DECISION
1. INTRODUCTION
This is an application for amnesty in terms of the provisions of Section 18 of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act No. 34 of 1995 ("the Act"). The matter relates to the abduction and subsequent treatment of Ms Nokuthula Aurella Simelane during or about the period August - September 1983. The sequence of events constituting the incident will be set out more fully later in this decision. All of the Applicants were to a greater or lesser extent involved in the incident. They were at all material times members of the Security Branch of the then South African Police attached to the Intelligence Unit stationed at Soweto in the present province of Gauteng. The Applicants fall into two categories in accordance with the extent of their respective participation in the incident. The participation of Applicants Williams, Ross and Mkhonza was limited to the abduction of Ms Simelane while the remainder of the Applicants participated throughout the duration of the incident, except for Veyi who joined in after the abduction. The latter group of Applicants engaged in an internecine war during the course of the hearing which was conducted between two camps. The one camp, consisting of Coetzee, Pretorius and Mong, was represented by Mr Visser and the other camp, consisting of Veyi and Selamolela, was represented by Mr Lamey. All of the Applicants testified in support of the applications. Their versions largely coincided in regard to the abduction of Ms Simelane while the respective versions of the two conflicting camps were mutually destructive in relation to the subsequent treatment of Ms Simelane. The interests of the next-of-kin of Ms Simelane were represented at the hearing by Mr van den Berg who indicated in argument that only the applications of Coetzee, Pretorius and Mong are being opposed. Mr van den Berg presented testimony of Gilbert Thwala in support of the case of the next-of-kin.
It is necessary to set out the material evidence in more detail. The summary of the relevant evidence will commence with the facts which are common cause, followed by the respective conflicting versions of the Applicants involved in the dispute of fact in regard to the treatment of Ms Simelane and will conclude with the version of Mr Thwala.
2. FACTS WHICH ARE COMMON CAUSE
Certain sources attached to the Soweto Intelligence Unit of the Security Police including Mkhonza, had infiltrated the ranks of the African National Congress ("ANC") and its military wing Umkhonto weSizwe ("MK") in Swaziland. The Soweto Intelligence Unit under the command of Coetzee, was alerted by these sources that a meeting was arranged between Mkhonza and an MK member at the Carlton Centre in Johannesburg during or about August - September 1983. Coetzee conveyed this information to the overall commander of the Soweto Security Police, the late Brigadier H Muller. After having considered various options, Muller ordered that the MK member should be abducted with a view to turning the member into an agent of the Security Police. Pursuant to this order, Coetzee gathered a group of Security Police officers, including the Applicants, and prepared them for the operation. On the day of the operation, the group monitored the movements of the MK member with a view to executing the planned abduction. It was only at that stage that it transpired that the MK member was a lady, Ms Simelane. She was young, attractive, soft-spoken and had a slender figure. She had also just completed a degree at the University of Swaziland. In accordance with the plan decided upon by the group of police officers, Mkhonza lured Ms Simelane to the basement of the Carlton Centre where she was apprehended and abducted. Ms Simelane was manhandled, placed in the boot of a police vehicle and transported to the Custodum Flats where the Security Police had an operational office in the cleaner's quarters on the roof of the building. Ms Simelane was left in one of the police vehicles out of sight of the general public. She was subsequently removed to the operational office where she was kept for a few days.
Throughout this period Ms Simelane was interrogated and continuously assaulted by a group of Security Police officers. The assaults were of a serious nature and Applicants accepted that this can be equated to torture. All of the Applicants save for Williams, Ross and Mkhonza were to a greater or lesser extent involved in her torture. The latter had ceased their participation in the incident after the abduction was executed at the Carlton Centre. Ms Simelane was subsequently transferred to a secluded premises on a farm in the district of Northam in the present North West Province. Here she was detained for a period of approximately 4 to 5 weeks. The interrogation and torture continued on the farm. The pith of the conflict between the versions of the relevant Applicants concerns the events surrounding the interrogation and torture of Ms Simelane on the farm. The respective versions in this regard will now be set out.
3. VERSION OF COETZEE, PRETORIUS AND MONG
According to these Applicants, the assaults occurred only during the course of the first week of Ms Simelane's detention, whereafter it was effectively terminated apart from the odd occasion when she would be given a slap or a punch in order to secure her continued co-operation. After the first week of detention, Ms Simelane agreed to work as an agent of the Security Police. She gave her full co-operation to Coetzee who was leading the group of police officers. As she was concerned about her safety, Ms Simelane requested Coetzee not to let the black officers in the group know that she was in fact working with the police. This fact was accordingly not conveyed to either Veyi or Selamolela. Ms Simelane furnished information concerning the structures and operations of MK in Swaziland. In order to ensure Ms Simelane's continued credibility with the ANC and MK, certain targets were attacked by the Security Police under false flag operations. These attacks formed part of the orders which Ms Simelane had to convey to MK units inside South Africa. MK would have become suspicious of Ms Simelane should these attacks not have been launched which in turn would have compromised the continued operations of the Security Police agents who had infiltrated MK. Ms Simelane's recruitment occurred over a period of time and was finalised approximately two weeks prior to her departure from the farm. She was registered as an occasional source of the Soweto Security Police to be handled by Coetzee and Pretorius.
During the period of her stay on the farm, Ms Simelane's personal needs such as toiletries, food, clothing and the like were attended to. Throughout this period, her hands and legs were cuffed at night in order to stop her from escaping. After the necessary arrangements were made, steps were taken to return Ms Simelane to Swaziland. Only Coetzee, Pretorius, the late Sergeant Mothiba and one of the Security Police sources were involved in the arrangements concerning the handling of Ms Simelane as a Security Police source. Mothiba and the source eventually transported Ms Simelane to Swaziland. She subsequently failed to keep the pre-arranged appointments with her Security Police handlers. The Security Police never heard of Ms Simelane again. The Applicants vehemently denied that Ms Simelane's torture continued beyond her first week of detention or that she was so badly assaulted over the prolonged period of her detention that she was hardly recognisable towards the end of her stay on the farm. They likewise denied that electric shocks were administered to Ms Simelane during her detention on the farm or that her torture included her being thrown into the dam on the farm. They furthermore strenuously denied that Ms Simelane was killed by the Security Police and her body disposed of after she was removed from the farm.
4. VERSION OF VEYI AND SELAMOLELA
Only Selamolela was involved in the abduction, while both of them were involved in the subsequent detention of Ms Simelane at the Custodum Flats and on the farm in the Northam district. She was completely outnumbered by the members of the Security Police who were all male and physically superior to her. Throughout the period of her detention, Ms Simelane was interrogated and severely assaulted. Both the interrogation and the assaults were led by the white officers, particularly Coetzee who was in overall command of the group of Security Police. Ms Simelane never co-operated Ms Simelane never co-operated with the police neither did she furnish any material information concerning MK as alleged by Coetzee and the other white officers. She persisted with this stance right up to the end of her stay on the farm and there was never any question of her being recruited as an agent of the Security Police. It is due to this attitude, that she was severely assaulted throughout her detention. Towards the end of her stay on the farm, her physical condition had deteriorated to such an extent as a result of the assaults, that she could hardly be recognised. She had great difficulty in walking and her physical condition had generally deteriorated quite badly. According to Selamolela she was also subjected to torture by electric shocks on the farm. She was, moreover, thrown into the dam on the farm. According to Veyi he last saw Ms Simelane lying in the boot of Coetzee's vehicle while she was still cuffed. He was under the impression that Selamolela accompanied him on this occasion. Selamolela on the other hand had no recollection of this incident. To their knowledge, no toiletries, medication or similar personal items were furnished to Ms Simelane during her detention on the farm. She was in fact dressed in a brown police overall throughout this period. They disputed the version of Coetzee and the other white officers that the information furnished by Ms Simelane led to the false flag attacks on the electrical power stations or was instrumental in the arrest of a number of persons linked to MK. Despite the sustained assaults and the other attempts to recruit her, Ms Simelane remained unco-operative to the end. According to Veyi, Mothiba informed him that Coetzee and Pretorius were involved in the subsequent killing of Ms Simelane and the disposal of her body.
5. VERSION OF GILBERT THWALA
At all material times he was the chief of staff of the Transvaal Urban Machinery of MK and was based in Swaziland. During 1982, Ms Simelane joined his unit and she was operating as a courier for one of the MK units within the Transvaal Urban Machinery. During September 1983, he deployed Ms Simelane on a mission to make contact with one of the other MK units within the Transvaal Urban Machinery at the Carlton Centre in Johannesburg. He had previously made the necessary arrangements with a member of that unit for the meeting with Ms Simelane. The arrangement was in fact that Ms Simelane would collect certain written arrangements in regard to lines of communication between the relevant MK unit and the MK command in Swaziland. She was only given the necessary information to enable her to complete the mission. She was specifically never given any information concerning the membership of the unit or in regard to operational issues such as the location of arms caches or targets for attack. After the necessary logistical arrangements had been made, Ms Simelane was briefed on the mission a few days before her actual departure from Swaziland for South Africa. Arrangements were made for her to be accommodated by an MK member, one Duma Nkosi.
She left Swaziland around the 8th September 1983 and the meeting at the Carlton Centre was arranged for Saturday, 11th September 1983. The arrangement was that Ms Simelane would communicate with him after the meeting at the Carlton Centre on the Saturday. By the Saturday evening, when Ms Simelane had not yet made contact with him, he realised that there was a problem. He made telephonic contact with Duma Nkosi and established that Ms Simelane had failed to return home after having left for a meeting in the morning. It transpired that Ms Simelane's clothing and other possessions were still at the home of Mr Nkosi. He also telephoned Ms Simelane's home to enquire whether she was possibly there. Her relatives indicated that to their knowledge, Ms Simelane was still in Swaziland and were surprised to hear that she would be collecting some items from home that she needed for the purposes of her imminent graduation. By the following evening, he realised that Ms Simelane had disappeared and he instituted the necessary precautions to ensure that the MK units or their operations would not be compromised by the disappearance of Ms Simelane. He ordered the MK unit to which Ms Simelane was attached as well as the unit of Mr Nkosi to immediately cease all operations until further notice. Steps were also taken in Swaziland to secure the MK premises which were known to Ms Simelane. He again communicated with Ms Simelane's family and indicated to them that she seemed to have disappeared in Johannesburg.
He denied that Ms Simelane had anything to do with the arrest of approximately 18 MK members during 1984. He indicated that apart from one member of the group that was arrested, Ms Simelane had never met any of the other arrestees and had no basis of possibly knowing that they were members of MK. He had taken steps to resolve the mystery surrounding the disappearance of Ms Simelane. He indicated that although he accepted, as one of the possibilities, that she was arrested by the South African Security Police he was puzzled by the fact that no action was taken by the latter against any of the units or the MK premises in Swaziland that were known to Ms Simelane. He had never seen Ms Simelane since her departure for South Africa and emphatically denied the suggestion that Ms Simelane was killed by MK after she was placed back in Swaziland by the Security Police. He indicated that if Ms Simelane had in fact returned to the ANC structures or MK in exile he would have been apprised of that fact and would have been central in any possible MK or ANC investigation into the situation of Ms Simelane.
6. EVALUATION OF THE EVIDENCE
It is apparent from a conspectus of the respective versions that the material matters in issue are :
6.1 The duration of Ms Simelane's torture;
6.2 Whether Ms Simelane co-operated with the Security Police and was recruited by them;
6.3 Ms Simelane's physical condition towards the end of her stay on the farm;
6.4 Ms Simelane's fate subsequent to having been removed from the farm.
Having carefully considered the matter, we are satisfied that in spite of some discrepancies in their versions, the evidence of Veyi and Selamolela is basically truthful. They have both made a very favourable impression upon us and their testimony has struck us as honest as well as a genuine attempt to convey all of the facts and circumstances concerning the incident to the best of their ability. We bear in mind that they have been called upon to recount events that occurred a very long time ago and in which they did not play a leading role. In the case of Selamolela he had to contend with the additional disadvantage of suffering from the effects of post-traumatic stress syndrome which, according to the medical evidence placed at our disposal, negatively affected his memory. There is, in our view, no merit in the submission made on behalf of Coetzee and the other white Applicants that Veyi and Selamolela adopted a hostile position towards their white superiors and were actuated by a desire to put the latter in as bad a light as possible while minimizing their own role in the incident. It is common cause that they made a public disclosure of the circumstances surrounding the Simelane incident after her disappearance was highlighted in a prominent article in the Sowetan newspaper. They subsequently made statements to the then Attorney-General of the Transvaal which were basically consistent with their versions at the amnesty hearing. These statements were deposed to prior to the date on which the first amnesty applications were made in respect of the Simelane incident and at a time when they had no indication whether or not on what basis any of their superiors may apply for amnesty.
There can be no doubt, in our view, that their principal motivation was to make a full disclosure of the entire incident and to lift the burden of guilt that they were carrying concerning their own role in what they experienced as an unwarranted and unjustifiable invasion of the basic human rights of Ms Simelane. It is inexplicable why they should falsely exaggerate the duration of Ms Simelane's torture when they have confessed their own complicity in that torture. We find it highly improbable that they would implicate themselves in an offence, the severity of which they falsely exaggerate.
We have not been similarly favourably impressed by the versions of either Coetzee, Pretorius or Mong. We have no doubt, that they have made common cause and orchestrated their testimony in an attempt to minimize their roles in the torture of Ms Simelane. They were evasive and resorted to prevarication and long-winded technical explanations whenever they sensed difficulties or shortcomings in their versions. They studiously failed to furnish direct answers to questions which they regarded as potentially damaging to their case. The record speaks for itself in this regard. Moreover, various aspects of their versions are inherently improbable. They failed to furnish a reasonable or acceptable explanation for the fact that Ms Simelane was kept in foot cuffs throughout the period of her stay on the farm in spite of having allegedly agreed to become a police informer. Their explanation that this was done as a precaution against Ms Simelane possibly fleeing, contradicts the allegation that she had in fact been recruited and registered as a police informer while staying on the farm. It is, furthermore, inherently improbable that they would have continued detaining Ms Simelane under primitive and extremely adverse conditions on a remote farm in the bushveld at a time when they in fact had her full co-operation as a newly recruited informer. The probabilities in this regard instead favour the version of Veyi and Selamolela that she was held under these circumstances and continuously assaulted precisely because of the fact that she had refused to co-operate with the police. The version that, on Ms Simelane's insistence, the fact of her recruitment was kept secret from the black members is, in our view, a clever but unpersuasive attempt to neutralise the effect of the contrary version of Veyi and Selamolela. It is beyond the realm of belief that Coetzee and the other white officers could keep up this facade for approximately one month on the farm while at the same time somehow managing to involve Mothiba in Ms Simelane's recruitment without raising the suspicion of the remaining black members. On the totality of the evidence before us, we have no doubt that the versions of Coetzee, Pretorius and Mong are untruthful where they conflict with those of Veyi and Selamolela on the issues in dispute. We are not persuaded that the criticisms levelled at the versions of Veyi and Selamolela in the argument submitted on behalf of Coetzee, Pretorius and Mong affect those versions in any material way even less does it warrant the total rejection of those versions.
Insofar as the evidence of Mr Gilbert Thwala is concerned, we are satisfied that his version is honest and truthful. We are not persuaded that the rancour that developed during cross-examination between Mr Thwala and Mr Visser is indicative of or only explicable on the basis of mendacity on the part of Mr Thwala. This factor does not detract from the gravamen of that version which in broad terms corroborate the evidence of Veyi and Selamolela that Ms Simelane never co-operated or furnished any material information to the police. It, moreover, constitutes a compelling basis for the conclusion that Ms Simelane never returned to Swaziland after she was abducted by the Security Police.
7. FINDINGS
In the circumstances, we are satisfied that Ms Simelane was abducted by members of the South African Security Police, including some of the Applicants, acting under the command of Coetzee on or about Saturday, 11 September 1983 at the Carlton Centre, Johannesburg. During her subsequent detention for a period of approximately five weeks, she was continuously and very seriously assaulted by the group of Security Police, under the command of Coetzee, who held her captive. All attempts to extract information concerning MK or its operations as well as attempts to recruit her to become a Security Police informer, were fruitless. Due to the prolonged and sustained assaults, Ms Simelane's physical condition deteriorated to the extent that she was hardly recognisable and could barely walk. Ms Simelane was last seen where she was lying with her hands and feet cuffed in the boot of Coetzee's vehicle. She never returned to her familiar environment in Swaziland after having been abducted by the South African Security Police and had disappeared since. It is not necessary for the purpose of this matter to make a definitive finding on the eventual fate of Ms Simelane.
8. CONCLUSION
The abduction and subsequent situation of Ms Simelane will be dealt with separately.
8.1 Abduction
It is not in contention that the abduction of Ms Simelane was duly authorised by the then commander of the Soweto Security Branch. The facts and circumstances relating to this incident have been fully disclosed. The operation was directly linked to the political struggle being waged at the time against the ANC or MK which were regarded as the political enemies of the South African State and its Security Forces. We are accordingly satisfied that this incident constitutes an act associated with a political objective as envisaged by the Act. Amnesty is accordingly GRANTED to all of the Applicants, save for Veyi who was not involved, in respect of all offences or delicts arising from the abduction of Ms Simelane on or about Saturday 11 September 1983 at or near the Carlton Centre, Johannesburg. We have considered the position of Mkhonza and are satisfied that his actions contributed directly to the unlawful abduction. He is accordingly also entitled to amnesty in spite of the fact that he was under the initial impression that Ms Simelane would be lawfully arrested.
8.2 Torture
In the light of what is set out above, we conclude that the evidence of Coetzee, Pretorius and Mong is untruthful insofar as it concerns the duration and extent of Ms Simelane's torture whilst she was in the custody of the Security Police, especially on the farm. Coetzee, Pretorius and Mong have accordingly failed to make a full disclosure of all relevant facts in regard to this aspect of the matter as required by the provisions of Section 20 of the Act. Their applications are accordingly REFUSED on this aspect.
Insofar as the applications of Veyi and Selamolela are concerned, we are satisfied that they have made a full disclosure of all relevant facts. At all material times they were acting on the orders of their commander, Coetzee, who informed them that Ms Simelane was a member of MK. Their actions were accordingly directed against a perceived political enemy and as such constitute acts associated with a political objective as envisaged by the Act. Their applications accordingly comply with all of the requirements of the Act. In the circumstances, amnesty is hereby GRANTED to the Applicants Veyi and Selamolela in respect of all offences and delicts arising from the torture of Ms Simelane subsequent to her abduction as set out above.
In our opinion Ms Nokuthula Aurella Simelane, alternatively her next-of-kin are victims in respect of the incidents for which amnesty is hereby granted and the matter is accordingly referred for consideration in terms of the provisions of Section 22 of the Act.
DATED AT CAPE TOWN THIS 23RD DAY OF MAY 2001
DENZIL POTGIETER, A-J
A-J CHRIS DE JAGER, A-J
ADV L GCABASHE
AC/2001/185
TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION
AMNESTY COMMITTEE
APPLICATION IN TERMS OF SECTION 18 OF THE PROMOTION OF NATIONAL UNITY AND RECONCILIATION ACT, NO.34 OF 1995.
W H COETZEE 1ST APPLICANT
(AM4122/96)
A PRETORIUS 2ND APPLICANT
(AM4389/96)
J F WILLIAMS 3RD APPLICANT
(AM4375/96)
J E ROSS 4TH APPLICANT
(AM4377/96)
F B MONG 5TH APPLICANT
(AM4154/96)
N L MKHONZA 6TH APPLICANT
(AM5420/97)
M M VEYI 7TH APPLICANT
(AM5421/97)
M L SELAMOLELA 8TH APPLICANT
(AM5419/97)
A D D E N D U M
I agree with the result but do not agree with some aspects and conclusions in paragraph 6 above. The Applicants Coetzee, Pretorius and Mong did not satisfy me that they've made a full disclosure of all relevant facts.
CHRIS DE JAGER, A-J
??
2
/...
_/...
23
/...
