Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1997-04-07

VERNON VOSLOO: At the time I had possibly not thought of it in that way, but subsequently I was glad that my effort to make my point, did not pass unnoticed.  I must add that I am not glad at this time that the man is dead,  I am not happy about the fact that I killed the man.  I want you to see that it was the goal that I, or the point of view that I wanted to communicate.  I do not want to indicate that I am happy at this stage that I had killed the man.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Mr Vosloo, I thought in your earlier testimony you had made it quite clear that you would not have committed this offence had you been sober?  Is that not what you had said earlier on?

VERNON VOSLOO: It is what I said earlier on.  But at the same time, I want to refer you to something else I said namely that with the changes during those times, and with the emotions of people which was fired up more and more, this was something which started small, but which grew and grew.  The evening of the act, I gained Dutch courage - some additional courage - through the use of the alcohol.  At a later stage, if feelings would have grown hotter, if the scenario of the future appeared even worse than it had at that time, then I might have acted in this way without the use of alcohol.  This is a possibility at this time, I can't say what I would have done at a later stage, this is merely something which might have happened.

JUDGE WILSON: You also said that any rational person would have found another way of protesting.  Do you recollect saying that?

VERNON VOSLOO: Yes, I can.

JUDGE WILSON: Thank you.

ADV MALAN: No further questions, Mr Chairman, thank you.

ADV MALAN: .

JUDGE WILSON: Thank you.  He may return.  Any further witnesses?

ADV MALAN: No further witnesses, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Is that your case?

ADV MALAN: That will be the total case, yes.

JUDGE WILSON: Do you have anything to - evidence to lead or witnesses?

MR BLACK: We have no evidence to lead, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: ;	Are you ready to address us?
ADV MALAN ADDRESSES

ADV MALAN: Yes, I am ready Mr Chairman.  In terms of the Act in order for the application to be successful, must
comply with three prerequisites, requirements of the Act and all the relevant facts must be revealed properly and fully.

INTERPRETER: I suggest that the speaker's microphone has cut out.

ADV MALAN: I submit that this has been the case that full  revelation has been made of all the facts as well as the reasons why this had occurred.
	The question then with respect is whether it was committed with a political motive and in the progress of conflicts of the past.
	Section 2 then defines the political objectives and I submit that the applicant bona fide believed that what he did, would promote a political struggle.
	The struggle which existed in his mind, the struggle against Black rule.  And that as he had set out, that the action wouldn't have taken place if a White person had walked passed and perhaps even not a person of another colour, it was something that was motivated by a fear of being ruled, of not being able to decide things for himself any more.
	In addition then also a political objective is defined as if it would have been in reaction against a political uprising and what the motive for the deed or the crime had been.
	The applicant pointed out that he had acted in reaction to the changing political climate in the country.  The apparent, as he had indicated during the negotiations, the process of handing over of power from the traditional White to a probably Black government.
	And that this action, or this act had taken place not for any other reason, and the crime had not been committed
for any other reason, than that it was of political orientation. And that in that manner he had tried to make a mark  to delay the process or to derail it totally.

JUDGE WILSON: Did he make no attempt to join any political party where he could have made a mark, he rather killed an innocent bystander.  Would you explain that, this is not a man who was joining in the political struggle, he didn't attend meetings.  He sometimes watched them on television, or listened to people who had been there?

ADV MALAN: That was the case Mr Chairman, as he had testified, he was fully aware of the objectives of the political movements with which he associated and he believed that he had listened to the cause to an armed struggle and that he had participated in those objectives.

SISI KHAMPEPE: But Mr Malan, how could a killing of one Black person who is not prominent in any way politically, prevent a take over or even derail negotiations which were taking place between the government of the day and certain liberation movements?

ADV MALAN: Well naturally Mr Chairman, if one looks at his deed, it was an extremely foolish and unthought out action, but it is nevertheless that at that stage he was of the opinion that he could make a contribution.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Was it proportional then to the political objective which he wanted to pursue?

ADV MALAN: Could you please repeat the question?

JUDGE WILSON: The Act makes provision for proportionality to be taken into account.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Was his act therefore proportional to what he intended to achieve politically?

ADV MALAN: Mr Chairman, yes, that is the only objective which he wished to achieve and once again in his thoughts it would have had an effect and would have been in proportion to that which he strived against, the transformation of a country.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Malan, if one strives for an objective and you wish to opposition to take cognisance of the objective, so that it can influence them in order for them to act differently from that way in which they have acted up to that particular point, then one has to direct one's deed or expression in some or other way and bring it to their attention so that you will influence their way of thinking.
	Now, Mr Vosloo said to us that at that stage he had not expected to be arrested and that the murder had to be known.  However, later he felt that it was good that it had happened, because now he could convey the message.  But if that had been the position, could we then find that at the moment that he committed the crime, he had an objective to influence people while he was keeping that act secret?

ADV MALAN: From what I understood of what the applicant had said, he wished to create fear amongst specifically Black members of the community.  And that is what he had strived for.	It is clear that he didn't intend any publication thereof.

ADV DE JAGER: ;	Let us take it a step further then.  If he had wished to influence the Black portion of the community and install fear in them, then at least it should have been made known that the act had been committed by a White person.  But if you just see a corpse laying in the street, you don't know who the murderer had been, how do you influence the people?

ADV MALAN: Mr Chairman, the only argument that I can raise in this respect is that the media would have covered it that a person had been attacked and killed and I state what I said earlier, if one looks at it objectively, then it appears to be a stupid and unthought out act, but what was clearly in his mind at that stage, was that was his objective and that he had hoped that it would become known.  There is nothing more that I can argue in this respect.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Mr Malan, wouldn't you agree that the applicant's act of killing this particular person, had no discernable political objective?  There is no evidence that in South Hills in particular, Black people were not being murdered at all by White people for whatever reason and therefor that this particular murder would have driven the message home that the killing was political?
	Can we discern any political objective from his action?