Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-10-15

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: As it pleases you.  I will address you very briefly regarding the matter.
	Most of the matters have been discussed by the Honourable Chairperson.  I stand by the affidavit made by the family of Mr Terreblanche which opposes the applications of all three applicants, and we continue to oppose these applications.
	Then briefly, I would like to move to Section 2(a) of Act 35 of 1995, I have a problem with the specific political objective which was sought.  The applicants come here and say that they wanted to use the weapon for security and they don't have any concrete reasons.
	Coupled to that is the motive for stealing these weapons.  Can we truly say that there is a political objective in stealing weapons for security reasons.
	They have the onus to prove to us when they say that their organisations were involved in a war with the State, or then with any other political organisation.  However, they don't prove this.  There are not dates, times, places of combat, or any declarations.  They bring to us facts which cannot be further substantiated.
	Furthermore with regard to paragraph 3(e), I have a serious problem with the command structure of these persons.  There is no clear issuing of instructions, there is no clear offensive training or exercising of any plans and the only exercise was defensive exercise.
	There is no clear command structure, there is no clear structure of reporting back to the command structure, and I cannot find any clear plan which any organisation would have, which had been planning actions such as these.
	The applicants in the matter may have called various of these Generals, Van Schalkwyk or Van Rensburg or any others, they don't do this.  The duty rests with them, to prove to us that these orders were issued.  Why aren't they open-hearted?  Why don't they call these Commanders who were the ones who gave the orders, and to whom they would have reported.
	The only inference to be drawn out of this, is negative.  That these persons did not at all give these orders.  In truth it is my submission that this is an action by a couple of people who had been having a party after a rugby game, and decided in the heat of the moment to commit the deed.
	If we discuss the open-heartedness and the full disclosure of facts made by the applicants, all three of them were placed under cross-examination and specifically asked whether they believed that the other applicant was telling lies or was not open-hearted.  The first applicant indicated that where the other applicants would differ from him, they would be lying or would not be open-hearted.
	Then we pertinently asked applicants 2 and 3 whether they felt that applicant 1 had been open-hearted and honest, but these applicants testified that applicant 1 had not been open-hearted.
	Therefore we have two versions where applicants 2 and 3, they clearly tell us that applicant 1 is wrong.  The applicants have the onus to come to us with open-heartedness and honesty and I cannot decide what was the truth and what was the lie.
	We have either one or one and two, one of whose evidence has to be rejected.    Should the officials decide to accept the evidence of applicants 2 and 3, it would mean that I have a further problem with regard to the incident within the guard house.
	Here we have a clear distinction between applicant 1 and applicants 2 and 3's versions.  It is very clear that applicant 1 does not support applicant 2's version that the firearm was in his pocket.  If we have to believe applicant 1, then his evidence would be in line with Constable Swart's.  It is clear that the argument of applicant 2's legal representative is for us to reject Swart's evidence, but within this room, Swart and applicant 2's evidence are in agreement, and it is clear that applicant 2 is not honest.
	I would like it to be noted that Mr Swart was found to be an open-hearted and honest witness in front of the Judge a quo.  It is a considerable amount of time now since the last time that he testified, and I would like to point out that his evidence was very brief.  The Judge and the Court had the opportunity to consider all the facts, which we have not had.
	And they also had the opportunity to ... (tape ends) ... examination of Constable Swart, an opportunity which we have not had here.
	If we look at the role of applicant 2, it is clear that he brought about changes to his affidavit at a very late stage.  An explanation is given for that, and I ask the Committee to reject this explanation.
	He had two other opportunities to amend his statement, and it is my submission that this was done at the eleventh hour in order for his story to fit in with the versions of the other two applicants.
	I therefore request that all three applicants' evidence be rejected in its entirety because it is impossible for us to determine which one of the three applicants' submissions to us, is open-hearted and honest.
	If you should find that the submission of applicant 3 is honest, and you reject applicant 1's submission, I would like to address you with regard to the issue of proportionality with the incident.
	This is of application to all three applicants, but especially so for applicant 3 in the matter.  This deed was disproportionately violent without any specific objective which could be sought with regard to a certain political person or a political situation.
	There was no propaganda value in shooting this police officer.  Only one hand weapon which was taken apart and thrown away in a dam, was the objective and ultimate result of this action.
	Whether or not it went wrong, does not change this point.  Had it been successful and a policeman had been shot dead, what would have happened to these weapons?  You identified yourself with this possibility.
	Accused 3 was in the position that he was the keeper of this weapon for three days.  With the election which was shortly at hand, he took the weapon apart and threw it away.  It would not be the conduct of a politician or a radically right-wing member of an organisation. This is the work of a terrorist who is trying to protect himself and his other criminal cohorts.
	Therefore this deed was not proportionate to any kind of political objective and his conduct after the fact is that of one who was acting like a criminal in order to disguise the situation.
	With regard to Mr Terreblanche and his father, I would like to add the following.  What happened to my son was the result of an action against a military base and not the State.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Van Schalkwyk.  Adv Steenkamp, any submission?

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, if you will allow me one hour, I don't have any further submissions, thank you Mr Chairman.
NO ARGUMENT BY ADV STEENKAMP

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, any reply?

MR PRINSLOO IN FURTHER ARGUMENT: Mr Chairperson, just one aspect with regard to the failed action.  The case of Froneman and Harmse is of application here in that an innocent police officer was shot.  You asked for an example, and I have highlighted that aspect.
	The other aspect with respect, is that the first applicant was the person who determined the target and gave the order, and what he believed was that those weapons had to be obtained at that stage, at that evening.
	What Holder believed and what was conveyed and what he says now, does not have any clear evidence, but what has been determined is that Swart supports the first applicant as well as the facts emanating therefrom.  It is my submission with respect that this is about what their objective was and that their objective had been carried out.
	This is of application for all three applicants, and not only the one.  The differences in their evidence regarding what happened that evening or not, and the fact that this took place on the 23rd of April, further substantiates the political objective behind obtaining weapons in time for the election.
	Thank you Chairperson.