Madam Speaker, on a point of order: Can the members of Parliament who were investigated by the Scorpions, following the Travelgate scandal, debate and vote on these two Bills that will effectively disband the Scorpions? May I address you briefly on this point?
The ACDP raised this issue at the beginning of the public hearings on the future of the Scorpions. Item 12 of the code of conduct for Members of Parliament states the following:
A member must -
(a) declare any personal or private financial or business interest that that member or any spouse, permanent companion or business partner of that member may have in a matter before a joint committee, committee or other parliamentary forum of which that member is a member; and
(b) withdraw from the proceedings of that committee or forum when that matter is considered, unless that committee or forum decides that the member's interest is trivial or not relevant.
We, as the ACDP, hold the view that there was a clear conflict of interest and that further participation in the committees and in Parliament by affected members and possible later voting and debating will amount to a breach of the code of conduct. In our view, interest is not limited to pecuniary interest.
We respectfully ask you to rule whether it is permissible for 43 Members of Parliament to vote and debate on these Bills this afternoon.
Thank you, Mr Swart. [Interjections.]
Madam Speaker, may I just make one last point? According to the affidavit filed in the High Court last night, you stated under oath that 43 members, at the most, could very well be said to fall foul of item 12 of the disciplinary code. In view of this statement, we believe that such members - their names are in your possession - should voluntarily excuse themselves. Thank you, Madam Speaker. [Applause.]
Order, hon members! I wish to thank Mr Swart for alerting me that he was going to raise this matter. I have, however, studied the issue in preparation for this debate. In the view of matters raised publicly with regard to whether certain members of this House should participate in proceedings when the National Prosecuting Authority Amendment Bill and the South African Police Service Amendment Bill are considered, I am convinced that I have no statutory or Rule basis to instruct any duly elected member of this House, under these circumstances, not to participate in the debate. Conflict of interest in the parliamentary context is ordinarily presumed to refer to a direct interest in a matter before the House. It must refer to a personal or private financial or business interest. It is a well- established practice that in order to operate as a disqualification, a member's interest must be immediate and personal and not merely of a general or remote character. It must not be an interest that is shared with the rest of the public or that relates to a matter of policy.
Members are sent to Parliament to represent their constituencies, who must not be disenfranchised so lightly. So, the House should not unnecessarily be deprived of their opinion.
It can be argued that a general bias exists in almost everything a Member of Parliament does in the course of his or her work. Under the circumstances, I cannot instruct any member to leave the House during the consideration of these Bills. Therefore, the debate continues. [Applause.]
I now call upon the hon Minister of Safety and Security. [Interjections.]
Madam Speaker, on a point of order: I really apologise to the hon Speaker. It was agreed previously with the Speaker and the Secretary to Parliament that the proposer of the amendments will be allowed to table and motivate the amendments because that would bring the amendments into the debate. Otherwise, ... [Interjections.]
I am responding to the point raised by Mr Swart.
Madam Speaker, on a point of order: I thought you had finished because you had asked the Minister to start speaking. However, this is a second point of order.
Okay! Minister, can you take your seat, please.
Madam Speaker, the point is that the hon Delport has proposed a number of amendments to the Bill, which appear on the Order Paper of today. The contention is that these amendments should be debated by the House before the Bill is actually put. [Interjections.]
I know what to do with the amendments. I was dealing with Mr Swart. I just want to appeal for patience, Mr Ellis. There is just no way ... [Interjections.]
Madam Speaker, but the Minister came up here to start talking about the Bill. He came up here to start debating. You must have finished with Mr Swart. [Interjections.]
Will you please take your seat? May I have the set of amendments as proposed? I don't have them in front of me. I only have the order that was raised by the ACDP.
We therefore allow the debate to continue, and we will consider the set of amendments. We will give you an opportunity to speak to the amendments.
Madam Speaker, on a point of order: With all due respect, we are entitled to debate the amendments. The amendments must surely be put on the table ... [Interjections.]
I am not stopping you from proposing the amendments. When we come to the point of the second reading, we will consider the amendments. We will follow procedures correctly. You will be given an opportunity. I don't understand because you had a discussion with me yesterday, where I indicated that I was going to give you an opportunity to raise your amendments and you will be given an opportunity to speak to them. Can we still have that arrangement?
I understood that I would be allowed to put the case for the amendments so that during the debate, other speakers can refer to my amendments. [Interjections.] That is the normal thing to do.
No, no! That is not normal, and I will tell you why. This is because I need to be on your side. I want people to focus purely on your amendments so that they don't have to be dealing with other things while they have to deal with your amendments. May we deal with what we are discussing first. You will then later propose your amendments, and we will go to your amendments and give you an opportunity to speak to them? If anybody wants to respond to your amendments, they will not respond to anything else but to your amendments. So, this is actually to your benefit. Will you please allow me to continue? [Interjections.] Thank you, sir.
Somlomo, ngibingelele nakumalunga ahloniphekile ale Ndlu yethu. [Speaker, I greet all the hon members of this House.]
The pages of our country's history are decorated with faces of heroic women and men who guided the Freedom Charter and spared neither effort nor strength to ensure the birth of a society based on democratic values, social justice and fundamental human rights.
On Tuesday, 21 October 2008, Mama Albertina Sisulu celebrated her 90th birthday. We join the millions of South Africans in saluting this fierce and fearless fighter for our country's freedom, unwavering in her commitment to the cause of peace, justice, and development. Ma' Sisulu triumphed over apartheid arrests, detentions and burnings. During the dark days of apartheid colonialism, Ma' Sisulu was a tower of strength. We wish her a happy birthday. [Applause.]
Standing on the broad shoulders of those who went before us, today we face the challenge to continue the historic task of strengthening democracy and to do all in our power to improve the quality of life of all South Africans. Indeed, we still have a long way to go to reach the day when the legacy of white minority political domination will overcome, and a truly united, democratic, and prosperous South Africa will be born. Our own history bears witness to the fact that if we as people unite in pursuit of a just cause, victory is assured.
Indicators reveal that some crime levels are dropping in South Africa. Nevertheless, levels of crime in our country still remain unacceptably high. Of further concern is the high prevalence of organised crime manifesting itself through organised violent robberies, cash-in-transit heists, hijackings, theft of motor vehicles, drugs and weapon trafficking, fraudulent acquisition of national documents, and in many other ways. Organised crime and crime in general must be defeated.
Crime is a blemish to human society, the clearest demonstration of misdirected energy - like your energy that is misdirected - and a manifestation of the worst form of greed. It dehumanises the victim and the perpetrator. Crime undermines our effort to create a humane society and our struggle to ensure that human rights are realised in practice. It spawns hate and mistrust; it wastes lives; and it undermines our effort to improve the quality of life of all the people.
We must win the battle aimed at the realisation of the safety and security of every South African. The just dispensation we have entrenched is based on the principle of equality, including equal access to peace and security and an aspect of the realisation of the goal for a better life for all. The South African Police Service Amendment Bill of 2008 is a continuation of this effort. It takes our fight against organised crime to higher levels. It will enable us to rectify weaknesses in our system whilst ensuring better organisation and utilisation of our human and material resources.
Despite the progress that has been made in many areas, government's review processes indicated the need to realign state entities mandated to investigate and combat organised crime. We have to address the issue of poor co-operation and co-ordination that has shown itself up in the past. We have to find ways to address cases of duplication and parallel investigations. If we do not, only criminals will benefit from such inaction.
As a country, we have long accepted that because of its nature, organised crime requires to be addressed through a multipronged, well-equipped and resourced unit, better to exercise proper balance in its decision to prosecute or not and to ensure the realisation of the principle of the separation of functions. Prosecutors need to be independent from investigators.
The Bill before us provides a smooth transfer of personnel. Safety and Security is ready to welcome the employees into our ranks as we are preparing to hit the ground running. We must also assure the people of our country that no cases will be lost. Once the Bill is passed, investigations of the Directorate of Special Operations, DSO, shall be dealt with as if the Act had always been in force.
As we journey along the transformation path, we continue to gain more experience and insight about the nature of the reality we seek to change. This applies to all that is the subject of our transformative effort and necessitates continual evolution of our crime-fighting strategies, entities, arsenal and programmes. We have gained considerable experience during the life of the organised crime unit, the DSO, the commercial branch of the South African Police Service and other units. On their own, the units have all contributed positively to fight against organised crime. However, we cannot deny the fact that, because they existed as separate entities, there also existed an element of negative tension arising from the fact that they had intersecting mandates. This situation also allowed some units to operate in a manner that amounted to a narrowing down of their mandate and a preoccupation with certain kinds of crimes, with the result that other crimes were inadvertently ignored. It could, for instance, be argued that not enough work was done to prosecute financial crimes despite the existence of the relevant legislative framework.
The previous arrangements also resulted in a situation where units which did not report their successes to the media were unjustly perceived as poor performers. A situation like this poses many potential dangers. The Johannesburg High Court is currently delivering a judgement on the Jeppestown case. In the pursuit of the alleged robbers, four police officers lost their lives.
Despite this high level of commitment by the SAPS, a false impression persists in some quarters that the Service is less committed. This is also because the SAPS has not stood on rooftops to shout about their successes and actions of outstanding bravery. Accordingly, we must take this opportunity to salute the men and women who, on a daily basis, expose their lives to danger to ensure the safety and security of all South Africans.
Our crime-fighting units are on the same side of the battle against crime. This fact must also be reflected in the manner in which they are generally organised as a team, not in different units.
The enactment of the South African Police Service Amendment Bill will enhance our capacity to prevent, combat and investigate priority crimes. It brings into life a multidisciplinary and integrated approach in the prevention, combating and investigation of organised crime. We need to identify and preserve the positive lessons born of our various experiences. While the initial process of merging our experiences may contain some aspect of pain, there is no doubt that the resultant sense of unity will be in the long-term interest of the fight against crime.
For some reason unbeknown to us, the opposition in our country does tend to back the wrong horse. When we proclaimed the Freedom Charter as a vision that had a promise for long-lasting peace in our country, they remained hesitant to embrace it for many years. Year after year, since the establishment of democracy, we had to weave our way through a barrage of criticism in order to pass progressive transformative policy measures. Floor-crossing is just an example. Today, they stand again on the wrong side of the debate.
Through the establishment of the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation, DPCI, we established a sharper instrument to stab the heart of organised crime. [Interjections.] Yes, practice will, as it often does, reveal improvement. However, the collective experience, resources, commitment and unity of purpose that already reside in the unit will ensure very firm and effective beginnings.
We must commend the profoundly democratic manner in which the Bills on this matter have been processed. The people of our land from all walks of life had an opportunity to "say their say", as the saying goes, mindful of the fact that they were simply fulfilling their responsibilities. We must still congratulate Parliament and its committees on the thorough effort they put into processing the Bills.
We salute the people of our country on their enthusiastic participation in public hearings. We thank those who spoke in support of the Bill, as well as those who sought to draw the attention of legislators to certain witnesses. The vibrant discussion on the Bill enriched our understanding of the challenges we face. The ideas that emerged have become our national intellectual asset and have enriched the Bill and nourished our capacity to navigate our way into the future.
Some, in our society, have asserted a view that some members of this House should recuse themselves from participating in processes relating to this Bill. We shall leave this to historians to ponder why such moral rectitude never arose when we enacted legislation to outlaw apartheid on the basis that many of the participants had not only benefited from apartheid, but had actually been the architects of some of its legislative framework. [Applause.]
The rejection of Hugh Glenister's applications by our courts is confirmation that the principle of separation of powers is well entrenched in our country. Freedom includes freedom from fear of criminal and criminality. We shall do all we can, and we invite all South Africans in their areas of social activity, to flex our collective muscle and to work with organs of our criminal justice system to bring about better, safe and secure communities. We are progressively giving life to the demand of the Freedom Charter that: "... there shall be peace, security and friendship."
I thank you. [Applause.]
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Minister, let me take this opportunity and congratulate you and the hon Enver Surty on your appointments, and also welcome you into the security cluster.
The former President, Thabo Mbeki, during his state of the nation address early in 2008, indicated the need for government to overhaul the criminal justice system in order to improve its effectiveness in dealing with crime in general and organised crime in particular, as highlighted by the Minister of Safety and Security. Organised crime is a challenge that affects South Africa at all levels. It creates fear in the community and contributes to economic instability. Even the Khampepe Commission, amongst other things, found that organised crime continued to present a threat to the country's young democracy and that a comprehensive strategy to address this problem had to be found. In response to the above, the executive eventually decided that there was a need to address organised crime in a more comprehensive fashion and, to this end, to amalgamate selected special investigators of the Directorate of Special Operations, DSO, with selected members of commercial crime and organised crime components of the SAPS into a new division within the SAPS, namely the DPCI.
As a result of the challenge of dealing with organised crime effectively, the Cabinet came up with amendments to the South African Police Service Bill and the National Prosecuting Authority Bill. These Bills were referred to the Portfolio Committee on Safety and Security and the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development. In line with the former President's state of the nation address, the South African Police Service Amendment Bill proposed the establishment of the DPCI. Both committees agreed that this piece of legislation, that is the South African Police Service Amendment Bill, was a very weak and poor Bill. It was also agreed that the Bill, in its current form, would not pass any legal or political test for creating an effective organised crime-fighting unit.
The Portfolio Committee on Safety and Security, the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development and the Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs started with extensive public hearings in Parliament from 5 to 8 August 2008. The said committees visited all nine provinces for public hearings on the two Bills, from ll to 15 August 2008. It was obvious from the public participation that the majority of the participants supported the disbandment of the DSO in all nine provinces. Through persistent engagement, the committees were able to get all political parties in the committee to agree to the general principles of an effective organised crime-fighting unit. But parties disagreed on the kind of model that was best based on the agreed principles. We wish to thank Dr Delport who came up with this idea. Five models were proposed by different parties and each party was expected to consult with its caucus in Parliament. The ANC caucus agreed on model 4, which was the improved model 3, as proposed by the South African Police Service Amendment Bill.
The principles I referred to earlier are as follows: the multidisciplinary approach; the unit to be located within the SA Police Service as a division; the Minister of Safety and Security to be the political head, with the unit's budget as a subprogramme within the SA Police Service; the unit to have the necessary independence to perform its functions; the head of the unit to be appointed by the Minister of Safety and Security in concurrence with Cabinet; and the head to be at the rank of a deputy national commissioner.
The Minister shall report to Parliament on the appointment of the head of the directorate. The unit will not have a separate crime intelligence function, but it will draw intelligence experts from the SA Police Service crime intelligence unit and use crime intelligence in the performance of its functions.
I must indicate that this was not an easy exercise due to the fact that the original proposal from the executive was very poor. We had to convert some of the Members of Parliament from all parties into drafters, and we went to the extent of drawing in technical and legal experts from civil society to assist in the redrafting of the South African Police Service Amendment Bill.
This review of the DSO was a complex issue, especially when it came to the location of the crime-fighting unit. We must note that this had been raised by opposition parties when the DSO was established and debated on 31 August 2000. As much as the DA supported the establishment of the Scorpions, the hon Sheila Camerer, in her speech then, had this to say, and I quote:
However, the questions of where to situate such an elite group of cops, their reporting lines, authorities, liaison with other police units, ministerial responsibility and so on, were never going to be easy.
In that same debate on 31 August 2000, the FF Plus was the only opposition party opposed to the establishment of the Scorpions. Dr P W A Mulder raised very serious concerns then, which are now, unfortunately, the challenges we are faced with. Dr Mulder, in his speech then, had this, amongst others, to say, and I quote:
... to establish the elite unit outside of the police in our view does not work because it is a slap in the face of the police. The government is in fact saying that the police are not doing their job properly. Perhaps one could still establish such a unit in the police, but out there it will create tension. The cross-control, in particular, we said is going to cause chaos instead of combating crime.
Furthermore, Dr Mulder had this to say, and I quote:
... we predict that this is going to create more tension in the future.
In consultation with all affected parties, from 30 September to 2 October 2008, the portfolio committees visited the staff of the DSO and the organised crime unit of the SAPS to inform them about the effects of the legislations and to listen to their concerns. Arising from the concerns and issues that were raised by both parties, it was agreed to establish a joint task team of both members of the DSO and members of the SAPS in order to deal with all concerns raised, including the transitional provisions.
It is important to note that the DSO has a skill that we need within the SAPS. It is also obvious that the SAPS organised crime unit and commercial crime unit are doing very good work, but they lack the skill to communicate their successes. I believe the DSO, with the special skill in publicity, will be able to strengthen the SAPS crime unit.
In conclusion, allow me to take this opportunity to thank all members of joint committees of Parliament for the support they have shown to us as co- chairpersons of both committees. I also want to commend the SAPS on the good work they are doing. It was clear from the SAPS' briefing that they have the capacity to deal with organised crime. Keep up the good work. I know you can do even better.
Comrade Yunus, I will miss your brief contributions and the abnormally late working hours that we spent without any signs of tiredness. I thank the opposition party members who engaged us and criticised us constructively. Please give this unit a chance, and within three years, we will evaluate its performance. I thank you.
Madam Speaker, the Khampepe Commission under Judge Sisi Khampepe told Parliament to keep the DSO under the NPA. The Cabinet endorsed the report and its recommendations in June 2006. But when the reality of that ruling became apparent, the country learnt to its horror that when reality doesn't suit the ANC, they think they can overrule a judge.
On 11 February this year, the then Minister chose to announce that he would be disbanding the Scorpions - something he had chosen not to tell the hundreds of staff of that unit. So, they heard on the news that their jobs were to be terminated. Terminated they will be, Minister, as they have to apply to see if the ANC thinks they are good enough to belong to the SAPS. These are advocates, forensic auditors, specialist investigators - none of whom ever wished to be in the police service. After hearing the sneering tones used at the SAPS head office in Pretoria when the Scorpions were referred there, ably encouraged by the hon Maggie Sotyu, well, they just won't go! Law enforcement agencies all over the world are utterly delighted that these experts are on the market, and they will no doubt snap them up. The fact that the Director-General of Justice and Constitutional Development toured the country telling Scorpions members that they would be allowed no promotion within SAPS for the next five years has only fuelled their fears.
Of course the whole country heard the chairpersons of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development and the Portfolio Committee on Safety and Security state at a press conference on 30 July, before this process had even begun, that the decision to disband the unit had already been taken; Parliament must implement Polokwane; and that the 98 000 signatures and the 7 978 written submissions we hand-delivered to them were irrelevant as they didn't represent the "right constituency". So, it's obviously true that the R2 million spent to tour the country with the so-called "provincial hearings" was indeed just a means of electioneering on the taxpayer's back. You have, in the process, created and fabricated enmity, both towards the Scorpions and between the SAPS and the Scorpions, where none previously existed. They still are the most trusted and admired crime-fighting unit in South Africa. You even completely ignored the request that the 30 relevant staff working on 5 remaining cases be allowed to take those cases through to courts before the SAPS absorbed the Scorpions.
You also know that the committees have failed to comply with Rule 243(1)(c)(iii) of the National Assembly Rules as the cost implications of the dissolution of the DSO and the creation of the DPCI have not even begun to be addressed adequately.
No matter what you do, Travelgate can't be erased, nor can the arms deal. No one can shield any South African citizen from investigation and prosecution. The six members of your National Executive Committee, NEC, convicted by the Scorpions know that.
The DSO - the Scorpions - is but one of the units under the auspices of the NPA, an authority that is instructed by our Constitution to exercise that authority without fear, favour or prejudice. Yet, how have we, as a country, thanked the highly qualified DSO men and women - people who have given nine years of their lives dedicating themselves to tackling some of the most complex criminal investigations imaginable, taking them to court and winning 94% of them - for this selfless dedication to ensuring that right wins over might?
Members of the ANC, as they began their election campaign during provincial hearings, came out en masse with the most preposterous, self-serving statements imaginable. I noted them carefully: "Our women are still being raped" - so, scrap the Scorpions; "our homes are still being broken into" - so, scrap the Scorpions; "there is child abuse and trouble at the taxi ranks" - so, scrap the Scorpions.
I also noted there was never a call to scrap the SAPS, which, of course, should have been dealing with these matters. Theatrical tones of disgust were used in describing the troika principle, with a prosecutor leading investigators - a system that resulted in successes in court despite the fact that exactly the same system is used, but a lot less effectively, by the SAPS. One ANC branch head even claimed that Scotland Yard ran the Scorpions!
The ANC still perpetuates the "single police force" determination argument - that's you, Mr Minister, attempting, by repetition, to overrule both the Khampepe Commission and the Constitutional Court dicta - Minister of Defence vs Mpontshane 2002(1)SA 1 - which absolutely allow for different divisions to be established to protect this country.
As this country watches the "Malemaisation" of our politics, his followers stated, amongst other fabrications, that members of the Scorpions were apartheid-era criminals. Not true, there are MK members there! Willie Hofmeyr, who has served this country so well, even as an ANC MP, came to us and calmly and logically refuted every one of those claims and pointed out that the original difficulties that the DSO had had been sorted out three years ago.
The unit's successes speak for themselves as they were the first in this country to convict financial directors of fraud, tackle major international corporate raiding, register money-laundering and racketeer convictions. They made the Brett Kebble murder arrest, confiscated drugs to the value of R600 million, broke the platinum and abalone smuggler syndicates and ran Travelgate - many of you are intimately familiar with this. Yes, they jailed Schabir Shaik and Tony Yengeni, and, yes, they are the ones who investigated the Selebis, Agliottis and Zumas and the extraordinary Fidentia case.
Now, given these successes, the question has to be asked - before unleashing their dogs of war - as to why did the ANC not sit with them and ask questions?
One of the lessons the ANC as a liberation movement has never learnt as it attempted to transmogrify into a political party is something that perhaps the hon Johnny de Lange would apparently like us to do when our members are hacked almost to death by your members. They still want the opposition party to keep quiet, and that's something we will never do.
We must leave this country with the checks and balances that will ensure that the next Selebi is investigated and that we have someone left to police our police. Let us hope that those of you leaving the ANC - the 50 of you, most of whom have apparently already left the House - will vote with us today against this absurd self-serving legislation. [Applause.]
Madam Speaker, today reminds me of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941 when American president Roosevelt described the Japanese attack as a "Day of Infamy". I predict that the same will be said about the murder of the Scorpions.
What is to happen today? The majority party merely wants this House to rubber-stamp their Polokwane decision today. They want us to ignore the merits and outstanding successes of the Scorpions. They want us to help them cover up the truth - the real truth about the Scorpions - namely that the Scorpions must die because they had to charge high profile ANC persons such as the police commissioner and Mr Jacob Zuma.
It was crystal clear right from the start that despite the ANC's poor window-dressing explanations to the contrary and despite the many meetings of the portfolio committee and the millions of words spoken there and ... [Interjections.] Yes, I didn't attend most of them because I attended the reference group of the President. Another IFP member was there, and you were not there all the time. So, shut up. [Laughter.] So, despite the many public hearings and all these, it was abundantly clear from the start that the ANC charade was hidden under all this window-dressing, namely the ANC's real intention simply to enforce their rubber stamp on the killing of the Scorpions.
It is also clear after Polokwane, which now really governs South Africa - the SACP- that the silent Polokwane communist coup is taking South Africa into a new and ominous direction in doing the following: killing the Scorpions to prevent prosecutions; bringing back the Land Expropriation Bill and moving towards a disastrous Zimbabwe situation in respect of land; and creating a small super-Cabinet so that only a handful of people effectively govern South Africa in the name of democracy. No wonder the ANC has split and hundreds of thousands of their former supporters are streaming to the new party. I can see how stressed they are because they are losing.
In a nutshell, one characteristic of the Scorpions that made them this very highly successful organised crime fighter was their independence and the fact that they were located outside of the police. They could investigate and prosecute without fear of favour and without political or other interference. In fact, the Scorpions did not hesitate to charge the police commissioner and Mr Jacob Zuma. But that precious independence is now, of course, down the drain.
The IFP has a number of strong objections to the legislation before this House, and I will only refer to a few. Firstly, the National Prosecuting Authority Amendment Bill kills the Scorpions and, secondly, the South African Police Service Amendment Bill creates the DPCI as just another police division taking instructions from the commissioner. In other words, the new unit will not be independent and could be subjected to interference from higher levels. The Bill does not guarantee that all Scorpions investigators will be selected for the new unit. Already, a number of highly skilled ones have resigned. There is no guarantee that the DSO will finalise the so-called "sensitive investigation" that it is currently conducting or which may be pending.
In conclusion, the decision to kill the Scorpions is a reckless political expediency to protect ANC leaders and members from criminal investigation and possible prosecution. The decision is the result of a communist take- over in Polokwane. The communist take-over is switching on many red lights for the future of this country, especially for democracy. In the circumstances, the IFP will not be a party to such gross abuse of power.
History will one day say that today was a day to be remembered as a day that will live on in infamy. We will therefore vote against these Bills and support the DA's amendments which are an improvement of the Bills before the House in respect of the independence of the new prosecuting structure. Thank you. [Applause.]
Madam Speaker and hon members, the Bills before us are the products of the ANC's December resolution to disband the Scorpions. This resolution was motivated by a dubious political agenda. A barrage of lies and distortions were uttered about the DSO, before and after Polokwane, to justify this unwarranted and dangerous attack upon one of the few working crime-fighting and corruption-busting institutions. It seems that the campaign to elevate one person to the highest office in the ANC and in the land will proceed, no matter what the cost.
This entire parliamentary process has been an ill-disguised sham. The Minister of Safety and Security announced the decision as a fait accompli. Later, the chairperson of the joint committee said the outcome was preordained. The public hearings were a travesty, with orchestrated ANC submissions and bussed in hooligans who shouted down any person who disagreed with them.
The ANC is pushing to dismantle a viable institution in order to create a clumsy ill-conceived replacement which is located in an organisation that is riddled with corruption and mismanagement. If there are MPs in the ANC with a shred of conscience, today is the day they can demonstrate that. It does not matter whether you think your vote alone will change anything. Do the honourable thing as an hon member. Simply do what is right and abstain. If you intend campaigning in the forthcoming elections on a ticket of respect for the rule of law and democracy, then you cannot vote in support of these despicable Bills and the profoundly undemocratic agenda.
The UDM does not support the Bill. Thank you. [Applause.]
Madam Speaker, let's just get down to facts and cut out the hot air. The hon Bici was never at any of the portfolio committee meetings that deliberated on this Bill; Mr Van der Merwe was hardly ever there; and Ms Kohler-Barnard was actually quite constructive when TV cameras or sound bite people were not around. Let's get down to facts regarding the DSO or Scorpions and why we have to pass the Bills before us.
It is a fact that there were serious problems with the DSO that could not be left unattended. The Scorpions was a new innovation in the fight against crime that included prosecutors, detectives and intelligence operators in one unit - a very powerful combination, but one that created its own problems. It is useful going back, as my colleague, Ms Sotyu, did, to look at what was said at the time when the Bills that created the Scorpions were passed, and look at some of the concerns that interested groups and even parties in this House had - people who are now beating the drum that we should not be passing these Bills. Some of those concerns were that this unit would be a parallel force leading to interdepartmental jealousy and that the unit would not be accountable to Parliament. The UDM is even quoted as asking at the time, and I'm not sure whether it was the hon Holomisa or the hon Bici, and I quote: "Are they Mbeki's private palace guard?"
Mr Macintosh, who was then a member of the DA, is quoted as saying:
In principle we are in favour of the Scorpions, but we have misgivings about them. Are they going to become a second police force?
There were serious oversight concerns. All police units are monitored by the Independent Complaints Directorate, ICD. But as the DSO fell under the NPA and not the SAPS, they could not be investigated by the ICD. There is thus no complaints mechanism for the Scorpions.
As far as intelligence-gathering capacity is concerned, all intelligence agencies are monitored by the Inspector-General of Intelligence. The Scorpions, however, were not included in this. So, you had a very powerful agency that combined investigating cases, deciding which cases were to be prosecuted and gathering intelligence without sufficient controls. These concerns caused the then President to set up a commission of inquiry chaired by Judge Sisi Khampepe, which the hon Kohler-Barnard referred to.
With regard to the issue of the political accountability of the investigators in the DSO, the commission said, and I quote:
It is both untenable and anomalous that the Minister of Safety and Security who has the responsibility to address the overall policing/investigative needs and priorities of the Republic should not exercise any control over the investigative component of the DSO considering the wide and permissive mandate of the DSO relating to organised crime.
The commission therefore recommended that the President transfer political oversight and responsibility over the law enforcement component for the DSO to the Minister of Safety and Security in terms of section 97(1)(b) of the Constitution. The problem, however, is how to put this into practice. You have a unit under the NPA with a budget for staff, operational expenses and expenditure for investigators. Their salaries and what they do comes from that budget. But then the budget falls under the Minister of Justice. How can you exert political oversight and responsibility over something when you have no effective say over its budget? How does Parliament perform oversight in this regard? This is something that no one, the hon members and Ms Kohler-Barnard in particular, could answer. The most we got from them was that they were not sure whether they entirely agreed with Judge Khampepe.
The Scorpions is projected - to quote Ms Kohler-Barnard - as the best crime- fighting unit the country has ever had and the SAPS is projected as useless. But this does not reflect reality. My colleague, the hon Annaliz van Wyk, will deal with this in more detail - as far as the SAPS is concerned. But I also want to quote the former head of the DSO, Leonard McCarthy, who told the justice portfolio committee that perceptions that the Scorpions was a mighty crime-fighting unit better than the police were both "misleading and dangerous". These are some of the problems we have to address if we are serious about the long-term fight against organised crime in South Africa. We have done this by creating a new and better unit. By locating it in the SAPS, we should overcome many of the co-ordination problems such as the cherry-picking of cases. In a country with limited resources, we cannot afford duplication in the fight against crime.
The directorate, as other members have said, will be headed by a deputy national commissioner appointed by the Minister. We made a number of provisions regarding a multidisciplinary approach: better political oversight by the relevant Ministers; better co-ordination between departmental heads or senior officials; more stringent vetting procedures and integrity tests; in the light of past experience, an additional complaints mechanism under a retired judge to whom complaints of unfair investigations and political interference can be levied; and, lastly, more effective parliamentary oversight.
We separated out elements that caused problems. The directorate will not have a separate intelligence capacity. It will be supported by the SAPS Crime Intelligence Division and will therefore be subject to the oversight of the Inspector-General of Intelligence. Prosecutors will remain with the NPA, although we specified that the directorate must have sufficient legal offices.
The issue of prosecutors was something that the opposition liked raising. I see in Dr Delport's amendments that he wants a bureau in the SAPS with "an adequate number of experienced prosecutors qualified to lead investigations appointed by the bureau". Dr Delport, this is astounding coming from you. You know that section 179 of the Constitution says, and I quote:
There is a single National Prosecuting Authority in the Republic ...
Madam Speaker, on a point of order: How can the speaker refer to an amendment that hasn't been tabled yet?
I think Mr Davidson has a point, Mr Jeffery. We are not dealing with amendments yet. In terms of our own Rules, we are going to deal with amendments at the end of the second reading, and we are not there yet.
Thanks, Madam Speaker. However, the issue of prosecutors was raised. It is impossible for prosecutors to be in this unit because it is a single NPA consisting of the national director, public prosecutors, directors of public prosecutions and prosecutors. So, you can't have prosecutors in this body. Whether they are a bureau or anything else, you can't have them within a body outside the NPA.
With regard to the dissolution of the DSO and the creation of the new unit, I would like to thank Prof Halton Cheadle, the advisor to the Minister of Justice, for his assistance in drafting provisions that we believe are consistent with the Labour Relations Act.
With regard to investigations, we provided that on a fixed date set by the President, investigations will be transferred from the DSO to this division. We specified that the transfer must be in accordance with a mechanism to ensure that investigations are not prejudiced by the transfer and that the Minister of Justice, in consultation with the Minister of Safety and Security and after consultation with the National Director of Public Prosecutions and the national commissioner, must determine this mechanism. As organised crime is constantly adapting and trying to find gaps in the state's law-enforcement strategy, so too must the state evaluate its strategies and find new and better ways of fighting organised crime. Therefore, in the SAPS Bill, we required the Minister of Safety and Security to report back to Parliament within three years as to whether any legislative amendments are needed to improve the functioning of this directorate. Similarly, the justice committee's report to this House requires the Minister of Justice to evaluate the continuation of the legislative provisions relating to investigating directorates and report back to Parliament within six months. The ANC, therefore, supports this Bill in the fight against organised crime. [Applause.]
Madam Speaker, the ID wants to congratulate the two portfolio committees on their extensive public consultation, even though some of it was clearly stage-managed. While many people were heard, we are not sure they were listened to. The ID considered the various options proposed by the portfolio committees, but came to the conclusion that the DSO must be left as is.
The reasons and conditions for which the Scorpions was established still exist today. At this critical time in our history, we should be looking at strengthening the fight against crime and not weakening it.
The ID also wants to acknowledge the many policemen and women who work tirelessly. The Scorpions were never meant to replace them but to compliment them, especially in the fight against organised crime. While the Scorpions made mistakes, these mistakes should have been corrected and learnt from. We should have implemented the recommendations of the Khampepe Commission. Instead, what we see in this legislation is the ANC taking the sting out of the Scorpions and creating an institutional vacuum where organised crime is able to thrive.
Gone are the investigative and prosecutorial skills, and in comes our infamous national police commissioner who now gains control of the very unit that has been investigating him. The South African public is certainly not stupid. Like us, they know why the ANC is passing this legislation. This is about pursuing factional interests at the expense of our country's crime-fighting ability. The Scorpions has become another victim on the long list of casualties of the ANC's in-fighting.
Sadly, the battle to dissolve the Scorpions has been won and, in this case, the war against crime has been lost. The ID opposes both Bills. Thank you. [Applause.]
Speaker, colleagues, including the new deployed members of the movement led by Comrade Mnyamezeli Booi, who is a Whip, the approach of the ANC as a ruling party in dealing with crime, corruption and access to justice has been premised on the National Crime Prevention Strategy - a strategy that was developed in 1995. This strategy was under the stewardship of Dr Bernard Fanaroff. The strategies and tactics and also the structures that have been established on the matter we are dealing with now ...
... lomufi esikhuluma ngaye njengamanje, iDSO ... [... this disbanded DSO we are talking about ...]
... were based on the National Crime Prevention Strategy - a strategy that has never been reviewed since 1995. This means we are now engaging on this process after 12 years, trying to look at how to deal with crime.
You will agree with me that crime is getting very complicated as much as it is getting very complex and sophisticated in terms of form and character. It is in this context that the ANC-led government started the process of reviewing the criminal justice cluster in the Republic of South Africa. In the process of reviewing and restructuring the crime prevention strategies, we started with the DSO and we also looked at our crime combating abilities. In the review process, we found that the establishment of the DSO was a fatal mistake as we managed to disperse our limited resources between the SAPS and the DSO in terms of investigation officers. We are the first to admit that the SAPS itself needs to be drastically overhauled so that we are poised to discharge our responsibilities. However, we had to start somewhere.
Several areas were discovered in the review process. It was discovered that the structure of the DSO was a misfit in our institution. It had a problem of roles that overlapped between itself, the SAPS and intelligence officers. This underlying concern stems from noncompliance with the constitutional obligations of our country. Judge Khampepe reported and found this on the DSO, and I quote:
I venture to opine that I find such conduct to be out of kilter with our Constitution, reprehensible, unprofessional and corroding the public's confidence in the law-enforcement agencies.
I am reminding this House that this report came about after many of our people in this country raised concerns regarding the abuse of power by the DSO. The Public Protector pronounced the violation of rights of the ANC president, Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Mhlanganyelwa Zuma. The National Assembly, after the ad hoc committee that dealt with the matter, never made a follow up on the issue of the violation of his rights. Now, I am saying this matter has to be reviewed. The National Assembly must make a follow-up on the recommendations of the ad hoc committee on this matter.
Another example is the example of Phumzile Matshoba, the mayor of Ntabankulu Local Municipality. This comrade, after he discovered that the Scorpions was looking for him, handed himself over. He went to the police station, and the Scorpions arrived there. When they arrived, they took him to the streets, called television cameras on him, handcuffed him and then arrested him. This was not necessary because he had actually handed himself over. He was charged 49 times. All of those charges were dropped. The Scorpions lost on this matter.
Another example is that of Thuso Motaung, the former SABC presenter who was arrested in Bloemfontein. When the Scorpions arrived, the television cameras were not there. They called the cameras to come and humiliated him when they arrested him. This showed that their interest was on ensuring that they violated the rights of South Africans because in terms of our Constitution, the Bill of Rights, there is a right to privacy. At the same time, we are a signatory to the International Labour Organisation, ILO, in terms of rights. In this case, this body has been continuously, with impunity, violating the rights of South Africans. They also confiscated taxis which didn't even belong to Mr Motaung. Up until today, some of his belongings have not been taken back. Now, tell us, can you continue to maintain a body that is supposed to be professional and uphold the law to violate the law continuously. If it was in other developed countries in the world, this body could have been disbanded a long time ago. I appreciate the fact that the ANC is an organisation that is patient and tolerant in this case because it was supposed to have dealt with this organisation.
Despite the views of Judge Khampepe, the DSO continued to gather intelligence information illegally. They also continued to gather information which had been confirmed in the Browse Mole report wherein they said the president of the ANC was trying to sabotage this government, supported by Angolans and Libyans. They were dividing the ANC, the nation and Africa as a continent by alleging that these African countries were sabotaging a coup in this country. Therefore, this body is not a body that is supposed to be kept. It is a body that, to us, has been running and utilising apartheid operatives - some of them. You can see this because when they gathered intelligence information, they used information peddlers who were not helpful. Therefore, we are saying people who say we are supposed to keep this body are incorrect. I am asking the opposition here that if they are so averse to the ANC's Polokwane resolutions, why do they support floor-crossing? [Interjections.]
Madam Speaker, on a point of order: Will the hon Minister take a question from me?
I will ask the hon member. Hon Minister, are you ready to take a question?
Well, questions are welcome after I have finished my speech.
Therefore, what I am saying is that we have seen problems that have been created by this unit. We saw that these problems were dealt with on 12 September as a severe and devastating blow by another judge, Judge Chris Nicholson. Despite the views of the judge, they continued ...
... bezingela inyamazane yabo, amaxhoba ezingela njengamanje. [... to hunt people as if they were hunting wild animals.] [Interjections.] [Time expired.]
I would like to ask him a question.
No, there is no time anymore.
Oh, alright! I guarantee you, he won't answer it anyway.
Madam Speaker, the ACDP believes that this is a sad day for all South Africans who hope that the fight against organised crime will eventually be won. There can be no doubt that disbanding the Scorpions will harm the fight against organised crime since the SAPS is not well- positioned or equipped to deal effectively with organised crime. Like most South Africans, we believe that the ANC's decision to disband the Scorpions was not motivated by the Scorpions' low success rate, but was rather motivated by the fact that the Scorpions had been too successful. It is outrageous that the Scorpions are being disbanded, in our view, to protect senior ANC members from investigation, particularly considering the escalating and highly complex nature of organised crime in our country. This nation cannot afford to lose highly experienced and trained investigators and analysts who will not be prepared to accept posts in the SAPS. Furthermore, there are serious concerns that the principle of constant prosecutorial oversight in investigations, which is the cornerstone of the success of the Scorpions, would be lost when the new unit replaces the Scorpions.
The acting head of the NPA, Adv Mpshe, has warned that the collapse of just a few of the cases of the Scorpions could bring South Africa's criminal justice system into disrepute and that the reckless disbanding of the Scorpions could devastate the whole criminal justice system. The ACDP agrees with him. In this regard, we regret that the NPA's proposal that a small transitional directorate deals with certain pending sensitive cases was not accepted. This will further increase public perceptions that the Scorpions are being disbanded to protect high profile politicians from being investigated.
Furthermore, complex cases such as Fidentia will be compromised if the experienced investigating and prosecuting teams are not retained. The Khampepe Commission recommended that the DSO should be retained within the NPA. This view was initially accepted by government. However, government then did an about-turn following the Polokwane conference and initiated legislation to disband the Scorpions. The Khampepe report categorically states that:
... the rationale for the establishment of the DSO is as valid today as it was at conception.
The DSO should continue to be located within the NPA. We also fully concede that Judge Khampepe highlighted various shortcomings with the Scorpions, but we also believe that the commission presented comprehensive and compelling solutions to these problems. The ACDP believes that the shortcomings identified by the Khampepe Commission could have been adequately addressed in the model 1 we supported without disbanding the unit.
Crucial to the success of the Scorpions was the degree of independence it enjoyed while falling under the NPA. Model 4, accepted by the ANC, whereby the new DPCI will fall under the SAPS, will not, in our view, provide any degree of independence. We have to ask how the new unit will continue the investigation and prosecution of suspended National Commissioner of Police Jackie Selebi as it will now fall under the control of the SAPS. We as parliamentarians must be mindful of Judge Khampepe's conclusion that: ... it is inconceivable that the legislature will see it fit to repeal the provisions of the National Prosecuting Authority Act that relate to the location and activities of the DSO.
The ANC is doing exactly what was considered by the learned judge to be inconceivable. Therefore, the ACDP will not support this legislation. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Agb Mevrou die Speaker, hier is 'n paar sprekers van die ANC wat graag aangehaal het wat die VF Plus reeds in 2000 ges het. Ek wil ook aanhaal wat die ANC by monde van hul destydse Minister van Justisie ges het oor die instelling van die Skerpioene in 2000. Hy s:
We are deliberately and purposefully creating a highly skilled and highly competent unique unit to complement our existing law enforcement agencies. The Directorate of Special Operations will be unique in the sense that it will form part of the prosecuting authority. It will provide it with a finely tuned investigative capacity which will focus on prioritised criminal offences.
Daar is geen twyfel, Mevrou die Speaker, dat die doel van die instelling van die Skerpioene was om 'n unieke en effektiewe gespesialiseerde eenheid daar te stel wat met vervolgingsgedrewe ondersoeke prioriteitmisdade sou kon bekamp in die stryd teen misdaad. Dit is egter die sukses van die Skerpioene wat die rede is vir hul bestaan en wat hulle met onderskeid bewys het. Die ondergang van die Skerpioene is egter juis hierdie suksesse en die onderlinge jaloesie tussen die polisie en die Nasionale Vervolgingsgesag - presies dit waarteen die VF Plus gewaarsku het in 2000 met die instelling van die Skerpioene. Di jaloesie het veroorsaak dat kant gekies word deur politici binne die ANC.
Verder het veral hul suksesse met ondersoeke teen hoprofiel-politici - soos Tony Yengeni, LP's wat reisbedrog gepleeg het, Jacob Zuma en die vorige Polisiekommissaris Jackie Selebi - hierdie situasie vererger. Skielik bevraagteken die ANC die grondwetlikheid van die Skerpioene as deel van die Nasionale Vervolgingsgesag. Die ANC se argument is deurgaans dat die Grondwet bepaal dat daar net een polisiemag mag wees. Die vraag oor die grondwetlikheid van die Skerpioene as deel van die Nasionale Vervolgingsgesag is egter deeglik beredeneer deur die Khampepe-kommissie. Regter Khampepe maak die volgende bevinding:
I am of the view that there is nothing jurisprudentially unsound in conferring law-enforcement responsibilities to any agency other than the