Police reject claims confiscated meat used by officers

Farmers’ allegations that police officers sometimes take meat seized in stock theft cases for personal use were rejected by law enforcement leaders last week.

The claims were raised during a farmers’ engagement meeting in Omaruru on Friday.

Omaruru Farmers’ Association representative Markus Trede said the allegations have undermined a reward initiative designed to encourage reporting of illegal meat sales.

He added that some residents are allegedly reluctant to provide information because they fear that confiscated meat was being used by police officers.

“The only thing that will happen is that the police comes, they will confiscate the meat, and they will use it for their Christmas party,” he said, sharing a common sentiment he has encountered during the campaign.

Trede said the perception had become widespread enough to discourage whistleblowers and weaken cooperation between farmers, communities and police.

He also raised concerns about broader public trust in the force, asking what measures were being taken to remove “black sheep” and restore confidence.

Accountability crucial

Erongo Regional Police Commander Commissioner Nikolaus Kupembona dismissed the allegations, saying strict procedures govern how confiscated meat is handled.

“There is no way the police officer can just take the meat and start dividing it for themselves,” he told the meeting.

Kupembona said speculation without proof also damages cooperation.

“There must be facts to support our allegations,” he said, adding that officers are paid to perform their duties and would face consequences if found acting unlawfully.

He acknowledged that misconduct within any large organisation exists but said members who cross the law are dealt with.

“A police officer is not above the law,” he said.

Clear procedures in place

The police commander explained that where meat has a lawful owner, it has to be returned, and if not, disposed of according to procedure, which could include distribution to vulnerable groups or destruction where required.

Police reservist Inspector Alexander Steyn, who heads the Omaruru District Watch, agreed with Kupembona.

Steyn said seized meat is treated as evidence and must be recorded and processed according to formal procedures before any decision is made regarding its disposal.

He stressed that officers do not have discretion to keep confiscated goods for personal use and that documentation and oversight form part of the process when items are handled after seizure.

Talk to us

Farmers were also urged to actively follow up on confiscated meat linked to their cases and to seek clarity from investigators on whether the meat would be returned, destroyed or donated.

Police indicated that complainants have the right to be informed of what happens to recovered property and encouraged farmers not to leave matters unattended but to hold authorities accountable, as the meat remained their property until legally disposed of.

Kupembona urged those with direct knowledge of wrongdoing to report it immediately rather than waiting for public meetings, saying internal investigation structures are in place to deal with criminal conduct within the force.