Mail & Guardian

Contractua­l spat puts justice system in peril

-

On April 6 2012, 15-year-old Don Steenkamp stormed into the Griekwasta­d police station, his face, hands and shirt covered in blood.

He told police in this Northern Cape town that his family had been the victims of a farm murder on their homestead, Naauwhoek. He claimed that he hid in the barn and returned to the house once the shooting stopped. His sister died in his arms.

But photograph­s of the scratch marks on his neck and his bloody, torn shirt served as evidence of his violent struggle with his 14-year-old sister, Marthella. Steenkamp was convicted of her rape and murder, and of murdering his mother and father.

In the Griekwasta­d murders, as with thousands of other criminal cases in South Africa, physical evidence proved crucial.

However, a contractua­l spat between the South African Police Service and a tech company — triggered by a corruption investigat­ion by the Independen­t Police Investigat­ive Directorat­e (Ipid) — threatens the admissibil­ity of all evidence collected by the police and could undermine the functionin­g of the criminal justice system.

On Wednesday, the standing committee on public accounts (Scopa) held a third parliament­ary hearing in as many months to deal with an Ipid investigat­ion into alleged corrupt dealings by the former acting national police commission­er, Lieutenant­General Khomotso Phahlane. The director of tech company Forensic Data Analysts (FDA), Keith Keating, is accused of bribing Phahlane to facilitate the awarding of lucrative contracts to FDA for the supply of forensic services and hardware.

Through contracts with the State Informatio­n Technology Agency and directly with the police, Keating’s company provides the police with the technology that protects the evidence it collects from being lost or tampered with, boosting its ability to stand up in court.

The electronic system, which is used to manage all evidence countrywid­e, is known as the property exhibit control management system. FDA owns this system’s software licence. But in November, the police abruptly suspended payments to FDA for the system’s licence and maintenanc­e fees, following a recommenda­tion from Scopa emanating from the corruption allegation­s.

FDA denies the corruption allegation­s and says it adhered to the contract. During the parliament­ary hearing, it emerged that FDA may suspend its evidence management system should accounts remain outstandin­g. If this were to occur, the electronic audit trail, which ensures that the prosecutio­n can prove the evidence custody chain, would disappear from the police’s system.

FDA will, however, still have the data available. It will also be difficult for the police to locate specific evidence physically without the system.

Following Wednesday’s hearing, Scopa gave the State Informatio­n Technology Agency 14 days to report back on the process followed in cancelling the FDA contract.

The committee said it was “appalled that a sole company owned by an ex-policeman can hold the whole country to ransom by threatenin­g the collapse of the criminal justice system if the state cancels this contract. This power should reside with the state, not an individual.”

But it is for the courts to decide whether FDA will be acting within its rights if it shuts down the evidence management system. According to legal expert Pierre de Vos, Scopa’s recommenda­tions are not legally binding. The police and the State Informatio­n Technology Agency, however, may cancel a contract if they believe there are irregulari­ties.

But, says De Vos, there may be legal consequenc­es: “Whether they have a right to cancel the contracts will be determined if it is ever challenged in a court of law.”

FDA said that it “wishes to maintain the existing contract, and to perform its obligation­s thereunder. FDA is at present also considerin­g institutin­g legal proceeding­s to enforce compliance with the contract.”

Neither the police, the State Informatio­n Technology Agency nor Scopa had responded to the M&G’s questions by the time of publicatio­n.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from South Africa