Amnesty Hearings — Pretoria — UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, may I just indicate that we have the differences between the old and the new application.  There were the application and, when I speak about application I speak about the filling in of the form and the typed addition to the form, there are difference which we have put together on the basis of the old and the new on an analysis.  In order to save time, may I hand that, may I hand up a document which shows the differences so that when I examine Mr Derby-Lewis on it, we can have, we do not have enough copies, but we can make them available.  I will, whilst they are being made I can just ask some preparatory questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well, Mr Derby-Lewis, in fairness, should have before you whatever documents you use to supplement your original application which, I take it, is in typed form.

JUDGE WILSON: Would you make copies?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And if you have all the documents then we can proceed.  Do you have them?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman, I do not have the documents.

CHAIRPERSON: Though your own application?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I have my own application.

CHAIRPERSON: Supplemented by a number of ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: By the annexures.

CHAIRPERSON: That is right.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I have them, Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: May we have a copy from Mr Bizos, Mr Chairman?

UNKNOWN: Yes, this was a document which I did not intend handing in, but they are my notes to put to the witness, but I have given it in as an assistance, because the witness and, apparently, his legal representatives are not aware of the differences or may not be aware of the differences and some of them are of a material nature.  This is why copies are being made and we will hand them to the witness and to each member of the Committee and to the legal representatives.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Mr Chairman, may I just come in just for convenience, Mr Chairman, the document handed in first by Mr Bizos, the alleged another application be numbered R7, please, and the document allegedly containing the difference between the first and the second application be referred to as R8.

JUDGE WILSON: Well, it is all part of the one bundle.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: No, Mr Chairman, two separate documents were handed up just now.  Only one copy was given to the Chair, that would be R8, the one outlining the differences.  Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but at some stage, I would like to know about this, which you conveniently wish to call R7, because R7 has the original application form which is in manuscript, which is already in bundle A.  Bundle A, as we have said, up to page 14, they were already annexed, they form part of R7 and then the rest are what appear in bundle A as pages 15 and then there are different pages.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes, could we perhaps, while the Chairman is talking, give the page numbers.  Page five of the bundle handed in by Mr Bizos is page 15 of bundle A.  Page six, seven, eight and nine of Mr Bizos' number, Mr Bizos' bundle does not appear to be part of bundle A.  Page ten of Mr Bizos' bundle appears to be page 23 of bundle A.  Page 11 of Mr Bizos' bundle appears to be page 24 of bundle A and it goes on, 24, 25 and 26.

CHAIRPERSON: So, there are some pages now which have been handed in by Mr Bizos that do not form part of bundle A?

UNKNOWN: Yes, the drive of what we are saying is that although the pages appear to be the same, the contents differs.

JUDGE WILSON: Not of the ones I have given you, Mr Bizos, those are identical.

UNKNOWN: Well, that may be, but there are differences between the composite application, which we call first application, and the composite second application which finds itself in bundle A and the document that we are making a copy of draws attention to those differences.

JUDGE WILSON: Well, where does the composite first application come from?  Mr Mpshe says the application in application A is the application lodged with the Committee.  Where does yours come from?

UNKNOWN: Well, it came to us, Mr Chairman, when we asked for a copy of the application.  We first received the first one and then we were given the second one, as amended.

JUDGE WILSON: Mr Mpshe?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Mr Chairman, I will have to put this again on record.  The copy that Adv Bizos has ended up as R7, intended to be another application, is incorrect.  It is the original application filed by the applicant.  It is repeated that on my copy it does not show exactly when, correctly when this was filed.  This application was filed, I am trying to make it up here, on the fourth of May 1996.  So, it is still the original application.  The only change that was made by the application is in as far as answering of questions are concerned.  I can refer the Chair again to page ten, page ten of bundle A.  It is just an amendment to the answering of questions and not a new application.  Page ten is also a clarification to that.  The application still remains the same.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: But Mr Mpshe, I, whereabouts page 18 and so on of the, of bundle A, how does it relate to page six of the bundle which Mr Bizos has just given us, because both, they have a commonality.  Paragraph, they all purport to be paragraph 9(4), nature and particulars, but the contents differ.  Now, I do not know whether what you are saying is that pages 18 and so on replaced pages six of Mr Bizos' documents and so on.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Mr Chair, as it can be noted, page five is an amendment filed by Janusz Walus and page 18 is amendment filed by Clive Derby-Lewis.  These are amendments from two different applicants.  Page five is that of Janusz Walus.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Yes, but page 18 is an amendment by Mr Derby-Lewis, but you see amending paragraph 9(4) as given to us by Mr Bizos.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: I have not seen what Mr Bizos has given you, I was never given a copy.  If I can just be allowed.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Yes, please have a look at that, because it is confusing to us.

CHAIRPERSON: It is, indeed, at this stage in the proceedings.

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, it is true that the same application form may cover both.  What we are concerned with that between May and November the applications of both applicants were amended in certain respects.  That is the whole purpose and I want to ask questions as to how these amendments came to be made and why.  That is really the ...

JUDGE WILSON: Well, I want to get clarity as to how and when, have you got the papers now, Mr Mpshe?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: I do have the papers, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: If you will look at Mr Bizos' page six, that is nature and particulars and starts,
"After the speech of F W de Klerk ...",
in relation to paragraph 9(4).  Correct?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: I do have it.

JUDGE WILSON: Now, in bundle A at page 18 ...

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: 18.

JUDGE WILSON: ... we have another answer to 9(4).

CHAIRPERSON: The heading is the same.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: The document ...

JUDGE WILSON: No, the heading is from Prinsloo and van der Walt, phone number 0157-308, April the 14th, 1997.  That is along the top of my page.

CHAIRPERSON: That is a fax.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: That is a fax.

JUDGE WILSON: So, this ...

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

JUDGE WILSON: So, this was faxed to you on the 14th of April 1997, it would appear?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: That is correct, Mr Chairman, page ...

JUDGE WILSON: And was it substituted then for the one that Mr Bizos has put forward?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: That is correct, Mr Chairman, page 18 in bundle A is amendment of page six on Mr Bizos' documents.  That is correct.

JUDGE WILSON: And it was done on the 14th of April of this year?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Of this year.

JUDGE WILSON: The original ...

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: I ...

JUDGE WILSON: ... application that was filed ...

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: On the fourth of May 96.

JUDGE WILSON: ... of 1996, contained the 9(4) set out at page six ...