Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1997-08-13

MR PURSHOTAM: Thank you Mr Chairman.   Sub-paragraph (f) deals with the relationship between the act, omission or offence and the political objective pursued and in particular the directness and proximity of the relationship and the proportionality of the act, omission or offence to the objective pursued.
	The relationship between the act which is constituted by these killings and a political objective, does not exist.  It's my submission that no political objective could have been reasonably pursued by engaging in a senseless slaughter of innocent people.  And therefore even the provisions of that sub-section haven't been complied with.  There's no relationship.

JUDGE WILSON: Are you not going to address us on the proportionality of the Act?  Here we have, as I understand the evidence, the desire of the Orde Boerevolk to show that they objected to White people being killed.  So rather than make a statement or anything, they slaughtered 10 - 7 innocent people surely is out of all proportion to what they hoped to achieve?

MR PURSHOTAM: I agree Mr Chairman.  It's out of all proportion to what they purported to achieve as their policy.

CHAIRPERSON: The argument will be advanced at ...[inaudible] proportionality was determined by their policy which said 10 Black lives are equal to 1 White life, that's the proportionality.

MR PURSHOTAM: Yes, Mr Chairman.  I think before one comes to proportionality, one has to deal with the question of the relationship between the Act and the political objective pursued.  If there is some relationship, if one establishes a relationship between the act and the objective, then I think the legislature intended this Committee to deal with the question of proportionality.  If there's no relationship, the questions of proportionality doesn't come into the picture.  That's my submission.
	Sub-Section (f) 2, says that:
"Any act, omission or offence committed by any person referred to Sub-Section 2,
Sorry, I'll repeat that.  It's the Sub-Section below Sub-section (f) which is numbered Roman 1 and Roman 2.  That Sub-Section tells us that:
"The act, an act is not included within the ambit of Sub-Section 3, if it was out of personal malice, ill-will or spite directed towards against the victim of the acts committed".
It's my submission that there was an excess of malice against people of Black colour and that is what motivated the applicants.  Pure malice.

CHAIRPERSON: Well now, wouldn't the argument be advanced that there was pure malice shown towards Whites by the Blacks that morning ...[inaudible]

MR PURSHOTAM: Mr Chairman, the individuals who are before this Committee are not those individuals who committed those acts on that particular morning.  They may be in a position to argue along those lines, that they had a malice White people.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Two wrongs won't make a right, would it?

MR PURSHOTAM: That's correct Mr Chairman.  And here we have applicants who acted out of malice towards Black people, so that immediately takes them out of the provisions of the Act - if it's malice.

JUDGE WILSON: In this regard - I don't know if you have seen a copy of the Judgment, Judge Hugo's Judgment I think it was, I'm not quite sure but one of the witnesses referred to what was said at the trial and that was that they were called animals, they were called baboons by the applicants.  Is that so, was that referred to in the Judgment at all?  Was the witness correct?  His evidence wasn't challenged in that regard.

MR PURSHOTAM: I haven't had an opportunity of reading the entire judgment but Mrs Clarke, a candidate attorney has had an opportunity of looking at the Judgment and it appears that the terms which were used during the trial where that - in cross-examination, I may mention - that at the time of the attack - this was stated by applicant Marais - that at the time of the attack, he believed that Black people were "diere van die veld" (animals of the field) and that they had no souls and as far as he was concerned, it wasn't murder to shoot them.  And that appears at page 157.
	He then went on at page 158, to say that it was in accordance with his beliefs as a follower of a White religious cult called "Israel's Vision", which he said proposed that the Black population were a threat to the White "volk" and to battle with them was to fight the battle against satan.   
	I will now revert to Sub-Section 2 of Section 20.  It's quite a long Sub-Section and I don't propose ...[intervention]

MR BRINK: Mr Chairman, I apologise for the interruption.  There was another application that was due to start today but I very much doubt ...[inaudible]

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

MR BRINK: ...[inaudible] and his attorney could be released.  I see it's now a quarter past three or very nearly quarter past three.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  ...[inaudible]

MR BRINK: He certainly - he was here.  Oh yes, he is here.  I very much doubt - I may be wrong but I rather gather you wouldn't want start with a new application this afternoon.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]  Sorry.  Mr d'Oliviera, you and your client are excused from further attendance.  There does not seem to be a likelihood of your matter being reached this afternoon.  Would it be convenient for you to be here at half past nine, tomorrow morning?

MR D'OLIVIERA: ...[inaudible]

CHAIRPERSON: And will you arrange with the authorities to ensure that your client is here as well.

MR D'OLIVIERA: ...[inaudible]

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.   Yes, do carry on.