Amnesty Hearings — Boksburg — 1999-02-25

MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Mr Chair.  Chair just getting back to what Mr Lax said and the specific choice of words that was I believe indeed interpreted that they wanted to join the fight or the attack as such.  Mr Chair I think it is obvious that there was a looming threat from the side of the IFP, in that there was a group gathering.  It was a far superior group in numbers.  I think it was by several applicants stated that they did see arms, albeit that they did not see firearms as such, but the ANC group were armed, and Mr Chair it's just my submission, in those circumstances, obviously inferences can be drawn from why they decided to do what they did in the end, but I think it was, and I think specifically Mr Mpongosi, I think maybe said what was not said by anyone else, in saying that they knew what was going to happen.  And also the allegation that they were stoned first.  I think it's very difficult to conclusively say one attacked the other, and I mean that is as Advocate Sigodi mentioned, that is the basis of full disclosure and in being truthful and honest and taking this Committee into their ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: On this question of full disclosure, I just want to hear your views, and I'll be asking the same of Mr Draht when he's arguing.  We had the situation, okay I don't have the problem with this first part of it, we know that the version that the applicants gave at their trial was something different, but the reason was they didn't want to get convicted, and okay they admit that they lied, but they did it for a specific reason to avoid gaol.  But then they fill in their applications forms, and if we take your client, Mr Sithole.  He puts in a first application form and he says;
"...I got my firearm (which I've always had)" in brackets, you know stressed, it's mine, no-one else's "...and I took it"
... and he tells what he did.  At that time Magwaza fills in an application form, says look I know nothing, I wasn't there.  Right?  So in other words, then later Sithole changes his application and says yes I got the firearm from Magwaza, and then Magwaza also changes his application form and says yes I was there and explains what he did.
	Now first of all doesn't that inevitably lead to the conclusion that they conspired with each other to lie to this Committee.  You know, Magwaza said, don't implicate me, in the first one, he's not implicated.  Magwaza steps aside, takes himself away from the scene, then they both change to this version, right.  Then you get the other applicants, Ndlovu, Mpongosi, and Mbatha, they all say they fired weapons and stuff.  But if you look at their applications they don't make any mention of that.  They say we were there, but I didn't  take my gun, I didn't fire.  They don't mention that.  Okay they explain it by saying well we didn't know the lawyers who took it, etc, that sort of explanation, but they must have conspired as to what, at least Sithole and Magwaza, as to what they should say, certainly in the first application.  How does that deviousness, if I can put it that way, affect their credibility now to such an extent that we can feel secure in saying they've made a full disclosure?

MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Mr Chair.  I think that the word deviousness is a ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I use the word deviousness because they conspired.  It's quite clear, because it would be too much of a coincidence for Magwaza to say he wasn't there, and Sithole to say I had my own gun, and stress it, you know, I've always had the gun, and then the next they both change to, conspiracy is ...(intervention)

MR LAX: Can I just add one thing to what the Chair has been saying?  We have that aspect, and then how do we then deal with their explanations, all the applicants, given to us, which skirts this issue, which is implicit in the way their versions are framed, and which tends to show other things.  So, the explanation wasn't well, I was worried about this or I was worried about, it's all about lawyers, interpreters, things not being read back to them, which, procedural things, which in the light of these, what the Chair refers to as deviousness, is a different thread.

MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Mr Chair, I have to agree one would be naive to say that, if I may start with Mr Magwaza and Sithole, that their initial applications had been thought up or was taken and without them ever being aware of what the other was saying.  Mr Chair you know I think what Mr Lax said in conclusion is, obviously the question remains, is if they had initially not taken the Committee into their trust and disclosed what had actually happened, why should they be believed today.  Mr Chair, it is true, that those are sworn affidavits so it is supposed to be the truth, it is supposed to be done under oath.  Mr Chair and it is difficult to offer an explanation as to why ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: That then brings in a third version, as well, under oath.

MR CLAASSEN: That is indeed true Mr Chair and I mean, and my submission is that the last question which obviously stands to be answered is, are they to be believed in what they, in their viva voce evidence before this Commission.  Mr Chair it is true that the impression might be created that because of these, on several occasions all the questions specifically directed to why were these initial applications not done correctly and why does it differ from the later applications. And as the evidence is clear before Court, I must say I myself was involved in taking some of these applications, and I cannot distantiate myself, I was never, I never testified under oath about this but the fact that we, I don't speak Zulu, I was given a version which I had written down, believing it to be the truth, that is what I have been told.  Obviously ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: We're certainly not casting any aspersions towards you Mr Claassen I can assure you.

MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Mr Chair, I can believe that, it's just, I know this might sound, might sound like a little, like too little too late, but it did, it really happened and it was a genuine recurrence I think that, as far as I'm concerned with the latter three applicants' applications, and I was never involved in taking the applications for Mr Mbatha and Sithole, that be it the reason that they explained, they had an application for appeal pending and that might have influenced, which is once again a technicality which still doesn't answer the question why ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: That's a double-edged sword, because then they said okay let's lie because we might save our skins, because we don't want to upset our appeal.  Okay now that's their last  chance they've had to save their skins in the judicial process, now they've got another chance to save their skins, why not give it a full go again?  That sort of thing.  It's a double-edged sword that we lied because we didn't want to affect the prospects of success of our appeal, or leave to appeal.