DECISION
_______________________________________________________
The applicants apply for amnesty for various offences and delicts flowing from and directly associated with an arson attack by members of the South African Police on 12 October 1988 on Khanya House, the Pretoria headquarters of the Southern African Catholic Bishops Conference (SACBC). As a result of the attack the building was severely damaged and printing facilities destroyed. With the assistance of the fire brigade, the persons who were sleeping in the building were fortunate to escape without injury but, having been trapped in the fire for some time, they were all severely traumatised.
All the applicants (who will be referred to in the order listed above) with the exception of the third applicant, Willemse, testified before the Committee. During the course of the hearing, the legal representative appearing on behalf of Willemse submitted a psychiatric report to the Committee indicating that this applicant was suffering from a post traumatic stress disorder. His condition, according to the psychiatrist, is so severe that it would seriously impact on his mental condition and create a serious threat to his own life and the lives of others should he be required to testify. After having heard the evidence of his co-applicants the Committee was satisfied that their evidence would be sufficient for purposes of coming to a decision with regard to his application. Consequently the Committee did not hear evidence from Willemse.
The hearing was attended by a number of the victims who were trapped in the fire on the night of the attack. Two of the victims, Ms Rosemary Cook and Mr Rodrego Nunes testified at the hearing. Brother Gerald Pieterse, known as Brother Jude, who was the Secretary-General of the Bishops Conference at the time of the incident, also testified.
The applications were initially opposed on the basis that the applicants did not commit the act(s) with a political objective as defined by the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, 34 of 1995, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and that they had not made a full disclosure of all relevant facts. The last-mentioned objection related to the question as to whether the applicants knew that there were people present in the building that night and the question as to which applicant or applicants had planted arms in one of the offices. At a later stage, after all the evidence had been led, the opposition was withdrawn and the victims indicated that they accepted the evidence of the applicants. This came about as a result of the fact that the victims conceded that the applicants may
not have been in a position to give answers to all their questions. It became clear that some of their colleagues who had participated in the attack and did not apply for amnesty, may well have been responsible for certain actions that the applicants were unable to explain.
Although on the face of it, there were minor discrepancies in the versions of the applicants as to what happened that night, the Committee did not regard these as material. One exception is the evidence of the applicant Flores to whom we shall revert later, the versions of the other applicant do correspond when viewed broadly. In summary their evidence was as follows.
The Security Police had information resulting in a bona fide belief that the Bishops Conference supported the African National Congress in its struggle for liberation, that Khanya House was being used for anti-apartheid activities and more particularly that the printing press at Khanya House was being used for the printing of propaganda material.
Brigadier Robert McIntyre, the head of the Stratcom section of Security Branch in Pretoria, although not personally involved in the planning or carrying out of the attack, suggested that Khanya House be damaged by fire and he gave the order. The aim was to destroy records, disrupt the meetings in the building and thus cause a scaling down of the perceived anti-apartheid activities of the SACBC.
The first applicant, De Kock, was approached by the eighteenth applicant, one Captain Kotze of the explosives division in Pretoria, to assist him in the arson attack. According to De Kock this was approved by his immediate superior Brigadier Schoon. Schoon was not an applicant in this application. De Kock, in turn, through the usual line of command, involved other members of his unit at Vlakplaas in the operation, the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth and seventeenth applicants. The role of each of these operatives varied in accordance with what was assigned to each in a prior briefing session.
Members of the explosives unit one Captain Kotze, the 18th applicant, assisted by the 19th applicant, Hammond, also participated. Their role was primarily to ensure the successful igniting of the fire. Other technical support, such as picking of the locks was given by the two brothers, Koch, the 7th and 8th applicants, who were under the command of Brigadier W A L du Toit. Du Toit himself was not an active participant but he knew and approved of the participation of his two staff members.
Observations of Khanya House during a reconnaissance mission, prior to the night of the incident, proved that no people resided in the building at night. However, on the night of the incident there were indeed five persons sleeping on the second floor following a meeting that day. De Kock testified that he was shocked when he realised this. All the applicants, in fact, testified that up till that stage that the fuses were ignited and the fire had already started to spread they were unaware of the presence of people in the building. This was disputed by the victims who maintained that petrol had been poured onto the carpet of the passage on the floor where they were sleeping. There was also evidence presented by one of the victims that his door has been opened by someone. During the testimony of Brother Jude, and in accordance with a faxed communication from the Archbishop he had received, certain concessions were made and the opposition to the applications withdrawn. The Committee is of the view that the full text of this communication warrants to be quoted in its entirety.
"Besides the near tragic loss of the seven people, the Catholic Church was heavily discredited in the minds of many ordinary South Africans by the well publicised accusation that the Bishops Conference had been harbouring weapons at Khanya House and had been responsible for the printing of a whole range of subversive materials. The clear admissions that have emerged during the course of the past few days have laid these allegations to rest. We had the earlier testimony of Mr De Kock that he gave the orders for the planning of those explosives. We had the clear testimony yesterday too of Mr Kotze that by no means what was there could be described as a printing press. However, the Southern African Bishops Conference still finds itself not fully informed of all the circumstances surrounding the firebombing of its headquarters, Khanya House. Specifically
(i) The name of the person/persons responsible for dousing the second floor of the building with petrol;
(ii) Whether the fact that the arsonists later discovered that there were people in residence is responsible for the lacuna in the information admitted;
(iii) Who was actually responsible for planting the explosives? Given the need to know principle followed by the arsonists, the evidence so far heard may indeed be impossible morally or physically to know the names of the others involved, senior or junior to those applying for amnesty.
In summary, while unanswered questions remain, there is the possibility that others who have not applied for amnesty could have been involved. Therefore, given the perceived genuine efforts on the part of some of those who participated to set the record straight, particularly with regard to the two points mentioned above and in order to foster the process of reconciliation in our country, the Southern African Bishops Conference is willing not to oppose the applications for amnesty of the applicants."
Reference has already been made to the difficulty that arose in connection with the arms and explosives that were planted in one of the offices to create the impression that the Church was supplying arms to the liberation movements. The first applicant, De Kock admitted that this was his idea but neither he nor any of his co-applicants could assist in telling the Committee who had actually planted the arms. Here too, it was correctly conceded that it could have been on of the operatives who had not applied for amnesty.
It is quite understandable that after such a long time after the incident there would be some memory lapses in regard to finer detail.
With the exception of the evidence given by Flores, the Committee considered the evidence of all the other applicants collectively. Having regard to all the evidence, the Committee is satisfied that these applicants acted with a political objective as required by the Act and that they had made a full disclosure of all relevant facts which fell within their knowledge and which they could remember. They have also complied with all the formal requirements of the Act.
The application of Flores caused the Committee some difficulty. Although he fell into more-or-less the same age group as the majority of his co-applicants, he was the lowest ranking member and also appeared to be of a lower level of education. He testified that he had only passed Std 8 at school. In addition, his participation in the operation was very peripheral and he did not have any part in the planning thereof. After thorough consideration of his evidence the Committee came to the conclusion that the applicant was genuinely confused when he filled in his application form and even at the time that he gave his evidence. The Committee is satisfied that he had disclosed as much as he possibly could, given his abilities and circumstances.
Accordingly amnesty is GRANTED to all the applicants listed above for any offences or delicts directly associated with or flowing from the arson attacks on Khanya Hose in Pretoria on 12 October 1988.
All persons who were present in the building at the time of the incident are victims in the opinion of the Committee and they are referred to the Committee on Reparation and Rehabilitation for consideration in terms of Section 22 of the Act.
Signed on the 22nd day of November 2000
________________________
JUDGE N J MOTATA
________________________
ADV F BOSMAN
________________________
MR N SANDI
