Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1997-07-14

JEFFERY T BENZIEN: To develop information networks, systems of intelligence, to identify leaders, I would presume that is to identify leaders of these groups; to remove them from the community, I would presume in this case, detain them in terms of the Emergency Regulations and act pro-actively, in other words remove the hierarchy of these movements and this was during the times, if I am, I am speaking under correction, 1987, there was still Emergency Regulations, and I would like to emphasise to the Commissions Sir, please, that is my personal interpretation.  I have never seen this document before.

MR KRUSE: Is it not true that that terminology was also used to get rid of, eliminate people, kill them in those times?

JEFFERY T BENZIEN: Sir, I am not at liberty to comment on that.

MR KRUSE: Was that used as a terminology at any given time in your services both in Rhodesia and here?

JEFFERY T BENZIEN: I have heard terminology that has been used in other commissions, but not the word "remove".  I think it was suggested the word to take away, to remove.

MR KRUSE: Is this maybe not part of the instruction why you had to kill Ashley Kriel?

JEFFERY T BENZIEN: Definitely not Sir, as I again say, I do not know this document, I was never, ever given instructions to eliminate Mr Kriel.

MR KRUSE: I just want to come back to a few things earlier.  Bongani Jonas, you remembered him earlier?

JEFFERY T BENZIEN: That is correct.

MR KRUSE: And you saw him in the lift, is that correct?

JEFFERY T BENZIEN: That is correct.

MR KRUSE: I just spoke to him and he confirmed to me again, because you were colleagues at that time, that you were the person who stood on his leg and he is prepared to give evidence to that effect in front of this Commission?

JEFFERY T BENZIEN: I emphatically deny that.  The person ...

CHAIRPERSON: Let's not traverse this again please.  If Bongani Jonas wants to say that, he must come and say so.

MR KRUSE: He will say that in front of the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR KRUSE: I think the last thing I want to say to the witness is, this is a statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Please put your question.

MR KRUSE: I am finished with questions, I want to say something.

CHAIRPERSON: No, you will have an opportunity to address the court or to give evidence if you wish to.

MR KRUSE: Okay, I think that is all, I thank the Commission, thank you.

MR KRUSE: .

MS INTHANGA: Mr Chairman, Bongani Jonas will be taking the stand to question Mr Benzien.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, I want to make the following remark please.  My client has repeatedly asked the Commission for information concerning the various incidents he is referring to.	He came on his own behalf to the Commission and he mentioned these names at the Investigative Unit.  Not one of these victims made statements.  If, should there be statements, we could have prepared ourselves and we could have assisted the Commission.   And the idea should not be created that he is hiding something.
	Now, here comes somebody whom we do not know.  He comes and he asks questions.  We do not know to which period he is referring, this is an absolute surprise.
	The Appeal court judgment ...

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Sorry, let's just clear that up.  Are you saying that your client is not listing Mr Jonas as one of his victims, specifically?

UNKNOWN: No, he can't remember it.  In his application it is written and I want to refer you to page 8 and he mentions the names Peter Jacobs, Ashley Forbes, Anwar Dramat, Tony Yengeni, Gary Kruse, Niclo Pedro and Alan Mamba and he says I do not know, do not remember, other names.	I have forgotten them, therefore I also apply for the cases I cannot remember.  If the information is supplied which I have requested repeatedly from the Commission, I would gladly assist the Commission.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Now, are you saying that your client does not want amnesty in respect of his assault on Mr Jonas?

UNKNOWN: No, this is not what I am saying?

CHAIRPERSON: I think Mr Cook, you must understand that the Amnesty Committee did not have the information to furnish to your client about other deeds.  Do you understand?
	I think that you must appreciate that there are people here, whose names have been mentioned.  One of the names that had been mentioned is Mr Bongani Jonas.  If Mr Jonas wants to put some questions to your client, it is for your client to tell us whether he is prepared or unprepared to answer those questions at this stage, and wants more time.  Do you understand?

UNKNOWN: I understand, the only problem that I have we want to assist the Commission.  If we had a statement from this person, but the impression is created....

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Cook, we just want to get clarity.  We do not have access to all the people's statements.  It is not necessary for a victim to give a statement to the Amnesty Committee.	He may provide it to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and to the Violation of Human Rights Commission, but we should not be aware of that.  We have received more than 6 000 applications.
	As far as we know about that, we will assist you, but it is not the duty of this Commission to provide information when you apply for amnesty.  When a person has committed an offence, he must know what he had done wrong and that is what he will apply for, amnesty for.

UNKNOWN: I understand the problem that you are not supposed to get information, but the Investigative Unit and the leader of evidence, they have to present the evidence to the Commission and they should provide me with the information.

ADV DE JAGER: I am sure if Mr Brink and the Investigative Unit had the information, they would have provided it to you.

UNKNOWN: I am not objecting to this, but I am just conveying to you that my client is not aware of this incidents.  If he knew about that, if he remembered that, he would have applied for amnesty.

ADV DE JAGER: It might be that when seeing this person, his memory could be refreshed and then he could remember.

UNKNOWN: I understand, that is the point I wish to make.  In the Appeal court judgement it is said until it had furnished the appellants with such facts and information by way of witnesses' statements and or other relevant documentation, as might reasonably necessary to enable the appellants to identify the events, incidents and persons concerning, which or whom it was proposed to present or allow evidence which might detrimentally implicate the applicants.  Do you understand where the problem is?

ADV DE JAGER: If we ask you to come and explain,  we should provide you with information, that is concerning the Human Rights Violation Commission.  When they call a person to come and explain what he or she has done, we did not ask your client to come and explain what has happened.  With amnesty, the person comes to the fore by himself.  We do not ask him what he had done, he comes here and he tells us what he had done.

UNKNOWN: This is what I was trying to convey.  But it should not be insinuated that my client in this case, denied that he had done this and we are surprised now by this incident and I would have liked to advise my client in this respect.

ADV DE JAGER: If you are surprised and if you want to consult your client, do you wish the case to stand down?

UNKNOWN: I do not have a statement from this person.  I don't know what he is going to ask.

ADV DE JAGER: We don't know either.

UNKNOWN: How can I advise my client?

JUDGE WILSON: If you look at the provisions of Section 19 of the Act, it clearly provides in paragraph 4 (b) that the persons, that is victims, have the right to testify and adduce evidence, which is what they are doing.  We are not leading it, the leader of evidence is not leading it, the victim is adducing evidence having testified.