When everything is a priority, then nothing is a priority Department of Justice and Constitutional Development Overview of Budget, Constraints and the impact on Department’s planning When everything is a priority, then nothing is a priority

Content Executive Summary Main Challenges Criteria for Budget Allocation Budgetary Performance Previous Financial Year Budgetary Headline Information Planned Reallocation to Priorities due to projected under spending on Infrastructure Programme Donor Support Impact of Proposed further cuts Challenges to be addressed in the current financial year Regional Spending Conclusion

Executive Summary DOJ&CD has absorbed significant cuts until 2017/18. 2017/18 was the first time Entities are significantly affected – NPA, Public Protector and Legal Aid SA Main challenge for all (including DOJ&CD) relates to Staff Establishment to service existing service points. Shortfall on Compensation Further challenge for DOJ&CD is maintenance of infrastructure costs (include security Infrastructure) (Ministerial priority) Inadequate investment in ICT (Ministerial Priority) High Cost of Compliance Additional pressures due to Commissions Uncertainty on budget allocations and related planning

Main Challenge to Business Units Competing mandates Inadequacy of funding in government and National Treasury practice to refer justice cluster to DOJCD to achieve efficacy of funding allocation Inability to cut further without impacting on service delivery points Inability to further absorb increases in cost of living increases beyond budgetary increases Slow response time and lack of agility in general E.g. Process to approve amendments in Job Descriptions & severance packages Slow processes in alignment of resources in the Justice Value Chain Slow response time in reorganisation of Business - e.g. State Attorney Clarity of Policy in terms of understanding the real impact on both the public and the operations of the Justice Value Chain Determination of non performing programmes and non essential programmes

Criteria for Budget Allocation Spending Trends Performance – Fix Non-performing Programmes that are critical and cannot be cut Demand Pressures, risks & looming crisis, growth catalysts Efficiencies & Savings Value for Money Remove Non-Core Programmes Transformative Impact & Vulnerable/ Key Groups Policy Blockages

Budget Assumptions & Guiding Principles for cutting of budget Compensation ceiling to remain Salary Increases will remain within Inflation – therefore compensation not to be touched Earmarked Funds not to be touched Infrastructure and Accommodation IJS/CJS Magistrate Salaries ICT as lever for transformation not to be touched (need however more funding to fulfil transformational vision & infrastructure capacity requirements) Consideration for contractual obligations that cannot be touched Critical operations spending items e.g. witness fees, Psychiatric Observation (Need increase or VCC to be utilised to sustain)

Budgetary Performance Previous Financial Year

COMPOSITION OF UNDER SPENDING PREVIOUS FINANCIAL YEAR COMPENSATION OF EMPLOYEES: VOTE R 112 181 (Earmarked) R40 million relate to senior posts currently being filled and rest due to timing variations in appointment process GOODS & SERVICES : VOTE R 10 088 VOTE OTHER CLASSIFICATION (SASSETA) R 1 023 STATE CAPTURE COMMISSION R 138 811 (Earmarked – no control) SARS COMMISSION R 14 619 (Earmarked – no control) MAGISTRATES SALARIES R 168 153(Direct Charges – no control) TOTAL UNDER SPENDING R444 875

Composition of Budget – Discretionary R1.1 billion

HIGH SPENDING ITEMS FOR 2017/18 VERSUS 2018/19 Cost Drivers- Goods and Services Economic Classification Spending 2017/18 R’000 2018/19 R’000 Percentage Growth Comments  Building Leases 731 645 1 076 705 47% The increase is due full settlement payment of accommodation charges, including accrual of R167 million that was carried over from 2017/18. Electricity and Water 414 477 363 277 (12%) The decrease in 2018/19 is due to the fact that expenditure in 2017/18 included accruals which were carried over from 2016/17. 2018/19 expenditure accounts for only expenses incurred in the same year. Security Services 685 285 718 602 5% The increase is due to inflationary increases. Travel and Subsistence 377 459 383 838 2% Computer and IT Support Services 834 411 739 780 (11%) The decrease is due to the Department of Correctional Service’s inability to obtain condonement to regularise the Integrated Inmate Management System (IIMS). Agency and Support/Outsourced Services 124 563 158 598 27% The increase is due to the payment of investigators for the Commission of Inquiry into State Capture. Consumables: Stationery, Printing and Office Supplies 207 458 232 382 12% The increase is due to expenditure in respect of the Commissions of Inquiries. Communication 138 862 126 505 (9%) The decrease is due to the continuous implementation of cost containment measures. Legal Services 127 134 155 062 22% The increase is due to the legal cost expenditure in respect of Commission of Inquiry into State Capture, SARS and PIC.

COST CONTAINMENT MEASURES ITEMS PERFORMANCE 2017/18 VERSUS 2018/19

Budgetary Headline Information

CONTEXT OF PROPOSED BUDGET CUT SINCE 2015   2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Total Cut 000 Baseline reduction Financial Inteligence Centre: 2014/15 (20 000) (30 000) (40 000) (22 000) (112 000) Financial Inteligence Centre: 2015/16 (18 000) (60 000) Budget cut phase 1 (244 338) (265 110) (286 192) (795 640) Budget cut Phase 2 (123 222) (554 547) (804 065) (1 481 834) Budget cut Phase 3 (186 807) (191 409) (212 760) (590 976) Budget cut Phase 4 (607 257) (629 749) (664 186) (1 901 192) Total baseline reduction (292 338) (448 332) (1 071 546) (1 602 731) (842 509) (4 941 642)

2018 MTEF ALLOCATIONS PER PROGRAMME Description 2017/18 R’000 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 Administration 1 958 100 2 117 741 2 231 636 2 366 790 2 503 268 Court Services 6 340 628 6 443 672 6 874 065 7 340 418 7 810 132 State Legal Services 1 164 862 1 251 528 1 340 897 1 437 027 1 528 754 National Prosecuting Authority 3 742 915 3 648 849 3 929 137 4 214 925 4 484 223 Auxiliary and Associated Services 3 400 714 3 587 636 3 806 985 4 014 964 4 234 137 Total Vote 16 607 219 17 049 426 18 182 720 19 374 124 20 560 514 Direct charge against the National Revenue Fund 1 933 468 2 215 538 2 383 695 2 560 227 2 725 861 Total DOJ&CD 18 540 686 19 264 964 20 566 415 21 934 351 23 286 375 Percentage Growth   4% 7% 6%

2018 MTEF ALLOCATIONS PER ECONOMIC CLASSIFICATIONS Description 2017/18 R’000 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 Compensation of employees 10 392 205 11 029 385 11 868 731 12 758 064 13 587 338 Goods and services 4 232 843 4 302 120 4 533 735 4 787 138 5 052 083 Transfers and subsidies 2 699 345 2 765 128 2 938 584 3 098 688 3 267 465 Payments for capital assets 1 193 952 1 168 331 1 225 365 1 290 461 1 379 489 Payments for financial assets 22 341 Total DOJ&CD 18 540 686 19 264 964 20 566 415 21 934 351 23 286 375 Percentage Growth   4% 7% 6%

Highest Cost drivers Department Description 2017/18 R’000 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 Compensation of employees 10 635 040 11 029 385 11 868 731 12 758 064 13 587 338 Buildings and other fixed structures 1 078 557 820 331 855 637 902 696 970 398 Computer services 627 471 745 095 778 890 822 629 867 874 Operating leases 633 233 874 733 924 721 976 404 1 030 106 Property payments 970 535 1 087 693 1 144 873 1 254 902 1 323 922 Total Highest Spending Pressures 13 944 836 14 557 237 15 572 852 16 714 695 17 779 638

Year on Year Overall Growth

Year on Year COE Growth

Year to Year G&S Growth

Year to Year Payment for Cap Ass Growth

Funding Choices R’000

Planned reallocation to priorities from expected under spending from DPW Reported Budget Shortfalls Amount '000 From To Replacement of Desk Tops 35 000 Infrastructure Equipment Replacement of Laptops 25 000 Security Infrastructure 40 000 Security Maintenance of Court Buildings 100 000 Maintenance 200 000

DONOR TECHNICAL SUPPORT International Aid Sexual Offences Courts Relationship with private sector support Technical support on contract management review of SCM Community Advice Offices GBV NPA

Impact of Proposed Further Cuts

HISTORIC CONTEXT OF THE BUDGET CUT SINCE 2015   2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2020/23 Total Cut 000 Baseline reduction Financial Inteligence Centre: 2014/15 (30 000) (40 000) (22 000) (92 000) Financial Inteligence Centre: 2015/16 (18 000) (20 000) (60 000) Budget cut phase 1 (244 338) (265 110) (286 192) (795 640) Budget cut Phase 2 (123 222) (554 547) (804 065) (1 481 834) Budget cut Phase 3 (186 807) (191 409) (212 760) (590 976) Budget cut Phase 4 (607 257) (629 749) (664 186) (1 901 192) Budget cut Phase 5 (72 950) (69 377) (20 735) (163 062) Budget cut Phase 6 (961 391) (1 227 5050 (1 486 868) (3 675 764) Total baseline reduction (292 338) (448 332) (1 071 546) (1 602 731) (915 459) (1 694 954) (1 248 240) (8 760 468)

Existing Impact of budget cuts on Courts Increased threats to witnesses due to the reduction of protection services (NPA) Compromised level of security provisioning in courts and department’s buildings A sluggish eradication of backlog cases Non appointment of key positions such as prosecutors, court interpreters, maintenance officers, estate administrators and administrative staff providing corporate services such as finance, human resources and IT etc. Reduced pace on the implementation of the IJS/CJS project thus prolonging the programme completion

FURTHER SERVICE DELIVERY IMPACT OF PROPOSED BUDGET CUT SERVICE POINTS 2020/21 2021/22 2020/23 Courts 24 29 34 Masters 1 State Attorney Family Advocate 2

Challenges in the Department to be addressed this financial year New priority areas e.g. NPA Directorate, One Man Stations, Aspirant Prosecutor, Family Advocate, Regional Support Services Potential overspending on Compensation – already at 8% Reliability of aligned Performance Information on which management decisions are made Potential unbundling of DOJCD functions and related costs Inadequate alignment of resources of all the entities in relation to productivity information Inadequate alignment of policies, strategy and procedures of all the entities Delays in finalisation of policies and operating models e.g. language interpretation, virtual libraries, security services, accommodation standards, psych evaluations, witness fees, building management of new courts, gardening and cleaning services in courts, GBV projects, community advice offices, TRC community rehabilitation projects, OSD cost implications, Family Advocate Delays in creating permanent staff establishment in critical areas (ICT, SCM, Asset Management, Internal Control, Justice College) Impact of Commissions on the workload of the Department Impact of potential non-performance of DPW on infrastructure roll-out of the department Maintenance of infrastructure and Replacement of equipment/ computers/fleet/ tools of trade/PABX Inadequate demand management, SCM value chain and Contract management Inadequate resourcing of specialised procurement areas

FUNDED BY REMAINING DISCRETIONARY BUDGET

REGIONAL SPENDING

REGIONS BUDGET ALLOCATION SUMMARY 2019/20 TO 2021/22 2020/21 2021/22 000 EASTERN CAPE 762 824 817 576 866 020 FREE STATE 359 906 386 341 408 858 GAUTENG 822 716 886 904 931 337 KWAZULU NATAL 781 324 843 717 904 685 LIMPOPO 515 410 553 373 607 140 MPUMALANGA 363 793 386 296 405 556 NORTHERN CAPE 252 122 269 754 284 471 NORTH WEST 388 492 416 367 439 251 WESTERN CAPE 521 595 559 450 590 800 TOTAL 4 768 182 5 119 778 5 438 118 YEAR ON YEAR GROWTH 11% 7% 6%

BUDGET ALLOCATION SHARE PER REGION

REGIONAL BUDGET ALLOCATION SUMMARY PER ECONOMIC CLASSFICATION 2019/20 TO 2021/22 Economic classification 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 000 Current payments 4 671 903 5 022 225 5 336 245 Compensation of employees 3 977 812 4 272 059 4 541 241 Goods and services 694 091 750 166 795 004 Transfers and subsidies 28 041 29 637 31 285 Provinces and municipalities 558 582 614 Departmental agencies and accounts 138 145 146 Households 27 345 28 910 30 525 Payments for capital assets 68 238 67 915 70 590 Machinery and equipment Total 4 768 182 5 119 778 5 438 118

Conclusion The DOJ&CD together with entities need to explore possibilities of consolidating/aligning their support services in order to release financial resources to be redirected toward funding co-functions. Investment in automation need to be increased as to realise operational and cost efficiencies. All entities in the Justice family must continuously and jointly review their business processes in order to ensure alignment