TRC Final Report

Volume 6

Section 3

Chapter 6

Subsection 10

PRE-1990 AT TACKS ON INDIVIDUALS

97. Towards the end of the 1980s, targeted and indiscriminate attacks on individuals were becoming more and more frequent. With very few exceptions, the targets of these attacks were black persons. Individuals like Wit Wolwe member Bare n d Strydom, who killed eight people and injured sixteen when he opened fire on people in a busy Pretoria street in 1988, believed that black people were valid t a rgets in their quest for political self-determination. Strydom submitted an application for amnesty for this incident, then later withdrew it.

The Killing of Potoka Franzar Makgalamela

98. On 29 August 1989, a black taxi driver, Mr Potoka Franzar Makgalamela, was fatally stabbed and shot by two right-wingers. Mr Cornelius Johannes Lottering [AM1004/96] applied for amnesty for three offences, namely murder, robbery and escaping from lawful custody. He admitted to killing Mr Makgalamela on 29 August and committing a robbery at the Poolside Liquor Store on 19 September 1989. These offences took place after he had resigned from the AWB and joined an organisation known as the Orde van die Dood (‘Order of Death’).

99. The evidence portrays the Orde van die Dood as having been an extremist right-wing political organisation, whose aim was the assassination of senior members of government and, at a later stage, members of the ANC. Its ultimate objective was the establishment of a volkstaat. Later the emphasis shifted to targeting members of the left wing who had, according to the applicant, ‘become too strong at that point for the right wing’.

100. The Committee heard that individuals in the AWB had joined the shadowy o rganisation (also known as the ‘Aquillos’) after it was formed in 1988/9 because of security problems in the AWB. For example, when Lottering received his instructions from Mr Dawie de Beer, administrative head of the Aquillos, he was under the impression that they came from the AWB and the C P. Mr Andries Stephanus Kriel, a witness called by the applicant, confirmed the relationship between the two organisations :

MR KRIEL: Yes, that is completely acceptable because at that stage there were various factions within the AWB and we, as Commanders of a right wing organisation which housed activists, supported them. I would like to say that the Aquillos were selected by or according to the criteria of persons who would carry out instructions almost immediately – if I might say that they were people who could be manipulated, that you could give them instructions and no matter what the instructions were, they would have carried them out immediately. And those sort of people were taken up in the Aquillo – among others, Mr Lottering. ( P retoria hearing, March 1998.)

101. According to Kriel, it was desirable that people who carried out instructions should not be directly traced to the AWB.

MR KRIEL: … in other words, if such a person were to be caught as a result of a murder or a robbery then it would not have left tracks which would lead to the AWB. (Pretoria hearing, March 1998.)

102. Lottering testified before the Amnesty Committee that he had killed Mr Makgalamela because he had received an instruction from the leader of the O rde van die Dood to kill a person to prove that he would be an effective member of the ord e r. The applicant testified that he also wished to satisfy himself that he was capable of carrying out his duties as an assassin.

103. Lottering testified that he received no instruction as to whom he should kill for the purposes of being initiated into the order. He testified that he had selected Makgalamela as his victim because he was a black man, explaining that, according to his religious beliefs, black people were his natural enemies. He had selected Makgalamela because he had seen him ferrying white girls in his taxi. This he found to be objectionable.

MR LOTTERING: The decision making about who and what it would be was left up to me personally; and I didn’t want to simply just do anything, that is why I chose a Black taxi driver who transported white persons in his taxi. I basically chose him in order to protest against integration so that it would serve a dual purpose – that I would not simply find someone on the street and kill him. ( Pretoria hearing, March 1998.)

104. All that the applicant knew of Makgalamela was that he was a taxi driver. He did not and still does not know the deceased’s political affiliation or views or whether or not he was politically active. Lottering was also not given any instructions or guidance by his leaders as to when and how his initiation victim should be killed, nor was he informed of any report-back procedure .

105. The Amnesty Committee found that the fact that the applicant murdered the deceased following an order given to him by the leadership of the political organisation of which he was a member did not, in the circumstances of this matter, justify his being granted amnesty for the killing. Makgalamela was killed to satisfy the internal initiation requirements of the Orde van die Dood. The Committee ruled that there were no grounds for concluding that the murder of the deceased was committed bona fide in furtherance of a political struggle waged by the Orde van die Dood against the state or another political organisation or liberation movement; nor that the killing was directed against the state or a political organisation or liberation movement or any member of the security forces or member of any political organisation or liberation movement. This was particularly so because the deceased must be regarded as having been an innocent private individual whose political affiliation and views were unknown.

106. The Committee found that, although the applicant had killed the deceased in the execution of an ord e r, this was not sufficient to warrant the granting of a m nesty. His motive in killing the deceased was to appease his superiors in the order and to displace any doubts they (or indeed the applicant) might have had about his ability to act as an assassin. The killing of the deceased was not only unreasonable, but was totally out of line with and disproportionate to the achievement of the stated political objective of the organisation – that is, the elimination of senior members of government or other political movements. It amounted to nothing more than a tragic loss of life, with no tangible or foreseeable benefit for the applicant’s political organisation.

107. The Committee found that the killing did not achieve any desired political objective, and amnesty was accordingly refused [AC/1998/0025].

108. As regards the application for amnesty for the robber y, the applicant testified at the amnesty hearing that it was the policy of the Orde van die Dood to commit robberies to raise funds for the subsistence of members of the organisation and that he had committed the robbery in furtherance of such policy.

109. In his evidence, Mr Andries Kriel confirmed the existence of such a policy.

MR KRIEL: … I would also like to add, Chairperson, that at that time when people struggled with the collection of finances and funds, they were constantly told that if they did not have money to continue that they should not come to us and ask for money, they should commit robbery. (Pretoria hearing, March 1998.)

110. After careful consideration, the Committee decided to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt and to find that the robbery was not committed for personal gain. This meant accepting the applicant’s explanation of why the evidence he gave before the Committee differed from that placed before the trial court. Amnesty for the robbery was therefore granted [AC/1998/0025].

111. According to Lottering and Kriel, another general order given to members was that they should attempt to escape from prison in order to continue to fight for the cause of the organisation.

MR KRIEL: Regarding escapes, we told the people prior to the fact that – and we also this to them when we visited them in prison – we told them that if they could escape and if we could help them escape we should do it immediately so that we could continue with the struggle. That was also a general order which was issued. (Pretoria hearing, March 1998.)

112. L ottering ’s escape from legal custody did not involve any gross violation of human rights and the applicant continued to serve the Orde van die Dood in the period following his escape until his recapture. The Committee granted amnesty to Lottering in respect of his escape from custody [AC/1998/0025].