A little like the sub judice rule, frequently used by politicians and officials to sidestep questions, it now appears that an investigation is also sufficient reason not to answer questions on various security measures and the National Joint Intelligence Structure (Natjoints).

That a probe was underway was cited as a reason to not fully respond to a series of detailed questions Daily Maverick had submitted for comment to both Parliament and the SAPS. This included not only the incident of DA interim leader John Steenhuisen being blocked from the parliamentary precinct by a senior SAPS officer, a journalist being prevented from filming on the precinct, but also that the additional security measures for the 2020 State of the Nation Address (SONA), in contrast to past years, remained in place for the three-day parliamentary SONA debate from 18 to 20 February and reappeared for the Budget speech on 26 February.

Specific questions included who had planned and implemented security measures at Parliament on these days — including additional portable X-ray machines at gates alongside phalanxes of uniformed police, meaning anyone would have to pass through a total of at least two, but possibly three X-ray machines — and the cost of these measures over several days.

Detailed questions included why police officials, some of whom were said to have come from other provinces, were told “you are here to protect the president”, and comment on a SAPS brigadier who, in contravention of the police’s own standing order 156, prevented a journalist from filming an interaction involving Steenhuisen.

“We are unfortunately unable to issue commentary on the matter while this investigation is ongoing,” Parliament spokesperson Moloto Mothapo responded by email late on Monday afternoon, several hours after the deadline indicated alongside the questions that had been submitted on Thursday.

“All your questions, including on the case involving the leader of the opposition, alleged increased police presence, harassment of journalists etc relate to the alleged conduct of the police in the precincts of Parliament, which is a matter that is under investigation as announced by the Speaker. The outcome of the investigation will be able to provide answers to your questions. The Speaker takes these complaints very seriously and has undertaken to get to the bottom of the alleged police action.”

The SAPS stood by its officer’s conduct in the Steenhuisen incident.

“We are satisfied that our members acted within the confines of their powers. However, to ensure that this matter is attended to with objectivity, it has been referred to the Speaker… for investigation,” SAPS national spokesperson Brigadier Vish Naidoo commented in a telephone conversation and also a WhatsApp message.

For specifics on questions about security at Parliament, Naidoo referred Daily Maverick to the Parliamentary Protection Services (PPS).

But the PPS has been led in an acting capacity since mid-2015 by Deon van der Spuy, who when contacted with detailed questions, replied by SMS:

“Please refer to the spokesperson of Parliament…”

Coincidentally, Daily Maverick is reliably informed that on Budget day Van der Spuy appeared at a disciplinary hearing on grievances brought against him by PPS staff.

Parliament did not respond to a question on this hearing, and replied to a query on when a permanent PPS boss could be expected to be appointed, with:

“The recruitment process of new head of Parliamentary Protection Services is under way.”

Meanwhile, the SAPS national spokesperson sidestepped a question during the telephonic conversation about who had referred to the Speaker for an investigation.

However, the public record shows it was DA Chief Whip Natasha Mazzone who asked for an investigation immediately after Finance Minister Tito Mboweni delivered Budget 2020 in the National Assembly.

Citing the 2004 Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures Act that prohibits anyone from threatening or obstructing a Member of Parliament from attending the business of the House, committee or sitting, Mazzone said several MPs, including the DA interim leader, had been blocked by the SAPS.

“Various members of the opposition were stopped from entering the precinct… The police would not allow him (Steenhuisen) in with his parliamentary member’s gold access card…” said Mazzone.

“The safety and access of the precinct lies within your office. Unfortunately, I am going to have to ask you to investigate why the South African Police Service deliberately obstructed a member from entering the precinct… and that’s breaking a rule and creating an illegal act and bringing your good office into disrepute,” she said.

EFF MP Mbuyiseni Ndlozi also rose.

“There is terrible over-securitisation of Parliament and there is targeted searching of honourable members on the precinct. This is a serious interference of a different and separate branch of the state by the executive… The police are not under our orders… They are under the control of the executive. Them treating us like this amounts to intimidation and a direct violation of the Constitution.”

Speaker of the House Thandi Modise undertook to look into the complaints.

“I will investigate the matter and I will report back,” she said before adjourning the House.

Also now in her in-tray is correspondence from the Parliamentary Press Gallery Association (PGA) to raise its concerns over one of its properly accredited members who was prevented from doing his lawful work as a journalist.

A SAPS brigadier, whose identity is known to Daily Maverick, slapped away the cell phone, effectively stopping the filming, after demanding to know who had given permission to film an interaction with Steenhuisen. No such permission is needed in terms of SAPS Standing Order 156, and taking photos of MPs and officials is a regular practice on the precinct.

A charge of assault has been laid by the journalist, while Steenhuisen is preparing his affidavit to lay criminal charges under the Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament law against the SAPS officer who attempted to prevent his access to the parliamentary precinct while claiming the law did not apply in that instance.

These are not the only incidents. It is reliably learnt at least two guests correctly invited by an opposition party were walked off the parliamentary precinct by police because, according to the sources, the guests did not have “the gold invite from National Treasury”, which police insisted was the only correct documentation.

For some two weeks in February, the parliamentary grapevine was unsettled by accounts of aggressive and rude police at the gates, and elsewhere on the precinct — both in uniform and in plain clothes.

Daily Maverick understands at least one meeting took place over the weekend about the public criticism of police conduct, particularly on Budget day. Two police insiders say this has triggered internal ructions.

Although Naidoo did not respond to any questions on the role of Natjoints in the security arrangements at Parliament, its involvement is in the public domain.

Police Minister Bheki Cele, his deputy Cassel Mathale and SAPS national commissioner Lieutenant-General Kehla Sitole had addressed the police and other law enforcement representatives, deployed for SONA, according to a SAPS statement.

But with Natjoints in charge of the SONA, an argument could be made that as security measures such as the additional portable X-ray machines remained in place, it was a continuation of Natjoints operations at Parliament afterwards, over the three days of the parliamentary SONA debate and again for the Budget.

Both the SAPS and Parliament were asked about this, but did not reply to requests for comment.

The SAPS statement announcing Cele’s address to the SONA law enforcement deployees described Natjoints as follows: 

“The Natjoints comprises of various government departments, including the South African Police Service (SAPS) for ensuring the safety and security of all major events throughout the country.”

On previous occasions such as the November 2019 investment conference at Sandton Convention Centre — also under a no-fly zone like Parliament on SONA — the structure is described like this in an official police statement:

“The Natjoints comprises of all government departments within the Justice, Crime Prevention and Security (JCPS) Cluster, including the South African Police Service.”

But Natjoints is not a structure of law or regulation or one that publicly accounts to anyone on its actions or monies.

It was established by a Cabinet memo during the Thabo Mbeki presidency, according to two senior SAPS officers who told Daily Maverick this some time ago.

No Natjoints line item can be found in the National Treasury’s Estimates of National Expenditure to indicate how much or who is funding this structure and its permanent secretariat. Informally, it is understood that all security services participating in this entity make a contribution.

What happened not only on Budget day, but also over the SONA parliamentary debate earlier in February, seems to indicate the SAPS, and Natjoints, believe they can get away with doing as they please.

If that’s how they conduct themselves in a space where according to the law, security services operate only under the authority of the presiding officers, hard questions must be asked about how police behave in communities, where the powerful are not at hand to ensure scrutiny.

How Parliament deals with this police action on its precinct over two weeks in February is a fundamental test for the legislative sphere of the state, the People’s Assembly, to assert its own status — and prevent executive encroachment. DM