‘Police’s inaction disturbs me’

ALLEGATIONS that the police failed to act immediately on a Kimberley woman’s claims of domestic violence were the most “disturbing” part of an application for the bail of a local businessman to be cancelled.

This is according to Magistrate Dolly Mokoto who ruled on Friday that the respondent, Rethabile Matshukudu, remain in custody after he breached the conditions of a protection order, granted to his estranged wife, Audrey Matshukudu, in 2016, as well as the court’s stipulations for his earlier release on bail, related to alleged verbal and physical altercations with his spouse.

Matshukudu, 29, was initially arrested on May 1 and charged with domestic violence, common assault and contravention of the 2016 protection order.

These conditions included that he not commit any acts of domestic violence, threaten the complainant or carry any knowledge of where she was residing with their threeyear-old son.

He was granted bail of R1 000 on May 4 on condition that he doesn’t contravene the order.

While this matter must still go to trial, Matshukudu was arrested again on June 1 on charges of assault and contravening the protection order, following an incident at the complainant’s residence six days earlier (May 25).

While testifying in the Kimberley Magistrate’s Court on Friday, Matshukudu said that on the evening before the incident (May 24) he had been given directions by his wife to a house where his child was living, and had arrived at the home shortly before 10pm on Friday, May 25.

Matshukudu said that he had arrived at the home to check in on the child and drop off some winter clothing after receiving a call from a friend regarding suspicious activity at the his wife’s residence.

He told the court that when he arrived at the residence, he entered the premises, without invitation, to find his wife with another man.

Later that evening, Audrey opened criminal charges with the police, providing photographs of a black eye that she alleges the accused inflicted on her.

While the Matshukudu was eventually taken into custody on June 1 and remains in custody, Mokoto believes that the police took far too long to track and arrest him, saying that their lacklustre response was tantamount to a second victimisation of the complainant.

When asked by police to come in the day after the incident (May 26), Matshukudu, however, made an arrangement to only meet investigators on Monday, June 4.

He was, however, arrested and taken into custody on Friday, June 1 after the complainant took to social media, appealing for public assistance in tracking her husband and bringing him to justice.

He was arrested at a house in Cassandra, but it was not the residential address he had stated in the court order.

“I’m not sure where he was but he didn’t want to open to let the police in,” said the investigating officer (IO), Sergeant Lungiswa Mabilo, during her testimony last week.

Despite the defence arguing that the testimony of the investigating officer was hearsay evidence and therefore insufficient grounds for bail to be cancelled, Mokoto ruled that Matshukudu remain in custody.

Different

The magistrate pointed out that Matshukudu had given the court three different explanations for being at a residence where he knew he was not allowed, when he should not have even known the address.

“What disturbs me most were the actions taken by the police when she (Audrey) went to report the case that evening (May 25),” said the magistrate. “I find it disheartening and disappointing that they (the police) didn’t act immediately.

“The burden of their actions should not fall on you (Matshukudu) but their actions resulted in a second victimisation that was completely uncalled for.

“The victim went to the police for safety and they failed her. She needed to take to social media because they were not doing enough. If the accused negotiates for when and when he will be arrested, who is to say he is not going to negotiate when he will be in court?

“Therefore the application for the cancellation of bail is successful.”

The matter was postponed until July 5 for further investigation.

Meanwhile, the DA Women’s Network (Dawn) welcomed the decision, with Dawn federal deputy leader, Safiya Stanfley, saying that it was “sickening” that Matshukudu had been released on bail for charges relating to another violation of the protection order.

“Ms Matshukudu’s story is sadly an experience shared by far too many South Africans who are let down by a criminal justice system that is under resourced, understaffed and ill-equipped to protect them,” said Stanfley, who also pointed out that while incidents of domestic violence reported in the Northern Cape have more than doubled between 2014 and 2017, arrests made by the SAPS remain at the same level.

“Far too few police stations are compliant with the Domestic Violence Act and protection orders continue to be disregarded.

“We applaud the message sent by the court that there is no place in our society for anyone who harms a woman.”