Abstract:
The main focus of this dissertation is to critically evaluate the functioning of the Special
Investigating Unit ('SIU') and Special Tribunal in the execution of its mandate, which
includes the fight against fraud and corruption on state institutions in South Africa. The
dissertation seeks to explore the importance of a functional SIU and Special Tribunal in the
eradication of maladministration, fraud and corruption on state institutions in terms of the
Special Investigation Units and Special Tribunals Act 74 of 1996 ('the SIU Act').
The questions investigated by this dissertation is whether the Special Tribunal
established in terms of the SIU Act is designed to perform administrative functions or purely
judicial functions; how the SIU institutes civil proceedings on behalf of the state institutions
and whether the SIU is completely functional in its present form.
The main findings of the dissertation, among others are that the SIU Tribunal is a
purely judicial tribunal. However, the SIU performs administrative functions relating to the
mandate assigned to the SIU by the President in the proclamation. Furthermore, the SIU and
Special Tribunal derive their mandate from the SIU Act and operate within the ambit of the
terms of reference in the empowering proclamations.
Based on these findings, among others, the dissertation concludes that although the
Special Tribunal is presently not composed as is provided for in terms of s 7 of the SIU Act,
or functional like the SIU Act envisages, the Special Tribunal is a purely judicial tribunal.
This view is based on the fact that the Special Tribunal consists of officers of court ranging
from judges; magistrates; advocates or attorneys of the Supreme Court of South Africa. The
Special Tribunal may furthermore make any order which it deems appropriate to give effect
to its decision. It functions in the same way as a court according to rules made by its
President. The Special Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon any justiciable civil
disputes (arising out of civil proceedings instituted in that Special Tribunal) emanating from
the investigations by the SIU. The SIU must have acted within the ambit of its terms of
reference as set out in the proclamation referred to ins 2(3) of the SIU Act.
The research, finally, finds that in the absence of a fully functional Special Tribunal,
the SIU is not fully effective in the manner in which the legislature intended it to be as
envisaged by the SIU Act. What was envisaged by the SIU Act was simply a fully functional
Special Tribunal.
Against this background, the main recommendation of this dissertation, among others,
is that the SIU and Special Tribunal should amend their empowering legislation, namely the SIU Act in order to give them more powers for the proper performance of their functions. A
fully functional Special Tribunal will provide benefits to the SIU by it being more effective,
with improved turnaround times on investigations and civil litigation, and should be
outcomes orientated.