Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1997-08-13

MR PRINSLOO: As it please the Commission.  I associate myself fully with what my colleague has said on behalf of Mr Smuts or rather Mr Botha, what she has submitted to the Commission.  With respect, Mr Smuts firstly made full disclosure of what happened on that particular day.  It nowhere appeared from his evidence and from questions put to him that there's anything that proves the contrary.  What is important is that Mr Smuts was in fact a member of the Orde Boerevolk.  The police found in the possession of Mr Botha, they found a document embodying the oath of allegiance to the Orde Boerevolk - Exhibit A.    Although this was the document signed by Mr Marais but it was Botha as well as Smuts's evidence relating to this oath.
	It's important, with respect, the fact that the oath had been concealed by Mr Botha and that Botha at that stage, along with Smuts and Marais, they were in detention in terms of Section 29 so, that cannot be a fabrication.  It is something that did in fact exist before the events we're talking about here and that lends further credibility to their participation on behalf of the Orde Boerevolk. 
	Chairperson, it's further essential to bear in mind what the political climate was at the time of the particular events that that is very important to take that into consideration.  It's also essential to bear in mind that the events were preceded by events shown by the media and broadcast by the media namely, this attack by members of the PAC on White people at the Durban beach-front.  
	Furthermore, the action against the people in the bus was launched by three people believing that they had to act in the vicinity of the first attack that morning, in order to send a very clear message to the Government.  It's also essential to take into consideration that the applicants did not act in Richard's Bay as they could have done if they wanted to - where they could have killed Black people at random.  It is important to note as well that the action - the subsequent action by Mr Botha, ...that was already testified to, clearly illustrated this.  Mr Smuts's action was similarly in or on the instructions of Mr Botha and he knew that Mr Botha was the cell leader of the Orde Boerevolk.
	It is essential that such action, where a cell acts as an underground movement, that this action should take place secretly and clandestinely.  The Orde Boerevolk's objectives must also be taken into consideration and what is important is the fact that the cell leader had a discretion as to how he would act in the circumstances.  This type of action is not at all strange if one looks at things that happened in the past, where people acted as a cell and the discretion rested with the Chairperson...[no sound]   changing opinions of the Government and the PAC to try and persuade them not to proceed with their policies and it must be seen against that background.
	It's important that there were no motives of personal vindictiveness of personal gain or benefit.  There's no evidence which points to any such motive and I therefore submit with respect, that this action had been undertaken with a very direct political motive and was carried through on that basis.  
	And it should not be seen in any other light, taking into consideration the circumstances existing at the time.  It must be seen in that light and it must also be linked to the applicant's background, mainly the way he'd been raised, they way he'd been educated, political doctrines which he'd been - been forced onto him by parents or whatever.   And their belief that there was an onslaught against White people which should be resisted.  I would like to submit with respect, that the applicant complies with the requirements of Section 21(c), the full disclosure and also Section 22(a), (d) and (f).  That he complied with all these requirements.
	Furthermore, as far as the provisions of Section 23 - I've already dealt with those in passing  and it's important that on that particular day, there was this action by the PAC on that morning and the applicant acted with that knowledge and also on the instructions of his cell leader.  And also taking in consideration his background as a member of the AWB.  I'm not saying that the AWB gave the orders.  There could have been a certain measure of influencing but I don't say there was a actual instruction.
	I would like to submit that the applicant in these circumstances, should be granted amnesty as set out in the indictment, should be granted amnesty on all these charge, seven charges of murder, 27 charges of attempted murder and then a contravention of the Weapons Act, possession of a FN as well as possession of ammunition and teargas grenade.  I may also mention that a page or two is missing but I believe that this page has now arrived and that will be made available to the Commission.  This - that will explain more fully what our position is.  Thank you Chairperson.