From: Victor Senna Vsenna@ipid.gov.za Subject: RE: Media query: APCOF paper on IPID recommends case screening system and a shift in performance measurement. IPID management's view? Date: February 20, 2020 at 9:57 AM To: Daneel Knoetze daneel.knoetze@gmail.com, Sontaga Seisa sseisa@ipid.gov.za Cc: victor2senna@gmail.com, Mpho Moeti MMoeti@ipid.gov.za, Matthews Sesoko MSesoko@ipid.gov.za Good Morning IPID agrees that our investigation must have impact on police conduct, IPID also believes that quality investigations that are decision ready can achieve this outcome. A screening system already exist in IPID as provided for in our SOP’s. The case intake committee (CIC) is responsible for screening of all cases received by IPID. The report also acknowledges that IPID had adopted a policy to prioritise cases although not formalised, something we thing it is worth looking at in terms of formalising at policy level. IPID is willing to engage APCOF in this regard to understand their proposals in this regard and whether is something that can be workable from a strategy point of view and whether it will enable IPID to account appropriately for the budget allocation and its service to the people of South Africa. IPID must at all times comply with its constitutional mandate which enjoins us to investigate all criminality and misconduct against members of SAPS and MPS. We appreciate any support that will assist us to lobby for additional resources and highlight challenges we are facing (Increasing workloads and reducing funding). We are willing to engage so that we are on the same page in terms of the challenges faced by the IPID and how they can be addressed. IPID like any other organization is subject to scrutiny and criticism, however such must be based on facts Regards From: Daneel Knoetze [mailto:daneel.knoetze@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2020 12:35 PM To: Sontaga Seisa Cc: Victor Senna ; victor2senna@gmail.com; Mpho Moeti Subject: Re: Media query: APCOF paper on IPID recommends case screening system and a shift in performance measurement. IPID management's view? Thank you Mr Seisa, IPID's response is well received. These reported steps taken by IPID appear to be commendable. May I please request more information on the appointment of "an independent organisation" to investigate, Has an organisation been appointed? If so, which organisation is it? If not, can you provide more clarity on the process by which such an organisation will be appointed? Has IPID any organisations in mind who may be up to the task? Further to my query of this week: I am reviewing a report by a third party - APCOF - which consists of recognised experts in the field of police oversight and accountability. APCOF made quite specific recommendations, which I believe are in line with IPID's own (albeit unofficial) approach to a high-case-load-resource-constrained investigative environment i.e. the need for an official system of case screening and prioritisation of "high-value" and "high impact" investigations. Unfortunately, as the APCOF report points out and as I suspect many in IPID also feel, IPID performance targets do not align with this conventional wisdom. I regret that IPID's response did not engage with my query, as it related to those takeaways from APCOF's paper. I believe that my study of the challenges faced by IPID, i.e. other agencies lack of support to IPID, resource constraints, government's lack of political will and the effects that this has on directorate's ability to function optimally, has been nuanced. My writing to date demonstrates as much and, along with informed critique, has highlighted the importance of IPID's role in holding a particularly violent and corrupt police service accountable. It is disappointing to me that anyone, especially IPID, would frame my work as "misleading the public". I am open to discuss specific criticisms of my work. But, to date, IPID has not pointed to any specific factual inaccuracies. I am also open, as mentioned to yourself previously, to enter into a dialogue - so that my work can be better informed and more inclusive of management's position. In lieu of such a dialogue, it is incumbent on me to engage IPID with media queries as I continue reporting. Best regards, Daneel Knoetze On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 11:14 AM Sontaga Seisa wrote: Good day Mr Knoetze. Thank you for the query IPID takes such allegations seriously and has taken a decision to appoint an independent and credible organization to investigate these allegations. The investigation will be independent, impartial and credible. On receipt of the report, IPID will be in a position to respond comprehensively and put the necessary corrective measures where required. In order to gain public trust, an independent investigation is important for us. IPID will therefore not pre-empt the outcome but will rather await the final report in order to respond with authority and make informed decisions.. IPID would therefore like to appeal to organizations such as yours to desist from causing unnecessary confusion and misleading the public without any proof. Let us all await the final report. Ends. Issued by Independent Police Investigative Directorate, Enquiries: Mr Sontaga SEISA, Acting National Spokesperson for IPID, Tel 012 399 0092/50, Mobile: 079 433 2663, Email: sseisa@ipid.gov.za, Email: sseisa@ipid.gov.za, Date: 19 February 2020, Time: 11:07 From: Sontaga Seisa Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 1:27 PM To: Mamodishe Molope Subject: FW: Media query: APCOF paper on IPID recommends case screening system and a shift in performance measurement. IPID management's view? Good day Ms Molope For your information please. The AED has tasked me to read and draft a response on these issues raised on this attachment. Regards From: Victor Senna Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 10:42 AM To: Matthews Sesoko ; Thuso Keefelakae Cc: Antonnet Mphago ; Robert Mamabolo ; Sontaga Seisa Subject: Fw: Media query: APCOF paper on IPID recommends case screening system and a shift in performance measurement. IPID management's view? Good Day Can you kindly provide draft response to issues raised From: Daneel Knoetze Sent: 18 February 2020 09:10 AM To: Matthews Sesoko; Victor Senna; Sontaga Seisa; Mamodishe Molope Subject: Media query: APCOF paper on IPID recommends case screening system and a shift in performance measurement. IPID management's view? Dear Mr Sesoko and Mr Senna, Last week, the African Policing Civilian Oversight Forum (APCOF) published a paper in light of Viewfinder's findings on IPID last year. The APCOF paper is attached. Findings and recommendations are summarised in the introduction (pages 1 - 6). I will review APCOF's report in a news analysis article this week. Below, I request I will review APCOF's report in a news analysis article this week. Below, I request comment from yourselves as IPID management (if at all possible, by Wednesday evening). But first, I would like to draw your attention to specific findings and recommendations of the APCOF paper: Finding: the report finds that IPID's emphasis on 'completing' cases (the main performance measure for Program: Investigations) is in conflict with the need for emphasis to be placed on IPID's impact on police conduct. (p. 2) Finding: "partly to do with the resources available to investigative agencies, it is recognised and accepted internationally that investigative agencies cannot apply consistent standards to all investigations that they undertake. This applies even more so to investigative agencies like IPID that are very poorly resourced relative to their workload. This report therefore argues for a system of case screening to be implemented by IPID in order to ensure that investigative resources are used in an optimum manner." Recommendation: because it is impossible within resource constraints for IPID to investigate all cases deeply and properly, the report recommends that IPID should introduce a "screening system that prioritises cases for dedicated investigative attention, taking into account factors of seriousness and solvability." (p. 5) Recommendation: In light of this screening system, the assessment of IPID's performance should shift to focus on how IPID is impacting on the most serious crimes committed by police officers (i.e. performance assessment should be more qualitative, and not purely quantitative push towards achieving a high number of 'decision ready' / 'completed' cases) (p. 6) Finally, the report recommends that entities involved in influencing IPID's policy direction - IPID management included - should recognise and, by implication, champion these recommendations. To focus resources on high-impact cases has been unofficial IPID policy for some time - it was an approach championed by former director Robert McBride. Essentially APCOF's paper argues for a formalisation of an approach and policy that IPID already subscribes to, albeit informally. Does management agree with the above? What is management's view on the recommendation that IPID introduce a "case screening system" as outlined above? Would management support a process whereby performance targets are reviewed and re-conceived i.e. a shift away from a quantitative 'decision ready' target towards a target which focuses on how IPID impacts on the most serious crimes committed by police officers? I have put a similar query to Parliament's PCP. Best regards, Daneel Knoetze