Amnesty Hearings — Pietermaritzburg — UNKNOWN

MR NAIDOO: I think what I am - I am glad that in certain respects my submissions here sound like a prayer.  One reason it sounds like a prayer is because I have stated that it is anathema for me to stand here.  I find it repugnable to stand here and actually argue that Brian Mitchell be released, but in doing that the purposes, the objectives of the Constitution and the Act under which this application is brought has to be considered, and I then exhort the Committee to give Brian Mitchell that chance to make amends, because he comes here having served five years in prison.  He comes here also as an individual who has also lost everything.  Yes, I would agree and concede that he has not lost as much as the victims have lost, but the whole purpose of granting of amnesty is so that one may have reconciliation.
One of the aspects that has to also be considered by the honourable Members of the Committee and you, Mr Chairman, is that the victims - or the representative of the victims has indicated that there is no opposition being advanced by the victims.  They leave it in the discretion of the Committee.  There is then an - what can be derived from this is that were there to be a release then that release would be acceptable to the victims in the spirit of reconciliation.  And this particular implication or inference may be made from the submission made to you by their legal representative in saying that at this point in time they are unable to forgive, but were the applicant to go and involve himself in the community then the door to forgiveness is still open.  And this grant of amnesty would then also assist in
	/bringing
bringing about that reconciliation.
I have no further submissions to make in this regard.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brink, are there any views which you wish to express?

MR BRINK: Very, very briefly, Mr Chairman, Members of the Committee.  What does give me cause for concern is the fact that the Trust Feed area was - and cannot be better described than in the words of WILSON J during the course of the trial - as a haven of peace at the time when the applicant arrived there.  He arrives as station commander in January 1988 at a time when the Crisis Committee was representative of both the landowners and the tenants.  He then gets involved with Inkatha, helps to form the Landowners Committee, and within -I think it was six months of that committee being organised, violence erupts.  In October, and again November, subsequently the massacre itself.  And one wonders why, if his instructions were to take out the members of the UDF, or those perceived to be members of the UDF, why the extensive police powers which the police had at that time could not have been employed, namely detentions.  That detention concentrates the mind quite considerably.
However, the victims and the next of kin in this matter, through their attorney, have indicated that although they find it difficult at this stage to forgive, and while they do not support the application, they do not oppose it, and that, with submission, is a healthy attitude.  Because I believe, in all fairness to the applicant, and to the victims and the next of kind, there seems to be an embryonic growth towards reconciliation,
	/and if
and if that can be achieved that would be the most marvellous, marvellous thing.
And in those circumstances I do not oppose the grant of this application.  I do not.  I think in fairness as well what my learned friend for the applicant has said in regard to the four special constables - admittedly they were a lesser breed, so to speak, and under the applicant's orders, but the applicant was under superior orders, and no doubt his superior was under superior orders, and that will be investigated and no doubt the truth will come out.  But in the circumstances I think it only fair to say that I certainly do not oppose this application for amnesty.  
That is all I have to say unless there are any other matters you wish me to deal with.

MR DU TOIT: Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr de Jager.

MR DU TOIT: May I just say one or two things with your permission please?

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly.

MR DU TOIT: The first is that I was requested by my instructing attorney, Mr Nation, to apologise to you and the gentlemen.  He fell ill late yesterday afternoon and we took him through to the airport.  We understand that he is better now, but he asked me to offer you and the gentlemen his apology for not being here today.
Secondly I would like to place on record my gratitude to the Chairperson, yourself, and the Commissioners, for allowing us to sit through the luncheon today, and for your patience.
Lastly I would like to express my gratitude towards
	/my colleague,
my colleague, Advocate Michael Naidoo, who is acting on a pro amico basis, and also my attorney and Professor Grazer, who kindly agreed to make the report available to you so that you would be in a position to judge what sort of person you would release should you so decide.  Also made available his services on that same basis.  And I would also like to express my gratitude to those individuals.  Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: The commission will deliver its decision in due course after it has naturally - after it has had time to consider all the submissions that have been placed before us and the evidence that we have heard.
On behalf of my Committee I want to congratulate and thank the legal representatives for the applicant for the manner in which they have presented their documentary evidence, and the care that was taken in making all this available to us.  It does make our task that much easier when documents are prepared and submitted in this fashion.  I want to tell you each one of us are mindful of the fact that we are very, very ... (incomplete - end of Side B, Tape 5)