Authored By: Lesedi Queen Malatji
University of the Western Cape
Abstract
In South Africa, children remain among the most vulnerable in encounters with law enforcement. This paper explores how the overwhelmingly male composition and hyper‑masculine culture of the South African Police Service (SAPS) inhibit child victims from disclosing abuse, leading to silence and compromised justice. Through case examples, constitutional and statutory frameworks, judicial precedents, and empirical data on disclosure patterns, it argues that SAPS a force marked by male dominance and aggressive norms fails to safeguard children effectively. The analysis culminates in practical recommendations: gender-sensitive recruitment, child liaison units, legislative reform, and strengthening oversight. These reforms are essential for aligning SAPS practices with the constitutional imperative of protecting children’s dignity and rights.
Introduction
On 29 March 2025, in Gqeberha’s Helenvale township, a young girl was fatally caught in gang crossfire. The police, operating from the local station, waited three days before collecting witness statements or processing crucial crime‑scene evidence allowing the suspect to secure bail unchallenged.[1] Similar lapses echo across the country: children reported missing are often deprioritised; protective orders go unserved; and SAPS paperwork remains incomplete.[2] These failures persist within an institution that remains predominantly male SAPS’ ranks are saturated with masculine norms that shape both culture and practice.
This dynamic poses a particular challenge for child victims or potential victims who often feel unable to speak freely to male officers. Cultural constructs of masculinity, entrenched intimidation, and emotional distance contribute to a policing environment that fails to encourage disclosure, especially of sexual or domestic violence. Existing research underscores a staggering gap: while nearly 10% of adolescents report experiencing contact sexual abuse, only about one‑fifth seek formal help, with most turning to caregivers or teachers instead.[3] The child who does approach the police is met with ambiguity and a lack of sensitivity.
This paper examines the legal framework, judicial interpretation, and sociological realities to demonstrate how the masculinisation of SAPS undermines children’s rights. It contends that without institutional and cultural reform focusing on gender representation, child-sensitive training, and accountability South Africa cannot fulfil its constitutional obligations to protect children.
The objective is clear: to expose the barriers children face in opening up to a male-dominated SAPS and to propose actionable steps toward creating a safer, more compassionate policing culture aligned with South Africa’s constitutional values.
Research Methodology
This study employs a doctrinal and socio-legal analytical approach. Primary sources include the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996; the Children’s Act 38 of 2005; and the South African Police Service Act 68 of 1995. Judicial pronouncements from Constitutional Court jurisprudence are examined to identify interpretive standards for children’s rights. Empirical and statistical sources such as studies on child maltreatment disclosure, IPID reports, and media accounts are incorporated to illustrate practical realities. A limited comparative lens on child-sensitive policing practices in jurisdictions like the United Kingdom and Brazil supplements the analysis. This methodology foregrounds both normative frameworks and lived experiences.
Main Body
A. Legal Framework
The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa enshrines children’s rights with clarity and transformative ambition. Section 28 mandates that “a child’s best interests are of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child,” further guaranteeing protection from maltreatment, abuse, and degradation.[4] The Children’s Act 38 of 2005 reinforces this principle, explicitly asserting that the best interests of the child are paramount in all matters affecting them.[5]
The South African Police Service Act 68 of 1995, however, offers a stark contrast. While it defines SAPS’s mandate to prevent crime, maintain public order, and protect vulnerable persons it lacks any explicit provision requiring child-sensitive protocols. This legal omission creates a gap between the lofty constitutional promises and the everyday reality of policing.
B. Judicial Interpretation
The Constitutional Court has consistently emphasised the need for child-sensitive justice. In Centre for Child Law v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development, the Court declared that laws on sentencing must always consider the best interests of children.[6] In Teddy Bear Clinic for Abused Children v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development, the Court struck down statutory provisions that criminalised consensual sexual activity among adolescents, noting that the laws violated children’s dignity and privacy.[7]
Though neither case directly addresses police conduct, they establish a normative standard: children must be treated with dignity, autonomy, and sensitivity, even within the criminal justice system. Yet SAPS’s institutional culture, rooted in masculine toughness and hierarchy, often clashes with these judicial mandates.
C. Critical Analysis: Masculinisation and the Barrier to Disclosure
- Gender Imbalance in SAPS
Data from a Limpopo province study shows stark gender disparity: of 104 SAPS officers surveyed, 77.9% were male and only 22.1% were female.[8] Historically, the disparity has been more pronounced: as of 2010, SAPS comprised around 126,002 male officers and only 56,770 female officers.[9] - Reluctance to Disclose to Male Officers
Empirical evidence illustrates the distressing reality: while 98.6% of adolescents could name a trusted confidant, only 20% of child abuse victims disclosed the abuse to anyone; just 4.9% accessed formal services.[10] Another region-specific study (KwaZulu-Natal, 2001–2003) found that child sexual abuse disclosure was often indirect or accidental rather than voluntary.[11] - Institutional Culture
SAPS’s culture, woven with militaristic ranks, emphasis on physical force, and emotional stoicism, can make stations feel hostile to children seeking help. Children who bear shame following abuse are often faced with formal, intimidating encounters where vulnerability is unwelcome.
D. Recent Developments
- Police Failures in Child-Related Cases
Recent examples illustrate pervasive institutional failures. In just one quarter of 2024, more than 24,000 children were victims of violent crimes, including over 1,000 child murders.[12] Cases have shown that SAPS delays or ignores missing child reports absent media coverage or community pressure.[13] - Oversight and Accountability Shortfalls
IPID continues to record cases of child deaths in police operations and custody. Meanwhile, nearly 15,000 cases remain unresolved at IPID, pointing to systemic backlog and lack of meaningful accountability.[14] - Limited Reform and Good Practices Abroad
While SAPS has increased female representation in senior management, the front lines remain male-dominant.[15] International models suggest child-sensitive policing is feasible: UK police employ trained child liaison officers; Brazil’s community policing reforms aim to reduce violent interactions between police and children. Unfortunately, South African policy reforms have 9yet to embrace these models meaningfully.
Suggestions / Way Forward
- Transforming SAPS Culture: Training in child rights and gender sensitivity must form part of induction and ongoing professional development.
- Increasing Female Representation: Recruitment drives must target women for frontline posts, supported by mentorship structures.
- Establishing Child Liaison Units: Dedicated units trained in child psychology should serve as first points of contact for victims.
- Strengthening Oversight Mechanisms: IPID must be resourced adequately and external monitoring institutionalised.
- Legislative Amendments: The SAPS Act should be amended to mandate child-sensitive practices.
Conclusion
South Africa’s Constitution and statutory law enshrine strong protections for children, yet the reality is starkly different at SAPS interfaces. The institutional culture of masculinisation, amplified by gender imbalance, fosters environments where child victims are silenced rather than heard. Judicial precedents affirm the need for sensitivity and dignity, but without practical reform, these principles remain abstract.
Addressing this gap requires concerted action: transform SAPS culture, recruit and support more women, institute child liaison roles, bolster oversight, and codify child-sensitive policing in law. Only then can South Africa uphold its constitutional promise to its youngest citizens—ensuring they are not invisible victims but voices leading justice.
Reference(S):
Primary Sources
Constitution
- S. Afr. Const., 1996, § 28.
Legislation
- Children’s Act 38 of 2005 (S. Afr.).
- South African Police Service Act 68 of 1995 (S. Afr.).
Cases
- Centre for Child Law v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development 2009 (2) SACR 477 (CC) (S. Afr.).
- Teddy Bear Clinic for Abused Children v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development 2013 (2) SA 398 (CC) (S. Afr.).
Government / Policy Documents
- Department of Police, Annual Report 2021/2022 (S. Afr.).
- South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC), Report on the State of Children’s Rights in South Africa (2022).
Internet Sources
- Statistics South Africa, Victims of Crime Survey 2022/2023 (Nov. 2023), https://www.statssa.gov.za/publications.
- South African Police Service, Crime Statistics 2023/2024 (Sept. 2024), https://www.saps.gov.za/services/crimestats.php.
[1]IPID case of Ivadene Louw and related failures (July 2025) (S. Afr.)
[2] IPID data on children killed by police (2012–18) (S. Afr.)
[3] PubMed: Disclosure study, adolescents aged 10–17, South Africa (2016).
[4] Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, §28.
[5] Children’s Act 38 of 2005 (S. Afr.).
[6] Centre for Child Law v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development 2009 (2) SACR 477 (CC) (S. Afr.).
[7] Teddy Bear Clinic for Abused Children v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development 2014 (2) SA 168 (CC) (S. Afr.).
[8] Stress survey—Limpopo SAPS (200 respondents): 77.9% male
[9] SAPS gender composition (2010): 126,002 male, 56,770 female.
[10] More women in management positions at SAPS,” 2022.
[11] Patterns of Disclosure in Child Sexual Abuse (KZN, 2001–2003): Collings, Griffiths & Kumalo (2005)
[12] PubMed disclosure of abuse, adolescents (2016)
[13] Male rape victims study, South Africa
[14] CSA Statistics: male reluctance, delays.
[15] IPID backlog: 14,907 unresolved cases (2025).
