World Cup Courts: Template for the future?

Special criminal courts set up by the South African government, at the recommendation of FIFA, to deal with crime during the World Cup are quick, efficient and poised to set an example for the currently sluggish judicial system.

Fifty-six dedicated courts with their own prosecutors, defenders, magistrates, detectives and interpreters are employed specifically to ensure that criminals are caught, tried and sentenced as quickly as possible during the tournament. Of the 20 or so cases that were recorded in the first few days of the World Cup, the turn-around time has been astounding, earning the National Prosecuting Authority high praise.

Fans, tourists, players, support teams, volunteers and citizens in general are reported to be feeling more secure, even though South Africa has been known for its high crime and low conviction rates in the past.

So far, the courts have tried cases that include theft, fraud, possession of marijuana, drunk driving by a French tourist, assault of a local by a pair of tourists, robbery of Spanish and Portuguese journalists in Magaliesburg, and the most publicized case of alleged ambush marketing by Dutch women who wore orange dresses branded with Bavaria beer to the Soccer City stadium for the group stage match between Netherlands and Denmark on June 14.

World Cup courts are effective yet expensive
Helen Zille, leader of opposition party the Democratic Alliance, sees the World Cup courts as an example of the lessons that the South African government can learn about improving service delivery. In an article by the South African newswire SAPA, Zille was quoted as saying, “At this rate, the special World Cup courts will finalise five times more cases per month than normal courts."

While politicians are in praise of the courts, residents wonder whether the government can match the resources dedicated to the judicial system outside of the tournament. A Mail & Guardian report quoted each conviction adding up to a whopping R1,75 million (approximately €189,000), and most of these have been petty cases.

Although the strict sentences handed down by the courts may be sending a clear message to criminals for the future, many people are questioning whether the time, effort and money will be better served targeting serious criminals, bearing in mind that prisons in South Africa are infamously overcrowded and under resourced.

Tlali Tlali, spokesperson for the Department of Justice, said that the World Cup courts would save the Department money in the long term, as trying cases for non-residents usually involves flying them to and from their home countries. This way, Tlali argues, non-resident cases are finalized in South Africa, as soon as possible.

Bavaria case contravenes constitutional rights
In an article published in the Mail & Guardian on June 21, journalist Marina Hyde highlights the controversial nature of FIFA’s Special Measures Act, used in the Dutch Bavaria case, which classifies the two Dutch women’s charges - "unauthorised commercial activities inside an exclusion zone" and "enter[ing] into a designated area while in unauthorised possession of a commercial object" - as criminal rather than civil.

She says, “Not only does this arguably debase what it is to be a crime, but it contravenes rights enshrined in South Africa's Constitution.” Hyde points to the idea that FIFA would rather use local courts to prosecute these women on a criminal level using state funds, than having to fork out money for a litigation charge against the beer manufacturer itself.

Are the World Cup courts a template for the future of the South African judicial system, or a disproportionate use of public funds? Are maximum sentences for petty crimes a deterrent for criminals, or are they ‘overboard’?  The jury is still out.