Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1999-04-13

CHAIRPERSON: I think you know on this line as well Mr Knoetze there's - we've heard that what General van der Westhuizen did was to draft the plan.  I mean he conceived it and drafted it, but then he submitted it to his authority, to the head of the Defence Force ...(intervention)

MR KNOETZE: The army ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ...to the army for consideration.  It could have happened like Strelitzia and just ended there, be killed and buried, end of story, but the decision was then taken at that level to go back, do a little bit more work on - appoint a couple of chaps to assist and then to proceed with portions of phase 1.  So it's not that General van der Westhuizen did this himself and implemented or started to implement it, but I think that's also an important consideration.

MR KNOETZE: I submit it's most important Mr Chairman.  Clearly the plan was, at least as far as that portion, authorised, the evidence states that the people who we say authorised it, have been represented in this hearing before you and no objection has come from any one of them.  On top of that the fact that payment has been made to various people, the payment that was eventually made to Ron Reid-Daly and his squad could not have been made if there wasn't proper authorisation.
	So if the Committee is satisfied on that Mr Chairman I won't take the time for that.

CHAIRPERSON: You see I mean we are bound by the evidence in front of us unless we are the view that it's so improbable that it may be rejected as being false ...(intervention)

MR KNOETZE: Which evidence I submit, Mr Chairman, with respect, is acceptable not only because it wasn't challenged but you heard the quality of it.  The witness was clearly speaking from his heart.  He was honest.  He disclosed everything.  You will recall that we also made further documents available to the leader of evidence which he did not even find necessary to refer to, which must be an indication to you that everything of substance was in fact referred to.  It is for that reason, Mr Chairman, the requirement contained in section 21(c) I submit has also been satisfied.
	Mr Chairman there is also of course section 22(e) which, if the Committee has any problem, in regard to the coup d'etat in respect of which you will recall General van der Westhuizen testifying that when Ron Reid-Daly wanted to do it he was advised not to do so, the defence force wasn't supporting him anymore although it had been part of the plan initially.  But 22(e) reads that:-
"Any person in the performance of a coup d'etat to take over the government of any former state or in any attempt thereto, is also entitled to amnesty".

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR KNOETZE: And insofar as that may be necessary I request that you also take that into consideration Mr Chairman.
	If I may just come back to that which is contained in section 23A-F by saying to you that in my submission all the requirements contained there have been satisfied by General van der Westhuizen but that if you should have any problem I would like to refer you to a decision in which these principles have been discussed which is RAPHOLO v THE STATE PRESIDENT AND OTHERS 1993 (1) SA 680 (T), but I submit Mr Chairman this is not a borderline case.  You need not do so.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes I think that can - when you are dealing with illegal orders or orders to commit illegal acts etc that covers those principles, amongst others as well.

MR KNOETZE: Precisely Mr Chairman.
	Mr Chairman in conclusion then I would submit to you that the evidence before you in this amnesty application is such that you ought to be satisfied that the application complies with the requirements of the Act and that the act and commission of the offence to which the application relates is an act associated with a political objective committed in the course of the conflicts of the past and that the applicant has made full disclosure of all the relevant facts.
	Now we have already addressed you Mr Chairman as to whether it is necessary to refer to specific delicts or offences.  I repeat, with respect, that it is not necessary but you will recall that we have handed in Exhibit E and that those are the acts and omissions or of possible offences that we could identify but we would not like to bound to it Mr Chairman.  I would prefer your order to refer to the broad actions flowing from Plan Katzen as we have stated it in our application, and of course I don't want to prescribe, but if you want to couple it to "E", please do so by not limit ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: You want a dragnet ...(intervention)

MR KNOETZE: Not limiting the generality of the application as it was first filed Mr Chairman.
	In conclusion, Mr Chairman, there is just one thing that I found reading through a book which is called the "Groot Aanhalings Boek", it quotes our President and it also indicates something of which General van der Westhuizen has been doing.  The President said:-
"A freedom fighter learns the hard way that the oppressor determines the course of events and the oppressed is often given no choice but to apply certain methods which is actually a mirror of the methods used by the oppressor".
and I suppose Mr Chairman, that this is also relevant in this case of ours and I ask you to grant the amnesty which General van der Westhuizen requested.
	Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Knoetze.  Mr Avenant are you ready to address?

MR AVENANT: Yes I am ready to continue.
	Mr Knoetze has already touched on most of the aspects which I wanted to touch on, so I don't think it will be necessary to duplicate.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes it wouldn't be necessary to repeat - we find that it often occurs in hearings of this nature that the person who has to address second can adopt much of what has been said in the beginning, particularly relating to the sections of the Act and the requirements etc.

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman I would just like to concentrate on the orders and instructions, whether General Griebenauw acted on the instructions.
(The Interpreter requests the speaker to perhaps sit closer to the microphone, it's hard to hear him).

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Avenant, the Interpreter has asked if you could just put the microphone closer to you, she is having difficulty hearing you.

MR AVENANT: Thank you.  I would like to just for a moment just concentrate on the order given to General Griebenauw since Katzen was, to a large extent, a Defence Force initiative and I would like to go back to that part of the evidence in respect of the meeting held in Port Elizabeth where the instruction was initially given and where General Griebenauw then voiced his objections to it.
	His evidence was that he received an order from the Commissioner of Police via Brigadier Schoon who attended the meeting as the Commissioner of Police's representative at that meeting.  It is my submission that this order was sufficient to place him within the requirements of the Act and in any event if there had never been such an order from the police side there would never have been a withdrawal from the Plan as the later evidence proves.
	I do not know if there are any further aspects.

CHAIRPERSON: I think it is quite clear from the evidence that General Griebenauw what he performed and the orders he issued in pursuance to anything under Katzen was - he wasn't acting as a maverick and trying to further his own aims.  In fact quite to the contrary it's quite clear that from the start he wasn't keen on it, but what he did was, because he was obliged he felt obliged to do.  I think that's quite clear from his evidence and that he took the quickest opportunity to bail out of it.