July 2021 Unrest: Committee Inquiry & SAPS Update (with Deputy Minister)

06 September 2023

Chairperson: Mr A Seabi (ANC)

Documents:

Meeting Summary

In today’s meeting, the Committee considered the motion of desirability on the IPID Amendment Bill.

Members of the Democratic Alliance, Freedom Front Plus, and Inkatha Freedom Party opposed the motion of desirability, particularly because the Bill had not been certified by the Office of the Chief State Law Adviser, due to the unconstitutionality of clause 4.

The amendments to section 6 of the IPID Act (clause 4), excludes Parliament from the appointment process of the Executive Director of IPID. It proposes that the Minister should merely inform Parliament of the appointment. The Office of the Chief State Law Adviser believed this would prejudice the independence of IPID, as expressly required in terms of section 206(6) of the Constitution, and that the absence of a transparent appointment process for the Executive Director would not pass constitutional muster.

A Member said that the tabling of an unconstitutional Bill in Parliament points to the Minister’s nefarious agenda to “monopolise control over the entire Department”.

Members of the African National Congress secured the majority vote in favour of the motion. The motion of desirability was therefore adopted, with a view that the Committee would resolve the unconstitutionality of the Bill.

The Bill will be published for comment on 8 September until 2 October 2023.

In addition, the Committee received a briefing from SAPS on its progress with implementing the recommendations of the July 2021 Unrest Expert Panel Recommendations.

A Member believed that protests were bound to happen, but there should be a uniform approach in how police address political unrest, particularly if it resulted in looting and infrastructural vandalism.

Meeting report

Election of Chairperson

The Committee Secretary, Ms Babalwa Mbengo, referred to National Assembly (NA) Rule 158 to facilitate the process of electing a Chairperson. She invited Members to make nominations.

Ms N Peacock (ANC) nominated Mr A Seabi (ANC); Ms B Marekwa (ANC) and Mr M Shaik Emam (NFP) seconded this.

Mr Seabi accepted the nomination and was duly elected.

Apologies

Ms Mbengo said that she received an apology from the Minister of Police who could not attend, due to a ministerial briefing on political killings at KwaZulu-Natal.

Chairperson’s opening remarks

The Chairperson welcomed everyone. He thanked Members for showing confidence in him. He hoped that they would work together as they had done before to conclude the term on a high note.

He said that police disrupted a major cash-in-transit (CIT) syndicate in Limpopo last week, during a dramatic shootout between police members and suspects. It is believed that the syndicate is responsible for several CIT robberies across Limpopo, Mpumalanga, and Gauteng. The operation was a culmination of a major investigation that began in January this year. During the shootout, 19 suspects were killed. While the loss of life is always regrettable, it is believed that the police used force proportional to the threat. The Committee expressed its gratitude to the selfless service of the various disciplines that formed part of the operation; and wished the wounded member of the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (DPCI) a speedy recovery.

Operation Shanela continues to gain momentum. Over the past weekend, police arrested about 849 suspects in the North West province, which included wanted persons and undocumented foreign nationals.

He had an opportunity to attend the South African Police Service (SAPS) National Commemoration Day on Sunday, 3 September 2023. The commemoration was to honour the fallen heroes and heroines who paid the ultimate price for serving their country. It was emotional remembering the 34 police officers who were killed on duty during the past year. He hoped that the dignified event brought some closure and comfort to the families that attended. The Committee calls on SAPS to ensure that the families of fallen heroes and heroines receive the necessary support, especially in terms of educational support for their children.

On the last day of Women’s Month, SAPS hosted the Women in Law Enforcement parade in Gqeberha. SAPS was joined by female members from various arms of security services. The number of females from specialised divisions proves that policing is inclusive of all genders. However, during the Committee’s oversight visits to police training facilities in Kimberley and Tshwane, the police intake was male-dominated. The Committee renewed its call for SAPS to intensify its recruitment efforts to attract women into SAPS.

The Committee hailed the recent success of DPCI in cases of corruption, human trafficking, contraband trade, and drug laboratories. He hoped that the DPCI Head and his team would continue this significant success in investigating priority crimes and bringing criminals to book.

In today’s meeting, the Committee will have further deliberations on the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) Amendment Bill and consider the motion of desirability on the Bill. He reminded Members of the advice received from the Parliamentary Legal Adviser, that the Committee should not close the door on the important debate and review of the IPID Act.

Later in the meeting, the Committee will deliberate on SAPS’s progress based on the July 2021 Unrest Expert Panel Commission Report.

In 2021, the Committee started discussions on a proposed parliamentary inquiry into parts of KwaZulu-Natal and Gauteng. During deliberations, the Committee resolved to defer the inquiry until the presidential inquiry and the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) inquiry had been finalised, in order to avoid the duplication of efforts to investigate the contributing factors that led to the unrest and the failure of the state security apparatus to effectively stop the unrest. The presidential expert panel report was published in February 2020. The SAHRC report will be finalised towards the end of 2023. In the interim, the Committee had requested an implementation plan from SAPS on the recommendations made by the presidential expert panel report.

Based on the status of the SAHRC report and the pressure on the rest of the parliamentary programme, the Committee should consider referring its inquiry into the July 2021 unrest to the Seventh Parliament. The remainder of the Sixth Parliament does not allow for sufficient time to deal with an inquiry of this extent and complexity.

Adoption of minutes

The Committee considered and adopted its minutes of 14 June, 16 August, 18 August and 30 August 2023.

Deliberations on IPID Amendment Bill

The Chairperson said that the Committee received a presentation on the IPID Amendment Bill the previous week, but it postponed the consideration of the motion of desirability for today’s meeting. He invited Members to have further deliberations on the Bill.

Mr A Whitfield (DA) believed that the Committee should take a number of factors into account when dealing with the motion of desirability, based on the information that has been shared, as well as the research paper that has been done on this matter. He recalled that the Parliamentary Legal Advisor indicated that the Committee may proceed to amend the Bill, while also agreeing that the current version of the Bill that is before Parliament is unconstitutional. The Office of the Chief State Law Adviser had not certified the Bill, because it found the Bill to be unconstitutional.

He noted that the Minister also sought outside legal advice from an advocate, who further confirmed that the Bill was unconstitutional. There is no dispute around the unconstitutionality of the Bill. There is some debate about whether the Committee should or should not proceed to deal with the Bill, because it is unlikely that it will conclude the process before Parliament rises for elections.

He reiterated the comment that Dr Groenewald had made in last week's meeting, that it appeared to be unprecedented for Parliament to deal with a Bill that has not been certified by the Office of the Chief State Law Adviser, irrespective of the Parliamentary Legal Adviser’s advice that the Committee may proceed to amend the Bill.

He believed that there was a nefarious agenda by the Minister that had been calculated to monopolise control over the entire Department, insofar as the Civilian Secretariat for Police (CSPS) reports to the Minister, the National Commissioner of Police reports to the Minister and ultimately the Executive Director of IPID who would be appointed by the Minister. The consolidation of political power over the policing policy environment, enforcement environment, and accountability environment is unacceptable.

The fact that the Minister either misled Cabinet or informed Cabinet that the Bill was unconstitutional, and Cabinet then knowingly referred the Bill to Parliament cognisant of the fact that it is unconstitutional is a further question that needs to be deliberated upon. The Minister must appear before the Committee to answer these questions, as the Minister is the representative member of Cabinet that is accountable to this Committee. There must have been costs incurred when the Minister went outside of government to solicit a legal opinion which he had hoped would confirm his view and create more mud in the water.

Mr Whitfield said that this was a unique opportunity for the Committee to uphold the principal outcome of the Zondo Commission, which found that the Fifth Parliament failed in its duties to hold the Executive to account. This is not just about whether the Committee may proceed to amend and correct a faulty and unconstitutional Bill to make it constitutional again. It is about a Cabinet that knowingly referred an unconstitutional Bill to Parliament, which is an unforgivable situation. Parliament should not rectify this Bill in those circumstances.

He reiterated that this was part of a much more complex and nefarious agenda by the Minister. The fact that the Minister has not been present for both Committee meetings dealing with this Bill is unacceptable. It points to the fact that the Minister is trying to achieve an outcome that suits him and not the accountability of SAPS.

He felt that it was important for the Committee to consider the excellent research paper done by the Committee’s Researcher, as well as the arguments that were set out during the public participation and the legal opinions that it is unconstitutional. That should be considered by the Committee as a reason to not support the motion of desirability, given everything that the Committee is aware of, and the important role that IPID plays.

He echoed the comment that he made in last week’s meeting, that this was a “hinge of history” moment. It is a unique opportunity for Parliament to assert itself over the Executive.

Dr P Groenewald (FF+) noted that the Minister had incurred costs by obtaining an external legal opinion, instead of relying on the opinion of the Office of the Chief State Law Advisor but received the same opinion that the Bill is unconstitutional. He said that the Committee must get an explanation as to whether Cabinet was misled or not because he cannot imagine that Cabinet would table a Bill in Parliament while knowing that it is an unconstitutional Bill. If that is true, then the integrity of Cabinet is at stake.

If the Committee accepts the desirability, the Bill must be publicised, and the public should be given enough time to comment on the Bill. The Committee had always said that it acts in the best interest of the people of South Africa. The Committee has a specific integrity to ensure that the people are served. He questioned how the Committee could give the green light and continue to publicise an unconstitutional Bill. He emphasised that the Committee must do the right thing, which is to reject the motion of desirability of an unconstitutional Bill.

He agreed with Mr Whitfield’s comment, that the Minister should explain why an unconstitutional Bill has been tabled before Parliament. He believed that the Committee had the responsibility to vote against the motion of desirability on an unconstitutional Bill.

Mr B Golding (DA) said that the independent legal opinion obtained by the Minister confirmed that the Bill was unconstitutional. It further indicated that the new version of the IPID Amendment Bill in which clause 4 was amended was provided to senior counsel for opinion, but the pronouncements of the new version should not be considered by the Committee, as the Committee is only considering the version of the Bill that was tabled in Parliament. It implies that any subsequent changes to the Bill are not for the Committee to consider at this stage, and the Committee can only consider the Bill that was tabled in Parliament, which is unconstitutional. He concurred with Mr Whitfield and Dr Groenewald, that the Bill is not desirable in its current form.

Ms N Peacock (ANC) said that last week’s meeting indicated that amendments will be made to resolve the unconstitutionality of the Bill. She believed that the Committee should move for the motion of desirability on the Bill.

Mr M Shaik Emam (NFP) said that the State Law Advisor, Parliamentary Legal Advisor, as well as the independent senior counsel appointed by the Minister had already provided the opinion that the Bill was unconstitutional. He believed that the Committee would shoot itself in the foot if it continued with a process that was contrary to the legal advice. It would affect the integrity of the Committee. The Committee should not proceed with this process until it is corrected and there is credibility in the Bill that is tabled before Parliament.

Ms Z Majozi (IFP) concurred with Mr Shaik Emam. She said that the legal opinions had clearly rendered the Bill unconstitutional. It was therefore unclear why the Committee was deliberating on a Bill that was unconstitutional. She agreed that the Committee should not consider the motion of desirability.

Mr O Terblanche (DA) said that the Committee should not condone the unconstitutionality of the Bill. He agreed that it should not be a matter under consideration and the Bill should be referred back.

Mr Golding told Ms Peacock that the independent senior counsel indicated that the Committee is to consider the current version of the IPID Amendment Bill [B21-2023], and not any other version thereof. The Committee is not considering any possible changes or amendments after the fact. The Committee is considering the Bill that was tabled before Parliament, which is not constitutional.

Deputy Minister’s remarks

Mr Cassel Mathale, Deputy Minister of Police, said that he fully agreed with the Parliamentary Legal Advisor’s advice in last week's meeting, that it is within the right of the Committee to proceed with the Bill. In accordance with the NA Rules, the Office of the Chief State Law Advisor submitted the reasons why the Bill had not been certified. There is nothing in the NA Rules that prevents the Committee from considering a Bill that has been tabled.

He explained that at the time when the independent legal opinion was provided it was too late to withdraw the Bill that had already been referred to the Committee, as that would have delayed the entire process. It is strongly believed that it is within the rules of Parliament, that the Committee may proceed to deliberate on the Bill.

He noted the comments made by Members stating the reasons why the Committee should not proceed with the Bill, but he did not think it was sufficient to reject the motion of desirability. He said that it was unfortunate to hear comments such as “monopolising power”, “monopolising control” or “consolidating power” because that is not the intention of the Ministry and the Department regarding this piece of legislation.

He believed that the Committee should acknowledge the complexity concerning clause 4, particularly regarding the appointment of the Executive Director, and that such decisions might result in an impasse between Parliament and the Executive Authority.

He reiterated that there was no rule preventing the Committee from proceeding with the Bill. It is within the Committee’s right to amend any piece of legislation before it.

Consideration of motion of desirability on IPID Amendment Bill

The Chairperson said that in terms of NA Rule 286, in the process of inquiring into a Bill, the Committee must where applicable, and as far as possible, apply various formal stages as provided for in the NA Rules. Sub-rule 286(6)(b) states that the Committee must adopt a motion of desirability relating to whether the principles of the Bill and the need for the Bill are accepted.

He read through the motion of desirability on the IPID Amendment Bill [B21-2023], which states that in the opinion of the Committee the legislation is desirable:

• to amend and insert certain definitions;

• to provide for the Directorate’s institutional and operational independence; to provide that the Directorate must be independent, impartial and must exercise its powers and functions without fear, favour, prejudice, or undue influence in order to give effect to the judgement of the Constitutional Court in the case of McBride v Minister of Police and Another;

• to amend the provisions relating to the appointment of the Executive Director of the Directorate; to broaden the Executive Director’s responsibilities in respect of the referral of complaints regarding disciplinary matters; to provide for pre-employment security screening investigations to be conducted by the Directorate;

• to provide for the conditions of service of investigators to be determined by the Minister;

• to provide for the Directorate to investigate any deaths caused by the actions of a member of SAPS, or a member of a municipal police service, whether such member was on or off duty;

• to strengthen the provisions relating to the implementation of disciplinary recommendations;

• to provide for a savings provision regarding the conditions of service of existing investigators and provincial heads;

• to amend other provisions of the IPID Act 2011, so as to ensure that the Directorate exercises its mandate effectively and efficiently; and to provide for matters connected therewith.

The Chairperson requested those in favour of the motion to raise their hands. He noted the hands of Ms M Gomba (ANC), Ms Peacock, Ms Marekwa and Ms M Molekwa (ANC).

He requested those not in favour of the motion to raise their hands. He noted the hands of Dr Groenewald; Mr Whitfield; Mr Terblanche and Ms Majozi.

Ms Mbengo said that she noted the hands of four Members in favour of the motion, and four Members not in favour of the motion. She confirmed that the Chairperson may cast a vote.

The Chairperson said that he voted in favour of the motion.

Ms Mbengo said that five Members were in favour of the motion of desirability, and four Members were not in favour.

The Chairperson said that the motion of desirability was adopted. He asked the Committee’s Researcher to brief the Committee on the way forward.

Ms Nicolette van Zyl-Gous, Committee Researcher, said that the adoption of the motion will be reported to the National Assembly. The Bill will be published for comment on 8 September until 2 October 2023. The Committee will then proceed with public hearings on 18 and 25 October 2023. The Committee will receive the Department’s response to the public submissions on 1 November 2023. Thereafter, the Committee will adopt the public participation report and go through the Bill clause-by-clause. The Committee will adopt the A-list of the Bill on 15 November 2023. It is envisaged that the Committee will finalise and adopt the Bill on 22 November 2023.

The Chairperson said that the Committee will stick to the timeframes and ensure that it follows the correct procedure.

Mr Whitfield said that the Committee would need to proceed to fulfil the points raised in the motion, which includes amending the Bill which had been tabled in Parliament. There should be sufficient time set aside for the Committee to do so. He did not think that the time allocated for public participation was sufficient, because there would inevitably be public concern and interest about Parliament’s amendment. He asked if the public participation process would be done online or if the Committee would host physical public participation meetings. He said that an online public participation process would indicate that the Committee is rushing the process, and it would discriminate against most South Africans. He felt that the Committee should host a physical public participation process in the communities.

Dr Groenewald said that he objected to the short period allocated for publicising the Bill for comment.

The Chairperson told Mr Whitfield that the Committee should try its best to use both options, to ensure that people have the option of presenting their submissions physically and online. He said that the Committee might not be able to go to all nine provinces, but the process should not be compromised. The Committee will ensure that the process is done in line with the rules.

Mr Whitfield said that he did not think that the process plan would give full expression to public participation. He did not think it was realistic. He believed that the Bill and the Executive process of the Bill would be contested.

The Chairperson said that the process plan was not cast in stone. The Committee must ensure that it satisfies the legal framework and the rules of Parliament.

Parliamentary inquiry into July 2021 unrest

The Chairperson referred to his earlier remarks about the parliamentary inquiry into the July 2021 unrest, particularly his recommendation that the Committee should consider referring the inquiry to the Seventh Parliament. He asked if Members agreed with his recommendation.

Mr Whitfield said that it was important for the Committee to understand the frustration that the members of the public would feel. He understood that some processes were outside of the Committee’s control, but the Committee should strive to meet the commitments it made to the public. Deferring the matter to the Seventh Parliament is a failure of this Sixth Parliament to deal with the issue. He had repeatedly requested that the Committee convene during recess on exceptional circumstances to deal with matters. He suggested that a process plan should be developed for this matter, to indicate the timeframes and what would be possible. If the process plan proves that the Committee cannot conclude the matter, then at least the public will know that the Committee has tried.

The Chairperson said that Mr Whitfield had made a good intervention. He requested the Committee’s staff to develop a process plan, which should be presented to the Committee in the next meeting.

Ms van Zyl-Gous said that the Committee had three meetings left for this term, followed by a short recess. The fourth term is only eight weeks long, during which it will process the IPID Amendment Bill. The Committee must also consider the annual reports of Departments and develop the Budget Review and Recommendation Reports (BRRRs). The Committee would also have to adopt its legacy report. She said that a progress plan will be developed for the inquiry into the July 2021 unrest, but the programme of the Committee is very packed as it moves toward next year's elections.

The Chairperson said that the Committee will make its decision next week, based on the progress plan.

Deputy Minister’s remarks

Deputy Minister Mathale said that he appreciated the warm words expressed by the Chairperson in his opening remarks, about the role that the police played in disrupting a major CIT syndicate in Limpopo last week. The state must not allow criminals to run amok. Lawlessness must be brought to a halt.

He further congratulated the Chairperson on his appointment. He said that the Ministry would support the Chairperson and the Committee in its responsibilities.

National Commissioner’s remarks

General Fannie Masemola, National Commissioner of Police, said that Lieutenant-Colonel Joe Coetzer was shot during the incident in Makhado, Limpopo. He is recovering in hospital, but his leg was severely damaged and had to be amputated.

Two weeks ago, Sergeant Kedimetse Masilo and Constable Okaetse Mandindi, who were both part of Kimberley’s flying squad were shot and killed by a suspect.

There was also an attempted CIT robbery in Soweto last week Saturday. There were no casualties. The suspect did not get a hold of the money but managed to escape.

He informed the Committee that the Department received a letter from National Treasury indicating that the fiscus is under pressure, as such the Department would experience a budget cut of R5 billion.

Presentation by SAPS on July 2021 Unrest Expert Panel Commission Report

Brigadier Craig Mitchell, Component Head: Strategic Management, SAPS, took the Committee through the presentation which gave an overview of the recommendations relevant to SAPS and the progress thereof.

South Africa experienced violent civil unrest, mainly in parts of KwaZulu-Natal and Gauteng, from 8 July 2021 until it was brought under control around 17 July 2021. On 5 August 2021, the President announced the appointment of an Expert Panel to review South Africa’s response to the unrest.

The Report contains a total of 34 recommendations, 18 of those recommendations are applicable to SAPS. SAPS implemented six recommendations, 11 recommendations are in progress, and one cannot be implemented at this time.

(See presentation for details)

Discussion

The Chairperson invited Members to make comments on SAPS’ progress report and implementation plan relating to the July 2021 Unrest Expert Panel Commission Report.

Mr Golding asked if the envisaged filling of vacancies and expanded training in public order policing (POP) and crowd control would still be viable, considering the recent budget cut.

Ms Marekwa expressed condolences to the families of police members who lost their lives in the line of duty. It was sad to lose policemen and policewomen who risked their lives to serve the country.

She said a lot has been said regarding the role of SAPS in the July 2021 unrest, but little has been said about the role of the metro police, which plays a great role in assisting SAPS. The role of metro police has not been clearly reflected in terms of what needs to be done at that level. She raised this point because it seemed that every matter of crime is thrown at the door of SAPS alone. It is important for municipalities to play their role because they have a major role to play in dealing with issues of bylaws. There are many ills that are taking place in communities as a result of municipalities not strengthening their bylaws.

She believed that recommendations 30 and 31, regarding the designation of certain infrastructure as critical infrastructure or national key points, should be prioritised. She raised this, because of the gas line explosion in Johannesburg. She said that experts have said many things, but there is speculation that Zama Zamas could be responsible for the incident. The role of the Critical Infrastructure Council is key to ensuring that the country no longer loses its critical infrastructure.

Mr Terblanche commended SAPS for the presentation. He said that one can see a lot of positives coming to the fore. A good example is the disruption of the CIT heist syndicate in Makhado and Thohoyandou.

Although there were a lot of positives, he was concerned that there appeared to be further centralising of control over the police. He questioned what was being done to strengthen policing at the police station level. He worried that the focus was on high-density operations, but there was a lack of focus on the day-to-day crime prevention strategies and the ability of police officials to assist the public at police stations.

He was pleased to hear that there are developments regarding the critical infrastructure. He asked about the plans to ensure that the Critical Infrastructure Council would be in full operation.

Ms Majozi said that her concern was on the prevention strategies to ensure that the country does not experience what happened in July 2021, especially considering the burning of trucks in July this year. Whenever the country experiences political unrest, it comes with widespread looting. She said that people have the right to protest, but she was concerned about the nature of the protests that ruined the infrastructure. She questioned what police officers can do to address such incidents.

She said that the IFP Caucus conducted an oversight visit to Moroka Police Station. Moroka Police Station does not have surveillance cameras and the security fencing is non-existent. There were complaints about thieves stealing batteries from SAPS vehicles. She asked what SAPS were doing to address the shortages at Moroka Police Station.

She asked about the relationship between SAPS and Gauteng’s Crime Prevention Wardens. While she applauded the work of the Crime Prevention Wardens, she noted complaints about illegal foreigners being assaulted. The Crime Prevention Wardens should not abuse their power.

SAPS’s response

Gen Masemola referred to Mr Golding’s question. He said that a total number of 4 000 new entry-level SAPS Act members have already received basic POP training. SAPS will have to reprioritise its budget to provide advanced training. SAPS will have further engagements with National Treasury following the budget cut and reprioritise its budget accordingly.

He referred to Ms Marekwa’s comments about the role of the metro police. He said that SAPS do assist the metro police in terms of training, especially in POP. He agreed that bylaw enforcement is an area that is suffering countrywide, and it must be addressed by the municipal policing authorities.

The Critical Infrastructure Council has been appointed. The broad regulations are in the process of being consulted and will be published in the Gazette after approval from the Minister.

In response to Mr Terblanche’s comment on the centralisation of control over police, he replied that there was a recommendation about the centralisation of POP in line with the SAPS Act. SAPS has affected that centralisation, but it does not mean that it is only commanded from national. Most of the support functions will be given from a centralised point, but the day-to-day tasking of POP will remain the function of the Provincial Commissioners.

In terms of visibility, Operation Shanela concentrates on hotspot stations and districts, but generic policing still continues at station level. The operations assist by enhancing visibility in specific areas to stabilise high-contact crime stations.

The 4 000 new entry-level SAPS Act members that were enlisted during 2022/23, are currently attending the Workplace Exposure Training Programme at police stations. As soon as they complete their Workplace Exposure Training Programme, they will assist SAPS on the ground.

He referred to Ms Majozi’s question about the lack of police action during political unrest. He said that part of the POP training is for police members to be trained in how to handle such situations. Damage to property is not allowed, but where is does happen it is up to the specific operational commander to decide on the course of action. The specific operational commander would make such a decision based on the factors that must be taken into consideration on whether it would escalate or de-escalate the situation.

Regarding the comments on Moroka Police Station, he said that during the previous and current financial year, SAPS provided a budget to the Provincial Commissioners as part of its Police Safety Strategy. The budget was to ensure that there are fences around police stations and for the installation of CCTV security surveillance. Western Cape province did well in this regard. Most of Gauteng's projects will be rolled out in this current financial year.

On the relationship between SAPS and Gauteng’s Crime Prevention Wardens, he said that Gauteng’s Provincial Commissioner does work with the Crime Prevention Wardens. The Crime Prevention Warden’s do most of their work alone but would sometimes work with SAPS. He said that SAPS will issue a directive to Gauteng’s Crime Prevention Wardens following Ms Majozi’s concern, especially in terms of how they should handle people.

On critical infrastructure, he said that SAPS has the responsibility to protect certain critical infrastructure such as government infrastructure. SAPS’s function is mostly to regulate and prescribe protection standards to owners of critical infrastructure, as well as monitoring the compliance thereof.

Lieutenant General Tebello Mosikili, Deputy National Commissioner of Police, said that she noted Mr Terblanche’s comments regarding the focus on high-density operations as well as day-to-day crime prevention efforts. She said that an instruction will be issued to ensure that the generic crime prevention efforts must continue, while Operation Shanela maintains its focus on hotspot areas.

Further Discussion

Ms Majozi said that she noted General Masemola’s comments regarding the police action during political unrest. She had raised her concern, because there needs to be a uniform way of dealing with political unrest, especially when infrastructure is vandalised. She understood that each situation is handled accordingly based on the decision of the specific operational commander, but she felt that the Committee and SAPS should have a discussion on this matter. She said that protests are bound to happen, but there should be a uniform approach to ensuring that infrastructure is not vandalised.

General Masemola welcomed the suggestion by Ms Majozi, that there should be discussions on the protection of infrastructure. He said that although SAPS must account to the Committee, there are certain things that cannot be said on a public platform because it might work counter to SAPS’s operations. For example, he recalled that SAPS had provided a response in Parliament, and it was later published in the newspaper. The following day a group of criminals attacked a police station because they knew exactly how many police officers were on duty. When the suspects were arrested, they revealed that they knew exactly how many police officers were on duty, because they read the newspaper article.

He therefore suggested that further engagements on this matter should be done on a different platform.

Input by SAHRC

Reverend Chris Nissen, Western Cape Commissioner, SAHRC, said that the SAHRC concluded a preliminary report on the July 2021 unrest. The preliminary report was sent to all stakeholders and witnesses/respondents that appeared before the SAHRC during its inquiry, they were given a timeframe to respond in terms of whether they concur or disagree with the views. One respondent requested an extension, which has been granted. It is estimated that the SAHRC would only issue its final report towards the end of November or December.

In the nature of the SAHRC reports, the respondents do have the right to take some parts of the report or the entire report on review. However, the preliminary report on the July 2021 unrest appears to be quite reasonable in terms of reflecting what witnesses had said and what investigators had observed.

He noted all the issues that Members have raised, particularly on the political unrest. He said that the memorandum of understanding (MOU) between SAPS and SAHRC is working perfectly well. SAHRC supports the work of SAPS.

He said that he had daily conversations with Major General Thokozani Mathonsi, National Component Head of Social Crime Prevention, in terms of how they can support the women and men in blue.

Closing remarks

The Chairperson said that the Committee would welcome a briefing by the SAHRC on its inquiry into the July 2021 unrest, even prior to finalising its report. The SAHRC report would have an impact on the resolutions of the Committee.

Deputy Minister Mathale commended the Committee on the resolution it took to proceed with the IPID Amendment Bill. He was pleased that the Members who had a contrary view had also expressed their commitment to participating in the process, to ensure that the necessary amendments will be affected on the legislation to guarantee the independence of IPID, such that there will be parliamentary oversight in the appointment of the Executive Director. The Ministry is willing to work with the Committee to ensure that the IPID Amendment Bill will pass constitutional muster and that it will benefit the country.

The Chairperson said that the Committee’s staff will try to ensure that the Committee has physical meetings when it has further engagements on the IPID Amendment Bill.

The meeting was adjourned.