There is only one route open to General Magnus Malan if he wants to avoid the trial which is ahead of him.
He and his co-accused can ask the court in Durban for a stay of proceedings because they wish to take their case to the Amnesty Committee within the Truth and Reconciliation Commission when it is set up early next year.
Then the Natal attorney general, in consultation with that committee, may decide to ask the presiding judge for charges to be withdrawn and for the matter to be handled by the truth commission. The judge may refuse, and the decision of the court will be final.
But the attorney general may also decide to turn down the request for the matter to be referred to the Amnesty Committee, especially if the charges relate to murder.
But even if the case is referred to the truth commission, amnesty will not be automatic. Questions of proportionality will temper mercy.
There have been two previous procedures for indemnity since the African National Congress was unbanned. The first was in 1990, when the National Party government needed a device to negotiate with exiled members of the ANC who were also wanted for various breaches of the law.
The device was complemented by the Further Indemnity Act of 1992. Killers from the right wing, the ANC, Inkatha, and the Pan Africanist Congress were released from prison and indemnified. But only a handful of security force members sought indemnity from prosecution. At no time did former President FW de Klerk advise soldiers and policemen to seek indemnity under that Act.
Neither Malan nor his co-accused asked for indemnity until shortly before last year’s general election. Then Malan and about 3 500 former and serving members of the security forces attempted to get indemnity in a mass application. Their applications could not be processed because none of those seeking indemnity specified any crimes .
And now it is too late. That legislation has fallen away.
It would seem, therefore, that Malan and his co- accused have probably got a long trial ahead of them.