Amnesty Hearings — Durban — UNKNOWN

MR BOTHA: Because the attack in this densely populated area would have meant that the attack wouldn't have been simply against the taxi. The houses were very close to one another, people in the houses would also have been hurt. Our target was the taxi, and when we changed the target to the bus, our target was the bus. And when we fired on the bus it was in an area which wasn't a built-up area and we would just be attacking the target that we had selected.

MR BRINK: It wasn't - was it not because you were perhaps frightened of being captured - caught that you aborted the attack on the taxi?

MR BOTHA: Mr Chairman, when one is waging a war, you do so in such a way that one can fight again the next day. We are not like the Japanese Kamikaze pilots. We are waging war so that we can continue to wage that war the next day and for years.

MR BRINK: But - you talk about war. These were innocent people, these were innocent people going home from work.

MR BOTHA: That is true, Mr Chairman, but the people who were attacked on the beach front were also innocent people. As I said, we didn't write the rules of the game, the PAC did. And we paid them back in their own coin according to the rules which they had set up.

MR BRINK: Mr Botha  wasn't this a revenge attack?

MR BOTHA: Mr Chairman, how could it be revenge? They didn't act against me personally. If somebody perpetrates an injustice against me and I hit back, then it's personal, and I can say that is vengeance, that's revenge but this was an attack by a Black political organisation against Whites. And they attacked them simply because they were White.
And in the prevailing climate of that time, one of political violence and increasing crime, it was my aim to bring home the point that attacks of this kind in which the simple factor was that a Black organisations attacked Whites because they were White hat such attacks should not be allowed. And the whole aim of my attack was to bring that point home to both the PAC and the government against whom we had declared war.

JUDGE WILSON: So you say it wasn't revenge?

MR BOTHA: Mr Chairman, no not in the sense that I felt that I had been acted against personally.

JUDGE WILSON: Do you remember that in your application you wrote about medium B and you said
"I immediately approached - contacted Smuts and Marais who were both members of the Orde Boerevolk and we decided that we should take vengeance".

MR BOTHA: Yes I remember that I wrote that but it depends how one defines revenge and I'm trying to define it for that word.  It wasn't a personal thing, I hadn't personally been attacked.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brink perhaps before you proceed. I'm reminded that this might be a convenient stage to take a short adjournment. We'll adjourn for (no sound).
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

MR DAWID PETRUS BOTHA: (s.u.o).

MR BRINK: (cont)
	Just before the adjournment you were talking about this having been a war, it was imperative that you had to do what you did. My question is this, did you not think that it would have been better to have left the investigation of the assaults upon the White people at the beach front to the South African Police?

MR BOTHA: Mr Chairman, you must understand, we had declared war against the National Party Government and any other organisations striving to take away our rights from us, those are our rights to self-determination.

INTERPRETER: There's some problem with the sound.

MR BOTHA: You don't just sit back in a situation of war and trust the judicial system of that country to sort out your problems and to achieve your objectives for you.
You must act and in some cases such as this, you don't always have the time at your disposal to plan things better than you actually did. I very much would have wanted to have launched the attack against those persons responsible for the attack at the beach front that morning. I would have liked to have directed my attack against them but circumstances were such that I couldn't do that. 
Perhaps here I can give you an example, give you a comparison with something that happened during the second world war.  The Germans dropped bombs on London. Those weren't military targets, those were civilian targets. The British also dropped bombs on Berlin. The American dropped two atom bombs on two Japanese cities. Those weren't military targets.

MR BRINK: You will agree with me, I think, that violence breeds violence, do you agree with that?

MR BOTHA: Unfortunately, history has proved that to be the case, yes.

MR BRINK: Did you not consider the possible repercussions of your activities, that there could have been enormous, enormous follow-up violence, Black on White, White on Black, whatever?

MR BOTHA: That is so, that it could have led to violence. On the contrary, I was sitting at my home quite peacefully, I did not have any idea of attacking Black people. I don't hate Black people. My attack was the direct result of the attack by the PAC. Their attack elicited the kind of response which you are talking about.

MR BRINK: Is it your belief  today, as you sit there, that what you did was the right thing to have done?

MR BOTHA: At that stage, yes, that is what I believed. Let me put it this way. If you look at it with hindsight, yes, I suppose it didn't achieve much. It did not alter the course of political history in this country.

MR BRINK: What I really want to know is if whether you today regret what you did and have remorse for what you did?

MR BOTHA: Yes, yes, Mr Chairman. It didn't change anything, it changed absolutely nothing. And everything which happened subsequently as a result of the PAC attack and our attack, it cost and affected a lot of people's lives very negatively. And we didn't achieve anything by this attack other than to make the point which we wanted to put across.

MR BRINK: Thank you Sir.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BRINK

JUDGE WILSON: : You made an application, a very long application - do you remember that? In which you asked for indemnity, release ... [intervention]

MR BOTHA: Are you referring to the new application which I made?

JUDGE WILSON: No, the old application.

MR BOTHA: Yes, yes, that is correct.

JUDGE WILSON: In this application you also said on page 31
"Without the applicant having any specific plan, the applicant walked to Eugene Marais and asked him whether he had heard. After Eugene Marais denied having heard, the applicant told him the news, and added, that vengeance had to be taken".
Do  you remember that?

MR BOTHA: I am a bit confused here Chairperson, I don't think that is the application from which the Commissioner is reading. I think that is a summary by a Judge in our trial. Whether the trial or the appeal I am not sure. That did not appear in my application.

JUDGE WILSON: Application for indemnity or release - applicant DP Botha.

MR BOTHA: No, those - those are not my words.

JUDGE WILSON: No, I think it's the attorney's formulation.

MR BOTHA: Sir, it was not ... [intervention]

JUDGE WILSON: 36 pages?  And on page  [intervention]

MR BOTHA: They are referring to me in the third person, it's not me referring to myself. If I'd said I had spoken to Mr Marais, I would have said I was speaking to him, but they are referring to the applicant, Mr Botha, so they are referring to me in the third person, so that wasn't my application, my personal application.

JUDGE WILSON: Maybe your attorney can explain to me what is going on here?

MS VAN DER WALT: Your Honour that application was not in my possession. It was obviously an earlier application. This morning my learned friend told - showed me the documents. I did not actually draft the documents as such.

JUDGE WILSON: There's no doubt they were drafted on behalf of the applicant.

MS VAN DER WALT: I believe so.

JUDGE WILSON: And on page [indistinct]

INTERPRETER: The microphone is not on.