Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1998-01-14

NORMAN ARENDSE: Perhaps I'm putting it too strongly Mr Chairman, they - I've already explained that each has disclosed here to the Committee what they did, what they saw and what they heard.  This attack happened in a matter of two minutes or so,  there were six of them and each one was concentrating on what he was doing.   	Certainly they did not deny - and think this is more important and more relevant, they did not deny that it was this group in which they were that caused the buildings on the other side to be damaged with gunshots and so on.  So, in that sense they do accept responsibility for what happened but individually they deny that they were the ones who caused that damage.
	Then Mr Chairman, just again on some of the questions raised by the Cerqueira gun incident.  Lastly or second lastly, I make the point that no evidence was led before this Committee that any policeman had examined the deceased firearm and had established that no bullets were fired from the gun although this was put to one of the applicants - I think, by Mr Prior and I speak under correction.  And then lastly, the firearm itself has never been produced here.
	I make the point Mr Chairman, that notwithstanding these unanswered questions which result unfortunately in a lack of clarity and certainty, it is submitted that the material and relevant facts relating to full disclosure, is Gqomfa's acceptance of the responsibility that he shot and killed Cerqueira - whether or not Cerqueira was armed with a firearm or not, is not particularly material.  I would insert there perhaps, the question posed by Advocate Sandi regarding the objective and: "How does that relate to your main objective", that it could perhaps figure there.
	It is respectfully submitted that in all probability Mr Jose Cerqueira was armed with a firearm and had shot at the Heidelberg attackers.  I submit that it is however unnecessary for the purposes of this application, for the Committee to make a finding in this regard.  In fact, Gqomfa could quite easily have failed or refused to disclose the fact that he shot and killed Cerqueira, this is particularly so in the light of the fact that the three other attackers are not before the Amnesty Committee.  Nevertheless, Gqomfa has done so and I submit that he deserves credit for it.
	It is respectfully submitted that whatever differences there may be regarding the evidence before the Committee, the fact remains that the applicants have admitted and have accepted responsibility for causing the deaths of four people and thereby having committed gross violation of human rights.  They have also admitted to attempting to murder a number of people and having had in their possession unlawfully, arms and ammunition.
	One cannot think of any reason why the applicants would not want to make a full and proper disclosure of all the relevant facts.  They have already been convicted and sentenced to terms of imprisonment ranging from 24 to 27 years, it must surely be in their interest to make a full disclosure of all the relevant facts within their personal knowledge.
	The applicants have all said that they regret deeply the loss of life caused by the attack on the tavern and that they regret what they did and that they seek the forgiveness of the victims and the families of the victims.  It is respectfully submitted that the truth of what happened at the Heidelberg Tavern on the night of the 30th of December 1993, has been revealed before this Committee and that the whole process has gone a long way towards healing the wounds caused by that dreadful attack which took place on the 30th of December 1993.
	In conclusion Mr Chairman, it is submitted that the applicants have met the requirements of the Act for amnesty to be granted to them in respect of the offences committed during the attack on the tavern.  It is submitted furthermore, that there is no reason why this Committee cannot decide to grant the amnesty sought as soon as possible.  
	In this regard Mr Chairman, the PAC and APLA and the applicants note with concern that this Committee has seemingly had no difficulty in granting amnesty to White and Black perpetrators of gross violations of the human rights of Black persons killed during the course of the conflicts of the past, such as the amnesty granted to Coetzee, Mitchell and others.  However, when it comes to the granting of amnesty to Black applicants - in particular ex-APLA soldiers where White or Coloured lives have been taken, this Committee seems not to be able to make any decision at all.

CHAIRPERSON: Is this a personal view or are you saying that on behalf of your clients?

NORMAN ARENDSE: I'm saying this - these are my instructions, the PAC, APLA High Command and these applicants, they find the delay unacceptable - it's a case of justice delayed is justice denied, regrettably this creates the impression and the perception that White lives are more valuable than Black lives.
	It is respectfully submitted that it is in the interest of this Committee and in the interest of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission as a whole, that this Committee give a decision - one way or the other, in this matter as soon as possible to allay any such concerns or fears.
	Thank you Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Sorry, before you finish, can you look at Exhibit D, the photograph?   Have you got that?

NORMAN ARENDSE: Is this ...[inaudible] (d) of A?

JUDGE WILSON: Pardon?

NORMAN ARENDSE: (d) of A?

JUDGE WILSON: Exhibit D.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Oh, the one with Mr Cerqueira?  Yes, Sir?

JUDGE WILSON: Now behind - in the background of the first photograph, you can see the Heidelberg Tavern, you can see the sign sticking out, can you see that?

NORMAN ARENDSE: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: Now, were they driving down the road past the body?

NORMAN ARENDSE: They were driving towards where the body's laying, yes.

JUDGE WILSON: So, if the body - and they said the shooting started when they reached the robot, so they would have passed the deceased before the shooting started?

NORMAN ARENDSE: I don't recall them saying that the shooting started at the robot.

JUDGE WILSON: But they did, they did.  So, that would mean - if they looked backwards, the shooting would have come from the direction from the Heidelberg Tavern and they assumed it was the deceased who was shooting whereas it might have been someone else who had come out of the tavern.

NORMAN ARENDSE: I would respectfully differ from that construction, I think what was said during the evidence is that after - they were in the car, the car was moving towards the robot when Gqomfa says that he heard shots being fired in his direction and I think it's seems to be clear from the way and the manner in which Mr Cerqueira was shot that he was shot from the front.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes, he was facing them ...[intervention]

NORMAN ARENDSE: Yes, he was facing them.

JUDGE WILSON: But what I'm suggesting is that if there had been firing, it might not have been him at all, it might have been someone behind him near the tavern.

NORMAN ARENDSE: That is possible, I haven't excluded that possibility at all.
JUDGE WILSON
"After I got into the car we approached a robot and some shots were fired in my direction"
So it would have been when the deceased was behind them, between them and the tavern, do you agree?

NORMAN ARENDSE: I don't think so.

JUDGE WILSON: Well, I was trying to help you, if you don't want help, you needn't have it.

NORMAN ARENDSE: I did say that yes, it's possible that that could have been what happened.