Shoot-out between JMPD and SAPS

Just over four years ago on June 18, 2004, 200 Durban Metro Police officers blockaded Durban's freeways on a Friday afternoon, gridlocking the city.

In 2007, the same thing happened in Cape Town.

On Wednesday South Africans were given a new reality as a shoot-out erupted between the Joburg Metro police and South African Police Service (SAPS) officers.

First, motorists were barricaded in by 400-odd metro policemen protesting over poor pay and nepotism. Those who tried to move were threatened and abused and the city was gridlocked. Then, after the SAPS arrived, the public was caught in the middle of a shoot-out as uniformed police officers opened fire on one another.

Four years after the Durban incident, none of the 200 metro police officers involved have been fired. The 200 officers went on a wildcat strike on June 18 2004, in a dispute over pay and conditions of service, and blocked all Durban's main exit routes. At the time, Durban city manager Sutcliffe promised to fire members of metro police found guilty of setting up the illegal roadblocks, but none were.

Professor Elrena van der Spuy of the Centre of Criminology at UCT said Wednesday's gunfight was a dramatically tactile demonstration - "a street version" - of political tensions elsewhere within security sector circles, such as those relating to the disbanding of the Scorpions and infighting in intelligence circles.

The actions of the metro cops were symptomatic of bigger problems relating to morale, lack of clarity about roles and responsibilities, principles and systems of accountability, Van der Spuy said.

It also had huge implications for 2010 and the prospects for cooperative relations as the responsibility for managing order would be shared between three tiers of armed security: the SAPS, metro police and private security forces.

"In terms of state coherence, the last thing that you can afford is a violent in-fight between segments of the armed forces," Van der Spuy said.

The violence comes after calls to arms earlier this month by two public figures: ANC Youth League president Julius Malema and Cosatu general secretary Zwelenzima Vavi.

"We are prepared to die for Zuma. We are prepared to take up arms and kill for Zuma," said Malema on Youth Day.

"For him and for our revolution we are prepared to lay down our lives and for him we are prepared to shoot and kill," said Vavi a few days later.

None has apologised. None has retracted their statements.

SA Human Rights Commission senior researcher Danzel van Zyl said a moral regeneration was needed among leaders.

"It seems there is a race to the bottom as to who in public office can make the most controversial statement. What is particularly disturbing is that people think it's okay to say whatever they want to, and that doesn't bode well for responsible leadership," he said.

South Africans need leaders that inspire non-violent responses to situations in a country where violence was a societal subtext.

"These are the very same forces that are being tasked to provide safety and security to the people of South Africa." Van Zyl said.

Also telling was that the metro police felt the need to take matters into their own hands and did not turn to official dispute resolution channels. Van Zyl said Wednesday's action should not be smoothed over because this would further a culture of impunity.

"We really have to develop a culture of accountability. People must know that deeds have consequences."

For Dr Johan Burger of the Institute for Security Studies, the group's action was completely illegal, right down to gathering without permission, he said.

"The situation that they created that required SAPS to react should have been avoided if they acted within the law. And it's completely inexcusable that when the police started acting against them in the prescribed manner that they used sharp ammunition."

Recent events seemed to indicate a lack of strong leadership at all levels that allowed for the incident to happen.

"It creates a lot of anxiety among ordinary people who sense a breakdown in order, discipline and control. I don't think this does the country a lot of good," Burger said.

Statements, like those of Malema et al, added to creating a sense of lawlessness and "only enhance the feeling that it's okay to do these things and the chances of facing the consequences of one's statements are very slim. And in some cases one is even applauded".

Strong action was needed: charging those involved and dismissing them if found guilty.

"This is the best way to show strong leadership and the fact that police members are willing to act unlawfully will not be tolerated in a law enforcement agency," Burger said.

"Throw the law book at them and then get rid of them because we cannot afford to have law enforcement officials who don't themselves uphold the law."