Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-08-18

GEN STEYN: No, I'm aware of that, but I'm talking about myself, in my case not, I'm talking about my case.  I know, I've heard reports and evidence that certain people were congratulated and received medals, whatever the case may be but that does not apply to me.

MR WEBSTER: Those medals and that recognition was for conduct identical to this, is that correct?

GEN STEYN: In certain cases yes, if I remember correctly but it doesn't apply to me.

MR WEBSTER: You naturally wouldn't that, General, would you?

GEN STEYN: What do you want me to admit?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, let's proceed?

MR WEBSTER: General, in how many applications are you involved?

GEN STEYN: I think about ten or twelve.

MR WEBSTER: Are you not involved in various applications by Du Preez, Wasserman, others?

GEN STEYN: Yes I was involved with them in certain cases and in other cases I was involved with other members.

MR WEBSTER: At all times you were second in command when these atrocities were being committed, General?

GEN STEYN: No.

MR WEBSTER: You were not the second in command?

GEN STEYN: Not at all times.

MR WEBSTER: I put the same question to Mr Botha, I direct it to you again.  Those poor widows whose orphans do not even get a State grant, they're here to know who killed their husbands and their fathers, can you help them?

GEN STEYN: Yes.

MR WEBSTER: Who killed them?

GEN STEYN: The policemen who were at that scene.

MR WEBSTER: And those - and you did not pull the trigger, is that correct?

GEN STEYN: No, I did not fire a shot but I associated myself with that conduct, in other words I carried the same blame.

MR WEBSTER: I understand General, I understand the law, those women there are not interested in the law, they want to see the faces.

CHAIRPERSON: Now sometimes these things are not possible, you know.

MR WEBSTER: I say in so far as here.

CHAIRPERSON: I think we must just get along, we're not pandered into a gallery, you are talking to a Committee here, you know, and I think the question must be directed at trying to persuade us that he is not entitled to amnesty, that should be the purpose of your questioning.

MR WEBSTER: It indeed is with the greatest of respect Chairperson and if I err I also err on the side of wanting to express the deep hurt and the deep feelings of those people least that it be said that at some stage that their feelings were not given heed to and the applicants afforded the opportunity of identifying so that they probably know who the murderers are.

CHAIRPERSON: They will be allowed, they will be at liberty, they'd be allowed to come and talk and give evidence.

MR WEBSTER: Yes, no I understand Chairperson, but what I'm saying is so that the General who was there who could know where the firing came from could be more explicit and not as vague as to simply tell us that about 50 shots were fired at and killed the occupants of those of that vehicle without a face being attached to any of those shots that were fired.

GEN STEYN: Chairperson, there's already been evidence here that Director Botha shot, he is not certain whether he actually hit people.

MR WEBSTER: From his evidence it is not reasonably possibly true or not reasonably possible that he could have injured any person?

GEN STEYN: Yes.

MR WEBSTER: That will be an argument none the less.  General, thank you very much.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR WEBSTER

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have any questions to put to this witness?

MS THABETHE: Yes Chairperson, I do.
	The picture of - of course I stand to be corrected by you, the picture that you've given today is that you were called to the kwaMashu Police Station and there were people who were observing the house where Mamela and others were at that time, is that correct so far?

GEN STEYN: Yes.

MS THABETHE: And then immediately you were told that these people are leaving the house, that's when you got into your car and you gave chase to them, is that correct?

GEN STEYN: No, let me just correct here?

MS THABETHE: Okay.

GEN STEYN: It didn't happen immediately after I arrived there, it was only at about dusk.

MS THABETHE: At about dusk?

GEN STEYN: Yes.

MS THABETHE: Now my question is why didn't you conduct the arrest at the time when these people were still in the house?

GEN STEYN: I've already answered the question, we didn't want to carry out an operation in that area in order to protect our informer, we didn't want to reveal his identify.

MS THABETHE: No, why I'm asking you this question is that in the evidence it's become clear that there were weapons in the house so without necessarily blowing up the cover of your informer, you could have gotten into the house, found those weapons and you would have had evidence to charge them on, that's the basis of my question.  I understand that you had to protect the informer but there was an alternative?

GEN STEYN: My answer remains the same in these circumstances, we need to protect the informer.

MS THABETHE: You did not see it necessary that you could arrest on the evidence or get the firearms that were in the house, you did not look into that option?

GEN STEYN: It was as a result of the fact that the informer's cover should not be revealed.

MS THABETHE: I'll continue, I won't belabour on that point very much.

MR LAX: Sorry, before you do and while we are on this issue, if I might interpose Chair?  I'm a bit puzzled by this myself and I've heard all the answers that have been given so far to this issue and the only basis I would understand that you might expose the informer is if the informer was one of those people in the house who would be arrested with you.  Any other basis that would exclude that, how would you possibly expose such an informer?

GEN STEYN: It could amount to that yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Twenty policemen raid a house in the evening.  How is anybody going to know who the informer was, how would these inmates know who was the one who informed you?  So this question about protecting the informer, there's something which one has some difficulty in accepting.

GEN STEYN: Chairperson, the way I thought at that stage was that it would be good to stay as far away from that house as possible, it would be safer the further away we got.

MS THABETHE: Now coming to the chase that eventually took place, what I want to know is that when you followed Mamela and others, what was your intention at that stage?

GEN STEYN: As I've already said, to arrest these people.

MS THABETHE: But that didn't subsequently happen of course as the evidence?

GEN STEYN: Yes, I testified to that effect.

MS THABETHE: Now my last question to you is, if your intention was not to kill or to murder Mamela and others, how then would you justify the granting of amnesty on a killing if your intention was not to kill?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, that surely is a legal argument, it's not for this witness to reply to?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes the fact of the matter is that they engaged in conduct which resulted in the death, the conduct itself.

MS THABETHE: So intention is not important, Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: Murder, the intention is important as an element in the crime of murder, yes.  Here this constructive intention, when you open fire at people, you're not saying I'm going to kill you but you open fire, reckless of whether the consequences of whether he will die or not.

MS THABETHE: Okay Chairperson, on those bases I don't have any further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS THABETHE

CHAIRPERSON: Right you are.  Any re-examination?

MR VISSER: None thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thanks very much.  Now sorry about this, Mr Webster you must just bear with me.  We have a witness who was supposed to give evidence in another matter.

MS THABETHE: Yes Chairperson, she's been waiting since 11 o'clock.

CHAIRPERSON: Is she available to give evidence?

MS THABETHE: She is Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Just hold it.