This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/world/africa/south-africa-to-charge-marikana-miners-in-deadly-unrest.html

The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 5 Version 6
In Police Shooting of Miners, South Africa Charges Miners In Police Shooting of Miners, South Africa Charges Miners
(35 minutes later)
LUANDA, Angola — Two weeks after the police opened fire on a crowd of 3,000 workers engaged in a wildcat strike at a platinum mine near Johannesburg, killing 34 people in the bloodiest labor unrest since the end of apartheid, prosecutors are bringing murder charges against a surprising set of suspects: the miners themselves.LUANDA, Angola — Two weeks after the police opened fire on a crowd of 3,000 workers engaged in a wildcat strike at a platinum mine near Johannesburg, killing 34 people in the bloodiest labor unrest since the end of apartheid, prosecutors are bringing murder charges against a surprising set of suspects: the miners themselves.
Using an obscure legal doctrine frequently relied upon by the apartheid government in its dying days, prosecutors did not accuse the police officers who shot and killed the strikers as they surged forward, machetes in hand. Instead, officials said Thursday that they were pursuing murder charges against the 270 miners who were arrested after the dust settled and the shooting stopped.Using an obscure legal doctrine frequently relied upon by the apartheid government in its dying days, prosecutors did not accuse the police officers who shot and killed the strikers as they surged forward, machetes in hand. Instead, officials said Thursday that they were pursuing murder charges against the 270 miners who were arrested after the dust settled and the shooting stopped.
It was the latest astonishing turn in a story that has gripped South Africa, unleashing a torrent of rage over deepening inequality, poverty and unemployment.It was the latest astonishing turn in a story that has gripped South Africa, unleashing a torrent of rage over deepening inequality, poverty and unemployment.
The shootings have fed a growing sense of betrayal at the country’s governing party, the venerable African National Congress, many of whose senior members have joined a wealthy elite a world away from the downtrodden masses whose votes brought them to power at the end of apartheid in 1994. Now the prosecutors’ decision to charge the miners in the killings threatens to intensify that rift.The shootings have fed a growing sense of betrayal at the country’s governing party, the venerable African National Congress, many of whose senior members have joined a wealthy elite a world away from the downtrodden masses whose votes brought them to power at the end of apartheid in 1994. Now the prosecutors’ decision to charge the miners in the killings threatens to intensify that rift.
Frank Lesenyego, a spokesman for the National Prosecuting Authority, cited “34 counts of murder that have been laid against the 270 accused,” in connection with the killings of the 34 miners on Aug. 16. He said they were being charged under a law known as “common purpose,” in which members of a crowd when a crime is committed can be prosecuted as accomplices.Frank Lesenyego, a spokesman for the National Prosecuting Authority, cited “34 counts of murder that have been laid against the 270 accused,” in connection with the killings of the 34 miners on Aug. 16. He said they were being charged under a law known as “common purpose,” in which members of a crowd when a crime is committed can be prosecuted as accomplices.
It was unclear whether the charges were simply a legal maneuver to keep the miners, who have been in jail for two weeks, under lock and key, or if prosecutors were intent on pursuing the murder charges in court. Legal experts were quick to say that the accusations were extreme.It was unclear whether the charges were simply a legal maneuver to keep the miners, who have been in jail for two weeks, under lock and key, or if prosecutors were intent on pursuing the murder charges in court. Legal experts were quick to say that the accusations were extreme.
“The charge is spurious,” said Pierre de Vos, a legal scholar at the University of Cape Town. “It will not fly. No court in South Africa on any set of facts will find the miners guilty through the common purpose doctrine.”“The charge is spurious,” said Pierre de Vos, a legal scholar at the University of Cape Town. “It will not fly. No court in South Africa on any set of facts will find the miners guilty through the common purpose doctrine.”
Patrick Craven, a spokesman for Cosatu, a federation of trade unions, criticized the murder charges. “This is pure intimidation,” Mr. Craven said. “The lawyers must really be very stupid if they think these charges will stick. The notion that these miners are responsible for the deaths of their own fellow workers is absurd.”Patrick Craven, a spokesman for Cosatu, a federation of trade unions, criticized the murder charges. “This is pure intimidation,” Mr. Craven said. “The lawyers must really be very stupid if they think these charges will stick. The notion that these miners are responsible for the deaths of their own fellow workers is absurd.”
Several thousand workers at a platinum mine, owned by the London-based Lonmin, in the town of Marikana, northwest of Johannesburg, went on strike this month, demanding a raise. The men were members of a radical, breakaway union whose leaders were trying to drum up membership and had urged workers to strike to get higher pay and better working conditions. They occupied a rocky hill near the mine, armed themselves with machetes, spears and clubs, and chanted war songs and anthems from the struggle against apartheid. Several thousand workers at a platinum mine, in the town of Marikana, northwest of Johannesburg, went on strike this month, demanding a raise. The mine is owned by Lonmin, a company based in London. The men were members of a radical, breakaway union whose leaders were trying to drum up membership and had urged workers to strike to get higher pay and better working conditions. They occupied a rocky hill, armed themselves with machetes, spears and clubs, and chanted war songs and anthems from the struggle against apartheid.
For days, the authorities watched warily as the crowd grew more militant. Two police officers were hacked to death, and eight other people were killed in violent clashes. On Aug. 16, the police were given the order to move in. The police said that they tried to chase away the miners with rubber bullets and stun grenades, but that they were forced to resort to live ammunition when the miners surged at them. The police said they retrieved six guns from the scene, including one that belonged to one of the dead police officers.For days, the authorities watched warily as the crowd grew more militant. Two police officers were hacked to death, and eight other people were killed in violent clashes. On Aug. 16, the police were given the order to move in. The police said that they tried to chase away the miners with rubber bullets and stun grenades, but that they were forced to resort to live ammunition when the miners surged at them. The police said they retrieved six guns from the scene, including one that belonged to one of the dead police officers.
The bloodshed, so reminiscent of the horror of the apartheid-era police force’s firing on protesters, stunned the nation. The government, trade unions and the opposition roundly condemned the violence, and President Jacob Zuma set up an independent commission to investigate the killings and gave it broad powers to subpoena testimony.The bloodshed, so reminiscent of the horror of the apartheid-era police force’s firing on protesters, stunned the nation. The government, trade unions and the opposition roundly condemned the violence, and President Jacob Zuma set up an independent commission to investigate the killings and gave it broad powers to subpoena testimony.
The police involved in the shooting could still face criminal charges as well. The inquiry set up by Mr. Zuma has the power to refer cases for prosecution, and it is expected to deliver a report in five months.The police involved in the shooting could still face criminal charges as well. The inquiry set up by Mr. Zuma has the power to refer cases for prosecution, and it is expected to deliver a report in five months.
Journalists at the scene caught some of the shooting on video and in photographs. The police account, meticulously laid out in a multimedia presentation the day after the clash, has been questioned by witnesses and journalists who have examined the scene and concluded that at least some of the workers were killed in what appeared to be much more suspicious circumstances.Journalists at the scene caught some of the shooting on video and in photographs. The police account, meticulously laid out in a multimedia presentation the day after the clash, has been questioned by witnesses and journalists who have examined the scene and concluded that at least some of the workers were killed in what appeared to be much more suspicious circumstances.
Some of the dead and 78 wounded were struck far from the scene of the strike or shot in the back, according to local news reports, suggesting that they were not directly involved in the confrontation or were fleeing it.Some of the dead and 78 wounded were struck far from the scene of the strike or shot in the back, according to local news reports, suggesting that they were not directly involved in the confrontation or were fleeing it.
The common purpose doctrine used by prosecutors against the miners has its roots in English law, and it is not unlike laws that allow anyone associated with a crime to be charged as an accomplice, Professor de Vos said. But based on the known facts in this case, bringing the charge makes little sense, he said.The common purpose doctrine used by prosecutors against the miners has its roots in English law, and it is not unlike laws that allow anyone associated with a crime to be charged as an accomplice, Professor de Vos said. But based on the known facts in this case, bringing the charge makes little sense, he said.
“They are conflating the possibility that the crowd might have provoked the police, which is something different from willing on the police to shoot and kill people,” Professor de Vos said. “If a court were to convict, it would be akin to a finding that they had the intention of killing themselves.”“They are conflating the possibility that the crowd might have provoked the police, which is something different from willing on the police to shoot and kill people,” Professor de Vos said. “If a court were to convict, it would be akin to a finding that they had the intention of killing themselves.”
The common purpose clause was widely abused in the last days of apartheid to jail protesters, and in a few cases people not directly involved in killing were sentenced to death under it. In the most famous case, six protesters were sentenced to be hanged for the killing of the deputy mayor of Sharpeville in 1984, though they did not directly participate in it.The common purpose clause was widely abused in the last days of apartheid to jail protesters, and in a few cases people not directly involved in killing were sentenced to death under it. In the most famous case, six protesters were sentenced to be hanged for the killing of the deputy mayor of Sharpeville in 1984, though they did not directly participate in it.
The case drew international condemnation, and the accused were not executed because the death penalty was suspended in 1990 as the apartheid government began to weaken. The law was affirmed by the courts as recently as 2003, but the decision allowed it only under a very narrow set of circumstances, including when a defendant knows and intends that a killing will take place.The case drew international condemnation, and the accused were not executed because the death penalty was suspended in 1990 as the apartheid government began to weaken. The law was affirmed by the courts as recently as 2003, but the decision allowed it only under a very narrow set of circumstances, including when a defendant knows and intends that a killing will take place.