Madam Deputy Speaker, Deputy President and hon members, I have the honour and privilege of contributing to today's debate on the Superior Courts Bill, a debate which takes place against the backdrop of the approval by this House of the Constitution Seventeenth Amendment Bill earlier this week. The constitutional amendments provide the constitutional basis for the enactment of the Superior Courts Bill, which will go down in history as the beginning of a new chapter in the South African legal system.
The Superior Courts Bill, similar to the Constitution Seventeenth Amendment Bill and the Legal Practice Bill, has been in gestation for a very long time and all these Bills combined hold the key to the realisation of our constitutional imperative of access to justice and the equal protection and benefit of the law. A delay to one impacts on and affects the other.
We are indebted to the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development, all my predecessors, Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng, and former Chief Justices - Chief Justice Chaskalson, Chief Justice Langa and Chief Justice Ngcobo - for their insightful contributions and wisdom, which have helped shape this Bill that we have come to debate today.
The Superior Courts Act - should Parliament pass this Bill - will not only constitute a blueprint for the superior courts suited to the requirements of our Constitution, but also set out a framework for the transformation of magistrates' courts and other specialised courts in our land.
In this context the Superior Courts Act sets out the fundamental principles that will inform the new Lower Courts Act that will eventually replace the out-of-sorts Magistrates' Courts Act, as well as bring the specialised courts into conformity with the single judiciary principle contemplated in our democratic Constitution.
Initially we had intended to include certain amendments through which we sought to harmonise the magistracy with the judiciary as a way of advancing the ideal of a single judiciary. I would like to thank the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development for its guidance that we should instead come up with separate legislation that was geared to the wholesale transformation of the magistracy, thereby ensuring its full integration into the judiciary.
The envisaged Lower Courts Act will mirror the Superior Courts Bill in all material respects. We have started to engage with the lower court judiciary and the Magistrate's Commission in anticipation of the drafting of the Lower Courts Bill, which I intend to submit to Cabinet and introduce in Parliament during 2013.
Hon members, other than setting the broad framework for all courts, the Superior Courts Bill imports two fundamental principles that constitute the thrust of the transformation of our judicial system, which I wish to focus on. These are the constitutionally mandated rationalisation of the courts and the judiciary-based courts administration.
Regarding the former, hon members will recall that the Constitution converted the former provincial and local divisions of the former Supreme Court into various High Courts, thereby implying that every province could have its own High Court.
It has now emerged that a system of establishing several High Courts in different provinces within a single judicial system not only imports federal characteristics which are not compatible with the principle of a single judiciary and the features of our unitary state, but defeats the purpose of establishing a collective leadership, which is indispensable for an effective and efficient judicial system.
In addressing this undesirable state of affairs, the Superior Courts Bill provides for the reconfiguration of the current 13 High Courts, spread out in all provinces other than Limpopo and Mpumalanga, into a single High Court. The single High Court will, in turn, comprise nine divisions, one for each province, and as many local seats under each division as may be necessary to enhance access to justice, particularly for communities in remote rural villages of the country.
It is important to remind ourselves of the reality that, 18 years into our democracy, the areas of jurisdiction of both our superior courts and lower courts are still largely premised on the pre-1994 demarcations, which were designed in accordance with the boundaries of the territories of the now defunct Republic of South Africa, the self-governing states, and the Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei Bantustans, as they were then called.
These demarcations continue to dislodge large sectors of our society and perpetuate the legacy of deprivation and denial of access to justice for the previously marginalised and underdeveloped communities living in the traditionally black areas and rural villages of our land. It is only by passing and enacting this Superior Courts Bill that the remnants of the Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei constitutions can finally be expunged from our Statute Book.
These constitutional provisions have been kept alive by the transitional provision in item 16(1) of schedule 6 to the Constitution, which states the following, and I quote:
Every court, including courts of traditional leaders, existing when the new Constitution took effect, continues to function and to exercise jurisdiction in terms of the legislation applicable to it ... subject to -
a) any amendment ...; and
b) consistency with the ... Constitution.
It is in this context that the superior courts define a new era in our judicial landscape, and any further delay will continue to be a black spot in our endeavour to transform the judicial system and thereby establish a system that is legitimate in the eyes of our people and consistent with the values that underpin our Constitution.
Not only will the long awaited rationalisation of the courts ensure that every province has a division of the High Court and every municipality has a magistrate's court, but it will also increase public trust in the justice system and broaden access to justice, thereby enhancing the rule of law.
We have, in anticipation of the enactment of this Bill, commenced with the construction of the High Court in Polokwane, which is earmarked for completion by June 2013. We have also obtained land in Nelspruit for the construction of the seat of the High Court in the Mpumalanga province.
On the aspect of court administration, the Superior Courts Bill is a necessary transition towards the ultimate goal of a judiciary-based court administration. In line with this commitment, the Bill places the administration of the superior courts under the Office of the Chief Justice, thereby providing a holding mechanism through which these courts can be managed and funded separately from the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development.
We shall continue to learn lessons from the practical implementation of these transitional measures, which will assist in shaping the ultimate end product of our desired court administration model. The implementation of the desired model of court administration will require separate legislation, which we will consider in due course.
Hon members, the Superior Courts Bill brings about important changes to our Labour Court dispensation, changes which are intended to enhance the effectiveness and independence of the Labour Court. It is important to bring to the attention of this House the fact that judges of the Labour Court and the Labour Appeal Court have, since the enactment of the Labour Relations Act of 1995, been appointed according to a different dispensation to that of the judges of the other courts and appointed for a fixed term of 10 years. They therefore do not enjoy the same security of tenure as that enjoyed by their peers.
This has led to an unsatisfactory state of affairs, which in turn has resulted in a high turnover of judges in the Labour Court, as a new judge has to be appointed after the expiration of their fixed term. This practice will become a thing of the past with the enactment of this Bill, as judges of the Labour Court will henceforth be appointed on similar terms and conditions to those of other judges of the High Court.
I would like to thank former justices, the Judge President of the Labour Appeal Court, Justice Mlambo, as well as Justice Zondo, my colleague in the Ministry of Labour, the department, and the National Economic Development and Labour Council, Nedlac, for their co-operation and insight in bringing about these desired reforms.
In conclusion, let me assure this House that the Superior Courts Bill has the full support of the judiciary. The views and comments of the heads of courts, the legal profession and other role-players in the justice family were carefully considered during the process of drafting of the Bill. Both the department and the office of the Chief Justice are ready to implement the Bill if it is passed by this esteemed Parliament. The approval of the Bill by the House today will provide the required impetus and vigour to make up for lost time. May the Bill see the light of day. Thank you. [Applause.]
House Chairperson, hon Deputy President and hon members, I am pleased to stand before you today to speak on behalf of the ANC in support of the Superior Courts Bill. I am pleased because the completion of this Bill by the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development serves to mark yet another milestone on the road towards the transformation of the judicial system under our fairly new constitutional democracy.
A look at the various policy documents of the ANC, beginning with the pre- 1994 Constitutional Guidelines for a Democratic South Africa, 1989, and moving on to the organisation's main policy-making national conferences, shows the commitment to the creation of an egalitarian democratic order that is based on the principles of the separation of powers between the three main arms of the state, namely the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. Each one of these arms of state is crucial to the attainment of the ideal society for which we are all striving. The Constitution enjoins these arms to assist one another to attain their stated objectives while respecting one another's terrains of operation.
To this end the executive duly introduced the Superior Courts Bill as far back as 2003. The legislature fulfilled its own responsibility by placing the Bill before the South African public and calling for the submission of views for its consideration. In the character of our democratic order, robust debate ensued, resulting in necessary delays in the finalisation of the Bill. I believe that as a committee we are all happy with the final product. Importantly, however, the members of the judiciary themselves are satisfied.
The Bill provides a legislative measure that assists and protects the superior courts in order to ensure their independence, impartiality, dignity, accessibility and effectiveness. It further addresses the question of the rationalisation and composition, as well as areas of jurisdiction, of the High Courts, the Supreme Court of Appeal and the Constitutional Court, and makes it clear beyond a doubt that the latter is the supreme court of the land, with its head being the Chief Justice of South Africa.
As the head of the judiciary, the Chief Justice is empowered to fulfil his responsibility and exercise authority over the development of norms and standards for the exercising of judicial functions, such as the allocation of court cases and court rooms to judges. As the first among equals, he is expected to exercise his powers in conjunction with the relevant heads of court.
The interdependence of the three arms of state, separate and independent as they are, requires that the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development considers and addresses the financial and other resource needs of the supreme courts. The Bill provides a way for the discharging of this responsibility.
The secretary-general, as the officer in charge of the office of the Chief Justice, an institution considered as a department in its own right, is charged with the responsibility of accounting for the monies voted by Parliament for the administration and functioning of the superior courts. I am certain that hon members would not like to see the spectacle of the Chief Justice coming before Scopa to answer for findings of emphasis and the like by the Auditor-General.
In the view of the ANC, which is generally the view of the great majority of the people of our land, the idea of a transformed judiciary goes beyond changing its racial and gender composition. The idea of transformation is that of also changing the mindset of the judiciary to ensure that the justice system realises the goal of a unified South Africa, free of racism, sexism, poverty and general deprivation.
Understandably, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Appeal is somewhat reduced by the fact that appeals from the Labour Appeal Court and the Competition Appeal Court can be taken directly to the Constitutional Court which, as we now know, is empowered to deal also with any other matter brought before it on appeal, on the grounds of what the Bill calls arguable points of law of general public importance in the eyes of the court itself. Of course, the compelling reason behind allowing appeals from these two specialised courts to circumvent the Supreme Court of Appeal is the need to ensure the speedy resolution of labour and economic disputes.
The seats of the various divisions of the High Court of South Africa are now clearly defined, thereby removing all grounds for doubt. Each province has one main seat, as well as local seats where necessary. While some of us would have loved to have the seats of our courts given the geographical names of the new order, the committee was constrained by fact that most of these new municipal and town names are yet to be finalised in terms of relevant legislation.
On behalf of the portfolio committee, I also wish to thank Advocates De Lange, J B Skosana and Smuts for patiently moving along with us as we debated the Bill, changing clauses and reverting to the original formulations now and again. And, as I said before, the ANC supports the Superior Courts Bill. [Applause.]
Chairperson, during the brief tenure of Judge Sandile Ngcobo as Chief Justice, there was a sense in the air of institution building. It was an atmosphere reminiscent of the years when the two Constitutions were being negotiated, and our new institutions were first being established. This Bill, read together with the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution, gives the first legislative effect to the plans for an institutionally independent judicial branch. These plans were long in the making among the judges, and they were driven by Judge Ngcobo, who was also the first incumbent of the newly created office of the Chief Justice. His successor, Chief Justice Mogoeng, has continued the work of preparing for a judiciary-led court administration.
A Bill will be brought, next year I trust, to create the independent administrative agency which will take over from the Department of Justice in running the courts. Judge Ngcobo did the preparatory work in looking at models in other jurisdictions for such agencies.
Former Chief Justices Chaskalson and Langa have been working on models for the office of the Chief Justice. That office is currently set up as a government department, because it was the only available way to create it in the short term. It functions in unusual conditions, however, given its independence. Sir, it remains unsatisfactory that it does not yet function on a legislated independent basis.
This Bill does, however, take the process forward in recognising the head of that office, the secretary-general, and in making the secretary-general the accounting officer. It is no longer the Director-General of Justice as the tabled Bill provided. That is more than significant. The hon Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development will still be dealing with budgetary requirements, but they will now be set by the judiciary. Parliament will, of course, continue to appropriate the funds for the running of the office and the courts, and keep account of how they are spent.
This Bill takes the place of and repeals, as the hon Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development described, almost the whole range of laws and provisions under which our courts were set up in the past. They range from the Supreme Court Act of 1959 to the provisions of the old Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei constitutions, decrees and Acts. It has taken all these years, and five Ministries of Justice since 1994, finally to achieve the rationalisation which was described and required in schedule 6(16)(6) of the final Constitution, which asks for a judicial system suited to the constitutional dispensation.
This has been a long time coming and the hon Minister will feel justifiably proud when this "sees the light of day", as he said. I recall that the Minister has said in the past, and I think I attribute it correctly, that everything in Justice seems to take 10 years. Sir, I think we have at least brought this one in just before it hits the 10-year mark!
In addition, the Bill creates the new system of court governance by the judges themselves. Now, nobody must underestimate what a huge breakthrough this is. The Chief Justice becomes the head of the judiciary under the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution. In clause 8 of this Bill, he is given the tools for the job.
That is the task of convening forums of judges through whom he may set the norms and standards for judicial functions and for the efficiency of the courts. The one true power that he acquires is the issuing of protocols and directives on these matters. These protocols and directives may only be issued if they enjoy the majority support of the heads of court to whom they will be applicable.
Judge Mogoeng has lost no time in making work of the new approach. At a strategic planning session of the judges in August, a judicial case management system was adopted to encourage presiding officers to start dictating the pace of litigation, in order to counter postponements and case backlogs. There is already progress, it is said, at those courts where the system is being implemented.
We are, finally, after all these years of delay, beginning to move. Even the appointment of court managers and registrars will now be done in consultation with a head of court, and their functions will be determined, after our committee amendments, not by the department, but by the secretary- general and the Chief Justice. This alone will not only advance the independence of the judicial branch, but also counteract some of the things that have gone wrong in the department, as I pointed out in the Budget Vote debate. Adv Adams, I pointed it out. Jobs as court managers have been for sale in Gauteng, and the effects of corruption on appointments have inevitably been from corruption in the court administration itself.
With regard to the process of building the third pillar of the state, we are creating a truly institutional independent judicial branch. The process of building this third pillar of the state will be incremental, but this Bill makes an excellent start. This is thanks in no small measure to the work and sage advice of Adv J B Skosana and Adv Johan de Lange sitting with him, not least for interacting with the judiciary, over and above our portfolio committee meetings with the two highest courts. They are two gentlemen of very great expertise and we thank them for their work. [Applause.]
Hon Chairperson and Members of Parliament, many years ago a well-known South African judge was an interpreter in court during the earlier part of his career. In a stock theft case where the accused was charged with stealing sheep, the presiding officer hearing the matter informed the interpreter that he had to translate to the accused that he had been found not guilty. After translating the verdict to the accused, the accused then asked whether "not guilty" meant that he had to return the sheep! [Laughter.] Even though this Bill does not deal with the words that get lost in translation during court proceedings, it will ensure that administrative matters that are pre-eminently best placed within the domain of the office of the Chief Justice for the effective running of courts are indeed confirmed as being in that office. With the passing of the Bill today, the threat to the administrative independence of the judiciary will be averted, and for this reason Cope supports the Bill.
The doctrine of separation of powers, as entrenched in our Constitution, will in fact be strengthened with this Bill. Although the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development is politically responsible for the administration of justice in South Africa, this Bill will now place the Chief Justice of South Africa in the driving seat of administrative independence of the courts.
To date there is still a debate as to where the powers of the executive and judiciary are to be separated. The Constitutional Court ruled in the Treatment Action Campaign that "there are no bright lines that separate the roles of the legislature, the executive and the courts from one another". It is for this reason that at times the courts don't understand the politicians, and at times the politicians criticise the judiciary. Perhaps this Bill can also be used as a tool to limit the conflict between the executive and the judiciary when it comes to the administrative functions of the courts. Today South Africans are not interested in the jobs of the registrars in the various courts, or the budget that enables effective administration of the courts. South Africans also don't really know what the separation of powers means, and the study released by TNS South Africa has confirmed this. We just want to win in court and, if we don't, then we easily say at times that the judge was simply biased or inefficient.
TNS South Africa reported that only 31% of the 2 000 people interviewed were of the opinion that judges are indeed impartial. The question that we should thus ask ourselves is how this Bill will influence the perception of society regarding the impartiality of our courts. Unfortunately, and for all the good reasons, this Bill is actually all about the factors in the background and behind the scenes of the court theatre that enable a judge to pass judgement sooner, rather than later. Cope supports this Bill.
Mr Chairperson, most of what had to be said about this Bill has been said and, like Paganini, I do not repeat. All that there is for me to do is to raise a couple of concerns which are specifically relevant from our perspective.
Before I do so, I feel compelled to step back and think about the fact that this Bill is about structures and, irrespective of how we feel the structures have been structured, they are nothing but structures. The rule of law does not depend exclusively on structures. It depends on the people who work in those structures and the culture of the people who work in those structures. The culture of the people is something that we are equally responsible for forging.
A member of this House crossed the floor earlier and he gave me these napkins, which I will preserve and return to him in 30 years. He gave them to me to wipe away my tears for the failure of the High Court of Appeal to find in favour of the opposition parties in the case against the Speaker. That was a moral triumph, lost on a technicality, which accounts for the fact that no costs were awarded.
We need to move away from the culture that might is right, and move to the culture that right is might. We need to stop and enjoy the privileges of power to understand, as has happened to this member, that power comes and power goes, and the fortunes of power change. Those who were once in power go into the opposition, and those who were in the opposition go back into power, and may go back into the opposition! [Interjections.]
The most important structure within the consolidation of the rule of law is the political body. Unless we relinquish the worship we have for the rule of man and we embrace the rule of law, to the point where we fairly and sincerely accept that no one is above the law ... [Interjections.] The rule of women? [Laughter.] Well, Mr Jeffery, let the rule be as you wish, but until we have achieved that, all that can be done in the structures of the court system will not be achieved. Hon Jeffery, I can hear that you feel much better. We were very concerned about your being unwell and we were hoping that you had nothing trivial, but it seems that that is not the case! [Laughter.]
We had reservations in regard to the Constitution Seventeenth Amendment Bill, and we opposed it yesterday. Those reservations carry over to this Bill. I think it is a mistake to have made the Chief Justice, who should be judging in an ivory tower, look at long-term constitutional policies. We think it is a mistake to have made him the person who needs to deal with the daily administration of justice, and with the selection, as the hon Smuts said, of people as far down the ladder as registrar. That undermines constitutional adjudication. It draws those who should be the final wise referees of the dynamic of the Constitution into the terrain of the daily conflicts, daily administration and daily interpersonal exchanges. I think that weakens, rather than strengthens, the overall system of constitutional adjudication and the strength of the Constitution.
Be that as it may, this Parliament, against our best judgment, passed the constitutional amendment yesterday, and it therefore becomes necessary for that to be implemented by this Bill, and that accounts for the fact that we cannot possibly object to it.
In the spirit of Thanksgiving, as this is a day on which we have not been able to oppose anything, we will support the Bill. Thank you.
House Chairperson, hon Deputy President, members of the House and guests in the gallery - nobody is there any more - indeed, the Superior Courts Bill is really about the change in the structure of the justice system. Of course, unlike what hon Oriani-Ambrosini has said, the change in structure is actually to promote the efficiency and effectiveness of the justice system of South Africa.
That hon member was complaining about power - power that changes, power that comes and goes. Yet it is actually all about the political party that is in leadership because of the decision of the majority, the decision of the majority of the people of this country, and that is about the democratic dispensation that we have in South Africa. [Applause.] All that we can do is wish you, in your pursuit of this, a realisation that there is this support of the majority in South Africa for the ruling party.
The 1996 Constitution provides that as soon as possible, as soon as practical, all courts must be rationalised, including their structure, composition, functioning and jurisdiction, and also all relevant legislation, in order to establish a judicial system suited to the requirements of the new Constitution. This is the focus of the Constitution Seventeenth Amendment Bill and the Superior Courts Bill.
An overview of some of the amendments of Chapter 8 of the Constitution set out in the Constitution Seventeenth Bill provides the constitutional basis for provisions in the Superior Courts Bill and then for considering the framework provided in the Superior Courts Bill for the judicial management or, if you like, the day-to-day management of the judiciary by the judiciary in respect of the judicial functions of all courts. This is in line with broad policy guidelines on transformation of the judiciary in courts.
In this regard there was much consternation amongst the judiciary, the legal profession and others about the impact of various provisions in the Bill on judicial independence and constitutional integrity. This resulted in significant changes being made in the legislation.
Key to the judicial independence promoted by this Bill is the institutional independence of the judicial branch from the other branches of government, and the individual independence of judges, enabling them to exercise judicial functions in accordance with the law, free from any form of harassment, interference or intimidation. Any interference with judicial independence has significant implications for the rule of law, good governance and public confidence in the operation of the legal system of South Africa. Hon Chair, there is currently no integrated judicial governance framework under the command of the Chief Justice for the effective management of judicial functions that instils the accountability required by the Constitution. The rationalisation that is needed of the previous system marks a move away from the executive control of court administration, and accounting to the legislature through the Minister responsible for the Justice portfolio.
In terms of the Constitutional Court Complementary Act, Act 13 of 1995, the Minister appoints staff such as the registrar and assistant registrars, on the request of and in consultation with the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice appoints research assistants in consultation with the Minister. An executive secretary is appointed to assist the Chief Justice to carry out administrative duties.
Section 15(2) sets out how the court's budget is to be determined. It provides that the funding needs of the court are determined by the Chief Justice after consultation with the Minister. In other words, the Chief Justice is required to take the initiative in determining the court's needs and thereafter to enter into discussions with the Minister regarding the appropriation of funds. The Minister must then include the amount agreed to in the budget that is tabled in Parliament, subject of course to the concurrence of the Minister of Finance. However, the director-general of the department is ultimately accountable for expenditure of these funds - quite nebulous and cumbersome. When courts are viewed as a branch of the Ministry, and not as an independent division of government, this causes numerous practical problems.
The intention of the Superior Courts Bill is to set in motion judicial management of the solid base created through the Constitution Seventeenth Amendment Bill. As we have indicated, the Constitution Seventeenth Amendment Bill focuses on clearly defining the role of the Chief Justice, creating a department for the Chief Justice, changing references from magistrates' to lower courts, providing for single High Courts, establishing the Constitutional Court as the apex court, providing the procedures for the appointment of the Deputy Chief Justice, and then regulating the composition and functions of the Judicial Service Commission.
The provisions of the former Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei legislation have not yet been completely repealed, seeing that some relate to traditional courts, and repealing them now could affect the tagging of and consultation on the Bill. Towns and courts with old names have not as yet concluded the formal legislative process with the Minister of Arts and Culture. The Bill before the House today makes provision for administrative and budgetary matters relating to the superior courts. It provides that spending in connection with superior courts must be appropriated by the Parliament. The ANC supports this Bill. Thank you. [Time expired.]
Chairperson, the ACDP supports the Superior Courts Bill, which must be read together with the Constitution Seventeenth Amendment Bill that was passed earlier this week.
I must say, I was born in 1959 and what is quite significant is that we are repealing the Supreme Court Act, Act 59 of 1959 - it is quite a significant date. The Bill is also a vast improvement, which the ACDP does support. It has been in the making for some 10 years and it has been improved substantially. [Laughter.]
The significance is the fact that the proposed integration of the existing specialised courts, such as the Labour Court, the Electoral Court, the Competition Appeal Court and the Land Claims Court, into the High Court was not continued with and they are not special divisions. That we support as well.
As we know, the Bill has established the Constitutional Court as the highest court in the land and expanded its jurisdiction. The administration of the courts is placed firmly in the hands of the Chief Justice, which will, as we know, promote judicial independence. He will exercise responsibility over the establishment and monitoring of norms and standards for the exercise of judicial functions of all courts.
The portfolio committee repeated their expressed concerns about the declining court performance. Hon Minister, you are aware of that and I understand that the Chief Justice has already begun streamlining the case flow management process. We also believe that the establishment of the office of the Chief Justice as a stand-alone independent department will assist and enhance judicial independence.
As we said earlier, this process has come a long way and it is a far cry from earlier drafts which sought to cement the administration and running of the courts in the hands of the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and not the Chief Justice. This would clearly have presented a certain threat to judicial independence and was thankfully jettisoned by the Minister himself, after consultation with the judiciary and the legal fraternity. This Bill aims to rationalise, consolidate and amend the laws relating to the Constitutional Court.
The Supreme Court of Appeal, SCA, expressed its opposition to obligatory circuit courts. This was a very interesting concept - compulsion for it to sit in other areas as well - and it said that this would be unnecessary and undesirable. The rationale was access to justice, but it believed that this would cause huge logistical difficulties with severe, adverse financial implications. We as the portfolio committee were persuaded that it was not necessary to make this obligatory, but to leave it to the discretion of the President of the SCA, as is the case with the Constitutional Court. How many MPs know that the Constitutional Court can sit elsewhere as well, at the discretion of the Chief Justice?
The ACDP also welcomes the provision that requires that any draft legislation dealing with the establishment or functioning of the courts may be introduced only after consultation with the Minister of Justice.
So, we say goodbye to the Supreme Court Act, Act 59 of 1959. Viva, the Superior Courts Bill! Viva! [Applause.]
Hon Chair, ... [Interjections.] ... I will keep it short! Hon Deputy President, hon Ministers and hon Members of Parliament, firstly, this debate takes place against the backdrop of the fact that this is an important day, the day on which the Cape High Court delivered a particular judgment. I will deal with this briefly at a later stage in my speech.
The second important factor that I want to mention is with regard to 2011 Statistics SA. The results of Census 2011 revealed that there had been a decrease in the use of official languages, except for three of them. One of those exceptions is isiNdebele, which is the language that I sometimes use in this House. Thus, some portions of my speech today will be in isiNdebele or isiKhethu.
Njengomaswaphela, gadesi umsebenzi engizowenza kuthanyela. Ekuthanyeleni kwami ngifuna ukutjheja ubujamo bamakhotho namhlanjesi. Abanengi sele bakhulumile ekulumenipikiswano le, kanti-ke okuvezwe mnqopho namkha ihloso yomThetholingwa lo, ngisazokukudzubhula. Kodwana ngifuna bona sitjheje iintjhijilo ezilanelako egade zibakhona lokha umThethomlingwa lo ungakabi khona.
Sokuthoma isitjhijilo kube kuphaphatha. Amakhotho nawasebenza nomNyango wezoBulungiswa nokuThuthukiswa komThethosisekelo bekubonakala bona kufanele bonyana aphaphathe, okutjho bona kufanele aphile ngokubawa. Kwesibili, sizwile nokobana eMangawung kwabakhona isilinghi eyapheze yawela phezu kwehloko yejaji.
Kwesithathu, mutjhiso okhona ngaphakathi kwemakhiwo yekhotho. Sizwile bona eThekwini kwabakhona ijaji elingakghoni ukusebenzela ngaphakathi komakhiwo wekhotho ngebanga lokurhagala komtjhiso obangelwa kungasebenzi kwemitjhini elawula izinga lokutjhisa. Kanti begodu sizwe nangesitjhijilo esibekhona eKhotho eKulu yeKapa, lapho kuthiwa lokha nakufanele kuthengwe iinsetjenziswa zangekhotho, kutholakale bonyana isabelo seemali sitlhayele. Alo-ke kumele bonyana kulindelwe isAbelo seeMali somnyaka olandelako.
Alo-ke, nawutjhejisisa umqopho namkha ihloso yomThethomlingwa lo, nanyana zikhulumile ngawo iinkhulumi esele zikhulume ngaphambili kwami kodwana, ngithanda bonyana nami, hlangana nokhunye khengidzubhule kafitjhani ngalokhu okulandelako: (Translation of isiNdebele paragraphs follows.)
[As the last speaker my work is to summarise, and in my summary I would like to look into the status of the courts today. Many have made their statements in this debate in respect of the aims of this Bill or what the Bill proposes, and I will quote. But I want us to look at some of the challenges that were encountered before this Bill was crafted.
The first challenge was that of begging. When courts were working with the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development it was clear that they were supposed to beg, which means that they had to survive by begging. Secondly, we have heard that in Mangaung there was a ceiling that nearly fell on top of the head of the judge.
Thirdly, there is the heat inside the court buildings. We have heard that in eThekwini there was a judge that could not conduct the court proceedings inside the court building as a result of excessive heat that was caused by the malfunctioning of the air conditioners. And also we have heard about the challenge in the Cape Town High Court, were they say that when they had to procure the court resources it was found that there was insufficient budget. And therefore they have to wait for the next financial year.
Now when you consider the objectives or what the Bill proposes, other speakers that came before me spoke about this Bill, and I too would like, among other things, to shortly quote the following:]
Rationalise, consolidate and amend the laws relating to the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court of Appeal and the High Courts in a single Act of Parliament; unite the various High Courts into a single High Court of South Africa; make provision for the administration of the judicial functions of all courts; and make provision for administrative and budgetary matters relating to the superior courts.
Angekhe ngangena ngokunabile ngombana selengitjhwile bona iikhulumi ezinengi sele zikubekile lokho. Alo-ke, njengesikhulumi samaswaphela begodu naleso umsebenzi waso kukuthanyela, bengisoloko ngilalele lokho okubekwa ziinkhulumi, khulukhulu lezo ezingesandleni sami sangesinceleni. Kodwana akakho ekhe ngamizwa akhuluma okulumelako engingakhuluma ngakho khulu.
Umhlonitjhwa uSmuts khewatshwaya kancani mayelana nendaba yoMnqophisimazombe okunguye obikako ngokuya ngomNyango wezoBulungiswa nokuThuthukiswa komThethosisekelo, kodwana umThethomlingwa lo ukhuluma ngoNobhalamazombe okunguye ozakuvela phambili kwePalamende azokubika mayelana nokusetjenziswa kweemali.
Boke bakhulume kuhle okufakahlangana nabomhlonitjhwa u-Adams. Kanti-ke, nakungu-Ambrosini yena, ngifuna bona khengibuyele kuye ngithi, ... (Translation of isiNdebele paragraphs follows.)
[I am not going to dwell on this much, as I have alluded before to the fact that many speakers have mentioned that. Now as a last speaker my task is to sweep. As I was listening to what was said by other speakers, especially those from the left, I did not hear any one of them speaking negatively about this Bill. Therefore I have not much to say.
Hon Smuts briefly said something about the issue of the director-general who is the accounting officer, and is responsible for reporting on behalf of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, but this Bill refers to the secretary-general who is going to come before this Parliament to report about the departmental spending.
All of them spoke very well, including Hon Adams. But, when it comes to Ambrosini, I want to go back to him and say the following.]
Hon Ambrosini said that the decision of the Cape High Court today is regarded as a failure of the court to make a ruling against the Speaker. I say, no, that is an incorrect interpretation of this decision. The effect of this decision is an assertion of the separation of powers. That is the principle.
Chairperson, on a point of order: Hon Oriani- Ambrosini denies that he said what the hon member is saying.
That's how I understood him.
Right, it is an assertion of the doctrine of the separation of powers. We must regard this as a gleam of hope, and this is what we expect from our courts. It is an assertion that there should be a separation of roles between what we as Parliament or the legislature, the executive or Cabinet, and the judiciary are doing. Therefore, we as parliamentarians or politicians will respect the independence of the judiciary. The ANC supports this Bill. I thank you. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
I just want to thank all the members for unanimously supporting this Bill. Thank you.
Debate concluded.
Bill read a second time.
The Bill will be sent to the National Council of Provinces for concurrence.