A controversial and possibly misunderstood “shoot to kill” policy has been blamed for the death of an innocent women in Pretoria after South African Police Service (SAPS) officers opened fire on a vehicle that they mistakingly identified as stolen. Despite the tragic incident, however, public and professional sentiment remains sharply divided over the merits and risks of what appears to constitute a more aggressive stance on the part of South Africa's police officials.

Section 49 Revisited

At the crux of the issue is the government's intention to revise Section 49 of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA), which governs conditions under which the use of lethal force by police officials is deemed to be permissible. Dr Mark Welman, Pasco MD for Africa and former head of the award winning Crime Prevention Centre at Rhodes University, explains that “under the Mbeki administration the emphasis was on a strict interpretation of Section 49, to the extent that many police officers believed that they did not have the right to self-defence, even when faced with an armed and potentially dangerous suspect”. This, Welman believes, has had a significant impact on police morale.

Newly appointed SAPS National Police Commisioner Bheke Cele has, however, vowed to take the fight against crime in South Africa to the criminals. In some circles, Cele has been welcomed for breathing new life into an increasingly embattled sector. He has promised to push through key amendments to Section 49 and, in a statement remiscent of Sean Connery's famous “you don't bring a knife to a gunfight” comment in the movie The Untouchables, he has also insisted that front-line officers need to outgun the criminals. In other circles, however, Cele's tough approach is seen as a high-risk strategy that could make South Africa's already inhospitable streets even more dangerous.

Considering the Risks

Both sides of the argument need to be seen to understand the delicate balance between the right to lethal force as a way of reducing violent crime, and a license to kill as a potential catalyst for violence. “One one hand, far too many policem officers have been killed in the line of duty, sometimes because they hesitated to act for fear of prosecution. This has left a sense of bitterness and even betrayal among the police” states Welman, who spent several years supporting police services around the country. “On the other hand”, there is a real risk that some individual members of the police services may now see themselves as almost beyond reproach and fail in their fundamental duty to protect life wherever possible”. Added to this, Welman notes, is the risk that law-abiding citizens, many of whom already live in fear of violent crime, may come to fear the intervention of police almost as much as the criminals themselves. “This would not be conducive to good relations between the police and local communities, which is essential to combat crime effectively”. In that case, the revisions to Section 49 could yet prove to be counter-productive.

So far as Welman is concerned, it comes down to how the amendments to Section 49 are communicated and implemented. “The proposed amendments themselves are not the concern. Rather, it is how the rank and file members understand those amendments and their implications, and how flagrant violations of the fundamental duties of police officers are dealt with”.