Trials of police accused of assaults and other violent actions, and inquests and court applications by township residents seeking orders restraining police attacks, provide a continuing indication of the brutal and violent methods of police in the suppression of resistance.
On 17 October 1985 police hidden in wooden crates on the back of a lorry driving through Athlone in the Cape, fired on youths who allegedly threw stones at the truck. Michael MIRANDA (11), an onlooker, Shaun MAJMOET (16), who was inside his home, and Jan CLASSE (21) were shot dead while 10 other people were injured. At the inquest, which was recently concluded, police argued that they set the ambush because patrols had proved inefficient in curbing stone-throwing.
Western Cape Commissioner of Police, Attie Laubscher, stated that 'the fact is that they [youth] are committing crime and we will use any method to combat them... If a policeman's life is threatened he will shoot to kill'. A representative of the Ministry of Law and Order at the inquest maintained that police were justified in shooting stone-throwers: 'It was not only right, but their duty. It was totally naive to think that warnings would have been effective'.
The court found police evidence unreliable. The magistrate dismissed as exaggeration police allegations that all the 200 people on the scene were carrying stones. They intended 'to teach the public a lesson' so that in future they would not throw stones at private vehicles. The court also found that Lieutenant Douw Vermeulen, the commanding officer, fired seven shots without warning. Thirty-nine rounds of ammunition were fired during the operation. The court found that police evidence was inconsistent with that which they gave in the public violence trials arising from the same incident. It also did not match evidence from videos of the scene recorded by CBS and the BBC.
The court concluded that there was no evidence to show that Classe and Miranda, who was shot in the back, had thrown stones. Nine police were found responsible for the death of the three youths and injury to ten others. Negligence by Vermuelen played an important role. There was no indication that those involved would be prosecuted for their conduct.
Roseline CLOETE (4) and Michael JULIES (13) were shot and killed and 14 people were injured by police on 13 February 1988 at Kakamas in the Northern Cape. According to eye witnesses, police who came to search a home hit one of the occupants with a rifle butt. Onlookers were told to leave the scene. One of them, whom the police considered too slow in moving away, was fired at with a teargas canister. Police then opened fire on the onlookers, without warning. Jan Van Eck, an independent MP, visited the scene and found no stones to show that there was stone-throwing as police alleged. The Government refused to set up a commission of inquiry. In view of this, Lawyers for Human Rights set up an independent commission of inquiry into the deaths of the two youths. The commission was scheduled to start work on 9 March.
These inquests and trials, as well as independent studies, reveal that police control of resistance relies a great deal on the use of lethal or potentially lethal weapons. Lawyer Nicholas Haysom, in a report published in the South African Journal Human Rights, maintained that teargas is used indiscriminately, recklessly and dangerously. He referred to the case of two month-old Tracia NDLOVU who died following the discharge of a teargas canister into her house. Despite such evidence police refused to accept that teargas is potentially lethal. Haysom argued that there is insufficient legal restraint on the use of deadly weapons, and cast doubt on the adequacy of police training in crowd control. Police, he said, had been negligent in the way they conduct themselves in their duties.
There are at least 4,000 trained auxiliary Special Constables or 'kitskonstabels', who are given a mere six weeks' training. In the view of Brigadier Leon Mellet, 99 per cent of them have done excellent work and they have played a 'magnificent role in combatting crime'.
This view is not shared by members of communities in which these constables operate. In October 1987 the University of Cape Town's Institute of Criminology found that 80 per cent of the people in Oudtshoorn felt they were badly treated by Special Constables; only two per cent felt they were treated well. Seventy-seven per cent had seen Special Constables drunk on duty, swearing and assaulting residents for no apparent reason. Seventy per cent had seen them engaging in aggressive behaviour such as pushing people around. Forty-eight per cent had seen them pointing guns at people and 56 per cent had personal complaints against them. The force was seen as a body deliberately set up to strike fear into the community through acts of intimidation.
