SA Military Intelligence > Interviews > An interview with Henk Heslinga regarding the assassination of the former moderator of the Dutch Reformed Church, professor Johan Heyns on November 5, 1994.
Length of interview: 9 minutes 1 seconds
Audio file name/s of interview: AL3283_PTA_HESLINGAHENK_20091005_3
De Wet	Ek sit hier saam met direkteur Henk Heslinga, voormalige hoof van Pretoriase se moord-en-roofafdeling. Dit is Maandag 5 Oktober 2009 en toevallig is dit vandag presies 15 jaar gelede dat die voormalige moderators van die NG Kerk, professor Johan Heyns, in sy huis in Waterkloof deur ŉ sluipmoordenaar doodgeskiet is. Nou daar is nog baie vrae rondom die sluipmoord, of dit ŉ politieke moord was of nie, want tot dusver is nog niemand in hegtenis geneem of voor die hof gedaag vir die moord nie.
So die moord is steeds onopgelos.
Nou Henk kan jy ons vertel van die omvang van die ondersoek en was daar politieke motiewe enb hoekom is daar nooit iemand gevang nie.
Henk	Ja nou, presies 15 jaar gelede omtrent net na agt die aand is ek deur radiobeheer van die moord op prof. Heyns in kennis gestel. Met my aankoms daar het ek sy liggaam aangetref in die sitkkamer voor die TV-stel. Hy is in die agterkop geskiet die koeël is dwarsdeur sy kop deur sy neus en sy oë uit en teen die TV-skerm weggespat en ons het en ons het die koeëlpunt, die koeëlmantel gesoek, maar ons kon dit nie kry nie.
Ek het toe vasgestel van mev. Heyns dat sy en haar twee kleinkinders het daar in die sitkamer gesit en ŉ minuuut of wat voor dit die agtuur nuus was het prof. Johan Heyns in die sitkamer ingekom en in sy stoel waar hy altyd gaan sit het hulle die TV oorgeskakel na die nuus en hy het gesit en nuus kyk soos hy dit elke aand doen.
Dit is pertinent aan my gesê dat dit sy gewoonte was. Hy het uit sy studeerkamer langs die sitkamer het hy so paar minute voor agt die sitkamer ingekom in sy stoel gaan sit en dan die nuus gekyk.
Ons het toe met die forensiese mense, ballistiese kundiges het ons die trajek gaan vasstel en ons het toe die plek gekry waar die skoot geskiet was. Die sitkamer is ŉ betreklike lang vertrek en ons het gevind dat die moordenaar het buite die sitkamer aan die oostekant by die hoek van die huis gestaan en hy het deur die venster deur die gordyne. Die gordyne was sunfilter jy kon deur die gordyne sien, het hy deur die venster, het hy deur deur die gordyne het hy met een skoot, het hy vir prof. Johan Henyns in die agterkop geskiet.
Ons het hare gekry op die bakstene daar waar die moordenaar gestaan het en ons het geen doppie gekry nie, maar ons het gevind dat dit ŉ 303-geweer was wat gebruik was en dat daar nie doppies uitgeskiet word nie.
Die volgende oggend vroeg is ek na die toneel toe en toe ek die gordyne ooptrek sodat daar meer lig in die vertrek is date k dit verder kon ondersoek toe val die koeëlmantel bo van die gordyn af en toe vind ons dat die koeëlmantel is oorspronklik van ŉ 303-geweer. My bevinding was en wat ek regdeur my ondersoek na die Heyns-moord gesê het was die person wat die moordenaar was het prof. Johan Heyns se bewegings geken, het die tuin geken, want die tuins is ŉ moeilike tuin. Veral in die donker as jy nie die tuin ken nie. Hy is vol kliptrappies, beddings en vol rantjies, en so aan.
En as jy nie daai omgewing ken nie, om daar in die donker te loop sal jy baie sukkel want die huis is so half teen ŉ kliprantjie gebou en ek bly steeds met my bevindings.
Die persoon wat vir prof. Johan Heyns geskiet het, het presies geweet hy kom elke aand voor nuus en gaan sit in sy stoel. Hy het reeds van lank voor dit bepaal van waar hy prof. Johan Heyns wil skiet en wat hy ook gedoen het.
Die persoon het Guy Fawkes-aand glo ek uitgekies omdat daar in die omgewing crackers geskiet word wat die skoot van die geweer bietjie sal demp.
Ons het natuurlik alles gedink. Of dit ŉ regse politieke moord is of dit uit die regse geledere, of dit uit die destydse struggle, die ANC uit kom.
Met die prof. Johan Heyns se begrafnis het ons video-opnames geneem van al die begrafnisgangers en ons het dit later teruggespeel maar al die persone is geїdentifiseer. Ons kon geen leidraad om daai, ons het inligting ontvang dat ŉ sekere dominee Gouws en sy vrou het in ŉ kothuis onder die huis van prof. Heyns gebly en dat daar was ŉ seksuele verhouding tussen prof. Johan Heyns en die dominee Gouws se vrou.
Sy was ook ŉ predikant gewees en sy was ook verbond aan die kerkraad waar prof. Johan Heyns ook was en dat dit vermoed word da thy die moord kon gepleeg het en da thy die motiewe gehad het om prof. Jhan Heyns, hy was ook ŉ lid van die weermag gewees en volgens die vuurwapenregistrasie ook ŉ 303 jaggeweer op sy naam gehad.
Ons het hom toe gaan sien. Ons het hare van sy hareborsel gekry. Ons het dit gaan vergelyk, dit was negatief. Ons het sy geweer ballisties laat ondersoek dit was negatief. Ons het hom ondervra. Hy het erken dat hy daar gebly het en die saak van die verhouding was deur hom ontken en daar was hoegenaamd geen redes om hom verder te ondervra nie of enigsins aan te hou as ŉ verdagte in die Heyns-moordsaak nie.
Op ŉ stadium is ek weggeneem as bevelvoerder van die dossier af. Ek is weggeneem deur brig. Victor wat destyds die afdelings-speuroffisier was en was opdrag gegee date k nie insae in die dossier verder mag hê nie.
Luitenant-kol. Hendrik Viljoen het die ondersoek oorgeneem en daar was ŉ lid van die ou veiligheidstak was by kol. Viljoen geplaas om hom te help met die ondersoek. Ek dink hy was destyds maj. Lucas Ras.
En van daar af het ek tred verloor. Ek het wel ŉ onderhoud toegestaan aan ŉ verslaggeefster oor die bewerings dat Heyns ŉ buite-egtelike verhouding gehad het en ek het die inligting bekend gemaak wat deel was van die dossier wat in die koerante was en wat sy seun so drie weke later erken het in die koerant dat die bewerings is waar.
Ek is vandaar af hoofkantoor toe verplaas en ek het toe verder niks meer met die ondersoek te doene gehad nie.
Ek weet dat Kaalvoet Thysie destyds, ŉ verregse verdink word en dat verregse organisasies verdink word omdat hulle gereken het dat prof. Johan Heyns het linkse idees, linkse gedagtes, maar daar was nooit konkrete bewyse gewees nie.
My mening nog steeds is dat die person wat vir Heyns geskiet het presies sy doen en late geweet het. Het die omgewing geken, het presies sy moordposisie vanwaar hy die moord gepleeg het, geken en dat daar persoonlike redes was om prof. Johan Heyns te geskiet het want destyds was die verregse organisasies van Suid-Afrika die mees geїnfiltreerde organisasies deur die Suid-Afrikaanse polisie se veiligheidstak en nêrens het daar enige getuienis of bewyse gekom dat enige verregse organisasie betrokke was nie.
Wat my vermoede nog verder bevestig is dat die tyd met amnestie voor die Waarheidskommissie het daar geen verregse organisasie of enige lid van ŉ verregse organisasie manestie kom vra oor die moord op prof. Johan Heyns nie.
Indien dit sou gebeur sou dit die toppunt van amnestie gewees het en daar het niemand enige skuld erken en kom amnestie vra nie.
Dit is my persoonlike mening en ek bly by my mening
De Wet	I am sitting here with director Henk Heslinga, former head of the Pretoria murder and robbery squad. It is Monday 5 October 2009 and coincidentally today exactly 15 years ago that the former moderator of the NG church, professor Johan Heyns, was killed by an assassin at his house in Waterkloof, Pretoria.
Now, there are still a lot of unanswered questions regarding the assassination, if it was a political murder or not, because up to know nobody had been arrested on charged for the murder.
So, it still remains and unsolved murder.
Now Henk, could you tell us the extent of the investigation and why nobody had been arrested.
Henk	Yes now, precisely 15 years ago just after eight the evening the flying squad contacted me about the death of professor Heyns.
Arriving on the scene I found is body in the living room in front of the television. He was shot through the back of his head, the bullet went right through his nos and his eyes, richoceted from the television and we couldn’t find the remains of the bullet.
I was then told by mrs. Heyns that she and their two grandchildren were there in the living room when prof. Heyns a minute or so before the eight o clock news prof. Heyns came into the room and went and sit in his chair where he always sat, and they changed channels to television news and he sat watching the news the way he did every night.
It was pointed out to me that this was the way it hapenede every evening. He walked out of his study next adjoining the living room entering a few minutes before the news started, sat in his chair and watched the news.
With the help of the forensic experts, the ballistic experts we managed to find the trajectory of the bullet and from where it was fired.
The living room was quite a big room and we found that the assassin was outside the living room on the eastern side at the corner of the house when he fired through the window and through the curtains. The curtains were sunfilter and one could see through it amnd he shot prof. Heyns in the back of the head.
We found hair on the bricks where the murderer was shooting from, but found no shells, but we did ascertain that the murder weapon was a .303 rifle which doesn’t eject any shells.
Erarly the next morning I returned to the murder scene and when I opened the curtains to allow more light into the living room, the remnants from the bullet’s jacket fell to the ground and it was then when we could confirm that the murder weapons was a .303 rifle.
Throughout my investigation until today I stood by my viewpoint that the murderer knew prof. Heyns, he knew his habits and movements and knew the surroundings in the garden very well. It was a difficult garden to walk around and in particular in the dark if you didn’t know your way around. It was full of rock steps, flower beds and the surrounding was on a hilltop.
If you don’t know the area to walk around there in the dark would’ve been very difficult. The house was build on a hilltop and I stick to my theory.
The person who shot prof. Heyns knew very well that he entered the living room every evening just before eight and went and sit in his regular chair. He planned well in advance where he would shoot prof. Heyns and he did it indeed.
He chose Guy Fawkes evening because he knew fireworks would go off in the neighbourhood and that would dampen the firing of the rifle.
We were, of course, considering every possibility, Was it a right wing murder, did it come from the right wing elements in South Africa, of from the former struggle days, the ANC.
With prof. Heyns’ funeral we made video recordings of the proceedings and later on looked at it, but every body there at the funeral could be identified. There wer no leads from the funeral.
We did receive information that a reverend Gouws and his wife were living in the cottage on prof. Heyn’s proerty at one time, and that there were a sexual relationship between prof. Heyns and the wife of the reverend Gouws.
She was also preacher and a member of the same church council as prof. Heyns. We suspected that he committed the murder and that he had motive to kill prof. Heyns. He was also a member of the defence force and according to the firearm registry he had owned a .303 hunting rifle.
We went to see him. We took hair from his hair brush, but it turned out to be negative. We also had his rifle tested by ballistic experts, but it also turned out negative. We intterogated him. He admitted that they were staying there and denied that there were a relationship. Therefore there we had no more reason to interrogate him further or to detain him as a suspect in the murder.
At one stage I was removed as commanding officer from handling the murder dossier. I was removed by brigadier Victor, wo were then the regional head of detectives and he ordered me to stay away from the investigation.
Lieutenant-colonel Hendrik Viljoen took over the investigation and there was former member of the security branch who assisted him. I think it was a major Lucas Ras.
Since then I lost track of any progress in the investigation. I did grant a journalist an interview about the allegations that prof. Heyns had a extra marital affair and I made available information from the murder dossier containing this information. A few weeks after the news report his son admitted in the newspaper that the affair was true.
I was then transferred to head office and never had lost rtack of the investigation.
I do know that Kaalvoet Thysie a right winger, was and right wing organisations were treated as suspects because they believed that prof. Heyns had left wing leanings, but it was never proven.
I believe that the person who sahot Heyns knew exactly about his habits and movements. Knew exactly from which vantage point to fire the shot and that the murder was nothing but personal reasons.
At that time the right wing organisations were very well infiltrated by intelligence agents and nowhere and never did any information came to light from these sources that right wing organisations or individual may have been involved.
My inference is further confirmed by the fact that no right wing organisation had aplied for amnesty for the murder of prof. Heyns. If this would’ve happened it would have been the most news worthy application at the TRC.
This is my personal way and I stand by it.
Translation: Download (47 KB)
Description: This interview with Henk Heslinga, a former head of the Pretoria murder and robbery squad, double agent, and member of the Goldstone Commission, regarding the assassination of the former moderator of the Dutch Reformed Church, professor Johan Heyns, on November 5, 1994, consists of an audio recording, transcript and English translation. This interview was conducted, transcribed and translated by De Wet Potgieter on behalf of SAHA in 2009.