Ann Eveleth
Amid widespread perceptions of police inaction and corruption, police investigating other police are either unable or unwilling to take their colleagues accused of serious crimes off the beat.
The return to work last month of three policemen facing murder charges for the Christmas 1995 Shobashobane massacre of 19 African National Congress supporters is the latest example.
Two years ago, Judge Andrew Wilson called for steps to “tighten discipline” at the notorious Mountain Rise police station outside Pietermaritz-burg while sentencing five policemen from that station for murder and other crimes. In March this year, the policeman whose official car was used by the murderers was appointed station commander. Senior Superintendent Pregasen Pillay holds convictions for culpable homicide, shoplifting and fraud, but these did not stand in the way of his promotion.
The man who promoted Pillay, Pietermaritzburg Area Commissioner Eric du Preez, has also managed to rise through the ranks despite calls by an inquest magistrate and a supreme court judge for investigation into his conduct in connection with two separate murder cases.
In May, a Stanger woman was allegedly abducted by two police officers who took her into a cane field to face torment by Warrant Officer Deejay Maharaj, whose conviction for raping her in police cells in November 1993 was set aside on technical grounds pending a retrial. Maharaj’s innocence has not been proved, yet he is still an active member of the Stanger police, although currently on sick leave.
In war-torn Shobashobane, survivors of the slaughter which racked the rural village last December still live in fear, but the three policemen charged with the massacre are back at work in the police station across the valley.
Provincial Commissioner Chris Serfontein has come under fire from both the ANC and the Inkatha Freedom Party for his decision to lift the officers’ suspensions while the case against them is still pending. The row has sparked renewed calls from human rights groups for a clean-up of the South African Police Service (SAPS).
The man who advised Serfontein to lift the suspensions, KwaZulu-Natal SAPS legal services head Commissioner Tommy Reed, was himself taken to task by Judge Wilson in the landmark Trust Feeds judgment. He called for an inquiry into Reed’s decision to secure legal representation for two police witnesses in the case without consulting the attorney general.
In the Shobashobane case, Reed has admitted that he pre-empted the courts in determining that the case against the officers was based on “flimsy evidence. We can’t decide they should be suspended just because people are shouting for their blood … The only eyewitness against them claims to have seen them from a distance of 100m while allegedly running away from the attack,” he said.
Police statistics suggest this is a common view within the force. Although 1 796 SAPS members were convicted of crimes committed in the course of duty and 5 574 complaints of assault were lodged against policemen last year, just over 700 policemen faced suspension by early November and only 236 members were dismissed following internal disciplinary inquiries.
Police reporting officers charged with the task of investigating complaints against policemen say it is extremely difficult to get them to act against colleagues charged with breaking the law.
A Gauteng reporting officer, advocate Jan Munnick, says the problem is that “there is currently no policy to deal with the suspension of someone facing investigation for possible criminal charges”.
It is current practice for police to face disciplinary procedures and possible suspension only after an attorney general has moved to prosecute. “By and large, if the attorney general declines to prosecute, there won’t be an internal investigation … Police are generally reluctant to suspend their colleagues,” he said.
Reporting officers and human rights groups have been calling for a comprehensive suspension policy for more than a year now, but legal officials say they still have to consult provincial police structures and unions before a policy can be adopted.
The SAPS Legal Services’ human resources management head, advocate Linda Pienaar, says the situation is expected to improve soon when a draft suspension policy under debate is finalised. This will empower the police to institute disciplinary hearings regardless of the status of a related criminal trial.
The new policy should also make it easier to take disciplinary action, as the burden of proof for internal inquiries is expected to change from the current criminal standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” to the civil standard of “on the balance of probabilities”.
While Munnick says he supports this move, other aspects of the draft policy fall short of the recommendations made by the reporting officers’ board.
The new disciplinary procedures will still be handled by the police, although accused members will be entitled to bring in outside representation. The board proposed that disciplinary inquiries involve prosecutors and adjudicators from outside the SAPS.
Natal violence monitor Mary de Haas argues that outside involvement is necessary to ensure transparency and an even-handed application of disciplinary procedures: “The problem is the process has been used selectively, and that goes straight to the heart of the problems with the criminal justice system.”