It is not surprising that, upon his passing, one would read varied comments β some of which pay tribute to his undeniable contribution to national security and in kicking off the negotiation process.
Others, however, still scourged him, mainly ad hominem for his pre-history and aspects of his personality and style.
Those so inclined dismiss his alleged contributions as mere flights of egotistical imagination. It is also not surprising that the tributes come from the side of those close to him, especially within the National Intelligence Service.
The flogging, on the other hand, came mostly from those who served in other components of the bureaucracy of that period, being often officials who had crossed swords with him in the many inter-agency battles of those years. An emotionally neutral analysis, written by someone who indeed knew him personally, and who also knows the professional milieu in which he operated from both the practical and academic side , but who in addition served in other capacities such as ambassador, which allowed for a broader perspective.
Someone who was neither an intimate friend of the deceased, nor an ideological or bureaucratic "enemy" of his Stretching from our Kovsie days in Bloemfontein during the early seventies, when he was my junior lecturer in Political Science. Thus, after I had been a student of his, I had joined the Bureau for State Security and stayed on through its changing iterations of the short-lived Department of National Security and subsequently, the NIS β all in order to complete my compulsory national service and Public Service Commission bursary obligations.
