Johannesburg - The Passenger Rail Agency of SA (Prasa) has told the Constitutional Court that stop-and-search procedures are sufficient to ensure the safety of its passengers.
It added that the agency couldn’t afford to pay security guards to patrol all of its trains.
On Thursday, the court was hearing Irvine Mashongwa’s application for leave to appeal against a Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) ruling which found that Prasa didn’t have to pay the damages he suffered.
Mashongwa’s leg was amputated in 2011 after he was robbed and assaulted by three men who then threw him out of a moving train in Pretoria.
He argued that the SCA didn’t apply the correct constitutional standard and that the judgment would make it almost impossible for commuters to hold Prasa accountable.
His lawyer, Gilbert Marcus, said that if there had been security personnel patrolling the train, Mashongwa’s injuries might have been avoided.
“The evidence is that throughout the country, no security guards are deployed on trains,” he added.
Running a train with its doors open was also unacceptable, Marcus said.
Mashongwa had testified in the high court that the train door had remained open throughout his commute. His evidence was not disputed.
Prasa’s lawyer, Jaap Cilliers, said the agency had sufficient measures in place to ensure passenger safety. Trains were randomly searched between stations by security officials and the police daily.
“They felt that is the most practical solution to the (crime) problem,” he said. “If they employ guards, effectively it would cost them billions.”
Justice Johann van der Westhuizen asked: “So you’re saying it’s not negligent or wrong to not have a single guard on the train?”
“Yes,” Cilliers responded.
Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng pointed out that, as an organ of the state, Prasa had a constitutional and legal obligation to secure the commuters using its trains.