Former Independent Police Investigative Directorate (Ipid) head Robert McBride delivered explosive testimony before parliament’s ad hoc committee on Tuesday, alleging a calculated campaign by crime intelligence to infiltrate oversight bodies and “fabricate” evidence against high-ranking officials.
McBride appeared before the committee as part of an ongoing investigation into allegations of corruption within the criminal justice system.
During his testimony, McBride addressed the controversial “illegal rendition” case of 2010 involving the arrest and handover of Zimbabwean nationals to Zimbabwean authorities, which resulted in several deaths.
He explained why Ipid refused to recommend the prosecution of former Hawks bosses Shadrack Sibiya and Anwa Dramat.
McBride asserted that the case was a result of “connivance” between the minister’s office and the National Prosecuting Authority to remove officers who had crossed powerful figures such as former head of crime intelligence Richard Mdluli.
“It is clear there was connivance between the minister’s office and the prosecuting authority,” McBride testified.
“My view is that the decision was to get rid of Dramat, and Sibiya just fell in the middle because someone had a bone to pick with him. We were the ones who refused to recommend prosecution.”
McBride detailed a “stitch-up” regarding Sibiya, noting how crime intelligence members provided identical, suspiciously similar descriptions of Sibiya at a crime scene — placing a tall man in a grey suit driving a BMW at a specific location. However, McBride revealed that cellphone records completely debunked these statements.
If [independence] is not there, it’s just another form of control by the minister. It took a lot, and it is still a work in progress, to get the mind and independence of Ipid to work right. Some [investigators] still have relationships with SAPS, and it does affect their work
— Robert McBride, former Ipid head
“Where they placed Sibiya on the scene, Sibiya was 100km away,” McBride told the committee. “In my mind, it’s a stitch-up. It’s a fabrication. Unless Sibiya has the ability to bilocate and be in two places at the same time.”
McBride further alleged that upon his return to Ipid in 2016 after a suspension, the watchdog had been infiltrated by the very people it was meant to oversee. He pointed to the appointment of a crime intelligence senior officer Brig Tlou Kgomo, who took over as national head of investigations while Matthews Sesoko was suspended.
“There were allegations that certain cases were being prematurely closed without a proper investigation process,” McBride said.
“Part of the problem was due to infiltration by crime intelligence in the form of Brig Kgomo... it’s an old practice of disruption, sowing suspicion and the buying of witnesses and investigators.”
He warned that the control of secret slush funds made crime intelligence operatives feel “invincible,” allowing them to manipulate state departments and spy on politicians.
“What business does crime intelligence have with infiltrating other departments of state or spying on politicians? Once he owns you, he owns you,” McBride warned.
“Crime intelligence and the control of that fund make people invincible and they start to manipulate. Kgomo had no reason to be in Ipid.”
The testimony took a sharp political turn when McBride discussed his predecessor, Francois Beukman. He alleged that Beukman was “beholden to be told what to do” by ANC members influenced by former police minister Nkosinathi Nhleko.
“He was beholden to be told what to do and so he closed his mind,” McBride said.
When asked who Beukman was taking orders from, McBride said: “In my reckoning, by my fellow comrades in the ANC who had convinced themselves by whatever they were told by Nkosinathi Nhleko.”
McBride argued that the current structure of the South African Police Service (SAPS) made true independence impossible, citing two major flaws:
- The Hawks remain under the SAPS budget, meaning they must rely on SAPS HR for appointments.
- Ipid oversight remains under the minister of police —the very individual over whom Ipid has investigative authority.
“If [independence] is not there, it’s just another form of control by the minister. It took a lot, and it is still a work in progress, to get the mind and independence of Ipid to work right. Some [investigators] still have relationships with SAPS, and it does affect their work.”
He said for the system to be fixed anti-corruption bodies need to have the necessary independence to be able to exercise its investigative oversight.
“If it’s not there it’s just another form of control by the minister.”
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.