ATC181017: Budgetary Review and Recommendation Report of the Portfolio Committee on Police on the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (Ipid), dated 17 October 2018

Police

THE BUDGETARY REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION REPORT OF THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON POLICE ON THE INDEPENDENT POLICE INVESTIGATIVE DIRECTORATE (IPID), DATED 17 OCTOBER 2018
 

The Portfolio Committee on Police, having considered the financial and service delivery performance of the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) for the 2017/18 financial year, reports as follows:

 

1. INTRODUCTION

 

The Money Bills Procedures and Related Matters Amendment Act, (Act 9 of 2009), sets out the process that allows Parliament to make recommendations to the Minister of Finance to amend the budget of a national department. As part of this process, Portfolio Committees must compile Budgetary Review and Recommendation Reports (BRRR) in October of each year, containing recommendations relating to funding allocations for departments and other institutions that account to them. The BRRRs are also source documents for the Standing Committee on Finance when it makes recommendations to the House of Parliament on the Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement (MTBPS). The annual review and analysis of performance (entailing both financial and non-financial performance indicators) forms part of this process.

 

The Committee is guided by its interest to promote effectiveness, efficiency and professional policing in South Africa. It has a desire to see a reduction in crime. The mandate of the Committee is therefore to fulfil its constitutional function through the following means:

• Pass legislation;
• Scrutinise and oversee executive action and the organs of state including the South African Police Service (SAPS), the Civilian Secretariat for Police Service (CSPS), the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) and the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (PSIRA);
• Facilitate public participation and involvement in the legislative and other processes; and
• Engage, participate and oversee international treaties and protocols.

 

The Committee has overseen the performance of the Department through regular oversight meetings during the 2017/18 financial year and has tracked progress during the current financial year (2018/19). The Committee has considered quarterly expenditure reports for 2017/18 and for the first quarter of the 2018/19 financial year.

 

The Committee was briefed on the Department’s annual performance for 2017/18 on 11 October 2018. The Committee also met with the Auditor-General of South Africa (AGSA) on the audit outcomes of the Department on 09 October 2018. Copies of the presentations are available from the committee secretary. The Committee has already considered and reported on the respective strategic plans and budget proposals of the Directorate for 2018/19.

 

This report is structured as follows:

 

• Section 1: Introduction. This sections sets out the mandate of the Committee, the purpose of the BRRR and the process to develop this report.
• Section 2: Internal and External Audit Reports. This section provides a summary of the 2017/18 AGSA and Audit Committee’s Reports.
• Section 3: Expenditure and Performance. This section provides a summary of the expenditure and performance of the Directorate during the 2017/18 financial year, as well as the first quarter of the 2018/19 financial year.
• Section 4: Committee Observations. This section provides a summary of the key observations made by the Committee during the 2017/18 Annual Report hearings.
• Section 5: Recommendations. This section contains the recommendations of the Committee.
• Section 6: Reporting Requirements. This section provides a summary of the reporting requirements of the Directorate together with timeframes.
• Section 7: Conclusion.

 

1. INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL AUDIT REPORTS 

 

1. Report of the Auditor-General of South Africa (AGSA) for 2017/18

 

The IPID received an unqualified audit opinion with emphasis on matters in the 2017/18 financial year. The emphasis of matters include:  

 

• Restatement of corresponding figures: Corresponding figures for 31 March 2017 have been restated as a result of an error in the financial statements of the Department at, and for the year ended, 31 March 2018.

 

• Payables not recognised: Payables not recognised of R10 821 000 exceeded the payment term of 30 days as required in Treasury regulation 8.2.3. This amount, in turn, exceeded the R147 000 of voted funds to be surrendered by R10 674 000 as per the statement of financial performance. The amount of R10 674 000 would, therefore, have constituted unauthorised expenditure had the amounts due been paid in time. This was due to budgetary constraints experienced by the Department which led to the majority of prior year payables being settled in the current year.

 

Performance on predetermined performance targets

The AGSA stated that the Department did not have an adequate record keeping system to enable reliable reporting on achievement of the indicators (listed below). As a result, the AGSA was unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence in some instances, while in other cases the supporting evidence provided did not agree to the reported achievements. Based on the supporting evidence that was provided, the achievement of these indicators was different from the reported achievements in the annual performance report.

 

The AGSA was also unable to confirm the reported achievements by alternative means. Consequently, the AGSA was unable to determine whether any further adjustments were required to the reported achievements of the indicators listed below.

• Percentage of investigations of discharge of an official firearm cases by a police officer  that  are decision ready (repeat finding);
• Percentage of cases involving torture decision ready; and
• Percentage of investigations of corruption cases that are decision ready (repeat finding).

 

Annual financial statements, performance and annual reports

The financial statements submitted for auditing were not fully prepared in accordance with the prescribed financial reporting framework as required by section 40(1)(b) of the PFMA.

 

Material misstatements of expenditure and disclosure items identified by the auditors in the submitted financial statement were corrected and the supporting records were provided subsequently, resulting in the financial statements receiving an unqualified opinion.

 

Expenditure Management

Effective and appropriate steps were not taken to prevent irregular expenditure amounting to R6 717 000, as disclosed in note 23 to the annual financial statements, as required by section 38(1)(c)(ii) of the PFMA and Treasury Regulation 9.1.1. The majority of the irregular expenditure was caused by contracts to service providers having been extended on a month-to-month basis which has resulted in a contract extension exceeding the 15% or R15 million threshold prescribed by National Treasury.

 

Payments were not made within 30 days or an agreed period after receipt of an invoice, as required by Treasury Regulation 8.2.3. This was due to budgetary constraints experienced by the Department which led to the majority of prior year accruals being settled after 30 days.

 

Procurement and Contract Management

Contracts were extended or modified without the approval of a properly delegated official as required by section 44 of the PFMA and Treasury Regulations 8.1 and 8.2.

 

Consequence management

Disciplinary steps were not taken against officials who incurred and/or permitted irregular expenditure in the prior year, as required by section 38(1) (h) (iii) of the PFMA.

 

Internal control deficiencies

The following internal control deficiencies were highlighted:

• The Department did not implement a proper record management system to ensure that complete, relevant and accurate information is available to support the annual performance report.
• Management did not implement adequate controls over the preparation and review of the annual performance report to ensure that all reported performance indicators/ measures are free from material misstatements.
• Management did not implement adequate controls to review and monitor compliance with laws and regulations, which resulted in irregular expenditure and payments not being made within 30 days.
• Management did not approve contract extensions in accordance with their delegation of authority, resulting in the expenditure thereon being irregular.

 

The Office of the AGSA briefed the Portfolio Committee on 09 October 2018, during which the following key issues were highlighted:

• Based on a five-year trend (2013/14 – 2017/18), the Directorate regresses in audit outcomes on compliance with key legislation and the quality of submitted annual performance reports, while the quality of annual performance plans improved.
• During 2017/18, oversight and monitoring regressed due to action plans not been monitored and implemented as planned, resulting to recurring material findings. 

 

1. Report of the Audit Committee

 

The Audit Committee recorded the following findings:

 

• Internal Audit did not manage to fully implement projects, namely IPID Committees Review; Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) and Financial Management, rolled forward to the 1st quarter of 2018/2019.
• The Audit Committee has considered management’s responses to address the matters raised by Internal Audit and AGSA and to facilitate corrective actions, improvements and monitoring the controls and procedures. The Committee, however, notes that not all the findings and recommendations of Internal Audit were implemented.
• The Audit Committee also noted that the AGSA audit action plan was not fully implemented.
• The Audit Committee recommends that additional effort should be made to implement these recommendations which will contribute significantly to an improved audit outcome.
• The Audit Committee is concerned that for three consecutive years no assurance could be provided on Information Communication Technology (ICT). As at 31 March 2018, progress in the procurement of ICT Audit Services was made, with the process being at the Supply Chain Management evaluation phase.

 

The Audit Committee has identified specific focus areas to monitor, support and advise management on. These include:

• Development of ICT infrastructure;
• Implementation of the audit action plan;
• Coordination and cooperation on matters related to financial management and audit; and
• Improving the internal control environment.

 

The Audit Committee further drew attention to the following matters:

• Concern was expressed on irregular expenditure incurred during the 2017/18 financial year and that it related primarily to the extension of contracts. The Audit Committee noted that the irregular expenditure was avoidable and progress made by management will be monitored.
• The Audit Committee stated that the fact that if the reporting standard was on an accrual basis, IPID would have indeed overspent, thus resulting in unauthorised expenditure. This is an indicator that IPID was severely constrained financially and unable to meet all its obligations during the financial year. This situation will recur unless additional resources are availed to IPID.
• Concern was expressed on the inability of the Department to pay suppliers within 30 days due to budgetary constraints.
• The Audit Committee confirmed the finding of the AGSA in that the finding on inadequate recordkeeping in Programme 2 could have been avoided.

 

1. EXPENDITURE AND PERFORMANCE
   1. Overall expenditure and performance

 

Departmental expenditure and performance achievements should be considered together in order to evaluate whether value for money was achieved from appropriated funds. When a disconnection between the percentage expenditure and percentage performance exists, it should be interrogated as performance should follow expenditure. In 2017/18, the Department spent R255.33 million of its R255.48 Final Appropriation, which represents an expenditure of 99.8% at year-end. In terms of performance, the Department had 34 performance indicators of which 22 performance indicator targets were achieved and 12 not achieved. This represents an achievement of 64.7%. As such, the Department realised a disconnection between expenditure and performance.

 

At the end of the 2017/18 financial year, the Department had underspending of R145 000.00, which will be surrendered to the Revenue Fund. The underspending is an improvement on the R380 000.00 unspent at the end of the previous financial year. The table below provides a summary of the overall Departmental spending as at the end of the 2017/18 financial year:

 

Table 1: Appropriation statement 

IPID Programmes R’000	Adjusted Appropriation	Virement	Final Appropriation	Actual Spent	Variance	% Spent
1. Administration	87 111	(2 716)	84 395	84 387	8	100%
2. Investigation and Information Management	156 946	3 630	160 576	160 576	0	100%
3. Compliance Monitoring and Stakeholder Management	11 425	(914)	10 511	10 375		98.7%
Total	255 482	-	255 482	255 336	147	99.9%

Source: IPID 2017/18 Annual Report

 

In terms of economic classification, the Department recorded overspending on several budget items. Expenditure on these items was recorded as: 

• Goods and services – 110.3%
• Computer services – 122.4%
• Consultants – 109.8%
• Contractors – 171%
• Property payments – 123.6%

 

The Department made virements in the last quarter of the 2017/18 financial year from the Administration and Compliance Monitoring and Stakeholder Engagements Programmes to the Investigation and Information Management Programme (R3.63 million). The Department has registered irregular expenditure amounting to R6.2 million on contract extension which exceeded the thresholds without National Treasury approval. The request for approval of the disclosed irregular expenditure was submitted to National Treasury in November 2017. The AGSA made a material finding on the extension of contracts.

 

The Department did not incur any unauthorised expenditure in the year under audit. The reported amount in the 2017/18 financial statements is made of prior over-expenditure by the then Independent Complaints Directorate (ICD) in Programmes 3 and 2 for the financial year 2005/06 and 2008/09 respectively. The Department made a submission with the supporting documents requesting the authorisation of the disclosed amount. This submission has since been submitted to SCOPA through National Treasury. Despite the fact that no unauthorised expenditure was recorded, the Audit Committee noted the AGSA’s analysis of the fact that if the reporting standard was on an accrual basis, then IPID would have indeed overspent, thus resulting in unauthorised expenditure. This is an indicator that IPID was severely constrained financially and unable to meet all its obligations during the financial year. This situation will recur unless additional resources are availed to IPID.

 

The Department under-disclosed an amount of R5 000 due to interest incurred as a result of late payment caused by budget constraints and the overtime claimed not in accordance to the granted approval. R2 000 of the above amount was subsequently approved for write off by the Executive Director whilst the R3 000 for claimed overtime was reported to the Financial Misconduct Committee for evaluation and decision making.

 

The Department had a contingent liability of R89.6 million at year-end, of which R87.9 million was for claims against the Department. The opening balance for claims against the Department was R57.27 million and during the 2017/18 financial year, liabilities of R33.96 million was incurred, bringing the closing balance as at 31 March 2018 to R87.96 million. This is a 34.9% increase when compared to the previous financial year.   

 

1. Administration Programme

 

A R2.7 million virement was made to Programme 2: Investigation and Information Management Programme to address the projected budget shortfall reported in this Programme that originated from higher than planned travel and accommodation and legal costs. At year-end, the Administration Programme had a Final Appropriation of R84.39 million, of which R84.38 million was spent (100%). An amount of R8 000.00 was unspent and surrendered to Treasury. 

 

The Administration Programme achieved four out of five performance indicator targets, which represents 80% of targets achieved. This is a significant improvement from the 42.8% of performance indicator targets achieved in the previous financial year. The performance indicator that was not achieved was on implementing 100% of the Annual Internal Audit Plan. This was due to the timing of provincial audit reviews that affected the execution of audits planned by Head Office.

 

1. Human Resource Management

 

The Department had an approved personnel establishment of 388, of which 359 posts were filled as at the end of the 2017/18 financial year (vacancy rate of 7.4%). The Department had 17 employees additional to the establishment, of which the majority are located in the Compliance Monitoring and Stakeholder Management Programme (11 of the 17).

 

1. Programme 2: Investigation and Information Management

 

The core service delivery programme, Investigation and Information Management received an Adjusted Appropriation of R156.94 million in 2017/18. A virement of R3.63 million was made to the Programme (entirely to the Investigation Services subprogramme), which brought the Final Appropriation to R160.57 million of which 100% was spent at year-end.

 

In terms of economic classification within the Investigation and Information Programme, the following should be noted:

• Contractors: An in-programme shift was made from this item, leaving R49 000.00 as the Final Appropriation. At year-end, R152 000.00 was spent, thus overspending by R103 000.00 (310.2%)
• Consultants: The Department spent 155.6% of the Final Appropriation on the item.

 

The Programme achieved 10 out of 17 performance targets in the 2017/18 financial year, which represents an achievement rate of 58.8%. Although the achievement rate is low, it is a significant improvement when compared to the previous financial year in which only three out of 17 targets were met (17.6%).

 

In terms of Section 28(1) of the IPID Act (No 1 of 2011), the Directorate is obligated to investigate the following matters:

1. Any deaths in police custody;
2. Deaths as a result of police action;
3. Any complaint relating to the discharge of an official firearm by any police officer;
4. Rape by a police officer, whether the police officer is on or off duty;
5. Rape of any person while that person is in police custody;
6. Any complaint of torture or assault against a police officer in the execution of his or her duties;
7. Corruption matters within the police initiated by the Executive Director on his or her own, or after the receipt of a complaint from a member of the public, or referred to the Directorate by the Minister, a Member of the Executive Committee (MEC) or the Secretary, as the case may be; and
8. Any other matter referred to it as a result of a decision by the Executive Director, or if so requested by the Minister, an MEC or the Secretary as the case may be, in the prescribed manner.

 

Section 28(2) of the IPID Act (No 1 of 2011) states that the IPID may investigate matters relating to systemic corruption involving the police. Section 29 of the Act places an obligation on members of the South African Police Service (SAPS) and Municipal Police Service (MPS), to report all matters referred to in Section 28(1) (a) to (f) to the IPID immediately upon becoming aware of such a matter and within 24 hours, forward the said report in writing to the IPID. Failure to comply with section 29 of the IPID Act by SAPS members is an offence in terms of section 33(3).

 

A total of 5 651 cases were reported to the IPID during the 2017/18 financial year. The IPID had an overall decrease of 19% compared to the 2016/17 intake. The decrease was noted in most categories except in torture cases (25%), death as a result of police action cases (11%) and non-compliance with IPID Act cases (11%). In 2016/17, the overall intake of cases increased by 27% compared to the 2015/2016 year intake. Most cases reported were related to allegations of assault, followed by complaints of discharge of an official firearm, death as a result of police action, torture and death in police custody.

 

As the offences listed above must be investigated by the Department, performance indicators and targets have been developed to measure performance on this statutory obligation. Table 3 provides a comparison between the intakes in 2017/18 and the previous financial year together with the percentage change between the two financial years. The table also indicates whether the performance indicator target set for the finalisation of investigations related to the offences were achieved or not.

 

The table shows that the Department achieved the performance indicator targets of 50% of mandatory cases for investigation. It shows that the intake of cases of death as a result of police action increased by 11% in 2017/18 and cases of torture increased by 25%. This should be viewed against a significant underperformance on targets set in the 2016/17 financial year (deviations of 18% and 27% respectively).

 

Table 3: Intake comparisons and performance on targets relating to offences 

Section of IPID Act	Intake of cases	2016/17	2017/18	% change	2017/18 achievement on targets for finalising investigations (decision ready)
28(1)(a)	Deaths in police custody	302	201	-33%	Target achieved. Investigated 72% of cases against a target of 62%
28(1)(b)	Deaths as a result of police action	394	436	11%	Target not achieved. Investigated 30% of cases against a target of 48%
28(1)(c)	Complaint of the discharge of official firearms(s)	1 640	677	-56%	Target not achieved. Investigated 21% of cases against a target of 60%
28(1)(d)	Rape by police officer (on or off duty)	112	105	-6%	Target achieved. Investigated 66% cases against a target of 65%.
28(1)(e)	Rape in police custody	20	9	-55%	Target achieved. Investigate 100% of cases.
28(1)(f)	Torture	173	217	25%	Target not achieved. Investigated 18% of cases against a target of 65%
28(1)(f)	Assault	3 827	3 661	-4%	Target not achieved. Investigated 31% of cases against a target of 51%
28(1)(g)	Corruption	160	124	-23%	Target achieved. Investigated 45% of cases against a target of 40%
28(1)(h)	Other criminal matter(s) and misconduct	169	148	-53%	Target not achieved. Investigated 22% of cases against a target of 51%
28(2)	Systemic corruption	6	4	-33%	Target achieved. Investigated 5 of cases against a target of 2
29	Non-compliance with section 29 of the IPID Act	62	69	11%	No target
Total		7 014	5 651	-19%	5 targets achieved/5 not achieved (50%)

Source: IPID 2017/18 Annual Report

 

3.3.1     Legal Services

 

The Legal Services Division is not part of the budget programme of the Department and should not be referred to as a Programme. The budget for Legal Services is addressed under Programme 1: Administration and Programme 2: Investigation and Information Management Programme budget programme. 

 

Legal Services achieved four out of eight performance targets (50% achievement), which is a decline when compared to the 62.5% achievement in the previous financial year.

 

1. Programme 3: Compliance Monitoring and Stakeholder Management

 

The Compliance Monitoring and Stakeholder Management Programme had an Adjusted Appropriation of R11.42 million in 2017/18. After a virement of R914 000.00 was made from the Programme it had a Final Appropriation of R10.51 million of which R10.37 million was spent (98.7%), leaving R139 000.00 unspent.

 

The Programme achieved all of the four performance indicator targets, which is an achievement of 100%. Furthermore, all the predetermined performance indicator targets were exceeded by a wide margin during the 2017/18 financial year. This is a significant improvement when compared to the 40% achievement rate of the previous financial year.

 

The expenditure and performance of the Compliance Monitoring and Stakeholder Management Programme are well aligned and should be a benchmark for the Department.

 

1. First quarter expenditure: 2018/19 financial year 

 

The IPID has had varied expenditure since its establishment in 2012, especially during its first quarters. At the end of the first quarter of the 2016/17 financial year, the Directorate spent R64.5 million against a projection of R65.7 million, thus recording a deviation of R1.2 million between actual and projected expenditure. However, at the end of the first quarter of the following financial year (2017/18), the Directorate had spent R74.7 million against an approved projection of R72.9 million, thus resulting in a deviation (overspending) of R1.8 million between planned and actual spending. This trend was amplified in the first quarter of 2018/19, as the Directorate spent R65.6 million against a projection of R88.9 million, thus leaving a variance of R23.3 million between actual and projected expenditure. 

 

1. PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE OBSERVATIONS

 

The Committee made the following observations:

 

AGSA: The Committee noted the improvement made by the Department in moving from a qualified audit in 2016/17 to an unqualified audit in 2017/18. However, the material findings that were made on the Annual Financial Statements and performance information remains a concern. The Committee further indicated that the three-year timeframe to improve on the adverse audit findings is too long and efforts should be made to reduce or eliminate adverse findings. Additionally, the Committee highlighted the slow reaction to requests from the Office of the AGSA and lack of sufficient internal controls as significant concerns. The message by the Committee was that the Department should focus on implementing urgent action plans to turn-around the material findings by the Office of the AGSA. The Department indicated that the findings would be difficult to address due to financial constraints and accruals.  

 

Quality of Annual Financial Statements (AFS): The Committee noted that the deficiencies in the AFS could have been avoided and requested the Department to indicate whether the necessary skills are available in the Department. The Department noted the concerns and indicated that possible shortcomings would be addressed.

 

Corruption concerns of communities: The Committee questioned whether the concerns raised by communities regarding police corruption should not be a focus of the Department, as it falls within its mandate. The Department indicated that a dedicated project approach would be needed to effectively address these concerns and that the implementation thereof would be considered.

 

Investigations of rape in police custody: The Committee requested the Department to explain the manner in which cases of rape in police custody by civilians are investigated. The Department indicated that the circumstances that enabled rape was investigated, but not the crime itself.

 

Prioritisation of cases: The Committee questioned the manner in which different types of cases are prioritised and questioned why the discharge of an official firearm is not considered a priority. The Department explained that cases have to be prioritised due to financial constraints and that a death in custody or as a result of police action would enjoy precedence over a case involving the discharge of a firearm.

 

Partnering with other Departments: The Committee noted the increase in partnering with other Government Departments that led to the target for community engagements being exceeded. The Committee questioned whether more such partnerships will be made during the current financial year (2018/19). The Department indicated that it mainly partnered with the Office of the Public Protector and the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development and would continue to increase collaborations to increase the number of community engagement.    

 

Legal Services: The Committee asked whether the Legal Services Division will be reinstated as a separate Budget Programme of the Department. The Department indicated that it would be reinstated in the 2019/20 financial year.

 

Extension of contracts: The Committee requested the Department to provide details on the extension of contracts done without following the prescripts of the PFMA. The Department indicated that the contracts included that of security and cleaning services that were extended on a monthly basis until it was cancelled. Controls in the contract management services have been improved and additional capacity appointed.

 

Decrease in case intake: The Committee requested the Department to explain the decrease in the number of case intakes in 2017/18 compared to the previous financial year. The Committee questioned whether the reduction was due to the closure of several provincial offices.

 

Reinvestigation of cases by SAPS: The Committee highlighted several challenges on the reinvestigation conducted by the SAPS on finalised IPID cases referred for disciplinary action. The SAPS conducts a second investigation to access whether a disciplinary transgression was made. The recommendation from the Department should be enough to secure a disciplinary conviction without an internal investigation by the SAPS. The Committee requested the Department to propose remedies to address the situation. The Department indicated that a workshop was convened between them, the SAPS and the CSPS to address challenges, but that the practice continues. The Department indicated that the reinvestigation of cases was a waste of Government resources and further that it ceases to be an independent investigation when SAPS get involved.

 

ICT Infrastructure: The Committee requested the Department to indicate whether modern systems and equipment could address the adverse findings by the Office of the AGSA in terms of performance and case management. The Department indicated that improved ICT capabilities would improve its core business as the current system was unstable and cannot perform all the required function. Specific mention was made on the FlowCentric System. The Department indicated that a proposal was submitted to Treasury requesting additional funds to upgrade ICT infrastructure. Improved infrastructure can lead to savings in the future. Coupled to this, the Committee raised concern about ICT infrastructure improvement in the current Head Office building and questioned whether this will not be wasteful expenditure. The Department indicated that all the proposed ICT improvements are moveable and not permanent fixtures of the building.

 

City Forum Building: The Committee requested the Department to provide an update on the occupation and habitability of the City Forum Building. The Department indicated that the building is still occupied and that nothing has been done to address the state of disrepair. The National Department of Public Works (NDPW) has not secured an alternative building. Due to the lack of action, National Treasury intervened and a task-team was established to remedy the situation. The Department further indicated that it was not paying for the lease as the agreement was declared invalid. However it was stated that the NDPW was paying the owner of the building. The issue was raised with National Treasury. 

 

Impact of IPID: The Committee requested the Department to indicate whether any improvements can be seen on categories of mandatory investigations and whether the Department is making a meaningful difference in police conduct. The Department indicated that middle-management of the SAPS was increasingly willing to report transgressions. The Department further stated that the impact of the IPID on police conduct was difficult to measure, but that members on ground-level were feeling the impact of high level officers being investigated. 

 

Disciplinary and criminal convictions: The Committee noted that the low number of criminal and disciplinary convictions secured by the Department calls into question the impact of IPID. The Department stated that in the instances where the NPA declines to prosecute, it does not point towards an inadequate investigation by IPID, but a lack of evidence. However, the Department stated that in instances where the Department felt that the NPA made an incorrect decision not to prosecute they would engage with the NPA. It was further stated that the Department would also consider taking decisions on judicial review if necessary. 

 

Backlogs: The Committee expressed concern about the increase in the number of backlog cases and requested the Department to indicate what steps will be taken to reduce the backlog. The Department stated that the increase was largely due to the reprioritisation of cases and insufficient funds to appoint additional investigators. However, the Department acknowledged that the case backlog should be addressed and indicated that provinces with a lower case intake were assisting provinces with higher intakes to finalise investigations.

 

Reporting by SAPS: The Committee questioned whether the Department is experiencing challenges with the SAPS not reporting cases as stipulated in the IPID Act. The Department indicated that this is an ongoing challenge that is illustrated by the increase in the number of section 29 investigations that criminalise non-reporting by the SAPS.  

 

Grievances and disputes: The Committee raised concerns about the number of grievances and disputes lodged for a small Department. The Department indicated that many of the grievances and disputes are of a vexatious nature in that officials will lodge a grievance when disciplinary action is taken against such an official.

 

1. RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON POLICE

 

The Portfolio Committee on Police recommends the following:

 

1. The Audit Action Plan must be strengthened and implemented as a matter of priority in order to ensure that the Department improve on its audit outcomes in the 2018/19 financial year. It is further recommended that improvements should not extend over the MTEF period, but prioritised within the next two financial years. 
2. The Directorate must develop an action plan to improve its financial health, specifically related to the net liability, management of budgetary controls and cash flow position to ensure that suppliers are paid within 30 days.
3. The Directorate must review its annual performance indicators and targets to ensure they reflect performance and encourage service delivery.    
4. The Directorate should review its performance management system in order to provide accurate and reliable performance information. This is specifically relating to the FlowCentric system.
5. The Directorate should focus on mitigating risks associated with inadequate ICT infrastructure. The procurement of an ICT Audit Service must also be prioritised during the 2018/19 financial year.
6. National Treasury should consider the application by the Department for funds derived from other revenue streams, like the Criminal Assets Recovery Account (CARA) to upgrade its ICT infrastructure.
7. The Department must ensure that consequence management is strictly applied throughout the Department against officials who make or permit irregular or fruitless and wasteful expenditure.     
8. The Supply Chain Management (SCM) environment must be strengthened and upskilled to ensure that all quotations are awarded to bidders based on preference points allocated and calculated in accordance with the requirements of the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act and its regulations.
9. Efforts should be made to address the increase in backlog cases not investigated.
10. The Minister of Police should intervene in the reinvestigation of IPID cases by the SAPS to ensure that disciplinary recommendations made by the IPID be implemented without an internal investigation by SAPS. The prohibition should be legislated in the SAPS and IPID Acts.  
11. The Department should increase partnerships with other Government Departments and Chapter 9 Institutions to increase engagements with communities. A key focus of the engagements should be addressing alleged police corruption raised by communities.
12. The Department should carefully consider the prioritisation of cases. Despite concerns raised by the Department regarding insufficient funds, the governing legislation demands investigation on all identified categories of crime.
13. The Ministers of Finance and Public Works should address the alleged continuation of payments to the owner of the City Forum Building despite the lease agreement found invalid.
14. The Department should improve labour relations to address the number of grievances and disputes lodged by employees.

 

1. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

 

The Department should submit quarterly reports on the implementation of the Audit Action Plan to address the adverse findings of the AGSA.

 

1. CONCLUSION

 

The role of the IPID as an independent police oversight body is critical in addressing deficiencies in police conduct and ensuring public confidence in the criminal justice system. Greater efforts should be made by the Department to increase their impact on police criminality and misconduct.   

 

Report to be considered.