DNA Board Annual Report 2021/22; SAPS, IPID, CSPS and PSIRA BRRRs

Meeting report

The Chairperson welcomed the Committee, the Civilian Secretariat for Police Service, SAPS, the DNA Board, and the public to the meeting.

The Chairperson said that it was not going to be a long meeting; the Committee had to approve several reports. They were also going to be briefed by the DNA Board on their Annual Performance for 2021/22.

There were apologies for the Minister, the Deputy Minister, and Dr P Groenewald (FF+).

Ms Babalwa Mbengo, Committee Secretary, said that she received no other apologies than those mentioned by the Chairperson.

Mr Takalani Ramaru, Acting Secretary for Police, asked to depart the meeting earlier to attend another meeting.

The Chairperson asked if there were any other apologies from the Committee.

Rev K Meshoe (ACDP) asked to be excused at 10am because he had another meeting to attend.

Before they proceeded with the meeting, the Chairperson had a few important points to bring to the Committee’s attention.

POCDATARA Bill
On the Protection of Constitutional Democracy against Terrorist and Related Activities Amendment (POCDATARA) Bill, the Committee received 25 413 submissions from Mr Rob Hutchinson, Managing Director, DearSA, and the Committee will be briefed by him when they discuss the Bill again next week.

Greylisting has become a threat to South Africa and she urged the Members to finalise the Bill so that it could go to the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) and the President. The DearSA submissions were important, but they were not going to call in any individuals for public hearings or oral presentations.

She asked the Committee for their approval on this.

Mr O Terblanche (DA) asked how they were going to determine what the people who submitted the submission were proposing.

The Chairperson said that Ms Nicolette van Zyl-Gous, Committee Content Advisor, was going to send the Committee more information on that. It was not a substantial addition and she did not think that it was necessary to do a presentation to the Committee.

Classified Kinnear report
She brought to the Committee’s attention that she received news from the Office of the Speaker and the National Assembly table. Mr John Manyange, Senior Procedural Advisor, National Assembly, indicated that top secret clearance was never a requirement in the past [this was in reference to the classified IPID report on the murder of Lt. Gen. Charl Kinnear which Members would need to view through a special appointment]. He discussed the matter with his colleagues, reported back to her, and said it was still not required. She requested that he send an email to her confirming this matter.

On the Kinnear Report, she said she received another email from Mr Manyange that stated that the classified documents that the Speaker’s Office received from IPID were safe for reading for the Committee. The documents that were attached in the email outline the process that would be strictly followed to access the documents. Only full-time Committee Members were allowed to see the documents. This email was going to be forwarded to the Committee and they would have had to arrange a time to review the documents if they wished to do so.

The Kinnear case and the investigation were not going to be compromised and everything was going to be transparent. The Chairperson said that she would seek legal advice whenever uncertain about a particular procedure. She was going to present the reports to the Committee after she received legal advice and after she consulted with all the relevant stakeholders.

She welcomed Ms B Marekwa (ANC) and Mr M Shaik Emam (NFP) to the meeting, as they entered late.

She urged the Committee to set aside a substantial amount of time to read the report [as it was lengthy].

The second part of the IPID report was what the Members requested Ms Jennifer Ntlatseng, Executive Director, IPID, to provide a written explanation as to why the report was classified. She asked Ms van Zyl-Gous to ensure that they received a response.

The Chairperson requested the Minister and the National Commissioner to provide them with a detailed update on all the things that have happened since he received the report, because the number of recommendations in the report did not require the Committee’s approval, but required responses from the Minister and the National Commissioner. After that, they had to respond in writing or brief the Committee on what they had done since they received the report. 

Mr A Whitfield (DA) said that it was unclear why they could not get answers to three simple questions that had nothing to do with the content of the report but rather with how the report was classified.

The questions were: Who classified the report? Why did they classify it? And when was it classified?

He said that the “why” question was partially answered but not to the satisfaction of the Members. He said that the Committee deserved to get answers to these three questions.

The Chairperson said that IPID classified the report. The “why” part of the question was partially covered.
She wrote a letter to the Minister and IPID to give her the explanations in writing. They will work on the report and Members will be allowed access it. If they were not allowed access to its contents, they would demand explanations as to why that was the case.

After the Members have read the report, only then will she schedule a meeting where they would discuss the questions.  

Mr Terblanche asked if the information they received would give them adequate information as to whom they had to contact to see the report, and whether they would have to travel to Cape town to review the report.

The Chairperson said that the email was already sent to the Members and that it contained all the necessary steps and information. It contained the contact details of the persons the Members had to contact to arrange a slot to review the report.

She asked if there were any further comments or concerns.

Ms Marekwa agreed with the Chairperson and said that the Committee must review all the documents and that that would inform them to make substantial and valuable input.

The Chairperson said that it would be impossible to schedule a meeting before they have read all the necessary documents.

Once again, she urged the Members to set aside a substantial amount of time to review the report and all the documents.

The Committee adopted its agenda for the day and minutes of prior Committee minutes.

Consideration of Committee Reports
The Chairperson put up the Committee’s Budgetary Review and Recommendations Report (BRRRs) for the SA Police Service (SAPS), IPID, CSPS, and the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (PSIRA), for consideration and adoption.

Budget Review and Recommendation Report of the Portfolio Committee on Police on the 2021/22 Annual Report of the South African Police Service (SAPS)
The Chairperson pointed out on page six, in the Audit-General's report, that the fruitless and wasteful expenditure to the value of R1.8 billion was still under assessment to determine whether it fitted the definition.

Ms Marekwa said that she did not see mention of the Committee’s request to meet with provincial officials on the performance of a number of the police stations.

Mr Shembeni said that he requested that the Committee meet with the senior management of the SAPS and but there was nothing noting this in the report.

The Chairperson said that the instructions had been given to the relevant parties because there were recommendations to schedule meetings.

Ms Marekwa requested that they get a timeframe for the meetings. She approved the report.

The Chairperson said that the programme of the Committee was going to be sent and the issue raised would be prioritised.

When Members receive the programme, they would have time to view the programme and prioritise the Kinnear matter and other matters. They will also prioritise a day to meet with the Minister and senior management.

The Chairperson asked the Committee Secretaries to take note of this and to ask the Members of the Committee to submit their lists of the police stations.

Mr Terblanche and Mr H Shembeni (EFF) reserved their rights.

The report was adopted.

Budget Review and Recommendation Report of the Portfolio Committee on Police on the Civilian Secretariat for Police Services (CSPS) Performance for the 2021/2022 

There were no amendments.

The report was adopted.

Mr Terblanche, Mr Shembeni, and Rev Meshoe reserved their rights.

Budget Review and Recommendation Report of the Portfolio Committee on Police on the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) Performance for the 2021/2022 Financial year

The Chairperson asked Ms van Zyl-Gous to put the recommendations to National Treasury in bold (on page 16).

On page 17, she asked Ms van Zyl-Gous to make a note that they requested to have a report by 20 November 2022.

The report was adopted.

Budget Review and Recommendation Report of the Portfolio Committee on Police on the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (PSIRA) performance for the 2021/22 financial year

The report was adopted.

After a break, the Committee commenced with the presentation by the DNA Board.

She asked Mr Raymond Sono, Deputy Chairperson, DNA Board, for forgiveness for not introducing and welcoming the Board to the meeting earlier.

Mr Sono introduced the members of the DNA Board who were present in the meeting. She said that the hard work of the Committee was not unnoticed and she thanked them for their assistance and all their work. She said they would like to see more of them and that the Committee should visit the forensic laboratories.

Overview by the DNA Board on their 2021/22 Annual Report
Ms Akhona Ndlela, Acting Head, DNA Board, took the Committee through their 2021/22 Annual Performance (see attached document for details).

She told the Committee that the purpose of this presentation is to brief the Portfolio Committee on Police (PCoP) about the progress on the functioning of the DNA Board in executing its oversight mandate over the operations of the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) and National Forensic DNA Database (NFDD).

She pointed out that the DNA Board had developed its own governance rules and procedures in accordance with Section 15(x)(2) of the DNA Act.

This was supported by the respective sub-committees as provided for in section 15(z)(5) which were further emulated by the TOR’s which provided a framework for the effective and efficient functioning of the Board. She said that the sub-committees were comprised of at least three members, some serving on more than one committee.

1. Ad hoc Committee (Planning Committee). Their goal was to develop a POA to oversee the eight objectives of the Turnaround Strategy of the Division: Forensic Services. Over the longer term, the imperative of the Board would be to determine whether the purpose of the strategy had been realised.

2. Public Relations Sub-Committee. This Committee was there to promote awareness of the Board’s existing functions and mandate; broadening media awareness, as well as expanding an online presence and communication services from a central point. 

The Board has executed its oversight mandate by working with Forensic Services nodal points and completed all oversight reports to ensure an effective DNA database that enhances criminal investigations of the SAPS.

The Board’s Plan of action (POA)  in response to the Division: DFS turnaround strategy aimed at bringing stability to the Forensic Science environment.

She guided the Committee through the identified areas of concern that the Board aimed to monitor in an incremental approach including:
• Down management of ringfenced backlog
• Monitoring and improvement of supply chain and contract management systems  and  processes which include the optimisation of stock levels
• Delays in the approval of the DNA Amendment Bill;
• Delays in the signing of SLA between SAPS and FBI in respect of acquiring CODIS to conduct familial searches;
• Delays in the establishment of dedicated units to follow up and investigate forensic investigative leads; and
• Delays in the rollout of awareness campaigns. 

The implementation of public awareness and stakeholder engagement drive had not yet been operationalised owing to the:
• The lack of a distinguishable brand identity. For example, a logo for the Board has impacted the Board’s ability to create necessary public awareness. The logo was only approved in February 2022.

• The delays in rolling out awareness campaigns meant that the Board had been relatively operating as an unknown entity to the general public and as such affected individuals may not have been familiar with the Board’s mandate or their right to lodge complaints.

Despite this limitation, the Board had, in the financial year, had its logo finalised. Further, the Board received, assessed, and investigated two complaints. One has been successfully resolved whilst the other is still under investigation. She took the Committee through the details of the case still under investigation.

In exercising its oversight mandate, the Board received briefings every quarter, from the Division: Forensic Service of which the Forensic Science Laboratory was a component.

On the National Forensic DNA Database (NFDD), she said that the overall performance and efficacy of the NFDD were judged by several profiles loaded into the various indices. In particular, the goal was to ensure higher loading rates on the convicted offender, arrestee, and crime scene indices.

26 969 profiles were loaded on Crime Scene Index and 138 779 profiles on Arrestee Index.

No Convicted offender sampling took place during this period (pending the finalisation of amendment of the DNA Bill), therefore the 1 236 profiles that were reflected under the convicted index were the profiles of persons who were sampled during arrest and were later convicted.

Only then were the profiles transferred from the “Arrested Index” to the “Convicted Index”.

During the reporting period, there was a significant uptick in the number of forensic DNA profiles loaded onto the various indices of the NFDD vis-à-vis those expunged which was quite encouraging. 

On the compliance by detectives in sampling persons who were arrested for schedule eight offenses, she said that taking buccal samples for prioritised schedule eight offences was now an obligation prescribed by section 36D (1) of the DNA Act effective since 31 January 2022. Until the above period, this had not been a legislated obligation. One could infer that apart from the non-availability of buccal samples that affected the country during the 2018/19 and 2019/20 financial years, this probably was one of the other contributing factors to the low compliance rate by detectives nationally in the sampling of schedule eight arrestees.

She highlighted that Forensic Investigative leads were the outcome of verified candidates of DNA leads that were identified from the comparison search conducted on the NFDD. Forensic DNA investigative leads are a cornerstone of our criminal justice system because they provide investigators with information linking serial and multiple offenders to various crime scenes. This was crucial in a country where the reoffending rate was at its peak. 

She concluded by saying that there were areas that required regular oversight, particularly, strengthening the systems on the management of contracts by the Division: Forensic Services. A lot of strides and continuous improvement have been noted in the general throughput of both the FSL and the NFDD, particularly in the following areas:
• Down management of ringfenced backlog by 76.95%.

• The finalisation of backlog against the incoming number of cases for the reporting period has also shown a significant improvement by 24.85% compared to the previous financial year.

• The maturity and overall performance of the NFDD regarding the loading of profiles on various indices have improved by 13.2% from the previous financial year.

83% Compliance rate by detectives nationally in sampling persons arrested for schedule eight offences.

Further, the Board will engage the National Commissioner in taking full responsibility to ensure there is always a sufficient supply of buccal and crime kits at the station levels, and that relevant personnel is trained in conducting sampling, to fully comply with the obligations of the  Act.

She said that the slow pace at which buccal samples were being processed during receipt and registration was a cause for concern as it was more likely to have a ripple effect on cases being struck off the court roll.

The Board, however, commended the initiative by FSL in collaboration with NPA in which cases on the court roll were prioritised and the output of 10 493.

She briefly pointed out the key areas of focus for 2022/23:
• Quarterly briefings on the DNA Casework Down Management.
• Oversee the implementation of the continuous sampling of Convicted Offenders and implement systems to ensure the swift implementation of retrospective sampling
• Follow up on the establishment of dedicated Units to investigate forensic investigative leads.
• Oversee and Monitor the capacitation of the NFSL and do oversight visits and/or FSL inspections
• Follow up on the finalisation of SLA for CODIS by the National Commissioner.
• Oversee the implementation of optimal supply chain management processes by the FSL.
• Follow up on the finalisation of SLA for CODIS by the National Commissioner.

The Chairperson thanked her for the very good presentation.

Before she allowed the Members to raise their questions to the Committee, she allowed Mr Takalani Ramaru, Acting Secretary for Police Service, CSPS, an opportunity to address the Committee.

Mr Ramaru said that the presentation by the DNA Board truly reflects the work that the Board was doing. The CSPS continued to support the Board in carrying out its mandate, including supporting them when they did oversight visits to laboratories to write up reports of what they experienced. They were working with the Board to ensure their work was marketed to the communities and the public.

Discussion
Mr Whitfield asked the presenter, Ms Ndlela, to navigate to slide 23. He pointed out the first bullet point that read: “The taking of buccal samples for prioritised schedule 8 offences is now an obligation prescribed by section 36D (1) of the DNA Act effective since 31 January 2022”.

To his understanding, that specific amendment had not been signed into law by the President, and the NCOP only finalised their deliberations on that Bill in September.

In her conclusion, Ms Ndlela said it still needed to be signed into law.

The Chairperson said that he had a valid point and that the dates that were presented in the presentation were inconsistent with what the Committee experienced.

The Committee and the CSPS have been a champion for this Bill since 2019. They warned the Minister in 2019 that the term of the previous board was coming to an end on 31 January 2020.

The Minister took no further actions to advertise appointments for the new Board. The DNA Board’s Annual Report said the current Board was appointed in May 2020. According to the Act, the Minister was supposed to table that with Parliament within 14 days.

Mr Whitfield said that he repeatedly asked the Minister when he was going to appoint the new Board and the Board was, in fact, according to Parliament records, only appointed in October 2020, when the names were finally submitted to the Speaker of the National Assembly and the Chairperson of the NCOP.

He asked the Board to clarify this matter because the dates were not lining up and they conflicted with Parliament’s records. He highlighted that the law stated that the Minister has to appoint a Board of ten people not more than five years after the term of the previous Board has come to an end. In this event, that was not the case, as the Board was still going on months into the sixth year before the current Board was appointed.

The Chairperson interrupted Mr Whitfield before he continued with his questions. She asked Mr Ramaru to clarify the matter as the dates were important and she wanted to raise the same issue.

Mr Ramaru asked if they could respond to the question in writing because they just had to get the correct dates in order.

The Chairperson urged him to get the information as soon as possible. She said that she wanted it before the end of the meeting and not in writing.

Mr Ramaru said that he would work on it.

Mr Whitfield continued and said that, just for reference, records indicated that the Board was appointed on 8 October 2020.

The Chairperson said that he was correct.

Mr Whitfield raised the long outstanding matter of the service level agreement with Codus with the FBI, to enhance and improve the database capabilities, to the Committee’s attention. The new National Commissioner of Police had provided no reasons as to why the service level agreement was not signed and the previous National Commissioner failed to address the questions. The item seems to remain on the DNA Board’s agenda. However, they do not have the authority to make it happen. The DNA Board needs to follow this up with the National Commissioner since he was not present in the meeting.

The deliberation on the Amendment Bill was a tremendous victory for the Committee.

He said the Minister’s delay in bringing the legislation to Parliament was extremely concerning. Even more disappointing was the absence of the Board in the build-up and contribution to the hearings.

The Board had to be instructed to attend and it did not reflect well on the Board’s responsibility to account to Parliament. He mentioned that the Committee was introduced to the Board once and that they only appeared before the Committee once. The Board had a duty to report its performance to CSPS and Parliament.

In the first half of 2021, the DNA backlog was ringfenced. He thought it was the right move and that there was tremendous progress on that, all thanks to civil society and the Committee. In the second half of 2021, they had a ringfenced backlog and then they would have been accumulating more samples and case exhibits from the date of that backlog, and that would have led to a second backlog.

He presumed that the Board was monitoring both the current backlog, and the ringfenced DNA one. He asked the Board what the current number of DNA backlogs was since the date that the previous one was ringfenced.

On that matter, the Minister committed to eradicating the backlog by 7 September 2022 and he never indicated whether that was the ringfenced or current backlog since the ringfenced date.

He asked whether or not the Board believed that the ringfenced backlog was going to be dealt with before the end of November, and by when the total backlog will fall within the required 10% international benchmark.

The Chairperson said that the Committee has dealt with the DNA matter for a long time and has not received accurate information. The DNA Board has misled the Committee with inconsistencies in their presentations and in what they have said. She asked for clarity on the DNA backlog and the ringfenced backlog. The DNA backlog was a serious problem that needed to be addressed urgently.

Mr Terblanche said his questions were covered by Mr Whitfield and the Chairperson.

He said that the DNA backlog was a serious matter that needed to be addressed urgently and that they needed a lot of clarity on it. He asked how the DNA backlog affected the court rolls and other matters like that.

He was concerned that he repeatedly raised the issue of who was in charge of the Secretariat and the vacancy of this post but nothing has been done about this.

He asked the Department when they were planning on filling the post because it has almost been a year now. There was a habit in the Ministry of not complying with legislation and not appointing and filling vacant posts at a certain time.

On the final slide, he pointed out the delays in establishing the Forensic Investigative Units to follow up on investigative leads. This was a very important matter and clarity was needed as it was a matter of extreme urgency.

In terms of capacity, he said that two forensic laboratories, one in Gauteng and the other in Cape Town, were currently bearing the load of the whole country.

He highlighted the urgency of finalising the establishment of the other two laboratories, one in the Eastern Cape and one in Kwa-Zulu Natal (KZN). The Committee needed more information and clarity about when the laboratories would be finalised and established.

Mr Shembeni asked what impact the non-functioning of the laboratories had on the DNA backlogs, and what the extent was of the damage that was done to the samples in the laboratory in KZN that was flooded.

Response
Mr Ramaru said that process of appointing a DNA Board Secretariat was finalised and that the appointed candidate was due to start on 1 November 2022.

He said a DNA Bill was processing through Parliament that the Portfolio Committee was currently dealing with. The President issued a proclamation on taking the backlog samples from January 2022. This was done under Section 9 of the Criminal Law Act of 2013 and it was signed by the President on 16 December. The Gazette would be shared with the Committee that dealt with that matter.

Mr Sono addressed the inconsistencies in the backlog and the ringfenced backlog. All the old cases before 1 June 2021 were not expected to be dealt with after 18 months and that was what they were currently working with. They were optimistic that they would have dealt with the old cases by November 2022.

New cases all had different cut-off dates by which they had to be dealt with according to the different categories they were placed in. He said that they were in a case of disaster management when it came to dealing with the backlog. He said that they were moving in a positive direction, although they had to deal with the backlog and the new influx.

The Board will put in the same effort that it was putting into solving the backlog cases, into solving the new current cases as well.

On the matter of the laboratories in KZN and the Eastern Cape: they were not fully fledged. Regardless of the challenges, the laboratory in KZN was fully functioning. The FSL was putting in all its efforts to ensure that both laboratories were functioning. The laboratory in the Eastern Cape was being renewed and was near the fully functioning stage. Both laboratories receive exhibits and reduce these into sample and docket levels. They then submit them to fully-fledged laboratories to do submissions.

Although there were various challenges, he ensured the Committee that the work was proceeding as normal.

At this moment, he could not present the Committee with a precise date on which the backlog would be completed. He assured the Committee again that the ringfenced backlog was being dealt with and that they would be done by November.

The Chairperson allowed Mr Whitfield to raise a question to the Board before he was excused from the meeting.

Mr Whitfield said that the ringfenced DNA backlog had to be dealt with by the end of November because that was stated in the records as being the cut-off date. The Committee will hold the Board and SAPS Forensics accountable.

He said that his question was not answered. The Committee knew about the backlog and that it was ringfenced in June 2021. What he asked was for the exact number of DNA backlog cases that were accumulated since June 2021, and by when this backlog will be dealt with.

He asked whether or not the Board foresaw any financial or funding challenges to ensure the full implementation of the Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) Amendment Bill going forward.

Mr Sono said that the current backlog was 81 291 of which the old ringfenced backlog was 11 000.   Therefore, the current backlog was then 70 291.

At the end of the financial year, with the two quarters they had, they had a finalisation rate of 43%. They were expecting the rate to increase because they were expecting a low number of cases. 

The Chairperson asked for a response to the question on funding.

Ms Marekwa wished the Board good luck on their backlog due date and she said that she hoped they would not receive too many new cases. Hopefully, they would not be overwhelmed with a new influx of backlog. She was pleased to hear that the other laboratories were being renewed to help the other two laboratories who were under a lot of stress. It will be very important and helpful in the future to have more laboratories in every province to deal with their cases.

On the successes of dealing with the backlog, she said the Committee would only believe it when they saw that the load of the detectives’ work was manageable and that they would be able to deal with the cases appearing in court.

She said the Board lacked maintenance of their buildings and resources. They have world-class facilities but they were not being maintained and were run down. She urged the Board to improve the maintenance processes to ensure equal attention was given to all the facilities.

Mr Terblanche said that the presentation that the Board presented to the Committee was rather encouraging but it was discouraging that the members of the Board were unprepared - it was disappointing. The Board seemed to be unaware of the urgency of its role. He urged the Board to give the Committee accurate information.

Mr Sono said that “current” numbers and information had to do with the first two quarters of the 2022/23 financial year and the Board can only provide the information to the Committee on the first two quarters of the 2021/22 financial year.

The Chairperson said that it was clear that this matter was not going to be concluded in the meeting.

She asked Mr Seabi, as the Chief Whip, to include the outstanding matters in the future programme. The DNA Board had to appear before the Committee again, with the Minister, Deputy Minister, and the National Commissioner.

Mr Seabi said that he would put it on the agenda.

The Chairperson said it was important for the Committee to address this matter again.

Mr Terblanche agreed they needed to arrange a follow-up meeting with accurate numbers and information.

The Chairperson said that the Committee did not get answers to several questions. They were going to write to the Minister with all the follow-up questions, then they were going to arrange a meeting with the relevant parties to present a follow-up presentation to the Committee.

She highlighted the importance of the DNA Board in seeking justice.

She requested the Board get to the bottom of all the issues that the Committee raised.

She thanked the DNA Board, Mr Ramaru, his team, and the representatives of the National Commissioner for their time.

There were no further comments from the Members.

The Chairperson thanked the Committee for their engagement and the public, CSPS, and SAPS for their presence at the meeting.

Further details on the Kinnear report and the next meeting with the DNA Board were going to be communicated to the Committee.

She thanked the Committee Secretaries for their hard work and their dedication and Mr Seabi for all his work.

The meeting was adjourned.