Ted Leggett
The Gauteng police media liaison officers recently released a statement of support for a directive issued by National Commissioner George Fivaz earlier this year. This directive admonishes police officers to “refrain from making unauthorised and unguarded statements to the media”, and to direct press inquiries to media liaison.
This kind of policy, Fivaz points out, is not uncommon in organisations of all sorts, and he argues that it is necessary for the image of the police that the service be seen to speak with a unified voice.
Specifically, he points to several incidents at the beginning of the year where investigators promised the media outrageous arrest figures and set dates for the arrest of fugitives such as Collin Chauke. When these promises failed to materialise, embarrassment was experienced all around.
But does this embarrassment justify a directive which will necessarily constrict the flow of information between the police and the public? The transformation process is driven by programmes designed to enhance communication between law enforcement and citizens, such as the community-oriented policing approach and the establishment of community police forums. The exchange of information must be reciprocal for these initiatives to work.
And while many organisations do rely on press officers to handle all contact with the media, the police are a unique case. In no other sector of government is the need for transparency greater. This directive will provide a convenient dodge for those police officers who would rather not be interrogated about their activities. By allowing all information to be processed by experienced spin doctors, the very important role the press plays in maintaining police accountability will be undermined.
This order is tantamount to allowing a suspect in the dock to refer all questions to his lawyer. In a democracy, the police must be continually open to cross- examination.
In addition, the information that the police provide is often of pressing urgency and topical only briefly. Waiting for this information to be processed will mean much of it will never make it into the public consciousness.
A further side effect of this directive will be to curtail criticism of the service from within the ranks. Recent exposs of the poor state of many stations and low morale among the rank and file must have surely fuelled this action by Fivaz.
This is not to say that leaks will not continue to occur. Most police officers are guided by conscience above all else and will find a way of making needed information available to the public. Although Fivaz warns about using the directive to block information, it is only those who have something to hide who will benefit from this order.
Once again, the government is trying to correct through strong central directives what can only truly be rectified at the ground level. Rather than limiting the ability of the police to communicate with the public, all officers need to be trained in how to properly interact with the communities they serve. They need to be cautioned about making unrealistic promises, schooled in principles of confidentiality, and educated in communication skills.
Limiting the scrutiny of the public will not make up for personnel deficiencies. And we should not suffer as a society for the braggadocio of a few indiscreet cops.
ends