Amnesty Hearings — Mmabatho — 1998-09-23

MR HENDRICKSE: Mr Chairman, again it goes back to what was in the mind of the applicant at that time.  What was he thinking at that time.  When he was across the street, he was shot at himself.  He saw other people being shot in his presence, two of them.  One was shot in the thigh, one was shot in the belly as he called it.
	He was angered, he was emotional.  He went to these people, he questioned them about where they came from and the more important question was what were you doing here?  What was the purpose for you to come here?  In that anger and outrage, it is my submission that he may have thought as he rightly pointed out, that they were still a threat.  They could have, or some other persons could have shot and that is why he decided to kill them.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR HENDRICKSE: Mr Chairman and Honourable Members, when the application form was initially completed, it was not categorically stated that the applicant was a supporter of the ANC.  It surfaced later on and he cannot be punished for not mentioning it.
	An amendment can be made at any stage before he actually testified in his evidence in chief.  The fact that he was a supporter being included in the bundle of papers which I referred you to, before he gave his evidence in chief, clearly indicated that it was not an afterthought.   It would have been something different if he just testified to it before this Committee that he was a member or supporter or not a member, a supporter of the ANC and nowhere in the papers was it alleged that he took a stance and decided for the people or aligned himself with the people.
	Then it would have been something else, but in the papers it was included that he is indeed a supporter of the ANC.	
	Now it comes to the following question, what was his objective.  The people in the then Bophuthatswana wanted to change, they wanted reincorporation and they wanted to go to the voting station to vote.  He acted for the people.  The AWB came here to stop the people from taking part in the elections.  That is what he testified.
	He said that by shooting the three AWB, he chased away the AWB and showed his dissatisfaction with the presence of the AWB in the Mmabatho, Mafikeng area, hence the question that was asked, what did you want here, to one of the men.
	On a question by my learned friend, Mr Mpshe, the answer came out very clearly, rather the people to topple the then Bophuthatswana government than it be taken over by the AWB.  This is what the applicant perceived the situation to be at that time.  
	It is common cause that after the three AWB's were shot, there was a withdraw of the AWB from the Mmabatho, Mafikeng area.  The video's clearly indicated there was some remarks that was made by politicians and the Honourable Mr Justice Kriegler, who is the Chairman of the Electoral Commission.  He says that indeed these people were shot at in the glaring publicity of the media, but although they were shot like dogs, it had enormous effect on the rightwing resisting the elections at that time.
	Mr Leon Wentzel also remarked.  He said that the events were said and said it is indeed Mr Chairman.  But it demonstrated that one cannot play with the peace process that was going on at that time.  And the freedom of the people, the freedom of the land, was not up for grabs at that stage.
	It is my submission Mr Chairman, that these remarks should also be considered.  The journalist, Mr de Ionne, also testified and coming to his evidence, he clearly stated that what was prevailing at that time is clearly a war situation.  There were riots, there were uprisings, there was unrest in the area.  It increased dramatically when the presence of these men on the bakkies were felt here.
	When they came here, there was an enormous increase and the people protested against the Mangope government at that time, who refused the people participation in the elections.  This was the political scenario at that stage.
	There is also the evidence Mr Chairman, of Mr Lebotso who was himself  a victim of the circumstances on the day in question.   His evidence is clear, it is fortunate for him to be alive to tell this story.  He clearly corroborates the fact that there was a state of war and innocent civilians were shot at random for no other reason than the colour of their skin.
	Mr Chairman, this is the situation that prevailed at that time.  This is what makes the applicant to say there was indeed a state of war going on at that time.  It is my submission in conclusion that the requirements as set out in Subsection 22(f) and also to a great extent (g) is met.
	It is my submission that applicant did not act for personal gain, nor did he act out of personal malice, ill will or spite.  It is further my submission Mr Chairman, that a proper case has been made out by the applicant to be granted amnesty.
	It is true that regret or remorse is not one of the prerequisites for the granting of amnesty, but in a true spirit of reconciliation, applicant out of his own, apologised to the family members of the three deceased AWB men.  This he had done in the true spirit of reconciliation.  He asked for forgiveness and to reconcile the differences of the past.
	Mr Chairman and Honourable Members, on that note I conclude, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Hendrickse.  Mr Terreblanche, do you have any submissions to make?
	Sorry Mr Terreblanche, Adv Bosman just wants to put a question to Mr Hendrickse before you start.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Hendrickse, could I just ask you to deal very briefly with the fact that the applicant - just deal very briefly how material the fact that the applicant did not come forward at an earlier stage to say that he had shot them in support of the ANC, or that he had shot them, why he kept quiet so long?   Does that have a bearing on the applicant's state of mind?

MR HENDRICKSE: Mr Chairman and Honourable Member, indeed it is true that the applicant waited for quite some time, considerable time before coming up, out in the open.
	But on questions put by my learned friend, Mr Van der Berg, he came out very frank, very open and said that he was confronted by the police and then he decided to come out and tell the truth.  He also explained in detail what occurred on that day when he was confronted, how he approached his legal representative, his lawyers at that stage.
	It is my submission that it does not have such a great effect on this application itself.  People might come after years and open up and say I did it and I did it for this purpose.  It does not detract from him telling the truth and make a full disclose of what actually happened.

ADV BOSMAN: Would one not have expected a person who acted in support of a particular party, to come forward and say look, I did this for the nation or for the party, this is the gist of my question?

MR HENDRICKSE: It may well be that that another person may have come out sooner and says I acted for this party and this is what I was doing and I firmly believed that I was acting for the party.  However, it is my submission that he cannot be faulted for coming out at a later stage.
	He came out and he applied for amnesty before the cut off date and that is why we are here today.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Terreblanche?