Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-10-15

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and the other aspect is that according to all versions, the action was a total failure.  The one firearm which they were able to get hold of, was thrown into the dam?  It was disassembled and thrown away, so it was a total failure.
	Even the Pretoria trip was totally futile, because they drove all the way there, and when they arrived there it became apparent that it was a mad plan as the applicant had said, it was madness.
	Some of the applicants had made the point that they thought it was a head over heels trip and terms like fanatical was used, and some other terms as well.  It is quite apparent that it wasn't a smoothly planned operation that took place there, where everybody of the persons who were participating would have known exactly what his role was to be?
	They drove to Pretoria, they had a difference of opinion there amongst themselves.  The first applicant said let's eliminate these people and the other said no, but you are mad.  How can we safely attack the Defence Headquarters where there is a number of guards on duty.
	So it definitely doesn't strike one as a finely planned, well oiled instruction which was being carried out, and as I had stated, some of the applicants themselves, referred and used the term head over heels in this process, when referring to this process, so is it totally unjustified then to refer to the operation in those terms, according to your submission?

MR PRINSLOO: With respect Mr Chair,  many large military operations which were planned, which were planned also by members of the ANC, I can refer you to specific cases, where I would have described them as very badly planned, to the same extent as here, but with respect Your Honour, the fact of the matter was that these people had gone with the objective of obtaining firearms, with a political motive.
	The fact that the action and planning went array, could certainly not be blamed on the applicant, because any action where one robs a bank, or goes to do some other thing, things can go wrong and that is the reason why so many people are in jail, because these things have gone wrong.
	The fact that they could have planned it differently, could also be blamed on them, but it doesn't have any other purport for the purposes of this application, as to what the applicants wished to do.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I agree with you on that point.  Perhaps I should state it more clearly.  The storming into the guard house and the killing of Constable Terreblanche, those things are actually the crux of this application, and in respect thereof, is there anything that could be said at all with regard to planning and calculated action?
	Wouldn't it be closer to the type of description made by the other applicants, that they lost their minds, that it was head over heels, etc?

MR PRINSLOO: With respect no, Your Honour, because then Mr Swart's evidence has to be thrown out totally, because he stated clearly that the third applicant had walked up to him, the second applicant had walked up to him.
	And you must keep in mind what had happened, these two people were sitting, watching TV.  What better element of surprise was there than this, than walking in and say hand over your firearm.  You would expect that they would give up immediately, because they would be frightened to death, like Swart had testified.
	He would do nothing, they would hand over their firearms.  But with respect, these persons pleaded guilty, they said that they had foreseen the possibility in trying to obtain firearms, that resistance would occur.  To rob a person of a firearm, there is always that possibility with respect.
	And also with respect, it cannot be to the detriment of what the applicants are applying for.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I agree with you on that point, however, the first applicant on his own version didn't know what to expect in the guard house, he didn't reconnoitre, he just stormed in, he didn't look through the window.  If he had looked through the window as he had testified himself, this event would probably not have taken place, because he would have seen police and he knew that it was Air Force members who should have been there, there wouldn't have been firearms like the Air Force would have had with them, etc, so this whole thing wouldn't have happened, so that is not the element of the action which I am referring to.

MR PRINSLOO: With respect, that the events went wrong, is true because it was no longer an Air Force base and the applicant believed that what he would find there, would be armed Air Force members.
	There were people inside, the light was on, there was the guard house as normal, so what else did he have to reconnoitre?  What would these people do else but be in that guard room, guarding the place, he was familiar with it, and it would have been favourable for him to act in those circumstances.

CHAIRPERSON: And if there were six people armed with automatic rifles, would he still have stormed in, into the guard house, because we are now concerned with robbery?

MR PRINSLOO: The element of surprise is always the overruling element at  that stage.  It is like people entering a bank, they know that there are tellers, they know that there are guards, but it often happens that there is a shooting, that the police were informed from outside and that they would start shooting, and so you cannot mutually eliminate any of these elements.
	He knew the place, he knew there were guards, there was a small room, why would he suddenly expect six guards, why would it be different, he knew the Air Force.  He went and reconnoitred the other place.  He was aware of the place there in Pretoria where there were normally two guards, but that day there were six.

CHAIRPERSON: That is exactly the point.  Who says he wouldn't have encountered the same situation in Devon?  You see, why I am making this point is that the version of the other two applicants is that the first applicant had said we are going past Devon, I want to go and see what is happening there, I was last there when I did my National Service.
	Is that not more possible, is that not a greater possibility?

MR PRINSLOO: No, it is not a greater possibility because the second applicant referred to removing firearms from a safe, and that was never with all respect, even a dream of the first applicant.
	How do you take a firearm from a safe, you would have to cut open a safe, so he went to Pretoria to rob guards of their firearms, and now he is going to Secunda or well, to Devon, to try and take firearms from those guards.
	Would he expect them to be six guards?  If he had the courage to do so, he could have done so.  Many people robbed firearms from both sides in the struggle under very strange circumstances and various strange circumstances.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, if I could interrupt, is your submission that we have to with regard to this aspect, accept the first applicant's version and not those of the second and third applicants, that the visit to Devon would have been to reconnoitre, look around and that we have to find that the other two applicants are lying in this regard, and that the first applicant is speaking the truth?