The 17 year old youth arrested with Tabalaza in connection with the delivery van incident, was tried, convicted and sentenced to 18 months' only two days after being arrested. This information emerged during the inquest, when the unnamed youth was a key witness.
When interrogated by Nel, the youth said he had been told to confess to being involved in three arson incidents, and to say that Tabalaza had played a leading role. Nel threatened him with 10 years' detention if he did not 'confess', and a statement to this effect was made. This formed the basis of the prosecution on 12 July when the youth was taken to court and convicted on the strength of his guilty plea and statement, although no other evidence was led. He was sentenced to an effective term of 18 months. There was some confusion on this when it was claimed that the youth had in fact been convicted of sabotage (which carries a mandatory 5 year sentence); he himself did not know what he had been convicted of, and had pleaded guilty to four counts until questioned by the court on one, which he had denied.
In the inquest court the youth denied that he or Tabalaza had been involved in any arson or robbery incidents, saying they had been marginally implicated in handling some stolen cash from the van. He also said that on 11 July he had signed a second statement prepared by the police saying that he had not seen Tabalaza being assaulted.
It would appear that for this youth, as no doubt for many others, the prospect of confessing to crimes not committed, and the likelihood of imprisonment, are preferable to defying police interrogation with the likelihood of assault and the possibility of death. His brief trial does not appear to have been reported in the press and if, as seems probable, he was convicted of robbery and malicious damage (charges apparently preferred posthumously against Tabalaza) he will not be classified as a political prisoner. Nor will his name be revealed.
