President Jacob Zuma may not have told police officers to “shoot to kill” in so many words, but critics are slamming government’s advocacy of increased police force after officers shot and killed an innocent woman on Sunday.
A 28-year-old woman was killed at Mapobane, north of Pretoria, after police apparently mistook the grey Toyota Conquest she was travelling in for a stolen grey Toyota Corolla. Two others were injured.
Police fired shots at the car after the driver did not stop when they flashed their blue lights, Captain Julia Claassen told the South African Press Association.
The Democratic Alliance’s shadow minister of police, Dianne Kohler Barnard, said the incident should serve as a wake-up call. “This vehicle posed no threat to the police who nonetheless followed the ‘shoot to kill’ directive repeated, mantra-like, by the president, the minister of police and the national police commissioner.”
But some analysts say an incident like this was inevitable in the prevailing culture of fear and violence in the country. “The impact of this is that police become very apprehensive and more ready to use their firearms — even without the directive,” said Johan Burger of the Institute for Security Studies.
Plans are afoot to amend Section 49 of the Criminal Procedures Act, which deals specifically with the use of force in making an arrest.
But while no amendments have been made public yet, various senior government figures, including Zuma, have encouraged police officers to not hesitate in defending themselves from violent criminals.
It may be a case of premature communication. Police Minister Nathi Mthethwa said in September the amendment was complete and due to be presented in Parliament. But until then police have the 300-word section on use of force, coupled with various statements made by government leaders, to inform their work.
Analyst Yvette Geyer, from African Democracy Institute Idasa, pointed out that proper training was needed, as police officers would invariably interpret these statements differently. She said the woman’s death was “a clear example of how [the police officer] didn’t interpret the rules correctly”.
For Burger the section as it stood was unclear. “It sounds clear cut, but when you talk to lawyers it’s not.”
One of the conditions for using force in an arrest according to Section 49 of the Act is if “there is a substantial risk that the suspect will cause imminent or future death or grievous bodily harm if the arrest is delayed”.
“What is the difference between substantial risk and risk in the mind of a police officer who is caught in a split-second decision?” Burger asked.
But it is not certain that the amendment will only clarify existing legislation. In their “war on crime” politicians have been increasingly tough in their talk on crime, with statements such as “shoot the bastards”, “no mercy for criminals” and “zero tolerance” peppering public statements. It appears government’s approach to crime prevention is due to become even more forceful, with an announcement this month by the Police Ministry that Deputy Minister Fikile Mbalula would spearhead the transformation of the police into a paramilitary force, with military ranks and discipline.
Geyer, however, said that “increasing police numbers and the level of force is not going to solve the crime problem.
“We’ve invested so much in that without investing equally in the social fabric approach to crime prevention.”
But as the number of police killed increased while the number of attacks on police members decreased, the debate around increased police force remains tense.
Read Section 49 of the Criminal Procedures Act as it currently stands (on page 35 of this document).
Look out for this week’s issue of the weekly Mail & Guardian, where this issue will be explored in-depth.