A FORMER apartheid-era policeman who was convicted of murdering four men in a bomb attack in 1989 has had a legal bid to get his job back dismissed by South Africa’s highest court.
Wybrand du Toit had argued before the constitutional court that former police commissioner George Fivaz had told him in 1999 that if he was successful in a bid to receive amnesty for the murders, then he would be eligible to be reinstated to his former job.
Mr du Toit was sentenced to 15 years in prison in 1996 for his part in the murder of three black security policemen and an informer, known as the Motherwell Four. However, he received amnesty for the crime in 2005 after appearing before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
The commission was established in 1994 in an attempt to heal the wounds of the apartheid era by providing some closure to families whose relatives were killed by the security forces.
In exchange for amnesty, the perpetrators of apartheid-era crimes confessed to their acts and told their victims’ relatives what had happened and, if possible, where the bodies could be found.
Mr du Toit was granted amnesty after he successfully argued that the killings he was involved in were politically motivated. Since then he has been trying to get his job back through the courts, which have continuously ruled against him.
Last September Mr du Toit lost his Supreme Court of Appeal bid to be reinstated to his position of national commanding officer for technical support service, and on Tuesday the constitutional court agreed with the ruling of the lower court.
In written submissions to the constitutional court, legal representatives for Mr du Toit said the amnesty had nullified their client’s conviction. This, combined with a correspondence between Mr Fivaz and Mr du Toit stating that he could go back to work if he received amnesty, meant he was eligible for reinstatement.
However, chief justice Pius Langa said he and his colleagues had reflected on the purpose of the Reconciliation Act and had come to the conclusion that Mr du Toit’s appeal must be dismissed.
While the purpose of the Act was to lift the burden of the crime from the perpetrator’s shoulders and bring closure to victims, the judge insisted that the benefits to the perpetrator were not supposed to be greater than the benefits to the victim.
“It is vital to the success of the process,” he said.