reported it to this House in September 1999. An interim, quick- fix solution was immediately effected with the collaboration of Business Against Crime, and the construction of a new building was programmed for 2003.
At the justice committee budget vote hearings on the 8 June 2003, the head of the Business Unit Court Services reported that the new court in Tembisa was nearing completion - a promise kept to the people of Tembisa with on- target delivery. In the same report to this House, the hon Minister announced the concept of the model court project in order to establish minimum standards of customer care in a holistic way, dealing with family matters, sexual offences and child friendly accommodation. Mitchells Plain in the Western Cape was targeted. In April 2003, I attended the opening ceremony of the model court in Mitchells Plain. A promise to the people of Mitchells Plain was honoured with on-target delivery.
Also in the same report to this House, the hon Minister announced the laying of the foundation of a new court in Khayelitsha, and he spoke about it, in order to bring justice in a holistic way to the doorstep of the people of this township. In May 2003, the new, impressive, well-equipped court was officially opened by President Thabo Mbeki - a promise to the people of Khayelitsha honoured with on-target delivery.
And just by the way, on Thursday we are also opening a court in Bluedowns - another promise kept to the mainly coloured population of that community. [Applause.] We are not saying that everything is running smoothly with the plans and programmes of this unit. There are still many challenges. We are coming to grips with outdated accounting procedures. We are doing our best, and I think we are succeeding in correcting the books which must be balanced. We are also dealing, as we have heard here, with the sensitive issue of the question of the number of court hours worked by judicial officers from the High Courts to the lower courts. Unfortunately, important feathers sometimes get ruffled in the process.
However, what we do know after two weeks of public hearings with the department, is that we have a department with a vision, policies, and plans to tackle its challenges. We have a DG who is dedicated, and under whom we have business unit managers who are dependable and as dedicated. We have a no-nonsense portfolio committee, and we shall execute our functions with all the power that the law allows. We have not overstepped, shall not overstep and have no intention of overstepping the principle of the independence of the judiciary. But we shall insist, persist and pursue our function of overseeing without fear of failure in order to improve the justice system in our country. Thank you. [Applause.]
Mnr C AUCAMP: Agb Mevrou die Speaker, die huidige storm tussen die ses regters, presidente en die agb Johnny de Lange is tans voorbladnuus. Dit is nie die eerste keer dat die integriteit en onafhanklikheid van ons regbank in die gedrang kom nie.
Ek ken die argument: Die regbank is onafhanklik, maar nie onaantasbaar nie. Ek weet, die blote feit van regterskap verander ‘n mens nie in ‘n onfeilbare, onaantasbare wese nie. Ek weet dat die verweer gemaak kan word dat regters professioneel onafhanklik is. Die onafhanklikheid van die regbank het betrekking op die regspraak wat hulle uitoefen, maar administratief staan hulle onder toesig en gesag.
Ek weet die agb Johnny de Lange is ‘n baie hardwerkende en bekwame voorsitter, maar uitlatings soos dié wat hy geuiter het, hoort nie in die openbaar nie. Dít is waar die probleem kom. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Mr C AUCAMP: Hon Madam Speaker, the current storm between the six judges- president and the hon Johnny de Lange is front-page news at present. This is not the first time that the integrity and independence of our judiciary are being prejudiced.
I know the argument: The judiciary is independent, but not unassailable. I know, the mere fact that one is a judge does not change one into an infallible, unassailable being. I know the argument can be made that judges are professionally independent. The independence of the judiciary relates to the administration of justice exercised by them, but administratively they are subject to supervision and authority.
I know that the hon Johnny de Lange is a very hard-working and competent chairman, but statements such as those made by him do not belong in the public arena. That is where the problem arises.]
The distinction the hon De Lange made today again between the administrative and judicial functions of judges may be valid, but this distinction does not mean that it is wise to, by implication, throw a shadow over the integrity of judges when it comes to administrative matters, and then expect the public to have confidence in the same judges when performing their judicial functions.
Dit ondermyn hul aansien en vertroue; dis soos om die skoolhoof voor die kinders uit te trap. [This undermines the esteem in which they are held and their confidence; it can be likened to chastising the school principal in front of the children.]
And in his attempt to apply damage control today, the hon De Lange actually added insult to injury and even made more attacks on the judiciary. It is not a matter of, as the hon Koos Van der Merwe said: ``Hy het geplace, gedrop en gescore’’. It is rather a matter of playing off-sides and we must consider a red card. [Interjections.]
Ja, ek het nie tyd daarvoor nie. Om agter die hoofregterposisie weg te kruip, verander niks aan die saak nie. Die gesag van die hoofregter ontneem nie die regters-president hul vryheid van spraak en verdoem hul nie tot die status van zombies nie.
Agb Speaker, is dit nie maar ‘n geval daarvan dat die ANC in sy totalitêre heerskappy dit nie kan verdra dat daar ‘n duimbreedte van die SA samelewing is wat nie onder sy plak staan nie?
En dan maak die agb De Lange nog die fout om regters se produktiwiteit bloot te meet aan die ure wat hulle op die bank deurbring. Dan moet hy seker ‘n ernstige probleem hê met predikante, want volgens dié redenasie, werk hulle net twee ure per week. Soos hulle sê: ``Ses dae van die week onsigbaar en die sewende dag onverstaanbaar.’’
Asof dit nie genoeg is nie, volg die agb De Lange dit op met ‘n versugting dat streeklanddroste ‘n horlosie-oudit moet ondergaan om te kyk of hulle nie dalk aspris laat slap lê in die week net om ‘n verskoning te hê vir Saterdag se oortydbetaling nie. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Yes, I have no time for that. To hide behind the position of chief justice does not change anything. The authority of the chief justice does not deprive the judges-president of their freedom of speech or condemn them to the status of zombies.
Hon Speaker, is it not simply a case in of the ANC in its totalitarian rule not being able to bear the thought of there being an inch of South African society which is not under its whip.
And then the hon De Lange still makes the mistake of measuring judges’ productivity solely on the basis of the number of hours that they spend on the bench. Then he probably must have a serious problem with the clergy because, according to this argument, they work for only two hours per week. As they say: ``Invisible for six days of the week and unintelligible on the seventh.’’
As if that were not enough, the hon De Lange follows it up with a suggestion that regional magistrates should be subjected to a time-and- motion audit to see whether they are not perhaps dragging their feet on purpose during the week just to have an excuse for Saturday’s overtime pay.]
Speaker, the NA is in general satisfied with the way in which the conclusion of the TRC process was handled. It could have been a process of guilt and blame casting over and over again.
And I want to say to the Reverend Mogoba: R30 000 is R30 000 more than the victims received after the Anglo Boer War. It is, however, still not clear how exactly the Public Prosecutor fits in the whole picture. What exactly is the procedure? Is this door also open for persons currently in jail because of political offences for which they did not get amnesty from the TRC? We want to have clarity on that.
Laastens, die feit dat bykans een derde van die 70% aangehoudenes in ons oorvol tronke verhoorafwagtend is, werp ‘n skadu op die effektiwiteit van die departement. Talle oplossings is al aan die hand gedoen. Sporadiese en gefragmenteerde pogings soos Saterdaghowe alleen gaan nie die probleem oplos nie. Die NA stel ‘n totale herbesinning voor, ‘n bymekaarkom van alle betrokkenes, ook uit die regsprofessie, om nuut en oorspronklik hieroor te besin. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[Lastly, the fact that almost one third of the 70% of prisoners in our overpopulated prisons are awaiting trial casts a shadow on the effectiveness of the department. Numerous solutions have been suggested. Sporadic and fragmented efforts such as Saturday courts alone are not going to solve the problem. The NA proposes a total reconsideration, a meeting of all those involved, also from the legal profession, to think about this in a new and original way.]
The practice of plea bargaining is a step in the right direction. Maybe the hon Minister could tell this House more or less to what extent it was used, and what can be done to maximise this practice and to minimise unnecessary long cases, from which only the law practitioners score. We cannot afford it, Madam Deputy Speaker. Waar wil jy ‘n ernstiger vorm van menseregteskending hê as dat ‘n man vier jaar lank aangehou is en dan vrygelaat word. Ek suig dit nie uit my duim uit nie. Hy was in my kantoor. Ek dank u. [Where would you find a more serious form of human rights violation than a man being held in custody for four years and then being released. I am not sucking this out of my thumb. He was in my office. I thank you.]
Ms T E MILLEIN: Madam Deputy Speaker, hon members, the IAM regrets the unseemly state of affairs currently pertaining in the controversial matter involving the three arms of state, namely the executive, Parliament and the judiciary.
Surely it is imperative that the general public does not lose respect, particularly for our executive and the judiciary. Moreover, in terms of the Constitutional provisions and the separation of powers, there are clear divisions between these institutions and each must avoid encroaching on the others’ territory. The onus on us as politicians and MPs not to breach the powers of the judiciary is probably even more essential, given the well- established tendency of politicians - and I include myself - who find it irresistible to engage in matters controversial.
Perhaps, Madam Deputy Speaker, this is one occasion when our obsession with openness and transparency should be tempered with quiet diplomacy and discretion in resolving issues where these three institutions of state are so patently at odds with one another. It is neither desirable nor necessary
- in my opinion - for the unedifying spectacle of mud-slinging between our highest organs of state, the end result of which can only lead to the undermining of one, or all parties involved.
Unless we wish to emulate the atrocious precedents being perpetrated by our northern neighbour, Zimbabwe, whose leader has single-handedly perverted the rule of law and justice in that country to the extent that there is no law or justice, we must simply resolve this national crisis of confidence in and between the executive, Parliament and the judiciary expeditiously and amicably. We will thereby restore the honour, dignity and respect essential to sustaining good governance.
I support, in general, the hon Minister’s call for a review of the criminal justice system, with the goal of dealing more effectively dealing with violent crime. I thank you.
Ms L L MABE: Deputy Speaker, I want to start by saying that it is the strong-hearted who are determined to turn the wheel around and face the challenges created by apartheid in this country with much zeal and creativity. In the course of doing that they will be transforming our society so that it will be the society that the Freedom Charter envisaged for the future.
I want to say that those who think that we will go back to the situation prior to 1994 are wrong. I want to challenge them to work hard to ensure that they get the ANC out of Government because the ANC is the Parliament of the people of South Africa.
It is a big challenge to change the state machinery that was inherited from apartheid. It’s not child’s play and it’s not those who are prophesying that they will do better than what the ANC is doing who can do what we have achieved so far.
I want to say that it is through the ANC that we have created the National Prosecuting Authority that we have right now. It was a big challenge for us, as the ANC, that continuing with what we found in the previous government would be a disaster to our society. Indeed we are happy and even the South African population is happy with what the National Prosecuting Authority is doing. It will take us even further into the next century to show that the ANC can do it. Nobody but the ANC can do it. [Applause.]
I want to say that the National Prosecuting Authority is five years old. An ordinary person on the street will tell you, with a smile, what the Asset Forfeiture Unit is doing and what the Scorpions are doing. Meet any South African, they will tell you what the Scorpions are doing. They will even go to the extent that when they see that something wrong is happening, they would wish that if they had the power, they would immediately call the Scorpions to come and address that problem. That is what the ANC has created. [Applause.]
I want to give an example of what happened in Hout Bay [Interjections] I’m not interested in whatever you want to say. I want to give an example of what the National Prosecuting Authority, in conjunction with other departments, has done in Hout Bay, where they have ensured that this problem of abalone poaching on our shores must come to an end. This thing was happening long before the ANC came into Government. What we did was to ensure that we tackle it head-on, and for your information, the National Prosecuting Authority has even seized the boats that were used by the criminals to run away from the police. That is an achievement. [Applause.]
The other thing that we have done is to challenge corruption head-on. That is what this agency is doing. They are even probing into different departments, including the agency itself. I am sure that members have read in the papers about what happened recently, namely, that 35 officials of the National Prosecuting Authority were suspended for corruption. It shows how we as this Government are committed to eradicating corruption. [Interjections.]
It is the aim and the objective of the ANC to take the profit of crime away from the criminals so that they know that whatever they have gained through crime will not be theirs forever, but will be theirs for few days, until the Scorpions come to them and deal with them like a dog dealing with a bone. [Laughter.]
I also want to say that I sometimes get happy when I am in my constituency. I come from a platinum city in the North West province where people would come to us as MPs and ask us how to get hold of the Scorpions because they are aware that at such-and-such a house there’s something wrong happening, or something wrong is happening to our platinum. If an ordinary person can come to you confidently, knowing that there are people employed by this Government who can challenge the criminals, it makes us happy as the ANC.
However, I also want to say that I’m happy with the efforts of the National Prosecuting Authority to get to the police stations every Sunday, so that they can screen the dockets to ensure that all the dockets that are brought to court are dockets that can stand the test of the court.
You must remember that most of the complaints that go to these police stations over the weekend are, for example, about people who were arrested because a particular shebeen was raided and people were drinking beer there. They didn’t do anything wrong. They were just drinking beer and they happened to be taken along to the police station. So those complaints are recorded as part of the cases that are on the roll, and they are a waste of time.
Some people, for instance, would even report you for making a noise when you are having a night vigil. It is unfortunate but we as Africans conduct night vigils. If we make a noise that disturbs you, it’s unfortunate, but the police should not record it as a crime incident. [Interjections.]
I also want to say I’m positive that the case of the Boeremag will be dealt with effectively and that the National Prosecuting Authority will ensure that, when that case is decided by the court, the court will have all the relevant information. People who are against this Government and think that we should go back to prior to 1994, and who think that a black person cannot govern a country like South Africa, should stop thinking like that. They should accept that they are part of South Africa and they will remain part of South Africa, unless they are not committed to becoming South Africans.
Finally I want to challenge the youth on the fact that we need your talent. As the youth, go back to school. Study the relevant courses. Yesterday I attended a funeral of a young woman who was a crime analyst. Somebody must replace that particular woman because she was doing a lot of good work in the Potchefstroom area. So I’m challenging the youth: Take up your books, study hard and ensure that, because this Government wants you and your contribution, you contribute to a better South Africa and Africa. I want to thank you. [Applause.]
Mrs S M CAMERER: Madam Deputy Speaker, in the run-up to this Budget Vote debate it has become clear that the Department of Justice is a department in trouble. Not only are the leaders of our justice system, our top judges, apparently at loggerheads with the ANC and the Government - and I have heard nothing today to indicate anything to the contrary - but the Scorpions, the elite crime-busting jewel in the platinum crown of the National Prosecuting Authority, last week arrested 35 of their own members for alleged fraud. In a department with a staff complement of some 11 000 there are at present 2 000 disciplinary investigations of mismanagement pending, nearly 300 disciplinary cases under way and 95 suspensions current.
While the scams and misconduct paint an unhappy picture, the latest spat in a seemingly deteriorating relationship between the ANC politicians and High Court judges is of deep concern. The judges’ perception of an insinuation that they are paid too much for too little work coming after claims of a lack of transformation of the bench from the same quarter is clearly the last straw. The protest meeting held by six of the nine judges president is unprecedented. It is also noteworthy that five of those six judges are black, and also the spokesperson on their behalf is black. [Interjections.]
The DA calls on the Minister of Justice to reassure the judges that the ANC will not pursue actions to lower the esteem with which they are regarded by the general public, thereby undermining their credibility, dignity, integrity and, indirectly, their independence. While measured critical comment may sometimes be appropriate, it is clear that judges believe that the fine line demarcating the separation of powers between the executive, legislature and judiciary has been overstepped. The DA believes that it is the duty of all of us, in terms of the Constitution, to protect and ensure the independence and dignity of the bench.
In relation to the ANC’s recent complaints about the judges, the following should be noted in connection with transformation. In 1994 there were three black judges and one woman judge. Since then there has been a quantum leap and we now have 72 black judges and, not as good a result, 23 women out of a total of 214. The Chief Justice told the portfolio committee last week that transformation is proceeding as quickly as it can in view of the shallow pool of suitable black and women lawyers as candidates for appointment, and that judges’ salaries are too low to attract the brightest and best black lawyers.
Productivity of the high courts is a concern, but as Chief Justice Chaskalson also indicated last week, the causes of this are varied and complex, including delays by other role-players such as the Legal Aid Board, correctional services, SAPS and the failure of the justice department to provide sufficient interpreters and security personnel. The Chief Justice had some harsh words about the state of criminal justice in this country when he briefed the portfolio committee. He said that 50% of crimes in our country go unpunished because of poor policing and prosecution. He said, and I quote:
It is intolerable that the awaiting-trial period is as long as it is.
He condemned the low productivity of the courts in general and stated:
I believe the lack of capacity in the courts needs to be acknowledged. If the capacity is not there the problem cannot be solved.
And he indicated that it may well be a matter of an inadequate budget.
The DA agrees wholeheartedly with the Chief Justice. He also said:
Enough time has passed for the changes in our society to be digested.
There is some good news in this budget. So that the DA will not be accused of being negative only, we will highlight some of it. In the first place, the effective increase of some R747 million is the largest ever increase since 1994 and the first time that we have kept up with the inflation rate. But if one considers the enormous backlog in resourcing that has built up over the years it is more or less reflected in the huge backlogs in the court rolls referred to by the Minister himself, and it is not remotely enough.
The consolidation of the financial management process during the past two years, through the advent of Mr Alan McKenzie and the intervention of Business Against Crime, has made a difference to improve budgeting, better financial control systems and the uncovering of fraud and scams. However, the Auditor-General told Scopa today that the culture of noncompliance with these precepts was still rife in the department and had not yet been addressed. The other good news, which has been mentioned already in the debate, is that 55 maintenance investigators have at last been appointed on 1 April 2003 for the maintenance courts - five years late, it must be conceded. The maintenance courts around the country are still in a shambles, as all the experts have said and as we have seen ourselves. They are overburdened, inadequately staffed, inefficiently run, with thousands of fathers escaping their obligation to pay. So the jury is still out on the effectiveness of this Act.
However, even taking into account the positive developments, the justice department is just not coping with the burdens placed on it and that makes it impossible for the DA to support this Budget Vote. How can the DA support the Vote when ordinary members of the public experience the courts as painfully slow, inefficient and unfriendly to their needs? The plight of victims is not being addressed. [Interjections.] The recent withdrawal of cases because of poor performance by state prosecutors is no comfort to the victims of those crimes. The National Director of the National Prosecuting Authority claims that his goal is a victim-centred criminal justice system, and yet, after two years of mulling it over, no victims’ charter has yet emerged from the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development. Promises to set up a victims’ fund, which the DA has called for for years, have been made but no steps have been taken. The Criminal Assets Recovery Account, which already holds R27 million in assets forfeited to the state and which is meant to assist victims of crime and aid the fight against crime, has not yet paid out a single cent.
If I may, I just want to briefly unpack a few of the problems which make it impossible for the DA to support the Vote: These are the low productivity of the courts; the long awaiting-trial periods resulting from the slow pace of cases through the courts, which has been referred to by other speakers; persistently low conviction rates in relation to the rising crime rate - which has also been referred to; and extreme shortages of personnel. The director-general’s own office issued a document that was submitted to our committee during the hearings which said that the department is both underresourced and relatively unskilled and, therefore, ill-prepared to fulfil its mandate. The DA sees insufficient progress in this budget towards the goals of an efficient, victim-friendly court system and therefore we cannot support this Budget Vote. [Applause.]
Mr T E VEZI: Madam Speaker, between 1999 and 2006 the justice budget will have doubled from R2,6 billion to R5,2 billion. This massive increase reflects, on the one hand, Government’s commitment to bringing justice to the people and, on the other hand, also indicates the state of our society at this point in history.
I want to highlight just two additional budget-related figures. Firstly, expenditure on our law courts will increase by R350 million in the current financial year. We welcome this increase, as it is well-known that these courts deal with the vast majority of the criminal and civil cases. Secondly, the allocation to the Master of the High Court subprogramme increases from R7,4 million to over R119 m to reflect additional funding for capacity and infrastructure improvement. This increase is welcomed as it also reflects the need to implement recent legislative changes to the Master’s offices.
Madam Speaker, in turning to the more general policy matters, the justice department is responsible for drafting amendments to our Constitution and for piloting them through Parliament. In dealing with the floor-crossing legislation the department showed remarkable speed in this regard, yet Constitutional amendments dealing with the powers and functions of traditional leaders, and their relation to local government, have not seen the light seven years after the adoption of the new Constitution.
One has to applaud the department and the Minister for the pilot project in Port Elizabeth where a multiservice task team consisting of the police, prosecutors and correctional service staff have already achieved measurable success. The IFP wants to call on the Minister to urgently find more resources from within the security cluster that can be used in dealing with the problems of our court system. Clearly, new innovations are needed in this regard. We also want to applaud the role played by the business community, through the instance of the Business Against Crime programme. Now is the time for all role-players to join hands and make the system work.
The work done by the Legal Aid Board is vital in terms of the rights provided by our Constitution. The board is doing good work. But there has been a fair amount of criticism to the effect that board-appointed public defenders rarely properly consult with their clients. In many cases, this will impact negatively on the plea bargaining process. In many cases, the accused see their defenders in court for the first time. We have also been informed that language barriers are often responsible for further problems, especially when indigenous languages are the only means of communication. The department therefore has to address the number and quality of interpreters as a matter of urgency. The IFP also wants to call on the Minister to urgently consult with his education and social development colleagues regarding places of safety for young offenders. In many instances, young awaiting-trial offenders are placed in prisons because there are no places of safety available. For instance, there are no such facilities in the entire Eastern Cape province, which obviously means that young offenders end up in prison which has its own potentially negative effect on their future, rehabilitation and integration into society.
A serious problem in the so-called conveyor belt of justice is the fact that cases are often remanded because the case dockets are either incomplete or inadequate to continue with prosecution. This causes major difficulties for the prosecution services and leads to the long delays in the entire criminal justice process. Such delays have a snowball effect which affects all subsequently required processes. In this regard, we want to call on the Minister and department to foster greater co-operation with investigating officers and senior police officers to ensure that these dockets are delivered on time, in such a state that they can actually be used in the court process.
Over the past number of years, large amounts of money have been spent on improving security at our courts, yet there are still problems. In Durban a murder took place, in Hermanus a magistrate was threatened with death, and in Port Elizabeth the magistrates’ court building has no safes, meaning that prosecutors have to take home these files, which obviously presents a great security risk. In Cape Town a court official’s car was hijacked with a number of case files and other documents inside it. The IFP supports the Vote. [Applause.] [Time expired.]
Mr M J MALAHLELA: Deputy Speaker, Chapter 9 of Act 108 of 1996, as amended, herein referred to as the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, provides for the establishment of state institutions whose role is nothing else but to strengthen our constitutional democracy - for this constitutional democracy that we fought so hard, and yet so dearly, to achieve. In doing this we are reaffirming the pronouncements of the Congress of the People in Kliptown: That the people shall govern, all shall be equal before the law and that all shall enjoy equal human rights. This, in essence, is ample proof that we, the African National Congress of yesterday, today and tommorrow, are the architects of our own constitutional democracy.
Yet we are told that the answer to the consolidation of our democracy does not lie in the strengthening of the Chapter 9 institutions, which have a responsibility to strengthen constitutional democracy. The answer, it is said, lies in the creation of a strong opposition to the movement of our people, the movement whose clarion call is a united action to push back the frontiers of our poverty. And we ask: What is there to be opposed? Who and on whose behalf do you oppose?
The Human Rights Commission since its establishment has promoted, and continues to promote, respect for human rights and a culture of human rights, which was a scarce commodity years gone by. For detention without trial and the deliberate annihilation of our women and the young was the order of the day, all in the name of ``die swart gevaar’’. [black peril.] [The protection, development and attainment of human rights reigns supreme in our country today, for the commission has gone a step further to popularise the socioeconomic rights of our people. Yet the baseline allocation to the commission has only increased by 18%, which translated to an amount of R27 401 million in the 2002/2003 financial year. It is interesting to note, however, that the Represented Political Parties Fund is estimated at a staggering R66 653 million; the bulk of which is to allocated to political parties whose mission of existence is nothing else but to oppose. We ask: What is there to be opposed? Who, and on whose behalf do you oppose?
The establishment of the Gender Commission was and continues to be to promote respect for gender equality and the protection, development and attainment of gender equality, in the living memory of Lilian Ngoyi, Helen Joseph and Josephine Moshobane. Igama la makhosikazi malibongwe! [Praise the name of the women!] Let us praise the names of those women.
In the speech entitled ``the revolution cannot triumph without emancipation of women’’, during the International Women’s day celebrations in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, Colonel Thomas Sankara said and I quote:
It is in this light that all of us, men and women, must define and affirm the role and place of women in society. Therefore we must restore to man his true image by making the reign of freedom prevail over differentiations imposed by nature and eliminating all kinds of hypocrisy that sustain the shameless exploitation of women.
In affirming and defining the role of an African woman in society, we, the ANC, appointed a large number of women comrades to the role of Deputy Ministers in the Government of the People of the Republic of South Africa. [Applause.]
This, in the words of the late President of Mozambique, Comrade Samora Machel, the erstwhile leader of the Front for the Liberation of Mozambique:
… was not to be an act of charity, the result of a humanitarian or compassionate attitude but a fundamental necessity for the revolution, the guarantee of its continuity and precondition for its victory.
Yet we are told that the best remedy our country needs in strengthening constitutional democracy is the building of a strong opposition and not the affirmation of an African women in society. The promulgation of the Employment Equity Act whose basic thrust is, amongst other things, to elevate in the workplace designated groups which include African women, is unfortunately interpreted by those whose mission of existence is nothing else but to oppose, as apartheid in reverse and not consolidation of our nascent democracy. How hard and tormenting it is.
We recently passed in this Parliament the Public Protector Amendment Bill so as to further strengthen the office’s ability to investigate complaints lodged by the public against Government officials, agencies and employees. This was done due to our firm belief that the office constitutes one of the best ingredients in protecting societal interests, and hence the increase in their budgetary allocations over a period of three years. Our commitment to the pledge to strive together, sparing neither strength nor courage, until the democratic changes set out in the Freedom Charter have been won, is immeasurable.
The promulgation of the Public Financial Management Act by Parliament under the leadership of the ANC was to further confer additional accounting responsibilities in a systematic way to Government departments and the parastatals, to report accordingly. Our ideal objective is to make this Government of the people, by the people, for the people, to be accountable to the people. [Applause.] Yet those who declared themselves a government- in-waiting without the people’s mandate launched a schating attack on the Auditor-General, accusing him of bias, all in the name of opposition. What is there to be opposed? On whose behalf do you oppose?
In the context of that which we continuously parade as a consolidation and deepening of our people’s power in pushing to the doldrums, the frontiers of our poverty, what is there to be opposed? Who, and on whose behalf do you oppose? Oppose the ANC we told for a powerful ANC is a threat to the democratic dispensation. Who are the architects of this democracy? Oppose the ANC, we are told. For a strong ANC in Parliament will legislate on behalf of the ordinary, poor women of Ga-Dikgale in Limpopo. Who, and on whose behalf are you opposing?
We are the architects of our constitutional democracy and a prosperous future and declare to the world and our fellow country-men and women to know that South Africa belongs to those who live in it - black and white - and that it is only the Government which can justly claim authority. Which government is that? It is the ANC Government as it is based on the will of the people. Which ANC is it, South Africa, that you must oppose? A strong ANC is a threat to a democratic dispensation. Loosely translated, you are told that you must oppose your own will. On whose behalf do they oppose?
As we stand in this secured House of Parliament, we, the ANC, would want to declare to all South Africans: That never, and never again, should it be that the place of a woman is in the kitchen. Never, and never again, should we believe that the ANC is a threat to the democracy, the democracy that made it possible for the ANC to rule. It was the people themselves alone who chose the ANC and the ANC alone to rule this country. Who, and on whose behalf are you opposing the ANC? How hard and tormenting it is. [Applause.]
The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Madam Speaker, I am honoured to be able to say that I am accompanied by a small deputation from my clan; my elder brother uDumisani and his wife Margaret; my mother- in-law who is a cousin of umNtwana wakwaPhindangene, our Minister of Home Affairs, … [Applause.] … my cousin over there, Brian and his wife Mary
- there they are - and of course, my sister Ester, Mrs Bro Sy Ndaba; thank you very much.
First and foremost, I must thank all the hon members - and all' to me
means all’- for what I think was a very interesting debate on the Justice
Budget Vote. We’ve had a very interesting afternoon and evening. Indeed, we
are eternally grateful to the members and we can assure those to whose
contributions we will not have the time to respond to that we shall, as a
cluster, respond appropriately to many of the observations they have made.
One interesting thing is that all the speakers, except the DA’s speakers,
concluded that the situation is improving. The problems that we are
actually confronted with are not peculiarly South African. If I had time I
would give you some few quotations from the Prime Minister of the UK to
make hon members understand that in certain respects we may be doing better
than some of the most advanced and long - standing democracies. However, I
think, we should respond to some of the remarks made by some hon members.
The first one to respond to is the notion that the country is facing a crisis because of certain remarks allegedly made by the chairperson of our portfolio committee. Nothing is further from the truth. There is no crisis in this country and there is no rift between my Government, my ANC and the judiciary. There isn’t any. And, it saddens some of us that it’s hon members in this House who come and stand here and suggest to people, who require to be educated about the issues that we ought to debate and address, that there is a crisis. There is absolutely no crisis at all.
The hon Delport says that the spirit of the Constitution is withering. You know, it’s interesting that he does not tell us what he measures the withering spirit against. Because there was no spirit to measure it against before 1994. Of course, the hon member wittingly or unwittingly tells the truth, namely that he is completely opposed to the transformation of society, though he is in support of whatever he means by affirmative action. I think he has never been this honest. [Laughter.]
However, I want to say to the hon member - thanking him as I do, for his honesty - it’s unavoidable that transformation should be part and parcel of the remaking this society. Because, if we don’t, for God’s sake, then indeed the cleavage between the black and white and the rich and the poor in this country is going to remain frozen at where it was prior to 1994. Transformation is what this country desperately needs. [Interjections.]
Dr J T DELPORT: By discriminating against some.
THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: No! Please, we are not discriminating against anybody.
When you say, for instance, that the land issue must be addressed. The landless people out there would never sympathise with you when you say, for God’s sake, don’t transform, don’t touch land, leave it where it is - when the people know how the land was taken away from the indigenous Africans in this country. [Interjections.] Yes, so, we must! What we are saying, as this House and institution, is that we need to pass appropriate legislation in terms of and under which we shall then address these problems systematically, legally, but address them!
Those who are opposed to transformation shall be reminded at the right hour
- next year when we go to the polls - that we know that they don’t want transformation, because they have ultimately been this honest. That is what you were calling upon the masses of our people to fight back at. They won’t listen to you. [Interjections.]
Dr J T DELPORT: You are now being dishonest.
THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: The next one that we need to respond to is the statement that was made, hopefully tongue-in- cheek, by Koos Van der Merwe. Please, he did say that he doesn’t support transformation. [Interjections.] It’s on the record. [Interjections.] He did say that. [Interjections.]
In any event, he can only be supported by people like you. That’s it. People who have sold their souls completely. [Interjections.] [Applause.] That’s it! Let’s come to this. [Interjections.] Man, you were found drunk in a bus rank, man! That’s how low you have stooped! [Interjections.] [Laughter.] That’s it.
Now, wait! Dereliction of duty is the crime [Interjections.]
Mr G B D McINTOSH: Madam Speaker, [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER:Order! Order!
Mr G B D McINTOSH: Madam Speaker, I would like to take a point of order. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Hon members, listen to the hon member … [Interjections.] Mr G B D McINTOSH: Madam Speaker, would you please ask the Minister to sit down so that I can put my point of order? [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr G B D McINTOSH: Thank you, Deputy Speaker, the point of order is that the Minister has just made an allegation against the hon member Seremane, which I believe reflects extremely seriously on his character. I believe it’s quite inappropriate in Parliament, and coming from the Minister of Justice it’s doubly inappropriate. Would you please ask him to withdraw it and apologise to the hon member? [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Hon member, I don’t think that it matters whether he is a Minister of justice or whatever Minister. Hon Minister, it was unkind and unparliamentary to say that an hon member was found drunk. Please do withdraw that.
The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: He was found sober at a bus rank; I withdraw. [Laughter.] [Applause.] Now, Madam Speaker . . . [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Hon Seremane, please let me deal with this issue. [Interjections.] Hon Minister, just withdraw the remarks, please.
The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Madam Deputy Speaker, I reiterate that I have withdrawn the statement and I have said he was found sober. [Laughter.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon Minister, please, I didn’t ask you to make an additional statement. I’m just asking you to withdraw. [Laughter.]
The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Madam Deputy Speaker, wa tshega jaamrg. Ke kopa tshwarelo. [you are laughing now. I apologise.] [Laughter.] I withdraw the statement. [Laughter.]
The next one that warrants a response . . . [Interjections.] The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Another point of order now?
Mr W J SEREMANE: Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, I haven’t heard him withdraw.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: He withdrew, hon member. [Interjections.]
Mr W J SEREMANE: I haven’t heard him, I heard the last part which is irrelevant, that I am laughing. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon Seremane, he withdrew.
Mr W J SEREMANE: I also withdraw that you are a `com-tsotsi.’
The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: By the way, he called me a com-tsotsi, but he’s now quietly withdrawn that.
The other one that warrants a response is the statement which hopefully hon Koos van der Merwe made tongue-in-cheek, namely, that I was guilty of a dereliction of duty because I did not protect the judges against Johnny de Lange. I did say that if you know how the system works there is no Minister who can actually call upon any member of this House to behave merely because he is Minister. We are called by portfolio committees to account for the way we run departments and it’s in the interest of this democracy that that be so.
The next one that warrants a response again, belongs to Ntate Mogoba, who’s just lost his position as PAC President to his then deputy. Ntate Mogoba, you know, the President said that we should be able to give R30 000 to each one of the victims identified by the TRC. They are victims of gross human rights violations. And the President slowly says to all of us who were listening to him here - and I hope you were, Ntate Mogoba - that this is over and above everything else that we are doing as this Government and society to help reconstruct the lives of our people that were ravaged by the system of colonialism and its apartheid offshoot. Let’s hope you understood that.
The second part of your remarks is a reflection of your lack of understanding, Ntate Mogoba, of why courts ruled that the Jews must be paid. If you remember that only six million Jews died in the Second World War and yet more than 50 million people died, it should strike you as not being strange that the courts focused on the Jews. The money in the Swiss banks belonged to Jewish victims of the Holocaust. Those were their assets, which their heirs, for some reasons or the other, were not accessing, unless and they got court injunctions to deal with that. So the facts are totally different. It’s also helpful to be able to articulate this so that you don’t mislead whoever listens to you out there.
The last set of remarks belongs to my usual friend, hon Sheila. The hon Sheila says that the Chief Justice said 50% of crime goes unpunished. [Interjections.] I can tell you, I suspect that she attended a different meeting. [Interjections.] Yes, that’s what I suspect; because I am advised that the Chief Justice never said that. But the Chief Justice said that we should actually strive - I’m paraphrasing him - to improve on the system in its entirety so that people know that if they commit any crime there is jail and they shall be arrested. He never said anything about the 50%. Look, the Chief Justice doesn’t behave in this way. He is a very decent human being and you know it. [Laughter.]
The hon member also criticises the judiciary for slowness and things like that. She is exacerbating whatever she means by the crisis, interestingly enough, instead of helping the crisis to come to an end. But, again, I’d say there is no crisis. What is also intriguing is that she attaches significance to the fact that five of the six were black - and so what? It’s only a person who is deeply rooted and marinated in the politics of apartheid and racism - honestly - marinated in that politics, that can actually attach significance to race on a matter like this one. [Laughter.]
It does not matter whether or not they are black. There is an issue that we have all been invited to debate and discuss, and that is, the transformation of the institution as part of the transformation of our society. That is the issue for us. Whatever positions or colour people are, whatever race they belong to, the issue in front of us is transformation in its entirety. [Interjections.]
Okusele lapho-ke asambeni siyodla, siphuze, sijabule; niyamenywa nonke. [The last thing is let’s go out and eat, drink and be happy, you are all invited.] Thank you very much. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE ON PRIVATE MEMBERS'LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS AND SPECIAL PETITIONS - PETITION OF MR B D
BROWN
The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: I move that the report be adopted.
There was no debate. Agreed to.
CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF JOINT COMMITTEE ON ETHICS AND MEMBERS’ INTERESTS - BREACH OF CODE OF CONDUCT BY MR T S YENGENI
The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Speaker, I move that the report be noted.
There was no debate.
Agreed to.
The House adjourned at 19:32. ____
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
National Assembly:
-
Report of the Portfolio Committee on Environmental Affairs and Tourism on the Protocol on Wildlife Conservation and Law Enforcement in the Southern African Development Community, dated 17 June 2003:
The Portfolio Committee on Environmental Affairs and Tourism, having considered the request for approval by Parliament of the Protocol on Wildlife Conservation and Law Enforcement in the Southern African Development Community, referred to it, recommends that the House, in terms of section 231(2) of the Constitution, approve the said Protocol.
Request to be considered.