Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-11-18

MR MARTINI: That goes to authority.  Now the rules are irrelevant because the authority is for the act, to kill, to bomb.  If Mr - and I come to elaborate on that, by example I use, the authority was eliminate Minister Omar.  Let's assume Mr van Zyl carried it through but had him stabbed, he still had authority to kill to achieve the result.
	Chairperson, my Heads do elaborate on the other criteria relating to political objectives, I'm dealing with the actual issue, the full disclosure.  To take on the Respondents, as we seem to have been doing, are alleging that because Mr van Zyl has not disclosed other deeds, that alone is not a full disclosure and he must fail.  I submit we've dealt with that, it's only a disclosure of the relevant facts, because he's not seeking blanket amnesty and he's not entitled to blanket amnesty if he receives amnesty for the acts for which he's applied.  
	Now has Mr van Zyl made a full disclosure of the relevant facts?  I think one then has to go ask the question, what are the relevant facts?  Now in order to determine what are the relevant facts, it's my submission one has to look at the purpose of the Act.  The Act is to establish the truth, what went on.  And it must be distinguished from this case, because there's been great atrocities, Chairperson, where families have lost their children and they've never found them, they've never known what's happened to members of their family.  I think the purpose is to try to tell them what happened, and it's sad, it's our history.  In this case, the relevant facts are in respect of the deeds that you have committed, what are they?  Come tell us what you did.  A relevant fact is:  
(1)  	I planned and I was instructed to carry out the 	assassination of Mr Omar.
	(2)	I never planned but I was request to arrange for 	unaware members to fly up to Johannesburg, to 	arrange to kill Mr Evans.
	(3)	I was told to hang up a foetus at Bishop Tutu's 	residence.  Not part of the plan.  I was told and I did 	a pre-study on the Early Learning Centre and to 	bomb the hall.
Now he's disclosed, that is what he has done.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes okay, what then is the real purpose of having a hearing if that is all that has to be disclosed, you know that I was involved in the bombing of the ELC, or the conspiracy to murder Adv Omar?  What is the situation if the person comes and then at a hearing gives evidence which is found not to be credible, but discloses those basic relevant facts?  For instance, we haven't made any finding obviously because we've got to listen and then deliberate, but there's fairly serious contradictions between the evidence of Mr Barnard and your client with regard to the Omar incident.

MR MARTINI: I'll get to that evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Your client has come and said okay, there was a conspiracy to kill Mr Omar, I did actually take active steps.  So he's made a full disclosure of those relevant facts, there's no doubt about that, but what if it's found that he hasn't been frank and honest in respect of all the matters concerning that incident?  Can we just ignore him and say, okay we'll sift it through and those relevant facts that fall through the sieve, if they're sufficient to cover the crime, it's okay, forget the rest?

MR MARTINI: Chairperson, what I submit that's - everyone has ignored that, what are the relevant facts that he must disclose?  The relevant facts I submit, would be in Omar.  If he had said I only monitored him, he wouldn't be frank and honest, because what you're trying to find out is, was there a plot to eliminate Minister Omar?
	Now let's just assume Minister Omar had died, the relevant fact would be for Mr van Zyl to come and disclose to this Committee, in the interests of the victims, to tell Mr Omar's family, I killed your husband.  That's the relevant fact, not who did it, it's my submission.  But if the Committee finds that who did it on your instructions, is relevant, I will touch on that as the second leg dealing with the dispute between Mr van Zyl and Mr Barnard on the Omar incident.  
	Well we can go straight there, Chairperson.  ...(intervention)

MR LAX: Just before you do, there's another fundamental important relevance in terms of the Act, and that is, why did you do it?  It goes to the very root of the whole thing.

MR MARTINI: Well that touches on the indicia for the political objective, because the Act doesn't say why did you do it?  It says
"take into account in deciding if it's a political objective, the motive, the context, the proportiona-lity"
But that I thought, is not a requirement, it's factors that the Committee must take into account in assessing if there was a political objective.  Well then I must go back now to political objective again.  I thought it is clear.  The political objective was clearly, Mr van Zyl repeated, protection of the sovereignty of the State, destruction of the enemy of the State.  The enemy of the State being the ANC and its affiliates.  But now we're touching back onto issues which are criteria which the Committee must consider, not requirements, as to whether the act was political.  
	Now it's my submission and it's dealt with in my Heads, the act was most definitely political.  He tells you: "I was acting on instructions.  I was a supporter of the National Party Government.  I wanted to protect the sovereignty of the State.  In South Africa, we have the evidence of Mr Webb, the TRC's Findings, there was a war and this was part of the strategy of the South African Government, to resist or counter the armed struggle that was being waged by the liberation movements, in the people's war within.  It was to counter and resist that struggle.  The CCB would appear to have been an additional creature created by the government of the day to resist the armed struggle that was taking place.  We were in a State of Emergency where certain deeds were committed.  
	But to answer your question, Mr Lax, that would go to whether it's a political objective.  But the relevant facts, it's my submission, these hearings are peculiar because fortunately I would say, there was no - that's Chairperson, the indicia also say look at the gravity of the act.  There was no serious tragic result.  Now had there been it would have been imperative, it would be relevant to tell Mrs Omar who killed your husband.  Or, first leg, your husband was killed by the CCB Region 6.  The victim wants the truth, they want to know what happened.  And Mrs Omar, Mr X killed your husband.  
	But I'm going to move back now to the discrepancy with Barnard.  Chairperson, I find it astounding that the Respondents would seek to suggest to this Committee that the only credible witness at these hearings was Mr Ferdi Barnard.  Let's analyse Mr Ferdi Barnard.  Self-confessed liar for 24 years.  Triple convicted ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: 12.