Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — UNKNOWN

ADV VISSER: Yes Mr Chairman.  The only problem is, that's 
why I say that that ruling must be made now for the simple reason 
that should his evidence become relevant, comments that he will 
be making on this new evidence which he's never had the 
opportunity of making comments on will then be placed on record 
and these applicants would never have had the opportunity to 
respond to what he said there.  Now it may work unfairly both 
ways, it may work unfairly against Mr Coetzee, it may work 
unfairly against these applicants.

ADV DE JAGER: Well on the other hand, if he's not giving 
evidence here and he's not cross-examined, Mr Coetzee for 
instance, then his evidence cannot be used against the present 
applicants.  If the present applicants do not give evidence against 
Mr Coetzee in his application and he hasn't had the opportunity to 
cross-examine them, then we as a committee can't use their 
evidence in motivating a refusal of his amnesty application 
because he didn't have the opportunity to cross-examine.

ADV VISSER: Yes honourable member, that was in fact our 
position right at the outset in October last year that we merely 
intended placing our version on record because we do not have a 
ruling as to what other further evidence may affect Mr Coetzee's 
amnesty application.  I think it's quite clear that the Committees 
are waiting to hear all the evidence before bringing out some 
findings.  Now if there is a ruling that the evidence led here will 
not  affect that application, then you are completely correct and 
that was in fact our position right at the start.  However there 
was a very clear indication last time and I accept that the 
Committee is comprised differently this time, but there was a very 
clear indication that his evidence is very necessary and that these 
issues are considered, the differences are considered as material 
disputes and would have to be canvassed.  -  As it pleases.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen the Committee has considered your 
request to put questions to this witness and the Committee is of 
the view that you should be afforded the opportunity to do so.

MR JANSEN: Thank you Mr Chairman.

ADV VISSER: Mr Chairman with great respect we have an 
interest in what is going on here.  There has been an argument 
addressed to you.  My learned friend Mr Booyens hasn't been 
given an opportunity, nor have I or been asked whether we have 
any contribution to make Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: No the Committee has decided that we would 
like to hear this.  It doesn't depend upon what counsel in the 
matter have to say.  The Committee is of the view that this is an 
enquiry.  We would like to hear the evidence and it may be when 
the time comes, that you will have the right to question Dirk 
Coetzee when he gives evidence
	Mr Booyens I am allowing the questioning of your witness 
by counsel for Dirk Coetzee.  The Committee hasn't made up its 
mind on Dirk Coetzee's evidence on this Kondile matter, and in 
order that justice may be done, it does seem that your client 
should be afforded the opportunity wherever his evidence varies 
with the evidence of Dirk Coetzee to put that to Dirk Coetzee.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes Mr Chairman I hear the Committee's 
ruling.  Of course it seems to me that if the decision is only made 
at the end of the day then whether or not to call Mr Coetzee then 
the Committee may find itself in an extremely difficult position if 
Coetzee then is not called then what value, if any, do you attach 
to the questions and to the answers because then - at the moment 
you've got to answer it like you would for a witness that would 
be called.  But the moment, if he's not called, then the answers 
became answers to a collateral issue and is his first answer would 
be relevant ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No the only reason why we think that Mr 
Swart should be allowed to put questions to Dirk Coetzee 
...(intervention)

ADV BOOYENS: No to du Plessis.

CHAIRPERSON: I am sorry, on behalf of Dirk Coetzee, so that 
Dirk Coetzee be made available.

ADV BOOYENS: Oh, yes no, then we understand each other Mr 
Chairman.  Mr Chairman but may I suggest that Mr Jansen depart 
on his excursion tomorrow.  I see it's already four o'clock, or 
otherwise could I perhaps just ask for a short adjournment.  I 
received a S.O.S. message from my right-hand side 
...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I understand.

MR MARAIS: Mr Chairman before the adjournment, Marais here 
representing Nofomela and Tshikalanga.  I would submit that 
since both my clients received notices in terms of Section 29 that 
they have to appear here and that they may be required to provide 
statements or to answer questions and since the credibility of 
either Dirk Coetzee in this matter or the credibility of the 
applicants in this matter may affect the outcome of the amnesty 
application of either of those two, and insofar as the amnesty 
application of Coetzee is linked in general to the amnesty 
application of both Nofomela and Tshikalanga that I should also 
be afforded the opportunity to cross-examine, inasfar as it may be 
necessary after Mr Jansen, for Mr Coetzee, has dealt with the 
matter.

CHAIRPERSON: I have not understood the reason why your 
client has been served with a notice in the first place.  It's 
unfortunate that they have been asked to come here and make 
themselves available.  They have not been implicated by anybody 
in these proceedings.  They have not been implicated by Dirk 
Coetzee and so I don't know what purpose will be served by 
asking your two clients to be here.  And as far as I see at present 
it seems that we will not require your clients to be here.  
Whatever the Committee may find in respect of Dirk Coetzee's 
evidence cannot impact on your client because your client is not 
touched by these proceedings.

MR MARAIS: Not in this incident specifically but in general 
with regard to the credibility ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No it won't be, the credibility of Dirk Coetzee 
in this matter he has applied for 30, 40 applications and I am of 
the view that your clients are not involved in this application.

MR MARAIS: As it pleases you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  Now I propose commencing at nine 
o'clock tomorrow morning.  Is there anybody who is against the 
idea?

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Chairman the area where we live we have a 
problem, if we commence at 930 there will be lighter traffic.

CHAIRPERSON: I would suggest that we try and be here at nine 
o'clock.

ADV BOOYENS: Certainly Mr Chairman.

ADV DE JAGER: The heavy traffic before seven Mr Booyens.

ADV BOOYENS: No Mr Chairman that's not what I suggested.  
Words are being put in my mouth again which I haven't uttered.

ADV VALUS: I have not addressed you.  I am representing 
Ginotry Danster.  This is a very important witness and it's my 
submission, and I understand that Mr Jansen has the authorisation 
to cross-examine the applicant Mr du Plessis, and my submission 
is that there is no difference between Danster and Coetzee's 
position and if he has the opportunity to cross-examine the 
applicant I also want to be afforded the opportunity.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you not place yourself on record.

ADV VALUS: Mr Chairman everybody had an opportunity to 
speak and I did not want to intervene.

ADV DE JAGER: Did Danster apply for amnesty?

ADV VALUS: No he did not apply for amnesty, no he did not.

CHAIRPERSON: On what basis do you want to put questions, 
your client hasn't applied for amnesty?

ADV VALUS: Mr Chairman if Mr Coetzee will testify evidence 
will be led which will incriminate my client and the purpose of my 
cross-examination will be to test the value of the incriminating 
evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Well if that happens then we will allow you to 
put questions at that stage.  If Mr Coetzee implicates your client 
then you will be afforded an opportunity to put questions.