Military Police & Adjutant General mandates, capacity, achievements and challenges; Defence and Military Veterans Budgets: Committee Reports

This premium content has been made freely available

Defence and Military Veterans

18 May 2022
Chairperson: Mr V Xaba (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

Video

Tabled Committee Reports

In a virtual meeting, the Committee received briefings from the SA National Defence Force’s Adjutant General and Military Police. Concerns were raised about the capabilities of the military police division as a result of cuts in the funding for employees and a reduced budget for recruiting lawyers. Members asked about the conviction rates, the most common crimes and the sentences.

Members asked what mechanisms were in place to deal with complex cases where the military authorities lacked expertise. 

The Committee considered and adopted its reports on the budget votes of the Department of Defence, the Department of Military Veterans, the Armaments Corporation of South Africa and the Castle Control Board. Members were pleased with the standard of the reports, and they discussed the need to include funding for cyber and technology capabilities and raised concerns about reduced budgets.

Meeting report

Mr S Marais (DA) said it was a pity that the Committee had not been invited to an event at Simonstown where the SA Navy took delivery of a new vessel.

The Chairperson said the Secretary for Defence (SecDef) had informed him that there was a mistake and that she was under the impression that the Committee had received an invitation. Even so, the Committee would not have been able to attend because it was having this meeting.

The SecDef, Ms Gladys Sonto Kudjoe, apologised on behalf of the Department for the absence of an invitation.

Briefing by the Adjutant General

Major General Eric Mnisi, Adjutant General, SA National Defence Force (SANDF), briefed the Committee on the capacity, achievements, challenges and caseload of the Defence Legal Services Division (DSLD). The presentation focused on the regulatory framework, statutory functions, and mandate of the Adjutant General. It outlined lines of operation and objectives. It dealt with the role of military lawyers and the training they received. It concluded with an assessment that the DSLD’s performance had been significantly above expectations. 

The DLSD renders legal services and legal support to the Ministry of Defence and Military Veterans and the Department of Defence (DOD) at all levels. Its functions are found in the Constitution.

(See the slide presentation for details.)

Discussion

Mr Marais said it had been a very long time since the Committee last heard from this division. The Defence Force was an important and disciplined force, as established by the Constitution. The role and success of the DLSD were of utmost importance. This division had been neglected to a large extent due to budget constraints and the slow pace of the appointment of military judges and prosecutors. He was concerned about the abilities of this division. They were not effectively resourced in terms of manpower and funding. The field in which the division operated required specialised services and a lot of money. The budget must be market-related. The right people needed to be attracted to ensure that discipline was instilled. More would have to be done with less. There was an indication that the cost of employees would decrease from 88 to 76 percent. He was concerned that the right people would not be attracted. He requested that more information be provided.

Mr T Mmutle (ANC) asked what the normal conviction rates were. He asked the Adjutant General to expand on the number of cases allocated to judges and prosecutors. What were the most common crimes that the military community dealt with? Did they include sexual harassment? Normally when crimes were committed, the perpetrators were convicted in court and punished in the correctional services, after which they would be reintegrated into society. Was there anything the military did to ensure that offenders were corrected and reintegrated into the military community? Would the funding requested address structures and projects that the military wanted to engage in? Would the crimes that were committed within the military then be reduced?

The Chairperson said that to reduce the budget, one must ensure that the rank levels were also reduced. Lawyers did not come cheap, and their salaries were at the level of a deputy director in government departments. One must be prepared to pay the lawyer according to that ranking. This was where the problem lay. There must be a clear indication of the skills required and market-related remuneration. He asked for clarity on the increased cases for judges and prosecutors. How many attorneys and advocates were there in the system? What types of sentences were given to those who committed crimes?

Responses

Gen Mnisi accepted the comments made by Mr Marais. He said that they were aware that the economy was not doing well and had to work with what they currently had.

Lawyers were not recruited; they were made. There was a hybrid recruitment process. People were recruited at the level of privates or corporals and once they had obtained LLB degrees, they were transferred to the legal division. Those transferred had to take additional military courses. The DLSD was trying to grow its team by stretching its money. For instance, where a high-ranking person earned R900 000 a year, three lower ranking positions could be filled for the same amount. There could not be more supervisors in an organisation than the employees they supervised. There were ranking issues, but they would be corrected. There would be recruitment outside the SANDF. They would recruit people with no legal or military experience. They would be trained and become part of the team. After five years, those with leadership potential would stay.

He referred to the conviction rates provided in the presentation - 74 percent in 2019/20 69 percent in 2020-21 and 72 percent in 2021-22. The most common convictions were disciplinary, involving misconduct, stealing, assault, and now fraud and corruption. Prosecutors were trained to specialise in fraud and corruption. There was an interlink between military courts and the correctional services. People found guilty in the military courts and sentenced to imprisonment served their sentence in correctional services facilities. They were not kept inside the military, and those members were then dealt with in terms of correctional services regulations.

Regarding the number of cases allocated, not all prosecutors finalised their cases. Some prosecutors did more than others. There was a need to look at the inflow of cases and the number of prosecutors. A prosecutor was expected to finalise 60 cases; a defence counsel was expected to finalise 72 cases and military judges over 100 cases. For senior military judges that dealt with lengthy fraud and corruption cases, this expectation had dropped to 20.

He agreed with the Chairperson that lawyers were expensive, especially military lawyers. Salaries were now separated from rank; the only person still being paid by rank was the adjutant general. Salaries were now paid according to qualifications and experience. There was job rotation for members to learn about all the divisions.

When troops were deployed outside South Africa, according to the United Nations regulations, they were prohibited from having consensual sexual relations with local people. That did occur, but it was not rape or sexual assault. There were no cases of rape in the military. There was a case where the accused was found not guilty because evidence showed a consensual sexual relationship between two South Africans. This issue was sorted out, and lessons were learned on dealing with sexual offences. Consensual sexual relationships between people in the military were not prohibited. If there were issues of rape, they would be referred to the SA Police Service (SAPS) and the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA). Most sentences were fines, which were limited to R6 000. There were views that this should be amended. Some said it was too much, and some said it was not enough.

Gen Mnisi said there would be written responses to questions that had not been answered. 

Briefing on the Military Police

Rear Admiral M Maphoto, Provost General (PMG), SANDF, briefed the Committee on the mission, values, mandate, and regulatory framework of the Military Police Division (MPD). He outlined the challenges they faced.

In the 2021/22 financial year, investigators dealt with more than 2 900 criminal cases, translating to at least 23 cases per investigator. There was a lack of funding for reserves to supplement and reinforce the policing function. There was insufficient compensation of employees in the budget allocation to rejuvenate the MPD and fulfil the demands of internal and external deployments. The current structure was insufficient to provide effective military police (MP) support to the Department of Defence (DOD). Only nine of the 44 stations provided 24-hour service due to structural limitations. Most of the MPD facilities were dilapidated and did not meet occupational health and safety standards. The budget constraints did not allow for technological development and procurement in crime prevention and investigation disciplines.

He concluded that, although empowered, the PMG lacked the capacity and resources to deliver on its mandate to provide a military police capability to the DOD.

(See slide presentation for details)

Discussion

Ms M Mothapo (ANC) said she was worried about the many challenges. There had been a lack of expertise in investigating complex cases. What mechanisms were in place to ensure that those complex cases were being attended to?

The Chairperson asked if the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) had jurisdiction over the military police. The Adjutant General had said that military lawyers did normal duties to stay relevant. Were the military police also expected to perform additional duties? Issues of capability within the police force had been identified by the Inspector-General, the Auditor-General of South Africa and the Chief of the South African Defence Force. It had been reported that when a matter was registered with the police, it simply remained a report and would not reach the prosecution stage. He was concerned about all the challenges that had been identified. There were serious cases that did not come before the courts due to serious weaknesses in the division.

Responses

Admiral Maphoto said there were mechanisms to address the complex cases where expertise was lacking. There were ventures with other organisations such as the SAPS. There were meetings where challenges were addressed and where the SAPS identified areas where they could offer support. There was a lot of work to be done and sometimes more time was needed. The military police attempted to address all of these issues even if there were not much funds to do that. Some cases did end up in court. It just took a very long time. The military police had the same powers as the SAPS. As far as DOD property and personnel were concerned, the military police did their own internal investigations to address cases, both within its borders and externally. The IPID had no jurisdiction over the military police.

Soldiers did not normally have any other duties. They were there to protect their bases and camps and provided VIP protection for state visits. Cases were reported to the chief or deputy chief of the military police and he would decide what should be done based on their complexity. The NPA also looked at the cases.

Lieutenant General Lindile Yam, Chief of Staff, SANDF, said he wanted to clarify that military police were soldiers first and police second.

Budget Vote Reports

Dr Wilhelm Janse van Rensburg, Committee Researcher, presented a draft Committee report with observations and recommendations on the budgets of the DoD and the Armaments Corporation of South Africa (Armscor). 

Mr Peter Daniels, Content Advisor, presented the draft report on the Castle Control Board (CCB) and the Department of Military Veterans (DMV).

Discussion

Mr Marais thanked the researcher and content advisor for their outstanding reports. He said the quality was “mind-boggling”. On Armscor, he referred to a need for mid-life upgrades and calculations. It would take a few years to do this for all frigates and submarines, and it was important to include this in the DoD report. He said the funding of cyber and technology capabilities should be used as a force multiplier. The defence industry made use of these technologies and exported them, and it was important to see what happened in the rest of the world. He mentioned satellite technology and drones. Although funding was needed, it was important to start with the preparatory work.

Ms Mothapo said that there had been an oversight visit to the Special Forces school but she could not recall that the Committee had dealt with a report. How was the Committee then supposed to raise observations that were made during the oversight visit?

The Chairperson agreed with Ms Mothapo and said that a report from this oversight visit should be produced.

Mr M Shelembe (DA) said there was the issue of veterans’ pensions and whether this had been included in the budget for the current financial year. He mentioned that policies still needed to be adopted and published. The Deputy President had made promises about pensions, and it will be difficult to explain why those veterans were not getting their pensions.

The Chairperson said that was not for the report they were currently considering, but it was something that they needed to pay attention to as the budget was being monitored.

The budget reports were adopted with the amendments.

The meeting was adjourned.

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: