South Africa: Sentencing of Dog Unit members

Chief instructor Schraader and commander, Van Zyl should also be held accountable

The Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation welcomes the prison sentences imposed on the four members of the North East Rand Dog Unit for the brutal canine torture of 3 Mozambicans.

But while the four policemen have been sentenced to imprisonment what is very clear is that not all of those who were complicit in this act of savagery have yet been held accountable. While two policemen, Loubser and Giotto, are still to stand trial in June next year, what is of serious concern, is that no indication has as yet been given by the SAPS, National Prosecuting Authority, or ICD, that further steps are to be taken against senior members of the North East Rand Dog Unit who have been implicated

According to evidence from one of the convicted policemen, Sergeant Smith, requests for the ‘training’ of police dogs were made on a regular basis. Smith specifically stated in court that he had been requested by chief instructor Ben Schraader to ‘assist’ with the dog in question, that it was clear to him what Shraader meant by this, and that this request was ‘neither unusual nor strange’ as requests of this nature were made ‘from time to time’.

In line with of the Constitutional provision stating that ‘No member of any security service may obey a manifestly illegal order’ (Section 199(6)) the allegation by the members concerned that they were instructed to carry out the ‘training exercise’ cannot be regarded as a mitigating factor. Nevertheless this should not be taken to mean that others who share complicity should not be held responsible.

The allegation made in court that the four SAPS members indicated that they were requested by their chief instructor, Ben Shraader, to conduct the training exercise, and that the chief instructor in question had full knowledge of what this would involve, should therefore be taken exceptionally seriously and further prosecutorial action should be seriously considered. Regardless of whether prosecutorial steps are taken there should at the very least be a disciplinary investigation conducted with a view to possible disciplinary steps.

Furthermore the evidence by the accused men’s former commander, Superintendent Johannes van Zyl, that he knew nothing about the practises should also not exempt him from disciplinary action within the SAPS. Even if one is to give Van Zyl the benefit of the doubt and accept that he indeed knew nothing, the fact that members of his own unit can allege that such practises were widespread suggests that, at the very least, he was negligent in exercising proper authority over, and discipline within, the unit.

This incident is a very clear case where the principle of accountability of police commanders for the actions of their subordinates to be established. Police commanders must be expected to show that they took full steps to uphold the law and proper standards of conduct amongst their members.

If we are to have professional standards of policing in South Africa then claims of ‘not knowing’ by senior police or other officials can no longer be accepted as a defence against being held accountable.

Issued by: David Bruce, Senior Researcher, CSVR.

For further comment from CSVR on the issue please contact any of the following CSVR staff members (011) 403-5650

- David Bruce - ext. 152
- Gareth Newham - ext. 123 or phone 082 538 5045
- Sibusiso Ntuli - ext. 138 or phone 082 562 9035