Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — UNKNOWN

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr. Erasmus.
MR. ERASMUS: Thank you My Lord.
      I want to invite your Lordships attention to Section 23(3)(I)  and sub-section 3(II).   It is clear from the evidence that not one of the applicants received personal gain from any of their actions and that nothing was done out of personal malice, ill-will or spite directed against their victim.
      I want to draw your Lordships attention to a decision of Hendrik Jakobus Steyn;   it was an application number 69 of 1996.   In this application, evidence was led of the death of ANC member after a gun fight between member of the Police and Terrorists.   The victims were wounded by the Security Forces.  The applicant, Hendrik Jakobus Steyn recognised the two wounded as two well known terrorists.   He testified that he knew that they would eventually be redeployed against the Security Forces.   He testified that the Courts could not handle the situation, and that it was necessary to act outside the normal legal system.   He then killed the two wounded soldiers.
      In the judgment the Committee found that the motive of the applicant was to kill the deceased so as to prevent them from acting in future against the Security Forces. Steyn did so because the normal legal process was not successful in that regard.
      This is important with respect for the argument pertaining to the application of the applicant, and the reason why they acted outside the normal scope of the legal system.   It is also important for purposes of the couter-revolutionary strategy and the prevention policy of the South African Police at that time.   It was found that the context of the action was against the background of a fight between Security Forces and Terrorists.   The Committee found that it was foreseeable that people could die because of the struggle.   The deceased were all political opponents.    
      In respect of proportionality, the Committee found that the South African Police on the one hand, and the Liberation Movements on the other hand, were legitimate targets of each other, and that the killing in this specific instance of a person was therefore not necessarily not proportional to the political objective.
      Now it is submitted that this judgment of Steyn supports the application of Mr. Beneke and the other co-applicants.
      Now I want to turn to disclosure of all relevant facts.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have a copy of this judgment?
MR. ERASMUS: I haven't got a copy here, but I can have you sent one in due course.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes please.
MR. ERASMUS: I will do so.

CHAIRPERSON: Do carry on.

UNKNOWN: I'm turning to disclosure of all relevant facts.   It is submitted that the applicant has disclosed all relevant facts.   It is furthermore submitted that relevant facts mean, the facta probanda" in respect of criminal offences and the principles of a delict in respect of delicts.   These requirements have been complied with in the evidence pertaining to each and every incident.   It is submitted that where there is no evidence to the contrary, and where it was not put to any of the witnesses that any other witnesses would contradict the evidence, the applicant's evidence should stand uncontested and should be accepted as true and a full disclosure of such facts.
	Care should be taken not to be too harsh on the applicants in respect of their memories.   If one has due regard to the fact that a lot of the incidents have taken place more than twenty years ago, and that their memories have been affected.    
      It is furthermore submitted that the applicants had no reason to lie whatsoever.   It is submitted that it should be taken into account that Mr Beneke came forward out of his own free will to participate in this process to apply for amnesty and to place before the Committee the full version of the facts.   He did so without having been forced to do so and there should therefore be no reason whatsoever for him to have lied.   The only effect of a lie would have been the refusal of amnesty which would clearly not be to the advantage of the applicants.

ADV BOOYENS: I want to pause here for a moment because I anticipate an argument from my learned friend that there would not have been full disclosure.   You will take into account that these events fall beyond the twenty year annuation date with regard to capital crimes, would there have been any consideration of a capital crime.   This is prior before Mr Beneke came to bring testimony.   He could have withheld his application or withdrawn his application but he did not do so.   Since in a spirit of the law he wants to come and tell what the true facts are.   It is important that you should
understand this and understand why it is our submission that Mr Beneke, and I want to say this actually on behalf of all of the applicants, why they are coming to tell you the truth.  It has to do with an attempt to achieve national unity; to serve the well-being of all South African citizens; to serve the purpose of reconciliation and the reconstruction of our society.  That is what is involved here.   For what single purpose, twenty years after the event should you be presented with a pack of lies.   Mr Beneke is no longer a member of the police service, therefore any effort to cover up anything is of no interest to him.   In the eyes of the media he would have no reason to come and tell you lies.   Why would he subject himself to this process?

UNKNOWN: I submit that the applicant Mr Beneke has made out a proper case for amnesty in terms of Section 20 of the Act and the Committee are requested to grant amnesty to the applicant in respect of every incident referred to during the hearings.   I thank you M'Lord.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Erasmus.   Mr Bizos?