The Labour Court has reaffirmed that members of the South African Police Service (SAPS) must diligently carry out their duties, especially when investigating complaints against fellow officers. This follows the case of Ms. Cecilia Astle and Mr. Abraham Carel Greyling, two SAPS members who were dismissed for failing to investigate an assault complaint lodged by Mr. Ntsie Esael Sefuthi against SAPS police officers in Fochville.

In February 2017, Mr. Sefuthi was assaulted by SAPS members and subsequently and unlawfully detained after being mistaken for a suspect. Once released, he opened an assault case and later instituted a civil claim of R350, 000.00 for unlawful detention and assault with grievous bodily harm. The case was allocated to Ms. Astle, an investigating officer under the supervision of Mr. Greyling, the Branch Commander. Despite having information identifying the suspect (a SAPS officer), Ms. Astle closed the docket, stating that the suspects were “unknown”. Mr. Greyling approved the closure without verifying whether proper investigative steps had been taken.

Both officers faced disciplinary charges due to their conduct. Ms. Astle was accused of prejudicing the administration of the SAPS by failing to investigate, neglecting to provide feedback to the complainant, and making a false statement. Mr. Greyling faced similar charges for failing to supervise, allowing the improper closure of the docket, and not reporting Ms. Astle’s misconduct. After a disciplinary hearing, both were found guilty and dismissed.

Mr. Greyling and Ms Astle disputed their alleged unfair dismissal and referred the matter to the Safety and Security Sectoral Bargaining Council (SSSBC).

The Arbitrator held that neither Ms. Astle nor Mr. Greyling had produced evidence of any genuine investigation into Mr. Sefuthi’s case and that their explanations were unconvincing. It was found that the trust relationship between them and the SAPS had irretrievably broken down, as their conduct undermined confidence in the SAPS. The dismissals were deemed both substantively and procedurally fair.

Dissatisfied with the outcome of the arbitration, the matter was taken on review to the Labour Court. On review, the Labour Court upheld the Arbitrator’s findings. The Court held that Ms. Astle had failed to discharge her duty to investigate the complaint, while Mr. Greyling, as a commanding officer, bore ultimate responsibility for ensuring accountability. His reliance on Ms. Astle’s version was insufficient, as he was obliged to verify the integrity of the investigation, particularly given that the allegations were made against fellow officers.

The Court remarked that the officers’ conduct demonstrated a disregard for citizens’ rights and contributed to the perception that the police selectively prioritise cases. Their failure went to the core of their professional obligations and justified their dismissal.

This decision serves as a clear reminder that SAPS officials have a legal and ethical obligation to investigate all complaints thoroughly, impartially, and transparently. Supervisors cannot evade accountability by relying solely on subordinates. The judgment reinforces that integrity, diligence, and accountability are non-negotiable duties within the SAPS, and that neglecting them not only harms victims but erodes public trust in law enforcement.

Contact us to see how we can assist you with your legal needs.

#BDK #BDKAttorneys #Attorneys #CivilLaw #CriminalLaw #FightingYourFight #LookingForALawyer #NeedALawyer #SouthAfricanLaw #SAPS #SAPSObligations