Amnesty Hearings — Boksburg — 1998-06-22

CHAIRPERSON: Which comments would these be?

MR LANDMAN: Mr Commissioner, when I refer to comments, comments some of them, phrased as if they were questions, but clearly in circumstances where the answer was clear, for example to Mr Fourie that he in fact associated himself with the acts which were committed, in regard to Mr De Wet's application, comments such as that the actions which were committed under what was called pseudonym, a word in my submission which was brought up by Mr Malan, that that carried the approval of the AWB, that it was part of the AWB's planning and agenda, this at a time when there is no evidence whatsoever that that was part of the planning and agenda.
	Also the suggestion which was made not from the witness, but by Mr Malan, that these were merely coincidental or incident names which were used in order to possibly cover up a connection with the AWB.   That is not this witness' evidence and we submit that these are all matters which are assisting and are designed to assist and at the very least, certainly have the effect of assisting Mr De Wet.

CHAIRPERSON: Does the matter as to whether it came to the rescue, assuming that your argument is correct, that Mr Malan's comments came to the rescue of certain applicants, is that factual?  Did it come to their assistance?

MR LANDMAN: Well, our submission it certainly shows an attempt to assist the ...

CHAIRPERSON: Does it matter whether it did get that result or not?

MR LANDMAN: Our submission, it doesn't matter whether it does achieve that result or not, but the fact of the matter is that in response to these highly suggestive questions which, we submit, demonstrate Mr Malan's state of mind, that the witnesses were more than eager, to accept and entertain what was said by Mr Malan and to make it part in effect, part of their case.

CHAIRPERSON: And you say from these comments, you submit that we can come to a conclusion that he has taken a particular view in favour of the applicants?

MR LANDMAN: That is our submission, that is my submission, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So really, the allegation as to biasness is based on one aspect, that his comments are such that one can draw a conclusion as to biasness in favour of the applicants?

MR LANDMAN: Mr Chairman, our submission is that to prove bias in many cases, is difficult in the sense that it is a question of a state of mind of a particular person.
	The only way in which, one of the only ways in which one is able to determine the state of mind of a person, is to analyse what that person has said or done.

CHAIRPERSON: Doesn't the test go further and to examine why such questions were posed?

MR LANDMAN: Mr Chairman, we submit that it is relevant to look at the context within which those questions were posed.  The questions were posed in the context of another member of the Committee, asking questions as to whether or not these were affiliated groups or not so you now have a situation of well, maybe the Boere Krisis Aksie as an organisation is somehow affiliated to the AWB, that is what came out from Adv Bosman's questioning.
	Mr Malan, however, went much further than that.  What he then suggested to the witness and indeed, this was - it was put in a sense and certainly it came across from this side, that this is how he in fact sees the situation.  This is how it should be seen, namely that these are merely pseudonyms, these are names which are used behind which the AWB members hide, whereas in fact it is AWB members and AWB policy and planning which has been put into effect behind these pseudonyms.  That of course is one ...

CHAIRPERSON: That is one view.  Isn't it possible to have another view and that is that that is what the witness thinks, whether it is true or not, that was how the witness saw it at that time.

MR LANDMAN: Mr Chairman, our submission is that that is not how the witness saw it.  Indeed his evidence before the intervention from the Committee, and I talk in this case of both Mr Malan and Adv Bosman, at that stage it was clear that these were separate groups, these were the Boere Ordevolk and other organisations that were separate.
	It was on suggestions by, it came out of the evidence or rather the examination by Adv Bosman, that they were what was in the words of the Committee member, affiliated groups.  An affiliated group is a group, it is something which operates separately, but is somehow connected to another group.
	What Mr Malan then did was to attempt to destroy that distinction altogether in order once again to bring the actions of those groups, into and under the umbrella of the AWB by now watering down the concept of affiliated groups, now to simply to be pseudonyms.
	Our submission is that that is an indication of Mr Malan's efforts in our submission, to demonstrate via this witness' answers, but to demonstrate and to plant a seed in everyone's mind, that well, whatever is said about splinter groups, this is nevertheless in fact AWB acting in whatever way.

CHAIRPERSON: The ordinary interpretation of splinter groups, what would you say that is?

MR LANDMAN: Well, a splinter group is a group which has a separate identity, which has moved away from a organisation to which it originally belonged.  For example the PAC would have become a splinter group of the ANC and there is no suggestion in anyone's mind that the PAC is now part of the ANC, in fact there is a lot of people who would ...

CHAIRPERSON: Quite the contrary.

MR LANDMAN: Would be most angry if one said that, and in our submission in the same way, a splinter group and in particular, I have already referred to the Boere Ordevolk, which we suggest is now clear from the evidence, is not simply just an alias.

CHAIRPERSON: I accept that.

MR LANDMAN: But what Mr Malan has attempted to plant is that well, these organisations doesn't count, they don't count.

CHAIRPERSON: I raise that issue and as my memory serves me, the witness indicated that he, before coining the phrase splinter group, that he was not sure as to how to describe this group, or these groups, "just call it splinter group", - with your argument?

MR LANDMAN: Because at no stage did he attempt to suggest that these were merely alias which ...

CHAIRPERSON: No, I accept that but he was trying to find the proper phraseology if you want to call it and came up with the phrase splinter group.  I am not saying that you are incorrect in your submissions, I am just asking you to assist me in putting your argument in that kind of context.

MR LANDMAN: Mr Chairman, inasmuch as there may have been some confusion about what he was referring to ...

CHAIRPERSON: The fact of the matter is that he did preface his answer at that stage, he said I don't know what to call it.

MR LANDMAN: He then went on to refer to a organisation which we now know has come before one of the Committees before and that is the Boere Ordevolk.  Once he has done that, in our submission is clear that we now are talking about an organisation, it has a name now and especially in the light of the fact that one of the enquiries which this Committee will have to consider carefully is whether or not this is an AWB action or whether the Bree Street bombing was Boere Krisis Aksie or whether it was Barnard incorporated, we don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Landman, my problem is not that the witness may or not have fortuitously taken advantage of the opportunity to flower his evidence, that is another matter, my concern at the moment is that the opportunity created by the questions from Mr Malan was taken advantage of perhaps, but in creating the opportunity, was Mr Malan being biased?

MR LANDMAN: In our submission ...

CHAIRPERSON: And was he biased and can we properly say that he was biased if we take into consideration the preface which I referred to before the witness coined the phrase splinter group?