Setup to Fail? South Africa's Independent Complaints Directorate's Budget
This article explains why South Africa's Independent Complaints Directorate (ICD) 2011/2012 budget allocation is insufficient given that new legislation will be passed this year that expands its mandate. This raises questions about the commitment of the government to ensuring that the police are held accountable for abuses.
Andrew Faull, Researcher, Criminal Justice Programme, ISS Pretoria Office
Recently the budget allocation for South Africa’s national police oversight body, the Independent Complaints Directorate (ICD) for 2011/2012 was announced. The ICD is a civilian agency responsible for investigating all deaths as a result of police action or while in police custody and other public complaints of police abuse. This announcement comes at a time where there have been a number of prominent allegations of police abuse and concerns about police accountability. These include two separate incidents of police assault and abuse of restaurant patrons, the unlawful shooting and paralysis of a mother by metro police at a roadblock, and a constitutional court ruling that the unit established to replace the Scorpions, the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigations (DPCI), is unconstitutional and vulnerable to political interference.
On the surface, the R151,6 million ($22m) allocation may appear generous as it represents a 15,37% increase on the 2010/11 budget. When compared with the fruitless expenditure that may still take place with the R500 million ($73,5) SAPS Headquarters lease debacle, it is clear that police accountability is not yet receiving adequate priority. This allocation threatens to undermine the otherwise exciting legislative developments aimed at strengthening civilian oversight of the police that have taken place in the past year.
The Independent Police Investigations Directorate (IPID) Bill released for public comment in mid-2010, is due to be enacted by parliament in the next six months. The Bill aims to strengthen and broaden the mandate of the current ICD, an intention reflected in its new name. For example, whereas current legislation only compels police to inform the ICD of deaths in police custody or as a result of police action, the new Bill makes police commanders guilty of an offence if they fail to report instances of police involvement in:
- Death
- Rape
- Torture
- Assault
- Corruption
The Bill also compels the IPID to investigate allegations of the above crimes whether received from police or members of the public, or at the very least to cooperate with and supervise police investigations thereof. An additional important improvement is that the Bill places important responsibilities on police to act on IPID recommendations to discipline errant officers following investigations, which are often currently ignored by police management.
While the principals of the Bill have largely been celebrated since it was first released, a crucial question has remained in the minds of all involved. Will the IPID have the capacity to do justice to its new mandate? It has always been clear that the answer to this question would be contained in the budget allocated to the Directorate. Based on last week’s announcement, the answer would appear to be ‘No’.
Officially the ICD has 145 staff linked to investigations, but few of these are actual investigators. Gauteng, for example has fewer than ten investigators, while the Free State has only five. These investigators are expected to handle over 6000 complaints of police abuse and misconduct received by the ICD annually, including the mandatory investigation of over 900 annual deaths as a result of police action or in police custody.
While the ICD has not faired badly with regards to investigations of deaths, it is the bulk of complaints, many relating to crimes such as assault and corruption, which it is often unable to deal with. Under current legislation the ICD is able to pass these complaints on to alternate investigative bodies. However, the new legislation compels the Directorate to take the lead in their management. Effectively it is likely to expand the ICD’s workload substantially. Not only will ICD investigators be expected to attend a larger number of crime scenes, but the types of crimes they will be asked to investigate, such as rape, torture and corruption will require specialised training and skills along with access to forensic capacity. With such an increase in workload, it would seem obvious that the Directorate will require substantial increases in human and physical resources. Based on the budget announcement however, this will not occur this year.
Since its establishment the ICD has struggled to garner significant public trust in its ability to hold police accountable for their actions. The IPID Bill represents an important step forward in empowering the Directorate with the muscle needed to overcome this legacy. However, without access to the financial resources required to fulfil the new mandate, the passing of the IPID Bill raises public expectations that if are unmet, threatens to set the Directorate up for perceptions of failure and loss of legitimacy. It may also mean that the police take even less responsibility for strengthening internal investigative systems while sitting back and waiting for the Directorate to begin investigations when they are not capacitated to do so.
This lack of financial backing raises serious questions around government’s dedication to police oversight, and to realising the potential of the IPID Bill. The underfunding of this vital body must be addressed urgently.
