Amnesty Hearings — Nelspruit — 1999-02-04

VOICE SAMBO: That's correct.

MR LAX: In that situation, in terms of your training, you would have made him lie down on the ground and you would have disarmed him, correct?

VOICE SAMBO: Because of the way in which they were deployed, they wouldn't come together and stand in different position, not in one place, where it was possible for one of them to shoot if the other one failed to shoot at me, and I know that that's the way the assassination plots are planned.  Therefore, I couldn't ask him to lie down and go to the next person and ask him to lie down too, because it depends on the situation at that particular moment.   You couldn't just say to someone in a risky situation and say, "Lie down"... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: In fact you've always stated, Mr Sambo, that at all material times relevant herein, you knew about Mr O'Farrell's presence?   You were aware that it was not only Van der Spuy you had to deal with, Mr O'Farrell was also around?

VOICE SAMBO: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: So it wouldn't have been that simple to get Mr Van der Spuy disarmed by making him to lie down without knowing what Mr O'Farrell would do whilst you are making him to lie down with a view of searching him all over his body for another firearm?   You would have put your life at risk by taking that kind of merger, in trying to disarm Mr Van der Spuy, is it not so?

VOICE SAMBO: That's correct.

MR LAX: Well if that's correct, why did you then say you shot him, you didn't have a heart, you just shot him, you knew he was a killer, what has that got to do with it?

VOICE SAMBO: I don't understand the question.

MR LAX: Ja, never mind, the record will speak for itself.  One last issue, why didn't you just tell the truth in court, why didn't you just tell them that you thought these people were there to kill you, which is the truth?

VOICE SAMBO: I explained that before the judge, that the people came to kill me.   However, I was told that I'm lying.

MR LAX: You told us earlier in your evidence that you told the judge that you thought these people were criminals who had come to steal from you, not that they'd come to kill you?   Do you understand?

VOICE SAMBO: During my trial, I did explain that the white people wanted to kill me, and I knew that these people were coming to kill me after, but that only came to my mind after the other one shot at me, I did explain that in court.

MR LAX: Well then why would you tell the lie about them coming to steal from you, if the truth would suffice?   Do you understand my question?   Why was it necessary for you to tell lies then, if you had told the truth?

VOICE SAMBO: This is a political issue or (indistinct) stand out of politics and because of the way in which the court trial was handled, I will say that it wasn't easy for me to explain myself as I'm sitting here to explain what happened, to tell exactly, the exact fact of the incidents.   The judge will speak to my counsel.   I will say that's how things happened in court.

MR LAX: It still doesn't explain why it was necessary for you to lie about this when you were telling the truth anyway.   You see your earlier evidence was that you hid the truth from your own counsel, you'd made up your mind to lie and you were going to stick to the lies, so the conduct of the Court, whether you had enough time to consult, any of those things, is irrelevant.

VOICE SAMBO: In court, I was afraid that I won't be acquitted.

MR LAX: Were you afraid of the political nature of the threats against you?    Were you afraid that if you told the judge this had something to do with politics, there would be some sort of problem?

VOICE SAMBO: That's correct.   May you please repeat your question?

MR LAX: I'm just trying to understand, were you worried about the political angle in the case, that if you said you thought these people were trying to kill you because of politics, it would go bad for you in the case, that's what I'm trying to understand?   My simple point is this, what is it about the lies that would make you get off the case more than the truth?

VOICE SAMBO: I thought that by telling them the evidence which I gave before the Court they will acquit at Graskop.   Maybe I should explain.

CHAIRPERSON: You don't have to explain because we already listened to that part of your evidence.

MR LAX: I've finished, chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Black do you have anything to put to your client in the light of the questions posed by the members of this committee?   Only again, Mr Black, only if it is relevant and impinges on our ability to decide whether to grant or deny amnesty, nothing ancillary.

MR BLACK: No, no, chair, I just note that it's already well after two o'clock, I understand, it's quarter past two, and the applicant... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Black, I would like to finalise this matter... (intervention).

MR BLACK: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: ...so that when we do take a break, we only come back for your argument.   We would like to get to the next matter today.

MR BLACK: Yes.   I would just want to put on record that some of the possible facts which may be confused should be the long questioning that the accused has had to undergo without a break may be some explanation, but I'll address the Court later.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't want your address now.   I wanted to find out if you do have anything to put to Mr Sambo before we take a short adjournment for lunch?

MR BLACK: No, not, nothing, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: In that case, we'll take a short adjournment for lunch, and we'll come back at ten to three.   Is that okay?    I think I must find out if that will be too short a lunch break, or it will be... (intervention).

MS THABETE: Madam Chair, can I suggest quarter to three?

CHAIRPERSON: Quarter to three.   Will that be to the convenience of all the role players in these proceedings, is that convenient to the translators and the transcribers, is that convenient, as well as to the applicants, is that convenient to correctional services to provide the applicants' lunch?   Who is providing the applicants with lunch?

MR LAX: I think the applicant gets his own lunch, unfortunately.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.   Will that be convenient to correctional services, if we came back at quarter to three, for purposes of ensuring that the applicants have had their lunch?    Okay, we'll come back at quarter to three.   Thank you.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Before we adjourned, you drew to my attention the fact that the committee had not been sensitive to the plight of your client by subjecting him to long questioning without affording him an opportunity to have a break.   We would appreciate it if next time you could just, you know, raise this at an appropriate time, for us to be able to take remedial steps.   You did so at a time when we were unable to do anything about it, as we had reached your client's, the conclusion of your client's evidence.   We are, however, sorry.   We will be alive next time to such a situation.   Thank you for bringing it to our attention.

MR BLACK: Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee, I really appreciate it and I think the applicant also appreciates it, but I did attempt to find out through my attorney, who's sitting next to me, as to what the position was of the applicant, and there seems to have been between my attorney some lack of communication, but... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BLACK: ...thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Are we ready to proceed in this case, Mr Black, are you in a position to present your argument?

MR BLACK: I'm given to understand by the leader of evidence that she wants to lead evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, yes, yes, in fact Ms Thabete has brought to our attention the fact that she intends to lead evidence of Mr O'Farrell, who is a victim in this matter, and who is opposing the application.   Is that the situation, Ms Thabete?