In response to (a): The resignation of this person before the end of his contract on 30 September 2012 is not linked to any political interference.
This person was appointed in terms of the Public Service Act, 1994, and his conditions of termination of service are guided and regulated in line with Chapter 8 of the Senior Management Service Handbook on Employment of Heads of Departments.
I am in consultation with the Minister for the Public Service and Administration to ensure that the financial settlement is in line with the prescribed guidelines.
The departure of this person is not seen as a waste of much-needed rare skills. Whilst heading the Domestic Branch of the State Security Agency, he was responsible for providing leadership and strategic direction to the Branch under the supervision of the Director-General: State Security Agency.
Whilst his departure leaves a vacancy in the hierarchy of the State Security Agency's senior management, this will not have a negative impact on peace and security or service delivery of the agency since operational plans for the Domestic Branch are in place and line function management and operatives will continue to implement these.
In response to (b): The continuous rumours regarding the likely similar departure of the two other persons are just that: rumours. It would be appreciated if political parties abstain from making unconfirmed statements as these might have a negative impact on the morale of management and members within the State Security Agency. We maintain that, because of some contractual confidences, we will not engage our employees through public platforms, but will rather use internal processes as provided for by the regulations.
We would like to seek guidance on how the current Parliament would like to deal with questions that may have an impact on national security. In about 2001, former President Mbeki raised similar concerns in this House. The approach adopted then was to answer such questions in full in the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence, that had the responsibility to inform the relevant members of Parliament, if they were satisfied with the response, or of any additional measures they were undertaking. This has been the convention followed, pending the final formal response by this Parliament.
This is further compounded by the fact that, while the initial question may appear normal, the devil usually lies in the details of follow-up questions. I thank you, Mr Speaker. [Applause.]
Well, hon Speaker, I listened to the Minister attentively, but the Minister completely failed to give me the reasons that I have asked in my question. I do understand the issue that he is referring to of sensitivity on certain security information, but there is still the question of the reason for the dismissal of an individual. So much is said in the newspapers, even about some proposal that was made to the said official and his refusal of it. The Minister is failing to give us the reasons and satisfy this House. It is also very important that the Minister understand that officials, including the Minister, are accountable to this House. We have a responsibility to articulate these reasons for dismissal of some of the very important officials who handle state security, and the Minister has failed in this regard.
Mr Speaker, I really fail to understand the concern raised by the hon Ngonyama, because I have been answering ... [Interjections.] I will repeat the question if you don't have the question from the ... [Interjections.]
Order! Order, hon members! Order!
Firstly, Mr Njenje was not dismissed so we can't give a reason for dismissal. Mr Njenje was not dismissed by the State Security Agency. [Applause.] We agree, however, with the hon Ngonyama that we are accountable to this House. That is why we have come here to give the answers, and that is why we are also raising issues of national security. We have not refused to give an answer. I would just like to say that we believe we have answered, because the question referred to "the sudden departure", but there was no sudden departure of intelligence agent Gibson Njenje. Njenje is not an intelligence agent.
Before the end of his contract of three years, Mr Njenje was the head, was the leader, of that intelligence organisation. As to whether the likely departure of Mo Shaik and Jeff Maqethuka is linked to political interference and influence, I have answered that question. There was no political interference in that departure. We have no intention of interfering politically. I have also explained the substantive legal and procedural processes followed. These members are appointed in terms of the Public Service Act and in consultation with the Minister for the Public Service and Administration. I thank you, hon Speaker. [Applause.]
Thank you, Speaker. The departure of Mr Njenje as Chief Director: Domestic Branch of the State Security Agency, the SSA, has created leadership instability. It is now a common rumour that the Director- General of the SSA, as well as the Chief Director: Foreign Branch are also leaving. Could the Minister tell us whether this is true, and what steps will he take to restore leadership stability in the agency? Thank you.
Hon Speaker, firstly, Mr Njenje was not the Chief Director of the SSA. He was the head of the Domestic Branch appointed at director-general level. Secondly, regarding rumours about others leaving, I have answered that question. In my reply I said that it was just that: a rumour, and ours is not to engage in any rumour-mongering because we engage our members directly in the agency. We have direct access to them. We do not have to engage in rumour-mongering. So that remains purely a rumour. Thank you.
Thank you, hon Speaker. Hon Minister, with due respect - and you know that I have great respect for you - I can't agree with what you said this afternoon. I think you must agree with me that, owing to your absence - your regular absences from this country - that your relationships, not only with the agencies, but also with your community, have failed. We can also speak about terms of directors-general or heads of departments resigned or not resigned, but the fact is that Njenje has resigned or has taken a package. As I said, there are many ways of resigning, of making a person resign.
I now want to ask the Minister, through you, hon Speaker: How will the Minister replace the knowledge, skills and experience of those that are going to leave the agencies, especially of security? How is he going to go about reinstalling the trust between them and the Minister? In addition, Minister, with all due respect, wouldn't you agree that it would be better for the security of the country that you as the Minister step down, rather than losing this knowledge, skills and experience. Thank you, sir.
Thank you, hon Speaker. Let me remind the hon member Coetzee, as he is a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence, that the function of the State Security Agency is to support and advise government. We have domestic functions, and we also have international functions in order to support our foreign policy. My absence from the country is never a holiday; rather, it is doing work for this government. I don't understand, because this has been explained repeatedly to the members of the joint standing committee.
On the issues of skills and knowledge, of course, within the intelligence community, we have the philosophy of intelligence officer for life, where these members can be deployed, redeployed and recalled to do their work. So, we value our current and past members who have worked within this community. At this stage I would like to point out the hypocrisy, particularly of the DA. On 2 October 2009, when we made these appointments, the hon member who has just spoken, lambasted all three appointees at that particular time, accusing them of being partisan and incompetent. We did not respond in the media, but we came to explain the capacities of these members in the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence.
Again, on 4 October of the same year, the DA accused some of these members of being factionalists and lacking expertise, the very same expertise they are now saying, hypocritically, is there. We always recognised that they did have expertise. As I have explained, we will always find a use for these members in the country that are leaving now at the State Security Agency. Some of your friends in the media, on 9 October, were accusing the very same members of lacking skills and being involved in companies that they were no longer involved with, which were being investigated by the state. I would like to say it is important that we stand by the principle that, as the State Security Agency, we regard our members as intelligence officers for life, and we will always value their contribution and find ways of utilising them in our new democracy. I thank you very much. [Applause.]
Particulars regarding cause of backlog in sections of SAPS Forensic Science Laboratory
176. Mrs L S Chikunga (ANC) asked the Minister of Police:
What (a) was the cause of the backlog in the biology section and other sections of the SA Police Service's Forensic Science Laboratory and (b) has happened to the persons or companies who had been responsible for the specified backlog? NO3459E
Thank you, hon Speaker. The backlog in the biology section and other sections of the SA Police Service's Forensic Science Laboratory was caused by a combination of the following factors: one, poor management, including failure to prioritise the processing of exhibits within the laboratory; two, failure by management within this environment to set targets and timelines for the purposes of managing the performance of the laboratories; three, the high rate of loss of experts and/or personnel in search of greener pastures; four, the downtime of instruments in the laboratory; and, five, the increase in the number of exhibits received by laboratories with limited expert capacity, making speedy processing impossible.
The divisional commissioner responsible for forensic services in the SAPS left the Police Service in July 2010, and Gen Phahlane was appointed divisional commissioner for this environment. One major-general and a brigadier were also exited from the service during this period.
As part of the turnaround strategy developed by the new divisional commissioner, managers were given specific targets and shorter timeframes within which the backlogs were to be eradicated during the 2010-11 financial year. Since July 2010, managers were also subjected to periodic performance reviews during which they had to account for the performance of their respective environments with regards to the eradication of backlogs and the processing of exhibits without delay.
Given the problems that existed with the previous management of the forensics services, it has been difficult to charge the actual suppliers. However, there are certain areas involving suppliers that are still being looked into and action may be taken based on what comes out of that process. I thank you, Speaker. [Applause.]
Thank you, Speaker.
Siyabonga, Ngqongqoshe, ngempendulo yakho. Kuyiqiniso ukuthi lo Baba owahamba wayenza ngamabomu ukuthi kube nomsebenzi osalele ngemuva kwa- forensic ngoba wayenza isitatimende sepolitiki. Emuva kokuphuma kwakhe yasala yalunga le ndaba. [Thank you for your response, hon Minister. It is true that the past divisional commissioner deliberately left work incomplete which resulted in backlogs in the forensics services because he was politicking. After he left this issue was resolved.]
I have a follow-up question. With the interventions highlighted by the Minister in his response, what is the progress to date regarding the implementation of the turnaround strategy, and have there been findings about the suppliers that have been looked into, I think, since 2010? I thank you.
Hon Speaker and hon member, overall the backlog in the forensics field has declined by a whopping 66% from 1 April 2010 to 31 March 2011. In essence, what has happened is that even the turnaround time of 35 days has been met with the new situation, and we are very happy that there is great improvement in this very environment. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
Thank you, and through you, Mr Speaker, Minister, when we look at what the laboratories have gone through - a situation that had many of us on the portfolio committee tearing our hair out - those backlogs were enormous and it has taken the work of someone of the calibre of Brigadier Shezi - who travelled with us on the study tour - to look at the DNA database legislation, to pull this down.
What I would like to know is: How on earth did it come about that people were hired who patently ran the place into the ground? Who was responsible for hiring them? Was nepotism at all a factor? Has it been weeded out, if it was?
During my visits there I wrote my name in the dust on boxes of multimillion- rand machinery. Those boxes were still there over a year later when I went back, still with my signature on them. I would like to know if that type of mismanagement has now been weeded out and whether those who ordered and then abandoned that multimillion-rand machinery have been brought to book and been held responsible for that major mismanagement and expenditure. Thank you.
Thank you, hon Speaker. Yes, hon member, things are being turned around there, as you are correctly pointing out, and, from time to time, the division would also interact with yourselves as the portfolio committee. We are as worried as you are about how this very sensitive environment of our work has been run in the past. That is why everything possible is being done internally. In terms of these internal processes and criminal procedures, even those people who got away with murder, are being followed up.
But we are not going to leave anything to chance. We will ensure that, indeed, when people are employed to do a job, they do just that, and if they don't, consequences will be faced. Thank you so much.
Agb Speaker ... [Hon Speaker ...]
Hon Minister, last week or the week before we heard that only 52% of criminals are actually detected, and that only about 31% of those people have completed documents or dockets that can be sent to the courts for criminal hearings. I want to ask the hon Minister ...
Agb Minister, siende dat 'n misdadiger basies 'n 85% kans het om weg te kom met misdaad in Suid-Afrika, en dat forensiese toetse 'n kardinale rol speel in die skuldigbevinding van misdadigers, wil ek weet waar op u prioriteitslys u hierdie probleem van die forensiese en biologiese toetse en alles wat daarmee saamgaan, geplaas het. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[Hon Minister, considering the fact that a criminal basically stands an 85% chance of getting away with crime in South Africa, and considering the important role that forensic tests play in the conviction of criminals, I would like to know where on your list of priorities you have placed this challenge with regard to forensic and biological tests and everything that goes with it.]
Because that is the new buzzword. If we have problems, we say we have challenges. Hon Minister, we have had challenges since 1994, but I don't see those challenges being resolved. Thank you.
Hon member, you won't see those solutions if you are not in South Africa, if you are elsewhere. In South Africa you will see some of the progress made since 1994. The issue you are raising is a very important one, because you will recall that I have of late been placing emphasis on the need to go beyond apprehending criminals in our country, to also ensuring convictions. This area of the Forensic Science Laboratory is crucial in ensuring that, at the end of the day, we secure convictions.
The reasons for declining prosecutions vary, hon member. In some instances it would be because the police have not done a thorough enough job to ensure that the case is taken up. In other instances, decisions are taken at a prosecution level, which, after being taken, there is nothing that can be done. You can only wish that it continues. Indeed, we are turning the tide, hon member. You also ... no, don't say this; this is not going to help you. You are a witness to the fact that indeed we are turning the tide. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
Ngiyabonga, Somlomo, ngiyabonga nakumhlonishwa uNyambose ngempendulo. Okokuqala, mhlonishwa ukhulume ngokuphatha okungakuhle. Kuzothatha isikhathi esingakanani ukuthi laba bantu baboshwe ngoba benze umsebenzi wahlehlela emuva. Okwesibili, umhlonishwa we-DA ubuze ukuthi kwakukhona yini ukuhlobana phakathi kwabo? Zikhona yini izihlobo ezaziqashiwe kulesekshini mhlonishwa? (Translation of isiZulu paragraph follows.)
[Mr V B NDLOVU: Thank you, hon Speaker, and I also thank hon Minister Nyambose for his response. Firstly, hon Minister, you spoke about maladministration. How long will it take for these people to be brought to book because they caused the regression of work? Secondly, the hon member from the DA asked if they were related. Were there relatives who were appointed in this section, hon Minister?]
Thank you, hon Speaker.
Mhlonishwa, Baba uGatsheni, cha asazi ukuthi bayoboshwa nini. Kodwa esikwaziyo ukuthi abenza okubi bayalandelwa njengoba namhlanje sikhuluma ukuthi icala le-forensic selisebenza kahle noma siyabona lapho eliya khona, ngenxa yokuthi ubuholi bamaphoyisa buye bangenelela bathi akufakwe abantu abazosebenza.
Mhlawumbe kukhona ukuhlobana asazi kodwa nakhu ezinye izinto zisaphenywa, Boyabenyathi, asithembe ukuthi zizovela ngokuhamba kwesikhathi. Siyabonga. (Translation of isiZulu paragraphs follows.)
[Hon member, hon Gatsheni, no, we do not know when they are going to be brought to book. But what we do know is that those who are doing bad things are being monitored because today we are saying that the forensics services unit is doing well and that we can see progress since the police leadership got involved and instructed them to appoint people who are willing to work.
They might be related; we do not know, but there are some things that are being investigated, Boyabenyathi. Let us hope that they will come out in the open in the long run.]
Official policy position vis--vis statement made by Deputy Minister Ramatlhodi
188. Ms M Smuts (DA) asked the Minister of Correctional Services:
(1) Whether the statement by her Deputy Minister, Adv N A Ramatlhodi, on 1 September 2011 that the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, is tilted in favour of forces against change (details furnished), reflects the official policy position of her department; if so, what are the relevant details; if not, (2) whether she repudiates the statement of her Deputy Minister; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?