Piers Pigou
When Sicelo Dlomo’s body was found with a single shot to the head on the outskirts of Soweto in January 1988, many assumed the police had had a hand in the execution.
Dlomo had become a thorn in the flesh of the security forces and had stayed away from home for several months because of police harassment. He had also allegedly received several death threats.
After his detention in 1986 at the age of 15, Dlomo had become a willing participant in efforts by the Detainees’ Parents Support Committee (DPSC) to show the barbarous nature of the use of detention without trial. He appeared on television, developing an international and domestic profile as an articulate opponent of the state.
Widespread condemnation of the apartheid regime followed his murder, with more than 3 000 people attending his funeral. It therefore came as a great shock when former Umkhonto weSizwe special operations member, John Itumeleng Dube, and three cadres, Clive Makhubu, Sipho Tshabalala and Precious Zungu, applied for amnesty for the murder, claiming Dlomo was a police informer.
In his amnesty application, Dube claimed that “on many occasions, I discovered Dlomo making surveillance on me”. He also claimed that Dlomo had been arrested with a hand grenade and a Makharov pistol at the offices of the DPSC in Khotso House and released only a few hours later.
But according to DPSC members Audrey and Max Coleman, weapons were never found in their offices.
Dube also claimed in his application he had discovered a transmitter on Dlomo, had taken it and rushed to discuss the situation with the others, found that they also had their suspicions and that “we then took the unfortunate decision to eliminate Dlomo”.
However, on the witness stand, he presented an entirely different version, which was subsequently corroborated in parts by the other applicants. It emerged that Dube was at Makhubu’s house when he allegedly searched Dlomo. In the heat of the moment, he had smashed the transmitter with a rock and shown the pieces to Makhubu.
Dube was unable to explain why he smashed the device. He then instructed Makhubu to shoot Dlomo, fearing imminent arrest as the result of the alleged surveillance operation. But instead of taking immediate action, Makhubu went on foot to collect the other cell members, who then collected Dlomo and Dube and marched Dlomo off to the veld where Makhubu shot him.
According to all the applicants, neither Tshabalala nor Zungu had any idea what was going on and that the situation was only explained to them after the murder.
All the allegations against Dlomo emanated from one source – Dube. Investigations by the Dlomo family’s attorneys, however, revealed that Dube was suspected of being an informer.
During 1994, Joe Mamasela told researchers from the Independent Board of Inquiry that Dube was working for the police and that his handler was Anton Pretorius, who has applied for amnesty for incidents relating to his activities between 1980 and 1991 in the Soweto security branch.
Mamasela also told the board that Dube was involved in both the Ellis Park and Witbank bombings in 1988. Dube confirmed that he has applied for amnesty in both cases.
After extensive questioning, Dube eventually admitted that he had worked with the police, but only in the 1990s and that he had infiltrated the security forces with the knowledge of his Umkhonto weSizwe superiors.
Investigations also revealed that Tshabalala and Makhubu had fabricated a statement to the Dlomos’ attorneys days after the murder in order to conceal their involvement. Neither bothered to mention this in their applications, claiming that they had forgotten.
The Dlomo family made a difficult decision to oppose the amnesty applications of the four men who murdered their son.
The applicants failed to make full disclosure or provide any plausible reason as to why they had to take such drastic action. Platitudes of “the prevailing circumstances of the time” and “disciplined and vigilant revolutionary action” cannot be accepted and are an attempt to place their criminal actions within the context of a legitimate struggle.
Once again it seems that truth has become the victim in the amnesty process. In the words of Pule Zwane, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission investigator who told the amnesty committee he persuaded Dube to apply for amnesty, “We know who killed Dlomo, but we don’t know why.”