Monograph 96

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Jean Redpath is a research consultant specialising in criminal justice issues. As a contract researcher for the Institute for Human Rights and Criminal Justice Studies at Technikon SA (TSA), she conducted research inter alia on organised crime, and was briefly seconded from TSA to the “Scorpions” in 1999. She was formerly a parliamentary analyst for the South African Institute of Race Relations. She qualified as an attorney in Cape Town, and has degrees in Science and Law from the University of Cape Town. FOREWORD Together with the people of South Africa, the National Prosecuting Authority will this year be celebrating ten years of freedom and democracy. Apart from celebrating, we will also critically review and reflect upon the role the NPA currently plays in upholding the rule of law, protecting our constitu- tion and enhancing the depth and quality of our democracy. We will be examining how far we have come in fulfilling our vision of a just society where our people can live in safety and security, free from the fear of crime. In particular we will be examining the functioning of one of our newest and most important constituent parts, namely the Directorate of Special Operations, or the Scorpions, as they are more commonly known. The phenomenon of serious and organized crime, particularly in its trans- national manifestation, is one that poses a real and imminent threat to our democracy and economy. The ever increasing interconnectedness and dynamism of the world we occupy, means that organized crime is more sophisticated than ever in the manner it goes about its business. I am proud of the role the DSO is starting to play in countering this threat. It has already shown its sophistication, professionalism and organizational mettle by taking on some of the market leaders in crime, the big players who believe they can defraud, smuggle, murder, deceive, threaten and corrupt with impunity. The NPA welcomes this timely monograph by the Institute of Security Studies. It contains the outcome of an objective and arms-length examination to which we have willingly subjected ourselves. The reason we adhere to this level of transparency is that it is good for our organisation. It leaves us with a more acute and informed sense of our strengths and our weaknesses. Transparent scrutiny of this kind minimizes the risks of self-delusion. It ultimately makes us do our work better. For that we are grateful. Bulelani Ngcuka National Director of Public Prosecutions ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This monograph was funded by USAID, the United States Embassy in Pretoria and the Ford Foundation. The author gratefully acknowledges the contribu- tion made by all those interviewed, in particular members of the Directorate of Special Operations – without whom this publication would not have been possible. The enthusiasm and support of the national director of public prosecutions is also acknowledged. Finally, discussion with Martin Schönteich, Antoinette Louw, Darwin Franks and Anton du Plessis was invaluable. LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES FIGURE 1 National Prosecuting Authority 42 FIGURE 2 Directorate of Special Operations 42 TABLE 1 Directorate of Special Operations Performance 51 TABLE 2 Comparative Budgets 57 TABLE 3a Countries’ Characteristics (general) 78 TABLE 3b Countries’ Characteristics (law enforcement) 78 GLOSSARY AFU Asset Forfeiture Unit, an entity within the NPA CIO chief investigating officer DSO Directorate of Special Operations, an entity within the NPA, also called the Scorpions DSO legislation NPA Amendment Act 61 of 2000 FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation (United States) IDOC Investigating Directorate: Organised Crime and Public Safety IDSEO Investigating Directorate: Serious Economic Offences ISS Institute for Security Studies national director national director of public prosecutions, NPA head NIA National Intelligence Agency NPA National Prosecuting Authority NPA Act National Prosecuting Authority Act 32 of 1998 NPS National Prosecuting Service, an entity within the NPA POC Act Prevention of Organised Crime Act 121 of 1998 SAPS South African Police Service SI special investigator SSI senior special investigator Scorpions nickname of the DSO EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The launch of the “Scorpions” was announced in September 1999, in the con- text of a world extremely concerned about the phenomenon of organised crime. The Scorpions became formally known as the Directorate of Special Operations (DSO), when the DSO officially came into existence 16 months later, in January 2001. The DSO is the investigative arm of South Africa’s National Prosecuting Authority. South Africa is quite distinctive in having this investigative component to a national prosecuting authority, as well as a national police force. Although international attention has shifted away from organised crime somewhat since September 2001, onto the threat of terrorism, organised crime remains the focus of the DSO. High-profile since its inception four years ago, the organisation and its staff are generally viewed by the South African public as the ultimate crime fighters. The DSO investigation into the “arms deal” con- cluded by the South African government in 1999, and its investigation of the role of the deputy president in this deal, upped this public profile considerably. In the course of these investigations, the powerful position of the national director has come into the spotlight, and questions originally raised at inception of the DSO have re-emerged. How does the DSO take on cases? Is it con- stitutional that the DSO is part of the National Prosecuting Authority and not part of the South African Police? Are there sufficient safeguards? Despite a high public profile, these uncertainties, along with limited public information about the DSO, have resulted in some confusion and misconcep- tion. For one, the national director of public prosecutions has been conflated in the public mind with the DSO. The aim of this monograph is to correct misconceptions about the DSO, and to provide information about an organisation which has rapidly become extremely important in South Africa. While the DSO is often likened to the US Federal Bureau of Investigation, South Africa is quite unlike the US in terms of its political and law enforcement struc- ture. International comparison and overview suggests some ways in which 8 The Scorpions oversight and accountability over the DSO could be better achieved. The information presented here was gathered through interviews with DSO staff and external stakeholders, and through research into internationally comparable institutions. INTRODUCTION The “Scorpions”, when referred to by this nickname, are probably, outside of the police, the most recognised law enforcement body in South Africa. The impact of the Scorpions on the South African public’s psyche after four years of operation cannot be underestimated. Yet very little is really known about the Scorpions – even their official name, “Directorate of Special Operations”, draws blank looks. This lack of understanding, along with the oft-mentioned problem of overlap with the work of the South African police force, and concerns that the DSO might use case-selection as a tool for political manipulation, make it important that information about the DSO be made more broadly accessible. Debates surrounding the Scorpion’s establishment, mandate, and operation are discussed in this monograph. It is hoped that through recording and explaining the agency’s functioning, the questions of the ordinary reader will be answered and misconceptions about the Scorpion’s role and operation will be dispelled. CHAPTER 1 METHODOLOGY This monograph made use of interviews conducted with DSO personnel as well as external DSO stakeholders. The results of these interviews were combined with other materials obtained from the DSO, such as their Annual Reports, and other data specifically requested from the DSO, such as information on personnel and training. Other sources, such as newspaper reports, government docu- ments, and the work of other researchers, were also consulted. The author drew on her own experience in 1999–2000 of a brief secondment to the Cape Town DSO office, as well as discussion with research colleagues. An ISS research team selected the interviewees.1 In all, 78 interviews were held from December 2002 to late March 2003.2 The majority of the interviews (45) were held with internal DSO personnel, in all four DSO regions, and at head office, including prosecutors, investigators and analysts, both managers and non- managers. This constitutes 8% of the DSO staff complement in 2003. Of all internal interviews, 15% were at the DSO Head Office, 36% were with investigators, 29% with prosecutors (excluding head office and regional heads) and 9% with analysts. This means that of the internal interviews, investigators were somewhat under-represented, as they comprised 63% of the staff at the time the interviews were done, while analysts and prosecutors were slightly over-represented in terms of the staff composition of the DSO. With respect to the method of selection of internal DSO interviewees, this varied from region to region. In Gauteng and the Western Cape, the regional head provided a list of interviewees, covering a range of personnel from trainee to deputy director. In the Eastern Cape, the DSO employee’s com- mittee appointed persons to speak on their behalf. In KwaZulu-Natal, secre- tarial staff asked personnel who were available on the days the researcher was there, to attend interviews. The duration of interviews varied from 30 minutes to 2.5 hours. A further 33 interviews were held with key people among various stakeholders, ranging from other entities within the NPA, such as the National Prosecuting Jean Redpath 11 Service (NPS); to national and provincial police officials; selected members of Parliament; key people among relevant government bodies; and informed opin- ions outside of government. Interview notes were written up and distributed amongst the team. The ISS research team assisted with analysis. The monograph was intended to answer the ordinary reader’s questions about the DSO.

Load more