Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1997-08-13

MR PURSHOTAM: Well, we haven't got any evidence about a directive.  It's not contained in the oath which is before us.  We've heard - it appears that it was over the media - that 10 Blacks had to be killed for every White that was killed.  I don't think one can bring something which is released over the media within the ambit of a structure such as a cell and the command - chain of command.  I think if one - if the OB intended carrying out it's struggle, it had to issue specific instructions to specific cells about the objective and the acts which they could engage in.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Sorry Mr Purshotam, the directive that for every one White there must be 10 Blacks killed, did not come through the radio.  What came through the radio was the coverage of the incident that had happened at the beach but according to the applicants, as they joined the OB they were taught about the strategies and objectives and one of them was that for every one White killed there must be 10 killed - 10 Blacks killed.  That is what they were told as they joined the organisation.

MR PURSHOTAM: Mr Chairman, it's my understanding that when I submitting that when I was talking about the media, was the tape of Mr Rudolph which was released over the TV.   And it's then that he mentioned that 10 Blacks had to be killed for every White killed.  And it's beyond my comprehension how an organisation purporting to have political objectives, won't issue specific instructions to it's cells and operatives out there in the field.
	I think what one has to distinguish between what appears in the media for public consumption and what is told to the chains, the commanders and the operatives.  If one had to believe everything that appears over the media, then it wouldn't be a secret underground movement.  So, because it was a secret underground movement, it did have a chain of command and it's my submission that they had to obtain authority for acts which they intended engaging in, which were of a very serious nature.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying that whatever appeared on television cannot be regarded as an order as required by Sub-Section (b)?

MR PURSHOTAM: That's correct Mr Chairman, I submit that.  That cannot be taken as an order to a person who belongs to a political organisation or purported political organisation and a cell.  That's not the order contemplated in the Act.
	May I now proceed to Sub-Section (f)?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR PURSHOTAM: Thank you.

ADV DE JAGER: ...[inaudible] What about approval - approved by the organisation?  The day after the killings, it was - if I remember correctly - there was evidence that they approved of it later, on the day after when Botha reported it to them.

MR PURSHOTAM: Well it's my submission that approval connotes obtaining permission in advance of the event.  If the legislature intended what the applicants actually did then it would have used the word "ratified".  It's my submission that ...[no sound]

CHAIRPERSON: Does the organisation not have to come forward and say, we approved, if there's going to be approval?

MR PURSHOTAM: Well, we haven't had any high-ranking member of that organisation coming before this Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Nobody?

MR PURSHOTAM: Yes, Mr Chairman, we've had nobody.

CHAIRPERSON: Except the evidence of the man who gave the order and then said others approved it.

MR PURSHOTAM: That's correct Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Can I go back a little - I've managed to find what I was looking for in my notes and my note is that Mr Botha said - was asked, when was the decision of one for 10 taken and his reply was: "I can't tell you when or where, I was told of the decision when I saw the oath".  So he didn't hear it over the video, he was told of that decision by the people who indoctrinated - inducted him into the Orde Boerevolk.  Does that alter your argument?

MR PURSHOTAM: Well ...[intervention]

JUDGE WILSON: ...[inaudible]

INTERPRETER: The speaker's  microphone is not on.

JUDGE WILSON: You see, if he was told when he joins the organisation that this is the policy of the organisation - as my brother put it to you - does he then have to go and get authority to carry out their policy?

MR PURSHOTAM: Well, what those people told him in balaclavas, doesn't appear to me as an order to him.  As you mentioned, it may have been the policy of the organisation but the Acts talks about - not the policy of an organisation - it talks about whether there was an order or whether it was approved by the organisation.

JUDGE WILSON: Or the ...[inaudible]  Or on behalf of.

MR PURSHOTAM: I won't pursue that line of argument anymore.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]  your argument.  As I understand your argument, there was no evidence about any order, all there was, was a policy.  ...[inaudible]

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

CHAIRPERSON: Nobody has come forward to say they approved it, beyond the man who gave the order himself, then said somebody approved it.  Now, is that enough?

MR PURSHOTAM: It's my submission that it's not enough.   There was a chain of command but no attempt has been made to get any responsible person in this organisation called OB before this Committee, to tell the Committee that they approved of the acts committed on that day and it's also relevant for purposes of full disclosure, which I'll be coming to later on.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: But you see that  - in all fairness to the applicants - we must be very careful about the argument, we mustn't press it too hard - the argument that nobody came on behalf of the organisation to say that they are proof of this because it was never disputed to the applicants.  It was never put to the applicants that "you did not have such an order".  Possibly, I'm not saying that would have been the case but possibly if the applicants - if it was put to the applicants when they were in the witness box and say that - and challenged on that, they might possibly have called some people to do that but they were not challenged on that.

MR PURSHOTAM: Well, it's my submission that they are making applications in terms of this Act.  They have three legal counsel sitting before us who have advised them on the requirements which need to be complied with before they make their applications to the Committee.  It's not for me to challenge them, nor for any of the victims to challenge them about whether they've complied with the provisions of the Act.   They know what the requirements of the Act are...[intervention]

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Mr Purshotam, if we have to sit here to expect applicants to lead evidence on things which are not in dispute, I doubt whether we'll finish the applications.  Surely when an applicant comes here, if points - if certain points are not in dispute, he can't call at the witnesses on points which are not in dispute.  That's not how any proceedings can be conducted.

MR PURSHOTAM: Well, it's my respectful submission that we don't have a set of pleadings before us in order to determine what is in dispute and what not.  This is not a Court of Law and one has to deal with the applications and the evidence which is led, as it comes out.  And the main objective is to fall within the ambit of the Act and that they knew in advance of coming here.  May I proceed with ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Proceed.