Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-05-19

CHAIRPERSON: I am reminding you that you are still under the oath you took yesterday. Do you appreciate that?

MOSES VELI LLALE: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Dorfling.

MR DORFLING: (cont)
	Thank you Mr Chair, Honourable members of the Committee. Mr Llale yesterday at the conclusion of these proceedings at the time of the adjournment we were dealing with your application and the fact that the person with the AK47 whom you mentioned in your evidence here does not appear in your application. You explained that you at that point in time understood that you were going to give evidence in a court of law and that you would explain it more fully, the nature of the attack and the individual with the AK47. However at that time you had already also lodged your application for amnesty. Do you agree with that?

MOSES VELI LLALE: Yes.

MR DORFLING: One of the legal requirements for an application for amnesty is that you must make full disclosure of all the relevant facts. Didn't you perceive in your mind that fact to be relevant for purposes of your application for amnesty?

MOSES VELI LLALE: To the Committee I would like to respond in zulu.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes please proceed.

MOSES VELI LLALE: At the time when I was applying for amnesty.

MR DORFLING: I am sorry Mr Chair my microphone didn't work and I will just try another one. If the Committee will just bear with me for a minute. Could I please just ask the last portion of the answer to be repeated for purposes of. Could I just ask the last answer to be repeated. My one microphone I had on didn't work.

MR LAX: The only thing he said so far is; "At the time I applied for amnesty," and he is about to continue from there.

MR DORFLING: Thank you Mr Committee member.

MOSES VELI LLALE: When I lodged my application for amnesty the statement that was supporting the amnesty application, the affidavit it is the one that I had already submitted earlier on and had given it to the Court. So I did not add any more information besides the statement that I had lodged earlier on. I think I have explained it.

MR DORFLING: But Mr Llale the fact of the presence of the gentleman with the AK47 who you perceived to have attacked you was of vital importance. That constituted the ground for you being able to fire back at the crowd. Why is that not in the amnesty application?

MOSES VELI LLALE: I tried to answer that question yesterday to the effect that when I wrote my statement I did not write as to who was doing what at what time. I just laid a general background as to what was happening at that time. That is why even in my application I pointed out that I shot at a group of marchers but I did not particularly point out as to who was doing what at what time. I think that satisfies me.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Mr Llale is your explanation to the question that the affidavit that accompanied your application for amnesty is the one that had been prepared either for the inquest or for the Attorney General and that you did not find a further affidavit. Is that what you are saying?

MOSES VELI LLALE: That is correct.

JUDGE NGCOBO: You did find a further affidavit now didn't you supplementing that affidavit didn't you?

MOSES VELI LLALE: The supplementary one?

JUDGE NGCOBO: Yes.

MOSES VELI LLALE: Was submitted after the inquest. So I thought maybe he was saying why didn't I feathered my application with the application before I went to the inquest. I must have misunderstood it.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Yes I understand that but I think the point I wanted to clarify is that indeed on I think if the certificate that is on the affidavit is anything to go by it, it indicates that you made an affidavit on the 23rd of April this year. A further affidavit.

MOSES VELI LLALE: Yes I did (...indistinct)

MR DORFLING: Now Mr Llale apart from your affidavit that was submitted for purposes of the inquest hearing which is contained at pages 109 to 112 of bundle C you had the opportunity to by way of the Ronio application form also submit further details as to relevant facts. Why didn't you submit or why didn't you in that papers make mention of the gentleman with the AK47?

MOSES VELI LLALE: With regard to the second submission to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission we were called by our attorneys and they told us about the medical as well as the ballistic evidence in the reports. They also showed us and wanted to find out whether we were in agreement with the ballistic reports as well as the medical evidence. We agreed that is why I found it not to be necessary for us o include the man with the AK47 because I knew at that time that the evidence would not be - can I repeat the interpreter didn't hear me well. I can hear?

MR LAX: Sorry you missing the thrust of the question. The question was about the Ronio form not about your supplementary affidavits or other affidavits you may have handed in. He was asking you about the application form and why you didn't put these details in the application form. And you are now answering about affidavits you made long after the inquest. So just to help you, you have misunderstood the thrust of his question. Do you understand what I am putting to you?

MOSES VELI LLALE: Yes but I want to know which form? This one.

MR LAX: According to that form precisely page 102 onwards. He is saying why didn't you put the details of this man with the AK47 in that form even though you handed in the statement that you had used in the inquest where you had omitted that detail? Why didn't you put that detail in this form that you are holding in your hand? Have I put it correctly Mr Dorfling?

MR DORFLING: Indeed thank you Mr Committee member. If I may just explain Mr Llale. The reason I am putting that to you is you had the opportunity when making application to make full disclosure. If you say that the affidavit that is attached to your application was more for purposes of the inquest I am asking you why then in your application where you had the opportunity to put that in a Ronio form, why didn't you disclose that in the Ronio form?

MOSES VELI LLALE: No I do understand you but what I am trying to say is when I applied I did refer to a group of marchers. I did not point out to certain individuals. That is why I did not find it crucial or very important for me to specifically refer to this man.

MR TIPP: Chairperson can I object to this point. My submission is that this line of cross-examination is particularly unfair of the witness. If one has regard to Section 20 of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act my understanding is that the Committee must be satisfied with certain things after considering an application for amnesty. My submission is that what is happening now is part of the consideration of an application for amnesty. It is not just the form that the person puts in.

CHAIRPERSON: I think there is no difficulty about that. I think an explanation is sought as to whether he has any reason why he did not put it in the form. He may have an explanation as to why and I think he is trying to offer an explanation that he did not find it crucial at the time he filled in his form. He did not find it as crucial for him to mention it or words to that effect.

MR TIPP: Indeed Chairperson but my learned friend started off this line of questioning with the comment that one of the requirements for amnesty is that there must be full disclosure. That requirement seems to be at the end of the proceedings not.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand that, we understand that. We understand that we had been offered an explanation and maybe he wants to develop that explanation. Maybe this is his only explanation that at that time he did not regard this as crucial. Maybe you can carry on from there and clear up the situation.