How a police captain's comments sparked controversy and a legal battle

An acting Visible Police (Vispol) captain has found herself in hot water over her use of the term "monkeys" during a police parade in December 2020.

Captain Henrietta du Preez, who was serving as the acting Visible Police Support Head at the Joza Police Station in the Eastern Cape, made the remark in response to a concern raised by warrant officer Mbokodi regarding work vehicles.

Du Preez stated that she was unwilling to take responsibility for the crime prevention vehicles, which were under the command of Captain Manona, another colleague. The comment has sparked controversy and raised serious questions about her judgement.

In her version, she used the “innocent expression” of “If you pick up the monkey, you need to feed it… If you take up the problem, you need to sort it out.” On the version of her colleague, who had lodged a complaint against her, she said, “I will not worry about that, Captain Manona must worry about his monkeys, and I will worry about my monkeys".

Following a complaint lodged against her, Du Preez was fired. An arbitration award later ordered her reinstatement. Du Preez subsequently turned to the Eastern Cape High Court, sitting in Makhanda, claiming damages of R5 million for malicious prosecution by the SAPS and criminal proceedings lodged against her.

She also claimed a further R1 million for defamation, arising from posters and statements labelling her as a racist. Du Preez maintained that her utterance made no reference to people as monkeys, but that she had referred to the SAPS vehicles as monkeys. She also claimed that she was treated unfairly and that she should not have faced disciplinary proceedings in the manner in which she did.

In dealing with Du Preez’s claim for malicious prosecution, Judge Avinash Govindjee noted that the innocent expression was itself unfortunate, given South Africa’s painful history.

“What may be emphasised is that the innocent expression included both a word that could be construed as a racial slur on its own, as well as a separate allusion to that same word, combined in a metaphor or unfamiliar idiom".

He commented that a listener could, rightly or wrongly and bearing in mind the vagaries of language, hear a racial undertone, feel demeaned or targeted when hearing the word or conclude that the speaker was ignorant of or insensitive to the possible racial implications.

While the court accepted it was not Du Preez’s intention to make a racial remark, it had turned down her claim for malicious prosecution as it felt the proceedings against her were not instituted out of malice.

In dealing with her claim for defamation, the court was told that posters referring to her as a “white racist bitch” were placed on fences and doors at Joza police station. The plaintiff claims that the police allowed these posters to be affixed to entrances at the different sections of Joza, including the door of her office and on vehicles parked in the backyard of the station.

The police acknowledged that there were some posters containing statements relating to some members of the SAPS, including but not restricted to the plaintiff, placed inside Joza. But it denied that the posters were placed on the boards by SAPS members acting in the scope of their normal duties. Once the posters were noticed, they were removed.

The court, however, in this regard ordered the police to pay her R80,000 in damages.

Get your news on the go, click here to join the Cape Argus News WhatsApp channel.

Cape Argus