bitter-aloe/trc-testimonies huggingface dataset:
Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1999-02-08

MR SHANE: Yes, with the greatest respect Mr Chairman, he was assisted by human beings, and when I consulted with him, he is adamant that his form went in and he wants to make application for amnesty because he killed people.  He also wants to go through this healing process or whatever one may call it, on a balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt.
	On a balance of probabilities, you can find that his application was in timeously to the TRC, to an official of the TRC, on time, and something then went wrong.  That I submit, it is possible that something could, but on a balance of probabilities, and that is all you need sir.
	I submit you don't need anything before you beyond reasonable doubt.

CHAIRPERSON: I am not suggesting that.  I must be satisfied, I am not even talking about a balance of probabilities.  All I am saying is satisfy us.  It is slightly easier.
	Another issue I want to raise with you, you know that our attention has been drawn to what the deponement of one of your affidavits said in a criminal trial, correct?

MR SHANE: Yes Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, what is the position about that?   Can we rely on this affidavit, given that evidence?

MR SHANE: Absolutely sir, with respect.

CHAIRPERSON: On the one hand she says the this matter is not a political matter and then she goes about assisting people, making allegations that it was done for political reasons.

MR SHANE: Mr Chairman, I submit with the greatest respect that that whole passage was taken totally out of context, and I would ask you Mr Chairman, if you were to read, because I did discuss it with that person, and it appears that it was taken out of context, if the whole evidence that she gave and it relates to evidence that she gave in mitigation of sentence, she said usually, generally the killing of policemen is not a political offence, generally but it goes further.
	I must be honest sir, I haven't read the whole report, but I have discussed it with her and my instructions are that it was taken out of context.  Then in answer to your question, I submit that you can accept the affidavit of that person, in the application to hear Mzwake Mbuli, I mean Buthelezi, sorry sir, Mzwake Buthelezi, I apologise for that.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you agree that you are in no position to allege, or you provided no evidence at all, to say or to indicate that that application was in the hands of the TRC timeously, you are asking us to draw inferences?

MR SHANE: I am asking you to draw an inference, and I have also, as I have indicated sir, the affidavit, I do have another confirmatory affidavit of the person known as George Ndlozi, the TRC official.  Unfortunately George Ndlozi was not available to sign the affidavit, although I did have a lengthy consultation with him, he had to run off before he could sign it.  That wouldn't take you much further.

CHAIRPERSON: We are going to take overnight to consider this matter, and we will give a decision on it tomorrow morning.  We will adjourn until tomorrow, nine o'clock.

ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you Mr Chairman.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1999-02-09

BONGANI NKOSI: I will enquire from them exactly why they want forgiveness, us to forgive each other.

CHAIRPERSON: But you know that they want to clear the air and make friends so that we can live together as a nation?  Would you not accept that?

BONGANI NKOSI: I would say it is easy to forgive, but it is difficult to forget.  I am trying to say it is not easy, I can say before this Committee that I am sorry to you if I have done something wrong to you, but you never forget.
	At the present moment, I haven't forgotten and if we talk about forgiveness and peace, I think we are not living peacefully, but I know exactly what they did to us or what we did to them.

CHAIRPERSON: You know this whole war has been traumatic on the people, is that not so?

BONGANI NKOSI: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And different people have been effected by this war in different ways?

BONGANI NKOSI: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And some of us, I think, like in all the wars of the world, some of us have been effected to such an extent, that we require medical treatment, would you agree, to help us along?

BONGANI NKOSI: I thought you are giving me an explanation, it wasn't a question.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I am asking what your attitude would be to a mechanism established by the State whereby people who are effected by these wars and the trauma, could be treated and helped, what would your attitude be to that?

BONGANI NKOSI: I will be very much pleased to see that happening, because I think I am one of them, and I will also go there.  Because even myself, I was involved for a long time, in this violence.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you are excused.

BONGANI NKOSI: Thank you.
WITNESS EXCUSED
Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1999-02-09

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, we will be here nine o'clock, Mr Shane has undertaken to be here nine o'clock.  If you can ask Ms Nhlayisi or inform her of the position.  Depending on how long you people decide to argue, we won't be long.  We want to adjourn and consider the issues and hopefully give decisions in as many of the matters, on Thursday, as we can.
	Mr Steenkamp, how possible is it for us to get a comprehensive list of victims and perhaps their addresses, etc tomorrow or Thursday?

ADV STEENKAMP: Judge, are you referring to all the applicants that testified so far?  The only applicants that we could trace Mr Chairman, was the people who actually testified at the hearing.
	We will have to see how many notices we have, but the people who actually testified, were the only victims.

CHAIRPERSON: Will we be able to work that out, it may be a short list, but we need to attach it to decisions.

ADV STEENKAMP: Judge, Mr Chairman, I understand correctly, what I normally do, I just send it through as well, but I will give you a copy of that as well.  Thank you sir.

CHAIRPERSON: In the Nkosi application, the last one, there seems to be at least identifiable names, like the Thabete family and Mlaba.  We have no further details on it and we couldn't get further details from the applicant.  I don't know how possible it is for you or your associate, to obtain that information.  If we can't, we can't, but at least, let's give it a shot.

ADV STEENKAMP: I will do so Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I want to thank the public for its interest in these hearings.  I am also aware of the trauma that many people had to experience and endure during those nasty days.
	It is to be hoped that matters have now subsided and people can live together as human beings, as we should have been doing all these years.  I further hope that we will take care and take particular precautions against a repetition of what occurred in the area.  Too many people died.  It will remain one of our tragedies of this country.
	I am going to postpone this matter till tomorrow, nine o'clock hopefully, for the lawyers to come and argue what they need to argue.  You are welcome to attend merely to listen to that if you want to and I intend to give decisions on most of the matters if not all, on Thursday.  I thought it necessary to inform you, so that if you don't feel like coming to listen to lawyers, which is not always the most attractive thing to do, then you can come Thursday.  We stand adjourned until tomorrow.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1999-02-10

MR STEENKAMP: Nothing further thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll adjourn till tomorrow 9 a.m.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1999-02-16

MS NHLAYISI: No it's two hostels.  Those plus a house at Mgadi.

ADV GCABASHE: There was one area where you were going too fast, I couldn't quite catch what you were saying.  It was quite earlier on in your evidence.  You were talking about going to fetch Mkolise, yes, and you said that you took him to a bush near the graveyard, and that's where you told him that you were sent to kill him.  He confirmed his IFP membership, and you said something about his father, and I wasn't too sure as to what the discussion was about his father, and what the relationship was between the killing of Mkolise and his father, had to with what you were saying.  Can you just, just that little bit about his father.  What role did his father play, or what was it that you were saying?

SIPHO JAPTHA MADUNA: I said, I asked Mr Mkolise - First I told him that I was sent to kill him, because he's a member of Inkatha.  But then he said to me he was Inkatha but now he wanted to leave Inkatha.  And then I trap him.  I said to him, we have his father with us, and I said to him, now if I can give him the gun which I had in my possession to go and shoot his father, will he do so, and then he answered back and said, no, he wouldn't.

ADV GCABASHE: No further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: As a matter of interest, if you were in his place that day, would you have shot your father?

SIPHO JAPTHA MADUNA: Yes.  If my father was an IFP member and I was an ANC I was supposed to kill him or he was supposed to kill me.  At that time this was appropriate, or this was a usual thing.  Some comrades and some fathers wanted to kill their children for being members of the opposite organisation.  This was normal in those days.

MS NHLAYISI: Mr Chair, that concludes my role for the day.  I think one of my colleagues will be taking over.
Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1999-02-16

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the new interpretation, because what was interpreted, words to the effect that as soon as the door opened, I shot him?

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, I spoke to the Interpreter herself, and according to her, that was what was interpreted.  It was interpreted that while kicking, he was shot.  There was, the applicant shot at the door.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it possible for us to hear those tapes?

ADV STEENKAMP: It is possible Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Then let's hear it.

ADV STEENKAMP: Unfortunately, I cannot understand Zulu, but that is what was told to me.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's hear it.  I've got a colleague here who can see if it was interpreted properly.

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, that specific section is available.

CHAIRPERSON: We would like to hear it over here.  We listened to the tape recording and we are in total agreement that what was said there was that as soon as the door opened, I shot him.
	It wasn't a question of shooting through the door.  Mr Steenkamp, I don't know about your latest request, because I have already excused the applicant.  I think in his favour, I don't think it is fair to put him at risk after he has been excused.  Mr Shane, I understand that you know what the latest developments are, about a  new witness?

MR SHANE: I was briefly told by Mr Steenkamp sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, I am not going to allow that.  You can explain to your client please.  What is next.  Your client is excused.

MR SHANE: You also did excuse me sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  Mr Steenkamp?

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, that will be the roll for today.

CHAIRPERSON: (Microphone not on)

ADV STEENKAMP: Yes Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: So we've got seven left?

ADV STEENKAMP: (Microphone not on)  One of the matters Mr Chairman, was actually removed from the roll, there is actually six matters for tomorrow.
	That is including Mr Selepe, will be seven, you are absolutely correct.

CHAIRPERSON: I want to finish that lot tomorrow.

ADV STEENKAMP: I have informed the attorneys already Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: We will adjourn till tomorrow nine o'clock.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1999-02-17

MS NHLAYISI: Thank you Mr Chairman, that concludes my role.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp, is that all that we can do today?

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, just for record purposes, the last applicant Zakwe Thambiso, that is the client of Mr Vusi Sibeko, the applicant is available, he is here now.
	I am informed that his wife is in hospital with an urgent position.   That is why he was late.  Unfortunately the position is still urgent and there is a request if you would allow it, if you would indulge it Mr Chairman, that this matter can stand down till tomorrow morning, that we can have a final position on that?

CHAIRPERSON: In the circumstances we have to stand it down till tomorrow.
	By my count, we have four matters outstanding for tomorrow?

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, it is actually only three matters, because one matter was removed from the roll, that is the matter of Moloi and then the other matter was withdrawn by Mr Sibeko.
	It is only, basically three matters standing down till tomorrow.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

CHAIRPERSON: I hope we are in a position to - how to be able to give judgments in matters that we are able to give so, and probably most of the matters heard this week on Friday morning.
	Those who are interested in the decisions can come on Friday morning, although we will listen to the other applications tomorrow.

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, if I may remind there is a position about, I understand a meeting on Friday.

CHAIRPERSON: That is why I say Friday morning.  We will adjourn until nine o'clock tomorrow morning.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1999-02-18

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, Mr Sibeko will be taking over from Ms Nhlayisi.
Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1999-02-18

THAMBISO ZAKWE: Chairperson, the ANC Youth League had taken a decision and its own Executive, that was done previously, after Skosana was killed, there were other organisations and the people from the community and the other members of the SDU, it was necessary for explanation, clear explanation that it was a decision of ANC Youth League that was the decision that was taken previously.

CHAIRPERSON: I just want to clarify this then, all you have to do is say yes or no.  As I understand it then, the initial decision was taken by the Executive of the ANC Youth League of the area.  When that decision was executed, a report back to the broader community, including the ANC  Youth League, was done where approval was given to that decision and the execution, do I understand you correctly?

THAMBISO ZAKWE: I would request you to repeat your question sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Initially before Dlamini was killed, that decision to kill him, was taken by the ANC Youth League Executive Committee.  When Dlamini was killed, it was necessary to report back on the issue and the peace that was brokered, etc.
	This was done to a broader forum, including the community and that very ANC Youth League Executive committee.  Do I understand it correctly?  There it was approved?

THAMBISO ZAKWE: It was approved, because it was said to be something that was supposed to happen.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I don't want to know the reasons why it was approved, I just want to know whether it was approved there at the meeting of the broader community?

THAMBISO ZAKWE: Will you please make your question shorter sir, instead of mentioning a statement.  Now I become confused which answer should I give.

CHAIRPERSON: Why are you confused, what is the confusing part?

THAMBISO ZAKWE: Chairperson, I explained that the decision after the death of Skosana, there was a general agreement and the Youth League was explaining to the other SDU members and the Civic ANC members and other members of the community that were present there, and it was - the explanation was given that the decision was taken by the ANC Youth League and the reasons were furnished.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand yes.

THAMBISO ZAKWE: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.  You are excused.

THAMBISO ZAKWE: Thank you Chairperson.
WITNESS EXCUSED

MR SIBEKO: May I also be excused Mr Chairman.

ADV STEENKAMP: The matter of Mr Selepe, which is standing down.

CHAIRPERSON: (Microphone not on)

ADV STEENKAMP: Yes Mr Chairman, there is another matter on the role, Mngomezulu McDonald, it is AM7321.  I am just confirming the position of that applicant Mr Chairman.  Apparently that matter will have to be withdrawn from the roll.
	I am not quite sure whether this person is in custody or what is his position.  He hasn't turned up at all of the last two weeks.  Mr Chairman, I would suggest if it is possible, maybe if it is possible, this is a time to adjourn for tea for a minute.

CHAIRPERSON: How long are we going to take?
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1999-02-16

MR DUBE: The reasons that led to this order that Sicelo must be eliminated or be killed first of all were, Sicelo was a member of one of the cells that I used to command.
	Secondly Sicelo I used to teach them that a person is not, or will not be allowed to leave, or is not to leave the cell and the members not knowing as to where he is or his whereabouts so that I was teaching them other words, in other words I was teaching them to be responsible and not leave the cell without furnishing reasons why he's leave and where he's going to.  What happened was at the time, like for instant I will leave Emdeni to go to Diepkloof as I have already explained that I had units around Soweto.  
	It transpired at first that this is a matter of coincidence yet as a person whose highly experienced in this field I did not take it for granted at all.  I took it upon myself that I would ask him, the problem I'm facing here is the time.  I don't quite remember exactly as to what happened and when, be that as it may though, I will try and explain other aspects.  I met him in Diepkloof at first and I was quiet about it.  
	The second time around it so happened the same thing happened and I confronted him.  I asked him as to why he was there and he said he was just driving around, but what confused me the most was when I at some time I was in Maponja and I started drawing conclusions that this man is conducting some surveillance on me, and that worried me a great deal, as to why he would be doing that and following my moves and me all the time.  And one other thing that he used to do a lot was to hide from me so that I don't see him or identify him.  Each time I see him at such questionable place.

MR KOOPEDI: And would there be anything wrong with a person following you or surveilling you?

MR DUBE: When a person follows you, or when a person followed me, there's nothing wrong with that, but that one was not an innocent following.  And this thing of him hiding from me and not wanting me to see him, that is the very thing that made me so suspicious of his moved.

MR KOOPEDI: What did you suspect?

MR DUBE: First of all I was here in the country, an operative of MK underground that is, and in the same breath you find a person following you the manner in which he did, not knowing exactly as to what his motives were.  As I've already explained earlier on that I used to teach and train my units and emphasise on facts and areas like one must be very responsible and you must always report to your co-members that you are going where and for what reasons.  That we highly and explicitly emphasised.  I don't know if I've answered you.

MR KOOPEDI: You state in your application form that you killed, or you ordered that Sicelo be killed, because he was a police informer.  Is that correct?

MR DUBE: Yes, that is correct, I did say that, but I am not done with my explanation as you've asked me earlier on.

MR KOOPEDI: Yes, please continue.
Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1999-02-16

CHAIRPERSON: It seems as if we're going to be a long time ...(indistinct)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

CHAIRPERSON: We will now adjourn until 9 o'clock tomorrow morning.  That suit you?

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson I have a request and I'm just not sure whether I should do it in chambers.  I'd like to be released a little early tomorrow, so one would have wanted to say perhaps if we start earlier, go through lunch, there's an urgent pressing matter I have to attend to.

CHAIRPERSON: What time do you ...(indistinct)

MR KOOPEDI: Half past two.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)
NO SOUND
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-02-17

MR RICHARD: The deceased arrived at your house at around sunset which is approximately dusk, 7 p.m., quarter past seven, in January.  Now from the time that he arrived till the time you went to make the phone calls, how much time elapsed, how much time passed?

CLIVE MHLAULI MAKHUBU: ...(no English translation)

MR RICHARD: For the purposes of the proposition I'm going to put to you next, was it more than 10 minutes or more than 5 minutes? - I don't mind which.

CLIVE MHLAULI MAKHUBU: It was not a long time because after we had greeted each other the commander said I should go and phone these two to be on stand-by so that we will pick them up on our way, and that is when I went into the house to make those calls.

MR RICHARD: And now ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry.  As soon as he greeted them, before he said anything he told you to go, the commander told you to go and phone the two others so you could pick them up on the way to somewhere, is that the position?

CLIVE MHLAULI MAKHUBU: Yes.

MR RICHARD: Now the next question is, from the time that you saw the deceased arrive at your house to the time of his death, to the time of the shot, there might be a distinction between the two, did he eat anything?

CLIVE MHLAULI MAKHUBU: I would be telling a lie if I said he ate something.

MR RICHARD: Now you agree on that reconstruction of the time-period, well over an hour passed from the time that he arrived at your house to the time that he was shot.  You've listed more than an hour in the various 5 minute, 10 minute, quarter of an hour periods.  Do you agree with that proposition?

CLIVE MHLAULI MAKHUBU: If you refer from the point that he arrived at my home and we left for the school and I went to collect these other two and thereafter we all went to the spot, yes I would not disagree with you.

MR RICHARD: You would not disagree with me.  Now if I tell you that between the time of his death, which I emphasised is different or not necessarily concurrent with the time that he was shot, to the time that he had his last food to eat, no more than an hour could have passed, what would be your comment?

CLIVE MHLAULI MAKHUBU: I would not make a comment because when I was with him he did not eat anything.

MR RICHARD: But the inference to be drawn from the fact that he ate within an hour of dying is that the last reconstruction of events that we've just been through is also incorrect.

CLIVE MHLAULI MAKHUBU: What I can is that maybe what you are saying is not true.

MR RICHARD: ...(indistinct) see him eat anything while he was in your car from 7 o'clock ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: He said he didn't eat anything and he's now challenging your medical reliance entirely figure of one hour, he says maybe that is not correct.

MR RICHARD: I apologise.  I see that the time is now twenty nine minutes past ...(indistinct)

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

CHAIRPERSON: 9 o'clock tomorrow morning.

MR KOOPEDI: I will be here at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1999-02-18

MR MAPOMA: Thank you Chairperson, I have no questions.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR MAPOMA

MR KOOPEDI: Nothing in re-examination, Chair.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR KOOPEDI

CHAIRPERSON: I have just a few points I would like to clear up with you please?  You saw the deceased on the Sunday morning sometime as he came to your home, is that correct?

MR TSHABALALA: I said during the day.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, sorry.  It may have been in the afternoon.  Had he told you he had the money, did he tell you what it was for?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes I think he said, if I'm not mistaken.

CHAIRPERSON: For Baragwanath, is that correct?

MR TSHABALALA: Please repeat your question?

CHAIRPERSON: The money was for people at Baragwanath Hospital?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes he had said that money was for the detainees.

CHAIRPERSON: Now you told us you met him about two weeks before then?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes that was a rough estimation, I think it could have been that much or less.

CHAIRPERSON: And how long before that had you met him?

MR TSHABALALA: Quite a long time although I don't quite remember.

CHAIRPERSON: Well an estimate.

MR TSHABALALA: I think it was more than a week, I'm not sure if a month or not.

CHAIRPERSON: Between a week and a month you say?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes around there, between two weeks or a month or two months but it was a lengthy period.

CHAIRPERSON: Well on that, you met him on the 20th January, you met him two weeks before, that's on about the 6th January, if you met him a month before it's the 6th December or sometime in November.  Is that all correct?

MR TSHABALALA: I think so.

CHAIRPERSON: And the relationship between you was all quite normal?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes it was quite normal.

CHAIRPERSON: And when did you get this disk?  Was that the disk of the television programme he appeared in?

MR TSHABALALA: It was a video cassette.

CHAIRPERSON: It was a video cassette?

MR TSHABALALA: I don't remember as to when I got that.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it of the show he was in?

MR TSHABALALA: I think it was something like a documentary, I'm not sure if I'm using those words correctly.  It was a video cassette relating to him the way he was harassed and tortured in prison and other things.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he give it to you?

MR TSHABALALA: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, where did you get it?

MR TSHABALALA: If I'm not mistaken I think I got it after his death.  I'm not sure, however it was sent to me by one of the people he went to school with, sending it from abroad.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh.  Thank you.
WITNESS EXCUSED
Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1999-02-18

CHAIRPERSON: It seems to me that if she took a statement at the time, by agreement that statement might be handed in and save having the expense of bringing the lady from Plettenberg Bay here because unless you feel she must come to say anything over and above what she said in the statement because really it's what he said to her what was recorded at the time.  What is your views on that?

MR KOOPEDI: I'm not sure what my learned friend would really want to get from her.  As I understand it the evidence that she will be giving would not be contested so I don't know.

MR RICHARD: In the light of that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Well if you could communicate with her and with your learned friend then it might be possible by consent to say that he told them he had been agreed to become a police informer.  That is it or whatever it is.

MR RICHARD: I'm certain it's quite possible for me to get an affidavit from her setting out and if my learned colleague does not want to cross-examine her, unless subject to the Committee, I'm happy with that.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't want at this stage to bind us to say we will accept and agree to an affidavit when we haven't seen it.  It may raise all sorts of matters.

MR RICHARD: Chairperson, what I shall do is phone her and see ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Because nowadays I keep forgetting, if you can do things over fax and all sorts of other machines that you can get a thing back in 20 minutes, can't you?  Yes, well we'll leave it to you to decide.  From what you have told me I don't think it's necessary to fly her up here from Plettenberg Bay, it's  too much expense and inconvenience and having regard to the co-operation there has been throughout this hearing, I'm sure that agreement can be reached.
	9 o'clock tomorrow morning.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1999-04-14

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, well I appreciate your difficulties Mr Mohlaba but I need to at least give an opportunity to deal with the difficulties that we have and in order to make a decision we need to give everybody an opportunity to argue the issues that concern us.  The other thing that comes to mind is that in the context at that time, was the fatal stabbing of that gentleman proportional to the intended commission of an offence?

UNKNOWN: I will be a speculation Chairperson to say yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, objectively?

UNKNOWN: Objectively I would say no but that - no, it could be yes on the other side that's why I say it's purely speculation because we do not know the state of the mind of the person who struck the blow and the ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: The state of the mind of the person who struck the blow is a subjective test.  The question of proportionality must obviously be measured in terms of objective values, not so?

UNKNOWN: Certainly it is and ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: It is a difficulty your client faces, not you.

UNKNOWN: I agree with that Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there any other submission you would like to make?

UNKNOWN: Unless the Committee wants to hear me on any other aspect I do not have anything else.

CHAIRPERSON: No, that will be all thank you.  Ms Thabete have you got any submissions?

MS THABETE: No Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: What do you say about us making a decision, would you support the granting of amnesty or not?

MS THABETE: I would support it Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: For everything?

MS THABETE: Yes Mr Chair.  Just to contribute maybe on the issue of proportionality, I would say that objectively you would say if the person was killed because he was making noise and if the making noise would have somehow disturbed the operation of what they were there to do, then one would argue that it was proportional to the operation of getting arms but it's just an argument Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you, we are going to have to take a bit of time to consider this and our decision will be publicised in due course.  Thank you.

MS THABETE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mohlaba, are your other clients here?

UNKNOWN: Yes they are here, there is just an affidavit, I wanted to start with the matter of Mkukwana but if we could get a short adjournment because there is a supplementary affidavit which has been prepared.  I don't know if the Committee had an opportunity of going through it?

CHAIRPERSON: No, not yet.  I just received it now.  Why was this affidavit not signed earlier than today or yesterday?

UNKNOWN: I have just noticed yesterday that it appeared to be that affidavits get filed in matters where there is some lacunal application forms, that's why I also adopted that attitude but I could normally have that cured by evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.  You want to have a short adjournment or what?

UNKNOWN: Certainly, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll adjourn for ten minutes.
WITNESS EXCUSED
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — UNKNOWN

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen if there are things that might have to be just read into the record that do not directly concern either Mr Tshikalanga or Mr Coetzee, is there any reason why you think we could not dispose of that matter before you come?

MR JANSEN: No I would not request to be present during such proceedings Mr Chairman.
3a

CHAIRPERSON: /...
MR JANSEN	267	ADDRESS

CHAIRPERSON: Will your attorney be present?

MR JANSEN: Yes he would in any event be present, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mpshe what is the earliest from your point of view, bearing in mind the request of Mr Jansen?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Mr Chairman pertaining to Mr Jansen's request I have no problem, I shall not be inconvenienced at all, but with due respect to the Chair the question of Mr Jansen not being present tomorrow when the submissions will be heard, I think it would maybe be prejudicial to him and his client because the two gentlemen who are coming here tomorrow are going to touch on matters upon which they have applied for amnesty.   So I think he has to be present when this will be done.   Mr Chairman in conclusion this takes care of today's work.   Tomorrow it would be the Ace Mohema incident plus the submissions on behalf of Brigadier Willem Schoon and Major Eugene De Kock.   That is all that is left for tomorrow.
3a	ON RESUMPTION/...
268
ON RESUMPTION ON 23.1.1997

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Mr Chairman, today is the 23rd.  We continue with the application of applicant Dirk Coetzee and others.  Mr Chairman, as I indicated yesterday, we are going to deal with the submissions on behalf of Eugene de Kock as well as Brigadier Willem Schoon.  The two lawyers are here with us. Copies are here with us.  Copies are on the desk to each and every member of the Committee.  I am told that we shall commence with the submissions on behalf of Mr Willem Schoon.
Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — UNKNOWN

MR HUGO: Thank you, Mr Chairman.  The first part of the application deals with the history which gave rise to Mr De Kock's decision to submit this document.  He continues to
23.1 - 1A	deal/...
MR HUGO	281	ADDRESS
deal with the allegation of Mr Nofomela which he stipulates under the ... Swaziland in November 1983.   Mr De Kock acknowledges that there has indeed been such an attack, that he was personally present at the time of the attack.  He refers to other persons, white officers who were involved, Warrant Officer Freek Pienaar, Sergeant Chris Rorich, Warrant Officer James Van Ziel and Colonel Chris Deetlefs, although in his affidavit he says that he was not physically present at the time of this operation and that he merely monitored the operation in the sense that the informant who provided the information to initiate this operation was controlled by him.  
	Mr De Kock also says that in this operation which Mr Nofomela refers to, a certain Mr McFaddon and ... Zwalibanda Nyanda were killed by them.  They killed them.  A certain MK cadre known as Lawrence in this operation succeeded in escaping and Mr De Kock says that it came to his attention that this person during cross-examination later by the ANC, or by interrogation by the ANC's security branch in Angola was killed. 
	Mr Chairman, Mr De Kock refers to the other incidents which were mentioned in Mr Nofomela's application, the so-called ... persons in Swaziland and it was approximately, according to Mr Nofomela, November 1985.   Mr De Kock says that he took note of this paragraph but he would like to point to the fact that at that stage he was the commander of Vlakplaas at C1.  Mr Nofomela's allegation is that this operation took place under the command of Colonel Jack Cronje.  If that was to be correct Colonel Jack Cronje was no longer in charge of Vlakplaas at that stage.  Mr De Kock concedes that this attack might have taken place, but his
23.1 - 1A	suspicion/...
MR HUGO	282	ADDRESS
suspicion is that this attack probably took place in 1983 and at that stage Mr De Kock, to the best of my knowledge, was not yet in South Africa, and he was still affiliated to the Koevoet Unit in South West Africa.  In Mr De Kock's submission he says that he is clearly being implicated here to an operation that happened in 1983 while he was not in South Africa. 
	Mr Chairman, as far as the incident described by Mr Nofomela as the murder of Japie Maponya, Mr De Kock says that Mr Nofomela was on a continuous basis in several forums where he gave evidence that Mr De Kock was responsible for the killing of Mr Japie Maponya and that he was present when Japie Maponya was shot in the head by Mr De Kock at Vlakplaas.

UNKNOWN: Mr Hugo, you are probably not aware of the fact that the evidence was corrected there.  Mr Nofomela did say that he was not present and that the killing of Mr Maponya did not take place at Vlakplaas but in Swaziland, in his evidence before this Committee.
Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — UNKNOWN

CHAIRPERSON: Ladies and Gentlemen, this brings to an end these hearings and I thank all those who have assisted;  the panel of interpreters who have so ably carried out their work in assisting us and I want to thank everybody else who made it possible for things to move smoothly during these hearings and thank you very much.  My Committee appreciates all that has been done for us.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS TO 14.2.1997
Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-04-20

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] do that but you can do it very briefly, very, very briefly because it must be part of the evidence of the applicants themselves.

MR TLOUBATLA: Thank you Mr Chairman.  Okay, I'll proceed to lead my client.
	Mr Hlasa, do you recall a date in 1986 when you were involved in the killing of some young boys in Sawela?

PITSO JOSEPH HLASA: ...[inaudible]

MR TLOUBATLA: Do you recall when did this happen exactly?  Do you remember the exact date?

PITSO JOSEPH HLASA: ...[inaudible]

MR TLOUBATLA: Can you tell the Chairman and the Committee what exactly happened on that day?

PITSO JOSEPH HLASA: No English translation. ...comrade Jeff and comrade Thandakubona ...[no English translation]
MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

PITSO JOSEPH HLASA: Alright, on arrival at comrade Jeff ...[indistinct] ...[no English translation]

CHAIRPERSON: Can you just hold for a minute.
MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brink and Mr Tloubatla, I think we have great difficulties in following these proceedings and we are afraid that we may miss quite a lot things.  Much as we are anxious to get the matter started with we don't think that we can go on at this rate.  We are going to have to adjourn until tomorrow morning at, we will start at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning and we hope that this problem will be sorted out.  We've decided to adjourn now so that the relevant people can put this afternoon, the rest of this afternoon to good use so that tomorrow we will be able to proceed expeditiously.  So I'm afraid we'll have to adjourn now until tomorrow half past nine.

MR BRINK: Half past nine?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS UNTIL 21 APRIL 1998
Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — UNKNOWN

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Yes Mr Chairman, Members of the Committee. The Act, I cannot remember the section at hand, under definitionswhere it gives the meaning of gross violation, attempt is alsoincluded in that Act, is the main reason as to why I had it here. But it is provided for in the Act.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: How is that distinguishable from the caseof Mr Mosaneke?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Can I just refer to the section or can I leavethat in ...(intervention)

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: How is that distinguishable from that ofMr Mosameki?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: That one of Mr Mosaneke, if one goes throughthe application nothing was done, not even anything was done interms of the application to show what they had intended doing. The application goes as far as we wanted to do this but thiswas abandoned.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: No actual preparation.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: No actual preparation.  Whereas with ReverendMkaswa there was actual preparation and an attempt was made.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes you may proceed.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman and Honourable Membersof the Committee.  I wish to place on record I am Advocate Roelofdu Plessis of the Pretoria Bar. I act in this matter on behalfof all five applicants, on instructions of the firm Strydom Britzattorneys in Pretoria.
 Mr Chairman we have prepared, in conjunction with our clientsthe applicants, an opening statement which will serve as my openingstatement to these proceedings which we have contained in writingand which I would like to hand up to all the members of the Committee,and I will then request my attorney Mr Britz to read the openingstatement on behalf of all five applicants to everybody concernedhere.
 I would like to state before Mr Britz starts reading the openingstatement that this statement was signed by all five applicantson the last page thereof, and the intention thereof is to givethe applicant's views on these 
1A proceedings/...
7
proceedings and to state exactly what they feel about these proceedings. It will also include an indication of the evidence that willbe led and the way it will be led.  I will now ask Mr Britz toread it to you.
Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — UNKNOWN

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman and Honourable Membersof the Committee.  Mr Chairman before we start with dealing withthe evidence pertaining to our applications and before we startwith the proceedings there is one aspect that we would like todeal with first of all and which we would like to raise with theCommittee and the Members of the Committee.  That aspect dealswith the situation the applicants find themselves in pertainingto certain witnesses and certain documents which they might beable to use in support of their applications.  Certain people,participants in some of the deeds who are named in the applications,have made arrangements with the Attorney General to become Statewitnesses in possible criminal proceedings against some of theapplicants, especially Brigadier Cronje and Captain Hechter.
1A We/...
14
 We have had discussions with the Attorney General on this issueabout the possibility of using the evidence of some of these Statewitnesses to support the applicant's applications.  Clearly theState witnesses, if they speak the truth about their happeningswill be able to support the applicants in their applications andwill be able to corroborate certain facts.  Some of the Statewitnesses might also be able to shed some light on certain happeningsand certain issues pertaining to these applications outside thenarrow sphere of the deeds and the acts themselves.  
 I have prepared heads of argument on this matter which I wouldlike to hand up to the Commission which deals with my argumentin respect of the request that the applicants would want to maketo the Commission to facilitate or order that these State witnessesbe subpoenaed to come and give evidence at these hearings firstly,and secondly pertaining to the availability of the dockets inpossession of the Attorney General pertaining to the possiblecriminal proceedings in certain instances and pending criminalproceedings in other instances of some of the other applicants. We say that those documents, as well as the evidence of the Statewitnesses might or will serve to support the applications of theapplicants.  
 I beg leave to hand up copies of the heads of argument that Iprepared to the Committee.

UNKNOWN: There is just one other aspect that I wouldlike to refer to in the introduction, on page 6 at the bottomyou say that,
  "....facts pertaining to our applications and we wish tosay furthermore that from our experience in dealing with the TruthCommission up to now we
1B have/...
15
  have come to expect..."
(Tape 1A ends)

MR DU PLESSIS: Chairperson are you referring specificallyto the question relating to the witnesses to be called?

UNKNOWN: No.  Have you, before this application havehad any consultations with members of this particular Committee,because the impression is now created that we have treated youwell and I would like to place it on record that we have had nodealings with you, we have had no consultations or talks withyourself.
Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — UNKNOWN

JUDGE WILSON: They are not in any of the hearings setdown for this week?

MR DU PLESSIS: No, no.

JUDGE WILSON: No.  I haven't checked on next week, I'mtalking about this week.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: They do not appear in any of those.

MR DU PLESSIS: Not as far as I can see except Mamasela,Mamasela appears in approximately every one.

JUDGE WILSON: He appears all over the place.

MR DU PLESSIS: We found it expedient, however, to dealwith this issue before we start with the evidence because we feelit is important that this should be clarified before we go ahead. Captain van Jaarsveldt also is important in respect of the killingof Piet Ntuli, and I believe one or two other matters which Icannot put my hand on now.

UNKNOWN: Mr du Plessis you have submitted that wecould keep the documents confidential, but can we if we have alook at section 19(8)(b), wouldn't the confidentiality lapse assoon as we start with the hearing?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes.  The way I read section 19(8)(b)is that is deals specifically with evidence which will be givenand led during the hearing.  That is why I made the submissionat the beginning when I made the middle-of-the-road submissionthat the statements in the docket could perhaps be provided tothe Commission without any evidence being led about that.

UNKNOWN: But it says in (a) and (b) refers to (a),
  "The application's documentation in connection therewith,further information and evidence obtained".
1B it/...
30
it refers to all of them.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes it refers to application's documentationin connection therewith.  This section clearly deals with thesituation of the hearing and what happens at a hearing.  I havegiven consideration to this and I have to concede that it is possiblethat your interpretation might be correct that there won't beany confidentiality attached to such evidence.  If no confidentialitycan be attached to such evidence obviously the question arisesthen in what way would the judicial proceedings be affected? Our submission is that these proceedings before the Truth Commissionare proceedings of a totally different nature, has got nothingto do with the criminal proceedings and should not in any waywhatsoever prejudice the criminal proceedings at all.  I wouldreally like the representatives of the Attorney General when theyget the opportunity to state exactly how these witnesses wouldbe prejudiced.
Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — UNKNOWN

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — UNKNOWN

CHAIRPERSON: Well it is not possible to rush proceedingsjust because it might be temporarily inconvenient.  This isn'tjust another trial, it is a matter of some importance about whichhe is going to give evidence, then obviously there will have tobe proper time for him to do so.

JUDGE WILSON: How long do you estimate his evidence willtake in-chief and cross-examination?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: I am estimating it at more than an hour Mr Chairman.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Mr Mpshe will that not entail hearing theapplication of both Mr van Vuuren and Mr Hechter?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: That has been considered but we have agreedthat since the deed was done by two we may just call one of them,that was the agreement.

CHAIRPERSON: Is he not available the coming week?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Mr Chairman with your permission can I approachhim?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: The importance of these proceedings and onedoes 5A not/...
233
not want to hold proceedings in such a rushed manner just becauseit is temporarily inconvenient.

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman at this stage while he isspeaking to the speaker may I perhaps just make one point andthat is that in an incident such as this where Warrant Officervan Vuuren and Captain Hechter were both present and their applicationscorrespond very closely to each other Mr Mpshe and I were quiteunsure how to deal with that because if both of them would haveto present their factual evidence to the Committee it would beactually a repetition of the same evidence.  However, I do notwant to prejudice the applicant's applications by calling theone and not calling the other, so I would like a direction fromthe Committee if possible on that issue.

CHAIRPERSON: The ease with which you ask for directionsfrom the Committee astounds me.  I think that how to conduct yourapplication is something with which you ought to familiarise yourselfwith, and you've got to weigh and balance in the balance justexactly how important it is for you to follow one direction oranother direction.  It is not for us to tell you.

UNKNOWN: Yes, alright Mr Chairman then I will beforced to call both of them.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Mr Chairman I have consulted with the victimMr Chairman.  He has indicated to me that he can still be ableto come tomorrow on condition that the matter is started within the morning so that at lunchtime or before lunch he can driveback to Mmbatho.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mpshe will you kindly tell the gentlemanthat we will hear him first if it's not inconvenient to anybodyelse and that will be at 9:30 tomorrow morning.
5A

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: /...
234

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman, he understands English,he must have heard.  Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: This Committee will now adjourn its hearinguntil 9:30 tomorrow morning.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS