Thank you, hon Speaker. Hon member, I have studied the report. However, I am awaiting the second report which deals with the Durban office. I will finalise my response once I have received and studied both reports. The department did not sign the lease. The Department of Public Works signs leases. The question should therefore be directed to that department. Thank you.
Thank you, Speaker. This follows the reply from the Minister and the attempt to dodge answering the question. [Interjections.] The last time I asked the question, which was last year in September, instead of answering the question, you said we should pray for police; should help in praying about the corruption in the police. Now, I want to ask you whether the Public Finance Management Act is going to be applicable to the general of the police after having authorised illegal instructions for that particular office. I want to know whether you are going to make sure that the PFMA is applicable in terms of the issue of the repayment of the irregular expenditure that has been incurred by the general.
Thank you, hon Speaker. Hon member, I don't dodge. I can't dodge your question. There is no reason for me to do that. The fact of the matter is that there is a report which is out from the public protector. This report affects the police and the process of procuring the building in Pretoria. In the same breath, there is a similar process on the same issue, but at a different location.
Clearly, we are dealing with one issue, which allegedly also involves one individual. We have put it to the Public Protector that we need to deal with these reports simultaneously. Therefore, we will not dodge them; we will deal with them. As I said, when the second report comes out, we will study it and make our views known on it. We have studied the first report and are waiting for the second report. Thank you so much.
Thank you, Speaker. Minister, after the investigation into the R500-million property deal, the Public Protector, Adv Thuli Madonsela, said Cele's conduct was improper, unlawful and amounted to maladministration. That is a stinging indictment of the Police Commissioner, not the Director-General of Public Works, who is patently now too compromised to continue in his position. This is a lease agreement that you and your colleague in Public Works had every opportunity to cancel. The Minister of Public Works, who initially raised the issue, was fired for his trouble. However, you and your brand new colleague then went on to honour the agreement.
Now, Minister, you have stood back and left the National Police Commissioner to take the heat on this. Is it because you are not in the least involved in these crucial issues going on in your Ministry? Surely, you should have given that the widest of berths, and please explain to this House why it is that you didn't give the National Police Commissioner an instruction to back off, or is he in fact running the show?
Well, thank you, hon member. I would just request that the hon member listens carefully when we speak. What I'm saying is that, notwithstanding what is in the report, we are waiting for the second similar report. It's as simple as that. Just concentrate and listen when we talk. The problem is that you have preconceived ideas. Just wait. [Interjections.]
Linda! Musa ukungxama! Uyangxama! Linda! [Wait! Don't hurry, you are in a hurry! Wait!]
Order! Order, hon members!
Speaker, the investigation into the Pretoria accommodation lease came about because it had been alleged that the National Commissioner of Police had signed the accommodation lease, which would have been wrong. When it suits the hon Ramatlakane, the former MEC for safety, security and liaison of the Western Cape, he expects the Minister of Police to cancel the lease. The question Minister is: Is it within your scope in any event - which the former MEC should know - to cancel this lease? Thank you. [Interjections.]
Hon Speaker, no, the lease ... [Interjections.]
Hon members, order!
The lease, as we said, belongs to the Department of Public Works. It's as simple as that. If the hon member is confused, it's only slightly and we will deal with it. However, the lease belongs to Public Works. Thank you.
Mr Speaker, on a point of order: As far as I understand the Rules, we are entitled to have four supplementary questions. We have only had three so far.
Well, I only had three people on my list, unless I invent one. [Laughter.]
I just would like to ask the Minister the following. Let me repeat this: What the Public Protector said about Bheki Cele was that Cele's conduct was improper, unlawful and amounted to maladministration.
So are you telling us now that one unlawful moment or lapse is acceptable in a National Police Commissioner? And a second possible unlawful act would now make that even more unlawful. How many unlawful acts does this House have to put up with before you actually act? [Applause.]
Hon Speaker, dear hon member Kohler-Barnard, I think we should actually plead with you that it's not going to help to sensationalise the matter. You just wait. The process is ongoing. [Interjections.] Just wait. You don't have a choice. You must wait. So, wait please, dear member. Thank you. [Interjections.] [Applause.]
Return of equipment used outside the country in peace-keeping operations
24. Mr A M Maziya (ANC) asked the Minister of Defence and Military Veterans:
Whether each piece of equipment that is taken out of the country and used in peacekeeping operations is promptly returned to the army depot at the conclusion of each such operation; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NO993E
Hon Speaker, hon members, all required equipment taken out of the country and used in peacekeeping operations is returned to South Africa when the equipment is no longer needed in the operational area. On delivery to South Africa, the equipment is handed back to the appropriate depot where it belongs.
If the equipment is damaged beyond economic repair, it is disposed of inside South Africa through the normal logistical disposal processes. In cases where the equipment is not returned for any reason, the Chief of the SA National Defence Force, through the Chief of Joint Operations, takes appropriate steps to ascertain where the equipment is and what happened to it.
Such steps would include, amongst other things, the setting up of a board of inquiry. In some cases it could be for legitimate reasons, such as when it would be uneconomical to airlift the equipment back to South Africa because of the equipment being damaged. Thank you.
Thank you, Comrade Deputy Minister, for your satisfactory response to the question. We are now convinced that we are safe in this country. [Laughter.] We have ... [Interjections.]
Order! Order!
Yes, I wonder if I am so attractive that I even attract males. [Laughter.]
That is not a supplementary question, hon member. [Laughter.]
We take pride in having a responsible army, and that even the arms that are found in our country are not arms that were lost by our own army, but arms that are from the past. I thank you.
Thank you very much, hon member. Again, that is not a question but a statement.
Thank you, Speaker. Deputy Minister, I would like to know whether you are in a position to give this House the assurance that each piece of equipment has been promptly returned to the army depot, given the fact that there is no single integrated defence logistics information management system in place in the Defence Force, and that more than 25 000 vehicles and 81 000 weapons have not yet been properly accounted for by the Defence Force. I thank you.
Speaker, with respect to assuring the House that all equipment used in peacekeeping operations is returned to the country after it has been used, the department and the Ministry can give this House that assurance, barring, of course, those instances that I referred to. And I have indicated what procedures are followed to deal with problems when they are encountered.
Regarding the question about the systems in the department through which information about all equipment that is in the hands of the SA National Defence Force is tracked, that is a matter which we have provided information about, even at the sittings and sessions of the public accounts committee, with respect to the managerial interventions that the Minister has instructed to be put in place to address this matter. I thank you, Speaker.
Criteria used when allocating security to VIPs
18. Mr V B Ndlovu (IFP) asked the Minister of Police:
What criteria are used when allocating security to VIPs at any given time? NO985E
Thank you, hon Speaker. Hon member, the Risk Management System, otherwise known as Rimas, identifies a VIP as "an individual or group of individuals who act in the interest of the country or whose safety is of significant importance to the country, and whose safety and security is either manifestly threatened or likelihood of their safety and security being threatened is high".
In such cases, a threat assessment is conducted to determine the level of threat. A close protection package, in line with an identified threat, is then allocated on an ad hoc basis. Quarterly threat assessments are conducted to monitor the risks. Once the threat has diminished or no longer exists, close protection services are then withdrawn. I thank you, Deputy Speaker.
Question 18 has been asked by the hon Ndlovu to the Minister of Police. Oh, is that what you were answering? Okay. [Interjections.] I'm just starting; don't be out of order. Is there any supplementary question?
But, Madam Deputy Speaker, we quite agree with you, because I'm sure that's what you were really saying. He didn't answer it very well, so you had to give him another chance.
I didn't say that. I didn't say that at all. [Interjections.]
Ngiyathokoza Phini likaSomlomo, bengicela ukubuza kumhlonishwa, uNyambose. Kusuke sekwenze njani uma lowo ozovikelwa esephelezelwa amaphoyisa amaningi adlula abantu ayokwethula kubo inkulumo, kube uyena yedwa umuntu obaluleke kakhulu [VIP], akakwe amaphoyisa odwa bese abantu beba bahlanu? Ukuhlolwa kwesimo kusuke sekuhambe kanjani kuleso simo?
UNGQONGQOSHE WEZAMAPHOYISA: Somlomo ohloniphekile mangisho nje ukuthi umbuzo engiwubuzwa yilungu elihloniphekile lale Ndlu ehloniphekile unzima kakhulu, angikwazi ukuwuphendula. Ngiyabonga. [Uhleko.] (Translation of isiZulu paragraphs follows.)
[Mr V B NDLOVU: Thank you Deputy Speaker. I would like to ask the hon Nyambose what causes a situation in which an official who is being protected is accompanied by many police officers, more than the audience he or she is going to address. And the person is the only VIP, surrounded by many police officers, whereas there are only five people present in the audience. How is the security risk assessment done in this case?
Hon Speaker, let me say that the question put to me by the hon member of this hon House is very difficult. I cannot answer it. [Laughter.]]
My dear Minister, there have been some very bizarre anomalies with regard to the allocation of VIP security. In fact, its budget seems to have become something of a cadre slush fund - I think we could call it. For example, VIP protection was provided for ANC Youth League president Julius Malema, who is not a Member of Parliament. He is not a member of a provincial legislature, he is not a member of the executive, and he is not a visiting head of state. He is an ordinary citizen, and he had R3,6 million a year spent on his security.
Now, bearing in mind that 47 of us are murdered each day, how did this ordinary citizen crack the nod for this massive expenditure when the rest of us have to pay for our own security? What threat did Malema face? The only possible answer is that the death threats in the country at that stage were being issued by the ANC Youth League. Now, Minister, does this not constitute an irretrievable blurring of the line between party and state? We have to ask how you allowed it and why he didn't pay for himself. [Time expired.]
Deputy Speaker, there is a standard way, as I said, which is employed for anybody, including the member. If she is under threat, that will be done for her, though she is not a head of state, as she was saying, or any other thing. But if any ordinary South African alerts the police that there is a threat, a threat assessment is done. [Interjections.]
Your noise won't help you. A threat assessment is done. Now, unfounded allegations of a bizarre cadre slush fund do not deserve my response because, really, I can't stoop that low. It's too low. I'm just slightly confused. If a member says that 47 of us are murdered, is she a ghost here? Thank you. [Interjections.]
Hon Deputy Speaker, I want to ask the Minister whether he is in a position to inform the House as to how many ordinary citizens of the country or party-political functionaries have been accorded VIP protection in the past 12 months. Is he able to answer that question at the present moment?
Well, it's a new question, hon member. [Interjections.] As you know, it has to be answered if it's asked properly. But there is no problem: If you ask it, we will answer it. Thank you.
Thank you, hon Deputy Speaker. Hon Minister, are the individuals who are provided with security informed that this provision is not permanent, and that it may be withdrawn if the threat no longer exists?
Yes, hon member, as was said earlier in response to the question asked by the hon Ndlovu. It is always explained that it is ad hoc, and that it will depend on the threat analysis which is done quarterly. If there are any changes, they change everything. Thank you very much.
Conducting of investigation into raid by members of SAPS on office of Public Protector
28. Mr L W Greyling (ID) asked the Minister of Police:
(1) (a) Who will be conducting the investigation into the (i) nature of and (ii) authorisation for the raid by the members of the SA Police Service on the office of the Public Protector and (b) how was the decision taken with regard to who will conduct the investigation;
(2) whether the findings of the investigation will be made public; if not, why not; if so, when? NO998E
Hon Deputy Speaker, the matter is being investigated by Brigadier P P Ramotshela of the Gauteng Detective Services. There was no instruction from management of Crime Intelligence to visit the offices of the Public Protector. The investigation was launched on the decision of the Divisional Commissioner of Crime Intelligence, and it is being conducted by an officer outside of the environment of Crime Intelligence to ensure objectivity. The outcome of the investigation will be communicated to me once it has been finalised. After this investigation has been completed, we are obviously going to share it with the public. Thank you very much.
Deputy Speaker, Minister, I thank the Minister for his response. But considering the fact that the SA Police Service took three years to finally release a damning 400-page R8-million report into the dysfunctionality of the legal services of the police, which was such a serious indictment that it ended in the axing of the divisional commissioner, could we have the Minister's assurance here in this House that the final report on this raid by members of the SAPS on the Office of the Public Protector will be made public as soon as it is complete, no matter who it may implicate? Thank you.
Thank you, hon Deputy Speaker. Yes, hon member.
Thank you, Deputy Speaker. My thanks go to the Minister as well. We would like to start by saying that the visit to or raid of the Public Protector's office by the police officials concerned is unacceptable, and we would condemn it in the strongest terms possible.
The question I would like to ask the Minister is whether it has been established at all as to who possibly gave the instructions for these members to go to the Public Protector, and whether action will be taken against such an individual or individuals, as well as when does he expect the investigation to be completed? Thank you very much.
Deputy Speaker, as of now the report of the investigation is that all those who were supposed to have been interviewed and investigated have been. The remaining person and the statement which we await as of now is from the Public Protector herself. As soon as that has been done, it will be released. Thank you very much.
Deputy Speaker, there has, of course, been this most damning ruling by the Constitutional Court in relation to the disbandment of the Scorpions, which would have been the ideal organisation to investigate the SAPS raid of the Office of the Public Protector. What we are seeing now is what we feared: it is the police investigating the police.
Everyone in this House knows about the rank structure and how police are trained to obey orders from above. It's really a totally untenable position. I would like the Minister to explain to this House why it is - and he says the investigation is complete - that the person who gave them the order has not been suspended, as they were immediately and actually in contravention of SAPS regulations. The Minister didn't wait for a full investigation to suspend them. So, why have you not suspended the person who gave them that order?
Hon Deputy Speaker, I don't know where the member gets what she is talking about. I don't know where it comes from. I really don't know. She baffles me. That's not actually a question. That was a political statement that she gave. The people who were involved have been suspended. An additional person who was not there, who was not mentioned, has been suspended. I don't know where she gets this from. Thank you.
Implementation of principle that refugees be required to seek asylum in first safe country
22. Adv A H Gaum (ANC) asked the Minister of Home Affairs:
Whether she will implement the principle that refugees be required to seek asylum in the first safe country; if not, why not; if so, (a)(i) how and (ii) when will this principle be implemented and (b) what are the further relevant details?