The Makhado police issued a statement this week in which they reacted to the front-page article of last week’s edition of the Zoutpansberger with regard to the police’s failure to help a Zimbabwean woman who was robbed at gunpoint in Louis Trichardt. The statement reads:

This office would like to respond to your newspaper article “Nie ons saak, sê polisie” which appeared on the front page of your publication dated 2009/09/18. We observed the article with dismay because of the following:

This office enjoys a good relationship with all local, provincial and national newspapers in terms of information that has to do with our daily activities or needs atten-tion of the community we serve. However, we acknowledge the role that the media fraternity is playing.

With regard to the alleged failure to assist a Zimbabwean victim by the police as you alluded, some of your sentiments are misleading because it would appear as if the police are irresponsible, which is not true. Upon receipt of the alleged complaint, police responded quickly to the scene where the alleged victim was. An interview was conducted so as to deter-mine the facts and get the clues and context of the incident before a case could be registered.

The complainant in this matter chose not to open a case because, ac-cording to her, she stays far and could not come to South Africa time and again to testify before a court of law. This information is contained in the OB, which is a normal police routine as part of the feed back to the Station Commissioner. Had the police opened a case and arrested the alleged suspect, who would have justified the allegations against them without the presence of the complainant, let alone the identification parade? Mind you, a person cannot be forced to open a case and once this happens, it leaves the police with a small chance of winning such a case in a court of law.

The incident is regrettable but should serve as an eye opener to all of us to get to understand the difficulties we encounter in bringing perpetrators to book and eventually to court. The police spend a lot of time investigating cases, yet some people choose to register cases but fail to attend court, which leads to the withdrawal of cases. Some people are only interested in getting a case number, which poses suspicion. Sometimes, cases are registered and a few days later the complainant(s) decide to withdraw the case which the police are not at liberty to do.

We have seen many instances, in which cases are opened, mostly theft out of motor vehicles with allegations of theft of cameras, laptops, cash, fire arms and jewellery being made. Since when do we leave these valuable items in our cars? The answer is clear, negligence, false allegations or the items might still have to be paid for. We cannot have a situation where three or four cases are registered with the same items being stolen from different people time and again – it’s impossible. Many times people choose to call the media before they even call the station commissioner or the police. This is not how we should work as it delays the investigations. In this case, the media got information immediately and the police could not have responded without establishing the facts. In future, advise complainants to call the police. If they cannot be assisted by the police, then you can take up the matter further with the station commissioner.

Today’s policing needs team work as embedded in the Constitution and the Police Act. Hence we have our Sectors and CPF’s which are active, but are getting little support from members of the community. People do not have street committees, nor neighbourhood watches, let alone to inform their neighbours when they are going away. How often do we screen people who render services in our homes, either for gardening jobs or minor renovations, as day in and day out we experience house breakings, although the police are on duty around the clock as well as the town watch. Some of these housebreakings take place in our back yards where police cannot gain access.

We are working hard to be proactive and trustworthy. We find that windows are often not properly closed but in turn we blame the police once something happens. We are not shying away from our responsibilities, but there is a need to be alert, responsible or mindful in assisting the police. Only then shall we con-quer crime together.

How often do we attend meetings when called by the police or Sector Forum Committees? Some people in the CBD even complain about our weekly police tips over the loud speaker which seeks to assist business people and shoppers on how to protect themselves and their properties, yet people have the audacity to blame the police for making noise. The station commissioner, station management and all commanders have no room for lazy members, let alone corruption which cannot be condoned. To attest to this, we have records at our disposal as proof.

We thank members of the community and the Town Watchers who continue to patrol our town and often alert the station commissioner of misbehaviour by members of the service. It is our believe that this statement will shed more clarity on your article.

Your response is much appreciated and of a positive nature. Thank you for also acknowledging the fact that the media have a role to play in society. The Zoutpansberger prides itself on having a good relationship with our local police and would like to continue this relationship. Negative articles, however, are bound to upset people, especially those involved.

There are many aspects of your letter I agree with fully, such as the fact that a lot of people have apathy towards crime and see the police as the sole custodians of law and order in this country. Until we realise that crime affects us all and that all of us can play a positive role in combating it, we will not win the war. Yes, being negligent by leaving valuables in your vehicle or not locking your doors and closing your windows at night, serves as nothing more than an invite to criminals.

I also agree with you that a lot of people are quick to run to the media, without even trying to resolve the problem with the relevant parties themselves. This is why we always ask people what steps they had taken to resolve a problem before coming to the newspaper. As the watchdogs of society, we have an open-door policy towards everyone with a complaint. It does not, however, mean that every complaint we receive will end up as an article in the newspaper. When we do tackle complaints, it is also the policy of this newspaper to allow all parties concerned reasonable time to respond to allegations made against them.

With regard to the specifics of your response to our front page article, just the following:

Your response creates the impression that we published the article without allowing the police fair comment, stating that some of the “sentiments are misleading, because it would appear as if the police are irresponsible”. You then continue to concentrate on what happened after the police had been called a second time. The crux of the matter, however, is why the first police officials at the scene, who were stopped in the street within minutes of the armed robbery, with the suspects still in view, failed to assist the woman or try to apprehend the suspects. By the time the second group of police officials arrived on the scene, the suspects had already disappeared. We made this very clear in our media enquiries and the police were given almost a week to respond.

With regard to the above, your initial response to the effect that the first police officials thought it might have been another false compliant was placed as the police’s official response. From your response this week, I can deduct that the police are at present experiencing problems with false claims by people in an effort to submit fraudulent insurance claims. To my view, it is not a police officer’s duty to decide whether or not he or she believes a complainant. All complaints should be treated seriously. If it later transpires that the complainant had lied, why not charge the person with perjury?

This woman had a legitimate complaint. She did not leave valuables in her vehicle but was robbed at gunpoint inside her vehicle. She asked the police for assistance, but this did not happen. If the first police officials at the scene had taken her complaint seriously and managed to appre-hend the suspects, we would have had a “good news” article. Sadly, this did not happen. From your response that the woman later said she did not want to open a case, it is also clear that she had no desire to submit a fraudulent insurance claim. Maybe we should also ask ourselves, in light of how the woman was treated, the real reason why she decided not to open a case. Could it be that she had lost faith that anything would come of it? In the meantime, the suspects continue to roam the streets.

Once again, thank you for you response. I also hope this sheds more light on the reason why we published the article. – Andries van Zyl (News Editor)