Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-11-19

CHAIRPERSON: Good morning everybody.  We continue with the argument in this matter but before we do so, and I should have raised this yesterday, it's the last time that we convened in the previous venue.  I've received two documents or bundles of documents.  The one is an affidavit by Mr Luitingh, I don't know if everybody has got that?  And then I've got another bundle called:
"Re: CCB Dirty Tricks Western Cape"
which contains a number of statements relating to the ELC.  I don't know if everybody has got that?  Does everybody have that?  I wanted to make sure that everybody has got it and perhaps we should give them exhibit numbers.

MS COLERIDGE: Chairperson, our last exhibit number was P1 and P2 so we can mark that Q and R.  If we could mark Wilsnagh and Van Wyk affidavit as Q ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: And the other document?

MS COLERIDGE: From Dawood Adam.

CHAIRPERSON: From Dawood Adam?

CHAIRPERSON: As R.

CHAIRPERSON: As R.  Thank you.

MR WESSELS: Mr Chairperson, may I just place on record that I've been instructed to appear on behalf of Mr Luitingh or represent him insofar as ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: As his interests are concerned, yes.  Thank you.  Mr Bizos, when we adjourned yesterday you were about to deal with paragraph 21?

UNKNOWN: ...(inaudible)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

UNKNOWN: We ask the Committee to find that in participating in the ELC bombing, Van Zyl, Burger and Botha were mainly motivated by personal gain and we refer to Section 20(3)(1).  Now I want to make a submission in relation to that sub-section, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: 20(3)(1)?

UNKNOWN: 23(i) - for personal gain.  It's an exception to not include any act for personal gain.  Now we would submit that those words have got to be given their ordinary meaning and that effect should be given to that meaning based upon the facts of this case.  Now as far as the facts are concerned we set them out in paragraph 21.1 by saying that they failed to produce evidence of strongly held political beliefs which caused them to resort to violence and distinguish their position from the person who has the beliefs that were submitted yesterday is motivated
by strong beliefs however wrongly founded they may be, who gets something by the way as a pasella, so to speak.  But here we have a situation where, say at 21.2 that all three joined the CCB mainly for the type of reasons which ordinarily motivate people to accept employment e.g. ...(indistinct) proposals, material gain etc. and what we would refer you to in relation to sub-paragraphs 2 and 3 where we say that all three derived financial benefits their role in the CCB far above that which would accrue to an ordinary soldier and I would like to give you the references there, Mr Chairperson, for 21.2 and 21.3.  They are in B6, B26 and 108 for Van Zyl, Burger and Botha respectively.  So the first one is for Van Zyl, the second one is for Burger and the third is for Botha of the references that I have given you.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just while you're dealing with this.  So your argument in this respect, taking a look at the top of the page is restricted to Van Zyl, Burger and Botha.

UNKNOWN: And Botha.

CHAIRPERSON: Not Maree?

UNKNOWN: No, Maree is not involved in it.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, sorry.

UNKNOWN: And of course we go to 21.4.  Financial bonuses were paid to members who carried out crimes on behalf of the CCB in order to motivate them to carry out acts of violence for reasons of personal gain and again we refer you to B129 and B159.  B159 is of some importance.  One would have expected an explanation what that R12 or R14 000 was about.  Mr Chairperson, you remember that entry in the diary which nobody could explain?  It's quite clear, names and sums of money, they received it.  What for?  And we submit that you will pose the question, why was (1) as an exemption for personal gain and how much must an objector show that a person got other than showing that not only did they receive large sums of money, thousands of rands in 1988 less the valued rands than today's?  They were large sums of money, three times their salary on the entry in the diary.  But there is also another important aspect.  From the point of view of obtaining the objectives of the acts, we would submit that if this Committee grants amnesty to persons whose business it was to kill and the better the business the more money they got, doesn't the only - negate the idea of reconciliation?  It actually brings about the very opposite effect.  So this is not merely a submission which we make quite by the way, it's well-founded in fact, it is clearly provided as an exception in this sub-section.  We submit that the applicants cannot escape its consequences, Mr Chairperson.
	One can't imagine that they only had foreign mercenaries in mind when they said "for gain".  It ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I also think they had in mind robbery as well, that sort of thing.