The recent further profiling of Eugene de Kock's possible placement is probably being looked at with even greater anticipation by many, perhaps fuelled for political and trend setting spin offs that such a decision is expected to have. The recently announced quest to review Minister Masutha's postponement seems to have further fuelled such expectations. Mr De Kock is on a life sentence which is meant to represent several life sentences given to him as well as additional 212 imprisonment years following his many proven crimes which could not be cleared by criteria of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
There are a handful of aspects that need to be highlighted to inform the public and I will do so without suggesting any sequence thereof.
There seems to be an expectation that the Minister decided to turn down Mr De Kock's parole application because some victims have not been contacted, and that therefore once done, no further cause would remain for keeping him in prison.
Firstly, it is important to note that the Minister never cited the provision on involvement of victims of crimes as in Criminal Procedure Act. Doing so would have validated the review application because the insertion of victim rights in that Act, has an applicability date and boundary within lifer population.
What he mentioned is what existed long before any legislation existed, namely victims of crime, who must have been embraced by all systems of justice without any piece of legislation having to say it must be done. Put differently, victims are not brought about by law, but by malicious actions of man on his fellow men, and ought to have arguably been a critical part of any system seeking to punish de Kock's type of crimes and possibly also rehabilitate him.
In the case of Mr De Kock, our system of justice, informed by merits of the case, does not seem to have had any hope or intention that he would one day walk free. It is a legal technicality to equate his sentences to a life sentence similar, for instance, to that of William Nkuna of Constable Rasuge's murder case or Donovan Moodley of Leigh Matthews'.
The review application revolves around inception of victim rights in parole consideration as law, and clearly what the applicant and his counsel, believe to be pivotal in this case.
Secondly, worthy of noting is that a decision to grant or deny parole has actually not been taken on account of some information been outstanding in the De Kock file. Strictly speaking, what then would the court application be reviewing if a decision was delayed by reasons that have since been in public domain? A worthier case would be made of the failure to timeously avail such information instead.
Thirdly, victim inputs are not a quantitative requirements, ones which once acquired, leave the Minister no option but to sign off Mr de Kock's freedom. They are sought in order to inform a decision whether or not to parole Mr de Kock, if so under what conditions, what further precaution to take into consideration and what danger would such a decision bring to the victim families, SA society and even Mr De Kock himself - the State remains with the duty to protect even his life and safety.
Unlike in the case of Lockerbie Pan Am bomber, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, Mr De Kock does not go home to a hero's welcome in another country thousands of miles and several cultures and values away, and would most likely want to queue in a bank or supermarket among his 'victims' again once free, or even play golf. Will the Minister remain resolute about correctness of his decision to unmindfully place him out?
Fourthly, unlike a parole board, an organ within the justice system, lifer matters are lawfully not decided by a body but a person, the Minister, who is not necessarily bound by what binds decision making trends obliging the boards. He or she has no quorum to mind, arguably no decided case unless they stand inch by inch similar to one another, and is known to be a Minister who though serving in public in general, represents and is brought to bear by a sector to which he owes some allegiance.
It would appear therefore that the notion that his freedom is one signature away, trivialises pieces of the 'lock system' through which Mr De Kock still has to go.
Hlaoli Litsoane is chairperson of a parole board, one of the 52 in the country, and one which leads in victim involvement nationally. He writes in his personal capacity.
Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter
