Amnesty Hearings — Welkom — 1998-11-19

MR LOUBSCHER: We further submit, Mr Chairman, Members of the Committee, that if one has regard to sub-section 3 of Section 20 it is clear that if one goes through the sub-sections that the motive was clearly a furtherance of the Volkstaat idea.
	The context within which the acts were committed was part of the whole political, on the one hand negotiation process, but on the other hand at the same time there was this struggle perhaps outside the ambit of the negotiations at that stage because it was already excluded to get recognition for this.
	We submit that the acts were clearly committed as set out in (e), with, at the very least with the approval o, but we say on behalf of the Volksfront and the whole idea that through this terror campaign the leaders of the Volksfront would in fact be able then to have a bargaining chip, to go to the then Nationalist Party Government and the ANC and say: "Look fellows, the people are not satisfied, this is going on, there is a terror campaign going on, deeds of terror are committed, we can stop it if you recognise to whatever degree but at least recognise the principle of the Volkstaat. ...(end of tape)  ... exclusions sub-section really is the 1 and 2 of sub-section 3, namely for personal gain or out of personal malice.
	We submit, Mr Chairman, Members of the Committee, that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I think also if you take a look at sub-section 23, the criteria, you've also got further possible - I'm talking generally now, not particularly in relation to this matter, but you've got further possible exclusions, not directly but those are criteria which you apply, for instance proportionality, that sort of thing.

MR LOUBSCHER: It's merely the weighing up, Mr Chairman, and it's true but as in many of the amnesty applications one doesn't always deal whether it's State property or private property.  The main object of it, and there's no suggestion whatsoever that there was any other object in mind of the three, four people involved in these applications, other than a political motive and the Volkstaat idea.
	There is probably only one possible conflict and that's where Mr Kriel said - and I must say, Mr Chairman, I all of them were very very frank, you heard in the end Mr Kriel's frank admission that his parting of the ways with the AWB in 1993 was in fact a sham and that the three others were led up the garden path so to speak for other reasons.  He was forthcoming and very very honest and frank about it.  The only possible dispute between them as to whether injury and loss of life, where does that really fit in.
	Now you will recall that Mr Labuschagne initially said that they would try to avoid loss of life and injury and he listed the steps.  They held a prayer meeting and then they timed the attacks in the evening so that they would minimise the chance of this occurring.  Clearly he felt strongly about it.  In cross-examination it was stated simply as a fact to him that those were his instructions.  But it was clear from Mr Labuschagne's - if one looks at the whole tenor of his evidence, that he realised very well if you dabble with explosives only a fool will say or think that there isn't always a chance, a very real chance that people may get killed and injured.
	Clearly, Mr Chairman, Members of the Committee, Mr Kriel doesn't or didn't feel so strongly about it, while the other two members, the two very junior members, those without rank, they obviously followed orders but they were under the impression that they would try to avoid death and injury.
	We submit however, Mr Chairman, Members of the Committee, that that detailed difference should not be fatal for this application.  In general the applicants were frank, they were open, they told the Committee exactly what they did, they told the Committee exactly why they did it, they told the Committee who was involved, especially when it came to Mr Kriel.  
	We submit, Mr Chairman, Members of the Committee, that amnesty should be granted to the four applicants for the deeds as set out in their applications and in particular the deeds as set out in the charge sheets.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Loubscher.  Mr Taka, do you have any submissions to make?

MR TAKA COMMITTEE: Mr Chairman, may I just divert a little, just to place on record the victims that I am representing, just for the record.  We have two potential victims, Mr Tanyane: T-A-N-Y-A-N-E and Mr Porotlone: P-O-R-O-T-L-O-N-E.  These are in respect of count 2, Mr Chairman.  Then we have ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, when you say prospective victims, what do you mean?

MR TAKA: That they did not suffer any bodily injury or any damage to any property because ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Just the trauma?

MR TAKA: Correct, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but that side of it, that is up to the Reparations Committee, it's just for us to - if we are of an opinion that a person may be a victim then in terms of the Act we must forward their names to the Reparation Committee.  Are you suggesting that these names of these two people be forwarded to the Reparations Committee for consideration by that Committee?

MR TAKA: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you supply Mr Mapoma with addresses or how they can be contacted because that is also important, just to have names makes it very difficult for that Committee then to set about trying to find these people?

MR TAKA: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I will do that.  Mr Chairman, I have express instructions from the victims in count 3, that is the Wesselsbron explosion.  They've indicated that in principle they do not object to the granting of amnesty and they've also indicated that they would like to approach the Reparations Committee later on for the necessary compensation.  I will not make any submission insofar as the granting of amnesty in this particular hearing, because my instructions are that there should be no objection, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you then please supply their names and their contact addresses to Mr Mapoma who will then give it to us.  If that could be done like today because it's preferable that in the decision they actually be included and referred to?

MR TAKA: I will do so, Mr Chairman.
	Mr Chairman, again the victims in count 6, I'm referring to Mr Ramorakane, Semelo, Mr Margaret Malinga, they have indicated that they want to oppose the granting of amnesty.  On the basis of the evidence that has been given before this Committee, Chairperson, I will leave that decision in the hands of the Committee.  I will not address the Committee on the merits of the granting or otherwise.  But I will also submit the names of these victims to Mr Mapoma as requested by the Chairperson.  Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have no further submissions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Mr Mapoma, do you have any submissions to make?

MR MAPOMA: Thank you, Chair, I have no submissions.
NO SUBMISSIONS BY MR MAPOMA

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Loubscher, do you have any reply?

MR LOUBSCHER: Mr Chairman, just one thing that I forgot to mention and it's not really a reply, but my clients just requested whether Mr Taka would be so good as to identify after the adjournment, his clients to them, they would like to have a word with them.

CHAIRPERSON: Would that be possible, Mr Taka?  I've had it certainly, not in all applications but in quite a few of the hearings I've been involved in, I've had the experience where perpetrators and victims have met and I must say it's been a rewarding experience and although we all know that remorse is not a criteria for the consideration in the amnesty process, the overall objective is at least to kick-start a reconciliation and this if it's possible to take place, certainly I'm sure would be beneficial not only to the applicants but also to the victims.