Amnesty Hearings — Nelspruit — 1999-02-01

CHAIRPERSON: That being so Mr Claassens, do you propose to call further witnesses in support of your client's application?

MR CLAASSEN: Madame Chair I have no witnesses to call.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll take the application from your side as being closed.  Ms Thabete how do you propose to proceed with the matter from now onwards?

MS THABETE: Madame Chair, I had wished to call the two witnesses who will be coming from Piet Retief tomorrow but in the light of the applicant's evidence I would be in a position to argue whatever line without including what's in the affidavit if it's okay with my learned friend?

MR CLAASSEN: I have no objection Madame Chair as long as I believe that the evidence, the reference to the affidavit be ...[indistinct] with the relevant value.

CHAIRPERSON: Absolutely, I think it will obviously curtail proceedings because we would be waiting for witnesses who would be coming from afar.  I don't think it really will damage your case Mr Claassens because she does not seek to rely on the affidavit or anything that would have been put to him emanating from the affidavit with the hope that the two witnesses would be called in to corroborate the allegations contained in those affidavits and also to enable you to cross-examine them.  So we can proceed obviously to argue the case on the basis that the affidavits do not exist.

MR CLAASSEN: As the Committee pleases, that would be a hundred percent.

CHAIRPERSON: They'll be taken upon script.  Shall we then hear your argument Mr Claassen?

UNKNOWN: As the Committee pleases Madame Chair.  The evidence put before the Commission today is clearly that the - is definitely a or several confused issues.  Concerning this particular application what exactly led to the death of the victim, Mr Ben Nkosi.  Madame Chair I think it is true that as far as the death and the killing of the victim was concerned the evidence leader and the legal offence are of the opinion that there's no problem as far as that's concerned and no evidence to that effect.  It is a done fact that the applicant was indeed responsible for the death of the person.
	Madame Chair, I think the main issue if looking at the criteria for the possibility of ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: On that aspect, I mean how can you be able to reach such a conclusion?  I don't think you were - okay.  You haven't come to the motivation, actually talking about the actual killing.

MR CLAASSEN: If I may Madame Chair, I was just getting to the actual motivation.  As I said once again the confused issue is now I don't want to make any reference to the affidavits which were at one stage before this Committee but just looking at the events preceding the actual killing of the victim I think it would be no less than fair to say that there are several unresolved questions before this Committee.  	Madame Chair, I think the first matters of fact which are indeed undisputed is that the applicant before this court was indeed a member of the Inkatha Freedom Party being the time this offence was committed.  There was no evidence to the contrary and was also the evidence of the applicant that Mr Nkosi the deceased was also a member of some importance within the ranks of the ANC.  In that respect Madame Chair I am of the opinion that as far as the political relevance surrounding this actual killing, it was indeed so that both members were of opposing political parties.  The question which the court might ask is concerning the applicants truthfulness surrounding the circumstances immediately before this killing, I think the cross-examination from the evidence leader also mainly concentrated on this point.  Madame Chair and it is my ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: And what sayest thou about that?

MR CLAASSEN: Madame Chair it is indeed my submission that there are definite uncertainties as to the vive voce evidence surrounding the alleged killing of his grandfather.  It is so that the applicant stated before the Committee that he was indeed killed by the deceased which was later then killed by the applicant.
	Madame Chair, it's my submission that there's no - there was mention of or the question was put to him whether his grandfather did not in fact die of a natural illness which he categorically denied ...[intervention]

UNKNOWN: May I just interrupt you, it's not clear to me, is your argument that there was a political objective but that the applicant did not make a full disclosure possibly on account of his conflicting versions?

MR CLAASSEN: If I may, I think it basically boils down to the fact that I think it was maybe as I said confused issues, it was a politically motivated killing which perhaps coincided with something else which ...[intervention]

UNKNOWN: But you see your argument, sorry to interrupt you, is your argument that if there are two people involved belonging to opposing political parties that that per se makes it a political motivated crime?  That is not your argument surely?

MR CLAASSEN: No, that is indeed, that's not my argument at all.  What I'm saying is just looking at the evidence given and if any inference can be drawn from that looking at the involvement of the Inkatha Freedom Party after this crime was committed and that was I think indeed what the applicant himself tried to convey was that he, if I may just return to the point where he said that a caucus was called and that was done in party political structures.  It is indeed so that questions may be asked that some of the names that could be remembered appears to be family members.  He however ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: It was convened by his father, that meeting was at his father's instance?

MR CLAASSEN: That is indeed correct Madame Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Who is not a leader of the IFP?  There was no evidence to suggest that he held any leadership position within the IFP and I asked him who convened the meeting and his response was very curt.

MR CLAASSEN: You are a hundred percent indeed correct Madame Chair, that was exactly his response.  I think to further questions he replied that the people present were indeed members of the IFP.  Madame Chair ...[intervention]

UNKNOWN: Could I just add one other thing Mr Claassens?  No other person that he mentions besides himself as far as it's clear from the evidence had any leadership position in the IFP so this was a caucus of ordinary members at best for your client?

MR CLAASSEN: That is true, the only evidence of any leadership position was in that of himself and the rank of a chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Isn't that - how do you propose how we should go over that hurdle?  He is chairperson of Youth Brigade, the father, then father was high-ranking member of the IFP, there is no evidence that has been led for us to suggest why no other members, high-ranking members of the IFP were party to the caucus meeting apart from people who appeared to have family relationship to the applicant?

MR CLAASSEN: That is indeed correct Madame Chair.  What I have been getting towards is I think that once when this act was perpetrated or was completed there was according to the applicant a definite benefit for his political party.  Madame Chair it is however true that the evidence surrounding the preceding incidents are indeed very sketchy and especially surrounding the applicants motive for committing this revenge attack.  All factors taken into account Madame Chair, I would leave in the hands of this Honourable Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Claassen.   Ms Thabete?