Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID)

BRIEFING TO THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON POLICE ON “THE IMPLEMENTATION OF FARLAM JUDICIAL COMMISSION’S RECOMMENDATIONS.” Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) Date : 2 February 2016 Venue : National Assembly Time : 10h00

Outline of Presentation • Purpose • Background • 2.1 The Farlam Judicial Commission’s Recommendations • that have a bearing on IPID’s mandate • 2.2 Pre-Farlam Judicial Commission: IPID’s Initial Investigation • 2.3 Implementation Approach to the Farlam Judicial • Recommendations • 2.4 Summary of progress made on the implementation of Farlam Recommendations • 2.5Detailed Overview of Progress: Implementation of Farlam Recommendations • 3. Preliminary Outcomes of the Investigations • 4.Challenges & Conclusion

1. Purpose To brief the Portfolio Committee on the implementation progress of the Farlam Judicial Commission’s Recommendations by IPID.

2. Background (a) The Farlam Judicial Commission was appointed by the President on 23 August 2015 in terms of Proclamation No. 50 of 2012 to: “…Investigate matters of public, national and international concern arising out of the tragic incidents at the Lonmin Mine in Marikana in the North West Province from Saturday 11th August to Thursday 16th August 2012 which led to the deaths of approximately 44 people, more than 70 persons being injured, approximately 250 people being arrested and damage and destruction of property…. “ (b) Following the release of the Farlam Judicial Commission of Inquiry Report (on the findings and recommendations thereof) by the Honourable President JG Zuma on the 25th June 2015, IPID was mandated to implement some of the recommendations that have a bearing on its constitutional and legislative mandate.

2.1 The Farlam Judicial Commission’s Recommendations • that have a bearing on IPID’s mandate Two of the recommendations that have a bearing on IPID’s mandate are in relation to: (a) Chapter 12: The events that occurred on Thursday, 16 August 2012 at Scene 2 , Sub-section“J: Referral and Recommendations” “ It is recommended that for the purposes of the investigation, a team is appointed, headed by a Senior State Advocate, together with independent experts in the reconstruction of crime scenes, expert ballistic and forensic pathologist practitioners and Senior Investigators from IPID, and any such further experts as may be necessary. The Commission recommends a full investigation, under the direction of the Director of Public Prosecutions, with a view to ascertaining criminal liability on the part of all members of the South African Police Services who were involved in the events at scene 1 and 2” (J4 in sub-section J: Referral & Recommendations, p.327-328). (b) Chapter 25: Recommendations, Sub-section “G: Accountability” “ The staffing and resourcing of IPID should be reviewed to ensure that it is able to carry out its functions effectively.” (G4 in sub-section G: Accountability, p.554). (This recommendation will be dealt with through the Ministry of Police with IPID contributing to the appointed International Panel of Experts)

2.2 Pre-Farlam Judicial Commission: IPID’s Initial Investigation • It is important to mention that during the month of August 2012, IPID commenced with the investigation related to the incidents that the Farlam Judicial Commission of Inquiry was mandated to probe. • However, the investigation by IPID was kept in abeyance to allow the Commission to conclude its business.

2.3 Implementation Approach to the Farlam Judicial • Recommendations • IPID adopted a Project-based Approach to the implementation of the recommendations, particularly with regard to Recommendation J4 on the need for further investigations. • (b) The estimated duration of investigations: 9 months (July 2015-March 2016) subject to the complexities of the investigations. • (c) Estimated Project Costs: R 5m (within the Directorate’s current budget baseline 2015/16) • (d) Commencement date: 07 July 2015

2.4 Summary of progress made on the implementation of Farlam Recommendations…. (1)

2.4 Summary of progress made on the implementation of Farlam Recommendations…. (2)

2.5 Detailed Overview of Progress: Implementation of Farlam Recommendations (1)

2.5 Detailed Overview of Progress: Implementation of Farlam Recommendations (2) (b) Composition of the appointed Task Team members:

2.5 Detailed Overview of Progress: Implementation of Farlam Recommendations (3) (b) Composition of the Task Team members (cont…):

2.5 Detailed Overview of Progress: Implementation of Farlam Recommendations (4) • Pre-Investigation Activities/Preparations: • (i) The Investigation team members studied the Farlam Judicial Commission Report in order to acquaint themselves with the contents of the report; • (ii) The team members further secured all information gathered during Farlam Judicial Commission of Inquiry, in order to have intelligence-driven investigation; • (iii) This resultedinto the compilation of 22 arch lever files in relation to: • The gathering of all evidence relating to Scenes 1 & 2 on 16 August 2012; • The incident of 13th August 2012 where three civilians and two police officers were killed and the case where a Councillor was shot by the police (SAPS) on 15th September 2012 and passed on during October 2012.

2.5 Detailed Overview of Progress: Implementation of Farlam Recommendations (6) • .

3. Preliminary Outcomes of the Investigations: • As indicated before: • (a) Investigation of the Incident of the 16th August 2012 at Scene 2: • IPID registered a case file against Major General Naidoo for allegedly defeating the ends of justice as per CCN2016010070 based on the effect of Major General Naidoo’s action which include amongst others: his failure to exercise command and control at scene 2 as alleged, he belatedly submitted his own firearm for investigation by the ballistic experts and that the paramedics under his protection were diverted to scene 2 instead of giving medical attention at scene 1. • (b) Investigation of the Extra-Ordinary meeting of SAPS (NMF) held on 15 August 2012 • The Investigation Team opened a case file against Brig Malahlela for allegedly defeating the ends of justice as per CCN2016010079, contravention of Section 4 (1)(b)(dd) of the Protection of Information Act of 1982. In that, she failed to secure recordings of the extra-ordinary meeting of SAPS NMF.

4. Challenges & Conclusion • It is worth mentioning that any delays that could be attributed to the investigations are mainly in relation to the hostile attitude of and uncooperative witnesses. • Budgetary constraints remain a challenge. • (c) Despite the above, the Investigations are still ongoing.

Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID)