It was also decreed that a voter shall cease to be on the voters roll if they cannot provide proof of residence in the constituency in which they registered continuously for a period of 12 months. Joined Sep 27, Messages 58, Editorials Editorial The Khampepe Report found that prior to the elections, residents holding dual citizenship or not being citizens of Zimbabwe would not qualify for permanent residency and would subsequently be disenfranchised. Well, I seldom agree with your comments but the most disturbing fact reportt this all which many suspected for a long time is that the ANC apparently sacrificed democracy the will of the people for ,, something else! Most read Africa Watch 77 hits in the last 14 days Social Stability 76 hits in the last 14 days Final Word 73 hits in the last 14 days SA Governance — Opinion 71 hits in the last 14 days. The Khampepe Report released.
|Published (Last):||7 August 2008|
|PDF File Size:||19.60 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||1.57 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Reverend Frank Chikane: Good morning. I thought that Thabang was going to give me a bit of time but I can see that he was just waiting for me to come in.
This is about the Khampepe Report. As you would remember Khampepe [was appointed] to inquire into the mandate and location of the Directorate of Special Operation, which is known as DSO. And the judge produced detailed work at inquiries, received submissions most of the sessions were open while some of them were closed, depending on the type of material , and then submitted the report to the President.
That then, was the report that was presented to the President. After that, we had a press briefing and I noticed that many people forgot about that. Some time in , I did a press briefing in some lodge some where else in Randburg; we had a workshop there. And that was the only place where we could do the press briefing. In that press briefing, we made public all the recommendations of the Khampepe report. We briefed the media and the public about the findings, the recommendations and said that cabinet - the President, firstly - had accepted all the recommendations except one.
I will come back to the details of the recommendations. One had an issue to do with the vetting committee and involvement of civil society in a vetting committee on cases - and that was thought not to be appropriate in terms of the functioning of the government.
It may be good but it may [not be] preferred. The rest of the recommendations were accepted and cabinet endorsed that decision. You would recall that the President, at the State of the Nation address in February this year, said that he is going to release the recommendations at the time the issues related to the Bills on the DSO would be presented to parliament. So I did say in the beginning that I am going to deal only with the Khampepe Report and not with the Bills, because the Security Cluster [and] Justice Cluster are dealing with that matter.
I am told that they are going to have a special briefing on that matter and I think we will leave it up to them to deal with that particular matter. You will remember what the President said at that particular time. And I think that was very clear in terms of what the President wanted to say at that particular moment.
So I think when you look at the Bills at the time, they dealt with that matter. For now I want to speak to the recommendations of the commission. There were a number of things the commission was supposed to do. Firstly, it was the constitutionality of its establishment. You remember there were lots of articles and debates about whether or not the DSO could stand the test of the Constitutional Court in terms of its constitutionality-just establishment.
The second was its location - the constitutionality of its location, and that led the judge to deal with the issue about oversight of the DSO. Then there were issues of co-ordination, the manner in which they carried out their functions, issues of vetting, issues of intelligence - both mandate and foreign intelligence issues.
When you get the copy of the report you will find that the judge made a number of findings. One was that there was nothing unconstitutional about the establishment of the DSO - so its constitutional. The issues that the judge raised were related to the oversight because the DSO is [placed] within the National Directorate of Public Prosecutions, and it reports to the Minister of Justice. However, the Minister of Justice has no mandate to have oversight on the policing and investigation of the DSO.
And the judge made the recommendations that the policing functions and the investigative functions which are police functions, should be put under the oversight of the Minister of Safety and Security. It was just a logical conclusion that you cannot have investigators who are not supervised in a particular form by a political principal. This also went in terms of the Complaints Directorate. You will remember that the police are subject to the Independent Complaints Directorate.
The DSO was not subject to that because it was responsible to the Minister of Justice, and the Complaints Directorate could not deal with complaints that arise out of the investigative processes of the DSO. So the recommendations were that they [the DSO], must be subject to the same standards as with any other investigative entity within government. And that normally, investigators or detectives work with intelligence services to assist them [and] to back them up in the process, and the judge found that the DSO did engage in intelligence activities which were not its mandate, and that the DSO investigators were not trained or geared to dealing with intelligence.
And you would see when we have dealt with the Browse Report, that if you gave intelligence to an institution that was not designed for that purpose, the handling of intelligence work becomes problematic. Some of you would remember in our last briefing on this particular matter, that the same documentation and information the DSO received which was put together in a form of a Browse Report.
They have a way in which they test information. That is what the judge said that they [the DSO] have no mandate to deal with it. In any way, if they had to deal with intelligence they would have to sit as part of NICOC [National Intelligence Coordinating Committee], which is the intelligence coordination entity, and undertake that exercise within that area. There was also the issue of oversight - that if they engage in intelligence work, in terms of the Intelligence Act, there must be oversight and a parliamentary committee that deals with it.
The DSO was not subjected to that process of oversight. Now, intelligence services liaise with other foreign intelligence services, but there are protocols that govern how you handle that particular matter without risking the security of the state.
And the judge made the finding that it is risking the security of the state for an entity that is not supposed to deal with intelligence, to actually liaise with other intelligence services internationally. When they have to do that, it should be through the normal intelligence services of the country.
And there was also the issue about vetting - and in terms of vetting, the law provides that the investigators in the DSO should be vetted by the National Intelligence Services, as all of us should be vetted by the National Intelligence Services as public servants, et cetera.
And they [the DSO] had employed people without vetting, and I think that is a critical issue. Some of them would have come from the police, the intelligence services, the military intelligence - Loyiso [Jafta] should have been here to give that whole list of people.
The key thing though, is that vetting also lapsed. There are different levels of vetting: top-secret, secret, confidential and all that stuff. So in a sense, you could have been vetted to be a policeman, but you are not vetted to be the Secretary of Cabinet, and so the different levels of vetting applies.
So they [the DSO], were supposed to have been subject to vetting, and the majority of them, at the time when we dealt with it, were not vetted. Its only that I forgot Loyiso , that we were mandated following the Hefer Commission to look at the problem of disclosure of information from investigations.
As you remember, the Hefer Commission made that finding, and when we had to do investigations we did find that most of the people were not vetted, and the Khampepe Commission reached the same conclusion. So the National Intelligence was mandated to do the vetting, but in terms of the vetting according to the law, it was vetting up to particular seniority - Deputies rather than the Heads, of the investigative units. And the judge recommended that everybody should be subjected to vetting, and that had to be dealt with.
And there was the issue of coordination between the investigative entities - the police, and the DSO, and others - [the] NIA. And so there was no co-ordination between the police and the DSO.
The judge said there must be co-ordination, which is necessary, and recommended a multi-departmental vetting committee. That vetting did not happen, and it created tension between the police and the DSO, and the recommendation was that vetting should happen.
There are two sets of things, and I will end here. There are two sets of things the government has to deal with. One set would require legislative changes. The other would require administrative action. And on all of those issues that were administrative, the President and Cabinet dealt with them. The [administrative] issues, for instance, of vetting.
The NIA was given the mandate to do the vetting, and they have been doing it since then. The issue of foreign liaison as well, they [the DSO] were told that should not be done. And on co-ordination in terms of tension between the police and the DSO, again the judge recommended that the leaders of those entities be reprimanded. There is the Ministerial Co-ordinating Committee that had not met as frequently as it was required to, and it was expected that they meet the requirements of the law.
So the President convened a meeting in Cape Town, I remember in August of , that dealt with those issues related to admonishing and reprimanding, and you know, there were various of those types of issues. You will see in the report that the President was expected to deal with those matters, and the issue around the way they had carried out their investigation. It was quite clear - you cannot deal with cases like that in the glare of the media, condemn people before they are actually found guilty about these matters, and they [the DSD] had to be circumspect about the arrest of people, and the way in which they handled that matter.
The oversight issues had to be legislated. The issue of vetting for senior investigating people also needed to be legislated - you need to amend the Act. That process was undertaken and then at the time that it was supposed to be processed in cabinet and submitted to parliament, there was this review on the justice system and the view was that these matters must be deal with together and not separately.
So this Justice System Review was completed by last year - the end of the year - and that is why at the beginning of the year we were able to work on the Bills. The relevant people were able to work on the bills that related to the work of the Scorpions. You will find that when you work with the Bills, you need amendments to the Police Act and the National Directorate of Public Prosecutions. So it will be two bills that will be amended accordingly, when they come to Parliament.
So [one will be] championed by [the department of] Justice, and the other by the police and by [the department of] Safety and Security. I think I have dealt with all the issues that relates to this report. Some of you might have accessed it by now, some of you might not have it. You have already told them where to find it.
Moderator: We already have some few hands, as we usually do. Just mention who you are, and where you come from. We have read your report two years ago in manuscript. Moderator: We will take [more] before he answers. Journalist: The President…the report public.. What impact is this report likely to have on the legislation? And the point I am trying to make is: Is there a purpose for releasing it now? Are these recommendations going to be taken into account when legislation is being discussed before parliament - the fact the location is not unconstitutional because this is definitely the argument that opposition parties are going to be using?
What is your reaction to that? Journalist: [first few sentences of question not uttered in microphone] … that the Presidency failed to move.
The reason I am asking this question is because after Khampepe and now - the period between Khampepe and now, some of the things that Judge Khampepe recommended such as the problem with liaising with foreign intelligence, co-ordination and the vetting information, they continued to happen during that period.
Will it be unfair to say that the President has failed to move as fast as the Commission wanted this issue to be solved?
Media briefing on Khampepe Report (transcript)
Another step back in access to disputed Khampepe report. The deplorable role the SAG played in concealing the underhand tactics of Mugabe to steal the presidential election, is not the only transgression of its kind. The findings of the Khampepe Report, which corresponded largely with the conclusions of the Commonwealth Observer Mission, did not suit President Mbeki. Whatever the reason s for Mbeki and subsequently the Motlanthe and Zuma administrations to try and prevent the publication of the Khampepe Report it is inexcusable.
KHAMPEPE REPORT PDF
Reverend Frank Chikane: Good morning. I thought that Thabang was going to give me a bit of time but I can see that he was just waiting for me to come in. This is about the Khampepe Report. As you would remember Khampepe [was appointed] to inquire into the mandate and location of the Directorate of Special Operation, which is known as DSO.
The year was a seminal moment in the politics of Zimbabwe as the Movement for Democratic Change MDC was confirmed the official opposition. The JOM was tasked with observing the Zimbabwean elections and reporting to the Presidency on their observations. What the Khampepe Report revealed The mandate of the JOM was to observe whether the legal framework under which the elections took place qualified them to be considered free and fair. The Khampepe Report found that prior to the elections, residents holding dual citizenship or not being citizens of Zimbabwe would not qualify for permanent residency and would subsequently be disenfranchised. This is estimated to have affected anything from up to people. It was also decreed that a voter shall cease to be on the voters roll if they cannot provide proof of residence in the constituency in which they registered continuously for a period of 12 months.
Talmaran It was also decreed that a voter shall cease to be on the voters roll if they cannot provide proof of residence in the constituency in which they registered continuously for a period of 12 months. The state argued that it could not be compelled to hand over the report if it was no longer in existence. Joined Jan 22, Messages 72, The process has not been without its drama. Khampepe Report A verdict on a court challenge to the poll result had still to be delivered, the opposition leader said. The page document found the actual running of the three-day voting process, excluding delays in urban areas Harare and Chitungwiza, to have complied with the legislative requirements and to have been free of violence and or apparent ballot tampering. The report was eventually found, and it was decided a copy should be stored at the office of the president of the appeal court Lex Mpati.