Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — UNKNOWN

JUDGE WILSON: Is that the summons referred to in his affidavit?

MS QUNTA: That's correct Judge.

JUDGE WILSON: Against the three people, against the Minister isn't it and Snyman ...(intervention)

MS QUNTA: As well as there is a secret report by a General Koen, Major General Koen to the Commissioner of Police whose name is van der Merwe.  We would like that to be handed in because that has a bearing.
	And then also I don't intend calling any further witnesses but I would like to say, as I said earlier on, if we come by further information with regard to the bank statements and property of the witness, whether we can hand that in to become part of the record.

CHAIRPERSON: Well the members of the Committee have no questions to put to your client.  Mr Prior would you like Mr Ntsebeza to give evidence, to ask questions?

MR PRIOR: No Mr Chairman, his affidavit suffices.

CHAIRPERSON: By consent can his affidavit and the annexures thereto become part of the formal record?

MR PRIOR: By consent.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

MS QUNTA: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: I may say that you and your client are excused from further attendance if you choose to leave.

MS QUNTA: Mr Chairman thank you for allowing us to leave.
	I would just like to highlight one or two things that came out of this by way of closing off this matter, hopefully for ever.  I think I've raised with the Committee at the beginning the difficulties we had in terms of Section 19 of the Act. I'm not going to go through that again.  But I wish to reiterate that particularly now, after hearing the evidence from the witness under cross examination and in-chief, we are even more convinced that it was an ill-conceived decision, not by the Committee, I wish to state quite clearly here that we are not in any way you know impugning the Committee in this, but the problem starts within the Investigation Unit, which of course my client had recused himself from, once this issue came up, the investigation was done incompletely. There a whole number of leads which should have followed up. For instance my client in his affidavit stated where he was on that evening and stated two people that could be contacted to verify that. None of them were contacted.

CHAIRPERSON: Can I just stop you at this stage please.  I don't think I want to hear all this.

MS QUNTA: Mr Chairman I actually would like to ask you to allow me to continue because there are some very serious issues raised here.

CHAIRPERSON: No we understand that, we are here to test whether these gentlemen are entitled to amnesty.  That's what we are here for.  Indirectly your client was implicated by the evidence of the last witness.  We've had enough evidence about him.  I've asked you whether you're calling witnesses, you're not calling witnesses, and if you choose to address on the merits please do so but I don't think I want to hear about how badly the investigation was done and matters of that kind.  Your client has his remedies in that regard elsewhere and not before this Committee.

MS QUNTA: Thank you Mr Chairman, I'll continue then.
	On the merits. This witness, there are so many inconsistencies in this witness' statement and as my learned friend here said, he's like wine, his memory gets better with time.  Four years later he remembers everything in such greater detail and it appears to me more than a coincidence that in his second statement all the loose ends in the first statement are tied up very neatly and that gives rise to concern.  It does appear from his evidence that in fact, and he so much admitted, and I don't know whether the translation was accurate, he actually said at some point that he was just told and he agreed. 
	Now it is clear from the totality of the evidence that we have here that these statements were in fact not the witness' statements.
	The other thing that is extremely worrying is the financial status of this gentleman.  He's admitted that he had 40 000 in his account in 1996 January and he gave a whole number of contradictory evidence regarding that. What that raises is the inference that this witness is either receiving large amounts of money ...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: I don't want to interrupt you but didn't he say that that was a mistake, that he spent the 40 000 in 1993 and that he didn't have anything there in 1996?

MS QUNTA: Judge I may be mistaken but I don't recall that, because I put it to him that if he had spent that  40 000 in 1993, this incident with Mr Levy that was reported, he said that 40 000 was in his bank account at that particular time.  But the question still arises as to where a person who earns R1 200 per month has an amount of 40 000 in his account, and these are issues which are very worrying.
	Or alternatively as he himself admitted, he was prepared to defraud his own relatives by making as if the money that his uncle's wife's money, the 320 000 belongs to him.  Moreover, he was prepared to go to Mr Levy and make as if that money is his and that calls into question the person's honesty. I think these are the issues that I believe should indicate ...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: Did he say he went to Mr Levy?  You put it to him, didn't he say he doesn't know Levy?  You haven't called Levy to give evidence that he came to him with this.  My recollection was that he said he didn't know Levy. Isn't that his evidence?

MS QUNTA: Judge he said, when I gave him the name, he said he does not recall, he does not recall Mr Levy but when I pressed him further, he said that was a mistake, and the implication was that he did talk to someone, he didn't know whether it was Mr Levy or not, but he did talk to someone and he did present that figure to them but it was not his money.  It was the money of his uncle's wife.
	So I am saying that in the light of this evidence of this gentleman, it concerns my client and me greatly that a person who is clearly not honest, who from his conduct here shows that he in fact did not make these statements and certainly not in the detail that it is from the evidence can create a situation where my client is forced, and I know he was not obliged, but is forced to protect his own integrity and that of the Commission to come here and in effect, virtually in the press, being put on trial.   Now I will leave the rest to the Committee and I will say no more.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there anything you wish to say on this aspect of the matter?

NORMAN ARENDSE: I don't think there's anything left for me to say.

MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman with permission may I just place two matters on record.
	The first one is that my learned friend Miss Qunta at her insistence that the witness be made available to testify was made available as he was.  
	The second thing was that Mr Killian of the Investigative Unit was also made available by the Amnesty Department to Miss Qunta to interview and that decision was made by the Committee.  
	So I want to simply place that on record that there was certainly no suggestion at any stage that this was contrived in any way whatsoever.  Thank you Mr Chairman.