Amnesty Hearings — Pietermaritzburg — UNKNOWN

MR DU TOIT: I think that the argument of course is not that there should be any coercive moment in the consideration, but if the broader interests of the Act can be served, and it is striking in fact, Mr Commissioner, that the Act in fact says that it is necessary for the wellbeing of South African citizens - that is the broader community - and peace that there should be reconciliation and reconstruction.  That can only take place if what happened in the past is known so that we can move into the future, as Pastor Ray McCauley said so graphically.  We
	/can't move
can't move into the future if we don't know what happened in the past.  What would you be doing is not to say, "Well, there's a sword hanging over the head of the Committee.  If I don't give it then people may not come forward," because rightly or wrongly that may be the effect, and of course it is not the only consideration.  But if you want really to serve the aims of this Act I would submit that that is indeed an important consideration.
I would submit that you have before you a factual basis.  It tells a story.  It tells the story of an abnormal situation.  It tells the story of policing in a society which was everything but normal at that point in time.  I would submit that if you apply the criteria to the factual basis before you the decision which is justified on the facts would be that the criteria are satisfied.  In my view there is no suggestion, and there cannot be any suggestion, that the criteria as set out in section 20 (3) are not satisfied.  The facts are there.
I would ask my colleague to conclude our argument for the application.

MR NAIDOO: Mr Chairman, Members of the Committee, the case that is made out on behalf of the applicant is that the Brian Mitchell of the Trust Feed massacre was a Brian Mitchell steeped in the indoctrination of the apartheid system.  He was at that time shrouded in a cocoon of ignorance, largely encouraged, fostered and nurtured by the system of apartheid, which curtained him off from any meaningful communication with his fellow human beings, with the black people whom he saw as nothing more than the swart kaffir.
	/The case
The case is also made out that during his incarceration Brian Mitchell has had the time to reflect.  He has had the time to actively educate himself, and he has had contact with various people, with various pastors, who have brought him out of that ignorant level at which he was operating.  And this will be seen from the input of Pastor Ray McCauley and Reverend Jaba.
What we say is that the Brian Mitchell before you has undergone a transformation.  From the facts it will emerge that he has come to a greater understanding of himself and of his deeds.  Brian Mitchell comes before you today and says that he wants to go out there and he wants to be actively involved in freeing others from the shackles of their indoctrination, those who are still shackled to the old South Africa by the chains of ignorance and indoctrination.  And this he wants to do by being involved in preaching, and through his future conduct and involvement in the community.
Now, going to the objectives of the Act, Brian Mitchell has told you that he wants to make amends.  Further objectives of the Act is that he has come here and made a full disclosure with a view to reconciliation.  Now, his disclosure before in this application has at a micro level resulted in a certain measure of relief being given to the immediate victims, in that there has been a settlement of their civil claims arising out of his co-operation and the facts which he has made available to the attorneys of the victims.  
At a wider level, on a macro level as it were, the disclosures here will no doubt lead to the emergence of disclosures of new facts, and a new perspective or better
	/understanding
understanding of the identity of the real perpetrators of various crimes and atrocities perpetrated throughout the country, as well as the methods used in achieving their aims.  The strategy employed at the Trust Feed was employed throughout the country.  The information which he places before this Committee, if properly used, will no doubt result in other persons in positions similar to that of Brian Mitchell coming forward.
During the repressive era, or at least a portion of it in the 80s and the early 90s, I was personally involved in conducting various defences on behalf of activists.  I had done dozens of trials for certain Comrades and for persons who were in fact the victims and targets of the strategy advanced by the likes of the applicant.  This added to my awareness of the destructive and dehumanizing dispensation of the past, the destructive and dehumanizing policy of apartheid.  It destroyed many lives, it destroyed many families, and destroyed much good and many good human beings.
The Interim Constitution and the Act with which we are concerned here today, the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, both have certain objectives, and these objectives look to the past, they look to the present, and they look to the future.  In looking to the past they require and they urge, they exhort disclosure of what happened, and this is best done by confessions and disclosures by the perpetrators of the violence in the past.  At the same time it looks to the present in that there is the coming together of the victims and the perpetrators.  The additional information and disclosures provided by the perpetrators makes it possible for
	/reparation
reparation for the victims, and this would then lead to some measure of reconciliation.
The Act also, in its preamble, looks to the recommendations being made from the information gleaned out of the past so that necessary measures may be instituted to ensure that this never happens again.  In this context then it is necessary for persons like the applicant to come forward and to reveal, to explain how and why they acted as they did.  The knowledge gleaned from these disclosures will help achieve the objectives of the Constitution and of the Act.  The history which is then put together may be used as a factual plinth on which a reconciled new South Africa may be placed.
The releasing of an individual like Brian Mitchell would normally be anathema to me.  It would be repugnable in the extreme to any - in any normal society because it strikes at the very heart of the criminal justice system.  But we have an Act here, and we have an abnormal situation which calls on us of necessity to suspend even what is at the heart of the criminal justice system, and we are to achieve the greater goals of the Constitution and the Act for the reconciliation of the nation.
In conclusion, the granting of amnesty in this particular case will be single(?) in various respect, and also unique.  It would be a grant of amnesty to the first senior officer from the police who has come forward.  He has made full disclosure, and I would submit that he has satisfied the various criteria.  What is also important in granting amnesty is this individual comes before you as a person who has been transformed.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: You sound more like you are praying for
	/his release
his release than arguing for it.