DPCI Judge & DNA Board 2023/24 Annual Reports; Draft National Policing Policy and Integrated Crime and Violence Prevention Strategy (with Ministry)

Video Draft National Policing Policy The Portfolio Committee on Police met virtually to consider the 2023/24 Annual Reports of the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation Judge and the National Forensic Oversight and Ethics Board (DNA Board). In addition, the Civilian Secretariat for Police Service presented the Draft National Policing Policy and Integrated Crime and Violence Prevention Strategy. The Minister of Police and both Deputy Ministers of Police were in attendance. During the discussion on the Committee’s Report on its visit to the Philippi Training Academy, concern was raised about corruption at the academy and the fact that one of the suspects had been short-listed for a position at another training college while the corruption investigation dragged on. The Minister of Police was relieved that four more suspects in the Lusikisiki killings earlier in the month had been arrested. The mastermind was currently serving a sentence in a Correctional Services facility and would be arrested shortly. It was a concern that a person in custody could plan and organise such an attack. In addition, one of those arrested was a parolee. The Minister had held a meeting with the Minister of Correctional Services to insist that something be done urgently. During the operation in Lusikisiki, which had become a den of iniquity, others had been arrested for various crimes, including a double murder. The Minister referred to the two extortionists in the Western Cape who had shot at police attempting to stop their stolen vehicle, but the suspects had been shot and killed. It was important for the police to use force equivalent to the need. He expressed concern about the small budget that the DNA board was trying to work on. Nevertheless, the technicians worked hard on the backlog while the board tried to projectise the clean-up and acquire further funding. He had met with Judge Legodi, the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation Judge, to discuss some of the pertinent issues in the Judge’s office. The DNA Board reported that the completion rate of routine forensic cases for the reporting period remained below target. Only 13.6% of routine case submissions were completed within the required 35 calendar days. 199 485 out of 300 438 DNA intelligence entries were completed within 90 calendar days. During the year 364, 477 Schedule 8 offenders were arrested and charged, but only 300 997 of those samples were collected, indicating a further problem in building a DNA database. Members asked how the DNA Board could go three years without a judge in office. Was there no system that spoke to the necessity of providing evidence for specific court cases? The Public Service Commission had already investigated the complaint of maladministration at the Forensic Science Laboratory, so why had that report not been presented to the Committee? Crime had risen year after year, so how did the number of case exhibits drop from 71 000 in 2022/23 to 12 000 in 2023/24? Why were 45 209 profiles expunged from the system? Why had there not been any public awareness campaigns in the past year? How could the public know what rights they had in forensic DNA analyses? What was the turnaround time for the prioritised gender-based violence and femicide cases, as it seemed most of the court cases were delayed because the sample analysis had not been concluded? What was the strategy about the DNA of foreigners who were not legally in the country but had been involved in crimes? Why did the figures the board gave seem not to include cases received but not yet registered, as that was where the true backlog was to be found? The matters concerning the DNA Board were not concluded, and a decision was made to arrange a follow-up engagement. The DPCI Judge informed the Committee that it had 124 complaints by the beginning of the financial year: 69 within and 55 outside of the mandate. Twenty-four new cases within and 24 outside of the mandate were received during the financial year. The decrease could be linked to the fact that there were no awareness campaigns. The complaints were about improper investigation and undue delays in investigation, abuse of power, failure to investigate unlawful arrests, and threats or harassment by DPCI members. The Office had a total budget allocation of R6.918 million; salaries and wages were R1.41 million; goods and services were R1.77 million, and there was a savings of R334 000 for the financial year due to cost containment measures from National Treasury as well as the fact that no awareness sessions were conducted in the absence of the judge. The biggest cost drivers were fleet, promotional items, legal services, machinery and equipment. Portfolio Committee Members asked how the office's work was affected by not having a judge for over a year. What measures were taken to remedy a situation when confidential information was revealed? What remedies were implemented to ensure that reported wrongs were not repeated? Who made the decision not to attend to those complaints which were considered not serious? Did one person decide which complaints to take, or was there a committee? The briefing by the Civilian Secretariat for Police Service on the Draft National Policing Policy revealed that the process had begun in 2021. The current minister prioritised the policy to be fast-tracked and approved as the Constitution requires. 3 368 written inputs and 3 357 inputs from individuals through the Dear South Africa Organisation had been received. The presentation to the Portfolio Committee served as part of the consultation process on the draft National Policing Policy, which the Minister anticipated would serve in Cabinet before the end of October or, at the latest, November 2024. The policy addressed macro and micro issues from the triple challenges of poverty, inequality and unemployment to socioeconomic underdevelopment and population increases. The pillars supporting policing were professional and quality policing, efficient and effective service delivery, active public and community participation, strong and ethical leadership, management, and governance; the enablers for the pillars were policy and legislation that was to be amended: the Police SAPS Act of 1995 was in the process of amendment. As per the Constitution, the responsibility of local governments was included in the policy and linked to the integrated crime and violence prevention strategy because if the local government played its role in bylaw enforcement, that would reduce the burden on policing overall. The Committee asked if retired people who were still fit for duty and extremely knowledgeable could be retained in the Police Service as they could add much more value. Why were there no tangible timelines for implementation, which was always the downfall in policy matters? Was there a reference to the need for psychometric testing of new candidates? Which international best practices were considered when pulling together the report? Where was the reference to consequence management? In pillar one of the policy, police were allowed to use force, but when should they use force? When the policy said police were allowed to use force, what assurance was there that they would be able to know exactly when and how to do it? How could one introduce mentorship in a department where the numbers of police were low, and there was a shortage of manpower? Had lifestyle audits started? If not, when were they going to start?