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

UFS agreement on staff salary adjustment of 7.5%
2011-11-10

 
At this year's salary negotiations were from the left, front: Mr Lourens Geyer, Director: Human Resources; Ms Ronel van der Walt, Manager: Labour Relations; Ms Tobeka Mehlomakulu, Vice Chairperson: NEHAWU; Prof. Johan Grobbelaar, convener of the salary negotiations; back: Mr Ruben Gouws, Vice Chairperson of UVPERSU, Ms Esta Knoetze, Vice Chairperson of UVPERSU, Mr David Mocwana, fultime shopsteward for NEHAWU; Mr Daniel Sepeame, Chairperson of NEHAWU, Prof. Nicky Morgan, Vice-Rector: Operations; Prof. Jonathan Jansen, Vice-Chancellor and Rector of the UFS; Ms Mamokete Ratsoane, Deputy Director: Human Resources and Ms Anita Lombard, Chief Executive Officer: UVPERSU.
Photo: Leonie Bolleurs


Salary adjustment of 7,5%

The University of the Free State’s (UFS) management and trade unions have agreed on a general salary adjustment of 7,5% for 2012.
 
The negotiating parties agreed that adjustments could vary proportionally from a minimum of 7,3% to a maximum of 8,5%, depending on the government subsidy and the model forecasts.
 
The service benefits of staff will be adjusted to 9,82% for 2012. This is according to the estimated government subsidy that will be received in 2012.
 

UVPERSU and NEHAWU sign
 
The agreement was signed (today) Tuesday 8 November 2011 by representatives of the university’s senior leadership and the trade unions UVPERSU and NEHAWU.
 

R2 500 bonus
 
An additional once-off, non-pensionable bonus of R2 500 will also be paid to staff with their December 2011 salary payment. The bonus will be paid to all staff members who were in the employment of the university on UFS conditions of service on 31 December 2011 and who assumed duties before 1 October 2011. The bonus is payable in recognition of the role played by staff during the year to promote the UFS as a university of excellence and as confirmation of the role and effectiveness of the remuneration model.
 
It is the intention to pass the maximum benefit possible on to staff without exceeding the limits of financial sustainability of the institution. For this reason, the negotiating parties reaffirmed their commitment to the Multiple-year, Income-related Remuneration Improvement Model used as a framework for negotiations. The model and its applications are unique and have as a point of departure that the UFS must be and remains financially sustainable. 
 
 
Capacity building and structural adjustments
 
Agreement was reached that 1,54% will be allocated for growth in capacity building to ensure that provision is made for the growth of the UFS over the last few years. A further 0,78% will be allocated to structural adjustments.
 
Agreement about additional matters such as funeral loans was also reached.
 
“The Mutual Forum is particularly pleased that a general salary adjustment of 7,5 % could be negotiated for 2012. Taken into account the world financial downturn, marked cuts in university subsidies and the growth of the university, this is a remarkable achievement,” says Prof. Johan Grobbelaar, Chairperson of the Mutual Negotiation Forum. 
 

Increase for Professors, Deputy and Assistant Directors
 
According to Prof. Grobbelaar the Mutual Forum is also pleased that Professors and Deputy and Assistant Directors will benefit from the structural adjustments. These increases will align the positions with the median of the higher education market. The 1,54% allocated for growth will ensure that appointments can be made where the needs are the highest. The special year-end bonus of R2 500 is an early Christmas gift and implies that the employees in lower salary categories receive an effective increase of almost 9,5 %.
 
“The UFS is in a unique position when it comes to salary negotiations, because the funding model developed more than a decade ago, has stood the test of time and ensured that the staff receive the maximum possible benefits. Of particular note is the fact that the two majority unions (UVPERSU and NEHAWU) work together. The mutual trust between the unions and management is an example of how large organisations can function to reach specific goals and staff harmony,” says Prof. Grobbelaar. 

The implementation date for the salary adjustment is 1 January 2012. The adjustment will be calculated on the total remuneration package.

 

 

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