Ahistorical and misguided view of parole for Chris Hani murderers: A recipe for disaster

Last month April we marked 20 years of our democracy and commemorated the 21st anniversary of the assassination of comrade Chris Hani, former SACP General Secretary, ANC National Executive Committee Member and Umkhonto we Sizwe Chief of Staff. It was expected that opinion makers, scholars, journalists and ‘commentators` will take stock and pronounce on the progress made, as well as the challenges along this epic journey.

It is a pity that this historic moment coincided with campaigning for the 5th general election, thus clouding the judgement of some who tried to influence public opinion in order to achieve certain political outcomes at the polls. This robed the nation of an opportunity for honest and balanced reflection on all aspects of this collective journey of our young democracy.

One of the subjects in the discourse: our parole system which is under the Department of Correctional Services, had become the subject of controversy and emotion. And, as we commemorated the 21st anniversary of the assassination of comrade Chris Hani, which is inextricably linked with the 20th anniversary of our democracy, there are those who sought to deepen misunderstandings of what he stood for in order to justify the release of his murderers from prison.

Enjoying massive space in the print media and given space in radio and other media outlets, they would not publish any views that critically engages their agenda and exposes it for what it is. Ntsikelelo-Moya, an executive editor at the Pretoria News is one of such fellows. In this piece we are responding to what he had to say using that newspaper (see here) and in an interview with SA FM; we need further reflection about what this station clearly appears to be used for, but this will in due course have to be done elsewhere, it`s just a matter of space and time.

The current parole system forms part of the new democratic dispensation`s efforts to move away from the retributive justice of the colonial and apartheid era towards a redemptive, corrective and restorative justice in line with the Human Rights enshrined in our constitution. The philosophy of corrective justice is also in line with our policy of Peace and Reconciliation.

However, both the concept of restorative justice within the parole system in the South African Criminal Justice system, and peace and reconciliation within the broader political landscape, are premised on a set of conditions which must be fulfilled. If we view these principles outside of this context then they lose meaning and cannot have the intended effect.

Ntsikelelo-Moya sought to compare the medical parole of both Shabir Shaik and Jackie Selebi with the case of Clive Derby-Lewis who was involved in the murder of Chris Hani 21 years ago. On 1 May Ntsikelelo-Moya argued on SA FM that these are similar cases and Clive Derby-Lewis ought to receive parole. He went further to argue that Selebi and Shaik received parole because of their political links to the ruling party.

I would submit that such a comparison is superficial, ahistorical, selective and void of any context and therefore grossly misleading on all counts.

Whenever a statutory body makes a ruling against the ANC, ANC-led government or its Alliance partners, so-called ‘commentators` and opposition political figures hail this as the triumph of the rule of law and condemn any effort to appeal or challenge such a verdict. However, the very same people will jump to criticise the same statutory bodies when a ruling does not go against government, the ANC or its alliance partners.

In this case there is an independent statutory body, the Parole Board, which makes a determination on who is eligible to receive parole or not. The usual ‘commentators` and critics disregard and over-rule the findings and decisions of the Parole Board when they do not support their own political biases - irrespective of the reasons and logic proffered for arriving at the particular.

The murder of Chris Hani, an iconic figure of the liberation struggle, on 10 April 1993, nearly plunged South Africa into a racial civil war which would have taken the country alonng a very different and disastrous political path. This vast, well-planned and well-executed plot occurred at a very politically sensitive time in our transition to democracy. It was pre-meditated, with the stated intention to create havoc and social disorder. Were it not for the intervention of our founding president, Nelson Mandela, backed by the ANC-led Alliance, the history of this country would be vastly different, with tragic consequences.

To compare this incident to the case of Jackie Selebi, who was reported to have received a bribe of around R200,000, is ahistorical, insensitive and mischievous. No one condones corruption, including amongst ANC leaders. Corrupt activities are undermining the very gains that this democracy has made. However, it would take a huge mental leap to compare this with the deliberate assassination of one of South Africa`s most loved leaders - in an attempt to provoke a racial war. These are vastly different incidents. I can only assume that the Parole Board would have been alive to these historical facts.

The media has not commented on the thousands of people, more precisely 48,323, who have routinely received parole. When four young white men who had killed a black homeless person were given parole after serving just 5 years of their 12 year sentence, there was no initial objection from media - raising the suspicion that in their eyes a black life was probably of little value, even in a post-apartheid era of Human Rights. The axe only fell when two of the parolees foolishly posted video footage of their boozy parties right inside the prison. There was no great issue of principle here.

I contend that the media`s obsession with fault-finding in the ANC tends to blind some from fact-finding which ought to be the basis of balanced journalism.

There are specific conditions which Correctional Services and the Parole Board must take into account before granting parole, informed by the Correctional Services Act 111 of 1998. To quote Minister of Correctional Services, Sibusiso Ndebele, "Parole is not a right. It is subject to specific conditions which an offender must comply with. Our parole system allows for independent decision-making through participation of various role-players, including victims, communities, the South African Police and the Department of Justice." (Sibusiso Ndebele, 26 February 2014).

It is generally accepted that the military precision with which Hani`s killing was executed was part of a vast political conspiracy which, in all probability, involved more than a Polish immigrant, Yanus Walus, and Clive Derby-Lewis of the Conservative Party. The two culprits have, over the years, steadfastly refused to fully disclose the scale and scope of this conspiracy, or to reveal the other parties involved. Their failure to cooperate has prevented closure on Hani`s killing, and thus prolonged the suffering of the Hani family and his comrades, as well as the nation at large.

It is not unreasonable, therefore, to assume that the release of Derby-Lewis without fulfilling this condition would be premature, and cause uproar amongst the majority of the populace. The two convicted killers have never shown any remorse for their actions which were designed to derail the negotiations and plunge the nation into a racial civil war.

Just to bring a sense of historical perspective to the political sensitivities which play a role in parole considerations, Dimitri Tsafendas who stabbed the architect of apartheid, Hendrik Verwoerd, to death in 1966 was sentenced to life imprisonment - even though most medical opinion declared him to be a mentally disturbed person. He died in prison on 7 October 1999. The political sensitivity of releasing Tsafendas, by then a resident in a psychiatric hospital, even though medically eligible for parole, would have been one of the factors considered by the democratic government, even after the Parole Act of 1998 was effected.

The point highlighted above is that when considering granting parole to Derby-Lewis it would be a grievous mistake to ignore the political and historical context. By adopting an ahistorical approach, the commentators and media demonstrate their own bias and massive insensitivity to the black majority who had looked to Comrade Chris for leadership. Any cursory glance at the facts clearly indicates that there is no comparison between the Jackie Selebi case and that of Chris Hani`s killers. The knee-jerk response of Mr Ntsikelelo-Moya and his ilk is to seek fault in the ANC and its Alliance partners, thus allowing his prejudice to blind him to the facts, logic and context of the specific case.

Thulas Nxesi is SACP National Deputy Chairperson. This article first appeared in Umsebenzi Online, the Party's online journal.

Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter