Few things excite South Africa - to its best and its worse - quite like culture, crime and sport. The charges against Blue Bulls player "Bees" Roux, accused of murdering Tshwane metro police officer, Sergeant Johannes Mogale, combines all of these elements. Comments reportedly made by the executive director of policing in Tshwane at the funeral of the Tshwane metro policeman with whose murder Roux is charged, demonstrates what a toxic brew they can be when mixed together.
At the outset, let us be clear. Any loss of life is a tragedy. Anyone who has lost a loved one knows how deep grief can run among family and friends. When it involves the loss of life of a law enforcement officer, it rightly shakes people's sense of security. And few people who have not served in a law enforcement agency can understand the emotions that officers feel when one of their number is killed. As someone who has served, I can attest to that from personal experience. If Roux is guilty, he must suffer the full consequences of his actions.
But according to reports, Director Ndumiso Jaca laid out perspectives on the case that were far better left unsaid, particularly by someone in law enforcement. Roux, he said, "is a beast murdering my member with his own hands". He also invoked the supernatural: "Let's call on the fallen members of the department to go and man the roadblocks and ensure Bees doesn't rest. Let's call on our ancestors, let's ensure we hound Bees until he tells the truth."
Apparently, several member of the public have attempted to lay charges of intimidation against Jaca. This mistakes the truth implications of his words, and they betray something that is arguably a far worse problem: a lack of professionalism.
Policing is a dangerous job, and never more so than in a country like South Africa, where they face criminals with impressive firepower and little concern for life. They also operate in a country where respect for the law can euphemistically be described as shallow. Inasmuch as we grant police officers powers to deal with crime, we also expect them to do so within the law they are enforcing. That is an essential ingredient of a constitutional democracy, without which we become a thug state. An attack on a police officer is a particular threat to society; but an officer who disregards the law may constitute an even greater threat.
At this point, the facts of the case are contested. The outcome must await the conclusion of the investigation, the presentation of arguments by legal teams and the deliberations of a judge. Jaca should know this very well. Yet he declares Roux to have "murdered" someone. Grief and anger do not justify this: whatever his intuitions and opinions, the professional law enforcer needs to be able to step back, take a breath and say "let justice take its course".
Just as troubling is his calling on the ancestors to man roadblocks and to "hound" the accused, until "he tells the truth". The imagery of a roadblock is telling. A roadblock is a blunt, intrusive exercise of coercive state power. It is an important tool in law enforcement. But nothing says "banana republic" - arbitrary, repressive, corrupt - more than a roadblock manned by the sort of people who would "hound" others. A roadblock in that scenario is a feature used to shake down those passing through and to make life unpleasant for those the commanders choose to harass. Is this what Jaca has in mind? One can't help thinking this is the implication. That he allegedly also said he didn't care about corruption among his members hardly provides reassurance.
Of course, he argues, this is all about getting Roux to "tell the truth". But "truth" in a criminal matter in a constitutional democracy must engage in the evidence presented before a properly constituted court. And this is why we need professional, and technically skilled detectives. How many suspects across the world and throughout history, have been roughly handled to "get the truth out of them". How often, indeed, has it happened in South Africa? How many may have been willing to sign or say anything, just to get the pain to stop? How many people has pieces of "evidence" planted on them because we all "knew" they were guilty? Wasn't that something the democratic era was meant to wipe away? It is the mark of good professional policing that investigators will follow evidence, no matter how strong the visceral inclination may be to pursue a particular suspect.
But isn't this all reading too much into his words? After all, the ancestors are in another realm of existence (and many do not believe in their existence at all). Actually this is exactly why it is important. This has nothing to do with ancestors or with cultural beliefs. Jaca has the right to hold any religious or cultural beliefs he wishes, as have we all. But his authority, and the authority of the South African state - including to try and if necessary to convict Roux - is entirely of the secular, the earthly and the law-bound. He exceeds his professional boundaries when he publicly suggests that anything other than the law should be the instrument of justice, or worse, of vengeance - at least in this world.
Whether the ancestors - or for that matter, God, the gods, the Great Spirit or fate - have any influence on our temporal activities is something that is inherently difficult to prove. But that millions believe in such influence is undeniable and a natural part of being human. And anyone with a knowledge of crime history knows that unspeakable deeds have been committed by people believing that they were the instrument of something unearthly.
The American Serial Killer, Albert Fish, claimed to have been ordered by God to kill children. Peter Sutcliffe, the "Yorkshire Ripper", claimed that God told him, through a gravestone, to murder prostitutes. New Zealand murderer, Antonie Dixon, said that God told him to behead two women. Such people may be insane, they may be deluded, and (who knows?) perhaps something from another realm was whispering in their ears. But for Jaca to possibly plant the seed in the mind of a grieving acquaintance, or risk legitimating the actions of someone who might feel himself called by the ancestors to "take action", is breathtakingly irresponsible.
Sadly, conduct on this line is not an aberration. It is related to the failure to ensure the highest standards of professionalism in the police as an institution, a problem for which appointing politicians rather than experienced police officers to the commissioner's office must surely take some considerable responsibility. It is echoed in the reckless comments of politicians about "shooting to kill".
What these have in common is a mistaken belief that a quick fix - apply force, get the guy we all know is guilty - is the solution to our crime malaise. Tougher policing would be welcomed: but it must be a toughness underwritten professional competence and respect for the law. A toughness that gets suspects to court with watertight cases and send criminals away for very long stretches. This is itself a difficult and grinding road to travel. But the alternative is the sort of thug toughness that may look appealing at first glance, but will cost us our constitutional democracy.
John Moodey MPL is Leader of the Democratic Alliance in the Gauteng Provincial Legislature and Deputy DA Spokesperson on Community Safety in Gauteng
Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter
