IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)

                                                                                CASE:  79041/18

Application for admission as party

PHETOE ANNA SEBILWANE                                       First Intervening Party

ADVOCATE ZONDEKA MAKONDO

AFRICAN LAW PROJECT                                           Second Intervening Party

and

OTHERS                                                                    3^rdto 629 Intervening Party

In the matter between:

SOLIDARITY                                                              Applicant

And

NATIONAL COMMISSIONER OF

SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICES, N.O                  First Respondent

MINISTER OF POLICE N.O                                         Second Respondent

SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICE                            Third Respondent

NOTICE OF MOTION

APPLICATION TO INTERVENE

KINDLY TAKE NOTICE that PHETOE ANNA SEBILWANE and 629others hereby apply to this Honourable Court at a date and time to be allocated by the Registrar for an order in the following terms:

1. To the extent necessary, condoning the intervening parties’ non-compliance with the rules relating to service and time periods and dealing with this application as one of urgency in terms of Rule 6 (12) and insofar as may be necessary permitting this application to be brought on shorter notice than is provided for in Rule 6 of the Uniform Rules of Court;

• Granting the First to the 629 Intervening parties leave to intervene as Respondents in this matter;

• Granting such directions regarding the further conduct of the matter as the above Honourable Court deems appropriate;

• Directing any party opposing this application to pay the costs of this application;

• Granting further and/or alternative relief.

TAKE NOTICE FURTHER that the affidavit of PHETOE ANNA SEBILWANE and the annexures thereto will be used in support of this application.

TAKE NOTICE FURTHER that the Intervening Parties have appointed the below address of SEKATI MONYANE ATTORNEYS, PRETORIA as the address at which they will accept service of all process in these proceedings.

KINDLY TAKE NOTICE FURTHER that should any party wish to oppose this application they are required:-

1. To notify the Intervening Parties’ attorneys in writing at or before Wednesday, 16^th January 2019 of their intention to oppose the application and serve an answering affidavit in support of their opposition, if any, on or before Friday, 18 January 2019.

Dated at Pretoria on this14 January 2019

______________________________________

ATTORNEYS FOR INTERVENING PARTIES

SEKATI MONYANE ATTORNEYS INC.

935 JAN SHOBA STREET

BROOKLYN

PRETORIA

Docex:

Tel:    (012) 460 9710/9759

Fax:  (012)460 5481

Email: info@sekatimonyane.co.za / collins@sekatimonyane.co.za

File no:       

Ref:   MR NDZIANE/

TO:               THE REGISTRAR OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

                    GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA

AND TO:       SERFONTEIN VILJOEN & SWART

                    Attorneys for the Applicant

                    165 Alexander Street

                    Brooklyn

                    TEL:    012 362 2556

                    FAX:   012 362 2557

                    EMAIL: fanus@svslaw.co.za

                    REF:    MR SWART/MR CLAASSEN/fb/CS 0343

AND TO:       THE STATE ATTORNEY – PRETORIA

Respondents’ Attorneys

                    Ground Floor, Salu Building

Cnr (316) Thabo Sehume & Francis Baard Street

                    Private Bag X 91

Pretoria 0001

TEL: (012) 309 1552

FAX: 086 629 2761

Email: CoPedroAfonso@justice.gov.za

REF: C PEDRO AFONSO/1091/2018/z30/KD

AND TO:       THE NATIONAL COMMISSIONER

OF SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICES

Lt Gen Khekla (Khehla) Sitole

1^st Respondent

7^th Floor Wachthuis

229 Pretorius Street

Pretoria

TEL: 012 393 2630

FAX: 012 393 4147

Email: sitole@saps.gov.za

AND TO:       MINISTER OF POLICE N.O

                    LT GEN BHEKI CELE

                    Second Respondent

                    756 – 7^th Floor Wachthuis

                    231 Pretorius Street

                    Pretoria

                    TEL: 012 393 9810

                    FAX: 012393 2812

                    Email: GaehlerSMK@saps.gov.za

AND TO:       SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICES

                    Third Respondent

                    7^th Floor Wachthuis

229 Pretorius Street

Pretoria

TEL: 012 393 1000

FAX: 012 393 4147

Email: response@saps.gov.za

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)

                                                            CASE:  79041/18

Application for admission as party

PHETOE ANNA SEBILWANE                                       First Intervening Party

ADVOCATE ZONDEKA MAKONDO

AFRICAN LAW PROJECT                                           Second Intervening Party

and

OTHERS                                                                    3^rd to 629 Intervening Party

In the matter between:

SOLIDARITY                                                              Applicant

And

NATIONAL COMMISSIONER OF

SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICES, N.O                  First Respondent

MINISTER OF POLICE N.O                                         Second Respondent

SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICE                            Third Respondent

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION TO INTERVENE

AND

OPPOSING REVIEW APPLICATION

I the undersigned

PHETOE ANNA SEBILWANE

Do hereby make oath and state:

1.  

1. I am the First Intervening Party in this matter, an adult female officer, of the South African Police Service (“SAPS”), presently holding the position and or police rank of Colonel, ID 631007 0673 089 age 55 years. My police number 0527678-1, residing at 46 Ormonde Gardens Trefnant Road Ormonde Ext 26 Code 2091 Johannesburg, Gauteng Province.

1. I am a former member of Azanian Peoples Liberation Army (“APLA”) a former military wing of the Pan Africanist Congress of Azania (“PAC”).  During 1995 I and other members of APLA were supposed to be integrated into the South African Police Services but this did not materialise.

1. I swear that the facts deposed to herein are, except where the context otherwise indicates, within my own personal knowledge, and are, in all material respects, true and correct.  Where the facts are not within my personal knowledge, I believe them to be true and correct.

1. To the extent that I make submissions of a legal nature in this affidavit I do so in the strength of legal advice obtain in this regards.

•  

PURPOSE OF THIS AFFIDAVIT

This affidavit is filed in response to an application in terms of section 9 read with section 8 (1) (c) (ii) (aa) , section 8 (1) (d) of Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (“PAJA”) and the Principle of legality as outlined in the rule of law as contained in section (1) (c)  of the Constitution Act 1996.

• Furthermore, this affidavit is filed in response to an application:

• in terms of Interim Constitution of South Africa 20 of 1993 section 214 – 224 read;

• in terms of the Republic of Reconciliation Act 34 of 1995 section 1, (c);

• in terms of Cabinet resolution/Minutes Integration period,

• in terms of Government Employees Pension Law Amendment Act 35 of 2003;

• in terms of Special Pensions Act 69 of 1996;

• in terms of SAPS Act 68 of 1995;

• in terms of Public Service Bargaining Council Resolution Seven of 2001;

• in terms of Termination of Integration Intake Act 44 of 2001;
  • in terms of Section 8 (1) (c) of PAJA; and

• in terms of the Principle of Legality and the rule of law Section 1 (c) of the Constitution.

•  

ORDER SOUGHT BY THE APPLICANT

• Applicant seeks an order setting aside the Respondents decision to implement the NSF Project;

• Seek endowing Applicant’s members employed by South African Police Service the same rights to apply for and to be recognised for positions within the SAPS as those specifically earmarked for so called NSF members;

• Seeking an order directing the Respondents to afford the Applicant’s members equal opportunity to be promoted and/or to be recognised with the same benefits currently reserved for alleged NSF members; and

• Ground of review being the Principle of Legality as outlined in the rule of law as contained in section 1 (c)  of the Constitution.

•  

This affidavit serves three purposes:

• First to seek leave for First, and 3^rd to 629 Intervening parties former NSF membersto intervene as parties in these Application proceedings;
  • Seek leave for Advocate Zondeka Makondo African Law Project to intervene as a party in these Application proceedings;

• Secondly to establish that the Applicant does comply or not with the requirements of Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (“PAJA”) in that the Applicant does or not have the requisite exemption order as provided for in terms of Section 7 (2) (c)  of PAJA, read with section 9 (1) and (2) of PAJA, in order to institute the review proceedings against the Respondents;

• Thirdly, to oppose the present review application brought under semi urgency, Applicant failing to join or citing the intervening parties who have material and substantive interest in the relief sought by the Applicant.

•  

The intervening parties reserve their rights to supplement the affidavit in due course, if necessary. In addition, to the extent that the intervening parties fail to answer any allegations in the founding affidavit that is inconsistent with what is said in this affidavit, such allegations are denied.

•  

INTERVENING PARTIES

• The First Intervening Party in this application is PHETOE ANNA SEBILWANE an adult female officer, of the South African Police Service (“SAPS”), presently holding the position and or police rank of Colonel, ID 631007 0673 089 age 55 years. My persal number 0527678-1, residing at 46 Ormonde Gardens Trefnant Road Ormonde Ext 26 Code 2091 Johannesburg, Gauteng Province.

• I am acting at my own interest, interest of fellow former NSF members in the active service of the SAPS and acting in the public interest in term of the provisions of Section 38 (a) (c) (d) of the Constitution, thus give the Honourable Court jurisdiction to hear the matter.

• The Second Intervening Party is ADV ZONDEKA MAKONDO AFRICAN LAW PROJECT, a Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) not for gain registered as a Non-Profit Organisation NPC 2017/181004/08. The project’s aim amongst other things is to develop a strong indigenous law research capability, develop a strong African Law research capability, protect human rights, protect public interests and to provide pro bono services to the poorest of the poor and to those persons who cannot afford legal services but are left in the dark spot as they are deemed as not qualifying for such services:

• I am advised an advice I accept to be correct that presently Adv Zondeka Makondo African Law Project, is researching on the aftermath of integration of both Statutory and Non-Statutory Forces to various security cluster;

• I am further advised that the research team is led by Phillip Dhlamini, fourth year LLB Degree student, former member of the APLA, former trade unionist and retired Colonel in the South African National Defence Force who has vast experience in the integration and re-ranking of former NSF members;  

• Colonel Phillip Dhlamini (ret) has been working with integration and re-ranking since 1996 during his employment in the SANDF as a result he has vast knowledge, skills and experience in handling issues of re-ranking and integration;

• I am advised that Colonel Phillip Dhlamini (ret) led the SANDF Re-ranking team that was re-ranking former NSF members in the service of the Department of Defence Finance Department in 2009; and

• I am further advised an advice I accept to be correct, that Colonel Phillip Dhlamini (ret) assisted in drafting the South African Police Service Re-Ranking administrative order and from 15 July 2015 participated in the South African Police Service NSF Re-ranking Committee as APLA representative;

• On or about January 2016, Colonel Phillip Dhlamini (ret) was by University of Limpopo School of Law for 4 year LLB degree programme thus his participation in the Committee ended.

• I attach confirmatory affidavit of Colonel Phillip Dhlamini marked annexure “PAS1”

• Adv Zondeka Makondo African Law Project is acting in the interest, of former members of the NSF who are in the service of the SAPS but did not apply to be joined as Respondents and acting in the public interest in term of the provisions of Section 38 (a) (c) (d) of the Constitution, thus give the Honourable Court jurisdiction to hear the matter.

• The 3rd to 629 Intervening Parties are former members of the NSF enlisted in the service of the South African Police Service.In order not to burden the Honourable Court with bulk confirmatory Affidavits I have attached only 50 confirmatory affidavits from 9 provinces, annexed hereto marked annexure “PAS2” to “PAS51”

• The 3rd to 629 Intervening Parties are acting at their own interest.

•  

AUTHORITY

• The application to intervene is authorised by the confirmatory affidavits of the individual intervening Party and in terms of section 38 (1) (a), (c) and (d) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.

• I am further duly authorised to depose to this affidavit on behalf of AZMALP by the resolution of the Board of Directors See resolution annexed hereto marked annexure “PAS52”.

•  

INTERVENTION IN THE REVIEW APPLICATION

• In the original application. The applicant cited three (3) Respondents, National Commissioner of South African Police Services N.O, Minister of Police N.O and South African Police Services.

• Despite citing only three Respondents in their official capacities, Solidarity sought far–reaching relief that include setting aside the decision of the Minister of Police, Cabinet and parliament to implement the NSF Project which is a constitutional requirement to integrate all forces into one police force.

• Former members of the Non-Statutory Forces and their mother organisations ANC (MKMVA), PAC (APLA) and the public have a direct and substantial interest in the relief sought in the review application.

• The Intervening Parties accordingly have a direct material and substantial interest in the relief sought by the Applicant.

• At the hearing of this matter, the intervening parties and I shall seek orders granting us leave to intervene as Respondents parties.

•  

I have read the Applicant’s Notice of Motion together with the affidavit of Andries Bernardus Gous in support of the review application and annexures thereto, and prior to responding thereto, I am advised, which advise I accept, that it is crucial that I appraise the Honourable Court with the factual background that culminated to the present application.

1.  

BACKGROUND

1. I joined the Pan Africanist Congress of Azania in 1980 at the tender age of seventeen (17).

1. Was recruited by Dan Mofokeng the leader of the June 16 events and the last APLA commander.

EDUCATION

1. During 1980 I was attending school at Seana Marena Secondary School, whilst residing at Naledi Township until I obtained Standard 8Certificate equivalent to grade 10.

1. Received informal education from both PAC and its military wing APLA.

1. Furthermore, I received further informal education from local and international trade unions movements.

STRUCTURES SERVED WITHIN THE ORGANISATION:

1. Served as the Naledi PAC branch chairperson.

1. Founder Member of the African Women’s Organisation.

UTILISATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES:

1. The party deployed me to work for the South African Chemical Workers Union under the National Council of Trade Unions.

1. My tasks within the trade unions was to recruit for APLA within workers members of the Trade Unions and arrange for their training outside the country through utilisation of the Union conferences and seminars held outside the country.

1. My other task was to recruit women through various projects e.g. church services, sewing and vegetable gardens in the townships.

1. When trained workers return from military training, it was my responsibility to try and place them on various companies serviced by friendly Unions.

1. Planning and directing counter intelligence unit deployed within my area of responsibility.

1. Planning and directing implementation of leadership security.

1.  

COUNTRIES TRAINED AND OPERATED FROM: 1985 TO 1986 – ZIMBABWE

1. I was deployed in the office of Chief Representative of PAC – Thobile Gola and Protocol Officer Joseph Maphosa.

1. My responsibility was the administration of the official travelling and movements of the members of APLA high command and all leadership of the PAC in Zimbabwe.

1. Arrange the diplomatic documents for cadres travelling to other countries.

1. Communicate with the protocol officers of Zimbabwean security cluster for access at the airports and other ports of entries.

1. Received intensive training on intelligence and policing.

1. TO 1988 –  LESOTHO

1. Deployed Maseru in Lesotho under the command of Solly Mofokeng, receiving recruits and preparing them for training and selection for relevant courses.

1. Liaison with the Lesotho security clusters for clearance of our cadres.

1. Participating in the labour movement in Lesotho for recruitment purposes.

1. Received further training on counter intelligence and policing.

1. TO 1990 – TANZANIA

1. Trained in weaponry, infiltration and intelligence.

1. Served in the structures of PASS (Pan Africanist Security Service) known by nom de querre “Dipopi” under the command of Sabelo Phama and Thamsanxa Khonto at the Ruvu Camp.

1. Served on the underground activities of transporting of political material to the cells.

1. Lead the African Women’s Organisation delegation to the AU conference on behalf of the PAC.

1. Received extensive police leadership training in preparation for possibility of take over.

1.  

1992- USA

1. Went to the following States in America, Atlanta, Boston and New York on the Trade Union movement (“PAC mission”).

1. Trained on the election and voting processes in preparation for the transitional process back home.

1. Obtained certificates in the following programmes :  Briefing on Mediation and Arbitration, Women issues at workplace

1.  

1. – BACK HOME

1. Deployed and served in the structures of the organisation based in Kwazulu-Natal to train members and communities on the elections and voting processes with Comrade Sipho Makhanda.

1. Visited branches and train members to serve in the electoral commissions.

1. With the intense training and skills acquired outside the country was assigned by the organisation to visit the Provinces and educate members in order to prepare for the arrival of the external leadership and cadres in the country.

1. Prepare the security arrangement of the internal and external leadership.
2.  

PROPOSED RANK BY APLA AT SAPS INTEGRATION 1995

1. I was ordered to integrate with South African Police Services sometime in 1995, my APLA proposed rank being Major General and or Brigadier General. This was based on my having received extensive training in visible and undercover policing.

1. I intended to contest the rank of Major General, unfortunately there was no similar integration processes like in the other security clusters in the South African Police Services we were given rank without a proper agreed upon integration procedures.

1.  

1. INTERGRATION PROCESS IN THE SAPS

1. The South African Police Service APLA integration intake was on or about 21 day of September 1995, I reported for integration on the same day, first listed with the police rank of constable with Persal Number 527678-1 and later on the day ranked as a Sergeant a rank above Constable.

1. I am advised an advice I accept to be correct that during the period 1994 to 1996 former APLA members had no status to integrate to any of the security cluster on ground that its mother body PAC did not sign the peace accord.

1. Flowing from above former APLA members had no constitutional right to integrate into any of the security cluster and as such no right even to appeal, as a result I was informed to accept the rank of Sergeant because there is nothing that can be done about our plight.

1. On or about 4^th day of February 1997, the status of former APLA members in the service of the SAPS changed with the commencement of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act, 1996, section 198 read with section 3 of Annexure D of Schedule 6 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act, 1996.

1. I am advised an advice I accept to be correct that Annexure D of Schedule 6 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act, 1996, necessitated that all security clusters must introduce the re-ranking committees of former NSF members, to correct the injustice of integration, the SAPS was not exempted from that requirements.

PROMOTION

1. Whilst in the service of the SAPS I worked myself up in the ranks of the SAPS and eventually in the year 2000 was promoted to a rank of a Captain.

1. In 2001 I was promoted to Lt Colonel)

1. In 2010 challenged management for my normal SAPS promotion and through the deliberations at Safety andSecurity Sectoral Bargaining Council (“SSSBC”) case I succeeded and promoted to the rank of Colonel a rank I hold to date.

1.  

CAREE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN SAPS

Despite having reported for integration on or about 21 day of September 1995 I was only sent to South African Police Service Basic Police Training Course sometime in 1998, did life skills course in 1999, did Operational Management Programme 2000, Experimental Learning Module trained at Technikon SA sometime in 2003, Health and Safety Course 2004, Middle Management Learning Programme in 2008 and operational Commanders Training 2010.

1.  

RESPONSIBILITIES WITHIN SAPS 1995 TO 1997

1. Despite having reported for integration on or about 21 day of September 1995 and not been given any formal training by the SAPS, I was utilised by the SAPS from 1995 TO 1997 in the PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT as follows:

1. Responsible for the confidential personal files of the President and Deputy President of the Country;

1. Recording all their movements and liaison with all the security role players; and

1. Safekeeping of all classified confidential files of the VIP’s.

1. I believe that the Management of the South African Police Services had taken into consideration my vast experience, knowledge and skills received from massive training in both PAC and its Military wing APLA, thus given this most sensitive responsibilities.

1.  

1998 – 2000     -HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

1. I continued to be utilised by South African Police Management in senior positions despite my lower ranking of Sergeant until 2000 where they were forced to promote me into the rank of Captain.

1. Responsible for the career development of members;
   1. Human development; and

1. Physical resources and finance.

1.  

• 2009     –    UNIT COMMANDER JOHANNESBURG

1. In the years 2001 to 2009 I was given the responsibilities for the Command and Control of VIP Protection members;

1. Responsible for the protection of Gauteng Cabinet and all other visiting VIPS from other Provinces;

1. Co-ordinate and execute all the operations taking place in Gauteng by the ANC and the Gauteng Cabinet;

1. Account for the physical and financial matters of the Unit;

1. Responsible for the Risk Management Programme within the Unit; and

1. Ensuring the human development of personnel.

•  

2009 TO 2010     –     ACTING UNIT COMMANDER VIP OPERATIONS NATIONAL OFFICE (PTA)

• Responsible for the protection of the National Ministers, Judges and ad hoc protection;

• Responsible for the protection of the visiting Heads of States;

• Facilitate and execute all the operations in the Unit and any requests received from the Department of International Relations;

• Responsible for the human and physical resources of the Unit; and

• Responsible for the human development of members.

• 2014     –     UNIT COMMANDER JOHANNESBURG

• In 2010 challenged management for my normal SAPS promotion and through the deliberations at Safety andSecurity Sectoral Bargaining Council (“SSSBC”) case I succeeded and promoted to the rank of Colonel, I was then appointed in the permanent post of the unit Commander Johannesburg with the following responsibilities:
  • Responsible for the protection of the Gauteng Provincial Government, Judges and ad hoc protection;

• Responsible for the protection of the visiting VIP’s from other Provinces;

• Facilitate and execute all the operations in the Unit and any requests received from the Head Protection and Security Service (PSS);

• Responsible for the human and physical resources of the Unit; and

• Responsible for the human development of members.

•  

2015     –    PROVINCIAL COMMANDER GAUTENG

Over and above my normal duties, in 2015 I have been responsible for the following:

• I was responsible for Command and Control of all Gauteng Units i.e. Pan African  Parliament, VIP Protection, Legislature and Premier’s Office;

• Again I was responsible to ensure proper planning of operations and the execution thereof; and

• Ensuring service delivery in regards protection of VIPS in Gauteng, Premier and his Cabinet, Judge President and Ministers Residents.     
•  

2018   –     PROVINCIAL HEAD

• Appointed as acting Provincial Head Gauteng (level of Brigadier)

• Responsible for the command and control of about 1032 human capital in the Province.

• Protection of following Government Institutions:

• Bryntirion Estate;

• Pan African Parliament;

• Provincial Legislator;

• Police Head Quarters;

• Telkom Towers;

• Maupa Naga;

• Premier’s Office;

• Crime Intelligence Building;

• Gauteng Cabinet;

• Human capital at Land Affairs; and

• Marble Towers

•  

BRINGING PEACE TO WARRING PARTIES

• It is public knowledge that in 1990 the ANC and its military wing Umkhonto WesiZwe (MK), the BCM and its military wing Azanian National Liberation Army (AZANLA) and the PAC and its military wing Azanian People’s Liberation Army (APLA) were unbanned.

• It is common cause that as a result of the unbanning of the liberation movements, negotiations took place resulting in the new dispensation, a new interim constitution was adopted by all the participating parties including the PAC.

• It is further a common cause that South African Police Force and other statutory forces were in conflict with the Non Statutory Forces as a results, participating parties had to reach agreements on established a single South African Police Service for the Republic of South Africa.

• The South African Police Service  was constituted by integrating the following police forces and Non Statutory Forces:

STATUTORY POLICE FORCES

• Boputswana Police Force (BPF);
  • Ciskei Police Force (CPF);
  • South Africa Police (SAP);
  • Transkei Police Force (TPF);
  • Venda Police Force (VPF);
  • Kangwane Police Force (KPF);
  • KwaZulu Police Force (KZPF);
  • Qwaqwa Police Force;
  • Lebowa Police Force; and
  • Gazankulu Police Force.

NON-STATUTORY FORCE

• Azanian People’s Liberation Army (APLA) Intelligence and Police Units; and
  • Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK) Intelligence and Police Units

TOTAL NUMBER OF INTEGRATED FORCES BEING TWELVE (12)

• Importantly at integration I am Advised an advice I accept to be correct, that all statutory forces, it was agreed that they would not be subjected to placement boards, and they will be integrated with the ranks they held in their former force. Correctly so, no statutory force member was with the lower rank than the one he/she held in his/her former force.

• Contrary to the above, the situation for integration of Non Statutory Forces was different and highly prejudicial to members of the Non Statutory Forces, they were to be subjected to a placement board that would determine the rank and further training for that particular rank of that member.

• Reporting at the South African Police Service, we found that no proper integration processes where laid down and no planning for proper integration processes were done.
  • In view of the above, all former members of the Non Statutory Forces were amalgamated into the South African Police Services, without observing the prescripts of integration agreements.

•  

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RE-RANKING/INTRGATION AND PROMOTION:

Promotion:

• Promotion, it is the requirement that members of the South African Police Service must comply with certain minimum  requirements in line with the SAPS promotion policy of the SAPS issued in the National Instruction 1/2004 as amended from time to time:

• There must be a vacant post, advertised, funded;

• Competence: applicant must have defined blend of knowledge, skills, behaviour and aptitude that a person can apply in the work environment; and

• Determined course: Compulsory course determined by the National Commissioner for the development of that member must be successfully completed before the member may be considered for promotion.

• I am advised an advice I accept to be correct that on or about 14 day of June 1995, the then National Commissioner/Deputy National Commissioner, Issued an interim promotion policy for officers and non-commissioned officers: Regulation 16 (4) and 16 (6), this was despite integration of plus minus 12 forces.

Re-ranking or rank review

• The purpose of Re-ranking/rank review is/was to address the prejudices suffered by former Non Statutory Members during integrated processes at the South African Police Service. It is submitted that the promotion policy does not apply in their case, only integration agreed upon processes are applicable.

Integration Processes

• Integration processes as agreed upon by Joint Military Co-ordinating Council (JMCC) entailing the following:

• Member reporting at the place, time and date, where she/he is required to report for integration;

• The administration set up a representative placement board, that will determine the level the member operated at his former force and determine a suitable rank and courses that the member must undertake to be able to operate at that level;

• Educational requirements, if member has no required certificate, member should and or must be subjected to potential test;

• Recognition of prior learning that include all training both military and civilian;

• Years of service in the former force; and

• The level the member operated.

• Further set up the appeal procedure for integrating members if not happy with the decision of the placement board could have their right to appeal realised; and

• Re-appeal to the Director General.

• I am advised an advice I accept to be correct that the law governing integration was firstly laid in the Transitional Executive Council Act 1993, which provide the basis for integration of various armed forces. Secondly, Section 224 of the Interim Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 200 of 1993 (“Interim Constitution”), established the supreme authority for such an integration, Schedule 6 of the Constitution Act 1996.

• Furthermore, I am advised an advice I accept to be correct that the provisions of section 2 of the Transitional Executive Council Act arrangements’ and section 224 of the Interim Constitution continues to apply and is still valid.

• The new South African Police Service (“SAPS”) to which such integration relates was formed on 27 day of April 1994, it follows also that the integration process must have constitutional validity.

•  

REGISTRATION OF THE NON-STATUTORY FORCE PROJECT

• I am advised an advice I accept to be correct, that the Non-statutory Force Project was registered with start date 26 day of June 2013 and registration ID 00000000006856

• I am further advised an advice I accept to be correct that on or about 28^th day of June 2013, the Deputy Minister of Police established NSF tasks team.

• The multi-disciplinary task team was constituted by the following officials:

SAPS

• Lieutenant General Mazibuko then Acting Deputy National Commissioner HRM;

• Major General T De Wit Acting Divisional Commissioner HRU;

• Major General K Senthumule HRU;

• Director N. Hani from the office of the Deputy Minister of Police;

FORMER NSF MEMBERS

• Lieutenant Colonel Ranaka from Gauteng Province;

• Lieutenant Colonel Sampson from Western Cape Province;

• Lieutenant Colonel Lukhele from Mpumalanga Province;

• Captain Ngcobo from Western Cape Province;

• Captain Bongco from Western Cape Province;

OTHER STAKEHOLDERS

• Deputy Director General DPSA;

• Major General Mashoala SANDF; and

• Mr B Rakimane from GPAA

• Missing in the Multi-disciplinary task team appointed by the Deputy Minister of Police were representatives of both MK and APLA.

• I am advised an advice I accept to be correct, that the above mention NSF Task Team was disbanded December 214 and a new team was appointed by March 2015.

• The new SAPS Non Statutory Force Re-ranking Committee inclusive of the NSF representatives commenced its duties on or about 14 day of July 2015.

•  

AD FIRST POINT IN LIMINE

Condonation

•  The NSF Project was registered on or about 26 day of June 2013 five (5) years ago almost one thousand eight hundred and twenty five days, the Applicant members were fully aware of the NSF Project from that time onwards chose not to challenge it.

• It is submitted that the Applicant had the opportunity to challenge and or review the registration of the NSF project within 180 days from 26^th June 2013 up and until 31^st December 2013.

• Alternatively, the Applicant and or its members had the opportunity to challenge and or review the registration of the NSF project within 180 days from 14^th July 2015 up and until 31^st January 2017.

• The NSF Re-ranking Committee was appointed March 2015, and commenced its duties 14^th July 2015, the applicant had 180 days again to challenge and or review the appointment of the NSF but fail to do so, for almost more than three and half year (1245 days).

• It is submitted that the Applicant had the second opportunity to challenge and or review the NSF project within 180 days from 14^th July 2015 up and until 31^st January 2016.

•  

AD SECOND POINTS IN LIMINE

• Re-ranking (integration) is not an administrative action as envisage by section 33 of the Constitution read with section 1 of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 3 of 2000.

• Re-ranking is a political decision and not a labour relations matter and or administrative matter; it is by operation of law.

•  

AD THIRD POINT IN LIMINE

Non-Joinder

• The Applicant has failed to join all affected former members of the Non-Statutory Forces in the service of the South African Police Service (Intervening Parties) and I to the review application as interested parties in the outcome of this application which will have material and substantive dire consequences to our jobs.

• The relief being sought by Applicant in this application will effectively prevent all former members of the Non-Statutory Forces from properly integrating into the South African Police Service thus render integration to be non-existence, and the SAPS losing credibility and respect as democratic Police Service.

• It goes without saying that this will have a direct substantial and adverse effect on the integration of Non-Statutory Forces and the credibility of the South African Police Service.

• The Applicant’s failure to join former members of the Non-Statutory Forces to this application constitutes a material non-joinder.

•  Accordingly and for this reason alone the applicant application stands to be dismissed with costs.

•  

RESPONSE TO THE FOUNDING AFFIDAVIT

I intend to respond to the specific averments contained in the founding affidavit

•  

AD PARAGRAPHS I TO 4 THEREOF:

Save to deny that the facts are true and correct, the rest of the contents of these paragraphs are noted.

•  

AD PARAGRAPH 5 THEREOF:

• Each and every allegation contained in this paragraph is denied as if each was specifically traversed and the deponent is put to the proof thereof.
  • Specifically I deny that the Applicant are adversely affected by the Non Statutory Force Project;
  • Deny that the Non Statutory Forces Project has detrimental effect to Applicant’s members.

• Contrary to the allegation, Applicant members’ have enjoyed privilege positions since 27 April 1994 to date, and the Applicant is trying to preserve and protect the status core, at the expense of the South African Police Service and the country at large (public interest).

• Furthermore, it is clear that the Applicant and its members are against rank review of Non Statutory Forces members as a result opposed to the constitution imperatives.

•  

AD PARAGRAPHS 6 AND 7 THEREOF:

• The contents of these paragraphs are noted

•  

AD PARAGRAPH 8 THEREOF:

• Each and every allegation contained in this paragraph is denied as if each was specifically traversed and the deponent is put to the proof thereof.

• Specifically I deny that the Applicant’s members employed by the SAPS are discriminated against on ground that they are classified as non-NSF members; in fact its members hold very senior positions in the SAPS and they are against any rank review and transformation in the SAPS.

• In any event, the law, dos not prohibit discrimination, the law only prohibits “unfair discrimination” I am advised an advice I accept to be correct that there is no unfair discrimination against former members of statutory forces, specifically members of the Applicant.

• I submit that integration of NSF members and rank review have followed the same trend as in the SAPS, it is this reason that the SANDF has resolved 99% of integration problems compare to SAPS 0%.

•  

AD PARAGRAPH 9 THEREOF:

• Each and every allegation contained in this paragraph is denied as if each was specifically traversed and the deponent is put to the proof thereof.

• Specifically I deny that the Applicant is approaching this Honourable Court in terms of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 and or the principle of legality in terms of section 1 (c) of the Constitution. Contrary to the allegation the Applicant go against the prescript of public interest and the spirit purported by the Constitution Act 1996.

• I further deny that the NSF project is being rolled out and implemented in a manner where such implementation is procedurally unfair.  In fact I have reasonable belief that the Applicant’s members are senior officers of the Respondents (SAPS) opposed to integration and transformation of the SAPS thus trying to stop the implementation of the NSF Project.

• The truth is that the affected intervening parties were not even told or informed about the recommendations or results of the NSF Project by the First to the Third Respondents. The Applicant undermined the rule of law and went to publish the alleged NSF recommendations without first getting our approval, thus creating an expectation.

• The Applicant just alleges that the NSF Project is being rolled out and implemented in a manner where such implementation is procedurally unfair but fail to disclose which procedure he/she is referring to.

•  

AD PARAGRAPH 10 THEREOF:

• Each and every allegation contained in this paragraph is denied as if each was specifically traversed and the deponent is put to the proof thereof.

• Specifically I deny that the Applicant is approaching this Honourable Court in the public interest and the rule of law, to the contrary the Applicant is against the public interest and the rule of law in that it is in the public interest to have a properly integrated police force, transformed and democratised representing the interests of all South African Citizens

• I further deny that the NSF Project constitute unfair discrimination, unlawful administrative action and against the basic values and principles governing public administration. In fact the Applicant could not falter the procedures followed by the Respondents first in registering the project as a requirement, secondly the involvement of the stakeholders in the establishing of the NSF Project, the appointment of the NSF Re-ranking Committee and lastly the procedure followed in reporting progress to the ministry, relevant Parliamentary Portfolio Committee.

• I deny that the NSF Project has been dealt with in secrecy, the truth is that the Applicant in his/her words allude to the existence of the NSF Project as far as 21^st day of July 2014 at paragraph 31 of Applicant Founding Affidavit, I quote: “The contents of a speech during the SAPS budget Vote in Parliament by the former Deputy-Minister of Police, Maggie Sotyu, on 21 July 2014 proffered that the integration of members from the former Non-Statutory Forces into the SAPS has been prioritised. These individuals are mostly from what is colloquially known as liberation movements and then more specifically MK and APLA”.

• I further deny that the NSF Project has been dealt with in secrecy, the Applicant is not taking the Honourable Court to his confidence, in that the Applicant members are fully aware of a letter addressed to all Divisional Commissioners, all Provincial Commissioners and all SAPS NSF Provincial coordinators dated 25^th day of September 2015, originating from the office of Divisional Commissioner Human Resource Management, Lieutenant General L Ntshiea. The letter advises about the commencement of the SAPS NSF Re-Ranking Committee duties as of 14 day of July 2015.

• It is clear from above that the NSF Project has always been in public knowledge.

•  

AD PARAGRAPH 12 THEREOF:

• Save to state that I have no knowledge of the stages of the NSF Project, but expectation was created by the Applicant publishing the results of the SAPS NSF Re-ranking Committee, in the newspapers.

• Furthermore, it is worth stating that the NSF Project is about correcting the problems of integration and not a promotion policy of the SAPS and thus could not be viewed and or compared with SAPS promotion Policy.

• Integration means the integration of all police forces Statutory and Non-Statutory to have one democratic South African Police Service on conditions agreed upon by the participating parties in line with the agreements reached at CODESSA and reduced into writing and firstly laid in the Transitional Executive Council Act 1993, which provide the basis for integration of various armed forces, secondly Section 224 of the Interim Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 200 of 1993 (“Interim Constitution”), established the supreme authority for such an integration, and finally captured in Schedule 6 of the Constitution Act 1996.

• Bophuthatswana Police Force (BPF);
  • Ciskei Police Force (CPF);
  • South Africa Police (SAPF);
  • Transkei Police Force (TPF);
  • Venda Police Force (VPF);
  • Kangwane Police Force (KPF);
  • KwaZulu Police Force (KZPF);
  • Qwaqwa Police Force;
  • Lebowa Police Force; and
  • Gazankulu Police Force.

NON-STATUTORY FORCE

• Azanian People’s Liberation Army (APLA) Intelligence and Police Units; and
  • Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK) Intelligence and Police Units

• Importantly at integration I am Advised an advice I accept to be correct, that all statutory forces, it was agreed that they would not be subjected to placement boards, and they will be integrated with the ranks they held in their former force. Correctly so, no statutory force member was prejudiced at integration.

• Contrary to the above, the situation with regards to integration of Non Statutory Forces was different and highly prejudicial to members of the Non Statutory Forces, they were to be subjected to a placement board that would determine the rank and further training for that particular rank of that member. I submit that the Respondents failed to adhere to the agreement and the NSF Project was addressing that problem.

•  

AD PARAGRAPH 13 THEREOF:

• Each and every allegation contained in this paragraph is denied as if each was specifically traversed and the deponent is put to the proof thereof.

• Specifically I deny that the Applicant’s members are qualified to be treated in the same manner with former members of the NSF, in that the applicant has failed to show that its members are former members of the Non-Statutory Force.

• I have already alluded above, that integration is not promotion, the distinct line between integration and promotion, when one looks at Promotion Policy, it has its requirements that members of the South African Police Service must comply with certain minimum  requirements in line with the SAPS promotion policy issued in the National Instruction 1/2004 as amended from time to time:

• There must be a vacant post, advertised, funded;

• Competence: applicant must have defined blend of knowledge, skills, behaviour and aptitude that a person can apply in the work environment; and

• Determined course: Compulsory course determined by the National Commissioner for the development of that member must be successfully completed before the member may be considered for promotion.

• While on the other hand integration is the constitutional imperative, requiring that all police forces of parties that participated at CODESSA and further participated on 27 April 1994 National Election must integrate and form one South African Police Service, in line with the provisions of the Transitional Executive Council Act 1993, which provide the basis for integration of various armed forces, secondly Section 224 of the Interim Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 200 of 1993 (“Interim Constitution”), established the supreme authority for such an integration, and finally captured in Schedule 6 of the Constitution Act 1996.

•  

AD PARAGRAPH 14 THEREOF:

• Each and every allegation contained in this paragraph is denied as if each was specifically traversed and the deponent is put to the proof thereof.

• Specifically I deny that the Re-ranking of former NSF members is an insult to our democracy, the truth is that the integration of all warring parties brought about democracy in the Republic of South Africa, thus the Respondents are required to report progress to Parliament Portfolio Committee and Cabinet.

• The Deponent has no confidence in the Honourable Court, his/her allegation that the facts in his affidavit are an insult to our democracy are unfounded; in fact these facts are distorted to mislead the Honourable Court, in that they project integration of NSF members as if it is a promotion which is not.

•  

AD PARAGRAPHS 15 TO 17 THEREOF:

Save to deny that National Police Commissioner hold the rank of Lieutenant General. The remaining contents of these paragraphs are noted.

•  

AD PARAGRAPHS 18 TO 20 THEREOF:

• Each and every allegation contained in this paragraph is denied as if each was specifically traversed and the deponent is put to the proof thereof.

• Specifically I deny that the decisions taken to create and implement NSF Project falls within the meaning of administrative action as contemplated in the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 3 of 2000. In fact integration and or NSF Project are a political decision taken at a political level by parties that participated at CODESSA.

• I submit that even if the Honourable Court could find that NSF Project constitute an administrative action, the Applicant should have made the application for review within reasonable period of time being 180 days, from the 26 June 2013 alternatively on or about 25^th September 2015, I submit that the alternative 180 days expired on or about 30^th March 2016.

• The Applicant has failed to provide tangible reasons or ground for condonation for late application for such review application.

•  

AD PARAGRAPHS 21 TO 22 THEREOF:

• Each and every allegation contained in this paragraph is denied as if each was specifically traversed and the deponent is put to the proof thereof.

• Specifically I deny that the NSF Project have been mostly conducted in secrecy, I have already alluded above that the NSF Project is public knowledge.

•  

AD PARAGRAPHS 23 TO 24 THEREOF:

Save to state that I have no knowledge of these allegations contained in these paragraphs. The Applicant has failed to cite the Intervening parties despite knowing that they have direct interest in the matter before Honourable Court.

•  

AD PARAGRAPH 25 THEREOF:

• I have no knowledge of the communication between  of the Applicant and the respondent, but I have read the annexure “FA3” attached to the Applicant Founding Affidavit and which to respond as follows:

• The Military Veterans Act 18 of 2011 has no bearing on Re-ranking of former members of the Non-Statutory Force;

• The Military Veterans Act 18 of 2011, is not a source of integration or re-ranking of members of the NSF into the South African Police Service, I have already alluded above that the law governing integration was firstly laid in the Transitional Executive Council Act 1993, which provide the basis for integration of various armed forces, secondly Section 224 of the Interim Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 200 of 1993 (“Interim Constitution”), established the supreme authority for such an integration, Schedule 6 of the Constitution Act 1996.

• I am advised an advice I accept to be correct that the Military Veterans Act 18 of 2011, is not relevant to the issues before the Honourable Court;

• Section 1 of the Military Veterans Act 18 of 2011 speak to the identity of military veterans and not integration and or re-ranking of the members of the NSF in the SAPS;

• Section 3 of the Military Veterans Act 18 of 2011 speak to aid to be provided to military veterans and not members of the NSF in the SAPS;

• Section 5 of the Military Veterans Act 18 of 2011 speak to pension military veterans and not integration and or re-ranking of the members of the NSF in the SAPS;

• In view of the above paragraph, I am advised an advice I accept to be correct that the Military Veterans Act 18 of 2011 and contents thereof have no bearing in the re-ranking of members of the NSF.

• I deny that the procedure for members of the NSF to be recognised in the SAPS and to receive benefit is provided for in Section 5 of the Military Veterans Act 18 of 2011, in fact the Military Veterans Act has nothing to do with Re-ranking and any benefit relating to integration.

• I submit that the author of the said letter annexure “FA3” to the Applicant Founding Affidavit has no understanding of the procedure and the requirements of integration and re-ranking of former members of the NSF. I have already alluded above such requirements.

• I have already alluded above, that Rank-review/integration is not promotion, in fact it addressing the wrongs minted of the past, the laws governing integration processes are laid in the Transitional Executive Council Act 1993, which provide the basis for integration of various armed forces, secondly Section 224 of the Interim Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 200 of 1993 (“Interim Constitution”), established the supreme authority for such an integration.

•  

AD PARAGRAPHS 26 TO 27 THEREOF:

• Each and every allegation contained in this paragraph is denied as if each was specifically traversed and the deponent is put to the proof thereof.

• Specifically in view of paragraphs 41.1 to 42.5 above, I deny that the Respondents acted blatantly in disregard of the rights of former statutory members. In fact the Applicant in his own words admits that the rights of statutory members are protected by the Government Employees’ Pension Law, Interim Constitution and the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act, 1996.

• Annexure “FA 4” to the Applicant Founding Affidavit set out clearly the correct bases for Re-ranking in line with the provisions of the rule of law.

•  I am advised an advice I accept to be correct that Integration and re-ranking of 10 former police forces and two NSF members is by operation of law.

•  

AD PARAGRAPHS 28 TO 30 THEREOF:

• Save to admit that meetings of Provincial Coordinators are called from time to time to brief Provincial Coordinators about the progress of the NSF Project. In my understanding the provincial coordinators meetings have nothing to do with former members of the statutory forces as it addresses the plight of former NSF members in the SAPS.

• I further deny that former member of the NSF have been integrated into the South African Police Service, I have already alluded above, the requirements of integration and that such requirements were never adhered to.

• It is understandable that the concerns of Applicant members is related to one deliverable namely the re-ranking of members of the NSF which may bring about transformation within the South African Police Service which members of the Applicant are oppose to.

•  

AD PARAGRAPH 31 TO 32 THEREOF:

The contents of these paragraphs are noted.

•  

AD PARAGRAPHS 33 TO 33.1.5 THEREOF:

The contents of these paragraphs are noted.

•  

AD PARAGRAPH 34 THEREOF:

• Each and every allegation contained in this paragraph is denied as if each was specifically traversed and the deponent is put to the proof thereof.

• Specifically, I deny that members of former NSF are currently being apparently haphazardly promoted country-wide to senior positions in the SAPS as alleged.

• It is clear that the Applicant is not worried about the four other deliverable but focuses on the re-ranking.
•  

AD PARAGRAPHS 35 TO 36 THEREOF:

The contents of these paragraphs are noted

•  

AD PARAGRAPH 37 THEREOF:

• Save to state that integration and re-ranking has its own requirements and is not reliant on the SAPS promotion policy.

• I have already alluded above, that Rank-review/integration is not promotion, in fact it addressing the wrongs minted of the past, the laws governing integration processes are laid in the Transitional Executive Council Act 1993, which provide the basis for integration of various armed forces, secondly Section 224 of the Interim Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 200 of 1993 (“Interim Constitution”), established the supreme authority for such an integration.

• I am advised an advice I accept to be correct that the National Instruction (No. 4 of 2010) and National Instruction (No 11 of 2017) are not relevant and or are not the basis for integration and or re-ranking they deal with normal promotion of all members of the SAPS. In fact integration and re-ranking can even place former members of the NSF supernumerary to the structure of the SAPS.

• Specifically we deny that re-ranking and or integration is an exercise of job reservation in favour of the former NSF members. I submit that this process is addressing the ills of the past.

• The re-ranking of former non statutory members is not reliant on the existence of funded SAPS posts thus I submit that the allegation has no substance as far as it relate to re-ranking of former NSF members.

•  

AD PARAGRAPH 38 THEREOF:

• Each and every allegation contained in this paragraph is denied as if each was specifically traversed and the deponent is put to the proof thereof.

• Specifically, I deny that the original law affecting the placing of military veterans is the only suitable law. In fact the Military Veterans Act 18 of 2011 is not applicable to re-ranking and or integration. I have already alluded that re-ranking and or integration are governed by Transitional Executive Council Act 1993, which provide the basis for integration of various armed forces, secondly Section 224 of the Interim Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 200 of 1993 (“Interim Constitution”), established the supreme authority for such an integration.

• Furthermore, section 189 of the Interim Constitution provide for benefits to be accorded to former members of the NSF in the Government service that include the South African Police Services, the Special Pension Act is one of the legislation enacted to provide for the pension of the former Non-Statutory Forces members and the Government Employees Pension Law 1996.

•  

AD PARAGRAPH 39 THEREOF:

• Each and every allegation contained in this paragraph is denied as if each was specifically traversed and the deponent is put to the proof thereof.

• Specifically, I deny that the re-ranking is dependent on vacant funded and advertised posts available before re-ranking of NSF former members can take place.

• I have already alluded above, that integration and or re-ranking of members of the NSF is not dependant on the availability of funded posts but can be placed supernumerary to SAPS structure.

•  

AD PARAGRAPHS 40 TO 40.2 THEREOF:

• Each and every allegation contained in this paragraph is denied as if each was specifically traversed and the deponent is put to the proof thereof.

• Specifically, I deny that the NSF members were represented by Lieutenant General Gary Cruiser a former member of the South African Police (SAP) at integration.

• In fact no proper integration process was ever undertaken by the South African Police Services prior to the SAPS NSF Re-Ranking Committee.

• I am advised an advice I accept to be correct that no placement board/committee was ever sanctioned by the SAPS, and if it existed and or that was the case, the Applicant would have annexed the administrative order governing the such placement board/committee and the minutes of the placement board/committee of each and every member of the former Non-Statutory Forces.

•  

AD PARAGRAPH 40.3 THEREOF:

• I have no knowledge of these facts, I submit that they have no bearing on the re-ranking/integration of Non-Statutory Forces promotion of SAPS members have nothing to do with integration/re-ranking of former Non-Statutory Forces members.

• Integration/Re-Ranking requires that placement b/committee be setup with clear guidelines provided in the administrative order governing such placement board/committee with the provisions that representative former NSF must be present at the placement of each and every member of those former forces.

• I have already alluded above, that integration/re-ranking is by operation of law and is governed by Transitional Executive Council Act 1993, which provide the basis for integration of various armed forces, secondly Section 224 of the Interim Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 200 of 1993 (“Interim Constitution”), established the supreme authority for such an integration.

• Furthermore, section 189 of the Interim Constitution provide for benefits to be accorded to former members of the NSF in the Government service that include the South African Police Services, the Special Pension Act is one of the legislation enacted to provide for the pension of the former Non-Statutory Forces members and the Government Employees Pension Law 1996.

• The Respondents agreement 1/2002 with Safety and Security Sectorial Bargaining Council (“SSSBC”) is about promotion and not re-ranking/integration of former members of the NSF.

•  

AD PARAGRAPHS 41 TO 41.8 THEREOF:

The contents of these paragraphs are noted but wish to add and say they have no bearing to the requirements of re-ranking/integration of members of the former NSF.

•  

AD PARAGRAPHS 42 TO 44 THEREOF:

• I have already alluded that re-ranking/integration of former members of the Non-Statutory Forces is not governed by Military Veterans Act 18 of 2011 and is not applicable to re-ranking/integration. I have further alluded that the provisions of Labour Relations Act, 1995 are not applicable to re-ranking/integration.

• Furthermore, I have already alluded that re-ranking/integration is governed by Transitional Executive Council Act 1993, which provide the basis for integration/re-ranking of various armed forces, secondly Section 224 of the Interim Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 200 of 1993 (“Interim Constitution”), established the supreme authority for such an integration.

• I have alluded that promotion has no bearing on re-ranking/integration, I have already alluded above that there is a difference between promotion and re-ranking/integration.

•  

AD PARAGRAPHS 45 TO 46 THEREOF:

• Each and every allegation contained in these paragraphs is denied as if each was specifically traversed and the deponent is put to the proof thereof.

• I have already alluded above, that integration/re-ranking is by operation of law and is governed by Transitional Executive Council Act 1993, which provide the basis for integration of various armed forces, secondly Section 224 of the Interim Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 200 of 1993 (“Interim Constitution”), established the supreme authority for such an integration.

• Furthermore, I have alluded that section 189 of the Interim Constitution provide for benefits to be accorded to former members of the NSF in the Government service that include the South African Police Services, the Special Pension Act is one of the legislation enacted to provide for the pension of the former Non-Statutory Forces members and the Government Employees Pension Law 1996.

•  

AD PARAGRAPHS 47 TO 48 THEREOF:

• Each and every allegation contained in these paragraphs is denied as if each was specifically traversed and the deponent is put to the proof thereof.

• The Applicant is relying on Military Veterans Act 18 of 2011, South African Police Service Employment Regulations 2008, and National Instruction 4/2010 which all are not applicable to Re-ranking/integration.

•  

AD PARAGRAPH 49 THEREOF:

Save to state that I have no knowledge of these allegations; the contents of this paragraph are note.

•  

AD PARAGRAPH 50 THEREOF:

I have already alluded above, that the South African Police Service Employment Regulations 2008, is not applicable to re-ranking/integration.

•  

AD PARAGRAPHS 51 TO 53.5 THEREOF:

• Each and every allegation contained in these paragraphs is denied as if each was specifically traversed and the deponent is put to the proof thereof.

• Specifically, I deny that the Military Veterans Act 18 of 2011, South African Police Service Employment Regulations 2008, and National Instruction 4/2010 are applicable to re-ranking/integration of the former NSF members in the SAPS.

• I have already alluded that re-ranking and or integration are governed by Transitional Executive Council Act 1993, which provide the basis for integration of various armed forces, secondly Section 224 of the Interim Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 200 of 1993 (“Interim Constitution”), established the supreme authority for such an integration.

• Furthermore, I have alluded that section 189 of the Interim Constitution provide for benefits to be accorded to former members of the NSF in the Government service that include the South African Police Services, the Special Pension Act is one of the legislation enacted to provide for the pension of the former Non-Statutory Forces members and the Government Employees Pension Law 1996.

• The Applicant reliance on the laws that are not applicable to re-ranking/integration of former members of the Non-Statutory Forces is misguided and irrelevant to the issues before the Honourable Court.

•  

AD PARAGRAPHS 54 TO 57 THEREOF:

I have already alluded at paragraphs 23 TO 23.5 above, the difference between promotion and re-ranking/integration.

• Promotion, it is the requirement that members of the South African Police Service must comply with certain minimum  requirements in line with the SAPS promotion policy of the SAPS issued in the National Instruction 1/2004 as amended from time to time:

• There must be a vacant post, advertised, funded;

• Competence: applicant must have defined blend of knowledge, skills, behaviour and aptitude that a person can apply in the work environment; and

• Determined course: Compulsory course determined by the National Commissioner for the development of that member must be successfully completed before the member may be considered for promotion.

Re-ranking/integration

• The purpose of Re-ranking/rank review is/was to address the prejudices suffered by former Non Statutory Members during integrated processes at the South African Police Service. It is submitted that the promotion policy does not apply in their case, only integration agreed upon processes are applicable.

Integration Processes

• Integration processes as agreed upon by Joint Military Co-ordinating Council (JMCC) entailing the following:

• Member reporting at the place, time and date, where she/he is required to report for integration;

• The administration set up a representative placement board/committee consisting of representatives of both Statutory and Non-Statutory Forces, that will determine the level the member operated at his former force and determine a suitable rank and courses that the member must undertake to be able to operate at that level;

• Educational requirements, if member has no required certificate, member should and or must be subjected to potential test;

• Recognition of prior learning that include all training both military and civilian;

• Years of service in the former force; and

• The level the member operated.

• Further set up the appeal procedure for integrating members if not happy with the decision of the placement board could have their right to appeal realised; and

• Re-appeal to the Director General/National Commissioner Appeal Board/Committee.

• The law governing integration was firstly laid in the Transitional Executive Council Act 1993, which provide the basis for integration of various armed forces, secondly Section 224 of the Interim Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 200 of 1993 (“Interim Constitution”), established the supreme authority for such an integration, Schedule 6 of the Constitution Act 1996.

• The Applicant continues to refer to former Non- Statutory Forces members, presently serving in the South African Police Service as “veterans” discriminating them from other members of other statutory forces integrated into the South African Police Service.

•  

AD PARAGRAPHS 58 TO 81 THEREOF:

• The contents of these paragraphs are noted, the intervening parties reserve its rights to supplement its papers in response to these paragraphs.

•  

AD PARAGRAPH 82 THEREOF:

• Each and every allegation contained in these paragraphs is denied as if each was specifically traversed and the deponent is put to the proof thereof.

• Specifically, I deny that the “NSF process was initiated to elevate the majority of NSF members to commanding positions”.

• I have already alluded above, the reasons for existence of NSF project and processes.

•  

AD PARAGRAPH 83 THEREOF:

• Save to state that the statement by MKMVA is a political statement, which does not take away the integration rights of former NSF members in the active service of the SAPS.

• Furthermore, it highlights the integration rights of all NSF former members within the SAPS, which is based on the integration processes as firstly laid in the Transitional Executive Council Act 1993, which provide the basis for integration of various armed forces, secondly Section 224 of the Interim Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 200 of 1993 (“Interim Constitution”), established the supreme authority for such an integration, Schedule 6 of the Constitution Act 1996.

•  

AD PARAGRAPH 84 THEREOF:

• Each and every allegation contained in these paragraphs is denied as if each was specifically traversed and the deponent is put to the proof thereof.

• Specifically, I deny that the Re-ranking is a preferential promotion planned for the politically-connected “military veterans” in the SAPS, In fact the Deponent to the Applicant’s Founding Affidavit does not recognise former members of the Non-Statutory forces as members of the SAPS having the rights to integrate into the SAPS.

• Furthermore, I deny that the Re-ranking is violation of section 197 (2) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act, 1996.

• I have already alluded above the deference between promotion and re-ranking.

•  

AD PARAGRAPHS 85 TO 87 THEREOF:

I have already responded to these allegations above, and I have already alluded at paragraphs 23 TO 23.5 above, the deference between promotion and re-ranking/integration.

• Promotion, it is the requirement that members of the South African Police Service must comply with certain minimum  requirements in line with the SAPS promotion policy of the SAPS issued in the National Instruction 1/2004 as amended from time to time:

• There must be a vacant post, advertised, funded;

• Competence: applicant must have defined blend of knowledge, skills, behaviour and aptitude that a person can apply in the work environment; and

• Determined course: Compulsory course determined by the National Commissioner for the development of that member must be successfully completed before the member may be considered for promotion.

Re-ranking/integration

• The purpose of Re-ranking/rank review is/was to address the prejudices suffered by former Non Statutory Members during integrated processes at the South African Police Service. It is submitted that the promotion policy does not apply in their case, only integration agreed upon processes are applicable.

Integration Processes

• Integration processes as agreed upon by Joint Military Co-ordinating Council (JMCC) entailing the following:

• Member reporting at the place, time and date, where she/he is required to report for integration;

• The administration set up a representative placement board/committee consisting of representatives of both Statutory and Non-Statutory Forces, that will determine the level the member operated at his former force and determine a suitable rank and courses that the member must undertake to be able to operate at that level;

• Educational requirements, if member has no required certificate, member should and or must be subjected to potential test;

• Recognition of prior learning that include all training both military and civilian;

• Years of service in the former force; and

• The level the member operated.

• Further set up the appeal procedure for integrating members if not happy with the decision of the placement board could have their right to appeal realised; and

• Re-appeal to the Director General/National Commissioner Appeal Board/Committee.

• The law governing integration was firstly laid in the Transitional Executive Council Act 1993, which provide the basis for integration of various armed forces, secondly Section 224 of the Interim Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 200 of 1993 (“Interim Constitution”), established the supreme authority for such an integration, Schedule 6 of the Constitution Act 1996.

• In view of the above paragraphs, the Applicant continues with his discriminatory attacks on the former members of the NSF serving in the SAPS against the prescripts of the provisions of the constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act, 1996.

•  

AD PARAGRAPHS 88 THEREOF:

• Each and every allegation contained in these paragraphs is denied as if each was specifically traversed and the deponent is put to the proof thereof.

• Specifically, I deny that the entire NSF project is contrary to legislation and the rule of law.

• I have alluded that the law governing integration was firstly laid in the Transitional Executive Council Act 1993, which provide the basis for integration of various armed forces, secondly Section 224 of the Interim Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 200 of 1993 (“Interim Constitution”), established the supreme authority for such an integration, annexure D of Schedule 6 of the Constitution Act 1996

• I am advised an advice I accept to be correct that the Applicant must first challenge the legality of the Transitional Executive Council Act 1993, Interim Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 200 of 1993 and the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act, 1996 to be declared unconstitutional before it can challenge the constitutionality of the re-ranking/integration of the former members of the NSF into the SAPS.

• I am advised an advice I accept to be correct that such challenge if successful, has far more reaching consequences not only to South African Police Services but to all security clusters that has been subjected to integration/re-ranking of all NSF members, the South African National Defence Force will be the worst affected by the decision thereof.
•  

AD PARAGRAPH 89 THEREOF:

• Each and every allegation contained in these paragraphs is denied as if each was specifically traversed and the deponent is put to the proof thereof.

• Specifically, I deny that PAJA is applicable in this matter.

• Furthermore, I deny that the section 1 (c) of the Constitution is applicable in this matter.

• The Applicant’ does comply with the requirements of Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (“PAJA”) in that the Applicant does or not have the requisite exemption order as provided for in terms of Section 7 (2) (c)  of PAJA, read with section 9 (1) and (2) of PAJA, in order to institute the review proceedings against the Respondents;

• The Applicant has not challenged the constitutionality of the laws governing integration/re-ranking namely:

• Transitional Executive Council Act 1993, the first law that laid grounds for legislation governing integration/re-ranking;

•  Interim Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 200 of 1993; and

• Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act, 1996.
•  

AD PARAGRAPHS 90 TO 91 THEREOF:

• I have already alluded above, that integrated members of the former apartheid South African Police (“SAP”).  TBVC police forces and homeland police forces were not affected at integration as they all continued with their ranks held in their former forces.

• On the other hand former members of the Non-Statutory Forces were subjected to a process to determine the rank level to operate from and the training that the individual must undertake.

• I have further alluded that this process was not undertaken by South African Police Service until 2013 when the Re-ranking Project was registered resulting in the setting up of the South African Police Service Re-Ranking Committee

• Applicant members cannot benefit twice, first benefiting by retaining its rank held from former force and the after benefit from re-ranking.

• The Applicant wants to retain the apartheid structures that existed prior the introduction of the rule of law and constitutional democracy.

•  

AD PARAGRAPHS 92 TO 95 THEREOF:

• I have already alluded that re-ranking/integration of former members of the Non-Statutory Forces is not governed by Military Veterans Act 18 of 2011 and is not applicable to re-ranking/integration.
  • I have further alluded that the provisions of Labour Relations Act, 1995 are not applicable to re-ranking/integration.

• Furthermore, I have already alluded that re-ranking/integration is governed by Transitional Executive Council Act 1993, which provide the basis for integration/re-ranking of various armed forces, secondly Section 224 of the Interim Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 200 of 1993 (“Interim Constitution”), established the supreme authority for such an integration.

• I have alluded that promotion has no bearing on re-ranking/integration, I have already alluded that there is a difference between promotion and re-ranking/integration.

• I repeat the contents of paragraphs 23 to 23.5 above, as if they form part of this paragraph.

•  

AD PARAGRAPH 96 THEREOF:

• Each and every allegation contained in these paragraphs is denied as if each was specifically traversed and the deponent is put to the proof thereof.

• Specifically, I deny that the re-ranking is unlawful, unconstitutional, irrational, unreasonable and invalid.

• The Applicant has not challenged the constitutionality of the laws governing integration/re-ranking namely:

• Transitional Executive Council Act 1993, the first law that laid grounds for legislation governing integration/re-ranking;

•  Interim Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 200 of 1993; and

• Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act, 1996.

•  

AD PARAGRAPH 97 THEREOF:

• Each and every allegation contained in these paragraphs is denied as if each was specifically traversed and the deponent is put to the proof thereof.

• Specifically, I deny that the re-ranking is discrimination in the hands of the State officials.

• I have already alluded above, that integrated members of the former apartheid South African Police (“SAP”).  TBVC police forces and homeland police forces were not affected at integration as they all continued with their ranks held in their former forces.

• On the other hand former members of the Non-Statutory Forces were subjected to a process of placement board/committee to determine the rank level a member can operate from and the training that the individual must undertake.

• It is not correct to allege that the re-ranking of former Non-Statutory Members is a blatant disregard to constitutional rights to equality, in fact the re-ranking is the opposite of the allegation, re-ranking addresses the wrongs of the past, it brings the SAPS back to the prescripts of the JMCC agreements, Transitional Executive Council Act 1993, Interim Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 200 of 1993; and Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act, 1996.

•  

AD PARAGRAPHS 98 TO 99 THEREOF:

• Each and every allegation contained in these paragraphs is denied as if each was specifically traversed and the deponent is put to the proof thereof.

• Specifically, I deny that the reasons proffered for the NSF project are inadequate.

• The Applicant case is based on erroneous interpretation and or application of the law governing re-ranking/integration:

• JMCC agreements;

• Transitional Executive Council Act 1993;

• Interim Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 200 of 1993; and

• Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act, 1996.

• I have already alluded above, that Re-ranking/integration is not an administrative action as envisage by section 33 of the Constitution read with section of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 3 of 2000.

• Re-ranking/integration is not a labour relations matter and or administrative matter,

• I have alluded that Re-ranking/integration is a political decision and operation of law.

•  

AD PARAGRAPH 100 TO 102 THEREOF:

• Each and every allegation contained in these paragraphs is denied as if each were specifically traversed and the deponent is put to the proof thereof.

• Specifically, I deny that the Respondents exercise of power in relation to the NSF project was arbitrary.

• I have already alluded above, that Re-ranking/integration is not an administrative action as envisage by section 33 of the Constitution read with section of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 3 of 2000.

• The Respondents are required by law to integrate/re-rank the intervening parties in line with the provisions of the JMCC agreements, Transitional Executive Council Act 1993, Interim Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 200 of 1993; and Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act, 1996.

•  

AD PARAGRAPHS 103 TO 108 THEREOF:

• Each and every allegation contained in these paragraphs is denied as if each was specifically traversed and the deponent is put to the proof thereof.

• Specifically, I deny that the Respondents discriminate against Applicant members by embarking on the NSF project.

• I deny that the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000 is applicable in this case.

• The Respondents are required by law to integrate/re-rank the intervening parties in line with the provisions of the JMCC agreements, Transitional Executive Council Act 1993, Interim Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 200 of 1993; and Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act, 1996.

•  

AD PARAGRAPH 109 THEREOF:

• The Intervening Parties are officially not informed of the South African Police Service Non-Statutory Forces Re-ranking Committee recommendations accept what was published by the Applicant in the media.

• The process requires that before the South African Police Service Non-Statutory Forces Re-ranking Committee recommendations are made known to any person, first recommendations must be presented to the Respondents for approval, thereafter presented to cabinet, followed by Portfolio Committee on Security and Parliament for final approval before members are advised about the results of their re-ranking and implementation of such re-ranking.

• I am advised an advice I accept to be correct, that it would have been unwise for the Respondents to publish the recommendations of the South African Police Service Non-Statutory Forces Re-ranking Committee prior presenting to Cabinet, Portfolio Committee and parliament for final approval, as it could create an expectation.

•  

AD PARAGRAPH 110 THEREOF:

• Each and every allegation contained in these paragraphs is denied as if each was specifically traversed and the deponent is put to the proof thereof.

• Specifically, I deny that the registration of the NSF project in 2013 constitute an administrative decision orbiting the NSF project.

• The NSF Project was registered on or about 26 day of June 2013 five (5) years ago almost one thousand eight hundred and twenty five day, the Applicant members were fully aware of the NSF Project from that time onwards.

• It is submitted that the Applicant had the opportunity to challenge and or review the registration of the NSF project within 180 days from 26 day of June 2013 up and until 31 December 2013.

• Alternatively, the Applicant and or its members had the opportunity to challenge and or review the appointment of the South African Police Service Non-Statutory Forces Re-ranking Committee within 180 days from 14^th day of July 2015 up and until 31 January 2017.

• The Applicant has not provided any tangible reasons for delay in his application for review after five (5) years; almost one thousand eight hundred and twenty five day after the NSF project was registered.

• Alternatively, Applicant has not provided any tangible reasons for delay in his application for review after three (3) years; almost one thousand and ninety five (1095) days after the South African Police Service Non-Statutory Forces Re-ranking Committee was appointed.

•  

AD PARAGRAPHS 111 TO 114 THEREOF:

• Each and every allegation contained in these paragraphs is denied as if each was specifically traversed and the deponent is put to the proof thereof.

• Specifically, I deny that the details of the NSF project have been shrouded in a veil of secrecy.

• The NSF project was registered on or about 26 day of June 2013. I submit that the registration of the NSF project is a public knowledge.

• I have already alluded that the South African Police Service Non-Statutory Forces Re-ranking Committee was appointed on or about 14^th day of July 2015 and is a public knowledge.

• I have alluded that re-ranking/integration is not promotion and does not fall under promotion policy of the Respondents.

•  

AD PARAGRAPHS 115 TO 118 THEREOF:

• Each and every allegation contained in these paragraphs is denied as if each was specifically traversed and the deponent is put to the proof thereof.

• Specifically, I deny the assertions that the Non-Statutory Forces project is unlawful, unconstitutional, discriminatory and abuse of power by the Respondents.

• Further I deny that the prejudice that the Applicant stands to suffer should condonation not be granted far outweighs the prejudice to be suffered by the intervening parties, Respondents and public interest.

• Furthermore, I deny that the Applicant’s members who happen to be former members of the apartheid South African Police Force (SAP) are in a dire predicament due to discrimination and unfair and irregular treatment by the respondent. In fact former members of the Non-Statutory Force have been patient with the Respondents as from the date of reporting for integration at South African Police Service.

• I have alluded above that the NSF project was registered on or about 26 day of June 2013, the Applicant and its members did nothing about its registration to date. I submit that the registration of the NSF project is a public knowledge.

• I have already alluded above, that the South African Police Service Non-Statutory Forces Re-ranking Committee was appointed on or about 14^th day of July 2015, the Applicant and its members did nothing about its to date and the appointment of  this committee has been a public knowledge.

•  

AD PARAGRAPH 119 THEREOF:

• Each and every allegation contained in these paragraphs is denied as if each was specifically traversed and the deponent is put to the proof thereof.

• Specifically, I deny that the entire Non-Statutory Forces project constitute a legal nullity to which Applicant application for review finds its nexus.

• I have alluded above, that the Non-Statutory Forces project is based on the provisions of:

•  JMCC agreements;

•  Transitional Executive Council Act 1993;
  • Interim Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 200 of 1993; and

• Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act, 1996.

• I am advised an advice I accept to be correct, that before the Applicant can challenge the Non-Statutory Forces project must first challenge the laws that authority to its existence.

•  

AD PARAGRAPH 120 THEREOF:

• Each and every allegation contained in these paragraphs is denied as if each was specifically traversed and the deponent is put to the proof thereof.

• Specifically, I deny that the Respondents by registering the Non-Statutory Forces project acted untoward, recklessly, and without having regards to the interests of all members of the SAPS, and the interest of the general public.

• The opposite is true; the Non-Statutory Forces project was registered to address the wrongs and prejudice of integration, discrimination and unfair and irregular rank allocation on date of reporting for integration at the South African Police Services.

• Furthermore, it is in the public interest and the South African Police organisational interests to comply with the:

•  CODESA/JMCC agreements;

• the provisions of the Transitional Executive Council Act 1993;

•  comply with Interim Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 200 of 1993; and

• Comply with the prescript of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act, 1996.

• Re-ranking/integration is in the spirit purported by National Peace Accord that helped to pave the way for the multiparty negotiations and the Transitional Council Act 1993, the interim constitution Act and the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act, 1996.

• Integration of all forces brought about credibility, peace, democracy and a democratised single South African Police Service in the Republic of South Africa.

• Proper Integration/re-ranking of former members of the Non-Statutory Forces into the South African Police Service is in the public interest, and the SAPS organisational interests, it contribute to public trust, and democratise and give credibility and trust to the SAPS.

•  

AD PARAGRAPH 121 THEREOF:

• Each and every allegation contained in these paragraphs is denied as if each was specifically traversed and the deponent is put to the proof thereof.

• Specifically, I deny that there is plethora of example of unlawfulness, irregularities and blatant non-compliance with applicable policy and legislation.

• I am advised an advice I accept to be correct that the Applicant must make out its case, in its founding affidavit and cannot introduce new facts in his replying affidavit.

• Further the Applicant must sketch out a full picture in his/her founding affidavit to enable the respondents to give a tangible answer to the allegations. It is tried law that the Applicant must make out a case in his/her founding affidavit, applicant cannot make out a case in the replying affidavit.

•  

• The Intervening parties and I accordingly respectfully pray for an order:

• Granting us leave to intervene in the application proceedings;

• Declaring in terms of Rule 6 (5) (d) (iii) that the Applicant does not comply with the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000{“PAJA”) in that the Applicant does not have the requisite exemption order as provided for in terms of Section 7 (2) (c)  of PAJA, in order to institute the review proceedings against the Respondents;

• Declaring that the Applicant does not comply with section 9  (1) and (2) of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000; and

• Dismissing the review application.

COSTS

• We shall seek costs against the any party only in the event that they oppose the intervention of the intervening Parties and I.

WHEREFORE I pray that it may please the above Honourable Court to grant us an order in terms of the notice of motion attached to my affidavit in support of application to intervene and opposing review application.

______________________

DEPONENT

Signed and sworn before me at ………………………………………. this day of January 2019 after the Deponent declared that he is familiar with the contents of this statement and regards the prescribed oath as binding on his conscience and has no objection against taking the said prescribed oath.  There has been compliance with the requirements of the Regulations contained in Government Gazette R1258, dated 21 July 1972 (as amended).

COMMISSIONER OF OATHS:       

FULL NAMES:                              _________________________________

CAPACITY:                                 _________________________________

ADDRESS:                                  _________________________________

                                                  _______________________________

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)

                                                            CASE:  79041/18

Application for admission as party

PHETOE ANNA SEBILWANE                                       First Intervening Party

ADVOCATE ZONDEKA MAKONDO

AFRICAN LAW PROJECT                                           Second Intervening Party

and

OTHERS                                                                    3^rdto 602 Intervening Party

In the matter between:

SOLIDARITY                                                              Applicant

And

NATIONAL COMMISSIONER OF

SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICES, N.O                  First Respondent

MINISTER OF POLICE N.O                                         Second Respondent

SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICE                            Third Respondent

CONFIRMATORY AFFIDAVIT

I the undersigned

PHILLIP DHLAMINI

Do hereby make oath and state:

1. I am an adult male ID: 5112175563087 age 67 years old, residing at 59 Rubidge Avenue Roodepoort West Roodepoort Gauteng Province.

• I am presently a fourth year level LLB degree programme student at the University of Limpopo.

• I swear that the facts deposed to herein are, except where the context otherwise indicates, within my own personal knowledge, and are, in all material respects, true and correct. 

• I have read the affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion to intervene and to oppose the review application deposed by MSPHETOE ANNA SEBILWANE and confirm the correctness thereof insofar as it relates to me and Advocate Zondeka Makondo African Law Project.

______________________

DEPONENT

Signed and sworn before me at Johannesburg this ……… day ofJanuary 2019 after the Deponent declared that he is familiar with the contents of this statement and regards the prescribed oath as binding on his conscience and has no objection against taking the said prescribed oath.  There has been compliance with the requirements of the Regulations contained in Government Gazette R1258, dated 21 July 1972 (as amended).

COMMISSIONER OF OATHS:       

FULL NAMES:                               _________________________________

CAPACITY:                                  _________________________________

ADDRESS:                                    _________________________________

                                                   _______________________________