Amnesty Hearings — Pietersburg — 1997-06-30

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Sehlwana I am going to hand you a signed affidavit in the Form 1 for the Application for Amnesty which I would like you to have a look at.  Can you look at the signature on the application form, can you identify the signature?

MAROPENG MATTHEWS SEHLWANA: That's mine.

MR ROSSOUW: Whose signature is it?  Have you had opportunity to read the application again?

MAROPENG MATTHEWS SEHLWANA: Yes I did read it.

MR ROSSOUW: Are you satisfied that the content thereof is correct and do you confirm it?

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Rossouw the (...indistinct) you've handed in was signed on the 6th of June, that's after the cutoff date as it stands at present, a long time after the cut-off date. Have you got the original that's been handed in before the cut-off date?

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman the original was handed in, I believe during December 1996, it's not in my possession.  As far as I am aware it must be in the possession of the Committee, the Investigating Committee of the Amnesty Committee.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Black have you got it with you because otherwise we haven't got an application before us?

CHAIRPERSON: While Mr Black is looking for that, what is the purpose of this application dated the 6th of June 1997?

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman this application was furnished in the same form as the one that was submitted during December.  At that stage my firm did not represent Mr Sehlwana and the application was dealt with by the Attorney General of the Transvaal.  However, because of the, as far as I understand and this can be under correction, because of the investigation by the Attorney General all details were not furnished to the Amnesty Committee and in terms of an arrangement with the Attorney General particulars could be supplemented at a later stage.  This application is the same one supplemented with the particulars as to the incident.  It was just signed on the 6th to facilitate it in the exact same form as Form 1 of the Application for Amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: You see in that case we will not treat it as an application.  It's just a document made under oath, that's what it is, nothing beyond that.  We cannot treat it as an application.  It just happens to be a document which has been made under oath, and which can be used.  If you hand it in it is a document which can be used to cross-examine the applicant, but it is not an application, we are not looking at it as an application.  It's just going to be one of the many exhibits which are going to be handed in, but I believe he must have made an application last year because his application number is /96, so obviously there must have been an application filed last year.  So I think we should proceed on that premises.  But this is not an application, we are not treating it as an application.  It just happens to be a document which you elect to present to us, made under oath, it's going to be used, if you hand it in it's going to be used by all parties interested during the proceedings.

MR ROSSOUW: As the Committee pleases.

MR BLACK: Mr Chairman I have a copy of the initial application dated the 9th of December 1996 which I will make copies and hand it in.

CHAIRPERSON: So Mr Rossouw, sorry do you want to hand this in as part of the proceedings?

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman the document that was identified by the applicant I will ask to hand in as part of the application.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright then ...(intervention)

MAROPENG MATTHEWS SEHLWANA: The application which Mr Black will provide to the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: As part of his evidence.

MR ROSSOUW: Of his evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Not necessarily as part of his application, because if you say it's part of his application you give it another meaning.  We are trying to move away from any suggestion that you have filed an application after the 10th of May.

MR ROSSOUW: Will the Committee just bear with me for a second.

CHAIRPERSON: Take instructions from your colleague.  Have you seen that document before which Mr Black has just given to you?

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman I have seen a copy of this, I haven't seen the original though.

CHAIRPERSON: No well it shouldn't make any difference if it is a copy of the original but all I wanted to know from you is whether this is being sprung on you as a surprise, that document ...(intervention)

MR ROSSOUW: No it ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Because if it is being sprung on you, you must say so so that we can adjourn and you consult with your client on it.

MR ROSSOUW: No Mr Chairman, maybe I should just explain that instructions were received by my firm to act on behalf of Mr Sehlwana only a few days prior to the cut-off date.  We were informed that application was handed in during December, prior to the first cut-off date in December 1996, although the full particulars were not included in that application.  There was an arrangement between the Amnesty Committee and the Attorney General that particulars could be furnished at a later stage.  The document that the applicant identified, which is signed the 6th of June is therefore not the application, it is the same form as the application form that was handed in during December 1996, but now particulars were supplemented thereto, relating to the incident.  So that is what the testimony of the applicant will be about.

CHAIRPERSON: No I appreciate that. All I wanted to say was I wanted to find out from you whether you have seen the document which Mr Black has given you?  Have you read it?  Have you consulted with the applicant?   Because you mustn't later come and say that it was just produced now, when you possibly - I'm not saying that's going to be the case, when there are going to be some contradictions between it and the documents signed on the 6th of June by which time you would not have consulted with your client on the form which Mr Black has given you.  If you are satisfied that you have seen it before, you have consulted with the applicant before, that's all I wanted to know.
	And I am saying if you are seeing this for the first time, you have not consulted with your client on it you should say so, so that we should consider giving you time, we should adjourn and give you time for you to consult with your client on the document which Mr Black has given you.  
	But if you are saying to us you don't need that then so be it, let us proceed.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman can I just have one minute.  We don't need to adjourn, I just want to have a look at it.  Mr Chairman I have had the opportunity of looking at the application again.  It is the same, in some respects it was changed in order to facilitate the supplementation thereof.  In particular it refers to a statement which the applicant gave to the Attorney General of Transvaal which the statement is not in my possession and from consultation particulars were supplied which is now on the signed affidavit before Mr Sehlwana and which will be handed in as an exhibit to the Committee.  But there is nothing that is surprising to us in this application and we can proceed.
	Mr Chairman I will then request to hand in the application which was submitted during December 1996 as the application duly supplemented by the affidavit which is before Mr Sehlwana at this moment.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Mr Rossouw, without labouring this point, have you had an opportunity of allowing your client to have sight of the application of December 1996?

MR ROSSOUW: I did not specifically canvass it with him this morning again.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Don't you think it would be advisable for you to request for an adjournment, even of five minutes, to be able to do so?

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman I think under the circumstances and seeing that there might be problems I will then apply for an adjournment.  It can be a short adjournment, maybe just five or then minutes.