Crime Intelligence’s Expanded Reach: Tracking ‘Persons of Interest’ or Monitoring Dissent?

In a time where misinformation and disinformation are ever-present in political discourse, the South African Police Service’s (SAPS) Crime Intelligence division has made strides to increase its technological capabilities, making it easier to monitor ‘persons of interest.’ But who exactly are these “persons of interest,” and what is truly meant by “misinformation” in today’s context? Recent developments surrounding the ANC, News24, and the role of media and government in shaping narratives have raised questions about who gets to define the truth.

The Expansion of Crime Intelligence’s Monitoring Powers

Crime Intelligence is reportedly improving its tracking systems to better monitor criminals and “persons of interest.” While the public has heard much about how these efforts aim to fight crime, especially after the instability highlighted by the July 2021 unrest, there is a growing concern about the fine line between crime prevention and the potential suppression of dissent.

Lieutenant-General Dumisani Khumalo, Divisional Commissioner of Crime Intelligence, recently briefed the portfolio committee on police, presenting the progress made in the division. The focus has been on enhancing technological capacities, including obtaining a Certificate of Exemption under RICA (2002), which grants the SAPS more authority to track communications. Social media monitoring specialists are also being appointed, and a new tool is being introduced to support this.

But here lies a critical question: What qualifies someone as a “person of interest”? Is it simply a criminal suspect, or could it extend to anyone who questions the status quo, even those who challenge the narrative established by the government or media? Given the past concerns over SAPS’ internal instability and the spread of unverified allegations—some accusing the division of corruption, theft, and ghost workers—what does it mean when Crime Intelligence labels someone a “person of interest”? Could these efforts be weaponized to track individuals or groups whose views oppose the official narrative?

Misinformation, Disinformation, or a Counter-Narrative?

Crime Intelligence’s pushback against accusations of corruption was framed around the claim that “misinformation, fake news, and unproven allegations” were being spread by certain individuals within SAPS. This raises the issue of what exactly constitutes “misinformation” or “disinformation” in a modern context where media outlets and government officials often frame dissenting voices as untrustworthy or harmful.

For example, the recent outcry over Expropriation Without Compensation (EWC) highlighted how quickly the media and the government scrambled to silence narratives that opposed their stance. The ANC and media outlets like News24 have been accused of spreading misinformation regarding EWC, with critics calling out the disparity between what the government and media portray versus what is happening in reality. The coordinated efforts to discredit these narratives point to a broader issue: the manipulation of information to protect powerful interests, and the labelling of truth-seekers as purveyors of misinformation.

Take the statements from Afriforum and Solidariteit regarding “misinformation” or “disinformation.” While these organizations critique government actions, the media itself plays a key role in either supporting or challenging such claims. Ironically, it’s often the media that becomes the conduit for misinformation, especially when outlets align with government narratives, undermining alternative voices. As we’ve seen over the past few days, when people began calling out News24 and the ANC for spreading misleading information, there was a rush to silence these criticisms, presenting them as baseless attacks rather than legitimate concerns.

Conformity vs. Truth

The heart of this narrative centers on one fundamental question: What happens when the media and the government join forces to suppress inconvenient truths and control the narrative? When those in power label opposing views as “misinformation,” they position themselves as arbiters of truth. But who gets to decide what the “truth” is? History has shown us time and again that those in power often define truth in a way that suits their interests, even when it contradicts the facts.

Could it be that Crime Intelligence’s expanded monitoring capabilities are less about tackling crime and more about maintaining control over information? Are “persons of interest” merely criminals, or could they also be individuals challenging the official story? As the media and government tighten their grip on the flow of information, it becomes more crucial than ever to ask these questions and critically examine the narratives we are being fed.

The development of more advanced monitoring tools by Crime Intelligence, while presented as a step toward enhancing public safety, carries with it the potential for overreach. The real concern lies in the blurred lines between monitoring criminal behaviour and curbing dissent. When “misinformation” is used as a weapon to silence critics, and when “persons of interest” can easily include anyone who questions authority, we must ask: Are we entering a new era of surveillance where only the official narrative is allowed to thrive?