Ian Cameron: A stronger police service cannot simply mean more power in Pretoria

South Africa’s policing crisis is being tested by a new debate over whether more power should remain with SAPS or be shared with capable local authorities. The proposed SAPS Amendment Bill promises reforms such as integrity testing and merit-based recruitment, but critics argue that centralised control has failed to address firearm tracing, DNA backlogs and gang-related crime. Cape Town is pushing for greater investigative and forensic powers to complement national policing. The debate highlights a broader question facing South Africa: can a single national structure effectively respond to complex local crime challenges?.By Ian Cameron*.A firearm is seized during a City of Cape Town Metro Police operation. The officers make the arrest, secure the weapon and hand it to SAPS. From there, they largely lose control of what happens next.They cannot complete the criminal investigation. They cannot conduct their own ballistic comparison. They cannot necessarily access the systems needed to establish whether that firearm has been linked to another shooting. They must wait for an already overloaded national system.That is not a theoretical problem. Information recently brought to my attention identified firearms seized by City officers and handed to several SAPS stations, with serious concerns about delays in sending them for forensic examination. These included stations in some of Cape Town’s worst gang-affected communities.Now Parliament is being asked to consider the South African Police Service Amendment Bill, B18-2026. It contains several overdue reforms. But it also asks us to place even more trust in the same centralised structure that has repeatedly failed to perform basic functions.That should make us pause.The Bill proposes integrity testing, lifestyle audits, merit-based recruitment and dedicated disciplinary capacity. These provisions are welcome. SAPS cannot recover while appointments are manipulated, corruption is tolerated and disciplinary cases drag on without consequence.But the Bill’s underlying answer to almost every structural question is more national control.Clause 12 gives the National Commissioner responsibility for an exceptionally wide range of functions. These include intelligence, organised crime, forensic services, recruitment, training, public order policing, tactical units, crime information and resource allocation.Provincial governments may provide input, but the final decision generally remains at national level. Municipalities, despite dealing directly with the consequences of crime, have even less influence.This matters because centralisation has not produced consistent policing.Look at DNA. Parliamentary replies show that SAPS had 298,710 DNA exhibit entries on hand. Of these, 228,017 were beyond the applicable 90-day timelines. The average age was approximately 800 days, and the oldest entries were more than eight years old.Those numbers are easy to skim past. Their meaning is not.An unprocessed DNA entry may mean that a woman who was raped is still waiting for her case to move. It may mean that a detective cannot connect an offender to another crime. It may mean that a suspect who could have been identified remains free.Yet SAPS continues to control almost the entire forensic process centrally, even though accredited university laboratories could help expand capacity under properly regulated partnerships.The Central Firearms Registry offers another warning. Licence backlogs, poor communication, unreliable administration and weaknesses in firearm tracking have persisted for years. Ballistic testing and the movement of seized firearms between police stations and forensic laboratories remain areas of concern.Central control may create uniform rules. It does not guarantee that those rules are followed.The uncomfortable question is this: why should we give the centre even more power when it cannot tell victims when their DNA will be processed, detectives when a firearm will be tested or lawful firearm owners when an application will be finalised?The Bill makes limited improvements to the municipal policing framework. Municipal police may receive an expanded role in responding to gatherings and public-order situations. But the Bill avoids the issue that Cape Town has repeatedly placed on the table: defined investigative powers for capable municipal policing services.Cape Town is not asking to replace SAPS or to create an unaccountable parallel police force. It is asking to help.City officers already conduct intelligence-led operations, arrest suspects, seize firearms and work in communities where gang networks operate across police precincts. They frequently do the first and most dangerous part of the job. Then the law requires them to hand the investigation to someone else.That break in responsibility makes little sense.The City should be able to develop detective capacity for defined categories of crime, particularly gang-related firearm offences. It should be able to complete the necessary dockets, access relevant criminal information systems and determine whether seized firearms may be linked to earlier offences.The City should also be allowed to establish accredited ballistic testing capacity, subject to national forensic standards, proper evidence controls and integration with the relevant national databases.This would not mean giving every municipality unlimited policing powers. Expansion should depend on proven capacity, trained personnel, proper oversight, reliable evidence management and sustainable funding. Powers could be transferred through carefully defined agency agreements and withdrawn if standards are not maintained.That is a more serious model than either extreme. We do not need nine separate national police services. But neither should we pretend that one central command must perform every policing function in every community.In fact, expanding capable local policing could strengthen SAPS. Detectives already carrying impossible caseloads would gain additional support. Gang-related firearm cases could be processed faster. National specialist units could focus on organised networks that cross municipal and provincial boundaries.The Bill’s integrity provisions also need stronger safeguards. Lifestyle audits should include routine, risk-based audits of senior managers, procurement officials and members serving in corruption-prone environments. Integrity testing should not stop after recruitment. There must be independent oversight and clear consequences when members refuse to cooperate or cannot explain serious discrepancies.The proposed National Policing Advisory Committee should report to Parliament and have enough independence to challenge questionable appointments. Its recommendations should not simply disappear into the National Commissioner’s office.Specialised units dealing with gangs, sexual offences and other priority crimes also require greater protection. Their existence and funding should not depend solely on the preferences of whoever occupies a senior office at a particular time..Read more:.South Africans no longer trust the police, parliament or political parties - what that means.South Africa needs a national police service. The Constitution is clear about that. But the Constitution also recognises provincial oversight and municipal policing. Cooperative governance cannot mean that provinces and cities are consulted and then ignored.Parliament should retain the reforms that promote integrity and professionalism. It should remove provisions that create unchecked discretion and require written reasons when provincial recommendations are rejected. Most importantly, it should create a proper legal route for the City of Cape Town and other capable municipalities to receive defined investigative and forensic powers.The test should not be whether Pretoria retains control. The test should be whether a seized firearm is tested, whether a detective can complete the case and whether the victim finally sees justice.If the Bill cannot improve those outcomes, it is rearranging authority, not fixing policing..*Ian Cameron - MP & Chair of Police Portfolio Committee.Sign up for your early morning brew of the BizNews Insider to keep you up to speed with the content that matters. The newsletter will land in your inbox every morning on weekdays. Register here.Support South Africa's bastion of independent journalism, offering balanced insights on investments, business, and the political economy, by joining BizNews Premium. Register here.If you prefer WhatsApp for updates, sign up to the BizNews channel here.

Ian Cameron: A stronger police service cannot simply mean more power in Pretoria

Related Stories

Ivo Vegter: Activists cast SA's data centre boom as a monster to slay

A world-first: the bond that pays out when nature wins

Ian Cameron: Government's drilling holes in the safety boat while asking citizens to help bail

DA's Hill-Lewis draws the line: Mobs don't enforce immigration law, the state does