Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 2000-01-17

MR LAX: In the dark and that's what convinced him that somebody else was shooting, he didn't expect it to be Wasserman, so he made the assumption it was the people in the cars.

MR VISSER: Yes.  Thank you Commissioner Lax.  I'm not quite sure whether he said that they were shooting at him, I'm not sure about it, those were my words, Chairperson, but the fact is that it was a comedy of errors, after that first shot had been fired and as Commissioner Bosman pointed out to him and quite clearly on the evidence, this is what you must accept, is that Botha's shooting at the wheel started the whole commotion.  There's no question about that.
	Chairperson I've just referred here to page 484 where we read:
"

CHAIRPERSON: Just tell me something, how is it that you were convinced that shots were fired at you, when no firearms were in that other vehicle?
		MR BOTHA:  Chairperson, vehicles moved around the right-hand side and I was on the left-hand side of that vehicle.  I fired shots at the rear left-hand tyre and I saw some flashes ..." -
Commissioner Lax is quite correct -
"... which raised the suspicion in me that they were firing from the vehicle at us, flashes in the dark and also sounds of shots being fired"
and Chairperson said:
"You say you were convinced?"
and Botha said:
"At that stage, Chairperson."
and thereafter the kombi moved in front of the vehicle and stopped, so that is the picture which Botha painted.
	Chairperson as we have often submitted, in normal circumstances it is inexcusable to take the life of even a single human being.  The TRC Act however accepts that there was a conflict in this country in which very many people were injured and killed and damage done.  There was great violence going on in this country, extensive violence and the whole point of the amnesty process is succinctly summarised in the requirements for amnesty being that it must be an offence or a delict, committed within the confines of the conflict of the past, which must be associated with a political objective and Chairperson, we have sympathy for the witnesses and the other family members of the victims, the witnesses who gave evidence this morning and it's natural and we accept logical that they feel aggrieved and that they feel that they want perhaps revenge, or whatever the case may be, but the ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: The feeling ...(indistinct - mike not on), they feel aggrieved when viewed in the light of the possibility that the information that the police had that these were terrorists, might have been wrong.

MR VISSER: Yes, that's part of it.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm not talking about Mamela, I'm talking about his companions, one of whom or two of whom were chaps engaged in full-time activities, they're employed and so on and so on, never been away from home and so on, now there's just a possibility that that family must feel genuinely aggrieved, isn't it?

MR VISSER: Yes and we accept ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: As a result of misinformation on which this whole thing took place.

MR VISSER: Yes and we certainly have great understanding for that Chairperson, but the process that we're involved in, the process of amnesty, Chairperson, with a view and with the purpose of reconciliation and national unity, is that that's the kind of thing that amnesty can be applied for and unfortunate as it is to the victims on all sides, Chairperson, those are not issues which can stand or will stand in the way of amnesty being granted and we therefore, Chairperson, respectfully request you to favourably consider granting amnesty.
	My attorney draws my attention to the issue of full disclosure.  I believe I've discussed that with you, Mr Chairman and the argument there, the crisp argument there is, unless there are facts or circumstances which bring to your mind such a serious doubt as to raise an inherent improbability, that you will find that a full disclosure has been made.  
	Thank you Mr Chairman for listening to me for so long and patiently.  Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Webster.

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman and Members of the Committee, it will be my submission that a full disclosure has not been made by the applicants in this matter and it is my second submission that the onus rests on the applicant to satisfy you and Members of the Committee that they have made that full disclosure and in the absence of that, I would therefore argue that amnesty not be granted.
	Mr Chairman, it is unfortunate that only the applicants bear knowledge of the facts of this incident.  It is unfortunate, Mr Chairman, that after the massacre of these four young people, a very senior officer decided to take it upon himself to ensure that even members of the police force and senior members of the police force, did not come anywhere close to the scene so that they could observe and be in a position to assist us today.  There was a cordon thrown around and the most senior person, I think, who could have been there on the day of this incident, was the one who gave commands that people move away.  
	We know, Mr Chairman, that a docket was opened, in all probability.  We know that there was an Inquest, Mr Chairman.  We know, Mr Chairman, that those documents are missing, they cannot be found.  We know, Mr Chairman, that those documents were in the possession of members of the police force and I do not know whether in fact members of the Security Forces did not have access to them.  It's just a question which I've asked myself and I will not pursue further.

CHAIRPERSON: It's a tragedy, isn't it, that according to the evidence we heard this morning, that there was in fact an eye witness to the scene who saw the shooting, who unfortunately cannot be traced or wasn't made available as a witness.

MR WEBSTER: That is quite so, Mr Chairman, and probably even more tragic that a person who is in Durban in Umlazi area, the owner of the vehicle, does not want to be involved with this, I forgot to tell the Commission this morning.  He's not prepared to come here.  He says innocent people were murdered, people are still being murdered today.  He values his life, he doesn't want to come here.   I can't ask the man, I cannot convince the man of his safety.
	Mr Chairman, when I say Mr Chairman, I'm including the Members of the Committee, I'm not ignoring them.  My learned friend has made a concession regarding the communication by radio.  It's rather unpleasant for me because it did occupy me for the greater part of the lunch hour to locate this evidence, but before I even located that evidence, I was just amused by the fact that Exhibit J was not read in its entirety, I think.  Sometimes - you know I didn't speak English as my first language when I grew up, Mr Chairman, and likewise Afrikaans was my second language, but if I look at Exhibit J, that is the affidavit by Breytenbach.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR WEBSTER: Breytenbach says, well he was a lieutenant in the Reaction Unit of the Police Force in Durban, in paragraph 2 of his affidavit, he was not in whatever one calls it, but he was a policeman and we are saying that police had radios and were in contact.  As I say the concession was made very belatedly, but to the point that senior counsel, my learned friend, senior counsel could have been mistaken about that fact, I think is an indication of the difficulty that he had in presenting argument here.

MR VISSER: What was the misunderstanding?  I'm not sure I follow.

MR WEBSTER: Mr Chairman, if my learned friend would allow me to argue my case.  I didn't interrupt him.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  Do carry on.