Amnesty Decisions
Harold Snyman:
Snyman says that he never saw a piece of hosepipe....It
is impossible to understand how Snyman would not have seen this part of
the scuffle because he says he was continuously present from the moment
Biko was brought into [the] room, to the moment when he was tied up on
the grille with handcuffs and irons. Significantly, he also says
he knows that a slurred speech and inability to move on the part of an
injured person is clear evidence of brain injuries, and therefore constitute
a cause for urgent medical attention. He exculpates himself by saying
this was Goosen's and not his business...
This evidence clearly demonstrates that the condition
of Biko was not at all a matter of concern to Snyman. He says he
was not involved in making arrangements to transport Biko to Pretoria and
only heard about it on the day when Biko left. He says that he did
not even see Biko when he left....We find Snyman's apparent extreme disinterest
in the condition of Biko very striking. This is particularly so in
view of the fact that he was leading a team investigating a very serious
matter, which investigation had now been suspended due to Biko's condition.
There was simply no desire on his part to ascertain when Biko would possible
be ready for the continuation of what was clearly an important interrogation.
Daniel Petrus Siebert:
[Seibert's] evidence coincides with the testimony
of Snyman. He denies having personally caused the death of Biko and
claims that it was a result of the incident. He does, however, hold
himself responsible because he took part in the scuffle. When asked
what he is referring to in his application where he applies for assault
on Biko, he says it is the fact that medical attention was delayed and
not arranged immediately after the scuffle, and the fact that he ordered
Biko be chained and handcuffed. He is unable to say that he caused
one or more of the injuries that were indentified to have caused Biko's
death and says it could have been anyone of his colleagues.
Rubin Marx:
He is 75 years of age and so no need to apply for
amnesty. He had only done so on instructions from Nieuwoudt....Marx
says he never assaulted Biko and the duration of his participation in the
scuffle was two or three seconds. When he fell with Biko he did not
do so on purpose, but simple to restrain him. Anyway he ahd known
Biko from a previous encounter in 1974 and Biko had struck him as a "quiet,
co-operative, courteous, and civilised" man. He criticised Siebert
for not having created a "good" atmosphere for a starting point.
He says "I will not say that one would have won his trust, but at least
one would have had mutual respect for one another."
Jacobus Johannes Oosthuysen Beneke:
In his application Beneke says that he was a spectator
when Biko was being questioned and specifically says Biko was refractory,
contemptuous and aggressive. However, at the hearing he testified
that he did not personally observe this particular stage of the altercation.
He says he was simple drawing an inference because Siebert would never
have
been so agitated if Biko had co-operated. He denies Jones' testimony
of the existence of two hosepipes in room 619, the green one called "Green
Power" and the black one called "Black Power." He says there was
only one hosepipe there are it was used by Mr. Coetzee to syphone fuel
from an extra cannister which was always carried around in the Land Rover
police vehicle. He could not explain why on that particular day a
hosepipe was lying in the interrogation room and not kept in the vehicle.
He says he only saw the hosepipe at the end of the scuffle but had felt
the pains when Niewoudt had mistakenly hit him on the back.
Conclusion:
There can be no doubt that the death of Biko resulted
from head injuries sustained on the 6th September 1977 when his head collided
with an object....during a confrontation between Biko and his interrogators
which included the Applicants.
In our view this application can be decided simply
on the version of the Applicants who must satisfy the Committee that their
applications comply with the requirements of the Act. On this version
Biko's head was accidentally knocked in an attempt to restrain him after
he attacked Siebert. This was the sole objective sought to be achieved
by the Applicants. There was clearly no political objective being
pursued in restraining Biko. None of the applicants alleged that
they were actuated by a political motive in participating in the scuffle
with Biko....
The version of Applicants, moreover, does not disclose
any offence or delict as required by the Act. Applicants accepted
that they acted lawfully either in defence against an attack by Biko or
simply in restraining him.
On the above basis alone we are not satisfied that
the Applicants comply with the requirements of the Act in that the killing
of Biko is not an act associated with a political objective.
In any event, we are not satisfied that the Applicants
have made a full disclosure as further required by the Act. Applicants'
version as to the cause of the scuffle and the manner in which Biko sustained
the fatal head injury is so improbable and contradictory that it has to
be rejected as false....It appears more probable that Biko was attacked
after Applicants did not take kindly to his arrogant, recalcitrant and
non co-operative attitude particularly exemplified by his occupying a chair
without their permission to do so. This attack appears to be actuated
by ill-will or spite towards Biko. This view is reinforced by the
cruel and inhumane manner in which Biko was treated after he sustained
the fatal injury, in particular the manner in which he was shackled to
the metal grille and his transportation to Pretoria....
In the result the applications are dismissed.
(The application of Niewoudt was likewise dismissed on the grounds that
the "nature of the applicant's explanation of the events does not lend
itself to the finding that he or his colleagues had reasonable grounds
to believe that their actions were related to destroying political opposition,
in any way.")
According to the evidence of the applicants they
were among those who were involved in the attack on Amy Biehl. Peni
admitted throwing stones at his victim when he was three to four metres
from her. Manquina stabebd her with a knife in addition to throwing
stones at her. Nofemela threw stones at her and stabbed her 3 or
4 times. Ntamo threw many stones at her head when he was only a metre
away. They stopped attacking her when the police arrived on the scene.
....The applicants explained their behaviour by
saying that earlier that day they had attended a meeting at the Langa High
School where a Pan African Student Organisation (PASO) unit was relaunched.
Peni was elected Chairperson at the meeting. Manquina was Vice Chairperson
of the PASO unit at the Guglethu Comprehensive School and Nofemela was
a PASO organiser at the Joe Slavo High School.
....Applicants said that they were all inspired
by the speakers to such an extent that they left the meeting with many
others in a militant mood. They marched through the township toyi-toying
and shouting ONE SETTLER ONE BULLET, determined to put into effect what
they had been urged to do. This is how they got involved in the activities
briefly described above which led to the killing of Amy Biehl.
....As members of PASO, which was a known political
organisation of students, they were active supporters of the PAC and subscribed
to its political philosophy and its policies. By stoning company
delivery vehicles and thereby making it difficult for deliveries in the
townships, they were taking part in a political disturbance and contributing
towards making their area ungovernable. To that extent, their activities
were aimed at supporting the liberation struggle against the State. But
Amy Biehl was a private citizen, and the question is why she was killed
during this disturbance. Part of the answer may be that her attackers
were so aroused and incited, that they lost control of themselves and got
caught up in a frenzy of violence. One of the applicants said during
his evidence that they all submitted to the slogan of ONE SETTLER, ONE
BULLET. To them that meant that every white person was an enemy of
the Black people. At that moment to them, Amy Biehl was a representative
of the white community. They believed that by killing civilian whites,
APLA [Azanian People's Liberation Army] was sending a serious political
message to the government of the day. By intensifying such activity
the political pressure on the government would increase to such an extent
that it would demoralise them and compel them to hand over political power
to the majority of the people of South Africa.
When the conduct of the applicants is viewed in
that light, it must be accepted that their crime was related to a political
objective.
The PAC regarded the killing of Amy Biehl as a mistake
committed by young people who were misguided. They nevertheless supported
the application for amnesty.
.....The applicants have made a full disclosure
of all the relevant facts as required...On a consideration of all the evidence
placed before us, we have come to the conclusion that they be granted amnesty
for the murder of Amy Biehl and the crime of Public Violence arising from
the stoning and damaging of vehicles on the 25th August 1993.