POLITICS

Glenister prepares for round 3 in ConCourt over Hawks Act

Businessman says unit remains vulnerable to political meddling, compromising its ability to effectively investigate corruption

Glenister prepares for round 3 in Con Court over Hawks legislation

Hugh Glenister is preparing to return to the Constitutional Court, to argue that the amendments to the South African Police Amendment Act - known as the ‘Hawks Act' - do not meet that Court's criteria for an effective anti-corruption entity as laid out in the Glenister judgment of March 2011.

The Act was signed into law by President Zuma in September this year. Glenister submitted a notice of application to the Court today.

Glenister and his legal counsel have asked that the Court give the executive six months to remedy the legislation once again, and have suggested that a new entity with a specific mandate to combat corruption be established outside of the police service. Glenister says that this could be achieved in a number of ways, either through the creation of:

  • a new Chapter 9 institution;
  • a specialised unit within an existing Chapter 9 Institution (e.g. The office of the Public Protector or the Auditor General); or
  • a free-standing legislated body which is not accountable to the National Commissioner, the Minister or the cabinet.

The SAPS Amendment Act was first passed into law in 2008, when anti-corruption unit, the Scorpions, was disbanded and replaced by the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation, a new unit within the police service known as ‘the Hawks'.

Glenister successfully argued that the legislation establishing the Hawks was unconstitutional when he won the 2011 ‘Glenister judgement' in the Constitutional Court. The Court found that the SAPS Amendment Act gave inadequate independence to the anti-graft unit in investigating corruption and gave the executive 18 months to amend the legislation. The cut-off date was 18 September 2012.

In its judgement, the Court clearly outlined its criteria for South Africa's anti-corruption entity:

  • Adequate specialisation and training;
  •  independence from political influence and interference;
  • guaranteed resources; and
  • security of tenure for the entity's officials.

However, Glenister believes that the executive failed to adhere to these criteria and therefore to the requirements of the Constitution, specifically regarding the location of the Hawks and its reporting structure.

As a unit within the police, the Hawks head is answerable to the Commissioner of Police, the Minister of Police, Cabinet and ultimately, the President. Glenister believes that this makes the unit vulnerable to political meddling, compromising its ability to effectively investigate corruption at all levels of society.

"How can the Hawks combat corruption within the public sector if the ruling party has control over who can be investigated and who is above the law?" says Glenister, "The unit has its hands tied and is vulnerable to the kind of political interference which resulted in corruption charges being withdrawn against the President, without the opportunity of being tested in court."

According to the 2008/2009 annual report of the National Prosecuting Authority, the number of new investigations has dropped by 85% since the Hawks took over from the Scorpions in 2008, and the value of illegally acquired assets seized has fallen from R4 billion to R35 million.

Additionally, public perception about corruption within the SAPS is at an all time low according to an October survey by market research firm, TNS, which revealed that it is seen as the most corrupt government entity in South Africa. The Court regards public perception of independence as a relevant factor in its deliberations on the effectiveness and autonomy of the tweaked Hawks unit.

"If the unit itself is corrupt, how can it be expected to fight corruption?"

Statement issued by FTI Consulting on behalf of Hugh Glenister, November 29 2012

Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter