Marianne Merten Several Western Cape residents in witness protection who are refusing to leave the province despite the Christmas murder of two state witnesses face the choice: relocate or leave the programme.
The head of the Office for Witness Protection, Director Piet Kleynhans, said a decision on this handful of witnesses to Cape criminal trials, which he declined to specify for security reasons, would be taken by mid-month.
“We are not satisfied they are safe. But we have Hobson’s choice: we can throw them off the programme, but they will be killed.”
This development comes in the wake of a security re-evaluation after the murder on Christmas Day of two witnesses to a foiled pipe bomb attack, Yusuf and Fahiema Enous. The couple were killed in their safe house at Gouda, about 150km from Cape Town, after a family visit and previous telephonic contact with rela-tives. Authorities believe the attacker or attackers followed the visitors to the hideout. Only three officials knew the couple’s exact whereabouts.
Institute for Security Studies Cape Town director Peter Gastrow said the killings are a setback. But it is difficult to gauge the full impact because any witness protection programme by its nature has to be non-transparent. He said an expert on witness protection should be asked to assess the programme to establish what is working and what could be improved.
“The public wants to be reassured that the witness protection programme is providing security,” he said. “So much these days depends on witness protection, not just related to Pagad [People against Gangsterism and Drugs]. It is a prerequisite for the successful prosecution of organised crime.”
The importance of witness protection has increased since South Africa signed the United Nations Convention on Transnational Organised Crime in December. The convention requires the 120 signatory countries to provide witness protection.
Witness protection in South Africa is recent. The 1998 Witness Protection and Services Act established a statutory body within the Department of Justice accountable to the minister, but it was only implemented in March 2000 due to financial and manpower constraints. Previously, witness protection was the responsibility of provincial prosecution authorities and police management in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Currently 730 people are under witness protection countrywide in about 360 criminal cases. Only 70 policemen are permanently assigned to the programme, although another 40 are expected to join soon. Witnesses spend on average two to three years in the programme; one family has been on it since April 1996.
Entry into witness protection is voluntary. Each witness signs an agreement setting out the rights and duties of both sides and receives an information booklet on what and what not to do. There is a ban on contacting family members.
“There is no glamour in the witness protection programme. [The witnesses] are not prepared for the disruption. Their whole support system falls away,” said Kleynhans.
The programme removes witnesses from danger areas and hides them elsewhere. There are no bodyguards and no 24-hour protection. Witnesses receive an allowance starting at R571 per person per month if they are unemployed, cannot prove income or profited through crime. Those with proof of income are compensated in full.
Each witness has a “handler”, who is responsible for anything from arranging interviews with investigating officers at neutral venues to hospital visits.
According to officials, the Enous couple were the first to be killed on the programme. However, several witnesses in important Cape gang and Pagad trials have been killed after they either declined to join the programme or left it.
The current programme has not been without problems. At least two Western Cape handlers were investigated for improper conduct last year following complaints of harassment by people in the programme. One officer resigned and the other was found guilty in an internal inquiry. In November a Durban magistrate dismissed a rape charge against another handler.
Two years ago the then head of the Western Cape protection unit, Superintendent Petrie Thiart, was charged with fraud involving R800000. He was suspended with full pay and the trial is still under way.
Strict compliance with witness protection rules is a key aspect of other programmes around the world.
A policing researcher involved in establishing structures to prosecute human rights offenders in Kosovo said a Serbian prosecutor was recently expelled from witness protection after two warnings when he refused to adhere to the rules.
The United Kingdom has national witness protection guidelines but no centralised programme. Each of the 51 chief constables in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is responsible for his or her respective forces. Details are “simply not talked about”, said a representative for the Association of Chief Police Officers.
In the United States, the Marshals Services of the Justice Department has relocated some 7000 witnesses since the federal programme started in 1970. The programme has an annual budget of $60-million and 3 000 operational staff.
However, the programme has been criticised in recent years for protecting mainly criminals, leaving ordinary people at risk of being killed to prevent their testimony.