Kill the Boer

by Ernst Roets

  INCAPACITATED DOG UNIT

  When Venessa Stafleu (34) was murdered in front of her children (3 and 5 years old) on their farm near Randfontein in Gauteng on 30 April 2012, the children had to hide from the attacker. After some time, they ran across the farm in the middle of the night towards the farm of their grandfather, Corrie Nel.

  ‘The crime scene was chaotic,’ recalls Nel. The dog unit was on the scene to take the scent and pursue the attacker, but they did not have any lights or torches with them, so they could not do anything. The investigating officer only received the file two weeks after the incident.4

  Venessa’s alleged murderer fled to Lesotho and the SAPS was not prepared to take steps to ensure that he was extradited. Nel has been attending various events relating to farm attacks in order to get someone who is able to assist to ensure that justice will be done to Venessa’s murderer.5 ‘The police said that they would catch him when he comes back to South Africa,’ says Nel. ‘I’m considering suing the National Police Commissioner and the Minister of Police,’ says Nel. ‘[Shrien] Dewani, who allegedly had his wife murdered in South Africa, was fetched from England at great expense.’6

  DISAPPEARANCE OF FORENSIC EVIDENCE7

  David (48) and Bernadette Hall (44) were attacked on their farm near Fochville in Gauteng on 20 February 2013, as they went out to milk the cows at 06:00. Five suspects came walking from the maize field in the direction of the dairy. One was armed with a firearm. David realised that they were in danger and locked Bernadette in the tank room.

  David was attacked and shot dead. Bernadette was also attacked and taken into the house, where she was tied up. She sustained several injuries during the attack. After the attack, the suspects fled with the Halls’ vehicle.

  The SAPS arrived on the scene about an hour after the attack. Some of the neighbouring farmers who were also on the scene commented that the SAPS did not have a clue what to do in order to safeguard the crime scene. Only about three hours after the attack was the crime scene cordoned off. The local farmers had to take the lead in telling the SAPS what evidence to confiscate and how to determine from which direction the attackers had come. The SAPS trotted around on the scene without taking proper notice of the pieces of evidence that were lying around. This was eventually collected by the local farmers and handed over to the SAPS.

  From the SAPS’s photo album it seems that the evidence was properly packaged and signed into the register. According to the proof in the docket, the evidence was sent to the forensic laboratory in Pretoria. Statements in the docket were, however, poorly taken and the use of language in the statements is concerning. Furthermore, the DNA reports from the laboratory were not prepared for the court proceedings and could not be presented as evidence.

  Two suspects were arrested. Bernadette was asked to participate in an identification parade, where she positively identified the suspects as the people who had murdered her husband.

  However, both suspects were declared to be not guilty on all charges against them due to a lack of evidence and released. Due to the double jeopardy principle, even if the evidence in the matter were to be presented now, these two individuals could never be charged for the same crime again, as they have already been released.

  NOT RETURNING PHONE CALLS8

  At around midnight on 16 July 2012, Hibbe van der Veen (64) was attacked on his farm near Bronkhorstspruit. He had already gone to sleep at the time. It was his birthday and his cousin and his cousin’s wife, Jurie (65) and Bettie Smith (60), were with him in the house. He had been living alone on the farm since his wife’s passing in 2009.

  That evening, three attackers broke the window of one of the rooms in order to get in. They were not able to get in and then proceeded to the window of the main bedroom. Van der Veen was already awake by then and was waiting for them. The attackers fired blindly and shot Van der Veen in the stomach. Meanwhile, the Smith’s locked themselves in their room in order to protect themselves. The attackers tried to access their room, when Jurie fired a shot through the door, injuring one of the attackers before they fled the scene.

  Not far from the farmhouse, the attackers hid in the veld. An ambulance was called to take Van der Veen to the hospital. Upon its arrival, the ambulance was stopped by the attackers. The injured attacker was shoved into the ambulance and the driver was forced to take him to the hospital.

  The attacker was found in Mamelodi Hospital, where he had been treated for a gunshot wound. He was arrested. The matter was later scrapped from the roll due to a lack of evidence. It became clear the matter could not be dealt with due to poor investigative work. Forensic evidence such as blood samples disappeared, for instance. Fingerprints had also not been taken.

  Van der Veen attempted on several occasions to contact the investigating officers in the matter to assist in solving the matter, but with no success. Promises were made that feedback would be given, but this never happened.

  Van der Veen was in a coma for more than four weeks and thereafter in hospital for a considerable time. The medical costs amounted to roughly R1,4 million ($112 000). He had to sell his farm and move to a retirement village in Pretoria.

  DOCKETS DISAPPEARING

  Koos Ludeke (59) was attacked on his farm near Hoopstad in the Free State on 22 November 2017. He was overpowered by four men, armed with pangas (machetes), knives and an iron bar. The men tried to decapitate Ludeke, but he was able to fight back.

  They eventually fled when Ludeke’s wife, Delia, managed to fire off a warning shot.

  One of them was released on bail and had to pay R3 000 ($240). When they had to appear in court again, the docket was nowhere to be found. The matter was postponed again. Shortly thereafter the matter was struck from the roll and the suspects were set free, because the docket had disappeared. Ludeke was told that they would be arrested again once the docket was found. ‘I am angry and disappointed in the police. I was never informed that the men had been released. The station commander was dishonest,’ said Ludeke. ‘What message does this send to the attackers? They will think that they can do as they please, because of the police’s inefficiency.’9

  LACK OF WILL, INCAPACITY AND INCOMPETENCE

  Many of the victims of farm attacks have dreadful stories about the manner in which their cases have been investigated by the SAPS. This is probably due to a lack of will combined with the incapacity and incompetence of local SAPS members.

  ‘I knew she wasn’t conscious, but I didn’t know that she was tied up. I also didn’t know that she had a bag in her mouth.’ Robert then stumbled towards the road to call for help.

  ‘I spent about an hour next to the road. No one wanted to stop. All the trucks hooted. It was already daylight.’

  CHAPTER 20

  Prioritising farm attacks

  ‘Let me … make it clear that my opposition to farm murders does not mean I’m okay with any other murder, any more than wearing a pink breast cancer awareness icon means I feel prostate cancer is a good thing or even just less important,’ said musician Chris Chameleon in an interview in 2017. ‘Farm murders touch me personally. A friend of mine was killed on his farm this year. My uncle, a farmer, was murdered a few years ago. And I farm, and like many other farmers live in fear because of the unusual vulnerability that comes with living out in the sticks, far from help, where no-one can hear you scream out your last breath.’1

  It has been argued throughout this book that farm attacks should be regarded and treated as a priority crime. AfriForum has been campaigning for the prioritising of farm attacks since 2012. It was pointed out in Chapter 17 that farm attacks were in fact treated as a priority crime in the 1990s up until 2003, when a process of deprioritisation effectively started.

  The issue of priority crimes is not without controversy, however, since there is no broad consensus of what exactly a priority crime is. It has been argued that AfriForum’s campaign is misdirected, given the fact that there is already a committee within the South African Police Service (SAPS) wit
h a particular focus on farm attacks as a priority. This is part of the reason why it is argued that farm attacks should not only be regarded as a priority crime, but also responded to as such.

  It has also been argued in Part 1 of this book that the argument for prioritisation of these attacks should not be vested in the identity of the victims, the identity of the perpetrators, or even the political climate in South Africa. The main determining factor whether a crime should be regarded as a priority is whether that particular crime results in particular consequences that need to be prevented, and whether standard methods of policing would be sufficient to effectively combat this crime.

  Consequently it has been argued that farm attacks are unique – and require a unique counter-strategy – for at least four reasons. These reasons are:

  The frequency of farm attacks;

  The levels of brutality that often accompany these attacks;

  The unique role that farmers have to play in our society; and

  The fact that farmers live in unique circumstances.

  It has also been argued that the last of these four should be regarded as the most important reason why a unique counter-strategy must be developed. It is also the least controversial of the four.

  ‘This is a particular type of crime that requires particular attention,’ the then Deputy General Secretary of the trade union Solidarity, Dirk Hermann, said in a television interview in 2012. ‘That is why it requires specialist attention and that is also why we are demanding specialist units.’2 Hermann continues:

  This problem is however greater than the agricultural community. This is a type of war in which the state has to be involved on a much greater level, as well as the police and in certain cases – especially in the areas of South Africa’s borders – also the South African Defence Force.3

  WHAT IS A PRIORITY CRIME?

  ‘Technically speaking, there isn’t such a thing as a “priority crime”,’ explains Johan Burger.4 The concept of priority crimes developed as part of the Joint Operational and Intelligence Structures (JOINTS) within the SAPS. ‘The goal was that a certain type of crime should be treated as a priority, for which they would then have to allocate a committee,’ explains Burger. In the late 1990s farm attacks as a crime phenomenon became the task of the JOINTS.5

  Other crimes that have been regarded as priority crimes by the South African government include copper cable theft – which has been estimated to cost the South African economy R5 billion ($400 million) a year,6 rhino poaching,7 cash-in-transit robberies,8 violence against women and children,9 and gang-related violence.10 It should be noted that gang-related violence has not officially been declared a priority crime and that a national priority committee for gang-related violence does not exist, but that it is regarded as such and that particular operations to curb this phenomenon are planned and executed by the SAPS.11

  It has been argued by opponents of our campaign for the prioritising of farm attacks that farm attacks cannot be a priority crime, because farm attacks in themselves do not constitute a particular crime. This is fallacious reasoning, given that none of the above-mentioned priority crimes constitutes a crime in itself. Copper cable theft is a manifestation of theft. Rhino poaching is a manifestation of poaching. Cash-in-transit robbery is a manifestation of robbery. Violence against women and children can be a manifestation of a variety of crimes, including murder, rape and assault. The same goes for gang-related violence and, of course, farm attacks.

  On the surface, it is sometimes argued that the determining factor of whether a crime is regarded as a priority should be answered by determining if a committee exists within the SAPS that deals with that particular manifestation of crime. If this is the determining factor, then farm attacks could indeed be regarded as a priority crime, since a committee on farm attacks does exist.12 With regard to farm attacks, the existence of a committee on paper is, however, insufficient, mainly for two reasons. The first is that the committee is dysfunctional. The second is that it has been argued by various government leaders, including the Department of Police, that farm attacks are not and should not be regarded as a priority crime.13 That is why the more important question is not whether a committee for that particular crime exists, but rather whether it is regarded and responded to as a priority. When it comes to farm attacks, this is certainly not the case. Whether a crime is a priority crime is not a question of a de jure reality, but a de facto reality.14

  HOW TO PRIORITISE FARM MURDERS

  The Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (better known as the Hawks) has been established as an independent directorate within the SAPS and is responsible for combating, investigating and preventing national priority crimes such as serious organised crime, serious commercial crime and serious corruption.15 There is no doubt that farm attacks constitute a serious violent crime. Despite this fact, farm attacks are not on the agenda of the Hawks. 16

  In order for farm attacks to effectively be dealt with as a priority crime by the South African government, the following steps should be taken:

  Quarterly release of statisticsStatistics on farm attacks have become a major source of controversy, mainly due to what is perceived as secrecy by the South African government regarding farm attacks. The release of statistics on farm attacks ceased in 2003, despite a 25% increase in farm attacks revealed by the last available statistics. Since then, AfriForum’s campaigns for the release of statistics have achieved a degree of success, with statistics being released sporadically. However, statistics need to be released not merely on an annual basis, but on a quarterly basis. The absence of comprehensive, up-to-date statistics is the first major indication that a particular crime is not regarded as a priority. Quarterly statistics would allow for identifying and responding to trends as they occur.

  Continued independent researchIt is impossible to sustainably combat any unique crime without proper research. The South African government should regard ongoing research into farm attacks as a core priority. This should also be done by independent researchers and not by government officials or anyone else who may have a vested political interest in the findings of the research.

  Fulfil the commando promise – community involvementIt has been pointed out that, with the scrapping of the state-supported commando system in 2003, it was promised that the system would be replaced by an alternative structure operating in affiliation with the SAPS. It has been 15 years and that promise has still not been fulfilled. A system should be created through which the SAPS can effectively join forces with civil society and local communities in combating these attacks. AfriForum has found that civil society and local communities tend to be better organised and more up to date about the situation at ground level, and they have the ability to effectively respond to attacks, especially due to their knowledge of the terrain and the local people, among other. This could be achieved through sector policing, in combination with cooperation with and the empowerment of communities.

  Priority of the HawksFarm attacks are a form of violent crime and could fall within the scope of the Hawks. Despite the perfect fit, the Hawks have not yet taken up the issue of farm attacks as a priority.

  Partner with civil societyWithin civil society, there are a variety of organisations that have a tremendous amount of information and skills that could be shared with the SAPS regarding farm attacks. This is already happening to a certain extent. However, the extent of SAPS cooperation with civil society appears to be dependent on political mood swings and on who the National Police Commissioner is. Partnerships should be stable and consistent.

  Revise the National Rural Safety Strategy (NRSS)The NRSS is not a bad plan in general. There are, however, two major problems with the NRSS. The first is the fact that farm attacks are not even mentioned in the plan, and the second that the plan does not determine a counter-strategy with particular focus on the uniqueness of farm attacks.

  Specialist rural safety units – visibilityPursuant to a focused counter-strategy, specialist rural safet
y units must be established. These units must have a particular emphasis on farm attacks. This should include dedicated vehicles, communication systems, research and analytical capabilities, intelligence capabilities, special powers in terms of legislation, visibility operations and preventative measures.

  Holistic approachOne of the major drawbacks in the government’s reaction to farm attacks is the apparently exclusive localised focus. A holistic approach would allow for the analysis of trends and more effective preventative measures. It would also prevent disputes between local police stations over jurisdictional issues, as we have seen.

  Victim supportVictim support should be executed with a multidimensional approach. It should include the training of SAPS officers on how to interact with survivors and family members on a crime scene, for a start. It should also include a clear protocol on keeping victims updated on the progress of police investigations, referrals for counselling or psychiatric treatment, treatment during identification parades, preparing for trial, and assistance and support during trials. An overarching complaint by the victims of farm attacks is that the state is more concerned about the rights of the perpetrators than the rights of the victims.

  LegislationLegislation should be adopted in terms of which farm attacks are dealt with more comprehensively. The proposed act should include special powers to the SAPS to allow for proactive measures to prevent these attacks, as well as special powers to respond to them. It should also provide for community and civil society involvement. Penalties should be prescribed. The proposed act could also provide for the criminalisation of hate speech in which violence towards farmers is romanticised.

  Breakthrough. The author with acting National Police Commissioner Khomotso Phahlane at a press conference where farm attacks were declared a priority crime in 2016. The prioritisation was however short-lived and Phahlane was replaced as National Police Commissioner soon thereafter.