Follow-up with SAPS Forensics Division; with National Treasury, Minister and Deputy Minister

Meeting report

Opening remarks

The Chairperson thanked National Treasury (NT) for responding at such short notice and assisting the Committee on the issues raised in the engagement. Committee Members had received the applications for the Critical Infrastructure Council (CIC), and had to consider and verify the applications in order to appoint the CIC members.  

Dr Irvin Kinnes, Committee Content Advisor, said that the Members had to do the short-listing during the parliamentary recess.

The Chairperson asked Members if they could do the short-listing during the recess.

The Members agreed to do the short-listing.

Rev K Meshoe (ACDP) asked the Chairperson on what date they would need to do the short-listing.

The Chairperson replied that she would notify the Members in advance.

She said the Minister requested to respond to issues Members raised about the SAPS forensic division, but the Committee had received different responses, so the issues would remain on the Committee agenda if they were not resolved. The situation was uncomfortable for everyone. Rape victims would not receive justice if the DNA issues were not resolved and cases could not be prosecuted.

Mr Bheki Cele, Minister of Police, agreed that the issue needed to remain on the agenda until it was resolved to ensure that victims, especially of gender-based violence and femicide (GBVF) got justice. The SAPS were working on the issue and when they discussed it, it caused tensions in the Department. The challenges were related to resources and supply chain management (SCM) and they needed to be addressed. R250 million had been set aside for the division but it had used only 30% of its budget. The chemicals in the laboratories were functioning at 0%, which was a cause for concern. He said that the SAPS must account for this issue. The Committee needed to be firm so that SAPS could do its work and resolve the challenges.

The Chairperson said she had received calls from the Chief Whip and Members of Parliament. The Committee needed to hear the calls on the matter, because the President had declared that GBV in the country was a second pandemic. The Committee was not working against the SAPS or the Minister, but everybody needed to be held accountable for the issues relating to the SAPS.       

Forensic Science Laboratories: Turnaround strategy

Maj Gen Edward Ngokha, Head: Forensic Science Laboratories, SAPS, took the Committee through the turnaround strategy, which included a detailed description on the progress with implementation of the strategy and dealing with the DNA backlog, and the critical success factors and the way forward.

Critical success actors

Maj Gen Ngokha said the following success factors had been achieved by the SAPS in addressing the DNA backlog issue:

- Awarding of all outstanding contracts, especially for consumables, that were critical in addressing backlog according to the project plan.

-Approval for the Eastern Cape (EC) Forensic Science Laboratory was obtained on 26 February, together with approval of the plans as submitted by the bidder. The Bid Evaluation Committee would reconvene on 16 March, when a final presentation would be submitted by the recommended bidder, after which a submission would be forwarded to the SAPS Bid Adjudication Committee (BAC).

-Maintaining regular meetings with internal and external stakeholders, to identify and prioritise their needs.

-Prioritisation and finalisation of the 393 outstanding vaccinations of forensic analysts.

-Prioritisation and finalisation of an electronic track and trace system capability that was in phase 2.

Way forward

The following needed to be implemented if the SAPS were to successfully resolve the issues. The way forward included the following:

-The Forensic Services division, supported by all relevant role players, was committed to providing quality forensic products and addressing the DNA backlog through a multi-disciplinary action plan.

-A multi-disciplinary steering committee was convened on 4 March to develop an action plan, supported by partnership policing, to prioritise and finalise the DNA backlog.

National Treasury: Briefing on the matter between SAPS and their service provider Forensic Data Analysts 

Mr Dondo Mogajane, Director-General (DG), National Treasury (NT), took the Committee through the background and introduction section of Treasury’s presentation.

Ms Laura Mseme, Chief Director: Strategic Planning and Monitoring, NT, said Treasury had facilitated numerous engagements with all the parties. It was universally agreed that NT should commission an independent evaluation of the five technical assessment reports prepared by previous service providers appointed by the Forensic Data Analysts (FDA) and SAPS to assess the fair value of the intellectual property (IP) for the three systems.

Process

The following had taken place in the process:

-Mr Don MacRobert, a retired previous partner at ENS Africa, who was an IP expert and registered patent lawyer with more than 50 years’ experience, had conducted the evaluation on a pro-bono basis, commencing on 7 May 2020.

-National Treasury had provided auxiliary support that had direct bearing on the success of the process, including impressing on responsible government institutions, such as SAPS and SITA, to settle invoices owed and the service provider refraining from switching off the systems.

-The evaluation report was received by National Treasury on 18 May 2020.

-It had been forwarded to the responsible government institutions and subsequently to the FDA

-National Treasury had met with the responsible government institutions and presented the recommendations, as well as emphasised the urgency to finalise the matter.

Evaluation recommendations

 The outcomes were determined in the evaluation recommendations. The total fair value for the systems was determined as being R560 million and justification for this recommendation was provided. They had identified the limitations of each of the assessments previously conducted by the appointed service providers. The highest valuation was disregarded, given that the method applied was novel and not yet fully adopted (R849m). The lowest valuation was disregarded, given that only a single method had been applied and not tested against other available methods (R250m).

The three remaining valuations were taken into account -- R462m, R563m and R643m. The valuation amount was tested by the independent evaluator by conducting an evaluation and applying the royalty relief method.

Ministry’s follow-up comments

Minister Cele said that he had received NT’s presentation, and indicated that it had done its work regarding the FDA issue, which had started before the NT’s involvement. He said that based on Section 38 1(b), which could not be followed in the process, there were internal issues in the SAPS. The NT presentation had covered a part of the entire situation. SITA had indicated that the SAPS did not need all of the FDA’s system because in two years the system would be obsolete, which meant that purchasing the system would be a waste of money.

SITA, FDA and SAPS had to engage more to ensure transparency on the issue. The Committee needed to consider all the facts surrounding the matter. He commented on NT’s statement that the issue had been brought to the attention of the Executive Authority (EA), and said that when the meeting was supposed to take place between the Ministries, the agreement purchase the system had already been made. There were a number of factors that had caused delays in the engagement with the Ministries. The service delivery of SAPS was negatively affected because it needed the Property Control and Exhibit Management (PCEM) systems. There had been agreement to purchase only the PCEM system. 

Deputy Minister of Police, Mr Cassel Mathale, requested that the Committee allow the SAPS to present the Committee with a report so that the Committee got a better understanding of the issue.     

NT’s process

Deputy Minister Mathale described what had happened in NT’s process. Noting that there had been correspondence between SAPS and FDA, and that third party correspondence received by NT had been redirected to SAPS and the state security agency (SSA), on presenting the independent evaluation report, NT had delivered on the commitment originally made and considered the support role assigned to NT as completed. The determination on whether or not to procure the three systems assessed in this process was for the accounting officer of SAPS to make.

Section 38(1)(b) of the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) (1999) places responsibility on the accounting officer of a department to ensure effective, efficient, economical and transparent use of the resources of the department. Section 38(1)(l) further requires the accounting officer to take into account all relevant financial considerations, including issues of propriety, regularity and value for money, when policy proposals affecting the accounting officer’s responsibilities are considered, and when necessary, bring those considerations to the attention of their executive authority.

Discussion

The Chairperson said that the Committee was not going to argue with SAPS and should base its questions on seeking clarity and solutions to the issues.

Dr P Groenewald (FF+) agreed with the Chairperson and said everyone present was part of a team. He did not speak only on behalf of his role on the Committee, but also his responsibility towards South Africans.

He referred to the issues raised in last week’s meeting about the outcries in the Sowetan newspaper from GBV victims. The Minister had said that SAPS faced a dilemma when it came to DNA tests in DBV crimes. He made reference to the previous engagement with SAPS, and said that the SAPS Forensic Division had a backlog of DNA samples in 172 000 cases. It was important to understand that in some cases there were up to 40 DNA samples, and if SAPS worked on an average of only ten samples per case, then it had a DNA backlog of approximately 1.7 million samples. The Committee needed to get the full story, and asked SAPS what the exact number of samples in its DNA backlog was.

He said that this denied victims of crime a fair trial, because the representatives of the victims needed to ensure that the case was waterproof in order to send criminals to jail. It was disturbing that the statistics of GBV cases, especially rape, showed that only 7.8% of the cases were successfully prosecuted. The FDA and its PCEM system was a critical part in ensuring that no evidence was tampered with, and that a case was successfully prosecuted. He commented that the PCEM system managed by the FDA was a solid system, in that it was biometrically controlled to ensure that it was not easily accessible by everyone. The system was currently off, and all samples had to be recorded manually, which compromised the validity of the evidence recorded. He made reference to the Hartswater farm murder case in the Mafikeng high court, where the attorney of the accused had questioned the validity of the DNA evidence recorded in SAPS’s system.

The FDA and its PCEM system included the firearms system of SAPS. He requested that SAPS give a background on its relationship with the FDA, because the relationship between SAPS and the FDA had begun in the year 2000. From May 2018, numerous negotiations had taken place between the SAPS, the FDA and SITA. Many letters and proposals had been drawn up, but the litigation processes had been started against the FDA by SAPS. On 31 January 2020, a final purchase price had been established for the intellectual property, maintenance and support of the FDA system during negotiations at the Presidential guest house. The FDA had received a letter stating the settlement price, and later that day had received a letter stating the previous letter had been withdrawn, subject to discussions with the Minster of the Police and a fair-valuation process (FVP) to be conducted. NT, in its presentation, had stated that an FVP was done, and the intellectual property price was R560 million. This was a fair price, because the FDA system was worth R580 million.

On 30 May 2020, Gen Khehla Sitole, the National Police Commissioner, had contacted the FDA after the FVP and verbally agreed that he accepted NT’s FVP and requested that the FDA submit a letter to SAPS on the agreed amount, to enable SAPS to finalise the payment process, which the FDA did. On 11 August, it had received a letter which terminated all the negotiations it had with the SAPS on the payment negotiations.

Dr Groenewald said that on two occasions an agreement had been made on the payment for the FDA system. He asked SAPS why it had withdrawn its payment agreement with the FDA. SAPS were in a litigation process with the FDA and had not won one case, which was a waste of taxpayers’ money. SAPS were failing South Africans. It was developing a new system and it could take months. He requested that the Committee take a decision to request that SAPS pay the FDA and continue its system, because it was working.

He indicated that the Committee would deal with the Auditor-General’s (AG’s) assessment that the figures given by SAPS on stolen firearms were incorrect.

He said that the FDA system would enhance the justice system and would ensure that victims received justice.

The Department of Health (DOH) was responsible for toxicology reports. He had asked Parliament about the toxicology reports and had found it disturbing when the Minister of Health had replied that there was a backlog of 28 181 samples. From the 28 181 samples, 11 631 samples could not be tested because there was no case number attached to the specific samples. He said that these matters could not be disregarded. He requested the SAPS to provide proper responses to the issues he raised. He repeated that the SAPS needed to continue with the FDA system because it could not continue with a manual system that required overtime with a budget of R18.5 million of taxpayers’ money.                 

Mr O Terblanche (DA) said that the presentation made by the SAPS was supposed to be about the turnaround strategy to tackle the DNA backlog in the system, but there had been no turnaround strategy in the presentation. It was a typical presentation made by the SAPS, with an overload of information, and the Minister indicating that he was unsure about what needed to be done to address the issue. He agreed with NT that while there were negotiations and debates, SAPS still had to have a safe system that worked. He commented that currently, SAPS had no strategy, and the issues regarding the FDA and SAPS needed to be resolved because time was running out. The FDA system had been off since June 2020, and he asked if the FDA system was up to date and how SAPS would ensure that there was a proper system in place.

In November 2020, SAPS had presented a strategy to tackle a backlog of 114 000 cases, and currently there was a backlog 172 787 cases. It had committed to tackling the backlog issues even when it did not have the proper contract and consumables in place to deliver on its commitment. SAPS had not delivered on its commitment to address some of the cases in January and February 2021. He asked the Chairperson if SAPS were deliberately misleading Parliament. He requested that SAPS provide the Committee with a proper turnaround strategy for the backlog issues.

SAPS had said that it would be awarding different contracts, one of them being for the establishment of a building which would take a long time to complete. He said SAPS needed to provide specific details of each contract to the Committee.

He referred to the Minister’s opening remarks that SAPS had spent 30% of its budget and SAPS had been allocated an additional amount for overtime. Currently the personnel were working at the laboratories on rotation basis. He asked what the need for overtime was. In the previous engagement, he had posed questions which had not been answered by SAPS. He had asked why the laboratory personnel were not working on a shift basis.

He observed that that Maj Gen Ngokha, who had made the presentation, was retiring at the end of March, and questioned his commitment to the process. He noted that the SAPS intended to fill entry level posts and train its personnel. In short-term, this would not help in addressing the issues the SAPS faced. He said that the Committee had been presented with a statement of intent.

He commended NT for its presentation and for its part in the negotiations between the FDA and SAPS. He was confused as to why SAPS and the FDA had agreed on a settlement and the SAPS had decided to stop all the negotiations. He asked SAPS what it planned to do in the short term about its backlog issues. This matter was very serious, and consequence management should follow -- the officials responsible needed to be held accountable.

Mr K Maphatsoe (ANC) said the President had declared that GBVF was another pandemic. This issue had been raised in the fifth Parliament and the country was currently in its sixth Parliament, so nobody present could claim they were not aware of it. He found it disturbing when the Minister indicated that there were deeper problems in the SAPS SCM. He agreed with the comments of Dr Groenewald that SAPS must continue with the PCEM system. If this matter continued the Committee would be like other Committees in failing when it was needed to take an important decision.

He said NT had advised SAPS on the settlement agreement with the FDA. SITA would take a long time to develop a new system for SAPS, and the current system had its shortcomings. SAPS had a working system, and he wanted to know why it had decided to terminate its agreement with the FDA. If the FDA failed or compromised evidence in the system, then SAPS had a right to terminate its agreement. When South Africans raised concerns that justice was not being served, they would blame the judiciary, but it was SAPS which was the problem.

He commended NT on its presentation, because it gave the Committee insight as to why the FDA needed to be paid. He requested that SAPS pay the FDA for the PCEM system, to ensure the backlog was addressed. He requested that a decision be taken today about the system issue, because he did not want to be part of an inquiry as to why the Committee had failed to do its oversight work.

He made reference to the SAPS’s presentation, and said he was shocked to find out about the unavailability of personal protective equipment (PPE) for the SAPS. SAPS had lost some of its officials because of Covid-19.

He proposed that in short-term, SAPS continue with the FDA’s system and that the Minister brief the Committee about the issues in the SCM.

Mr H Shembeni (EFF) commented that NT had done its work, and the problem was with SAPS. NT had made its recommendations regarding the FVP but SAPS had not followed it. The problem was in Section 38, 1(b), where the accounting officer (AO) was given the right to make a decision, and this decision must be brought to the attention of the Executive. The National Commissioner, as the AO, would have decided that the FDA must be paid and continue with its work. However, due to interference, he did not make a decision. He said the AO’s right to make a decision was limited, because the Executive needed to give the Executive’s input as well. This problem had affected other departments because of the backlog in the SAPS’s system. He asked SAPS how many cases had been withdrawn in court due to a lack of DNA evidence. How many cases had been voluntarily withdrawn by victims because of the backlog in DNA results? There were cases where SAPS took so long that victims did not want to pursue the case because they had moved on with their lives and tried to heal. Due to SAPS taking long with evidence, cases were withdrawn because the witnesses had forgotten their statements and no longer wanted to be involved in the case. The citizens of South Africa needed to understand that there were specific procedures when it came to DNA evidence in cases, and the backlog of DNA was ruining the reputation of SAPS.

He asked how long the AO would take to make a decision about the FDA system. It was important that the Committee took a decision on what needed to happen with the FDA system issue. He referenced Section 38 1(b) of the PFMA, and said he did not understand why SAPS did not want to pay the FDA. He said SAPS was not telling the whole truth, and that there was interference when it came to DNA evidence. He added that there were allegations against SAPS and that allegedly there were people who were being paid to destroy evidence.

He stressed the urgency of the FDA matter, and said that criminals were not prosecuted and were still committing crimes because of the delay in DNA results. It had been found in provinces like Mpumulanga that one criminal was involved in 100 cases which could have been prevented if the first case had been successfully prosecuted. The Committee needed to not only talk, but also to take action. If officials in SAPS were not doing his or her work, they needed to be replaced.  

Ms P Faku (ANC) said that the Committee needed to make a decisive decision and stamp its authority on the matter, because GBV victims were depending on the forensic system to do its job. SAPS had done nothing since last year to address the FDA issue. The FDA, SITA and SAPS had engaged on the matter, and she proposed that the FDA continue with its work.

The Covid-19 pandemic had taught them to develop a digital system, and SAPS needed to come up with a new information communications technology (ICT) system to deal with the forensic system. She agreed with Dr Groenewald’s comment that there were more DNA samples that had not been tested than the figures of the DNA backlog of cases indicated, because there were a lot of DNA samples for one case. She asked why the National Commissioner, as the AO, had not adhered to the agreement. The recording of DNA samples would take a long time if they were recorded manually. She asked if SAPS have the capacity to operate the DNA system manually. She said that criminals were roaming the streets where their victims were, because the cases were not prosecuted because of DNA results. She agreed with Mr Shembeni’s comments and said officials in the SAPS who did not do their work needed to be replaced.        

Mr A Shaik Emam (NFP) said that the Committee was dealing with a major crisis because there was division and disagreements within SAPS. SAPS was wrong to think that the Committee would accept the report it had presented and believe its commitment that it made. He asked how SAPS could not adhere to its agreement because when the Department represented government and entered into a contract, it had to adhere to the agreement. He noted that if SAPS wanted to terminate its agreement, it had to maintain a good relationship with the FDA, because the process would not happen overnight. SAPS did not know when it would need the services of the FDA.

He raised concern about the number of court rulings against SAPS, because the processes cost a lot of money, which further burdened the tax-payer. He said there were risks regarding the backlog of DNA samples, and it was disappointing because the SAPS rule was to uphold the law of the country. South Africans had lost confidence in SAPS because it had issues of corruption, lack of accountability and evidence tampering against it. He requested that SAPS pay the FDA and allow it to continue with its work, because NT had made its assessment and set aside money so that SAPS could pay the FDA. It was a risk that SAPS had a contract with an outside organisation with access to delicate information such as evidence, but that was an issue for another day.

He agreed with the comments of other Members that officials of SAPS must be replaced if they were not doing their jobs. In the private sector, if employees did not perform they would be fired, but in government there was a different process. He asked SAPS to provide the Committee with a timeframe in which the situation with the FDA would be resolved.      

Ms Z Majozi (IFP) said the Committee could take a decision about the FDA issue, because the majority of Members agreed that the FDA needed to be paid and continue with its work. SAPS were prioritising certain GBV cases, and she wondered how other victims felt when their cases were delayed due to DNA results.

The Committee was responsible for oversight of its departments, and could not be held accountable for the SAPS’s issues. She expressed her disappointed at finding out about the lack of PPE availability. It had been a year since the Covid-19 pandemic started, and she wanted to know what resources SAPS had used to protect its officials, as the report had indicated that there was an unavailability of PPE.

She requested that SAPS provide the Committee with a proper turnaround strategy and agreed with Mr Shaik Emam that SAPS must provide it with a timeframe on resolving the FDA issue. She urged SAPS to allow the FDA to continue with its work in order to successfully prosecute cases. SAPS could not allow perpetrators to continue to live in communities where the perpetrators abused their victims.   

Mr Terblanche asked SAPS what steps in the process with the contract to procure chemicals and consumables were not yet supported. If SAPS did not resolve these matters, it would face civil claims against the Department and its management.    

Ms Faku said that SAPS needed to increase its capacity, and that SITA must be involved in the next meeting.

Ms N Peacock (ANC) requested that all stakeholders in the FDA issue needed to be present at the next meeting. The Committee could then analyse the situation. She did not agree with Members that the FDA must continue with its work and be paid, adding that the Committee could not take an informed decision if SITA was not present at the meeting.

SAPS’s responses

National Commissioner Sitole referred to section 38, and said that after the first meeting with the DG and CEO of the FDA, it was recommended that as the AO, he should consider the proposal. He had signed the agreement for the purchase price of R460 million for the FDA system. The agreement could not be presented to the Minister because of the FVP issue. SAPS had further engaged with NT and the Deputy Minister about the FVP, and requested that NT submit its final recommendations in writing. He had noted Section 38, and had made a second decision to instruct the Deputy National Commissioner to submit in writing to the Ministry that SAPS were ready to pay the FDA according to the FVP outcome.

SAPS were directed to wait for the necessary processes to happen and for the three ministries to convene to pay the FDA. The postponement of engagements had caused a time delay, and the budget of R500 million reserved for payment was no longer available because it was the end of the year. SAPS had restarted the process and asked SITA to guide SAPS to complete the purchase. SITA had a different recommendation on the settlement agreement, and during the engagements with SITA, the FDA had decided to withdraw and switched off its system.

SAPS had instructed a legal team to work with the FDA on how it could resolve the issue. SITA indicated that the procurement of the PCEM system was a SITA matter, and that if SAPS wanted to proceed on its own with the procurement, it needed to give SAPS an exemption. SITA had provided SAPS with an alternative system and made a commitment that it would be done in February 2021, but SITA had indicated it was not yet ready.

He said that he accepted the recommendations of the Committee and agreed with Members that SAPS needed to provide the Committee with a report which included prescripts and what SAPS could do practically to resolve the FDA issue. He committed to revise the turnaround strategy and to include the specific requirements indicated by the Committee.

Lt Gen Sally Khan, Divisional Commissioner: Legal and Policy Services, SAPS, added to Gen Sitole’s comments on the processes that needed to be followed in negotiations with FDA from a legal perspective. The FDA had issued SAPS with a letter of demand from the FDA for the purchase price of its system, which was R664 million for its three systems and a further R120 million for maintenance and support. She requested that the Committee give SAPS the opportunity to prepare a briefing note, starting with the appearance at SCOPA in 2017/18, the FDA issue before NT’s involvement, and after its involvement. SAPS, under the guidance of the National Commissioner, were going to comply with the court order that the intellectual property of FPS belonged to the FDA, and that the PCEM system must have used the agreement between SAPS and the FDA.

She said that during the fair valuation process (FVP), specific risks were identified and council had dealt with negotiations with the FDA. The risks included the architectural design not being available and the PCEM system infringing on patent claims. There were third party claims regarding IP ownership and value for money considerations. The legal aspect that was taken into consideration in the negotiations was the legislative framework in terms of the SITA Act that placed the responsibility for IT procurement for government departments on SITA. The possibility of deviations was considered in the event SAPS needed approval from NT for the procurement of systems. The Council had said that SAPS had not issued a tender for the procurement of the PCEM system. She said that tender processes had to be followed and that there was no recordal in the procurement plan. The National Commissioner had then decided not to proceed with the procurement and to follow the correct procedure for procurement -- getting the approval from NT and issuing a tender for the PCEM system. According to the government procurement process, SAPS needed to look at alternative systems and conduct market testing.

The Chairperson asked if Lt Gen Khan had been present in the meeting, and if she had listened to Committee Members.

Lt Gen Khan replied that she had.

The Chairperson asked if the General had been unable to resolve the issue since 2017.

Lt Gen Khan replied ‘‘yes.’.

The Chairperson indicated that it was a serious indictment on Lt Gen Khan, and it was recorded in the meeting’s minutes.

Ministry’s responses

Deputy Minister Mathale said that he had first engaged with the issue when he became involved with SAPS in 2019, and the matter had not yet been resolved. The route that the process had taken would not be easy, but it needed to be resolved urgently. He said that all the stakeholders at some point in the process had agreed to the settlement price. He acknowledged the issues raised by Members, and agreed with Ms Peacock and said that the Committee needed to take a balanced approach when taking a decision on the matter. He had engaged with SITA before when he was a Premier in 2013, and he still received complaints that SITA did not deliver on its commitments. He could not tell the Committee that SITA would deliver on providing SAPS with a new system because of his past experiences with the entity. SAPS was in this situation because of SITA’s failure to deliver on its commitments. This was not the only issue that involved SITA and that there were a number of other problems that SAPS faced regarding its systems because of SITA.

The National Commissioner had indicated what went wrong in the process, and it was not helpful to blame others involved. The challenges SAPS faced was because of officials’ inability to do track and tracing. The Justice Department had raised concerns about cases that were not prosecuted because of the validity of evidence, looking at who had access to the evidence from the time of the crime until it was presented in court. The lack of a foolproof system would make it difficult for SAPS to effectively deal with cases.

He said SAPS needed guidance on how to resolve the issue with the FDA. Today’s meeting had shown that SAPS could not make a decision on how to successfully resolve the issue. The FDA was currently suing SAPS, and SAPS would not be able to defend its case. It was in the best interest of government, the legislature and the people of SA for the matter to be resolved without further delay. The Committee needed to make an informed decision based on the facts, and allow SITA to respond to the issues that Committee Members had raised.

Minister Cele said he had invited the police management to a weekend retreat from 4 to 6 October last year to discuss the police’s turnaround strategy. In the engagement, it had been agreed that 50% of SAPS’s issues involved its SCM, and management in the SCM had been charged to tackle the problems. The rape kits had been such an issue for SAPS that the President had instructed the National Commissioner to address the issue. SAPS were 76% down on their rape kits, with the GBV having been declared a serious problem for the country. One engagement between the police management and Ministry had been able to resolve this issue, and there had not been a problem with rape kits again.

He replied to issues about DNA results, and said SAPS had done a good job in the case of the two policemen who were shot in Cape Town. The perpetrators were linked to the case because one of them was found with a cellphone of one of the victims, and SAPS had found a bloody t-shirt on the perpetrator. The Department had requested that management of the Western Cape fast-track the DNA results, and for the first time -- in the entire Republic of South Africa -- there were no chemicals to deal with DNA results in the SAPS laboratories and nobody had reported this. He had found out about this by chance. SAPS would continue to face challenges because of its SCM. It would not be able to conduct its work and uphold the law if the SCM issues continued. There were agreements to resolve the issues, and he requested the Secretariat to engage with these agreements.

He said that the SAPS issue with the FDA had started years ago, and it had been involved with many cases already. SAPS were willing to pay the settlement of R560 million, but the CFO had nothing to do with this agreement. NT could advise SAPS but could not direct it on what to do, and as the Minister, he had said that he had to consider all the stakeholders’ inputs. Two matters needed to be considered -- was SAPS settling fairly on the FDA issue, and if it was not settling, what were the negative impacts it had on the service to the community?

He said that it was argued that SAPS did not need the entire FDA system, and one of its systems would be obsolete in a few years. SITA and SAPS would work on developing a new system, and in a meeting with the Ministry and the Department it had been agreed that SAPS needed the PCEM system which helped to trace DNA samples, from the FDA. Nobody in the meeting had mentioned this matter. The Ministry and the Department had then met with the directors of the PCEM system to indicate that SAPS were willing to settle because it was important to have this system. However, the National Commissioner had not been present at the meeting. The Deputy Minster had been present, and it had been determined that SAPS would settle and an agreement outcome would be submitted in seven days.

The Minister said that SAPS had looked at ways to resolve the issue with the FDA. Another matter that SAPS officials had failed to mention in the meeting was that certain stakeholders had challenged SAPS when it made an agreement with the FDA to settle. He indicated that there had been agreements to settle with the FDA, but the agreements had not been implemented.

He replied to the issues raised by Mr Shembeni about interference in the SAPS, and said he could not understand how the Executive needed to account for such issues, because he had never been a member of the Executive. The case of the Minister interfering with the work of SAPS had been opened in Pretoria. He indicated that the leader of Mr Shembeni’s party had had a meeting with the leaders of SAPS. He then said he disregarded Mr Shembeni’s comments about interference in SAPS because he was not aware of what had taken place in that meeting.

Follow-up discussion

The Chairperson said she was very disturbed by what happened in the meeting. The Committee had received presentations from SAPS, and when consulted with records of its reports, SAPS had been inconsistent. She referred to engagements with SAPS and said the reason why she kept specific minutes was because if there was an inquiry like the Zondo Commission, her memory would be tested. On 3 November, the Committee minutes indicated that the SAPS had discussed its engagements with SCOPA, and that investigations had been done on the matter. However, in today’s and last week’s engagements, SAPS had reported nothing on the matter. The input from Lt Gen Khan had indicated that she was never in a meeting when this issue was raised. Lt Gen Khan had stated that SAPS had tried to resolve the issue since 2017.

The Chairperson ruled that SAPS could not investigate itself. She would ask the Speaker and get legal advice on how an independent committee could investigate SAPS, starting with Lt Gen Khan. The Chairperson then ruled that all court battles with the FDA must be stopped, because there had been a number of court rulings against SAPS. She said that Commissioner Sitole had indicated that there was an agreement and that at the next meeting, SAPS must provide the Committee with a plan of action to implement its agreement. If SAPS were unable to engage with SITA and the FDA, then she would request that SITA and the FDA be present at the next meeting. She would send a letter to the Minister about the engagement and would follow SAPS on a daily basis until next week on its engagement with the relevant stakeholders.

She then requested that the Ministry be present at the next meeting to make a decision about the plan of action to implement the agreement of the SAPS. She made her ruling based on the interest of every rape victim and as a mother who had been impacted in many ways. She raised concern that as the Chairperson of the Committee on Police, the issue with the FDA had not been resolved for so many years, and she would write to the Speaker to state that she had been misled by the SAPS. The SAPS’s report had needed to provide specific details of the agreement and what had been implemented, because SAPS had indicated it had an agreement with the FDA. She requested that before SAPS appeared before the Committee, its system would be switched on, and that they present a report on how SAPS and the FDA planned to deal with the backlog issue.

She said that SITA needed to indicate when it would be ready to develop its system for SAPS. When the Committee received the Auditor-General’s (AGs) report, she had specifically requested that SAPS deal with the SCM issues. If the Committee did not receive a positive response to the AG’s recommendations, she would request that SAPS be investigated.

She requested the Committee to consider the minutes and adopt the reports next week.

She thanked NT for its presentation, because if they had not been present then the Committee would not have had the information about the FDA issue. She stressed that the Committee needed to take action regarding the issue. There was a battle of the generals in SAPS, and if the Committee needed to get involved, it had to do so. SAPS did not take the Committee and Parliament seriously, and it was the last time that SAPS would not provide the Committee with all the information.

The meeting was adjourned.