SA Farm Attack Report [06]: Victims of Farm Attacks

Report of the Committee of Enquiry into Farm Attacks, 31 July 2003

• 00: Table of Contents (PDF)
  
• 01: The Appointment of the Committee (PDF)
  
• 02: Incidence and Nature of Farm Attacks (PDF)
  
• 03: Examples of Farm Attacks (PDF)
  
• 04: Case Studies: Direct Attacks (PDF)
  
• 05: Case Studies: Land Invasions (PDF)
  
• 06: Victims of Farm Attacks (PDF)
  
• 07: Perpetrators of Farm Attacks (PDF)
  
• 08: Investigating Officers and Prosecutors (PDF)
  
• 09: Submissions to the Committee (PDF)
  
• 10: Literature Review (PDF)
  
• 11: The Farming Community (PDF)
  
• 12: Crime and Its Causes in South Africa (PDF)
  
• 13: The Criminal Justice System and Farm Protection (PDF)
  
• 14: Comparative Studies (PDF)
  
• 15: Legislation on Land and Land Reform (PDF)
  
• 16: Security on Farms and Smallholdings (PDF)
  
• 17: Trauma and its Treatment (PDF)
  
• 18: Conclusions and Recommendations (PDF)
  
• 19: Summary of the Report (PDF)
  
• 20: Oral and Written Submissions and Bibliography (PDF)

Report of the Committee of Enquiry into Farm Attacks

31 July 2003

VICTIMS OF FARM ATTACKS

INTRODUCTION

Farm Murders in South Africa (Carte Blanche 1/2) Farm Murders in South Africa (Carte Blanche 2/2)

In terms of its letter of appointment the Committee is required to interview victims of farm attacks. The victims interviewed were not randomly selected since some of the victims were contacted through representatives of the agricultural unions in the various provinces, whilst others were referred to the project team by a trauma counsellor. A few of the victims contacted refused to be interviewed because they did not want to relive the experience endured. The research undertaken with victims was qualitative and descriptive in nature.

For the purpose of this study the Committee examined 18 incidents in the provinces of Gauteng, North West, KwaZulu-Natal and Mpumalanga, involving 36 victims and 56 perpetrators. There were therefore an average of two victims per incident, and about 3 perpetrators. (The figure for the number of perpetrators was derived from the interviews with victims. In two incidents the number of perpetrators involved was unknown since the victims had been killed and no one had witnessed the attacks. A small number of these perpetrators were interviewed by Committee members.

Ten of the victims had been killed, but 19 of the survivors were interviewed. Apart from that 28 other persons closely connected to the actual victims, such as family or farm workers, were interviewed. For the sake of brevity they are all loosely referred to as victims. In the main household the farmer, his wife and children (if any) were interviewed, while 17 farm workers were interviewed. Four ‘outsiders’ (persons with no direct connection with the victims but who had knowledge of incidents in their areas) in Mpumalanga were also interviewed to obtain their perspectives. A total of 51 persons were therefore interviewed - an average of 2.8 interviews per incident.

Most of the victims were elderly people over the age of fifty years. The average age of the victims interviewed was 56 years. It should be noted that the Committee gave an undertaking to the interviewees that their names would not be used, even though most did not have any objection to it.

The farmers, their families and relations, on the one hand, and the farm workers, on the other hand, were interviewed in separate interview processes. All the respondents were interviewed in their mother tongue. For the purposes of this study the interviews with farmers and their families is discussed separately from the interviews with farm workers. This was done to ascertain the various perspectives on the same incident and not to compare responses. The incidents are given below more or less as the interviewees remembered them, and are therefore not always complete.

It became clear to the Committee that victims and other persons affected by farm attacks often became highly traumatised by the events. This matter is therefore discussed specifically in the third section of this chapter.



INTERVIEWS WITH FARMERS AND THEIR FAMILIES


Time and day of the farm attacks

Most (56%) of the farm attacks took place at the weekend. In the study more farm attacks took place on a Sunday than on any other day. Four occurred on a Monday, three on a Saturday, two on a Thursday and one each on a Tuesday and Friday. Four of the seven farm attacks that took place on a Sunday occurred before midday. The victims had either returned from church to find the attackers in their homes or had decided to stay at home instead of going to church because they felt uneasy. The attacks took place at various times on the rest of the days. Below is a typical example of farm attacks that occurred on a Sunday, when the victims returned from church and found the perpetrators waiting for them.


Case study 1

Mr and Mrs M were attacked on their farm in Mpumalanga one Sunday morning in 1999. Both of them were interviewed by the Committee on 2001-10-02.

The couple returned from church at eleven o’clock in the morning. Mrs M opened the gate to the farmyard and one of her dogs came to greet her. She got into the car and M drove around into the yard. When the car stopped in the yard the perpetrators opened the doors of the car and pointed pistols at them. There were three perpetrators. One perpetrator tried to grab M but the latter hit him twice. Mrs M was pulled out of the car and the perpetrators took her cell phone and pistol that were on her lap. The perpetrators tore Mrs M’s dress when they pulled her out of the car. They wanted the keys to the safe and Mrs M not only took this out of her handbag but she also managed to press the panic button. The victims were told to walk to the back of their house. The perpetrators told M to lie down and they tied his hands and legs with wire from the wash line. Mrs M’s hands were tied in front of her with an electric cord. She could not lie down since she had broken her leg previously.

In the meantime the neighbour, who had been alerted by the alarm call over the radio, had arrived on the farm, and when the attackers heard the car they ran away, taking the pistol, cellphone and R200. More people came; they shot at the attackers, who returned fire, and one of the attackers was shot while fleeing. He died and the other two were arrested. They were found guilty and sentenced to 20 and 28 years imprisonment. The victims had their pistol and cellphone returned to them.

Comments:

It is noteworthy that the dogs apparently did not spot the presence of the attackers on the property.

It is a common feature of this type of ambush that the perpetrators want the keys to the safe.

Circumstances of the farm attacks

In most of the incidents (72%) the victims were confronted and surprised by the attackers whilst they were inside their homes or on their property. The rest either found the perpetrators in their homes (16%), or were not in their homes when the perpetrators struck (11%). Sometimes the perpetrators knew enough about the victims to beguile them, and approached the victims under some or other pretence.


Case study 2

Mrs B (aged 62) and Mr E (47) were killed during a farm attack in KwaZulu-Natal in 1998. The Committee interviewed the survivors, Mr B and Mrs E, on 2001-10-02.

E (aged 47) and his wife came to visit the elderly B family on their farm. The families had a barbeque and the two women were busy in the kitchen, where Mr E joined them. B went to the bedroom to rest. At about 19:30 the dining room window was suddenly smashed in. A man wearing a balaclava appeared in the kitchen and started shooting wildly. Mr E was hit fatally, but threw objects at him before falling to the ground. Mrs B was also fatally hit in the head.

Mrs E describes how another gunmen forced her to her feet. She was dragged around the house by the intruders who wanted her to point out where things were being kept. She pretended that she did not know. One of them held the gun to her head and pulled the trigger twice, but the gun did not fire. She resisted when they wanted to drag her outside. After taking her cellphone and watch, they left.

In the meantime B had made an emergency call on the radio from the bedroom. The police and commando were there soon after the attack but the four attackers had escaped. Two of them were arrested some two years later. They were convicted in the Natal High Court on two counts of murder, two of attempted murder and one of housebreaking with intent to rob and robbery, and sentenced to two terms of life imprisonment plus jail terms totalling 45 years.


Case study 3

Mr and Mrs N were also attacked on their farm in Mpumalanga on a Sunday morning in 2000. The couple were interviewed by the Committee on 2001-08-03, as was one of the farm workers.

In this case the couple decided not to go to church on the Sunday because Mrs N had a feeling something was going to go wrong. The day before two men and two women had been at the gate, saying that they had heard that Mrs N baked birthday cakes to sell. Mrs N felt uneasy about these people. On the Sunday the attackers came from a local church and spoke to N. One of the perpetrators, who had a Bible in his hand, told N that he heard he made furniture. Because the perpetrator had a Bible in his hand Mr N thought he was trustworthy. N went to fetch the keys to open the gate and the shed where the furniture was kept. N walked into the shed with the perpetrators and a shot was fired. One perpetrator hit N on the head with a revolver and kicked him in the ribs. N’s hands and legs were tied and the perpetrators rolled him on the ground to the kitchen door.

When Mrs N opened the door another two attackers entered the house. They beat, slapped and kicked her. Her hands and legs were also tied. Two of the perpetrators in this case were females. One of the female perpetrators emptied the contents of the cupboards and took the victim’s jewellery. A male perpetrator took a knife out and said: ‘I am going to kill you’. Mrs N answered: ‘God loves you’, but she was assaulted further. Thereafter she and her husband were put into separate rooms - he in the bathroom and she in her sewing room. One of the male perpetrators grabbed Mrs N between her legs and made unsavoury remarks. A while later the perpetrators were heard trying to start the farmer’s truck and then there was silence.

In the meantime one of the farm workers had seen from a distance that there were strangers in the yard of his employers. He ran to the nearest neighbour and called the police. They arrived soon after and one of the perpetrators was shot dead as he fled the scene of the crime. The two female and three male perpetrators were arrested. One male perpetrator escaped from custody. One perpetrator turned state witness. The three perpetrators who stood trial were convicted and sentenced to long jail terms. The female perpetrators were each sentenced to an effective 33 years imprisonment whilst their male accomplice will stay in prison for 48 years.

Comments:

In this case study Mrs N realised that they were vulnerable the day before, when the perpetrators were scouting the target.

The case study illustrates a phenomenon that is very common to farm attacks, namely that the perpetrators observe the movements of the inhabitants of the farms and familiarise themselves with the business conducted. This generally works to their advantage and surprises the victims targeted.

Case study 4

Mrs L was attacked on her farm in Mpumalanga in 2001, and the Committee interviewed her on 2001-09-10.

Mrs L says that she went to church one Sunday morning in 2001. She was alone in the car. There were two men at a gate on the farm, which she did not find unusual because people often asked for a lift into town. They indicated to her that she should stop, but because she was alone and unarmed, she decided not to. However, she then saw that the men were armed with pistols. The one man came up to her window and shot her in the arm through the window. She realised that she had to get away and she drove off, straight to the doctor in town and from there to the hospital. Although she survived the incident, she has not recovered the full use of her hand.

There were indications that the men had been waiting at the gate for some time, pacing up and down. Mrs L feels that they must have been watching her and perhaps wanted to rob the vehicle. Although the police and the Commando reacted immediately, no-one has been arrested in connection with the matter.

Comments:

The case is a typical ambush by attackers on a farm road.

It demonstrates the vulnerability of victims when they have to slow down for a gate.

Language used by the perpetrators

The perpetrators spoke in various languages to the victims. In 17% of the cases the perpetrators spoke Zulu to each other and the victims were able to understand what was being said and participate in the conversation. In a further 22% of the incidents the victims reported that the perpetrators either spoke English or English and Afrikaans. In one case the victim says that although the perpetrators spoke Shangaan and Sotho, they did not do so very well. He in turn spoke to them in Swazi and Sotho. One of interesting things of this research was the fact that the victims, more often than not, were able to speak one or more of the African languages very well. This meant that they were able to determine whether or not the perpetrators were from the area.

In 28% of the cases the language used by the perpetrators was not known since the victims had died and there had been no witnesses present. In one incident there was no conversation between the victim and perpetrators because they shot at her without uttering a word. In another incident the victim was not physically confronted by the intruders and never spoke to them.


What the perpetrators wanted

Where the victims were present when the farm attack took place the perpetrators mainly demanded money or firearms, and they were usually able to obtain these. This occurred in 66% of the incidents. This confirms the research findings of other investigators. The largest sum of money taken from a victim in this study was R5 000. In an unusual incident a victim reports that the perpetrators stole R26 000 worth of firearms together with other household goods. In addition to taking money and firearms, the perpetrators also appropriated other items such as cellphones, watches, jewellery, CD players and Hi-Fi sets.

The case study below was the only instance where there was an overt political or racial reference.


Case study 5

Mr and Mrs V were attacked on their farm in KwaZulu-Natal during 2001. They were interviewed by the Committee on 2002-02-25.

On the night in question the couple were asleep, and awoke to find three men in the room, one of whom had a revolver. One of them said: ‘You white bastard, I want your money, I want your farm’. They took V’s wallet with money and identity documents, as well as firearms. Mrs V was roughed up, but was not seriously harmed. She was locked in the bathroom. They then took V outside, threatening to kill him first. The man who appeared to be the leader of the group said he knew that V was a member of the IFP and was serving on the regional council for the party. They took his car and left.

After the attackers had left in his car, V returned to the house to find that his wife had managed to free herself. They found that the telephone and radio connections had been cut, but they managed to find an old cellphone and telephoned the local Farm Watch.

The robbers had apparently entered via a locked kitchen door and had broken through several locked doors by the time they reached the V bedroom. Their large dog had not raised the alarm and had possibly been drugged.

The night after the incident V received an anonymous telephone call, with the caller warning: ‘White bastard, we want your farm’.

No-one has been arrested in connection with the matter.

Comments:

In 1998 intruders had also gained entrance to the house, but had fled when V had gone to investigate. In 2002 the house was also broken into one Sunday morning and in January 2003, someone broke a window, but fled when V fired a shot in the air.

Mr V feels very strongly that the attack was politically motivated. However, the suspects are known criminals, involved in hijackings. They are still managing to evade the police.

Behaviour of the perpetrators and their treatment of the victims

During 28% of the incidents the victims say that the perpetrators displayed an aggressive attitude. This was evident from the way they spoke to the victims as well as the injuries they inflicted on them. Only in one case did one of the perpetrators call the victims ‘white bastards’. In the rest of the incidents the victims described the perpetrators behaviour as nervous, highly excited, professional, unprofessional, amateurish or merciful.

In 33% of the incidents the attitude of the perpetrators towards their victims is unknown because they were killed during the attack.

In 44% of the incidents the attackers treated the victims in an inhuman manner. At times they were cruel because of the way they behaved towards their victims. In the D case the perpetrators hacked the victim’s hand with a panga during the attack. In the V matter the victims were threatened with death. The threat of sexual violence against female victims was present in three cases. Firstly, in one case the perpetrators lifted Mrs T’s dress up three times, cut off bits of her hair and told her that she was going to be raped, although this did not happen in fact. Secondly, in the N case one of the perpetrators grabbed Mrs N her between the legs and made unsavoury remarks. Thirdly, during one attack, whenever the victim pulled the blanket over herself to cover her body, one of the perpetrators would pull it away.

The perpetrators in one incident told their victims that they would not hurt them. In another incident the victim describes the perpetrators as ‘merciful’. In the other incidents the victims died.



Injuries and fatalities

In 50% of the 18 incidents, the victims were either shot at, beaten, kicked, slapped or stabbed. Ten people lost their lives in 39% of the incidents, whilst in a further 22% of the incidents the victims were unharmed. In the latter category, one of the victims was not at his home when the theft took place. One of the victims in KwaZulu-Natal was hit with a panga on his wrist; it bled profusely and subsequent to the incident he had his hand amputated. The medical costs incurred by the victims as a result of the farm attacks are enormous. Moreover, the psychological trauma suffered is inestimable. The injuries sustained by the victims in the study were similar and were consistent with those described in other reports on farm attacks. What follows is a typical example of the kind of injuries sustained by victims in these attacks.


Case study 6

Mr and Mrs T were attacked on their smallholding in Mpumalanga on a Sunday morning in 1997. The Committee interviewed them on 2001-08-23.

On the day before they had killed a snake in the domestic workers’ living quarters. On the Sunday morning the little dog ran towards the couple with his hair raised and Mr T thought that the dog had seen a snake. As he walked further, however, he was hit on the head with a panga. Mr T asked his attacker what he was doing. He answered: ‘Give me money, give me weapons’. Mrs T tried to go for help but a third attacker came and she was hit with a fist and fell to the ground. The attackers asked for the safe keys. They went into the house.

Mrs T does not know how she and her husband got into the house. Mrs T told the perpetrators that there was not much money in the safe and offered to go to the automatic teller machine to draw money. The perpetrators took a pistol and a revolver. Mrs T was hit and kicked in the mouth and they took her jewellery. When the blood stopped flowing from her husband’s wound on his head the perpetrators would kick him again. Mrs T was stabbed 18 times all over her body. Mr T’s hands were tied behind his back with wire. Mrs T had her hands tied in front of her. One of the attackers cut Mrs T’s hair when she was lying on the floor in the house. When she asked why he was doing that he said he was going to rape her. One of the perpetrators lifted her dress three times and each time she pulled it down. The perpetrator also said that he was going to burn her. Mrs T responded by saying that it would be too cruel.

The perpetrators took a jacket out of the cupboard, tore it and put it into Mrs T’s mouth. She managed to pull it out a bit in order to breathe more easily. One of the perpetrators would kick Mr T frequently, telling him: ‘I must pull you right so that you can see how she burns’. While they were doing this they heard keys rattling in Mr T’s pocket. They took the keys and left them. Mrs T says the voices of the perpetrators became faint. She thinks she and her husband might have passed out, and when they regained some consciousness, they went to the neighbours for help.



Case study 7

Mr and Mrs D were attacked on their farm in KwaZulu-Natal in 2001. The couple were interviewed by the Committee on 2001-05-28.

Mr and Mrs D have been on their farm for 20 years. On a Monday evening in 2001 Mrs D went for a ride on her bicycle. While D was shutting the glass door to the sitting room he was confronted by three attackers. One had a type of axe, one a sharpened iron rod and one a panga. They started hitting and stabbing him on the head. They also hit him on the hand, causing severe bleeding. He managed to bind up his wrist with a jersey to stem the flow of blood before he was tied up with a rope.

When Mrs D arrived back from her ride she was also overpowered. She remained calm, and told the attackers that Jesus loved them all. She kept repeating to them: ‘You are not going to hurt me’, and this seemed to calm them somewhat. They kept asking for guns and money while they were pulling Mrs D through the house. They took firearms and household articles such as radios.

The attackers locked the couple into a bathroom before leaving. Mrs D managed to climbed through the window and unlocked the door from the outside. The telephone line had been cut but she summoned help. The police responded, four or five members arriving.

As a result of the injuries D’s hand had to be amputated. They had considerable medical expenses, which were met in part by their medical aid scheme.



How the farm attacks changed lives

All the respondents were of the opinion that the farm attack had changed their lives in one way or another. They acknowledged that the attack had made them more alert and careful. The victims explained how their freedom had been taken away because they were prisoners in their own homes. In 11% of the cases the victims or their family sold the property concerned after the attack. Others remained on their property but made certain changes to the way they lived by not going out at night or by restricting access to their dwellings between sunset and sunrise. One of the farmers interviewed acquired the services of a former Koevoet soldier as a security guard for a period of six months after he had been a victim of a farm attack. Some said that the incident had made them lose trust in people, including their own workers. Others told how the farm attack had affected their behaviour and that of their children who had been present. Below is an example to illustrate this point.



Case study 8

Mr and Mrs W were attacked on their farm in KwaZulu-Natal in 1999. Mrs W was killed during the attack. Mr W was interviewed by the Committee on 2001-10-23, as was one of the domestic workers.

On the day in question the couple and their daughter went in to town in separate vehicles, leaving the domestic servant behind. In their absence three men overpowered the domestic worker and demanded money and weapons. They tied her up and locked her in one of the bedrooms before starting to ransack the house. The daughter arrived back first, and was also overpowered and assaulted. She was taken to the bedroom to open the safe, but she was unable to open the safe. When the assailants left the bedroom she managed to lock the door from the inside.

W describes how he and his wife returned to the farm. Mrs W went through the door first and W followed. An unknown man came out of the house with a firearm and pulled W into it. Mr W heard a shot fired in the house. (It was Mrs W being fatally shot in the head with her own revolver.) W was assaulted and told to get the money out of the safe. His daughter, fearing that he would be harmed, unlocked the bedroom door where the safe was. W turned the safe key in the lock but again it would not open. When the perpetrators left the room W pushed the door shut again. The attackers then fired shot through the door, hitting W in the leg, arm, shoulder and stomach. Not only had the telephone wire been cut, but also the two way radio cord.

Two men were later arrested. One died in prison, but the other one was convicted of murder, two counts of attempted murder and armed robbery. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder as well as 30 years imprisonment on each of the other counts.

Mr W says that his daughter has become introverted since the attack and that his family has been ruined by it. Mr W says that he himself has been traumatised by the incident and has taken it out on his workers.

Comments:

Mrs W used to play a pivotal role in her family, and her death obviously caused the family a great deal of grief.

It should be mentioned that W himself was wounded very seriously in the attack.

Relationship between farmers and workers


Before the farm attack

The vast majority (89%) of victims interviewed were of the opinion that they had a ‘good’ relationship with their workers. Despite the good relations, however, one of the interviewees felt that the perpetrators had been sent by someone to kill his parents. Nevertheless, these relationships had been built up over the years. In one Badplaas incident the victim’s daughter said that her mother and the domestic worker had been like sisters. Her mother had often confided in the domestic worker and was very close to her. In some instances the farmer and of his workers had grown up together. More often than not the farmer had learnt to speak one or two of the African languages therefore he was able to communicate and understand the perpetrators.

Another example of the close relationship between a farmer and his workers is illustrated by the following incident on the farm of Mr M: When the research team arrived at the farm M insisted that the interview should not be conducted without the presence of his induna. The two of them (both well into their seventies) had grown up together and they communicated in Zulu with each other. Any requests for land made by the workers to the farmer was first discussed with the induna. In fact according to the farmer’s wife, her husband rarely made decisions on his own. Although this case appears to be an exception it nevertheless demonstrates the harmony and respect that exists between the farmer and his workers.



After the farm attack

In 22% of the incidents the relationship between the farmer and his workers did not change after the attack. In fact, two of the victims described their relationship as ‘still 100%’ and ‘stronger than ever’. One added: ‘We don’t take it out on them’. Another victim said that they (the workers) suffered too. Two other victims, however, indicated that they had ‘little trust’ left in their workers. One of these victims had a suspicion that a previous disgruntled employee had given the perpetrators information about the safe in his home, because in this incident the perpetrators had said to him: ‘We know there must be more money’.

One victim, who had been severely traumatised by the fact that his wife had been shot dead by the perpetrators, said that he had taken his anger out on his workers, although at the time of the interview he felt that ‘things were back to normal’.

Another two victims described how their workers had become afraid after the farm attack and locked themselves up at night.

In one incident the farmer and his wife had not employed any workers, including any domestic servants, on their farm for the last ten years. They did all the work that had to be carried out on the farm themselves.



Call for help

Victims used various means at their disposal to obtain help. Some used a marnet radio whilst others managed to call the police and neighbours for assistance by some other means.

Most of the victims used their marnet radios to call for help from other farmers and commando members in the area. In 17% of the cases the victims called the police for assistance whilst in a further 17% of the incidents they asked their neighbours for help. In one case the victim called the army and the police. Another victim related how he struggled to get a tenant in his yard to use his cellphone in order to call one of the neighbours for help.

In an unusual incident a victim managed to press the panic button that she had and this alerted other farmers in the area to her plight. Another victim also had a panic button but did not get the opportunity to use it.

In one case the farm worker noticed that something was wrong and went to the neighbour for help, which soon arrived.

It should be mentioned that in one instance, described below under the section on trauma, two farmers who went to the assistance of someone in distress were actually shot and killed themselves. In another instance a son who went to the aid of his parents, was shot and injured very seriously.



Case study 9

Mr J (junior) and his father were attacked on their farm in Mpumalanga in 1998. The Committee interviewed Mr J and one of his employees on 2001-10-01.

J (junior) lived on the farm with his wife and children, and also his parents. They had asked Telkom to move some telephone lines on the farm and one morning very early a group of men arrived in a truck with a Telkom logo and a ladder on top. J junior was busy in the shed, overseeing the milking of the cows by the farmworkers.

J junior called his father outside to help the men, who they thought were Telkom employees. These men suddenly took out firearms, however, and said: ‘This is an armed robbery’. They pushed a gun against J senior’s back and marched him into the house. They obviously knew exactly where the safe was, walking straight there.

In the meantime one of the attackers ordered J junior to walk to the truck, but the latter grabbed the gun and a struggle ensued. J junior managed to set off the alarm on the marnet radio. When the attackers heard this, they jumped into the truck and drove off.

Reacting to the alarm, the farmers in the area immediately set up roadblocks and the attackers drove straight into one. They ran away into the maize fields, where one was shot dead and the others arrested. After their arrest they told the police that they had heard that there was a large amount of money in the safe. This, in fact, was not true, although the attackers knew exactly where the safe was and walked straight to it.


Case study 10

Mr U (junior) was seriously wounded in 2001, when he went to the assistance of his parents, who were being attacked on their farm in KwaZulu-Natal. The Committee interviewed U junior on 2001-10-24 and his mother on 2002-11-26.

One Sunday morning in 2001, Mrs U was speaking with her sister on the telephone. Her husband had just returned home after investigating a report by a worker that there were strange men in the vicinity. Upon his return some armed men entered the house after him through the kitchen door and overpowered him. Mrs U heard a noise and went to investigate, leaving her sister waiting at the other end of the telephone. She was confronted by two men, one with a gun and the other with a knife, who asked for money. They beat and pistol whipped her and dragged her through to her bedroom, where they forced her on to the bed, demanding the keys to the safe. They behaved as if they were going to rape her. She remained very calm, looking up at the crucifix about the bed and saying to the men ‘Jesus loves you’.

At this stage U junior and his brother, who also farmed in the area, arrived on the farm. They responded to a call from their aunt, who had been on the telephone to their mother and who became concerned when their mother did not return to the telephone. The sons then called the other farmers before proceeding to the their parents’ farm, where they arrived first. In a shootout with the robbers, however, U junior was shot and seriously injured, and the other son narrowly missed being shot. U junior’s life was saved by his receiving medical attention at the scene from a nurse and, while on his way to hospital, from a paramedic. His medical bill amounted to over R140 000.


Conduct of the police

The police were generally sharply criticised for their behaviour towards victims of farm attacks. Only a few victims praised the police for their efforts.
The majority of the victims (72%) interviewed described the police as ‘useless’ or ‘poor’, adding that they had ‘no confidence in them’. In 11% of the incidents the victims said that the police members who had come to the crime scene had been drunk and had smelt of liquor. In another incident the police had asked the victims if they could point out the suspects, and had failed to take a glass and knife used by one of the perpetrators for fingerprints (in spite of the victim mentioning this to the police).

One victim describes how the identity parade traumatised her. At the identity parade she was told to touch the perpetrators she wanted to point out on the shoulder. In another incident the victim says that the police ‘did nothing’, even though an informer had given them crucial information. The informer then came to the victim ten days later and gave him the information he had passed on to the police. As a result of this the victim lost all confidence in the police.

Another victim says that the police ‘got nasty’ with him because they felt that he was making too many enquiries. They told him that he wanted to take over their work.

In 28% of the incidents, however, the victims described the police as ‘professional’ and ‘fantastic’. In these cases the police handled the victims with care and took the investigation of the crime seriously. More importantly, they kept the victims informed of the process.


Case study 11

In this case Mrs H was killed during a farm attack in Mpumalanga during 2001. The Committee interviewed her daughter, Mrs B, on 2001-10-03, as well as the domestic worker.

The victim, Mrs H, was killed on a Saturday night in 2001. She was 60 years of age and lived alone on the family farm, where she had a shop. Her daughter, Mrs B, was interviewed by the Committee. She telephoned her mother on the Sunday morning, but there was no answer. She then phoned the people with whom her mother always used to go to church, but they had not seen her. Her husband then went to investigate, and he found the body of his mother-in-law, bludgeoned to death with a pick handle.

The house had burglar bars, but the security gate was bent open. The attackers ransacked the house. They took television sets, a sewing machine, cell phone and meat, put it into the victim’s car and drove off. Strangely enough, they left six weapons which were in the safe. It is unknown how the attackers got passed the victim’s four dogs.

Mrs B’s impression of the police was not very favourable. She found them uncommunicative and they did not keep her informed of any developments. Moreover, she says that when her mother’s body was removed from the house in her presence, she
wanted to remove a ring from her mother’s finger. The police told her not to do so explaining that this item had to be collected at the police station the following day. When the victim’s daughter went to the police station the next day she was told that the ring was missing. It is little wonder that she describes the police as ‘corrupt’. Although two young men of 20 were suspected of the attack, no one has been arrested.

Comments:

Incidents such as the disappearance of the victim’s rings do immeasurable harm to the image of the police.

Security measures

Before the farm attack

The victims interviewed had various security measures in place at the time of the attacks. These ranged from having dogs to burglar bars on the windows. In general, the victims had wire fences around their properties.

Dogs appeared to be the popular form of security: in 55% of the incidents the victims had dogs. In a further 33% of the incidents the victims had a marnet radio installed in their homes. In two cases the victims had a panic button connected to the radio system, although only one victim managed to use it to alert the neighbours about the attack. None of the victims interviewed had an alarm system that was linked to either a security company or the police. In one incident the victim had been given a short wave radio, but it was out of order. However, he could not afford to repair it.

Another victim said that he did not have the money to install an alarm system and a security fence. He reasoned that these would not keep perpetrators off his property in any case. One of the victims who lived on a government farm revealed that there was not much on the farm in terms of security, and it would have been rather easy to break a window.


After the farm attack

In 22% of the incidents the victims made changes to their security systems after the farm attack. Of these, two victims installed a new alarm system and upgraded the existing system respectively. Another victim erected an electric fence around his home on the farm. One victim erected a six foot fence with barbed wire at the back of the house to prevent anyone having easy access to it.

Three victims had the same security measures as before in place, however. They felt that there was no point in making any changes. In addition, another victim said that he could not afford to upgrade security on his premises. One victim interviewed was considering the possibility of erecting an electric fence around his house, but had not done so yet.

The farms of three victims had either been sold or they were in the process of being sold. Therefore, their attitude was that security concerns would have to be dealt with by the new owners.

The victims interviewed felt that, no matter how much security they had in place, perpetrators would gain entry into their homes against all odds.



Arrests and prosecutions

In 61% of the incidents the perpetrators were arrested. In 17% of these incidents three suspects were shot dead by the police or other farmers at the crime scene. In a further 17% of the incidents 3 suspects managed to escape. In one incident the Commando arrested a suspect, but he escaped minutes afterwards.

In a further 33% of the incidents the suspects were never caught by the police. This caused the victims and their families great concern and consternation.

Of the 18 incidents, 39% had been taken to court at the time the interviews were undertaken. In 22% the investigations were still in progress, while 33% remained unsolved because the perpetrators had not been arrested.

Less than half of the cases, therefore, had proceeded to court at the time the interviews. Of these five cases had been finalised while two trials were still in progress. There were 4 incidents in which the perpetrators had been charged and the court proceedings were still in process. However, in 6 incidents the perpetrators had not been arrested by the police and were therefore, unsolved. These consisted of 2 murders, armed robbery, attempted murder and assault with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

In the 28% of the incidents that were finalised by the courts the average sentence handed down to the accused was 33 years. These heavy sentences are consistent with sentences handed down in other farm attacks.



The victims’ understanding of farm attacks

The victims interviewed had different interpretations of the phenomenon of farm attacks. The most interesting aspect was that victims were often able to provide a reason for farm attacks in general, but were at a loss to explain the incident they themselves had experienced. Consequently, they speculated about the motivation for farm attacks in general.

Half of the victims (50%) were under the impression that farm attacks were generally politically motivated, citing events in Zimbabwe and drawing parallels with the South African situation. Some of the victims said ‘black people wanted white people off the land’ and that they ‘wanted to take the farms’. However, two of these victims did not think that the farm attack that they had experienced themselves had been politically motivated. The reasons they gave for their particular farm attacks were revenge by a disgruntled ex-worker and a confrontation with a local strong man.

A few farmers (33%) interviewed were of the opinion that robbery and economic reasons were the main motivation for farm attacks because the perpetrators demanded money. They added that poverty and unemployment were contributing factors. Some victims (22%) averred that the perpetrators sought revenge either against them or white people generally. One of these victims, however, was adamant that in the farm attack he had experienced the perpetrators’ motivation had been robbery because they had wanted money. Two victims were emphatic that farm attacks were not politically motivated. One of them, who was rather philosophical about it, described how people in the Middle East were ‘suffering more (than South Africans)’. He added: ‘The wheel is just turning. The previous generation had a good time in South Africa. Everything thing happens for a reason’. The rest were at a loss to explain the phenomenon.



INTERVIEWS WITH FARM WORKERS

Farm workers were interviewed in only 11 (61%) of the 18 cases investigated in this study. There were various reasons for this: Some workers were not available because the farmer did not inform his workers about the interviews; some workers declined to be interviewed; and in some cases the interviews with victims took place at court during the trial of the accused where the workers were not present. In one incident the farmer did not have anyone employed on his farm while another had relocated to the city after the farm attack.

Altogether 17 farm workers were interviewed on farms in Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal, Mpumalanga and North West Province. In one instance a domestic worker was one of the actual victims herself. The other farm workers interviewed were either witnesses to the attacks, not being involved directly, or heard of the attacks only afterwards.

The farm workers were interviewed separately from their employers and in their mother tongue. There is no indication that the employers tried to influence the farm workers in any way to give certain answers during the interviews.

The questionnaire that was used for the farmers was adapted and used for the interviews with farm workers. The questionnaire covered questions about the length of service on the farm, the circumstances surrounding the attack, the injuries sustained, the psychological effects of the attack, the relationship with the farmer before and after the attack, the relationship with neighbouring farms after the attack, security measures in place on the farm, the involvement of the commandos and farm workers’ solutions to the phenomenon of farm attacks.



Degree of involvement in the farm attack

None of the farm workers interviewed sustained any injuries during the farm attacks. In fact, the majority of the farm workers were not present during the attacks and they only learnt about the attacks afterwards. Some were in the immediate vicinity, but did not notice anything wrong until after the attack.

In two cases the workers were in the immediate vicinity and became aware of the attacks. They reacted quite differently, however. In the one instance the worker immediately went for help; in the other instance the workers hid in the barn, being of the opinion that they could not do anything.

Only in one case was a farm worker an actual victim of the attackers. This case is rather typical, however, and there are several similar examples amongst farm attacks in general.


Case study

Ms M (aged 66) was a domestic worker on the farm of Mrs H, who was killed during the farm attack in 2001 described in case study no 11 above. Ms M was interviewed by the Committee on 2001-10-03.

The deceased, an elderly woman, lived alone in the farmhouse and she was probably killed during the course of a Saturday night in 2001. The attackers gained access to the house by bending open the security door.

The domestic worker, Ms M, has worked on the farm for over forty years. She says that her employer was attacked on a Saturday evening, the day after Good Friday. Ms M spoke to the victim on the Saturday when the victim told her that she would be going to church with a friend the next day. They had coffee together.

She stayed at home on Sunday. She did not hear anything out of the ordinary. Around midday she heard a scream and ran out. She saw the employer’s son-in-law driving off at great speed. She then saw that there were signs of a break-in at the house. Within minutes the son-in-law was back with a lot of farmers and the police. He shouted at her and the gardener, accusing them of being useless.

Ms M has been badly affected by the death of her employer, to the extent of losing weight thinking about her. She describes her employer as very kind, being like a mother and friend to her. Her employer looked after all her needs. Her prayer every day is that the killers should be found and sentenced to death because by killing her boss they sentenced her to death. She adds that she will never have peace until she goes to her grave.

Comments:

The deceased’s daughter was also interviewed by the Committee. She described the relationship between her mother and Ms M as very close. They were friends.

It was very clear to the Committee that the death of her employer affected Ms M profoundly.

Case study

Mr A, aged 27, was a farm worker on the farm of Mr and Mrs N, who were attacked as described in case study no 3 above. Mr A was interviewed by the Committee on 2001-08-23.

A says that he has been on the farm since 1997. His home is not far from the farmstead. He describes how the attack took place around 11:00 on the particular Sunday. The previous day the farmer had asked him to come and look after the farm whilst they were at church. When he arrived on the Sunday, however, he discovered they were no longer going to church so he went back home. The other two people who worked on the farm had gone to visit family in the township and he decided to go to the neighbour’s house to listen to the eleven o’clock news.

While he was listening to the news he saw six people running to the farmstead. He could not see whether they had any weapons, but he became suspicious. He took his bicycle and went to the neighbouring farm to call the police. On his way to the neighbours he saw a bakkie (a truck), which he thought was a getaway car for the robbers. He waited on the road for the police and went with them to the farmhouse. They saw the bakkie driving in and out of the yard, but the police did not have any concrete evidence that the driver was one of the attackers and they let him go. They went to the farmhouse.

There were six attackers, and the police gave chase. While the police were chasing the suspects, A went into the house to check on his employers. He found both of them tied up - one in the bedroom and the other in the bathroom - and set them free. The only people who were in the house on that day were the farmer and his wife.

The farmer and his wife never used to lock the gate but they started doing so after the attack. One of the women involved in the attack was his ex-wife. He paid lobola for her in 1998 but she only stayed with him for three months then ran away. She came to the farm because she knew the farmer’s wife sold cakes and jam. At the time of the interview he was aware that the driver of the bakkie had been arrested and was out on bail but the two perpetrators who ran away were still at large.

A says that he had a very good relationship with his employers before the attack and this did not change afterwards. He thinks that the motive for the attack was money because he knows that his ex-wife is greedy. She had the habit of getting involved with men but once lobola is paid she runs away.

He is unsure if the perpetrators were able to steal anything but they had packed a lot of things such as electrical appliances and clothes in the car. They also tried to steal the van
in the yard.

He is of the opinion that in order to prevent farm attacks farm workers and farmers should work together and join the commandos.


Case study

Mr K, aged 21, was a farm worker on the farm of Mr J, whose house was burgled while they were working nearby, as described in case study no 9 above. Mr K was interviewed by the Committee on 2001-10-01.

K says that he has been on the farm since boyhood. His father disappeared when he was a small boy and when his mother passed away there was no one else to pay for his schooling and he started working on the farm. His uncle and his family also worked on the farm, but his uncle has also passed away recently.

He tells how, on the day in question, he and the other farm workers were busy milking cows when he saw a truck similar to those used by the people who fix the electricity. (He is obviously referring to the Telkom van.) They did not take any notice of it but carried on milking the cows. Nkosana (the farmer) went to the workshop with one of the men. After some time he went back to the farmhouse. They then saw that Nkosana was being pushed from behind and realised for the first time that there was a problem. They decided to hide in the kraal because there was nothing they could do.

He does not know what happened when they reached the house, but he heard Nkosazana (the farmer’s wife) speaking on the load speaker. (This was obviously the emergency frequency on the radio.) He did not understand what she was saying because she spoke in German but soon afterwards he saw a lot of cars entering the yard. He does not know if the perpetrators stole anything but he was told by Nkosana the next day that the attackers had been looking for firearms.

He was terrified after the attack on the farmer because it was something that he never thought would ever happen. Although he has heard that people broke into other farms he never thought people would come when ‘Nkosana’ was home and attack him. He describes his employer Nkosana as a very humble and peaceful person, adding that he has never dismissed anyone.


Case study

Ms B, aged 35, a domestic worker, worked on the farm of Mr W, which was attacked in 1999 as described in case study no 8 above. The Committee interviewed Ms B on 2001-10-23.

Ms B was left behind alone on the farm when the farmer, his wife and daughter went in
to town for business. While they were away Ms B was overpowered and locked into a bedroom. The attackers then ambushed the family on their return. The housewife was shot dead in cold blood. The farmer was also seriously wounded. The daughter was assaulted, but eventually escaped and went for assistance.

Ms B describes her experience as follows: At the time of the attack in January 1999 she was alone at the house. When she went to put the washing on the wash line she came across three black males. She screamed and called the gardener, but there was no answer. One of the attackers demanded money and firearms. He had a firearm in his hand. The second one had the knife in his hand. She did not see what the third one had on him. They were all very aggressive.

They forcefully pushed her into the house through the kitchen door and she lost her shoes in the process. They again demanded money and firearms and she told them that she did not know where those items were kept. The perpetrators began to look for these on their own. They walked with her around inside the house, one of them checking whether the doors to the bedrooms were locked.

The attackers then cut the telephone and radio lines that the farmers used for communications. They tied her arms with electric wire and used the farmer’s tie to bind her legs together. They then locked her in a bedroom. The farmer and his family were then attacked on their return, but she obviously did not witness any of those events.

Ms B describes her relationship with the farmer as good, but during the time following the incident things were tense and the farmer was ‘taking it out’ on the workers. She adds, however, that she could not blame him since he was traumatized. She thinks that her relationship with farmer is back to normal, however, and she describes him as ‘very nice and caring’. Ms B says that she was also traumatized because the criminals began the attack with her. She describes her life as normal after the attack although she is now very scared to be left alone at the farm. The house has since been fitted with a new alarm system.



Psychological Effects

The majority of the farm workers were psychologically affected by the attacks. When the farmer survived the incident the farm workers were generally pleased. Their greatest concern was unemployment in the event of the farmer being killed. In the incidents where the farmers were killed the workers were devastated and concerned about their future because they knew that the surviving family members intended selling the farms.

The domestic worker interviewed in case study no 8, Ms M, says that she used to be very close to her employer. She says that she has worked on the particular farm for over forty years, first being employed by the deceased’s parents and then by their daughter. The domestic worker describes her employer as her friend. They had coffee together the afternoon before she was killed. During the interview it was clear that she was very traumatised and felt that she would not be able to accept the death of her boss and friend. She was also very concerned about her future since she was over sixty years old and considered the farm her home. The daughter of the deceased was in the process of selling the farm so the domestic worker was uncertain about her place of abode.

The domestic worker in case study 6, Ms B, where Mrs W was killed, also admits that she was traumatised by the events. She had been left on the farm alone while her employers and their daughter went in to town. When she went outside to hang up the washing she was overpowered by the attackers. She says that they started with her and locked her in. She continues by saying: ‘I am very scared to be left alone at the farm since that incident’.

Whether or not the workers were present during the farm attack all of them were affected by it in one way or another.


Case study no 12

Mr S, aged 46 and Mr M, aged 28, farm workers on the farm of Mr R, were interviewed by the Committee on 2001-10-03.

The farmhouse of Mr R was burgled in 2001 while he was busy working nearby with his workers. The house had been left open by R because he was working nearby, and the intruders actually locked the doors. The house was ransacked and weapons to the value of some R26 000-00 stolen. This was therefore not a farm attack in the strict sense of the word, since there was no physical confrontation between the perpetrator and the victim.

Mr S, 46 years old, has been on the farm for just over a year and Mr M, 28, has been working on the farm 4 years. They describe how, on the particular Monday morning they were helping their employer, R, with a sick cow, which later died. While they were slaughtering the cow, they saw a Telkom van going towards the house. The farmer went to the vehicle and, when he came back he told them that they were fixing the telephone.

They went to throw the carcass away. When they returned the farmer tried to open the door to his house but discovered that it was locked although he had left it open. He could not find the keys. They looked through all the windows and saw that there were a grinder and a few other things on the floor of the bedroom. The farmer then phoned his wife and she sent someone with the keys and they discovered the burglary.

The workers never thought something like this would ever happen. They are also amazed by the fact that it looked like the people who robbed the farmer had spent some time studying the farm. This was scary for them and they are now afraid that their movements are being watched. The workers feel that, not only is the farmer in danger, but they are too. They are also glad that the farmer was not inside the house when the robbers were around. According to them he might have been killed but now they are happy he is alive and they still have their jobs.

The farmer's attitude towards them has not changed and they have not experienced any problems with other farmers. However, they were used to their employer taking things easy, but now his concern for safety is also affecting them because he does not trust anyone anymore.



Relationships with the farmers before and after the attacks

Most of the workers interviewed describe their relationships with the farmers as ‘good’ both before and after the farm attacks. However, in some cases the farmers, mindful of their safety, imposed a dusk to dawn ‘curfew’ at the farmstead. In other words, they warned their workers that they would not be answering any knocks at the door or calls for assistance after 19:00.

The domestic worker in case study 9 says that her relationship with Mr W was ‘tense’ after the farm attack. She felt that she could not blame him because he was traumatised and was taking it out on her. She understands that because she was also traumatised herself by the incident. However, the domestic worker feels that that her relationship with Mr W has returned to normal since.

In contradistinction with the relationship with their own employers, most of the farm workers interviewed identified their relationship with other farmers as a major problem. They are of the opinion that neighbouring farmers now view every black person as a suspect. They have to be careful where and at what time they walk about, and in some instances they are not allowed to visit their friends and relatives who work on other farms. Some farm workers even feel that their lives are in danger, and whenever they see a truck or car on the road they have to hide in the bushes for fear of being regarded as potential farm attackers.



The farm workers’ involvement in security measures

None of the farm workers were involved in the security measures taken by the farmers. Some did not even know what the work of the commandos entailed. They noticed the commandos rushing past them when there was a farm attack. However, as farm workers they were prevented from going near to the scene of the crime. The only time they were involved at all was when the commandos or police questioned them.

This is a very serious shortcoming in many of the case studies. In one case the farm workers saw that an attack was taking place, but it seems that they did not know what to do. In that particular instance it made little difference, because the farmer himself managed to activate the emergency channel on the radio. In the other case, however, the prompt action by the farm worker certainly led to the speedy arrival of the police and the arrest of the culprits.


Conclusions

The above case studies provide some insight into how farm workers perceive farm attacks and what impact these incidents have on farm workers’ lives. Very little is known about their fate since they are generally overlooked in discussions about farm attacks. In addition, the case studies also indicate the extent to which farm workers depended on farmers for human security. It was also found that farm workers are not part of the security network either on the farm where they work or in the broader rural community. Rural safety structures need to include farm workers since they form part of rural communities.



THE TRAUMA OF FARM ATTACKS

Victims (and this includes family and farm workers) experienced trauma related to the farm attacks investigated, whether directly or vicariously. This is an aspect long neglected in the studies of farm attacks, and the Committee regards it as so important that the subject is discussed more fully in a later chapter. In this section, the effect of trauma on the persons interviewed is discussed.

The victims displayed the typical symptoms of trauma, such as anger, hate, fear, loss of control, loss of security, guilt, emotional shock, confusion, severe panic and depression, that other victims of crime experienced. There was also vicarious trauma experienced by the farm workers and others not directly involved. The case studies presented below illustrate these symptoms. Most of them had not been to a counsellor for assistance and, in fact in many of the areas there were not any counselling service providers available. At best a few had spoken to a clergyman, but many found solace in their faith. The victims had different ways of dealing with the trauma.



Symptoms of trauma exhibited by the victims interviewed

Loss of security

The house of Mr and Mrs R was ransacked while Mr R was working nearby. (See case study no 11 above.) The R family used to live in Johannesburg and Mr R used to farm part time. They have been living on the farm for the past 10 years. In response to the question ‘How did the attack change your lives?’, Mr R said: ‘We are in a prison on the farm. Now we have electric fencing. Our social lives have changed. We don’t go out at night. I don’t trust people. I don’t trust my farm workers anymore’. As seen above in the case study, this lack of trust has even affected his workers.


Loss of purpose in life

In this case a barbeque held by two families on a farm ended in tragedy when a husband, Mr E, and a wife, Mrs B, were shot dead by the attackers, as described in case study 2 above. During an interview with Mr B, 72 years old and now without his life-long companion, he described the tremendous effect the attack had on their lives. They found it difficult to move on, and felt that there was no meaning of life.


Grief, emotional shock and guilt

In this case Mrs W was shot dead and her husband wounded seriously by attackers who waited in ambush at their home. (See case study 8 above.) Mr W says that the incident has ruined his family’s life. They used to be a close-knit family, and the parents gave their children much attention and love. The mother (the deceased) was a central figure in the family. Memories of his wife are everywhere. Wherever he looks he sees his wife in the house. Farming according to him is ‘not so nice’ any more. Loneliness is the biggest problem that he must address. Before the attack, his relationship with his farm workers was very accommodating, but he says that now, after the attack, he has no love for them.



Fear, depression and aggression

Mrs L was ambushed at a farm gate while on her way to church, and shot in the arm. (See case study no 4 above.) Although she survived the incident, she has not recovered the full use of her hand. She now suffers from depression and is on medication. Her one daughter was writing matric exams at the time of the interview in September 2001 and could not sleep at night. Every night she slept on the carpet in her parents’ room. The L family fear every moment, specifically the future. Their son has become very aggressive.



Anger and hate

Mrs B (aged 74) was killed during an attack on a farm in Mpumalanga in 1999. The Committee interviewed her husband and daughter on 2001-09-10. They have been on the farm since 1968. They have not had employees in their service for many years. Mr B describes how he went to milk the cow the Saturday afternoon. According to him, it only took 15 minutes, but when he got back to the house his wife was lying dead at the front door. It seems that she had been hacked to death in the kitchen and then dragged to the front door. The attackers escaped with two firearms and R3000 in cash. Mr B and his daughter are very angry and blame the government for the ‘chaos’ in South Africa. According to Mr B, the situation in South Africa is worse than in Zimbabwe. There is much bitterness and hatred in them and the daughter, particularly, has very strong feelings about the matter.



Fear and loss of security

‘My children don’t have the security that they will grow up with their parents. Why are people killed and nothing taken? Why can’t it turn around? I have to think of security’.


Confusion and feeling overwhelmed

‘Farmers want to make a contribution to the land and the economy. But how much of a hiding can we take.’


Fear and loss of control

‘We think twice about going out at night, to church or school functions. We are on the border with KwaNdebele.’


Anger, uncertainty and severe panic

‘I don’t want to hear of government plans - I need to look at my own plans and my own area. Government has a responsibility to do something about farm attacks. Government is happy about farm attacks.’



The impact of trauma on a victim - a year later

Below is a poignant e-mail received by the Committee from one of the victims interviewed a year before. Her husband and brother were killed in 2001 when they responded to a call for help by someone else on a farm nearby. A year after the death of her husband and her brother the victim moved away from her farm and relocated in another province. However, she was still struggling to put the pieces of her life together again.

My name is Jana and my husband was shot dead in a farm attack a year ago. My only brother also died in the same attack.

A little background: My little daughter turned seven on 4 August 2001. My brother and his family came over late afternoon for her birthday and they were scarcely there when my elderly neighbour phoned and said that there were suspect persons on the farm with her and that she was frightened. My husband, who is head of civil protection in the area, and also my brother drove over to see that she was safe, and they never came back. Both of them were shot dead in cold blood in the road at the gate. I was there, I applied CPR on my husband and my brother had already died.

It is now a year later, I have sold the farm and have exchanged the farm life for a small and very quiet village in the southern Cape. Three of the four children have moved with me and the other one first has to finish matric and will then also come here at the end of the year.

What does it feel like and what happens to a person - I am totally lost and derailed. I am old and cannot cope with the ordinary daily matters such as being a mother or a housewife. I am depressed, angry and tired. I feel that there really is no reason to go on. I have lost everything, my husband, my home, the farm, the animals, everything that was familiar and beautiful. What is left? I have received no support from the government at all and have tried with the assistance of friends and family to survive. After the incident I stayed with my brother’s wife for 7 months and I also was a pillar of support for her, but life goes on and I could not remain homeless forever. At times I am happy and forget a little, but most of the time I am listless, down and simply just angry. I have gone for assistance, my children have not! I used to be an extrovert and terribly fond of people. Now I hide in my little house and do not reach out to people, and I almost avoid people and yet I long so much for the good days when we did things together with other people. I have lost all my selfconfidence through the senseless attack. I am no longer the same person, I am scared, I am uncertain of myself, I am lonely. As a woman with four children, the first of which is going to university next year, I am worried about the finances, and I also doubt whether I can fulfil the father’s role.

I wish I could tell the government and society what an incredibly big impact such a thing has on one’s whole existence. One sits with so many questions that will remain unanswered forever. The police and court cannot finalise matters, the case has been postponed for the umpteenth time, all the persons have not been arrested yet. Oh, I can continue with all the things that bother me and no one really listens or understands. I have spent thousands of rands to take my little daughter for counselling and she is still sitting with her problems. My sons have grown up too fast and the one is angry like me, the smallest thing causes him to react furiously and burst out without reason. It does not happen every day, but it still happens. I am not a quarrelsome person and never have been. The harmony in the home prior to my husband’s death was blissful and nice. We did everything, yes everything, together and worked together. I can also unhitch a tractor and repair things or pull out a calf during birth or perform any farming activity. That was the result of Johan and myself doing things together. Why did we do all that? Did he become a farmer so that he could become a victim of these senseless farm attacks? Why does that government not help us widows? Do we not have rights as a person and as a family?

These are things with which I struggle and because of which I suffer. I become so depressed at times that I get into bed in the middle of the day and sleep, only to get up late in the evening and don’t sleep again. Even if I do not sleep during the day I roam around in the house at night because I cannot sleep. I wait, I have been waiting for a year, I just want things to get better, things must be without a struggle, my husband must come back, something must happen, but I don’t know what!

I work to keep busy, I mow the lawn, work in the garden, walk, repair a piece of old furniture and do almost anything to remain busy. As long as I am busy I do not think and as long as I do not think things carry on. I miss my brother. He was my only brother and we differed in age by just 15 months. We were great friends and very fond of each other. My poor sons are growing up without a father or a grandfather or an uncle to give a little male guidance. I think if you read this you will think that you are dealing with an unbalanced or mad person. No, that I am not. I am an intelligent and educated person with a very good background. I am only honest and open without covering up anything and keeping up a front. I try to be the best mother ever for my four children and to set the best example for them. I have no hatred, I am not racist, I try to maintain a balance, especially in this respect, with them.

I still have contact with our farm workers and speak to them telephonically, and if I go in that direction I always drop in. They still weep over my husband and are always glad to see us. There is one need that I wish to attend to and that is the void that exists to give the necessary help and counselling to people in situations such as mine. My two sons and I who were on the scene where my bother died and my husband passed away in my arms and in front of my sons, should have received the necessary defusing therapy. Someone should have helped us in a professional manner that evening already. My sons had never seen a corpse before and also not multiple bullet wounds, they came face to face with the reality on one evening, and that with their own father! How does a teenager really cope with that? I do not have the knowledge to realise what the long-term effects are on such a person. It may present itself after ten years or perhaps never….

To sum up, I wish to say that a farm attack changes one’s life fundamentally. Nothing is ever the same again. The rose-coloured lenses of life are shattered as well. One goes on for the sake of the children. The government should grant financial aid to victims of these terrible things like America has done with the victims of the 11 September attack. The huge financial worries should at least be alleviated. I have not taken any medication since the incident and I do not believe that it will help. Only prayer and faith can really help in such times.

Thank you for your interest in the horrible scenario that farm attacks brings into our society.

Sad greetings

Jana

The above email clearly highlights the need for counselling facilities in the rural areas. Victims of crime often do not have access to counselling service providers, yet there is an enormous need for such a service. If left unassisted they carry the effects for years after having experienced a traumatic event. The email also shows how abandoned victims feel and their need for support in during difficult periods.


Vicarious Trauma

Farm Murders in South Africa - SkyNews Min. of Safety and Security: Charles Ngakula: 'If you don't like the crime, leave the country'

Four farmers from the Marble Hall community were interviewed by the Committee on 2001-08-28. None of them had been victims or survivors of a farm attack. However, they knew one of the farmers who had been attacked. All of them experienced vicarious trauma and as a result they had strong opinions about farm attacks.

Vicarious trauma is not primary or secondary trauma. Vicarious trauma could result from witnessing a death or being exposed to a dead or badly injured person, or to a gruesome scene. A person may even be able to visualise an event without having been involved in it but having heard about it from another person, thereby being traumatised vicariously.

Most of the farm workers interviewed also experienced vicarious trauma. Feelings of confusion, uncertainty and loss of control are very common amongst the farm workers. One worker expressed his vicarious fear by saying: ‘The farmer helped us with maize meal and some vegetables monthly, that is the only place I know. I know if the boss leaves the farm we shall be unemployed and suffer with hunger’.

Mr A, a farm worker of the N family, probably saved their lives by calling the neighbours. He says that after the attack he was very scared when he found his employer because of the injuries she had sustained. Although not directly a victim of the attack, he experienced the same fear as the farmers.

Some of the farm workers said after the attack: ‘When we walk to the shops or anywhere and hear a noise of a car behind, we hide in the grass, which is also not safe because now the farmers would think we are criminals’.

Mr R’s workers also confirm that they are scared, so much so that every time they move on the farm they feel that there is someone watching them. They also have lost their freedom on the farm.

Mr K, a farm worker, says he was terrified after the attack on the farmer, because it was something that he never thought would ever happen. He has heard about people breaking into farm houses but he never thought people could enter a farm house when someone was inside the house and do what they did to his employer. He experienced loss of security and also fear for the future.



CONCLUSIONS

The interviews with farmers and their families provided the Committee with an in-depth understanding of farm attacks from the perspective of the victims and those closely affected by it. One of the findings was that the experience had a great impact on their lives. A minority had relocated from the farm to the city, but those who remained made changes to their lifestyle, such as by improving security on their property or curbing recreational activities. Another finding was that many of the victims did not perceive their own farm attack as either politically or racially motivated, although some of those thought that farm attacks in general were politically motivated. Farmers generally realised the importance of their relationship with farm workers, particularly in the context of ensuring rural safety for all inhabitants.

The farm attacks also had a profound effect on the farm workers, even if they had not been actual victims themselves. On the one hand they were concerned about the safety of their employers, and on the other hand they were also concerned about the effect that the farm attacks might have on their own future and livelihood.

The financial implications for the victims of farm attacks are often enormous, but the psychological consequences are as serious. Victims of farm attacks, those close to them and farm workers experience trauma after a farm attack which can seriously affect their lives. However, very few, if any, have access to service providers that offer trauma counselling. This is because such services are not readily available, especially in rural areas.