Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN: Thank you Mr Chairman.   We oppose the applications of all the applicants for amnesty Mr Chairman and members of the Committee and want to say at the outset that we do so primarily because we consider their applications an attempt to
clear their names with a self-defence story in order that the record should be expunged that they are in fact responsible for the death of Mr Biko.   
	The argument of Counsel for the applicants Snyman, Siebert and Marx has, we will submit, a fundamental deficiency and that is never mind the facts.   Let us broaden the canvas on which this has to be painted; let us ignore fundamental facts and deal with fictitious circumstances.   
      Similarly the argument on behalf of Mr Beneke, we submit that it is an erudite legal argument which our learned friend read out in English, but there was no attempt to apply the legal principles that were so well set out in the document from which he was reading to the facts of this case.   
	By way of contrast we will deal with the facts of this case as they were dragged out of them in cross-examination in the 1977 inquest, and similarly attempts were made here to get to the truth and we will submit that they were far from forthcoming.   We will deal with the legislation, the purpose for which it was enacted, what it's precise provisions are and how far short the facts have emerged to be inconsistent with what is expected of them from the legislation.       
      First of all may we refer to Section 20(2).   A starting point with an application for amnesty is that there must be an act or omission which constitutes an offence or delict.   
	The applicants have said in their application forms that they are applying for amnesty in relation to the crimes of assault.   Mr Beneke applies in respect of the offence of murder; the others apply for culpable homicide and one of them merely speaks of death.   
	We have to look at the evidence Mr Chairman and members of the Committee, as to whether what they now tell us is the truth; and if it is the truth whether or not a crime or delict is proved by what they had to say.   
      In the inquest they denied that any offence was committed by them.   They have now, as the Act entitles them to do said well, we did not tell the truth at the inquest and they give a reason why they did not tell the truth.   They say because they were instructed to lie by their Commanding Officer, Colonel Goosen, who has now passed away.   Leaving that aside one would have to bear in mind in relation to their credibility if  before this Committee that their lying started before Saturday morning when their instruction is said to have been given by Colonel Goosen.   In the Occurrences Book entries were made by Mr Snyman, which are now admitted to have been false, but that was before the general instruction that they should all lie.   Of course Mr Snyman says that he had a private instruction from Mr Goosen, but then what was the motive for lying at that stage?   Mr Biko was not yet dead and nobody knew of what had happened to him in detention.   
      Now, in the description of the nature and the circumstances of the act, none of these applicants disclose any liability or responsibility for these offences, and will take them one by one.   	Snyman claims he is only responsible because he was head of the team.   He did not assault Biko, nor directly cause his death.   	Siebert claims that he is responsible for not obtaining medical attention on the first day and shackling Mr Biko to the grille.   None of these acts to which he admits, are either an assault or an element of constituting the crime of culpable homicide or murder.   	Beneke claims he only pushed Biko and it was an order to protect Siebert, his colleague.   Such conduct is neither an assault nor an element of the crime of culpable homicide or murder.   
	Marx claims that he only held Biko from behind to try and restrain him.   That is neither an assault nor an element of the crime of culpable homicide or murder.
     Let us give further particulars in relation to this Mr Chairman.   Let us deal with Mr Snyman.   At pages 78,82 and 84 of the typed record he denies that he assaulted Biko. May I apologise Mr Chairman that we were unable to prepare written Heads.   I actually have written Heads but not typed Heads Mr Chairman, so that we can actually type them if you so wish so that to avoid you having to write the page numbers or the details down and we will send them to the members of the Committee and to our colleagues so that they can have a record that we do not go beyond them in the written document.   I'm really reading this out and it may be convenient so that you do not have to make detailed notes Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos we will appreciate the typed notes if they are made available to us.