decisions AMNESTY DECISIONS JOHAN HENDRIK LE ROUX,EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK,WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE,EUGENE FOURIE,DAVID JACOBUS VAN DER WALT,THAPELO JOHANNES MBELO,SIMON MAKOPO RADEBE AM4148/96,AM0066/96,AM3764/96,AM3767/96,AM3769/96,AM3785/96,AM7249/96 GRANTED https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/hearing.php?id=59552&t=&tab=hearings https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/originals/decisions/2001/ac21272b.htm DECISION Before commencing with discussing the specific issues I need to set out a frame for their consideration:- The requirement of full disclosure of all relevant facts in my opinion has therefore to be interpreted as follows:- I now turn to the second issue, that is the presence of Pienaar or not at the scene of the killing of the Deceased. I would not rule out the possibility that they may be genuinely mistaken about Pienaar's presence, them having been involved in a number of other incidents with him for which they all apply for amnesty. I now turn to the issue relating to the authorisation of the abduction, assault and killing of the Deceased. This includes:- To be blunt, it is not only inconceivable and thus highly improbable but practically impossible for the events to have all occurred on the 25 September or within a single day:- I now turn to the specific issue of authorisation for the abduction, assault and killing of the Deceased. The 1st and 3rd Applicants' evidence was to the effect that up to the time of the abduction, no order had been given or decision had been taken that the Deceased was to be killed. His application for amnesty for the killing of the Deceased is based on his omission to intervene when informed by Kleynhans at Vlakplaas, on the day following the abduction, that it had been decided to kill the Deceased to protect the identity of individuals and the Vlakplaas operation, to which replied that it was "not a problem" or it was "not my problem". It seems to me that the evidence of the 1st Applicant is being rejected on a balance of probabilities mainly on account of his evidence related to: And then later he testified: And a little further:- "Wie is die ons waarvan u nou praat? --- Ek en die beskuldigde" and a little further again:- And lastly a quote from the Goldstone Commission where the 3rd Applicant testified, quoted to him in cross-examination:- "Ons het hom maar ondervra en toe besef ons sal nie hierdie man nie kan los nie, want as hy nou hier uitgaan, gaan daar moeilikheid wees". It should be borne in mind that the evidence of the 3rd Applicant at the trial was evidence against the 2nd Applicant, not against the 1st Applicant and that the latter had no opportunity to cross-examine the 3rd Applicant so as to introduce his version. Secondly he testified that he would have done nothing without the approval or order of the 2nd Applicant, not even taking orders from the superiors of the 2nd Applicant without having cleared such orders with the 2nd Applicant. The version of the 2nd Applicant on the issue of authorisation in my view presents the most improbabilities and contradictions of the 3 versions. This brings me to a consideration of the provisions of Sections 20(1)(b), 20(2) and 20(3) of the Act. Section 20(3) is clear in its wording that its provisions merely serve as criteria to be considered in deciding whether a particular act is an act associated with a political objective as suggested in Section 20(2). As far as the 2nd Applicant is concerned, special consideration has to be given to the criteria stipulated in Section 20(3)(d), (e) and (f). Concerning the provisions of Section 20(3)(e) it is clear on evidence that the 2nd Applicant bona fide believed that he was acting on behalf of the State, albeit to my judgement not in terms of an expressed order. Taking into account the provisions of Section 20(2)(b) and having jointly considered all the criteria in Section 20(3), I am of the opinion that the abduction, assault and killing of the Deceased as it relates to the 2nd Applicant were indeed acts associated with a political objective, committed in the course of the conflicts of the past as envisaged in Section 20(1)(b). The final question to be decided then is whether the 2nd Applicant, given his evidence on the authorisation, has made a full disclosure as envisaged in Section 20(1)(c). In the event I am satisfied that the 2nd Applicant has also made a full disclosure of all relevant facts related to the authorisation of the abduction, assault and killing of the Deceased. I concur that Japie Maponya is a victim as envisaged in the Act and the names and particulars of his next-of-kin is to be forwarded to the Reparations and Rehabilitation Committee for its consideration. MR W MALAN ?? /... 2 ___ /...