Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-10-15

ANDRE RENIER SWART: The possibility does exist, but I wouldn't be able to say with clarity whether or not he did.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: These two persons who entered the guard house, did they smell of alcohol in any way?

ANDRE RENIER SWART: No, not as far as I know.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: No further questions, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN SCHALKWYK

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Van Schalkwyk.  Anything else?  Nothing?  Mr Swart, thank you very much for your effort in returning and for the assistance which you have provided to us in connection with this issue.  We excuse you from any further attendance of these hearings.

<UNKNOWN>: .

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, are you ready to address us?

MR PRINSLOO: With regard to the first applicant, I would like to submit to you that the applicant has made a full disclosure of the events which took place.
	The facts which are established in this case, are that the deceased was shot and that the applicant himself sustained an injury in his arm, and clearly then, two shots were fired.  The applicant maintains that three shots were fired.  The third applicant says that there were three shots.
	The ballistic report indicates that two empty shells were found as well as a bullet point, a projectile point.  With respect Honourable Chairperson, the first applicant's version that he went to Pretoria along with the other two applicants, and that this took place as a result of an order given by the BWB, the Boere Weerstandsbeweging, of which he was also a member of the BRL, those facts are undisputed.
	It also appears further with respect that an aspect which is not argued is that the applicant upon arrest said that they were in Pretoria, that the police were aware of this, and that sketched what their intention was in Pretoria, the plan was to take firearms or weapons from guards who were doing duty, not to remove weapons from a safe, and that a fellow member in his ranks, Mr Van Rensburg, was aware of this and that they had reconnoitred that place together on a prior occasion.
	The applicant performed military service at Devon Air Base and it appears also from the evidence given by the witness Mr Swart, that before these events took place, the police took occupation of the place, but the applicant was still under the impression that this was still an Air Force base as it was.
	It is also indisputable that the members of the Air Force on guard duty, performed guard duty with automatic firearms, unlike the police.
	If we look at the aspect that the applicant had already intended to take those weapons in Pretoria, but because of circumstances and there being too many guards, it was not a viable option, and he then decided upon the Air Base, and this supports his contention that the weapons were to be taken from guards and not a stockpile or an arsenal.
	His action with regard to Devon, when he decided on the way back from Pretoria to stop at that place and take weapons, if one considers the applications of the fellow applicants, there is no indication that it would have been only to reconnoitre that place, but also to obtain weapons there.
	The applicant's evidence with regard to the action there, as indicated from the beginning, supports his allegation that he entered the room and said that the people shouldn't try to be Rambo's.  Mr Swart conceded that this is possible. His evidence is that they were from a right-wing group and that they wanted guns.
	Mr Swart maintains that he can't specifically remember that, that everything happened very quickly.  If one looks at the entire impact of his evidence with respect, there are many possibilities and understandably so, somebody who would suddenly find himself under such circumstances where he is being threatened with death, can absolutely not have a very clear picture of the events as they played out.
	Indeed during cross-examination concessions were made that as the applicants say things happened, they could very well have happened so.
	Honourable Chair and members of the Committee, it has continuously been the case of the applicant and unfortunately I don't have the judgment of Justice Grobbelaar with regard to the court case, initially I couldn't find it but I have found it, and I have photostatted it, however, it is in Pretoria, if you wish to obtain it, I could furnish you with these documents.  It will also include his plea.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think that you should send that to us by means of Adv Steenkamp.

MR PRINSLOO: I am indebted to you Honourable Chairperson.  With respect, if one looks at what is required of the applicant under these circumstances, it is firstly that you should be convinced in terms of Section 20(1) and my submission is that the prerequisites as put forward, refer to satisfy.  If the Committee, after considering an application for amnesty, is satisfied.  That is Section 20(1).
	And that aspect of satisfying the Committee indicates that the applicant should be able to convince the Committee and I refer to the word satisfy in the English text.  I can refer you to a number of judgments, but I am sure that at this stage you are aware of a number of the applications in which reference was made to the exact definition of the word satisfy as opposed to the definition of the word convinced.
	I can furnish the Committee with details of this if need be.  
	I can also do this by setting out the necessary aspects.  I am simply referring to it now, however.

CHAIRPERSON: I think what you can do is arrange for it to be sent along with the judgment, just for the purposes of the record actually.

MR PRINSLOO: I am indebted to the Chairperson.  Honourable Chairperson, then in so far as the prerequisites for amnesty are concerned, the applicant in this case, falls under Section 20(2)(d) of the Act with reference to Section 20(2)(3)(a), it is my argument that the motive of the person who committed the acts, omission or offence is very clear.
	At that stage, according to the applicant, there was a war, the BWB had declared war, and the objective was to obtain weapons for the purposes of its warfare and if one looks at the judgment of Justice Wunch, page 38 of the bundle, approximately line 7, the evidence is and can be seen that at the time of the offence, the country was in hysteria.
	This is with regard to the two other applicants' judgments.  The motive was clearly political and not at all based upon malice or any other reason.  The context in which the offence was committed and more specifically the deed itself, as set out in the Act with regard to political objective, I submit that this falls in with what the order of the applicant was, what the applicant was supposed to do and what the BWB actually stood for.
	I would like to refer you Honourable Chairperson, to the amnesty application of L.H. Froneman and P.J. Harmse.  This was served to Justice Wilson, and Mr De Jager.  I think the third person was - just a moment please - Ms Khampepe.  In that specific case, these two persons Froneman and Harmse were members of the BWB and they were also members of the BRL and also in the same way as the applicant has submitted to you how he received his order telephonically and was to carry it out, this is analogous to this particular application, and is set out in the application.  If you wish to have a copy of this, I can make it available to you.
	I don't know if you have had insight into these documents.

CHAIRPERSON: If you have the Amnesty Committee reference number, then it would be easier for us to obtain.