McBride appointed new IPID head

Robert McBride has been appointed the new head of the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID), the police ministry said on Friday.

"Minister of Police Nathi Mthethwa today officially announced the appointment of Mr Robert McBride as the new executive director of the IPID," spokesperson Zweli Mnisi said in a statement.

His appointment would be effective from Monday.

The IPID has been without a permanent head for more than a year following the departure of Francois Beukman.

McBride was part of an Umkhonto we Sizwe group that bombed the Why Not Restaurant and Magoo's Bar in Durban on 14 June 1986.

Three people were killed and 69 others injured in the explosion. He was captured and convicted, and sentenced to death.

In 1992, he was released after his actions were classified as politically motivated. He was later granted amnesty at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

After a spell as a diplomat, McBride became head of the Ekurhuleni metropolitan police, but lost his job after he was charged with drunk driving and defeating the ends of justice.

In 2011 he was jailed for two years by a Pretoria magistrate, but successfully appealed.

In late January, the ANC outvoted opposition parties on Parliament's police portfolio committee who opposed McBride's IPID nomination, largely because of his past brushes with the law.

Mnisi said: "Minister Mthethwa wishes Mr McBride all the best in his new role and remains confident that, with the support IPID management and staff, they will steer IPID to become an effective and efficient oversight institution within the criminal justice system."

Mthethwa thanked the former acting executive director, Koekie Mbeki, for leading the IPID over the last year-and-a-half.

Source: News24

Zuma buys time for Hawks

President Jacob Zuma and some of his ministers have asked the Constitutional Court for another 18 months to fix the legislation governing the Hawks, the unit that is meant to fight serious organised crime in South Africa.

Zuma, Justice Minister Jeff Radebe and Police Minister Nathi Mthethwa have indicated that they will appeal an order by the Western Cape High Court that found the act governing the Hawks still allows for too much political interference. This means the uncertainty over the Hawks, which replaced the Scorpions, will now drag into its sixth year. The Constitutional Court originally declared the act unconstitutional in 2011.

The current case follows the Western Cape High Court’s ruling in December, in favour of the Helen Suzman Foundation, which found that the police’s updated act was still unconstitutional.
The court ruled that adequate mechanisms to prevent political interference in the Hawks were still lacking.

The court gave Parliament a year to rectify this, but Zuma and his ministers have argued that this is not enough time. In court papers filed at the Constitutional Court, Zuma and his ministers ask that Parliament should be given 18 months to fix the legislation. This because “amendment is complex” and because “the period afforded to Parliament coincides with an imminent national election”.

A source familiar with the Hawks said the unit was demoralised and had lost some of its best investigative capacity from the days of the Scorpions.  City Press has previously reported on the disagreement and the incoherence that has been caused by confusion over the fate of the unit.

The Helen Suzman Foundation has asked the court to confirm the order of constitutional invalidity. It is also asking the Constitutional Court to declare further sections of the act unconstitutional. One of the sections it is referring to includes a provision that empowers the minister to do “integrity testing” of Hawks members, which the foundation believes is an intimidation tactic. It believes this could include the bugging of Hawks officers’ phones.

Source: City Press

Limpopo's fierytale: the people vs. the police, Armageddon style

On the day Robert McBride secured a nod in Parliament to lead police watchdog Ipid – and while more denials were heard by the Farlam Commission – news broke that officers in Limpopo shot dead two more protesters in a chaotic stand-off. This brings to eight the number of protesters killed this month alone. ALEX ELISEEV asks what it will take to make the police realise that its relationship with communities across South Africa is in a fiery tailspin.

The numbers are as mad as the story is startling: One satellite police station in the Relela village outside of Tzaneen, Limpopo. Twenty officers defending the outpost. Between 1,500 and 2,000 protesters “attacking” the station with stones and petrol bombs. Some 2,050 rounds of rubber bullets fired before the switch-over to live ammunition. Fifteen officers injured in the battle. Three of them left in a critical condition. Nineteen police cars damaged or destroyed. Two protesters shot and killed during the clash.

The images flooding your mind right now are probably closer to what South African soldiers endured in the Central African Republic rather than what police officers should be dealing with in a war-free, democratic country.

The question that pierces through all those figures is: how angry does a community have to be – what kind of hatred must be festering – for hundreds of people to come together and overrun, by force, their local police station? To try to obliterate the place that houses men and women who’ve taken an oath to protect you. We know too well the evil that lurks inside a mob, but this was an outright storming of a sacred castle.

Unlike with the Marikana bloodbath, there were probably few or no cameras filming the latest clash. The details still have to be investigated by the same organisation that Robert McBride – one of the country’s most controversial policemen – will soon be leading. But even on the police’s own version, what happened in Relela does not belong in post-Apartheid South Africa.

Granted, what happened there was not a routine service delivery protest over water or electricity that spiralled out of control. The circumstances were different. A local woman was killed and mutilated and the community wanted those responsible to be arrested. Police took a couple of suspects in for questioning but when they were released, their neighbours went on the rampage, burning down their homes. When the police intervened, a teenage boy was shot and killed. His death, in turn, became the magnet that drew the crowd to the Relela police station on Tuesday night.

Limpopo police claim that anyone in the same situation (the situation the officers were in) would have done the exact same thing. The crowd had broken through into the station’s courtyard and were out for revenge. Judging by the damage, there’s every reason to believe that the officers may have been genuinely terrified and thought their lives were in danger. They probably were. Those attacking the station were committing a criminal act. There’s also evidence that the police officers did their best to push back the mob, using thousands of rounds of rubber bullets.

But the issues here run much deeper, the main one being: how did it get to this? How did we reach a crisis which the police, and police minister Nathi Mthethwa, think they can talk their way out of? (Which, of course, they can’t).

Too much blood has been spilled. Too much horror witnessed. The list has been mentioned over and over again: Marikana, Tatane, Macia, Mothutlung, Durban Deep… For way too many people the police have become the enemy.

The cold, hard truth is that the level of violence we are seeing now is the consequence of earlier decisions. Decisions which ranged from bad to catastrophic. Remember the “shoot to kill!” and “maximum force” rhetoric spewing out of Bheki Cele’s mouth (which went viral). Or the decision by Jackie Selebi to reconfigure the Public Order Policing, leaving it in shambles. And, as a show of force, the re-introduction of military ranks.

But worst of all have been the decisions, one after the next, to send in civilians (political appointments) to lead the police. The latest, by President Jacob Zuma, was Riah Phiyega, who has so far had a disastrous run (some of it was not her fault, and some of it was).

The Institute for Security Studies – the think tank which the police loves to ignore – says all indicators show that police brutality is rising, public trust in the service is deteriorating and there doesn’t seem to be any real plan to reverse either of these trends.

Asked whether we can expect more bloodshed, the ISS’s Gareth Newham says: “I hope not. But we will continue to see growing anger and discontent and a breakdown of the relationship.”

He adds: “Warnings were ignored and now we’re seeing the consequences.”

The reality on the ground is complex. The balance between crushing violent crime or policing tense protests while respecting human rights is a delicate one. No one is saying it’s easy. Then there’s the politics, corruption, shadowy alliances and the unholy mess in units like Crime Intelligence (which Phiyega is now trying to clean up).

The time has come for drastic action. Possibly a complete overhaul of the Public Order Policing (POP). The unit needs an injection of officers and strong, accountable commanders. A message needs to cascade through the ranks that says that anyone who steps out of line, who loads up their shotgun with buckshot or fires without an order, will be punished. Officers need to be better trained. And all of this needs to be communicated to the public so that perceptions can begin to change. Maybe even hold a public commission of inquiry into the POP, diagnose the problem and fix it.

It’s time for Mthethwa to go beyond sending out media statements and praying with families of victims. He needs to take meaningful action. It’s time for President Jacob Zuma to step up. If he can find the time to congratulate Ladysmith Black Mambazo on a Grammy or the Bantu Church of Christ on its centenary, spur on the Matrics or defend eTolling, he can get stuck into this crisis. And by that we mean do something more than establish a task team. After all, the storming of a police station is about as close as you can come to true lawlessness.

Newham describes what happened in Relela as a “new development”. It’s much more than that. It’s a wake-up call, a short in the circuit of democracy. A signal that the relationship between police and civilians can’t be that of a state of war or a violent occupation. History teaches us how people, countries, respond to that.

When Phiyega visited the community on Wednesday, angry residents were shouting at her, demanding to know who gave the order to kill? She did her best to restore calm to the area, but she was up against a hostile crowd.

The police may be under attack, but they have to start earning back the trust. Showing the public that they are not the enemy. When what happened in Relela becomes a reality, you’ve waited too long to act. DM

Source: Daily Maverick

Nkandla report: The real reasons why ministers took on Thuli

The fight between Public Protector Thuli Madonsela and the security cluster is about much more than her provisional report into state expenditure at President Jacob Zuma’s private Nkandla homestead.

It signals the start of a new war between openness and accountability, on the one hand, and secrecy, cloaked in the garb of security, on the other. And it is clear that the Protection of State Information Bill – the so-called secrecy Bill – passed for the third time in the National Assembly this week, opens up a dangerous new front in that war.

Last Friday, Police Minister Nathi Mthethwa approached the Pretoria high court to interdict Madonsela from releasing the draft report, purportedly in a quest for more time.

In effect, though, he sought to block the release until the security cluster ministers were satisfied with the way she had accommodated their concerns about allegedly sensitive information.

What emerges starkly in the court papers is that the ministers believe any document that draws on classified information must itself be classified. In his founding affidavit, Mthethwa in effect threatened criminal sanction should Madonsela release an uncensored draft report to other “affected, implicated and interested parties” to obtain their responses.

Principle of secrecy

He warned: “Release of the provisional report to third parties … without prior authorisation of [the ministers] … is unlawful and carries … a criminal penalty.”

Mthethwa’s affidavit attached an earlier letter to Madonsela from Public Works Minister Thulas Nxesi, also on behalf of the defence, police and state security ministers.

Nxesi made the point explicitly: “As neither I, nor the ministers involved, have given the necessary permission to declassify the documentation relied upon by you in your provisional report, we deem it necessary to inform you that to release your provisional report without our authorisation would, in effect, result in … a contravention of section 4 of the National Key Points Act, 102 of 1980, and section 4 of the Protection of Information Act, 84 of 1982.”

Nowhere did Mthethwa refer to any specific contents of the draft report to justify the claim that the president’s security was at risk.

What really seems to be at stake is the principle of secrecy – and who gets to pronounce on it.

In her stinging reply, Madonsela said the ministers did not cite a “single fact” to illustrate how the president’s safety would be compromised by the disclosure of the draft report.

In his second affidavit, tabled on Thursday, Mthethwa sidestepped that challenge, claiming it was irrelevant to the request for more time.

In their reply, the ministers abandoned their interdict, citing the fact that Madonsela, in asking for the matter to be postponed until November 15, had in effect given them the extra time they asked for.

But it would be a mistake to see this as a final climb-down instead of a tactical retreat.

Further litigation to come?

In his second affidavit, Mthethwa foreshadows potential further ­litigation, stating: “It will be argued at an appropriate time, when the need arises, that the [public protector], not being an expert on matters of security, cannot be an arbiter on whether or not there exists a security breach from the contents of the provisional report … Should the respondent arrogate to herself that power to determine whether or not there is a breach of security arising from the contents of her provisional report, I am advised that she will in law be acting ultra vires her powers and the law.”

In short, ministers, not Madonsela, must decide whether the report breaches security.

Mthethwa adds: “The classified and top-secret information extracted by [the public protector] in her provisional report … is governed by the minimum information security standards, and it is those classified and top-secret documents and/or extracts that require the minister to authorise its further publication.”

Clearly, no authorisation has been granted. If Madonsela does not excise what they ask her to, there appears to be a real chance the security cluster will return to court.

The state security department itself accepts that apartheid-era laws the ministers rely on are probably unconstitutional, making the ­ministers’ attempt to exert their authority over Madonsela something of a reach.

That will change when the secrecy Bill is signed into law – which the president could do any day now.

Top secret

The new Act specifies that the state security minister will make regulations governing how chapter nine institutions – including the public protector and the auditor general – will be allowed to access and use classified information.

The push for a security curtain was echoed in the report of the Joint Standing Committee of Intelligence (JSCI), which released its Nkandla report on Thursday.

After the outcry over the expenditure – about R210-million – in November 2012, the public works minister appointed a government task team to investigate. Its report – classified as top secret – was delivered to Nxesi in January.

In June, the report was referred to the JSCI, which usually carries out oversight of the intelligence services.

An opinion from the parliamentary legal adviser recommended the JSCI restrict itself to matters to do with security oversight, redact sensitive information and then refer the report to the National Assembly.

The JSCI ignored this advice, endorsed the top-secret classification and even recommended that any new information uncovered should be referred back to the JSCI for consideration behind closed doors.

It notes: “Matters relating to the allocation of tenders … should be referred to the office of the auditor general for a full investigation … However, the JSCI believes that because of the classification aspects of the subject matter, the auditor general should report on this investigation to the JSCI.”

Of even more concern is how the JSCI parrots the ministers’ line in their interaction with Madonsela.

A sign of things to come

In a veiled reference to her, the JSCI notes: “Entities which have investigative powers … should not be inappropriately motivated … to launch into an investigation on a matter which has already been assigned to another entity. It is therefore recommended that the executive give urgent attention to this matter … so that unnecessary parallel investigations can be avoided.”

This was precisely the argument the ministers used to try to discourage Madonsela’s Nkandla investigation.

In a letter to Madonsela in April, the state attorney referred to her meeting with the ministers and noted: “The purpose … was to discuss with you our concerns regarding parallel investigations ...”

He said a draft proclamation for the Special Investigating Unit to take up the matter had already been sent to the president and a request for an Nkandla audit had been addressed to the auditor general. “Our clients, therefore, propose … that you hold your investigation in abeyance until the processes embarked upon have been completed.”

Madonsela said in her affidavit this week that the auditor general’s audit had not materialised, nor had the Special Investigating Unit yet been authorised to investigate.

Source: Mail & Guardian

Protecting our public protector: We need to defend the space for Thuli Madonsela to work without fear or favour

Durban - The public protector is under siege from many quarters and has had little vocal support from citizens whose interests she is tasked to protect. We need to play our role in defending the space for her to work without fear or favour.

Our political environment reminds me of Machiavelli’s words that: “There is nothing more difficult, nothing more doubtful of success than to initiate new ways of things. For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit from the old ways, and only lukewarm support from those who would profit from the new way. This lukewarmness arising partly from fear of their adversaries, and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not actually believe in anything until they have had experience of it.”

Change agents like our public protector are up against a political culture that has still to grow into the promise of freedom embedded in our constitution. Holding those in public office accountable is only possible if citizens demand it and support organs of state responsible for protecting the public interest.

The biggest challenge facing chapter nine institutions such as the public protector is the tolerance by citizens of the confusion deliberately created by the ANC between the state, the government, the governing party and the president. When ministers in the security cluster invoke the risks to “state security”, that the release of the public protector’s report on the upgrades of President Jacob Zuma’s Nkandla residence would entail, are they focusing on the “state” or the person of the “president”?

The state represents the “commonwealth” that belongs to all citizens. How can this commonwealth’s security be put at risk by the exposure of improprieties in the procurement processes regarding the expenditure of a significant amount of taxpayers’ money in excess of R200 million? How does exposure of the suggested presence of a cattle kraal worth an estimated R1.2m jeopardise the security of our commonwealth as citizens?

It is the concealment of wrongdoing in public procurement processes that is putting our commonwealth at risk. In my travels across the country in villages, townships, universities, workplaces and corporate offices, my fellow citizens point to corruption as the biggest threat to our future as a society.

They identify corruption as the reason we have not come far enough and fast enough in living out our aspirations as a society in the past 20 years. Disclosure is like sunshine that disinfects hidden wrongdoing and eradicates corruption.

Young people who comprise the largest segment of our population can shape the country’s future in next year’s elections. Yet many are not sure that registering and voting will have any impact on their future. A big part of their misgiving comes from their perception that the state, government, ANC and president are an unmovable corrupt monolith that is destroying the country. This misgiving represents the biggest risk to our democracy.

The fearless work of the public protector’s office is essential to restoring the hope in young people that no one is above the law and that citizens’ rights matter and will be protected.

Moreover, there was a worrying phenomenon among poor communities this past weekend. In some areas, people refused to register or to allow registration to take place in their areas until their demands are met. They, too, do not distinguish between the IEC, a chapter nine institution, and the government.

We must stand up and defend the space for the key institutions of our democracy to operate without fear or favour. It is a question of “for whom the bell tolls” – it tolls for all of us. Today it is the public protector, tomorrow it is the judiciary, then it will be citizens without the protection of those key institutions. By then, it will be too late to stand up.

We have been through similar moments in our history and must not return there. When I was banned and banished to Tzaneen, my lawyer was told it was not in the state’s interests to disclose why I had been banished to that area.

Are we again ready to tolerate threats to our democracy in the name of “state security” as defined by those determined to secure their positions in power? Are we willing to protect abuse of power and resources in order to protect those in public office?

We can stop abuse of power by those who should be serving us who instead focus on serving themselves. We must not shy away from raising our voices in protection of the public protector so she can do her work to secure the public interest. We have seen how her report on the IEC chairwoman’s impropriety in procuring the lease of property for IEC offices has been attacked on procedural grounds. Are we to condone wrongdoing in this and many other matters through political procedural stonewalling? Where will these stonewalling tactics end?

We have seen enough signs of the president’s lack of capacity to take responsibility for executive action at too many levels: the Schabir Shaik case, his rape trial, Guptagate etc.

His performance in Parliament where he trivialised accountability for Guptagate into a joke about it not being realistic for him to know who is landing at our airports was an embarrassment. Waterkloof is an airforce base that we have afforded him and authorised other officials to use – to serve us. It is not to be used to curry favour with his friends.

We need a strong public protector to keep the executive branch of the state accountable to citizens. We have to protect the public protector so she can continue to protect the “commonwealth” from those invoking “state security” to put our democracy at risk. We dare not fail.

Mamphela Ramphele

Source: The Mercury

Parties denounce McBride's nomination for IPID head

Opposition parties have criticised a decision to recommend former Ekurhuleni metro police chief Robert McBride as head of the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID).

The Democratic Alliance would "vehemently" oppose the appointment in Parliament, MP Dianne Kohler Barnard said on Tuesday. "IPID is responsible for investigating police officials in positions of authority and deals with sensitive information on a daily basis, thus the executive director must be a person free of scandal."

Lobby group AfriForum said Police Minister Nathi Mthethwa should resign for nominating McBride. "Minister Mthethwa, with this step, clearly indicated that the efficacy and integrity of the police is not a priority for him," said spokesperson Ian Cameron.

The Freedom Front Plus said the recommendation made a "farce and mockery" of Mthethwa's comments that he would eradicate corruption in the police. "IPID investigates corruption in the police and the head of this institution should not be a controversial person and should have an irreproachable character," spokesperson Pieter Groenewald said.

Christian Democratic Party leader Theunis Botha said the recommendation was "a serious challenge for being the sickest joke of the millennium".

"This makes a mockery of all the ANC promises that the policy of cadre deployment will be based on merit."

Shortlisted

Mthethwa said earlier that Cabinet decided at a meeting on Wednesday to recommend McBride as IPID executive director. "We believe Mr McBride's appointment as head of IPID will help this important institution to achieve [its] ... mandate," Mthethwa said.

He said McBride was the successful candidate following shortlisting, an interview process, and Cabinet's endorsement. "However, in line with the IPID Act, the appointment can only be finalised once Parliament has concurred."

Kohler Barnard said Mthethwa had requested that the portfolio committee on police consider McBride's nomination in a letter published in Parliament's announcements, tablings and committees on Tuesday morning. According to the IPID Act, the nomination must be considered within 30 parliamentary days.

She said the IPID should not be led by "such a controversial figure".

"The executive director must be suitably qualified for the position, not have previous convictions, and be a person of integrity."

Cameron said Mthethwa's decision had jeopardised the integrity of the police. "McBride had been previously arrested for arms smuggling, drunk driving and defeating the ends of justice. Now he must investigate and control corruption and malpractice in the police ...," he said.

Groenewald said Mthethwa was violating the public's trust with the recommendation. "McBride is extremely controversial and definitely not suitable for the position. The public should be able to trust the head of the IPID because a lot of complaints are against the [South African Police Service]."

Fired

Botha said Mthethwa should be fired. "Surely, no other minister is as determined to destroy his or her department," he said.

"If President [Jacob] Zuma does not now fire this bungling minister, the ANC should not be surprised when the world likens the Cabinet to a bunch of clowns."

McBride, who is a former MP and government official, won an appeal in March against a conviction of drunken driving and attempting to obstruct justice.

He was arrested in 2006 after crashing his official car on the R511 following a Christmas party. In September 2011, a Pretoria magistrate sentenced McBride to two years imprisonment for driving under the influence of alcohol and in effect three years' imprisonment for attempting to obstruct the course of justice.

In 1998, McBride was arrested in Mozambique on charges of gun-running. He spent seven months in a Maputo prison and was later cleared of all charges. He claimed he was investigating illegal gun-running with the National Intelligence Agency.

In 1999, McBride faced an assault charge after he, underworld boss Cyril Beeka, and another man visited an escort agency and allegedly assaulted an employee.

McBride was part of an Umkhonto we Sizwe group that bombed the Why Not Restaurant and Magoo's Bar in Durban on June 14 1986. Three people were killed and 69 were injured in the explosion. He was captured and convicted, and sentenced to death.

In 1992, he was released after his actions were classified as politically motivated. He was later granted amnesty at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. – Sapa


Source: Mail & Guardian

Mthethwa fails to stop Zille's police inquiry

A high court has dismissed an application by the police minister for an interdict against a commission of inquiry into Khayelitsha's policing.

On Monday the Western Cape High Court announced its dismissal of Police Minister Nathi Mthethwa's urgent interdict against the commission set up by Premier Helen Zille last year. The commission – headed by advocate Vusi Pikoli and retired Constitutional Court Judge Catherine O’Reagan – was tasked with investigating allegations of police inefficiency and the breakdown of the relationship of the police after public lobbying by organisations such as Equal Education, the Social Justice Coalition and the Treatment Action Campaign.

In response to arguments by advocates representing Zille, the Social Justice Coalition and the commission itself last year, Mthethwa's legal team argued Zille's decision to appoint the commission would have an impact on the independence of the South African Police Service. Advocate Peter Hawthorne, acting for the coalition, on Monday told the court Mthethwa's legal team failed to prove the commission would cause irreparable harm to the SAPS. The commission was meant to hold public hearings from November 12 to December 14, which was since suspended pending the outcome of Mthethwa's application.

Last year the M&G reported that there had been more than 18 vigilante killings in Khayelitsha in 2012 – which activists related to the community’s lack of trust in the police’s ability to maintain order – as well as a spate of gang violence in the area.

"The rationale behind the setting up of such a commission, which, at a strategic level, only focuses on the South African Police Service and not the Western Cape metro police, is suspicious if not questionable," Mthethwa said in November after the commission was set up.

"Despite the engagements we held with the premier over the past weeks, it is evident that she is determined to continue with the commission by hook or crook, which leaves us with no option but to challenge the matter through the legal framework," said Mthethwa when he challenged the validity of the commission.

Following Mthethwa’s urgent interdict in November, many residents of Khayelitsha and activists – including Social Justice Coalition founder Zackie Achmat and its workers – gathered outside the Western Cape High Court last year to protest against the police minister's attempt to stop the commission of inquiry.

Outside the court on Monday residents took part in the “people’s commission of inquiry into crime in Khayelitsha” where they shared stories about their experiences with the police in the township, and Achmat used a loudspeaker to call witnesses to the "stand".

Source: Mail & Guardian

Bluster is no cover for state’s excess and drift

TO EVADE detailed explanations over gargantuan government spending on his rural hacienda, President Jacob Zuma and his acolytes have evoked everything from state secrecy and executive dignity to emotive claims about rural tradition and white prejudice. It’s a scatter-gun approach. Inconsistency seems to be developing into a defensive Cabinet habit. This succeeds only in tying the government into ever knottier complications.

When ministers begin to contradict each other, and sometimes even themselves, it betrays an increasing lack of central direction and conviction. Recently the government, despite a preoccupation with the "secrecy bill" and snooping foreign agents, has successfully exposed its own worst blunders. Police Minister Nathi Mthethwa resorted to court in an attempt to prevent an inquiry into policing in Khayelitsha, instituted by Western Cape premier Helen Zille at the request of community organisations. Mthethwa dismissed Zille’s commission as "politicking" and claimed there was no problem with vigilante murders in Khayelitsha.

Yet a report by national police commissioner Riah Phiyega, ironically lodged with Mthethwa’s own court papers, revealed there have been 78 vigilante killings in Khayelitsha in less than a year: an average of six a month. You don’t really need a vexatious official opposition when the government itself is quite capable of exposing its own "politicking" — and even provides the irrefutable evidence.

This was followed by a heated dispute about how many Gulfstream jet flights, at a cost of R200,000 a trip, Lindiwe Sisulu took when she was defence minister. Democratic Alliance MP David Maynier alleged she had taken 200 such flights between Cape Town and Pretoria. Sisulu, who is now the Minister of Public Service and Administration, replied that she used the luxury jet only 35 times and accused Maynier of having "a flea-infested body".

The question is: where did those irritating fleas come from? Maynier was never able to elicit particulars of Sisulu’s travel arrangements when she was in charge of defence, because she claimed such information was a state secret. Instead, he got his information from Sisulu’s Cabinet colleague. Defence Minister Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula said her predecessor took 203 executive-jet flights. In other words, Sisulu blamed a mere oxpecker for ticks and fleas that originated from the ox itself: another sign of a government in disarray.

It is catching. Earlier this month, the South African Democratic Teachers' Union (Sadtu) issued a "stern warning" against civil society groups that have resorted to court action over the Limpopo textbook fiasco. Sadtu, claiming it could resolve this textbook issue, denounced the groups as "imperialist neoliberal forces … used as proxies to pursue certain political agendas". Two weeks later, Sadtu in Limpopo issued a statement expressing doubt that the Department of Basic Education could deliver school textbooks in time for next year.

The champion of this hydra-headed style is Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Minister Tina Joemat-Pettersson. During the farm unrest in the Western Cape, she sounded like rivals furiously at odds with one another: Joemat the fiery revolutionary versus Pettersson the bungling government functionary.

The strikers had "won", she thundered, because they made the government listen. And the deafest culprit? As minister responsible, herself. So if farm protests reignite next week, will Comrade Joemat chuck rocks at Minister Pettersson?

Above all, no sooner was there a row over whether Zuma had taken a bond on his rural domain than his friend and former funder, Vivian Reddy, rashly declared that Zuma should be commended for choosing Nkandla when he could pick the plushest areas in the country. That boast neatly drew attention to the fact that, at a cost of more than R250m, the president’s homestead, per square metre, probably is the nation’s plushest area.

Along Cape Town’s Atlantic seaboard, you can pick up an ocean-facing mansion with six bedrooms, staff quarters, infinity pool and similar status symbols for R20m. At the Nkandla rate, you could buy 10 of those in Bantry Bay, Camps Bay and any other bay — and still have enough left for a 1,119ha game farm in KwaZulu-Natal plus a brace of helicopters.

No amount of bluster about disrespect, foreign agents or covert agendas can make up for infighting, excess and drift.

It is no way to run a country. It is no way to end inequality.

Source: Business Day

'Corruption at forensic lab sabotages convictions'

ALLEGED wide-scale corruption and theft at the country's leading police forensic science laboratory is leading to massive backlogs in the finalisation of horrific crimes, including sexual assaults.

A detailed dossier compiled by the Police and Prisons Civil Rights Union (Popcru) has blown open the lid on alleged criminal activities by police working within the national forensic science laboratory in Pretoria.

Contained within the dossier is damning information on the alleged irregular decommissioning of a multi-million rand DNA database machine, the theft of R500-million worth of narcotics evidence, the apparent sabotaging of court cases and the concealing of information reflecting the true situation of the laboratory's caseload backlog.

The dossier was given to National Police Commissioner General Riah Phiyega nearly two months ago. According to Popcru, which is calling for an investigation, police management have done nothing about the allegations, while whistle-blowers have been victimised - with two being subjected to internal disciplinary hearings.

According to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) and gender violence NGOs, DNA databases are essential in the fight for justice. NPA spokesman Vuyisile Calaza said DNA was crucial in proving the guilt of an accused in a sexual offence.

People Opposed to Women Abuse (Powa) director Nhlanhla Mokwena said a database of DNA from perpetrators of rape would make seeking justice easier.

A report by the Medical Research Council and the Study of Violence - involving the tracking of rape cases through the criminal justice system - showed how DNA reports more often than not led to an acquittal than a conviction. The report said DNA reports were seldom available because kits were infrequently analysed and the suspects' blood rarely taken for comparison against any DNA identified by the laboratory.

Popcru's Gauteng provincial chairman Vusi Shabalala said they had spent months collecting information to compile the dossier, which contained information on the alleged irregular decommissioning of a R46-million DNA database machine - crucial parts of which were sold for scrap metal.

Police spokesman Brigadier Phuti Setati said the matter was receiving attention.

"Popcru is being engaged. We cannot discuss the contents until the matter has been addressed," he said.

Police ministry spokesman Zweli Mnisi said Minister Nathi Mthethwa had been briefed on the allegations.

Source: The Sowetan

Marikana: Avoidable, unconstitutional… and entirely predictable

The Marikana massacre has been called an ‘avoidable’ tragedy. But given the total misunderstanding of Constitutional obligations by senior politicians and police leaders, it seems nothing short of inevitable. Looking at the way police obligations have been understood in the country over the past four years, it’s hardly surprising that we’ve come to this kind of brutality.

Many South Africans are either confused or uninformed about the Constitutional and legal duties placed on the South African Police Service to protect, rather than kill, the citizens of South Africa. Many members of the “law and order” crowd, including a large number of (white) South Africans who usually demonstrate a fierce hatred of the ANC and the government it leads, have emerged as staunch defenders of the actions of the police during the Marikana massacre and, by implication, is demonstrating support for Police Minister Nathi Mthethwa, whose resignation has been called for by opposition parties.

In support of their contention that the killing of 34 miners by members of the SAPS was justified, they argue that the miners were taking part in an illegal strike and an illegal gathering, that the police were scared because some police officers had been killed in the run-up to the massacre and some miners were brandishing traditional weapons, and that one of the miners had shot at the police and that the police were therefore merely defending themselves.

Entirely absent from these kinds of wrongheaded arguments is an understanding of the Constitutional and legal framework within which the police are required to operate in a Constitutional state like our own.

Section 199(5) of the Constitution states that the Police “must act, and must teach and require their members to act, in accordance with the Constitution and the law”. The Constitution protects the right to life of everyone – including every criminal suspect and every miner who took part in the events at Marikana last Thursday. The strikers did not forfeit their right to life because two police officers were killed by unidentified individuals in the week leading up to the massacre. Nor did they forfeit their right to life because they were involved in an unlawful strike and/or protest march or because one of the striking miners allegedly shot at the police.

This principle is underscored by section 13 of the Police Services Act, which states that members of the SAPS must act subject to the Constitution and with due regard to the fundamental rights of every person. The section continues to state that where a police officer is authorised to use force (for example, to defend him- or herself or to help apprehend a dangerous criminal suspect), he or she may use only the minimum force which is reasonable in the circumstances.

The police are not authorised to take the law into their own hands and to punish a group of miners by killing 34 of them because some of the miners might previously have been involved in the killing of a police officer. That would be nothing more than mob justice and would constitute cold-blooded murder. The fact that some of the police officers might have been scared because two of their fellow officers were killed earlier in the week would not, by itself, constitute a legal justification for the killing either. To hold otherwise would be to excuse every scared but trigger-happy police officer who goes on a shooting spree.

Neither would it normally be found to be reasonable to shoot and kill 34 protesters with automatic rifles because one of them had a gun or had shot at the police. It would also normally not be possible to claim that the police used minimum force when it killed 34 protestors with semi-automatic rifles. In the absence of other compelling evidence which demonstrates that the miners posed a grave threat to the lives of police officers, the shooting could not be considered either justifiable or legal. Evidence that such a grave threat existed might yet emerge, but so far no one has provided it, so arguments exonerating the police are not based on factual or legal considerations.

Those who are so quick to exonerate the police either do not value the lives of those who died, are defending the government and the minister of police for politically expedient reasons, or are animated by an irrational fear of everything that the miners represent.

Questions might well be asked about why so many police officers, as well as members of the public, seem to believe that the police have a right to shoot and kill anyone who threatens them or gets involved in illegal activities. Where is this idea coming from that our police do not have to respect the lives of fellow citizens when the citizens have allegedly broken the law?

The answer to this question is not blowing in the wind, but a Google search does yield some direction.

In 2008, then-deputy minister of safety and security, Susan Shabangu (who yesterday made the contradictory claim that she had negotiated with the parties involved in the dispute behind the scenes but that she had never heard of one of the unions involved in it) told an anti-crime rally in Pretoria that police shouldn’t hesitate to kill “criminals”. She did not mean that the police should not hesitate to shoot to kill those who have been convicted of a crime by our courts, but rather that the police should not hesitate to shoot and kill individuals who our Constitution presume to be innocent but whom the police officer might believe had committed a crime.

You must kill the bastards if they threaten you or the community… You must not worry about the regulations. That is my responsibility. Your responsibility is to serve and protect. I want to assure the police station commissioners, policemen and women that they have permission to kill these criminals. I want no warning shots. You have one shot and it must be a kill shot. If you miss, the criminals will go for the kill. They don’t miss. We can’t take this chance.

This is the same Shabangu who yesterday warned South Africans to “exercise restraint when it comes to rushing to judgments”, pending the outcome of the judicial inquiry which will be appointed to investigate the massacre.

In 2009, South Africa’s new top cop, Bheki Cele, pleaded for the law to be changed to allow police to “shoot to kill” so-called criminals (again, suspects who must be presumed innocent until proven guilty) without worrying about “what happens after that”. Speaking to a newspaper, Commissioner Cele said the police needed to match the firepower of criminals and use “deadly force”. Cele complained that criminals were armed with the best high-calibre firearms “to deal with whoever is standing in their way, so… they are ready to shoot”. On the other hand, police responding to an attack have to “arrest their minds, thinking is this right or is it wrong? Police must think about what is in front of them and do the job, or else they get killed.”

He received backing for these starling assertions from none other than Nathi Mthethwa, the country’s police minister. “We are tired of waving nice documents like the Constitution and the human rights charter in criminals’ faces,” Mthethwa said. “We are going to meet these thugs head on, and if it means we kill when we shoot, then so be it.”

It is the same Mthethwa who yesterday claimed that the loss of life at Marikana was tragic and regrettable, but that now was not the time for “cheap politicking”. He added that the incident should teach us “as a nation, as a whole, to work doubly hard to prevent the repeat of such events.” As if the nation as a whole had made or condoned inflammatory statements about the need for the police to “shoot the bastards”. As if the nation as whole had insisted that we should ignore the Constitution. As if the nation as a whole gave the order to shoot at protestors with automatic rifles. As if those who stoked the fires of violence and those who actually killed the 34 protestors had absolutely no part to play in this tragedy.

I might be wrong, but given the bloodthirsty and irresponsible statements made by some politicians and members of the police leadership over the past four years about the need for the police to shoot and kill people who have never been convicted of any crime and must – in terms of our Constitution – be presumed to be innocent, the massacre at Marikana appears not “avoidable and tragic”, not something we as a nation “must work doubly hard” to prevent from happening again, but rather entirely inevitable and predictable.

Source: Constitutionally Speaking

Jimmy Lembede murdered in cold blood - ANC KZN

ANC CONDEMNS THE BRUTAL KILLING OF COUNCILLOR

The African National Congress (ANC) in KwaZulu-Natal calls on the police to leave no stone unturned in investigating the cold blooded murder of Comrade Jimmy Lembede.

According to reports, Lembede, who was a ward councilor in Umtshezi Municipality, was shot dead at his home on Friday evening. Comrade Lembede died on the spot and his wife sustained gunshot wounds.

The ANC is concerned with what seems to be a systematic campaign to eliminate our councillors to reverse the gains of democracy in the province.

"We call on the law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who are responsible for this callous crime are brought to book. The ANC is concerned that this latest killing takes place just days after different political parties in the province met with the national Police Minister Nathi Mthethwa in Durban to discuss the upsurge in political killings in the province," said ANC provincial secretary, Sihle Zikalala.

A meeting of leaders of different political parties in KwaZulu-Natal and Mthethwa last week raised optimism about our province's attempts to end politically related murders.

The meeting was convened after the ANC provincial Tripartite Alliance political summit's delegates called on Mthethwa to create a Task Team to investigate incidents of political party-related murders in KwaZulu-Natal.

We are pleased that the Minister has assigned the police officers from the national office to work with the police in KwaZulu-Natal to investigate political killings.

We condemn all the politically related deaths and call on our people to volunteer information that will help the law enforcement agencies.

The ANC is saddened by the killing of Comrade Lembede and we would like to convey our condolences to the family and friends. The ANC appeals to the community to assist the police in tracking down the killers.

Statement issued by Sihle Zikalala, ANC KwaZulu-Natal provincial secretary, August 19 2012

Source: Politicsweb

Marikana and the man with the green blanket

The women of a South African community are coming to terms with a week of bloodshed that culminated with the deaths of 34 workers shot by police on Thursday during a protest at the Lonmin platinum mine in Marikana.

A stick to being used to beat Zuma? Just a thought …  
Marikana action is a strike by the poor
Marikana was a war zone: Burger

Solidarity takes SAPS to court over affirmative action policy

Trade union Solidarity filed papers at the Johannesburg Labour Court, asking for the SA Police Service (SAPS) affirmative action plan to be declared invalid.

Solidarity deputy general secretary Dirk Hermann said in a statement that the union aimed to dismantle the entire plan. "We cannot continue taking individual cases to court. Now for the first time we are taking to court the root of the problem, namely absolute racial representation," he said. The union had already taken the SAPS to court in 14 separate cases.

Police Minister Nathi Mthethwa, Labour Minister Mildred Oliphant and police commissioner General Riah Phiyega were named as respondents in the documents. Mthethwa's spokesman Zweli Mnisi said he had not seen the papers, and could not comment on its contents. "[It is] safe to say if the matter is brought before court, then our legal team will handle the matter accordingly."

In the papers Solidarity claimed that the SAPS's affirmative action plan amounted to social manipulation based on blatant race and gender quotas. It said the 'ideal' race-based targets set by the SAPS affirmative action plan between 2010 to 2014 were 79.35 percent for Africans, 2.46 percent for Indians, 8.85 percent for coloureds and 9.34 percent for whites. The union claimed this was unconstitutional. "Under the Constitution it is impermissible to discriminate on the grounds of race and gender. The Employment Equity Act, in outlawing discrimination, echoes this principle," the papers said. It said the "naked pursuit" of demographic representation based on racial factors can never be lawful. "The enactments legitimate affirmative action measures in order to redress the inequities of the past, but they positively decline to sanction social engineering mechanically designed to produce racial and gender representation in the future." It said that the plan did not take into account the regional differences in racial demographics. "For example, the representation of coloured people is made to depend on national demographics despite the preponderance of such persons in the Western Cape."

Hermann said the "problem" with absolute racial representation was that employers were beginning to "believe it was proper thing to do". "Solidarity wants to petition the court to give its verdict on the question of whether this practice is allowed by the Employment Equity Act and the Constitution of South Africa," he said. "The irony is that this racial ideology is hitting ordinary South Africans the hardest: people who are victims of poor service in various areas, including poor policing service."

He said the court date for the case had not been set yet.

Source: Times Live

National security: Beware a state of disgrace

A spate of perturbing cases involving our police and court systems has strong political undertones, writes Sam Sole.

Safeguards against the abuse of state power face one of their stiffest tests in the series of intertwined cases involving former crime intelligence boss ­Richard Mdluli, suspended prosecutor Glynnis Breytenbach, former police commissioner Bheki Cele and the 20 policemen arrested this week as part of a crackdown on the so-called Cato Manor police death squad.

Every government tries to use the coercive weight of state authority to remove problems it would rather not deal with through open and drawn-out legal processes. But the shortcuts taken by the Zuma administration have been piling up in an unsustainable way that threatens the prolonged destabilisation of both the police and the prosecution service. The attempts at political manipulation also have implications for the media because various sides in the conflict have used leaks and spin to smear their opponents.

Complicating the process – perhaps even driving it – is that in each case personal interests are involved for the most senior political figures, including Police Minister Nathi Mthethwa and President Jacob Zuma. Moreover, those shortcuts are now facing unprecedented scrutiny in a blizzard of cases.

In terms of Mdluli, they include:

His challenge to his suspension in the Johannesburg Labour Court;
The new disciplinary charges filed against him by outgoing acting police commissioner Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi;
The inquest into the 1999 murder of Oupa Ramogibe, the husband of Mdluli’s former lover;
The Freedom Under Law challenge to the withdrawal of charges against Mdluli and his short-lived reinstatement as divisional commissioner for crime intelligence following the intervention of Mthethwa;
The Hawks investigation into abuses of the secret services account, which implicated Mdluli and other senior crime intelligence officers;
Breytenbach’s challenge to being suspended by the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), which she alleges had the ulterior motive of preventing her from prosecuting Mdluli for allegedly defrauding the secret services account;
The preliminary investigation by the public protector into Mdluli’s possible role in the surveillance or targeting of Zuma’s political rivals, following a complaint laid by Tokyo Sexwale;
The involvement of the inspector general of intelligence and the auditor general in some aspects of these investigations; and
The ministerial task team appointed by Mthethwa to look into Mdluli’s allegations of a conspiracy against him by other senior police officers.


In terms of Cele, they include:

His high court challenge to the findings of the Moloi inquiry into his fitness to hold office;
Judge Jake Moloi’s recommendation to investigate further Cele’s involvement in the Roux Shabangu police headquarters leasing scandal, as well as question marks over ­several senior police appointments;
The ongoing litigation over the cancelled leases between the department of public works, Shabangu and his banker, Nedbank;
The suggestion that, because of his closeness to some of those involved, Cele may be drawn into the Cato Manor “hit squad” case and the prosecution of nouveau millionairess Shauwn Mpisane for allegedly defrauding the South African Revenue Service. Cele was conspicuously present in court to support both sets of accused; and
The investigation into how crime intelligence came to intercept Cele’s telephone calls – as well as those of two Sunday Times journalists.


Regarding Breytenbach:

The NPA denies that her involvement in pressing for Mdluli’s prosecution played any role in disciplinary action taken against her, instead ­citing allegations of improper conduct in another politically charged case – the Kumba Iron Ore criminal case against politically connected company Imperial Crown Trading.


The interwoven strands of these cases can perhaps best be understood by traversing the history of one of the key players.

Cele, contrary to some views, has not been a steady backer of Zuma.

During his time in KwaZulu-Natal, he was for a long time associated with the S’bu Ndebele faction of the provincial ANC, which supported former president Thabo Mbeki until the reality of the Zuma tsunami forced most to switch sides. Historically, Cele was seen as the power broker for the eThekwini region that controlled access to the significant resources of the Durban metro council.

Allies of Cele, such as the Mpisanes and the Gcaba taxi family, benefited from Durban contracts in housing and transport. To complicate matters, the Gcabas are said to have been important contributors to the funds raised for Zuma while he was fighting the corruption charges being pursued by the Scorpions. In 1998 Sbu Mpisane (Shauwn’s husband), a metro police constable, was due to be a state witness in the trial of long-distance taxi boss Mandla Gcaba, accused of arranging the revenge killing of a rival taxi owner. But Mpisane, whose car was identified as the getaway vehicle, disappeared and his failure to testify may have played a role in Gcaba’s acquittal. Mpisane later reappeared and rose to fame as Durban’s richest metro policeman, courtesy of his wife’s company. Conflict between rival taxi associations also looms large in the history of the Cato Manor unit, which fell under provincial Hawks boss Major General Johan Booysen.

During Cele’s tenure as KwaZulu-Natal safety and security MEC, he and Booysen were both cited in an interdict obtained in October 2008 by the chairperson of the kwaMaphumulo Taxi Association, Bongani Mkhize, preventing the police from killing him.

Mkhize, who was embroiled in a long turf war with another taxi association, was being sought in connection with the murder of Kranskop police commander Zethembe Chonco in August that year. At the time of the interdict, the police, including members of the Cato Manor organised crime unit, had killed seven suspects linked to the Chonco murder in alleged shoot-outs. Despite the interdict, Mkhize was shot dead in February 2009 by a police task team that included ­members of the Cato Manor unit. Police claimed he fired on them, but a ballistics expert brought in by the family raised serious doubts about their version. This killing also featured in the secret intelligence report leaked by the Mdluli camp in March 2011, just ahead of Mdluli’s arrest for the 1999 love triangle murder.

The report – without advancing evidence – accused Cele of orchestrating the killing of Chonco to cover up his own supposed involvement in taxi violence, which Chonco had “stumbled on”, and then arranging for all those involved in the Chonco murder to meet a similar grisly end. Cele, in turn, is understood to have supported the murder investigation into Mdluli, which was reopened shortly before Cele assumed office in 2009. Both Zuma and Mthethwa have also been drawn into the drama around Booysen and members of the Cato Manor unit.

Police claimed to have evidence that taxi boss Mkhize was involved in planning the murder of chief Mbongeleni Zondi, a relative and ally of Zuma. According to a police intelligence source, Zondi, a former policeman, was targeted by Mkhize because he was suspected of providing the information that led to the killing of Maphumulo taxi association boss Magojela Ndimande and his bodyguard in December 2008. They, too, were gunned down by members of the Cato Manor unit, purportedly while on the trail of Chonco’s killers – and all but one of the four suspects accused of involvement in the Zondi killing are now dead at the hands of the police.

In all cases, the Cato Manor unit is claiming the justifiable use of deadly force, but the high-visibility arrests of its members this week suggest an attempt to break the bonds of solidarity that traditionally exist in such a unit. Even sympathetic sources concede that the unit may have become trigger-happy, particularly in relation to suspects allegedly involved in the killing of policemen. But the high-profile involvement of opposing political figures – notably Mthethwa’s earlier vocal demand for the disbanding of the unit and Cele’s public show of support this week – suggests there is more at stake. Booysen, although not charged, is clearly a target. He was initially threatened with suspension for failing to act on the Cato Manor unit’s alleged abuses, but rebuffed the attempt in court. But Booysen is also key to an investigation that has exposed the involvement of the president’s relatives, notably Zuma’s son Edward and Zuma’s friend Deebo Mzobe. Both men have been accused of attempting to intercede in the investigation of Durban multimillionaire Thoshan Panday, accused of fraud in police accommodation contracts. Both have denied their involvement, but not their links to Panday.

Citizen reporter Paul Kirk, who is known to have good contacts in the Cato Manor unit, reported this week that some of the arrested policemen had been involved in investigations into Edward Zuma and his business partners – and that others had been used in probes targeting Mdluli. Mthethwa has, in particular, been embarrassed by leaks about the use of secret services account money to upgrade security at his KwaZulu-Natal home.

On the other hand, the Hawks component of the investigation into the Cato Manor unit was led by Major General Ntebo Mabula, a policeman known to be a trusted associate of Mdluli. The investigation into the unit was prompted by a front-page story in the Sunday Times – complete with some shocking crime-scene pictures of Cato Manor members and their victims. Both the tip-off for the story and the supply of the pictures appear to have come from senior unnamed crime intelligence officers, although the Sunday Times has denied being manipulated by its sources.

The web of cases linking Cele, Mdluli and Breytenbach appears to have many strands that might pose a risk to Zuma and his allies, should they be fully teased out. That may explain the heavy-handed tactics on display in Durban, where the Cato Manor cops offered to hand themselves over but were arrested and handcuffed in front of their families. This approach is also evident in the Breytenbach case, in which the prosecutor has even been charged with performing work outside of the NPA by renting out a flat and running a horse-stabling business.

It may also explain the apparently endless blocking manoeuvres available to Mdluli to challenge his suspension. Whether the strong-arm tactics succeed may depend on how vulnerable those in the firing line perceive themselves to be — and how vulnerable they think the president is.

Source: Mail & Guardian

Richard Mdluli has some explaining to do

Suspended crime intellience head Lieutenant-General Richard Mdluli will have to explain why R150 000 of police funds was used to upgrade security at his house when he appears before a disciplinary hearing in July, City Press reported on Sunday.

The 10 charges Mdluli faces were revealed in court papers filed by former acting police chief Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi in the Johannesburg Labour Court this week. The charges against him relate to his alleged abuse of a crime intelligence “slush fund”, that he misled investigations into 250 covert appointments of crime intelligence operatives, and appointed family members and friends to police positions. The charge sheet states that Mdluli allegedly spent R150 209 on security upgrades to his Boksburg home, authorised air travel for his wife and children to the value of R84 199, and spent R46 809 on business class tickets for his wife.

Mdluli remains suspended from the police service, pending various court actions. The Labour Court case in which Mdluli is challenging his suspension is due to be heard this week. Last year, Mdluli faced fraud and corruption charges for the misuse of the fund, and faced a murder charge for the death of his former lover’s husband. The charges led to his initial suspension. This year, all the charges were withdrawn and Mdluli was reinstated in March. This was widely criticised by, among others, the Democratic Alliance and lobby group Freedom Under Law. Police Minister Nathi Mthethwa later moved him to a different division but Mkhwanazi opted to suspend him. The suspension was lifted by the Labour Court on June 1 but subsequently overturned by the same court.

New top cop Mangwashi Phiyega said she will comment on the investigation into Mdluli after she has read the files on him, the paper reported. “I will be dealing with it.”

Phiyega said documents seen in newspapers were “adulterated”. “Now that I’m here, they will show me the real files and maybe when you talk to me 12 months down the line, I will be able to say I did see the real files and what we were seeing wasn’t the real thing,” she told the publication.

Phiyega also commended the Independent Police Investigative Directorate.

“No doctor can doctor herself. It’s critical and important to have the directorate to police us and to regulate us. I really appreciate its existence.”

Source: Mail & Guardian

Police’s controversial new broom

Acting police chief Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi is being hailed as a hero for his efforts in cleaning up the police force and taking steps to remove officials like embattled crime intelligence boss Richard Mdluli, who are seen as hampering performance and undermining the force’s reputation.

If there was any doubt as to Mkhwanazi’s motives, within days of signing notices of suspension against Mdluli and financial crime intelligence head Major-General Solly Lazarus, Mkhwanazi was quoted in the Sunday Independent as saying: “I am a cop. I want the police environment to have clean cops. If we want to fight crime we must rid the SAPS of criminals and stay with clean cops.” Mdluli has been accused of both murder and corruption – allegations that become all the more disconcerting when one considers that his policing responsibility, crime intelligence, is central to fighting graft. Mkhwanazi’s spokesperson Lindela Mashigo said: “(Mkhwanazi) has an unwavering determination to tackle crime and root out corruption within and outside the police service.”

His most recent move has been to put fresh security checks on crime intelligence unit members, “believing that half of the unit is corrupt”, it was recently reported in the Independent press. Three senior officers were issued with transfer notices on Tuesday 29 May and about 200 covert operations members have been told they will be subjected to a security-vetting clearance and have until Friday 1 June to comply.

Mkhwanazi’s strong position on corruption within the force is not without reason. A study by Transparency International looking at six Southern African countries revealed that the police are seen as the most corrupt in the public service. The survey, which spoke to more than 6 000 people in South Africa, Mozambique, Malawi, Zambia, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Zimbabwe between 2010 and 2011, found that 62% of people believe corruption has got worse in the last three years. On top of that, a recent Corruption Watch report revealed rampant corruption in the Johannesburg Metro Police Department, with 150 000 of the city’s drivers – one in four – asked for a bribe in 2010.

Following the suspension of Mdluli and Lazarus, Mkhwanazi has requested a full report into the police intelligence slush fund and how money has been spent, which will add to investigations by the Hawks. In the eight months since the acting national police commissioner took office, Mkhwanazi has shown his mettle and his willingness to make some controversial decisions. As Institute for Security Studies crime and justice expert Dr Johan Burger points out, Mkhwanazi’s mere acceptance of the job opened him up to severe criticism, after President Jacob Zuma appointed him over 26 more senior officials. At the time of his promotion Mkhwanazi was a major-general. He was only appointed lieutenant-general after taking up his acting chief role. If those who appointed him expected the BTech graduate in policing with operational, but no administrative experience, to toe the line, then they were seriously disappointed.

Just four months in Mkhwanazi, who had already begun reshuffling some senior officials, made it clear how he intended to proceed with the rest of his tenure as police head. In January 2012 he told 3 000 officers at a briefing ahead of ANC centenary celebrations in Bloemfontein that police would be expected not to show their political affiliations or attempt to interfere with politics. “This event is the first of its kind. We warn you, you might have voted, and might be a card-carrying member of a party, but you are still police," he said. "If I find anyone playing politics, we will deal with you severely."

Mkhwanazi has made two controversial decisions since his appointment that have raised concerns for a public already reeling from the disgrace of two previous national police commissioners. Firstly, he attracted some adverse reaction when he threatened to fire any member of his audit committee found to have leaked the document to the Sunday Times that revealed that over 27000 police officers had failed their firearm proficiency tests, and then he signed documents halting the Hawks investigation into Mdluli. However, Mkhwanazi made an unexpected revelation in parliament in April that the investigation against Mdluli was ongoing – this was despite alleged pressure from the police minister to stop the investigation into the slush fund, and reports that the police chief had stopped the probe. This indicated that Mkhwanazi intended to solve problems within the police his way, and without interference.

He dropped a further bombshell by informing parliament that “powers beyond” the police decided whether a case should be prosecuted or not. This highlighted his frustration with the National Prosecuting Authorities’ decision not to pursue action against Mdluli, as well as other unnamed people. This, the first indication by a police official of political interference in decision-making, saw quick reaction. Mthethwa announced earlier in May that Mdluli had been relieved of his post and would be moved to the operational division pending an investigation. Soon after Freedom Under Law applied for an interdict to stop Mdluli from performing any function as an officer pending a judicial review, Mdluli and Lazarus were issued with notices of suspension. They are allowed to put forward reasons why they believe they should not be suspended.

Guns are once again out for Mkhwanazi, who is attempting to investigate some of the allegations in the Hawks reports. His decision to transfer KwaZulu-Natal crime intelligence boss Major-General Deena Moodley to head the Pinetown cluster of stations is being challenged by Moodley in the labour court. Moodley, who alleges it is a witch-hunt by Mkhwanazi, is accused, among other things, of illegally tapping phones of journalists involved in investigations against suspended police chief Bheki Cele and Mdluli. There are concerns that Mkhwanazi’s hardline position may seriously shorten his career. This is despite him being supported by some in government, including Human Settlements Minister Tokyo Sexwale who endorses Mdluli’s suspension.

There are rumours that former ANC chief whip and current director-general of labour Adv Nkosinathi Nhleko is tipped as the permanent replacement to Cele. Cele is appealing a ruling that found him unfit to hold the commissioner position based on his handling of police lease deals in Durban and Pretoria. Unlike Mkhwanazi, Nhleko and suspended chief Cele are not career policemen, which was often cited as contributing to Cele’s lack of understanding about how the police service functions, and what issues needed to be addressed to correct some deep-seated problems in the organisation.

“An essential ingredient in fighting corruption is a committed and clean police force. Mkhwanazi’s ‘clean cop’ attitude and action will raise the morale of the many good people in the police and increase the confidence of people in our official anti-corruption fighters,” says Corruption Watch head David Lewis.

Source: Corruption Watch

In South Africa the Rule of Law Does not Apply to the Political Elite

There is little disagreement that corruption is a serious problem facing South Africa. Unfortunately, various indicators suggest that the problem is getting worse. The annual Transparency Corruptions Perceptions Index is a useful measure of whether corruption is getting better or worse in 182 countries worldwide. Ten points indicate the absence of perceptions of corruption, while 0 means that the country is entirely corrupt. On this scale, in 2011 New Zealand scored closest to ten with a score of 9,5, while Somalia was rated as the most corrupt country in the world with a score of 1. The 2011 index reveals that South Africa registered its lowest score to date of 4,1 points when compared with our highest rating of 5,1 in 2007. Worryingly, we have dropped from 54th place in 2010 to 64th place in 2012 on the world rankings. The surveys from Afrobarometer – a public opinion survey focusing on Africa – have also shown that South Africans are increasingly concerned about corruption. While in 2008, 15% of adults thought that corruption was ‘an important national issue’, by 2011 this had increased to 29%.

In October 2011, the head of the Special Investigating Unit (SIU), Willie Hofmeyr, told the National Assembly Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development that corruption involving government procurement was costing South Africa as much as R30 billion each year. To place this in perspective, this amount of money could increase the annual budget of the Department of Basic Education by 20%, the Department of Health by 25% or the entire criminal justice system by 30%. In short, if taxpayers’ money were not being stolen by, or with the connivance of, corrupt government officials and politicians, all South Africans could benefit from substantially more schools, hospitals and police stations staffed with better-paid doctors, teachers and police officers.

It is then fortunate that, officially at least, the government has identified corruption as a serious challenge and has set itself the objective of reducing corruption so as to ‘boost investor trust and willingness to invest in the country’. Towards this end it set the goal of prosecuting and convicting a hundred individuals that are suspected to have corruptly acquired assets worth more than R5 million by 2014. To achieve this the government has established the Anti-Corruption Task Team to coordinate the activities of various investigation agencies and the National Prosecution Authority (NPA). Although Hofmeyr pointed out earlier this year that at least 26 individuals meeting the government’s targeted profile are before the courts on corruption charges, its overall target is too ambitious given the handful of successful convictions achieved in the past few years.

The question is, why is the problem of corruption so large and damaging to South Africa if there is an official government policy to reduce it? The answer lies in examining the extent to which there is political will to take appropriate action against the most politically powerful and connected people.

When an ordinary citizen is alleged to have committed a crime such as corruption, the South African Police Service (SAPS) will identify that person as a suspect in a criminal matter. The SAPS will then use its legally provided investigative powers and resources to gather any evidence that will allow the suspect to be criminally charged and brought before a court. The suspect is given various rights and is entitled to having lawyers test the evidence so as to ensure that it is indeed correct and that the he/she is not being falsely accused. If the evidence is found wanting suspects will be acquitted and if not, may find themselves convicted and sent to prison.

It is the unfortunate reality that politically connected individuals are being protected from criminal justice processes. When Police Commissioner General Bheki Cele was found by the Public Protector to have engaged in conduct that was ‘improper, unlawful and amounted to maladministration’, he was not subjected to a criminal investigation. Rather, his friend and the person who appointed him to his post, President Jacob Zuma, appointed a board of inquiry to look into allegations of corruption and wrongdoing. However, unlike a police investigation, the board of inquiry could not subpoena witnesses, or access cellphone records and bank statements, as was the case in the investigation against convicted ex-SAPS Commissioner Jackie Selebi. The inquiry had no investigative powers and therefore could only consider evidence provided to it by willing parties. The recently leaked inquiry report therefore raised more questions than answers and apparently recommended that a full criminal investigation be undertaken into the matter. If Zuma implements this recommendation, it will be the first example of a senior politically connected person at a national level being subject to such an investigation under his administration.

Disturbing allegations emerged as a result of various investigations by the Directorate for Priority Crimes Investigations Unit (also known as the Hawks), that the Head of SAPS Crime Intelligence, Lieutenant-General Richard Mdluli, and his close colleagues were implicated in a range of crimes including murder, rape, kidnapping, intimidation and wide-scale corruption. It is alleged that the Minister of Police halted all investigations into Mdluli and ordered that he be reinstated. Mdluli was irregularly appointed to his position after a cabinet ministers’ meeting two months after Zuma was sworn in as the President of South Africa. It has been alleged that this was because of Mdluli’s willingness to use his position to support Zuma to stay in power. Indeed, Mdluli has written letters to Zuma that state as much.

That the current acting SAPS National Commissioner Nhlanhla Sibusiso Mkhwanazi has recently re-suspended Mdluli is seen by many as a bold move to reject political interference in police matters, a move that could cost him his position. Current criminal investigations into Mdluli by the Hawks appear to have been taken despite political interference.

More recently we have read of allegations that the Minister of Police, Nathi Mthethwa, irregularly benefited from the Secret Service Account of the SAPS Crime Intelligence Division when R195 581.40 was used for renovations to his private residence. If this allegation is true, it may amount to unlawful conduct as the funds in this account consist of taxpayers’ money to be used for crime intelligence work only. The Minister of Police has denied that he benefited from the Secret Service Account and stated that he had asked the Auditor-General (AG) to investigate. As is the case with the board of inquiry into Cele, the AG does not undertake its work with the intention of gathering evidence to support or refute allegations of misconduct or criminality. Therefore the Minister is safe in the knowledge that he will not automatically be facing any criminal sanction from the AG’s investigation into the allegations against him. All the AG will be able to find with regards to wrongdoing is that money was misspent and recommend that further investigations be undertaken – a recommendation that could be ignored by the Minister, to whom the AG will report on this matter.

If politically connected individuals cannot be held accountable for criminal activity through the criminal justice system, there is little incentive for them to stop engaging in corruption and the problem will continue to worsen. Unfortunately, this appears to be happening as there is no political will to subject politically connected people at the highest levels of government to the criminal justice system when there are allegations of wrongdoing. So no matter how many ordinary people the government throws in jail, our country will continue to suffer the negative effects of corruption of state resources being used to benefit a handful of individuals.

Source: ISS

Police boss moves against Richard Mdluli

Acting commissioner Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi appears to be defying political attempts to bury the investigation into the former head of crime intelligence. Mkhwanazi has given embattled crime intelligence boss Richard Mdluli and his ally, the manager of the police secret services account, Major General Solly Lazarus, seven days to give reasons why they should not be suspended for a second time. The move may indicate an increasing defiance by Mkhwanazi of political attempts to bury the Mdluli investigation.

The Mail & Guardian has confirmed from three independent sources that Mdluli and Lazarus both received the letters. Brigadier Lindela Mashigo, Mkhwanazi’s spokesperson, would not confirm this, saying it was an internal matter. Mdluli and Lazarus were reinstated on March 27 following a stormy meeting between Mkhwanazi, Police Minister Nathi Mthethwa and inspector general of intelligence Faith Radebe.

The reinstatement – contrary to Radebe’s written advice that criminal charges against Mdluli and ­disciplinary charges against Lazarus should proceed – was widely viewed as having been precipitated by pressure from Mthethwa. Mthethwa has denied issuing such an instruction, but the withdrawal of murder and fraud charges against Mdluli and his return as crime intelligence boss prompted a public outcry. Last week Mthethwa acted to diffuse pressure by announcing that Mdluli would be temporarily transferred from crime intelligence while a ministerial task team ­investigated claims that there was a conspiracy against him by other senior police generals. But Mthethwa’s action did not prevent advocacy group Freedom under Law from launching an urgent application on Tuesday to have Mdluli suspended pending a full high court review of the decisions that led to his reinstatement.

Mkwhanazi’s move against Mdluli may partially defuse the application, but it also suggests that the government is losing control of its attempts to manage the situation politically. Mkhwanazi has previously expressed his unhappiness over how police decisions on certain cases have been dictated by “powers beyond us” – and was understood to be referring to the Mdluli saga.

Zuma told a business breakfast on Thursday there was “no need for alarm” over the government’s handling of Mdluli, but the Freedom under Law application contains new revelations that will ratchet up public concern.

Source: Mail & Guardian

Why a South African Anti-Corruption Agency Must be Independent of the Police to be Effective

If it was not already clear why a dedicated anti-corruption agency capable of tackling powerfully connected people had to be independent of the South African Police Service (SAPS), the recent, and indeed ongoing failures of police leadership over the past few years should put this into perspective.

In 2010, ex-SAPS National Commissioner Jackie Selebi was convicted on corruption charges and sentenced to 15 years in prison. In 2011, the SAPS National Commissioner, Bheki Cele, was suspended pending the outcome of an inquiry into his fitness for office. This followed a finding by the Public Protector that his actions in relation to a R1.67 billion police lease deal were ‘improper, unlawful and amounted to maladministration.’

In addition, one of the most powerful SAPS Divisional Commissioners, head of Crime Intelligence Lieutenant-General Richard Mdluli, is facing an astonishing array of allegations implicating him and his close colleagues in murder, rape and wide-scale corruption. The National Minister of Police, Nathi Mthethwa has been accused of halting the Hawks’ investigation into Mdluli so as to protect him from further criminal charges, given Mdluli’s willingness to use his position to support Jacob Zuma’s intention to run for a second term as ANC president. Moreover, there are allegations emerging from investigations by the Hawks that Mthethwa illegally benefitted from the SAPS Secret Service Account to the tune of R195 581 for renovations to his personal residence, which was authorised by Mdluli.

Whether or not these allegations are ultimately proven, they have certainly severely undermined the public image of the police and further demoralised many of the honest hard working police officials expected to place themselves at risk in fighting crime. Moreover, such allegations point to reasons why the political elite might choose not to strengthen the independence and ability of the Directorate of Priority Crimes Investigations (DPCI), commonly known as the Hawks, to investigate corruption committed by those at the highest levels of government.

In March 2011, the Constitutional Court, in the matter of ‘Hugh Glenister vs the President of the Republic of South Africa & others’, ruled that the legislation establishing the DPCI was unconstitutional and invalid. This was because the legislation failed to secure an adequate degree of independence for the DPCI, which was charged with investigating corruption amongst other serious priority crimes. The Court gave the government and parliament 18 months to rectify this shortcoming so as to ensure that South Africa would meet both its constitutional and international obligations with regards to establishing an independent agency that can effectively tackle corruption at all levels of society.

Not only do South Africa’s obligations require that we have an anti-corruption agency that is structurally and operationally independent, the Court ruled that it must also be seen to be independent by the public. It is therefore disappointing that the government appears to have ignored this opportunity provided by the Constitutional Court to establish a truly independent and effective anti-corruption unit.

The 18 months provided by the Constitutional Court was not used to widely consult and develop consensus about the best way to establish an independent and effective anti-corruption agency. Rather, six months before the deadline, the Minister of Police tabled the SAPS Amendment Bill before parliament that provided a minimalistic response to the Court’s findings.

The biggest shortcoming of the Bill is that the Hawks remain a directorate within the SAPS. Instead of establishing a truly independent anti-corruption agency, the Bill tries to provide a level of protection and additional authority to the head of the Hawks, by inter alia:

· allowing the Minister to appoint and dismiss the head of the Hawks so that they don’t have to report directly to the SAPS National Commissioner,

· allowing the head of the Hawks to decide on who may be seconded to assist the directorate from outside of the SAPS and,

· in the case of a dispute about which cases to investigate, having the authority to overrule the National Commissioner

Such provisions however, do not address the various ways in which the Hawks may continue to be subject to political interference and manipulation. The Constitutional Court found that the SAPS National Commissioner was inadequately independent because the Minister of Police could too easily appoint and remove the incumbent. In theory, and in practice, the SAPS National Commissioner is therefore a political appointee and, as has been recently alleged, subject to political manipulation. However, the draft legislation currently before parliament continues to allow the SAPS National Commissioner to determine the budget of the Hawks after consultation with its head, and to report on the budget before parliament. It does not take much effort to imagine that a Commissioner of Police under investigation by the Hawks might use his or her position to undermine the investigation, or to manipulate the head of the unit.

The Bill also gives the Minister of Police the authority to both appoint and initiate proceedings to dismiss the head of the Hawks, who may be suspended without salary before a disciplinary inquiry has been started.

Finally, the Bill maintains the head of the Hawks as a SAPS Deputy National Commissioner, who according to protocol will be expected to salute the SAPS National Commissioner. Hawk members will remain part of the SAPS in every way and will be subject to all its rules, regulations, resources and the dynamics of its organisational culture. How such a directorate will be seen to be truly independent by the general public is difficult to fathom.

These are but a few of the many reasons why, for an anti-corruption agency to be truly effective and independent, it will have to be a separate organisation from the SAPS. Of the 21 submissions made before the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Police, 20 argued that the Bill fell short of what was required to effectively investigate corruption committed by South Africa’s political elite. We can only hope that the committee hears the concerns of civil society and frees the Hawks to hunt corruption wherever it may occur.

Source: ISS

Mdluli: Spy inspector's big doubts

Muddled advice from the inspector general for intelligence, Faith Radebe, on internal disciplinary charges against crime intelligence boss Richard Mdluli appears to have been used as a pretext to reinstate him — while ignoring Radebe's view that the criminal prosecution against him should proceed.

This emerges from a March 6 letter from Radebe to acting national police commissioner Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi, which the Mail & Guardian has seen. The letter contains a report on Radebe's views on internal disciplinary charges laid against Mdluli and his colleague, Major General Solly Lazarus, at about the time that criminal charges against Mdluli were withdrawn. The letter preceded Radebe's March 19 missive, which found that she had no jurisdiction to conduct criminal investigations and that the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) should institute criminal charges against Mdluli.

The second letter (the one on March 19) to Mkhwanazi noted: "We are of the opinion that the reasons advanced by the NPA in support of the withdrawal of the criminal charges are inaccurate and legally flawed. We therefore recommend that this matter be referred back to the NPA for the institution of the criminal charges."

In December last year the prosecuting authority withdrew the fraud and corruption charges against Mdluli, and on February 7 a murder charge relating to the 1999 killing of the husband of Mdluli's alleged former lover was also withdrawn. On February 3, police management instituted disciplinary charges against Mdluli. But Mdluli and Lazarus were reinstated on March 27 after a meeting between Police Minister Nathi Mthethwa, Mkhwanazi and Radebe.

This week Mthethwa denied issuing any instruction to Mkhwanazi on the reinstatement.  However, he failed to explain his involvement in the exchange of correspondence between Radebe and the acting national commissioner — who is understood to have resisted Mdluli getting his former job back. In radio interviews, Mthethwa implied there was a contradiction between Radebe's two letters, which his meeting was intended to resolve. But Radebe's March 6 letter reveals that she set out clearly that she would deal separately with the disciplinary case. Her letter stated: "This report will be confined to the disciplinary charges … the requested opinion relating to the criminal charges will follow at a later stage." Mthethwa declined to answer further questions this week, including:

• How he became aware of -correspondence between Radebe and Mkhwanazi;
• Whether he informed President Jacob Zuma about it; and
• How the decision to reinstate Mdluli and Lazarus was reached, given that Radebe recommended disciplinary charges against Lazarus and criminal charges against Mdluli should proceed.

Presidential spokesperson Mac Maharaj this week denied reports in the M&G that Zuma had personally called Radebe about her letters and attended a function last year hosted by Mdluli to celebrate the withdrawal of charges. He did not explain why he had not issued these denials when the allegations were put to him earlier by the M&G.

But Radebe's March 6 letter also confirms some of the allegations against Mdluli, reveals elements of his defence and shows how weak legal reasoning opened the door for Mthethwa to muddy the waters. Radebe confirms allegations that Mdluli's relatives were included in a round of 250 crime intelligence promotions under his watch. This allegation was raised in the internal crime intelligence report dealing with an aborted Hawks investigation into Mdluli.

The report, drafted by former crime intelligence co-ordinator Major General Mark Hankel, was sent to Radebe in November 2011 and published in full by the M&G last week. The Hankel report alleged that the Hawks were probing "the appointment of [Mdluli's] current wife, her brother and other members of her family, his ex-wife, her daughter and his son". Radebe’s letter confirms that "it is common cause that 250 posts were filled, which included the family of Mdluli and his current wife".

But Radebe also argues, mystifyingly, that, because the appointment of Mdluli's relatives comprised only a small percentage of the total appointments, it negated allegations of nepotism against him. She notes: "Four among 250 is negligible and the motive behind … the inclusion of these charges must be questioned." Radebe also confirms that Mdluli took his then-girlfriend, now wife, on a trip to Singapore paid for from the crime intelligence covert fund.

Mthethwa authorised the trip for the supposed purpose of "viewing and purchasing technical equipment for crime intelligence".

However, both Lazarus and another officer also took their wives, but paid for them out of their own pockets.  Mdluli took his then-girlfriend, Theresa Lyons — but charged the expenses to he secret account. Radebe notes: "In respect of the trip to Singapore, we are aware that the auditor general [AG] queried certain expenses related to this trip, in particular the reason for the inclusion of Ms Lyons, a non-employee of the SAPS, on the trip.

"It would also appear that the trip to China in which Mdluli was accompanied by his former wife was queried by the AG. Management of SAPS responded and the AG accepted the response provided in respect of the purpose for the inclusion of Ms Lyons and the role she was to play in the Singapore trip. In addition, the AG accepted the responses pertaining to the China trip."

Citing the auditor general's acceptance of the explanations, Radebe queries the inclusion of these charges against Mdluli and does not appear to consider the possibility that the auditor general may have been misled. But the key area of Radebe's discomfort and seeming confusion relates to the decision to bring disciplinary charges against Mdluli at about the time that criminal charges were withdrawn. She notes: "The timing … becomes vital in our determination as it clearly suggests an ulterior motive and a concerted effort to ensure that Mdluli does not return to his position. This behaviour is tantamount to conduct that is inconsistent with the Constitution and as such must be invalid."

Radebe did not respond to questions on how she arrived at this conclusion, given that the police often delay disciplinary processes pending the outcome of criminal charges. It might have been expected, also, that her legal advisers would take note of the most recent ruling on a similar issue — the Supreme Court of Appeal overturning the famous Nicholson judgment that led to the recall of President Thabo Mbeki. The court held that a prosecution was not automatically invalid because it was initiated for improper motives.

Radebe also felt the fact that only the two top crime intelligence officials (Mdluli and Lazarus) had been charged was indicative of an ulterior motive. She asked: "The question is why? Once again … the only conclusion that can be reached is that this, too, points to another attempt by the investigators to ensure that action is only directed at Mdluli to guarantee his non-return." This "concerted effort" to institute disciplinary charges against Mdluli was unfair, Radebe finds, without citing any legal authority other than the Constitution. She, therefore, finds that the "entire process of the institution of disciplinary charges … must be declared null and void".

* Got a tip-off for us about this story? Email amabhungane@mg.co.za

Source: Mail & Guardian