The Passengers Association of Zimbabwe had sued police,
seeking an interdict prohibiting officers from using the strips of spikes and
smashing windscreens of private taxis to halt pirate taxis and kombis, saying
that this conduct endangered the lives of the public and causes blatant
unlawful and malicious damage to private property police are supposed to
protect.
Police have implemented internal procedures that have
limited the use of spikes and teargas and stopped the smashing of windscreens
for traffic violations.
But spikes are seen as an effective way of halting a
vehicle whose driver refuses to stop when ordered to, and a way of halting a
vehicle using minimum force.
Police introduced spikes to replace the use of firearms,
which could cause unintended injury or death.
Spikes deflate all tyres of a vehicle, bringing it to a
halt, but without the risks entailed when police shoot at a vehicle’s tyres and
miss. In most cases a driver seeing spikes across the road decides to obey the
halt order given rather than try and escape.
Police needing to use spikes are now expected to follow
procedures set out in the Police Weapons and Equipment Coin and I.S Manual
(Methods and Frequency), a handbook for police officers, which provides
instructions on how they should use their weapons and equipment.
In this regard, police only resort to spikes to deal with
pirate taxis that are breaching important road rules, endangering many lives,
and which refuse to halt.
It was on this basis that Justice Owen Tagu refused to
grant the application by PAZ, finding that for the court to do so would be to
sanitise crime and disempower the police from enforcing law and order.
“To grant the application would be tantamount to legalising
the actions of these errant motorists as the police would be incapacitated to
deal with them,” he said.
The court accepted the police argument that operators of
pirate taxis, commonly known as mushikashika, were not just committing traffic
offences but other crimes that could be classified as more dangerous.
Some of the crimes include drug abuse, harassment of
commuters especially women, and theft and robberies committed by people in the
unregistered vehicles, which are mostly driven by immature and unlicensed
drivers.
Police also argued that the conduct of the pirate taxis had
resulted in a spike of pedestrian deaths, as they are run over by vehicles
fleeing police officers.
Police further argued that touts employed by errant
drivers, assault and kill police officers when they try to impound their
vehicles and arrest the violators.
Through its legal counsel, PAZ argued that police should be
barred from practising this “rudimentary” and “barbaric” way of enforcing
traffic offence law.
The organisation further criticised the police conduct
which they said had caused harm to passengers of the public and private
vehicles and in some cases, the death of victims.
To this end, it is their submission that PAZ had reasonable
apprehension that the security of more passengers was endangered, private
property would be damaged and there was no effective alternative remedy in the
circumstances except approaching the court for relief. Herald
0 comments:
Post a Comment