Farm massacre trial halted

THE trial of the four men accused of having been involved in the murder of eight people at a farm in the Kalkrand area in March 2005 came to a sudden standstill in the High Court in Windhoek yesterday, after the defence counsel of three of the accused men withdrew from the case.

The trial of brothers Sylvester and Gavin Beukes, Rehoboth area resident Stoney Neidel, and Windhoek resident Justus Christiaan (‘Shorty’) Erasmus, whose parents were two of the eight people killed at farm Kareeboomvloer between Rehoboth and Kalkrand between March 4 and 5 2005, is now expected to resume next year. Following the withdrawal of defence counsel Winnie Christians, who was representing the Beukes brothers and Neidel, from the trial yesterday, Judge President Petrus Damaseb postponed the matter to November 22, when a new date for the continuation of the trial is to be set.The Directorate of Legal Aid is supposed to instruct three new defence lawyers in the meantime to take over the task that Christians had been shouldering alone until now.Deputy Prosecutor General Antonia Verhoef has been insisting since the four made a pre-trial appearance in the High Court in May last year that it was apparent that there would be a conflict of interests between Christians’s clients – specifically between Gavin Beukes and Neidel – and that this made it necessary for the Legal Aid Directorate to appoint different lawyers for them.Christians insisted to the end yesterday that in his opinion there was no conflict of interest between his clients.Ultimately, though, Neidel forced his withdrawal.Christians informed Judge President Damaseb, just after the Judge President had made a ruling in a trial within a trial that to a large extent ended in a victory for Christians, that Neidel had told him yesterday morning that he felt it would be better if he was represented by another lawyer.Having been forced to withdraw from representing one of his clients, Christians had no choice but to withdraw from representing the Beukes brothers as well.The trial within a trial, which has kept the main trial occupied since mid-September, dealt with the admissibility of statements that the brothers are alleged to have made to Police officers between March 6 2005, when they were arrested at their home at Rehoboth, and March 9 2005, when they appeared in court for the first time.Christians objected against the prosecution using evidence about those alleged statements.He told the Judge President that the alleged statements had not been made freely and voluntarily, as the brothers were assaulted, threatened and treated in an oppressive way by Police officers in that time, and their constitutional rights were also not explained to them as required.In his ruling, the Judge President criticised the interrogation of the brothers on the evening of March 6 2005 – as depicted to the court through Police officers’ testimony and a video recording that was made on the evening – as “rudderless, unstructured and chaotic” and as “chaotic and a free-for-all”.He concluded that the State had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that an injury that could be seen under Sylvester Beukes’s left eye, as well as swelling elsewhere on his face, was not the result of violence on the part of Police officers.The State had also failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the brothers’ constitutional rights to remain silent, not to incriminate themselves, and to be legally represented, had been explained to them at that stage, the Judge President ruled.He ruled that evidence about admissions that Sylvester Beukes is claimed to have made at various places before the brothers’ first court appearance thus was inadmissible.With Gavin Beukes having denied that he had made a statement attributed to him – he is claimed to have said that he did not kill anyone at Kareeboomvloer, but that he only “dropped” people, which refers to holding people at gunpoint – the Judge President indicated that it would still be up to the prosecution to prove in the main trial that such a statement had in fact been made after all.Both Erasmus and Neidel remain free on bail while the trial hangs in limbo.The Beukes brothers are in custody.Following the withdrawal of defence counsel Winnie Christians, who was representing the Beukes brothers and Neidel, from the trial yesterday, Judge President Petrus Damaseb postponed the matter to November 22, when a new date for the continuation of the trial is to be set.The Directorate of Legal Aid is supposed to instruct three new defence lawyers in the meantime to take over the task that Christians had been shouldering alone until now.Deputy Prosecutor General Antonia Verhoef has been insisting since the four made a pre-trial appearance in the High Court in May last year that it was apparent that there would be a conflict of interests between Christians’s clients – specifically between Gavin Beukes and Neidel – and that this made it necessary for the Legal Aid Directorate to appoint different lawyers for them.Christians insisted to the end yesterday that in his opinion there was no conflict of interest between his clients. Ultimately, though, Neidel forced his withdrawal.Christians informed Judge President Damaseb, just after the Judge President had made a ruling in a trial within a trial that to a large extent ended in a victory for Christians, that Neidel had told him yesterday morning that he felt it would be better if he was represented by another lawyer.Having been forced to withdraw from representing one of his clients, Christians had no choice but to withdraw from representing the Beukes brothers as well.The trial within a trial, which has kept the main trial occupied since mid-September, dealt with the admissibility of statements that the brothers are alleged to have made to Police officers between March 6 2005, when they were arrested at their home at Rehoboth, and March 9 2005, when they appeared in court for the first time.Christians objected against the prosecution using evidence about those alleged statements.He told the Judge President that the alleged statements had not been made freely and voluntarily, as the brothers were assaulted, threatened and treated in an oppressive way by Police officers in that time, and their constitutional rights were also not explained to them as required.In his ruling, the Judge President criticised the interrogation of the brothers on the evening of March 6 2005 – as depicted to the court through Police officers’ testimony and a video recording that was made on the evening – as “rudderless, unstructured and chaotic” and as “chaotic and a free-for-all”.He concluded that the State had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that an injury that could be seen under Sylvester Beukes’s left eye, as well as swelling elsewhere on his face, was not the result of violence on the part of Police officers.The State had also failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the brothers’ constitutional rights to remain silent, not to incriminate themselves, and to be legally represented, had been explained to them at that stage, the Judge President ruled.He ruled that evidence about admissions that Sylvester Beukes is claimed to have made at various places before the brothers’ first court appearance thus was inadmissible.With Gavin Beukes having denied that he had made a statement attributed to him – he is claimed to have said that he did not kill anyone at Kareeboomvloer, but that he only “dropped” people, which refers to holding people at gunpoint – the Judge President indicated that it would still be up to the prosecution to prove in the main trial that such a statement had in fact been made after all.Both Erasmus and Neidel remain free on bail while the trial hangs in limbo.The Beukes brothers are in custody.