UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Police shouldn't use firearms to protect property, court rules

Use permitted only in self defence, preventing imminent threat to life or serious injury to others

In Summary

• Ruling followed a petition filed in 2017 by Katiba Institute and AfriCOG challenging amendments to the National Police Service Act.

• The amendments allowed officers, for instance, to use their weapons to protect property even if there were no risk of serious physical harm to the officer or others.

A judge's mallet
RULING: A judge's mallet
Image: FILE

The court has ruled that police cannot use firearms unless when acting in self defence, preventing an imminent threat to life or serious injury to others.

The ruling delivered on Friday followed a petition filed in 2017 by Katiba Institute and AfriCOG challenging amendments to the National Police Service Act.

The amendments expanded the circumstances under which police officers can use firearms beyond self defence and the protection of another person.

The amendments allowed officers, for instance, to use their weapons to protect property even if there were no risk of serious physical harm to the officer or others.

In their petition where the Attorney General was listed as a respondent, the plaintiffs argued that using firearms when there was no threat of serious harm to the officer or others was unconstitutional.

Also, a violation of rights to life, human dignity, freedom and security of the person and fair hearing.

The High Court agreed with the arguments and issued the judgement invalidating paragraphs 1(c), (d) and (e) of Part B of the Sixth Schedule to the National Police Service Act.

WATCH: The latest videos from the Star