Critical Infrastructure Protection Act draft regulations & discussion on police issues with Minister and Deputy Minister

Meeting report

CSPS on draft regulations of Interim Critical Infrastructure Act

Mr Tumelo Nkojoana, Chief Financial Officer (CFO), Civilian Secretariat for Police Service (CSPS), took the Committee through the interim critical infrastructure protection regulations.

(See attached document for all details).

He provided the Committee with a background on the process of the Critical Infrastructure Protection Act (CIPA), saying that it ascended to the President on 20 November 2019. The CIPA sought to repeal the National Key Points Act of 1980. It would come into operation only on a date that would be determined by the President by Proclamation in the Government Gazette.

He briefly mentioned the sections in the Act that had been put into operation on 30 April:

• Sections 1: Interpretation;
• Section 2: Purpose of Act;
• Section 3: Application of Act;
• Section 4: Establishment and composition of Critical Infrastructure Council (CIC);
• Section 5: Disqualification from appointment as member of CIC;
• Section 6: Funding and remuneration;
• Section 7(1)(b), 7(3), 7(4), 7(5): Functions of CIC;
• Section 8: Meetings of Critical Infrastructure Council;
• Section 9(1), 9(2): Functions of National Commissioner
• Section 12: Ad hoc and standing committees; 
• Section 14(5), 14(6), 14(7): Delegation of powers;
• Section 15; Reporting by Minister; and
• Section 27(1), 27(5), 27(7), and 27(8): (Relevant Regulations)

On drafting regulations for the CIC, he said that Section 7 of the CIPA dealt with the functions of the CIC. For the CIC to be able to perform its functions, it was decided to split the sections of the regulations about the functioning of the CIC from the main set of regulations. The draft regulations had been approved by the Minister and had been published for public comments. The public comments had been incorporated in the version that had been submitted to Parliament for scrutiny.

He mentioned and discussed what the Draft regulations entailed, being:

Regulation 1: Definitions

• This regulation provides for definitions that includes key definitions such as "Critical Infrastructure Protection Regulator."

Regulation 2: Establishment and functions of Critical Infrastructure Council

• This regulation provides for the establishment and functions of the Critical Infrastructure Council. The Council was established in terms of section 4(1) of the Act and must advise the Minister in the exercise of his or her functions in terms of the Act.

Regulation 3: Ordinary meetings of Critical Infrastructure Council

• This regulation provides that the Chairperson of the Council must ensure that the Council meets quarterly by notifying each member of the Council in writing no less than 30 days before the date of such meeting.

Regulation 4: Special meeting of the Critical Infrastructure Council

• This regulation provides that the Chairperson of the Council must convene a special meeting of the Council in terms of section 8 of the Act.
• These meetings could be conducted on an electronic virtual platform.

Regulation  5: Resolutions of the Critical Infrastructure Council iro applications for declaration of infrastructure

• This regulation provides that the Council must adopt a resolution whether or not it intends to recommend declaration of such infrastructure as critical infrastructure, as well as recommend an appropriate risk category for the infrastructure in question.
• Furthermore, the Council must, within 14 days of the meeting of the Council, notify the applicant of the intended recommendation of the Council.

Regulation 6: Resolutions of the Critical Infrastructure Council to dispense with the publication

• This regulation provides for instances where an applicant requests the Council for approval to depart from the procedure of publication of the notice referred to in section 17(4)(a) of the Act. The Council must consider the request to determine whether the applicant showed good cause, as contemplated in section 17(5) of the Act, and adopt a resolution on whether or not to approve such request.

Regulation 7: Resolution of the Critical Infrastructure Council in respect of policies, protocols, and standards

• This regulation provides for functions of the National Commissioner, such as submitting draft uniform standards guidelines or protocols for approval by the Council in terms of section 7(1)(b) of the Act. The Council may consult any person or entity who, in the opinion of the Council, was sufficiently qualified and experienced to assist it

Regulation 8: Assignment of functions by the Minister

• This regulation provides for instances where the Minister had assigned any function on the Council in terms of section 7(1)(c) of the Act. In such instances the Chairperson may, within 14 days of receipt of the assignment, call a special meeting of the Council if he or she thinks that the matter is urgent.

Regulation 9: Ad hoc Committees

• This regulation enables the Council to from time to time adopt a resolution to designate suitably qualified and experienced members of the Council to form an ad hoc committee with a specific task to assist the Council in the performance of its functions.

Regulation 10: Standing Committees

• For the Council to function effectively and efficiently, this regulation enables it, from time to time, to adopt a resolution to designate suitably qualified and experienced members of the Council to form a standing committee to assist the Council in the performance of its functions.

Regulation 11: Establishment of Critical Infrastructure Protection Regulator

• This regulation empowers the National Commissioner to establish a Critical Infrastructure Protection Regulator as a component within the structures of the South African Police Service (SAPS), to ensure the maintenance of the administrative systems and procedures necessary for the implementation and enforcement of the Act.
•  The National Commissioner must appoint a suitably qualified and experienced police official of a rank not less than that of level 14 as the head of the Regulator.

Regulation 12: Functions of the Critical Infrastructure Protection Regulator

• This regulation provides for the functions of the Regulator. These include supporting the National Commissioner in the performance of functions assigned to him or her in terms of the Act

Regulation 14: Commencement

• These regulations shall be called the Interim Critical Infrastructure Protection Regulations, 2022, and shall come into operation on the date of publication thereof in the Gazette.

The presentation end, and there were no further comments from the Minister and Deputy Minister.

Discussion

After the presentation, the Chairperson said that they had interviewed the Council. They had received several complaints from the Council and other members, that the Council was unable to commence with its work. She said that the amendments to the Act had to be implemented as soon as possible. Two changes to definitions had to be made, which should include the National Commissioner, and she urged the Committee to look at Regulation 5.8. She said that when it came to the definition of 'applicant', it must include the National Commissioner of Application, concerning Section 18 of CIPA.

She said that "applicant" meant:

1. a person in control of infrastructure who applies for a declaration of that infrastructure as critical infrastructure in terms of section 17(1) of the Act; or
2. (b) the National Commissioner, when he or she applies for a declaration of that infrastructure as critical infrastructure in terms of section 18(1) of the Act;

"Application" should include an application by the National Commissioner, and could read as follows: "Application" means an application contemplated in section 17 or 18 of the Act to have infrastructure declared as critical infrastructure by the Minister in terms of section 20 of the Act.

The Chairperson opened the floor for questions from the Committee.

Mr O Terblanche (DA) said he was concerned about the laissez-faire approach that was followed in the process. There was no sense of urgency to get the Committee to start working. He did not know what else needed to be done to bring about some urgency, as everything was still at a standstill and there was an overall lack of interest.

The Chairperson said that this concern had been raised by almost all Committee Members and political parties. The slow implementation of the decisions of the  Committee would be raised later. She said they had done the interviews last year, and there had been slow progress on the work of the Committee.

Dr P Groenewald (FF+) supported the Chairperson's view that they needed to consider the amendments. They needed to bring about amendments to the definitions in Regulation 5.8. and how they should read. They had to ensure that it was part of the process of contacting the Secretariat and the Researcher.

Mr H Shembeni (EFF) said that when he looked at the Committee, he felt it was not being taken seriously. Whenever things were being said in this Committee, nothing was ever being implemented or no action was being taken on issues that had been discussed. It was important to show people that they were making changes, as they were voted into these positions of power in Parliament, to show the value of their votes. A lot had happened during the period when Parliament was in recess -- within Parliament, the country, and within the CSPS, and a lot needed to be done.

The Chairperson said that the research paper did take the Committee quite a step back, but the recommendations in the research paper should be addressed. She asked the Committee for approval of the proposal that the recommendations should be considered.

Mr Groenewald and Mr A Seabi (ANC) approved.

The Chairperson said the proposed amendments would be made and returned to the Committee.

The Chairperson thanked the Civilian Secretariat, the Minister, Deputy Minister, the representatives, and the National Commissioner.

The Chairperson said that their work could not be slowed down, and that they had certain processes to follow. She asked the Committee if they agreed that they had done everything by the book in the meeting and followed the correct steps.

This was supported by Ms N Peacock (ANC) and seconded by Ms L Moss (ANC).

The Chairperson said that the report would be sent to the Speaker and the National Assembly. Thereafter, the matter would be sent to the Civilian Secretariat for further amendments to be done.

She thanked the Minister, Deputy Minister, and National Commissioner for all their hard work. The regulations had been long overdue and the Committee had failed regarding them. It had taken too long for the regulations to be served before the Committee. It had taken very long to get the Critical Infrastructure board to do their work.

Chairperson's issues of concern

Committee staff

The Chairperson concluded this discussion, and moved on to the next item on the agenda regarding the staff. She said that the Committee researcher, who was also acting as the content advisor, was informed by the administration that she could not act as both a researcher and content advisor. Therefore, she was fulfilling her role only as the researcher now. This meant that they did not have a content advisor and the work of the content advisor was difficult. She had raised this issue to the administration and suggested they appoint a content advisor as soon as possible. They had conducted the interviews, but the delay in the process was causing a lot of administrative frustration for the Committee, as they were trying to process several Acts and Bills, and this would require quite a lot of work. She stressed that they needed to appoint a content advisor urgently to support the Chairperson.

The Chairperson raised another concern in connection to the staff, and she would still raise the issue formally. She referred to the type of work and support they have been receiving from an official who, she said, hardly attended any oversight visits, and whenever there were oversight visits, he was unavailable. He was supposed to assist with Members' bookings and arrangements and whenever he was unavailable, Members struggled with these issues. He had not been supporting the Committee in the way that was expected of him.

Mass shootings in Western Cape and Gauteng

On the mass shootings that have occurred over the last three months in the Western Cape (WC) and Gauteng, where innocent people lost their lives, she said that the Committee would like to express their heartfelt condolences to the families of the victims. As a Committee, they condemned these acts of violence and the fear it had instilled in the communities.

Enyobeni Tavern deaths

They were shocked at the death of the 21 schoolchildren at the Enyobeni Tavern in Scenery Park in East London. They urged the Minister of Police and the National Commissioner to conclude the investigation as speedily as possible and to intensify their efforts in combating illegal taverns, especially those that sell liquor to minors.

Phala Phala farm theft and security breach

The Chairperson said she had received several requests for the Committee to engage with certain police officers involved in the case of theft and the security breach at President Cyril Ramaphosa's farm. The Hawks were investigating the matter and a case had been opened. Due to the recess period, she was unable to raise a quorum for a meeting. She indicated to the Committee that if they ever requested a meeting, she would then have to have a quorum. If she was unable to have a quorum, she could not call a meeting.

Protected disclosure

The Committee and several Members from political parties had sent a request for a meeting to be held on the protected disclosure by General Vuma. General Vuma had been suspended because she was a Deputy National Commissioner. The Committee had expressed their concern on the matter and would like to have responses on the serious allegations that General Vuma has made on the matter. She had engaged with the Minister, and he had indicated that he was preparing a response which would be made available to the Committee.

Investigations into last year's unrest

The Chairperson said that last month marked a year since the country was affected by the terrible looting and unrest that affected parts of Gauteng and Kwa-Zulu Natal (KZN). Several instigators had been arrested in the past weeks, and the Committee encouraged police to conclude their investigations as soon as possible. They would like to implore the Human Rights Commission to conclude their report so that it could be referred to the Speaker, for it then to be referred to the Committee for further discussion. She emphasised the importance of concluding the reports and speeding up the investigations, because it had been a year since the incidents occurred.

Kunene Report

She had received calls from several Members during the recess about the Kunene Report by the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID). The Speaker had not raised this matter to the Committee. The IPID report had been classified as 'Top Secret,' and the Speaker had said that only once the classification of the document had been clarified would she be able to say which Committee had to deal with the document. She pointed out that not all Members of the Portfolio Committee of Police had 'Top Secret' security clearance, and that the matter could be raised with another committee whose Members had 'Top secret' security clearance.

Gang rape at mine dump

She said the Committee was horrified by the gang rape of the eight young women at the disused mine dump on the West Rand. The Committee, together with their counterparts in Mineral Resources and the Minister of Home Affairs, had all attended meetings and conducted oversight visits to the area earlier this month to assess the challenges posed by illegal mining and illegal foreigners in the area. The Portfolio Committee had requested that the Committee have joint oversight programmes, but the Whip of the Committee had indicated that if the Committee agreed to the oversight visits, it would impact its work.

Delay in implementing Farlam Commission recommendations

The Chairperson referred to the tenth anniversary last year of the Marikana Shooting, and said that the implementation of the recommendations made by the Farlam Commission and the panel of experts were not being implemented at all. Once again, the Committee had meetings and discussions but was not seeing any progress. There were recommendations for amendments to be made to the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) Act, but the amendment had not been brought back to the Committee, nor had there been any indication of how far the Civilian Secretariat was with the amendments. She said they were asked to amend the South African Police Act, but they had no further communication on that matter. The Committee was already halfway through its term of office, the items on their list were growing longer, and the Committee was seen as being ineffective. Several Members had contacted her and expressed their concerns and unhappiness.

Crime statistics

The Minister of Police released the new crime statistics on 19 August for the first quarter of the 2022/23 financial year. The Committee noted with concern that crime categories like 'murder', 'attempted murder', and 'aggravated robbery' continued to rise. Sexual offences had decreased, but the significant increase in 'selected contact crime' concerned for the Committee. The Committee had sessions on gender-based violence and femicide (GBVF). She had raised her concern to the Civilian Secretariat that they had had the opportunity to tighten the role of the community police forums in amendments to the SAPS Bill. This had been spoken about in the Committee for several years. A late Member of the National Assembly, Ms Jaqueline Mofokeng, had spoken about the Thuthuzela Centres, the victim support centres, which were not receiving support from the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA). They had had commitments from SAPS and the Minister that there were rape kits available in all police stations, but Members had gone on oversight visits and had come back with various problems and difficulties with rape kits. They were all out doing constituency work, and a lot had been done to combat GBVF, but they were slowly losing the fight and were not showing that they were coordinating their work as a cluster. Instead of being proactive, they were more reactive regarding acts of GBVF.

Emphasis on legislation

The Chairperson said this term would be dominated by legislation, as the draft Regulations started today. After that, the Protection of Constitutional Democracy against Terrorist and Related Activities Amendment Bill would be discussed, and the Criminal Law Forensic Procedures Bill would be back from the National Council of Provinces (NCOP). The Select Committee on Security and Justice had meaningful engagements on the amendment of the Bill on 15 June and 10 August.

She said that they were approaching the second half of their mid-term as a Committee, so they needed to see changes happening, otherwise they would sit with a Legacy Report that would indicate that they had failed in their duties as a Committee.

She invited the Committee to comment.

Members' comments

Mr A Whitfield (DA) thanked the Chairperson for the summary of concerns that had been raised repeatedly. He said that legislation was the responsibility of Parliament, and that waiting for legislation from the Executive was the choice of some Members of Parliament. The Committee's responsibility was to draft legislation, and if the Legacy Report of this Committee reflected poorly on the Committee, it would not be because of the Members who had tried exhaustively to encourage Parliament and its committees to draft its legislation.

He reminded the Chairperson that, as he had mentioned before in the Committee, he intended to bring an IPID Private Member's Bill to highlight flaws within the IPID Amendment Bill. If Members of the Committee chose to vote down the Bill, it would be a reflection on them and not all Members of the Committee. There was a need to take control of the legislative process away from the Executive, who were making the Committee look bad, but in turn, the Committee's unwillingness to develop Committee Bills or to adopt Private Members' Bills was equally part of the problem. The Private Member's Bill would be presented to the Committee in a few months, and it would be an important piece of legislation that would help them address the legacy issues raised today. He stressed the importance of having the Committee's support on this matter.

He said it was rather strange to him that the IPID Report had been classified as 'Top Secret'. He asked if the Committee could get an explanation from those who had classified it as to why that was the case. How was it classified, what was the reason for it, and what was the process followed for such a report to be classified? The Committee needed more information on this.

Regarding the Enyobeni Tavern incident, he said that the Committee needed an explanation from the SAPS as to what the hold-up was in producing conclusive forensic results, for the grieving families to finally have peace on the tragedy. The Committee deserved to get an explanation as to what the hold-up was.

He implored the Committee to keep up with their fight against the DNA backlogs. The pressure from the Committee brought the DNA Amendment Bill to Parliament from the Executive, so there was no need for a Private Member's Bill. It was clear that such pressures from the Committee could expedite certain processes. He suggested that the Committee had to apply more pressure on other pieces of legislation to speed up the process, especially on the DNA backlog, as it looked as though the improvements that were being made were slowing down, which was concerning. Some deadlines were coming up, which the Minister had committed to in dealing with the backlogs. The Committee needed to keep a close eye on the deadlines, to hold the Minister accountable for his commitments.

Mr Terblanche said that the Chairperson had covered a lot of issues, and there were several other issues that he wanted to raise for the Committee's attention. The Committee's whole programme was changed for this term, and there were a lot of issues that needed urgent attention. For example, they were still waiting to be briefed by the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure (DPWI) on outstanding issues on their side. It was making it impossible for the police to move forward on the central firearm register and their move to the Telkom Towers, as this matter was nowhere on the programme. On the issue of the central firearm register, he mentioned that there was a recent court ruling which had serious implications for firearm owners. He asked what the police and the Committee were going to do to ensure that some relief would be forthcoming. Firearm owners could not comply with the recent legislation and had to address this matter.

He mentioned that the Committee agreed with the National Minister on certain issues and how they handled matters. However, the Committee remained uninformed about certain processes and issues. When the Minister had a meeting on the most recent crime statistics, the Committee was not informed about anything, and they had to scramble to answer questions directed at them.

Serious allegations were made in the Free State against the management of the provincial police. He said that they were being overwhelmed with messages in their inboxes, and that they were not getting any responses from the Committee. They needed to re-plan and re-strategise how they would manage these matters moving forward. These were serious concerns that needed to be addressed urgently.

Dr Groenewald said he was frustrated by the fact that many discussions had taken place and were being held, but no actions were being taken. In his opinion, they were not moving toward real solutions to all the problems.

He wanted answers as to why the Committee had been excluded when the new crime statistics were revealed. On a previous occasion, he had asked specifically for statistics on farm murders and farm attacks. The police had agreed to give them the statistics, but nothing had happened. It seemed as though the Committee had no power, although it had a Constitutional responsibility to hold people accountable. It felt as though the police and the Ministry were ignoring the Committee. For example, he wrote a letter to the President on the 'Vuma matter', asking for a commission to look into it. The President's office had replied to his letter, saying that when it was about accountability, it was the responsibility of the Portfolio Committee. According to this response, it was then the responsibility of the Portfolio Committee on Police to look into the matter of the allegations that General Vuma had made against the Minister.

He said that this was the Committee where the Minister had to account, as he was a political appointment. He referred to the Minister's behaviour in Gugulethu. It was not about what was being said or who said it, but rather that the Minister's behaviour was a shame to the Members of Parliament and the people of South Africa. A police Minister was not supposed to lose his temper and act the way he had acted. With all honesty and respect, the Minister owed the Committee an apology for his behaviour. The Minister's behaviour was supposed to set an example for members of the police to act in certain ways.

Further, the Minister interferes with the operational issues of the police. In the tavern shootings in Orlando, the Minister had gone in and said to the community that he would deploy certain sections of the police and decide when they would withdraw, but that was an operational matter for the Commissioner of Police to deal with.

The crime prevention strategy had been revealed, but it was the same old strategy from 2011, when the Minister was the Commissioner of Police. The Committee had to look into the behaviour of the Minister, and be able to tell him if they were satisfied with his performance or not. The Committee was shying away from its Constitutional obligation to hold the Executive accountable to Parliament. He seriously urged the Committee to look into this matter.

It seemed to him as if they were shying away from the Phala Phala farm incident. They were the Portfolio Committee on Police, and the Commissioner of Police had to come and account to the Committee.

He said that when he asked certain questions to the Minister in Parliament in writing, which he had to answer, he did not get answers. He referred to a specific example where he asked what the Department's litigation costs were. He asked the Minister how many cases had been lost and how many cases had been won, and what the costs were for the SAPS who were involved in those litigations. The Minister answered and said that the police did not have the figures available on the costs. On the number of cases won and lost, the Minister replied and said that that was a part of the Department of Justice.

He said that if the Committee did not come forward and hold the Executive accountable to Parliament, they would not be able to move forward. It appeared that they were losing the battle against criminals in South Africa. The Committee had to have serious considerations to ensure that they complied with their Constitutional obligation to ensure that the Executive and the SAPS were accountable to the Committee. 

Ms L Moss (ANC), whose connectivity was lost at times, had an issue with the matter of the DNA laboratory backlog. She thought that it had been addressed already. Because of the crime situation in South Africa, the backlog had to be addressed urgently. She mentioned the Klawer murder on the West Coast in the Western Cape, saying they were still awaiting the DNA results from that case.

She referred to the Committee's oversight visit to the firearm registry building, and said she wondered if they did enough as Members of Parliament to ensure that actions were being taken. She said that the CSPS and the DPWI were not taking the Committee seriously.

COVID-19 was now over, and she wanted to know why it had taken them so long to meet face to face to address all the issues with the Minister, the Deputy Minister, and the National Commissioner. The issues needed to be addressed urgently for the people of South Africa to get the democracy which they deserved and for the country to move forward.

Mr Shembeni said that he took note of the appointment of the management of the SAPS recently. However, they had been waiting to hear the outcome of the General Vuma matter. He noticed that she was suspended and not fired, but that her post had already been filled.

He said there had been service delivery protests in Mpumalanga on 28 July and last week. Several people were killed during the protests, but no arrests were made by the police, except for one security guard who was arrested. He had noticed that more and more security guards were getting more violent and involved with the responsibilities of the police, and he asked the Department how that was possible.

On the issue of the Krugersdorp mine dump rape, he was surprised when one of the victims said on national TV that the police had neglected her. He asked who was responsible for providing care to the women who were affected.

He said that the Committee had a lot of issues that they wanted to Minister to respond to.

They were told that the restructuring of the SAPS was on hold, but how could they appoint senior managers? A lot of money had been allocated to the appointments, which could have been used for service delivery in communities. The SAPS's structure was not good, and urgent matters were not being attended to. The country needed a strong police service that would deliver services and combat crime. People needed to be appointed based on their skills and knowledge, not because they were related to other officials within the Department. The Minister had to stay out of the workings of the National Commissioner and allow him to do his job.  

On that note, he said that the Committee also had to take a look into the case of the Finance Minister. He said that perpetrators had to be punished for what they did and could not go free because they were in positions of power and allowed to roam the streets without any consequences. 

Mr Seabi, who also experienced connectivity problems, said that the Executives tried their best to attend meetings of the Portfolio Committee, and that the Members should appreciate that and support them. The Committee needed to work together with the Department for them to achieve their goals and for them to fulfil their duties. He had seen an improvement in SAPS's response to queries and the Minister's responses to questions that the Committee had raised. They needed to hold the Executives accountable, but also appreciate the efforts from their side.

They needed to hold the National Commissioner accountable to report back to the Committee on how far he was in terms of his commitments.

On the Zama Zama attacks in Krugersdorp, the Committee needed to continue with the joint oversight visits to other areas, and he urged the Chairperson to look at this suggestion.

He said that when criminal activities occurred, the police experienced pressure to arrest people for the sake of arresting people. In most cases, the wrong people seemed to get arrested, and no justice was served by the police. They needed to make more positions available for more officers on the ground. The population was growing, and therefore they needed more officers. He agreed with his colleague that they needed a SAPS to deliver services to the people and combat crime.

The Chairperson said that the Committee was not attacking the Minister, Deputy Minister and the National Commissioner, but they were raising their concerns to the Executives about their collective responsibilities. As a Committee, they also had a responsibility to fight crime and were accountable to communities and the country at large. She did not expect the Minister to respond to every question or comment on all the concerns raised. They should rather agree to a strategic planning session allowing the Committee and the Executives to deal with the issues more in-depth in a question and answer session.

Mr Whitfield disagreed with the Chairperson's proposal that the Minister did not have to reply to their questions. He said this happened in every meeting, where the Executives get to go without addressing any issues. He demanded that the Committee had to get answers, and that they could not always receive responses from the Executives in writing.

The Chairperson said she had not said that, and Mr Whitfield insisted that she had said that verbatim.

The Chairperson apologised if she had come across like that. What she meant was that they would not exhaust all the responses today. They were going to have a two-day session where they were going to exhaust all the responses. She wanted to retract her statement. The Committee had to allow the Minister some time to think about his responses and then come back to the Committee with prepared responses, and engage with the Committee over the two days. She added that this was a discussion session, not an in-depth question-and-answer session.

She invited the Minister and Deputy Minister to respond to the questions.

Ministers' responses

Minister Bheki Cele allowed the Deputy Minister, Mr Cassel Mathale, to respond first.

Deputy Minister Mathale said that they appreciated the engagements that they had with the Committee. Some of the issues raised were unfortunate, and they were expected to respond in a certain way. There were certain issues that the Minister could account for, but he could not account for all the issues. They would come and account for the issues during the strategic planning session, for the engagements to be constructive. They did appreciate their engagements with the Committee, which was why they would rather come back to them for more in-depth discussions on the matters. He highlighted that they needed to work together and that they needed to respect one another. They all had responsibilities to hold each other accountable and fulfil their duties.   

The Chairperson thanked the Deputy Minister for his input. She said that as a Committee, they would like to see more progress and that they needed to double up their efforts. They needed to work as a collective to make progress.

Minister Bheki Cele addressed the Committee, and said there were no matters they could not answer.

He said it was as though they had to come in and defend themselves, as Members had already formulated opinions for themselves, making it difficult for them.

On replacing Deputy National Commissioner General Vuma, he said the current person was an Acting Deputy National Commissioner. Until the matter had been finalised, it would remain so.

He and the Deputy National Commissioner had visited the Western Cape laboratory, and they had been making a lot of progress there. He would share more information on that with the Committee, answering all the questions that Members had raised.

The Enyobeni matter was the responsibility of the provincial health department. The police could not do anything before they received the toxicology report from the Department of Health. The results were expected by 31 August, and then they would take it from there.

On the issue of the Protector Disclosure of General Vuma, he had received a response from the President, and they would provide more information to the Committee on this.

He asked the Committee to be more explicit and clearer on the matter of interference. They were called by communities to go and account to them, unless the Executive members were ordered by the Committee not to do so. He said that the Executives were mainly called to come to imbizos. About the Orlando matter, he said that the communities expected the Minister to engage at the imbizo, along with the Commissioner. He mentioned that there have been many times when the Minister had visited communities before the Committee had, and that the Commissioner would join them on the visits, but that the communities called on the Minister specifically.

He would appreciate having the time to explain all the matters to the Committee over the two-day question and answer sessions they would have.

He said that the Free State matter had to be addressed urgently.

Members had to be more specific on the availability of the rape kits for them to respond on this matter. They needed to work together with the Committee to address GBVF issues.

He said that they would provide the Committee with in-depth responses on the matters that had been mentioned, like the Vuma matter, the Krugersdorp incident, and the laboratory DNA backlogs. However, they would need some time to re-generate crime statistics to be able to provide the Committee with a response.

On legislation, the Committee would have to raise the issue with the people who dealt with the legislation, and then take the matter forward from there on.

He thought that they needed to have discussions around the Farlam Commission matter again with the Secretary-General. There were a lot of things that still had to be finalised.

Referring to the Gugulethu issue, he reminded the Committee that he was a politician, and that there were politicians at the imbizos. People were allowed to raise questions to the Minister, to which the Minister had to respond. There was never an issue with what was being said at the imbizo, but rather that the person did not want to listen, and that the gentleman's behaviour was out of order. That was why he had told the gentleman to 'shut up' -- not because of what he said, but because he did not respect his fellow citizens as they had respected him when he spoke. He told the Committee that he would not tolerate any level of disrespect, and he would not apologise for his behaviour at Gugulethu.

He concluded that the question that was not answered would be answered during the two-day question and answer session.

The Chairperson said that it was clear that the Minister had listened to the matters that the Committee had raised, and thanked him for his engagement in the meeting. The Committee could not expect him to respond to all the matters raised effectively, and they did not have the time today to have a back-and-forth discussion. Therefore, they would address the remaining issues at the two-day strategic discussion. This was only the first part of the engagement with the Minister, the Deputy Minister and the National Commissioner, and they would need further engagements.

She asked the Committee secretary to get the strategic planning session going urgently, and to get all the offices to set aside time for it to happen in September.

The Minister asked the Chairperson to contact their office to avoid any clashes in dates, for them to be able to attend the strategic planning session.

The Chairperson said that the Committee, the Minister, Deputy Minister and the National Commissioner, would all discuss the matter with one another to agree on a date that suited everybody. They needed to prioritise this as it had been delayed for too long and could not be postponed any longer.

The meeting was adjourned.