A Durban policewoman working in the Phoenix Domestic Violence unit had 33 days to remove a gun from Kyle Inderlall as instructed by an interim protection order before he shot dead his ex-girlfriend, Sasha Lee Shah in 2022.
But the policewoman, a captain, did not.
Now Sasha Lee's mother, Jessica Shah, wants the captain — who cannot be named as she has not yet appeared in court — to face the full might of the law.
Inderlall followed his 25-year-old former girlfriend to Gateway mall in November and shot her dead in the parking lot before turning the gun on himself. He left a suicide note in her car.
Shah this week laid a charge of contempt of court against the police captain.
“In her application for the protection order, my daughter speaks to how she was abused by Mr Inderlall and his threats to kill himself. She said she was afraid of him because he had a firearm. Among other things, he stalked and kidnapped her once, which led her to apply for a protection order against him. The interim order, together with the application for the protection order, was sent to the domestic violence unit at the Phoenix police station,” she said in her affidavit.
A few days after the order was issued in the Pinetown magistrate's court, the policewoman served it on Inderlall.
“She read the contents of the interim order before serving it. It clearly stipulated the firearm be removed as it was a domestic violence case. She signed and stamped the return of service acknowledging it had been served. She failed to comply with the order to remove the firearm. She perjured herself when she signed under oath on the return of the service without removing the licensed firearm,” Shah said.
The officer faced an internal disciplinary hearing for misconduct, resulting in a two-month suspension without pay.
“I charged the captain at Durban North police station. The case was transferred to Phoenix police station. It is very concerning that the police station where the captain works and the people she works with will be investigating.
“Given the history and background of my daughter's murder and previous cases regarding non-assistance from Phoenix police regarding other complainants cases against Kyle Inderlall, the man who murdered my daughter in cold blood, [this] is inappropriate,” she said.
Shah said she decided to take action against the policewoman after her failure to seize the gun wasn't addressed at her daughter's inquest. The magistrate said she was not able to make any ruling on whether the captain was a person of interest in Sasha Lee's death because she was not called as a witness. She referred the judgment to the directorate of public prosecutions.
“Judgment was passed on March 19, 2024. The judgment has still not been sent to the DPP. The matter of the firearm not being removed should have been addressed at the formal murder inquest for my daughter and it wasn’t. The police officer was never called and questioned even though I asked it be done.
“I am a mother who pleaded for justice to be served on the police officer and my cries for justice [went] unheard. She was disciplined by SAPS but not correctly, as I pointed out. I have written to various organisations and authorities regarding the police officer facing the full brunt of the law and unfortunately my cries have fallen on deaf ears.”
She said while she was fighting for justice for her daughter, who she says was murdered as a result of police negligence, she was also “fighting for every woman and child whose cries for help from the police and justice system went unheard”.
Pretoria attorney Julian Knight said the police officer could potentially be charged with culpable homicide as her failure to enforce the court order and remove the weapon may be seen as negligent.
“It is possible to charge the police official tasked with the execution of the order criminally if it can be shown that they ought to have reasonably foreseen the possibility of harm should the court order not be fully executed, namely, by removing the weapon used in the commission of the crime that was described in the court order.”
“If the police officer stated they had effected the court order and did not, then they can be found guilty of contempt of court or perjury.”
He said it was the first duty of the state to protect its citizens.
“A police man or woman is under a duty to intervene and stop a crime from occurring if there is a reasonable suspicion that a crime is going to take place or if a crime is committed in the presence of the police officer.
While civil liability has been established through other cases, some legal scholars argue there may also be grounds for criminal charges — such as culpable homicide — where negligence leads to foreseeable harm. Although untested, this route is legally possible
— Dr Suhayfa Bhamjee, UKZN law lecturer
“In this matter the police official was obliged to implement the court order issued by the court, in terms of the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act ; namely to serve the order on the person, as well as to give effect to the court order, to remove the person's firearms and or weapons that may be in his possession.
“We have in South Africa an unacceptably high incidence of gender-based violence and the SA Police Service ought to take court orders involving allegations of domestic violence seriously, to prevent the reoccurrence of incidents like this in the future,” said Knight.
University of KwaZulu-Natal law lecturer Dr Suhayfa Bhamjee said: “When police fail to enforce court-ordered firearm removals, as seen in this case, the consequences can be fatal. While civil liability has been established through other cases, some legal scholars argue there may also be grounds for criminal charges — such as culpable homicide — where negligence leads to foreseeable harm. Although untested, this route is legally possible. If an officer claimed compliance with a protection order without acting, contempt of court and further accountability should be considered.”
Lisa Vetten, a research associate at Wits’ Southern Centre for Inequality Studies, said the case was “exceptionally serious.”
“It led to the loss of two lives, one of which was a murder. The instruction from the court to remove a firearm, to not follow suit with that, is deeply concerning and the sanction provided was utterly inappropriate. This ought to have been dismissible. She was disciplined for bringing the police into disrepute and for contravention of the Firearms Control Act. She said that it was a mistake. She ignored a court order. I think that was a very serious error on the part of the police not to charge that,” she said.
Vetten said a clear intervention that’s required is for the police or the courts to develop a standardised form that must be completed every time a protection order includes an instruction to remove a firearm.
“The police should be required to fill out this form and provide proof that the firearm was, in fact, removed. And if they don't, they have to give a very good explanation as to why not, and immediate alternative protection must be provided to that particular individual.”
KwaZulu-Natal police did not respond to questions about the case.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.