Is evil monochromatic, or does it come in shades of grey? Is it more or less evil to kill for profit or because you are psychologically dysfunctional than it is to kill for a cause that you believe in? Are any causes worth killing for?

The man dubbed 'Prime Evil' by the very men who worked beneath him throws these questions into sharp relief. Was Eugene de Kock simply a product of the society in which he lived ? a cog in the inexcusable machine that was the apartheid system? Or is he, despite the society in which he lived, as culpable for his actions as the next man?

That De Kock murdered at least six people is incontrovertible. That he took pride in doing so is also common knowledge. But so too is the fact that his superiors rewarded him ? going so far as to bestow medals on him ? for doing so.

A cog in a twisted system?

De Kock grew up in a conservative, nationalist Afrikaner home. Under the influence of a Broederbond father, De Kock was indoctrinated from a young age into believing that communism was an evil that should be crushed at all costs.

At the age of 17 he joined the army and was later sent to the army's counterinsurgency unit, Koevoet, in Namibia. He was transferred from Koevoet to Vlakplaas in the early 1980s. Some reports suggest that he was transferred because he was suffering from stress-related depression, while others suggest that it was because of his aggressive behaviour towards his colleagues.

De Kock was commander at Vlakplaas from 1985 to 1993 and it was here that he earned the moniker Prime Evil. A place of nightmares and horror stories, Vlakplaas ? a farm 20km outside Pretoria ? was the headquarters of South African Police's counterinsurgency unit C1 (originally known as C10). Functioning as a parliamentary hit squad, the unit would capture political opponents of the government (and occasionally those only tenuously linked to opponents), torture them and then either turn them (making them askaris) or execute them.

The torture was gruesome and the callous treatment of the victims and their bodies horrified the nation when the details became public in De Kock's trial. More often than not, the victims' bodies would be blown to pieces in mines or burnt for hours until no trace of the victim remained. During his Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) hearing, De Kock described how the members of C1 embraced the gruesome interrogation techniques.

"The mentality at that time was not to be forced to participate... people actually queued... not for promotion, but to ensure that terrorism never occurred in South Africa."

De Kock was arrested in 1994 and at the end of his trial he was found guilty of 89 charges ? including six murder charges, two counts of conspiracy to murder and one of culpable homicide ? and sentenced to 212 years in prison. His grisly resume includes: blowing up the ANC headquarters in London; planting arms to prompt deadly raids; killing police informants; murdering ANC activists in SA and Swaziland; and sending a tape recorder rigged with a bomb to ANC lawyer Bheki Mlangeni.

Seeking forgiveness

Following his trial, De Kock took part in the TRC revealing some, but not all, of the details of his many crimes. In doing so, he implicated members of the apartheid government who he claims gave the orders for some of the executions.

The TRC amnesty committee, while it did grant him amnesty on a number of cases ? including the murders of Pantou Smith, Sipho Dlamini, Busi Majola, Zwelinzima Nyanda, Keith McFaddon, Goodwill Sikhakhane, and Johannes Mabotha ? refused to grant De Kock full amnesty on the grounds that some of his crimes were found to have been "grossly disproportionate" and committed without political motive.

De Kock, who was 47 when he was sentenced in 1996, has now spent 13 years of his 212 years in prison. During this time, he has made efforts to prove that he is remorseful for his actions. These efforts include meeting with and pleading for forgiveness from the widows of some of the men he killed.

Interestingly, psychology professor Pumla Gobodo-Madikizela, who spent time interviewing De Kock and subsequently wrote the book 'A Human Being Died That Night: A South African Story of Forgiveness', believes that De Kock should be pardoned. Not only because he has shown remorse for his actions, but also because he was part of a larger, deeply flawed society.

The important question, however, is whether these are motivation enough. Remorse, while no doubt good for the perpetrator's soul, is by no means reason for release. De Kock has not only been imprisoned to remove him from society, he has also been imprisoned, primarily, as punishment. The very fact that De Kock is remorseful in no way diminishes the debt which he owes society.

The fact that De Kock operated in an immoral system is indisputable. However, he was not without agency. Whether he regarded himself as a soldier in a war on terror or not, De Kock still chose to commit the crimes that he did. The fact that he did not necessarily see them as crimes doesn't make them any less so. The fact that others may have ordered the crimes does not reduce De Kock's culpability; it simply means that others are also culpable and should be tried accordingly.

Is Eugene de Kock evil? Perhaps not. Did he commit evil deeds? Without a doubt.

While a pardon for Eugene de Kock would sit well with Jacob Zuma's rhetoric of reconciliation, it wouldn't do much to change the commonly-held conception that Zuma has little respect for the justice system and the rule of law. For his own good, and that of South African society, Zuma should not pardon De Kock. And the reasons for this have nothing to do with Schabir Shaik.