Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1998-09-09

UNKNOWN: Yes, Chairperson indeed.  First if I may attend to my learned colleague's submission.  I just have a problem with two of the paragraphs therein.
	Firstly paragraph 9.3, my colleague alleges that it is not disputed that the applicants acted in accordance with instructions.  It was in fact disputed in that I alleged that the instructions were not so broadly phrased as to include attacks on civilian targets.
	Secondly in paragraph 9.6, it is alleged that the attack was in line with APLA policy and that this was also never disputed.  I did in fact dispute that.  I disputed the fact that APLA at that time had a policy of attacking so-called soft targets or civilian targets.
	I now turn to my closing argument.  The purpose of an inquiry by the Amnesty Committee cannot be seen in isolation from the aims and objectives of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
	In order to reconcile ourselves with the injustices committed against ourselves, by our fellow Africans, it is necessary that we understand what it was that motivated people to commit acts of violence against others.
	Only once we are able to figuratively stand in the shoes of our former enemies, is forgiveness possible.  This is why it is of crucial importance that amnesty applications are not rubber stamped in the absence of opposition thereto.  Whether or not the victim's opposition to the amnesty application at hand, can be categorised as having been successful, depends not so much on whether or not the Commission grants amnesty, as to whether or not the truth has emerged and whether this has been of assistance in the process of reconciliation.
	Having heard the evidence of the applicant and having been afforded the opportunity of testing this evidence in cross-examination, I am in a position to re-access the opposing affidavit of my client, and to make the following concessions:
	At paragraph 18.1 thereof it is accepted that the act was indeed associated with a political objective committed within the course of the conflicts of the past.  
	At paragraph 18.2 thereof, it is accepted that the applicant was indeed a member of a publicly known organisation or movement bona fide in furtherance of a political struggle which was at the time, being waged against the State by the aforesaid organisation, to wit the PAC and its armed wing, APLA.
	At paragraph 18.4(a) thereof it is accepted that the applicant was indeed motivated by something other than malice and hatred of white people.  There is however an important (indistinct) to this concession, in that it is alleged that a hatred of whites in their capacity as oppressors of the African people, must have been and indeed was, a contributing motivational factor.
	The applicant does not appear to have shown remorse in the time immediately following the attack, and even went so far as to say that had a white person been killed in the train station attack, he would have been more satisfied with the relative success of this operation.
	Paragraph 18.4(b) thereof it is conceded that the offence was indeed committed within the context of a political uprising, disturbance or event or a reaction thereto.
	At paragraph 18.4(1) thereof it is accepted that the act may be seen as being proportional to the objectives of the organisation, namely the liberation of the African people from oppression.  It is further conceded that this act and similar acts, may have influenced the demise of the Apartheid system.
	At paragraph 18.4(k) thereof, it is accepted that the applicant bore no personal grudge against the victims of this attack, other than that which he may have held against them as a class of people he refers to as the oppressors.
	It is conceded that it is probable that the R1 000-00 given to the applicant, did not constitute payment for his services and that he was not a mercenary.
	It follows from the aforementioned that it is accepted that the applicant was indeed a member of APLA and that he did receive some nature of orders from his Commander known as Power.
	It is not clear what the plan referred to by the applicant, was when he arrived in Cape Town.  He says he told his comrades what the mission was, but the details of this mission were not forthcoming on cross-examination.
	This was the first time the applicant had been involved in an attack on a purely civilian target, yet he denies that he was ever aware of any significance to be attached to this.
	Not only were these people civilians, but they were unarmed and no attempt was in any event made, nor was it alleged to have been made, part of the plan to acquire arms during this operation.  On the contrary it would appear as if they made sure that no Policemen were present at the time when the attack was launched.
	The attacks on civilians at St James church, Heidelberg Tavern and Crazy Beat disco only took place during 1993 and 1994.  It is unclear why the applicant was under the impression that he bought tobacco from a restaurant that firstly does not sell tobacco or did not sell tobacco, and secondly was only open for business in the evenings, and the applicant claimed to have bought tobacco from the restaurant during the day.
	He could have mistakenly viewed the two adjoining establishments as one.  It is conceded that this is possibly an easy error to make.  It is noteworthy that the attackers arrived in a Datsun 1200 motor car, left the driver in the car, yet all three are alleged to have escaped in a bakkie.
	The Mitchell's Plain Magistrate's courts were known to have been experiencing serious problems during the time in which the applicant was acquitted, ostensibly for lack of evidence and it is submitted that not too much reliance ought to be placed thereon.
	Be that as it may, it is also true that the applicant stands to gain little from the amnesty application, and it cannot be said therefore that his application is motivated purely by self interest.
	It is conceded that this ought to count in the applicant's favour.  The applicant's argument that all white people underwent compulsory military training, deserves further attention.
	Only white adult males between the ages of 17 and I speak under correction here, 55 were liable for military service.  Full time students were exempted from such service for the period of their studies.  Females were not required to undergo military training.
	The training was compulsory and the penalties for refusing to undergo training, was severe.
	Not all white people supported military training, or for that matter, the Apartheid system.  It is that very generalisation that forms a core component of the concept of racism.
	It is however, recognised that racism was indeed a feature of the past, and viewed against this background, the views of the applicant at the time, are hardly surprising.
	The applicant's distinction between a guerrilla fighter and a terrorist is noted and it is accepted that he viewed himself in terms of the former.
	It is not for me to decide whether or not the applicant has met the requirements for amnesty as set out in the Act.  I wish to state however, that whatever the decision of the Committee, it has the support of my client, Ms Warner, and I would like to convey her instructions to me that knowing what happened and hearing the applicant's version thereof, has been of assistance to her, and although she has no desire to meet with the applicant at present, she does not rule out the possibility of such a meeting in the future.
	She is particularly impressed by his decision to come forward and take responsibility for the attack, when he was never convicted in respect thereof.
	Those are my submissions Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: ... your concessions that you made in paragraph 18, would you highlight or just make mention of those sections of paragraph 18 where you don't make any concessions?

MR WARNER: Yes, I certainly can.