- The High Court found the Minister of Police liable for damages suffered by two Sweet Home residents shot with rubber bullets during a 2012 protest.
- A woman was shot in the thigh while returning home, and a man lost an eye after being struck by a rubber bullet outside his house.
- The court ruled that police failed to prove the shootings were justified by self-defence, necessity or voluntary assumption of risk.
The Minister of Police has been held liable for damages after the High Court in the Western Cape found that SAPS officers unlawfully shot two residents with rubber bullets during a service delivery protest in Sweet Home Farm, Philippi, in July 2012.
Valiswa Gadini and Thandikhaya Shweni each sued the Minister of Police after suffering serious injuries during the protest. Gadini was shot in her upper right thigh while returning home from a taxi rank, while Shweni lost his right eye after being struck by a rubber bullet while sitting outside his home.
Acting Judge A Christians found that the police failed to justify the use of force and ordered that the Minister is liable for 100 percent of the damages suffered by both plaintiffs.
What happened during the protest
The case arose from a service delivery protest in Sweet Home Farm on 30 July 2012. Police were deployed to control the gathering after protesters blocked roads, burned property and clashed with officers.
The Minister argued that police officers had acted lawfully because protesters became violent and threw stones at officers. The defence claimed that officers acted in self-defence or out of necessity and further argued that anyone who remained in the area accepted the risk of injury.
Video footage recorded by police was presented to the court. The footage showed officers using stun grenades, tear gas and rubber bullets while attempting to disperse the crowd.
However, the court found that the video footage was incomplete and failed to capture many of the incidents during which rubber bullets were fired.
Judge Christians observed that much of the shooting recorded in official police reports did not appear on the video footage presented to the court.
Plaintiffs' versions accepted
Gadini testified that she had left home to travel to work but found there were no taxis operating because of the protest. While walking home, police approached and started shooting. She was struck in the thigh.
During cross-examination, she explained that police chased a crowd into the residential area before opening fire.
Shweni testified that he was sitting outside his house enjoying the winter morning sunshine when he suddenly lost consciousness. When he regained awareness, he realised he was bleeding from the right side of his face.
Medical evidence confirmed that a rubber bullet had struck his right eye. The injury resulted in the loss of the eye. The court found that police witnesses were unable to challenge Shweni’s version that he was sitting outside his home when he was shot.
Judge Christians said, “As far as Mr Shweni is concerned, no evidence at all was presented to challenge his version that he was sitting outside of his house when he was shot.” The court accepted that both plaintiffs were shot inside the residential area.
Police failed to justify shootings
A key issue in the case was that the police officers who actually discharged the rubber bullets were never called to testify, despite their identities being recorded in official police documentation.
The court found that there was no first-hand evidence explaining why the officers fired rubber bullets or whether they had entered the residential area while pursuing protesters.
Judge Christians noted that police witnesses themselves accepted that there would have been no justification for officers to shoot civilians inside the residential area.
“The defendant’s own witnesses accepted that the police officers would have had no justification to shoot at civilians inside the residential area,” the judge said.
The court also rejected the defence that the plaintiffs had voluntarily assumed the risk of being injured. Judge Christians found that the Minister had failed to prove that police acted in self-defence or that the use of force was reasonably necessary.
“The defendant has not demonstrated that, in discharging the rubber bullets, the police officers acted reasonably and out of necessity,” the judgment said.
The judge further pointed out that the available video footage showed shots being fired after crowds had already begun retreating. “The audio on the video footage demonstrates that shots were fired only after the crowd was already retreating,” the court found.
Minister held responsible
Having concluded that the shootings were unlawful, the court held that the Minister of Police was vicariously liable for the conduct of the officers involved.
Judge Christians said, “The defendant has not discharged the onus of proving that, in shooting each of the Plaintiffs with rubber bullets, the police acted lawfully.”
The court ordered that the Minister is liable for 100 percent of the proven or agreed damages suffered by Gadini and Shweni. The amount of compensation will be determined in later proceedings if not agreed upon between the parties.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
