Cable theft: Is SA tough enough on critical infrastructure crime?

You can also listen to this podcast on iono.fm here.

JIMMY MOYAHA: We often have conversations around service delivery, and with the local government elections coming up on the 4th of November, these conversations are becoming all the more important because sometimes service delivery is hampered by intentional sabotage.

The Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse, or Outa, says we should be looking at this differently from how we have been looking at it up to this point.

These are some of the sentiments echoed by the South African Human Rights Commission as they briefed the media today around what they’re proposing be done to alleviate the problems that were created by infrastructure crime.

Read: SA rail, power revamp hinges on ending cable theft

We’re going to be taking a closer look at this with the Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse’s chief executive officer, Wayne Duvenage. He joins us on the line to see what we make of this.

Wayne, lovely having you on the show, as always. Thanks so much for taking the time. Let’s start with understanding what we mean when we look at ‘critical infrastructure crime’ and ‘critical infrastructure failure’ as a result of lack of maintenance. Those are two different conversations.

WAYNE DUVENAGE: Hi Jimmy. Yes, certainly they are. One, the infrastructure failure due to lack of maintenance normally comes down to ineptitude, not doing their jobs, running out of money, badly run municipalities, and maladministration – and sometimes corruption that leads to the shortage of funds.

But infrastructure crime, deliberate crime to steal infrastructure normally – and here cables are the big economic attraction to thieves – involves cable theft, telecommunications with signalling equipment, whatever it is.

ADVERTISEMENT

CONTINUE READING BELOW

That’s the stuff that brings our infrastructure to a halt, our economy to a halt in places where this happens.

It is quite destructive and needs a very different approach from what we have been talking about until today.

It’s not that I don’t think we’ve got the laws to deal with it – although I was saying in the one article it’s getting closer and closer to being treasonous – but we’re not dealing with it to the extent that we’re getting on top of this problem and we have to do something different.

JIMMY MOYAHA: Let’s take a look at that statement Wayne, because the South African Human Rights [Commission] agrees that we cannot allow these crimes to continue. We cannot allow the vandalism and the theft to continue because it does hamper what it is that we’re able to achieve as a country. It has many, many ripple effects and ramifications on our economy.

But to call it treason – are we there yet? Should we be there?

WAYNE DUVENAGE: Well, I think it’s a bit heavy, so I liken it to getting close to that. Treason is really trying to overthrow the state, to destabilise the Constitution, and so it’s a bit of a heavy-handed statement.

But I talk about it at that level because this is the stuff when you are trading.

There’s a difference between people – although they’re linked and have to be treated very harshly – who are stealing cables to feed themselves and someone who transports it, the next person who trades and moves it out the country.

That whole chain needs to be dealt with in the strictest manner.

This is economic sabotage and it is having a massive impact on our economy. It has an impact on lives.

When signal equipment doesn’t work, when traffic lights don’t work and ambulances can’t get to hospitals quickly enough, and when hospitals go down because of cable theft – people die.

Our economy suffers immensely from this problem, so we need to put it into a category where we deal with it differently.

ADVERTISEMENT:

CONTINUE READING BELOW

We’ve got good laws in this regard, by the way. We’ve got laws around dealing in infrastructure vandalism, or what they call the Second-Hand Goods Act.

But why is it that this problem is not going away? Why is it actually getting worse?

I think we are too silent, first of all, and don’t tackle it in a concerted, coordinated effort across all fronts and apply the laws which are at this stage up to 30 years of imprisonment.

We’ve seen a few harsh cases recently, harsh sentences, up to 20 years, but I don’t think enough people are caught in the net when these isolated incidents are uncovered.

JIMMY MOYAHA: So then, Wayne, perhaps treason might just be the right way to approach it. If we are talking about serious consequences for serious actions, the South African Human Rights [Commission] from its perspective, has deemed this a human rights crisis.

You allude to the fact that it has some serious ramifications and implications on the livelihoods of South Africans, and on those that rely on those services.

We’re not just talking of course about cables here, but everything from water infrastructure to all of the essential services that we need that are being undermined by theft.

If we are to take those more seriously – you mentioned that we do have existing laws – should we then be looking at steeper punishments, or more severe punishments in line with the existing laws as a deterring factor?

WAYNE DUVENAGE: Yes, look, it’s a combination of that.

Technically treason involves intended acts against the state or the constitutional order. That’s what I think we’re talking about. This is getting closer and closer.

ADVERTISEMENT:

CONTINUE READING BELOW

But is ‘directed at destabilising the state’ where I think I was pushing the envelope a bit?

I want the discussion to go there because if you knowingly are taking down cables that belong to state infrastructure, I think you are destabilising the state – not intentionally to bring the state down, but you know the consequences of your actions.

You know that a train may not stop, you know that this is going to impact on the economy – and all of those destabilise the state.

So it’s an interesting discussion. Technically I know that I’d be hard-pressed; I understand that. But let’s have this discussion, because if you are knowingly stealing this type of infrastructure and you get, say, R50 000 sales out of it, it’s the destruction to the economy that runs into the billions.

The consequences aren’t strong enough, aren’t steep enough against the perpetrators.

I think if we start dealing with it that way, you know what happens? The traders and the people who move the stock [won’t] want to do it because they know the risk is heavier for them, and so they will push back at the cable thieves who come trying to sell their goods.

That’s where we’ve got to go with this legislation, but even more so with the concerted, coordinated efforts of the criminal justice and criminal enforcement system to tackle this, Jimmy.

Otherwise cable theft – we’re allowing it to happen under our noses, and we don’t seem to be taking it seriously.

JIMMY MOYAHA: Absolutely something that needs to be dealt with in the most serious of fashions.

I remember a South African Police Service report recently that said that almost two tonnes of stolen copper cable was being transported illegally. I wonder what happened to those suspects and whether or not we’re holding individuals accountable for these destructive practices.

We’ll have to leave this conversation on that note. The chief executive officer of the Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse, Wayne Duvenage, joined us to take a look at infrastructure crime and perhaps the more severe consequences we should be employing for that.

#Cable #theft #tough #critical #infrastructure #crime