Police Portfolio Audit Outcomes; SAPS & IPID 2023/24 Annual Report

Video Police Independent Police Investigative Directorate The Portfolio Committee on Police held a full-day meeting to receive briefings from the Auditor-General of South Africa (AGSA) and the South African Police Service (SAPS) and its entities regarding the 2023/24 audit outcomes and annual reports. The Committee first received a briefing from the AG's Office on the financial statements and audit outcomes of the SAPS and its entities. It was highlighted to them that in terms of performance information, SAPS only achieved 54% of its total targets in contrast to its entities: Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID), Civilian Secretariat for Police Service (CSPS) and Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (PSIRA), which had all achieved 100 per cent. During the Committee's interaction with the AGSA, the Committee expressed its concern on the high number of claims that were litigated by civilians against SAPS members, the crimes that were committed by SAPS members and the lack of consequence thereof, the irregular tender contracting process at SAPS, the disastrous state of 10111 call centres and ageing cases at SAPS. The Committee questioned how it is possible that SAPS has such a low performance achievement rate but its allocated budget has all been spent. The Committee pointed out that SAPS should not distract Members’ attention by shifting the responsibilities of combating crimes to civilians and reported that victims in many cases are too scared to report crimes. The Committee enquired about the intervention measures to assist SAPS in doing proper record keeping, AGSA’s comment on the effectiveness on SAPS’s crime prevention strategies, the regression for PSIRA’S audit outcome, the AG’s comment on SAPS and its entities’ internal audit committees, whether or not those internal units were functional and able to do early detections, the need for SAPS to improve its IT system, and security clearance for SAPS top brass. In the following session, the Committee directly engaged with SAPS on its Annual Report for 2023/24. The Committee enquired about the low number of registered extortion cases and wanted to know why. Further, the Committee pointed out that SAPS's current focus on extortion excludes various types of small-scale extortion cases. In many of those instances, victims do not report extortion cases because citizens have low trust in the police since some SAPS members were working with extortionists. Among other issues the Committee enquired, those also included the procedure that SAPS takes in disposing of drugs, the role that DPCI does in combating corruption in the public sector in relation to the role which the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) plays, the incapable station commanders across the country, strategies to deal with the shortage of detectives, the implementation of lifestyle audits, the number of police stations that aimed to be built and their distribution, the stolen vehicles, the use of sniffer dogs in the police operations, SAPS' exit interviews before its members resigned, DNA sample being tampered with, etc. The Committee expressed concerns about the R91 million underspending on crimes and intelligence despite the rampant violent crimes that had just taken place in Lusikisiki. The Committee also expressed concerns about the loss of firearms and wanted to see SAPS members being punished for their negligence in duty. The Committee noted the huge expense which SAPS spent on leases and the maintenance of buildings and enquired about the property owners of those buildings. In the next session, the Committee interacted with the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID). The Committee suggested to IPID whether it would be better if it applied for condonation for the irregular expenditure that it had incurred years ago instead of being carried over into every financial year. The Committee enquired about the disciplinary actions between the IPID and SAPS, whether they overlap, whether IPID review the disciplinary decisions made by SAPS, etc.? The Committee asked if IPID needed any legislation to strengthen its power. It wanted to know what can be done to address the issue of suicides happening in police custody, the high number of decline to prosecute, IPID’s vacancy rate, IPID’s recommendations to SAPS to address the high rate of assault and the missing HR performance in IPID’s report. The Committee recommended IPID to train its staff for customer service and to make itself more approachable to the broader public. The Committee then engaged with the Civilian Secretariat for Police Service (CSPS). The Committee applauded the CSPS for achieving its fourth consecutive clean audit and congratulated CSPS on its gender balance in employment and urged it to take equal consideration to include persons with disabilities. The Committee enquired about CSPS’s role in developing the police policy, the underspending of the Office of the DPCI judge and DNA board sub-programme, the economic factors that made it difficult for CSPI to improve community safety, whether CSPS had the power to hold SAPS accountable, the consultation process on the South African Police Amendment Bill, the collection of census, etc. The Committee’s last engagement of the day was with the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (PSIRA). The Committee enquired about the standards that were being used in training security officers, that they did not have to go through military type of training, the pension fund scam in which fund was being pocketed by private security companies themselves, PSIRA’s accreditation process, online self-assessment platform, PSIRA’s strategy in dealing with bad debts, its high vacancy rate as well as its working relationship with law enforcement agencies and local government. The Committee expressed its concern about the lack of transformation in the private security industry and asked PSIRA to provide more clarity on the forms of objections there were from those private security industry stakeholders. The Committee expressed its displeasure at the regression in PSIRA's audit outcomes. It was shocked to hear that an R80 million contract had been awarded to a tenderer who had not delivered any form of service.