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

Pansalb’s Language Rights Monitor Project launched at the UFS
2007-01-25

 

 Attending the launch of the Language Rights Monitoring Project were, from the left: Mr Edward Sambo (acting head of Pansalb), Prof Engela Pretorius (Vice-Dean of the Faculty of the Humanities at the UFS), Prof Theo du Plessis (Director: Unit for Language Management at the UFS) and Mr Vusi Ntlakana (head of the Free State provincial office of Pansalb).

 
 Pansalb’s Language Rights Monitor Project launched at the UFS
 
The Unit for Language Management at the University of the Free State (UFS), in collaboration with the Pan-South African Language Board (Pansalb), today launched the Language Rights Monitor Project on the Main Campus in Bloemfontein.
 
In accordance with the Pansalb Act of 1995, Pansalb is responsible for the promotion and protection of language rights in South Africa, and is the chief funder of the project.          
 
The Language Rights Monitor Project was initiated in 2002 for a trial period of three years, with the aim of reporting to Pansalb, on an annual basis, on language-rights issues in South Africa, as reflected mainly in the printed media.
 
Since then, three reports have already appeared, covering various aspects relating to language rights, including, inter alia, language-rights complaints, language-rights issues, language litigation, as well as research on language rights in South Africa. Profs Johan Lubbe and Theo du Plessis, as well as Dr Elbie Truter, all associated to the UFS, were responsible for the compilation of the first three reports.
 
During 2006, Pansalb decided to establish the project for an unspecified period of time at the Unit for Language Management at the UFS. It is precisely for this reason that the project is being launched. The South African Language Rights Monitor will henceforth appear annually as a prestige publication of Pansalb, compiled by staff associated with the Unit.
 
However, Pansalb has also decided to further consolidate the project, as a result of the need for a more immediate report, as well as the need to include records drawn from newspapers published in the African languages. It was therefore decided that, as from September 2006, a monthly South African Language Rights Bulletin would also be launched. 
 
Such a bulletin would provide an overview, on a monthly basis, of developments in South Africa concerning language rights, and would enable Pansalb to become more actively involved in crisis situations in which mediation is urgently needed. Two monthly bulletins have already appeared, and were favourably received by Pansalb. During the launch of the project, this bulletin was also introduced to the public for the first time.
 
With the official launch of Pansalb’s Language Rights Monitor project in the Free State, emphasis will be placed on the leading role played by this province, and more specifically by the UFS, in the development and implementation of a multilingual policy.
 
In future, more information on the situation regarding language-rights issues in South Africa will be made available from Bloemfontein, for the benefit of South Africa’s language-rights watchdog, Pansalb, but also for the benefit of other institutions involved in language-rights issues.
 
A constructive contribution will thus be rendered to the cultivation of language justice, an important element of the democratisation process in South Africa.
 
Issued by:
Prof Theo du Plessis
Unit for Language Management, UFS
 
 
Media release
Issued by: Lacea Loader
Media Representative
Tel: (051) 401-2584
Cell: 083 645 2454
24 January 2007

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