Amnesty Hearings — Nelspruit — 1999-02-04

MR BLACK: Well those threats had been made by the police to people close to him, that if they find him, they'll kill him, his brother, Sampie Sambo had disappeared, after they used to keep close company and after photographs and identification of his brother had been removed from his house, and this, it was clear that it wasn't simply a question of police harassment, there was a menacing aspect to it, when close members of your family disappear and you're told that if these police get you, they'll kill you, and he... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: But the only thing that was ever said that would suggest any attempt to assassinate him or a threat to his life was said some time in 1991, if I recall his evidence it was late in 1991, and that was said to his girlfriend, they had come to his home, nothing had ever been said to his parents of the intention of the police to kill him, we only have one incident wherein such a threat was made, where they intimated to make such a threat.

MR BLACK: But his brother had been abducted as well and disappeared, that's a close member of his family.

CHAIRPERSON: That wouldn't be suggestive of an attempt to assassinate him.

MR BLACK: Well they were close together, as he said they were both members and active in the ANC structures in that area and they kept close company.

CHAIRPERSON: In any case, Mr Black, it wasn't my intention to interfere whilst you are proceeding with your argument.  Proceed.   We'll probably take up some of these issues once you are through with your presentation.

MR BLACK: Yes.   So I respectfully submit that his idea when he gave his evidence, as the record will show, I used the word "assassinate", he said he was told, and he was convinced, the security police were going to send people to kill him, as it were, and that is how he understood the situation, and I've already mentioned and I don't want to reiterate the fact that he was convinced that the entire set-up, both from the soldiers in the morning, two unknown white men arriving on his premises in an unmarked police vehicle, and he claims it had a petrol, a Shell or whatever it is emblem on it, and which led to the shooting was a plot to carry out the threats to which he had been subjected to in a fairly intensive basis over a period since 1991 until October 1992.   So it wasn't just a short period of time.
	Without going into great detail, there was some criticism as to why he shot the policeman, late Mr Van der Spuy.   He's given his explanation and he was on the scene and he was an active participant on the scene and Mr O'Farrell has given his version, and there are differences.    So I don't wish to do that, but in my respectful submission that his explanation for shooting under those circumstances is a reasonable one, should his version be accepted.   As he says, his words are, the two had deployed themselves in such a way, the two policemen, that he couldn't just leave the late Mr Van der Spuy there, he had to make sure that he would be incapacitated or stabilised and he would then be able to deal with the other armed man who was approaching him, Mr O'Farrell.
	The other criticism that was - some time was spent on it, as to his - why did he have to lie at the trial, etcetera, he's given an explanation and perhaps after some time, after continuous, with due respect, examination without any break or any opportunity to consult with us, he came up with the explanation at the end here, towards the end, he said they were dealing here, lies here, with political issues, and he said the whole handling of the trial was such, the judge he felt was speaking to counsel and he had a short opportunity, not even half an hour, to speak to his counsel, who had informed him, on a pro deo basis, with due respect, whether it's correct or not, I'm not criticising counsel, that she was aware of all the facts, but he candidly tells the committee that he didn't tell the Court the whole truth, he didn't go into all the details, as he was able to do here, about his political past and his political activities and the political motive.
	I may just, and I again, we raised the point that in the supplementary affidavit which was filed some time ago and which forms part of the bundle of the documents before the Court, paragraph 10, we deal with this issue, the issue is dealt with rather, about the policeman, George Ndbande, and it is alleged there that Sergeant Ndbande did in fact check those vehicles before 29th October 1992, and was satisfied that they were not stolen, and - Ndbane, sorry - and this allegation... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Where does that part of evidence take us, Mr Black, in relation to his political motivation for committing the offence?

MR BLACK: No, it doesn't deal so much with the motivation, it deals more to show that this man felt there was no reason, other than for political reasons, for any policeman or member of security forces to come onto his premises, there was nothing to suggest any other reason why they would be there.

CHAIRPERSON: Hasn't that already been encapsulated in what you've stated before?

MR BLACK: Yes.   So, briefly, I would submit, with respect, that, given the intense harassment over a considerable period of time, from 1991 to 1992, and the circumstances under which the shooting took place, there was nothing else for the applicant to think that here these people were out to kill him.   The two strange - after being harassed, the police, the soldiers having been and searched the property, the cars and everything, in the morning, two strangers arrive and then a shoot-out takes place.   At that stage when the guns get pulled, then he thinks now, this is it and then he proceeds that now at last they've sent the assassins and the assassins are going to carry out their political mission, and that, at that crucial stage, that's when the shooting takes place, that's when he was convinced now that he was going to be killed, and for his political beliefs and for no other reason, because he had no other reason to suspect that they would be there.
	Thank you, I have nothing further.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Black.   Mr Black, we don't intend to really put more questions, I think your argument has covered a lot.   There are two aspects, however, that are bothering this panel.   The first I have already attempted to cover with you during your address.   I then felt constrained because I felt like I was interfering with your argument,  I mean his reasonable belief that the two persons, the two white persons, at his premises on that day were the ones sent by the security force to assassinate him.  Is it reasonable to believe that the assassins would come in in broad daylight, and before doing anything else, expose themselves to all and sundry to see, by opening the doors of motor vehicles outside, instead of using methods that one has become familiar with that were used by the security force when eliminating political activists.   Now that's one problem that we would want you to address us on.
	Secondly, on the aspect of your applicant's, I mean your client's full disclosure, you have heard Mr O'Farrell testifying how he was assaulted by a small group of persons who were in the vicinity of where the shooting took place of both Mr O'Farrell and the deceased, Van der Spuy.   You have also heard Mr Sambo denying having seen any person in the vicinity.   We, however, have objective facts, the report is quite there, you know, in the judgment that Mr O'Farrell was indeed beaten to a pulp by a group of people.   Now, Mr Sambo's denial of having seen anyone at about the time when this incident occurred, hitting Mr O'Farrell, is a little disturbing to us, we don't know whether we can believe him on that.    
	Can you address us on those two issues?