Bloem v Minister of Law and Order and Others

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Van Coller J and Malherbe J
• Judgment Date: 09 October 1986
• Citation: 1987 (2) SA 436 (O)
• Court: Orange Free State Provincial Division

Van Coller J:

This is an application for the release of the F applicant who is a detainee in terms of the emergency regulations which were made in terms of s 3 of the Public Safety Act 3 of 1953 and which were published in Government Gazette 10280 of 12 June 1986 under Proc R109 of 1986. The applicant also seeks an order declaring her arrest wrongful and unlawful.

It is common cause that applicant was arrested on 28 June 1986 G by members of the security police. She has been detained in the prison at Virginia since that date. The arrest took place at a shop in Kroonstad. Applicant's brother, Dennis Bloem, is the owner of this shop. It is common cause that Dennis Bloem and his wife, Edith, were arrested by the police on 12 and 13 H June 1986 respectively and that they have been in detention since then in terms of the emergency regulations. Applicant states that she is a fully qualified nurse employed at the Boitemelo Hospital, Kroonstad. As a result of the arrest and detention of Dennis and Edith Bloem she obtained leave of absence from her employment in order to assist with the running of the shop.

In her founding affidavit applicant says that during the I afternoon of 28 July 1986 three policemen came to the shop. One of the policemen accused her of wearing a United Democratic Front T-shirt. According to applicant the shirt was in fact an ordinary, plain, yellow T-shirt having no writing thereon. Applicant also states in her affidavit that one of the policemen removed a calendar from a wall in the shop. The J calendar is

Van Coller J

A referred to in the papers as a 'Release Mandela Campaign' calendar. According to applicant this calendar had been hanging in the shop even prior to the arrest of Dennis Bloem. Applicant states that when she was taken into detention the police did not tell her what the reason for her arrest or her subsequent B detention was. It appears from telexes attached to the papers that first respondent, in reply to a request by applicant's attorney, confirmed that applicant was being detained in terms of reg 3(1) of the emergency regulations. Applicant states that she is not a member of any political organisation. She is not a member of the UDF and does not wear T-shirts displaying that name. Applicant states that her arrest and detention in terms of reg 3(1) is unlawful. Affidavits by C applicant's sister, father and one LM Medican in support of applicant's allegations as to what happened at the shop have also been filed.

In their opposition to the application, first and second respondents rely upon the affidavit of Warrant-Officer Salomon Daniel Jacobs. It appears from his affidavit that he was one of D the three policemen who visited the shop of Dennis Bloem during the afternoon of 28 July 1986, and that it was he who arrested the applicant. Jacobs says in his affidavit that applicant is an active supporter of those factions which organise school and consumer boycotts and that she is a supporter of the UDF. She has been known to the security police for a considerable time. Approximately one week prior to 28 E July 1986 he received certain information from a reliable source about applicant's activities. According to this information applicant is not only a supporter of school and consumer boycotts but she has in fact taken part in the organisation of such boycotts. This, according to Jacobs, could lead to the resumption of serious unrest in the Black townships F of Kroonstad and endanger the maintenance of public order and the safety of the public. He then continues as follows:

'Ek was dus as gevolg van voormelde inligting bona fide van oordeel dat die aanhouding van die applikante nodig is vir die handhawing van openbare orde of die veiligheid van die publiek en die moontlike bedindiging van die noodtoestand.'

On 28 July 1986 Jacobs received further information and then went to the shop. His version differs from that of applicant as G to what took...