A damages claim of more than R500 000 against the police and prisons services will cost rightwinger Piet ”Skiet” Rudolph and two others dearly.
Acting Pretoria High Court Judge R Mokgoatlheng on Tuesday dismissed with costs a damages claim instituted by Rudolph and fellow Orde Boerevolk members Wentzel Laubscher and Andre van der Walt after their arrest during a demonstration in a Pretoria street in July 2003.
The three claimed they were unlawfully arrested, detained and maliciously prosecuted before all charges against them were dropped.
They claimed they were exercising their right to freedom of speech when they were arrested without a warrant, held in custody for a weekend and then refused the opportunity to pay bail after hours.
They said the police ”treated them like dogs” during their arrest.
Rudolph also claimed damages for his arrest at another roadside demonstration near Rayton a week later.
The ministers of safety and security and correctional services defended the action, claiming the group did not have permission for the demonstrations, and that the men were held when the political climate was tense following fatal right-wing bombings in Soweto and Bronkhorstspruit.
The first demonstration was attended by only eight people, including Rudolph’s wife and child, and the second by more than 100 people. Police said the demonstrators refused to disperse despite warnings, and resisted arrest. They claimed Rudolph had also made racist and derogatory remarks towards police officials.
The demonstrators had waved banners, likening President Thabo Mbeki to President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe and demanding ”freedom” for the ”Boerevolk”, and had distributed pamphlets questioning the legitimacy of the African National Congress government and exhorting Boers to take up arms to attain their ”freedom”.
In ruling against the three plaintiffs, Mokgoatlheng said they did not have permission to demonstrate and waved the old Transvaal Vierkleur flag and the old Orange Free State flag as well as banners criticising Mbeki.
The judge said the police had acted reasonably and lawfully and were entitled to arrest them without a warrant, especially when they refused to disperse, despite several warnings. Their arrest and detention was justifiable and affected on reasonable grounds, he said. — Sapa