‘Raids invaded our privacy,’ contend residents

Between June 2017 and May 2018, the police conducted a series of 20 raids on 11 buildings in the Johannesburg inner-city. The raids revived the controversial Operation Fiela, which means “sweep” in Sesotho, and were conducted on buildings deemed to be hide-outs for criminals.

With the help of the Johannesburg metropolitan police department and officials from home affairs, police forced residents of the buildings out on to the streets, where they were searched, fingerprinted and commanded to produce their IDs.

Anyone who could not produce documents proving they were in South Africa legally was detained. Those who were not arrested returned to find their homes and possessions in disarray.

These were the buildings that were raided by the police. (Graphic: John McCann)

The raids were conducted in terms of section 13(7) of the South African Police Service Act, which empowers the police to search any person or premises without a warrant to “restore public order or ensure the safety of the public”.

On Monday, the more than 2 000 occupants of the buildings, represented by the Socio-Economic Rights Institute (Seri), asked the Johannesburg high court to declare the section unconstitutional and invalid.


They took on the South African Police Service (SAPS), as well as the department of home affairs, the City of Johannesburg, and its erstwhile mayor Herman Mashaba — arguing that these entities waged a co-ordinated attack on their constitutional right to privacy.

The court battle was heard by a full Bench of three judges, including the division’s most senior judge, Judge President Dunstan Mlambo, as well as Judge Fayeeza Kathree-Setiloane and Judge Pieter Meyer.

In an affidavit to the court, Seri executive director Nomzamo Zondo said the raids constituted an “unlawful and far-reaching invasion of the applicants’ dignity”.

“The applicants’ homes were invaded and the sanctity and tranquillity of those homes was destroyed. The questioning they were subjected to was obviously humiliating,” the affidavit reads.

“The fact that many of the raids took place while the applicants were sleeping, and that the applicants were often dragged out of their homes in their underwear or nightclothes was likewise humiliating.”

The residents argued that section 13(7) of the Act infringes on the right to privacy. But the SAPS maintained that the section is vital to its efforts to restore public order amid rising crime rates.

Counsel for the residents, Stuart Wilson, pointed out that “there is not a single case in which the Constitutional Court has held that warrantless searches are constitutionally permissible”.

He pointed to five decisions by the apex court that found that provisions that authorise warrantless searches of private homes are seldom justifiable.

But Mlambo pointed out that all the decisions referred to by Wilson “have nothing to do with public order”. Meyer added that all the cases referred to are “fact specific, whereas this provision deals with this situation where law and order should be restored. Or, within a specified area, people’s safety is at risk.”

“My submission in response is that that may be true, but one applies general principles to specific facts,” Wilson retorted.

“And you’re bound — I don’t need to tell you this — but you’re bound by the decisions by the Constitutional court on warrantless searches … And our first submission is that the Constitutional Court has never permitted warrantless searches.”

Wilson added that the top court “has never allowed legislation to stand that authorises warrantless searches of whatever nature”.

He further argued that section 13(7) offers “extremely” broad discretionary powers to police officers “to invade constitutional rights”.

In his heads of argument, Wilson notes that under section 13(7) of the Constitution: “Anyone may be searched, at any time, so long as a police officer thinks this is ‘reasonably necessary to achieve’ whatever object the police commissioner specifies in the authorisation.”

On Monday, he contended that “legislation that grants discretions to, especially junior, police officers and other officials can’t be too blank, can’t be too-open ended. And here we say it is blank and it is open-ended.”

Wilson said it was not enough for the provincial police commissioner — who at the time was Deliwe de Lange — to authorise the section 13(7) search by simply saying “crime”.

“The provincial commissioner who issued the authorisations had to be satisfied that the situation was so grave as to justify widespread warrantless searches,” he said.

“They had to be satisfied that the level of crime had reached proportions that threatened public order and safety was linked to the applicants … They don’t even begin to establish that.”

Mlambo intervened: “Is it correct … that predominantly the residential areas are hijacked buildings?”

But Wilson said his clients take “strenuous issue” with the phrase “hijacked buildings”.

“We don’t know what it means. What we accept is that our clients live in buildings where they don’t have consent of the person in charge to live there … If that is what they mean by hijacked buildings, then the phrase … is a deeply inappropriate way of referring to people in the applicants’ situation.

“The applicants are desperately poor people who would be rendered homeless if they didn’t live in the buildings they currently live in. They haven’t hijacked anything.”

He added that the residents “deserve a measure of respect and dignity that is taken away from them when they are willy-nilly referred to as hijackers”.

“This pejorative term enables junior police officers to exercise their broad discretions in a way that are based on social prejudices and not on legal principles.”

But Moses Mphaga SC, on behalf of the SAPS, contended: “As we argue about the rights of the applicants, we cannot ignore the rights of those affected by violent crime.”

He argued that section 13(7) is not inconsistent with the constitutional right to privacy.

Mphaga said police officers must exercise their powers under the section in a way that does not intrude on the constitutional rights of the people they are searching.

Individual policemen may have acted in a way that was inconsistent with the Constitution when they conducted the raids, he said.

“But then they from a point of the commissioner, he had only indicated to them: ‘Please, when you go and implement this authorisation, you must be conscious of the fundamental rights of the people.’ So if the policemen, when they arrived at the scene, and they implemented contrary to what the commissioner says, it cannot make the authorisation itself unconstitutional.”

Mphaga later added: “The fact that we have so many unlawful arrest cases in a country does not necessarily make the provision that authorises those arrests unconstitutional.”

When pushed by Mlambo about when it is justifiable to impose on privacy rights, Mphaga said, “There is a justification for the police to have these extraordinary powers … to ensure that they normalise the crime levels of an area.”

But Kathree-Setiloane pointed out that the applications for the section 13(7) authorisations each used the same crime statistics, despite them being made months apart. “That means all your searches were completely useless.”

Mphaga responded: “But the statistics are there and they are saying that this is unacceptable.”

In response to Mphaga’s argument, Wilson said that it is “not appropriate in these circumstances to say that the section is okay because we can trust the police to keep the Constitution in their hearts”.

Quoting the Constitutional Court, he added: “One must be careful to ensure that the alarming level of crime is not used to justify extensive and inappropriate invasions of individual rights.”

Judgment was reserved.

Subscribe to the M&G

These are unprecedented times, and the role of media to tell and record the story of South Africa as it develops is more important than ever.

The Mail & Guardian is a proud news publisher with roots stretching back 35 years, and we’ve survived right from day one thanks to the support of readers who value fiercely independent journalism that is beholden to no-one. To help us continue for another 35 future years with the same proud values, please consider taking out a subscription.

Sarah Smit
Sarah Smit
Sarah Smit is a general news reporter at the Mail & Guardian. She covers topics relating to labour, corruption and the law.

Related stories

Eusebius McKaiser: Reject the dichotomy of political horrors

Senekal shows us that we must make a stand against the loud voice of the populist EFF and racist rightwingers

Guinea’s choice will determine its future for generations

We need the eyes and ears of the international community to be alert to assaults on democracy as we run up to the election on 18 October

The pandemic will change the electoral process

There’s a backlog of by-elections to get through before next year’s local government elections. Will voters go to the polls even though Covid protocols are in place?

Why we must fight to secure places for more women and young people in politics

Too often, governments talk the talk on gender equality, but fail to walk the walk

This is how Lungu is planning to rig Zambia’s 2021 general election

The president is trying to amend the Constitution and create a new voters’ roll in a bid to stay in power

‘Insult’ arrest kicks off poll race in Kenya

MPs’ detention may signal the silencing of dissent and a bid to railroad changes to the Constitution
Advertising

Subscribers only

Toxic power struggle hits public works

With infighting and allegations of corruption and poor planning, the department’s top management looks like a scene from ‘Survivor’

Free State branches gun for Ace

Parts of the provincial ANC will target their former premier, Magashule, and the Free State PEC in a rolling mass action campaign

More top stories

Q&A Sessions: ‘My north star is the patient’

Rhulani Nhlaniki is Pfizer’s cluster lead for sub-Saharan Africa. As Pfizer starts phase III of the clinical trial of their Covid-19 vaccine candidate, he tells Malaikah Bophela that if it is successful, the company will ensure the vaccine will be available to everyone who needs it

In terms of future-telling failures, this is a Major One

Bushiri knows how to pull a crowd. Ace knows a ponzi scheme. Paddy Harper predicts that a new prophet may profit at Luthuli House

Ghost fishing gear an ‘immortal menace’ in oceans

Lost and illegal tackle is threatening marine life and the lives of people making a living from the sea

Vitamin therapy is for drips

It may be marketed by influencers, but intravenous vitamin therapy is not necessary and probably not worth the hype, experts say
Advertising

press releases

Loading latest Press Releases…

The best local and international journalism

handpicked and in your inbox every weekday