A single sentence “some police are useless” led to a brutal assault, unlawful arrest and malicious prosecution.

In Ratswene v Minister of Police, the Johannesburg High Court delivered a powerful judgment against police abuse, awarding R1.75 million in general damages and R65 000 for loss of earnings to the victim

Acting Judge Ford condemned the officers’ conduct as a disgrace to South Africa’s constitutional democracy and ordered the Minister of Police to ensure that the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) investigates the incident.

The Facts: From a Helping Hand to a Violent Arrest

The plaintiff, Ramothopo Ratswene, a 42-year-old Uber driver, stopped to help victims at an accident scene in Meadowlands, Soweto, on 4 March 2019.

After taking an injured woman to the nearby police station, he encountered hostility from a female officer and returned to the scene.

There, within earshot of other police officers, he remarked to his friend that “some police are useless,” referring to a previous robbery that had gone uninvestigated.

One officer, Constable Tshabuse, took offence. He demanded that Ratswene repeat the statement, called him derogatory names, and violently dragged him from his vehicle.

Ratswene was manhandled, assaulted, and thrown into a police van, all captured on video by an eyewitness.

At the Meadowlands Police Station, the abuse escalated. While still handcuffed, Ratswene was beaten, kicked, and shocked with a taser, in full view of other officers who did nothing to intervene.

Paramedics who later examined him urged that he be hospitalised, but police refused to release him.

The next morning, battered and bleeding, Ratswene was taken to court and charged with “assaulting police and refusing lawful arrest.”

The charges were withdrawn five months later.

The Evidence and Defence

The Minister of Police’s defence relied on a deceased officer’s hearsay statement alleging that Ratswene had attacked police and poured beer on them.

The court admitted the statement but found it inconsistent with the video footage and eyewitness accounts.

The State called no witnesses, effectively leaving the plaintiff’s testimony unchallenged

Court’s Findings

Judge Ford found that:

• The assault was unlawful and intentional.
• The violence was triggered purely by an officer’s personal anger not by any resistance or offence
• The arrest and detention were without legal basis.
• There was no evidence that Ratswene committed a crime or interfered with police duties.
• The prosecution was malicious.
• The fabricated charges of assault and obstruction were withdrawn only after months of emotional and financial hardship.
• The conduct breached constitutional rights.
• SAPS members are constitutionally mandated to protect, not persecute, citizens.
• Quoting Thandani v Minister of Law and Order (1991), the judge reiterated that individual liberty “must be jealously guarded at all times.”

The Court’s Message on Police Accountability

• The judgment strongly condemned the erosion of public trust caused by police brutality.
• Judge Ford highlighted that SAPS officers are “required to uphold and safeguard the fundamental rights of every person… The public should, especially in the presence of the police, feel safe.”
• The court directed the Minister of Police, the Gauteng Provincial Commissioner and IPID to receive copies of the judgment and to investigate the conduct of officers at the Meadowlands Police Station

Importantly, the judge praised bystander Mahlori Maluleke, whose cellphone recording provided irrefutable proof of the abuse, noting that public recordings of police conduct can promote accountability.

Damages Awarded

The High Court ordered the Minister of Police to:

• Pay R1,750 000 in general damages for assault, unlawful arrest, detention, physical trauma and malicious prosecution;
• Pay R65 000 for loss of income during recovery;
• Pay attorney-and-client costs (Scale C);
• Serve the judgment on the relevant police oversight bodies for disciplinary and criminal follow-up.
• Judge Ford warned that taxpayers ultimately shoulder the cost of police misconduct and that continued abuses “eat into the limited resources of justice.”

Broader Implications

This ruling adds to a growing body of jurisprudence holding the Minister of Police vicariously liable for unlawful conduct by SAPS officers. It re-affirms that even verbal criticism of the police cannot justify arrest or violence. The judgment echoes the principles in De Klerk v Minister of Police and Xaba v Minister of Police, emphasising that:

• Freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention is a non-negotiable constitutional right.
• Police officers must exercise restraint, professionalism, and respect for human dignity.
• Recording police interactions is lawful as long as it does not obstruct their duties.

Conclusion

The Ratswene judgment is more than compensation for a single victim, it is a clarion call for systemic reform within SAPS. It reminds law-enforcement officers that authority does not grant impunity and that the Constitution protects even the smallest act of dissent.

In the words of the court: “The comment, though displeasing, should never have attracted such disdain and disapproval.” For South Africans who have suffered unlawful arrest or assault by police, this case confirms that justice is not only possible, it is enforceable.