SAPS 2020/21 Quarters 2, 3 and 4 performance; with Deputy Minister

This premium content has been made freely available

Police

18 August 2021
Chairperson: Ms T Joemat-Pettersson (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Portfolio Committee on Police met virtually with the South African Police Service (SAPS) to receive a briefing on its performance reports for the final three quarters of the 2020/21 financial year.

The Chairperson introduced a feisty tone to proceedings by berating Committee Members who did not read documents that had been sent to them, or who laid the blame on the Chairperson or the Committee staff for not knowing about meeting arrangements. This would no longer be tolerated. 

After the SAPS had presented their performance report, she then took the Department to task over a number of issues which she described as unacceptable. These included its failure to deal with the 300 000 backlog at the forensic science laboratories, which was delaying justice for crime victims; the slow pace of dealing with applications for firearm licences; the lack of control at police stations leading to the loss of firearms; the under-performance of Crime Intelligence, and the eight-month delay in getting its budget approved; the apparent lack of action over amendments to the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) Act; and the fact that it had taken three months for SAPS to provide a written response to questions posed at the May Committee meeting.

Other concerns raised by Members were the "code of silence" regarding discipline management; the vacuum created by the gap since the end of the firearm amnesty; the impact of Covid protocols and infections at police stations; the policy on retirement deferment applications; the success of the re-enlistment process; and investigations into the purchase of personal protective equipment (PPE).

The Chairperson asked Members to agree that next Tuesday the Committee wanted reports on the Central Firearm Registry (CFR), the firearm amnesty, the theft of firearms at police stations, and the forensic science laboratories. IPID would be responding to the Committee on the following Wednesday regarding the IPID Act, when the Committee had requested that the Act be amended, and why it had taken them so long to start working on the amendment.

Meeting report

The Chairperson welcomed everyone to the meeting. She read through the agenda, and asked that it be adopted.

Members had been complaining quite a bit, and she could not deal with all the complaints and requests. However, as could be noticed, meetings would be tightly managed and controlled in order to stick within the time constraints. There were also complaints about the South African Police Service (SAPS) presentations being too long. The presentations had to be done, as the Committee meetings were live streamed for the sake of transparency, and members of the public had a right to view the presentations and see the inputs made by SAPS.

Ms N Peacock (ANC) moved the adoption of the agenda.

Ms L Moss (ANC) seconded its adoption.

The Committee Secretary had received four apologies on behalf of Mr O Terblanche (DA), Dr P Groenewald (FF+), Minister Bheki Cele, the Minister of Police, and the Rev K Meshoe (ACDP), who would be leaving the meeting early. She confirmed that the meeting had a quorum.

The Chairperson said the Minister had apologised, but he had been in the meeting the previous day so she was not going to accept any complaints about the Minister not being present in the meeting.

Mr Cassel Mathale, Deputy Minister of Police, appealed to the National Commissioner to present the full detail of the presentation, while trying to summarise it.

Mr H Shembeni (EFF) said that he had not received a copy of the presentation.

The Committee Secretary said that she would check, but she had sent all of the presentations to Members on Saturday, being the same day that she had received the presentation from SAPS.

The Chairperson said that Members had been sent the presentations and times of the meetings early. If Members did not have the presentations, she asked that they call the Committee Secretary and not wait until the meeting to complain. Members did not read the documents. In the meeting of the previous day, it was clear that Members had not read the terms of reference, as they were asking questions which were in fact in the draft terms of reference. She would not be entertaining questions about not receiving documents, as it was Members’ responsibility to call the staff and indicate that they did not have documents. The documents for the present meeting had been emailed to Members on the previous Saturday, and it was currently Wednesday. If Members had not received the documents by the Monday that had passed, it was their responsibility to call the Committee Secretary and indicate that they had not received the documents. This complaint was quite unacceptable --Members had to take responsibility.

Members had sent the Committee into confusion about not knowing about the times of the meeting, and some had sent messages that the meeting had been cancelled. Members did not read their messages, as SMS messages had been sent to them, yet they were confused about the time of meetings. The staff had complained about Members who did not read their messages but then wanted to blame the staff and the Chairperson. This would no longer be allowed in meetings.

SAPS 4th Quarter Report

Maj Gen Leon Rabie, Head: Strategic Management, SAPS, led the presentation, focusing on the SAPS performance.

Lt Gen Puleng Dimpane, Chief Financial Officer (CFO), presented the SAPS 2020/21 unaudited quarterly financial results for the second, third and fourth quarters.

Maj Gen Rabie presented the Executive Summary: Overview of the 2020/21 performance; and the fourth quarter performance covering Programme 1 (Administration), Programme 2 (Visible Policing), Programme 3 (Detective Service), Programme 4 (Crime Intelligence), and Programme 5 (Protection and Security Services).

The unaudited income statement reflected the financial performance of SAPS for the period ending 31 March 2021. The audit was being concluded. Voted funds amounted to R99 560 894 000, of which R95 483 143 000 (95.9%) had been spent. The net surplus amounted to R4 077 751 000. Other revenue had amounted to R672 450 000, which had been surrendered to the Revenue Fund.

Past expenditure over multiple years was utilised to perform an expenditure analysis and to project anticipated baseline expenditure in a financial year. Total spending for vote per quarter for 2020/21 had amounted to 24.1% in quarter 1, 22.5% in quarter 2, 24.2% in quarter 3, and 25.1% in quarter 4.

The programme spending amounts at the end of 2nd, 3rd & 4th quarter included:

  • R18.7 billion of the allocated budget of R19 billion (98.4%) for Programme 1 – Administration;
  • R50.7 billion of the allocated budget of R53.4 billion (95%) for Programme 2 – Visible Policing;
  • R18.6 billion of the allocated budget of R 19.6 billion (94%) for Programme 3 – Detective Services;
  • R 4.1 billion of the allocated budget of R 4.2 billion (98.3%) for Programme 4 – Crime Intelligence; and
  • R 3.2 billion of the allocated budget of R 3.2 billion (98.7%) for Programme 5 – Protection and Security Services.

Key spending trends per programme were reasonably in line with linear benchmarks.

Of the R4.077 billion surplus, 79.3% was comprised of earmarked funding, which implied that SAPS could not use these funds for any other purpose than for those appropriated. In addition, spending performance on goods and services comprised 96.9% of the allocated budget for this category of expenditure, should the earmarked and specifically appropriated funding be excluded. Generally, overall spending performance was materially affected by the Covid-19 lockdown regulations and the unforeseen and unavoidable nature of the pandemic that had impacted on the extent to which personnel movements were restricted.

Within Programme 2: Visible Policing, an allocation of baseline reprioritisation towards Covid-19 expenditure, additional funding of R3.7 billion, roll-over funding for personal protective equipment (PPE) and baseline reductions had been provided for during the adjustment estimate process .

Due to the spending performance realising surpluses towards the year-end in each one of the programmes, no virement approvals were required from the Accounting Officer for the 2020/2021 financial year. Subsequent to an evaluation of the balances on the Vote at the year-end, a submission was made to National Treasury to request for funds to be rolled-over, essentially to provide for costs associated with Covid-19, since no additional funding was appropriated for this purpose in the 2021/22 financial year.

The 2020/2021 overview of performance indicated that 79 of the 95 targets were achieved. Programme 1 achieved 17 targets out of 21; Programme 2 achieved 19 targets out of 26; Programme 3 achieved 18 targets out of 29; Programme 4 achieved nine of 12 targets; and Programme 5 achieved all seven targets.

(See attached document for details of target achievement and non-achievement)

Discussion

Ms M Molekwa (ANC) congratulated SAPS for reducing the irregular expenditure by 100%, and appreciated SAPS’s near completion of the Mabieskraal and Moeka-Vuma police stations. She hoped that in the future, Makapanstad would also be considered for renovation, as it was highly dilapidated. The Committee had received numerous reports about the slow pace of processing the applications for firearms -- was there any mechanism to make sure that the process was fast tracked? Every day, the Committee received emails of complaints from members of the public about the slow pace in the processing of firearm applications. Could SAPS indicate the impact of the so-called "code of silence" in SAPS regarding discipline management?

Mr A Whitfield (DA) said that from the presentation, it was now clear that Forensic Services was in a state of complete collapse, with declining performance across most of its indicators. Since 2019, the Committee had been trying to hold SAPS accountable for its poor performance in the forensics division, which was creating a backlog in South Africa’s criminal justice system. The forensics division had the lowest expenditure rate in the presentation, being 81%. The reason had something to do with the integrated criminal justice system strategy and reasons for the funding not being spent. It was clear that there was funding available, yet South Africa’s DNA capability had not been restored, and the turnaround plan presented to the Committee in November appeared to have completely failed in spite of what the Minister had told Parliament earlier in the year. What were the exact reasons for the underspending in the forensics division in terms of the integrated criminal justice strategy? Why was the funding not being redirected or utilised to support the forensics division to process DNA case exhibits? The backlog was now believed to be over 300 000.

The Chairperson said that Mr Whitfield’s point was very valid. The Committee had had several meetings on the forensics sciences laboratories. The Minister and SAPS had made certain commitments, and had either misled the Committee or failed to meet the commitments that they had made. The Committee would have an urgent meeting again. SAPS was wasting the Committee’s time when they sent the Committee reports which did not reflect any progress on the ground. SAPS was required to come back to the Committee on the forensic science laboratories.

As the Committee would not be dealing with the inquiry, it would deal with all matters related to firearms on the following Tuesday – from the Central Firearms Registry (CFR) to the firearms amnesty, and to the break-ins at police stations with firearms. The matter of firearms had really got out of control, as had the situation at the forensic science laboratories. There were reports that SAPS was going to work with the State Information Technology Agency (SITA) on the forensic science laboratories, and it had still not done so. She took serious exception to the fact that SAPS came to the Committee, made commitments, and failed to implement the commitments that they had made.

Mr H Shembeni (EFF) referred to the forensic science laboratory in relation to the issue of victims lying in mortuaries for more than three months -- and up to two years. This was really unacceptable. It seemed as if the Covid-19 protocols were no longer followed in the police stations, looking at the number of police stations that had been closed each and every day because of infections in the stations. How many police officers had been affected by Covid-19 thus far?

Ms Peacock said that the presentation reported that R1.1 billion had been redirected and given to other responsibilities. It only stated that R1.1 billion was distributed, but did not indicate each particular subject or allocation that it was given to -- it did not clearly state how the distribution was allocated amongst the list that had been given in the presentation. There was a list of who the R1.1 billion had been redirected towards, but it did not state the amounts distributed.

Mr K Maphatsoe (ANC) had a question on the Crime Intelligence under-spending, which had also emerged during the KwaZulu-Natal and Gauteng unrest. Could the SAPS provide the Committee with a breakdown of the performance in the Crime Intelligence operations? This was in the sub-programme of the 2021 financial year. The continuous under-spending on this sub-programme had been recorded in the previous financial year, which was a concerning long-term trend. All over the country, it was being asked where the Crime Intelligence services were, but it was seen that there was under- spending in this programme. Could SAPS explain the R42.8 million that was not spent, when there were boots needed on the ground?

The Chairperson agreed that Mr Maphatsoe’s question was important, and added that Crime Intelligence had been besieged with problems and instability from the time Mr Peter Jacobs had been suspended, gone to court, and lost the cases. From the inception of these problems, what exactly had been done to stabilise crime intelligence? It had been at its weakest during the unrest in KwaZulu-Natal and Gauteng, and a clear indication of its capacity was needed. The Committee had also been informed via the media that the Minister had not approved of spending at crime intelligence, and now there was under-spending. If the Minister had not approved the spending, and the Minister was not the accounting official of SAPS, had this really been so? Why had this been allowed to happen? If there had been under-spending, and the Minister had not approved the budget or the spending, what had happened here? Had this further crippled the capacity at crime intelligence? Would there be a clean audit this financial year? If a clean audit was not anticipated, could SAPS explain why this was not going to happen? The Committee was not going to accept that SAPS and the various entities would not have clean audits.

SAPS’s response

General Khehla John Sitole, National Commissioner: SAPS, appreciated the questions, comments and guidance from the Members, and responded to the strategic part of the questions.

In order for SAPS to try and increase the pace of processing firearm licences, they needed to switch over to a paperless approach, which required introducing a system. He had recently signed off an advanced stage of the system that needed to be introduced to try and change this and help SAPS move to the paperless part of the exercise. This particular exercise was being dealt with between Technology Management Services (TMS) and SITA.

Regarding the forensic science laboratory situation, he could confirm that SAPS had a corporate renewal plan in progress, driven by the divisional commissioner. There were also a few dynamics created by Covid-19 which had impacted on the daily targets, because SAPS could not make use of its full capacity. SAPS was also at an advanced stage with a public-private partnership to try and help it to eradicate the backlog and start to provide a response to the new cases.

The number of Covid-infected members of the police, as up to the previous day, was 38 317. SAPS still issued Covid protocol instructions and monitored compliance, but it was very difficult to observe the Covid-19 protocols or comply at high profile police stations because the stations themselves were experiencing an influx. SAPS was also trying to shift other functions away from the police, such as in the certifying of documents, as it would be found that in some of the police stations, they had 1km queues of people coming to certify documents. SAPS was trying to control this with a service delivery strategy to make sure that they took a lot away from certain stations, and tried to bring in new police stations. The most difficult thing to do was to send members of the public back when they had serious issues – which SAPS could not do. SAPS was trying to manage the situation and make sure that the Covid-19 protocols were not violated. More buildings were getting affected more frequently, which was causing a bit of disruption to the SAPS services. This was not only at police stations, but included provinces, districts and some national offices.

He said projections were indicating that SAPS was likely to have a clean audit. It was trying to work hard and manage the process so that they moved towards a clean audit.

Lt Gen Sehlahle Fannie Masemola, Deputy National Commissioner: Policing, SAPS, referred to the question regarding the firearm amnesty, CFR matters, and firearms at police stations. SAPS was preparing a report in this regard as they prepared a monthly report. Thus, the July report was due, but SAPS was still collating statistics from the system and would be submitting them. This would indicate how far SAPS was in terms of performance. The synchronisation happened on the 15th of the month, so after the 15th, SAPS collated the statistics. It would therefore know its performance only in a few days’ time, and would then be able to send the report to the Committee.

Regarding the safety of firearms at police stations, SAPS had issued directives to various provinces, advising that they did not have to keep too many firearms in the frontline services, and were to keep only the minimum firearms required for duty by members at a specific point in time. SAPS had visited the police station where firearms had been taken in the Northern Cape, and the security measures that were there had since improved. There was a project in the SAPS supply chain dealing with fencing and making police stations safe, which was a medium to long term project. Other safety measures for firearms at the police stations included a process that was being embarked on to look at how best it could have firearms stored at central locations, and not at the 1 155 police stations. SAPS was busy with this, and in a few days they would be able to indicate what measures they had introduced and put in place. It was going to reduce the storage locations from 1 155 police stations to a specific number that they were currently working on, and in due course they would be able to inform the Committee.

The Chairperson said that the Committee would be calling on Lt Gen Masemola the following Tuesday. The documents would be sent to the National Commissioner and the Minister to do presentations on the CFR, the firearms at police stations, and the amnesties which the SAPS had. This was because there was a huge gap and failure in the system with regard to firearms. Members had visited the CFR, and the progress reports which were being sent to the Committee did not indicate a sense of urgency. It was following up on all of the commitments that SAPS had made. The Committee was still receiving too many complaints about firearm applications. It would be calling on the Minister of Public Works to explain the situation of the building. The entire session of the following Tuesday would be dealing with firearms, including the proposals in the Firearms Amendment Bill. It was known that the Bill, dealing with the Firearms Control Act, was still at the level of the Minister receiving inputs, and would then go back to Cabinet. The number of complaints and requests that the Committee was receiving about the Firearms Control Act had become untenable, so the entire Committee meeting on the following Tuesday would be spent dealing with all of these matters, including a presentation on what SAPS was doing with the Amendment Bill.

She told the Committee Secretary that the political application had to be completed by the end of the day, and indicated that it would be sent to the House Chairperson. She asked the Committee Secretary to complete the documents in the meantime. She thanked SAPS for sending the documents early, and said she would no longer be allowing late documents. She asked SAPS to take heed that if they presented the Committee with the documents a day before the time, they would not be allowed to present them in the Committee.

Lt Gen Francina Ntombenhle Vuma, Deputy National Commissioner: Support Services, SAPS, said that her questions had been responded to, and that she would not be repeating them, but asked for specific details to be indicated by other SAPS members.

The Chairperson asked Lt Gen Vuma if Crime Intelligence reported to her.

Lt Gen Vuma said that she was just overseeing since the death of Lt-Gen Mfazi from Covid-19 last month until the National Commissioner was able to appoint another deputy national commissioner.

The Chairperson said that Crime Intelligence was reporting to Lt Gen Vuma, and asked her to explain what was happening in the department, including the money which had not been spent and whether the budget had been approved to be spent. Crime Intelligence accounted to Lt Gen Vuma, so she needed to account to the Committee.

Lt Gen Vuma said that the current budget had already been approved by the Minister for the current financial year. SAPS was currently busy with the corporate renewal strategy, where they were looking at capacity and the processes that were currently being run at Crime Intelligence. This was in order for SAPS to redirect Crime Intelligence to focus on the objective of the organisation.

The Chairperson said that she had picked up a number of corporate renewal strategies and plans. SAPS had all of these plans and strategies, but there had been very little implementation. SAPS had a corporate renewal plan for the forensic science laboratories, where there had been very little movement. SAPS was now telling the Committee that they had a corporate renewal strategy at Crime Intelligence, where there was also very little movement. Crime Intelligence was equally in a state of chaos, just like the CFR and the forensic science laboratories. The Committee was embarrassed by what was happening and were being taken to task as a committee for not fulfilling its oversight role. This was happening through the House Chairperson, and the Committee would not be told that they were not fulfilling their role as an oversight body. Lt Gen Vuma was not giving sufficient answers. She was unhappy with the responses that Lt Gen Vuma was giving.

Gen Sitole separated the two budgets that were running at Crime Intelligence. The budget that was reflected in the presentation, and which would be more clearly explained by the CFO, was the public funds which formed part and parcel of the open budget of SAPS, and flowed to Programme 4. The budget referred to, which was supposed to be signed off by the Minister, was the Secret Service vote. This particular vote was solely for operations which were running from the Secret Service Fund. This was the budget that had recently been signed off, which was solely dependent on operations that were supposed to run and capacitate both the collections and other operations – including the Covid-19 environment.

On the corporate renewal plan for Crime Intelligence, there might be other surprises coming soon. The damage that was caused in Crime Intelligence was long-term and had started from the time when he had started his term. SAPS was still moving from the era where Crime Intelligence had stayed without a divisional commissioner for eight years. Even now, there were more investigations taking place at Crime Intelligence, and there might soon be other senior officers who may be arrested. The corporate renewal was dealing with a complete overhaul of Crime Intelligence, which was what was actually required at present. He had assigned the deputy commissioners to constitute a corporate committee so that they could deal with a total restructuring of Crime Intelligence. SAPS needed to sort out Crime Intelligence once and for all so that it could be set free from contamination.

The Chairperson reiterated that Gen Sitole was saying that the Secret Service vote was on operations, and that it had only recently been signed off. How long had it taken to have the budget signed off, because he had said that it was only recently signed off? If it was not signed off, did this mean that the operations had come to a standstill?

Gen Sitole said that each and every year, there was a budget for operations from the Secret Service Fund. SAPS received a process put in place with National Treasury to get voted funds to be signed off for the Secret Service. SAPS then applied and put a motivation forth, which would be endorsed by the Minister for approval by the President. Only then could SAPS start using the funds to enhance the operational process in the secret service environment. For the current year, SAPS had started the process before the end of the financial year so that by the beginning of the next financial year they would be ready. He had made a submission by December 2020, and had signed it off. In March 2021, the Minister had indicated that there needed to be a discussion because there were things that needed to be cleared up. From there, SAPS had moved towards this particular discussion, but when they were supposed to discuss matters, there was still no readiness and there were other pressures – including the National Coronavirus Command Council and National Security Council issues that had forced the postponement of the meeting. Up until recently, when SAPS had the opportunity to meet, everything that was supposed to be cleared had been cleared and the budget was then signed off. The budget was signed off each and every year, but before it was signed off by the President, SAPS could not proceed to spend.

Maj Gen L Magson, Acting Divisional Commissioner: Detective and Forensic Services, SAPS, responded to the questions raised on forensic science, and said that he was standing in for Maj Gen Khosi Senthumule, who was unable to attend the meeting due to medical reasons. The statistics provided in the forum were applicable to the previous year and the end of the financial year. The full effect or impact of the action plans that had been put into place did not show up in the figures. What was seen in the figures for the current financial year was that there had been a decrease in the backlog due to procurement measures and procurement issues that had been resolved, as well as additional management measures that had been put in place whereby performance was monitored and feedback was provided to the National Commissioner and Minister on a regular basis. For example, the backlog in ring-fenced cases, where certain cases had been identified to be finalised, had been reduced by 13 000, so there was movement there. SAPS should be able to provide the Committee with the full detail of the impact of the measures that had already been taken to address the situation at Forensic Science Services.

The Chairperson said that on the following Tuesday, the Committee expected a thorough report with up-to-date information. It wanted a breakdown of how many rape cases had not been attended to, how many murder cases had not been attended to, how many bodies could not be buried, and for how long those bodies could not be buried. The situation had not improved at the rate that the Committee expected it to improve. The situation had further not improved according to SAPS’s very same corporate plan. SAPS presented the Committee with corporate plans and talk shows. The Committee had had enough of talk shows, and wanted exact statistics, as well as how many bodies there were in mortuaries that could not be buried because of the problems at forensic science laboratories. Every day, the Committee saw media reports of families crying because they could not bury their loved ones. This was insensitive, inhumane, and would no longer be tolerated. Every day the Committee received reports of rape victims who had been waiting for three years, and their cases had been thrown out of court because SAPS had not done their work at the forensic science laboratories.

In the whippery meeting, the Committee had been taken to task for not doing its oversight work. In the meeting with the House Chairperson and the other committee chairpersons, the Committee had been embarrassed because it could not give responses on the forensic science laboratories and the CFR. The Committee no longer wanted to hear about SAPS’s corporate plans and corporate renewal strategies, or that they had addressed 13 000 cases of the backlog. The Committee wanted to know that the SAPS had addressed the backlog, not that there was improvement. When was SAPS going to address the backlog? SAPS was not telling the Committee this answer.

Lt Gen Yolisa Mokgabudi, Acting Divisional Commissioner: Crime Intelligence, SAPS, responded to the under-spending of the open account budget that had been mentioned. This had been because SAPS could not travel during the hard lockdown in the first six months of the financial year. Training could not take place, and the budget on training could not be spent as was planned. Suppliers were also closed, so SAPS was unable to procure from the budget. Lastly, other SAPS colleagues that were abroad in the missions could also not travel – as they had to travel to come back to South Africa at certain points because the borders were closed. This was mainly what had impacted SAPS and resulted in under-spending. The National Commissioner had explained that the operational part of the budget came mainly from the Secret Services account.

Lt Gen Puleng Dimpane, Chief Financial Officer (CFO), SAPS, said that there was one question remaining in relation to the funding that had been reprioritised. SAPS was requested to reprioritise funding towards the Covid-19 response from the baseline. This reprioritisation of funding mainly affected Programme 2, where SAPS had had to reprioritise funding to deal with the response plan for the main procurement of PPE over time to operations at level 4 and 5, as well as all other needs that SAPS had to ensure were available or met in order for them to respond accordingly in terms of Covid-19. The funding was put under Programme 2 while SAPS was waiting for the budget adjustment from National Treasury. It had thus affected only Programme 2 in this regard. The baseline allocation for Forensic Services had been adjusted and was being maintained to ensure that SAPS funded the items that were previously procured from the criminal justice system plan funding, for which provision was made in this particular regard. Thus, the funding was being maintained and the baseline had been adjusted accordingly.

The Deputy Minister asked Lt Gen Dimpane to address the issue of the likely audit outcomes, even though the National Commissioner had touched on the matter.

Lt Gen Dimpane said that after the Committee meeting, at 14h00, SAPS would be having a meeting with the Auditor-General (AG) to discuss the report. As of the previous year, SAPS had a major issue that had caused SAPS to receive a qualification. SAPS had dealt with the particular issue, and was projecting that it would be resolved and no longer be an issue. Later the afternoon, the AG would be discussing or releasing the report to the SAPS. SAPS had done fairly well, but she asked that the Committee wait until the report was released that afternoon, after which the SAPS could communicate the outcome of the report.

Lt Gen Japie Riet, Component Head: Strategic Management, SAPS, commented on the police stations. Ms Molekwa had referred to Mabieskraal and Moeka-Vuma, where she was correct in saying that SAPS was nearing completion. SAPS had just two items that needed to be resolved, which were the mechanical and electrical engineers that would be appointed or awarded in the current week so that SAPS could ensure that they completed the police stations before the end of the financial year. The police stations would definitely be completed in the current financial year. Note had been taken of Makapanstad, and he would give his attention to it.

With regard to the audit outcome, SAPS would have a meeting that afternoon. Based on a discussion held with the AG, there had been a significant improvement in the auditing of supply chain management. However, he was not sure what the outcome would be after the meeting with the AG that afternoon.

Gen Sitole said that SAPS had taken serious note of the fact that the Committee was expecting results out of the various corporate renewal plans. SAPS was going to strengthen monitoring so that they would be able to give tangible reports. Over and above that, it was also going to intensify accountability, which would include performance and consequence management in order to make sure that people pulled up their socks.

The Chairperson said that she would not be tolerating the slideshows SAPS gave the Committee. The slideshows did not provide the Committee with an adequate indication of what was happening on the ground. The Committee had gone for oversight visits to the forensic science laboratories and the CFR. If the Committee did not receive results, it meant that it was fruitless and wasteful expenditure and she was then held accountable by the Chief Whip and House Chairperson. The Committee was then also held accountable, in that the oversight visits did not provide or deliver any outcomes, it did not provide direction to the SAPS, and it did not deliver any fruitful outcomes.

The Deputy Minister responded to the Chairperson's comment that the Committee’s oversight and interaction with SAPS was not yielding fruit. He thought that it was yielding fruit, based on the interactions that SAPS had had with the Committee. SAPS had embarked on a process to ensure that what was raised by the Committee was attended to. For instance, the issue of the building where firearms were currently being stored. SAPS was interacting with the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure (DPWI). Two weeks previously, SAPS had had a meeting with the DPWI at Telkom Towers, which had been a follow-up to other meetings that they had been having with them, to pressurise them to complete the offices because some of the firearms were to go into one of the wings. The issue that had been raised was that Covid-19 had had a real impact on the SAPS's performance report for the three quarters that was presented to the Committee. The impact was not only in the three quarters that were currently being spoken about, but was also on what the SAPS was going to present to the Committee that affected the current period. Two weeks ago, SAPS had gone to Telkom Towers to get an update on the progress that the DPWI and the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) had made with regard to that office. While SAPS was there, they had done their work and gone back, but after that they had learned that people who were with them at the site inspection had tested positive for Covid. This had meant that work had to stop for the purpose of decontaminating the area. People who were there had also had to go into self-quarantine or isolation, meaning that they could not go to work. The impact of Covid-19 was thus real and had a bearing that had been experienced.

When talking about police stations that got affected and the Covid-19 protocols, if police stations were closed, they were closed in order to be decontaminated, This meant that they could not open and people could not go to work. SAPS also appreciated and understood where the Committee and South Africans at large were coming from with the questions and concerns that they were raising. South Africans wanted to get service immediately, and were less interested in what was happening in SAPS. SAPS understood and appreciated this, and would never interact with the Committee in a manner that suggested that it just wanted to present to the Committee, allow the Committee to talk, and then leave. It took what the Committee was saying very seriously and the issues that had been identified and raised were also issues that SAPS had observed. It had come to the Committee knowing that with the 81% expenditure, the Committee was not going to pat them on the back and say that they had tried. It was expected that the Committee was going to raise the issues that they had raised, and SAPS was happy that the Chairperson had directed SAPS to have a detailed discussion in the following week around the issues of DNA, firearm control, amnesty, and other comments that had been made. Further, it had been stated that SAPS had to present a report to the Committee which indicated where SAPS was and what they were able to do since the implementation of the strategy.

For example, despite the fact that SAPS had been able to process a number of DNA samples, a certain number of DNA samples had come through the system which then made it appear as though there was no movement. Indeed, there would have been movement, but the movement against the challenges did not show that there was movement, even though there was. SAPS would be able to present this to the Committee with regard to what they were doing. This was a concern of SAPS which was shared by the Minister, the Ministry, and the leadership of SAPS lead by Gen Sitole.

SAPS was committed to ensure that they made an improvement. They did not want to come to the Committee and explain themselves. The Committee had to see the work that SAPS was doing and be satisfied with it. It was important that one should make this broad statement, because it should not seem as though SAPS was sitting and not doing anything. The issues that impacted on the police and the issues that had been outlined around Crime Intelligence were real and true – there were these issues. If there was an eight-year period without leadership, it would definitely have a bearing. However, SAPS was committed, and there was a willingness to ensure that the issues became a thing of the past. It was also important for Members to appreciate the institution of SAPS -- what it is, what it had been, and what they were currently trying to do to ensure that it became a well-oiled machine that was able to deliver on the mandate bestowed on SAPS by the Constitution and the people of South Africa. It was not going to be easy, but SAPS was committed to make a difference.

He agreed that the meeting with the AG had to be allowed first, as it would then indicate what type of audit outcome SAPS was going to get. It was true that there had been an improvement from what had been presented in the previous year and what would come out in the current year. SAPS had made this commitment to the Committee when they had appeared before them, as the audit outcome was not something that it was proud of, but that they were committed to work and improve the workings of their system so that they had a better outcome. The police officers had aptly explained that there had been an improvement from the previous year, and that the challenges had been addressed. However, SAPS had to await the interface and come back to the Committee to demonstrate that there had been a difference.

Discussion

The Chairperson addressed whoever was working with the CFR and the firearm amnesty, and asked what the closing date for the last firearm amnesty was. Since the last firearm amnesty up until the current day, there had been no amnesty. What was happening now? There was a vacuum and a huge problem. SAPS had sent the Committee reports, but these did not say what had happened between the last amnesty and the current day. Did all of the people who had not handed in their firearms for amnesty now have illegal firearms? The CFR and the firearm amnesty were not working. In the following week, could the SAPS tell the Committee what was happening from the end of the last amnesty and the vacuum that SAPS had created between the last amnesty date and the current day? The Committee had no idea what was happening, and the public was asking questions. The Committee had had no response from SAPS. It sent the Committee monthly reports which she had read, but nothing had been done about the vacuum that had been created between the last amnesty and the current day.

Mr Shembeni had a question about the compensation of employees. On the deferment of the date of retirement, he had seen that there were applications for dates to be extended, whereby a member had reached the pensionable age. What were the requirements for the approval of the extension of these dates? Was the approval of members in SAPS who were needed for their services, not required? If this was what was needed, what was the reason for the approval of a member of the union to continue rendering his or her services in the SAPS in terms of why their application for deferment must be approved? He had once spoken to certain senior management officers to ask why positions were not being held on contracts for when a person needed to continue with their rank in the senior ranks, such as major general etc. It seemed as if this applied only to the National Commissioner, who was given a certain number of years in the rank, as after a certain number of years they had to retire so that another person could be appointed. Why were the other senior members not held on contract so that they could also be held accountable? The senior officials should tell the Committee what they had been doing, show results, and explain why they were to be kept in their posts. What was happening in South Africa where there were such crimes, was that people were not being held accountable. Somebody could become a station commissioner for the rest of their life, and nothing would happen whether they were performing or under-performing. Positions in senior levels had to be on contract so that the Committee could have applications for those posts where people were sitting for life, and not doing anything.

Mr Maphatsoe said that when SAPS had appeared before the Committee, the Deputy Minister had presented a programme of action on how it was going to deal with SAPS's supply chain management, because it was highly contaminated. The Committee appreciated where there was progress, but where there were challenges it would be raised. On the issue of the forensic science laboratories, this was an issue that was in the media every day. It was thus fine for SAPS to present in the following week. During 2021, the report had stated that 666 staff members had been appointed by SAPS, which was the re-enlistment of police members. Could SAPS provide a breakdown of the re-enlisted police members, including the divisions and ranks? Could it indicate when the re-enlistment drive had been initiated and the success achieved?

Mr Whitfield thanked the Chairperson for her direction in respect of the meeting for the following week. The Committee would welcome a detailed feedback from the forensics division in respect of the backlog across all of the categories. The Chairperson’s line of questioning to the National Commissioner had elicited a very interesting response in respect of the Secret Service Fund, or budget. He took the National Commissioner’s response further, and sought specific clarity on which date the Minister had approved the budget. If it was done recently, then this was great. On which date was it actually done? This was very important information, considering the events of the past month.

The Chairperson asked to understand not only on which date the Minister had signed, but how long it had taken for the Minister to sign off the budget. When was it sent to the Minister? When was it signed off? When it was approved? Could SAPS start from when it was requested that the Minister sign off the budget, and when it was actually signed off?

Ms Peacock had a question relating to the PPE. The Committee needed to get a comprehensive report on the status of investigations into the PPE procurement, the corruption and what preventative steps had been taken in order to deal with it, as well as the remedial action.

Ms Moss referred to the issue involving the IPID that had been discussed the previous day. The concern she raised was the issue of the recommendations of IPID that SAPS had not implemented around discipline implementation. Was there cooperation between SAPS and IPID? If so, why did SAPS not implement the recommendations of IPID? Were discipline officers properly trained? If not, why not? This was so that there could progress, as the Committee had the impression that the issue of IPID and SAPS was not moving forward. On 10 March 2021, the Committee had dealt with DNA and the issue of procurement. Were there proper procurement processes in place in supply chain management? Last time, SAPS had said that it had to be fixed. Had it been fixed?

SAPS’s response

Gen Sitole referred to the deferments as per the Constitution and SAPS Act, and said the contract posts in SAPS at the present moment, as per the legislative direction, were those of the national commissioner and the provincial commissioners. All of these posts were on a five year contract basis. The rest of the other posts were not necessarily reflected in the Constitution and the SAPS Act. For example, deputy national commissioners and divisional commissioners were not provided for. There were senior posts at Deputy-Director General level, but they were not bound to a contract. He supported the view expressed by Mr Shembeni, and thought that both the Committee and the Ministry could assist the SAPS to start a policy and legislative directed process which may then bring these posts within the contract fraternity. As for now, the SAPS could not do so.

The reasons for the deferment of posts had been informed by the organisational status. For example, if looking at Crime Detection, there had been a depletion of experience. If there were any retirements taking place, and there was an application for a deferment, SAPS’s consideration of such an application would be very high and given priority because of the depletion of experience in that particular environment. There was also a succession plan requirement. When SAPS had looked at the succession plan projections, this had also guided it in terms of where they had to try and retain experience or capacity. These factors currently drove the deferment application process, but SAPS supported future consideration if the Committee was suggesting that they took that direction.

The initial submission of the Crime Intelligence budget was on 9 December 2020, and it had been signed off by the Minister on 2 August 2021.

There were two sets of PPE investigations. The first set involved the PPE which had been procured from the open budget through the supply chain management and inquiry process, which was lying with the fusion centre. This was where the fusion centre had initiated investigations. The fusion centre was a combination of the investigation families, and the DPCI was one of SAPS’s investigation families. The second set was what happened within the SAPS serious corruption investigation. This was being investigated by the SAPS Inspector General (IG). From the preliminary investigation by the IG, SAPS had taken departmental action thus far. It had strengthened risk management controls within both the supply chain and financial environment with regard to the PPE procurement process.

Regarding the cooperation between IPID and SAPS, the recommendations by IPID were attended as per the SAPS report, which was also confirmed by IPID. The difference was the outcome. The outcomes may not have been what was expected. At the same time, the relationship and cooperation between IPID and SAPS would always be average, or at times above average. IPID and SAPS were not differing, and did not have any disputes, but there was a need for them to enhance the process. It had been pointed out that as things were going forward, there was a greater need for the IPID Act to be reconciled with the regulations, including the Labour Relations Act. This could help the SAPS to enhance the process. Some of the hiccups were based on the legislation and regulations. This was a future process that both IPID and SAPS were looking at.

There was a curriculum for the training of discipline officers through training and development. The officers were all taken through that particular training. The only difference was that discipline officers were not necessarily independent, but were part of the policing system. This was sometimes seen as not necessarily being independent or impartial. However, there was a training programme and police officials were taken to training.

On the fixing of the procurement process, he could not speak about the corporate renewal strategy, but could speak about the outcome thereof. Within supply chain management or the procurement environment, SAPS had appointed a contract management committee which was sitting and looking at contracts on a very constant basis, which was developed before the contracts' date of expiry. SAPS was also looking at the performance of contracts, the value added to the organisation, and the impact of contracts. SAPS had also looked into the restructuring of supply chain management in trying to make sure that they got the right people at the right place in order to deal with what was anticipated, in order for it to have a clean procurement administration. SAPS had reviewed the procurement strategy.

Finally, SAPS had also ordered a clean-up campaign, and more than 50 members had been arrested. There were several actions in place for others that had been fired, and most were under internal and criminal investigation. SAPS had thus sent a message.

The Chairperson asked Lt Gen Vuma not to tell the Committee that she was just exercising oversight. Lt Gen Vuma was not taking her responsibility very seriously. If oversight was being exercised, the Committee’s questions had to be responded to. The National Commissioner had said that SAPS had applied to the Minister on 9 December 2020, and that the budget had been approved on 2 August 2021. This meant that the Secret Service fund had been inactive or was not spent for eight months. How had this impacted on SAPS’s operations? This was totally alarming.

When had the court decided that the IPID Act had to be amended? When had the Committee decided that the IPID Act had to be amended? The Committee would be looking at the budget briefing on IPID on the following Wednesday. Could SAPS explain when the court made an order, and why SAPS was failing to implement court orders? All of the court orders and decisions that had not been implemented by SAPS would be listed by the Committee in public. SAPS was in contravention of court orders and could not be implementing the law when they were not abiding by the law.

IPID had been started on the basis and principle that the police could not be investigating themselves. This had been a court order in the McBride judgment. When the executive director of IPID was appointed, the decision was taken by the Committee, and the executive director of IPID had currently been in the position for more than a year. Had SAPS ignored the decision taken by the Committee for more than a year?

When people reported to Lt Gen Vuma, she had to take responsibility for what had happened before her and what was currently happening. Crime Intelligence had had massive loopholes when the unrest had occurred in KwaZulu-Natal and Gauteng. The Committee needed to understand what had happened in Crime Intelligence. Was SAPS saying that for eight months there had been no operations? There was no budget, so how could SAPS have operations?

Lt Gen Vuma apologised if she had sounded as if she did not want to take responsibility for the environment, which was not the impression that she had wanted to create. She explained that she had just alluded to the fact that most of the questions had been answered by the National Commissioner. It was indeed true that when she was overseeing, she had to take responsibility for the entire environment. When she had taken responsibility, she had realised that SAPS had the issue where the budget for the Secret Service account had not yet been approved. She had then had an engagement with the National Commissioner to highlight this. In the first week when she had been given the responsibility, she had informed Lt Gen Mokgabudi, who had responded that SAPS was left with only R10 million and that if by the end of August the money had not yet been approved, SAPS would be running the risk of having to proceed without a budget to fund its operations. A meeting with the Minister was therefore requested and the budget signed.

Lt Gen Godfrey Lebeya, National Head: DPCI, responded to the question raised regarding the posts that were on a contract basis. He had taken note of the response from the National Commissioner, which had talked to the greater service where the national and provincial commissioners were appointed on a contract basis. With the DPCI, it would be noted that in 2009, when the SAPS Act was passed, certain posts were not on a contract basis but were on a permanent basis. For example, the Head of the DPCI would have been the deputy national commissioner. In 2012, the law was changed, so that the head of the Hawks became the national head of the DPCI, which was no longer the deputy national commissioner. This post became an appointment on a contract basis. The same applied to the then post of deputy national head, which was also created on a contract basis. This extended to the posts of provincial heads of the DPCI, which were no longer deputy provincial commissioners, but were appointed on a contract basis. SAPS was also still looking at how the legislation could be improved so that it did not disadvantage those who had been appointed on a contract basis. However, at the same time, the periods for which they had been appointed could not be accommodated in the government employee pension fund upon retirement. This was something that SAPS was working on. There were thus also contractual appointments within the DPCI.

Maj Gen Rabie said that insofar as the issues around the audit outcome were concerned, there was a third dimension to the audit that related to performance information. He would also be forming part of the briefing that afternoon to get an indication of the audit outcome, following which the Committee could be briefed.

Discussion

The Chairperson said that the Committee had seen some improvements, and would await the audit outcomes after the AG meeting. She did not think that the meeting would be public, but she hoped to be informed of what had happened.

She asked Members to agree that next Tuesday the Committee wanted reports on the CFR, the firearm amnesty, the theft of firearms at police stations, and the forensic science laboratories. SAPS was not to tell the Committee that they had a corporate plan, or that they were addressing the backlog and that new cases were coming in. New cases were coming in and SAPS was addressing the backlog, but the backlog remained. There was something very wrong with SAPS’s mathematical calculations, and their corporate plan was not working. She would not be listening to corporate plans in the following week. If new cases compounded the problem, it meant that SAPS was not solving the problem.

On the following Wednesday, the Committee would be having a briefing by IPID. Could SAPS tell the Committee when the court decision had been taken to amend the IPID Act? How far was SAPS with the amendment of the Act? She asked the Committee Secretary and administration staff to write a letter to the Minister and the National Commissioner, asking them to come and explain to the Committee when the court decision had been taken and what had been done subsequently; when the Committee took the decision to amend the IPID Act and what was done subsequently; and why on 9 December 2020 they had applied for the Secret Service vote to be approved and why it was approved only eight months later on 2 August 2021.

Mr Shembeni said that the issue of the recent approval by the Minister of an application for the deferment by a member of the Police and Prisons Civil Rights Union (POPCRU) had not been answered. He had not received an answer as to why the application was approved, as he was a fulltime member of the union and did not help or bring any experience to SAPS.

Gen Sitole provided a preliminary response on the approval of the deferment application for a member of the union. Full-time shop steward’s posts were an official part of the SAPS establishment. Those particular posts were also subject to their own profile and requirements. SAPS had a labour relations framework which had specific objectives of creating sound labour relations in the organisation, which SAPS was working on together with the union. Those posts were thus part of the establishment, and were given equal priority like other posts. Regarding the approval of the deferment of the member of POPCRU, he did not necessarily want to speak about the member of the organisation, but rather the function. The experience and continuity of labour relations and creating sound labour relations in the organisation was one of the needs considered in order to retain that experience.

Lt Gen Lineo Ntshiea, Divisional Commissioner: Human Resource Management, SAPS, added a response to the question of deferment. The national officer bearers of the unions, or the fulltime shop stewards, were still members of SAPS. In terms of the SAPS Act, section 45(7) allowed for them to apply for deferment if they wished to continue with their services. There were conditions specified in the SAPS Act itself, which stated that for a member to be retained it must be reasonable, in the interests of SAPS, or generally in the interests of the public. Whenever SAPS received deferment applications, they assessed the motivation and application against the conditions specified in the SAPS Act. A recommendation would then be made to the Minister for the Minister to take the decision. They were thus still members of SAPS, and their applications should be considered or entertained like any other application of a member at the station.

Referring to the question on the re-enlistments, she said SAPS had advertised 500 posts for re-enlistment. It had currently appointed 277 of 500 posts, and were finalising the project. 81 other posts still had to be filled, and the rest were going to be withdrawn because those applicants had been rejected or did not meet the requirements. By the end of the month, SAPS would be finalising the 81 other posts because some applicants had been sent for medical assessments and had not made it. More than 50% of the posts had been appointed and had already started working.

The Chairperson said that the Committee had asked SAPS questions on 15 May, and that they had responded to the questions on 17 August. She had received the responses only earlier that day. It had taken SAPS three months to respond to questions asked by the Committee. She could understand why Members had no faith or confidence in SAPS’s written responses, because it took them three months to respond to the Committee. The Committee had it on record, as in the letter SAPS was saying that they were providing written responses to the Committee’s questions asked on 15 May. It was a disgrace that it took SAPS three months to respond to the questions of the Committee. She asked the Committee Secretary and administration staff to prepare a letter to Gen Sitole, a letter to the Minister, a letter to the House Chairperson, and a letter to the Speaker, complaining that it took SAPS three months to respond to questions of the Committee. She took strong exception to the fact that the Committee had not received responses or presentations from SAPS. She reiterated that in the following week, the Committee would be dealing with the CFR, the amnesty reports, the theft at police stations, and the forensic science laboratories.

The Committee would be dealing with a briefing by IPID, and she asked that they should not simply provide her with a rundown and a slideshow, but responses to the questions asked to them. There were questions that the Committee had asked them the previous day, and she wanted a thorough report on IPID as well as the Civilian Secretariat for Police (CSP), including the Acts which the Committee had requested them to amend. At the top of their agenda, she asked the CSP to tell her what they had done with the IPID Act which they were supposed to amend, and how far they had gone. IPID would be responding to the Committee on the following Wednesday regarding the IPID Act; when the court judgment had been handed to them; when the Committee had requested that the IPID Act be amended; and why it had taken them so long to start working on the amendment of the IPID Act. IPID might be quite far with the amendment, but she asked that they give the Committee a report. If they had not started amending the IPID Act, she asked that they explain to the Committee why they had not started amending it.

The next Committee meetings were on Tuesday 24 August, and Wednesday 25 August, at 09h00. She did not expect Members to write to her asking what time the meeting started, as she was not their secretary. The Committee Secretary would be sending Members a follow-up with a message and an email. She asked that SAPS prepare the documents on the CFR, the firearm amnesty and the forensic science laboratories. They had until Friday to give the Committee the reports. She asked the Committee Secretary to follow up on SAPS with a letter, as they did not seem to listen.

Mr Shembeni had apologised, as he had in fact received the documents. If Members had more than one email address, they were not to hold the Committee accountable and question the Committee on why they had not received the documents. Members should read their emails if they had two email addresses, as this was becoming unacceptable. They complained about everything that the Chairperson did, and the Committee worked overtime to ensure that they were happy, but then they still did not read their emails and accused the Committee of not sending them the emails when in fact they had two email addresses and did not read their emails. 

The meeting was adjourned.

 

Download as PDF

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

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: