What were the policemen doing at the Public Protector?

The South African Police Service, commendably, have confirmed that they will be investigating the allegedly unauthorised visit by crime intelligence officials last Wednesday evening to the offices of the Public Protector.

Public Protector spokesperson Kgalalelo Masibi on Friday said that two policemen — a Colonel Maluleka and a Captain Nkuta — arrived at their offices on the instructions of a Colonel Heine.

An internal investigation is never a bad thing but this needs to be subjugated to a full-blown independent judicial inquiry.

The key for me here is that members of crime intelligence were somehow employed in matters that should have had nothing to do with them.

In addition, the fact that this elite unit is tied to the SAPS, and thereby police National Commissioner General Bheki Cele, makes it open to questions of loyalty to one of its own.

After all, what were policemen doing at the offices of Public Protector Thuli Madonsela asking about documents relating to Cele, who claims to know nothing about it?

The mandate of crime intelligence is to acquire and then apply to best effect any information relating to the activities of criminals — not to visit the Public Protector asking about documents which may implicate their chief in wrongdoing.

Let’s now turn to the issue of the Protection of Information Bill.

In the past I have explained ad nausea (Google: Trapido, Protection Of Information Bill) the problems I have with the POIB which is purportedly to be enacted in the interests of national security but ends up making it almost impossible for the media to take on corruption without risking long-term imprisonment.

This is in spite of there already being legislation in place to safeguard information relating to national security which could be amended to update it.

In fairness, many amendments to the draft POIB have been debated since I wrote the article in September last year but that must not detract from the fact that I question the necessity for the POIB at all.

As far as this debate goes, the real problem is “Section 30. (1) The Agency is responsible for ensuring implementation of protection of information practices and programmes in terms of this Act in all organs of state and government entities …”

Definitions: 1. (1) In this Act, unless the context indicates otherwise — “Agency” means the State Security Agency established in terms of Proclamation No 59 of 2009 as published in Government Gazette No 32566 of 11 September 2009, and includes the National Intelligence Agency, the South African Secret Service, Electronic Communications Security (Pty) Ltd (COMSEC), and the South African National Academy for Intelligence;”

Unless I’m very much mistaken this is the same Agency whose remit is to ensure the national security of South Africa.

And the same agency that was involved in recordings pertaining to President Jacob Zuma suddenly coming to light regarding his charges which resulted in them being withdrawn by the NPA.

This begs the questions of what they were doing taping Zuma in the first place, on whose authority and who made the decision to release them?

This goes to internal politics, not national security.

If factionalism within a party is a problem then there are mechanisms to deal with it — the voters being the first one that comes to mind.

Accordingly the South African public are being asked to accept the outcome of an internal police investigation where two or three of their intelligence members are being linked to interfering in the work of a constitutionally created body. This is something that has absolutely nothing to do with them but relates to their most senior ranking officer being accused of wrongdoing.

Accordingly, the South African public are being asked to accept a Protection of Information Bill which will allow the government to stifle the media under the guise of national security be implemented by an intelligence agency that has clearly demonstrated that it believes getting involved in party politics is part of their job.

That members of our police and other state organs can be employed by state officials, political parties and independents with influence to further their own agendas.

And that it will keep on coming up over and over again until the powers that be call an end to it.