SAPS irregular, fruitless & wasteful expenditure; Forensic Data Analysts and other contracts: hearing

Public Accounts (SCOPA)

28 February 2018
Chairperson: Mr T Godi (APC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA) demanded that the National Police Commissioner resolve the situation concerning the continuation of multimillion rand contracts with Forensic Data Analysts (FDA). The Committee had previously urged the cancellation of FDA’s contracts with the police and the State Information Technology Agency (SITA). The FDA was owned by a former policeman-turned-businessman, and the Committee was told that he had the power to shut down the criminal justice system of South Africa should he not get paid.

The top executives of SITA told the Committee they had felt coerced by police officers to keep the contracts going, or else they would bear the responsibility of bringing the criminal justice system to a standstill. However, the police told the Committee the contracts were being kept in place following legal consultation. The Committee criticised the continuation of the transactions, in defiance of Parliament’s instructions to not pay FDA. It also implied that the veiled threat of collapsing the forensic functions of the South African Police Service was synonymous with holding the Agency, the police and the government to ransom.

Members questions were focused mainly on trying to establish the true facts which had led to the current situation. They also interrogated the relationships between the police, the Independent Police Investigative Directorate, the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation and SITA.

The Chairperson requested the National Commissioner to return with a better explanation as to why one person had the power to shut down the criminal justice system, because the fact that this was a reality was scary. A Member asserted that the dishonesty of the Commissioner was bringing Parliament into disrepute and that in the next 14 days he should be prepared to resign if he was unable to deliver results and be honest. The Commissioner responded that if he could not fulfil his task anymore, he would be prepared to resign.

Meeting report

SAPS’s irregular, fruitless & wasteful expenditure

The Chairperson said since this was a follow-up meeting, the Committee had agreed to tie up all the loose ends concerning those issues which had previously been addressed but not concluded. This would be an open meeting, and would not be closed off to the public in any way.

He started by deliberately referring to a correspondence document from Forensic Data Analysts (FDA), because in terms of the Powers Privileges and Immunities Act of Parliament, there were certain rights of reply, and he was not sure if the document followed this Act. He decided to proceed by allowing the Members to start with their questions.

Mr T Brauteseth (DA) said he had been sent to clear up certain issues, and he hoped there would be co-operation in the meeting by all the parties involved. In November, the SAPS had been asked to get back to the Committee with regard to certain issues, and had done so, but had responded to only five certain issues. The first of the missing issues dealt with the finances regarding a trip to the United Kingdom (UK). It had specifically been requested that it be made clear who had paid for the trip, how long it was, what subsistence allowances had been paid and why it had been publicly advertised in the media, because it was that specific trip that had raised suspicions regarding the connection between members of the SAPS and FDA. The first question was, why had there been no response? The second question was whether the extra men who were in the pictures of the trip had since come forward and stated that they had in fact paid for the trip themselves.

Lt Gen Khehla Sithole, National Commissioner: SAPS, apologised for the lack of a complete response.

Lt Gen Stefan Schutte: Deputy Commissioner: Resource Management, SAPS requested that he be allowed to answer the question instead, and the Chairperson allowed this.

Gen Schutte said that the meeting had been an official trip and that a daily allowance was given. The two officials pictured in the trip had indicated that they had paid for customised football T-shirts, and that the tickets had been supplied by someone in Unisys.

Mr Brauteseth said that they had been provided with a long list of equipment numbers of forensic equipment. The information he had received indicated that this equipment was being used only 30% of the time, at the most. He wanted to know why, because buying the equipment, but not using it, needed justification.

Gen Schutte said that not all cases required the equipment, but all the equipment was necessary. He explained that all forensic equipment was used on a specific basis, one of which included when there was a need to find trace evidence and where photographic scenes were done. These instances did not occur 100% of the time and it was for this reason that the use of equipment would seem infrequent.

Mr Brauteseth asked if it was known that trace evidence was needed on every crime scene, and wanted to know why the equipment was thus used only 30% of the time. The answer he received was that this equipment was used in high priority cases, and that not every examiner had access to it. The ratio of equipment to crime scene examiner was not one to one.

Mr Brauteseth said that at the last meeting in November, various calls had been made on the State Information Technology Agency (SITA) not to make any more payments to FDA, given the investigations that were on going. The chief executive officer (CEO) at the time had given an assurance that they would engage in legal counsel to get some advice with regards to making further payments. He sought clarification on the legal advice that had been given.

Dr Setumo Mohapi, CEO: SITA, said that the counsel advised them that according to their contract, they should pay, but they should verify the services rendered first.

Mr Brauteseth asked if this had been done.

Dr Mohapi indicated that it had been done by a staff member, but the staff member, Mr Ernest Stibbe, could not verify whether he had done so or not. The chief financial officer (CFO) had authorised this payment without his instruction, but within her own capacity as CFO. He added that it had been made clear to him by Gen Schutte that if a payment was not made to FDA, they would carry the responsibility of the shutdown of the forensic services of SAPS. Gen Schutte had quoted the example of the Shrien Dewani case, and said that if the forensic services were to be shut down, this case would be a standout case which would be affected. SITA was thus left with the choice to pay or not, or to take the responsibility for the collapse of the criminal justice system.

Mr Brauteseth referred Dr Mohapi to a lawyer’s letter that had been sent by the FDA. This letter included paragraphs which stated the importance of the services rendered by the FDA, and that the disruptions of these services due to a lack of fulfilment of contractual obligations would not be in the best interests of the members of a crime-ridden society.

When asked if this letter was taken to be a veiled threat, Dr Mohapi acknowledged this and said that SITA had subsequently written to SAPS to find out if these services were needed.

Mr Brauteseth commented that the situation was now that one man, Mr Keith Keating, the Director of FDA, essentially had the power to shut down SAPS services, as well as the criminal justice system.

Dr Mohapi confirmed that he had felt pressured by Gen Schutte to make that payment, and that since SAPS was SITA’s main client, they would be in dire financial need should they lose them as a client.

Ms Rudzani Rasikhinya, CFO of SITA, also confirmed that she had felt pressurised to make that payment.

Dr Mohapi indicated that he was currently under attack while people were being fired and while investigations were being held, and that he had challenges with regard to getting support from the board.

Mr Zukile Nomvete, Chairperson of SITA, said that the Agency was fully committed to continuing these investigations and continuing the clean-up of SITA, and that they had no plans to disrupt the investigations.

Mr M Booi (ANC) asked the National Commissioner why he had not followed up in the manner in which he should. He asked that he give a simple explanation on why there was no improvement in his relationship with the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID).

The National Commissioner responded that he had met with IPID management to discuss the improvement of their working relationship, and he was convinced that their relationship was intact.

Mr Booi said the National Commissioner had made a commitment to Parliament, and that there had been a lack of co-operation with IPID, and up until this day the National Commissioner had not told Parliament what he had done. He urged him to not mislead Parliament and tell the Committee why he had not fulfilled the commitments he made to Parliament.

Gen Sithole insisted that he had fulfilled the commitments he had made to Parliament, as well as IPID.

Mr Booi said that he was not happy with this response, and that he felt that the National Commissioner was misleading Parliament. He had not produced any results as of yet, even though he had said that by now he, along with IPID, would have set the ball rolling.

The Chairperson intervened with comments regarding the specifics. He said that there were a number of cases that IPID had addressed last week for which they were awaiting information or around which they depended on co-operation from the SAPS. The Chairperson said that although there was an acknowledgement that there was a working relationship, this relationship needed to translate into results, and this had not happened.

Gen Sithole said that he had appealed to IPID to have a sit-down meeting and discuss the way forward. He requested that General Khan be allowed read out the requests he had made to IPID. The Chairperson allowed this.

Gen Sally Khan, Divisional Commissioner, started by going through a list of requests. These related to requests for documents, interviews and information. She said that in areas where information was received, those documents were made available. Where interviews were wanted with senior members of SAPS, these were all agreed to and they had received correspondence from IPID. On the issue of requesting the personal files of Captain Tshabalala, the National Commissioner had responded to that as well. As far as the declassification of information with regards to dockets was concerned, there had been correspondence through the head of the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (DPCI). Gen Khan said that although not all requests had been met, there had been progress.

The National Commissioner said that the other matter which had caused delays was IPID seeking information on cases which involved the DPCI, and this was a request that could not be met. The other delay was that the documents which needed to be declassified got lost, and were in the possession of the DPCI, so he could not declassify information which was lost.

Mr Robert McBride, Executive Director: IPID, addressed the Committee. He started off his address by saying that Parliament was being misled, as there was a desire not to co-operate with IPID on any investigation. The modus operandi of SAPS was to use classification to cover up irregularities within SAPS, and the requests mentioned by Gen Khan had not been met. He pointed out a trend of delaying and a lack of co-operation on the part of SAPS. In some instances, decisions were made by senior members to not co-operate.

Mr Matthews Sesoko, Head of Investigations: IPID, said IPID had had a meeting with the National Commissioner to discuss a way forward and that there was some information that had been sent to IPID, but there was very important information that was not given to them. Documents were given to the DPCI which were not declassified, and he had written to the National Commissioner, requesting them to send IPID declassified information so they could continue with investigations. To date, he had not received any co-operation or feedback with regard to his letters to SAPS. They had indicated that it would not be in the public interest and would be against public policy.

Mr Booi said that IPID had given Parliament facts, and Gen Khan had wasted the time of Parliament.  IPID had been isolated and there had been a complete disregard for the law. He requested the National Commissioner to tell the Committee why he had not fulfilled the commitments he had made. He wanted to know what the National Commissioner planned to do and if he did not have the capacity to declassify information, he could bring the Minister to give Parliament an answer, but it would be at the expense of his own job.

Mr VG Smith (ANC) addressed General Khan on a statement she made earlier on, stating that she asked for assistance with regard to sorting out matters which concerned declassification of documents. Mr Smith cautioned her to never come to SCOPA and say that she told someone to “Deal with a matter”, he said that she must provide facts on the results, the Committee was not interested in the procedure, it was concerned with results.

Mr V Smith (ANC) suggested that the National Commissioner be given 14 days in which to produce results and to get information to IPID.

Mr D Ross (DA) said that he had not seen the document which SAPS said was not in the public interest to see. South Africans would be shocked to hear that one department could decide what was in the public interest and what was not. SCOPA had the ability to involve state security where the classification and declassification of documents was concerned. South Africans would be really shocked to hear that one individual had the power to shut down the entire criminal justice system -- and that this individual was an ex-cop turned businessman.

The Chairperson agreed to the two-week time period, as suggested by Mr Smith.

Mr M Hlengwa (IFP) wanted to know more about Ernest Stibbe, and his job title.

Dr Mohapi said that he was an acting senior manager. He also spoke on the reasons for the payments they had made.

Mr Hlengwa asked Gen Schutte for clarity on what had happened with regard to the payment made by SITA, and asked him directly if he had applied pressure on Dr Mohapi to make these payments.

Gen Schutte responded that no threats had been made.

Mr Hlengwa said that threats were in the eye of the beholder, and that the CEO and CFO may have felt under pressure just by interacting with Gen Schutte. He could see why they may have felt pressured into making payments.

Ms T Chiloane (ANC) wanted to go through some of the responses Gen Sithole had given to Parliament. She asked if there had been any disciplinary measures taken against those members who had made last minute payments to service providers on the last day of the financial year.

The National Commissioner said that he had instructed the internal auditor to start investigations into the matter. They would present the findings to him within the next two weeks.

Ms Chiloane stressed that it was important for the National Commissioner to forward the findings to the Committee. She referred to the slide show that had been presented, and said it had indicated clear abnormalities that were going on.

Mr Smith said that in terms of section 38 of the PFMA, the fact that one individual had the power to suspend the criminal justice system was shocking. He blamed the National Commissioner, as well as the head of SITA, and said that according to the PFMA they had failed because they had not assessed the risk. Since they had failed, he would like to know what should happen next. Using this as the basis for his next few questions, he mentioned that this Committee represented the South Africans who were not happy with the country’s current economic situation. He questioned the role of SITA and why it had allowed an ex-policeman to have the power to shut down the criminal justice system. The government should stop paying people like Mr Keating, and if Parliament said they should stop paying, then they should.

Ms Rasikhinya responded on what it was that had made her feel pressured to make the payment. She said her main focus was to maintain cash flow, and the company was in a situation where it was almost unable to pay salaries. In a meeting that she attended, Gen Schutte had said that it was important to pay, otherwise the criminal justice system would be at risk, and she had felt responsible for this.

In reply, Gen Schutte insisted that there was no direct threat made my him, and that he had made mention of the risks involved.

Mr Smith said that there had not yet been an apology for the blatant disregard of the instructions given by Parliament to not make payments. SITA had been using taxpayers’ money. He urged Mr Nomvete to cancel the contract with Mr Keating, and if it continued, the Committee would ask for the board of SITA to be removed.

Mr Ross wanted to know how the situation with Mr Keating had arisen in the first place. What had happened to the risk officers, and what had been the basis for accepting an agreement which was so vulnerable that it could bring the whole country to a standstill if not met? He suggested that there might have been contractual obligations which had forced them to pay.

Mr E Kekana (ANC) asked SITA about its financial systems. He wanted to know if the CFO had the capacity to make payments on her own without obtaining permission from the accounting officer. What was the CEO’s role in everything?

Dr Mohapi said he took full responsibility for what had happened, and said that the CFO had acted within her delegation.

Mr Brauteseth asked the National Commissioner to provide detailed information on the procurement of systems called LETS, EMS, PCEM and FPS. He requested dates, whether it had been advertised, the reasons why there had been a sole supplier, what amount had been spent on those contracts from the time they had been entered into until now, and specifically how many extensions had been granted. In short, he requested everything about those contracts. He asked everyone be honest and acknowledge that just one man, an ex-cop, could write a letter to the National Commissioner at any time if he was not paid and threaten to shut down the IT systems of SAPS, and that that was capture of the state security cluster.

Mr Booi (ANC) said that the equipment held by the police was currently not working and that he was having trouble establishing an honest relationship with Commissioner Sithole. He questioned how long the National Commissioner would carry on with his lack of performance, and his failure to tell the truth. His dishonesty was bringing Parliament into disrepute, and that in the next 14 days he should be prepared to resign should he not be able to deliver results and be honest.

The National Commissioner said that if he could not fulfil his task anymore, then he would be prepared to resign.

The Chairperson addressed the National Commissioner, and said that there was real need to transform the SAPS. Referring to the meeting between SAPS and SITA, the Chairperson said it should be of concern to General Sithole that his officials had gone to the meeting but had not bothered to inform him of his mandate. He asked the National Commissioner if the current setup, where Gen Schutte was the Deputy National Commissioner and the CFO had a different role, was legal.

Gen Sithole said that the initial arrangement had been illegal, but he had since changed the setup to comply with the law.

The Chairperson asked how many other illegal arrangements there were now within SAPS, and how it was affecting the legal operations of SAPS. One could tell when an official was trying to be “economical” with the facts. In connection with the FDA contract, SITA should send the Committee the outcome of the legal counsel which they had sought within the next two weeks.

The Chairperson also requested that the National Commissioner return with a better explanation as to why one person had the power to shut down the criminal justice system. The fact that this was a reality was scary, and no individual should have the power to hold the SAPS, or Parliament, to ransom.

The meeting was adjourned.

Download as PDF

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

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: