The content on this page is not written by Polity.org.za, but is supplied by third parties. This content does not constitute news reporting by Polity.org.za.

I have today submitted to the Speaker of Parliament a Private Members Legislative Proposal, the purpose of which is to empower the Independent Complaints Directorate (ICD) by creating a greater onus on the South African Police Service (SAPS) to enact any recommendation the ICD might make to it, concerning the conduct of its members.

As things stand, and according to the latest information, 42% of all recommendations made by the ICD are not acted upon by the SAPS. This, in turn, has implications for the public credibility of the police services, which should, at all times, be beyond reproach; as well as for the ability of the police service to properly carry out its mandate (if a large number of its members are under investigation or suspended, they cannot properly carry out their duties).

It also says much about the attitude of the SAPS towards corruption and maladministration, a further symptom, no doubt, of the ANC administration's lax and tolerant response to these particular challenges.

What the DA's Private Member's Bill does, is place into the South African Police Service Act a set of provisions which compel the SAPS to act on the ICD's recommendations; if the SAPS deem those recommendations to be unreasonable, the onus falls on it to explain in writing why they have failed to act. And, because the provisions require that explanation to be public and transparent, it will hopefully create greater pressure on the Police Service both to take action and to be accountable when it does not.

The ICD was established to investigate complaints of brutality, criminality and misconduct against members of the SAPS, and the Municipal Police Service (MPS) with the purpose of ensuring and promoting proper police conduct.

There are five different classes of complaints that can be laid with the ICD but, in broad terms a complaint laid against a member of the SAPS, after proper investigation, must culminate in a report with recommendations which is given to the Director of Public Prosecutions and a copy of which is sent to the SAPS and to the complainant (some classes of complaint can be referred directly to the SAPS for investigation, with ICD providing oversight). The SAPS Act also provides that a copy of the recommendations may, where appropriate, also be sent to the Attorney General or the Minister of Police.

Up to this point, all indications are the procedure works well, but it is with regards to the implementation of any recommendations made by the ICD that the problem lies. According to a briefing by the ICD to the portfolio committee this week, the number of complaints received against the SAPS has increased, to 6 119 (in 2008/09) from 5 830 in the previous year. Deaths in police custody or as a result of police action have also increased, from 792 to 912 over the same period. At the same time, however, and according to the ICD, the SAPS is failing to act on its recommendations, to the extent that they now constitute a serious operational challenge.

In response to a DA parliamentary question last year (which reflects the last official audit of the problem) the Minister of Police stated that, in 2008, "573 recommendations were made by the ICD. It was found that there was compliance with ICD recommendations on the part of SAPS in 333 of the total number of 573 cases examined, which constitutes 58.1%".

The taxpayer often also carries the burden of this failure. For the three years prior to August 2008, R90 million had been spent on the salaries of suspended SAPS members. (It is worth noting that a SAPS member can only be dismissed if they are given a prison sentence without the option of a fine.)

Given the number of cases under investigation, which obviously involves a great many police men and women, a failure to act on a recommendation by the SAPS only serves to undermine the effectiveness of the police force. The situation is also something of a vicious circle because as the case load increases and the recommendations are ignored, so the problem is exacerbated.

We believe our solution to be a simple and effective one.

Obviously the proposed provisions we have submitted are suggestions which, if the committee on Private Members' Legislative Proposals approves, can be fine tuned by the portfolio committee on police. We have, for example, suggested that the SAPS demonstrate that an effort has been made to enact any recommendations within 14 days, but this period could be amended if the Committee deems it too onerous.

We have also suggested a provision whereby the SAPS, if it deems an ICD recommendation to be unreasonable, can appeal that finding, and which gives the Minister the ability to establish an appeals mechanism through which the SAPS's case can be considered.

However, if the DA's PMB is accepted, the onus will now fall squarely on the SAPS to implement any recommendation timeously and to provide written reasons where it cannot. It is our hope that this will increase transparency and improve the accountability of the police force, while at the same time helping to bolster the effectiveness of the ICD.