by Ernst Roets
Farm attacks also have a devastating impact on farm workers, for a variety of reasons. In many of these attacks farm workers are also injured or killed. When farm attacks lead to a halt in production, it mostly results in job losses. Furthermore, the psychological impact is usually glossed over. In many cases, farm workers are the first ones to discover the dead bodies. This was evident in November 2016 when James Khiba (47) testified in court about the murder of Bennie Cilliers (61) and the severe assault of his wife, Cecilia (59). Khiba burst into tears as he was testifying to the court how he had found his employers. Khiba was calling for the Cilliers couple, when he saw the bedroom curtains, spattered with blood. When he peered through the window, he saw Bennie’s dead body, his face soaked in blood. They had been beaten and stabbed with an iron rod. Bennie had been shot in the chest and both of them had been shot in the head. Khiba jumped into one of the couple’s vehicles to get help. When he returned to the scene with the SAPS, he saw the hallway was also spattered with blood. Bennie’s hands and feet had been tied together. Cecilia lay with her hand over his head and a piece of cloth was stuffed in her mouth. When they removed the cloth from her mouth, she suddenly gasped for air. She was still alive, but passed away shortly thereafter.37
Victims may also suffer severe psychological damage in cases where the attack was accompanied by horror, terror, torture and intimidation, especially where victims were constantly threatened with imminent death. The son of victims who were brutally murdered on their farm in 2009 shares how finding his parents’ bodies still affects his daily life: ‘Every day of my life, I recall even the smallest details of what I saw when I discovered my parents.’38 He continues by saying that the murders have left him feeling totally helpless and that no therapist can empathise adequately with his situation.
Secondary victims of attacks may also include employees who are left without any income as a result of the loss of production or because the owners may have decided to sell the property. Farms not only provide employees with income, but also a place where they can live and care for their families. These people can therefore be viewed as the silent victims because they are indirectly affected to a great extent. Having to relocate or being unable to provide for their families may leave them feeling uncertain and forgotten.
MOTIVE
Arguably the most controversial issue on the topic of farm murders is the question of motive. Why are these attacks committed? What did the attackers have in mind when they planned these attacks? What could have happened prior to these attacks that would have nullified the attackers’ need for taking such action? Unfortunately the question of motive is more complex than it might seem at first glance. For that reason we will dedicate an entire chapter (Chapter 8) to this topic.
Mariandra Heunis, widow of Johann Heunis (43), with her children Mieke, Majandré, A.J. and Mischa participating at the Black Monday commemoration for the victims of farm murders.
Photo: Reint Dykema
‘They kept threatening me. They saw the charity box for Border Collie Rescue. The godfather asked me for a can opener. I said I don’t know where it was. That’s when he stabbed me the first time. At that moment, I realised that they meant business and that this was serious.’
CHAPTER 8
The question of motive
‘We are definitely under the impression that a third force is organising something,’ says Thys Odendaal of the Vryheid Agricultural Union. ‘And that is why we are now calling on the police to come and investigate these issues. Because we clearly feel that there is something political behind these murders, or it is about the land and land claims.’1
Probably the most controversial issue regarding farm murders is the question of motive. The controversy regarding attempts to answer the question as to why these attacks take place can largely be attributed to the unconcerned attitude of many officials in the South African government and the Department of Police (DP) in particular. The lack of sufficient information compels people to draw their own conclusions and the malicious arguments that we often hear from senior people in government add fuel to the suspicion that there might be more behind these attacks than meets the eye.
The debate regarding the underlying motive behind farm attacks is usually between the argument that these are simply acts of criminality where the overwhelming intention is to steal,2 as opposed to the view that there is some underground force or a conspiracy that promotes these attacks. Those who make the criminality argument are unable to explain the excessive levels of brutality and torture that have become a characteristic of farm attacks, while those who make the third-force argument are unable to provide proof for their claims.
The proponents of the criminality argument are usually accused of being naive, while the proponents of the third-force argument are accused of being conspiracy theorists.
In this chapter, I will point out the problems with both of these arguments and explain what I believe should be done regarding the question of motive and also what I believe the appropriate response should be in an attempt to answer this question with the available information.
CLAIMS BY FARMERS
The view expressed by Odendaal above is one that is held by many farmers in South Africa. Those who are not convinced of a third-force involvement are certainly open to the possibility that it might be the case. Many, perhaps even the majority of farmers, believe that political factors such as ideological views, stigmatisation of white farmers and land reform play a major role. An opposing view has, however, been expressed, not by farmers themselves, but by organised agriculture. Francois Strydom, CEO of Senwes, says that farm attacks are not racial in essence and that people should stop saying that, because by doing so would only serve to tear South Africa apart even further.3
During the research conducted by my colleague Lorraine Claasen, of the AfriForum Research Institute (ANI), one of the questions she asked the victims was what they believed the motives of their attackers to be. Claasen found that 56,9% of the victims believed that their attackers were motivated by greed, while another 41,4% believed that they were either motivated by racial hatred, wanted to commit revenge, to intimidate them as landowners, to instil fear or that they were paid by a third party.
The study also included the possibility of secondary motives or facilitating factors. In responding to a different question, 11,1% of the victims said that they believe that government’s land-reform process undoubtedly played a role in motivating the attack, while another 19,4% believed that it could have played a motivational role to a lesser degree.
From Claasen’s research, only 19,5% of the attackers were known to the victims and only 12,2% were employees. It has been made clear in this book that there are many cases in which farm workers are also attacked and murdered. They often rush to the scene to assist their employers in fighting off the attackers, for example Elias Skosana (70), who attacked the people who had attacked his employer, Hennie Gerber (72) in August 2017 near Sundra, Mpumalanga.4
Table 9: Victims’ perception of motive5
CLAIMS BY THE SOUTH AFRICAN GOVERNMENT
The South African government has repeatedly stated that the majority of farm attacks happen as a result of labour disputes and the exploitation of farm workers and that these attacks are mostly incidents of revenge. This argument is put forth by the South African government as a justification for why farm attacks should not be regarded as a priority.
At a meeting of the Priority Committee on Rural Safety, Teresa Yates, a representative of the Department of Land Affairs (DLA), proclaimed that farm murders happen as a result of farmers evicting their workers from their land and exploiting them. Yates was asked by the Committee to provide evidence for her claims, to which she responded that she would bring it to the next meeting. The point was then added to the agenda as an unresolved matter. At the next meeting Yates was asked to provide feedback, to which she responded that she would bring it to the next meeting. This happened several times before she eventually stopped attending
those meetings. She was then replaced by another representative of the Department, who was asked for feedback on this unresolved matter. He stated that he did not have any knowledge of the claim, but that he would get the information and provide feedback. At the next meeting he was not able to do so. The matter remained on the agenda. Eventually, the Department stopped attending those meetings altogether and no evidence for the claim was ever provided. ‘They put a bunch of hogwash on the agenda,’ says Johan Burger, who was the Chairperson of that meeting at the time, ‘but the moment when they are asked to prove it, they disappear. And this is the rhetoric that you get out there (in the political arena).’6
The sentiment that labour-related issues are the major cause for farm attacks was pertinently expressed by the Minister of Police, Nathi Mthethwa, in 2012. Dirk Hermann, Deputy General Secretary of Solidarity at the time, responded that Mthethwa’s figures were a thumbsuck, bringing to his attention that the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks found in 2003 that only 1,6% of farm attacks had been committed as a result of labour-related issues. The agricultural economist Herman van Schalkwyk stated the figure to be 1,25%.7 Mthethwa did not respond. The South African government, however, continued to use this figure.
In 2014, the then Deputy Minister in the Presidency, Obed Bapela, re-emphasised: ‘We find that most of the issues of the killings are labour-related in many respects. And then also others are because of the ill treatment that people go through and they then come back and [take]revenge. But there are obviously other patches where people just go in for the robbing, to go and rob.’ 8
FINDINGS BY THE COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY INTO FARM ATTACKS
In 2001 Steve Tshwete, the former Minister of Safety and Security, ordered a committee of inquiry into farm attacks.9 The report was published in 2003. As part of the investigation, the Committee conducted interviews with investigating officers and perpetrators. They arrived at the conclusion that farm attacks are overwhelmingly incidences of robbery. An evaluation of 2 631 cases in the database on farm attacks of the National Operational Coordinating Committee (NOCOC) found that in 89,3% of the cases the motive was clearly robbery, while intimidation was the motive in 7,1% of the cases. It was also found that politics or racial hatred was the motive in about 2% of the cases.10
Table 10: Motivations for farm attacks, according to the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks: 200311
This study has been used since its publication to shrug off any concern about political or racial motives on the topic of farm murders in South Africa. Ironically enough, those who support these findings tend to also argue that farm attacks are largely a result of labour-related incidents, while the study finds that farm attacks motivated by labour-related factors are even less frequent than those motivated by political or racial factors.
While the value of this study is not to be underestimated, many of the conclusions drawn from the finding that 89,3% of farm attacks were motivated by robbery are fallacious, misleading and may even be a barrier in the way to addressing farm attacks.
CRITICISM ON THE FINDINGS
I believe there are at least ten reasons why the findings of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks regarding motive should not be accepted at face value.
The inclusion of intimidation as a motive is troublesome, since intimidation is a means to an end and cannot be regarded as a motive as such. A person can be intimidated to hand over his belongings, to fill the attacker with a sense of satisfaction due to political or racial motives or to commit revenge for whatever reason. Intimidation can also be executed in response to exploitation or other labour-related factors (see Chapter 13). The point is that intimidation cannot be counted as an independent motive alongside motives such as robbery, political or racial or labour-related motives. Doing so only serves to distort the findings.
Significant weight is attached to what convicted murderers say their motives were. The possibility of dishonesty about motives is summarily dismissed in the report.12 The possibility of a political agenda that is deliberately withheld from the interviewer is not considered. One could even argue that, had the attacker been motivated by labour-related factors, they would be up front about this in a way to shift the blame to the victim. However, had they been motivated by political or racial factors, they would rather state that they went there to steal. To argue that you committed a farm attack because you were poor and hungry and you wanted to steal is a stronger ‘political argument’ than to simply state that you committed the crime in the execution of your political ideology or because you are a racist.
While the possibility of multiple causes is acknowledged in the report,13 this is not considered several pages later when the report concludes that the motive was ‘clearly robbery’ in 89,3% of the cases. This is a classic example of the fallacy of the single cause,14 also known as oversimplification or causal reductionism. The conclusion ignores the obvious fact that a person who hates white people or who is influenced by songs such as ‘Kill the Boer, kill the farmer’ may also murder a white person with the intention of stealing his property. In such a case, the purpose may still be said to be robbery, while a variety of other motives may have led to the eventual committing of the crime. Put differently, a person may harbour racist beliefs or political motives subconsciously. When Knowledge Paulus Mandlazi was charged for committing five farm murders, he responded in court that he had murdered these people because he wanted their money. He added that ‘my hate for white people made me do it’ and that he regarded murdering white people as merely ‘going to work’. However, the judge found that there were no racial motives in this case and that these crimes were committed only with the intention to steal.15 This case is also dealt with in Chapter 11.
The severe levels of violence and even torture that accompany many of these attacks are not sufficiently considered in the finding regarding the motive of farm attackers. While a study about the percentage of cases in which the victims of farm attacks have been subject to torture has not yet been undertaken, observers are virtually unanimous in their conclusion that farm attacks are severely more brutal and grotesque than most other crimes in South Africa. In many of the torture cases mentioned in Chapter 4, the conclusion could still be made that the attackers went there with the intention to rob or steal. After the brutal slaughter of the Potgieter family, the attackers testified in court that they had murdered them with the intention to steal, and their stated version on what their motive was, was generally accepted. This, despite the fact that during the attack, Attie Potgieter (40) was stabbed 151 times with a panga (machete), a knife and a garden fork in full view of his daughter, Wilmien (2), and wife, Wilna (36), before they were executed with a gunshot in the head. After the attack, the attackers placed a sign on the front gate on which was written ‘We have killed them. We are coming back.’16
The drastic discrepancy between the extreme levels of violence committed during these attacks and the small value of stolen items is ignored in this finding. If a person were to torture a farmer for several hours before fleeing with his wallet, and then told the police afterwards that he went there to steal the man’s property, the motive would be counted as robbery. It is glaringly suspicious and irresponsible to simply accept robbery as the only motive in such a case.
The observation from crime scene cleaners that black farmers are not subject to the same levels of torture as white farmers17 is almost never considered in discussions about farm murders and particularly not in attempts to determine the motive behind these attacks.
The fact that in many of these attacks the items that have been stolen (especially vehicles) were simply abandoned shortly after the attack, is often not considered when concluding that the motive was merely to steal. Several examples are mentioned in Chapter 4.
If a motive of mere robbery results in the levels of torture that are often executed during farm murders, the implication is that there is nothing out of the ordinary about the torture of victims during robberies in general. It is sometimes s
tated that the torture can be explained by the fact that farmers live far away from their neighbours and the nearest police stations. However, this argument is also based on the presumption that torturing during robberies is not out of the ordinary and that the distance from other people is the only reason why robbers do not torture their victims in general. It should be noted in this regard that one of the most brutal farm tortures to date – that of Alice Lotter (76) and her daughter Helen (57) – occurred several hundred metres from the nearest police station (see Chapter 4).
The notion that stealing is the main motive is also averted by the observation that, in many farm attacks, the victims are either lured from the house, or the attackers wait for them to leave the house, upon which they are attacked. It is common for farm attackers to wait for their victims to return home from church or some other event, before they are surprised and immediately confronted with violent attacks. The ambushing of victims where the opportunity existed to break into the house while the victims were not at home, is not reconcilable with the notion that the motive was simply to steal.
The possibility of secondary motives or facilitating factors is not considered in the report. A person can commit a farm attack with the primary motive to steal, but also chooses a particular target due to racial, political or other factors.
The point is clear: While the findings of the report by the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks cannot be dismissed outright, the fact that its findings on the motives of farm attacks have not been scrutinised for 14 years may have restricted the debate on farm attacks significantly.
It is also known that assassination in general, but political assassinations in particular, has been on the increase in South Africa. While the actual figure remains unknown, 159 assassinations were reported in 2017 – a figure up by 36% from 2016 (a year in which 117 assassinations were recorded) and up by 346% from 2012 (46 assassinations).18 Assassination Witness, an organisation recording criminal hits and their impact on South African society, found that the taxi industry accounted for the largest number of hits (43%), followed by the political (22%) and organised crime (22%) categories. Hits that fall in the personal category represent the smallest proportion of the cases (13%).19