Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1998-04-15

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes, I understand what you are saying, but I was talking about yourself, that I understand that you are a Christian.  In terms of Christian values that you forgive those that sin you and if I am correct, I know the Bible, it is also that Christians believe that if somebody hit you on this side, you give him the other side, and that is the values of the Christian.  Despite whatever happen to you, as a Christian, you must forgive, but of course you must not forget, am I correct if I interpret the Christian values that way?

ANNA HELENA JERLING: You might be correct about it, but it is strange that you expect of me to be a Christian and not of them.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Well, I won't pursue that point.  My next question will be having listened to them, I know that you don't agree with what they are saying, having listened to them, explaining the reason why they attacked it, the Yellowwoods Hotel, do you still feel that that was not enough reason for them to attack the Yellowwood Hotel?  Just take yourself and put in their shoes, in the way they were thinking.
	I am not saying that what they were doing, was right and correct, just put yourself, the way they were thinking before they did that, would you say after you have listened to them explaining what went through them, would you still say that they don't deserve to be granted amnesty?

ANNA HELENA JERLING: These people indicated no remorse to me.  In the first place they say that they had to go and kill the oppressors.  All white people are not oppressors.
	I worked for 23 years in a Magistrate's office where I worked with black people for a major part of the time, where I assisted them, and tried everything in my power to help them.
	I have never oppressed a black person, and even after the death of my son, I never treated black people in any different manner to which I had always treated them.  I am not an oppressor, my son was not an oppressor.
	He had many friends among the black community and after his death, many of them attended his funeral and expressed their sympathy to me regarding his death, and called him their friend.
	We were not oppressors.  I cannot see why they had to kill my son.

MR MBANDAZAYO: My last question Mr Chairman will be, would you agree with me that because of your colour of your skin, you were privileged in South Africa?

ANNA HELENA JERLING: In all honesty, I do not believe that the black people were that severely oppressed and that they have improved their situation to such an extent if I have to look at what is happening in the country at the moment.
	I myself, have never placed myself at a greater advantage through the colour of my skin.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairman, no further questions.

MR MBANDAZAYO: .

MR MTEMBU: Thank you Mr Chairman.  Mrs Jerling I would initially start by conveying my applicant's sympathies to you and for what you have gone through.
	Mrs Jerling, would you agree that inasmuch as the then apartheid government was waging a war against liberation movements like the PAC and APLA for instance, in the same breath APLA was also waging a war to topple the said apartheid regime?

ANNA HELENA JERLING: If these people were in resistance to those who attacked them, I could understand that, but to attack soft targets of which they possessed no proof that those specific persons had committed offences against them, that I cannot agree with.

MR MTEMBU: Will you agree with me that in one way or the other before 1994, as a white person you had a vote, you either voted to entrench the apartheid regime or perhaps you voted for opposition parties, do you agree?

ANNA HELENA JERLING: Yes, I did vote.

MR MTEMBU: Now, I do not want to know for which party you voted, would you agree that the black masses did not enjoy such vote and you were privileged to in fact exercise such vote at the time, being white?

ANNA HELENA JERLING: I had the right to vote, but I did not deny that right from the black people.

MR MTEMBU: Yes, I agree with you that it is the apartheid system that denied blacks such rights, but afforded privileges to whites in South Africa.  Do you agree on that?

ANNA HELENA JERLING: I would agree with you.

MR MTEMBU: Now, do you agree that because of apartheid policies, it would have been expected of black people to perceive white people in general, as oppressors?

ANNA HELENA JERLING: No, I don't agree with that because I and very many people about me, did not oppress black people and I can assure you that they would not regard me as an oppressor.

MR MTEMBU: That is why I am saying in general, unless the contrary is proven by the said white person, but on the face of it, he or she would be perceived to be an oppressor?

ANNA HELENA JERLING: I do not regard myself as an oppressor, and I do not know any of the black community who would regard me as an oppressor.

MR MTEMBU: During the apartheid years, in your opinion, how did you perceive being white, how did you perceive the Security Forces?

MR PRIOR: With respect, the witness there is no obligation on her to persuade this Committee, she came to give evidence about her deceased son.  Her political views, or her views on how the apartheid system was run, really is immaterial, it doesn't take the matter any further.  She has told the Committee over and over again, she did not oppress black people, in the nature of her work, she assisted people.
	I really think the question is unfair Mr Chairman.

MR MTEMBU: Mr Chairman, in line with the witness' answers in her cross-examination and in her evidence in chief, I believe the question is fair.

CHAIRPERSON: Does it take us anywhere?

MR MTEMBU: If Mr Chairman is of the opinion that it doesn't take us anywhere, I will not take that question further.
	Mrs Jerling, are you also aware that in 1993 the PAC and APLA had not yet abandoned the armed struggle?

ANNA HELENA JERLING: At that point they had probably not yet abandoned the armed struggle, but I still feel that they should not have killed soft targets in the name of that struggle.

MR MTEMBU: But, cadres of APLA who perceived white people in general to be oppressors, would you say it would have been unreasonable for them to have acted in the manner in which they did, taking into context the fact that their organisation has not as yet abandoned the armed struggle?

MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman, with respect, what is suggested by this question is that white people in general, were fair game, they were legitimate targets.  One would expected, if that was the policy, the general policy of APLA, that thousands of white people who were available to be shot, would have been killed on a daily basis.
	It wasn't the case, we haven't heard any evidence of that, so I think the question is unfair in so much as he wants the witness to answer that white people were legitimate targets in the perception of APLA.

CHAIRPERSON: Haven't we heard a lot of evidence about white farmers being killed as apparently legitimate targets?

MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman, with respect, given the numbers, if that was a general policy, one would have expected on a daily basis white people to have been killed on a far greater scale than in fact was the case.
	There was certainly selected targets chosen by APLA, this wasn't a wholesale slaughter of white people, and the question seeks to evoke that response, that this was within the perception of APLA, white people were the enemy and they were fair game, that is my objection.

MR LAX: Is the issue here not, sorry Mr Mtembu, it is not your clients so far as you heard, your clients had a specific directive that they were following.  They weren't following a general policy and in a sense if you are going to be questioning this witness, that is the issue that you should be canvassing.
	Your clients had specific instructions, they didn't act out of the general policy.