Amnesty Hearings — White River — 2000-05-04

UNKNOWN: If I can refer the Committee to page 2 of the bundles which contains Form 1 of the application.  Firstly, the spelling of the applicant's name in paragraph 2, Josias(?), the "a" should be replaced with an "i".

CHAIRPERSON: I'm sorry, is it Josias?  Perhaps you could just spell it out in full.

MR LUBBE: As it pleases.  J-o-s-i-a-s.

CHAIRPERSON: J-o-s-i-a-s.  Is that the only name?

MR LUBBE: Yes, Mr Chairperson, he's known as China.

CHAIRPERSON: Also as China.

MR LUBBE: That is correct.  Then paragraph 7 - I beg your pardon, paragraph 9(a)(ii) which deals with the time period.  As indicated to you, Mr Chairperson, my client would also like to apply for offences that were committed during the period and including 1989, up until 1992.  So the period should not read 1991 to February '92, but in fact 1989 till 1992.

CHAIRPERSON: Now what is the effect of this issue that you've just raised Mr Lubbe?  Does that period introduce incidents which are not listed in the summary in paragraph 9(a)(i), read together with the supplementary affidavit?

MR LUBBE: That is in fact so, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Dated the 4th of May 2000.

MR LUBBE: That is in fact so, Mr Chairperson.  I've indicated that I've received instructions that certain other incidents took place during 1989, prior to Mr Hlongwane coming to Ermelo and then being in charge of the Black Cats.  I've got details of these actions or offences, and I don't really know whether I should add them to the record now, or whether I should introduce them by way of leading my client on them.  I understand the logistical problem, and that is that I would curtail the application today before you, simply for these matters that are contained in the supplementary affidavit.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LUBBE: Then (iii) should also read "Davel", in other words, not only Ermelo, but also in Davel.  Then Mr Chairman, there's reference in (iv) of paragraph 9, of a person by the name of Stanley Percy de Kock, also in 9(c)(i).  The applicant doesn't know where that comes from.  I've asked my clerk who attended to the completion of this form in the presence of the applicant, if he can afford any explanation as to where the name comes from, but apparently not, nobody knows who Stanley Percy de Kock is.

CHAIRPERSON: So do you want that name deleted?

MR LUBBE: Simply by deleting the name "Stanley Percy de Kock".  Well it would not quite make sense, maybe we should say: "The death of various unknown persons".

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LUBBE: Then turning to page 7 of the bundle, Mr Chairman, paragraph 11(b), to add the names of Mr I N Hlongwane, as well as Mr Chris Ngwenya.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you just give that last surname.

MR LUBBE: Ngwenya.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LUBBE: The time period obviously would also have to be adjusted to 1989 to 1992.  Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you, Mr Lubbe.  Ms Mtanga, I just want to hear your response on the one issue, in regard to the application for amendment of Mr Lubbe, and that is the extension of the date to 1989 and the introduction through that amendment of incidents that are not before us and apparently don't form part of the application at this stage.  Have you got any response or any views on that issue at this stage?

MS MTANGA: Chairperson, even though I do not wish to oppose this application, it does appear to me that the addition of, or the change in the date to '89, would amount to an ovation, but I would like to leave this in your hands.  In the event the Committee does grant Mr Lubbe the application, I would say those incidents that he wishes to add on will have to be separated from these incidents because they were not investigated and we wouldn't know who the victims are, so we will not be in a position to deal with them today.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  Yes I'm not specifically calling on any of the other parties, but if you wish to raise something you are free to do so, because it's not apparent at this stage whether this concerns any of your clients or any of the interests that you represent.  There are no details before us at this stage about this, but you are free to raise any issue that you want to raise in regard to this extension.
R U L I N G
	In regard to the formal amendments, those are granted.  They have been detailed by Mr Lubbe.  In regard to the extension of the period which this application covers, or let me put it this way, the period in respect of which the applicant wishes to apply for amnesty, that appears to us to be a substantive issue, a substantive application, which would need full motivation, it will have to be a formal application which is submitted to the Committee, to deal with.  	Sitting here as we are at this stage, we are operating under unfortunate restraints, time restraints and otherwise.  We have a number of interested parties who are attending the hearing in respect of the incidents which are properly before us at this stage.  We regard it as not being in the interest of justice to fully deal with this issue that was raised in the application for amendment, and therefore we will grant the applicant an opportunity to submit a substantive application to the Committee, fully motivated, on affidavit, and for that application to be considered and dealt with by the Committee at a more appropriate stage and at a time when the further incidents which the applicant wishes to introduce, can be considered and investigated and a proper and better view, better informed view, to be formed in regard to those issues.
	So the application in regard to the extension of the date is then dealt with on that basis, so that the nett result of that ruling is that what we will be dealing with in this session are the incidents which are properly identified in terms of paragraph 9(a)(i) of the application form on page 3 of the bundle of documents before us, read with the supplementary affidavit dated the 4th of May 2000.  In fact, we will mark the supplementary affidavit Exhibit A, for the purposes of the record.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Lubbe, is there anything else, or do you want your client to take the oath?

MR LUBBE: Thank you Mr Chairman, no.  I'm calling my client, the applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.  Are your full names Josias Seemise?

JOSIAS SEEMISE: Yes, that's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Please stand to take the oath.

JOSIAS SEEMISE: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you may be seated.  Yes Mr Lubbe.

MR LUBBE: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.
	Mr Seemise, I'm referring you to the supplementary affidavit, Exhibit A in front of you.  You've got a copy in front of you.  Now please look at paragraph 2 of the affidavit, and can you briefly explain to this Committee the reason why your -  Mr Chairperson, sorry this doesn't work.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you need a headset, and you must just make sure that it is on channel 2.
	Very well, we seem to be sorted out.  Yes you may proceed.

MR LUBBE: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.
	Mr Seemise, please look at paragraph 2 of Exhibit A in front of you.  The allegation is made that your application, which is the form in the bundle, starting at page 2 and running through to page 8, was completed insufficiently.  Can you briefly explain to the Committee how it came about that this form was completed in the fashion and in the way it has been.

INTERPRETER: Will you please just repeat the question, Sir.

MR LUBBE: Yes.  Please look at paragraph 2 of Exhibit A, briefly explain to the Committee please, how it came about that this application of yours was not completed sufficiently.

JOSIAS SEEMISE: With regards to my application, I was assisted by my previous attorney who then referred me to Mr Lubbe.  Mr Lubbe did not know how far I had gone with my previous attorney.

MR LUBBE: Yes, and the application was submitted shortly before the cut-off date for the amnesty applications, is that correct?

JOSIAS SEEMISE: That's correct.