Mr T D Harris (DA) to ask the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development:
Whether the Registrar of the Court sent the judgment of the conviction of a certain person (name and details furnished) to the Companies and Intellectual Property Registration Office (Cipro) for the inclusion on the disqualified directors register as required by section 218 of the Companies Act, Act 61 of 1973; if not,
(a) why not, (b) who was responsible for sending the judgment to Cipro and (c) what action has been taken against the person for failing to send the judgment to Cipro; if so, (i) on what date was the judgment sent and (ii) who at Cipro acknowledged receipt of the judgment?
Name and details referred to:- Mr Tony Yengeni’s fraud conviction (S v Yengeni 2006 (1) SACR (T))
I wish to indicate to the Honourable Member that there is no statutory obligation for the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DOJ&CD) to send through information to the Companies and Intellectual Property Registration Office (CIPRO). Section 218 of the Companies Act, Act 61 of 1973 (the Act), which the Honourable Member mentions, is not relevant as it deals with civil actions and does not deal with criminal convictions or the CIPRO Register or the ineligibility and disqualification of persons to be a director.
Since there is no statutory obligation on the DOJ&CD to send through this information, the judgment of the conviction of the certain person was not sent through to CIPRO, just as judgments in general are not sent through, unless requested. It should also be noted that no court order pursuant to the Act was made regarding the case in question.
In view thereof that CIPRO is dependent upon relevant institutions to meet its obligations in terms of its Registers, representatives of the DOJ&CD have, in order to assist CIPRO in general with information arising from court cases, met with representatives of CIPRO. As a result of the meeting, the Regional Heads of the DOJ&CD will be requested to put measures in place to provide CIPRO with any required court information. In view of the huge task to go through all relevant court records, it was decided that the High Court information will be prioritised.