Amnesty Hearings — Mmabatho — 1998-09-23

MR VAN DER BERG: Indeed.  That would also appear in the Heads later on that these allegations and that was his case, if I can just continue now with my Heads.
	In his evidence in chief, that was his reason why he shot the people and in my question, why didn't you mention it in your earlier statements or affidavits, he said he forgot.  He always or he made these sinister comments about why he forgot.
	And then asked whether I could remember what happened when I was 19 years old, but that what is most important in his case, you do not forget.  That is what he said to this Commission.
	We must take into consideration, that he had four opportunities to put his case and in all four of these opportunities, he had legal representatives.  Which is ironic Mr Chairperson, if he had the opportunity to make supplementary statements or affidavits, even with the postponement, he also had the time to look at all these facts, he had the bundle to his disposal and he could have verified this information.
	Now at number 99, he comes and gives evidence about things that did not appear in his affidavit.  He even mentioned that he had clarity of mind and that is on page 11 of the bundle, when I went to work in the morning, I had clarity of mind, that if possible, I would be part of those chasing the right wing away and restore the order.  That is paragraph 3 on page 11.
	Mr Chairperson, if we then continue and look at paragraph 8, it is clear if we look at the video's that was shown, it is not true that any of the AWB members moved their hands as the applicant alleged and it can be confirmed with the photographs that was taken.
	If I can just elaborate on this point and I will not talk long about this, the applicant's version that the hand moved down, what is strange, he had to at that stage, he should have known who the person was that moved, because there were only two who could move and point number two is, at least he should have been able to identify the hand or tell, indicate the hand that moved.
	What came out of the video's and the photographs is that it was blatant lies.

CHAIRPERSON: Another aspect also of the evidence which I found a little bit strange was the applicant said that he saw this movement of the hand, and that caused him to shoot, and then he was asked, well, who did you shoot first and he didn't say it was the person who moved the hand.
	Wouldn't it be natural if he thought somebody was going for a gun, that that would be the person you would shoot first and you would know that?  But he says he doesn't know the order in which he shot or whether it was the man who moved his hands or not, which seems somewhat strange.  It could of course happen like that, but one would think that the first shot would be directed at the person who he thought was the danger because he was going for the gun.

ADV MOTATA: Mr Van der Berg, wouldn't you think that what the Chairperson has said, is more probable than what you are putting out on paragraph 8, because if you were to talk about the photographs, like he said in his evidence, the applicant, they are motionless, something you can't see and then we return to the video.  What I saw and correct me if I am mistaken, is just somebody appearing and shooting.
	What obtained prior to that, did we have an opportunity to see what obtained prior to the person who came and shot?  I am not sure whether I saw that on the footage, I am not sure that I did?