TRC Final Report

Volume 5

Chapter 4

Subsection 20

Resistance to homeland incorporation

173 Rural community opposition was often characterised by complex constellations of state repression, ethnic tensions and resistance to incorporation into ethnically defined homelands. In a submission to the Amnesty Committee at Phokeng, Mr Brian Currin spoke of the resistance of the Baphokeng tribe to incorporation into Bophuthatswana:

Resistance, both organised and spontaneous to the formation and continued existence of the homelands, has long been a feature of South African politics. In Bophuthatswana itself, political struggles were waged by rural communities and political organisations against the issues of forced incorporation.

174 This conflict was linked with tribal conflicts as non-Tswanas were evicted and persecuted in Bophuthatswana soon after independence.

175 In rural areas, the nature of reprisals against those who were seen as collaborators differed from that in urban areas, owing to the frequent dominance of traditional leaders. The state and homeland leaders attempted to co-opt supportive leaders and, where this failed, the legitimate chiefs were replaced. This was the case in Baphokeng, where Chief Molokele refused to acknowledge Lucas Mangope’s leadership and suffered harassment and detention as a result. Following Chief Molokele’s exile to Botswana, President Mangope appointed his brother, George Molokele, to the position. The tribe fiercely opposed this. The community continued to mobilise against its incorporation into Bophuthatswana and the illegitimacy of Molokele’s appointment.

176 Thus, the system of apartheid and the accompanying construction of ethnically defined homelands resulted not only in resistance, but also in the polarisation of communities. In this instance, those who opposed Mangope’s rule were subsequently forced to mobilise against a member of their own community who attempted to capitalise on the repression.

177 The theme of collaboration also emerges in the rural context. This was illustrated by the state’s use of kitskonstabels³⁰ who, after only six weeks of training, were deployed in communities. They proved to be ill disciplined and a law unto themselves.

178 Vigilantism was also a feature in rural communities. In Zolani in Ashton, the Amasolomzi patrolled the streets as the henchmen of local councillors. Their unregulated activities resulted in many human rights violations. Mr Nthando Mrubata, who testified at the Worcester hearing, was a victim of the Amasolomzi: “It was due to the police and the vigilantes that I am now a cripple.”

179 Intra-community violence extended beyond the activities of the state and vigilante groups to inter-party conflict. Mr Jim Bonakele Yanta, an ANC Youth League member in Upington, spoke of the Upington hearing of conflict between ANC and National Party supporters. This conflict led to displacement as “some of the ANC members who lived in the location had to actually move out of the location, out of the Red Block and they had to come to live in E’Thembeni because they were constantly being threatened.” He alleged police complicity with the NP supporters.

180 The consequences of these conflicts are extremely complex, with spiralling and contradictory implications. It is clear that gross human rights violations have ripple effects that extend beyond the individual into the heart of communities.