Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1997-07-08

MR PENI: Pleaserepeat it.

CROSSBY MR BRINK: Very well. In answer, for the third time and listen carefully, I will go veryslowly, this morning your counsel asked you whether if you had known that AmyBiehl had been a comrade you would have acted any differently, your answer tohim was no, because a White person was a White person. Now what I want to knowis why would you treat or would have treated Joe Slovo differently from AmyBiehl?

MR PENI: Thereason is that we know about Joe Slovo, we have read about him even though wehad not seen him face-to-face we know about him.

CROSSBY MR BRINK: Mr Peni, Joe Slovo was a White man. Now you have told us that a White personis a White person and you would kill merely because of that fact. Now I wantto know from you, why, if Amy Biehl had been a comrade, and you knew that shehad been a comrade, you would have killed her but not killed Joe Slovo? Thequestion is quite simple.

MR PENI: Nobodyknew about Amy Biehl first of all. At the time we were very angry as studentsas well. The reason why I said that it would not have made a difference if Ihad known she was a comrade it is because of the high spirits of the studentsat the time.

CROSSBY MR BRINK: Are you then saying that your reason for killing Amy Biehl was because of yourhigh spirits at the time?

MR PENI: Iam saying that the reason why I said it would not have made a difference itis because it was due to the aims of the organisation.

CROSSBY MR BRINK: You had absolutely no idea of what Amy Biehl's political views were, isn't thatthe situation?

MR PENI: Idid not know.

CROSSBY MR BRINK: And your evidence here was that you participated in this murderous attack becausethe aims of your organisation was to bring back land to the African people,now what I want to know is, how would the killing of an unarmed, defencelesswoman possibly help you to achieve that aim?

MR PENI: Webelieved that the minority White people ruling the country would realise thatwe wanted our land back. We also believed that they were going to give up thisland back to the African people.

CROSSBY MR BRINK: Is it your evidence that by murdering, in the most brutal fashion, Amy Biehl,the African people would get their land back?

MR PENI: Yesit's my evidence.

CROSSBY MR BRINK: The killing of one, single, defenceless woman would effect that?

MR PENI: Firstof all I would like to rectify something, gender was not significant. Our aimwas to attack each White person and go forward.

JUDGE WILSON: But it was not the aim of the PAC at that time to kill every White person theysaw, was it?

MR PENI: Pleaserepeat the question.

JUDGE WILSON: It was not the aim of the PAC at that time to kill every White person they saw,was it?

MR PENI: Itis true, if it was necessary for the youth to do so it would happen.

JUDGE WILSON: You are not answering my question. Was it the policy of the PAC to kill everyWhite person they saw?

MR PENI: Itcould not happen that every person be killed, but there was one slogan 'OneSettler, one bullet'.

JUDGE WILSON: Do you agree it was not the policy of the PAC to kill White persons on sight,which is what you did on this afternoon, do you agree with that?

MR PENI: Itis true that the PAC could not have killed everybody that they saw, however,the PAC was aware that killing each White person the land would come back tothe African people.

JUDGE WILSON: And you say that was PAC policy, to kill every White person?

MR PENI: Idid not say every White person.

JUDGE WILSON: You said if they killed every White person the land would come back.

MR PENI: Yes,I said that the land would come back to the African people through their killing.

CROSSBY MR BRINK: Mr Peni, isn't it the position that on that dreadful afternoon you were involvedin a mindless, savage attack on this young woman, and that it was not politicallymotivated at all?

MR PENI: Ourkilling Amy Biehl had everything to do with politics.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONSBY MR BRINK
QUESTIONS BY THECOMMITTEE

CHAIRPERSON: In your mind what did you achieve by killing Amy Biehl?

MR PENI: Eventhough I am sorry that I contributed in the death of Amy Biehl, but I realisedthat the unrest at the time and the international recognition helped South Africato be where it is today.

CHAIRPERSON: You are really saying that as far as you are concerned your taking part in thekilling of Amy Biehl achieved the recognition that your organisation wanted,is that what you are saying?

MR PENI: Pleaserepeat that.

CHAIRPERSON: I should perhaps put my question as I did, what did you achieve by killing AmyBiehl?

MR PENI: Isaid that having killed Amy Biehl I am not happy about that, however, it issuch things that have helped South Africa to be where it is today.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Peni, you have been asked what did you achieve. I think it's relevant forme to know what you wanted to achieve? What was your motive? Not whether youin fact succeeded in your motive but what you in fact wanted to achieve.

MR PENI: Itwas for the land of the African people to go back to the African people.

ADV DE JAGER: Right. And you told us that you were inspired by the slogan of "One Settler,one bullet", is that correct?

MR PENI: Itis so.

ADV DE JAGER: And Mr Brink then asked you whether you would have killed Mr Slovo because hewas also White. You said no, because you knew him. But in the slogan " OneSettler, one bulett", did they differentiate between settlers and sayyou should only kill particular settlers, or did they say kill settlers?

MR PENI: Icannot hear the interpretation well, there is a technical problem.

ADV DE JAGER: Could somebody kindly assist him. Could you kindly repeat, interpret the questionto him.

INTERPRETER: Please repeat the question Sir.

ADV DE JAGER: Could I re-frame it then. The slogan One Settler, one bullet didit differentiate between settlers, it said kill all settlers, or it said atleast kill the settlers?

MR PENI: Inour understanding of the slogan our land was taken by British settlers.

ADV DE JAGER: And did you understand settlers to be White people?

MR PENI: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: And although you might not have achieved what you politically wanted to achieveby killing one person, one White, but the fact is that if you have killed hundredsof Whites or thousands of them you would have had your land back, or all ofthem, if you've killed all the Whites?

MR PENI: Theland is in the hands of the African people, it is not that the PAC was totallyagainst the White people, all they wanted was their land back.

ADV DE JAGER: And the struggle, as you understood it, was directed against the Whites, isthat correct?

MR PENI: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: And I am correct in saying that it was because the Whites had the politicalpower in hands?

MR PENI: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: So if we want to come to the truth, as we try to do, we can't say that it wasn'ta racial war that's been fought in this country, it was based on race, isn'tthat so?

MR PENI: Pleaserepeat your question.

ADV DE JAGER: Wasn't it in fact a racial war that's been fought in this country and the reasonfor that was because the Whites had the political power and the Blacks strivedto get that power?

MR PENI: Yesit is so.

ADV DE JAGER: And wasn't that the reason why you would have killed any White you see?

MR PENI: Yesit is so because we wanted our land.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: At the time of the incident in what standard were you at school?

MR PENI: Iwas in standard eight.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: And before then how much experience in politics did you have?

MR PENI: Ihad not had much experience.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Before belonging to PASO or joining PASO then did you belong to any other politicalorganisation?

MR PENI: Nobut I was supporting the struggle.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Were you ever schooled in the politics of the PAC, in particular?

MR PENI: Iwas arrested whilst in the process of being educated about that.