The Helen Suzman Foundation (HSF) has called on Parliament to amend the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) Bill to safeguard the independence of the independent investigative oversight body.

The HSF noted that an independent IPID was vital to an accountable, responsive and functional police service.

The Institute for Security Studies noted that the new Bill proposed weakening the provisions for appointing the IPID executive director, by excluding Parliament and centralising control over the process in the hands of the Minister of Police and Cabinet.

It explained that this would increase IPID’s vulnerability to political interference and manipulation.

“As currently formulated, the Bill risks further compromising IPID’s independence because it does away with a central role for the Parliamentary Committee for Police (PCP) in appointing IPID’s Executive Director (IPID ED) and instead proposes that he/she be appointed by the Minister of Police in concurrence with Cabinet,” said the HSF.

ISS, an independent, non-partisan think tank, also submited that the IPID ED should instead be appointed by the PCP in consultation with the Minister, after a panel of suitably qualified persons – appointed by the PCP and in consultation with the Minister – recommended a candidate.

HSF believes such a process will not only entrench the IPID’s independence but also give the public confidence that the IPID ED is appropriately qualified.

HSF’s latest submission follows a sustained effort to secure the IPID’s institutional and operational autonomy.

The Constitutional Court’s judgment in McBride v Minister of Police, in which the HSF was admitted as amicus curiae, confirmed that IPID must not only be institutionally independent of the executive but must be perceived to be so in the public eye.

“It is surprising, to say the least, that it might be said of this latest iteration of the Bill, intended ostensibly to guard against the risk of executive interference identified by the Constitutional Court in McBride [v Minister of Police], [that this principle is again compromised] just as much as it was said in McBride [v Minister of Police],” said HSF.

The HSF noted that this state of affairs created room for the Minister to invoke partisan political influence to appoint someone who was likely to “pander to his whims or is sympathetic to the Minister’s political orientation”.

The foundation added that this might lead to IPID becoming politicised and being manipulated.