DECISION
The applicants apply for amnesty for their participation in the disposal of the body of a member of the IFP, Mr Welcome Khanyile, who died during an interrogation by members of the South African Police at or near Heidelberg, in the former Transvaal during August 1992. The first applicant applies for defeating the ends of justice and the second applicant for the possession of and supplying of unlawful explosives for an unlawful purpose to a member of the South African police. Both applicants testified under oath. The two Security Branch policemen implicated by de Kock, Andrejovic and Odendaal did not attend the hearing. Odendaal had been notified but merely responded with a fax. Andrejovic, whose whereabouts are unknown, could not be traced and is rumoured to be out of the country. The hearing proceeded without his participation.
The hearing was attended by Mrs Janet Khanyile, the mother of the deceased, his brother Mr Simon Khanyile as well as a cousin, Ms Margaret Rahube, who made a brief statement to the Committee setting out the details and circumstances of the two minor children of the deceased. The application was not formally opposed. The victims, despite certain submissions made by their legal representatives that the offence/s were not committed with a political objective, indicated that they would leave the decision in the hands of the Committee. The Committee is thus left with the evidence of the applicants.
The first applicant testified that he was approached by Sergeant Andrejovic, a former Vlakplaas operative, who was stationed in Springs at the time of the incident. Andrejovic requested him to assist in getting rid of a body of a member of the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) whose name was unknown to de Kock. It subsequently turned out to be that of Khanyile. De Kock did not want to get involved in the actual disposal of the body but agreed to supply Andrejovic with "equipment" in the form of a limpet mine to do so. He was unsure about the identity of the person from whom he had obtained the limpet mine but stated that it may have been from the second applicant, Snyman. It later transpired that the body was blown up with the limpet mine to create the impression that the deceased had blown himself up and caused his own death.
De Kock in reply to questions put to him by the members of the Committee and in cross-examination, stated that he was a card-carrying member of the IFP. He further stated that the government of the day, to say the least, turned a blind eye to unlawful activities of the IFP. By this he obviously meant activities of a political nature. The IFP membership of the deceased was, however, irrelevant to him in coming to his decision. He assisted Andrejovic because he feared that the possible arrest of Andrejovic for the death of Khanyile would seriously have impacted on the Codesa negotiations and would have irreparably harmed the Government of the day and the nationalist party if Andrejovic disclosed the facts, as did Nofomela and Dirk Coetzee. De Kock also stated that he firmly believed that there was a real danger of this happening since Andrejovic would, in his opinion, not have been able to withstand any pressure. In sum: he did what he did on behalf of the Government of the day and the National Party to safeguard their interests.
Snyman testified that hew as suffering from a bad memory due to a post-traumatic stress disorder and that he could not as a matter of certainty say that he was the one from whom de Kock requested the limpet mine. His, Snyman's, decision to apply for amnesty in regard to this incident flowed from the fact that he had been at one time approached by the Attorney-General's investigating team who had inquired whether he knew anything about the incident. To this he replied: "Well, it might be I was in control of the explosives and if I was requested, I would supply it". At the hearing he still maintained this view and was unable to shed any further light on it. The Committee is of the opinion that it is unable, on the evidence before it, to find that an offence has been disclosed for which amnesty can be granted. Not even de Kock could say with any degree of certainty that Snyman was involved.
Accordingly amnesty is GRANTED to Eugene Alexander de Kock for any offence or delict flowing from or directly associated with the disposal of the body of the late Welcome Khanyile at or near Heidelberg in or about August 1992.
In the case of the second applicant Daniel Lionel Snyman, the Committee finds that no offence has been disclosed for which amnesty can be GRANTED.
In the opinion of the Committee, the mother of the deceased Ms Margaret Khanyile and his two minor children Rapeleni Khanyile and Nelisiwe Khanyile are victims. They are referred to the Committee on Reparation and Rehabilitation for consideration in terms of Section 22 of the Act.
SIGNED AT CAPE TOWN THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2001.
___________________________
___________________________
____________________________
