Glenda Daniels In the most significant legal attack yet on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s (TRC) amnesty process, the families of activists slain by Craig Williamson are applying for a judicial review of the pardon given to the superspy.
Relatives of Jeanette Schoon, her six-year-old daughter Katryn and Ruth First who were all blown up with letter bombs in the 1980s have filed an application in the Cape High Court to set aside the amnesty accorded Williamson, the security branch’s head of intelligence, and Jerry Raven, an explosives expert. The TRC ruled on both men in May this year.
Jeanette and Katryn Schoon the wife and daughter of activist Marius Schoon were assassinated in Lubango, Angola, in 1984. First, wife of the late South African Communist Party leader Joe Slovo, was killed in 1982 in Maputo.
The families of First and the Schoons have now joined forces to try and topple the TRC’s amnesty decision, saying that Williamson and Raven did not meet the basic requirements of the law governing amnesty, the most important of which is that applicants make a full disclosure. The other key requirement is that those up for amnesty must have been acting with a political motive.
The TRC is not opposing the motion and will therefore abide by the decision of the court. The truth body has come under fire several times this year for the quality of its amnesty decisions, which have been criticised for being excessively subjective and for not sticking closely enough to the requirement that applicants make a full disclosure.
Gillian Slovo, the daughter of Joe Slovo and First, in an affidavit before the Cape High Court, blows holes in Raven’s and Williamson’s efforts to reconcile contradictory oral and written testimony about their handling of the parcel bomb.
Williamson said in his original amnesty application that the item had been addressed to Joe Slovo c/o Ruth First or to Joe Slovo and Ruth First. In his testimony before the amnesty committee, Williamson said he always believed the parcel was addressed to Joe Slovo.
Gillian Slovo also expresses doubt about Williamson’s submission that he did not see the name on the intercepted package in which Raven planted the bomb and suggests that the amnesty committee itself had not bought his story during the hearing.
The Slovo family have always maintained First would not have opened an envelope addressed to Joe Slovo.
“We remembered the incredulity on the faces of the members of the committee when [Williamson] told the committee how he had looked at the intercepted envelope and seen the address, the postal mark and the logo, but not the name of the addressee.”
Gillian Slovo says of Williamson and Raven during the amnesty hearings: “Their arrogance, vindictiveness and lack of remorse struck us deeply. We knew that remorse was not a requirement for amnesty but were nevertheless shocked by the total lack thereof. Their lies, too, surprised and angered us.”
She says the committee failed to attach sufficient or any weight to the “absurd evidence” given by Raven on why he was unable to see the name of the addressee.
“On the basis of all the evidence before it, the committee ought fairly and reasonably to have come to the conclusion that Williamson is a skilled deceiver and a calculating liar and that Raven has the ability to lie without exhibiting any signs of discomfort.”
Slovo homes in on Williamson’s contention that he always thought the bomb was meant for Joe Slovo. She says that if that is the case, he cannot argue now that he was party to the assassination of First for political reasons. Her argument is that Williamson cannot reinvent First as a political target after the event.
Slovo says the committee should have known that First was not a high-ranking official of the African National Congress or SACP and that she was not planning any strategy against the South African state.
In the case of the Schoon murders, the applicants, in an affidavit by Marius Schoon’s widow, Sherry McLean, say Williamson’s contention that he did not know that Katryn would be blown up by the bomb is implausible. Williamson has argued that he believed Katryn was in London, and not in Lubango where the bomb went off a line that, say the applicants, is difficult to believe considering the South African authorities’ close monitoring of the family.
“I submit that Katryn’s murder was motivated by personal malice, ill will or spite and that it was disproportionate to the political objective allegedly being pursued by [Williamson],” McLean says. McLean says that at the time they were killed, Jeanette and Katryn were not sufficiently involved in politics to make them a political target in terms of the TRC legislation.
“I respectfully submit that it was unreasonable of the committee not to find that the nature of the work being done by Marius and Jeanette in Lubango was apolitical and that Williamson was aware of that at the time.”