Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1999-03-23

CHAIRPERSON: The injury to the brain wasn't only gunshot, was it?  If you look at the post-mortem report, she had a completely crushed skull.  And on the next page, page 2, the post-mortem report
"... a completely fractured skull, extensive scalp haematoma noted."
MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

CHAIRPERSON: ... My understanding of the doctor's evidence was that there had been blunt force applied to the brain.

MR BOTMA: Well once again, Mr Chairman, unfortunately I don't have the evidence of, I wasn't made available of the evidence of the doctor when I prepared my argument to this Committee, but what my recollection of that is that the fracture of the skull was in fact caused by the exit wound.

MR LAX: Sorry, that was my understanding as well.

CHAIRPERSON: The exist wound was right down at the back of the neck.

MR LAX: No, that's a stab wound.

CHAIRPERSON: There was an entrance wound under the left eye.

MR LAX: Yes.  If one looks at the pictures you can see that that bullet wound that went in there came out the top of the head and caused the damage that one sees in the actual photographs.  The other wounds are stab marks - if one reads the report.
MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

CHAIRPERSON: ... the doctor's evidence yet, I think we'll have to get it.

MR BOTMA: Thank you, Mr Chairman.  But then I'm coming back to the point, and my submissions to this Committee are based on my recollection at this point in time and if need be we can submit further argument once it has become available, but I think I can complete my argument on this point and that is she wouldn't have been alive, if she was shot at the first scene when they arrived there she would have been long dead.
	Then we must have a look once again at the submissions made or the evidence given by the first applicant as to how she was shot at the first scene.  And I would like to refer the Committee to pages 1167 to 1169 of the record, without reading the record.  He also gave on other pages also some indication of how she sustained the injuries, but he will testify that he was, or he did testify that he was standing on the side of this truck looking towards Meyers, he asked him "give me your gun", Meyers lent forward and as he was about to reach for the cubbyhole he fired a shot because he thought that Meyers was going to grab his gun from the cubbyhole.  
	Now I asked him specifically on that point and he said that at that point his head was far down below the head of Donne and he was aiming for the head and the body downwards.  He also conceded that he was a skilled or gunshot, or a shootist, that he received training in the handling.  We're talking of about a distance of two to three metres at the most he was standing away from her, and he was trying to explain that she came in his arc of fire.  With due respect, arc of fire is not applicable on such short distance, we're talking about maybe the line of fire.  But in that short of distance of two to three metres, it would have been, if he aimed for the head and downwards, how did it come about Donne through the face?  
	And my submission is once again, this Committee can safely come to the finding that Donne was not shot at all at the first scene, that she was conveyed from there on and that she was executed the way she was at the second scene.  And therefore my submission is mainly on the basis that there could have been no political motivation at all for the killing of Donne at the second scene.  As correctly conceded by my learned friend, the way she was killed is not in line with other normal killings of this kind, the fact that she was taken away from the side of the road to a point where her body would have been concealed and the way in which she was killed, not only this gunshot wound, there might have been more than one gunshot wound to the head as well, there's also the possibility, but also all these several stabbings that took place or the incise wounds of the body.  
	And my main argument is that the two applicants were involved in the killing of Donne.  Alternatively, even if this Committee comes to a finding and gives them all the benefit of the doubt that Thandukolo was present, my submission is that there's still on the basis of common purpose that they were also there, they formed part of this and if Thandukolo killed them they were part of that, Thandukolo's killing would not have been politically motivated and therefore their actions could also not have been politically motivated in the circumstances, and therefore on that basis it can also be refused.
	In order then to conclude my argument, my submission to this Committee is that none of the applicants do qualify for amnesty on any of the cases on which they are convicted of, that is:
(1)	The murder of Mike;
(2)	The robbery of the vehicle;
(3) 	The abduction or the kidnapping and the subsequent killing.
And even if the Committee lent backwards as far as it can, it can come to the finding that there might have been political motivation with regard to the first killing and maybe the robbery, but my submission is the Committee can never come and safely come to the conclusion with regard to the killing of Donne, and therefore I urge this Committee to refuse the application.  That is all my argument is based on and I'm prepared to answer questions from the Committee if I'm in the position to so.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR BOTMA: Thank you, Mr Chairman.