Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-03-13

MINISTER DULLAH OMAR INTO THE RECORD: I am Faizlin Omar, an attorney with Hofmeyr, Herbsteins, Gihwala.  I represent my father, the Minister of Transport, Abdullah Mohammed Omar, also known as Dullah Omar.
	In connection with the amnesty applications of Carl Casteling Botha, Wouter Jacobus Basson, Abram van Zyl, Daniel F. Du Toit Burger, Pieter Johann Verster, Edward Webb and Ferdinand Barnard my, father states:
"My full name is Abdullah Mohammed Omar.  I am also generally known as Dullah Omar.   For the past 30 years I have been resident at 31 Mable Road, Rylands Estate, Athlone, Cape Town.  At the time of the conspiracies to assassinate me, I was also living at this address.
		I am married to Farida Omar, born Alie.  We have three children, now all majors.  They are Kemal, Rustin and Faizlin.  
		In May 1994 and immediately after South Africa's first ever democratic elections, President Nelson Mandela appointed me as democratic South Africa's first Minister of Justice.  I served in this capacity for the full period of President Mandela's term which terminated in June 1999.  In June 1999, I was appointed by President Mbeki as Minister of Transport, a position which I currently hold.  
		As Minister of Justice it was my responsibility to give effect to the postscript of South Africa's interim constitution which, inter alia, made provision for amnesty for persons who had committed offences, acts, or omissions associated with a political objective.  In my capacity as Minister of Justice, I played the leading role in developing the promotion of national unity and reconciliation, number 34 of 1995, which made provision for the setting up of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.  
		After a process of public participation and consultation with Human Rights Organisations and international Human Rights Experts, I caused the relevant legislation to be finalised, promoted in Cabinet and piloted through Parliament.  After the President signed the said legislation into law, I put in a considerable amount of time and effort in conjunction with the office of the President to get the Commissioners appointed and get the Commission working.  Between the end of 1995 and June 1999, I was responsible for administering the said law and ensuring that the Commission was able to function properly and effectively in terms of the law.  The law created three important structures, namely the Amnesty Committee, to deal with amnesty applications, the Human Rights Violations Committee, designed to give victims of Human Rights Violations a platform to tell their stories and the Reparation and Rehabilitation Committee, designed to make provision for the rehabilitation, reparation and restoring the dignity of victims.  The structural arrangement is the only one of its kind in the world.  Our Truth and Reconciliation Commission differs in many important respects from all other Truth Commissions set up in other parts of the world.  I have been and remain totally committed to the success of a truth and reconciliation process, which I consider to be important to promote reconciliation in our country.  I have always worked tirelessly for the success of the processes.  
		For this reason I believe that when persons make application for amnesty then, provided that they comply with the law, satisfy the criteria and make full disclosure, they should not be denied amnesty.  My view is that in such an event, the Amnesty Committee is, in law, bound to grant amnesty.  
		This is my response to the current applications for amnesty.  I have read through the documentation in respect of the above applications.  It is with great regret that I note that none of the applicants have displayed even the slightest feeling of remorse or regret.  My impression is that their objective is solely to avoid prosecution.  They are not sorry about what they did.  I do not get the impression that for them there are any moral, ethical, or human considerations.  In the absence of any expression of remorse or regret, let alone apology, any form of personal reconciliation between myself as a victim and the said perpetrators, is totally out of the question.  I am aware of the fact that the law does not require perpetrators of gross human rights violations to show any remorse.  If they satisfy the law and the relevant criteria, they are entitled to amnesty.  That is so in the present case as well.  Whilst therefore applicants may well be entitled to amnesty, they themselves are making no contribution to reconciliation in our country.  My only, but important concern is therefore whether the applicants have complied with the law and whether they have satisfied the criteria set out in the law, more specifically have they made full disclosure, which is a key requirement.  From the documentation I do not believe that full disclosure has been made and applicants should be given an opportunity by the Amnesty Committee to make full disclosure.  If they do, then despite the failure to show any kind of remorse, I would not oppose the applications for amnesty.  
		I also believe that the course of reconciliation, especially in respect of the matters for which the applicants are applying for amnesty, has suffered a serious setback by the application which was made by one of the applicants, for the hearing not to take place at the Early Learning Centre in Athlone.  I know the Athlone and Cape Flats communities.  They are equally committed to the process of reconciliation and I believe that the holding of the hearing at the Early Learning Centre or any other venue on the Cape Flats, would have made a significant contribution to reconciliation.  The fact that the hearing was initially scheduled to take place in Athlone, but has now been moved to the TRC Headquarters in Cape Town, is a gross insult to the people of the Cape Flats.  The kind of fears which one of the applicants expressed with regard to his safety, is completely groundless.  It is ironic that a man responsible for such gross violations of human rights, including possibly killings, now speaks of his own safety.  I believe that his safety was never under threat.  What is under threat is his own reconciliation and that of his fellow applicants with the rest of the victim community.  
		I thank the Amnesty Committee of the Truth and Reconciliation Committee for affording me the opportunity of making this statement."  
Dated 10th March 2000 at Pretoria.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Omar.  Mr Bizos would it be possible to have photocopies made of that statement?  I think it would be more convenient.

MR WESSELS: Sorry for interrupting, Mr Chairman.  Before that is done, may I just place on record my objection to that and my objection to this statement being read into the record and being regarded as evidence or having any value at all.
	With respect, the deponent to that affidavit has no right to make submissions which may or may not influence the Committee in granting amnesty to the applicants.  His view in regard to whether full disclosure has been made in the affidavit or the application is irrelevant and his personal beliefs about all of that is irrelevant for the purposes of this hearing.  
	It is also my submission that for that affidavit to be part of the record, can only lead to the Committee possibly being influenced in having a certain view of the matter which is not proper.  There are no factual allegations in that affidavit which can play a part in this hearing and therefore that affidavit is irrelevant.  	Furthermore, for the deponent to complain about the venue I submit in effect is contempt of court because as far as I understand it and I wasn't part of that application, the Court made a ruling as to what the correct position is and it doesn't lie in the mouth of an individual to come and criticise the Court's judgment in this respect.  
	I therefore object to that affidavit being part ...(shouting in the background)