Public order transparency: Using freedom of information laws to analyse the policing of protest

Public order transparency Using freedom of information laws to analyse the policing of protest David Bruce* http://dx.doi.org/10.17159/2413-3108/2016/v0n58a1508 This article discusses two research projects that have used the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) to analyse protest in South Africa and the policing thereof. A total of 23 information requests were submitted on behalf of the two projects, 19 to the South African Police Service (SAPS) and four to the Independent Police Investigative Directorate. The article starts by discussing police transparency in South Africa, information on the policing of protest that the SAPS routinely publishes in its annual report, the PAIA framework, and some of the limitations of the projects. It then focuses on insights into SAPS information on levels of protest and protest-related violence in South Africa that emerged from the two projects. This includes information disclosed by the police regarding their use of force during protests, and police accountability for this. The article concludes by reflecting on the implications of and lessons from these exercises in police transparency. In contemporary democracies police are trust and cooperation with civilians and civil increasingly exposed to public scrutiny. One society groups;1 however, they do not always reason for this is the proliferation of technologies welcome scrutiny and may be resistant to such as closed-circuit television (CCTV) and cell transparency. This possibly reflects what Joshua phone cameras. In recent years, CCTV and cell Chanin and Salvador Espinosa call a ‘preference phone videos, exposing apparently unjustified for reticence’ motivated by ‘[m]istrust of the police actions, have often circulated on social media and scepticism about the motivations of and traditional media, notably in the United the information-seeking public’.2 States (US), but increasingly in South Africa too. Accountability legislation and oversight architecture, and laws promoting public access to state information also increasingly compel police to share information. Police could embrace such transparency as a means to build * David Bruce is an independent researcher specialising in policing and criminal justice. Related to the fact that protest is often linked to political conflict and social divisions in society, the policing of protest is a source of controversy in many countries. As a result, police may be wary about opening themselves to scrutiny around it.3 In South Africa, protest is a key issue of public concern and debate.4 Public Order Police (POP) are the key component of the SA Crime Quarterly No. 58 • DECEMBER 2016 23 South African Police Service (SAPS) responsible for dealing with protest, especially where there is violence or the risk thereof. Scrutiny of POP in South Africa has intensified in recent years in the wake of a series of deaths during protests and strikes, most notably at Marikana in August 2012, where police shot and killed 34 striking miners and wounded 76 others.5 Protests on university campuses in September and October 2016 involved widespread disruption of teaching programmes and some incidents of violence by protestors. Police action on university campuses in response to this protest also became a source of heated contention, particularly in relation to some incidents in which excessive force was allegedly used.6 In brief, when and how public order policing is practiced in South Africa remains contentious. This article focuses on the intersection between police transparency and the policing of protest in South Africa. Researchers have started using freedom of information (FOI) laws to access SAPS information on crowd incidents and public order policing. It discusses two projects that have used the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) to obtain information on protest and its policing. It focuses on key insights gleaned from the data regarding protest numbers and the use of force by police during protests. The conclusion reflects on SAPS compliance with PAIA, the unsatisfactory quality of some of the information that has been disclosed, continued official reliance on this information, and the implications of the two research projects discussed in this article for how the SAPS understands transparency. Police transparency in South Africa Evaluations of an organisation’s transparency often focus on how it responds to requests for information lodged under FOI laws. For instance, reports by a civil society network in 2013 and 2014 indicated that the SAPS had responded positively to less than 50% 24 Institute for Security Studies & University of Cape Town of requests that were submitted to it.7 But assessing degrees of transparency is not only about an organisation’s willingness to disclose information but also about whether the information is reliable, accurate and up to date. A 2007 assessment of the SAPS in relation to ‘indicators of democratic policing’ noted that the standard of reporting in the SAPS’s annual reports was relatively good, compared to that of many other government departments.8 However, the auditor-general has consistently raised questions about the reliability of information on the SAPS’s performance against set indicators provided in its annual reports.9 The system through which the SAPS releases crime statistics has also frequently attracted criticism. This is partly because when crime statistics are released, they are already six months out of date.10 Information routinely provided on public order policing The SAPS’s annual reports consistently include information on the number of POP units, the number of members of these units, the procurement of public order equipment, public order training, and arrests during crowd incidents. In addition, the section on POP consistently provides data on two categories of ‘crowd related incidents’ distinguished as either ‘peaceful’ or ‘unrest’.11 The data comes from a database of incidents to which POP units have responded, known as the Incident Reporting Information System (IRIS). Table 1 provides IRIS data on these two categories of incidents from April 2011 to March 2016. Many people assume ‘public order policing’ means the policing of protest, and interpret the data on crowd incidents as data on protests in South Africa (see Alexander et al. in this issue of SACQ).12 This misreading is reinforced by the limited supplementary data in SAPS reports on such incidents. For instance, the 2015/16 SAPS annual report refers to Table 1: SAPS reports of ‘peaceful’ and ‘unrest’ crowd incidents, April 2011 – March 201613 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Peaceful 10 832 10 517 11 601 12 451 11 151 Unrest 1 226 1 882 1 907 2 289 3 542 Total 12 058 12 399 13 508 14 740 14 693 Source: South African Police Service, 2016. ‘peaceful incidents’ as including ‘assemblies, gatherings and meetings’. ‘Unrest-related incidents’ are said to include ‘l (...truncated)