Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-10-15

MR PRINSLOO: Specifically reference is made to these two members, who coincidentally had been members of the AWB on a previous occasion and on page 3 of that judgment, the middle paragraph, their membership and their attitude towards the government as well as the ANC, SACP alliance is set out, as well as the principles which were applied and I argue that this fits in exactly with the case which appears before the Honourable Committee at present.
	In so far as the deed itself is concerned, Honourable Chairperson, the applicant very clearly went to do what he bona fide believed to be an Air Force base and he bona fide believed that the persons he would find in that guard room, were Air Force members, who would have been armed with automatic weapons.
	As it became apparent from the evidence of Mr Swart, I wish to argue that the surprise that occurred on that occasion, equally absolutely would have fitted in with what the applicant had possibly had in mind, in that instance, to rush in there, the people would be totally unsuspecting.  It was a Saturday and you would demand them to hand over their weapons.  
	He was hoping to find automatic weapons and things went array because they were policemen.

CHAIRPERSON: What would have happened according to his evidence, if he had reconnoitred the place and had seen that these policemen were in the guard house?

MR PRINSLOO: Honourable Chair, his evidence was that he had entered the room, that he saw the, that he passed under the window on the opposite side of the television, that he entered and stormed in the door, he didn't realise that these were policemen, until he had entered at the door.
	There was no time to turn around at that stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that is indeed so, but on the strength of his evidence, if he had indeed before moving into the guard house, had looked in and seen there were policemen in there, according to his evidence at this stage, what would he have done?

MR PRINSLOO: Is your question what he would have done if he had known that they were policemen?

CHAIRPERSON: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chair, he said that he didn't know that they were policemen, so I would purely have to speculate as to what he would have thought if they were policemen.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry for interrupting you, yes, it is perhaps not strictly speaking speculation.  If I understood his evidence correctly, he had said that if he had been aware that it was no longer an Air Force base, but was indeed occupied by the police, he wouldn't have launched an action of this nature there.
	Would it be reasonable to deduce that if he had reconnoitred the place beforehand and seen that police had occupied the place, he wouldn't have stormed in there in the way he had?

MR PRINSLOO: With respect, there would have been no reason for further reconnoitring because he knew the place well.  He was not like a stranger who had come in there, because he had done his National Service there.
	He knew people had firearms there.  He did that work himself, and rifles.  There was no doubt.  There wouldn't have been any doubt in his mind.
	The fact that policemen were now doing guard duty, it is possible that after his time, the Air Force could have made us of policemen.  It is still people doing guard duty, who were armed from whom they could obtain firearms, so the opportunity was there.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, one has to keep in mind the version of the other applicants, and that is firstly that the first applicant had last visited the place when he did his National Service, and that the idea had been and I know that there is a difference between your client's version and their version, but on the strength of their version, he would have gone to look at what was going on there, so it was not a person who was one hundred percent certain of what the situation was.
	That is also now relevant in the matter, whether he was indeed so self-assured that it was indeed an Air Force base and that he indeed would be able to find the arms that were required, there.

MR PRINSLOO: With respect Mr Chair, it is very seldom that an Air Force base changes to a Police Force base.  I think it is something that the general public would have been aware of, it was quite extraordinary, it was something that would normally occur covertly, it wouldn't have been obvious and the applicant knows that he wouldn't have been able to enter safe, he wouldn't be able to look at another place, he knew that the arms that were out in the open, loose, would be found there.
	They went there specifically, they were wearing balaclavas.  Why did they wear balaclavas?  Why did the other applicant also wear a balaclava and if one looks at Swart's evidence, then it supports the applicant's evidence, because they entered and they held up Swart as well, with their firearms, so there could have been no other purpose than to rob them of their firearms.
	If they just wanted to reconnoitre, they could have looked through the window and seen there is nothing there, they saw here, but how are we going to look, what are we going to do further?  There is a television playing, so there was no reason for further reconnoitring.
	The purpose was to go and get hold of the firearms.  It is also what the other applicants testified to.  Van Schalkwyk had said this applicant knows where the firearms are and that they had to go and obtain these firearms.
	That was what Van Schalkwyk had told them, and this changed, because in all honesty the Pretoria action was also to obtain firearms, so why should there be this sudden change?
	But the applicants' application, the second and third applicants, don't refer to reconnoitring but to getting firearms.

CHAIRPERSON: But isn't that perhaps because the Devon base attack was not part of the original plan, that it would make sense that if the first applicant had said to the other two, I was at Devon, I had served at Devon, I was last there when I did my National Service, let's go that way and let's go and see what the situation is there?  Isn't that so?

MR PRINSLOO: With respect Mr Chair, it is not that long ago before that, that he had last been there when he did National Service.
	The other aspect is that he knew where the place was, he knew the place itself, and that a matter of reconnoitring couldn't have arisen from the facts which are on the table.  They went there to obtain firearms, and the third applicant went with him.
	This is a contradiction of their evidence.   When they left Secunda, the person who knew where to find the weapons, was left over to this applicant and the way in which the BWB functioned was in a secretive manner, that only the two in the cell would know what would happen, and this person then had to make use of two other people as assistants.  Two people who were not part of his cell, so the knowledge he had of where the firearms were, was only something known to him and not to anybody else.
	He took the lead, he carried it into effect and he was the person who had to go and obtain the firearms.  That was the instruction and the time was ripe.  That is uncontradicted.