Madam Speaker, I have no doubt that history will refer to the Polokwane congress and its aftermath as the season of madness. It was a season of madness in which the serving President of this country was insulted by an unruly youngster who should rather have furthered his studies. It was the season of madness which saw the same President being thrown out of office. It was the season of madness which saw Premiers being kicked out. It was also a season of madness which saw an emotionally charged congress taking a decision that the Scorpions should be disbanded, and that decision is implemented today by ANC members in this House, albeit very reluctantly in some instances.
An effective crime-fighting unit is rendered obsolete. What a tragedy! What a shame! All along, it was an accepted principle in the committee that the crime-fighting unit for serious offences should retain the necessary independence. These principles were enumerated by the committee. But the Bill, as it stands today, falls short of the committee's own principles under instruction.
There is a lot of window-dressing in the Bill. But that, however, does not cure the basic deficiencies. First of all, the new unit will lack the independence to act against any person whatsoever. The unit's head will be a deputy commissioner in the SAPS. In other words, he will be a line functionary - a police officer. Although he is given the authority to take certain decisions, there is nothing to indicate that he cannot be overruled by the commissioner like any other police officer under his command.
Secondly, the budget of the unit is controlled by the commissioner as the accounting officer. This gives him effective control over the priorities of the unit. Furthermore, the DA is deeply concerned with the reasons and motives of the ANC for introducing this Bill. Why were the alleged deficiencies in the DSO not rectified? Why were they not addressed at an earlier stage? It is clear that the ANC, in demolishing the DSO, is punishing certain officers for what they did and is protecting other persons on the other hand. This is a dangerous, dangerous route to take. A structure, especially a government structure, should never be created, changed or dissolved because of personalities involved because personalities change. That is exactly what is happening today.
The ANC is of the view that this Bill is work in progress and that the issue should be revisited in future. This is absolute proof that this Bill is a product of the ANC's season of madness which will be revisited - I am sure - once sanity returns. I honestly think that every ANC member who is going to vote for the Bill will one day say, regrettably: "What have I done? Was I really part of that season of madness?" I thank you. [Applause.]
Deputy Speaker, hon Deputy President, hon Ministers and Deputy Ministers, hon members, as we celebrate the life and struggle of Mrs Albertina Sisulu, let us also mourn the passing away of a comrade, a former member and a stalwart of the ANC, the late Billy Nair.
The passing away of Comrade Billy Nair who had embraced the values and the spirit of the Freedom Charter and the Constitution. His steadfast commitment to the values, rights, rule of law and our democracy, should indeed usher in a sense of hope and not a sense of madness.
The DSO, commonly known as the Scorpions, was established following an announcement by former President Thabo Mbeki on 25 June 1999 that:
... a special and adequately staffed and equipped investigation unit will be established urgently to deal with all national priority crimes, including police corruption.
The unit was first established as part of the Investigating Directorate Organised Crime, pending the passing of legislation to formalise the DSO. The process leading up to that legislation in 2000 involved many meetings between Justice and Safety and Security. The critical issues were what matters were to be investigated by the unit and the manner in which the unit would be with those matters. The underlying problems were, firstly, a duplication of functions, especially with regard to the lodging of charges - the unit was after all not a charge office - and secondly, there was an issue of who was to perform the crime intelligence functions of the unit.
The Directorate of Special Operations Bill that was introduced in 2000 was aimed at the establishment of the DSO as a separate entity under the guidance of the National Director of Public Prosecutions, NDPP. However, during the parliamentary process, the Bill was changed and became an amendment to the National Prosecuting Authority Act, and the DSO was established as an investigating directorate of the NPA in the offices of the NDPP.
The difficult issues that characterised the establishment of the DSO remained and fuelled the tension between the SAPS and the DSO. Accusations were levelled that, in some instances, the DSO would take over advanced investigations of the SAPS and claim the credit for the resultant successful operations, as well as that the DSO was cherry-picking - swooping on high-profile cases that would boost the public image of the DSO. Although these tensions were initially largely issues of turf, the allegations of politically inspired DSO investigations only emerged much later. This intensified the tensions, leading to the appointment of the Khampepe Commission, in 2005, into the location and functioning of the DSO.
Although the commission did not recommend the relocation of the DSO, it did recommend that the special investigators attached to the DSO should fall under the political responsibility of the Minister of Safety and Security, and that mechanisms should be established to better co-ordinate the functions of the DSO with those of other agencies. In respect of the vexed issue of crime intelligence, the commission found that the DSO had, as a matter of fact, engaged in crime intelligence when this was neither legislatively nor constitutionally permissible. It was for this reason that the commission recommended that the DSO be subject to the Inspector-General of Intelligence. But that recommendation did not resolve the constitutional bar on the establishment of intelligence services. Only the President may establish an intelligence service. Since the crime intelligence function of the SAPS is established in terms of the Constitution itself, the relocation of the unit into the SAPS would resolve the ongoing problem.
Hon members, it is perhaps necessary to reflect more comprehensively on the former President's announcement that led to the establishment of the DSO. The thrust of that announcement was that the establishment of the DSO was part of a number of measures to improve the quality, conditions of service and public status of policemen and policewomen "so that they can be seen correctly as the frontline guarantors of the fundamental rights of liberty, life, safety and security".
The establishment of the DSO was seen as one of a number of measures to achieve these objectives, and I quote:
To enable our law-enforcement agencies to translate this into a reality, I am privileged to announce that a special and adequately staffed and equipped investigation unit will be established urgently to deal with all national priority crimes, including police corruption.
The focus was to improve the SAPS. With the benefit of hindsight, achieving these objectives was more likely to be achieved by integrating the investigative capacity of the DSO into the SAPS by means of an elite and specialised unit aided by the continued guidance and assistance of dedicated members of the NPA, thus perpetuating the successful troika principles of prosecution-assisted investigations informed by comprehensive crime intelligence. This is in fact what these two Bills under discussion are seeking to achieve. The structuring of this troika of functions - prosecution, investigation and intelligence - within the SAPS is nothing new. There are 87 - I repeat, 87 - dedicated prosecutors in the NPA who assist the South African police in investigating complex commercial crimes. Informed by its own intelligence, investigated by its own investigators and assisted by dedicated prosecutors from the NPA, the SAPS Commercial Crime Unit functions along the lines that we expect the new directorate will function. Indeed, the collaboration between Safety and Security and the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development has already begun. As you can see, they are seated together discussing this particular aspect.
Although there had been criticism that the ANC and its representatives in the House are just implementing party policy, I want to point out that the Constitutional Court, just yesterday, in a unanimous ruling in the Glenister matter, stated, and I quote from the judgment of Chief Justice Pius Langa:
In my view, there is nothing wrong in our multiparty democracy with Cabinet seeking to give effect to the policy of the ruling party. Quite clearly, in so doing, Cabinet must observe its constitutional obligations and may not breach the Constitution.
My task and responsibility, and the usher of hope I wish to bring in, is that indeed I would apply the latter in the spirit of the Constitution and ensure that in what we do and in how we do it, we are consistent with its provisions. I believe that Cabinet and Parliament have observed their constitutional obligations. My colleague, the Minister of Safety and Security, has outlined the consultation and public participation process and the different models considered by the joint portfolio committees. I just wish to add that if anyone has any doubt as to the seriousness of the engagement on the committee and with the public submissions, one needs only look at the original Bills and the Bills that are before you today to see the impact of that engagement.
In that vein, may I thank the chairpersons of both the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development and the Portfolio Committee on Safety and Security, as well as the Select Committee on Safety and Security and the distinguished and very hardworking officials from the Departments of Justice and Safety and Security, as well as Prof Halton Cheadle for his assistance in terms of labour matters. I said portfolio committee members, and that certainly includes, in our democratic dispensation, the opposition members. We spent many, many hours with deliberations.
The Bills were developed with the object of retaining as far as possible the specialised skills and methodology developed and employed by the DSO, as well as drawing from the most highly skilled and experienced detectives in the SAPS organised crime and commercial crime branches. This is where they came from. The intention is to establish a service which we think, for many reasons, ought to be located in the SAPS, but will continue to work in the spirit of the DSO in respect of the prevention and investigation of serious organised crime and priority offences.
The new unit will retain a multidisciplinary approach and employ an integrated methodology involving co-operation with and support of all government departments and institutions. It will be appropriately staffed with staff being selected on the basis of proven competence and integrity.
In this regard, it is necessary to state that it is our sincere hope that the special investigators in the DSO will seek to join the new unit in order to retain that investigative capacity as well as meeting our constitutional obligation of fair labour practices. We have given investigators a choice rather than automatically transferring them, as we could have done under the Labour Relations Act, to the SAPS; or to take up an offer of a reasonable alternative post or position in the NPA, but not as an investigator in such an event; or to take a post in the Public Service or state institutions such as the SA Revenue Services, for example. Refusal to accept a reasonable alternative post amounts to an election to leave the Public Service. This is why the severance terms will be those set out by the Minister for the Public Service and Administration for employee- initiated severance packages. In other words, four choices are available to these investigators. We have endeavoured to ensure that the core principles of the Constitution in respect of fair labour practice have been applied in this legislation. That is my task and that is my responsibility, namely consent to transfer, retention of service and conditions of employment, a reasonable alternative post and an equitable severance package for those who choose to no longer remain in the Public Service.
In the Business Day editorial today, an opinion is expressed that although the investigators will be guaranteed their conditions of service, they will not be guaranteed equal positions. Let me tell the Business Day that the right to fair labour practice in the Labour Relations Act protects all workers, including special investigators, from unfair demotion. But more importantly, let me address the members of the DSO and say that, quite apart from this government's legal and constitutional obligations, the intention is to encourage you to move to the SAPS as the Minister of Safety and Security has already said and invited you to do. This will certainly not be done by transferring you to a post that is not of a similar status to your expertise.
I also wish to address the concern that investigations will be prejudiced by the transfer and that once files have been transferred, they will not be pursued or that investigators that have worked on these investigations for years will suddenly be removed. In order to meet this concern, the Bill mandates me to establish a mechanism to ensure an orderly and effective transfer of the investigations. I will do this in consultation with the Minister of Safety and Security and, of course, after consultation with the National Director of Public Prosecutions and the National Police Commissioner. Each investigation or category of investigations will be dealt with.
May I give you the assurance that where a matter is with the prosecution authority, ready for prosecution, it will not revert to investigation, unless more evidence is sought by the prosecution authority. The fear that investigations will not be properly pursued fails to take into account the SAPS' code of conduct, which requires the SAPS to do the following: uphold the Constitution and the law; act with integrity in rendering an effective service; act against corruption and bring perpetrators to justice; and that a breach of the code constitutes a disciplinary offence or, if aimed at defeating the ends of justice, a criminal offence. There is also a new complaints mechanism under a retired judge to address any failure to pursue any investigation or any conduct to undermine any investigation.
Finally, I again repeat my thanks for what I think was a very, very vibrant and interactive endeavour on the part of the portfolio committees. Yunus Carrim, John Jeffery and the other members of the portfolio committees and the select committee, indeed you spent a great deal of time. The assurance I leave you with is that with my colleague, the Minister of Safety and Security, we will establish a mechanism that is practical, transparent and accountable. After all, the last word is with Parliament. You have the responsibility to oversee and to monitor our performance and our actions. I thank you very much for your attention. [Applause.]
Madam Deputy Speaker and hon members, today we have come to be witnesses to the demise of a competent organ of state - the DSO, alias the Scorpions. It is ironic that the unit is being disbanded because of its successes and not its failures. We are witnessing the obsession of the ANC to reconfigure, redesign, rename and reconstruct even successful entities such as the Scorpions so that they end up in mediocrity.
The successful unit that was launched in 1999 with fanfare and was hailed by South Africans for its success has to bite the dust because it fingered some untouchables in the ANC. In his usual guffaw of playing to the gallery, the Treasurer-General of the ANC was on record as saying, and I quote: "Why do we need people running around investigating one another?" He goes on further to say: "Institutions such as the Scorpions are unknown in other countries."
It is for this reason that we in the UCDP would say, "where ignorance is bliss, it is folly to be wise".
This is in contrast to what the hon Fatima Chohan-Khota, a member of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development, said on 11 November 1999 in a snap debate on the Scorpions. She pointed out that her committee had undertaken a visit to the United States and Canada to study, among other things, their crime-fighting structures and institutions. Whatever they learnt there, they modified to suit the local circumstances. Therefore, the Phosa argument is ill-informed.
The Scorpions have been second to none as crime busters. Their only evil is that they investigate successfully without fear, favour or prejudice. It is a shame that according to Gwede Mantashe, the Secretary-General of the ANC, the Scorpions have to be disbanded because the unit is prosecuting their leaders. He repeated this even yesterday after the successful application by the NPA to appeal against Judge Nicholson's judgement of August on the president of the ANC.
The interests of the ruling party should by no means be put above the interests of all South Africans. The checks and balances put in place even through the Khampepe Commission do not matter to the ANC. All that matters is ensuring that their members are not prosecuted. We cannot have laws applicable to some and not to others.
We regret the majoritarian approach with which the ANC handled this matter, stating that it is a Polokwane resolution and that it has to be law willy- nilly. The time will come when they will need the counsel they are spurning now. The UCDP will not support the dissolution of the Scorpions.
Madam Speaker, comrades and hon members, the APC enters this debate with its unwavering focus on what is in the national interest - intensifying and enhancing the fight against organised crime. It is the contention of the APC that organised crime syndicates have actually increased over the years, and what the DSO has uncovered has only been the tip of the iceberg.
To downplay the important achievements of the DSO would be as wrong as turning a blind eye to some of its glaring weaknesses, mistakes and misconducts. Similarly, some leaders in the ruling party have made assertions that the DSO needs to be disbanded because it targets them unfairly, which leaves a lingering impression that it is being disbanded for sectarian reasons whilst some in the opposition have undisguised their glee that the DSO arrests members of the ruling party.
The APC has always been for the correction of the weaknesses in the DSO without throwing the baby out with the bath water. However, the APC believes that it is undialectical to claim that we can never have a unit better than the DSO. It is our contention that the new unit out of the merger of the DSO and the organised crime unit of the SAPS should be strengthened, better equipped, resourced and supported. This new unit that is being created needs all the support and resources necessary to fight the scourge of organised crime. Let the criminals not be the winners whilst we politick selfishly with our nation's destiny.
The APC will support the merger of the Scorpions and the organised crime unit of the SAPS. I thank you. [Applause.]
Madam Deputy Speaker, hon Deputy President, for the three Ministers who participated in the debate, it was indeed a baptism of fire, I think. The two Bills before us establish a directorate within the SAPS that will address organised crime in an integrated, co-ordinated and focused manner by doing the following: bringing together the best people for the job; supplying them with all the necessary financial and other resources; and providing them with the legal mandate required in order to fight organised crime effectively and on all frontiers. The Bill is a vast improvement on the Bill that was first introduced in Parliament. These improvements came about as a result of the intensive process of public hearings and engagements in, sometimes, robust debates in the joint committees.
I want to focus on a couple of provisions in the Bill that provide a legislative framework that makes this directorate an effective crime- fighting directorate. Firstly, this directorate is now a directorate within the SAPS that was established by law. There is only one way in which this directorate can be closed down. It can be closed down if its mandate has changed or its focus has been redirected through legislation. This is an important factor as it underlines just how important the fight against organised crime is to this ANC government.
The Bill, as it was introduced, gave excessive powers to the national commissioner in terms of the appointment of the head of the directorate, the vetting of staff for the directorate and the selection of cases to be investigated by the directorate. In the amendment of the Bill, these issues were addressed. The position of the head of the directorate was elevated to become that of a deputy national commissioner. Not only does this reflect on the importance of the directorate, but it also enables direct responsibility in terms of performance. The head of the directorate shall be appointed by the Minister in concurrence with Cabinet. The Minister shall report to Parliament on the appointment of the head of the directorate. Staff to be appointed to this directorate shall be appointed on the recommendation of the head of the directorate. Furthermore, the head of the directorate now also plays a much more direct and independent role in determining cases to be investigated by the directorate.
The Bill aims to make sure that this directorate is staffed with people of the highest integrity. In this regard, over and above the normal security clearance members of the directorate would have to undergo, the legislation also makes provision for the declaration of financial and other interests by members of the directorate and their immediate family members. Provision is also made for further integrity testing which may include random entrapment, testing for the abuse of alcohol or drugs and the use of polygraphs or similar instruments to ascertain the truthfulness of a statement. Measures have been put in place to ensure that the manner in which this integrity testing will be done will protect individuals' rights and confidentiality. Though these measures might be considered intrusive, it is absolutely necessarily to ensure that we maintain the integrity of the unit and its staff at all times and that it should not be compromised by the actions of isolated individuals.
The Bill, as amended, places an obligation on other government departments to take the necessary steps to assist the directorate in the achievement of its objectives. This, together with the secondment of relative staff and the appointment of legal officers in the directorate, will ensure a multidisciplinary approach which the opposition would like to portray as if it has been sacrificed. It has not been sacrificed.
It is a pity that the inability of some to look past the current situation and instead focus on the broader picture and priorities cloud their judgement and the ability to engage with this legislation in a constructive manner. Furthermore, there are clear diagnoses of election fever amongst some members of the opposition. This fever is clearly making it difficult for them to distinguish between fact and fiction, truth and fairytales.
Throughout deliberations on these two pieces of legislation, we had to hear that the Scorpions was the best crime-fighting unit ever and that the SAPS does not have the capacity to deal with such complicated cases, as if members in the SAPS are a bunch of people who cannot think. Even more troublesome was how some members of the opposition badmouthed the SAPS in general, like they did again today in the House. It is these very members that would come here or go on television and act as if they cared about members of the SAPS. We warned against this. After everything is said and done, it is still going to be the SAPS and its men and women in blue who must bear the brunt of the crime in our country and who constitute the barrier between law-abiding citizens and criminals. It is them we rely on to provide a safe environment in which our country and our people can grow to achieve their fullest potential. How do you then justify these statements aimed at breaking down the morale of the police and demolishing the trust of the general population in the police?
Yes, the DSO was successful, and that is why we are bringing the best practices and people in it together with the SAPS so that we can strengthen the crime-fighting capacity of the SAPS. But it is simply not true to say that they were the only successful entity in fighting crime. Let us compare apples with apples. First of all - Ms Kohler-Barnard said this - the formula used by the DSO to determine their conviction rate differs from that of the SAPS. The DSO simply takes the number of cases that were finalised in courts and then, based on the successful convictions from those cases, determines their conviction rate. The SAPS, on the other hand, determines their conviction rate against the number of cases they have in their books. So, if the SAPS has 1000 murder dockets and 100 goes to court - of which they secure 30 convictions - they will then say they had a 3% conviction rate. For the same figures but with a different formula, the DSO will say they had a 30% conviction rate, not taking into consideration the 900 outstanding cases.
The commercial branch of the SAPS's statistics are determined in the same manner as that of the DSO. So, let us look at their statistics. They achieved a success rate of 92% and, in fact, 50% of the accused pleaded guilty in these cases. It is important to highlight the fact that these cases are of the same complexity as cases dealt with by the DSO - for instance, the crayon case in the East Rand. Within the SAPS, we have the organised crime unit and a unit for serious and economic crimes. In the past financial year, 2007-08, a total of 154 leaders of organised crime were identified. Of these, 131 were arrested by the organised crime unit of the police - an excellent figure indeed. It is also not only the DSO that had successes in the seizure of assets, but, in fact, so does the SAPS's organised crime unit. In 2007-08, about R49 million worth of assets were forfeited to the state through investigations performed by the SAPS. Let me mention some of the seizure success rates of the SAPS: about R23 million worth of vehicles was recovered; R8 million worth of stolen property was recovered; R11 million worth of cigarettes was recovered; and almost R23 million worth of cocaine was recovered. [Interjections.] [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Madam Speaker, in addressing the National Prosecuting Authority Amendment Bill and the South African Police Service Amendment Bill, I simply want to caution that we should be careful as a nation not to destroy institutions of the state, particularly those dealing with the security and safety of our country. We can't have murder, rape, corruption, etc, committed with impunity. Zero tolerance of crime should not be mere lip service.
Our national institutions must be reviewed and adjusted where the necessary adjustment needs to be done. But, under no circumstances should our institutions be interfered with for parochial objectives.
Much has been said about the Scorpions. The subject has reached a feverish pitch. Some people have gone to court to express their feelings about this issue. There are those who have argued that the purpose of these Bills is to protect certain political leaders from being charged for criminal offences such as corruption. If this is true, it is despicable and must be condemned in the strongest language at our command by all the citizens of this country.
On the other hand, there are those who claim that the Scorpions exceeded their powers. They also hobnobbed with foreign secret services to a point of being a tool for foreign interests. One thing must be made crystal clear and that is that security and safety forces exist to serve our country and not its functionaries or political leaders. Their primary duty is to secure this nation.
Order! Hon member, I'm afraid your speaking time has expired.
Seeing that the PAC does not know whether the body being created will be a black mamba or a lizard, the PAC will abstain from voting. [Time expired.]
Madam Deputy Speaker, in its 2004 election manifesto, that is the so-called "People's Contract", the ANC promised to strengthen the Scorpions. Today they are breaking that contract by dissolving the Scorpions. Morally, I think they should have gone back to the voters who had mandated them to strengthen the Scorpions and explain to them why it became necessary to go against their promise.
Let us again look at the motivation for dissolving the Scorpions. The resolution taken at Polokwane was based on the wrong premise that there was a constitutional imperative that precluded the Scorpions from existing outside the SAPS. I pointed out in the First Reading debate that both the Constitutional Court and Judge Khampepe have indicated that there was no constitutional impediment on the Scorpions being in the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development. We therefore know that constitutional issues were not the real reason behind the drive to dissolve the Scorpions.
What then was the real reason? In the approximately 150 hours that the two committees concerned deliberated on the matter, no compelling reason was put forward at any stage - and I'm underlining the word "compelling". The Minister for Provincial and Local Government referred to things here that were really not "compelling" reasons.
The motivation could also not have been to strengthen the fight against crime because the new unit in the SAPS will definitely not be as efficient as the Scorpions were. As a matter of fact, nobody accused the Scorpions of being inefficient. So, why fix something if it is not broken? The only logical deduction is that the Scorpions became a thorn in the flesh of senior ANC cadres who were being investigated by the Scorpions. But instead of taking disciplinary action against such members, they are being protected. Had these members been members of the DA, we would long ago have instituted disciplinary action against them because our code of conduct for public representatives requires the highest standard of ethical behaviour. Any incidence of corruption, fraud and so on, will lead to disciplinary action. However, it seems as if the ANC has a different code of conduct.
To paraphrase Attlee, one-time British Prime Minister: Democracy means different things to different people. To the ANC, it appears to mean that the resolution adopted by 2 500 delegates can be forced through a Parliament elected by 16 million people. I rest my case. [Applause.]
Madam Deputy Speaker, comrades, friends and Deputy President - congratulations on your appointment - beyond all the bluster and political posturing, let us be clear. The vast majority of us in the ANC are not triumphalist. We are not gloating about the dissolution of the Scorpions. This is in fact a sad occasion, for what was meant to be an elite, efficient and powerful organised crime-fighting unit - the pride of the nation - has become a source of division in the nation. We will forever disagree on who is responsible for what in this saga and how we have come to this. But we have, and we cannot continue like this. We have to move on; we must. We have learnt our lessons, let us heed them.
Let us be clear. None of us in the ANC says the new organised crime- fighting model is perfect. But enough of us say this unit is workable. Give it a chance. Let it develop. This is work in progress. We have not been too prescriptive. We have provided the basic features of the new model. We can improve on it. It will have to be considered further in at least three contexts: the finalisation of the proposed new integrated criminal justice system; the pending overhaul of the South African Police Service Act as a whole; and a report from the Minister of Safety and Security to Parliament within three years on the performance of this new unit and the need for any legislative amendments. In any case, the nature, scope and methods of organised crime change constantly. So, obviously we will regularly have to review our organised crime-fighting unit and its methods.
It's not as if we must stress that we came to this new model lightly. We didn't just blindly and hurriedly implement the Polokwane resolution. Parliament is not some subcommittee of the ANC. [Interjections.] Let's agree to disagree. We refuse to abandon our legislative role. We had extensive public hearings. We spent some 190 hours on the Bill in formal meetings of the committee and the subcommittee and at least another 100 hours in informal exchanges with key stakeholders. We unanimously, as my comrade co-chair Maggie Sotyu said, rejected the weak and limp South African Police Service Bill that the executive offered us, and we rewrote it to ensure a more effective and organised crime-fighting unit.
We tried to find three balances. Firstly, we tried to find a balance between providing a firm framework for the new unit and not being too prescriptive. Secondly, we tried to balance the unit between being independent and being a part of the SAPS in a way that avoids replicating tensions between the DSO and the SAPS. Thirdly, we tried to find a way of both recognizing the specialty of organised crime and ensuring that it is located as part of our fight against crime as a whole. These balances, we insist, are right for now, given the specific circumstances we are in. But what's there to stop us from altering the balance, if we have to?
Again, based on the DSO experience, to avoid the new unit being political biased, we provided for an independent complaints mechanism for now. But, we can't just focus on the new unit without considering the SAPS as a whole. So, in our report we suggested to Parliament that the ICD be strengthened or a new mechanism be created to attend to all forms of complaints about the SAPS generally when the South African Police Service Act is overhauled.
In response to the many points I have made, an election is coming up. We understand that people have to grandstand politically, and I am doing that too. But there are limits to which you can do that. Let me start with the Khampepe Commission of Inquiry. A significant number of the opposition members recognised that the Khampepe Commission, in its substantial proposal, is not workable. You have investigators answerable to the Minister of Safety and Security and prosecutors answerable to the NPA. We asked them in the committee to explain to us how that would work. There was a sullen, deafening silence. So, they themselves acknowledged that the Khampepe Commmission can't always work.
Secondly, there is no obligation in any democracy anywhere in the world for a commission report - even by a judge - to be accepted necessarily by the executive or by Parliament. Democracies all over the world allow for that.
Thirdly, there are 10 substantial improvements on the Bill that we set out in section 6(6) of our report that was published on Tuesday morning in the