Timol’s family question NPA decision
THE family of murdered anti-apartheid activist Ahmed Timol is questioning the decision by the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) not to prosecute two former security branch policemen for allegedly withholding information regarding his killing.
Judge Billy Mothle of the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria ruled in October 2017 that Timol had been murdered and that Neville Els and Seth Sons be investigated for misleading the court. The judge said both should be charged with perjury.
The NPA has now advised it did not intend to pursue charges against the two, despite the judge’s ruling.
Timol’s nephew, Imtiaz Cajee, said correspondence received from the director of public prosecutions cited the failure of the presiding officer to place Sons timeously under oath, prescription of assault charges and the denial of Sons and Els of any assaults on Timol. Their advanced age was also mentioned as another reason not to prosecute.
When he took the stand in August 2017, some of the answers given by Sons on questions posed to him were “I cannot remember” and “I cannot hear”. He also said he had a “rusty mind”. Sons, 80, was an investigator stationed at John Vorster Square at the time of Timol’s death, on October 27, 1971. Sons said he had never met Timol. “I do not know him to this day. I only know him from the newspapers,” he told Judge Mothle.
While several questions had to be repeated, Sons was adamant he knew nothing about detainees being tortured or assaulted during interrogations at John Vorster Square at the time. He said he had read about possible tortures in the newspapers.
Els also told the court during his evidence that, according to his knowledge, there were never assaults or torture of detainees at John Vorster Square.
Cajee has described the decision to decline prosecution as “bizarre”.
“The judge found that police records conclusively reflected that Els was present when Professor Kantilal Naik, a fellow detainee, was subjected to the ‘helicopter’ method of interrogation, after which he lost use of his hands. Els and Sons were found to have lied under oath, saying that they had no knowledge of the torture of detainees,” Cajee said.
He added that five witnesses subsequently came forward after Sons’s testimony and filed affidavits to the effect that they, too, had been assaulted by him.
Cajee said he had, since 2017, been following up with the NPA on the investigations into the criminal cases.
“I have been provided with many different reasons as to why it took 30 months to investigate these matters. Initially, I was told that it was due to internal processes.”
He said he was then told the matter had been forwarded to the South Gauteng division and later again back to North Gauteng.
“At one stage I was informed by the national director of public prosecutions that the authorities were busy with a centralisation application regarding the incidents that transpired at John Vorster Square.”
Cajee said the reasons cited were “spurious and indicative of the lack of political will to do the right thing”.
Phindi Mjonondwane, the regional communications manager at the NPA, said Cajee had been kept abreast of developments and afforded a hearing at the highest level in the NPA, from the investigation process to the decision in the matter.
“He is aware that he is at liberty to challenge this decision by making representations to the head of the NPS (National Prosecution Service) and the NDPP (National Director of Public Prosecutions),” said Mjonondwane.
“The assault charges arise out of the torture and assault of detainees by members of the Security Branch, during interrogation between 1971 and 1982. The perjury charges arise out of the testimony of messrs Seth Sons and Neville Els, during the reopened inquest hearing, that took place in 2017, before Judge Mothle, into the death of Mr Timol.
“In so far as the assault charges at John Vorster Square are concerned, prescription has set in, as a period of 20 years has passed since the commission of the offences in 1982/83. Section 18 of the Criminal Procedure Act, No51 of 1977, provides that the right to institute a prosecution for offences such as assault prescribes after the lapse of 20 years, from the date of the commission of such offences.
“Regarding perjury charges, the State must prove that their evidence is intentionally false. Both Mr Els and Sons gave three standard answers regarding their knowledge of the assault of detainees, ie that they were not aware of the assaults on detainees, that they can’t remember or that they read about them in newspapers.
“Factors such as the passage of time (46 years at the time of their evidence), their advanced ages (80 and 82) places the State in a difficult position to prove that they are deliberately lying. Both Messrs Els and Sons did not testify in the original inquest proceedings in June 1972 or made statements then, and thus had to rely on their memories.”
She added: “There is also a technicality in that Mr Sons was not properly put under oath by a judge, he only warned Mr Sons about the import of the oath until well into his evidence.
“He informed the judge that his legal representative did not explain the importance of an oath to him. A witness is only competent to testify if he appreciates the difference between truth and untruth.”
She said making conflicting statements under oath was not applicable as it had not been shown they deviated from their previous statements.