Police misconduct betrays the very constitutional order law enforcement swore to protect

Public trust in South Africa’s police continues to erode as a recent survey revealed widespread perceptions of corruption and misconduct within the force. An alarming 61% of South Africans believe that “most or all” police officers engage in corrupt practices, undermining the very foundation of law enforcement legitimacy.

Perhaps more disturbing is that one in four citizens report having personally paid a bribe or provided favours to avoid police problems, demonstrating how this corruption directly affects everyday South Africans.

Recent South African labour court cases highlight a critical issue in our justice system: the special responsibility police officers bear and the high standards to which they must be held.

Two cases in particular — South African Police Services v Safety and Security Sectoral Bargaining Council and Astle and Another v Safety and Security Sector Bargaining Council — illustrate why we must demand exemplary conduct from those entrusted with law enforcement powers.

In the first case, Sergeant Cikiswa Antoinette Mangaliso was dismissed after helping her foster daughter escape proper processing following an arrest. Despite her 11 years of service, she abused her position to give preferential treatment to someone with whom she had a personal connection.

The arbitrator initially reinstated her with a warning and found her dismissal procedurally unfair because Mangaliso was denied representation by her chosen representative and only given three hours to find an alternative during expedited proceedings, with no justification for why the inquiry couldn’t be postponed.

Regarding substantive fairness, the arbitrator reasoned that while Mangaliso prevented her foster daughter Nosisi from being processed, all those arrested (including Nosisi) were ultimately issued fines rather than detained. The arbitrator viewed this as a mitigating factor - Mangaliso hadn’t helped someone completely evade justice.

The arbitrator considered Mangaliso’s 11 years of service with a clean disciplinary record as a factor supporting a lesser sanction. The arbitrator concluded that while the employment relationship was “tarnished”, it wasn’t “destroyed”, making reinstatement with a final written warning more appropriate than dismissal.

However, the labour court upheld her dismissal, rightly recognising that her conduct undermined public trust in police impartiality. The court found that the arbitrator took too narrow a view of the harm caused.

While the arbitrator focused on the fact that all arrestees eventually received similar punishment (fines), the court emphasised the visible disparity in treatment at the police station, which undermined public perception of equal treatment.

The court noted that Mangaliso showed no remorse or acknowledgment that her actions were inappropriate. She defended her interference based on her belief that her foster daughter’s arrest was invalid, suggesting she might repeat such behaviour.

The court considered that Mangaliso’s rank and experience made her conduct more serious, as she should have known not to interfere with another officer’s duties, especially for personal reasons.

The second case involved officers Cecilia Astle and Abraham Carel Greyling, who failed to properly investigate an assault allegedly committed by fellow police officers.

After closing the case as “undetected” without proper investigation — despite available CCTV footage — they later participated in creating false written warnings to evade accountability. The court affirmed their dismissals, noting they had “lost touch with what [their] primary role was” and displayed “bureaucratic complacency”.

The court emphasised the particular seriousness of police failing to investigate allegations against other officers, rejected their lack of remorse and considered their subsequent fabrication of backdated written warnings to evade accountability as further evidence of their unsuitability for police service.

Ultimately, the court found their conduct sent a “chilling message” that police would only investigate cases they deemed important, constituting an “utter disrespect and disregard to the rights and dignity of complainants and victims of crimes”.

These cases reflect a fundamental principle: those who enforce the law must themselves exemplify respect for it. Police officers wield extraordinary powers to arrest, detain and use force. With these powers comes an equally extraordinary responsibility to exercise them fairly and judiciously.

Why must we hold police to higher standards?

First, public trust depends on it. When officers show they cannot be impartial or thorough in their duties, they don’t just fail as individuals, they damage the legitimacy of the entire justice system. As Judge Molatelo Makhura noted in the Astle decision, police conduct that shows “utter disrespect and disregard to the rights and dignity of complainants and victims of crimes” sends a “chilling message” that undermines public confidence.

Second, police accountability serves as a critical check on power. Without meaningful consequences for misconduct, the substantial authority granted to officers risks becoming a licence for abuse.

When officers like Mangaliso believe their position entitles them to circumvent proper procedures, or when investigators like Astle and Greyling fail to properly investigate allegations against fellow officers, they betray their fundamental duty.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, proper police conduct is essential to justice itself. When officers fail to investigate crimes thoroughly, close cases prematurely, or provide preferential treatment, they deny victims their right to justice.

In the Astle case, the complainant was allegedly assaulted by police officers and CCTV footage existed of the assault, yet investigating officers made no effort to review this evidence or even contact him before closing his case.

Some will argue that strict accountability standards might discourage police recruitment or encourage excessive caution. But these concerns pale in comparison to the alternative: a police service where misconduct goes unchecked and public trust erodes.

As these labour court decisions demonstrate, our justice system recognises that the standards for police conduct must reflect the significant powers and responsibilities these officers hold.

From a constitutional perspective, police officers serve as the practical embodiment of the state’s monopoly on legitimate force. The South African Constitution establishes rights to equality, dignity and security of person — rights that are directly affected by police conduct.

Officers are entrusted with extraordinary powers to limit citizens’ constitutional freedoms through arrest, detention and use of force, creating an asymmetric power relationship that demands proportionate accountability.

As Constitutional Court jurisprudence has consistently affirmed, this unique position demands heightened standards of conduct to prevent abuse, ensure public trust in state institutions and uphold the rule of law.

When police misconduct goes unchecked, it doesn’t simply represent individual wrongdoing; it constitutes an institutional failure that undermines the very constitutional order officers are sworn to protect.

The message from these cases is clear: police authority comes with accountability. When officers fail to uphold their fundamental duties, particularly when they abuse their position or display indifference to victims’ rights, dismissal may be not just appropriate but necessary to maintain the integrity of law enforcement.

As citizens, we should demand nothing less than police officers who understand that their badge represents not privilege, but responsibility — officers who recognise that they serve not just the law, but justice itself. DM