Amnesty Hearings — Durban — UNKNOWN

MR BOTHA: For the same reason that you're asking me about my reasons. You can't understand my reasons, and ... [intervention]

MR PURSHOTAM: I put it to you that in 1990, negotiations between the relevant political parties and the Government had already commenced, but you mentioned that negotiation wasn't an option in 1990.

MR BOTHA: About what should the Boerevolk go and negotiate about, t their own demise? One isn't going to negotiate the demise of oneself and one's people.

ADV DE JAGER: Could you explain to us, did the CP take part in any negotiations in 1990?  Did the AWB take, took any part in negotiations or any right-wing party?

MR PURSHOTAM: It is my knowledge that the right-wing parties and the AWB and the CP refused to take part in negotiations.

CHAIRPERSON: That might be the answer to the question you're posing to this witness.

MR PURSHOTAM: Thank you Mr Chairman. I won't be long, I just have a few more questions.  Isn't it true that you were indiscriminate in the selection of your target because you felt that the attack which had occurred that morning on the Durban beach front had also been indiscriminate?

MR BOTHA: The word "discrimination" should not be used in this conversation. There wasn't any discrimination, it was military strategy to bring a message home.

CHAIRPERSON: I think the word "discriminate" is being misunderstood. The word "indiscriminate" is what was intended, wasn't it?

MR PURSHOTAM: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps the question is that, just as the attack by the PAC was indiscriminate, was your attack not also indiscriminate?

MR BOTHA: I don't agree with the statement of that gentleman. My attack had a specific purpose ... [intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: I think it is not the purpose, it is the target.

MR BOTHA: So therefore, I looked for a particular target, for example I could have planted a bomb, but that would have been indiscriminate. Because a bomb does not mind what it hits. I shot at the target that I wanted to hit.

MR PURSHOTAM: You've mentioned frequently this morning the struggle of the Afrikaner people and your resolve to vindicate the problems which the Afrikaner people were experiencing.   How were - how did you think that you would further the struggle of the Afrikaner people by shooting up this bus?

MR BOTHA: To make the Government and the PAC realise that they couldn't simply act against the Boer without expecting the Boer to take up arms and fight back. There was no other goal.MR PURSHOTAM
One more question, Mr Chairman. Would you have achieved your purpose if there was a bus of English speaking Whites traveling past there on that day?

MR BOTHA: No, it wouldn't have served the same purpose because it wasn't English speaking Whites who attacked Whites on the beach front. The thing always has to be brought into a linkage with the cause. It wasn't White English speakers who attacked people on the beach front, it was Black PAC members.

MR PURSHOTAM: So what you are telling the Committee is that innocent workers who were going home after their late shift had to pay for the actions of the PAC, or allegedly the PAC that morning, is that what you are saying?

MR BOTHA: No that's not at all what I am saying. This person wants to make out that I acted from bitterness and vengeance. It wasn't bitterness. I wanted to hit back, to point out to the government and to the PAC, the ANC, whoever, to show them that these attacks would not be tolerated and that we would hit back.

MR PURSHOTAM: Last question, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: The previous one was your second-last one?

MR PURSHOTAM: Thank you, Mr Chairman for your indulgence. Could I put it to you that for you to sit there in support of your application and tell the Committee it wasn't your intention to claim revenge. At the trial we heard that according to you and your co-accused Black people were diere van die veld and that Black people had no souls. And that it wasn't murder to shoot them.

MR BOTHA: Mr Chairman, I don't know where he gets his information, but everything he said there is completely untrue. Those words never crossed my lips - or those of Mr Smuts.

MR PURSHOTAM: I would refer the Committee to page 157 of the record at the criminal trial.   That is all, Mr Chairman,  please may I be excused?NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PURSHOTAM
MR PURSHOTAM IS EXCUSED

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: According to the records the, Mr Marais told the court that when you approached him, in preparing this attack, he asked why should we carry out this attack, and you said to him, it was to take revenge for the knife attack. What I want to find out is, to confirm, is it the case that you said that to Mr Marais. Did he tell the truth when he testified to that effect?

MR BOTHA: Quite possibly that's true, but as I tried to explain, the word revenge was perhaps just an unfortunate choice of words to express a certain feeling. Revenge wasn't revenge in the sense, as I said, that I felt hard-done-by and that I therefore wanted to take revenge. That wasn't intended.

CHAIRPERSON: Would it be convenient if we take a short adjournment, or rather the mid-day adjournment?COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

DAWID PETRUS BOTHA: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may re-examine your witness.

MS VAN DER WALT: I have no further questions.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman may I put a question to the witness? It concerns a document which is not before the Commission yet. I must apologise. We have tried to make copies and currently we only have two copies. May I hand one in to the Commission, and I will try and make further copies before the adjournment. That will be Exhibit B.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brink, do you have any questions for the witness?

MR BRINK: No thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Botha, thank you very much.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman may I ask two - may I ask the witness two questions in the light of this document which was just handed in?

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Has he had a chance of looking at the document?

MR PRINSLOO: I will lead him on that, Mr Chairman. Thank you Mr Chairman.   Mr Botha, Exhibit B in front of you at the moment. You have already had a look at this document?

MR BOTHA: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: Now that document comes from the Legal Resources Centre, is that correct?

MR BOTHA: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And on page two of the document you will see it is signed on behalf of the Legal Resources Centre by a Mr Purshotam, is that correct?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Will you please read the last paragraph on page two?

MR BOTHA: Yes, Mr Chairman, it's paragraph four, and it's typed in capital letters and it is also underlined - the entire paragraph, and it reads as follows
"If you sign the documents then we do not undertake not to oppose your application for amnesty."
and it is signed by a Mr Purshotam.

MR PRINSLOO: And these documents which you would have signed, what are these?

MR BOTHA: I don't - I'm not that familiar with the terminology in Afrikaans, but it was a consent to Judgment.

MR PRINSLOO: And did you sign it?

MR BOTHA: I did not, no, Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: And a further question. If you look at Exhibit A for a moment Mr Botha this is the oath to which we have already referred in your evidence.

MR BOTHA: Yes, I have it here, Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: The two witnesses who signed Exhibit A - what is the date on which they signed this?

MR BOTHA: It was on the day of this attack, the 9th of October 1990.

MR PRINSLOO: What was the reason for the document being signed on the 24th of September by Eugene Marais, but the witnesses only signed on the 9th of October, what was the reason?