Department of Police & Independent Complaints Directorate budget votes: adoption of Committee Reports

This premium content has been made freely available


29 June 2009
Chairperson: Ms L Chikunga (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The draft Committee Reports on the budget votes for the Department of Police (Budget Vote 22) and the Independent Complaints Directorate (Budget Vote 20) were tabled. In respect of the Report on Budget Vote 20, Members raised some technical issues and asked that they be amended. A Member asked if answers had been submitted to the question as to what constituted a police station, and asked that the reference to this question be moved to another section of the Report. The Member stated that in general, the content of questions should be specified and that all Reports should either reflect the answers, where these were given, or contain a note that no answers were given to the relevant questions before the Report had to be published, since these Reports would guide Members in taking a vote on the budgets. The same point applied to the wording reflecting the questions in relation to the Committee Report on Budget Vote 20.

The majority of Members adopted the Reports, with the proviso that the necessary corrections be made. A DA Member indicated that she had no mandate and would abstain from voting.

Meeting report

Committee Reports on Budget Votes 22 and 20: Deliberations
The Chairperson asked that Members raise any points on the draft Committee Report in respect of Budget Vote 22, relating to the Department of Police (the Department).

Mr V Ndlovu (IFP) enquired whether it was true that the visible policing was less than 2%.

The Chairperson responded that it was true.

Ms D Kohler- Barnard (DA) referred to a spelling error on page 5 of the draft and suggested that the phrase “chant their way forward” be corrected to “chart their way forward”.

Mr G Schneemann (ANC) said that during the presentation the Members asked the Department what constituted a police station, and said that the Department should have provided the list of the basic requirements for a police station. He said that this point should not be included under the heading for “Resources and Police Station” but under the heading relating to the questions of Members. He also asked if there had been any answers submitted to the questions.

The Secretary of the Committee said that the Department had responded in writing.

The Chairperson noted that on page 5, the word “inconstancy” should be corrected to “inconsistency”.

Mr Schneemann referred to the section headed “Detective Services” on page 5, and noted that there was reference, in the last sentence, to a further question regarding the South African Police Service (SAPS) detective plan. He suggested that details on what was asked should be added. He said that, as a general rule, a reference in a report to a question should also include details of what exactly was being asked, as otherwise the report would not give any guidance to those reading it.

Ms Kohler- Barnard referred to page 10, and asked that the words “garish” and “garnishing” should be changed to “garnishee”.

The Chairperson asked Members to consider the draft Committee Report on Budget Vote 20, relating to the Independent Complaints Directorate (ICD).

Mr Schneemann repeated that this draft Report also would go into the ATC, and that although it made reference to questions, there were no answers included. The Committee Reports had to be published before Members could debate the issues. He asked whether the answers would be included in the Report.

The Chairperson said that the Committee Report must reflect what happened. In this case, the Report would read that the ICD had not responded to the questions before the Report was published.

The Chairperson asked Members if they were prepared to adopt the reports.

Mr Schneemann said that he would be happy to move for the adoption of the reports, with the proviso that where answers might have been received to the questions, these must be included, but where answers had not been received, the report must reflect this fact.

Ms Kohler-Barnard said that she would like to reserve her rights, and abstain from voting, as she did not have a mandate to approve the Reports. Her abstention and the reasons were noted.

The majority of the Members resolved to adopt both Committee Reports.

The meeting was adjourned.


  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

Download as PDF

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

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: