First Thing, Daily Maverick's flagship newsletter

Join the 230 000 South Africans who read First Thing newsletter.

We'd like our readers to start paying for Daily Maverick

More specifically, we'd like those who can afford to pay to start paying. What it comes down to is whether or not you value Daily Maverick. Think of us in terms of your daily cappuccino from your favourite coffee shop. It costs around R35. That’s R1,050 per month on frothy milk. Don’t get us wrong, we’re almost exclusively fuelled by coffee. BUT maybe R200 of that R1,050 could go to the journalism that’s fighting for the country?

We don’t dictate how much we’d like our readers to contribute. After all, how much you value our work is subjective (and frankly, every amount helps). At R200, you get it back in Uber Eats and ride vouchers every month, but that’s just a suggestion. A little less than a week’s worth of cappuccinos.

We can't survive on hope and our own determination. Our country is going to be considerably worse off if we don’t have a strong, sustainable news media. If you’re rejigging your budgets, and it comes to choosing between frothy milk and Daily Maverick, we hope you might reconsider that cappuccino.

We need your help. And we’re not ashamed to ask for it.

Our mission is to Defend Truth. Join Maverick Insider.

Support Daily Maverick→
Payment options

Judge slams SAPS for refusing to carry out court orders

South Africa


Judge slams police for refusing to carry out court orders against persistent protesters

Police in the Northern Cape repeatedly ignored and refused to carry out a series of court orders. (Archive photo: Ashraf Hendricks)

Some SAPS members have completely forgotten why they are wearing police uniforms, said Acting Judge Ramaepadi.

A Kimberley high court judge has rebuked police officers for repeatedly ignoring court orders that they take action against protesters who were disrupting activities at a local mine by blocking a road.

Acting Judge Magafe Ramaepadi said police had a constitutional mandate to prevent, combat and investigate crime, to maintain public order, and to protect and secure people and their property and to uphold the law.

“It seems that some members have completely forgotten why they are wearing police uniforms,” he said. “I find it difficult to understand why the police would even require a court order to direct them to perform their constitutional obligations.”

The Maremane Communal Property Association first approached the court in August 2019, after community members blocked the access road to Afrimang mine and started building shacks on mine land.

After obtaining an interim interdict in November that year, the order was made final.

Armed with these orders, the association twice asked officers at Upington police station to assist with implementation. Twice, the officers refused.

The association went back to court in October 2021, seeking another interdict against the protesters and unlawful occupiers. Again, a final interdict was granted, the order specifying that “members of SAPS must assist the Sheriff in serving and executing the order”.

This order was given to a detective at SAPS Postmasburg who promised to act on it the following day. But this proved to be an empty promise, and the road remained blocked.

A few days later, several members of the association went back to Postmasburg police station. They were informed by one officer that they should let the protesters “benefit from the land”. Another officer said even if they registered “hundreds of complaints”, the police would not take action.

Read the full judgment here

In March this year, the association launched another urgent application which came before Judge Ramaepadi. He ordered that the police act on the two previous orders and ordered the respondents, the Minister of Police, and the station commanders of Postmasburg and Upington to pay punitive costs.

Aggrieved at this, the respondents applied for leave to appeal, arguing that they only had to act in a civil matter if the Sheriff “had a problem” with executing the order and if he, not the association, asked for help.

Judge Ramaepadi disagreed, particularly in view of the fact that the protesters were engaging in criminal and disorderly conduct.

“In essence, what the SAPS were being asked to do was to prevent crime and maintain public order. SAPS cannot hide behind the wording of a court order to refuse assistance to members of the community … that would be a classic case of abdication of their constitutional responsibilities

“Crime prevention and maintenance of public order are some of its core functions … and whenever acts of criminality are committed, society is entitled to look to the SAPS for assistance and SAPS has a corresponding duty to step up and help,” Judge Ramaepadi said.

“Beyond service of the order on the respondents, there was nothing further that the Sheriff could do to ensure compliance. It was only the police who could bring the situation under control.”

The Judge said the association had been forced to approach the courts on several occasions. Instead of “realising their mistake” and apologising for giving the association the run-around, the respondents had persisted with their “nonchalant attitude” and had opposed the application and were now applying for leave to appeal “on spurious grounds”.

“It is conduct like that results in society losing confidence in the ability of SAPS to protect them from criminal conduct. Hence, society ends up taking the law into its own hands,” he said.

And it was for these reasons that he had ordered the respondents to pay punitive costs “as a mark of displeasure”.

Refusing to grant leave to appeal, he said he hoped the cost order would be a reminder to SAPS members of their constitutional obligations.

“In my view, what happened, in this case, must be reported to the Minister of Police for possible investigation into the conduct of the various police officers mentioned … Hopefully, the Minister will ensure that this does not happen again.” DM

First published by GroundUp.


Comments - share your knowledge and experience

Please note you must be a Maverick Insider to comment. Sign up here or sign in if you are already an Insider.

Everybody has an opinion but not everyone has the knowledge and the experience to contribute meaningfully to a discussion. That’s what we want from our members. Help us learn with your expertise and insights on articles that we publish. We encourage different, respectful viewpoints to further our understanding of the world. View our comments policy here.

All Comments 7

  • The SAPS need to get legal input from people who are qualified. “the respondents applied for leave to appeal, arguing that they only had to act in a civil matter if the Sheriff “had a problem” with executing the order and if he, not the association, asked for help.”
    Crimes were being committed that is what the police are there for – prevent crime as the judge so clearly stated. Who ends up paying for this – the taxpayer!

  • Why not identify a specific senior SAPS officer. Call him before the court and if he or she subsequently fails to enforce the court order, imprison him/her for contempt of court.
    I am amazed that the judiciary tolerates numerous instances of court orders being ignored. It strikes at the basis of the legal system in SA.

    • Not just court orders … but also the ‘impunity’ of behavior of lawyers/advocates the likes of Mpofu, in court rooms … and elsewhere !

  • The police feel that they can make political decisions, like this, with impunity. However, they can also kill with impunity like Marikani and the many individuals killed by police. SAPS ignores taverns and other illegal activity. Why? The rot starts at the top. The recruitment process clearly needs review.

  • A reminder to SAPS members of their constitutional obligations @ taxpayers’ expense. A disgrace. When will we make state officials and politicians pay for their errors/ criminality?

  • The cost order means absolutely nothing. The Minister of Police, and the station commanders of Postmasburg and Upington couldn’t care less. Their own pockets will not be affected. The taxpayers will foot the bill, so …. ‘up yours judge’.

Please peer review 3 community comments before your comment can be posted