Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1997-08-13

MR PURSHOTAM: Mr Chairman, may I intervene and maybe ask you if we would be afforded an opportunity of bringing evidence before this Committee on affidavit because there are numerous people with who - with whom no contact has yet been established.  And if they did know of these hearings, they would have wanted - would have wished to come forward and give evidence.  And would it be in order if we made those affidavits available after establishing contact with those individuals?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may make those affidavits available to us but I would like you to ensure that counsel for the three applicants also received those affidavits.

MR PURSHOTAM: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Are counsel ready to address?  Well Mrs van der Walt, will you begin?

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairperson, to grant amnesty for the - to obtain amnesty for the applicants and here I'm talking of Mr Botha, you must comply with the requirements of Section 21(c) of the Act which determines that there must be a full disclosure of all the relevant facts relating to the application.  Chairperson, it is my argument that Mr Botha does comply with the requirements of Section 21.  There is no evidence contradicting it, which is in possession of the Honourable Commission.  What the Committee has in front of it is the trial - the criminal trial in which Mr Botha pleaded guilty and put the same fact in mitigation before the trial court.
	He also came here before the Committee and made a full disclosure of all the facts and told the full truth of what happened on that day.  I would like contend that the Honourable Committee ought to find that he does comply with the requirements of Section 21(c).  As far as Section 22 is concerned, the next requirement is that the Act must have been associated with a political objective and I'd like to contend that the evidence placed before you, complies with Section 22(a), (d) and (f).   The Honourable Committee listened to his evidence and heard him testifying that he had a political - a conservative political background.  That he joined the AWB and as a result of his links with the AWB, became a member of the Orde Boerevolk.   
	Evidence was also led on his behalf that before he joined Orde Boerevolk, Mr Piet Rudolph, by means of a video broadcast by the SABC, had declared war and Mr Botha associated himself with the objectives of the Orde Boerevolk.  I submit -and you also observed him - that he is a strong leader and a person who will carry through whatever he believes in.  In your possession you also have Exhibit A, which is the oath of the Orde Boerevolk and I would like to submit that, that is what Mr Botha believed in.  
	To comply with the requirements of Section 22(a), he had to lead evidence before the Committee that he was a member of supporter of a political organisation and I submit that, that has been ...[intervention]  Could you please repeat it?

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: My brother is saying to you ...[intervention]

JUDGE WILSON: You omitted the words "publicly known".

MS VAN DER WALT: I would submit that the Orde Boerevolk was known, because when Piet Rudolph made the declaration of war, he did so in the name of the Orde Boerevolk.  And I submit that he acted on behalf of that organisation when he believed, bona fide, that he was involved in a political struggle and the political struggle was not only aimed at a particular organisation, but also at the then governing party, the National Party.   I submit that those requirements posed by Section 22(a), that his evidence shows that he complies with these requirements.
	The same goes for Section 22(d).  He took the oath - and also in respect of the declaration of war by Piet Rudolph.  In - as far as his act is concerned, he believed that as member of the Orde Boerevolk, he was performing his duty as a member of the Orde Boerevolk against the Government and the PAC.  It was clear from the evidence that the Orde Boerevolk and more particularly, Mr Botha who acted as a member of that organisation, that they wanted to send a message to the Government that war had been declared and that if any action was to be taken by organised bodies and organisations, that counter-measures and counter-attacks could be expected.  And that is what happened on that particular day.  It is so, that shots were fired at a bus full of innocent passengers.  The evidence was led today before you and that is an unfortunate situation but at the same time that very morning, members of the PAC perpetrated an attack against innocent people.
	I submit to you that Mr Botha, in his evidence and the cross-examination, as well as the questions put to him in respect of this act - I submit that he performed well under cross-examination and that he explained to the Committee why that particular action was taken.
In the same way, Section 22(f) where the Act provides:  "that any person - any person referred to in Paragraphs (a) and (d), who on reasonable grounds believed that he or she was acting in the course and scope of his or her duties and within the scope of his or her express or implied authority"
	I would submit to you that this section goes further - goes much further than Sections (a) and (d).  And I submit that Mr Botha's evidence relating to his objectives, the objectives that he was pursuing and the reasons why they went from Richard's Bay to Durban to send a message to the Government and the political organisations of the day, to carry that out.  I submit to you that this is not a case where an organisation or members of an organisation, simply killed people at random.  Mr Botha thereafter, on the next day immediately contacted the media and revealed to them that this act had been carried out by the Orde Boerevolk.
	I submit that seen in the light of the fact that he pleaded guilty - that he made no bones about his involvement and that he came to this Honourable Committee - he came to tell his story - the fact that he said that he was sorry and that he knew that innocent people had been injured and had died, I would submit that the Committee should take into consideration that he acted under the banner of the Orde Boerevolk and in their name and that he believed that he was involved in a war.  
	I would request the Honourable Committee to grant him amnesty on all the charges of which he was convicted.  That would be seven charges of murder, 27 charges of attempted murder and a contravention of the Weapons Act, being in possession of an unlicensed firearm and also being in the possession of ammunition.  There's also a further charge -  possession of ammunition - so there are two charges relating to possession of ammunition.  And also, that he was in possession of a teargas grenade - that's charge 38.
	I submit that the evidence led by the Legal Resources Centre in Durban and placed before you, that the evidence related to injuries, the financial loss suffered by the parties, the Representative of the Legal Resources Centre submitted to you that he would lead evidence which would prove that this was not a politically inspired act.  I would like to submit that no such evidence was placed before you today.  That is all, thank you.