PHEPISI RADIPERE | Backyard tenants must be vetted to reduce high crime rate

The crime rate in townships and informal settlements, and most recently the killings in Diepsloot, are a cause for concern, but unlikely so for politicians.

The way the late former chairperson of the Diepsloot Community Policing Forum John Makola was killed trying to foil a robbery and the Makgatho family, whose son was shot at their house when they were attacked by robbers, clearly showed that criminals are in the business of eliminating anyone who intends to stop them during their criminal activities.

Affected communities often resort to violent protests, after registering their complaints with authorities for as long as they can remember, to draw the attention of politicians for their complaints. What normally happens is that politicians do come to address the protesting community, though not often, make promises and go, without any further follow ups, as it has been the case with Diepsloot, and other crime-infested communities.

Increased police visibility is often made for a limited period because it cannot be permanently sustained, and crime is often revived after reduced police visibility.

Communities in crime-infested areas often find themselves in a policy dilemma. While residents often host tenants in backyard rooms to earn a living, some of them might be criminals. It is either they stop letting backyard rooms to tenants and starve, or they host tenants and continue to be victims of crime. But I would advise communities to opt for the former.

Faced with this dilemma, I would advise crime-infested communities to expel all backroom and tuck shop tenants, irrespective of their nationality, say for six to 12 months. The affected property owners stand to forfeit a living, which might be worth losing if such forfeiture would give a peaceful environment.

In some instances, there are property owners who are not even residents of these crime-infested communities, and therefore not affected by criminal activities.

In preparing to host tenants again, communities may establish a vetting committee. The vetting process may include requests for a police clearance certificate, proof of employment (must be verified with the employer), proof of registration as a student (must be verified with a registered learning institution), proof of one’s banking details, proof of identity, and a picture of such a person holding her/his proof of identity.

These documents must be submitted annually to the vetting committee. Should it be that a police clearance certificate takes time, the vetting committee, together with local police, can agree to accept the prospective tenant temporarily, pending the police clearance certificate.

The vetting might be prolonged, but the end results might be beneficial to affected communities. These documents might help reduce criminal activities in crime-infested communities and even help police in their investigations. Though it might seem unfair, no job seekers must be allowed, because in the absence of job opportunities, criminal activities are often an alternative.

The vetting process might even be made mandatory to all property owners in both rural areas, inner cities, and towns. We often complain of illicit activities, but the blame never goes to property owners. In the medium to long term, we might see a reduction in burglaries, killings, robberies and availability of drugs in crime-infested communities, as well as illicit financial activities by foreign nationals.

• Radipere is a Sowetan reader