Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1997-03-27

JUDGE WILSON: Why did you not tell us at the beginning when you gave us details of these three, these matters that were, that amnesty was going to be sought for, why did you not stop it then?  You remember, we got details of three matters.  My friend, colleague here asked how many years
sentence for each of them.  We were told all that and you 
made no suggestion then that we should not proceed with them and I understood, certainly, that that was what you had agreed.  Why did you not stop the applicant?

MR MADASA: In regard to the evidence the applicant has given so far, there is no breach of ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: No, at the beginning I asked with what are we going to deal now and I have numbered it here, one, two, three.  First one culpable homicide, second one murder in 1991 in Beltren, Sasolburg. The deceased who were all mentioned to us and sentenced to 13 years.  So, I was under the impression, too, that we are going to deal with these three matters and not the other ten, 20.  I have asked - point out on pages nine and ten which matters are we going to deal with and it was said it is number nine and number ten there and defeating the ends of justice was connected with the murder.  So, we started this under the impression that we are going to hear three matters today and I thought, apart from what you said in chambers, it is true that we were told that we will deal with one matter, but I thought it is the Free State matter, as such.

MR MADASA: I agree with you, Mr Commissioner, and my impression is that this is exactly what we are doing now.  I do not see the problem.

ADV DE JAGER: So, we are coming back and we will deal with the other Free State matters in a few weeks time and finish with another matter which we could have dealt with in toto.  Now we are cutting this up in how many hearings.

MR MADASA: The matters we are dealing with now are the matters on which the applicant is serving sentence and these relate to the shootings of two people, Mofokeng and
Rampalile, and within that is involved the charge of 
defeating the ends of justice which relates to these two matters and these are the matters that we are dealing with.

ADV DE JAGER: But then we are not dealing with the one matter, then we are dealing with two matters.  Is that not so?  Could we take a tea adjournment please?

JUDGE MGOEPE: You see the problem is that if you now deviate from the initial arrangement, and I recollect very clearly that you said we are going to hear one matter which were separable from the rest and I even asked you whether you were sure whether that particular one matter was separable from the rest because it would be difficult to reconstitute the Committee as it stands now and you said, yes, that matter was separable.  You did not speak of two matters.  Now the, if you bring in another matter, this matter that Mr Mpshe is talking about, where he says that call their policemen who are implicated and have not been informed for whatever reason, would obey, but he mentioned in chambers that he would have difficulties in hearing this other matter because, because there are a number of policemen who had not been informed and it was agreed then that you would not deal with the matter, the matter that he is now referring to, the matter that you are now attempting to have, to have it heard, to have heard, he said that that matter should not be heard because policemen had not been informed.  Now if you are going to deal with that matter, you are going to embarrass your colleague and I think it - you are under a duty to come to his rescue and say that it was agreed that we would hear one matter and I think we should keep to the one matter as agreed.

MR MADASA: Sorry, Mr Commissioner, let me attempt to clear the confusion.  ...(intervention)

JUDGE MGOEPE: I am not confused, I am not confused at all, I do not know who is confused, I am quite clear, I do not need any clarification, I am quite sure that you said there was going to be one matter which was going to be heard.

MR MADASA: Let me answer what I meant by one matter.  By one matter I meant the fact that in the Supreme Court at the time both cases on which the applicant was convicted were dealt together as different counts.  So this is, this was my interpretation of referring to a one matter.
	In addition to that I would request a short adjournment of about five to ten minutes so that I can clear with the applicant as to the evidence we agreed between ourselves which we should lead, but I am taking the blame in connection with what did I mean by one matter.  By one matter I meant the cases upon which the applicant has been convicted and my impression, when I consulted with him, was that if these two matters, which are referred to as one matter, still do not implicate other police, in which case it would have been proper for them to be notified.  So, I ask for a short adjournment of about ten minutes so that I can clear with the applicant the fact that in these two matters, upon which he was convicted in the Supreme Court, his application will not implicate other policemen in both matters which are referred to as one matter.

ADV DE JAGER: Well, I am glad at least somebody is accepting the blame for this.  Thank you for being honest about it.

JUDGE WILSON: The time being 11H15 we will take a short adjournment at this stage.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

MR DE RU: (s.u.o.)

JUDGE WILSON: Mr Mpshe.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: You have received a lot of flack this morning as the senior evidence presenter.  One factor which we have in mind is that you were not, in fact, going to be present here originally, but you have stepped into the breach and as a result you are receiving flack that should have been aimed at somebody else, that it was not you who originally prepared these, some of these papers, but I take it you will pass on what has been said to you to your colleagues to ensure that they have regard to these matters in future.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: That is so, Mr Chairman.  I am happy the Chair is now aware of the predicament I have been put into.  Mr Chairman, both my learned friend and I are indebted to the opportunity given.  Mr Chairman, we have clarified certain issues, myself and my learned friend, and the applicant.  I would just want to put you on record, Mr Chairman, that I will not have any problem that the applicant continues with the next incident where he was when I objected, Mr Chairman.  	It is on the basis that the police officers thereon mentioned, that is on page 17, that will be page 17 of the applicant's statement, the paginated, 17, paragraph three thereof. The paragraph starts with, "op 2 Januarie 1991".  There are police officers implicated, Mr Chairman.  Sergeant Hammond, Sergeant Herbst, Sergeant Nel and Sergeant Pienaar and, Mr Chairman, these police officers have not been served with a 19(4), but, Mr Chairman, the 19(4) has, the 19(4) has fallen off.  There is no need for us to inform them in the sense that the police officers I have just mentioned now, were used as State witnesses and they were, at the end of the trial, absolved from this incident in terms of Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Act.  I had the opportunity of talking to the Attorney-General who was approached in this matter, he is herein present, he has confirmed that all these people mentioned herein were State witnesses and are absolved.  The implication being that there is no need for them to be informed because they are not implicated.  Thank you Mr Chairman.