Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1997-04-08

ADV DE JAGER: I can understand the use of explosives and the public nature of the place would have gained some attention, that there was a link with the political situation, explosives were seldom used by common criminals.  It was most often used in political contexts at that time, however, the killing of an innocent civilian who would not have a political profile, how do we link such a killing with a political struggle?

ADV PRINSLOO: I want with respect, to argue to you Your Honour, that this bomb was placed at four o'clock in the morning, at a place used by people of a particular community  in this case the Muslim community and that under these circumstances, it is not extraordinary to imagine that a person of that community would use this shop, enter the shop, unlock the shop and that in fact, that person would then be in the cross fire.
	With respect Your Honour, as given in the testimony during the course of the case, an innocent person, a member of the police then acted because of a telephone call and the witness testified that there had not been anyone in the area when the bomb was placed, in fact an innocent person did die, but the testimony was that during a war situation, innocent persons may well come in the cross fire.
	And I want to argue with respect Mr Chairman, that this manner of action has appeared in many cases involving the ANC, where the ANC was the accused party.  That it had occurred that innocent persons were in the cross fire, very similar to this particular case as in the case of the Pretoria bomb, the Silverton bank bombing.
	With farm cases as at Darville where a landmine was placed, where innocent persons died.  Where this was probably aimed against the farming community in that area.
	The extend of this act was within the limits and was proportional if compared to other acts under these circumstances.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Mr Prinsloo, again on the question of proportionality.  How could at attack on the Muslim community, how could it have dissuaded the government of the day from continuing with the negotiations with the political Organisations it was negotiating with?

ADV PRINSLOO: With respect Honourable Chairman, it is clear that the use of bombs in explosions, that an explosion amongst the Muslim community in particular, that the majority of members of this community would have supported the ANC and the intention was that this would change the mind of the government.  As it would indicate that many people disagreed with the route taken by the then government.
	As stated in the documents presented by the applicant, this would create circumstances of chaos and circumstances would arise which would change the route.  This would touch the ANC by touching the Muslim community, which in view of the applicant, were supporters of the ANC.
	This was also the case when the ANC acted in many cases, the intention was to generate chaos, to bring about revolution, to take over the country, to force the country in fact to that which was achieved by the ANC.
	And there were many persons, with respect, and many communities, who were attacked and who were killed or who were injured under these circumstances.  With respect, the
government of that day, did in fact change their minds because of these acts of the ANC and handed over to the ANC, had an election.  If we look for instance at the McBride case, and the Amanzimtoti bombing, as well as the Pretoria bomb, which was admittedly aimed against the Army, the Silverton incident, there was action against innocent bank staff, the Messina case where an innocent person, an ex-Minister of Kangwane was killed in cold blood, shot in cold blood, other innocent persons, as well as police who were assassinated and with respect, those acts in fact gained the goal.
	Persons now in key positions of the ANC are Muslim people.  It cannot be argued against, that this act was done in good faith in terms of the actual convictions of the applicant.