If ever there were a day proving the importance of bolstering the powers in the Independent Police Investigative Directorate, it was Monday. As eight VIP protection unit officers appeared in court in connection with an unprovoked assault on the N1 highway, a new bill seeking to entrench Ipid’s operational independence was introduced to parliament.
The Ipid Amendment Bill is a hugely important piece of legislation and follows on from a 2016 Constitutional Court ruling that it should be made completely independent to allow it to operate as a police watchdog without interference from the police minister. The VIP officers who have now finally been charged for their senseless attack on a group of unarmed young men were members of a unit attached to deputy president Paul Mashatile. This situation could easily have warped into a scenario where political pressure to protect them won the day. Yet Ipid did the right thing, and though it took some time — two-and-a-half weeks, to be more exact — to arrest them, this group of thugs are finally tasting the might of the law themselves.
It also allows the inspectorate to start investigating complaints against the police, even without an official complaint. As soon as the executive director becomes aware of a matter, the investigation can start.
The crux of the Constitutional Court ruling goes to the authority the police minister had to suspend or remove the Ipid head from office. These concerns were partly addressed in 2019, when some amendments were made to the law, but the latest bill — based on the so-called “McBride judgment” — adds more of the recommended changes, effectively giving Ipid more freedom. It also allows the inspectorate to start investigating complaints against the police, even without an official complaint. As soon as the executive director becomes aware of a matter, the investigation can start.
This should see much speedier investigations. In the matter involving Mashatile’s VIP unit, for example, Ipid would have been able to start its probe once videos emerged on social media, instead of having to wait for a case to be opened. Another key amendment allows Ipid to investigate claims of rape or murder believed to have been committed by police officers, even if they were off duty.
Ipid’s role was debated in court when its former director Robert McBride sought some sections of its act declared invalid. He rightly argued at the time that some sections of the law did not offer parliamentary oversight when it came to the suspension, discipline or removal of the executive director.
While we celebrated the welcome tweaks to the bill introduced in parliament on Monday, the eight VIP officers and their defence team tried every trick in the book to again avoid accountability. The accused objected to a media application to record proceedings, citing, astonishingly, security concerns. This is quite rich coming from a group of men who were supposed to be protectors but chose to become aggravators instead. Magistrate Hlengiwe Mkhabisi dismissed their argument, saying it was in the public interest to allow media coverage of the case.
We should celebrate the two victories for democracy that played out yesterday: the beginnings of an even more independent police watchdog, and the independence of the media as watchdog, as society reaffirmed once again.
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.