Closed meeting with Chinese Delegation; SAPS, IPID, CSPS, PSIRA Budgets: Committee Reports

Meeting report

[In a prior session, the Portfolio Committee on Police held a closed bilateral engagement with the National People's Congress Supervisory and Judicial Affairs Committee of the People’s Republic of China, to share ideas and best practices in an effort to fight crime in their respective countries and the world]

The Chairperson expressed her deep frustration at the Committee’s support staff’s inability to organise programmes as her schedule had completely been messed up. The Committee was informed that the meeting started at 9am in the morning and the meeting with the Chinese delegation would end at 10:30. However, the meeting only began at 11:30am. She found it totally unacceptable given the tight timeframes given to Committees to pass budgets. The Committee only had today to pass those budget votes reports since Thursday was scheduled for a Committee oversight visit. The Chairperson said that she would need to speak to Parliament regarding the support staff and register a serious concern on that.

Draft report of the Portfolio Committee on Police on the 2021/22 budget vote 28, Annual Performance Plan (APP) of the Department of Police (SAPS)

The Chairperson took Committee Members through the report.

The Chairperson read out and highlighted the recommendations in the report. She then asked if Members have any further inputs on the recommendations.  

Both Mr O Terblanche (DA) and Mr H Shembeni (EFF) reserved their rights to adopt the report.

Mr K Maphatsoe (ANC) commented on bullet four of the recommendations. He said that it would be incorrect for the Committee to include the word ‘promotion’ in the report. The Commissioner had not made reference to ‘promotion’ but rather ‘restructuring’ in the presentation.

Dr Irvin Kinnes, Committee Content Advisor, said Mr Maphatsoe was right in saying that the Commissioner had only mentioned the restructuring process. The Commissioner further offered to make a presentation on the subject in line with protocol. However, he had no objections if the Committee decided to leave the word ‘promotion’ out.

Mr Terblanche noted that some of the regulations which were announced in 2008 were in conflict with the Constitution. Although it is irrelevant to this report, he reminded the Committee and asked Members to bear that in mind.

The Chairperson agreed and said that the Committee would need to ask the National Commissioner to explain and clarify the matter after the budget has been passed.

Ms P Faku (ANC) did not think it necessary to take out the word ‘promotion’ because it was the content that the Committee was about to receive from the Commissioner in due course.

The report was adopted.  

Draft report of the Portfolio Committee on Police on the 2021/22 budget vote 24, Performance Plan and 2020 -2025 Strategic Plan of the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID)

The Chairperson took Committee Members through the report.

The Chairperson read out and highlighted the recommendations in the report. She then asked if Members have any further inputs on the recommendations. 

The Chairperson noted that the comprehensive report on why the process of appointment has taken almost two years for IPID was still outstanding and asked the Committee Secretary to follow up on the submission.

Mr Terblanche (DA) and Mr Shembeni (EFF) reserved their rights to adopt the report.

Mr Shembeni raised the concern that in addition to Pretoria Central, Johannesburg Central and Port Shepstone, he had also raised other cases which involved senior management in the SAPS and required the Committee’s urgent attention. He felt that the non-responsive manner in which IPID treated the Committee was just a way of procrastination.

The Chairperson concurred and suggested that IPID would have to respond to the Committee’s recommendations one by one when it appeared in front of the Committee again. The Committee needed to hold it accountable and see how far it has implemented the Committee’s recommendations.  

Ms Faku agreed with the Chairperson and said that it was important to monitor government department’s progress on implementing Committee recommendations. She suggested devising a diagram that included all outstanding issues on the table. When an entity comes to the Committee, the Committee needed to make sure that the entity accounted to that diagram table before presentations can be made.

The Chairperson said that the Committee cannot simply only be there to receive presentations. She highlighted the Committee’s constitutional role is oversight and thus the Committee’s recommendations must be implemented. The Chairperson said she also had some difficulty getting Members of the Executive to respond to her. She described that sometimes she would send letters to the Minister and the National Commissioner up to four to five times before a response is given. The Chairperson further added that a timeframe should also be set for each recommendation. For instance, she found it unacceptable that the Committee’s priority IPID Amendment Bill was not even considered a priority by the Civilian Secretariat for Police Service (CSPS).

Mr Terblanche noted that Parliament staff was equally non-responsive as his constituents in KwaZulu-Natal is calling the Committee names which made him ashamed and embarrassed.  

The Chairperson concurred and remarked that Parliament support staff do not promptly respond to correspondence either. She believed that the Committee needed to put its foot down and requested support staff to respond to all its correspondence.

Ms L Moss (ANC) asked Members whether it still remained in effect that Members should send all their issues to the Chairperson’s office.

The Chairperson said that Members must copy her in the email. This was because a number of Members had written to her complaining about the non-responsive manner from the department. By copying the Chairperson in the mail, she would ensure that the department responded to questions. It would also be a more streamlined communication process.

Mr Terblanche added that as Members of the Committee, they often got complaints on the police’s service delivery from the people that they served. The police service should be servicing the public thus, the police should be obligated to reply to a Member’s questions because they [Members] are elected officials representing the people on the ground. He further remarked that if he had to send all the stuff through to the Chairperson’s office, then there would be so many issues that the office would probably need more staff to deal with these matters.

The Chairperson suggested the Minister and National Commissioner pay attention to this matter of correspondence. A number of Committee Members contact her regularly to complain about the non-responsiveness of the department.

The report was adopted.

Draft Report of the Portfolio Committee on Police on the 2021/22 budget, Annual Performance Plan of the Civilian Secretariat for Police Services (CSPS) vote 21

The Chairperson took Committee Members through the report.

The Chairperson read out and highlighted the recommendations in the report. She then asked if Members have any further inputs on the recommendations. 

The Chairperson remarked that the DNA Amendment Bill was another example where the entities and department were not taking the Committee’s recommendations seriously. Mr A Whitfield (DA) had been advocating for that bill since the beginning of the Sixth Parliament. She thus needed the matter to be included in the Committee’s outstanding matters.

Ms Faku added that the National Commissioner also needed to explain the Community Police Forum (CPF) and stipend issue to the Committee.

Mr Maphatsoe agreed with his colleagues. He remarked that the Committee had spent a lot of time babysitting the SAPS in the past, but he disagreed with that approach now. The Committee’s role is oversight without fear or favour. Hence, when the Committee prioritises an issue, it must get a response if the issue is not being implemented by the Executive. He also reminded Members that Committees are also being benchmarked against those issues hence the implementation of those prioritised issues is crucial to Committee’s performance.

Mr Terblanche (DA) and Mr Shembeni (EFF) reserved their rights to adopt the report.

The Report was adopted.  

Draft Report of the Portfolio Committee on Police on the 2021/22 budget, Annual Performance Plan of the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (PSIRA)

The Chairperson needed to take a break so she asked Mr Maphatsoe to chair in her stead.

Mr Terblanche (DA) and Mr Shembeni (EFF) reserved their rights to adopt the report.

The report was adopted.

Committee oversight visit

The Chairperson was back on the platform.

The Chairperson expressed her frustration at the Committee support staff particularly the Committee’s administrative assistant. She said he hardly attended any of the meetings, nor did he ever send an apology. She would formally write a report to complain about this issue.

Dr Kinnes confirmed that the Committee is all set for the visit. The Committee’s oversight visit would begin at 9am at the Central Firearm Registry. Members would receive a briefing there. The Secretariat of Police would also be in the meeting and would do a presentation at the end of the briefing. The Committee would then go to the Forensic Science Laboratory in the afternoon. Due to COVID-19 social distancing rules, Parliament had arranged that the engagement with the National Commissioner take place at the Laboratory. The Committee would not have time to visit police stations in the area.

Members would receive the travel arrangement and accommodation confirmation.

Ms Faku submitted her apology and excused herself from the oversight visit.

The Committee has agreed that the minutes would have to be adopted the following week.  

The meeting was adjourned.