Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 2000-01-17

MR VISSER: Chairperson, what occurred to me was this.  Would it be unfair to have expected - and I'm now arguing Commissioner Lax' case,

MR VISSER: Would it be unfair to have expected - and I'm now arguing Commissioner Lax's case, would it have been unfair to have expected for the Task Force to have been deployed on all exit routes away from that house?  And why didn't the Task Force go and set up roadblocks, at least on the main avenues away from that house?  Those are questions which ought to have been dealt with in cross-examination but they weren't.  What you heard from the three applicants was that they were members of the Security Branch, as well as Taylor of course, it wasn't their operation.  They were called out to assist.  They were there in a capacity to assist.  It was not their operation.  One would imagine that Steyn could have said to van Sittert and/or Breytenbach:  "But Boys, don't you have a better plan?"  According to him he didn't, but where does it take us Chairperson?  The fact of the matter is that the intention of the three applicants before you was that these people were going to be arrested and if you look at their conduct thereafter, it is only in line with the intention of arresting.
	First of all, my learned friend Mr Webster suggested that there was never any intention just to arrest them, but the intention was to kill them.  Now taking that at face value, assuming that to be the case, would Botha and Steyn really have chosen the N2 freeway to kill these victims in heavy traffic where there are members of the public present who could be hurt in a shooting and which would create further complications?  No, Chairperson, the answer is no.  They would have followed that car up to a point where it was relatively quiet, where they would have executed it, that plan, in our submission.  That's on the probabilities, but that's clear probabilities.  What you have ...(intervention)

MR LAX: Just while you're on that point, why didn't they follow the car to a place where it was quiet and arrest them?

MR VISSER: Well, because they were in heavy traffic, the car was clearly aware of them, they had tried to ram them and that is the reason why it was important to stop them as soon as possible because there were other members on the road present.  We're speculating, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You know, this question of ramming, here is a car which you are chasing, you see this car ahead of you, how does that car ram you when you are chasing him?

MR VISSER: By swerving - No, Mr Chairman, the evidence of Botha was that their car was on the left-hand side of this car and the kombi in which Wasserman was, was at some stage on the right-hand side of that car, of the Cressida.  The ramming, Chairperson, Botha explained to you was by the Cressida swerving in their direction trying to push them off the road.

CHAIRPERSON: Swerving in front of the car driven by Botha?

MR VISSER: Botha said they swerved towards the car which he was driving, in order to attempt to push him off the road.  That was his evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, carry on.

MR LAX: So you were saying that this was not conduct in keeping with an attempt to kill, but rather an attempt to arrest?

MR VISSER: Yes.

MR LAX: I didn't want to put you off your stroke, just to help you where you were.

MR VISSER: I'm sorry?

MR LAX: I just wanted to help you pick up the threads of where you were when I interrupted you.

MR VISSER: Yes, Chairperson, that is my submission, on the probabilities, that is if you find that there's some reason not to believe the applicants because their evidence in this regard stands uncontested.  The only thing that could contest their evidence would be a clear probability to the contrary and what I'm submitting to you is that their conduct was, according to the probabilities, the only inference you can draw is that it was compatible only with an intention to arrest.  Why would Botha shoot at the rear wheel of the car?  He's applying for amnesty and he was asked many questions and it was put to him and I'll refer you to the pages just now, that he did nothing wrong.  He applies for amnesty in regard to the killing of these four people.  He could, if that was the truth and if those were the facts, he could have just told you:  "I fired at the occupants of the car", but what he said is something different.  He says:  "I fired at the left rear tyre.  Some of my shots could have gone into the car, I don't know.  To this day I don't know whether they did or didn't and whether I hit somebody or not."  So Mr Chairman, I can take this matter no further other than to submit, as I've already done, that the evidence of the applicants stands uncontested in this regard and unless you find that there's a probability which is so inherent, improbable in their story that they cannot be believed, then I submit Mr Chairman, that you would accept that version.
	And of course Mr Chairman and Mr Lax could possibly help us, there are many exit routes from KwaMashu.  I'm told, Mr Chairman and I don't want to give evidence, but I'm told that if you wanted to put up roadblocks from that house in all directions, it would have been virtually impossible.  Mr Chairman, the reference is at page 482, the ramming of or the attempted ramming of the vehicle, 482, in the middle of the page it says:
"

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, do carry on.
		"MR BOTHA:  Gen Steyn and I noticed the vehicle (and he's referring to the Cressida, if I may refer to it as the Cressida) at some stage.  We moved in on the left-hand side, into the vehicle and I ..."
well, "into" seems like a misinterpretation, but be that as it may,
"... and I shouted:  'Police, stop.'  The vehicle did not stop and tried to ram us off the road.  There was no contact with our vehicle.  The other vehicle twice tried to knock us.

MR VISSER: By doing what?
		MR BOTHA:  By swerving in our direction and trying to knock us.

MR VISSER: And trying to swerve to the left-hand side?
		MR BOTHA:  That's correct"
and he then goes on and he says shots were fired.

CHAIRPERSON: This is at page 482?

MR VISSER: That's before he shot.  That's before he shot.  Now those, Mr Chairman, are not the actions of a man who merely is intent on killing the occupants.  Why would he do all these things if that was his intention and on a busy freeway?  We submit, with respect, Mr Chairman that there's nothing to gainsay the fact that the intention was to arrest them, but it's a plan gone horribly wrong and it started clearly on all the evidence with Botha firing that first shot.  There can be little doubt in anybody's mind about that.

CHAIRPERSON: We heard this evidence a long time ago and I'd like you to refresh and throw some light on a difficulty I have.

MR VISSER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: If this was the plan that you call it, was a plan of the Task Force, why was the Task Force not leading all these police vehicles?  Why was it right at the rear?

MR VISSER: Well Chairperson, you will recall the evidence that when they heard that these people had left the house, everybody scurried into a vehicle and took off in a direction.  It so happened that Botha and Steyn and Wasserman were the ones who came onto this vehicle first.  You will also recall the evidence about communications or rather the lack thereof.  	Mr Chairman, in those days there were different wavebands on which the police and the army and different sections within the police and the army operated, strange as it may seem today, but it was not possible, for example, if you were on a so-called Security Police waveband to talk to, for example the Task Force or to the SADF and that evidence was placed before you.  You will recall that Steyn ...(intervention)