TRC Final Report

Volume 6

Section 3

Chapter 6

Subsection 25

23 April 1994

289. The Devon Radar complex, an Airforce base in the Secunda area in the Transvaal, was attacked and robbed on the night of the 23 April 1994. A police guard, Sergeant Steven Frederich Terblanche, was shot dead and robbed of his firearm. BWB member Mr Okkert Anthonie de Meillon [AM4570/97] and AW B members Mr Edmund William Holder [AM5610/97] and Mr Willem Johannes van Zyl [AM5611/97] applied for amnesty for the attack.

290. Okkert de Meillon was convicted of murder and robbery with aggravating circumstances and sentenced to an effective fifteen years’ imprisonment. On 5 November 1996, Edmund Holder and Willem van Zyl were jointly tried in a separate trial and convicted on similar charges. Van Zyl was also convicted of the unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition. They were sentenced to effective imprisonment of ten and eight years respectively.

291. All the applicants, as well as Constable Andre Renier Swart who was in the company of the deceased victim at the time, testified at the hearing.

292. The Amnesty Committee heard from the applicants that right-wing organisations took various steps to prepare for an attack on whites on the 27th April 1994, the day of the election. Members of right-wing organisations were ordered to obtain appropriate firearms to ward off the attack. Because the ‘enemy’ would be armed with automatic weapons, they believed that the anticipated attack could only be effectively warded off if the right wing was armed with automatic weapons.

293. On the day of the incident, the applicants armed themselves and drove to an army building in Pretoria city centre. The building was guarded by armed guards. This plan was foiled as they were totally outnumbered by the guard s . According to Holder and Van Zyl, De Meillon had suggested they attack the g u ards for the purpose of making propaganda. This they refused to do. They testified that by then it had become clear to them that De Meillon was a fanatic.

294. Driving home in the direction of Secunda, De Meillon remembered an Airforce base at Devon where he had done a part of his military service in 1992. They decided to go there. Holder and Van Zyl testified that they intended to reconnoitre the base in preparation for an arms robbery.

295. Led by De Meillon, the applicants entered the guardhouse at the Devon base without first ascertaining who was inside. It became apparent that the guardhouse was occupied by members of the police. De Meillon ord e red the police to hand over their weapons. However, although both police officers were armed with their service pistols, there were no automatic weapons in the guardhouse.

296. In the course of disarming the deceased victim, a scuffle ensued between him and De Meillon. Shots were fired and De Meillon was wounded and Sergeant Terblanche killed. De Meillon took the deceased victim’s service pistol and ran to the vehicle followed by Holder. They drove to Secunda where De Meillon obtained medical assistance and was later arrested in hospital. Van Zyl kept possession of the deceased’s pistol for a few days, whereafter he took it apart and threw it into a dam. Holder and Van Zyl were also subsequently arrested.

297. The Committee found that the attack on the deceased fell outside the orders or authority given to the applicants to obtain automatic weapons for the purposes of their respective political organisations. De Meillon had taken the initiative in the mission and ordered the others to assist.

298. De Meillon testified that, to his mind, the mission was unsuccessful. Had he known that the base was occupied by the SAP, he would not have embarked upon the operation at Devon. The Committee found that Holder and Van Zyl’s testimony as to the purpose of their visit to the base was true. It would have been reckless to decide to attack the base for automatic weapons without reconnoitring the target first. They would have had no idea whether they would find the weapons they were looking for or what kind of resistance they would meet. They obviously went to the base to see what the situation was there, as testified to by Holder and Van Zyl.

299. The Committee found that the attack on the guardhouse was clearly a result of impulsive, overhasty and haphazard actions on the part of De Meillon.

3 0 0 . The Committee noted that another important factor was the fact that the pistol of the deceased was subsequently disposed of without being used for any of the purposes of the political organisations in question. This was further indication of the fact that attacking and robbing the deceased of his pistol fell outside any mandate or order given. The applicants testified that the order had been to obtain automatic weapons.

301. The Committee found that the killing of the deceased in all of the circumstances of the case was disproportionate to any conceivable objective pursued by the applicants. The Committee was not satisfied that the incident constituted an act associated with a political objective in terms of the requirements of the Act and the applications were refused [AC/1999/0014].