Sex Workers In Soiuth Africa....

By Karen Breytenbach

The Sex Worker Education and Advocacy Taskforce (Sweat) has asked the Cape High Court to order the South African Police Service and Cape Town Metro Police to stop its "continued unlawful, wrongful and arbitrary arrests" of sex workers for ulterior purposes such as harassment or sexual favours. Arguing before Judge Burton Fourie yesterday, Wim Trengove, SC, for Sweat, said sex workers had been arrested on charges that had nothing to do with prostitution, such as loitering or traffic violations, for the purposes of punishment, harassment or exploitation. Sex workers were often locked up overnight, in large numbers, and released without being charged or prosecuted, without dockets opened or statements taken, he said.

Trengove said police officers had to be interdicted from making arrests when they knew full well that the arrests would not lead to prosecution. Commenting on the police's point that seeking the interdict was pointless, because they knew they could not arrest unlawfully, Trengove said courts have long issued interdicts to prevent illegal conduct in order to let guilty parties know the "spotlight of the law was on them". An example of this was the prevention of domestic violence. The SAPS and the Metro Police denied the allegations and said Sweat had failed to show the court any evidence of their alleged wrongdoing. Ishmail Jamie, SC, for the police, said Sweat had failed to show that the police had ulterior motives in the examples of arrests they relied on.Even if the court found ulterior motives, an interdict was not the answer. He said the National Prosecuting Authority should have been joined if the issue of non-prosecution was to be addressed. Ashton Schippers, SC, for the city, said once Metro Police officers arrested someone and delivered them to a police station, the case and period of detention were out of their hands. He said Sweat's allegations were vague and they failed to demonstrate what was at the heart of their case: that the force consistently unlawfully arrested sex workers. He said Sweat's past complaints have been dealt with in internal investigations, and no evidence of misconduct was found. Schippers said an interdict would have a "chilling effect on the fight against crime, because it would intimidate (police officers) into not making arrests". This would cause them to "fail in their duty to prevent crime". Trengove, in reply, said the argument about non-prosecution should not be misunderstood: sex workers were not calling for prosecution. "They are not asking for immunity from arrest. What they demand is to be afforded the same respect and dignity as everybody else, including the most powerful in society. They are entitled not to be rounded up as though they are contaminating the streets."Trengove said there was no merit in the argument that the interdict sought would inhibit the fight against crime."There is no greater threat to the fight against crime and the rule of law than police officers who take the law into their own hands, because they are frustrated about the state's unwillingness to prosecute."Judgment was reserved.


This article was originally published on page 6 of Cape Times on March 06, 2009