Matanzima v Minister of Police, Transkei, and Others

• Jurisdiction: South Africa

Matanzima v Minister of Police, Transkei, and Others
1992 (2) SA 401 (Tk)

1992 (2) SA p401

Citation	1992 (2) SA 401 (Tk)
Court	Transkei General Division
Judge	Hancke J
Heard	January 25, 1991
Judgment	January 25, 1991

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde G

H Internal security — Detention in terms of s 47 of Public Security Act 30 of 1977 (Tk) — Validity of — Purpose of arrest and detention in terms of s 47 is interrogation of detainee — Detention for other purposes not permissible under s 47 — Detention to enable police to continue and complete their investigations in a matter not permissible I — Court finding that applicant's husband being detained pending continued investigations into attempted coup, that his release would interfere with such investigations and that he would be interrogated as and when information obtained in course of such investigation — Such not the purpose of s 47 of Act — Continued detention of applicant's J husband accordingly unlawful.

1992 (2) SA p402

Headnote : Kopnota A

The purpose of an arrest and detention under and in terms of s 47 of the Public Security Act 30 of 1977 (Tk) is to interrogate the detainee. He cannot be detained for any other purpose and especially not to enable the police to continue and complete their investigations into a matter in connection with which he was detained.

In the instant case the Court held, on the return day of a rule nisi granted in an application for an order declaring the continued detention of the applicant's husband to be unlawful and for his release from such B detention, that the reasonable inference to be drawn from the respondents' affidavits was that the applicant's husband was being detained pending continued investigations (into an attempted coup in which he was suspected of having been involved), that the release of the applicant's husband would interfere with those investigations and that he would be interrogated as and when information was obtained in the course of those investigations. The Court held that such was clearly not C the purpose of s 47 of the Public Security Act and that the continued detention of the applicant's husband was therefore unlawful. The rule nisi was accordingly confirmed.

Case Information

Return day of a rule nisi in an application for an order declaring the detention of a detainee to be unlawful and ancillary relief. The facts appear from the reasons for judgment.

D D van Zyl for the applicant.

P Sullivan for the respondents.

Judgment

Hancke J:

This is the return day of the rule nisi granted on 9 January E 1991 calling upon first, second and third respondents to show cause why the following relief should not be granted:

'1.

That the continued detention of Paramount Chief Kaiser Daliwonga Matanzima be and is hereby declared unlawful and of no force and effect.

2.

That the said Paramount Chief K D Matanzima be released F forthwith from detention.

3.

That those respondents as may oppose this application be ordered to pay the costs of the application jointly and severally.'

In her founding affidavit applicant states that she was married by civil rights to Paramount Chief Kaiser Daliwonga Matanzima during 1954. G Chief Matanzima (hereinafter called the detainee), born at Qamata on 15 June 1915, was the first Prime Minister and the second State President of the Republic of Transkei. Presently he is the Paramount Chief of Western Tembuland.

It is also not in dispute that he was arrested by members of the H Transkeian Police on 13 December 1990. According to a statement that was released to the press by General Richmond Mankala and which was published in the Daily Dispatch of 15 December 1990, the detainee was initially detained under s 47 of the Public Security Act 30 of 1977 (Tk). In a subsequent report which appeared in the same newspaper General Mankala reiterated that the detainee's detention was in I connection with his alleged involvement in an abortive coup during November 1990. According to General Mankala the detainee was in the process of being interrogated and he would either be charged and appear in court or be released.

Applicant also states that, although her husband might have been J critical of the present Government and its administration in the past, he

1992 (2) SA p403

Hancke J

A was always faithful to the Republic of Transkei as an independent State. He would certainly not have involved himself in a coup attempt, and if he had she would certainly have been aware of it.

In reply to these averments, Brigadier Mbulawa, the head of the Security Branch, stated that:

'Investigations are on-going. Further interrogation is required and B satisfactory answers to questions have to be supplied.'

Reference is made to para 4 of applicant's attorney's affidavit, ie the affidavit of Mr Mafungo, in which he states the General Mankala intimated that it was not known when the applicant's husband or any of the other people detained in connection with the coup would appear C before the court.

Brigadier Mbulawa also states that:

'There are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant's husband was involved in the attempted coup. Investigations continue. The applicant's husband has yet to answer satisfactorily questions which have been put to him.'

D Lieutenant General Damoyi, in his affidavit, stated the following:

'I confirm to this honourable Court that there are reasonable grounds for detaining the applicant's husband and investigations are on-going. Further...