RE­PORTS, PIC­TURES

Cape Times - - FRONT PAGE - Staff Writer

THE 2017 re-opened in­quest into the death of Ahmed Ti­mol has re­vealed a num­ber of lessons to be learnt, in­clud­ing that branches of the state have to en­sure the re­spect of hu­man rights and dig­nity.

This was the mes­sage by Judge Billy Mothle dur­ing his 129-page judg­ment.

The judge found that Ti­mol did not com­mit sui­cide 46 years ago when he fell from the no­to­ri­ous John Vorster Square Po­lice Sta­tion in Jo­han­nes­burg.

He con­cluded that Ti­mol was ei­ther pushed from the 10th floor of the build­ing or from the rooftop.

Judge Mothle found that the then-Se­cu­rity Branch po­lice of­fi­cers who had in­ter­ro­gated Ti­mol were col­lec­tively re­spon­si­ble for his death and should be held ac­count­able.

“Ti­mol did not jump… he was pushed and thus he did not com­mit sui­cide, but was mur­dered,” the judge said.

He said the act was com­mit­ted through do­lus even­tu­alis, his in­ter­roga­tors should have fore­seen that he could die, and on the face of it, it amounted to mur­der.

Judge Mothle said there was prima fa­cie ev­i­dence im­pli­cat­ing Se­cu­rity Branch of­fi­cers Hans Gloy and Jo­hannes van Niek­erk. But both had since died. Jan Ro­drigues, the of­fi­cer who claimed to have been there when Ti­mol fell out of the win­dow, had to be in­ves­ti­gated with a view of pros­e­cut­ing him on a charge of per­jury and be­ing an ac­ces­sory after the fact.

“Ro­drigues in his own ver­sion par­tic­i­pated in the cover-up to con­ceal the crime of mur­der as an ac­ces­sory after the fact.

“He went on to com­mit per­jury by pre­sent­ing con­tra­dic­tory ev­i­dence be­fore the 1971 and 2017 in­quests,” the judge said.

He con­tin­ued that it was the view of the court that the fam­i­lies whose rel­a­tives died in de­ten­tion, par­tic­u­larly those where the in­quest find­ings were death by sui­cide, should be as­sisted with their ini­tia­tive, to ob­tain the records and gather fur­ther information to have the ini­tial in­quest re­opened.

The judge said the Hu­man Rights Com­mis­sion, work­ing with the law en­force­ment agen­cies, should be suf­fi­ciently re­sourced to take on this task.

Ti­mol, a teacher, was 29 when he was ar­rested at a road­block on Oc­to­ber 22, 1971.

He was in­ter­ro­gated and tor­tured by mem­bers of the Spe­cial Branch for days on end, un­til his death on Oc­to­ber 27.

His in­ter­ro­ga­tion was con­ducted by Gloy and Van Niek­erk.

Van Niek­erk’s file in­di­cated how he and Gloy were im­pli­cated in the as­sault and mur­der of de­tainees. Some oc­curred be­fore Ti­mol’s death and oth­ers af­ter­wards.

The day Ti­mol died, it was their turn to in­ter­ro­gate him in the feared Room 1026.

Three in­de­pen­dent wit­nesses put the time of death in the morn­ing, while Ro­drigues stuck to his guns that it was in the af­ter­noon.

The court ac­cepted that Ti­mol fell in the morn­ing and that Ro­drigues was brought in, in the af­ter­noon, to le­git­imise the cover-up.

He con­cluded that the find­ing of the 1972 in­quest, dur­ing which a mag­is­trate found it was sui­cide and that “no liv­ing per­son is re­spon­si­ble for his death”, was wrong.

“It is ironic that 46 years after the death of Ti­mol, the mag­is­trate’s find­ing is par­tially cor­rect, as most of the main per­pe­tra­tors this court would have rec­om­mended for in­ves­ti­ga­tion and pos­si­ble charges, have since passed on,” he said.

He rec­om­mended that apart from Ro­drigues fac­ing pos­si­ble charges, for­mer se­cu­rity po­lice­men Neville Els and Seth Sons should be in­ves­ti­gated for mis­lead­ing the court.

They main­tained that they knew noth­ing about the as­sault of de­tainees and that they had only read about it in the me­dia.

The judge also re­ferred to the fact that the re­open­ing of the in­quest came late in the day, when most of the po­lice­men in­volved in Ti­mol’s in­ter­ro­ga­tion, had died.

He said in ad­di­tion, the court had to deal with the mys­te­ri­ous dis­ap­pear­ance of part of the 1972 in­quest record, which dealt with the ev­i­dence of the po­lice of­fi­cials.

Equally mys­te­ri­ous, was the dis­ap­pear­ance of the page of the record of Ro­drigues’ ev­i­dence ex­plain­ing how Ti­mol fell.

The judge con­cluded that this in­quest re­vealed that many more fam­i­lies were seek­ing clo­sure on the unan­swered ques­tions of how their loved ones died while in de­ten­tion.

“It is… the view of this court that the fam­i­lies whose rel­a­tives died in de­ten­tion, par­tic­u­larly those where the in­quest re­turned a find­ing of death by sui­cide, should be as­sisted, at their ini­tia­tive, to ob­tain the records and gather fur­ther information with a view to have the ini­tial in­quest re-opened.

“They need heal­ing. They need clo­sure,” the judge said.

AHMED TI­MOL ASH­LEY KRIEL AB­DUL­LAH HARON

Pic­tures: Ahmed Ti­mol Fam­ily Trust and In­de­pen­dent

GONE BUT NOT FOR­GOT­TEN: The fu­ner­als of Ahmed Ti­mol in 1971 in Rood­e­poort and Imam Ab­dul­lah Haron in 1969 in Cape Town. Yes­ter­day’s rul­ing that Ti­mol was mur­dered has left many fam­i­lies, in­clud­ing Haron’s, as­sured that the Na­tional Pros­e­cut­ing Au­thor­ity will re­open in­quests into the deaths of their loved ones.

AHMED TI­MOL

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from South Africa

© PressReader. All rights reserved.