Amnesty Hearings — Nelspruit — 1999-02-04

MR O'FARRELL: Madam, I'm by no means an expect in either field, however I leave it up to the committee to make the decision, there are several breaks in the applicant's - me, by talking by the truth.   First of all, where the applicant states, and he drags the deceased's name through the mud, stating that the deceased firstly shot him in the leg.   My evidence was that the shot was fired in front of him, approximately two feet in front, a foot or two feet in front of the applicant, of which a bullet was also recovered from that certain area, as I think it's on page 32 of this book, of the judgment, of the main scroll, where it states that Brigadier Alberts testified that such had been done.   The fact that the accused also states that he then shot Warrant Officer Van der Spuy from the front position.   The degree of the wound that penetrated Warrant Officer Van der Spuy penetrated him in the top right shoulder, proceeded through his one heart, through his lung, through his other lung and then exited his left side, which, as I said, the accused and Warrant Officer Van der Spuy are much of the same height, in order for such wound to have been inflicted, the applicant would have at least been able to stand at a certain angle, at which stage on that time of the shooting, we were on a flat surface, so he couldn't have shot the accused at such an angle, unless he had a damn ladder near him.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR O'FARRELL: Then I close my argument, madam.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr O'Farrell, we are fully aware of the objective facts... (intervention).

MR O'FARRELL: Sorry madam, I'm just... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: ...as disclosed during the criminal trial, as well as the post-mortem report, all these are things that we take into account when we evaluate the evidence with a view of making a just decision.   We, however, appreciate your bringing those issues into our attention.   Ms Thabete?

MS THABETE: I have no further witnesses, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Will that be the case for the objectors?

MS THABETE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: That being the case, Ms Thabete and Mr Black, are you now in a position to address us?

MS THABETE: Yes, Madam Chair.

MR BLACK: Yes, I am, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you ready, Mr Black, or would you want to be afforded a few minutes to organise your argument?

MR BLACK: May I have just a few minutes, I just want to get the documentation together.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BLACK: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: We will afford you about five minutes to organise your address.   We'll come back here at ten to four.

MR BLACK: Okay, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Can we find out from you, Mr Black, how long you think you will be in your presentation?

MR BLACK: I don't think very long.   It's very difficult to say because unless there are questions put to me... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BLACK: ...but I don't propose being too long - most of the - I'll confine myself to the documentation before the Court really.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.   We'll adjourn then for five minutes.  Can we start at ten to four?

MR BLACK: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Are you ready to commence with your address?

MR BLACK: Yes, Madam Chair.

UNKNOWN: Madam Chair, in my respectful submission, the evidence of the applicant which has been placed before this committee has not deviated in any material respect from the documentation which is already in possession of the committee.  So I don't intend to go into great
detail, except again to draw the committee's attention and to emphasise the importance of that area of his evidence relating to the background of the applicant, the training of the applicant, the high degree of responsibility and respectability acquired by the applicant within the organisation of the African National Congress prior to his coming back to South Africa and subsequent to his arrest in 1991 in South Africa.
	The problems, despite the fact that the applicant attempted to carry on a normal life after he'd been released from prison on the grounds of the indemnity provisions, the problems which materialised and escalated, arose from the applicant refusing to be recruited by the security police into their ranks and to betray his comrades in the African National Congress.
	The applicant has testified at some length and some detail as to the role which he played in South Africa throughout in the recruitment and training of various cadres and guerillas and the supplying of arms.   This the security police were well aware of and the applicant would have been a very valuable catch.    His refusal to join their ranks obviously rankled with the security establishment and then accounts of the almost daily, certainly weekly, harassments which took place, ranging from searching at the house, entering upon the premises, invading his privacy and his family's privacy, harassment by Askaris trying to purchase arms, the abduction of his brother and the mysterious disappearance of his brother, and all this harassment, with due respect, was reported to the ANC structures.    At one stage he contemplated, after speaking to the late Chris Hani, he was thinking at that stage to get out of the area and to join the army of General Holomisa, who then had recruited a number of his former MK soldiers.   So he had almost reached the end of his tether of this harassment, and any details relating to this political harassment has gone unchallenged.   He has mentioned certain policemen in his statement.  These policemen were neither represented nor attended this hearing.

CHAIRPERSON: Because they don't think the implication is that substantive, wouldn't you agree?   They have a right to choose whether to attend or not, they're not obligated to attend... (intervention).

MR BLACK: That is so... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: ...it depends on the extent of the implication that will inform them whether they think they've got to come here to protect their rights or not.

MR BLACK: Yes, that is so, I would have submitted that these implications are somewhat serious and certain implications and implicated police in the past hearings have at least attended to deny that, but be that as it may... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: That is your opinion, Mr Black.

MR BLACK: Yes.   The fact is that these allegations remain unchallenged.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm just worried.   You seem to be saying that Mr Sambo's harassment was because of his refusal to join the ranks of the security force.   The way I understood his evidence is that he was harassed because of his position as an MK member.

MR BLACK: That is so.   What I intend to convey is that at the time of his - after his release, he occupied a highly prominent and active role within the ranks of the ANC.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but... (intervention).

MR BLACK: Attempts were made to recruit him.   That recruiting did not succeed.   It wasn't a recruit within the ranks or to leave, it was a form of spying, let's put it that way, but the... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.   But that definitely did not cause him to be harassed, because there is no evidence before us that after that had failed, he was harassed and then they came back again to recruit him.

MR BLACK: No.   It's after that event, my submission is, that there was an intensification of the harassment, it would appear to be so.   It was not that prior to that he had not also been harassed.   It was clear that Mr Sambo was not going to - that he was going to continue with his activities, or his active role within the ANC.

MR LAX: Just, Mr Black, are you arguing before us that he continued his role as an MK operative after he refused to join them?

MR BLACK: After he refused to join the security... (intervention).

MR LAX: To join the security police.

MR BLACK: Yes, he continued with his ANC activities, he... (intervention).