/ 19 May 2006

ICD: Not surprising cops don’t want to be monitored

There was nothing surprising about national police chief Jackie Selebi’s call for the demise of the Independent Complaints Directorate (ICD), the body said on Thursday

”He has always held reservations that he does not need to be monitored,” said acting ICD director Leslie Xinwa.

Business Day newspaper reported Selebi as saying the directorate had ”outlived its usefulness” and could be dissolved, leaving the police to police themselves.

Selebi was quoted as saying the ICD had made ”inhuman demands” of police officers.

Xinwa said: ”The fact is that the volume of work coming the ICD’s way as a result of unbelievable actions committed by some recalcitrant elements within the police service more than confirms the need for monitoring by an external body.”

The Freedom Front Plus agreed the ICD should be retained.

”The more than 5 000 complaints about the police which had been

received by the ICD in the 2004/05 period is a clear indication that it is still very useful,” said FF Plus safety and security spokesperson Pieter Groenewald.

”It is not possible for an institution, where corruption is discovered on a regular basis, to monitor and police itself effectively.”

Xinwa said the South African model of overseeing police activities was highly regarded in other countries.

”We have been lobbying for the concept of policing oversight and we are regarded as pioneers in this field, internationally and in Africa, more so because of our own independent impartial investigations,” said Xinwa.

It was, however, to be welcomed that a debate over the existence of the unit had been opened up.

”South Africans can now enter the fray and perhaps tell Parliament how essential such a body is,” said Xinwa.

Selebi himself has been the subject of an ICD investigation. In 2000, the body found that Selebi had called Sergeant Jeanett Mothiba a chimpanzee. He was not charged with crimen injuria.

In the Business Day report Selebi said mistakes were being made in protecting life and property, but the ICD seemed to be protecting the offenders more than ”those protecting lives”. – Sapa