WRITTEN DECISION: EXPEDITIOUS PROCEDURE - MEETING PROCEEDINGS: MISCONDUCT: 0527129-1 MAJOR GENERAL JA VEAREY CASE NUMBER: HQ DR 05/2020 PARTICULARS OF PROCEEDINGS AND. REPRESENTATION TERR ARS OF PROCEEDINGS AND REPRESENTATION The Expeditious Procedure Meeting Proceedings were held on the 23” of April 2021, the 4" and 21" May 2021 at Cape Town. Lieutenant General LE Ntshinga (myself) deatt with the proceedings in my capacity, as the duly appointed Functionary, as designated by the National Commissioner of the South African Police Service (SAPS) in terms of Regulation 9(1) of the South African Police Service Disciplinary Regulations of 2016 (Regulations). The charged employee, No. 0527129-1 Major General JA Vearey was present at the Meeting and represented by Lieutenant General PA Jacobs, a “fellow employee” from Division: Inspectorate. Messr Patrick Rolani, Johnson and Mari Mani from the Trade Union POPCRU were also in attendance at the meeting — on different dates, and | had allowed them to sit in at the proceedings in the capacity of observers. ISSUE IN DISPUTE As the duly appointed Funectionary, | must determine whether the employee, Major General Vearey, has committed misconduct on the date and place as described in the notice of Expeditious Process, dated 22 April 2021, which was Issued under my hand. In deciding whether the employee has committed {nisconduct or not, | must have heard the employee's version, pit it against {he allegations of misconduct brought against the employee and decide c+ the verdict, as contemplated in Regulation 9(2)(d) of the Regulations. BACKGROUND TO THE DIPUTE BACKGROUND TO THE DIPUTE Section 40 of the SAPS Act, 1996, Act No 68 of 1985, read. with the SAPS sacipine Regulations of 2016, empower the National Commissioner of the South African Police Service, as Employer, to institute Disciplinary Processes10. 11. against an employee of the SAPS, if the employer holds a reasonable suspicion that the employee concemed had committed an act of misconduct. For the purpose of the Expeditious Procedure Meeting the nature of misconduct ought to be the misconduct contemplated Regulation 5(4) of the Regulations. In the present case, the employer held a suspicion that the employee had contravened the provisions of Regulation 5 (4)(X) of the Regulation, by committing an act of misconduct which is described or set out in the Notice of the Expeditious Process dated 22 April 2021 At the time of the commission of the alleged misconduct, the employee was stationed at the Provincial Commissioner. Western Cape, serving in the Capacity of the Deputy Provincial Commissioner responsible for Crime Detection. The employer had conducted an investigation into the alleged misconduct by the employee. Upon finalization of the investigation process, the National Commissioner of the SAPS had invoked the provisions of Regulation 9() of the Regulations, by appointing Lieutenant General LE Nishinga, the Designated Person (myself), to deal with the matter against the employee, by way of Expeditious Process. The first Meeting was convened on Friday, the 23°° April 2021 at Cape Town. The Meeting was postponed to the 4" May 2021 at the request of the employee, $0 as, to allow the employee, more time to prepare his own defense. On the 4" May 2021, the employee had raised complaints relating to the process which had led to him being subjected to the Expeditious Process, and | had adjourned the proceedings until the 21* May 2021 to consider the ues complained of. The employee had responded to the allegations of misconduct, on May, 21* 2021 SONDUCT OF THE PROCEEDINGS SONBUCT OF THE PROCEEDINGS 12, 13, 14. Regulation 9(1) of the Regulations requires that an official be designated by the National Commissioner to deal with the matter by way of conducting the Expeditious Procedure. The person concerned must be an employee of the BAPS. The person concemed may not hold the rank below that of Brigadier. Once appointed, the person concemed assumes the powers of the ‘employer. Regulation 9(2)(a) requires the designated person to consider the information (that includes reports, statements and any other evidence, if it is available) at his/her disposal, and satisfy himself/herself that the allegations against the employee fall within the ambit of Regulation 5(4) of the Regulations. If the person concemed is not satisfied that the allegations of misconduct by {he employes is not the act referred to in Regulation 5(4) of the Regulations,15. 16. 17. 18. 19. he or she must refer the matter back to the office of the Appointing Authority and recommend that the matter be dealt with, through a normal disciplinary hearing in accordance with Regulation 9(2)(b). Should the person concerned be satisfied that the alleged misconduct by the employee is the misconduct described in Regulation 5(4) of the Regulations, he/she must instruct the employee to appear before him/her at the Expeditious Process Meeting. When the charged employee appear before him/her, the person concerned must inform the employee of the allegations of misconduct levelled against him/her in accordance with Regulation 9(2)(c) The employee must be given an opportunity to defend himself/herself against the allegations of misconduct brought. Meaning that the employee must be afforded an opportunity to make representation to the allegations (the employee must not be denied of his/her right to be heard), Regulation 9 provides that the employee charged with misconduct in terms of Regulation 9(2) must appear at a Meeting, and not at a disciplinary hearing, The provisions of Regulation 11 of the Regulations regulate the holding of the normal disciplinary hearing, which is not the case in the matter before me, At the Meeting, no witnesses will be called by either of the two parties. For that reason, there shall be no evidence to be led. At the Meeting there will be no Points in Limine taken by either of the two parties (the employer and employee), as there is no impartial chairperson to rule on the issues raised CHARGE 20. 24 The employee was charged with the contravention of the provisions of Regulation 5(4)(x) of the Regulations, in that, on the date and at the place ‘Specified or mentioned in the notice of Expeditious Process, the employee had brought the name of the employer into disrepute. The full particulars of the charged are described in the Notice. As per the documentary evidence at my disposal, the following allegations were made against the employee: * On oF about the 16" February 2021, Major General Vearey, the employee, was in the employ of the SAPS; Lé0Between the 7" December 2020 and the 25" February 2021, General KJ Sitole was the National Commissioner of the SAPS, and to this day he still is; The employee was holding the rank of Major General (equivalent to the position of Chief Director in the Public Service Administration), and he still is; The employee was stationed at the Provincial Commissioner: Western Cape, serving in the capacity of the Deputy Provincial Commissioner for Crime Detection; The employer had instituted disciplinary process against Lieutenant General Jacobs and the five (5) other employees of the SAPS. The matter related to the procurement of the COVID-19 Personal Protective Equipment (PPEs) at the Division: Crime Intelligence; Lieutenant General Jacobs was the Divisional Commissioner responsible at the aforesaid Division, at the time; The matter against Lieutenant General Jacobs and the five (5) others was investigated by Lieutenant General Vuma (current Deputy National ‘Commissioner for Support Services in the SAPS); Upon the finalization of the investigation process in that matter, the National Commissioner of the SAPS had appointed Lieutenant General Ledwaba (who was serving as the Provincial Commissioner of Limpopo, at the time), to deal with the Crime Intelligence case, by way of conducting Expeditious Process in terms of Regulation 9 of the Regulations; Major General Vearey, the employee before me, had appeared on behalf of Lieutenant General Jacobs at the Expeditious Proceedings, which were being presided over by Lieutenant General Ledwaba; The matter against Lieutenant General Jacobs had received an extensive coverage from a Media House called: ‘The Daily Maverick”. Between the 7" December 2020 and the 25!" February 2021, the employee had a Facebook Account, which is a part of the ‘Social Media Network’: The employee had a “Public’ Facebook Account, under the User Name: ‘Jeremy Vearey’; The employee's second name is Jeremy and his last name (surname) is Vearey; ‘The employee's face (which he had used as his Profile Picture) can be seen next to the name ‘Jeremy Vearey’: In the year 2017, the SAPS had created a “Rule” called: National Instruction 5 of 2017, and during the period 7” December 2020 ~ 25" February 2021, the Rule in question was still of full force and effe The Rule applied to employees of the SAPS, including the employee; Since it came into being, all SAPS employees were aware of the aforesaid Rule, and were reasonably expected to have been familiar with the provisions of the National Instruction § of 2017; Paragraph 19 (10)(e)(v) of the National Instruction 5 of 2017 instructs that, “employees of the SAPS may not engage in Online Publication or communication on Social Media, which could bring the Service (SAPS) into disrepute’.The aforesaid provisions of the National Instruction 5 of 2017 further provides that, “Every employee is accountable for statements and comments made by him or her and must give careful consideration to what he or she posts and perceptions that may be created by his or her posts. The content of the posting must not be illegal of disrespectful” On the 7” December 2020, the employee had posted, via his Facebook Online Account, a picture of the National Commissioner of the SAPS; together with the message which reads; “GOOD MORNING AND HOW IS THE MIND TODAY? Lighting up the shadows. A linked media report from the DAILY MAVERICK.CO.ZA “Deep Dive: Sitole vs Jacobs; Again, the employee had, on the 12” December 2020, posted, via his Eacebook Online Account, a picture of Lieutenant General Jacobs with the following comment; “ONCE MORE UNTO THE BRIDGE” and added a quotation, “It is not enough to hate your enemy. You have to understand how the two of you bring each other to deep completion” UNDERWORLD. Don DeLilio. 1998; Again, on the 23 December 2020, the employee had posted. via_his Facebook Online Account, a picture of Lieutenant General Jacobs, with the following comments; “TIME NO LONGER THAN ROPE”, “We won against all their money and power before. And this one we shall win, again, no matter the sacrifice or cost; Again, on the 4" January 2021, the employee had posted, via his Facebook Online Account, the message, “TIME LONGER — THAN ROPE" — and linked it to a media report by the Daily Maverick, “SAPS IN CRISIS: JACOBS Vs SITOLE: Legal ping-pong as nati: Again, on the 16" January 2021, the employee had posted, via his Facebook Qnline Account,_a comment or message, “THE AGE OF BLACKER THAN THOU POLICE POLITICS, OR THE POT OTHERING THE KETTLE BRONZE?” ~ Read, think and decide. The post is placed with a picture of the National Commissioner of the SAPS; Again, on the 17" January 2021, the employee had posted, via his Facebook Online Account, the message, AN ACUTE CASE OF FOOT-IN-MOUTH DISEASE”, a picture of the National Commissioner can be seen in this Posting; Again, on the 24" January 2021, the employee had posted, via his Facebook Qnline Account. a message, “THE YEAR OF DECEIVING DANGEROUSLY”, a picture of the National Commissioner can be seen in this posting: Again, on the 25” February 2021, the employee had posted, via _his Facebook Online Account, a comment or message, “News 24. COM. Crime Intelligence: Peter Jacobs heads to court to halt disciplinary action aml ... the employee had commented on this with the following words: “MOER HULLE! “FUCK THEM!” The employee's Online Postings was seen by many people; A Colin Arendse was inspired by the messages posted Online by the employee;+ Two Senior Officers, Lieutenant Generals Ledwaba and Vuma, whom the National Commissioner had relied upon in dealing with the case of an alleged misconduct against Lieutenant General Jacobs, became aware of the messages Posted Online, via the Facebook Account of the employee, and according to them, the acts of the employee had made them feel intimidated, threatened and unsafe; and * The conduct of the employee, was meant to degrade the National Commissioner and/or disrespect the authority of the leadership of the SAPS, thus bringing the employer into disrepute. EMPLOYEE'S VERSION 22. The employee had elected to defend himself against the allegations of misconduct brought against him, and mentioned the following on record: * He cannot respond to anything as there is no misconduct as dictated by the Regulations; + The act does not qualify an act of disrepute; ‘+ The elements of the charge must conform to the specifics, which inter-alia includes the location (not on or about), date and time (on or about), and the employer's charge sheet does not meet such; * The location determination of the employee cannot be determined. The Social Media will show time and, this has not been indicated in the employer's charge sheet; + The charge itself is seen as not qualifying for any misconduct; + The test does not meet a qualification for misconduct; * The allegations levelled against Major General Vearey do not qualify for an Expeditious Process; * The images of the act as alleged were not presented at the were subsequently tendered; * Major General Schepers was not objective in his decision, because even the words which are cited as negative were used, as seen in the Afrikaans Dictionary; * The digital news article were publicly available and were not altered; * The words were qualified as they were not abusing anyone and did not constitute misconduct; + Those words were not disrespecting; + The matter of Lieutenant General Vuma feeling unsafe cannot be attributed to Major General Vearey, as he was not mentioned on the case that was reported; + General Goss did post messages, but did not put his name on; + The National Commissioner is nowhere reflected or mentioned in the statement, especially when it is clear that all the other persons who featured in the pictures were not interviewed; I stages, butLieutenant Generals Ledwaba and Vuma are part of the leadership; The posts were not in any way aimed at defaming the image of the National Commissioner or anyone; The meaning of the terms (words) therein, especially — the word, ‘MOER’ has negatively interpreted; The version on the words like; ‘FUCK’ you has been quoted out of context and Major General Schepers took a narrow view; The employee had presented a bundle of documents under file name, ‘Authority to Write Maj Gen VEAREY’ ~ 2021-05-04 @ 13:50; 25 pages; The employee had presented a bundle of documents under file name, INTERVIEWILECTURES MAJ GEN VEAREY IN AFRIKAAPS vs AFRIKAANS’ — 2021-05-04 @ 13:50, 15 pages; The employee had presented a bundle of documents under file name, ‘PRISON LANGUAGE BOOK BY: MAJ GEN VEAREY ~ 2021-05-04 @ 13:50; Lieutenant General Ledwaba has also directed his anger to the wrong persons; and On the basis thereof, the employee deny the charge against him. ANALYSIS OF THE INFORMATION 23. 24, | have heard the response of the employee to the allegations of misconduct against him, and | am of the view that the employee is refusing to take responsibility for his own actions, The facts at my disposal indicate that the employee had used modern technology, in the commission of the alleged misconduct. To this very moment, it remains unknown to the employer, as to what is it that had prompted the employee to engage in the acts of the alleged misconduct in the manner that he did, not once, but repeatedly. The facts at my disposal indicates that the employee had used his Facebook Account, on different occasions, between the 7 December 2020 and the 25!” February 2021, to communicate those messages and images. This, the employee had done not once, but eight (8) times. Surely, this specific acts, allegedly by the employee could not have been done accidentally. Circumstantial evidence in this regard points to one definite possibility; namely the acts were carried out by the doer, deliberately and on purpose and it was well calculated move. The acts of the employee, at all times material to the case, point to gross-ilk- discipline on the part of the employee. Whilst defending himself against the allegations of misconduct at the Meeting, the employee had contended that, ‘the words used in his postings were not abusing anyone and did not constitute misconduct’. | have considered the view of the employee, in this regard, and | must disagree with the employee, in that, the words used by the employee in one of his postings were derogatory, degrading and insulting. It is probable that, any reasonably thinking human being, who has not lost the ability to differentiate right from LEP25, 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. wrong would be offended by the acts of the employee, if he or she became aware of the incident(s). In the SAPS, the employer has created the Workplace Rule — called the “SAPS Disciplinary Regulations, 2016", The employer utilizes its Rule Book to dispense discipline in the workplace, including to determine whether an act of misconduct has been committed or not - by the employee. This should be understood by any employee to mean that the duty to decide as to which acts constitute misconduct and which not, resorts under the jurisdiction of the employer, only, Whilst putting-forward his own version at the Meeting, the employee had advanced no valid and/or reasonable explanation as to why did he display the images of the National Commissioner on his Facebook Account. The employee does not deny committing the acts (posting messages and images via his Facebook Account). The failure on the part of the employee to present a valid reason at the Meeting, for having carried out those acts point to a culture of impunity on the part of the employee. The conduct of the employee was unprofessional, unethical, disrespectful, inexcusable and unacceptable. The employee had submitted before me that, the posts were not in any way aimed at defaming the image of the National Commissioner or anyone. | have considered this specific version by the employee, and | truly believe that the employee is not being frank with me. | am satisfied that there was no just or good cause for the employee to use the images of the National Commissioner, and make the negative remarks in his posts, in the manner that he did, at the time. It is of cardinal importance for the employee to recognize that he was the ‘rightful owner’ of the Facebook Account in question, and as the User of the Account in question, it was open for him use it in any manner he wished, but that did not include posting messages and images that are derogatory, insulting and offensive to others. The actions of the employee on those instances were aimed making the National Commissioner and those in the leadership of the SAPS a ‘laughing stock in the community’, and that, in my considered view Is tantamount to bringing the name of the SAPS, as employer, into disrepute. In an attempt to evade responsibility, the employee had tried to play with words like; ‘MOER and FUCK’, by giving them meanings which could “suit” him. The acts of the employee were desperate, to ‘say the least. At the time of the commission of the acts, the employee was serving as the Deputy Provincial Commissioner in the Western Cape. The employee had been serving in a position of trust, power, privilege and responsibility, at the time of the commission of the alleged misconduct. The acts committed, allegedly by the employee, had great potential to inspire cthers, both within and outside the SAPS, to rise and resist the authority of the National Commissioner and of those who are in ‘the leadership of the31. 32. 33. 34. 35. SAPS. This factor alone, has got potential to collapse levels of discipline in the SAPS, if it is left unchecked. \ have noted, with great concern that the employee had, in the commission of the alleged misconduct, used words, such as “MOER HULLE”- which literally translated means “Hit Them!”. Surely, this statement has got potential to cause the situation within the SAPS to become toxic and chaotic. Words read, spoken and heard have got potential to inspire other human beings to make or do something. | have taken into consideration, the documentary evidence dated 2021-05-04, which was presented to me by the employee, for the purpose of reaching a verdict. The information described in this paragraph does not serve to exonerate the employee of the employee of the alleged offence. The information at my disposal indicates that the employee had represented Lieutenant General Jacobs at the disciplinary hearing. While it is acknowledged that the employee had been doing so at the instance of the charged employee (Lieutenant General Jacobs), it, however, remains strange as to why did the employee elect to cause the SAPS intemal disciplinary process, which were meant to be dealt with by the employer, internally, public, by posting the information Online via his Facebook Account, for public consumption. As a result of those acts, allegedly by the employee, many people became aware of the situation within the SAPS, including the manner in which the National Commissioner of the SAPS is being disrespected by his subordinate, the employee. It is common cause that the employee is being represented by Lieutenant General Jacobs at these proceedings. As matters stand, both Lieutenant General Jacobs and Major General Vearey do take tums in representing each other at disciplinary hearings within the SAPS. While | do acknowledge that everyone has got a the right to representation at any legal proceedings, as guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, | must however, point out that, that right is not absolute. It is worth mentioning that at the time he appeared on behalf of the employee at these proceedings, Lieutenant General Jacobs was serving in the SAPS as the Divisional Commissioner for Division: Inspectorate. The SAPS Disciplinary Regulations, 2016, recognizes the National, Provincial and Divisional Commissioners as the custodians of the Regulations, These Commissioners, have got the power, under the Regulations, to sanction or authorise disciplinary processes against an employee, including the power to appoint Functionaries in terms of Regulation 6 (3), Regulation 9(1) and Regulation 11 (1) and (2). Above them all, these Commissioners have got the power, under the Regulations, to confirm the dismissal of an employee from the SAPS or to. vary a sanction of dismissal on account of misconduct. | reasonably suspect that the conduct of Lieutenant General Jacobs is not consistent with the very same Regulations that he is, by law required to uphold and apply. It remains to be seen how Lieutenant General Jacobs is going to be dealing withdisciplinary matters involving the employees resorting under his area of jurisdiction, in the future. REASONS LEADING TO FINDING 36. 37, 38. 39. 40. 4a 42. 43. It is not in dispute that the employee, on or about the 16" February 2021, was using a Facebook Account under the name “Jeremy Vearey”. The employee had posted, Online, some messages and images and, caused same to be circulated or communicated, via the Social Media Network Among the messages or comments and images posted by the employee on several occasions, were the images or pictures of the current National Commissioner of the South African Police Service, General Sitole. The employee was in the employee of the SAPS at the time of the commission of those acts of alleged misconduct. It is probable that, in many of his postings, the employee did make a comment on the works of the SAPS, including the disciplinary matter against Lieutenant General Jacobs, which was being dealt with the employer, at the time. The employee was not authorized by his employer to communicate on matters of the SAPS or the works of the SAPS, when he carried out those acts. It probable that the acts of the employee, at all times material to those specific acts (posting of messages on his Facebook Account) were deliberate and, sought to incite others to violence against the National Commissioner and those in the leadership positions within the SAPS. This view, is being supported by the use of the words, ‘MOER HULE!’, allegedly by the employee. By conducting himself in the manner that he did, as clearly shown in the messages posted via his Facebook Account, the employee had openly remonstrated against the decision of the National Commissioner to maintain discipline within the SAPS, given that at the time of the commission of those acts of misconduct, the employee was aware of the fact that a decision to subject Lieutenant General Jacobs and the five (5) others to the disciplinary process was taken by the National Commissioner himself. Between the 7" December 2020 and the 25" February 2021, the employee had posted, via his Facebook Account, eight (8) times, messages and images about the National Commissioner and the SAPS. _ In one of his postings, made on the 25" February 2021, the employee had used words "FUCK THEM"! The content of those messages were derogatory, offensive, insulting and disrespectful to the National Commissioner and those in the leadership within the SAPS. The employee was aware or was reasonably expected to have been aware of the provisions of the SAPS National Instruction 5 of 2017, regarding the use of Online Social Media Platform.48. The employee is denying the charge for the sake of denying it, since he had put-forward nothing substantive to support his claim that he denies the allegations. 46. Regulation 5 4(x) of the Regulation recognizes the acts of the employees as misconduct, 47. It is probable that the employee has committed the act of misconduct described in the Notice of the Expeditious Process. FINDING 48. In respect of charge |, | find the employee; GUILTY. SACTIONING PROCEEDINDS 49. 50. The employee is hereby given an opportunity to present to me, in writing, his mitigating factors, that, | should take into consideration when. considering an appropriate sanction. The information referred to in paragraph 49 above (mitigating factors) should reach me, via email (LiziweNtshinga@gmail.com or Ntshingal @saps.gov.za), no later than Thursday, the 27" May 2021 at 10:00. REASONS LEADING TO SANCTION 51 52. 53. The employee was found to have brought the name of the employer, the SAPS, into disrepute, which is regarded as misconduct in terms of Regulation 5 (4)(x) of the Regulations, ‘The gravity of the offence committed is such that, it makes matters difficult for the employee, for it shows the employee as an illdisciplined Senior Manager. In the SAPS, discipline is an essential pillar in the life of the Service. It is a known fact that the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa imposes a legal duty or function upon the SAPS to, amongst others, prevent, combat and investigate crime. Further to that, the SAPS has got a duty and responsibility to protect the citizens of the Republic and their properties. The SAPS will not, in my view, be able to meet its Constitutional mandate, without a disciplined workforce or employees. For the purpose of imposing a sanction upon the employee - in the present case, | have taken note of the fact that the employee was holding the position of a Senior Manager in the SAPS, at the time. The employee was serving in55. 56. 57. 58. 59. the capacity of the Deputy Provincial Commissioner — responsible for Crime Detection in the Province of the Western Cape, at the time of the commission of the acts of misconduct. This specific factor, in my view, aggravates matters for the employee. It is worth mentioning that the employee had posted messages, comments and images, Online, via his Facebook Account, eight times, This specific fact, points to the state of mind or attitude on the part of the employee, at the time, and it, in my view, indicates that the acts of the employee were deliberate. The provisions of the South Aftican Police Service Act; 1995 (Act No. 68 of 1995), makes the National Commissioner of the SAPS the employer. By conducting himself in the manner that he did, the employee had effectively shown that he does not have any respect for his employer and/ or those in leadership position in SAPS. General Sitole was, on or about the date of the commission of the acts of misconduct, the employer, and to this day he still is ‘The circumstances under which the acts of misconduct were committed by the employee aggravates matters for the employee, in that, the negative messages and comments, posted Online by the employee, via his Facebook Account, which have put the SAPS in bad light, were seen by his Facebook Friends and Followers and were reacted upon. In essence, this factor serves to show that many people, including those from within the SAPS became aware of the negative acts of the employee. The employee had shown no remorse for his own wrongful deeds. This particular aspect indicates that the employee is refusing to step-up, own-up and take responsibility for his own action. The refusal of the employee to take responsibility for his own action, even when the facts of this case clearly demonstrate that his deeds were in contravention of the SAPS Disciplinary Regulations, in my considered view, demonstrate that the employee is not a good candidate for rehabilitation. The employee's conduct was not only irresponsible, reckless, disrespecttul, damaging, but was also inconsiderate, and it has demonstrated a culture of impunity on his part. The conduct of the employee was not consistent with the various provisions of the Code of Conduct for the Service, to which he is the signatory. MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES 60. 61. The employee was presented with an opportunity to present to me, his personal circumstances. ‘The employee's personal circumstances are mentioned hereunder: + The employee is currently holding the rank of Major General in the SAPS;+ The employee is 68 years old. + He has got thirty-eight (38) years of service in the Public Service, 26 years and 57 days of which are in the SAPS; ‘+ The employee had served in the Non-Statutory Forces for a period of 42 years; + He has got a track record in dealing with the gang-related court cases; * The employee regards himself as an asset to the SAPS; * There has been report on the employee's life being threatened, emanating from the functions that he allegedly performed, as a law enforcement officer; The employee is a family man; and ‘© The employee has got a clean record of professional conduct. 62. The employee had called for a, ‘Written Warning’ as a form sanetion that I can impose upon him. | have considered all the personal mitigating circumstances of the employee, and | am of the view those mitigating factors do not outweigh the gravity of the offence (misconduct) committed by the employee. 63. The gross nature of the employee's conduct is such that a trust and working relationship between him and his employer, and those in leadership position within the SAPS cannot, by all account, be sustainable. SANCTION 64, Having applied my mind property to the facts and information at my disposal, having considered the circumstances under which the offence was committed, and after checking the law on the matter, | am of the view that, imposing a sanetion short of dismissal over such a serious offence would be tantamount to condoning the conduct of the employee. 65, _In the circumstances, the only reasonable, fair and appropriate sanction to impose upon the employee is as follows: 65.1 Charge |: Dismissal from the SAPS in terms of Regulation 12 (1)(e) of the SAPS Discipline Regulations, 2016.SPECIAL RECOMMENDATION 66. It is my considered view that the situation highlighted in paragraphs 34 and 35 of this document has got great potential to collapse the levels of discipline in the SAPS, if it is left unchecked. Accordingly, it is recommended that, the National Commissioner of the SAPS consider addressing the conduct of Lieutenant General PA Jacobs in terms of Section 34 of the SAPS Act of 1995. LIEUTENANT GENERAL DESIGNATE! ICIAL: CASE NO. HQ DR 05/2021 LE NTSHINGA (SOEG) Date: Js -oS-37 L&~