The conviction of a Noupoort policeman has resulted in civil claims against the minister of safety and security, writes Gaye Davis
A KAROO policeman who extracted “confessions” from suspects by suspending them, handcuffed and blindfolded, from a pole and shocking them with electrodes, has been convicted in the Graaff-Reinet Regional Court of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm, common assault and defeating the ends of justice.
Noupoort detective-sergeant Willem van Heerden’s five-week trial shed light not only on his investigative techniques but also on glaring irregularities in police procedures.
Civil claims against the minister of safety and security have now been launched by Lawyers for Human Rights’ Karoo Law Clinic on behalf of three farmworkers whose prosecution was halted on the orders of the attorney-general after lawyers intervened. The claims relate to their assault, arrest, detention and prosecution.
Van Heerden investigated charges of stock theft against six Noupoort farmworkers during January and February 1993. The court heard the assaults all took place on the farm Lekkerplaas, owned and farmed by Dykie de Villiers.
Farmworkers Martiens Williams, June Stofile and Johnson Ficks — whose trial was later halted — as well as Mossie Johnson and Allan Masoka were all handcuffed, blindfolded and suspended in mid-air by a pole under their knees.
Electrodes were attached to their thumbs and they were shocked until they “confessed” — in Stofile and Williams’ case, each “confessed” to stealing eight more sheep than the farmer reported were missing. Another farmworker, Gibson Bhengu, was kicked and almost suffocated with a car inner-tube until he “confessed”, the court heard.
The Karoo Law Clinic’s Alex Twigg detailed a number of irregularities in police investigation procedures which emerged during the trial:
* Dockets were taken to court with no admissibile evidence (such as written confessions or statements by the accused) linking them to the charges yet all were required to plead to the charges immediately.
* Suspects were arrested and detained on dockets involving investigations to which they were not linked.
* Van Heerden maintained that Noupoort’s detective branch commander was aware of these procedures and condoned them.
* Official procedures designed to ensure suspects’ complaints were entered in the police occurrence book were not complied with. Van Heerden admitted in court to being present when another policeman allegedly assaulted one of the farmworkers after his arrest but signed an entry stating “no complaints or injuries”.
* When the farmworkers did complain, the Noupoort detective branch commander was instructed to investigate. The court heard his investigation yielded affidavits saying the complainants no longer wanted to pursue complaints of assault against Van Heerden.
Of particular concern, said Twigg, was that the prosecutor in the Noupoort Magistrate’s Court, where the farmworkers were tried, was a policeman — and Van Heerden himself once held the position. While a relatively common practice in small country towns it created an obvious conflict of interest between his role as a policeman and as an officer of the court, Twigg said.
“It certainly warrants concern as to the standard of prosecutorial services in such instances and makes a strong case for terminating such services immediately.”
Van Heerden will be sentenced in the Middelburg Regional Court on September 21.