Amnesty Hearings — Thohoyandou — 1999-06-29

MR MEYER: Yes, my submission is that the credibility, the finding which you must make is that their - when you make a comparison between the evidence is that you must prefer the version of the applicants before that of the victims.
	So, just to round of then with regard to the full disclosure aspect, Mr Chairman, it's my submission that the applicants did make full disclosure before this Committee during the oral evidence and that they have satisfied that requirement of the Act.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Meyer, before you continue with the next point, what are your submissions in regard to the consequences of the various assaults?  If my memory serves me correctly, the applicants generally did not admit that the victims were seriously injured with the exception of one which I think was Dr Farisani or Mr Chikororo.  They maintained that the other victims were not seriously injured, do you have any submissions to make in that regard because, I would argue that is indeed a material aspect which they should have disclosed the consequences of the assaults.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we heard that from Dr Farisani that he was in hospital for 106 days.

MR MEYER: Can I just take an instruction from my attorney, thank you, Mr Chairman.  Thank you, Mr Chairman.  Yes, with regard to that aspect, I don't think it was ever denied by the applicants that the victims or some of them at least were hospitalised or required medical attention.
	And I think, Mr Chairman, they were quite open about the fact that the injuries which the victims sustained were serious and that the assaults and the torture on the victims were indeed serious.  I would submit that they weren't down playing the seriousness of the torture and the assaults that took place.
	For instance, when they would be confronted with the fact that the torture and assaults, torture on a specific victim would take place over a period of say three days, they would concede that.  And I think that that indicates that they were quite open, that it took place over a period of time and they were serious assaults.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Didn't that aspect only come out when questions were put either by Ms Mtanga during her cross-examination or from the Committee that these concessions were made?

MR MEYER: Yes, I think with regard anyway to the duration of the torture, it is possible that that only came out during cross-examination or questions by the Committee.

SISI KHAMPEPE: ...(indistinct) extent of the injuries, and the fact that they required medical attention was only conceded by some of the applicants during cross-examination and during the examination by the Committee.  It's not something that they volunteered in their evidence-in-chief.  If you have recourse to your records you will see that.

MR MEYER: I agree with you, Judge Khampepe but one must also remember that while questioning them, I concentrated purely on what they did and not what the consequences were because they are asking amnesty for certain acts which they committed.  And during that part of the evidence they would concede that the assaults and the tortures were very serious.
	And it follows automatically that because of the seriousness, the victims would sustain serious injuries and would require medical attention but, the applicants are asking amnesty for acts which they committed and not for the consequences of those acts.

ADV BOSMAN: But surely, Mr Meyer, the consequences are related the seriousness of the assaults and, once again, you must correct me if I am wrong but, as far as I can remember, the applicants generally denied that they were in need of medical attention with the exception of Mr Chikororo.

SISI KHAMPEPE: If I remember - if I recollect their evidence properly, was that 'Yes, we assaulted but our assaults were quite minor and there was no need for them to require medical attention, save for Mr Chikororo.'  How do you divorce that, the kind of assault from the consequences resulting from the assault if you are making a full disclosure?

MR MEYER: Mr Chairman, I'm not quite sure if that was the gist of the evidence.  They might have denied that the victims required medical attention but, the fact remains that I think during the evidence-in-chief mostly, they readily conceded that the assaults and the tortures were very serious.  And not only with regard to Mr Chikororo but, also with regard to other victims which they said but the people were severely beaten or the assaults took place over a lengthy period of time in which they had to do frog jumps and stand on their heads and they received electric shock treatment over a period of time.
	So, I don't think it's a question of trying to or not making full disclosure with regard to the seriousness of the assaults.  If they deny that the victims did require medical attention, it's my submission that that doesn't mean that the acts which they committed were - or that they tried to down play the seriousness of those acts.
	Can I continue?  Thank you, Mr Chairman.  Before I move on to the political objective is there anything else which the Panel specifically requires me to address you on with regard to full disclosure?

CHAIRPERSON: No, I don't think so but, as I mentioned earlier, there is a distinction between the General and your other clients with regard ...(intervention)

SISI KHAMPEPE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: It seems that the main aspects where there's problems with full disclosure relate to the degree of the torture and the consequences thereof which doesn't really concern ...(intervention)

MR MEYER: No, it doesn't concern ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ... or does it or doesn't it?  What do you say?

MR MEYER: Yes, it doesn't really concern general Ramushwana because I think the only evidence with regard to him is that he slapped Rev Phosiwa with the open hand and there's no evidence by the victims that he was involved in any further physical assaults on any of them.
	He mentioned that he was also applying for amnesty because he took, shall we call it, moral responsibility for the acts of his subordinates.  But, as Judge Khampepe pointed out, that is not something which he applied for in his written application.  When one has regard to his written application, it seems he's only asking for that one assault on Rev Phosiwa.  And, I'm not sure whether the Committee is in a position anyway to grant amnesty for such moral responsibility.

SISI KHAMPEPE: You are obviously aware about our decision in respect of the ANC 37 in that regard?

MR MEYER: I couldn't hear that, sorry Judge Khampepe.

SISI KHAMPEPE: You're probably aware about our decision in respect of the so-called ANC 37, about moral responsibility and such other related acts for which people would want to apply for amnesty.

MR MEYER: That's correct.  Yes.

SISI KHAMPEPE: I was going to ask in respect of each applicant because, I'm still not clear.  For instance I'm not clear whether Mr Ramaligela is seeking amnesty for the assault on Mr Chikororo and Mr Mahumela.  If I recall his evidence-in-chief, he had not participated in any way at all in assaulting Mr Chikororo and Mr Mahumela.
	It however became a little clouded during his cross-examination whether he was admitting participation in those assaults or not.  I will appreciate if you come to an appropriate time just to tell us in respect of who is applying for amnesty for assaulting who.

MR MEYER: Yes.

SISI KHAMPEPE: It's not clear, I would like clarity with regard to that.

MR MEYER: Yes, I will do so in a short while, thank you, Mr Chairman.  Can I make that summary at the end of my argument as such?
	If I can turn then to the political objective of the applicants which is contained in ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I don't know what the attitude of Ms Mtanga is but it would seem that with regard to the political objective, it's pretty straight forward.

MR MEYER: Are you satisfied that ...(intervention)

SISI KHAMPEPE: Yes.