m - DISA

not heve been aalf-inflictmd, nor ciusid eccidentally.
He said
•w are satisfied that Mr Mdlult sustained the
injuries while he was In tha custody of the
Security Police. There is no evidence of how
ha suffered tha injuries, or In shot
circumstances* That is a setter peculiarly in
the knowledge of the persona In whose custody he
was at tha time end none of them has given
evidence.
The statements mode by both Judges have far-
reaching Implications in tens of further
lnvestlegtion into Udlull's death. However, no
further action hot t>^mn taken by the attorney
general, end the circumstances of his death hevw
only left his interrogators that much more suspect
in the eyes of the world.
As has been stated above, Inquests ere far from
adequate means of establishing what actually happens
when a death has occurred in detention. If a civil
or criminal case reaches the courts t much more
evidence is brought to light, both sides lnvestlgeting
and arguing more deeply the events leading up to the
death,
Mspotle wohapl
An lnquaat into tha death in detention of Uepetla*
Uohapi (died 15.07.76) found that the cause of death
was 'force applied to hie neck due to hanging'. His
death, the magistrate seid, was not brought about by
any act or omission by any living person. However,
the magistrate did not issue a formal verdict of
suicide.
tapetla Mohapi's widow then sued the Minister of
Police for damages for loss of support resulting
from the death of her husband In police cuetody. This
is the only civil action with regard to a death in
detention actually fought in a court of law which was
not kept out of that arena through out-of-court settle
wants* which has bean the common practice.
In Uohapi vs Minister of Police, much of the
argument centred around a suicide note which counsel
for Hrs Uohapi argued was faked. They brought in
expert witnesses to testify, one of whom was a Or
ifcjllus Grant, past president of the Forensic Science
Staiaty, end medical Legal Society of Great Britain,
»
Or Grant showed differences betawen the handwriting
of the alleged suicide note and other authentic
examples of Uohapi's handwriting.
Ooctor Grant had the toilet paper on which the
alleged suicide note waa written analysed under
ultra-violet light. The same procedure was adopted
for other notes which Uohapi had smuggled out on
toilet paper, while in detention. Or Grant claimed
that the composition of the paper on which the
'suicide note* was written was of a different
composition from thet of Uohapi's clandestine
letters, ie they did not come from the same roil.
Evidence was also led as to the change in tone
from three optimistic letters written from Jail
and then the improbable suicide note. Mrs Uohapi
said thet in the letters he had smuggled out, Uohapi
had expressed optimism about tha future. He advised
her to obtain a loan In his name to tide her over
'until I em back in circulation someday*. , In en
unprecedented move t evidence of an ex detainee,
who was in exile In Lesotho, was heard. Thenjlwe
Utintso described in her evidence how Captain
Hansen of the security police had held her head with
his thighs and put a towel across her face end pulled
it tight. He hed then said, 'Now you know how
Uohapi died 1 (Star, ie.Oi.eo).
The police led evidence to the affect that the
suicide note was genuine. Lt Col Fourie said ha
had examined the suicide note and compared it with
authentic writings of Uohapi**, and said 'there ware
no signs to convince (him) thet lt waa not a genuine
document•.
A second police handwriting expert, Oet-Sgt
KFC landman, said he had applied 10 different criteria
to establish whether the Uohapi note might be a
forgery. They all proved negative, he said.
The finding of Justice Smalberger ems that there
had not been sufficient evidence to suggest that
Uonapl's death had been caused through assault by
the police. Neither was there convincing evidence
to suggest that 'the suicide note was faked. He
dismissed Urs Uohapl's claim, end ordered her to pay
all costs tp the Minister of Police.
W overview of the available findings of inquests
tf into deaths In detention reveals two issues* firstly,
the magistrate'e findings as to the cause of death
follows closely the explanations advanced by security
police when they announce the death. Secondly,
no magistrate has ever found any policeman or
other person responsible for a death that has
occurred in detention. Further, no magistrate
has ever recorded mn 'open verdict' in an inquest
into a death In detention - which would meen that-
he was not able to make a finding on the basis of
the available evidence. In all legal proceedings
dealing with deaths in detention, security police
have been exonerated mvmry time.
(•MmtjtLiiiTii)
DOTT in I#C«»TI0K PILE IIP - UU IT :
Critical WMlta srwvt4M
- lam for nta» tart srwarmulfe aMlta-
•wriMTi C*R plm/ fa
Pmpl i Knew
.•ttttty.
- • tritiem *f
•hailtJr la Imrtatfm
Africa.
• mmraam of IwalUi
at t autc Hato.
dfHiAltOA Of
kMlU nliud •
turn*;.
- iMiaM Into tfm mriUtttl Mtvre of
wnltJk.
/Vm tt: Critfcil WMlta, X
! F.O. »ox mi, 1
I Jofctnrwifejnj, 2000.
VfcmstHptimi: •t*«0c" for emit fmw itumt.J
page 14