On 02 April 2025, the Portfolio Committee on Police conducted a hearing focused on a range of critical issues, including security clearances within the South African Police Service (SAPS), crime intelligence operations, and the handling of serious criminal investigations. The session, attended by senior police officials, National Commissioner General Fannie Masemola, committee members, and the Deputy Minister of Police, was marked by intense discussions regarding transparency, accountability, and the efficiency of law enforcement structures.
A main concern raised was the lack of valid security clearances among senior SAPS officials. It was revealed that only one provincial commissioner currently holds a valid clearance, with many top-ranking officers either awaiting vetting or having previously held expired security credentials. Members of the committee questioned how individuals without clearance were allowed to continue in critical roles, particularly within crime intelligence, where access to sensitive information is crucial. General Masemola acknowledged the issue and attributed delays to a backlog in the vetting process, citing a lack of capacity within the police’s vetting division. Masemola assured the committee those additional personnel had been allocated to expedite the process, with a target to complete the vetting of all senior management within the current financial year.
Further tensions arose when questions were raised about alleged misconduct involving certain high-ranking officers. The case of a Major General was of particular concern, as it was reported that she had a past conviction for assault yet continued to serve in a senior intelligence role. Committee members challenged the police leadership on how such an appointment could have been made and whether due process had been followed in her vetting. The response from SAPS officials was that her security clearance had been referred to the State Security Agency for independent assessment, but this did little to alleviate concerns among committee members.
Another major point of contention was the use of Specialised Resources Fund (SRF) vehicles. Previous assurances had been given that these vehicles had been reallocated for operational use, but committee members alleged that some high-ranking officials were still using them for personal transport. This led to accusations of misinformation and calls for SAPS leadership to clarify the matter with documented evidence. Concerns were also raised about political interference in crime intelligence and allegations that certain high-ranking officers were being shielded from accountability.
The discussion extended to the effectiveness of SAPS in handling high-profile investigations, particularly cases involving political killings and serious violent crime. The committee questioned the efficiency of the political killings task team, demanding updates on case progress and convictions. While police officials cited recent successes, members remained sceptical, pointing to ongoing violent crime trends. A specific case involving the alleged cover-up of misconduct by a senior police officer also came under scrutiny, with calls for the officer’s disciplinary records to be made available for review.
Another major topic of discussion was crime intelligence and its role in combating organised crime. SAPS officials highlighted recent successes, including arrests linked to cash-in-transit heists and gang-related operations in the Western Cape. However, several committee members expressed scepticism about whether crime intelligence was functioning effectively, given the internal instability and leadership disputes that have plagued the division. Concerns were also raised about allegations of political interference in the selection of personnel within crime intelligence, with calls for greater oversight and reform.
Throughout the hearing, tensions ran high, with some committee members expressing frustration at what they saw as evasive responses from SAPS leadership. Chairperson Ian Cameron intervened on several occasions to maintain order, particularly when discussions became heated over allegations of leaked information and claims that certain committee members were being influenced by internal SAPS sources.
In response to the committee’s concerns, SAPS leadership defended the professionalism and competence of specialised units, particularly the Family Violence, Child Protection and Sexual Offences (FCS) unit, which investigates crimes against children. It was confirmed that a senior officer had been deployed to oversee a high-profile child abuse case, but questions remained about delays in bringing suspects to justice. Committee members called for greater transparency in the handling of such cases, particularly given the high incidence of violent crime against children.
The meeting also addressed broader issues such as gang violence, resource allocation, and the need for improved training for officers, particularly in advanced driving techniques for high-speed response operations. Committee members pressed SAPS for a clear plan to address these challenges, highlighting the urgent need for enhanced operational capacity.
As the session concluded, frustrations remained over the perceived lack of direct answers to key questions. Committee members reiterated the need for greater accountability and insisted that SAPS leadership provide written responses to outstanding queries.
