Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1998-04-15

MR MTEMBU: With due respect, it did not emanate from the applicants' own evidence that whites were perceived in the PAC, to be oppressors generally, even though in this specific instance, they were acting according to certain and specific instructions, but the general policy was that whites were seen to be oppressors and thus (indistinct)

MR LAX: Can this witness take it any further, that is the issue?

MR MTEMBU: I will leave it at that.  Mrs Jerling, I am sure you are aware that historically, that there have been black mothers like yourself, who have lost their sons and daughters, who were shot at by white people including Security Forces.  Are you aware or not, in general?

ANNA HELENA JERLING: They were not murdered by me or my son.  What the Security Forces did, I cannot answer for.

MR MTEMBU: Now, that being the case, if those parents were to adopt your stance, though sympathising with the grief that you suffer, do you think that would take reconciliation in this country any further or not?

ANNA HELENA JERLING: I am not certain whether reconciliation would be improved in any way by that, but I cannot understand of what benefit my son's death, was to these people.

MR MTEMBU: I was not talking about the benefit, I was talking with regard to reconciliation, just only that aspect.

ANNA HELENA JERLING: I don't know.

MR MTEMBU: Is it not Christian values that no matter how big the harm may be, but one is expected to forgive a wrongdoer, more especially when the wrongdoer asks for forgiveness?

ANNA HELENA JERLING: Firstly these offenders did not ask for forgiveness, and secondly I am answering you as a mother and not as a Christian.
	My son was killed, I would like to see how you would easily forgive someone if they had killed your child.

MR MTEMBU: Now you said that you do not believe that the applicants were speaking the truth.  Are you saying their testimony as a whole is not the truth, or which aspect of their testimony are you saying, is not the truth?

CHAIRPERSON: Is it the witness' function to adjudicate on the credibility of your clients or is that the function of the Committee?

MR MTEMBU: It is the function of the Committee, Mr Chairman.  I had perhaps hoped that perhaps the witness would say certain things perhaps, or that the applicants did convince her that they have not been telling the truth.

MR LAX: She did actually say in her earlier evidence that there were a number of contradictions that she felt was inherent in their evidence and on that basis, she did not feel they were saying, telling the truth.  That was her earlier evidence.

MR MTEMBU: I will not take the matter further Mr Chairman.  I have no further questions.

MR MTEMBU: .

ADV GCABASHE: Mrs Jerling, on the same point, would you like to tell the Committee what you are unhappy about in the evidence of the applicants, if not, it is not a problem, but maybe you do want to say something about it?

ANNA HELENA JERLING: I cannot think of any specific aspects right away.

ADV GCABASHE: That is quite fine.  The only other comment I would want to make is you do accept that this wasn't anything personal against your son, that it was just something that was done in terms of there is a mission to be completed, not against your particular son?

ANNA HELENA JERLING: Yes, I realise that it wasn't aimed only at my son, that they didn't go there to kill one specific person.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you Mr Jerling.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for having come before us, and telling us what your feelings are.

<UNKNOWN>: .

MR PRIOR: I call Mr Nel, this is my final witness regarding this aspect Chairperson.

JAN JOHANNES NEL: (sworn states)

MR PRIOR: Thank you Chairperson.  Mr Nel, is it correct that on the 20th of March 1993, it was during the evening, approximately eight o'clock, you arrived at the Yellowwoods Hotel, you were with friends and you sat in the bar and had some drinks, is that correct?

JAN JOHANNES NEL: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRIOR: How old were you at that point?

JAN JOHANNES NEL: I was 19.

MR PRIOR: And were you friends with Mr Jerling?

JAN JOHANNES NEL: Yes.

MR PRIOR: Will you briefly explain to the Committee, or rather before I ask that question, is it correct that you made a statement to the Police after the incidents at the Hotel, that evening?

JAN JOHANNES NEL: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRIOR: And that statement appears on page 40 to 42 of the bundle.

JAN JOHANNES NEL: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRIOR: That is Exhibit A.  And you have studied the statement yesterday?

JAN JOHANNES NEL: Yes.

MR PRIOR: And do you confirm the contents of the statement?

JAN JOHANNES NEL: Yes.

MR PRIOR: And you concede that the facts are as they happened on that evening?

JAN JOHANNES NEL: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRIOR: Just briefly, I do not want you to relate the entire story, but could you just briefly explain to the Committee what occurred during the shooting incident?

JAN JOHANNES NEL: During the shooting incident, or at least just before it happened, we were still laughing and chatting like old friends.

MR PRIOR: How many of you were in the bar, can you remember?

JAN JOHANNES NEL: Two were playing darts and Johan and I were sitting together, chatting and at that point Mr Swartz left the room, and shortly after that we heard a gunshot and with that I saw one of the black men entering the building.
	And as I thought about it after the time, with one of the gunshots I felt a light bump against my arm and I later realised that that was when Johan had been shot dead.  After that I ran down the passage and we hid in a room, we were in fear of our lives.

MR PRIOR: Therefore you say that you heard a gunshot, were there any more gunshots?

JAN JOHANNES NEL: Yes, there were.

MR PRIOR: And at that point you left the bar and you had gone to hide in another room?

JAN JOHANNES NEL: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRIOR: Were the lights on, what was the condition of the lighting?

JAN JOHANNES NEL: It was pitch dark.

MR PRIOR: When did the lights go out, can you remember?

JAN JOHANNES NEL: It was after or the second gunshot, when the lights went out.

MR PRIOR: Do you recall the gunshots as single shots or as a volley of shots?

JAN JOHANNES NEL: The first two or three were single shots, and after that a volley of shots.

MR PRIOR: When you left the bar, were the lights on or off?

JAN JOHANNES NEL: They were off.

MR PRIOR: I want to refer you to page 28 and 29 of the bundle, which show Mr Jerling after the shooting incident.  He is seated on a stool and he is slumped over the bar.  Can you comment regarding that position, was he in that position before the shooting incident?

JAN JOHANNES NEL: No, he sat upright as he usually sat with both his arms on the table, as he usually sat.

MR PRIOR: How did this incident affect you?

JAN JOHANNES NEL: Firstly they took away my only bosom friend, I have never again managed to make another real friend like that.  I have never entered into a personal relationship with a friend again.
	I suffered terrible nightmares after the incident, I still fear the dark today.  It changed me greatly, I have a very bad temper, I become angry very quickly, I don't trust anybody, and even today in my marriage, it happens from time to time that I think back to what happened on the 20th of March 1993, and I become excessively morbid and quiet and even today still I feel greatly embittered towards those who took Johan away from me.

MR PRIOR: Did you receive any treatment or therapy or counselling regarding the change which you experienced in your personality?

JAN JOHANNES NEL: I did speak to ministers, but not with any professional people.

MR PRIOR: Were you armed that evening?

JAN JOHANNES NEL: No, not at all.

MR PRIOR: Anything, from the other people, Mr Herbst, Mr Augustyn, Mr Swartz, in as far as you know?

JAN JOHANNES NEL: Mr Herbst had a dart in his hand.

MR PRIOR: Was there music playing in the bar?