Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1997-03-27

JUDGE WILSON: One further item before we start is I have prepared a list, very quickly, I do not rely on it all which I referred to yesterday, where I have the names of 15 policemen who are mentioned.  I am not including the two brothers of the applicant, they presumably have knowledge of what's going on, but I'm told that six policemen I think are being represented, eight or nine....

MR VISSER: There were nine, we are now representing eight Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Thank you.  Have all the policemen, all the persons named been informed?  Because from the statement annexed to his application he names numerous policemen.  Have they been informed?  Sorry if  - your machine is being attended to at the moment, can I ask Mr Visser, Colonel Coetzee which one is that?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman some of our people have not been informed but we will waive insistence on being formally notified ....(break in transmission)

JUDGE WILSON: Do you know which Colonel Coetzee it is?

MR VISSER: Yes.  We are in fact representing him.  He didn't receive, but he's here, and he's going to be a key witness.

JUDGE WILSON: He's not the gentleman we've heard of before?

MR VISSER: I don't know which gentleman you heard of before.

JUDGE WILSON: Your attorney is indicating fairly clearly....

MR VISSER: No it's not that one Mr Chairman.  But Mr Chairman may I say that as far as we are concerned we are not insisting on formal notification.

JUDGE WILSON: No.

MR VISSER: Clearly once we've got notice we've got notice.  But there are, we were given to understand that the matters which emanated, or which were perpetrated in the Transvaal would not form part of the present hearing.  I'm not sure how that sits with the Committee to do this piecemeal.  If you wanted to do this all in one go then clearly Mr Chairman we can't continue, because Loots for example was an applicant in an amnesty application before you and we are not privy to their applications, but we are fairly certain that he made no application in regard to the allegations which are now made by the present applicant.  So he would certainly have to be informed.  And then there are a number of other persons as well which we believe may not have been informed although Mr Mpshe may be able to inform you more pertinently.  Mr Chairman we are here basically to deal with the Venter issue.  We can, also, deal with the other incidents which were perpetrated in the Free State to some extent, probably completely, but we are certainly not here to deal with the Transvaal matters, and none of those persons implicated in the Transvaal, in regard to those incidents, are our clients.

JUDGE WILSON: This is on page 6, Mamelodi?

MR VISSER: That is so Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: What is this about part of it being heard somewhere else Mr Mpshe?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Mr Chairman, as I indicated at the beginning that I want to take the Committee through the attached statement of the applicant was definitely going to deal with what Mr Visser has dealt with.  May I be allowed to deal with that, and then I will respond to the issues as I come to them please. I am going to start on page 5 of the statement.
	Mr Chairman under paragraph A, the during 1986 Bloemfontein, there are matters that appear in this application, matters that are of non-gross human rights violation.

INTERPRETER: The Interpreters do not have copies of the documentation.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Mr Chairman on page 5 of the statement....

JUDGE WILSON: Yes, I thought I heard on the machine somebody saying I do not have copies of the documentation.

INTERPRETER: It's the Interpreters, and should Mr Mpshe read rather rapidly then it will not be possible to follow.  We only have the application, not the statement.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: I will endeavour to take them along.

JUDGE WILSON: It should be attached to the application, isn't it?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Paragraph B Mr Chairman, that is the matter of the burning of ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Mpshe could you kindly hand my copy, I will see whether I could share with my colleague ...(intervention)

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: I am indebted to you Sir, thank you.

JUDGE WILSON: Ja, page 5.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Page 5 Mr Chairman, paragraph B.  In that matter Mr Chairman notification has not been done.

JUDGE WILSON: Where's paragraph B on page 5?  Stuck in the side, you can't see it.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Starting with "on instructions of Colonel Coetzee".  Are we on the same page Mr Chairman?

JUDGE WILSON: Right.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: And paragraph C as well.

JUDGE WILSON: What about paragraph B?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Paragraph B Mr Chairman notification has not been done, because this matter, the matter is going to be dealt with in chambers, it is of a non-gross violation Mr Chairman.  I am trying to take the Committee through inasfar as notification is concerned. May I proceed Mr Chairman?

JUDGE WILSON: Yes.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: And paragraph C as well.

JUDGE WILSON: I have some difficulty with this, saying it's no going to be proceeded with, it can be proceeded with in chambers as a non-gross violation when the same persons are named who were named on other charges, who as I understand are denying most of them and would want to cross-examine and deny these as well.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Mr Chairman it will not debar the legal representatives of the implicated persons Mr Chairman.  If the Chairman will bear with me, the affidavits filed by the lawyer for the implicated persons, they address all these issues as contained in the statement of the applicant.  They have been addressed in the form of affidavits Mr Chairman, and again Mr Chairman, if the lawyers for the implicated persons are of the opinion that they would like to cross-examine the applicant on this they are free to do that because he is available, but they have addressed this in the affidavits already.

JUDGE WILSON: So he will be available for questioning and they can lead evidence on this, so it's not - you are not going to lead evidence, or demand that he lead evidence on these B, C and which other?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Certainly Mr Chairman they have that route available to them.

JUDGE WILSON: We'll hear Mr Visser later.  Just tell us all the ones, what other ones are there that you say should be followed?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Paragraph D Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Paragraph D?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Yes Mr Chairman.  Inasfar as paragraph C is
 concerned Mr Chairman, this is a human rights gross violation Mr Chairman, but the person here, the deceased or even the next of kin have not been informed.  I issued an instruction Mr Chairman when I read this statement to the Investigative Unit member, Mr Pilato, to try and obtain at least the inquest report in this matter.  He has filed a report with me.  He has been to the Batho Police Station, as he has told me as per report, he has been to the magistrate's court to get to see if he cannot trace the inquest, but the problem which he says he has encountered in this regard is that the full names of the deceased are not known.

JUDGE WILSON: Is this paragraph E?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: C Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: C.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: C, D, E - I am sorry.

JUDGE WILSON: E, yes.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: E Mr Chairman, a person was killed there.  Neither could the applicant Mr Chairman provide us with the full particulars of the deceased save that name Phapi, and it was difficult for the Investigative Unit to trace even the inquest docket, even the inquest record Mr Chairman.  So no notification has been done for those reasons.  The Investigative Unit has informed me that the applicant himself cannot even remember where Phapi stayed.  So it becomes difficult for us if we do not have that type of information.
	Then I move Mr Chairman, still on page 6  under B, "during 1987, 1988 in Mamelodi"....

JUDGE WILSON: Which one is this now?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: I'm still on page 6.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes, yes.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Under paragraph B Mr Chairman.