Amnesty Hearings — Thohoyandou — 1999-06-29

MR MEYER: Thank you.  Mr Chairman, I don't think it's necessary for me to tell you that the basic two requirements for granting amnesty to the applicants are firstly
that they must make full disclosure and also they must have acted with a political motive.
	I think I want to address the Committee on the question of full disclosure first.  And it's my submission, Mr Chairman, that there was indeed full disclosure by the applicants.  And one point on which I would like to address you specifically is, and it's something that came up during the evidence of the applicants, is the discrepancies that exist between their written applications and their viva voce evidence.
	And in this regard, I would firstly like to submit that one has to remember, Mr Chairman, that the events which form part of this amnesty application or the subject of this application happened around 18 years ago and it's my submission that it would be difficult, if not impossible for the applicants to remember all the specific details of the acts which they committed.
	A second aspect or a second point I would like to make with regard to this is that the Committee must remember with respect that the applicants were all members and supporters of the previous regime and, it's my submission, Mr Chairman, that one has to take that into regard when one has a look at the written applications.  Although there was no direct evidence to this effect, it's my submission that this whole process which we are dealing with here is something that is strange to the applicants in the sense that they now have to come and tell and make full disclosure about everything which took place.
	And another point in this regard, Mr Chairman, is the fact that the written applications were made already quite a while ago in December 1997 and, it is so that after the written applications had been lodged that there was further consultations between the legal representatives and the applicants and also between the applicants themselves during which further details must have come to light and, that is also the reason why there are discrepancies between the written applications and the evidence which was adduced before the Committee.
	And then furthermore, Mr Chairman, and maybe the most important point in regard to this aspect is the fact that in my submission the Act does not require full disclosure in the written applications.  The Act just talks about full disclosure.  And in my submission, even if the Committee is to make a negative deduction from the fact that there are discrepancies between the written applications and the viva voce evidence, it is my submission that full disclosure was in any event made eventually by the applicants during their evidence before the Committee.

SISI KHAMPEPE: What's your basis for saying the Act doesn't require full disclosure when you apply?

MR MEYER: No, I'm just saying, Judge Khampepe  ...(intervention)

SISI KHAMPEPE: And that you only have to fully disclose once you give viva voce evidence?  You are aware of course that we have to consider our applications at a public hearing only if those offences for which amnesty is being sought relate to a gross violation of human rights as defined in the Act.  And that where there in no gross violation of human rights, there is no need for viva voce evidence to be led.  In which event you have to rely on the information furnished by an applicant in an application form.

MR MEYER: Yes, I am aware of that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think that one can see if you've got an application form and it gives you half a page to say 'Give details of your political motivation of what the act happened.'  You put that in, I'm describing the act, come and give evidence, you could give evidence for a week, one doesn't expect a week's equivalent of evidence in the application form.  So, certainly one's not looking for all the details of the acts in the application form but, one does expect all the material aspects of the act to be places on the form.
	I mean you can't just say 'I assaulted someone' and when you get to evidence and it turns out to be a brutal killing.  Okay, and a killing's an assault but you know what I'm trying to get at, one's got to have the essential facts in the application form.  But I see what you're saying is that they said they tortured.

MR MEYER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: But it doesn't give all they details as to the torture but they did specifically say we only 'klapped' them with open hands.

MR MEYER: That is so, Mr Chairman, in the written applications.  I submit that it's not a question of the applicants trying to hide the seriousness of their acts but it is more a question of further detail that was submitted during oral evidence which was not contained in the written applications.
	And I would submit, Mr Chairman, that enough, if I can use the word 'enough,' disclosure was made in the written applications already because otherwise, there wouldn't have been a hearing.

CHAIRPERSON: If one takes a look at the applications, this is just a point which came to mind, one gets the feeling, and correct me if I'm wrong, that those applications were submitted in the hope that the matter would be dealt with in chambers, that there was no gross human rights violation, that there was no serious injury, that the assault was minor, a 'klap' with a hand, it's a matter that can be dealt with in chambers.
	Whereas, if it was stated in the application form that electric shock treatment, the wet bag treatment, etcetera, the helicopter treatment, were applied, then obviously there'd be no prospect at all of the matter being dealt with in chambers on the basis that there's no gross human rights violations.

MR MEYER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So, can it be found that the discrepancy between the applications and what's come out now when the application submitted, it was purposely done to water down the effects of the torture, to take them out of the category of gross human rights violation?  In which event it goes to credibility.

MR MEYER: Yes, I agree with that, Mr Chairman.  But my submission is that one has to also remember the context in which these acts were committed and we have evidence that it was normal practice for the Security Branch, not only in Venda but the whole of the country ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I think we hear that quite frequently that many, many police stations in fact had an electrical shocking device.

MR MEYER: Yes, that is indeed so, Mr Chairman.  And in that, I think one has to look at the contents that because of the fact that it was normal practice, these type of acts did not occur sporadically, it was sort of an ongoing process and the normal way suspects were handled by the police.

CHAIRPERSON: There is also, with your clients, one to four, general Ramushwana's not quite in the same category because he wasn't on everybody's evidence, not in involved in the actual torture, that he was not in a position to agree with or deny the details of the actual torture.

MR MEYER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So, what you've been talking now basically relates to one, three and four applicants.

MR MEYER: Yes, I think it's two, three and four, I think general Ramushwana is the first applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, well, I'm just looking at the way that they've been numbered  on the documents here.

MR MEYER: Oh, I'm sorry.  Oh, I see, then it's number one, three and four. Yes, that is correct, Mr Chairman.  Yes, I'm concentrating more on them now.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Meyer, may I just ask you, do you think it would be an unfair inference to draw the fact that your clients did not disclose the more serious manners of torture in their applications?  Would it be an unfair inference to draw that they did so in the hope of getting the matters disposed of in chambers? In other words, to question the bona fide's of the original application.