Amnesty Hearings — Kimberley — 1997-10-27

LAURENS MBATHA: The instruction, actually, was regarding the blast, but this one I discussed it with him.

ADV DE JAGER: I cannot understand, what did you say now what, in order to the question that has been put to you?  Did you tell him to tell the truth in this document to the attorneys?

LAURENS MBATHA: There is, within his statements that he is referring to that I said he must tell the truth, because I went personally to him that there is no way that we can hide this thing, that the truth must come out, because those people inside are innocent.  Yes, it is true, he was a bit scared, hence, the reason I had to come and talk to him.

PROF DE KOKER: Major Mbatha, so you instructed Mr Smiles to speak the truth and what happened then?  Did you accompany him to Mr Isaacs?

LAURENS MBATHA: Not instructed, but spoke to him.  Yes, I did say, we went together to Transvaal Police Station.

PROF DE KOKER: First, I would like to start with Mr Isaacs' office, because as far as I believe, the document was drafted there and signed at that office.  Is that correct or were you not involved in the drafting of the document and ...?

LAURENS MBATHA: I actually came in after several attempts were made (...indistinct) of the members to speak to Smiles and I remember that night, I cannot specifically say the date, I, actually, approached him, because it was clear he could not budge, budge in the sense that he could not open up.

CHAIRPERSON: When, did Mr Smiles have a consultation with Mr Isaacs eventually?

LAURENS MBATHA: That night I, actually, came in.  Sir, I cannot exactly say when did the contact, actually, start, but I came in as the sole person to talk to him, because the reality was that those people must go out, those who were inside.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I am asking whether, for the purpose of Mr Smiles making a statement, which was to be handed over to the police, did Mr Smiles have a consultation with Mr Isaacs?

LAURENS MBATHA: At that stage I could not really say, but I remember it was during the deliberations of the case.

CHAIRPERSON: When what happened?  It was during the deliberations of the case when what happened?

LAURENS MBATHA: It was at that time when the message, actually,  came clear that a negotiation, actually, started in Pretoria with the Generals and after that time I must go and hand over together with Rodney Smiles so that the preparations of those two comrades should immediately commence so that they should be released.

CHAIRPERSON: I think I am asking this question, because I assume that the statement which you took with Mr Smiles to be signed or attested to under oath was prepared at Mr Isaacs's office, is it not, or am I wrong?

LAURENS MBATHA: Yes, Denzil Potgieter was also there.

CHAIRPERSON: But I thought, I was simply asking you whether such a consultation between Mr Smiles and Mr Isaacs did take place, to your knowledge?

LAURENS MBATHA: Are you asking prior to that?

CHAIRPERSON: Prior to what?

LAURENS MBATHA: To their consultation on that particular day when I came in.

CHAIRPERSON: Which consultation are you talking about, Major?

LAURENS MBATHA: I am actually referring to the day when he had to ...

CHAIRPERSON: I am referring to any consultation between Mr Smiles and Mr Isaacs which led to this statement being made, whether it is the consultation that you stumbled into or whatever.

LAURENS MBATHA: I could say that there were consultations also before, but, with Smiles, but it was at that time when Smiles, apparently, was scared, actually, to talk to them.

CHAIRPERSON: We have left the stage where he was scared.  We are at the stage where he was no longer scared ... (intervention).

LAURENS MBATHA: Ja.

CHAIRPERSON: ... and willing to make this statement.

LAURENS MBATHA: Ja.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he consult with Mr Isaacs for that purpose?

LAURENS MBATHA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you present?

LAURENS MBATHA: Yes, I was inside the building, in the room, in the office, actually.

CHAIRPERSON: Does that mean you were present?

LAURENS MBATHA: You see, the preparation of the statement, because I remember that night it was not typed by Denzil, it was not typed by Rodney, because the question was the signature, it was important.

CHAIRPERSON: I think I want to know whether you were present when the consultation took place.  Whether it was  during the night or day.

LAURENS MBATHA: Yes, I was called in, I was there.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, did you hear him relate to Mr Isaacs and/or Adv Potgieter as to how the events developed that day, the day of the incident?  In particular, as to how he got the hand grenade ... (intervention).

LAURENS MBATHA: I actually ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: ... and from who?

LAURENS MBATHA: I actually spoke to them regarding it.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you hear him tell them like it stands in paragraph seven that he had obtained that hand grenade from somebody he did not know, somebody from Johannesburg, did you hear him say that to him?

LAURENS MBATHA: Ja, no, that one I did not hear it.

ADV DE JAGER: But you were present.  What did he say where did he get the hand grenade?

LAURENS MBATHA: As I said, I spoke to them, I even told them what happened on that particular day and Smiles had to prepare a statement where, acknowledge that he is the one who threw the grenade and I gave him the instruction.

ADV DE JAGER: And did you tell the attorney and the advocate the same story as you have related now to us?

LAURENS MBATHA: Yes.

SISI KHAMPEPE: When you were relating that story to the attorney and/or the advocate was Mr Smiles present, was he in the same consultation?

LAURENS MBATHA: As I said, I was, actually, called in that day and I, actually, found them at the Perm Building.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Were you in the same office with Mr Smiles when you were relating?

LAURENS MBATHA: Yes.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Were you in the same office with Mr Smiles when Mr Smiles in turn was also relating the incident to the attorneys?

LAURENS MBATHA: You know, I cannot specifically remember when Smiles actually told them.

CHAIRPERSON: I think there is hardly any difference between being in the same office when the statement is being made and being present.

ADV DE JAGER: Even in the same room.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  Mr, Prof de Koker, it is, I notice that it is ten past four or so and you, if you reach, sorry we interrupted you, but if you want to reach a convenient point at which we can adjourn, please tell us.

PROF DE KOKER: Mr Chairman, in fact, in my notes I have just a specific breaking point. I could proceed with a new chapter, but then we will probably have to stop somewhere midway.  I am in your hands, I am prepared to proceed, but then we will not finish the next body of evidence and we will probably have to leave it dangling till tomorrow morning.

CHAIRPERSON: That is, maybe, in that case maybe we should adjourn until tomorrow morning at half past nine.
HEARING ADJOURNS