Protecting yourself in a hijacking in South Africa – what the law says

The recent incident on the N1 highway in Johannesburg, where a motorist shot and killed three suspected hijackers at the Diepkloof interchange, has intensified debates over personal safety and self-defence rights in South Africa.

A motorist on the highway was signalled to stop by occupants of two cars who showed what appeared to be a police appointment certificate.

After stopping, three men from a red Kia Rio told him something was wrong under his car.

As he bent down to check, they threatened him with a knife, demanding his car.

The motorist, armed with a firearm, responded by shooting. Suspects in a blue Ford Focus fired back while fleeing.

Three suspects were declared dead at the scene, though it’s unclear who fired the fatal shots.

This incident underscores the tough choices that many South Africans face in light of rising violent crimes, particularly car hijackings.

For many, the decision to carry a firearm for self-defence seems increasingly justified in a country where high crime rates and limited police presence often leave citizens vulnerable.

While firearm ownership is not a decision to be taken lightly, many believe it is an essential right, particularly in light of the limitations on police resources in dealing with crime at such a scale.

South African law around self-defence is both stringent and clear.

According to Damian Ensley, a representative of the South African Gun Owners Association, the law permits the use of deadly force only if there is an imminent and unlawful threat to life, whether that of the person under attack or someone close to them.

For example, if a hijacker points a weapon at a driver, that person has the legal right to defend themselves, including drawing and discharging their firearm to protect their life.

Self-defence laws do not require victims to wait until they are actually harmed before responding to a threat, as long as the response is to an immediate, unavoidable danger.

In this recent incident, the driver believed there was such a threat, and legally, this context allows for a defensive response.

However, not all scenarios of perceived threat allow for the use of a firearm. Imagine someone trying to force a driver off the road without showing a weapon.

In such cases, firing a weapon may be unwarranted unless the victim is genuinely cornered and left with no alternative means of escape.

Self-defence advocates emphasise the need for restraint and discernment in situations involving firearms, as the consequences of indiscriminate shooting can be severe, both legally and in terms of public safety.

While owning a firearm may empower individuals, it also requires careful and disciplined use.

The objective should be to neutralise the threat, not necessarily to take a life, and the legal framework aims to reflect this distinction.

South Africa’s high crime rate complicates the notion of a “gun-free society.”

Despite the government’s calls for disarmament and for citizens to surrender firearms, many people feel unsafe without the means to defend themselves.

For citizens in communities with limited police presence, a firearm might be the only deterrent against violent attacks or home invasions.

Yet, gun ownership carries legal responsibilities that must be met to ensure that such defence remains within the law.

Those who choose to carry firearms must also receive adequate training and regularly refresh their skills to handle weapons safely.

Ensley advised anyone who finds themselves in a situation where they must use deadly force in self-defence to seek legal representation immediately.

Following such incidents, individuals may be detained, interrogated, or even charged, and any statements made can affect their defence in court.

Emotional responses following a traumatic event like a hijacking can cloud judgment, making legal guidance all the more critical.

While South African law generally supports citizens acting in genuine self-defence, navigating the legal system is complex, and professional advice can help ensure rights are upheld.

The alarming frequency of hijackings has been laid bare in the recent crime statistics.

Between January and June 2024, the South African Police Service (SAPS) recorded 10,776 hijackings—a slight 0.9% decline from the previous year but still translating to roughly 60 incidents daily.

Additionally, crime data reveals that hijackings are concentrated in densely populated provinces, with Gauteng leading at nearly 5,200 cases, accounting for almost half of all hijackings.

Provinces like the Eastern Cape and Western Cape have seen significant year-on-year increases, with the Eastern Cape’s carjacking rate rising by a staggering 30%.

While the broader category of hijackings has dropped by a notable 28.9% over the past year, the daily rate of hijackings remains concerningly high.

Ultimately, these crime statistics emphasise the urgent need for citizens to feel protected, whether through police intervention or self-defence measures.

The choice to own a firearm remains deeply personal and is increasingly influenced by one’s perception of safety amid persistently high levels of crime.

As the debate around gun ownership continues, the priority for many South Africans remains to find the most effective ways to protect themselves and their families in a society struggling with crime on a large scale.

Read: Popular hijacking method making a comeback in South Africa