The Committee met with the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) for a progress report on implementing the recommendations of the Farlam Judicial Commission of Inquiry. IPID’s Acting Executive Director and the IPID lead investigator for Marikana gave a thorough briefing on which of the Farlam Commission recommendations had a bearing on IPID’s mandate; IPID’s initial investigation prior to the Farlam Commission; the implementation approach for the recommendations and a detailed overview of the progress made. The briefing concluded with a look at the preliminary outcomes of the investigation and challenges faced.
The Committee held an extensive discussion on the briefing emphasising the need for IPID’s independence as was highlighted in the Farlam Commission – this discussion stemmed from the fact that the IPID task team included SA Police Service (SAPS) experts. Members were unequivocal that this could not be the case and that SAPS should stay far away from these investigations. Assurance was needed that there would also be political independence and impartiality with the investigation free from any political pressure. Other concerns were raised about the IPID budget and that other strategic objectives of the Directorate not be compromised. Members asked if there was a contingency plan should the investigation extend beyond its expected deadline given unexpected challenges such as uncooperative witnesses and defaced scenes or scenes that no longer existed. Questions were raised on the nature of the cooperation between IPID, SAPS and the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), cases relating to defeating the ends of justice and if IPID had sufficient investigators in terms of numbers and quality. The Committee asked if there could be more dockets/charges added as the investigation progress. There was an appreciation of the prosecution-led approach and for the progress made so far. The Committee noted the issue was a litmus test for oversight of SAPS and to ensure that a tragedy like Marikana did not occur again. The Committee would receive another progress report in mid-calendar year.
IPID then briefed the Committee on systemic corruption in SAPS – the presentation covered the structure of the Directorate’s National Specialised Investigating Team (NSIT) and reporting on systemic corruption from 2012/13 – 2015/16 before getting into the statistical report on systemic corruption for these years in terms of total case workload across the provinces and the status of systemic corruption cases as of 28 January 2016.
The Committee highlighted that the briefing lacked information on prosecutions and convictions. The Committee was concerned that the presentation showed a province like the Western Cape had zero cases of systemic corruption yet high ranking members were recently arrested. Other questions included whether IPID investigated a case of a SAPS tow truck being used for personal use in Gauteng, if there were incidents of collusion between IPID investigators and SAPS members and collaboration between IPID and other institutions and possible overlap of mandates. The Committee recommended that perhaps IPID’s Systemic Corruption Strategy be reviewed to ensure everyone understood what was expected of them, cooperation with other institutions occur through Memoranda of Understanding to ensure there was independence and clear guidelines on mandates and that the Directorate’s Annual Performance Plan reflect thematic projects to address the focal issue of systemic corruption.
IPID then responded to the Committee’s Budgetary Review and Recommendation Report (BRRR) by presenting a detailed report on the implementation of the Committee’s recommendations on Auditor-General audit findings, under-spending, vacancies, performance rewards and training.
Members were pleased with the quality report-back which they said was a good example for how other departments should respond to the BRRR. Questions were raised on the purpose of the crime resolving course , number of posts filled or still outstanding; graduate recruitment on a short term basis to boost IPID skills capacity for research and trends analysis; and related to this, partnerships with universities.
IPID progress report on implementation of Farlam Commission Recommendations
Mr Israel Kgamanyane, IPID Acting Executive Director, noted the Farlam Judicial Commission was appointed by the President on 23 August 2012 in terms of Proclamation No. 50 of 2012 to “…Investigate matters of public, national and international concern arising out of the tragic incidents at the Lonmin Mine in Marikana in the North West Province from Saturday 11th August to Thursday 16th August 2012 which led to the deaths of approximately 44 people, more than 70 persons being injured, approximately 250 people being arrested and damage and destruction of property…. “. Following the release of the Farlam Judicial Commission of Inquiry Report on its findings and recommendations by President Zuma on 25 June 2015, IPID was mandated to implement some of the recommendations that had a bearing on its constitutional and legislative mandate.
Two of the recommendations had a bearing on IPID’s mandate:
(a) Chapter 12: The events that occurred on Thursday, 16 August 2012 at Scene 2, Sub-section “J: Referral and Recommendations”: “It is recommended that for the purposes of the investigation, a team is appointed, headed by a Senior State Advocate, together with independent experts in the reconstruction of crime scenes, expert ballistic and forensic pathologist practitioners and Senior Investigators from IPID, and any such further experts as may be necessary. The Commission recommends a full investigation, under the direction of the Director of Public Prosecutions, with a view to ascertaining criminal liability on the part of all members of the South African Police Service who were involved in the events at scene 1 and 2”.
(b) Chapter 25: Recommendations, Sub-section “G: Accountability”: “The staffing and resourcing of IPID should be reviewed to ensure that it is able to carry out its functions effectively. (This will be dealt with through the Ministry of Police with IPID contributing to the appointed International Panel of Experts).
In terms of IPID’s initial investigation, pre-Farlam Commission, it was important to mention that during the month of August 2012, IPID commenced with the investigation of the incidents that the Farlam Judicial Commission of Inquiry was mandated to probe. However, the IPID investigation was kept in abeyance to allow the Commission to conclude its business. In terms of the implementation approach to the Farlam Commission’s recommendations, IPID adopted a project-based approach to the implementation of the recommendations, particularly with regard to Recommendation J4 on the need for further investigations. The estimated duration of investigations was 9 months (July 2015 - March 2016) due to the complexities of the investigations. Estimated project cost was R5 million (within the Directorate’s current budget baseline for 2015/16). The investigation commenced on 7 July 2015.
Mr Joel Mosimanagape, IPID Provincial Head: North West and Marikana Investigator, took the Committee through the summary of progress made on the implementation of Farlam Commission recommendations before delving into a detailed progress report on implementation of the recommendations. Members were informed of the composition of the appointed task team. In terms of pre-investigation activities/preparations:
(i) The IPID investigation team studied the content of the Farlam Commission;
(ii) The team members secured all information gathered during the Farlam Commission of Inquiry, in order to have an intelligence-driven investigation;
(iii) This resulted in the compilation of 22 lever arch files on all evidence relating to Scenes 1 and 2 on 16 August 2012; the incident of 13 August 2012 where three civilians and two police officers were killed and the case where a Councillor was shot by SAPS on 15 September 2012 and passed away in October 2012.
In this detailed overview of the outcomes, status and key actions completed were the following milestones:
1. Institutionalising structures for carrying out investigations
2. Pre-investigation preparations:
2.1 Adoption of investigation strategy, approach and allocation of human resources.
3. Commencement of investigation of the incident of 16 August 2012 at Scene 2
4. Commencement of investigation of the extra-ordinary meeting of SAPS National Management Forum (NMF) held on 15 August 2012
5. Commencement of investigation of the 13 August 2012 incident - investigations were still on-going, the task team handed decision-ready files to and was awaiting directives from the National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) about the Scene 1 and 2 incident (22 lever arch files); National Commissioner and the then North West Provincial Commissioner; 13 August 2012 incident; and Councillor’s Case.
6. Commencement of investigation of the Marikana incident councillor’s case
Mr Mosimanagape spoke about the preliminary outcomes of the investigations:
(a) Investigation of the Incident of 16 August 2012 at Scene 2: IPID registered a case file against Maj. Gen. Naidoo for allegedly defeating the ends of justice as per CCN2016010070 based on the effect of his action which included his failure to exercise command and control at scene 2. He belatedly submitted his own firearm for investigation by the ballistic experts and that the paramedics under his protection were diverted to scene 2 instead of giving medical attention at scene 1.
(b) Investigation of the extra-ordinary meeting of SAPS National Management Forum held on 15 August 2012: the investigation team opened a case file against Brig. Malahlela for allegedly defeating the ends of justice as per CCN2016010079, contravention of Section 4(1)(b)(dd) of the Protection of Information Act of 1982. In that, she failed to secure recordings of the extra-ordinary meeting of SAPS NMF.
In terms of challenges, it was noted that any delays with investigations were mainly due to the hostile attitude and uncooperativeness of witnesses. Budgetary constraints remained a challenge. Despite this, the investigations were ongoing.
The Chairperson commented that should it be necessary, ballistics experts used in this investigation should be independent. R5 million was a large amount in terms of the Directorate’s budget - could IPID provide assurance that other strategic objectives would be met? He questioned the capacity of IPID in executing its mandate – did the Directorate address statements and amending procedures in line with recommendations by the Judge? In the presentation, diplomatic reference was made to the IPID-SAPS meeting on 6 August 2015 where working procedures were discussed but consensus was not reached due to technicalities – he asked if these issues had been sorted out and if not, what assistance the Committee could provide.
Mr Kgamanyane, on the last question, noted that SAPS actually requested the meeting after the task team was established. The issue was about investigations going through SAPS which IPID objected to – the IPID Act was clear that the Directorate could approach witnesses directly and request information directly. In terms of capacity and resources, IPID would make use of what it had at the moment at its disposal. Some matters within the Directorate’s control was being dealt with such as the up scaling of investigators. However, capacity in the form of human resources and budget was outside the control of IPID unless Treasury stepped in. IPID lobbied that the expansion strategy should have a footprint in all district and municipal offices around the country – funding of this strategy was now the issue but it was well researched, costed and signed off by the Minister of Police before being sent to Treasury.
Ms A Molebatsi (ANC) questioned the minutes which had disappeared and if someone had been held accountable? Was Mr Mashaba now off the hook or what was happening? She asked if the Directorate received updates on the cases handled by the NPA and if so, what the current situation was.
Mr Kgamanyane replied that IPID was with the NPA every step of the way on a daily basis. There was contact and regular engagement through meetings so progress was received almost on a daily basis. If there were mattters for IPID to attend to, the NPA would make this known.
Mr Mosimanagape explained that IPID had met with Mr Mashaba. On the minutes which had disappeared, a case was registered against Brig. Ledile Malahlela for contravention of a section of the Protection of Information Act of 1982 and specifically for neglecting to take proper care of the memory stick which had the information for the particular meeting in question. The case was opened after consultation with the NPA.
Mr L Ramatlakane (ANC) appreciated the work done so far in mapping out the investigation and the progress already made – he thought the Committee should support this kind of work. With the scene which no longer in existence and the scene which had been defaced, would this be a barrier to scene reconstruction? He was not quite clear about the cases of defeating the ends of justice and their applicability in terms of information. Given the barriers of uncooperative witnesses and the timeline of completion adding to slow progress, would the work be finished within the period stipulated? This was in addition to resources which were already stretched.
Mr Kgamanyane replied the presentation indicated that the lever arch files were given to the NDPP as it was a prosecutorial driven investigation – the NDPP was with IPID every step of the way and was studying the files and dockets produced. The NPA could indicate the need for additional charges which IPID could add to a particular case.
Mr Mosimanagape explained that Scene 1 was no more because there were already buildings constructed there so there would be a reconstruction of the scene. IPID met from time to time with experts who were on the scene at the time of the crime. On Scene 2, although it was defaced, there were photographs of the scene immediately after the incident, before it was defaced. At the last meeting between IPID and the NPA, the NPA suggested that to ensure the loophole of already defaced scenes was closed, the crime scene and ballistics experts should combine their sketches. IPID would however return to the crime scene with the assistance of some of the witnesses who could still remember. The alleged defeating the ends of justice by Gen. Naidoo was due to his not reporting the use of his firearm and paramedics failing to attend to Scene 1, as indicated in the Farlam Commission.
The Chairperson appealed that if there was anything based on the merits of the specific cases, that it not be divulged to the Committee as it was with the NPA for submission to the courts.
Mr Z Mbhele (DA) was concerned about the inclusion of SAPS ballistic and crime scene experts on the task team. One of the findings of the Farlam Commission related to IPID’s reliance on the ability of SAPS experts which compromised and negated the independence and impartially of the IPID investigation. It seemed to be that the use of SAPS experts in this task team was a replication of the fundamental deficiency found by the Commission. Simply put, these experts should not be on the task team and instead there should be independent, private experts. What was the reason for including these experts because it was glaringly problematic if one understood the letter and spirit of the Commission recommendations on this point? He understood the need for high-level liaison mechanisms with SAPS to facilitate cooperation but in the actual nuts and bolts of the investigating team, SAPS should be nowhere near it or allowed to touch it with a 10ft pole. He wanted to know who kept the video footage viewed by the different institutions over 25 and 26 August 2015 because he saw from the presentation that the viewing happened in a SAPS provincial office in Potchefstroom. This suggested the video was being kept there and if so, that would be highly problematic. Budget constraints were understandable but were there any attempts in the run up to the budget adjustment period to improve the resource allocation for the task team to ease the financial pressure. He asked if there was contingent preparation in the budget for the coming financial year for the task team in case the investigation ran beyond its timeframe of March 2016 which he thought was very likely given hostile witnesses and other delays that had already cropped up. It was also in the nature of investigative work that there were always variables which one could not account for and caused delays.
Mr Kgamanyane replied that the 2016 budget would be adjusted and reprioritised should the need occur to take care of the investigation as a priority. The end date of the investigation did not anticipate issues relating to uncooperative witnesses. Other strategic objectives of the Directorate would not be compromised in respect of daily operation of all the programmes – there would be a balancing of the scales so that there were equal efforts for all investigations of IPID. With the experts in the task team, in SA there were only two independent ballistic experts, one in Durban and the other in Pretoria. Making use of these experts came with a cost but these concerns would be taken into consideration. Another issue was that the equipment used by these experts did not come close to the advanced equipment SAPS had. There were issues relating to budget and equipment with SAPS saying no independent experts would be allowed to use their equipment so this presented a dilemma. His understanding was that IPID had all the video footage from the different media houses. He added IPID was in possession of all the video viewed on the day in question.
The Chairperson asked if IPID had enough investigators for the project or if more hands were needed from the provinces. With the expansion strategy, Treasury had not approved it yet so was IPID confident this would be met in terms of this project and the meeting of other strategic objectives? He still had a question outstanding from the first round on amendment of statements and whether this was effected or implemented. Could the Committee expect, going forward, that more dockets and charges would be opened?
Mr Kgamanyane was confident that the strategic objectives would not be compromised but that targets would be met. Almost all strategic objectives of the Directorate were being met even with the challenges experienced with resources.
Mr Mosimanagape said the issues of the statements were rectified. There was the possibility of more charges and dockets as the investigation continued.
Ms Molebatsi asked if IPID was sure about the quality of the investigators and what was expected from them. Would the submission to the Commission assist in securing prosecutions?
Mr Kgamanyane responded that IPID had seven of the best investigators and there was recruitment of investigators with specialised skills for NSIT – this was almost at full capacity with only post not filled. Prosecution would depend on the evidence there was and whether there was a prima facie case.
Mr Ramatlakane sought more clarity on the scenes of the incidents which were defaced and no longer existed – was IPID aware of what happened because it was a fundamental part of the case. With the budget for the new financial year, IPID had a small budget anyway. He asked if this unfunded mandate would be taken care of in terms of consideration of an amount. There also must be funding for the experts as was highlighted in the previous round of discussions. He felt there were clear instructions to keep matters “clean”. It reminded him of the era of the bad old days where there was often disappearance of items and people. He wanted to note these issues as food for thought for IPID going forward.
Mr Kgamanyane replied that he took on board the advice and would ensure, going forward, there was movement in this direction. With the scenes, IPID began investigations but had to stop to allow the Commission space. IPID was never consulted about the shacks built on the scene but the photos of the scenes and the post-mortems and their photos would assist the Directorate. There were also sketches of the now defaced scenes.
Mr Mbhele appreciated the prosecution-led approach which had proven to be fruitful in many contexts and different models. In terms of the budget, were the budget costs primarily for personnel salaries or was it primarily operational expenses? It was known that there were dimensions of Marikana that had political implications – he sought an assurance that there was political independence and impartiality and that there was no political pressure, no matter how subtle or covert, so as to ensure the integrity of the investigation.
Mr Kgamanyane answered that he never experienced any political interference in the investigations of IPID. IPID conducted its investigations independently and without fear or favour. At the end of an investigation, there needed to be a report on whether there was substance to the allegations and whether there was a prima facie case as in all IPID matters. This report would be for everyone to see. Expenditure covered both that for employees and operational costs i.e. for the task team members and experts. During November adjustments, IPID made a bid for the funding of the Marikana investigation to Cabinet, after getting buy-in from the Minister. Treasury disapproved this but it did not deter IPID from continuing with the investigation and ensuring there was re-prioritisation and use of some savings in the existing budget.
Mr Mbhele questioned reference made in the presentation to “registering case files” – did this mean IPID opened its own internal file for further investigation and when finalised it either went to SAPS for disciplinary action or to the NPA for prosecution.
Mr Mosimanagape answered this was correct but pointed out that some of the files could be a case docket.
The Chairperson concluded by noting that the Committee was pleased there was progress on the matter. He understood this was a very difficult matter to pursue but it was important that SAPS cooperated with IPID to ensure proper investigation was being done. The Committee thought it critical that the recommendations of the Farlam Commission be implemented – this also meant no compromises on using an independent ballistics expert to ensure counterbalances in the process. IPID was under scrutiny and the investigation was a litmus test for oversight of SAPS to ensure the Marikana tragedy should never happen again – everything must be done to address the challenges and that further steps were taken so that moving forward, SAPS operated within the parameters of the Constitution. There would another progress briefing in the middle of 2016. It was important that if any challenges were experienced, the Committee should be alerted.
IPID briefing on Police Systemic Corruption
Mr Kgamanyane noted that IPID’s mandate to investigate cases of systemic corruption was informed by Section 28(2) of the IPID Act, No.1 of 2011, which stated that, “The Directorate may investigate matters relating to systemic corruption involving the police”. IPID’s Systemic Corruption Strategy (2013) defined systemic corruption as:“Systemic Corruption can be defined as an institutionalised, endemic manipulation of a system by individuals or networks/organisations, taking advantage of weaknesses in the process and systems for illicit gains, where there are leadership deficiencies, collusion and/or abuse of power”. Until recently, there had been no dedicated structure that existed for the investigation of systemic corruption, despite its complex nature and the social and economic impact it had on society. In 2014/15, a National Specialised Investigation Team (NSIT) was established and was dedicated to the investigation of systemic corruption within SAPS/Metro Police Service (MPS). NSIT had a staff complement of 17. In terms of vacancy status, the post of a Principal Investigator (PI) was re-advertised with a closing date of 22 January 2016 – recruitment and selection for the post was underway.
The Committee was taken through the structure of the NSIT. In terms of planning and reporting on systemic corruption since 2012/13, systemic corruption cases had been registered on and the reports were generated from the electronic case management system (Flowcentric). In 2013/14, the Directorate introduced two indicators under its Programme 2: Investigation and Information Management” to measure its performance through the Annual Performance Plan. These two indicators are:
- Number of systemic corruption cases identified and referred for approval
- Number of systemic corruption cases that are decision ready
Mr Sam Kgomo, IPID Acting Director: Programme Two, presented a statistical report on systemic corruption 2012/13 – 2015/16: IPID had registered a total of 30 systemic corruption cases since the implementation of the IPID Act in April 2012. Out of the 30 cases registered, six cases were identified in 2012/13, 12 cases in 2013/4, five cases in 2014/15 and seven cases in 2015/16. Of the 30 cases registered, 14 cases were still active while seven cases were decision ready and nine were closed.
Mr Kgomo noted the provincial breakdown of the 30 cases, highlighting that most of the cases were in the Free State (seven), one case was in the North West while there were zero cases in the Western Cape. In terms of the status of these cases as at 28 January 2016, one case was decision ready in the Free State, one case was decision ready in Limpopo, and three cases were decision ready in the Northern Cape.
The Chairperson questioned why information relating to successful prosecutions was missing – how many cases were reported to the NPA? The Committee also need to see the Directorate’s Systemic Corruption Strategy – the Committee had requested this already. He noted the fact that there were zero cases in the Western Cape while there were arrests of high ranking members at the level of senior management last year in the province including for the selling of dockets – a strategy from the side of IPID was really needed to deal with this.
Mr Kgamanyane replied that the Strategy, which was effective from April 2013, was under review as of 1 April 2016 but it would be provided to the Committee. The information on convictions could be provided.
The Chairperson asked that this information be provided by next week.
Ms Molebatsi highlighted that last year there was a SAPS tow truck used for personal use in Gauteng – she asked if IPID investigated this case and if so, what the situation was. She asked if there were incidents of IPID investigators colluding with SAPS members on certain cases. Where there were few or zero cases registered, was this attributed to the good work of IPID or that the Directorate was not known in that area? One of the Committee’s recommendations for the capacitation of IPID investigators was to investigate international qualifications – had this been initiated?
The Chairperson noted that there would be a presentation on the training next week.
Mr Robbie Raburabu, IPID Acting Spokesperson, said the case of the tow truck was not investigated by IPID – as far as he knew it was investigated by SAPS themselves through a departmental process. He was not sure of the outcome of the matter.
Mr Ramatlakane asked what was meant by “decision ready cases” and what was reflected by the fact that there were zero cases in the Western Cape. He felt this could not reflect that there was no systemic corruption as there were arrests in the province recently. He questioned collaborative efforts, particularly in dealing with crime intelligence, because it might take a while until the skills were available in-house.
Mr Kgamanyane explained that decision ready cases were cases where matters were finalised and the finalised report could be sent to the NDPP to decide on matters relating to prosecution or disciplinary in the case of SAPS– the terminology was used to match SAPS term of trial-ready dockets. With the zero cases in the Western Cape, there had been a misunderstanding about the identification of systemic corruption matters but after discussion everyone was now on the same page. In terms of collaboration, there was cooperation with Crime Intelligence and the State Security Agency (SSA) provincially and nationally. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was just signed with the SSA nationally – finalisation of the MOU was facilitated by the Civilian Secretariat for Police (CSP) and the Hawks (DPCI). With the Hawks, there was an overlap of mandate with IPID on investigation of corruption matters but there was now clarity on which matters would be investigated by whom. There was a draft MOU with SA Revenue Service (SARS) and the Special Investigating Unit (SIU). Finalisation of these MOUs was with Legal Services.
Mr Mbhele questioned information on cases resulting in successful convictions. He asked if there was a link between the set of 30 identified cases and the results of the last criminality audit in SAPS or if IPID had its own updated figures. It would be a failure not to connect the dots between SAPS findings and what IPID picked up in terms of its own mandate. Did the corruption cases in SAPS relate mainly to procurement / supply chain fraud and or was there something else? He asked if there was perhaps an analysis as to why the bulk of cases were located in just two provinces, Free State and the Northern Cape. The findings on trend analysis could provide more insight on where to further focus.
Mr Kgmanyane responded that IPID had its own figures on criminality as did SAPS. IPID dockets were finalised in court and then the information was used to update SAPS numbers on convicted SAPS members and IPID’s own Flowcentric system. On the bulk of cases being within Free State and the Northern Cape, an analysis had still to be done. He reiterated the misunderstanding in the Western Cape. Northern Cape and Free State understood what was expected of them in terms of identification of cases of systemic corruption better than the other provinces. He would return with a breakdown of the figures on how many closed matters resulted in convictions or acquittals.
Mr P Mhlongo (EFF) was concerned about KZN because the presentation made it seem as if the province was some holy place while one knew many corruption cases were located there. SAPS members were even supplying weapons to communities and there were a number of police recruited into multinational corporations. If the IPID mandate was to deal with corruption where was the link with the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (DPCI) as the mandate was multi-dimensional in nature?
Mr Kgamanyane agreed with the sentiments about KZN, but the accuracy of the state of affairs there would improve along with that of the Western Cape.
Mr Kgomo added that there was overlap in the investigation of corruption between IPID and the DPCI but IPID dealt only with cases involving SAPS and MPS.
Mr Thabo Thokolo, IPID Provincial Head: Western Cape, spoke to challenges in the province where there indeed were corruption cases. It was found that station commanders were reporting cases to DPCI and not IPID but, through engagement, some of the cases were now being reported directly to IPID. There were cases of corruption against SAPS members but the emphasis was on cases that were systemic in nature.
The Chairperson reiterated that the Committee needed a copy of IPID’s Systemic Corruption Strategy because if there was confusion from the provinces perhaps Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) needed to be amended to critically ensure operational clarity. He was concerned about cooperation with SAPS institutions. IPID was independent and must act in line with the IPID Act. In the event of such cooperation there must be MOUs to ensure that there were clear guidelines between IPID and the other institutions. The Committee needed the assurance that where there was cooperation there was indeed the necessary MOUs in place to ensure the independence of IPID at all times and roles were not blurred. This was critical. Perhaps thematic projects should be launched on a national level to target specific areas – it would be good if IPID could focus on a few themes per financial year and for these themes to be part of strategic objectives. It was a firm recommendation of the Committee that in IPID’s Annual Performance Plan (APP), going forward, the identification of those themes which would address systemic corruption.
Mr Kgamanyane took note of these comments. IPID was in the process of getting these particular MOUs in place with the institutions, namely, DPCI, Crime Intelligence, SSA, SARS and the SIU. With some of the institutions MOUs were signed but with others, legal services from both sides were dealing with the matters. The Strategy would be sent to the Committee and it would be assured that each and every province and its staff members were on the same page as far as understanding what was expected of them.
IPID Responses to the Budget Review and Recommendations Report (BRRR) 2014/15
Ms Lindelwa Nonjaduka, Strategy and Performance Specialist, went through a summary of IPID’s submission status. There were 18 actions required and IPID had responded to all 18.
An example of the detailed report provided by Ms Nonjaduka were the audit findings of the Auditor-General (AG) and an Action Plan prepared by IPID to address these audit findings (such as material misstatements), including action steps, timeframes and target. In its response to this, the IPID Finance Unit in conjunction with National Treasury and the Office of the Auditor-General, conducted a financial statements training session on 8 December 2015 and provided guidance to relevant staff on the contents of the financial statements and required information. The discussion focused on the quality improvement of Disclosure Notes to financials, Expenditure and Commitment compliance registers as well as a standardised approach for reporting. Action responses were similarly outlined for under-spending, vacancies, performance rewards and the City Forum lease contract. Other areas addressed included station lectures to create awareness on police professionalism, linkages of statistical information, training, torture cases and trend analysis.
In conclusion, the Directorate will keep to the quarterly and monthly reporting obligations to the Committee, update the Committee about the outcome for the 2014/15 performance reviews and update the Committee about the outcome of the City Forum Lease matter.
The Chairperson noted that the Committee did not receive a copy of the presentation – protocol was that documentation be sent to the Committee’s secretariat so that Members could peruse the information prior to the meeting. He welcomed the approach of the Directorate and thought its audit response report was a good example for other departments on how to respond to the BRRR.
Ms Molebatsi agreed that it was important that Members receive documents ahead of the meeting to enable them to go through them beforehand. She asked where and for what crimes the crime resolving course would be used.
Mr Kgamanyane explained the crime resolving course was a basic detective training course for all entry-level investigators.
Mr Ramatlakane also appreciated the detailed presentation which he found refreshing in that 18 concerns were dealt with in detail. The presentation made reference to 49 posts in the process of being filled and he asked exactly how many of these posts were currently filled and what was still outstanding.
Mr Kgamanyane pointed out that vacancies had been prioritised – most of the posts were filled and advertised. With the posts not filled or advertised, these were posts which were vacated just a few months ago but they were prioritised.
Ms Nonjaduka added that since 1 February 2016, 12 new employees joined IPID and 11 posts were advertised. 8 posts were awaiting SSA results and other posts were awaiting competency assessments. For another post, IPID was verifying the qualifications with the SA Qualifications Authority. 11 posts were undergoing the short-listing process while five candidates for posts were being interviewed/screened which resulted in a total of 49 funded vacant posts. Each of the posts was in different stages of recruitment.
Mr Mbhele sought an update on the progress made with using graduate recruitment as one measure to boost the skills capacity of IPID in the short term through contract-based appointments. There was also information last year on partnerships IPID had with some universities – he sought an update on where things were in expanding these partnerships with universities particularly for trend analysis where research brains would come in handy to look at the data, break it down, connect the dots and find the trends which would assist much of IPID’s work going forward. He often asked about trend analysis because it was exactly those insights which informed planning of work going forward and assisted in resolving problems.
Mr Kgamanyane replied that there was a bit of lag in this respect, mostly due to delays with the MOU. Ms Nonjaduka added that that learnership programme was being prioritised – the target for this financial year was to absorb 12 learners.
The Chairperson, looking through the annexures, noted work relating to core issues was partially implemented or not verified. The Committee did not want surprises in the Annual Report and asked if there was progress or if these matters were a work in progress.
Mr Kgamanyane noted the 2014/15 Annual Report was dismal in terms of IPID performance, particularly for Programme 2. A commitment was made to the Committee that the situation would be different with the 2015/16 Annual Report. Performance was being monitored and a task team was established to assist those provinces which struggled with the workload or case backlog. The task team started four months ago and results were starting to be seen and almost all targets, bar two, for Programme 2 were now met. The other programmes were on par with their targets being met. On budget expenditure trends he assured the Committee that this financial year, spending was at almost 25% per quarter which meant consistent spending of the budget.
In closing, the Chairperson thanked IPID for the presentation and said it would be analysed along with the annexures. The results would be would be seen in the upcoming Annual Report. He noted that the Committee would meet on 9 February for a briefing from SAPS and the DPCI on their training programme. Trade unions and some academics would also be invited to the meeting to discuss whether the current training curriculum of SAPS spoke to the future in terms of the National Development Plan and the Back to Basics Approach. Mr David Bruce would also brief the Committee with his input on Public Order Policing.
The meeting was adjourned.
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.