Members of the Media,
1. I have called this Press Conference for the purpose of setting the record straight once and for all with regard to this issue, thus far.
2. The Public Protector presented her report on Tuesday, the 22nd February 2011 after a six-month investigation.
3. People who were present at the media conference will have noted the involvement of the Special Investigating Unit and the presence of Mr Willie Hofmeyer. Something which the media is not aware of is the fact that the South African Police Service (SAPS) addressed Parliament – and I myself met with Mr Hofmeyer – in November 2009 in order to request that the SIU conduct an investigation into certain components of the SAPS, including in the main supply chain management component, due to concerns which myself and senior management of the SAPS had. You will recall that I was appointed to my position with effect from August 2009 and that on coming into the organisation I realised that there were certain problems which needed to be addressed. That investigation is ongoing. If officials within the SAPS are found to be implicated in improper activities ultimate blame will be directed at the Accounting Officer, being the person responsible for the SAPS. In terms of the PFMA I am advised that I am entitled to delegate responsibilities but that does not divest me of ultimate as accounting officer of the SAPS. This accountability is different from the allegations of the involvement in corruption.
4. Since the Public Protector commenced her investigation I have been subjected to untrue allegations being levelled against me in the media, which suggested that I was responsible for signing the lease for the Sanlam Middestad Building and that I had an improper relationship with Mr Roux Shabangu. This amounted to the media running a parallel process, and in one instance that I am aware of having access to documents to which I was not given access. Of late there has been bold assertions that the Public Protector has found me “guilty” of something. To my knowledge, only a court of law can find me guilty of anything. Assertions of corruption have also made their rounds. My response to this is, can the peddlers of this defamatory lie point to me where in the Public Protector’s report is it stated that I am corrupt. To those who are baying for my resignation – my record since I was appointed National Commissioner speaks for itself. I am also hoping you can read and you will be able to assist me where in the Public Protector’s final report is it stated that resignation is one of the remedial actions.
5. I welcome the findings in the Public Protector’s report in which she finds not only that I did not conclude the lease, but that it was done by the Department of Public Works, which is the department responsible for negotiating and concluding leases on behalf of government departments. In addition, she found that there was no evidence of an improper relationship between the preferred service provider RPF and the SAPS.
6. I would like to state that I respect the importance of the institution of the Public Protector established in terms of our Constitution. Bodies such as the Public Protector serve the interests of our democracy. The office of the Public Protector and similar bodies is however subject to the constitution of the country, and their functions and powers cannot be construed to be above the constitution. The process of the investigation in relation to this particular building has unfortunately been a lengthy one. It has been riddled with problems that in my view detracted from its fairness. In the interests of transparency, I believe that it is proper that I should make public the SAPS response to the interim report of the Public Protector.
In the response of the SAPS a number of concerns relating to the procedure and process of the investigation are raised. These concerns remain, following the publication of the final report. An example is the concern of a joint investigation with the SIU and its impact on the independence of the Public Protector. I have raised this in my response to the interim report as a serious issue that detracts on the fairness of the process. It was interesting to see Mr Willie Hoffmeyer of the SIU on television, publicly distancing himself from the report delivered by the Public Protector. The truth is, this was a joint investigation. In this regard, you are referred to the Public Protector’s interim report, page 8 paragraphs 1.1 and 1.1.5 where it is stated in clear terms that this was a joint investigation by the Public Protector and the SIU. Interestingly, on page 9 of the final report in the executive summary – paragraph (iii) this relationship is now referred to as a “co-operation.” Another issue that is an example of unfairness with the process is that I was specifically requested by the Public Protector to attend and be part of a formal investigative interview without legal representation. However, I do not intend dealing with matters which are of a legal nature, and wish to state that I reserve my rights with respect to the fairness of this process. Today, I wish to simply deal with the facts of the matter. Please note that I have no intention of hiding behind legalistics, and have subjected myself to the process without off course abandoning my legal rights.
8. In order to discharge my functions, it is inevitable that I rely on other functionaries and subject-matter experts both within the SAPS and other government departments. Such reliance, I venture to suggest, is an inherent attribute of the job. My powers and functions are primarily contained in the Constitution and the South African Police Service Act. I wish to emphasise the following:
- 8.1 I am appointed primarily to be responsible for policing and matters incidental thereto;
- 8.2 It is impossible to discharge my functions without assistance from other functionaries within and outside of the SAPS; and
- 8.3 Such assistance may be secured through delegation and assignment of functions to other officials.
9. When I took office, I was advised of the need for additional office accommodation, which was as a result of three main factors. First, there was massive overcrowding at the buildings occupied by the head office components at the Pretoria CBD. Second, there was a need to address the planned increase in growth in numbers of staff. Third, in the exercise of my powers under the SAPS Act, I determined that it was desirable that the strategic components of Head Office should, as far as possible, be accommodated in one building. This included the Ministry of Police and the Secretariat.
10. The need for additional office accommodation was identified as early as 2008. A public private partnership (“PPP”) project for a new Head Office Complex had been the subject of a feasibility study in 2008. The Feasibility Study Report dated September 2008, clearly recorded that a needs assessment was conducted in 2008. The needs assessment contained the staff complement at the time as well as projected staff growth over a period of 10 years.
11. After I came into office I declined to approve the progression of the PPP head office facility at that stage. My vision was that funding should be prioritised for the building of police stations rather than for building a Head Office facility. The cost of building the Head Office facility was estimated to be significant and in excess of R3 billion.
12. To address the need for Head Office accommodation, the Deputy National Commissioner: Supply Chain Management was tasked to procure additional Head Office accommodation.
13. I was not personally involved in the process, which I delegated to the appropriate official having experience and knowledge in relation to property. I assumed that there would be proper compliance with a proper procurement process. My belief that a proper process would be followed was confirmed by a written communication sent to me by the Divisional Commissioner: Supply Chain Management and the Deputy National Commissioner to whom he reported. Incidentally these are the officials who at the time headed the environment which was and is still subject to the investigation of the SIU. In this written communication to me dated 10 May 2010 the following is stated: “All lease contracts are administered by the Department of Public Works (DPW). The Department of Public Works will have to invite tenders due to the extent of office accommodation required. A shortened tender process (six weeks for advertisement, evaluation and approval) could be followed once confirmation of funding for this purpose is received.”
14. It is apparent from this document that I was informed that an open, competitive tender process was being followed. In particular, I was not informed that any deviations were being sought or contemplated.
15. As I have already indicated and as was found by the Public Protector, the responsibility for concluding leases on behalf of government departments is the responsibility of the Department of Public Works. I cannot comment on why the Department of Public Works adopted the approach which it did and questions in regard to its conduct will need to be addressed to it. The fact of the matter, as appears from the Public Protector’s report, is that the Department of Public Works concluded a lease agreement with RPF.
16. When the Public Protector’s investigation commenced, the SAPS agreed to the request not to move personnel into the Sanlam Middestad Building. Subsequent to it coming to the attention of the SAPS that the Department of Public Works intended to continue with the lease, which was announced in December last year, I, on behalf of the SAPS, addressed correspondence to the Department of Public Works seeking the assurance that the lease was above board. In my most recent letter to the Director General of the Department of Public Works I stated the following: “As you are aware the Public Protector is investigating the matter. In the process the South African Police Service has been provided with a copy of a letter dated 21st January 2011 from the Minister of Finance in which it is stated that National Treasury will not condone any irregular expenditure resulting from the contract concluded between your Department and Roux Property Fund. The response of the Minister of Finance strengthens the resolve of this Department with respect to a need to be assured that the procurement processes employed are above board, a position again communicated in a letter dated the 16th February 2011. This Department must further emphasise it will not occupy the relevant buildings until given such assurance .In any event an undertaking has already been given to the Public Protector that no such occupation will take place until the probe is finalised.”
17. To date, no response has been received to the letters addressed to the Department of Public Works. Save to say only the Acknowledgement of Receipt was received.
18. The position of the SAPS in regard to the building is that it is not aligned to any particular building. It does have a need for a suitable building in Pretoria to accommodate various head office components including the Ministry, the Office of the National Commissioner and certain other components.
19. I would like at this stage to comment on the Wachthuis building, which is the building in which the main Head Office of the SAPS is currently situated and where there is overcrowding of personnel. Currently, components are in a number of buildings in the centre of Pretoria. I point out, however, that I am currently housed temporarily in another building leased by the SAPS. It is not satisfactory that the different components are spread out over a number of buildings. The space requirements are such that Wachthuis will still be utilised when a new Head Office is sourced.
It is a matter of considerable concern to the SAPS that the lease for the Wachthuis building was extended by the Department of Public Works two days before I took office in circumstances where the SAPS requested that the lease be extended for a period of five years. However, the Department of Public Works extended it for just under ten years. This was in spite of the fact that at the time the SAPS was involved in a feasibility investigation of the PPP project for a new Head Office, which I put a stop to after my appointment. The extension of the Wachthuis lease just before I took office occurred without a competitive tender process and is an issue that the SAPS has requested the SIU to investigate. The supply chain component involved in the extension of the lease with the Department of Public Works was headed at the time by the same two officers referred to earlier.
21. The Public Protector has made findings against me relating to my position as accounting officer. As I have pointed out, in terms of the Public Finance Management Act, the National Commissioner of the SAPS is ultimately responsible as the Accounting Officer. Whilst I respect the institution of the Public Protector, the SAPS does not agree with the findings in which I have been personally criticised. I do not intend commenting on these at this stage as the SAPS is obtaining legal advice in this regard.
22. In her report, the Public Protector finds that I breached sections 217 of the Constitution, section 38 of the PFMA and the relevant Treasury Regulations. She states in this regard the following:
“These provisions require an accounting officer to ensure that goods and services are procured in accordance with a system that is fair, equitable, transparent, competitive and cost-effective. This conduct was improper, unlawful and amounted to maladministration.”
23. In making this finding the Public Protector ignores the fact that the responsibility for concluding leases and accordingly for ensuring that in relation to the lease in respect of the Sanlam Middestad building there was compliance with these provisions, is the responsibility of the Department of Public Works. Her finding that in that regard I was involved in improper, unlawful conduct which amounted to maladministration is disputed. I do not see how the Public Protector made these findings against me on an issue which is not my responsibility. On this score, I would want to remark that we have a factual and legal difference with the Public Protector, hence I am currently being advised on the matter.
24. The SAPS is considering the full final report and is obtaining advice and will consider what is an appropriate way forward. I reiterate that there is an ongoing SIU investigation brought about at the instance of the SAPS, which is dealing with concerns I encountered after I took up office. There is new management in place in supply chain management which is also addressing the issue.
25. In conclusion, we should not be distracted from the important and primary functions of the National commissioner in regard to police activities. In fulfilling this responsibility I am committed to doing so in accordance with the Constitution and my lawful responsibilities.
I thank you.
