IPID & CSPS 2020/21 Quarter performances (Q2,3 and 4); with Deputy Minister

This premium content has been made freely available

Police

25 August 2021
Chairperson: Ms T Joemat-Pettersson (ANC) & Mr K Maphatsoe (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Portfolio Committee on Police met virtually with the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) and the Civilian Secretariat for Police Service (CSPS) to receive briefings on their quarterly performance reports for the last three quarters of the 2020/21 financial year.

The Committee suggested that IPID should plan towards making sure that the programmes that had not been achieved were achievable, and take alternative action so that services did not come to a halt when officials were in quarantine. Of concern was the growing backlog of cases, those that were not being attended to, and the mechanisms being used to deal with the backlog. Members wanted to know why cases referred to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) were still awaiting decisions, and what effect the budget cut of R15 million had had on operations. Other issues raised included the compensation of employees; the filling of vacant posts in the organisation; the working relationship and cooperation between IPID and the South African Police Service (SAPS); the relocation of the directorate and the legal action related to the City Forum building and the associated costs; and the challenge with the forensic laboratories' DNA  backlogs and the possibility of requesting assistance from the Department of Health.

The discussion by Members on the CSPS presentation included a range of questions on its crime and violence prevention strategy and what its impact had been. They asked what was being done about the pushback on the Firearm Amendment Bill; why traffic officers were being considered for inclusion in IPID investigations; the funding of community policing structures; whether standards of the Bridge Camp and Ilinge police stations in the Eastern Cape were adequate; and progress on several amendment bills in the legal pipeline.

Meeting report

The Chairperson said she was not feeling well, so Mr Maphatsoe would be assisting with chairing the meeting.

The Committee Secretary had received apologies from Mr Bheki Cele, Minister of Police, Dr P Groenewald (FF+), and Mr M Shaik Emam (NFP).

Rev K Meshoe (ACDP) also apologised, as at 10h00 he would be attending a meeting of the Portfolio Committee on International Relations.

The Chairperson said that the Committee would be receiving a briefing from the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) and the Civilian Secretariat for Police Service (CSPS).

Chairperson's opening remarks

The Chairperson made opening remarks on IPID. She had been reminded and corrected that Ms Dikeledi Jennifer Ntlatseng, Executive Director, IPID, was not a General, but the Executive Director – although she would have liked the position to be a very senior position. When Ms Ntlatseng had started, she had been in office for hardly a few months when she came to the Committee. The Committee had given her a serious grilling, and it was thought that she had left the Committee bruised and very hurt, but this was the nature of the Committee. When one went into a position, one inherited all of the scars and weaknesses of the position. It had to be understood that when one is appointed to a position, it did not mean that if one was appointed to such a position for one month that the Committee would be evaluating one on that one month only. The Committee would be evaluating such newly appointed person on what the Committee had decided and there was continuity. The whole set of decisions that had been taken in the Committee would be evaluated and decided upon.

She apologised to Maj Gen Khosi Sinthumule, Head: Forensic Science Laboratory, South African Police Service (SAPS), if she was hard on her the previous day. Maj Gen Sinthumule had recently been appointed and was recovering from Covid-19. However, she had told Maj Gen Sinthumule that if it was seen in the presentation that some headway would be seen only later, and that SAPS would be able to start addressing the backlog only in 2022, then this would be a serious indictment to each and every woman in the Committee, Parliament and the SAPS. If it was thought that she would be taking this issue very lightly, then the SAPS was horribly mistaken. She had asked the Deputy Minister to apologise to Maj Gen Sinthumule on the Committee’s behalf. However, the Committee could not be soft on matters of the Forensic Science Laboratory.

The Chairperson said she had received phone calls from mothers who said that a court case involving a 10-year-old child who was raped had been thrown out of. There could be no closure, and the perpetrator was walking around because of a lack of DNA evidence. This was not emotional -- this was a reality in South Africa. If the problem of the central firearm registry (CFR) could not be sorted out, she would be writing to the Minister to say that new applications could not be taken in until the backlog was addressed. Business could not continue as usual. SAPS had designated firearm officers and court orders against them which spoke about compliance in the CFR, yet there was no compliance with the court orders. Likewise, SAPS had court orders with the Forensic Science Laboratory. It could not be said that because someone was newly employed that they did not know about the court orders. There had to be a hand over during which the new incumbent was told what had been done, what the Committee had been asking for, and when the concerns of the Committee would be addressed. The Forensic Data Analysts had won serious court orders against the SAPS, so there were court orders with the Forensic Science Laboratory, and the Committee wanted responses. She asked Mr A Whitfield (DA) to confirm whether it was he that had asked SAPS to come and report to the Committee more often.

Mr Whitfield confirmed that in November the previous year, SAPS had committed to present monthly reports to the Committee on the turnaround plan.

The Chairperson said she had had sleepless nights, because SAPS’ response had been what one would call malicious compliance. It had submitted reports, but the Committee had not seen any progress. If the Committee was going to be listening to reports of malicious compliance, whereby they complied just because of the fact that the Committee had asked for monthly reports, then crime would not be turned around.

The previous day, the Committee had covered the three key and critical areas regarding their work, and today they would be covering the Bills. The first dealt with the crime statistics. She would write to the Minister and say that previously there had been closed meetings, and that the Committee could apply to the Speaker to have closed meetings. It could have closed meetings before the Minister released the crime statistics, and when the Minister finished the meeting, he could then release the crime statistics to the media. The Minister was accountable to and reported to the Committee -- he did not report to the Committee via the media.

The Forensic Science Laboratory kept sending the Committee a plan and saying that they were trying and waiting on people and equipment, but the backlog was increasing. Children and women were being failed. The Forensic Science Laboratory had told the Committee that only three provinces were functional, and the rest were not.

(Transmission problems at this stage rendered proceedings inaudible).

IPID performance report

Ms Ntlatseng led the presentation on IPID’S performance for the second to fourth quarters of the 2020/21 financial year, and presented the overview and conclusion. Mr Patrick Mokotong Setshedi, Acting Chief Financial Officer (CFO), presented the budget and expenditure information. Ms Suzan Letlape, Director: Strategy and Performance Monitoring, presented the summary of performance information and performance per programme.

Overview

In April 2021, the IPID head office had been relocated to new offices in Pretoria. The implementation of Section 23 of IPID Act had remained a priority, and by the end of the financial year R38.8 million had been paid. The Covid-19 pandemic had had an adverse impact on its operations. It had continued to operate during the lockdown restrictions, and measures were implemented to contain the spread of the virus. R2 million had been spent on the procurement of personal protective equipment (PPE) and the disinfection of offices. Budget cuts necessitated analysing and reviewing the organisational structure. 15 positions were reprioritised to core functional areas, and the filling of provincial head positions for Mpumalanga and Northern Cape were put on hold to accommodate implementation of Section 23.

Catch-up plans were implemented from Q3 to improve performance, and overall departmental performance improved from 27% to 73% by the end of Q4. 3 679 investigations were completed for the financial year. The total case intake was 6 122, with 4 507 cases received between Q2 and Q4. IPID had 11 578 active cases (backlog and new cases) at the end of the year, and these were carried over to the 2021/2022 financial year. The IPID Act Amendment Bill was served before the development committee on 14 July 2021, and inputs were received from the SAPS legal team, but IPID was still awaiting inputs from the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA).

Finance

The adjusted budget and expenditure per programme for Q1 to Q4 of the 2021/21 financial year reflected a total adjusted budget of R340.976 million, of which only R37 000 was available at the yearend (99.99% actual expenditure). Administration had an adjusted budget of R90.35 million, which was 100% spent. Investigation and Information Management had an adjusted budget of R232.26 million, with just R1 000 remaining at year end. Legal and Investigation Advisory Services had an adjusted budget of R5.67 million, and an available budget of R36 000 by year end. Compliance Monitoring and Stakeholder Management had an spent its total adjusted budget of R12.69 million.

(See attached document for details of expenditure per economic classification and expenditure analysis for Q1 to Q4 of the 2021/21 financial year)

In summary, through the Executive Director and support of the Section 23 committees, IPID was closely monitoring the full implementation of Section 23 of the IPID Act. The Section 23 task team was working with various stakeholders to ensure full implementation. Regular budget control committee (BCC) meetings were taking place and being used as a control measure to assist in monitoring the budget and expenditure performance. IPID would continue to optimise service delivery with the limited budget. It would also strive to be efficient and effective with the limited resources under the Covid-19 restrictions.

Performance information

The summary of departmental performance information showed that 27% of targets were achieved in Q1, 40% targets had been achieved by Q2, 67% by Q3, and 73% by the end of the financial year.

(See attached document for details of performance in Programme 1(Administration), Programme 2 (Investigation and Information Management), Programme 3 (Legal and Investigation Advisory Services), and Programme 4 (Compliance Monitoring and Stakeholder Management)).

In conclusion, full implementation of Section 23 remained a priority to ensure compliance with the court order. Continuous follow-ups would continue with the Department of Health (DOH) and the Forensic Science Laboratory on outstanding technical reports. Progress on filling vacancies was strictly monitored. IPID would continue to reprioritise limited resources to support service delivery. It would have continuous engagements with SAPS to allow IPID to sit in on disciplinary hearings in order to improve the state of negative recommendations, because decisions were being made without IPID’s involvement. There would be continuous challenges because more officers were not being punished or acquitted following disciplinary hearings due to IPID not making an input into the process. The proposal on the SAPS independent disciplinary panel must be fast-tracked to enable IPID to satisfy itself on the outcome of the hearings.

IPID was pleading for total independence in order to make an improvement on cases, as they were totally dependent on the Forensic Science Laboratory, SAPS and the DOH to assist with technical reports. An alternative route was being investigated -- getting private pathologists to assist IPID in fast-tracking technical reports. IPID’s capacity needed to be bolstered from the 175 officers looking into the whole police force in order to balance the ratio between IPID and SAPS members. They were overworked with the number of the investigators at IPID in comparison to the number of police officials that needed to be investigated.

IPID had information communication technology (ICT) challenges, but this financial year it had entered into an agreement with the State Information Technology Agency (SITA) to deal with the situation.

Discussion

Ms P Faku (ANC) asked to be excused due to a family emergency.

Ms M Molekwa (ANC) said that according to the report, it seemed as if most of the programmes were not achieved. This was a point of concern, although there were reasons presented on why the programmes were not achieved. Was there any plan in place to strive towards making sure that the programmes that were not achieved, were achievable? According to the presentation, most of the programmes that were not achieved was because most of the officials responsible were in quarantine. If a person was in quarantine, was there no alternative so that the services did not stop? On the issue of the backlog, IPID had indicated that there was still a backlog of cases that were not attended to. Was there any mechanism to deal with the backlogs?

Mr D Terblanche (DA) said that apparently this Committee was a committee dealing with growing backlogs. Looking at the backlog here, what was quite interesting was that IPID had managed to finalise or complete investigations of 3 679 cases, while their intake was 6 122 cases and their total backlog was 11 578 cases. It did not seem as if the Committee was winning, as there was a growing backlog. What was going to be done about these backlogs? Looking at the specific areas, and while every crime was a crime, some of the very concerning areas included rape and corruption targets that were not achieved. Another point of concern was that 1 887 cases had been referred to the NPA, and at the moment IPID was awaiting a decision on 1 478 cases. What was the reason for this? Could some explanation be provided? What were the reasons for the delay? This was a serious matter that needed to get serious attention.

Ms L Moss (ANC) commended the performance of IPID, as they had received such a little budget but were trying to turn it around and implement some of their programmes. The budget had been cut by R15 million, but IPID was trying its best. However, there were some areas where it could improve. On the issue of its organogram, how many people did IPID employ in its organisation? How much was the spending on it? How many vacancies were there in the organisation? This was to see whether they could actually implement some of their programmes. What funds were left for IPID to roll out the other programmes? One of the slides had said that IPID had not filled the provincial head positions of Mpumalanga and the Northern Cape, and these had been put on hold. Why had IPID then advertised the posts? What had been the processes while it had put the filling of the posts on hold? When it came to the Northern Cape and SAPS’s appointments within the Northern Cape, vacancies were not being filled. The Northern Cape did not even have a provincial commissioner of police. Why was IPID putting the filling of the vacant positions on hold? Was it due to the budget cuts? The Committee had had a meeting the previous week with SAPS, at which she had raised the question of IPID recommendations. She had received an answer from SAPS, saying that SAPS and IPID had a good working relationship. Was there cooperation between IPID and SAPS in respect of the recommendations?

(At this stage, internet connection was lost)

Mr H Shembeni (EFF) asked about the lack of adequate investigations because of the closure of offices. He also enquired about the filling of vacant positions. The investigators in IPID had to be capacitated and get more than they had now. Of its 175 investigators, how many investigators were there per province in order to investigate the 180 000 police officers?

IPID’s response

Ms Ntlatseng referred to the targets that were not achieved, and whether there were any plans in place, and said IPID had requested the provinces and the National Office to provide it with a catch-up plan so that it could monitor them. Indeed, the requested provinces and the National Office had yielded results. Looking at IPID’s performance for Q3 and Q4, it could be seen that there was a drastic improvement in performance because of the catch-up plans that were being monitored on a weekly basis. IPID had sat down with all of the provinces, including the national head, to make sure that IPID implemented the catch-up plans that they had established to improve performance.

With regard to people who were in quarantine, and whether IPID had sought alternative people or alternative ways of dealing with cases, it had done so. IPID had had to hand those dockets to the senior principals to assist and continue with the investigation, and assist in sending some of the dockets to court.

Mr Matthews Sesoko, Chief Director: Investigation and Information Management, IPID, addressed the question on what measures IPID had in place to deal with the backlog challenges. The backlog would stay with IPID for a considerable period of time until such time that it received adequate funding to deal with the huge number of cases that it received. As a department, it always found ways or devised strategies to try and deal with the backlog that it had. As might have been seen in the presentation on performance, it would be realised that for the first time IPID had been able to meet targets on assault cases – which was the highest number of cases that it received as a department. This was largely because of its strategies for dealing with backlogs.

Some of the things that IPID had done to deal with the backlogs was to prioritise cases in terms of their age and their priority – which would include cases involving death, rape, torture  and corruption. At the time when IPID prioritised, it had limited resources and ensured that when investigators went out on priority cases, they also took on cases that were in the area where they would be conducting investigations. Some of these strategies had resulted in reducing the extent of the backlog. However, it was important to note that as IPID strived to deal with its backlogs, it had been faced with challenges where their budgets were reduced. As could be seen in the presentation, IPID had faced a R15 million budget cut, and there was a reduction in the number of its investigators as a result. On the flip side, IPID had received more cases in the year under review, and its situation as a department had been compounded. It had become difficult to decisively deal with the backlog because in the absence of adequate funding, it could not deal with all the work that came its way.

On the referral of matters to the NPA, and why IPID was awaiting feedback on the huge number of cases, it was difficult for IPID to answer this effectively because it depended on the NPA's turnaround time in dealing with the cases that were referred to them. From media reports and some of the meetings that IPID had attended with the NPA, it was clear that the NPA had capacity issues and hence their turnaround in dealing with the cases was slow. In some of the cases it would be found that once IPID referred matters to the NPA, it would raise queries with the IPID which had to be addressed before it could take a decision on them.

On the cooperation with SAPS on the matter of recommendations, it was important to indicate that there was cooperation in the sense that IPID and SAPS did meet and discuss recommendation issues. As IPID had presented in the previous meeting, and from the injunction by the Committee, it had gone back and looked at the issues that had been raised and had been able to deal with them as had been presented. The issues that Ms Ntlatseng had alluded to were more about IPID's capacity constraints. Even when it made recommendations to SAPS, it was not able to monitor SAPS’ disciplinary hearings and how they dealt with the cases themselves. It therefore only received the outcomes of how SAPS had dealt with the matters. This was an area where IPID was saying that it may have to look at how they would get involved in monitoring those cases so that when decisions and outcomes were made on those cases, they were there and knew exactly what happened and could intervene at early stages when there were issues.

The lack of adequate investigations because of the closure of offices was a function of the difficulties that not only IPID faced, but also other departments doing work within a Covid-19 environment. For instance, when IPID conducted investigations, there would be situations where they required information from the police, so it would have to visit their offices to get information. In some instances, it would be found that when IPID’s investigators went to their offices, they would find them closed because of a Covid-19 situation. This would mean that they would have to wait until the offices were open before they could gain access and get information for investigation purposes. It was true that whilst there were lockdown restrictions, IPID and police officers had permits to operate within the lockdown environment. However, the challenge was that when there were issues of Covid-19 and it was found that a person had been infected and might have been in contact with a number of people within that environment, those people also had to quarantine. It therefore became difficult to access these people until they were out of quarantine. These were the issues that IPID had tried to flag to show how Covid-19 had impacted on its ability to achieve some of the targets.

On the number of investigators IPID had in relation to the police officers for each province, he requested that IPID provide this information to the Committee in writing, as he did not currently have it on hand. IPID needed to get the latest numbers from SAPS on the number of SAPS members per province, and then IPID would also be able to provide the number of investigators per province.

Ms Sibongile Phalatsi, Director: Human Resources, IPID, referred to the organogram, and said the question concerned how many people there were in the structure against the expenditure. As at the end of July, there were 345 posts, which were its warm bodies in the organisational structure. There were 46 vacancies, which made a total IPID establishment of 391 positions. Vacancies occurred because at some point there would be resignations and transfers. One of the challenges at IPID was that it would be found that when an analysis was conducted on the vacancies, one would come across a situation where, when they had made strides in filling the positions, particularly those vacant at a senior level, there would be promotions within IPID and by the time that a vacancy was filled, those promotions had created a vacancy in the organogram again. It was thus like a circle within the recruitment process.

However, as a department, IPID had embarked on a recruitment drive. Of the 46 positions that it was referring to, there was also an entry level, which was at the investigator level. IPID had come up with an approach to have panel members and also administration positions spread across all the provinces, and had given them timeframes against which it monitored their filling of vacancies, or their plans, in weekly meetings. To date, of the 46 vacancies, the panel had already conducted interviews, and some were even conducting them in the provinces. A lot of strides had been made in the recruitment process, and interviews were actually the last stage in the filling of vacancies.

IPID had come across a challenge because positions like senior investigators, and particularly those in the investigation field or programme, were filled mostly by those who were currently in the system in order to encouraging promotions from within. Those positions became vacant as and when IPID filled another vacancy. This led to a circle of recruitment and vacancies. IPID was working very hard as a department, with the commitment of managers, to fill the positions.

Mr Setshedi said it was important to inform Members that when a vacant position was filled and an investigator appointed, the expenditure surrounding the appointment was not only the salary. Tools of trade were still needed for the position, such as laptops, and because investigators were field workers, also vehicles, and a travel and accommodation budget. When looking at IPID’s inadequate resources against some of the vacancies, and including the fact that some investigators’ salaries had been increased to be on par with detectives in terms of the SAPS Act, it should be realised that for sustainability, IPID would not be able to afford all of the positions. As a result, IPID had taken the decision not to fill some of the positions. This had happened immediately after the budget reductions, as well as the implementation of Section 23, because when it had done an analysis for the whole financial year, it had come to the conclusion that with the limited budget it would not be able to sustain itself. It had also avoided incurring unauthorised expenditure, because had they continued filling all of the positions, it would have to declare unauthorised expenditure. This was why filling some of the positions was deliberately delayed in order to avoid an over-commitment of IPID’s budget.

The two positions in Mpumalanga and the Northern Cape had indeed been advertised before the R15 million budget reduction for the compensation of employees. When the Executive Director had started with IPID, one of the exercises that she had conducted was to look at the optimal utilisation of IPID’s limited resources. The exercise had been done to determine how it should utilise the resources that it had, and the conclusion was that although the positions were in the IPID Act, IPID had confirm whether it would be able to sustain itself. Backlogs and hotspot provinces had been spoken of in the meeting. The four big provinces were the Western Cape, Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal and the Eastern Cape. When one looked at the intake of those provinces, and compared it the Northern Cape, Mpumalanga, Limpopo or the Northwest, it would then be realised that more capacity was needed in those hotspot provinces. As a result, the Executive Director had made the suggestion that IPID put the positions on hold so that they could address the backlogs that were faced in those hotspot areas. This exercise had been fruitful, because human resources (HR) had done an analysis and confirmed that if IPID put the two positions on hold, it could have five more investigators. Those five investigators, compared to the two positions, would be able to deal with the backlog that had been spoken about.

On what IPID was doing with its limited resources, it always made sure that when there were vacancies, those positions were reprioritised in order to increase capacity. This was where IPID was looking at the grassroots level, because if there was a higher managerial post that did not deal with the backlog, it created a problem because the backlog would still increase while the managerial positions were being increased. It was thus better to have people who could work on reducing the backlog, rather than having a managerial position – particularly in the provinces with a lower intake, as compared to the hotspot areas.

Mr Setshedi said that 78% of IPID’s budget was for the compensation of employees, which had increased since the implementation of Section 23. IPID was still trying to see if it would be able to sustain itself, because it had not received any additional budget for the implementation of Section 23, and had only reprioritised its limited resources. It was also still looking at whether it would be able to sustain the increased salaries or not. The other risk was that if it compared itself with SAPS, when SAPS increased their members’ salaries and benefits, it meant that IPID would have to do the same. The question was therefore whether IPID would be able to sustain itself and be able to increase its salaries with the limited budget that it had. There was no doubt that its budget was inadequate, and it continued to shift funds in order to address some of the key activities within the IPID Act.

Ms Molekwa said that in future IPID should make sure that before the conclusion of their presentation, they recommend on issues that needed to be attended to – especially on those programmes that were not achieved. IPID should thus indicate that their plan was to make sure those programmes were achieved.

Mr Terblanche said that the presentations and responses had been heard, and he agreed that IPID had budget constraints which were not even debatable. However, the responses that had been received were not very positive or convincing. The fact of the matter was that for many financial years to come IPID, like all other departments, was not going to get the budget that it wanted. The question was therefore what it was going to do with the budget that it had, in order to improve its performance. He emphasised that the response from the NPA could not be left as was, and recommended that the Director and Ministry if necessary try to intervene to see if they could get a shorter turnaround time.

Ms Z Majozi (IFP) said that she was leaving the meeting as she had another deployment. She would be submitting written questions for IPID to respond to.

The Acting Chairperson welcomed the relocation of the directorate to its new offices. It had been a long outstanding concern of the Committee. He requested the directorate to indicate whether the legal action related to the City Forum building had been finalised. If so, what were the total costs associated with the legal action?

He thought that IPID should brief the Committee on the inputs made by SAPS and the NPA on the IPID Amendment Bill.

On the forensics issue, it was known that there was a very big challenge with forensics and DNA. However, he suggested that perhaps the Committee could request assistance from the Department of Health (DOH) to assist IPID.

On the compliance, monitoring and stakeholder management programme, which had analysed 2 173 recommendations referred to the SAPS and Municipal Police Services (MPS), and analysed 298 responses from the SAPS and MPS, he asked the directorate to explain the findings made by the analysis and what lessons had been learned from it.

Ms N Peacock (ANC) indicated that she would be leaving the meeting as she was on her way to Parliament to attend a plenary.

IPID’s Response

Ms Ntlatseng said that in future IPID would include recommendations in their presentations.

It was consistently engaging with the NPA on the cases, but would continue to pursue them so that they could come up with a shorter turnaround time to deal with the cases.

On what IPID would do with the budget that they had, because they would never have enough money, it was reprioritising positions. The reason why a delay in the filling of vacancies was seen was because it had looked at all of the vacancies and discussed where vacancies have the least effect. With Programme 2 as a core function, IPID would definitely have to make sure that it filled positions in that programme. This was why it had to put two senior positions on hold. With the budget allocated to the two senior positions, IPID would rather create more junior positions to assist in dealing with cases, as well as the backlog. IPID consistently monitored its budget. There was a budget executive committee where it looked at where it spent its money. Where there were savings, it shifted funds around to make sure that Programme 2 was well resourced to deal with the challenges being experienced as a department.

She requested that IPID be allowed to provide the Committee with a written response to the question on legal action relating to City Forum -- whether it had been finalised, and how much had been spent on it. Legal Services had to explain what action had been taken and how much was being spent to deal with the City Forum issue.

With regard to the inputs on the IPID Amendment Bill by SAPS and the NPA, IPID would have to go back and check and furnish a written response to the Committee from there.

IPID had had a meeting with the DOH in December last year to assist it in fast tracking some of the technical reports that had been submitted to their laboratories. The DOH had responded positively, and even allocated their officials to the provinces to work together with IPID and deal with some of the backlogs. IPID had noted the DOH’s comments that although there were so many Covid-19 cases that they were currently dealing with, they would by all means try to prioritise some of IPID’s cases. Although the DOH was not moving at the pace at which IPID had requested them to move, it was giving IPID the assurance that they would definitely deal with its cases – and this wasx exactly what the DOH was doing. Mr Seseko was consistently monitoring whether IPID was getting positive feedback from the laboratories as well. It was hoped that after the Covid-19 issue had died down, the DOH would seriously concentrate on dealing with IPID’s technical reports.

Ms Letlape requested that IPID submit a written response regarding compliance and stakeholder issues of analysis so that it could adequately address the question.

The Acting Chairperson said that a written response could be submitted on compliance and stakeholder issues of analysis.

Deputy Minister's comments

Mr Cassel Mathale, Deputy Minister of Police, agreed that IPID would definitely furnish the Committee with a written response to the issues that it had raised. Indeed, the budget constraints had had an impact on IPID, but despite that, it had been able to do its work. The budget cuts had made it difficult for both IPID and SAPS to work, but despite this there had been no option but to continue to work within the constraints that they had. Further interaction through the Committee, to support the programme to increase the funding for SAPS and IPID, would be appreciated, so that they could both carry out their responsibilities.

It could be seen that the current events had exposed the negative impact that the budget cuts had had on the police and security forces generally. If the police and security forces’ budgets were cut, when the time came when an appropriate response was needed, one would find them wanting as they could not move from one point to the other at the required speed. This affected the ability to defend, so it was very important to ensure that the funding shortcomings being experienced because of the economic situation were addressed. The economic situation was understood, but at the same time the security of the country was very important. Going forward and working together with the Committee, SAPS and IPID should be able to argue for an increased budget, or where there was a need for budget cuts, that certain areas should be no-go areas. However, if the budget cuts encroached into the no-go areas, then it should be with caution.

He had appreciated the moment given to IPID to come and account on what had been done in the previous quarters. He also appreciated the work that IPID was doing. When Ms Ntlatseng had joined the directorate she had been given a baptism of fire, because she was inheriting an on-going concern. There was no need to talk to her as if she was a new person, as she had to have known that she was going into a space that had its own challenges. SAPS was happy that Ms Ntlatseng had been able to respond to the challenges, together with her team, as there had been marked progress which could be seen, and she was quick. This could be because of the collective support that she got from the institution, because it had been running before she came and there were men and women there who were making things happen. The team that Ms Ntlatseng had found at IPID had made it possible for her to learn, come in running, and continue with the good work that it was doing. Together, they had made a formidable team, and no challenges had been picked up within the institution itself. This meant that Ms Ntlatseng was providing appropriate leadership, together with the collective that was there.

The Acting Chairperson reiterated that the issue of the IPID budget was a concern to the Committee. The Committee would always make sure that when they spoke, they supported the budget. They did not control the budgets. However, when things happened, everyone wanted to blame the department and say that they had done nothing, forgetting that cutting the budget affected their performance because they had to reprioritise on other issues.

Civilian Secretariat for Police Service performance report  

Mr Alvin Rapea, Secretary for Police, introduced the presentation. Ms Itumeleng Precious Ledwaba-Moagi, Director: Strategic Management, briefed the Committee on the performance report, and Mr Tumelo Nkojoana, Chief Financial Officer (CFO), presented the quarterly financial report.

Referring to the organisational environment for the financial year, the Secretariat reported that the vacancy rate was maintained at 7%, and through its integrated human capital strategy it continued to prioritise the filling of the positions and fast-track the recruitment and appointment process. In the service delivery environment, it was largely affected by Covid-19, which had a major impact on the people-centred mandate of the CSPS. Of particular relevance was the prohibition of mass gatherings and restrictions on travelling, which implied that it had to find new ways of communicating and engaging with communities and key stakeholders. Notwithstanding these challenges, it had leveraged on the use of technological platforms to ensure the continuation of consultations and public participation programmes.

(See attached document for details of the CSPS performance in its four programmes -- Administration, Inter-Sectoral Coordination and Strategic Partnerships, Legislation and Policy Development, and Civilian Oversight, Monitoring and Evaluation.)

The CSPS referred to Bills had been approved by the Justice, Crime Prevention and Security (JCPS) Minister’s cluster for further processing by the JCPS Cabinet Committee. These included the Criminal Law Amendment Bill, the SAPS Amendment Bill, the Protection of Constitutional Democracy against Terrorist and Related Activities Amendment Bill, and the Firearms Control Amendment Bill.

In terms of the SAPS Amendment Bill, there had been engagements with the National Treasury and relevant budget forums to deliberate on the financial implications. SAPS had confirmed that they did not have a dedicated budget for the functions of the Civil Secretariat for Police (CSP), so the necessary funds could not go with the transfer.

On the IPID Amendment Bill, there were issues around expanding the mandate of IPID to include the traffic police and MPS of various municipalities under its jurisdiction. The State Law Advisor was attending to this on an urgent basis. CSPS proposed establishing an oversight mechanisms over law enforcement agencies and police officers provided for under the Criminal Procedure Act.

Regarding the CSPS Amendment Bill, at the time of reporting, the Bill had been circulated internally to elicit inputs from staff members. Work on the Regulation of Gatherings Act, Second-Hand Good Amendment Bill, and Stock Theft Amendment Bill, was continuing through the various drafting teams.

The Secretariat responded to the Committee’s questions on the IPID Amendment Bill. The Committee had asked when the court decision to amend the IPID Act had been made. The decision was made during the judgment of McBride v Minister of Police and Another, which was handed down on 6 September 2016. Regarding what had been done in relation to the decision, the IPID Amendment Bill, addressing the Constitutional Court ruling, had been introduced to Parliament on 1 March 2018, and published for public comments in the Government Gazette on 1 June 2018. It had been passed by the National Assembly and referred to the National Council of Provinces (NCOP), which had passed it on 20 November 2019 and was assented to by the President on 3 June 2020. The recommendation to amend the IPID Act was made by the Committee in January 2018, but, the priority had been on addressing the Constitutional court ruling, and the CSPS had been advised to bring the full amendment of the Act before the Committee at a later stage. Regarding how far the process of the amendment of the Act was, the IPID Amendment Bill has been drafted. A request had been made to consider the possibility of including all law enforcement under the mandate of IPID, and that had required extensive desk top research, as well as an opinion from the State Law Advisers, which had been received on 14 April 2021, after which the Bill was redrafted, removing all reference to the inclusion of law enforcement. The process of briefing the Forum of South Africa's Directors-General cluster on the draft Bill had commenced. It had been presented to the JCPS Development Committee on 14 July 2021 and returned with a few concerns which were being addressed. The updated Bill would be presented again at the next meeting. The draft Bill, after having followed all the processes, would be introduced during the 2022/23 financial year.

The CSPS’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic included the procurement of hand sanitisers and masks, the transportation of frontline workers during the hard lockdown, and the disinfection and cleaning of offices. At the end of Q4, R426 085 had been spent on these interventions.

Finance

The CSPS had a total original budget of R156.3 million, and an adjusted budget of R137.2 million. It had spent R131.5 million (95.6%), resulting in an under-spending of R5.6 million. This was mainly due to the compensation of employees, particularly the vacant funded posts that were not filled for the entire financial year. The spending on goods and services was R129 000 lower than anticipated due to the slowdown in normal business activities as a result of the nation-wide Covid-19 lockdown, as well as the virement of R 4.2 million to payment for capital assets. The spending on payment for capital assets during the first three quarters of the financial year had also been below the anticipated projections due to purchase restrictions on certain items during the lockdown. Nonetheless, the CSPS had spent over R4 million on computer equipment and almost R 1 million on vehicles during the quarter under review.

Discussion

The Acting Chairperson said that sometime matters which were not before the Committee should not be presented, as Members could not reflect on them and engage constructively in the CSPS’s presentation. It was very important that the Committee have the missing information, because Members could not see what was happening.

Mr Terblanche said that he had found the presentation very informative. He was very interested in the crime and violence prevention strategy, which could be very useful. What was the status of the strategy? Had it been implemented? If implemented, was there any sort of indication as to its impact at the moment? There was a huge pushback on the Firearm Amendment Bill at the moment in the public domain. Was this going to impact the Bill? If yes, to what extent? On the IPID Act, could somebody explain why it would be necessary for IPID to investigate the traffic officers etc? Policing was still a police function. Was it being said that they did not think that the police were able to do proper investigations insofar as the traffic police was concerned? He wanted to make sure that there was provision in the Second-Hand Goods Amendment Bill for typical infrastructure-related items to be protected, such as electrical cables and rail tracks.

The Acting Chairperson said that he did not know whether Mr Terblanche had asked the question about the SAPS Amendment Bill regarding the funding of the CPS. CPS played a very important role in communities – especially during the past period. Community Police Forums (CPFs) and the CPS were at the forefront in trying to stop crime and mobilising communities. The SAPS Amendment Bill had proposed that the full functions and funding would shift to the provincial secretariat for police services, but these functions had never been budgeted for by SAPS. As such, there were no funds to transfer. What was happening here? He asked for a copy of the management letter from the Auditor-General (AG), which included the full set of audit findings and not only the broad findings established in the annual report.

Mr Terblanche was wondering about the Firearm Amendment Bill, and whether an interim solution should not be found, given the huge problem that South Africans were facing over the renewal of firearm licences etc. The police would not be able to address the backlog in the very near future. Should something not be built in to allow people to be legal again for a certain period?

Mr Shembeni referred to the monitoring of performance, conduct, transformation, and compliance to legislation and policies by SAPS, and asked whether the CSPS knew exactly all of the police stations that SAPS had. He asked on the basis of the Bridge Camp police station in the Eastern Cape, and because the CSPS was doing oversight on SAPS. Was this police station adequate enough to be used as a police station for the people of South Africa? Was it made according to the correct standards of a police station? Did it meet the requirements of a police station? Another one was the Ilinge police station in the Eastern Cape. The CSPS had to know all of the police stations in South Africa and whether they were meeting the required standards for being a police station.

CSPS’s response

Mr Rapea said the Integrated Crime and Violence Prevention Strategy had been approved by the Minister, but had to go to Cabinet for approval. This strategy was about the whole of society and government, and thus had to be approved at the Cabinet level. It had already been presented to the JCPS cluster of ministers, but because of the changes, the CSPS had to go back now. This was so that by the time it went to Cabinet, even the new minsters who had come on board would have been briefed and the new strategy would not come as a surprise to them. The Minister would therefore be looking at a slot for that.

Regarding the outcry on the Firearms Control Amendment Bill, the CSPS had received more than 1 200 submissions and was busy analysing them. It had gone out on public participation, so inputs that were coming from communities would be taken into consideration, and would have an impact on the content of the legislation. The CSPS might change other areas based on the submissions that they had received and were considering. Once they had looked into it, they would do a proper analysis and adjust where they had to adjust. They would then have to go back to the Minister, the Deputy Minister and Cabinet before it came to Parliament.

On the issue of the Firearms Control Amendment Bill regarding renewals, the current Bill stated that one had to apply for a renewal 90 days before expiry. An amendment was being included which talked about the situation if one applied after the 90 days. The amendment did not say that one was not allowed to apply for a renewal, but the proposal in the Amendment Bill stated that one should still be allowed to apply for a firearm. This was an improvement in terms of the current proposed Bill.

Regarding IPID investigating the traffic police, from what had been learned and the input that the CSPS had received from IPID, traffic officers also dealt with criminality in their work, although their focus was traffic violations. It had been indicated that currently there was no oversight over traffic officers. The CSPS had thus been asked to explore that area to see how it could incorporate traffic officers into the oversight of IPID. The chief state law advisors had come back with their assessment of what the CSPS was trying to do. The recommendation had been that because traffic officers were managed under different legislation, which was traffic, it would not be constitutional to incorporate them as part of IPID oversight. However, the CSPS was looking into it.

He asked Mr Terblanche to clarify the question he had raised about the Second-Hand Goods Amendment Bill.

On the SAPS Amendment Bill and the funding of the CPF, this matter was not yet finalised. The CSPS’s position, which was the motivation that they had given National Treasury, was that one could not say that one was paying for something, but did not budget for it. Somehow, one should be able to say that even though they did not budget for it, so much was spent on transporting CPFs, accommodating CPFs, and meetings. This was because one could account on the operational issues station by station to get the information and indicate what had been spent. The number might not be significant enough to address the issues that legislation would come up with, but to say that this number could not be given was not a good reason. National Treasury had written after the CSPS’ intervention to the National Commissioner and said that the issue needed to be resolved before the SAPS Amendment Bill went back to Cabinet, because the quantification thereof was important. The CPSC was engaging with the National Commissioner, and hoped that they would be able to finalise it in the next two weeks or so. If the CSPS and National Commissioner were unable to resolve the matter, they would then ask the Minister to intervene and guide them on how to take the process forward. The CSPS had promised the Committee that they would have finalised the process by the end of August 2021 and were supposed to be coming back to the Committee with the SAPS Amendment Bill. However, they were busy finalising it.

With regard to the management letter, the CSPS would be able to share this with the Committee and had always done so in their presentations. When the CSPS developed their action plan to deal with the AG's report, the list that they had included on the interventions that they were going to make included the findings that were in the management letter. 

Mr Takalani Ramaru, Chief Director: Civilian Oversight Monitoring and Evaluation, CSPS, requested that the CSPS be allowed to submit a detailed written report on the Bridge Camp and Ilinge police stations. The CSPS visited all of the police stations together with their provincial secretariat colleagues.

Mr Rapea asked if Mr Terblanche could first clarify his question so that the CSPS could respond to it.

Deputy Minister Mathale clarified that Mr Terblanche was asking if the CSPS could not, in the SAPS Amendment Bill, factor in the issue of the renewal of licences due to the problem of people not having renewed their licenses. 

Mr Terblanche said he had received a response on the Firearm Amendment Bill in that regard. What he had wanted to know on the Second-Hand Goods Amendment Bill, and specifically in relation to things within the domain of critical infrastructure -- as there was a huge problem with the theft of electrical cables and rail tracks etc.-- was whether something had been built into the Bill that would address this issue to a better extent.

Mr Rapea said that work on the review of the legislation had just started. He would take this an input in that, as the CSPS was considering the Second-Hand Goods Act, they were not to forget about the damage that was caused to critical infrastructure and were to make sure that it was included in the legislation. The CSPS would make sure that the drafters took this issue into consideration.

The Deputy Minister appreciated the opportunity that the Committee had given to the CSPS to account on what they had done, and their performance per quarter.

The Acting Chairperson said that the Committee needed to monitor the trends and ensure that things that had been budgeted for, were implemented. If there were reviews, it was known that there were challenges about the budget. The Committee was in support of IPID, the CSPS and SAPS because this was a serious challenge. One would find that targets were not met because funds had to be shifted from one programme to another, and as a result it affected performance.

So far, the Committee was happy with the entities' presentations and responses. He thought that the Committee and SAPS needed to do better with the Bills. The Committee had prioritised the IPID Amendment Bill and the SAPS Amendment Bill, and at the next Committee meeting the Chairperson would advise when they should come and present.

The meeting was adjourned.

Download as PDF

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

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: