DECISION
Adriaan Pieter van Niekerk ("the 1st Applicant"), Hendrik Albertus Beukes Mostert ("the 2nd Applicant"), Jacobus Hermanus Engelbrecht ("the 3rd Applicant"), Charles Alfred Zeelie ("the 4th Applicant"), and Johann Ludwig du Preez ("the 5th Applicant") apply for amnesty in respect of the role they played in the unlawful killing of Maisha Johannes "Stanza" Bopape ("the Deceased"), the disposal of the Deceased's body and the cover up of his death. Gerrit Nicholas Erasmus ("the 6th Applicant"), Petrus Lodewikus du Toit ("the 7th Applicant"), Johannes Velde van der Merwe ("the 8th Applicant"), Schalk Visser ("the 9th Applicant"), and Leon van Loggerenberg ("the 10th Applicant"), apply for amnesty in respect of their participation in the unlawful disposal of the Deceased's body and the cover-up of his death.
The Deceased died on the 12th June 1988. At the time of his death the Applicants were all members of the Security Branch of the South African Police Force.
The 1st Applicant held the rank of Major and was stationed at John Vorster Square, Johannesburg. The 2nd Applicant was a Warrant Officer and was also stationed at John Vorster Square. The 3rd Applicant and the 4th Applicant were also stationed at John Vorster Square and held the ranks of Detective Constable and Lieutenant respectively. The 5th Applicant was a Detective Sergeant and was stationed in Sandton. The headquarters of the Witwatersrand Division of the Security Branch was at John Vorster Square. The Sandton Office was a branch office of that Division. The 6th Applicant held the rank of Brigadier and he was the Divisional Commander of the Witwatersrand Security Branch. His deputy was the 7th Applicant who held the rank of Colonel. The 8th Applicant held the rank of General and was the commanding officer of the Security Branch, stationed at Pretoria. The 9th and 10th Applicants were both attached to the Eastern Transvaal Division of the Security Branch. The 9th Applicant was a Brigadier and was the Divisional Commander of the Eastern Transvaal. The 10th Applicant held the rank of captain.
All of the Applicants as well as one Bheki Nkosi testified at the hearing of this matter. The version of events as given by the Applicants may be summarised as follows:
The Deceased, together with Bheki Nkosi, was arrested on Thursday 9th June 1988 in a flat he shared with the said Nkosi in Hillbrow, Johannesburg. They were arrested by members of the West Rand Division of the Security Branch who were assisted by the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Applicants. After their arrest they were taken to Roodepoort where they were detained in terms of section 50 of the Criminal Procedure Act. No 51 of 1977. A number of other people, besides the Deceased and the said Nkosi, had been arrested by members of the West Rand Division of the Security Branch and it was agreed between the Commanders of the West Rand and Witwatersrand Divisions that the Witwatersrand Division would assist in the interrogation of some of the detainees. Pursuant to that agreement the Deceased and the said Nkosi were transferred to the cells at John Vorster Square. The 1st Applicant had been informed by Captain Jan Kleynhans of the West Rand Security Branch that the Deceased was suspected of being involved with the Maponya Group, a group of African National Congress (ANC) activists suspected of causing a number of bomb blasts in the Pretoria and West Rand areas.
The 1st Applicant then instructed the 2nd and 3rd Applicants to handle the interrogation of the Deceased. Two other members of the Security Branch who are not Applicants in this matter were ordered by the 1st Applicant to interrogate Bheki Nkosi.
The 2nd and 3rd Applicants commenced their interrogation of the Deceased during the afternoon of 10th June 1988 by "processing" him, that is, by taking his finger and palm prints and obtaining his personal particulars. While doing this the 7th Applicant arrived and informed the Deceased that he was no longer being detained in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act but that his detention was now in terms of Section 29 of the Internal Security Act, Act No 74 of 1982. The Deceased was also, that afternoon, taken by the 3rd Applicant to the District Surgeon for routine examination. The District Surgeon prescribed medication for a nasal problem, which medicine was collected from a pharmacy by the 3rd Applicant.
The 1st Applicant did not see the Deceased on Saturday 11th June 1988 as he attended a meeting at the Krugersdorp Security Branch where he was given information concerning the activities of the Deceased and Bheki Nkosi. The 3rd Applicant only paid a brief visit to the Deceased in his cell that Saturday. He asked the Deceased whether he needed anything or whether he wanted to tell him anything. The Deceased declined to answer and the 3rd Applicant then left.
On Sunday 12th June 1988 the Deceased was booked out of his cell by the 2nd and 3rd Applicants and was taken up to the Security Branch offices on the 10th Floor of John Vorster Square. He was taken into a room where the 2nd and 3rd Applicants began interrogating him. The 1st and 4th Applicants were also present on the 10th floor, but they were working in different rooms on other matters.
The Deceased did not answer questions put to him by the 2nd and 3rd Applicants to their satisfaction. They reported this to the 1st Applicant who also then participated in the questioning of the Deceased. The 1st Applicant explained the gravity of the situation to the Deceased and informed him that unless he co-operated he would continue to be detained in terms of section 29 of the Internal Security Act. The Deceased nevertheless refused to co-operate.
No physical violence was used against the Deceased during this period of interrogation which lasted approximately two hours. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Applicants then discussed the matter amongst themselves and agreed that more drastic measures should be resorted to in order to induce the Deceased to co-operate. They decided that the Deceased should be given the so-called "shock treatment". An electric shock device was not available at the John Vorster Square offices. The 5th Applicant, who was then off duty, was telephoned at his home. No one can recall who telephoned the 5th Applicant. He informed the caller that there was an electric shock device at the Sandton offices and he undertook to immediately fetch the device and deliver it to them at John Vorster Square. He did so. The device consisted of an old telephone dynamometer to which was attached a crank handle and electrical cords. The ends of the electrical cords are either attached to the victim or moved across the body of the victim and when the crank handle is turned an electric current is produced which travels down the electric cords onto the body of the victim.
The 5th Applicant prepared the device for use by ensuring that the electrical cords were properly attached and by placing dampened pieces of cloth at the ends of the cords. The dampened pieces of cloth were applied to ensure that no visible burn marks would result. A wooden chair was taken out of the office of the 1st Applicant and placed in the corridor. The Deceased was placed in the chair and his shirt and shoes were removed. His hands were tied to the supports of the chair and his feet to the legs of the chair. The crank handle of the device was operated by the 5th Applicant and the 3rd Applicant pushed the cords against and moved them over the chest of the Deceased. The 1st, 2nd and 4th Applicants looked on.
The 5th Applicant turned the handle two or three times and then stopped. The Deceased was asked if he had anything to say but did not respond. This process was repeated three or four times over a period of three of four minutes. After the third or fourth time the Deceased's head and upper body slumped forward. He appeared to be unconscious. He was untied from the chair and laid on his back on the floor. The 5th Applicant tried to resuscitate him but after a short while it was determined that he was dead.
The Applicants present realised that they were in a serious predicament and that the death of the Deceased would have far-reaching political implications, particularly as the 16th June, the anniversary of the Soweto uprisings, was only few days away. They discussed the matter amongst themselves and the 1st Applicant decided that their commanding officer, the 6th Applicant, should be informed. He telephoned the 6th Applicant and briefly informed him of what had happened. He then immediately left and went to the home of the 6th Applicant where the matter was fully discussed between them. The 6th Applicant indicated that he would take the matter up with head office.
The 1st Applicant returned to John Vorster Square. The body of the Deceased was then laid on the floor of the room where he had been interrogated and a blanket was placed over it. They then waited for instructions from the 6th Applicant. The 6th Applicant, shortly after the departure of the 1st Applicant from his home, went to see his commanding officer, the 8th Applicant, in Pretoria. They discussed the matter in depth and after considering the probable dire consequences the revealing of the death of the Deceased would have for the government and the police, they decided to cover-up the death of the Deceased by disposing of his body and creating a mock escape. They decided that the body should be disposed of in the Eastern Transvaal and that the services of the 9th Applicant be used for this purpose.
The 6th Applicant telephoned the 9th Applicant and advised him that he had a "problem concerning a detainee" and he asked for assistance. The 9th Respondent agreed to assist but said he did not want to know any details. It was agreed that 1st Applicant would make the necessary arrangements with the 9th Applicant.
The 6th Applicant then contacted his deputy, the 7th Applicant and requested him to go to the offices at John Vorster Square. At the offices the 6th Applicant informed the 7th Applicant of what had transpired. He also informed him and the others present of the decision to dispose of the body and to stage a mock escape.
The 1st Applicant communicated telephonically with the 9th Applicant who was in Middelburg and it was arranged that they would meet him at a certain bridge near Bronkhorstspruit on the highway between Middelburg and the Witwatersrand.
The body of the Deceased was placed in plastic bags and was put into the boot of a motor vehicle which was parked in the basement of the building. The vehicle in which the body was placed was driven by the 4th Applicant to the rendezvous points. The 1st Applicant and 2nd Applicants were passengers in that vehicle. The 3rd and 5th Applicants followed them in another vehicle. They met the 9th Applicant at the bridge as planned. Also present at the bridge, in his own vehicle, was the 10th Applicant. The 1st Applicant had a brief discussion with the 9th Applicant and they then all drove to a quiet country road.
There the body of the Deceased was transferred into the boot of the 10th Applicant's vehicle. The 9th Applicant instructed the 10th Applicant to get rid of the body. He gave no instruction as to where or how the body should be disposed of - he left this to the discretion of the 10th Applicant. The 9th Applicant then returned to Middelburg and the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th Applicants returned to Johannesburg to plan the mock escape. The 10th Applicant drove approximately 350 kilometres to a secluded spot on the Komati River which was very close to the Mozambique border. The spot was familiar to him and he knew that the river there was infected with crocodiles. He arrived there sometime after midnight. He placed the body in the river and drove back to his home at Middelburg. The body was never recovered.
The five other Applicants arrived back at John Vorster Square at approximately 22h00. They planned the fake escape which was then acted out by them at approximately midnight. The pretence was that they were taking the Deceased (acted by the 4th Applicant) to Sebokeng in the vicinity of De Deur where he was supposed to point out the house of a contact person. The 4th Applicant put on Deceased's shoes which had been left at the offices (these would hopefully provide a realistic scent for sniffer dogs to follow at the scene of the mock escape). He also attached a set of leg irons to himself but only to one of his ankles. He also took along a set of opened handcuffs. The keys for the leg irons and handcuffs were put into a side pocket of the 2nd Applicant's jacket which was draped over the front passenger seat of the vehicle they were to use. The 4th Applicant sat in the rear seat behind the front passenger seat. The others in the vehicle were the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Applicants.
They drove to a place near De Deur where there was a mielie field next to the road. The 5th Applicant followed them in a separate vehicle. They stopped and alighted from the vehicle. The 5th Applicant drove his vehicle to a spot a few hundred metres further on and waited there.
The 4th Applicant then punctured the right rear tyre of their vehicle with a knife. He removed the keys for the leg irons and handcuffs from the jacket pocket and then ran into the mielie field while the 2nd and 3rd Applicants were changing the punctured tyre. The 1st Applicant fired a few shots into the air. The 4th Applicant made sure that the chain of the leg irons attached to his ankle made a distinct trail into the mielie field. He ran in the mielie field for a few hundred metres before he unlocked the leg irons. He left the leg irons and the opened handcuffs in the field and then ran to the 5th Applicant's vehicle. He and the 5th Applicant then drove to John Vorster Square.
After the wheel of the vehicle had been changed, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Applicants drove to the Residentia Police Station where they reported the escape. All necessary branches, including the dog unit were informed of the escape. They returned to the scene with members of the Vereeniging Security Branch, all of whom were unaware that the escape was nothing more than a pretence. The next day the Applicants compiled a detailed false report relating to the "escape", setting out step by step what had happened and who was involved.
The Applicants thereafter perpetuated the cover-up of the Deceased's death either passively, by permitting the investigation into the alleged escape to continue, by failing to inform the Commissioner of Police and the Minister of Law and Order of the true facts and by maintaining their silence and keeping the truth a secret, or actively by submitting false reports about the escape and by providing false information of the escape to the relatives of the Deceased and their legal representatives.
The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th Applicants stated that they had knowledge, in varying degrees, of the electric shock machine. They stated that in using the machine on the Deceased their intention was to frighten the Deceased and to coerce him into co-operating with them. It was not, they said, their intention to kill him and they were surprised and shocked when the Deceased died. They all acknowledge that they unlawfully caused the death of the Deceased. They further aver that while the use of the electric shock machines was not in accordance with police policy, it was common knowledge amongst members of the police force that such machines were often used in interrogations and that their superior officers condoned such use by turning a blind eye.
All of the Applicants stated that they were supporters of the National Party and the government: they stated that at all times they acted in their capacities as policemen and supporters of the government. They regarded themselves as combatants in a war situation. They had sworn an oath of allegiance to the state and they did everything in their power to support the government and to resist the onslaught of the liberation movements against it.
The testimony of Bheki Nkosi confirms that he and the Deceased were arrested together on 9 June 1988, that they spent that night in detention at Roodepoort and that they were transferred to John Vorster Square the next day. He stated that the 4th Applicant acted aggressively during the arrest and that he (the 4th Applicant) punched the Deceased. It is clear from his evidence that he did not see the Deceased again after they were placed in separate cells in Roodepoort.
They were transported to John Vorster Square separately and they were also detained in separate cells there. He stated that on 10th June 1988 he was taken up to the 10th floor of John Vorster Square where he was questioned by two policeman (Messrs Syfert and Wilkens) who are not applicants in this matter. He avers, however, that while he was being questioned there he heard the Deceased speaking in another office and that from time to time the 2nd Applicant came to ask him questions obviously with the intention to confirm what he had been told by the Deceased. He also heard the Deceased making grunting noises which led him to believe that the Deceased was being assaulted.
Mr Nkosi testified further that after he was questioned he was taken to the Sandton police station where he was detained. On the following Monday he was informed by a Colonel (who he could not identify) that he was being detained in terms of section 29 of the Internal Security Act. Later that day he was blindfolded by two policemen who were unknown to him and taken to a place which he believes was in Pretoria where he was tortured and interrogated. His interrogators tortured him by using an electric shock device. He stated that on Wednesday 15 June 1988 Syfert told him during an interrogation that the Deceased, the previous Sunday, had been taken out of the police cells to point out a DLB somewhere in Sebokeng and on arrival there he ran away and was shot dead by the police.
Section 20(1) of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act No 34 of 1995 (the Act) provides as follows:
"20(1) If the committee, after considering an application for amnesty is satisfied that:-
(a) the application complies with the requirements of this Act;
(b) the act, omission or offence to which the application relates is an act associated with a political objective committed in the course of the conflicts of the past in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) and (3); and
(c) the Applicant has made full disclosure of all relevant facts,
it shall grant amnesty in respect of that act, omission or offence".
With regard to the provisions of section 20(1)(a) of the Act, we are satisfied that all of the applications under consideration in this matter comply with the formal requirements of the Act, that is, that they were all submitted timeously on a properly completed prescribed form.
With regard to the second requirement which is set out in section 20(1)(b), the relevant provisions of subsection (2) referred to therein are contained in paragraphs (b) and (f) thereof. Subsection 2(b) and (f) provide that, unless the context of the Act indicates otherwise, an "act associated with a political objective" means any act or omission which constitutes an offence or delict which according to the criteria in subsection (3) is associated with a political objective, and which was advised, planned directed, commanded, ordered or committed within or outside the Republic during the period 1 March 1960 to the cut off date (10 May 1994), by any employee of the State or any former state or any member of the security forces of the State or any former state in the course and scope of his or her duties and within the scope of his or her express or implied authority directed against a publicly known political organisation or liberation movement engaged in a political struggle against the State or a former state or against any member or supporters of such organisation or movement, and which was committed bona fide with the object of countering or otherwise resisting the said struggle, or by any such employee or member who on reasonable grounds believed that he or she was acting in the course and scope of his or her duties and within the scope of his or her express or implied authority.
The criteria set out in sub-section (3) are, briefly, the motive of the person who committed the act, omission or offence, the context in which the act, omission or offence took place, the legal and factual nature of the act, omission or offence, the object or objective of the Act, omission or offence, whether the act, omission or offence was committed in the execution of an order of, or on behalf of, or with the approval of the institution or body of which the person who committed the act was a member, an agent or a supporter, and the relationship between the act, omission or offence and the political objective pursued.
The applicants were all members of the security forces of the State. The evidence establishes that at all relevant times the applicants acted in the course and scope of their duties as members of the Security Branch of the police force. The arrest of the Deceased was initiated and, in the main, effected by the West Rand Division of the Security Branch; the interrogation of the Deceased was done by members of the Witwatersrand Division at the behest of the West Rand Division; the 6th and 7th Applicants were involved in the incidents for no other reason then they were the senior officers of the Witwatersrand Division, the 8th Applicant was approached with the problem concerning the Deceased in his capacity as the commanding officer of the Security Branch and he arrived at the decision and issued the instruction to dispose of the Deceased's body and cover up his death when acting in such capacity; and all the other Applicants participated in the cover-up by acting on such instructions.
It would appear that section 20(2)(b) of the Act contains a paradox. If a narrow literal interpretation is given to the phrase -
"Any act or omission which constitutes an offence or delict and which was advised, planned, directed commanded, ordered or committed by any member of the security forces of the State in the course and scope of his or her duties and within the scope of his or her express or implied authority..."
then it may be concluded that no policeman or policewoman who wilfully committed an offence while on duty acted within the scope of his or her express or implied authority as no statutory provision or term of employment provided any authority to any member of the police force to act unlawfully. Such an interpretation, when taking into consideration the whole context of the Act, is clearly in conflict with the spirit of the Act and the intention of the legislature which is obviously to include members of the police force in the amnesty process and not to deprive them of the opportunity of being granted amnesty in respect of offences committed by them which were related to their duties.
At the time in question the onslaught against the government by the liberation movements was intense. There is evidence that a number of bomb blasts had taken place in the Pretoria and West Rand areas during a period of a matter of weeks immediately prior to the arrest of the Deceased. It was suspected that a number of such blasts were caused by a group of ANC activists known as Maponya Group. The information supplied by the West Rand Division of the Security Branch to the 1st Applicant was that the Deceased had connections with the Maponya Group. The intention of those Applicants who interrogated the Deceased was to extract as much information about the Maponya Group as possible from the Deceased as quickly as possible with the ultimate objective that the information gleaned would be used by the Security Branch to stem the onslaught against the government. The methods used in the interrogation of the Deceased were both odious and unlawful. We are, however, after careful consideration, of the view that their use of the electric shock device in the interrogation was not disproportionate to the objective they were pursuing. According to them the use of electric shock devices in interrogation was common practice (which evidence tends to be confirmed by the fact that such a device was readily available at the Sandton Offices). They perceived it as being an effective and convenient method of forcing the victim to co-operate and they did not anticipate or suspect that its' use would have fatal consequences.
We are satisfied, after careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances and after taking the criteria set out in section 20(3) of the Act into account that the interrogation of the Deceased as well as his unlawful killing occasioned thereby were acts associated with a political objective as contemplated by the Act, which acts were committed by persons (Applicants No's 1 to 5) who reasonably believed that they were acting in the course and scope of their duties and within the scope of their authority.
The only evidence relating to the disposal of the Deceased's body and the cover-up of his death of the Applicants. The decision to dispose of the body and cover-up the death of the Deceased was made by the 8th Applicant and it was he who issued instruction that that course of action be followed. it is apparent from his evidence that his decision in this regard was politically motivated. He, after being informed of the unlawful killing of the Deceased, a section 29 detainee, decided that the prescribed procedures should not be followed in order to prevent the death of the Deceased becoming public knowledge. He was of the opinion that public knowledge of the Deceased's death would seriously compromise both the Security Branch and the Government and would also lead to a further breakdown of the maintenance of law and order, particularly in the light of the fact that the 16th of June, the commemoration date of the Soweto uprisings, was only a few days away. He, after taking the political ramifications of the Deceased's death into account, decided there it would be in the best interests of both the police and the government to keep the death a secret.
The roles performed by the other Applicant's in the cover-up were, notwithstanding the fact that the planning and execution thereof was left to their discretion, in obeyance of the instruction issued by the 8th Applicant. There is no doubt that the instruction was unlawful and there is also no doubt that they were all aware of the fact that what they were doing in disposing of the body and concocting a false escape was unlawful. The guideline contained in section 20(3)(e) of the Act, namely, the consideration whether the act, omission or offence was committed in the execution of an order, cannot and should not be read as if it refers to lawful orders only (see Rapholo vs. State President and Others 1993 (1) SA 680 (T) at 686-687). It is our view also that so long as there is evidence that the act or omission was associated with a political objective, the persons (such as, in this matter, the 9th and 10th Applicants) who performed the act or made the omission on the orders of a superior officer need not have been aware of the political objective associated with their act or omission. Their ignorance of the specific circumstances founding the political motive behind the instruction given to them, will not be fatal to their application for amnesty.
We are, again after careful consideration of all the evidence before us, satisfied that the disposal of the Deceased's body and the cover-up of his death were acts, omissions and offences associated with a political objective committed in the course of the conflicts of the past.
With regard to the requirement of full disclosure of all relevant facts, the only evidence before us relating to the actual death of the Deceased and the cover-up of his death is that of the Applicants. The evidence of Bheki Nkosi, in so far as it concerns some of the Applicants, only relates to events which occurred on 9th June 1988 (the date of the arrest) and 10 June 1988. His evidence is in conflict with that of the 4th Applicant in regard to precisely what happened at the arrest, in particular whether the 4th Applicant assaulted the Deceased at the time of the arrest. The evidence of Mr Nkosi as to what occurred at the time of the arrest is accepted as being the correct version. This conflict, however, although it casts doubt on the credibility of the 4th Applicant, is, in our view, insufficient in itself to justify a finding that the evidence of the 4th Applicant and the other Applicants relating to events on the days following the arrest should be rejected as being false.
The evidence of Mr Nkosi also tends to conflict with the evidence of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Applicants when they say that the Deceased was not assaulted or tortured while being interrogated prior to Sunday 12 June 1988. Mr Nkosi stated that when he was in a room on the 10th floor of John Vorster Square on 10 June 1988 he heard the Deceased speaking in another room and he heard the Deceased making grunting sounds, which suggests that the Deceased was being assaulted. This evidence of Mr Nkosi is not sufficiently cogent to allow a conclusive finding that the Deceased was being assaulted. Mr Nkosi deposed to a lengthy affidavit on 15 February 1989 in which he, inter alia, described the events which took place on 19 June 1988. He made no mention in that affidavit of having heard grunting sounds and his explanation for the omission, namely that, he only recalled that the grunting sounds were made after he signed the affidavit, is unimpressive. The probability of the deceased being assaulted is in itself not so material as to render the Applicants' evidence improbable.
As stated above, the evidence of the Applicants as to what occurred on Sunday 12 June 1988 and thereafter stands uncontradicted. The evidence of each of the Applicants involved in the torture of the Deceased, the disposal of the body and the mock escape corroborates, in essence, the evidence of the others. Certain contradictions do appear but these only relate to questions of detail and may be ascribed to the long period of time that has elapsed since the occurrence of the events. The contradictions that exist are not so material as to render their evidence unacceptable. There are no contradictions between the evidence of the 6th and 8th Applicants relating to what to place between them after the death of the Deceased.
The version of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th Applicant relating to the death of the Deceased leaves one with the uneasy feeling that they may be protecting themselves by playing down their culpability. Their version raises the obvious question of why the Deceased, a young man of good physique, should die after the application of a few shocks, particularly so when it was common practice to use the shock device and such practice did not result in other deaths. This question cannot be answered without the benefit of a post-mortem report.
Despite this misgiving we are of the views that the version of these applicants is not so inherently improbable so as to justify its rejection as being false.
Various allegations regarding the disposal of the Deceased's body have come to our knowledge. One Mokaleng alleged that the body was buried in the veld in the Rustenburg area. Excavations were carried out at places pointed out by him without success. It has also been alleged that the body was thrown down a disused mineshaft. A further allegation is that it was blown up with explosives. None of these allegations have been substantiated and the only evidence before us relating to the disposal of the body is that of the 10th Applicant, which evidence, also, is not so highly improbable as to warrant its rejection as being untruthful. There is also no basis for rejecting the evidence of the 6th and 8th Applicants in regard to the decision taken to conceal the death of the Deceased and their evidence accordingly stands.
The Applicants have admitted to the unlawful killing of the Deceased, the unlawful disposal of the Deceased's body and the unlawful concealment of his death. We are, in the circumstances and in the light of what is said above, satisfied that they have made a full disclosure of all the relevant facts.
In the result, their application for amnesty succeeds and:
Adriaan Pieter van Niekerk, Hendrik Albertus Beukes Mostert, Jacobus Hermanus Engelbrecht, Charles Alfred Zeelie, Johann Ludwig du Preez, Gerrit Nicholas Erasmus, Petrus Lodewikus du Toit, Johannes Velde van der Merwe, Schalk Jan Visser and Leon van Loggerenberg are GRANTED amnesty in terms of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, No 34 of 1995 in respect of all acts, omissions or offences committed by them in regard to the death of and the disposal of the body of Maisha Johannes Bopape on 12 June 1988 and the subsequent cover-up in regard thereto.
We recommend that the persons referred to in the annexure to this decision should be declared victims in terms of the Act.
SIGNED AT
: ON THIS
: DAY OF
: 2000.
: JUDGE S MILLER
: JUDGE S NGCOBO
: ADV C DE JAGER SC
: MR J MOLOI
: ADV L GCABASHE
