Entry Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 825693,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/825693/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 400,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Teso North, ANC",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. Oku Kaunya",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13488,
        "legal_name": "Edward Oku Kaunya",
        "slug": "edward-oku-kaunya"
    },
    "content": " There are three areas I want to put my voice on. One is on the vetting process and how it happens. I am a member of the Departmental Committee on Administration and National Security. The vetting process, as has been clearly explained by the Chair of the Committee, the members who are listed fulfilled both constitutional and professional requirements. On their achievement, it is important to point out here that the first board of IPOA did some good work. Indeed, the impression that has been created by a few Members who have talked is that they did not perform. One important thing that I would like to point out here is that IPOA is an oversight institution. Within the policing fraternity, we have three important institutions: The Inspector-General who does the operational work of the police; the National Police Service Commission which is concerned with the recruitment, promotions and discipline especially at the policy level and IPOA. IPOA is a civilian authority. It received about 9,000 complaints. From those complaints, about 4,000 were not related to IPOA’s mandate. It has been pointed out clearly that one of the key mandates of IPOA was to investigate the deaths and serious injuries that are caused by the police. Secondly, it was supposed to investigate police misconduct. It was also supposed to inspect police premises and conditions of the police cells. When it comes to police welfare, I agree that it is key in terms of performance. This is an aspect that NPS and the IG squarely deal with as part of their mandate. The IPOA is supposed to be the police of the police in terms of seeing to it that the police fulfill the expectations of the public. Given that, IPOA may blame the board for not performing because of other institutions which, perhaps, we need to direct the complaint to, especially on issues to do with welfare and performance of the police. IPOA, in the Report it submitted, pointed out that it operates on the best international practice. They cited examples. They said that no institution in the world has, in six years, achieved what it has achieved. They cited examples of New Zealand and South Africa where similar institutions took more than 10 years to put structures in place. For Members, it would be fair to understand that the expectations were high but, at the same time, we should be grateful for what they have achieved so far. They have been able to put up nine regional offices with a staff of 140. If they receive 9,000 complaints in this period, the staff level and finances are not adequate. The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposes only. Acertified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor."
}