Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) 2012/13 Annual Report

Meeting report

Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) Performance Overview
Mr Moses Dlamini, IPID National Spokesperson, explained that IPID was a body which operated at both the national and provincial level and sought to ensure independent oversight over SAPS and the Municipal Police Service (MPS), conduct independent and impartial investigations of identified criminal offences allegedly committed by SAPS members and the MPS and make appropriate recommendations and promote proper police conduct in accordance with the principles of the Constitution. For 2012/13, it had identified five priority areas as part of its 2012-2017 strategic plan:
- Strengthen national and provincial management;
- Improve reporting and management accountability;
- Develop policy, reporting frameworks and standard operating procedures to regulate investigations;
- Report and monitor recommendations about members of the SAPS and Municipal Police Service and;
- Expand corporate governance, performance monitoring and evaluation and internal auditing.

Its key notable achievements were its:
- Audit Report: Unqualified audit opinion
- New legislation: Full implementation of the IPID Act with extended mandate and new systems in place
- Investigations: Successful investigation of high profile cases such as Cato Manor and Marikana. More so, 3 963 investigations were completed (which translates into 54% of total workload).
- Cases: The Directorate managed to have 538 cases on various court rolls around the country.
- Case backlog: Reduced case backlog (from over a 1000 at the beginning of the financial year to just 236 at the year-end).
- Arrests: IPID arrested 125 police officers in 68 cases for different offences all over the country (nine officers were arrested by the IPID for the death of the Mozambican Taxi Driver, Mido Maca).
- Criminal convictions: 57 convictions in criminal cases for various offences and 84 disciplinary convictions -all emanating from IPID investigations
- Recommendations: IPID managed to make 1040 disciplinary recommendations to SAPS and 1080 recommendations to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
- Training: Development of a training manual for investigators, training of investigators and development of standard operating procedures.
- Stakeholder Partnerships: Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with SAPS.

Ms Koekie Mbeki, Acting Executive Director: IPID, stated that last year it had conducted an analysis in order to gauge where it was headed and in turn had identified problems within its financial management and administration. As part of its investigation it also discovered that there was misalignment of the planning and budgeting process, which made implementation impossible. There was also misalignment of the budget to the needs of the organisation, where funds were available but were not being spent accordingly. There was an overall lack of analysis about the harmonisation of IPID’s strategic goals and outcomes. As a corrective measure, IPID applied for virements during the annual adjustment process, to reprioritise its funding.

Most of the challenges IPID faced in the previous year were addressed this year. A chain management strategy was developed to guide IPID forward in reaching its intended targets. It had also established new units to support and complement investigations to facilitate in bettering its quality of investigations. It had improved compliance with legal and policy frameworks. It had aligned its planning and budgeting process but still needed to align its organisational structure to its budget structure. It had sorted out its misallocation of funds as well as the misclassification of budget and spending items. It had managed to introduce successful cost-cutting measures and developed a training manual for investigators to ensure standardisation across provinces. It had developed investigation guidelines as a mechanism to ensure that investigators were able to respond to cases within an approved framework and in a timeous manner. It had undertaken a number of community outreach and radio campaigns to further promote and execute its strategic goals for 2012/13. As a result, it had received an unqualified audit from the Auditor-General.

As a result of delays in filling its senior management vacancies, delays in procuring satellite offices as well as its newly implemented cost-cutting measures there had been underspending of R26 449 000 of its allocated budget. In the main, it had received a total workload of 7 277 cases (6 728 new cases and 549 carried over from the ICD environment). It was able to complete 3 963 of the 7 277 cases, which it noted was an underachievement from its intended target. It had achieved its objective of implementing public awareness campaigns but was unable to meet its policy guideline objectives which ensured compliance with regulatory and legislative prescripts. It had managed to successfully implement a case management system for the registration, allocation, tracking, management and reporting of investigations. It had managed to generate recommendation reports which was part of its objectives and sought to provide recommendation reports to SAPS about possible disciplinary steps; and recommendation reports to the Prosecuting Authorities about possible criminal prosecution. It had targeted to reduce backlog cases to 656 but it had managed to reduce it to 236, exceeding its intended target.

Financial Performance Overview
Ms Lindokuhle Ngcongo, Chief Financial Officer, IPID, stated that it had received a main appropriation of R196 961 000 for the 2012/13 financial year (FY), an increase of 28% (R43 million) compared to the previous FY. Overall IPID spent R171 449 000 (86%) of its total R196 961 000 with an under expenditure of R26 449 000. There was underspending on budgeted office and IT equipment. Measures had been put in place for regular monitoring and updating of recruitment plans to fill vacancies, and regular engagement and follow up plans with the Department of Public Works.

Programme 1: Administration had a budget allocation of R86 526 000 but an actual expenditure R70 258 000. Programme 2: Investigation and Information Management had a budget allocation of R105 967 000 but an actual expenditure of R97 009 000 and Programme 3: Legal Services had an overall budget of R5 405 000 but an actual expenditure of R4 182 000. Spending by economic classification saw spending on Compensation of Employees had an overall appropriation of R104. 3 million but an actual expenditure of R95.993 million resulting in a under expenditure amount of R8. 293 million. Spending under Goods and Services saw an expenditure of 82% of its allocated budget and spending on Machinery and Equipment saw an expenditure of only 54.5% of its total allocated budget. In regards to unauthorised expenditure, IPID noted it had not incurred any unauthorised spending. Irregular expenditure totalled R676 000 and an amount of R2 000 was identified and reported as fruitless and wasteful expenditure in 2012/13.

Discussion
The Chairperson thanked IPID for what had been presented and suggested that Committee members ask questions before IPID went into an in-depth presentation about its programmes. She asked for clarification on the R676 000 irregular expenditure.

A Committee member asked for clarification on the contingent liabilities, who was K E and Sons and how were they connected with IPID. She wanted clarification on why IPID had an increase of R11 million in salaries and what percentage increase was actually given to staff.

Ms M Molebatsi (ANC) asked why IPID did not take the necessary measures to appoint a viable IT department.

Ms D Sibiya (ANC) asked why the Human Resource Management vacancies were not filled.

Mr M Mncwango (IFP) asked how IPID managed to obtain an unqualified audit because there were areas where IPID was substantially lacking and required significant improvement.

IPID stated that K E and Sons was under contingent liabilities because it had served IPID with papers in regards to a building IPID was previously occupying. Therefore IPID needed to ensure that it had the appropriate funds in place in case K E and Sons decided to take the matter further.

The Chairperson said while the issue of K E and Sons was not finalised it would continue to grow into a much larger problem where the state would become the responsible body for carrying its cost. She asked if IPID had sought legal advice in an attempt to finalise the matter.

IPID responded that it had consulted K E and Sons to negotiate and reach a settlement but it had yet to receive a response. On the question about salary increases, these increases were in line with the PSA directives. The HR Management position was not filled in this particular financial year because IPID did not do a complete job evaluation of the post. The movement of funds from Goods and Services to employment compensation took place because it was part of the annual adjustments to fully capacitate and fund 349 positions.

A committee member said this was not a plausible explanation because there were regulations that spoke to the reallocation of funds and IPID already had an underspent budget which could have been allocated to the compensation of employees.

IPID explained it had followed necessary protocol in line with National Treasury regulations to obtain the right to move funds from one area to another in order to fully fund and capacitate the 349 positions. On the unqualified audit opinion, as much as there was underperformance, IPID was able to provide a plan of action to the AG to address its problematic areas. There were no compliance issues because it made sure of aligning its objectives with the regulations. On the question of under expenditure, IPID underspent due to the budgeting of leases at a higher rate than what had occurred and the unfilled vacancies. Irregular expenditure of R676 000 occurred due to three incidents where IPID exceeded the financial delegation limit (2 cases) to the value of R274 and R398 thousand each and an incidenct of leave without approval (1 case) to the value of R4 000.

Mr D Stubbe (DA) said IPID needed a functional Financial Department to prevent erroneous budgetary targets and under spending.

Mr M George (COPE) asked why IPID was cost saving since money was allocated to be spent.

Ms Molebatsi wanted clarification on R2.4 million which was spent on computer equipment and the R857 000 on furniture during 2012/13.

Ms Kohler-Barnard (DA) asked why there was consistent misalignment, misallocation and misclassification of the budget. Did this speak to the lack of qualification of the staff? She asked if IPID had received any pressure as an independent body to whitewash the Marikina investigation.

The Chairperson said that question was out of order because Ms Barnard was making wild allegations and the Committee was currently focusing on financial matters. She found the spending on IT concerning. On average R300 000 was spent on case management systems which was very worrying. She asked if IPID could clarify its advertising costs and whether IPID members had all declared their business interests.

IPID stated that it had asked for virements while it was underspending in order to fund the positions that were approved but were not funded. On the issue of budget control and financial discipline, after the budgeting and financial planning was done, a disjuncture in the numbers had been noted and flagged. The issue of cost cutting measures emphasised that one needed to spend in alignment with IPID’s core mandate. As much as one needed to spend its budget, money needed to be spent properly and on core activities. The amount spent on computer equipment and furniture were replacement assets as well as new assets. Those assets replaced were donated to schools to ensure that the scrapping occurred in compliance within the regulatory framework. Advertising included promotional items which amounted to R192 000 and marketing which amounted R991 000.

Ms Mbeki said that IPID members did submit their financial statements but she was unsure as to whether business disclosures were made.

The Chairperson asked about the legal cost increases and why certain vacant positions were still not filled. How many people received bonuses, at what salary level? She asked for the criteria for bonuses as well.

Ms Mbeki replied about the legal cost increase, saying this was increased at the beginning of the financial year when the regulations to support the IPID Act were developed. With regards to the basic salaries, IPID said it did not have all the necessary details to inform the Committee of such information.

The Chairperson said this was information the Committee was expecting to see in IPID’s report, and this spoke to the lack of viable management within IPID. She asked where the Committee could reflect on IPID’s consultants.

An IPID official stated that there was a list of the various consultants and contractors and a written report providing these details could be provided to the Committee.

The Chairperson said the Committee wanted to be kept informed about the bonuses given to senior management and urged IPID to seek finalisation on its contingent liability issue.

Afternoon session

IPID Programme 1: Administration
IPID provided a summary of the performance of this (see document).

Discussion
The Chairperson said that the review of policies was one of the annual targets that had come under scrutiny and was reported to have been at 31% and the lack of policies on Information Technology was of special concern to the Auditor General (AG). She asked IPID for their comments on this. She asked for a synopsis of community outreach programmes conducted by the IPID.

Mr V Ndlovu (IFP) asked for further clarity on reasons the review of policies had not been met.

Ms M Molebatsi (ANC) asked why there were 45 vacant posts. What was the status of IPID’s pension policy, which was one of the policies that were to be reviewed.

Mr Moses Dlamini, IPID National Spokesperson, replied that at the beginning of the financial year, each province was given a target of conducting 34 community outreach programmes. Programmes were then held in community halls and focus was directed to rural areas. These programmes served to educate communities about the work of the IPID and how community members could get involved. IPID was working on improving the success rate of programmes being undertaken.

The Chairperson then interjected and asked IPID to explain how it measured the rate of public engagement and the impact of community outreach programmes

Mr Dlamini replied that a method of measuring the impact of community outreach programmes or the public engagement thereof had not yet been put in place. However IPID members did collect complaints or compliments from communities after programmes had taken place.

The Chairperson asked how many complaints had been generated during the financial year under review.

An IPID official replied that it did not have a report on hand of the number of complaints that had been generated, but that it would forward a written response to the Committee.

Mr Dlamini replied with regards to the review of policies, saying that a policy review committee had been put in place and many of the policies had been reviewed, but when these were sent to the Council for approval, they had been referred back to the review committee as the Council had been unsatisfied with the work done on them and was therefore still left incomplete. He mentioned some of the policies that had been reviewed in draft form, which included the Special Needs Policy, Dress Code Policy, HIV/AIDS Policy, Employee Wellness Policy, Overtime Policy, Performance Management Policy, Working Hours Policy and Bereavement Policy, to name but a few.

An IPID official replied about the vacant posts, saying that of the 349 posts at IPID, as of 15 October 2013, the 2% of posts reserved for disabled persons had been filled and they were now left with 33 vacant posts. These 33 vacant posts had been designated as high priority and IPID was seeking to fill those posts.

The Chairperson asked IPID to comment on its Retention Policy.

Mr Dlamini stated that the Retention Policy had been one of the policies that was sent to the Acting Executive Director for review but that she had referred it back to the Review Committee and it was therefore not yet finalised.

Ms Koekie Mbeki, Acting Executive Director, responded that she had referred the draft policy back to the Policy Review Committee as new implementable strategies had not been developed by the Policy Committee. The reason vacant posts at IPID were usually around 40-45 was due to the lack of retention strategies put in place by IPID and that employees often left for better salary prospects in other government departments which offered higher salary levels. In addition, the Policy Review Committee had been reconstituted for the financial year 2013/2014 due to the fact that the Committee for the financial year 2012/2013 had underperformed and failed to introduce implementable strategies.

The Chairperson asked how many policies IPID had under its jurisdiction.

Mr Dlamini responded saying that IPID had 45 policies.

The Chairperson asked how many of these policies were actually being implemented.

Mr Dlamini responded that 15 of these policies were being implemented.

The Chairperson in which IPID programme the highest vacancy rate existed.

Mr Dlamini stated that the highest vacancy rate was at the National Office in Programme 1. The National Office was where the highest staff turnover occurred with employees moving to other departments.

The Chairperson asked if this meant that vacancies among investigators was no longer a problem.

Mr Dlamini confirmed this saying that a large turnover was not experienced among investigators and that the largest turnover was only experienced at the National Office.

The Chairperson asked if any vacant posts existed outside of the National Office at the time.

Mr Dlamini read from a report that in Gauteng one vacant post existed for the Principal Investigator which became vacant on 3 June, but that short-listing for the filling of the post had already taken place and that interviews had been scheduled for 18 October. In the Western Cape, no positions were vacant except that of the Provincial Head. In the Eastern Cape one vacancy for the Deputy Director of Investigations had opened on 1 March and that interviews had already been finalised and the appointment was pending. In Kwa-Zulu Natal, other than that of the Provincial Head, two positions were vacant – that of a receptionist which became vacant on 1 September but delays were experienced in filling that position, and the position of Principal Investigator which became vacant on 1 October which had yet to be advertised. In Limpopo no vacancies existed. In the North West, the position of Principal Investigator became vacant on 1 October and it had since been advertised and a selection process was underway. In the Northern Cape, a position for Deputy Investigative Director became vacant on 1 September, it had already been advertised and the advertising process was to run until 18 October. In the Free State there were no vacancies. In Mpumalanga, a post for Deputy Director of Investigations was vacant. The post had been advertised and a selection process was underway. At the National Office, a position for Principal Metro Controller became vacant on 1 October and advertising for this position was underway. Another position for an Investigative Officer became vacant on 1 June and was being advertised. A position for an Accounting Officer became vacant on 1 June, it had been advertised and the shortlisting process was underway. A position for an Assistant Director became vacant on 1 September and the selection process was underway. A position for an internal auditor became vacant on the 1 October and the appointment was pending. A position for an Admin Clerk became vacant on 1 August which was advertised and the selection process was underway. A position for Assistant Director of Internal Audits became vacant on the 1 September, was advertised and the advertising process closed on 12 October, the selection process was underway. A position for an Admin Clerk became vacant on 1 October and still needed to be advertised. A position for Director of Internal Support became vacant on 1 January, was advertised but the process had not yet been completed and was still underway.

The Chairperson stopped the IPID official at this point and thanked him for the report on vacancies. She asked the Committee whether it had any questions.

Mr M George (COPE) asked how was it possible that positions at the same level as other government departments got paid less under IPID.

The Chairperson asked if policing powers were still a problem and whether IPID had this under control.

Ms Mbeki explained that positions in IPID were last evaluated in the previous financial year, along with other departments, by the Department of Public Services and Administration. It was advised that positions were to be upgraded from Level 2 to Level 4 but when the time came for these positions to be upgraded, it was not done because there was no budget to do so. IPID was seeking to complete the process of upgrading positions before the end of this financial year. About policing powers, she said this was no longer a problem and that IPID had this under control. She added that the reason appointments took so much time was because IPID entrusted the State Security Agency to perform thorough screenings of candidates that applied for positions within IPID so that details, such as judgements against candidates, were not overlooked.

The Chairperson referred to corporate governance, asking what Corporate Governance Directorate was going to do.

Ms Mbeki replied that the task of Corporate Governance was monitoring and evaluation of the entire performance of IPID, ensuring that processes and investigations were at an acceptable quality. However the Corporate Governance portfolio was not yet fully capacitated.

The Chairperson summarised the Committee’s evaluation of Programme 1 as follows: The Committee expected to see an improvement of the effectiveness of community outreach events, the finalisation of the policy review framework including the outstanding policies, be given a full report on the vacancy list that was read out by Mr Dlamini, be provided with details of the evaluation reports on the Corporate Governance Directorate and be provided with a full revised report on meetings held between stakeholders and IPID.

Programme 2: Investigation and Information Management
Mr Moses Dlamini presented, referring occasionally, for the benefit of those present, to the Annual Report (see documents).

Discussion
Ms Molebatsi asked IPID if it had in place a system to follow up on the recommendations that had not been addressed by the DPP.

Mr George asked IPID how it ensured that police did not cover up crimes that were committed by one another, such as rape.

The Chairperson reminded the Committee that the IPID Act required IPID to investigate all cases of rape committed by police officers, whether on or off duty. The Committee had enacted this provision due to the fact that a police officer who committed rape off duty could easily be protected by officers at the police station where the rape was reported.

Ms D Kohler-Barnard (DA) asked how many recommendations were made to the National Prosecuting Authority as there was an inconsistency in the Annual Report with the figures: On one page it showed 1 088 but on another it showed 545. She asked for clarity on this.

The Chairperson noted that the presentation had explained that 1 088 recommendations had been referred to the DPP but only 545 were followed-up. She was not happy with this figure. One would have expected the two figures to have been closer to one another and the Committee intended to have this investigated. She told IPID that, based on the Annual Report, the major generators of misconduct among police occurred in Gauteng, Free State and Kwa-Zulu Natal. However the biggest contributor to criminal activity among SAPS members occurred in Gauteng. She asked IPID why this was the case and what it was doing to curb this. The rape of civilians at police stations pointed to the non-execution of duties by police officers. She wanted to know what IPID was doing to prevent this from happening.

Mr Dlamini replied that in the case of rape committed by police officers, a police station was obliged to report this as incident to IPID and investigation into the matter were undertaken immediately. In addition, with regards to deaths caused by the police, which were also reported to IPID, the context was first taken into consideration. For example whether the death occurred as a result of an action undertaken while the officer was doing his/her duty and if the death occurred in self-defence or in pursuit of a perpetrator or whether it occurred off duty or was premeditated or a crime of passion.

Ms Mbeki replied that IPID was working on a system to follow up on recommendations that had not been finalised by the DPP. However this was a process that would take a long time as administration clerks would need to be trained as investigators.

Mr Dlamini continued responding to the question about what was being done about cases of rape at police stations, saying that recommendations were made to SAPS about individuals found guilty of negligence in the workplace that may have led to the rape.

Ms Mbeki added that she felt the high police crime rates in Gauteng was due to two factors. Firstly, a lack of strong leadership existed in Gauteng, as was observed when IPID conducted wellness programmes at Gauteng police stations. To curb this, some management positions were shuffled to move managers with good track records to Gauteng offices. Secondly, police crime seemed to be undertaken by much more ‘sophisticated’ criminals as evidence was generally obscure and investigations took longer.

The Chairperson asked IPID what the problem with the provinces was and what it thought was the main issue preventing IPID from performing effectively.

Ms Mbeki replied that the provinces with the biggest problems were Gauteng, Western Cape, Kwa-Zulu Natal and the Eastern Cape. However, in all provinces, the main problem was the lack of human capacity and a skills shortage.

The Chairperson asked why IPID had realised at a late stage that it had not budgeted properly for the implementation of the IPID Bill in the previous financial year when the Department of Police had already decided on the budget for the Bill at the beginning of that financial year.

Mr Dlamini replied that the reason the budget was insufficient was because the budget amount that IPID applied to National Treasury for, was not granted.

The Chairperson said that this was inconsistent with what IPID initially claimed regarding a lack of budget. There was a difference between the failure to budget effectively and the refusal of National Treasury to grant a requested budget amount.

Mr Dlamini defended his statement saying that the reason a request was made to the National Treasury was that IPID had overspent on Goods and Services and therefore needed to compensate for this with a financial request, which was subsequently not granted.

The Chairperson said that she did not blame National Treasury for rejecting the financial request as IPID had a habit of under-spending on its budget.

Mr Dlamini again pointed to the lack of human capacity in running IPID as the root cause of the underperformance of the organisation.

Ms Mbeki further defended IPID saying that the organisation had managed to operate efficiently despite unforeseen events that took place during the previous financial year that placed a considerable workload on IPID. She gave the example of the Marikana incident that required the organisation to put many investigations on hold in order to utilise its best investigators to undertake the Marikana case. Furthermore these investigations had to be completed on return to their respective provinces.

The Chairperson asked IPID whether it did follow-ups on recommendations made to SAPS and whether there was any kind of system requiring SAPS to report back to IPID on recommendations and whether SAPS had implemented those.

Mr Dlamini responded to one of the questions, saying that the recommendations to SAPS did not include disciplinary procedures but only recommendations as what may be done to a perpetrator found guilty of misconduct as well as the evidence brought against the individual.

The Chairperson was taken aback by this and asked whether IPID did not also stipulate what disciplinary measures were to be taken against the guilty party.

Ms Mbeki defended the stance of IPID and Mr Dlamini saying that IPID went only so far as performing the investigations, presenting the evidence, testifying against the perpetrator and recommending disciplinary measures to be taken against the perpetrator. However, the accused was still to be given a fair trial, allowed to defend her/his case and the final judgement was to be made by the presiding officer.

Mr D Stubbe (DA) was concerned that certain cases mentioned in the Annual Report were ongoing cases and had therefore not received a final judgement. One case he referred to was that of an officer charged with rape who was given a final written warning. In another case, an officer was charged with homicide and was also only given a final written warning.

The Chairperson explained that this was the case with on-going investigations as a final disciplinary hearing had not yet got underway. There was a difference between what occurred during an ongoing investigation and after the disciplinary hearing.

Mr Stubbe said that he understood this but was concerned about the possibility that because the final verdict was not published in the Annual Report of the financial year under review, it had only been mentioned as an on-going investigation. It may become difficult to track the case into the next Annual Report where it may not appear.

The Chairperson acknowledged this and said that it may be a good idea for IPID to subject the lists of their cases to a labelling system, making them easier for reference.

Mr George asked IPID about systemic corruption, saying that although he believed that systemic corruption was more of a problem in SAPS, he wanted to know what IPID was doing about it.

The Chairperson commented on this saying that a new disciplinary procedure regarding systemic corruption was underway but that recommendations regarding this would be detailed in Committee’s legacy report that was to be forwarded to the new Parliament in 2014.

Mr Dlamini stated that IPID had completed two cases of systemic corruption in the Free State. Furthermore it made special reference as to how disciplinary procedures on systemic corruption were be dealt with by IPID going forward.

The Chairperson asked Mr Dlamini what was meant by ‘completed.’

Mr Dlamini said that IPID did not have the capacity to handle the cases of systemic corruption on its own and therefore these cases were handed over to SAPS to deal with and IPID was still awaiting the outcome of those investigations.

The Chairperson told Mr Dlamini that the IPID and its Annual Report was therefore misleading as it was completely untrue that the cases of systemic corruption were completed. She instructed IPID to report to the Committee during the following week, in writing, as to the status of the investigations. She asked why there was a discrepancy between the figure of 15% for IPID recommendations that SAPS had dealt with and the 73% of recommendations dealt with. She wanted to know why these figures differed in two different pages in the Annual Report.

Mr Dlamini explained that the initial figure was 15%, which totalled the number of responses received from recommendations sent to the different provinces. However, after intervention of the Minister of Police, more responses were received which totalled 73%.

The Chairperson asked IPID what is was doing about non-compliance with the Act by SAPS.

Ms Mbeki said that cases of misconduct by police were forwarded to the acting Public Prosecutor at the time but this was not looked at due to administrative changes in the prosecuting environment.

The Chairperson said that if this was the case, the situation should have been reported to Parliament and further steps would have been taken to ensure the attention of the Public Prosecutor.

Mr George commented that a lot of time was being wasted ensuring that the Act was implemented properly and that IPID was not doing a very good job of this.

The Chairperson added that another reason for SAPS’s lack of willingness to work with IPID could be the quality of the reports being written and that perhaps they were not being written accurately. She summarised the Committee recommendations for Programme 2 as follows: A summary report of all recommendations generated were to be forwarded to the Committee, a new system for the compiling of the Annual Report was to be followed by IPID which consisted of data from the previous financial year in comparison to the financial year under review, a report of disciplinary outcomes was to be submitted to the Committee once they have been finalised, a report on Systemic Corruption is to be submitted to the Committee once that was finalised, there needed to be the filling of vacancies and the Committee requested that no under-spending for investigations was to happen.

Programme 3: Legal Services
Ms Mbeki presented (see document).

Discussion
[Questions by Mr Ndlovu and Mr George were inaudible].

The Chairperson asked IPID if it felt that Legal Services is justified as a programme on its own and why it is not a part of Programme 1. She asked whether Legal Services ever contested disciplinary outcomes that were passed.

Ms Mbeki replied that the main task of Legal Services is to determine data and therefore support investigations. The capacity of legal services was only eight individuals and this made it very difficult for it to effectively perform its task, bringing down the quality of investigations. On service level agreements, because of all the policies that were set up by the bid committee of IPID, it was under the impression that it had the power to make all the decisions within the organisation. However this was contrary to the Public Finance Management Act that gave authority to the accounting officer to approve appointments. She suggested that these processes be revised and done properly. She did believe that Legal Services was justified as a programme on its own as it was currently expanding. She said that Legal Services had not contested any disciplinary decision passed.

The Chairperson was not happy that Legal Services was classified as a programme with only eight people. She asked IPID to answer the question about the increase in salary expenditure that was asked earlier in the meeting but which IPID did not have an answer for at the time.

Ms Lindokuhle Ngcongo, Chief Financial Officer of IPID, explained that the increase in expenditure from R8 million to R15 million in salaries was due the upgrade of a large number of posts to higher levels within IPID, mainly due to an upgrade in skills of employees.

The Chairperson requested that a breakdown of the posts be submitted to the Committee. She addressed Mr Dlamini, requesting him to briefly inform the Committee of the amount that IPID was seeking to procure from National Treasury and the purposes thereof.

Ms Ngcongo replied that new investigator posts were created as well as other posts. The establishment of new satellite IPID Offices and the increase in capacity of Legal Services were the main areas that required an increase in budget as follows: 2014/15 – R34.9m, 2015/16 – R57.7m, 2016/17 – R87.3m.

The Chairperson summarised the Committee recommendations about the Legal Services programme as follows: A report on the role of the Legal Services programme was to be submitted to the Committee as well as a report on the change management process thereof. It recommended that IPID attend some of the SAPS disciplinary cases to gauge whether its presence made a difference. A breakdown of the cost positions regarding the upgrading of salary levels was to be submitted to the Committee.

In closing, Ms Mbeki took the opportunity to thank the Committee for all its support in advising IPID.

The Chairperson asked whether IPID was receiving any pressure, threats or influence from any outside bodies that affected the investigations of IPID.

Ms Mbeki responded in the negative, saying that outside bodies actually encouraged the investigations of IPID as this assisted them as well.

Mr George commented on this saying that if these influences were politically motivated, it would need to be dealt with by the Committee.

The Chairperson closed by assuring IPID that the reason the Committee placed so much pressure on it was due to the important service it rendered to the public in playing an oversight role to SAPS. The pressure placed on IPID was done so with the intention of supporting it. She further thanked the Committee Members, staff and delegates in attendance.

The meeting was adjourned.