Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1998-10-07

MR ZILWA: Mr Chairman, my submission would be that the ANC was quite alive to the effect that even though it had suspended the armed struggle, it had adopted a policy against violence but the reality of the situation is that people were dying, people were being killed despite ...[indistinct] on the part of everybody else that it was a peaceful process, but the reality was that people were dying and it was exactly because of that, that the ANC saw the need to establish SDU's i.e. in order to defend and to protect the people themselves as well, I assume, as well as their leaders.  Now applying that to the particular circumstances of this case, given the fact that despite it's stated peaceful stance, the ANC had seen it fit to establish SDU's, self defence units.  It was quite alive to the effect that a need may arise when some form of force would have to be used ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Violence?

MR ZILWA: Indeed violence, it was quite alive to the fact that the situation could be such that violence could not be avoided, hence these SDU's were established and even armed in some instances.  The ANC was quite alive to the fact that there could be in fitting circumstances be a need for the use of violence.  Now in my submission, in circumstances in such as one in issue, where there had been this very violent activity that robbed the ANC of one of it's most prominent stalwarts, it was quite foreseeable and it was quite in keeping with the policy of the ANC that in fitting situations, violence could have to be resorted to.  Now the applicants say, in their mind, given that they were members of an SDU, an SDU which by it's very own definition has inherent in it, it has - the issue of violence cannot be excluded therein, then it would be my submission that in their action, in acting as they did, the applicants acted within the course and scope of what their unit was all about.  It was an SDU and inherent in that, as I've already stated, it was quite foreseeable that there could be instances where violence would be inevitable and I would submit that they were quite in keeping with their scope of authority, so to speak, when in acting as they did, in fact as they say, they were members of an SDU, an SDU who is meant to protect even if it means resulting to violence in the process.  Now they say in their mind the event in issue qualified as exactly what the establishment of the SDU was all about, in other words, it qualified for the use of the type of violence which they did and which they term a pre-emptive action which however would amount to a defence in that their actions send a message that, please, hands off our leaders otherwise we'll retaliate and as such they say in that sense they protected some leaders who could have been assassinated had they not taken the stance which they did.  So my submission would be in acting as they did, the applicants did not act contrary to the policies of the ANC which had established the SDU's and under the banner of which they claimed to have acted.  So having said all that, my direct answer then is that the action of the accused was not an action which went contrary to the stated views of the ANC given the circumstances under which occurred and given the prevailing circumstances at the time.
	Now a question has been asked repeatedly as to seeing that the accused - I'm sorry, not the accused - seeing that the applicants did not immediately after the commission of the offence go to the press and say we are responsible.  Then a suggestion was made that then their message would be lost and nobody would know that their action had anything to do with the death of Chris Hani which they retaliated.  My submissions for that would be, in fact as the applicants sometimes selves has stated, even though they never went to the press to own up on being responsible for the act, but the prevailing circumstances at the time was such that it was clear to all and sundry that in fact their act was directly connected with the death of Chris Hani and ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: Oh, Mr Zilwa, how many murders were committed during that week or that weekend in South Africa?  Every weekend, even today, murders are committed every weekend, every week, twenty, thirty, forty in South Africa.

MR ZILWA: Mr Chairman, this should be viewed in proper perspective.

ADV DE JAGER: Why should this one be viewed as political?

MR ZILWA: That's exactly the point I'm going to address.  This should be viewed in the proper perspective.  This was the murder of white people, this was the act ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: White people are murdered today too.

MR ZILWA: Exactly where I'm coming to Mr Chairman, if you'll just give me a chance.

ADV DE JAGER: There's murders of farmers now and ...[inaudible]

MR ZILWA: If, Mr Chairman, you'll just give me a chance, I'm going to develop that.  Now this occurred in the heat of the period where Chris Hani had just been killed and white people were killed, no robbery, nothing.  Now in my submission, as the applicants themselves have stated, the message would be clear to everybody as to what it is all about and indeed, we need not look to further afield to see how justified that was.  If we take a look at the very Exhibit B that has been submitted before this Committee by the victims' representatives, Annexure Q, it clearly vindicates the applicants' impression that this would indeed, this could not be, their action could not be mistaken for anything else other than a retaliation for the death of Chris Hani.
	Now Annexure Q is a daily despatched publication and I'd just like to draw the Committee's reference to a passage there, the heading it says:
"Are there enough of us to fill the shoes of this fisherman?"
Then it goes on and on and on and at the last paragraph of the first column it says:
"What we do know is that somehow Allie and his brother"
Allie I suppose is a reference to Alistair Weakley.
"Allie and his brother were random victims of the crime committed in Donpark, Boksburg, such a long way away to the North.  The dreadful dominoes started falling soon after Hani fell on his driveway.  Allie was one of them."
Now that passage clearly indicates that indeed what the applicants assumed that their action would not be regarded as anything else other than retaliation for the death of Chris Hani.  It's clearly born out in this passage which I've referred to.  They knew or they say they assumed that everybody would know, including the press, that their action was related to Chris Hani and indeed this is vindicated here.

ADV DE JAGER: No, no one had any idea of who they were or why they did this terrible deed.

MR ZILWA: That is quite so, that refers to the applicants and exactly they didn't want to be known.  All they wanted to do was to send a message.

ADV DE JAGER: ...[inaudible]

ADV SANDI: Mr Zilwa, isn't there a problem here?  When was this Exhibit Q put up in the newspaper?  Is it not inclusive from what you're saying that this Shaun Johnson, from the time he wrote this article?  Can you see the problem I'm trying to raise with you?  When was this put up in the newspaper?  It may have been weeks or months later.