Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — UNKNOWN

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Mr Cronje you will hold on for a whilethere's a point which we would like to raise and try to sort outnow if possible.   Gentlemen and ladies, you will recall thatbefore we adjourned for tea, a point was raised with regard tothe notification of some people and we indicated that we willhave a look at that point during tea time.   It seems to us, subjectto what the legal representatives taking part in the proceedingswill say, it seems to us that on the face of it no proper noticehas been given to the people who should have been notified onthe fact that they might be implicated in this matter.   The witnesshas mentioned a few names which also appeared in the applicationand just to give an example Mr Naude, General Coetzee and GeneralGleeson and so on and so forth.   As I have said it would appearon the face of it that proper notice in terms of the Act has notbeen given to these people.   Mr Mpshe would you like to starton that one before we hear from your colleagues?   This is solelyin connection with the Ribiero issue.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: : Thank you Mr Chairman.   Mr Chairman it isso, the only person whom I had identified for notification purposeswas Noel Robie of the Spes-magte that is the only person againstwhom I have issued a notice which was
2. intended /...
MR MPSHE 468 ADDRESS
intended to be served yesterday.   As I have indicated I havenot yet received any return of service as to whether he has receivedit but the notice has gone out.   The other members mentionedon page 132 of the application, these I did not issue any notification.

SISI KHAMPEPE: : Why did you not do that Mr Mpshe where fromthe fact of the application they are implicated persons and interms of Section 19(4) they ought to have been issued also withsuch notifications?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: : It may have been an oversight on my part butthe reason why I chose Noel Robie alone it is because in the applicationit is him who has been mentioned as being the person who was organisingthis and the person who was involved in the execution of thisoperation.   As regards the people mentioned on page 132, theonly involvement that came to my mind as far as they are concernedis when the came, at a later stage after the operation was carriedout, when they were conducting a meeting with the members, includingthe applicants.   So I deemed it then, it may have been an oversight,that the important person here is Noel Robie of the Spes-magtebecause this operation was done by the Spes-magte and not by thesecurity task, that is the reason I chose Noel Robie alone.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Whatever the reason, the reality is thatsome of these people have not been notified.   It takes us tothe next issue, is this a case where we can proceed hearing thetype of evidence, in fact can we proceed with this applicationdespite the fact that these various generals and other peoplehave not been notified?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: : Mr Chairperson, members of the Committee, ifcontinuation is to be done in this matter, if they hearing
2. has /...
MR MPSHE 469 ADDRESS
has to continue what I can say is that because of the disclosurethat has been made to me by the Committee now, I can cause thenotices to be issued today to the various people mentioned herein.  If the Committee feels that they are only going to be informedtoday it will not be apposite to hear the matter today, I willstand by the Committee's decision.

JUDGE NGCOBE: The issue of the length of the notice priorto the hearing or continuance of the hearing maybe we'll leavethat until later.   Mr Du Plessis are we in a position to proceedwith this application given the fact that the people like I'vealready mentioned, General Coetzee, Joe Verster, General Gleeson,Charl Naude, these people it is now a fact they have not beennotified?

MR DU PLESSIS: : Yes.   Mr Chairman I want to place ourposition on record in this regard.   First, in answer to my learnedfriend Mr Mpshe's argument that he only gave notice to let peopleknow who are implicated in the actual commission of the deed orthis specific deed itself, that that argument does not pertainto the Metasi matter because in the Metasi matter it was decidedthis morning that that matter cannot go on because other peopleare implicated should have notice and should be witnesses.   Itseems to me there is not consistency in the application of whoshould be called as witnesses, who should be notified as partieswho have an interest in the matter.   We, and I want to placethis on record, before the hearings were scheduled to start on21 October, before that we gave an indication that we are workinghard to finalise the applications, we were requested to hand inthe applications as soon as possible so as to enable the Commissionto notify all relevant persons.   We
2. did /...
MR DU PLESSIS 470 ADDRESS
did so.   We handed in the applications the Monday before the21st, that was a week before.   We were given an indication bythe Commission, as I understood it and my attorney as well, thatthere was enough time that they would be able to reach personsand those persons they won't reach could be reached during thefirst week of the hearings and one could then proceed with thosematters that people were notified.   We are now two and a halfweeks away from the point where we handed in the applications.  As far as I understand, the Commission has an investigativeunit whose task it is to notify people implicated in the hearingsand who have an interest in applications.   We, as well as thepublic and I want to include yourselves as well, expect from thepeople who are responsible for this to do that.   I am not pointinga finger to my learned friend because that's not his job, he'sthe chief presenter of evidence.   What we say is if applicationshave to be postponed every time because these requirements havenot been met in respect of which we have no obligation, in respectof which we cannot do anything about, we are prejudiced.   Weare prepared, there are various issues involved here, there arequestions of legal costs involved here which everybody knows isa difficult aspect and I just want to place on record that ifmatters have to be postponed because people have not been notified,as they should have done, the applicants are prejudiced by that.
 What I want to say, however, is that we are fully prepared andI reiterate what I said this morning.  We are fully prepared toaccommodate everybody concerned in these hearings.   We are preparedto go ahead with any application that we possibly can where peoplehave been notified and we
2. feel /...
MR DU PLESSIS 471 ADDRESS
feel that because the Act makes provision that people must benotified, that must be done before an application is heard.  I am not conceding in saying that, that that is a requirementthat has to be satisfied before amnesty can be granted, I willhave another argument on that when I address the Committee onthe requirements for amnesty.   As I read the Act, compliancewith this specific part of the Act is not an obligation that restson the applicants and because it doesn't rest on the applicantsthat is not a requirement the applicants have to satisfy for amnesty.  What we don't want is we don't want procedural difficultieswhich can cause difficulties later.   
 Our view is we will be prejudiced but we also say if people haven'tbeen notified there could be problems with the hearing continuingon that specific incident and we are quite prepared to go on withany other incident we can under the circumstances to utilise thetime.   I want to make the point that Brigadier Cronje is therenow, there was an indication by Mr Currin that he wanted to cross-examineBrigadier Cronje...(end of side 1)...

JUDGE NGCOBE: I think Mr Mpshe you wanted to reply tothe question?