Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — UNKNOWN

CHAIRPERSON: This letter dated 20th October 1996 is beinghanded in as an exhibit is it?

DR PRETORIUS: Yes My Lord.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll call it Exhibit A.
EXHIBIT A HANDED IN - LETTER DATED 20 OCTOBER

DR PRETORIUS: As the Court pleases My Lord.

UNKNOWN: Dr Pretorius why are you saying that theapplication is premature, if you prepare a case then you do itin time and you take care that your witnesses are available whenyou need them?

DR PRETORIUS: Learned Commissioners in this particularcase, and here I could also refer to section 29(3) of the Actthere are two interests which must constantly be borne in mind. We cannot anticipate the findings of this Committee and the possibilityof a prosecution is always there.  The integrity of the prosecutionmust always be protected and that is my respectful submissionin this regard.  There are five applicants in this case, fiveapplicants for amnesty.  We don't know exactly what their
2A cases/...
36
cases will be. We don't know whether there will be any omissionsin their cases, defects in their cases, we don't know whetherit is necessary at this stage that any of the State witnessesbe exposed.  
 My submission is that there is a middle-of-the-road option. As my learned friend conceded there is this middle-of-the roadoption which can be used.  Let us first hear the case for theapplicants to, at this stage, say that the people must be subpoenaedcan damage the prosecution's interest.  And that is our submission.
 There is another danger which should be just mentioned in a generalsense.  If there's a grouping that feels that they want to applyfor amnesty they can decide in anticipation to blame only oneperson and to blacken this person's name to such an extent thatthe possibility for a prosecution in future is so remote becausethat person has already been discredited in another forum andthe blame has been loaded onto his shoulders entirely.  So thatis a danger which you must constantly bear in mind, that if youhave a grouping of conspirators or co-conspirators they may thendecide to lower the blame onto one of the State witnesses so thatthis could minimalise the possibility for a prosecution in future. And for that reason it is premature, because we are not yet awareof what the applicants are going to say, whether it will merelybe a repetition and whether the State witnesses will be able tomake any substantial contribution to this amnesty application.

UNKNOWN: But the State witnesses who are referredto here are people implicated in the applications?

DR PRETORIUS: That is correct.
2A

UNKNOWN: /...
37

UNKNOWN: So they have been notified that they areimplicated and that they are entitled to come and testify themselvesor to submit a case according to section 19(4).

DR PRETORIUS: I am not quite following your question.

UNKNOWN: I am saying that the State witnesses I assumehave been notified of this hearing?

DR PRETORIUS: I am not aware of that.  This morning Ispoke to three of the State witnesses, Mr van Jaarsveldt is presenthere today.  Apart from what was read in the media I was not awarethat two of the other witnesses were notified of today's applicationand I spoke to three of them in person.  This morning I had toactually tell them what was going on and what the State's attitudewould be and I had to ask them what their individual attitudeswould be.  So these people weren't, in all cases, aware of theapplication to take place here today apart from what was availablein the media they weren't all aware of this fact.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Do you wish to reply?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes please Mr Chairman. I am going toanswer in Afrikaans to what my learned friend argued.
 Firstly, I would like to make the point that it appears to bequite clear to us that the Attorney General does not believe thatthe applicants will be granted amnesty, from that perspectiveDr Pretorius is arguing as if it is a foregone conclusion thata criminal prosecution against the applicants will in fact takeplace after these proceedings.  If anybody, therefore, is prematurewith any statement then it is Dr Pretorius himself who is prematurein his assumption that the applicants will not be granted amnesty.
 If the applicants are to be granted amnesty in respect of theirapplications then there will be no criminal 
2A prosecution/...
38
prosecution and the Truth Commission will then suffer.  The truthitself will suffer as a result of that, and the whole processof truth and reconciliation will suffer in the process.  The questionwhich one must ask oneself after listening to Dr Pretorius isif one weighs up the interests at stake here which interests mustbe put in the balance according to Dr Pretorius?  The intereststo be weighed up are the discrediting of potential State witnessesagainst the withholding from the Truth Commission.
 Now the submission which I would like to make in this regardis that unless I have misunderstood it completely the interestsof this Commission and the work with which it is engaged at themoment and the truth ought to weigh more heavily than the merepotential future discrediting of witnesses.  What Dr Pretoriushas of course neglected to mention is that the possibility thata State witness will be able to put forward exactly the same versionmight not discredit him but actually be to his advantage.  
 We also find it strange that the Attorney General, and Dr Pretoriushas now confirmed that the investigation has been going on overa long period of time has regarded it  necessary in regards ofCronje and Hechter in the course of last week when it became knownthat these hearings would take place, tried to arrest BrigadierCronje and Mr Hechter, to arrest them and to bring them beforeCourt.

CHAIRPERSON: You are raising something new.