Committee programme

Police Oversight, Community Safety and Cultural Affairs and Sport (WCPP)

27 August 2024
Chairperson: Mr T Walters (DA)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

Video

The Standing Committee on Community Safety, Police Oversight, Cultural Affairs, and Sport, in the Western Cape Provincial Parliament (WCPP), met to finalise its Oversight Programme for the 2024 calendar year, plan oversight visits, and address administrative matters like board nominations for the Western Cape Language Committee and Cultural Commission. Key resolutions included seeking legal advice on the Committee’s authority to engage with municipal law enforcement, focusing oversight visits on crime hotspots and reviewing past practices for board nominations. The Committee agreed to target the worst-performing police precincts for oversight, prioritise high-crime areas and streamline the nomination and interview process. Minutes from previous meetings were adopted. Future minutes will focus on key actions and decisions.

Meeting report

The Chairperson opened the meeting. He confirmed that a quorum had been reached. He welcomed the Members, mentioning that some were delayed due to the weather. The main purpose of the meeting was to finalise the oversight programme, including valuable contributions received. He added that the biggest challenge would be fitting everything in and ensuring the intent behind the submissions was addressed properly.

Further, the Chairperson highlighted other housekeeping matters, including making recommendations on the Police Needs and Priorities (PNP) report to the Minister for Police Oversight and Community Safety. He also noted that the Committee needed to address board nominations for the Western Cape Cultural Commission and the Western Cape Language Committee, which are due to be advertised. He confirmed that there was a set of minutes that required approval.

An apology from Ms B Van Minnen (DA) was received.

The Chairperson asked if there were any other apologies or issues he needed to be aware of and confirmed that the handout, containing the submissions received, had been sent out.

Committee Oversight Programme for 2024

The Chairperson asked the Members to review the document and ensure that all the input had been captured, giving them a few minutes to do so. He noted that some submissions involved physical oversight visits, while others required content-driven meetings. The Chairperson suggested combining these meetings to create a link between them and asked for comments on the document, including any omissions or highlights.

Mr M Booysen (DA) responded that he was happy with the content and suggested that the Chairperson follow through with the idea of conducting oversight visits first, which would then provide more content for discussion based on what was observed on-site.

The Chairperson proposed that, to guide their thinking, they first examine the dates and times available for the oversight meetings. He suggested looking at the available time slots in the calendar, noting that they could focus on the key themes once they had clarity on that. He observed that there seemed to be alignment between what various Members had proposed and suggested they also consider the geographic locations where the oversight visits were being suggested. He stated that these three factors — timing, key themes, and geography — would help build a robust oversight programme.

The Chairperson asked the Procedural Officer to provide guidance on available times on the calendar up to the end of the financial year.

Mr Waseem Matthews, the Procedural Officer (PO), responded and explained that the dedicated slot for this Committee was on Tuesdays from 9:00 to 12:00 in week two, with the next available slot being on 10 September 2024. He also mentioned that slots were also available on Wednesdays for oversight visits but noted that guidance from the parliamentary programme would be required to avoid clashes with other Committees, particularly priority meetings.

He added that if, for example, a budget Committee or similar sat on a Wednesday, it could affect Members from the current Committee, as 3 or 4 Members might be unable to attend. The dedicated slot was every second week and for any additional slots, a request would need to be made to the Chief Whip. Mr Matthews mentioned that quick submissions would facilitate easier arrangements.

He highlighted that there was no scheduled activity on 11 September, which might be a possibility if the request was submitted early. He also suggested the option of requesting swap dates, if necessary, with other Chairpersons in the same cluster. The parliamentary programme extended to 25 September, but with 24 September being Heritage Day, the Committee would lose one slot completely.

Mr Matthews continued, noting that September would lead into the annual report period starting on 7 October and running through to the end of the month. He cautioned that this would be a very busy time, with Members potentially sitting every day or every second day for full Committee sessions with departments and entities. He suggested that, where gaps appeared in the programme, there could be opportunities for oversight visits, provided the Chairperson consulted the programme and ensured member availability.

He concluded that after the annual report period, the Committee would enter the adjustment budget phase, which would consist of short meetings, typically 90 minutes long. He concluded by saying that after the adjustment period, the normal Week One and Week Two slots would resume, and towards December, Members would be sitting in the House for all the votes.

The Chairperson began by acknowledging the challenge of scheduling oversight visits within their allocated time slots. He pointed out that their 9:00 to 12:00 time slots allowed for three hours of oversight visits, which was limiting, especially if the following meetings were content-driven. He asked about the possibility of using weekends for oversight visits, though he acknowledged the potential complications related to constituency responsibilities.

Mr Matthews responded by highlighting that weekend activities would raise issues around staffing and contracts, matters outside his remit. He noted that Committee activities typically occurred during designated slots from Tuesday to Friday, with Monday reserved for constituency work. While there had been exceptions in the past, any decision to schedule weekend activities would require further consultation.

The Chairperson thanked Mr Matthews for the clarification and opened the floor for input.

Mr Booysen suggested looking into cluster visits and proposed using the existing 9:00 to 12:00 time slots, while potentially negotiating with other Committees for access to the 1:00 to 4:00 slot on Tuesdays. He reasoned that this could allow both standing Committees to engage in the same activities, easing the scheduling burden.

The Chairperson summarised the discussion, stating that they should utilise the Tuesday morning slots and explore the possibility of extending meetings into the afternoon through negotiation with other Committees. He also suggested they would likely need to find additional time later in the programme.

He then proposed that crime intelligence be the focus of their first oversight visit, as it was a theme that resonated throughout various contributions. He linked crime intelligence to issues such as gangsterism, extortion, drug distribution and organised crime. He proposed visits to key locations like the Law Enforcement Advancement Programme (LEAP) Command Centre and the forensic centre, tying these visits to broader content engagements.

Ms A Cassiem (EFF) agreed with the Chairperson, stressing the importance of addressing crime intelligence, particularly concerning extortion, drug-related crimes and the gang unit. She also suggested requesting a list of questions or specific reports from the departments beforehand to ensure that the Committee received comprehensive answers during their meetings.

The Chairperson proposed dedicating at least two Committee slots to oversight visits, including physical visits to the LEAP Command Centre, the forensic centre and several police stations in affected areas like Mitchells Plain and Khayelitsha. He also suggested following up on these visits with content-driven meetings, where the Committee would discuss crime intelligence in more detail. He emphasised the importance of being prepared with questions in advance for these visits to ensure meaningful engagement.

He proposed arranging the oversight visits before the Annual Reports, proposing two mornings for the physical visits and a follow-up content-driven meeting focusing on crime intelligence. He asked the Members if this approach was clear and made sense.

Mr Ngqentsu expressed concerns about the time limitations in conducting oversight visits, stating that, based on his experience, a briefing alone could take one to two hours. He suggested that it would be more feasible to visit only one or two sites per day, to allow for both a briefing and a debriefing while the information was still fresh in the Members' minds. His preference was for one site visit per day, believing that this would lead to more tangible outcomes for the Committee.

The Chairperson acknowledged the concern and shared that there was a collective ambition to accomplish more within the available time. He proposed focusing on one institution per visit to ensure thorough engagement, while suggesting the possibility of adding additional oversight slots to the schedule, such as on Mondays. He emphasised the importance of crime intelligence as a key theme and proposed that both content-driven oversight meetings and physical oversight visits be dedicated to this issue. The Chairperson recommended one visit per morning to locations such as the LEAP Command Centre and certain police stations, while considering the content-driven meetings for follow-up discussions.

Mr Ngqentsu further suggested that the forensic laboratory should not be the Committee’s first visit. He recommended that the Committee engage with the police, particularly the detectives, before visiting the laboratory to better understand the challenges they face. This would provide a more informed perspective on the work being conducted at the laboratory.

Ms W Kaizer-Philander (DA) supported the idea of a bottom-up approach, suggesting that police station visits should be based on relevant data, rather than random selections. She also proposed that the Committee consider police stations outside of the metro area, ensuring that visits reflect the province's diverse needs.

The Chairperson agreed this approach would provide a clearer structure for the Committee's work. He then summarised the plan to visit a few police stations first, gather information, and follow up with visits to the forensic centre and the LEAP Command Centre. He also highlighted the need to incorporate rural components into the visits, ensuring that the Committee did not focus solely on Cape Town.

Mr Matthews added that it could be beneficial to visit two police stations per session once the Members were familiar with the process. He suggested they use virtual briefings with district officials to gain a broader understanding before making physical visits. Given the extensive nature of these facilities, he also highlighted the need for dedicated attention when visiting locations like the Plattekloof laboratory and the LEAP Command Centre.

Mr Ngqentsu then stressed the importance of reviewing reports from previous Committees, which could provide valuable insights and help the current Committee build on past work. He believed that this would allow the Committee to approach the oversight visits with a fresh perspective, informed by the challenges identified in earlier reports.

The Chairperson agreed, noting that the Committee’s preparation, including reviewing these reports, would be essential in shaping the oversight visits. He proposed starting with police stations where crime intelligence was a key concern, using this as a foundation for further discussions and visits.

Mr Ngqentsu and Mr Booysen both emphasised the importance of data-driven decisions in selecting which police stations to visit, ensuring that crime statistics informed the Committee’s work. Mr Booysen also suggested that, when visiting police stations, the Committee should consider other aspects under its purview, such as sport and cultural facilities, to address multiple issues in one visit.

The Chairperson proposed a simple strategy: the Committee should visit the police station with the worst crime statistics in Cape Town and the worst in a rural area, using data to inform these choices. He noted that this approach would allow the Committee to address crime in both urban and rural settings, ensuring a comprehensive oversight programme. He invited further discussion from the Members on this proposal.

Mr Ngqentsu supported the approach of visiting police stations in rural areas, such as the Central Karoo in the Western Cape, but emphasised the need to consider resource implications. He proposed that when visiting rural areas, the Committee should spend more than one day, covering multiple portfolios such as cultural and sport facilities. This would maximise the effectiveness of the visits and ensure that the Committee gain a holistic understanding of the area.

Ms Kaizer-Philander expressed a slightly different view, noting that towns like Paarl and Wellington should not be excluded simply because they are closer to the metro area. She stressed that decisions should be guided by crime data, focusing on crime hotspots, whether they are inside or outside the metro. According to previous briefings, crime is increasing outside the metro and the data should direct the Committee to the area’s most in need of attention, regardless of their location.

The Chairperson summarised the approach by stating that the Committee would begin by visiting the worst police precinct in Cape Town and the worst precinct outside of Cape Town, based on available data. These visits would be followed by visits to key institutions such as the forensic lab and the LEAP Command Centre. After the initial visits, the Committee could decide whether any adjustments were necessary. The goal of the visits would be to ensure that the police receive the necessary support from these institutions.

The Chairperson also suggested a similar approach for sport and cultural affairs, proposing that the Committee visit both the worst and best precincts in terms of facilities. This would allow the Committee to assess the state of sport and cultural resources and engage with the relevant sport councils. He invited further discussion on this approach, noting that it could be an initial step to kick-start broader conversations about the state of sport and cultural development in various areas.

Mr Booysen expressed his agreement with the Chairperson's suggestions regarding the Committee’s approach to cultural affairs and sport, particularly the idea of looking at both successful and struggling projects to compare and identify areas for improvement. He mentioned that this approach could also be applied to police oversight, as comparing police stations with differing performance levels could reveal valuable insights. He gave an example of how crime investigators in some areas like Bellville might be outperforming others in places like Mitchells Plain and these differences should be explored during oversight visits.

Mr Booysen emphasised the importance of addressing the issue of drug houses. He argued that the existence of such drug houses should not be endorsed by the Committee visiting them, suggesting that rather than merely acknowledging these problem areas, the focus should be on eliminating them entirely and replacing them with more positive community projects, such as sports centres.

Ms Cassiem disagreed with the idea of spending Committee time on visiting successful projects. She argued that the Committee’s focus should be on areas that need improvement, where input and assistance are required. In her view, oversight should be concentrated on identifying failures and providing recommendations for improvement, rather than observing successes.

Ms Kaizer-Philander agreed to go with the majority’s decision on how to approach the Committee’s work. However, she raised a practical concern about time constraints, noting that the Committee might not have enough time to visit both successful and failing stations before the end of the year. She suggested that briefings from the relevant departments could inform the Committee about the differences between successful and failing stations without requiring physical visits to all sites. She stressed the need to focus on areas where the Committee could make the most significant impact within their available timeframe.

Mr Booysen reiterated his support for the idea of comparing both the best and worst-performing projects. He stressed the importance of encouraging best practices while reprimanding underperformance. Mr Booysen suggested physical site visits to the worst-performing areas, while successful projects could be summarised or discussed through virtual meetings with the relevant station commissioners. He highlighted the need to commend those performing well and use their insights to help improve struggling areas.

The Chairperson acknowledged the limited time available and proposed focusing on both rural and urban areas, looking at sports facilities, libraries, school sports, dropout rates and crime statistics. The Chairperson suggested prioritising the worst-performing areas, both within and outside Cape Town, for the Committee’s oversight visits. He added that after completing the first cycle of oversight meetings, a follow-up comparison could be made next year. He also proposed combining visits to police stations with visits to schools or sports facilities.

Members agreed to this approach, and the Chairperson encouraged Members to start planning by identifying benchmarks, such as crime statistics or reports on gangsterism, to guide the oversight visits. He also suggested collaboration between Committees to determine indicators for identifying precincts for visits, with a focus on combining sport and community safety oversight.

Mr Ngqentsu proposed that the planning should culminate in meetings with higher authorities, such as the Provincial Commissioner and municipal officials, to ensure alignment across different levels of government. He emphasised the importance of having these meetings after the Committee visits to better inform their discussions with senior officials.

The Chairperson responded by highlighting the need to respect the Committee’s constitutional mandate and avoid overstepping into municipal oversight. He supported engagement with municipalities in the context of how they interact with the provincial government but warned against direct oversight of municipal affairs. He agreed with Mr Booysen that, with time and the collection of data, the Committee would be better positioned to make decisions and conflate various issues.

Ms Cassiem raised a suggestion about including abandoned sports facilities in the oversight visits, especially in areas like Mitchells Plain, where millions had been spent on projects now overrun by gangsters and drug addicts.

The Chairperson encouraged Ms Cassiem to submit her proposals, noting that abandoned facilities would be considered as part of the oversight visits.

Mr Ngqentsu raised concerns about the Committee's competence to conduct oversight of municipal law enforcement and safety components, particularly in the City of Cape Town. He suggested seeking legal advice to clarify whether the Committee had the authority to engage with municipalities in this capacity. He argued that limiting oversight to police activities would be too narrow and proposed that the Committee also interface with municipal safety and sport officials to ensure a comprehensive understanding of these issues.

The Chairperson responded that he was not suggesting the Committee confine its oversight to just what is seen in corridors and buildings. He noted that an agreement being signed that morning was meant to bring together three levels of government, which would provide an opportunity to engage with various components at different government levels. The Chairperson highlighted the importance of remaining within the legal framework and avoiding the Committee’s involvement in matters that fall outside its provincial mandate. He expressed that if there were concerns, legal advice should be sought to ensure that the Committee’s actions were appropriate.

Mr Booysen agreed with the Chairperson's sentiment and supported seeking legal advice. He shared his experience from local government, noting that local authorities often resisted provincial oversight. He suggested that engaging with metro authorities directly could avoid this resistance. If necessary, legal advice could be sought to address any disputes.

The Chairperson summarised the discussion, emphasising that the main proposal was to engage with municipalities while staying within constitutional and legal limits. He noted that legal advice should be sought if uncertainty or dispute existed. He clarified that the proposal involved understanding the various levels of government’s roles and ensuring proper engagement without overstepping boundaries.

Mr Ngqentsu agreed with the Chairperson’s approach and added that there might be a need to visit multiple police stations within the metro due to high crime rates, rather than limiting it to one. He suggested that this be considered when operationalising the oversight visits.

The Chairperson agreed to extend the number of precinct visits if additional time could be allocated. He asked the PO if they had sufficient information to proceed, which was confirmed.

Board member nominations

The Committee then moved on to housekeeping matters, including board nominations, the policing needs report, the Western Cape Ombudsman, the SAPS Annual Report and the Western Cape Liquor Authority governing board. The Chairperson indicated that these issues needed to be addressed to avoid any administrative lapses.

Mr Matthews began by addressing the Department of Cultural Affairs and Sport (DCAS) component. He explained that the Committee was responsible for shortlisting board memberships for three entities, as outlined in the presentation slides from the previous week. He noted that while the new membership term for Heritage Western Cape would not commence until late 2025 or 2026, there were more immediate concerns. He had received correspondence about the Western Cape Language Committee and the Cultural Commission, whose terms of office were ending in January and February 2025, respectively. Mr Matthews expressed relief that the department had sent this information early, given the tight schedule before the start of the year and the parliamentary recess.

Mr Matthews outlined that the Committee needed to initiate a call for nominations for the Language Committee and the Cultural Commission. He highlighted the need to decide on the method of advertising the call for nominations, which could involve print media, radio or social media, considering cost and coverage. The Committee had to ensure that the call was made in all three provincial languages and should decide on the process for assessing and shortlisting nominees. He suggested that it might be helpful to request performance information on current board Members to assess whether they should be re-nominated.

He explained that the process was not strictly defined by legislation, but the Committee was responsible for submitting a shortlist to the Minister, who would then make the final appointments. He advised that the Committee should consider submitting a slightly larger list of candidates to account for potential vacancies and ensure full board capacity.

Regarding the police Ombudsman, Mr Matthews mentioned that the Committee would typically receive a recommendation from the Premier’s office for the Ombudsman’s appointment. He noted that the Ombudsman’s term was non-renewable and typically lasted five years. For the Western Cape Liquor Authority, the Committee would receive a list from the Department of Police Oversight and would define its own shortlisting process.

Policing needs report

Mr Matthews noted that the policing needs and priorities report summarised the Department's engagements with various policing structures and could inform the Committee’s oversight decisions. The Committee would need to extend invitations to SAPS and municipal policing bodies to comment on the report before making final recommendations to the Minister. He mentioned that there was an option for public hearings on the report if deemed necessary.

Mr Matthews highlighted a potential conflict with the SAPS provincial annual report, which might be presented towards the end of the year, but noted that the timing could be tight due to national reporting processes.

The Chairperson remarked that the previous explanation was quite lengthy and noted that, as politicians, they tend to have short attention spans. He pointed out that the immediate concern was the issues directly in front of them, with the rest being matters to be scheduled on the agenda as time allowed. He indicated that the main takeaway was the urgency of the current issues, rather than the broader timeline or additional details provided.

Appointment activities

Mr Matthews suggested that, since they had received correspondence about the Western Cape Language Committee and would soon receive information about the Cultural Commission, the Committee could start considering the process for these entities. He advised that the Committee could make decisions informally or in a brief meeting without needing extensive discussion.

The Chairperson asked for colleagues' thoughts on the inputs provided.

Mr Ngqentsu acknowledged that while the presentation was lengthy, the issues raised were important. He noted that the process for handling nominations, including whether to conduct interviews or review documents, was discretionary. He mentioned that understanding past practices and performance assessments of current board Members would help in deciding the best way forward. He expressed concern about the time and capacity needed for interviews and suggested focusing on whether systems for performance evaluation existed and how they could be used effectively.

The Chairperson responded to the discussion by proposing several key steps for the Committee to move forward. His first suggestion was a review of past practices, aiming to understand the procedures that were previously followed regarding advertising methods and interview processes. He emphasised the importance of gathering this historical context to inform future decisions. This would include exploring how nominations were solicited, how the interview process was conducted and what the overall approach to selection had been in the past.

Following this, the Chairperson stressed the need to thoroughly understand the entities involved. He proposed obtaining a detailed briefing on each entity’s role and responsibilities, as well as background information about their functions. This, he argued, would ensure that the Committee Members are fully informed about the entities they are working with and are thus able to make more informed decisions.

The Chairperson further highlighted the importance of understanding the budgetary constraints related to the advertising process. This would allow the Committee to make practical decisions about how widely to advertise for nominations. Knowing the available budget would help determine whether to utilise print media, online platforms or other forms of outreach, ensuring that the call for nominations reaches the widest possible audience without exceeding financial limitations.

The Chairperson suggested that the Committee gather all of this information, possibly through a virtual meeting if necessary, before bringing it back for further discussion. He also proposed that this approach be applied consistently to all the entities the Committee needs to address, ensuring that each entity is reviewed thoroughly in terms of past practices, its role, and the associated budget. This would allow for a comprehensive and uniform approach to decision-making across the board.

After outlining these steps, the Chairperson turned to the remaining agenda items, questioning whether there were any other matters to address. He acknowledged that the most immediate issue had been dealt with, but suggested that all the items flagged earlier should be worked into the Committee’s programme for the current year. This would ensure that the Committee remains on track to address each issue in a timely manner.

Seeing no objections from the other Members, the Chairperson moved to the final item on the agenda, which was the approval of the minutes from previous meetings. He noted that he did not recall any particularly controversial issues from those meetings and expressed his personal satisfaction with the minutes as presented. He invited any objections from the other Members, although none were raised. In a light-hearted moment, the Chairperson made a humorous remark about a previous agreement to "eradicate Marxism and socialism", joking that this would be a topic for debate over coffee, before proceeding to the next point.

Adoption of Minutes

Minutes dated 4 July 2024

In the meeting held on 4 July 2024, the Chairperson called attention to the minutes from the first Committee meeting and requested their adoption. The Chairperson referenced the minutes dated 4 July, asking for a proposer and a seconder to formalise the approval of the minutes. Mr Booysen moved for their adoption and Ms Kaizer-Philander seconded the motion.

Minutes dated 13 August 2024

Moving on to the 13 August 2024 minutes, Mr Matthews sought clarity on how the Members preferred the minutes to be recorded — whether in extensive detail or with a focus on key points, recommendations and resolutions.

The Chairperson responded by proposing that the minutes capture the key action steps agreed upon during the meeting. He emphasised the importance of documenting decisions and actions, while suggesting that extensive detail was unnecessary, especially for brainstorming sessions. He highlighted the value of recordings in capturing full conversations, with the minutes focusing on outcomes and actions.

The Chairperson further elaborated on his preference, stressing that the minutes should focus on what actions need to be taken, while more detailed monitoring could be raised as necessary during meetings. After this clarification, the Chairperson requested a proposer and a seconder for the 13 August 2024 minutes.

Mr Ngqentsu moved for the adoption and Mr Booysen seconded the motion.

Mr Ngqentsu discussed the format of the minutes. He indicated satisfaction with the way the minutes captured the essence of discussions and decisions, agreeing that the format was effective. He suggested that, going forward, the minutes could be shared in advance for further review.

The Chairperson agreed, acknowledging that future meetings would become more focused on resolutions and exact decisions, which would necessitate precise minute-taking. However, he stated that he did not view the initial meetings as critical in this regard, given their exploratory nature. The Chairperson affirmed that the Committee had already recorded key agreements and decisions during the meetings.

With no further matters to discuss, the Chairperson concluded the meeting. He invited colleagues to continue their discussions. He humorously noted that they would soon be debating the merits of capitalism and socialism over coffee, adding a light-hearted note to the formal proceedings.

Meeting adjourned.

Audio

No related

Documents

No related documents

Download as PDF

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

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: