Programme Director,
Executive Director, Mr F Beukman,
South African Police Service (SAPS) Cluster Commander,
All Independent Complaints Directorate (ICD) officials,
All presenters,
Delegates,
Ladies and gentlemen,
Thank you, Mr Beukman, for inviting me to speak again at one of your momentous workshops; a workshop that seeks to fulfil an explicit ICD mandate of dealing with investigations relating to discharge of firearms by our police officers.
Programme director, this is indeed a massive mandate, because it deals with a fundamental and compulsory tool of any police officer: the firearm.
This is a tool that has also caused a major outcry from both community and police top management, because of its excessive and criminal use.
On one hand, the community is expressing grief, and rightly so, of the excessive use of deadly force by our women and men in blue. Whilst on the other hand, we as South African Police Service (SAPS) Leadership and Top Management, also rightly lament about the continuous onslaught on our police officers by the gun trotting criminals.
The proper regulating and effective implementation of this mandate as found in Section 28 (1) (c) of the IPID Act of 2011, thus become critical processes indeed.
I would like to advice ICD then to quickly acknowledge that a firearm is a necessary tool of the trade for both law enforcement and law breakers. For both police officer and criminal, they do not carry guns by chance: for the police officer it is an obligated duty, whilst for the criminal it is a deliberate intent to do crime.
But for both police officer and criminal, carrying and discharging a firearm is an act that alters dramatically their respective life expectancy and all those they live with, work with, or with whom they come into contact.
Therefore, it must be said here that the fundamental guiding principle of investigating the discharge of official firearm by the police officer, must be that acknowledges that the safety of innocent person – whether police officer or citizen – is of paramount importance.
In explicit terms, I mean to say: if there is a substantial risk to the safety of life of the innocent citizen – whether police officer or ordinary person – posed by the armed criminal, the safety of innocent citizen should take precedence over the planned apprehension of that criminal.
This issue takes us then to our core and fundamental constitutional value: the respect of human life.
And that is why the ANC-led Government has made sure we strengthen our oversight body, the ICD, to ensure that police officers who have the right to shoot to protect himself/herself and the innocent citizen, do so under stringent conditions as obligated by our Constitution and related statutory laws.
The clause that mandates ICD to “investigate any complaint relating to the discharge of an official firearm by any police officer”, obligates police officers to exhaust all other reasonable means before resorting to the use of a firearm.
But, in the same vein, we must ask ourselves these two questions: One: how will a police officer know that a suspect or criminal poses no immediate threat of death or serious physical harm to the police officer? Two: How should a police officer interpret to be in a threat of loss of life or serious physical harm situation?
We must therefore be realistic when we deliberate in this workshop, because it is vivid that it will not be enough to just pronounce that this section of the Act makes the police officer to understand that s/he is responsible for his/her acts if firearm is used; and that s/he may be required to justify the discharge of her/his firearm in the court of law.
The ICD must assist the SAPS Top Management in the articulation of how we can equip and re-skill our police officers in situations of arresting suspects; transporting or guarding criminals; ambush scenarios; traffic pursuits; disturbance or domestic dispute calls; and investigation of suspicious circumstances.
We all have an obligation to make sure that our police officers are effectively trained and drilled in the fact that, the carrying and use of a firearm can never be considered as a routine, as like wearing a bullet proof vest.
Skills in negotiations and navigation in the midst of solving a crime is critical for all police officers; for these skills promote a possibility to de-escalate situations as not to resort easily to the discharge of a firearm.
Of course, ladies and gentlemen, discharging firearms is not only about in situations of a police officer protecting himself/herself from serious physical harm or death from criminals.
There are other situations too, where police officers discharge their firearms when in no threat at all, like when a police officer discharges firearm by mistake; negligently; or during warning shots. These are other instances that need to be clearly regulated.
As a preliminary implementation programme of this mandate, the ICD may therefore consider researching and determining whether all statutes in the provinces and municipalities are aligned with the values of the Constitution.
Also, all key aspects must be taken into consideration when regulating the clause in Section 28 (1) (c) of the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) Act of 2011, as in the police officer who is carrying and discharging the gun; the information centre 10111 who provides and describe calls; the Police department who is responsible for the training of police officers; the community which is responsible to work together with Police to fight crime; and the individual residing in the community who is the potential/criminal.
In my parting remark, I would like to reiterate that our innocent citizens do deserve to have the state protection from the careless, heartless and deadly conduct of criminals, including a police officer who unlawfully discharges his/her firearm.
In the same vein, our police officers will surely appreciate the unambiguous and consistent application of the mandate. Thus the ICD is obligated to develop clear cut regulations of the clause.
I thank you.
