(1) Whether the North Gauteng High Court recently ordered the Director of the Directorate of Conventional Arms Control (name furnished), to issue the relevant export permits relating to the export of 30 Reliable, Effective, Versatile and Affordable (REVA) Armoured Personnel Carriers; if not, why not; if so, why (a) was it necessary for the court to issue the order and (b) were the relevant export permits not issued; (2) whether his department incurred any costs as a result of litigation in this matter; if not, why not; if so, what was the (a) total cost and (b) breakdown of such costs; (3) whether he has launched an investigation into this matter; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?
(1) Whether he is aware of any violations of any provisions of the National Conventional Arms Control Act, Act 41 of 2002, as amended by Act 73 of 2008, by (a) Armscor and (b) Denel in each specified calendar year between 2003 and 2013; if not, in each specified calendar year, why not; if so, in each specified calendar year, how many violations were committed; (2) in respect of each specified violation in each specified calendar year by (a) Armscor and (b) Denel, what (i) are the particulars of each violation and (ii) action was taken in respect of each violation; (3) whether there is a plan in place to ensure that (a) Armscor and (b) Denel comply with the law regulating conventional arms control; if not, why is no such plan in place; if so, what are the relevant details of the plan?
(1) Whether his department received any funds for the Expanded Public Works Programme in the (a) 2010-11, (b) 2011-12 and (c) 2012-13 financial years; (2) whether any of these funds were earmarked for (a) capital or (b) infrastructure-related projects; if so, (i) what are the names of these projects, (ii) where are these projects situated, (iii) what is the value of each project and (iv) how many jobs have been created by each project (3) in each case, what process was followed to appoint project (a) implementers and (b) consultants; (4) in each case, were funds transferred to project implementers (a) in a lump sum or (b) through progress payment; (5) whether any projects have been impeded due to maladministration or corruption; if so, (a) which projects have been affected and (b) what action has been taken in each case?
-
The Department did not receive any funds for the Expanded Public Works
Programme in the 2010/11, 2011/12 , 2012/13 financial years, because all
key sectors of the Expanded Public Works Programme are executed by the
Department of Public Works.
The Departmentâs baseline budget is for Capital infrastructure projects and
as mentioned above there was no allocation for the Expanded Public Works
Programme. Our ...
More »
With reference to his reply to question 2306 on 30 September 2013, (a) how many meetings of the Scrutiny Committee took place (i) in (aa) 2009, (bb) 2010, (cc) 2011, (dd) 2012 and (ii) since 1 January 2013 and (b) in each case and in respect of each specified year (i) how many of these meetings were not chaired by the Secretary of Defence, (ii) who was the Secretary of Defence at the time when the meeting was not chaired by the Secretary of Defence and (iii) what was the name of the person who chaired the meeting?
Whether any security clearance is needed for the newly-appointed National Director of Public Prosecutions (name furnished) as the position is for a person who is at the centre of some of the country’s most sensitive information; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details in this regard?
What (a)(i) correspondence or (ii) requests has he received from other Ministers in respect of any ongoing investigations conducted by any Chapter 9 institutions in the past year and (b) steps has he taken in each case?
Whether, with reference to the South Gauteng High Court ruling that survivors and families of those who died during the Marikana shooting must receive state funding for representation at the Marikana Commission of Inquiry, this funding will be diverted from legal representation for other poor persons needing legal aid or will the State find additional funding over and above the current Legal Aid Board budget?
(1) With reference to the replies of the Minister of Health to question 728 on 28 May 2013, question 1599 on 17 July 2013 and question 2055 on 17 September 2013, when is judgment in the case expected to be delivered; (2) what is being done to expedite the delivery of the judgment?
(1) Since 20 May 1998 (a) which (i) persons and/or (ii) companies have been given authorisation to render foreign military assistance in terms of the Regulation of Foreign Military Assistance Act, Act 15 of 1998, (b) to which country was each approved application to give foreign military assistance made and (c) when (i) was each application approved and (ii) does each authorisation expire; (2) since 20 May 1998 (a) which (i) persons and/or (ii) companies have been refused authorisation to render foreign military assistance in terms of the said Act, (b) what are the reasons for each refusal, (c) to which country was each application to give foreign military assistance made and (d) when was each application denied?
In the period under review, the NCACC considered and decided on a number
of applications under the Regulation of Foreign Military Assistance Act
(Act 15 of 1998). The decisions of the NCACC in this regard are contained
on the table attached below. It needs to be understood though that in the
consideration of these applications the NCACC sometimes calls for the
submission of additional ...
More »
Whether a certain person (name furnished) has been paid by his department in the (a) 2009-10, (b) 2010-11, (c) 2011-12 and (d) 2012-13 financial years; if so, (i) what amount was the specified person (aa) paid in each financial year and (bb) paid in respect of each specific matter, (ii) in what capacity was said person paid and (iii) at what rate respective ly?
