The following two articles are an exchange between two former members of old, apartheid-era, security services that first appeared in the pages of the e-Nongqai - the un-official Police Gazette for Veterans of the former South African Police Force, edited by Hennie Heymans, a former brigadier of the SAP (see here).
In the first article Koos Kotze - a former sergeant in the Flying Squad in the 1980s, who left the police to go on to pursue a legal career - examines how the SAP as a whole came to be seen, unfairly in his view, as a "rogue killer organisation". For this he places blame, firstly, on the Nationalists who required the SAP to implement their absurd and inhumane racial laws, and secondly, on certain members of the old Security Branch who ended up becoming a law unto themselves.
The second article is a response by Roy Allen a former member of the Security Branch, BOSS, the police Special Task Force and the Directorate of Military Intelligence. Allen argues that the actions of covert units of the security services - in taking the fight to the enemy by whatever means necessary - were consistent with the response of Western states when faced with a similar type of terrorist or revolutionary threat. If the SAP has a blackened name today it is not because these actions were unwarranted but because they were ultimately futile (their side lost.)
***
The Dishonouring of the SAP by Koos Kotze
It is always thought-provoking to me that the South African Police Force (SAP) is condemned as an "instrument of oppression if not terror" today and will probably carry that shroud of shame forever. Countless times when overseas and even in South Africa the opinion is seriously expressed that the SAP was a rogue killer organisation.
It is seen very much like the German SS and could kill at will without any consequences for the killers or that is how the myth goes for it is a myth. We who served in the SAP know this is a complete and utter nonsense and something which I tried to debunk in my book "Mean Streets - Life in the Apartheid Police" (see here) which is also published in Afrikaans as "Gewetenlose Strate - Lewe in die Apartheid Polisie."
No policeman was ever allowed to shoot or kill as he pleased without dire consequences including murder charges afterwards. In fact we held fire in many instances where we could have pulled the trigger legally. It is all in the book.
Nevertheless it cannot be denied that murders and other horrible deeds did take place and specifically political ones though obviously murder is murder - does not matter whether the motive is political or not and it should never have happened.
Nor can we deny that at one stage even policemen were assassinated by their own colleagues to keep them quiet. You only have to read the TRC reports / confessions and other books to understand that some members of the Special Branch or Security Branch did become rogue meaning acting outside the law.
It stands to reason that any order to commit murder is illegal and should have been refused. Also that almost all covert operations are illegal in some way or other - as is all terrorism which makes it a police problem and not a military one. But the fact is it though the orders (if there were any) were not refused and I wonder why? How is it possible that the cream of the force (Security Branch) turned to illegal acts and against everything they stood and trained for?
How is it possible that an honourable and proud organisation full of decent and highly trained men becomes something which struck fear in the hearts of the majority or the population? It was not always like that you know - at one stage the SAP was "just" an effective police force feared only by criminals and trusted by most citizens to act fairly. So what changed?
These are not easy questions to answer and I am not sure I found the answers though I explain my theories much more thoroughly in the said books. I also want to say that we are speaking the language of the time and no offence is meant by calling a freedom fighter a terrorist etc. It should be read from this viewpoint though none of my books are politically correct. I deal with facts or what I perceive as facts. When I say men I also mean women for the role of female members should never be discounted.
As background I was never part of the Security Branch and viewed them as something apart from the SAP and with downright misgivings at times for the Security Branch was an elite group and they treated the rest of us with disdain and a distinct lack of respect between colleagues. I remember not being allowed in their offices but the cleaners (probably more sympathetic to the liberation struggle than me) knew all the security codes for the fancy electronic gates and had free access.
From time to time they refused to speak to us normal members in the pub and they always flatly refused to discuss their work with anyone except themselves which is understandable. I think to deny the arrogance is simply to deny the obvious for it happened and is to be praised for we in the Flying Squad certainly thought of ourselves as an elite group also.
So I ask again what went wrong. How is it possible that they committed these murders and stained the good name and reputation of the SAP forever and two days? And can we really deny we did not know even if we lacked the hard evidence? Of course we knew or we should have known.
It is a subject worthy of a book itself and I wish someone would write it who knows more than it than I do but my theory is that they became intelligence officers instead of policemen. As such other rules existed and with the cloak of secrecy someone decided to take matters in his own hands instead of leaving it for the courts as is the traditional way designed to protect both sides.
It is also very possible that we started to believe our own propaganda and that fear played a subconscious role for the war was very real by that time and on-going for decades. No doubt a lot of winking took place from the political masters also, which was cowardly denied afterwards. Thus it spilled out of control and the sad part is they probably felt at that stage they were doing good and that it was very necessary to do so protect the country.
Well we know this for we saw the high decorations awarded for such acts. We all know the argument of protecting an asset (informer) and thus not being able to bring the suspects to court. Besides that every street policeman knows the courts were never on the SAP side anyway and reasonably independent.
The terrorist (as called in those days) had good legal representation even if they were powerless against the laws which also made you wonder if matters should not be taken care off in a more direct way. Then you add the inhumanness of war and the undeniable acts of terror from the other side and you start thinking the unthinkable.
You may even raise the legal principle of "pre-emptive strike" during the explanations but of course in law there is no excuse for such behaviour. None of the above will stay a conviction for murder and thus it must be done covertly but you know that the good Book says all done in the dark will be shouted from the roof tops and so it was.
Covert actions are inherently dangerous to society at large because of the lack of oversight and should be banned in a police organisation. Those policemen deserve more sympathy for they became part of an evil system and acted accordingly to the best of their beliefs and capabilities and standards of the day.
Though it is hugely fascinating as a study on human behaviour it still does not answer the question for it only explains what they did and not what caused it for remember, they were not inherently evil and were the cream of the crop. The evil story is a liberal politically correct myth in my eyes. The real question should be "why was there a need for the Security Branch in the first place" because that is where the answer lies.
As the famous English Judge, Lord Coke, once said "I may be wrong. In fact I am frequently wrong but I am never in doubt" I beg your indulgence with my views - which are entirely my own and not an attack on the Security Branch in any way or shape or form. Your comments and critique are expected and requested for this is a topic which needs an explanation. Not so much for us who moved on but for the sake of history. Let me explain why for it has nothing to do with reputation but the future. In the said book I wrote:
"The problem with history is that it is extremely important in your life and affects you every day whether you dislike history or not. Most people do not understand but let me explain in practical terms without becoming academic. When tomorrow morning you prepare breakfast it is based on the experience that you have in preparing breakfast for your family. You know from the past that your husband (or wife) likes his eggs sunny side up and thus that is how you prepare it today. Now what would happen if you did not have the knowledge because the past is rewritten (falsely) in which your husband (or wife) likes his eggs both sides fried in peanut butter (how horrible)? You will be blindsided because that's what you know and what you believe. It is your perception. Exactly the same when the recorded history wrong and our children cannot learn from our mistakes. How can the same mistakes be avoided if we don't know what they are since we recorded them wrongly?
That's why my books get boring sometimes to expand on things that in truth belong to the historian and not so much with me. Once again I ask your patience. It is important for future generations. It is cardinal that the truth is somewhere written on paper in a book without being political correct. We already saw that Hitler and Nazi Germany came into being on distorted history. Sixty six million died."
After I left the SAP I qualified as an attorney and worked at the best known human rights law firm in Africa. As such I met many of the liberation heroes who treated me well considering by background in the SAP. One made the comment that the Special Branch was reasonably respected by them up to 1965 when they became "Boers".
Exactly what that means I don't know for he was a polite fellow and declined to give details but I suppose he meant the Afrikaner's fatherly attitude towards violence and that idiotic notion that a grey haired "oom" is always right. We know better now and I frequently warn my clients against the grey haired fellows.
In many ways we Afrikaners are charmingly direct in our ways. Let me clarify for I was quite upset when someone said that to me the first time. In my own time in the SAP we held the view that if a suspect is fatherly sorted out long enough he will be able to speak Afrikaans fluently and thus we never bothered to learn a native language (a fatal mistake in my eyes).
Secondly we never kept anyone for years on death row for the sentence had to be carried out to avoid suffering (if not so sad it would be funny) and to make place for the next lot so to speak for our detectives were world class and usually got their murderer.
Thirdly we always carried out police floggings immediately (hours) after the sentence also to avoid mental suffering which is likewise funny if not so sad for how do you launch appeal procedures after the fact? You know what I mean with the above - it is almost a religious believe in our own capabilities sometimes to the detriment of ourselves.
Who else would create the Apartheid Laws and then tell the world to take a hike making no effort (as the Americans did with "separate but equal" laws) to hide it? Or attack Angola with an unprepared Army (why unprepared I ask since SAP COIN had abundance experience already) when asked to do so by foreign leaders who obviously hoped we would be castigated by the international press (as we were). It also caused the Soweto Riots of 1976 (they thought wrongly the Army was defeated and kicked out of Angola).
Or before that take on the world's mightiest empire in two wars fully expecting to win and when we lost by the standards of war of the day started a guerrilla campaign to prove a point. And before that decide to move north and conquer what we needed since we knew what is right and wrong and whom we liked and whom we disliked. These are not bad attributes in themselves of course but they can be abused.
It is also the African way to be respectful to elders (leaders) and this was thoroughly abused by nationalist politicians in my view. With the Westminster system of parliamentary sovereignty they knew they could enable any Act and the highly disciplined SAP will enforce it for the SAP did not turn away from criminal acts but faced it head on. You simply did not commit crime in its presence and expected nothing to happen - the SAP would always be faithful to its traditions and react to such behaviour to keep law and order. What other choice does a policeman have in law when a crime is committed in his presence? None whatsoever! What does the public expect? Action sir and law and order! It is as simple as that and that is exactly what happened.
The politicians took the discipline of the SAP to do what is right (enforce the law) for granted and destroyed the SAP by doing so. Let me explain and to do so let me quote again from the book:
"The SAP stepped up to enforce parliaments' laws as it is compelled to do by law. The very reason for its existence was to enforce the laws of the country for it was the country's police. Where an army in the field can protest against silly orders a Police Force cannot do so. It is limited to the enforcing the law for its operations whilst the Army is only limited to the laws of war on how they conduct their campaigns. They can plan their operations any which way they want. The Police are told by the laws what to do or enforce. Do you see the difference? Practically a Police Force cannot decide which laws to uphold. All laws are upheld until such time that parliament or the courts scrap it as a law. The nationalists in effect forced the SAP to self-destruct by either refusing to enforce the laws from his political masters (legally impossible) or to enforce the shameful laws and lose the respect of the vulnerable which it should be protecting. A noble organisation is now dishonoured because of unscrupulous politicians."
Yes it was a disaster for the SAP to enforce Apartheid and this led to all sorts of human rights abuses never mind a blackened name. What do we learn from this? Simply that a police force is a seriously dangerous concept if abused by politicians enabling silly acts. There is nothing new in this statement which our Roman forefathers realised 2000 years ago when they asked "who will protect us from our protectors?" I ask in the book "who will protect the SAP from the nationalists?"
No one did and legally could not for we had no human rights culture (or Bill of Human Rights in the Constitution outranking the parliament) nor our courts the jurisdiction to override parliament (except in special cases which had to do with administrative procedure).
Combine this with a culture of supreme arrogance from the nationalists who had no inherent sense of decency (the same system was used in 47 other countries without Apartheid coming to being) and you had the recipe for disaster. Yes I accuse the nationalist government of dishonouring the SAP by compelling it to enforce acts designed to be against the rules of natural justice. It really could only end the way it did and is surprising that it took so many decades before the police assassinations / murders started.
What did the politicians think would happen when people protest against laws which no decent man can live with? A spiral of extreme violence was inevitable even though the SAP reduced its killing capacity in later years which is a startling view for most but look at the difference between a SAP COIN border section armed with assault rifles versus a SAP COIN riot section (later the Internal Stability Units) with 80% of its members armed with non-deadly shotguns & stoppers. What does that imply?
That one section can only kill or use deadly force and the other cannot which shows how the SAP evolved from earlier years where the riot units were more ad hoc. So even in these desperate times some decency remained.
All were not lost though for the other undeniable fact which is conveniently forgotten today is that the SAP kept law and order after 1990 so well that it enabled Mr Mandela to take control in a peaceful manner. It is its saving grace and did a lot to recoup its lost honour.
***
The Dishonouring of the SAP: Roy Allen replies to Koos Kotze
"I write this in response to an article written by Koos Kotze, about his experiences in the SA Police during the so called 'Apartheid era'. I find his opinion interesting, and mostly valid and I am supportive of his viewpoint, however I differ from his negative portrayal of both, the Security Branch (SB) and its members, as well as his questioning of the "Raison d'être" of the Security Branch in the SAP during this period.
I too served on the Flying Squad in 1967/8 (Studebaker Lark time :-) before volunteering to join to the Security Police in 1969. I left the SB in 1972, for Van Den Bergh's BOSS, but returned to the SB in 1975. In 1976 I was a founder member of the SAP Special Task Force, where I remained until I left the SAP at the end of 1979, for the Directorate Military Intelligence, where I served until 1993, resigning with the rank of Commandant - A unique South African rank. I spent five years (1984 - 89) with the Military Intelligence Field Office in Oshakati. I thus believe that my background allows me to comment knowledgeably on the issues raised by Koos Kotze.
As a 'Baby boomer' attending kindergarten in the mid-Fifties, the Second World War was fading from the collective memory, to be replaced by the harsh realities of the escalating "Cold War" between the Soviet Union and America and her Western Allies. This was also the Post-Colonial period, with many former Colonies in South East Asia and Africa gaining independence from their Colonial Masters, during the ensuing Fifties, Sixties and Seventies.
The Soviets saw this as an opportunity to further their expansionist policies and influence, by actively involving themselves in the politics of these countries and attempting to install Socialist/Communist parties in power.
Western countries took appropriate action to counter this threat, as is evidenced by the McCarthyism in America. The Communist Party was banned in both Australia and South Africa, and the Security Branch of the Police Forces of countries like the UK, NZ, Aus, SA, the Federation of Rhodesia and colonies like Kenya and Tanganyika, was beefed up and re-trained to counter this new threat.
In South Africa after the Communist Party of South Africa was banned, many of the office bearers and members simply formed 'new' so called cultural organizations, and continued with their plotting to subvert the lawful Government of the day. And when these organizations were banned, they simply formed others, or joined left wing organisations like the Liberal Party, and continued with their destabilization both by inciting unrest amongst the African population and by acts of sabotage by the ARM (Armed Resistance Movement) blowing up signals-cabling along suburban train lines, sabotaging power transmission masts etc. This was all done exclusively by Whites.
In the SB we observed these left wingers and saboteurs' cynical abuse of democratic principles, in their effort to undermine the fabric of South African society, whilst being funded by Soviet sponsored Front organizations such as the International University Exchange Fund, left wing foreign student organizations and the so called, 'Christian organizations' such as the World Council of Churches, that the Soviets so cleverly used as a conduit for money and moral support to organizations within the RSA that were plotting deeds of violence, and mayhem.
I find the comment by Koos, that the 'Liberation movements' had respected the SB up until 1965, but that after this "We" changed into 'Boers', ironical. The SB outlook and philosophy certainly did change about this time - as a direct result of these subversive groups that were instigating sabotage attacks on the infrastructure of the RSA. I believe that it was the cruel Johannesburg Station bomb in 1964, by Frederick John Harris of the ARM, which was the catalyst that caused the SB to take its gloves off... If 'our enemy' wanted to play dirty, so could We!! And, we did it, a lot better than they could ever do!
The superior investigative skills of the SB, led to the rapid apprehension of Harris who was duly tried and put to death. These same investigative skills led to the apprehension of the plotters of the infamous Treason Trial, who had been plotting terrorist sabotage actions within the RSA at the farm Lilliesleaf on the outskirts of Johannesburg.
An aside: During the planning of the raid on Lilliesleaf, which had a long driveway giving access to the homestead, it was realized that the raiders could not just drive in with Police vehicles, as this would give the plotters time to flee/destroy documentation and evidence. A ruse was required. Someone suggested using an Ambulance, but it was decided that this would be both, unethical and an abuse of the sanctity of the Red Cross 'ambulance' logo. Instead a laundry van was used. Does this sound like the Jack-booted Nazis that the SB have been portrayed as being?
When Arthur Goldreich and Harold Wolpe, who were arrested at Lilliesleaf, escaped from Marshall Square police station, and slipped over the Border into Lesotho disguised as priests - they clearly had no qualms about abusing the 'Holy' collar and robes of Christianity. Where were their moral scruples? They were flown out to Botswana on a single engine Cessna, and the Tanzanian Government sent a DC-3 Dakota to return these 'liberation heroes' to Dar es Salaam.
The night before they were to fly to Dar, their Dakota was burnt out on the ground at the airport in Gaborone. This was hardly a case of spontaneous combustion... The SB's gloves had indeed come off!! It is therefore understandable that the 'liberation heroes' did not appreciate the metamorphosis from "Die goedige ou gryskop omie, wat op die stoep sit en pyp rook", to a ruthlessly effective unit, that took the war to the enemy, in every sense...
Some of us SB members, could not fail to observe, that most of these people agitating for change in the RSA were not even born in the RSA and had "dual citizenship" of another country, and would probably flee to that country if things in the RSA went wrong, whereas us native born South Africans had no 'bolt hole' back to Europe, 'Mother England' or Lithuania where a lot of the agitators came from. (In hind sight it is interesting to note that both Wolpe and Goldreich chose NOT to hang around to savour the 'fruits of liberation' in a liberated SA, both instead emigrated to Israel, where they spent their latter years.) Apparently this was also the case with Alan Paton's (Cry the Beloved Country) wife, who more recently, and after numerous burglaries, departed the RSA for safer climes.
Some SB members became frustrated with this nonsensical state of affairs, where the "Kieme" (lit. germs - HBH.) as we called them, were literally getting away with murder and giving us the 'finger' at the same time. Because of informers within their organizations as well as information gleaned from 'wiretaps' and 'bugs' we had a very good idea of the internal rivalries and extramarital liaisons that took place.
A small group of my colleagues and I, used this information against them in a perverse game of "chess" spreading rumours and tipping off spouses as to where their husband/wife was meeting her lover etc etc. As a demoralized and stressed enemy, has far less time and energy for subversive activities!
As a consequence of this, a few relationships/marriages went onto the rocks. We did not; however succeed in goading anyone into taking their own life - which had been our informal goal....
Our actions were, again, not the work of Nazi thugs. We were merely disrupting the enemy in every way we could. Does anyone remember the Greenpeace "Rainbow Warrior", that French agents amateurishly sank in Auckland in 1985 - killing an Italian photographer, who was on board the ship at the time? Or the USA/Israel's more recent Stuxnet computer virus attack, on the nuclear centrifuges in Iran. Or the CIA, many years ago, plotting to plant a brightly coloured explosive crab in the sea in Cuba where Pres Fidel Castro - an avid Scuba diver - used to go for a swim in the mornings...? They were hoping to kill him! Gotta give it to the Yankees...
This is why I particularly enjoyed it when Craig Williamson was working undercover for the SB at the I.U.E.F. (International University Exchange Fund) in Geneva, managed to transfer several hundred thousand dollars back to the RSA. The SB used to buy a farm outside Pretoria called Daisy... Poignant, Farm Daisy bought with Russian money! Espionage is not, without good reason, referred to as the "Second oldest profession".
Koos bandies around the term murder - understandable sentiments, from a legal professional. However, murder means a lot of different things to different people. SWAPO referred to their fallen guerrilla members as having been murdered by the South African Security Forces, as do the Taliban and Al Kaida about their fighters who get killed fighting the Occupying Forces in Afghanistan.
The anti-capital punishment brigade in the USA accuses the American government of murdering criminals who are found guilty in that country's courts and sentenced to death. Was Osama Bin laden murdered? He certainly did not slip on a bar of soap in the shower, or fall down the stairs. So, this 'murder thing' is all just a matter of semantics and from which viewpoint it is looked at...
We detained people without trial for 90 and 180 days. 'The Rule of Law.....' the liberals and the legal profession screamed! Yet these detainees were visited on a weekly basis by the District Surgeon and a senior Uniform Officer with the rank of Brigadier! Sure we interrogated some detainees who were held on suspicion of planning acts sabotage.
We tortured some as well, by suffocating them. Placing wet P.P.R. canvas bags (Prisoners Property Receipt) over their heads and/or with electric shocks from the old type of farm telephones. Mine even had a nickname, 'Sophie'. Has this exact treatment not been meted out for the past 12 years at Abu Ghraib Prison in Baghdad and at Guantanamo Bay by the American CIA and Military Intelligence? Authorized by none other than two successive Presidents of the USA.
They call it 'water boarding' and we called it 'Tjoeb' (pronounced: tube - ed.) and 'Aeroplane ry'. (Lit. Flying an aeroplane - HBH.) At least we did not drag them around the floor of the detention cell, with a dog's leash around their necks or make them simulate sex on each other as occurred at Abu Ghraib prison! What we did needs to be seen in its proper perspective, of the reigning circumstances in the country, at the time.
I saw on the news just last week, that America still has 50 to 60 'suspects' that they have been holding at Guantanamo Bay since 2001. These suspects are considered too dangerous to be released to their countries of origin in the Middle East. The US has insufficient grounds to charge them in a court of law, so now there are moves afoot to have them detained indefinitely... (Forever... until the end of their lives...) That is pretty harsh I reckon. What is Koos Kotze's legal opinion of this?
So, it was not OK in the Sixties and Seventies for the RSA to detain people for 90 or 180 days, yet in 2001 America can do so after two civil airliners fly into two skyscrapers. And not for six months bur for twelve years.... What is the difference between 9/11 and the Church Street bomb, or two Viscount aircraft of Rhodesian Airways, full of innocent passengers, being shot out of the sky with heat seeking missiles?
Nobody told us in South Africa, that there were two sets of rules to play by, when combating terrorism...
I concede that many people were killed as a result of deliberate actions initiated by the SB - but these people were not murdered in 'cold blood'! They had, by their illegal and violent actions against the RSA and its people, made themselves legitimate targets! We used cross border 'hit squads' and parcel bombs, whereas the Americans currently use Drones against their enemies on the other side of the world.
The Mossad regularly kills its enemies plotting terror deeds against Israel, as does Russia with Chechen Nationalists who plant bombs in the Russian Federation. I do not see any difference between what the SB did then, and what America / Israel / Russia are currently doing. None whatsoever....
A 'Pre-emptive strike' against one's enemy, is both recognized in militarily doctrine and juridically, as being justifiable under the circumstances that the RSA found itself in at the time. We were a member of the United Nations, had full diplomatic relations with ALL Western Countries and had just won judgement in our favour at the International Court in The Hague, regarding the RSA's continued administration of South West Africa. So, it is not as if we were in the position that Bashaar Al Assad of Syria currently finds himself in.
Think for a brief moment back to the Church Street bomb in the early Eighties and the carnage... I thus feel no guilt over Albie Sachs' mangled arm, Ruth Slovo's demise in Mozambique or the death of Jeanette Schoon and her daughter Kathryn, in Angola. Sure we killed them! However, we did not set out to intentionally kill them! We did not have a term for it then, but thanks to the USA's invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, everybody these days is currently aware of the meaning of collateral damage... And this is exactly what they were....
I am dismayed that Koos felt slighted by his SAP SB colleagues who did not properly respect his "dignitas". It is, however a fact of life, that specialist units tend to stick to themselves and be aloof. Merely look at the Recces, the Task Force, the SAS or the CID. Obviously Koos is not an avid reader of 'Le Carre' otherwise he would understand the meaning of 'the need to know' and his denial of access to the SB offices.
You may not walk into the vault merely 'because you work at the bank'. When I re-joined the SAP in 1975 I had to work for a month, doing shift work on the Uniform Branch at Caledon Square, until my 'security clearance' was completed by my colleagues.... Despite having had a 'Top Secret' clearance with both BOSS and the SB!
On a point of order Koos, the Soweto riots of 1976 were not in any way caused by the incorrect, yet popular notion in some quarters, that the SADF had been defeated in Angola. The Soweto riots were caused by the language of instruction at Black schools of the time, coupled with a healthy dose of agitation by the underground ANC.
During the early/mid Sixties the SADF had both, badly misread the 'threat' to the RSA, 'post WW-2', only foreseeing a COIN threat and never a "conventional" land battle that the SADF waged in Angola in the latter Eighties. This was also compounded by some bright spark of a General in the upper echelons of the SADF, selling off a large number of our WW-2 vintage Centurion tanks to India - forcing the RSA to purchase second hand Centurions on the black marked at inflated prices when the extent of the conventional threat facing the RSA was realized. (Armscor converted these WW-2 relics into the extremely formidable Olifant tank, which coped magnificently against all the Soviet tanks in the Angolan armoury!)
This also kick started the South African Arms production industry, which went on the become the second biggest earner of Forex for the RSA, after mining in the late Eighties. The USSR, being the largest 'sanctions breaker' and supplier of weaponry to the SADF at the time. Ok, they did not do it altogether voluntarily.... The SADF seized thousands of tonnes of Soviet weapons during our forays into Angola, which we then 'reverse engineered', vastly improved, manufactured ourselves, and exported to many Middle Eastern countries.
Getting back to Koos, the SADF incursion into Angola in 1975 was of a conventional nature with artillery pieces and armoured cars - equipment with which the SAP Coin elements had no experience whatsoever. The SAP Coin elements were masters at their game, as was evidenced by the record kill rate of Koevoet - probably the most successful Coin unit in the world during the last century!!
I agree with Koos that the good name and professional standing of the SAP, was irrevocably tainted by its obligation under law to enforce the inhumane Pass Book system of the Government of the day and other crazy laws like the Immorality Act. "Sharpeville" was the start of the decline of the legitimacy of the SAP in the eyes of most non-White South Africans. They did not see/chose to ignore, all the good police work that the SAP did in the townships, from the Sharpeville event up until the early nineties.
It is a fact, that in all conflicts, the "vanquished" and their actions are viewed in a negative subjective light, entirely disproportionate to what they 'actually did'. And while hastening to add that whilst we were never, for a single moment, defeated in a military sense, 'Our Side lost'...Period. We are the "vanquished" in this sense of the word. This is then also the reason why the South African Police, with its rich history and culture as we all experienced it, only receives negative publicity.
In conclusion: I therefore agree with Koos Kotze that it is important for members (Lidde.) to document their experiences. Not that we all have to agree with each other. Just as we cannot agree about whose rugby team is the best..... Variety remains the spice of life.
***
A note from e-Nongqai editor Hennie Heymans: If you are a former member of the South African Police, or have a family member who was, we would very much like to hear your story. Though we are interested in all eyewitness accounts relating to the history of the SAP we are particularly interested in hearing from African policemen, or their family members, who were at Sharpeville - the most cataclysmic event in our police history. The witnesses should not be afraid - we are only seeking the truth! I can be contacted at [email protected].
Source: http://issuu.com/hennieheymans/docs
Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter
