Truth Commission Special Report Decision - 59423 Type: AMNESTY DECISIONS Names: EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK,JOHANNES JACOBUS SWART,KOBUS KLOPPER,NICHOLAAS JOHANNES VERMEULEN Matter: AM0066/96,AM3750/96,AM3762/96,AM4398/96 Decision: GRANTED URL: https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/hearing.php?id=59423&t=&tab=hearings Original File: https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/originals/decisions/2001/ac21141.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DECISION ______________________________________________________ The Applicants applied for amnesty in respect of their roles: 1.    As accessories after the fact to the death of Johannes Sweet Sambo on 4 July 1991 at Squamans Base near Komatipoort; 2.    in the subsequent destruction of the body of Johannes Sweet Sambo on 5 July 1990 at Verdacht training camp of the South African Police; 3.    in defeating the ends of justice; and 4.    in various offences under the Explosives Act. Eugene Alexander de Kock ("de Kock") was in fact convicted of defeating the ends of justice in respect of this matter and was sentenced to six years imprisonment for this offence. All four Applicants testified as to their involvement in the matter and set out their background and how they came to be involved in the incidents.  All were members of the South African Police and were part of the Security Branch C1 unit based at the Vlakplaas.  De Kock was the commander of the unit at the time. Briefly, the facts of the matter are as follows: De Kock received a telephone call from one Flip de Beer ("de Beer"), commander of the security branch at Komatipoort.  De Beer informed De Kock that a suspect had died as a result of a botched tubing and the use of excessive force during interrogation and he requested De Kock's help in disposing of the body.  De Kock assumed that the deceased had been a member of a liberation movement.  De Kock arranged to see General Engelbrecht (his commander) to get authority to assist.  General Engelbrecht refused permission but De Kock decided that in view of the implications for the Police and the State he would nevertheless provide the assistance to De Beer. He contacted the other Applicants and one Charlie Chait and instructed them to meet him at his home.  They duly did so.  He then informed them about the situation.  After this he phoned De Beer and told him to meet his four members at a garage outside Middelburg.  De Kock then ordered the four members to meet De Beer at the agreed place, to take possession of the body of the deceased and then to dispose of it. The four members then drove in two vehicles to Middelburg where they met De Beer.  They took possession of the deceased's body and then they eventually transported it to the explosives range at the Verdacht training camp. The four members then met at the explosives range at the Verdacht training camp early the next morning.  Charlie Chait ("Chait"), Nicholaas Johannes Vermeulen ("Vermeulen") and Johannes Jacobus Swart ("Swart") then placed explosives on the body of the deceased and it was blown up.  After the explosion the area where the explosion had occurred was combed by the four of them and whatever bits of the body that could e found were brought together and blown up again.  The process was repeated until there was nothing left.  The exercise lasted most of the day and they left the range that afternoon and returned to Pretoria.  Kobus Klopper ("Klopper") reported to De Kock after their return. On a careful analysis of all the evidence we are satisfied that there are no material differences between these various testimonies.  There are some differences between the evidence of the Applicants but no more than would be usual bearing in mind that this instance occurred eight years before the hearing.  Accordingly, we are satisfied that the Applicants have made full disclosure of all relevant facts. It remains to be decided whether the Applicants meet the requirements of Section 20(1) of Act 34 of 1995 as to whether "the act, omission or offence to which the application relates is an act associated with a political objective committed in the course of the conflicts of the past in accordance with the provisions of sub sections (2) and (3)." It is clear that De Kock believed, despite his orders to the contrary, that unless he helped De Beer in this matter the discovery of the body of the deceased and the fact that he had been killed during interrogation by the Police would have serious consquences for the Police and the government of the day.  De Kock also believed that he had the capacity to act on his own initiative.  Accordingly, he decided to provide the necessary assistance and thus ordered the other Applicants to carry out the operation. With regard to the other Applicants it is clear that they merely followed De Kock's orders.  They had no reason to doubt his authority as he was their commander and they and other members of their unit had been involved in other similar operations previously. The Committee is satisfied that the offences were committed in the course of the conflicts of the past and that all the Applicants fall within the provisions of Section 20(2). The Committee, after considering the guidelines set out in Section 20(3) is further satisfied that the offences committed were associated with a political objective. In the result, amnesty is GRANTED to the Applicants for: 1.    Being accessories after the fact to the killing of Johannes Sweet Sambo on 4 July 1991 at Squamans Base, Komatipoort. 2.    Any other offences, including the desecration of the corpse, directly linked to the disposal of the body of Johannes Sweet Sambo on 5 July 1990 at the Verdacht training camp of the South African Police. 3.    Defeating the ends of justice with regard to the death and disposal of the body of Johannes Sweet Sambo. The Committee is of the opinion that the relatives and dependants of Johannes Sweet Sambo are victims and they are referred to the Committee on Reparation and Rehabilitation for consideration in terms of Section 22 of Act 34 of 1995. DATED AT CAPE TOWN THIS    DAY OF                  2001. _____________________ JUDGE A.B.M. WILSON _____________________ MR J. B. SIBANYONI _____________________ MR I LAX ?? /... 2 /... /...