Power in Colonial Africa: Conflict and Discourse in Lesotho, 1870–1960

10. Discourse and Subterfuge: Responses to Medicine Murder

184 10 Discourse and Subterfuge Responses to Medicine Murder The struggle over “medicine murder” in the 1940s and 1950s highlights that there was no one local position, “the African perspective,” posed against a single colonial perspective in the discussion of liretlo. In the conversation that ensued, European colonial discourse, embracing discordant voices and views of the problems, revealed common ground and common assumptions in the language of the “primitive”; of “illness ,” “psychosis,” and “treatment”; of racism and the teleology of development , Westernization, and the achievement of “civilization.” On the other hand, the recoverable discourse produced by BaSotho voices was driven by a divide between those who were the victims and those who were the perpetrators of the crime. The British system of indirect rule was predicated on the assumption that chiefs represented their people and could be used both to transmit and enforce colonial policies from the top down and transmit and support popular interests from the bottom up. Over generations the chiefs had become adept at turning colonial jargon back toward the colonizer, as it was a discourse that legitimized their own authoritative voice as “the voice” of their people, but now common people were the victims of medicine murder. The British colonial government only gradually became aware of the rising incidence of medicine murders. At the time of the January 1941 recognition of ’Mantsebo as Regent Paramount Chief there were no known, outstanding, unsolved, recent medicine murders.1 Four murders suspected to be medicine murders were committed between the time ’Mantsebo took office in late January 1941 and the time Resident Commissioner Charles Arden Clarke arrived at the end of 1942, but none of these murders had any apparent connection with BaSotho politics or the chieftaincy; hence there was no obvious reason for alarm when Arden Clarke first arrived. The situation changed during Arden Clarke’s tenure as Resident Commissioner, during which time the regency dispute was brought to the High Court for consideration in 1943, pitting ’Mantsebo against her deceased husband’s brother, Bereng. Between 1943 and 1945 twentyfour medicine murders were eventually reported, of which the authorities knew of seventeen. Arden Clarke must have been alarmed at the high incidence of these murders by the time he left the country in 1946. The first official response came in the form of circulars issued from the Office of the Paramount Chief beginning in January 1946. ’Mantsebo ’s first message, presumably dictated by the Resident Commissioner perhaps after consultation with other chiefs, ordered all Ward chiefs to call a pitso and read the message from ’Mantsebo to their people. With the bold caption “RITUAL MURDERS,” the circular opened by quoting Moshoeshoe’s 1855 proclamation outlawing witchcraft, with the implication that participation in medicine murder was a form of witchcraft . The most striking feature of the message was that it explicitly controverted the defensive strategy typically adopted by many chiefs and laid the blame, at this early date, precisely at their door: These ritual murders which are committed for the sole purpose of obtaining chieftainship medicine horns etc. I feel I cannot tolerate them and the [British colonial] Government will also not tolerate them.2 The remainder of this circular ordered full cooperation with the police and placed restrictions on “witch doctors,” who were explicitly blamed for the problem. The message was certainly composed and sanctioned by the colonial officials, but it went out over ’Mantsebo’s signature . On 31 July of the same year a second circular was issued and signed by the Regent Paramount Chief. Although she had previously identified chiefs as the cause of the murders, they were now ordered to report the murders and assist in investigations, but a warning was issued to them as well: I cannot pass this matter without saying a strong word of warning to you Chiefs. In these murders your names are being mentioned and the people say they have been ordered by you. . . . You should know that whoever will be found involved in such matters will lose his rights.3 Discourse and Subterfuge 185 Chiefs were thus put on notice that they would lose their rights if they were involved in these murders, but they were not reminded that murder was a capital crime. All persons who withheld information would be punished, and they were instructed to bypass their own chief if necessary to report what they knew: I order, therefore, that any person hearing of a...