Police Involvement in Student Protests; PSIRA on University Security; SASSETA Annual Performance Plan

Meeting report

The South African Police Service (SAPS) on police involvement in student protests

Brigadier F Ally, Section Head: Planning and Evaluation: Public Order Policing (POP), SAPS, identified the #FeesMustFall movement as a student led protest movement that began in mid-October 2015 in response to an increase in fees at South African universities. The protests started at the University of Witwatersrand (WITS) and spread to the University of Cape Town (UCT), the University of Pretoria and Rhodes University, before rapidly spreading to other institutions of higher learning across the country. He mentioned that whilst the focus was on the increase in school fees, the concerns later encompassed broader socio-economic & racial inequality issues. Student protests were accompanied by violence, including assaults, intimidation, arson and damage to property. Major national political parties appeared to be more active in trying to exert control over "their" constituency of students.

As a result, the SAPS implemented a four pillar, integrated, inter-departmental intervention plan. The four pillars were identified as Community and Stakeholder Engagement; Legal and Regulatory Framework and Intervention; Safety and Security; and Mass Communication. A National Joint Operational Committee was established which worked with a provincial joint operational committee and venue operational centres. In order to deal with the protests, the SAPS amongst others activated an intelligence gathering network, prepared and distributed early warnings and appointed liaison officers at institution level to engage with relevant stakeholders. He said these liaison officers would not be involved in the day to day operations of the SAPS save for performing their specific liaison function. He said the SAPS engaged in the efficient utilisation of video cameras for the purpose of gathering evidence for use in further investigations. Some of the challenges the SAPS faced were lack of a uniform approach by the universities with regard to SAPS’s access to institutions, delays in obtaining court orders and institutions adopting a different approach in order to ensure minimum conflict with the student population. SAPS recommended that the initiative between SAPS, the Nelson Mandela Foundation, the Institute for Security Studies (ISS) and the Wits Medical School, regarding health care during student protest be adopted as a best practise and be implemented at all institutions in the country and that emphasis be placed on mass communication regarding government responsibilities in order to ensure effective and pro-active measures.

Briefing by the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (PSIRA) on university security

Mr Stefan Badenhorst, Acting Deputy Director: Law Enforcement, PSIRA, said the organisation was established in order to ensure that there were effective regulations in the security industry and enforcement of law and compliance with the regulations. The interests of the private security companies, the State and the public are protected by the body. Section 3 of the Private Security Regulations Act highlighted the purposes of the organization in much detail. He also highlighted professionalism as the major goal that PSIRA sought to achieve.

The organisation regulated approximately 9 000 businesses which in turn employed approximately 500 000 people. The Gatherings Act regulated crowd management and this fell outside the ambit of the private security companies whose mandate was to protect and safeguard persons and property as contained in the Private Security and Services Act. Security guards are not trained in crowd dispersal tactics. Some of the challenges the organisation faced during the #FeesMustFall protests were universities that engaged private security companies that were not registered; security companies that subcontracted a significant portion of their work to unregistered companies; or individuals and security officers that retaliated outside acceptable bounds of retaliation. Crowd disbursement was the exclusive duty of SAPS because only their agents received training for his function.

It was also noted that all security agents were mandated to carry PSIRA identity documents with them. Some private security companies issued uniforms to their agents that were unmarked in contravention of the regulations. Some of the other irregular practices involved agents carrying pepper spray and paintball guns and inadequate tools to use in self defence. He also noted that generally, the organisations involved in the provision of private security did comply with the standing regulations.

Discussion

Mr Z Mbhele (DA) asked whether PSIRA considered making the use of equipment mounted on an officer’s uniform for recording of events such as microphones and cameras mandatory.

Ms M Mmola (ANC) asked how many cases that involved the use of force by private security agents during the student protest were reported to SAPS.

Mr A Van der Westhuizen (DA) wanted to know what new strategies the police would adopt in future if such protests were to happen again. He also wanted to know what procedures SAPS proposed to adopt in order to reign in private security agents that acted illegally.

Ms H Bucwa (DA) wanted to know what the general trend was in offenses that were committed by students and the private sector. She also wanted to know how safety and security were coordinated in universities during the skirmishes.

Mr C Kekana (ANC) wanted to know how intelligence gathering was coordinated in SAPS. He was concerned about this because he was aware of about 25 buildings that were burnt in tertiary institutions across Limpopo province during the protests. He asked why SAPS had not been ready to avert this damage.

Mr E Siwela (ANC) asked who was responsible for the violence witnessed during the protests. Was it the students or the private security companies?

Ms M Nkadimeng (ANC) asked for specific details on the nature of the uncoordinated activities by the universities that may have compromised SAPS’ efforts in dealing with security issues during the protests.

Ms J Killian (ANC) asked for further details on the lack of compliance by private security companies. She also wanted to know whether PSIRA was responsible for enforcing compliance or whether they only played an ombud function.

Prof C Msimang (IFP) asked SAPS whether they considered the services they rendered during the protests to have been effective considering the fact that the state suffered damages in excess of R1 billion.

Mr P Mhlongo (EFF) said he felt sorry for the fact that the security forces had to deal with issues such as student protests. It was inevitable that students would protest in the manner they did. He mentioned the rampant corruption and the looting of state resources by the Executive. The 16 June revolution was rekindled by today’s students and there was no amount of policing that could stop it.

Co-Chairperson September asked why the universities had to deploy their own security teams in the first place.

Co-Chairperson Beukman asked whether the contracts entered between the tertiary institutions and the private security sector complied with the relevant statutory provisions.

Lieutenant-General Sehlahle Masemola, Deputy National Commissioner: Policing, SAPS replied and said that SAPS did use body equipment such as video cameras however; some universities did not want to get involved in criminal investigations against their students. The use of liaison officers by SAPS was an ingenious tool that assisted in the peaceful resolution of all disputes and the smooth eradication of the protests. SAPS was not provided with prompt access to the tertiary institutions and that compromised their intelligence gathering mission. He also said that he was under the impression that SAPS did reasonably well under the circumstances because no lives were lost in the melee. Students generally did not want to see police officers on their college campuses. One of the other major challenges they faced was the result of the fact that sometimes the employees of the institutions would openly support students during the protests and at other times the private security contractors engaged by the universities would go on strike as well.

Major-General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi, Component Head: Public Order Policing (POP), SAPS, said the venue operation centre that SAPS established at the universities assisted in the gathering of intelligence. He also added that the fact that universities were privately run organisations limited access by SAPS to their facilities.

Brigadier Ally added that the unified command system that was put in place helped in establishing a uniform enforcement strategy at all the universities. SAPS had adopted a strong evidence gathering approach to its investigations in order to make sure that all matters brought to the courts would not fail.

Mr Manabela Chauke, CEO, PSIRA, said that the use of body cameras and other recording devices were encouraged. He did however mention that they were not prescribed as mandatory because that would in effect create a barrier to entry to the sector for small businesses. In the event that a university procured the services of an unregulated security company, both the university and the security company would be liable under the law. The relevant laws prohibited the engagement of unregistered companies and the provision of security services by companies that are not registered is prohibited as well.

Ms Mmatlou Sebogodi, Deputy Director: Finance and Administration, PSIRA, said the governing council of Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) colleges were not aware of the requirements and the laws associated with the engagement of private security companies on their colleges. This was an indictment on the duties of the board members.

Mr Badenhorst replied and said at times the difference between the roles that the SAPS and the private security companies played was blurred. He mentioned that there was one shooting incident involving a private security company at some unidentified technical college in Tshwane and this incident was reported to the SAPS. Some illegal contracts that tertiary institutions entered into were ordered to be cancelled. PSIRA performed monthly visits to various tertiary institutions in order to monitor the contracts that these institutions concluded with the private security companies.

Mr Mbhele asked why SAPS liaison officers were not involved in operations on the ground. He also wanted to know what rank the liaison officers are.

Ms M Molebatsi (ANC) asked for information on the security conference that was held in 2016. She wanted to know who attended the conference and what the agenda was.

Mr Van der Westhuizen asked what new crime prevention measures the SAPS had put in place and what new tactics they would enact in the event of future protests.

Ms Bucwa also wanted to know what new strategies SAPS would adopt in future protests. She also asked why a lot of cases had been dismissed by the courts and what SAPS was doing about its members that had not received adequate training in order to discharge their functions.

Ms Mmola wanted to know what the consequences are for private security companies that did not comply with the regulations.

Mr Kekana said he was proud of the police service and commended them for the work they were doing in protecting the State.

Mr Siwela said that it was not good to assume that the government was not aware of the struggles the students are facing. The President had established a Fees Commission and the nation was waiting for the report which was to be delivered shortly. He asked PSIRA who was responsible for laying criminal charges against private security companies that did not comply with the law.

Ms Nkadimeng asked SAPS to identify the universities that did not grant them access to the institutions during the protests. She also asked whether SAPS had developed a strategy to deal with collaboration and communication issues with the universities in the future.

Ms Killian reminded SAPS of student’s right to protest and warned against the illegal limiting of that right. Government was concerned with opening doors to higher education for the public and no amount of security concerns should counter those efforts. She asked whether there was clear evidence of students from one university going to a different university in order to participate or fan protest action there. She also asked how the universities would be conducting the in-sourcing of private security and whether the institutions would be complying and consulting with PSIRA and its regulations. She asked whether the institutions that had not complied with the laws had rectified their non-compliance.

Co-Chairperson Beukman asked whether all criminal activity at tertiary institutions had been investigated and what the outcomes of these investigations were.

Co-Chairperson September acknowledged that there was a lot of work that has to be done. She asked whether SAPS was aware of any international experiences that they could learn from. She also recommended that the SAPS included students and their guardians in creating solutions to the predicament. She warned that if confusion persisted in the manner in which protests were dealt with, anarchy would follow.

Lieutenant-General Masemola replied that there was one student in the Free State province that was found guilty of throwing a petrol bomb. The magistrate had cautioned the student against such behaviour. Individuals who held the ranks of Lieutenant-Colonel and Colonel were appointed as liaison officers. Liaison officers were not part of the operations on the ground, they did not wear uniforms although they were not undercover officers, and it was well known that they were police officers. Liaison officers were to remain engaged with the institutions in which they served to keep the necessary lines of communication open. SAPS provided continuous training to its members, acquiring new equipment as well as better cameras. This would generally enhance the SAPS operations throughout its establishment. He also did confirm that there were some issues of uncontrolled access to the tertiary institutions. This was evidenced by the fact that students from other universities did enter premises of different universities.

Lieutenant-General Elias Mawela, Divisional Commissioner: Operational Response Services, SAPS, confirmed that SAPS will not hinder or curtail students’ right to protest but they would without fear or favours go after those who break the law. The first pillar in tackling the protest action was establishing communication with all stakeholders and not implementing security measures. This demonstrated the SAPS’ desire to protect the right to demonstrate and not to squash student protests.

Mr Chauke said PSIRA took the initiative and laid charges against non-compliant security companies.

Mr Badenhorst added that PSIRA assisted universities in complying with the law when it came to concluding contracts with security companies that fell within the four corners of the law.

Co-Chairperson Beukman reminded PSIRA that there were a few recommendations that were made with regards to their budget that still needed to be adopted.

Safety and Security Sector Education and Training Authority (SASSETA)

Ms Jennifer Irish-Qhobosheane, Administrator, SASSETA, said SASSETA was established in terms of the Skills Development Act of 1998 to work specifically within the safety and security sector. A number of public entities paid levies to SASSETA such as PSIRA and the Competition Commission. Two departments of transport and safety and security at provincial level are part of SASSETA and other provincial departments’ safety and liaison departments and the Civilian Secretariat for Police had requested transfer to SASSETA and these requests were still pending. She also said that 56% of the work force in this sector was employed in the private sector and 44% was employed in the public sector.

On 12 February 2015 SASSETA was placed under administration and as a result, the constitution of SASSETA was suspended and the board dissolved. This administration period was set to end on 12 August 2017. Board nominations were advertised and based on this the names of recommended employer and employee representatives were about to be forwarded to the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) for the Minister’s attention. Some of the reasons SASSETA was placed under administration were, absence of proper planning processes, serious under performance with regard to both financial and non-financial aspects of work, serious over spending and non compliance with the Skills Development Levies Act and PFMA, lack of formal proper decision making processes and documentation linked to this decision making, inadequacy of policy and procedures within the body and non adherence to policies and procedures that existed. She also said that during the 2014/15 financial year, there was a backlog of approximately 50 000 certificates that had to be issued. In the current financial period, there was no backlog of certificates. She mentioned that some of the priority actions for the sector are enhancing the capacity of sector training institutions and academies, transforming and professionalising the sector and supporting targeted technical and specialised skills. During the last two financial years SASSETA had focused on improving its quality assurance functions. Doing so meant resolving the certification backlogs that existed at the end of 2014/15 and reducing the certification turnaround time from 60 to 47 days.

SASSETA has tightened the accreditation requirement and strategised the process to clean up the accredited provider database. SASSETA also held a workshop in 2016 with all its internal and external verifiers to ensure uniformity in the manner in which verification would happen and to ensure they had an understanding of how the various sub sectors operate. SASSETA had also been working with its different sub sectors in addressing certain qualification related matters. This included working with SAPS regarding the ring fencing of resolving of crime qualification and working with the Locksmith Association regarding the development and registration of the skill as an occupational qualification.

Discussion

Mr Mhlongo said the Department of Defence sent some of its soldiers to unaccredited institutions of learning with the main aim of looting SASSETA’s resources. SASSETA was established when Tito Mboweni was still working in the Department of Labour, but there has been no development in these sectors. He asked whether the time has come to dissolve all SETAs.

Mr Siwela said he noted that the Administrator’s stay had been extended to 2017, but he also noted that there was nothing in the presentation that addressed the operations of SASSETA after her departure.

Mr Plouamma said there was nothing to take home from this presentation. Almost all institutions in the security sector had established their own education facilities and this was an indictment on the SASSETA role. He asked whether it should still exist.

Ms Nkadimeng asked what SASSETA’s goals were for the training of lecturers. She also asked for more information on what constituted fruitless expenditure at SASSETA. She asked why the organisation was not achieving the goals it set for itself. The year 2014 had been declared the year of the artisan but SASSETTA did not achieve anything in that regard.

Ms Killian wanted to know what would happen after administration was concluded. She was happy with the fact that there was 100% compliance for SASSETA’s budged expenditure, but wanted to know how this compliance yielded any positive results. She asked how the dropout rate indicated in the presentation would be dealt with and whether the ICT master plan would address fraud and deal with the losses SASSETA suffered as a result thereof.

Ms Bucwa asked whether the individuals the organisation sent through the education system managed to get employment soon thereafter. SASSETA’s reputation was ruined to a large extent and she wanted to know whether this reputation could be salvaged.

Mr Van der Westhuizen asked whether SASSETA was getting any contributions from the Department of Military Veterans (DMV).

Ms Mabija asked whether PSIRA was represented at the conference that was held on the 2nd of June 2016. She also wanted to know if she could have access to the attendance list.

Co-Chairperson September asked whether the organisation had a strategic plan to handle organisations that effected significant change in their political make up. She also wanted to know whether SASSETA was capable of dealing with the shift from litigation to alternative dispute resolution mechanisms such as arbitration.

Ms Irish-Qhobosheane responded by saying that she did not have any intention of staying on as Administrator after August 2017. SASSETA in the past had been involved in sending learners to unaccredited institutions of learning as well and over 300 000 students had been sent to such institutions. As a result, SASSETA had to retrain these individuals at a significant cost. SASSETA enjoyed cordial relationships with various trade unions, but she conceded that not all issues will be dealt with during her tenure as Administrator.

The aim was to put in a strong leadership team that would not need the assistance of the Administrator post administration and the current staff members had come through the ranks to see to that. The fact that organisations had established their own training institutions was not an indictment on SASSETAs relevance but complemented its efforts. She said SASSETA will then make sure that these institutions are properly accredited and their lecturers receive proper and adequate training.

She argued that SASSEA had met its artisan targets. The initial projection of having artisans trained for one year was flawed. In actual fact artisans ought to be trained for at least three years. Once that had been factored into the agenda, it turned out that the targets had been met. Students dropped out of training for a variety of reasons. Some of the reasons included insufficient career guidance and some students who would eventually secure employment within the industry thus terminating the training relationship.

She confirmed that the ICT master plan did address fraud. She also said that some airline tickets had been purchased for flights departing in Ghana to Nigeria. SASSETA did not know about such a journey and addressed the issue with the airline concerned. There was an agreement with DMV in which they would pay a total of R50 million to SASSETA however, nothing has ever been paid in terms of that agreement. PSIRA did attend the meeting and sent in three of their representatives

Mr Malebo a Chief Director: Sector Educational Authorities, DHET, said the administration of SASSETA was not meant to be indefinite. The Administrator did make monthly reports to the Department on her progress. The initial period of administration had to be extended because DHET was not completely aware of the extent of damage that had to be corrected until after the Administrator was appointed.

Co-Chairperson September said that she would send in written questions for SASSETA’s Chief Finance Officer to respond to.

The meeting was adjourned.