Amnesty Hearings — Kimberley — 1997-10-28

LAURENS MBATHA: I think if the arrangement was also made in that fashion that I should go over, at that Sir, I would not have actually refused.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm saying why did you not go there on your own?

LAURENS MBATHA: Sir, unfortunately at that stage - like I've just explained, the arrangement that we should go there came after that one had to sit down and talk to Smiles, hence the arrangement was said that we should go to them.  I just felt that by going on my own after they had decided that there is evidence coming up on my side.

CHAIRPERSON: Major, I think this is what this case is all about, I must tell you that there are only two possibly explanations as to why you never went to the police and made a statement about your personal participation and the like.  Firstly - and this is how I think - I would like to think that this is the point people who are opposing the application are making, firstly you didn't do so simply because you were not involved at all, you were never involved in this incident.
	The other possibility is that you are involved - if you are involved, you shied away from accepting full responsibility for it and that it is not true that you were at all time or at any time willing to go to prison for it.  As I see things, these are really the only two possible explanations.  Now which one is this one or do you have some other explanation as to why - if you were involved, why you did not come forward and say I'm prepared together with Mr Smiles - you take him along by his hand and say: "Well, let's go"?

LAURENS MBATHA: Sir, I think I did indicate yesterday - after the setback of the incident, did indicate the state of shock, the irregrettable loss.  I did indicate that I did not actually even communicate the information over.  Up until at a time when we conveyed the message over to the Legal Department, the main reason for that was basically because of the consequences like I've said, the objective was not reached and one really regretted of the incident what happened after.

CHAIRPERSON: Professor de Koker, we interrupted - personally I did so because I felt that we should get to the heart of the matter.  And shall we please just concentrate on important aspects of this case which are obviously problematic and perhaps not so problematic to other people and proceed please.

PROF DE KOKER: Thank you Mr Chairman.  The 1993 statement by Mr Smiles under oath contained paragraph 7 referred to by the Chairperson.  In paragraph 7 Mr Smiles said
"I found the hand grenade at the hostel in Galashewe"
Is that statement correct?

LAURENS MBATHA: Sir, it is incorrect.

PROF DE KOKER: It is incorrect, so Mr Smiles lied under oath in this affidavit?

LAURENS MBATHA: Sir, like I've said, it is incorrect.

PROF DE KOKER: Therefore Mr Smiles lied under oath in this affidavit.

CHAIRPERSON: I think we will decide whether Mr Smiles lied, it is sufficient if the witness says it is incorrect.

PROF DE KOKER: Thank you Mr Chairperson, I accept that, that the statement therefore under oath is incorrect.   On 14 August another statement was made, this - to draw the attention of the Committee, is on page 51, volume 2 of the documentation.  If I may ask the indulgence of the Committee, I just want to get hold of a specific statement.  I beg the pardon of the Committee, this specific statement I wanted to refer to is on page 11, made by Mr Smiles and contained in the documentation of the TRC.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Professor de Koker, didn't Mr Smiles disown that statement - if you refer to page 51?

PROF DE KOKER: That is quite correct, he did and I would also like to hear Mr Mbatha's comments on those particular statements contained.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Would it be fair to request Mr Mbatha to respond to a statement that Mr Smiles had already disowned?

PROF DE KOKER: Unfortunately there seems to be statements in every one of the statements made by Mr Smiles from 1993 to date, which seems to be questionable.  We will discuss those matters with Mr Smiles, if permitted by the Committee but I would also like Major Mbatha's comments on those statements.  Major Mbatha also indicated yesterday that there were several of the statements made by Mr Smiles which he regards as being incorrect.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Proceed.

PROF DE KOKER: Thank you very much.  According to this statement Mr Smiles said
"On the day of the march I met some people who were on their way back from the venue - I was riding my bicycle.  I did not attend the meeting at all and I didn't know what it was all about before later when I heard on the radio that a hand grenade had been brought to an explosion in front of the Trust Bank.  I did not pay attention to the incident at all until long after I was contacted by Major Laurens who asked me to volunteer as the person who threw the hand grenade at the venue"
I'm going to skip one paragraph.
"Laurens said it was necessary to have a perpetrator or a volunteer to this incident but he never told me specifically why.  He spoke of money - as I had a hard time, I agreed.  Some time after I was taken to a lawyer Mr Rodney Isaacs, who had prepared an affidavit where I confessed to be the person who threw the hand grenade at the venue.  I don't remember what was written in the affidavit and I was just asked to sign it.
	Afterwards Rodney Isaacs the lawyer, took me to the police station but I was kicked out without any interrogation.  I have a witness" 
It's a further paragraph.
"who can testify that I was not on the venue that day, his name is Boy Oliphant.  I never took any further notice of the matter and Major Laurens never paid me anything for signing this affidavit"
Signed by Mr Smiles - dated 8 June 1996.
According to this statement therefore, you requested Mr Smiles to volunteer - he was never involved?

LAURENS MBATHA: Sir, the best person to respond to that statement is still Smiles.

PROF DE KOKER: I agree and I will ask him to respond to that if I'm allowed to do so but I ask you to respond to it.  In this declaration signed by Mr Smiles, he make a particular allegation and that is that he had nothing to do with it but his involvement was only based on a request from  your side to volunteer as the person who did this and that he would receive money for doing so - that he was innocent.

LAURENS MBATHA: Sir, the full disclosure yesterday regarding Smiles to what I've said - I don't want to relate it to the statement, he's the best person to respond to.

PROF DE KOKER: And if I will ask him if allowed to do so, to respond but I'm asking you now Major Mbatha, because he makes - he made a very particular allegation against you that you paid him to volunteer that he did something which he never did.

ADV DE JAGER: He didn't say he paid him, he spoke about money.

PROF DE KOKER: He spoke about money - I stand corrected, thank you very much.

LAURENS MBATHA: Yesterday Sir, I spoke of instructions and I think you called me that I should define them exactly what do they mean.  I did explain to you they had to do with his involvement up to the time when he executed what I told him to do but with this statement - I'm repeating it again, it is very clear to you to what I've said yesterday, that he's the best person to respond to it.

PROF DE KOKER: I've given you three opportunities to respond to this specific statement, if you are not going to reject these specific statements as incorrect, then I will feel justified to accept that you accept that his statements must be incorrect.

MR TSHOLANKU: Mr Chairman, three opportunities have been given to Mr Mbatha to respond to the particular question and he's given us one answer three times, now I don't know what Professor de Koker wants more from him.

PROF DE KOKER: Mr Chairman, I would like ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: But in not one of the answers he denied that this happened and that's what I think Professor de Koker is asking him to do, either admit or deny it.