TRC Final Report

Volume 6

Section 1

Chapter 4

Subsection 11

THE ‘MOTHERWELL FOUR’^{5 8}

111. Messrs Marthinus Dawid Ras, Wybrand Andreas Lodewicus du Toit, Gideon Johannes Nieuwoudt and Nicolaas Jacobus Janse van Rensburg each filed review proceedings against the refusal of the Committee to grant them amnesty arising from the murders of Warrant Officer Mbalala Mgoduka, Sergeant Amos Temba Faku, Sergeant Desmond Daliwonga Mpipa and Mr Xolile Shepard Sakati, aka Charles Jack, committed at Motherwell, Port Elizabeth, on the 14 December 1989. This matter became known as the ‘Motherwell Four’ amnesty application.

112. The applicants in the review proceedings were part of a group of nine amnesty applicants, including Messrs Eugene Alexander de Kock, Daniel Lionel Snyman, Gerhardus Lotz, Jacobus Kok, and Nicolas Johannes Vermeulen. All were former members of the security forces.

113. The four deceased were killed when the motor vehicle in which they were travelling was blown up by an explosive device that had been attached to it. They were all members of the Port Elizabeth Security Branch, except for Charles Jack, who was an askari (a turned ANC/MK member) and also on the Security Branch payroll .

114. At the criminal trial, Nieuwoudt, Du Toit and Ras were convicted of murder, perjury and defeating the ends of justice, and sentenced to twenty, fifteen and ten years’ imprisonment respectively. Lotz and Kok were acquitted, whilst De Kock, Snyman and Vermeulen gave evidence on behalf of the State and were, except for Vermeulen, granted indemnity against prosecution .

1 1 5 . The motive for the killings was that the deceased were believed to have been involved in a breach of security. Nieuwoudt, who had been in charge of the g roup, had received an order from one of his superiors – one Gilbert – that the deceased should be killed to prevent them from disclosing information about the affairs of the Security Branch, as they had threatened to do.

116. Nieuwoudt sought the assistance of Van Rensburg, who approached De Kock at Vlakplaas to help with the assassination of the deceased. Du Toit and Kok fro m the Technical Division of the Security Branch, Pretoria, were to manufacture the explosive device. Snyman, Vermeulen and Ras were instructed by De Kock to assist as back-up should the planned explosion fail to kill the deceased, in which event they were to shoot them with (untraceable) Eastern Bloc weapons. An explosive device was fitted to a motor vehicle in which the victims would be driving when it exploded.

117 . The Amnesty Committee refused amnesty to the other eight applicants on the following grounds:

• a Except for De Kock, the applicants were not found to be credible as witnesses. Their evidence was vague and somewhat contradictory regarding the motive behind the killing.
• b The motive for killing the deceased was to prevent them from carrying out their threat of exposing the illegal activities of the security police. The deceased had made the threat because they were facing charges of fraud after having been involved in intercepting cheques and funds mailed to various trade unions and left-wing organisations. They were not killed for any political objective associated with the conflicts of the past, nor was the killing directed against any member or supporter of the ANC or any other publicly known political organisation as was required by the Act.
• c With the exception of De Kock, the applicants had failed to make a proper and full disclosure of all relevant facts relating to their own participation in the assassination of the deceased.
• d The killing of the deceased was wholly disproportionate to any objective that the applicants might have pursued. There was no reliable evidence to link the deceased with the ANC or any other political grouping. There was, in fact, evidence from the applicants themselves that there was no good reason to doubt the loyalty of the deceased to the Security Branch.

118. As a result, the applications for amnesty were refuse d .

1 1 9 . Each of the applicants contested the findings of the Amnesty Committee and w e re successful in their application in the High Court for the review of the Amnesty Committee’s decision to refuse them amnesty. The High Court ordered that the Committee’s decision be set aside and that the Minister of Justice reconvene an Amnesty Committee to hear the applications.