Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1999-04-21

MR CORNELIUS: That is quite right Mr Chairman.  I mean if there was an established usage that I know, if I participate, every time I carry out an order, I will be rewarded, then we've got a contractual situation, that I know I can carry out my orders, because I will be rewarded.  But there is no evidence to that effect, and with all due respect in most of the applications I have testified in, I withdraw that most certainly Mr Chairman, in most of the cases in which I have acted, there were never evidence to an effect that there was an established system, if I get an order ...

CHAIRPERSON: I think the only one really that we have come across, and it has been referred to here, is with respect to the askaris.  They got a payment as a bonus, I think, is what has been referred to if they performed, but that was restricted particularly to that category of persons.

MR CORNELIUS: That is quite correct Mr Chairman, but as far as the askaris were concerned, it was a totally different kettle of fish, only in this respect that the poor people were taken in and they had virtually no decision, they were either killed or they were used.  They either stayed loyal to the cause, to the new cause and then the knowledge which they had obviously of the secret operations of the ANC or the PAC, whoever they came from, was utilised to the benefit of the C-Section of the Police, so it was a form of compensation and also obviously to keep them and to buy them with money.

ADV SANDI: Maybe one can also say that by way of distinction of course, the askaris were not really employees in the strict sense of the word, hence you had these rewards as a kind of inducement to continue getting involved?

MR CORNELIUS: That is quite correct Mr Sandi.  So, there is no evidence tendered before this Committee that if they did receive an order and they carried the order out, they would have been compensated for it.  That falls away.
	If we take the example a bit further, shouldn't the individual applicant have been allowed a decision?  I am given an order by Colonel Eugene de Kock and I say, Mr Cornelius, you have got a choice, you can go down to Duli, help us with the arms supply and this is what you will make out of it.  Then I can decide am I prepared to expose myself to this type of operation and I can make some money out of this, then I've got a choice.  So you expect some kind of contractual subjective thought or consensus, some kind of contractual consensus that will be reached prior to the operation and at the time of the giving of the instructions, or at the planning phase of the instruction, some contractual situation, but there is nothing.  There is no evidence of that Mr Chairman.  I am given an order, I've got to carry it out.  That is a factor which should be weighed up.
	Furthermore, I don't think I refer to this, but at the London bomb incident, where the people were all awarded SOE awards, they should be refused amnesty is that is taken into account.  We have the situation that the C-Section of the Police successfully traced terrorists who blew up a landmine or whatever in the rural areas and the farmers come and they award them with three sheep and a couple of pumpkins, they received an award, they received personal gain, they should be refused amnesty.  It is a ludicrous, far fetched example Mr Chairman, but I am trying to bring home the way I read the Act and I feel it on a balance of probabilities, what the situation should be.
	So although you were presented with a one-sided application, presentation of applications before you, if we look at it from this viewpoint, it is my submission it is easier to see which way the sceptre should sway in this action.  As far as - I don't think I should waste the Committee's time with my clients' political objectives, it is quite clear, they testified fully on it.  They didn't contradict in any way, it has happened a long time ago, there are certain vagueness as far as memory is concerned, that is logical to expect Mr Chairman.  The only aspect which I need to clear up is that Mr Vermeulen did testify that he heard about this possibility of land being given to him after, after, not even during planning phase, all had passed, because I made certain when I consulted with him on that aspect specifically.  He heard about it, he considered it as a joke, and he said what must I do with a piece of ground in the Transkei?  But if there were evidence tendered before the Committee that specifically, we knew that we were going to get ground and where the ground was, it is a different kettle of fish.

MR SIBANYONI: Mr Cornelius, while you are still there, are you saying after the supply of the arms, or after the coup failed?  Did he hear it after the supply of the arms, or after the coup failed?

MR CORNELIUS: It was some time after the supply of the arms and the failure of the coup, they were back in Pretoria according to my instructions, when it came to his knowledge.

CHAIRPERSON: Why would it have been mentioned after the failure of the coup, because Duli was dead then and it was an impossibility that Duli could then give land to them, because he was no longer alive?

MR SIBANYONI: And also this statement on Mr Vermeulen's affidavit, it talks about something which may happen in the future, if Duli will succeed, therefore they will get a piece of land.  I am asking that because it sounds as if it should have been before the coup failed?

MR CORNELIUS: No, that is clearly an indication of the joke aspect of it.  These people were joking about the situation, although he mentioned it.  He said to me that he made a full disclosure of facts, that is what he remember, that is what was said.  He never paid any attention to the possibility of receiving land or property and it was said after the failure, so it was ludicrous, it was general talk between the people afterwards, and they were joking about it.

ADV SANDI: Yes, but if it was a joke, why did he mention it in his affidavit?   One would have expected him to tell us about other jokes that were said in the course of the preparation of the mission?

MR CORNELIUS: He made a full disclosure, that was his instructions when he tendered his application.  He could not remember everything that was said during conversations and he said this was said, and this was talked about.

ADV SANDI: He could not remember all the jokes, I take it?  He could not remember all the jokes that was said?

MR CORNELIUS: I presume so Mr Chairman.  The fact still remains that prior to the planning and the commission, there were no agreements or any subjective thought or motive, with the two applicants, that they will receive any form of reward.  They did receive R200-00 or whatever, for drinks.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think - that was sort of like S&T, Subsistence and Transport allowance.

MR CORNELIUS: That is quite correct Mr Chairman, it was S&T and could be considered as part of the employee's package and salary system.
	In the light of the fact that both my applicants were foot-soldiers, who carried out their instructions to the letter, with the proper political motivation and objective, and that their applications complied fully with the ambit of the law, of the Act, and they had no knowledge or expectation of award, I apply for amnesty to be granted to both, the applicant Snyman and the applicant Vermeulen.  I can repeat what my learned colleague, Adv Hattingh, said, it would be obviously also in terms of the Arms and Ammunitions Act, Explosives Act of 1956, the (indistinct) Assemblies Act of 1956 as well.  That is my application.  Is there any specific aspect?

CHAIRPERSON: No, thank you Mr Cornelius.

MR CORNELIUS: I hope I introduced a new line.

CHAIRPERSON: You did, thank you.  Mr Jansen?