SAPS 2018/19 Budget: CSP & IPID

This premium content has been made freely available


20 April 2018
Chairperson: Mr F Beukman (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

Annual Performance Plan (APP) of Government Departments & Entities 2018/19

The Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) and Civilian Secretariat for Police (CSP) briefed the Committee on budgets and Annual Performance Plans (APP) for the 2018/19 financial year. Both entities briefed Members on key targets, indicators, strategic priorities/objectives and performance of programmes along with budget, funding and financial performance information.

Members indicated that it was important for IPID to have all necessary resources, including financial support, in order to deal with corruption within the SA Police Service (SAPS) management as corruption with SAPS was currently out of control. In this regard, the limited budget of IPID was of specific concern to the Committee. Members questioned the transfer of funds, status of the national special investigating team, figures related to training and vetting. Members were concerned about the capacity of IPID to deal with its high caseload. Members asked about the cooperation between IPID and other investigating bodies, accruals, community awareness and the Mabala team squad. The Committee called for a joint meeting between IPID and SAPS to deal with worrisome issues revealed to Members during this meeting – cooperation between IPID and SAPS was paramount.

The Committee asked the CSP why the Committee should support its budget as the number of challenges facing the Secretariat was concerning. Members questioned the allocation of a secretary for the DPCI Judge, plans to deal with outstanding legislation, the huge spending on advertising and consultancy and indicators to measure the impact of Memoranda of Understanding with various stakeholders to create safer communities. There was also interest in cooperation between the CSP and SAPS, provincial secretariats, school safety and bursaries provided to staff. The Committee was disturbed to learn of the vehicle purchased for the DPCI Judge incurring the CSP overspending of R500 000 – the Committee did not understand why the CSP cried for increased funding when it was purchasing luxury vehicles. Members wanted to know if the purchase was in line with expenditure processes and Treasury directives.

Meeting report

Chairperson’s opening remarks
The Chairperson stated that the Committee had already completed the A-list of the Critical Infrastructure Protection Bill to be adopted Wednesday, 2 May. The Committee Programme is to be slightly amended to accommodate deliberation on the Bill.

IPID briefing Budget and APP 2018/19
Mr Robert McBride, IPID Executive Director, prefaced that when IPID undertook the same budget and APP presentation process before the Committee in April last year, a substantive argument was made for alleviating budget pressures given the needs of the organisation – this situation has still not changed and although there was some alleviation, it was not sufficient. Because of budget constraints, IPID made a strategic decision to change direction and focus on high value, low volume investigations i.e. high impact systemic corruption with the SA Police Service (SAPS). The enormity of corruption with SAPS was much more than IPID initially anticipated – the corruption was extensive, deep seated and systemic. Majority of procurement serves as a vehicle or conduit for money changing hands illegally. Although IPID was the lone beacon in the fight against corruption for 18 months, before it was fashionable, the most important fruit of this work is the anti-corruption environment and appetite to tackle corruption head on now present. Due to budgetary constraints, IPID also faced other pressures such as death threats and other attempts to derail investigations. IPID remain optimistic that the climate was changing for the better which enabled the fight against corruption.

IPID is at the forefront of fighting corruption in the country but without adequate funding the fight against corruption is seriously undermined. IPID received additional repriortised funding from the SA Police Service (SAPS) for the Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) period, although not adequate, the funds are allocated to strengthen internal capacity. IPID will continue its trilateral engagements with National Treasury and SAPS in an effort to source additional funding from SAPS. By having a well-resourced IPID which can adequately investigate corruption, the state can prevent the loss of resources which can be directed towards service delivery needs for all South Africans.

Ms Nomkhosi Netsianda, IPID Chief Director: Cooperate Services, stated that the purpose of Programme One, Administration, is to provide strategic leadership and management and support services to the Department. There is a target of providing seven strategic training areas to be undertaken under IPID’s training plan. There is a target of 70% for the finalisation of contracts or service level agreements within 30 working days.
Mr Matthews Sesoko, IPID Chief Director: Investigations, noted that the purpose of Programme Two, Investigation and Information Management, is to coordinate and facilitate the Directorate’s investigation processes through development of policy and strategic frameworks that guide and report on investigations. There is a target of providing training to 75 investigators on specialised services as per the Investigation Training Plan. There is a target of 90% for legal advice provided to investigators from the total request approved. There is a target of two statistical reports on investigations generated. IPID was planning to investigate 150 deaths in police custody.

Ms Suzan Letlape, IPID Acting Director, Strategy and Performance Monitoring, indicated that the purpose of Programme Three, Compliance Monitoring and Stakeholder Engagement, is to safeguard the principles of cooperative governance and stakeholder relations. There is a target of 90% for implementation of the Integrated Communication and Stakeholder Engagement Strategy in the 2018/19 financial year. There is a target of conducting 80 community outreach events per year and analysing 1 000 disciplinary recommendations referred to SAPS.

Mr Victor Senna, IPID Chief Financial Officer, said that civil litigation is lengthy and very costly as it involves the likes of former Police Commissioner, Lt Gen Khomotoso Phahlane, his wife and other high ranking SAPS officials.  IPID does not have budget set aside for litigation but since 2016, the Directorate spent in excess of R6 million on litigation. It can be expected that this litigation will intensify but IPID does not have the sufficient funds for these future litigation.

The Chairperson indicated that it was important for IPID to get all the necessary resources including financial support in order to deal with corruption within SAPS management. The Committee commended the fact that IPID now has an additional budget made available to it. Corruption within SAPS was currently out of control and IPID should be provided with all necessary resources to fight this corruption. It was stated that IPID needed an additional R20 million to deal with all cases. The Committee should hear whether any specific funding was allocated for the Farlam Commission of Inquiry. There was an indication of the R1.2 million set aside for the IPID Amendment Bill but could this amount not be used for other purposes?

Ms M Mmola (ANC) found the budget allocated for Compensation of Employees was extremely high, roughly 60% of the allocated budget – could this perhaps be reduced? It was difficult to understand why IPID was not budgeting to have enough funds to cover all objectives targeted in the financial year – who was complying the budget of IPID? What was the status of the national special investigation team?

Mr J Maake (ANC) noted that the presentation made reference to IPID transferring funds – where were funds being transferred to? It was confusing to see that IPID moved from reflecting actual figures of people who die in police custody to percentages - how was this possible? Was it possible to predict the number of people to die at police custody? The figures provided on the training offered did not make any sense either.

Ms A Molebatsi (ANC) wanted to know what criteria were used to categorise a case as being “high profile” – was this based on the person under investigation? What was the status of the personal evaluation form? What was the status on the vetting process to be undertaken? It would be important to know if IPID was quick response on cases forwarded to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA).

Mr L Ramatlakane (ANC) asked if IPID had any challenges with capacity to meet all targets. It would be important to know if internal audit was functioning effectively. It was concerning to note the accrual was growing and it was unclear as to why this was going up. Was the disclosure of accrual happening year-on-year? What are the measures in place to prevent growth of accruals? The Committee was in agreement there should be a recommendation for additional funding to be allocated to IPID - what was the budget proposal submitted or requested? What is the budget requested? The Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) prohibits shifting of funds from the Compensation of Employees to other programmes. Was the staff establishment of IPID approved? What was the approved budget for the staff establishment?

Mr P Mhlongo (EFF) commented that drastic steps need to be taken to root out corruption within SAPS management. It was quite clear there is a lot of corruption within SAPS and this needed to be dealt with. Was there any support provided to IPID to deal with corruption? The Standing Committee on Public Account (SCOPA) is currently seized with cases of serious corruption by SAPS management and this was particularly troubling for the Committee – was IPID cooperating with any other organisations or investigative bodies in this regard? The matter of Lt Gen Phahlane proved complex - perhaps there would be a need to cooperate with other investigative bodies, like the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (DPCI), to deal with these serious cases. It would be grossly irresponsible for IPID to be given the responsibility of being the only ones fighting systemic corruption. The building of state capacity required incentives that motivate people to work for an organisation. The Committee should be briefed on where training provided was credible and accredited in order to build this efficient state capacity.

Mr Mhlongo said there are usually limited resources, especially in impoverished areas, where people are often mistreated by police and often unaware of where to go to report these cases. IPID should perhaps collaborate with other stakeholders, like the Social Justice Coalition (SJC), to run awareness campaigns on the role of IPID. It was totally unacceptable to have this problem of fiscal dumping especially where it was not indicated where the funds were going to.
Mr Z Mbhele (DA) asked who was supposed to have conducted the work study around the capacity of IPID. How is IPID avoiding a decline in marketing? Was there any partnering with the DPCI Judge to market IPID without necessarily incurring any costs? What is the recourse that IPID had to challenge the kind of delussioned IPID work? What was the update on the Mabala Team squad since IPID last appeared before the Committee? The Committee should hear if there is any effectiveness from the Anti-Corruption Task Team (ACTT) in fighting corruption since there was an indication that there is now vigour and dynamism on corruption.

Ms D Kohler Barnard (DA) expressed concern about the lack of investigative capacity within IPID. There is a clear and deliberate attempt to underfund IPID by SAPS management – the police never wanted IPID to exist in the first place and this is a reality. What protection is provided to investigators considering incoming death threats? Was IPID’s internal audit effective? There were questions on travel claims ever since IPID was known as the Independent Complaints Directorate (ICD). It was clear now that it was high time for IPID to directly approach Treasury as it was troubling to see that IPID was being underfunded while its mandate was increasing.  

Ms L Mabija (ANC) asked who was responsible for investigating entities like IPID, the DPCI and Civilian Secretariat for Police (CSP).

Mr McBride responded that corruption within SAPS was not only widespread but also deep-rooted. Much of the monumental corruption post-1994 has not been detected, discovered or investigated. The Counter-Intelligence section of Crime Intelligence was unable to pick-up this corruption and it was then left to IPID to uncover this corruption. IPID is a relatively new organisation but was already given the role to deal with this corruption. There is no will within SAPS management to deal with corruption. IPID needs to start from scratch in finding the links and permutations of corruption - it will take IPID forever to deal with corruption judging by its current staff in place. The R20 million figure is just a stop gap measure. It was unfortunate that when IPID was created, it set the international model and was the pioneer in the field of investigative oversight. IPID was given an expanded mandate compared to the ICD and higher specialisation but with the same capacity (in fact less than) the ICD. This issue was repeatedly brought to the attention of the Committee, the Ministry and Treasury. The Auditor-General of SA (AGSA) indicated, in its report last year, a lack of adequate funding for IPID – this threatened IPID’s status as a going concern and this should be the biggest warning to everyone. IPID has been knocking on every door requesting funding at every instance.

IPID received nothing from the budget for the Farlam Commission of Inquiry. The previous Minister of Police sat in this Committee and there was a definite silence when he was asked on funding for the Farlam Commission of Inquiry.  Budgets are decided through a number of processes and IPID has complied with everything that needed to be done. The R20 million is just a stop gap measure, as indicated, as it only helped SAPS to reach next year without completely failing on the mandate. There is an error on the figure for the training provided and this would certainly be corrected. There are a number of issues that define a high profile case including rank, position and amount involved in the corruption. There is also the impact the person being investigated continued to hold. There are a combination of factors looked into when classifying a case as high profile. IPID was in engagement with other organisations to look into selection criteria for cases to be investigated especially given limited resources. IPID needed to avoid the situation of investigating everything as this would render the Directorate completely weak. IPID needs to focus on putting resources in the area that would have the most impact.  

IPID always wanted to touch those people considered “untouchable”. It must be explained that all assertions made by IPID in the Committee have not been proven unfounded. The Mabula squad was still active in attempt to defeat the ends of justice. The Mabula squad is in collaboration with some people in Crime Intelligence and IPID was aware of these people. There is nothing going on within the ACTT – Mr McBride could not even remember the last time IPID was invited to the ACTT. There is a lot talk within the ACTT but it seemed as if the unit was not serving its intended mandate - the issue might be lack of will. The reality is that police function like a gang as they protect each other and this is often referred to as a “blue curtain”. Racketeering is the way things are done and that is why corruption in the police is the threat to national security. The police are currently sitting with the most sensitive information and they know what is going on. Monumental corruption in the police is a huge threat. Everyday there are threats directed towards IPID investigators and management - these threats are intended to make IPID look the other way. Everyone at IPID was focused on doing the right thing and everyone has suffered while doing this so there is no way that IPID could look away. He made it clear that those who are threatening IPID should rather “stop now and just back-off”.       

Mr Sesoko replied that there was already an indication that there was no funding allocated for Farlam and this was a concern. IPID crafted an expansion strategy which is supposed to address issues of capacity and ensure IPID has representation in every district in the country. IPID needs to have fully-fledged offices that are fully capacitated. The corruption team of IPID investigates high profile cases which are project driven investigations and complex in nature. Former National Commissioner Lt Gen Phahlane has been charged as a result of these investigations. The huge corruption involving Forensic Data Analysis (FDA) was detected through investigation on corruption involving Lt Gen Phahlane. These are usually big investigations that required a lot of resources. The DPCI has only assisted IPID with two members in these investigations and the request was to have additional people to assist in these investigations. There was a meeting with the acting head of the DPCI where she agreed that indeed there should be assistance provided to IPID to investigate these cases of big corruption within SAPS. IPID was still waiting for people to come through. In essence, these are actions that are being taken by IPID to collaborate with other stakeholders.

IPID approached Treasury to say that some of these investigations would need forensic investigation expertise of auditors and Treasury has appointed a forensic firm to assist in evaluating these financial statements and documents being dealt with. The inclusion of percentage on targets is to accommodate the situation where reported cases to IPID increased. There is indeed an error on the specialised training to be provided as the figure is 225 not 325.

Mr Mbhele wanted to know if there is a figure of the average caseload for IPID investigators at any given time.

Mr Sesoko replied that there is an average of 60 cases based on current cases but this would obviously change based on incoming cases. IPID cannot stick to that number based on the backlog and the cases to be dealt with. There are also other cases coming to court that IPID needed to deal with in terms of processing. IPID hoped that by approaching the National Commissioner to address the issue of the Mabula squad there would be positive results but this was not the case. The view of IPID was that the interference in the investigation by Mabula squad could be resolved but this was not the case. There is a court order that both IPID and SAPS agreed to that this Mabula squad cannot conduct any investigation against IPID unless there is a direct and written instruction to do so by the National Director of Prosecutions. The squad has continued to do so and even approached some IPID investigators with the promise of being given higher positions within SAPS. IPID is being hampered in doing its work despite being a constitutionally-mandated institution and this was a major concern.

The Chairperson wanted to know if this interference was raised with the Executive Authority.

Ms Kohler Barnard thought joint meetings between the NPA and DPCI, including the Committee on Justice, was very successful. It was high time that SAPS and IPID together in one room to get to the bottom of these issues discussed. It has also just been reported that Lt Gen Adeline Shezi (SAPS Technology Management Services) was currently being investigated by IPID.

Mr Ramatlakane agreed there should be a meeting where the Committee would pull together IPID and SAPS in one room to discuss some of the matters revealed in this meeting. 
Mr Mbhele asked if the issue surrounding the Mabula rogue team was purely a disciplinary issue or had a potential dimension of crime.  

The Chairperson added that although there are a number of issues in that regard, there should be cooperation between SAPS and IPID.

Mr McBride responded that there was criminal dimension to Mabula as defeating the ends of justice and conspiracy to commit fraud and corruption are considered criminal acts. IPID has already submitted recommendations to the National Commissioner for the suspension of Mabula but he has not been suspended. There are also five prosecutors from the NPA in the priority crime litigation unit that must not be left out of the meeting proposed by Members.

Mr Sesoko added that IPID already briefed the Minister on the issue of the Mabula team and there is an expectation that the Minister would do something about this. IPID also finds it strange that the Minister agreed to collaborate with IPID but the Mabula team continued interfering in IPID investigations without any action taken. It was completely unacceptable for police officers who are being investigated by IPID to also investigate IPID – this was the principle of the matter. IPID hoped that intervention of the Minister would also assist on the litigation itself so as to resolve this matter. There are death threats directed to IPID investigators and it is believed these are coming from the rogue team. IPID tried to protect members with protecting abilities but this was clearly not enough judging by the limited resources. The Constitution allows IPID to investigate basically everyone but now IPID is also investigated by the police. The DPCI falls under the mandate of IPID. The CSP is investigated by the police.

Mr Senna responded that the nature of the work done by IPID was labour-intensive which means that there is a heavy reliance on the investigators. The 67% allocation to Compensation of Employees is to cover the warm bodies in the Directorate but this is not even enough to cover the ideal structure approved by the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA). Transfers are mainly to the Skills Education Training Authorities (SETA) for skills development. There were also transfers to households. Treasury indicated the disclosure on accruals was not accurate and IPID addressed this issue by recalculating all accruals for the 2016/17 financial year. IPID was quite confident that this issue would be addressed in this financial year. The accrual is the result of underfunding meaning not all contractual obligations are funded. IPID need to take money from other items to address this shortfall in contractual obligations. There is a budget control committee that sits on a monthly basis where all expenditure is scrutinised and corrective measures put in place.    

Ms Marianne Moroasui, IPID Chief Director: Legal Services, replied that the training provided to investigators is indeed accredited. The University of Pretoria has trained 308 investigators on forensic investigation and 60 investigators on investigations and management of fiber and electronic crime. IPID officials are indeed vetted and the accurate vetted figures could be provided in writing. IPID lacked capacity on conducting vetting internally as there is still heavy reliance on the State Security Agency (SSA).

Mr McBride indicated that there is community awareness undertaken IPID to make communities aware of the role of IPID. There is also partnership with the Public Protector and provincial safety and liaison offices. IPID was also using a lot of community radios and have standing slots on a regular basis on community radios like Inkwenkwezi FM and Radio Zibonele FM in the Western Cape. IPID even approached taxi ranks, clinics and other government offices to talk about its mandate.    

Mr Sesoko added that the majority of the work of IPID is happening in provinces on the ground. There are hundreds of cases on the court roll of IPID and these cases are happening provincially. Most of the cases reflected in the Committee are happening at national level while most of the work of IPID is happening at the lower level. There are over 7 000 cases that IPID investigate annually - what IPID is dealing with at national level is miniscule compared to the work at lower level on the ground in the provinces.    

CSP Budget Hearing Briefing 2018/19
Mr Tumelo Nkojoana, Acting Head of the CSP, indicated the key strategic priorities included strengthening community participation in building a peaceful and crime free society, supporting Community Police Forum (CPF) formations in society and reviewing the School Safety Strategy.

Ms Kohler Barnard expressed concern that the Secretary for Police was absent from this most important meeting.

Mr Nkojoana said communication was forwarded in regard to the absence of the Secretary from today’s meeting.  
Mr Willem Basson, CSP Director: Strategic Planning, indicated there is a target to maintain a vacancy rate of not more than 10% of the total staff establishment. There is also a target to implement 100% of the internal and external audit recommendations.

Mr Benjamin Ntuli, CSP Chief Director: Partnership, said the purpose of Programme Two is to ensure intersectoral coordination and strategic partnership. There is a target to strengthen community outreach programmes through Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) signed off with stakeholders. There is also a target to facilitate establishment of Community Safety Forum’s (CSFs).

 Adv Dawn Bell, CSP Chief Director: Legislation, mentioned that under sub-programme 3.1, Policy Development and Research, priorities would be on development of phase three of the policy framework on the Single Police Service.  There is also a plan to develop guidelines to enhance SAPS performance indicators. There is also a priority to review and amend the School Safety Protocol.

Mr Moeketsi Mashibini, CSP Chief Director: Cooperate Services, stated that the purpose of Programme Four is to monitor police performance and conduct and compliance monitoring. There is a target to produce police station census data to provide strategic advice to the Minister for strategic interventions to improve service delivery.  There is also a priority to provide the Minister with the status of compliance and service delivery trends on implementation of policy, legislation and SAPS standards. There is a target to provide assessment reports on how SAPS is implementing the School Safety Programme at local level.

Mr Nkojoana mentioned that the total approved post establishment is currently 149. The staff complement is 139. The total current vacancy rate is 10.
The Chairperson asked the CSP why the Committee should support its budget. The DPCI Judge indicated a number of challenges, like lack of a Secretary, and this was a key concern for the Committee. What had been done to resolve this matter? There is not enough time to process legislation this year because this was being considered an “election year”. What are the plans in place to deal with the processing of outstanding legislation?

Ms Molebatsi wanted to know if there are any plans in place for the CSP to be a separate entity. Why there was huge spending on advertising? How could the CSP measure impact of the MOUs with various stakeholders to create a safer community?

Ms Mabija was curious to know if what was contained in the presentation would be enough to improve the overall performance of SAPS. What is it that the CSP would need to do in order to improve existing challenges within SAPS? The CSP was not an investigative body but rather conducted monitoring and evaluation of SAPS. Why not establish a board to serve the CSP?

Mr Maake was surprised to notice that there is no cooperation between SAPS and the CSP. It would be important to hear how the CSP was planning to resolve this problem especially given the limited access to SAPS data. How would this challenge be navigated? What could the Committee do to resolve this problem?

Mr Mhlongo commented that it was completely unacceptable to hear that there is lack of cooperation between SAPS and the CSP. What legislation could be introduced to enforce SAPS to cooperate with the CSP? The Committee should be provided with a list of stakeholders that the CSP was engaging with so that the Committee could also interact with those stakeholders. There is a disjuncture between national and provincial level on CSP entities. Why there was an increase in advertising?

Mr Mbhele stated that the Constitution is quite clear on the role of provincial secretariats monitoring police conduct but this is not the case nationally. It was unclear if there was school safety protocol in place. There are still some issues around school safety? There should be involvement of other stakeholders, like the Department of Social Development, in order to address challenges of school safety. Was there any strengthening and refinement of complaints received?

Ms Kohler Barnard also wanted to know why there was an increase in advertising. Why was the CSP giving its staff bursaries when they earned enough to pay for themselves? There was 84% utilisation of consultancy and this was a major concern. The issue of leases needed to be resolved. What were the criteria used for performance indicators? Where is the performance indicator for the appointment of persons with disabilities? Was the issue of providing the DPCI Judge with a secretary now resolved? Why was the indicator measuring the number of police stations visited removed? Was this because SAPS was ignoring this indicator? Even if SAPS was ignoring this indicator it was still important for the CSP to reflect this indicator as it will enforce SAPS to recognise this. Why was the CSP buying the DPCI Judge a new expensive car when he should be paying this himself?

Mr Nkojoana responded that the problem of accessing SAPS data has been an ongoing challenge and the change in leadership within has not brought about any changes in this regard. The CSP is always preparing an engagement letter informing SAPS on the kind of information required and process to be followed in obtaining that information but the change of leadership has not been doing any justice to this process. The reality is that the civilian secretariats in most provinces are not being taken seriously as there are cases where the civilian secretariat would be part of another department. The CSP was currently in the process of reviewing its organisational structure and this would speak to capacity constraints in place. This is to ensure that the CSP was able to fully implement its mandate. The DPCI Judge and DNA Board are both programmes within the CSP.

The Chairperson noted that the Civilian Secretariat of Police is part of the DNA Board and therefore the CSP must lead by example in everything being done.

Mr Nkojoana responded that the CSP has taken note of this and it would be taken on board.  

Mr Basson added that there was discussion on the need to review the school safety protocol to deal with the increase in school and gang violence. 

Adv Bell indicated that the Critical Infrastructure Protection Bill is currently with the Committee. The DNA Bill is currently being taken to the Justice, Crime Prevention and Security (JCPS) Cabinet committee on 3 May 2018. Cabinet will be asked to table the Bill because it was urgently required.
The Firearm Protection Bill was published for public comments in 2015. There was then a firearm summit held by the Committee which stopped processing of the Bill as the CSP needed to attend this summit. Issues that emanated in the summit resulted in establishment of the Ministerial Firearm Committee and almost total redraft of the Bill by the firearm committee, some of which was controversial. Some of the issues around this were sensitive and would not be discussed at this point given that full internal consultation was still ongoing. The Protection of Constitutional Democracy Against Terrorism and Terrorist-Related Activities Amendment Bill was halted because of ongoing related Constitutional Court cases but the Bill was almost done. The long overdue SAPS Act was being drafted with the assistance of Dr Jacobs (previously from SAPS) on a one-year contract. All entities, including IPID, were invited to provide comment on what they would like to see in review of the SAPS Act. There would be consultation with the provinces on the Animal Movement Bill at the same time as the SAPS Act.

The Chairperson requested this update also be provided in writing.

Mr Hendrick Robertse, CSP Director: Finance, responded that the CSP spent only R2 million in advertising in the 2016/17 financial year and spent around R829 000 in the 2017/18 financial year. The budget for advertising in 2018/19 was R1.2 million and this was mostly going to the Office of the DPCI Judge and CSP partnership for promotion and marketing unit. Most of the expenditure on consultancy goes towards paying the internal audit committee members, DNA Board members as well as researchers used. The operating lease is not something that the Committee should be concerned about as this is payment around buildings including parking for the staff and some of the leases on photocopy machines. The overspending on the DPCI Judge was only because of the vehicle bought for the Judge. The overspending is just over R500 0000.

Ms Kohler Barnard wanted to know why there was a need to purchase a vehicle for the Judge as he could use Uber to travel around.

Mr Nkojoana responded that the indication was that the vehicle was something that could improve service delivery of the Judge. The lack of vehicle could have hampered service delivery on the side of the Judge. The Judge did not have a car and used to use a state car. The Judge felt there are certain investigations that would require him to personally go there.

Ms Kohler Barnard indicated that judges are some of the highest paid people in the country and the DPCI Judge had just extorted money out of the CSP to get himself an expensive vehicle. This is a bad decision that should not be allowed.

The Chairperson asked if there was a policy that was being followed or Treasury direction that led to the decision to purchase such an expensive vehicle.

Mr Nkojoana replied that this was one of the working tools of the Judge. The Act allows the Judge to be afforded tools that would enhance service delivery and the Judge indicated that the vehicle is one of the working tools required. The car would be a departmental car and therefore it would be an asset of the Department.

Ms Mabija said that the Judge should be delivering on his mandate regardless of a car. The CSP was using funds in a wrong way but then cried to the Committee about lack of funds. It was irrelevant whether this was a departmental car as the CSP was still using funds meant for service delivery for self enrichment. The Committee should know if there is a policy written down that the Judge should be provided with luxuries such as vehicles.

Mr Mhlongo commented that it was a bad decision to purchase such an expensive vehicle for the Judge who would be stationed in the office for most of time. This was a complete lack of oversight.

Mr Mbhele also found it a bit strange for an entity to overspend because of purchasing a vehicle instead of focusing on service delivery. 

Mr Mashibini responded that the matter of the appointment of a secretary for the DPCI Judge was currently with the Minister. There are processes that needed to be followed for appointment of a secretary for the DPCI Judge because of the level of this post. A request was submitted to the Minister to consider creating the post to be advertised for application.

Mr Maake wanted to know if the upgrading of the post was for any individual.

Mr Mashibini responded that there is a list of MoUs with various stakeholders although this list was not too long. It was a challenge these days to work with various stakeholders as people want to be paid as much for the service rendered, such as attending meeting. There are many challenges in working with stakeholders such as CPFs and others. The CSP is compelled by the National Skills Development Strategy to have two types of beneficiaries for those who are employed and those who are unemployed. Those who are employed must be allocated bursaries so as to be capacitated and improve their skills. There is currently 1.6% of employees with disabilities and the disability target is 2%.    

Mr Nkojoana added that there was a plan in place to cut down on consultancy but there was an issue on the approval of the structure that compelled CSP to utilise consultancy. The target on station visits is still there and this year there is a plan to visit all police stations in the country and in this regard the CSP would be working together with the provinces. There was a process followed to procure the vehicle for the Judge.

 The meeting was adjourned.

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: