Amnesty Hearings — Kimberley — 1997-10-29

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Smiles, we - I personally am getting quite despondent with some of your responses and the reason you are advancing for why you lie from time to time.  Now,  you have already stated the first time you made a statement to Sipho and Boraine, they didn't identify themselves as TRC people and you also did not know what the TRC was all about and that's why you were scared and you lied.  	Then you stated further that after that statement you then obtained a booklet which you were able to read and you could understand what the TRC was all about, in any event you were able to appear before the TRC when they were holding an event hearing at this hall on the 11th of June, so you already knew precisely what the process entailed of the TRC.  Now I cannot understand why, if you already knew what the TRC was all about you were still frightened to a point of making another lie about something which is so innocuous as having to lie and say you were influenced by some people to lie on the 8th of June.
	What was wrong in simply saying that: "I lied" and advancing the same reason that you have advanced today, that you lied because you didn't know what the TRC was all about?

WALTER SMILES: What happened, at that time when they left I felt it was no use that I would give them a statement saying that someone had advised me but by that stage they had already left.  If they hadn't left I would have corrected that statement at that time.

ADV DE JAGER: Have you been frightened at this hearing as well?

WALTER SMILES: Yes, but not as badly as before.  At this hearing I'm not at my best today because I see I'm being confused.

PROF DE KOKER: The statement you made to Doctor Boraine the first time was wrong, what made you decide to tell the truth?

WALTER SMILES: My conscience worried me about the person who died in the explosion.

PROF DE KOKER: Only because your conscience bothered you, you decided on your own last year to come here and tell the truth?

WALTER SMILES: That's correct.

PROF DE KOKER: Nobody told you, you had to come and do it, you decided on your own to tell the truth?

WALTER SMILES: They told me I had to come to the TRC hearing.

PROF DE KOKER: Who were these people, who are you referring to?

WALTER SMILES: Doctor Boraine and Sipho, that same evening.

PROF DE KOKER: Did you talk to anyone else before you decided to come and tell the truth?

WALTER SMILES: I felt my conscience was worrying me.

PROF DE KOKER: Did you talk to no-on else about it, you decided on your own?  Did you talk to any of your friends?

WALTER SMILES: About this situation - no?

PROF DE KOKER: May I draw the attention of the Committee to page 52 of bundle 2 - just the next page of the same document, the statement made on 14 August 1996 and I'll read the two paragraphs
"Why I admitted to the TRC during the hearings that I launched the grenade, was on advice of Laurens who the day before said that I had to tell the truth.
	I have confidence in Major Mbatha and I have never been threatened by him, he is now a Major in the Northern Cape Command"
You didn't speak to anybody else?

WALTER SMILES: It was in the morning that I said that I made a false statement, that was the time I told him, not during the week - nobody came to tell me that I should tell the truth, he was the only person that I spoke to.

PROF DE KOKER: So it wasn't your conscience that made you do this, you did this because Mbatha told you to do so?

WALTER SMILES: I misunderstood you.  That was in the morning, not in the afternoon when I had to go tell the truth - he's the only person who said to me ...[intervention]

PROF DE KOKER: Which morning is this when you say it was in the morning?

WALTER SMILES: The statement of 8th of June I made in the evening and on the morning of the 9th I went to him - I thought you were talking about during the day.

PROF DE KOKER: So you distinguish between the morning and the rest of the day?  So, the rest of the day you didn't speak to anybody?
	If it pleases the Committee, I'd like to refer to page 40 of bundle 2.
	Mr Smiles, we're back at the evidence which you gave in front of the TRC in June, on page 40 you said:
"There was a COSAS march, I knew nothing about this march and it started in an arena.  I knew nothing" ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: Can you just refer us to the exact spot?

PROF DE KOKER: It is right on the top of page 41, my apologies.
	You told the TRC that you knew nothing about the COSAS march, that's what you said to the TRC and yesterday you gave evidence that you only heard about this the day before - in the afternoon, the afternoon on the 24th.  Now, why in June '96 you said to the TRC that you knew nothing about the march?

MR TSHOLANKU: Mr Chairman, my recollection of his testimony was that he was sitting at the tickey stop and that point in time he nothing about the march of the particular day, I could be wrong but that is my recollection of what he said - that on the day of the march he was sitting at the tickey stop and knew nothing about the march on that particular day.

PROF DE KOKER: Chairman, I can refer to our notes but to the best of my recollection I asked the applicant specifically when did he first learn about this march and he said: "The previous afternoon".  You can perhaps locate that if - his answer was
"It wasn't that long, it was just the afternoon beforehand"
That was his answer and in fact it appears to be the very first question that I've put to the applicant.

MR TSHOLANKU: That is my understanding
"Die middag voor die tyd"
That is what he said and which would mean:
"The afternoon before the time of the march"
That is how I understood it, not the day before the march.

ADV DE JAGER: On the afternoon of the day before the march?

PROF DE KOKER: According to the notes that we've just compared, that that was the answer that we took down yesterday.

SISI KHAMPEPE: I think mine reads
"It wasn't long beforehand, only heard that afternoon"
That's what I have in my notes.

ADV DE JAGER: I think you all agree on this.  The advocate for the applicant says that it was the afternoon, the afternoon before the march happened.

SISI KHAMPEPE: I don't think the applicant is saying that.

MR TSHOLANKU: What I'm saying is, the Afrikaans version would be
"Die middag voor die tyd"
Which would mean:
"The afternoon before the time of the actual march"
Not the afternoon before the day.

ADV DE JAGER: Well, the march started in the morning at 9 o'clock, proceeded up to 11 o'clock - was 1 o'clock, so when was the afternoon before the march?

MR TSHOLANKU: That is exactly the question that should have been asked from the applicant.  The impression that I got was that it was on that particular day, it was not clarified.

ADV DE JAGER: Well, there wasn't an afternoon before the march.

MR TSHOLANKU: Advocate de Jager, I wouldn't argue with you, I agree with you but the point is it was not clarified for the Committee and everybody else.  That particular point is still shadowed, we don't know exactly what particular point was he referring to.  I agree with you there was not an afternoon before the march but my understanding is that
"Die middag voor die tyd"
Would mean: 
"The afternoon before the time of the march itself"
Not to mean:
"The afternoon before the day of the march"
It could be three afternoons before the time of the march - 2 after, it's not clear.

ADV DE JAGER: What I'm saying
"The afternoon before the march"
Would be the day before the march, not three days before the march because the march started that morning of the 25th.

MR TSHOLANKU: I agree with you, the point I'm trying to make is that it was not clarified for everybody because it says
"Die middag voor die tyd"
Now we don't know which "middag" is he referring to.

ADV DE JAGER: My notes say
"When did you hear about the march the first time"?
My note says:
"The day before - the afternoon before"
That is what my notes say.