Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1997-10-31

MR PRIOR: I don't propose Mr Chairman, leading the witness 
through his summary on page 28, but are there any comments you 
would like to make about the incident, that differ materially from 
what you have heard presented thus far at the hearing?

MR CORNELIUS: Mr Chairman, there is one point I would like - I 
have raised before and I would like to raise it again.  I think it was 
proved through the Police video and other evidence, that there must 
have been at least two shooters inside the Tavern and we have not 
been told for definite, if the second one was inside.  They have not 
disclosed that evidence and I believe and I would like to challenge 
them and say that there was two people inside.
	When I posed the question to Mabala I think, I asked him, or I 
think it was Madasi, I asked him where was Sibeko, the sixth 
person, he said he had forgotten.  In my opinion, he was inside and I 
would like them to comment on that again.

MR PRIOR: Just another aspect, I think you mention it in the 
question that you had when you asked the applicants questions.  The 
sounding of the shots, or how the shots sounded whilst you were in 
the Tavern.  Are you able to describe that for us?

MR CORNELIUS: Mr Chairman, the shots were fired in lots of 
two, one and two and maybe three shots at a time, as if it was 
directed at people specifically at the time, the way a rifleman would 
be taught to shoot - in spurs of two shots at a time, and it was not 
automatic, random fire.

MR PRIOR: Is that your recollection?

MR CORNELIUS: That is my recollection.

MR PRIOR: Have you been able to compute or calculate the extent 
of your damages thus far?

MR CORNELIUS: I have made a submission of a claim to the 
Truth and Reconciliation Commission in May of 1996, at the TRC 
offices in Johannesburg and at that time, it was in the region of and 
I stand corrected, but if I remember correctly the amount was in the 
region of R1,2 million in terms of physical, actual things that you 
could count up and see and that obviously excludes any emotional 
pain and suffering, loss of income and things like that.  That was 
purely on medical expenses and future medical expenses etc.

MR PRIOR: Since the incident in 1993, have you received any 
assistance from the State in re-establishing or rehabilitating 
yourself?

MR CORNELIUS: Up to this point, I have not received a cent from 
anybody.

MR PRIOR: You indicated to me before you gave evidence, that 
was some days ago, when we consulted, that you would request this 
Committee to refer your matter, your case to the Reparations 
Committee, is that correct?

MR CORNELIUS: That is correct.

MR PRIOR: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Arendse?

UNKNOWN: Mr Cornelius, you 
attended the hearings at court, the criminal court in 1994 which led 
to the conviction and sentence of the three applicants?

MR CORNELIUS: That is correct.

UNKNOWN: And you gave evidence in that court?

MR CORNELIUS: I did.

UNKNOWN: From the evidence and I am sure that on your 
own view, no one saw their faces so no one could identify these 
applicants?

MR CORNELIUS: That is correct.

UNKNOWN: Was there - and you know and it is also on 
record, that they were convicted on if I am wrong, the Committee or 
Mr Prior will correct me, there was a lot of technical evidence about 
their hair samples, the ballistics, the cap and things like that, in 
other words it was circumstantial as they call it, but technical 
evidence, nevertheless? 
	When you left that court after they were found guilty and 
sentenced, how did you feel about that?  How did you feel about 
them?

MR CORNELIUS: I felt in the first place that due to the evidence 
that was there and they were convicted on that evidence, that it was 
the right thing to have happened, for them to be jailed or sentenced 
for crimes committed, so I felt that that was correct.
	I also felt that it was - justice had been served, but I hadn't 
heard the entire truth.  I hadn't heard everything behind it, so I did 
have a feeling of emptiness and I must admit that through these 
proceedings, it has been a lot more evident to me and a lot more has 
come up, come out than what we knew after that court case and for 
that I am grateful.
	I did feel, however, quite empty after that court case, as I 
haven't got out of it what I did now, after the court case.

UNKNOWN: No, that is exactly, I think you have made the 
point.  You feel a lot better, that emptiness that you felt after the 
criminal trial, somehow whatever hole there was, has been filled 
through these proceedings, do you agree with that?

MR CORNELIUS: I would agree with that, but I would still want 
to see justice served.

UNKNOWN: Now, you know these proceedings are held in 
terms of a law of Parliament and that law allows for amnesty to be 
granted even to these applicants, who committed the most heinous 
crime as long as they meet the requirements of the law, you accept 
that?

MR CORNELIUS: I accept that that is what is stated in the law at 
the moment, however, I don't believe that they have met the 
requirements.  And if they haven't met the requirements, I still see 
that they should not be granted amnesty and should serve their 
sentence.

UNKNOWN: I am just wanting to understand your opposition, 
or the basis of your opposition, that is why I am asking this 
question.  Justice was served and in fact, it has been confirmed, that 
they are the ones who participated and who committed this crime.
	Now, we come to the amnesty process, which you will accept 
is different from that court process.  Now, is your opposition then 
not based on the fact that justice must be served, but that they didn't 
make, they haven't told us everything?  Is that why you are opposing 
this?

MR CORNELIUS: I would, Mr Chairman, through you, there is 
two reasons why I oppose this, and the one is purely an emotional 
reason and it is probably not grounds, it is my personal reason, but I 
oppose this because I don't believe that they have told us everything.
	I don't believe that full disclosure have been given.

UNKNOWN: No, the first ground, I mean it is perfectly 
understandable, and I will be the first to say I am sure that if I were 
in your position, I would oppose it on that basis, too.
	But let's deal with the disclosure aspect.  You have mentioned 
today that and this you say have been proved by the video evidence, 
that least two of the attackers were inside the Tavern.
	That video was shown at the criminal trial.

MR CORNELIUS: Correct.

UNKNOWN: So you saw that?

MR CORNELIUS: I was not allowed to see it.  As a witness and a 
victim in that court case, we were not allowed to actually be inside 
the court room before we had given our evidence.

UNKNOWN: Okay, fine.  So you also now saw the video for 
the first time.

MR CORNELIUS: I only saw it for the first time now.

UNKNOWN: Now, you gave evidence nevertheless.

MR CORNELIUS: Correct.

UNKNOWN: And you also made a statement to the Police, 
now in your summary of your evidence which one finds on page 44 
from line 21 onwards, and I will just read it to you Mr Cornelius, 
line 19.  Two of the women, Bernadette Langford and Lindi Anne 
Fourie were flat mates of David Deglon.  They were with him and a 
friend Quentin Cornelius, a friend from Johannesburg.  They sat at 
one of the tables at a raised platform area in the Tavern.
	This table, probably because it was diagonally across from the 
opening of the door and fairly visible, suffered the worst under the 
attack.  Not only the deceased Bernadette Langford and Lindi Anne 
Fourie were killed here, but David Deglon and Quentin Cornelius 
were also seriously injured.
	Roland Palm were also sitting at one of the tables on the 
platform when the attack started.  Is that summary reasonably 
accurate?

MR CORNELIUS: That is accurate.