The controversial IPID unit came in for an early, special mention by IPID boss, Robert McBride, who is finally testifying before the State Capture Commission after several delays.

“Any request for information from Crime Intelligence is generally met with resistance.”

While regulations prohibit the questionable classification of documents to prevent a cover-up of maladministration, this practice has become a “general pattern” for Crime Intelligence, he said.

McBride cited examples of how his investigators would suddenly be told that material required for its investigation was “classified” and when they requested reasons for that, they would be told that those too “are classified”.

“In one case, a senior officer who was not entitled to a SAPS car. Upon our investigators requesting the logbook to ascertain the purpose of usage against dates etc, it immediately became a classified document.”

“As to who classified it, for what purpose, the investigators were told that too was classified,” McBride said.

He said this matter is currently before the High Court in order for it to be eliminated for once and for all else it would “bedevil” all future investigations by IPID, a unit tasked with rooting out maladministration and corruption within the South African Police Service.

“There is actually, what we call at IPID, a blue curtain.”

This he said, referred to a dated practice by SAPS of instinctively blocking the flow of information based on institutional customs and traditions.

“There is an instinctive resistance to any query or oversight effort, particularly so within Crime Intelligence.”

While he accepted that, in part, this was due to the nature of the unit’s work, McBride said several interventions have been negotiated in order to secure cooperation within the confines of guarding the work of SAPS.

But where cooperation should be forthcoming, it is usually resisted by those in the senior SAPS ranks, he said.

As a result, IPID often has to resort to 205 summons to obtain information required for its investigations, he said.

“In a recent matter it was claimed the issues IPID needed information from – for example, the purpose of a meeting, there was refusal.”

While McBride has not testified to the details of this case, it appears to related to the police’s acquisition of a Grabber ahead of the ANC’s elective conference in 2017.

“On that matter, the Inspector General of Intelligence has provided the minister of police with an information note, saying the declassification of the information did not pose a security risk to the country or the sources.”

The investigation, McBride said, related purely to procurement by SAPS and allegations of maladministration and criminality that ought to be investigated.

Similarly, he cited the hassles around accessing the Crime Intelligence Secret Service account which had shown a history of rampant abuse with officers enrolling relatives as agents.

“That too then gets covered up by questionable classification, he said.

McBride is scheduled to elaborate, in detail, on each of the multitude of strands in his statement before the Commission.

On Thursday, he kicked off by providing an overview of the various matters he intends testifying to: Among those, the tendency to hire and fire senior government officials within the security cluster and at Sars to make way for “complaint” individuals. That, usually triggered by media leaks that then leads to a disciplinary hearing ensuring the removal of the person in question, has been noted as a trend across various government units, he said.

That pattern, McBride said, was detected in the removal of two provincial heads of the Hawks, General Shadrack Sibiya in Gauteng, General Johan Booysen in KwaZulu Natal and their boss, Anwa Dramat.

Zondo family ties

Prior to the start of McBride’s testimony, the Commission was alerted to a potential conflict of interest involving Commission chairman, deputy chief justice, Raymond Zondo himself.

Justice Zondo’s younger brother, advocate Mxolisi Zondo, was chairman of the 2015 disciplinary hearing of Dramat and Sibiya emanating from the illegal Zimbabwe renditions.

He also presided over the disciplinary hearing of Matthews Sesoko, IPID’s former director of legal services and investigations who was dismissed in 2016.

The Commission heard that advocate Zondo’s conduct will “briefly” come under scrutiny during McBride’s testimony.

As a result, and in the public interest, the potential conflict of interest – real or perceived – was raised by the Commission’s legal team.

Senior advocate Paul Pretorius said all parties were informed of this potential conflict of interest but that none of them, McBride, Sesoko nor advocate Zondo, have raised any concerns with this.

Pretorius said the question before the Commission was whether Justice Zondo, in view of his brother having presided over those hearings, ought to recuse himself from that part of McBride’s testimony or not.

This, however, he said, was not a feasible option as Justice Zondo did not have the power to remove himself.

Furthermore, Pretorius said the nature of the evidence in question involving Justice Zondo’s brother is an opinion held by McBride about his conduct, a “collateral” factor, he said. “This can be tested,” Pretorius said.

Justice Zondo opted to continue with McBride’s testimony without having ruled on this issue but introduced a condition that any party could, at any stage down the line, come to the Commission should there be any perception of prejudice.

Justice Zondo said he preferred a more practical approach to allow McBride’s testimony to continue, given the strict time limits of the Commission.

McBride’s testimony continues. DM