Public Protector South Africa releases a report on the investigations into administrative deficiencies relating to the processing of gender-based violence (GBV) related matters within the South African criminal justice system

Tuesday, 04 June 2024: The office of the Public Protector today released a report on the investigations into administrative deficiencies relating to the processing of gender-based violence (GBV) related matters within the South African criminal justice system.

In terms of section 182(1)(b) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, the Public Protector is empowered to report on any conduct in state affairs that is suspected to be improper or to result in any impropriety or prejudice, and section 8(1) of the Public Protector Act, which provides that the Public Protector may make known the findings, point of view or recommendation of any matter investigated by her.

The investigation emanates from the administrative challenges faced by the public, particularly women and children, in the South African criminal justice system identified by the Public Protector.

On 18 June 2020, the Deputy Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development, Mr John Jeffery requested the Public Protector to investigate allegations reported in the media that Ms Altecia Kortje approached the Bellville Magistrate’s Court to apply for a protection order, but was turned away by the court officials. According to the media reports, Ms Kortje was allegedly murdered by her former partner on 12 June 2020, after the Bellville Magistrates’ Court officials failed to assist her with the application for

a protection order. It was alleged that the conduct of the court officials was improper, constituted maladministration and prejudiced her and her family.

The evidence obtained by the Public Protector during the investigation indicates that the late Ms Kortje visited the Bellville Magistrate’s Court around midday, on 08 June 2020 to apply for a protection order. Her name was placed on the list of complainants in the Protection Order Section of the Bellville Magistrate’s Court. She was attended to by a clerk at the section who gave her an application form and explained to her the Protection Order application process.

It is established through the Public Protector’s investigation that Ms Kortje left the Bellville Magistrates’ Court about an hour after her arrival without completing and submitting the application form for further assistance. Her explanation to Ms Dolf, who had been accompanying her to court on the day, was that she did not expect that it would be a long process to obtain the Protection Order and there was too much to write.

Following the closure of this investigation, Public Protector began an own initiative systemic investigation into the root cause of the administrative challenges to address public complaints regarding the inadequate level of service delivery by the key role players, more specifically the following:

  • The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DoJ&CD), which is the national department that is responsible for the administration of justice and overseeing the courts when dealing with GBV cases;
  • The South African Police Service (SAPS), which has the constitutional mandate of preventing, combating and investigating crime and is one of the primary agencies of the state responsible for the protection of the public and especially GBV victims, as first responders; and
  • The Department of Social Development (DSD), which has the constitutional mandate to provide appropriate social assistance for those unable to support themselves and to support and collaborate with other state institutions and other stakeholders in supporting victims of GBV.

Based on the analysis of the information, the following issues were considered and investigated:

  1. Whether the DoJ&CD did not put adequate measures in place to protect victims of Gender Based Violence, if so, whether such conduct is improper as envisaged in section 182(1) of the Constitution and amounts to maladministration in terms of section 6(4)(a)(i) of the Public Protector Act;
  1. Whether the SAPS did not put adequate measures in place to respond to incidents of Gender Based Violence, if so, whether such conduct is improper as envisaged in section 182(1) of the

Constitution and amounts to maladministration in terms of section 6(4)(a)(i) of the Public Protector Act; and

  1. Whether the DSD did not to put adequate measures in place to support the victims of Gender Based Violence, if so, whether such conduct is improper as envisaged in section 182(1) of the Constitution and amounts to maladministration in terms of section 6(4)(a)(i) of the Public Protector Act.

Having regard to the evidence and regulatory framework determining the standard that should have been complied with, Public Protector made the following findings:

The allegation that the DoJ&CD did not put adequate measures in place that effectively protect victims of GBV, is substantiated. This is based on the following discoveries:

  • The thirty eight (38) courts inspected by the Public Protector with the exception of the Point Branch Family Court in KwaZulu-Natal, are not kept in an operational manner that supports efficient service delivery as envisaged in sections 4(1)(a) and (2)(a) and 5(1)(d) of the Government Immovable Asset Management Act in that:
  1. There are old and dilapidated court buildings such as the Magistrates Courts in Ga-Rankuwa, Bloemfontein, Nelspruit, Piet Retief, Kabokweni and East London;
  1. Some of the recently renovated courts such as Palm Ridge and Umbumbulu have structural defects in the form of cracked walls and roof leaks;
  1. There was inadequate office equipment such as malfunctioning telephone lines, switchboard and air conditioners, persistent network problems, broken photocopiers, shared computers for example at Magistrates Courts in Umlazi, Umbumbulu, Mamelodi, Pretoria, Mzumbe and Ndwendwe;
  1. The courts visited do not have a fully functional Integrated Case Management System (ICMS) resulting in manual capturing of cases. The ICMS is mostly inaccessible or very slow due to network challenges, for example at Magistrates Courts in Umlazi, Umbumbulu, Mamelodi, Mzumbe and Ndwendwe;
  1. There is poor maintenance of existing infrastructure, which is evidenced by cracked walls, leaking roofs, unhygienic ablution facilities, exposed electrical wiring, broken ceilings, doors and windows at Magistrates Courts such as

Umlazi, Umbumbulu, Mamelodi, Pretoria, Mzumbe, Ndwendwe, Nelspruit and Rustenburg;

  1. There are incomplete building projects at some Magistrates Courts such as at Mamelodi which has been incomplete for over a period of 10 years, Pretoria which burned down in 2010 and has not yet been repaired and Ga-Rankuwa where the project to repair and renovate was registered with the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure more that 10 years ago but never commenced;
  1. Some courts for instance in Mamelodi, Ga-Rankuwa and Vereeniging did not have waiting areas which resulted in court users using open spaces/parking areas, thereby exposing court users to weather elements;
  1. There is a shortage of water and electricity in some courts such as Tseki and Tsheseng in the Free State;
  1. Mobile offices being utilised as permanent structures at for example Magistrates Courts such as Mamelodi, Tlhabane, Nkowankowa, Ga-Rankuwa, Vereeniging and Ladybrand;
  1. The infrastructural challenges as outlined above have a negative impact on efficient and effective service delivery in that court officials are unable to execute their functions in a conducive environment, the slow network and lack of electricity leads to delays and inefficiencies in the service court officials are able to render to the public. Water shortages and broken air conditioners create an unsafe and unhygienic environment for court officials and court users; and
  1. Court users experience unnecessary delays in receiving services due to the lack of availability of tools of trade such as photocopiers, scanners, computers for court officials. This is in conflict with the provision of section 5(1)(d) which imposes an obligation for immovable assets to be kept operational to function in a manner that supports efficient service delivery and section 195(1)(b) of the Constitution which requires that the efficient, economic and effective use of resources must be promoted.
  • The various courts visited, except the Point Branch Family Court in KwaZulu Natal, do not have private/sufficient consultation rooms which is contrary to section 10 of the Constitution, which states that everyone has inherent dignity and the right to have their dignity respected and protected. This was evidenced from the factual inspections and interviews conducted during this

investigation inter alia relating to the following courts Pretoria, Ga-Rankuwa, Palm Ridge, Rawsonville, Upington, Galeshewe, Mothibistad, Bloemfontein, Phuthaditjhaba, and Tsheseng. At these courts it was observed that consultation with victims of GBV takes places in shared court spaces which is not conducive to confidentiality and privacy.

  • Furthermore, there are human resource capacity constraints at the courts visited which does not support efficient service delivery as envisaged in section 195(1)(h) which provides that good human resource management and career development practices, to maximise human potential, must be cultivated. These constraints were evidenced by the following:
  1. In some courts such as Mamelodi, Ga-Rankuwa, Palm Ridge, Vereeniging, Johannesburg, Upington, Rawsonville Periodical Court, Galeshewe, Botshabelo, Bloemfontein, Phuthaditjhaba, Nkowankowa, Thohoyandou and Mahwelereng there was inadequate human resource capacity such as GBV specialised Prosecutors, interpreters, Magistrates in rural courts, court clerks and administrators; There was a lack of assistance being provided to applicants to complete forms; and
  1. Long waiting times and inconsistencies in time frames according to which protection orders are dealt with across the various courts which are linked to insufficient capacity.
  • The majority of courts do not have a proper filing systems and spaces. This was evidenced by files scattered on the floor at Mamelodi, Pretoria, Palm Ridge, Vereeniging, Johannesburg, Bellville and files kept in Police cells at Ga-Rankuwa. This is in contravention of Part V(10)(1)(a) and (b) of the National Archives of South Africa Regulations, which requires that the Head of government body shall ensure that all records receive appropriate physical care and are protected by appropriate security measures. The impact of improper records keeping by the courts has a negative impact on efficient service delivery and unreasonable delays when court user’s records cannot be located or retrieved, matters may have to be postponed or interim protection orders may not be confirmed when court files cannot be located.
  • There are no consistent timelines in the application and issuing of interim protection orders which is required to assist victims of domestic violence. Some courts were dealing with protection order matters on a daily basis and other courts set aside one day in a week to deal with applications for protection orders. This is contrary to section 5(1) of the Domestic Vioence Act which requires the court to consider an application that is submitted to it as soon as is reasonably possible and prejudices the victim/applicants as it may expose them to further violence/death if protection order applications are not dealt with timeously.
  • There is a lack of communication with applicants/court users in their language of choice and a lack of sufficient interpreters. The brochures were in English only, making it difficult for applicants/court users to understand the content of available material/advice and to complete the complex application form. This is in conflict with the provisions of Regulation 8(1)(a) of the Domestic Violence Regulations, which provides that if a complainant is not represented by a legal practitioner the Clerk of the court must, before the complainant applies for a protection order, hand to the complainant a written notice which contains the information provided for in Form 8 of the Annexure, which must be in one of the official languages of the Complainant. The inability by DOJ&CD to provide complainants/court users with forms that are user friendly and available in a language of their choice, limits court user’s rights to access to justice and violates Batho Pele principle 4 relating to “Access” which stipulates that all citizens should have equal access to the services to which they are entitled.
  • The conduct of the DOJ&CD accordingly constitutes maladministration in terms of section 6(4)(a)(i) of the Public Protector Act and improper conduct as envisaged in section 182(1) of the Constitution.

The Public Protector is empowered in terms of section 182(1)(c) of the Constitution to take appropriate remedial action to redress the conduct referred to in this report upon finalisation of an investigation where adverse findings are made.

In the matter of the Economic Freedom Fighters v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others: Democratic Alliance v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others the Constitutional Court per Mogoeng CJ, held that the remedial action taken by the Public Protector has a binding effect.

Taking into account the submissions and information that were presented before the Public Protector, the appropriate remedial actions that the Public Protector is taking in terms of section 182(1)(c) of the Constitution, are the following:

The Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development

Take cognisance of the report and ensure implementation of the remedial action.

The Director General of the DoJ&CD

  •        Within two hundred and ten (210) calendar days of the date of the final report and in line with the provisions of section 2(1)(f) of the Magistrates Court Act that empowers the Minister to

establish courts, develop the standards for a model court that will include all infrastructure such as buildings, human resources capacity, ICT, furniture and office equipment that will be adequate for the various levels of courts to ensure optimal service delivery.

  •        Within one hundred and eighty (210) calendar days of the date of the final report conduct an audit of all courts as established in terms of section 2 of the Magistrates Court Act, to determine their infrastructure needs/upgrades/renovations in line with the provisions of section 5(1)(d) of Government Immovable Assets Management Act, which requires immovable assets that are currently used to be kept operational to function in a manner that supports efficient service delivery. The audit should include short and medium to long term needs of the various courts.
  •        Within one hundred and eighty (210) calendar days of the date of the final report and in line with section 195 (1)(b) of the Constitution which states that efficient, economic and effective use of resources must be promoted, submit to the Public Protector a detailed project plan for the construction/renovation/procurement of all courts identified in the audit with clear dates, turnaround times, targets and deliverables indicating how buildings and ICT will be upgraded, the procurement plan for the furniture and office equipment. The project plan should include the short and medium to long term interventions for the various courts.
  •        Within one hundred and twenty (210) calendar days from the date of the final report and in line with section 195(1)(h) of the Constitution read with section 9(1)(a) of the Magistrates Court Act and section 9(1) of the Public Service Act, 1994 determine the human resource needs of all the courts and develop a plan with clear targets and deliverables, timelines/dates indicating how the capacity constraints in the courts will be addressed.
  •        Within two hundred and ten (210) calendar days of the date of the final report, conduct an audit on the current filing systems in place at the various Magistrate’s Courts and develop/upgrade their filing system in line with Part V (10)(1)(a)and (b) of the National Archives and Record Services Regulations which states that the head of the government institution must ensure that all records of the department receive appropriate physical care, and are protected through appropriate security measures.
  •        Within one hundred and twenty (210) calendar days after the date of the final report and in line with section 6(3)(a) of the Constitution which makes provision for the language used to balance the needs of the population read with Batho Pele principle 4 on “Access” which stipulates that all citizens should have equal access to the services to which they are entitled, implement

wider language options for print/oral communication based on the needs of each court and simplify court application forms.

  •        Within one hundred and eighty (210) days after the date of the final report and in line with section 7(1)(b)(ii) and(iii) of the Domestic Violence Amendment Act which states that a complainant/applicant may apply to court for a protection order electronically or through the online portal, ensure that the portal is functional and available in all courts to assist complainants/applicants when applying for protection orders after hours.

On whether the SAPS did not put adequate measures in place to respond to incidents of Gender Based Violence, if so, whether such conduct is improper as envisaged in section 182(1) of the Constitution and amounts to maladministration in terms of section 6(4)(a)(i) of the Public Protector Act

The allegation that the SAPS did not put adequate measures in place to respond to incidents of GBV, is substantiated.

Although there are legislative and other measures that are meant to give effect to the right of freedom of security of a person as enshrined in section 12(1)(c) of the Constitution, on the strength of the evidence adduced, it is evident that more still needs to be done to adequately capacitate SAPS members to deal with GBV victims in a more appropriate manner.


Paragraph 6(9) of National Instruction 7 requires the station commander to ensure that members undergo regular training on the manner in which complaints of domestic violence must be dealt with. However, the evidence obtained by the Public Protector during the investigation reflects that the SAPS is inadequately resourced and/or trained to effectively implement this legislative imperative.


Some police stations do not have Victim-friendly Rooms (VFRs) and victims of GBV are forced to relate the abuse they have suffered in crowded SAPS stations. This is contrary to the provisions of paragraph 9 of the National Instruction 2 of 2012 provides inter alia that every police station should have a VFR to interview the victims of crime in privacy and should a police station not have a VFR, the station must arrange to interview the victim in private by using any suitable and available office.


According to SAPS, 1019 police stations have Victim-friendly Rooms and 141 police stations do not have them. The Public Protector notes that the majority of police stations without Victim-friendly Rooms are mostly in rural areas. SAPS stated that a contract to provide Victim-friendly Rooms over the next five years has been concluded and will provide an average of 20 using park homes, per annum.


The information provided to the Public Protector indicates that victims are being sent to courts without receiving medical attention and the clerks of court are then forced to arrange for such services. This is contrary to section 2(a) of the DVA read with paragraph 6 of SAPS National Instruction 7 of 1999 that imposes an obligation for the SAPS to assist victims of GBV by making arrangements for counselling, medical treatment, shelter and other relevant support services.


The information provided to the Public Protector indicates that some SAPS being aware that a criminal offence has occurred, are reluctant to register cases and do not inform the victims of their rights to institute criminal action but rather refer victims directly to court to apply for a protection order. The obligation by SAPS to advise complainants on the process for applying for a protection order and other remedies available, is an inherent requirement in terms of section 2(b) and (c) of the DVA which provides that SAPS’ has a duty to assist and inform complainants of their rights, at the scene of an incident of GBV or soon thereafter.


Furthermore, the information obtained by the Public Protector indicates that some police officials do not arrest perpetrators without a warrant when there is evidence of violence perpetrated against the victim in their presence at the scene of the crime which exposes the complainant to harm. This is contrary to section 3(1) of the DVA read with paragraph 14(2) of National Instruction 7 of 1999 which provides that if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the complainant may suffer imminent harm, the SAPS must arrest the perpetrator without a warrant of arrest.


The information obtained by the Public Protector indicates there are challenges experienced by victims when they engage the SAPS for service of interim protection orders. The evidence further indicates that the applicants are often left on their own to serve the respondents, thereby making them vulnerable to further attacks in contravention of section 13(1) of the DVA provides that the service of protection orders by hand can be effected by a clerk of the court, sheriff and a peace officer. This is also contrary to paragraph 14(3) of the SAPS National Instruction 7, which provides that a member may be ordered to serve an interim or final protection order, without delay as it only becomes binding on the respondent once it is served.

The information before the Public Protector indicates that in some instances there are delays by SAPS to respond to scenes of domestic violence and/or provide assistance to victims, with the SAPS citing that they do not have enough vehicles at their respective stations to respond. This is not line with Paragraph 7(3)(a) of SAPS National Instruction 7, 1999 states that if an incident of domestic violence is reported, the Community Service Centre Commander (CSCC) must without any unreasonable delay, ensure that a police vehicle is dispatched to attend to the matter.

The Public Protector acknowledges that SAPS like other government institutions, have budgetary constraints due to cost containment measures implemented by National Treasury and deal with multiple complaints.

There is inadequate training for SAPS members on how to give effect to GBV legislation, in order to provide assistance to victims of GBV and ensure a more victim centred approach. This is contrary to the provisions of Paragraph 6(9) of the National Instruction 7 of 1999, which provides that the Station Commander must ensure that members undergo regular training on the manner in which complaints of domestic violence must be dealt with.

The Public Protector takes note of the various training conducted by SAPS to its members, however, there is a need for continuous training for SAPS members and a holistic approach should be adopted.

There is no effective collaboration between the SAPS and DSD as envisaged by section 41(1)(h)(ii)(iii) of the Constitution which provides for the fostering of friendly relations, institutions assisting and supporting, informing and consulting one another on matters of common interest. This was evidenced from the information received during the investigation which indicated that:

  1. There is a lack of an effective collaborative approach between the DSD and SAPS when dealing with provision of support services as required by section 2(a) of the DVA such as trauma counselling, referral to shelters and health services; and
  2. There is a lack of a multisectoral approach where all relevant departments can work together and have an integrated, electronic data management system in relation to GBV.

The conduct of the SAPS, accordingly, constitutes maladministration in terms of section 6(4)(a)(i) of the Public Protector Act and improper conduct as envisaged in section 182(1) of the Constitution.

Taking into account the submissions and information that were presented before the Public Protector, the appropriate remedial actions that the Public Protector is taking in terms of section 182(1)(c) of the Constitution, are the following:

The Minister of Police

Take cognisance of the report and ensure implementation of the remedial action.

The SAPS National Commissioner

  •        Within one hundred and twenty (180) days from the date of the final report and in line with sections 205(3), 207(2) of the Constitution and section 13 of the South African Police Service Act, conduct a needs analysis for all police stations that do not have Victim-friendly Rooms (VFRs) and submit an implementation plan for the efficient response to GBV cases. The plan should include short, medium and long term interventions.
  •        Within one hundred and eighty (180) days of the final report, and in line with paragraph 6(9) of the National Instruction 7 of 1999 conduct training regular for SAPS members focussing on gender sensitivity, the seriousness of GBV and its impact on victims and the society at large and the practical application of the Domestic Violence Act, Regulations and SAPS National Instructions.
  •        Within one hundred and twenty (180) calendar days from the date of the final report and in line with section 41(1)(h)(ii) and (iii) of the Constitution develop and submit to the Public Protector a collaboration plan between SAPS and DSD relating to provision of support services to victims of GBV such as trauma counselling, referral to shelters and health services.

On whether the DSD did not put adequate measures in place that support victims of Gender Based Violence, if so, whether such conduct is improper as envisaged in section 182(1) of the Constitution and amounts to maladministration in terms of section 6(4)(a)(i) of the Public Protector Act.

The allegation that the DSD did not put adequate measures in place that support victims of GBV, is substantiated.

The evidence indicates that there are insufficient shelters to cater for the victims of GBV which is contrary to section 27(1)(c) of the Constitution, which provides for everyone’s right to have access to social security, including, if they are unable to support themselves and their dependants, appropriate social assistance.

The key prevention and support programmes that are being implemented by the DSD do not have sufficient human resource capacity to support efficient service delivery as envisaged in section 195(1)(b) which states that efficient, economic and effective use of resources must be promoted. These constraints were evidenced by the following:

  1. The GBVCC is not adequately resourced and have a full staff compliment of thirty-eight

(38) social workers and six (06) officials providing technical support servicing the entire population; and

  1. The Everyday Heroes Programme is not adequately resourced and has approximately three hundred and seventy (370) trained ambassadors who to market and promote the empowerment of the victims of crime and related services.

    There is no effective collaboration between the SAPS and DSD as envisaged by section 41(1)(h)(ii)(iii) of the Constitution which provides for the fostering of friendly relations, institutions assisting and supporting, informing and consulting one another on matters of common interest. This was evidenced from the information received during the investigation which indicated that:

There is a lack of an effective collaborative approach between the DSD and SAPS when dealing with provision of support services as required by section 2(a) of the DVA such as trauma counselling, referral to shelters and health services; and

There is a lack of a multisectoral approach where all relevant departments can work together and have an integrated, electronic data management system in relation to GBV.

The conduct of the DSD accordingly constitutes maladministration in terms of section 6(4)(a)(i) of the Public Protector Act and improper conduct as envisaged in section 182(1) of the Constitution.

Taking into account the submissions and information that were presented before the Public Protector, the appropriate remedial actions that the Public Protector is taking in terms of section 182(1)(c) of the Constitution, are the following:

The Minister of Social Development

Take cognisance of the report and ensure implementation of the remedial action.

The Director General of the DSD

  •        Within one hundred and eighty days (180) calendar days of the date of the final report and in line with section 195 (1)(b) of the Constitution submit to the Public Protector a detailed project plan to determine the human resource needs of the GBVCC and develop a plan with clear timelines/dates indicating how the capacity constraints in the GBVCC will be addressed.
     
  •        Within one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days of the date of the final report and in line with section 195 (1)(b) of the Constitution submit to the Public Protector a detailed project plan to determine the need for additional shelters for GBV victims and develop a plan with clear timelines/dates indicating how the need for additional shelters will be addressed.
     
  •        Within one hundred and twenty (180) calendar days from the date of the final report and in line with section 41(1)(h)(ii) and (iii) of the Constitution develop and submit to the Public Protector a collaboration plan between SAPS and DSD relating to provision of support services to victims of GBV such as trauma counselling, referral to shelters and health services.

    In the matter of the Economic Freedom Fighters v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others: Democratic Alliance v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others, the Constitutional Court per Mogoeng CJ, held that the remedial action taken by the Public Protector has a binding effect.

    Meanwhile, the Office of the Public Protector has launched an investigation into systemic administrative deficiencies against the functionaries of Magistrate Courts relating to the handling and processing of applications for child maintenance. The final report is expected to be completed late next year.

    Section 28 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (Constitution) provides that every child has the right to family care or parental care. This section emphasises the responsibility of the state to protect and promote the rights of children and to safeguard their well-being and development. Further, the Children’s Act, 2005 (Children’s Act) plays a crucial role in defining the rights and responsibilities related to child maintenance. According to the Children’s Act, both parents, whether in a relationship or not, must make necessary financial contributions to the care, upbringing, and development of their children.

    The Maintenance Act, 1998 (Maintenance Act) aims to provide a comprehensive approach to maintenance obligations. The Maintenance Act establishes maintenance courts responsible for handling maintenance matters. It emphasises the importance of delivering financial support to dependents, ensuring their well-being and stability. The court functionaries play a vital role in facilitating maintenance applications, enforcement, and compliance.

    Some of the issues that come to the Office of the Public Protector include:
  1. Undue delay by Maintenance Officers to expedite and finalise maintenance investigations;
  2. Delays or reluctance to obtain and/or serve summons against persons who are defaulting on maintenance payments or are disregarding court orders so that they can secure their appearance in court;
  3. Delays to trace persons against whom maintenance is claimed;
  1. Inadequate measures to enforce payment of maintenance, such as lack of enforcement garnishee orders;
  2. Discourteous conduct by Maintenance Officers;
  3. Ineffective complaints handling processes to address complaints against Maintenance Officers by court managers; and
  4. Lack of a proper record keeping systems.

    Due to the seriousness of these allegations and the apparent systemic administrative failures by the functionaries to comply with their constitutional and legal obligations in dealing with maintenance issues, the Public Protector has deemed it crucial to conduct a systemic investigation in order to find solutions in resolving these systemic issues, which have impact on the security, protection and wellbeing of the most vulnerable and defenceless groups of our society.

 

Published Date: 
Tuesday, June 4, 2024