The board of inquiry report into the deaths of three navy officers during a submarine exercise off Kommetjie last year has the feel of an Apartheid-era whitewash about it, says a former military judge.
Retired Colonel Brian Plaatjies is now a lawyer representing Commander Romero Hector, the widower of Lieutenant Commander Gillian Elizabeth Hector, the executive officer on the submarine SAS Mantashi, who died along with Master Warrant Officer William Masela Mathipa (coxswain), and Warrant Officer Class One Mmokwapa Lucas Mojela (coxswain under training), after being swept overboard by freak waves on September 20 last year while doing a vertical transfer (vertrep) using an SA Air Force maritime Lynx helicopter.
The families of the dead were flown to Cape Town, on Wednesday September 4, and briefed on the findings of the investigation into their loved ones’ deaths. Defence Minister Angie Motshekga was briefed on Thursday September 5, and the findings were made public on Friday September 6.
The board found that the tragedy could not have been prevented, and the chief of the navy, Vice Admiral Monde Lobese blamed “freak waves”, adding the navy had taken steps to improve operational safety, and its standing operating procedures were being revised to improve areas highlighted by the board of inquiry (“Navy to improve safety after probe into sub tragedy,” Echo, September 9).
Commander Romero Hector earlier this week appointed Colonel Plaatjies as his lawyer after the navy allegedly refused him a copy of the outcome of the board of inquiry and he had to read the outcome in the media.
This despite asking the navy for a copy of the report on Monday July 22 and again on Friday August 16, he says.
Colonel Plaatjies has described the outcome of the report as being “reminiscent of the Apartheid-era inquests held by magistrates into the deaths of political activists who died in police custody, all concluded ‘no one is to blame’”.
He said that as a military law specialist, he would make every effort to expose inadequacies, if any, in the report.
Meanwhile his client, who was granted a change of station in Gqeberha, in April, to help process the death of his wife, has been ordered to return to his unit in Simon’s Town in the wake of his challenging the way in which the report was released.
Colonel Plaatjies said that following the allegations by his client, the navy, on Tuesday September 10, had ordered Commander Hector to return to his unit from Wednesday October 16.
There had been no consultation with his client about it, and it “smacks of a knee-jerk reaction”, he said.
The navy, he said, had no regard for his client’s current psychological condition, “let alone the logistical nightmare to pack up, lock, stock, and barrel at short notice”.
He said Commander Hector would be challenging the navy’s recall.
Vice Admiral Lobese said Commander Hector had appealed to him to leave Simon’s Town during a meeting in December 2023, as “painful memories of his wife were too raw”.
The navy, he said, had looked for other postings where Commander Hector could work and he had asked the leadership of the fleet to allow Commander Hector the space to see the relevant medical specialists to deal with his trauma while he worked in Simon’s Town.
Commander Hector was then placed at the Naval Station Port Elizabeth in Gqeberha after other suggestions by the navy were unacceptable to him.
Vice Amiral Lobese said Commander Hector was allowed to work from Gqeberha while receiving his full salary.
Following the outcome of the board of inquiry, the navy issued a statement on Sunday September 8 addressing allegations made by Commander Hector.
Vice Admiral Lobese said Commander Hector had been formally told of the briefing through a signal sent to his unit on Friday August 30, authorising him to make his way to Simon’s Town for the briefing.
Vice Admiral Lobese said he had also been called and informed that “this signal authority is available” and that he should make travel arrangements.
According to the statement, a signal is a formal navy communication and authorises a member to book a flight and accommodation at a destination.
Vice Admiral Lobese said Commander Hector had elected not to do so.
However, Colonel Plaatjies said his client denied the statement saying he had followed naval procedures to secure road transport but when that had failed he had tried to get a flight ticket, but that too had failed despite him completing all the required documentation.
He said transport authority had not been received and his client had been given the “run around”.
He said his client had informed the navy of his difficulties to secure transport.
Vice Admiral Lobese also said Commander Hector had refused to meet with members of the navy on several occasions.
In May this year, Vice Admiral Lobese said, a group of submariners had travelled to Gqeberha to meet with him and another member of the submarine corps who had been hospitalised in the city.
Despite sufficient warning from the members that they would be visiting, Commander Hector had declined to meet with them.
Colonel Plaatjies said that statement by Vice Admiral Lobese lacked context as the request to meet the submariners the following day had been at short notice and Commander Hector had not been “in a good space mentally”. Furthermore, their main reason for the trip had been to visit another submariner at a rehabilitation centre.
Colonel Plaatjies said Vice Admiral Lobese’s statement that Commander Hector should have exhausted all internal processes within the navy and SANDF before engaging with the media, was “in poor taste” and that his client remained a loyal serving member of the SANDF and followed the proper channels.
“The client takes a dim view of being portrayed as ill-disciplined when all he was requesting was to be furnished with a copy of the BOI, (board of inquiry) which legally he is entitled to obtain,” said Colonel Plaatjies.
