John Simpson, you correctly state apartheid looked after white people and nobody else. It is further true, as you were told, that the very same white people are still riding high than their us blacks. For them, being white works magic because that is seen some kind of seniority. Many have continued to claim white people are the weakest and the most vulnerable South Africans. Well, if you heard that from AfriForum, I am not surprised. But yes, while they are the minority, I however would like to differ that they are as vulnerable as AfriForum portrays them to be. In fact, the opposite is true.

Just as there are white squatter camps, I don’t know why that is a surprise to you and AfriForum’s Ernst Roets as if such are only meant for us blacks. In fact, I urge you to do more traveling around the country than you did when you wrote that nonsense on a (respected?) platform like BBC. But who knows, maybe that’s the mission that you were sent down here to accomplish because your piece was not only bias but that it smacked of white pity. Moreover, it sought to portray us black people as far better off now that we were when white people ruled during apartheid during which our lives were seen as inferior compared to a white person’s.

A recent analysis by the South African Institute of Race Relations is proof that you sure have a helluva way to go and learn about this country, especially our racial history. The institute dispelled many whites’ perceptions – like those you interviewed, including Roets’ – that they had a tough time after the 1994 dispensation.

It further noted that 75% of them had a matric qualification and just 10% had higher education and that by last year almost all of their children passed matric while 60% of those aged 20 to 24 were enrolled for higher education. “The comparative figures are that fewer than 50% of black children are going on to pass matric and only 14% of those aged 20 to 24 are currently enrolled for higher education. This despite the fact that the white share of total tertiary enrolment has dropped from roughly 40% to 20% since 1994, while the black share has increased to 65%”, it said.

Between 1994 and last year the rate of unemployment among white people had increased from 3% to 5.7%, according to the research. While this was significant, it however acknowledged that the actual rate remained remarkably low by national standards. This when considering the number of black South Africans, about 29% last year, who were unemployed. As a result, us black people are actually five times more likely to be unemployed, according to the report. “The white unemployment rate was low, even when compared to a host of international benchmarks. In the US, for example, the rate in 2012 was 7.6%, in Britain 7.9% and in Canada 7.2%.”

Lastly, you also noted that white farmers were more twice likely to be murdered than the police. While I sympathise with this – whether it is true or not and it depends on the source – we however cannot expect government to treat the life of a white person more important than that of a black person. Many people have died and been killed before and at no stage have blacks – the majority in this country, need I remind you – asked their murder be declared a crisis as white people want theirs. No, it can’t be. Just as the constitution says, we are all equal before the law and must be treated as such.

That white farmers have been murdered more than the police seems to insinuate they were killed because they were white. This, assertion, however, was also dispelled by the institute’s Lucy Holborn in early March last year that: “There is no evidence to suggest that farm attacks, or crime with white victims in general, is motivated by race. In fact, there is research to suggest quite the opposite. Data compiled by Agri SA and the police and published by the Institute in 2003 found that 89% of farm attacks were motivated by robbery, while only 2% were motivated by race. This data is admittedly now relatively old (and the police no longer collect such data), but there is not sufficient evidence to suggest that this pattern has changed dramatically.”

Mine is not to imply white people deserve to suffer today because of what they had done to us. No. Not at all. But what I am however against is your insinuation and portrayal of us blacks – or even the ruling black-led ANC – subjecting white people to what the majority were subjected to during apartheid. As for whether they have a future here in SA or not – well, that’s for them to decide but just don’t portray poverty #ABlackThing and #NotWhiteThing.

On 24 March Gov asked on Twitter: “How do journalists see the world? Don’t tell me about “objective” reporting. You guys have a world view. Are you the Pope??” This was followed by another tweet on 28 March that: “I am getting frustrated with how some in the media report about the ANC. Deep-seated hatred and prejudice is what I see here. Undertones!!”  The latter tweet appears to be a response to a Mail & Guardian report on same day where the good Gov Mboweni was merely expressing was what he called “Intellectual Independence” which, according to him, means “to express your well-thought out, researched and sober views without fear, favor or prejudice.”

In his intellectually independent response to the report, the Gov Mboweni said he had “observed over the past few years how [M&G had] positioned itself against the ANC.” He reminded the publication of how it was started and how it survived during the struggle, saying: “This is not your M&G alone. It is also our M&G, we who bear the blanket status of corrupt, immoral megalomaniacs by virtue of our political affiliation.”

In another tweet, the good Gov Mboweni said: “Friends. I should have explained this from the start. I joined the ANC at age 21, in 1980. So I am biased but intellectually Independent.” He spoke of how they “stood in the cold and unforgiving weather in England in the 1980s demonstrating in solidarity with the Weekly Mail, as it was then” and how “they “mobilised solidarity funds for it”. Now for M&G “to degenerate into an uncritical machine dedicated to opposing the ANC at all costs is not acceptable”, said Gov. This, he said, because the newspaper has adopted an editorial framework “[that] gives credibility to those who are calling for a media appeals tribunal.”

As noted on Facebook over his comments at the time, I found Gov Mboweni’s response quite bitter than ANC General Secretary, Gwede Mantashe’s response to the M&G report, who only said, among others, that: “We urge your journalists to seek balance and to interact with us, which is something we appreciate doing. Such an honest relationship, with neither participant being a mouthpiece of the other, is beneficial to both the ANC and the M&G, and it would fairly inform the public.” Whatever we think of the former Gov Mboweni “as one of the so-called educated Africans” – he is determined to “no longer stand by as people insult Africans day in and day out. My people deserve better”.

Is Gov Mboweni bitter or just practicing his intellectual independence?

I do not think South African media this week experienced what I call “low news day” for Sunday Times to have run such a front-page lead story. I lot has happened. For example, that expelled ANCYL President Julius Malema had his case struck off the court roll surely is something the newspaper could have run with at least and dug even further on reasons behind that decision. This, in my view, because there is a huge public interest in the case due to the seriousness of the allegations against Malema. So strucking such a case off the court roll invites more serious questions.

Back to Pistorius. We know there’s huge public interest in Oscar Pistorius’ allegations that he killed his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp on 14 February this year. That not so long ago he successfully won a court order against his strict and somewhat unfair bail conditions is also noted. The recent bail conditions victory means the poor guy’s welcome to party as much as he pleases. What the new bail conditions case further makes possible is for him to travel outside of the country as much as often as he sees fit. Of course it cannot be disputed that his talent threw him into the limelight and thereby making anything he touches (but not Steenkamp, unfortunately) and says draw a huge public interest because he’s seen as a public figure who many look up to (although I’m sure if that’s still case following the murder allegations). But I could be wrong…

In justifying its front-page, Sunday Times goes on to rely extensively on its five sources, one of whom claimed Pistorius was “relaxed-looking”. Despite the serious allegations, I doubt the murder accused was as “relaxed” as portrayed in the article or as described by the source because he had previously been seen like he was crying in court. And still, who wouldn’t go out and have a couple of beers with friends (provided one takes alcohol) especially after what I’d call an in-house camping? Further, I don’t see how his “greeting a couple and then gave the woman a little pat on her backside [which was seen as] so inappropriate” is still any news at all. By the way, that this was seen by the source(s) (and seemingly the newspaper) as “inappropriate” does not mean it any wrong. What if those are people he happened to know (God knows from where)? Like his spokesperson Anneliese Burgess said: the outing/clubbing was a way of him “reconnect[ing] with friends” he probably hasn’t seen since 14 February (emphasis).

I therefore wholeheartedly agree with Burgess that it is indeed “regrettable that what was supposed to be a low-key evening reconnecting with friends is now being blown out of proportion for sensational reasons”. Worse, that it made a reputable newspaper like Sunday Times’ front-page is beyond me. What is further regrettable about the “Oscar parties” front-page is that it terribly fails to state whether Pistorius’ clubbing with friends broke any of his bail conditions which, in that case, would have justified it or any other publication running with the article. In this particular case, however, I have not come across anything that gives the impression that the Paralympic committed a serious misconduct that one believes would have resulted in his being rearrested.

So, I ask, why did Sunday Times run with “Oscar parties” when clearly to a reasonable reader (like myself) the subject thereof did not breach any of his bail conditions which would then have justified it publishing the article due to the often abused “public interest” defence that, too, would have resulted in Pistorius being rearrested for having committed such a serious offence?

Like I said at the begging, I know nothing about running a newspaper nor do I claim to be a journalist but I sure know a thing or two about what news is and what news isn’t. And today’s Sunday Times’ leading front-page story isn’t news at all. At least it isn’t to me.

Disclaimer: I did not buy Sunday Times today because of its headline and therefore would not know whether Malema’s case mentioned in here was reported or not.

Why does it seem easy for western media to write about the ‘dark’ African continent? You’d even think these writers – and mostly journalists – copied Binyavanga Wainaina, author of One Day I Will Write About This Place, word for word in his wittingly written How To Write about Africa, published in the Grant magazine in 2005 which somewhat described the best way to write about the continent. In this, the author writes that whichever angle you take when writing about Africa, you need to “leave the strong impression that without your intervention and your important book, Africa is doomed.” Is this what western media are doing: that without their craft, Africa’s “doomed”?

This can also be been in an interesting analysis I came across in 2008 in The Black Agenda Report website’s eight (8) part series titled “The Hearts of Darkness: How Europe Writers Created the Racist Image of Africa” published between 24 January and 14 March 2007 which named The New York Times, The National Geographic, TIME, Newsweek, The New Yorker as some of the western publications that perpetuated what it called the “negative characterization of Africa”, citing The New York Times as the most culprit especially during South Africa’s apartheid era. Even to this very day, as noted by Ian Birrell in the Guardian last year, these publications remain “locked into stale narratives of Africa as a land of suffering in need of our salvation” and is “slipping away”. Another example of this negative coverage of Africa is a May 2000 cover of The Economist titled “Hopeless Africa”, followed by another in October last year titled “Sad South Africa: Cry, the beloved country”. Birrell notes this portrayed hopelessness of the continent as a clear “disconnect between outdated western perceptions of Africa and fast-changing realities on the ground”. He said the magazine’s depiction of the continent as “hopeless” was the “usual stereotypes presented by much of the media and their allies in the aid lobby” which offered “simplistic images of death and destruction, ignoring complex realities of a continent encompassing 54 countries and 11.6 million square miles in which life is becoming more peaceful and prosperous”.

The “The Hearts of Darkness: How Europe Writers Created the Racist Image of Africa” believes that these savage images of Africa and its people by the western media were created by European travelers to the continent through publications they wrote for and these continue to being perpetuated and disseminated through newspapers, magazines and Hollywood films. The analysis further noted the media’s “racist portrayals of Africans and Black people in general” as being “so effective that many contemporary white writers still view Black people through the prism of bigotry created by their forefathers over several centuries”. “For these contemporary writers even remotely to write balanced articles about Black people, they must first re-read many of the publications that have formed the white people’s perceptions of blacks”.

Which makes sense when taking into account what TIME’s Alex Perry had to say when he ignorantly blamed South Africa’s alleged “culture of Violence” as the real cause of the murder accused and athletic Oscar Pistorius’ reasons for admittedly killing his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, who he bizarrely claims to have mistook as an intruder in his well-secured house on February 14. This is because Perry made reference to Cape Town’s poor and black communities unnecessarily. Now because of this lazy journalism, he then justifies this as the reason (or one of the reasons) why South Africa is such a “raging violent crime [haven]” and that Cape Town has the highest murder rates than Johannesburg.

Why did he bring Cape Town into the picture especially when it’s not where the killing of Steenkamp took place? Did he not know that the killing took place in the very same city whose murder rates he claims are lower than those of his favourite Cape Town?

What’s even worse is his quoting statistics which seem irrelevant to the article at all. This writing on Africa is an example of what a dissertation research described as typical of western journalists when reporting on the continent, saying they only “seek out a big five through their lenses: poverty, famine, corruption, tribalism and, AIDS”. The research notes that western media correspondents often depict Africa as a “have-not continent, and thus a failure”, with its “culture as primitive, backward and insignificant” and this is of course the very same thing that The Black Agenda Report analysis referred to.

The Economist’s by-line in “Sad South Africa: Cry, the beloved country” described the country as “sliding downhill while much of the rest of the continent is clawing its way up”, further accusing it of sliding both economically and politically by citing one of its analysis which claimed the country had been “woefully led” especially after former president Nelson Mandela retired from politics in 1999. However, within five month after this, the very same magazine ran another “Aspiring Africa: The world’s fastest-growing continent” cover early this month, March, which described how in good shape the continent is, citing its increasing number of kids going to school, the decrease in the number of HIV infections, the consumer spending that’s expected to double in the next ten years, among others. The magazine attributed the “fastest” in terms of growth to the western aid and Chinese companies flooding the continent (although dubiously so, I think), our embracing modern technology and that our politicians “are doing a bit better, especially in economic management and striking peace deals”. It however admitted that “so much more remains to be done” especially on the level of poverty and inequality (emphasis).

What bothers me personally, however, is whether all these things did not exist or were not visible in October last year when it chose to carry the “Sad South Africa: Cry, the beloved country” cover. While we acknowledge that Africa has its problems just like any other continent does – including Europe and America – we, however, find the west’s failure to see its “edge of economic takeoff similar to those seen so dramatically in China and India”, quite disturbing as noted by Birrell, if not shocking for a publication that claims the continent is the “world’s fastest-growing”. Or maybe these negative reporting on Africa are just typical of the western media’s “anachronistic attitudes” which are reflective of their “myopic view” of the continent?

It will of course take years, if not centuries, before the western media and their leaders see Africa for what it really is and not just a piece of land whose mineral resources and people can be exploited for their own gains. At the same time, we need our African media – including South Africa’s especially – to not only report on the bad, but also on the good that Africa has to offer. Our leaders, too, need to act in a proper way that is expected of them. They also need to listen to what their people have to say. With these and of course many other interventions, the western media will have less ‘dark’ things to write about our continent, if nothing at all.

According to Gibson Phiyega “has failed [and that’s why] she must go”. He however acknowledges that the police commissioner indeed does have a “multi-million rand contract” but insists anyway that the government should sommer net “pay her out and be done with it,” before adding Mthethwa and his deputy “should do the honourable thing and resign.” In an article titled “Awkward task ahead” on 14 June last year, The Citizen quoted Gibson questioning Phiyega’s police credentials, claiming she does not have what it takes about fighting crime. He insisted the police commissioner knew nothing about policing and wondered if indeed there was not even one senior professional policeman with the necessary qualities, police experience and authority who could have been appointed.

Of course I am among those who questioned Phiyega’s appointment. But I then later learned that it is sometimes not about the experience and qualifications but actually about attributes and attitude that are taking into account whether one has the capability, skills (of whatever kind) to fulfil the responsibility that has been bestowed upon that incumbent to do the job. For example, neither former Presidents Nelson Mandela and Thabo Mbeki and even now President Jacob Zuma knew a shit about running a country especially after the ruling African National Congress took over during the democratic dispensation from the apartheid government in the early 90s. They however managed to lead us – which each facing their own challenges – to date.

While Gibson believes Phiyega is not a “morally challenged politician”, he however believes she is a “third failed police commissioner in a row” after his predecessor, Jackie Selebi. He claims the police commissioner is “simply not the person to demand and receive the respect of the 160,000 policemen she must command”. Bizarrely – more like murder accused Oscar Pistorius’ father told The Telegraph newspaper not so long ago, Gibson said crime is at a frighteningly high level in the country – which we all agree with. He continues to claim that South Africans (unlike the Pistorius family with over 50 guns?) do not feel safe and do not believe the police can or will protect them. “A basic duty of the state is to protect all its citizens and if it fails in this essential task because the police force is not up to its job, then the Rule of law is in grave peril”. It is true that many have complained of the way the police service has been ‘militarised’ as indicated by Democratic Alliance Shadow Minister of Police, Dianne Kohler Barnard in which she made the following example:

• The shooting of Jeanette Odendaal by a police officer in KemptonPark in 2011;
• The death of 34 miners at Marikana through excessive use of force by the police in last year; and
• The 720 complaints of death in police custody or by police action received by the Independent Police Investigative Directorate in 2011/2012,
• And the latest being the alleged brutal assault and murder of Mido Marcia by the nine (9) police.

It is further true that there are many loyal policemen who do their work perfectly but that there are those who do not do their job. Just as one police officer was quoted in the SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, Vol 38, No 2 (2012) especially for those who had to deal with the trauma of being in the police services everyday where they had to watch as some of their colleagues are shot dead: “Although, later one regrets it that the robbers are not dead, because they shot to kill us. It was an unfair battle. Some people criticise one’s actions afterwards and say that they would have handled it better … Then I think to myself: “do not comment if you were not part of that which happened when it happened’”. It is therefore wrong for Gibson to accuse Phiyega as one of the “incompetent, untrained or inadequately trained and depressingly ill-equipped to fill the post [she occupies] for reasons other than their merit”, saying “that is why she has failed and needs to be replaced.” While there’s nothing wrong with either Mthethwa or Phiyega being given the boot by Zuma but for valid and good reasons, I however believe of reasons given by Gibson it will be premature because we first need to deal with what is actually the root cause of these brutalities against the civil society (and the police themselves). But then again, one wonders who will have to take responsibility for the brutality that is exerted on the poor police officers during their line of duty as explained in this research.

According to the SA Journal of Industrial Psychology research policing in South Africa is a dangerous job. No don’t about that. For example, it noted that 54 members lost their lives in the line of duty from July 2002 to July 2003. These figures increased significantly in 2006, with 51 police officers losing their lives in the first half of 2006, according to the research. The research further noted at the time (2012) that the available data indicated the death rate was significantly higher than the global average, with 109 officers being killed on duty in 2008 and 2009.

It appears to be a well-documented tendency – especially from opposition parties in South African to call for the recall of certain people holding certain positions in the country especially when they seemingly tend to differ on a number of issues. For example, following Zuma’s admission that he had slept with a woman who was apparently HIV positive a few years ago after the woman laid charges of rape against for him, and for which he was exonerated – Congress of the People made a call in 2010 that he must go.

Even some commentators on New24 said Zuma should not come back for a second term as president of the ruling party in December last year, which he still remains. Again, following the Western Cape saga in Khayelitsha in which three police stations faced serious problems, founder of the Social Justice Coalition, civic activist Zackie Achmat said in November last year in the Cape Times that Mthethwa and Community Safety MEC Dan Plato to be sacked. Further, National Education Health and Allied Workers Union spokesperson Sizwe Pamla also called for DA Leader Helen Zille in May last year to resign over her alleged “responsibility for all the damaged property in the Johannesburg CBD, and the blood of innocent people that was spilt [on 15 May 2012]” for its march to Cosatu offices at the time.

Basic Education Angie Motshekga is also among government ministers who had on several occasions been asked to be sacked by Zuma early this year by South African Democratic Teachers’ Union. Not taking any of this non-sense, Motshekga responded, saying Sadtu’s comments were “unfortunate, the posture and tone regrettable.” This after Sadtu said early this month that it had lost confidence in and accused her of having “run out of ideas on how to turn around the DBE and has even resorted to publicity stunts such as the announcement of the biometric registration system without even having the decency expected of a minister to engage the major stakeholders.”.

“We have therefore reached a stage where we can make a passionate call to the minister to do the honourable thing and take the road less travelled by submitting her resignation as the minister of basic education with immediate effect. We are hopeful that this resignation which we are looking forward to, will have an annexure being the resignation of the DG of the department, Bobby Soobrayan”, said the teachers’ union.

To request that someone be sacked or resign is quite a dangerous tendency as it often sets a bad and terrible precedence that is often unwarranted or used for political reasons. I mean the only time I called for the sacking of a minister was in October 2011, 20 of the late and controversial Minister of Co-operative governance and Traditional Affairs, Sicelo Shiceka after several investigations implicated him. Even when I criticised Zuma’s special adviser for a few days, Willem Heath, I never called for his sacking but only indicated that his comments were quite troubling because of what seemed like defamatory allegations made about former president Thabo Mbeki in an interview with City Press on 4 December 2011. Even my Open Letter to Zuma last year October regarding the Nkandlagate never called for his resignation nor did it call for a vote of no confidence vote on him but only indicated that his failure (as also noted by Pierre De Vos) to “heed to my call to immediately stop this Nkandla upgrade saga would confirm many people’s suspicions and even give opposition parties greater ammunition against your administration that unlike former President Nelson Mandela’s and Thabo Mbeki’s – it is hell-bent on using legislation (quoted by [Thulas] Nxesi, [Mac] Maharaj, etc) for self-enrichment and to hide unlawful conduct, maladministration or corruption, and thereby escaping public accountability especially how our taxes are used and abused.”

It however may be true and possible the brutal police training as exposed by Mail & Guardian in June 2011 is related to the level of brutality that police often exert on the society they are expected to protect. As Chris Botha, a retired policeman who is now a training consultant for the SAPS and police in other countries, told the newspaper at the time: “If the police are trained with verbal and physical abuse, there is a strong possibility that they will act that way towards communities. It is a very dangerous thing and should be dealt with immediately”. This of course differs from one person to another. This is because the SA Journal of Industrial Psychology research quoted one member of the police services saying: “Even though the training was physically very demanding, and you worked under lots of pressure, I believe that I am better equipped, and better trained to do every job that is required from me”.

According to the M&G report titled “Police training: Brutality exposed” on 3 Jan 2011, the police brutality came into the spotlight following the killing of Andries Tatane. It further reported of how an Independent Complaints Directorate (now known as Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) polices assaults rose from 1380 in 2007-2008 to 1667 in 2009-2010. the newspaper further noted a research by Amnesty International report which provided what it called “hair-raising details of SAPS torture and brutality”. In the cause of “toughening” them up and instilling discipline, trainees at the SAPS training college in Pretoria interviewed by the newspaper in the course of a three-month investigation said they were subjected to five-hour, non-stop physical training sessions, during which they were not allowed to drink, go to the toilet or remove their jerseys in hot weather.

Speaking to M&G at the time, national police spokesperson, captain Dennis Adriao, said the training of new recruits was of “international standard” and based on “best-training practices from various countries worldwide” to ensure the best possible tactical skills and services to the community. He further claimed new recruits were informed of what to expect and signed a memorandum of agreement. Adriao said it was stipulated in the trainees’ contracts that they will be suspended if they are unfit or are on light duty for more than six days. Adriano further said: “Physical training and discipline forms an integral part of a police member’s training and is essential not only to protect their lives, but also the lives of community members.” But he said that recruits placed on light duty should be excused from physical activities, in line with doctors’ recommendations, according to the M&G report.

Police Minister Nathi Mthethwa’s spokesperson, Zweli Mnisi, told the newspaper that trainees who felt their rights had been violated should lay a complaint. He said: “vigorous as the training is, we also enforce respect among our trainers for trainees”. Mnisi said if trainees had any complaints, there were various internal channels which he was certain were clearly communicated to them prior to undertaking the training. Mnisi told M&G at the time that it would be “premature to endorse or condemn anyone, based on these allegations, without any tangible evidence”.

But the IPID blamed negligent police management, poor training, disrespect for law and order, criminal members within police ranks and blatant disregard for internal disciplinary procedures as the chief causes behind the scourge of police brutality gripping South Africa at a conference on police brutality and the use of force, according to media reports. With 2 462 criminal complaints laid against the police in the 2009/10 financial year and the organisation coming under increased pressure following the murder of service delivery protesters across South Africa, urgent action was needed to be taken to avert the crisis. It said of the 2 462 complaints, 920 (40 percent) were for assault with the intent to cause grievous bodily harm, 422 (22 percent) for common assault and 325 (17 percent) for attempted murder. IPID said of the deaths through police action, 22 percent occurred during the commission of crimes, four percent during escapes, 10 percent during investigations, 46 percent during arrests while 2 percent of those killed were innocent bystanders.

David Bruce, senior researcher at the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation, said it was “clear that police management does not know what is going on”. He said there was “clear absence of understanding from police leadership on how to deal with the use of force. Management has to take responsibility if this brutality is to be stopped.” According to Bruce it seemed the police’s solution for dealing with crime was the use of violence such as extra-judicial executions of alleged cop killers. “The impression being created is that police leadership believes that extra-legal methods are necessary to deal with violent crime. This leads to serious non-fatal police violence with reports of torture and assaults on the increase, even as police murders are on the decrease”. He said one of the biggest causes for concern was the lack of clarity in messages from management to police members on how to fight crime, he said.

Bruce said many policemen acted with good intentions, but because of a lack of skills and experience, the use of force caused more harm exposing officers to great danger. “What is worrying about this is that the use of force is often completely unnecessary, especially as the police involved could have dealt with the situations in another way. Even if police use lethal force with the intention of acting lawfully, they approach the subject with a ‘cover your a***’ attitude. They deal with the investigation in a way which will minimise the chance of being disciplined with the investigation being closed down as quickly as possible,” he said. Bruce is further reported saying the SAPS had to adopt professional standards with its leadership embracing a policing approach which emphasised the protection of human rights in order to solve this problem. Bruce said management has to take responsibility with the task needed to focus on creating a clear policy around the use of force. “If they do this, there will be greater community respect for police, effective policing and a greater respect for the law,” he said. It is therefore not clear whether by taking responsibility, as suggested by Bruce, this means Mthethwa and Phiyega should resign or be sacked as suggest by Gibson. Of course Bruce is not the first to question the police’s brutality. Annelize van Wyk, Parliament’s police portfolio committee acting chairperson also questioned the police services’ training following the Marikana massacre, saying there is a need to reconsider the training of police and the equipment they use.

Following the brutal murder of more than 40 alleged mining workers by police, Van Wyk said to play “blame game… would be irresponsible and insensitive.” She said further called on all commentators at the time to refrain from making any statements that could further “entice violence and endanger more lives”, adding there was a “need to look at the training of police members, relevant equipment in relation to the level of violence they are confronted with, and the role of our intelligence sources in gathering and analysing information in time to prevent the development of protests to the level of violence we have seen”

The problem, it seems, is that if we do not deal with and solve these brutal police training techniques in their training camps but instead want Zuma to fire the pair – we will continue to have these brutal behaviour and actions exerted on our innocent people for no apparent reason(s). As a result we will continue to have many like victims Tatane, Mido Marcia allegedly killed as a result of police brutality, and of course many others who came before them and those who still going to be killed by or at the hands of our police force. Therefore our failure as a nation to help solve and deal with these issues will result in many of these sad and traumatic consequences that often the police officers find themselves in especially if there no supportive structures in the organisation of the SAPS and therefore resulting in what the research called the free-floating rather than contained anxiety.

In conclusion and as eloquently put by M&G’s Phillip De Wet last week Friday on “Absent minister’s job is safe”, Mthethwa’s job is “safe”. Even better, the Marikana saga “did not cost [him] his job as police minister. Nor did the death of Andries Tatane in Ficksberg. So it came as a little surprise when President Jacob Zuma this week rejected calls for his head amid public outrage, and international incredulity, at the way police treated the taxi driver”.

Now like our own police minister, the same can be said about the police commissioner who at the time of writing (13 March) was giving her testimony before the Fanlam Commission of Inquiry in Rustenburg which had been instituted by Zuma to investigate what exactly happened and who should take the blame for what had happened during the Marikana saga.