Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-05-11

GEORGE BIZOS: Now, the ballistics show that 10 of those shots came from Mr Khumalo's AK47.  Now, he believed that he actually shot in the direction of the crowd.  We will show that he actually was less in control of his firearm than he thought he was and that has certain consequences in relation to the evidence.  You can imagine how much dust was kicked up and how much noise and panic this may have incurred, without the people actually around Mr Khumalo knowing where the shots that were kicking up that dust were coming from and we give it as an example of the confusion that was created.
	It will also be shown, Mr Chairman, the ballistics will also show that two shots from a pistol were in fact fired into the ceiling in corroboration of Rama's evidence, which was - I beg your pardon, Kruser's evidence, was that he ordered him to fire two warning shots, and the ballistics will show that there were two pistol shots in fact against the under portion of the parapet or the counter-lever slam.  
	Now, for - what it boils down to is that the applicants accept that their belief and recollection what happened may not be fully correct.  They accept that there may have been mis-judgment on their part.  In particular they accept that the shooting by them may have continued for too long and that they would therefor have exceeded the bounds of legitimate self-defence.  That was one of the findings of the inquest record.  Although that finding is not in a way binding on the Amnesty Committee, it has been explained to the applicants that another court, whether it's criminal or civil, may come to the same conclusion.  It is on that basis that they seek amnesty.  
	Each of them has declared that what he did was purely on behalf of the African National Congress, to protect its members and its leaders and ultimately to protect the long cherished dream held by each of them for the truly democratic and non-racial election.
	Mr Chairman, the first witness is going to be the first applicant.

MR DORFLING: Mr Chairman, perhaps before we proceed with the first witness, Mr Bizos has made certain comments with regard to the particulars requested and the particulars supplied.  I do not know whether this would be the opportune time, perhaps, before we hear the first witness, for a response to the submissions made by Mr Bizos in this regard.

CHAIRPERSON: My inclinations were that you would cover that ground when you lead the evidence of your witnesses.  I thought that we might find ourselves taking up too much time debating issues without really hearing the evidence of witnesses, and if it is at all convenient, you might cover that ground when you are leading evidence or putting your questions to witnesses.  If you think that that would not be adequate, then I will afford you an opportunity now to do so but I would like you to understand that we are anxious to get done with the calling of witnesses and without too much time being taken up.

MR DORFLING: Mr Chairman, I would just like to respond very briefly on three aspects, it wouldn't take longer than three or four minutes.  It concerns specifically the responses by the firm Mosselson & Associates on whose behalf I act in these proceedings.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) the calling of the evidence.  Yes?

MR DORFLING: Thank you, Mr Chairman.  I think Mr Bizos' objections to the particulars supplied could basically be dealt with under three headings which I would very briefly like to deal with.  The first being, that Mr Bizos is of the view that the position set out in the answer to a reply for further particulars   pertaining to the specific factual situation and the legal grounds on which the objectors oppose the applications were not dealt with.  I, with respect, do not agree with that contention.
	What was dealt with in the reply to the request for further particulars is merely a referral to the affidavits by the objectors.  The affidavits by the objectors sets out the factual position on which they rely.  They would, for example, say that, we were not attacking, there was no justification for us being shot at, we were running away at the time when we were being shot at.  
	Whether this falls within the ambit of the provisions of the act under which this Committee considers amnesty is a matter for legal argument and that has exactly been the response from the objectors.  They say, we give the factual evidence, look at the affidavits for that.  As far as the legal position is concerned, that's a matter for legal argument, hence the refusal to supply a legal basis for not supplying that particulars.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there no way in which you can formulate the basis on which you are opposing the application for amnesty, beyond saying that there has not been a full disclosure, which of course is a blanket phrase that has been used.  If you can be of assistance to us by indicating to us what the grounds are on which you will be opposing this application, now, it would be very convenient for us, because once we know the grounds, then it may be that a lot of the cross-examination of witnesses can be avoided and the issues will then be more focused on what the grounds of which you object are.  I can understand the dispute of facts, but I'm talking about the grounds on which you are objecting about from a factual dispute.

MR DORFLING: Mr Chairman, very basically, the essence of the objection relates to a failure to disclose in full particulars the details of what happened on that day.  If I could be more specific, it relates to ...(inaudible) took place and lastly the perceived situation, being the perceived situation that there was an attack whereas factually it wasn't the situation.  	Now, we are of the view that those grounds have been dealt with fully at the inquest proceedings and that the evidence bears out the findings in this regard and we would seek to put such evidence in front of this Committee that would support the findings by His Lordship Mr Justice Nugent in this regard.  So basically those three grounds are basis on which we say there wasn't full disclosure.
	Then furthermore it is our contention that the applications as they stand at present, we are present in possession of the applications made by the applicants which contain affidavits and a filled in roneo form, we say that also does not comply with the Act in that it does not show the so-called political objective which the act requires.  Basically those are, in essence, the grounds on which we object.
	There are the other two points I would like to deal with, Mr Bizos has criticised the objectors for not specifically dealing with the questions pertaining to the injuries, nature of injuries and so forth.  With the greatest respect, the objectors of which six of the nine affidavits have been made available to Mr Bizos, indicate what the nature of the injuries are, what the applicant was doing at the time when he sustained the injury, and in the particulars Mr Bizos ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: You say applicant, you mean objector?