Hon Minister of Safety and Security, hon members, it's good to be back home. I could talk about things such as "cherry-picking"; I could talk about deficits in the methods and methodology of the Scorpions; I could talk about weaknesses; and I could talk about tensions.
I have already spoken at length about the genesis of the Scorpions, the Directorate of Special Operations, in the NA. I have spoken about the problematic relationship between the Scorpions and the SAPS. I have spoken about the rationale for the amendment to the legislation. I think we are not here today to say who is right and who is wrong.
I think the DSO has had its strengths; it has had capable investigators and continues to have capable investigators. It had committed prosecutors - yes, some of them were indulging in questionable activities and there were deficits and problems - but I think we must recognise the value of their contribution to the eradication of crime, organised crime in particular, and to the eradication of corruption.
My colleague and I are not here to celebrate the demise of the Scorpions, as somebody has suggested. We are here to ask how, in the context of the problematic relationship that existed in the past, we can collectively address it in such a way that we seriously ensure that we continue with our commitment to the eradication of corruption and organised crime.
Some things must be cleared up from the beginning. The suggestion, for example, that if it's a political decision it's unconstitutional, is totally without foundation. In fact, the day before the matter was debated in the NA, the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court said the following, and I quote him verbatim:
In my view, there is nothing wrong, in our multiparty democracy, with Cabinet seeking to give effect to the policy of the ruling party
And you could put in brackets "Polokwane", if you wish.
Quite clearly, in so doing, Cabinet must observe its constitutional obligations and may not breach the Constitution. The question that we have to ask, in a very mature and dignified way, is: In doing what we are doing, in amending the legislation, are we achieving two things? The first one is to ensure that we sustain, maintain and retain the ability on a multidisciplinary basis of that organised unit to fight organised crime. That's the question we have to ask, whether they are allocated within the DSO or anywhere else.
The second question is - and it's an important question - whether indeed, as we pass this law, the provisions of this law are consistent with the Constitution. I would like to argue, with respect, that indeed we can answer both questions, quite unequivocally, in the affirmative.
What is it that we are trying to create? I'm trying to speak so that we can understand there is some rationality in terms of what we are trying to achieve. We are trying to organise a dedicated unit, the Directorate of Priority Crime Investigation, DPCI, as my colleague has called it, to ensure that we deal with organised crime on a multidisciplinary basis, mindful of the fact that you need a troika - prosecution assistance, investigation and crime intelligence. Those three elements will in fact reside in that particular unit. It is not something new.
If you take the commercial unit within the SAPS, currently and in the past, we have had more than 80 dedicated prosecutors who assisted the SAPS to ensure that we dealt with commercial crime. The results are very similar to those achieved by the DSO; they are in the vicinity of 90%. Investigations conducted by the SAPS yielded the same results, assisted by prosecutors from the NPA. I think one must understand the context. Indeed, we have committed ourselves to ensuring that we have a multidisciplinary approach.
What we have to be mindful of - and it's been raised by more than one member of the opposition - is that people are leaving. Just this morning, colleagues, I spoke to the Acting National Director of Public Prosecutions, and I speak to you now with his permission. He says that since the last time that we had spoken - and I was appointed as Minister about seven weeks ago - up to now, not a single investigator has approached him to say they wished to resign from the DSO. [Applause.] Those are the realities.
Willie Hofmeyr, whom we spoke about, has indicated that the preliminary indications are that approximately 80% of these investigators are going to move over to this dedicated unit. Now why is there this myth, this fabrication, that people are going to leave and that we are going to be deprived of the capacity and the ability of people who have the experience? We certainly must do and we should do whatever is necessary to ensure that we retain their skills.
At the heart of a successful transition lie two things. The first one is the assurance that we can give to the investigators that they are most welcome in the SAPS and, secondly, to continue with the fight against corruption and crime. To that end my colleague, the Minister of Safety and Security, and I will work extremely hard to create a climate that is conducive to this.
We have gone out of our way and we really want to thank the chairperson of the select committee, as well as the chairpersons of the portfolio committees in the NA for ensuring that they pay meticulous attention to the labour relations aspects. Nobody, no investigator, is going to be forced to go to the SAPS. If he or she feels that they want to remain with the NPA that is a choice that they could exercise. Indeed, if they did not wish to stay there, they have the entire Public Service where they could be deployed.
These choices are available. It is not about severance; it is not about removing the skills and capacity, but it's about ensuring that the choices that we make are not choices that we would impose on individual investigators who are located within the NPA.
The National Director of Public Prosecutions would tell you that I personally, on more than one occasion, invited him to make submissions to us, my colleague and myself, in terms of the shape and the model of the mechanism that would deal with this transition; they are grateful for it. We do so because we believe that there is no tension - and there should be no tension - between the Department of Justice and the NPA. We do so because we are sensitive to their concerns, and we certainly would want to promote them to carry out the task as prosecutors without fear, favour or prejudice. That has been our position and it will continue to be our position.
You cannot quote and speak about international treaties and covenants suggesting, in a very subtle way, that what we are seeking to do is to promote corruption rather than eradicate it. That is extremely irresponsible. That has no moral basis, no legal basis and no rational basis.
What we should be doing is to say, we recognise that we are at a time where elections are imminent, and political parties will want to score points. Glenister tried to vote with the Constitutional Court, but he failed. I've just quoted for you from the Chief Justice. The very next day he came to the High Court in Cape Town, again on the basis that what we are doing is unconstitutional, and he failed again. We say that those who wish to approach the courts and challenge and test the legislation are at liberty to do so. But we are quite satisfied that in what we are doing we've ensured that those proposed provisions are indeed consistent with the law.
I am aware of the fact that amendments have been brought by this House and certainly the NA would want to look at them. Let me conclude by saying that this would not have been possible without your contribution. I feel more confident and more assured because your committee has sat jointly with the NA, Safety and Security and the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development for more than a 192 hours. You visited all the provinces. You have listened attentively to the voice of the poor, the rich and those who have an interest. You were open-minded about it. The product we have here is not the product that was introduced in Parliament. It's a product that has been changed, that has been shaped and informed by what you listened to, what you applied your mind to, and what you feel is in the best interests of our country.
Central to our task as Members of Parliament - and we, too, as the executive, are Members of Parliament - is a commitment that we ensure that we promote the administration of justice and that we eradicate corruption in whatever form. I would want to give the assurance that for us this unit here has to do its task, and if there is corruption at the highest or lowest levels, it must deal with it. Organised crime spreads its tentacles all over, and we should not regard this unit, a priority unit for priority crimes, as a unit at the helm of or at the mercy of politicians or simply a unit that is going to be used by politicians. I think that would be extremely wrong and irresponsible. We must begin to understand that we, as a democracy, have respect for the rule of law. The impartiality of the prosecutors must be recognised, must be promoted and must be protected. The independence of the judiciary must indeed be recognised. As a democracy we have done extremely well. We can take pride in the fact that when people have difficulties, when they wish to challenge the law, they can go to court. They use that as a forum for the courts are the final arbiters of disputes. You have Presidents going to court; you have political parties going to court and everybody recognises and respects the rule of law.
That says a lot about our democracy and we must recognise that we are less than 15 years old as a democracy. We can take pride in the fact that, as citizens in this wonderful democracy of ours, we have shown maturity to be able to indulge in robust debate - yes, rigorous debate - but, at the same time, respecting the rule of law. That would be my responsibility as Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development; that would be the responsibility of my colleague as Minister of Safety and Security.
Let me conclude by saying that when I was in the NA I said very clearly that already the Minister of Safety and Security and I are sitting and looking at the mechanism. We've already conceptualised it. We are, indeed, waiting for the NPA; they are communicating with us informally, but we are waiting for a formal submission so that we can provide for this mechanism, get certainty and do an assessment. Then we can actually do an audit in terms of the skills that we have to make sure that, in anticipation of the fact that you are going to support this legislation, immediately after the law is passed we do not have to wait for another six months for this important DPCI to do its work. It will be a matter of saying everything is ready and they can integrate easily and serve the interests of justice by ensuring that they eradicate corruption in our midst.
That is the assurance that I give to you. That will be confirmed by the NPA. Let me assure you that, indeed, there is no tension. What I think this would do is to deal with the problem that has haunted this relationship - the relationship between the SAPS and the DSO. It does not help to say that this one is better than the other. We should combine the skills and the strengths to ensure that we are able to best serve the interests of our country.
So thank you very much for your efforts. May I also conclude by thanking Mr Johan de Lange, Mr Deon Rudman and Mr Jacobs and his team from Safety and Security for their extremely dedicated commitment to the portfolio and select committees. As the Chairperson has correctly indicated, this would not have been possible without their constant presence, advice and guidance. Thank you very much for your kind support. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
National Prosecuting Authority Amendment Bill, subject to proposed amendments, agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution.
South African Police Service Amendment Bill, subject to proposed amendments, agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution.