Amnesty Hearings — Mmabatho — 1998-09-23

MR TERREBLANCHE: Honourable Chairperson, I was busy to say and I hope this will satisfy you, that he decided there when he was confronted by the people, I now support the other side.  That is where he made his decision.  I now become part of them, that is true.  That because of the fact that he went to the people, but he said it was like this and I've got a problem with this.  I wanted to protect my people when the shots were fired.
	He did not shoot back immediately, he later fired shots at this vehicle, he wanted to protect his people, but he also said that he had two choices.  The people forced him and that comes out of his statements.
	They even wanted to take his rifle and he said he will not give it, he will protect them himself.  He did not have a choice, so he stood with his people and I accept that, that he then stood with the people who were threatened by the AWB and I accept his evidence.  It is true, but it was not politically.
	The AWB according to him, shot or fired at the people and he went to go and protect the people and then afterwards he fell next to the road, and he said a vehicle passed him and he said that he fired shots at this vehicle and then the AWB is gone.  Then he went back to the people in order to protect his people there as a policeman, as a soldier, not as a peace or Justice of Peace, but someone who takes decisions about life and death, then he goes back and go and kill these people in order to protect his people and if you talk about people, these are the people who were standing there.
	Now the question is how can it ever be politically motivated to - when you kill or shoot at a body and kill other people in order to further your political case?  I did say that I do not think that the ANC would like to reconcile themselves with such a deed.  I do not think they would like to take responsibility for it.
	He furthermore say because he heard the statements that were made by the learned lawyer for the applicant, statements that say that it brought about change, it made that the AWB  and rightwing were halted.  It was described by his legal adviser, it was in the media, he even said that some people congratulated him, that he was a good soldier and then he continues to say that he killed these people because he wanted to help his people, and the impression was created by the applicant's legal advisor, that he had it in his head or mind, that if he kills these people, he will prevent or stop the shooting.
	The reality Mr Chairperson, is that the AWB was or fortunately the AWB had passed this scene, the AWB was not even in Bophuthatswana when the media showed this terrible scene to the world.  The AWB was fortunately gone, otherwise that deed ...

ADV MOTATA: Let's put it in perspective Mr Terreblanche.  Are you saying that on the 11th of March 1994, when the incident took place, the AWB was out of Bophuthatswana, am I hearing you to say that?

MR TERREBLANCHE: (Own translation)  Mr Chairperson, that is indeed what I am suggesting.  There is evidence that the red Mercedes was the last vehicle.  This incident happened here in Mmabatho which is only a few kilometres from Bophuthatswana.
	All the evidence and in my submission with regards to all the investigations we did, is that no one saw this.  The convoy was busy retreating, they had already left.  But there was confrontation between the Defence Force and the AWB and there is evidence that they shot at each other and then it became a war.
	In this case, the AWB did not know about their Commanding Officer, Gen Fourie, Colonel Wolfaardt and Veld Cornet Uys, three senior officers were killed there and the AWB did not know about that.
	If it wasn't about peace and it was the other way around, then the AWB would still have been in Bophuthatswana and they would not have retreated.  Then the blood would have flown worse than in the French Revolution.
	To suggest that I am going to kill these people and then I will bring about peace and then the other people are going to vote, Chairperson, if it was another way around, then nobody would have voted in that election, because this country would have burnt.
	But let's get back to my argument and if you will allow me, the applicant tries to make misuse of the amnesty law.  And maybe we can understand him, because three times life sentence is what he would have deserved if he did not walk out of here and if he did not get amnesty, that would happen to him, he would be in jail.  That is why he is not honest.
	To say the least, the applicant never hesitated to lie to questions which was put to him.  Impossibilities, things which have never been heard in a criminal court, the question asked, he was asked whether he was alone or not, he said I was completely alone, he said there was no human being around when I committed these deeds.
	Anything that could die, was not there.  The only human beings there was himself and the people he then killed and then he was the only human being there.  But Chairperson, the evidence on the side of the Sunday Times reporter, he tells us and he was tested by cross-questioning, and this man says there was a lot of people, more than that. 
	Mr Menyatsoe, he makes a statement Chairperson, in Anglo-Saxon terms, affidavit, on the 26th of May and he says Chairperson, I killed the said men in full view of the members of the media, public, police officers and members of the Bophuthatswana Defence Force.

CHAIRPERSON: Which page is that Mr Terreblanche?  Paragraph 2?