The South African Police Service (SAPS) has been accused by the DA of protecting Deputy President Paul Mashatile’s VIP protection unit following their acquittal in an internal disciplinary process earlier this year. 

The party said its Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) application in the disciplinary case involving the VIP protection unit exposes a breakdown in accountability in the police service and a cover-up.

The eight officers were filmed assaulting passengers and the driver of a car on the N1 highway in Johannesburg in 2023. 

The officers were acquitted by the SAPS in May through an internal disciplinary process. 

The party said the information showed that instead of a swift and transparent disciplinary process, this case descended into a two-year “circus” of postponements, procedural chaos, and excuses, including scheduling conflicts, family obligations, as well as the SAPS’s alleged inability to organise basic transport and accommodation. 

The information also revealed that the case was abandoned because key witnesses had disappeared. 

The DA said this was not just an administrative failure, but a deliberate failure of justice.

“SAPS, a national law enforcement agency with investigative powers, could not even ensure the attendance of its own witnesses, including the original complainant and the person who recorded the now infamous video. Worse still, investigators ignored evidence, failed to pursue obvious leads, and disregarded footage that clearly identified the perpetrators,” the party said.

In its judgment, chairperson Brigadier Thulani Douglas Tshabalala said the video footage would have been a key piece of evidence, but its authenticity could not be proven and, therefore, was regarded as inadmissible in the hearing.

Tshabalala said the lack of witnesses also diminished the arguments of the employer representative, as he did not have sufficient evidence to substantiate any claims made on behalf of the employer. 

He said, based on the limited information, including the non-attendance of the complainant, witnesses, team leader commander, and Sanral, or the author of the video footage and on the standard of proof as it requires the party (employer representative) with the burden of proof to demonstrate that it is more likely than not their claim of defence will succeed. 

“The representative failed in providing substantial evidence as there was an unavailability of compliant statements, witnesses to testify, authentication of video footage, and numerous contradictions with regard to the argument of the employer representative and the investigating officer.

“The presiding officer applied equally the rule of law on the standard of proof in terms of a balance of probabilities and found the members not guilty as there was no substantial evidence based on what was presented to him as the presiding officer, which results in the members being found not guilty on all charges levelled against them,” he said. 

The DA said the SAPS was protecting the eight officers, adding that even after a court confirmed the admissibility of video footage showing the assault, they still refused to act.

“This points to an intentional cover-up and raises serious questions about SAPS’s internal integrity, competence, and willingness to discipline politically connected officers.”

The party added that the role of the Police and Prisons Civil Rights Union (POPCRU) throughout the process was equally disgraceful, saying rather than supporting accountability, the organisation seems to have engaged in deliberate delays, strategic withdrawals, and procedural sabotage, shielding the perpetrators instead of upholding justice.

Police spokesperson Athlenda Mathe said questions were sent to HR. 

POPCRU spokesperson, Richard Mamabolo, said the organisation categorically rejects the “baseless and politically” expedient accusations that it has acted in a manner that undermines accountability or due process. 

Mamabolo said that as a trade union representing law enforcement officers, POPCRU operates within the bounds of the law and collective agreements governing disciplinary processes in the public service. 

“We remain committed to upholding both the constitutional rights of our members and the broader principles of justice and accountability. The disciplinary processes in question are not determined by POPCRU but by SAPS management, in accordance with prevailing labour laws and internal disciplinary codes.

“POPCRU’s role, where necessary, is to ensure that due process is followed, that there is no prejudgment, and that members are not subjected to trial by media or political grandstanding,” said Mamabolo, adding that it is deeply unfortunate that the DA chooses to mischaracterise the union’s role in these proceedings. 

“We caution against the politicisation of disciplinary processes for the sake of scoring cheap political points. Such actions erode public confidence in our institutions and undermine the very accountability the DA claims to champion,” he said. 

The eight are expected to appear in court for their verdict in August.

manyane.manyane@inl.co.za

Source link