The SAHRC reports that bullet casings inconsistent with crowd control regulations show police used improper measures to handle student protests.
The South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) has concluded that police acted outside the law when dispersing student protestors in Mthatha in May 2024.
Protests were held over several days by Walter Sisulu University (WSU) students, which resulted in multiple injuries after they turned violent.
The commission held hearings on the protests from August to November 2024 and on Thursday released its 84-page report on the findings.
The hearings included sworn statements from students, police, the private security industry, civil society groups, Eastern Cape government departments and independent ballistics experts.
Photos of the scenes of the protest seen by ballistics experts confirm the presence of high-calibre, high-velocity bullet casings, while the report details the circumstances faced by police at the height of the protests.
Claims of ‘some’ live rounds
Submissions from the Student Representative Council (SRC) state the protest began on Thursday 23 May 2024 after a student meeting earlier that week.
That day, students blocked the university’s main gates by staging a sit in, which they repeated the following day.
The SRC said the situation escalated when private security attempted to disperse them on Friday morning using rubber bullets and pepper spray.
“The SRC stated that this use of force was unprovoked and that in reaction to the violence, some students began throwing stones at the security personnel,” the SAHRC’s report says.
The protestors took a break over the weekend and resumed on Monday after receiving no formal response to a memorandum of demands submitted to the university the previous week.
Police and protestors clashed on Monday 27 May, with the SRC claiming that “some of the ammunition may have been live rounds”.
Adding to the tension was a protest on the same day held by taxi associations in Mthatha, but the SRC said suggestions that students joined the taxi associations were “false allegations”, as the student protest began first.
Overlapping taxi association protest
The South Africa National Taxi Council (Santaco) told the commission during the hearings that a peace accord between rival associations had been signed in April and that no protest was meant to be held.
“Santaco clarified that the provincial leadership had no prior knowledge, formal or informal of the impending protest,” the SAHRC said.
“Because the organisation was not informed of the planned protest, it could not implement safety measures to protect students and its members.”
The South African Police Service (Saps) submission stated that the taxi protest was due to police confiscating taxi members’ firearms following a taxi-related shooting the previous week.
“This in turn led to the circulation of voice messages threatening a total shutdown in Mthatha unless the firearms were returned,” the SAHRC said.
ALSO READ: One dead, two injured after e-hailing vehicles torched at Maponya Mall [VIDEO]
Police said that on 27 May, the taxi association protest “descended into chaos”, with early morning looting occurring, as well as the blocking of main routes in and out of Mthatha with burning vehicles.
“In one instance, the Mthatha Airport designated as a national key point was seized by unidentified individuals and shooting occurred in and around its vicinity,” the commission heard.
“These closures severely disrupted daily life, impeding the movement of hospital personnel, Saps officers, ambulances, students, educators and other commuters,” police said.
Police vastly outnumbered
Under these circumstances, a stretched police force encountered angry students.
Police confirmed that all available units needed to be deployed, as specialist units from other areas of the province could not reach Mthatha due to the burning blockades.
“However, most units except Public Order Policing were not tasked with crowd control,” the SAHRC said.
Due to a lack of personnel, other units such as the National Intervention Unit and Tactical Response Team attempted to disperse students.
Police said these units were greatly outnumbered by students, forcing them to retreat, firing warning shots, including one officer discharging their firearm into the ground.
“While attempting to remove burning tyres and debris, the crowd, which was initially 50 metres away, advanced rapidly and began throwing stones.
“The team responded with stun grenades and warning shots before retreating. No shots were fired directly at the students,” police saod.
SAHRC’s report says that police maintain that all actions taken by officers were in self-defence under stressful circumstances.
“The use of stun grenades, warning shots and rubber rounds was, according to Saps, proportionate to the risk posed by an aggressive and advancing crowd,” the SAHRC says.
ALSO READ: 105 suspected criminals killed in shootouts with KZN police – Mkhwanazi [VIDEO]
No complaints received by Ipid
Once the protests had subsided, police submitted that they visited hospitals to look for the injured but were told they had already been discharged.
No complaints were later reported to police and as a result were “not in a position to confirm the number or severity of injuries”.
The Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority had also not received any formal complaints of misconduct at the protests, but confirmed private security were not permitted to conduct crowd control.
The Independent Police Investigative Directorate (Ipid) also confirmed that no formal complaints were received, but did state it was aware of two live firearm discharges.
One was related to an officer from Mthatha police, but as no complaint was received, it fell outside of Ipid’s scope.
The second related to a private security officer. However, Ipid has no jurisdiction over private security personnel.
“In both cases, there was no follow up from victims or third parties that could convert the notifications into actionable complaints,” the SAHRC says.
Photographs of bullet casings
Based on a ballistics expert providing a statement on photographs of the bullet casings present at the scenes, the SAHRC determined police acted outside the law.
“Several fired cartridge cases visible in the photographs exhibit the characteristics of 5.56 x 45 mm calibre ammunition, typically discharged from R4 or R5 model assault rifles.
“These firearms are classified as high-velocity weapons, with a muzzle velocity of approximately 980 metres per second,” the report explained
“The use of high velocity firearms such as R4/R5 rifles is strictly prohibited during public order policing, except in extreme cases of private defence or imminent threat to life,” the SAHRC’s report states.
“These findings raise significant concerns regarding excessive use of force by law enforcement and the possible unlawful conduct in the manner the protest was dispersed.”
NOW READ: SAHRC exposes racial bias in Hartbeespoort land leases
