decisions AMNESTY DECISIONS 1997-09-05 CAPE TOWN DAVID PETRUS BOTHA 1STE,ADRIAAN SMUTS 2DE,EUGENE MARAIS 3DE AC/97/0053 AM 0057/96,AM 0056/96,AM 0054/96 GRANTED/REFUSED https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/hearing.php?id=58537&t=&tab=hearings https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/originals/decisions/1997/970905_bothasmutsmarais.htm BEVINDING Na die drie applikante sal gerieflikheidshalwe op hulle vanne verwys word indien individueel na hulle verwys. Al drie applikante is skuldig bevind aan sewe aanklagtes van moord, sewe en twintig aanklagtes van poging tot moord en twee aanklagte waarin die onwettige besit van 'n AK47 geweer en ammunisie beweer is. 'n Afskrif van die klagstaat waaruit volledige besonderhede verkry is, word hierby aangeheg en waaruit ook blyk dat die klagtes oor die onwettige besit van vuurwapens verskil van applikant tot applikant. "Al die mag en alle middele tot my beskikking al beteken dit ook dat ek my lewe in die proses moet opoffer. Voorts dat ek getrou aan hierdie eed alle opdragte wat ter bereiking van die bogenoemde ideaal aan my uitgereik mag word, sal uitvoer; dat ek sal toesien dat opdragte wat ek mag gee, ter bereiking van bogenoemde ideaal uitgevoer sal word." Soos blyk uit die klagstaat het die voorval waarop hierdie aansoeke betrekking het, plaasgevind op 9 Oktober 1990 in die Durban distrik. Die vorige afsnydatum vir indemniteitsaansoeke onder die Indemniteitswet van 1992, was 8 Oktober 1990, sodat hierdie aansoeke nie daaronder kon ressorteer nie. Die feite waaruit hierdie aansoeke spruit staan vas en blyk ook uit die uitsprake van die Regters wat onderskeidelik Botha en Smuts in een saak en Marais in 'n ander saak, verhoor het. Dit kan kortliks soos volg opgesom word: Nadat Botha hierdie nuusberigte gehoor het, het hy, uit hoofde van sy rang en gesagsposisie in die gemelde organisasies, Smuts en Marais na sy huis ontbied, versoek dat hulle wapens saambring en het die drie van hulle die aand na Durban vertrek op 'n missie om die oggend se aanval op die strand te vergeld. Die doel was dat een en almal die boodskap moes ontvang dat sulke politieke moorde met groter geweld en meer lewensverlies beantwoord sou word. Na 'n soektog om, volgens hulle, 'n geskikte teiken te kry, het 'n bus met swart passasiers verbygekom en is besluit om met die outomatiese gewere op die bus los te brand. Die resultaat was die dood van sewe (7) insittendes en die verwonding van talle ander. Die feit dat die aanval gemik was teen onskuldige burgerlikes en hoe dit in verband staan met 'n politieke motief gerig teen die regering of 'n bevrydingsbeweging, word deur Botha as volg beantwoord met verwysing na die dood van burgerlikes in oorlogsituasies soos die gebruik van die atoombom op burgerlike Japannese. Na analogie hiervan voer hy dan aan (die rekord van die verrigtinge is in Engels vertaal en getik en die aanhaling is derhalwe in Engels, alhoewel die Applikante egter al drie in Afrikaans getuig het): "To make this point clear about these parallels, is that when the Germans bombed London, it wasn't only against the government institutions but against innocent civilians, men, women and children. And reverse also happened, the British did the same to the Germans and the Americans to the Japanese. It wasn't necessarily always against military targets or strategic key points. In the same way, the attacks of the ANC in the past were not directed only against military staff, or the Security Forces. I refer here to the Church Street bomb, or the Magoo's bar bomb." Die eerste vraag wat beantwoord moet word is of hierdie optrede van die applikante gesien kan word as misdade geassosieer met 'n politieke doelwit. Dit is nie noodwendig dat die daad self polities gemotiveerd moet wees nie. Die daad moet geassosieer wees met 'n politieke oogmerk. Die optrede van die daders kan ongetwyfeld net spruit en geassosieer word met hulle politieke doelwitte, naamlik om die politieke hervorming waarvoor die bevrydingsbewegings veg en waarmee die Nasionale Party regering hom in 'n minder of meerdere mate vereenselwig, teen te staan, en om aan die bevrydingsbewegings die boodskap te stuur dat as hulle onskuldige burgerlike blankes vermoor, dieselfde lot onskuldige swartes sal tref. Hierdie boodskap sou uiteraard die regering self tref want die Nasionale Party regering was getaak om oor alle inwoners van die RSA se veiligheid te waak en rassekonflik af te weer. So bevind die verhoorhof in die geval van Botha en Smuts: "Dat lede soos die appellante vas glo dat die Afrikanervolk reeds in 'n verbete stryd om voortbestaan teen ander bevolkingsgroepe gewikkel is, kan nie betwyfel word nie - daarvan spreek eerste en derde appellante se getuienis." Die voorval spruit uit die konflikte van die verlede en het direk verband gehou met die strewe van die bevrydingsbewegings tot groter en gelyke politieke seggenskap en die verset van onder andere die AWB en die Orde Boerevolk daarteen. Beide hierdie organisasies was openbare bekende politieke organisasies wat in uitgesproke verset was teen die destydse beoogde politieke hervorming en al drie die applikante was lede van hierdie organisasies. Beide organisasies het sowel die Staat se hervorming as die doelwitte van die bevrydingsbewegings hand en tand beveg. Die getuienis was verder dat die applikante geglo het dat die aanval deur jeugdiges met PAC hemde en embleme op blankes die begin was van 'n openlike stryd soos elders in Afrika ondervind was. Die dade was gepleeg in die tydperk toe slagkrete soos "one settler, one bullet" en "kill a farmer, kill a boer" dikwels deur die bevrydingsorganisasies in toesprake en liedere gehoor is. Opruiende toesprake deur die leiers van die organisasies waarvan die applikante lede was, was ook aan die orde van die dag. Die dade is dan ook in hierdie konteks gepleeg na die voorval wat deur aanhoorders van die nuusberigte deur die SAUK oor die aanval op blankes op die strand as 'n politieke voorval gesien is, en was volgens al die getuienis gepleeg in reaksie daarop. Regtens en feitelik was die dade met besondere ernstige aard. Onskuldige buspassasiers het die lewe gelaat of is vermink. In daardie tydperk was dit wel skokkend, maar nie vreemd aan die Suid-Afrikaanse politieke toneel nie. Talle onskuldige burgerlikes het ook in bomaanvalle of landmyne gesterf en aanvalle het by sportgeleenthede, kerke en begrafnisse voorgekom. Die voorval op die strand daardie selfde oggend was maar net aanduidend van die politieke milieu. Ofskoon dit afkeuringswaardig mag wees, so is enige verlies van menselewens, is dit die feitlike situasie wat op 'n stadium in die konfliksituasie van die verlede gegeld het en waarmee rekening gehou moet word. Dit is so dat indemniteit verleen is in gevalle wat net so grusaam as die huidige was en waar onskuldige vrouens en kinders ook die slagoffers was en selfs waar die aanbevelingskomitee bevind het dat proporsionaliteit tussen die politieke doelwit wat nagestreef is en die daad, ver verwyderd was. Hulle maak dus staat daarop dat hulle namens of ten behoewe van hulle organisasie opgetree het in 'n politieke stryd en oorlogsituasie wat hulle geglo het aan die orde van die dag was. Die optrede moet gesien word binne die konteks van die destyds heersende politieke stryd wat gekenmerk was deur aanvalle van die strydende partye oor en weer en voorvalle waarin burgerlikes ook te sterwe gekom het, hetsy deur aanvalle van die sekuriteitsmagte of deur bevrydingsbewegings. Die wapens en ammunisie wat Smuts en Marais op hierdie bepaalde tydstip in hulle besit gehad het, was volgens hulle getuienis ook verkry en gehou om gebruik te word in die politieke oorlog wat hulle voorsien het. Gevolglik word AMNESTIE AAN SMUTS EN MARAIS VERLEEN op al die klagtes waaraan hulle skuldig bevind is. AMNESTIE AAN BOTHA WORD GEWEIER, BEHALWE DAT AMNESTIE WEL AAN HOM VERLEEN WORD VIR DIE ONWETTIGE BESIT VAN 'N VUURWAPEN EN AMMUNISIE wat vir dieselfde bekom is as in die gevalle van Smuts en Marais. GETEKEN HIERDIE 5de DAG VAN SEPTEMBER 1997. MALL, R WILSON, R NGOEPE, R C. DE JAGER SC AC/97/0053 TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION AMNESTY COMMITTEE APPLICATION IN TERMS OF SECTION 18 OF THE PROMOTION OF NATIONAL UNITY AND RECONCILIATION ACT, NO. 34 OF 1995. DAVID PETRUS BOTHA 1ST APPLICANT (AM 0057/96) ADRIAAN SMUTS 2ND APPLICANT (AM 0056/96) EUGENE MARAIS 3RD APPLICANT (AM 0054/96) DECISION I have read the decision of my colleagues in these applications and the reasons advanced therein. I do not intend to traverse all the reasons set out in that decision as I hold the view that this matter can be decided on the issue dealt with herein. I do not agree that the second and third applicants simply executed orders from the first applicant, their Cell Commander in the Orde Boerevolk. In my view they did far more than that. They participated in the selection of both targets, namely the minibus taxi (whose attack was aborted for reasons which are unclear and are not relevant in this decision) as well as the bus which was fired at by the applicants as a result of which 7 people died and 27 others suffered serious injuries resulting in many of them being permanently disabled and disfigured. The third applicant explained his participation in the selection of the garget as follows: "On the way we decided amongst ourselves that we would have to identify a suitable target. That sounded like a good plan that we should attack a minibus taxi. We arrived at Durban and we saw a taxi and followed it. We followed it into a residential are, but the circumstances were not conducive to a successful attack, so we abandoned the plan. We turned around. It was very late and we were about to go back to Richards Bay - we presumed at the stage that we wouldn't find a target. The next day was going to be a public holiday and there wouldn't be anybody left in town. We stopped at a petrol station to buy cooldrink and at that point, the bus drove passed and it seemed to us to be a suitable target." The second applicant testified that: "When we stopped to drink cooldrinks and the bus passed us, we saw that this was the garget. This was the appropriate target to bring home the message which we were trying to put across." The first applicant stated: "I told Mr marais to come to my home that evening, and at about six o'clock that evening I contacted Mr Smuts by telephone and also ordered him to come to my home. We there decided together to travel to Durban by car and to launch a counter-attack, so that we could show the government and the PAC that - that the conduct by the PAC, the ANC and the communist allies and also the government's policy that this would not be tolerated without any conduct by the Orde Boerevolk. We overtook the bus and I told my colleagues to fire in the direction of the bus." The fact that the first applicant gave the order to fire at the bus is neither here nor there, as the whole purpose of selecting the target was in any event to launch an attack. The poignant point for consideration in my view is whether the applicants, by selecting their target, bona fide believed that the selected target would assist them in the furtherance of a political struggle waged by their organisation against their known opponents. The objectives of the Orde Boerevolk as contained in the oath taken by the applicants are as follows: 1. To restore the former Boere Republics; 2. To bring an end to the Republic of South Africa as it existed prior to 1994; 3. To resist all steps taken by the National Party government and associates or supporters of the ANC and SACP and to combat these parties with everything at the Orde Boerevolk's disposal even if it means that would have to sacrificing life in the process. Having regard to these objectives and the objective which the applicants alluded to in their testimony (which was to deter the PAC from killing an Afrikaner person) the selection of the target by the second and third applicants in order to achieve these objective was completely disproportionate. What if the occupants attacked were the opponents of the PAC? It is common cause that in Durban black people were members or supporters of several political organisations or liberation movements, namely the ANC, SACP, PAC and the IFP. It is trite that this region was already engulfed in serious conflict between predominantly black political organisations resulting in tragic bloodshed by constant fighting between these organisations for political turf. From the above it is clear that the applicants selected their target indiscriminately. They should have known that there was a reasonable possibility that the persons inside the bus could be members or supporters of different predominantly black organisations including those opposed to the PAC. The second and third applicants' positions differ from a person who has been given an order to execute. In their case they participated in the selection of the target. They were aware of the objectives of their organisations and therefore knew which organisations or political parties had been identified by their own organisations as their political opponents. Therefore the selected target could not reasonably have achieved the objective pursued by the applicants. In the premises the second and third applicants have not complied with Section 29(1) of the Act, and their application for AMNESTY IS REFUSED . DATED AT CAPE TOWN ON THIS 5th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 1997. MS S. KHAMPEPE