DECISION
This incident relates to the murder of Adriaano Louis Bambo, an informer who worked for the South African Security Police. At the time that he was killed he was no longer working for the police. All the applicants were members of the South African Security Police Special Unit, the Vlakplaas Unit, when the events referred to herein occurred. They worked under the command of De Kock who was the Operations Commander. We have already dealt with quite a number of applications and also heard evidence in respect of incidents in which members of the notorious Vlakplaas Unit were incidents in which members of the notorious Vlakplaas Unit were involved. For the sake of brevity we are not going to deal with the evidence on how the unit functioned and other related matters. This is now common cause. However, the applications are being opposed.
De Kock testified that on a certain day early in 1991 he was in Engelbrecht's office at the South African Security Police Headquarters. Engelbrecht suggested that he instructs one of his (De Kock's) members at Vlakplaas to accompany a member of the East Rand Murder and Robbery Unit to a place where an informer who previously worked for the Security Police under Captain Willem Helm Johannes Coetzee ("Timol") would be killed. The name of the informer was not mentioned to him and he also did not know who the informer concerned was. The erstwhile informer was said to be subsequently involved in acts of armed robbery and was on the point of disclosing very sensitive information about the Security Police and their activities. De Kock states that, in compliance with the order, he instructed Brits to accompany the said member of the unit who was stationed at Benoni. (It is convenient to refer to the so-called informer as the deceased, viz. Adriaano Bambo). De Kock states that as part of the plot to kill the so-called informer W/O Daniel Lionel Snyman created a false cache of weapons. These were handgrenades and Russian made weapons which were issued by De Kock from the Vlakplaas Unit. The deceased was going to be taken to the place where the cache was located. He was to be shot on the scene under the pretext that he had tried to escape whilst being taken for a pointing out. Engelbrecht did not discuss with De Kock how the deceased was going to be killed and all he wanted him to do was simply to make one of his members available so he could assist in the execution of the plan. All De Kock knows about the execution of the plan is what was told to him by Brits who confirmed that the plan had been carried out viz. the deceased was murdered in Nelspruit. De Kock says because he did not have the essential facts to give a report to Engelbrecht he instructed Brits to give such report himself and that because of the large number of cases in respect of which he has applied for amnesty, he is unable to recall of the facts. He states that after he instructed Brits to accompany the East Rand member, he was never personally involved in the execution of the plan. He also cannot recall the name of the member. At the time Engelbrecht was part of the Detective Branch of the SAP and later was transferred to the Security Branch. He became the commander of C1, C2 and C3 divisions. D Kock says he knew Engelbrecht quite well and had extensive dealings with him especially when the Harms Commission was appointed. De Kock claims that he had continuous dealings with Engelbrecht when the latter was appointed to assist the Commission to investigate gross human rights violations that had been committed by the South African Security Forces inside and outside the country. He says Engelbrecht was at all times "the inside man" of the SAPS and was known as "a sweeper" who covered up for the police. These allegations are strenuously denied by Engelbrecht. Before we proceed to deal with the evidence of the other applicants and other implicated persons, it is necessary to mention that it is common cause that the deceased during the time that he worked for the police carried out a number of unlawful actions against perceived opponents of the State. On some of the occasions he acted with his handlers, Coetzee and Pretorius and other askaris. De Kock says the political objective was therefore to silence the informer. It would have been very dangerous for the entire security police establishment and the government of the day if he revealed his knowledge of the crimes that had been committed by the police to keep the government of the day in power.
Under cross-examination, De Kock said the following:- He knew Johannes Petrus Koekemoer as a regular visitor ("outsider") at Vlakplaas and that he socialised with members during drinking sessions in the canteen. He does not know whether or not Koekemoer was involved in the operation but he is aware of the judicial inquest into the matter in which Koekemoer testified.
De Kock further states that he is not aware of a conversation about an askari who had to be killed which, according to Daniel Lionel Snyman, took place in the canteen before the murder of the deceased. (Snyman's evidence will be dealt with below). Snyman claims that in the said conversation, Brigadier Human was involved. De Kock knew Coetzee and Pretorius very well. De Kock is not aware that the deceased in or about 1984/5 was sentenced to two (2) years imprisonment for criminal activities. He also did not know that at the time of his elimination he had been in prison for some months on charges of robbery and escape from lawful custody. He has never been involved in any discussion with either Coetzee or Pretorius regarding the deceased.
Brits testified and confirmed that he received an order from De Kock to secure arms from Snyman because a Dead Letter Box ("DLB") was to be established. De Kock further told him to contact Koekemoer (nicknamed "Koekies") whom Brits knew very well. On obtaining the arms viz. two (2) to three (3) landmines or handgrenades (he is not very sure) he took them to Koekemoer's house where they both loaded them into the latter's vehicle. In his possession Brits also had a Makarov pistol with a magazine and it was also placed among the arms. On the same day, a Sunday afternoon, they left for Nelspruit where they created a false DLB with the arms. He says this was outside Nelspruit on the way to Komatipoort. He did not again visit the scene expect when he had to point it out to investigators after the deceased was apparently killed there. He states that he was not present when the deceased was shot by Koekemoer, ostensibly under the pretext that he was attempting to escape. He says he subsequently learnt of his death from a newspaper report. He discussed the report with Snyman but at no stage did he ever discuss it with Engelbrecht. Brits further adds that he could not have easily approached Engelbrecht about the matter as he was too junior. He states that it would have been against protocol for him to do so. Under cross-examination he later conceded that he could be making a mistake because there were a few occasions on which he had to talk to him directly. He states that he had known Koekemoer for a long time. He visited him at his home and they were very good friends. He claims that he has no reason to falsely implicate Koekemoer. Although they had a good relationship, they have never discussed the plan to kill the deceased and on their way to and from Nelspruit there was no discussion whatsoever regarding the matter. All he had to do was to assist Koekemoer to establish the DLB and he did not have to know anything further than that. The arrangement was between his superior De Kock and Koekemoer (this conflicts with De Kock's evidence that he did not know who from the East Rand Police was going to work with Brits). As we shall see below, Koekemoer denies that he previously went to the scene to create a false DLB with Brits and states that he shot the deceased in self-defence. Brits is seeking amnesty for conspiring to murder the deceased; any offence(s) in contravention of the Arms and Ammunitions Act; any offence in contravention of the Explosives Act and for any offence or delict flowing from the incident.
Snyman testified that on a certain day he was in the canteen at Vlakplaas when he overheard a conversation between Koekemoer and Brigadier Ivor Human, the then commanding officer of the East Rand Murder and Robbery Unit. He says it was the first tim that he met Human who was unknown to him. According to the conversation, weaponry was to be secured to create a false DLB and a potential whistleblower was to be killed. He says he inferred from the conversation that these would have to be Eastern bloc type of arms and he cannot recall whether he was approached by De Kock or Brits to supply the arms from the storeroom where they were kept. But when the request was made on the same day he complied and issued landmines and handgrenades. These were packed in black refuse bags and given to Brits. He was also aware from the conversation that the person who was going to be killed had made contact with the ANC. Some time later Brits showed him a newspaper report in, according to which, a black man was allegedly killed in the course of pointing out a DLB in Neslpruit. He says he was then able to make the connection.
He is seeking amnesty for the same offences as Brits.
Under cross-examination, Brits revealed that during the criminal trial in which he testified as a State witness against De Kock, he was told by one Advocate Antoinette de Jager not to mention the murder of the deceased herein. He says at the time Ivor Human was part of the Attorney General's investigation team and he concluded that it was because it would have caused serious embarrassment to Human and the prosecution authorities if he implicated him. As a result, when he testified, he did not mention the incident. But later, when he was preparing to apply for amnesty, he obtained legal advice to reveal the matter and he did not hesitate to do so as it was in his best interest to apply. Koekemoer denies that he took part in the canteen discussion and that he frequently visited Vlakplaas to socialise with its members. At the hearing the Evidence Leader, Ms Ramula Patel, advised the panel that steps to trace the whereabouts of Ivor Human were unsuccessful. She, however, undertook to pursue the matter and would report to the Committee in due course. At the time of the writing this decision, no such report has been obtained from her.
Koekemoer, reading from an affidavit which he says he prepared using his previous pocket book, testified that on Friday the 1st March 1991, at about 9h30, he received a telephone call from one of the SAP members who was based in the prison where the deceased was being held. He does not recall the name of the member who called him but he was advised that one Adriaano Bambo (the deceased) wanted to point out a DLB in the area of KwaNyamazana in Nelspruit. He further states that generally he would not believe such prisoners because in many cases they were simply plotting to escape or merely seeking an opportunity to convey messages to friends or to alert co-perpetrators. Nevertheless, he instructed a junior colleague, Hendrik Jacobus Grobbelaar, to open a docket on the matter and bring the suspect to the office for questioning. This he did. At about 10h00 on the 5 March they questioned him and he confirmed that indeed, there was a DLB in KwaNyamazana which he wanted to point out. At about 11h20 he telephoned Lieutenant Johannes Davel for the Murder and Robbery Unit in Nelspruit and requested him to secure him the services of a police photographer because he was coming to Nelspruit for a pointing out. At about 11h20 he telephoned Lieutenant Johannes Davel of the Murder and Robbery Unit in Nelspruit and requested him to secure him the services of a police photographer because he was coming to Nelspruit for a point out. At about 11h30 he, Grobbelaar and the suspect (the deceased) left for Nelspruit. Koekemoer says he was driving and he followed the directions as they were being given to him by the suspect. When they came to Nelspruit he told the suspect that he first wanted to go and fetch a photographer at the local police station before they approach the scene. The suspect said the scene was very nearby and insisted that he should first point out the DLB before thy fetch the photographer. Koekemoer relented. After the suspect pointed out the place where the arms were located Koekemoer told him to sit down but he said he was going to take them out of the black refuse bag. This Koekemoer refused and insisted that he should remain seated and not come anywhere near the DLB. At that stage he had already sent Grobbelaar to go and fetch the photographer and it was approximately three (3) minutes after Grobbelaar had left. He says:
"The suspect suddenly moved towards my direction. He was in a crouched position and on his left side moved towards me and with his left side facing me, moved towards me. From my position I observed this black handgrenade in his hands and I could see that this man's determined to throw this handgrenade towards me. As I was facing the river - or no, my back was facing the river and I didn't really have a chance to get away, I immediately drew my weapon and fired a shot towards him.
I saw the identifier stumble an in an attempt to dive/fall towards my direction, if I can describe it in that way I then did not have any other choice but to jump down the side of the embankment into the bushes. I do not know if I heard the explosion when I was at the bottom of the embankment or during the time when I jumped. I then heard the explosion. I then moved back up towards the place where I saw the identifier last. I noticed that he was seriously injured. I ran towards the road and the first vehicle that passed, I stopped. They were members from the Vehicle Theft Unit or branch at Witrivier and I requested them to urgently call paramedics, as well as a service officer to come and investigate the scene."
Mr van der Berg: What was the position with the detainee or the deceased? What steps did you take before you drove to Nelspruit to secure him?
Mr Koekemoer: The detainee had leg irons on, his hands were also cuffed in front of him."
This is highly improbable and it is clear that Koekemoer is misleading the Committee. It is improbable that a person in the position of the deceased could have tried to attack Koekemoer who had a firearm in his possession. Our view is fortified by Koekemoer's evidence that the deceased's hands and legs were cuffed. Koekemoer's evidence and all its improbabilities warrant no further comment save to say that in his testimony he was a very bad witness who totally avoided telling the truth. He testified that he was aware that the deceased was serving a sentence of twelve (12) months imprisonment for escaping from lawful custody. There were other cases of armed robbery pending against him. This information he obtained from one of his colleagues in the East Rand Murder and Robbery Unit who was investigating the cases against him. There is no credible explanation as to why he was contacted about the deceased's desire to make a pointing out when in fact his colleague was investigating the cases. He states that he was not aware that the deceased was previously a police informer and says that even if he had known this he would not have dealt with him differently.
Under cross-examination Koekemoer admitted that he had a very good relationship with De Kock and Brits. He socialised with them. He could not think of any reason why they were all implicating him as he has never had a quarrel with them before. It also emerged that in 1987 Koekemoer once applied to join the Vlakplaas Unit but later withdrew his application. He says this was only because he had changed his mind. But early in 1993 he was appointed as a member of the Security Police. He further admits that only a selected few would be allowed to join the Security Branch and that one would have to be a well trusted member to be eligible for recruitment. He further testified that the deceased told him that he brought the arms from Mozambique and was going to sell them in South Africa to any person that might want to buy them. Before he requisitioned the deceased for a temporary transfer to the Police Station in Benoni where they were based, he first discussed the matter with his superior Ivor Human who authorised him to travel to Nelspruit.
Manual Antonio Olifant testified that before the relevant time he and the deceased (nicknamed "Strongman" because he was a very fierce fighter) had worked for the Security Police as intelligence agents in Soweto. Prior to that time they were recruited by the South African Security Forces in Mozambique whereafter they were sent to Vlakplaas as askaris. From Vlakplaas they were sent to Namibia where they fought against SWAPO on the side of the South African Security Forces. In Namibia they worked under Coetzee who was the second-in-command of their unit. Thus, when they were sent back to South Africa to work in Soweto, Coetzee knew them very well. He even believed that they were brothers. Olifant states that on a certain day he was approached by Pretorius who showed him a newspaper report. According to the report the deceased was being wanted by the police from criminal acts. In the report the deceased was being referred to as a former Koevoet member and an agent of the Soweto Security Police. He says Pretorius was concerned that this could cause problems for them because the deceased had been involved in certain activities with the police. He feared that he would start talking, just like others were doing at the time. He says that Pretorius was concerned that the deceased might get killed in the process of being arrested because he was a fierce fighter and could not easily surrender. Olifant states that Coetzee requested him to contact the deceased and persuade him to come and see him. This he did but the deceased had no interest to return to the Police. Olifant states that he was never given an order by either Pretorius or Coetzee to kill the deceased and none of them expressed a view that he should be killed. Olifant states that the deceased has always had a good relationship with both Pretorius and Coetzee and this was in spite of the fact that Coetzee was a very strict superior who always wanted things to be done in the right way. He says that the deceased, not being a very disciplined foot soldier, might not have really liked Coetzee but this has never developed into a serious problem of open hostility between the two. Both Pretorius and Coetzee deny that they ever had such a discussion with Olifant about the deceased. (We shall deal with their evidence later).
Under cross-examination and in response to questions that were put by members of the Committee, Olifant was a very impressive witness who answered all questions honestly and without equivocation and exaggeration. He was able to withstand a very prolonged and strenuous cross-examination and still emerged unshaken in his version of the events. He also testified that in 1985 the deceased was convicted and sentenced to one year imprisonment for his criminal activities. He says he visited him often whilst he was in jail and when he complete his sentence he returned to the Security Police in Soweto where he resumed his duties. Olifant states that at no stage during his incarceration did he threaten to speak about the operations in which he was involved as an askari with Pretorius and Coetzee and including himself. On his release he resumed duties until he left the force late 1989 because he was not happy with the level of remuneration he received. Even then he never threatened to speak out about security police activities. Olifant has applied for amnesty in respect of many incidents ranging from (attempted) murder, torture, petrol bombing of homes of suspected opponents of the previous regime and other crimes. Hew has received amnesty in respect of some and is presently awaiting decisions in respect of the others.
Coetzee testified that he had known the deceased since early 1980s when he worked under his command in the Koevoet in Namibia and later as his informer in Soweto. Olifant was also employed as an informer. Their duties entailed what he called "supporting all operational activities" viz. to arrange places for meeting and handling informers. Coetzee ways later he left Soweto when he was transferred to the Security Police Head Offices in Pretoria. He took the deceased with him. Subsequently, the deceased was involved in an armed robbery with a firearm which he had stolen from the security police offices. After he complete his sentence he was taken back at the request of Brigadier van Rensburg from head offices. Coetzee says he had a very good relationship with the deceased until the stage when he dismissed him. What had happened was, as the deceased's duties entailed "co-handling informers" and taking them from one point to another, at one stage he was very careless and did not adhere to the strict security code of conduct. This resulted in informers who were not supposed to know each other knowing each other and becoming aware of each other's presence in a safe house. There they were being trained and prepared for a mission that was going to take place in the future.
Coetzee states that other members ("co-handlers") reported to him that they were unhappy about the poor discipline of the deceased and his laxity with security. He says the deceased would also abuse state vehicles and on numerous occasions absented himself from work without permit. Coetzee admits that whilst the deceased was employed as an informer, the security police and himself occasionally gave him orders, some of which were unlawful and in some of the incidents people were killed or injured. He further admits that if such operations became known it would have created embarrassment to the security police and the government of the day. He concedes that it was in the interest of the police and the political masters of the day that such incidents not be known. He states that at no stage was he ever concerned that the deceased would talk about such incidents. Neither did he take steps to prevent such an eventuality. This is improbable. He states that after the deceased was released from prison for the first robbery in 1984 for some time he tried to behave himself well but later problems started again. He dismissed him. There were widespread rumours that he was always seen in very luxurious cars with suspicious companions. Even at that stage, Coetzee testified, he was not worried that he could talk about the "safe houses" and other operational activities of the security police, many of which were unlawful. Coetzee says all he did was to tell Olifant to inform him that if he got himself into trouble again they would not come to his assistance. This evidence is irreconcilable with earlier evidence by Coetzee that the deceased never asked for any kind of assistance when he was first in collision with the law. Coetzee continues and states that when Olifant reported back to him he said the deceased had promised to contact him. This never happened. Coetzee also did not again ask Olifant to tell the deceased to contact him. This is also improbable. At that stage, Coetzee testified, the deceased had already been dismissed and there is no probable reason why he would approach Coetzee to solicit assistance. It was known to the deceased that his services had been terminated. We therefore have no choice but to reject this evidence as false. Coetzee states that he was concerned about the possibility of the deceased resisting arrest and either getting killed or injured or one of the members of the police force getting injured or on of the members of the police force getting inured or killed in the process of effecting the arrest. Yet he did nothing pre-empt such a risk to the lives of his colleagues. Ironically, he concedes that if the deceased was a security risk to the police he would have caused him to be killed.
Anthony Pretorius admits that he did have the conversation with Olifant about a newspaper report; h says that in the said conversation both himself and Olifant shared a concern that the deceased could possibly get killed whilst resisting arrest. He states that he knew the deceased could possibly get killed whilst resisting arrest.
He states that he knew the deceased to be a person who would not easily surrender when he was cornered. He would fight until he died. However, he vehemently denies that he feared he would start talking like others were doing to the Harms Commission. He states that in 1989 the deceased was discharged from duty due to misconduct but later returned. He was begging for mercy. Coetzee re-employed him again but it was not long before he once again misbehaved. Coetzee told him (Pretorius) that he had finally made up his mind about him viz. h did not want him to be part of the unit again.
In spite of all these occurrences, Pretorius continues, he never saw the deceased as a security risk and denies the allegation by De Kock and others that he was killed to prevent him from talking about the illegal activities of the security police of which he was part. We reject this evidence as false. Pretorius also testified that he knew De Kock well and was once involved in an operation with him in Swaziland. He did not know Engelbrecht very well and never used to share sensitive information with him. He states that at the relevant time he did not even know Koekemoer and only met him for he first time in 1994, long after the deceased had been killed. He denies that he conspired with Koekemoer to have the deceased eliminated. It was Pretorius' further evidence that he only met Ivor Human once in his life and that was in or about April 1996.
After considering all the evidence, we are satisfied that the offences committed by the applicants are "acts associated with a political objective" as it is required by the Act. The applicants have complied with the requirements of the Act and we accept that they have given a full disclosure of the relevant facts. We accept the evidence that the deceased was killed to prevent him from disclosing his knowledge of the criminal actions of the security police which were committed whilst he was working as an informer. This is the only inference that can be drawn in the circumstances. We reject the suggestion that in spite of his previous association with the security police he could never have posed danger at all. This particular version is not probable and we reject it as hopelessly false.
In the result amnesty is GRANTED to all the applicants for the following offences:
1. Conspiring in Pretoria in or about November 1991 to murder Adriaano Bambo;
2. Defeating the ends of justice;
3. Any offence in contravention of the Arms and Ammunition Act;
4. Any offence in contravention of the Explosives Act;
5. Any offence or delict flowing from the incident.
It is recommended that the dependants of Adriaano Bambo be declared victims in terms of the Act.
SIGNED AT CAPE TOWN ON THIS DAY OF 2001
JUDGE J. MOTATA
ADV. N. SANDI
ADV. F. BOSMAN
??
4
/...
_
/...
