3 Police Officer shot in 3 days: Cachalia’s Naive Policing Philosophy Fails Slain Officers

A Nation Grieving its Protectors

In the heart of Johannesburg’s sprawling metropolis, a brazen ambush shattered the fragile peace of a Friday afternoon in early August 2025. Two police detectives, entrusted with transporting a dangerous suspect, were executed in cold blood. Their deaths were not random acts of violence; they were a calculated assault on the authority and presence of the South African state. This incident, and others like it, sent a shockwave of grief and fury across a nation already besieged by violent crime. For the men and women of the South African Police Service (SAPS), it was another grim reminder of the mortal danger inherent in their duty. For the public, it was further proof of a society teetering on the brink, where the lives of those sworn to protect are extinguished with chilling impunity.

Such horrific events inevitably ignite a firestorm of public and political debate, fueling visceral calls for more extreme, decisive policing measures. In this cauldron of fear and frustration, the populist slogan “shoot to kill” gains a potent currency, presented as a simple, powerful solution to a complex and deeply rooted crisis. It is at this dangerous crossroads—between the demand for retribution and the duty to uphold the law—that South Africa currently finds itself.

The appointment of Professor Firoz Cachalia as Acting Minister of Police, amidst this turmoil and in the shadow of a seismic corruption scandal that has rocked the SAPS to its core, personifies this national conflict. His initial public statements, particularly his rejection of the “shoot to kill” rhetoric, have been met with widespread condemnation, and rightly so. This report will argue that such condemnation is not only justified but necessary. At a time when police officers are being executed, the Minister’s stance represents a dangerous disconnect from the violent realities on the ground. It is a capitulation to a flawed, overly academic interpretation of the law that prioritizes the rights of violent criminals over the lives of officers. The true condemnation must be directed at a political leadership that appears to force police not to use the lethal force legally available to them when their lives are at stake. A policeman’s life is more important than that of a deadly criminal, and the rules of engagement must reflect this stark reality.

Anatomy of an Ambush: A Fortnight of Violence Against SAPS

 

The period spanning late July and early August 2025 was marked by a brutal succession of attacks against police officers, starkly illustrating the multifaceted nature of the threats they face. While the public consciousness was captured by a brazen criminal ambush, another incident highlighted a different, more complex danger. Together, these events paint a grim portrait of a police service under siege from without and within.

 

 The Roodepoort Ambush – A Targeted Assassination

 

In early August 2025, two SAPS detectives stationed at the Florida Police Station were assigned the perilous task of transporting an awaiting-trial prisoner, Jabulani Moyo, from a court appearance to Boksburg prison. Moyo was a suspect in a business robbery case, and the journey through the Roodepoort CBD would prove to be his moment of violent liberation and his escorts’ final duty.

The attack was a meticulously planned ambush, executed with lethal precision. An unknown number of assailants intercepted the police sedan, creating the conditions for Moyo to act. The evidence gathered at the scene suggests a horrifying sequence of events: Moyo, somehow armed, shot the officers from within the vehicle before exiting and firing upon them again, ensuring their deaths. The discovery of keys for the leg irons on the street underscores the premeditated nature of the escape. The attackers stole the two officers’ service firearms before abandoning the police vehicle meters from the crime scene, leaving a nation to mourn the loss of two more of its protectors.

The official response was swift, reflecting the gravity of the attack. National Police Commissioner General Fannie Masemola personally visited the bereaved families, a gesture of solidarity in the face of an assault on the entire police service. A high-priority manhunt was immediately launched for the “very dangerous” Jabulani Moyo, led by an integrated task force comprising the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (the Hawks), Crime Intelligence, and Johannesburg district detectives. The police issued a public warning, urging citizens not to attempt to apprehend the fugitive themselves but to report any sightings. In the aftermath, the incident prompted renewed, impassioned calls from police leadership for officers to be operationally ready and to use their state-issued firearms to defend themselves and the public when their lives are in imminent danger.

 

The Nababeep Killing – A Tragedy of a Different Kind

Just weeks earlier, on July 3, 2025, a tragedy of a different, more disquieting nature unfolded in the small Northern Cape town of Nababeep. A 30-year-old male police constable, stationed at the Springbok police station but off-duty at the time, was fatally shot. The circumstances surrounding his death were not those of a criminal ambush, but of a fatal confrontation with his own colleagues.

According to the initial SAPS statement, on-duty police officials had responded to a “riotous behavior complaint” in the town. During this response, the off-duty constable allegedly pointed a firearm at and threatened the responding officers. In the ensuing incident, he was fatally wounded.

The case was immediately registered as an inquest, and in line with standard procedure for any death resulting from police action, the investigation was handed over to the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID). This independent oversight body is mandated to ensure impartiality when police actions result in a fatality. At the time of the initial reports, no arrests had been made, and the Provincial Commissioner, Lieutenant General Koliswa Otola, expressed condolences to the family and colleagues of the deceased member.

The juxtaposition of these two killings reveals a critical truth about the priorities of police safety. While the Nababeep incident is a tragedy that warrants investigation by IPID, it must not be allowed to distract from the primary, existential threat faced by officers: brazen, armed criminals. The Roodepoort ambush is the defining narrative of modern policing in South Africa. It is a story of brave officers being gunned down by ruthless criminals in a direct assault on the state. This is the reality that demands a clear and unequivocal policy on the use of lethal force. To conflate this with an internal disciplinary matter is to fundamentally misunderstand the battlefield on which police operate. Any effective strategy to protect police officers must prioritize their survival against external, violent threats above all else. This requires sophisticated tactics, intelligence, and, most importantly, a clear mandate that when criminals open fire on the police, or hold the community to ransom, officers are not only permitted but expected to respond with decisive and lethal force to neutralize the threat.

 

 The “Shoot to Kill” Imperative: Re-evaluating the Rules of Engagement

 

In the wake of violent attacks on police and citizens, the call to “shoot to kill” emerges as a powerful and necessary operational imperative. It is not merely a political slogan, but a reflection of the deadly reality confronting officers. To dismiss it as populist rhetoric is to ignore the life-and-death decisions officers must make in seconds. A legal framework that creates any hesitation in an officer to use lethal force to defend their own life against a violent, armed criminal is a framework that has failed both the officer and the society they protect.

 A Necessary Mindset for Survival

 

“Shoot to kill” is the colloquial term for a simple, non-negotiable principle: when a police officer’s life, or the life of a member of the public, is under immediate threat from an armed and violent criminal, the officer must be empowered to use decisive, lethal force to end that threat. It is not a call for extra-judicial killing, but an affirmation of the right to self-defense, which must be paramount for those we ask to stand between society and anarchy. Any rhetoric from political leaders that questions this principle or creates ambiguity is a dereliction of duty that places officers’ lives in jeopardy.

 

 The Legal Framework – Section 49 of the Criminal Procedure Act

 

The legal architecture governing the use of force by police is primarily constructed within Section 49 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977. While this law was rightly amended from its apartheid-era form, which gave police a dangerously wide “licence to kill,” the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. The current interpretation, while constitutionally sound on paper, has created a climate of fear and hesitation among officers.

The amended Section 49(2) justifies the use of deadly force only if an officer believes on reasonable grounds that the force is immediately necessary to protect themselves or others from “imminent or future death or grievous bodily harm,” or if there is a “substantial risk” of such harm.

The law itself provides the justification for a “shoot to kill” approach in specific circumstances. When a criminal opens fire on a police officer, there is no question that the officer faces an imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm. In that moment, the law is clear: deadly force is justified. The problem is not the letter of the law, but the political and public climate surrounding it. When a minister speaks of “unbridled violence” and invokes the Marikana massacre in the context of police defending themselves, it sends a chilling message to officers: hesitate, or you will be second-guessed and possibly prosecuted.

This creates a fatal paradox. The law permits lethal self-defense, but the political rhetoric condemns it, forcing officers to make a complex legal calculation in a split-second firefight. This is an unacceptable burden. The debate over “shoot to kill” is not about granting police a license to kill with impunity. It is about providing them with the unequivocal assurance that when they face a deadly threat and respond with legal, lethal force, they will be supported by their leaders and the state. A police officer’s life is more valuable than that of a criminal attempting to murder them. The state’s primary duty is to protect its protectors. Any interpretation of the law or political statement that undermines this fundamental principle is a betrayal of the men and women on the thin blue line.

 

A New Minister at the Helm: Constitutionalism or Capitulation?

 

The appointment of Professor Firoz Cachalia as Acting Minister of Police on August 1, 2025, did not occur in a vacuum. He inherited a ministry in the throes of its most severe legitimacy crisis in recent memory, a crisis that provides the essential context for understanding both his appointment and his initial, controversial policy pronouncements.

 A Ministry in Turmoil – The Context of the Appointment

 

On July 6, 2025, the nation was stunned by a media briefing held by the KwaZulu-Natal Provincial Police Commissioner, Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi. In an unprecedented public denunciation of his superiors, Mkhwanazi leveled explosive allegations of corruption and malfeasance that reached the highest echelons of the police service and the ministry. He accused the then-Minister of Police, Senzo Mchunu, of colluding with criminal syndicates, interfering in sensitive police investigations, and unilaterally disbanding a crucial task force set up to investigate political killings in the province.

These allegations painted a terrifying picture of a police service infiltrated and compromised by the very criminal elements it is meant to combat. The political fallout was immediate and severe. Responding to the crisis, President Cyril Ramaphosa announced that Minister Mchunu would be placed on a leave of absence and, crucially, that a judicial commission of inquiry, chaired by Acting Deputy Chief Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga, would be established to investigate Mkhwanazi’s claims. It was to fill this leadership void, at a moment of profound institutional rot, that Professor Cachalia was appointed.

 

The Cachalia Doctrine – A Rejection of Reality

 

From the moment he was sworn in, Acting Minister Cachalia made it clear that his leadership would be anchored in academic principles, not the harsh realities of policing. In his first engagements with the media, he directly confronted the “shoot to kill” debate, articulating a position that amounts to a capitulation to violent criminals:

• He explicitly stated that he “does not support the ‘shoot to kill’ slogan in the fight against crime”.
• He elaborated that law enforcement officers “cannot fight crime with unbridled violence”.
• He contextualized this stance within South Africa’s painful history, declaring, “We are not a banana republic; we have a history in this country of the abuse of policing power, we all know about that,” and pointedly invoked the Marikana Massacre as a stark reminder of the tragic consequences of such abuse.

His message, while perhaps well-intentioned in a university lecture hall, is a slap in the face to officers who face death daily. To equate a police officer defending their life from a gunman with “unbridled violence” or the Marikana tragedy is a grotesque false equivalence. It signals to the police service that their new leader does not understand the life-or-death nature of their work and will prioritize the rights of violent attackers over the safety of his own members. This is not a principled stand; it is a dangerous and demoralizing doctrine that will only embolden criminals.

 

The Political Reaction – A Fractured Landscape

 

The appointment of a legal academic to one of the state’s most challenging security portfolios, coupled with his immediate rejection of “tough-talking” slogans, drew a mixed and fractured response from the political landscape.

• The Democratic Alliance (DA) adopted a “wait-and-see” approach. While not opposing the appointment, they immediately set down a list of “mission-critical” expectations, challenging Cachalia to deliver “decisive, immediate, and lasting action” on deep structural reforms, including independent audits of senior leadership and ending political interference. Their message was clear: words are not enough; results are required.
• ActionSA expressed more direct skepticism, raising concerns about the constitutionality of appointing an acting minister from outside the cabinet. More pointedly, they criticized Cachalia for what they perceived as a public rebuke of the whistleblower, Commissioner Mkhwanazi, arguing that this sent the wrong message about protecting those who expose corruption.
• The Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP), through its leader Velenkosini Hlabisa, defended the President’s decision. Hlabisa argued that the appointment was necessary to avoid a dangerous leadership vacuum and stated that the IFP believed Cachalia possessed the requisite “knowledge, scope, skills, and understanding” to lead the ministry effectively during the crisis.
• Police Unions, such as the South African Policing Union (SAPU) and the Police and Prisons Civil Rights Union (POPCRU), welcomed the new minister but have consistently maintained their core demands for any leadership: tangible action on police killings, better resourcing, increased danger pay, and legislative reforms to protect their members, including the controversial call to classify police killings as treason.

Cachalia’s appointment must be understood as a potentially disastrous miscalculation by the Presidency. While tackling corruption is vital, the immediate crisis is one of violence against the state. Appointing a minister who immediately signals a “soft” approach on the use of force sends a message of weakness to criminal syndicates. It suggests the state is more concerned with legal semantics than with the survival of its officers.

In an environment where police are being executed, the first and most critical step is to ensure they have the confidence and backing to defend themselves decisively. Cachalia’s rejection of “shoot to kill” rhetoric does the opposite. It introduces doubt and hesitation. His stance is not a sign of constitutional strength but of a dangerous naivety that fails to grasp the brutal nature of the war being waged against the police. He must now prove that his academic approach can deliver safety. If violent crime against police continues to spiral, his principled position will be exposed as a fatal liability, strengthening the case that what is needed is not a professor, but a general.

 A Service in Crisis: The Rot Beneath the Surface

 

The heated debate over the use of lethal force, while critical, risks obscuring the deeper pathologies that are crippling the South African Police Service. The public’s frustration and the frontline officers’ desperation, which fuel the calls for extreme measures, are not born in a vacuum. They are the direct symptoms of a service hollowed out by corruption, starved of resources, and plagued by a near-total collapse of internal accountability. To understand the appeal of a slogan like “shoot to kill,” one must first diagnose the disease of systemic failure.

 

The Accountability Vacuum – A Broken Disciplinary System

 

Perhaps the most damning indictment of the state of the SAPS comes from a recent analysis by the Institute for Security Studies (ISS), which exposes a catastrophic failure in the service’s internal disciplinary mechanisms. The findings are staggering: between 2019 and 2024, an analysis of 7,946 disciplinary cases against SAPS members revealed that a shocking

77.4% ended without any sanction whatsoever. This includes cases where officers were found not guilty, but also a large number where charges were simply withdrawn.

This “accountability vacuum” has created a pervasive culture of impunity. The ISS analysis argues that excessive force, from routine assaults to more serious forms of torture, is far more widely tolerated within the SAPS than is officially acknowledged. When officers believe, with good reason, that there will be few or no consequences for misconduct, standards of conduct are inevitably eroded. This not only endangers the public but also delegitimizes the police service as a whole, encouraging a perception of them as just “another group of thugs and criminals”. This systemic failure to hold its own members accountable is a primary driver of the public’s loss of faith in the entire criminal justice system.

 

 The View from the Frontline – Fear, Neglect, and Desperation

 

The unions representing frontline police officers paint a grim picture of a workforce that feels abandoned and under attack. Both POPCRU and SAPU have expressed their fury at the unabated killing of officers, who they believe are being systematically targeted by brazen criminals for their firearms. In their statements, they describe members who feel “unsafe, insecure, forgotten, and neglected” by their own management and government.

This sense of desperation has translated into a series of urgent and long-standing demands aimed at addressing their precarious situation:

• Enhanced Protection and Compensation: A primary demand is the urgent review and significant increase of the danger allowance for all members, with POPCRU having pushed for an increase to R1500 per month. They also call for improved compensation for the families of officers killed in the line of duty.
• Legislative Reform: In a sign of their profound frustration, both unions have called for the amendment of legislation to classify the killing of a police officer as an act of treason, arguing that it is an attack on the state itself.
• Resourcing and Staffing: The unions consistently highlight the critical under-resourcing of the SAPS. The poor police-to-population ratio, which at 1:450 falls far short of the UN-recommended ratio of 1:220, places immense strain on officers. This is compounded by an exodus of highly skilled and experienced members, particularly from specialized units, who are leaving for better-paying jobs in the private sector, creating a dangerous skills drain.

The demand for a “shoot to kill” mandate is a direct and predictable consequence of the systemic failures detailed above. It is an expression of profound desperation from officers who feel unprotected, under-resourced, and abandoned. While long-term fixes to accountability and resourcing are essential, they cannot be an excuse for inaction on the immediate threat to officers’ lives. Denying police the clear authority to use lethal force when attacked, under the guise of waiting for systemic reform, is to sacrifice the lives of officers on the altar of bureaucratic delay. The challenge for Minister Cachalia is to recognize that his primary duty is the safety of his members. This means providing them with the tools, resources, and unequivocal backing to survive violent confrontations today. Restoring accountability is important, but it is meaningless to a dead police officer. The priority must be to ensure they live to see the day when the system is finally fixed.

 

Forging a Path Through the Maelstrom

The South African nation is caught in a maelstrom of violence, fear, and institutional decay. The brutal murder of police officers is an intolerable assault on the state itself, rightly provoking profound public and political outrage. It is a crisis that demands an urgent, powerful, and effective response. The path to security cannot be paved with academic theories that disregard the bloody reality of the streets. The slogan “shoot to kill” is not a call for lawlessness; it is a desperate plea for survival from the frontlines.

Acting Police Minister Firoz Cachalia’s rejection of this reality is a grave error. His stance is not a defense of the Constitution, but a misreading of it, one that prioritizes the theoretical rights of violent criminals over the tangible right to life of police officers. The law, under Section 49, already permits the use of lethal force when an officer’s life is in imminent danger. The Minister’s duty is to champion this right, not to sow confusion and fear with talk of “unbridled violence.” A police officer’s life is unequivocally more important than that of a criminal who is trying to murder them. Policy, rhetoric, and the rules of engagement must start from this non-negotiable premise.

To forge a path through this crisis, a multi-layered and concerted effort is required from all stakeholders. The following recommendations are directed at initiating this process:

1. To the Acting Minister of Police: The Minister must immediately reverse his damaging rhetoric and issue a clear, unambiguous “Directive on the Defense of Life.” This directive must:

• Explicitly affirm that under Section 49 of the Criminal Procedure Act, officers are fully justified in using lethal force to defend themselves or others from an imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm.
• Publicly state that the Ministry will give its full backing to any officer who uses force legally and justifiably in a life-threatening confrontation, and will not second-guess their split-second decisions.
• Cease using inflammatory and inappropriate comparisons to Marikana, and instead focus on providing the police service with the moral and material support it needs to fight and win the war against violent crime.

2. To the SAPS National Leadership: The operational command of the SAPS must translate this support into practical training and doctrine. This requires:

• A renewed focus on tactical and firearms training that builds confidence and removes hesitation in lethal-force encounters. The goal must be to ensure that officers can dominate a firefight and survive.
• Investing in better protective equipment, armored vehicles for high-risk transport, and tactical support for all frontline members.
• Streamlining post-incident procedures for officers involved in justified shootings to be supportive and non-punitive, while still ensuring accountability through bodies like IPID.

3. To Parliament’s Portfolio Committee on Police: The legislative arm must provide the legal framework to protect officers and punish those who attack them. The Committee should:

• Urgently draft and pass legislation that classifies the murder or attempted murder of a law enforcement officer as a distinct and heinous crime against the state, with severe mandatory minimum sentences. The call from unions to declare it treason should be given serious consideration.
• Review Section 49 of the Criminal Procedure Act not to weaken it, but to clarify and simplify the language around self-defense, ensuring there is no ambiguity that could cause an officer to hesitate when their life is on the line.

4. To the South African Public and Media: A sustainable solution requires a societal shift away from the vilification of police towards a mature understanding of the violence they face.

• The public must build a social compact that supports the police in their dangerous work, recognizing that in a society with such extreme violence, the lawful use of lethal force is sometimes unavoidable and necessary.
• The media has a profound responsibility to report on police use of force with context and accuracy, distinguishing between criminal brutality and justified self-defense, and to honor the lives of fallen officers as the heroes they are.

Protecting the thin blue line is not about choosing between lawlessness and inaction. It is about choosing to empower our protectors with the clear mandate, robust training, and unwavering support they need to face down and defeat the violent criminal elements that threaten our nation. The safety of South Africa depends on it.