Amnesty Hearings — Tzaneen — 1999-06-30

UNKNOWN: Thank you MrChairman.   Mr Chairman, from the time that the applicants completed their applicationsfor amnesty, they have consistently stuck to the story that the attack on thefarm was politically motivated.  That version was repeated here today and Ihave to admit, in spite of cross-examination, they have stuck to their story. That however, is not the end of the story.  There are a number of factors whichactually point to this attack being or the motivation for the attack, beingpersonal gain in the form of robbery.  To mention a few, these persons all theapplicants, were convicted of attempted robbery and they were convicted on theevidence of the victim, Mr Swanepoel who related obviously to the Court thecircumstances surrounding the assault on the farm.  The only one which was there,except for the applicants, was Mr Swanepoel.  He himself today, has again reiteratedthe fact that in his personal opinion, he is of the opinion that the motivationfor the attack was in fact robbery.   It is strange that this political motivationwas not raised during the defence of the applicants, the defence of the applicantsduring the criminal trial.
        At this stagefurther, we've got to accept that ...

CHAIRPERSON: It wouldn't have been a defence,would it?

MR VAN RENSBERG: Yes, it wouldn't have beena defence, I have to concede that Mr Chairman, but we have seen the attitudeof the applicants.  I got the impression that they were quite, let's put itthis way, that they are not ashamed of what they had done, that they did itnot for themselves, but in spite of that fact, they elected not to use thatbeliefs or the strength of the belief ...

CHAIRPERSON: I think what is quite clear,what must have happened at the trial was they first stated, from the answergiven by Mr Swanepoel, that they weren't there, they denied that they took partin the robbery?

MR VAN RENSBERG: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: The whole first portion of thetrial up to conviction was relating to what seemed probably voluntary assaultsrelating to confessions and so they were then endeavouring not to get convicted,it is very common in very many criminal cases, I am sure you are aware of it,then as soon as they are convicted, they raise the political motivation?

MR VAN RENSBERG: Yes, that I have to concede.

CHAIRPERSON: In mitigation of sentence.

MR VAN RENSBERG: I have to concede, exceptto say that it, if they did raise the defence of political motivation, thatwould have perhaps cleared them on the charge of attempted robbery.

SISI KHAMPEPE: No, but if they had admittedto having committed any of the offences at all, because once you admit on theattempted robbery, then you've got to admit on the other offences as well, soif they had made any admission, they wouldn't have been able to escape criminalliability, don't you agree?

MR VAN RENSBERG: Yes, I agree with that, yes.

SISI KHAMPEPE: So once they were convicted,they were left with no option but then to try in mitigation of sentence andcome out with the political nature of what they had now been convicted of.

MR VAN RENSBERG: Yes, I have to concede thatthat is a possibility, but the other possibility is of course that that factwas only dreamt up afterwards and it was put in their heads afterwards, afterthey had been convicted?

SISI KHAMPEPE: That was generally the caseMr Van Rensberg, people will try and escape liability.  I am not saying thiswas politically motivated, but in instances where people had been acting onbehalf of these liberation movements, they wouldn't admit the fact that theyhad been acting on behalf of their various armed formations, on behalf of thevarious liberation movements, because that would have entailed having to admitto the commission of a particular offence.  They always wanted to escape criminalliability.

MR VAN RENSBERG: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Also it gets, I suppose one couldwrite an article on it, but not knowing what the evidence was at that trial,a group of people go into a house armed with guns, shoot people, a person getskilled, they get arrested, they get charged with murder, attempted murder, attemptedrobbery, they get convicted of murder and attempted murder and attempted robbery,now what - if I am robbing you and I hit you over the head and take your wallet,I don't get convicted of assaulting you and of robbery, because the hittingover the head is part of the robbery.

MR VAN RENSBERG: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Now wasn't the whole attack onthe farmhouse, part of the robbery, in other words was that attempted robbery,is it not a type of duplication of charges?

MR VAN RENSBERG: Of conviction?

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Van Rensberg, I just want toadd this to what my two colleagues have said, if you look at the totality ofthe evidence, surely the fact that they had Chinese stick grenades, the natureof the weapons that they had with them and the evidence of Gen Fihla, if youlook at all that, surely that is certainly not inconsistent with the fact thatthey were political activists and if you accept that they were political activists,would you then still argue strongly that this defence or rather the facts raisedin mitigation, are not consistent ...