Johannesburg | Monday
THE SA Human Rights Commission said on Monday it remained underfunded and warned that official indifference has robbed it of much of the independence it needs to discharge its obligations.
”After six years of operation, it is very discouraging to have to report that questions about the independence of the commission have not been resolved,” the commission said in the introduction to its fifth annual report published on Monday.
The SAHRC said it had for some years been deeply concerned about the mechanism used to determine and allocate its budget.
”To that extent the commission made proposals for the amendment of the Human Rights Commission Act. It must be admitted that there has been some progress in that the commission is now invited to make presentations to the Medium Term Expenditure Framework process on its annual budget,” the body said.
”The problem is that National Treasury continues to relate to the commission through the Justice Department. This means that we have no direct means of having queries and problems resolved.”
The report’s writers said ”another example of this insensitivity to the independence of national institutions” was the lack of consultation. The Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) of 1999 prescribed that constitutional institutions ”may not borrow money, nor issue guarantee, indemnity or security, nor enter into any transaction that binds the institution or entity to any future commitment”.
The SAHRC said this made it a dependent of the government because it could not rent property in its own name or acquire property for its sole use.
”This is unacceptable especially as the Human Rights Commission Act states clearly that the commission ‘shall be a juristic person’. It can sue and be sued in its own name. At a stroke the rights and privileges of an independent institution have been removed without the participation of the commission,” the report charged.
”The provisions of the PFMA as it stands raises serious difficulties as it contradicts the Human Rights Commission Act.”
Of similar concern to the commissioners and staff was that the body –now five-years-old — still lacked proper terms and conditions of employment.
”So bizarre is this situation that commissioners salaries lag far behind those of comparable civil service post designations and regularly, salary increments due to members of the commission are rarely if ever paid on time.”
The commission was also concerned about the treatment of its reports by Parliament.
”The rules of Parliament still do not allow meaningful participation by national institutions, our reports still do not have a portal that fits in parliamentary procedures and there is no committee dedicated to receiving and reviewing the reports of the commission.”
A further concern was that the commission’s inadequate budget meant it was unable to execute functions imposed by the Promotion of Access to Information Act, the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, the Public Finance Management Act, and Section 184(3) of the Constitution.
”All these laws have given additional responsibilities to the human rights commission but no adequate financial provision has been made in the budget allocated,” the report said.
”Our efforts at conducting dialogue with the National Treasury on these matters have not elicited any understanding of our concerns.
”Given the enormity of the challenges explained above, it is crucial that the SAHRC be provided with adequate resources to carry out its constitutional obligations.” – Sapa