My comments
on the parole refusal.
On 18 July, 2011 I was called to
the office of the chairman of the Pretoria Central Case Management Committee,
Mr. Matopa, who informed me that my application for parole had been refused.
When I asked him why I was refused he showed me a document which originated
from the D.C.S. Minister’s office on which the words ‘further profile July,
2013’ were written diagonally across the document and underlined with a single
line. When I asked him why there were no reasons given he could not answer me.
I have, today, 3 November, three
and a half months later, received from the Area Commissioner, gen. Zebilon
Monama, a document, dated 3 November, 2011, containing the reasons given by the
minister and wish to comment as follows:
What the minister is saying that
regardless of the findings of the very people trained to and responsible for
recommending, in the case of lifers, and granting parole for those serving years, the Correctional
Supervision and Parole Board (CSPB), who are made fully aware by the Case
Management Committee of my suitability for release on parole, she rather places
her trust in political reasons provided by people obviously bent on revenge and
having no current information whatsoever on which to base their objections.
What happened then is history.
What has happened since then is only known to those responsible officials who
work with offenders on a daily basis and observe them all day and every day,
and only they are qualified to decide on suitability for release or otherwise.
My record in prison and my
interaction with staff and other offenders should be the telling factors and
are normally so. Why am I treated differently? Why am I not treated with the
same administrative proves as all others.
Nature of the offence.
This section contains selected
quotes from the judgement by Eloff JP. I have little to say regarding the
judgements by either Eloff JP or the Supreme Court of Appeal except that I am
not nor have I at any time been proud of what happened, and that had it not
been for the political situation at the time the murder would never have
happened. The court also referred to the political nature of the deed, and criticised
us for not showing remorse. This comment was apparently based on the fact that
we pleaded not guilty. Of course we felt remorse, as would any normal person
considering the gravity of the crime.
Offenders attitude to the crime.
I made it clear at all times that
were it not for what was seen by my colleagues in the top structures of the Conservative
Party(CP), as well as the vast majority of our supporters, as a pending
disaster with the handover of power to the ANC alliance the assassination would
never have taken place. Dr. A.P. Treurnicht, the leader of the Party, had in
May, 1990 called us, at a mass meeting held at the Voortrekker Monument, to the
‘third freedom struggle’ (derde vryheidsstryd). As the previous two ‘freedom
struggles’ were in the form of war against the British, one resulting in
victory and he second in defeat, and both concerning the retention of political
power, I naturally assumed, as did many judging by the numerous acts of
sabotage carried out from then on, it was a declaration of a war to ensure the
retention of political power. I was not a criminal and had never been convicted
of anything more serious than parking offences but was driven in desperation to
prevent what we had promised our supporters we would never allow. I was a
senior representative of the Party and it was my obligation and duty to do
whatever could to ensure the objectives of the Party, accepting that if I did
something that was in conflict with party objectives I would be subjected to
disciplinary action. This was never done. On the contrary, the CP immediately
launched a legal aid fund to cover my legal costs. In spite of this fact the
Amnesty Committee refused to accept that I had done what I had done in support
of the CP and that as a high official, I was a member of the highest body, the
parliamentary caucus; I actually had a role in the creation of party policy.
For the crime I committed I was
punished by the Court. For supposedly not making full isclosure I was punished
with the refusal of amnesty. Now the SA Communist Party wants to punish me
again although I am a changed person. Their accent is on revenge and not
reconciliation or forgiveness.
2.3 Information relevant to
supposed risks posed to society by me.
2.3.1. It will be seen here that
in repeating Judge van der Merwe’s ruling,page 25, that I, the applicant,
argued that Ms. Hani’s represntations will be of a political nature and nothing
else. It is clear from the Minister’s decision that I was right as her total
reasons as well as those of the SACPand Cosatu were only political.
Judge van der Merwe went further
after granting her the right to make her submission,although the law
introducing this was not in existence when I was sentenced, to state as
follows:” Any person, including me, may put relevant information before a
Board.” This was done by the SACP and Cosatu in my hearing but is not done in
any other parole hearing nor are any political reasons given in objection to
the granting of parole in any other instances.
2.3.2. States “the following victims’
statements and satements of opposition were placed before the Correctional
Supervision and Parole Board and the Minister”:
Firstly let me state that these
statements were not victims’ statements. The victim was mr Hani. The statements
are from family members. How the SACP and Cosatu qualify in that category is
beyond me.
a) Decision
of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) (AC/99/0172
How the Minister
can also accept that the above decision can be relevant to parole also amazes
me. How can it possibly be relevant to the consideration of parole, and as far
as relevant matters are concerned the Amnesty Committee in refusing me amnesty
took irrelevant issues such as the purpose of the list of names, the
prioritising of the names, and the purpose of obtaining the pistol and
silencer. How could this be relevant to my application for amnesty for the
killing of Mr. Hani?
Point one. Clearly a political
object aimed at stopping the handover process. This objective no longer exists.
Point 2. My parole profile
clearly reflects that I show remorse and have no opportunity regarding showing
appreciation for the “democratic dispensation in our country”. I fail to see
the relevance of his comment.
Point 3. I have an excellent
relationship with my fellow offenders as can be seen from the list of
activities in which I have been involved in prison. I have no doubt that once I
am on parole the community will quickly realise that they have no reason to
fear me.
Point 4. This point contains a
contradiction in that it is first stated that I had not apologised and then
admits that I apologised at the amnesty hearing but that the family were not
present. There were in a fully packed people from the SA communist Party,
Cosatu, the CP and the general public who all heard me apologise. On being made
aware of the fact that Mrs. Hani was not in the Hall at the time,I attempted
through my advocate, Mr Harry Prinsloo, to arrange a personal meeting with Mrs.
Hani, which approach was turned down by both Mr George Bizos, Mrs. Hani’s legal
rep. and Mr Jeremy Cronin, deputy leader of the SACP on different occasions. I
then assumed that my approaches would be pointless. I am totally prepared to
publicly repeat my apology and condolences to the Hani family.
Point 5. The sitting of the
Parole Board in June 2010 was specifically to allow Mrs. Hani to make her
submission and I was not at any stage allowed to comment. I had already made my
comments at the original Parole Board sitting when at the conclusion I was
informed by the Board that they were recommending me for release on 15 October,
2008. The profile together with the recommendation was forwarded to the
minister but was irregularly intercepted by Mr Balfour’s wife, ms. Mqobi who
was regional commissioner at the time before she was suspended and subsequently
fired from the Department. She sat on the documents until July, 2009. I went to
Court to obtain the recommended parole and was informed by the Court that while
I qualified for parole Mrs. Hani must first have the opportunity to make her
submission. Eighteen months later she did so, hence the sitting held on June,
2010. The Minister considered the application in November,2010 and sent it back
with a request for further documentation. The application was finally
considered by the minister and her decision was made on 13 July, 2011, three
years after the Parole Board recommended my release.
As far as the comments on the ANC
I have no further interest in politics and theses comments are thus irrelevant.
Point 6. There can be no doubt
that I accept the nature of the crime and that there is no legitimate reason to
refuse to release me on parole.
Given.
Point one. I have received with the
life sentence the severest sentence the law permits. The policy of the
department states that all offenders, without exception, are entitled to be
considered for parole and, if suitable for release, to be released on parole.
Point 2. I fail to see how my
still viewing the crime as political poses a risk to the national security and
public safety should I be paroled. The judgement clearly states the political
content in that it stated that the assassination of a political leader was not
an acceptable option. Many offenders were granted amnesty during the hearings
for assassinating( murdering) political leaders throughout the country.
I am not nor have I been involved
in political activities for the past 18 years and recently had occasion to
distance myself from attempts to involve me in politics. This fact can be
confirmed by my lawyer, Mr. Marius Coertze who released the repudiation on my
behalf.
the Central Soccer Association, a
body organising all league activities of twenty soccer clubs in the Centre.
