TRC Final Report

Volume 6

Section 3

Chapter 6

Subsection 18

The killing of George Mkomane

202. AWB member, Mr Hendrik Johannes Slippers [AM 1002/96] applied for amnesty for the abduction and killing of Mr George Mkomane in Belfast in the Eastern Transvaal on 13 February 1991. For these offences, Mr Slippers was sentenced to two years and twelve years.

203. Mr Slippers testified before the Amnesty Committee that, at an AWB meeting held in November 1990, his Commander AWB Commandant Volshenk had instructed members to implement a policy of ‘white-by-night’. This amounted to the re-implementation of the curfew laws of the apartheid era, which prohibited blacks from being in so-called ‘white areas’ without a permit after 21h00. Blacks present in white townships after 21h00 should be told to leave and, if they refused, should be removed by force if necessary. The Committee received affidavits from Brigadier Kloppers and John Wayne Rautenbach confirming the policy and the instructions to carry it out.

204. Mr Slippers testified that the instruction he received:

… fitted in with my political objectives, namely the protection of whites, the interests of whites and I believed that the action would serve to intimidate people of other colours or other races in the country and also put a stop to blacks taking over in this country. I believed that these kind of actions would put a stop to the political changes in the country, it would either stop it or slow them down. (Nelspruit hearing, 7 May 1997.)

205. He testified that, on the night in question, he and four other AWB members in Belfast were driving around trying to enforce the ‘white-by-night’ policy in the town. Although they had been drinking before they went on patrol, he testified that he had not been drunk and knew at all times what he was doing and that the intake of alcohol did not influence his judgment.

206. They saw the deceased, George Nkomane, walking in the street, confronted him and loaded him onto the bakkie against his will. Their intention was to drive out of town and to ‘off-load’ him on the way to the black township. On the way, the deceased protested, saying that he intended to return to the ‘white’ township of Belfast. The applicant and one of the other members then assaulted Nkomane then deposited him outside the township. At this stage, Mr Nkomane began running back towards the white area .

207. The group pursued him, caught him and the applicant assaulted him by fisting him until he fell down. The applicant’s co-accused then kicked him and jumped on him. The applicant testified that they had had no intention of assaulting Mr Nkomane but that things went wrong, an argument ensued and, as a result of the deceased’s protest against the abduction, the brutal assault followed. He realised afterwards that he should have foreseen that the assault could have resulted in the death of Mr Nkomane.

208. The Court that tried the case had found that there was no direct intent to kill, but that the applicant was guilty on the basis of dolus eventualis. The Court found further that the offence was politically coloured. However, the applicant testified, he pleaded guilty at his trial and handed in a statement in which he did not reveal the full facts about the AWB’s involvement as it seemed politically inappropriate to do so at the time.

209. Slippers expressed his remorse to the Committee:

If I was ever to have planned to kill anybody, I would rather have shot the person or stabbed the person and gone and hid that person’s body in a safe place. My actions were in accordance with the instruction issued by the AWB and the entire incident took a different course to that planned.

After this incident, I and my ex-wife suffered various attacks in retaliation to this action which were launched by the Black community against us. After court sittings, mini buses would turn up at our house and the house; our vehicle and our caravan would be stoned and damaged, and the grass on my property and other things were also set alight.

On the 26th of March 1991, a month and thirteen days after the incident, I lost my wife in a car accident. The collision was caused by a black man who drove into the passenger side of my vehicle. At that stage, I also experienced the misery and the loss which was experienced by the families of the deceased in the loss of a loved one. In spite of the fact that I am serving a ten-year prison term for my action, I regarded the loss of my wife as a far greater punishment and also saw it as part of my punishment for my action against the deceased. I suddenly realised what it was to be a single parent with two children. I now realise the senselessness of my action and the unnecessity of the attack. I am also very remorseful about the death of the deceased and the grief which it caused his family and his community. I now realise how important harmonious racial relationships are in our country and I will do everything in my power to ensure harmony amongst the races. (Nelspruit hearing, 7 May 1997.)

210 Mr Slippers was granted amnesty for the abduction of Mr George Mkomane but was refused amnesty for the killing. In the view of the Amnesty Committee, the killing of the deceased constituted an act grossly out of proportion with the stated objective of the AWB, which was to keep blacks out of the town after 21h00. The killing of the deceased was not, therefore, seen as an act associated with a political objective.

211. Moreover, the Committee found that the contention that the deceased was killed because he provoked an argument, that he strongly protested against being driven out of town and that he actually tried to run back into town when he was so close to a black township is so highly improbable that it can safely be rejected as false.

212. In reaching its decision, the Committee said:

How could the deceased dare argue and protest against three belligerent trouble seekers? How could he dare do so in the destitution of a cemetery when he had not done so in the relative safety of a town, albeit a not-so-friendly one? How could he dare provoke an argument when he had already been assaulted b e fore being off-loaded at the cemetery? Why should the deceased be so obstinate in the face of such hostility and elect to run back into town when he could have run into a nearby black township? How could he hope to outrun a bakkie back to exactly the same situation which had invoked the wrath of his attackers? In any event, even if what the applicant has said were true, it would not change the fact that their conduct was grossly out of proportion to the objective sought to be achieved.

It is noteworthy that the applicant did not attempt to say that the killing was in accordance with the policy of the AWB. On his own version, the killing was not part of the plan and, if his version is correct, then the deceased became obstinate and pertinaciously attempted to go back into town, it means they killed him simply because he would not listen. At that level, there would be nothing political about the murder.

Furthermore the applicant’s motivation that the ultimate objective of the AW B was to intimidate black people and discourage them in their quest for political take over becomes senseless when one considers that, had the applicant had his way, the killing as well as the reasons therefor would have remained unknown. While a surviving victim of abduction would be able to warn other black people to stay out of the town, a dead one would obviously not be able to do so. This is a further indication that no political objective was being pursued at the time of the actual killing [AC/1997/0069]

213. A dissenting decision on the matter was handed down by Amnesty Committee member Chris de Jager. In the light of the Committee finding that the abduction was an act associated with a political objective committed within the course of the conflicts of the past, Advocate de Jager found that:

[T]he question then arises whether the murder which flowed from the abduction, would also fall within the same ambit. It was argued on behalf of the applicant that the two offences were interrelated and cannot be totally separated from each other. The assault was carried out in order to make the abduction from the white area effective and to prevent the deceased from carrying out his intention to negate the white-by-night policy of the AWB. The applicant averred that it was carried out to intimidate blacks into slowing down the process of change or stopping it completely. He also stated that his action (to remove blacks from the white townships) was to prove that the whites were taking a stand against change and also to show the government that they were not satisfied with what was taking place in the country at the time. When the person was picked up, it never occurred to him that the person could be seriously or fatally injured, but the whole operation went wrong when the deceased told them that he would re t u rn to the white area and an argument followed resulting in assaults and the deceased running back towards the town. It was submitted on behalf of the applicant that the assault could not be separated from the abduction, and that the assault itself and its consequences were there f o re associated with the original political objective.

The Committee previously had occasion to hear how an abduction with no intent to kill, ultimately got out of hand and lead to the intentional killing of the victim. The Committee then found that the ultimate killing, although carried out because of a fear for arrest, was interlinked and should not be separated from the political motivated abduction.

In the present application, things … got out of hand after the victim refused to leave the white township and started to run back towards it. Contrary to the previous applications, they didn’t intend to kill him, but they should have foreseen that that could be the result of the assault that followed. Seeing, however, that the one offence flowed out of the other and the one being interlinked with the other, the one cannot be seen as totally separated from the politically motivated abduction.

I am of the opinion that amnesty should be granted as applied for. [ A C / 1 9 9 7 / 0 0 6 9 . ]