National Policing Plan/Strategy; discussion on petition by Ms Mashale regarding alleged mismanagement and corruption in the Free State

This premium content has been made freely available


30 November 2022
Chairperson: Ms T Joemat-Pettersson (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary


The whistle-blower who was sacked by the South African Police Service (SAPS) in February because she allegedly reported instances of corruption within the police, was told by the Committee that her petition to Parliament for protection could not be accepted because it had not been submitted in the correct format.

She had been invited to participate in a virtual meeting to tell her side of the story. She asked the Committee to bear in mind that she was still in hiding, and that she had not had the proper facilities at her disposal, as everything was being done on her phone. She did not trust the SAPS or the State Security Agency to conduct a risk and assessment, and to ensure her safety.

The Committee described several efforts made to assist the whistle-blower in submitting her petition in line with parliamentary protocol, but without success. She was asked to liaise with the Chairperson and the Committee Content Adviser so that they could assist her with all the required documents and procedures.

The SAPS provided details of its National Policing Strategy, after which the Committee raised questions about the deployment of personnel into the different specialised units, and whether the SAPS was considering deploying people straight out of the colleges. They asked about the building and maintenance of police stations, and why the process took so long. A Member also asked for details of the firearms being stored in the SAPS's storage warehouses, and whether they were keeping track of them to ensure that they were not being sold to the public.

Meeting report

There were technical difficulties, so the meeting was delayed. The Chairperson welcomed all the Members of the Portfolio Committee, the South African Police Service (SAPS), the Minister’s Office, and members of the public to the meeting, and thanked them for their patience.

She said they would start the meeting with inputs from Ms Mary De Haas, human and political rights activist, and Ms Patricia Mashale, the SAPS whistle-blower, to the Portfolio Committee on Police.

She thanked all the Members of Parliament, the Committee, the National Commissioner, and the Civilian Secretariat of Police, for the fact that the Protection of Constitutional Democracy against Terrorist Activity (POCDATARA) Bill was passed the day before in the National Assembly and that it had been referred to the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) now. The NCOP was going to have to meet, and she hoped they were going to do this before 13 December.

The Agenda was considered and adopted.

The minutes of the meeting on 23 November was flighted and adopted.

The Chairperson said that she had received apologies from Mr A Whitfield (DA), Dr P Groenewald and  Ms M Molekwa (ANC), and the Minister and Deputy Minister had sent in apologies as they had other meetings to attend.

Protection of whistle-blowers

The Chairperson said the Committee had looked at several different documents, and the communication between themselves and Ms Mashale. They had received various complaints that were of serious concern to the Committee. The protection of whistle-blowers in South Africa was an important matter. The State Capture Committee had identified whistle-blowers as a weapon in the fight against corruption. It had been emphasised that the actions of whistle-blowers had played a vital role in exposing many of the activities that were part of State Capture. Whistle-blowers needed to be encouraged to report any instances of corruption and fraud, and they needed to be protected from victimisation, prejudice or harm.

She said that the Department of Justice (DoJ) was reviewing the Protected Disclosures Act and the Witness Protection Act to give effect to the Commission’s recommendations on the protection of whistle-blowers. In doing so, it would ensure that whistle-blowers received the protection they needed and deserved under the United Nations Convention Against Corruption, and that they had immunity from criminal or civil action arising from honest disclosures.

She thanked Ms Mashale, on behalf of the Committee, for the public disclosures she had made. She said that the Committee had received complaints and allegations that were made against the SAPS. SAPS was now requested to respond to these complaints and allegations so that the Committee could hear their side of the story as well.

The Portfolio Committee had invited Ms Mashale to appear before the Committee to raise some of her concerns. The Chairperson mentioned that Ms Mashale had been dismissed as a police clerk in February because she allegedly reported instances of corruption within the SAPS. Since then, she has been invited to appear on various news channels, and the Committee has received all the coverage from the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC). This coverage would be made available to the Members if they wished to view it.

She said it should be noted that the Committee had been engaging with Ms Mashale and Ms De Haas, who had been acting on behalf of Ms Mashale, since early 2022.

The allegations had been forwarded to the SAPS and Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID).

The Chairperson said that Ms Mashale had been requested to send a petition to the Speaker. However, they had not received a petition from her. The petition she sent out to the public received more than 20 000 messages of support. The Chairperson emphasised that a petition to the public was not a petition to Parliament. They had given Ms Mashale several opportunities to send them the petition, but had not received anything. They had requested that she send them a copy of her protected disclosure, and had also requested the Ministers to send them a copy, but they had not received anything either.

The South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) had advised the SAPS that Ms Mashale had made a protected disclosure. Because they did not have a formal petition to the Speaker, she had requested that Ms Mashale and Ms De Haas address the Committee. She said that if one did not have a petition to the Speaker, then that petition must be referred to the Committee, and if one was unable to do so, one was not allowed to engage with the Committee.

She said that the public was not allowed to participate once the Committee was in session, and was allowed to participate only if they were invited to do so. One had to petition the Speaker to be allowed to participate in a meeting, and they had received a petition from neither Ms De Haas nor from Ms Mashale. The Chairperson had permitted them to address the Committee because this was a matter of utmost importance which had been brought to her attention by the ANC and opposition parties.

She had granted them an opportunity to address the Committee, but once they had addressed the Committee, the Members were not going to be allowed to raise any questions to them. After they had addressed the Committee, the SAPS was going to be allowed to make their presentation. Only then would the SAPS be allowed to give a response. She asked the Members if they agreed with this.

Rev K Meshoe (ACDP) asked why Ms Mashale and Ma De Haas had not made their submission to the Committee when they were allowed to do so.

The Chairperson said that that was why she had allowed them an opportunity to address their case, and not to speak on their behalf.

Rev Meshoe asked when the Committee was going to be allowed to ask them questions.

The Chairperson said that they were not able to ask them questions because no petition had been submitted to the Committee. Ms Mashale and Ms De Haas were going to address the Committee, along with SAPS, and then the Committee was going to engage with the SAPS’s presentation. If Ms De Haas and Ms Mashale then still wished to send the Committee a petition, they were free to do so.

Mr O Terblanche (DA) said that it was a serious matter that they were dealing with, and it was a pity that they were unable to engage with the matter fully because no petition had been submitted. However, it was good that they would be able to hear their side of the story.

The Chairperson said that she had made a concession. Ms Nicolette van Zyl-Gous, the Committee Content Advisor, had been in contact with Ms Mashale and Ms De Haas to receive a petition and the protected disclosure. Up until now, she had not received anything for the Speaker. The first document they received was corrupted and they were unable to open it. Ms Mashale and Ms De Haas were then given several opportunities to re-send the documents. She was not going to discuss this matter any further, and if the Committee wanted more clarity on this issue, they were more than welcome to request more information.

The Chairperson reiterated that she was overruling the rules of Parliament by allowing Ms Mashale and Ms De Haas to address the Committee during the meeting. She asked the Committee if they agreed with this.

Ms L Moss (ANC) said there must be a reason they had not sent the petition to the Chairperson or the Speaker.

The Chairperson said that they had made a submission for today, but it was not a petition. The petition that was sent was a public petition, and not a petition to the Committee. The Office of the Speaker had also engaged with Ms Mashale, but they had received no petition.

The Chairperson allowed Ms Mashale and Ms De Haas to address the Committee and decide among themselves who was going to address the Committee first. She said they decided to do this in a virtual meeting to hinder any further threat to Ms Mashale’s life.

Parliament unable to access whistle-blower's petition

Ms Mashale greeted the Committee, and thanked the Chairperson for allowing her the opportunity to address the Committee.

On the issue of the petition, she said that she sent a petition to Parliament on 9 November. Parliament had indicated that they were unable to access the document. She then sent the document again, and they were unable to open the document because they did not have the programme to access it. She had then communicated with Ms Babalwa Mbengo, Committee Secretary, who had asked her to send the document to her. The document was sent to Ms Mbengo on 11 November, who indicated that she had received the document and was going to forward it to the Speaker.

She allowed Ms De Haas to address the Committee first.

The Chairperson said there was a particular format that the petition had to be in, and whatever she had sent to the Speaker was not in the correct format. They were very strict on the guidelines because a petition could be used as a legal document. The Committee and the Speaker’s Office had gone through the document she had sent and made it very clear to her that what they had received was not a petition. The Chairperson asked Ms Van Zyl-Gous to clarify this matter.

Ms Van Zyl-Gous said that the Chairperson was correct. They had engaged with Ms Mashale and explained that the petition that they wanted to refer to Parliament, as stated by the Office of the Speaker, had to be supported by certain software, because the links could not be opened. Ms Mbengo had forwarded the document to the Office of the Speaker, but they were still unable to open the links. They requested Ms Mashale to re-send the document and were still waiting for Ms Mashale to submit the petition to the Office of the Speaker in the correct format.

The Chairperson pointed out that Ms Mashale had voiced on social media platforms that she had documented proof of her allegations. They had asked her to send the documentary proof of the allegations, but the Committee had not received any documents. She said they were not going back and forth on this matter any further.

Mr Terblanche asked if they were going to be able to do justice to the matter if it was built on the premise that no petition was submitted in the correct format and with the correct software. The complainant was supposed to be supported by Parliament, irrespective of whether they were able to submit the petition in the correct format. Many people in the public sector did not always have access to the correct software.

The Chairperson said that Ms Van Zyl-Gous was competent in her field and had engaged with this matter several times. Up until today, they had no documents or documentary proof -- and all they had was a statement. They could either listen to Ms Mashale and Ms De Haas, or this matter could be postponed to another day.

Mr H Shembeni (EFF) said they had been asked to attend to this matter for a long time. If they were unable to address Ms Mashale and Ms De Haas, it was going to be difficult for the Committee to conclude this matter. If Ms Mashale said that she had sent the document to Ms Mbengo, who had then forwarded it to the Speaker, he was confused about where they stood on the matter.

Petition against lack of assistance

The Chairperson requested that they show the petition they received to the Committee. The petition that Ms Mbengo had received was a petition against the Committee for failing to assist her. She read out:

I have started this petition in protest against the President of the Republic of South Africa, the Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee of Police, the Secretary of the Portfolio Committee of Police, and the Executive Director of IPID, following various letters of complaints I sent to them to no avail.”

This was the petition that they had received -- it was a petition against the Portfolio Committee on Police, and they were unable to deal with a petition that was directed against the Committee. If this was the petition that Ms Mashale referred to, it was not a petition about her situation but against this Committee. The petition stated that:

Regardless of the threats that were identified against my life, I still did not receive any assistance from the above-mentioned. Instead, SAPS advised the Chairperson of the Portfolio. Committee of Police that could not be afforded protection because the format of the threat assessment was not correct.”

The Chairperson said that she had not been advised by the SAPS that Ms Mashale could not be afforded protection because of the format of the threat assessment. The threat assessment was not done by the Committee, but by the SAPS. They had also indicated this to Ms Kinnear, in the case of her husband, Col Kinnear, where the SAPS had done three different investigations, showing that Ms Kinnear did not qualify for protection under the risk and threat assessment. In the SAPS’s presentation, they would have an opportunity to respond to this.

She pointed out to Ms Mashela that she was petitioning against the Committee, the Secretary of the Committee, and the Executive Director of IPID. If this was the case, they were not allowed to discuss the petition, as the Chairperson and the Secretary were not allowed to hear what she was petitioning against, and it had to be referred to a different Committee.

Mr M Shaik Emam (NFP) said that the notion was clear -- that the Committee was not allowed to discuss this petition until the matter was investigated by someone else. Unless the petition was completely withdrawn, he was clear on where the Committee stood on the matter.

The Chairperson said that it was important for them to allow Ms Mashale and Ms De Haas to have an opportunity to address the Committee so that they could hear their side of the story. If she was going to send a report to the Speaker on behalf of the Committee, it was not going to be the correct one and that was why she wanted Ms Mashale and Ms De Haas to address the Committee.

Mr Terblanche said that he agreed with what his colleague had said. Ms Mashale had to indicate to the Committee whether or not she wanted to present the correct document to the Committee.

The Chairperson asked Ms Mashale and Ms De Haas whether they intended to present a petition to the Committee, and not against the Committee.

Whistle-blower's response

Ms Mashale said she wanted to present the Committee with a proper petition. She asked the Committee to bear in mind that she was still in hiding and did not have the proper facilities at her disposal, as everything was being done on her phone. She was going to ask Ms De Haas to submit a petition on her behalf.

Ms De Haas said that she was confused. In her understanding, the petition that had been submitted to the Committee was the one they had requested, and she was unaware of the procedures that had to be followed to submit a petition. She had submitted evidence and various documents to Parliament. She had been shocked when Parliament had not reached out to Ms Mashale, since she had written to them about the threats to her life.

Ms Mashale’s public petition had been done out of frustration because she had received no protection, even when she wrote to the President himself. After her last letter, she had been invited, along with Ms Mashale, to go to Cape town to make a presentation. Ms Mashale had been too afraid to do so, and it had been done remotely. She would look at all the correspondence, as there was a great deal of misunderstanding.

Committee's letter specified details required

The Chairperson asked Ms van Zyl-Gous to show the Committee the letter sent to Ms Mashale and Ms De Haas in March 2022.

The Chairperson read out the letter to the Committee, stating exactly what they wanted from Ms Mashale and Ms De Haas.

Ms De Haas said that she had received the letter, and had forgotten about the letter. She was not aware at that time that they were going to make a petition. She apologised for her negligence. She said that they would do the petition if they needed to.

The Chairperson said they were just as concerned about this matter and Ms Mashale’s life. She asked Ms De Haas and Ms Mashale to prepare the petition, and once it had been sent to the Speaker and referred to the Committee, they would then discuss the matter.

Mr Terblanche said that it was important for the Committee to look into the safety of Ms Mashale, and to ensure that her life was protected.

The Chairperson said that the Committee could not instruct the police to offer Ms Mashale protection, but they could request that a threat analysis and risk assessment be done.

Threat and risk assessment

Gen Fannie Masemola, National Commissioner, SAPS, said that a threat and risk assessment had been done, but the correct procedures had not been followed and the report was not accepted. He advised that it would not be a good idea for a threat and risk assessment to be done by the SAPS. He proposed that he could request the State Security Agency (SSA) to do the specific threat and risk assessment.

The Chairperson said that she would prefer that the SSA did the threat and risk assessment, since Ms Mashale did not trust the SAPS and had raised complaints against them. This was exactly what they had done for Ms Kinnear -- after the three assessments by the SAPS, they had still done an independent assessment. The National Commissioner would communicate with the Office of the Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee, Ms De Haas, and Ms Mashale on the threat and risk assessment that was going to be done by the SSA. She asked the Committee if they were satisfied with that.

She told Ms Mashale and Ms De Haas that they had to prepare their petition and contact all the relevant parties. This was a serious matter, and they wanted to address and conclude the matter in due course.

Ms Mashale said that she did not want to expose herself to any state security agency, as she had stated in her complaint that state security was among those involved in the unlawful seizure of her mobile phone. Warrant Officer Maasdorp of Crime Intelligence had already done a threat assessment. The SAPS in the Free State had refused to accept the assessment because they were implicated in it. A second assessment had been done and signed. She urged the Committee to call Officer Maasdorp to give them clarity on the assessment that he had done, and why it was rejected. She emphasised again that she did not want to expose herself to the SSA, and that her phone was still in the position of the SAPS. She did not trust the SSA or the SAPS, but only Officer Maasdorp. He had been pressured to give away information regarding her location, to which he had refused to answer. He had then been put on trial, but found not guilty.

The Chairperson interrupted Ms Mashale and asked her to send all the evidence that she had to Ms Van Zyl-Gous, for them to take up this matter. Certain processes had to be followed, and she urged her to follow the procedures for the Committee to assist her. If she cooperated with the Committee, they would do their utmost best to assist her.

Ms De Haas was still uncertain about what the Committee wanted. She said that Ms Mashale had reported the allegations of corruption against the Free State police management to the National Commissioner, which was the correct procedure.

The Chairperson interrupted Ms De Haas, and asked her to interact with her, the Chairperson, and Ms Van Zyl-Gous so that they could assist her with all the documents and procedures.

Ms Moss said that Ms De Haas and Ms Mashale had to take the advice that the Committee gave them so that they could move forward on this matter.

The Chairperson said they had the invitation to be assisted by the Chairperson and Ms Van Zyl-Gous.

SAPS on the National Policing Strategy

Maj Gen Leon Rabie, Component Head: Strategic Management, SAPS, guided the Committee through the National Policing Strategy.

He introduced the National Development Plan, Vision 2030. He said that it set 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, led by an effective criminal justice system, which must deliver quality and professional services in an integrated, coordinated, effective and efficient manner.

He said that the National Policing Strategy (NPS), as endorsed by the SAPS’ top management, was approved by the National Commissioner on 21 September. In addition to a monitoring tool, the NPS annual operational plan was distributed to all key business units for implementation on 23 September.

The strategic intent was to create a safe and secure environment conducive to social and economic stability, supporting a better life for all. The development of the NPS was premised on the tone set by the President during his 2022 State of the Nation Address (SoNA), the direction that the Minister of Police had provided, and the priorities that were identified by the recently appointed National Commissioner of the SAPS, Gen Masemola, who took up office on 1 April. They recognised the need to align with government’s trajectory of building on the foundation of the economic reconstruction and recovery plan, advancing the National Development Plan and the district development model (DDM). The  SAPS, through this NPS, reaffirmed its determination to prevent, combat and investigate crime and to consciously reinforce the general public’s feeling of being safe and secure.

He said that the manifestation of a specific crime threat required the SAPS to initiate an appropriate response that included a comprehensive analysis of the identified threat. An appropriate operational approach must be identified, clearly identifying the objectives to be achieved. Planning the operation must focus on all five components of the planning doctrine, irrespective of the nature of the threat. The execution of the operations must ensure the coordination of work, according to the planned approach. Progress must be reported regularly, and actions implemented to address areas of underperformance or deviation from set objectives. In conclusion, the outcome and impact of operations must be evaluated to inform plans or to identify best practices for implementation.

The SAPS had to select the appropriate operational approach informed by the analysis of the identified crime threat: conventional policing, a geographical approach, or an organised crime approach.

After the appropriate approach was selected, they had to follow certain steps in the planning doctrine:


Every crime operation or project would have unique intelligence and information requirements, informed by the crime threat and nature of the operation. The aim was to ensure that all operations and projects were guided by sufficient intelligence and information. Intelligence must be gathered continually, on current and emerging crime threats.

Proactive policing and visibility

Where appropriate, the presence of the police should be increased for a specified period to serve as a deterrent and disrupt criminal activities. The aim was to respond to incidents of crime within the shortest possible time. The efforts of the various capabilities, including other stakeholders and force multipliers, must be effectively coordinated. The involvement of, and collaboration with, stakeholders and force multipliers must be planned according to the current crime threat and other operational requirements.

Combating and reaction

Every crime operation and project would have unique requirements related to deploying and utilising specialised capabilities. These requirements would be informed by the specific crime threat and associated operational requirements. These unique requirements would also inform the nature and duration of deployments. Deployments may range from a couple of hours to weeks.


Successful prosecution of a case/s depends on the quality of the investigation and optimal utilisation of all stakeholders in the value chain. The investigation of crime may be approached as a single case, multiple cases in the form of a major investigation, or a project comprising several cases.

Stakeholder management:

Depending on the nature and extent of an operation, various stakeholders may be involved to prevent, combat, or investigate the identified threat. Relations with these stakeholders must be effectively managed to yield optimal results.

He said the successful execution of operations was highly dependent on the availability of the right type of resources, at the right time and at the right location. Assuming that resources would be available placed operations at risk and would compromise the achievement of objectives. Planning capacitation requires understanding all resource types, including human and physical resources and facilities. It also included recognising the importance of the various resources and procurement and lifecycle management.

He identified six focus areas for all people to feel safe and to ensure social and economic stability, and guided the Committee through every key focus area, along with the key deliverables under each area.:

  • Focus Area 1: Responding to threats to the territorial integrity of the state.
  • Focus Area 2: Responding to threats to the authority of the state.
  • Focus Area 3: Prevention and investigation of a crime that threatens the economy of South Africa.
  • Focus Area 4: Prevention and investigation of a crime that threatens the well-being and safety of all people in South Africa.
  • Focus Area 5: Stakeholder management and active citizenry.
  • Focus Area 6: Capacitation of the SAPS to execute its constitutional mandate


(See attached document for details).

The Chairperson thanked the members of SAPS for their insightful presentation and opened the floor for discussion.


The Chairperson expressed her gratitude to Mr Seabi and the Members for passing the POCDATARA Bill in the National Assembly -- and it was now with the NCOP. Mr Seabi was going to assist in the process with the NCOP and they were hoping to pass it before the end of the year. It was a long and timely process, and she thanked all the Members who had been involved in its passing.

She asked if the Members had any comments or questions about the presentation.

She asked the National Commissioner if he could give the Committee a summary of the policing plan and strategy.

Mr Terblanche congratulated the police on their comprehensive plan and wished them well with its implementation. It was important to have police who were competent and professional in implementing their plans and fighting crime.

He pointed out that the President had mentioned that they wanted to half the crime rate by 2030, and asked if that was what this plan had been built on.

He said that illegal mining was becoming a serious issue in the country that needed to be addressed. Oversight had been done in certain areas, but as far as he was aware, this would be discussed under the organised crime approach.

He said Gen Rabie had mentioned the issue of infrastructure development. This was still an ongoing issue with the Department. The Committee had engaged with the Minister of Public Works and Infrastructure, but she had not been properly prepared and informed on that day. The Committee was therefore unable to engage with the issues properly. Urgent attention had to be given to the maintenance of existing police stations and the building of new ones, especially in rural areas where people were far removed from police stations.

Regarding police vehicles, he suggested that the Department should perhpas look into implementing or developing new ways of fleet management and the sourcing of the fleet.

The Chairperson highlighted that a lot of effort had been put into the National Policing Strategy, and the Committee would like to see a progress report on this.

Mr Shembeni said that they needed to look into the circumstances of the police in respect of their buildings. He acknowledged that they were waiting for the Department of Public Works, but this matter had to be put into the hands of the SAPS. He had heard that Public Order Policing (POP) was getting 4 000 members. He suggested that SAPS needed to identify people in the colleges and put them straight into the different units. In this way, they would be able to have competent people in vacancies. There were people in certain divisions who were not even able to write.

The SAPS had not followed the resource allocation guide, as certain stations lacked the required resources. They needed to ensure that the SAPS followed the resource allocation guide.

Referring to the building of police stations, he pointed out that many of the stations being built had not been finished yet. The Department had to prioritise this, and they had to have their own resources. They could not keep on renting old "apartheid houses" and use them as police stations.

He highlighted the importance of deploying the right people into the right positions. They needed hands-on personnel, and not just people who sat around in offices.

He asked if there was any plan to visit all the SAPS storage facilities where the firearms were being kept, to ensure that no firearms were being sold to the public.

SAPS's response

Gen Masemola responded that illicit mining was a big issue and did fall under the category of organised crime. The SAPS had a team that was focusing on this matter.

They were addressing the issue of infrastructure development, and it was high on their priority list. Unfortunately, they were dependent on the Department of Public Works, and various promises had been made, but they were slow with the implementation process.

A good point has been raised by the Committee on the matter of fleet management and acquiring police vehicles. They would do benchmarking tests to determine which models were the best, and would advise accordingly thereafter.

He would ask Lt Gen Puleng Dimpane, Chief Financial Officer (CFO), SAPS, to speak on taking personnel straight from the colleges.

To boost the morale of the members, they were going to travel between the provinces to do climate studies. During this month, they were in the process of filling vacant posts. 3 670 members had been promoted. They were in the process of asking the National Treasury to aid them in improving the condition of the members.

They were going to finalise the organisational restructuring in due course.

On the firearms in the SAPS storage warehouses, he said that they had embarked on a new process, and were in the final stages of it.

Lt Gen Dimpane said the family violence, child protection and sexual offences (FCS) units from Project 10 000 would be implemented from 13 December. They had 375 personnel that had been allocated to the FCS, and 719 that had been allocated to the detectives, together with the 4 000 that were allocated to POP. These groups would be doing workplace exposure for six months, and thereafter they would be placed in their specialised units. 

Referring to new ways of resourcing their fleet, she said they had asked their research unit to conduct a study to assist the Department, as this was a priority. As soon as they received a response from the research unit, they would implement whatever the research unit recommended.

They had set a target for the building of police stations which they aimed to meet in three years. They were dependent on other departments, but had opened up discussions and interventions with them. They had to take note that it was going to be a timely process, and that they were considering rural areas. They were also looking into mobile police stations while they were in the process of building new police stations. They would keep the Committee up to date on the whole process.

On allocating resources and personnel to police stations, Gen Masemola said that the SAPS used a fixed, established system that considered the uniqueness of the areas.

Concluding remarks

The Chairperson thanked the Committee for their input and said it was a good way to end the year. They had been able to pass a number of pieces of legislation, and they had had a good year of public participation. She thanked the National Commissioner and his team, the Chief Whip and the Committee, and the Committee Secretaries. She congratulated all the Members for contributing to making South Africa a better and safer place. She wished everyone a happy and blessed festive season.

The meeting was adjourned.

Share this page: