Justin Pearce
HENDRIK THEUNISSEN was not sodomised by an unknown number of former Umkhonto weSizwe soldiers. And neither was there any proof that he had indulged in sexual relations with a dog. These facts emerged in the Middelburg regional court last week, during a trial which found Theunissen guilty on charges of perjury and defeating the ends of justice.
The charges arose from two bizarre, contradictory and patently false claims which Theunissen made under oath in March this year. The trial has citizens shaking their heads in disbelief in the staid Eastern Transvaal industrial town, which prides itself on being “the home of stainless steel” rather than a hotbed of unconventional sexual practices.
Theunissen, a former South African National Defence Force sergeant, was admitted to hospital with severe injuries in March this year.
In a statement to police, he claimed that the injuries were the result of an attack by “a number of blacks” whom he believed to be MK soldiers, and at least one of whom sodomised him.
The allegation quickly became politicised. The Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging leapt to the support of Theunissen, who is believed to have right-wing links. After all, the story about the MK soldiers was a neat encapsulation of the racial paranoia that sprang up in conservative communities during South Africa’s transformation to non-racialism — particularly the fears of ex-South African Defence Force members faced with sharing their barracks with the former enemy.
Then nine days later, Theunissen backtracked. He denied that his wounds had been inflicted by the soldiers, and told the police, again under oath, that the injuries had been sustained in the course of anal sexual intercourse with a dog. The AWB fell into an embarrassed silence, and Theunissen was promptly charged with bestiality, as well as perjury in connection with his original claim.
Sources say that Theunissen’s injuries — described as exceptionally severe by a hospital nurse at the time of the assault — were inflicted with some sort of sharp object. There is speculation in Middelburg that Theunissen fell victim to an assault that formed part of a personal dispute, the details of which he did not want to be made public — and that he fabricated the stories of the soldiers and the dog to deflect attention away from the conflict.
By the time Theunissen appeared in court in May, the bestiality charge had been dropped for lack of evidence. The trial was postponed until August pending further investigation. Theunissen pleaded guilty to both charges, his defence arguing that the double charge constituted duplication. This defence was overturned and Theunissen was found guilty as charged.
Theunissen was released on his own recognisance, and is due to be sentenced on September 22. He and his lawyers have refused to comment on the trial until sentence is passed.
Sentencing is due to happen next month after the court has heard psychiatric evidence, which may yet offer some clues as to why Theunissen chose to lie twice under oath. The cause of his injuries remains unknown, and state prosecutor Ansie Venter was probably right when she confessed with bemusement that “Mr Theunissen is the only person who will ever know what went on that