/ 14 June 2004

Uniform justice?

It took minutes to demote Lieutenant Commander Winston Kolonzi before he was told to salute and quick-march out of the court martial at the Cape Town Castle. The charge: he had been absent without leave (Awol) for a day.

Until Monday last week the former Umkhonto weSizwe (MK) fighter had had an unblemished nine-year service record. He had occasionally been put in charge of his unit.

A first offender, the reason he gave for going Awol was because he was under stress after failing a watch-keeping course more than once, and was under family pressure. He had pleaded guilty and his lawyer had argued for a reprimand.

But presiding officer Colonel CJ Taljaard, seated in full uniform under two national flags, ruled that as an officer Kolonzi had to set an example. “You should know better, especially after such long service,” the colonel said. “You are not a child.”

Clearly devastated, Kolonzi asked the colonel twice to repeat the sentence.

Later his attorney, Ben Seshea, said the verdict came as a shock, particularly as last year a commander had been fined R1 000 for being Awol for much longer. “After nine years [of service], what kind of justice is that?”

Military judges have discretion over what sentence to impose, ranging from reprimands, fines and extra duty to jail.

Kolonzi will be physically stripped of his rank insignia — even as an internal review process is under way — unless he raises the money for a Cape High Court challenge.

Reviews can take some time. In 1999 the military council of review set aside the dismissal of 74 soldiers for mutiny because they were first offenders. They were part of a group of 206 from the infantry battalion at Middelburg, Mpumalanga, court-martialled for an incident two years earlier.

Kolonzi’s court martial last week came days after Minister of Defence Mosiuoa Lekota told Parliament a review of the military justice system was under way to ensure courts martial were held by neutral officers. A ministerial task team has been established to evaluate the system and to make improvements, it emerged during the defence budget debate on Tuesday.

Lekota rejected claims that former MK and Azanian People’s Liberation Army fighters were more likely to be court martialled. “We deal with them the same. We have dismissed black and white.”

The roll of courts martial held at the Castle this week shows that the accused are almost exclusively black. All 10 cases heard by Senior Military Judge Taljaard, flown in from Pretoria to preside over the officers’ trials, relate to African or coloured soldiers. Only three white soldiers are among the 10 on trial in lower military courts at the Castle and in Simon’s Town.

The offences vary widely — from Kolonzi’s Awol charge to repeated sexual harassment at the Ysterplaat airforce base, theft involving tens of thousands of rands and one case of drunkenness. Other charges stem from failing to hold “a brainstorming session”, theft of a battery valued at R20, driving cars without permission and incurring damage in an accident.

There appears to be a widely held perception that some offenders are treated differently from others. While senior officers call some in for a dressing-down, others are charged and court martialled. In many cases, the fault lines appear to be racial, between former “non-statutory” forces and the old guard.

If Kolonzi goes to the high court, he will be the second person this week to appeal against a court martial sentence. Earlier, Lieutenant Commander Mthobisi Jethro Ngwenya, a former MK member charged with fraud for allegedly copying parts of an assignment from another student, will approach the high court to challenge the military justice system. His court martial followed long-standing wrangling with military college personnel.

Military justice has changed in the past 10 years. Legislation was amen- ded by 2001 — after a two-year moratorium on courts martial — following a successful court challenge by the Freedom of Expression Institute and the Mail & Guardian aimed at opening military courts to the public.

However, the Constitutional Court in 2001 ruled against an application to declare courts martial invalid because they fall outside the country’s single prosecution authority, as envisaged in the Constitution.

Courts martial are not listed in the most recent available Defence Department Annual Report of 2002/3. But a table outlines the most common offences among uniformed members in hearings and courts martial.

Awol emerges at the top (2 727) followed by absence from parade and duty (1 021).

There were 121 cases of drunkenness and 163 soldiers were charged with using threatening, insubordinate or insulting language.