Special Hearings — Political Party — 1998-05-06

MASUA GERARD PATRICK LEKOTA: Mr Chairman, may I draw your attention to page 11 of our submission
"Questions: Necklacing in particular"
Bullet number one and bullet number two is what I want to draw your attention to.  We say there quite clearly that:
"The UDF disapproved quite clearly of this practice and condemned its use on several occasions.  This was communicated through the media and discussion among our affiliates.  With regard to this issue there can be no doubt, we are very explicit on it.  Secondly, the general policy of the United Democratic Front was always understood to be non violent, it was generally so"
  The reason why it was important for us to indicate to this sitting the persons who constituted, for instance a few people like Doctor Beyers Naude, like Francis Baard and so on.  
 These individuals who endorsed the UDF unendorsed it on the  understanding that the general policy of the United Democratic Front was non violent and one must now take into account that the repressive actions of the regime, quite often people marched towards the municipal offices to protest peacefully and the march would be announced in advance, all preparations would be done, people get to the municipal offices and suddenly the police would shoot them.  In a moment of desperation, of provocation, where some people lives, people acted immediately on the spot without having planned anything.
 This cannot in my view be called ill discipline because it's not some plan to do this, it's a reaction provoked by circumstances on the spot there and there.  This I think, if one was listening to an amnesty application, one would consider this kind of thing.  If an applicant proved: "I was a member of an organisation that was a civic organisation that.  I joined this march after meetings had been held and the whole community u understood that.  Parents, grandparents and grandchildren went into this march understanding that this was a peaceful protest to go and say: "This is what we're not happy about".
 There is nowhere adults - Mr Chairperson, I may say to you, there is nowhere that adults who are normal human beings want and will go towards a situation that they understand is likely to cause loss of life just like that.  Only mad people do these kinds of things.   There were theories at that time where some people said we must encourage the killing of people by the State, that people would be even more committed to the struggle if the State came heavier on them.  We dismissed this, we told people all the time: "No normal human being will walk into the fire, they'll walk away from it".  
 You've got to conduct a struggle in such a way that people, you understand who you are, it's lives that are at stake.  So that was the general background and this general background is important to keep in mind. 
 The third point I'd like to add to the answers my comrades have already put forward.  We were not the only voice commenting on the South African struggle at this time, we were not the only political formation that were being heard.  And quite often State machinery and even the media gave vocal, a clearer sound to reactionary elements that were, in fact advancing theories that were dangerous to our struggle.  So there were other organisations.
 One has got to see and understand the role of the UDF and its pronouncement within the context that it was a voice amongst voices, each one of them contesting to be heard, each one of them claiming to lead, none of which, including ourselves had had an opportunity to prove at the ballot box who had more support than who.   And therefore some of the actions that happened, in the minds of ordinary human beings who are not studying political organisations and making all the analysis we are busy with in this room, some of the people heard the sound and said the movement says we must do this and they did that.  
 And some of the people who heard those sounds were in the UDF.  I may just say to you and take you into confidence, in prison Mr Chairperson, we had people that arrived in scores and comrade Murphy here next to me and comrade Popo here, you know we had lots of people that came there.  Outside they were understood as activist, arrested for this and yet when they got there you found that they didn't belong to any organisation, they started their campaign organising.  We wanted them in out organising and somebody wanted them somewhere there, so we wanted them in our organisation so that we could groom them, teach them the policies more systematically. Outside prison there were no conditions like that.
 So I think that in listening to those amnesties the consideration that must be taken is this context is these individuals who have come from that situation, who didn't go to school like us and didn't have the time to research the documentation we have done and acted on whatever information or half information reached them.
 It is for that reason that we say we accept political and moral responsibility.  We cannot say these people have nothing to do with  us.  We organised them, we led them.  When we were taken into prisons they were left without leadership and many of them, angry even at our arrest, did things which were irrational.  And I think that it will help the Amnesty Commission, Committee rather, to place itself within those conditions within this country at that time, not today, we have brought order as a result today.  But back 10, 15 years ago we would not even have been able to talk to you like this.
 And therefore in the light of that - and I would like to say by the way, even if some of the people have been convicted, the Judges who found them guilty, did they take into account the issues we are raising with you now?  Were those sentences in any event ultimately appropriate if you take into account the mitigation that we are putting forward to this Commission was not placed there.  
 And maybe you may have to consider as a Commission whether the amount of time those people, if they can prove they belonged to organisations, you maybe have to take into account whether the time they have already done in jail is not more than enough, is not more than equal or sufficient for the crimes they're supposed to have committed.  I thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: I want to give Miss Jasmine Sooka an opportunity to respond so that we don't get too far away from some of the points that we made, and I'll come back to you straight away.