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 ...