Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-11-19

UNKNOWN: They have within them a range of subjective and objective factors which taken together will determine whether the offence was one of a political objective being achieved and it is the weighing up in the particular situation of what was predominant in their mind, the mine of each individual participant.  The strength of the political belief or the benefit and if we can take Van Zyl as an example, it's almost unarguable on his behalf, we would submit, that on his evidence and particularly on his conduct.  1988 was a year of high noon, so to speak, in the conflict and this person, close to his private business, he receives the gain that there was.  In 1989, he joined in 1988.  1989 it's still high noon, some possibility it died down slightly.  But how does the Committee find that (a) to (f) had been satisfied in order to find in his favour that this was an act committed with a political objective?

CHAIRPERSON: That's very closely linked to your personal gain argument.

UNKNOWN: Yes, the personal gain is a fact.  The consequence of the fact ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes because then he took out the personal gain element and then it might be seen as an act associated with a political objective because there would be no other motive.

UNKNOWN: Yes, it's easier for a person, their could be no other motive.

CHAIRPERSON: Except anarchy or just ...(intervention)

UNKNOWN: He didn't go kill his neighbour, he didn't go and kill - he went and killed a prominent of the UDF or SWAPO or whatever it is.  Why else would he have done it other than being a policeman or a soldier.  Why else would he have done it?  But when you ask that question, the answer on the probabilities and on the facts clearly emerge.  There was another set of factors which having regard to his subsequent conduct and abandonment lends colour to his act and should persuade the Committee that it was not.  It's only got to be stated in general terms, Mr Chairperson.  We do have as lawyers and you as a judge and Members of the Committee have to analyse this.  But the thing can be stated very, very simply.  What sort of a person bargains for a bonus for killing and then seeks to get the benefit of an important piece of legislation to deprive the victims of the rights they have under the Act?  It has only to be stated in that stark way in order - and what we submit, Mr Chairperson, is that we have heard the submissions about generosity but generosity must be at the expense of the express provisions of the Act and without having regard to the innermost feelings of the victims and their families in relation to what they have done.

MR LAX: Mr Bizos, when you use the word bargains, you're not suggesting that Van Zyl negotiated his bonus, you're saying it was part of what he had anticipated receiving?

UNKNOWN: It was part of the deal.  It makes it worse, if anything.

MR LAX: But he didn't actually go out and say listen, I'm not going to do this unless I get my bonus?

UNKNOWN: No, no, no.  No, no, no, things are done much subtly than that.

MR LAX: No, no, absolutely.  I'm just avoiding any misconstruction.

UNKNOWN: No, no, one doesn't have to clothe that in the start quid pro quo but the effect of it is the same.
	Of course there is another aspect, that we know that there was litigation for golden handshakes at the end of it and also relying on the contracts of which they had entered into.  These contracts have not been produced and we will deal with the question of what information has to be put before you when we deal with the question of onus or the test that could be applied.  If once we suggested this, once it's suggested that this was a motive, if they really wanted to persuade the Committee that this was merely a side show - or side show is not the word.  It was not an important part of their terms of their contract, it was just an ordinary sort of thing, to sit him down, not much different to the ordinary officer in the army or the police force but of course we have been deprived of that, Mr Chairperson.
	The scale of it may be inferred that Botha, who did not litigate, for R200 000 as a golden handshake, well he probably considered it bronze, but it may be inferred what his seniors must have got from R200 000, not a mean some.  For what?  For committing murder or agreeing to commit murder.  On what they tell us what they were particularly inefficient but we will submit that they're doing themselves an injustice on the question as to whether they were efficient or not by not telling us about Webster and Lubowski and the other people that they were involved in.
	If you have a look at paragraph 111, Mr Chairperson, in relation to Botha, you will see that he got R200 000 and the reference is B.

CHAIRPERSON: Botha, his blue plan wasn't a success.

UNKNOWN: His blue plan wasn't very successful, yes.
	Now - well on his evidence neither his blue nor his red plan were very successful but he got R200 000 which is really five years salary.  Five years salary, Mr Chairperson.  What was that for?  To keep his silence, to keep his loyalty, not to tell the world what he had done.  What top executive gets five years salary?   I'm informed by my learned friend who does a lot of labour work that he would have been entitled one week per year.  So would have had one and a half weeks pay and they may even have taken the point on him that he only is entitled - not entitled to a part of a week, it has to be a completed week.  So that that should be added on the scale on our submission as to whether these were employees or not, Mr Chairperson, or possibly contract workers.  Have I given you the references for 28.2, Mr Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: No.