Can a new leader elevate the Hawks, help SA mount a more effective response to serious crime?

Daily Maverick

11 hours ago

To effectively tackle serious crime, South Africa's Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation requires a strong leadership team.
The process to appoint a new head of the Hawks – officially South Africa's Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation – is under way. This key criminal justice appointment should receive broad public attention.
Lieutenant-General Godfrey Lebeya, who headed the Hawks from 2018, retired on 30 May. The Hawks' deputy head, Lieutenant-General Siphesihle Nkosi, is currently the acting head.
Under the South African Police Service (SAPS) Act, the appointment is made by Police Minister Senzo Mchunu, with concurrence by the Cabinet. It is not clear how long the new appointment process will take. In early June, Mchunu withdrew the initial advertisement, indicating that the time frame for applications would be extended to find the best possible candidate.
Against the backdrop of high levels of serious crime in South Africa, what are the prospects for this specialised unit? Could a new head help the country mount a more effective response to serious crime? A high-performing Hawks unit is crucial to tackling organised crime, financial crime and corruption, which are the focus of its mandate.
Most of these crimes have cyber-forensic elements, and some have complex international dimensions. The global intergovernmental body, the Financial Action Task Force, requires South Africa to prove its ability to prosecute money laundering, illicit financial flows and terror financing. The Hawks must provide specialised investigation services to get these cases to court.
During his time as Hawks head, Lebeya reported publicly each quarter on the directorate's successes. For the January to March 2025 period, he indicated that the unit had made arrests for various crimes, seized firearms, shut down drug laboratories and secured convictions against 239 persons.
While there have been achievements, external observers have highlighted the Hawks' shortcomings, including a lack of skills. These hinder its ability to conduct complex investigations such as the 'proactive identification' of money laundering networks. The unit has never received sufficient budget funding to reduce its vacancy rate below 50%.
Last week, Ian Cameron, chair of the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Police, lamented how long it was taking for the Hawks to complete an investigation into corruption at the SAPS training centre in Philippi, Cape Town. When Mchunu announced the extension of the Hawks head application period, Cameron emphasised the need to make the 'right appointment'.
Lebeya may have wanted to turn things around. But like his National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) colleague Shamila Batohi, he has had little room for manoeuvre. Turning criminal justice organisations around requires more than simply appointing good heads. A programme of strategic institutional strengthening must be directed by a skilled executive team that has political backing and financial support.
The Hawks' history is intertwined with State Capture. Its predecessor, the Directorate for Special Operations, or Scorpions, was closed in 2009 by supporters of former president Jacob Zuma as a way to neutralise its investigations against Zuma and others. Following the Hawks' establishment, Zuma used his power over senior appointments to manipulate and undermine the unit and other criminal justice agencies.
Following legal challenges, the Constitutional Court ruled in 2011 and again in 2014 that the state was obligated to establish an effective independent anti-corruption agency. The judgments said the Hawks should perform this role and that legislation must be amended to strengthen its independence.
Notwithstanding these rulings, the process and criteria for senior leadership appointments remain challenging throughout the criminal justice system – including for the SAPS, NPA, Independent Police Investigative Directorate and the Hawks.
While constitutional provisions entrench executive influence over certain senior criminal justice appointments, the extent to which this can be used to weaken such agencies must be curtailed. A key requirement is that independent professional panels run merit-based, competitive and transparent selection processes, and make recommendations.
Rather than considering how to strengthen the Hawks, debate in Parliament and elsewhere has focused on setting up alternative structures to investigate corruption. At this point, it's unclear what responsibility the Hawks would retain in this regard. Either way, there is more than enough for the specialised unit to work on.
South Africa must establish strategic centres for fighting organised and financial crime. Priority must be given to taking down networks that support the use of assassinations, particularly the killing of whistle-blowers, political leaders and community activists. The country also needs answers on where illegal guns are coming from and how to stop the supply.
The new Hawks head should boost staff confidence by leading vigorous and independent investigations of priority crimes that demonstrate the unit's vital role in South Africa. This will require a strategic leadership team to galvanise public support and build the Hawks' capacity to work on complex crimes. The team should establish the Hawks as an employer of choice and a highly skilled law enforcement agency.
The new head should also contribute to the overall strategic leadership of South Africa's multi-agency system for investigating organised crime, financial crime and corruption. This should include advocating for a crime intelligence and analysis apparatus aligned with the realities of crime in the 21st century. DM