“Truth is like the heat of the sun”

Families of the Deceased & the Injured and Arrested of Marikana

The relatives of the Marikana deceased, the injured and the arrested underwent a rollercoaster of

experiences following the Marikana massacre on 16 August, 2012. For most of them this journey is

still not over. Many families come from the Eastern Cape from sending areas where their husbands,

brothers, fathers were recruited through South Africa’s migrant labour system in gold, platinum, coal

and so on. This report does not seek to analyse their experiences but merely to record their feelings,

experiences and thoughts since the Marikana calamity. The injured and arrested have also been

through a battery of traumatic and intense psychological and physical experiences and their views are

similarly detailed. It is clear in this account that despite the emotional trauma they have undergone

they are able to engage in a more objective political narrative to make sense of why strikers were

injured or killed which takes this account beyond pity and into the realm of understanding a deep

systemic failure.

There is one group of people however who are not explored in this account and who have been

forgotten or ignored post the Marikana disaster. This group experience intense but hidden loss. Some

of the migrant deceased had established strong relationships with women of Marikana. In many cases

these women had engaged in ‘transactional’ relationships with mine workers in order to survive and

had managed the workers’ domestic lives in exchange for a portion of their earnings. The remainder

of the salary was remitted to at least one or two dependent families in the rural sending areas. These

local women however had to remain hidden from the mine workers’ families. They could not share

their grief with the ‘official’ wives and relatives, could not attend the Commission, received no

compensation or grief counselling and like the deceased workers’ relatives had to overnight manage

life without the miners’ earnings. They too were responsible for a number dependents (sometimes the

workers’ children) but their grief, poverty and propulsion into a highly precarious existence can

never be publically expressed. These second families of the Marikana deceased should be

remembered – they are also victims and actors who are caught up in the migrant labour system.

Families attend Marikana Commission

Phumza Prestorious, a migrant from the Eastern Cape who lived in Nkaneng, Marikana with her

father and boyfriend both working at Lonmin, recalled the chaos after the killings on the mountain

where strikers had withdrawn before the massacre:

We stood in the first row of shacks at Nkaneng and looked from afar, but all we could see was the chaos, people running around and gun shots, some people were being carried, some were

1

asking for cars to take the injured people to hospital… Fortunately my father had just went home to get something to eat, but I did not know the whereabouts of my boyfriend, I only managed to get hold of him the following day. Things were really bad, people had been killed, some were taken into ambulances. We went home on the day and switched on our televisions and we saw the tragedy that happened…

The following day on the 17th we woke and decided again as women that we will go back to the mountain and see what was going on - nothing made sense. We were not scared that we will get shot. All we wanted to do was to go to the mountain and show our dissatisfaction over the slaughter of innocent people; we did not care if the police would shoot at us. The surviving miners had gathered around the mountain again, and we joined them. My father also went back and I could not stop him because he also wanted to get the R 12 500 so the only option was for me to go with him to the mountain to see what was going on. We sang songs and sat alongside the miners.

Things were bad because people did not know whether their loved ones were still alive or not, so we went to number one [shaft] looking for a list of names of all the miners. On our way we were stopped by the police at four shaft, who prevented us from passing. We then went to the hospital to check for list of names of people who were in hospital, but when we got there the hospital security prevented us from getting inside the hospital and we stood outside ‘till around 7pm. We sang songs like senzeni na - ‘what have we done?’

We went every day, and we started going around the community asking for donations from Somalian shop owners so that we could take the food to the miners, who gathered near the mountain day and night after the massacre… Nothing was good. The police were terrorising people in their homes, they went into people’s houses in the middle of the night looking for weapons and people. I am not sure what exactly, what kind of people they were looking for. We were scared; we were just grateful to wake up every morning.1

Thereafter families of the deceased were left in the dark. There was no preparation for them to

understand the situation or to comprehend what they would face. The Marikana Commission, the

families said, treated them ‘like trees or stones’ with nothing to say when confronted with the horrific

events which ‘left a hole in my life, and in my heart.’2 It was the support of organisations like the

Socio-Economic Right Institution Seri), Khulumani Support Group, Legal Resources Centre (LRC),

Human Right Commission, academic interventions and media attention which lent these relatives -

many of them widows - legal, emotional, financial and other support.

When the Commission opened Judge Farlam, the chair, invited everyone to stand up and remember

the dead as their names were read out. It became obvious that most of the deceased’s relatives were

not present and the Commission was deeply embarrassed. Families were sitting grief stricken mainly

in rural areas and many were not aware that the Commission had started. Eastern Cape families on

learning of its existence via the media labelled the Commission ‘ignorant’ and ‘lacking humanity’.

Nomkhitha Sompeta from Lusikisiki whose brother, Mzukisi was killed, told how the family had

only heard about the inquiry the day before it began, “What do you call it if we are not there?.. My

1 Interview Phumza Prestorius with Bridget Ndibongo 8.11.2132 Justice, redress & restitution: voices of widows of the Marikana Massacre (2013) Khulumani, Braamfontein, p3

2

father is very sick, he has been crying out for closure, to get to know what happened. Only big name

lawyers are there to make money – but what about us? We need the truth.”3 Dumisa Ntsebeza who

represented 20 Eastern Cape families of the deceased noted that families in Lesotho and Swaziland

had even less knowledge. The Commission arranged for the Eastern Cape government to pay for

transport and to assign social workers to the families while the justice department after initial support

explained that it had no legal obligation to fund families of victims beyond initial hearings.4 Thus

began the relatives’ fight to get a presence and a voice at the Commission.

The Commission’s insensitivity continued. Videos of relatives being mown down combined with

detailed close ups of blood, brains and other trauma spilling into the dry soil and images of police

grasping guns and standing over the deceased or dragging bodies away were relentlessly exhibited

during cross examination. Betty Lomasontfo Gadlela, a Swazi married to deceased Sitelega Gadlela,

recalls,

I cannot bear looking at the pictures, at the video about the terrible situation, the way they killed our husbands, shooting them even after they were dead…. I do not want any more of those things that I hear, that I can see happening, when the police are defending themselves here…they keep talking about the police that were killed, but I don’t care even how many police were killed. What I know is: …on sixteenth, our husbands were running away, and the police came after them. They never went to attack the police… I saw even that the wound is in the back…it shows he was running away.5

Ntandazo Nokamba also died at Scene two. His body was in a clearing between rocks and bushes,

brushing up against the body of Fezile Saphendu. He died from a high-velocity gunshot wound to the

back of the chest, from someone on a rock at a distance or in the cross fire, posing no threat. The

details were replayed in detail. Such images meant families broke down, one was hospitalised and

again the Commission was stopped in its tracks. Thereafter families were warned in advance of

distressing images so they had the option to leave. Some relatives spoke of a tangible fear they

experienced when implicated police were testifying whilst others at times were lost in a morass of

legalise. Regular briefings from lawyers became essential and over time families assisted by

translations became familiar with Commission proceedings.6

3 http://www.dispatchlive.co.za/news/marikana-families-anger/4 Ibid5 Justice, redress & restitution, p306 Group interview Families of the Deceased with Kally Forrest 27.2.2015

3

It was Khulumani that made critical interventions however. It had arisen as a support and counselling

group during the TRC (Truth & Reconciliation Commission) hearings and now offered its services to

the families and injured. However access was initially difficult as lawyers for the deceased ring-

fenced the families and allowed no contact with outsiders. National Union of Mineworkers’ (NUM)

lawyers and the Department of Justice similarly wanted them isolated fearing access would jeopardise

their case or reflect the state in a poor light. Khulumani’s Nomarussia Bonase recalls entering a

lawyers’ briefing under false pretences to make contact with families. Grateful relatives were then

offered counselling, translation and a contact person. “In the end the lawyers said, ‘Thank goodness

we really didn’t know what to do.’ Ntsebeza had previously worked with Khulumani at the TRC so

he knew our strengths.” commented Bonase.7

Khulumani was able to alert the Commission to areas of fundamental neglect. During hearings

families received calls from their children running households in rural areas [the Commission

convened over two years] complaining that there was no food. Songstress Notukile Nkonyeni, sister

to deceased Phumzile Nkonyeni who supported his wife, five children, sister and mother complained,

“…here [at the Commission] we are treated in a good and respected manner, we are sleeping in a

hotel and eating. But our concern is our children at home.”8 Some received food parcels from social

services but this was infrequent and haphazard in its distribution. Many found counselling deeply

helpful and empowering allowing them to regain their strength and permitting them to know their

rights.9 This allowed them to force the Commission to recognise them and they began to experience

themselves as a collective which could return and report to families and communities.

Over time a strong network of solidarity was built between the grieving families - the widows of

deceased police, permanent and contracted mineworkers and Lonmin security became mutually

supportive. “This was important” recalls Nomarussia, “because they had not felt they could input to

the process – they felt disempowered.”10 Indeed some of the widows showed extraordinary levels of

forgiveness and a sharp understanding of the situation. Elizabeth Monene Maubane and Mrs Fundi,

wife of Hassan Fundi, one of the security officers killed on the 12t August, both laid the ultimate

blame for their loved ones’ deaths at Lonmin’s door. Mrs Fundi stated that her husband had been ‘left

exposed by his employer’11 and Elizabeth Monene whose policeman husband WO Monene had been

7 Interview Khulumani’s Nomarusssia Bonase with Kally Forrest, 19.3.20158 Justice, redress & restitution, p129 Group interview10 Interview Bonase11 Marikana Commission 13.12. 2014: 34855

4

‘killed so brutally’12 by unknown strikers on 13 August said: “I would like to say… my deepest

sympathy to all the people that were killed in Marikana.”13

Some of the wives who lived in Wonderkop [Marikana] with their husbands had talked to their

partners the morning before the massacre and believed their testimony would have clarified the

strikers’ intentions as workers demanding a living wage and not people with criminal intent.

However the Commission decided that cross examination would have overly burdened the grief

stricken families.14 Removing agency from these women was resented as some would gladly have

taken the pressure and explained their husbands’ motives.15 Bonase contrasted this with the way the

victim centred TRC structured its processes,

[Marikana] Families told how workers were anticipating a report back from Amcu on the day of their death. Some husbands really explained to families and explained what they were involved in. But at the [Marikana] Commission families just listened and could not talk about what was communicated during the strike between families and miners. After the killings they were silenced whereas TRC victims and perpetrators told their stories and they were listened to and given centre stage. It was a victim centred process. At Marikana [Commission] it was not a true version of what happened. It was about winning the case.16

There were moments however when the families’ solidarity fractured. Widows of contracted workers

were disregarded by the company contracting to Lonmin and Lonmin took no responsibility for these

workers or for former Lonmin employees fighting for reinstatement, or for non-South African

nationals. Thus the widows of Lonmin permanent employees, mine security workers and the widows

of the police received company and state death benefits respectively whilst the former received

nothing. Agnes Makopano Thelejane whose deceased husband, Thabiso Johannes, was contracted

complained that, “I was victimised by Lonmin. Lonmin …have refused to pay out my husband’s

employment benefit, although they have paid other family members of the deceased miners… The

company claims my husband was not a permanent employee…Lonmin…are forcing me to go to a

contractor about whom I do not know anything, who they claimed was his employer for all those

years. Lonmin…refuse to admit that mine companies are under one boss, one umbrella.”17 Contractors

or labour brokered employees frequently don’t receive benefits so the company would probably not

pay out a death benefit to Makopano Thelejane anyway The widows of permanent workers did

however protest Lonmin’s miserly response in a statement made at the end of the Commission which

although not mentioning contract workers specifically stated: “We note that not all families of the

deceased have received benefits, depending upon decisions made by Lonmin and the Government

12 Ibid 13.8.2014: 3486113 Ibid 14 Interview Sesi Baloyi with Kally Forrest 18.3.201515 Group interview 16 Interview Bonase17 Justice, redress & restitution, p8

5

about the situation of the deceased person (for example, some benefits were not provided to those

families who were not resident in SA, or where the deceased worker was not employed at Lonmin at

the time of the strike).”18

Another divisive moment was when Mr X, a police mine worker witness, gave evidence to the

Commission. His depiction of strikers as ‘muti’ crazed murderers and criminals offended the majority

of strikers’ relatives whilst horrifying the widows of the police and Lonmin security members who

had died at the hands of strikers. Bonase commented , “The Mr X testimony was very divisive of the

women whereas before they were getting along. Security and police and mine widows were very

distressed by Mr X’s descriptions and with the strikers’ wives there was a strong feeling that police

were coming forward with a pack of lies.”19 Mr X’s testimony was strongly discredited at the

Commission but he planted poisonous seeds. It thus became the task of the families in their personal

statements to the Commission on each of the deceased to show that the strikers were not barbarians

or criminals, but ordinary human beings who were demanding a living wage in the face of an

employer indifferent to their suffering.20 These testimonies provided by the widows or family

representatives of the mine workers insisted on the workers being considered as individuals who

whose death seriously impacted on near destitute dependants in the sending areas.

Despite such tensions in the final days of the Commission all the families of deceased victims were

able to release a united statement which placed the responsibilities for the deaths at the feet of Lonmin

and the state and which clearly outlined what they expected of these two parties (see Appendix 1 for

full statement).

Women gain confidence

Jim Nichol a lawyer at the Marikana Commission commented on how the widows over time gained in

confidence and asserted their voices.21 This became evident when some of the widows took up Judge

Farlam’s invitation to speak directly to the Commission; or when they participated in the production

of a book recording their experiences illustrated by themselves22; or in interviews with the author and

the Mail & Guardian which produced a supplement on their lives and struggles since the loss of their

partners and breadwinners.23 In all these forums which gave voice to the widows their message and

18 “Group Statement from Families of Victims of the August 2012 Marikana Massacre To: Judge Farlam, Marikana Truth and Restoration Commission of Inquiry 16 September 2014”19 Interview Bonase20 The Widows of Marikana and the Farlam Commission of Inquiry – Cynthia Kros http://www.marikana-conference.com/21 22 The title of the book is Justice, redress & restitution: voices of widows of the Marikana Massacre 23 Marikana One year after the Massacre: Photos Paul Botes Images Niren Tolsi Mail & Guardian

6

consciousness of how government and mine capital colluded and how the poor are the losers in this

alliance was never diluted.

In these accounts the widows speak of their grief and trauma and the personal characteristics of those

they had lost and what this meant emotionally and financially in sustaining their families. They stress

the humanity of the deceased; that they were people with ordinary aspirations and a love for their

families which they desired to adequately support. They powerfully countered the narrative that all

the strikers were violent and intent on killing their opponents. Each of the deceased is remembered

for personal qualities, hopes for the future and enjoyments – shouting at the TV screen during a soccer

match, tending cattle, playing with or disciplining their children, enjoying Maskandi and other music,

and dreaming of flying in an aeroplane. The women showed that far from being barbaric, these men

were loved by their families and communities.24 But the widows also demonstrated a toughness that

went far beyond experiencing themselves as grief stricken victims. They were determined to clear

their husbands’ names and to demonstrate that they were not criminals. They challenged the

Commission’s Report that these strikers’ had been at the root of the violence and asserted their right

to strike and to demand a living wage which would support their families.

At the end of the Inquiry the women addressed to the Commission in a “Group Statement from

Families of Victims of the August 2012 Marikana Massacre” in which they explained who they

believed was responsible for the killings – Lonmin, the state and the police; what measures had been

proffered to address their situation and their appreciation; what measures government and Lonmin

still needed to commit to including monetary compensation to cover the incomes they were deprived

of ; and the importance of addressing the needs of those not directly employed by Lonmin (see

Appendix1). Betty Gadlela an agriculturalist from rural Swaziland, now employed as a Lonmin

underground worker to replace her husband, became a symbol of this new found public confidence.

She spoke at the second Marikana Commemoration in 2014 without hesitation in front of 15 000

people and honoured the miners for giving their lives in an ongoing struggle for a decent livelihood.

These were the women who had timidly entered the Commission two years before not knowing any

other families and overawed by the formality and dissonance of such a hearing with their internal

anger and sorrow. They were now able to make a powerful articulation of responsibility in the killings

and of what was rightfully due to them

In a group interview families discussed whether they could forgive Lonmin and the government for

what they had executed. They argued that Lonmin must take responsibility because its poor

management was a large factor in the killings, “They should have predicted what could have

24 Marikana One year after the Massacre: Photos Paul Botes Images Niren Tolsi Mail & Guardian; The Widows of Marikana and the Farlam Commission of Inquiry – Cynthia Kros http://www.marikana-conference.com/

7

happened and been creative on how to resolve it. But Lonmin refused to talk to its own employees.”25

They were also unified in their opinion that government failed to be neutral and openly aligned itself

with Lonmin. “The government should have acted as a mediator instead it acted forcefully on

Lonmin’s side. The government was protecting the economy and not workers’ needs. The reason for

killing the workers was that they did not want to pay the wage demand and they did not want the

Alliance disrupted and they wanted to protect NUM. It was sheer greed – it was all about money. The

government agreed to kill its own people. The Commission should have been fighting for our

rights.”26 In an open hearted offer a widow reflected the group’s feeling when she said, “I would

forgive on condition they admit guilt and take responsibility for it and they must drop charges against

the miners. They must come and talk and discuss. We are reasonable people. We don’t want this to

happen again.”27

Commission’s end

In an interview the widows commented that during their testimonies at the Commission Lonmin stood

up and left in the middle. “Yet” they reflected, “I think they heard something of what we said because

the following week they offered us jobs at Lonmin.”28 Lonmin committed itself to a number of actions

in relation to the Marikana families: to educate their children to tertiary level and to provide jobs at

Lomin for a family member to replace the miner – a customary practice on a worker’s death. Most

children were sent away to boarding schools owing to their mothers’ absence. Initially the widows

were told that only direct descendants could be educated even if they had other dependents. The

women as a collective complained and management backtracked.29

In January 2015, 32 of the deceaseds’ family members, mainly women (two families sent men), were

employed at Lonmin. Thus like their husbands they became migrants from labour sending areas such

as the Eastern Cape, Swaziland, Venda and Lesotho to the Rustenburg platinum fields. Ten women

passed the demanding test to work underground and the remainder were employed as general non-

production workers. They were given a Living Out Allowance of R1800 and moved to service-

deprived Wonderkop. Twenty-two became machine, janitor or office cleaners with the latter job being

determined by higher literacy rates and ability to speak English. Their job category meant they

would not earn what their husband’s had earned as underground workers and also would not receive

production bonuses or overtime pay.

25 Group interview 201526 Ibid.27 Ibid28 Ibid29 Ibid

8

On the first day the women cleaners were heckled at the gate by contract cleaners who had been

discharged to make way for the widows. This was deeply dispiriting for them. Explained one widow,

“Our husbands did not fight and die so that we could take another worker’s job. They wanted a better

life for all workers not this.”30

Most of the women had undertaken these jobs as a survival mechanism; working at Lonmin in any

capacity was not their choice. Said one widow: “My kids are doubly orphaned as I can’t go home

until Xmas – my kids have been orphaned twice.” Another expressed the desire to have her children

with her, “Our kids are mainly at boarding school and it would be preferable to move them up to

Rustenburg if we had proper houses and support.”31 They expressed a suspicion that Lonmin had

offered them a quick fix, a cheap solution in lieu of paying decent compensation for the massacre of

their husbands. Mzoxolo Magidiwana, an injured worker who appeared at the Commission, believes

that Lonmin erred in bringing the widows to the mine, “There is no real peace for the women who are

brought to the mine where the blood of their husbands was spilled. Women are getting the salary of

their husbands rather than being with their kids at home… I stopped going to the Commission because

of all the lies the police were telling. And sometimes I wasn’t feeling well and it was tiring. The

women would cry and their pain came to me.”32 The families were unanimous that mining companies

owed a great deal to the historic labour sending areas and that aside from their specific needs some

form of restitution would be appropriate to enable areas to develop and provide employment. Lonmin,

they acknowledged, had built a few classrooms in in the Eastern Cape but this was insufficient. The

mine companies and government, they believed, needed to develop genuine consultative processes

with workers and their communities/families around decisions concerning their lives. “This is what

we would have preferred.” stated one widow.33

The women’s most pressing desire was for skills and funds to grow their businesses in rural areas.

“Lonmin never looked at the consequences of us working in the mine.” said one widow, “We were

forced to come here because we were starving.”34 Nokuthula Zibambela whose deceased brother was

raising 11 children explained further, “I need training and skills for myself to be able to do

agriculture. I need seeds, machines, fertilisers. I would like to learn to sew, knit mats, table cloths,

hats and shoes – everything that will help raise my children.”35 Many of them also expressed the

desire to return and complete the houses that their husbands had begun to build. Instead the women

were trained in first aid and resuscitation and acquired few skills that would be useful at home.

30 Focus groups Khulumani/TIPS 7 Dec 201431 All quotes from group interview32 Interview Mzoxolo Magidiwana with Kally Forrest 27.02.2015 33 Group interview34 Ibid35 Justice, redress & restitution p17

9

Injured and Arrested

The widows despite the odds stacked against them were able to insert their voices into the

Commission’s proceedings, over and above and in addition to the voices of their lawyers. This was

not always true of the injured and the arrested who never congregated as a coherent group and who

had little presence in the Commission’s proceedings and often relied on the widows and women of

Marikana in attendance to brief them. Some were back at work, some in hospital, others found the

process too painful and yet others returned home. Few of their stories have found their way into the

media.

Injured mineworkers

At least 78 mineworkers were injured but many acknowledge this as an underestimation. After the

massacre some managed to return to the hostel or Nkaneng where if injuries weren’t too serious were

nursed back to health by women of Marikana and colleagues; others returned to work after the strike

(especially contracted workers) with injuries that had been treated in local hospitals; yet others hid

their injuries for fear of arrest (police arrested one injured miner from a hospital in Bethel and brought

him back to Rustenburg); whilst some were arrested and kept for two to three months in custody in

North West prison holding cells; and others fled the area in terror. Injuries varied from mild to serious

and were acquired in different ways: shot as they approached the Tactical Response Team (TRT)

line; shot in the back as they fled; shot in tactical teams’ crossfire at Scene 2; run over by police

vehicles at Scene 2; injured in the stampede to flee the fusillade and so on.

Lungisile Madwantsi, a 33 year old migrant from Libode in the Eastern Cape and a permanent

employee at Lonmin gave his story two and half years after the massacre:

Police were surrounding the koppie with barbed wire and we decided to leave as advised by [Joseph] Mthunjwa who told us, ‘There will be bloodshed.’ Workers started moving but we were blocked from going to the informal settlement. The TRT opened fire and I started to see people falling so I ran back and also a truck with water canons was pushing us back to the small koppie behind. I saw people falling and I saw a helicopter hovering above and I was shot from a helicopter. People were hanging out of the helicopter – people were shot from ground and air. I also saw a man being executed by police. I was shot in the head and a bullet is still lodged in my head. I was in hospital a long time. My left hand and left leg is paralysed. I am paralysed from my hip down on one side and it’s very difficult to walk. I’m numb in the face and my muscles are painful when I move my head.

I was taken to hospital, to Mill Park [Hospital] then back to Rustenburg. I had a walker, then crutches but I can only use one crutch, I’m too weak on the left. The company built a ramp to my small house.

The company promised to look for light duty for me but nothing has been created. I get paid every month. Soon I will get a family unit in hospital which was arranged by Amcu’s

10

lawyers. This will make it easier for me to cope as it has an inside toilet and bath [his current house had an outside toilet some distance away].

The CSVR [Centre for the Study of Violence & Reconciliation] gave us support. They organised transport for injured people. You can hire a car and be reimbursed. I get medication from the mine. The care was good. I got counselling and physiotherapy. Counselling helped as initially I could not speak about what happened on the koppie and now I am able to. I have not been able to go home to see my family – six kids and a new born child. I have seen my wife and new baby but I would need door to door transport to get home as I can’t use public transport.

I never gave a statement to the Commission but I wanted the Commission to happen and I await its report.36

Magidiwana, a migrant from the Eastern Cape, was the only injured mine worker to be cross

examined at the Commission and he was the first worker to be shot at Scene 1. He was in the front

line of mine workers whose “intention was to return to the hostel or squatter camp.”37 He was machine

gunned down and hit on the right side and bullets extracted from his stomach, left thigh and genitals

which means he cannot conduct a sexual life. He reflected on the close company/police relationship

and the unchanging migrant labour system demonstrating a sharp political conciousness:

The police called us criminals but how come they were talking to us and we did nothing to them? Lonmin supported the police and Barnard Mokwena [Lonmin executive] said we were criminals. Police claimed I had a fire arm but we [lawyers at Commission] proved beyond doubt I had no fire arm. They were unable to point anything out on the videos. Thank God I could be accused like this as I could expose all their lies in this way.

The Commission must look at black people coming to the mines. These are grandchildren of other mine workers. There has been exploitation over years and their grandchildren are still denied education. The capitalists and government must take this into account. Ramaphosa must be imprisoned and everyone who fired must be charged and sentenced. I don’t want any of my family to come and work here. This violence is a recurring thing that is not going to end here. We will be killed again on strike. This resembles the death of Bambata who died fighting against unfair colonial taxes a hundred years ago and a hundred years later we're seeing the same thing happen. The Commission must take us forward out of this.

It pains me people treating workers as slaves. There are people who believe they have taken the place of God.

The government is in collusion with the mine. The government killed people in Soweto…the ANC pointed fingers at apartheid but they don’t want to admit they killed us just as in the apartheid days. It’s all about greed – love of money. Zuma, Ramaphosa have shares in mining. They wanted to crush us so other miners don’t demand money… Sometimes they pretend to be advocates of the people, but actually they want to contain the people. The politicians have become the wives of the capitalists…The police are barking dogs. They bark for the politicians. When they bark they come and spill blood.

36 Interview Lungisile Madwantsi with Kally Forrest 27.2.201537 Interview Mzoxolo Magidiwana

11

The Commission must give proper compensation. Lonmin has done nothing to help. This house, this kitchen, bathroom it was a struggle. I can’t work yet but I get a salary but I don’t want to work here anymore. I want to go home.38

Arrested Mineworkers

About 200 strikers were arrested and many of them processed in a Lonmin training centre made

available to the police known as Command Centre 1. An injured miner Doctor Ngwana told of his

experience, “

I was taken from the koppie to Command Centre 1, Number 1 Shaft of Western Platinum. I gave my name and was fingerprinted at 4 am but the police were not interested in our explanations and took no statements but I had to sign my name. We had to wear cardboard signs saying CRIMINAL on them and the police took pictures like on an identification parade. They did not speak to us. They knew what they wanted, they had planned in advance, they didn’t need us to inform them.”39

38 Ibid39 Interview Doctor Ngwana with Kally Forrest 26.2.2015

12

K Forrest

Doctor Ngwane after arrest had to wear a placard saying ‘Criminal’

The arrested found themselves unrepresented and it was at this point that Dali Mpofu of the EFF

(Economic Freedom Fighters) which had supported the miners’ strike stepped in to represent them.

They were never asked to testify at the Commission and received no counselling despite the trauma of

the events in which they had participated. Most spent two months in prison with no wages and were

finally released on free bail, “The head of the prison said we were costing too much and eating other

prisoners’ food so we were freed.” explained one of the arrested.40 Khulumani’s Bonase recalls that,

“At the beginning they were in a state of fear and they did not want to talk to anyone as they felt they

may be charged or convicted at any moment. They did not want public exposure from the media and

this fear was hanging over them for nearly the whole of the Commission. The Commission should

have seen to this.”41

40 Interview Malosi Mkonyana with Kally Forrest 26.2.201541 Interview Bonase

13

Malosi Mkonyana a contracted migrant from the Eastern Cape told of his arrest and custody,

I was trapped and surrounded by police who made me lie down on the small koppie on Scene Two. I was dragged by my belt and taken to Command Centre No 1 from the koppie on the day of the massacre. And afterwards we were sent to different prisons and I was taken to Mogwase near Sun City. Three days later at supper young police entered and started assaulting us with fists. One of us got wounded above the eye, another had his teeth knocked out. We were assaulted in front of everyone and no explanation just, ‘Workers should not think they are in a hotel.’ We laid charges of assault later at Brit’s police station but they lost the docket. 42

Kally Forrest

Assaulting workers in custody police said, ‘Workers should not think they are in a hotel.’

42 Interview Mkonyana

14

Leonard Meya who lost an eye in the fight between police and mineworkers on 13 August 2015 and

was arrested some months later and Ngwana, an older non literate mineworker from KwaZulu Natal

contracted to P2 labour brokers, sat together in the Marikana informal settlement and spoke of their

arrest experiences. Ngwana told:

I was grabbed and forced down and the police took my shoe laces and tied my hands behind my back and started jumping on my shoulders at the small koppie. I saw one young man climbing up a rock but he was shot down trying to get away. I was picked up and thrown into a van which moved around [and police] were assaulting people and throwing them into the van. When the van was full they sprayed teargas into the bakkie and shut the door and closed the windows. People were coughing and choking. We were then taken to Command Centre 1 and on to Mogwase in the early hours of morning and locked in a cell.

The following Sunday young police came in with the prison warder wearing lowered caps. They grabbed me by my beard and pressed me against the wall as they did not want me to recognise the police from Marikana police station who were doing the assaulting as I often took complaints to the police for miners. It was clear the order came from higher up as they went all over to different police stations to assault the miners. People were hit with fists and kicked.

I believe it was because the article by Greg Marinovich was released with information about killings on Scene Two on that Sunday and there was a big issue about where the arrested were. I believe the police were sent to make a list of arrested but instead assaulted them. I complained to the head warder who apologised and said they were bad officers but the miners did not accept this. I thought the Commission would investigate this [which it didn’t].

I saw things that were not supposed to happen [at Scene 2]. We trusted the police as our protectors but they were shooting people as they were surrendering. I would like to have asked the Commission, ‘When I was arrested, how come you can be abused. Aren’t the police the real criminals..?’ There is no justice in this country. People can’t be taken and tortured and there can’t be collusion between government and a small group of people, Lonmin - that’s conspiracy. The poor are always suppressed - it is so difficult to get justice for the poor.43

43 Interview Ngwana

15

Kally Forrest

The arrested were processed by police in a Lonmin Training Hall

Initially they had no idea why they had been arrested but later learnt they had been charged under a

common purpose law for murdering their colleagues. Charges were later dropped and most were then

recharged with public violence which were abandoned two years later. Makonyana now has to obtain

an annual clearance costing him R59 from the police before he is permitted by Lonmin to undergo his

medical to go underground despite being cleared of all charges.44

In tandem with the widows and injured, the arrested believed if the various parties came to speak to

them and gave a full explanation they would be able to forgive them. Expressing a common sentiment

that the police, the ANC in government and Lonmin were all culpable and should confront the injured

Madwantsi explained,

The police, Lonmin and government must come together and talk to us as they were all talking to each other before [the massacre]. They must come and speak to workers and allow workers to speak then we can make a solution towards peace. We don’t believe the whole of government or Lonmin are bad. We just need a small delegation but this still does not rule out a possible civil case.

What makes us sad is no-one in the ruling party comes to talk to us, we only see opposition parties. They only speak to the media. I was ANC and my family but I left ANC after this as

44 Interview Makonyana

16

the ruling party was at the forefront of these killings. What I hate is the unwillingness to come forward and pay for what has happened. Both Lonmin and government should pay. They were the decision-makers to kill people so they must come up with payment…

I also believe certain people need to be locked up as criminals. They must pay for making us cripples. It is possible to forgive but only if they come and are honest with us. But I don’t have much hope as Lonmin and the police are afraid as they would have to face bitter words and they must expect bitter words. We also need monetary compensation as we are living in a new world as cripples…

We were shot by NUM, government and the Alliance. We were defeating NUM. We took away power from NUM and with Lonmin we were affecting their shares. There is no justice in South Africa. I don’t trust anyone. People tend to make decisions out of emotion. I am EFF and they point out government faults and problems but when they get to power will they be the same?

Reaction to Marikana Commission Report

On 25 June the President, despite a commitment to warn families 48 hours in advance, released the

Marikana Report in a televised appearance to a blackout in Marikana where most of the community

were unable to watch.

In an interview prior to its release the widows had outlined what they expected from the report and beyond:

Who gave instructions for the shooting? What happened at Scene 2? Naming of those who gave orders or were responsible for the arrests, killings and injured and

who did what, where and how Those responsible such as Lonmin and government must talk to the families and answer

questions: What made you actually do this? Was it because you didn’t want to pay workers the money they demanded?

Lonmin and government to pay monetary compensation Koppie memorial site to be fenced off Tombstones to be laid with names of the perished to tell people in the future what happened.45

Little of this has been fulfilled. In some instances questions were partially answered in the Report

such as who gave the instructions for the shooting at Scene 1 and what happened at Scene 2.

Nombizolile Mosebetsane whose husband died at Scene 2 asked bewilderedly, “What was the purpose

of the killing at Site 2, or the small koppie? Because…I saw my husband where he was lying, he was

hiding himself between the stones. What makes the police to kill him in that hiding place. I am still

looking for an answer…”46 National and provincial commissioners Lt-Gen Phiyega and Lt-Gen

45 Group interview46 Justice, redress & restitution p22

17

Mbombo were named for being driven by ‘irrelevant political consideration’47 and that they should be

investigated for their “fitness to remain in their posts and whether they are guilty of misconduct in

attempting to mislead the Commission” 48 The Report also called for Major General Naidoo to be

investigated for his role in Scene 2 and for failing to fulfil his role of co-ordinating medical attention

for the injured. However the Commission mainly recommended further investigation into both

Scenes 1 and 2 which is unlikely to happen. Nevertheless the families still saw value in the

Commission, “The Commission helped a lot. We were in the dark why our people died but now we

have got an idea. But there are some areas we didn’t get and we still need answers. We especially

want to know what happened at Scene 2.”49

Meanwhile no memorial site exists and the white crosses for each of the dead have long disintegrated.

There is little possibility that Lonmin, police or government will dialogue with the families, the

injured and arrested and they have all been conspicuous by their silence.

CALS on behalf of the women of Marikana has however laid a complaint with the World Bank’s

ombudsman concerning its International Finance Corporation’s (IFC) $50 million investment in

Lonmin intended to support its Social and Labour Plan (SLP) which contributes to socio-economic

development in areas around mines. CALS believes the IFC should also have enforced these

obligations but was instead an ‘absentee landlord’, relying only on Lonmin annual reports. It hopes

an investigation will follow provoking dialogue between the parties on Lonmin’s commitments.

The Report did not recommend compensation for the families of the deceased arguing that this did not fall within its remit but the families did not agree, “We don’t only want to know how people died but who is going to look after and take care of families and how they can be sustained – jobs are not sufficient. They must admit responsibility and make up materially. Taking a job of a miner in the end

47 Marikana Report, pp167/168. The Commission made a finding that, “Gen Phiyega was complicit in engaging in discussions where political factors were inappropriately considered and discussed in relation to policing the situation at Marikana. This is inconsistent with our constitutional and statutory regime which requires that policing be conducted in an impartial and unbiased manner.‟ Marikana Report p169; and that “Lt Gen Mbombo took into account irrelevant political considerations in approaching the situation at Marikana: 543.1 She did not want mining companies to be seen to be supporting AMCU; 543.2 She did not want mining companies to undermine NUM; 543.3 She was responding to what she perceived as pressure from Mr Cyril Ramaphosa whom she considered to be politically influential; 543.4 She wanted to end the violence before Mr Julius Malema arrived in Marikana and was given credit for defusing the situation; 543.5 She was concerned to put an end to a situation where an opposition member of Parliament was involving himself in the community.” Marikana Report, p16.48 Marikana Report, p515.49 Group interview

18

does not compensate for the absence of the other [deceased].”50 The Mail & Guardian noted how shoddily the relatives had been treated, “The bereaved must now, at their own cost, on their own strength without even a psychologist, let alone the legal backing of the commission, try to convince the court that they are entitled to compensation. This is a massive backhanded klap [blow] for the bereaved by a commission appointed to help them find closure.51” The Marikana Commission’s motto was Truth Restoration and Justice and Judge Farlam saw this as his role but not recommending compensation for families meant the Commission turned its back on restorative justice.

Whilst the families believed the Commission should have weighed in on the side of justice and not

only of truth Adv Baloyi believed the Commission did what it could but misled the families into

thinking they would get compensation,

The families could put on record how they were struggling [at the Commission]. I don’t think the Commission could have done more than that. They were fully included as spectators. I have one criticism however. The way the Chair dealt with the families raised their hopes. They were broken down in the process of observing the Commission and then their hopes were raised. The Commission does not have the means to deliver and by involving them in this way expectations were created. The president may accept a recommendation of compensation to families so that they don’t have to pursue a civil case. However if it is not accepted by the President then the Commission was wrong to allow the families to sit through what they did… They felt no better. They still felt hostility to the police, and they never felt that they got any peace out of the Commission… A commission should not promise more than the right to attend and hear the truth otherwise the family could just have gone to court and they didn’t need a commission of inquiry because the evidence led at the Commission cannot be used in a court of law according to the Commission’s Act.52

It was however not the President who rejected a recommendation for compensation it was the

commissioners themselves. And as Baloyi indicates this has forced the families into pursuing civil

damages, a lengthy exercise which may result in some winning compensation and others not. Adv

Bizos from CALS had recommended an ad hoc committee comprised of Lonmin and the government

to determine what families should receive from whom rather than the pursuit of financially wasteful

court wrangles but preparedness to engage in such a process has not been indicated. The injured and

arrested on their part are pursuing criminal damages against the state in a separate action. Bonase

commented on how long it has taken for an investigation into the disappearance of Nokuthula

Simelane who went missing in September 1983 before her graduation to gain traction.53 The case has

long been referred for prosecution but a lack of will and urgency and the existence in democratic

South Africa of perpetrators in high positions who are being protected have prevented it. This does

not bode well for similar Marikana prosecutions.

50 Ibid51 http://mg.co.za/article/2015-07-02-is-this-all-that-44-mens-lives-are-worth52 Interview Baloyi53 Interview Bonase

19

Investigative commissions are primarily about digging to find the truth of what happened in an event

and not about justice. They seldom address transformation and healing unless they are framed as an

Advisory Commission. The Marikana Commission did not go this route. Prosecutions and a public

advocacy campaigns now have to take up the call for damages and compensation. The shame is that

the Marikana Report did not recommend compensation which would have lent weight to such

demands. Bonase believes such a campaign is necessary but will be difficult because “…we have an

unaccountable regime and this can also be traced back to the TRC that didn’t hold anyone

accountable.”54

Conclusion

Evidence Leader Matthew Chaskalson stressed the importance of giving Marikana victims names, “…

every victim who died at Marikana was a human being with a family and a life, an individual.” 55

They were not a faceless criminal mob. The families of the deceased underscored this especially in

their presentations to the Commission. But they also stressed that these were not just individual

victims but people who were part of a collective who banded together to demand a living wage, as the

families put it, “… workers at Lonmin mine who were fighting for better conditions of employment,

including a basic wage of R12 500 per month, which they hoped to win within the framework of our

country’s labour relations law. They informed us of this intent when they first put forward their

demands. When they were ignored by their employer Lonmin, they withdrew their labour and decided

to stay on the mountain. This was an unprotected strike, not an illegal or criminal act.”56 In this

struggle they had the support of their families as Agnes Thelejane said, “He told me it is a workers’

right to fight for a wage increase… I am asking why they were never taken and put in a combi or bus

and sent back to the Eastern Cape, instead of being killed.”57 This stands in stark contrast to the initial

tenor of the Marikana Report which states, “… that the tragic events that occurred during the period

12 to 16 August 2012 originated from the decision and conduct of the strikers in embarking on an

unprotected strike and in enforcing the strike by violence and intimidation, using dangerous weapons

for the purpose.”58

The families, injured and arrested in their demand for truth and justice by their very presence at the

Commission established important precedents. They established the right to counselling and

appropriate assistance in the form provided by Khulumani; they drew attention to the necessity to

support families elsewhere while relatives are attending proceedings; they reminded commissioners 54 Ibid55 Marikana Commission 5 November 2014:38601 56 Group statement, Appendix 157 Justice, redress & restitution p658 Marikana Report p42

20

that all parties must be seen and heard because, “Lonmin and police … had too much voice and

made it difficult to talk about truth telling and gave impression that it was a police and Lonmin

version.”59; they called for just and full representation for all parties; and they demanded the right to

just compensation. Despite their pain they became a symbol of what justice for the poor should look

like in South Africa. As Magidiwana said , “Justice rests with the poor – people who are vulnerable,

desperate, there you find justice. With people in power there is no justice they can sign off your life

with a pen and just sign to do away with you. These poor people still believe justice will come, but

justice keeps eluding them. Class divisions keep us poor and rich.”60

For the relatives, injured and arrested the search continues. “Whether they like it or not we will

continue until we know everything. The search for truth will continue even if there are difficulties

along the way but eventually God will reveal the truth. At the end of the day someone will say one,

two, three - this is what happened. It will keep coming out, it will continue.” commented Madwantsi.61

People may be separated, scattered above and below ground, in rural areas and informal settlements

but Magidiwana believes, “Truth is like the heat of the sun. You can protect yourself with an

umbrella but all the time you know outside it will burn you and at some stage you will start to

confess. There is a day of confession whether you like it or not.”62

The Marikana issue is not about to go away for the relatives of the deceased, the injured and arrested

nor for the nation.

Kally Forrest

November 2016

59 Group interview60 Interview Magidiwana61 Interview Madwantsi62 Interview Magidiwana

21

Appendix 1

Group Statement from Families of Victims of the August 2012 Marikana Massacre To: Judge Farlam Marikana Truth and Restoration Commission of Inquiry 16 September 2014

We as families of victims of the Marikana Massacre which occurred in August 2012, express our appreciation of the establishment of this Commission, and that we have been brought in to listen to statements made by witnesses, commanders, police, employers’ representatives (Lonmin) and government.

We were told that the commission would work to reveal the truth and restore peace and dignity. Yet, at the beginning we were in deep pain, not understanding why we were called here, why this commission was established, or how it could help towards healing the wounds in our hearts from the horrific death of our loved ones in August 2012 at Marikana. In order to stay, listen, speak and watch the video footage shown in this commission, we were helped through workshops with Khulumani Support Group. These healing sessions enabled us to break the silence and pain, by allowing us to learn how to draw, and to use these drawings to express our memories and feelings, and to gain confidence that we could contribute to peace and restoration of our dignity, for future generations. Through these efforts we learned to work together as a group.

Together, we have come to our own understanding and conclusions about the death of our loved ones. We wish to place these before the Commission, as our perspective on these events and the way forward. First, we are clear that the following are responsible for the deaths of our loved ones: Lonmin as a company The state/ government officials The SA Police

This conviction is based upon our own experiences of the events of August 2012. We know that our loved ones were workers at Lonmin mine who were fighting for better conditions of employment, including a basic wage of R12 500 per month, which they hoped to win within the framework of our country’s labour relations law. They informed us of this intent when they first put forward their demands. When they were ignored by their employer Lonmin, they withdrew their labour and decided to stay on the mountain. This was an unprotected strike, not an illegal or criminal act.

During that time we heard from the media that the company was worried about its financial losses. They expressed these losses as millions of rands lost each day. Our government also felt the pain as the rand weakened.

The State we believe is culpable in the subsequent events, because their role as a democratic, elected government was to manage a peaceful and fair resolution of this labour dispute. This they clearly did not do.

Lonmin and government officials together claimed that our loved ones were engaged in criminal acts rather than in a labour dispute, and they determined to end it by any means necessary. They must have been well aware of the potential death and destruction that could result from their actions, yet they went ahead with their decision to end the strike by force.

We maintain that all of the violence and deaths resulted from these decisions by Lonmin and the government.

22

These decisions, and the violence that followed them, have brought massive harm and pain in our lives, as family members and dependents of those killed.

To date, Lonmin and the Government have put forward several measures that are intended to address our situation: - Lonmin has offered to pay for school education for our children - Lonmin has offered employment to an alternative family member whose employment at Lonmin will help families damaged by loss of income when our breadwinner was killed - Lonmin has assisted with funerals for the deceased - Lonmin and government departments have provided food parcels and subsistence on a temporary basis during the past 2 years; however, there is no agreement that this will continue.

We welcome these measures as much-needed assistance for families who are desperate. However, these steps do not alone provide sufficient and necessary reparation for the harm we have suffered and are still suffering.

We therefore ask that the Commission put on record our demands for full and just redress. Such redress must be provided to families of all of those who died in the conflict, with no exceptions. These measures should not replace or supercede the assistance that Lonmin and the Government has already undertaken to provide; but rather, will ensure full, fair and just compensation.

We note that not all families of the deceased have received benefits, depending upon decisions made by Lonmin and the Government about the situation of the deceased person (for example, some benefits were not provided to those families who were not resident in SA, or where the deceased worker was not employed at Lonmin at the time of the strike).

From the South African Government: We realize no money will ever compensate for the loss of our loved ones. We ask for a sum of money to cover the loss of support we incurred when our loved ones were killed by the police, acting under instruction of their superiors. This amount must cover the incomes of which our families are deprived by their death – a sum comprising the earnings of R12500/ month for 20 years, or the rest of the life of the surviving spouse (which ever is longer).

From Lonmin: We ask Lonmin to institute measures to redress the damage inflicted on us by the mines and the migrant labour system as these realities played out at Marikana. We recognize that the Commission has not had the time to examine the problems embedded in the mining system and the system of migrant labour, which led to the tragic events at Marikana. However, we as a group, drawing upon the experiences of our families and communities, propose that Lonmin begin to redress these issues by investing resources in our own areas (which are the labour catchment areas for the mines), to create processes to enable us to earn our own incomes. We are not asking here for temporary or short-term assistance that perpetuates the damage done to our families and our lives by mining and migrant labour. Rather we ask that Lonmin invests in a victim-centered process which will work to replace the human and financial resources drained from our homes. This process should provide us, as victims and survivors of the Massacre, with the means to develop our own projects and programmes, within our own communities. This process must be established and funded by Lonmin, as those culpable for the damage; but it must be conceived and structured in full consultation with, and under the control of, victims and survivors, and our representatives. We ask the Commission to take note of these as remedies proposed by those of us whose lives have been most damaged by these events, as a way forward towards justice and restoration.

23

24