DWYPD briefing on African Charter on Human and People’s Rights on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in Africa

Women, Youth and Persons with Disabilities

22 March 2022
Chairperson: Ms C Ndaba (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

Video (Part 1)

Video (Part 2)

Protocol to the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in Africa

In a virtual meeting, the Committee was briefed by the Department of Women, Youth and Persons with Disabilities (DWYPD) and Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) on the African Union (AU) Disability Protocol to the African Charter on Human Right and People’s Rights on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in Africa. The Committee was asked to ratify the protocol.

The AU Protocol on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities aimed to promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human and people’s rights by all persons with disabilities, and to ensure respect for their inherent dignity.  It constituted an African instrument to advance the rights of persons with disabilities, cognisant of the obligations contained in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, ratified by South Africa in 2007.

The Protocol has to be considered by both the National Assembly and National Council of Provinces for purposes of ratification. Once ratified, DIRCO will deposit the instrument of ratification with the African Union.

South Africa made an undertaking to the African Union on 29 April 2019 to ratify the Protocol and commence with the process for domestication immediately after ratification.  South Africa’s failure to ratify the Protocol would be damaging to South Africa’s reputation and may compromise service delivery and protection of the rights and human dignity of persons with disabilities.

DIRCO presented the Committee with more context around the legalities of ratifying the Protocol.

The Committee welcomed any legislation that furthers the rights of people with disabilities (PWD). Members asked the DWYPD how this Protocol will be different, and what its monitoring and reporting strategies are because the convention of the rights of PWD is not being correctly implemented. The Committee expressed concern the Protocol was being delayed by the DWYPD but DIRCO should also be following up. Members were concerned the domestic legislation was not in place to put the Protocol into effect – it was apparent much work needed to be done domestically on the rights of persons with disabilities. The Committee was displeased that not much was done between now and when it was first briefed on the Protocol in 2019. The Committee was informed that there was a difference between ratifying Protocols and domesticating the Protocol. Members felt the domestication of the law in SA is weak, and the Committee needed to be sure before ratifying the Protocol.

The Committee felt it should hold off on ratifying the Protocol until the further information the Committee requested was provided.

Meeting report

Opening Remarks by the Chairperson

The Chairperson opened the virtual meeting, thanked and welcomed everyone present, including the delegation from the Department of Women, Youth and Persons with Disabilities (DWYPD) as well as the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO).

Presentation by DWYPD

Ms Phuti Mabelebele, Chief Director: Rights of People with Disabilities, DWYPD, took the Committee through its presentation to introduce the process of the ratification of the AU Disability Protocol by Parliament.
Background
On 29 January 2018, at the Thirtieth Ordinary Session of the Assembly held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Heads of State adopted the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in Africa. 
The AU Protocol on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities aimed to promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human and people’s rights by all persons with disabilities, and to ensure respect for their inherent dignity.  It constituted an African instrument to advance the rights of persons with disabilities, cognisant of the obligations contained in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, ratified by South Africa in 2007.
South Africa signed the AU Protocol on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on 29 April 2019, thereby signalling the country’s support and intention to ratify the Protocol.
The Department of Social Development had, prior to the reconfiguration of government in which the disability coordination function was relocated to the Department of Women, Youth and Persons with Disabilities, consulted widely with relevant departments, civil society, and Chapter Nine Institutions regarding the required mechanism to domesticate the Protocol.
The ratification of the Protocol will strengthen the African perspective in the domestication process of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities currently underway.   It will further provide South Africa with a continental platform to share good practice and learn from other African countries how best to accelerate advancement of the rights of persons with disabilities on the continent.  The provisions contained in the Protocol further provide guidance to ensuring disability equitable implementation of all seven priorities of the current Medium Term Strategic Framework.
Implications for departments and vulnerable groups
Ms Mabelebele indicated that no additional organisation or personnel implications are foreseen, as ratification of the Protocol enhances current arrangements, rather than adding additional responsibilities and functions.
Also, no additional financing requirements are foreseen, as ratification of the Protocol enhances current arrangements and programmes already contained in the Implementation Matrix of the White Paper on the RPD.
A country-wide awareness campaign will be embarked upon once Parliament has ratified the Protocol.
The obligations and standards contained in the Protocol are consistent with the Constitution.
There will be no financial implications with regard to the African Union (AU) Protocol.  
Implementation
The Protocol has to be considered by both the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces for purposes of ratification.
Once ratified, the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (“DIRCO”) will deposit the instrument of ratification with the African Union.
Article 34.1 of the Protocol requires that the Protocol be domesticated through the development of national legislation to enable the courts to enforce the anti-discrimination laws and to reach reasonable and fair judgements on case law, proving discrimination against persons with disabilities.  It is envisaged that domestication of the AU Disability Protocol will be integrated with the current process underway to domesticate the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD).
Article 34.2 of the  Protocol requires that States Parties designate, establish, strengthen and/or maintain, at a domestic level, one or several mechanisms to monitor the implementation of policy, service delivery and protection of rights of persons with disabilities Article 33.2 of the United Nations Conventions on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) and Article 34 of the African Union Disability Protocol provide for the designation of an independent monitoring mechanism of both instruments by law.  Section 13(1)(b) of the South African Human Rights Commission Act, 2013, empowers the SAHRC to "monitor the implementation of, and compliance with, international and regional conventions and treaties, international and regional covenants and international and regional charters relating to the objects of the Commission”.  
Risk mitigation
South Africa made an undertaking to the African Union on 29 April 2019 to ratify the Protocol and commence with the process for Domestication immediately after ratification.  South Africa’s failure to ratify the Protocol would be damaging to South Africa’s reputation and may compromise service delivery and protection of the rights and human dignity of persons with disabilities.
Constitutional implications
This Protocol once ratified will be able to fulfil the constitutional master and will be enforceable through local legislation by our courts' post domestication project.
Section 231(2) of the Constitution provides the mandate that international agreements binds the  Republic only after it has been approved by resolution in both the  National  Assembly and the National  Council of Provinces.
It was recommended that the Committees approve the ratification by Parliament for further processing to deposit the Protocol at the head offices in Addis Ababa.
Presentation by the DIRCO

Adv. Sandea de Wet, Chief State Law Advisor, took the Committee through the Department’s presentation. The presentation highlighted Section 231 of the South African Constitution, 1996, which talks to international agreements. The presentation included the definitions of international agreements the process of ‘ratification’, ‘accession’ and ‘acceptance’. Ratification is used to become a State Party to Agreements that have been signed. Accession is used for Agreements that were either not signed or for which the period for signature has lapsed. Lastly, acceptance is also used and entails the same procedure as ratification or accession.

South Africa has an obligation under the Constitution to comply with its international obligations in terms of international agreements and customary international law

Respect for the rule of law in foreign policy is critical to advance foreign policy objectives of peace, equality and human rights

All agreements that need to be ratified/acceded also need Presidential approval (i.e. the President’s Minute). After signature, the process to obtain parliamentary approval begins. All agreements that require parliamentary approval must be submitted to Cabinet for discussion. Cabinet makes a recommendation regarding accession or ratification of the agreement to Parliament. Cabinet proposes that reservations be made if allowed by provisions of the agreement. When submitting the Agreement to both Houses of Parliament for consideration to approve Ratification, it is essential that both Houses receive a detailed briefing from the responsible line function department
Not all International Agreements require legislation to become binding on South Africa. Only those that affect the rights of South Africans, have budgetary implications or have regulatory effect that need to be implemented as part of a multilateral framework need to be included in legislation

Adv. Mikateko Maluleke, DG of the DWYPD, added that the Department is not struggling to facilitate the reports. The only report that is outstanding is the report that needed the inputs of the Department of Justice (DoJ). The DoJ admitted that it caused a delay but allowed the DWYPD to augment the report in 2022. She said that the AU Protocol is similar to the United Nations Convention for Rights of People with Disabilities (UNCRPD) which was already ratified. The DWYPD is working closely with the South African Law Reform Commission (SALRC) to include the AU Protocol in the UNCRPD.

Discussion

The Chairperson said that she is glad that the DG provided clarity on what the presentation by DIRCO indicated, noting that the DWYPD is not struggling with regard to the Protocol. She then asked what the function of the National Disability Rights Mechanism (NDRM) for the Department was because it relates to the AU. The Committee welcomes any legislation that furthers the rights of people with disabilities (PWD). She asked the DWYPD how this Protocol will be different, and what its monitoring and reporting strategies are because the convention of the rights of PWD is not being correctly implemented.

She asked the DIRCO how the Protocol will have zero cost implications, and how the Department planned to do this because it indicated this in its presentation. The campaign on the Protocol will have financial implications, and DIRCO will require funds for it. The Committee is concerned that the delaying of the Protocol lies with the DWYPD, and it is the Department's responsibility to conduct follow-ups with DIRCO to ensure that its State Law Advisors do not delay proceedings. She drew on the example of the prohibition of child marriages protocol and said it was delayed, but the cause was not yet determined. It is the responsibility of the DIRCO to conduct follow-ups as well because it is not only the responsibility of the DWYPD. She said that she did not want to be an advocate for the DWYPD, and asked why DIRCO did not conduct follow-ups if consultations were conducted in 2019. The DIRCO needed to ensure that this Protocol was implemented by South Africa (SA). Committees will then need to assume responsibilities because, when departments do not submit reports on time, it causes Committees to be disorganised.  She then said that there is a need for change because Parliament will shift Committees’ programmes to ensure that Protocols are included in its programmes. Finally, she asked how the departments will ensure compliance with the AU Protocol. 

Ms N Sharif (DA) noted that DIRCO indicated that SA needed to ensure that the domestic law is in place before signing an international agreement. She raised concerns that the correct domestic law is not in place because the White Paper on the rights of PWD has been delayed. She asked how SA will be able to sign an international document without having the correct domestic law in place.
 
She asked DWYPD if the recommendations made in 2018 were considered in the final report.

The Chairperson reiterated her question on how the departments planned to deal with non-compliance.

Ms A Hlongo (ANC) said that the Department replied to the Chairperson’s question, that public participation was done in 2019/20. She asked how it was done in 2020 during the pandemic.

Mr S Ngcobo (DA) also raised concerns about the domestic laws and said that the DWYPD is not doing enough regarding the rights of PWD. The Committee did not yet receive the Disability Bill and the DWYPD did not yet conclude the Bill. The issue paper of the Bill was completed by the South African Law Reform Commission (SALRC). He drew the Committee’s attention to Article Four of the general obligations of the Protocol – that it requires that member states, including SA, take appropriate measures, to protect the rights of PWD; one of these measures includes legislation. He asked when the DWYPD will conclude the Disability Bill and when the Committee will receive it. DIRCO indicated that it will be difficult to domesticate the Protocol in the absence of a specific Disability Rights Act. He asked how it will implement the Protocol without the Act. He then drew the Committee’s attention to article 16 of the Protocol, which deals with the rights to education for PWD. He said that the DWYPD still has a lot to do for PWD in this regard. There are a number of cases where children do not have access to education because of a lack of schools for special needs. He asked the DWYPD what the National Disability Right Coordinating Mechanism (NDRCM) entails. He then asked how the NDRCM will monitor the implementation of policy, service delivery and protection of the rights of PWD. 

The Chairperson reiterated the question about the Disability Bill and said that the questions that Members were asking are important. The DWYPD cannot indicate that it is waiting on the SALRC if it is not conducting follow-ups, because it must be a priority.

Mr L Mphithi (DA) said that there is a disconnection between what the DIRCO agreed on on 29 April 2019 and what the DWYPD needed to do. Undertakings were made when the Protocol was signed, but nothing happened at ground level to ensure that the domestic legislation was aligned with the Protocol. There are certain areas regarding public participation not indicated in the report because the Committee expects information like the dates of the event as well as which organisations and individuals took part. This type of information will give the Committee an understanding of the public participation regarding the Protocol. There are many stakeholders involved in the area of PWD, and it is expected that the Committee addresses the areas that the stakeholders cannot because the stakeholders are constantly left out. This is where the quote 'nothing about us without us' comes from because many decisions are taken without these stakeholders. Decisions are made by people who believe what is important for PWD. He said that it is a critical piece of information, and asked the DWYPD to provide the Committee with a detailed report on who it conducted consultations. It is important that the departments provide the Committee with a timeline on what it was supposed to do. There is pressure on SA to ratify the Protocol, but it will not be fair on PWD if the Committee ratifies the Protocol not knowing what it will do at ground level.

He supported legislation to enhance the lives of South Africans but said that it will be wrong to ratify the Protocol to not embarrass SA at an international level because it did not ratify the Protocol. The Committee needed to be provided with the information that the presentation lacked and the legal opinions for it to apply its mind to make the correct decision. He said that to exclude the voices of the PWD and that the Members raised important questions that must be answered.

The Chairperson asked the DWYPD what feedback it received from the Presidential Disability Committee (PDC) regarding the Disability Bill and the Protocol. She recommended that the Committee invite SALRC to present a report on the status of the Disability Bill. This will help the Committee to identify exactly where the delay is regarding the processing of the Disability Bill.

The Chairperson also said that the Committee needed to be updated by the DWYPD on all its bills because she is concerned that the DWYPD will rush it to finalise its bills. She then requested that the DWYPD finalise it by the second term in order of urgency.

She asked what the DWYPD planned to do to address the lack of dis-segregated data in relation to tracking disability mainstreaming. She then asked if the DWYPD had national indicators for the public sector that is monitored, and if can civil society access its indicators to track progress. The DWYPD must report to the Committee on a quarterly basis and not annually because there is an outcry on issues regarding PWD. PWD disabilities feel that government is not addressing these issues and that it is worse regarding the DWYPD's bills. She said that she agreed with the Members regarding the monitoring mechanisms of the DWYPD.      

Ms Sharif said that in 2018, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) sent out a document raising different issues. The document dealt with types of disabilities that needed to be taken into account, desegregated data and stated that member states had to submit second, third and fourth reports by 03 June 2022. She asked for an update on this in relation to the challenges that the UN raised in its document.  

Ms P Sonti (EFF) said that the needs of PWD are not recognised, and some PWD in rural areas do not have access to education. PWDs are also not recognised in workplaces, and there are no platforms for PWD to commute. She said that the Committee wanted the rights of PWD to be acknowledged.  

The Chairperson asked how the DWYPD planned to monitor the effects of the AU Protocol at a domestic level.

DWYPD Responses

Adv. Maluleke (DWYPD DG) replied to the question on the SALRC, that she organised that the SALRC brief the Committee on 26 January 2020. The SALRC presented its plan. The issue paper was finalised in February and consulted in April 2020. The DWYPD assisted the SALRC with consultative workshops in different provinces for three months. The SALRC presentation indicated the phases of the Bill that will be supported in the financial year of 2022/23. The presentation indicated that it developed the issue paper and the draft. After the consultations, the SALRC will integrate the inputs and conduct further research on the Bill. The DWYPD will not be able to develop legislation at the level of the SALRC. The SALRC also indicated that it needed to determine if more than one type of legislation needed to be developed because many criminal and civil issues needed to be considered. She said that she complained about the amount of time the SALRC takes. However, it indicated that it investigated the legislation in depth so that it is not contested in court at a later stage.

She replied to the question on the domestication law, that the Protocol needed to be ratified before it is domesticated. She replied to DIRCO’s statement that the DWYPD wanted to ratify a Protocol without proper domestic laws, noting a number of protocols were ratified without domesticated legislation. She then said that she did not know when one first needed to domesticate legislation before ratifying it.

She replied to the question on the reporting strategy - when she entered the office of the DG, she found many challenges. The DWYPD faced challenges in reporting because the Department’s report on what needed to be ratified. The DWYPD, with the Department of Justice, was consulted by the Human Rights Centre (HRC) of the University of Pretoria (UP). The three stakeholders signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to finalise the AU Women Protocol, and this is the only outstanding protocol that the DOJ is working on to finalise.

The Chairperson interjected and asked the DG how the Department will enforce the Protocol with the necessary legislation.

Adv. Maluleke replied that ratification and domestication are two different issues. Domestication is the process of enforcing that legislation is ratified. The SA Constitution states that no international law will be enforced in SA without it being domesticated. SA signed the UN Protocol in 2007, without legislation. This is why the DWYPD is working on legislation to domesticate the UN Protocol of the RPD. She said that many protocols are ratified without legislation. SA is in the process of domesticating the UNCRPD and applying it to an AU context. The Protocol will be integrated with the legislation that is being developed, and this will occur a lot quicker because the legislation is already underway. She reiterated that the UNC protocol was ratified in 2007 but only started being domesticated in 2019. In SA, even if legislation has been ratified, litigation can still happen because of the Constitution.

She replied to the issue of child marriages that the DIRCO indicated that there is a possibility of litigation because there are laws in SA that contradict the Marriage Act. She explained that the section under the Customary Marriage Act indicates that marriages under 18 are invalid. SA has a Sexual Offences Act that indicates that sex with an individual under 16 is a criminal offence, which is a contradiction with the Marriage Act. However, there has not been litigation in this regard. Individuals that want to contest the Marriage Act will begin with the Sexual Offences Act, which the DIRCO may not be aware of.

The RPD can be enforced based on the UN Protocol; the DWYPD have ratified it without reservation, and it is ready with a 2006 Protocol. However, the Committee had indicated that it has a case-base backlog. The Committee will give it another date to present its report. She said that she ensured that the DWYPD are not behind with the submission of any report.   

The Chairperson interjected and asked how the Department will ensure compliance.

Adv. Maluleke replied that the UNCRPD was drafted based on the Constitution and the agenda of 2063. She said that the DWYPD will enforce legislation because the AU Protocol is also based on the UNCRPD. She then replied to the question of national indicators that it developed indicators based on the White Paper, which it is monitoring. It submitted a report which will be sent to Cabinet and the DGs cluster. The DWYPD provides an annual report to the office of the President and a quarterly report to the DGs cluster.

She replied to the issue raised in the 2018 report that the RPD Protocol was brought to the DWYPD on 01 April 2020. In 2019, the President announced that people with disabilities are removed from the Department of Social Development and brought to the DWYPD, and the process was in effect as at 01 April 2020. The Committee was presented with the Protocol of the RPD by the Department of Social Development (DSD).

She replied to the question about financial implications that there are four frameworks that the Department developed, and three have been approved by Cabinet. The last framework will be presented to Cabinet next week. The framework was developed based on the UNCRPD and will integrate the AU protocols. This is why there are no financial implications because the campaigns are already enforced by the UNCRPD. In terms of raising awareness, the Department will not create a new branch because there are units in place to create awareness.

Dr Barbara Loots, Parliamentary Legal Advisor, indicated that parliamentary legal services prepared only a presentation for the Select Committee.

Adv. Alfred Selokela, the Senior State Law Advisor, said that he did not prepare anything because they were informed about the meeting only during the previous week. He apologised to the Committee for not preparing anything. The law advisors were instructed by the DSD in 2018 to provide a legal opinion about the Protocol. The legal opinion indicated that the Protocol is consistent with SA’s Bill of Rights Sections 9, 10 and 27. Its legal opinion found that the Protocol was consistent with Sections 9 of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (PEPUDA) and Social Assistance Act. The advisors did not find anything contradictory between the Protocol and the law of SA and that it protects the RPD.

Ms Sharif raised concerns about the White Paper regarding the Bill that it is not the strongest legislation, with regards to how people with disabilities are treated in SA, looking specifically at the Human Rights Council’s (SAHRC’s) report on the cases of children at special needs schools who died. The domestication of the law in SA is weak, and the Committee needed to be sure before ratifying the Protocol about the mechanisms that the RPD are protected and that they can live a dignified life. There have been negative trends regarding the RPD, and the Committee must ensure that the legislation regarding the RPD is strong.

The Chairperson said that she did not accept the excuse given by the Adv. Selokela, that he received the invitation to the meeting late. The law advisors received communication the previous week; the Committee will receive a report a day before the meeting, which is late.

Adv. Selokela said that the letter of invitation was sent to the Deputy Chief State Law Advisor (DCSLA). The DCSLA was engaged with other matters and brought it to their attention on Thursday, but the majority of the employees were not available. He indicated that the report on the legal opinion will be made available to the Committee and the Department.

The Chairperson agreed and said that the report on the legal opinion needed to be sent to the Committee. The Committee will need all the information because the Department will enforce the Protocol on communities. She said that the Committee asked the DG uncomfortable questions, and the DG responded by going into detail. The DG also addressed the issue raised about ratifying the Protocol without the domesticated legislation. The information provided by the DG has empowered the Committee to provide information to its different constituencies, which also highlights the gaps in the Protocol where there might be legislation.

Adv. Maluleke said that the legal opinion accompanied the report and will be made available to the Committee.

Ms Mabelebele replied to the issue raised about consultations that it consulted with 31 organisations. She indicated that the DWYPD also consulted with the Presidential Working Group (PWG), and it re-consulted in 2019/20 to ensure that every stakeholder’s input are included in the Protocol. The DWYPD conducts consultations every quarter with various stakeholders on the Bill, white paper or any matter that will arise. It consulted last week with the PWG because the SALRC indicated that the discussion paper regarding the Bill will be finalised by March 2022. The DWYPD planned to consult with communities when the discussion paper is issued by the SALRC. The DWYPD does regular follow-ups to ensure that the process is not prolonged. The Department will have the National Disability Rights Machinery (NDRM) in place because it is a coordination mechanism. It consults with the NDRM on a quarterly basis to ensure that reports on the activities using the Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) reporting mechanisms. The Department is also working closely with the Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation (DPME) in this regard. The NDRM needs to report on the progress of the white paper and how its Annual Performance Plan (APP) was developed. The DWYPD has provided the various departments with technical support to ensure that they report adequately. The DWYPD consults with the departments along with the PWG and civil society to validate its report. Once the report is validated, it is sent to the DG clusters.

The DWYPD is currently waiting on the M&E report on the White Paper to submit it to Cabinet. These consultations show Cabinet how its departments are improving and how the RPD are achieved. It is expected that departments are reporting on the implementation of the four frameworks that have been developed because the frameworks acts as guidelines to implement RPD. The two frameworks of self-representation and awareness-raising will be represented in March 2022. These frameworks will enforce the RPD because the correct legislation is still being developed. She said that the awareness-raising framework will come at no additional costs. Within the current institutional arrangements, it will undertake awareness-raising campaigns based on instruments that are in place including the AU Protocol. The DWYPD wants to provide communities with information on how to best utilise the instruments.
She replied to the question on desegregated data: the DWYPD is working with Statistics South Africa (Stats SA) while also using the Washington Model (WM). It is working closely with Stats SA to determine the council membership because there were delays in 2021. The WM will allow the desegregated data to be collected. She said that the DWYPD is using its reporting mechanisms to ensure that departments desegregate their own data because the threshold was set and the DWYPD holds the departments accountable. The DWYPD serves on a committee that deals with sanitary and dignity matters. It found that departments have not reported on the access that girls with disabilities have to sanitary pads. The DWYPD urged the committee to report on desegregated data to determine if women and girls with disabilities are benefitting, and how people with disabilities are being economically empowered. Reports started coming in that provinces began considering suppliers of people with disabilities. The DWYPD showed provinces how to reach out to people with disabilities. The Department has also indicated in the economic cluster that it must not assume that when it economically empowers women it does the same with people with disabilities.

The Chairperson interjected and said that, in a meeting with the various stakeholders in education, the issue was raised about desegregated data. It was indicated that students with disabilities do not have access to the correct facilities. She raised concerns about the lack of monitoring and implementation of policies. She then said that the DWYPD must do a follow-up on this matter.

Ms Mabelebele indicated that the DWYPD was present in the meeting, and it noted the concerns. She said that the Department implemented disability desks in Higher Education Institutions (HEI), and it is aware that there are challenges. It will ensure that students are accommodated. When the Department conducted consultations on the White Paper, it did not leave out the student with disabilities. It can provide the details of these consultations because the stakeholder interacted positively during the consultations.

She confirmed that the DWYPD is on track to submit the report of the UNRPD on 03 June 2022 and will provide its details to the Committee during the next quarterly report briefing.

She replied to the concerns about ‘assistive devices’: in 2022, the Department conducted a desktop study to determine the progress of government to ensure that people with disabilities are receiving assistive devices. It consulted the Department of Health (DOH) to determine the challenges and the backlogs that are present. There was a major challenge at ground level with citizens not being aware of the process to access ‘assistive devices’. The DWYPD ran an awareness campaign on the TV and radio stations, providing citizens with information about such devices. The DOH admitted to having a backlog regarding the distribution of wheelchairs but indicated that citizens are not approaching its facilities to register on the National Health Register (NHR). The DG of the DWYPD is leading a programme to address the shortage of wheelchairs issue.

An official from the DWYPD made comments, but a few of the comments were not captured because of signal issues. He said that SA actively participated in the drafting of the AU Protocol. The PWG was consulted, and a report was finalised on 03 December 2020 and will be made available to the Committee.

Adv. Maluleke replied to the concerns about students, that the DWYPD held a summit with the Department of Basic Education (DBE) in 2021. The summit was supposed to be held with the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET), but it wanted a separate summit. At the summit with the DBE, the White Paper on access to education for people with disabilities was workshopped. The DWYPD conducted an evaluation visit on a special needs school in Lichtenburg, and a number of alarming challenges were raised. The DWYPD does not have the capacity to evaluate all the special needs schools in SA, but it will work with universities to conduct its evaluations. The DWYPD will work closely with the DBE and DHET to address its issues regarding people with disabilities.

The Chairperson indicated that the DWYPD needed to revisit its Strategic Plan. She requested that the DWYPD provide the Committee with a timeline of its awareness-raising campaigns, regarding the four frameworks it mentioned. The Committee will convey the information to other Committees, to invite the different communities in its constituencies to the campaigns.

Mr Ngcobo said that he did not have a problem ratifying the Protocol. However, the presentation did not include consultations with the PWG and other stakeholders in the disability sector. He recommended that the Committee not adopt the report until it receives all the required information regarding the consultations. He also requested that the DWYPD provide it with more information about the National Disability Right Coordinating Mechanism (NDRCM), because it is not clear how the mechanism will ensure the implementation of the AU Protocol.

The Chairperson agreed that the DWYPD submit all the required information. The Committee will invite the PWG on disability, the SALRC and other organisations to finalise the report.

The Committee was in agreement.

Response by DIRCO

Adv. de Wet added to the statement she made earlier. The Committee is dealing with two different spheres in the entire process when international agreements become law in SA – when it is enacted in national legislation. She raised the point of the lapse between what is done when a law is ratified and when it is enacted because Cabinet tasked it to report to Cabinet twice a year.

She apologised to the DG of the DWYPD because she did not intend to make it look like the DWYPD is struggling because various stakeholders are involved in the process, and it is a difficult task to coordinate between the different stakeholders. She said that the DIRCO supports the ratification of the Protocol. The presentation highlighted the fact that SA is partaking in international protocols, but might not have legislation to implement it.

The Chairperson thanked the DWYPD and DIRCO for their presentations and responses to Members.  

Committee minutes

The Chairperson took Members through the minutes of 08 February 2022.

The Chairperson indicated that the Secretary must provide the Committee with an update of the oversight visits.

The Committee Secretariat said that it was sent a memo from the House, indicating the change in Parliament’s programme. The Committee will not be able to conduct oversight visits because of the plenary sittings.

The Chairperson said that she tasked the Secretary to change the Committee’s schedule because it needed to conduct its oversight visits. Disability issues needed to be prioritised, and Members needed to conduct studies because the Bill will be adopted soon. A study tour needs to be done in other countries relating to issues of people with disabilities. She indicated that the Secretariat needed to decide the timeline of the study tour.

Mr Mphithi requested a timeline for the postponed study tour.

The Secretary indicated that the timeline has not been determined.

The Chairperson indicated that the oversight will be determined when the schedule is finalised.

The Secretary confirmed that she will address it.   

The minutes dated 8 February 2022 were adopted.

The Committee considered and adopted its minutes of 15 February 2022, 22 February 2022, 23 February 2022, 1 March 2022, 15 March 2022 and 8 March 2022.

The Chairperson thanked everyone for attending the meeting.   

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: