Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1998-10-07

MR ZILWA: I quite agree with that Mr Chairman, that is why I've repeatedly stated that the applicants themselves have stated in no uncertain terms and there's no evidence to contradict that that in acting as they did, they genuinely and bona fide believed their actions were in the furtherance in the interest of their organisation and as the other member of the Committee has pointed out, all that the Act really needs is that it should be in furtherance of a political objective.
	Now as I've submitted, I don't think there can be any suggestion that in fact their act was not a furtherance of a political objective.  It's unfortunate that the history of our country has been such that in the past politics almost often as it had to be associated with race, there's no need to go on expatiating about that, it's clear.  The white race is the one that was in power, that was in control.  I'm not saying every member of the white race but people who had been responsible for the oppression of the blacks for a number of years, for many years.  Now it's unfortunate that when we talk politics of the past, we almost of necessity have to talk about race.  The point I'm trying to make is that the attack of the, by the applicants, on people of the white race should be viewed in that perspective, that according to what they have stated before this Committee, a member of the white race was responsible for the killing of a black prominent leader and in pursuance of their political objective to hurry the liberation of the black man in the hand of an oppressive white man, they felt that the killing of white people would send that message.  As I say it's unfortunate that it has to be like but that's a reality of the past which we cannot run away from.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, I keep on interrupting you and I'm not too happy about that.  You see, that is the broader historical but if you look at Section, I think Section 23(b) where it says when we try to determine as to whether a particular kind of conduct is an act associated with a political objective it sets down those guidelines, those criteria and one of them is the political context.  Now my question is which one are we dealing with here?  There is the context of those organisational problems at Port St Johns before Mr Hani is assassinated, that seems to be the one background to this if one listens to the evidence.  The other background all of a sudden is the assassination of Mr Hani, which one of the two, is it a combination of the two or what?

MR ZILWA: Let me put that in perspective, Mr Chairman.  The evidence of the applicants is this, there were problems in Port St Johns, problems requiring attention, but problems which at the time were not such that they called for an action, a violent action on their part.  Now they say they were still investigating those and they were going to forward them to the higher echelons, they were going to forward their findings to the higher echelons of the organisation.  Now they say whilst that process was still afoot, unfortunately this event of the killing of Chris Hani occurred and now one should be very careful in this.  What they say is this "now when we decided that this was something that called for an action of the nature in which we were engaged in, we decided that well, we have to kill a white man, but it can't be just any white man, it should be a white man who has a destabilising effect on our liberation movement."  And they say, I'm not saying that was, that theirs was the ...[indistinct] reasonableness, they say because there were those problems and because we had to choose areas, in our retaliation we had to pinpoint whites who could be said to be against our liberation struggle, we didn't just want to hit any white, we decided that simply because there were these rumours that in fact the whites at Port St Johns and in particular the whites residing in this Mpande area were those whites who were responsible for this.  I'm not saying that theirs was a very well thought out action but it should be remembered, their actions should be viewed in the context of the fact that everybody was boiling with rage and people in their position, leaders of the organisation, they were very much effected by what was happening.  Now as they themselves have considered with the benefit of hindsight, with the wisdom of hindsight, then they realised and they readily admit that perhaps they could have done more to establish the genuiness of their target but ...[intervention]

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

ADV DE JAGER: Have a look at the context in which the act, omission or offence took place and in particular when the act, omission or offence was committed in the course of or as part of a political uprising, a disturbance or an event or a reaction thereto.  Wasn't this in reaction to the killing of Hani?

MR ZILWA: Mr Chairman, on the evidence and there's been nothing to gainsay that, on the evidence by the applicants is that this event took place only because of the killing of Chris Hani.  The question ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: Why should we argue about a hundred other things.

MR ZILWA: Well, unfortunately I was responding to a question which was pertinently put to me, that is whether or not the fact of the AWB or otherwise in Port St Johns had anything to do with the matter.

ADV DE JAGER: Kindly confine those to the requirements of the Act.

MR ZILWA: Thank you, that's exactly what I'll do except when I'm responding to a particular question, Mr Chairman.

ADV SANDI: I want to follow your argument a bit clearly.  In your submission now, what was happening before the 10th April must be regarded as a side issue?

MR ZILWA: I would submit that it is indeed a side issue because those happenings did not give rise to this event.  What gave rise to this event was a matter of Chris Hani.  In other words, if Chris Hani had not died, the Weakleys would never have been killed in the manner and at the time in which they were because as the applicants say, this was just a matter for investigation and then on what transmission thereof to the higher echelons of the organisation.  That is all they were going to do.  In other words, what brought about this event is the killing of Chris Hani.
	Now, this sub-section 3(b) refer to a political event, disturbance or event or a reaction thereto.  It's common cause, it's clear ...[inaudible]

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Zilwa, will I be correct in summing up your argument on this particular point is that it was clearly a reaction to the assassination of Mr Hani?  The fact that there were rumours or possibly activities by a political organisation which was a threat or an inconvenience, let's say to the ANC, merely determined the locality of where the reaction would occur?

MR ZILWA: That is exactly what I'm saying, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: If that's what you're saying then I think you can proceed to the second question he's asked you.

MR ZILWA: Thank you Mr Chairman.  As I understand, the second question was in the event of the panel - I'm sorry - of the Committee disregarding the aspect of any AWB activity in the area, what is applicants' position if their action is regarded as retaliatory event of Hani's death and to convey their message.  If I understood the question correctly, that's what the second question is.  Now ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: You've answered it half already.

MR ZILWA: I have actually and ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: Could you kindly address us on Section 3(d)?