jail?
If ever there was a case which exposed the shortcomings of the police, the prosecution service and the judiciary, it is that of the Eikenhof Three.
The facts in support of their innocence have yet to be tested in court but, to the reasonable man, appear overwhelming. Their fingerprints were never found on the car used for the shooting; the guns the three African National Congress cadres were alleged to have used were never discovered; a commander of the armed wing of the Pan African Congress confessed last year it was in fact he who had pulled off the attack; the bullets fired at the scene of the crime came from the same AK-47 used in another PAC attack in which he was involved; the police failed to disclose that five witnesses had identified – and had even spoken to – the PAC hit squad at the scene of the crime; a secret PAC report detailing the attack was discovered and buried by the police. And last, but not least, the three did not secure themselves a ticket to freedom by confessing their sins to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
All of which, though yet to be tested in court, suggests extraordinary dishonesty on the part of the police who, in addition to allegedly torturing confessions out of the ANC suspects, concealed vital evidence from the first trial of the three in 1993, heard by a judge who will best be remembered for sending a man to the gallows when the death penalty was already outlawed.
After hearing an uninspiring defence by pro deo counsel, Judge David Curlewis demonstrated what can only be described as a frail grasp of the former South African Police’s modus operandi by deprecating the suggestion that police ever tortured confessions out of suspects. He proceeded to sentence two of the three to death. Fortunately for them, their sentences were commuted to lengthy prison terms. Fortunately for Curlewis, they were not hanged before the confession last year by the PAC’s Phila Dolo.
The prosecution, steered by former Transvaal attorney general Jan d’Oliveira, evidently has a lot to answer for. Instead of acknowledging the weaknesses in its case, it has fought the trial as if it was a defence team; it is a sign of strength, not weakness, in a prosecutor to admit the holes in his case. As reported elsewhere in this newspaper, D’Oliveira wrote to the chief justice last year to suggest he expedite the appeal of the case, but subsequently retracted this suggestion. Could it be D’Oliveira realised his credibility and reputation were on the line?
The latest development in this bizarre case – the fight between Judge Piet van der Walt and National Director of Public Prosecutions Bulelani Ngcuka – merely confirms the fate of the Eikenhof Three has been determined from the start not by law but by politics. It was politics which put them in jail in the first place: the defence alleges they were framed by police to undermine the ANC in the negotiations process. The ANC handed them over in 1993 as a gesture of goodwill during the negotiations.
And it was politics which prevented them from securing bail last week. Even Judge van der Walt admitted the defence had strong arguments, but he was more interested in scoring fatuous political points against the ANC. The irony is the ANC has, if anything, been too restrained where this case is concerned. Judge van der Walt’s attack on Ngcuka was entirely unwarranted.
If one thing emerges from this shabby saga, it is the exposure it has lent to the shortcomings of our criminal justice system. At the very least these men should have not been convicted. They are most likely innocent. But that is unlikely to prove of much comfort to the Eikenhof Three, about to spend their fifth Christmas in jail. We can only hope it will be their last.
A reason to impeach
What price to pay to keep a president in office? The strikes on Baghdad might go down well among a few United States congressmen and a section of the American and British public, they might even save Bill Clinton from the embarrassment of impeachment, but the systematic bombardment of innocent people is hideous.
Iraq, after all, is a society already damaged by years of war, sanctions and isolation. Many at the United Nations doubt Richard Butler, the leader of the weapons inspection team, is independent from his leading sponsor, the US. But what is their agenda? Surely not to uncover Saddam Hussein’s legendary trove of chemical and biological weapons which Butler’s team has so singularly failed to find so far.
No, we are told the US and Britain are hoping to strengthen the Iraqi opposition and undermine the dictator. By bombing his palaces, military installations and intelligence establishments, they hope to precipitate a coup against Saddam. In that they are likely to fail. The chances are Clinton will go before Saddam.
But one doubts whether that is the main target. The bombings – conducted under a thin veneer of international respectability – have served as a wonderful distraction from the big show in Washington, the president’s impeachment hearings.
They might be able to pull the wool over the eyes of some Americans. But millions of people around the world believe a single Iraqi flesh wound is too high a price to pay to prevent Clinton’s impeachment.
Until this week we cared. We supported Clinton, not because of his tawdry behaviour, but because the Republicans in Congress have been puffing up minor peccadilloes to destroy a Democratic president who stood up effectively to the loony right.
But Clinton has deprived us of the will to defend him, and so we urge the Republicans in Congress to go ahead and impeach him.
11