Parliament should address police brutality

Dithapelo Keorapetse | Friday March 3, 2017 15:53

Last year, the unemployed youth movement were beaten and arrested for picketing in front of Parliament chambers in broad day light and in full view of MPs; they were neither in any way violent nor posed threat to peace. Lately motorists are also complaining that the police are all out to impoverish them with heavy fines; they are threatened with impounding of vehicles if they fail to pay on the spot. There are some cases of police brutality which have been reported in the media and the worst were deaths in custody and suspects disappearing in police custody and are now presumed dead by relatives. These incidents point to serious problems in contemporary policing.  

In terms of the Police Act and the Penal Code as well as other laws, Botswana Police Service, as a law enforcement agency, has been granted the freedom of using invariable coercive force to quell disturbances, effect arrests and ensure general public order. While the authority to use such force is not an issue, its proper application is the fundamental problem of contemporary police misconduct. Stories of police brutality characterised by inhuman and degrading treatment, torture and other forms of excessive force have been widely reported in the local news media, some cases have reached the courts of law. 

Police use of excessive force, also known as police brutality refers to any senseless and unjustified use of physical force by the police. This entails any practice by the police that degrades citizen status, that restricts their civil liberties and freedoms, and that infuriates/irritates or pesters them. It may also refer to the citizens’ opinion that they have not been treated with full rights and dignity by police officers as expected in a liberal democratic society where the rule of law is supreme.

Police interaction with student protesters hasn’t been largely positive, the rights of protesters have been violated with impunity; students were sprayed with tear gas, beaten and arrested without probable cause. Clearly, freedom of expression and the right to assemble, protests and petition are in danger as it is difficult to exercise these without being harassed by the police.

Unlawful arrests and detentions cases against the police are becoming common. There was a case before the courts in which it was alleged that the police and soldiers forced some people of Zimbabwean nationality to have sex and or masturbate in full view of the concerned police officers and soldiers. This is a disgrace and cases such as this one have the potential to cause a diplomatic uproar. Zimbabwean nationals residing in Botswana, legally or illegally, are terrorised by the police and many stories of this police brutality including beatings and soliciting of bribes have been widely reported in the media.

Botswana Police officers, often in the company of gun trotting Botswana Defence Force soldiers, close down parties, clubs and bars at night and there have been reports of the use of excessive force against civilians. Botswana has become a police state, reminiscent of apartheid South Africa in the yesteryears.

Each time the police violate either the spirit or the letter of the law, the line between tyranny or despotism and democratic governance becomes blurred. But apart from the rule of law and public accountability, the police power to use force, employ summary punishment, use covert surveillance, and to stop, question, search and arrest citizens, can be used to support dictatorial regimes, powerful vested interest groups and practices. In a democratic society police must not be a law unto themselves.

A Police force in a democratic country is the one that is subject to the rule of law epitomising values respectful of human dignity, rather than the wishes of a dictatorial powerful leader or party. It is also a police force that can intervene in the life of citizens only under limited and carefully controlled circumstances and most importantly which is transparent and accountable to the public or their elected representatives.

These conditions are inherent to police in a liberal democracy.  In most liberal democratic countries strict actions such as phone tapping or holding a suspect in custody for more than a short period of time must be authorised by independent judicial officers (judge or magistrate). Should force be required it should be the minimal amount necessary for self-defense or to effect an arrest.

Punishment (if necessary) should only occur after a legal or judicial process. The laws that police enforce, their resources and the manner in which they use their power in enforcing laws must be determined by a democratic process involving varying degrees of transparency, oversight and accountability to the public.

Parliament was told on Wednesday last week that, effectively, there will be no independent police complaints commission as this would need human and financial resources, which are now scarce. The minister told Parliament that there is an internal affairs unit to investigate police misconduct.

He further said members of the public who are aggrieved by actions of officers can report to the Ombudsman. The problem with the Ombudsman are documented; his powers are circumscribed as he doesn’t have prosecutory powers and can hardly enforce his decisions. In the absence of the complaints commission and with a weak Ombudsman, citizens are left with an option of legal suits which are expensive.

Parliament should push for this commission to deal with incidents of police brutality.