REPORT OF THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON SAFETY & SECURITY: OVERSIGHT VISIT TO EASTERN CAPE AND GAUTENG (
01 to 04 December 2003)
A multiparty delegation of the Portfolio Committee on Safety and Security, having conducted oversight visits to Eastern Cape and Gauteng from 01 to 04 December 2003, reports as follows:
The Portfolio Committee on Safety and Security took a decision to visit the Provincial Head Offices of the SAPS in the Eastern Cape and Gauteng, as well as 3 police stations in each province (in Gauteng a 4th station was added). The ultimate purpose of the visit was to investigate whether or not there was adequate consultation with all the relevant stakeholders in the handling and implementation of Resolution 7/2002, and whether due consideration was given to family circumstances of police members who, as a result of the said Resolution, were then redeployed to other areas, which were far away from home and their immediate family members. The delegation of the Committee also looked at the manner in which complaints by the affected police members were handled and the kind of decisions taken on individual cases in addressing those complaints.
The decision to visit the two provinces was taken after the Committee was flooded with letters from the police unions, particularly SAPU, complaints from individual police officers, various media reports, pronouncements from public representatives and other concerned people, suggesting that there were problems in the manner in which Resolution 7/2002 was handled. In the light of the information the Committee received, although there was a general outcry in the manner in which the said resolution was handled, the provinces that attracted most criticisms or attention were the Eastern Cape and Gauteng. It was with that reason that the delegation of the Portfolio Committee on Safety and Security visited the two provinces. That, of course, did not mean that there were no problems in other provinces – that everything was running smooth. The Committee had to prioritize those provinces that were reported to having serious problems, with the limited time and resources available at the time.
Following below is a political party breakdown of the delegation that represented the Committee in both provinces, terms of reference, report on the briefings received, debriefing session, and recommendations of the delegation.
Member and Party:
(i) Mr ME George (ANC)*
(ii) Mr AM Maziya (ANC)
(iii) Ms MA Molebatsi (ANC)
(iv) Ms. DM Morobi (ANC)
(v) Mr PS Swart (DA) (in Gauteng, he was replaced by Mr DHM Gibson (DA))
(vi) Mr J Schippers (NNP)
(vii) Mr N Lala (Committee Secretary)
The following people were also in attendance; Asst. Comm. Ndaba and his team from the National Office, Head of the SAPS Secretariat in the Eastern Cape, national and provincial office bearers of SAPU and POPCRU, and CPF members.
The Delegation had to investigate and report to Parliament the following:
Whether there was adequate consultation with all the relevant stakeholders in the handling and implementation of Resolution 7/2002, and whether due consideration was given to family circumstances of police members who, as a result of the said Resolution, were then redeployed to other areas, which were far away from home and their immediate family members. The delegation also had to look at, and report on, the manner in which complaints by the affected police members were handled and the kind of decisions taken on individual cases in addressing those complaints. The delegation also had to investigate if the provinces still had outstanding disputes. Lastly, based on its observations and discussions to be held with the relevant stakeholders, the Committee had to make recommendations.
The delegation of the Portfolio Committee was told that the Implementation of Resolution 7/2002 was a result of the PSCBC agreement. The Provincial Management reported that SAPU withdrew from the process at the last minute, whilst POPCRU carried on until the end. The delegation was then updated on the progress made in implementing Resolution 7/2002, the impact the Resolution had on service delivery, and constraints encountered during the implementation process.
Updating the delegation on the implementation of Resolution 7/2002, the Provincial Management stated that all employees from levels 1 to 12 had all been matched and placed. Of the total number of those employees, 90% had taken-up their posts already, with the remaining 10% on dispute. The disputants, the delegation was told, render their services elsewhere – not in their previous or proposed new stations. However, according to the national directive, all employees would have taken up their posts on the 31st December 2003, irrespective of whether they had pending disputes or not.
The delegation was also told about the total number of vacant posts in the province, which was about 1 376. This shortfall, according to the explanation given by the Provincial Commissioner, was a result of a backlog and a large number of members who took severance packages. This, the delegation was told, was being addressed through the recruitment process. However, there was still a problem with the enlistment process, which was rather very slow and mostly replacing, not adding new members.
The Provincial Management reported that, because of Resolution 7/2002, the province had experienced the following:
4.2.1 General decrease in crime
4.2.2 Improvement in the general management of SAPS in the province
representativity brought about during matching and placing of employees
The following were identified as having made the work of the management team dealing with Resolution 7/2002 very difficult:
Following below is a report on the meeting held with police unions (SAPU and POPCRU) and the three police stations that the delegation visited, namely; Mdantsane, Gcuwa (Butterworth) and Centane Police Stations, in that order.
The delegation invited the two police unions to express their views on the handling of Resolution 7/2002. It was noted that their views were slightly similar and the bottom line was that the Resolution was not handled according to the guidelines. They reasoned that Resolution 7/2002 had been used, mostly, as punishment to those members who were viewed by their commanders as lazy or troublesome. However, they did give an exception, saying that, at least, Mdantsane Police Station was the best station in terms of its implementation of the Resolution. Both unions attributed that to the calibre of the Station Commissioner, not to the provincial Management Team.
Following below were some of the points raised by individual police unions, starting with SAPU and then POPCRU.
SAPU raised the following points:
The following were the salient points in POPCRU’s presentation:
The Management of Mdantsane Police Station, led by it’s Station Commissioner, gave a report on the sate of the station, with regard to the handling of Resolution 7/2002 and the changes the resolution brought about in the station.
The Station Commissioner said most members were eager to come to Mdantsane Police Station. As a result, the station had not experienced any problems with the newly redeployed members to the station. The delegation was also told that since the introduction of Resolution 7/2002, there had been a tremendous change in crime levels. Generally, crime had gone down in the station area. The station had also started training community members for sector policing.
Both labour unions (SAPU and POPCRU) and the CPF echoed the words of the Station Commissioner, confirming that everything was running smooth in the station and everybody was getting well with each other.
The station management stated that the station had received 55 members (15 Whites, 6 Coloureds and 34 Africans), without deploying any of their members to other stations. The total number of police personnel after Resolution 7/2002 was 232, of which 56 of them were female. Fleet strength was 46.
The delegation was unanimous in their view that if the information received from the station management and other stakeholders present in the meeting was a true reflection of the realities in the station, then Mdantsane Police Station was not only a good station, but also a well-run station in the province.
The station had 142 police members, 11 of whom were females. Out of that 142, 27 were detectives (there were no female detectives).
The Station Commander made a presentation to the delegation on how he viewed the implementation of Resolution 7/2002. In what at first was thought of as jest, the Station Commander said Resolution 7 had been used to root out all the nkunkuma (directly translates as rubbish) that were unwanted in their stations and brought to his station. That, according to the Station Commander, militated against what he thought was the excellent opportunity for the SAPS, through Resolution 7, to address equity and skills shortage in police stations. He said, overall, the Resolution seemed to be used as a tool to punish those people who were not wanted in their stations, and Gcuwa Police Station had had to endure the most of that practice.
Later on, it became clear that the Station Commander used the term nkunkuma deliberately in full understanding of its meaning, and had been known to be referring to some of his members who had been redeployed to his station. This was apparent after Sup. Menziwa complained about the use of this term, and said the Station Commissioner was referring particularly to him, as he was redeployed from Centane to Butterworth Police Station. Sup. Menziwa went further to say, despite the fact that he was a senior member, he did not even have an office in the station and was not utilized for police work, only because he was viewed as inkunkuma from another station.
SAPU, unlike POPCRU – which said they had no problem with Resolution 7, said there were problems in the manner in which Resolution 7 was being implemented. To show that there were problems in the implementation of the Resolution, SAPU mentioned that in Buttertworth Police Station one Superintendent from the station was redeployed elsewhere, only to be replaced by another Superintendent from another station.
In another incident, a police officer (Captain Hlazo) was redeployed from Cala Police Station to Cofimvaba Police Station, and was later instructed to go back to his previous station – Cala. SAPU indicated that in that case, SAPS Management even appealed to intimidation tactics in order to force Captain Hlazo to comply with all those contradicting instructions. Captain Hlazo was told that if he did not comply his salary would be freezed.
The SAPS Management countered those "accusations" by saying Captain Hlazo filled the form wrongly, therefore, he was redeployed to Cofimvaba based on the wrong information that he provided in the forms. When the problem was identified (wrong information) Captain Hlazo was then referred back to his previous station, but SAPU advised him against that.
The delegation of the Portfolio Committee noted that indeed, there seemed to be cases that point towards vindictiveness by the SAPS management in the implementation of the Resolution. The delegation also condemned in the strongest terms the Station Commander’s reference to his personnel as inkunkumas, who, in turn, apologized accordingly. The delegation told the station management, particularly the Station Commissioner, that they have a responsibility to build the morale of the workforce in the station. According to the delegation, it was clear that the morale at the station was very low. That was not a surprise, given the conditions those members worked under.
The SAPS Provincial Management Team also condemned the Station Commissioner’s attitude towards his fellow police members and urged him to treat them with respect.
On the question on whether the Station Commissioner had raised with the province the perceptions he had about Resolution 7/2002, he said he had never done that. He had also never informed the province that he was not utilizing Superintendent Menziwa for the purpose for which he was sent in Butterworth.
The leader of the delegation said it was clear that there was a problem in Butterworth Police Station. He urged all members of the police service, irrespective of their ranks and their union affiliations, to work together to bring back the dignity of the SAPS and boost the morale of the police in the station. He said the delegation might have to come back to the station to see if things were changing for the better.
The Station had an Acting Station Commander. She had been redeployed to the station through Resolution 7/2002. In total, the station had lost 4 members, and gained 2 members (including the acting Station Commissioner). The total strength of functional members at the station after Resolution 7 was 42, and the granted number was 69. Before Resolution 7, the station used to have 54 functional members.
Both POPCRU and SAPU viewed the implementation of Resolution 7/2002 positively. They said there had been an improvement in service delivery and the morale of police is high.
One sticky point was the promotion policy in the SAPS. One police official at the station said he had been kept for a number of years in the same rank, and nobody cared to explain what the problems were. According to him, the SAPS management was aware of his frustrations but chose not to do anything. To this, the delegation instructed the Area Commissioner to attend to the problem of promotion in the station, particularly the one that had been raised in the meeting.
The delegation advised the Area Commissioner to keep the communication lines between the Area Office and the stations open. In the view of the delegation, the problem raised about the promotion policy bordered on the lack of information, and it is the responsibility of the Area Office to explain policies and other matters that affect station levels.
The delegation held a debriefing session with the SAPS Provincial Management, representatives from the SAPS National Office, and Police Unions all attending. The debriefing was based on the information received and concerns raised during the separate meetings that were held with different stakeholders in the Province. The session focused, specifically, on the number of disputes that were still pending, allocation of money for matching and placing, recruitment in the province, vindictiveness associated with Resolution 7/2002, and recommendations on the way forward.
The Unions and SAPS Management could not agree on the exact number of disputes that were still pending, they gave contradicting figures. Part of the confusion, it was said, was that unions had not been following the process diligently. SAPU, for example, withdrew from the process, and some of the disputes were dealt with at a time when they had withdrawn their people from participating. The delegation stated that they were going to seek the assistance of the relevant people from the SAPS National Office in determining the exact number of pending disputes.
The delegation was told the funds used for matching and placing of deployees came from the baseline budget. The province had spent 3 million on relocation and 890 000 on deployments.
The province had received 499 recruits for the 2002/03 financial year. This was against the background of 235 that the province had lost in the same financial year, which meant that, of the 499 members that the province received, it effectively received 264 members, as the rest was the replacement of lost members. At the time of the delegation’s visit, the province had already lost 85 members, and had enlisted 301 new members.
The management dismissed as just a perception the allegation that Resolution 7/2002 was used as a tool for punishment. Both unions rejected that response. POPCRU even went further to say in one station in the province; a certain Area Commissioner said he had removed all the troublesome African males, because they were causing problems.
It was also mentioned that, in one station, a certain priest (Reverend) was working in the community service centre with no background of police training.
SAPU stated that they had tape-recorded a meeting where members of the Matching and Placing Committee were asked to consult commanders before taking decisions on the people to be redeployed. It was also in this meeting, SAPU claimed, where they were told that members had to be forced to declare their HIV/AIDS status.
The delegation had observed that there were serious problems in the manner in which Resolution 7/2002 was handled in the Eastern Cape. Police unions had made serious allegations about the improper way in which the province dealt with the resolution. To back up their allegations, unions had thrown in general and specific cases, which were viewed as credible by the delegation.
The Provincial Management also accepted that there were problems, but they pointed that those problems were not unique to the Eastern Cape – they were countrywide. However, the provincial management said that in their belief, the problems that existed were addressed at the time when the National Office was called in to assist when there was a deadlock among the parties involved.
In the light of the problems identified, the delegation recommended the following:
The leader of the delegation pleaded with the SAPS Management and the unions that they should find ways of finding each other, and that they were all police members with one overriding objective – the combating of crime. He said it is unthinkable that the province would do justice to that overriding objective if the stations are peopled with members with low morale. It is therefore of utmost importance that the SAPS Management should do every thing in their power to making sure that the ordinary police members are well cared for.
Apart from the members of the SAPS Management (National and Provincial) and Unions, there was also a representation from the office of the MEC for Safety and Liaison, led by the Office Director – Mr Robertson.
In its presentation, the SAPS Provincial Management, led by the Provincial Commissioner, said the province had always been very sensitive and cautious towards the individual needs of police members. However, the Provincial Commissioner stated that those individual needs had to be balanced with organizational needs. That was also the nature of the process of the implementation of Resolution 7/2002 – balancing individual needs with organizational needs, and as such, it proved not to be an easy task. In some quarters the process was accepted, and in others it was not. According to the Provincial Commissioner, some of the problems arising from Resolution 7/2002 were a result of poor communication in the SAPS. The Provincial Commissioner conceded that Resolution 7/2002 had not been explained properly to members and the management was partly to blame.
To kick-start the implementation process, audit of skills was conducted. Each member had to complete a Skills Inventory Form. The Skills Inventory Form was used to determine a member’s skills for placement purposes. The delegation was told that some members did not complete the Skills Inventory Form (those members could not be forced because the skills inventory was a voluntary process). In such situations, SAP 96 was used for placement purposes. Approved organizational structures were used for placement of personnel, and Equity Plans were taken into consideration when making those placements.
The Province established committees – Provincial Matching and Placing Committee, Provincial Monitoring Committee and Area Matching and Placement Committee. In all those committees, but one – Provincial Monitoring Committee – unions were not represented. Before the process could be finalized, both SAPU and POPCRU withdrew their participation in the process.
Following below is an over view on the representations and disputes received, update on implementation, impact of Resolution 7/2002 on service delivery, constraints in implementation, and approaches employed in dealing with disputes.
In total, the province received 741 representations from individual police members. Out of that, 310 representations were resolved. The remaining 431 members disputed their redeployments. Out of 431 disputes received, 197 were resolved, leaving 234 unresolved. This 234 was referred to the Departmental Task Team, which resolved, at least, 199 disputes. At the time of the delegation’s visit, 35 disputes were still outstanding.
The delegation was told that all employees (Salary level 1 – 12) were matched and placed, and that no employees were declared in excess. At least 98% of employees had taken up their posts. All employees were to take up their posts on, or before, 31 October 2003. However, an exception was to be given to those employees whose disputes had not been resolved yet, and those who could not be placed because of their personal circumstances. On the 31 December 2003, according to the national directive, all employees were expected to have taken up their posts. The disputants were to continue to stay where they were (original posts).
The delegation was told that Resolution 7/2002 had positive spin-offs in many areas of interest in the SAPS. The Provincial Management reported that, firstly, crime in general had decreased. Secondly, the quality of management in stations had improved. Thirdly, representativity had improved in the Specialised Units and in stations. Fourthly, resources – human and otherwise – had improved, especially in Priority and Presidential Stations.
The delegation heard that there had been numerous obstacles in the process. One of such hindrances was the solidarity court case, which objected to redeployments.
Secondly, there was limited time frame for implementation. The delegation was told that if there had been enough time to handle the process, members would have had time to adjust to the situation.
Thirdly, there was a problem with the funding of the process. The delegation was told that SAPS had not received financial resources for implementation from the National Treasury or the DPSA. The total cost of relocations was 574 882. Out of that figure, 96 000 was spent only for relocations of Resolution 7/2002.
Fourthly, the problem was with the moratorium on employment, promotions, and transfers, which then resulted in 1132 vacant posts in the Police Service.
The moratorium on employment and promotions, the Provincial Commissioner further explained, was on senior positions. The vacant posts were from the rank of Captain upwards, especially in Senior Superintendent. Those posts would either be filled by the envisaged promotion policy in January or through advertisements. The enlistment process would fill in the gaps that would have been opened during promotions.
The current strength in the province was 29 578. Of that number, 25 825 had been placed in their current posts. At least 3 753 employees were redeployed, with 35 disputes (of that 3 753) still pending.
Resolution 7/2002 ended on 12 September 2003. All structures established in terms of Resolution 7/2002 had ceased to exist, and this was an instruction from the National Commissioner. The PSCBC referred all disputes resolution to Sectors, i.e. SSSBC for the South African Police Service.
The leader of the delegation condemned the gender imbalance in the provincial management structures and the predominantly white heads in key departments in the SAPS. He differed strongly with the Director in the office of the MEC who said the problem was broader than it seemed and it would probably take five years to address transformation and representation of women in management structures. The leader of the delegation said Parliament had put policies in place to address the identified problems and if there was any policy that was not there, hence the lack of transformation, everybody in the house was free to say so. He said there was no time for excuses, what the management needed to do was to address the problems and would check with the Provincial Commissioner in March 2004 – not after 5 years - on how far he has gone in addressing the problem.
The delegation sat with both unions to hear their views and concerns on the implementation of Resolution 7/2002. Following below are the concerns that both unions raised on matters surrounding the implementation of the said Resolution, starting with POPCRU.
POPCRU raised the following concerns to the delegation:
SAPU reported the following:
The concerns raised above had resulted in both unions pulling out of the process, but they said there was still a chance for them to go back to negotiations should the management commits itself to the principles and the original spirit of Resolution 7/2002.
On the number of disputes that were still not resolved, SAPU stated that 4 to 5 months ago there were about 157 disputes. After that members were summoned individually by the respective Area Commissioners and told to comply or else they would be considered as having resigned, SAPU reported.
The station had 207 functional police members, and the granted number was 180. This station is one of the stations that were allowed to be 20% over the granted number. There had also been an increase of 3 members in the management. This increase was attributed to Resolution 7/2002. About 80% of the total number of police in the station had matric certificates and more. The remaining 20% either had standards 8, 7, or 6 and were not working with strict policing, but guarding prisoners. Out of the total number of police members, there were only 12 females (3 inspectors, surgeons and constables). The total number of cars that were currently running was 23 and expecting 3 additional cars.
Measuring by production (delivery of services to the people), feedback from the community and a small percentage of absenteeism, which was about 4%, the station management concluded that the morale of the police in the station was good. The delegation was told that the station receives feedback from +- 150 residents every month, and more than 90% of those respondents are happy with the work of the police. The CPF representative (Deputy Chairperson) agreed with the Station Commissioner to say the community was happy with the work of the police.
The delegation heard that the station did not have disputes that arose from Resolution 7/2002. However, the delegation was later told that there was officer Ndabandaba who was currently on sick leave. This officer had disputed his redeployment to Meadowlands. His dispute was dealt with, but had since taken sick leave without him being sick. There is also an officer by the name of Mhlanga. Officer Mhlaga was redeployed from specialised units in the Area Office to Meadowlands whilst he was still in prison. He had worked only for 2 days before he got suspended.
SAPU (the only union that was represented) reported to be happy with the process of Resolution 7/2002 and the manner in which the station was run.
The total number of functional police members was 169, and 45 of those members were recruits from last year’s students. Out of 169 members, there were 26 females – 2 captains, 11 inspectors, and 4 surgeons. The Station Commissioner said the station had a shortage of 27 members. The total number of vehicles was 32 and had budgeted for 7 more vehicles.
The Station Commissioner reported that the station had lost 2 members and received 13 members through Resolution 7/2002. There were at least 10 members on stress leave. The Station Commissioner stated that the stress was not related to Resolution 7/2002. Despite all those leaves, the Station Commissioner reported that the morale of the police was very high in the station. The delegation was surprised to hear that. The leader of the delegation said 10 members on stress leave indicated that not all is well in the station. Even those police who were left behind might be experiencing difficulties, as they now had to contend with the added responsibilities owing to the absence of 10 people on stress leave. However, the Station Commissioner reported that those people on stress leave had personal problems that were not related to work, and the National office was handling the matter.
Overall, the Station Commissioner said his station had been affected positively by the Resolution. He said violent crimes, like murder, rape, and car hijacking had decreased. In addition to that, the station had gained more people through the Resolution.
SAPU and POPCRU told the delegation that they had not received any complaints from their members, emanating from the handling of Resolution 7/2002.
The CPF representative mentioned that in the last 3 years, the community had been experiencing improvement in service delivery. He told the delegation that police are arriving on time in the crime scene.
The Station Commissioner reported that Resolution 7/2002 had been advantageous to the station. The personnel strength of the station prior to the Resolution was, for example, 140, against the current 165 members that the station now has. A large number of members received were utilized in crime prevention and detective services. However, the station was still short of 108 members, as the granted number was 273.
The delegation instructed the Area Commissioner to address the shortage of police in the station, saying a shortage of 108 members was too much for the station. The station would be getting 33 students in December and 27 in February. Already, that would bring down the shortage to 48, the delegation was told. The Area Commissioner agreed with the delegation that the station needed to have more police members because of the crime situation in the area, congestion and shack dwellings. There was a general feeling in the station management that Census 2001 had underreported the population figures (260 000, against Council figures, which is 1.7 million). That underreporting affected the allocation of personnel.
However, POPCRU was not as upbeat about the situation as the Station Commissioner was. POPCRU mentioned that some members who were redeployed to the station never even reported to the station. POPCRU also said that the unions were never consulted on anything that related to Resolution 7/2002.
On the question of members who never reported, as claimed by POPCRU, the Station Commissioner responded that some of those members were from Soweto and had won their disputes.
The CPF representative, on the other hand, commended the station, saying after the arrival of the "Resolution 7 members" things had changed for the better. He said police were now quick to respond and the communication between the station and community had improved.
The Station Commissioner reported that the station had developed an understanding with the court that no docket would be withdrawn. If there were problems with the docket, the police would be called upon to correct them.
The delegation observed that there is a need for a new police station in the area. The station there was congested and responsible for policing a very large population.
Katlehong Police Station had 194 police members before the Resolution, and 232 after the implementation of the Resolution. The granted number was 397. Out of 232, there were 66 detectives. The station also had 18 students already working with a field officer, and 30 more students in college. In addition to that, the station had 59 active reservists.
The Station Commissioner mentioned that although the station had lost 9 good members because of the Resolution, the station had gained, in turn, 38 members. Those members who left the station, as well as those who just joined the station, never disputed their redeployments.
Reporting on the morale of the members in the station, the Station Commissioner was upbeat, saying it is very high. He said the results of the high morale could easily be seen in the declining crime rate and the number of projects members were involved in. The Station Commissioner mentioned projects like Captain Crime Stop, Don’t Rape, Adopt a Cop, and many others as having had a hand in improving the crime situation in the station area.
POPCRU was not as excited. Firstly, their representative stated that, as the union, they did not know the criterion that was used in the implementation of the Resolution. That made the union unhappy. Secondly, all the white members who joined the station were senior members. POPCRU said they expected that at least there would also be junior white members (like Constables) joining the station.
SAPU did not register any complaints. They said it would have been a different story if some of their members complained. Since they did not receive a complaint from their members, SAPU’s impression was that their members were happy with the processes of the Resolution.
The Head of Crime Intelligence in the station, who himself recently joined the station through Resolution 7, said he has problems with the Resolution. He said he had been waiting for quite some time for 2 Captains who were supposed to be transferred to his unit. He said what frustrated him most was that nobody from the management side ever said anything about the absence of those officers, it was just silence. Furthermore, he said there was no consultation during the implementation stages of the Resolution, and thinks the process should have been handled differently.
Some police members in the station complained about promotions. They said they had been sitting in the same posts for quite some time, and nobody was saying anything about promotions. They do hear, however, about the unconfirmed rumours that there had been a moratorium in promotions, but nobody had said that to them and explained the reasons behind the said moratorium.
The delegation urged the station, area and the provincial management to communicate with the police on the ground. The delegation said there is a growing tendency of the management to abdicate their responsibility to unions. As much as unions have a responsibility to their members, management has a greater responsibility that even surpasses that of unions. One of the problems identified in this station, and in many others that had been visited, was the lack of information, which is a result of the lack of communication between management and ordinary police members.
The delegation held a debriefing session with the SAPS Provincial Management, representatives from the SAPS National Office, Police Unions, and representatives from the office of the MEC all attending. The debriefing by the Delegation was based on the information received and concerns raised during the separate meetings that were held with different stakeholders in the Province. The session focused, specifically, on the following: the reasons on not touching Johannesburg International and Public Order Policing, adherence to –20/+20% principle, career pathing in the detective services, the disregard of skills profile when matching and placing members, lack of consultation during the implementation of the Resolution, the refusal of white members to take up their posts in townships, shortage of women in command structures, intimidation, the dominance of white male heads in certain departments, and recommendations on the way forward.
The Provincial Management confirmed that there was an order from Commissioner Pruis not to touch Johannesburg International and POPS, under any circumstances. The Provincial Commissioner even went further to say no reasons were given for that instruction. The delegation promised to take the matter up with Commissioner Pruis.
It was also noted, with the confirmation from the Provincial Commissioner, that Johannesburg International falls under National Regulations, as Johannesburg Airport is a national key point responsible not only for South African nationals, but for international visitors as well. With that, there could be a problem of accountability. However, the Prov Comm. said there was no problem of accountability and the police there fall under the command of North Rand Area Commissioner.
The Provincial Management stated that the province had adhered to the –20+20% principle whenever it was necessary. The province had applied, for instance, +20% principle in all police stations in Soweto.
A question was asked as to why +20% principle was applied in all police stations in Soweto, not in Ivory Park, for example. The Provincial Commissioner responded that some of the members there were not placed by SAPS, but were found there during the amalgamation process between SAPS and former municipality police in the 1980s. Those members could not be redeployed to other areas, as they were quite a large number and would have therefore generated lots of grievances.
One member of the delegation could not agree with the above explanation. He said a plausible explanation on why those members were kept in Soweto, as opposed to spreading them around the province, was that they did not even have standards 10 certificates and the majority of them were functionally illiterate. It was therefore recommended that those members should be spread around the province, like it happened in Khayelitsha with Kits Constables. If they were not, they would continue to give a false impression that Soweto was over staffed, whereas most of those members were not functionally literate.
The leader of the delegation asked the management to explain the perception that most police members do not want to be in the detective service because there is no opportunity for career advancement. The provincial management rejected that and said there is growth for every one in the detective services, unlike in the support service where there is growth up to a certain level. This version was disputed by unions who said it is when members move out of the detective service that they get considered for promotion.
The delegation stated that there could be truth in the perception that there is no career path in the detective service, as they had been told in Soweto that members did not want to go for detective service for fear of being stuck in one rank. A question then arose, how is the shortage of detectives in Soweto going to be addressed if those police members in Soweto do not see a future in the detective service, and currently Soweto is overstaffed? One way of addressing the shortage of detectives in Soweto, it was agreed, would be through restructuring. Therefore, some police members would have to be taken out of Soweto Police Station to other areas, so that new members, who would be prepared to be in the detective service, could come in.
The meeting agreed that another option would be an initiative on career development, driven by the national management, like the one that was taking place in the office of the MEC. The meeting was told that discussions on career pathing were at an advanced stage in the national office, but the problem was that the national management decided not to separate issues pertaining to welfare of police members and salaries – they were tackled as a package. The delegation pointed out that any thing pertaining to salaries would always be contested, and it was no wonder that the unions and management were in court because of salaries’ dispute. According to the delegation, it would be good if the national office could deal with police welfare separate from salaries because a deadlock on salaries would affect issues pertaining to the welfare of police. However, the representatives of the national management at the meeting felt that their strategy was correct.
The provincial management conceded that in some stations, it could be true that the skills profile of members were not taken into consideration when matching and placing members. The reason for that was that in some instances, the matching and placing committee also looked at the potential of individual SAPS members.
The delegation stated that, according to their observations, there was no consultation from stations to area levels. Consultations, it seemed, were only done at a provincial level. The management conceded that, although there was a mechanism where both management and labour could meet and discuss things, at station level such an undertaking was lacking. In the view of the delegation, to say consultation was lacking at station level is an understatement – it was just not there.
SAPU and POPCRU complained about white members of the SAPS in the North Rand who refused to be redeployed to townships. As a result, both unions claimed, those white members were still with their original stations or found alternative stations that are not in townships. They said if it were black members who refused to be redeployed the management would have responded with disciplinary hearings as it was normally the case. According to the two unions, black members were prepared to go everywhere for fear of disciplinary hearings and that put a question mark on the government’s successes in dealing with racism in the country. In response, the management stated that indeed there were those white members who resisted redeployments to townships. However, the management claimed that that had long been addressed. Those members who had problems were interviewed and explained their problems. Those with convincing reasons were not redeployed, but the rest were redeployed.
Responding to the allegation that the government was not doing enough in fighting racism, the leader of the delegation said that was not true. The government is addressing racism, but it is being addressed in a manner that is not disruptive in the country. In addition, the problem was not only with Whites when it comes to racism, but with Blacks’ inferiority complex too. Addressing racism is part of the transformation agenda that is spearheaded by government. However, he pointed that transformation is not the sole responsibility of government, unions too have a responsibility. Unions should go out there and organize those members whom they view as not having transformed, and bring them into the fold, not to just sit and complain and expect that the government is going to do everything.
The delegation was told that one of the contributing factors in the shortage of women in command structures was the lack of females in positions from superintendent positions. The Provincial Commissioner told the meeting that they are trying very hard to address the problem, as they now have female station and area managers. The province further said that there is a programme to address that.
The provincial management stated that the claims made by unions that police members were being intimidated if they refused to take their posts, even those with pending disputes, were not true. However, according to the agreement the management entered into with, and co-signed by, unions, those members who refused to take their posts without reason would be considered as having resigned.
The delegation decided to discuss the above item with the national office. It was reasoned that the problem of dominance of white males in specific departments in the SAPS was not unique to Gauteng, but a national problem.
If the few police stations visited in the province and the type of presentations made to the delegation was anything to go by, the problems in Gauteng were not as serious as those heard and seen in the Eastern Cape. However, there were problems that were identified. To those problems, the delegation recommended the following:
………………………….. ………………………...
Mr ME George (MP) Date
Committee Chairperson