Madam Deputy Speaker, hon members, the Independent Police Investigative Directorate Bill, otherwise known as the Ipid Bill, that has been placed before this House forms an important part of our approach to policing and the type of force we envisage and wish to see moving forward.
Whilst we put more emphasis on fighting crime, particularly on combating serious and violent crime and fighting it toughly, we, at the same time, balance that with our philosophy of community policing, which is oriented towards respect for human rights, being community-centred, being biased towards the weak and addressing the safety needs of society.
This piece of legislation will ensure that the rule of law is upheld at all material times, even by the law enforcement agencies. This Bill was introduced to Parliament together with the Civilian Secretariat for Police Service Bill. The two Bills speak to the commitment of the civilian oversight role over the Police Service.
In changing the focus and the name of the Independent Complaints Directorate, ICD, to the Independent Police Investigative Directorate, we are sending a clear message that the new body will not just focus on processing complaints, but its emphasis will also be on developing a strong investigating capacity. We also seek to investigate substantial systemic defects in policing and in general corruption.
The Bill before this august body today does not only change in name, but it also creates a separate piece of legislation away from where it is located currently - within the SA Police Service Act.
Historically, there have been several problems that plagued the smooth operation of the ICD. While it had powers to investigate the police, it still had to submit its findings to the police themselves. This issue has been raised over a period of time, particularly by parliamentarians.
In the legislation determining the mandate of Ipid, the focus is squarely on what the most important issues are that Ipid should deal with in order to make a real impact. In the process of determining the mandate, the principle used is that Ipid should investigate those matters that will have a lasting impact on transforming the police into a structure that not only deals with crime with vigour, but also upholds the law and the Constitution. It also highlights the fact that domestic violence will be removed from Ipid and be placed under the secretariat.
The one area we specifically located under the new Ipid is the investigation of any police officer involved in rape. We adopted this stance primarily because crimes against women and girl-children remain one of government's key priorities. We want to ensure that in cases where a police officer is suspected of committing such crimes, such a case is investigated by an independent body. This approach will go a long way in building public confidence in the force whilst at the same time re- enforcing government's commitment to ensure that the most vulnerable in society are not abused by the very people who should protect them.
The Bill speaks to the fact that the national office should be a lean administrative office providing strategic leadership and direction, but with the capacity to execute the mandate located at various provincial offices.
The White Paper speaks to the need to strengthen the relationship between the ICD and the Civilian Secretariat for the Police Service. This Bill enhances the relationship in some detail and strengthens co-operation between the two bodies. With this piece of legislation, we have committed ourselves to continue to work for the entrenchment of a culture of human rights. We have now provided the new Ipid with the necessary tools, and it will be up to the leadership of this body to implement their mandate. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
Hon Deputy Speaker, hon Ministers, hon Members of Parliament and our guests, hon members will know that SA Police Service members have huge legitimate powers such as to arrest would-be criminals, take suspicious people in for questioning, search people with or without warrants and use deadly force when it is reasonably necessary, to mention but a few.
As part of their work requirements, they are issued with firearms - the well-known R5s - as it is legally understood that there may be circumstances that require the use of firearms. These powers are indeed huge, and if not monitored they can be brutally abused by the SA Police Service members.
In order to prevent such brutality, section 206(6) of the Constitution of the Republic calls for the establishment of an organisation that should investigate any police brutality or abuse of power. From 1997 until now, that organisation has been and still is known as the ICD. It was established by the SA Police Service Act, Act 68 of 1995. The mandate of the ICD, as we speak, is to make recommendations on cases it investigates and submit those recommendations about police members to police management for implementation. The current legislation, namely chapter 10 of the SA Police Service Act, does not force SA Police Service members to implement the ICD recommendations. This simply means that the ICD recommendations are left to the discretion of the police management to decide whether to implement those recommendations or not.
Because of this shortcoming, most often than not the SA Police Service management simply ignores the ICD recommendations. Hence many organisations and individuals, particularly the Portfolio Committees on Safety and Security and lately on Police, realised that the ICD is a toothless but extremely necessary organisation. It is through this understanding that the ANC Polokwane national conference resolved that the ICD should be strengthened.
The Bill that is before the House establishes a much empowered organisation called Ipid. Unlike the ICD, which is complaint-driven, Ipid will be investigation-driven. This Bill in fact repeals Chapter 10 of the SA Police Service Act and amends other sections of the SA Police Service Act. It also amends the Witness Protection Act, Domestic Violence Act and the Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication-Related Information Act. These repeals and amendments ensure that Ipid, unlike the ICD, has teeth and can bite. Ipid will focus on more serious and priority crimes committed by members of the SA Police Service. If you are not a member of the SAPS, you will not be protected or your case will not be processed by Ipid. Those cases include, as the Minister has mentioned, deaths, rape, torture, assault and matters relating to systemic corruption. Hon Ms Van Wyk will explain these in more detail.
This Bill also streamlines and recognises the handling process of complaints and investigation functions. It establishes a formal liaison mechanism between Ipid and the Civilian Secretariat for the Police Service through the consultative forum. This forum will see Ipid, the executive director and the civilian secretariat meeting at least four times a year.
This Bill also ensures Ipid's independent oversight of the SA Police and municipal police services. In this regard, Ipid will continue to be a designated organisation. It will train its investigators and it will have peace officer or police official powers as provided for in the Criminal Procedure Act.
The Bill further aligns provincial strategic objectives with those of the national office to enhance the functioning of the directorate. To achieve this objective, the executive director will appoint provincial heads of Ipid and establish a management committee that consists of an executive director and a provincial head of each province.
The Bill outlines the process to follow in dealing with recommendations in respect of the SA Police Service and municipal police services resulting from investigations conducted by the directorate, as well as sanctions that include imprisonment in the event Ipid's recommendations are ignored by the SAPS. This did not exist with the ICD.
The Bill clearly enhances accountability and transparency by the SA Police Service and municipal police services, of course in accordance with the principles of the Constitution. This Bill clearly spells out first that the SAPS and municipal police must co-operate with Ipid. Failure to do so will result in sanctions being applied. These may also include a prison sentence.
The Bill provides for Ipid to function independently from the SA Police Service and calls for each organ of state to assist the directorate to maintain its impartiality and to perform its functions effectively.
As I conclude, let me thank all those institutions, organisations and individuals who made written and/or oral submissions on this Bill. Most of the submissions identified weaknesses in the Bill, which were referred to the committee. Options and solutions were provided, which assisted us in the processing and production of the Bill that is before this House today.
Let me mention here that all those who made submissions supported the Bill. Almost 95% or more of the submissions advised us as the portfolio committee to define "torture". We clearly heard these submission, but all members across party lines took a decision not to define "torture" in this Bill. We believe that the Combating of Torture Bill is the Bill that should define "torture". This means that the dictionary definition will be used for the purpose of the Independent Police Investigative Directorate Bill. Hon Koos agrees with me.
It will also be important for me to thank the state law advisers, the ICD staff and particularly the executive director, as well as the civilian secretary. These people worked very hard and met all our deadlines. Our support staff equally assisted us, and we appreciate their contributions. The media showed positive interest in this Bill, and we appreciate that.
Lastly, but not least, I want to thank all members of the portfolio committee. I think and believe that the Bill that is before the House today is good. I believe that it will empower Ipid and, as such, be supported by all parties. The ANC supports the Independent Police Investigative Directorate Bill. I thank you. [Applause.]
Deputy Speaker, in 1994, as a country we moved away from an era when policing had been in total thrall to the political regime. We created a Police Service and moved away from what was previously a police force - a police force that literally forced citizens to look down the barrel of a gun should they attempt to question their right not to live under unjust laws and globally despised policies. Indeed, any citizen who attempted to stand up against them was treated extremely harshly, and political prisoners regularly slipped on a bar of soap and fell out of the top floors of police headquarters all around the country.
An effective oversight and investigatory unit was required in order to serve as a watchdog for the police. However, for as many years as I have been on the Police or the Safety and Security portfolio committee, as it was called during the last term, I have been watching the ICD exemplify the most cynical nonimplementation of the constitutional mandate.
Before the unit was established in 1997, the SAPS had a special investigation unit based in Pretoria that dealt with corruption cases. But they closed that down and created the anticorruption unit, which they also closed down, claiming that the ICD would deal with such matters. They then very deliberately kept the ICD on a shoestring budget, effectively ensuring that the police complaint system was marginalised at a time of entrenched corruption and criminality within the SAPS and indeed at a time when, elsewhere in the world, the handling of such complaints by the public was developing apace. What the public was left with was 219 people nationwide to deal with deaths in police custody or as a result of police action or other serious police transgressions. The ICD had a 23% turnover rate and the anticorruption unit had three investigators and one investigation officer per 44 000 SAPS members.
Today in this House we take a great stride forward in at long last giving the ICD - soon to be known as Ipid - the teeth of a bulldog. One must focus on the reasons for this new legislation. It is absolutely possible that the hon members who created the ICD in 1997 believed they were creating implementable legislation, but it had one fatal flaw. They presumed that the SAPS would honour the spirit of the Bill. The ICD recommendations regarding criminality, misconduct or deaths - as the case may have been - were in fact, in most cases, ignored. Sadly, the nation learnt the hard way that SAPS members are mere flesh and blood like the rest of us and, given an option, would inevitably take the easiest way out.
At the outset the indications were that the system would work well, but after the honeymoon came the cold, hard reality that what had been created was in fact a marriage from hell. The SAPS woke up to the fact that there was gestating within it an entity created to crush its own criminality. But, to their relief, they realised that there was nothing at all in the Bill that could force them to implement those recommendations.
According to one briefing by the ICD to the portfolio committee - I remember well how it was revealed - the number of complaints received against the SAPS had increased from 5 000 the previous year to over 6 000. Deaths in police custody as a result of police action had also increased from 792 to 912 over the same period. At the same time the SAPS was less and less inclined to bother to act on the ICD recommendations. Indeed they implemented just 58% of them and threw the rest into the trash. I watched in horror as that figure dropped to 42%. The last time I asked, the SAPS were implementing just 10% of those recommendations. The recommendations represent hours and hours of hard work on the part of professional investigators. The SAPS today treats the outcomes of those investigations with total contempt.
So, what exactly were they ignoring? Well, in just one year we learnt that criminal conduct by police had increased by 24%, misconduct by 6% and deaths in police custody by 15%. On numerous occasions the deaths in police custody were only learned about by the ICD when they read about it in the newspapers - newspapers which are currently still allowed to report on such travesties.
Indeed, every year the ICD receives an increased number of complaints. What is of particular interest is the fact that the ICD is one of the best kept secrets in the country. The Ministry has kept the ICD as close guarded a secret as one might expect some people to keep a mistress or an illegitimate child. It has been suggested that accountability and oversight were being increasingly neglected. I would say the neglect itself was criminal
In 2005, 22 police officers - the most in six years - had been reported to the ICD for allegedly raping members of the public, including children. It would be shocking even if one of our police officers had done that. But they were accused of such acts. What was just as shocking was that apparently their colleagues, other SAPS members, covered up for them. The result was that not one of the 22 had ever been charged or convicted.
Police officers were reportedly hiding evidence against their colleagues so that charges were withdrawn. In other cases police officers were arrested only to be released on petty cash bail amounts. At the same time the ICD told us that this was just the tip of the iceberg.
An example of how guilty members of the SAPS are allowed to return to duty was reported where a constable who was found guilty of indecently assaulting a gang-rape victim was back at work the next week. During the 2006-07 financial year, a total number of 707 SAPS employees were criminally charged for aiding escapees. Of those 707, only 14 were suspended. Of those 14 suspensions, only six were found guilty, and one resigned. Presumably we were to believe that the other prisoners mastered the art of teleportation.
The manipulation of crime statistics alone has certainly never been properly tackled, and yet one must come back again and again to the unthinkable. We are also referring to instances where citizens are shot, beaten, raped, killed or tortured by SAPS members or gang-raped in cells or indeed women put in men's cells and left to be gang-raped overnight. It was horrific to learn of the travesty of justice for one of those women. The two officers on duty who locked her in the males-only cell were served a sentence of dismissal, suspended for six months. That meant that they were back at work the next day and faced no loss of income, demotion or any other penalty.
The value placed by the SAPS on this woman's life, body and wellbeing was so contemptuously dismissive that it made women all over the country fear for their own safety and terrified that, should they find themselves locked up for an unpaid traffic fine or any other petty offence, they may suffer the same fate. They were asking if this was what women could hope to expect from the SAPS.
As for males, how many men have been raped in police cells because proper and regular cell checks were not conducted? The message sent out to the general public and to other SAPS members here was that they would keep their jobs, regardless of how negligent they were and how many people suffered because they failed in their duty.
So, it comes as no surprise that some SAPS members take bribes, lose dockets and refuse to open cases with impunity. After all, what actual risk was there that anything serious would happen to them? A report published by the Centre for Violence and Reconciliation stated that when asked what the worst thing was that would happen to them if they were caught taking a bribe, 6% of the SAPS members replied that nothing would happen to them and 32% stated that they might get a written warning.
The SAPS members do not perceive that there is any real risk of serious repercussions if caught failing in their duty. If you did wrong, you had very little to fear, until today. What incentive has there been for the public to report incidents of abuse when little action was taken against police members in the wrong? This lack of firm action not only undermined the morale of good cops - and there is a vast majority - but it also discouraged people from co-operating with the police, until today.
Even when the SAPS management went to the extraordinary length of suspending a member, they were suspended on full pay, and the investigation would then be stalled. These investigations took months, if not years, thereby costing taxpayers millions. At that stage, only 2% of SAPS employees criminally charged with assisting in the escapes from police cells, for example, were ever suspended. And when I last checked, we were looking at R90 million having been spent on the salaries of suspended SAPS members.
At the time when public confidence in the police was decreasing, these figures should have been setting off alarm bells among senior SAPS management. Instead, when questioned about the low dismissal rate of police criminally charged with rape, murder and armed robbery, the then SAPS Director of Communications, Selby Bokaba, stated that "the SA Police Service disciplined members in other ways besides dismissal". One law for the police and another for the rest of us.
The ICD did the best it could under the most impossible circumstances, which included a lack of co-operation from the SAPS, inadequate funding and a high staff turnover due to salaries. The SAPS simply did not take matters of police discipline seriously. Ironically, during the provincial "shutdown- the-Scorpions" hearings packed with bussed-in ANC members, claims were made from the floor that there were still housebreakings, rapes and attacks, and thus this elite crime-fighting unit should be shut down. This was ironic because of the confirmed presence of police members within the SAPS who had been found guilty of offences on active duty while it was them, and not the Scorpions, who should have been dealing with those types of matters.
The latest SAPS annual report revealed that the police had set aside R7,5 billion for civil legal claims against the department, equivalent to 18% of the budget. Indeed, the civil claims increased by 31% in just 12 months. These included assault, shootings, damage to property, police actions and the like. It became obvious that the inability of the SAPS to hold its own officers to account constituted one of the most significant impediments to expanding and improving the quality of policing. My attempts to introduce a private member's Bill to radically empower and expand the role of the ICD were put on hold over and over again. But today, finally, we see some action aimed at cleaning the dirt out of the SAPS and polishing up a badge that has been badly tarnished. Virtually every proposal in my private member's Bill has been incorporated into the legislation.
The time for empty rhetoric is over. This Bill gives the power to the civilian body to oversee our police. The DA will support this Bill - a Bill we have worked on so well together in the portfolio committee. But I must raise the issue again that the head of the ICD - soon to be Ipid - should be at the same level as the National Police Commissioner. Within the context of a ranked structure psyche, not having this situation could and probably will lead to problems of attempted noncompliance.
It may be too late for the woman allegedly raped by police some 10 months ago in Knysna - to date no identity parade has be held. It may be too late for the three students in King Williams Town driven off the road by student police, terribly injured and then robbed at gunpoint. It may be too late for the wildlife officer left by drunken officers to be gang-raped by 20 men overnight in Northern KwaZulu-Natal. But this Bill is certainly going to give this watchdog the bite it needs and should have been given long ago. Thank you. [Applause.]
Madam Deputy Speaker, the most significant aspect of the Bill before us lies in its ensuring that the Police Service becomes a professional Police Service that operates within the spirit of our constitutional norms. Section 205(3) of the South African Constitution of 1996 states that:
The objects of the police service are to prevent, combat and investigate crime, to maintain public order, to protect and secure the inhabitants of the Republic and their property, and to uphold and enforce the law.
Ipid was established under section 50(1) of the SA Police Service Act and section 222 of the interim Constitution, amongst other things, to ensure that cases against the police are properly investigated. In the Constitution section 206(3), (5)(a) and (6) combined are the relevant sections. The complaints body must investigate cases brought before it and those of alleged misconduct or offences committed by a member of the Police Service.
Without this body, the police would be a law unto themselves and be accountable to no one. Ipid replaces the ICD which was established in terms of the legislation that predated our Constitution. As such, the constitutional requirement of government to establish an independent police investigative directorate, in terms of section 206 has not been given full effect up to now. This Bill, therefore, rectifies a very important omission. The Bill is further aimed at addressing the historical abuse of power, the allegations and/or reports of police brutality towards citizens under arrest and those caught up the crossfire as police members carry out their duties. There are also high levels of police torture and abuse of victims in violation of citizenship rights as opposed to fair treatment, arrest procedures, interrogations and violations of human rights outside the realms of their overall work. Historical events and details in the annual report point to several documented cases where the Police Service has failed members of the public by investigating itself and then covering up for itself.
The Bill provides for the obligation by the police to co-operate with the law, engage civilians oversight and make sure that it does not have unwarranted outcomes where there is a failure to comply. Funds are to come directly from Parliament's budget as part of its appropriation. International examples which show that this Bill is a step in the right direction include Brazil, which has a police ombudsman and a civilian complaints review board, and the USA, which has an inspector-general. This is going to help us take away the element of political interference.
Targets of this Bill include the following: police offences should relate to deaths in police custody, rapes and the shooting of innocent victims in the line of duty as a result of police misconduct; the investigative operations of the previous ICD should be strengthened, and its mandate should be more refined; there should be an authority to refer matters for specialist investigations to other relevant orders; and there should be co- ordination with other police bodies.
The fact that the directorate will be independent from the Police Service and that it will report directly to the Minister of Police is both welcome and necessary. On the one hand it will allow for independent oversight of the SA Police Service as well as the municipal police services, and on the other hand it will afford Parliament an opportunity to exercise greater oversight over the Minister himself.
The independence, impartiality and accountability of the directorate are important developments. In the recent past, the ICD was not taken seriously. Unfortunately a large number of recommendations it made to the Police Service were blatantly ignored. However, that will now be history. Henceforth, failure to implement the recommendations of the directorate is a criminal offence punishable by law in terms of this Bill.
The aim of this Bill is to make sure that South Africa has a professional Police Force that responds to human rights and will not unnecessarily target law-abiding policemen and women who operate within the law. It also aims to strengthen the expertise, resources and independence of the civilian oversight of the Police Service. By changing its name to Ipid, this gives the directorate a platform to approach this new Bill with more openness, resolve and purpose, both politically and operationally.
Cope hopes that the executive director will perform his duty with credibility and professionalism free from politics, and be transparent. It is imperative that the directorate is properly resourced so as to carry out its mandate. Cope also supports a most thorough security screening of members appointed to the directorate. We hope that the government will make sure the screening is done in such a way that no one joins the investigative directorate without having been screened properly. Therefore, Cope supports the Bill. I thank you. [Applause.]
Sekela Somlomo, neNdlu ehloniphekileyo ... [Madam Deputy Speaker, and this august House ...]
... the Independent Police Investigative Directorate Bill is an essential component of an effective and accountable Police Service. As its very name suggests, it must be independent and, by its definition thereof, impartial. This is critical to both the directorate and the Police Force's success in delivering an effective and accountable service to the public of South Africa. Therefore, the Bill must not only establish the investigative directorate, but it must also give it teeth and measures of protection from those who would otherwise be able to use and abuse political powers and persuasion to thwart the directorate in its investigative functions.
The IFP is vehemently opposed to any form of interference with the investigative directorate from either the secretariat or the Ministry. We concur very strongly with the Minister of Police when he said at the beginning of August that the Bill must address the past weaknesses of the directorate and that the directorate must act as a check on police powers. Police misconduct and criminality will be relegated to the past where it belongs as it has no place and is most unwelcome in our democracy.
However, the Bill is not a universal panacea and will not be able to correct all the problems on its own. It must be supported by effective legislation and sufficient resources, and left to its own resources in the carrying out of its duties as only then will it be a truly effective tool for the oversight of our Police Service.
The provincial head of the directorate must report to both the MEC and the premier in order to make sure that the head of government in the province knows exactly what is going on within the Police Service.
In conclusion, the IFP wishes to stress the importance of the total independence and apolitical alignment of this directorate as this is the only manner in which it will be able to carry out its mandate successfully. We further state that, as a party, we do not wish to see or hear about any favours being granted to any individual or group of individuals. The law must apply equally to all as all are equal in the eyes of the law. Thank you. [Applause.]
Hon Deputy Speaker and hon members, the UDM welcomes the Bill that is before us today. Indeed, we urge government to promulgate and implement the provisions with haste. Since its inception, the Independent Complaints Directorate has struggled to perform its most basic function, namely to act as a watchdog over the police. This Bill seeks to address this glaring legal hole in our democratic dispensation with the introduction of a reconstituted Independent Police Investigative Directorate, as well as the innovation of the substantial penalties and prison sentences for police officials who contravene the provision of this Bill to undermine investigations.
Whenever we formulate a policy and legislation, it is important that we remember why the constitutional obligations of this democracy were created in the first place. In this particular case, it means that we need to remember the brutality, ruthlessness and lawlessness that many members of the apartheid police operated with. Those police atrocities and injustices were some of the hallmarks of an illegitimate, oppressive regime. In a modern constitutional democracy, we cannot allow such behaviour. That is why we must be vigilant, especially at this time when it is popular for VIP police members to behave like thugs with badges.
We note that the estimated cost of making the new directorate operational runs into several hundred million rands. We need unconditional undertakings from the Minister that this money will be forthcoming and that it will be spent on acquiring the required officials and investigators. We cannot tolerate a continuation of the previous trend of an understaffed directorate that failed to swiftly and thoroughly investigate incidents involving the police. The UDM supports the Bill. Thank you, Deputy Speaker.
Agb Adjunkspeaker, die burgers van 'n land moet vetroue kan h in hul polisielede, want die polisie is die enigste instansie waarheen burgers kan gaan waar hulle voel hul regte, asook hul lewens, beskerm word.
Nou wil ek vir die agb Minister s, u het vandag van hierdie podium af gehoor van die een voorbeeld na die ander van wangedrag onder ons polisielede. Agb Minister, die publiek van Suid-Afrika het op hierdie oomblik nie die vertroue in die Polisiediens wat hulle behoort te h nie. Daar gebeur te voel goed, en ek stem saam, dit is drdie lede wat 'n verleentheid is vir die ander lede in ons polisie.
Ek wil ook vir u s, agb Minister, dat die VF Plus hierdie wetsontwerp verwelkom. Dit is 'n wetsontwerp wat al lankal hier gedebatteer moes gewees het en alreeds gemplementeer moes gewees het.
Maar ek wil vir u s, u kan soveel strukture en soveel rade en direktorate instel as u wil, maar u moet gaan kyk na die dissipline wat in ons Polisiediens heers. Ons mense het nie genoeg dissipline nie. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Mr P J GROENEWALD: Hon Deputy Speaker, the citizens of a country should be able to trust the members of their police, because the police are the only institution to which citizens can turn for the protection of their rights as well as their lives.
Now I want to say to the Minister that he has heard here today, from this podium, one example after the other of misconduct by police officers. Hon Minister, right now the South African public does not have the confidence it should have in the Police Service. There is too much going on, and I agree that those members are an embarrassment to the others in our Police Service.
I also want to tell you, hon Minister, that the FF Plus welcomes this Bill. It is a Bill that should have been debated here a long time ago and implemented already.
But I want to say that while you may introduce as many structures, councils and directorates as you wish, you should rather be looking at the discipline that prevails in our Police Service. Our people do not possess enough discipline.]
They are not proud to be members of the SA Police Service. If they were proud, they would comply with the rules and set an example to citizens of our country to comply with legislation. There is a lack of that pride and discipline in our Police Service, and I miss it.
So, ons kan wel hierdie direktoraat h, maar ons moet indringend gaan kyk om die dissipline in die Polisiediens terug te bring.
Verder wil ek s dat ons nou wel die direktoraat het wat ons gaan instel, maar ons moet dan ook seker maak dat hierdie direktoraat dit prakties kan uitvoer. Ek is bekommerd. Ons moet sorg dat hulle genoeg mannekrag het en dat hulle die finansies het om behoorlike ondersoeke te kan doen. Dan sal ons weer die vertroue in die Polisiediens terugkry. Ek dank u. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[So we can have this directorate, but we should thoroughly investigate the restoration of discipline in the Police Service.
Furthermore, although there may be this directorate that we are going to introduce, we should still ensure its ability to act. I am concerned. We must ensure the presence of sufficient manpower and funds to undertake proper investigations. Then we will regain our trust in the Police Service. Thank you.]
Hon Deputy Speaker, hon Ministers, hon members, comrades and fellow South Africans, the ANC's 2007 Polokwane conference resolved to strengthen the Independent Complaints Directorate. This Independent Police Investigative Directorate Bill is doing exactly that. For this to happen we need an independent police investigative directorate that is efficient, strong, and has teeth to bite and crush.
My role today is to inform hon members about and persuade them to support the Bill. In persuading the hon members, I will deal in some detail with some of the provisions of the Bill. The Bill talks about the establishment of a national office headed by an executive director. In accordance with the Public Service Act, the Minister will nominate a suitably qualified candidate for appointment to head the directorate. The hon Minister will then allow the committee to confirm or reject the appointment within 30 days.
The appointment is for a term of five years and is renewable for one additional term only. This is important for grooming the new broom and to also let it exit in a dignified manner while it still sweeps clean. Hon members should pay keen attention to this. I will detail it later. The head has a huge responsibility to carry out. He or she must ensure, amongst others, that proper records of all financial transactions, assets and liabilities of the directorate are kept. The executive director is also responsible for the appointment of provincial heads when there are vacancies.
It is also fitting to mention the composition of the national office. It will consist of the executive director, the corporate service unit, the investigation and information unit, the legal unit and any other unit established subject to the approval of the hon Minister, Nathi Mthethwa.
The functions of the national office are critical and must be mentioned. The national office must do the following: give strategic leadership to the directorate; conduct internal audits of the directorate; provide administrative support; submit an annual report to the Minister and Parliament; refer criminal offences to the National Prosecuting Authority, NPA; and refer complaints regarding disciplinary matters to the national commissioner and, where appropriate, to relevant provincial commissioners, to mention but a few.
The Bill allows for the establishment of a management committee that consists of provincial heads. The executive director may invite any person he or she deems fit to the meeting of the committee. The committee will, amongst others, ensure co-ordination and alignment within each province regarding priorities, objectives and strategies across national and provincial levels, and it will also ensure adherence to financial requirements prescribed in terms of the Public Finance Management Act.
The committee will also indentify other matters of strategic importance to the functioning of the directorate within each province. These interventions are appropriate for the speedy and efficient establishment of a single police entity as resolved in Polokwane.
The Bill also provides for the establishment of a consultative forum to facilitate closer co-operation between the civilian secretary and the executive director to discuss issues relating to trends, recommendations and the implementation of such recommendations. The meetings of the forum must be held at least four times per year. This is important because there is no guesswork as to when and how many meetings should be held. The committee will monitor and get reports. This is business unusual.
It is true that the Bill provides for the establishment of provincial offices with provincial heads at the top. He or she will be responsible for the appointment and performance management of the staff. The head will control and monitor active cases and ensure adherence to guidelines issued by the national office relating to investigation and the management of cases by officials within their respective provinces. I thank you. [Applause.]
Deputy Speaker, hon Minister, the ACDP will support this Bill. The Bill is a response to the question "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" Who guards the guards? Section 206(6) of the Constitution provides for the establishment of an independent police investigative directorate to guard the guards by investigating any alleged misconduct or offence committed by a member of the Police Service.
There is clearly a need for a more effective, well-resourced and independent investigative directorate, particularly if one has regard to the wide powers enjoyed by members of the Police Service, including the right to use deadly force under certain circumstances. One only has to be reminded of the controversies surrounding the blue-light brigades as well as allegations of uniformed members committing crimes, including rape and torture, to appreciate the need for this much-improved directorate.
The ACDP welcomes the fact that this directorate will operate independently of the Police Service, with a separate budget. The thrust of the directorate's work will be to address systemic problems within the Police Service. The directorate will be able to investigate a number of offences, including deaths in police custody, deaths as a result of police action, rapes by police officers - whether on or off duty - complaints of torture and corruption matters within the police.
We as the ACDP trust that the work of the directorate will contribute to ensuring that the Police Service becomes a far more professional service that operates within the boundaries and norms of the Constitution.
However, in order for this directorate to operate effectively, it requires sufficient investigators and resources. Without the necessary teeth, this Bill will be aimless. The ACDP will thus closely monitor the implementation plan for this Bill. I thank you.
Hon Deputy Speaker, hon Minister, hon members, in 2005, Parliament adopted a report from the then Portfolio Committee on Safety and Security. The report was a product of interaction over a period of time between the portfolio committee and the national office of the ICD and its provincial offices. Serious concerns were raised in the report and some recommendations were made. Amongst these recommendations were that in order for the ICD to function properly it required legislation separate from that of the SA Police Service Act. Not only would separate legislation enhance the independence of the directorate, but it would also provide an opportunity to deal extensively with the operational and structural challenges facing the directorate.
The Bill before the House today addresses all these issues and more. It provides the framework for a strong, well-empowered and effective police oversight body. The truth is that we require of our men and women in blue to be the custodians of our laws, to execute their duties with honour and dignity and to, at all times, act in such a manner that will enhance public respect and confidence. Any elements within the police whom are bringing dishonour to the police should face the full might of the law.
The Bill determines that the national office will provide for strategic direction and administrative support. It is at provincial offices where the actual work will take place and where we should create capacity.
Chapter 5 of the Bill provides for the establishment of provincial offices. It deals with the appointment of provincial heads by the executive director and requirements regarding their performance agreements. In the past, high vacancy rates within the ICD were a huge problem, especially at provincial offices, and the committee wanted to ensure that we will not have a repeat of that. As a result, section 20(5) determines that the executive director must fill vacancies at the level of a provincial head within a period not exceeding six months.
Section 21 deals with the responsibilities of the provincial heads. These include the normal administrative and financial functions. It further empowers the provincial heads to refer matters investigated at this level to prosecuting authorities for a decision on criminal prosecution. The provincial heads must also provide the executive director with reports on matters investigated and the finalisation and recommendations of cases. They must also report to the relevant MEC on matters that were referred by the MEC to the provincial head.
In chapter 6, the Bill deals with investigators' appointments, their functions and the powers they have. In order to be appointed as an investigator, applicants will have to undergo a security screening. This must be done in conjunction with the National Intelligence Agency, NIA. Investigators can also be subject to further security clearances from time to time. Any investigator who does not comply with security clearance prescripts must be discharged from their position as an investigator. All investigators will be given policing powers, and this chapter obliges the Minister to bestow such powers on an investigator within three months after they have been appointed.
Investigators have powers provided for in the Criminal Procedure Act, Act 51 of 1977, relating to the following: the investigation of offences; the ascertainment of bodily features of an accused; the entry and search of premises; the seizure and disposal of articles; arrests; the execution of warrants; and the attendance of an accused person in court. Investigators will also be able to direct any person to submit an affidavit or affirmed declaration. They can also direct any person to appear before them or to give evidence and hand over documents that have a bearing on a case that is investigated. They may also question persons on such evidence.
Section 25 deals with conflicts of interest and the disclosure of such interests by investigators. Any investigator who has financial or other interests in a case that is being investigated must declare so, and they will have to withdraw from such an investigation if they have a conflict of interest. Like with the legislation that deals with the Hawks, this Bill also makes provision for integrity measures that may be prescribed by the Minister.
Section 28 of the Bill deals with the type of matters that the Independent Police Investigative Directorate will be investigating. This is one of the sections of the Bill that resulted in the most debate. Before I deal with this section, I think it's important to highlight that there are different departure points on this issue. There are those - and we have seen them today in action - who would like to create the impression that the police cannot investigate itself or its own. This is a view that we as the ANC do not share. There are, as we speak, ex-police officers locked up in our jails because of criminal investigations conducted by the police themselves. There are many examples. Over just the last few weeks, the police acted decisively against criminal elements that infiltrated their ranks.
The ANC believes that, ultimately, the police remain responsible to investigate acts of criminality, no matter who committed those acts. We do not subscribe to the hysterical notion that all of the police are corrupt or criminal. We believe that the majority of our police are hardworking, honest men and women who execute their duties with honour. That said, we need to focus Ipid where its action will make the most and a lasting difference. The action that they take should not only address the individual police officer who did wrong, but must also send a clear message to the rest of the Service while influencing, with lasting impact, the way in which things are done and the way police conduct themselves.
Section 28 determines that Ipid must investigate all deaths in police custody and any deaths as a result of police actions. These actions include any deaths that occurs while the police were busy executing their duties. This provision also allows for planned operations by the police. But it also allows for those incidents where a police officer puts himself or herself back on duty to effect an arrest. The debate around this issue was whether we should include any deaths by a police officer while on or off duty. If, for example, a police officer who is not on duty visits a club, gets into an argument and then murders a person, it is our view that this is simply a criminal matter and as such an investigation must be handled accordingly and be investigated by the police.
Furthermore, Ipid must investigate any complaint relating to the discharge of an official firearm by a police officer. The deciding factor here is that there must be a complainant and there does not necessarily have to be an injury as a result of such shooting. An example here would be the inquest conducted by the Human Rights Commission into the shooting by Metro police officers in the City of Cape Town in 2007 during xenophobic attacks, where municipal police officers shot at two young boys playing innocently. While there was no injury, this was clearly an abuse of power and a shockingly inhumane action.
This section also obliges Ipid to investigate all cases of rape where the accused is a police officer, whether that police officer has been on or off duty. Many members have spoken about this point. It was felt that it is important that Ipid investigates such cases as part of government's commitment to address crimes against women and children decisively. Furthermore, Ipid will also investigate any cases of rape while such a person was in the custody of the police. Here it does not matter who the perpetrator is. The fact that the person got raped while in police custody indicates some form of negligence on the part of the police. The investigation in this regard will not only focus on who committed the crime, but also on why it was possible for a rape to be committed while the person was in the custody of the police.
Complaints of torture and assault against a police officer must also be investigated. The executive director can initiate investigations of corruption on his or her own or after the receipt of a complaint by a member of the public or when a case was referred by the Minister. Furthermore, Ipid must investigate any other matter referred to it by the Minister, an MEC or the Secretary of Police.
The issue of systemic corruption may be investigated by the directorate. The concept of systemic corruption was, to some, abstract. Typically, the nature of systemic corruption would be, for instance, where it is reported that a specific police station is involved in the bribing of foreigners. Something within the station - the command and control of the station or the systems used - allows for this to happen. Here the focus would not only be on who was involved in the corruption, but also on how it was possible for them to be involved.
Chapter 7 deals with the reporting obligations and co-operation by members of the SAPS and municipal police services and disciplinary recommendations. This has been one of the biggest complaints by the ICD over the years and one of the greatest criticisms against their effectiveness. Many of the cases they investigate might not result in a criminal procedure, but the recommendation might be that disciplinary action be taken by the SAPS. There was no obligation on the SAPS to implement such recommendations, and they were often just ignored. This section in the Bill changes that completely. Section 29 obliges any member of the SAPS to immediately inform Ipid if they become aware of any matter contemplated in section 28 - the offences. Within 24 hours after that the SAPS must submit a written report to the directorate. Section 29(2) spells out the co-operation that is required from the SAPS and municipal police members during an investigation. This includes assisting Ipid investigators to arrange ID parades within 48 hours after being requested and securing the availability of members for affidavits, statements, necessary documents and to give evidence.
Where Ipid's recommendation is that disciplinary steps be taken against a member or members, the national commissioner or the appropriate provincial commissioner is now obliged to institute disciplinary hearings within 30 days after receiving the recommendation. Clearly, this now takes away the discretionary handling of recommendations by the police or municipal police. On a quarterly basis, a report on the progress of such disciplinary matters must be submitted to the Minister with copies of it to the executive director and the Secretary of Police. Upon finalisation, the national commissioner or relevant provincial commissioner must inform the Minister of the outcome of such hearings and again submit copies to the executive director and the Secretary of Police.
Chapter 9 deals with offences and penalties. Any person or private entity who interferes, hinders or obstructs the directorate is guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine or imprisonment not exceeding two years. Members of the directorate who disclose information that can affect a case will face the same sanction. Most important in this section is that the police officers who are in contravention with regard to anything contained in section 29 will also be liable to a fine or a period of imprisonment not exceeding two years. There is no one set of teeth in this Bill, but there are about 10 sets of teeth in this Bill.
Ipid, through the executive director, has the same reporting obligations as any other department to the Minister, the Auditor-General and Parliament.
We have no doubt in our minds that this Bill thoroughly addresses the shortcomings in the previous legislation. We further believe that, if properly implemented and executed with diligence, the Bill will go a long way in further instilling a culture of human rights, an ethos of service and an approach above any suspicion within the SAPS and municipal police services. Our people expect and deserve nothing less. The ball is now in the hands of the leadership of the executive director and his staff to make the difference.
Hon Kohler-Barnard raised a few issues that I just quickly want to respond to. But I am going to do so in basically one sentence. Hon Kohler-Barnard, I think is time to consider retirement and start writing that melodrama that you present to us on a daily basis. The Minister is not responsible for whether the ICD is known or not known out there. That is the responsibility of the leadership of the ICD, and we must make sure, as Parliament, that they actually do that. I thank you. [Applause.]
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise to thank all the members of the committee as they participated positively on this very important piece of legislation. It shows the determination of the committee in ensuring that we strengthen civilian oversight over the police.
Let me just say one thing. We may blame the police for abusing their powers, but give anybody in society unchecked powers and they will abuse them. What is important is to put in place checks and balances. I can't say anything more, Deputy Speaker. Thank you very much.
Debate concluded.
Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: The DA really wishes this Bill to be passed today, but I would like a ruling from you. I'm very concerned that we may not have a quorum. I really don't think any of us wants to be party to legislation by stealth. We've looked through books, and I can't work out the ruling. A ruling from the Table would be appreciated, please.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we ask that the question stand over until Tuesday.
There is a suggestion that the question stand over till Tuesday. [Interjections.] I think there is agreement on that.
Decision of question postponed.