Amnesty Hearings — Mmabatho — 1998-09-23

MR HENDRICKSE: Although there is no other evidence before this Commission apart from that he testified to and what is contained in the documents that are submitted to this Honourable Committee, it is my submission that that suffices to prove that he was indeed a supporter of the ANC.

ADV BOSMAN: Is that the overwhelming evidence that you refer to?

MR HENDRICKSE: That is indeed so.

CHAIRPERSON: Because if he was a supporter of the ANC, he wasn't a very strong one, because he stated he didn't know what the ANC stood for or what its policies were?

MR HENDRICKSE: Mr Chairman yes, you need not be, you need not know all the - what the ANC stands for in great detail.  He is not one of the leading members of the ANC.  It is not expected of him to know in detail the policies of the ANC and what the ANC stood for, but that does not detract from the fact that he was a supporter.  He may as my learned friend has called it, be just a blind supporter of the ANC.
	But that indeed is sufficient under the circumstances, I submit.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you suggesting that if he wasn't a supporter of the ANC, he wouldn't have shot them?

MR HENDRICKSE: No, no with due respect Mr Chairman.  The fact that he shot them, he was at that stage thinking and in his mind, he has made up his mind that he is acting for the people who were mostly ANC members and supporters.  It is neither here nor there whether he was in fact a supporter at that stage, or not.
	But it is clear that he aligned himself with the people, he aligned himself by what he called protecting the nation against the invasion of the AWB.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there, what are your views on, just going through some of the evidence, on the applicant's version he says that he shot at the blue Mercedes and it came to a halt and then he immediately went to it from where you are sitting to the green door, 15 paces.
	He asked a couple of questions and then shot the people.  On his version, the timespan would have been no more than three minutes or two minutes, yet it is quite clear from the affidavit of De Koker and also the evidence of Mr de Ionne that the victims were lying besides or next to the vehicle for at least 15 minutes.  	How do you explain that difference in the evidence?  What happened if the applicant himself said well, he is not disputing that it might have been 15 minutes, but on his version, it wasn't.  What did he do in those 15 minutes with regard to, what went through his mind, what happened in those 15 minutes, with the applicant?

MR HENDRICKSE: Mr Chairman, clearly the time was estimated by the applicant to be three to five minutes.  If there is a discrepancy between that evidence and the evidence as presented by the video footage and that the journalist has testified to, but it is my submission that whilst in that state of shock, anger and being confused, and maybe frustrated I may add, it may well be that more time had elapsed than what he realised.
	But it is my submission it is not material whether it was three minutes, five minutes or 15 or 20 minutes.  It is not so material for the purpose of this Commission.

ADV MOTATA: Are you suggesting that in the anger, shock and probably frustration, the time lapse and the evidence we had that there were other people who got there before him and that blinded even his vision, that would be immaterial, according to you?

MR HENDRICKSE: That is my submission with respect, Mr Chairman.
	Mr Chairman, if I may continue, if I may refer you to page 15 of the bundle, the second last paragraph "our client decided to act for the public who were mostly ANC members and supporters.   Our client joined them and moved across the street at TTA, being shielded by the group of people, thereby making a clear stance with regard to which side he is on".  It is my submission Mr Chairman, that although it is not categorically stated that he is an ANC supporter in this paragraph, it is clear that he made a clear stance as regard to which side he is on.
	It is my submission that the reasons as to why the applicant said that his acts are associated with a political objective, must not be seen in isolation.  It must be seen, the whole objective and reasons must be seen in its totality.  If I may refer you to page 10 of the bundle, the reasons why the applicant says that these acts are associated with a political objective, is clearly set out.
	May I refer you to page 11, paragraph 5, Mr Chairman.  At the time this happened, the people forced me to take a stance and defend them.  I had two choices, either to disobey the will of the people and be their enemy as they would see me as a puppet of the Homeland government or to act in protection of the people and achieve a political result they sought, that is to stop the takeover by the AWB and enable them to struggle for change and participation in the elections.
	It is my submission that it can be inferred from the objectives here, that he is indeed, was indeed a supporter of the ANC.

ADV MOTATA: No, but if we read the paragraph you have just referred to, we see that what was uppermost in his mind and in accordance with the duties he had as a policeman, he had to protect the nation and here again he says, that they, not him as well, they achieved their political objective, that is participate in the elections.  Not that we should, am I reading it correctly?

MR HENDRICKSE: Mr Chairman, it is clear that from this paragraph, the applicant made a choice.  He made a choice for himself and he decided on which side he is on.

ADV MOTATA: No, no, he made a choice quite correctly, that he would defend the people and that the people should achieve their objective, not that I and the people should achieve our objective, but the people should, not him.
	That is why he made the choice whether he is for the puppet government, Homeland government or the people who was standing against the Homeland government, and he made this point that I am going to defend these people against the AWB that these people should achieve their objective.  Am I reading it correctly in that sense?

MR HENDRICKSE: Mr Chairman, Mr Honourable Member, to a certain extent yes, but it should not be seen in isolation.  It should be taken with the other evidence of the applicant that he say that I took a stance, I decided, I am going to fight for the people, I align myself with what the people stand for.

CHAIRPERSON: Just on that point about protecting the nation, I am sure there will be submissions from Mr Terreblanche and Mr Van der Berg on this point, so if I could just hear what you say on it.  We hear from the evidence of Mr de Ionne and also from the affidavits of various other policeman that formed part of this bundle that the three victims had been disarmed, that the situation regarding those three, was now under control.  The witness said that he didn't feel threatened himself from those three people and it was also apparent from the video that we saw and the press photo's that Mr Uys next to the wheel, had his hands up, one person was incapacitated through injury and the other one was lying stretched out on his stomach, not very aggressive type of situations and that they had been disarmed, no firearms could be seen.
	Were those three at the time, a threat to the nation and by shooting them, how was the applicant protecting the nation, or these men who had essentially surrendered?