Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority, Police Secretariat Annual Reports: Research Unit briefings, adoption of Committee Report on Task Team on Capital Projects findings. BRRR preliminary discussions

This premium content has been made freely available


20 October 2010
Chairperson: Ms L Chikunga (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Parliamentary Research Committee briefed the Committee in preparation for its discussions on the 2009/10 Annual Reports of the Private Security Regulatory Industry (PSIRA) and Police Secretariat (the Secretariat). The Researcher noted that a Ministerial Intervention Task Team was appointed for the functioning of PSIRA until January 2010, and was mandated to do a forensic audit and investigate fraud allegations. A disciplinary case against the Chief Executive Officer was laid, but not finalised for a year, and there was no clarity whether the Chief Executive Officer appointed on 1 March 2010 was a different person, or a reappointment of the former CEO. The former CEO had received a bonus whilst under suspension and the Researcher suggested that this, and payments from “other” accounts be investigated. In addition to poor governance, the financial situation was dire. An audit disclaimer was given in 2009/09 and a qualified report in 2009/10. PSIRA had been running at a loss. There was fruitless and wasteful expenditure, and irregular expenditure, and bad debt resulted in losses of R208 million. Lack of leadership meant its objectives were not achieved, and there were too many security guards and too few officers.  Although more inspections had been carried out than targeted, there was under performance in some provinces, with high vacancies in inspector posts. There were challenges in training. The increase in registrations was given, but not compared to a target. No report was included on disabled employment. There was no proper record-keeping or risk management. All accounts had to be adjusted because of errors, and no provision was made for costs of a lawsuit in which it was involved, nor did it submit quarterly reports. The information reported did not correlate with objectives and targets, nor were these measurable or have time frames attached. Members wondered if PSIRA would have been able to collect amounts owing if there had been better management, noted that lack of leadership must be addressed, that the vacancies must be questioned, and further information obtained on amounts paid to the CEO. They noted that not all problems were attributable to the Task Team, which was in place for only ten months, and that the extent of mismanagement could have hindered this team. The Committee would need to interrogate the future of the industry, and suggested that the Minister be called in to explain.

In relation to the Secretariat, the Research Unit outlined that the strategic targets and performance indicators were stated differently in the budget presented by the Secretariat and in the Annual Report of SAPS, where performance was reported. There was insufficient detail on resolutions taken, and it was difficult to assess performance from the Annual Report. There were numerous errors and out of date information. There had been over expenditure on personnel but under expenditure of R3 million due to withdrawal of the Soccerex project, following the appointment of an Acting Secretary of Police in September 2009. There were shortcomings in financial management and control weaknesses, which were being addressed. Supply management chain shortcomings included insufficient personnel, no updated assets register that was verifiable, and failure to obtain three quotations when required. Performance information was outlined. The Legal Services unit had not been able to perform optimally due to changing conditions in the environment. The initiatives, including establishment of a Resource Centre, were outlined, but there was uncertainty as to where communication programmes were being done. Members commented on the difficulties in management during part of this year, and would enquire further into the underspending. The situation would change when the Secretariat took charge of its own budget.

The Research Unit tabled the draft Committee Report on the discussions with the Task Team on Property Management and Capital Works. The Task Team had found that the high capital works budget had not been used to build and increase the number of police stations, and that those stations built by SAPS were more costly and took longer than those built by Department of Public Works (DPW). SAPS was also unable to pinpoint how much was paid to consultants and there were many reporting errors. The key concerns of the Committee around the irregularities and supply chain management, including the lease agreement, were highlighted, together with the SAPS response. Further concerns related to resignation of key members in the supply chain management, the relationship between SAPS and DPW. The Committee’s recommendations were set out, including that SAPS must send reports on investigations, reports on finalisation of the Service Level Agreement, and regular reporting, now and every six months, on the status of eleven projects. Members made some technical amendments, and suggested that the findings of the Task Team on construction of police stations be included under point 1.2.1. The capacity would be specified on page 13, and the Department would be given until mid-February to submit the information. The status of the projects would be included in 4.3.2. Members adopted the draft Report, as amended.

The Committee Research Unit then tabled, and took Members through, the draft Budgetary Review and Recommendations Report (BRRR or the Report) that the Committee must submit had not yet been finalised. This followed the template and guidelines from the National Treasury. A summary of the Committee’s findings was given for each of the programmes on which presentations had been received. The remarks of the Committee on certain instances where targets could be read in two ways, or may be misleading, were included. Members discussed whether all aspects should be included in this report, or whether it should focus on performance in relation to the money spent, but most agreed that there was no harm in keeping issues in this Report. It was noted that the BRRR would eventually replace the Committee’s comments on the Annual Report presentations. Members made some suggestions as to recommendations to be included in the Report, including recommendations on whether further allocations should be made before the issues around management of assets had been corrected. The necessity for time frames was stressed, as also the reports and plans that SAPS still had to submit to the Committee. Members were asked to look at the BRRR drafts again in preparation for further meetings.

Meeting report

Chairperson’s opening remarks
The Chairperson noted that this workshop would assist the Committee in preparing to discuss the Annual Reports of entities and to deal with the items to be included in the Committee’s Budgetary Review and Recommendations Report (BRRR).

Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (PSIRA) Annual Report: Parliamentary Research Unit briefing
Ms Patricia Whittle, Researcher, Parliamentary Research Unit, Parliament, gave an overview of the Annual Report of the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (PSIRA). The PSIRA was established as the accounting body for the private security industries, and reported to the Minister of Police. The Ministerial Intervention Task Team was responsible for the functioning of PSIRA until 1 January 2010, and was mandated to do a forensic audit of PSIRA and investigate fraud allegations against some PSIRA members. The disciplinary case against the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) had been finalised yet no charges were filed for a year. The Annual Report stated that the CEO was appointed on 1 March 2010, but it was not clear  whether this was a new or the former CEO. The former CEO received numerous amounts from PSIRA, including a bonus whilst he was under suspension. The Committee should ask what “other “ meant, as he was also given money from this source.

Ms Whittle stated that the Ministerial Task Team had to identify the governance deficiencies at PSIRA with regards to the governance aspects. The Auditor-General (AG) stated that the financial state of PSIRA was dire, with high level of mismanagements. The Task Team was appointed from January until March, to see that security companies were registered in preparation for the World Cup. The appointment of the Task Team was classified as a performance indicator of PSIRA, instead of a performance indicator of the Minister. PSIRA had not received a budget allocation but did use revenue. However, since income was less than expenditure, PSIRA was running at a loss.

The AG pointed out deficiencies in PSIRA’s financial management. PSIRA had fruitless and wasteful expenditure, and irregular expenditure which resulted from PSIRA paying lawyers without going through the supply chain management, not getting the required three quotations, and bad debts. Bad debts resulted in had material losses of R208 million. The lack of leadership impacted on PSIRA, which was thus under performing on its objectives. There were many inactive security officers. In terms of Section 14 of the PSIRA Act the Council must appoint a suitably qualified person as a Director. She reiterated that there was uncertainty whether a new CEO was appointed, or whether the former CEO was given a new contract. PSIRA had a staff component of 211 and the number of security officers was huge. The ratio of officers to guards could have impacted on its performance.

Ms Whittle then elaborated on the selected key activates and achievements of PSIRA’s performance. There was an increase in the number of inspections carried out. However, PSIRA stated that some provinces had not achieved their targets because of vacancies for inspectors and chief inspectors. She added that four inspectors had resigned and two had been dismissed. She added that there were 16 vacancies for inspectors and one vacancy for a senior inspector, and this impacted negatively on provinces. Draft regulations were submitted to the Minister of Police. PSIRA had faced a number of challenges especially in relation to training. PSIRA had a number of stakeholder intervention such as meetings with the Secretary of Police and meetings for the 2010 World Cup. There was an increase in the registration of security companies, and although the percentage increase was stated, it was not compared to targets. The Annual Report did not give a breakdown of people with disabilities working in the organisation.

Ms Whittle reiterated the concerns of the AG, who had stated that the financial performance of PSIRA was worrying, and there was a need for proper record keeping, that PSIRA lacked efficient and transparent systems of risk management, and had accumulated surpluses without approval from the National Treasury. The AG had to adjust all of the PSIRA accounts due to errors discovered, and there was a lack of governance in the organisation. PSIRA was a defendant in a lawsuit but no amount had been allocated for that. The AG pointed out that PSAIS did not report adequately in terms of quarterly reports, and had suggested that it should produce monthly reports. The reported information was inconsistent with planned objectives and targets. He stated that 50% of the planned and reported targets were not specific, measurable or were not time bound in identifying the required performance. There was a lack of reporting on the predetermined objectives. There was also non adherence to Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) requirements. The strategic plan and the budget were not presented on time. The question should be asked why PSIRA was in a financial mess despite the new management, and said that PSIRA should also be asked how it was addressing the concerns that the AG had raised. Governance issues of PSIRA should be sorted out first.

Ms A van Wyk (ANC) stated that the legislation enabled PSIRA to create its own income. She asked whether Ms Whittle thought that if PSIRA had collected all its money, it would get its house in order.

Ms Whittle responded that a lack of proper management was reflected in PSIRA. She added that the income PSIRA had collected could have been enough if PSIRA did not have deficits.

Ms M Molebatsi (ANC) asked whether the Research Unit agreed with the AG’s report.

Ms Whittle responded that she agreed with the AG.

Mr G Lekgetho (ANC) noted that the CEO had been suspended for a year without being charged. This was a reflection of lack of leadership, which the Committee must address. The Report also did not say whether the vacancies in PSIRA had been filled. He asked whether PSIRA could recover all of its debts.  

Ms Whittle stated that the vacancies were mainly in the inspections department. She stated that a high number of vacancies would negatively impact on the role of PSIRA.

The Chairperson wanted clarity on whether the money that the CEO was given was a once off amount or it was paid over the years.

Ms Whittle responded that she was not sure whether the amount paid to the CEO was a once off amount or whether it was paid over a period of time. She added that she did not know what “other” meant.

Ms D Kohler-Barnard (DA) asked whether the report said anything about the appointment of the CEO.

Ms Whittle responded that she had not come across such information.

Mr Lekgetho asked whether the new management could recover the monies owed to PSIRA.

The Chairperson stated that the question should be directed to PSIRA.

Mr M Swathe (DA) asked whether the Ministerial Intervention Task Team helped, and what had happened to the previous Council.

Ms Whittle responded that the Task Team had been assisted by external auditors. She stated that the extent of mismanagement could have deterred the Task Team from properly functioning. This Team was only in place for ten months, and she was not sure if this was sufficient for it to turn around an organisation with such huge problems.

Mr M George (COPE) stated that when PSIRA Act was passed, the Chairperson of that time refused to act in accordance with it, and he wondered what the former Portfolio Committee had done to address this.

Ms van Wyk stated that there had always been problems with PSIRA. The new Council might not be responsible for all. However, there was no reference to what the Task Team had done, and its outcomes. She question was where the private security sector in the country was going, and how this Committee would address the issues.

Ms Kohler-Barnard stated that PSIRA had not produced its report, as expected, in the previous year. The AG had indicated that it was unable to audit the financial statements. She had never seen an Annual Report and believed the Committee was not being given all the information.

Ms Van Wyk stated that the Committee should be careful not to blame the Task Team, as blame might not lie there, and suggested that the Minister must be asked to explain what was intended, to deal with PSIRA.

Mr George seconded the suggestion that the Minister be called in. There had been a number of legislative proposals that the former Portfolio Committee had withdrawn.

Ms van Wyk stated that the Committee had to look forward.

Ms Whittle stated that the Annual Report had made mention of a draft PSIRA Amendment Bill as a target. It also spoke of draft training regulations that had been submitted to the Secretary of Police, who was allegedly delaying the issue, and suggested that this be interrogated with the Secretariat.

The Chairperson noted that in the previous year, PSIRA received an audit disclaimer, with a qualified report for 2009/10. The Committee would await the presentation from PSIRA.

Civilian Secretariat for Police Annual Report 2009/10: Research Unit overview
Ms Whittle began by listing the issues for consideration. The strategic targets and performance indicators were not listed in the South African Police Service (SAPS) Annual Report in the same manner as they had been set out in the 2009/10 Secretariat Budget Vote presentation, and did not always match and correlate with the budget vote targets. The 2009/10 SAPS Annual Report stated that the Secretariat had been given permission by Parliament to discontinue certain programmes, but did not state at which meeting this was done, nor did it list the programmes. There was also an issue of insufficient reporting on past performance. She stated that the report was not backward looking, but forward looking, because the report focused on future activities. This made it difficult to assess the past performance of the Secretariat. There was also lack of detail that enabled the Committee to measure actual performance. She also highlighted that there were a lot of errors and there was out of date information in the Report, such as the establishment of a partnership unit.

Ms Whittle then highlighted the budget performance. The Secretariat was funded through the budget vote of the Department of the Police and fell under Programme 1: Administration, which had received R15,9 billion in 2009/10. When the Secretariat presented to Parliament on 23 June 2009, it had requested R23, 9 million, of which R12.6 million was budgeted for projects. The budgeted amount for overtime was R232 000 and an amount of R9.05 million was budgeted for personnel. However, the actual expenditure on personnel was R11,1 million. Only seven staff members out of the total of 33 staff received performance bonuses, amounting to a total of R103 000. She added that there were 26 vacancies out of a staff complement of 65.

The Secretariat spent R16,9 million of its allocated budget. The bulk of the budget had been spent between September 2009 and March 2010. The Secretariat blamed the under-expenditure of R4,9 million on the fact that the approval of the use of R3 million that had been allocated at the Soccerex Exhibition had been withdrawn, following the appointment of the Acting Secretary of Police in September 2009. She added that the remaining unspent amount was due to the discontinuation of certain projects, but details of these were not specified.

Several shortcomings were found in relation to financial management and control weaknesses. The Secretariat reported on these but stated that it had since taken steps to improve controls. The Secretariat was in the process of implementing a system to ensure that the inventory and assets were dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the PFMA. There were short comings within the supply management chain, including a lack of sufficient personnel to address demand management, no updated assets register and the fact that the Secretariat had failed to get the necessary three quotations for amounts between R10 000 and R50 000. The Annual Report said that steps were being taken to address the shortcomings related to supply chain management. The completeness of the asset register could not be verified due to insufficient identification numbers.

Ms Whittle then elaborated on the performance targets. Support services had three sub components of Human resources, Finance, and Supply Chain Management. The Monitoring and Evaluation Unit was supposed to monitor, evaluate and advise the Minister on SAPS governance, compliance with the policing policy and on the effectiveness and efficiency of the services delivered by the SAPS. The programme participated in a number of consultative stakeholder workshops with civil society, the Independent Complaints Directorate (ICD) and structures of the Department of Safety in all nine provinces. Legal Services was not reported as a separate programme, but was to provide legal advice and support to the Minister on legislation, civil litigation, Constitutional and other legal matters. The Draft Bill had not been reported on. However, the Annual Report said that the unit was unable to function optimally since the demands placed on it were dictated by changing conditions in the policing environment. The Policy and Research Reference Group had been established to assist the Secretariat in developing its policy and research component. A resource centre had been established to collate all Secretariat reports and to serve as a repository of information for crime prevention projects in the provinces. This Centre was in its first phase of operation. There was also a programme on communication, which had not been reported as a programme on its own. It was not certain whether the programme had now been replaced by the partnership unit, or whether it was under the Office of the Secretary, who was stated in the Annual Report to be responsible for Communication and Special Projects, including implementing a communication strategy aimed at informing and mobilising role players, stakeholders and partners outside the Department, about the delivery of the Department of Police. Lastly the targets as reflected in the 2009/10 budget presentation to Parliament were explained.

The Chairperson stated that there was an almost similar situation between PSIRA and the Secretariat before the new management took over.

Ms van Wyk said that the Committee must enquire into the underspending.

Ms Whittle stated that the reason why the Secretariat had not spent all its money was that approval for spending of R3 million at Soccerex was withdrawn.

Rev K Meshoe (ACDP) asked what was happening with regard to reporting. He raised his concern about the staff.

Ms van Wyk stated that different management had presented the 2009/10 budget. This situation would change when the Secretariat became a separate department, in charge of its own finances.

The Chairperson reiterated that the Committee was aware of the fact that there would be discrepancies, due to different management. However, Ms Whittle’s input was appreciated.

Task Team on Property Management and Capital Works: Parliamentary Research Unit briefing and draft Committee Report
Ms Nadia Dollie, Senior Researcher, Parliament, tabled a draft Committee Report that set out the key aspects of the Committee’s interrogation of the Task Team into Property Management and Capital Works, and the responses of the SAPS and the Department of Public Works (DPW), and also identified the recommendations of the Committee.

She set out the background, and outlined the sub-topics. She noted that the key findings of the Task Team had been that the high capital works budget had not been used to build and increase the number of police stations. This increasing budget was not shown in the increase in the number of police stations. The majority of the stations that were built by SAPS were far more costly, and took longer to build, than those of DPW. There was also concern that the Department did not know how much money had been paid to consultants. There were many reporting errors.

The next section of the report highlighted the deliberations of the Committee during the key meeting with the SAPS. This reflected that the Committee was concerned about the irregularities and supply chain management, including the lease agreement. The section also highlighted what the SAPS had said about the issues. It was important to deliberate the matter further.

Members were also concerned about the resignation of key members in the supply chain management. There was also concern about the relationship between the SAPS and the DPW in relation to projects. There was a poor record of SAPS in relation to capital projects, which took very long to complete. The Committee also welcomed the acknowledgement of SAPS that there were serious problems within the SAPS.

The last section contained the recommendations. The first recommendation was that reports on investigations should be submitted to the Committee. The other recommendation was that SAPS had to report to the Committee on the progress on the finalisation of the Service Level Agreement. SAPS must also report to the Committee, in writing, about the status of the completion of its eleven building service projects. SAPS must further report to the Committee every six months thereafter about the status of completion of these projects.

The Chairperson suggested that the Committee go through the report starting from page 1.

Mr G Schneemann (ANC) stated that there was a typing error in 1.3.

Ms van Wyk stated that in 1.3, two words should be deleted from the heading.

The Chairperson stated that the subheading was not talking to proclamations as such. She suggested that another subheading be created.

Ms Van Wyk agreed. She suggested that this should then start: “On the10th of August 2010, the President announced..”, down to the fourth bullet point. Then there should a different heading.

The Chairperson suggested that the findings of the Task Team on construction of police stations be included under 1.2.1.

Ms van Wyk suggested that paragraph 1.4 should start by saying that the Committee was briefed on the findings of the Task Team. The next point should then set out the deliberations of the Committee, the issues discussed and the concerns.

The Chairperson stated that an example should be given under the middle paragraph on Page 7. She stated that the words “blatantly inaccurate” were too strong. She suggested the use of the words were sometimes inaccurate. On page 10 she suggested a change of the words “Departmental responses” to “Department responses”.

Ms Kohler-Barnard stated that it did not need to be changed.

The Chairperson asked that, on page 13, the capacity be specified.

Ms Kohler-Barnard stated that the SAPS did not have capacity to build an entire station.

The Chairperson corrected Ms Kohler-Barnard.

Ms van Wyk suggested that there be brackets put around the references to architects, brick layers and quantity surveyors.

The Chairperson asked whether Members were content with the words “Members’ queried”. She was concerned with the phrase “The head of services seemed to disagree”.

Ms van Wyk stated that the Head of Services had disagreed with what the Commissioner had said.

The Chairperson stated that she was not sure whether page 15 contained recommendations.

Ms Van Wyk stated that the Committee needed to make a decision. She suggested that the heading should be changed to “Further information required” rather than “Recommendations”.

The Chairperson asked whether this was information or recommendations. She asked whether the Committee could instruct.

Ms Van Wyk stated that that was why the Committee needed to change the heading. This was not the report of the Committee, but it was the President’s report.

The Chairperson stated that the Committee should include a recommendation. She stated that there were dates that needed to be inserted.

Ms van Wyk stated that the Committee needed to have the information before the Committee went to the budget process.

The Chairperson stated that the Department could be given more time to give a detailed report.

Mr Schneemann suggested that the Committee give the Department until the end of the first quarter.

Ms van Wyk suggested that the Department be tied down to submit the information within a specific month.

Ms Dollie suggested that the information be submitted at the end of January, so that the researchers had more time to look at the report.

The Chairperson suggested that the report could perhaps be submitted in the middle of February.

Ms van Wyk suggested that on page 16,  under 4.3.2, the report must indicate the status of the project.

Members then adopted this report, with amendments.

Portfolio Committee On Police: Budgetary Review And Recommendations Report (BRRR).
Ms Dollie stated that the Budgetary Review and Recommendations Report (BRRR or the Report) that the Committee must submit had not yet been finalised. She tabled it in draft.

Ms Dollie said that the BRRR followed the template and guidelines from the National Treasury. The introduction section of the Report outlined the mandate of the Committee and then went on to outline Section 5 of the Money Bills Amendment Procedures and Related Matters Act of 2009. The next section outlined the methodology that the Committee had used. It was stated that that Committee had received submissions on the 2009/10 Annual Report of SAPS from outside experts, including the Institute for Security Studies, the Criminal Justice and Crime Prevention Project, and Auditor-General South Africa (AGSA). The Committee was also guided by the primary information that it had gathered during oversight visits undertaken by Members during 2009/10 and the first two quarters of 2010/11. Lastly the Committee was guided by its own Annual Strategic Plans for the 2009/10 and 2010/11 years.

The next topic dealt with strategic priorities and measurable objectives of the Department of Police (SAPS). It was stated that in order to assess the performance of the Department for 2009/10 it was necessary to view its performance in the context of the prevailing 5-year plan governing its actions during that period - namely the 2005-2010 Strategic Plan. The 2005-2010 Strategic Plan specified four key strategic priorities for the medium term. These were the combating of organised crime, combating serious and violent crimes, combating crimes against women, and improving basic service delivery by the SAPS.

The 2010-2014 Strategic Plans specified four operational strategic priorities for the medium term, which were crime prevention, investigation of crimes, support to the investigation of crime, and crime intelligence. An analysis of the strategic and operational plans of the Department and expenditure reports was also done. A summary of the overall Departmental expenditure trends in the 2009/10 financial year was presented. Issues of consideration were raised. These included unresolved issues relating to procurement and insufficient reporting information. An analysis of the Annual Report and the financial statements of the Department were also done for each programme of the SAPS.

In terms of Programme 1: Administration it was noted that the cursory reading of the Annual Report of the SAPS for the Administration programme reflected that the SAPS seemed to have performed well in terms of the targets that had been set for that financial year, but that closer scrutiny of the achievements, as well as the experience of the Committee Members on the ground, reflected a number of serious problems. These were especially apparent in the areas of asset management (of capital projects as well as the management of other assets such as firearms, bullet proof vests and vehicles) and training (especially the practice of promotions to management positions without ensuring that there persons were properly supported with training). The Department did report on measures that it would be taking to address some of these problems. Other additional issues were corruption and fraud prevention, police conduct and discipline, capital works projects, training and professional skills.

In relation to Programme 2: Visible Policing, it was noted that the Annual Report showed an improvement in visible policing over the 2009/10 financial year. In comparison to the 2008/9 financial year the number of roadblocks had increased by 22.6%, the number of cordon and searches increased by 86%, the number of stop and search operations increased by 53%, vehicle patrols increased by 31% and the number of people searched increased by 30.6%. However, while the number of visible policing actions increased, with the exception of vehicle searches which decreased by 35%, it was not possible to determine the effect that these actions had on crime at a national level. The target to reduce contact crimes by 7% had not been achieved, with the exception of murder which fell by 7.2%.

For Programme 3: Detective Services, it was stressed that the SAPS made a total of 1 362 504 arrests, 11.3% more than in 2008/9. 48.3% of those arrests were in relation to priority crimes, which was 22.5% higher than the arrests made for these crimes in 2008/9. The increase in arrests for priority crimes rather than less serious crimes was welcomed by the Committee, because it illustrated that police resources and time had been focused on combating more serious offences. In addition, it was noted that more arrests were made for contact crimes (violent crimes such as murder and assault) and less arrests were made for property crimes. It was, however, clear that arrests in themselves were not important, and what mattered was what happened after arrests were made. Thus it was important to see whether there was a commensurate improvement of the number of cases getting to court and conviction rates where increase in arrests prevailed.

The Committee’s observations on Programme 4: Crime Intelligence were presented. It was stated that it was extremely difficult to ascertain the performance of crime intelligence from the information provided in the Annual Report. A cursory look at the targets and the achievements reflected that the SAPS indeed performed well in the crime intelligence arena during 2009/10,  in that it exceeded both its defined targets in terms of operations concluded and reports produced. However, while the measures spoke to quantities, and while it was clear that there were increased numbers of both investigations and products, the targets did not speak to the quality criteria at all. Thus, it was unclear whether the quality of operations and reports had improved, and indeed whether they were used effectively to prevent and combat crime.

In relation to Programme 5: Protection and Security Services, a number of key targets within the ports of entry and exit environment had not been achieved, such as the recovery of illegal firearms and the number of arrests. SAPS stated that the reasons why the targets had not been met was because of increased cooperation between South Africa and neighbouring countries in preparation for the FIFA World Cup, improved engagement with neighbouring countries to strengthen security along borders, joint operations, and improved exchange of information. This resulted in the deterrence of the illegal movement of goods and persons along the border. However, the converse could also be true. More intensive cooperation could also have been expected to lead to better detection of those types of crimes, which could then have resulted in SAPS achieving or exceeding the targets. It was also noted that the targets for stolen vehicles and illegal firearms were set very low.

Considerations of performance per programme were then presented. The key issue for consideration under Programme 1: Administration were management of assets, bullet proof vests, firearms, vehicles, capital projects and training. Under Programme 2: Visible Policing, the key issues of concern related to sector policing, firearms applications, victim support centres, reservists, escape from custody, responsibilities at borderlines, and sea border. Under Programme 3: Detective Services, the main concerns were improving the quality of investigations-detective training, conviction rates and the capacity of the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (DPCI). In relation to Programme 4: Crime Intelligence, the key issues for consideration were that crime intelligence should be seen as central to all policing activities, and involvement in combating corruption. Corruption at border posts, targets not being met for the recovery of illegal firearms and arrests at ports of entry and safety in the rail environment were some of the key concerns under Programme 5.

Mr George expressed thanks to the Chairperson and Researchers for this draft Report. He added that there were areas that the SAPS promised to deal with, not included in this draft, such as the issue of supply management and the problems around vehicles. He added that the Committee was supposed to make a follow up on the issue of workforce targets and make sure that the SAPS and the civilian targets should be separated.

Ms van Wyk stated that Mr George was raising a valid point, but felt that what he was saying should rather be included in the recommendations of the Committee for the Annual Report. She added that there were some issues in the BRRR draft that needed to be removed and be placed in the Annual Report review. She suggested that the Committee should here focus on the performance in relation to the money spent, and the financial aspects.

The Chairperson stated that the BRRR would eventually replace the Committee’s report on the Annual Report of SAPS. She added that there were no recommendations yet in the draft Report.

Mr Schneemann stated that the issues that it had been suggested should be removed could in fact stay in the BRRR draft. He added that the Committee should make its recommendations without changing the draft much further.

Ms Dollie agreed with Mr Schneemann. She added that other issues could be included in the BRRR draft.

Mr Swathe supported what Mr George had said.

The Chairperson asked for other recommendations.

Mr Schneemann was concerned about the lack of control and management of assets, and said that one of the recommendations should focus on the issue.

Ms van Wyk asked for more clarity in relation to the issue of capital assets, and whether SAPS was not going to receive money until they sorted out their capital assets.

Mr George stated that it would not be right to say that the SAPS should be given more money. Whilst SAPS was supposed to sort out the issue of management of assets, it might be difficult to address whether no further money should be given for assets until these issues were sorted out.

Ms van Wyk stated that she did not mean to imply that SAPS should not receive money. She stated that these were recommendations and there were no guarantees that they would be implemented. She explained that she was of the opinion that no additional money over and above the inflation rate should be allocated to SAPS in relation to capital assets.

The Chairperson stated that the Committee should finalise the issue on assets.

Ms Dollie read to the Committee the recommendations that she had written down.

Mr George felt that no additional increase should be given to the SAPS on capital assets until it proved that it was able to manage assets.

Mr Lekgetho agreed with the Members. He added that time frames were supposed to be set.

The Chairperson stated that the recommendations were supposed to be compatible with the Constitution’s requirements on the separation of powers and the principles of cooperative governance. She added that the recommendations were supposed to be clear and should have time frames.

Ms van Wyk stated that it was up to the SAPS to correct its problems.

The Chairperson asked whether the recommendation was going to have an impact on the overall budget.

Ms van Wyk stated that the Committee could be more specific.

The Chairperson stated that the recommendation would have an impact on the following financial year. She suggested that the report should not specify a financial year.

Ms van Wyk agreed.

Ms M Dube (ANC) stated that she also agreed with what had been said. She asked what the Committee wanted the SAPS to do in order that it should receive money.

The Chairperson responded that the purchasing of the SAPS was not informed by anything at present, and thus the SAPS needed to show that it was managing its assets.

Mr Lekgetho stated that it would be premature for the Committee to put figures.

Mr George stated that the financial year should not be specified.

Ms van Wyk suggested that Members should forward their suggested wording to Ms Dollie.

Mr Lekgetho expressed his concern in relation to the cases of discipline. He stated that a strong anti-corruption strategy was needed.

The Chairperson stated that the SAPS had an anti-corruption strategy but whether it was being implemented was another issue. She agreed that it was important to say something on implementation of the strategy.

Mr Swathe suggested that the Committee must make a recommendation that the training of detectives needed to be improved.

The Chairperson stated that the SAPS had stated that it had a backlog but the Committee was not convinced that the SAPS was addressing the backlog.

Ms van Wyk stated that a proper plan on sector policing should be submitted to the Committee. An assessment on sector policing should be given. She stated that a defined role in borderline security should also be submitted to the Committee.

Mr George recommended that the ports of entry issue be reviewed, especially given that the security was in the hands of the private sector.

Mr Lekgetho agreed with Mr George.

The Chairperson stated that an investigation of the cost should be done. She added that in land ports, SAPS was responsible for management, as opposed to airports, which were managed by private security.

Ms van Wyk agreed and added that the recommendation should include references to the Border Control Coordination authority.

Mr George stated that the port security must be reviewed.

Mr Schneemann stated there was a need for SAPS to review the basic training. He added that the SAPS should have adequately equipped and resourced training facilities.

Ms Dube stated that it should be noted that there was no planned structure to build police stations and there was no pattern.

Ms van Wyk recommended that something be said about the improvement of managers at station levels. She added that the SAPS should have a performance plan. She suggested that the Committee should also recommend that attention must be paid to the proper implementation of legislative functions.

Mr Lekgetho suggested that the Committee recommend that there should be hands on management at the provinces.

The Chairperson stated that there were so many problems in the Forensic Science Laboratories, and that the Committee needed a proper strategy plan from that unit.

Mr Schneemann suggested that the Committee should recommend that there was a need for proper financial control of funds by the SAPS, and that the shifting of funds should be limited.

The Chairperson expressed her doubt that the shifting from funds could be limited because certain virements were allowed.

Ms van Wyk stated that it would be possible. She also suggested that the Committee ask for a review of the reservists’ system, including the recruitment criteria. She stated that all departments involved in the Justice System should be providing uniform statistics, and a thorough progress report on the funds that had been spent on the Integrated Justice System should be received from the SAPS.

The Chairperson requested that Members should study the BRRR draft in order to make a final decision at a subsequent meeting.

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: