Despite claims that new legislation will increase the effectiveness of independent scrutiny of police abuses, a parliamentary researcher has warned that the new investigative directorate will retain the status quo because police will not be compelled to implement its recommendations.
The Independent Investigative Directorate Bill seeks to replace the existing Independent Complaints Directorate with a new body that has an expanded mandate to investigate abuses by police officials. The existing directorate could investigate deaths at the hands of the police or in police custody, or alleged misconduct or offences by police. The new Independent Police Investigative Directorate can also probe rape, torture and corruption.
But parliamentary researcher Mpumelelo Mpisi told Parliament's police committee yesterday that as there was no clause in the bill compelling police top brass to respond to recommendations, it would be business as usual. "There is no obligation to implement the recommendations so this bill does not strengthen the current position of the directorate."
Mr Mpisi also questioned the provision that the new directorate report to the police minister, saying it should instead report directly to Parliament to minimise political interference and promote independence. "(It) is an independent agency and must function like other independent agencies such as the public protector and the Public Service Commission," Mr Mpisi said.
This position has been echoed by Gareth Newham of the Institute for Security Studies, who said the relatively weak level of compliance with the existing directorate found in research "clearly undermined" the reasons for its existence as an independent complaints mechanism and compliance body.
The lack of police response to or co-operation with it undermined its confidence. Mr Newham suggested police should respond in writing to both the civilian secretary of police and the new directorate within 30 days of a recommendation being made, to tell them what action had been taken. If police disagreed with the directorate's findings, they should explain their position within 30 days.
Adele Kirsten from the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation suggested an even more stringent clause requiring police to acknowledge receipt of recommendations within 24 hours and say within a month what actions will be taken or why the recommendations could not be followed.
There was also considerable discussion over the issue of torture in police custody. It was pointed out that torture is not defined in South African law. The degree to which the committee takes these suggestions on board will be revealed in the weeks ahead as it continues to debate the bill.
As there is no clause compelling police top brass to act on recommendations, it will be business as usual.
Source: All Africa
No comments:
Post a Comment