Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1998-03-23

MR DE KLERK: Thank you Mr Chairman I will be brief. Firstly I would request the Commission to remember the time period and span when this took place what was the political reality or maybe just call it reality specifically in KwaZulu Natal and specifically in the south coast of KwaZulu Natal. If that is taken into consideration and the background of the applicant where he grew up and the way he grew up it may be more easily understood why he got involved with what he did and why he actually did. Unfortunately, it is my submission that although we do not likely want to admit it that political intolerance and specifically in this province and even today political intolerance is very hard. People perceive the opposition as their enemies not merely as the opposition. I think I can argue without any worry that there was attacks from both sides.
	The applicant did what he thought would assist his position and his party's position in that area. Surely as he also testified it can be argued that there were revenge embedded in his thoughts. It is impossible to deny that. But just on the other side it is impossible to say in my submission that this was merely revenge.

CHAIRPERSON: Well now is there no possibility of drawing a line as to which of these killings were due to revenge and which not?

MR DE KLERK: As was testified by the applicant Mr Chair his thoughts was influenced like anybody others thoughts by different things that happened in his life. One of it was the fact that his mother died. The other was that he was (...intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: That seems to be the uppermost factor when one reads the record of the trial, of the judgment isn't it?

MR DE KLERK: Well in the criminal trial as was testified by the applicant he lied. Secondly he did not testify regarding any of the political matters.

CHAIRPERSON: So there are two lies, two things that were wrong. First he lied on the question of whether he was doing it for revenge. Secondly he did not testify anything about the political motives he had.

MR DE KLERK: His counsel did argue that so if he is (...intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No I am not talking about his counsel.

MR DE KLERK: So if his counsel argued it, it must have been on instructions. I cannot believe that the counsel will argue it out of his own without receiving instructions.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) but there was no evidence. He did not give evidence on that.

MR DE KLERK: The fact that I will argue that the reason or the fact that there was no evidence led at the criminal trial does not say per se that the reason why it actually happened as testified today is (...indistinct)

CHAIRPERSON: No but there was not a breath during the trial as far as the evidence is concerned, there was not a breath of his political motives as far as the evidence is concerned.

MR DE KLERK: The evidence by the accused today, the applicant was denied. So it was a denial of involvement. If it was a denial of involvement there would not have followed any admissions of a political motive.

CHAIRPERSON: And even after conviction?

MR DE KLERK: Even after conviction because you must remember that there followed as appeal. And it is common that even after conviction ninety percent of all convicted persons does not come clean to the Court and then say: "Okay this is the position, I actually did it because of this and this." That is the great thing about the Amnesty and the Truth and Reconciliation process. Now they do have the chance to come forward and say that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DE KLERK: Thank you Mr Chair. I must just point to one specific aspect and that is the poem that Mr Ngcobo the applicant wrote while he was on death row and I think it cannot be denied he even almost cried where he sat when he read that poem. But it is clear from that poem that he had a political motive. That politics as he perceived it and many other people in this province perceived it made him do certain things which he thought was right.
	I believe firstly and I will argue that he told the truth to the Commission. Although politics was not the only reason for what was has happened as anybody else there is not one specific reason that make somebody act in a certain way, politics was the main reason. Although it was not said at the criminal trial. He told everything, he disclosed everything to this Commission. It must have been extremely difficult for him to come and say and admit what he has done. He has told the Commission on which of these crimes he was not there even if he was convicted. And he said that he was sorry. 	
	To finalise it Mr Chairman this province especially during that time had a lot of these violence. A lot of these people did not come to the Truth Commission because they have certain worries about the Truth Commission. If persons that were involved in this war as testified by the applicant and surely it was a war. It could not have been anything else. If it is compared to any other incident in the world it must have been a war.

CHAIRPERSON: All you have is his version as given today about that, isn't it so?

MR DE KLERK: That's right it was never disputed that it was a war. So the fact of the matter is I will argue that it was a war. Many people died. It was never disputed. It was a lot of people that died in this province. It is a known fact throughout the world. If these people did not have a political motive and merely participated in this war for some or other private and personal reasons it means that for these people that suffered on grassroots level it would have been unnecessary to apply for amnesty. Because what political motive did they have. All of them and most of them must have been in the same position. Either telling the world that they are protecting themselves and that is why they attacked or revenge. But all of this seen in the nature that they were politically motivated and politically divided. This is the basic, the lowest part of political intolerance in this country. And if these people can not receive amnesty then none and nobody of the people that were involved in this war can receive amnesty. That is all thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: What do you have to say about the criteria that are set out in subsection 3 of Section 20? Have you got the Act with you?

MR DE KLERK: No I don't have it with me. If you can just jog my mind?

CHAIRPERSON: Don't you have a copy of the Act in front of you?

MR DE KLERK: Not with me.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brink do you have a copy?

MR BRINK: I think so ...(inaudible)

MR DE KLERK: Which Section Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Well the criteria that are set out in Section 20 subsection 3. Because in order to determine whether the offences he has committed were acts associated with a political objective and in order to determine whether they were the criteria are set out in subsection 3.

MR DE KLERK: Yes my argument on that maybe it was not that clear. I do not understand Section 3 as requiring the applicant to put forward some or other intricate and involved political ideology and motive. We are talking here about an applicant that put to the Committee his motive as the basic motive of overpowering the other side. That means if you do take out people that gives you problems you make it more easy for yourself. And I think that was clear in his evidence. These people were people that he received information that either wanted to kill him or wanted to do something against his party and he acted on that.

CHAIRPERSON: Just let's understand this. The picture one gets up to now is that this is a one-man activity that has brought him here.

MR DE KLERK: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. He has not been instructed by his superiors. He has never reported to them. He has never got their sanction for doing. It was he and himself that carried out these activities which have resulted in the offences for which he was convicted.