Amnesty Hearings

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: The next matter on the roll is the application of Johan Hendrik Roelofse, Amnesty Reference AM 7955/97. The Panel is constituted as would be apparent from the record. The legal representatives will be given an opportunity to put themselves on record. On behalf of the applicant.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Mr Chairperson, I am Adv C J Swiegelaar. I practise as Advocate at the Johannesburg Bar. I was given instructions by Mr Jonathan Marais of Tim du Toit and Company, that is a Johannesburg firm.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. And then on behalf of the victims.

MR SIBEKO: Mr Chairman on behalf of the victim I am E V Sibeko from Themba, Sibeko, Nkosi and Associates in Alberton.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Sibeko. The Leader of Evidence?

MS MTANGA: Chairperson I am Lulama Mtanga the Evidence Leader, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ma'am. Ms Swiegelaar, is there anything that you would like to place on the record, or can we allow the client to take the oath?

MS SWIEGELAAR: He's got no objection to taking the oath.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

JOHAN HENDRIK ROELOFSE: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Swiegelaar.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

EXAMINATION BY MS SWIEGELAAR: Is it correct that your application for amnesty is concerning murder? You were charged with this in the Section of the Circuit District Court, (Circuit local division of the Western Circuit division, Klerksdorp, before His Lordship the late Mr Justice M J Strydom - transcriber’s translation) and where you were found guilty on the 19th of November 1993 and you were then sentenced on the 23rd of November 1993 for twenty years prison sentence.

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct.

MS SWIEGELAAR: You are currently serving the sentence?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Where are you detained at this stage?

MR ROELOFSE: The Krugersdorp Prison.

MS SWIEGELAAR: ; And where were you initially held?

MR ROELOFSE: The Klerksdorp Prison.

MS SWIEGELAAR: When were you transferred to the Krugersdorp prison?

MR ROELOFSE: That was approximate the end of 1995.

MS SWIEGELAAR: The term that you have served so far, how long has it been?

MR ROELOFSE: It's now approximately seven years Mr Chairperson.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Can we then deal with the murder itself? is it correct that the crime that you were found guilty of and you are serving the sentence of, it was committed on the 21st of March in Stilfontein, in the district of Klerksdorp? Is it correct that the name of the deceased is Mr Victor?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Apart from the charge of murder, you were also found guilty of the act of - the Ammunition Act and also illegal possession of a shotgun and ammunition, is that correct?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct, yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: What is the sentence that you were given for that?

MR ROELOFSE: It was 22 years and 6 months.

MS SWIEGELAAR: But it was also decided that you have to serve both these sentences as the same time. You've already indicated to the Committee that you pleaded guilty.

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct, yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Did the Court or in the hearing you pleaded not guilty according to Section 113, because the Court was not satisfied that you pleaded guilty because you did not indicate in the Section 112 declaration that you did not know how the shot went off?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct.

MS SWIEGELAAR: For the purposes of the hearings today, I want us to concentrate on that for a moment. It may be outside of the parameters of what happened, but you would like to make a full disclosure and a truthful disclosure, so I would like us to go to the critical moment and what I'm meaning is that at that point in time, or that specific time when you shot the deceased, the firing of the shot and what happened afterwards. Can I ask you to in short tell us if you were in your vehicle at that stage?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, I was in the vehicle, Mr Chairperson.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And at that stage you already brought the vehicle to a stop.

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, that is correct.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Why did you stop at that stage? Why did you bring the vehicle to a stop?

MR ROELOFSE: I brought the vehicle to a stop to fire the shot that resulted in the death of the deceased.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Did you at that stage recognise or see the victim at that stage?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Very well. Where was the shotgun at that stage?

MR ROELOFSE: The shotgun was next to me in the vehicle.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And what did you do then?

MR ROELOFSE: I called the deceased to the vehicle. I took the shotgun next to me and fired a shot.

MS SWIEGELAAR: The deceased, did he react to you calling him? Did he walk towards you?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, that is correct.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And were you still seated in the vehicle?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And while you were in this seated position, did you then fire the shot towards the deceased?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Did you see if it hit him?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, I did see that it hit him.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Why do you say so?

MR ROELOFSE: The deceased fell backwards.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Could you see where you hit him on his body?

MR ROELOFSE: No, I couldn't.

MS SWIEGELAAR: You do know now that it hit him in his chest, the left side of his chest?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And you do know this now because of evidence that was led and the positions and the post mortem inquest that followed and can you concur with it in terms of how you aimed the weapon and when you fired it?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct, yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: What did you do then?

ADV SANDI: Sorry, just before that, can you tell us which part of the body of the deceased did you aim this shot at?

MR ROELOFSE: The upper part of the person's body.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Very well. After you fired the shot and you saw that the deceased fell, how did he fall, did he fall forwards or backwards, meaning did he fall forward onto his stomach, onto his back or on his side?

MR ROELOFSE: He fell over backwards onto his back.

MS SWIEGELAAR: What did you do then?

MR ROELOFSE: I drove back in the direction of my house.

MS SWIEGELAAR: That is now away from the mine where you were on your way to go and work?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Why did you drive back to your house or in that direction?

MR ROELOFSE: I got rid of the weapon that I had. I threw it off the train bridge.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And afterwards?

MR ROELOFSE: Afterwards I returned to my work.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And it was when you started with your work, you told Mr Duvenhage what happened, the Shift Manager.

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct, yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: In other words there was no struggle between you and the deceased before you fired the shot?

MR ROELOFSE: No, there was no struggle.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And your evidence is thus in effect, or that was led after you pleaded not guilty, is therefore not true?

MR ROELOFSE: No, it was not the truth.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Mr Roelofse, why are you now telling the truth?

MR ROELOFSE: In the Court, the fact that the weapon was never found, I thought that I may be found not guilty. I am however here today to tell the whole truth and that is why I mentioned in Court that there could have been a possible struggle and that I couldn't remember really what happened.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Can you just explain to us, why did you think that the fact that the weapon was not found, that that could assist you concerning the shooting incident and specifically the charge of murder?

MR ROELOFSE: Well the fact that they couldn't find the weapon because I did not show the investigative officer exactly where I threw the weapon or the firearm.

MS SWIEGELAAR: In other words that the evidence or the available evidence was of such a nature that there was still room for you to give a version or to give evidence of self defence?

MR ROELOFSE: ; That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Concerning the conviction, you were found guilty of murder and you were also found guilty on the basis of the fact that you had the direct intention to kill the deceased, did you accept the verdict?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, I accepted it.

MS SWIEGELAAR: You did not appeal?

MR ROELOFSE: No, I did not at all.

MS SWIEGELAAR: The sentence of 20 years and that is the conviction for murder, did you accept that?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, I accepted it because I made a very big mistake, I wanted to serve the sentence that was given to me.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And that you accepted that you had to be sentenced or punished for what you did?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct, yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: You also did not appeal against sentence?

MR ROELOFSE: No, I did not.

MS SWIEGELAAR: You submitted in your application that it was a politically motivated murder, is that correct?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Can you just explain to us, why is that your motivation?

MR ROELOFSE: At that stage I was a supporter, a big supporter of the AWB and I admired Mr Terblanche. I attended meetings where people were incited and we were told that anarchy and war will break out after the election, that white people will be killed and in this shooting incident I wanted to bring the resistance of the white people to the front and I wanted a state of emergency to be declared and also because of what happened at Eikenhof, that led to the death of innocent people.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Very well. Can you indicate to us that the meetings that you attended, were they political meetings?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct, yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: What political party or organisation was this?

MR ROELOFSE: It was the AWB.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And you said there that you were incited. Who incited you? Who were the people who made the speeches?

MR ROELOFSE: Most of the time it was Mr Terblanche, Gen Fourie, Gen van Vuuren. There were other Generals who also incited us, I cannot remember all their names. Gen van Rensburg was also there.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Very well. You were not a member of the AWB, you were only a supporter?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, I was only a supporter, that is correct.

MR SWIEGELAAR: And your application is not saying that you acted on an instruction or order that you received, am I correct if I say that you base your application on the fact that you acted alone?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And your motivation for your action was that you wanted to make a contribution?

MR ROELOFSE: ; That is correct, yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: ; What kind of contribution did you have in mind?

MR ROELOFSE: Because of what happened at the Eikenhof slaughter, I acted and that is to bring white resistance to the front to force them to declare a state of emergency, in other words to prevent them from continuing with the elections.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Can we then for a moment deal with the Eikenhof incident? Did that make you react to act on that?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: How did it happen that you decided that you are now going to act in the way in which you did because of the Eikenhof incident?

MR ROELOFSE: The Saturday morning I came back from work, I found the Rapport on the table where they published the whole story around the Eikenhof incident. It made me feel anxious and confused and at that stage there were a lot of farm murders, murder of policemen, revenge statements were made from the left and the right side of the political spectrum.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Can I just interrupt you there for a while Mr Roelofse? That Sunday, is that the Sunday when you committed this crime?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: In other words that is the 21st of March 1993?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct.

MS SWIEGELAAR: You said that you came back from work. At that stage you worked at the mine. Did you work the night shift?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And what time did you get back to your house?

MR ROELOFSE: It was approximately 8 or 9 o'clock.

MS SWIEGELAAR: You found the Rapport there, did you read the articles in the Rapport concerning the Eikenhof incident?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct, yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: How did it make you feel?

MR ROELOFSE: I became anxious. I had two children and a wife and I thought that it could have been children.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Did you then take the decision to go and commit a murder?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, through the course of the day I decided to act on my own conviction and out of revenge because of the Eikenhof slaughter that had taken place.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Evidence is on record that in that day, that specific Sunday, you consumed a lot of alcohol over a period of 12 hours.

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And you also took medication or together with the alcohol you also took medication, is that correct?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, I had a nervous problem. I took Tryptolene tablets and I took that with the alcohol.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Do you confirm that the evidence that you gave in the hearing or during the hearing in mitigating circumstances that in the 12 hours before you committed this murder, that you took 6 Lion Lagers as well as a bottle of brandy, a 750 ml that you mixed with Coke, that you consumed all of this together?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct.

MS SWIEGELAAR: You also then consumed these tablets. You took 125 mg.

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, every day I drank 5 of them.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Was that also the same on that specific Sunday?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Your actions on that specific day and your decision to commit this murder, was that influenced by the alcohol intake of that day?

MR ROELOFSE: I believe that it gave me more courage to do what I planned to do.

MS SWIEGELAAR: In other words it gave you the courage?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct, yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: What was the main motivation in committing this murder?

MR ROELOFSE: I would say it was the Eikenhof slaughter that took place.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And as you already indicated, you thought that your actions will have certain repercussions and will result in certain reactions in the country among the right wing.

MR ROELOFSE: I thought it would be a chain reaction that would follow.

MS SWIEGELAAR: At the stage when you went to work, you took the shotgun with you?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct, yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Was that customary, did you always take a shotgun with you to work, or was that for the specific reason that you took the shotgun with you on that evening?

MR ROELOFSE: I took the shotgun with me most of the time, but that specific evening I took it with the purpose of committing this crime.

MS SWIEGELAAR: What was the purpose? What did you want to go and do?

MR ROELOFSE: I wanted to act in revenge because of the Eikenhof slaughter.

MS SWIEGELAAR: At whom did you want to direct this revenge?

MR ROELOFSE: Against the ANC, SACP, APLA people, black people and a smaller amount of white people.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Why did you choose the deceased as your target?

MR ROELOFSE: The deceased was the first person that I found along the road and in the South African Police and the AWB we were told that all black people were ANC or SACP or APLA members and that they were the enemy.

MS SWIEGELAAR: The deceased, or was the deceased the first black person that you met on that specific evening?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct, yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Was he walking at that stage?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Was he moving in the same direction as what you were, or was he walking in the opposite direction from where you came? You were on your way to the mine.

MR ROELOFSE: I drove past him and I turned the vehicle around.

MS SWIEGELAAR: But did he approach you from the front?

MR ROELOFSE: He approached me from the front.

MS SWIEGELAAR: In other words you drove past him and then turned back?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And when he came close to you, you called him towards you?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, that is correct.

MS SWIEGELAAR: As you already explained now, you then shot him. Was that the only person that you targeted that evening, or that you shot that evening?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct, yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Did you at any stage, we know now and you've already said and we know what appears in the Court proceedings or the records of it concerning the merits and the sentence, and you admitted to the shift boss or manager Mr Duvenhage what happened, but you also - did you tell him that you shot more than one person that evening?

MR ROELOFSE: That is not true, Mr Chairperson.

MS SWIEGELAAR: You did tell Mr Duvenhage that you fired a shot and that you were motivated because of the Eikenhof event, or incident?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Mr Roelofse, how did you feel immediately after you shot the deceased?

MR ROELOFSE: At that stage I was confused, shocked. It's very difficult to explain it, Mr Chairperson.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Were there any feelings of satisfaction that you now have reached this goal or achieved it?

MR ROELOFSE: At that specific moment yes, but immediately afterwards I was very confused and very shocked and I realised that I made a very big mistake.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Do you agree that when Mr Duvenhage confronted you with the fact that he saw that you brought your vehicle to a stop alongside the road, that you basically immediately told him everything, or not quite, but that at least to an extent told him what the circumstances were at that stage, that you allowed ...

MR ROELOFSE: I first denied it but after we argued a bit I admitted that I did do it.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And were you willing to give yourself over to the police?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, I was.

MS SWIEGELAAR: But you didn't?

MR ROELOFSE: No.

MS SWIEGELAAR: You were later arrested the next day?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Why didn't you go to the police to hand yourself over?

MR ROELOFSE: After I spoke to the shift manager underground, we decided to go outside and to then give myself over to the police. We couldn't find the person along the road that was shot. I then made a phone call from a public phone and I made certain inquiries to find out if anybody was shot on this road where they told me that there was no such incident. We then returned and went to go and look again to see if there was somebody that was shot. The shift manager then told me that I must go and sleep in the rest rooms where I went to go and sleep and he gave me the assurance that we must just leave this whole thing and then the Sunday morning I went back home.

MS SWIEGELAAR: After, what appears from the records, he found out that there was an incident and that he saw the police there, did he then notify you about this?

MR ROELOFSE: No, he didn't.

MR SWIEGELAAR: But he did tell the police, according to the records and afterwards you were then arrested.

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Did you give yourself over without any resistance, that was when you were arrested?

MR ROELOFSE: No, I immediately gave myself over, Mr Chairperson.

MS SWIEGELAAR: At that stage, how did you feel about this crime that you committed, especially when you now realised that there was indeed a person that was killed and that you were responsible for it?

MR ROELOFSE: It is very difficult today to explain this feeling. I was very shocked, confused, very sorry, I couldn't believe that I did something like this. I was in a very emotional state, Mr Chairperson.

MS SWIEGELAAR: After your arrest, you made a statement in front of a Magistrate where you basically admitted that you were responsible for the death, or the murder.

MR ROELOFSE: Yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: You also indicated where it happened, but there was a problem with it because you did not take them to the right place or the correct place. Why didn't you do this?

MR ROELOFSE: ; Because I tried to basically swing the situation and the gun was never found.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Did you tell them where you got rid of the weapon or the firearm?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, I showed them where but they could not find them.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Did you also tell them that in your affidavit or statement?

MR ROELOFSE: Well after the statement we went to go and look for the firearm.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Very well. That was then at that stage that you were detained and you were released on bail?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct.

MS SWIEGELAAR: The decision to plead guilty, what made you do that? Why did you decide to plead guilty on the charge of murder?

MR ROELOFSE: Because at one stage they arrested my wife under the Security Act and I then decided to plead guilty so that they will not arrest her.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Why would they arrest your wife? What would be the motivation for it?

MR ROELOFSE: Because one of the investigative officers thought that she had to know about what happened, or that she knew about what happened.

MS SWIEGELAAR: But at that stage, you already made your statement.

MR ROELOFSE: ; No that was before I did it.

MS SWIEGELAAR: So the confession was because there were certain threats that they will arrest your wife and that led to the confession that you made. We are now at a further step, that is now the hearing itself and the fact that you then pleaded guilty, you were not found guilty on it, but you did tender a guilty plea. Why did you decide to plead guilty in the Court?

MR ROELOFSE: I realised that I did something wrong and that I had to be punished for it and had to serve a sentence for it because of this crime that I committed.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And is that why you tendered a guilty plea?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct.

MS SWIEGELAAR: The statement that contains the facts on which you were found guilty and which you admitted to appears in the merits of the Honourable Judge Strydom. Was that done on your instruction and was compiled by your legal representative?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct, yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: We have basically dealt with paragraph 9 where you said that

"because of this state of intoxication, I have got a very vague memory of what happened. I do not know how it happened that the shot went off, although I know that I did fire it"

Where you now told the Commission that you do know what happened and that you can remember that you called the deceased closer and when he came closer you aimed the rifle at him and that you fired a shot, you can also remember that he fell backwards, he moved backwards and fell on his back. Apart from that, is there anything else in the section 112 statement that is not correct?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, I said that I couldn't remember exactly what happened and that I had a vague memory and that there could have been a struggle.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And that is not correct, we already know this?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: But you are satisfied with the contents of the rest of this?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, that is correct.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Did you also get advice from your legal representative concerning this vague memory that you had?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: In other words, it was on your instruction that this was compiled and it was on the advice that he gave you?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Very well. You were then found guilty and you were sentenced to 20 years of prison?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct.

MS SWIEGELAAR: You immediately started serving the sentence?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct.

MS SWIEGELAAR: At that stage Mr Roelofse, did you accept that you had to serve this sentence?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, definitely.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Why?

MR ROELOFSE: I felt that I deserved it because of this horrible act that I committed and that I acted wrongly, I was completely in the wrong by killing a husband with a wife and a child and committing murder.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Today it is now a few years later, how do you feel today about this crime that you committed, this murder?

MR ROELOFSE: I feel very bad about it and I feel sorry that I did it and up to today I cannot believe what I did.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Well let me put it this way, your case today hinges on the fact that it was politically motivated. What is your political objective today?

MR ROELOFSE: I have distanced myself from any right wing political party. After I got to prison, I have reconciled myself with the Freedom Front. Afterwards I went over to the DP and currently I am a supporter of the DA.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And your thoughts concerning, or at this stage, do you have any political enemies?

MR ROELOFSE: No, not at all. I think we evolved a lot on a political level and I think that if we all take hands and look towards the future, we can make a success of this country and in this country.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And you yourself, do you feel that you are threatened by any group of people?

MR ROELOFSE: No, not at all.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Mr Roelofse, in this time that you've spent in prison, we know that you are a family man, you've got a wife and two children. How old are they?

MR ROELOFSE: My son is 10 years old and my daughter is 16 years old.

MS SWIEGELAAR: During the hearings, or more specifically the sentence phase of this, the deceased's wife testified.

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And you are aware of the fact that there was also a child, a daughter that was at that stage 5 years old.

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, she was very young.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Did you see her at that stage?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, I think I did see her.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And you are also aware, or you've heard the evidence and you heard what was said about what happened after you killed this man.

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, that is correct.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Do you concur or reconcile yourself with the fact that all these disadvantages that they experienced was because of what you did?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, many nights I lie awake thinking about what I did and how I disadvantaged them by taking away the father, somebody whom they loved and because of my actions, I took him away from them. It bothers me every night.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Have you thought of considered maybe that there's some way that you can assist them to rectify where you have disadvantaged them and what you've done to them?

MR ROELOFSE: Many nights I have thought what to do and currently I've got a wife and children that's struggling. My wife is earning R130 a week, but after I gave my heart to God in prison, I decided too that if I get out of prison and it's God's will if it happens, to make a plan and if I'm allowed to support them financially, depending on what job I've got and what my salary will be.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Your wife did not work while you were not in prison, is that correct?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: She also has got health problems that resulted in her not being able to work?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, she's also got nervous problems.

MS SWIEGELAAR: But currently she is working?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Your wife and children are in Oudtshoorn at this stage?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And her parents are also there.

MR ROELOFSE: Yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And the work that she's doing is, she works from home?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes. She lives in a type of flat at the people where she works.

MS SWIEGELAAR: What type of work does she do?

MR ROELOFSE: It is hand work, they make little statues.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Commercial statues?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And you said that she receives R140 or R130 per week. And here accommodation, is it free, or must she pay rent?

MR ROELOFSE: No it is free, she must just give money for the electricity.

MS SWIEGELAAR: When last did you see your wife and children?

MR ROELOFSE: In the seven years I saw them four times. The last time was New Years.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Of this year?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct, yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Your wife is not present today?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct, she hasn't got the financial ability to get here.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Is your relationship with your wife and family relationship still in tact?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: In other words if you get out will you go back to your family?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, definitely.

MS SWIEGELAAR: You said that you would like to make a financial contribution in order to assist the deceased's family. Have you received any work offers?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, twice I've received work offers.

MS SWIEGELAAR: In other words that there's a possibility that if you were freed, that you will be able to earn a living?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And that you then can make a contribution from your income to the deceased's wife and child.

MR ROELOFSE: I would very much like to do this.

MS SWIEGELAAR: With the mediation of the wife and legal representative, I spoke to her earlier on and it seemed out of the discussion that the daughter is now 12 years old, that she is in Standard 6 and that she is currently not in school, because there's lack of funds, but that she would like to continue with her school career, will you be willing then, if you can afford it, to make a contribution to her school fees?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, definitely. I also would have like to have done more if I'm financially capable of doing it.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Have you spoke to the deceased's wife?

MR ROELOFSE: No, not today, but I asked her, or I apologised in Court, but I haven't spoken to her today, but I would like to talk to her today if the Commission will allow me to do it.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And what will you tell her today, if you had the opportunity?

MR ROELOFSE: Can I talk to her now, Chairperson?

MS SWIEGELAAR: Yes, you can, through the Commission you can address her.

MR ROELOFSE: Can I stand, Mr Chairperson? Mrs Motswa, words I do not have to describe, I do not know if you will be able to forgive me because I do not know what I would have done if I were in your position, if something like this happened to me. I am sorry and please forgive me, it sounds so small and insignificant because I took your husband away, a breadwinner, but please believe me today at nights, in the evenings I pray for you and your child. All that I can ask you is please forgive me because what I did was horribly wrong. If you are able to forgive me, my life will be better in the future as a human being and I would truly appreciate it and I humbly apologise also to your daughter, I am very sorry.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Is there anything else Mr Roelofse?

MR ROELOFSE: If possible that in the future I would like to assist and support yourself and your daughter. Thank you very much.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Mr Roelofse now concerning the prison sentence to date, you say that you have adjusted to life in prison.

MR ROELOFSE: Yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And is your behaviour up to such a level that you will be considered for parole?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, definitely.

MS SWIEGELAAR: You have provided me with written documents and letters that are written or addressed to the Commission and the Chairperson of the parole council from the Krugersdorp prison, or the Correctional Services in Krugersdorp. Broadly speaking, what are these documents about?

MR ROELOFSE: They are all the people that I'm working for. Mr Langa is one of the officers I have been working with for five years. Mr Maharaj our security officer, I work as a waiter where I serve people coffee and sweets, that is from our Golden and Recreation Club, Mr Rasepai.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Mr Rasepai, is he working for Correctional Services?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Is he one of the staff members?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And then a Mr de Bruin.

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, that is our section head and that is one of the members, Mr Makgotla, he's also working with us.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Is he one of the wardens?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Mr Molefe.

MR ROELOFSE: Mr Molefe is the assistant section head.

MS SWIEGELAAR: ...(indistinct)

MR ROELOFSE: ; He is the head of the hospital.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Mr Chairperson, with your permission I'd like to submit these letters. I must apologise that I did not make copies but I've only got the originals because it only became available this morning. Can I then ask if I can give it to the Committee? I'll ask the staff to get it for me.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, we will receive the letters as soon as they have been copied.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Mr Roelofse...

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Are you able to continue? Are you calm enough to continue?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, I'm comfortable.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Would you have been allowed to get out of prison, or would you have received parole if or rather do you feel at this stage comfortable within yourself that you will not commit a similar crime?

MR ROELOFSE: Definitely, Mr Chairperson, I have got no such thoughts in my head.

MS SWIEGELAAR: The Judge that heard you, or heard your case and then sentenced you, was of the opinion that there's not a big chance that you will do this again. Why would you, if you can say you will not commit such an act again?

MR ROELOFSE: I think as white people we were under the impression, the wrong impression by SAP officers and right wing political leaders, amongst others Terblanche, who brought us under this wrong impression that there will be a war that will break out on the election day and that the whites will be killed and I heard or I learned in prison to respect people, to respect other people's cultures and that war will not solve problems, but to talk to each other and to assist each other and to take hands and to build together this country that was - and that there's for every single person in this country a future.

MS SWIEGELAAR: You in passing made a comment and that stayed with me that you're addicted to newspapers. Do you have access to newspapers in prison?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, we do have access to newspapers.

MS SWIEGELAAR: So are you, or would you say that you are up to date with the current political happenings for example what's going on in Zimbabwe?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, definitely.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And how do you feel about this, the future of South Africa?

MR ROELOFSE: I feel that this country has got a very good future ahead, if it was not for the high crime rate and if we can all work together against crime, then I think that this country can continue and progress on a political level. We've already got strong ties with other countries, countries with which we could not have tied with in the apartheid ear and I do feel positive.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And now if for example you read in the newspapers what happened in Zimbabwe concerning the farms and concerning what's happening around that, how do you feel about that?

MR ROELOFSE: I feel that the problem will not be solved on such a military level, but that people must be brought together and that they should talk about the problems and that if one looks at the problems, there are problems, there's people who have been disadvantaged, land that's theirs and that after 20 years they haven't received what is theirs, but I do not think to solve it on a military level or in such a way would be the solution.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Well if you hear this now and to put it blatantly, do you not feel that you want to take up a weapon and revenge?

MR ROELOFSE: No, definitely not. That will not solve the problem, it will just make it worse.

MS SWIEGELAAR: The meetings that you attended before you committed this crime, did they ever suggest such action as a possible solution for the purposes or furthering of the purposes or goals of these organisations?

MR ROELOFSE: Well they told us to mobilise, stand together and prevent an election from taking place. To gather weapons and ammunition, food and certain slogans were shouted.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Did you gain any personal or financial - did you receive any financial gain from this crime?

MR ROELOFSE: No, not at all.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And when you chose the deceased as your target, it was just by coincidence that you chose him, or did you specifically choose him?

MR ROELOFSE: By coincidence he was at the scene.

MS SWIEGELAAR: You did not know him?

MR ROELOFSE: No, I did not know him at all.

MS SWIEGELAAR: In other words you did not have any specific feelings towards him as a person?

MR ROELOFSE: No, not at all.

MS SWIEGELAAR: In other words or although you did not choose him specifically, you did decide to target somebody that was representative of the enemy as you saw it then?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Mr Roelofse is there anything that you would like to add or bring under the attention of the Committee? I'm sorry, there's one last aspect. A few times you have referred to the South African Police Service that after you left school you joined the South African Police.

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct, yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: How long were you a member of the then South African Police Force?

MR ROELOFSE: It was approximately 5 years.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Where did you serve?

MR ROELOFSE: ...(indistinct) and Uitenhage and the Eastern Cape.

MS SWIEGELAAR: What was your rank when you left the police?

MR ROELOFSE: I was a constable.

MS SWIEGELAAR: What was the highest standard that you passed?

MR ROELOFSE: I did not complete standard 9 at school.

MS SWIEGELAAR: In other words you've got standard 8?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And afterwards you went to go and work on the mine where you worked during or when you committed this crime. Just for completion, what mine was it?

MR ROELOFSE: It was the Hartbees Gold Mine.

MS SWIEGELAAR: The time that you served in the South African Police, do you think that it played a role in the committing of this murder?

MR ROELOFSE: We were indoctrinated by officers, they eve told us that we must not trust the black members, that they are ANC, that they will side with the ANC and SACP and that we must see them as terrorists and we mustn't trust them and that the black members were also treated in a very bad way while they served in the South African Police.

MS SWIEGELAAR: When you started working on the mines, did you join a Union?

MR ROELOFSE: All the mines belonged to the Mine Workers Union.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And the members, were they representatives, or what is the position?

MR ROELOFSE: They are there to protect those who've got problems and it was basically a right wing organisation.

MS SWIEGELAAR: At that stage it was a white organisation and only for white mine workers.

MR ROELOFSE: Yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Would you say that on the political spectrum it was more on the right hand side?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, definitely.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And were you actively involved in the Union?

MR ROELOFSE: I won't say that I was very actively involved, but I did attend the meetings, but I was not a regular, or somebody who would go to all the meetings.

MS SWIEGELAAR: In your application you indicated that your background or family background was very conservative and that everything was for the Afrikaners and if we can get to the crux of it it was for whites?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And is that how you were brought up in your parents' home?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct, yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And you were then exposed to this from a very early age.

MR ROELOFSE: That is also correct.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Do you still share those opinions, or views?

MR ROELOFSE: No, not at all.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Very well. I've got no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS SWIEGELAAR

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. The correspondence will be accepted as Exhibit A 1 to 8. 1 is a letter dated 10th July 2000 from the Head Medical Care, 2 date 27th July 2000 from R F Molefe, 3 30th May 2000 from C M Mokgolua, 4 is headed "Vorderingsverslag" from a Mr de Bruin, Hoof B Blok, 5 is a letter from D S D Rasepai, Recreation Facilitator, Krugersdorp Correctional Services. 6 is a letter from Mr M Maharaj, the Head Operations and Security, Correctional Services Krugersdorp, dated 23rd March 2000, 7 is a letter from B Jaka Head Containment Krugersdorp Correctional Services and 8 is a hand-written note from the applicant address to the "Prinsipaal, Andrew Murray Bybelskool," Benoni, dated 14 June 2000. Mr Sibeko, any questions?

MR SIBEKO: Thanks Mr Chairman.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR SIBEKO: Mr Roelofse, my instructions here are not to oppose this application on the basis of the fact that, as you have already stated, that you are aware of the hardship that you have caused to the family and more especially to my client and on the understanding again that if possible, if this Committee decides to grant you amnesty you'd be in a position to assist her in as far as her child's education is concerned. However, I've got only a few aspects to take up with you. Firstly, I've been going through the bundle and I observed that you say that on the day of the incident or immediately before that, you got to know about this Eikenhof incident, is that so?

MR ROELOFSE: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR SIBEKO: Now had it not been for this incident, or had it not been for this Eikenhof incident, would you have committed the said act that we are talking about today?

MR ROELOFSE: No, definitely not, Chairperson.

MR SIBEKO: Before you committed this incident, did you discuss this or did you share this idea with any other person?

MR ROELOFSE: No not at all, it was only myself that knew about it Chairperson.

MR SIBEKO: In other words will I be correct if I say that nobody else even from your own then organisation, knew about what you planned or what you had in mind at the time?

MR ROELOFSE: No, not at all Chairperson.

MR SIBEKO: Will I further be correct if I say it was your own decision without having consulted with anybody from your party?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR SIBEKO: Alright.

ADV SANDI: And after you had killed the deceased, did you make any report to any person in the AWB?

MR ROELOFSE: No, Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: Did you have any reason for not doing so?

MR ROELOFSE: I was not such an active member of the AWB. I however was a great supporter Chairperson and immediately the next morning I was arrested.

MR SIBEKO: One last aspect, Mr Roelofse. In your plea which has formed part of the Court record, more especially paragraph 9 on page 28, amongst other things that you see, you refer to there intoxicating liquor and some tablets that you had taken that particular day, is that so?

MR ROELOFSE: Correct, Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: Was it your habit to take liquor together with tablets?

MR ROELOFSE: I had suffered with my nerves from an early age Chairperson and my days in the SAP I developed a drinking problem because of the tremendous stress under which we worked, so if I consumed liquor, I still took my tablets and if I did not consume liquor, I still took my tablets, so everyday I did drink my tablets.

MR SIBEKO: Now surely you will agree with me that the combination of the two, the tablets and this alcohol, could create a very dangerous situation in any person?

MR ROELOFSE: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR SIBEKO: To an extent that even if it hadn't been for this Eikenhof incident, a similar situation could have arisen?

MR ROELOFSE: I was just about an alcoholic and for many years I consumed a bottle of brandy with a few beers. The tablets which I consumed with it, did not have such an effect on me that I did not know what was going on around me and for me to finish a bottle of brandy at that stage that was not much for me.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you drink it alone, a bottle?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: A whole bottle?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, a bottle.

CHAIRPERSON: 750 ml?

MR ROELOFSE: 750 ml Chairperson.

MR SIBEKO: Thanks Mr Chairperson, I've got no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR SIBEKO

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Sibeko. Ms Mtanga?

MS MTANGA: I have no questions Chairperson, thank you.

NO QUESTION BY MS MTANGA

CHAIRPERSON: Has the Panel got any questions?

ADV SANDI: You were in the SAP from which year to which year?

MR ROELOFSE: It was approximately from 1981 or 82 to 85 or 86 Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: And you were based in the Eastern Cape?

MR ROELOFSE: That's correct, Sir.

ADV SANDI: What was your reason for leaving the Police Force?

MR ROELOFSE: The Police service placed a lot of stress on me and I was already there on sedatives. The money was very little. I then went to the mines. I retired and I went to the mines for a better salary. At that stage I earned R400 per month, Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: No further questions, Mr Chairman, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any re-examination?

MS SWIEGELAAR: Only one aspect Chairperson.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MS SWIEGELAAR: Mr Roelofse something that I had omitted, your liquor problem, what is the position with regards to that currently?

MR ROELOFSE: If I can state it as such, I hate liquor. I think liquor leads to much crime in the country and it encourages people to do things that they would not otherwise do if they were not inebriated. Liquor made me realise that what I did to other people and also to my own people - and I despise liquor, I do not want to have any contact with any liquor at any ...

MS SWIEGELAAR: In prison, do you have access to liquor?

MR ROELOFSE: It is available, that's correct.

MS SWIEGELAAR: It's available at a price?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, that's correct.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Do you consume liquor currently?

MR ROELOFSE: No, I do not.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Thank you Chairperson, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS SWIEGELAAR

CHAIRPERSON: If you did not drink so much that day, would you have still committed this murder?

MR ROELOFSE: Chairperson, I was sober when I planned to do what I wanted to do, but I was somewhat hesitant and that is why I started drinking, to build up some courage to do what I did.

CHAIRPERSON: When did you decide that you would commit this murder?

MR ROELOFSE: This was approximately the morning, it's quite some time back, but I would say approximately 10, 11, 12 o'clock maybe.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you not then go immediately and commit the murder?

MR ROELOFSE: Because it was during the day, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you on your way to work that evening?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: But did you mean that you would just commit this murder on your way to work?

MR ROELOFSE: That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And in the condition that you were, could you work?

MR ROELOFSE: Everybody knew me as such at work. I asked the mine to send me away. I went to a doctor. There were only two doctors in Klerksdorp, I went to the one, he put me on anti-booze for my drinking problem, this also did not help. I many a times went to the mine captain to ask him to send me away, but everybody thought that I was doing my work even though I came to work inebriated.

CHAIRPERSON: But the Shift Boss, did he give you work?

MR ROELOFSE: We first went underground and after I discussed the problem with him and I said that it is better, it should be better if I go and hand myself over to the SAP, then he took me out.

CHAIRPERSON: But he did not make you work that evening, he made you go and sleep.

MR ROELOFSE: Only when we came back from the scene, he then took me back and made me sleep in the change room.

CHAIRPERSON: Was this to sleep off your liquor? So you were in no condition to work?

MR ROELOFSE: I many a time came to work in a similar condition and he left me. It is common under miners that they work when they are drunk.

CHAIRPERSON: If you were sober, would you have still committed this murder?

MR ROELOFSE: I believe so, but it would have been very difficult Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Any further questions Madam?

MS SWIEGELAAR: No further questions, thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS SWIEGELAAR

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Very well Mr Roelofse thank you, you are excused. Is there any other evidence you wish to lead?

MS SWIEGELAAR: None, Chairperson. That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Sibeko, are you presenting any evidence?

MR SIBEKO: No evidence Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Mtanga?

MS MTANGA: No Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Would you like to address us on the merits of the application?

MS SWIEGELAAR: Thank you Chairperson.

MS SWIEGELAAR IN ARGUMENT: Chairperson, it is my respectful submission on behalf of the applicant that the application of the applicant should be granted. In motivation of this I shall argue that the requirements have been fulfilled as it is stated in Section 20 of the Act of National Reconciliation of 1995 Act number 34 and it is my respectful submission that the applicant's incident falls under Section 20(2)(a) of the particular Act in the sense that he was a supporter of a well-known political organisation at that stage, the Afrikaner Weerstands Beweging and that in support of this organisation he bona fide acted on behalf of such an organisation in the political struggle which was against another well-known political organisation, and committed this act within the time period as is stated by the Act.

CHAIRPERSON: This was in support of the AWB, was this part of their policy to murder persons under these circumstances.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

MS SWIEGELAAR: That it would not directly - this policy was not conveyed to them directly but it was told to them at political organisations and more specifically by the speakers, that it would appear that this would be Mr Eugene Terblanche, that they said that they had to mobilise themselves and ready themselves and they had to be ready to avoid a blood bath and his version boils down to the fact that he believed that this would be part of their policy. In other words, he believed that what he did would be in the furtherance of the political struggle of the AWB and that through this he would have motivated and mobilised the far right to take similar action to, as he has testified, to jeopardise or have the national elections which were planned at that stage, to have it postponed or to have it stopped or just to get a postponement of it and it is on that basis that I make this submission.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he act against a political opponent?

MS SWIEGELAAR: His evidence was that what he regarded at that stage, what he regarded the enemy at that stage, it was the ANC, the PAC and they were embodied in the black person, that is why he decided to go out and shoot a black person and that his choice was coincidentally the deceased here, who was - who unfortunately crossed his path on that evening and it is on that basis that we cannot say and he also says it, that the deceased was not a political organisation, but the deceased for him embodied such an organisation or the enemy of the State.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that a bona fide conviction? What of a black police officer? Would he have gone out and shot a black police officer?

MS SWIEGELAAR: A black police officer in uniform?

CHAIRPERSON: Let us say the deceased was a black police officer.

MS SWIEGELAAR: In uniform?

CHAIRPERSON: It doesn't matter.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Chairperson, on his version and I can only work on his version, it was not put to him as such, but his version was that this political enemy, political organisation, as he admitted to you that he saw who was responsible for example the massacre on the farms, the political slogans which were expressed and this was embodied in the black person and if he expressed his sympathy with regard to the killing of police officers, black police officers at that stage, so if the officer was visibly a police officer, in other words was dressed in a police uniform, he would not have seen him as the embodiment of the enemy and he would not have directed himself at a police officer, but if the police officer was the deceased and he was dressed under the circumstances that he met with the deceased that evening and that he was not in uniform and he was not in a marked police vehicle but he was a pedestrian walking past and there were no characteristics showing that he was a police officer, then he probably would have directed himself to the deceased in the execution of this objective that he had of that evening, but without him being aware of the fact that this was a police officer and it is my respectful submission that this was a bona fide condition at that stage in the mind of the applicant, that he saw this as a political enemy of people as himself and the far right organisations. He saw this embodied in a black person and that is why he decided that he will direct himself at a black person, he will kill a black person, never mind who that person was.

CHAIRPERSON: Does the Act not require more of an applicant? Does an applicant not have to indicate that he had a reasonable conviction? Many times we get a case where, objectively speaking, innocent persons are killed. A bus load of women may be killed, but what the applicant does then, he lays a basis, he says: "Listen, these buses come from a direction where there was for an example a political gathering", therefore he places something else before this Commission as something that obviously just looking at it it looks like racism, he just shoots the first black person he meets, he doesn't ask any questions, he doesn't take any steps to have something to go on to say that: "Look, this in my opinion is part of my enemy". Does the Act not require more than just the type of action that your applicant embarked upon?

MS SWIEGELAAR: Chairperson that is indeed so that he did not, for example, there is no such talk of such an incident as the example you gave now, or he did not draw any similar lines, but if one has regard for the requirements of 20 (3) and paragraph (b) thereof that says the context in which the act, omission or offence took place and more specifically whether the act, omission or offence was committed in unrest or in the reaction thereof and in the applicant's case, he acted upon reaction of the Eikenhof incident within the time context which prevailed and at that time you will recall we did not offer it as such or submit it as such, but there are definite connotations or allegations made that the political enemy that the applicant had in his mind or which he regarded as his political enemy and the political enemy of the party whose political sentiments he shared, was responsible for that shooting incident and in that shooting incident he says, what he says, that it was his people and more his people's children who were killed and he decided to act in reaction to that against the political enemy whom, to him at that stage as he said, were the political parties but to him was embodied in the black person, because at that stage he, for the persons who were members of those political parties and who supported their principles and supported their sentiments, were usually black persons and that is why he chose a black person as his target, not necessarily the deceased, but a black person and then the deceased crossed his path and that is why he directed himself to the deceased, but it is my respectful submission that what is of interest here is that you have to consider the requirement, whether he has made out a case specifically of the criteria that has to be looked at within the context within the Act was committed and that he said that he acted upon reaction of these events, and he also tells you that if Eikenhof was not there: "I would not have committed this offence", but there was no reason to do it immediately, there was no emergency to go out and kill the first person he met along the road.

CHAIRPERSON: That is not a made out case. There were no grounds upon which we can ...(indistinct) that the applicant could not think for himself, if it was a black woman with a baby on her back, how can this reasonably be regarded as justified that the first black person ...

MS SWIEGELAAR: Then it is my further respectful submission Chairperson that one has to have regard for his motivation. He wanted to react but he also wanted to start a reaction and his motivation was basically forge the iron while it is still hot.

CHAIRPERSON: But this was in March month and the election was on the 27th of April, so there was a lot of time still, he was under no pressure to immediately cause a reaction. His conviction said that he wanted to act out of revenge, that was one of the legs of his motivation, but he also wanted to cause an uprising that there would be an entire disruption with regard to the election.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Chairperson, I shall concede that there was indeed more time, but we have to keep in mind that we have an applicant who, except for his political motivations, there were emotions and there were uncertainties involved here and he reacted emotionally and there was also the fact that he had consumed liquor. He tells you today that the liquor did play a role but not in the sense that - if he was sober he would have done it as well, but it would have been more difficult.

CHAIRPERSON: I think more important than this, Madam, a bottle of brandy and six beers the applicant consumed, was this not a great factor? Except for the Eikenhof incident where black people killed white people, was the brandy not one of the bigger factors?

MS SWIEGELAAR: It is large volumes of liquor, but one has to keep in mind that he says he was an alcoholic at that stage and he did consume large amounts of liquor and he could still function to such an extent that he was usually allowed to work and you will also recall that when we studied the Judgment of Honourable Justice Strydom, that Duvenhage the Mine Shift Boss gave evidence and said that his impression was that briefly after this incident when he had dealings with the applicant, that he could maintain himself, that he knew what it was about and what he did and that he was not so inebriated that he did not know what was going on and that he had insight.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but he didn't let him work. In a mine, if I understand correctly, it's a dangerous place so one can only infer that he made the applicant go to sleep and that the applicant could not work at all because of his consumption of liquor.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Chairperson, if we keep in mind that Duvenhage is not here to tell us why he made the applicant go to sleep, then we move on the train of speculation and if one says that the inference that could be drawn, and it is my respectful submission that there is another reasonable inference that could be drawn and that is that you have to keep in mind that when did he make the applicant sleep, the applicant came on duty and I refer here specifically to what we see from the record, to make the submission to you, what Duvenhage says, that the applicant came on duty, he confronted him with the fact that his vehicle had stopped there and the applicant confesses to him, because he thought that Duvenhage saw and in any case saw the shooting incident. They could not speak then because there were other people present there and then they went down and then the applicant spoke to Duvenhage and they went back to the top and they went to the scene to see if there were any signs or if there was a body which would indicate that the deceased - that the applicant's story was true that he had shot the deceased, but he also further says that although, or it would appear from his evidence, the summary thereof, that he was shocked, that the applicant was shocked and if we have to move on the terrain of speculation then it is my respectful submission that the possibility is there that he thought that the person was so incapable because of his inebriated state, that he could not run the risk of letting him work. But yes, the other motivation could have been that in this condition that the man was, he could not risk taking him underground.

CHAIRPERSON: So why did he not get any medical attention for the applicant if he believed that the applicant was in a state where medical assistance or something similar would assist him. After they went underground they went to the body and then after that they tried to find out from the police where it was quite clear that there was no reason at that stage to go and hand over the applicant to the police and when it appeared at this stage that this was the stage when he would usually go and work and then the foreman let him go and sleep. So what other reasonable inference could one draw? He doesn't get a doctor to treat the applicant, he makes him go to sleep after he had, on his own version, consumed liquor.

MS SWIEGELAAR: May I just refer you to page 31, from line 18, where Honourable Justice Strydom gives his summary of a part of Duvenhage's evidence where he says

"Duvenhage, a self-confessed rehabilitated alcoholic, says that the accused was under the influence of liquor but that he knew what was going on around him. He said that the accused was excited but coherent and otherwise spoke normally, he did not speak with a slur, he smelled of liquor. He also testifies further that the accused walked normally and did not - the accused drove straight, did not leave the tarred road or go over to the right side of the road. In his opinion the accused was a minimum of 6 beers that evening. He testifies further that the accused, the morning of the 22nd of March 1993 definitely knew what had happened the previous night and he said furthermore that he was aware that the accused had a drinking problem."

And his evidence, Mr Chairperson, was accepted. If one has regard for page 32, from line 10, where Honourable Judge Strydom says that Duvenhage was a good and credible witness, he made a good impression in the witness box, he gave his evidence quickly and without any hesitation. There's no reason whatsoever why his evidence should be suspected, from his evidence, and the admissions of the accused, it could be indicated and his pointing out to the police, only one inference can be drawn, that the deceased on the way to the mine, had taken his father's shotgun in the vehicle, saw the deceased along the road and decided to shoot him, turned his car around and when the Judge refers to his Judgment ...

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Mr Chairperson, we shall find this on page 31, he deals here with what had happened.

"A call was made, there was an investigation and then they came back to the mine after which they could not find anything"

and then on line 11, or I beg your pardon, line 11 he says that:

"at the number 7 shaft, Duvenhage told the accused to go and sleep in the change room which the accused went and did."

Now it would appear to me - and then he says:

"Later that morning Duvenhage woke the accused. The accused then said: "What will happen to my children?" Duvenhage then sent the accused home and he then, between 8 and 8.30 went home."

But he says - it is quite clear that they did not deal with the question as to why Duvenhage made the applicant sleep. Was it because he thought that because of his - it could not have been that he thought, Chairperson, that he was so drunk because then his evidence would not have been as I have read it to you now at the bottom of page 31, top of page 32.

CHAIRPERSON: But in the Judgment here where the State want to accuse the accountability and the State makes it as light as possible and the Advocate wants to make him as drunk as possible, so the Court decides in between, so this summary looks to me like it is typical of a case where it is with regard to the accountability of the accused, where he was not so drunk that there was not the necessary mens rea to form.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Yes, Chairperson, I am prepared to accept it but what I would like to submit to you is that for example, to use the example of the black woman with the child on her back, the accused on a question from you, said that if he was sober he believes that he would have still committed the murder but it would have been much more difficult and I think there we can use the example, I think if he was sober, I think he would probably not have directed himself at a black woman with a child on her back, because then he may have still had the insight to realise that this is a bit far fetched to realise that this is the enemy but his drunken state could have played a role, if it was coincidentally a black woman with a child on her back, because at that stage - at no stage am I going to try to say that his consumption of liquor did not play any role, he does not say that, he says yes, his consumption of liquor did play a role even if it's to the extent that it gave him the courage to go and commit this act, this did play a role but what his major motivation is and if I understand his evidence correctly, that morning 10 o'clock, 11 o'clock, after he read these reports, he already formed the idea of going to commit a murder with the objective as he has explained it to you and then he started drinking and he kept on drinking. You see from the record that this was over a period of 12 hours that he consumed all this liquor and most certainly his consumption of liquor would have played a role, but it is not - I have to reconcile myself, the procedure, not to make him so that he could not, would not have done so, but this gave him the courage to do it, but he knew what he was doing.

ADV SANDI: He makes it very clear in his evidence that it would have been very impossible, he said: "Dit kon baie onmoontlik gewees, baie moeilik" to carry out this act without the liquor he had consumed.

MS SWIEGELAAR: But he said he still believe ...

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone.

MS SWIEGELAAR: The applicant testified and that specific portion of his evidence is to the effect that: "I believe it would have been difficult".

ADV SANDI: What does that mean? Liquor had a major role to result in this incident.

MS SWIEGELAAR: He then continued and he added: "I believe I still would have done it."

ADV SANDI: Still, it would have been difficult for him to do it without liquor. I think he also makes it very clear that he had no order from the AWB and there's no indication in his evidence that he believed that this is something that could have been approved of by the AWB. He does not discuss it with anyone in the AWB, not even an ordinary member of the AWB, what he intends to do.

MS SWIEGELAAR: ; It was never his case and his application is not based, and he said it quite clearly and honestly in the beginning of his evidence today, that he was acting on one or other instruction of the AWB or another political organisation and it is so that he hasn't reported it to anybody or he hasn't discussed it with anybody, but his case is that he bona fide believed that he was acting in accordance with what they were expecting from him at that stage.

ADV SANDI: He was asked a very specific question as to who in the AWB had given him such an order, then he says: "Well, we were told to mobilise, to stand together, a lot of slogans were chanted". He doesn't say: "We were told by our leaders to go and kill people in the street", he doesn't say that.

MS SWIEGELAAR: ; Mr Commissioner, it is indeed so, he doesn't say so, but if one has regard to what he said, one has regard to what he believed what they would have expected or what they would have thought was part of their actions, then it is my respectful submission that that is a bona fide belief, taking into account what he said was conveyed to them at the meetings, he could have believed that that forms part of the mobilisation which they were urged to do at that stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Madam that is the point of my colleague. How do you reach that objective of mobilising and causing all this disruption if one, on your way to work in a very drunk state, with respect given the amount of liquor that he consumed, now you shoot someone and you dispose of the firearm, in other words immediately you are hiding all evidence that you are involved in this incident, you go and hide - you throw away the firearm, you go to work, you're confronted by the foreman and you deny it firstly, and you say: "I do not know what you are talking about" You do not consult anyone in the organisation, as my colleague has pointed out, you go to Court and you try to initially get away from it, as your client had said. He first tried to get out of the case. How do you mobilise on those grounds? How do you reach your objective of disrupting the elections and all those other objectives? Is this not just a case of revenge and liquor and racism and things like that?

MS SWIEGELAAR: Chairperson, it is so that this offence was motivated by the Eikenhof slaughter and it is also so that alcohol did play a role. As I have said earlier, we will not deny that alcohol did play a role and it is so that he disposed of the firearm afterwards, but you will also recall that he said that initially he had feelings of satisfaction that he did what he had planned to do but then there was some shock which entered and that is when he went and disposed of the weapon and if you look at Duvenhage's evidence and once again we only have the summary of the Honourable Justice Strydom and you will find that on page 30 from line 9 where Duvenhage asked the accused what he was busy with, referring to the fact that the deceased had turned round his vehicle on his way to work and had stopped and Duvenhage could for example, it would appear that the only thing Duvenhage and I speculate now, the only thing that Duvenhage saw this was that the accused turned his vehicle around. Duvenhage did not know that the shooting incident had taken place, for example at that stage he could have suspected the accused of dealing in - illegal dealing in gold and let's just have regard for the background that they worked in and from time to time miners do play around with gold and then the accused immediately reacted on it and said: "Oh my God, oh my God, you saw me shooting the kaffir" and then Duvenhage saw that he did not speak to the accused again and you will see from the previous paragraph, the reason for this would be apparently because there were other persons present and then later they spoke about it and then already the accused told him that he read in the newspaper, the Sunday newspaper of the two children that had been killed.

ADV SANDI: Let's talk about the Eikenhof incident. Concerning the newspaper reports, I suppose at that stage there would have been speculation as to who had done it. The applicant personally didn't know who had killed these people at Eikenhof, he didn't know who those people were, the victims, he didn't know them. He didn't know what their political sympathies were. He didn't know what the political motives, if any, of the attackers could have been at that stage.

CHAIRPERSON: It could have been a jealous lover that attacked the ...(no sound)

MS SWIEGELAAR: There is no evidence before you of what the newspaper report was about and unfortunately we do not have it here to read it to you, but if I go according to my own recollection of the events there, immediately there was a political party that admitted that it was responsible for it and it was quite clear that at least the race of the persons who committed the acts at that stage was known. So this is something that we have to keep in mind. With regard to him, he accepted that this was the political enemy, he said it was the ANC, they listed the political parties, he said that they were embodied in black persons and he believed that these were the political enemies and he decided to go and shoot a black person.

CHAIRPERSON: But why did he not go and speak to somebody? Why did he not go to the AWB? Why did he not go to the leaders of the organisations which he supported and other persons who were involved in the leadership of these organisations? Why did he not go and consult them and say: "Listen here, Look here, they're shooting these people here. Is it not time that we do something? Can't we rise up? Can't we set in motion our plans of mobilisation?" He goes home the early morning and he's busy consuming liquor the whole day and then he goes out that evening, on his way to work, he kills someone.

MS SWIEGELAAR: That is indeed how you put it to me. He told you that: "I was a supporter of the AWB. I attended their political meetings. I heard and listened and I wanted to listen at that stage, to what was being said at political meetings." He also said that he was not an active member. He, for example, did not have membership of the AWB, therefore he did not have such close contact with the leaders. Chairperson, what is not evident from his evidence here today and what is not evident from the record here, but I know he gave evidence about this, this is now the applicant, that indeed that Sunday he discussed it with a family member of his, but the family member did not agree with him. So he did indeed discuss it with someone, but the family member did not agree with him. His decision, and this was his own decision, the applicant's case is not that he told you initially he did not act upon any instruction from anyone, this was a singular decision and this was a decision which he based upon what he bona fide believed that he could do in the promotion of the objectives of the far right political parties.

CHAIRPERSON: That's indeed the problem, Madam. To comply with the requirements of the Act, he has to attach his case to some or other publicly known organisation and if you say that he decided on his own and it has absolutely nothing to do with the organisation, he did not have an instruction, then you have to convince us that his application indeed falls within the ambit of the Act and while I am on this point, earlier I asked you the combination of aspects that have nothing to do with politics, the racism of this attack, does it not appear from page 30, line 12 quite clear from the utterance of the applicant to Duvenhage, he does not refer to his political opponents here, he refers here in a racist manner, to black persons. He does not refer to politics, the racism in that sentence is tremendous.

ADV SANDI: Sorry - read that together with what appears at page 54, right on top, a statement that was taken from him by Barend Johannes de Villiers, immediately after the incident, where he says

"According to the accused he hates black people and this is the reason why he shot the deceased. The accused also mentions that he is an AWB supporter"

Hatred, that's what it shows. Does this thing go anywhere beyond that? Just shooting anyone in the street just because this person bears a certain colour on his face.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Chairperson, once again the statement of Barend Johannes de Villiers, I do not know how much value could be attached to it. This was not tested. He did not come and give evidence. My instructions are that the applicant did not tell him according to these words that he hated black persons and that was the reason why he had shot the deceased. The accused also mentioned that he was an AWB supporter. It is indeed so that the accused told him that he was an AWB supporter, but this what he says here, as I said, this was not tested here today. For example there was a confession that was made there which is not before you, and it is my respectful submission that which would be more of importance of what he said to the Magistrate after his arrest, with regard to what his motivation was of his offence and then to return to page 30 where he uses racist terms, it is indeed so that the term itself is racist, the use of the word there, but it is my respectful submission that this alone, it could not be said that this was racially motivated murder that he had committed, because if we have a further look, it is quite clear that he also told Duvenhage, he mentioned the Eikenhof incident and at this stage it was just shortly after he committed the incident, or he committed the offence.

Chairperson, if one has to consider whether his motivation was a bona fide motivation, then one has to have regard for the applicant as he was at that stage and that is why I readily conceded that we cannot try to get away from his liquor consumption. His conviction was influenced by his consumption of liquor that evening. At that instance the liquor consumption must have played a role in the sense that in that inebriated state of his, he believed that he was busy promoting the objectives of the AWB by going to shoot a black person and in that sense he could make contribution as he had testified here. The disposal of the firearm, the destruction of the evidence, has to be seen. Yes, initially I was satisfied, I was satisfied that I acted correctly and I reached my objective, but when shock entered and it is my respectful submission, if we have regard of the summary of Duvenhage's evidence it is quite clear that the applicant was shot and he had insight to what he had done and that is why I cannot tell you that his liquor intake did not play a role, his liquor intake must have played a role, but the role that it played was that in the furtherance of his conviction that he had acted and that he had influenced him there, that he was promoting the objectives of a party.

ADV SANDI: May I just ask a question? Is there any indication, I mean looking at the evidence before the Committee, is there any evidence or indication that it is known, as of now, as of today in the AWB circles that this attack was carried out on their behalf? Is there any indication in that direction before us?

MS SWIEGELAAR: Mr Chairperson, if you can just give me a moment. No, there's no indication of that.

ADV SANDI: Anyone can go around doing things and say: "I was doing it for, or on behalf of X, Y, Z political organisation." We have many people who come and say that from time to time.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Mr Chairperson, the applicant has got appreciation for this and that is why from start he openly and truthfully told you that he cannot base his application on the fact that he did it on the instruction or on the planning of, or the advice of somebody or some organisation.

ADV SANDI: The question is, is there any indication that the AWB, as an organisation, or anyone in the echelons of the AWB, knows that this attack was carried out by someone who believed at the time in question that he was doing so in the interests of the AWB? Is there any such indication?

MS SWIEGELAAR: Mr Commissioner, do you refer to at the stage after the event? Afterwards or before?

ADV SANDI: Both before and after.

CHAIRPERSON: At any stage.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Before there is none, after - can I just take instruction please?

ADV SANDI: Sorry, I was just about to say maybe the answer to that question wouldn't make any difference at this stage, because evidence has been led and it was clear from the questions that had been put to the applicant that the whole question of and order and approval by the AWB was in issue.

CHAIRPERSON: You see, it is so that the attitude of the client is very encouraging, but the fact of the matter is that the application in front of us, we must judge it according to the act and what the situation was when this incident occurred. It could be that later on certain things had a positive influence on the client, but for purposes of this hearing, we have to look at the aspects as they were at that stage, that one has to tie this attack to a position of a known organisation, then at least you fall on that one leg within the ambit of the Act.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Mr Chairperson but what he did tell you is that he was an AWB supporter and that he attended the meetings, he listened to the speeches made which encouraged them and if I can use his term, that they were incited and that is on what he based his bona fide belief and on his version that he presented you today and on which he acted for the promotion of their goals, in other words he wanted to join the AWB and he wanted to assist them and wanted to act against their enemy that he also saw as his own enemy, as an AWB supporter.

CHAIRPERSON: I do understand that submission, yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Mr Chairperson and then if I may, maybe I'll repeat this but I can go on to 2 (a) the bona fide promotion of a political struggle that by such a political organisation against the State or any former State or well-known political organisation or freedom organisation or liberation organisation, I would like to deal with the bona fide aspect and that is the alcohol intake of that night and where that played a role. He executed this act while he was under the influence of alcohol or while he had more, a lot of alcohol in his body at that stage and it is my submission that that alcohol intake could have played a role in his planning of that day and that could have been dealt in another way, if he wasn't drunk and that he wouldn't have shot somebody, but that is where the alcohol intake played a role, but what I'm going to do now is politically motivated and I'm doing this for the AWB and I'm going to, or I will be able to achieve the following goals.

ADV SANDI: That is not the end of the problem. We are not being told here that there was an attempt by the applicant to inform the AWB that he had carried out this attack in furtherance of the interests of the organisation and that he desired that they assist his application. We're not being informed of such attempts whatsoever.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Mr Chairperson, that is correct. We cannot ignore this, he did not report back to them, he did not go and get their support for this application of his, but it is a few years later after this incident and he's telling you now what his political motives are now, that he's not part of the right wing, but that he's on the other side of the political spectrum and you must remember that he was confronted by an arrest, a criminal prosecution and where the normal reaction would be from somebody that's accused, that would be to get away from this and that the AWB, we all know, did not get a lot of support from the organisation if they are charged. He's now fighting a prosecution. Instead of reporting it after the fact to the AWB, these should not be factors that count against him, they are facts which should be viewed in the light of the events directly after the incident and how the applicant experienced these events. "Now I'm on my own", is what he thought.

ADV SANDI: You see there's not even evidence that such a step of contacting the AWB was ever given a thought and eventually decided against, there's not even such evidence before us, which would at least go somehow towards linking the incident with the AWB. You see when you say we have to look at the political context in which the incident occurred, you are quite correct that the applicant has a duty in any one of these applications which we hear from time to time, to justify his actions within that context. There's no argument here about the political situation in the country, it's quite clear what the situation was in the country at that time. No one can dispute that the applicant has to justify his actions in the context of that political atmosphere which prevailed at the time.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Chairperson it is as the Commissioner has indicated, there was no prior or subsequent and no support was sought from the ANC with regard to the application of the applicant. Once again I could reiterate my submissions to you and I must concede that it is one of the criteria that you must consider. I would argue that it would be 3 (f), the connection between the act, omission or offence and the political objective which was sought, then the time of the context and the proportionality between the objective and the action. He had a certain objective to be achieved. It is not that it is so direct or near to what the AWB probably wanted to achieve. We have no evidence that this was the AWB's objectives at that point, but once again I must come to what he believed bona fide at that stage and he thought that what he was doing was in promotion of the AWB and other far right wing political groups and most certainly it is one of the criteria that you must consider in order to determine whether or not it is a deed which can be associated with a political objective, but it is my submission with respect, that it is not as far removed or indirect, that it cannot qualify as a deed which can be associated with a political objective.

Once again in consideration of, and I apologise if I keep on reiterating to this, but this is why I have conceded that his alcohol intake definitely played a role, although it may only be to the extent of determining what his perception of bona fide was on the day that he chose to execute his actions. Furthermore it is my respectful submission and I have made this submission to you, that the applicant's case belongs to 20 (2) (a), that these criteria in (3) be incorporated specifically the motive of the person who committed the offence. He has explained his motive to you. (b) the context within which the deed was committed or within which the offence took place and the fact that it was a reaction to the Eikenhof incident, according to his submission and then the legal aspects pertaining to the act, omission or offence regarding the act, omission or offence and this is a serious offence. It is a serious omission and this is also supported or substantiated by the sentence that he received. The Magistrate, or the Judge at that stage, told him that he was lucky not to be sentenced to death. And then the objective or the purpose behind the offence which then counts against the applicant was that it was aimed against a private individual, but once again I would request you that when you consider that criterion, to consider as well that that private individual was to the applicant the enemy, that he personified the enemy for the applicant and that is why his actions were aimed against this person. This will also be viewed in conjunction with the aspect of personal malice or vengeance towards the victim of the offence which was committed. That is why I have presented his evidence regarding whether or not he knew the victim or whether he coincidentally ran into him that evening, therefore it cannot be a question of personal malice or vengeance.

Furthermore one of the criteria is (e), but it is only one of the criteria, that being whether the act, offence or omission was committed on behalf of or with the approval of an organisation, institution, body or liberation movement of which the person committing the offence was a member or a supporter or a collaborator and then also furthermore, the connection between the offence and the proximity of the context and the proportionality between the offence and the objective which was to be achieved.

It is my respectful submission that there was no order, there was no approval, there was also no request for approval after the fact, but this is only one of the criteria set down by the Act and the mere absence thereof, in my respectful submission, disqualifies and cannot singularly disqualify the applicant from amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you are correct, it is a measure and everything must be viewed holistically, the one supplements the other, if there's more of one and less of the other, then everything balances out according to the scale. It is not a mechanical process as such, it is not a question of crossing things off. Everything must be viewed holistically.

MS SWIEGELAAR: ; Thank you Chairperson. And then in the final instance, the applicant's version states that it was not for personal gain and there is no indication that he drew any personal gain from the incident. Therefore Chairperson, in it's final analysis, it is my respectful submission that despite the so-called lacks which appear in the applicant's application with regard to criteria, a clear case has been stated for him to be granted amnesty as it has been requested from you. Thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Sibeko, have you got any submissions?

MR SIBEKO: Mr Chairman, I leave everything in the hands of the Committee.

NO ARGUMENT BY MR SIBEKO

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Mtanga?

MS MTANGA: No Chairperson.

NO ARGUMENT BY MS MTANGA

CHAIRPERSON: I accept that there is nothing further that you wish to submit?

MS SWIEGELAAR IN FURTHER ARGUMENT: Chairperson, there is only one aspect. I don't know to what extent it is relevant but my instruction and I am in possession of the amnesty application according to Section 18 of the Act, of Mr James Wheeler, who, if I study the application itself, the facts are, or at least not the facts of the offence itself, but the motivation are very similar. There was also not a direct order, there was also not any direct approval, what the applicant did there was that on the 27th of April 1994, which was on the day of the election, he drove a vehicle from Westonaria to Randfontein.

"We crossed the taxi and in the process a shot was fired with my shotgun by means of which the taxi driver was killed and his brother wounded."

In other words it was murder and an attempted murder and his political objective which was sought to be achieved was that he wanted to upset the elections of 1994 by acts of violence committed against black people which would lead to the announcement of a state of emergency and derail the election process, therefore the ANC/SACP Alliance government would be flaunted and if the elections were not postponed, the ANC/SACP Alliance would take not of resistance offered by the AWB and other affiliated parties. In this case the application was indeed successful.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Madam, we have noted that. Is that the only further aspect that you wanted to table?

MS SWIEGELAAR: Thank you Chairperson, indeed that is the case.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, thank you very much and we apologise for having kept you way beyond the conventional hours out there, but we live in a different world unfortunately. We will have to consider the matter. There are many aspects of this that will need our attention. We will consider the evidence and the submissions and all of the other material that has been placed before us and we'll endeavour to formulate a decision in this matter as soon as the circumstances permit us to do so at which stage we will notify all of the parties with an interest as soon as the decision is available. We will under those circumstances, reserve the decision in the matter.

That takes care of the roll for the day, we hope, Ms Mtanga. I see the relief of my colleagues, but we just want to take the opportunity to thank you, Adv Swiegelaar for your assistance, thank you, we appreciate it and Mr Sibeko and Ms Mtanga. It is always of assistance to debate matters when you have questions in your mind. It is not justified for us to suffer alone, we might as well pull you in, but thank you very much, we appreciate it.

On that note we'll adjourn the proceedings and we'll reconvene tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS