Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1999-10-28

MR PAPIER: Thank you Judge.  Please bear with me for one moment.
	Thank you Judge, thank you Commissioners.  Just very briefly, it's my respectful submission that this application relates to the activities flowing from the evidence presented to this Commission today and in particular the bomb blast executed at the Bontheuwel Rent Office on that date, which includes the possession of ammunition, arms and ammunition, malicious injury to property, attempted murder

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

MR PAPIER: Thank you Judge, in so far as relates to the aspect of dolus eventualis with intent, and in so far as it relates to the injuries sustained by Mr Bartlett, we of course submit that there is no prospect, or to put it the worst case scenario, very remote prospect of wanting to argue intent in the form of dolus eventualis but nevertheless I would submit that should, in an unlikely scenario, a charge of attempted murder be formulated in respect of Mr Bartlett, we would respectfully request this Committee to consider granting amnesty for that.

CHAIRPERSON: What are the prospects of a conviction on attempted murder?

MR PAPIER: I would submit close to zero, Judge and Honourable Committee Members.

MOEGAMAT ANEEZ SALIE: Your Honour, would you mind if I...?

CHAIRPERSON: No you have to ...

MR PAPIER: May I just take instructions?
	Thank you Judge.  I am reminded and instructed by my client that correspondence flowing from this office, the TRC office referred to the charge of attempted murder as well, but when I was addressing the Committee I wasn't mindful of that correspondence.  Be that as it may, Honourable Commissioners ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I must say that some strange questions have come out of this office and ultimately this Committee must decide on the issue and it's important because it's non-appealable and the future of people is at stake and we need to be certain of what we're about.

MR PAPIER: Yes.  Thank you Judge and so it is with that in mind that I would submit that even though there is a remote chance of the prospects of success in respect of the attempted murder being very remote, I would nevertheless request this Honourable Committee to consider that.
	Finally Judge, Honourable Commissioners, I submit, with respect, that the application ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: First attempted murder, what else?

MR PAPIER: Malicious injury to property.

CHAIRPERSON: Was there any malicious injury to property?

MOEGAMAT ANEEZ SALIE: The Rent Office was slightly injured, yes.

MR PAPIER: I'm instructed yes, Judge.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, the question then arises whether it's MITP or arson, you must tell us.

MR PAPIER: I would respectfully request this Committee to consider granting amnesty for arson alternatively malicious injury to property.

CHAIRPERSON: What was the damage and how was it caused?  Arson must have been caused by fire.

MR PAPIER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Now if that was the damage, yes, then it's arson.  If not and it was caused some other way, then it may very well be malicious injury to property.

MR PAPIER: I would then respectfully request that the alternative be excluded and that amnesty be granted for arson, as well as possession of arms and ammunition.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Papier, I don't want to be over technical, but we have no evidence before us about any damage to the property.  We have no evidence before us on any form of dolus eventualis.  Do you wish to make any submissions on that?

MR PAPIER: Yes, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Well before, just complete your list of offences.  You said possession of arms and ammunition, anything else?

MR PAPIER: That would be the nett effect of ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: What about a contravention of the explosives Act?

MR PAPIER: Absolutely Judge, so I respectfully submit that it would be all contraventions flowing from  the Arms and Ammunitions Act.

CHAIRPERSON: Explosives Act.  Anything else?

MR PAPIER: That is my list Judge, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Now how do you come up by arson on the evidence before us?

MOEGAMAT ANEEZ SALIE: Your Honour if I could possibly assist.  I testified that our intention was to burn down the building, that's why we had fitted the limpet with thermite and which is why Mr Bartlett had received such severe burns, the top half of his body was very badly burned Your Honour.

CHAIRPERSON: I want to make one thing clear now.  When we listen to argument or evidence, we can only listen to one person.

MOEGAMAT ANEEZ SALIE: I beg your pardon.

CHAIRPERSON: Now either you fire your attorney and talk, or you continue with your representative.

MOEGAMAT ANEEZ SALIE: I beg your pardon, Your Honour.

MR PAPIER: May I take instructions on that?  Judge, yes, I confirm that there is evidence before this Committee particularly with regard to the intention of ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I can understand that, but we haven't got evidence as to whether it was successful or not, have we?

MR PAPIER: No evidence has been placed before this Honourable Committee by the applicant, but we respectfully submit that the consequences of their conduct would have amounted to mere speculation and hearsay on the point of the applicants.  They did not embark on an assessment and a quantification of the damages.

CHAIRPERSON: We're not talking of quantification.  We're just finding out if there's any evidence to say that the building was partly burned or scorched or whatever.

MR PAPIER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Have we got that evidence?

MR PAPIER: I have no instructions on that Honourable Commissioners.  What I am submitting ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: So how can you say that they're guilty of arson then?

MR PAPIER: I'm respectfully submitting, Honourable Commissioners, that the evidence placed before this Commission relates to the bomb that was planted by clients ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: At best, Mr Papier, aren't they then guilty on the evidence before us of attempted arson?

MR PAPIER: As you please.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you agree?

MR PAPIER: I would agree with that, yes.

ADV BOSMAN: How would you deal with the malicious injury to property?

CHAIRPERSON: He's abandoned that.

ADV BOSMAN: Have you abandoned that?

CHAIRPERSON: And the possession of arms and ammunition?

MR PAPIER: I respectfully submit, Honourable Judge that there is evidence before this Committee that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: From whom?

MR PAPIER: From Sidney Hendricks that he was in possession of the limpet mine.  There's evidence before this Committee by Aneez Salie that it was his responsibility to in fact obtain the arms and ammunition and in so far as it relates to the doctrine of common purpose, I would respectfully submit that it is common cause that the applicants possessed or controlled arms.

CHAIRPERSON: Through Mr Salie?

MR PAPIER: Through Mr Salie but more in particular to the limpet mine, through Mr Sidney Hendricks.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Papier, the limpet mine relates to the Act concerning explosives and the contraventions thereof.  Possession of arms and ammunition means firearms.  I can understand that Mr Salie himself, possessed them or such-like articles at some time during his duties.  I've got no quarrel with him obtaining amnesty for it, but I must be possessed to reason that the others are guilty of it.

MR PAPIER: Yes.  Thank you Judge.  In particular and specifically I refer this Honourable Commission to the evidence of Sidney Hendricks who testified that he was in possession of a survival kit which included an AK47.

CHAIRPERSON: For this incident?

MR PAPIER: Honourable Judge, the evidence placed before this Committee was in response to a question and he had indicated that he was in possession of this survival kit which included an AK47.

CHAIRPERSON: You see, when we ask you the question of listing the offences for which he's applied for, we assume that you would do so in respect of the incident relating to the application.