Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-10-15

MR PRINSLOO: Well, then to call it a success, serves as if one is cold and cold hearted and cold blooded and absolutely so, and not as far as the object of the struggle was concerned.
	The objective was to rob automatic firearms, but it went wrong, and in that respect one can say it wasn't successful.  If I were to rob a bank and don't succeed, then one would have to admit that it was not a success.
	If I found an empty container with no money and I believed that there would have been money, then it is not fair.  If one were to look at what the Act says and what the Constitution says, then shouldn't a bridge be built?   Shouldn't we rather try and unify those communities in conflict and particularly where the word satisfy is used with regard to proof.	
	Haven't these applicants in this regard, satisfied this Committee in that regard?  If one were to look only at whether my action had been a success or a failure or whatever, with respect, it cannot be jerked out of context there with regard to what his object had been.  His object had been one particular thing.
	What did he do?  He said Terreblanche lifted his pistol, he grabbed hold of it, and then he shot him.  It is bordering on self-defence.  If one ignores that, if one were to ignore that, but he says I knew I was going to kill him, I am not trying to be innocent.  He even changed his plea in court, he stated his political affiliation.
	If one were to go and look further, the police even found BWB documents in his room.  His Honour Judge Winch says on page 98 it couldn't be stated even better, the witness said that, or it can be said that there was virtual hysteria at that stage in the country, that people were driven to senseless actions.

CHAIRPERSON: No, there is no doubt, that is the context in which the incident took place, but the idea of success which we are now referring to in this debate, is success with regard to one's political objective and not one of the applicants, one of the three, said that they were proud of what they had done.  It was part of the struggle, that they were involved in at that stage.
	They obtained arms.  Unfortunately this person lost his life, he was innocent, but they did obtain firearms and in the unfortunate, abnormal circumstances, that prevailed at the time, that was the only way in which they thought they could promote their case.
	Not one of them has that attitude.  They said it was a total failure.  The other two applicants are totally negative towards your client's behaviour, they said he was head over heels, he lost his head.  They said in their testimony that they thought he was mad when he wanted to eliminate the guards in Vermeulen Street, the three of them together with all those people with the automatic firearms, in the street there, so there are all those circumstances in this particular instance, to be taken into consideration.
	That is why we are focusing on it, so that we can hear what your submissions are in this regard.

MR PRINSLOO: The first applicant never said or commented on the failure thereof, he was never questioned about it.  He gave a precise rendition of what happened, and what his objective was.
	How can he be reprimanded and said that he was proud for killing a policeman?  One is supposed to say that one is remorseful or that one is sorry.  There is no such prerequisite.
	Many people have said that they are remorseful, but that is a matter of upbringing and a matter of education, however, that is not the issue at hand.  The issue is what his objective was, what he intended to do, what he did not achieve as a result of factors which came into consideration.  It can certainly not be made his responsibility.

CHAIRPERSON: I am sorry, I follow your submission.

ADV GCABASHE: Just point, the issue is not just the objective, you start with the instruction.  You get an instruction, everybody relies on the instruction, and then the objective was to get the weapons.
	Now what bothers me Mr Prinsloo, is having managed to get that one weapon, that weapon the AWB had said you can get them legally or illegally, that essentially was the tone, because elections were just around the corner.
	They get one weapon, they are told by leadership to destroy that only weapon that they got so close to the 27th, they could have held on to it for two, three days, this was the 23rd, going on to the 24th, why would they not do that if indeed the instruction had been obtain weapons for this civil war that is going to start as soon as the ANC takes over?
	This is where I have a little bit of a problem.  Why would leadership then say destroy it?

MR PRINSLOO: I respectfully submit Mr Chairman, if they did not destroy that weapon, it would have been absurd of anyone to retain a weapon in your possession in a mission that was not, in that sense, of any benefit to them.
	The benefit in this sense that the members of the organisation would then be arrested.  What better evidence would you expect than to find a weapon which could be linked to these people that robbed and killed these person.  That would have been the best thing out.
	In many instances, and many cases, this takes place where a weapon is thrown into a dam or is destroyed or whatever.  But to say that it could be used in a struggle that was just ahead, I respectfully submit Mr Chairman, it just doesn't go up in these circumstances.
	What do you want to do with a weapon that is hot at that stage, and the police are hot on your heels, and it is a man that is going to hospital and they know this man is going to be detected in hospital.  He's got to be treated, he was treated, he was found in hospital very soon after that.
	The facts substantiate that.  To retain that weapon would have been absurd in my submission.

CHAIRPERSON: And to take it?

MR PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon?

CHAIRPERSON: You said that to keep it would have been absurd, and to take it under these circumstances?

MR PRINSLOO: The objective was to take the weapon.  At that stage, if one is committing a robbery, one can't sit in an armchair situation and then decide what should have happened, afterwards.  One has to think about what that person under those given circumstances, believed and did.
	His instructions were to obtain weapons, he obtained a weapon.  Thereafter he realised what the nature of his situation was, and according to circumstances he did not make any decisions.  Decisions were made by his leadership and those who gave him the orders.
	The decision was not his with respect.

ADV GCABASHE: Mr Prinsloo, I must take issue with you on the context you know, and your use of the word absurd.  The context as I understand it, and I have sat in hearings with you, AWB hearings, the context was that a war was going to start, should the ANC take over on the 27.
	There were all the bombings, AWB bombings, that took place just prior to the election.  The mentality then certainly in the minds of the foot soldiers, was that there was a war that was going to start, a civil war was definitely going to start. 
	And yes, it was derailed for various reasons, but that was the mentality just before the election.  If you found arms, legally or illegally, you held on to them, because you were going to get your Volkstaat, as soon as possible as of the 27th.
	We are talking about the 23rd, going into the 24th here, and this is why I say, in that broad context of what the organisational plans were, what they said to the people any way, you would not get rid of a weapon if indeed you had been authorised properly authorised, to do certain thing, get that weapon.