The inquiry into the disappearance of Johannes KAKUVA, which resumed in the Windhoek Supreme Court on 1 February 1983, has brought to light further evidence of systematic police brutality and torture of detainees.
The case arises from action brought by Kakuva's wife and brother against the South African Minister of Police and the Administrator General of Namibia. The application seeks a declaration that Kakuva may be presumed dead.
Kakuva disappeared after being detained by security police on 4 August 1980. He was one of a group of 25 people arrested and taken to the police cells at Opuwo in the Kaoko region. They were interrogated in connection with SWAPO guerilla activities in the area. In sworn affidavits submitted to the Windhoek Supreme Court in November 1981, a number of the detainees gave detailed descriptions of torture inflicted on them, and alleged that Kakuva had died in police custody as a consequence of torture.
The security police denied all allegations, claiming that Kakuva had agreed to act as a police informer. He had either absconded or been killed by SWAPO guerillas during an arranged attempt to make contact with guerillas, the police claimed.
In October 1982, the presiding judge ruled at a hearing in the Windhoek Supreme Court that the court could not arrive at a finding of improper conduct by the police on the basis of statements submitted, and that both sides in the dispute could call witnesses for oral evidence.
During the resumed hearing in February 1983, the secrecy surrounding police operations and the fate of Namibia's detainees became evident. None of the 25 arrests in the Kaoko region were reported at the time. The maltreatment inflicted on the detainees partially came to light a year later as a result of the action started by Kakuva's relatives. The full extent of torture began to be exposed as witnesses recounted their experience in court.
Demands by counsel for Kakuva's relatives that documents relating to the detentions, and police reports allegedly proving that Kakuva had agreed to act as an informer, be produced in court met with systematic obstruction by counsel for the respondents. The latter insisted that detention orders in terms of Proclamation AG9 were secret. He further stressed that 'the whole operation of the security police and details of how they worked should be a secret'. He conceded that the documents could be used in court, but should not be made public because they 'would help the enemy'.
A police officer charged with investigating the allegations of assault told the court that, during his visit to Opuwo in October 1981, he had not been able to find a list of the detainees held in late 1980. No official records had been kept; files containing notes on the detainees were classified as secret.
Napeheri NDERURA, a key witness called by counsel for Kakuva's relatives, had already described the details of his arrest and torture in a written affidavit. He repeated his account of how Kakuva was thrown on to him after being tortured, and failed to react when buckets of water were poured over him. Kakuva had stopped breathing. Nderura was taken away and never saw Kakuva again.
Nderura added in his testimony that he was kept blindfolded in a toilet for a week. He had to lean against a wall if wanted to sleep. His blindfold was only removed when he was given food. He was given no water to wash himself for the entire period.
Nderura was then taken to a tent where he was kept for two months and five days, together with the other detainees. They were tied to each other in pairs, as well as being tied to a pole in the middle of the tent.
During his four months in detention, Nderura was never visited by a magistrate or given a legal reason for his detention. He was taken to hospital for treatment of the wounds sustained during assaults by the security police, but was not allowed to speak to a doctor. In early December 1980 he was fined five cattle by a tribal court and released.
Similar accounts of assault and torture were given by Gustav HAO, Mr. KAPIKA, David KATJIPOSE (69) a herdsman, Petrus MBAUMBA, Tijituvo NDONDO and Obed NGAVIRUE (63), a herdsman. All were blindfolded, whipped and beaten while lying handcuffed on the ground, and asked whether they had given food to SWAPO guerillas. Ndondo recalled that Katjipose became hysterical after being tortured, bumping his head against the wall, shouting the names of his relatives and screaming that he was being killed. The other prisoners had to tie him up to prevent him from hurting them.
While they were being kept in the tent, some of the prisoners' wounds started to fester, and had to be treated by the men themselves, Ndondo said. Several of the witnesses said they were still suffering from the effects of the beatings they received in 1980. Dr. Kenneth Abrahams, a medical doctor, told the court that he had examined three of the former detainees in February 1983. He had found scars on Katjipose's buttocks which were fully compatible with his claim that he was caned during detention.
Mbaumba, who said he had lost weight and suffered from pains in his chest and legs, also had scars compatible with being beaten. He also had painful swellings on his fingers and could not grip normally with his right hand. Nderura's injuries, including scars on his shoulderblade and elbow, also confirmed that he had been beaten.
Dr. Abrahams said that the injuries examined by him were not caused by any natural disease but were typical of injuries which could have been caused by blows dealt to parts of the body with a blunt object.
A Windhoek architect who visited Opuwo in December 1982 to survey the area where the detainees had been held told the court that the room in which they had been kept for some of the time was unfit for human habitation. It was so small that they could hardly stand upright. There was no natural light or cross ventilation. He also pointed out that new detention barracks had been built, replacing the tent in which the detainees had been held. Describing what he referred to as new torture chambers, he said there were two windowless cubicles inside an enclosure surrounded by barbed wire. In between the cubicles a hole had been dug in the ground, lined with brick and cement. It was the size of a human body, and could be covered up with a corrugated iron sheet. He implied that detainees might be kept in this hole.
The case was continuing in March 1983, hearing witnesses called by the state.
