Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-10-15

MR COETZEE: My respectful submission is that the second and third applicants' version as a whole, has to be accepted as a probable and truthful and naturally where there is a direct contradiction of the version of the first applicant's evidence,  then the first applicant's evidence on that submission, should not be accepted.
	If I say directly contradict, then I emphasise matters such as appointments which the second and third applicants deny, but when it comes to situations, the fact that different impressions could have existed with the first applicant and Mr Van Zyl and Holder's impressions, then it is clear that I do not want Mr De Meillon's impressions necessarily to be rejected in those respects.
	Another element which I wish to emphasise is that Mr Van Zyl kept the relevant pistol.  My instructions are that this was for three days after he had obtained it and that he then had received  instructions from Mr Flippie Maree, a Lieutenant in the AWB, to act in terms of this weapon, as has been testified.
	If one looks at it then, one can say this is a total flop or failure, but I would respectfully like to point out that Mr Van Zyl as an ordinary member without any rank, from his perspective, was confronted with the fact, he had a weapon, he kept it.  The fact that Mr Maree or whichever other person or persons,  and whatever might have motivated them, I don't know, had made the decision that this firearm now had to be disassembled and thrown away, Mr Van Zyl didn't make any contribution to this and he didn't play a role in this decision.
	In totality when one looks at the evidence, it is also apparent that this was an action where one could easily say let's go and obtain firearms, but nobody thought any further and said how many crimes may we commit in the course of doing so?  Once having been committed, what are we going to do when we have obtained these firearms?
	The testimony thus far has been a matter that has been an - it has been accepted that the police wouldn't have chased them if they had succeeded, but that is not the ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it is like the dog and the bus?

MR COETZEE: Yes, it is clear that eventuality planning had not been made and the thinking was not once we've got these firearms, who is going to be chasing us and would it be Murder and Robbery, and how many informants existed among the right-wing, who would betray us, where would the onslaught be coming from, that was not the thinking.  It was purely a matter of it is an emergency and we have to obtain firearms, and that was the psychosis that drove them.
	Chairperson, I would just like to touch on something else, to say on the one hand that the applicants have not presented membership cards to the Committee and we resent them for that, and on the other hand, to expect of them to swear off violence and right-wing politics, the applicants say we are members, but we have sworn off our involvement.
	Whichever insignias and so on which we had, we have gotten rid of.  To criticise them, this does not necessarily indicate a degree of credibility with the witnesses.

CHAIRPERSON: With regard to the evidence which the first applicant presented, that he was a member of the BWB, it does mean that they were, that the other two applicants were members of the BWB?
	Thank you Mr Coetzee.  Mr Van Schalkwyk.