Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-05-06

MR VISSER: Perhaps if you wish me to I can do that straight away.   	Mr Ismail if you'll just forgive me, let's then ask a few further questions on this issue of whether a political objective was shown to have existed at the time.
	You see subsection 3 of Section 20 of the Act says this and I want to read it to you so that you can understand what the question is about. It says:
"Whether a particular act, omission or offence contemplated in subsection 2..."
which is the one setting out the requirements,
"...is an act associated with a political objective, shall be decided..."
that means the Committee is compelled to consider these aspects before it decides,
"...with reference to the following criteria".
and certain criteria have been stated and I want to put to you that - well I'm not going to read the whole subsection, you're free to read it in your own good time, what I'm going to put to you are simply those which we suggest might be relevant to the present case of the Church Street bombing, and that would be b which says;
"The context in which the act, omission or offence took place, and in particular the context and in particular whether the act, omission or offence was committed in a course of, or as part of a political uprising, disturbance or event in relation thereto".
I can see that you're getting confused, I don't want to confuse you, would it help if I gave you my copy of the Act?

MR TRENGOVE: We have a copy that we can put before the witness, it's convenient.

MR VISSER: If you'll just perhaps do me the favour of reading subsection 3, it's at page 823, subsection 3,b

ABOOBAKER ISMAIL: Yes.
"The context in which the act, omission or offence took place and in particular whether the act, omission or offence was committed in the course of, or as part of a political uprising, disturbance or event, or in reaction thereto."

MR VISSER: Yes.  Will you explain whether your act was an act which fell under of these categories which you've just read.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you referring specifically to the Church Street bombing now?

MR VISSER: The Church Street bomb.  I am referring specifically only to the Church Street bombing.

ABOOBAKER ISMAIL: Mr Chairperson, the action or acts took place in the furtherance of a political motive.  Part of the ANC's strategy were to ultimately lead to a position where the entire nation would rise up against the state and in that sense pursuing an objective wherein we would be able to draw the people, the masses into an uprising against the apartheid state.  So in that sense I would suggest...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  So you are saying if you take a look at subsection D?

ABOOBAKER ISMAIL: Yes but also a political uprising ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes but if you look at D ...(intervention)

ABOOBAKER ISMAIL: Yes.  As well.

MR VISSER: Yes well you say as well but I'm going to suggest to you that the answer that you gave to subsection b was an overall political objective which you had.  I have no problem with that, you gave your evidence.  But this subsection, I would argue to you, restricts the enquiry to whether the particular
"...act, omission or offence was committed in the course of or as part of a political uprising, disturbance or event."
Now I'm asking you, is that not applicable in your case, or is that the short answer?

ABOOBAKER ISMAIL: It applies in all, I have just said we were pursuing the objective of a political uprising.  The entire political situation inside of the country could be described as any or all of those disturbances, events etc.  I mean I don't know what the legalistic arguments would be here ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes I was just going to say ...(intervention)

ABOOBAKER ISMAIL: But I'm saying to you, it's overall, I mean the context of the overall struggle is something that one's got to look at.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay I'm just going to say that we can't bound, we as a Committee, we can't be bound by Mr Ismail's interpretation of these sections and we won't be persuaded in argument that because he said that we must interpret that or can't arrive at our own interpretations.

MR VISSER: But Mr Chairman, with respect, if there had been a political uprising or a disturbance or event it would be for him to give that evidence and that's why I had to give him the opportunity to do so.

MR TRENGOVE: We would submit that he has given that evidence but that is a matter for debate.

CHAIRPERSON: That is a question of argument.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman that is basically the only point I wanted to raise from the reading of section 20 subsection 3.
	There is another matter which in a sense I have to return to but because I wish to ask you other questions in regard thereto and that relates to Volume 3 page 4.  That is part of your application, you remember, your written application, and page 4 deals with the introduction.  
	Now the 4th paragraph from the top, it's the paragraph just before Special Operations.  I want to read and I know this is, to some extent it's a repetition but please bear with me.  It says this:
"All the operations detailed in this submission, took place within this context and were carried out within the mandates given to me at Commissar and Commander of Special Operations and as chief of ordinance of military headquarters of uMkhonto weSizwe.  Reports of all these operations were submitted on a regular basis to the military and political command structures of the African National Congress and all of the acts for which I now apply for amnesty were carried out under the auspices and authority of the National Executive Committee and other organs of the ANC".
	Now let me make myself clear.  You have confirmed this morning, as I understood your evidence, that I was wrong in how I interpreted your evidence on Monday, that in fact what you did you did on behalf and on the authority of the ANC .  I am not going back to that.  What I want - there are two other issues that arise.  The first one is in the very next paragraph, well both of them are.  Under the heading Special Operations it says that -
"In 1979 after discussion with Joe Slovo, Oliver Tambo asked the National Executive Committee, the NEC, for a mandate to establish a special unit to carry the struggle to a higher level.  The NEC agreed and gave the present mandate which would allow for the establishment of a special operations unit with its own command structure reporting directly to him".
Now you've given that evidence.  
	The second point arises from this sentence.  
"Then the mandate also authorised that details of the operational planning would be kept secret and only the special operations command would have full knowledge or detail thereof".
	Now the two points are these.  Perhaps I should deal with the second point first.  That's the easy point.  The suggestion of secrecy I would like you just to tell the Committee what that involved.  I am sure you're not suggesting that it should have been kept secret from the National Working Committee or the NEC but perhaps you will suggest that, but how far was this secrecy supposed to go?  Was it in regard to the operatives that they shouldn't know all the details in advance, what do you mean with your reference here to secrecy?

ABOOBAKER ISMAIL: Mr Chairperson we all know that the enemy was penetrating or attempting to penetrate the ANC and uMkhonto weSizwe.  Comrade Joe Slovo in discussions with our President then suggested that nobody needs to know the details of the operations except for the President and himself and that the President would take the responsibility of informing the NEC of the detail of - to the extent that he considered fit.  And in that regard the President received the mandate from the NEC.

MR VISSER: Yes.

ABOOBAKER ISMAIL: And that the NEC would get reports of the operations once they were carried out.