Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-08-07

MR LANDMAN: It's in fact on page 53.  Mr Chairman you'll also note from that that the second applicant's name also appears.  He is in charge of the Ordinance under the Transvaal Urban Structure.  Mr Chairman we would submit further that there can be no doubt that the first applicant acted under the instructions of General Nyanda when he surveyed certain possible targets, including the Johannesburg Magistrate's Court target.
	Mr Chairman it is also apparent from the evidence that the purpose of surveying these targets was not so much to attack particular buildings, but rather to find venues where members of the Security Forces and the police would be present.  Mr Chairman we say then on page 5 in paragraph 2.11 that General Nyanda acting in his capacity as Chair of the RPMC for Swaziland, devised this particular plan.  Mr Chairman it's our submission it is significant that - and the plan was fully explained here - that there would be an attempt to entice policemen to the scene and at the same time ensure that civilians move away from the scene of the explosion.  Mr Chairman I submit that that would certainly suggest that this was not meant to be an indiscriminate attach where civilian casualties would be caused no matter what.  
	Mr Chairman the speculation as to what might have happened if medical personnel might have been present in the area is, in our submission, not relevant in the present enquiry, when in fact that didn't occur.  Mr Chairman if I can turn page 6 of the Heads of Argument where we, in paragraph 2.13, explain how it was that General Nyanda could have acted and have given these particular commands without having to consult with higher authority.  Mr Chairman the page reference there should be page 47 of the ANC's second submission.  Mr Chairman then from paragraph 2.14 we refer to the role played by the second applicant, a commander in the MK who was briefed to provide the first applicant with ordnance - in paragraph 2.14 - in the form of explosives.  Mr Chairman I didn't mention at this stage but it is also his evidence that he gave the first applicant certain training in the use of explosives.  What he called a layman's training, as the Committee will recall.
	Mr Chairman, again demonstrating the military nature of the operation, the first applicant received a remote control device from Nyanda which for some reason was defective and the second applicant then played a role in providing the first applicant with a replacement.  Mr Chairman the explosives were provided in the sense that a sketch plan was given of the letter box where the explosives and the mini limpid mine would have been found and in fact these explosives were indeed found at the place by the first applicant who then retrieved them and instilled or assembled the bomb in the boot of a Golf motor vehicle.  	Mr Chairman on page 7, paragraph 2.18, we deal with the third applicant's role in the events.  His role was restricted to driving a second motor vehicle to the Johannesburg city centre on the day of the explosion and to give the applicant a lift back to Soweto.  Mr Chairman there was a suggestion that he may have been, to some extent, suspicious as to what was in the boot but there was certainly no suggestion that he would have been aware or was aware what was about to take place.  Mr Chairman he also conceded that he was not a member of MK or the ANC at the time, although he later joined MK.  Mr Chairman this appears to have been an attempt to ensure that he was within the structure and that he wouldn't then be detected by the Security Forces and via him that the first applicant wouldn't be detected, but it is our submission that when he failed to inform the police of that which he knew about this incident he, by that act, demonstrated that he had associated himself with the activities of the first applicant.  
	Mr Chairman and Committee on page 8 we also deal with the way in which the first applicant returned to the scene ... (intervention)
MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

CHAIRPERSON: Isn't the effect of his evidence that - oh, no he said so directly, that's what I was looking for - that he was, although not a member, he was an ANC supporter?

MR LANDMAN: That's so Mr Chairman.  There was some debate with him about how he demonstrated his support and whether he could have supported - the organisation at that stage was banned, but certainly that is his evidence.  We don't abandon that part of his evidence at all.

CHAIRPERSON: Earlier in his evidence he had said that he was not supporting the first applicant, he was supporting the ANC in what he did.

MR LANDMAN: That is also correct Mr Chairman.  Mr Chairman it will be our argument at the end of the day that the third applicant, in the evidence which is before you, would in any event fall under sub paragraph g as being a person who's associated himself with acts of persons who've committed the acts preferred to in the preceding sub paragraphs.
	Mr Chairman on page 8 we set out the manner in which the first applicant set about actually detonating the bombs, from paragraph 2.22.  Mr Chairman we submitted the significant in regard to the question of proportionality and whether there's a relationship between the act and the objective that was sought to be achieved.  That he did attempt to minimise casualties by placing the explosives at the rear entrance of the Courts and by time the explosions to occur while the Courts were in session, that is to say before the spectators and other attendees at the Courts left on the lunch break. 
	Mr Chairman it's also apparent from the photographs themselves that the Johannesburg Magistrate's Court building is a very sturdy and solidly built building.  Mr Chairman there can be no suggestion that he intended to cause major or major structural damage to that building and that the attack, as he has described, was indeed aimed against the Security personnel, although indirectly against the symbol of the judiciary at the time.  
	Mr Chairman the first applicant made full disclosure and he explained how he had connected a battery to the main bomb, how he placed the mini limpid mine near the spot where the Golf car was parked.  He'd set the time, he waited in a nearby cafe until the mini limpid mine exploded and he observed and kept watch whilst the police placed the cordon around the area and policemen moved towards the scene of the explosion.  
	Mr Chairman the statements of the policemen who were present at the time confirm that this is indeed what happened and that the police did attempt, in fact moved towards and that civilians were being kept away.  Vehicles were also parked at particular corners, again no doubt in an attempt to ensure that civilians did not approach the scene.
	Mr Chairman on page 9 at paragraph 2.26 we say: "Standing at a distance and having determined that policemen were within range of the car bomb he activated same using the remote control device supplied to him by the second applicant".  Mr Chairman we submit again that this is an indication that was a military operation intended to cause fatalities amongst a particular group of people and that is why it was necessary for him to be present and to ensure that the bomb would indeed cause the harm which was intended.
	Mr Chairman it is so that a number of vehicles were damaged in the second explosion and some civilians were slightly injured.  Mr Chairman the second applicant in particular has informed the Committee as to the ANC's approach to civilian casualties at the time.  That because of the intensification of the armed struggle, the ANC came to realisation that it's initial pre-occupation with avoiding civilian casualties could no longer be sustained and that the civilians who were injured and the vehicles that were damaged were really part of the unfortunate casualties of war.