Amnesty Hearings — Mmabatho — 1998-09-23

CHAIRPERSON: As mentioned when we adjourned yesterday, we will be hearing submissions this morning commencing with Mr Hendrickse.  Mr Hendrickse?

MR HENDRICKSE: Mr Chairman and Honourable Committee Members, thank you for the opportunity.  Mr Chairman, first of all I will start with, let me start with the background of the events which led to the incident for which the applicant is applying for amnesty.
	This incident Mr Chairman, should not be seen in isolation, but it should be seen against the political background, the situation which prevailed at that time.
	It is common cause that there was political turmoil in the then Bophuthatswana.  The majority of people in the then Bophuthatswana wanted reincorporation into the greater South Africa.  The new South Africa that we have experienced for the past four years, was dawning, and in Bophuthatswana the majority of people wanted to be part of this new South Africa.
	They wanted to vote and take part in the elections.  The then Bophuthatswana government did not want to allow the people to take part in the elections.  This led to political instability and the uprisings that occurred in the ex-Bophuthatswana.
	Mr Chairman and Honourable Committee Members had the opportunity to view the video footage and you are also in possession of a background as contained in the extract from the Tebbutt Commission reports which was handed to you yesterday.
	It is against these backgrounds that this application must be looked at.
	It is common cause Mr Chairman and Members of the Committee, that the AWB was present in the Mmabatho, Mafikeng area.  Whether they were invited here or whether they invaded the area, is immaterial for the purpose of this Committee, but one thing is perfectly clear and that thing that is perfectly clear is that they were not here on a Sunday picnic.
	This is testified to be the journalist, Mr de Ionne as well as Mr Lebotso.  I will come to the evidence later on during my address.  Coming to the merits Mr Chairman and Honourable Committee Members, this is an application for amnesty and there are two requirements that must be met for an applicant to be granted amnesty and that is number one, full disclosure of the events and relevant facts for which he is applying for amnesty, and two, he must have acted in furtherance of a political objective.
	Mr Chairman and Honourable Members, this is not a criminal trial where it is necessary to prove the guilt of the applicant beyond reasonable doubt.  Applicant has admitted his guilt to these offences.  He said I shot and killed the three men.  The question as to whether he acted in self-defence or not, is immaterial and questions on detail like for example how far he was from the three men when he shot them, how many shots were fired, whether the three AWB men were armed or not, whether they posed any threat to the applicant or not, whether one moved his arm or not, which side the one was lying on, how long did the shooting take place and how long did the three men lay before they were shot at, etc, etc.  These are with due respect, immaterial for the purpose of this Committee.
	As I already stated Mr Chairman, the applicant admitted that he shot and killed the three AWB men.  With regard to full disclosure, it is my submission that it cannot be said that the applicant did not make a full disclosure of the events that occurred on the day in question.  He gave his evidence in a satisfactory manner, he admitted that he shot and killed the three AWB men.
	Although it appeared that one of the men was lying there motionless and may have been dead by the time he was shot at by the applicant, the applicant nevertheless admitted that I shot at him and killed him.
	Applicant testified that he went to these men with the intention to shoot them.  What his reaction would have been if one of the men did not move his hand, is not known.  With due respect, I submit it is immaterial, it is neither here, nor there for the purpose of this application.
	Applicant takes responsibility for the death of the three AWB men.  Applicant was open and frank to this Committee and it is my submission that he fully disclosed all relevant facts and circumstances of the events that occurred on the day in question.  	It is well known that all the detail cannot be contained in a statement or an affidavit and some of the information, some of the detail will necessarily surface on questions being put to a witness.  This happened in this instance as well.
	The question is whether the applicant can give a detailed, chronological description of the events that occurred.  The answer to that question is no and it is my submission that it should be borne in mind by this Committee that one, this incident happened more than four years ago, two, there was a war situation, three, the applicant was emotional, he was shocked, he was angry, he was confused, four, his own life was at some stage, in danger.  One cannot expect a person under these circumstances, to give a detailed description of events as it occurred in chronological order.
	Applicant stated that he can't remember everything in detail and it is respectfully submitted that he cannot be faulted for that.  Mr Chairman and Honourable Members will remember that applicant even referred to my learned friend when he answered questions by Mr Van der Berg, he referred to him as Mr Van der Walt and he kept on doing it, throughout.
	It shows that this is a man who cannot remember detail in the circumstances, all the detail in the circumstances.  Mr Chairman, it is my submission that there was full disclosure on the part of the applicant.
	Coming to the political objective, the AWB came here for a political reason.   The political situation was not sound in the then Bophuthatswana.  These situations are contained in the video footage that was viewed by this Committee.  The applicants states that he acted as a supporter of the ANC.
	Although this was not originally included in his application form, it is submitted that it does not detract from the fact that he was a supporter of the ANC as testified to it by the applicant.
	On page 5, paragraph 11(a), if I may refer you to it Mr Chairman, he was asked the question the yes that is contained there, on whose behalf was he acting and the answer was clear, on behalf of the ANC.  He believe that he was acting on behalf of the ANC.
	Coming to ...

ADV MOTATA: Mr Hendrickse, when you speak of him being a supporter of the ANC, could you say to us for instance it existed throughout if we look at the years, because you led evidence to the effect that when the people, the nation as he calls it, was screaming for their help, that he identified with the nation.  Could we say then therefore when he suddenly identified on the 11th of March, that he was in effect a supporter?

MR HENDRICKSE: Mr Chairman, I would answer yes, he was a supporter although when questioned by Mr Mpshe, he says that this deed that he is now applying for amnesty, was the first deed that he had actually done in furtherance of any political idea of the ANC.  It does not detract from the fact that he was a supporter.
	He may not be a member, card carrying member of the ANC, but it does not debar him from being a supporter and there is overwhelming evidence before this Committee that he was indeed a supporter of the ANC.

ADV MOTATA: Supposing we do take into consideration that say for a moment accept it that because he was a policeman, suppose that, that he was acting as a member of the Police Force, would it also detract now from the answer you have given?

MR HENDRICKSE: With respect no, Mr Chairman, it would not detract, not at all.

ADV MOTATA: Thank you, you may continue.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Hendrickse, apart from the applicant's own evidence that he was a supporter of the ANC, what other evidence, overwhelming evidence as you put it, would you rely on?