Amnesty Hearings — Nelspruit — 1999-02-04

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabete, where are we today, which matter is going to be heard first?

MS THABETE: Madam Chair, we are going to proceed with the matter of Voice Sambo.   Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Will the legal representatives kindly place their names on the record?

MR BLACK: Thank you, Madam Chair, my name is Black, Advocate Black, from the Johannesburg bar, I'm duly instructed by Attorney Nkosi from Ermelo, and I'll be representing the applicant in this matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Black.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabete?

MS THABETE: My name is Ms Thabile Thabete, I'm appearing for the TRC and I'm representing the interests of Mr O'Farrell who is the victim.   Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Black, are we in a position to commence with your client's application?

MR BLACK: Yes, Madam Chair.   If I, at the outset, with your permission, may I simply, may I refer to certain aspects of the papers, so that we get that in order, so that there's no confusion during the proceedings, and may I also state, and with the permission of the applicant, that he cannot read, and so should any questions be directed to any paragraph there, he would require the assistance of my attorney to actually read matters.

CHAIRPERSON: And probably, to facilitate the matters, whatever is being read and whatever he's going to refer to in the papers, can be read and the translators are here to come to our assistance and they'll be in a position to quickly translate.

MR BLACK: Yes, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I mean that would be much faster than having to rely on your attorney to do the translating... (intervention).

MR BLACK: Thank you, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: ...I mean - before you can proceed, Mr Black, if you are now ready to proceed, can we make inquiries from Ms Thabete about whether section 19.4 notices were served on the families of the deceased, Mr Van der Spuy, and if so they were so served, who is representing their interests?

MS THABETE: Madam Chair, notices were served on Mrs Snyman for the deceased, but she said she wouldn't come, she's in Namibia right now, and I was not given any instructions, but I will be looking after her interests as well.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Thabete.   Mr Black, you may commence with your evidence?

MR BLACK: Thank you, Madam Chair.   The offences in respect of which the applicant is seeking amnesty appear, first of all, in his amnesty application form on page 8 of the record.   Thereafter they are referred to on page 27 of the record, which is the judgment which was delivered by Judge Curlewis, where it's more clearly set out.
	The first charge is one of murder, the second I presume is preventing two constables in carrying out their duties, the third charge is being in possession of a 9mm pistol, the fourth charge is being in possession of ammunition for that pistol, the fifth charge, for which he was arraigned in the High Court, was escaping from lawful custody.   On page 46 of the record it appears that - no, I beg your - no, no, chair, I beg your pardon - it's on page 42 of the record, it appears that the applicant was found guilty on counts 1, 2, 3 and 4, and not guilty on count 5.   So it's in respect of 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the counts for which he was found guilty.

CHAIRPERSON: Won't you enumerate those counts, and may I find out, Mr Black, why this application was not amended?   We know that Mr Mthuli appeared on behalf of Mr Sambo.

MR BLACK: Yes.   With respect, the counts are effectively, as appears on page 8 of the original form, that of murder and possession of a firearm and ammunition.   So the only count which wasn't elaborated was preventing two constables from carrying out their duty.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but those acts were not stated as were supposed to have been under paragraph 9(a)(1) of the application form, and one would really want to see lawyers doing what they are supposed to be doing, properly representing their clients' interests, by making sure that, where possible, papers coming before this committee have been properly prepared, particularly where they have had time to do so.   The reason why I'm raising this in respect of Mr Mthuli's representation of Mr Sambo is that I was involved in the previous matter, the previous hearing, wherein this matter was postponed to a date to be arranged then, and that was some time in October of 1998.   I would have imagined that between that time and now the firm of attorneys would have had time to go through the papers and supplement them where appropriate, particularly where they lack the information as this application did in the application form.

MR BLACK: Yes.   I may also highlight another issue which I raised also with the attorney and with the applicant, and it was explained to me the circumstances under which the original application was filled in.   There is - and I must draw the committee's attention to this, and at the end of the evidence of the applicant, he will give an explanation -as I've indicated, the applicant himself is not literate and he - but I take the committee's point that he was represented and it could have been cleared up.
	I draw the committee's attention also to - and I, because I don't want the applicant to dwell on it and I will lead evidence of the explanation - to page 5 of the original application, paragraph 10(a), which appears to give some difficulty prima facie when he's asked about his political motive.   That can be cleared up and I will do so in due course and I'll allow the applicant please to clear it up, apparently there's a language misinterpretation that could have taken place there.

CHAIRPERSON: Before you proceed, Mr Black, can you just enumerate the offences in respect of which amnesty is being sought?

MR BLACK: It is one of murder, one count of murder, then as, in terms of which he was found guilty, on page 42.   The second count is preventing two constables from carrying out their duties.   And the third count is being in possession of a 9mm pistol, I imagine that's unlawful possession.   And the fourth count is being in unlawful possession of ammunition for that pistol.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR BLACK: Thank you.   There's a further - to clear up the papers - the committee will notice that from page 10 to 16 of the bundle, that is the applicant's typed out statement.  Then from page 17 to 20 of the bundle, that is a typed supplementary affidavit filed by the applicant, it is not signed, but there is a handwritten signed - that's a typescript of the handwritten affidavit which appears from page 21 to 26, so... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: We are fully aware of that.

MR BLACK: Okay.   And that hand..., I may just point out that that handwritten supplementary affidavit, 21 to 26, was prepared by my instructing attorney, it's his handwriting, and there is a date error, an obvious date error, which appears in there.    He refers to, on page 19, paragraph 10.1, that the incident refers to an incident on the 29th of October 1998, that should be 1992.   Furthermore, there are annexures referred to in that paragraph 10, there's an Annexure B and an Annexure C, and these affidavits are really affidavits of persons which were, or evidence led at the inquest.   They haven't been, for some reason or other, my attorney says that they were sent through to the office in Cape Town, but they haven't been attached, and they may be of relevance if Mr O'Farrell is going to give evidence.  So perhaps could I, with the permission of the committee, hand up copies at this stage, or perhaps one should wait until - to see if O'Farrell is in fact going to testify or not.

CHAIRPERSON: You may, I think, for the sake of completing the documents before us... (intervention).

MR BLACK: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: ...hand over that, because there was an omission.

MR BLACK: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: We are sitting with an affidavit wherein Annexure C was attached in part of that affidavit, and we don't have Annexure C.