Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1999-03-25

CHAIRPERSON: So you are saying if APLA wants to kill people and serve a political objective, they must do it with the first bullet?  Is that your argument, that it serves no political purpose if they had to shoot him twice?

ADV PRIOR: Well I'm simply arguing on the principle that what is required is whether there, if one looks at the gravity of the act, I would say that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: The gravity of the act is murder.

ADV PRIOR: Yes, murder by one bullet, with respect, or murder by a prolonged or sustained assault is another thing.  We've heard evidence in other hearings, in the Cradock matter, where people were over a period of time tortured.  I'm not saying Mr Smit was tortured to that extent, but there are degrees of conduct, there's degrees of, and that's why the requirement is one of gravity, is that how grave is the act?

MR LAX: Doesn't the requirement of gravity go to the issue of the gravity of the crime, not just the way in which it is committed?  The way in which it is committed would to my mind go more to the issue of proportionality in relation to the object to be achieved, how they carried out the offence, what methods did they use etc.  You see, Mr Prior, it's quite clear that these, Mr Gqomfa and his colleagues, if they'd managed to hit those guys who were running away they would have killed them.
	Now when - I was looking for the portion here, somewhere Mr Gqomfa was asked about what he would have done and whether he felt any, whether he had any feeling for the man before he shot him.  I can't remember the exact place, but the simple fact was he said: "look, I was a soldier, I had a job to do, I did it."  If I paraphrase him not quite correctly I apologise but it was words to that effect.  Does that not keep it within the realms of the political object, if you like?

ADV PRIOR: Mr Lax, that may well, but that's something I can't take any further than I've taken it.
	The last aspect which I wish to draw the Committee's attention to is that the object or objective of the act which was directed, that is (d) of (3) of Section 20, is whether it was directed at a political opponent or State property or personnel or against private property or individuals.  I think therein lies the question of proportionality.  I have no further submissions.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll take time to consider our verdict.  Are the victims here, Mr Prior?

ADV PRIOR: Mr Chairman, if you'll just bear with me please.  The widow of Mr Smit was represented by Mr Jan Wagener I see, who never appeared on the last occasion and that was fully canvassed.  I ask that Mrs Smit be referred to the Committee on Rehabilitation and Reparations.

MR LAX: One of the other people was injured, he was shot.  He had his one finger shot off and he was shot in the side.  Was that Fransen or the other person?  If you'll bear with me I'll find it for you.  It was the other person, Mr Martin.

CHAIRPERSON: He's dead.

MR LAX: Is he dead, Deon Martin?

CHAIRPERSON: So it's merely the widow of Mr Smit?

ADV PRIOR: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: She will be referred to the Committee as a victim.

ADV PRIOR: Thank you, Mr Chairman.  Mr Chairman, that concludes our business for today.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright, thank you.  We'll adjourn till?

ADV PRIOR: Till tomorrow.

CHAIRPERSON: When?

ADV PRIOR: Advocate Collett who has had an interesting discussion with Mr Mbandazayo has indicated that could she be here at nine thirty, she'd be able to be here at nine thirty.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, nine thirty tomorrow morning.

ADV PRIOR: We'll endeavour to start as close to nine thirty as possible.

CHAIRPERSON: Right, we'll adjourn till nine thirty tomorrow morning.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS