: DECISION
All the Applicants apply for amnesty for the killing of an unknown person near Mafikeng towards the end of either 1989 or 1988.
The first Applicant placed the time of the incident at the end of 1989, about a week after what he remembered to have been a farewell function, hosted by the Bophuthatswana Intelligence Service at Malopo's Oog, in honour of Brigadier Schoon at the occasion of his retirement. None of the Applicants could assist in any way with the identity of the victim. Investigation by the TRC, did not procure any further information and the identity of the deceased person remains unknown. The second Applicant, when giving his testimony at the hearing was adamant that it was towards the end of 1988. He based his claim on the fact that the killing took place some eight months before another incident where he was also involved in a killing, for which he also applied for amnesty, and which person he buried in the close vicinity of the deceased in this application (Ntehlang). This second killing he could clearly place as having taken place in 1989. He too linked the incident, which is the subject matter of the present application, to what he understood to have been a function at Malopo's Oog. The 3rd Applicant shared the recollection of the 2nd in connection with the venue and nature of the relevant function, which all three of them attended. He specifically recalled the farewell function to have been hosted at Nietverdiend.
Without discussing other indications, the Committee accepts that the function in question was held at Malopo's Oog towards the end of 1988. Because of the nature of the security problem posed by the ANC and PAC, there was a very close and informal co-operation between the Bophuthatswana Intelligence Service and the Western Transvaal Branch of the Security Police. Units of Vlakplaas in a like way often and regularly worked in the Western Transvaal.
Members of the Western Transvaal Security Branch were even seconded to the Bophuthatswana Intelligence Services.
It is common cause that at the time that this function was held, the Bophuthatswana Intelligence Services was detaining a person in the cells at Mafikeng. This person was a threat to the security services. From the evidence it appears that he had been an ANC or PAC member, and probably an ex-PAC member, who worked with the Bophuthatswana Intelligence Services and was feeding back information to the liberation forces. This information relayed constituted a direct threat to security and security personnel in both the Western Transvaal and Bophuthatswana.
It would be convenient to describe the various command structures in order to have a clearer understanding of the evidence. Brigadier Schoon was at the head of C-Section. 1st Applicant was head of Vlakplaas (C10) and reported to Schoon. 3rd Applicant was a Captain and second in command of Vlakplaas and responsible for Vlakplaas operational activities in the Western Transvaal. 2nd Applicant was a Warrrant Officer from Vlakplaas and normally worked in the Western Transvaal.
At the head of the Bophuthatswana Intelligence Services was a Mr Dick Knowles. His second in command was Esterhuizen and reporting again to Esterhuizen was a certain Corier (according to 1st Applicant, Geurriere and presently imprisoned in France).
Brigadier Loots was the Divisional Commander of the Western Transvaal Security Branch. Captain Crause, who reported to him, was in 1989 seconded to the Bophuthatswana Intelligence Services. (According to the 2nd Applicant, Crause did not want to work in close co-operation with Vlakplaas after his secondment, which increases the probability of the incident having taken place in 1988).
The 1st Applicant stated that at the function Schoon had instructed him to speak to Loots and Crause as they had a problem to discuss with him. 1st Applicant and 3rd Applicant then spoke to Loots and Crause and were told that they had an ANC person detained in the cells at Mafikeng that they could for security reasons not release and asked whether they could assist in having the person killed. He then requested 3rd Applicant to look into the matter. A week later, he again discussed it with 3rd Applicant and sent 3rd and 2nd Applicants to Mmabatho to receive this person from Major Crause. 3rd Applicant reported to him that they had shot and buried the person and he then reported to Schoon that the problem had been taken care of.
Schoon, Loots and Crause were given due notice by the Committee that they had been implicated in these amnesty applications Schoon and Crause filed affidavits putting their versions before the Committee, parts of which will be dealt with later, and stated that they believed the 1st Applicant to be confused on the facts, but made it clear that they were not opposing the application. The Committee was informed by their legal representatives that Loots at the time was seriously ill and that no affidavit could be obtained from him under the circumstances.
Crause, in his affidavit, stated that he did not attend the function. He denied any involvement and added that he had discussed it with Loots at an earlier occasion, having learned of the allegations already in 1997. They were certainly not involved in any criminal activity relating to this incident. He stated further that it was clear to him that the 1st Applicant was confused on the identities of role players, referring to the 2nd Applicant's version that he had received the person from another party.
Schoon (who seems to accept that the function was a farewell party in his honour, hosted by Dick Knowles of Bophuthatswana Intelligence Services) remembered Loots telling him that Knowles had a problem with an askari who at the time was very negative and was "losing the track". Loots suggested that the askari be taken to Vlakplaas to meet up with some of his former colleagues. That might lead to him observing their relationship with the Security Police and secure his future co-operation. He called on the 1st Applicant and instructed him to take the matter further. He did not personally speak to Knowles, but assumed that the 1st Applicant did. He could not specifically remember any report back but would not deny that the 1st Applicant might have told him that the problem had been solved.
In oral evidence the 1st Applicant made some concessions. He said it might have been the 2nd and not the 3rd Applicant who was present when he spoke to Schoon and Loots. It was indeed possible that the 3rd Applicant first became involved when he was requested to accompany the 2nd Applicant to receive the person. Asked whether he was sure that the request came from Loots, he responded that Loots was the senior person. Although he could not believe that the person, if he was handcuffed as Ras alleges, could have been an askari to be taken to Vlakplaas. He also testified that he was told that this person was a risk, a threat for both Bophuthatswana and Western Transvaal in that he possessed security and intelligence knowledge and information. He had created problems already in the past. 1st Applicant further testified that he had given the matter much thought. The person might have been involved in operations where people had been killed and that he therefore was a risk, that he could not be trusted. he further conceded that Corier could have been the person who handed the deceased over to his co-Applicants. Commenting on a statement in the 2nd Applicant's application that Esterhuizen at a later stage enquired about the condition of the deceased, he said one could only speculate. He cannot say that Esterhuizen knew that the person was dead. Asked by a Member of the Committee to recall the discussion with Loots, he said "That is how I recollect it, whether we could help them with this person, to eliminate him, get rid of him".
2nd Applicant in oral evidence said that his recollection is that Schoon and the 1st Applicant approached him at the function, saying that a person was to be transferred to them and that they would discuss it later. He did not understand that to mean that a person would be transferred to Vlakplaas, merely that he would be handed over to them and that they would discuss it later. He can though recall that 1st Applicant told him that the person had turned against Bophuthatswana, that he had information on safehouses and on members of the Bophuthatswana Intelligence Service. He understood the person to have been an askari, and that he had certain information that he had fed back to ANC or PAC.
2nd Applicant further testified that at the time they were working directly and jointly with Bophuthatswana Intelligence, almost permanently. They jointly made arrests. At Vlakplaas the 1st Applicant instructed him to go to Mafikeng to receive the person. he was not though to be brought to Vlakplaas. He had to be killed. He informed 3rd Applicant on their way. They spoke to Esterhuizen who instructed Corier to hand the person over to them. He was handcuffed when Corier delivered him to them at a safehouse on a farm outside Mafikeng. It was at night. 2nd and 3rd Applicants proceeded with digging a hole. He then shot the person four or five times with a .22 calibre pistol with a silencer, poured petrol over the body and burnt the body, then poured lime over the body and covered it with stones. He then mixed cement with which he covered the stones and placed weapons of Russian origin on top of the cement so that people who might stumble upon the grave would not dig beneath the cement and uncover the body. He also poured petrol around the grave so that it would repel wild animals. He reported back to the 1st Applicant. He was taken aback when some time later Esterhuizen asked him how this person was. He merely said that he was well, not understanding the purpose or goal behind the question.
3rd Applicant's evidence was that he drove the vehicle in which Schoon and 1st Applicant went to the function at Malopo's Oog. He was not part of any of the discussions relating to this incident. On the way back he recalls 1st Applicant and Schoon discussing things about a problem. He recalls words by 1st Applicant to the effect "why is it necessary for us to always have to sort out other people's problems", to which Schoon replied that it was the nature of the job, but that they would discuss it later.
His recollection further is that he was instructed to assist the 2nd Applicant, who was already in the Western Transvaal and that the latter would fully brief him. For the rest he confirmed the 2nd Applicant's evidence as it related to him.
This looks like a situation where there might have been some misunderstanding through all the coded communication of "problems" and "solving of problems". It seems as if the deceased might indeed have been an askari and if indeed there might have been a plan to have his former colleagues to influence him, or to work on him. All this however would amount to speculation.
The Committee is satisfied that the 1st Applicant was clearly and bona fide under the impression that he was under orders of Schoon (and Loots) to kill a person that posed a real security threat, that he was on no frolic of his own, and that the 2nd and 3rd Applicants acted under orders of the 1st Applicant. We are further satisfied that the killing of this unknown person was committed within the context of the conflicts of the past, that it was associated with a clear political objective as envisaged by the provisions of the Act and that the Applicants have all made a full disclosure of all material facts relevant to the incident.
All three Applicants are therefore GRANTED amnesty for the killing of this unknown person and for all acts related to the incident.
SIGNED AT CAPE TOWN THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2001
JUDGE R PILLAY
ADV F BOSMAN
MR W MALAN
