Amnesty Hearings — Tzaneen — 1999-06-30

MR VAN RENSBERG: Just two final aspects. You have heard the evidence of the first applicant, that when you came out ofthe house on that morning, that you had a firearm in your hand?

MR SWANEPOEL: No, that is totally untrue. It was only my wife who had a pistol and there is no other pistol in our house,or there wasn't.  They said that she had the pistol in the house, so there isno way that I could have had the pistol with me as I left the house.

MR VAN RENSBERG: You were present during thecriminal trial of the applicants after you had testified, is that correct?

MR SWANEPOEL: Yes.

MR VAN RENSBERG: My question is this, todaywe heard that the attack was planned and executed against you purely as a resultof a political motive.  Did this political motivation, was this raised at allduring the criminal trial before conviction?

MR SWANEPOEL: No, not once.  It was only mentionedafter they had been convicted and before sentence, then they said that it waspolitically inspired.

MR VAN RENSBERG: What is the inference thatyou draw from that?

MR SWANEPOEL: I say it wasn't politicallyinspired, it was murder and robbery.

MR VAN RENSBERG: Thank you Chair, no furtherquestions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN RENSBERG

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have any cross-examinationMr Mbandazayo?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Chairperson,I don't think I have much except I would like to say to Mr Swanepoel, acceptmy condolences for the loss of your wife and the pain which you went throughduring this incident.   Mr Chairperson, I would not like to take him throughall this, I can see that he is still in grief whenever (indistinct), but I wouldlike to ask one question, it relates to the trial.  Do you agree with me thatat the trial they denied that they were ever involved in the incident, the applicants,they denied that they were ever involved before conviction?  It was their defencethat they were never involved in that incident?

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Swanepoel, Mr Mbandazayo isputting it to you that during the defence case they denied that they were everinvolved in this case and he asks whether you agree with that?

MR SWANEPOEL: With the attack that was launched?

ADV BOSMAN: Let me explain to you, in a criminalcase there are two sections, two parts.  Firstly you have the evidence whichis led, the State leads evidence and the Defence also leads evidence and afterconviction then there is evidence in mitigation of sentence and Mr Mbandazayois putting it to you that during this first phase, in other words before conviction,the applicants denied any involvement in this incident.  Do you agree that thisis what happened?

MR SWANEPOEL: In the first part, well thatdealt with their detention and how they had been assaulted, that is what thefirst part dealt with.

ADV BOSMAN: So you agree that it was onlyduring mitigation of sentence that they conceded that they had been involved?

MR SWANEPOEL: Yes.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you.  Thank you Adv Bosman. What you gathered is that what they wanted was to escape any conviction forthat incident during the trial?

MR SWANEPOEL: Yes, I presume so.

MR MBANDAZAYO: You also mentioned that youfear that they might come back and finish what they started and you also mentionedthat Jameson Baloyi made a threat.  Am I correct to say that since 1993, itwas two weeks after the incident, no attack was ever carried against you againdespite Mr Baloyi being out, free?

MR SWANEPOEL: Yes, there was no attempt, butwhat I was saying once they get amnesty and they are out, won't they carry onwith the act that they were busy with?

MR MBANDAZAYO: You have heard what they saidbefore the Committee, that what they did was politically motivated and thatnow they are part and parcel of the new dispensation and that the organisationto which they belong, which is part of the government and also APLA has integrated,is not that enough to allay your fears?

MR SWANEPOEL: No, not for me.

MR MBANDAZAYO: I have no further questionsChairperson, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MBANDAZAYO

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Mtanga?

MS MTANGA: No questions Chairperson.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS MTANGA

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination Mr Van Rensberg?

MR VAN RENSBERG: No questions, thank you MrChairman.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN RENSBERG

CHAIRPERSON: No questions from Judge Khampepe? Any questions?  Thank you Mr Swanepoel.
WITNESS EXCUSED

MR VAN RENSBERG: No further evidence willbe led, thank you Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Can we now take the lunch adjournmentand we will have submissions after the lunch adjournment at two o'clock?  Wewill now take the lunch adjournment and recommence at two o'clock or earlierif possible, quarter to two if possible, let's try to aim for quarter to two,thank you.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mbandazayo, have you got anysubmissions to make?

UNKNOWN: Yes Chairperson. Chairperson, I wouldn't like to bore you with the requirements of the Act, goingthrough the requirements of the Act, suffice to say that it is my submissionon behalf of the applicants that they have met the requirements of Section 20(1)and (2), that they were quite clearly acting on behalf of APLA, a publicly knownpolitical organisation and a liberation movement which was engaged in a politicalstruggle against the State at that time.
        I also submitthat the applicants did not act for personal gain or out of personal malice,ill-will or spite against the deceased and the victims.  It is quite clear thatthey had no personal knowledge except to know that the farm belonged to him,and that they had merely gone there on behalf of the organisation.  Chairperson,I would deal with the evidence briefly of the first applicant.  The first applicantput it clearly that the Commander and the second applicant, Donald, made reconnaissanceand they came with the information that the place is frequented by right right-wingersbecause they went there to do reconnaissance for their attack.  More above thefact that they were also the farmers in terms of the APLA and PAC policies,they were the targets, but they had this additional information that also itis frequented by right right-wingers.   It is clear that, it is not becausethey went to attack there because it was frequented by right right-wingers,they went to attack because it was within their policy to attack farmers.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but I think also from whatI gathered although it wasn't specifically said was that that sort of informationwas obtained from interviewing workers, etc, so that information might merelybe the opinion of a worker and as such, it could be quite incorrect.  It mighthave been frequented by people, but whether they were right right-wingers ornot, was the opinion of the person supplying the information to the Recce team,but I take your point, you are saying that even if they didn't have that information,they would have attacked.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes Chairperson, in any event,that was additional information which they had, which might not be correct Chairperson,but the fact is that they did not go to attack because it was frequented byright right-wingers, but it was information they gathered when they went todo, to make reconnaissance for their attack.  Of course definitely they wouldnot just go there and attack, they have to look at everything, whether it ispossible for them to be able to come back safe and all those things.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, because I think on the evidencebefore us, we are certainly not in a position to find that it was frequentedby right right-wingers, particularly in the light of Mr Swanepoel's evidencewho says he wasn't politically affiliated.