POLICING ANALYSIS: SAPS Amendment Bill preserves status quo, misses the ‘Madlanga moment’

The SAPS Amendment Bill, presented as a cornerstone to the police’s ‘reset agenda’, has been criticized for its lack of comprehensive reforms, failing to address fundamental issues that have come to light in recent investigations. Acting Police Minister Firoz Cachalia, during an initial briefing on the bill, acknowledged the need for reform, referencing the Madlanga Commission’s findings on factional politicking, political influence, and corruption in the criminal justice system.

Despite the public’s distrust in the police, the bill does little to bring about significant change.

One of the primary shortcomings identified is the bill's failure to demilitarise police ranks, a proposal that has been present since the 2012 National Development Plan (NDP) and endorsed by the Farlam commission’s expert panel following the Marikana massacre. The bill merely adds vague language about a transparent recruitment process but does not address the existing system's lack of public or parliamentary participation in appointments.

This lack of oversight could potentially reinforce patronage networks rather than dismantle them, as recommended by the 2018 panel of experts.

Moreover, the bill does not establish a national policing board or independent body for setting recruitment standards and processes, which the NDP and the panel of experts recommended. The national policing advisory board, established by the bill, can only recommend standards for appointments and propose professionalisation, but it lacks the authority to implement a transparent and merit-based system for the appointment of the national police commissioner and deputies.

The bill's approach to oversight is also problematic. It consolidates power within the national commissioner, who retains control over public order policing and specialised units, determines educational and training needs, and handles disciplinary proceedings. This shift in authority further entrenches the current structure, rather than fostering reform.

Additionally, the bill preserves the existing Crime Intelligence leadership, merely rebranding it as an 'intelligence division' without addressing the issues of appointments and procurement that have been highlighted by the Madlanga Commission.

Despite these shortcomings, the bill does make some minor improvements, such as revising outdated laws and constitutional references to align with the current Constitution. However, these changes are minimal and do not constitute the substantial reforms needed to truly transform the police service. The bill signals a strong commitment to maintaining established powers and conducting with minimal changes to the status quo, even as public sentiment calls for a genuine 'reset' in policing.

Whether Parliament will strengthen the bill to promote systemic reform remains uncertain, raising questions about the bill's potential to lay the foundation for a credible and trustworthy police service.