SAPS 2018/19 Annual Report Programme 1: Administration, with AGSA & Audit Committee input; with Minister & Deputy Minister

This premium content has been made freely available


08 October 2019
Chairperson: Ms T Joemat-Petterssen (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

Annual Reports 2018/2019

The Auditor-General South Africa (AGSA) discussed the audit outcomes of the annual reports of the Department of Police and its entities. Overall, the Committee was concerned with some of the outcomes, particularly those involving non-compliance and those related to the apparent lack of record keeping, and missing or incomplete information with regard to irregular expenditure.

The South African Police Service (SAPS) audit committee discussed the audit outcomes. Some of the discussion showed that it was interested in how consequence management would be implemented in the area of irregular expenditure, on the basis of non-compliance. There appeared to be some discrepancies between the AGSA and the SAPS audit committee. The Portfolio Committee sought clarity on issues such as the improper valuation of assets and outdated policies for procurement processes. Although SAPS’s current information technology (IT) systems were fully-functioning, SAPS indicated that they did not have the storage capacity required by AGSA for auditing purposes. The Committee regarded this as an urgent concern and planned to engage with the State Information Technology Agency (SITA) to ensure that the police were equipped with the modern technology that was needed. The Committee was satisfied with the recommendations and action plans put in place, but were concerned about the timeframe to implement the interventions.

SAPS also presented their comments and action plans to improve their financial statements and performance information. The National Commissioner acknowledged that some of the audit outcomes were unacceptable, and said that the Department would be evaluating each one of them. The Deputy Minister stressed that the main premise was accountability, which meant the Committee needed to oversee that the Department of Police did what it intended to do, in order to achieve better outcomes. They would work together as a team to ensure a safer South Africa.

Meeting report

Opening remarks

The Chairperson referred to the first two pages of the Committee’s draft programme, and said that since the President would have a joint sitting of the National Assembly and the NCOP (National Council of Provinces) on 23 October, instead of discussing the South African Police Service (SAPS) supply chain and contract management, the Committee should urgently discuss the briefing by SAPS on the strategies against gender-based violence (GBV), with the input by the President, as per the Parliamentary programme. The Committee agreed on the adoption of the amended programme.

Major General Leon Rabie, Head: Strategic Management, SAPS, said that for the next two days the Committee would be taken through the SAPS 2018/2019 annual report. Today, the bulk of the presentation would deal with how they were responding to the AGSA findings in respect of the financial statements. The presentations today would deal with programme 1 (administration). Programmes 2 (visible policing), 3 (detective services), 4 (crime intelligence) and 5 (protection and security services) would be dealt with at tomorrow’s meeting.

Auditor-General of South Africa (AGSA) on SAPS financial statements and audit outcomes

Ms Mmule Thipe, Senior Manager: AGSA, outlined the presentation format, and covered the 2018/19 audit outcomes, including the different audit opinions, the outcomes of the portfolio over the past five years, credible financial and performance reporting, disregard for compliance with legislation, procurement and contract management, the quality of financial statements, prevention of irregular expenditure, effective consequence management, and internal controls.

She said that in the area of financial health and financial management, asset and liability management was an area of concern. There had been a deficit for the year, which may also correlate to an over-spending of the auditee’s operating expenditure budget. Measures must be implemented by the Civilian Secretariat for Police (CSP), the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) and the Department of Police (DoP) to address this situation to ensure sustainable service delivery and financial viability.

Current liabilities exceeding current assets indicated liquidity issues, which meant that they would not be able to pay their creditors as payments become due. This was relevant for IPID, CSP, the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (PSIRA) and the DoP. The net liability position highlighted a possible risk that the CSP could not continue its operations at the desired levels, which may lead to an interruption or breakdown in service delivery.

Cash management was another area of concern. A negative cash balance meant possible cash flow constraints, resulting in a higher risk in the event of financial set-backs, as well as the ability of the auditee (IPID) to meet its obligations to provide basic services and meet its financial commitments. Negative operating cash flows may also result in questions about auditees’ financial viability and their ability to continue operating optimally at their current capacity.

Ms Thipe said the majority of the disclosed fruitless and wasteful expenditure for the current year was due to non-delivery of services paid for and penalties for the late payment of vehicle licence fees by the DoP.

Irregular expenditure had increased over the past two years (see slide 18), the majority of which was caused by not following adequate procurement processes when using travel agents, and awarding other contracts in contravention of legislation

Common findings on supply chain management were:

  • Not being able to audit the procurement of R9.3 million due to missing or incomplete information (DoP);
  • Uncompetitive and unfair procurement processes at 50% of auditees (IPID & DoP);
  • False declarations of interest made by four suppliers (DoP).

Key findings on the Integrated Justice System (IJS) project indicated that an amount of R126 736 451 allocated by SAPS for the funding of projects did not agree with the budgeted amount of R223 768 201 approved by National Treasury; there were inconsistencies in the quarterly reporting of deliverables for the Investigation Case Dockets Management System (ICDMS); and 11 of the 13 (84%) IJS projects set for the 2018-19 financial year had not been achieved. The audit team had selected the Integrated Person Management (IPM) project for detailed auditing. The deliverables of this project were not achieved for the 2017-18 and 2018-19 financial years. Two change requests with a total value of R10 711 000 had been processed at SAPS without approval from the IJS board.

Ms Thipe explained the expansion of the AGSA mandate, and what was meant by a “material irregularity.”

She identified the root causes of the challenges identified in the audit as the slow or no response to improving key controls and addressing risk areas , and inadequate consequences for poor performance and transgressions.

She concluded the presentation by detailing the AGSA recommendations (slide 26) and the additional efforts introduced (slide 27).


Ms N Peacock (ANC) said that the Committee was tasked to look at the outcomes, and it appeared that there needed to be serious monitoring of internal controls. It would be challenging for the Committee to play their role, because the report given by the AGSA was so broad. The report raised the challenge of the Committee not being able to account, and having difficulty in knowing where to assist. The Committee needs to receive reports that addressed the promises, so that they could zoom in and see where they could apply best practice to assist and improve. On the issue of irregular expenses that were not investigated, there should be better outcomes. The Committee had to oversee the internal audit committee of SAPS, which should report to the Committee on a quarterly basis and assist it to achieve better outcomes.

Ms J Mofokeng (ANC) referred to the status of internal controls, and asked for clarity on the sections of the presentation dealing with leadership, financial and performance management and governance. She questioned why the information under financial and performance management was reported as three separate components, and not under effective leadership. On the assurance provided (slide 14), she requested clarity, referring to the issue of consequence management, questioning why the executive authority was rated 100% for assurance provided, especially since they were responsible for overseeing when something went wrong. On the recommendation that the Department of Police should implement asset management controls to ensure that assets were disclosed (slide 26), she asked how that would be dealt with.

Ms M Molekwa (ANC) referred to the supply chain management transgressions, and questioned when the Committee would get a report back on progress with the investigations.

Mr O Terblanche (DA) referred to the amended programme for 23 October, and questioned when the Committee would discuss the SAPS supply chain and contract management, as this would relate to the issues of non-compliance with legislation, which was very serious. He recommended that the presentation on the SAPS supply chain and contract management was also done as soon as possible. Slide 13, which referred to the apparent lack of record keeping, was equally disturbing, and clarity was requested on this matter. The reporting on the negative cash balance and negative operating cash flows also needed more clarity from AGSA. Slide 24 revealed a total of R1.1 billion on irregular expenditure -- obviously something was wrong, and indicated an apparent waste of money where the government did not get any return for that expenditure. With the passing of the new legislation, he questioned the AGSA if they intended to implement some of their new powers in such instances. With the slow or no response to improving key controls and addressing risk areas, he appealed to the Minister and the National Commissioner that this should not be the case -- there should not be a slow response from management.

Mr P Groenewald (FF+) commented that this had been the third consecutive qualified audit for the police. The AGSA report was worrisome, because it implied that the Department was bankrupt, especially where it stated that “current liabilities exceeding current assets indicated liquidity issues, which meant that they would not be able to pay their creditors as payments become due.” With the irregular expenditure, it stated that “the majority was caused by not following adequate procurement processes when using travel agents and awarding other contracts in contravention of legislation”, and he asked who those travel agents were. He referred to the findings on supply chain management, where reportedly there was no audit of the procurements of R9.3 million due to missing or incomplete information from the DoP; there was uncompetitive and unfair procurement processes at 50% of auditees from the IPID and DoP; and also false declarations of interest made by four suppliers of the DoP, and said these were all serious allegations. Additionally, there had been material under-spending of R1.131 billion on detective services, so he wanted more clarity on this because within the Criminal Justice System (CJS), the detectives’ performance played a very important role in proper investigations and proper documents that go to the authorities. he questioned their underspending. He requested the Committee to formally accept and adopt the three recommendations directed to the Committee (slide 26) as a good oversight tool.

AGSA’s response

Ms Thipe responded to the comment that the report was quite broad and not specific, and said the issues addressed were the issues identified with the portfolio. The audit process involved a detailed audit of financial statements, where management was given a chance to comment on the findings. AGSA would then interrogate the comments for more information. The details of the audit were in the annual report.

With the increase in irregular expenditure, the AGSA had not been able to obtain appropriate evidence that irregular expenditure in the current and previous years had been properly accounted for.

With regard to record keeping by the DoP, the AGSA had challenges in obtaining sufficient evidence to substantiate the assets disclosed in the financial statements.

Senior management was responsible for the daily running of operations, for ensuring that the checks and balances were implemented, and ensuring that the internal controls were effective within their entity. Their leadership was also responsible for taking appropriate action for irregular expenditure, and implementing action plans to address audit findings in a timely manner.

Regarding the 100% assurance of the internal audit unit (slide 14), there were certain criteria looked at for assurance, provided internal controls were maintained.

Referring to the irregular expenditure of R1.1 billion, she said irregular expenditure as defined by the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) was expenditure which had incurred in contravention of the legislation, which meant that the expenditure did not follow a proper process and was related to issues of non-compliance.

On the implementing and exercising of Public Audit Act amendment, as soon as any entities or departments were identified by the AGSA office, the relevant accounting officers would be contacted, and this would be communicated to the Committee as well.

Regarding the financial health of the Department, in terms of its asset and liability management, the current liabilities that were exceeding the current assets were reported as issues of concern, but did not require urgent intervention. The same applied for cash management issues.

There had been no audit of procurements amounting to R9.3 million due to missing or incomplete information from the DoP. This was an example of auditing tenders, where there was not enough information on whether the winning bidder was a better bidder than its competitors.

The Chairperson thanked Ms Thipe for the detailed response, and said that SAPS and its units would be meeting with the Committee until Friday to discuss their annual reports, which would give them less than a week to prepare for their briefing on supply chain and contract management. She requested that the Committee give SAPS sufficient time to prepare and respond to the questions raised, as they should not have less than two weeks to prepare for something so important.

Mr Bheki Cele, Minister of Police, was thanked for his presence and excused for his early departure.

Mr Groenewald asked when the Committee would get clarity on the instances where SAPS differed from the AG -- for instance, over Treasury regulations -- and if this could be discussed at the next presentation.

SAPS Audit Committee on AGSA Audit Outcomes

Mr Wally van Heerden, Chairperson: SAPS Audit Committee, presented the audit committee’s response to the AGSA audit outcomes.

He started with the performance information, dealing with the effectiveness of internal control. Areas of concern had included the accuracy and completeness of performance information, though there was a lower number of findings made in the 2018/19 year in comparison to the 2017/18 financial year.

The audit committee felt that the challenges and risks to extract performance information in the format that AGSA required it, had resulted in the disclaimed opinion. Some of the challenges included shutting down the operational information technology (IT) systems for a minimum of three days, with the associated risks. If the requirement as set forth by the AGSA was maintained, SAPS would have to consider revamping its whole IT system, including possible replacement and expanding of storage capacity, and the possible development and implementation of new systems at a significant additional cost.

Regarding risk management, SAPS had an independent Enterprise Risk Management Committee (ERMC) chaired by an independent person, who also attends audit committee meetings. The ERMC had a direct reporting line to the Accounting Officer. However, it was not as effective as it could have been, as it had failed to meet at the times that it was supposed to meet -- only once of the four times it was supposed to meet. It was recommended that the ERMC be reconstituted to ensure compliance with the Public Sector Risk Management Framework, according to which the majority of members should be external members, and that the Department expedite the appointment of a chief risk officer and risk practitioners.


The process of combined assurance had been put on hold during the 2016/2017 and 2017/2018 financial years due to changes in leadership, as persons responsible for combined assurance were rotated to other areas.

The Department’s outdated policies in respect of areas of its procurement processes were not effective to prevent and/or detect instances of non-compliance with prescribed supply chain management prescripts, resulting in irregular expenditure identified by internal and external audit, which was in addition to that identified by management/

Mr Van Heerden said it was their opinion that the performance management system and consequence management process was reactive, with the result that it was inadequate and ineffective in ensuring effective implementation of internal controls.

The audit committee was satisfied that management’s implementation plan to address issues raised in 2017/2018 financial year included most of the findings raised. However, the level of success in preventing findings had not been achieved. This could be attributed to the fact that the root cause analysis was not properly done. The committee concurred and accepted the AGSA conclusions on the financial statements and was of the opinion that the audited annual financial statements for 2018/2019 should be accepted and read together with the report of the AGSA


The Chairperson suggested that when questions about the presentation by the SAPS audit committee were posed, that the SAPS, the audit committee and AGSA respond as there seemed to be some discrepancies, as pointed out by a Committee Member.

There were matters that needed to be highlighted. She questioned the reporting structure of the ERMC, and asked why they reported directly to the Accounting Officer and not to a Chief Financial Officer (CFO). The AG had informed the Committee that there had not been full disclosure regarding irregular expenditure, and she requested that SAPS to inform the Committee of any other disclosures that had not been made. On the AG’s findings regarding the irregular expenditure, she asked how SAPS would deal with consequence management. The audit committee had mentioned that “the Department’s outdated policies in respect of areas of its procurement processes were not effective to prevent and/or detect instances of non-compliance with prescribed supply chain management prescripts, resulting in irregular expenditure identified by internal and external audit, which was in addition to that identified by management,” so she asked for clarity from both the AGSA and the SAPS audit committee on what exactly was happening and what steps had been taken.

Ms Peacock referred to the concern that the valuation of assets had not been not properly done, and that the root cause analysis was also not properly done. She questioned the effectiveness of the audit outcomes if there were still issues involving outdated policies and the valuation of assets.

Ms Mofokeng referred to the role of the SAPS audit committee, and questioned if the it was working, relevant and necessary to have.

Mr H Shembeni (EFF) said that the SAPS audit committee had reported its intended responses to consequence management, but that any proceedings of such should be included in the report and should be mentioned, giving details of whether or not there were disciplinary proceedings, recovery of losses, dismissals etc.

Mr Terblanche commented that apparently there was a difference of opinion between the AG and the SAPS audit committee. He questioned when that would be resolved, and said that such differences should be sorted out prior to the meetings. The presentation had mentioned that the SAPS audit committee assisted the Department, but he felt that more assistance was needed. He questioned to what extent the recommendations had been implemented. Areas of concern were the outcomes on the effectiveness of internal control and issues relating to the accuracy and completeness of performance information, which was a serious matter, as information must be correct. He questioned when the appointment a chief risk officer would be made. Were the Department’s outdated procurement processes being worked on, and when would the new policies be implemented? On consequence management, he questioned what contributions had been made to improve the outcome. He added that some of the implementation dates of action plans were not realistic, and questioned whether these dates had been revisited, and what the new implementation dates were.

Mr Groenewald noted that the ERMC had met only once out of the four times it was supposed to meet, and questioned why. He commented that the challenges of extracting performance information in the required format that had resulted in the disclaimed opinion was concerning, but even more worrying was that it was further suggested that such problems would persist because SAPS had inadequate IT systems, in that it did not have the storage capacity as required by the AGSA. More clarity from both the SAPS and the SAPS audit committee was needed on this matter.

Mr T Mafanya (EFF) observed that the AGSA and the SAPS audit committee worked differently, but that the AG’s analysis tried to assist the Department. On issues of consequence management, he questioned the extent of those who had been charged with non-compliance.

The Chairperson said that the term of office of the SAPS audit committee had come to an end on 30 August 2018, and that the contracts continued on a month-to-month basis until a new audit committee member had been appointed. This meant that most members on the current SAPS audit committee had been appointed on a month-to month basis for more than a year, which was a serious problem.

Mr Cassel Mathale, Deputy Minister, DoP, said he thought the Committee would be better equipped with the necessary information from the AGSA report and the presentation by the SAPS audit committee. The information would be accounted for, and questions of clarity from the Committee would be addressed.

The Chairperson said that SAPS should proceed with their presentation to address the questions of clarity. The presentations were meant to help in answering the questions, and if not, then the presenters would be given another opportunity to respond to them.

Mr Groenewald said that there were some questions on clarity that the SAPS audit committee needed to respond to, so that the questions did not need to be repeated after the next presentation.

The Chairperson agreed that some responses would be given by the AGSA and the audit committee, and thereafter SAPS would give their report.


SAPS Response

Mr Van Heerden responded on the monthly contracts of the audit committee members, and said the positions for the audit committee had been advertised. Certain candidates have been short-listed and selection was in process. There would not be a gap as there would be a handover to the new audit committee.

It was not a question of the current SAPS IT system not being effective -- it was a live system, and the AG required certain information to be withdrawn from that live system which caused some challenges in terms of the system’s programming. It was not as if the system itself was not functioning -- it was working and ongoing. However, when the AG needed to extract its information after the year-end report, this became a problem because it shuts down the system to do a data-dump.

On the projected dates to address the plan of action for the irregular expenditures, the investigations must be finalised by the end of March next year. The Department would appoint external service providers who would work with the internal audit team to perform a comprehensive evaluation of the identified population processed by the SAPS for the key financial years.  

Regarding the outdated procurement process policies, National Treasury sets out guidelines, updates and corrections on a continuous basis, which then need to be taken up by the Department. If not, it then was an issue of non-compliance by the Department.

In terms of its role and function, the SAPS audit committee was not an internal committee, but was externally appointed. It therefore functions only on the advice and progress that the Department provides to the audit committee. The findings of the audit committee were clearly documented in terms of the resolutions which were fed back to the Department for correction.

On the root cause analysis, the Department was required to do a proper root cause analysis which would form part of its action plan. Regarding the valuation of assets, this was basically a combination of the State Information Technology Agency (SITA) and the Department needing to do a proper valuation of the assets.

It was the opinion of the audit committee that the performance management system and consequence management was reactive. Instead, there should be a process where the status of the audit findings or performance information showed up a problem after the internal audit report or the quarterly report. This would indicate that a specific target had not been achieved, which then needed follow up in terms of consequence management.

He said the ERMC had been set up according to the Public Sector Risk Management Framework that specifically enabled it to report directly to the Accounting Officer. The only problem with the ERMC was that it was not complete, as a chief risk officer and risk practitioners were yet to be appointed.

Regarding the discrepancies between the audit committee and the AG, it was just a matter of the application of the action plans.

Ms Thipe responded on the issue of irregular expenditure, and said there were disagreements between the AG and SAPS management over the financial statements. These had reduced somewhat, but there may have been other issues of non-compliance. When other instances of non-compliance were identified in supply chain management, there may be some disagreements between the AG and management, which were allowed, so the AGSA had expressed different audit opinions.

On the valuation of assets, the standard audit procedures ensured that whatever was disclosed in terms of the assets, they were complete, accurate and that they actually existed. It had always been a requirement that assets disclosed were credible.

Mr Eugene de Haan, Deputy Business Executive Manager: AGSA, said that the performance information data needed to meet the requirements of accuracy, completeness and validity of the actual data. However, from the data-dumps received, they had not obtained such information. The AGSA would work together with the DoP towards recommendations that were feasible. The audit procedures were standard throughout the performance evaluation and ensured that consistency was applied, and that the Department also complied with the principles as required by National Treasury.

AGSA Audit of SAPS’s Annual Financial Statements

The presentation outlined the basis for the qualification of the SAPS 2018/19 Annual Financial Statements (AFS).

AGSA had been unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence that all irregular expenditure incurred for the current and previous year had been properly accounted for. This was due to payments made in contravention of supply chain management requirements. AGSA had been unable to confirm the irregular expenditure by alternative means. Consequently, it was unable to determine whether any adjustment was necessary to irregular expenditure stated at R1.183 billion (2018: R1.164 billion) in note 23 to the financial statements.

In addition, the Department did not evaluate the population for similar instances of non-compliance based on the factors as communicated. Consequently, AGSA was unable to determine the full extent of the irregular expenditure, as it was impractical to do so due to management not re-visiting the population to quantify the extent of the irregular expenditure.

AGSA was also unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence for the restatement of the corresponding figure for immovable tangible capital assets. As described in note 31 to the financial statements, the restatement had been made to rectify a previous year’s misstatement, but the restatement could not be substantiated by supporting audit evidence. AGSA was unable to confirm the restated and current year amounts by alternative means. Consequently, it was unable to determine whether any adjustment was necessary to the other fixed structures within the immovable tangible capital assets figure, stated at R3.643 billion in note 31 to the financial statements.

The following progress had been made from the previous financial year:

  • The SAPS had disclosed Immovable Tangible Capital Assets (other fixed structures) as detailed in the Asset Register: Hosting and Network Assets on 31 May 2019, to the value of R3.6 billion;
  • An asset register, an asset verification process document and a framework for the disclosure of tangible assets, had been submitted to AGSA for audit;
  • Irrespective of the efforts and progress made by the SAPS and SITA since the 2017 audit, AGSA had again qualified the Department during the 2019 audit, stating that the register reflecting network and hosting assets -- transferred to SITA on inception in 2001 and procured by SAPS -- was not accurate in all aspects.

AGSA Audit of SAPS’s Annual Performance Information

The Committee was given details of the AGSA outcomes on the Department’s performance information for 2018/19. These included the findings on visible policing, detective services, the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (DPCI), forensic services and crime intelligence. Its main findings were related to relevance and viability of internal controls; the reliability, accuracy and completeness of performance information; ensuring audit readiness and the effective execution of the audit process at identified locations; and an effective response to audit findings in terms of consequence and performance management.


General Khehla Sitole, National Commissioner: SAPS, said there would be workshop sessions that would be continuous. Some of the outcomes mentioned in the presentations were not acceptable, and different services have been assigned to do evaluations of each individual outcome on particular internal processes. Regarding the comments on the discrepancies between the AGSA and the SAPS audit committee, it must be noted that the AGSA and audit committee were in agreement and cooperation. 

Deputy Minister Mathale said that the main premise was accountability. The AG had the responsibility to ensure that the Department spent accordingly, and the Department had the responsibility to interact with the AG in agreement. The DoP would come before the Committee to account and to ensure that they were implementing what they said they would do.

The Chairperson proposed that the Committee should set up a meeting with SITA and the Department of  Public Works (DPW). It should meet with SITA by the end of November and with the DPW by early next year.

Mr Groenewald commented that there had been repeat findings in the performance information, and in this situation, the Committee should ask themselves how they were able to assist to ensure a safer community for South Africa. In the midst of the 4th industrial resolution, he raised his concern that as the IT systems were crucial to the future of the police service, he questioned the resources that the police were being supplied. In order to fight crime effectively, the police needed to have the best IT systems. The Committee, police, the audit committee and AG should assist each other and address the specific problems. The police should come forward with specific ways in which the Committee could assist them. Today, crime was mainly fought through modern technology.

The Chairperson agreed that all entities were accountable, and the Committee was also working under pressure to show that they were doing their work.

Mr Terblanche said that they needed to ensure that South Africa was a safer place for its people. The police were a government department that was paid by the taxpayers’ money, and in terms of expenditure it was not where it should be. It was encouraging to see that the police had an action plan in place for all the challenges. The only concern was the timeframe to get things in place before the next audit.

A Committee Member commented that some things needed to be attended to critically and in detail. There had to be an integrated approach to crime.

Ms Mofokeng raised her concern with the appointment of external service providers to assist the internal audit committee, in that the problem would not go away. The appointment of audit committee members on a month-to-month contract was also concerning. She questioned why external service providers were being appointed. Regarding the timeframe, the action plans need to find the time and focus on the critical matters. She suggested that when reports were presented, they should not play with numbers but actually focus on the root causes, especially since the Committee had the responsibility for oversight.

A Committee Member questioned how action plans would be monitored and evaluated.



AGSA said the level of engagement between the AG and management was continuous, and time was found to engage on a weekly basis, if there were any issues, then there would be engagements to ensure appropriate conclusions. Regular meetings were also held with the audit committee. There had already been two engagements on the matters involving supply chain and performance information, to address the practical challenges. What needed to be considered was the timing and implementation of action plans, so that intervention could come into fruition.

SAPS audit committee:

The audit committee agreed that SITA was an important partner, and advised that it should come to meet with the Portfolio Committee. As for the recommendations, it agreed to come and report to the Committee on a quarterly basis.

Deputy Minister Mathale said that moving forward, it would not be business as usual, and they would work differently. He had been given the responsibility to ensure that action plans were carried out. There was engagement between himself, the Minister and the National Commissioner, and failures would be dealt with correctively. The AG, the Department and the Committee must work together as a team, with an integrated mandate to create a safer South Africa. The AG had the responsibility to ensure that the finances were properly utilised, and the Committee should ensure that there was oversight over what the Department does. The meeting had been enlightening, with good interaction with the Committee.

The Chairperson thanked the AGSA, SAPS and the SAPS audit committee for their presentations that had assisted the Committee. They were all united in their objective of fighting crime. The Committee looked forward to further engagements with SAPS throughout the week.

The meeting was adjourned.

Share this page: