‘Let the Hawks spread their wings‘

Published Aug 13, 2013

Share

Cape Town - The Helen Suzman Foundation plans to go to court to ensure that the Hawks are sufficiently insulated from potential political interference.

The foundation will ask the Western Cape High Court next week to declare parts of the South African Police Service Act “inconsistent with the constitution and invalid to the extent that they fail to secure an adequate degree of independence for the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (known as the Hawks)”.

This follows a 2011 Constitutional Court ruling in favour of businessman Hugh Glenister, which included the order: “It is declared that Chapter 6A of the South African Police Service Act 68 of 1995 is inconsistent with the constitution and invalid to the extent that it fails to secure an adequate degree of independence” for the Hawks.

Following this, various amendments to the act were passed into law.

But now the foundation is trying to have the amendments invalidated, to the extent that they fail to remedy the inconsistencies with the requirements for adequate independence set out in the constitution and the Constitutional Court’s ruling in the Glenister matter.

The respondents are the president, the minister of police, the head of the Hawks and the “government of the Republic of South Africa” in general.

The foundation believes that the act, as it is, does not insulate the Hawks sufficiently from political interference and further that the procedures around the appointment, removal process and extension of tenure of the head of the Hawks, potentially allows the cabinet, through the minister of police, too much influence over this position. In addition, the foundation alleges that the minister and the cabinet also determine what priority crimes the Hawks investigate.

The foundation also believes the national police commissioner, a political appointee, has control over the Hawks’ budget, and thus - potentially - over its operations.

Lastly, the foundation takes issue with “integrity testing” - a process of subjecting members of the Hawks to lie-detector tests. The foundation believes that too much power lies with the minister in this regard, especially with the lack of objective criteria.

The first, second and fourth respondents are expected to oppose the foundation’s application, with the third respondent, the head of the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation, reportedly electing to abide by the decision of the court.

Cape Argus

Related Topics: