Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-08-17

CHAIRPERSON: I think that you're labouring this point a little bit much.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I'd like to step off it.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please do.

MR VISSER: But it is clear, Mr Chairman, that there is sufficient basis for Wasserman and du Preez to say that they believe that Taylor is mistaken about this.

CHAIRPERSON: We understand that.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.  Mr Chairman, having said that then, we submit with respect that - I'm sorry will you grant me a moment?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VISSER: My attorney doesn't seem to think that I've dealt with it, but I seem to believe that I have, the question of whether Ninela was found in possession - no I have dealt with it Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you mentioned it.

MR VISSER: I said that that's neither here nor there, the question here is what Wasserman and du Preez were told and what they recollect of what they were told.

CHAIRPERSON: You know the difficulty in a situation such as this is that Wasserman and du Preez say that Taylor told them that this man had a limpet mine when he was arrested  and they go on to say they had no reason to doubt Taylor's evidence at that point.  Now, when you heard subsequent evidence that in fact there was no limpet mine on this man when he was arrested and despite that these people say that they had no reason to doubt Taylor's words, puts on a caution light in my mind about how far to accept their evidence.

MR VISSER: Well, the caution should be how far they should have accepted the word of Taylor, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm talking about that and the reliance they place on it.

MR VISSER: Yes.  But then one must bear in mind, Mr Chairman, the surrounding evidence, which you've heard, which I've already pointed out to you, that there was certainly a basis for Taylor telling them about the other things that he told them.  Certainly also, Mr Chairman, these two people were junior to Taylor and they informed you that it wasn't for them to question Taylor, but apart from that, they say they trusted him.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, the question is not that, you see.  The question is the fact that he was their senior, there's not question that they would accept that.

MR VISSER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: But they say they had no reason to doubt when there was evidence that there was no limpet mine in the possession of the man, Ninela when he was arrested.

MR VISSER: Well, perhaps their faith was misplaced, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: On that point.

MR VISSER: On that point.

CHAIRPERSON: And maybe on other points as well.

MR VISSER: Well, no other points have occurred to us, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Well now, why not?  They rely on what Taylor says, that there is no evidence on which I can charge this man, there's no reason why I should release him and they rely on all that, because Taylor tells them that.  Why should they accept Taylor's evidence on that?

MR VISSER: Well, Mr Chairman, but that still boils down to the question of whether he was in possession of the limpet mine, or not.

CHAIRPERSON: It's all tied up with this question of reliance, isn't it?

MR VISSER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: They rely on Taylor on a point where quite clearly Taylor was not telling the truth.

MR VISSER: Well, Mr Chairman, with respect, Taylor's intimation to them that the man will continue with his activities, there's nothing before you to suggest that that was incorrect or ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, there might be a point there.  The argument that there was no reason why we couldn't charge him.

MR VISSER: Yes, I take that point, Mr Chairman, I take that point.  Now the question is...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  Blindly accept Taylor on that point, it's almost like them reciting a verse which they had memorised and repeated, that Taylor said this as justification why this man should be killed.  Now, if Taylor were himself applying for amnesty, there might be a great deal to be said against him.  We are now dealing with people who carried out the relevant instructions.  I understand, but it does raise the question of whether they were justified in implicitly believing everything Taylor said.

MR VISSER: Yes, absolutely Mr Chairman, but you will recall that we presented argument to you before that in the situation in which members of the Security Forces found themselves, being under pressure as they were, to bring the situation to normality, being faced with the type of political violence which they were faced with and dealing with the execution of orders, we in fact submitted to you that on many occasions subordinates did not question orders, Mr Chairman, because it was just not done.  You've heard that evidence many times.

CHAIRPERSON: We understand that.

MR VISSER: Yes, and perhaps, I say again, perhaps Mr du Preez and Mr Wasserman might have been naive to believe so implicitly in what Taylor says, but on the other hand, Mr Chairman, unless  there is clear evidence that Taylor had lied to them, then Mr Chairman, with respect, one can't draw that inference and you see Taylor says, does not say that the man was caught in possession with a limpet mine, he says he was on a mission to Natal and that mission being the placing of bombs.

CHAIRPERSON: They said Taylor told them.

MR VISSER: That's what they say, that's their recollection, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  We've got the other unfortunate position where they both used the phrase that their recollection is weak and they researched the matter.  If they researched the matter, the question is, what research?  So here you have two fantastic examples of two chaps exchanging their ignorances.  Isn't that what it boils down to?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, yes clearly no research in the sense of documentary research could be done and in that sense it's an unfortunate choice of word, but one must not depart from the proposition that at the time when they hurriedly filed their application a day before the cut-off date in 1996 in December, that they knew nothing about this incident.  What they told you in their evidence was that sure, we remembered the incidents but we had difficulty in placing the incident in context with the correct personalities,  That was their problem, so instead of taking a chance as it were and giving you facts at the time, at the time which may turn out later, they simply said, "we will research the matter" well his attorney said "we will research the matter".  What does that mean?  It means, we will see whether we can sort out exactly what happened in this incident and who was involved.  Now the only research they could possibly have done was to talk to each other about it, Mr Chairman and to talk to Mr Taylor about it and this they say they did.  That's the research they're talking about, with respect.

ADV BOSMAN: But Mr Visser, surely the probability and we shouldn't venture into an area of speculation, but the probability is that Taylor had mentioned a limpet mine, but not that it was found on the person at that time and afterwards your two clients, who admitted that they were both vague in their recollection, put this together, bona fide perhaps, but it is possible that Taylor had not said to them that he had a limpet mine on him.