Gabi

[Editor’s note: This is a section of a report that had to be proofread. The brief was to proofread and do a light edit to ensure that the style is consistent throughout. The client’s name and other sensitive information has been redacted.] As indicated, the organisational structure in the diagram above was contained in a draft discussion document on the proposed multi-sectoral coordination body. The discussion document, titled ‘Key cConsiderations: Towards establishing the mMulti-sSectoral nNational gGender-bBased vViolence cCouncil for South Africa’ clearly expressesing the latest thinking among members of the ISC regarding the nature, functions, powers and responsibilities of the proposed multi-sectoral coordinating body, including its governance structures, scope, nature and size of its membership. It is not clear at this stage, if the ISC has received meaningful feedback and inputs on this document and whether or not any significant revisions have been effected on it based on feedback received. Our examination and analysis of the document raises a number of issues that are discussed below. Firstly, the proposed structure seems to represent abe fairly large and potentially cumbersome structure, especially given the fact that it is supposed to be a coordinating structure. The draft discussion document also seems to refer to and/or imply that the proposed multi-sectoral national coordinating body will also implementalso implement programmes on the ground. For instanceinstance, the document refers to the initiation, implementation, prosecution, monitoring and evaluation of programmes to address injustices of the past, providing strategic vision and leadership and ensuring allocation of resources. The draft document also appears to assign to this multi-sectoral coordinating body, a function currently also assigned to the [REDACTED] in terms of the [REDACTED] Act.1. It states that the body will have the responsibility “to ensure enforcement of the Constitution and all international, regional and domestic instruments” 2.3 Secondly, the document defines an advisory role for the multi-sectoral body. Presumably it will serve an advisory role either to the government in general or the Ppresidency in particular, although government will be heavily involved and represented in the governance of this multi-sectoral body, especially through the involvement of very high- level state offices such as the President (who is identified to cChair this body), the offices of pProvincial pPremiers and mMunicipal mMayors, and other critical government departments at national and provincial levels. Thirdly, the document identifies the pPresident to cChair this multi-sectoral national coordinating body that will advise government in addition to carrying out other implantation functions. This poses a few questions such as the practicality, nature and extent of the pPresident’s involvement in the work as cChair of this body. Also, as cChair of this body, presumably the president will ultimately be accountable to Parliament for this body, in addition to being hHead of gGovernment and PrPresident of the cCountry. Fourthly, the draft discussion document creates an eExecutive bBoard of 12 members (i.e. five5 from government, six6 from civil society, and the cChairperson of the [REDACTED]). The 12 members of the eExecutive bBoard will be appointed on the basis of possession of specified technical expertise. The discussion document does not specify who will lead the eExecutive board, including its powers. Neither is it clear if the Presidents’ position asof cChairperson of the multi-sectoral coordinating body means chairing the eExecutive bBoard itself or another structure of this body. Ordinarily, a membership-based body of this nature would have a deliberative internal structure such as a pPlenary, whose membership would be broad and based on the principle of stakeholder representation. The current discussion document does not make provision for a pPlenary or equivalent structure, suggesting (but highly unlikely) that the President would chair the eExecutive or another structure not identified in the current draft of the discussion document. Fifthly, the discussion document creates a sSecretariat, headed by a CEO (who heads the secretariat). The document does not provide clarity on whether or not the CEO will have executive powers and functions, in relation to the powers and functions of the eExecutive bBoard (which are currently not enumerated). Finally, the proposed structure consists of national, provincial, local and ward level structures. However, the precise governance and operational structures of theon provincial and local level structures still needs elaboration to avoid confusion on the ground.