Human Rights Violation Hearings — Upington — 1996-10-03

MR POTGIETER:  And the outcome of the case?

WITNESS:  On the Wednesday at 2 o'clock the magistrate's words were, how could I put it, you know the statements, that the statements would be referred to the Attorney General and he said that the Attorney General was ill but somebody else had been appointed in his place and that the Attorney General would have to decide what would happen but I never heard anything about this case again.  Nobody ever came and told me what had happened about this case.

MR POTGIETER:  I would just like to take you back a little bit so that we can get the full picture of what happened.  I didn't want to interrupt you whilst you were telling your story.  Your husband left home after hearing that the children were in danger because somebody was shooting at the children?

WITNESS:  Yes.

MR POTGIETER:  So he went to try and help out there.

WITNESS:  Yes.

MR POTGIETER:  Did you go with him, your son was there as well?

WITNESS:  It was myself and my husband and my son and four daughters.

MR POTGIETER:  So you all left home together?

WITNESS:  Yes.

MR POTGIETER:  Had there been a flood?

WITNESS:  Yes it was during 1988, we had terrible floods here.

MR POTGIETER:  You also said that this Mr Nolte, was he the owner of this particular house?

WITNESS:  Yes.

MR POTGIETER:  And he alleged that the children had broken into his home but you say that that was not true because the house had been vacated anyway, it had been, the house was empty.

WITNESS:  Yes and my brother had helped to carry everything out of the house.  The house was standing in the water.  The water had risen up to windowsill height.  Mr Nolte's house is on the right-hand side and the post office is on the left-hand side, and the water had found its course in front of the post office.  Yes Mr Nolte is a white man.

MR POTGIETER:  Now somebody, Mr Brandt shot at the children, the children in the water, and that is also the person who shot your husband?

WITNESS:  Yes.

MR POTGIETER:  Now I assume he is a white person.

WITNESS:  Yes he was a white man.

MR POTGIETER:  Now there was a third person, a Mr Hershelman.

WITNESS:  Yes, Hershelman.

MR POTGIETER:  He was the person who initially assaulted your husband and was he a white man?

WITNESS:  Yes.

MR POTGIETER:  If I understand you correctly, there had been no struggle between Mr Brandt and your husband.

WITNESS:  Not at all.  They didn't even speak a single word.  As I said, when he walked away from Mr Hershelman, after giving Mr Hershelman this one blow, he walked away and just at that point when Mr Brandt shot him, there was no time for him to say anything because I was watching him.  When my husband got up the shot was fired.

MR POTGIETER:  So after your husband hit back at Mr Hershelman and turned around and walked away, that was when Brandt arrived with his bakkie and tried to run your husband down?

WITNESS:  Yes.

MR POTGIETER:  So there had been no argument, no quarrel between your husband and Mr Brandt?

WITNESS:  Not at all.  It was only Mr Hershelman who told my husband to keep his nose out of other people's business.

MR POTGIETER:  This Mr Brandt, where is he now?

WITNESS:  He is dead.  He died 11 months after my husband's death.

MR POTGIETER:  You said that earlier there were threats against your husband's life.  Why do you think this shooting incident took place because there was no reason for Mr Brandt to have shot your husband.  Why, why would this have happened?

WITNESS:  Yes there was no reason for the shooting.

MR POTGIETER:  What do you think Mr Brandt's motive was, why did this happen?

WITNESS:  I think it's the fact that he was the chairperson, that he was the leader, you know, the fact that they said that he put clever ideas into people's heads.  A white policeman from Keimoes had also told my husband that he was a rich bastard.  In those years white people weren't happy to see a Coloured person being prosperous.

MR POTGIETER:  So you feel that that incident created the opportunity for Brandt to utter or to carry out the threats made earlier, simply because your husband was a leader in the community?

WITNESS:  Yes I assume that to be the case.  I often think about this still.  It seems to me that it was all pre-arranged, this whole thing because there had been no argument or no stone throwing or anything before the shooting.  Just at that moment when the bakkie drove off, my daughter took sand and just to throw at the bakkie because she couldn't even find a stone to throw.  There was no question of stone throwing.  If we wanted to cause any damage, be violent, we could have thrown stones.

MR POTGIETER:  I assume that your husband was the breadwinner in the family?

WITNESS:  Yes.

MR POTGIETER:  What happened after his death, how did you cope?

WITNESS:  You see, he had this bus service and people asked me whether I would continue with the bus service and I agreed because I had five children at school.  My daughter was in matric and the others were even younger.

MR POTGIETER:  So you tried to keep the family going by running the bus service and you then raised the children by yourself and you supported them?

WITNESS:  Yes I paid for them to study, go to school and they had food and clothes.  There is still one child of mine still at school but when his father died - he was a little boy when his father died and he is now - he was seven when his father died and he is now about 15 and he is still at school.  He is in standard 8, that is my last school going child.

MR POTGIETER:  How do you feel about this incident today?  How do you feel about this terrible thing that happened?

WITNESS:  It's a tough thing for me, it's very painful.

MR POTGIETER:  Take you time Ms Isaaks, I know this is a very, very hard thing for you to do.  We appreciate the fact that you were willing to come and share your story with us.  I am nearly finished.  If you feel up to it then we can continue.  Do you feel better, would you like some water?  Right, did you try and institute a claim or go and see an attorney?

WITNESS:  Yes.

MR POTGIETER:  And what happened to the case?

WITNESS:  The attorney told me that I would have to spend more than I would finally get so I just left it there, it wasn't worthwhile.

MR POTGIETER:  Our team of investigators looked at this case and they tried to find out what they could regarding the court proceedings.  Apparently there was an inquest, there was an inquest held at court and according to the report given to us by our investigators, none of the children who had allegedly committed housebreaking, as Mr Nolte had said, none of them was called to testify during the inquest and according to the report from our investigators, the magistrate did not deem it necessary to call any other witnesses although an attorney acted on behalf of the family and the attorney requested other witnesses to be called.  Our investigation team also say that it's strange that photographs have been taken of the vehicles and this happened a month after the incident and that Mr Brandt's firearm was never sent for forensic tests and Mr Brandt was tested for gunpowder residue on his hands but this only took place a day after the incident.  The magistrate then found that he could not hold anybody responsible for your husband's death.  So it would seem as if, as though one can be very critical about the court proceedings.  You also say that the legal system didn't assist you in any way, you were told that you would have to spend more money than you would finally get.  So it wasn't worth your while to pursue the matter further but for the sake of completeness I would just like to tell you what we have been able to find out about the matter.  Is there anything you would like to add before I conclude?  Anything else you would like to say?  Do you think you have said everything you wanted to say?