IPID and Civilian Secretariat for Police on Quarter 1 performance

Meeting report

Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID): First quarterly performance

Mr Robert McBride, Executive Director, IPID, gave some background to the report, explaining that the financial year had begun with severe budgetary constraints and a serious problem with R24 million in accruals, so the year had started off with an already reduced budget. A lot of the cost drivers for expenditure in the first quarter were accruals from the previous financial year. As a result, IPID had engaged with the Treasury and the South African Police Service (SAPS). A number of trilaterals had been held and SAPS had agreed to share resources with IPID. IPID’s view on this was that it would not affect their independence even if IPID used some of SAPS resources and equipment, and they shared training courses. SAPS had also agreed to defer roughly R50 million per year of their budget to IPID, starting from the 2018/19 period. This would work out at around R160 million in total, which would help IPID keep their heads above water.

Expenditure during the first quarter was over the projected amount, mainly due to accruals. As a result of the budgetary constraints, IPID had also strategically switched the focus of investigations to investigations which were more high impact. With regard to the IPID Act, which had to be finalised in this financial year, the initial phase had been completed and IPID was now working together with the Civilian Secretariat for Police (CSPS) on amendments. This was still on track to receive public comments next month.

Mr Patrick Setswadi, Acting Chief Financial Officer (CFO), IPID, explained the budget allocation trend, and said that the current budget allocation for 2017/18 was R255 million. This was an increase from the last financial year’s budget of R242 million, and represented a growth of 5,1% or R13 million. This growth did not fully cover the expected annual increases in the following areas: annual inflation growth (CPI) of 6.2%; contractual obligations’ for the annual escalation of fees for goods and services, ranging from 5% to 10% per annum; and the regulated annual wage increment of 7.5%. This trend of inadequate allocation had occurred over the previous Medium Term Expenditure Framework

(MTEF) period, so the Department had registered a significant number of accruals in the past three financial years.

In order to address the limited allocated budget, the department had continued to engage with various relevant stakeholders for intervention and support for the efforts to secure additional funding. The reprioritisation of funds from funded vacancies, in order to relieve some of the reported pressure areas, had been considered during the current Adjusted Estimates of National Expenditure (AENE) process. Management had also taken a strategic decision to have regular bi-weekly budget control committee meetings for monitoring of spending trends, reprioritising and making recommendations to the Executive Director. Strategic planning and human resource management (HRM) units were also making presentations at all bi-weekly control committee meetings on the actual performance and the vacancy rate respectively.

Mr Setswadi explained the areas that would be prioritised for SAPS’s additional funding. Among the areas prioritised were contractual obligations, information communication technology (ICT) infrastructure, the amendment of the IPID Act and the relocation of the national office. If SAPS allocated the money discussed, then IPID would expect to have the money in this financial year. However, nothing had been confirmed yet.

The Chairperson asked if the information provided on IPID’s contractual obligations would be part of October’s adjustments?

Mr Setswadi responded that it would be if it was approved. Based on information received the previous day, the amount would be around R9 million. Internal shiftings had been considered with regard to the assistance from SAPS, but the feedback had not yet been given.

The Chairperson confirmed that it was R9 million of the R55 million.

Mr Setswadi answered that the R9 million was from IPID’s own internal shiftings, so nothing additional had been given.

Ms Suzan Letlape, Acting Director: Strategy and Performance Monitoring, said that the four IPID programmes were on track.

For Programme 1 (Administration) there were four targets and all of these were presently on track. Two of these targets had only annual aims, but based on the performance for the quarter under review, achievement appeared likely.

For Programme 2 (Investigations and Information Management), four out of 15 targets had been met. The ones not achieved were mainly targets on investigations, as there was a high number of backlog cases that had been carried forward from the previous financial year.

For Programme 3 (Legal Services) there were seven targets which were annual, so there were no quarterly targets, but during the period under review, none of them had been finalised within the timeframes.

In Programme 4 (Compliance Monitoring and Stakeholder Management), one out of three targets had been achieved.

Only 10 out of 30 targets had been achieved in the period under review.

Ms Letlape described the five strategic targets for the programmes and the progress made.

Ms Nomkhosi Netsianda, Chief Director: Corporate Services, IPID expanded on the performance in Programme 1. One target was to keep the percentage vacancy rate per year under 10%, and at present it was at 6%, so this target had been fulfilled. Additionally, the number of reports on risk maturity levels produced and the number of performance reports on the implementation of the annual performance plan (APP) submitted to National Treasury and the Department of Performance Management and Evaluation (DPME) within the stipulated timeframes, were also on track. Progress in the implementation of the annual internal audit plan was to be monitored. The plan had been approved by the audit committee and the implementation of audits had commenced.

Mr Matthews Sesoko, Chief Director: Investigations and Information Management, IPID, provided details on the performance targets for Programme 2. Although two targets had been met, the quarterly targets on all investigations had not been achieved due to a high number of backlog cases owing to the slowdown of operations in 2016/17; ineffectiveness of the case management system due to a dilapidated network infrastructure; and outstanding technical reports from the Department of Health and the Forensic Science Laboratory.

He also referred to the 54 Departmental convictions received during the first quarter. These involved six dismissals from SAPS, six suspensions, three corrective counselling cases, three fines, one reprimand, eight verbal warnings, four final written warnings and 23 written warnings. There had also been 133 negative recommendations and 361positive IPID recommendations to SAPS.

Mr Z Mbhele (DA) asked what was meant by negative and positive recommendations?

Mr Sesoko clarified that a negative recommendation was where IPID recommended that disciplinary action had to be taken against members, while positive recommendations were where there had been no misconduct by the members concerned.

Ms Marianne Moroasui, Chief Director: Legal Services, said that in Programme 3 there were seven targets, all of which were annual. Unfortunately, Legal Services had been unable to achieve the targets as set out in the performance indicators. All of the requests received had been finalised but were not within the set standards due to capacity constraints as a result of vacancies and frozen posts.

Ms Mmamodishe Molope, Chief Director: Compliance Monitoring and Stakeholder Management, discussed Programme 4, and said that one out of three targets had been met. The two that had not been met were due to competing priorities and resources, and the unavailability of some stakeholders.

Mr McBride concluded that continuous monitoring would be used to improve performance of programmes. The improved turnaround time on recruitment processes had been due to in-house pre-employment screening. As mentioned, trilateral engagements with IPID, National Treasury and SAPS were taking place in an effort to source additional funding from SAPS. The draft IPID Bill had been finalised internally and engagements with the CSPS had commenced.

Discussion

The Chairperson said that if the R55 million was not included in the rate book in October, how would that R9 million from the IPID shiftings be prioritised in terms of the list in the presentation? The critical vacancy was the position of the CFO. The financial performance of the department was quite critical, so what was the planning in terms of this? During the oversight visit to the provincial office in KwaZulu-Natal, there had been five cases relating to Glebelands and the killings -- what was the progress on IPID’s efforts in relation to this? Concerns had been raised by civil society organisations during the visit. Was there a concerted effort from IPID at the national level?

Ms M Mmola (ANC) asked why the spending on goods and services was higher than planned and how this would impact on service delivery. When had the last training of investigators taken place? Programme 2 (Investigations and Information Management) had achieved only four of 15 targets – what had happened with the other 11?

Mr J Maake (ANC) asked what was meant by ‘fully,’ when saying that the budget growth did not fully cover the annual increase in costs.

Ms A Molebatsi (ANC) asked if IPID were going to reinstate the legal service programme in 2018/19. Could more be said about the engagement with the National Treasury regarding alternative funding? When would the Acting CFO position cease to be an acting post?

Mr P Mhlongo (EFF) asked how far along the IPID Act was currently. Did the amendment take into account the question of the court ruling regarding the independence of IPID? The negative recommendations to SAPS, particularly with regard to cases related to KwaZulu-Natal, were very low. Was this because of ineffectiveness on the part of IPID in ensuring that complaints were investigated in the province?

Mr Mbhele asked about the feedback from SAPS regarding the metro police services? At a previous meeting, concern had been raised that there had been no responses from SAPS in regard to a number of cases which had been referred to them. The presentation had made no mention of the lack of response on any of those cases, so was it no longer a problem? Was comprehensive feedback being received on all cases referred to the SAPS, or was the whole picture not being represented? Regarding the assault allegations against the Executive Director, the point of concern was about how they may impact on the reputation of the department. There was a strong suggestion that these allegations were part of a smear campaign aimed at undermining the IPID’s reputation. Was it possible to get a clarity through a statement or response from the Executive Director on his perspective -- where he saw this coming from, what it meant, and what the positioning and response of IPID was?

Ms D Kohler Barnard (DA) stated that it was utterly bizarre that IPID should be asking for funding from the very people that it did oversight over. The CSPS really needed to intervene, as IPID having to go to the Minister and beg for money was a very uncomfortable situation. It’s wrong at every level, and IPID should never be put in that position.

IPID had come under intense pressure over the past few years, especially with the growth of the accruals, and the Treasury was “in a tizz” about it, so what had been done to seek alternative options for addressing these pressures? Had it reworked its service delivery model, and eradicated inefficiencies? Had it done the things that Treasury had asked it to do? If the project cost analysis was inadequate, it may be that that was the key, so what had been done to address that? The growing accruals were emanating from contractual obligations. IPID had not been able to absorb the full cost of the contracts, and they were increasing much faster than its budget. Why had it entered into them in the first place? Surely someone had noticed that it would not be able to afford them? Had IPID inherited this problem, or had it leapt in with open eyes itself? Who was to blame?

The Chairperson asked for a concise report on the high profile cases.

Mr McBride said that the assault allegations had been withdrawn by the complainant, and a statement of withdrawal had been made. Alternative dispute resolution had also been requested, and there was a preliminary agreement regarding the issues of the minor child, which had been signed. The matter was now before the prosecutor with all relevant information, with the hope that the matter could be brought to a conclusion. It was not possible to go into further detail about the agreement, as it was confidential.

The key issue from IPID’s viewpoint was that when the directorate was envisioned, all the aspects of its operation could not be foreseen. While the intention to set up IPID had been correct, in its first two years there had been under-spending because the department had not yet stood on its feet properly. As a result, as IPID gathered momentum, the assumption had incorrectly been made that it did not require as much as actually did.

Issues relating to internal controls, accounting and checks and balances were minimal, but IPID ran some of the risks for misstatements of information. There were key areas in line with the IPID Act -- for example, a system for the collection, storage and safe keeping of exhibits, which was not in place at all at the moment. This created a great risk. There was also the issue of ballistics in regard to training, analysis and reports, and this was in line with what the Farlam Commission had said, as well as the judgment of the Constitutional Court. These were essential elements for operational and functional independence. The operational structure, as far as the individual units were concerned, involved accounting, reporting and controls within a department. These had never been adequately envisioned or budgeted for.

If one looked at the ratios between the population that IPID had to deal with in comparison to what SAPS had to deal with, then one would see that IPID was completely on the back foot. If the under-funding continued, it would bring into question whether IPID would continue to be a concern. Ultimately, IPID had been changing the wheel while the car was moving.

Ms Netsianda spoke about the filling of the CFO position. The position had been advertised and applications had been received, but the position of the CFO was at level 14 and in terms of the Public Service regulations, the chairperson of the recruiting committee had to be at a higher grade than the position that was being recruited. There also had to be an expert within the panel who was at least of an equivalent grade of the position which was being recruited. The CFO position was at the highest level within IPID, meaning that it was necessary to go outside the department. A number of people had been approached at a higher level, but they were very busy. They would commit to assisting IPID but when the dates for short-listing came, they would cancel and say that they had engagements that they could not get out of. This was the problem that IPID was currently facing in addressing the CFO position, but other options were being considered, including approaching the Public Service Association (PSA). The IPID Executive Director could not sit on the panel, as he had to approve the appointment.

Training for investigators had taken place within the first quarter, which had begun in April. The training had included forensic investigation and the management of cyber and electronic crimes.

Mr Setswedi said that IPID had had a trilateral meeting with SAPS and the National Treasury and a commitment had been made to giving assistance from the current financial year. IPID had been expecting the allocation to be made before the finalisation of the adjustment budget, so that it could be considered. Follow-ups had been made with SAPS and the National Treasury in order to make sure that they met the deadline. The deadline had not been met, and IPID was expecting any assistance in the current financial year on the basis that the adjustment period was almost finalised. Yesterday IPID had received an allocation letter, and nothing had been indicated on that allocation letter from SAPS, which meant that it might not be possible to get that allocation.

The R9 million had been identified from the IPID funded posts in the current financial year. It had looked into the areas that were under pressure. Some of these areas were litigations, travelling for investigators, as well as some of the contractual obligations, so that was where the R9 million would be prioritised, although it would not assist for the entire financial year. Basically, invoices which were on hand had been considered, and the focus would be placed on them.

The reason for the higher expenditure on goods and services was the pre-existing contractual obligations -- for instance, for cleaning and office obligations. Some of the contract periods ranged from three to nine years, so they were existing contracts which could not be cancelled due to a lack of funding. These contracts also had annual escalations ranging from 5% to 10%. There needed to be budget provisions for these increases in each and every financial year. However, when looking at the IPID budget, provisions for such escalations had not been made, which was why there were accruals.

The growth not being “fully” covered was also related to financial obligations. The budget growth in the current financial year was 5.1%, but the CPI was projected at 6.2%. This 1.1% deficit was why the presentation noted that it was not fully covered.

In regard to Programme 3 (Legal Services), there had been engagement with the National Treasury (NT). In the first place, NT had had a problem with the reinstatement of the programme, but had ended up giving approval with conditions. One condition was that IPID had to revisit their targets as well as their indicators for this programme, and must make sure that there was sufficient allocation for it. The approval was that the programme would be reinstated from 2019/20. For the next financial year of 2018/19, IPID would still be operating with three programmes.

There had been a number of engagements with NT -- on 24 July with the Police Services Technical group, and on 30 July with the peace and security budget group -- where management from IPID had participated. The only positive outcome from those meetings was that IPID was now depending on assistance from SAPS, as there was nothing additional that had been presented from the National Treasury. There had been a very convincing costing model which IPID had shared with the Treasury. Everything that was being done was being costed ahead. IPID believed that this costing model was the most effective initiative for moving forward, especially considering the environment that they were facing.

The contractual obligations had existed since the beginning of the department. Most of them were based around office maintenance and the building. There had been attempts not to renew some of the contractual obligations which were under IPID’s control. The department had also made a proposal to reduce the amounts paid for offices but they had to await the end of existing contracts.

Ms Kohler Barnard asked if the building IPID used was a Department of Public Works (DPW) building, and if they were charging IPID a huge amount which they kept pushing up.

Ms Netsianda responded that IPID had approached the DPW to request that they get out of the process where the DPW were carrying out procurement on IPID’s behalf. In terms of the Management Act, the DWP was supposed to procure all government buildings on behalf of different departments. IPID had wanted to approach the NT, but Treasury had wanted the DPW to agree with the IPID request, but the DPW was not prepared to assist. As a result, IPID was still stuck in the building.

IPID was trying to avoid the situation of ending up stuck in long contracts with high escalations which were not affordable. When the process was at the end, it would be restarted again and the tenders would need to be readvertised. Currently, IPID had requested a deviation from National Treasury to approach the landlords with buildings that met the department’s specifications. The Treasury had agreed, and the DPW was now in the process of engaging those landlords. The landlords had submitted documents, but at the final stage there had been one landlord who had not submitted a page. This had stopped the supply chain process, as they were not allowed to go back due to the terms and conditions. This meant that the process had had to be restarted.

Ms Kohler Barnard asked if the DPW were going to be asked in front of the Committee to speak to several matters, and if so, whether this issue could be added as it had been going on for a long time.

The Chairperson said that this was scheduled in the draft programme for 24 October, and IPID could be added to this, as SAPS and the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation’s (DPCI’s) problems with contracts would be brought up at this meeting.

Mr Sesoko said that many of the Glebeland issues were a result of the Morane Commission, which was looking at the political killings in KwaZulu-Natal. From the information that IPID had on the investigation, none of them were linked to the political killings, as per the terms of reference of the Morane Commission. It was a shame that these issues had arisen and then cast aspersions on the provincial office. IPID had engaged with the commission in order to deal with the issues that had arisen there. It was still waiting for a date to deal with the issues and put them in proper perspective. From IPIDs perspective one of the biggest issues was the lack of understanding of the role that they performed -- not only on the part of the IPID employee who went to testify, but also on the part of the non-governmental organisations (NGOs) who testified.

One of the issues that had been raised involved a case in which it was alleged that the office was dysfunctional and taking too long to conclude the matter. When the IPID had intervened and looked into the matter, there had been a proper investigation, with two reports from a government pathologist as well as a private pathologist who had conducted a post-mortem, and their finding had been that they could not conclude that the cause of death was from torture, as alleged. They had recommended that a toxicology examination be done to determine what other reasons could have led to the death of the deceased. That report was still outstanding. Those that operated in the same environment as IPID would understand that there were serious problems in getting these expert reports. Some of these reports took up to four years to be completed. IPID had engaged the NPA to try to extract this report, but at present this report had still not been received.

There was only one specific matter where the IPID had acknowledged that there was a delay in the finalisation of this matter, as the investigator concerned had been attending a court case in Gauteng which took over two months to conclude. All the matters relating to that had been forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), and decisions were now being awaited. Mr Sesoko said he was confident that these matters had been dealt with in the correct manner.

The Chairperson asked about the relationship between civil society and the KwaZulu-Natal office. From the national perspective, was Mr Sesoko confident that the relationship was sound?

Mr Sesoko said that as far as he was concerned, the relationship was sound because there was feedback coming back to them. The issue was how the issue should be dealt with when there was a difference in opinion. An example would be when civil society insisted on a particular approach, but from an investigative point of view, this was not an appropriate approach. As an investigative body, IPID had to do their investigations according to their own standard operating procedures while following the law. There may be a particular position from civil society on how things should be done, and IPID may not agree with that. This was sometimes where conflicts arose. There had been correspondence from IPID’s office to civil society groups concerned. There had been problems where the investigation had wanted to call specific witnesses, but they had had to go through the groups as they had not been allowed direct access to these witnesses. This caused some delays in concluding matters. A decision had been made to engage with them in order to deal with these issues.

Mr McBride said that the person who went to testify on behalf of IPID had not testified with the sanction and approval of the department. IPID had prepared a thorough and comprehensive response that would be presented to the Morane Commission. There had been generalisations and untruths from the person who went there without the department’s approval, and from civil society. For example, statements like ‘the IPID was dysfunctional,’ were a huge generalisation. Only four of the Glebelands cases were being dealt with by IPID. It was not investigating the murders, as that was SAPS’s job. IPID’s job was to investigate the police when there were complaints against them. Unfortunately it became fashionable, when one person started the attack, for others to jump on the bandwagon. There was clear collusion between the person from the IPID office who went to speak without approval and some of the NGOs on these matters. There was evidential proof of this collusion, and it was unfair to come to a conclusion based on four cases out of the thousands that IPID deals with. Two of the cases in question had been delayed by unforeseen circumstances which could not have been predicted. Where IPID was wrong, they would acknowledge their mistakes, but it was not acceptable for them to be subject to unfair attacks.

Mr Mhlongo asked what form of intervention could be done to harmonise the communities’ trust, particularly with regards to the investigators. People had developed a high degree of mistrust towards law enforcement. This had come to light in the oversight visits too. Looking at the Glebelands issue, the Acting Provincial Commissioner there had said that they were even investigating some of their own members in relation to the killings. There was a huge lack of trust from the complainants’ side in communicating openly with IPID at this particular office. The social dynamics of that province needed to be taken into account, as it was so vast. To actually ‘short circuit’ this situation as political killings, when in fact the very same people who were killing people in Glebelands were said to be used outside of the area to commit political murders, was a narrow kind of a view. That area had become a very serious boiling point in the province. What kind of intervention would there be to harmonise relationships with regard to those who were investigating and those on the side of the complainants, taking into consideration the polarisation that existed?

Ms Kohler Barnard said she was interested in the claim made that a staff member had gone to speak on behalf of IPID without IPID’s approval. What action was being taken? Was that person now facing a full scale disciplinary investigation with a view to applying sanctions? If that was the truth and an investigation or disciplinary matter showed it to be the truth, then IPID did not need that person on its staff.

Mr Sesoko said that it was unfortunate, as the employee concerned had embarked on similar antics before. It had happened during the appointment of the current Chairperson, where the person in question had cast aspersions with regard to the work that IPID does. When these issues were raised, the person concerned operated from a different unit altogether, so he did not understand what happened with investigations. He had been called to explain how the investigation had been done, but he did not want to come and listen, and instead he had gone outside and said things that were factually incorrect. For example, he had gone to the Morane Commission and said that IPID had closed cases because an investigator was on leave, or because he had to attend court, and so forth. He had taken a spreadsheet which had been used in the investigation environment and misinterpreted it. That spread sheet had talked to the reasoning in line with IPID regulations, which required them to explain if, for instance, a case had been completed after 90 days, why it this was so. The reason had been flagged in the spreadsheet, but it was then wrongly misinterpreted as being the reason the case was closed. Had the person in question taken the time to ask for an explanation and fully understood, then IPID would have explained it fully. There were many things that the individual had said that were factually incorrect -- for instance, the manner in which IPID completes and closes cases.

There was not a trust issue with the community. IPID engaged with the community. In some of the cases that IPID dealt with, the NGOs do not want IPID to have direct access to the complainants or the witnesses, and this creates problems. This was based on the lack of trust with the police, because the police may be complicit in some of these issues.

Ms Kohler Barnard wanted to know if this person was now facing a disciplinary hearing or not?

Ms Moroasui said that at the moment, a legal opinion was being sought from external providers. The statements the individual had made to the Public Protector were seen as protected disclosures, so IPID was awaiting a legal opinion which would help them decide what it was that he could be disciplined on. For instance, some of the statements he had made that were not true might not be protected by the Act.

Mr Sesoko said that after the Acting National Commissioner had been removed, IPID had been able to get a high level of co-operation from the office of her successor, General Mothiba, in terms of getting information to conduct investigations. IPID had met with the Inspector General of Intelligence and signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) which had resulted in an agreement to have joint investigations. This had opened up investigations, as it had allowed evidence to be gathered on other service providers and transactions which had taken place outside of the country. Currently a team of IPID investigators was meeting with the NPA and the Asset Protection Unit to map out a way forward in these investigations. High profile investigations were also taking place within the crime intelligence environment involving generals. Recommendations had been sent as a result of these investigations, and criminal investigations were also taking place.

With regard to the torture issues in the North West, it had been reported that the torture had taken place between 2008 and 2010, and that nothing had happened on these matters. In reality, decisions had been made then, and around seven members of that team had been prosecuted. IPID had been pushing the NPA on these matters, and they had recently made a decision to proceed against two of those members, and the matter would be going to court on 27 September. There were other cases which involved the same members of that team, where they were waiting for a decision from the Director of Prosecutions. There was also a case of murder and torture involving the same team and that investigation was awaiting an expert report, and once that was done, the matter should be handed over to the NPA for a decision.

Ms Moroasui said that IPID had internally finalised their amendments to the bill. What had happened was that IPID was engaging with the CSPS, and there had been a session in the week of 28 August where a lot of work had been done. There was still work that needrf to be done before it could be finalised between the two parties. IPID was on track with the amendment of the bill. The fact that IPID must be operationally and structurally independent had been factored in.

The Chairperson asked about the stated financial position. With the 25 vacancies, was IPID going to wait until clarity was received on additional funding before filling these posts? With regard to the recommendations from the Farlam Commission, it had been indicated at a previous meeting that due to financial restraints, the construction of scene 2 had been taken over by the NPA. Where was IPID with regard to the investigations and recommendations to the NDPP? What was the overall picture?

Ms Kohler Barnard asked Mr McBride about the blue light cavalcade she had seen on the way to Parliament this morning. Was this he and his team? Surely the people IPID would be investigating would be the ones driving him, but had he received threats on his life? Was he aware that blue light cavalcades were forbidden within the city?

What was the current rental of the City Forum office that had been occupied by IPID in September 2010. Back then, around 2012-13, the rental paid to the mysterious Roux Shabangu had been R12 million a year. This was one of the contracts that had led to someone being fired. They had managed to stop the Durban lease within a few days, but they were stuck with this one. It had made Roux Shabangu an extremely rich man, because the rentals IPID paid had no relation to equivalent buildings in the same area. There had been higher than planned spending on most of the programmes, apart from compliance monitoring and stakeholder management. Spending on goods and services was R8.2 million higher than planned, and yet as the Chairperson had mentioned, the entity was short-staffed by 25 people. Why would IPID be that far ahead of budget for goods and services when in fact it was 25 people short? Where was this money going to -- how would it plug the holes in the dam?

Mr Mbhele queried the feedback on disciplinary issues from SAPS. Were there still problems with not receiving feedback on some cases? In the short and medium term, IPID was going to be in a situation with some very difficult trade-offs due to funding constraints, budget pressures, and no foreseeable prospects of reasonable increases from Treasury, and it was likely that SAPS would not be the most agreeable or speedy partner in that regard. Given the focus on high impact corruption cases, which seemed logical, that would mean a trade off against effectiveness or speed in dealing with the assault cases, which were the bulk of complaints that IPID received. This was reflected in the indicators on the backlog, and was likely to become more and more difficult to finalise in the 90 day window.

Regarding the communication and stakeholder programme, was IPID looking at having an intentional and conscious engagement with the public in order to communicate honestly and fully that IPID wanted to do their best, but that there needed to be understanding that they would not be able to get through everything at the speed that the public and IPID would like. This would minimise the gap between expectations and the ability to realistically meet them. There were cases talked about on a weekly basis, either on social media or in complaints to MPs, which alleged misconduct or criminality by the police. These cases were traumatic and sensitive for the persons involved, so one would at least want to be able to give the person a sense of being taken into IPID’s confidence, even while excplaining that the process might not be as swift as they would like. This was particularly important for vulnerable groups such as women, or the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) sector. When it was that kind of impact, it needed to be managed properly.

Ms Molebatsi commended the Gauteng office for the good work they were doing. There had been a recent protest in the area, and from the very first day feedback had been given. The work there was really commendable. With regard to the Farlam Commission, she asked for an explanation of the frozen posts in Programme 3, and what brought about the backlog in cases.

Ms Mmola asked for clarity on the presentation figures where no positive recommendations were indicated.

Mr McBride said that the blue light security detail was a matter that IPID had raised with the former Police Commissioner, because it was an important matter which had been under-discussed and under-debated. There were real and objective reasons for security, in line with international practices, but there was also abuse which had taken place and the criteria were not clear as to who could make use of it under what conditions. IPID had also raised it as an issue with the CSPS for the consultative forum. It was a major risk. At some stage in the future, unless it was dealt with, there would be an instance where there was a real threat and a real security detail using emergency police lights and there was a real attack, or something mistaken as a real attack, and people would die. The public was not sufficiently alerted to how to respond when they saw it and what they should do, or what it meant when there was an emergency blue light police detail. Due to mistrust, there had been cases where the public had taken a vigilante approach and at times blocked emergency police light security details. This was a recipe for disaster. There needed to be clear criteria on who was allowed what, and under what circumstances and supervision. There needed to be a policy and standard operating procedures (SOPs) related to this issue, as IPID was aware of abuse. IPID staff received death threats all the time. It was a normal issue for the staff, and they were taking the necessary precautions and upping security and training for self-defence for their officials. It was part of the job in the environment, as the subjects of IPID investigations did not like the idea of being investigated by someone whom they saw as a non-policeman. They were not accustomed to being investigated, as they saw themselves as being at the top of the investigative food chain. This was a culture which could be worn down over time. When there was corruption involving thousands of millions of rands, people were not going to let go of their ill-gotten gains very easily, so it was to be expected that some heat went in the direction of IPID.

Ms Netsianda said that the recruitment process for the 25 vacancies had been started for all non-senior management service (SMS) positions. Some had been filled already, but had not fallen within the period that was being reported on. With the four chief director positions, including the CFO and some provincial heads, there was the previously mentioned situation with the panel members which IPID was trying to address. Regarding the R9 million, there was talk about a projected saving as a result of those senior positions which were vacant, so it had been a strategic decision to avoid the under-compensation of employees who were under pressure in respect of goods and services.

The building rental was supposed to be R1.1 million currently, but the National Treasury had given advice that due to the manner in which the building had been allocated, the DPW had to fund the gap between what they had projected to pay, which was R670 000, and the balance of the R1.1 million.

Ms Kohler Barnard asked for repetition of the figure.

Ms Netsianda repeated that IPID paid R670 000, and the DPW paid the remainder of the R1.1 million.

The Director of Legal Services was a position that was frozen due to the ceiling that had been placed on the compensation of employees by legal services. This position had been identified strategically because it was vacant at the time, and the ceiling could not be exceeded. Additionally, there were 35 positions which were currently frozen in terms of the improved structure. There was supposed to be a staff complement of 423, but it currently stood at 388 due to the ceiling on the compensation of employees.

Mr Sesoko said that on 22 August, IPID had submitted the last investigation docket to the NPA for the Farlam Commission. There had been a meeting with the NPA regarding the issue of the reconstruction of scene 2, and the fact that IPID had not been given the funds to deal with that scene. Their advice was that they would look at the investigations which had been done so far with regard to that, and based on the available evidence they would make a recommendation and advise the NDPP whether they would be able to make a decision to prosecute or not. This would decide if there was still a need to carry out the reconstruction. Because of that, IPID was giving them time to go through all the dockets that had been submitted to them. Afterwards they would advise on how to move forward.

With regard to the positive and negative recommendations, there was continued engagement with SAPS on the issue. The situation was still not satisfactory, which was shown by the number of matters awaiting initiation and so on. While there had been significant progress on their part in terms of their response, there were still challenges with getting a quicker response, especially in line with their own regulations. IPID was hoping that they would be able to change this situation.

It was communicating directly with the victims of crimes themselves in order to indicate how far along an investigation was, even with delays. IPID’s position was that they must always communicate the timelines so that if there were delays, stakeholders understood what the delays were.

Because of budget constraints, IPID had cut their community outreach programmes to an extent that they were not able to communicate directly with as many stakeholders as they would like. However, on a one to one basis with those who were affected by the cases being investigated, IPID certainly tried to communicate. The budgetary restraints and the reprioritisation of investigations had created backlogs from the previous financial year. There was a strategy to try to clear the backlogs while at the same time trying to work on the prioritised matters.

The presentation had revealed that there were had been no positive recommendations for KwaZulu-Natal. This was because the office had not submitted positive recommendations for consolidation by the national office when they reported on their quarterly statistics. This was why it was not reflected in the presentation, but it should be reflected in the next quarterly report. The lapse of reporting had been raised with the province.

The Chairperson thanked the delegation and indicated that the Second Quarter’s hearing would be held on 7 November, and that IPID would be before the Committee on Wednesday 4 October in relation to the annual reports. He urged all departments to table their reports as soon as possible and to make copies available in advance to the Committee and researchers, as there were very tight deadlines this year. The vacancies of IPID had been noted, and more had to be done to sort out the panel and get a strategic position. The high profile cases were noted, and the Committee would await progress on the Farlam Commission at the next meeting. It was quite evident that the discussion with Treasury was very important so that IPID could continue its work effectively.

Ms Kohler Barnard suggested that it was time to call the Treasury to appearbefore the Committee again, as there were a number of questions being brought up that Treasury need to answer.

Civilian Secretariat for Police Service (CSPS): First Quarter Report

Mr Alvin Rapea, Secretary for Police Service (CSPS), said that the report for the First Quarter would deal with the service delivery environment, the organisational environment and the breakdown of expenditure during the first quarter of 2017/18.

He said that Minister Fikile Mbalula and Deputy Minister Bongi Mkongi had been appointed on 1 April 2017. During the time period being reported, on there had a major spike in crime against women and girl children in the country. During this time, the Ministry, the CSPS and the SAPS had taken steps on the ground to tackle the scourge of crime and violence that plagued communities. The change in leadership had led to the CSPS focusing on the 100 Days Programme. As part of this programme, the Minister and Deputy Minister had engaged communities in Soshanguve, Lusikisiki, Botshabelo, Elsies River, Klipgat, Mthatha, Zwelistha, Umlazi, Glebelands, Kwa Dabeka, Winterveldt and Fort Beaufort, among others.

The Secretariat had filled 140 of its 150 vacant posts by the end of the quarter under review, resulting in a vacancy rate of 6.7%. As for the status of employment equity, out of the 140 employees currently employed at the secretariat, 76 were females, while 64 were males, which translated to a 54:46 ratio.

Mr Willem Basson, Director: Strategic Planning, CSPS described the quarterly targets for each of the four programmes: Programme 1(Administration); Programme 2 (Intersectoral Coordination and Strategic Partnerships); Programme 3 (Policy Development and Research); and Programme 4 (Civilian Oversight, Monitoring and Evaluation). He highlighted the targets that had been met and those that had been missed in each programme, as well as drawing attention to the key achievements within each programme.

Mr Tumelo Nkojoana, Chief Financial Officer, CSPS, discussed the expenditure per programme. A number of graphs demonstrated the expenditure, as well as breaking it down by economic classification; the compensation of employees; goods and services; transfer payments; and the purchase of capital assets.

Ms Molebatsi queried some of the statistics that had been mentioned, as they did not correlate to the statistics in the hard copy of the presentation.

Mr Nkojoana noted that the last column on the presentation had not been printed out on the hard copy.

The Chairperson asked for an updated copy to be made available to the Committee.

Mr Nkojoana explained the cash-flow projections in comparison to the actual amount spent. At the end of the quarter, the department had spent R23.153 million, which was 18.6% of its 2017/18 total budget. The departmental cash-flow drawings had required it to spend 22.9% of the total budget, but it had under-spent by R5.385 million, or 4.3%. Among all the programmes, the relative under-spending ranged between 15% (for monitoring and evaluation) and 0,2% (administration).

The department had spent R19.109 million, or 21.5%, on the compensation of employees. This expenditure had been 1.4% below the projection, mainly due to the fact that the SMS annual cost-of-living adjustment had not been effected. Furthermore, there were a few vacant posts that still needed to be filled.

The department had spent R3.94 million, or 11.5% on goods and services This expenditure was 11.8% below budgeted levels. Management of the department would thus need to re-evaluate their current spending trends and reprioritise spending against the planned activities for the remainder of the financial year.

Discussion

Ms Mmola asked about the postponement of the joint consultative IPID / Secretariat forum meeting. Why had this meeting been postponed to the second quarter? When would it be sitting? Why had no reports been received from provinces regarding the implementation of Community Police Forum (CPF) guidelines? What steps had been taken about this? The reason given for the missed target on the number of provincial capacity building sessions held on crime prevention programmes, had been the unavailability of stakeholders. What was meant by this?

Mr Maake supported Ms Mmola’s question on what was meant by the unavailability of stakeholders. He requested that the percentages in terms of employment equity reflected the levels of these positions next time. What positions were the 54% of females in – were they predominantly cleaners or clerks? The higher levels could all be male, so the statistics at present did not tell much.

Ms Molebatsi asked why no reports had been received from provinces on the targets for policy development and research, and what would happen in relation to this.

Mr Mhlongo asked whether the workplace skills plan was in place. If so, what was the reason that there was no indicator as to the outcome of that in the targets for the first quarter? In Programme 2, the lack of reports from provinces was a concern, because during the recent visit to KwaZulu-Natal there had been an indication that there was an organisation which was competing against the CPF in crime fighting. It seemed that there was some sort of agreement with the CSPS in terms of the methodology used by these people, despite the fact that they did not appear to be adhering to the rule of law, as they used a lot of torture. How could this be improved, because if CSPS agreed with an organisation which operated outside a regulated environment against a statutory body like the CPF, that meant there was a problem somewhere.

Among all the programmes, the under-spending on monitoring and evaluation was the greatest. Was this being taken as a serious concern? Part of the CSPS’s task was to ensure that whatever form of legislation and rules of engagement that had been laid out were actually complied with. If this under-spending occurred, how would the CSPS recommend correcting this in the future so that there was an effective monitoring and evaluation of adherence to policy?

Mr Mbhele asked for clarity on the statistics given on the organisational environment. It had been mentioned that 140 out of 150 vacant posts were being filled. It had then been stated that the total number was 140, so there must have been fewer than 150 posts vacant. What was the number of vacant posts at the beginning of the financial year, and how many had been filled to get to 140 by the end of the first quarter? In which programme were the bulk of the posts that had been filled?

Was it possible to get a progress update on the development and finalisation of the complaints management system within the Secretariat? The Commission had received a report previously under the former Acting Secretary, but an update on the progress on that was important as the receiving, processing and finalising of service complaints from the public had been a neglected part of the CSPS’s work. The presentation had mentioned an intergovernmental assessment for the implementation of the 2016 White Paper on Safety and Security. Did this mean feedback had been solicited from other spheres of government concerning the White Paper? Were there any highlights that could be brought to the Committee’s attention from other provinces and local governments?

Ms Kohler Barnard asked why the Consultative Forum meeting had been postponed. It was a legislative requirement, and it had been established and set up because of the intervention of the Portfolio Committee. Those meetings should not be postponed as they played a crucial role. When would the meeting now be held?

Looking at policy development, there did not seem to be any targets for the first quarter. The CSPS aimed to submit three policies on policing to the Minister for approval by the end of 2017/18. The first one was due in the second quarter, in a few days’ time. The Secretariat really needed to tell the Committee if the targets would be met, and provide details on the policy. The Secretariat’s target for bills submitted to the Minister was four, with two before the end of the second quarter, and one each before the end of the next two quarters. The CSPS had under-performed significantly in terms of legislation targets in the previous two financial years. How would it pull up its socks in this regard? What was the lead time for the consultation process? Was that factored in, in terms of the management of progress for the current financial year?

The Chairperson noted that the CSPS was meant to play an oversight role over IPID and the SAPS. The CSPS was still divorcing itself from SAPS in terms of financial systems, support and location. Could the Secretary indicate when CSPS would be in a position to fulfil that role fully as per the legislation? Obviously there were capacity restraints, but an investigation was also being done by the public service to revamp the CSPS’s structure. Could there be a progress report on this? The Portfolio Committee’s view was that the CSPS must play a co-ordination role, and a leading role between the provinces and the different institutions. It was clear in the report that there had been a shortening of that mandate. Was it possible to get a view of how the CSPS was going to ensure that it played that leading role, and that it would not be determined by other institutions which were not available or were making excuses?

Mr Rapea replied that the Consultative Forum with IPID had been postponed due to the new Minister coming in, as it had put the programme off balance. One of the other reasons was that the core person who was dealing with issues of police conduct on CSPS’s side had been involved in working with the deputy minister on the 100 Day Programme. The issue of readiness was also a point, as there was an agreement with the Executive Director that they did not want to meet just for the sake of meeting, but rather to make sure that the discussions that took place resulted in a proper action plan. It was therefore agreed that the meeting would be postponed until the second quarter. This quarter, the meeting had happened but the focus had been on legislation and getting it out of the way so that there was a common agreement on the amendments. The next meeting would take place at the end of this month. It would deal with issues from both the first and second quarters.

The capacity building that was taking place dealt with issues which would be presented with the CSPS regulations and policies that had been developed so that the provinces could understand their role. When the workshops were arranged for the first quarter, there had not been enough people in the provinces who could come and participate, and so it could not be presented. The capacity building programme had now started in the second quarter with full participation from the provinces.

The next presentation given by the CSPS would provide a breakdown of the levels for the employment equity so that the Committee could get the full picture. It agreed that giving the percentages only could mean that women were predominantly in the lower levels, so this would be provided in the next presentation. The specific breakdown was also in the annual report that would be issued.

The workplace skills plan had been submitted to the Department of Higher Education every year, so that had been submitted at the beginning of the year, which was why it was not reflected in the first quarter report.

More details were needed on issue of the organisation in KwaZulu-Natal raised by Mr Mhlongo. The organisation did not have an agreement with CSPS, and this would need to be investigated in the province. The expenditure in terms of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) was not a serious concern to the CSPS, taking into consideration that the first quarter M&E had been pulled in because the Minister wanted the reports done up front. The report about the Domestic Violence Act (DVA) had not been finished, but it was finished now so the expenditure of M&E was now picking up.

The issue of the customer satisfaction survey was being finalised. In the first quarter, the CSPS had to say it should not go ahead with it, and this had had an impact on their spending. They were now analysing the information from the survey. It was picking up in terms of the work that they were doing, and hopefully a huge improvement would be seen in the next quarterly report.

It was not 150 vacant posts, but 140 of the 150 posts. During this period, 50 vacant positions were filled and the breakdown in the distribution of these posts could be given at a later date.

The complaints management system was in the process of being finalised. The major problem was the building, as CSPS needed to move to a new building. The building they resided in currently was on a month to month basis. There was a constraint that involved IT. The corporate governance of the IT framework had been finalised and would be approved this quarter, but implementing that framework when moving accommodation was a problem. The system needed to be housed somewhere, and so it was on hold. The Minister had indicated that the restructuring of the organisation needed to be prioritised. Work had been done with the DPSA, and it was in the first phase now. A report had been sent to the Minister about this work and CSPS was hoping that hr would give the go ahead for the move to a new building. A building had been identified by the DPW. It was in the same building as the Department of Arts and Culture, next to high court in Pretoria. This was in progress, but ministerial approval was needed.

Progress was being seen in the organisational structure and the restructuring of it. The policy had already been approved this quarter on reducing barriers to reporting sexual offences and crimes. This had been achieved for the second quarter, and other policies were being finalised. The opening slide of the presentation had indicated which bills the Minister had approved for consultation. The issue of the Firearms Control Act amendment had already been submitted, along with the draft Criminal Law Bill, which said that DNA samples should be taken from Schedule 8 offenders. IPID had already reported that the CSPS was busying finalising the Amendment Bill for IPID. The SAPS Amendment Bill would hopefully be drafted by the end of the year. A service provider was being brought in to assist with this.

If the CSPS got their structure approved and funded, then they would be able to do more than they were currently. They believed that they were doing the minimum of what that they were supposed to do. By the end of 2018/19, they hoped to be fulfilling their role. It was very difficult when working as the head of a department, with everyone reporting to you and having to check everything that comes through. It was very time consuming, and in some cases the CSPS did not have the numbers -- for instance, in legislation where there were not enough numbers to be able to deal with the issues of legislation.

The CSPS had a role to support the Minister with his international responsibilities which they were currently not fulfilling. There was not any unit that actually dealt with that. If there were international responsibilities that the Minister needed to undertake with support from the CSPS, then the CSPS usually used their policy and research unit, which was not ideal.

With the capacity building taking place in provinces, especially with the regulations, it would give provinces the ability to do the work that they were meant to do, and this would improve the CSPS’s role in fulfilling their mandate.

Regarding gender-based violence (GBV), there were a lot of other teams that had been established, even within the Justice, Crime Prevention and Security (JCPS) cluster, and CSPS was now engaging with the Department of Women. The report that would be presented would explain how the CSPS was taking a co-ordinating role in this area. Taking that role with the current capacity might stretch the department too far, so this might need to be done over a period of time as it was a huge programme which needed to be dealt with.

Mr Nkojoana added that about five of the posts previously mentioned were related to the implementation of the financial systems within the department. There had been interaction with the Treasury and the State Information Technology Agency (SITA), to the extent that space had been created for the CSPS. It had created the necessary codes to be able to procure the necessary things. Work was currently under way on this and it was hoped that by the third quarter, the necessary users would be identified and then they could be sent out for training by the end of the financial year. Hopefully, by next April the system would be up and running.

Mr Rapea said that by the time reports were received from the provinces on the CPF guidelines, it was already the second quarter, so although the reports had been obtained they were too late for the first quarter targets, as they needed to be signed off and the internal audit process was very strict in terms of the evidence regarding that. One of the issues highlighted in the report was that the North West and the Northern Cape had been struggling to implement the CPF guidelines due to issues around resources and the support from stations. When the report was received, action had been taken to see how the CSPS could support the provinces to overcome these challenges.

The Chairperson commented that the relationship between CSPS and SAPS since 1995 was an interesting story. The dilemma was that if the Secretariat was not on the front foot and leading, then SAPS could not observe those functions. There were issues around research that had been raised yesterday, where SAPS was conducting research on demilitarisation, whereas this was really the CSPS’s core business. There must be an understanding from the SAPS side on the core function of the CSPS. What was the relationship between the CSPS and SAPS? Was there anunderstanding of the role of the CSPS, or did they see it as an extended ministry?

Mr Mbhele commented on the lack of response on the feedback highlights from the intergovernmental assessment on the implementation of the White Paper. Was it also possible to get clarity on the implementation process in that same sort of area, as it seemed as though the Mayoral Committee for Safety and Security in Nelson Mandela Bay and Cape Town were unaware of this joint task team for the implementation of the single police service model. Sometimes interdepartmental consultation happened amongst officials, so it was not to say that the political office bearer was aware of all the details, but any feedback that came from local governance or provincial departments had to be signed off by the actuating authority. Was there a comprehensive consultation approach in which the received feedback for the intergovernmental assessments had been signed off, and touched base with all relevant departments and stakeholders?

Ms Kohler Barnard commended the implementation of 24 of the 27 audit findings by the Auditor General. What were the three outstanding ones? Why were two performance indicators neglected in the report? The number of customer satisfaction survey reports approved by the Secretary per year for this quarter, and the number of monitoring reports on police stations’ implementation of the school safety protocol as approved by the Secretary per year, had both been excluded from the report. Progress to date on these issues was needed, as well as giving an indication on whether the quarterly targets would be met.

Mr Rapea said that SAPS did not understand, or did not want to understand, the role of the CSPS. In the last financial year, there had been a resolution made at the Mayoral Committee that the CSPS needed to go and present to SAPS management on its role because they chose not to want to understand its role unless it suited them. The CSPS had tried to put their agenda on the top management meeting of SAPS, and it had been cancelled every time at the last minute. A document had been developed that was ready to be presented to SAPS. This was a problem, as it led to SAPS encroaching on areas that the CSPS worked in. The CSPS approach to working with SAPS was working as partners, as it was not there to find faults. It also should be able to say what the problems were and how they could work with SAPS to resolve these issues. Recently, with the new Minister, there was a top management meeting every Tuesday, where SAPS and CSPS gave reports, and this could work at this level but not at all levels.

The intergovernmental report that had been done should have been sent through to Parliament. The issue was the independence of local government and the implementation of the Community Safety Forum (CFS) as an unfunded mandate which did not come under their role. Another issue was the naming of the CFS -- do they have to be called CFS, or could they be called something else and still achieve the same, as a number of municipalities had safety programmes which they implemented but they did not call it CFS?

The report also highlighted the role of the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA) in assisting the CSPS, as in order to establish anything in local government, a council resolution was needed. In provinces like Limpopo, where the MEC had taken full responsibility, working very closely with the local government, they had managed to establish a CFS in all the municipalities. At the last meeting where this was presented, there had been a discussion and a decision that the Limpopo model should be looked into and perhaps implemented elsewhere, as it had been a very stringent consultative process. There was a budget allocated to deal with this issue. A detailed presentation on this could be given to the Committee if required.

Mr Mbhele asked Mr Rapea to explain why Limpopo had had such success in implementing CFS.

Mr Rapea explained that Limpopo had a Safety Department, with a budget that had been allocated specifically for that. The MEC had met with all the provinces and mayors to discuss how it needed to be implemented. It had been implemented at all the municipalities, and all of the CFS had been established. He requested the details on the consultation on the single police service in terms of content advice be sent through later. The consultation was taking place at an official level. The CSPS had requested that the HODs assist CSPS in accessing the council level.

Mr Nkojoana responded on the issues of the external Auditor General’s recommendations which had not been fully resolved, and said this related to the payment of suppliers within 30 days. The department had been having challenges in this area. During the first month of the first quarter, around 87% were paid within 30 days, which was an improvement on the previous financial year. Problems arose where bank details were not integrated into the CSPS’s system. As at the end of August, only one payment out of 347 payments had been made later than 30 days. This was due to the service provider not delivering all of the required partition instruments when the invoice was delivered. It had been paid after the delivery of the partition instruments, but the provider would not issue a new invoice. An MoU had also been established with the government printers so that procurement could take place through them.

Mr Rapea indicated that resources had finally been made available to deal with the issue which Mr Nkojoana had mentioned, of systems not talking to one another.

Third Term Committee programme

The Committee ran through the remainder of the report on the UK tour which had been tabled from the previous day. The report was adopted with minor corrections.

The report on the Committee’s oversight visit to police stations and specialised units in and around the province of KwaZulu-Natal, dated 13 September 2017, was also adopted with minor changes.

The Chairperson outlined the upcoming programme for the next term. The first week would be a full programme, as the report had to be in Parliament by 16 October, and if the China trip went ahead then that report must be adopted within a week. It was proposed that Members come on the Monday around 09h00 and then the Committee would deal with Programme 1 and 2 on the Monday, and then the rest of SAPS on Tuesday, and on Wednesday it would deal with IPID and the CSPS. The Thursday would be left for the Secretariat to finalise the reports through the night, and then Members would aim to adopt them on the Friday.

The Chairperson noted that Ms Kohler Barnard had a problem with getting there by 9am on the Monday.

Ms Kohler Barnard explained that if the meeting was shifted to 9:30am, then she would be more likely to make it from the airport in time, but otherwise she was likely to miss the first half an hour of the meeting as she could not stay over on the Sunday when she would need to spend the next five or six days in Parliament. Would it be possible to make it 9:30am?

Members agreed that 9:30am was suitable.

The Chairperson said that the second week would be the international tour, from 9 to13 October if all the signatures could be acquired. 17 October was for the adoption of reports, and then the Private Security Industry Regulation Authority (PSIRA) would present it quarterly and annual reports. Tuesday 24 October was reserved for the DPW on the SAPS and DPCI issues. IPID would now also be included in that. On Wednesday 25 October, it had been proposed that the KwaZulu-Natal police management should be invited to give a report and follow up on all the issues raised during that report. The issue of the government garage had been flagged, but perhaps that could be saved for another date as a full morning was really needed for that, as it really was a crisis. On the same day, there would be a report back from SAPS Western Cape management regarding the Mitchell’s Plain and Bellville South firearms issues, which would give feedback on the investigation progress and also the station management.

An indication had been given yesterday that the crime statistics would be announced in the next two to three weeks. The Committee needed an evaluation of the statistics, even if they came out during the Parliamentary recess, so there needs to be analysis after the release. The Institute for Security Studies (ISS) had given a good perspective of the real trends in their presentation the previous day, so that was what needed to be dealt with.

Wednesday 1 November was reserved for the SAPS second quarterly report, and Tuesday 7 November for the IPID’s second quarterly report.

During the joint meeting with the Finance Committee and the DPCI, the Directorate had spoken about high profile cases they were working on. An update on this was necessary, as well as on rhino poaching and the firearms and drugs units, so this had been scheduled for Wednesday 8 November.

There needed to be a new appointment for the DPCI judge, so the Committee needed to meet with the new incumbent if that person was appointed, and the annual report had to be dealt with.

Tuesday 14 November was open, and perhaps this should be used to look at the issue of the SAPS garage, as it was really affecting policing all over. There had been a proposal previously for the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) to present a gender-based violent crime summit. This would be a two day summit, on 15 and 16 November. The summit would tie in with the ‘16 days of Activism.’ COSATU had sent a memorandum to the Speaker, and she had now officially approached the Committee through the chair to deal with this matter. They have spoken to Ubuntu, a gender-based organisation. The first day would focus on gender-based violence and crimes against children, and the second day would look at violent crimes affecting the country, especially group crimes. It was hoped that the Speaker could open the conference and the Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces could close it. There had been attempts to source all the committees that were involved with women and children, including health, social development, justice and all the select committees as well. Another planning meeting was taking place tomorrow at the COSATU offices to finalise the programme, and then the chairpersons of the committee meetings would be part of the chairing of the session. Invitations would also be extended to 250 people, including people from government departments and civil society. At the end of the summit there would be a press conference. Academics were also being invited to present papers on gender-based violence. Members of the Committee were also likely to be used in the panel.

The week following, SAPS and CSPS would be invited back to give an update on the interaction they were having on the DVA. 22 November would be an oversight visit to the Western Cape to look at the gang unit there. The proposal for the second last meeting was to invite SAPS on the turnaround status of vetting for crime intelligence and SAPS. The last meeting would be for the adoption of outstanding minutes and reports.

All members agreed to this programme.

The meeting was adjourned.