Protection of Constitutional Democracy against Terrorist and Related Activities Amendment Bill: public hearings; SAPS 2022/23 APP Addendum; with Deputy Minister

This premium content has been made freely available


07 September 2022
Chairperson: Ms T Joemat-Pettersson (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary


The Portfolio Committee on Police was briefed by the South African Police Service (SAPS) on the addendum to their 2022/23 annual performance plan, and on the amendments to the Protection of Constitutional Democracy against Terrorist and Related Activities Amendment Bill [B15-2022]. It also received submissions on the Bill from Afriforum, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), and the Sussex Terrorism and Extremism Research Network (STERN).

The Committee expressed concern that the addendum to the SAPS annual performance plan seemed to be a response to the failure of SAPS to attain the goals it had set out to achieve. They stressed there was a need for the deployment of more officers in the field and sufficient training. Other matters highlighted in the discussion were the Safer Cities project; the lack of resources within the police service, such as the lack of police vehicles; the forensic laboratories' backlogs; non-functioning community policing forums; and the lack of protection for officers at police stations.

The Chairperson expressed her dissatisfaction with what the SAPS had presented to the Committee, and asked them to come back with correct and adequate information, as what they had presented had not been accurate or sufficient.

The central theme of Afriforum's submission on the Bill was that while they welcomed the state's commitment to incorporating international norms into South Africa's domestic law, there was a fear that the Bill was overreaching and was a threat to the rule of law and constitutional democracy. They were also critical of the lack of funding and skills to implement the current legislation. They said they believed the current challenges would not be addressed by introducing more legislation.

The ICRC was concerned by the absence of a clause within Bill to exempt from criminalisation humanitarian action carried out exclusively by humanitarian and impartial organisations. They felt the wording of the Bill currently may unintentionally criminalise the provision of humanitarian assistance.

STERN highlighted the importance of remembering that the law was intended to defend democracy, and underscored the need to ensure the preservation of freedom of expression, association and legitimate opposition.

The Committee indicated its appreciation for the inputs received, which they hoped would contribute substantially to the strengthening of the Bill.

Meeting report

Chairperson's opening remarks

The Chairperson welcomed all the Members of the Committee, as well as the other participants in the meeting. She congratulated Gen Fannie Masemola on his appointment as Commissioner of Police, and said they were looking forward to seeing him prosper in his new position.

Two important items were on the agenda today, so she did not want to waste any time on lengthy introductions. The time for the public hearing had been extended, but that would be discussed later in the meeting.

She welcomed Mr Cassel Mathale, Deputy Minister  of Police, and recognised and accepted the apology from the Minister.

Committee matters

The minutes of the previous meeting that was held on 24 August were considered briefly. The Chairperson noted that not all the important matters had been added to the closing remarks. The minutes would be sent back for the information to be added to the closing remarks, and the minutes would not be adopted.

The Chairperson said that she had load-shedding and her connection was unstable. Therefore, Mr A Seabi (ANC) would assist her with the Chairperson's duties.

The Chairperson emphasised that they were not going to speed through today's meeting, and that if they were not able to conclude the consideration of the public hearings today, they were going to have to continue with the matters in another meeting. The Committee agreed with her proposal

She invited the Deputy Minister to introduce the Annual Performance Plan (APP).

Mr Mathale thanked the Chairperson, and introduced the leadership of the South African Police Service (SAPS) to the Committee. He said Lt Gen Tebello Mosikili (Deputy National Commissioner: Policing) would introduce the presentation to the Committee.

Lt Gen Mosikili thanked the Chairperson and greeted the Committee. She introduced her team and commenced with the presentation.

SAPS on addendum 2022/23 annual performance plan

Lt Gen Mosikili introduced the presentation, and Brig C Mitchell, Section Head: Planning and Strategic Management, took the Committee through the addendum to the 2022/23 annual performance plan (APP).

(See attached document for details).

Brig Mitchell said the presentation was divided into two parts. Part A was the addendum to the 2022/23 APP, which included the background and the amended performance indicators. Part B was the national policing strategy, which included an introduction and the six focus areas, each with the deliverables and the implementation requirements. He said that five performance indicators were amended in the addendum to the 2022/23 APP which had been tabled in Parliament:

  • Percentage reduction in the number of reported contact crimes;
  • Percentage reduction in the number of reported contact crimes at the top 30 high contact crime weight stations;
  • Percentage reduction in the number of reported contact crimes against women (18 years and above);
  • Percentage reduction in the number of reported contact crimes against children (below 18 years); and
  • Number of cities and towns in which the initiation of the SAPS' Safer Cities Project had been confirmed.

He said that the June 2019 State of the Nation Address (SoNA) had called for halving violent crime rates. He pointed out that the targets that were published in the tabled SAPS 2022/23 APP had to be revised, based on the final crime figures for 2021/22, as there were significant increases in most categories in the last quarter. The revised Medium-term Strategic Framework (MTSF), 2019 to 2024, had indicated that the SAPS would initiate implementing the Safer City Project in ten pilot cities by 30 June 2021.

The Ministry of Police had required that the SAPS, in collaboration with its partners in government, including local municipalities, ratify both the relevance and the viability of the Safer Cities Project, as it had a legislated obligation to ensure that the SAPS delivered on its mandate, as specified by Section 205(3) of the Constitution.

He briefly guided the Committee through the indicators, and pointed out how the numbers had increased over the years, and what they hoped to achieve against their medium-term targets.

In Part B of the presentation, he said that the National Development Plan (NDP) Vision 2030 sets out a vision for safer communities, recognising the need to address the drivers of crime and violence and acknowledging that crime and violence prevention was not the sole responsibility of the police. Addressing crime and, in particular, violent crime and gender-based violence and femicide (GBVF), was dependent on the establishment of a multidisciplinary approach which involved all sectors of society, including key business industries, such as the banking, transportation, and consumer goods industries, and led by an effective criminal justice system, which must deliver quality and professional services in an integrated, coordinated, effective and efficient manner.

He highlighted the six key focus areas, along with their deliverables.

Focus Area 1: Responding to threats to the territorial integrity of the state

Deliverable 1: Ensure sustainable responses to the territorial integrity of the RSA

  • Coordinate the implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of:
  • National counter-terrorism strategy.
  • The narcotics intervention strategy.
  • Border policing strategy.
  • National integrated strategy to combat wildlife trafficking.
  • Trilateral countries action plan.

Deliverable 2: Ensure a coordinated response to cybercrime

  • Implement the cybercrime strategy implementation plan.


Focus Area 2: Responding to threats to the authority of the state

Deliverable 1: Ensure internal stability

  • Implement the 25 Presidential Expert Panel recommendations (the SAPS-specific requirements associated with the 25 recommendations, would be included).
  • Establish and capacitate Operational Command Centres (OCCs) at national, provincial, district and station levels.
  • Establishment of a National Joint Operations and Intelligence Structure (NATJOINTS) nerve centre.
  • Implement a memorandum of understanding (MoU) between the SAPS and the South African National Defence Force (SANDF), including a mobilisation and deployment protocol.

Deliverable 2: Capacitation of public order policing

  • Capacitate the public order policing (POP) unit's capability by deploying an additional 4 000 members.
  • Establish the following POP units:
  • Caledon (WC); Vredenburg (WC); and Groblersdal (LP) – 2022/23
  • Bloemhof (NW); Harrismith (FS); Mooi Rivier (KZN) and Soweto (GP) – 2023/24
  • Train first responders to incidents of public unrest, including in the use of shotguns and CS gas.

Deliverable 3: Enhance police safety

  • Implement specified safety measures at identified police stations, including:
  • Perimeter fencing and lighting.
  • Security gate for pedestrians and vehicles.
  • CSC bullet-proof glass.
  • Burglar proofing of windows and doors.
  • Closed-circuit television (CCTV) systems installed and functional at identified police stations.

Deliverable 4: Reduced availability of illegal firearms

  • Implement the Central Firearm Registry (CFR) action plan to improve the registration of legal firearms, including:
  • Reduce backlogs of new applications, renewals, and amnesty applications.
  • Status and process of printing firearm licenses -- involving supply chain management (SCM).
  • Relocating the CFR from the Veritas building to the Telkom Towers Annex building (SCM).
  • Digitisation of the CFR processes, involving Technology Management Services (TMS).
  • Status/implementation of the new firearm control system (TMS).
  • Capacitation of Designated Firearm Officer (DFO) at station level (Human Resources Management).
  • Implement the SAPS 13 Store clearance project.


Focus Area 3: Prevention and investigation of a crime that threatens the economy of South Africa

Deliverable 1: Establish a multidisciplinary specialised capability to address crimes related to essential infrastructure.

  • Establish economic infrastructure units in all provinces.
  • Establish interim economic infrastructure task teams (TTs) at 18 identified hotspots (linked to municipalities).
  • Monitor performance of economic infrastructure TTs.
  • Conduct a work-study investigation on the establishment of multidisciplinary economic infrastructure units.
  • Activate fully-fledged economic infrastructure units in nine provinces.
  • Conduct an impact evaluation on the economic infrastructure units.
  • Participate in developing the Critical Infrastructure Act regulations by the Civilian Secretariat for the Police Service (CSPS).

Deliverable 2: Effectively investigate serious corruption in the public and private sectors.

  • Participate in the development of Critical Infrastructure Act Regulations by the CSPS.
  • State Capture Commission recommendations.
  • Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) recommendations.
  • Expert Panel recommendations.
  • COVID-19 procurements.

Deliverable 3: Impact of gangsterism on communities minimised.

  • Implement the national anti-gangsterism strategy.
  • Account on the earmarked funding associated with anti-gang units (AGUs).

Deliverable 4: Reduced availability of illegal narcotics

  • Implement the National Drug Master Plan (NDMP), including participation in the government's multidisciplinary stakeholder's forum.

Deliverable 5: Reduced incidence of cash-in-transit (CIT) heists

  • Implement a multidisciplinary approach to preventing and combating CIT heists, which ensured cooperation with metro police, all other law enforcement agencies, the private security industry, and other entities.


Focus Area 4: Prevention and investigation of a crime that threatens the wellbeing and safety of all people in South Africa


Deliverable 1: Reduced levels of violent crime through the geographical approach.


  • Ensure the immediate stabilisation of the top 30 high contact crime stations (HCCS), including an immediate focus on trio crimes, through the application of the planning doctrine, including:

-     Address crime generators (illegal firearms, liquor, drugs, illicit mining, undocumented foreign        nationals, etc.) through:

  • Focused intelligence gathering and analysis;
  • Prioritisation of cases with DNA forensic reports (SAPS/NPA).
  • High visibility patrols.
  • High-density operations.
  • Focused investigations and the down-management of case dockets in the CJS.
  • Targeted deployment of external force-multipliers.
  • Targeted deployment of Tactical Response Teams (TRTs).
  • Deployment of vehicles to highways and other prioritised roads.
  • Community awareness and mobilisation.
  • Intelligence gathering and dissemination (briefing and debriefing).
  • Security of information (the integrity of operations).
  • Monitoring and evaluation of operations evaluation (evidence-based policing) of operations at all organisational levels, every week.


  • Direct the immediate optimal capacitation of the top 30 High Contact Crime Stations, including:


  • Immediate and sustained resourcing of the Top 30 HCCSs at 100% (across all resource categories).
  • Redeployment of resources from other stations/units in provinces, as required.
  • Submit a resource requirement for the Top 30 HCCSs to the integrated resource management committee (IRMC).
  • The criteria for the allocation of resources and prevailing budget constraints must be taken into consideration, including:
  • Recommendations on the source of funding for these requirements.
  • Alternative arrangements would be made should the full resource requirement for the Top 30 HCCSs not be met.


  • Provincial, district, and station management to establish bi-weekly accounting on performance and resource utilisation.
  • Vehicle fleet maintenance and management:
  • Prioritise the availability of vehicles (SAPS garages).
  • Manage the deployment and utilisation of vehicles using the AVL system.
  • Prioritise the availability of vehicles in all police stations, fitted with the required marking and tools.
  • Prioritise the provisioning and utilisation of technology, to support policing.
  • Develop and implement a generic contact crime reduction plan.
  • Develop and implement a monitoring and evaluation tool for prioritised police stations.


  • Coordinate the top 30 HCCS interventions by head office Generals (Ministerial Crime Retreat).
  • Appointment of national champions, to ensure accountability (finalised).
  • Bi-weekly reporting on the top 30 HCCS interventions to the National Crime Combating Forum (NCCF).
  • Quarterly reporting on the implementation of improvement plans to the NCCF.


  • Conduct interventions at the top 20 HCCS in each province, including:
  • Ensure the deployment and availability of station commanders (SCs) over weekends (including issuing a directive, in this regard).
  • The appointment of provincial champions for all districts in the province (finalised).
  • Implement a weekly operational diary/matrix and operational plans at the top 20 HCCS.
  • Establish and maintain the following at all stations:
  • Station intelligence profile (SIP).
  • Station profile (SP).
  • Crime threat analysis (CTA).
  • Crime pattern analysis (CPA).


  • Conduct bi-weekly crime briefings of police commissioners (PCs), with relevant station commanders (SCs), including accountability on crime levels and utilising the SIP, SP, CTA, and CPA.
  • Implement the Community-in-Blue concept at the Top 20 HCCS, including defining the standards for recruitment in high crime sectors.
  • Compile improvement plans to address the identified challenges at each of the top 20 provincial HCCS.
  • Develop and implement a monitoring and evaluation tool for the top 20 police stations.

Deliverable 2: Reduced levels of Violent Crime (through the application of the conventional policing approach)

  • Ensure that quarterly crime intelligence and crime analysis reports are presented to provincial crime combating forums (PCCFs) to assess progress and recommend priorities for crime prevention and crime combating for the upcoming quarter (Ministerial Crime Retreat).
  • Implementation of Provincial Violent Crime Reduction Plans (PVCRPs) (Ministerial Crime Retreat - SoNA commitment to 50% reduction in violent crime in ten years).
  • Establishment of a functional, updated and fully accessible crime prevention and combating-

related interventions good practice database (webpage).

  • Develop and implement an optimisation plan for 10111 Command Centres, informed by an assessment of their performance.

Deliverable 3: Under-performance within the Detective Service addressed

  • Develop and implement a Detective Service recovery plan.
  • Develop and implement Integrated Justice System (IJS)/Criminal Justice System (CJS) project plan to ensure the optimal utilisation of IJS/CJS funding.
  • Ensure the optimal functioning of national and provincial organised crime secretariats.

Deliverable 4: Reduced levels of violent crime against women and vulnerable groups:

  • Fully functional GBV desks at police stations
  • Develop and implement generic GBV and sexual offences action plans
  • at the top 30 GBV hotspots.
  • Implement the DNA backlog action plan.

Deliverable 5: Reviewed SAPS Safer Cities project

  • Optimal implementation of the SAPS Safer Cities project in identified high-crime municipalities (Johannesburg, Tshwane, Ekurhuleni, eThekwini, and the City of Cape Town), with tangible deliverables that would impact high levels of crime.

Deliverable 6: Ensure an integrated approach to the implementation of the District Development Model (DDM)

  • Develop a SAPS DDM district blueprint project in the Tshwane metro, to serve as a DDM blueprint for other districts.
  • Participate in the review of One-Plans in all 52 districts through implementing the SAPS DDM blueprint.

Deliverable 7: National Prosecutions Service (NPS) implementation directives

  • Develop and implement directives to ensure the successful operationalisation of the NPS.


Focus Area 5: Stakeholder management and active citizenry

Deliverable 1: Rebuild and strengthen community relations in the fight against crime

  • Develop and implement a national communication plan to reinforce the SAPS's role.
  • Conduct Izimbizos and community awareness campaigns.
  • Account for expenditure on community awareness campaigns, conferences, and summits (R10 million).
  • Re-establish Community Policing Forums (CPFs) at 1 155 police stations, to ensure equitable community involvement.
  • Implement the memorandum of understanding (MoU) between the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (PSIRA) and SAPS.
  • Establish integrated crime combating forums


Focus Area 6: Capacitation of the SAPS to execute its constitutional mandate

Deliverable 1: Sustain the SAPS' staff establishment

  • Ensure the placement of the 9 800 recruits away from the region of origin.
  • Recruit an additional 5 000 recruits for training in 2023/24.
  • Finalise the 2022/23 fixed establishment in line with the compensation budget.
  • Finalise the medium-term fixed establishment in line with the MTEF, to identify functional areas that require safeguarding over the medium-term, including police stations that are not able to provide a 24-hour policing service.
  • Implement the policy on the rotation of members (trainees would be addressed first).

Deliverable 2: Capacitation of the top 30 high contact crime stations

  • Address all of the identified deficiencies to effectively support the top 30 police stations in executing police operations, following the conducting of thorough assessments, as recommended by the CSPS.

Deliverable 3: Filling of critical vacancies

  • Expedite the filling of critical vacancies, including at command levels.

Deliverable 4: Capacitation of identified specialised capabilities

  • Establish specialised units within the prevention and combating of crime environment.
  • Establish/capacitate specialised units within the crime detection environment.

Deliverable 5: Improve the operational availability of SAPS vehicles through enhanced capacity and performance at decentralised SAPS garages

  • Prioritise the capacitation and functioning of SAPS garages to ensure the availability of vehicles for operational deployment.
  • Down-manage the identified backlog of vehicles at the prioritised 16 SAPS garages.

Deliverable 6: Ensure the stability of the organisation

  • Finalise the restructuring process.

Deliverable 7: Improve morale of members

  • Implement the 2021 organisational climate study action plan, coordinated by human resources (HR) management.
  • Conduct road shows in all provinces to communicate crime priorities and initiatives to improve morale.

Deliverable 8: Improve accountability and performance management

  • Activate the Compliance Board.
  • Establish a dedicated discipline management capability (discipline units)
  • Conduct quarterly organisational performance reviews, and determine the corrective action

required for underperformance.

Deliverable 9: Intensify the utilisation of appropriate technology to prevent, combat, and investigate crime

  • Ensure the fast-tracking of secure cloud computing. The SAPS's network infrastructure was the main conduit to technology, as information-sharing was highly dependent on the sound and structured availability and accessibility of adequate bandwidth.
  • Prioritise the following key information communication technology (ICT) deliverables, focusing on the top 30 HCCSs:
  • The introduction of remotely piloted aircraft systems (drones).
  • Body-worn cameras.
  • The deployment of the integrated person management (IPM) booking and verification of a person processed and identified within the IJS value chain,
  • The establishment of a DNA processing laboratory in the Eastern Cape forensic science laboratory; and
  • The re-introduction of digital investigative initiatives intended for cybercrime investigation.
  • Pursue the SAPS's exemption from the State Information Technology Agency (SITA) Act.

Deliverable 10: Improve SAPS infra-structure, including official accommodation for members

Deliverable 11: Improve contract management


The Chairperson asked SAPS to provide the Committee with answers to their questions and concerns and said that she would not accept any written response from them. If they were unable to do so, and if the Committee was unhappy with their responses, she would not allow the APP to be approved and they would be requested to come back.

Mr A Whitfield (DA) pointed out that a statement in one of the slides indicated the number of towns and cities in which the initiation of the SAPS Safer Cities project had been confirmed. This was only helpful to a certain extent, and it would have been more helpful to have more detail around this, such as which town and cities, and the actual impact of the SAPS Safer Cities project. They needed to measure the actual strategy -- whether the strategy was achieving the desired impact or outcome. What had been mentioned in the slides were input indicators and not measurements of the actual impact of the SAPS's efficacy in implementing a strategy and achieving the desired impact.

He said that many of the indicators were encouraging, giving the Committee confidence that the Department was moving in the right direction. However, many of the indicators were also not achieved year on year. They had heard that drones would be deployed, but they were not deployed. Body cameras were going to be prioritised, yet they had not heard whether or not there was a budget allocation to support the procurement of body cameras, and whether it was going to be achieved within this financial year. He asked the Department to provide the Committee with more detail on the body cameras.

There were many other points that he wanted to make, but he was aware of the time constraints. He was sure that they would be able to address the Department in the future on their targets and indicators.

The indicator on enhanced police safety was a critical indicator. Mr Whitfield pointed out that some police stations had no lighting, no fencing, and no security for the police officers, and they knew that police stations were often targets of violent crimes. The Committee welcomed this indicator, but they would need more detail on this indicator, such as which police stations they were targeting. They would need a document that confirmed the police stations which had been identified and the measures put in place when they did their oversight visits. They needed all the information so they had all the relevant information when they returned to Parliament.

He said he knew procurement could be rather difficult, and pointed out that they were already halfway through this financial year. The adjustments had left them with half a year to achieve their targets, and he expressed concern that they might not be able to achieve all their indicators within this financial year.

Mr O Terblanche (DA) said that he was concerned because the police had failed in what they set out to achieve. The targets now had to be adjusted, and in essence, their performance was being adjusted to lower levels. He pointed out that what they have achieved thus far has not yielded the desired results. The presentation by the SAPS could be considered an admission of failure and good intentions and new promises. He did not think that many of these targets would be achieved. He asked whether the Department was trying to tell the Committee that their efforts had failed and if so, when the new changes would be implemented.

On the Safer Cities project, he said they had had a target of ten cities, and that had been reduced to just three -- and that had not been implemented yet.

He said they were dealing with a budget of R100 billion and an increasing crime rate, yet they could not manage to reduce the crime rate. He asked the Department to provide the Committee with a detailed report on what they had done thus far, their results, and the reasons for the unsatisfactory results.

Mr H Shembeni (EFF) said that his colleagues had covered most of his questions. He asked the Department how much had been allocated for implementing the Safer Cities project in the three identified towns or cities.

The SAPS 2022/23 APP addendum indicated a review of the work that had been done on the Safer Cities project. He asked when the SAPS  expected to complete the review.

He asked whether it was possible for it to take two years for a firearm licence to be renewed. He knew there was a backlog, but he asked how long it must take for an existing firearm licence to be renewed and for a new one to be issued.

He said that in April last year, the Minister had revealed that over 2 000 SAPS vehicles in state garages in Gauteng are waiting for repairs. He pointed out that only 5 970 were operating throughout the province. Most garages could not deal with the demands, and the vehicles stood there for a long time before they were worked on. This hindered effective policing and swift responses to crime. He said that some private centres that had been asked to help with the repairs, had been engaging in fraudulent activities. These activities included overcharging on repair services, overcharging on replacement parts, replacing parts that were still in working condition, keeping vehicles for longer than necessary, and using bogus technicians to fit blue lights and sirens, which then caused the vehicles to cause problems due to faulty wiring. He suggested that the Committee had to do an investigation into these serious allegations. He recommended that the SAPS allocate additional garages in Gauteng, and if this was successful, it could then be introduced to the other provinces. He also suggested that the parts of a vehicle that could be salvaged should be used to repair other vehicles in the future. Doing so would save the state a lot of money on vehicle repairs. He said it was happening not only in Gauteng, but the other provinces as well, and alleged that other private vehicles were also being serviced at the state's expense. Proper management of state garages had to occur because they were losing a lot of money due to negligence.

The Chairperson raised her concern about SAPS and their Addendum. She had read and studied the addendum and listened to their presentation, but had found that their addendum and the presentation were two different things. They had brought in issues like the focus areas, which had been discussed today, which were not included in the addendum. Either the SAPS misled the Committee, or they had not read their addendum. In the addendum, they mentioned only five targets they wanted the Committee to amend. What SAPS was asking her to do was to include the matters that they had mentioned in their presentation. She emphasised that all the matters that the Members had raised had to be included in the Committee's report to Parliament. She said that it was not the first time that this had happened. The SAPS did not seem to understand that the Committee took a report to Parliament, which had to be adopted. If the report did not speak to the addendum, and the addendum amended only five targets, they were having serious challenges. She pointed out that they were trying to overrule the 2022/23 APP, and that they would have to redo the budget hearings if that was what they were trying to do. She said that before she allowed the Members to continue with their inputs, SAPS had to clarify what addendum they wished the Committee to approve, because their presentation did not speak to the addendum. She asked SAPS for clarity on this serious matter.

Deputy Minister Mathale said he would ask the Deputy National Commissioner to address the issues. He said that the presentation had been divided into Part A and Part B and that Part A referred to the addendum.

Lt Gen Mosikili said they had put the identified indicators in the addendum. The introduction of the policing strategy was the plan, but they looked at the challenges to achieving the indicators. The policing strategy was an all-inclusive strategy that would enable the Department to achieve the identified key performance indicators.

Ms B Marekwa (ANC) said that to ensure that the SAPS got things done, they needed to strengthen their recruitment process, to ensure that new entrants were screened properly. The SAPS could plan and develop strategies, but if they did not have the right people in the right positions, they would never be able to improve.

On Deliverable 2 in the addendum that spoke of support to the Public Order Policing unit, she said that that was one area where communities always raised a few concerns, saying that the police did not know how to deal with crowds. She suggested that they had to continue to deploy and train people in this area.

On Deliverable 4, which spoke of the firearm controls that had been put in place, she said that the police had to ensure proper control of firearms because there were many illegal firearms in the community.

She suggested that the SAPS go back and look at the process they used during the COVID-19 lockdown period and take those lessons learned there and implement them again.

She noted in the addendum, they had not mentioned collaborating with the municipalities. She suggested that they needed to look into the area of intensifying bylaws that could assist in the fight against crime.

The SAPS needed to ensure that the budget allocated to them was being utilised, as many shortages were not being addressed and various resources were not being utilised. She also observed that the Visible Policing budget had been reduced over time, although this area needed more funding as they were the first ones to get criticised by the public and needed more resources.

She said there were human resources in the SAPS, but they needed to get out of their offices to assist and train the younger officers who entered the field.

Ms N Peacock (ANC) said that she wanted to concur with what the Chairperson said on the amendment of the APP. The Members wanted to look into the original APP and reflect on the addendum, to see if they were talking about what had previously been shown to them. What was presented to them today did not speak to what had been given. The SAPS should have brought the APP to the Committee and shown them how it was aligned and why they felt the need to have the addendum presented to the Committee today. She said that with the revised APP, the targets that were set would not be reached, which makes the Committee question whether the measuring tool being used was accurate.

She did not have a problem with the Safer Cities project. However, why were rural areas and farms not included, as crime happened everywhere? What was the Department going to do to ensure that crime was reduced?

On the 4th Industrial Revolution that the SAPS had spoken of, she asked if it had the internal capacity to guide the 4th Industrial Revolution. If they were going to outsource resources, she asked if they had the correct processes to approach the private sector to ensure that they would want to assist the Department in implementing the 4th Industrial Revolution.

She pointed out that when the Committee started its term, Members had indicated that reports they received from SAPS raised various concerns for the Committee, and the concerns were still there. She suggested that SAPS provide the Committee with reports on all the provinces so it could review their progress, so the Committee could provide complete oversight of the Department.

Rev K Meshoe (ACDP) pointed out that in Part A of the Addendum, they had been reminded of what the SoNA 2019 had required from the SAPS, which was that contact crime had to be reduced in 2018/2019 by 50%. He asked whether the SAPS had any new strategies in place that they were going to implement to ensure that this target was going to be reached. Contact crimes had not been reduced to the levels that would make the Committee believe that the target would be reached. It was concerning how people complained about a lack of safety in the streets.

On Deliverable 5, which spoke of enhancing police station safety, he said it was embarrassing to hear that police stations were being targeted at a time when residential properties were being broken into. If police stations were unsafe, he was concerned about what would happen to residential properties. He asked the Department what they planned to do about the safety of police stations, to ensure that members of the public's safety in those areas would not be compromised.

Ms L Moss (ANC) said that the SAPS had stated that they would deploy men and women, and asked from which police stations they were planning on taking the men and women to implement their programmes, as there was already a need for more skilled and trained policemen and women.

She emphasised the need for more police vehicles, and referred to the shortage of police vehicles in Krugersdorp. When was the Department planning on addressing the issue? She asked how long the process of centralising police vehicles would take the Department -- whether it would be in this financial year or the next, as this was a serious problem. Who would the people be who would take up the contracts? Was it going to be advertised, and would it be a transparent process?

She asked the Department how much had been allocated for the Safer Cities project.

Dr P Groenewald (FF+) asked for clarity on Part B of the Addendum that referred to the National Performance Strategy. The focus areas' deliverables did not fit into the APP, and he asked if they should be added to the APP. He referred to the CFR and the planned move to the Telkom Towers, and said that they had not indicated any timeframe for this matter. He asked the Department to provide the Committee with more information on the deliverables regarding timeframes for their implementation.

He questioned whether the Addendum and the APP should not be discussed separately.

Chairperson's comments

The Chairperson said that she had not received an adequate response from the SAPS regarding why they received an Addendum with only five targets. She said that SAPS was trying to overrule their 2022/23 APP. The Committee was unable to include these issues in their report to Parliament because they did not form part of the addendum, and the addendum was on their agenda. The Addendum and the APP were two different things. She asked whether the CFR was part of their action plan or the addendum. On public order policing, she asked the same question. On the appointment of champions for the districts in all the provinces, she said they had stated that they would conduct interventions at the top 20 high crime stations in the provinces, but that was not in their APP. She pointed out that the National Policing Strategy was not in their 2022/23 APP, but that they had mentioned it in their addendum today.

What SAPS had presented to the Committee today was not part of their budget hearings. She pointed out the specifics and asked SAPS to return to the Committee with their APP, national strategy, and addendum. The National Policing Strategy was important, but it was not in their APP, therefore it would not be budgeted for.

AfriForum on the Protection of Constitutional Democracy Against Terrorist and Related Activities Amendment Bill

Mr Ernst van Zyl, Afriforum Campaign Officer for Strategy and Content, took the Committee through the Afriforum Parliamentary Submission on the Protection of Constitutional Democracy against Terrorist and Related Activities Amendment Bill

(See attached document for details).

He said the submission was made on behalf of AfriForum by Hurter Spies Inc, as attorneys of record. AfriForum did not support the passing of the Bill in its present format. It welcomed the state's commitment to international law and the integration of binding international norms into our domestic law, but certain novel additions brought about by the Amendment represented a threat to the rule of law and constitutional guarantees.

The state had identified the objectives of the Amendment to be as follows:

  1. To update the principal Act to developments in international law;
  2. To give effect to certain Constitutional Court judgments; and
  3. To address challenges experienced with conducting investigations and prosecutions.

He said that AfriForum did not have any issues with the first and second objectives of the Amendment, but rather with the third objective. The third objective had been inexpertly executed and thereby had doomed the proposed measures to legal review and scrutiny should they be passed.

He provided the Committee with a brief overview of the aspects which needed to be reconsidered and/or severed. He said the following sections had to be reconsidered and/or severed from the Amendment on grounds of necessity, practical workability, and unconstitutionality:

Section 1: Amendment of certain definitions


  • The section was already over-broad and vague. The expansion thereof had exacerbated the problem.

Terrorist activity:

  • The addition of 1(b)(iv) of "can reasonably be regarded as being intended, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, to... further the objectives of an entity engaged in terrorist activity", further complicates an already notoriously contested definition.
  • 'Reasonably be regarded' unacceptably introduces negligence as a form of mens rea for committing terrorist offences.
  • This was legally imprecise for purposes of criminal law, and was a common issue with anti-terrorism legislation globally.

Insertion of Clause 3A: Prohibition of publication with unlawful terrorism-related content

  • Unjustifiably violates rights to freedom of expression, association and conscience.
  • Vulnerable to disproportionate, arbitrary and discretionary abuse.
  • Over-broad definition and form of intent violates the principle of legality.

Insertion of Clause 4A: Offence relating to attempt to leave the Republic

  • Unjustifiable violation of freedom of movement, and unnecessary duplication of pre-existing offence captured in other legislation.

Amendment of s23(2)(a): Freezing Orders – "reasonable grounds'

  • 'Reasonably be regarded' introduces a form of negligence as sufficient mens rea for criminal liability – see above. Over-extends the power of police officials.
  • Likely to lead to complex litigation.
  • Soon to be dealt with in specialist amendments to the Finance Intelligence Centre Act (FICA).

Insertion of s24A & s24B: Application for decryption direction & order to disable access to the Internet or social media site

  • Potential for abuse was seen with the Regulation of Interception of Communication Act (RICA) legislation.
  • 5.5.2 Potentially unjustifiable violation of the right to privacy, given the nebulous definition of 'terrorist activity' and the relaxed burden of proof.
  • 5.5.3 Impractical, as it duplicates similar but tempered processes already tested and accepted by the judiciary.

Repeal of s26: Parliamentary supervision

  • Unjustifiable violation of the separation of powers doctrine. S26A of the FICA makes no provision for the tabling of announcement/designation in Parliament.

He pointed out that a comprehensive, individualised analysis of each of the abovementioned aspects of these proposals was beyond the scope of this submission. The Protection of Constitutional Democracy against Terrorist and Related Activities Act ("POCDATARA") had not been frequently utilised, and consequently had not been frequently tested for constitutional compliance.

He said legal scholars had long indicated that the Act was long, complex, over-broad and vague in several worryingly material respects, at times going further than even the United States anti-terror legislation and the Internal Security Act employed by the apartheid regime to quell dissent and commit atrocities. It was important for this fact to be borne in mind by the legislature, which sought to extend and strengthen the state's powers in terms of the Act.

He emphasised that AfriForum recognised the need for intervention in this legislative field to some extent.

He said reports this year indicated that the Republic had become a hub for money laundering and the financing of terrorist groups. It appeared beyond doubt that South Africa had been abused as a conduit both for foreign groups to funnel money to their subsidiaries in Africa, and for supporters of such groups to funnel money in the other direction. Therefore, the Republic was an entrepot and hub for terrorists and other agents operating outside of the Republic's borders, rather than an immediate and pressing threat to the safety and security of the Republic and its citizens. Those aspects of the Amendment concerned with domestic terrorism and the investigation thereof were neither necessary nor lawful.


Mr Whitfield asked whether the third objective, which dealt with conducting investigations and prosecutions, would be sufficiently dealt with by improved enforcement of existing legislation across the board, as well as the possibility of incoming amendments to legislation to deal with terrorist-related activities. He asked whether it was AfriForum's position that the lack of enforcement of existing laws was the central argument to do away with the third objective, for the Bill to contain the first two objectives and that the third objective would be taken care of in existing legislation, but due to inability or lack of capacity of SAPS and other agencies, this legislation tried to deal with an issue that should be dealt with operationally?

Mr Terblanche asked if minor changes needed to be made to the existing legislation -- was this what Afriforum was saying?

Rev Meshoe acknowledged that there were many disagreements on the definition of terrorism, and he asked what AfriForum's position was.

He noticed that they spoke of legislation that was 'highly invasive,' and asked what they had identified as 'highly invasive' measures.

Mr Seabi asked what AfriForum feared, if the legislation was passed in its present form.

Afriforum's response

Mr Van Zyl said Mr Whitfield had been correct -- AfriForum had an issue with only the third objective, because it sought to give the government and the police more policing power and more room to exercise power. This was only going to allow for more abuse of power. There was existing legislation dealing with terrorism and terrorist-related activities, and investigating and fighting terrorism, but this legislation was being weakened by the lack of resources, corruption, and a lack of sufficient training, which had led to the bad execution of the legislation. If the new legislation was introduced, it would not solve the problems mentioned, as it would also not be executed properly. He pointed out that legislation that granted more power to the government and the police -- and more policing power for both -- would create a larger opportunity for the abuse of power and overreach. AfriForum's comment was more preventative, indicating that it was better to prevent the abuse of power rather than to let it happen and address it afterwards.

On Mr Moeshoe's question and the definition of terrorism, he said that when it comes to terrorism, one would have to look at how the most credible international actors defined it. One would have to build a definition from that. The problem arises from the vagueness of terms and how that could be used to abuse anti-terror legislation, and silence and imprison critics of the government.

On AfriForum's fear, he said that they feared repeating issues of the past, where government was given too much power and imprisoning people who protested or were critics of government.

In summary, he said that AfriForum welcomed the Bill's attempt to bring the legislation up to date with international laws and developments. Government and the police did not have to be granted more policing power. The problems with the existing legislation were that there was a lack of resources, training, and corruption to implement the legislation. He highlighted that AfriForum was concerned with preventing the abuse of power and avoiding recreating past issues.

Further discussion

Mr Whitfield asked if the third objective and the clauses within the objective rendered the Bill, in AfriForum's view, unconstitutional. 

Rev Meshoe pointed out that Mr Van Zyl had said in his presentation that AfriForum was concerned about prevention rather than cure, and that they agreed with him on that. He said that his questions had not been answered. He had said that people had different definitions for 'terrorism'. He asked Mr Van Zyl which definition of 'terrorism' they would agree with.

On the highly invasive measures in the Bill, as AfriForum had stated, he asked Mr Van Zyl to clarify exactly what these measures were.

He asked how AfriForum would define more policing powers, and what should be avoided when police were given more powers.

The Chairperson asked Mr Van Zyl if the existing legislation was enough and that no amendments were needed, or if they could go ahead with the amendments with caution.

Afriforum's response

Mr van Zyl said that AfriForum supported the amendments up to the point where they were aligned with international laws and with recent Constitutional Court judgments. However, certain aspects needed to be dealt with with caution and that needed to be relooked at and reconsidered, because they posed a real threat to the citizens of South Africa.

The Chairperson asked the Deputy Minister if he had any further comments on the submission by Mr van Zyl.

Deputy Minister Mathale said he acknowledged the submissions by AfriForum, and they would consider them.

The Chairperson thanked Mr Van Zyl, and said that the Committee would consider their submission.

ICRC on the proposed deletion of Section 1(4) of the Protection of Constitutional Democracy against Terrorist and Related Activities Act.

Ms Sarah Mabeza, Regional Legal Advisor, International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), guided the Committee through its submission.

She said the ICRC was an independent, impartial and neutral humanitarian organisation whose exclusively humanitarian mission was to protect the lives and dignity of people worldwide affected by armed conflict and other situations of violence. The ICRC also seeks to prevent hardship by promoting and strengthening humanitarian law and championing universal humanitarian principles

The ICRC's two main submissions covered the proposed retention of Section 1(4) of the current Act --the "IHL savings clause" -- and the proposed addition of a "humanitarian exemption clause."

On the proposed retention of Section 1(4), she quoted:

" Notwithstanding any provision of this Act or any other law, any act committed during a struggle waged by peoples, including any action during an armed struggle, in the exercise or furtherance of their legitimate right to national liberation, self-determination, and independence against colonialism, or occupation or aggression or domination by alien or foreign forces, following the principles of international law, especially international humanitarian law, including the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States following the said Charter, shall not, for any reason, including for purposes of prosecution or extradition, be considered as terrorist activity, as defined in subsection (1)."

She said that an International Humanitarian Law (IHL) saving clause separated the law applicable to the conduct that occurred in peacetime from the conduct that occurred during an armed conflict. If the conduct qualified as peacetime, IHL would not apply. If the conduct occurred within the context of an international or a non-international armed conflict, it would not be governed by counter-terrorism legislation. IHL would govern the situation as the lex specialis. She highlighted that the inclusion of an IHL saving clause was consistent with South Africa's obligations under international law, and that similar IHL saving clauses were included in counter-terrorism legislation of Ethiopia, Chad, the United Kingdom, Ireland, New Zealand and Canada. It had also been recommended by the African Union (AU) model anti-terrorism law, and United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 2462 (2019).

On the proposed addition of a humanitarian exemption clause, she said that the absence of a clause within POCDATRA to exempt from criminalisation humanitarian action carried out exclusively by humanitarian and impartial organisations was concerning. She pointed out that the wording of the Bill currently in section 3(2) may unintentionally criminalise the provision of humanitarian assistance, including the provision of medical assistance to wounded people and the delivery of humanitarian goods and IHL dissemination in areas controlled by a non-state armed group. She said that humanitarian exemption clauses were included in counter-terrorism legislation in Ethiopia, Chad, Philippines, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Australia, and it had also been recommended by the AU Model Law on Counterterrorism and UNSC Resolution 2462 (2019).

She mentioned examples, such as:

  • Activities of an exclusively humanitarian and impartial nature carried out by neutral and impartial humanitarian organisations were excluded from the scope of this law (Chad).
  • Humanitarian activities undertaken by the ICRC, the Philippines Red Cross (PRC) and other state-recognised impartial humanitarian partners or organisations in conformity with the IHL, do not fall within the scope of Section 12 of this Act (Philippines)

She answered a few questions the Committee might have wanted to ask. For instance, why was a humanitarian exemption (HE) clause necessary for humanitarian organisations with privileges and immunities? The reason was that the scope and objective of HE clauses were not explicitly covered by traditional headquarters agreements, which confer functional immunity from criminal legislation for employees and did not decriminalise humanitarian activities

She said that including a HE clause would align with Financial Action Task Force (FATF) recommendations. Recommendation 8 called for focused and proportionate measures to protect identified organisations against terrorist financing abuse, and such measures should not disrupt or discourage legitimate charitable activities. Furthermore, South Africa had been rated "non-compliant" to Recommendation 8, partly for its alleged failure to identify charitable activities at risk of terrorist financing abuse. Exempting exclusively humanitarian activities from the scope of counter-terrorism legislation would be a step in such an identification process.

To summarise, she said that it was important that the legislation adopted to counter terrorism comply with a state's obligations under IHL. Acts committed following the principles of IHL by state armed forces or by non-state armed groups within the context of an armed conflict were not unlawful under IHL. Deleting the IHL saving clause as proposed in the Bill would have adverse consequences for the application of IHL, so Section 1(4) of the current Act should not be deleted. She emphasised that states should ensure that counter-terrorism legislation does not jeopardise humanitarian action. Parliament should introduce a humanitarian exemption clause to protect impartial humanitarian action carried out by trusted humanitarian and impartial organisations.


The Chairperson said 'humanitarian aid to terrorists' was a huge challenge internationally. She asked Ms Mabeza to clarify exactly what the ICRC meant when they referred to 'humanitarian aid to terrorists."

She added that all the submissions would be studied and the organisations would be invited back to the Committee to discuss their submissions in more depth.

Rev Meshoe asked the ICRC to clarify what kind of assistance they were referring to when they talked about assistance.

ICRC's response

Ms Mabeza said they would be more than happy to come back next week to address the Committee again on questions they might have.

On the issue of what the ICRC meant with 'humanitarian aid to terrorists', she said that the ICRC did not classify people as terrorists. IHL provided humanitarian assistance to all people who were affected by armed conflicts, as humanitarian assistance needed to be impartial. She pointed out that humanitarian assistance was mandated in international law, and by law in South Africa. She emphasised that the ICRC was a humanitarian, impartial, independent organisation and that they were not politically affiliated when they assisted.

She said her previous answer might have touched on the question of the kind of assistance they offered. When they assisted, it was in the form of medical assistance; access to humanitarian goods that were not accessible by governments of other organisations in countries; and restoring families who were affected and separated by conflicts. She was happy to provide more information if need be.

Ms Marekwa asked for clarity on the response that the ICRC did not classify individuals when they sought assistance. When people sought assistance from the Red Cross centres, how did they ensure that people were not running from their countries? Did they have any screening processes?

She responded that they ensured that their services were not for the lack of needed aid to people in need, or the benefit of fugitives. They selected their beneficiaries beforehand to know exactly who required their assistance. They always went into areas with an exact understanding of the type of assistance that was required. They had colleagues and mobile delegates on the spot in the areas to guarantee that the correct services were provided to the correct beneficiaries. They had post-giving monitoring, returning to the communities to ensure that the assistance stayed in the right hands. She emphasised that the ICRC implemented their own assistance and did not have any partners, so they could provide oversight of all their programmes.

STERN on Amendments to Protection of Constitutional Democracy Against Terrorist and Related Activities Amendment Bill

Dr Albertus Schoeman, Sussex Terrorism and Extremism Research Network (STERN), took the Committee through STERN's submission on the Amendments to the Bill.

(See attached document for details).

He started by explaining that the aims of STERN were:

  • To promote research on the causes of terrorism and violent extremism, and how to understand and counter these occurrences;
  • To develop links and partnerships with experts, nationally and internationally, including research institutions, Non-governmental organisations (NGOs), intergovernmental organisations, and policymakers;
  • To generate research on policy, law and practice.

Thereafter, he guided the Committee through STERN's comments and proposals for the Amendment.

In Section 1, he pointed out that there were three parts to the definition of "terrorist activity": (a) act, (b) intimidation/fear, and (c) motive. He said that the amendment proposes to add the following to the definition of terrorist activity: " which was committed, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, to the advancement of an individual or collective political, religious, ideological, or philosophical motive, objective, cause, or undertaking."

He said the Committee should consider removing this reference to a terrorist motive. He pointed out that the international instruments and UN Security Council resolutions generally did not require a special terrorist motive, which may be difficult and burdensome to prove, and criminal law did not normally require proof of motive. The special terrorist motive indeed was what made a terrorist act distinctive from other types of criminality, and there was a legitimate concern that the absence of a motive requirement may make the definition of terrorist activity overly broad. However, such a distinction was more theoretical than one that was borne out by empirical evidence. Carrying out a violent act to inspire terror should be sufficient grounds for prosecution.

He said that many of the most lethal and resilient terrorist groups on the African continent (and beyond) were 'hybrid' groups -- that was to say, groups that were terrorist and heavily involved, directly or indirectly, in a range of organised criminal activities. Terrorists benefited from organised crime financially, logistically and operationally. He reminded the Committee that the UN Security Council had adopted a series of resolutions since 2014, requiring states to counter organised crime and its linkages with terrorist groups, irrespective of whether such crime was domestic or transnational, because of the threat it posed to international peace and security. Therefore, it was essential that any modern definition of terrorist activity was based on emerging and growing empirical data, and reflected the reality that terrorist activity includes involvement in or benefit from organised crime.

In Section 3, he said that the amendment proposed to add the following regarding training for terrorist-related activities:

(4) A person commits an offence if he or she receives training and is aware that such training is, wholly or partly, provided for purposes connected with the commission or preparation of terrorist activities or conventional offenses.

He said that the issue of criminalising training related to terrorist activities was important to address, as it provided an opportunity to interrupt terrorist activity before an attack could occur. In this way, preparation for committing terrorism-related offences should be criminalised, as well as the preparation of a non-specific terrorism-related offence. Regarding training, the Australian Criminal Code Act 19955 in Division 101.2, on providing or receiving training connected with terrorist acts, specifies that:

(3) A person commits an offence under this section even if:

(a) a terrorist act does not occur; or

(b) the training was not connected with preparation for, the engagement of a person in, or assistance in a specific terrorist act; or

(c) the training was connected with preparation for, the engagement of a person in, or assistance in more than one terrorist act.

He said that in this way, the Australian law on terrorist training clarified that the act of training was itself an offence, even if there was no specific attack planned. Terrorist training could also occur online, including on social media platforms. Consequently, the Bill should further consider a clause addressing the provision or receiving of training online.

He proposed the insertion of section 3A - Prohibition of publication with terrorism-related content. STERN welcomed the insertion of a clause affirming the right of journalists and researchers to access terrorism-related content for legitimate professional uses in the public interest in the updated Bill. A major concern around the expansion of terrorism-related laws often lay with its concerns that this would lead to restrictions on freedom of expression.

He pointed out that section 3(2)(e) dealing with the prohibition of publication with terrorism-related content may raise as a defence:

(a) the fact that at the time of the person's action or possession, the person did not know, and had no reason to believe, that the document or record in question contained, or was likely to contain, information of a kind likely to be useful to a person preparing to engage in a terrorist activity; or

(b) the person's action or possession was for the purposes of carrying out work as a journalist, or  academic research.

He emphasised that laws addressing terrorism-related content needed to balance security priorities with democratic rights such as privacy and free speech that were foundational to a well-functioning democracy. Provisions such as this were important for protecting researchers and journalists.

He ended by saying that there was a need to preserve freedom of expression, association, and legitimate opposition, and consider Africa's unique challenges with hybrid groups.

Mr Seabi asked the Committee if they had any inputs or comments on the presentation.

Deputy Minister Mathale asked to be excused from the meeting because he had other matters to attend to.

There were no further comments from the Committee, so Mr Seabi thanked Dr Schoeman for his presentation.

Chairperson's concluding comments

The Chairperson congratulated the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) on the processing and passing the Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) A/Bill. She said the Bill had been passed without any amendments and would go a long way in combating crime using forensic investigative tools and analysis. The Committee was in total support of the Bill.

She said that the draft of the Bill which they were dealing with, was important for the policing environment, and that they had been working with the CSPS on other legislation, such as the draft Second-hand Goods Amendment Bill, the draft Control Animals and Animal Products Bill, and the Firearms Control Amendment Bill. They were going to ask the SAPS and the Civilian Secretariat to come to the Committee to assist them with the SAPS Amendment Bill and the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) Amendment Bill. These were the most important Bills, and the Committee was not going to look at the Firearms Control Amendment Bill until they had dealt with the SAPS Amendment Bill and the IPID Amendment Bill. They were in advanced stages with the various Bills, and she requested that they be brought to the Committee.

The outstanding matters on the SAPS Amendment Bill were the funding and resourcing of CPFs, and she asked for this to be noted. There was a possible solution for the CPFs. They could no longer allow for the non-optimal functioning of the CPFs, and all the Members had indicated that they needed to see functional CPFs. She thanked the National Treasury and the Financial Intelligence Centre for following the Bill with interest.

She thanked the presenters for the submissions that they had received and said that they were waiting for more submissions. She encouraged the Committee to engage with the participants if they had other pressing issues.

The meeting was adjourned.

Share this page: