Cooper and Others v Minister of Police and Others

• Judge: Trengove J
• Judgment Date: 11 November 1974
• Citation: 1977 (2) SA 209 (T)
• Hearing Date: 07 November 1974
• Court: Transvaal Provincial Division

Trengove, J.:

This application concerns five persons, Lindiwe Mbandla, Sathasivan Coopei, Revabalan Cooper, Mosioua Lekota and Muntu Myeza, who were arrested at Durban on or about 25 September 1974 and are presently being detained at Pretoria by F members of the Security Branch of the South African Police under the provisions of the Terrorism Act, 83 of 1967. I shall hereafter refer to this Act simply as "the Act".

The first applicant is the father of the detainee Lindiwe Mbandla, the second applicant is the father of the detainee Sathasivan Cooper and Revabalan Cooper, the third applicant is G the fiance of the detainee Mosioua Lekota and the fourth H applicant is the father of the detainee Muntu Myeza.

The applicants have brought this application on a certificate of urgency.

In prayers (2) to (6) of the notice of motion they claim an order:

"2.

That the respondents be interdicted and restrained for the duration of the detention under sec. 6 of the Terrorism Act, 83 of 1967, from either directly or indirectly through their own actions or those of any one under the command or control of one or other of them from:

(a) (i)

assaulting;

(ii)

interrogating in any manner other than that prescribed or permitted by law;

(iii)

employing any undue or unlawful pressure on;

(iv)

A subjecting any form of unlawful duress on,

Trengove J

(b) (i)

Lindiwe Mabandla, the son of the first applicant;

(ii)

Sathasivan Cooper and Revabalan Cooper, the sons of the second applicant;

(iii)

Mosiuoa Lekota, the fiancé of the third applicant;

(iv)

Muntu Myeza, the son of the fourth applicant.

3.

That the evidence of Lindiwe Mabandla, Sathasivan Cooper, Revabalan Cooper, Mosioua Lekota, Muntu Myeza, the detainees on whose behalf and for whose benefit this application is brought, be taken on affidavit or commission B or by interrogatories by a person or persons who in terms of the provisions of sub-sec. (6) or (7) of sec. 6 of the Terrorism Act, 83 of 1967, is or are entitled to access to them, appointed by the Court.

4.

That pending the filing of such affidavits or other evidence obtained in the manner set out in para. 3 above, a rule nisi be issued operating as an interim interdict C pending the final determination of this application.

5.

Other or alternative relief;

6.

Ordering the respondents to pay the costs."

The application is founded upon allegations of maltreatment by certain members of the Security Branch, of the detainees concerned.

D [The learned Judge then dealt with the merits of the application and proceeded.]

On the information presently before the Court, however, the applicants have, in my judgment, failed to establish a sufficiently strong case to warrant, in accordance with the E principles set out earlier in this judgment, the granting to them of the interdict sought. Even if it could be said that the applicants have established some prima facie case for...