The family of 19-month-old Zisokuhle Kani is seeking answers after the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) closed a case involving the toddler’s death by a police vehicle in Kenton-on-Sea. IPID concluded there was no evidence of negligence by the officer involved and declined to prosecute, a decision the family says was reached without their consultation or explanation.
What happened in Kenton-on-Sea
In June of last year, Zisokuhle Kani was playing outside his home in the coastal town of Kenton-on-Sea shortly after 17:00 when he was struck by a police vehicle. The toddler died at the scene. His mother, 22-year-old Khanyisa Kani, alleges the vehicle was traveling at speed and that the child was struck a second time while the driver was reversing.
IPID spokesperson Phaladi Shuping stated that investigators found no basis for criminal charges. According to Shuping, evidence indicated the child was walking alone in the evening and the driver could not see him. The docket was subsequently referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who declined to prosecute due to a lack of reasonable prospects for a successful case.
The family of the police officer involved in the incident provided a R3 000 loan to Zisokuhle’s family to assist with immediate funeral costs, which the toddler’s grandmother, Nozihle Matyumza, repaid in full once her insurance policy paid out.
The dispute over communication
A central point of contention remains the communication between the oversight body and the grieving family. While IPID spokesperson Phaladi Shuping stated that the investigating officer had informed the grandmother, Nozihle Matyumza, of the case’s outcome, Matyumza disputes this claim. She maintains that no one from the directorate ever visited or explained the decision to the family.
The family only discovered the investigation had been closed when they visited the police station themselves to demand updates. This lack of engagement has left the family feeling forgotten and denied the opportunity to understand the evidence or the legal reasoning behind the decision to drop the case.
This case highlights a recurring tension between institutional oversight and community trust. When families are excluded from the investigative process, the perceived legitimacy of outcomes often suffers, regardless of the legal findings. For oversight bodies like IPID, the challenge lies in balancing procedural finality with the human need for transparent, direct communication with those most affected by police-involved deaths.
What may happen next
As the case is currently closed, there is no active criminal prosecution against the officer. Given the family’s stated dissatisfaction and their assertion that they were not properly informed, it is possible they may seek further legal counsel to challenge the handling of the investigation or request a formal review of the proceedings. Advocacy groups, such as Ilitha Labantu, have pointed to this case as an indicator of the need for greater transparency and engagement with families to maintain public confidence in law enforcement oversight.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why was the case against the officer closed?
IPID concluded there was no evidence of negligence, and the Director of Public Prosecutions declined to prosecute because there were no reasonable prospects of a successful conviction.
Does the family agree with the findings?
No. The family, including the mother and grandmother, expressed deep pain over the decision, stating they were never consulted or given an explanation regarding how the conclusion was reached.
Who is responsible for investigating police-involved deaths?
The Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) is the body responsible for investigating such incidents to ensure they are handled independently and in accordance with the law.
How can public institutions better ensure that bereaved families feel heard during sensitive investigations?
