MR LOUBSCHER: I next call Mr Kriel, Chairperson.
ANDRIES STEFANUS KRIEL: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY MR LOUBSCHER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Mr Kriel, the second half of 1993, were you a member of the AWB?
MR LOUBSCHER: What rank did you have?
MR LOUBSCHER: Were you also a member of the Volksfront?
MR KRIEL: Yes, I was a member of the Volksfront and I served there a "sekundie" for the leader of the Volksfront in the Northern Free State.
MR LOUBSCHER: You have handed in an application for amnesty which is on page 1, 2 and 3 of the bundle.
MR LOUBSCHER: And then there are two further writings which have been directed to the Amnesty Committee, which appear on page 4, 5 to 7?
MR LOUBSCHER: Mr Kriel, in your application for amnesty you refer to acts which are described here as terrorist acts, and places you refer to are Pretoria, Krugersdorp and Henneman?
MR KRIEL: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR LOUBSCHER: And the nature of the particulars you refer to quite a few things. You say the storage of explosives, the explosions of certain places and then the incitement of certain people to commit terrorist acts?
MR LOUBSCHER: And places which you refer to are the Hill View School, Cosatu House, Verwoerdburg Post Office and the Krugersdorp Post Office?
MR KRIEL: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR LOUBSCHER: This had no relevance to this application?
MR KRIEL: No, Chairperson, I have already appeared for the matters in Pretoria and that has been completed.
MR LOUBSCHER: Has your application been approved?
MR LOUBSCHER: And the Krugersdorp incidents?
MR LOUBSCHER: So whatever is left in the application are the acts for which Messrs Labuschagne, Botes and van der Watt have been charged?
MR KRIEL: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR LOUBSCHER: And these are the acts which are contained in the charge sheet as it appears on page 63 to 84 in the bundle?
MR KRIEL: That is correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: So Mr Kriel, do I understand you, you are applying for amnesty in respect of each and every one of those charges?
CHAIRPERSON: Possession of firearms and ammunition, all these charges?
MR KRIEL: As far as I know there is not a "possession of firearms and ammunition" involved but as commander I am responsible and I ask for amnesty with regards to that, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Would that be on the basis that you knew that the people under you were in possession of illegal or unlicensed weaponry and you not only condoned it but encouraged it?
MR KRIEL: Yes, Chairperson, I gave them the instructions to commit acts of terror which includes everything, whether it be death or the possession of explosives or whatever it may be.
MR LOUBSCHER: You were indeed arrested and charged with the other three applicants in this matter?
MR KRIEL: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR LOUBSCHER: Now Mr Labuschagne has said that you gave him an instruction at some point in time, September or October of 1993. Let us get to the contents of that instruction to Mr Labuschagne. Can you please tell the Committee where the idea of this instruction came from, was it your own plan?
MR KRIEL: No, Chairperson, at that stage the Afrikaner Volksfront was established, it was organised in certain regions. In Welkom I resorted under the Northern Free State region of the Afrikaner Volksfront. At the same time I was also member and commander of the AWB in this area. The Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging was a party to the Afrikaner Volksfront. In other words although there were two organisations, the AWB was affiliated to the Afrikaner Volksfront. I would just like to tell you that I received instructions from the Afrikaner Volksfront side.
MR KRIEL: From the Afrikaner Volksfront side, from Mr Jaco de Villiers the leader of the Volksfront in the Northern Free State, after which I cleared it with the head office of the Afrikaner Volksfront with a Colonel Pretorius who worked there, who confirmed that the acts of terror had to happen.
MR LOUBSCHER: Could you please state what was Mr de Villiers' instructions to you?
MR KRIEL: His instructions were that we had to immediately go over to acts of terror and he also told me that the other groups like the "Boere Krisis Aksie" were already in the country to disrupt the country and we had to start immediately with acts of terror.
MR LOUBSCHER: And what was the objective of these acts of terror, what was the purpose?
MR KRIEL: The purpose of these actions was to focus on the fight for freedom of the Boerevolk and then secondly it was to disrupt the government of the day and to force them to pay attention to it. Thirdly, it was necessary that the ANC who was a strong party at that stage, to get their attention that the Boere want their freedom.
MR LOUBSCHER: And how was this to be accommodated, how would the Volksfront accommodate this?
MR KRIEL: The Afrikaner Volksfront's opinion was that the freedom has to include a reasonably large piece of land where the people could govern themselves. There was a difference between all of us, there was a Boerevolk and an Afrikaner Volk. And I would like to say I am a Boer and not an Afrikaner.
MR LOUBSCHER: What you are describing here now, is this what is termed the Volkstaat idea?
MR KRIEL: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR LOUBSCHER: Tell me Mr Kriel, did you discuss these instructions with General Viljoen at any stage, that you received from Mr de Villiers and Kommandant Pretorius?
MR KRIEL: That is correct, Chairperson, after our arrest or sometime thereafter, Mr Labuschagne and myself travelled to General Viljoen and on two occasions I met with him, once with Mr Labuschagne and the other occasion as well where I told him: "There are lots of people in prison who are being charged, and you gave the instructions, what are you going to do?" He said that we should all apply for amnesty and he would also state so in his application for amnesty. He also mentioned that because of his instructions many people acted whom he did not know personally and they went through the structures, but he gave us the assurance that his application would state this and then he told us to apply for amnesty.
MR LOUBSCHER: The leader of the AWB, Mr Terre'blanche, was he aware of what was happening here and what was his opinion?
MR KRIEL: That is correct, Chairperson. I knew Mr Terre'blanche very well. We walked a road for many years. A few days before the Volksfront's instruction he came to, I visited him at Ventersdorp and he said the acts of terror must continue and he gave me specific instructions to continue. He said he approved the instructions of the Afrikaner Volksfront.
MR LOUBSCHER: If we could come back to your instructions to Mr Labuschagne. This instruction, the instruction that you received, did you convey it to him?
MR KRIEL: Yes, Mr Labuschagne was my second in command. I evaluated him as a very capable officer and gave him an instruction to establish a cell which he did, and I gave him the instruction to continue with the acts of terror.
MR LOUBSCHER: Did you identify the targets or did you leave it to him to identify his own targets?
MR KRIEL: Mr Chairperson, I left it to his discretion. I told him that he should just do anything, even if you just kick a building over, just do something. I also told him to concentrate on the communication and on the Eskom installations, concentrate thereon but if you don't get there, do what your hand finds to do but just do something. I gave him an open hand to continue with acts of terror.
MR LOUBSCHER: Did you give him an indication in terms of the regulation with which these acts of terror had to take place?
MR KRIEL: Chairperson, I incited him to hit as many targets as possible and to damage as many properties as possible and to act as widely as possible, and I congratulated him when he did so.
MR LOUBSCHER: In general, were you satisfied with the work that the three men did?
MR KRIEL: I was very satisfied, Chairperson.
MR LOUBSCHER: Mr Kriel, did you ever - from the instructions that you gave Mr Labuschagne and the acts which they committed, did you ever gain personally from this?
MR LOUBSCHER: This instruction which you conveyed to Mr Labuschagne, was it given because of personal malice or anger towards anybody?
MR LOUBSCHER: How did it come about that these acts of terror came to an end?
MR KRIEL: We were arrested early in February 1994.
MR LOUBSCHER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LOUBSCHER
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Loubscher. Mr Taka, do you have any questions to ask the witness?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR TAKA: Yes, Mr Chairman.
Mr Kriel, you say that these acts came when you were arrested in February 1994, is that correct?
MR TAKA: In other words, if you had not been arrested you would have continued with your acts of terror?
MR KRIEL: I would for sure, ja.
MR TAKA: I didn't hear nicely.
CHAIRPERSON: The answer was that he would have continued with the acts of terror if he had not been arrested.
MR TAKA: The charges that appear in the document here, were you also involved in some of them or did you only give instructions to Labuschagne? Were you personally involved for instance, in Wesselsbron, Viljoenskroon and so on?
MR KRIEL: No, I did not accompany them to Viljoenskroon or Wesselsbron.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you accompany them on any of the operations reflected?
MR KRIEL: No, I did not accompany them on any of these operations.
MR TAKA: What were your express instructions to Labuschagne regarding committing acts of terror?
MR KRIEL: My explicit instructions to Mr Labuschagne was that he must continue with acts of terror and I told him that he has to concentrate specifically on the railway trains and on Eskom, but along the road according to his discretion, if he saw any targets then he had to address them according to his discretion.
MR TAKA: Did you place any limitations on his activity?
MR KRIEL: No, Chairperson, I just requested that they concentrate on the trains and on Eskom but furthermore I did not place any limitation on any of their acts.
MR TAKA: Did you also give them expressly the instruction to target black townships of ANC supporters?
MR KRIEL: I gave explicit instructions to attack any other target which they deemed necessary. I did not say black townships in detail but that was included because I told them: "Do whatever your hands find to do, just go and do it." And I wish to say that by implication I did say that they should attack townships because they would have understood it in this way.
MR TAKA: So with regard to black townships you did not expressly say so, it was by implication, if I understand you correctly?
MR KRIEL: Yes, I had no problem that they would place bombs in black communities. If they placed on in Welkom and Ama Xhosa House, I have no problem with it because it's an act of terror which addresses our problem. It was the same as the Church Street bomb, a Boer or some person would walk past, that is an act of terror. I do not want to sit here and colour a nice picture for you, it was terrorism.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry to interrupt, Mr Taka.
We've heard from Mr Labuschagne that there was a degree of limitation placed on him in that he had an instruction not to kill or injure, did you in any way place a limitation of that on him?
MR KRIEL: Yes, Chairperson, we did discuss it. Our plan of action was that we would concentrate on transport, trains and these places, that we would not go out, we felt that is was not within our area to go and kill people and shoot people. We agreed to that, but I do not want to sit here today as the Angel of the Light and make as if we were angels. People could have been killed, that is indeed so.
MR TAKA: So if I understand you correctly, your instruction was choose a target, kill if possible, injure if possible, there are acts of terrorism?
MR KRIEL: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR LOUBSCHER: Mr Chairperson, the proposition that was put to my client was somewhat unfair, that the instruction was kill if possible.
CHAIRPERSON: Well it was put to him but it was for Mr Kriel to answer it.
MR KRIEL: Chairperson, it doesn't help that I'm sitting here - look, we went, it was a war, there was a war for freedom, people could have died. You know Mr Chairperson, you can ask a question: I did not want to do this or I did not want to do that. You know how it is with these types of hearings and I don't want to commit myself to this. The fact of the matter is we planted bombs, we committed acts of terror and not to sit here today and say we did not want to kill people, it's not entirely true. It is with regard to the truth here, Mr Chairperson.
If you would grant me, we requested many detainees and with Doctor Piet Meyer and Doctor - I've forgotten his name now, we tried very hard to work on a programme of reconciliation but I am bitter because the TRC did not participate in this party although the soldiers in prison made their peace but the politicians outside did not make peace because the soldiers are being prosecuted in prison today and politicians like Viljoen sit comfortably in government now and that is my problem. But I do not want to hide behind the, we did these things and it is here and we have to talk about it. I think very little has been done in terms of reconciliation in this country.
MR TAKA: So it would be wrong if anyone says: "Mr Kriel said we should not injure or kill"?
MR KRIEL: Can you repeat the question please?
MR TAKA: It will not be totally correct if anyone says: "Mr Kriel gave us express instructions not to kill and not to cause bodily injury"?
MR KRIEL: No, Chairperson, I told everybody to go over to acts of terror. I think there were people who killed people according to my instructions, I don't know. I had meetings, I spoke, I gave speeches, I had meetings at houses, I told them: "Continue with acts of terror, go and fight." I don't know how many incidents happened because of what I may have said and because of my instructions and my incitement of these people. I could probably never determine it.
MR TAKA: Mr Kriel, do you feel that the leadership of the organisations to which you belonged have betrayed you in the process?
MR KRIEL: Can you please repeat, I'm a little deaf.
MR TAKA: Do you feel that leadership of the organisations to which you belonged, have betrayed you in one way or the other and if so, can you perhaps explain to the Committee?
MR KRIEL: Yes, Chairperson. Mr Terre'blanche the leader of the AWB is a coward and I have said so at many Amnesty Committees. If you tell people to go and do things then you are just as guilty as they are. You have to stand your man then and if things go wrong you have to accept responsibility, but Mr Terre'blanche has refused to accept responsibility for any of these actions and I think he's left his people in the lurch. He has distanced himself from people who are in prison and that is why these people cannot get amnesty. You see it would be very easy for me to say but I did not give Mr Labuschagne any instructions and then outside I walk around freely, but it would mean that Mr Labuschagne would not be granted amnesty and that is why I have a problem with the AWB, and it is a serious problem that I have with them.
I would like to elaborate there a little bit. You have to know that at that stage when these acts of terror were committed it was against another background. The government who took over, the ANC, came with other concessions like the Council for Volksraad. I believe it was not in de Klerk's time, it was de Klerk said no and he hid himself behind the police and the army. He handled the whole things wrong.
MR TAKA: One last question. What is your comment to the suggestion that the acts of terrorism that you referred to were basically directed at black residential areas where there were ANC supporters and not at white residential areas of the National Party supporters?
MR KRIEL: Chairperson, I personally have also placed bombs for which I was granted amnesty. It did not matter whether it was black or white, we chose the targets.
The post offices which we targeted were in traditional white areas where we launched our attacks. It was about acts of terror which had to be noticed. I would like to tell you the building of the ANC which was blown up was the property of a white man who was an ANC member. When I heard that I was very glad and I said: "Yes, this person has betrayed the white people." That was my feeling.
But I would like to tell you that the National Party, I had the same feeling towards them. If I could find F W de Klerk or Pik Botha then I would have killed them, that is for sure.
MR TAKA: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR TAKA
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Taka. Mr Mapoma, do you have any questions?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MAPOMA: Yes, Sir, just a few.
Mr Kriel, you will recall that in your evidence-in-chief you said Mr Labuschagne would report to you and you would congratulate him for the acts that he did, do you remember that?
MR MAPOMA: And I take it that those acts for which you congratulated him are the bombings on Wesselsbron and Viljoenstad?
MR KRIEL: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR MAPOMA: And at that time they you were already aware that people got injured as a result of those bombings?
MR MAPOMA: Thank you, no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MAPOMA
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Loubscher, do you have any re-examination?
MR LOUBSCHER: No re-examination, thank you, Mr Chairman.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR LOUBSCHER
CHAIRPERSON: Doctor Tsotsi, do you have any questions to ask the witness?
MR SIBANYONI: Just one, Mr Chairperson.
Mr Kriel, what didn't come out clearly for me is that according to Mr Labuschagne there was a limitation placed insofar as the orders were given, to say as much as possible try to avoid injury or death to people and when he was saying that he was sitting there, I hope you were listening to him. Now was he correct in saying that or the instructions were: do whatever you think is correct in your discretion. Was there any limitation, yes or no?
MR KRIEL: No, there were no limitations.
MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: When did you cease being a member of the AWB, Mr Kriel?
MR KRIEL: I was finally absconded in December last year, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you assist - did you have various cell, if I can call them that, under your authority or jurisdiction? Because we know that Mr Labuschagne was given the authority to form a cell which he did with Messrs Botes and van der Watt and he was under your jurisdiction. Were there other cells under your personal jurisdiction?
MR KRIEL: Yes, Chairperson, I gave several persons instructions to form cells and to go over to terror. Many of these people did not react and nothing came of it eventually.
CHAIRPERSON: Any questions arising, Mr Loubscher?
FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR LOUBSCHER: Yes, Mr Chairman, thank you.
Mr Kriel, in answer to the question of the Chairperson you said that you were expelled from the AWB during the course of last year, that's 1997?
MR KRIEL: That is correct, yes.
MR LOUBSCHER: Is it the case that you during December 1993 were part of a plan to create the resemblance that there was a rupture between you and the AWB?
MR LOUBSCHER: I think you've got to tell the Committee why it was necessary to create this smoke screen to create the impression that you and the AWB separated from each other.
MR KRIEL: During December 1993 the fears emerged that because the AWB and the other Boer organisations ...(indistinct) start of terror. The fear was there that we would be caught and we decided or Mr Terre'blanche decided that we had to protect the AWB and that we had to, we would have had a mock difference. Then he also gave me an instruction that we had to maintain that smoke screen for other people, that if indeed they wanted to break away, that they could not be linked to the AWB.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Loubscher to interrupt. We've heard from Mr Labuschagne for instance, that he resigned from the AWB just a month after that, would that have been a consequence of this mock set-up, this plan?
MR KRIEL: That is correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Would he have for instance been aware of the fact that it was just a ruse or would he have thought well, there is this definite separation, I've got a choice, two road to follow, I'm going to follow this one?
MR KRIEL: Yes, but there also dissatisfaction on the side of Mr Labuschagne with regard to certain actions of the AWB but me and him agreed to that. There were certain actions that we were not interested in. The decision for him was actually quite easy to make but it was a set on the side of the AWB that in case a person was caught they would not create problems for the AWB.
CHAIRPERSON: Ja, because Mr Labuschagne did say the major reason why he broke away was because he felt there was a lot of ill discipline getting into the operations conducted by many of the AWB people. He thought they were getting a bit out of hand and he split away.
MR KRIEL: I also played a role in that he felt like that because I told him these things so that we could break away from the AWB to protect the AWB but my membership of the AWB only really ended in December of last year when I was indeed expelled.
MR LOUBSCHER: Can we just make it very clear then. Do I understand you correctly that Mr Labuschagne did not know that it was only a mock break-up, he didn't know it up until today?
MR KRIEL: He didn't know it up until today, Mr Chairperson.
MR LOUBSCHER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LOUBSCHER
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Taka, any questions arising?
MR TAKA: No questions, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Kriel, that concludes your testimony, you may stand down.
MR LOUBSCHER: Mr Chairman, there's finally just one other witness I wish to call, that is Mr S J Hugo. He was the investigating officer who investigated all the crimes against the applicants.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hugo, what are your full names please?
STEFANUS JOHANNES HUGO: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY MR LOUBSCHER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Mr Hugo, you are a superintendent in the South African Police Force, stationed in organised crime in Welkom?
INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone.
MR LOUBSCHER: You were also the investigating officer in the case against the four applicants where they were charged with several offences as we find it in the indictment and as it appears from page 63 up until 84 of the bundle?
MR HUGO: That is correct, yes.
MR LOUBSCHER: Mr Hugo, these charges, did you investigate them thoroughly?
MR LOUBSCHER: Did you at any stage receive any indication in your investigation that these acts were committed as a result of anything other than political motive?
MR HUGO: They were definitely politically motivated.
MR LOUBSCHER: You found no indications of any other motives?
MR LOUBSCHER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LOUBSCHER
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Taka, do you have any questions to ask the witness?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR TAKA: Just a few, Mr Chairman.
Mr Hugo, why do you say that all these acts under all ...(indistinct) charges were politically motivated?
CHAIRPERSON: I think the question was: why do you say that?
MR HUGO: Chairperson, right from the start of the investigation it was quite evident that it was an onslaught from the right side against the government and the parties who were then involved in the elections, and the trace was right from the start and it pointed to the fact that it was right-wing people who were involved in this. At the end of the day once we'd arrested the people, we had positive evidence that it was the AWB and the Volksfront who were behind this whole thing.
MR TAKA: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR TAKA
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Mapoma?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MAPOMA: Thank you, Chairperson.
Mr Hugo, are you conversant with the classification of political motivation as it in the Act under which the Amnesty Committee operates?
CHAIRPERSON: That is the Act 34 of 1995, the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act. They define, well don't actually define but it's mentioned what a political objective is as contemplated by that particular Act, the TRC Act.
MR HUGO: Chairperson, I do not know so much about the Reconciliation Act which was mentioned but as far as my investigation was concerned it was evident to me that it was politically motives which were behind these crimes.
MR MAPOMA: Thank you, no further questions, Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MAPOMA
CHAIRPERSON: Do you have any re-examination, Mr Loubscher?
MR LOUBSCHER: No re-examination, Chairperson, thank you, Mr Chairman.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR LOUBSCHER
CHAIRPERSON: Doctor Tsotsi, do you have any questions?
MR SIBANYONI: Just one, Mr Chairperson.
Mr Hugo, are you a member or supporter of any political party?
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, I take it there are no questions arising from that?
MR LOUBSCHER: None, Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Superintendent, that concludes your evidence, you may stand down.
MR LOUBSCHER: That then Mr Chairman, is the applications for the applicants.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Taka?
MR TAKA: Thank you, Chairperson, I do not intend calling any witnesses.
MR MAPOMA: Thank you, Chairperson, there is no further evidence.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Loubscher, are you ready to address us?
MR LOUBSCHER: We're ready to proceed.
CHAIRPERSON: Are you going to make the submissions now? Whenever you're ready, Mr Loubscher.
MR LOUBSCHER IN ARGUMENT: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Mr Chairman, Members of the Committee, you are well conversant with the requirements for amnesty as set out in Section 20(1). We submit that the requirements of the Act were satisfied. We will come back to the requirement that the act should be associated with political motives. We submit that a full disclosure of all the relevant facts were in fact made.
Mr Chairman, Members of the Committee, when one has regard to Section 20, we submit that all four the applicants in fact fall within the ambit of Section 22(a). In other words, any member -:
"Acts committed by any member or supporter of a publicly known political organisation or liberation movement on behalf of or in support of such organisation of movement bona fide in the furtherance of the political struggle waged by such an organisation or movement against the State or any former State or another publicly known political organisation or liberation movement."
In other words, the requirement as set out in (b) (c) (d) and (f) of that sub-section really falls away in the sense, Mr Taka made mention of authority and orders, that really falls away. If one has regard to Section 2(a) we submit that it is clear that where the - I can divide them actually in two groups there. You have Mr Kriel who gave the initial order and you have the other three who actually executed the order with their own commander in the structure. But it's, we submit, clear from their evidence, and it's nothing to gainsay that, that they acted on behalf of or in support of the Volksfront and to a lessor degree their evidence is also that the AWB in the person of Terre'blanche at the very least condoned the activities of this terror group, it I may call them that.
CHAIRPERSON: At that time and from the evidence of Mr Kriel it would seem, and just correct me if I'm wrong, that the incidents or the operations whatever you want to call them, were carried out in furtherance of as you've said, primarily the Volksfront at that stage, of which the AWB was itself and its members, affiliated to.
CHAIRPERSON: And I think that is evidenced by Mr Labuschagne's evidence, that even when he deemed himself no longer to be a member of the AWB he still continued with the campaign but under the banner of the Volksfront?
MR LOUBSCHER: Yes, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: So it's essentially Volksfront ...
MR LOUBSCHER: It's essentially Volksfront and more in particular the aim was the recognition of the so-called Volkstaat. ...(indistinct) is not a correct translation but ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, the ultimate aim was - I think that's now a South African word, the Volkstaat. You don't have to really translate it, it's like biltong.
MR LOUBSCHER: We further submit, Mr Chairman, Members of the Committee, that if one has regard to sub-section 3 of Section 20 it is clear that if one goes through the sub-sections that the motive was clearly a furtherance of the Volkstaat idea.
The context within which the acts were committed was part of the whole political, on the one hand negotiation process, but on the other hand at the same time there was this struggle perhaps outside the ambit of the negotiations at that stage because it was already excluded to get recognition for this.
We submit that the acts were clearly committed as set out in (e), with, at the very least with the approval o, but we say on behalf of the Volksfront and the whole idea that through this terror campaign the leaders of the Volksfront would in fact be able then to have a bargaining chip, to go to the then Nationalist Party Government and the ANC and say: "Look fellows, the people are not satisfied, this is going on, there is a terror campaign going on, deeds of terror are committed, we can stop it if you recognise to whatever degree but at least recognise the principle of the Volkstaat. ...(end of tape) ... exclusions sub-section really is the 1 and 2 of sub-section 3, namely for personal gain or out of personal malice.
We submit, Mr Chairman, Members of the Committee, that ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: I think also if you take a look at sub-section 23, the criteria, you've also got further possible - I'm talking generally now, not particularly in relation to this matter, but you've got further possible exclusions, not directly but those are criteria which you apply, for instance proportionality, that sort of thing.
MR LOUBSCHER: It's merely the weighing up, Mr Chairman, and it's true but as in many of the amnesty applications one doesn't always deal whether it's State property or private property. The main object of it, and there's no suggestion whatsoever that there was any other object in mind of the three, four people involved in these applications, other than a political motive and the Volkstaat idea.
There is probably only one possible conflict and that's where Mr Kriel said - and I must say, Mr Chairman, I all of them were very very frank, you heard in the end Mr Kriel's frank admission that his parting of the ways with the AWB in 1993 was in fact a sham and that the three others were led up the garden path so to speak for other reasons. He was forthcoming and very very honest and frank about it. The only possible dispute between them as to whether injury and loss of life, where does that really fit in.
Now you will recall that Mr Labuschagne initially said that they would try to avoid loss of life and injury and he listed the steps. They held a prayer meeting and then they timed the attacks in the evening so that they would minimise the chance of this occurring. Clearly he felt strongly about it. In cross-examination it was stated simply as a fact to him that those were his instructions. But it was clear from Mr Labuschagne's - if one looks at the whole tenor of his evidence, that he realised very well if you dabble with explosives only a fool will say or think that there isn't always a chance, a very real chance that people may get killed and injured.
Clearly, Mr Chairman, Members of the Committee, Mr Kriel doesn't or didn't feel so strongly about it, while the other two members, the two very junior members, those without rank, they obviously followed orders but they were under the impression that they would try to avoid death and injury.
We submit however, Mr Chairman, Members of the Committee, that that detailed difference should not be fatal for this application. In general the applicants were frank, they were open, they told the Committee exactly what they did, they told the Committee exactly why they did it, they told the Committee who was involved, especially when it came to Mr Kriel.
We submit, Mr Chairman, Members of the Committee, that amnesty should be granted to the four applicants for the deeds as set out in their applications and in particular the deeds as set out in the charge sheets.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Loubscher. Mr Taka, do you have any submissions to make?
MR TAKA ADDRESSES COMMITTEE: Mr Chairman, may I just divert a little, just to place on record the victims that I am representing, just for the record. We have two potential victims, Mr Tanyane: T-A-N-Y-A-N-E and Mr Porotlone: P-O-R-O-T-L-O-N-E. These are in respect of count 2, Mr Chairman. Then we have ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, when you say prospective victims, what do you mean?
MR TAKA: That they did not suffer any bodily injury or any damage to any property because ...(intervention)
MR TAKA: Correct, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but that side of it, that is up to the Reparations Committee, it's just for us to - if we are of an opinion that a person may be a victim then in terms of the Act we must forward their names to the Reparation Committee. Are you suggesting that these names of these two people be forwarded to the Reparations Committee for consideration by that Committee?
MR TAKA: That is correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Would you supply Mr Mapoma with addresses or how they can be contacted because that is also important, just to have names makes it very difficult for that Committee then to set about trying to find these people?
MR TAKA: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I will do that. Mr Chairman, I have express instructions from the victims in count 3, that is the Wesselsbron explosion. They've indicated that in principle they do not object to the granting of amnesty and they've also indicated that they would like to approach the Reparations Committee later on for the necessary compensation. I will not make any submission insofar as the granting of amnesty in this particular hearing, because my instructions are that there should be no objection, Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Would you then please supply their names and their contact addresses to Mr Mapoma who will then give it to us. If that could be done like today because it's preferable that in the decision they actually be included and referred to?
MR TAKA: I will do so, Mr Chairman.
Mr Chairman, again the victims in count 6, I'm referring to Mr Ramorakane, Semelo, Mr Margaret Malinga, they have indicated that they want to oppose the granting of amnesty. On the basis of the evidence that has been given before this Committee, Chairperson, I will leave that decision in the hands of the Committee. I will not address the Committee on the merits of the granting or otherwise. But I will also submit the names of these victims to Mr Mapoma as requested by the Chairperson. Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have no further submissions.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Mapoma, do you have any submissions to make?
MR MAPOMA: Thank you, Chair, I have no submissions.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Loubscher, do you have any reply?
MR LOUBSCHER: Mr Chairman, just one thing that I forgot to mention and it's not really a reply, but my clients just requested whether Mr Taka would be so good as to identify after the adjournment, his clients to them, they would like to have a word with them.
CHAIRPERSON: Would that be possible, Mr Taka? I've had it certainly, not in all applications but in quite a few of the hearings I've been involved in, I've had the experience where perpetrators and victims have met and I must say it's been a rewarding experience and although we all know that remorse is not a criteria for the consideration in the amnesty process, the overall objective is at least to kick-start a reconciliation and this if it's possible to take place, certainly I'm sure would be beneficial not only to the applicants but also to the victims.
MR TAKA: Yes, Mr Chairperson, the people that I represent have indicated their willingness to meet the perpetrators of the acts against them.
CHAIRPERSON: Well then if both sides are willing that's even much better. Thank you.
We will reserve our decision in this matter and expect to hand down a decision in the near future. It will be handed down in writing and you'll be let known as soon as possible.
I would like to thank Mr Loubscher, Mr Taka, Mr Mapoma for their assistance rendered to us in this application.
Mr Mapoma, this is the end of our roll in Welkom is it not?
MR MAPOMA: Certainly, Chairperson, that is it.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. I would then just prior to adjourning, like to thank the community of Thabong and the relevant authority for providing this very nice facility to us for having these hearings, it's a very nice facility indeed.
I would like to thank the Police Services for the security provided, although I must say that at no stage did we ever at all feel threatened in the slightest but the security was there in any event, thank you very much.
I would like to thank the sound technicians for providing the sound, the TV camera. It's been here every day. The interpreters for their work. It is an extremely tiring and difficult job doing simultaneous interpreting and the interpreters have done a tremendous job, thank you very much indeed.
I'd also like to thank the caterers for spoiling us and giving us tasty food, tea time and lunchtime. Mr Mapoma who has been involved not only at the hearing here but to a great extent before the hearings. The Logistics Officer, Melaney, thank you very much indeed. If I've left out any person's name - our secretary, Mrs Pollock, thank you very much. If I've left out anybody's name I can assure you it hasn't been with malice or ill will. I thank everybody for making these hearings run as smoothly as they did, thank you very much.