Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 2000-01-17

MR VISSER: Chairperson, the application of Steyn appears in the bundle at page 115, Botha at 32 to 41 and Wasserman at 16 to 32.  Written summaries of that evidence again as a result of that meeting in February last year which I referred to of Steyn, served as Exhibit C, Botha was Exhibit B and Wasserman was Exhibit D.  Botha, B for Bravo and Wasserman, D for Delta.
	Those applications of the applicants incorporated Exhibit A, which you also know very well, the general background to amnesty applications, Chairperson, which in turn incorporates the evidence of Vlok and van der Merwe, which has been accepted by the Amnesty Committee in totality as far as background etcetera, pressures etcetera, are concerned.
	We also refer Chairperson, to the decisions of the Amnesty Committees during the past years.  Those of Cronje, Venter, Mentz, Hechter and van Vuuren, the Khotso House application, Kondile in which you were the Chairman, Mr Chairman and then the two latest decisions that have come to light are the Cosatu House and the London bombing of the ANC offices, Chairperson.
	Chairperson, the amnesty which is applied for before you is first of all by Steyn.  We submit he applies for amnesty for the murder or any lesser offence in regard to the killing of these four unfortunate victims.  Secondly, defeating the ends of justice and/or obstructing justice.  Thirdly, any offence or delict regarding illegal conduct or possession of firearms and/or explosives.  You will recall that they planted AKs and handgrenades, Chairperson.  For any other offence or delict ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Now when they planted, you're talking about planting firearms belonging to who they believed to be the victims?

MR VISSER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  So now how can they be found guilty of being in possession of those?

MR VISSER: Well they were certainly in possession of firearms for which they first of all were not licensed.

CHAIRPERSON: They  brought them from the house in which they were kept by, according to the evidence, by Mr Mlaba and his friends and the purpose of bringing them was merely to come and put them and plant them in the vehicle.

MR VISSER: That is correct, but during that time they were in possession of those firearms.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I think that that's splitting hairs, I don't think you should worry too much about things like that.

MR VISSER: Yes.  Chairperson, ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I think the main offence really would be the murder of these people, defeating the ends of justice.

MR VISSER: Yes, and in terms of the words of the Act, Chairperson, any offence or delict which may be shown on the facts of the matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Such as what?

MR VISSER: Well we don't know, Chairperson, it's not for us to speculate.

CHAIRPERSON: So why bring it in just for the sake of making my task all that difficult, when you don't even have an idea as to what it is about?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, it's to make your task easier because the Act simply says that application can be made for any act, omission or offence committed during the conflicts of the past and associated with a political objective.  And that's what we ask for.  It's not for you, it's not you to be burdened Chairperson, to find out exactly each and every possible offence or delict which may or may not have been committed, when the Act authorises you to give amnesty for any offence or delict.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright, if there is something specific then you will draw our attention to it.

MR VISSER: It has been the custom of Amnesty Committees to say, to give the obvious ones, murder and/or whatever.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VISSER: But in the latest Amnesty Committee decisions, Chairperson, the Amnesty Committees have given judgment or amnesty rather, for any offence or delict which may appear from the facts of the matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, alright.

MR VISSER: And that's all we ask for.

CHAIRPERSON: Now then these offences for which you are saying Steyn has applied, apply to all three of them, is that correct?

MR VISSER: Yes, yes.  Chairperson, yes, accept that in the case of Botha there's also perjury.  You will recall that he made an affidavit in the inquest and apart from that they are the same.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh yes, alright.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, as far as the facts are concerned, Botha gave the facts in the record, page 474 to 475, Steyn at 609 to 611 and Wasserman at 678 to 679.  Now according to the evidence of Botha and Steyn, they had certain information about Mr Blessing Mamela and his group and reference was made to Mrs Sabelo, the attack on Mrs Sabelo and the killing of some children, who was the IFP Council Member's wife.  And that happened, according to Steyn, on the 22nd of August, that was just the month prior to the event at Quarry Road.
	Chairperson, the ANC in its further submissions refers at page 89 to this incident and it is safe to assume that it did take place.  At page 89, Chairperson, the further submissions which I have is the green bundle, I understand some of them are yellow bundles, but it's this one, and at page 89 ...(intervention)

MR LAX: It's better to refer to it by its date, Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: Yes, by date, that is better.  It's the May '97 submissions.  And you will find at page 89, the second from the top, against the date 22 August 1986 - apparently they also have the same date, personnel activity assisting SAP Natal and they say
"Grenade attack on Inkatha's Wellington Sabelo.  AK47 fired at car of his wife as she entered in the driveway, killing her and injuring three children."
	Our information was that she was just injured and not killed.  But be that as it may.
	Chairperson, the group that used AK47 rifle or rifles and a handgrenade or handgrenades, the information in possession of the Security Branch of the applicants, Botha and Steyn, was that Mamela had received military training abroad and that he was a leader of a group who was responsible for attacks in Natal.  And the further information gathered was that the other members of the group were trained inside the country, not as Mamela was outside the country.
	Chairperson, in this regard, Mrs Mamela this morning told you that Brian Mamela was an MK.  You heard from the other three witnesses no evidence to contradict the possibility that they were also involved in activities, although these three witnesses stated that they didn't know about that.

CHAIRPERSON: What evidence was there that the others were trained within the country?

MR VISSER: Within the country.  Pardon, what evidence?

CHAIRPERSON: What evidence was there?

MR VISSER: Botha's evidence, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: No, Botha said he heard.

MR VISSER: Yes, well it was information, Chairperson, that's the way that the Security Branch was obliged to work.

CHAIRPERSON: Information from?

MR VISSER: From informers.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he give us the names of the informers?

MR VISSER: No, he did not give the name of the informer, Chairperson, he said he got the information from his informer that the other three people were trained within the country.

CHAIRPERSON: Or was he relying on the evidence or information given by Taylor, which is it?

MR VISSER: There was information that came from Taylor as well, but this information Botha said he got from an informer of his.  If you want the precise page Chairperson, I might be able to put my finger on it.  I don't seem to be able to find it straight away.

CHAIRPERSON: At some appropriate stage.