Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-08-07

CHAIRPERSON: That's one of the unfortunate things that one has to accept, no matter how much the persons concerned endeavours to say that it was an act of war, if you go back to think of the bombing of Dresden, an open city.  And these acts have been committed during every war that we have ever seen.  That civilians have suffered as a result of the conflicts.

MR LANDMAN: Mr Chairman I would submit that that is the lesson which one learns from history and all armies would have to take responsibility for that, but Mr Chairman what we do wish to point out and submit is that the manner in which this operation was carried out, that there was a conscious effort to avoid civilian casualties, in as much as it was possible.

CHAIRPERSON: You find yourself perhaps in the embarrassing position that one can contrast this operation with the other one that we're presently hearing.

MR LANDMAN: Mr Chairman that's why I'm not totally dismayed that that matter was postponed.  It gives me more time to think about it.

CHAIRPERSON: I think it is fair to say, and I think Mr Prior agreed, that this - steps were taken here to attempt to chose the target rather than indiscriminately leaving a bomb and hoping that nobody was there at the time it went off.

MR LANDMAN: Mr Chairman on page 10 we deal again with the third applicant's position which was very clear.  He was asked to watch the television new, which he said he never used to watch and he saw the report and he deliberately refrained from informing the police about his knowledge.
	Mr Chairman it's our submission therefore that the evidence of the applicants was satisfactory, there were no material contradictions and they testified freely and openly about their involvement in the issue.
	Mr Chairman our submission is that they've made full disclosure as to their roles and the roles of others in this incident.  Mr Chairman we therefore say in paragraph 5 on page 11 that the evidence given by them is to be accepted as the factual context within which the attack occurred.
	Mr Chairman in paragraph 6 we deal with the three main requirements that have to be satisfied and which the Committee has to be satisfied about before amnesty shall be granted.  
	Mr Chairman we refer the Committee to one of the few reported cases dealing with the amnesty process of Gerber versus Kommissie van Waarheid en Versoening.  Mr Chairman if I recall correctly, you Mr Chairman would have knowledge of this particular matter as it concerned an application in which inter alia yourself was involved as a Committee member.  Mr Chairman, his Lordship Mr Justice Southwood in that case made a number of observations which I submit reflect the approach which the Committee, the Amnesty Committee indeed does take when approaching these matters.  The first being that each case should be judged on it's own merits and shouldn't be analysed and considered in the light of other applications, but that the facts of the present matter ought to be taken into account.
	Mr Chairman then on page 13 we deal with the three requirements.  Mr Chairman only one of the three applications was sworn to or affirmed, depending on what the person would have done if the procedure had been followed fully, but Mr Chairman it's our submission that the failure to have attested to these applications is in our submission not a material defect which is so substantial as to prevent the Committee from considering the application.
	Mr Chairman in regard to the second requirement ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I think in that regard both Mr Prior and myself are aware of the conditions appertaining in the office in Cape Town at the time the applications were lodged and that certainly in so far as any blame is to be attached it should not be attached to the applicant.  Do you agree Mr Prior?

UNKNOWN: To the extent that these forms were, the applicants were assisted in completing these forms by competent persons, certainly some of the blame can be shared.  I wouldn't go ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: In the event of those persons being competent, they were assisted by people who should have known what to do, but unfortunately I think we will know that the procedure that should have been followed of returning forms for verification just wasn't done in those days.

UNKNOWN: Certainly in that respect I must agree with you Mr Chairman.

MR LANDMAN: Mr Chairman I don't want to direct any criticisms at any parties, I just wish to point out for the sake of the Committee that the applications themselves bear a stamp of the Truth and Reconciliation Committee's investigative unit dated the 10th of May 1997, so they had been lying there for some time without this problem being detected.
	Mr Chairman if I could go on to the second required then, though it should be an act associated with the political objective.  Mr Chairman again in the judgement of his Lordship Mr Justice Southwood in the Gerber matter, he makes the point that the Committee would refrain from embarking upon the narrow investigation, this is at the top of page 14, but rather that the Committee will take all the circumstances pertaining to the application into account in the light of and against the criteria mentioned in Section 20 Sub Section 3 of the Act.  Mr Chairman it is our submission that the acts committed by the applicants, alternatively those with which they associated themselves, and this is in regard to the third applicant, fall within the provisions of the sub sections.
	Mr Chairman there can be no question that the first and second applicants were at the time members of a publicly known political organisation or liberation movement, namely the ANC and it's armed wing Umkhonto weSizwe.  In respect of the third applicant he's the person who associated himself with the act committed by the first applicant and therefore falls within the definition of a person referred to in Sub Section 2.g.  Chairman we submit further that the act was committed on behalf of the ANC/MK bona fide in the furtherance of the political struggle waged by that organisation against the State during 1987.  
	Mr Chairman we submit that that is the only conclusion that can be reached.  When considering the act and the evidence given by the applicants against the submissions made by the ANC.

CHAIRPERSON: And although we didn't, perhaps we should have sought more clarification, it is clear isn't it regarding the evidence as a whole that the second applicant used his position as logistics officer to ensure that through ANC sources the necessary explosives and exploding device were put into the dead letter box.

MR LANDMAN: Mr Chairman as I understand his evidence as a whole he was indeed responsible for that and responsible for ensuring ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: And there can be no doubt I think on the evidence we've heard that these were supplied by the ANC, they weren't any private explosives, it was never suggested that they were anything other than explosives supplied by the ANC for an ANC operation.