The Sunday Tribune article (“Robbers gun down cop”, 7 October 2012) is riddled with inaccuracies that are meant to stir emotions and tarnish the image of Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) investigators. In the first instance, the IPID is concerned about the killing of policemen by criminals we would like to convey our condolences to the family of the Constable Ajith Krishanlal for their loss. We’re also saddened by the shooting and injury of Constable Jerome Ngoma.
The allegation that the Captain who shot one of the suspects in both the killing of Constable Krishanlal and the robbery at the fast food outlet, has been charged with murder is false. If it comes from other police officers at best we should be worried about their understanding of the law, at worst we should question their motives for spreading lies.
It is common cause that a person who is charged with murder, would first be arrested and be brought before a court of law to answer to those charges. As far as we are aware, the Captain is not in custody and has not appeared in court on any charges related to this incident.
What the IPID merely did, which is normal where a person has died as a result of police action, was to register a murder docket. An investigation takes place to collect all evidence, including the seizure of the firearms used in the shooting. The firearms are taken for ballistics testing. A post mortem will be held as well to determine the cause of death.
The aforesaid are normal processes in the investigation – when they are concluded, the docket with all the evidence will be taken to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to decide if anyone should be prosecuted. If the decision is to prosecute, the suspect may be arrested and charged with murder and be tried in a court of law. One expects that officers of the law and crime reporters would know that this is how the law works.
Another lie is that IPID investigators tampered with evidence or contaminated the scene. What the article does not make clear is that there were two scenes, the first one being where Constable Krishanlal was killed, and the second one being where the suspect was killed by a policeman. The police know very well that the events at the first scene are investigated by them, namely the South African Police Service (SAPS).
They know also that in terms of Section 28 of the IPID Act No 1 of 2011, the second scene should be investigated by the IPID. Two IPID went to that scene after being notified as required by the aforesaid Act. They never touched any evidence or tamper with any scene. They conducted an investigation as required by law and left the crime scene experts to process the evidence. If the police did not take charge of their scene “the first scene”, the IPID should not be blamed for such failure.
The third lie is that IPID investigators prevented trauma counsellors from interacting with the Captain and insisted on taking a statement. If this were true, why is it that the IPID does not have a statement from the Captain? The fact is no statement was taken but the IPID investigators had to obtain the details of the Captain in order to make arrangements to take his statements at a later time.
Lastly, it is a known fact that the IPID has upset a lot of policemen by arresting members of the infamous Cato Manor unit and that some of their friends and supporters will go out of their way to tarnish the name of the IPID and its investigators.
The IPID will not be deterred from fulfilling its mandate which it gets from the laws of the country.
Enquiries:
Moses Dlamini
Cell: 082 809 1927
Sunday Tribune article riddled with inaccuracies
