Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-08-18

MR WEBSTER: Now General, who insofar as the death of these people are concerned, who acted unlawfully according to your knowledge?

GEN STEYN: I personally acted unlawfully and my colleagues who are applying for amnesty also acted wrongly.

MR WEBSTER: I'm dealing, I'm excluding the planting of firearms, General, I'm talking about the shooting.  Who acted unlawfully?

GEN STEYN: All those who fired shots.

MR WEBSTER: Why?

GEN STEYN: Chairperson, upon reconsideration at the scene and during that incident I associated myself with the shooting incident.  This was a very intense shooting incident.

CHAIRPERSON: It was a one sided, it was a "skietery" only in the sense it was a one sided affair, it wasn't a conflict between two sides?

GEN STEYN: That is correct and in my view as I experienced it at the scene I could almost use the word excessive shooting took place and that you have to see in context of the minimum violence which normally be used and I believed that we who fired shots and later then also covered our tracks, everything that went with it, that we had exceeded our limits and our boundaries and I discussed the circumstances of this shooting incident with my legal representative, the shooting and everything that went with it and I was advised that the circumstances could be such that that which we had done could mean that we are guilty of an offence, murder, culpable homicide and I was advised to also apply for that, apply for amnesty.

MR WEBSTER: Yes, before you were so legally advised by trained lawyers I take it that you must have believed that your actions were justified in law, is that not so?

GEN STEYN: No, I can't say that I agree with that.  I restate that I feel that in the circumstances which reigned at the time our actions, our conduct was excessive.  That's my view, that was my view at that time.  I'm just looking for the right word.  We probably used more violence than necessary and that could give rise to a charge of murder or another serious offence so I felt that we had perhaps overstepped the mark.

MR WEBSTER: You might have exceeded the bounds, is that what you are saying?

GEN STEYN: Yes.

MR WEBSTER: Not that you believe you exceeded the bounds?

GEN STEYN: That's what I believed that there was such a possibility.

MR WEBSTER: General, did you at any stage during as the Chairperson has said, this one sided heavy firing shout "stop firing"?

GEN STEYN: I never gave such an order.

MR WEBSTER: You could see that there was no firing coming from the vehicle into which the firing was taking place, is that correct?

GEN STEYN: No, I can't say whether at that moment I knew whether or not shots were being fired from that vehicle, there were a lot of shots being fired, that's the point and I can't say at that precise moment that I knew whether or not shots were being fired from that car.

MR WEBSTER: But there was nothing whatsoever?

GEN STEYN: Yes.

MR WEBSTER: There was nothing whatsoever which could have made you believe that there was any firing coming from that vehicle is that not so?

GEN STEYN: No, maybe I should put it like this, after the first shot had been fired by Botha, several more shots were fired and then a lot of shooting took place and I can't say what I thought at that moment or I thought we were being shot at from that vehicle, perhaps I could have said so later but not at that precise moment.

MR WEBSTER: There was no broken window in any vehicle on the left hand side, your vehicle or any of the vehicles in front of you, is that correct as far you know?

GEN STEYN: No, no there weren't.

MR WEBSTER: You did not see any flashes in that vehicle?

GEN STEYN: No, not that I can recall.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Webster, isn't this perhaps something that you should argue?  I mean we have all this evidence before us so I don't want to curtail you, it's for the Chairperson to do it but it just occurs to me that maybe you can deal with all this in argument?

MR WEBSTER: Sometimes we get carried away when we're doing the questioning and a person looking in has a more balanced view but if that is a feeling of ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Apology accepted, Mr Webster.

MR WEBSTER: Thank you.
	General, you must be aware of other amnesty hearings where evidence was led that the Special Branch at some stage came to the decision where they did not bother about apprehending suspects but wiped them out.  You must have heard of such instances had you not?

GEN STEYN: Yes I think there have been trials or hearings but I don't know the facts.

MR WEBSTER: Neither can I but I think we're both aware of a stage and the conduct of the Special Branch where they acted above and beyond the confines of law, is that correct?

GEN STEYN: Yes.

MR WEBSTER: And the reason for so acting was basically because they had to find a system of covering their tracks to a point that they knew or thought they knew that their evil will never ever be discovered because after all they were the ultimate seat of power, is that not so?

GEN STEYN: Yes we did a lot of things which we afterwards then covered up so that the truth should not emerge.

MR WEBSTER: And we cannot say that rational human beings, God fearing human beings would get to a stage in their lives where the protection of a political party would justify conduct such as this?  Do you agree?

GEN STEYN: No.

MR WEBSTER: And it is on that basis that I put the question to Mr Botha and I repeat it to you, that you're not telling us the truth about any intention of ever wanting to apprehend these people and that this murderous attack without any retaliation from the occupants of the car is indicative of the absence of any intention at any stage whatsoever on your part, that you ever wanted to apprehend those occupants?

GEN STEYN: No, that's not true.

MR WEBSTER: General, I want to put it to you that it was known in the highest echelons of the National Government that you were engaged on this conduct which was a crime against society and it was approved even at the highest echelons, do you agree?

CHAIRPERSON: What do you want him to agree?

GEN STEYN: No.

MR WEBSTER: That the violent manner and the unlawful legal conduct in which they engaged in, Chairperson, was known and accepted at the highest echelons of government and I'm going to suggest that because of that and condonation by those in authority and the fact that people like you who butchered these terrorists were in fact rewarded and that there was a reward and that promotion was that award.

CHAIRPERSON: I want to stop you, you know.  You're calling these people terrorists, are you conceding that they were all terrorists?

MR WEBSTER: The terrorists were the Special Branch, with respect Mr Chairman, also.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, I thought you are questioning, you are putting it to him about killing terrorists?

MR WEBSTER: Well, in the context of in inverted commas because in their minds if you - well let me not, I was never in their minds, but that their whole approach was you kill quote, unquote, "terrorists", your conduct or good work will be recognised ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: And rewarded?

MR WEBSTER: You will be rewarded when you get a promotion.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think there's any quarrel with that.

MR WEBSTER: Is that not so?

GEN STEYN: I received no reward for the acts which I committed and I never spoke to anybody in a higher position than myself and said "look I've done this, that and the other", that only came to light when the amnesty procedure commenced.

MR WEBSTER: You must have been that Rip van Winkle, General, you must have been sleeping when Vlok was congratulating people who had butchered so-called terrorists?