Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — UNKNOWN

MR PRIOR: Certainly Mr Chairman, it says
"If during any investigation...."
It doesn't say anything other than during an investigation any persons implicated in a manner which may be to his detriment, I think the wording is simple.  The reference to a vehicle belonging to Mr Ntsebeza, which possibly may have been linked to the Heidelberg Tavern I submit is sufficiently detrimental to him and the Act required that he be given notice.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there anything else  you wish to say?

MR PRIOR: There's nothing at this stage Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, not at this stage but at - is that your complete answer?

MR PRIOR: That is my answer yes, unless there's anything else required of me.

CHAIRPERSON: Before the Committee adjourns to consider this matter, is there anything else you wish to say?

MS QUNTA: Yes, Mr Chairman.  Mr Prior is - I'm not suggesting in any way that Mr Prior is the only person who made this decision, I'm saying as a legally trained person, when you say: "implicated" and you look at the definition in 32, you can't go on one statement.  This statement was by a witness, that statement - when you read that statement, it in no way links my client to the Heidelberg incident, it in no way does that and one does not have to be legally trained to see that.
	And I will go through that Mr Chairman, what I would like to say now and raise this with - none of the applicants here - and they were asked by their counsel, none of them knew Mr Ntsebeza except perhaps from - as one of the applicants said, from the television that he is connected with the Truth Commission.  Each of the applicants said they had no dealings with an Audi, so the people who are here who are directly involved in that attack have said they do not know.  
	Now, when you look at evidence, I think what you do as a legally trained person and that is why I believe in the Amnesty Committee, everyone is a legal person so that you can weigh up the validity and the weight of the evidence before you and you look at the totality of the evidence, you don't simply look at one aspect and  you see whether that evidence is sufficient to make an inference that someone may be implicated.  In this instance it's my submission that there was no basis for calling my client and there may be another reason, there may be another reason which Mr Prior is not privy to why my client was called here but it is quite important for me to raise this.

JUDGE WILSON: If one looks at the totality, mustn't one look at the evidence of this man?  Isn't that part of the totality?

MS QUNTA: Mr Chairman, it is one aspect of evidence.  I can imagine that the Amnesty Committee will sit for the next five years if when they conduct an investigation ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Why do you say such horrible things?

MS QUNTA: Mr Chairman, I imagine that the Committee will sit for the next five years if when there is an incident and an investigation, that each and every statement which mentions a person - no matter how flimsy and how unsubstantiated the evidence is, that each and every person must be notified and be brought before the court.
	And what is particularly regrettable in this instance is that it has been done in such a way which raises certain inferences with regard to my client and his involvement with this which I think is very unfortunate.

CHAIRPERSON: They will not be taking into account the way in which this is done because you are talking in general terms.  We'll only look at the Act to find out whether the Act permits the issue of a notice on your client in the present circumstances.  We'll take a short adjournment to consider that matter.

MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman sorry, may I be of some assistance?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR PRIOR: The second bundle of documents, the supplementary bundle at page 6, if I can bring that to your attention.

CHAIRPERSON: Just hold it.  Yes?

MR PRIOR: And if I can refer the panel to paragraph 5, that is the investigating report regarding this specific incident of the vehicle.  I don't know if you want me to read it out, it is self-explanatory.

CHAIRPERSON: No, you just refer us to it.

MS QUNTA: Could I just get clarification Mr Chairman - Mr Prior, what is he referring to - which bundle?

MR PRIOR: The supplementary bundle, page 6 of that bundle.

CHAIRPERSON: You don't have that?

MS QUNTA: I don't have that Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: You will have that.

MS QUNTA: Unless - I've got some loose papers that were provided to me ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: This is a document headed: "Report of the Investigative Unit (Final)", dated 8 September 1997, do you have that document?

MS QUNTA: I will - yes, Mr Chairman, I have it and that is investigator John Lubbe.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS QUNTA: I do have that.

CHAIRPERSON: You're referring to what paragraph?

MR PRIOR: To paragraph 5 - that was supplied to Miss Qunta some time ago.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR PRIOR: And it simply says that efforts were made to corroborate or to check with the applicants but any interview was refused without a PAC delegation being present, so Mr Lubbe certainly attempted to verify the accuracy of what Mr Sibaya was saying with the applicants before the hearing.
	And if the Committee is also alive to the fact that it was impossibly to gauge from the applicants themselves until they gave evidence because we didn't know what their submissions were.  Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: The Committee will adjourn to consider this matter.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

BENNET SIBAYA: (s.u.o.)

NORMAN ARENDSE: Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Arendse?

NORMAN ARENDSE: I wanted to say something just before the Committee adjourned to
consider this issue - I just want to mention two things, may I do so?

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Mr Chairman, firstly it seems to me that Section 32 should not be considered in isolation and that what brings into play 32 in an amnesty matter, is an application which is made in terms of 19.1 of the Act.  In other words where someone is implicated as a result of an application for amnesty which is submitted in terms of Section 19.1.  Now, clearly there's nothing on the application forms that implicates Mr Ntsebeza.
	I acknowledge what Mr Prior's saying that in some respects - in respect of Madasi and Mabala, that these forms do not contain sufficient information but even then during the course of this proceeding if his name had cropped up, then it would be appropriate that the proceedings be stopped and that an implicated person then be given the warning that is required by 32 - that's the first thing.

JUDGE WILSON: But it's not a warning, it's an opportunity for him to come and make representations before the hearings.

CHAIRPERSON: He's not obliged to be here.

JUDGE WILSON: 32 is before the hearing, it's during the investigation isn't it?  If during any investigation or hearing ...[intervention]

NORMAN ARENDSE: My point is quire simply this and I don't want to take it any further and undermine whatever your deliberations were Mr Chairman, my point is simply that 19.1 kicks in 32, it's not in isolation, it's only when your name is mention in an application form and this was not the case.  Mr Ntsebeza's name did not crop up as a result of any - it couldn't have, obviously it couldn't have and we now know the evidence of the applicants has been given.

JUDGE WILSON: How can you say that Mr Arendse, when 32 says: "If during any investigation", that is not considering the application is it?  That's  if as a result of an investigation ...[intervention]

NORMAN ARENDSE: With respect Mr Chairman, - as a result of 19.2, that's what I'm saying.  32 is as a result of 19.2, 19.2 is as a result of 19.1 which an application for amnesty.