ANNUAL REPORT 1998

REPORT NO. 15

THE HON MRS FRENE GINWALA

Speaker of the House of Assembly of the Republic of South Africa
Parliament Building
Parliament Street
Cape Town

Dear Madam Speaker

I have the honour to present my fourth Annual Report to Parliament which covers the period 1 January 1998 to 31 December 1998.

The report is submitted in terms of the provisions of Section 181(5) of the Constitution, 1996, which states:

"These institutions are accountable to the National Assembly, and must report on their activities and the performance of their functions to the National Assembly at least once a year."

My office has a unique perspective on the workings of government, in that we are in a position to perceive it not only as an ordinary citizen might, but also from the point of view of an official or policymaker. This affords us the opportunity to offer recommendations that help to temper 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.

Yours faithfully

ADV S A M BAQWA SC
PUBLIC PROTECTOR OF SOUTH AFRICA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BACKGROUND TO THE OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC PROTECTOR

PROFILE OF THE PUBLIC PROTECTOR

REPORT

INTRODUCTION

• Preparation of this report
• The year under review
• The role and mission of the Public Protector

SIGNIFICANT LEGISLATIVE DEVELOPMENTS

• The Executive Members' Ethics Act, No. 82 of 1998
• The Public Protector Amendment Act

STATISTICAL OVERVIEW

• Cases received and finalised
• Classification of cases and manner completed

TYPES OF COMPLAINTS

SPECIFIC INVESTIGATIONS

ESTABLISHMENT

FINANCES

PUBLIC RELATIONS

• Conferences/workshops and/or seminars attended by representatives of this office
• Delegations received by this office

BACKGROUND TO THE OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC PROTECTOR

Appointment Mechanism and Powers

The Public Protector is appointed by the President, on the recommendation of the National Assembly, 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.

A Brief History of the Office

Most democracies have a national ombudsman or similar institution that is empowered by legislation to assist in establishing and 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 decided that South Africa should have an ombudsman. However, due to gender sensitivity and also because it was felt that the term "ombudsman" could be foreign to the South African ear, the appellation of '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.

Jurisdiction

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.

Particular Powers and Duties

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

• direct any person to appear before him/her to give evidence or to produce any document in his or her possession or under his or her control which, in the opinion of the Public Protector, has a bearing on the matter being investigated, any may examine such person for that purpose;
• request any person at any level of government, or performing a public function, or otherwise subject to his/her jurisdiction, to assist him/her in the performance of his/her duties with regard to a specific investigation; and
• make recommendations and take appropriate remedial action.

Reporting

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:

• he/she deems it necessary;
• he/she deems it in the public interest;
• it requires the urgent attention of, or an intervention by Parliament;
• he/she is requested to do so by the Speaker of the National Assembly;
• he/she is requested to do so by the Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces.

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

PROFILE OF THE PUBLIC PROTECTOR

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 in 1975 and also holds a diploma in Maritime Law and a certificate in Constitutional Law from the University of Natal.

He was admitted as an attorney of the Supreme Court of South Africa in 1976 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 Human Rights, civil and criminal litigation, the drafting of legal documents and legal research, he practised 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, 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 inquire 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.

Adv Baqwa is a Senior Counsel for the Republic of South Africa, having taken silk on 6 November 1997.

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

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.

REPORT

INTRODUCTION

Preparation of this report

This report is the result of a highly co-operative effort and once again I wish to express my gratitude to everyone involved in this important task, especially my staff and in particular, my Public Relations Officer, Nicolette Teichmann.

The year under review

The year under review has once more been a productive one. The office has continued not only to handle complaints with vigour and enthusiasm, but has also made significant inroads into the backlog of older cases. These commendable achievements are due to the hard work and unquestionable enthusiasm of my staff.

A persistent problem however continues to bother me, in that the more and better we perform, the more the public utilises our services. Whilst this is a positive development in itself and an indicator of the efficiency levels achieved by the office, the concomitant rise in the backlog of older cases is not a welcome development.

Although Parliament and the Department of State Expenditure are continuing to assist us in accessing more resources, we are still not out of the woods in this regard. This state of affairs, which is not always understood by the public that we serve, continues to be a matter of concern.

Capacity to handle complaints and accessibility are key issues which need to be addressed in order to ensure not only the credibility, but also the continued effective delivery by this office.

The role and mission of the Public Protector

It is important to say something about the nature and role of my office and its "mission".

The office of the Public Protector is a relatively new and different one in the South African legal system whose institutional activity is developing with distinctly positive results. In the period covered by this report, this office has continued to consolidate the strategic perspectives which give clarity to its institutional mission and vision.

Mission

The office of the Public Protector is committed to assisting Parliament in strengthening constitutional democracy in the Republic of South Africa, by enhancing fairness and efficiency in the provision of governmental services by combating injustice and unfairness in public administration, making government agencies accountable for their actions and recommending corrective action.

Objectives

In achieving its mission the office is committed

• To develop community awareness of the existence of the office, the services it provides and how to lodge a complaint;
• To facilitate access to the office by the entire community;
• To investigate matters on own initiative or on receipt of complaints from the community;
• To provide independent, objective and impartial investigation, and to seek equitable remedies for those affected by defective administration;
• To identify systemic deficiencies in the administration and seek solutions;
• To provide advice to government on matters relating to administrative action and practices;
• To ensure that public officials are not subjected to unfair or unjustifiable criticism or blame;
• To offer guidance to people whose complaints fall outside the jurisdiction of the office by referring them to relevant agencies;
• To foster a culture of human rights within the public service.

In the provision of this service the office strives to be independent, fair and consistent, and to give due consideration to all facts before it.

Values

The guidelines in achieving this mission are

• Impartiality, efficiency, objectivity, professionalism, accountability and, where necessary, confidentiality.
• The office is committed to treating people with courtesy, consideration, openness and honesty, and to respect their privacy.

In the defence of constitutional rights and in the strengthening of the democratic institutions the intervention of the Public Protector is neither conditioned nor subject to social, economic or political circumstances. It is subject to the Constitution, the law and a deep ethical motivation that has its roots in the dignity of all South Africans as enshrined in the Constitution. The office supports all efforts to consolidate the State under the rule of law and the full recognition of human rights, This is the axis or pivot on which the office revolves.

SIGNIFICANT LEGISLATIVE DEVELOPMENTS

The Executive Members' Ethics Act, No. 82 of 1998

One of the significant developments during 1998 was the promulgation of the Executive Members' Ethics Act. The Act was an important addition to the growing framework of laws intended to promote ethical accountability by South Africa's leaders.

The Act provides for a Code of Ethics governing the conduct of members of the Cabinet, Deputy Ministers and members of provincial Executive Councils, including Premiers. Section 2 of the Act requires the President, after consultation with Parliament, and by proclamation in the Government Gazette, to publish a Code of Ethics prescribing standards and rules aimed at promoting open, democratic and accountable government among the executive leadership of the country.

Section 3 provides that the Public Protector shall investigate any alleged breach of the Code and report thereon to either the President or the Premier, depending upon the office of the person in respect of whom an investigation has been conducted. When investigating any alleged breach of the Code, the Public Protector will have all the powers conferred upon him by the Public Protector Act, No. 23 of 1994. However, the Public Protector may investigate only a complaint lodged by the President, a member of Parliament (i.e. including the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces), or by a Premier or a member of one of the provincial legislatures. Members of the public are not permitted to lodge a complaint in terms of this Act, although they are, of course, still entitled to do so in terms of the Public Protector Act.

The Act stipulates that the envisaged Code must provide for a number of widely-phrased regulatory precepts. Thus, Cabinet members, Deputy Ministers and MEC's, including Premiers, must be required to 'at all times act in good faith and in the best interests of good governance' and to meet all obligations imposed upon them by law. Further, the Code must prohibit the mentioned elected representatives from

• undertaking any other paid work;
• acting in a way that is inconsistent with their office;
• exposing themselves to any situation involving even a risk of a conflict between their official duties and their private affairs;
• abuse of their office or any information entrusted to them for their personal enrichment or improper benefit to any person; and
• acting in any way that may compromise the credibility or integrity of their office or of the government.

In addition, the executive members falling within the ambit of the Act and Code will be required to disclose all their financial interests upon assumption of office and thereafter.

The admirable breadth envisaged for the Code is, however, potentially undermined by the rather weaker provisions regarding the 'effective implementation' of the Code. Thus, the Code may prescribe measures to ensure the effective implementation of the Code, such as minimum sanctions. This significant provision, the likely sensitivities surrounding any investigation of an alleged breach of the Code, together with the absence from the Act of any clear reference to the Public Protector's ordinary power of recommendation, may consequently, open up the Code to debate on the issue of appropriate sanctions. The ultimate credibility of the Code will thus lie squarely in the hands of those the Act holds responsible to decide on matters of censure - the President, the Premiers and, most crucially, the various legislatures to whom the executive are constitutionally accountable.

The Public Protector Amendment Act

The Public Protector Amendment Act ("the Amendment Act") was passed by Parliament on 5 November 1998. The Portfolio Committee on Justice, however, indicated that the Select Committee on Security and Justice (National Council of Provinces) had certain reservations about the practical and constitutional implications of some of the amendments. In order not to delay the matter, the Portfolio Committee decided to allow the Bill to pass, but requested the Department of Justice to investigate the issues raised by the Select Committee and to report back at the beginning of the next session of Parliament.

Many of the amendments are of a semantic nature or have the result of bringing the Public Protector Act, No. 23 of 1994, ("the Act") into conformity with the provisions of the Constitution, 1996 ("the Constitution"). Only the more fundamental changes will be discussed here.

The establishment and appointment of a Public Protector

Section 4 provides for the qualifications of the person that is to be appointed as Public Protector. These provisions have been borrowed from the provisions of section 110(4) of the Interim Constitution, 1993, with the addition that an experienced attorney would also qualify.

It is, furthermore, provided that the Public Protector is prohibited from performing remunerative work outside his/her official duties.

Appointment of a committee to deal with certain issues pertaining to the Public Protector

The committee provided for by section 5 will play a central role in establishing the remuneration and terms and conditions of employment of the Public Protector. An important addition is the provision that prohibits the remuneration and the terms and conditions of employment of the Public Protector from being adversely altered.

This provision enhances the security of tenure and, hence, independence, of the incumbent of the Office.

Section 5(3) brings about an addition that has been long overdue. The Public Protector now has the authority to approach the committee, at any time, with regard to any matter pertaining to the office of the Public Protector. This means that there will have to be a "permanent" committee and that reports, difficulties with resources, problems with the implementation of recommendations, etc. can be submitted to this committee. This provision, for the first time, creates a direct channel of communication between the Public Protector and Parliament.

The appointment of a Deputy Public Protector

A fundamental amendment has been made regarding the appointment of a Deputy Public Protector. Despite this office's objections, Parliament has amended section 3 of the Act to provide that one or more Deputy Public Protectors will be appointed by the Minister of Justice after (and not in) consultation with the Public Protector. Similarly, the remuneration and other terms and conditions of employment of a Deputy Public Protector shall be determined by the Minister, after consultation with the Public Protector. (See section 6).

Subsections (6) and (7) of section 3 of the principal Act have been deleted by the provisions of section 6(d) of the Amendment Act. This has the effect that no provision is made in the Act for the removal or suspension of a Deputy Public Protector on grounds of misbehaviour, incapacity or incompetence. In theory, these amendments can have very serious consequences.

In terms of section 6(f) of the Amendment Act, the Public Protector and the Minister of Justice need to consult only with the Minister of Finance when appointing staff or a Deputy Public Protector. The previous requirement of consultation with the Public Service Commission has been repealed.

Section 6(b) now allows the Public Protector to delegate any of his/her powers to a Deputy as well as to any other member of the staff.

Secondments

Section 6(h) of the Amendment Act allows the Public Protector to be assisted by officers in the Public Service seconded to the office of the Public Protector in terms of any law regulating such secondment.

Powers of the Public Protector

The new subsections 4 and 5 of section 6 restore the position regarding the powers of the Public Protector to what they were when the Interim Constitution was in force (see section 8(b) of the Amendment Act). The amended subsection is a word for word repetition of the provisions of section 112 of the Interim Constitution. Consequently, a person performing a public function is brought back within the ambit of the jurisdiction of the Public Protector.

Confidentiality of information

A fundamental problem caused by the enactment of the "new" Constitution, 1996, was that the Public Protector and his staff could be summoned to appear and to testify in a court of law. This had the detrimental effect that the confidentiality of information provided to this office could, strictly speaking, not be guaranteed. The provisions of section 112(4) of the Interim Constitution, 1993, have now been incorporated into the Act by means of section 8. It provides that the Public Protector or any member of his/her staff shall be competent but not compellable to answer questions in any proceedings in or before a court of law, in connection with any information relating to the investigation which in the course of his/her investigation has come to his/her knowledge.

Time limitation

To clarify the jurisdiction of the Public Protector and to encourage the public to complain to the office timeously, the new section 6(9) provides for a time limitation of 2 years from the occurrence of the incident that is reported. However, the Public Protector has discretion to allow for a longer period, in special circumstances. (See section 8(9) of the Amendment Act.)

Preliminary Investigations

The provisions of section 7 of the Act have always been contentious as it was uncertain exactly when an investigation commences and whether or not informal "enquiries" should be regarded as an "investigation".

Section 9 of the Amendment Act amends section 7(1) to make provision for a preliminary investigation.

Administering an oath or accepting an affirmation

In terms of the amended section 7(7) any person authorised in writing by the Public Protector may administer an oath or accept an affirmation.

Obligation to hear any person implicated in the course of an investigation.

Section 7(9) of the Act provided that the Public Protector had to afford any person implicated in a matter being investigated an opportunity to be "heard". This provision put an unnecessarily difficult burden on the Public Protector during investigations. Section 9(d) of the Amendment Act amends this subsection to oblige the Public Protector to afford a person implicated the opportunity to respond in any manner that may be expedient under the circumstances. The implication must also be such that it might be to the detriment of the person concerned or that it might result in an adverse finding pertaining to that person.

Rules

In terms of the new section 9(11), the Public Protector may make rules in respect of any matter in connection with an investigation or a matter incidental thereto and such rules must be published in the Government Gazette and tabled in the National Assembly.

Entering upon premises by the Public Protector

Section 10 of the Amendment Act restores the Public Protector's powers of search and seizure that he possessed in terms of the Interim Constitution. These provisions are detailed and an important feature is that a warrant issued by a magistrate or a judge is required.

Reports

Section 11(a) of the Amendment Act amends section 8(2) of the Act to oblige the Public Protector to submit an annual report to the National Assembly instead of half-yearly reports. Any report by the Public Protector now also has to be tabled in the National Council of Provinces.

Section 11(b) of the Amendment Act introduces a provision to make any report issued by the Public Protector open to the public, unless the Public Protector in exceptional circumstances decides to the contrary.

Interference

In terms of section 12(a) of the Amendment Act, interference with the functioning of the office is a criminal offence.

STATISTICAL OVERVIEW

Cases received and finalised

Cases carried forward from 1997: 3 324

Cases carried forward to January 1999: 4 767

The following information should be useful in interpreting the statistics in the foregoing table:

Finding made:

These are cases where I investigated and came to a conclusion on the facts, in favour of either the complainant or the institution/department complained against.

Advice given or assistance rendered:

a) Where I do have jurisdiction, cases classified under this heading comprise mostly those where this office has been approached pre-maturely. Complainants are informed of the correct procedures to follow in order to pursue their complaint before approaching me again, should that still be necessary. In appropriate cases (where for example, the complainant is illiterate) my staff would assist by placing the complainant in contact with the right people.

b) Where I do not possess the necessary jurisdiction, my policy is nevertheless to assist the complainant by advising him or her of the correct procedures to be followed, and of the most suitable person or body to contact.

Referred to another body to finalise: This action would be taken only in matters where I feel that another body would be the appropriate authority to approach. Where such a referral does take place, I usually request the recipient body to keep me informed of developments.

Expected of complainant to use alternative legal remedies: These are cases where a court of law would be a more suitable forum or where the complainant is already pursuing the matter in the courts.

No further action taken:

These are cases where:

• it is impossible or unnecessary for me to take further action, for example, the complainant informs me that his/her matter has since been resolved by the officials involved;
• I request a complainant to repeat his/her allegations under oath or affirmation (usually where they reflect on the integrity of another) and the complainant fails to do so;
• I call for more details and they are not forthcoming from the complainant;
• the complaint is an anonymous one with insufficient details to place me in a position to pursue it; or
• the complainant complains to another institution with a copy to my office for my records only, and the former institution resolves the matter.

TYPES OF COMPLAINTS

Some of the more common types of complaints referred to the office of the Public Protector include the following:

• Insufficient reasons given for decision or no reasons given;
• The interpretation of criteria, standards, guidelines, regulations, laws, information or evidence was wrong or unreasonable;
• Processes, policies or guidelines were not followed or were not applied in a consistent manner;
• Adverse impact of a decision or policy on an individual or group;
• Unreasonable delay in taking action or reaching a decision;
• Failure to provide sufficient or proper notice;
• Failure to communicate adequately or appropriately;
• Due process denied;
• A public service was not provided equitably to all individuals;
• Denial of access to information.

SPECIFIC INVESTIGATIONS

Below are a selection of significant complaints dealt with during the period under review, which are illustrative of some of the functions and responsibilities of the office of the Public Protector.

Case number 0614/96

From a complaint referred to my office by the Human Rights Commission, it appeared that a couple's applications for old age grants had been turned down on the grounds that they were not South African citizens. The Human Rights Commission argued that in terms of section 27(1) of the Constitution everyone has the right to have access to social security, and that if the provision were intended to benefit citizens only, the phrase 'every citizen' would have been used.

My office researched the legal position and responded to the Human Rights Commission as follows:

"In terms of section 3 of the Social Assistance Act, 1992 (Act 59 of 1992), any person shall, subject to the provisions of the Act, be entitled to the social grant for an aged person if he/she satisfies the relevant Director-General that he/she is an aged person, is resident in the Republic at the time of application, is a South African citizen and complies with the prescribed conditions.

Where the Constitution intended to benefit citizens only, the phrase 'every citizen' is indeed used. Sections in which the word 'everyone' is used, appear prima facie to be applicable to the people of South Africa in general. In this regard section 27(1)(c) of the Constitution provides that everyone has the right to have access to social security, including, if they are unable to support themselves and their dependents, appropriate social assistance.

It should however be emphasised that fundamental rights are in general not absolute and are exercised within the context of a specific society. Although section 27 appears to recognise and protect a number of 'second-generation' social and economic rights, section 27(2) acknowledges the fact that there might be limited resources to achieve the progressive realisation of these rights. Section 27(2) provides that the State must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation of each of the rights. The meaning of this qualification was interpreted as follows by the Constitutional Court in Soobramoney v Minister of Health (KwaZulu-Natal) (CC 27 November 1997 unreported).

"What is apparent from these provisions is that the obligations imposed on the State by sections 26 and 27 in regard to access to housing, health care, food, water and social security are dependent upon the resources available for such purposes, and that the corresponding rights themselves are limited by reason of the lack of resources. Given this lack of resources and the significant demands on them that have already been referred to, an unqualified obligation to meet these needs would not presently be capable of being fulfilled."

Furthermore, the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights can be limited intra-constitutionally or extra-constitutionally (by law of general application). In this regard, attention is directed to section 36(1) of the Constitution, which provides that the rights in the Bill of Rights may be limited only in terms of law of general application to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, taking inter alia the factors mentioned in this section into account."

I concluded that in view of the above it might be argued that the requirement of section 3 of the Social Assistance Act regarding citizenship, was a reasonable and justifiable limitation in this regard. However, irrespective of the above, it was stressed that questions pertaining to constitutionality fall within the functions of the Judiciary.

Case number: 2207/96

I was approached by the Residential Sectional Title Owners Association (RESTOA), which represented the rights and interests of a large number of owners of residential sectional title properties in the area of the Greater Johannesburg Transitional Metropolitan Council (GJTMC) with a complaint concerning the granting of rebates by the Councils of the Greater Johannesburg on the general levy levied on rateable property.

The complaint arose from the fact that in respect of both the 1996/1997 and 1997/1998 budgets, the GJTMC exercised its discretion in terms of the Local Authorities Rating Ordinance, 1997 by granting certain rebates on the general levies on rateable property. The complaint was based on the fact that there had been a substantial difference between the rebate granted in respect of residential properties classified as "Residential 1 properties", and residential sectional title properties classified as "Residential 3 properties". An additional rebate had also been granted to certain elderly owners of Residential 1 properties.

RESTOA maintained that the Council had failed to comply with the principle of equality as stated in Section 8 of the then Interim Constitution (now Section 9 of the 1996 Constitution), applying different percentages of rebates for different residential properties . Because the further rebate granted to certain elderly Residential 1 owners was not available to similar sectional title owners, RESTOA held the view that one section of residential property owners had been discriminated against. The complainant felt that while higher density residential properties were advocated in terms of the existing policy, it was these very property owners who were being discriminated against.

Investigation

My office corresponded extensively with the complainant and the relevant authorities, including the office of the MEC for Development, Planning and Local Government: Gauteng, the CEO of the GJTMC and the Eastern Metropolitan Substructure (EMSS).

The EMSS confirmed that at inception of the present Council, a rebate of 60% for residential properties utilised for a maximum of two dwellings per erf had been granted, while sectional title type properties and also blocks of flats were being granted a 35% rebate. In its initial response to the complaint, the EMSS pointed out that the rebates and remission granted to various classes of property ownership in terms of the municipal budget, were permitted in terms of the Local Authorities Rating Ordinance and that it had not been unfair.

The EMSS indicated that the reason for the variation revolved around the "economics of municipal administration" and was not designed to disadvantage certain members of the community. Reasons for differentiating between the classes of property included:

• Density of population on the land
• Indigence
• Inner city decay
• Measure of relief

From time to time during the consultation process I invited comments from RESTOA on some of the issues raised by the EMSS, and also communicated these responses to them.

Steps taken by the EMSS to address the complaint

The EMSS informed us that it had decided to increase the rebate for sectional title residential properties with an additional 5% in the 1977/98 budget because it was "realised that the need for high density living should be promoted and there is a justification for the gap between the rebates in respect of residential properties providing for a maximum of two dwelling units per erf and high density properties to be reduced. It is nevertheless, not practical to eliminate this gap over too short a space of time since the implication of an increased rebate is that the Council earns less revenue from its assessment rating system."

Against this background, my office specifically drew the attention of the EMSS to Section 178(2) of the Interim Constitution and requested the EMSS to motivate the application of different rebate percentages against the requirement of uniformity in Section 178(2). This was also a topic on which some case law had emerged and we highlighted some of the principles and guidelines which had in this regard been dealt with by our courts.

I emphasised to the EMSS that while the reasons for the variation had been noted, they had not adequately addressed the relevant legal considerations to enable me to find whether or not the differentiation was justifiable. I again requested the EMSS to address the legal requirements and, if it were maintained that the application of different percentage rebates for different residential properties complied with Section 178(2) of the Interim Constitution, to furnish me with motivated arguments in this regard.

The EMSS eventually responded that the phasing out of differentiation would be proposed to the Councils of Greater Johannesburg.

Finding

Generally, where the authority concerned has, during the course of my investigation, taken steps to address the complaint, there is no point in continuing the investigation or issuing a lengthy report. While the undertaking that the differentiation would be eliminated by the Councils of the GJMTC could have been construed as an admission that there was no justifiable basis for the difference in the rebate percentages, I nevertheless decided to proceed to formulate my finding on the conduct under investigation, by means of issuing a report.

As far as the factual position was concerned, it was not in dispute that there was a difference between the percentage rebates granted by the Councils of the Greater Johannesburg to the owners of different residential properties in respect of the 1996/97, and 1997/98 budgets.

Consequently the paramount question was therefore whether the EMSS and the other Councils had acted within the powers conferred upon them by law. I considered the fact that the Constitutional Court had emphasised that Section 178(2) did not require identical rates and tariffs to be levied on all consumers, but that there must be a uniform structure on the basis of which revenue should be raised. This is perhaps best qualified by the judgement of Langa, DP in the case of The City Council of Pretoria v J Walker (CCT 8/98), to the effect "that the tariffs themselves may vary from user to user, depending on the type of user and the quality of service provided. As long as there is a clear structure established, and differentiation within that structure is rationally related to the quality of service and the type or circumstances of the user, the obligation imposed by s 178(2) will have been met."

It would therefore appear that a local authority may under the circumstances described, be permitted to differentiate between the various classes of properties. However, in the matter under investigation, nothing had been submitted to me by the relevant authorities to convince me that differentiation was sufficiently and rationally based on considerations relating to a difference between their circumstances as users or the quality of services rendered to them by the Councils. In the areas of jurisdiction of the Councils of the GJMTC the structures within which different rebate percentages were being applied, were in my view not sanctioned by Section 178(2) of the Interim Constitution. I therefore found the differentiation to be improper.

Recommendations

In terms of Section 182(1)(b) and (c) of the Constitution, I recommended that:

• all owners of residential properties in the municipal area of the Greater Johannesburg be granted an equal rebate in terms of Section 21(4) of the Local Authorities Rating Ordinance, 1997, and
• such equality be effected in as short a time as the resources of Councils of the Greater Johannesburg would permit and that in any even this be finalised as soon as the arrears owed by members of the complainant, RESTOA, were settled.

Case number: 2049/97

After having received a complaint against Telkom, my office requested the Manager: Customer Services at Telkom to make all documentation pertaining to the specific complaint available. The Manager: Customer Services responded by providing my office with a considerable amount of correspondence between the complainant and Telkom during the preceding years. The complainant raised inter alia the following issues:

• After having written several letters to the Chairperson and Chief Operating Officer of Telkom, she had received nothing but a missive ignoring the main points of complaint;
• Apparently, after the complainant had requested a personal interview with an executive from Pretoria, she was subjected to obstructive behaviour from highly-placed Telkom personnel;
• A security guard allegedly assaulted the complainant when she attempted to see a manager about queries on her account. It was further averred that not only was she threatened with removal by the police, but that she was allegedly also nearly run over by a Telkom motor vehicle as she was halfway across a main road at a humped pedestrian crossing.
• She was allegedly consistently and deliberately obstructed by Telkom personnel whenever raising a complaint about public phones, which she had been forced to use since her telephone service had been discontinued earlier at her own request. The complainant stated that her main concern was that she was suffering from infections in both ears due to the exclusive use of public phones, which she felt were in unsanitary conditions.

Apparently her concern in this regard had been ignored. She demanded compensation, particularly in respect of the ear infections and assaults by security personnel.

Background

Documentation in our possession revealed that the complainant had applied for and been provided with a telephone during 1995. She queried her first account and raised a number of issues, such as having received 'nuisance calls' while her service was supposed to have been ex-directory. She indicated that she would not pay her account until the matter had been clarified.

Telkom apparently proceeded to make every effort to satisfy the complainant. Her telephone number was changed and rental credits passed. As she failed to settle the outstanding amount, her service was finally suspended but later restored after she had paid. Apparently the complainant again refrained from paying and frequently visited Telkom's premises. In an attempt to resolve the situation, Telkom passed a credit for the costs of changing her number and informed her that her service would be suspended in June 1995, should her outstanding balance not be settled in full. On 21 June 1995 her service was again suspended.

The complainant proceeded to direct letters to high-ranking Telkom officials and was subsequently informed that Telkom had decided to waive the deposit of R276.00 as a special concession. Service was apparently again provided to the complainant.

Some two months later the complainant requested that her service be discontinued.

Apparently she had an outstanding account and she allegedly indicated her doubt of the information reflected. Telkom then handed the case over for the institution of legal action against the complainant.

Following the above, the complainant appeared to have been in contact with numerous Telkom officials and to have visited Telkom's premises several times.

With regard to the complainant's allegation that a Telkom employee had deliberately tried to run her over with a Telkom vehicle, it was stated that the matter had been fully investigated. According to the driver and a passenger, the complainant had, while walking at the side of the road - to their great surprise - suddenly ran straight at the vehicle.

Finding

The complainant provided no medical or other evidence proving that her use of public phones had caused her ear infections. Although she might have contracted these infections at a public phone, no proof of this was submitted. I could therefore not find that the complainant had in any way been prejudiced as a result of Telkom's conduct.

Regarding her allegations of assault by Telkom security officials, I found that she was at liberty to lay a complaint with the South African Police Services as assault and attempted murder fall squarely within their jurisdiction (for investigation) and the Department of Justice (for prosecution).

Case number: 3056/97

The complainant requested me to intervene in a matter in which he felt that he had been improperly prejudiced by the Department of Justice in effecting payment of salary arrears.

The complainant had been a police officer from August 1968 until January 1977 when he was transferred to the Department of Justice in the former KwaZulu government as a clerk. Despite the fact that it was a transfer and that his pension had not been paid out to him, the Department of Justice did not recognise his previous experience. He worked as a clerk until 1986 when he started to function as a prosecutor. Again, despite the fact that he had been working as a prosecutor between 1986 and 1990, he was nevertheless not translated to the rank of prosecutor. The complainant raised the matter with the Department, but to no avail.

In 1997 the Minister of Justice, on the recommendation of the Justice Committee, granted approval for the recognition of his previous experience on his date of appointment, by appointing him as a Clerk Grade 1. He further approved that his rank and salary be adjusted accordingly.

Although the rank translation was duly effected, an error slipped in with the effecting of salary adjustments. The complainant was to be appointed on the scale of R1 620.00 per annum on the salary scale of R1 620 x 120 = 2 700. In calculating the arrears from the complainant's date of appointment as a clerk until the prosecutor's rank, the department used the same salary of R1 620.00 without adjusting the notches. The complainant again raised the matter with the Department, who did not co-operate. He then appealed to me for assistance.

I raised the matter with the Department, who before any recommendations were made, rectified the situation and paid out the difference in salary arrears to the complainant.

Case number: 824/98

In March 1998, a certain Mr X, a land surveyor and trustee of the Royal Pavilion Body Corporate (Hartebeespoort Dam) lodged a complaint with my office concerning the Hartebeespoort Dam Local Council.

Background

The Royal Pavilion is situated within the greater leisure development known as Caribbean Beach Club, in the township of Kosmos X2, which falls within the jurisdiction of the Hartebeespoort Dam Local Council.

During October 1996, the developers had initially erected 22 boathouses on the Caribbean Beach Club property, adjacent to the Royal Pavilion development. As these boathouses were situated outside the boundaries of the Royal Pavilion complex, the Royal Pavilion Body Corporate had no jurisdiction, nor carried any responsibility in respect of the boathouses. However, numerous Royal Pavilion owners bought a right of usage of a boathouse from the developer, in some cases paying as much as R17 000.00 for this right. These houses were bought in good faith, the owners believing that building plans had been submitted by the developer and therefore approved by the Hartebeespoort Dam Local Council. Moreover, the owners believed that the boathouses complied with the National Building Regulations, especially regarding fire prevention, as the sole purpose of the boathouses for these owners was to provide storage for petrol containers together with expensive boats and related equipment.

To their horror, the complainants later discovered that these boathouses were in fact illegal structures that were not reflected on any approved building plans, and that the extremely serious fire hazard had been disregarded completely.

The complainants alleged that the Hartebeespoort Dam Local Council had been grossly negligent in acting against an unscrupulous developer. (The developer had in the meantime erected another 44 boathouses in complete defiance of the Hartebeespoort Dam Local Council's repeated warnings, requests and threats of legal action). The complainants further alleged that the Council had accepted inferior fire protection requirements at the request of the developer, but had never enforced any of these requirements. The Council had also ignored many of the complainants' letters and had allowed the situation to drag on indefinitely.

My office took the matter up with the Hartebeespoort Dam Transitional Local Council, which replied to the effect that the developers had not complied with the set fire regulations, but that the necessary steps would be taken against them if they had not complied by a certain date.

Mr X later advised my office that their concerns had been addressed and expressed his appreciation.

Case number: 1782/98

In July this year, the daughter of an elderly lady complained to my office that her mother, aged 63, had been applying to the Department of Welfare and Population Development for an old age pension since 1995. This had been refused on the grounds that, according to computer data, she was supposedly employed. In spite of the fact that she had never been employed as a registered employee, the Department insisted that she provide employment-related documentation and submit a complete application, failing which she would not be considered.

This office took the matter up with the Department and received a reply stating that a grant for the aged had been awarded to the complainant's mother, retrospective from June 1997 and setting out further details of benefits payable and also arrangements to collect payments.

Case number: 1615/98

In this matter, the complainant was a British citizen, living as a permanent resident in South Africa. When she applied for her identity document, she also submitted a copy of her driving licence document. She was told some months later that she had to go to the licensing department to convert this licence into a South African one. She went to the offices in Johannesburg twice, only to be told twice to come back another time as they were busy. She complained that the officials were off-hand and rude.

As a newcomer to South Africa she was unaware that she had only one year in which to process this application, and at no time was she informed.

She then went to the licensing officer in Randburg, only to be told that it was too late to have the licence included into her identity document, and that she had to take another driving test.

My office wrote to the Department of Transport and Public Works, who then informed the complainant that she need not get a new licence, and that they would arrange for her to convert directly to the new plastic licence card.

Case number: 1692/98

Complainant was the owner of a commercial building in Phalaborwa. In 1996 a new water meter was installed on his property, following which he received excessive accounts for water consumption, which clearly indicated that the meter was faulty. He repeatedly complained to the Local Council and eventually the water meter was replaced in August 1997. His account decreased considerably and information obtained from the supplier of the meter suggested that the meter had been faulty. In view of the overcharge for a year, he raised the claim with the Phalaborwa Transitional Local Council and the Mayor, but to no avail.

After having received all relevant documentation from the complainant, my office wrote to the Chief Executive Officer. The Council responded by informing us that it had decided to refund the complainant.

Case number: 0351/98

In February 1998, the complainant lodged a telephonic complaint with my office as he was having difficulty in mailing letters from the prison where he was incarcerated.

The complainant informed my office that some of his clothing - to the value of R480.00 - had been lost at the Pietersburg Prison since November 1996, when he had been temporarily transferred to another prison in order to appear in court on a charge.

Since November 1996, the complainant had taken the matter up with several officials of the Department of Correctional Services, without success.

We raised the matter with the Provincial Commissioner of Correctional Services: Northern Province, following which the complainant was compensated for his loss.

Case number: 0849/98

After an injury on duty, the services of Mr X, an employee of the Louis Trichardt Town Council, had been terminated. He was however entitled to a monthly pension from the Compensation Commissioner.

During April 1998 another official of the abovementioned Town Council approached my office with a complaint that Mr X had not received his pension. It was stated that several faxes had been transmitted to the office of the Compensation Commissioner, which had been followed up with telephone calls - all to no avail.

My office raised the matter with the office of the Compensation Commissioner and on 6 May 1998 Mr X received full payment.

Case number: 1623/98

The complainant in this case requested me to intervene in a matter between himself and Telkom. The complainant's telephone service had been suspended due to arrears on his account. On 8 March 1996 he settled the account and paid an extra fee for re-connection. The telephone was not reconnected. When he enquired about this, he was advised to re-apply and obliged to pay another reconnection fee. He complained to Telkom that he had been overcharged but was however advised to pay the amount as stated on his account.

He later received an account from Telkom, reflecting a credit of R384.02. This confirmed his earlier allegation. When he approached Telkom about the credit he was informed that a cheque would be issued to him after an audit had been done. After having written letters for four months, he again contacted Telkom but was advised to wait as the cheque would be sent to him by post. No cheque arrived.

He continued to enquire about his money until one day he was informed that the Telkom office in his area, Thohoyandou, had been closed and that he would have to contact the Pietersburg office. On approaching the Pietersburg office, he was informed that the money could not be refunded. It was at this point that the complainant approached me for assistance, after having waited - according to him - for one and a half years.

My office wrote to Telkom and the complainant's cheque was duly issued to him.

Case number: 1169/98

The complainant wrote to my office after having struggled to obtain his matric certificate from the Department of Education, Northern Province, since 1995. He passed his matric examinations in 1994, but was not issued with a certificate. He made enquiries from the Department of Education, Northern Province, who advised him to contact the office in Pretoria. The latter referred him to the provincial office. He contacted the provincial office both telephonically and in writing, but to no avail. In 1998 he resorted to my office for assistance.

We wrote to the Northern Province Department of Education and they issued and sent the certificate to my office. The certificate was then mailed to the complainant.

Case number: 0851/98

The complainant was employed by the Department of Education from 1958 until 1984, when he resigned. In 1994 he rejoined the Department and in May 1996 he bought back service for the sake of his pension from 1970 to 1984. In 1997 he applied for his services to be terminated in terms of Section 8.1(c) read in conjunction with ELRC Resolution 3/96 (severance package) which was approved with effect from
1 August 1997. During his term of employment he was paying the amount required to purchase pensionable service years.

When his pension benefit was paid out to him however, the years of pensionable service purchased had not been considered. The Department of Finance informed the complainant that he had failed to complete a specific form. The complainant was then informed that this form/document had disappeared between the Departments of Education and Finance. For this reason, the Department of Finance had not taken the service purchased into consideration when making the payment to the complainant. The complainant felt that he was being improperly prejudiced as he had not been at fault. He reported the matter to my office in March 1998.

On raising the matter with the Department of Finance, my office was informed that they had, on 21 June 1997, issued to the complainant's former employer a quotation form which was to have been accepted by the member on or before 21 October 1997. The quotation form had not been sent back to the Department of Finance in time, as a result of which the complainant's application had expired. The Department nevertheless issued another form to the Department of Education on 17 August 1998.

The matter was raised by my office and satisfactorily resolved in December 1998.

Case number: 2587/98

In a matter which unfolded in a rather unusual and surprising manner, a certain Mrs Y approached me with a complaint that the Department of Finance was delaying the payment of her pension benefits.

When the matter was taken up with the Department of Finance it was established that the benefits had in fact been paid into the complainant's bank account months ago. The complainant was furnished with the details of the transaction and requested to check with her bank to find out where the money had gone missing.

The complainant then informed my office that there had been a misunderstanding and that her pension benefits had indeed been paid. What had happened was the following:

At the time when the money was paid into her bank account, she had also approached a relative to borrow money. When she saw the money in her bank account she assumed that it had been paid in by her relative and thanked him. The relative had actually been in no position to lend the complainant the money, but had been too embarrassed to admit this. When she thanked him for his generosity (for the money he had not paid in), he did not correct her and decided that it must have been a miracle. (He decided to take credit for it anyway!).

Case number: 1035/98

The complainant, resident within the Shoshanguve municipal area, complained that the Northern Pretoria Metropolitan Substructure had charged her excessive amounts for water during 1996/97.

The complainant raised her concern with the Council, following which another water meter was installed in October 1997. The complainant's account then decreased substantially. She submitted a print-out which she had obtained from the municipality and which reflected that from April 1996 to October 1997 (when the new meter was installed), she had been charged R177.42 per month on average. From November 1997 (which reflected the reading of the new meter) to April 1998, she had been charged an average R44.42 per month.

After complaining to the Council on 25 February 1998, the complainant received a letter dated 26 February 1998 from the Council to the effect that an amount of R1570.78 for water consumption levied would be credited to her account. The complainant was still dissatisfied as this had been based on an average water consumption of 40 kiloliters per month calculated only from March 1997 to September 1997. She felt that her account should also be credited for the excessive accounts that she had received prior to March 1997, in other words from September 1996 to February 1997. The complainant also submitted that the average of 40 kiloliters calculated was still considerably higher than her actual consumption, as reflected on her accounts for the months since the new water meter had been installed.

The matter was raised with the Chief Executive Officer of the NPMSS who responded to the effect that no further credit for water consumption would be allowed due to the following:

• Water consumption recorded and processed on the relevant property had passed through a water meter as a consumption of service rendered by the Council.
• In terms of Section 50 of the standard water supply by-laws the Council, is not responsible for any faulty fittings or undetected leakages in any part of the water installation.
• The relevant water meter had been tested and, according to the engineering department had been found to be in good working condition.

During a meeting with the Chief Executive Officer of the Council, my office concentrated on the following issues:

• The complainant's submission that the amounts charged for water consumption for the period September 1996 to September 1997 were excessive, in view of the size of her house and the fact that there were only two consumers.
• During the said period the amounts charged fluctuated considerably from approximately R100 to as high as R1004.20.
• After a new meter had been installed, the amounts charged decreased considerably and were lower than R60.00 per month.
• The question arose as to why an amount of R1 570.78 was credited to the complainant's account if the meter had been found to be in good working order.

Furthermore the complainant also contended that it was unacceptable for the water meter to have been tested by the Council's engineering department and not by an independent third party.

The Chief Executive Officer responded that the reasons why higher water consumption was processed on the complainant's account were unknown - hence she was advised to pay for a water meter test if she so wished. My office was further informed that the reasons why the complainant's water consumption had recorded lower levels after a new meter had been installed, were unknown to the Council, as the old meter had been found to be in a good working condition. The Chief Executive Officer further maintained that the credit entry had been based on normal, average consumption of a small family, but this action was limited to a specific period only. Finally, my office was advised that water networks together with meters in properties belong to the Council and qualified technicians are employed to carry out tests.

Evaluation

The only evidence at our disposal was the print-out which the complainant had obtained from the Council, the correctness of which the Council had at no stage disputed. From the said print-out, which reflects, inter alia, the amounts charged for water consumption over a period of 25 months, the following inferences could be drawn:

• From April 1996 to August 1996 the complainant was charged an average of R55.23 per month. In August 1996 she had to pay R45.18 and in September 1996 she was billed R339.28. In the ensuing months the complainant's account fluctuated considerably and was alarmingly high for such a small household. From April 1996 to October 1997 the water meter recorded an average level amounting to R177.42 per month. Moreover, after the complainant's water meter had been replaced in October 1997, the complainant's water consumption had decreased to an all time low - from November 1997 to April 1998 - when she was charged an average of R44.42 per month.
• It was therefore reasonable to infer that something was wrong with the complainant's account during the period September 1996 to October 1997. The Council must have realised this, because a credit entry was processed in her account after she had complained about the situation. Here one might have asked why, if the Council had been satisfied with its technicians's tests, had the complainant's account nevertheless been credited ? In my view, this action by the Council could be construed as an admission that the complainant's accounts were faulty.
• The complainant's account was however credited only for the March 1997 to September 1997 period. As mentioned earlier, evidence showed that the problem had started in September 1996. The Council's attention had been drawn to this, but the Chief Executive Officer merely maintained that "[t]his action [processing of a card entry] was limited to a specific period only".
• Finally, the Chief Executive Officer contended that the normal, average water consumption of a family the size of the complainant's household, is 40 kilolitres per month. I am not sure on what this submission was based, but the facts showed that before the problems with the complainant's account started and after the new water meter had been installed, her actual water consumption had been still lower than 40 kilolitres.

Finding

It was my considered view that the complainant had been overcharged for the period September 1996 to October 1997. I was further of the opinion that the credit entry of R1570.78 did not rectify the problem adequately and that 40 kilolitres was not an accurate estimate of the complainant's average monthly water consumption. I therefore found that she had been improperly prejudiced by the Council.

Recommendation

I recommended to the Chief Executive Officer of the Northern Pretoria Metropolitan Substructure to credit a further amount on the complainant's account to correct the excessive charges for water consumption for September 1996 to October 1997. I suggested that the credit should be calculated by subtracting the actual average consumption (to be calculated from the [average] consumption charged from April 1996 to August 1996 and November 1997 to April 1998) from the amounts levied from September 1996 to October 1997. The credit already processed would, of course, have had to be taken into account.

ESTABLISHMENT

The staff complement of this office is as follows:

The Public Protector

1 Assistant to the Public Protector (Chief Director)

1 2 Senior Investigators (Senior Legal Advisory Officers)

1 Chief Administration Officer (Deputy Director)

1 Public Relations Officer (Assistant Director)

2 Senior Administration Clerks

2 Senior Registration Clerks

3 Senior Typists

3 Senior Secretaries

1 Messenger

FINANCES

The total budget for the 1998/1999 financial year was: R7 438 000

PUBLIC RELATIONS

Conferences/Workshops and/or Seminars attended by representatives of this office

• Workshop on "Strengthening the National Ombudsman and Human Rights in the Caribbean" held in Antigua in March 1998.
• "When Citizens Complain: The Role of the Ombudsman In Improving Public Services" Conference jointly hosted by Public Administration International and the Commonwealth Secretariat, May 1998.
• Workshop on "Social and Welfare Policy into the 21st Century", Johannesburg, August 1998.
• Constitutional Seminars at the University of Fort Hare and the University of Natal during August and October 1998. These seminars were organised by the Department of Constitutional Development as part of its Constitutional Education Programme. One of my investigators presented papers and participated in the discussion panels at these seminars.
• Transparency International Workshop on "The Creation of Networks of Integrity", Johannesburg, June 1998.
• Conference on African National Institutions for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights, Durban, July 1998.
• Accord Workshop on Constitutional Mechanisms for the Protection of Human Rights, Pretoria, July 1998.
• ICM Conference on "Fighting Fraud, Bribery and Corruption", Sandton, October 1998.
• SA Security Association Conference on "The Enemy Within", Midrand, October 1998.
• Seminar hosted by ECCRISA, October 1998.

Delegations received by this office

• A Senior Investigations Officer of the office of the Ombudsman of Malawi.
  Purpose: To study the operational systems of the office of the Public Protector.
   

• Delegation of the Standing Committee of Human Rights of Kenya.
  Purpose: To obtain information on how the Ombudsman Institution in South Africa works in practice.
   
• Delegation of the Lesotho Ombudsman.
  Purpose: To study the organisational structure in the office of the Public Protector.
   
• Computer Systems Manager of the office of the Lesotho Ombudsman.
  Purpose: To study the database and computer network of the office of the Public Protector.
   
• Fact Finding Delegation of the Parliament of Ghana.
  Purpose: To benefit from South Africa's experiences in creating an open Parliamentary democracy, particularly the experience with regard to institutions intended to strengthen democracy.
   
• Angolan Judicial Study Mission.
  Purpose: To examine the transformation of the judiciary (including the Ombudsman) and his role in South Africa under the new South African Constitution with a view to revising the Angolan Constitution.
   
• Member of the National Human Rights Commission of India.
  Purpose: To exchange views with a sister institution.
   
• Study Mission of the Development Management Division of the Economic Commission for Africa, UNDP.
  Purpose: To hold discussions to further the study on effective systems of ethics and accountability in African Public Service.
   
• Pension Funds Adjudicator.
  Purpose: To obtain information on the operational and organisational aspects of the office of the Public Protector.