The Technology Management Services of the South African Police Service provided answers to questions raised by the Committee earlier. The cost of the implementation of the Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) Amendment Bill would be R1.2 billion over three years. Several meetings had been held with the State Information Technology Agency, and a document had been produced. The SOLVE software package had been provided free of charge. The roll-out period should be less than four years. About R12 million would be needed if the CODIS software was used instead of SOLVE. Laboratory procedures were being instituted. According to information available to the police, the SOLVE and CODIS systems provided the same functionality.
Members were told that the main contractor for the Property Control and Exhibit Management System was Unisys. The next phase of this system would be rolled out by 2016. One of the sub-contractors was a company called Waymark. The implementation of the Bill would entail the acquisition of hardware and data storage space. The system would be compatible with those of the Department of Home Affairs and of Justice and Constitutional Development. Risks had been assessed and mitigation strategies developed. There were not many database managers. A programme manager had been appointed, and projects would be established for each of the work streams involved. A steering committee had been identified. The cost of developing the forensic laboratory in Pretoria had not been finalised.
Members expressed their shock and confusion at some of the information imparted. One of the sub-contracting companies was under investigation by the Special Investigating Unit. Members felt that the Police were not ready to implement the system. The choice between the SOLVE and CODIS systems still had to be made. The Chief Financial Officer undertook to advise Members of the different sources for the funding for the implementation of the Bill. Members wanted an answer on the investigation the National Commissioner had promised on certain major contracts, especially where there was an allegation of illegal add-ons to the original contracts. Members were dumbfounded that the Police were continuing to spend money on the SOLVE option, even though the State Information Technology Agency had made a strong recommendation that the CODIS option was preferable. Members demanded quarterly progress reports, and expressed their extreme disappointment at the state of affairs regarding the implementation of the Bill.
The Committee was informed that the Minister of Police had started the process of appointing the Head of the Directorate of Priority Crime Investigation, and an appointment was expected by the end of 2013. Justice Moosa had accepted the post of hearing complaints.
The Committee was assured that the Bill was constitutional. A legal opinion was read that, while the taking of a buccal sample involuntarily might constitute a breach of the human rights of the person involved, a certain amount of limitation on the rights of individuals had to be tolerated in the interests of fighting crime.
The Committee reviewed the Bill. A number of minor changes were made during the deliberations. Members of the DA and FF+ reported that they could not vote on the Bill without first consulting with their caucuses. The Chairperson nevertheless decided to continue with the adoption as the voting had already been delayed on several occasions. Without the participation of these Members, there was still a quorum.
The Committee adopted the Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) Amendment Bill, with some amendments made during this meeting.
The Chairperson welcomed those present. She voiced the Committee's displeasure with the way in which the South African Police Service (SAPS) had prepared for the implementation of the Bill. Members were only informed of the financial implications late the previous day.
Costing presentation by SAPS Technology Management Services
General Bonginkosi Ngubane, Divisional Commissioner, Technology Management Services (TMS), SAPS, said that the first question posed by the Committee related to the costs of the implementation of the Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) Amendment Bill. The initial cost would be R71 million for development, R50 million for the roll-out and R60 million for deployment. That was a total of R182 million for the current financial year (FY), with another R535 million needed for the 2014/15 FY and R546 million in 2015/16. The total over the medium term expenditure framework (MTEF) was R1.2 billion.
Gen Ngubane said that the second question related to meetings held with the State Information Technology Agency (SITA). There had been a process in place since 2008, and a document had been produced. The final draft of the document had been prepared in January 2011.
Gen Ngubane said that the meeting on 10 June 2013 had discussed the Bill. The National Forensic Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) Database (NFDD) had been discussed together with its security. A follow-up meeting had been held on 24 July. He listed the attendees. There had been feedback from the meeting with the Committee. Costs had been discussed. There had been a comparison to the services provided by SITA.
Gen Ngubane said that the next follow up meeting was on 12 July. He briefed Members on the agenda. The next meeting was on 15 July. A meeting on 24 July had finalised the presentation for Parliament. There had been another meeting to identify the work streams for the implementation of the Bill. Teams had been identified for each work stream. There had been a meeting to consolidate on the previous one on 29 July.
Gen Ngubane said that the next meeting was on 2 August to compile a response to the written questions posed by the Committee. Another meeting was held on 5 August to consolidate progress.
The Chairperson asked Gen Ngubane to talk to the issues rather than read every word in the presentation.
Gen Ngubane said that the SOLVE software was the topic of the third question. In the negotiation of the Property Control and Exhibit Management System (PCAM) contract, the service provider had been asked for discounts regarding the various work streams. One of the agreements was that there should be a solution for the NFDD. This had been provided free.
Gen Ngubane said that four years had been allocated for implementation. This was for the full roll-out of all laboratory services. The DNA Bill was only relevant to the biology laboratories, which would be completed sooner. The normal software development and maintenance would have taken its course by then.
Gen Ngubane said that the fifth question related to the total cost of the NFDD. In terms of CODIS, TMS would sign an agreement with the Federal Bureau for Investigation (FBI) to acquire the software. The estimated cost was R1 million, with another R11 million needed to address compatibility. This would serve as a bible on how to satisfy requirements. TMS would continue to provide business service models. Labware was a total solution for the forensic laboratories, not just the biological section. Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) 15 would cover these procedures. This was an important consideration for the certification of the laboratories. The budget for certification was R8 million.
Gen Ngubane said that the sixth question related to modernisation of existing system. There was a single laboratory management system. The goal was to introduce Labware while optimising the current software. There would be a concurrent system while Labware was implemented. StraLab would be configured to support the DNA Bill in the interim.
Gen Ngubane said that the seventh question related to apparent contradictions in the previous presentation. The Forensic Service Laboratories (FSL) team had tested SOLVE. The CODIS application had been evaluated in Botswana, but SOLVE seemed to be the better option. The systems had largely the same functionality, and the amount of customisation was now to be determined. CODIS had been tested in many countries, but SOLVE satisfied the specific requirements of the SAPS.
The Chairperson felt that the issues were being confused. During the previous meeting, the cost for adapting SOLVE to South African requirements had been set at R44 million. TMS was now telling the Committee that they had already started to adapt SOLVE. It was worrisome that Members were being told that SOLVE, with no track record, was being adapted while CODIS was proven in 67 countries. There was a document from SITA in 2010 saying that SAPS would be irresponsible to use any system other than CODIS.
Gen Ngubane replied that SITA had undertaken a comparison study, which showed that the two systems were on par. The track record of CODIS was a recommendation. TMS had felt the need to visit sites where CODIS had been implemented to see the practicalities involved. There was no contractual obligation to use SOLVE. Nothing had been spent on the software yet, but a business requirement had been developed costing about R8 million. A consultant had been working on this, comprising a team from SITA writing an Oracle platform. SITA had stopped this in 2008. When the PCAM contract came into being, some of those consultants had worked on developing these requirements further.
The Chairperson wanted the name of the company.
Gen Ngubane said that the contract was with Unisys. FDA, Pinnacle and Waymark were sub-contractors on the project. The consultants used were now working for FDA.
The Chairperson went through the time line of the process. SITA had highlighted the desirability of CODIS in 2010 already, but SAPS was still spending money exploring the SOLVE option. The Committee now had a costing, but would have to decide on how to proceed. The matter might have to be referred to the Auditor-General of South Africa.
Gen Ngubane said that question eight related to the operating systems, hardware and software. Additional hosting capacity would be required together with additional data storage. The estimates would be R1.75 million as a once-off cost, with an annual fee of R300 000. Time scales would be about 20 weeks from proposal initiation to implementation.
Gen Ngubane said that question nine referred to the availability of support staff. ASCII 7 was needed for CODIS, but this was not standard software for SAPS. The current database was Oracle. Additional integration would be needed. Personnel development had been completed. Question ten was about a clear outline for implementation dates. There had been tests with the Department of Home Affairs (DHA). The roll-out would commence within the month of August 2013. There had been additional changes to support electronic integration. These were being analysed currently. Development on the electronic case management system (ECMS) should be completed by the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DOJCD) by the end of the current FY. The system was compatible with the SAPS system. The next version of the DOJCD system would be updated to provide an output to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) and SAPS by the end of the current FY. The deployment of the DOJCD ECMS would be rolled out as scheduled. Finance had been approved for the Home Affairs National Identification System (HANIS) system and should be implemented in the final quarter of 2014. There was an issue with the supplier that had gone to court.
Gen Ngubane continued with question eleven, concerning the roll-out of PCAM. The current version did not provide all the functionality required by the project. The next release would replace that currently deployed at fourteen sites. The roll-out should be completed by 2016 at 35 SAPS stations. A detailed roll-out plan had been prepared.
Gen Ngubane said that question twelve was on the taking of buccal samples. The only reliable means to determine if a sample had been taken was by a fast biometric test. The turnaround time on fingerprint searches at present was not fast enough. A buccal sample would have to be taken every time a person was arrested on a Schedule 1 offence.
The Chairperson asked why Members were wasting their time writing a Bill which seemed not to be implementable.
Gen Ngubane continued that the identity number of a person would be disclosed on arrest. The HANIS database was considerably larger than the SAPS system, and if the person was not known to DHA, his or her identity would not be known to SAPS either. There was an investigation into the personnel involved. Once the integrated booking process was established, backed by integrated systems, a DNA profile could be established. Linkages would continue to be made via the fingerprint number and the case number at present.
Gen Ngubane added that the whole process was defined in the business requirement specification. The technical details were complicated.
Gen Ngubane said that question thirteen asked what might hinder the SAPS from implementing the system. A number of risks had been identified and mitigation strategies had been developed. One of the risks was the lack of resources. The strategy was to use the existing SITA strategy, and to develop a tender to ensure that resources were acquired. Hosting capacity limitations had been discussed. This impacted on all SAPS crime systems. SITA had made a proposal on upgrades, and this would be included in the project plan. Network capacity was another risk. Station local area network (LAN) infrastructure would have to be developed. The costs must still be determined. Bandwidth would be increased. Maintenance and alignment of project areas was another risk. A steering committee would address this. A technology user council had been established, which would meet for the first time within a fortnight.
Gen Ngubane said that question fourteen related to the number of database administrators. There were two available currently. If Oracle was the chosen route, there were many resources available.
Gen Ngubane added that question fifteen related to the manager of the process. Brigadier-General Pillay had been appointed. A programme manager would be appointed by the project office.
Gen Ngubane continued with question sixteen on a project team. SAPS regarded implementation of the Bill as a programme with different implementation teams. Each system would have a project manager, under a programme manager. Resources would have the support of SAPS. A service level agreement (SLA) would be concluded.
Gen Ngubane said that question seventeen was about the steering committee. It was chaired by the head of FSL. He listed the senior officers that served on the committee.
Gen Ngubane said that question eighteen was on the costing plan for the new FSL in Pretoria. Planning was under way for this laboratory. There had been a meeting with the head of supply chain management (SCM). Costing was not yet available for submission.
Gen Stefan Schutte, Chief Financial Officer (CFO), SAPS, returned to question one. The detail was needed on the different categories of cost. Members were given a written explanation of the categories of cost.
The Chairperson was irritated that this document had not been submitted earlier. She would allow a brief verbal explanation.
Gen Schutte said that the spreadsheet showed how costing was done. The DNA developmental programme provided a total figure of R1.2 billion. The deployment development component was R147 million. The next heading was deployment, and this amounted to R231 million over three years, and the implementation costs approximately R850 million over the three year period. There would need to be a number of enhancements to the current systems used by SAPS. PCAM was currently under review, but had to be taken into account still. These would amount to R147 million over the period. These were sourced through various agreements, and were funded.
Gen Schutte said that there were certain aspects under employment, including training and proficiency badges. Hardware such as computers and scanners would be needed. The biggest aspect was operational costs, for materials such as the chemicals used during the analysis process. Estimates were at best a projection into the future. There was DNA analysis currently already. A multi-disciplinary team had arrived at the estimate.
Ms D Kohler-Barnard (DA) wanted clarity on the companies listed. She asked if any were under investigation by the Special Investigating Unit (SIU). If so, she asked why these companies were still being used. She was speechless on what was happening. On the meetings between TMS and SITA, it seemed that all had been held once the Bill had already gone to the Committee. It seemed that there had been no preparation, and it smacked of last-minute scrambling. She did not think that SAPS was prepared at all. She was horrified.
Ms A Molebatsi (ANC) asked Gen Ngubane if PCAM was still alive. The headings in the presentation were not descriptive.
Mr V Ndlovu (IFP) asked which of CODIS or SOLVE would be chosen. He asked how the money already spent on SOLVE would be recovered if CODIS was chosen.
Mr M George (COPE) felt that SAPS were still not sure if CODIS would be adopted. This was his impression from previous meetings, but now it seemed that SAPS was undecided. He asked if something had happened in the interim to cast doubt on the system to be adopted. He asked how the systems would be linked.
Ms D Sibiya (ANC) was confused by the answer to question ten. There was no comment on one of the sections.
The Chairperson said that Members seemed to be confused over a number of issues. She was grateful that there was now a cost on the table, but she asked where the money would be sourced. In the FSL environment, the spending on consultants already stood at 213% even though it was just the second quarter of the FY. On 20 June 2012 the National Commissioner (NC) had undertaken to start an investigation into two SAPS contracts. These were for TETRA and PCAM. There were so many add-ons, including SOLVE, that were seen to be illegal. The costs on PCAM had spiralled out of control. She was quoting from a South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) news report after the meeting in 2012. She asked how R8 million could have been spent, and this could be much more, on an undertaking that had been questioned the previous year already. TMS seemed to be in the same situation as the building environment within SAPS.
Gen Ngubane replied that the PCAM contractors included Waymark, which was being investigated in terms of firearm legislation. PCAM was very much alive. There was controversy. There had been a schedule listing many items which did not have anything to do with the PCAM system. SOLVE had been part of the main PCAM contract. Schedule D had been discontinued, and separate contracts had been put in place for these items. PCAM continued, and the system roll-out should commence after the first phase of development was completed. This included software development and the roll-out to the pilot sites. The system would be rolled out to other SAPS stations in the following phase.
Gen Ngubane said that the meetings with SITA, to the best of his knowledge, were to prepare responses to the questions posed by the Committee at the previous presentation. TMS had not known what was required of them in preparing for that meeting. There had been preparations for the DNA Bill since 2009 already. Payments to consultants were not included in the PCAM project, but the company concerned happened to be part of the PCAM contract as well.
Gen Ngubane repeated that while CODIS was a tried and tested solution, it was still necessary for SAPS to see the system at work to uncover any hidden costs and see the system in operation. SAPS had not paid anything for the SOLVE software, but had paid for the design of the database. This pre-dated the PCAM contract. The same design would be used to customise CODIS if that system were chosen.
The Chairperson reminded Gen Ngubane that he had specifically said that R8 million had been spent on SOLVE.
Gen Ngubane apologised. The money was spent on the development of the specifications by consultants. There had been a test period of one month. The specification would be applicable whichever system was chosen. The document developed did not specify a system, but was a user system. The consultants who developed the system had provided SOLVE under the PCAM contract.
The Chairperson said that there was nothing like the proverbial free lunch. The person providing the solution was also providing the specifications. The same people would benefit. This was what the Committee had stressed in previous discussions on buildings and Integrated Technology (IT).
Gen Ngubane could not disagree. He felt that the link between the two systems had been established.
The Chairperson asked why SOLVE had been part of the main contract. PCAM was about exhibit management.
Gen Ngubane had been told that in the negotiations between SAPS and Unisys, SAPS had insisted on a discount. The counter-offer from Unisys was providing SOLVE free of charge.
The Chairperson said that this meant that the discount had not been achieved. In fact, this gift had led to more expense. Members laughed in agreement with this conclusion.
Gen Ngubane said that the acquisition of SOLVE had been part of the process of preparing for the DNA Bill which was in the pipeline. The first draft of the contract was in 2009, and the last in January 2012.
The Chairperson said that SITA had advised SAPS not to continue with SOLVE in 2010 already. There were specifications, but these would need to be redrafted.
Gen Ngubane differed. The specification was neutral and not written for a particular system. Changes in the Bill had led to changes in the specification. The generic processes were not changed.
The Chairperson said that the last draft was in 2012, but the Committee had only started its deliberations in 2013.
Gen Ngubane said that the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) had an electronic system to manage detainees which was related to the SAPS detainee management system. These systems were the subject of a court case.
The Chairperson said that the Committee would call the National Commissioner to account for the decision taken on her request in June 2012.
Gen Schutte said that headings might not be able to encompass a lengthy discussion in a word or two. The Criminal Justice System (CJS) had come to the forefront some years previously. The first aspects of the DNA Bill also emanated from those times. It was all about the analysis of the crime scene. On each detail line the source of funding could be indicated. He would provide the detailed information after the meeting.
The Chairperson asked that this be communicated by email for the benefit of Members.
Ms Kohler-Barnard was trying hard to understand. The Committee had asked how many meetings had been held with SITA in relation to this project. The project was worth about R1.3 billion, but the situation seemed to be utter chaos. She was not satisfied that the project could be implemented. Waymark was under investigation, and she asked why they had been given more work under these circumstances. The SIU was investigating them. The way Gen Ngubane had answered the question suggested that there might be other companies in this position.
Mr D Stubbe (DA) was looking at the deployment programme, specifically training of detectives. Leading up to 2015/16, R5.5 million had been budgeted for training. He asked if this was just for detectives, or if this was just a wild estimate. There were many other aspects which did not add up for him.
Ms Molebatsi said that there was a separate tender on SOLVE. Even after several meetings, SAPS still did not know if this was a legal process or not.
Gen Ngubane replied that there was a detailed project plan worked out with SITA. He believed that SAPS was quite ready, even though some aspects still had to be developed. On the Waymark issue, the investigation was on the firearms control system developed by them. TMS has asked for an opinion on another contract for which Waymark had submitted a bid, but the Legal Services division said that the company could not be excluded until the case was settled. Their involvement in the PCAM contract had started before the SIU investigation had started. He had not expressed an opinion on whether the contract was legal or not.
Gen Schutte replied that there were distribution curves on the developmental side. On recurring costs, it was highly unlikely that there would be a year with no training. The SAPS had a training development programme. There were aspects under forensics and crime investigation. Similar amounts had been provided for these functions. The programmes were lengthy. A number of people had been appointed over the years. DNA training would always involve a budget for training. Operational costs were based on current prices. Chemicals were particularly expensive, and more was being used as the number of cases increased.
The Chairperson said that the training referred to was for SAPS officers on the taking of buccal samples. This had nothing to do with chemicals. Not all new recruits would be trained, as the Bill contemplated a specialised officer. She was worried if SAPS had looked at the Bill when drafting the budget.
Gen Schutte recalled the interaction between SAPS and the Department of Health regarding training on the taking of buccal samples..
The Chairperson said that this would be a four day training session for this function. There would be no analysis of the buccal samples taken as part of this training so no chemicals would be needed in this case. It was clear that there had been no previous planning with all the role players. The dates given showed this. The Committee wanted to see quarterly progress reports. The cost of the Bill could now be included in the Memorandum on the Bill. The legal team must prepare the wording for that part of the Memorandum before Members could vote on it.
The Chairperson was very disappointed with the process leading up to this meeting.
The Chairperson read a letter from the Ministry. The Minister was required to appoint the Head of the Directorate of Priority Crime Investigation (DPCI) and a retired judge to investigate complaints. The Minister had initiated the process to make the appointments. The posts had been advertised in the press. He hoped that the process would be finalised by the end of 2013. He had appointed Judge Essa Moosa to investigate complaints. Justice Moosa had accepted the position and would take office during September 2013.
Adoption of Bill
The Chairperson called on Members to consider the Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) Amendment Bill. A legal opinion had been received.
Major-General Philip Jacobs, SAPS Head of Legal Support and Crime Operations, said that the State Law Adviser (SLA) had looked at the issue of constitutionality and the retrospective application of the Bill. The advocate felt that the principle of retrospective application was not a problem in itself as long as it was explicit in the Act. There can be little doubt that the involuntary taking of a blood sample was an intrusion on the right of a person to bodily integrity. However, the Constitution did permit the limitation on this right in order to combat crime. Such a limitation was necessary in a democratic society in order to ensure that justice was done. This judgement had been made regarding blood samples, but could also be applied to the taking of buccal samples in an involuntary manner in order to combat crime.
The Chairperson was now at ease that the Bill was legally sound. She asked Maj-Gen Jacobs to review the last set of amendments ordered by the Committee.
Maj-Gen Jacobs said that any reference to 'DNA samples' had been changed to 'forensic DNA samples'.
Maj-Gen Jacobs said that clause 1 (a) needed to be amended. The definition of 'authorised officer' should read the South African Police Service officer.
Maj-Gen Jacobs said that there was some repetition in the proposed section 36D of the Criminal Procedure Act, but this was necessary as 36D(1) dealt with mandatory actions and 36D(2) with optional actions. He highlighted a number of other small wording changes.
The Chairperson noted the agreement of Members with the proposed changes. She proposed that the references in the proposed 36E(3) be expanded.
Maj-Gen Jacobs said that 'bodily sample' could be deleted from clause 4(b).
Mr Theo Hercules, SLA, agreed that the clause would read better with this deletion.
Maj-Gen Jacobs said that the Torture Act had been passed recently, and proposed that this be included in the schedule of offences under Schedule 8.
The Chairperson noted the agreement of Members to this proposal. She queried the layout of the new section 225 of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA) as addressed in clause 4.
Mr Hercules said that the final paragraph under section 225 of the CPA would apply to both sub-sections (a) and (b).
Ms C Chili (ANC) asked if torture was being legalised.
The Chairperson said that the Torture Act was meant to prevent this offence, not legalise it.
Maj-Gen Jacobs said that the legal team had considered aspects under the Arrestee Index, which would be the proposed section 15L of the SAPS Act.
The Chairperson agreed that 15L (2) (e) should be moved to the Convicted Offender Index.
Maj-Gen Jacobs proposed a new sub-section (3) under the proposed section 15J. The forensic DNA profile in the Convicted Offender Index must be removed by the authorised officer in the prescribed manner in the case of a successful appeal or review, or when a notice in terms of section 15I (4) was received. If accepted, the following sub-sections and relevant cross-references would have to be adapted.
The Chairperson noted the acceptance of Members of this proposal.
Maj-Gen Jacobs said that in several cases the phrase 'forensic DNA profiles' had been qualified by the phrase 'derived by means of forensic DNA analysis'. He reviewed some other changes requested by Members. The reference to 'unlawfully' in the proposed section 15S should be retained. Loss or damage due to negligence should be dealt with differently to wilful loss or destruction.
Mr Stubbe suggested the word 'purposefully'.
Mr George agreed that 'unlawfully' should be retained. There could be a genuine mistake.
Maj-Gen Jacobs agreed. He understood the intention of the SLA. Some actions were an offence in themselves, but in the case of mistakes there should be some leeway.
The Chairperson noted the agreement of Members. She regretted the absence of the SLA from the discussion. She understood that he was researching a question raised earlier, but this could have been done during the earlier presentation.
Maj-Gen Jacobs confirmed some changes made to the proposed sections dealing with the National Forensic Oversight and Ethics Board. This would include the reporting on any transgression involving illegal communication of DNA information.
The Chairperson proposed a change in the wording of one of the sub-clauses.
Maj-Gen Jacobs read through changes to Clause 7, the Transitional Arrangements.
The Chairperson asked if the four year period implementation period was still relevant. The presentation by Gen Ngubane had referred to a period of 550 days.
Mr Ndlovu was not confident that the target of 550 days would be achieved. He proposed that the period be left at four years.
The Chairperson said that SAPS would be responsible for the samples from remand detainees. This reference must be included. Members agreed with this proposal.
Maj-Gen Jacobs said that the financial implications would be included in the Memorandum on the Objects of the Bill.
The Chairperson was unhappy with the wording of clause 2.1 of the Memorandum. 'Bodily samples' would be more appropriate than 'fingerprints' in the second last sentence of the clause.
Maj-Gen Jacobs read the proposed change to the last sentence of paragraph 2.2 of the Memorandum.
The Chairperson asked if it was necessary to refer to the taking of samples. This was in the Transitional Arrangements and no longer in clause 2 of the Bill.
Maj-Gen Jacobs said that this sentence would be transferred to the paragraph on Transitional Arrangements.
Mr Hercules said that the sentence starting with "The taking of buccal samples..." could be deleted. This matter was addressed in the paragraph on Transitional Arrangements.
The Chairperson noted the agreement of Members to deleting the sentence. She noted that the 'Missing Persons' part of the Missing Persons and Unidentified Human Remains Index had been omitted. There was something wrong with paragraph 2.8. She asked the legal team to check the wording of the paragraph based on some suggestions from Members.
Maj-Gen Jacobs asked for guidance on what figures to include in paragraph 5, which would state the financial implications for the state.
Mr Stubbe suggested that the whole column of figures be included.
Maj-Gen Jacobs felt that the figures presented would suffice.
Mr Hercules said that as long as the department had informed the Committee of the figures, and the Committee was satisfied, that this would be enough.
Mr Stubbe asked what the consequences would be if there was overspending.
The Chairperson said that this paragraph was what the department said the Bill would cost. There should be no reference to the Committee being satisfied.
Mr George said that this would cover the Committee in the event of the figures changing subsequently to the Bill being approved.
Maj-Gen Jacobs was concerned over the contents of paragraph 6. There should be a campaign for the public at large, and for training for SAPS members.
The Chairperson said that past experience had shown the need for an awareness campaign amongst SAPS members.
Ms Kohler-Barnard felt that the reference to 'public at large' was confusing the issue.
The Chairperson agreed to an extent. It did seem that there was an implication for training the public at large. However, the public did need some form of training. A witness at a crime scene should be aware of the need to provide a sample.
Mr George felt that the current wording of the paragraph was correct. Members of the public often interfered with crime scenes.
Mr Stubbe saw nothing in the document on the cost for the training of the public.
The Chairperson said that the question had been asked before. SAPS did budget for communication programmes.
Mr P Groenewald (FF+) said that SAPS could communicate to the public, but could not train the general public. He suggested that there be provision for a communications strategy to the public at large, and training for all role players. This wording was accepted.
Maj-Gen Jacobs read paragraph 7. The Bill should be dealt with by section 75 of the Constitution. There was also no need to refer the Bill to the National House of Traditional Leaders.
The Chairperson asked about page 7.
Mr Hercules said that the provisions for trafficking had been repealed.
The Chairperson said that the lines 49-51 in Schedule 8 could be deleted. She wished to proceed to the clause-by-clause adoption of the Bill.
Ms Kohler-Barnard said that she would have to revert to her party caucus, on the instructions of the Chief Whip.
Mr Groenewald also could not vote on the Bill without reverting to his caucus. He agreed in principle with the Bill, but his party first wished to consider the financial implications.
The Chairperson would not allow another delay to the vote on the Bill. Without participation of Members of the DA and FF+ there was still a quorum. Mr Groenewald left the meeting at this stage.
The Chairperson took Members through the long title. Members were in agreement.
Members agreed on clause 1, as amended during the meeting. Members agreed on clauses 2, 3 and 4 with amendments as agreed during the meeting.
The Chairperson led the meeting through clauses 5 and 6. Some amendments had been made during the meeting. Members were in agreement.
Members agreed on clauses 7 and 8. Members agreed with the Memorandum of Objectives with amendments as tabled during the meeting. Members agreed on the Short Title.
The Chairperson read the Committee report on the Bill. The Committee had considered the Bill.
Ms Molebatsi moved that the Bill be adopted, seconded by Mr George.
The Chairperson thanked the legal team, Members and members of the public for their participation. The Bill was adopted by the Committee. The Committee would meet with the National Commissioner the following day to discuss the proposed SAPS University.
Ms Kohler-Barnard objected. Her party had not been notified and neither DA Member would be able to attend.
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.