Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-10-08

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kooverjee, do you have any re-examination?

MS KOOVERJEE: None, thank you, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Adv Sigodi, do you have any questions?

ADV SIGODI: No questions, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Judge Pillay?

JUDGE PILLAY: What are your academic qualifications?

MARCEL TREVOR ANDREWS: Well I matriculated at Fairvale, I studied electronics at Durban Technical College.

JUDGE PILLAY: And at the time of the offence?

MARCEL TREVOR ANDREWS: At the time of the offence I was in standard nine and the Fairvale Secondary School.

JUDGE PILLAY: When that handgrenade was thrown, what did you think you wanted to do?  What did you want to attain?  Or why did you throw it there, what were your intentions?

MARCEL TREVOR ANDREWS: At that stage the Labour Party was ...(intervention)

JUDGE PILLAY: I can understand the political motive.

MARCEL TREVOR ANDREWS: Okay.

JUDGE PILLAY: Did you throw just to burn the door, did you want to kill somebody or?  What offence did you intend?  Because it's not clear from your documents.

MARCEL TREVOR ANDREWS: Okay.  We wanted to show, I wanted to show the Labour Party that their participation in the tricameral system was unacceptable to the people.

JUDGE PILLAY: Thank I can understand.

MARCEL TREVOR ANDREWS: Okay, we wanted to frighten them and to ...(intervention)

JUDGE PILLAY: You were unaware whether there were any occupants in the house?

MARCEL TREVOR ANDREWS: No, I did not know if there was anybody in the house.

JUDGE PILLAY: You nonetheless threw the handgrenade.

MARCEL TREVOR ANDREWS: Yes.

JUDGE PILLAY: Did it matter whether there was somebody in the house at the time, who would possibly be hurt or killed?  Or would you still in any event have thrown the handgrenade?

MARCEL TREVOR ANDREWS: We would have thrown it in any event, yes.

JUDGE PILLAY: Now something of - I just want to know, you and Mr Pearce testified that your attacks would be directed, amongst other people, the Security personnel etc., and members of the Labour Party.  Was your attacked confined to the Labour Party? - when we're talking about collaborators.

MARCEL TREVOR ANDREWS: Well being in Wentworth we could have, anybody who belongs to any other political organisation that supported the tricameral system ...(intervention)

JUDGE PILLAY: Would be a target?

MARCEL TREVOR ANDREWS: Yes, I should think so.

JUDGE PILLAY: Yes, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Andrews, when you threw that grenade, where did you throw it, did you throw it against a wall or on the roof or in the garden, down the driveway?  Where exactly did you aim the grenade that you threw?

MARCEL TREVOR ANDREWS: We threw in the direction of the front, to the front of the house.

CHAIRPERSON: What, in the garden, to land on the yard?

MARCEL TREVOR ANDREWS: Ja, most probably in the yard.

CHAIRPERSON: You said at the time that you were 16 years of age, still very young, was Mr James and Curtis of the same age as you at the time?

MARCEL TREVOR ANDREWS: There was a year apart between us.  Mr Curtis was 17 and Mr James was, I think, 18.

CHAIRPERSON: And who chose the target, who suggested that Mr Leaf's house become the target?

MARCEL TREVOR ANDREWS: We decided collectively that, Mr Chairman, that Mr Leaf's house should be the target because of where his house was situated.  That was one of the deciding factors.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.  Are there any questions arising out of questions that have been put by Members of the Panel?

MS KOOVERJEE: None, thank you, Sir.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MS KOOVERJEE

CHAIRPERSON: No questions.  Thank you, Mr Andrews, that concludes your testimony, you may stand down.

MARCEL TREVOR ANDREWS: Thanks.
WITNESS EXCUSED

MS KOOVERJEE: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, I believe Mr Dehal will now address you with regard to further applicants.

MR DEHAL: Mr Chairperson, you will notice from the list of witnesses and applicants that Ms Kooverjee and I represent, that what has happened today is I have decided to represent Mr Lecordier and the reason is simply that he falls within the purvee(purview) of the broader spectrum of acts which covers Mr McBride and Ms Apelgren.  Ms Kooverjee has therefore represented Mr Allan Pearce.
	Now insofar as the remaining persons we represent are concerned, Janet Apelgren who Ms Kooverjee represents, is in Australia.  You heard from Ms Narkedien that she's not here.  Then we've got Derek McBride, who has handed us a statement which Ms Kooverjee intends to read.  We were hoping to do that at the end so that it facilitates the terminal end.   
	Mr Lecordier is here, unfortunately as we all know, he's been in custody.  We've had some difficulties in finalising, I've had difficulties in finalising his statement, principally because we have difficulties in accessing him at prison.  When I got there on various occasions we met with him briefly, but the prison authorities have given us lots of problems, too numerous to mention.
	I'm hoping that I'd have this weekend to finalise his statement.  We have a broad statement, it's multi-paged but I would like to sit with him properly and canvass that so that we don't have any problems when I lead him.  That's really the last witness, apart from everybody else.  
	And on Antonio du Preez, Ms Kooverjee has a statement to read out, like with Derek McBride, but that would be very brief.  
	With Gordon Webster, I will address you later at the end, but I'm making certain endeavours to contact him again.  He's been in touch with me, but unfortunately he's got no funds to be here.  His friends have been phoning me from time to time.  He would have liked to have been here, but I'm now out of touch with him.  I've tried to raise him, I failed to.  I don't know where he is anymore, but I'm hoping that I can raise him this weekend, I've sent messages to him.  And that's where we stand.

CHAIRPERSON: So are you saying that, with regard to getting in touch with Mr Webster, you may or may not call him as a witness?

MR DEHAL: Sorry, correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so basically what you're saying is you want an adjournment now until Monday morning.

MR DEHAL: Insofar as Matthew Lecordier is concerned, yes, otherwise we could round up the rest of the witnesses.  Sorry, with Matthew Lecordier, I would like to consult with him in prison this weekend, settle his statement and then start on Monday morning and I'm pretty sure we'd be over with him by Monday.

CHAIRPERSON: So what would you propose to do today then?

MR DEHAL: For present we cannot take the matter any further insofar as Ms Kooverjee and I are concerned.  I would be not be objectionable to any witnesses testifying at this stage, if the rest of the Panel Members and the parties are agreeable.

CHAIRPERSON: Witnesses not called by yourself?

MR DEHAL: None by myself, yes.  But insofar as I am concerned, yes it would be correct that if any witnesses or other persons are not called, I will seek an adjournment till Monday morning, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  Mr Berger?

MR BERGER: Chairperson, we would have no problem if some of the victims wanted to testify now and perhaps we could save some time, instead of adjourning early.

CHAIRPERSON: But you don't intend calling any further witnesses yourself?

MR BERGER: No, we have no further witnesses.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Kooverjee, do you just associate yourself with what Mr Dehal has said, or is there anything further you'd like to add?

MS KOOVERJEE: Nothing further, thank you Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Richard?

MR RICHARD: I've no problem with what's been said, but my clients have always indicated that they would like to give evidence at the end.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well we're not going to force anybody to give evidence when they don't want to give evidence and it's usual that they give evidence at the end, although if they want to give evidence now that would also be acceptable.

MR RICHARD: I will canvass their point of view, Chairperson.