From the Monitor archives: Sentencing of a notorious apartheid assassin

The South African government charged Eugene De Kock for killing dozens with anti-apartheid activists during that era. The Christian Science Monitor covered his 1996 trial.

Denis Farrell/AP
FILE - In this Sept. 14, 1998 file photo, Eugene de Kock, the head of a covert police unit that tortured and killed dozens of people, attends an amnesty hearing of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) in Pretoria, South Africa. Eugene de Kock, a death squad leader for the apartheid state, has been granted parole after two decades in jail, the South African government announced Friday, Jan. 30, 2015.
The Christian Science Monitor, ProQuest
Page 1 of the Sept. 30, 1996, edition of the Monitor. The story about Eugene de Kock's trial appears at bottom.

This article originally appeared in the Sept. 30, 1996, edition of The Christian Science Monitor right before Eugene De Kock, head of a deadly apartheid state covert unit, was sentenced to two life terms and an additional 212 years in prison. The South African government granted him parole Friday after 20 years. 

Trial Tests South Africa's Will to Forgive

JOHANNESBURG – Churchill Mxenge can’t forget the night of Nov. 19, 1981, when as­sassins from a police hit squad stabbed his brother, Griffiths Mxenge, a prominent civil-rights lawyer, and dumped his body in a sports field.

Mr. Mxenge says one of the men who is guilty of his brother’s murder is Eugene de Kock, one of the apartheid state’s most in­famous assassins, who in hear­ings at South Africa’s Supreme Court has given a blow-by-blow account of his role in the deaths of scores of apartheid foes.

During his 18-month trial, Mr. De Kock, who headed the notori­ous Vlakplaas police unit that trained death squads like the one that killed Griffiths Mxenge, has insisted he acted on orders of the formerly white-run regime.

On trial is more than just De Kock, nicknamed “Prime Evil” by his colleagues. The case has deepened national debate over whether apartheid-era human rights abusers should be forgiven – or face their final days in jail.

On one side are proponents of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, headed by Nobel-prizewinning anti-apartheid icon Desmond Tutu. Dr. Tutu says amnesty for confessed perpetrators – black and white – of polit­ically motivated atrocities during white rule will help heal the na­tion’s racial wounds.

On the other side are people like Ntsiki Biko, widow of black leader Steve Biko who died while in police custody, and Mr. Mx­enge, who want to see the killers of their relatives avenged. They say the Truth Commission is a toothless body, incapable of pro­viding true justice for victims. “The commission, as far as we’re concerned, is not going to be able to deliver,” Mxenge says. “In the end, the victims will come up with nothing.”

On Friday, De Kock told the Supreme Court during his sentence-mitigation hearings that he will seek a full official pardon for his crimes from the Truth Commission, adding that he would reveal more details of his past to that body.

“The end result of my amnesty application is to go free,” he said. “Had I not been sitting in this court, I would have already applied for amnesty'.”

De Kock’s decision coincides with recent national surveys in which a growing number of South Africans say human rights abusers should be prosecuted and not be granted amnesty.

Yet many observers predict that De Kock’s confessions about apartheid's horrific and carefully concealed security machine will tilt the scales in his favor.

“There’s no question his crimes were politically motivated and that he was following or­ders,” says Tom Lodge, a po­litical analyst at Witwatersrand University in Johannesburg.

So far, De Kock has fin­gered higher-ups such as for­mer President Pieter Botha and Frederik De Klerk, the last white president who stepped down after April 1994 elections brought the African National Congress (ANC) to power. He has even linked a South African security agent to the 1986 murder of Olof Palme, Sweden’s apartheid-fighting prime minister.

Last month, the Supreme Court found De Kock guilty on 89 charges, including six counts of murder. He also said he supplied arms to paramilitary units of Mangosuthu Buthelezi’s Inkatha Freedom Party, which killed hundreds of ANC supporters, in­cluding Victoria Mxenge, the murdered attorney's wife.

Earlier this year, De Kock's predecessor, former Vlakplaas commander Dirk Coetzee, who confessed in 1989 to mas­terminding the lawyer's killing, applied for amnesty from the Truth Commission.

Mr. Coetzee’s amnesty plea raised the ire of Churchill Mxenge, who, joined by Mrs. Biko and relatives of other victims, launched civil suits that are still pending against Coetzee. Coetzee was sub­sequently arrested and charged with the murder.

Mxenge claims De Kock, who after Coetzee headed the coun­terinsurgency unit, is an accessory to Mxenge’s death and is also implicated in the 1985 killing of Mrs. Mxenge. He plans to take De Kock to court.

“They both don’t deserve amnesty,” he says. “What they’ve done to people is ghastly. We want to prosecute. We don’t want to play games and cry before the Truth Commission.”

De Kock's impending amnesty plea will pose an immense chal­lenge for the commission, analysts say. Until now, the body has mostly heard emotional testimony from victims’ relatives rather than confessions from perpetrators who seek pardons.

Truth Commission officials say the type of justice the body hopes to deliver often cannot offer direct restitution to victims, but that the process is needed for a national catharsis.

Analysts say that amnesty proceedings, for De Kock and other confessed killers, must be completed quickly given South Africa’s high crime and murder rates.

“We cannot send a signal to the people that you can commit a serious crime and get away with it,” South Africa’s Justice Minis­ter Dullah Omar said in an interview last year. "Amnesty is not a good thing for the purposes of maintaining law and order.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.