Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1997-03-17

MR BLOEM: And my submission is that one needs to look at why a person would go to the extreme of wanting to kill another person and you can only do that by looking at the circumstances at the time.   And he said that it - I now when I look back I am sorry for what I have done, but at the time I thought, I thought at the time that that was the correct decision not for myself, but for the community in which I lived.   And that, I would submit is a bona fide, albeit that now we realise it was a mistake on his part but at the time he was convinced that that was the right decision, given the circumstances at the time.

JUDGE WILSON: You are having regard to the findings of the court who convicted him about his hatred for her.

MR BLOEM: That Mr Chairman, is his evidence but that certainly is not his evidence that he killed her because he hated her. He hated what she was doing but it was not against her person per se.  It was her deeds in the community, how she was cutting off water, what she was doing, to bringing in a vigilante group, that is what he was against, not the person, Mrs Hanabe, herself.  It was not about that.  It was what she was doing and what her role EAST LONDON HEARING	AMNESTY/E CAPE
 
MR BLOEM	111	ADDRESS
in the community was at the time.   That was his complaint as far as ...(intervention)

SISI KHAMPEPE: At the time of her elimination is there evidence that she was still cutting off water and sanitation services to the local community, all by herself?

MR BLOEM: If the evidence is not clear in that regard I would submit that the evidence should be seen in the light, that the decision to kill was taken as a result of her conduct, and the conduct complained of, one of the acts she is accused of, was cutting off the water supply to the community ...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: And you have driven her out of office, as a result.  You have driven the Council out of office, because of that.  You will recollect Mr Blaau said it was the Councillors who cut off the water.  They all have been driven out of office.  They cannot do a thing any more.  Can you still say that you could have regard to that as a justification for killing?

MR BLOEM: As I understand the evidence, firstly we all know that the intention was to kill, but certainly she was not killed.

JUDGE WILSON: The intention, you are trying to justify that intention, by saying oh, she cut the water off.

MR BLOEM: The evidence was that - the evidence certainly from the applicant was that she refused and he is corroborated by Mr Blaau in that respect, that Mr Blaau goes to the extent of
saying that they went to these Councillors individually and they spoke to them and they resigned, but the one and only person who refused to resign was Mrs Hanabe and the retaliation was, of her, was to cut off the water ...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: That is nonsense and you know it.  There is no such evidence to suggest that that was done after the resignation.

MR BLOEM: Mr Chairman please, I led the witness and my
EAST LONDON HEARING	AMNESTY/E CAPE
 
MR BLOEM	112	ADDRESS
recollection of that was, when I led him in this regard was, my understanding of his evidence was that the retaliation, the word retaliation was used, and the retaliation from Mrs Hanabe, when she was asked to leave the community, she refused to and she retaliated.   	That was his evidence when I led him and she retaliated by cutting off the water ...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: When she realised most of the community was against her she retaliated by cutting off people's water.  As the community was trying to make her resign we decided she should be eliminated.

MR BLOEM: I with respect, can I just be allowed to deal with this point, because I was accused of making a submission that was absolutely nonsense and I believe that I have the right to respond to that.   And I am saying that that is not so because I led the witness on that aspect and my recollection, the member of the Committee might be reading from something else, but I am talking, and my submission was made in the context of his evidence led here today, and his evidence was that as a result of the request for her to step down, she retaliated by cutting off the water.
	That is how I understand the evidence.   And that is the submission I make. I do not make the submission based on what was read now by a member of this Committee.  I am prepared to deal with that if it is asked.

HASSAN MALL: Well, carry on with the ...(intervention)

MR BLOEM: Thank you Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: And do we ignore Mr Blaau's evidence when he said the Councillors stopped the water for the people and clearly showed they were the enemies of the people?

MR BLOEM: I can only reply by saying that he was talking about Councillors and to be a Mayor or Mayoress you need to be a
EAST LONDON HEARING	AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR BLOEM	113	ADDRESS
Councillor and I think Mrs Hanabe - his evidence should be read in that context.

JUDGE WILSON: He was talking about Councillors as a whole.  At that time he said everything came from the Nationalist Government, the Councillors were regarded as enemies, they sold the people out, they did not consult with them.  They stopped water for the people.

MR BLOEM: I cannot take the point further, Mr Chairman by saying Mrs Hanabe obviously was one of the Councillors.  So when Mr Blaau gave evidence about Councillors, he obviously must have included Mrs Hanabe.  I cannot take that matter any further.

HASSAN MALL: Very well.  Make your next point.

MR BLOEM: Just about the political objective. I know I was asked about the question of how proportional the intention to kill was in relation to the circumstances in Klipplaat at the time, but I want to make the submission that a decision was taken and the decision was not taken by the applicant alone, the decision was taken by a number of people.  	We know from his evidence, although Mr Blaau, and I am prepared to concede that
that Mr Blaau was very vague about that, we know that from the applicant's evidence there were five people who took the decision that she should - there was a general meeting .....

JUDGE WILSON: I do not think Mr Blaau was vague about that one.  It was a fairly categoric denial, was it not?

HASSAN MALL: I think it was a denial but it was extracted out of him painfully.

MR BLOEM: That is what I mean.  Thank you very much.
	Now the applicant he believes that he was, and this is what he said, because a decision was taken in Klipplaat by that Committee of five people he then went with the other two people and he committed the act.  
EAST LONDON HEARING	AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR BLOEM	115	ADDRESS
	Now my submission is that it was basically an order given to him by that Committee in Klipplaat, whilst the applicant was a member, an Executive member of the ANC and aalso a member of the South African Communist Party.

HASSAN MALL: I do not think you can go very much further with that kind of argument, acting under authority. This is hardly a case where these people were his superiors and he had to carry out an order by his superiors on pain of some punishment.  He was one amongst five equals.  Do you understand?  He was as excited or keen about it as any of them were.   So I think to say he acted on the orders of a group of five is pushing it too far.