Expropriation Bill: consideration

Public Works and Infrastructure

07 September 2022
Chairperson: Ms N Ntobongwana (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

Video

Tracking the Expropriation Bill in Parliament

In a virtual meeting, the Parliamentary legal advisory team took the Committee through the final version of the Expropriation Bill [B23- 2020]. The Members voted on the Bill, clause-by-clause.

The Chairperson said that the specific clauses which Members did not support would be deliberated before Parliament. 

Meeting report

Meeting Report
The Chairperson said that the Bill was almost in its final stages and the Committee would deal with the bill clause by clause in the session. The Bill was a culmination of the responses of the people of South Africa, through written submissions and public hearings held in all nine provinces. This Bill also consisted of the views emanating from debates held by the Committee, with the opinions of the different political parties and legal advice.

She commended the Members for the good work and effort to ensure the Bill moved forward. She also thanked the Chief State Law Advisors for their work towards the Bill. It had gone through much scrutiny, and the meeting would not be an opportunity for Members to put forward their views, but the deliberations would be done when the Bill was presented before Parliament.

Consideration of Expropriation Bill
Ms Phumelele Ngema, Parliamentary Legal Adviser, said she would go through only the B-Bill version, which was the Bill that incorporated all the proposals the Committee had made. The Bill was referred to as B23 b 2020, which meant the proposals of the Committee and the public opinions had been effected as per the legal standards, lawfulness, and constitutionality thereof.

Long Title

She took the Committee through the long title of the Bill, which read:
 "To provide for the expropriation of property for a public purpose or in the public interest: to regulate the procedure for the expropriation of property for a public purpose or in the public interest, including payment of compensation…". The long title provided a brief summary of the content of the Bill.

The Chairperson said that the title of the Bill had already been deliberated on, and requested Members to indicated whether they were in support of the long title.

Ms S Graham (DA) indicated the Democratic Alliance's rejection of the long title.
Ms S van Schalkwyk (ANC) said that the African National Congress supported the long title.
Mr W Thring (ACDP) said that the African Christian Democratic Party did not support the long title.
Mr S Zondo (IFP) said that the Inkatha Freedom Party did not support the long title.
Mr T Mashele (ANC) supported his colleague, and said that the ANC supported the long title.

Ms Graham asked whether each Member needed to stipulate if they supported any of the clauses, or if the opinion was taken from each party.

The Chairperson said that the votes would be compiled from the opinions of those that indicated yes, and those that indicated that they were not in support. The debates would be done in Parliament, and not during the current meeting. She said that Members of the Committee may support one another in their views of the clauses.

Ms M Hicklin (DA) sought further clarity on whether all the Members had to voice support or non-support of the clause, or if it would be enough that one Member of the same party spoke on its behalf.

The Chairperson stated that she may go ahead and support the opinion of her colleague Ms Graham. She reiterated the DA's rejection of the long title.

The Chairperson gave an opportunity for the individuals who supported the title of the Bill to indicate their support. She noted the hands of Mr E Mathebula (ANC);  Mr Mashele; Ms Mjobo; Ms van Schalkwyk; and herself as the Chairperson.

Preamble

Ms Ngema said that she would not go through the preamble, as it captured sections 25, 33, and 34 of the constitution, which were the rights to administration.

Definitions

She took the Committee through Clause 1, which deals with the definitions and application of the Act.
She said "Claimant" meant a person who had lodged a claim for compensation, and "Constitution" referred to the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. "Court" meant a division of the High Court or a court of similar status within whose area of jurisdiction (a) the immovable property in question was situated; (b) the movable property in question was situated at the time the expropriating authority implemented section 5 or 20; or (c)  the owner of the movable or intangible property in question resided or had his/her principal place of business. "Delivery" in relation to any document, included delivery by hand, post, registered post, and by electronic communication, as defined in section 1 of the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act, 2002 (Act No. 25 of 2002); "Department" meant the Department responsible for Public Works and Infrastructure (DPWI).

Ms Graham asked if the Members opposed certain definitions and not everything -   were they opposing the entire clause, or should specific provisions be stated?

The Chairperson said they may indicate the part they opposed in the clause.

Ms Graham stipulated that the DA would like to oppose the definition of "intangible property" under sub-clause (c), and reiterated that they disagreed with the removal of "counter-offer" under the definition of disputing party. They opposed the fact that no registered right was included under the definition of "Holder of a right." Regarding expropriation, the curtailment of rights should have been incorporated, and therefore they opposed the definition.

Ms L Shabalala (ANC) asked whether the Members were allowed to motivate the reasons they opposed a certain clause.

The Chairperson reiterated that there should not be a debate, and she had the impression that Ms Graham would shortly state that they did not support a particular clause.

Ms Graham apologised to the Chairperson, and said the DA did not support the definition of "public purpose" and "valuer". She concluded that the DA, therefore, was unable to support the entire clause.

Ms Mjobo indicated that the ANC supported the definitions in clause 1.

Ms Hicklin reiterated the sentiments of Ms Graham.
Mr Mathebula moved for the support of the clause without any amendments.
Ms M Siwisa (EFF) indicated that the Economic Freedom Fighters were not in support of the clause.
Mr Zondo said that the IFP did not support the definition of "expropriating authority," but they supported the other definitions.
Mr Thring indicated that the ACDP did not support the clause.

The Chairperson asked the Members who did not support the clause to indicate their opinion.

Mr Mashele asked what would happen in an event where Members did not support a particular subsection in the clause, as it did not seem appropriate to have Members indicate that they did not support a clause when the issue was just in reference to a subsection.

The Members who were in support of the clause gave a show of hands on the virtual platform.

The Chairperson reminded the Members that they had already deliberated on the document.

Application of the Act

Ms Ngema took the Committee through clause 2 of the Application of the Act.

Subsection 1 states that despite provisions of any law to the contrary, an expropriating authority may not expropriate property or cause it to be acquired under subsection 3 arbitrarily or for a purpose other than the public interest.

In subsection 2, subject to section 20, a power to expropriate property may not be exercised unless the expropriating authority had without success attempted to reach an agreement with the owner or hold off a right in property for the acquisition thereof on unreasonable terms.

Subsection 3 states that an expropriating authority may expropriate property in terms of a power conferred on it by the law of general application and in accordance with sections 5 to 25 and 28.

Ms Mjobo said that the ANC supported the application of the Act.
Ms Graham indicated the DA's rejection of the clause as it stands.
Ms Siwisa said that the EFF did not support the clause.
Mr Thring said that the ACDP did not support the clause.
Ms Hicklin supported the DA's rejection of the clause.
Mr Zondo rejected the clause.

The Chairperson noted the Members who supported clause 2, and those who had rejected the clause. The application of clause 2 would be included in the Bill taken to Parliament.

Powers of Minister to expropriate

Chapter 2, clause 3 highlights the powers of the Minister to expropriate. Subsection 1 states that subject to the provisions of Chapter 5, the Minister may expropriate property for the public interest. Subsection 2 states that the Minister may expropriate property on behalf of an organ of state, which had been established by or under any law but was not an expropriating authority. In subsection 3, the Minister's power to expropriate property in terms of subsections 1 and 2 includes the power to expropriate property to be used for the provision and management of the accommodation, and land and infrastructure needs of an organ of the state.

Subsection 4 states that where only a portion of land was to be expropriated, the Minister may expropriate the portion together with the remainder of the land parcel if (a) the owner requested; and (b) the Minister was satisfied that partial expropriation would impair the use of the land and it would be just and equitable to the owner to expropriate the remainder. Subsection 5 states that when the Minister expropriates property in terms of subsection 2, the ownership of the property vests in the relevant organ of state on the date of expropriation.

Ms Siwisa stated that the EFF rejected the clause.
Ms Graham indicated that the DA did not specifically support subsection 3 and subsection 5 of the clause.
Mr Thring said that they did not support the clause.
Ms Hicklin reiterated the rejection of the specific subsections.

Only six Members were in support of the clause.

Delegation of Minister's powers

Clause 4 dealt with the delegation or the assignment of the Minister's powers or duties, and provided in subsection one, subject to subsection two, that the Minister may delegate or assign, either generally or in relation to a particular property or particular case, power or duty under this Act to an official of the Department.

The Democratic Alliance stated their support for clause 4.
The ACDP supported the clause.
The EFF rejected the clause.

Investigation and valuation of property

Clause 5 was the investigation and gathering of information for the purpose of the expropriation. Subsection 1 states that the expropriating authority must consider all relevant factors when deciding whether to expropriate property. Subject to subsection 3 if the property was land, an expropriating authority may authorise in writing (a) a person with the necessary skills or expertise.

Ms Graham said that the DA believed subsections (5) and (7) required further amendment, therefore they did not support the clause.

Ms Siwisa rejected the clause.
The ANC expressed its support for the clause.
Mr Thring indicated that the ACDP did not support the clause.
Ms Hicklin rejected clause 5, based on the reasons stated by Ms Graham.
Mr Zondo rejected clause 5.
Mr Mathebula supported the clause.

Consultation with municipality during investigation

Clause 6 was on the consultation with municipalities during an investigation. When considering whether to expropriate land, an expropriating authority must, if not already established, make a written request to the municipal manager of the municipality where the land was situated to explain how the contemplated expropriation would affect municipal planning.

In subsection (2), the request contemplated in subsection (1) must include (a) a statement that the expropriating authority was contemplating the acquisition of land. In subsection 3, the municipal manager must deliver a written response to the request contemplated in subsection (1) within 20 days of the receipt, or within a reasonable time to be agreed between the expropriating authority and the municipal manager.

Ms Graham said that the DA believed that subsection (3) should be amended, therefore they could not support clause 6.
Ms Siwisa rejected clause 6.
The ACDP rejected the clause.
Ms Mjobo expressed the ANC's support for the clause.
Mr Zondo stated that the IFP did not support clause 6.

The Chairperson asked the Committee Members to vote on the clause, and indicate whether they were in support or if they rejected the clause.

Notice of intention to expropriate

In Chapter 4, clause 7, the notice of intention to expropriate, subsection (1) states that if an expropriating authority intends to expropriate property, it must (a) serve a notice of intention to expropriate on the owner, mortgagee, and holder of a right known to it at the time, and (b) publish the notice of intention to expropriate under section 22 (2). In subsection 2, a notice of intention to expropriate must include (a) a statement of the intention to expropriate the property;  (b) a full description of the property; and (c) a short description of the purpose for which the property was required…

Subsection (3) states that if the property was land, the expropriating authority must also deliver a copy of the notice referred to in subsection (1) to the Director Generals responsible for rural development and land reform, for environmental affairs, for mineral resources, and for water and sanitation, and the accounting authority of any other organ of state whose functions and responsibilities would be materially affected by the intended expropriation: provided that if the expropriating authority was the executive authority of one of the departments or organs of the state concerned.

Subsection (4) states that a person responding to a notice contemplated in subsection (1), within 30 days of the service or publication of the notice, must (a) deliver to the expropriating authority a written statement (i) stating whether he or she accepts the offer of compensation; (ii) requesting further particulars under section 14; or (iii) disputing the amount of compensation offered under section 19.

Ms Graham said that the DA believed there were further amendments to some of the subsections in clause 7, so they opposed the clause.
Ms Siwisa indicated that the EFF was not in support of the clause.
Mr Thring said that the ACDP did not support the clause.
Ms Hicklin supported the views of Ms Graham.
Ms Mjobo indicated that they supported the clause.
Mr Zondo said that the IFP was not in support of the clause.

The Chairperson put the clause to a vote, and noted the Members who were in support of the clause and those who were not in support.

Notice of appropriation

Clause 8 was on the notice of expropriation. Subsection (1) states that if the expropriating authority decides to expropriate the property, the expropriating authority must cause a notice of expropriation to be served upon the expropriated owner, mortgagee and expropriated holder in their preferred language. In subsection (2), the expropriating authority must cause a copy of the notice of expropriation to be (a) published in accordance with section 22 (1) (c) or (2) (b) delivered to a known holder of a right whose rights had not been expropriated.

Ms Graham indicated the DA's support for the clause in its entirety.
Ms Siwisa said that the EFF rejected clause 8.
Mr Thring indicated the ACDP's support for clause 8.
Ms Hicklin reiterated her colleague's opinion in support of the clause.
Ms Mjobo indicated that the ANC supported the clause.
Mr Zondo said that the IFP supported the clause.

The Members who supported the clause were noted, and those who were not in support were also noted.

Vesting and possession of expropriated property

Clause 9 deals with the vesting and possession of the expropriated property. Subsection (1) states that the effect of an appropriation of property was that (a) subject to paragraphs (c)and (d), the owner of the property described in the notice of expropriation vests in the expropriating authority or in the person on whose behalf the property was expropriated, as the case may be, on the date of expropriation.
Subsection (2) (a) states that the expropriating authority, or the person on whose behalf the property was expropriated, must take possession of the expropriated property on the date stated in terms of section (8) (3) (f) or such other date as may be agreed upon with the expropriated owner or expropriated holder.

Ms Graham indicated that the DA believed there should be a further amendment in subsection 1(a), therefore they did not support the clause.
Ms Siwisa rejected the clause.
Mr  Thring said that the ACDP did not support the clause.
Ms Hicklin said that the DA did not support clause 9.
Mr Zondo said the IFP did not support the clause.

Verification of unregistered rights in expropriated property

Clause 10 deals with the verification of unregistered rights in the expropriated property.
Subsection (1) states that if, after the date of expropriation, a person claims to have held an unregistered right in the expropriated property for which that person had not been compensated, the expropriating authority must request that person to deliver within 30 days of receipt of the request, subject to section 23, a copy of any written instrument evidencing or giving effect to an unregistered right, if such instrument was in his or her possession or under his or her control, or any other evidence to substantiate the claim.
(2) if the unregistered right, claimed as contemplated in subsection (1), pertains to the use of improvements on expropriated land, the evidence required in terms of subsection (1) must include (a) a full description of those improvements; (b) an affidavit or affirmation by the person concerned.

Ms Siwisa indicated that the EFF did not support clause 10.
Ms Graham said that the DA supported the clause in its entirety.
Mr Thring said that the ACDP did not support clause 10.
Ms Hicklin echoed the sentiments of Ms Graham.
Mr Mjobo stated that the ANC supported the clause.

The Members who were in support of the clause and those who were not in support of the clause were noted. The clause would be part of the report taken to Parliament.

Consequences of expropriation of unregistered rights and duties of expropriating authority

Clause 11 refers to the consequences of the expropriation of unregistered rights and duties of the expropriating authority. Subsection (1) states that a person who becomes an expropriated holder by the operation of section 9(1)(b), subject to section 10 and this section, was entitled to compensation. Subsection (2) states that if the expropriating authority becomes aware that an unregistered right in the expropriated has been expropriated by the operation of section 9(1)(b) and becomes aware of the identity of the expropriated holder thereof, the expropriating authority must serve on that expropriated holder a notice that the unregistered right has been expropriated.

Ms Graham and Ms Hicklin indicated the DA's support for clause 11.
Ms Siwisa said that they were not in support of the clause.
The ACDP indicated its support for the clause.
Mr Zondo said that the IFP supported the clause.
Ms Mjobo said that the ANC supported the clause.

Ms Ngema handed over to Adv Shaun van Breda, Senior State Law Advisor, to take the Committee through the rest of the Bill.

Determination of compensation

In clause 12, the determination of compensation, subsection (1) states that the amount of compensation must be just and equitable, reflecting an equitable balance between the public interest and the interests of the expropriated owner or expropriated holder, having regard to all relevant circumstances.

Subsection (2) states that in determining the amount of compensation to be paid in terms of the Act, the expropriating authority must not, unless there were special circumstances in which it would be just and equitable to do so, take account of (a) the fact that the property has been taken without the consent of the
expropriated owner or expropriated holder;(b) the special suitability or usefulness of the property for the purpose for which it is required by the expropriating authority, if it is unlikely that the property
would have been purchased for that purpose in the open market; (c) any enhancement in the value of the property, if such enhancement is a consequence of the use of the property in a manner which is unlawful; (d) improvements made to the property in question after the date on which the notice of expropriation was served upon the expropriated owner or expropriated holder, as the case may be, except where the improvements were agreed to in advance by the expropriating authority or where they were undertaken in pursuance of obligations entered into before the date of expropriation; (e) anything done with the object of obtaining compensation therefor; and (f) any enhancement or depreciation, before or after the date of service of the notice of expropriation, in the value of the property in question, which could be directly attributed to the purpose in connection with which the property was expropriated.

Subsection (3) states that it may be just and equitable for nil compensation to be paid where land was expropriated in the public interest, having regard to all relevant circumstances, including but not limited to (a) where the land was not being used and the owner's main purpose was not to develop the land or use it to generate income, but to benefit from an appreciation of its market value; (b) where an organ of state holds land that it was not using for its core functions and was not reasonably likely to require the land for its future activities in that regard, and the organ of the state acquired the land for no consideration.

Mr Thring said that the ACDP did not support the clause.
Ms Graham indicated that the DA believed that subsection 3 was unconstitutional, and therefore they could not support the clause.
Ms Siwisa said that the EFF was not in support of the clause.
Ms Hicklin reiterated the views of the DA, that it was not in support of the clause.
Mr Zondo said that the IFP did not support the clause
Ms Mjobo indicated that the ANC supported the clause.

The clause was taken to a vote, and those who supported and those not in support were noted. The Chairperson said that the clause would be part of the report going to Parliament.

Interest on compensation

Clause 13 states that interest would be payable at the rate determined from time to time in terms of section 80(1)(b) of the Public Finance Management Act, 1999 (Act No. 1 of 1999), from the date the expropriating authority or the person on whose behalf the property was expropriated… provided that (a) until the claimant complies with the requirement of section 15(5), the amount so payable during the period of such failure and for the purposes of the payment of interest, was not regarded as an outstanding amount.

Ms Graham and Ms Hicklin said that the DA supported the clause.
The EFF rejected the clause.
Mr Thring said that the ACDP supported the clause.
The IFP indicated its support for the clause.
Ms Mjobo indicated the ANC's support for the clause.

Requests for particulars

Clause 14 was on the request for particulars. Subsection (1) states that the owner, mortgagee, and holder of a right may request the expropriating authority, in writing, to provide reasonable particulars about the offer of compensation, and particulars so requested must be furnished within 20 days.

The DA indicated that they did not support the clause.
The EFF rejected the clause.
The ANC supported clause 14.
The ACDP rejected the clause.
The IFP rejected the clause.

Payment of compensation

Clause 15 was on the payment of compensation. Subsection (1) states that subject to sections 16, 17, and 18, an expropriated owner or expropriated holder was entitled to payment of compensation by no later than the date on which the right to possession passes to the expropriating authority in terms of section 9 (2) or (4). Subsection (2) states that the payment, utilisation, or deposit of any amount contemplated in sections 16, 17, and 18 did not preclude the determination of an amount by agreement or by a court.

The ACDP rejected clause 15.
The DA rejected the clause.
The IFP rejected the clause.
The ANC indicated its support for the clause.

Property subject to mortgage or deed of sale

Clause 16 deals with a property subject to mortgage or deed of sale. Subsection (1) states that if the property expropriated in terms of the Act was, immediately prior to the date of expropriation, encumbered by a registered mortgage or subject to a deed of sale, the expropriating authority may not pay out any portion of the compensation money except to such person and on such terms as may have been agreed upon between the expropriated owner or expropriated holder and the mortgagee or buyer concerned.

The DA said that the clause remained prejudicial to the holder of the mortgage, and therefore rejected the clause.
The EFF rejected the clause.
The ACDP indicated that they would not support clause 16.
The IFP rejected the clause.
The ANC indicated its support for the clause.

The Chairperson said the clause would be part of the report presented before Parliament.

Payment of municipal property rates, taxes and other charges out of compensation money

Clause 17 concerned the payment of municipal property rates, taxes, and other charges out of compensation money.

The DA indicated that sub-clause 4(c) of clause 17 required further amendment in terms of form and substance, therefore they could not support it.
The EFF rejected the clause.
Mr Thring rejected the clause.
The IFP rejected the clause.
The ANC indicated its support for the clause.

Deposit of compensation money with Master

Clause 18 concerns the deposit of compensation money with the Master. 

The DA indicated its support for the clause, in its entirety.
The EFF rejected the clause.
Mr Thring said that the ACDP supported the clause.
The IFP indicated its support for the clause.
Ms Mjobo supported the clause.

The clause would be going into the report presented before Parliament.

Mediation and determination by the court

Clause 19 was on the mediation and determination by the court.

The DA indicated that subclause 8 was problematic, and therefore they rejected clause 19.

The EFF rejected the clause.
The ACDP also rejected the clause.
The ANC indicated its support for the clause.
The IFP rejected the clause.

Urgent expropriation

Clause 20 concerned urgent expropriation.

The DA rejected the clause.
The EFF rejected the clause.
The ACDP rejected the clause.
The IFP rejected the clause.
The ANC indicated its support for the clause.

Withdrawal of expropriation

Clause 21 was on the withdrawal of expropriation.

The DA rejected the clause.
The EFF rejected the clause.
The ACDP rejected the clause.
The IFP rejected the clause.
The ANC indicated its support for the clause.

Service and publication of documents and language used therein

Clause 22 was on the service and publication of documents and language used therein.

The DA rejected subclause 3(a) and (b), on the basis of it being prejudicial, and therefore rejected the clause.
The EFF rejected the clause.
The ACDP rejected the clause.
The IFP rejected the clause.
The ANC indicated its support of the clause.

Extension of time

Clause 23 concerned the extension of time.

The DA indicated its support for the clause.
The EFF rejected the clause.
The ACDP rejected the clause.
The IFP indicated its support for the clause.
The ANC indicated its support for the clause.

Expropriation register

Clause 24 dealt with the expropriation register.
The DA indicated its support for the clause.
The EFF  rejected clause 24.
The ACDP indicated its support for clause 24.
The IFP indicated its support for the clause.
The ANC supported the clause.

Offences and fines

Clause 25 concerned the offences and fines.

The DA indicated concern over subsection 2 not speaking to the clause following, and therefore rejected the clause.
The ACDP rejected clause 25.
The IFP rejected the clause.
The EFF rejected the clause.
The ANC indicated its support for the clause.

Regulations

Clause 26 outlined the regulations.

The EFF indicated its rejection of clause 26.
The DA rejected clause 26.
The ACDP rejected clause 26.
The IFP rejected the clause.
The ANC indicated its support of clause 26.

Regulations and steps valid under certain circumstances

Clause 27 looks at the regulations and steps valid under certain circumstances.
The DA indicated their support for clause 27, but pointed out that there was still an issue with the technicality of using 'and' instead of 'all' when speaking of rights and duties under subsection 1(b).

The EFF rejected clause 27.
The ACDP supported the clause.
The IFP supported the clause.
The ANC supported the clause.

Interpretation of other laws dealing with expropriation

Clause 28 concerns the interpretation of other laws dealing with expropriation.
The DA supported clause 28.
The EFF rejected the clause.
The ACDP supported the clause.
The IFP supported the clause.
The ANC supported the clause.

Repeal

Clause 29 deals with the repeal of the Expropriation Act, 1975 (Act No. 63 of 1975).

The DA indicated its support for the clause.
The IFP supported the clause.
The ANC supported the clause.
The ACDP supported the clause.
The EFF rejected the clause.

Transitional arrangements and savings

Clause 30 concerns the transitional arrangement and savings.
The DA indicated its support for clause 30.
The EFF rejected the clause.
The ACDP indicated its support for the clause.
The ANC indicated its support for clause 30.
The IFP indicated its support for the clause.

The Chairperson asked the legal advisory team whether there would be any need for the Committee Members to vote on clause 31, which concerned what the Act would be referred to, and the date on which it would come into operation.

Adv Van Breda said he believed all the clauses should be addressed, but considering that the clause was in terms of Parliament's rules, he asked his colleague, Ms Ngema, to address the Committee with that advice.

Ms Ngema said that, indeed, each and every clause should be addressed, including clause 31. Once the clause was read, 2020 would be a consequential change effected concerning the year 2022, as the Bill progressed.

The DA indicated its support for the clause.
The ACDP indicated its support for clause 31.
The EFF rejected the clause.
The ANC indicated its support for the clause.
The IFP said that it supported clause 31.

The Chairperson thanked the legal advisory team once again for their work to ensure the Bill got to the stage it was currently.

The report of the Portfolio Committee would be adopted on 14 September, and the necessary steps would therefore be taken.

Ms Graham thanked the Chairperson for her leadership and fairness in dealing with all proceedings of the Bill. She asked for clarity on the procedure concerning having a minority report included in the main report, or whether or not inputs should be submitted in writing to the secretariat.

Mr Shuaib Denyssen, Committee Content Advisor, said that the question was regarding rule 166, which deals with reporting, and rule 1664 (a) refers to a Committee not being allowed to submit a minority report. However, 1664 (b) assists with the query raised, as it states that in addition to views representative of the majority of the Committee, any other views of a minority may be included in the report of the Committee. He said a timeframe needed to be provided within which a minority view could be sent to the secretariat to be included in the report of 14 September.

Ms Nola Matinise, Committee Secretary, advised that the minority report should not be bulkier than the final report of the Committee.

The meeting was adjourned.



























 

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: