Establishment & operations of DNA Board; with Minister & Deputy Minister

Meeting report

Appointment of National Forensic Oversight and Ethics Board
Minister Bheki Cele stated that he would make a short presentation regarding the new Board. Section 15V of the Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) Amendment Act 37 of 2013 mandated the Minister of Police to appoint a National Forensic Homicide and Ethics Board comprised of no more than ten members on a part-time basis for a period not exceeding five years. Five of the members needed to be from the private sector while four members needed to be public sector representatives, appointed on the level of at least the chief director. The public sector representatives needed to be comprised of officials from the following departments, the Civilian Secretariat, Department of Health, the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development and the Department of Correctional Services. The Board members were appointed in line with the prescriptions. Collectively the representatives needed to have the relevant knowledge and expertise in the field of forensic science, human rights law and ethics relating to forensic science.

Among the Board’s key statutory functions, defined under 15Z of the Act included making proposal to the Minister on the improvement of the practices regarding the overall operations of the National Forensic DNA database and ethical, legal and social implications of the use of forensic DNA; providing oversight over the processes relating to: the collection, retention, storage, destruction and disposal of the DNA samples; the retention and removal of forensic DNA profiles and any breach in respect of taking, transporting, analyses, storage, use and communication of forensic DNA samples and profiles. In accordance with section 15V subsection (4)(a), the Minister must appoint the Chairperson of the Board who should be a retired judge, or a senior advocate with knowledge and experience in the field of human rights. Section 15V subsection (5)(a) further mandated the Minister to report to the National Assembly on the appointment of the Board including the names of the members of the Board and the suitability, expertise and ability to serve on the Board. He tabled the appointment, he had written a letter to the Speaker. All obligations and demands made in terms of legislation were fulfilled in the appointment of the Board.

The Minister introduced the Chairperson of the Board, Advocate Lindi Nkosi-Thomas, who was admitted to the Bar in 1994. Silk Status was conferred on her by the President of the Republic of South Africa in 2009. She began active practice in January 1995 specialising in the following areas, commercial law, labour law, mining law, constitutional law, aviation law, construction law, and competition law. She had acted as a judge of the High Court of South Africa in the Gauteng Division North and South and High Court of South Africa North-West division for periods of approximately one month at a time. Additionally, she was appointed a Commissioner for the Judicial Service Commission by the President of South Africa. She served on the various judicial and provincial commissions of enquiry, acting on behalf of the Minister of Police in the Marikana Commission of Enquiry.

Adv Lindi Nkosi-Thomas, Chairperson, National Forensic Oversight and Ethics Board, introduced the Board. She explained that board members had experience in forensic science, human rights law and ethics. She introduced Mr AP Rapea, the current Head of the Civilian Secretariat for Police Services since 2016. He was a valued member of the Board, specifically in relation to the qualification he held and the experience he brought. He held a Bachelor of Commerce (BCom) degree, a graduate Diploma in Management and a Diploma in Law.

Dr D Morema was employed at Nkuli Investigators as a Senior Manager, he was one of the independent private sector appointees. He held a Bachelor of Technology (BTech) in Policing, a Bachelor of Laws and a Bachelor of Arts in Police Science.

Dr K Ehlers was one of the independent appointees, she held a Bachelor of Science in Genetics, Zoology and Entomology. She held a Bachelor of Science degree, Masters of Arts degree and a Doctorate of Philosophy, Genetics and Zoology. She was currently employed by the University of the Free State as a lecturer and served on the following committees at the University, the Executive Committee, the General Human Research Committee, the Department of Genetics Research Committee and Teaching and Learning Committee. An Ad-Hoc Committee was established by the Board, Dr Ehlers was the Chairperson of that Ad-Hoc Committee and she was instrumental in the designing of the Plan of Action (PoA).

Ms Raymond Sono had a worked at the South African Police Services (SAPS) as a Forensic Laboratory Analyst for 12 years, she was currently a Dean of Faculty at Heritage of Faith Bible Institute, she held a Bachler of Science in Microbiology, Biochemistry, a Bachelor of Science Honours in Microbiology and a Bachelor of Ministry.

Dr N Myeza held a Bachelor of Arts in Policing, Master of Arts in Forensic Investigation and a Doctor of Philosophy in Criminal Justice. Advocate R Rawat held a postgraduate diploma in Law, a Bachelor of Laws and 33 years of experience practicing as an advocate of the High Court of South Africa.

Mr L Mthethwa held a Bachelor of Arts degree, a Master of Arts Degree and a Certificate in Leadership Development. He was currently employed as the Acting Chief Deputy Commissioner in Incarceration and Corrections at the Department of Correctional Services.

Ms A Grove held a Bachelor of Arts Degree, Bachelor of Science Honours and Masters of Science. She was with the Department of Health; she was in the process of moving to the National Health Laboratory Service (NHLS).

The members of the Board were invited to introduce themselves to the Portfolio Committee.

The Portfolio Committee welcomed the initiative taken by the Minister in the appointment of the Board.

Presentation of Establishment and Operations of the DNA Board
Minister Bheki Cele introduced the presentation item and handed over to Advocate Lindi Nkosi-Thomas.

Adv Nkosi-Thomas invited Mr Mark Rogers to present the presentation.

Mr Mark Rogers, Director: Policy and Research, CSP, presented the operations of the DNA Board, specifically the governance, engagement with Ministry and Plan of Action (PoA).

Plan of Action
On 7 December 2020, the Board met with the Division: Forensic Services (DFS) to get a deeper understanding and appreciation of the challenges hampering its effective and efficient functionality.
Following a detailed briefing by the Division, the Board resolved to establish an ad-hoc sub-committee to facilitate the development of the PoA.
The following members were unanimously nominated to serve on the sub-committee:
Dr. K Ehlers – Chairperson
Adv. R Rawat
Mr. D Morema
Mr. R Sono

- Terms of Reference were drafted for the sub-committee and approved by the Board.
- The PoA drew on the key priority areas identified by the Division: Forensic Service in its Turnaround Strategy (presented on 11 November 2020).
- It is augmented by data and findings from a recent evaluation on the DNA Act concluded by the Evaluations Directorate within the Civilian Oversight, Monitoring and Evaluation Unit.
- A common thread can be drawn through the various issues identified in this study, concerns raised by the DFS, as well as those identified in the Handover report presented to the Committee on 21 October 2020. 

Specific emphasis will be placed on assessing and tracking the adequacy of corrective measures implemented in the following areas:
- Contract management (e.g. procurement of buccal kits, consumables and the awarding of bids for the calibration and maintenance of equipment);
- Reduction of DNA casework backlogs (GBV);
- Establishment of Forensic Investigative Units;
- Finalisation of the CODIS (Familial searching) software acquisition process (signing of the SLA between SAPS and FBI);
- Monitoring of the utilisation and impact of forensic products in the investigation of crime and court outcomes;
- Inadequate baseline (operational) budget adjustments to support service delivery demands;
- Modernisation and maintenance of forensic equipment and methods;
- Staffing requirements to meet increasing demands for forensic products;
- Modernisation of IT infrastructure to support the optimal processing of forensic exhibit material and records;
- Full accreditation of all laboratories to conduct DNA analysis.

Minister Bheki Cele was excused from the meeting.

Conclusion
The Board adopted a phased approach to monitoring and overseeing progress made by the DFS in respect of progress reported against key priority areas identified in its Turnaround Strategy.
Over the immediate-term, emphasis will be placed on finding urgent solutions to the contract management challenges hampering the functioning of the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) and the National Forensic DNA Database of South Africa (NFDD).
Moreover, focus will be given to strategies and measures put in place to reduce DNA casework backlogs, with an active focus on timelines provided for the reduction of these backlogs.
The Board will monitor progress on the signing of the CODIS SLA (Familial searching).
The Board will facilitate the promulgation of section 36(D)(1) of the DNA Act – ensures sufficient national representation for the taking of buccal samples.
The Board will monitor progress in relation to the establishment of Forensic Investigative Units in all provinces to support the follow up of forensic investigative leads.
The Board has developed a positive and constructive working relationship with the Minister, Deputy Minister and their staff, and received the necessary support as and when was required.
Working relations between the Board, the DFS and the Civilian Secretariat are positive and encouraging.

Closing Remarks of the Presentation
Adv Nkosi-Thomas reiterated that the Board’s role was an oversight one and not an operational one. The Board would be working closely with the Ministry, Civilian Secretariat and the Police.

The Chairperson noted that the Board had inherited a significant backlog.

Mr Cassel Mathale, Deputy Minister of Police, closed the presentation and handed over to the Portfolio Committee to ask questions.

Discussion
Mr A Whitfield (DA) highlighted that many of the Members had taken an interest in the declining performance of the National Forensic Science Laboratories under the SAPS Division, Forensic Services. He was pleased that the Board seemed to have a sense of urgency around the matters. He requested a commitment from the Board or the Civilian Secretariat to receive monthly reports. He believed the backlog was growing on a daily basis due to the mismanagement of supply chain issues and poor contract management as well as other issues raised in the presentation. He welcomed the PoA template – it was an excellent monitoring and evaluation tool. Why had the DNA Board not populated that template for presentation to the Committee during the meeting? It would have been useful for the Portfolio Committee to see what improvements SAPS had made on their turnaround plan that was presented to the Committee in November 2020. The urgency of this matter could not be overstated. The Portfolio Committee needed to know the status of the expired contracts and those awaiting bid-adjudication Committee approval. In November 2020, SAPS had presented that the total backlog in DNA samples was 117 000 across all labs in the Country. What was the current total backlog of DNA case exhibits at the National Forensic Science Laboratories? What was the Board’s assessment of SAPS’s turnaround plan? How many DNA samples were processed in January and February 2021 respectively? Is the Section Head of Biology of DNA Analysis position still vacant? If so, why had this critical post not been filled and would this receive priority/attention from the Board.

He said that he had previously been very passionate about the DNA Amendment Bill. During the Minister’s presentation to the Committee at the end of 2020, he had stated that the matter would be expedited. No feedback had been provided on that front. Mr Rogers had stated during the presentation that he was pleased by the ‘progress made on the DNA Amendment Bill,’ but he failed to state what progress had been made. It was critically important that the Committee received the actual progress referred to in the report/presentation in respect of the DNA Amendment Bill.

He asked whether the Board was monitoring the current rate of decline in the rate of compliance with respect to Buccal samples taken from suspects arrested and charged for schedule eight offences.

Dr P Groenewald (FF Plus) asked whether the evidence management system was operational at the moment. If so, how did they manage the evidence management system? There was a farm murder in Hartswater where a farmer, his wife and daughter were murdered. This matter appeared in the Mafikeng High Court and the attorneys of the accused asked specific questions about the evidence management system. There was a high risk and possibility that the accused would get off ‘scot-free’ as a result of the problems within the evidence management system. It was not only applicable to that farm murder; it was relevant to any case that included DNA samples/tests that were at risk. He requested that the Board focus on the evidence management system as it affected the operations of every other process. Having read the Sowetan of the previous day (1 March 2021), he wanted to highlight the following extracts to the Committee:

“A mother of a two-year old rape survivor who sought justice for her daughter was delayed due to a long wait for DNA results. The 35-year-old Boksberg mother, who cannot be named to protect the identity of her daughter, said that for two years she had been waiting for the DNA result samples since her child was allegedly raped by her ex-boyfriend in October 2019.” 

Another one read that “the backlog of DNA results in Mpumalanga was not only frustrating prosecutors and law enforcement agencies it also resulted in some long-standing court cases of rape.”

“For murder and Gender-Based Violence (GBV) the remaining unresolved cases and… The delay had led to about 80 percent of criminal cases not being concluded in the Province. “

“Her daughter was abused by these two people, that was on 5 February 2020, doctors confirmed this, but the people were released by the Court because they were waiting for DNA results. Her child still stayed away from the family because they feared that the uncle might do something to her. She cried when she saw any of them on the streets. She believed her child would not get justice, she had lost hope.”

If one had a full page in a newspaper showing different cases as discussed above, that resulted from issues relating to DNA… He stated he would repeat this in Parliament to the President. The President embarked on a campaign against GBV, they were misleading the people of South Africa. They were failing the women of South Africa. Therefore, he wanted to appeal to the Board, he realised there was other work that needed to be done, the pieces read from the newspaper were an outcry from the victims of GBV. The Board was part of that solution, he would monitor the situation, through this Committee.

Mr H Shembeni (EFF) asked how long it took for a deceased persons DNA to be finalised. There was a family in KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) that was still waiting for the burial of their loved one since 2019 - nothing had happened. The worst part was that there was no feedback from the investigating officers as to what was happening. He suggested that there should be some awareness campaigns regarding the procedures that must be followed/likely timeframes.

In terms of the issues relating to the laboratories, how many laboratories were there in South Africa? Were there new laboratories built during the democracy? If the country was still relying on the old laboratories which covered a certain population during apartheid – the population had grown since then. There had been an increase in the types of crimes since then. That was the reason that there may be a backlog. There were a lot of cases but there were a minimum number of laboratories to cover all of them. He suggested that there should be laboratories in every province.

Regarding the buccal samples issue, he was worried that if there was a shortage of buccal samples, it would be problematic to locate those criminals who had not been submitted to a buccal sample test during their arrests? How would those people be traced to carry out a buccal sample test?

Ms N Peacock (ANC) noted the challenges that were faced within the Country – and the challenges this posed the new Board. She suggested that the PoA should not be tabled in the manner in which it was, as it was only presented to the Committee that day. The Board needed to outline specifics and provide dates so as to be held accountable. [unclear audio 1:20:59].

Rev K Meshoe (ACDP) reiterated the question asked by Mr Shembeni regarding the number of laboratories in the country. It was concerning to hear that in one province one had 80 percent of criminal cases that were not concluded as a result of the backlogs. In the State of the Nation Address (SONA) he had not heard anything said about building more laboratories to ensure that there were not so many criminal cases that were unresolved due to backlogs.

He referred to the accounts presented by Mr Groenewald. The story of the three years old, who was allegedly raped by the mother’s ex-boyfriend, was very heart-breaking. What he failed to understand was why when a person who was known to have taken a child to their place of residence and that child was found bleeding and unable to walk – why would there still be claims that the Police were waiting on DNA evidence. Why, when a person known to have been with the child – the child was raped – why with that physical evidence could that person not be found guilty. It was heart-breaking. He requested clarity on this. Should they have DNA samples for ‘every little thing’ even when a person had been caught ‘red-handed,’ and the evidence was so overwhelming.

When it was found that DNA tests from South African labs were inconclusive – what was  the reason for that? Were the South African labs inferior? Was the country’s technology inferior? When the results were inconclusive, he had heard that such samples were sent to Switzerland. How was a country chosen in terms of samples that were inconclusive? Was anything being done about the laboratories to ensure that the samples and tests would always be conclusive – so as to avoid sending those tests to other countries? At what cost was that done?

Some GBV activists were beginning ask, out of frustration, whether politicians from the governing ANC and the opposition parties in Parliament were not perpetrators of GBV, including rape. If nothing was done about GBV, people would come to the wrong conclusions. Activists were starting to ask whether members of Parliament  were protecting themselves, as cases were taking so long to be prosecuted.

Regarding the delays relating to the processing of the DNA of the deceased, the delay of two years seemed excessive. Was this the normal turnaround time? What was the normal turnaround time? What made it impossible for cases to be solved within months? It was traumatising families to wait over two years to bury their loved ones. This was cruel and the Board needed to ensure that the timeframes and turnaround times were reduced to an acceptable length.

Mr O Terblanche (DA) asked whether the information systems of the National Forensic Laboratories were up and running. As a result of COVID-19, were the Laboratories working on a rotation basis? If yes, had a shift system been implemented? He asked whether the Police were able to renew the contracts.

Ms L Moss (ANC) stated that in the previous meeting with the Minister on 13 November 2020, the Minister had asked the Board whether they had a PoA. The Board needed to stipulate the things that were highlighted in the handover report, specifically in terms of critical issues. Those critical issues should be incorporated in the PoA.

What were the critical procedures or tools of the procurement procedures of the Forensic DNA Department? She requested that the Committee receive any document relating to the procurement procedures. She had heard in the presentation that the Board had established an Investigation Unit in all nine provinces. Was there any progress being made in those units in terms of outstanding matters/cases?

The Chairperson stated that the Board had presented to the Committee on a number of occasions previously. She asked whether the Board Chair had had an opportunity to look at some of the previous reports issued by the Portfolio Committee to the previous Board over the previous two years. There had been no progress in that unit over the past two years. Many of the questions asked by Members had already been asked years before. The Portfolio Committee would be pleased if the perpetrators could be brought to book. She suggested that the board start by looking at what was previously issued by the Portfolio Committee to the previous Board over the past two years. She noted that she was also the Chairperson of the Peace and Stability Cluster. She was responsible for overseeing that those criminals were apprehended and sentenced. What information systems did they have for the tracking and tracing of evidence in the Criminal Justice System? All those criminal cases were unresolved. The Board’s failure would be the Committee’s failure and vice versa. There was a long list of the problems relating to IT support and suppliers. She requested information on this – in terms of the progress that SAPS, National Treasury and the State Information Technology Agency (SITA) were making on the protracted legal battle with Forensic Data Analysts (FDA) regarding the Property Control and Exhibit Management (PCEM) systems. Would these systems be maintained or replaced? The forensics division, the auto-finger printing identification system, the ballistics identification, there was a long list of items that needed to be considered. She understood that the Chair of the Board was new in the position, the Committee would give her time to find her feet.

Deputy Minister Mathale referred to the question regarding FDA, SITA and SAPS. They reached a stage where they could not resolve the issues amicably. As a result, FDA had resolved to sue SAPS, the letters have been served. It would go through the legal processes The Police led by the National Commissioner and the Head of SITA were currently under mandated to develop a system that would assist the Police.

Mr Rapea addressed the question on the DNA Amendment Bill. This was presented to the Minister in 2018. They had to go back to the Chief State Law Advisors to get pre-certification which they now had. They also needed the socio-economic impact assessment from the Department for Performance Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation (DPME), which they had received. They were presently processing this so it could be sent to the Minister and Cabinet. They had asked Cabinet to allow them to process the Bill directly through Parliament, as it was just a small amendment. They hoped that by Friday, if everything went well, they would be able to brief the Minister. Everything from their side had been done.

Mr Rogers stated that the Board received quarterly reports from the Forensic Science Laboratory and that was in line with the legislated mandate of the Board. These were analysed and discussed by the Board. If there was a request for those reports to be shared with the Portfolio Committee, a discussion could be held in that regard. In respect of the decline in the compliance rate, in the quarterly reports that they received, that was one of the key indicators that was measured. The reduction of the collection of samples from schedule eight offenders was definitely one of the key factors that would be looked into and was presently being looked at. It was a concern. The PoA had been designed to have a very strong focus around GBV.

He had outlined the accreditation of the laboratories in his presentation. This was one of the key things they needed to work toward so as to alleviate the backlog. On slide 12, the last point said full accreditation of all laboratories to conduct DNA analysis. Currently there were only two that conducted full DNA analysis, one in the Western Cape and one in Pretoria.

The PoA looked at the holistic modernisation of the IT systems and value chains. This was a key indicator of how the laboratory would function. Regarding the rotation of laboratories - this was something they were considering particularly given the COVID-19 situation. They had looked at how this would impact the ability of the laboratories to function effectively.

Regarding the issues highlighted in the handover report, these were items that were addressed in the PoA. The items specifically related to the challenges around procurement and management issues. The PoA was a ‘living’ document and they would adjust it as necessary as they went along and the dates and information changed.

With respect to the Investigation Units in the provinces, in terms of a progress update, this followed the regulations that were gazetted. Provision now had to be made within the provincial organisational structures for those Investigation Units. At his last meeting with SAPS, the feedback received was that provision had not yet been made within the provincial organisational structures for this. His recommendation was that the Board would need to engage with the Minister and the National Commissioner to look at how that process could be expedited.

Regarding the concerns of the Committee over the previous two years, this would be tracked through the PoA. Regarding the question on the backlog, he could only provide information relating to quarter three. At the end of December 2020, the backlog stood at 142 584 cases. That includes all exhibits, collection kits (rape kits) and buccal sample kits received.

Major General Edward Ngokha, Head: Forensic Science Laboratories, SAPS, provided a background relating to the Forensic Science Laboratories. There were six units: the biology unit, chemistry unit, scientific analysis unit, ballistics unit, victim identification centre and question document unit. The DNA analysis was based in the Biology section.

There were five contracts, two had been awarded and three were in process. In terms of the two contracts awarded, there was a two-year contract for silicon membrane based identification kits. The second contract was also for a two-year period for procurement of consumables. Three contracts were in the process of being awarded, one related to the maintenance of the crime index system, the second for consumables for the reference index system and crime index system, the third was for internal services repair and calibration of laboratory instruments for the Forensic Science Laboratory Biology.

The backlog sat at 172 787 cases. Processing was not done in January or February 2021 because they were short of some of the consumables. The most central one, was the quantification kit; this contract was in the process of being awarded. It was an important kit for them to be able to run their processes. They requested that the quantification kit be bought through contract so as to buy in bulk. The process was running its course, they were waiting to hear from Treasury so as to deviate and ‘run and buy’ the quantification kit.

They were notified that morning that Supply Management had allowed them to buy quantification kits. The company would be approached so that cases could start being prioritised. This quotation allowed them to buy below R500 000. The quantification kit would only last about two weeks which was very short. Thereafter they needed to apply again through quotation. Once the contracts had been approved that would assist them in allowing the process to run smoothly. The problem was the consumables. The equipment had been serviced – not fully as they had been using quotation to service them. Quotation had limitations. One had to observe the supply chain management routes otherwise one found oneself in big trouble. Once the contracts for servicing of equipment were approved they could then go ‘fully blown.’ The central issues were consumables and the servicing of equipment.

The Head of Biology Section had not been appointed yet. The processes had been followed, application had been made and submitted to the Head Office. They were still waiting to hear from the Head Office. Head Office was aware of the urgency of the appointment.

Regarding the exhibit management system, ‘Team S’, their IT division had been working hard on that with CETA. On Monday 1 March 2021, his team was called to come and see the functioning of the temporary processes that were being worked on. This was being done by Technology Management Services (TMS) and CETA.

In terms of DNA processing, cases that related to burials where burials needed to take place within a week or a couple days of dying were deemed ‘urgent.’ The turnaround time for an urgent case was 14 days, for a routine case it was 28 working days and for a very big case a ‘non-routine’ case it was 75 days. Those were the norms they needed to adhere to.

There were four laboratories in the country, one in the Eastern Cape, KZN, Western Cape and Pretoria. DNA could be processed fully in Pretoria or at the Western Cape laboratories. In KZN after the initial processing steps, samples were sent to Pretoria for DNA analysis. At times they sent it to the Western Cape Laboratory. The Eastern Cape Laboratory sent their samples to the Western Cape. Processes were underway to get full DNA analysis processing established in the Eastern Cape. He had received a document the previous day from General Sithole, who was in charge of the buildings. The document stated that the project manager, together with the structural engineer had been appointed. More laboratories were needed in the Country. The population had increased a lot and they needed more man power to be in a position to address the need of the Country.

DNA testing was not required for every case. Some cases had circumstantial evidence which was enough for the judge or magistrate to make an informed decision. For example, if a person committed rape in a household, they could use fingerprints, if not DNA. The DNA systems in South Africa were of a very high standard and were conclusive. There was zero error. That was proved by other countries that appreciated the work they were doing in terms of DNA. They had very strong quality management systems. DNA had been tested many times from one laboratory to another to check whether the results were the same – and they were the same.

Regarding the question as to whether the country paid for DNA to be sent abroad. Firstly, no DNA was allowed to be sent abroad. There was no mandate to that effect. When one did DNA analysis, as a result of dealing with fresh samples, many of the samples had been through harsh conditions. Thus, sometimes there was no result as there was not enough DNA.

Regarding the wait of up two years, he stated that that was possible. The investigating officer needed to take samples, if it was a rape case and the subject was at large, they often had to wait till the suspect was arrested. It was only then that they could do the matching. It involved a lot of stakeholders not only Forensic Science Laboratories DNA.

Rotations were applied in terms of employees, circumstances had compelled them to do so. The laboratory was closed many times to decontaminate and return. They had some fatalities in the Laboratory as a result of COVID-19. The rotation did have a very serious impact on them.

In terms of the procurement measures they were using, they needed to have a procurement contract in place. This avoided corruption and problems. At times when circumstances compelled them, they would go the quotation route – they could not go this route to many times. According to the supply chain management prescripts, there was a process called ‘splitting’ which was irregular, which they did not want.

In terms of accreditation, the South African laboratories were not compelled to accredit but as scientists they would appreciate accreditation. Accreditation would not speed up the process of analysis nor increase accuracy.

Deputy Minister Mathale emphasised that as the leadership they were not excited by the delays. The areas that have the greatest weaknesses were flagged and were being attended to by the leadership of the Institution. They would try to ensure that these things were resolved. The supply chain was deliberately destroyed and made to be national, he thought this was the after effects of the damage that was done there. He was confident with the team that they had

The Chairperson stated that she would give an opportunity for Members to ask additional questions. She asked that the Board and Police return to the Committee the following week to present their responses.

Mr Whitfield repeated his earlier question as he felt it had been misinterpreted/unanswered. What was the current rate of decline in the compliance in respect of buccal samples taken from suspects arrested and charged for schedule eight offences? If the Board could not answer the question in the meeting, he asked that the Chairperson please request the board or the Civilian Secretariat to send the latest Quarterly Report received from the Laboratories to the Committee. That information should be included in the PoA as a baseline for reports in future.

Mr Terblanche stated that it was a concerning picture presented. There was no certainty about the exact numbers relating to the backlog. He requested clarity regarding the statistics presented relating to the backlog – he was under the impression that two different figures had been presented. The whole lab grinded to a halt in January and February 2021. This was not acceptable. He requested that, through the Chairperson, the Deputy Minister take note of the appalling situation - something needed to be done. They would have to go out and tell the public that ‘it had totally collapsed.’

The Chairperson expressed that the Portfolio Committee was horrified by the fact that no processing was done in January and February 2021. Given the situation, she doubted they would have things in place for March 2021. She requested that Mr Rogers respond.

Addressing Mr Whitfield, Mr Rogers apologised for misinterpreting his question during the first round. He did not know that figure offhand. He asked that General T Manamela respond in that regard. The discrepancy in the figures related to the fact that he had presented the figures that related to December 2020 and his colleague had presented the up to date figure. He would share the quarterly reports with the Portfolio Committee, the latest one being from December 2020.

Major General Ngokha stated that the figure of 172 787 was correct and reflected the backlog up until the day before. Work had been done to improve the DNA recovery phase of processing.

Mr Groenewald asked a follow-up question relating to the tracking system/evidence management system outlined by the Deputy Minister. The Deputy Minister had said there was a court case with DFA, they had come to the Committee, certain statements were made but it was never the full picture. He directed his question to the Deputy Minister, in January 2020, as far as the FDA case was concerned, after the National Treasury did a fair value assessment, in fact they found that the amount was more than fair. There was an agreement between the National Treasury, SAPS and SITA. Why did you not comply with that agreement? He was also aware that Treasury had ring-fenced the amount on that DFA contract - what is the problem? The Deputy Minister had stated that they were going to develop their own tracking system. How long was that going to take? How many cases were then still waiting as a result of the tracking system. There was a system, there was a dispute, and there was an agreement in January 2020. Treasury did a fair value assessment. Parties had agreed, but they were now back to square one.

Mr Shembeni did not think he had been answered regarding the tracking of the suspects or offenders who were not part of the buccal samples. How was SAPS going to track down the people who were not able to take the buccal samples during their arrest as a result of the shortage.

General Matilda Manamela, Head of Quality Management: Forensic Sciences Division, SAPS stated that in 2016 there was a Guideline developed to be aligned with the Act, workshops were done in the provinces to make sure that the detectives together with the Criminal Records Centre, worked together to ensure that the forensic investigation in each and every province was working effectively. In terms of sustaining what was started in 2016, her office under Brigadier Smith, continued to provide workshops in the provinces to makes sure that the detectives and the IOs were empowered to know how to access the investigative tools, how to interpret them and how to make sure that the prosecutors understood the content thereof.

In terms of accreditation, it was not a legal requirement, however the Act required them to have a quality management system in place. Currently they did have a quality management system in place within the Biology section. They also did a systems audit there, where they considered compliance with regard to the International Organisation for standardisation, in this case the applicable standard was ISO725. They also looked at the technical audits where they considered a case from the beginning to end to ensure that there was full compliance and that when the results went out they were confident that the test results were valid and reliable. They subjected their members to the proficiency testing programme where they tested their members competency and the effectiveness of the system at large. Through one of the findings they identified the gap in the maintenance and calibration of equipment. The issue of the availability of consumables had affected the number of members they could subject to proficiency tests. It was affected by non-availability of consumables and kits.

On 16 August 2018, they tested their readiness in terms of accreditation. The response they got was positive – except that they needed to be consistent in terms of availability of consumables, maintenance of kits, funding of maintenance and calibration of equipment. In terms of funding, that issue was resolved. Their baseline was increased by R250 million to ensure that those goods and services that were procured previously using the Criminal Justice System (CJS) funding was moved to operations – as these were the day-to-day goods and services.

In terms of the buccal samples, in 2019 a contract was awarded for the buccal sample kits. SAPS had a contract presently in terms of the provision of buccal sample kits. This formed part of the provisioning store items – it meant that each and every program needed to order from Head Office. These were then sent to the cluster and stations to make sure that if and when people were arrested for schedule eight offences, their buccal samples could be taken. They had prioritised schedule eight offences, they had taken 17 721 buccal sample tests of people arrested. They were monitoring this closely.

With regards to capacitation in KZN and the Eastern Cape where they did not have a fully-fledged DNA capability, they had started with a contract where they were looking at expanding – as stated previously. They had been meeting with organisational development in terms of doing a feasibility study whereby they were looking at how many members they would require when they expanded. They were also considering the funding/costs in terms of the expansion of services. They were also looking at the numbers of cases they were getting from each province. They would capacitate according to priority.

With respect to contract management, there were two processes of how they procured things, they either went on quotation or contract. With respect to quotation, one could only procure for less than R500 000, if they went above that amount they had to go to Treasury for approval. If they submitted for similar items more often, Treasury would also query them as to why they were not initiating a contract, due to being above the threshold number of permitted times. There was also an issue of contracts taking long to be awarded, especially personal protective equipment (PPE) and the proficiency test. Competencies were required particularly when they needed to provide evidence in Court. It was critical to get the contract fully awarded as getting advice from Legal delayed the process further.

General Ngokha stated that the issue that the tracking system was ‘not there,’ was incorrect – it was functional. There were processes that were followed, if the tracking system was not functioning, they went manually and kept records. There was an interim process that they had embarked on. They were functioning, processing and using the manual system. The system had not stopped as a result of the tracking system not being there.

Deputy Minister Mathale stated that the question was not whether they were functioning but how far SITA was with the system. The Committee needed to be provided with details. With regards to his earlier statement, there was a failure to conclude those negotiations. The FDA had resolved to serve SAPS with papers, the matter was being attended to at that level. There was an effort to settle the matter and they did come to the Committee to communicate that the matters were being negotiated. Administratively this could not be concluded as a consequence of the FDA, the service provider, serving SAPS with a summons.

Closing Remarks
The Chairperson stated that the Committee was relying on the Board, specifically the Chair Adv Nkosi-Thomas. There were too many matters that had slipped through the cracks. The Committee had been unsuccessful with the matters relating to the DNA Board for the past two years. The backlog was more than 172 000 cases.

They would be doing their oversight visits from the 16 to18 March 2021, they would be visiting the laboratories. The Committee invited the Board to join the oversight visits, if they were available. The Committee would discuss this matter again when they conducted the oversight visits

Minutes of meetings of 16 and 23 February were adopted.

The meeting was adjourned.