Independent Police Investigative Unit (IPID) performance: 2012/13 & 1st Quarter 2013/14

This premium content has been made freely available


10 September 2013
Chairperson: Ms A Van Wyk (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The meeting commenced with a presentation from the Parliamentary Research Unit on the Independent Police Investigative Unit (IPID) financial reports for the 2012/13 financial year and the first quarter of 2013/14. The reports confirmed the continuation of the trend of underspending by IPID as it spent only 86% of its allocation for 2012/13. IPID had reallocated funds primarily from Goods and Services to Compensation. Even with funds being reallocated, IPID did not reach its budget goals and underspent by R26.5 million. For the 2013/14 year, IPID had received a budget increase of 9.6% and the previous year’s reallocation was taken into account as compensation received 61% of the funding. Despite increased spending compared to the previous year, IPID achieved only 19% compared to a target of 25%. For the 2013/14 financial year, it was recommended that the Committee take a more proactive role and that IPID provide the Committee with monthly reports

The IPID delegation then entered and presented its performance report. IPID aimed to reduce underspending by ensuring that fund allocation was done properly and that processes that had slowed them in the past were changed. IPID focused on its intent to fill the many vacant positions within its ranks and the establishment of satellite offices. IPID was working with the Department of Public Works to achieve this, but they were experiencing many delays. The statistics for spending in the first quarter of 2013/14 were reiterated. IPID noted the underspending could be attributed to the delays experienced in filling the vacant positions and the changes they had experienced with its office leases, which included lease related expenses not being reflected in the quarter. IPID was addressing Treasury's concerns by providing it with monthly reports and striving for more accountability.

Members stated that IPID could not continue to blame the Department of Public Works for the underspending was a continuation of past trends. What did the Treasury make of IPID's constant underspending? It was asked why there were so many delays in the hiring of new employees to fill the crucial vacant posts. Members questioned why there was such a high allocation for furniture in the budget. The Committee noted that the funds spent on furniture were spent in February and March and accused IPID of fiscal dumping. They did not accept the responses and reasoning of IPID lightly and requested that the dates of purchasing and delivery be brought to the Committee immediately. It was noted that this was a thorough Committee and they paid attention to every detail presented and viewed IPID’s presentation as being dishonest on many details and their explanations to be lacklustre.

Members expressed concern about the lack of hiring going on at IPID as it seemed to be a major factor for under-expenditure; were the qualified individuals not available? Concern was raised about how many people were in acting positions and whether staff were being compensated for performing extra duties.

The Committee noted its dissatisfaction with the IPID presentation and requested that they meet again to discuss the second quarter performance - which the Committee learnt was also falling behind on financial targets. It was suggested that a change in IPID management may be necessary as it appeared that not enough proactive work was being done and perhaps some were too comfortable in their roles. With tension in the air, the Committee dismissed IPID.

The Committee then reviewed and passed backlogged minutes from 23 April to 20 June 2013.

Meeting report

Parliamentary Research Unit on Independent Police Investigative Unit (IPID) financial reports
The Research Unit began its presentation by stating that it would consist of a summary of the two reports that IPID had sent to the Committee the week prior which dealt with the 2012/13 financial year followed by the first quarter of the 2013/14. IPID was allocated R198 million for 2012/13, the total IPID expenditure for 2012/13 was R171 million which accounted for 86.6% of the allocation.

Programme 1: Administration had received R92.8 million which was in contrast to the R73.4 million that had been appropriated the previous year. Programme 2: Investigation and Information Management received R97.8 million compared to the R78.4 million for  2011/12. Programme 3: Legal Services received an appropriation of R5.3 million which was in contrast to the R1.6 million received the previous year. In terms of spending in the first two quarters of 2012/213, it was important to note that during the first quarter of the year IPID spent only 17% of their budget while the target was 25%. This target was benchmarked by the National Treasury. This type of spending was a continuation of trends established in years past.

It was noted that the Committee was made aware by IPID near the end of 2012 that their budget was misaligned and too much of it had been placed in Goods and Services and too few funds in Compensation. The Committee had approved adjustments to the budget with the understanding that IPID would fill vacancies in their workplace. R6.8 million was moved from Goods and Services in Programme 1 to Compensation of employees in Programme 2. Higher allocations were then afforded to Programme 2 due to these budgeting shifts.

By the end of the third quarter of 2012/13, IPID had managed to spend only 61% of their allocated budget. At that time they were behind in spending by R28.3 million. All programmes reflected underspending by December 2012. Only 299 of 349 available posts were filled by the end of December 2012, this resulted in an overall vacancy rate of 13%. National Treasury had noted that the lack of filled positions in the critical employment sectors, especially investigators, remained a setback for effective service delivery by IPID and should be addressed as a matter of urgency.

IPID ended up with an under expenditure of R26.5 million for 2012/13. All programmes had underspent by the end of the year. Programme 1 spent 93.5% of its budget but this number would have been much lower if the budget was not reallocated and R6.8 million was not send to Programme 2. Programme 2 spent 82.5% of its adjusted allocation; this number was low because the vacant posts touched on previously were not filled. Programme 3 spent only 55.9% of its annual budget. Overall, despite higher spending in the 4th quarter, IPID had managed to spend only 86.6% of its budget. In order to achieve 100% spending they would have had to spend over 40% of their budget in the fourth quarter alone. Very low spending occurred in Goods and Services, despite a significant amount of that budget being shifted out during the reallocation period. Very low spending had occurred in the first and second quarters and then spending was ramped up for the third and fourth. IPID reallocated parts of its budget to Compensation of employees but still did not manage to spend its budget. This demonstrated a problem in that they were unable to fill the vacant positions they had promised they would. Why were funds shifted if they could not be spent?

For the 2013/14 financial year, it was recommended that the Committee take a more proactive role and that IPID provide them with monthly reports. A closer eye had to be kept on IPID spending and plans and targets needed to be met. For 2013/14, IPID had received a budget allocation of R216.9 million, an increase of 9.6% from the previous year. IPID’s core business and largest programme was investigation and information management, which constituted 57% of the total budget. In terms of economic classification, compensation of employees constituted the largest share of the budget at 61%. The Committee should keep in mind that IPID had a history of misaligning their budget and these number might shift as the financial year continued.

At the end of 1st quarter 2013/14, IPID had spent 19.1% of its budget instead of 25%: R41.5 million of the R216.9 million. Compared to the previous year they had managed to spend 2% more in the first quarter but were still short of the goal. They had not met their targets in all but one programme that programme being Legal Services where they had spent 25.5% of the budget. Overall lower than planned spending occurred when breaking down spending by economic classification. Compensation spent 18.8% of its budget, well below the target of 25%. However, higher spending did occur in Machinery and Equipment where 36.4% of the budget was spent.

The Research Unit reiterated concern about IPID underspending in the Investigation and Information Management programme as it was their core business, and in the underspending of Compensation. The concern with Compensation was that IPID had put more money into it  the previous year and then had underspent. It then asked for more money for 2013/14 and were continuing to underspend.

Mr M George (COPE) stated that it was clear that IPID was not working in accordance with the standards set out by Treasury. He asked if senior staff were not feeling the effects of having no permanent superiors as those positions had yet to be filled. Why was IPID not spending the allocated money for Investigation and Information Management when they themselves admit it was their core business?

Ms D Chili (ANC) noted the spending of funds on the compensation of employees. Did the researchers try and find out why the directorate had asked for more funds in this area, and if they still underspent in 2012/13 why had they asked for an increase for 2013/14?

The Research Unit stated that Treasury knew about the underspending by the directorate and it was a serious concern. It was believed that underspending on Programme 2 might be due to the vacancy of some senior management positions that had yet to be filled. In terms of underspending in the third and fourth quarters and asking for more funds for the following year, it was believed that IPID had expected to encounter many claims by employees and many claims by employees planning to leave.

The Chairperson then asked Members to refrain from asking too many questions as they should be saved for IPID delegation. With this IPID delegation was invited into the meeting to present. The Chairperson addressed IPID and stated that they had a lot of explaining to do as the information presented by the Research Unit left Members with many questions. She gave IPID delegation 20 minutes to present.

IPID on its performance in 4th Quarter 2012/13 & 1st Quarter 2013/14
Ms Koekie Mbeki, Acting IPID Executive Director, thanked the Committee for the opportunity to present and introduced the IPID delegation. She began by noting the need to give background information to better understand the presentation.

The Chairperson interrupted and stated that she must manage her time as they were only allotted 20 minutes. Ms Mbeki acknowledged this and said IPID had begun work the previous year to better understand its financial situation and address the problems it had with spending its budget. She attributed underspending to misalignment and flaws in its processes. They were attempting to implement more cost effective methods of operation.

2012/13 financial year
Ms Lindokuhle Cwele, IPID Chief Financial Officer, took over the presentation and noted the 28% increase in budget from 2011/12 to 2012/13 which was to implement the IPID Act, the budget for 2013/14 had an increase of 9.6% from the previous year’s budget. She noted the in-year adjustments that were made in 2012/13 and how they centred on Investigation and Information Management.

The in year adjustments which reallocated funds from Goods and Services to Compensation of employees was done in order to ensure the full implementation of organisational establishment of 349 posts and to fund unplanned payment of leave. IPID then provided the Committee with a breakdown of allocation for 2012/13 sorted by programme and then by economic classification:



Budget % of Final Appropriation


R86.5 million


Investigation and Information Management

R105.9 million


Legal Services

R5.4 million



R197.8 million



Economic Classification


Budget % of Final Appropriation


R104.2 million


Goods and Services

R85.3 million



R2.1 million


Machinery and Equipment

R6.1 million


Payments for financial assets (debts written off)

R0.07 million



R197.8 million


IPID presented its quarterly spending trends for 2012/13, through the first quarter it had spent 17% of its allocated funds, 38% by the end of the second quarter, 60% by the end of the third quarter and spent a total of 87% of its allocated funds by the end of the year. This total figure was R171.4 million. When looking at quarterly spending through an economic classification, IPID spent below its targets on three of five classifications. It had hit its spending targets in transfers and subsidies and in payment for financial assets. Despite the reallocation of its budget to give more funding to compensation of employees it still did not manage to reach 100% spending. Each quarter had a goal of 25% spending, but the first three quarters only managed 17%, 21% and 22% respectively. In the fourth quarter of 2012/13 IPID did put a push on and managed to spend 27% which still left it short of its yearly goals. This increase in spending in the fourth quarter could be due to the payout of performance bonuses as well as late procurement and delivery in the machinery and equipment sector. Ms Cwele noted the abnormal spikes in Quarters Three and Four caused by unplanned leave and the leave settlements that occurred due to officials leaving the public service.

Mr Patrick Setswedi, Director of Finance, Independent Police Investigative Directorate, then presented an explanation of department spending. He stated that many projects were experiencing delays due to the lack of communication from the Department of Public Works. Underspending was of serious concern and part of it was blamed on the delay in filling senior management posts, these unfilled posts led to underspending in the budget for furniture and IT equipment.

Compensation underspent by R8.2 million due to many positions remaining unfilled, this included posts such as one Executive Director and 10 Chief Directors. Goods and Services underspent by R15.4 million due to such factors as leases being less of an expenditure than initially believed and property invoices that had accrued and had not been reported. Machinery and Equipment underspent by R2.8 million due to delays in the establishment of satellite offices and funding related to the vacancies of provincial heads not being spent.

1st quarter of 2013/14 financial year
Again it was noted that the budget for 2013/14 was R216.9 million which was an increase of 9.6%. More funds had been appropriated to Investigation and Information Management and the highest allocation in terms of economic classification was Compensation of employees, which accounted for 61% of the budget. IPID reported that at the end of the first quarter of the 2013/14 spending was only at 19.1% of a targeted 25%. Spending was below target in all economic classifications except for Machinery and Equipment which had spent 36.4% of its budget. The overall underspending was once again blamed on the delays in filling vacant positions and changes in leases.

Ms Cwele provided actions that IPID planned to avoid re-occurrence of underspending - these measures were taken from concerns raised by the Treasury.

The Chairperson interjected and stated that IPID was in no position to cast suspicion on other departments or agencies. The Chairperson felt as though the presentation was a continuation of last year’s and IPID was giving the Committee the same old story. The satellite offices that have yet to be implemented had been in planning for years.

Ms D Sibiya (ANC) began by asking what the delays in filling the open administration posts were.

Mr George asked what the Treasury was telling them in regards to underspending. Does IPID realize the implications of its constant underspending? Why had it reallocated funds and still underspent, what was the point in the first place?

Mr G Lekgetho (ANC) noted that the word “delay” was featured prominently in the presentation, why were there so many delays and could they be minimized?

Mr V Ndlovu (IFP) asked why they had a problem employing qualified people to the vacant posts. If these posts were vacant, why was allocation and spending in compensation increased?

Ms M Molebatsi (ANC) asked why so much money had been allocated to furniture, she quipped that perhaps they were using golden furniture.

The Chairperson noted that one of the reasons for underspending stated in the presentation was late delivery and procurement. She requested the date of that order as well as the dates for the delivery of furniture. What was the purpose of the furniture; was it a method of creative calculation to account for underspending? The Chairperson expressed fleeting patience with IPID as they were on track to have the same underspending results as the previous year.

Ms Mbeki began by addressing the delays in filling vacant administrative positions in that they were mostly referring to the vacancies of the chief director positions as their main problems. Despite these positions not being filled, there was still plenty of movement within the organisation as many were being promoted from within. She noted that IPID did not have control over the hiring of the Chief Director as that was a decision that had to be made by the Minister. The National Treasury was aware of its spending figures and IPID had requested that Treasury give them more time to align its budget and spending.

The Chairperson interjected and stated that IPID was not telling them what Treasury was saying.

Mr Setswedi stated that the Treasury had expressed obvious concern and said that this underspending would influence its future allocations. But he said IPID was addressing Treasury's concerns by providing it with monthly reports and striving for more accountability.

Ms Mbeki further explained the vacancies in IPID, saying they were in the process of screening and interviewing candidates to fill some vacancies. She noted that there were resignations and dismissals as well which accounted for higher figures of vacancies. Directors were lost in the Eastern Cape and they had lost the Chief Director of Investigation.

Ms Cwele explained that new furniture had to be procured for the new positions, this included new computers and IT equipment, and this was reflected in the budget allocation. However the underspending in this regard can be accounted to late procurement and delivery, she offered to provide the Committee with the written dates of procurement.

She was interrupted by the Chairperson who asked if the date could be given to the Committee immediately.

Ms Cwele replied that they did not have the information on them.

The Chairperson requested that they send someone to find the dates immediately as they had brought a large delegation. Someone should be able to do this. She added that the entire presentation seemed dishonest. With this a tea break was called to give IPID a moment to get the dates requested.

Upon returning, IPID presented the dates of procurement and stated that the majority occurred in February and March.

The Chairperson noted that these dates all occurred at the end of the fiscal year which led her to state that something was off about this; she asked how many hires the furniture was for?

Mr Setswedi stated that it was just an order and they might not be able to give the full numbers.

The Chairperson interjected and with annoyance asked again how many people was the furniture for?

IPID had created 34 positions.

The Chairperson asked of those 34 positions, how many had been filled? Why had the ordering been done in February and March, was this a case of fiscal dumping?

Out of the 34 positions, 22 appointments had been made.

Mr Setswedi explained that old furniture had been replaced for existing employees and new boardroom furniture was procured as well.

Mr Ndlovu stated that the Committee had received many different answers to their questions and wondered which one should be taken as the true story. Why had they increased this type of spending in February and March, should we just presume that it was fiscal dumping?

The Chairperson noted her disappointment in IPID, IPID should know that the Committee listens to and examines every word and slide. In its presentation it had differentiated between furniture and computers but in its explanations to the Committee, it had placed both under a blanket term. This was a dishonest practice and she believed that IPID was becoming like SAPS. To the Committee, these figures looked like fiscal dumping and they would bring it up accordingly with the Treasury.

Ms Cwele stated that it was not a case of fiscal dumping rather a case of late procurement.

Mr Ndlovu interjected and stated that this could not be blamed on planning as one cannot employ a person to an empty room. He believed that late procurement was a poor excuse.

The Chairperson stated that no one would ever see this Committee saying that IPID needs more funds as its presentation demonstrated that they could not even manage to spend what they had been allocated, and they spent it on the wrong things. The Committee wanted the number of posts that were filled in the previous financial year, the dates of procurement, what was procured, how much it cost and for what - by the end of the following day.

Ms Molebatsi then asked why they had brought such a large delegation. Why did IPID investigators not have ID cards, how did they identify themselves?

Mr Ndlovu asked about the implication of those who were in acting positions in the provinces. What kind of results were these temporary employees bringing?

The Chairperson cited that one of the reasons given for underspending was that people were "acting", how much were these people being paid? Was this another creative way to account for underspending?

Ms Cwele noted that investigators had identification documents but did not have ID cards as they were still to be developed to ensure technological sophistication. IPID needed to reshuffle the acting arrangements as they did not want anyone in an acting position for over 12 months. To ensure this they have different people acting at different intervals. Some posts had been vacant since the previous year because it was deemed that ensuring the right person was hired was of great importance. These positions were primarily the nine head of province positions and the Executive Director.

Funds were not properly allocated the previous year which led to misalignment and misclassification, this was because budgeting was done in the head office and thus did not speak directly to the spending measures of the organisation.Those in acting roles were being paid an allowance.

The Chairperson stated that she wanted the actual difference between acting and permanent employees per its positions.

Mr Setswedi explained that in some cases the people who were acting were doing so one level above their regular job and that difference was accounted for.

The Chairperson asked for clarification and asked if she was correct in saying that if someone was a Director but was acting as a Chief Director they would be paid the Director salary but given an allowance which was equal to the Chief Director. An example would be if the Director was paid 1000 and the Chief Director was paid 1500, the Director who was then acting as chief director was given a further 500 to compensate for this.

Mr George stated that these posts must be filled and this type of arrangement must stop. He suggested that the Committee give IPID a concrete timeframe to fill them.

The Chairperson reminded Members that the chief director position must be appointed by the Minister. She then shifted her focus to the satellite offices that had yet to be established, the Committee was waiting on these offices for the past two years. The Committee was tired of hearing IPID blaming the Department of Public Works.

Ms Cwele stated that the previous year’s delays were due to delays in Public Works, and it was in DPW hands. However IPID had taken some initiative and engaged the provincial government in Mpumalanga. Meetings had occurred with other provinces to determine the availability of space for offices. At the moment IPID was ensuring that they would be able to work well within the space required.

The Chairperson asked whether this was the route they intended to pursue in the future, as if this was the case the Committee would contact the Treasury to cut the money that was going to go towards working with the Department of Public Works.

Ms Cwele continued that it was helpful to work with provincial governments but IPID had not withdrawn its request from Public Works.

The Chairperson asked where IPID stood with the issue of the head office. IPID had stated that there was nothing wrong with renting the office, if this was the case when was it going to be resolved.

Ms Cwele replied that they were looking at various options on how to be accommodated but they were still waiting for aspects to fall into place.

The Chairperson stated that the Committee was tired of hearing that IPID was waiting for Public Works. When was the last time they had met with Public Works?

Ms Cwele noted that they had a meeting with Public Works at the start of the previous year, but since then they had written many times. They could not continue their progress when Public Works was not responding, IPID was told that there was a backlog of departments waiting to work with Public Works and that getting meetings with them had proven difficult.

The Chairperson made it clear that the Committee was not satisfied with IPID as the measures it put in place were not working. IPID would be called back after the second quarter because it was clear that there was a problem. She suggested to the Committee that they write to Minister in order to speed up the appointments of Chief Directors. The Committee expected to receive a breakdown of the aforementioned late procurements, this was IPID’s chance to show the Committee that this was where the blame for underspending could be placed as stated in its presentation. In terms of the job vacancies and who had filled them and would be filling them in the future, the Committee wanted month to month reports. She continued that Treasury needed to get involved with IPID and assist with financial management. She requested that IPID present them an estimate of its second quarter expenses.

Mr Setswedi stated that they had a target of 42% spending and estimated it would achieve 31%, it would underspend by 11%.

The Chairperson expressed her frustration, saying that IPID’s underspending had a snowball effect. She noted her disappointed in the management of IPID and asked how it expected to achieve different results when it did not change its methods. Perhaps a change in management was necessary, as it seemed some people were too comfortable and were not worrying about the impact of their actions. She stated that it had been an unpleasant meeting and IPID management only had themselves to blame. IPID was asked to leave so that members could adopt minutes.

The Committee then reviewed and passed backlogged minutes from 23 April to 20 June 2013.

The Chairperson stated that she had been informed that the crime statistics were to be released on 17 September and that it was something they had been waiting for. The Commissioner was scheduled to attend a meeting with the Committee that day but it would not be possible if the crime statistics were being presented to the media. It was suggested that the meeting be rescheduled to ensure that the Commissioner was present at the meeting.

Meeting adjourned

Share this page: