When the Protectors Become the Aggressors: Police Brutality in South Africa

Abstract

South Africa has been a democracy for almost 30 years. Prior to 1994, South Africa was globally renowned for its notorious system of segregation, known as Apartheid, where the South African Police (SAP) were regarded as the pawns of Government to regulate and enforce this system of segregation. During the pre-democracy years, the police were known as a para-militaristic force which was regarded by the majority as a tool of suppression for the White minority government. In most cases the Black majority population feared the police and had no respect for them. After the previous political dispensation had been toppled, South Africa underwent major constitutional changes following the first democratic election on 27 April 1994. The following year the introduction of the South African Police Service Act 68 of 1995 resulted in the implementation of the changes envisaged for policing into a legal framework. The South African Police Service (SAPS) was established with the hope and aim that the new Service will supersede the para-militaristic policing model. Soon however, South African communities realized that the envisaged new policing models of service delivery based on the Ubuntu principles were a pipe dream. Ubuntu implies that the police should be humane, show compassion, and ensure that human dignity is always at the core of their actions and deeds during interactions with the community. Even contemporary policing models such as community and sector policing failed to a great extent, and many police officials perpetrated acts of brutality, while others were involved in corruption. As a result, many communities started to distrust the “new demilitarized” police service. Even though the rank structure of the new South African Police Service was changed and many other visual changes were implemented to give the new police a “softer” approachable appearance, many police officials failed to change their actions, making police brutality in South Africa a serious concern. Another serious cause demanding attention is vigilante justice and community violence which are rife in South Africa because communities continue to take the law unlawfully into their own hands because they believe that the police are sometimes involved in criminal actions. The fact that many court cases have been dismissed due to poor police investigations adds fuel to the fire. Many communities in South Africa opt to resort to violence in the form of violent protests or citizen prosecutions to highlight their rejection of the current policing system. It is important to mention that South Africa is a country with high rates of violent crimes. With violent crime rates soaring and communities distrusting the police, it was surprising that the police service remilitarized again after 2010 after its initial demilitarization in 1994. The rank structure was changed back to military style ranks, as the police service had been finding it difficult to utilize a service-oriented community policing approach in a violent country. Moreover, some politicians often encourage the police to be more militaristic in their policing style due to high crime rates and community violence. When politicians encourage police violence from public stages, they are indirectly endorsing police brutality. A combination of factors including irresponsible remarks by politicians, the high violent crime rate, the stress placed upon many operational police officials, the legal power of arrest, the legal sanction to use deadly force by the police, the access which some police officials have to get involved in highly rewarding organized crime, and a corrupt mindset perhaps validates why some police officials are guilty of police brutality.