Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — UNKNOWN

CHAIRPERSON: You are reminded that you are still under oath.  Do you understand?

NEO POTSANE: (s.u.o.)

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Potsane may I refer you to your application for amnesty, in particular page 114.  Have you got it in front of you Mr Potsane?

NEO POTSANE: I have it.

MR PRETORIUS: May I first refer you to paragraph 9.a., that is the Act that you applied for amnesty, in general not only this application, not only this incident, the Shell House incident.  In the first Act or Acts that you refer to was annexed in an annexure where you stated you were convicted for the operations contained in the annexure marked Annexure A.  Are those the operations that you were sentenced to death for initially?

NEO POTSANE: Well regarding that question, my legal adviser said that I should not answer those questions concerning previous applications for amnesty.

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Chairman the ANC representatives chose to place the background of each applicant before the committee.  It also went further where it referred to actions alleged to be done by the IFP regarding various acts of violence etc.  With all due respect, if that is the position that the background of a witness or an applicant is placed before this committee then it is only correct that it's full background be placed before the committee and not only those that suit the applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Background relating to any other application for amnesty is no concern of this committee and this committee is not going to entertain evidence relating to any other application relating to amnesty.  I think we must confined ourselves to this particular matter.  In so far as any background information is concerned, you may enquire about the organisations to which he has belonged etc, but I do not think it proper at this stage to go around enquiring what the nature of the offence was for which he was sentenced and where and how and matters of that kind.  They're not relevant for present purposes.

MR PRETORIUS: I may just put it on record Mr Chairman that I did not intend to go into the detail of it but it is important to a certain extent and I may just put it to the witness the position or the proposition that I wish to make with regard to his background and that seen in the light of this particular incident.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Mr Pretorius, for my benefit, would you please indicate the relevance to me of the matter that you propose canvassing with this witness?

MR PRETORIUS: Indeed My Lord Mr Justice Ngcobo ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Before you proceed.  Mr Currin paragraph 9.a. one talks about Annexure A.  Where is Annexure A?

MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman Annexure A is in possession of the TRC investigators who are dealing with that particular application.  I have had lengthy dealings with them in regard to those two applications, they incidently were also put down for hearing during the month of May and because of this hearing they were postponed until June, so all that documentation is in possession of the investigators, TRC, who are dealing with that particular application.  The application was actually divided for practical purposes because they were not following applicants, but were following themes, which was the decision of the TRC.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand.  Yes please proceed.

MR PRETORIUS: Honourable member of the committee if one first looks at page 3574 of the inquest proceedings, one ... (intervention)

JUDGE NGCOBO: Of the findings?

MR PRETORIUS: That is the evidence.  This witness stated as from line 11 and further, that he in fact shot to kill.  If one looks at his amnesty applications, in particular paragraph 2 thereof on page 9.a.ii on page 114, in his amnesty application this witness stated that he was involved in an operation which he terms
"This relates to the assisination of Brigadier Malope in August 1996.  He was shot in his house in Mobopane and AK47 assault rifles were used, he died".
The particular point that I would like to make and I'll take that further with regard to the application and more in particular on page 115, the top thereof that is paragraph 10(b), more in particular the last 2 lines of that sentence:  "and committed under the orders of my commanders and with the approval of the organisation".  Now that refers to the ANC Mr Chairman.  Now what this indicates if one takes the line right throughout, that firstly an assasination as we full well know has got nothing to do with protecting yourself physically or any other wise, we all know what the word assasination means.  It then goes that he did that with the approval of the ANC.  
	We then further know that on page 3574 he testified that he shot to kill.  It is true, I'm not placing it out of context that in there he said that it was in a defense situation, but his aim was he shot to kill.  Taking all that into regard and also taking into regard that it is the position of the objectors that no attack took place and that there was no reason to fire, also taking into regard that it was repeatedly placed on record the fact that in so far as the ANC was concerned, they treasured human life and human right etc and would not have done anything but to defend the building.  Taking everything into regard that I have pointed out now, I'm going to argue at the end of the day that it is clear from, in particular this application, that it was not all that innocent and that the particular organisation was not involved in innocent acts only as is particularly placed on record and we can all see that, and therefore it is important, relating to the background, merely to put this to the witness on the basis - I may just take it one point further, if one looks at 9.b, he says that there's three people killed and twenty injured and damage to property.  Now I'm going to ask this witness with relation to those persons killed, which he stated there, these three persons killed and twenty injured, whether that relates to Shell House for instance because I get the impression it does not relate to Shell House.  If it does not relate to the Shell House incident, that indicates that there were three people killed one of which must be Brigadier Malope which we have seen in paragraph 2, then there's two other people killed and all I want to know is if he alleges that he acted in self defence when those people were killed.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Currin will you throw some light on that matter because I am puzzled by the contents of this application, more particularly in relation to this last question, paragraph 9.b?

JUDGE NGCOBO: And also would you also indicate to us on what basis is the applicant refusing to answer questions that are put to him?