Induction Workshop: Policing landscape, Legacy Report & Committee functioning

Meeting report

Opening Remarks
The Chairperson welcomed the Committee members back from the parliamentary recess and constituency period. She voiced concern about the recent clashes between police officers and foreign nationals that had occurred in Johannesburg during the recess period. The Committee had responded accordingly, with members being provided with press statements, as well as interacting with the Minister of Police, Mr Bheki Cele and the South African Police Service (SAPS).

In the previous term, the Committee had considered and passed budget votes. Those meetings had had provided Members with more clarity on what was occurring in policing-related matters and departmental operations within the country. Members had asked questions in response to the budget presentations based on their general experience.

Since the constituency period, she was left wondering whether there was intelligence in the country, as the protests had been largely undetected, and this provided direction to the interrogations that could be made by Members.

There were a lot of outstanding matters on the agenda. This was problematic and was catching up on the Committee. There had not been time to go through the legacy report of the 5th Parliament in the last term. She proposed that the Committee should go through it as it would show what the previous Parliament had accomplished and what had been left outstanding. The Committee needed to exercise oversight and be honest and needed a clear picture to understand the weaknesses and changes irrespective of party lines.

A list of priorities with timeframes needed to be outlined by the Committee.

There was a joint oversight visit occurring on 28 August 2019 in Phillipi, Nyanga and Delft – where the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) was deployed.

There were joint meetings with the Departments of Basic Education, Finance and Tourism, as per the request of the Committee during the budget hearings.

Key areas of legislation would be dealt with in the induction workshop.

The Chairperson asked that Members look at the oversight visits that were planned. These would take place in the Western Cape and Gauteng.

Portfolio Committee on Police 6th Parliament: SAPS Key Issues
Dr Irvin Kinnes, Committee Content Advisor, explained that the Committee dealt with one of the more complex portfolios relating to: SAPS, the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID), the Civilian Secretariat for Police (CSP), as well as the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (PSIRA). All the departments reported to Minister Cele. In terms of Metro police, there were oversight functions as well as regular meetings with Metro Police forums. The Committee had an oversight role over the executive as well as the departments and was able to engage with any relevant stakeholder in order to fulfil this oversight function and monitor financial and non-financial performance of the departments.

SAPS Overview 

The staff complement for 2019/20 was 193 000. There were debates in public and academic circles regarding the causal relationship, or lack thereof, between staff complement and positive policing outcomes. Minister Cele had, however, requested for an increase in the numbers. The budget was one of the largest in the Justice, Crime Prevention and Security (JCPS).

SAPS Issues

SAPS issues related to: leadership, legislation, the Auditor General of South Africa (AGSA), procurement, the Department for Priority Crime Investigations (DPCI), specialised units, financial management and crime.

Issues relating to leadership involved the processes surrounding the election of a new police Commissioner. Current legislation allowed the Commissioner to promote his/her own preferred candidates according to Regulation 45 of (1995). SAPS currently had a high number of generals, with over 45 lieutenant generals. This had been raised in the previous Parliament, whereby a proper advertising process had to be followed.

The Chairperson said that this was a priority to address as it was pre-constitutional legislation.

Dr Kinnes highlighted that there were a number of outstanding bills. Priority ought to be the SAPS Amendment Act. There were issues relating to deadlock in the National Council of Provinces (NCOP). Another matter was the Constitutional Court judgement on the DPCI, as well as the IPID Constitutional Court judgements. The CSP had employed somebody to examine the SAPS Act and was ready to bring this to Parliament.

There was a need for SAPS and the AGSA to have a closer working relationship from a standpoint of reports that were generated. The AGSA had been requested to brief the Committee on the financial health of each department in the cluster. 

The AGSA had also flagged issues regarding procurement in SAPS. A matter that had emerged from a Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA) meeting was that of Forensic Data Analysis (FDA). This related to the rape kits and forensics, where a R5 billion tender had locked SAPS into a procurement agreement. SAPS had lost an appeal to terminate the contract early.

The DPCI issues related to the previous Committee having proposed that the DPCI be a separate programme within SAPS. National Treasury had not approved this on the grounds that the DPCI’s budget should be ring fenced and specifically procured. The Committee would have to decide a position on this. The DPCI had also been asked to report separately on this matter.

Issues relating to specialised units and the creation thereof were informed by the Presidential directive urging the formation of more specialised units. Crimes affecting women and children had resulted in the creation and the provincial roll out of the Family Violence, Child Protection, and Sexual Offenses (FCS) units. The Hawks had established alcohol and drug units and reports on establishment progress had been provided to the Committee. The last nationally formed unit was the Anti-Gang Unit. There had been a big fight in the previous Committee when the unit was started because it had been called the Anti-Gang “task team” in its formation document provided by SAPS, while the President had referred to it as an Anti-Gang “unit”.

The Chairperson interjected and said that the Committee needed to return and address the matter of the two units sending out conflicting signals in the Western Cape.

Dr Kinnes said that the previous Police Commissioner, Jackie Selebi, had started the Major Offenses Reaction Team (MORT) after the Gang Unit was formed. MORT had drawn detectives from police stations and lined the unit with over 400 people to manage major offenses. This had actually caused major divisions amongst detectives, with members often receiving instructions without consent of superiors in the greater police force. This unit had not yet been disbanded.

Issues relating to Financial Management included SAPS’ large budget and extensive department size. Fiscus spending steps and patterns within departments (SAPS, IPID, CSPS, Hawks and PSIRA) needed to be monitored for irregularities.

The low levels of public trust in the police was a foremost concern for SAPS. Crimes would not be reported due to this lack of trust, and severely undermined the policing process. Rebuilding trust could be a flagship Committee programme. Corruption had muddied the waters with the communities. This could be seen by people using cell phones to record their charges at police stations in order to ensure reliable records.

The Chairperson asked if recording on cell phones at charge offices was even legal.

Dr Kinnes was unsure of the legalities of this, but it was something that needed to be looked at. A concomitant issue was the level of violence being perpetrated in peripheral areas and communities. This was particularly evident in that community police forums were not being used effectively and SAPS was not dealing with them. This was despite white paper accommodations being made for this. SAPS did not seem to possess strong community liaison relations at national level, which it had in the past.

This related to another SAPS issue – intelligence. This was incredibly important as communities were a large source of intelligence.

The Chairperson recalled that during Department’s presentations and Minister Cele’s budget speech, there had been a strong emphasis on community police forums. However, there had been a complete breakdown in this junction in practice.

Ms Z Majozi (IFP) said that this breakdown related to the trust deficit issue.

Ms J Mofokeng (ANC) said that the regulations and guidelines responsible for community police forums’ (CPFs) engagement needed to be consulted.

Mr E Maphatsoe (ANC) said that the issue of crime needed to be paid serious attention to. CPFs were operating in a violent society. Violent crimes in communities would not be dealt with without coordination with CPFs. The real causes of crime needed to be addressed, particularly as communities were afraid to report. As long as crime intelligence services was not hands on, it was better to collaborate with CPFs to enhance crime intelligence to make their work easier. In dealing with organised criminals, the SANDF was not there to do police work. This related to Marikana, where the task team had been brought in before the crowd control units were ready. In the recent events in Johannesburg where the police were chased away, the reason given was that they had not wanted to cause another massacre. This meant there had been no preparation. Intelligence had not been done.

Mr H Shembeni (EFF) said that police informants were seemingly not active. As far as he knew, each police officer was supposed to have two informants. How were informants being used, as the police clearly did not have intelligence? Informants were not supposed to be going around with crime prevention and being visible. Utilising of police informants and the nature of their payments needed to be examined. How could the police expect information when informants could be paid so much more for collaborating with criminals?

Ms Mofokeng said that the matter needed to be parked and revisited as the Committee was drifting from the draft programme. The Committee needed to be in contact with Intelligence to properly deal with these issues. SAPS and the SANDF had already presented to the Committee. Joint committees could zoom into these issues, packaging Intelligence, SAPS and CPFs.

The Chairperson indicated that was giving space for Members to engage as the workshop was not just about presentations. It was for Members and support staff to take note of questions that were raised. For example, Ms Mofokeng had asked for a joint committee meeting, and she would endeavour to arrange this.

Mr O Terblanche (DA) was not in agreement with what had been said. In his view, police structures were not working at the moment. Execution was a serious problem. The police did not know how to police and were not doing the basics of policing.

Dr Kinnes said that the Committee should be prepared for future legislation on SAPS. The CSPS would bring all of its proposed legislation at the same time and it would be a stressful period. These included draft bills on: Criminal Law (forensics procedures), Firearms Control Amendment Bill, Controlled Animals and Animal Produce Bill, Protection of Constitutional Democracy Against Terrorism and Related Matters Bill, SAPS Amendment Bill, Second Hand Goods Amendment Bill, IPID Amendment Bill, and the CSP Bill.

The Chairperson said there would be a report on SAPS from the CSP and the Committee would demand follow ups. The SAPS Amendment Bill had not even been in the list of priorities. The Committee did not want presentations that had previously been conducted during the budget hearings, it demanded actions and responses to Committee Members’ inputs. The IPID follow-up presentation was a ‘cut and paste job’ that showed the Committee was not being taken seriously.

Dr Kinnes said that the IPID Amendment Bill had been processed by the previous Committee but had gotten stuck in the NCOP because there had been a Constitutional Court deadline. On the Draft CSPS Bill, one of the big issues needing to be addressed in this Bill is that the provinces were not functioning nor aligned with the department.

Ms Mofokeng asked for a briefing on the Draft Second Hand Goods Bill, which had failed in its implementation. There was nothing happening from Parliament, to provinces, to local level.

Dr Kinnes replied that he was not sure of the exact nature of the amendments, and whether it would be a full review or not. It looked like it would be an amendment.

CSPS Issues

The CSPS budget and staff complement issues related to the filling of vacancies. This was relevant for IPID as well.

Another issue was of legislation bottlenecks.

Addressing the AGSA recommendations was an issue that cut across all departments in the police service.

A third matter was the management of budgets. The CSPS had been sending money back to the fiscus.

The staff establishment of the CSPS had grown, and its current shared accommodation was too small to continue much longer.

The big issue for the Committee was CPF policy and implementation, stipends, and Community Safety Forums (CSFs).

The CSPS had also spoken about a new organisational structure. This needed to be provided to the Committee for review.

IPID Issues

The IPID budget and staff complement issues had seen the compensation of employees being reduced. Compensation of employees had been cut in all departments by Treasury.

The Chairperson asked how the police was cutting 1000 members when it had made a commitment to increase members.

Dr Kinnes explained that when the budget was drawn up, cutting employees had been listed as a way to meet compensation of employees’ targets. The 1000 members were normally lost through natural attrition, such as retirement, which created vacancies for adding staff. Minister Cele was not satisfied and was writing to Treasury to bring police force membership in line with UN ratios and stipulations for staff compliments.

The Chairperson said that these inconsistencies reflected that there was little synergy in what was being done.

Dr Kinnes said that the AGSA recommendations and their implementation were once again an issue.

There was also the question of leadership appointments, particularly of a permanent executive director of IPID.

Prioritisation of cases in light of the growing caseload in IPID needed to be done.

IPID’s ICT infrastructure needed to be addressed.

The IPID City Forum Building lease was expiring, and IPID needed to find new accommodation. However, there was a dispute with the owner of the building over whether IPID was committed to additional years in the building according to the lease agreement.

IPID had case backlogs.

A big issue was of SAPS taking reports made by IPID seriously. SAPS would often reinvestigate the cases referred to in reports made by IPID, meaning that IPID recommendations made in the reports would not be made. This was another factor in the growing disconnect between IPID and SAPS.

Mr Maphatsoe said that it should be remembered, when discussing IPID, that there had not been stability at senior levels of the police service. If IPID did not work, why was it operating? Stability within IPID and the police was needed. moreover, IPID should not need to fear when conducting its work. The police had closed ranks against IPID’s findings against its senior figures. Progress to address corruption in police services would not be made without IPID, or while it was being impeded. Previous deputy police commissioners had been investigated using private investigators rather than IPID. The appointment of the Western Cape provincial commissioner had seen factions within the police emerging, making such appointments meaningless.

The Chairperson clarified that it was a Committee workshop, not a Portfolio Committee meeting. The workshop was supposed to allow for the raising of concerns and acting outside of normal committee meetings, brainstorming and for raising concerns. This would determine the Committee’s approach in portfolio committee meetings. The Committee was currently being given what it wanted to hear in regular presentations, and the workshop was to prevent this from continuing to occur by helping to formulate lines of questioning for the meetings. There had to be a shift in the quality of presentations that the Committee was given by departments.

Mr Shembeni asked about enlistment in IPID; its employees seemed to be recruited from the police. This amounted to recycling of members. How would these people function to be productive? This suggested conflicting interests.

Dr Kinnes said this should not be seen as a duplication. IPID was supposed to be independent. It was meant to exercise oversight over the police, particularly when it came to police criminality. There needed to be investigative skills within IPID in order to adequately investigate the police, hence most of IPID’s members came from the police.

The CSPS Act did not allow former members of police to be Secretaries of it. However, there was no such provision in the IPID Act. IPID’s function was completely different.

The oversight function had already been weakened, however. This could be seen in the weekend newspapers, where advertisements for the position of Executive Director of IPID had been made using the SAPS logo. This symbolically weakened the important boundaries that were meant to exist between SAPS and IPID. The police could not be overseeing their own investigations, it had to be independent.

Mr Terblanche commented that maybe IPID did not have the capacity. Did IPID have the ability in terms of its structure to do the advertisement? This was a problem; it had not been properly capacitated.

The Chairperson asked how this was possible that an entity was unable to produce its own advert. This was the second advert that had been done in this manner.

Dr Kinnes said that the Police Minister and Ministry needed to determine its own process before bringing a candidate forward and nominating a candidate to the Committee.

The Chairperson pointed out that there was already a legal process challenging the appointment process. The legal time would challenge using this advertisement as an example. The previous IPID incumbent (Robert McBride) was awake and such things could be used in court. This win would be a set back again. The Committee should prevent this by alerting the Minister. She would write a letter indicating that she had been mandated to follow up on the appointment of IPID head. This was in line with oversight of a process that would come to the Committee without being properly undertaken unless oversight was properly undertaken. She was tired of complaints. Complaints would simply lead back to the Committee, it needed proactivity to prevent this.

PSIRA Issues

Dr Kinnes said that the PSIRA budget and staff complement were increasing over the short term.

Key issues in PSIRA were once again the findings of the AGSA, as well as the governance and governance structure of the organisation. Revenue and debt collection was a big issue where PSIRA could be taken to court by big operators in the way that it collected revenues and debt. Industry training and standards was another issue, particularly relating to public order policing on university campuses during peaceful protests. This extended from the training of security guards to the firearms it was permitted to use. There was also the outstanding matter of the PSIRA Bill. It had been finalised by the fourth Parliamentary Committee, had gone to the Presidency for assent, but remained stuck because one of the big fights in the Bill related to ownership of the industry. Clause 28 of the provision advocated that 51% of the private security industry be in South African hands. Most large private security companies were foreign-owned/registered.

The Chairperson said she did not want to simply get statements. The President had a parliamentary officer, did the Committee engage with the officer or how would an issue such as this be prioritised and sorted out?

Ms Nicolette van Zyl-Gous, Committee Researcher, said that PSIRA had indicated that it was in discussions with Cabinet to introduce the Bill as it currently stood or return it to the public for comments. It was unlikely to be signed in its current form. DIRCO had also raised concerns about the impact it could have on international relations. The Secretariat and Presidency should be engaged on the matter.

The Chairperson said that she did not want complaints out of the meeting. She wanted to be told what was to be done. If the PISRA Bill was with the President, did the Chairperson have the right to write to the Presidency to follow up?

Ms Mofokeng suggested that the letter include relevant departments in the matter. The fact that this had extended from the 4th Parliamentary session to the 6th was a concern. There were problems in the industry, and they were growing. Some of these had been raised in the budget hearings, the PSIRA board composition was another urgent matter.

The Chairperson asked where the representative from the Minister’s Office was? This person was supposed to pick up these things. The representative was supposed to be aware.

Mr Maphatsoe said that the PSIRA matter raised by the Chairperson was correct. The Committee did not want presentations as they were insufficient. The PSIRA Bill had been processed by Parliament, gone to the President and back to cabinet. This was already the third term of the presidency. The Committee knew the reasons why it had been hard to pass the Bill (which included the use of large legal companies), as well as international relations concerns. South Africa was the only country that could be told that security companies from other countries could be used in protection of national key points. The Bill had been fought very strongly. However, security came above all other concerns, particularly relating to vetting. Investment in South African security companies should be prioritised. Under apartheid sanctions, the National Party government and police had been able to sustain themselves by building up internal capacity. The Presidency of any country should not be afraid to sign any Bill that satisfied legal requirements.

The Chairperson said that the legal delay suited certain people. It allowed them to continue business with impunity. This delay had been over a decade.

Dr Kinnes said that there were vested interests in the security industry: foreigners threatened disinvestment and job losses without favourable legislation. It would then be argued that it was unconstitutional to deprive people of their incomes that would occur with the disinvestment. Foreign embassies had been in contact with the previous Committee Chairperson to pressurise on the matter.

The Chairperson asked the staff to not give the Committee stories. The Committee just needed to be told whether it was going to do the Bill or not. Did the Committee have to do the Bill? Did the President want them to do the Bill? The problem was that it would otherwise be listed as another Committee outcome that was not met and the conversation would be repeated. Would it happen or not? So that in the Parliament it would be known, and a decision could be made whether or not to bite the bullet. There needed to be a mandate from the Ministerial side whether it would happen or not.

Ms Mofokeng said that it could then be flagged as an important issue. The challenges around it related to loopholes concerning public participation. A group in Gauteng had taken the legislature to court regarding public participation. This lesson needed to be heeded, public participation was the power of the Committee. Once the public was behind the Committee, no one could do anything – citizens first.

The Chairperson said that the Committee could not start with public participation if the Minister and Presidency were not interested. She did not want to be told it was sitting with the Presidency, she wanted to be told how to resolve it. She asked that it be put onto the (ANC) study group agenda for the meeting with Minister Cele.

Mr Maphatsoe said that it was sitting with the President and was beyond the police.

Ms Mofokeng asked about firearms applications. How many people were required to apply for firearms in the country per annum? At the moment, people were applying all over and nobody could be monitored. There needed to be a limit in the number of applications.

The Chairperson said that items could be removed so long as the Committee had an understanding of the core business and joint action that it wanted to be taken when the Committee left the workshop. For example, the PSIRA Bill could be collectively decided to be prioritised, then the Chairperson would be sure to work towards it. Ms Mofokeng had raised the issues of firearms and the central firearms registry. Once the priorities of the Committee had been drawn up after today’s meeting, it would know what was important and it would help to decide who meetings would be held with (e.g. Intelligence).

Mr Maphatsoe asked for clarification on whether the Firearms Bill was linked to the court case with FDA?

Dr Kinnes said FDA was supposed to deliver a firearms incident registration system, so they were linked. He recalled that FDA had threatened to switch off SAPS systems and the State Information Technology Agency (SITA) got involved. SAPS had then decided it would not work with FDA because the threats of turning off these systems would cause major problems. He suggested this be raised with SAPS in the meeting the following day. Proposals for amendment were under a task team appointed by Minister Cele. Minister Cele had wanted amnesty for firearm owners with the amendment but the court case was impeding this.

The Chairperson said that the CSPS needed to be involved and she would write a letter asking it to respond to specific issues such as this to avoid wasting of time. They did not need to come with cut and paste presentations, the Committee wanted answers. For example, where was PSIRA bill stuck? In terms of firearms applications, what was the situation regarding amnesty?

Ms Mofokeng suggested that for the Committee’s empowerment, the CSPS could send a list of Firearms Bill challenges ahead of time. Everyone ran to court to block these amendments; this information would help the Committee with getting what it needed.

Mr Maphatsoe said it was linked to the contract with FDA. SAPS had been saying it was prepared to settle with the company to gain access. Was it SITA or Treasury that had impeded this?

Dr Kinnes said that SITA controlled all ICT technology in South Africa. He reminded Mr Maphatsoe of Minister Cele’s statement during budget hearings of how there would be “blood on the floor for a move towards independence from SITA and establishing internal capacity rather than relying on SITA and its associated service providers”.  

The Chairperson said that Minister Cele had raised this issue and the Committee did not need to hear it again. She asked how it could be addressed, whether she could contact the Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Communications. She would then write to Minister Cele. The Members would be part of their own legacy.

Conclusion

Dr Kinnes said that the Committee was dealing with huge budgets and needed to be mindful off that, particularly given the current challenging and complex environment. Additional issues that had not been referred to in the presentation could be found in the Sector Analysis document and he urged Members to consult this.

Dr Kinnes advised the Committee to be prepared for robust engagement with the department as far as monitoring and oversight were concerned.

The Committee had done well with the rape kits, for instance, which showed that it had already taken first steps.

The Committee staff would alert Members’ timeously on matters relating to policing as it was a constantly changing environment.

The Chairperson said that there were several ways in which oversight worked. One way was that the Department did a presentation; then questions asked by the Committee; then a report was made which went to Parliament. Did Parliament respond? No. Because if it had, issues would not have been there for three consecutive parliamentary sessions. Because the report is the same legacy report each time.

The second way was escalation where the Chairperson wrote to other committees. Other committees had already written to her asking about school safety and tourism issues relating to policing. If there was anything about PSIRA or justice, for example, she could write to other committees.

Another option was that the Chairperson could write to Minister Cele. The Minister could also be asked parliamentary questions. These did not only need to come from opposition Members of Parliament, it was oversight.

The Committee had oversight power. It had already solved the matter of rape kits. It had put Minister Cele and SAPS under pressure and expedited the issue. The Committee should not wait for the media to pick up on things before acting on them. So, if they did not respond, they would get Parliamentary questions. The Committee should not wait for the media.

The fifth way to exercise oversight was through the media. She did not operate in the media. She would engage with the Department via media statements. Members were welcome to appear in the media, but she was not there to run a campaign against the Minister via this platform. She would issue a statement if requested to. This was how the Committee would do oversight.

The sixth manner oversight could be exercised was consultation and community participation. Public participation required Committee members to prioritise who needed to be listened to. There were numerous requests to do presentations to the Committee, from the Human Rights Commission and many others. Thus, there was need for prioritisation. 

All political parties had given Committee members electoral mandates in their election manifestos. Their own party whips would examine their participation. Different parties had certain processes, in the ANC, for example, there was the National General Council (NGC) where reports would be given. She asked if the Committee was in agreement on their own processes. The Committee needed to find common ground so that parliamentary staff could note what had been discussed in the Committee minutes and processes would continue beyond individual membership. 

Dr Kinnes said that there were oversight visits to the provinces as a final avenue. 

Discussion

Ms Mofokeng said that the Chairperson had hit on one of the important stakeholders to keep in mind – public participation. She suggested that the Committee set aside a day where several of these stakeholders relating to public participation could appear and make presentations for the Committee.

The Chairperson said this was very important. Even if the Committee needed to go to Gauteng and conduct public participation oversight. She asked when would the NCOP be engaged?

Ms Mofokeng said that the NCOP was going to Gauteng on issues of safety and police.

The Chairperson said that they must have a joint oversight trip, rather than going twice.

Dr Kinnes said that he would speak to the NCOP counterpart about this. The NCOP had a Taking Parliament to the People event twice a year. The parliamentary oversight committee of the NCOP was the Select Committee on Security and Justice and both committee could do joint oversight operations.

The Chairperson asked whether the Chairperson of the Select Committee on Security and Justice could be invited to the oversight programme in the Western Cape.

Ms Mofokeng said that Dr Kinnes had raised an important point about when the NCOP went to the provinces for oversight, it was without communicating with the National Assembly (NA). Then they would discuss issues that were relevant in the NA as well, often going from the NCOP to the NA. She suggested that joint delegations could be sent to minimise this inefficiency.

The Chairperson said that an outstanding matter at the NCOP was the IPID Bill. She asked if she could write to the Chairperson of the Select Committee on Security and Justice.

Dr Kinnes replied that this was possible. However, he cautioned that there had always been an issue between the NCOP and NA. The NCOP felt they were treated as rubber stamps when the NA processed legislation and simply sent it over to the NCOP. This was a sensitive issue.

The Chairperson said she would contact the Chairperson of the NCOP Committee to see if they were aware of the issues relating to the IPID Bill in particular.

Mr Terblanche said that all the documents that Committee members had received from the fifth Parliament had raised many good recommendations. How many of these had been implemented and had ended with the police to improve policing?

The Chairperson asked if the there were also follow ups on police visits and resolutions that were taken. There was a delegation coming from China. She had met the Chinese consul general and there were outstanding matters. There had also been the Kenyan delegation – there were follow ups and progress reports that needed to be conducted. Implementation was critical. The rape kits were the first victory of implementation. It needed to continue.

Mr Maphatsoe said that this was linked to asking questions to the cluster, the Minister, and to the President. Questions needed to be submitted by the Committee by 22 August to the cluster. These would be asked in Parliament. Responses would be provided on 3 September by the Security Cluster

The Chairperson asked whether the questions could be ready for 22 August.

Ms Mofokeng said that while the members could be excited by the implementation of rape kits, the advantages and disadvantages needed to be monitored. Many doctors had been critical of their quality. She said this as a gender activist. Were there any clauses that needed to be signed before the rape kits were used. The rape kits could work for some but not others. This spoke to monitoring of outcomes, rather than the actual effectiveness of implementation. She urged the Committee to be happy with rape kits but to monitor them internally not externally. 

Mr Shembeni said that the rape kits were made different companies. Would all police officers have to undergo training in order to be competent to use the previous kits? Officers could be asked in court in order to prove the correct procedure had been undertaken.  Re-training would be costly.

Dr Kinnes said that the principle for using the rape kits was the same. It did not matter what company provided it; it was the same. It was like testing for cocaine, a particular chemical solution was used. If there was a fundamental difference in a certain aspect of a procedure, the officers would be trained. But at this moment in time it was exactly the same. The buckle swab testing saliva and placing into kits did not change, for example. If innovations happened, training would be undertaken.

Ms Mofokeng agreed but said that questions were also about educating the nation. When the Minister answered questions, it involved a large audience and it was the only platform to reach many people.

The Chairperson said that her counterpart in the Portfolio Committee on Women and Disabilities had gone on radio to discuss this and the public had been asking these same questions.

Ms Mofokeng had a question on Women’s Day on whether it was working with policing to ensure gender safety. She said that they had the roles, but there were individuals who hindered implementation.

The Chairperson said that according to the programme, the Committee had completed the “policing landscape” agenda item. Most of the Committee priorities had been completed. The Committee would now move on to administrative matters with the Committee secretaries.

Researching policing budgets, the legacy report and the policing priorities would then be done after lunch. A lot of the legacy report issues had been dealt with already.

Facilitation of the Induction Workshop

Ms Zoleka Kula, Committee Secretary, began by reemphasising the issues that had already been raised.

Members Attendance of Committee Meetings

Ms Kula emphasised that it was important for Members to sign the register or indicate reasons for being unable to attend in writing to the Committee Secretary. There was a master register that was updated based on this. The Chairperson would table apologies during meetings. Each Committee was allocated one meeting per week, if additional meetings were required, approval needed to be sought.

Quorums and Decisions in the Committee

The Committee had eleven full members. There were also alternate members. When there was to be a quorum in the Committee, it was based off the eleven full members. The Committee required at all times at least one third of members to be present to conduct business. Voting required a majority and one to pass; in most cases this would be six votes in favour.

Alternates and Co-option

Alternates may be appointed to act as one or more specific members of the Committee until the vacancy in question was filled. When the Committee did oversight visits, full members of the Committee went on oversight visits, if alternates were needed, the member would need to write to the Secretary.

Mr Shembeni asked if he could not be replaced without informing the Secretaries.

Ms Kula said it needed to be in writing.

The Chairperson could co-opt any other member of a member’s political party to stand in for them, should both that member and their alternate be unavailable.

Legislation Process

Ms Babalwa Mbengo, Committee Secretary, dealt with the legislative process for each oversight sector of the Committee and the process for bringing motions forward.

Initiation of Bills and Legislative Process

A Bill would be brought forward by Members of the executive. It would be given to the Speaker of the NA, then referred to the relevant Committee for consideration. That Committee would receive a briefing from the department related to the Bill in question. Once this stage was completed, the Committee had to apply to the Office of the House Chairperson to request permission to advertise for public permissions, then the Committee would advertise the Bill for public comments. Once the Committee had received all submissions, these would be incorporated or discarded, as well as informing public members who required to appear for public hearings. The Committee would then deliberate on the public hearings and take the responses into account. It would then deliberate clause by clause, proposing relevant amendments. A list of amendments would be tabled. This would be presented to the Committee for consideration and adoption. The Chairperson should table the report on the Bill for adoption.

Committee Oversight

The Committee would identify provincial areas and key focal areas for oversight and apply for a visit from the House Chairperson. Relevant stakeholders should be informed. A report should be published in the ATC.

Complaints and Petitions

Complaints and petitions were received from public and communities. A report should be made available to the Committee and the complainant.

Appointment Process

The Minister of Police was responsible for appointments. The Ministers would advertise and draw up shortlists. The candidate would be selected and appointed, once this had been done, the Speaker of the NA and the Committee had to be informed. They would arrange a meeting to inform members of the process. The Committee would then approve or disapprove the candidate.

Discussion
Ms Mofokeng asked about the recommendations role the Committee had in the appointment process. Would the Committee be given the opportunity to be able to investigate candidates, rather than receive the information at a later stage only? She wanted appointments to be properly vetted, rather than overnight like in this scenario.

The Chairperson asked if complaints from the public and communities could be handed to the CSPS. The complainants needed to receive responses. She further asked that the Committee write to complainants to acknowledge receipt of their petitions. If the Committee is sent complaints directly it had to make sure to forward these to the Secretariat.

Dr Kinnes responded to Ms Mofokeng’s question, saying that the Minister made his/her candidate known to the Committee, including their CV, which the Committee would then consider. The Committee had the capacity to question, but not to vet candidates. The Committee could decide to call a special hearing after a candidate was introduced. Legislation said it was a nomination process determined by the Minister. Civil society groups had in the past asked that appointment of executive director be conducted in similar manner to the National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP). This had been after the introduction of the previous incumbent. This could be made available to the Committee, but this then required legislative change for appointment of the IPID head.


6th Democratic Parliament Portfolio Committee on Police Workshop

Ms van Zyl-Gous, began the second part of the workshop.

Stages of the Budget & Oversight Responsibility

The main appropriation was made at the beginning of the financial year. Then there were the quarterly expenditure records. This was important to identify over or under expenditure. Treasury had set a 25% benchmark per quarter. There was a risk of fiscal dumping, with large expenditures in the fourth quarters of a financial year. The adjusted appropriation was done at the beginning of the second quarter.

In the 2018/19 financial year, money had been taken away from SAPS and moved to the Department of Home Affairs (DHA) for the biometric fingerprint initiative (the logic was that SAPS had been using the DHA’s system and should therefore contribute to the transition).

There had been struggles to fill vacant positions at IPID and it had shifted employee compensation money to their business services expenses, but then claimed not to have capacity to fulfil its mandate.

Mr Maphatsoe asked if this was this related to the other discussion where SAPS had advertised for IPID vacancies.

Ms van Zyl-Gous said it was not related to this. There was a challenge where a section of the IPID Act had never been enforced. IPID investigators could not be paid less than SAPS detectives. This was one of the key aspects of the IPID Act that needed to be reviewed. This also mitigated against large amount of vacancies.

Ms Majozi noted that each and every department or institution drafted structures then asked for capacity for the next financial year from this assessment. How did IPID do this if it had been taking its operational budget for employee compensation and shifting it to business services expenses if it had done any planning ahead? How did IPID budget if it could not manage the department?

Ms van Zyl-Gous replied that Treasury had set an 8% threshold for moving funding within departments. There were two problems: you could not transfer money from a ring-fenced fund; however, all employee compensations came from this. Parliament could approve this. Normally IPID would motivate this matter with SCOPA and then be allowed to operate in this fashion. She advised the Committee to have a very close working relationship with SCOPA to engage with it about serious concerns. IPID had moved 25% of its compensation of employees’ budget to other areas in the previous financial year. This had gone through Parliament.

Mr Terblanche said that IPID had then complained to the Committee about staff shortages.

Ms van Zyl-Gous said it was a vicious cycle. When salaries were not aligned to detectives; the struggle to fill positions would remain.

The Chairperson said that she would add the filling of the IPID head vacancies as well as other positions of investigators to the list of Committee priorities.

Ms Majozi said that the Chairperson needed to emphasise to Minister Cele that IPID needed to be watched closely. Clearly IPID could not function on its own in terms of management of finances etc. Real oversight needed to be taken.

The Chairperson said that the permanent IPID head needed to be appointed. The new head would then be running up and down to see the Committee because of all these issues. The Committee would then have a conduit to deal with the Committee’s issues. The IPID head would then implement changes the Committee demanded.

Ms van Zyl-Gous said that there needed to be achievement of targets and performance plans and expenditure; there was currently much misalignment here.

Alignment Between Expenditure and Performance

SAPS was consistent in this regard, IPID was inconsistent, while the CSPS was fairly consistent. 

The Chairperson said that this misalignment was based on unrealistic targets. Including additional targets would not attract more funding. Priorities should be to ensure realistic targets or budgets would not be achieved. This needed to be monitored every quarter.

Ms van Zyl-Gous said that the Department must report on quarterly expenditure and targets. This was produced through Treasury, making it very reliable. The Committee needed to prioritise as it easily fell off the programme. It was crucial to mitigate against poor performance in service delivery and financial matters. Neither IPID, SAPS, nor the CSPS had credible records and reporting systems in this regard according to the AGSA. IPID needed an upgrade to its ICT infrastructure. 

Linking SAPS Budget and Expenditure with performance

Following a SAPS colloquium in 2017, the Treasury head of the JCPS Cluster, Ms Radebe, had indicated there was no one to one link between SAPS’ specific allocations and targeted outputs. This was because departments in the police portfolio were very labour intensive; many people were needed to render services. Therefore, the large expenditure on compensation of employees was necessary. However, SAPS only had one impact indicator which measured numbers (how many rooms for victim friendly facilities SAPS had etc.). This did not necessarily portray the performance/quality of these outputs.

The Chairperson had noticed this in the budget presentation. This excluded quality considerations. The Committee could discover that rape kits may not work, despite having the stipulated amount of kits.

Ms van Zyl-Gous said that this was especially with sexual abusers. It was crucial that outcomes could be reconciled with inputs and their impacts. Treasury had suggested that the Committee look at specific projects; for example, when a police station was built, see whether it was of sufficient quality and provided value for money.

SAPS had tendered a police station in the Western Cape that had cost more than R1 billion. This meant that it was not legally required to be reported in the SAPS Annual Performance Plan (APP), as they were currently only required to report capital expenditure under R1 billion.

The Chairperson asked if members had heard this.

Budgetary Review and Recommendations Report (BRRR)

Ms van Zyl-Gous said that the Committee needed to make financial recommendations in the BRRR. The Minister of Finance needed to, by law, respond to the Committee. This was an important avenue to ensure that oversight bodies were capacitated.

SAPS Budget Allocation 1993/94-2019/20

The average growth rate of SAPS budget over 25 years had seen a 76% increase.

Mr Maphatsoe asked why there were then complaints about the budget.

Ms van Zyl-Gous said that this related to the next point on SAPS’s personnel, budget and serious crime.

SAPS: Personnel, Budget and Serious Crime

The effects of crime were not necessarily correlated to the hiring of more officers. Other factors were important to crime reduction. This also suggested the need for a change in strategy. The new hotspots strategy was good as it was more defined.

Dr Kinnes said that serious crime levels could change very easily if other factors were added, for example further deteriorating economic conditions and/or unemployment.

Ms van Zyl-Gous said that there had been a spike in number of police officers and that had to do with the FIFA World Cup.

IPID’s Budget

The IPID budget had increased over 5 years. 2017/18 had been the only large decrease and the budget had increased again after this period. IPID had spent a lot of money without achieving targets. Compensation of employees had constantly changed and IPID had had consecutive unqualified audits.

CSPS’s Budget

The budget had seen a significant increase since establishment. This was in line with increase in its mandate and personnel. Legislation was the CSPS’s core mandate, but it had not brought a single bill to the Committee in the past five years.

Compensation of Employment

Peace and security services spending consisted of 67% of the budget on compensation. All were labour intensive endeavours.

5th Parliament Legacy Report

Dr Kinnes provided the Committee with an overview of the legacy report from the previous Parliament.

Recommendations: SAPS

The golden thread that had run through the Committee in fifth Parliament was the National Development Plan (NDP). Almost every Committee meeting had raised the issue of compliance with the NDP. This included things like the creation of a National Police Board.

There had also been regression regarding audit outcomes. This meant the Sixth Parliament had to scrutinise the financial performance of SAPS.

The leadership of SAPS should be submitted to regular vetting and lifestyle audits. This had already begun under the new head of Crime Intelligence.

A critical recommendation was that the Detectives Division implement training and re-training of detectives, particularly how to keep complainants informed of case progress. How the detective programme prioritised crimes against women and children needed to be monitored.

All crime intelligence and VIP protection services needed to undergo mandatory vetting and lifestyle audits for the VIP protection services. These people needed to be able to properly deal with the protection of the country’s senior leaders and their families. They could otherwise become a big risk.

The Committee needed to monitor SAPS’s building maintenance, building programmes, their budgets, tenders and spending, on those particular industries and buildings.

All Regulation 45 appointments needed to be approved by the Sixth Parliament. This meant the Police Commissioner could not appoint anyone he/she wanted as Major General or Lieutenant General.

The Committee should consider a new firearms safety regime to protect all officers and their families. The number of stolen firearms was currently very high.

All procurement and supply chain management processes in SAPS needed to be regularly monitored. With a budget of R97 billion, procurement monitoring was crucial.

The DPCI Firearms and Narcotics Unit implementation monitoring should be a Committee priority. One of the problems was that they did not have the necessary staff for these specialised units.

Material and human resources of police stations (which were the basic unit of policing) needed to be well managed. Police officers needed to be available at police stations in particular. The Committee needed to look at how officers were deployed.

Mr Shembeni said that there had been a lot of changes within SAPS; in a lot of cases, crimes were being detected in offices on the computer. However, the issue of higher crime rates over weekends could not be coupled with required overtime for police officers. This was according to the Labour Act.

Ms Majozi said this was justified. If parliamentarians were treated this way, they would be tired and overworked.

Dr Kinnes said that the principle was simple; the deployment patterns needed to fit the crime patterns. This was something SAPS had been grappling with. If Unions were to agree to members in terms of conditions of employment; most officers would be deployed on weekends.

The Chairperson said the concern was that the Fifth Parliament legacy report had raised a lot of valid outstanding matters. The presentations given to the Committee did not align. She proposed that the Committee give SAPS a list of outstanding matters and demand that they come back to report on them. This needed to be done according to Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and targets.

Ms Majozi said that unions were another animal.

Ms Mofokeng asked about study tours and policing motivation, which she had not seen in previous Committee reports. She referred to policing in the United Kingdom and America as models. The motivation for policing needed to be examined in addition to payment as well and employment criteria. In terms of Community Policing Forums, the provinces were holding back implementation. Provinces needed to be included in study tours to see the benefits of initiatives and models for policing. Policing, nursing and teaching; these were callings that went beyond payment. The Committee should not go for oversight for the wrong things, they should be oversight of issues that were problems for the country.

Dr Kinnes said there was also the need for speeding up implementation of specialised units such as the Anti-Gang Unit.

Recommendations: CSPS

The Committee needed to monitor the CSPS’s implementation of its own financial management systems to reduce dependency on SAPS for its financial management. This was per the AGSA recommendations. The CSPS was a designated department but money was still appropriated from SAPS.

All senior staff vacancies needed to be filled in the CSPS with immediate effect.

The SAPS Amendment Bill needed to be prioritised by the CSPS under the monitoring of the Committee.

The DNA Board composition and inefficiencies needed to be reviewed. It needed to be sufficiently resourced.

The CSPS needed to finalise a funding model for CPFs.

The CSPS needed to enter a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with SAPS and the Committee to sharpen research, monitoring, evaluation and indicators to be geared towards service delivery.

Recommendations: IPID

IPID needed to fill vacancies due to its growing portfolio of cases.

IPID needed to review its funding model. Implementation of the AGSA recommendations regarding clear misstatements needed to be conducted through an Audit Action Plan. This would be according to quarterly reports. Underperformance needed to be improved through consequence management. Irregular expenditure within IPID needed to be addressed using performance management.

The Farlam Commission recommendations’ implementation should be monitored by the Committee with respect to the NPA provisions. This was in light of there not having been money to complete the investigations.

Recommendations: PSIRA

PSIRA should strengthen all aspects of internal control and governance. It should implement all aspects of the Audit Action Plan. PSIRA’s funding model regarding how PSIRA got companies to pay levies to it should be reviewed. Section 51 of the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) set out the manner in which money needed to be collected by private security companies and authorities. 

PSIRA should focus on the accreditation of service providers. It was critically important that officers were well trained and able to receive core certification on the National Qualifications Framework.

Female security officers should be encouraged to enter into the private security industry. This was the same with public order policing to deal with crowds.

Engagements with Prasa should be prioritised in order to provide security in the railway environment. There had been talk of SAPS enrolling private security and working with it to address the issue of railway crime.

Discussion
The Chairperson said that she was not going to take many questions and comments as a lot of the issues had been addressed. She made the observation that there were no priorities in the aforementioned departments. Priorities needed to be whittled down to lists that showed their importance and could be addressed with immediate effect. It was like shopping for family groceries, bread, milk and sugar were priorities before addressing any other supplies.

It was the same issues with recommendations. Administrative recommendations needed to include: the AGSA, budget issues, and staffing matters. Political priorities/recommendations: included the need for more female detectives and their presence in public order policing. She asked if the legacy report could be broken into goal-orientated areas with goals and time frames. The matter of the rape kits had not been raised during budget speeches, yet it was such a critical matter.

Dr Kinnes said that it had been raised in the budget report of 2018.

The Chairperson said it should be in the budget report. The legacy report should have political matters removed as it otherwise put pressure on the Committee. There were too many priorities, making the issue of where to start more difficult. Priorities needed to be ordered based on importance and urgency and reduced to key issues.

Ms Mofokeng said that victim friendly facilities and victim empowerment centres needed to be linked. They were supposed to go together with rape kits and female dignity pack for staying the night at police stations. However, with low quality; good intentions would still result in poor delivery and unintended consequences.

Dr Kinnes said the issue raised by Ms Mofokeng was important. The Committee had a tracking document on all recommendations and SAPS was very good at tracking recommendations. It was up to the Committee to use members’ abilities to see what was behind the answers they were provided. For example, the rape kits had not been picked up.

SAPS was one of the most efficient departments when it came to interacting with Parliament. The fact that SAPS had historically received clean audits until recently was something that the Committee needed to be worried about. There was concern that this could spill over to their efficiency regarding Parliamentary interaction, as well as tracking recommendations. The financial health of SAPS was something that had been flagged by the AGSA.

The Chairperson said that it had been raised in the workshop that the Committee needed to move behind the responses they were given in presentations. They needed to interrogate outputs and targets that departments were presenting and using. The members’ workshop had been for the purpose of deriving priorities. There needed to be a clear understanding of what was needed to be asked in the coming meetings. After your first ten priorities, you no longer had priorities. Presentations that had been given to the Committee led members’ questions in certain directions. The Committee needed to demand the answers without the dense documentation that was irrelevant. President Xi Jinping’s success in China was down to the implementation of priorities.

Mr Terblanche said that Singapore had the same happen in turning the economy around.

Closing Remarks

Dr Kinnes said that the crime statistics release was important.

The Chairperson said that this matter would need to be raised at future meetings.

The meeting was adjourned.