Reports and Publications

The Hon Mrs Frene Ginwala
Speaker of the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa
Parliament Building
Parliament Street
Cape Town

I have the honour to present my second half-yearly Report to Parliament which covers the period 1 July 1996 to 31 December 1997.

The report is submitted in terms of Section 8(2) of the Public Protector Act, 1994 No.23 of 1994, which states:

"The Public Protector shall submit to Parliament half-yearly reports on the findings in respect of investigations of a serious nature, which were conducted during the half-year concerned: Provided that the Public Protector shall, at any time, submit a report to Parliament on the findings of a particular investigation [in certain defined circumstances]."

Our office has a unique perspective on the workings of government: we are enable to perceive it as an ordinary citizen might, as well as from the point of view of an official or policy maker. This perspective affords us the opportunity to offer recommendations that help to moderate the impact of government on the people.

On behalf of all my staff, I would like to express our sincere appreciation to the many representatives of government departments and agencies who have so willingly assisted us in our efforts to ensure fairness in the exercise of power in our country.

The Public Protector is appointed by the President in terms of Chapter Nine of the Constitution, 1996. The Public Protector is required to be a South African citizen who is suitably qualified and experienced and has exhibited a reputation for honesty and integrity. The Constitution also prescribes the powers and duties of the Public Protector, while the execution of these functions is regulated by the Public Protector Act, 1994.

Section 181 of the Constitution ensures that the Public Protector shall be subject only to the Constitution and the law. He/she must be impartial and must exercise his/her powers and perform his/her functions 'without fear, favour or prejudice'. No person or organ of state may interfere with the functioning of the Public Protector's office.

The Public Protector has the power to investigate any conduct in state affairs, or in the public administration in any sphere of government, that is alleged or suspected to be improper or to result in any impropriety or prejudice. Following such an investigation the Public Protector has to report on the conduct concerned and he/she can take appropriate remedial action. Additional powers and functions are provided for by the Public Protector Act, 1994. The Public Protector may not investigate court decisions. He/she must be accessible to all persons and communities. Other organs of state must assist and protect this institution to ensure its independence, impartiality, dignity and effectiveness.

The Public Protector is neither an advocate for the complainant nor for the public authority concerned. He ascertains the facts of the case and reaches an impartial and independent conclusion on the merits of the complaint.

Most democracies nowadays have a national ombudsman or similar institution that is empowered by the government to assist in establishing and/or maintaining efficient and proper public administration. With the founding of a proper and modern democracy in South Africa, it was decided that such an institution should also form part of the establishment of institutions that will protect fundamental human rights and that will prevent the state from treating the public in an unfair and high handed manner.

During the multi-party negotiations that preceded the 1994 elections, it was agreed that South Africa should have an ombudsman. However, the gender equality activists were of the opinion that the word could be interpreted that the incumbent of this office should always be male. Although it was accepted that 'ombudsman' is a non-gender specific word, the argument of the improper perception that it might cause, was upheld. It was agreed that the ombudsman should be given a more descriptive name and that is how the appelation 'Public Protector' was born.

The Public Protector was established by means of the provisions of the interim Constitution of 1993 and confirmed as an institution that strengthens constitutional democracy by the final Constitution, 1996. The office of the Public Protector came into being on 1 October 1995.

The Public Protector has jurisdiction over all organs of state, any institution-in which the State.is the majority or controlling shareholder and any public entity as defined in Section 1 of the Reporting by Public Entities Act, 1992.

During an investigation, the Public Protector may, if he considers it appropriate or necessary -

The Public Protector is accountable to the National Assembly and must report on his/her activities and the performance of his/her functions to the Assembly at least once a year. The Public Protector can, however, at any time submit a report to Parliament on the findings of a particular investigation if:

Any report issued by the Public Protector must be open to the public unless exceptional circumstances require that a report be kept confidential.

Born in 1951, Advocate Baqwa matriculated at St Francis College outside Durban. He attended the University of Fort Hare where he obtained a B Juris in 1972. He completed his LLB - with a distinction in Public International Law - in 1975 and holds a diploma in Maritime Law and a certificate in Constitutional Law from the University of Natal.

After being admitted as an attorney of the Supreme Court of South Africa in 1976, he started his legal career as a Professional Assistant with a firm of attorneys and later established his own firm in Durban.

In 1988, he was admitted as an advocate of the Supreme Court of South Africa and became a member of the Durban Bar. Specialising in litigation, the drafting of legal documents and legal research, he practiced in this capacity until September 1995.

Advocate Baqwa has held various other positions. Amongst others, he was General Secretary of the National Executive Committee of NADEL during 1993, Assistant General Secretary of the National Association of Democratic Lawyers from 1993 to 1994 and President of the Association from 1994 to 1995. At the same time he was a member of the Town Planning Appeals Board of Natal and Chairperson of the Commission of Inquiry appointed in 1994 by the Provincial Health Ministry of Natal to enquire into industrial unrest at the Prince Mshiyeni Hospital, Umlazi, Durban. He is also a member of the Board of International Movement Against Discrimination and Racism (IMADR) of Minato - KU, Roppongi, Tokyo, Japan. IMADR is an international NGO with consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations.

He is a member of the Boards of Trustees of a number of organisations such as the Economic Crime Combating and Research Institute of South Africa, the Institute for Security Studies and the African Ombudsman Centre at Dar-es-Salaam University, Tanzania.

In addition, he has played an active role in the academic field. A former lecturer at the University of Natal, Advocate Baqwa was later awarded an Honorary Professorship of Law from the University. He was also awarded a scholarship for a Masters Programme in Trial Advocacy in Georgetown University, USA in 1986 and is currently Chancellor of the North West Technikon.

Having taken office in October 1995, I have now just completed my first year in this position. It has been a challenging year in more ways than one.

The expectations of the South African public were high from the very inception of the first truly democratic elections in 1995. Higher and more effective levels of public service delivery were expected from all departments and government agencies. Somehow the public expected that the services would be quicker, better, non-discriminatory and equitable. My office was not to be excluded from this list of expectations.

This was rather a tall order, given the fact that we have been operating from Pretoria only and that when I assumed the position I had a staff of only eight persons. With the vast expanses that the South African territory covers, a population of approximately 39 million people and 10 governments (one national and nine provincial) the task was bound to be a difficult one.

My first priority has been to ensure not only that the office grows to have the necessary capacity for effective delivery but also that the South African citizenry knows about the office and the service that it offers.

Accordingly we embarked on a publicity drive in the print and electronic media, by means of flyers, pamphlets, seminars, workshops and conferences.

The irony of our communications strategy project is that it has been so successful that it has generated work which is threatening to overwhelm the office, considering its limited staff complement. As a result we have had to put the project on hold until we resolve the human resources issue.

Despite these difficulties I would however be failing in my duty if I were not to commend the people of South Africa through the vision and concerns of their Parliamentary representatives in establishing this office at the very inception of our young democracy.

The Public Protector is available free of charge and with total confidentiality to ensure that citizens are able to exercise their rights established by law and to be treated with dignity and respect without regard to their colour or creed and despite their age or incapacity. Always at the centre of our work is the individual and our efforts are to ensure that he/she is not overwhelmed by the complexity, impersonality or, at times, discourtesy of the departments and/or agencies with which we must all deal.

Much work still needs to be done. The national office needs to grow at a rapid pace. There is a great need to expand not only in terms of human resources but also in terms of technical equipment and additional space. Furthermore, we need to establish regional offices in order to be accessible not only to the urban but also to the indigent and rural South African.

Given the many exacting and competing demands (housing, education, policing, justice, social security et cetera) on the fiscus, I am painfully aware that in financial terms this is not going to be an easy task.

It is however imperative to note that the Office of the Public Protector is one of the institutions which are meant to underpin the substratum of the new South African society - the Constitution. As such, providing it with the necessary resources is not a matter which can be postponed indefinitely.

I wish to take this opportunity to thank Parliament and all South Africans for the confidence deposed in me by allowing me to serve in my present capacity.

Finally I wish to commend and pay tribute to the dedicated and loyal staff I work with and without whose unstinting support this office would not have achieved even a modicum of what it has during the past year.

(1) to educate and inform the public of the existence of this office and of the service which it offers;
(2) to facilitate access to our office by the diversity of our community;
(3) to seek equitable remedies for those affected by defective administration;
(4) to identify systemic deficiencies in the administration and to assist in the identification of solutions; and
(5) to provide advice to government on matters relating to administrative actions and practices.

Our mission is, accordingly, not only to receive complaints, investigate and recommend corrective action, but also to improve public administration and enhance fairness in the provision of governmental services.

The values guiding us in the accomplishment of these objectives are impartiality, efficiency, accessibility, professionalism, accountability and confidentiality.

The functions of the office of the Public Protector have been summarised above. I find it necessary however, to emphasise that this office is not meant to take over the complaint solving capacity or reviewing capabilities within the departments or government agencies. Instead these need to be upgraded and fine-tuned to enable the whole public administration to operate in a synchronised manner in tandem with the office of the Public Protector.

Many complaints come to my office as a result of a breakdown in communication between the public bodies and their clients. Generally, these complaints are quickly resolved when the facts and/or circumstances are established. In some cases the outcome is either a reversal of the original decision of the public body or an acceptance on the part of the complainant that the decision in respect of his or her case is correct.

The fact of the matter is however that the complaints could and should be easily and swiftly settled at a very early stage by the public bodies themselves. The office of the Public Protector is not the only body in which the public should have confidence. The public should have confidence in the whole public administration. That is the goal. A mechanism has to be put in place to ensure that this happens.

It is in this context that I wish to strongly recommend the establishment in each and every Department or government agency of an Internal Complaints System. Some departments and agencies already have such systems in place, albeit in a rudimentary form.

Some public bodies consider complaints as irritants or vexations which interfere with their normal work, or as unnecessary criticisms of their decisions against which they have to defend themselves.

It is true that there is in our most recent history greater emphasis on improving the quality of service. The problem however is that the standards of service provided for the public are usually set by the public bodies themselves and they also devise the systems and procedures for achieving these standards. The effectiveness of these procedures and the relevance of the standards can however, be best judged or assessed by reference to the very people - the public - for whom the service is provided. An appropriate and well-organised internal complaints system will supply the essential feedback from the public and will benefit the body in a number of ways.

Departments and government agencies should not set up internal complaint systems merely because it is a "good thing" for their image. If this were to be the attitude, it should be seen for what it is, namely, a lost opportunity. Besides the fact that we have initiatives such as the "Batho pele - people first" project, there are real and tangible benefits to be gained from having effective internal complaints systems in place. For maximum benefit however, certain essential conditions have to be met. These include:

In this regard, a working definition of what a complaint is might be appropriate, such as the following: "a decision or action which is taken and which relates to the provision of a service or the performance of a function which, it is claimed, is not in accordance with the rules, practice or policy of the organisation or the generally accepted principles of equity and good administrative practice and which adversely affects the person concerned."

This definition could be used as a starting point and be contextualised from Department to Department or from agency to agency It may also be reviewed from time to time

Structure
This would depend on the size of the public body/department/agency. The internal complaints unit should be headed by a senior officer in the organisation who should not have direct working involvement in the areas where the decisions which give rise to the complaints are made. The officer should have the authority to alter the original decision if the circumstances suggest that this is the correct course to take. He/she should also be able to award redress where appropriate and to determine the parameters within which other staff might be able to provide redress.

Publicity
Maximum publicity should be given to the setting up of the complaints system. This can be achieved in a number of ways:

A complaints system will not be effective without consultation with the participants/role players. There should be consultation with staff across the Department/agency and their representative associations or trade unions on the one hand and the public or specific interest groups on the other. It is important to build up public confidence in the system by guaranteeing fair and impartial treatment.

Review
A good complaints system needs to respond to changing circumstances. It needs to be continually reviewed by the person with ultimate responsibility for its organisation and management. The system should be sensitive to factors which can affect its smooth running such as maintenance of time schedules for dealing with complaints, staff mobility, morale and emergence of new sources of complaints of which management may not be aware.

Flexibility
A degree of discretion should be given to those involved in the system to adjust and adapt to new situations.

Confidentiality
All complaints should be treated in confidence except where the complainant wishes otherwise. The public should also be assured that making a complaint will not adversely affect their future dealings and contacts with the body/department/agency concerned.

Fairness and Independence
Complaints should be examined objectively by persons not involved with the original decisions/actions. The examination should have regard not only to the rules governing the scheme but also to considerations of equity and good administrative practice.

Speed
Targets should be set for acknowledging receipt of complaints and the completion of their examination. Where these cannot be met, interim letters updating the complainant of progress should be issued.

Simplicity
The various stages in the system should be kept to a minimum. When receipt of a complaint is being acknowledged, the various stages through which the complaint will go should be outlined.

Accessibility
Simple instructions about how to make a complaint should be available to the public. Those handling complaints should be clearly identified. The various ways in which a complaint may be made should be clearly stated.

Effectiveness
The system must have the power to provide appropriate redress. A complainant who remains dissatisfied should be advised of his/her right to refer the case to the Public Protector where appropriate.

Remedies
In many instances a letter of apology may be sufficient. In other cases a detailed explanation may be necessary. In certain other cases change in procedures which would benefit the public may be appropriate. Financial compensation may be called for in other cases. If there has been a delay in the receipt of a payment, the payment of interest may arise.

Reports
To ensure accountability and to enable the benefits to be assessed, complaint handling units should publish reports on their activities at least on an annual basis. Such reports have a useful role to play in building up public confidence not only in the system but also in the department/agency or public body concerned.

The ultimate aim is for public administration to be not only transparent, accountable and user~filendly but for the citizen to realise that we do indeed have a government for the people, of the people, and by the people.

Period	New Cases Received	Cases Finalised
July 1996	123	47
August 1996	292	34
September 1996	176	43
October 1996	340	74
November 1996	251	125
December 1996	129	73
	1311	396

-	Manner Completed
	Finding made by PP
	Complaint not well- founded	Complaint well-founded	Advice given or assistance rendered	Referred to another body to finalise	Expected of complainant to exhaust alternative legal remedies	No further action taken	Total
Complaint in terms of section 182 (1) (a) Constitution of S A Act 108 of 1996	8	3	81	8	1	11	112
No jurisdiction	----	----	51	4	----	3	58
Total	-	-	-	-	-	-	170
Cases carried over from Ombudsman's Office and finalised in period under review							226
TOTAL: Cases finalised							396

4.4 The following information should be useful in interpreting the statistics in Table 1:

In order to provide an insight into the type of complaints dealt with during the current period, included below are a selection of significant complaints received and finalised which are illustrative of some of the functions and responsibilities of the Office of the Public Protector.

Complainant sustained a serious head injury during and arising from his performance of then-compulsory national service in 1980. His application for a military pension in 1981 was refused by the then Department of Health, Welfare and Pensions on the basis of medical evidence that Complainant was suffering from Epilepsy Grand Mal with aggression - which could not be said to have arisen from his performance of military service.

An examination of the records of the Department of Finance (which effects payments of pensions) in regard to the 1981 pension application revealed that no medical evidence had been presented to the Department regarding Complainant's head injury - which had been sustained during a rugby practice for a military team. Various reasons, including the fact that Complainant had been a patient in the Oranje Hospital for 7 years after his injury, had contributed to his inability to properly follow up his application. It was only in January 1995 that medical evidence surrounding Complainant's injury had been submitted by the South African Defence Force to the Department of Finance - although this evidence had been in existence since 1981

On the basis of this medical evidence, the injury, with associated complications, was recognised to have arisen from and during the course of military duty, and Complainant was awarded a 100% disability. In terms of section 10 (i) of the Military Pensions Act of 1976, the Department of Finance was entitled to backdate the award and payment of the pension by only one year, to 1 January 1994.

However, as Complainant had not been in a position in 1981 to appeal against the original finding by the Department of Finance, and as the Department (in 1995) had found Complainant to be completely disabled (on the basis of medical evidence which had existed in 1981), it followed logically that the Department would have found him 100% disabled in 1981 had the medical evidence been timeously submitted by the SA Defence Force.

On consideration of the above scenario, the Public Protector concluded that Complainant had been improperly prejudiced by the failure of the South African Defence Force to submit all supporting medical evidence to the Department of Finance and, indeed, by its incorrect representations to the effect that Complainant's disablement had not been either caused or aggravated by military service. The Public Protector was of the view that the State should accommodate Complainant, as far as it was legally permissible. He accordingly recommended inter alia that the South African National Defence Force make an ex gratia payment to Complainant, which should bear in mind -

(1) the period during which he qualified for but did not receive the pension (1981-1993); and
(2) dependant's benefits owing since 4 April 1992 (the date of the complainant's marriage).

Complainant purchased Bop Bonds from the Department of Finance of the former Bophuthatswana in 1985. He later applied unsuccessfully for the redemption of the Bonds. Complainant wrote several letters to the Department enquiring about the redemption of his bonds, but to no avail. He then approached the Public Protector for assistance. The matter was raised with the Department of Finance (now falling under the North-West Government). The bonds were duly redeemed and Complainant was paid out his investment.

Complainant was awarded a tender to supply coal to the State. The tender made provision for price escalation by means of a formula developed by the State Tender Board. The formula was linked to the production price index published by Central Statistical Services and was intended to allow the contractor a fair increase so as to ensure that the contractor did not operate at a loss in the course of fulfilling the tender contract.

Subsequent to the award of the tender to Complainant, it was brought to Complainant's attention that the indices used in the formula were incorrect. This fact was confirmed by Central Statistical Services. Complainant and other coal companies thereafter approached the State Tender Board with a view to having the error rectified. The Board acknowledged the error and the fact that it was resulting in hundreds of thousands of rends in losses to Complainant and other companies, and agreed to effect the necessary changes. Complainant accepted the Board's undertaking and awaited the Board's further advice.

Complainant advised the Public Protector that the Board had then subsequently failed to honour this undertaking, with the result that the price adjustment had not been effected. The matter was raised with the Board and submissions were received from the Department of State Expenditure, which correctly adopted the position that it was unwilling to enrich itself at the expense of private companies. It had intended to give effect to this policy when it had obtained the approval of the State Tender Board and the Treasury to amend the relevant contracts to the detriment of the State by introducing a more accurate and equitable formula. In order to officially amend the contracts it had then sought the approval of other contracting parties. This step had created the difficulties and delay. Some contracting parties objected to the State amending the contracts by introducing a new formula, alleging that such a process would give "undue preference" to certain tenderers since those opposing the amendment had had the foresight at the time of tender to correctly predict price rises. The Department of State Expenditure was, however, of the opinion that abnormal variations in the coal and transport indices could not have been accurately forecasted. This view was supported by Central Statistical Services.

During the investigation it appeared that the consultation process referred to earlier had involved a request to fifty-nine contractors to indicate whether they were prepared to accept the adjusted formula. Of the fifty-nine, thirty-six indicated that they were in favour of the amendment, fifteen failed to reply and eight indicated that they were not in favour of any amendment to the contract. The Public Protector was of the view that the Department of State Expenditure ought to have given more weight to the fact that the overwhelming majority of the contracting parties agreed with the manner in which the Department proposed to deal with the matter. It was indeed strange that the preference of a minority of the contracting parties should prevail over a significant majority. A further complication was present, however, in that the minority group had earlier sought the support and assistance of the Office of the then Ombudsman. The then Ombudsman, supported by the State Attorney's Office, agreed with the minority group on the basis that it would work an unfairness to amend a contract in mid-stream.

While the Public Protector found no fault with this proposition if one were referring to contracts in the ordinary course of commercial dealings, the contracts which were the subject of the present complaint were distinguishable from the general position on the basis of the morally correct stance taken by the Department of State Expenditure not to enrich the State at the expense of small companies. These contracts were further distinguishable on the basis of the apparent impossibility to correctly forecast the abnormal variations in the coal and transport indices referred to above. The State Tender Board Act, No. 68 of 1968, allowed the State Tender Board to amend agreements of the present kind with the consent of the Treasury, and such consent had been obtained. In addition, the State Tender Board's General Conditions and Procedures clearly made provision for amendments to agreements. If the views of the opponents of the amendment were to be upheld, the State Tender Board would never be able to vary or amend agreements which were concluded after acceptance of tenders. Such a position would be in clear disregard of the provisions of the legislation and the regulations, rendering them nugatory. This could not have been the intention of the legislature.

There was, accordingly, a clear factual and legal basis for a change in the formula, and the Public Protector recommended that the Department of State Expenditure proceed immediately to amend the formula with retrospective effect. As some of the contracting parties were on the verge of bankruptcy as a result of the delay in effecting the amendment, it was further recommended that the Board attend to the necessary changes as a matter of urgency.

Complainant was an employee of the Cape Provincial Administration. His post was abolished and his service was consequently terminated in terms of Section 16 (2)(b) of the Public Service Act of 1984. He retired on 1 April 1993 at the age of 57. Complainant felt that, as he did not retire of his own accord, the State should continue paying its contribution towards his medical aid. He complained to the Public Protector that he was being improperly prejudiced by the government's refusal to contribute towards his medical aid.

The complaint was investigated and it was found that there was no improper prejudice being suffered. As a result, it was not feasible to recommend that the government continue subsidising his medical aid.

The decision was based on the fact that special provisions were made for members of the Public Service who retired in terms of Section 16 (2)(b) of the Public Service Act of 1984. In terms of these provisions, such members were entitled to benefits and concessions as set out in Annexure C of the Staff Code. As far as medical aid was concerned, the Code provided that an amount up to the maximum of the State's contribution to the medical scheme to which the officer belonged on the last day of duty may be paid to an officer so discharged, for a maximum of six months after discharge. This amount was paid to Complainant.

Complainant's further argument was that an ex-colleague who retired before him continued to receive medical assistance. Investigations revealed that the government had previously provided such assistance, but that a resolution was later adopted by the Commission for Administration in terms of which those members whose service terminated after June 1992 would not be eligible for continued medical assistance from the State. As Complainant had retired after June 1992, he could not claim medical assistance from the government.

The Public Protector was approached by a firm of attorneys acting on behalf of certain ex-members of the South African Police ("the SAP") in proceedings before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission ("the Commission"). Their complaint related to uncertainty and disputes relating to the responsibility for legal assistance as concerned their clients' appearance before the Commission. The attorneys were of the opinion that their clients were entitled to be represented by the State Attorney. s the State Attorney acts on behalf of the Commission, the conflict of interest should, therefore - so the argument went - entitle their clients to representation by a private legal representative on instructions of the State Attorney. ;: The parties involved in the matter (the South African Police Service - "the SAPS" - the attorneys and the Department of Justice) all agreed that, in accordance with section 34(1) of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, 1995, ("the Reconciliation Act") a right existed to legal representation in proceedings before the Commission.

The Commission is empowered to appoint a legal representative [on behalf of a person appearing before it] if it is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to do so and that the person is not financially capable of appointing a legal representative himself or herself. However, Complainant attorney's clients would certainly have failed a means test and the question then arose as to the responsibilities of the government, that is, the State, regarding the legal representation of former and serving members of the security forces appearing before the Commission.

The Public Protector concluded that section 3 of the State Attorney Act, 1957, applied. In terms of this provision, it is the function of the office of the State Attorney to perform in any court or in any part of the Republic such work on behalf of the Government as is by law, practice or custom performed by attorneys. Consequently, were it not for the office of the State Attorney, the Government would have to instruct private attorneys. "Government" means the State, which thus includes present and former employees of the State, as concerns their official conduct and behaviour.

Being responsible for their conduct while on duty, the State had no option but to instruct the State Attorney where this conduct is being questioned, not only to assist the official, but also to protect the interests of the State. The interests of the State do not deal only with what is being revealed before the Commission, but also with the realisation of the purpose and objectives of the Commission. It is of vital importance to the State that the Commission should succeed. This can be achieved only if people, including present and former employees of the State, were willing to reveal what has happened during the period in question as it relates to their official involvement. It cannot be expected of such an official to come forward and tell the truth if his or her rights are not adequately protected. It would, furthermore, be unfair and improper to expect such an official to foot the bill for telling the truth about what had been done and what was expected of him or her whilst being employed by the State.

It was also in the interests of the State that the rights of all its citizens should be protected where their involvement with the State is concerned. That was the basis of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution, which should be seen to be adhered to at all times.

Once it was accepted that the State was responsible for the legal assistance of present and former employees in matters relating to their official conduct, it followed as a matter of course that the State Attorney should be instructed. The fact that a conflict of interests made it impossible for the State Attorney to act on behalf of the employees involved did not obviate the obligation on the State towards these officials as far as legal assistance was concerned. It was for this reason that private attorneys were usually instructed by the State Attorney in similar circumstances. There was no reason in principle why the general rule should not apply in the present instance.

The Public Protector also recommended that, in view of the sometimes exorbitant fees being charged in similar matters, private attorneys instructed by the State Attorney should be limited to the scale of fees charged by an attorney in criminal cases heard by a Regional Magistrate's Court.

The Public Protector
1 Assistant to the Public Protector
6 Senior Legal Administration Officers
1 Assistant Director
2 Senior Administration Clerks
1 Senior Registration Clerk
1 Senior Typist
3 Senior Secretaries
1 Messenger
TOTAL: 17

INTERNATIONAL OMBUDSMAN INSTITUTE - AFRICA REGIONAL WORKSHOP AUGUST 26 - 29, 1996.

The Public Protector was approached by the International Ombudsman Institute to host the African Regional Ombudsman Workshop on "Strengthening the Ombudsman Office in Africa." The Workshop was aimed at developing the skills of ombudsman office investigators and dealt with all aspects of complaints handling, investigations and office administration.

The Workshop, which was held at the Holiday Inn Crowne Plaza, Pretoria, was attended by 130 delegates from 30 countries. The President of South Africa, Mr Nelson Mandela, officially opened the Workshop on 26 August 1996. The International Ombudsman Institute (IOI) was represented by Dr Marten Oosting, who was then President of the IOI as well as the National Ombudsman of the Netherlands.

The costs of hosting the Workshop were covered entirely by sponsorship and the financial support of the following institutions:

As the Workshop was conducted in both English and French, interpreters performed simultaneous translations.

THE FOLLOWING CONFERENCES, WORKSHOPS AND/OR SEMINARS WERE ATTENDED BY THE PUBLIC PROTECTOR AND/OR HIS REPRESENTATIVES DURING THE PERIOD JULY 1996 - DECEMBER 1996

Fact-Finding Mission by a Delegation of the Constitutional Committee of Ethiopia to South Africa, organised by Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, Pretoria (November 1996)

Investigation Reports