The Cape Times reports this morning that the ANC wants to protect members of the South African Police Service from being dragged into court “to clear their names” when a criminal complaint is filed against them. According to the report:
[T]he party has proposed that a revamped Independent Complaints Directorate (ICD) deal initially with all criminal complaints against police.
ANC members, who discussed the issue during a meeting of the conference’s peace and stability commission yesterday, argued that police should not be subjected to the same treatment as “ordinary criminals” when faced with being charged with a crime.
This amounted to the “criminalisation” of officers simply because they were accused of an offence, one delegate said. A delegate who attended the discussion said the proposal meant, for example, that if an officer “shoots someone who poses a danger to the public, (the ICD) will … determine whether to refer the case for further investigation and prosecution”.
If this report is correct, it would be rather worrying for several reasons. First, several reports over the past few years have indicated that police members, frustrated by their lack of power and status in the community and because of a lack of training, often abuse their power and act in a high handed or even illegal manner when they are called upon to arrest suspects or fulfill their ordinary functions.
A new system that would protect police officers from the law by requiring the ICD first to investigate police misconduct and preventing the prosecuting authority from bringing criminal charges against police officers unless the ICD has first agreed to this, would send the wrong signal to police officers. It would suggest to them that they are not bound by the law in the same manner than the rest of us. Surely this is a recipe for police abuse, as police officers would begin to think that they will be protected from prosecution – no matter how unlawful their actions?
Surely we do not want the police to behave in the same manner as during the apartheid era when it was a law unto itself? Once one goes down that slippery slope, how long before we have another Vlakplaas or a BSB? It seems to me like this proposal is really playing with fire and may create a police force feared by the population and far removed from justice.
Second, the Constitution creates a single prosecuting authority and gives power to that “to institute criminal proceedings on behalf of the state, and to carry out any necessary functions incidental to instituting criminal proceedings”. It also states that “[n]ational legislation must ensure that the prosecuting authority exercises its functions without fear, favour or prejudice”.
The proposals discussed at the ANC Indaba will surely infringe on the duty of the prosecuting authority to institute criminal proceedings and to prosecute without fear, favour or prejudice as the prosecuting authority will now only be able to act once the ICD has given the green light for such actions against a police officer. It will therefore more than likely be unconstitutional to shield the police in this fashion from criminal prosecution.
Third, it also seems to run counter to the Rule of Law, entrenched as a founding value of our society in section 1 of the Constitution. The Rule of Law establishes the principle that all must be equal before the law and that no one must be deemed to be above the law. But the proposals would give special treatment to police officers and would elevate them above ordinary citizens and would treat them differently regarding criminal prosecutions. Once again, this therefore seems constitutionally problematic.
Crime is obviously a serious concern in South Africa and the police is currently not as effective as it could be in combating crime. Giving police more leeway to bend the rules might make us feel good about the fight against crime – unless we happen to be the poor innocent sod on the wrong end of police brutality or abuse, of course – but it will not make a real difference to the combating of crime.
What is needed is a better trained and better managed police force. We need more police out on the streets doing the beat; more police who can investigate crimes, gather the information and build winnable cases. We do not need more police officers ready to shoot to kill suspects (who must be deemed innocent until proven guilty by a court of law) or break the rules to rough up suspects or mistreat the citizens of South Africa.
The proposals as reported represents a populist response to the very difficult question of how to improve policing in South Africa. It will not work and will, eventually make us all less safe because we will begin to fear the police again as we did in the apartheid days. Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it, so the saying goes. Someone should remind the ANC of this rather bleak fact.
I don’t see how creating an independant body to assess cases against police officers would in any way infringe on anybody’s constitutional rights. They are not saying that the police won’t be charged, but that their cases will be assessed by an independent body prior to criminal charges being instituted against them. This new body could well work in conjunction with the public prosecutor in order to determine whether or not a case should proceed against an officer. I know the word “indepedent” implies that they will be autonomous in their duties, but this idea can be further fleshed out to allow for a consultative process to take place between the commission and the prosecutors.
You argue: Second, the Constitution creates a single prosecuting authority and gives power to that “to institute criminal proceedings on behalf of the state, and to carry out any necessary functions incidental to instituting criminal proceedings”. It also states that “[n]ational legislation must ensure that the prosecuting authority exercises its functions without fear, favour or prejudice”. Notwithstanding this one should remember that the constitutional was brought about to ensure that the rights of all citizens and people in SA were protected and I would that the creation of this commission would infact be a way of protecting the those rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights, i.e the right to life.
Further, i do not see how the formation of this independent comission is in any way similar to the policing methods used in the apartheid era, when the police force had a clear MO to harass and terrorise black people and anyone who supported the idea of a free and fair country.
You seem hellbent to ensure that any idea put forward by the ANC is discredited, for reasons known only to yourself.
I’m not an member or a supporter of the ANC, however I try and exercise some objectivity when dealing with proposal’s which are being discussed in an endeavour to curb/eradicate some of the many problems that this country is facing.
“This amounted to the “criminalisation” of officers simply because they were accused of an offence, one delegate said.”
……………………………………………………………………………………
This delegate shows that he was out of depth in this discussion! He does not understand the basic differences between arrested, detained and accused persons!
While the high levels of crime in South Africa should not be underscored, we should not be unmindful of the police brutality in the Apartheid era! Police should as far as it is legally permissible, be allowed to do their Constitutional duties without intervention from other government institutions and private sources to ensure their independence, effectiveness and effeciency.
However, the ANC seems to be fusing the the concepts of unabated police power with effective and effecient police force. This mistake is very common to an untrained eye. Be that as it may, as Prof has correctly pointed out, this will create more problems than solve! It will result in a scary and not effective and effecient police force, create problems for the prosecution as evidence will be ejected in court for being in breach of the Constitutionally ensrined rights! This will frustrate the police even more and such will be vented on us poor citizens!
On a conclusive note, I opine that this discussion should have been on how to procure police effectiveness and effeciency and not on the limitation of rights and the creation of a scary police force!
Prof!
I am just not certain with the authenticity of the report you are refering to. I wish for the sake of ordinary citizens, that the report is of your own-fabrication .Having dealt with matters wherein minister of safety and security was being sued, as a result of unwarranted conducts by the police, one would realise that the suggested review would yield disaster for our country.
I hope this is one of those empty promises made by the ANC.
Interesting. Adolph Hitler had populist appeal, grass roots support and threatened to kill his opposition. He also had a police force that was above the law. Kids were taken away from their mothers to train, and JZ proposed kids to be taken away from unwed mothers too. The parallels between Jacob Zuma and Adolf Hitler become more apparent every day.
This is madness, especially since the blue light elite police tend to be more dangerous than the crooks they are meant to shield VIPs from. It’s a common pattern in the ANC though: start the Scorpions, once the Scorpions do their jobs too well, disband them to protect the ANC. Now, once the police get into hot water for not doing their jobs well, the ANC wants to protect them.
Is it a coincidence that this comes after the blue lights and well-known ANC stalwarts like Robert McBride and Jackie Selebi have had run-ins with the law?
Garg Unzola // Dec 1, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Is it a coincidence that this comes after the blue lights and well-known ANC stalwarts like Robert McBride and Jackie Selebi have had run-ins with the law?
It will be wrong to derive such an inference from the discussion. You tend to forget that the current ANC would want nothing to do with TM,s Puppets. It is not a secret that Selebi is one of them.
i would imagine that the ANC is driven by what is happening at the moment with the ICD. You may ask yourself how many of those cases instituted against police by this structure are prosecuted successfully. It is not suggested that they will be not prosecuted if circumstances warrant such a drastic step but then they( ICD ) should have their facts straight.
I withdraw my previous posting!
Regulating the police is massively important in any society, but particularly in SA given the level of violent crime and the consequent pressure on the police. Perhaps it would be useful to compare how other countries regulate their police? An example it the UK Independent Policy Complaints Commission, which is currently conducting a high profile investigation into the police’s shooting dead a suspect a day or two ago (www.ipcc.gov.uk). I agree with Pierre that allowing a body of this sort the power to veto the prosecution of a police officer may be open to abuse and possibly unconstitutional; but I do think a body, fiercely independent from both the police and government, who has at least the powers of investigation, reporting and recommendation to the NPA and the police themselves, has the potential to be of great value. Police are in very sticky situation in SA – under pressure from all angles. Just as we should reject out of hand any police brutality and wrongdoing, so should we appreciate the good they do, by putting their lives on the line for us daily. They deserve sensitive, but firm, regulation that recognises the unique role they play in society. It is a mistake to simply equate them – on the basis of equality before the law – with everyone else (like Dicey did).
A few logical fallacies in the esteemed ANC’s argument…
1. If indeed it is true that police officers are “criminalised” when accused of a crime, this would presumably extend to anybody who is accused of a crime? Why is it acceptable for a non-police officer to be “criminalised” but not a police officer (who should, in truth, be held to an even higher standard of account, being an officer of the law)?
2. If people are indeed being “criminalised” by accusations of criminal conduct before being found guilty, would it not make more sense to make proceedings more transparent, rather than hide them away in a committee (the ICD)? The only effect to beb acheived with the suggested approach would be to heighten the already suspicious SA public as to the propriety of the authorities.
3. It does seem rather convenient that this comes in the (ongoing) wake of Robert McBride and Jackie Selebi et al…perhaps we’ll then introduce legislation for judges and politicians too?
4. What if the ICD decides there is no merit to a case, but the NPA decides there is? Is the NDPP going to be overruled in a decision to prosecute by the ICD? Surely this would present a huge conflict in terms of current legislation (or what I know of it at any rate)? I was under the impression that only a court of law was allowed to interpret and apply written statute…would this not amount to turning the ICD into a court of law?
I agree police are under pressure, and nobody is trying to suggest it should be any different to what it already is. But the thought that the ANC wants to make it potentially easier for misconduct is absurd. Yes, the ICD is “independent”, but we have all seen in this country that there are very few truly independent structures and bodies…just reading what the officers who arrested Tony Yengeni were subjected to, I seriously doubt the IDC would be able to withstand some of those ANC heavyweights (literally and figuratively) if they were to start leaning on the IDC.
The courts have proven that they are objective and independent, and will not be influenced. Leave it to them…soon we’ll have the ANC NEC or NWC making decisions on whether to prosecute ANC politicians if this thing gets carried away!!!
You guys really shock me sometimes. Prof posts a piece of an article, which for all we know – it could be a newspaper fabrication. What do you do? You turn this into a Zuma-lambasting show. Anyway from what I could make out of the article, it appears that there is a move to “revamp” ICD, as we are all aware that it is literally “dead” as we speak. Subsiquently off-load the NPA the police misconducts. Perhaps, we should engage the issue of Which types of misconducts should be dealt with by ICD first? Surely we cant be referring every misconduct to the NPA regardless of its nature. The same way as institutions such as BCCSA investigate some complains, deal with some while refering some- it should apply to the ICD. Lets just engage this debate robustly as it is clear that this issue is still at the discussion level. Stop with this ANCPHOBIA- it is down right stupid and irritating….ANC, like any other party. has a right to debate issues robustly. We are expected to engage issues here, not this “Zuma this, Zuma that” daily vomits, a person would swear that yo’al are romanticaly IN LOVE WITH HIM the way you always drag his name it everything! Get a life!
Prof I am not sure if what I m about to ask has ever happened or if anyone has ever asked. Anyway I was just wondering how would it be like IF ALL MEMBERS OF A CONSTITUTIONALLY SPEAKING FAMILY WERE TO MEET FACE TO FACE AT A CERTAIN SECURE VENUE. The meeting wud be a sort of “know each other kind”. I m sure it would be nice. If my idea is accepted I propose the Venue be Bloemfontein, my lovely friendly home-town, for all OBVIOUS reasons. date be 16 Dec 08. Come on guys, if people can meet thru these scary mixit stuffs, why cant responsible learned Constitutionally Speaking members. I await your robust reactions! By the way- Nobody must be “willing to kill” for De Vos/Lindelani/Anonymouse/Mdu/Tony in “Vrystaat” Virginia or anyone for that matter coz I can assure you: Bloemfontein polisie sal hom (whoever it is) dik slaan….Oh, another thing, I Am Not Calling For A CONVENTION hey- last thing I need is to be on Malema’s bad books!
One last thing, please react to my earlier request whilst still commenting to Prof’s article- lest I m “recalled” from this blog for “being out of order”. We all know the results of recalls hey – next thing you ll see my friend Lindelani starting his own ” Constitutionally Speaking – Light” blog, albeit with a different name- probably from De Vos blog’s history. We dont want that…
The Big Slipper // Dec 1, 2008 at 7:29 pm
…………………………………………………………………..
The ANC is just saying that police officers are being “criminalized” by mere complaints to strengthening their (un-)convincing argument to the electorate that Jacob Zuma is being “criminalized” by the NPA’s decision to prosecute him.
” A leader in whose absence the job cannot be done is a stupid leader.”
I say this with regret because of all the good things that Mbeki did for this country, he failed in one material respect; providing us with his successor!
South Africa is now in a “leadership mess” because Mbeki did not groom a capable leader who will be competent to be our President after his departure. This could be the reason why he wanted to have a third term as the President of the ANC; he wanted to provide us with that leader! Unfortunately it was a little too late.
I wish that we could have that leader as soon as possible because the one who is now posed to be our President is more scary than I initially anticipated, especially when he opens his mouth about the changes we must anticipate in his term of office.
Someone should do a study and tell us how much Communist influence Zuma has in his head and how much say Communists have in the ANC government! These changes that Zuma seems to be proposing are more in line with a Communist state. Are we perhaps heading there?
Sne // Dec 2, 2008 @11:21 am “These changes that Zuma seems to be proposing are more in line with a Communist state. Are we perhaps heading there?”
Responses to the ANC policy proposal highlighted by PdV (it is a mere proposal of a potential policy change, so far, as to which the involvement of JZ is utterly speculative) are verging on the hysterical.
The central issue is this:-
“[T]he party has proposed that a revamped Independent Complaints Directorate (ICD) deal initially with all criminal complaints against police.”
Revamping such a body in such a way is hardly unprecedented. In the UK the Police Complaints Board was replaced in 1985 by the Police Complaints Authority, which itself was replaced in 2004 by the Independent Police Complaints Commission – all of which indicates that holding the ring between the justified concerns of the public, complainants, victims and the police in this area is a delicate but necessary exercise.
The proposal, as reported, does not exclude or entrench upon the responsibility of the NPA – neither does the greatly enlarged role and powers of the British IPPC entrench on the functions of the Crown Prosecution Authority.
The third and final paragraph of the report quoted by PdV reflects a highly tendentious piece of journalism. The reporter selected or (for all we know) elicited comments by one or two participants at a meeting (we cannot tell if the reporter attended it personally) which are not even presented by the reporter as reflecting the common mood of the meeting, let alone what was actually resolved at it.
Beyond the ANC’s peace and stability commission putting the functions and responsibilities of the existing process in the ring for further discussion, nothing else can securely be asserted from the “Cape Times” article as to what the policy change involves.
dontgetmestarted // Dec 2, 2008 at 1:02 pm
……………………………………………………………………
You do not seem to be construing the intention of the discussion on “revamping ICD” in the light of what has just happened in South Africa; When there is a talk of revamping, we immediately think of what happened to the Scorpions.
Secondly, given the ignorant utterances of the said delegate, it is not impossible that this may turn out to be way more than just revamping!
Therefore, you need to construe these “discussions” in that context! Remember that there were also “discussions” about the future of the Scorpions! We should always expect the unexpected when its comes to the ANC government!
My points stand.
The newspaper reportage is utterly unenlightening and tendentious, and the need for continuing close scrutiny of the procedure for examining complaints against the police is unremarkable.
Sne’s claimed justification for his “communist state” comment offers a woefully inadequate and even partanoid hermeneutic for assessing ANC policy proposals.
Let’s see. Thabo Mbeki represented the market friendly faction of the ANC. Jacob Zuma represents the leftist faction of the ANC, and has described himself as a socialist. Thabo Mbeki is a level-headed economist. Jacob Zuma is a populist. The prof said:
The proposals as reported represents a populist response to the very difficult question of how to improve policing in South Africa. It will not work and will, eventually make us all less safe because we will begin to fear the police again as we did in the apartheid days.
I don’t think it is far-fetched to claim that this is a communist solution to our police woes. Let’s not forget that the Scorpions are no longer independent but incorporated into the tardy police force.
Whether the Cape Times report is biased or not does not deter from the fact that the ANC now wants 2 separate law systems: one for us and one for the police. Frighteningly fascist.
Leaving aside for the moment the latest salvo from the paranoid tendency, I find, on reflection, that in directing my fire on the combox I was inadvertently tender with PdV. He headlined his article “Police to be shielded from the law?” and wrote:-
“A new system that would protect police officers from the law by requiring the ICD first to investigate police misconduct and preventing the prosecuting authority from bringing criminal charges against police officers unless the ICD has first agreed to this, would send the wrong signal to police officers.”
No doubt such a new system might well have the dire consequences he mentions, but the actual policy proposal, so far as anyone can tell from the news report, goes nowhere near justifying PdV’s analysis of it.
The proposal is that “a revamped Independent Complaints Directorate (ICD) deal initially with all criminal complaints against police.”
I would highlight “initially” if I could which does not, on its own, support PdV’s baleful interpretation of it.
As presently advised, I consider such a policy change to to be both desirable and necessary and it is certainly in line with international best practice: see http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/index/about_ipcc/international/cacoleconference2006.htm
dontgetmestarted // Dec 2, 2008 at 2:01 pm
“…it is certainly in line with international best practice…”
………………………………………………………………………………………
I find it gullible when South Africans just adopt, mostly without adaptation, standards applicable in other countries and equate these with international standards or international best practice! It is lamantable that even erudite South Africans fall into this trap.
Yes, we do have a Constitution which has been modelled in accordance with the Canadian Charter! Yes, we use(d) Canadian caselaw to interprete our Constitution particularly in cases whereby there was no or very little caselaw to serve as precedent!
However, we cannot, without qualification, simply adopt what is being done in Canada and apply it in South Africa! South Africa is a sovereign country which is part of the civilised nations. It is very unique and should not be just equated with other countries simply because those countries happened to be neighbours of the USA! To just take what is being proposed in Canada as international best practice is to be frightengly naive! Canada has not implemented the said proposals and we already regard it as international best practice!
South Africans need to realise that we are a unique country which should have solutions of its own. Solutions adopted abroad or elsewhere should be treated with circumspection and be adapted to the South African context because we are unique as a country!
dontgetmestarted // Dec 2, 2008 at 2:01 pm
“…I would highlight “initially” if I could which does not, on its own, support PdV’s baleful interpretation of it…”
……………………………………………………………………………………
How the intention of the ANC is coushed in the English language makes no difference when you know that it is merely a matter of time before the intention can find its way into our Legislature! The quintessential example of the scrapping of the Scorpions comes into play once again! To quote “initially” then to support your proposition that this is merely a discussion or a policy proposal is to be negligently ignorant of the modus operadi of the ANC government!
Other examples are the municipalities which have since been returned to the Provinces in which they were placed simply because the ANC government does not consult nor “discuss” as the delegate has naively put it! You will hear that the policy proposed has been presented into Parliament for signing into law instead of hearing of what kind of reception the “policy proposal” has received from the affacted people! That is how the ANC government operates and we cannot close our eyes when it is pretending to propose policy whilst creating a smokescreen for the Constitutional Court to say there were indeed discussions and consultatioons as required by the Constutition!
dontgetmestarted // Dec 2, 2008 at 2:01 pm
“…the actual policy proposal…”
……………………………………………….
The secrecy of the ANC government when it comes to proposals of new laws has got other grave consequences;
The government finds it easy to conduct rallies during election periods but it cannot even call together people to let them know about the proposed laws or proposed amendments to new laws!
Poor people on the ground do not have access to information and they do not even know about certain government grants and privileges that they are legally entitled to. Apart from illiteracy, one of the most contributors to this is the failure of the government to bring to the attention of the people policy proposals as you have put it.
So dont try to fool people here by telling us that these were merely policy proposals because the next time we hear about them the Constitutional Court would be telling us that it cannot pre-empt the Constitutional prerogative of the Parliament!
Dear Sne,
I did not equate the Canadian experience with international best practice; you might like to look around at the experience of other countries, including the UK. The current policy proposal is at such a low level of clarification, that the single principle to be identified is that complaints against the police be addressed “initially” by an independent body. A more balanced approach would be to assess this proposal on its merits.
You have no ground for rebuking me for “try[ing] to fool people here” about anything. That is unnecessarily intemperate.
Dear Sne (re all your posts this afternoon),
It is not helpful to drag the discussion off into other areas (how and when the ANC will communicate its manifesto, for an election in 4 months time, for example)) before the existing topic has been sufficiently clarified.
The comment of yours from 11.21am which I quoted can be broken down as follows:-
(a) These changes that (b) Zuma (c) seems to be proposing are (d) more in line with a Communist state.
Garg Unzola @1.45 gave your (d) an unguarded vote of support in writing “I don’t think it is far-fetched to claim that this is a communist solution to our police woes.” And you have ratcheted up the paranoia quotient in your subsequent posts.
Misled, it may be, by the over-hasty analysis by PdV, neither of you has focused adequately on the policy change as proposed. The impression is that you were distracted by the gloss put on the proposal and have insufficiently absorbed the proposal itself.
Let me assist, if I can, by reference to what you wrote @11.21am:-
(a) the changes, so far as we can comprehend what they are – the outlines can hardly be more sketchy – are unexceptionable (see my post @2.01pm);
(b) I cannot see the justification for personalisation of issues here, since there is currently no indication JZ took a leading role in the formulation of the proposal;
(c) there is no rational basis upon which you can claim that JZ’s hand “seems” to be evident;
(d) no communist state ever promoted investigation into the activities of its own police – a policy which is, rather, in line with international best practice: as to which see the link I gave in the post @2.01pm.
As for the relevance of the disbandment (not re-vamping) of the DSO to the policy proposal regarding the handling of complaints against the police, you will have to do better than say that all and any suggestion by the ANC that any state or state-sponsored structure needs to be “revamped” is a call to the democrats to take to the barricades.
The point I think I was trying to make (and Garg Unzola’s somewhat blithe attitude to the facts might make it imperative to insist upon it again) was that it is unsafe to structure reasoned responses to ANC policy proposals merely upon reportage by the “Cape Times” vel sim.
Have a nice night
DGMS, your participation in this blog will definitely reduce the level of gullibilty of some of the bloggers here. Keep it up!
I seem to agree with the view that the two pronged investigation of police, initially by the ICD which will recommend does not infringe the constitution but in fact will buttress the efforts of the prosecution.
The ICD will operate like the Scorpions on the conduct of the police with the intention to reduce or obliterate abuse of power by the police and bolster the police to effectively deal with ruthless criminals.
The police are in some intances discouraged or reluctannt to pull the trigger even when section 49 of the Criminal Procedure Act militates for such. ICD is not constituted by their police on their own.
The contemplated policy changes will have to be accompanied by overhauling of the ICD in its currrent form in order to infuse it with expertise to deal with a complex of complaints about police brutality. The ICD will be the precursor of any prosecution. It will not eliminate the duty and space of normal prosecutorial process.
To even suggest that this unconstitutional is for me a bit overbearring of our constitutional tools. Let us not wild that concept everytime a new thing is proposed. When the scorpions was conceived many were unimpressed. The same opposing forces are the ones that defended its subsistence. What irony!
Scholars will have to engage with the modalities to avert the fettering of the role and function of the Prosecuting Authority but not plunge into a feat of objectinism simply because Zuma leads the ANC; that is dangerous and self-defeating for the project to build a united nation.
We must enrich the discourse not just reject everything. I must not also just oppose PdV at every turn. I must strive to understand the premise of his diametrical opposition and point out the strengths and weaknesses where prevalent.
All we need to do is a thorough analysis of the pros and cons not suble politicking!
if only it were subtle, Ishmael If only it were gullibility, Bongs! The intellectual quality of interventions to this blog has sadly diminished in recent days.
Prejudice, in part, is a lack of openness to other points of view, and a refusal to modify one’s opinion in the light of the evidence or the force of logic.
We have seen it quite egregiously in Anonymouse’s objections (in another thread) to JZ’s candidacy for high office where, after an extensive probing and undermining of the factual bases offered by him as justifying his proffered opinion, his lame conclusion was: “That is my opinion of the character of Jacob Zuma – I don’t trust him – and that’s it.”
Normally, this is the starting-point for rational discussion, not the end-point. Where one side adopts a point of view initially presented as if it were open to argument (as Anonymouse did), the ensuing debate is so much verbiage if at the end of it all the debate is suddenly abandoned and exchanged for an entrenched opinion utterly unamenable to argument. That is the dynamic of the school-yard.
It has arisen again in Sne’s hysterical opposition to a policy proposal by the ANC which, on any sane and reasoned examination, is unexceptionable as it stands. Commentators are entitled to speculate what the meat of the proposal might be, but if this cannot be conducted in temperate language, I see no point in debating the topic at all. Mere hostility to JZ is not a credible stance in a serious blog.
Most countries have police services, and most countries attempt to grapple in some way with the problems that inevitably arise in investigating the diverse range of complaints capable of being raised against the police (from lack of courtesy, through incompetence, to criminal behaviour).
The notion that there is an “international best practice” in this area, and the adjunct one whether South African practice does or does not match it, cannot be laughed off quite as easily as Sne appears to imagine.
Some questions that might be ventilated are: Is South African current practice the best that can reasonably be devised? If not, is it capable of improvement? If so, what is the way forward? And are independent investigators the ideal or not? These questions reside at the useful end of the spectrum of debate. Sne’s recent effusions occupy the other end.
The cases I came across suggest that the IDC as it stands required a stronger investigating talent that will be equal to the task as there are greaty many complaints directed to this body. I
f all cases are going to be required to be directed to the ICD or new entity then we must look at its possible structural reconfiguration. The aspect which also will require intensive investigation is the intersection between the ICD and the Prosecuting authority.
Should the latter veto the former in order to drag a criminal clothed with the formal police uniform through the courts in order in order to assert the doctrine of equality before the law ?. This question has to be interrogated -The modus operandi of the proposed institution.
It think the Rule of Law will not be watered down by the prevalence of an institution to investigate the excesses of police action. The proposal of the ANC is indeed food for thought.
dontgetmestarted // Dec 2, 2008 at 3:53 pm
……………………………………………………………………
(a) Exactly my point! Things start as sketchy proposals in the ANC government and then the next time you meet them will be in the statute books as the Acts of Parliament! There is no proper consultation and I doubt even a proper reasearch was carried out because had that been the case they would have hurried in the defence of the proposals as they would have been anticipating adverse reactions!
(b) This submission about Zuma not taking a leading role is as poor as saying that Mbeki cannot be blamed for the Health Department because it was run by Manto Tshabalala-Msimang! The fact of the matter is that Zuma is the current president of the ANC and it does not take rocket scientists to know that the ANC is a party with very centralised power! The top structure makes the decisions which must be carried out by all others without questions! Zuma has all the powers in the ANC party and if he is not exercising those powers then it highlights him as a weak ruler who could not silence his croonies when they were threatening to tun the country into an ungovernable chaos!
(c) This change is but one of those changes proposed by Zuma for his Presidency next year! I refer you back to (b) above!
(d) The proposal does not actually promote investigation into the police. It merely moves this already existing function away from, at least initially, the reach of the NPA which is Constitutionally mandated to carry out such a function and prosecute the perpetraitors!
You keep on refering to Canada as international best practice… where did you get this because the site you referred me to merely explains the proposals and does not compare them to other comparable jurisdictions where it has achieved major success or may I was too lazy or busy to read that part!
Well, pertaining to the example of the DSO, what can I say; Experience is a very good teacher.
The Scorpions may be dead and burried but the lessons they have left behind about the dangers of having a party which is (or now was?) guaranteed of winning the elections will always be in the minds of people like me who felt powerless when the ANC NEC decided to scrap the Scorpions…
Lastly, you are welcome to post here the proposals of the ANC so that we can get them from a realiable source or even provide the link thereto. Surely that should not be too hard given the fact that they have been discussed already and were in the possession of the Cape Times!
Dear Sne,
You will have to withdraw your preposterous comment that i was “trying to fool people” before I can discuss your issues any further.
Let me remind you what you directed at me earlier:-
// Dec 2, 2008 @3:08 pm
“So dont try to fool people here by telling us that these were merely policy proposals”
dontgetmestarted // Dec 3, 2008 at 12:54 pm
……………………………………………………………………..
Check your posts below directed to me;
“It has arisen again in Sne’s hysterical opposition to a policy proposal by the ANC which, on any sane and reasoned examination, is unexceptionable as it stands…”
“These questions reside at the useful end of the spectrum of debate. Sne’s recent effusions occupy the other end.”
“And you have ratcheted up the paranoia quotient in your subsequent posts…”
“Sne’s claimed justification for his “communist state” comment offers a woefully inadequate and even partanoid hermeneutic for assessing ANC policy proposals…”
“…your preposterous comment…”
_________________________________________
And yet you have the audacity to demand that I withdraw my opinion! Based on the above, I rather you do not discuss my issues any further!
Dear Sne,
You need to grasp the distinction between what is permissible in robust debate (as when characterising the quality of views expressed) and personal insinuations of bad faith.
For you to assert I have been trying to fool people is utterly unacceptable, and I condemned it as “intemperate” long ago.
I, on the other had, have denounced a paranoid (pardon my previous typo, highlighted in your quotation) hermeneutic adopted by you, have described your interventions as variously hysterical and preposterous, and observed that your previous posts have been lacking in utility.
You might care to ponder on the difference between our approaches to invective.
that should be “ponder the difference”
and “the other had” should be “the other hand”.
Let’s all calm down.
If the IDC is anything like what Prof De Vos seems to think then it is certainly not a great idea. The police especially have to operate within the bounds of the law. It makes little sense to break more laws than the people that you’re going after. Police should also be held up to higher standard of accountability than ordinary citizens.
If it is simply a body that would hold inquiries and make recommendations to the NPA or the NDPP then it may be a good idea. Here they should ensure that the SAPS are held up to far more stringent levels of accountability. We cannot protect criminals within our SAPS. This has the potential of going either way and that is the danger.
The overwhelming majority has been abused by the ruling party and they may start betraying the principles that 1st attraced many of the voters.If we think careful we would see that the ANC Govt seems to ensure that it passes most, if not all, legislation in its best interests and not those of South Africans. That is a disturbing trend. Another thing that is odd is that there is usually a limited amount of time for the public to contribute to Bills etc. If you contend that there is ample time then parliament should ensure people know about this and how to make use of this opportunity. I feel that very few people have the chance to contribute and that’s a loss to our democratic process. Eg. in KZN they seem to have most of those public sessions where the public is invited to comment in Empangeni. A far cry from the places where you’d find more people. In such a province one would think they’d have 3 rounds to comment in the North coast, South coast and either DBN or PMB.
nkululeko // Dec 3, 2008 at 2:35 pm
………………………………………………………
Thank you… That is exactly what the ANC government is doing! The ANC government is basically sneaking laws past the unsuspecting public!
Dear nkululeko,
The Independent Complaints Directorate (for investigating complaints against the police) has been in existence since 1997. The proposal is not to erect such a body, but to improve its efficiency and strengthen public confidence that complaints are taken seriously while not demoralising the police service as a whole.
The flaws in the current system have been evident for some time: for an external perspective on the South African situation as at 2003, see
http://www.justiceinitiative.org/activities/ncjr/police/sa_police
An indication of the ICD’s own view of its abilities and efficiency (as presently structured and resourced) can be gleaned from p.47 of its Annual Report 2007/2008 available for download from its website:- http://www.icd.gov.za/documents/index.html
The latest policy proposal (such as it is) was ventilated at the ANC election manifesto policy conference which concluded its work on Sunday; the manifesto will be published on 10 January. It is unlikely much more flesh will be put on the bones in such a document.
There is no call for people to be agitated about a political party initiating discussion for the purposes of formulating its election manifesto. A manifesto is not a government blue paper, still less a white paper.
It is far from obvious that the DA would be hostile to proposals for revamping the IDC, see (dating from 28 September 2008) http://www.da.org.za/?p=531
I’d like to make it very clear that I’m on my vacation. I have no intention of reading anything more than what you write here. Incorporate your supporting documents into your posts for ease of reference. I do, however, appreciate the enthusiasm and desire to impart knowledge.
The problem with policy changes and minor fine tuning in various government associated bodies (even independant and impartial ones) is that it always starts with tweaking here and there and a few years later its something totally different. Once these complaints have been investigated what should be done? To what extent is this power going to affect the SAPS and the public? Those are key questions when looking at the power of our investigatory and regulatory bodies.
I’d also like to point out that the 2nd half of my post was a more general discussion. I’m glad Sne read it as such. I did not mean to say a manifesto is a government paper, but if one thinks about it it would seem that the majority party’s manifestoes should somehow become govrnment documents unless they were meant to be hollow promises. And I’d hate to predict what the DA might or might not do. that’s just far too much work.