In November 1984 first reports of a major political trial indicated that after a pause of some eighteen months the South African regime had decided to use the courts again as part of its repression of SWAPO. Two alleged combatants appeared in the Windhoek Supreme Court on 21 November to face a number of serious charges, including murder, which could lead to the death sentence. The last reported trial of a SWAPO fighter was that of Angela MWAALA in May 1983.
The opening stages of the current trial revealed details about the effects of detention in Namibia and exposed some of the difficulties faced by political prisoners in obtaining adequate legal defence. Veiko Paulus NGHITEWA, aged 24, and Sam MUNDJINDJI, aged 28, had been in custody for over a year by the time they were eventually brought to court. During all that time they had been held in solitary confinement, a fact which was to have an immediate effect on the course of the trial.
In spite of tight security at least forty of the men's supporters, some wearing SWAPO badges, managed to attend the first full day's hearing on 27 November. At least another thirty were refused admission by security police. As they left the court Nghitewa and Mundjindji saluted the crowd with clenched fists. On subsequent days security was reportedly handled by security guards rather than police. They checked every entrance to the building and carefully monitored all those entering.
The two men were not charged with contravening the specific 'security' legislation applicable in Namibia but instead with three common-law offences: murder, kidnapping and robbery with aggravating circumstances. Common-law charges are used for political prosecutions in both South Africa and Namibia. The regime refuses to treat captured combatants as prisoners-of-war and attempts instead to deal with them as ordinary criminals. During the preliminary court hearing in November no detailed charges were put to Nghitewa and Mundjindji, nor were they asked to plead. All the evidence was concerned with the mental condition of the two defendants.
The charges relate to the disappearance in June 1983 of Martin Shaanyenange, a radio reporter and announcer with the South West Africa Broadcasting Corporation (SWABC). Shaanyenange was attached to 'Radio Ovambo' at Oshakati and was reported missing after a weekend trip to his family home at Eenhana in the north-east of the Ovambo bantustan, near the border with Angola. Press speculation at the time suggested that he had been abducted. After initial contradictory reports from SWATF which first claimed and then denied that Shaanyenange's body had been discovered in Angola, no further details about the investigation appeared in the press.
No press reports at all were published about the detention of Nghitewa and Mundjindji. According to trial records they were detained in the Ovambo bantustan war zone in July and August 1983. However, the periods they spent in solitary confinement were set at 16 and 13 months for Mundjindji and Nghitewa respectively. One report said that Nghitewa's arrest followed a motor accident when he collided with an army vehicle.
TORTURE
During the entire period of their detention the men had no access to a lawyer. Their representative was first able to contact them on 15 November, 1984, with the result that they were not able to prepare their defence case before the opening of initial proceedings. Defence lawyers were obliged to request a further delay in the trial in order to properly consult with the accused. The course of the hearing itself placed further obstacles in the way of the defence — the accused were remanded for 30 days to a South African mental hospital.
The period of detention where only the police have access to detainees has been crucial in many South African political trials, conducted under the same procedures, in providing evidence for conviction — usually in the form of incriminating statements or admissions obtained after long periods of isolation or torture. Experts are agreed that solitary confinement is in itself a form of torture as severe as giving electric shocks.
Between 27 and 29 November the State heard evidence about the mental health of the two men who, according to one report, 'sat quietly, appearing almost listless and indifferent to their surroundings'. The defence submitted a report from Alma Hannon, a lecturer in psychology at the University of the Witwatersrand who had examined Nghitewa and Mundjindji. Her statement was a telling indictment of torture by solitary confinement and included strong indications that the men had been subjected to physical as well as mental abuse.
Hannon's report stated that both men exhibited symptoms which were well documented effects of prolonged solitary confinement: in particular, a difficulty in concentrating. Mundjindji suffered from short-term memory loss and uncontrollable thoughts. He found it difficult to concentrate or to follow questions, which had to be repeated for him. His thoughts, described as confused and non-sequential, were dominated by a dread of being beaten, being shocked with electricity or dying at the hands of the police. Based on evidence from interviews she had held with over one hundred people previously detained by the security police, Hannon declared Mundjindji's subjective state was 'without doubt the result of conditions of detention in isolation'.
Nghitewa, she reported, was suffering from hallucinations. He too had difficulty in concentrating. Furthermore he had often contemplated suicide while in detention. Elsewhere, Mundjindji was reported as having tried to kill himself. In addition to his mental symptoms, Nghitewa suffered from an ear infection which required medical attention.
The prosecution acknowledged the disturbed mental state of the men but said it was irrelevant as to what had caused it. Lawyers for the two sides disagreed about the appropriate course of action. The defence requested a short postponement so that Hannon could give evidence in person. Her written evidence suggested the men's mental condition was a temporary one from which they could 'substantially recover' within a month and 'fully recover' within two. In line with this the defence requested a postponement only until December so that the men could prepare their case.
The Deputy Attorney General on behalf of the prosecution requested a postponement until February 1985, so that the defendants could undergo a period of 30 days psychiatric observation. The defence lawyer opposed this on the grounds that it would further delay his opportunity to consult with the men.
On 29 November Judge Mouton postponed the trial to 5 February and remanded the men to the Oranje Hospital in Bloemfontein for 30 days observation by a panel of psychiatrists. He referred them there in terms of Section 77 of the Criminal Procedure Act which may be invoked when it appears to the court that 'the accused is by reason of mental illness or mental defect not capable of understanding the proceedings so as to make a proper defence'. In view of the seriousness of the charges, which could result in a death sentence, the panel empowered to carry out the enquiry would usually consist of the medical superintendent of a mental hospital designated by the state, a psychiatrist not in the full-time service of the state, and a psychiatrist appointed by the accused. Earlier, the superintendent of the Oranje Hospital was quoted as being of the opinion, on the basis of the psychologist's report, that psychiatric treatment might be necessary. It is not clear whether Mundjindji and Nghitewa may be forced to undergo treatment whilst under observation.
