OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE
Presentation of the OCJ Quarterly Performance Report: Q2 and Q3 of 2015/16 FY 16 February 2016 OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

PRESENTATION OUTLINE Purpose of the presentation
Establishment of the OCJ as a National Department Mandate of the department Vision, Mission and Values Strategic Goals Budget programme structure Legislative Requirements Overview of performance (non-financial performance information) Overall Performance Summary of performance per programme and sub- programme Quarter 2 and 3 financial information Institutional challenges/constraints OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

PURPOSE OF THE PRESENTATION
To present to the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Correctional Services: The 2nd and 3rd quarter Performance Report (Non-financial performance information) The 2nd and 3rd quarter financial information OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE OCJ
Proclamation The OCJ was proclaimed by the President of the RSA on 23 August 2010 for the purpose of providing support to the CJ in his dual role as the Head of the Judiciary and the Constitutional Court. The Minister is the Executive Authority for the OCJ with the Secretary General as Accounting Officer. Constitution Seventeenth Amendment Act, 2012 Designate the Chief Justice as the Head of the entire Judiciary. Empowers the Chief Justice with the responsibility to establish norms and standards for the exercise of judicial functions of all courts. Monitoring of implementation of norms & standards in all courts. Develop guidelines, protocols. Assign the Constitutional Court as the Apex Court OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

MANDATE OF THE DEPARTMENT
The mandate of the Office of the Chief Justice (OCJ) is to support the Chief Justice in executing administrative and judicial powers and duties as Head of the Judiciary and Head of the Constitutional Court. Functions: To provide and coordinate legal and administrative support to the Chief Justice; To provide communication and relationship management services and inter-governmental and international coordination; To develop courts administration policy, norms and standards; To support the development of Judicial policy, norms and standards; To support the Judicial function of the Superior Courts; To render administrative support to the Superior Courts; To support the Judicial Service Commission in the execution of its mandate; To support South African Judicial Education Institute in the execution of its mandate; and To administer Judges’ Remuneration and Conditions of Employment Act. OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

MANDATE (continued) Legislative Mandate Superior Courts Act, 2013
CJ exercise responsibility over the administration of judicial functions of all courts. Judges President to assume responsibility over coordination of judicial functions of all courts within each province. South African Judicial Education Institute Act, The Chief Justice is the Chairperson of the SAJEI Council. SAJEI was established to provide judicial education to all Judicial Officers. The responsibility for the training of Magistrates has been transferred from Justice College to SAJEI since January 2012. Judicial Service Commission Act, 1994 – The Chief Justice is the Chairperson of the Judicial Service Commission which inter alia is responsible for the recommendation of candidates for judicial appointment and dealing with complaints lodged against Judges. Public Finance Management Act, 1999 Public Service Act & Regulations OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

VISION, MISSION AND VALUES
A single, transformed and independent Judicial system that guarantees access to justice for all Mission To provide support to the Judicial system to ensure effective and efficient court administration services Values - Respect and protection of the Constitution - Honesty and integrity - Openness and transparency - Professionalism and excellence OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

The 3 Strategic Goals of the OCJ are as follows:
STRATEGIC OUTCOME- ORIENTED GOAL 1 CAPACITATE THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE Goal Statement Secure adequate human resources for the OCJ to enable it to carry out its mandate effectively by attracting and recruiting competent personnel STRATEGIC OUTCOME- ORIENTED GOAL 2 SUPPORT THE CHIEF JUSTICE IN THE FULFILLMENT OF HIS FUNCTIONS AS THE HEAD OF THE JUDICIARY Enable the Chief Justice as the Head of the Judiciary to deliver on his Constitutional mandate by providing administrative support STRATEGIC OUTCOME- ORIENTED GOAL 3 RENDER EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT TO THE SUPERIOR COURTS Support the efficiency of the Superior Courts in the provision of their services of improving case finalisation rate and reducing case backlogs by providing continuous administrative and technical support. OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

BUDGET PROGRAMME STRUCTURE
OCJ carries out its mandate through: Programme 1: Administration Programme 2: Judicial Support & Court Administration Programme 3: Judicial Education & Research OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS
The quarterly non-financial performance report is informed by the following legislation and prescripts: National Treasury Framework for Strategic Plans (SP) and Annual Performance Plans (APPs), 2010 read with the National Treasury Instruction note on the implementation of the Framework for SP and APPs, dated 23 November Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation guideline on the preparation of quarterly performance reports (dated May 2015). Office of the Chief Justice Policy on Managing Performance Information. OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

QUARTER 2 AND 3 NON-FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE REPORT
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

OVERVIEW OF QUARTER 2 PERFORMANCE
OCJ has a total of 35 indicators in the 2015/16 APP. 32 targets were set for reporting in Q2. 19 (59%) targets were achieved. 13 (41%) targets were not achieved. Programme 1: Administration achieved 69% of its set targets. Programme 2: Judicial Support and Court Administration achieved 50% of its set targets. Programme 3: Judicial Education and Research programmes, achieved 67% of the set targets. OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

OVERVIEW OF QUARTER 3 PERFORMANCE
OCJ has a total of 35 indicators in the 2015/16 APP. 34 targets were set for reporting in Q3. 22 (65%) targets were achieved. 12 (35%) targets were not achieved. Programme 1: Administration achieved 62% of its set targets. Programme 2: Judicial Support and Court Administration achieved 72% of its set targets. Programme 3: Judicial Education and Research programmes, achieved 33% of the set targets. OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

OVERVIEW OF PERFORMANCE (Q1 TO Q3)
Performance in Q3 improved compared to Q1 and Q2 In Q1, the OCJ achieved 62% of its targets which declined to 59% in Q2 In Q3, performance improved by 6% to 65% The improvement was mainly in Programme 2: Judicial Support and Court Administration where performance increased from 50% in Q2 to 72% in Q3 OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

OVERVIEW OF PERFORMANCE PER PROGRAMME (Q1 TO Q3)
Programme 1 achieved 62% of its targets in Q3, showing a decline of 7% from 69% in Q2 Programme 2 achieved 72% of its targets in Q3, showing an increase of 22% from 50% in Q2 Programme 3 achieved 33% of its targets in Q3, showing a declined of 34% from 67% in Q2 Reasons for a change in performance per Programme will be provided in the following slides: OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

PERFORMANCE PER PROGRAMME PROGRAMME 1: ADMINISTRATION

PERFORMANCE PER PROGRAMME: ADMINISTRATION
Purpose To provide strategic leadership, management and support services to the department. Sub-programmes Management Corporate Services Finance Administration Internal Audit and Risk Management Services Office Accommodation Strategic Objectives Ensure effective and efficient management and overall administration of the department Render effective corporate support services to the Judiciary and the department Render financial, supply chain and assets management services to the Judiciary and the department Ensure good governance in the administration of the department Ensure sound acquisition of office accommodation for the department OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

PERFORMANCE PER PROGRAMME: ADMINISTRATION
Programme 1 has a total of 14 indicators in the 2015/16 APP 13 targets were due to be reported on in Q2 and Q3 Of the 13 targets that were due to be reported on : 9 (69%) targets were achieved in Q2 8 (62%) targets were achieved in Q3 The drop in performance in Q3 for this programme was mainly attributable to: Identified critical posts not filled as projected (10% filled of the targeted 90%). Officials not trained in line with the WSP as projected (44 officials trained of the targeted 50). Invoices not paid within 30 days as (88% of the invoices paid of the targeted 100%). Fraud cases not investigated within 60 days as planned (25% investigated of the targeted 100%). Not all planned communication activities implemented (2 activities conducted of the targeted 3). OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

PERFORMANCE PER SUB-PROGRAMME: ADMINISTRATION
Management achieved 100% (2 of 2) of its targets in all the 3 quarters Corporate services achieved 60% (3 of 5) of its targets in Q2 and 40% (2 of 5) in Q3 Financial Administration achieved 67% (2 of 3) of its targets in Q2 and 50% (1 of 2) in Q3. Internal Audit and Risk Management Services achieved 67% (2 of 3) in all the 3 quarters Office accommodation achieved 100% (1 of 1) in Q1 and Q3 OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

PERFORMANCE PER SUB-PROGRAMME: ADMINISTRATION
REASON FOR UNDER-PERFORMANCE PER SUB-PROGRAMME Corporate services Underperformance in this sub-programme was mainly due to capacity constraints on HR and Communications which impacted on the training of officials, filling of critical funded posts and the implementation of communication activities. Posts have been advertised in order to capacitate the HR and Communications Units. Financial Administration Underperformance in this sub-programme was due to inadequate internal capacity and IT systems to process payment of invoices within 30 days. Payment of travel agency invoices which constitute >60% of the total invoices, will be automated and paid through the NT travel card system. Appointment of officials to process payments will be done in Quarter 4. Internal Audit and Risk Management Services Underperformance in this sub-programme was due to unavailability of witnesses required for the investigation of fraud cases to be finalised within 60 days which delayed finalisation. Fraud cases will be prioritised in Q4. OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

PROGRAMME 1: ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INFORMATION
Ser No Performance Indicators Annual Target Q1 Actual Q2 Target Q2 Actual Q3 Target Q3 Actual Q3 Deviat ion Reason for Deviation Planned Action Status 1 Number of Executive Management meetings convened 10 4 3 2 N/A OCJ Annual Performance Plans finalised and submitted to DPME and NT as per National Treasury timelines OCJ APP (2016/17) finalized and submitted to DPME and NT as per NT timelines OCJ 1st Draft APP (2016/17) developed and submitted to DPME and NT as per the NT timelines OCJ 1st Draft APP (2016/17 ) develope d and submitte d to DPME and NT as per the NT timelines OCJ 2nd Draft APP (2016/1 7) develop ed and submitte d to DPME and NT as per NT timeline s OCJ 2nd Draft APP (2016/17) developed and submitted to DPME and NT as per NT timelines

PROGRAMME 1: ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INFORMATION CONT…
Ser No Performance Indicators Annul Target Q1 Actual Q2 Target Q2 Actual Q3 Target Q3 Actual Q3 Deviatio n Reason for Deviation Planned Action Status 3 Number of officials trained in line with the Workplace Skills Plan (WSP) within a financial year 150 N/A 50 139 44 6 Some trainings were postponed to Q4 due to officials who were already committed in other processes (e.g. recruitment processes) and clashing of schedules Postponed trainings have been scheduled for Q4 4 Percentage of identified critical funded posts filled 90% 8% (3 out of 37) 11% 10% 80% Capacity constraints within the Human Resource Unit 4 additional HR posts were advertised in Q3 in order to increase capacity in HR to fast track the filling of vacant funded posts

Ser No Performance Indicators Annul Target Q1 Actual Q2 Target Q2 Actual Q3 Target Q3 actual Q3 Deviatio n Reason for Deviation Planned Action Status 5 Number of EWP Programmes conducted 4 1 2 -1 N/A 6 ICT Master System Plan developed and implemented within the OCJ ICT Mast er Syste m Plan devel oped 1st interi m draft comp leted Works hops and Consul tation ICT Master Plan conduc ted 1 Worksh op and 2 Consult ation Meetin gs held 2nd draft ICT Master System Plan develope d & submitte d to Exco for consider ation 2nd draft ICT Master System Plan was submitted to Exco for considera tion and to JAIT for recomme ndation

Ser No Performance Indicators Annul Target Q 1 Actual Q2 Target Q2 Actual Q3 Target Q3 Actual Q3 Deviat ion Reason for Deviation Planned Action Status 7 Number of communication activities implemented in line with the communication strategy 12 2 3 1 The external newsletter was not developed due to capacity challenges within the Communicat ions Unit. Vacant posts within the unit to be filled including the Director’s post 8 Number of financial performance reports produced in line with the PFMA N/A

Ser No Performance Indicators Annul Target Q 1 Actual Q2 Target Q2 Actual Q3 Target Q3 Actual Q3 Deviation Reason for Deviation Planned Action Status 9 Percentage of received invoices paid within 30 days 100% 72.0% 87% 88% 0.12% Inadequat e internal capacity and IT systems to process the payments. Payment of travel agency invoices which constitute > 60% of the total invoices, is to be automated and paid through the travel lodged card system as enabled by National Treasury. New posts created on the establishment and will be filled in Q4 to enshance capacity Appointment of officials to process payments will be done in Quarter 4 10 Percentage of assets verified N/A 11 Number of internal audit reviews conducted 3 2

Ser No Performance Indicators Annul Target Q 1 Actu al Q2 Targe t Q 2 Actual Q 3 Target Q 3 Actual Q3 Deviatio n Reason for Deviation Planned Action Statu s 12 Number of risk assessments conducted 4 1 N/A 13 Percentage of identified fraud cases investigated within 60 days 100% 71.0 % 100 % 57% (4 out of 7) 25% (1 of 4) 75% Non- availabili ty of witness es required Three outstan ding cases will be prioritis ed in Q4.

Ser No Performance Indicators Annul Target Q 1 Actual Q2 Targe t Q 2 Actu al Q 3 Target Q 3 Actual Q3 Deviatio n Reason for Deviation Planned Action Statu s 14 Office accommodation for the department acquired by 2015 Office accomm odation acquired Comp leted acco mmo datio n needs analy sis N/A Stakeh older Consult ation Stakeh older Consul tation

PERFORMANCE PER PROGRAMME PROGRAMME 2: JUDICIAL SUPPORT AND COURT ADMINISTRATION

PERFORMANCE PER PROGRAMME: JUDICIAL SUPPORT AND COURT ADMINISTRATION
Purpose To provide judicial support and court administration services to the Superior Courts, including secretariat and administrative support services to the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) Sub-programmes Administration of Superior Courts Judicial Service Commission Constitutional Court Supreme Court of Appeal High Courts Specialised Courts Strategic Objectives Ensure effective and efficient administration of the superior courts Render secretariat and administrative support services to the Judicial Service Commission Enhance efficiency and timeous delivery of judgements at the constitutional court Enhance efficiency and timeous delivery of judgements at the Supreme Court of Appeal Enhance efficiency and timeous delivery of judgements at the High courts Enhance efficiency and timeous delivery of judgements at the Specialised Courts OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

PERFORMANCE PER PROGRAMME: JUDICIAL SUPPORT AND COURT ADMINISTRATION CONT…
The Programme has a total of 18 indicators in the APP which were all due to be reported on in Q2 and Q3. 50% (8 of 16) of the targets were achieved in Q2 72% (13 of 18) targets were achieved in Q3 The reason for in increase in the achievement rate in Q3 was mainly due to: Achievement of the target for the SCA which was not achieved in quarter 2. Achievement of the targets within the Specialised Courts Competition Appeal Court achieved 1 of 1 target in Q3, which was not achieved in Q1 and Q2 Electoral Court achieved 1 of 1 target (No cases were received in Q1 and Q2). OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

PERFORMANCE PER PROGRAMME: JUDICIAL SUPPORT AND COURT ADMINISTRATION CONT…
Administration of Superior Courts achieved 67% (4 of 6)of its targets in Q2 which increased to 83% (5 of 6 targets) in Q3 Judicial Service Commission achieved 100% (2 of 2) targets in both Q2 and Q3 Constitutional Court has not achieved its target. The sub-programme finalised cases as follows in the three quarters: Q1 – 69% (45 of 65) against the target of 80% Q2 – 61% (68 of 111 cases) against the target of 80% Q % (60 of 109 cases) against the target of 80% SCA achieved 0% (0 of 1) of its target in Q2 and 100% (1 of 1) in Q3 High Courts achieved 50% (2 of 4) of its targets in all the 3 quarters Specialized Courts achieved 33% (1 of 3) of its targets in Q2 which increased to 75% (3 of 4) in Q3 OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

PERFORMANCE PER SUB-PROGRAMME: JUDICIAL SUPPORT AND COURT AMINISTRATION
REASON FOR UNDER-PERFORMANCE PER SUB-PROGRAMME Administration of Superior Courts Underperformance in this sub-programme was mainly due to capacity constraints within Court Administration to develop the Customer Service Improvement Tool and piloting it as the Unit’s focus was directed on improving the collation of performance information at the Courts. The Customer Service Improvement Tool will be finalised and piloted in 6 Courts by the end of March 2016. Constitutional Court Underperformance in this sub-programme was due to increased jurisdiction of the matters considered at the Constitutional Court, which delays finalisation of cases as , unlike in other Superior Courts, the Constitutional Court Judges are required to apply themselves and adjudicate together on all cases that appear at the Court. High Courts Underperformance in this sub-programme was due to dependency on other stakeholders in the Justice system which delays the finalisation of cases. In order to improve on this, Continuous stakeholder engagement at the PEECs will be conducted. The Court performance is being discussed with the Judges President and Judges. Specialised Courts Underperformance in this sub-programme was due to dependency on other stakeholders in the justice system which delays the finalisation of cases. The JP has undertaken to engage with the stakeholders in order to fast track the finalisation of land claims cases. OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

PROGRAMME 2: JUDICIAL SUPPORT AND COURT ADMINISTRATION Q1 PERFORMANCE INFORMATION
Ser No Performance Indicators Annual Target Q 1 Actu al Q2 Targe t Q 2 Actual Q 3 Target Q 3 Actual Q3 Deviation Reason for Deviation Planned Action Status 1 Number of Judicial meetings coordinated 18 6 2 3 7 N/A Number of Superior Courts performance reports produced Number of monitoring reports on Judicial Norms and Standards produced 4 Percentage of default judgments granted by Registrars 55% 61.8 % 63% 63.62 % ( of ) -8.62% Good internal management controls that have been put in place to ensure that default judgments are dealt with swiftly. 5 Percentage of taxations finalised 62% 75.1 % 88% 84% ( of 5832) -22% Good internal management controls that have been put in place to ensure that taxations are finalised swiftly.

Ser No Performance Indicators Annual Target Q 1 Actual Q2 Target Q 2 Actual Q 3 Target Q 3 Actual Q3 Deviation Reason for Deviation Planned Action Status 6 Customer service improvement plan developed and implemented in all Superior Courts Customer service improvem ent tool developed and piloted in 6 Superior Courts Draft custom er service improv ement tool develo ped Draft Cust omer Servi ce tool finali sed Draft Customer Service tool was drafted but not finalised Custom er service improve ment tool piloted in 3 Superior Courts Draft Custom er Service tool was drafted but not finalised Customer service improveme nt tool was not piloted in 3 Superior Courts as planned Capacity Constraint within the Court Administration unit. Focus of the Unit was directed on collation of the performance information of the Courts The Customer Service Improvement tool will be piloted at 6 Courts by end March 2016 7 Number of Judicial Service Commission sittings coordinated 2 1 N/A 8 Number of Judicial Service Commission Reports produced 9 Percentage of cases finalised (Constitutional Court) 80% 69.2% (45 of 65 cases) 61% (68 of 111 cases) 55% (60 of 109 cases) 25% Increased jurisdiction of the matters considered at the Constitutional Court. All Constitutional Court Judges’ are required to simultaneously and collectively adjudicate together on all cases that appear at the Court Revisit the targets for the Court in order to use the trends and baseline based on previous performance

Ser No Performance Indicators Annual Target Q 1 Actua l Q2 Targe t Q 2 Actual Q 3 Target Q 3 Actual Q3 Deviation Reason for Deviation Planned Action Status 10 Percentage of cases finalised (Supreme Court of Appeal) 80% 91.5 % 79% (994 of 229 cases) 91% (68 of 75 cases) -11% The set target was exceeded as a result of good management controls that have been put in place by the President of the SCA to ensure that judgments are delivered within term in line with the Judicial Code of Conduct and Norms and Standards. N/A 11 Number of criminal cases on the backlog roll (High Court) 206 194 (red uced by 87) 230 174 (Reduced by 22 cases) 215 (reducti on of 15 cases) 134 (reduction of 40 cases) -81 Case backlog matters are being prioritized and closely monitored which led to the target being achieved and exceeded. 12 Percentage of criminal cases finalised with verdicts (High Court) 62% 46.0 % 53% 35.09% (272 of 775 cases) 27% Dependency on other stakeholders in the justice system delays the finalisation of cases. Continous stakehold er engagem ent at the PEECs

Ser No Performance Indicators Annual Target Q 1 Actual Q2 Target Q 2 Actual Q 3 Target Q 3 Actual Q3 Deviation Reason for Deviation Planned Action Status 13 Percentage of civil cases finalised (High Court) 52% 66.8 % 64% 60% ( of cases) -8% Case flow management initiatives contributed to the finalisation of more civil cases than anticipated. N/A 14 Percentage of reserved judgments finalised (High Court) 70% 47.0 % 47% 52% (769 of cases) 18% High workload, particularly at the Gauteng Division which is the highest contributor Gauteng finalised 401 of 734 cases in Q3 which affected the overall achievement of the target for reserved judgments. The Court performance is being discussed with the Judge President and Judges. The recently established Judicial Performance Monitoring Committees chaired by the JP is responsible to monitor the performance of each division. 15 Percentage of labour cases finalised (Specialised Court) 54.7 % 62% 58% ( of cases) -6% The discussion of performance of the court with both the Judge President and Deputy Judge President contributes to the achievement of the targets.

Performance Indicators Annual Target Q 1 Actual Q 2 Actual Q 3 Target
PROGRAMME 2: JUDICIAL SUPPORT AND COURT ADMINISTRATION Q1 PERFORMANCE INFORMATION Ser No Performance Indicators Annual Target Q 1 Actual Q 2 Actual Q 3 Target Q 3 Actual Q3 Deviation Reason for Deviation Planned Action Statu s 16 Percentage of land claims cases finalised (Specialised Court) 52% 57.0% 31% 51% (53 of 104 cases) 1% Dependency on other stakeholders in the justice system delays the finalisation of cases. This is mainly related to parties’ unpreparedness, difficulties with securing evidence and expect reports The Court performance is being discussed with the Judge President and Judges. The JP has undertaken to engage with the stakeholders 17 Percentage of Electoral cases finalised (Specialised Court) 90% No cases were received during Quarter 1 No cases were received during Quarter 2 100% (1 of 1) -10% The Court only received and finalised 1 case which translated to 100% achievement rate compared to the projected 90% N/A 18 Percentage of Competition Appeal cases finalised (Specialised Court) 72% 50% (1 of 2) 0% -28% The Court only received and finalised 1 case which translated to 100% achievement rate compared to the projected 72%

PERFORMANCE PER PROGRAMME PROGRAMME 3: JUDICIAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH

PERFORMANCE PER PROGRAMME: JUDICIAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH
Purpose To provide education programmes to Judicial Officers, including policy development and research services for the optimal administration of justice Sub-programmes South African Judicial Education Institute (SAJEI) Judicial Policy and Research. Strategic Objectives Capacitate serving and aspirant Judicial Officers to perform optimally. Enhance the governance of the Judiciary and the OCJ. OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

PERFORMANCE PER PROGRAMME: JUDICIAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH CONT…
The Programme has a total of 3 indicators in the APP which were all due to be reported on in Q2 and Q3. 67% (2 of 3) of the targets were achieved in Q2 33% (1 of 3) targets were achieved in Q3 The reason for a decline in the achievement rate in Q3 was mainly due to: The target on judicial education courses not achieved due to the postponement of scheduled courses. One Judge failed to disclose Registrable Interests as required OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

PERFORMANCE PER SUB-PROGRAMME: JUDICIAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH
SAJEI achieved: 100% (1 of 1) target in Q2 0% (0 of 1) target in Q3 The Q3 target for SAJEI was not achieved due to courses that were postponed as a result of: Late and insufficient RSVPs for some of the courses; Late review of training materials; and Non-availability of facilitators due to clashing schedule. Judicial Policy and Research achieved 50% (1 of 2) of the set targets in all the 3 quarters. The non-achievement of 1 targets was due to 1 Judge who did not disclose registrable interests as required. OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

PERFORMANCE PER SUB-PROGRAMME: JUDICIAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH
REASON FOR UNDER-PERFORMANCE PER SUB-PROGRAMME SAJEI Underperformance in this sub-programme was mainly due to courses being postponed to be conducted in Quarter 4 due to the following reasons: Late and insufficient RSVPs for some of the courses; Late review of training materials; and Non-availability of facilitators due to clashing schedule. Postponed courses have been included in the Q4 and 2016/17 training schedule. Judicial Policy and Research Underperformance in this sub-programme was due to 1 Judge who did not disclose registrable interests as required. The Judge has been reported to the JSC for action to be taken. OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

PROGRAMME 3: JUDICIAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH
Ser No Performance Indicators Annual Target Q 1 Actua l Q2 Targe t Q2 Actual Q 3 Target Q 3 Actual Q3 Deviation Reason for Deviation Planned Action Status 1 Number of judicial education courses conducted 65 12 20 21 10 Courses were postponed to be conducted in Q4 due to the following reasons: Late and insufficient RSVPs for some of the courses; Late review of training materials; and Non-availability of facilitators due to clashing schedule. Postponed courses have been included in the Q4 and 2016/17 training schedule. 2 Number of advisory opinions on policy development and regulatory services provided 14 9 4 3 5 -2 High demand for advisory opinions led to the overachievement of the target. N/A Percentage of disclosures for Judges’ Registrable Interest 100% 97.36% 99.6% (238 of 239) 0.4% 1 Judge did not disclose registrable interests as required The non- compliant Judge has been reported to the JSC

OCJ QUARTER 2 &3 FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE REPORT

QUARTER 2: BUDGET AND EXPENDITURE
Programme Total Budget Q2 Budget Q2 Expend-iture Q2 Vari-ance R’000 % Programme 1: Administration 69 411 17 539 18 630 -6 Programme 2: Judicial Support and Court Administration 33 Programme 3: Judicial Education and Research 32 643 5 514 4 478 20 Sub-Total 69 Direct charge from National Revenue Fund -20.4 Judges’ salaries -108 Total 2.1 OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

The Q2 variance of 6% (R1.1 million) in Programme 1 is due to IT related costs that were funded in the IJS budget in DoJ&CD. This budget will be transferred during the AENE budget process. The Q2 variance of 33% (R52.4 million) less than the projected budget in Programme 2 relates to an outstanding G-Fleet invoice of R35 million not yet received and paid. Telephone accounts for Courts are also still sent to DoJ&CD instead of OCJ and as soon as received by OCJ, payment will reflect. The Q2 variance of 20% (R1.1 million) in Programme 3 is due to the outstanding invoices for training programmes conducted in September 2015. The Q2 variance of -20.4% (R43.9 million) on Direct charge is due to a journal processed to rectify erroneous payment of Judges’ salaries against voted funds. OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

Programme Total Budget Q3 Budget Q3 Expend-iture Q3 Vari-ance R’000 % Programme 1: Administration 69 411 16 689 25 175 -50.8 Programme 2: Judicial Support and Court Administration -8.9 Programme 3: Judicial Education and Research 32 643 8 811 16 212 -84.0 Sub-Total -16.2 Direct charge from National Revenue Fund 2 Judges’ salaries Total -6.7 OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

The Q3 variance of -50.8% (R8.5 million) in Programme 1 relates to the IT services initially budgeted for under IJS budget in the DoJ&CD. This budget has been transferred to the OCJ during the AENE process, still awaiting final approval. The Q3 variance of -8.9% (R14.5 million) over the projected budget in Programme 2 relates to journals being processed to rectify the misallocation on the compensation of employees between Judges' salaries and the vote. The Q3 variance of -84% (R7.4 million) in Programme 3 is due to the training of 154 Aspirant District Magistrates programme conducted in November 2015 initially planned for Q4. The over-spending will offset after the implementation of the budget adjustments. The Q3 variance of 2% (R3.4 million) on Direct charge is due to incorrect allocation of Judges’ salaries against voted funds. This will be rectified in Q4. OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

ADJUSTED ESTIMATES OF NATIONAL EXPENDITURE
Economic classification Original Budget Request Additions Adjusted Budget R’000 2015/16 ENE Budget - Difference between projected and actual salary increases (National Treasury) Compensation of employees 20 049 15 166 Transfer of functions (DoJ&CD) 25 612 25 796 Personnel transferred after budget approval 5 612 5 596 IJS budget Goods and services 20 000 Day to day maintenance – Superior Courts 200 TOTAL 45 661 40 962 OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

Institutional challenges/constraints
Office accommodation – (Current office space-3105 m², required office space 5600 m²) Lack of institutional independence and reliance on DoJ&CD in relation to IT and HR Capacitation of the OCJ at SMS level Inadequate Information Technology systems (court modernization i.e. e-filing & e-records management) OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

THANK YOU OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback