decisions AMNESTY DECISIONS WILLEM WOUTER MENTZ AM2775/96 GRANTED https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/hearing.php?id=59526&t=&tab=hearings https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/originals/decisions/2001/ac21246.htm DECISION This is an application for amnesty in terms of Section 18 of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, No. 34 of 1995. The Applicant applied for amnesty for a number of offences arising out of the killing of four alleged gun runners at Komatipoort in April 1992 (this was later changed to 1991).  The Applicant appeared before the full original Committee in respect of this application and nine others. (AC/990033).  He was granted amnesty in respect of eight of the applications.  It was refused in one where the particulars were so vague that no decision could be arrived at and no decision was given in the present application because the Applicant mentioned the names of nine other persons involved.  The Committee decided that the decision should be postponed until evidence in other applications relating to the same incident had been heard. So far as we can ascertain, there have only been two other applications for amnesty arising from this incident.  These were those of Kobus Klopper (AM3762/96) and Johann Hendrik Tait (AM3922/96) who were both GRANTED amnesty for:-       (1)   Accessory after the fact to murder;       (2)   Defeating the ends of justice; and       (3)   For any other offence or delict flowing from the incident. The incident arose from an operation planned by the Security Police to arrest certain suspect gun-runners.  The police officers dealing with them were referred to as Ovambos, that is persons from outside the country who had been members of Koevoet and who were now stationed at Vlakplaas.  The planned operation went awry and in consequence the two "Ovambos" engaged in a fire fight with the gun runners to defend themselves.  The four gun runners were killed.  When the "Ovambos" reported back to their seniors it was decided that, although the shooting had been legitimate the identity of the police involved would have to be concealed.  As Mentz said in his evidence he helped in covering up this incident because he was worried that the disclosure thereof would have embarrassed or weakened the Government or been to the advantage of the ANC or PAC during negotiations. He further said the cover up was for the protection of the Security Police, the Police and the Government in whose service they were in that Koevoet was associated with an alleged Third Force which was held in disrepute.  The Applicant played a prominent role in arranging the actual cover up and he and the other police thereafter confirmed that the shooting had been done by Task Force members, reputable members of the SAP. We are satisfied that the Applicant has met all the requirements of the Act, including making full disclosure and showing a strong political objective.  The evidence led in the other two applications accorded largely with his version though there were differences in detail. At the hearing we were told by Applicant's counsel he was asking for amnesty simply for being an accessory after the fact (to murder), for perjury and for obstruction of justice.  Mention was made at a subsequent hearing of the need for a further hearing of this application but in the light of the decision arrived at, at that hearing and of the decision we have now arrived at, that is no longer necessary. Amnesty is GRANTED in respect of the following offences:       (a)   Accessory after the fact to the possible murder of the Komatipoort 4;       (b)   Perjury; and       (c)   Defeating the ends of justice in respect of this incident; and       (d)   For any other offence or delict arising from this incident. DATED AT CAPE TOWN THIS    DAY OF                  2001. JUDGE A WILSON JUDGE B NGOEPE JUDGE S KHAMPEPE ADV C DE JAGER ?? /... 2 /... 5