Piers Pigou
Testimony from former Umkhonto weSizwe (MK) special operations commander Hein Grosskopf this week has raised further questions about the quality of amnesty findings by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC).
Grosskopf’s testimony casts doubt on the decision this year by a three-member amnesty committee, chaired by Judge Andrew Wilson, that granted amnesty to MK operative John Dube and three other MK operatives for the murder of student activist Sicelo Dlomo in January 1988.
Dlomo was long suspected of having been the victim of a police assassination, so there was considerable surprise when the four African National Congress members admitted to killing Dlomo. The applicants, including at least one close friend of Dlomo, claimed he had been a police informer. However, evidence at the amnesty hearing showed that all the “evidence” against Dlomo emanated from Dube himself and could not be corroborated.
Dube testified that he had informed his direct commander, Grosskopf, about the killing in late 1988 when back in Lusaka. The clear inference was that the ANC had been informed, Dube had not been sanctioned and that the execution was tacitly approved. On the basis of Dube’s version, it appeared that the ANC had cynically played along by accusing the apartheid security forces of another assassination, but knowing full well that its own cadres were responsible. This had a devastating affect on Sylvia Dlomo-Jele, Dlomo’s late mother, and she struggled to accept that the organisation she passionately supported could do this to her.
This week, however, Grosskopf denied that Dube had ever told him of the killing, raising questions regarding the point at which the ANC hierarchy was aware of circumstances surrounding the murder. It also raised further questions about the veracity of other aspects of Dube’s version, and whether further enquiries could have been made.
Far from being a spy, Dlomo had gained international exposure for his public statements regarding conditions in detention for juveniles. He was generally regarded as a thorn in the flesh of the security establishment and a target of several threats. The Dlomos’s legal representative presented a seemingly stronger case that suggested that Dube had himself been an informer and had falsely accused Dlomo. Dlomo was 18 at the time of his murder.
Dlomo-Jele remained convinced that Dube and the other applicants were not telling the truth, and wanted to know exactly what the ANC knew about the murder. She also wanted to know why they had kept her in the dark about the true identity of her son’s killers for 10 years.
At the hearing, no evidence was led supporting Dube’s claim that the military command had been informed.
Dube’s testimony was characterised by a morass of contradictions and improbabilities. He also admitted that he had worked for the police, but as a double agent, and only some time after the incident and with the blessing of his MK commanders. According to former askari Joe Mamasela, Dube was handled by notorious Soweto security branch operative Anton Pretorius, who has applied for amnesty in several matters, including the kidnapping and torture of Nokthula Simelane. It also emerged during the hearing that a number of attorneys who regularly appear for ANC applicants were not willing to appear on behalf of Dube because of the sensitivity of the case and the pall of suspicion around the applicants.
It now emerges the amnesty committee conducted no investigation into the Dlomo case and did not even have any information regarding the limited investigation conducted by the human rights violation committee that established who was involved in the killing, but not why it had happened. In its judgement, the committee referred to none of the concerns raised by the Dlomo family’s legal representative during closing arguments, and declared that the applicants had fulfilled the amnesty criteria. It appears, however, that truth is not at a premium.
Piers Pigou is a former Truth and Reconciliation Commission investigator