How Ipid ‘bends the rules’
CASE STUDY: INVESTIGATION OF MAN’S DEATH IN CUSTODY ‘COMPLETE’ – WITH MISSING DOCCIE
Shortcuts are ‘systemic, widespread and had evolved over many years’.
The Independent Police Investigative Directorate (Ipid) may bring cases to “completion” while sidestepping compulsory procedures, as the case of Alfred Thompson illustrates.
On October 2, 2016, the police arrested Thompson, 54, for being “drunk in public” in Vredendal in the Western Cape.
It was recorded in the Ipid register that Thompson “did not wake up” when officers came to release him the next morning. According to this register, Thompson died in hospital soon after. Three weeks later an Ipid investigator changed the status of the case from “active” to “complete” on the case management system.
There was just one problem: the investigation was not complete. The case file was missing a compulsory document upon which the completion of any “death in police custody” investigation hinges: a post-mortem report.
In May the following year, the auditor-general of South Africa (AG) alerted Ipid head office to this fact. Ipid Western Cape head Thabo Leholo admitted the “error” and explained the case worker had established Thompson had sustained injuries before he was detained. Ipid later included the post-mortem report in the file.
The case demonstrates that Ipid “completes” cases while sidestepping procedures. In theory, the “completed” status means that a “quality investigation” was done. Such cases should then be handed over to state prosecutors for a “decision” about whether or not to prosecute the officers involved. Completed cases are also entire population of “decision ready cases and ensure corrections” to avoid overstating performance statistics. Ipid did not respond to Viewfinder’s queries as to whether it complied with this recommendation. But, with 3 449 case files in the “entire population of decision ready cases”, compliance seems unlikely.
The AG also warned cases described as decision ready might not meet “the requirements” because all the necessary evidence might not have been obtained. This might also result in an overstatement of performance.
Ipid management has been aware of the whistleblower reports for years. Some whistleblowers have alleged management encouraged the manipulation of the data, in a scramble to meet statistical report deadlines.
This year, former executive director Robert McBride also said at the Commission of Inquiry into State Capture that reports of improved performance at Ipid, during his suspension in 2015 and 2016, were a “blatant lie”.
However, Ipid confirmed to the committee last week that the investigation into the period of McBride’s suspension did not extend to “decision ready” cases. Ipid’s presentation focused on a relatively small sample of cases that were, according to whistleblowers, fraudulently closed.
Some members of the committee picked up on this omission.
In spite of calls from MPs for an independent investigation into the cover-up, Joemat-Pettersson said she will not take direct action to hold Ipid accountable.
However, in spite of the narrow scope, Ipid reported that the investigation had indeed uncovered cases that were closed without proper investigation. This is a break with Ipid’s former position: that management had seen “no evidence” of statistical manipulation during the 2015-16 financial year.
Republished from Groundup. org.za