The applicants, who will be referred to in the order set out above, all apply for amnesty for various offences related to and flowing from the abduction of and various assaults on Jabulani Sidney Msibi, a senior member of the ANC and head of intelligence of the ANC in Swaziland in or about June 1986. The assaults took place in Swaziland at the time of the abduction in Swaziland and thereafter at a club house at the Oshoek border post in the RSA where the victim was interrogated and finally at Vlakplaas in the RSA to where he was transported and further interrogated.
The applications were initially all opposed by the family members of the victims, but after having listened to the evidence of the applicants their objection to amnesty being granted were restricted to the applications of the senior officers involved namely the fourth, fifth and sixth applicants, W.F. Schoon, S.J. Visser and G. Visser. These applications were opposed on the ground that these three officers had not made a full disclosure of all relevant facts.
All the applicants testified before the Committee.
No other evidence was adduced either on behalf of the applicants or the victims. The arguments on which the objection to amnesty for the three applicants mentioned above were based centered around the content of an alleged affidavit by the victim, who had been shot in Soweto sometime after the incident which forms the subject matter of the present applications. The affidavit which relates the assaults to which the victim had been subjected to were in some respects corroborated by some of the applicants and will be dealt with later in this decision.
The evidence of the Applicants broadly corresponded, except for the extent of the assaults and the issue of whether Msibi became an Askari and informer of the Security Police. Broadly speaking, the sequence of events was as follows:
1. It was established that one Malaza, a Black security policeman in the Eastern Transvaal, had leaked information to the ANC via Msibi in Swaziland. Malaza was under the command of Gert Visser, head of the security branch in Nelspruit who in turn was under the command of Brig S.J. Visser. When confronted by Brig Stadler and S.J. Visser, Malaza admitted to this and declared himself willing to co-operate in the abduction of Msibi. After the abduction he managed to escape.
The first applicant, De Kock, received instructions from his immediate superior at Head Office, Schoon, to assist with the abduction and he in turn gave orders to the men under his command to accompany him to Swaziland with a view to the operation. These were the second, third, seventh and eighth applicants being, Nortje, Bosch and Vermeulen as well as McCarter and lastly one Paul van Dyk who was implicated but did not apply for amnesty. Greyling, who was a warrant officer in the Security Branch, was stationed at Nelspruit and worked under the command of S.J. Visser.
2. The first attempt of De Kock and his team to abduct Msibi was unsuccessful and they returned to the RSA. The next morning the operation was replanned. General Stadler, Brig Schoon and Brig S.J. Visser waited at the border post at Oshoek whilst De Kock and his members from Vlakplaas as well as the Nelspruit members, Gert Visser and Greyling accompanied them. Malaza lured Msibi to a point along the Mbabane Oshoek road where he was captured and taken to the border post where the others were waiting. The car Msibi was driving was pushed over a cliff on the Swaziland side on the order of De Kock. Although the crossing of the border into Swaziland took place at Oshoek the Vlakplaas members made use of false passports but they all crossed back into South Africa illegally. De Kock also carried an illegal firearm.
3. At the Oshoek border post Msibi was questioned by and assaulted by Gert Visser and De Kock in the presence of the senior officers. De Kock having established Msibi’s address in Swaziland returned to Swaziland and came back with documents and explosive devices, which he had found in his room. Thereafter the questioning and assaults continued until Msibi was taken to Pretoria. All the applicants testified, however, that although they had not participated in the assault they knew about it and associated themselves with it. The versions about the severity of the assault differed and the committee is unable to make a particular finding on the intensity of the assault but it is clear that it endured for several hours and not only two or three hours as testified by S.J. Visser.
4. At Vlakplaas Msibi was further assaulted by De Kock who inter alia hit him with a belt. He was, according to de Kock, reluctant to co-operate, but eventually "neutralised" inter alia by the fact that he had been persuaded to give evidence against two informers who had been charged in the South African courts. Despite this, de Kock testified that Msibi had remained loyal to the ANC and consistently refused to divulge sensitive information relating to the ANC. He was handed to a certain senior security officer Buchner and later released. Although a number of the applicants had heard that Msibi had subsequently been shot somewhere in Soweto none of them were able to shed any light on the circumstances in which he had been killed. There was also no evidence and information pointing a finger at the applicants.
An analysis of the evidence shows certain discrepancies in the various versions of the applicants in the following respects: the duration of the questioning and the time that Msibi was held at Oshoek, the nature of the assaults on Msibi, and the extent to which Msibi was willing to and in fact co-operated with the security police after he had been "neutralised". The duration of the time that he was held appears not to be such a material aspect of the incident that it should stand in the way of the granting of amnesty, especially if one takes into consideration that this incident had taken place some fourteen years ago. There is in the opinion of the Committee little reason why an applicant would be deliberately untruthful in this regard. As far as the extent of the assaults at the Oshoek border post is concerned, the Committee cannot make a finding simply on the strength of the affidavit purportedly made by the victim, Msibi, although there is some suspicion in the minds of committee members that the assaults may have been of a much more serious nature than admitted to by the applicants. Broadly speaking, however, the applicants corroborate each other and at least conceded that it may have been more serious than they could recall. The evidence of de Kock and others and that of the fifth applicant, S.J. Visser, as to whether Msibi was eventually turned into an Askari differs substantially. It is however clear that De Kock’s association with Msibi had come to an end much earlier than that of S.J. Visser and Greyling who had worked with him subsequently to De Kock. In the circumstances the Committee cannot make a finding that any of the applicants has not made a full disclosure of all relevant facts. In so far as the political objectives of the applicants are concerned the Committee is satisfied that the offences were committed with a political objective as defined in he Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, 34 of 1995.
In the premises amnesty is GRANTED to all nine of the applicants:
Eugene Alexander de Kock, Willem Albertus Nortje, Izak Daniel Bosch, Willem Frederick Schoon, Schalk Jan Visser, Gert Visser, Daniel Jacobus Greyling, Frank Mc Carter and Nicholaas Johannes Vermeulen for all offences and delicts directly associated with or flowing from the conspiracy to abduct, the abduction and the assault on the victim Jabulani Sydney Msibi from Swaziland in or about June 1986.
Edna Gigaba, Sandile Gigaba, Lindiwe Gigaba, relatives of the victim and all of 7902 Zone 1, P.O Pimville 1808 as well as Thabiso Msibi and Busisiwe Nkambule, the son and common law wife of the victim are all referred to the Committee on Reparation and Rehabilitation in terms of section 22(2) of the Act for consideration as victims.
SIGNED AT _______________ THIS DAY OF ____________ 2000.
_____________________JUDGE J MOTATA