TRC Final Report

Volume 6

Section 3

Chapter 6

Subsection 17

Attacks on individuals

The Putco bus attack – Duffs Road, Durban

190. Members of the Orde Boerevolk Mr David Petrus Botha [AM 0057/96], Mr Adriaan Smuts [AM 0056/96] and Mr Eugene Marais [AM 0054/96] applied for amnesty for an attack on a bus full of black commuters in Duffs Road, Durban on 9 October 1990, in which seven people were killed. The three applicants were all convicted on seven counts of murder and twenty-seven counts of attempted murder and were sentenced to death on 13 September 1991. This sentence was subsequently commuted to thirty years’ imprisonment.

191. Botha told the Committee that the attack was in retaliation for an incident which had taken place earlier in the day, in which PAC and APLA supporters wearing PAC T-shirts had randomly attacked white people on Durban’s beachfront , killing one elderly person and injuring several others.

MR BOTHA: I was under the impression that the campaign of terror by the PA C against Whites had now commenced, and since we had already declared war against the National Party, and as a result of this attack, I as cell leader felt that we should launch a counter-attack to prove to the government of the day, and to show to it that the road it was following was full of danger and that incidents of this kind would increase infrequency.

Our purpose was also to show to the PAC and its communist allies that attacks of this kind would not be tolerated, and that we would take counter- measures in a very forceful way.

And I also felt that the counter-attack should take place in Durban where the attack from the PAC had taken place in the morning and I felt that the attack by the PAC and the counter-attack should be seen in context, and I think we succeeded in this, because in the Sunday Tribune of the 14th of October 1990 – in which interviews had been conducted with passengers in a bus from where the attack was launched – it said that they believed that the attack had been launched by Boers as a result of the PAC attack that morning on White people at the beach front. (Durban review hearing, December 2000.)

192. Botha and the two other members of his cell, Smuts and Marais, travelled down from Richards Bay to Durban, arriving after 20h00 on the night of the 9 October. Upon arrival, they drove around the bus terminus area and, observing that the streets were very quiet, decided to attack a minibus taxi that passed them. The minibus was full of passengers. They followed the vehicle as it travelled fro m the centre of Durban to KwaMashu but, when it turned off into a densely populated area, the applicants decided to abort the planned attack.

193. They returned to the highway and stopped at a garage for something to drink. They then observed a Putco bus full of people driving in the direction of KwaMashu. Botha decided that they would attack the bus and accordingly gave the instruction. He was driving the car as they set out to follow the bus in the direction of the Duffs Road off-ramp .

MR BOTHA: We overtook the bus and I told my colleagues to fire in the dire ction of the bus. We used automatic attack rifles to fire at the bus as we passed the bus – as we overtook it. Immediately after the attack we returned to Richards Bay. (Durban review hearing, December 2000.)

194. On the following day, Botha contacted the SABC and, on behalf of the Orde B o e revolk, claimed responsibility for the attack on the bus. He testified before the Amnesty Committee:

I don’t know whether the person I spoke to took me seriously, but he was fooling around and asked me to furnish my name and address. I then put down the phone and then contacted the news office of the Natal Mercury. I spoke to somebody in the news office there. I told them that I was a member of the Orde B o e revolk and that we accepted responsibility for the previous night’s attack, and I also furnished the reasons why we launched the attack. There was no report in any of the papers the next day regarding this incident and I realised that there was a state of emergency at the time in Natal and I suspected that either the security police of the government or both had probably suppressed news of this kind.

I once again contacted the Natal Mercury offices, spoke to the same reporter and told him that I was aware of the fact that news of this kind would normally be suppressed by the government and I threatened that, unless the news was published and unless they mentioned that the attack had been launched by the Orde Boerevolk and mentioned our reasons for doing so, unless this was published, I would launch a similar attack. (Durban review hearing, December 2000.)

195. The Committee accepted that the Orde Boerevolk was a recognised political organisation involved in a political struggle with the previous government and other political organisations. It also found that their acts were associated with a political objective.

196. In reaching a decision, the Committee distinguished between the roles played by Botha on the one hand and Smuts and Marais on the other, on the grounds that Smuts and Marais were Botha’s subordinates and were under orders to carry out the attack as members of the Orde. Botha had not received any order or instructions to carry out the attack; nor did his actions carry the approval of any of his superiors or of the organisation.

197. Botha was refused and Smuts and Marais were granted amnesty for the incident. Botha was, however, granted amnesty for the unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition [AC/1997/0053].

198. David Petrus Botha submitted an application for the review of the Committee’s refusal to grant him amnesty. The presiding judge, Mr Justice Smit, found that the Amnesty Committee had:

a failed to consider properly whether Botha’s conduct had not in fact complied with the requirements of the Act as to whether the ‘act, omission or offence was committed in the execution of an order of, or on behalf of, or with the approval of, the organisation, institution, liberation movement or body of which the person who committed the act was a member, an agent or supporter’;

b lost sight of the fact that the provisions of section 20(3)(e) were merely criteria to be applied to determine whether an act was committed with a political objective and not re q u i rements necessary for the granting or refusal of amnesty.

199. The Court set aside the refusal of amnesty and referred the matter back to the Committee to hear further evidence.

200. The applicant appeared before the Committee again in December 2000 and adduced the evidence of the leader of the Orde Boerevolk, Mr Pieter Rudolph. Rudolph said that he would not have authorised the attack if he had been asked to do so and that, in any event, he would have had no way of communicating with his supporters as he had been in detention at the time.

201. The Committee subsequently refused amnesty to Botha on the same basis as b e fore, namely that he had had no authority from his political organisation to launch an attack on innocent and unarmed civilians.