DPCI Judge Annual Report; Establishment of new DNA Board; SAPS, IPID, CSPS & PSIRA BRRRs; with Deputy Minister

This premium content has been made freely available


21 October 2020
Chairperson: Ms T Joemat-Pettersson (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

2020 BRRRs

Audio: Priority for Crime Investigation Judge Report; Establishment of new DNA Board; SAPS, IPID, CSPS & PSIRA BRRRs

In this virtual meeting, the Portfolio Committee on Police met to adopt the Preliminary Draft Committee Report on Budgetary Review and Recommendation Reports (BRRRs) for the South African Police Service (SAPS), the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID), the Civilian Secretariat for Police Service (CSPS) and the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (PSIRA).

The Committee adopted the preliminary reports without substantive amendments. The Committee noted that these reports were usually finalised in early October but there was a delay due to COVID. As a result, departments and entities will only be submitting their audited final statements to Parliament next month.

The Committee received briefings on the 2019/20 Annual Report of the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (DPCI) Judge; the DNA Board handover report and progress made on the establishment of a new DNA Board.

The DNA Board highlighted that there was a 300% backlog of DNA case exhibits at the National Forensic Science Laboratories (NFLS). The Committee expressed concern and alarm that there was a 92% backlog of cases pertaining to GBV matters. Backlogs at laboratories were due to decreased funding being available for the procurement of consumables through the SAPS supply chain environment, resulting in DNA collection and testing slowing dramatically. This threatened the National Forensic DNA Database (NFDD) and reduce the ability to combat and prevent crime through the facility.

The National Forensic Oversight and Ethics Board had been reporting their concerns on matters of procurement leading to decreasing DNA sample collections and DNA profiles being loaded onto the NFDD since the 2017/18 annual report.

The national effort to tackle GBV was being undermined in these circumstances as over 10 000 sexual offence cases that had exceeded 35 days unable to be analysed due to insufficient DNA reagents and consumables available to be used with maintained instruments.

The Office of the Department for Priority Crime Investigation Judge’s annual report was received with similar concerns by the Committee. Members questioned the need to maintain the Office given the ratio of case completion to funding required.

The Committee resolved to hold another meeting with the Office in the near future where the Minister of Police would be present to respond to the members’ questions relating to the relationship with the CSPS and the operations of the Office.

Members bemoaned the quality of the reports and presentations made by both delegations and it was determined that both would need to return to the Committee for significant oversight with the presence of the Minister.

Meeting report

Opening Remarks

The Chairperson said Ms J Mofokeng (ANC) had apologised.

Mr A Whitfield (DA) said, for the record and clarity, that the Committee was dealing with documents that were preliminary draft Budgetary Review and Recommendations Reports (BRR) reports. The Committee had not had the annual reports, which were coming in November 2020. He asked for the context of having to adopt preliminary draft reports.

The Chairperson asked the Committee Content Advisor to put the matter in context.

Dr Irvin Kinnes, Committee Content Advisor, said that 2020 had been different due to COVID-19. This had provided the reasons for adopting draft assessment annual reports. The Minister of Finance, Tito Mboweni, was about to table the Medium Term Budget Policy Statement (MTBPS). Normally recommendation reports were finalised early in October of the financial year. Because of COVID-19, the leader of government business had determined this was not possible. There were numerous outstanding matters such as the Money Bills Act to consider the finances of the Department. The Auditor General (AG) had not yet finalised the annual report of the Department, meaning it had not been tabled. It had been asked to be tabled as soon as it was finalised. Therefore, assessment would be done based on the quarterly reports of the Department. Upon receipt of additional information, it would be added to the report.

The Chairperson said that the statement took care of the process.

Mr O Terblanche (DA) asked for clarity. Did it mean the Committee would have meetings again once the other information was available?

Dr Kinnes said it was possible to have meetings again. The Committee needed to consider the financial statement of the Department. Here, the information from the AG was critical and so was the financial statement.

The Chairperson said the House was sitting that day and some Committee members needed to participate. Dr P Groenewald (FF+) had tended an apology to leave the meeting at 12:00. Mr AM Shaik Emam (NFP) would also be leaving by 12:00.  

Mr Shaik Emam said he would also be attending the whips meeting at 10:00. Thereafter he would return to the meeting.

The Chairperson said she had been informed that Ms M Molekwa (ANC) was having network issues.

The Committee would then move to the adoption of Preliminary Draft Committee Reports on the Budgetary Review and Recommendation Reports (BRRRs).

Draft Committee Budgetary Review and Recommendations Reports (BRRRs)

South African Police Service (SAPS)

The Committee went through the report.

The Committee adopted the report with amendments.

Civilian Secretariat for Police Service (CSPS)

The Committee went through the report.

The Committee adopted the report without amendments.

Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID)

The Committee went through the report.

The Committee adopted the report with amendments.

Private Security Regulatory Authority (PSA)

The Committee went through the report.

The Committee adopted the report with amendments.

Consideration of the 2019/20 Annual Report of the Priority Crime Investigation Judge

The Chairperson handed over to the Deputy Minister of Police, Cassel Mathale, to introduce the presentation.

Deputy Minister Mathale said the Secretary for Police at the CSPS, Alvin Rapea, and the Head: Office of the DPCI Judge, Judge F Diale Kgomo, were present. Judge Kgomo would lead the presentation.

Judge Kgomo introduced the presentation.

He handed to the Director: Office of the DPCI Judge, Adv Tshepo Boikanyo.

Annual Operational Budget

Adv Boikanyo said savings of R1.4 million had been made on salaries and wages. This had been occasioned by vacancies in the Office. It had taken a substantial amount of time to fill vacancies.

The Annual Operational Budget for the year under review was R 5.8 million. 

Marketing of the Office

One of the requirements in the Act was to conduct awareness campaigns. Often, partners from the Department were invited to road shows. Only one roadshow had been held in 2020.

Public Awareness Campaigns

The Office was looking at more innovative ways to hold new roadshows in the COVID-19 context. These would possibly save the Department funds. Ideas included expanding presence on radio stations and TV education to conscientise the public of the Office’s legislative mandate

Categorisation of Complaints That Fall Within Mandate

The DPCI lost connection. The Committee moved to the DNA Board presentation.

Briefing on DNA Board handover report and progress on establishment of new DNA Board

Deputy Minister Mathale asked the CSPS to brief the Committee.

Mr Rapea, introduced the team, which included the: Chief Director: Civilian Oversight Monitoring and Evaluation, Mr Takalani Ramaru, the Director: Secretariat for the DNA Board, Mr Mark Rogers, and the Deputy Director: Secretariat for the DNA Board, Mr Akhona Ngena.

He handed over to Mr Rogers to take the Committee through the presentation.

Mr Rogers introduced Part A of the presentation on the DNA Board Handover Report.

Challenges Encountered

On the basis of the Committee’s instruction, a strategic planning session was convened in October 2018.

The outcome of the strategic planning session was a decision to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The basis of the Agreement is that the Civilian Secretariat assumes all functions of the Secretariat of the Board, while allowing the Board to focus on executing its legislative mandate. The MOU sought to give clarity on the respective roles and responsibilities, reporting and accounting lines (functionally and administratively). In addition, it delineates clear lines of accountability in relation to the determination of the spending and ultimate accountability for the Board’s budget.


Review of the need for the DNA Board in its current form was recommended. This related to reassigning oversight responsibilities to the CSPS and handing over responsibility for receiving and dealing with DNA-related complaints to the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC).

It was recommended that Minister Cele promulgated Section 36D(1) of the DNA Act which provided for sufficient national representation in terms of police officers trained to take buccal samples.

Discussions to increase baseline funding in order to address challenges that were faced was recommended.

Mr Rogers moved to Part B of the presentation on Progress on Establishment of New DNA Board.

The Chairperson said Judge Kgomo’s presentation would be returned to after the DNA Board discussion.

Recruitment Process

Invitations for nominations for the New Board had been advertised on 17 November 2019 in City Press and the Sunday Times. Applications had closed on 29 November 2020. 28 applications had been received, with seven shortlisted candidates. Appointment letters had been issued on 18 May 2020.

Delays Encountered

Numerous delays had been experienced in the appointment process, impacting the Minister’s ability to table the matter with Parliament. Nominations of relevant department officials had not been timeously received, nominees/appointees had not returned confirmation of acceptance forms timeously, as well as one remaining representative from the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development had not yet signed the letter of acceptance, pending internal discussion.

(See Presentation)


Mr Whitfield said it was important to clarify timelines around the end of the previous Board’s term and the beginning of the new Board. He understood the Act came into being in January 2015, lasting for a five-year period; which meant conclusion in January 2020. In his understanding then, for at least ten months, there had been no DNA Board in place to perform functions. What had been done since the end of the previous Board’s term? What was the impact of this?

Other questions would highlight the dysfunctionality of the Committee’s ability to perform oversight over the Board. The DNA Board had an important role and it was unclear whether the CSPS had played this in the interim.

On reporting to National Assembly about the functioning of the National Forensic DNA Database (NFDD), why had the report not been submitted? This was critical for parliamentary oversight. It should have been submitted by January 2020.

On the DNA Amendment Bill, he had heard of the horrific backlogs in forensic science labs. Justice was being delayed due to backlogs in DNA testing at labs. There were delays because the Minister was busy investigating the national DNA database on the basis of a report that the Committee had not seen. The outgoing Board had made a rational and reasonable proposal that the Ministers of Police and Home Affairs could concurrently investigate such a database, while the Bill could still go to Parliament. There were good reasons for the legislation to be dealt with decisively. Unfortunately, the Minister appeared to be unaware of the urgency of the matter. It had been three years and convicted Schedule Eight offenders had not been required to submit evidence.

He enquired why the Service Level Agreements had not been signed.

For Mr Rogers, he had presented some information that was not in the slides. He wished to receive it. He understood from what had been said that there was a 300% backlog on samples against ten per benchmark and a 92% backlog on cases of GBV.

Had the most recent quarterly report been submitted to anyone? Why could the Committee not see it. The backlog of cases was possibly over 100 000, this was unacceptable.

Mr E Maphatsoe (ANC) suggested corrections to errors in the report.

The presentation had made it clear that the Board needed people with expertise. The Minister needed to appoint a competent Chairperson of the Board. Mr Whitfield had said that the Committee did not get involved in the appointment of the DNA Board; it played an oversight role. He wanted to know how the Minister had selected the private sector board members from the nominations. How did the Minister select the board members from the public sector?

Ms P Faku (ANC) said that Mr Whitfield had raised important issues. According to the Secretariat’s 2018 annual report. The Amendment Bill had been completed in 2017. The Bill had been taken out of Cabinet. The Minister had then taken it to the Minister of Home Affairs to request amendments. Since 2017 the matter had been sitting with the Ministry of Home Affairs. There needed to be a follow up on the delays. People were sitting in prison wasting tax payers’ money awaiting results. She said it needed to be ensured that the Bill was passed immediately and it needed to be understood what were the delays that were being faced.

The Chairperson said she did not feel that the team had reported sufficiently to the Committee. They needed to return more often to the Committee. There were serious problems that needed to be addressed.

Mr Terblanche had a question for Mr Rogers on the unavailability of kits. Had it been resolved?

Who would serve as Chairperson and Departmental Chairperson of the Board?  

The Ministry had serious explanations to make to the Committee on the matter. It was becoming a habit that the Minister was failing to perform within the legal frameworks.

Dr Groenewald shared the concerns that had been raised. He strongly supported the Chairperson in saying the Committee needed to get more appearances before the Committee from the DNA Board. Justice delayed was justice denied. He knew of many cases delayed by DNA tests.

On the appointment of Dr Ehlers, the legislation was clear; the Minister may re-appoint a member if the decision was made before the expiry of the current term of office. Was the case of Dr Ehlers done before the expiry of her term?

Ms M Molekwa (ANC) was still having network issues.

On the signing of the service level agreements (SLAs); she noted that there had been a delay. What had caused the delay?

Mr H Shembeni (EFF) referred to the backlog of cases, and said he found it very difficult to understand. Seemingly the matter had an impact on the finalisation of cases, especially when it came to rape cases. Many cases were lost where victims withdrew from going to court with the reason being it took long for cases to be finalised. When required to return to court after a long time; the victims experienced PTSD and withdrew their charges. The costs of delay of finalisation of cases and backlog were with the DNA Board.

Was there an awareness campaign so that communities knew DNA samples were a lengthy process to conduct. Awareness of the length of time required for cases needed to be conveyed to people.  

The availability of kits was another problem. He had noticed in most police stations there were no kits. This was unacceptable. What measures were in place to ensure there were no shortages of kits in police stations?

Ms Faku wished to propose that the board should not even respond to the questions. What the Committee had experienced was unacceptable. For the Board to respond in the current meeting “would not take the Committee anywhere”.

The Chairperson said Mr Whitfield had been consistent on the matter. How could GBV be addressed and the culprits brought to book when legislation was delayed and the lack of capacity continued?

Mr Whitfield appreciated the concerns of Ms Faku. There had been very direct and important questions raised for response. SAPS also needed to weigh in on the dysfunctionality at another meeting. The Board was limited by the Act.

Mr Rapea asked Mr Rogers to respond and indicated that he would then deal with other questions. The brief he had received had been that the presentation was to cover a handover of the previous Board. He added that he could return to make a presentation on the oversight role of the Board.

Mr Rogers said Mr Whitfield was correct; the term was meant to end in January 2020. It had been extended for three months, which meant it concluded in April 2020.

On what had been done since then, the handover report detailed agreements made between the Board and CSPS from 2019. Based on this, work had been continuing even in the period post expiry where there would technically be no Board. Engagements and reports had continued.

On the 300% and 92% mentioned by Mr Whitfield, the statistics had been quoted in the most recent quarterly report submitted to Parliament. This was based on information received from the lab.

On Section 15, improvement to legislation reporting would form part of the DNA Bill. Due to the precarious situation of the Bill, he would need guidance from his HoD on the matter.

On the reasons for the SLA being delayed, he did not have specific reasons. He said it would be best to speak to SAPS.  

He acknowledged Mr Maphatsoe’s typo corrections.

Private sector members had been selected through a nomination process based on advertisements placed in specific newspapers.

Public sector selections had been made from letters sent to the respective Directors-General of Departments requesting them to nominate public servants to the Board.

On delays in the DNA Bill, he was not privy to the matters behind this. He asked his HoD to answer on the matter.

On the resolution of kits and consumables, it was not entirely the case. Kits had been coming in but not to the level that was required. In the most recent discussion with the forensic science lab it had been made clear that things were slowing down due to them running out of consumables. This meant the processing capacity of labs was compromised.

Adv Lindi Nkosi-Thomas was the Chairperson. The Deputy Chairperson was yet to be concluded and would be conducted during the first meeting of the Board.  

He was not in a position to answer the Dr Ehlers question.

On the SLA question similar to Mr Whitfield's, he was unsure of the delay in the signing of the SLA. This was the reason for the FBI’s request for an urgent meeting with the National Commissioner to resolve disputes. There was no timeline on when the meeting would take place.

The matter of backlogs and the impact on finalisation of cases was self-evident. Backlog had a direct impact on the ability for finalisation of cases. It was evident in the statistics from labs.

On questions about raising awareness in communities, the Board had not conducted community awareness drives yet. Awareness campaigns were mostly conducted by SAPS. This involved informing communities about the process of taking of samples. Once the new Board was appointed, it would augment the role played herein by SAPS.  

Mr Whitfield said he had a range of questions that he would submit to the Minister. The Committee had raised concerns as well as the National Assembly when the Minister had allowed the term of the IPID head to lapse. It was unclear what legislation had empowered the Minister to extend the appointment of DNA Board by three months. How had this been done? Under whose authority? There was a trend of not being accountable by the Minister both to the Committee and the legislation.

The Chairperson said it was a serious concern and shared Mr Whitfield’s views.

Deputy Minister Mathale noted the Committee’s concern about deadlines and said that the matter did not need to be debated. If the period had been stipulated, it should be stuck to. The Ministry would not argue against such issues. This was fair and reasonable. He would not go into the “nitty gritties” of whether the law allowed the actions taken by the Minister. The Minister would also not agree on actions to disregard timeframes. They all needed to act within the law and not complicate the issues that were being dealt with. It was regrettable that the matter had happened. It should not be encouraged.

He expressed the same concern regarding IPID. Things had unfolded in the manner in which they did. The issues raised had been noted. He would ensure he and the Ministry acted in a helpful manner.

The Chairperson said the Committee was not receiving answers. The Committee needed to play its oversight role. The matter of the DNA Board was a disaster. It could not continue. The Committee would call the unit to account again. She would ensure the meeting happened within a short space of time.

Mr Rapea said there were two areas he wished to add on. He wished to clarify that with appointments from the public sector, it had been indicated that Directors-General nominate people for the positions; it was in fact the ministers who nominated members of the public service.

On the appointment of Dr Ehlers, Dr Ehlers had applied for the position. It had been undesirable to extend the term; therefore, everyone had been asked to apply, resulting in them being re-appointed.

The Chairperson said a number of questions were not answered, including Mr Whitfield’s last question.

Dr Groenewald said on the statement that Dr Ehlers had “applied” for the position, he had thought that people needed to be nominated by the public. Did the legislation provide for a sitting board member to re-apply? He asked for clarity on the technical issue.

Ms Faku said that according to the act the Minister could extend the term of a Board member.

Mr Rapea corrected his statement. There was an advertising process and Dr Ehlers had been nominated through that process.

Dr Groenewald was unsatisfied. It had first been said that Dr Ehlers had re-applied, then he was told she had been nominated. This was confusing. He wanted to see the names of all the nominations. How many people had been nominated? There were questions on the process and the criteria used in the appointment.

He supported the Chairperson strongly that the Board return and the Committee receive direct and correct answers. There was a big difference between re-applying and being nominated.  

The Chairperson would request that the Minister come to the next meeting. This was not to undermine the Deputy Minister, but to address the concerns directly with Minister Cele. The matters being spoken of were extremely concerning.

Mr Terblanche said the Committee needed an explanation from the Ministry and SAPS. It was a serious issue. It had been dealt with in numerous meetings before that day. It could not continue forever. It would have to be looked into. There would need to be consequences. People needed to be told how to perform their functions properly or replacements needed to be found.

The Chairperson said she would arrange a meeting with the National Commissioner and Minister Cele. There would be no further questions.

She asked Judge Kgomo to conclude the earlier presentation.

Consideration of the 2019/20 Annual Report of the Priority Crime Investigation Judge continued

Judge Kgomo began from page 11 of the presentation.

The Chairperson said she continued to experience connection issues.

Dr Groenewald said he had the same issue. He said it was unacceptable, the DPCI had known they had a meeting, they should have ensured they had strong signals.

Judge Kgomo said he did not usually experience such issues. They had tried alternative connections and experienced the same issues. He could not have anticipated the issues.

Deputy Minister Mathale said that Judge Kgomo was now audible.

Judge Kgomo began presenting again.

He outlined the proceedings of the eight cases of interest and one referral that had been dealt with during the 2019/20 financial year.

Dr Groenewald raised a point of order. He said the Committee did not need to be read the fine details of the presentation word for word. It could be sped up.

The Chairperson agreed and said she had been trying to do so. She asked to be presented with the key outcomes.

Judge Kgomo summarised the findings of the investigations that remained.

(See presentation)

The Chairperson opened for discussion.


Dr Groenewald said he wanted to put principles in place. The Committee needed a report back. The Committee had been given a lot of detail but the finalisation of the cases had not been made.

For the DPCI Judge, he had been part of the 2011/12 Portfolio Committee which had amended the Act to create the DPCI Judge. The background to that decision had been the Scorpions. This involved questions and controversial issues. He had been a strong supporter of the Scorpions and felt they had done a good job. They had been disbanded and the DPCI had come to life. In Parliament and the Portfolio Committee at that time, there had been a strong feeling to ensure the independence of the DPCI. Time had moved on however. He asked for a thorough process in the amendment of the Police Act in 2021. He asked the Committee members to apply their minds to the relevance of the DPCI Judge. He felt strongly that using R6 or 7 million of tax money, mostly for salaries at the Office, to investigate minimal cases, was not money well spent. He felt it necessary to disband the department and have other instruments to ensure that members of the DPCI and complainants be dealt with. Questions had been raised about the relevance and need of the DPCI Judge.

Ms Faku said the annual report had identified significant struggles between the DPCI head and secretariat head on matters of capacity building. She asked to be explained why this was the case and the measures that were being taken to address the issue.

She said the report was confusing and unclear.

She asked for the differences in the manner of reporting to be explained.

Mr Shembeni referred to the issue of the exhibits that had been lost where the DPCI Judge had had to pay R35 000, and asked how exhibits were being lost. Who had taken responsibility for the loss? Cases of theft needed to be opened.

He said the Judge should respond to the appointment of a PA on salary level nine. Was a driver in the office of the DPCI necessary?

On interference with the CSPS, he asked for clarity from the Minister. He said the CSPS could not interfere in the operational duties of the DPCI. The Minister needed to clarify the matter as the executive head of both institutions.

On the outcomes of investigations into members of the DPCI since establishment of the office eight years ago, how many cases, and consequences, had been finalised? People were investigating high profile cases; when those found to be involved in corruption were accused, they simply resigned. Consequences were needed.

In Mpumalanga, what was the Office doing with whistle blowers? Corruption in Mpumalanga was related to high profile politicians. If the DPCI did make a follow up on these matter, the Committee needed to see evidence. He said something was wrong somewhere in Mpumalanga regarding corruption. The investigators were “playing hide and seek” or being paid. This could not be allowed.

How was the DPCI measuring performance if it did not have APP targets?

Mr Maphatsoe agreed with Ms Faku, the report was confusing. It was difficult to ask questions in response to it. There were contradicting numbers.

Was it really necessary for the Office of the DPCI Judge to publish details of high profile cases as had been done on pages 41-46 of the annual report?

He asked to be informed on the progress made on the screening of complaints to reduce the number of complaints received that fell outside the mandate of the Office.

He said that next time, the Minister was needed to be present at the Committee meeting.

Mr Terblanche asked whether the Judge had signed a performance agreement with the Ministry. He asked if the Committee could have a copy.

Of the 25 complaints falling within the mandate of the Office of the DPCI Judge, only eight had been finalised at the end of 2019/20. This was a 32% achievement rate. This showed a significant decrease in performance. He was worried about this. The issue of the costs of maintaining the Office had been raised. The money provided to the Office had only been spent on eight cases, this could not be done.

Why were cases investigated that were not the responsibility of the Judge’s office? A lot of time was wasted on issues that were not the Office’s responsibility.

Ms Z Majozi (IFP) said there had been a complaint that the CFO or the Office had not looked at the budget. There were posts that had not yet been filled. She said focus should start there as they were important posts such as Director. The Committee needed to know that the unit had key positions filled that were funded.

People who were accused resigned from their positions, what then happened to these people? What measures were taken to ensure they paid for what had been done? Resignation was insufficient.

On expenses spent on travel, the Office was an investigations unit. She asked for elaboration on why the Office was only spending R580 000 on travelling. How was this possible when the Office was dealing with cases in different provinces?

She asked for an explanation about complaints received inside or outside the mandate. How were cases outside of the mandate finalised. The priorities should be that the mandated cases be finalised first. Those falling outside of the mandate needed to be addressed following the conclusion of those that fell within the mandate. How were cases prioritised to understand if the mandate was being fulfilled?

She said the report had come to the Committee in tatters.

Judge Kgomo said that on reporting of cases that were not finalised, he was unsure of the matter in question. The entity was very careful with names of implicated individuals not being included in the report. The Office was careful not to publish the names of people who had not been notified or responded.

On the necessity of the DPCI Judge, he deferred to the wisdom of Parliament. Deputy Chief Justice Dikgang Mosenenke and Justice Edwin Cameron had commented on the necessity of the position. This was premised on the national requirement that there was civilian oversight over such bodies. He said he could not take the matter further than that.

As far as the overhaul of the system was concerned, there was a draft bill and comments were open until 27 November 2020.

On the necessity of a driver, he said the post had been approved. People in the Office went to airports. He was driven by VIP protectors in his capacity as Judge President. This had been approved. In respect of the office work, there were errands to be run. If these were not run by drivers, then someone else in the office needed to do the role, detracting from other work. He did not think there would be a necessity to motivate for it again. If there was no necessity, the money would have to go back to Treasury. The driver messenger was absolutely necessary so that the “cleaner or investigators” did not need to be doing the functions the messenger was doing.

On whistle blowers, there was a recent judgement in that regard. Nothing could be done on his side of things. He understood that the issue of whistle blowers fell under the ambit of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA).

On whether the DPCI Judge had signed a performance agreement with the Minister of Police, he said that with respect the DPCI Judge was accountable to Parliament and to the Constitution and law. A Judge would not have to sign a performance agreement with the Minister. In terms of legislation, a Judge could even investigate a minister. He needed to account to Parliament.

On the matter of referrals, it needed to be said why the matter had been referred.

He handed over to the Director to deal with other issues.

Adv Boikanyo said that items lost had been lost by members of the Hawks while investigating a particular matter. The DPCI Judge had made a remedial order to reimburse the complainant.

He said the Office did have an APP. Cases had to be finalised within 120 days. On the eight complaints that had been finalised, it was 18, not eight.

On the issue relating to why matters outside of the mandate were investigated, it was not always clear when a matter was within the Office’s jurisdiction. Preliminary investigations were required. Investigation fell in the ambit of numerous institutions.

Statistics were detailed on pages nine and 11 of the report.

Deputy Minister Mathale said that the issue of a driver had been responded to. It was a messenger function; a necessary tool of trade.

He said Minister Cele would attend later meetings. He always availed himself to attend Committee meetings when he was not otherwise disposed, like today. He noted the issues raised by the members.

The Chairperson thanked Deputy Minister Mathale and the presenter. She would not take further questions. She knew that Minister Cele attended meetings regularly and that Deputy Minister Mathale was present consistently and sent apologies where he was not able to attend. The Committee would need another meeting to deal with the issues raised in the day’s meeting. The Committee had serious concerns about what had been heard in the meeting. These would not be resolved in the day’s meeting; they would need to be returned to. She would inform her team and the Minister when they would be returning to the Committee and that it would happen as soon as possible.

The meeting was adjourned.


No related

Download as PDF

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

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: