(Cont.)
Another person, whom I assumed was a messenger, held out a printed form with some inscriptions on it, in a quivering hand, repeatedly begging the security officer just to receive it and hand it in at the Master’s office. The security officer rudely shrugged his shoulders and reiterated that the office is now closed. Another person complained to the security officer that he had attended the Master’s office earlier that day, but that he was instructed to first make some payment somewhere else, which he said he had now done. The security officer asked him ‘where is the receipt’. He responded ‘on my cell phone’, and held it out to the security officer to look at, but he refused to look at it and summarily remarked, ‘that is not a receipt’, and then turned and walked away towards the half-closed door his colleague was firmly holding onto. On his way, an elderly lady confronted him and in a broken accent, who attempted to request him, with a shaky finger pointing to a piece of paper held in her hand, on which the Master’s office was listed, whether this was the correct address. He ignored her flatly and continued his short walk to safety. People in the crowd were shuffling around in utter disbelief as to what was happening, loudly commenting on the inefficiency of Master’s office and complaining about the time, effort and costs already wasted and to be incurred once again on their return to the Master’s office on another day.
As I walked off, I observed a number of the Master’s employees still sitting inside, in their cubicles, behind glass screens, staring at their computers and seemingly indifferent and oblivious to what was happening on their doorstep. I felt ashamed of an organ of State, one of the essential pillars of our justice system, having dismally failed its Constitutional duties, one of which in essence is to deliver a service to the public, to which they were entitled, pertinently on this day at that time, in the execution of the duties they were obliged to fulfil.
Assuming an urgent meeting by the Master was required to be held, it is only reasonable for the following questions to arise:
• Was the meeting so urgent that it could only be held during business hours, notably on a Friday, at 11h00?
• Why could the urgency not wait until lunch time, or during that afternoon, outside business hours?
• Why was no communication by way of notice put up outside, as a prior and timeous warning that the office would be closed at 11h00?
• Why was the communication of the reason for the untimely closure left entirely in the hands of a security officer and not, due to the unpredictability thereof and the known inconvenience caused, dealt with by the Master him/herself, or any other responsible employee?
• Would it not have been prudent to hand out notices to those present as to the reason for the closure and the measures put in place to assist them at a later time that day, or on another date?
• Why were the people who were in attendance, obviously mostly for transacting limited business, for example, filing of a document, not attended to by those employees who were still sitting in their service cubicles, for at least half an hour after the office had closed at 11h00?
This was an unhappy, unfortunate event which could and should have been avoided. The Master and all its employees owe the public an apology for what has happened. Our Constitutional values will only be observed, trusted and respected by the people of South Africa, if our public institutions, such as the Master of the High Court, sets and maintains the standards of effectiveness and excellence, both of which are at present regrettably lacking.
FHD van Oosten