Amnesty Hearings — White River — 2000-05-02

MR BERGER: Third paragraph down.  It was passed in an attempt to stem the exodus of white farmers from border areas and increase the number of farmers in these areas to serve as a barrier against the infiltration of guerillas from neighbouring states.  At least R100 000 000-00 was made available over a period of five to six years for the provisions of loans to such farmers and for the construction of strategic roads and airstrips in these areas.  It goes on to say that the Act stipulated that loans be given on condition that farms were managed according to SADF directives and that all white farmers in the area should undergo military training, be members of the Regional and Aerial Commandos and make themselves available to the SADF and Department of National Security to carry out reconnaissance and intelligence tasks whenever called on to do so.  All were linked to the Commando system of part-time SADF forces and the military radio network known as Marnet.  Many farm buildings were constructed in such a way as to constitute a chain of defence strongholds along the borders ready to be used by the SADF whenever necessary.  The Act stipulated that the SADF was empowered to enter any property in the designated area, to demolish or erect military facilities or any other structure without the consent of the owner.  And then it goes on to describe how the South African Agricultural Union, the South African Defence Force, the South African Police, the Department of National Security and Transport all participated in the sub-committee appointed by the Steyn Commission, to look into how the white farmer population could be included in the defence strategy of the apartheid regime.
	Chairperson, I just indicate this section to emphasise the point made by Gen Nyanda and that was that the farmers along the border areas and in particular the border area that the three applicants that I represent were concerned with, were incorporated into the military establishment and I know that the Act with which we are all concerned, doesn't talk about legitimate targets, but that's become the phraseology of many amnesty hearings, and I would submit that quite clearly the farmers, quite apart from the SADF who were in the area, the SAP was in the area, that the farmers themselves were also legitimate targets because they had been incorporated into the military system.
	Chairperson, it's also interesting to note that, you'll see from the bottom of page 135, that it reads that:
"In May 1983 regulations were introduced to tighten up the earlier legislation and in late 1994 the ten kilometre designated zone along the Zimbabwean/Botswana borders was increased to fifty kilometres.  In addition there was extensive deployment of military and police counter-insurgency units along the borders and several operational bases were established."
So firstly there's this Act in 1979 and then the border, or what is designated the border area, gets significantly widened and this is a process which is started in 1979, strengthened in 1983 and Kletshwayo only kicks in as a special operation, a special project, in late 1985, so this is a significant time after the Government has attempted to, on is tempted to say rather cynically place the farmers there along the border as a buffer zone to ANC cadres who are infiltrating the country.
	In our submission, Chairperson, there can be no doubt that the actions of all three of the applicants whom I represent today, were military actions done at the instance and behest of Umkhonto weSizwe, the legitimate army of the African National Congress, so there can be no doubt, Chairperson, in our submission, that all three applicants fall within the provisions of Section 20(ii) of the Act, in particular (ii)(a), (d) and (f).
	It's unfortunate, but perhaps understandable, Chairperson, I mean we as applicants, but for Sgt-Maj Mkhonto, the other two applicants have been unable to say to the Committee exactly what incidents took place under their command and the reasons for that, I submit, are clear, but by the same token, Chairperson, it must be said that the victims who are listed at page 3 of the bundle, are not the only victims of the campaign.  I don't know why, but there was a document that was sent to my instructing attorney, Ms Cambanis, from Mr Pumzo Stofile, the Evidence Analyst, who was working on this matter and there was a whole list of landmine incidents and both Gen Nyanda and Gen Shoke were asked whether they could comment on whether they knew or had knowledge of any of these incidents.  They weren't able to take the matter very far, Chairperson, but it's evident from this list itself, that there were many more attacks and there were many more attacks on military personnel, army vehicles and military offices as well.  It shouldn't, with respect, be thought that the bulk of those people who were injured, were civilians.
	Where civilians were injured, it is really unfortunate and as you've heard from Sgt-Maj Mkhonto, that wasn't the intention at all.  He gave a description to you, he said that on that road where the landmine was planted, he said that was six kilometres away from a big camp of counter-insurgency police, that was in one direction.  It was five kilometres away from an SADF camp in another direction.  There was no farming activity in the area, they kept the road under observation for three days,he was even able to describe to you how military vehicles would use that road, get to the cul-de-sac, then use their radios to the soldiers on the border, they would then come and collect supplies and so on, so it's evident, even from his evidence today, that that area was chosen for a specific reason and it wasn't just chosen at random and it wasn't chosen without regard to civilians, but as Gen Nyanda says, there's no war in which civilians aren't hurt.  That's the unfortunate, that's the terrible part of war.
	My attorney is referring me to a finding, well it's really an acknowledgement of the Commission, but I think Chairperson, it goes without saying, it's at page 334 of volume two, chapter four of the report of the TRC and it simply reads that:
"The Commission acknowledges the ANC's argument that by the mid-1980s the former South African Government had itself blurred the distinction between military and soft targets by declaring border areas as areas where farmers were trained and equipped to operate as an extension of military structures."
That's the evidence you've heard today, but where civilians were killed or injured, I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that that was deliberate.
	It's not evidence, but even the statement that we were looking at at page - I'm looking at the transcribed version at page 100 of Mr Motsa's statement.  At page 100 he says, middle of the page:
"Ek het aan die linkerkant agter op die bakkie gesit en my broer Robert Motha het regs agter op die bakkie gesit.  Ons het met die halfpad tussen Diepgesit en Barberton gery in die reigting van Barberton.  Voordat ons die Josefsdal afdraaipad gery het, het ons regs in 'n tweepad grondpad afdraaipad om Joel se vrou en skoonma af te laai."
which accords exactly with what Sgt-Maj Mkhonto says.  This road, the description of the road that he gave to you, accords exactly with this, that it was this little - he says here, "we didn't even get" -
"Voordat ons die Josephsdal afdraaipad gery het, het ons regs in 'n tweepad grondpad afdraaipad gery",
so it was this small little road that they then turned off.  Unfortunately, because it was a road going nowhere, but they were dropping off people who perhaps were going to walk somewhere, who knows?  But it's a road off the main road, it's away from regular civilian traffic and that, in my submission, goes to to show the care that cadres like Sgt-Maj Mkhonto went to to ensure that civilians were not targeted and he said to you, he said:  "We targeted Security Personnel, we targeted the military, we targeted the police, we didn't target civilians."
	Chairperson, my submission is that all three applicants satisfied all the requirements for amnesty set out in Section 20(i) of the Act.  There can be no suggestion that they haven't made full disclosure of all the relevant facts.  It hasn't been put to them that they haven't made full disclosure of anything.  Their actions were clearly political and I submit that all three of them are entitled to amnesty.