The South African Police Service does not have a shoot-to-kill policy. "Shoot to kill" is in fact the invention of the media. The policy of the South African Police Service and the Ministry is as follows: If the life of a member or of any other person is in danger and there is no other way for the member to protect himself or herself, or the other person whose life is in danger, but to shoot at the person who is posing the danger, the member may use his or her firearm to shoot at the person posing the danger.
Should this result in the death of a person posing the danger, the action of the member will be justified as self-defence in terms of the law. This is in line with section 11 of the South African Constitution. Police officers who are confronted or faced with violent armed criminals have been instructed to defend themselves and citizens where necessary. Thank you. [Applause.]
Ngiyabonga Sekela Somlomo, Mhlonishwa ngiyakuzwa ukuthi uthini. Inkinga yokuqala enginayo ukuthi uma i-ICD isiqala ukwenza uphenyo kutholakala ukuthi iphoyisa yilona elidubule labulala kungafanele kwenziwa njani? Okwesibili, emndenini, umuntu omunye engashayeka ongahlangene nalo okufanele kudutshulwe kubhekiswe kuyena, oseceleni nje ethinteka, uzonxephezeleka kanjani kulesi simo okhuluma ngaso? (Translation of isiZulu paragraph follows.)
[Mr V B NDLOVU: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hear what you are saying. The first problem I have is what happens when the ICD starts doing its investigations and discovers that it is the police officer who shot and killed unnecessarily? Secondly, if someone else in the family, who has nothing to do with the one to be shot at, is hit by a stray bullet, how will that person be compensated with regard to the condition you are talking about?]
Madam Deputy Speaker, where the police officers have acted recklessly in the execution of their duties for the protection of the citizens, the law has taken its course, and the law must take its course.
When we say people must act in self-defence in protection of ordinary citizens that is not a licence to kill ordinary citizens who are actually innocent, and that is the application of the law. By law, the use of deadly force is guided by section 49. In this particular respect, most police offices have upheld the law. Where they have not, the law has taken its course and, we reiterate, this is what must actually happen.
In instances where innocent people and civilians have actually been shot, some of these cases have been referred to the Independent Complaints Directorate, ICD; there have been reports; and strong action was taken against those who performed those actions. Thank you. [Applause.]
Madam Deputy Speaker, the DA has watched with great interest the Ministry's publicity campaign in relation to section 49 and the National Police Commissioners' announcement that this section would be changed to give police more firepower.
It is already crystal clear in that section that the SAPS may not shoot unarmed citizens, and citizens who are fleeing, in the back. So, the conclusion is that our Minister wanted to go back to apartheid-era policing. Now, as a result of this shoot-to-kill puffery, citizens have died. Even a little three-year-old, whom the police officer thought had held a gun, has died. Now the Minister makes a 180 degree turn, saying there are just one or two technical changes he wants to make. This would suggest that a full bench of judges somehow got it wrong when this legislation was moved away from the apartheid-era format.
Now one wonders if one is disagreeing with the statements made by the National Police Commissioner, or perhaps realising that the statements made by the then Deputy Minister, Susan Shabangu, who said, "Shoot and kill the bastards and don't worry about the regulations", might have encouraged SAPS members to become law breakers. And I want to know what right the Minister had to run such a publicity campaign; one that has caused so many police offices to become confused about what previously was crystal clear regarding their rights to "shoot and kill" ... [Time expired.]
The amendment to section 49 is not a major amendment. It has been blown out of proportion and exaggerated. It deals with ambiguities in terms of the law. And I suppose that in the near future the amendment would come before us and we would debate it. What we encouraged is - and this is what the national commissioner has always said and done - that the police must apply the law in their own self-protection. Words have been put in the national commissioner's mouth - basically, much of what he says is interpreted out of context.
We are not going backwards. What we have been telling our people is that when you are confronted by dangerous criminals, use the law, use deadly force, in self-protection and the protection of the innocent. The law permits you to do that. So, there is no retreat into the past in this regard. This is what has actually been said over and over again. Thank you. [Applause.]
Madam Deputy Speaker, firstly, let me thank the Deputy Minister for turning around. At least you realise the mistake you have made with "shoot to kill". I must say, Deputy Minister, it's good that you are beginning to learn that what you were doing was dangerous.
The question is: If you're now saying no, you were just telling the police what was in the Act and in the Constitution, why did you shout about it as if you were bringing something new?
Madam Deputy Speaker, what I have said and what we are saying is: There is no turnaround strategy; there is no going backwards. Forward ever, backward never. [Applause.] And what we are saying is we shall not retreat when we are confronted by the most dangerous armed criminals. Police officers must use the law to protect themselves. That is what we have said and we will continue to say that, even if we sound like an old broken record because this is what our country needs. This is what's required by our people, because criminals are running amok. This is what we are doing and this is where we are going.
So, we have never been beyond the law and we have never said anything outside the law. It might be the harsh-sounding voices and the language that made you think this is a war. This is a war against criminals. The innocent must stay where they are, we will protect them. This is what we are encouraging police officers to do. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
Madam Deputy Speaker, Minister, you are on record as saying that there is no such policy and that there is no licence for any police officer to disregard the Constitution and the laws of the country. What more does the Minister think is necessary to explain this issue to the opposition Members of Parliament and to stop them from misleading the public? Thank you. [Applause.]
We will request all hon members to actually support us in our endeavour to rid South Africa of dangerous criminals. What this means is: Don't always take everything that was said by the Ministry from third parties, meaning the media, the fourth estate. It is only right to engage with us. The processes of talking to the opposition parties and Members of Parliament, including leaders of the opposition, about some of our actions are a step in the right direction, as is engaging with the media in South Africa about our statements. The war against criminality is not a political one, it requires all-round active participation. Thank you. [Applause.]
Order! Hon members, the time allocated for questions has expired. Outstanding replies will be received and printed in Hansard.
See also QUESTIONS AND REPLIES.