Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
02 October 2020 | Story Prof Theodore Petrus | Photo Supplied
Prof Theodore Petrus is an associate Professor in Anthropology at the UFS

The death of Andries Tatane in 2011, the Marikana massacre in 2012, and the recent fatal shooting of Natheniël Julies have one thing in common   they involved acts of what can be called police brutality. The issue of police brutality has emerged as a serious issue of national concern. Given the widespread concerns about crime and criminality in South Africa, the historical and contemporary context of policing and law enforcement has a significant impact on not only the South African Police’s (SAPS) ability to police crime, but also the public’s perceptions of how they police.

In June 2020, the National Minister of Police, Bheki Cele, reported in Parliament that 49 cases of police brutality had been reported since the start of the COVID-19 lockdown regulations. Cele said that while the police were allowed by law to act with deadly force, they were also bound to act within the law and the Constitution. And this is where we find the dilemma of formal policing in South Africa, especially in relation to another issue of national concern, namely gangsterism and gang violence.

A transformed police
 
Starting with the wider historical and contemporary context of policing, after 1994, the transformation of the SAPS to bring it in line with the new democratic principles of the new dispensation was a matter of priority. For the majority of South Africans, the police were viewed as the brutal enforcers of the apartheid state, concerned more with carrying out and enforcing the oppressive objectives of the apartheid government rather than serving and protecting the public. It was thus imperative, in order to restore the public’s trust in the police, that the police service be transformed. However, despite the structural and legislative transformations of the police, subsequent acts and incidents involving the police have served to equate the post-1994 “transformed” police service with that of the apartheid state. In addition to the much-publicised incidents alluded to earlier (as well as many others), reports of police mismanagement, corruption and criminality within the highest levels of the police service itself, have reinforced negative perceptions of the police. It remains to be seen what impact the SAPS Amendment Bill of 2020 will have on the SAPS going forward. Will this legislative amendment only address the issues superficially, or will it get to the root causes of the current challenges facing the SAPS?

On the other end of the spectrum, gangsterism and gang violence in South Africa also have a historical and contemporary context, too complex to go into any great detail here. Suffice to say that the gang challenge in many contemporary South African communities is not a recent phenomenon, but is a deeply entrenched issue, so rooted in these communities that it cannot simply be rooted out using a heavy-handed law enforcement approach. Gangsterism forms a significant part of the social and cultural contexts of the communities in which it exists, and is a manifestation of the same historical and contemporary structural violence and marginalisation of these communities. 

Consequences of conflict between police and gang-affected communities

When the police and gang-affected communities come into conflict, the dynamics that are exposed can have a range of consequences. In the Western Cape, for example, we have seen the emergence of community-based anti-gang and anti-crime vigilante organisations such as People Against Gangsterism and Drugs (Pagad). In Eldorado Park, we witnessed the fatal shooting of Natheniël Julies, leading to community outrage and anger against the police. In the northern areas of Port Elizabeth, we see communities demonstrating a lack of co-operation with police investigating gang-related cases, even going as far as helping known gang members to evade police detection, or hiding illegal weapons and firearms. And in the Free State, in September, provincial police spokesperson, Brigadier Motantsi Makhele indicated that at least 12 people were arrested in connection with gang wars. Yet gang violence continues, despite police intervention.

So the question is: what can be done about the problems of police brutality and gangsterism?

There is no simple answer. Also a “one-size-fits-all” approach will not be effective. However, recognising and addressing the following factors may be a step in the right direction:

1. Studies of police culture that address the root causes of police brutality should be prioritised, and the results of such studies taken seriously.
2. The police must become aware of the historical and contemporary issues affecting their current public perception.
3. Serious attention needs to be given to police leadership and management, starting from the Ministry of Police down to branch level.
4. A holistic approach to addressing gangsterism should be encouraged, rather than making it solely a law enforcement issue.
5. The politicisation of gangsterism and policing should make way for policies and recommendations based on thorough social scientific research.

Police brutality and gang-related crime are not unique to South Africa, nor are they only challenges in “developing” countries. The US, Australia and in the UK and France, cases of police brutality and gang-related violence have been well documented. In fact, these countries have also not yet found viable and sustainable ways of addressing these challenges. What makes South Africa unique is our specific context that underpins these challenges. So any sustainable solution(s) will have to be based on a fundamental understanding of this context. For as long as this is ignored, any efforts to curb police brutality in the carrying out of their duties, or effective policing of gangs that does not violate human rights, will remain unrealised and will maintain the current levels of distrust between the public and the police.  

Opinion article by Prof Theodore Petrus, Department of Anthropology, University of the Free State.

News Archive

Council on Higher Education LLB qualification review not yet complete
2017-05-16

The reaction from various stakeholders following the ‘Outcomes of the National Review of the LLB Qualification’ by the Council on Higher Education (CHE) on 12 April 2017 requires the CHE to clarify that the national review process has not been completed and is ongoing.

The peer-review process conducted under the auspices of the CHE is based on the LLB Standards Document which was developed in 2014-2015 with input from higher-education institutions and the organised legal profession. Following self-review and site visits by peers, the process is now at the point where commendations and shortcomings have been identified, and the statement of 12 April reflects those findings. All law faculties and schools have been asked to improve their LLB programmes to meet the LLB Standard, and no LLB programme has been de-accredited. All institutions retain the accreditation they had before the Review process began and all institutions are working towards retaining their accreditation and improving their LLB programmes.

The South African Law Deans’ Association (SALDA) has issued a set of responses regarding the LLB programme review. The following questions and answers were published to give more clarity on the questions raised.

1.    What is the effect of a finding of conditional accreditation?
The programme remains accredited.

(“Accreditation refers to a recognition status granted to a programme for a stipulated period of time after an HEQC evaluation indicates that it meets minimum standards of quality.”)

The institution must submit a progress report by 6 October 2017 that indicates how short-term aspects raised in the HEQC reports have been addressed and an improvement plan to indicate how longer-term aspects will be addressed.

2.    What is the effect of a finding of notice of withdrawal of accreditation?
The programme remains accredited.

The institution must submit an improvement plan by 6 October 2017 to indicate how the issues raised in the HEQC report will be addressed, including time frames.

3.    How does the finding of notice of withdrawal affect current students?
Students currently enrolled for the LLB programme at any institution are not affected at all. They will graduate with an accredited qualification.

4.    How does the finding of notice of withdrawal affect new applicants?
The programmes remain accredited and institutions may enrol new students as usual. This also includes students completing BA/BCom (Law) programmes who wish to continue with the LLB programme.

5.    How does the finding of notice of withdrawal affect prior graduates?
Degrees previously conferred are not affected.

6.    What happens when the improvement plans are submitted in October 2017?
The CHE will evaluate the plans when they are submitted, and the programmes remain accredited until a decision is taken whether the improvement plan is sufficient and has been fully given effect to or not. The institutions will have to submit progress reports to the CHE indicating implementation of measures contained in the improvement plan.

Should a decision at some stage be taken that a programme’s accreditation must be withdrawn, a teaching-out plan would be implemented so that all enrolled students would have the opportunity to graduate with an accredited degree.

For more information on the CHE’s pronouncement please contact Moleboheng Moshe-Bereng on MosheBerengMF@ufs.ac.za.

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept