Amnesty Hearings — Mmabatho — 1998-09-23

MR TERREBLANCHE: I think direction firstly, in which these people were driving.  I think that he was well aware of the fact that the AWB was busy retreating.  The time was getting short now for him in order to show his political colour, here is the last vehicle passing.  There must have been a lot of vehicles which already passed, he was in contact with Head Office.
	The retreat of the AWB I would say, must have lasted for about an hour, it was a very long convoy, there were several hundred vehicles in this convoy and the Defence Force made an agreement with the AWB that they would lead them out and nothing much came of that.
	The fact of the matter is that whilst these people were lying there for the 15 or 20 minutes, there is no evidence that there was a single AWB present.  No one, no one has heard any evidence to that extent.  This war which he saw, was passed.  It was passed.  I think that he did know as he received the information, that the AWB took over the Defence Force, surely he must have also received information that the AWB was on their way out, out of Bophuthatswana.
	My honest opinion Chairperson.  Can I continue?  Mr Chairperson, at the end of my argument I would like to summarise it.  Unfortunately the law is so and it is not the law's fault, but it must be circumstances in the country and the new problems that a new government must confront, that various criminals try to get away with things by making use of this Commission, and by not admitting their guilt.
	The law made it so easy for them, that the applicant have not spent one single day in jail, while four years ago, he shot and killed four people.  He probably was not even arrested or charged because he applied for amnesty and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and the world must hear me now and must listen to my humble submission and the world look at the protection of human rights and the dignity of people and above all, the God given gift of life as well as spirit.
	Mr Menyatsoe did not convince me in any way.  No judicial person would be agreed by his arrogant remarks and answers.  My submission is that he was never interested in politics, but he used politics to make it more acceptable for this new government.  It is typical of the traitors in nations.
	Then he wanted to make use of politics to be acceptable before this new government.  Today he wants to use this Commission to not only get amnesty, but also to be taken up again in the community that he used for his own purpose.  My submission Mr Chairperson is that amnesty to this person with his unconvincing evidence and the reasons that he gave that he was politically motivated, the fact that he did not have anyone who gave him instructions, the fact that he was not a member of any organisation, and the fact that he was satisfied and just accepted his salary and the position that he was given to him, guard the Headquarters and guard the General, a way in which he betrayed Mangope and the General.
	He also betrayed the ANC.  In this manner, he tried to make use of this spirit of reconciliation of this Commission to tighten the rope around his neck, in order to get away of what he did.  It is my submission and plead that the news must not go out into the world that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that seeks truth and reconciliation, that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission now became the squatter camp of criminals where they can hide.  Thank you Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Terreblanche.  Mr Van der Berg?

MR VAN DER BERG: As it pleases you Mr Chairperson.  Mr Chairperson, last night I worked out the Heads and ask permission to submit it, it would just make it so much easier.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much Mr Van der Berg.

MR VAN DER BERG: Mr Chairperson, to begin with I am sorry that it is not, or that it is handwritten.  I didn't have time to type it.  As it pleases you.  Mr Chairperson, if we can just look at page 1.  Firstly, what is mentioned there is the three requirements to which this applicant must adhere to and that he must make a full disclosure and the second paragraph Mr Chairperson, it is very clear out of this hearing, that the applicant refuses to reveal everything to this Court, Commission.
	The applicant - it seems as if I am talking too fast.

CHAIRPERSON: We will give the Interpreters a copy of your arguments.  Continue please.

MR VAN DER BERG: As it pleases you.  Mr Chairperson, it is clear that the applicant during this whole application, told blatant lies.  The applicant and that is in paragraph 4, did not, his evidence did not correspond with the statements that he made.
	The applicant's deviations is in that he made certain additions to it, which is not manifested in one of his statements.  6.1, the applicant in his evidence in chief made mention of the fact that with his hands and gun in the air, he shouted with a group of people "Viva ANC".
	6.2, the applicant also mentions in his evidence in chief, that he was very nervous and anxious and he never mentioned this earlier on in his affidavit.  He also mentioned that he did not give any warning shots.
	6.4, in the affidavit it is not mentioned that he had certain discussions with the AWB members.
	6.5, the applicant also mentions that he was an ANC supporter and it does not appear in bundle A or statements.
	6.6 Mr Chairperson, I think I would say this is the most important aspect in this application.  It is very important that the applicant's case which he presented to the Court, it is not mentioned in any of his statements, in other words, namely that he saw that one of the AWB members' hand moved down to his hip and that the applicant was under the impression that he is going to take out a weapon and that is the reason why he started shooting.
	In paragraph 7 Mr Chairperson, it seems that under cross-examination, that he agreed that he shot out of self-defence and that was his case.  I asked him pertinently at the beginning of this hearing if it is his case that he shot out of self-defence and he then confirmed that.

CHAIRPERSON: In that regard, the evidence of the applicant is - I don't know if this is the right word, but somewhat confusing, because at one stage he said at the moment that he started towards the car, that he started walking towards the vehicle, he had already made up his mind to shoot those people.
	Then he said that the proximate cause of him shooting this person, was this movement of the hand and that prompted him to shoot, which is you know, a bit of a confusion there, but one would expect that if the movement of the hand caused him to shoot, that it is not a detail that he would forget.
	He said that he didn't put it in his statements because he can't remember all details, but it is the sort of detail one would think, one wouldn't forget if that was the actual cause of him shooting.  Whether or not he had made up his mind earlier to shoot them or not, but if that prompted him to shoot, why forget it?