ATC160419: Report of the Portfolio Committee on Police on the 2016/17 Budget Vote 20, Annual Performance Plan and 2015/16-2019/20 Strategic Plan of the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (Ipid), dated 19 April 2016

Police

REPORT OF THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON POLICE ON THE 2016/17 BUDGET VOTE 20, ANNUAL PERFORMANCE PLAN AND 2015/16-2019/20 STRATEGIC PLAN OF THE INDEPENDENT POLICE INVESTIGATIVE DIRECTORATE (IPID), DATED 19 APRIL 2016:

 

The Committee examined the Budget, Annual Performance Plan (APP) for the 2016/17 financial year and the 2015/16-2019/20 Strategic Plan of the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID). The Committee reports as follows:

 

1. INTRODUCTION

The former Independent Complaints Directorate (ICD) was established in 1997 in terms of chapter 10 of the SAPS Act No.68 of 1995, which pre-dates the 1996 Constitution, to promote consistent proper conduct by members of the South African Police Service (SAPS) and the Municipal Police Services (MPS). The legal mandate of the ICD was primarily to investigate all deaths in police custody or as a result of police action, as well as criminal offences and serious misconduct alleged to have been committed by members of the SAPS and the MPS. The ICD functioned independently of the SAPS.

 

With the implementation of the IPID Act on 1 April 2012, the ICD was re-established as the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID). The IPID Act gives effect to the provision of section 206(6) of the Constitution, ensuring independent oversight of the SAPS and MPS. The IPID resides under the Ministry of Police and functions independently of the SAPS. In terms of section 28(1) of the Act, the Directorate is obliged to investigate:

1. Any deaths in police custody;
2. Deaths as a result of police action;
3. Complaints relating to the discharge of an official firearm by any police officer;
4. Rape by a police officer, whether the police officer is on or off duty;
5. Rape of any person in police custody;
6. Any complaint of torture or assault against a police officer in the execution of his or her duties;
7. Corruption matters within the police initiated by the Executive Director, or after a complaint from a member of the public or referred to the Directorate by the Minister, a MEC or the Secretary for the Police Service; and
8. Any other matter referred to the IPID as a result of a decision by the Executive Director or if so requested by the Minister, an MEC or the Secretary for the Police Service as the case may be.

 

The stated vision of the IPID is to act as an effective independent investigative oversight body that ensures policing that is committed to promoting respect for the rule of law and human dignity. The mission of the Directorate is to conduct independent, impartial and quality investigations of identified criminal offences allegedly committed by members of the South African Police Services (SAPS) and Metro Police Services (MPS), and to make appropriate recommendations in line with the IPID Act, whilst maintaining the highest standard of integrity and excellence.

 

1. Structure of the report

The Report provides an overview of the 2016/17 Budget Hearings of the IPID and is divided into the following sections:

 

• Section 1: Introduction. This section provides an introduction to this Report as well as a summary of meetings held during the hearings.
• Section 2: Key concerns of the Committee during the 2015/16 financial year. This section provides a summary of the key concerns raised by the Committee during the previous financial year’s budget hearings.
• Section 3: Strategic Priorities of the IPID for the 2016/17 financial year. This section provides a summary of the strategic focus areas for the IPID for the year under review.
• Section 4: IPID Budget and Performance targets for 2016/17. This section provides an overall analysis of the estimates of national expenditure of the IPID for the 2016/17 financial year. This section also provides a programme analysis of the IPID.
• Section 5: Committee observations. This section highlights selected observations made by the Portfolio Committee on Police on the annual performance targets and programme specific issues during the 2016/17 budget hearings and subsequent responses by the IPID.
• Section 6: Recommendations and additional information. This section summarises the recommendations made by the Portfolio Committee on Police, as well as the additional information requested from the IPID.
• Section 7: Conclusion. This section provides a conclusion to this Report. 

 

 

1. Meetings held

The Committee received an overview of the budget for the financial year under review by the Research Unit of the Parliament of South Africa on 16 March 2016. The Committee received a briefing by IPID on the Strategic Plan, Annual Performance Plan and 2016/17 Budget on 12 April 2016.

 

1. Key concerns raised by the Committee during the 2015/16 financial year

The following section provides a summary of selected key observations/concerns raised by the Portfolio Committee on Police regarding performance and financial concerns during the 2015/16 IPID budget hearings:

 

Leadership stability: The Committee highlighted the importance of leadership stability within the Directorate as it affects service delivery, including the attainment of the Directorate’s strategic objectives. The Committee requested the IPID to indicate what steps have been taken to ensure stability within the Directorate. The IPID stated that the importance of loyalty to the Directorate is communicated to all provinces, as well as weekly performance reports submitted to ensure that delivery is prioritised.  

 

National Special Investigation Team (NSIT): The Committee noted the efforts in the establishment of the NSIT as a step in the right direction in solving systemic corruption within the SAPS. However, the Committee questioned the funding of the NSIT and requested the Directorate to elaborate on the functions and funding of the NSIT. The Directorate stated that the NSIT will be located in the National Office and funded through special allocations, which was realised through savings on non-core items. Cabinet approved allocations of R22.5 million in 2015/16, R30.4 million in 2016/17 and R40.8 million in 2017/18 to ensure the strengthening of the newly established NSIT. The Unit was only started on 01 April 2015. The Unit is currently capacitated with 12 personnel.

 

Public trust: The Committee raised concern about the apparent lack of trust that communities have in the SAPS (as raised by various stakeholders) and requested the IPID to indicate what steps will be taken to address this concern, as one of the key oversight bodies. The IPID stated that it executes its mandate to the best of its ability but that increased public awareness on their successes could assist in strengthening public trust in relation to police misconduct being dealt with effectively and efficiently.

Corruption: The Committee raised concern about prevalence of corruption in the SAPS and requested practical steps that the IPID will take to instil confidence in the Committee that the Directorate can effectively address corruption. The Committee further stated that the Directorate of Priority Crime Investigation (DPCI) are visible in arresting SAPS members on corruption changes, but that IPID lacks the necessary visibility. The IPID stated that a number of systemic corruption cases are currently being investigated. The IPID stated that it is reliant on the SAPS for crime intelligence, but could not report the exact number of cases being investigated. The NSIT will be instrumental in increasing the number of systemic corruption cases being finalised. The Committee requested that the information should be submitted. The Committee further requested that the Systemic Corruption Plan be submitted to the Committee.

 

Effect of budget reductions: The Committee raised concerns about the possible impact that the budgetary cuts might have on the operations of the IPID. The IPID stated that it could not realise many planned initiatives to expand the footprint and capacity of the Directorate, which necessitated them to reprioritise. The IPID stated that the budget reductions will have an impact on their activities, but that they will continue to fulfil their mandate. The major impact was to their unfunded mandate, such as the integrity unit and protection to investigators. The Directorate stated that it will work smarter with the limited budget at their disposal.

 

Internal Audit: The Committee asked the IPID to report on progress made in terms of its Internal Audit Division/Committee and noted the concerns raised by the Auditor-General in 2014/15. The Committee further questioned the appointment of the Head of the Internal Audit Division. The IPID indicated that the Division suffers from capacity constraints and that in terms of skills, a needs assessment has been established and budgeted. The IPID assured the Committee that all processes were followed with the appointment of the Head of the Internal Audit Division, but that the matter will be investigated by the Legal Services Division. The Committee highlighted the importance of the Internal Audit Division as an early warning system.

 

Consultative Forum: The Committee requested a progress update on the establishment and functioning of the Consultative Forum between the IPID and Civilian Secretariat for Police. The IPID stated that the Forum was launched on 06 March 2015 and that a meeting schedule for the 2015/16 financial year has been drafted.

 

Vacancy target: The Committee raised concern about the lack of numeric figures with percentage targets, especially in terms of the filling of vacancies, in terms of National Treasury Regulations. The IPID noted the concern of the Committee and stated that the Directorate currently has 73 vacancies and that 100 per cent employment is not always possible.

 

Public Order Policing (POP): The Committee raised concern about the capacity of the IPID to deal with cases emanating from the POP environment and especially those involving the recent spate of xenophobic attacks. The Committee requested the IPID to indicate the number of cases being dealt with and also to highlight key challenges of this environment. The IPID stated that cases from the POP environment, as well as xenophobia-related cases are classified as assault cases, but that it can be extrapolated.

   

Performance targets: The Committee raised serious concerns about the performance target to complete only half (50 per cent) of cases involving deaths in police custody, more especially regarding the message being communicated by such a low target. The IPID stated that the target must meet the SMART criteria set by National Treasury, one of which is that it must be achievable. Many factors delay the completion of cases. The Committee was dissatisfied with the response and stated that a justification of the target is not useful and that the IPID must indicate what it will take in terms of resources to complete 100 per cent of all investigations of deaths in police custody. The IPID indicated that a detailed breakdown of resources needed will be submitted to the Committee. 

 

In a written response received by the IPID on 30 April 2015, it was stated that it is not always possible to achieve 100 per cent targets and that it is discouraged by the Department of Monitoring and Evaluation (DPME) and Treasury. The IPID stated that the realisation of increases to the target can be achieved through the implementation of its Expansion Strategy and referred the Committee to pages 8 to 11, paragraph 7 of the Strategy.

 

The Committee also raised concern on the depiction of targets in terms of rape in police custody. The IPID explained that the numeric figure is based on the percentage increases on the baseline figure. The Committee requested that this figure should be explained in the APP through a footnote. 

 

Training: The Committee raised concern about the training and capacity building of investigators and requested the IPID to indicate whether they are partnering with any other institutions to improve the quality of training provided to investigators. The IPID stated that the SASETA is closely involved in the training of investigators and that middle managers are trained on the SAPS Detective Training Course at the Paarl Academy. The Committee further questioned what progress has been made in the development of a unique and independent (from SAPS) qualification for IPID investigators. The IPID indicated that it is working with the African Police Civilian Oversight Forum (APCOF) and the Universities of Stellenbosch and Pretoria to develop the qualification for investigators. The Committee requested an explanation on the decision to engage the University of Stellenbosch and also whether applicable training in other countries was considered. The IPID stated that the University was the only one that expressed an interest to collaborate in the development of the qualification and stated that the possibility of international training will be investigated.   

 

Firearms: The Committee raised concern about the management of IPID firearms and requested the Directorate to indicate the number of firearms in the IPID, the number that have been lost as well as who is the responsible official for firearms of the IPID. The Directorate stated that the Chief Director for the Investigations and Information Management Programme is the Designated Firearms Officer (DFO) of the IPID in terms of the Firearms Control Act, 2000. The IPID stated that only one firearm had been lost since the establishment of the Directorate and requested that the number of firearms of the IPID be submitted as a written response. 

 

Dedicated prosecutors: The Committee asked whether any progress has been made in terms of assigning dedicated National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) prosecutors to IPID cases against the SAPS as the reluctance of the NPA to prosecute cases against the SAPS has been highlighted as a key concern by various stakeholders. The IPID stated that engagement on this issue is ongoing.

 

The Committee made two main budget recommendations during the 2015/16 budget hearings, which were:

1. The Committee recommended that the reprioritised budget of the IPID should be carefully managed to mitigate against a possible neglect of its mandate. 
2. The Committee recommended that the budget allocation, or lack thereof, for Machinery and equipment should be reviewed as it is not sustainable over the medium term. 

 

Selected recommendations made by the Committee on performance measurement during the 2015/16 budget hearings: 

1. The Committee recommended that the IPID should investigate the availability of international police investigative qualifications to capacitate investigators.
2. The Committee recommended that the Internal Audit Division should be capacitated as a matter of urgency for it to provide an effective early warning system to the IPID.
3. The Committee recommended that all percentage targets should include numeric figures as per Treasury Regulations.
4. The Committee recommended that the target for investigations finalised on deaths in police custody should be increased from 50 per cent to 100 per cent and that the IPID should be mindful of the messages communicated through performance targets.
5. The Committee recommended that liaison between the IPID, Civilian Secretariat for Police and the MEC at Provincial level should be improved and prioritised.
6. The Committee recommended that the IPID should prioritise engagements with the NPA to secure dedicated prosecutors to IPID cases against the SAPS. 

 

1. STRATEGIC PRIORITIES OF THE IPID FOR 2016/17

The IPID plays an important role in professionalising the South African Police Service (SAPS) through conducting investigations and making appropriate recommendations. The core mandate of the IPID contributes towards the realisation of Outcome 3 as outlined in the Medium Term Strategic Framework (MTSF) 2014-2019, namely: “All people in South Africa are and feel safe”. The prevention of crime through human-rights oriented policing approaches and strategies is central in realising the vision for a safer South Africa.

 

The Medium Term Strategic Framework (MTSF 2014-2019) includes an action stating that disciplinary proceedings must be instituted by the SAPS on all IPID recommendations subsequent to investigations. The MTSF set a target of 90% implementation in 2014/15 and 100% implementation by 2018/19. The Framework also provides that by 2019, at least 60% of investigations must be finalised each year. Hence, as indicated in the Directorate’s 2015-2020 Strategic Plan, the Directorate’s key priority over the medium term is to strengthen its investigative capacity, including by improving the quality of training for investigators and the guidelines, systems and procedures used for investigation and reporting.

 

In line with the NDP, MTSF (2014-2019) and the Minister of Police’s strategic focus, the Directorate intends to focus on the following priorities during the 2016/17 financial year:

1. Investigative Capacity:  The spending over medium term will continue to strengthen the Department’s investigative capacity in order to conduct successful and high quality investigations.
2. Awareness training for police officials on key provisions of the Independent Police Investigative Directorate Act (2011): The Department will educate police officials at all police stations on key provisions of the Independent Police Investigative Directorate Act (2011).
3. Personnel capacity and relevant expertise: As the nature of the Department’s work is labour intensive, 71.8 per cent of the Department’s medium term budget goes to Compensation of employees, with the core service delivery programme, Investigation and Information Management, receiving the bulk of this budget.

 

The outputs (strategic objectives) of the IPID are directly linked to the following Strategic outcome oriented goals (outcomes), as reflected in the IPID Strategic Plan for 2015-2020:

• Outcome 3.1: The IPID is an effective independent oversight body;
• Outcome 3.2: The IPID investigates cases effectively and efficiently;
• Outcome 3.3: The Police Service is responsive to IPID recommendations; and
• Outcome 3.4: The IPID is accessible to the public.

 

1. IPID BUDGET AND PERFORMANCE TARGETS FOR 2016/17

4.1.      Changes over the MTEF (2016/17-2018/19)

Over the medium term, the Directorate will further strengthen its investigative capacity through the newly established National Specialised Investigations Team (NSIT). The team’s mandate is to conduct specialised investigations and facilitate the training of investigators on systemic corruption and other specialised investigations. The lack of focus on systematic corruption cases has been a concern of the Committee over the past two years. A total of 14 of the 18 posts in the team have been filled (as at November 2015) and total spending on the NSIT, as at the beginning of January 2016, amounted to R1.5 million. 

 

Table 1: Details of allocation amendments: IPID

Function by Vote: IPID R million	2016/17	2017/18	2018/19	MTEF Total
Reductions over the medium term which comprise a sum of the below	-2	-8	-10	-18
Compensation of employees: 2015 public sector wage agreement	-	10	15	25
Goods and Services: Cost containment measures	-2	-2	-2	-5
Compensation of employees: Reduction	-	-14	-23	-37

Source: National Treasury (2016)

 

Overall, the Directorate’s budget allocation will reduce with R18 million over the medium term. The following can be noted:

• Compensation of employees: Increases in terms of the 2015 public sector wage agreement.
• The Cabinet approved reductions of R14.4 million in 2017/18 and R23 million in 2018/19 on the Directorate’s compensation of employees budget are part of its decision to lower the national aggregate expenditure ceiling.
• Goods and Services: Cost containment measures.

 

4.2.      2016/17 IPID Budget

In 2016/17, the IPID receives a main appropriation of R246.1 million, which is a nominal increase of R11.3 million (4.81 per cent). However, when taking the impact of inflation into consideration, the Directorate receives R3.9 million (1.68 per cent) less in 2016/17 than the previous financial year.

 

The function of the Directorate is labour intensive and as such, 71.8 per cent of the Directorate’s medium term budget goes to compensation of employees, with the core service delivery programme, Investigation and Information Management, receiving the bulk of this budget. As at 30 September 2015, the Directorate had a vacancy rate of 14.7 per cent (61 vacant positions), mainly due to natural attrition.

 

All the budgetary programmes of the Directorate show decreases in real terms in 2016/17, except for the Compliance Monitoring and Stakeholder Management programme, which shows a significant increase. This programme receives an increased allocation of R4.4 million in nominal terms (R3.8 million in real terms), which is almost a 100 per cent increase in its baseline in 2016/17. This increase is effected in both the two subprogrammes located within Compliance Monitoring and Stakeholder Management programme, but is most pronounced in the Stakeholder Management subprogramme – the allocation to this subprogramme increased from R895 thousand in 2015/16 to R4.7 million in 2016/17. The allocation to the Compliance Monitoring subprogramme increased from R2.5 million in 2015/16 to R4.1 million in 2016/17.    

 

 

 

 

 

Table 2: IPID expenditure estimates 2016

Programme	Budget				Nominal Rand change	Real Rand change	Nominal % change	Real % change
R million	2015/16	2016/17	2017/18	2018/19	2015/16-2016/17		2015/16-2016/17
Programme 1: Administration	74.0	74.4	84.4	89.2	0.4	-  4.2	0.54%	-5.68%
Programme 2: Investigation and Information Management	150.8	157.1	155.0	160.8	6.3	-  3.4	4.18%	-2.27%
Programme 3: Legal Services	5.5	5.7	6.2	6.9	0.2	-  0.2	3.64%	-2.78%
Programme 4: Compliance Monitoring and Stakeholder Management	4.5	8.9	9.9	10.1	4.4	3.8	97.78%	85.53%
TOTAL	234.8	246.1	255.5	267.0	11.3	-  3.9	4.81%	-1.68%
Economic Classification
Current Payments	231.7	244.8	254.7	266.1	13.1	-  2.1	5.65%	-0.89%
Compensation of employees	159.6	178.5	186.2	195.8	18.9	7.8	11.84%	4.92%
Goods and services	72.1	66.3	68.5	70.3	-  5.8	-  9.9	-8.04%	-13.74%
Transfers and subsidies	0.6	0.5	0.6	0.7	-  0.1	-  0.1	-16.67%	-21.83%
Payments for Capital Assets	2.5	0.8	0.2	0.2	-  1.7	-  1.7	-68.00%	-69.98%
Machinery and equipment	2.5	0.8	0.2	0.2	-  1.7	-  1.7	-68.00%	-69.98%
TOTAL	234.8	246.1	255.5	267.0	11.3	-  3.9	4.81%	-1.68%

Source: National Treasury (2016)

 

In terms of economic classification, the following can be noted:

• Machinery and equipment decreased with 68 per cent in 2016/17 compared to the previous financial year, from R2.5 million to R800 thousand.
• No funds have been allocated towards the households account within transfers and subsidies. Transfers and subsidies include all unrequited payments made by the government unit. A payment is unrequited provided that the government unit does not receive anything directly in return for the transfer to the other party. Examples of current transfers are social security benefits paid to households, fines, penalties, compulsory fees and compensation for injuries or damages paid to another unit.

 

1. Programme Performance
   1. Programme 1: Administration

The Administration programme received a main budget allocation of R74.4 million, which is a real per cent decrease of 5.68 per cent from the R74.0 million adjusted budget allocation of the previous financial year. Proportionally, the Administration Programme received 30.2 per cent of the total Vote. The Corporate Services subprogramme received a substantial reduction of 15.6 per cent from R30.7 million in 2015/16 to R27.6 million in 2016/17. This is in contrast to the substantial increased allocations to the Departmental Management and Internal Audit subprogrammes, which received increases of their allocation of 12.6 per cent and 17.4 per cent, respectively.

Table 3: Administration expenditure estimates 2016/17

Programme	Budget		Nominal Increase/ Decrease 2016/17	Real Increase/ Decrease 2016/17	Nominal Percent change  2016/17	Real Percent change 2016/17
R’000	2015/16	2016/17
Sub-programme 1: Departmental Management	10 754.0	12 911.0	2 157.0	1 357.6	20.06%	12.62%
Sub-programme 2: Corporate Services	30 746.0	27 632.0	- 3 114.0	- 4 824.8	-10.13%	-15.69%
Sub-programme 3: Office Accommodation	10 634.0	11 207.0	573.0	-  120.9	5.39%	-1.14%
Sub-programme 4: Internal Audit	3 573.0	4 474.0	901.0	624.0	25.22%	17.46%
Sub-programme 5: Finance Services	18 308.0	18 193.0	-  115.0	- 1 241.4	-0.63%	-6.78%
TOTAL	74 015.0	74 417.0	402.0	- 4 205.4	0.5%	-5.68%

Source: IPID 2016/17 APP

 

In terms of economic classification, the main appropriation to compensation of employees increased from R42.4 million adjusted appropriation in 2015/16 to R44.7 million in 2016/17. The budget allocations to machinery and equipment decreases substantially over the medium-term from R661 thousand in 2015/16 to R562 thousand in 2016/17 and R163 thousand in the outer year of the MTEF (2018/19). 

 

In 2016/17, the communications function of the IPID was relocated from the Administration programme to the Compliance Monitoring and Stakeholder Management programme. According to the IPID, this function is best aligned with the work of the Compliance Monitoring and Stakeholder Management programme. The movement has also resulted in reduction of the allocation from Administration to Compliance Monitoring and Stakeholder Management.

 

The Administration Programme has two (2) strategic objective annual targets and five (5) performance indicators for the 2016/17 financial year. The following table outlines the output targets for the budget year and over the MTEF period for each strategic objective specified for this programme in the Strategic Plan.

 

Table 4: Administration Strategic objective annual targets for 2016/17

Strategic Objective	Indicator	Strategic Plan Target	Medium-term Targets
			2016/17	2017/18	2018/19
A capable workforce	Number of employees trained as per IPIDs Training Plan	450	150	150	150
Effective Risk Management	Improved level of Risk Maturity	Level 5	3	4	5

Source: IPID 2016/17 APP

 

The 2015 APP listed the vacancy rate and performance reports produced as strategic objectives. The number of 2016 performance indicators were reduced from nine (9) in 2015, to five (5) performance indicators, of which three (3) indicators are newly included. As such, only two (2) performance indicators from the 2015 remained part of performance evaluation in 2016. Equity targets, in terms of females in SMS positions and persons with disabilities were removed from the 2016 APP. Also, performance indicators measuring performance in terms of training were removed.

 

1. Programme 2: Investigation and Information Management

The main budget allocation for the Investigation and Information Management Programme increased nominally from R150.8 million in 2015/16 to R157.1 million in 2016/17 (R6.3 million). However, when taking the effect of inflation into account, the Programme received a decreased allocation of R3.4 million, or 2.26 per cent. The Programme remains the core function of the IPID, as it received 63.9 per cent of the Vote’s total budget allocation in 2016/17. Although the Programme remains the core function, the proportional allocation towards the Programme reduces to 60.2 per cent over the medium-term. 

 

Table 5: Investigation and Information Management expenditure estimates 2016/17

Programme	Budget		Nominal Increase/ Decrease 2016/17	Real Increase/ Decrease 2016/17	Nominal Percent change 2016/17	Real Percent change 2016/17
R’000	2015/16	2016/17
Sub-programme 1: Investigation Management	15 285.0	11 262.0	- 4 023.0	- 4 720.3	-26.32%	-30.88%
Sub-programme 2: Investigation Services	132 029.0	141 522.0	9 493.0	730.8	7.19%	0.55%
Sub-programme 3: Information Management	3 508.0	4 358.0	850.0	580.2	24.23%	16.54%
TOTAL	150 822.0	157 142.0	6 320.0	- 3 409.2	4.2%	-2.26%

Source: IPID 2016/17 APP

 

The Investigation Management subprogramme received a substantial decreased allocation in 2016/17 (R11.2 million) compared to R15.2 million in 2015/16, which is a real decrease of 30.8 per cent. Conversely, the Information Management subprogramme received a real increase of 16.5 per cent in 2016/17 compared to the previous financial year.

 

The reprioritised allocation will enable the Department to provide awareness training to police officials on key provisions of the IPID Act, 2011 in relation to investigations which the SAPS must comply with, as well as on the implementation of the Department’s disciplinary recommendations.

 

The spending growth will also capacitate the strengthening in the Department’s investigative skills capacity through the newly established NSIT. The mandate of this team is to conduct specialised investigations and facilitate the training of investigators on systemic corruption and other specialised investigations. In terms of economic classification, the budget allocation of R205 thousand towards the machinery and equipment account decreased significantly in 2016/17 from its R1.5 million adjusted allocation in 2015/16. Over the medium-term, this allocation reduces by 100 per cent, as no budget allocations have been made for machinery and equipment in 2017/18 and 2018/19. This trend is similar to that of 2015/16, in which no main budget allocations were made towards this line item, and significant shifts had to be effected to procure items within this account. Also, the main budget allocation towards transfers and subsidies is reduced from R163 thousand to R9 thousand in 2016/17. 

 

The Investigation and Information Management Programme has two strategic objective annual targets for 2016/17, which focus on the training of personnel in specialised services and the percentage of finalised decision ready cases.

 

Table 6: Investigation and Information Management Strategic objective annual targets for 2016/17

Strategic Objective	Indicator	Strategic Plan Target	Medium-term Targets
			2016/17	2017/18	2018/19
Specialised investigative capacity established	Number of employees trained on specialised services as per the Investigation Training Plan	400	100	100	100
Percentage of all Decision ready cases finalised	% of Decision Ready Cases finalised	60% (26 260)	60% (5 433)	61% (5 614)	62% (5 810)

Source: IPID 2016/17 APP

 

The 2016 APP includes 17 annual performance indicators and annual targets to measure the performance of the Investigation and Information Management Programme, most of which measure compliance to the defined categories of investigations contained in the IPID Act, 2011. The target for the generation of statistical reports as per section 9 of the IPID Act, 2011 was reduced from 18 reports to nine reports.  Overall the performance targets attached to the investigation of crimes as per section 28 of the IPID Act, 2011 remain low.

 

1. Programme 3: Legal Services

The Legal Services Programme received a main budget allocation of R5 million for the 2016/17 financial year, which is a real decrease of 3.19 per cent. This programme receives only 2.3 per cent of the total budget allocation of the Vote. The Litigation Advisory Services subprogramme received a substantial decreased allocation of 15.11 per cent from R2.1 million in 2015/16 to R1.9 million in 2016/17. Conversely, the Investigation Advisory Services subprogramme received an increased allocation of 13 per cent, which is an increase from R1.6 million in 2015/16 to R2 million in 2016/17.   

 

Table 7: Legal Services expenditure estimates 2016/17

Programme	Budget		Nominal Increase/ Decrease 2016/17	Real Increase/ Decrease 2016/17	Nominal Percent change 2016/17	Real Percent change 2016/17
R’000	2015/16	2016/17
Sub-programme 1: Legal Support and Administration	1 658.0	1 691.0	33.0	-  71.7	1.99%	-4.32%
Sub-programme 2: Litigation Advisory Services	2 136.0	1 933.0	-  203.0	-  322.7	-9.50%	-15.11%
Sub-programme 3: Investigation Advisory Services	1 682.0	2 027.0	345.0	219.5	20.51%	13.05%
TOTAL	5 476.0	5 651.0	175.0	-  174.9	3.2%	-3.19%

Source: IPID 2016/17 APP

 

In terms of economic classification, no funds have been allocated in the transfers and subsidies account for social services or payments for capital assets for the procurement of machinery and equipment. The percentage of legal advice provided to investigators forms the strategic objective indicator of the Legal Services Programme for the 2016/17 financial year.

 

Table 8: Legal Services Strategic objective annual targets for 2016/17

Strategic Objective	Indicator	Strategic Plan Target	Medium-term Targets
			2016/17	2017/18	2018/19
Provide Investigation Advisory Services to investigators	Percentage of legal advice provided to investigators from the total requests received	90%	90%	90%	90%

Source: IPID 2016/17 APP

 

The Legal Services Programme has a total of eight (8) annual performance indicators and targets for 2016/17. Three (3) performance indicators have been removed from the 2016 APP when compared to the 2015 APP, including the percentage of contracts and SLAs finalised, number of investigations on backlog cases and number of legal workshops conducted.  

1. Programme 4: Compliance Monitoring and Stakeholder Management

The budget allocation of the Compliance Monitoring and Stakeholder Management Programme almost doubled in 2016/17 (99.2 per cent in nominal terms/86.8 per cent in real terms). The allocation increased from R4.4 million in 2015/16 to R8.9 million in 2016/17. The increased allocation is noticeable in the Stakeholder Management subprogramme, which increased from R620 thousand in 2015/16 to R4.7 million in 2016/17. In real terms, this is an increase of 620.2 per cent. This is due to the relocation of the communication function of the Directorate from the Administration Programme to the Compliance Monitoring and Stakeholder Management Programme. 

 

Table 9: Compliance Monitoring and Stakeholder Management expenditure estimates 2016/17

Programme	Budget		Nominal Increase/ Decrease 2016/17	Real Increase/ Decrease 2016/17	Nominal Percent change 2016/17	Real Percent change 2016/17
R’000	2015/16	2016/17
Sub-programme 1: Compliance Monitoring	3 848.0	4 141.0	293.0	36.6	7.61%	0.95%
Sub-programme 2: Stakeholder Management	620.0	4 760.0	4 140.0	3 845.3	667.74%	620.21%
TOTAL	4 468.0	8 901.0	4 433.0	3 881.9	99.2%	86.88%

Source: IPID 2016/17 APP

 

In terms of economic classification, the goods and services budget increased from R947 thousand in 2015/16 to R1.03 million in 2016/17. However, over the medium term the goods and services budget decreases with 3.8 per cent to R844 thousand in 2018/19. The machinery and equipment budget also decreases substantially over the medium term with 39.4 per cent from R61 thousand in 2016/17 to R14 thousand in 2018/19.  The strategic focus of the Compliance Monitoring and Stakeholder Management Programme has been realigned in 2016/17 to focus on an integrated communication and stakeholder engagement strategy.

 

Table 10: Compliance Monitoring and Stakeholder Management Strategic objective annual targets for 2016/17

Strategic Objective	Indicator	Strategic Plan Target	Medium-term Targets
			2016/17	2017/18	2018/19
Ensure an Integrated Communication and Stakeholder Engagement Strategy	Percentage Implementation of the Integrated Communication and Stakeholder Engagement Strategy	New indicator	Approved integrated communication and stakeholder engagement strategy	25% implementation of integrated communication and stakeholder engagement plan	25% implementation of integrated communication stakeholder engagement plan

Source: IPID 2016/17 APP

 

The Compliance Monitoring and Stakeholder Management Programme has a total of six (6) performance indicators for 2016/17, which is two (2) less than the previous financial year. The indicator for the number of reports on the evaluation of the quality of IPID recommendations has been removed. Also, the performance indicator for the number of local Community Policing Forum meetings attended per year was only included in 2014/15 with a target of 40 meetings attendee, of which only 19 meetings were achieved. This was a significant underperformance. Similarly, this target was not achieved in the 2015/16 financial year.

 

1. COMMITTEE OBSERVATIONS

The Committee made the following observations during the 2016/17 budget hearings:

 

1. Budget allocations

1. Reduction of baseline allocations: The Committee raised serious concern about the reduction of R18 million to the baseline allocation of the Department over the medium-term. The Committee questioned the impact these cuts will have on the service delivery outputs.  The Committee stressed the importance of oversight bodies and noted that these bodies should be exempt from baseline budget reductions. The Committee further raised concern about the effect that reductions to the baseline allocation of the IPID have on the ability of the IPID to operate independently from the SAPS, as independent expert opinions in forensics, pathology and ballistics are expensive. The message that is being sent when an essential oversight Department’s budget is reduced should be revisited.   

 

The Department stated that the reductions to the baseline allocation of Vote 20 will impact negatively on the investigation capacity of the IPID, as mandatory cost containment measures to items like travel and subsistence will limit the travel of investigators. The reductions will also impact negatively on the expansion of ICT infrastructure.

 

The Department further indicated that it will continue to engage National Treasury to lobby for the funding of its Expansion Strategy to extend the national footprint of the Department. The Department further indicated that Treasury requested specific amendments to the current scope of the Expansion Strategy to make it more feasible in terms of possible funding in future, to which the Department will comply. 

 

1. Unfunded mandates: The Committee raised concerns about the challenges highlighted by the Department regarding unfunded mandates that are not accommodated by the MTEF allocation. These include (amongst others) the implementation of the recommendations made by the Farlam Commission of Enquiry, funding of the ICT infrastructure and the IPID Expansion Strategy. The Committee highlighted the importance of the professional handling of the Marikana investigations and requested specific assurances from the Department that, especially the Marikana investigations, can be accommodated within the current baseline.

 

The Department assured the Committee that the limited resources available to the Department will be used to successfully conclude the Marikana investigation to a high professional standard. The Department requested an additional allocation of R5 million to fund the Marikana investigations, which was not agreed to by Treasury within the 2016/17 budget allocation. This will undoubtedly place significant strain on the resources of the Department throughout the 2016/17 financial year.    

 

1. Machinery and equipment: The Committee questioned the small budget allocation made towards the machinery and equipment account in 2016/17, in light of a similarly small allocation in the previous financial year, which led to a significant adjustment during the adjustments period. The Committee sought assurances that the Department will not again be forced to effect an adjustment of funds to cover a shortfall in this account. The Committee further requested the Department to indicate whether the allocation of R200 thousand was sufficient to procure sufficient equipment to effectively fulfil its mandate.

 

The Department indicated that the 2015/16 adjustment was necessitated by invoices that were received from the 2014/15 financial year, which was not budgeted for. The Department assured the Committee that the budget allocation was sufficient and that an adjustment will not be needed in the 2016/17 financial year, unless unavoidable circumstances presents itself.

 

1. Increased compliance of SAPS: The Committee noted that an increase in the compliance of police members to the relevant prescripts (like legislation, regulations and the SAPS Code of Conduct) will reduce the number of cases registered with the IPID and as a result, will also reduce the fiscal constraints faced by the Department. The Committee further noted that existence of the Department is based on the non-compliance of SAPS and MPS members and that the increase in cases, especially torture, assault and death as a result of police action points towards an increase in non-compliance. The Department indicated that it was established to assist the SAPS in its transformation process post-1994. Until cases like deaths in police custody declines, the Department will have a continuous role to play within the transformation process and also a vital role as a key structure within the civilian oversight architecture.   

 

1. Programme 1: Administration

The Committee made the following observations during the 2016/17 budget hearings on Programme 1: Administration:

1. Leadership stability: The Committee raised concern about the significant proportion of acting appointments within the top management structure of the IPID and the possible effect this might have on leadership stability within the Department and the ability of the Department to achieve its strategic objectives. The Committee highlighted five (5) of the acting positions of concern as that of the Executive Director, Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and three (3) out of the four (4) Programme Managers of the Department.

 

The Department noted the concern of the Committee, but assured the Committee that the possible impact on the stability of the Department and service delivery are being carefully managed. The Department stated that two of the vacancies are currently the subject of court processes and outside the control of the Department (Executive Director and Programme Manager: Investigation and Information Management). The CFO is currently on maternity leave and will return to her position. The Legal Services Programme was placed under administration following the identification of significant management deficiencies within the Programme. Until the findings and recommendations are completed, the Provincial Head of the Northern Cape was appointed as acting Programme Manager: Legal Services. 

 

The Department further assured the Committee that the current leadership team is capable of achieving excellent service delivery results and that the performance on several targets has already improved.  

 

1. Removal of targets: The Committee raised concern about the removal of several performance indicators, like measuring achievement of gender equity targets, and employment of persons with disabilities targets. The Department indicated that an outcomes-based approach to performance measurement was adopted and as such, indicators that measured lower level activities (in terms of strategic outcomes) were moved to operational performance plans of the Department, which is also subjected to annual audits by the AGSA. The Department assured the Committee that the lower level targets are still measured and that such information can be made available to the Committee on request.     

 

1. Strategic objective: Capable workforce: The Committee raised concern about the ambitious targets set for the number of employees trained as per the IPID Training Plan. Over the medium-term, the Department plans to train a total of 450 employees, divided into 150 employees in each of the financial years within the medium term. The Committee requested the Department to indicate the feasibility of achieving the strategic plan target of 450 employees trained by 2018/19. The Department assured the Committee that the Training Plan on which the performance target is based was costed and that the target is achievable.

 

1. Programme 2: Investigation and Information Management

The Committee made the following observations during the 2016/17 budget hearings on Programme 2: Investigation and Information Management:

1. Marikana Investigation: The Committee questioned the capacity of the Department to comprehensively investigate the incidents that lead to the Marikana shootings in August 2012 and the ability of the IPID to implement the recommendations made by the Farlam Commission of Inquiry subsequent to the incidents. The Department stated that subsequent to the incident, the Department had only one Investigator available to investigate the deaths of over 30 civilians in which approximately 500 SAPS members were involved. This led to one of the key recommendations made by the Farlam Commission of Inquiry that the IPID should be adequately capacitated and that this is currently receiving attention from the Minister of Police, through the Independent Panel of Experts appointed to develop an implementation plan of the Farlam recommendations.

 

1. NSIT: The Committee noted the efforts in the establishment of the NSIT as a step in the right direction in solving systemic corruption within the SAPS.

 

1. Independence: The Committee raised concern about the level of independence of the IPID from the SAPS when conducting investigations, especially in terms of forensics, pathology and ballistics. Section 4 of the IPID Act, 2011 (Act 1 of 2011) provides for the independence and impartiality of the IPID and subsection 4(1) states that “the Directorate functions independently from the South African Police Service.” The necessity of the IPID to use independent ballistic experts was also highlighted by the Farlam Commission of Inquiry during the IPID investigation into the Marikana incident.

 

The Department indicated that independent forensic, pathologic and ballistic experts are used as far as possible. Expert opinions are generally costly and cannot always be accommodated within the budget allocation of the IPID. The Department indicated that independent pathologists are often used when the findings of the State Pathologist are questioned and a second opinion needed. The Department further indicated that an independent ballistic expert was used in the Marikana investigations, upon the insistence of the Portfolio Committee on Police.  

 

The Department concluded by stating that due to budget constraints, it is impossible that it has internal expert capacity within all these fields, as well as holding cells. However, the Department has achieved an acceptable level of independence from the SAPS as per the provisions of the IPID Act, 2011.

 

1. Complaints management: The Committee requested the Department to indicate the process followed when a complaint is lodged with the IPID regarding the misconduct or alleged criminality of a SAPS member. Specific concern regarding the complaints management capacity of the IPID were raised in relation to the planned relocation of the activities of Programme 3: Legal Services to Programme 1: Administration and whether these activities (from Legal Services) will straddle both the Administration and Investigation and Information Management Programmes and the impact this will have on the capacity of the Department to handle complaints. 

 

The Department assured the Committee that the reallocation of activities from the Legal Services Programme to the Administration Programme will not have any impact on the capacity of the Department to effectively deal with complaints against the SAPS. The Department explained that the registration of complaints is (and always has been) lodged solely within the Investigations and Information Management Programme, and as such the reallocation will have no impact.

 

1. Performance targets: The Committee questioned the relatively low targets set for the achievement of performance indicators on Section 28 (IPID Act, 2011) investigations and whether this promotes effectiveness within the Department. The Committee further requested clarity on the target for the annual reduction of backlog cases by 50 per cent.

 

The Department indicated that the performance targets in the specific categories increase in each year over the medium-term. The targets of the IPID comply with the SMART criteria as set by National Treasury for performance indicators. The targets are based on past performance and also the allocated budget, while taking the significant capacity constraints of the Department into account. The personnel establishment of 535 personnel, which was developed by the DPSA when the ICD (predecessor of the IPID) was established, is not yet completely filled and the establishment is approximately 100 personnel short. The Department further indicated that it currently has 163 investigators nationally, which impacts on the ability of the Department to achieve its performance targets.

 

1. Disciplinary recommendations: The Committee raised concern about the continuously low uptake of disciplinary recommendations by the SAPS upon completion of IPID investigations. The Department indicated that the uptake is largely out of their hands, but is being monitored.  

 

1. Programme 3: Legal Services

The Committee made the following observations during the 2016/17 budget hearings on Programme 3: Legal Services:

1. Underperformance: The Committee reminded the Department of certain challenges experienced within the Legal Services Programme, which was highlighted by the Department during the third quarter expenditure hearings. The Committee requested the Department to indicate whether these challenges had been addressed. The Committee further raised concern about the impact of the management inefficiencies on support provided to the Investigation and Information Management Programme, which undoubtedly led to underperformance of both programmes at the end of the financial year. 

The Department indicated that the Legal Services Programme has been placed under administration as part of a management intervention process. The Programme is currently managed by an acting Programme Manager and the Department assured the Committee that the challenges have been addressed. The Department will make a report of the findings and recommendations made in terms of the intervention available to the Committee, once concluded.    

 

1. Policing powers: The Committee raised concern about the underperformance on the target of the Programme to process all applications for policing powers within 10 working days of the request received in the 2015/16 financial year.  The Committee highlighted the importance of IPID Investigators being fully capacitated to execute their mandate. 

 

The Department indicated that the underperformance was as a result of the identified management challenges identified, but assured the Committee that the issues have been addressed and that underperformance on this target will not reoccur in coming years.

 

1. Budget programme restructuring: The Committee raised concern about the planned reallocation of activities of the Legal Services Programme (Programme 3) to Programme 1: Administration to form part of support services to the core business (Programme 2: Investigations and Information Management) based on the evaluation of the Programme’s performance. Specific concerns included whether the Department will be able to retain specialist legal capacity and whether the functions are best suited in the Programme 1: Administration or rather Programme 2: Investigations and Information Management based on the reliance of Investigators on legal advice. The Committee indicated that the programme structure of the Departments should fit the purpose and mandate of the Department.

 

The Department indicated that National Treasury recommended the relocation of the Legal Services Programme in terms of the definition and strategic objectives of the Programme. The Department noted the comments and concerns of the Committee and indicated that the Treasury’s Guidelines on Budget Programmes prescribe that activities that are not directly involved in the delivery of services to the public, but rather provide support services to enabling programmes within the Department support services, should be contained within the Administration Programme. However, the Departments stated that it will engage National Treasury to determine whether the Legal Service Programme is not best suited within the Investigation and Information Management Programme, based on the reliance of Investigations on legal advice and assistance.    

 

1. Performance indicators and targets: The Committee questioned the feasibility of achieving the high percentage targets set for the performance indicators for the Legal Services Programme, as most of the targets are set for either 100 or 90 per cent. The Department indicated that the targets set for the Programme are based on legislative requirements, which demands compliance thereto.  

 

1. Programme 4: Compliance Monitoring and Stakeholder Management 

The Committee made the following observations during the 2016/17 budget hearings on Programme 4: Compliance Monitoring and Stakeholder Management:

1. Awareness training to SAPS: The Committee raised concern about the provision of awareness training to the SAPS during station lectures on the IPID Act, 2011 and the responsibilities of SAPS members in terms thereof. The Committee indicated that the SAPS should be responsible for ensuring the members are fully conversant and compliant to all legislation pertaining to their duties and obligations. The Committee further requested the Department to indicate whether specific ranks are targeted during these awareness training sessions and whether it will not be more effective to target cluster stations to reach more police members. 

 

The Department indicated that several cases of non-compliance by a SAPS member in terms of section 33(3) of the IPID Act, 2011 have been opened. The section provides that members of the SAPS or MPS failing to provide their full cooperation to the IPID during an investigation, as provided for by section 29 of the IPID Act, 2011, are guilty of an offence. The Department stated that there has been a reluctance by the Department of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to prosecute Section 33(3) offences, as the DPP argued that there is no reasonable expectation for SAPS and MPS members to be aware of the penalties provided for in the IPID Act, 2011 regarding non-cooperation. The proactive approach employed by the Department to engage SAPS members during station lectures to provide awareness training is a way for the IPID to meet the DPP halfway. The Department further indicated that the training is mostly focussed on operational members of the SAPS and that specific focus is given to first respondents (to crime scenes).    

 

1. Consultative Forum targets: The Committee questioned the removal of the performance indicator measuring the adherence to Chapter 4 of the IPID Act, 2011 in terms of the establishment of a Consultative Forum between the IPID and Civilian Secretariat for Police (CSP). This was especially raised in light of the challenges experienced in the past with the establishment and effectiveness of the Forum. The Department indicated that the target has been included in the overarching target for the number of formal stakeholder engagements.  

 

1. Community Policing Forum (CPF) meetings: The Committee raised concern about the removal of a specific performance indicator for the attendance of CPF meetings by IPID personnel, as CPFs represents a critical partner in civilian oversight over the conduct of SAPS members. The Department indicated that CPFs are indeed a key stakeholder of the Department, but that the target is included in the operational performance plan of the Department, as it measures activities, which are not in-line with an outcomes-based approach for performance measurement. The target is still being measured under the overarching target for stakeholder engagements and can be reported to the Committee on request.  

 

1. RECOMMENDATIONS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

This section provides a summary of the recommendation made by the Committee and also a summary of the additional information requested during the 2016/17 budget hearings.

 

1. Recommendations: Budget allocation 2016/17

The Committee made the following recommendations regarding the 2016/17 budget allocation of Vote 20: IPID:

1. Budget reductions:  The Committee recommends that the reductions to the baseline budget allocation of Vote 20: IPID over the medium-term should be reviewed and that the budgets of essential oversight bodies should be exempt from baseline reductions.    

 

1. Expansion strategy: The Committee recommends that the Department should review the extent and cost of the Expansion Strategy to be resubmitted to Treasury for consideration. The Committee further recommends that the Department should inform the Committee on the progress made in this regard and provide a comprehensive report to the Committee on the reasons forwarded by Treasury for not approving the Expansion Strategy, or part thereof. The submission and response by Treasury should be submitted to the Committee within 90 days (end of July 2016).

 

1. Funding for the Marikana investigations (Unfunded mandate): The Committee recommends that the request for additional funding in the amount of R5 million from Treasury to conclude the Marikana investigation should be reviewed and allocated to the Department. However, the Committee also recommends that the Marikana investigation should not be regarded as an unfunded mandate, as this forms part of the core legislative mandate of the Department. It should rather be motivated on the scope and nature of the incident and subsequent investigation and that an incident of this nature could not have been foreseen and thus not budgeted. The Marikana investigations are placing significant fiscal constraints on the Department and should be reconsidered by Treasury. 

 

6.2.    Recommendations: Service delivery performance

The Committee made the following recommendations regarding the 2016/17 service delivery performance indicators of Vote 20: IPID:

1. Leadership stability: The Committee recommends that top management positions, currently held by acting managers, should be filled by permanent incumbents as soon as possible. These positions include that of the Executive Director, Chief Financial Officer and Programme Managers. The Committee further recommends that leadership stability should be ensured despite the large proportion of acting managers within the top structure of the Department.

 

1. Budget programme restructuring: The Committee recommends that the relocation of activities from Programme 3: Legal Services to Programme 1: Administration should be carefully considered and taken into account whether the activities do not fit better as support service to Programme 2: Investigation and Information Management Programme.

 

1. Independence: The Committee recommends that the IPID should continuously be mindful of its legislative requirement of independence from the SAPS when conducting investigations and that the Department should make use of independent forensic, ballistic and pathology services where possible.

 

1. Training: The Committee recommends that the Department should focus on the development of an independent qualification and curriculum for Investigators to further ensure independence from the SAPS. The Committee further recommends that the training targets of the Department should adhere to the approved and costed training plan of the Department and that specialist investigator capacity within the NSIT should be prioritised over the medium-term. 

 

1. Awareness training: The Committee recommends that the IPID should also provide awareness training to the members of the MPS and not focus only on awareness training to SAPS members. 

 

1. Oversight ability: The Committee recommends that the Department should continue to strengthen its oversight ability over the SAPS and MPS to ensure the realisation of the NDP to create a more professional police service that enjoys the full trust of the communities served by the SAPS and MPS.

 

1. Stakeholder engagements: The Committee recommends that the Department should focus on strengthening partnerships with key stakeholders, particularly Community Policing Forums (CPFs) and the Civilian Secretariat for Police (CSP).

 

1. Consultative Forum: The Committee recommends that a separate performance indicator for the Consultative Forum meetings to be held with the Civilian Secretariat for Police at least four times per year, as provided for in Chapter 4 of the IPID Act, 2011 (Act 1 of 2011), must be reinstated.

 

6.3.    Additional information

The Committee requested additional information through written responses to supplement the information gathered during hearings on the 2016/17 budget hearings of the IPID:

• Findings and recommendations subsequent to the completion of the management intervention into the identified irregularities within the management of the Legal Services Programme.

 

1. CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the Committee indicated that it will continue to fulfil its Constitutional mandate which is guided by the Parliamentary rules in conducting oversight over the functioning of IPID in order to ensure compliance with the legislative mandate and policy requirements of the IPID in realising a more professional police service. 

 

The Portfolio Committee on Police supports the budget allocation of the IPID for 2016/17 and recommends that the Budget Vote 20 be adopted. The Democratic Alliance (DA) reserves their position on the budget.

 

Report to be considered.