Tools of torture? Use of electric shock equipment among African police

This policy brief examines the misuse of electric shock equipment by law enforcement agencies in Africa, arguing that such tools often facilitate torture and ill-treatment in violation of international and regional human rights frameworks. It specifically analyzes the legal landscape of anti-torture commitments in Africa and provides a detailed case study on the South African Police Service (SAPS), recommending the prohibition of handheld and body-worn electric shock devices.

• African states show varying levels of commitment to international anti-torture frameworks. While 85% of the 54 African UN member states are parties to the UN Convention against Torture (UNCAT), only 19 have ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OPCAT).
• Despite regional and international prohibitions, torture remains widespread across Africa. Security forces in countries including Ethiopia, the Gambia, Kenya, Mali, Mauritania, Nigeria, Senegal, Sudan, and Zimbabwe have been reported to use torture to extract confessions.
• Electric shock devices are categorized by their potential for harm: direct contact equipment (stun batons, stun shields) can cause burns, scars, and death, while body-worn equipment (stun belts) can lead to cardiac arrhythmia, seizures, and uncontrolled urination or defecation.
• The author recommends a tiered approach to electric shock equipment: wired projectile weapons should be strictly regulated, while handheld direct contact devices (stun guns, batons, shields) and body-worn devices (stun belts) should be prohibited entirely as they are prone to abuse.
• In South Africa, the South African Police Service (SAPS) has been linked to the use of electric shock devices in torture cases, including the 2014 death of Khuthazile Mbendu and the 2010 shocking of Zimbabwean nationals in Johannesburg.
• Detecting electric shock torture is difficult because physical evidence is often absent; forensic evidence suggests that using water during the process can reduce burn wounds, and studies indicate no visible evidence in approximately 30% of cases.
• The Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) in South Africa reported a significant 86% increase in complaints of torture between the 2013/14 and 2014/15 financial years, though it faces capacity challenges and a limited legislative mandate regarding police station visits.

APA

Shadung, M. (2016). Tools of torture? Use of electric shock equipment among African police. Institute for Security Studies. https://issafrica.s3.amazonaws.com/site/uploads/PolicyBrief85.pdf

Chicago

Shadung, Mothepa. Tools of torture? Use of electric shock equipment among African police. Institute for Security Studies, 2016. https://issafrica.s3.amazonaws.com/site/uploads/PolicyBrief85.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Shadung |first1=Mothepa |title=Tools of torture? Use of electric shock equipment among African police |publisher=Institute for Security Studies |date=June 2016 |url=https://issafrica.s3.amazonaws.com/site/uploads/PolicyBrief85.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{shadung2016tools, author = {Shadung, Mothepa}, title = {{Tools of torture? Use of electric shock equipment among African police}}, institution = {Institute for Security Studies}, year = {2016}, month = jun, url = {https://issafrica.s3.amazonaws.com/site/uploads/PolicyBrief85.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }