Many people under 18 years of age appeared in courts in South Africa during 1981 on charges arising out of political activities.
In several major trials involving charges of Terrorism or Sabotage juveniles appeared both as defendants and as state witnesses. During the same period many hundreds were tried on charges like Public Violence and Riotous Assembly arising out of the mass protests of 1980.
The large number of trials of juveniles continues a pattern established in 1976. It reflects the part played during recent years by the youth in resistance to apartheid and the struggle for liberation.
Young people who actively oppose apartheid face the same repressive powers of the regime as do adults. Many have spent long periods, up to several months, in detention under the security laws before appearing in court as defendants or witnesses. This has exposed them to severe pressure and sometimes torture. In some cases this has contributed to convictions of themselves and others. In other cases young people have faced prison sentences rather than testify against friends or colleagues.
Information about the extent of recent trials involving juveniles is far from complete. Trials in general are only partly reported in the South African press, but where juveniles are concerned there is even less information. The names of juveniles appearing in court are not made public. If defendants are under 18 then in camera proceedings are the norm, although defendants often request otherwise. Proceedings are also often held in camera in order to prevent identification of juvenile state witnesses.
The scale of the apartheid regime's use of the courts to repress the resistance of young people can be gauged from statistics published for earlier years (see Box). During the three years from June 1976 at least 8,200 juveniles were convicted on charges officially described as being concerned with 'public safety and good order'.
DETENTION AND THE COURTS In the four and a half years since 1977 to mid-1981, over 700 juveniles were detained under various security laws. On the basis of the official figures and reports of various cases in FOCUS, it appears that of the 700 detained, around 230 were subsequently charged, and 100 appeared as state witnesses (FOCUS 35 p.2; Debates 6.6.79, 9.2.81, 7.8.81).
The effects of detention without trial are well documented. But it is relevant in this context to cite a recent comment by a South African academic legal authority. Professor Dugard of the University of Witwatersrand said of the Terrorism Act, under which many juveniles have been detained, that it was so horrific that few people had been able to grasp its severity. He said that detention without trial was a form of sensory deprivation which was regarded as mental cruelty in most of the world (RDM 13.6.80).
Legal procedures in South Africa establish a direct connection between what happens in the courts and what happens to detainees in the hands of the security police. The connection has been strengthened by amendments since 1977 to the Criminal Procedure Act and the Internal Security Act. Legal procedures have been even more firmly weighted in favour of the State. In particular the effects of detention without trial on both defendants and state witnesses can be more fully exploited to secure convictions.
On the one hand the legal status of statements made by defendants during detention has been enhanced: conviction is now possible on the basis of a defendant's confession alone, and admissions of guilt made during detention are assumed to have been freely given. On the other hand, the powers to hold potential state witnesses in detention have been increased ('Repressive Legal Procedures' FOCUS 34 p.11).
These developments have resulted from the attempt to suppress political opposition by means that have the appearance of legal process. Prosecutions for such 'crimes' depend extensively on 'confessions' by defendants and statements by people turning state witness. Detention without trial plays a major part in forcing such confessions from people, juveniles as well as adults.
There are extensive indications in the form of statements by defendants, of pressure and torture applied to juveniles in order to extract incriminating statements. Some of these are cited below (see also Appeal by Adam Masake (FOCUS 35 p.2) and RDM 7.11.80; CT 19.12.80, DD 17.10.80, 19.2.81, 8.8.81).
JUVENILES CONVICTED IN THE COURTS 1976–1979 As a result of participation in mass protests many juveniles have been brought to court in recent years. The figures set out below are for charges of Unlawful and Riotous Assembly, Sabotage, Inciting or Promoting Racial Unrest, Malicious Damage to Property, Public Violence, or Arson. The figures are for 1 July to 30 June in each case.
[Table omitted]
In the year 1978/9 there were 16,707 convictions: the Department of Statistics only issued details of the ages in the case of 11,660 of those convictions, which included convictions of 2,335 juveniles. In the three years following June 1976, therefore, out of 44,300 convictions on charges concerning 'public safety and good order' at least 8,200 were of juveniles. At least 96 of these juveniles were convicted of sabotage, which carries a minimum penalty of five years imprisonment. (South African Institute of Race Relations Annual Survey: 1977 p.93, 1978 p.67, 1980 p.246; FOCUS).
The figures do not include prosecutions under the Terrorism or Internal Security Acts.
JUVENILE STATE WITNESSES Potential state witnesses can be detained until a trial ends, provided only that the trial begins within six months of the date of detention. The laws used are the Criminal Procedure Act (Section 185) and Internal Security Act (Section 12). Witnesses may be kept incomunicado and are allowed only one visit a week by a visiting magistrate. Some juveniles have appeared as state witnesses after detention under the Terrorism Act. ('Laws used to detain people' FOCUS 33 p.4).
Those who despite the pressures, refuse to give evidence against friends or colleagues, face a prison sentence, as do those who make statements in court which differ from those made to police during detention (see below).
SOME RECENT TRIALS INVOLVING JUVENILES The following examples illustrate what is described above.
OSCAR MPETHA AND OTHERS Charges: Terrorism and Murder (FOCUS 34–70). There are five juveniles in this trial which may continue until 1983. The case has featured extensive evidence by juvenile witnesses. Several of the accused and witnesses spent long periods in detention under the Terrorism Act.
The first witness was a 15 year old girl. She spent the period from August 1980 to December 1980 in solitary confinement. After further detention in the company of other state witnesses she was allowed home for the first time after giving evidence in May 1981. Giving evidence in camera, because of her fear of ostracism by the community and reprisals, she told the court she 'had been worried about being detained alone in a big cell away from her parents. She said she had not been worried about the case, but knew she had to stick to her statement to the police to be released. (CT 8/16.5.81).
A 16 year old girl witness said she had been assaulted by security police over a period of two days after her arrest, and said she gave answers to please her interrogators even though she had known nothing of certain events. She said she had been beaten, hit, kicked and not allowed to go to the toilet (FOCUS 37 p.4).
MOTLHABAKWE AND OTHERS Charges: Terrorism and Arson (Focus 35, 36). Several youths presented state evidence. In June 1981 a 17 year old youth — arrested in February 1981 said that he felt he was 'going mad' because of being held in solitary confinement so long. He told the court that he felt he was still under the control of policemen in court (FOCUS 36 p.6, S 12.6.81).
THIRTY TWO STUDENTS Charge: Public Violence (FOCUS 33). A young girl state witness said that a state- ment incriminating one of the accused was false and that she was beaten up and forced to make the statement. The accused were all acquitted. The witness and another young girl who denied a statement made to the police were charged with perjury (DD 27.11.80).
NINE QUEENSTOWN YOUTHS Charge: Sabotage (FOCUS 36–38). The trial arose out of incidents during the school boycott in June 1980. Four youths (three aged 17 and one aged 15) were convicted of sabotage. Sentencing them the magistrate said that he was applying the minimum sentence, which left him no option but to send them to jail for five years.
During the trial a school boy witness whose age was not given denied the truth of a statement he had made to the police. He said 'They hit me so that I should tell lies. What I have told now is the truth'. The prosecutor applied for the arrest of the youth on a perjury charge (DD 9.5.81).
