Improving the Police Amendment Bill

The Good sides of the Draft Law 

• The remit of the Ministry of Interior (MoI) has been laid out in greater detail.
• Provision is made under the law for the strategic planning office to be involved in the strategic assessment of public security.
• A platform for secure electronic communication, exchange of data and information should pave the way for a national criminal intelligence system to be established.
• Impediments to employment on security grounds are regulated in greater detail.
• An extension of the time limits for conducting disciplinary proceedings are a welcome addition.

The Bad sides of the Draft Law 

• The number of exemptions to employment in the MoI via open calls for applications has been increased.
• The profile of persons that may be subject to security checks has been widened without justification.
• The independence of the work carried out by the Ministry’s Internal Affairs Department is further jeopardised.
• The remit and planned duties of the Police Directorate’s new organisational unit named “The Protection Unit” are unclear.
• The Police Amendment Bill was put to the National Assembly a little less than two years after enactment of the initial law.
• There is no justification for extending the time limit for adopting by-laws by a further two years since enactment of the new legislation.
• The police has not been identified clearly and unequivocally as a separate organisational unit within the MoI.
• Trustworthiness to serve in the police service is viewed from the perspective of security concerns, and not from the perspective of MoI employment criteria.
• The right to solidarity assistance to employees is restricted unduly.
• The public nature of the disciplinary procedure is abolished.

Missed Opportunities

• The remit of the special police unit and stand-alone police units are not regulated in detail.
• Requirements for recording police officers in the line of duty are not specified.
• The use of concerted search measures has not been governed in terms of relations with public prosecutor’s office and evidentiary measures under the Criminal Procedure Code.
• An opportunity has been missed to strengthen the legal framework around the operational independence of the police and set down the tasks of organisational units of the Ministry that conduct internal police affairs.
• New anti-corruption measures (integrity test, corruption risk analysis, checking employee asset declarations and changes thereto) are not yet fully regulated.
• A chance has been missed to distinguish between actions in disciplinary and complaint proceedings.
• Individuals eligible for admission or promotion in the service, and come from under-represented groups within the institution, are not afforded priority when admissions are open or promotions are being made.