Amnesty Hearings — Nelspruit — 1999-02-04

MR LAX: No, no, there's a distinction here between MK activities and ANC activities.   We've heard nothing about his ANC activities, we've only heard of his MK activities in the evidence.   So that's what I'm trying to understand.   Are you saying it was his MK activities at that time, and his refusal to carry on, or to be recruited by them, that then caused this intensification?

MR BLACK: Yes, well when I, he, I don't know if - he continued to remain a commander, he's a commander in the MK military wing of the ANC, he obviously communicated with the ANC structures in Nelspruit, he's testified to that effect, and he was actively involved in recruiting and exporting arms.
	By the time this incident took place in October, by the time this activity took place in October of 1992, we have heard in some detail about the actual events which occurred.  On that day, as far as Mr Sambo is concerned, he had been visited by the soldiers, we had photographs but perhaps it was indicated that they weren't that relative, but it was clear that the place had been swept clean of any - or checked for any form of weapons or ammunition.  They had searched the vehicles on his premises as well and the army had left.   Subsequent to the leaving of the army, in short, without going into great detail, a vehicle, 4 x 4, had arrived and two white men had entered his premises and one was seen to be opening the door of the BMW.
	I don't want to dwell in great detail there... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: I was going to request you not to repeat the evidence that's before us... (intervention).

MR BLACK: No, no.

CHAIRPERSON: ...but to restrict your legal argument to a legal argument, having regard to the provisions of section 20.1... (intervention).

MR BLACK: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: ...read with sub-section 3.

MR BLACK: Well, we had arrived at this - this is the - it would indicate the incidents in respect of which the applicant is seeking amnesty   occurred on that particular day.    At the time of him committing the offences in respect of which he seeks amnesty, I respectfully submit that there is sufficient evidence before this Court to indicate that his state of mind, his suspicions of the activities which took place immediately prior to the shooting, was such that he is convinced, and he indicated convincingly, with respect, to the committee that he was now the subject of an assassination plot.
	We have dealt at some length at what stage he became convinced that these two white policemen bearing firearms were security police, he was convinced that they were there to assassinate him, he had been warned previously that attempts were going to be made to assassinate him and he felt at that stage it was necessary to take vital steps to protect his life and family, and he had complained and reported repeatedly to his political party, the African National Congress, they had instructed him to take the necessary steps, given his military training, to avoid any form of assassination or attempt on his life.   
	At the time of the shooting of the late Sergeant Van der Spuy, I respectfully submit that the applicant acted out of political motives and political necessity.   It was not a matter for self gain or for some ulterior motive.   He was, after repeated questions being put to him, he convincingly stated most emphatically that this was a plot to assassinate him.   He was so convinced that this was an entire set-up that he even suspected the ambulance which arrived, which, according to him, in a most unusually prompt and quick manner in that part of the country where he lives.  He says you don't see that.   So he felt... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: But that's after he had committed the act.

MR BLACK: Yes, yes, yes.   Well that is so, but it's an indication of his state of mind, that this incident was an operation orchestrated... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: But does that matter ex post facto?

MR BLACK: Yes.   It wasn't, it is a factor, because he felt this whole entire operation, his shooting, the attempt to assassinate him, the prompt arriving of the ambulance, he goes on to say when the ambulance arrived, he was suspicious, he didn't trust these people because he thought that this was part of the plot to assassinate him, he would be taken away and disappear.   Alternatively he also stated in his evidence that the idea was to shoot him and kill him on the premises and quickly remove the evidence and the bodies from the premises, and that with the ambulance being nearby.   That is how he thought and convinced him that this was a plot.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.   Now, central to your argument and obviously from the evidence led by Mr Sambo is the fact that the incident occurred because of his belief that he was going to be assassinated by the members of the security force and he has testified that he was informed by one Malopo, who was 33 years old, of that intention by the police to assassinate him, who, at the time of that information had, however resigned, had resigned to go back to school and what I actually took note of was that this information by Malopo was divulged to him after this incident had occurred.   Now it really struck me and I just couldn't fathom how you can have a belief that you are going to be assassinated and act on that belief when the information only reaches you after you had participated in the incident.

MR BLACK: No, Madam Chair, you will remember that, as far as the harassment issues are concerned, we dealt with that in some detail, and it was put to him by a member of the panel at one stage, "Why did you believe that?", and he also, that's not the only incident, you will recall he recounted that at the time his girlfriend's house was raided and that the police had told the girlfriend, "Look, we're going to kill this man when we find him".

CHAIRPERSON: But even then, that incident happened in 1991.

MR BLACK: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that not the evidence before us?   And we are talking about an incident which happens in 1992... (intervention).

MR BLACK: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: ...is it May?   In October... (intervention).

MR BLACK: It's October.

CHAIRPERSON: ...1992, which is towards the end of the year in '92, and nothing, there is no evidence before us to suggest that something really, more than the soldiers coming to his house and to his father's house to subject them to harassment in the form of having to search the house and the premises allegedly for weapons.

MR BLACK: Well, with respect, we didn't - that is why I was suggesting that it's very important, if one looks at the affidavits which sets out - highlights, and as he says, not all the incidents of harassment, but some of the incidents, the planting of weapons, the Askaris coming to his house, soldiers coming to his house, police coming to his house almost on a continuous basis over a period of time since 1991 until the incident which took place in 1992, so it's not - it's a continuous period of threats, of attempts to implicate him in weapon dealing, warnings to a girlfriend, and so it's not simply isolated, he says it happened almost at least twice a week.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.   You know, Mr Black, I don't know whether we're on the same page.   My problem is this, that we are saddled with the evidence that suggests that the applicant was harassed by the police and we cannot deny that evidence, it's before us, but there is nothing to suggest that the police did anything further than harassment which would suggest any attempt to assassinate him.   Yes, they probably wanted to plant weapons, as he has stated in his evidence, an Askari wanted to plant weapons at his house, yes, they were searching for weapons, the soldiers came in, harassing his parents' home and harassing himself at his house, but there is nothing other than that that would suggest to us that there was anything that was done that would be termed an attempt to assassinate him?