DECISION
The Applicants make application in terms of Act 34 of 1995 as amended ("the Act") for amnesty in respect of the kidnapping of and the assault on an unknown person.
The Applicants were all members of the security branch of the South African Police as it was then known. They were all linked to what was then referred to the Northern Transvaal Division of the Security Police.
The background and history of the members of this division of the Security Branch is documented in a previous application of this nature. It is dealt with in the decision that emanated from that application. It is to be found in the decision of Cronje J.N. (AM 2773/96) dated 17 February 1999. We do not think it necessary to repeat it in this decision. Suffice to say that the findings which stem from such evidence regarding the background and history are conclusions with which we agree.
The events from which these applications arise occurred during the period July to December 1987. It should be mentioned that these offences are but two of very many committed by the Applicants and some of their colleagues.
In defending the government of the day from the anti-apartheid forces, the South African Police, especially the Security Police, employed tactics which would not found to be acceptable. It included the commission of crimes.
However in order to resist the anti-apartheid forces, the police needed to be informed in order to prepare themselves to do what they thought was necessary to protect the regime of the day and in so doing, apartheid itself.
It is in the quest for this type of information that the Applicants resorted to these offences for which they apply for amnesty.
Momberg and Goosen testified that they were requested by Van Jaarsveld, their senior officer, to assist in the interrogation of a security guard. It was explained to them that Mamasela, a colleague, had information that the guard’s brother was member of the military wing ("MK") of the African National Congress ("ANC"). They accompanied Van Jaarsveld and Mamasela to the United Building Society building in Pretoria. The guard was employed there. Mamasela enticed him to the vehicle they were using and he was then taken away against his will. They took him to the vicinity of Warmbaths, near which the family home of the guard was situated.
The guard was confronted with an allegation that his brother was a member of MK. When he denied this, he was assaulted by all who were in the Applicants’ group.
He was assaulted with open hands and fists. Despite this, the guard continued to deny the allegation and did not give any other information.
It was suggested by Van Jaarsveld that he be killed possibly to avoid charges of kidnapping and assault or possibly also to avoid disclosing that they had at least a suspicion of his brother’s possible affiliation.
However Momberg spoke to him and informed the rest that the guard had agreed to work with him and become his informant. The idea of killing him was then abandoned.
Cronje was the commanding officer of the division at the time. Hechter was a captain. Both of them testified that they did not have any independent recollection of this incident. They however both accept responsibility. They both testified that by the nature of things and the frequency and development of their activities, it became almost a formality to allow such offences to be committed in the quest to gain information in order to protect apartheid and its supporters. In the circumstances they both accept that they must have sanctioned the operation and take responsibility for it.
Van Jaarsveld appeared at the hearing as an implicated person. He denied even taking part in the operation. Significantly though, upon asked to say why he said he did not participate therein, he said that if he did, he would have remembered it as he had a very good memory. He could not remember the incident and it follows therefore that he did not participate therein.
It is not probable that the Applicants would have made this application which has much less criminal implication by comparison to others if it did not occur. Furthermore Van Jaarsveld’s denial is based on very flimsy reasoning. The reason for his denial does not justify a conclusion that the incident did not occur as described by the Applicants.
The Act provides that amnesty shall be granted if the formalities have been complied with, that the offences for which amnesty is sought were committed for political reasons and that the Applicants made full disclosure of the facts pertaining to the commission of the offences.
The Committee is satisfied that the requirements of the Act have been complied with and amnesty for the kidnapping of and assault on the unknown victim is GRANTED to all four Applicants.
DATED AT CAPE TOWN THIS ___________ DAY OF ________________ 2000.
_______________________
A. WILSON, J.
_______________________
R. PILLAY, J.
_______________________
MR W. MALAN
