The Portfolio Committee on Police met to be briefed by the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) and the Civilian Secretariat for Police Service (CSPS) on their 2019/20 Budget Overviews in preparation for the Parliamentary budget hearing.
IPID’s briefing began with an overview by the Acting Executive Director where it was said the successes of the past financial year included the achievement and increasing of IPID’s overall performance targets. IPID secured numerous criminal convictions placed with the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) and various courts across the country. IPID had also secured positive disciplinary convictions and was investigating several high-profile cases across a range of crimes.
The Annual Performance Plan (APP) for 2019/20 was tabled in June 2019. It was emphasised that IPID’s operations were stable despite the departure of former Executive Director, Mr Robert McBride. However, IPID appreciated that the position of Executive Director be filled permanently as a matter of urgency.
IPID had 7 781 backlog cases, but there was a strategy in place to deal with this backlog.
IPID’s priorities included continuation of investigation of high impact cases. Due to the limited funding of IPID, it was important to prioritise cases. This did not mean that IPID focused solely on high impact cases - all cases were investigated. Secondly, IPID was working with the NPA to ensure all cases were prosecuted as a matter of urgency. There was also a focus on finalisation of amendment of the IPID Act in line with the Constitutional Court ruling. The next focal area was on full implementation of IPID Act, Section 23. This meant that all IPID investigators needed to be paid on par with SAPS detectives. This was not fully implemented due to funding challenges as well as processes that needed to be followed to ensure full implementation. IPID was addressing the dependencies to ensure full implementation of Section 23 so that IPID investigators could receive their due. Another focal area was for IPID to keep up to date with technology. IPID began the process of modernising operations and upgrading ICT infrastructure. IPID wanted to focus on procuring tools required to effectively investigate cases. IPID was in the process of relocating the head office and finalising its organisational structure to ensure IPID was fit for purpose to fulfil its mandate. Another focus area was the review of some satellite offices that had been closed. IPID was forced to close at least five satellite offices due to funding challenges. This created the challenge of ensuring access to ordinary members of the community. IPID was reviewing the limited funds available to assess the viability of reopening the offices to remedy this. IPID was focusing on achieving a clean audit in line with its three-year plan. These were the high-level focus areas for IPID.
The rest of the briefing addressed the budget allocation for the first quarter of 2019 and preliminary expenditure and the specific programmes of IPID, namely, Administration, Investigation and Information Management, Legal and Investigation Advisory Services and Compliance Monitoring and Stakeholder Management.
The Committee was concerned that some of the numbers presented did not reconcile, that some of the indicators were unrealistic, amendments to the Annual Performance Plan (APP) and Strategic Plan, the number of acting positions and
Members questioned IPID’s relationship with the NPA, establishing regions and districts, regression in targets, the core business of IPID and the large portion of the budget concentrated on compensation of employees. Members were concerned by capacity constraints especially in terms of IPID’s role in fighting corruption. Other questions posed related to the ICT strategy, reallocation of the head office, the accessibility of IPID and if it was marketed as it should be, closure of satellite offices, backlogs and intergovernmental relations. Members wanted to know about IPID’s recruitment criteria, community outreach programmes, lack of targets relating to successful prosecutions, the integrated criminal justice system, prioritisation of high-profile cases and progress made with the IPID Act. Were the IPID disciplinary recommendations implemented by SAPS and metro police? Were recommendations made followed up upon? Was there proper cooperation with SAPS and metros in terms of Chapter Seven of the IPID Act? Was there progress on investigations and the relationship with NPA? How would IPID ensure SAPS implemented recommendations made by IPID?
Members were not impressed by the IPID presentation and felt it lacked preparedness. It was suggested that a workshop be organised between the Committee and IPID to fully inform Members of the role, operations and mandate of the Directorate. Questions were asked that were not in line with IPID’s operations and such workshop would clarify IPID’s mandate and the types of cases investigated. Some Members felt undermined and did not appreciate the way in which IPID was answering their questions.
The matter of the appointment of a permanent Executive Director of IPID was raised where it was implored that the Minister respond to the matter urgently as the secondment of the acting Executive Director ends at the end of July. Without this, budgets would remain unchanged and targets would not be met. The Committee understood the importance of leadership, in particular in institutions such as IPID which was fundamentally responsible for the honesty and professionalism expected of police services. If IPID was not able to strike fear into criminal and corrupt elements of the police, then IPID was not doing its job.
The CSPS then presented its 2019/20 budget overview which touched on the background to the body and key strategic priorities, namely, that the strategic goals of the CSPS were formed in light of the R146 million budget, and included: a well-advised and supported Minister that ensured service delivery-orientated policing that was accountable. Additionally, the provision of quality, timeous, evidence-based strategic research, policy advice and legislative support to the Minister, as well as deepened public participation in the fight against crime, and the enhancement of accountability and transformation of the police service. The key strategic priorities were to strengthen community participation in building a peaceful and crime-free society. The CSPS was also responsible for ensuring the support for community policing forums and community safety forums, and their formation, development of policing policies and evidence-based research for improved service delivery, submission of policing legislative Bills for approval and effective oversight of the conduct and performance of SAPS.
The presentation also spoke to the operational budget and programmes of the CSPS, namely, Administration, Inter-Sectoral Coordination and Strategic Partnerships, Legislation and Policy Development and Civilian Oversight, Monitoring and Evaluation. The briefing also addressed Finance Management and Human Resources Recruitment and Selection.
The Committee was disappointed with the presentation and said that the CSPS had enormous responsibility with respect to the performance of the police and enabling the Minister to perform ministerial duties. The presentation did not inspire confidence that the mandate was being adequately delivered upon. In particular, the fact that the Committee was forced to juggle between the APP of the CSPS and the actual presentation. Members said none of actual targets and performance indicators were presented which left the Committee in the dark. It was said the presentation lacked detail and was therefore difficult to understand in terms of performance and delivery.
Members agreed that the CSPS be sent back to prepare a better presentation for Members to consider.
The Chairperson thanked Members for attending the meeting and expressed particular gratitude to the delegation from the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) who was initially scheduled to present the following day but rearranged its schedule to attend the Committee meeting. If this form of collaboration continued, there were positive prospects for the future of independent policing.
IPID 2019/2020 Budget Hearing Briefing to the Portfolio Committee on Police
Mr Victor Senna, Acting IPID Executive Director, began by reemphasising the point made by Mr A Whitfield (DA) that the Committee was an apolitical environment. This was important as there was a need to collaborate in the face of matters to gain public confidence in fighting crime and corruption in South Africa.
Executive Director’s Overview
IPID was established in terms of Section 206(6) of the Constitution as well as the IPID Act, to investigate alleged misconduct committed by members of the SA Police Service (SAPS) as well as municipal police services. There was a loophole in terms of provincial traffic departments where IPID did not have a mandate and this was one of the matters that would be covered as part of amendment of the IPID Act.
Mr Senna reminded the Committee that the Constitutional Court had, in 2016, reaffirmed IPID’s structural and operational independence so as to ensure IPID could execute its mandate without fear, favour or prejudice. The Court had also said IPID was not, however, exempt from political accountability.
IPID needed to strive for the highest levels of professionalism to secure public trust and confidence.
IPID was at the forefront of fighting corruption and it was therefore important that it was properly funded and resourced.
The successes of the past financial year included the achievement and increasing of IPID’s overall performance targets. IPID secured numerous criminal convictions placed with the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) and various courts across the country. IPID had also secured positive disciplinary convictions and was investigating several high-profile cases across a range of crimes.
The Annual Performance Plan (APP) for 2019/20 was tabled in June 2019. It was emphasised that IPID’s operations were stable despite the departure of former Executive Director, Mr Robert McBride. However, IPID appreciated that the position of Executive Director be filled permanently as a matter of urgency.
IPID had 7 781 backlog cases, but there was a strategy in place to deal with this backlog.
IPID’s priorities included continuation of investigation of high impact cases. Due to the limited funding of IPID, it was important to prioritise cases. This did not mean that IPID focused solely on high impact cases - all cases were investigated. Secondly, IPID was working with the NPA to ensure all cases were prosecuted as a matter of urgency. Mr Senna met with the new National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP), Adv Shamila Batohi, to discuss strategies for moving forward in terms of the system required from IPID by the NPA to ensure prosecution of all cases. There was also a focus on finalisation of amendment of the IPID Act in line with the Constitutional Court ruling. Mr Senna appreciated the support of the Committee in that regard so as to close loopholes contained within the current IPID Act. The next focal area was on full implementation of IPID Act, Section 23. This meant that all IPID investigators needed to be paid on par with SAPS detectives. This was not fully implemented due to funding challenges as well as processes that needed to be followed to ensure full implementation. IPID was addressing the dependencies to ensure full implementation of Section 23 so that IPID investigators could receive their due. Another focal area was for IPID to keep up to date with technology. IPID began the process of modernising operations and upgrading ICT infrastructure. IPID wanted to focus on procuring tools required to effectively investigate cases. IPID was in the process of relocating the head office and finalising its organisational structure to ensure IPID was fit for purpose to fulfil its mandate. Another focus area was the review of some satellite offices that had been closed. IPID was forced to close at least five satellite offices due to funding challenges. This created the challenge of ensuring access to ordinary members of the community. IPID was reviewing the limited funds available to assess the viability of reopening the offices to remedy this. IPID was focusing on achieving a clean audit in line with its three-year plan. These were the high-level focus areas for IPID.
Budget Allocation for the First Quarter of 2019 and Preliminary Expenditure
The Acting Chief Financial Officer, Mr Patrick Setshedi, dealt with the financial position of IPID. IPID’s budget allocation had significantly increased by 34 percent due to assistance received from SAPS.
The analysis of the budget allocations was that the bulk of the budget extended to servicing contractual obligations. IPID had had difficulty settling contractual obligations for services rendered and had had to engage Treasury to ensure these were settled and for this reason contractual obligation servicing was prioritised in the current budget. There was little opportunity for expansion when looking at the growth. Mr Senna had mentioned the closure of satellite offices due to financial constraints in the opening remarks. When looking at IPID’s baseline, it was determined by goods and services, contractual obligations, the operations of IPID, and staff salaries. This meant there was no room for additional activities.
The demonstration of the 2019/20 budget allocation was that of the total budget of R336 million, less the composition of employees (the majority of which were investigators), as well as contractual obligations which claimed R55 million, meant the remaining budget was R52 million. This remaining R52 million was needed to satisfy all operationals of IPID in the financial year.
Budget allocation was distributed across four programmes: Administration, Investigation and Information Managements, Legal Services, and Compliance Monitoring and Stakeholder Management. The 60 percent of allocations were at the core – Investigation and Information Management. Administration received 32 percent. Compliance Monitoring and Stakeholder Management received five percent. Legal Services received two percent.
Economic classification of the budget was 65 percent allocated to employees, the majority of which were investigators. 30.2 percent was allocated to goods and services for operational activities, the majority of which were contractual obligations. 1.6 percent was allocated to capital assets. 0.2 percent was allocated for transfer payments for the skills development levy.
The allocations per province saw the top three provinces in terms of budget allocations being: KwaZulu-Natal, Western Cape and Gauteng allocated the bulk of the budget based on provincial size and case intake.
Allocation priorities considered were aligned with the National Development Plan (NDP) baseline priorities. Reallocation of funds was done from non-core activities to core services such as investigation. Investigation capacity had always been reprioritised in terms of the limited baseline so as to ensure IPID had investigators. There were overall capacity constraints. Control systems services were severely affected (integrity strengthening and employee protection needed to be capacitated).
Other policy matters requiring additional funding included the Expansion Strategy which required R330 million to increase visibility in various provinces. Another was the building of an emergency specialised investigation capacity within IPID. The Farlam Commission recommended IPID build its own capacity to conduct investigations into serious corruption. There was pressure to fully implement Section 23 of the IPID Act. Resourcing for partial implementation had not been enough. Business continuity and disaster recovery plans were brought to the attention of Treasury so as to assist IPID in being able to recover in the case of unforeseen disruptions not addressed at the time of presenting.
Summary of the Strategic Plan and APP Amendments
The Director: Strategy and Performance Monitoring, Ms Susan Letlape, provided a summary of the IPID Strategic Plan and APP Amendments. The only strategic plan amendments made related to Programme Three.
APP amendments were made under Programme One to provide an ICT infrastructure plan and positive audit outcome obtainment. There was a proposal to amend the name of the Programme to distinguish it from the regular legal advice programmes. This had seen it changed to Legal and Investigation Advisory Services as it played a role over and above the provision of legal advice to the department. This extended to the provision of legal advice to investigators during and after investigations. Performance indicators added were: i) the percentage of legal advice provided to the department on litigation matters, ii) the number of workshops conducted with investigators on practice notes produced, and iii) Programme Four which had received an indicator regarding the number of case docket inspections conducted per year.
Programme 1: Administration
The Chief Director: Corporate Services, Ms Nomkhosi Netsianda, began the Programme One presentation by providing an orientation of IPID and its structure. IPID had 188 employees. More than half were based in investigations. IPID had offices in all provinces, as well as district offices (some of which had been closed). The national office was in Pretoria. All provincial offices were headed by provincial heads at Chief Director level. At the IPID national office, Mr Senna was supported by four Programme Managers.
The purpose of Programme One was to provide strategic leadership management and support services to in IPID. It consisted of the sub-programmes and components which included:
i) Departmental Management, comprised of:
a) Executive Support which was responsible for supporting the office of the Executive Director so as to function efficiently
b) Corporate Governance housed the Ethics and Risk Management division to ensure freedom from forms of unethical risk. This was to mitigate identified risk areas
c) Strategy and Performance Monitoring assisted with departmental planning, monitoring and evaluation, as well as having reporting responsibilities
d) Security Management was responsible for physical and information security
e) Vetting Services fell under Security Management
ii) Internal Auditing provided assurance to management in terms of compliance with relevant prescripts and legislation, as well as systems compliance. Advice was also provided on improvement of internal controls.
iii) Finance Services consisted of the Office of the Chief Financial Officer and undertook strategic budgeting in line with business or service delivery needs. There was also responsibility for expenditure monitoring and control. Advice was given to the Accounting Officer on budget and financial matters. There was a Supply Chain and Asset Management component.
iv) Corporate Services consisted of:
Human Resource Management and Development Services which was responsible for all conditions of services in line with the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, as well as performance management, and an employee health and wellness unit. Human Resource Development was responsible for ensuring a capable workforce able to respond to the IPID mandate, as well as labour relations, grievance assistance and misconduct cases.
Information and Communication Technology was tasked with modernising the IPID business environment and ensuring safety and efficiency.
Auxiliary Services was responsible for procuring and maintaining, through the DPW, IPID facilities. Auxiliary Services also undertook records management
v) Office Accommodation
Programme 2: Investigation and Information Management
Programme Two was presented by the Chief Director: Investigation and Information Management, Mr Matthews Sesoko. Programme Two facilitated and coordinated IPID’s investigation processes through the development of policy and strategic frameworks that guided and reported on investigations. It consisted of three sub-programmes: Investigation Management, Investigation Services, and Information Management. Investigation Management was responsible for policy and investigation strategy and standards. High profile investigations were conducted under the sub-programme in the National Specialised Investigation Team. Investigations Services was where provincial offices were situated. Information Management was responsible for statistics, database and knowledge management.
Programme 3: Legal and Investigation Advisory Services
The Chief Director: Legal Services, Adv Marianne Moroasui said the purpose of Programme Three was to manage and facilitate the provision of investigation advisory services and provincial legal, civil and labour litigation services. The three sub-programmes were: Legal Support and Administration, Litigation Advisory Services and Investigation Advisory Services. Investigation Advisory Services coordinated civil and labour litigation matters. Investigation Advisory Services was responsible for providing support to IPID investigators during and after investigations.
Programme 4: Compliance Monitoring and Stakeholder Management
The Chief Director: Compliance Monitoring and Stakeholder Management, Ms Mamodishe Molope, said the purpose of the Programme was to safeguard principles of cooperative governance and stakeholder relations, monitoring and evaluation of the relevance and appropriateness of recommendations made to SAPS and the NPA in terms of the IPID Act. The three sub-programmes included: Compliance Monitoring, Integrity Management and Stakeholder Management. Compliance Monitoring dealt with complaints of alleged misconduct report by citizens. Investigators investigated claims and made recommendations to SAPS, where the quality of these recommendations was assessed. Integrity Management was a subsidiary of Compliance Monitoring which focused on matters of fraud, corruption, and unethical conduct by IPID employees. Stakeholder Management was coupled with Communications on matters related to interactions with stakeholders.
The strategic objective was to ensure an integrated communication and stakeholder engagement strategy.
Mr Senna emphasised IPID would continuously follow-up on all outstanding dependencies so as to ensure implementation of Section 23. Continuous expenditure monitoring was done to ensure overspending did not occur. Cost containment measures were used to redirect funds away from non-core activities. IPID continued to carry out its mandate without fear or favour. IPID required the support of the Committee in carrying out its mandate.
Ms J Mofokeng (ANC) wanted to clarify whether this was the IPID delegation’s first presentation before the Portfolio Committee on Police. IPID and the Committee would be assisting one another. Oversight needed to be done and should be taken as positive feedback. She noted the numbers did not reconcile regarding previous years’ successes, number of disciplinary convictions secured and the number of positive and negative recommendations, as presented. When the presentation made reference to “working with the NPA to ensure speedy prosecution of cases”, what kind of cases would these be? This was confusingly-presented.
In terms of IPID’s operations across the provinces, there had been a statement that IPID was attempting to establish “regions and districts”. What was this saying? This needed to be clear because regions and districts were in provinces. How was Stakeholder Management going to be used to reach these areas?
The presentation made reference to a statement of IPID’s general capacity constraints, and the effects on integrity strengthening and protection, as well as community outreach events, the indicators associated with these were unrealistic. The content in the presentation regarding regional district establishment was questioned in relation to this.
Regarding amendments to the IPID Act referred to in the presentation, the summary of the strategic plan outlined amendments to the strategic plan programme, then later outlined amendments to the APP. Yet upon returning to the Administration sub-programme, it was stated there were no amendments to objectives, indicators and strategic targets. This reflected confusing indicators and did not make sense.
Ms Mofokeng asked that the page structuring of IPID’s document be changed to a similar format to that of SAPS so as to allow members to efficiently move back and forth through the documents.
In terms of programme performance indicators and Medium Term Framework (MTF) annual targets that would be implemented as reflected in the presentation, a ten percent target was stated. Yet when moving to the audit, it was stated the percentage implementation of the annual internal audit was targeted at 80 percent in 2019 and 90 percent in 2020. This showed an effort for improvement. Why did the number of evaluations conducted per year remain at one?
Regarding the goal of obtaining a positive audit outcome, an unqualified audit opinion was received in 2019/20, which was acceptable. Why did this remain a target from 2021-2022?
When the presentation referenced specialised investigative capacity and the number of investigators trained on specialised services and investigation per year, the target was 325. Why were the following years set at 75?
Other departments made efforts to target growth through their indicators. The IPID targets did not seem to do this, therefore the budget would remain the same.
If Ms Mofokeng was still a teacher, IPID would have received zero as there was no thinking reflected in the presentation.
The Chairperson asked that the other Committee Members attempt to be more succinct than Ms Mofokeng.
Ms Majozi asked what the core business of IPID was. In the overview, it was stated IPID was at the forefront of fighting corruption in the country and therefore without adequate funding the fight against corruption would be undermined. Yet when examining the budgeting, it was directed to employees. Did this allocation align with the core business of IPID?
In terms of capacity constraints, could the Committee be provided with a structure of IPID’s current position and what it needed moving forward. This would allow performance towards indicators. Indicators had been provided but the Committee had then been “left hanging” because of IPID’s capacity constraints. Which departments were these capacity constraints in?
The indicators in the presentation did not add up, as mentioned by Ms Mofokeng. IPID could not say there were no amendments to be made to objectives indicators and then add new indicators. This did not make sense.
On the ICT strategy and the “unqualified” implementation on the ICT Structure Plan, the medium-term targets did not make clear where IPID was “suffering”. Ms Majozi knew ICT was a challenge and investigations needed cybersecurity to avoid hacking and information theft. Were there gaps in ICT, Human Resourcing, or investigative capacity?
On page 31 of the presentation, was the number 325 supposed to be the entire targets for 2019-2022? Was it a strategic target for the current year? Why did it decrease in subsequent years?
When the presentation referred to the annual number of investigations of rapes while in police custody, was the estimate of ten based on previous data? Considering the statistics of rape charges in South Africa, this seemed incorrect.
The Committee needed to understand where IPID was going so assistance could be provided.
Ms Majozi used to be the chairperson of ICT in the National Youth Development Agency (NYDA). In terms of the Auditor-General, before doing financials and getting to a clean audit, IPID needed to understand what was being examined. Only the Auditor-General could inform on where things were lacking and what was needed to remedy it.
Mr HA Shembeni (EFF) asked a question about the number of investigations of criminal misconduct as referenced in the presentation. Was the misconduct referred to misconduct of IPID members? IPID was responsible for investigating the police.
Mr TI Mafanya (EFF) advised the IPID delegation that the reality of this level was not mediocrity. The Committee did not believe in mediocrity. It was unacceptable to present unprepared. He suggested the Chairperson send the IPID delegation back. Competent people were needed when the budget requests were for public funds. However, Mr Mafanya “understood the history of where we were coming from”.
In terms of the relocation of offices, what was the reason for this? What would the cost implications new location be?
Apartheid spatial development affected the placement of law enforcement offices and this affected the accessibility of offices. How accessible were IPID offices to all people?
On the matter of the closure of the five satellite offices, ordinary people on the street would not know of IPID. Crimes committed by police occurred mainly in areas where IPID was not represented. IPID was not known and had not been marketed as much as it should be. IPID needed to be seen on the ground.
Mr Mafanya said the various state commissions of enquiry into misconduct reflected that IPID and other police departments were not doing their jobs. Budgeting needed to be granted on merit. Considering that IPID had budgeted more on salary than the operational sphere of organisation, this was concerning. The IPID team was ill-prepared. It was more educational for them than for the Committee.
Ms MA Molekwa (ANC) asked if the capacity constraints referenced in the presentation could be elaborated upon. Were the constraints quantitative or qualitative? How much were the constraints if they were qualitative, because the organisational structure aspect had not been addressed? Was there a plan in place to deal with the backlogs? This was a serious challenge. The President issued a directive in the State of the Nation Address (Sona) which called for implementation of the NDP by 2030. How would this be achieved in light of this backlog?
On the matter of an unqualified audit opinion referred to in the presentation, IPID needed to meet with the Auditor-General and have a plan in place so it could be assisted.
The presentation referred to ensuring integrated communication and stakeholder engagement strategies. Would South Africa be able to hold the Intergovernmental Relations (IGR) Forum? If this could not be done, it would be impossible to achieve the integrated plan. How often was the IGR Forum held in terms of the IGR Act?
Mr O Terblanche (DA) said IPID was a very important organisation. From the background that had been given, Mr Terblanche voiced concern regarding vacancies and “acting” positions throughout the organisation. These needed to be urgently filled. On the matter of office closures and re-openings, was this initiative based on proper work study investigations that had been conducted? Unpredictability of police misconduct was widespread and thus made it difficult to pinpoint ideal locations for offices, the administrative demands of which would detract from the core functions of IPID.
What were IPID’s recruitment criteria? How was IPID recruiting? Where were recruits coming from? What type of training did members receive?
In terms of community outreach programme initiatives, was IPID canvassing for additional work? The community could be informed of IPID’s existence, but this was different to canvassing for work.
Mr Terblanche voiced concern about the growing backlog trend. IPID was urged to look into cases on hand and do something about them. Prominent cases were dragging as a result. How would these be addressed speedily?
Mr Whitfield directed a comment towards the Chairperson that there was a request from Mr Senna for finalisation of the appointment of a permanent Director of IPID. This took priority over all other matters raised with IPID. The urgency of the matter needed to be pressed upon Minister Bheki Cele. Without this, budgets would remain unchanged and targets would not be met. The Committee understood the importance of leadership, in particular in institutions such as IPID which was fundamentally responsible for the honesty and professionalism expected of police services. If IPID was not able to strike fear into criminal and corrupt elements of the police, then IPID was not doing its job. Mr Whitfield requested the Committee resolve the lack of a permanent head of IPID and write to Minister Cele requesting when his candidate would be presented to the Committee. Mr Whitfield understood that Mr Senna’s extended secondment lasted until the end of July 2019 and clarity was needed on the matter.
Mr Whitfield was fascinated that there was no indicator or indication of cases leading to successful prosecutions. There was a lack of measurement of impact monitoring. Why was impact not being measured and if it was, why was it not included in the APP? If it was included, there would be a remarkable improvement in successful prosecutions because there would be consequence management in place for investigative work.
The interface with the CAS management system was mentioned, along with SAPS and the Criminal Justice System. One of the important matters that needed to be driven in the Sixth Parliament was an integrated criminal justice system. Mr Whitfield wondered whether IPID’s ICT indicators spoke to movement towards integration. An upgraded ICT system spoke to an integrated criminal justice system.
Which satellite offices were closed and in which provinces?
Was there a concept of a ‘ring fenced’ budget within IPID? This comment was prefaced by the fact that the idea of political interference was widespread. Even if IPID was immune to political interference, the perception remained. Were high profile cases prioritised without fear or favour of budget redirection? Had IPID ever discussed a ring-fenced budget removed from the authority of the Minister so as to allay doubts in the Executive and Parliament that IPID was able to truly act without fear or favour?
Were the capacity constraints financial or human resources? The APP seemed to suggest both.
Looking at Programme Two and the percentage of cases allocated in 72 hours, there appeared to be a regression from targets set in 2015/16. Other targets had been set lower. Why was there regression on this particular indicator?
What was the definition of systemic corruption cases? Why was the target for these cases set so low?
Mr Whitfield referred to indicators focusing on impact and commented that attendance of strategic training sessions did not necessarily provide capability. The key performance area was a capable workforce, and indicators needed to speak to the number of training sessions attended, for example. However, many people who attended numerous training workshops did not improve capabilities, suggesting the need for a different performance indicator. How was actual capability measured?
The Chairperson asked what progress, if any, had been made regarding the IPID Act. Were the IPID disciplinary recommendations implemented by SAPS and metro police? Were recommendations made followed up upon? Was there proper cooperation with SAPS and metros in terms of Chapter Seven of the IPID Act? Was there progress on investigations and the relationship with NPA? The Committee asked about the filling of vacancies in senior leadership positions so the matter would be raised. SAPS investigations of IPID conclusions and recommendations was continuing and needed to be stopped - how could this be done? How would IPID ensure SAPS implemented recommendations made by IPID? Looking at offices moved and shifted relating to the poor state of buildings and infrastructure across the Security Cluster and the DPW, when accommodation was found, was there a guarantee that IPID was moving into accommodation with a set standard?
Mr Senna clarified it was the first appearance of IPID before the new Portfolio Committee. Having heard the questions asked by the Committee, Mr Senna suggested an induction workshop for Members to fully understand IPID’s operations. Questions were asked that were not in line with IPID’s operations and such workshop would clarify IPID’s mandate and the types of cases investigated.
At high level, IPID targets were determined by mandate of the IPID Act and the funding IPID received from Treasury. There was a limit on the targets that IPID could set based on available resources.
Baseline information was backward-looking and attempted to determine trends associated with particular targets. New targets were formed from that baseline.
Regarding the closure of the five IPID offices, the main challenge was funding. IPID was faced with high accruals and high contractual obligations at the time of office closures. Treasury suggested closing the offices when their leases expired. After these offices were closed, IPID realised the intake in those provinces was high, especially in areas were offices were closed. Therefore, this prompted a re-examination of the budget to attempt to reopen the offices. This could also be linked to the IPID Expansion Strategy. The Strategy said that IPID needed to have district offices where the communities were.
It was clarified that the relocation of the IPID national head office was due to the head office premises being rented. The court ruled that IPID was occupying the premises illegally as its current lease was deemed invalid. IPID was engaging with the Department of Public Works (DPW) since 2011 for assistance in finding an alternative location. Ms Netsianda of Corporate Services would expand on the delays in the process.
Mr Sesoko outlined the IPID mandate came Section 206 of the Constitution which provided for the establishment of an independent and impartial investigative body to deal with allegations of misconduct offences against members of SAPS. The IPID Act enabled the implementation of Section 206. Section 28 of the IPID Act provided the cases that IPID investigated. Mr Sesoko’s presentation had mentioned specific provisions in Section 28 of the Act, such as Section 28 (1b) death in police custody. IPID had a discretionary mandate as the Constitution instructed that IPID investigated all forms of misconduct.
The Chairperson interrupted on a point of order.
Ms Majozi said that Mr Sesoko was mistaken and the question was not about which cases were investigated by IPID and its mandate. The question was about clarifying targets set i.e. how they were estimated or where the numbers came from.
Ms Mofokeng clarified that the point on the number of rape case investigations was that it needed to be a target for reduction, showing improvement. The problem Members had was with the targets, not the mandate.
Mr Sesoko said that target setting was done based on budget allocation. It was an analysis of what was possible based on current resources and budget available. Estimates were also based on baseline performances from previous financial years. IPID did not know how many cases would be received on a yearly basis and could only make projections based on performance in previous years that were achievable.
In relation to referrals made to the NPA and recommendations made to SAPS, Mr Sesoko said recommendations made to SAPS were twofold. Positive recommendations were made where SAPS did not act unlawfully. Positive recommendations exonerated SAPS from any wrongdoing. Negative recommendations were where SAPS was found to have acted unlawfully, and IPID recommended that SAPS take disciplinary actions to those involved.
In relation to this, Programme Four examined the quality of recommendations made to SAPS. SAPS was required to immediately implement disciplinary action against those involved and provide IPID with feedback upon receiving the recommendations. Programme Four examined referrals to SAPS to determine whether they were compliant in terms of matters related to impact and whether IPID was conducting the correct investigations and providing recommendations that would enable SAPS to act upon them.
Another matter raised was that of convictions and why the APP not refer to convictions. IPID’s mandate was to investigate allegations of criminal misconduct by members of SAPS. IPID’s investigations could produce outcomes where individuals were determined to be guilty or innocent - whether one was determined to be guilty or innocent did not determine whether an investigation was successful. A successful investigation was one where IPID uncovered the truth.
The NPA dealt with prosecution of cases, and this was why matters of conviction were not included in the IPID APP.
On the question relating to the high-profile cases with IPID and what was being done, Mr Sesoko said cases were referred to the NPA and there was engagement with the NPA. There had been a delay in the finalisation of many of those cases, but since the appointment of the new NDPP, Adv Batohi, IPID had re-engaged the NPA with the concerns of how the cases were being dealt with.
The Expansion Strategy at IPID was due to the fact that IPID was not visible due to budgetary constraints. The 2012 formation of IPID coincided with the expansion strategy. It was important for IPID to have representation in all provinces and districts. The Strategy was presented to the previous Portfolio Committee on Police, which was satisfied with the strategy, but the matter remained that of funding. IPID was asked to undertake a funding strategy which was presented to Treasury, which had accepted the strategy but had not been able to provide the necessary funding. Ideally IPID would be represented in every district of the country. IPID had explored reprioritisation of the budget as a solution, however, district or regional offices were more important than satellite offices which were too small to function adequately but were more expensive.
The matter of backlogs was once again tied to the shortage of resources. Work received per financial year that was incomplete was carried over into the next, becoming a backlog. IPID was still below a fully capacitated structure for the organisation of 525 members as outlined in 1997. Therefore, while it was not possible for IPID to deal with all backlogs in a financial year, it was one of IPID’s major priorities. In the Strategy Document, backlog targets were smart/realistic. In internal IPID engagements with provincial structures it had however been relayed that the backlog imatter was a priority area.
The satellite offices closed were George, Rustenburg, Mpangeni, Upington and Mthatha.
The question on the reduction to 72 hours went back to the matter of previous Annual Reports that indicated matters in meeting the 92 percent turnaround time. As this was unachievable, it was changed, resulting in a regression.
Mr Senna said the George office had not been closed due to intake in the area.
Ms Moroasui said Amendment of the Act had ground to a halt after progressing through the previous Portfolio Committee until the National Assembly (NA). The previous Parliament had been unable to finalise the Amendment as a briefing to the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) scheduled to take place in October 2018 had not occurred. The previous Committee had approached the Constitutional Court in 2017 which had given the legislature 24 months to finalise the Amendment.
The Chairperson interjected and said she was aware of the Court judgment thus the reason for the enquiry. The Chairperson asked that the Committee and Secretariat made a point of fast tracking the Act through the NCOP and the National Assembly.
Ms Letlape provided clarity on the question regarding slide 21 and the Amendment Plan and APP. Slide 21 reflected amendments to the Strategic Plan only. Slide 22 demonstrated what was new and what was not in terms of amendments to the APP per Programme.
Strategic targets on training of investigators on slide 31 were informed by targets aligned to the Strategic Plan 2015-2020 (and therefore included in the 2015/16-2019/20 financial years).
Mr Setshedi said that Ms Majozi was correct on the need for regular engagement with the office of the Auditor-General to obtain the clean audit opinion. IPID management developed an Audit Action Plan monitored on a quarterly basis.
Another matter related to the thresholds between the compensation of employees and goods and services. IPID was labour intensive and relied more on investigators and related personnel than goods and services.
Ms Netsianda added to what Mr Senna said regarding the split of employee compensation and operational budget - another reason for this was that IPID was a small department but needed to comply with all regulations of procurement which required more personnel to be compliant with demands for segregation of duties.
The head office relocation was principled on the need for an accessible location available to all clients. The delays to relocation from the City Forum Building that IPID had occupied since 2010 was highly publicised since the court order regarding the incorrect lease negotiation was released. IPID currently paid R1.6 million for the building per month, despite the landlord bidding R650 000 per month prior to its acquisition. IPID had struggled with the DPW to move from the building.
The Chairperson interjected and said that the Committee did not need the operational detail behind the acquisition processes.
Mr Senna explained the relationship between IPID and the Minister in relation to Mr Whitfield’s query. IPID was supposed to be structurally and operationally independent but the Constitutional Court made a provision that IPID could not be insulated from political accountability. IPID budgeting was governed in terms of the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA). This was unlike other Chapter Nine institutions that gained their budgets independently of Ministers. The Minister was the Executive Authority.
The relationship with the NPA was good. Mr Senna had met with the NDPP twice since his appointment to fast-track cases and secure prosecutions for accountability purposes.
Ms Mofokeng said the Committee had read the Legacy Report of the previous Committee and was well informed about IPID. The questions Members asked were based on the background of the Legacy Report. The Committee should not be undermined and taken for granted.
The Chairperson said that the Committee did not appreciate the way answers were provided which was contrasted with the positive working relationship enjoyed between the Committee and senior members of the police and the professionalism of its presentations.
Ms Majozi said that Mr Senna had spoken only about the IPID head office moving and the conversations with the DPW. Another thing that should be considered was the costs of office accommodation leases. Could the DPW assist IPID in procuring offices in order to reduce budget constraints?
Mr Whitfield asked whether the Chairperson was prepared to write to Minister Cele as it was clear the Committee wished to know what support was required from it. The IPID delegation made it clear support was needed in fixing the permanent head of IPID. The deadline for the extension of the acting head position was the end of July 2019.
The Chairperson agreed.
The Civilian Secretariat for Police Service to the Portfolio Committee on Police on the 2019/20 Budget Overview
Mr Alvin Rapea, Secretary for Police, said the CSPS was established in terms of Section 208 of the Constitution which stated that a civilian secretariat for police service needed to be established by national legislation to function under the direction of a Cabinet member responsible for policing.
The operational aspect of support that was provided to Minister Cele, who was the responsible Cabinet member for direction, guidance, supervision and determination of policy doctrine, posture and standards of SAPS. Minister Cele also ensured oversight of performance, operations and compliance by SAPS. This was done with support from the CSPS which drafted policies as directed by the Minister, provided credible research, policy reviews and impact studies, and was dedicated to providing the Minister with informed and considered advice and capacity in order to oversee the police.
SAPS was directly accountable to Minister Cele in delivering on its legislative mandate through the implementation of policy and ministerial direction in accordance with agreed regulations, standard operating procedures, national instructions and articulated operational values.
The mandate of the CSPS was constitutionally directed, as well as determined by the Civilian Secretariat for Police Service Act, 2011. The mandate was to provide the Minister with police advice and research support, develop departmental policy through qualitative and evidence-based research, provide civilian oversight of the police service through monitoring and evaluation of overall police performance, mobilise role-players, stakeholders and partners outside of the department through engagements on crime prevention and other policing matters, and to provide other support services to the Minister in pursuit of their mandate.
The CSPS was a relatively young department having been established through the 2011 Act. The CSPS was established as a designated department in 2014, which entailed the CSPS becoming a stand-alone department, independent from SAPS (its predecessor, 1994 Safety and Security Department, had not been independent), and able to develop its own policies, procedures and systems.
The CSPS vision was being revisited. It envisaged a transformed and accountable police service that reflected the values of a developmental state. The mission in line with this vision was to provide efficient and effective civilian oversight over SAPS and enhance the role of the Minister.
The strategic goals of the CSPS were formed in light of the R146 million budget, and included: a well-advised and supported Minister that ensured service delivery-orientated policing that was accountable. Additionally, the provision of quality, timeous, evidence-based strategic research, policy advice and legislative support to the Minister, as well as deepened public participation in the fight against crime, and the enhancement of accountability and transformation of the police service.
Key Strategic Priorities
The key strategic priorities were to strengthen community participation in building a peaceful and crime-free society. The CSPS was also responsible for ensuring the support for community policing forums and community safety forums, and their formation, development of policing policies and evidence-based research for improved service delivery, submission of policing legislative Bills for approval and effective oversight of the conduct and performance of SAPS.
The Chief Director: Strategic Planning, Mr Willem Basson, said that the operational budget of the CSPS was R41 million, the personnel budget was R104 million, and the total budget was R146 million. The CSPS’s Administration Programme received R65 million, the Intersectoral Coordination and Strategic Partnerships Programme received R25 million, the Legislation and Police and Development Programme received R22 million, and the Civilian Oversight, Monitoring and Evaluations Programme was allocated R33 million.
Programme 1: Administration
The purpose of Programme One was to provide strategic leadership, management and support services to the department. It had three sub-programmes: i) Department Management, ii) Corporate Services, and iii) Finance Administration. Mr Basson outlined the areas of Programme One that would be prioritised in the 2019/20 financial year, as well as the risk areas and risk mitigation strategies associated with it.
Programme 2: Intersectoral Coordination and Strategic Partnerships
The purpose of Programme Two was to manage and encourage national dialogue on community safety and crime prevention. It contained two sub-programmes: i) Intergovernmental, Civil Society and Public-Private Partnerships, and ii) Community Outreach. The areas of Programme Two that would be prioritised over the 2019/20 financial year, as well as the risk areas and risk mitigation strategies associated with it were repeated.
Programme 3: Legislation and Policy Development
Programme Three consisted of two sub-programmes: i) Policy Development and Research, and ii) Legislation. The purpose of Programme Three was to develop policy and legislation for the police sector and conduct research on policing and crime.
The purpose of sub-programme i) Policy Development and Research was to develop policies and undertake services in areas of policing and crime. Mr Basson read out the areas of the sub-programme that would be prioritised, as well as the risks and mitigation thereof associated with the sub-programme.
The purpose of sub-programme ii) Legislation was to provide legislative support services to the Minister. The areas that would be prioritised were listed, as well as the risks and mitigation of risks.
Programme 4: Civilian Oversight, Monitoring and Evaluation
The purpose of Programme Four was to oversee, monitor and report on the performance of SAPS. It consisted of two sub-programmes: i) Police Performance, Conduct and Compliance Monitoring, and ii) Policy and Programme Evaluations. The priority and risk mitigation areas were listed.
The Chief Financial Officer, Mr Tumelo Nkojoana, said the CSPS had a budget of R146.7 million. There was a 11.8 percent increase in the budget in relation to the previous financial year. The reason for the significant increase in the Administration Programme by 19.4 percent was that SAPS had transferred the accommodation budget to the CSPS, which SAPS had historically managed. The CSPS hoped to move to a new building, which had prompted the transfer of the funds.
The Civilian Oversight, Monitoring and Evaluation Programme had increased by 9.4 percent. The effect of this was that the DNA Board and the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (DPCI) Judge reported to the Monitoring and Evaluation Unit, and the increase in funds was meant for these entities’ employees that would be added.
In terms of the budget breakdown per economic classification, Goods and Services increased by 24 percent which reflected funds transferred by SAPS for accommodation. The decrease in Transfers and Subsidies was that there was a higher budget in previous years which decreased as many officials had left the CSPS.
Payments for Capital Assets had increased below inflation as the CSPS was moving its old furniture to the new buildings to save funds.
Programme One had a new unit – Office Accommodation – which had increased by more than 600 percent due to the SAPS funds transfer. Programme One’s breakdown by economic classification confirmed the matter of the 53 percent increase in Goods and Services regarding the new office spaces. Payment for Capital Assets increased by 224 percent. Here, the CSPS was hoping Software and Intangible Assets would increase the capacity of the Internal Audit Unit. Funds would be shifted for the machinery and equipment unit.
The Programme Two estimates for the current financial year, as well as shown in previous financial years, were only that 90 percent of the budget would be spent. This was less due to most of Programme Two’s work with SAPS which allowed for cost cutting. There was a 2.8 percent increase in the budget.
Programme Four showed the DPCI Judge’s budget increased by R1.4 million which was in the hope that the department would receive more staff.
The machinery and equipment unit had seen a shift away from Performance and Police Conduct to Information and Management to strengthen its technological foundation in preparation for the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
The percentage breakdown of the 2019/20 budget reflected that the three core Programmes of the CSPS took up a large portion of the budget.
Human Resources: Recruitment and Selection
The Acting Chief Director: Corporate Services, presented the recruitment and selection of the Human Resources of the department. The total establishment was 150 members. 140 posts in the Department had been filled. The status on the CSPS’s employment equity in terms of overall staff establishment was provided. This was broken down by gender, race, department, disability and salary level.
Mr Whitfield expressed disappointment in the presentation the Committee received. The CSPS had enormous responsibility with respect to the performance of the police and enabling the Minister to perform ministerial duties. The presentation did not inspire confidence that the mandate was being adequately delivered upon. In particular, the fact that the Committee was forced to juggle between the APP of the CSPS and the actual presentation. The Chairperson made it clear to the Committee that none of the actual targets and performance indicators were presented. The Committee had no idea what was happening over the medium term and what was being planned.
How would the budget of the department affect the mandate along with the targets? The presentation did not give any indication of the impact of 85 percent of the budget for compensation being spent on staff and consumables. The Committee had been expecting targets.
Mr Whitfield asked about the 800 stolen firearms detailed in a 2017/18 SAPS report. What role did the CSPS play in monitoring asset registers, particularly firearms and bulletproof vests to ensure the police were safe and firearms were not on the streets?
Mr Whitfield asked for an assessment of the efficiency of the Central Firearms Registry as one of the CSPS’s objectives. It was inefficient. What indicators were examined? How was it monitored for efficiency? What were the key problems in the delays in issuing licenses to both vendors and users?
Mr Whitfield was fascinated by the brief presentation on office accommodation. How was there a 670 percent increase? If the staff compliment size had not grown, how was this possible? Where were these offices? Would this assist the CSPS in fulfilling its mandate?
The presentation lacked detail, and therefore it was difficult to understand the shift in budget from Police Performance to Information Management that was related to the Fourth Industrial Revolution. The presenters were cautioned from throwing slogans at the Committee. Why, if the performance of SAPS was one of the objectives of the CSPS, was the budget shifting to information management? How would this information enable monitoring police performance?
Mr Terblanche was also confused by the presentation. The Committee had not been told one thing of what the CSPS was doing and its deliverables and how they were being achieved. More concerning was the apparent lack in understanding of the boundaries between the CSPS and the police. Mr Terblanche urged the CSPS to engage with the police. Could the CSPS name one aspect where it had improved the police service in 2019?
Mr Terblanche had been excited by the CSPS’s desire to professionalise the police. This needed to be entered into in detail and deadlines needed to be provided. He saw no reason to support the CSPS budget. The CSPS needed to be sent back to complete a proper presentation. The Committee needed proper facts that allowed Members to see whether progress was being made. Government was spending money.
The Chairperson agreed with Mr Terblanche.
Ms Molekwa asked a question about Risk and Mitigation in the presentation. What strategy was developed to ensure stakeholder cooperation? In terms of delays to the finalisation of legislation due to dependence on stakeholder non-cooperation, what plan was there to alter this? In terms of Civilian Oversight in the presentation, why were there no targets or responsible portfolios and departments to ensure implementation?
In terms of the inability to cover the full scope of the SAPS budget analysis due to inadequate skills and capacity, which skills were required?
In terms of the cooperation of SAPS, was there an explanation for SAPS non-cooperation? What was the problem?
Mr Mafanya concurred with the Chairperson’s comments.
In terms of transformation, what was the CSPS’s understanding of transformation?
The Committee was told there were 5 000 police in training, as well as the need for 7 000 more to be incorporated into the police force. What was the CSPS’s advice to the Minister on those numbers?
Was there any value for money that the Committee received from the CSPS?
The presentation could have been brought by one member of the CSPS delegation and read by the Committee Members. The presentation did not tell the Committee anything.
Mr Shembeni had heard nothing and therefore had nothing to ask.
The Chairperson would listen to last the two Members and make a ruling.
Ms Majozi’s understanding was that the CSPS played an oversight role to SAPS and IPID. The presentation said there were joint consultations between the CSPS and IPID - had the CSPS ever met IPID? The previous presentation had left the Committee needing to know what oversight the CSPS played. What were the indices? There was more of a focus on SAPS than IPID.
The presentation stated the CSPS did intergovernmental service, civil society, public-private partnerships and community outreach. If the CSPS played an oversight role on SAPS, and SAPS conducted outreach, would the CSPS also conduct outreach or would it play an oversight role on the outreach? If the CSPS did conduct outreach, what were the targets and achievements going forward? The Committee did not have a clear understanding of the targets, achievements, and goals.
In terms of the enhancement of accountability and transformation, Ms Majozi did not see who did the CSPS’s. The Committee did not know whether the CSPS received a clean, good, unqualified or under administration audit - it did not know what to expect. The budget did not correspond with the performance.
Ms Mofokeng asked about the mandate of the CSPS and provision of support to the Minister. Did they really get along? In terms of the building relocation, there were clear challenges with the DPW and the Security Cluster. Was this similar to what the CSPS experienced? Had Minister Cele not shared this with the CSPS?
In terms of filling posts, was there a strategy to ensure the CSPS could meet challenges?
Ms Mofokeng commended the CSPS on its SMS management. Non-SMS posts were at 75 percent, but top management showed higher levels.
In terms of amendments to the Second Hand Goods Bill, where did the CSPS stand with this? How did the CSPS work with metro police in this? Metro police was also part of this at local level.
The Chairperson had heard the Members and was equally disappointed. The Chairperson ruled that the CSPS be given another chance to present. The Chairperson had read the document provided by the CSPS separately to the presentation. What was in the document and in the presentation were two different things. The CSPS would return on Tuesday, 9 July 2019 for a second opportunity, having added the information requested by Members.
What was the legislative schedule for 2019?
What was the progress with SAPS?
The Committee required information and had to be confident that it had done its work regardless of time constraints.
What was the progress with the policy on the single police service?
How was the CSPS building strong community police and safety forums? Emphasis was on these matters for the Committee. The Committee Members had constituencies demanding progress be made on stipends.
The CSPS had had an unqualified audit that was not mentioned in the presentation. Would the CSPS continue with its unqualified audit for the financial year and what progress had been made in this regard?
In terms of the irregular expenditure of R37.7 million, was this condoned by Treasury?
Was the DNA Board fully constituted and performing?
What was the relationship with provincial secretariats?
The Chairperson asked whether the Committee Members agreed that the CSPS be provided with another opportunity to present.
The Committee was in agreement.
Mr Rapea received the feedback with humility and that rightfully so an injustice had been done in terms of the presentation. The CSPS appreciated the second chance and would not disappoint the Committee and would deal with all the details. The information was there, it merely required repackaging.
The Chairperson apologised for having to condense the programme and excused the CSPS.
The Committee assessed the programme for the following week. Tuesday 9 July 2019 would require the CSPS presentation again. The Chairperson had been diplomatic in her displeasure. The Committee would also deal with the final presentation of the Private Security industry Regulatory Authority (PSIRA). Adoption of the Committee’s Budget Reports would be done that afternoon.
The Committee had received a request from the Kenyan Independent Oversight Authority which was conducting training with IPID for a meet and greet opportunity with the Committee. The Authority wished to formalise ties with the Committee and discuss operations. The Committee consented.
There would be a special sitting of the National Assembly on Wednesday 10 July 2019 from 09:00-09:30 to approve the establishment of the Ad Hoc Joint Committee on Intelligence.
Mr Terblanche assumed Members would be provided with the revised programme. Mr Terblanche would on attend on Wednesday if the Committee brought him presents as it was his birthday.
The Chairperson said Members should not put Mr Terblanche’s gifts on the registry. All gifts needed to be under R250 as they did not need to be declared.
The Chairperson said to Mr Shembeni that she had not been too soft on the CSPS for letting them go, as it affected the Committee.
Ms Majozi asked that the venue for the meeting on Wednesday 10 July 2019 be communicated.
The Chairperson said the venue for Tuesday 9 July 2019 would be the same as the current venue.
The Chairperson wished the Committee a pleasant weekend and Members who were travelling to the State of the Province Addresses.
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.