Amnesty Hearings — Kroonstad — UNKNOWN

<UNKNOWN>: : Would you state in what capacity and from whatdate until when?

ANSWER: In December 1992 I was elected as secretary.

JUDGE MGOEPE: : Can I just interrupt you on that point,according to the documents from the office of the Attorney-General,and I'm not sure what the judgment is saying, the applicant facedthree counts of attempted murder and then one of malicious damageto property and then attempted robbery.   In his application hesupplied, if one looks at his application form he's applying foramnesty only in respect of one conviction.

MR V D MERWE: That is right Mr Chairman.

JUDGE MGOEPE: : I just wanted to make sure so that we shouldnot bother ourselves with the rest of the counts.

MR V D MERWE: That is in fact true, the charge that weare attending to is one of attempted robbery with aggravatingcircumstances, that was the first charge.   The first count theredated 26 August 1993, that matter we will be addressing today.

JUDGE WILSON: : Attempted what?

MR V D MERWE: Robbery Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: : But the form you have submitted relatesto attempted murder, there is no mention of robbery you have notasked for amnesty in respect of attempted robbery.   You are boundby the form you have submitted and as my brother has just pointedout to you, the application you have submitted relates to an applicationfor amnesty in respect of attempted murder.

MR V D MERWE: Mr Chairman that is true, I myself wasnot involved in the drafting of the application.   The secondcharge that is connected to the first charge that was the sameincident, that is in fact the attempted murder.

JUDGE WILSON: : The first charge isn't before us, you'veseen the Act?

MR V D MERWE: Yes I've seen the Act.

JUDGE WILSON: : If someone applies for amnesty he has todo so on the prescribed form.   There is no such prescribed formin respect of anything except one count of attempted murder.

CHAIRPERSON: : Do you want to take instructions or what doyou want us to do because...

MR V D MERWE: Mr Chairman I was under the impressionthat although I agree with the submissions made by the Commissionerand I've discussed it with my client because I also noticed it,he was under the impression that he was in fact committed, convictedon a charge of attempted murder being the second charge.   I wasunder the impression that by means of the evidence here we couldhave this matter condoned, to have the attempted murder...

JUDGE MGOEPE: : Would it help if we were to adjourn a littlebit, you sort yourself out with your client and then specify preciselyin respect of which count he wants to apply for amnesty and thenif it is one count of attempted murder please identify the victimand then we'll take it from there.   I'm not saying the Committee,I can't speak for the Committee, we will take it further fromthere to see what we can do about that, because we don't wantto listen to evidence not knowing exactly in respect of whichcharge the application is.

MR V D MERWE: Thank you Mr Chairman there is no needfor an adjournment it's true that the only charge that we willapply for amnesty is the first charge, being that of attemptedrobbery with aggravating circumstances.

JUDGE MGOEPE: : Sorry first charge, what are you referringto when you say the first charge, what document are you lookingat I'm looking at the document, the documents that are referredto is attempted murder, three counts.

JUDGE WILSON: : I can help my brother, if you look at thejudgment which we've just been given, in the third line it sayswhat the counts are "klagte 1 en 5 is aanklagte van pogingtot roof...aanklagte 2 and 3 is aanklagte van poging tot moord...."

MR V D MERWE: The victims are stated in the first charge,it is a certain Mr Helepe and a Mr Seping the police officersat that point in time.

JUDGE WILSON: : But it doesn't appear on the form so Ithink the form ought to be filled in properly.

MR V D MERWE: Could I apply then for an amendment ofthe application to have the charge of attempted murder and thenjust amended by referring to attempted robbery by which is includedaggravating circumstances?

JUDGE MGOEPE: : Attempted robbery?

MR V D MERWE: That is attempted robbery, that was thefirst count on which the applicant is...

JUDGE MGOEPE: : Do you know who the victim is?

MR V D MERWE: The victims were one L A Helepe and/orS W Seping.   This is the only count of the four counts on whichthe applicant was convicted that we would apply amnesty for sir.

JUDGE MGOEPE: : Mr Mpshe have any of the victims relatingto this count been notified?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: : Yes Mr Chairman they were notified, they areactually present in the hall right now.

JUDGE MGOEPE: : They are present?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: : They are present.

CHAIRPERSON: : Very well your application to amend the applicationis granted to read that amnesty is now sought for the crime forwhich he had been convicted, namely attempted robbery.   Did Iunderstand you to say attempted robbery with aggravating circumstances?

MR V D MERWE: That is correct yes.

CHAIRPERSON: : Paragraph 9(a)(i) of the form is to be amended.

MR V S MERWE: Thank you Mr Chairman.

UNKNOWN: : May I ask for an indulgence Mr Chairman andmembers of the Committee, if the amendment is accepted and itwould read attempted robbery with aggravating circumstances, thenI would request Mr Chairman and the Committee to for record purposesto state that despite the fact that the crime convicted of doesnot...

CHAIRPERSON: : It seems to us that the applicant in this casewill have to reapply.   He will have to supply satisfactory motivationfor the offence in respect of which he now seeks amnesty, hispresent form does not deal with that at all.   It may be thatonce he has submitted a fresh application and attached to it therelevant documents relating to the charge against him and anyother document which might be relevant, it may then be possiblefor us to consider whether the application should be set downon another occasion for a hearing or whether it is necessary atall for the matter to be decided at a public hearing.   In termsof the Act it may well be, if all the documents are adequatelybefore us, it may well be possible for us to deal with this applicationwithout the necessity of a public hearing.   This is the unanimousand considered view of the Committee.

MR V D MERWE: I apologise for any inconvenience causedby this application.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: : Mr Chairman with your permission we move onto the next application, that of Jackson, Mr Chairman that willbe "H" in the Bundle.   Mr Chairman I consider the applicationto be in order and Jackson is also represented by Mr Van der Merwe.

CHAIRPERSON: : At what page is the application form in application"H"?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: : Page 2 of "H".

CHAIRPERSON: : This is Case No 25.
MR JACKSON (ss)
EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DER MERWE

<UNKNOWN>: : Thank you Mr Chairman.   Mr Jackson could youjust for the record state you physical home address?

ANSWER: 2705 Masilo Location, near Tennyson.

<UNKNOWN>: : Are you married?

ANSWER: No.

<UNKNOWN>: : Have you got any children?

ANSWER: I have one kid.

<UNKNOWN>: : How old is this kid?

ANSWER: The child is three years and a few months now.

<UNKNOWN>: : Is it true that you were convicted of the murderof a police officer and you were sentenced to twelve and a halfyears' imprisonment on that charge?

ANSWER: That is correct sir.

<UNKNOWN>: : Could you just tell the Committee how did thishappen that you killed this police officer?