/ 3 June 2013

We need state protection, say Marikana witnesses

We Need State Protection, Say Marikana Witnesses

The Farlam commission of inquiry, set up to look into the police's fatal shooting of 44 striking miners at the Lonmin mine last year, wants all witnesses to know they have the option of formally entering the state’s witness protection programme. This is because the inexplicable pattern of post-Marikana deaths has impacted on the commission’s work.

Several killings have taken place at Marikana in the months following the August 16 massacre.

At least one man told the M&G he would consider joining the formal witness protection programme. Tholakele "Bhele" Dlunga, an Amcu shop steward due to testify at the Marikana Commission of Inquiry, said witnesses would welcome being part of a protection programme as they did not feel safe.

Last year, after attending a session of the commission, Dlunga and workers were stopped by what they believed to be police, blindfolded and detained.

He said his lawyers had never spoken to him about a witness protection programme and that they would welcome it even if it meant loss of income. "Life comes before money, because if you're not alive, you can't even begin to think about making money."

Hunted down
In an earlier interview, Dlunga said that word at the mine was that influential Amcu members would be hunted down one at a time.

“On the evening of the day [Kholekile] Steven was murdered, people came looking for me at my house. But I think Steven was not killed because of anything he could say to the commission, but he was killed because he was a leader. They want to weaken the organisation. With the way things are, it’s going to end up being a situation of kill or be killed because we have to defend ourselves. If they don’t get us here, they could still get us at home, where we come from.” 

But those close to the inquiry say formalised witness protection was often impractical. It would also require witnesses to the Marikana massacre to put their trust in the state – the very system they may have to give evidence against.

In the absence of any other form of state protection, the ability for witnesses to protect themselves is limited. But all those concerned agree that something had to be done to stop the killings at Marikana. And it has to be done soon.

Torture
The M&G understands that at least one legal team has put its witnesses in hotels for the duration of their evidence for their own safety.

The decision to do so followed allegations that surfaced in October last year, that men returning from the commission had been arrested at tortured by the police. One man was allegedly tortured until he soiled himself. Another allegedly lost his hearing in one ear.

The allegations are under investigation by the Independent Police Investigative Directorate.

Meanwhile, post-Marikana murders have included several potential witnesses.

Tshepo Mahlangu, a spokesperson for the commission, said all legal teams had been asked to make their witnesses aware of the Witness Protection Act Number 112 of 1998, which spells out the processes potential witnesses should follow should they feel threatened.

“All potential witnesses have the right to approach the witness protection unit and make that application. A witness will then be removed from that area within 48 hours, and placed in a witness protection unit like a safe house. He would not even know where he was going ahead of time,” Mahlangu explained.  

He said witnesses who take this route have two options: the first is where a witness is taken out of their community for a period of two weeks. If it is still not safe for them to return afterwards, stage two of the application kicks in. This is an application for permanent witness protection status, where a witness is given a new ID number, changes his name, and moves to a new town until the danger is completely gone.

Most witnesses who take that route don’t go back to their communities, Mahlangu said. They are paid a monthly allowance determined by the state. The amount they are paid depends on what salary they earn and how valuable their evidence is to the commission.

The legislation covers criminal cases, tribunals, and even judicial commissions of inquiry such as the Farlam Commission.

Confidential list
Mahlangu said the commission is concerned about the killing of its witnesses, adding that all witnesses were “very, very important”.

The killings have undermined the work of the commission, he said, because potential evidence is lost.

He could not say how many of those murdered post-Marikana were witnesses as the witness list is strictly confidential. It is therefore difficult to know whether or not those killed post-Marikana were actually on the witness list.

And herein lies the rub: some of the men who witnessed the Marikana massacre and survived it might not be formally called as witnesses to the Farlam commission, yet their lives may still be in danger. Others might not yet have been notified that they are witnesses, and might thus not be aware of the potential threat to their safety.

Compensation
Another problem, pointed out by a source close to the Farlam Commission, who asked not to be identified, is the impracticality of formal witness protection.

Mahlangu said witnesses on the state’s witness protection programme were compensated “in full” – but this is dependent on the nature of the evidence they can offer the commission and how valuable it is.

The state also takes into condition their “overall living conditions” when considering the total amount of compensation they would receive.

Said the source, “You cannot ask a man to give up his entire life over this. He may have many co-dependents, and more than one family to support.”

He also said the idea of blanket witness protection was not feasible. This is because the state would not be able to accommodate over 300 potential witnesses being absorbed into its programme at once, the source explained.

He said he was not aware of any witnesses who had opted for this route. Mahlangu could not confirm this, again, due to the fact that the names of all witnesses and those who have gone into the programme were obviously confidential.

Threatening circumstances
Amcu president, Joseph Mathunjwa, said the issue of witness protection was extremely sensitive and complex. He asked for further questions to be sent in writing but did not respond to them.

NUM spokesperson, Lesiba Seshoka, pointed out that workers could not be expected to gauge the level of risk to their own lives. He said the union wanted witness protection for all workers and potential witnesses.

“Workers shouldn’t have to ask for protection – it must it must be made available to all witnesses. How can a worker be expected to ask for protection when he doesn’t even know if his life is under threat?

“The potential exists that a worker is killed before he even knows there is a threat,” Seshoka said.

But the NUM’s suggestion would necessitate the circulating of the list of witnesses – at least amongst themselves. The potential for the names of witnesses to be leaked would increase.

But Seshoka said the need for witness protection outweighed some of the risks.

“We don’t care what form the protection comes in – we just want there to be extra protection. Whether it is extra policing or whatever – but there must be witness protection.”

Self-protection
In the interim, allegations that workers have long armed themselves in a pre-emptive move to protect themselves, have surfaced.

The NUM says it does not condone this and is unaware of any of its members who have done so. However, he added that the union cannot be expected to police its members all of the time.

“You can’t control workers in their homes but you can in their working environment. We discourage our members from carrying weapons when they are in the work place,” Seshoka said.

While Mathunjwa did not respond to questions, he did call for talks with the presidency about the need for witness protection, while addressing workers at slain Amcu leader, Mawethu Steven’s memorial service.

The presidency said it had not received any formal requests for a meeting.

However, President Jacob Zuma’s spokesperson, Mac Maharaj, said, “The minister of labour is always available to assist unions, and to engage her colleagues in other departments where the need arises to deal with urgent matters.”

Labour Minister Mildred Oliphant met with union leaders on Monday. Her spokesperson, Musa Zondi, could not confirm what was on the agenda. But he said the meeting would essentially cover issues raised by Jacob Zuma on Thursday. Zuma called for the stabilisation of the mining sector as a cornerstone of the country’s economy.

“The minister of labour has been tasked with supporting mining companies and unions in ensuring fair labour relations processes that promote order and stability in the sector,” Zuma said.