Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-04-23

CHAIRPERSON: It has not been the practice of the Court to compel people who apport to be acting in their own interest to come to Court and testify. Unless and I am not necessarily saying that, that will be done, unless you on behalf of the applicant would feel that he must be subpoenaed and approach the Committee and say: "I want Oelofse to come and testify. I would like to have him subpoenaed." The Act provides that we can be approached to and be asked that a particular witness be subpoenaed. In which case we can do it.
	But you see there are 3 possibilities. That he may choose not to testify and the matter ends there. Secondly we as the Committee may feel that in order for us to come to the truth he must come and testify and we may decide to subpoena him. The third possibility is that if the second one is not exercised you on behalf of the applicants may feel that in the interest of your clients' case he must be subpoenaed and you may ask us to subpoena him. And then we can do so. It is not as if it is just altogether a matter of his personal choice. Of course that does not apply to only him but any other person who may think that he is possessed of information which can enable us to come to the truth.

MR KNOETZE: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: It may be Mr Knoetze, it may be that because you know it is difficult to make ruling in advance on issues like this. It may be that it is important that we should know that the attitude is that they are not going to call him. That may of course influence us in determining the ambit Mr Dreyer should enjoy in cross-examining the applicants. We may have to take that into account. The fact that after all his client is not coming. We may broaden or restrict, most likely restrict the ambit of his cross-examination. But we should leave it to the point where if anybody feel that he should be subpoenaed at some point let that be considered.

MR KNOETZE: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Because it may cause problems to the applicants if he is subpoenaed. On the other hand if he is subpoenaed he may cause worse problems for the applicants. Nobody knows.

MR DREYER: Mr Chairman if I may just answer something which I think is not quite clear with my learned friend. I would like to reiterate that it is not the purpose of my presence and appearance on behalf of Mr Oelofse to oppose any of the applications. So that is also something which I with respect submit should be taken into account when the Committee decides on the ambit of cross-examination. I am merely exercising my client's rights also in terms of the rules of natural justice to cross-examine anyone who incriminates him. And that is the purposes of my appearance. And obviously that is also clearly borne out by the du Preez case which is a very similar type of application. All I am saying is at this stage, and I would like to reiterate, at this stage it is my instructions to do so. I have just arrived. I have not seen the evidence that has been adduced as yet. I obviously cannot judge what is going to be adduced in the evidence as we proceed. So that might change my instruction.

CHAIRPERSON: By the way we should have, sorry that we did not indicate this earlier on to counsel. We should have indicated that should we not finish this week our intention is to proceed next week. And we hope that people will be available. I see Mr Wagenaar is shaking his head. Although as far as I know two weeks were set aside I think for this matter. I do not know why, how suddenly why Mr Wagenaar would not be available. We will talk about that later Mr Wagenaar. It is alright, it is not that urgent. In the meantime then let us proceed.

MS VAN DER WALT: I have no questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brink were you through with the witness or?

MR BRINK: I do not think I had started with him.

CHAIRPERSON: Well then lets go to Mr Knoetze first. Mr Knoetze?

MR KNOETZE: I have no questions. Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brink?

MR BRINK: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Matthews I am putting my question in english but please answer in afrikaans if you wish. You gave evidence in the court case where you were convicted. That is correct isn't it?

PETRUS JOHANNES MATTHEWS: That is correct.

MR BRINK: And you spoke about the amount of drinking which went on prior to this murderous expedition. Is that correct?

PETRUS JOHANNES MATTHEWS: That is correct.

MR BRINK: Do you say that evidence was untrue in regard the quantity of liquor which was taken?

PETRUS JOHANNES MATTHEWS: That is correct.

MR BRINK: Now at the scene instead of taking the cassettes player and the cassettes why didn't you test them there and then to see whether it was music of some sort? It might be pop music or country and western music or Beethoven or whatever. Why didn't you test it there and then? Instead of taking it (...indistinct)?

PETRUS JOHANNES MATTHEWS: What would I have tested it with? We did not have the facilities with us.

MR BRINK: Well wasn't there a tape player in the car?

PETRUS JOHANNES MATTHEWS: The vehicle in which I travelled did not have a cassette player.

MR BRINK: In the vehicles which had the various black people?

PETRUS JOHANNES MATTHEWS: Chairperson that was not part of my order. My orders were to take the cassettes and the tools and to hand them over to the relevant persons.

MR BRINK: Did you see this 13 year old boy who got shot?

PETRUS JOHANNES MATTHEWS: Chairperson I looked at the people but the child which you are talking about now did not appear to be that young.

MR BRINK: Apparently he was 13 years old?

PETRUS JOHANNES MATTHEWS: That is what they say.

MR BRINK: Did you hear any responses to the questions which were allegedly put to the occupants of the 2 motor vehicles?

PETRUS JOHANNES MATTHEWS: Yes I did.

MR BRINK: And what was the nature of those responses?

PETRUS JOHANNES MATTHEWS: The questions were where they came from, where there were going, to which political parties they belonged. Regarding the question where they were going they said that they were going home but regarding the questions about their party political affiliations I heard them say more than once that they were members of the ANC.

MR BRINK: However I suggest to you in fact that no questions at any stage were asked of these people regarding their political affiliation. And there will be evidence to that effect. May I have your comments?

PETRUS JOHANNES MATTHEWS: The testimony will not be true.

MR BRINK: And you ask the Committee to believe that a group of people are forcibly removed from their motor cars, made to stand or sit on a wall, people who in such circumstances would have been terrified would have voluntarily told you their political affiliations? Is that what you want the Committee to accept? I see you are swallowing rather hard.

PETRUS JOHANNES MATTHEWS: I am not swallowing. You should watch what I said. Chairperson I was a member of the AWB and before that I was a member of the Conservative Party. And regardless of any circumstances or any questions I would have said that I was a member of the party. I am not ashamed of my membership of the party.

MR BRINK: No you missing the point. You heard my questions to Mr Martin. Did you not? Or possibly to Mr Meiring? That this was not a proper roadblock. And the conventional roadblock is not concerned with peoples' politics. It is concerned with drunken driving, stolen goods and that sort of thing. Do you agree?

PETRUS JOHANNES MATTHEWS: I do not understand how you arrive at this point.

MR BRINK: Do you agree with me that at a conventional roadblock, that is a roadblock - don't you want?

PETRUS JOHANNES MATTHEWS: No I think they take to long to.

MR BRINK: You can answer in afrikaans (...indistinct) A conventional roadblock is one normally held by the Police. You agree with that?

PETRUS JOHANNES MATTHEWS: That is correct yes.