Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 2000-01-17

MR WEBSTER: I would say that at that stage and at that relevant time, the Security Branch were an absolute law unto themselves.  There was no other law above the Security Branch.  Believe me, Ma'am.  Ironically we know each other and they tell you that they were a law unto themselves.  I think there's only one person that was above the law and I say this with sincerity, that was God Himself and nobody else, no other human being.  The way the Security Branch conducted themselves, because when we look at this particular application and we view the background of people who had limpet mines stuffed into their mouths whilst they were alive and those limpet mines detonated, then you know the force that you are dealing with.  If you think of people who had the courage, I'll say the courage, of taking out pins from hand grenades and giving them to people, not caring where those hand grenades would ever be activated, a person just touches that pin and it explodes, they were a law unto themselves.  We know how they intercepted people, for instance in Piet Retief.  I believe, if I'm not mistaken, that the people in that incident also - was it Pongola or Piet Retief - were unarmed, some women were there, they were butchered.  We know of their escapades into the neighbouring states on information and my learned friend says hearsay doesn't apply.  It doesn't apply if you are acting for the applicants, but to us who are related to victims and who are related to victims and who were victims of their conduct, we know that hearsay is deadly.

ADV BOSMAN: Just to summarise, are you submitting that there was a complete disregard for anybody's life on that road?

MR WEBSTER: Absolutely.  They didn't care.  They didn't care.  Innocent people had been murdered by the Security Forces.  They controlled everything, they controlled even what happened to the dockets.  In this particular case they actually sat down quietly, even when the media wanted information, they didn't even give the media information, some cutting placed before you, but if we were to turn to page 714, I did read one of the pages in this regard, Mr Chairman, if we were to turn to page 714, Webster appearing for the second time on that page
"Who was the first to shoot?
		Colonel Botha shot first.
		Who was second to shoot?
		Lembede.
		Then who was the third one to shoot?
		Me.
		Who was the fourth one to shoot?
		No more ideas, Sir.
		As far as you recall, who was the fourth to shoot?
		It would have been Reaction Unit members, but personalities, no idea."
If you go on to page 715 Mr Chairman, or sorry, probably if we just go down the same page and then go over:
"You could see shooting coming out from Botha's vehicle, is that correct?
		I could hear the shooting, I couldn't see.
		You could hear shooting from Botha's vehicle?
		Correct, Sir.
		You could see Lembede firing?
		Yes.
		You could hear no other shooting except shooting from these vehicles of the Special Branch.
		That was 9 mm shooting.
		I could that.
		You could clearly hear that?
		That is correct, Sir.
		Do you know the sound of an AK?
		Yes, I do.
		You never heard the sound of an AK?
		No.
		I suppose you also know the sound of, what's the Russian effect to a hand gun, - Makarov?
		Makarov, yes.
		You didn't hear that either?  There was no shooting whatsoever coming from the suspects vehicle?
		Well ...
 		That you heard?
		No, but Col Botha's car was very close to that car."
Now I don't know what to make of that.

CHAIRPERSON: That is the evidence of who?

MR WEBSTER: Wasserman.  It might be construed as being diametrically in contradiction to Major Botha's evidence and Col Steyn's evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: I thought you said there was a collusion between them, how come there was this contradiction if there was so much collusion?

MR WEBSTER: Mr Chairman, I think Morris, if I'm not mistaken, on technical litigation, talks about the  efficacy of cross-examination.  He probably might have been unaware of it.  Thank you.  Somewhere collaboration always breaks down, we believe.
	Mr Steyn, Mr Chairman.  Looking at the evidence of Mr Steyn, if one were to look at it in isolation, one would probably say that his evidence was consistent, he was unshaken, etc and therefore should be accepted, but my view is, looking at it in its perspective, bearing in mind the probabilities I've alluded to, it suffers the same fate as the fate of the evidence of Wasserman and Botha.  Some meat was made out of the injuries on the left side of the people that were murdered.  I think I've already dealt with that, that was just to demonstrate that in fact Maj Botha could not have caused those injuries, that was the context of that question. If you'll bear with me, please Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly.

MR WEBSTER: Now there's also mention of or criticism levelled at the allegation that violence had decreased in Natal to some extent in 86 and reference was made to a speech by the late Chris Hani, I would imagine that that was made when he was in exile and I do not believe that he would have said that MK was doing badly.  I think he would have been court-martialled, had he made a speech to that effect and if we were to accept that there was a war as has been so strenuously contended, then I think ...(indistinct) would have failed in his lessons to armies on disinformation, lies, hyperboles, etc.  He was a man who taught what disinformation could do and I do not believe that it would have been anything else, whoever wants to comment on these things.  I'm not suggesting that he was doing it deliberately, but I say this because I had a special reason to know about it Mr Chairman, but I'm not here to testify about that special reason, but when I put that to you, I put that to you in good faith, in utmost good faith and from my own personal knowledge of things, but as I say I cannot, I'm not testifying so I can't give you the details, but I can assure you it was not something that was sucked out of the thumb.  An issue was made about the helicopter, likewise information was received and information gets distorted and this is what people believed and there were injuries that seemed to have been injuries ...(indistinct) on the tops of the people's heads and as was said by Ms Mamela this morning, she spoke of a person who actually came to give her that information, so again it was not information that is sucked out of her thumb.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct) we ought not to be too much involved in in debating when we come to our decision as to whether there was a helicopter or not.

MR WEBSTER: The helicopter is of no consequence, in fact one can say it wasn't there.

CHAIRPERSON: Right, thanks.

MR WEBSTER: Mr Chairman, as I indicated to you, I don't want to go through the whole argument by my learned friend and reply to each point, point by point.  I would be guilty of what I once did to a colleague of mine who, after we had finished a Civil matter and we appeared on a Monday morning to address the magistrate in our case, he then informed me that he was in a hurry to get to Friday and that therefore I should not be too lengthy in my argument.  I offered to address the court in 5 minutes, I succeeded in doing that.  He then proceeded to address the court for two hours and when I brought to his attention the haste that he had, he said that he was teaching me Durban.  Invited to reply to the long address by the magistrate, my retort was, the length of the argument was the indication of desperation by my learned friend to try and convince the court on a case which really needed convincing because he had no case.  My submission is, I take this opportunity again to restrict my verbosity and  say to you that the applicants have not made out a case.  Thank you, Mr Chairman.

MS THABETHE: Are we about to finish because the interpreter indicated that she's a bit tired so she asked me to call the other lady.