Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1997-05-14

MS THABETHA: : Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: : Paragraph 20.
INSP. DE LA REY: I beg your pardon that is my mistake.

MS THABETHA: : Are you saying you met Alice before you actually came to House No. 1766 and she told you that there were items in the house and then she led you to the house and you, she handed over the items to you. Is that what you are saying?
INSP. DE LA REY: Yes, I had met her beforehand when I arrested accused 2 and 3, she was also living there. I found her there and then she accompanied us the whole time and that is when she reported to me that I must take her to house 1766 C where she then handed those items to me. That is how it occurred.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS THABETHA
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR MTHEMBU
(Mr Mthembu would like to cross examine Mr Tchanchi and Sgt. van der Watt who are present with us today).

JUDGE WILSON: : Thank you, you are excused. Who are you calling?
WITNESS EXCUSED

MS THABETHA: : Officer van der Watt.
ADV. DE JAGER: Mr Mthembu can you kindly explain to me what's the purpose of this cross-examination. It's common cause that he has been murdered, it is common cause that they had a firearm and that they in fact killed the person with the firearm. They are asking exactly for amnesty because they did it so that is not in dispute, what is really in dispute, what are we looking for? I don't want to restrict you at all but I, if once one is admitting I've murdered the man, I have used the firearm, I indeed shot him, is it really in dispute where the firearm was at a later stage or what is going on?
ADV. MTHEMBU: With due respect if I say yes, I killed him and I robbed him and I did so for personal gain it (. . . inaudible) due respect.
ADV. DE JAGER: . . . (inaudible) the firearm was found.
ADV. MTHEMBU: . . . (inaudible) van der Watt is about a brown leather jacket(?)

PIETER VAN DER WALT: (Duly sworn, states)

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Mr Mthembu the, effectively you want Mr van der Walt now under oath to come and confirm as to where it is alleged he found the leather jacket so that it is no longer hearsay evidence so that it should now be confirmed as to where Mr van der Walt actually found the leather jacket, that is what you to do and so on it goes on with the other policemen so that the policemen, one after the other can come and confirm and confirm? Anyway, go ahead.
EXAMINATION BY MR MTHEMBU
ADV. MTHEMBU: Mr van der Walt is this brown leather jacket that you handed over to Mr de la Rey, how did you get hold of it?

PIETER VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairperson in the process in which we are trying to address the people I was in a particular yard and a black person, a man approached me and he told me that he had noticed a leather jacket. I went with him. It was around the house and there pointed out the leather jacket to me.
ADV. MTHEMBU: Mr May says that the leather jacket was removed from his person by Mr de la Rey and not handed to you over by a member of the public?

PIETER VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairperson, that is a lie. I found the leather jacket where it was pointed out to me by the person.

JUDGE WILSON: : Is there anything else there with the leather jacket?

PIETER VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairperson, I picked up the leather jacket and in the one pocket of the jacket I found a holder with some bullets and some .22 rounds.

JUDGE WILSON: : Anything else.
ADV. MTHEMBU: Nothing else.

PIETER VAN DER WALT: Nothing else was found in the leather jacket at that stage. Later on I got to know that a firearm had also been thrown away by one of the accused. I went back to where I had found the leather jacket. I searched the area and then under an old vehicle, I found a white hankie and inside the hankie there was a firearm. That is all that I found in the area at that time.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV. MTHEMBU
ADV. DE JAGER: The firearm which you found there was it investigated and is it the firearm which was used to shoot the deceased?

PIETER VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairperson, I established from Insp. de la Rey later that this firearm was the one which was removed from the scene of the deceased.

JUDGE WILSON: : Was it one of the deceased's firearm's?

PIETER VAN DER WALT: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

JUDGE WILSON: : This leather jacket, I know you weren't in charge of the investigation, perhaps that is an unfair question, we should perhaps have asked the previous witness, do you know who it belonged to?

PIETER VAN DER WALT: I have no idea, Mr Chairperson.
ADV. MTHEMBU: Did you find it in the house or just in the open?

PIETER VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairperson, the leather jacket was lying between the house - it is a corrugated iron house and the car and I assume that the person who left it there must have moved between those two places and just thrown down the jacket on the ground.

JUDGE WILSON: : No further questions?

MS THABETHA: : No further questions, Mr Commission.

JUDGE WILSON: : Thank you.

MS THABETHA: : Mr Chair, my learned friend, Mr Mthembu says he wouldn't like to call Inspector Chanje anymore,

JUDGE WILSON: He doesn't want?

MS THABETHA: No he doesn't want to any more.

JUDGE WILSON: He has made him available to you if you wish to cross-examine him?

MS THABETHA: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: Very well, so Mr Chanje has been made available but the applicants counsel has stated that he does not wish to cross examine him or to question him?  May he then be released as well?

MS THABETHA: Yes he may.

JUDGE WILSON: All the three policemen that are involved, they are released.

MS THABETHA: May I suggest Mr Chair at this stage that maybe we take a short adjournment, so that Mr  M... ...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: I think the time has come for the normal adjournment anyway, we started shortly after nine this morning, I think it's the normal time for taking an adjournment, we'll take the adjournment.

MS THABETHA: And then we'll proceed closing arguments?

JUDGE WILSON: Yes.

MS THABETHA: Immediately after?
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
ADDRESSES

JUDGE WILSON: Very well.

MS THABETHA: Mr Chair, as discussed with you Mr Mthembu will not be leading oral evidence on the argument, or will not be leading arguments orally.  He will hand in a written argument to you.  However I would like to say something in summary.
	I would say in my opinion there are essentially two requirements to this whole matter of Nkgwedi.  Two requirements that are necessary in as far as the promotion of national unity and the Conciliation Act is concerned, namely full disclosure and whether the act committed was associated with a political objective.

JUDGE WILSON: Whether the act was?

MS THABETHA: Whether the act committed  was associated with a political objective.
	On the question of full disclosure, in my opinion I think the applicants have disclosed factors to the effect that they did kill Mr Fourie ...(tape ends) , however these acts can be broken down into two, namely the killing of Mr Fourie and the robbery, that is the items that were taken at Mr Fourie's house. I will start with the killing of Mr Fourie.
	Evidently from the applicant's evidence it was APLA strategy to kill the farmers to further their political objectives.  In other words it appears from the evidence of the applicants that the act they committed, namely the killing of Mr Fourie, was a strategy aimed at overthrowing the government of the day which was then regarded as discriminatory. Further on it appears that the political objectivity behind was the dismantling of the apartheid regime which the government of the day was seen to be part thereof.