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.

The Democratic Alliance’s (DA) assessment of the public submissions received on the controversial South African Police Service Amendment Bill indicates widespread opposition to the bill amongst citizens and leading civil society and specialist organisations.

Public hearings on the South African Police Service Amendment Bill will take place this week in the police portfolio committee following Parliament’s call for public submissions on the bill.

The Bill is the result of a Constitutional Court ruling (the so-called Glenister Judgment) which found that the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (or “Hawks”) was open to political interference by senior politicians and that this must be remedied in legislation.

Organisations such as the Institute for Security Studies (ISS), the Institute for Accountability in Southern Africa (IFAISA), the Helen Suzman Foundation, the Open Society Foundation, the Legal Resource Centre, Corruption Watch and the Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution all argue that the bill is inconsistent with the Glenister judgment and that the Hawks as a result is not sufficiently independent or shielded from political interference.

Accordingly, the DA will this week continue its campaign in Parliament to create a sufficiently independent anti-corruption unit like the Scorpions were. We will also study the feasibility and implications of setting up a Chapter 9 type body to combat corruption as suggested by various organisations in their public submissions.

We have identified ten ways in which the Hawks do not measure up to the Scorpions, and will ensure that these objections are taken into account in the public hearings. Key objections include the following:
The appointment process for the Head of the Hawks is still the overall responsibility of a senior politician – the Minister of Police – with the concurrence of other senior politicians in the Cabinet. The DA maintains that the appointment should involve a process of consultation with Parliament.
Should the Head of the Hawks step on the toes of senior politicians, the Minister of Police may provisionally suspend him or her. This does very little to encourage the Hawks to fight corruption without fear of retribution.
Undue political interference remains a threat, as senior politicians, in the form of the Ministerial Committee, have the ability to coordinate the activities of the Hawks in terms of section 17I(2)(c) of the Bill.
The DA holds that financial independence is a prerequisite for independent anti-corruption efforts. The budget of the Hawks remains under the control of the National Police Commissioner and the money allocated to it forms part of the budget vote for the Police. The Hawks, like the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID), should have a separate budget vote and require greater financial independence to ensure that they will not face spurious budget cuts or resource constraints when zooming in on corrupt officials and politicians.
The salary and benefits of the Head of the Hawks and other senior staff are still determined by the Police Minister.
A senior politician still has the power to determine national priority offences to be investigated by the Hawks. This is “subject” to policy guidelines issued by the Minister of Police.
The Hawks will remain in the Department of Police and are directly answerable to a Minister. No effort is being made to situate the Directorate in the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) or similar organs of state which enjoy constitutionally enshrined independence.
The Bill clearly does not give the Hawks the power to investigate and combat the full spectrum of corrupt activities. The functions of the Hawks include the prevention, combatting and investigation of only “selected offences” as described in Chapter 2 and s34 of the Prevention and Combatting of Corrupt Activities Act (No. 12 of 2004).
Members of the Hawks, in terms of section 17E(9)(a) of the Bill, are bound only to perform their functions impartially and in good faith. Independence is still clearly not a basic necessary precondition for the execution of their duties.
Members of the Hawks remain police officers with all the powers, duties and functions of police members. While it is necessary for the Hawks to have these powers and functions, it is unacceptable that their members operate within the rank-and-file of the SAPS where independence is undermined by a culture of taking orders from superiors without question.
South Africans deserve an independent, effective and highly specialised, prosecution-driven anti-corruption unit like the Scorpions, not a watered down version answerable to a Minister, like the Hawks.

Corruption continues to undermine the goals of increasing growth, creating jobs and fighting poverty. It is in the best interest of the country and the public to bring back the Scorpions instead of simply fiddling with the Hawks.