Amnesty Hearings — Nelspruit — 1999-02-04

MR BLACK: Yes.   Madam Chair, perhaps if I start on the last point.   I had made a point in my notes and it's an omission on my part, to put to Mr O'Farrell, but I'm sure the leader of evidence could consult with him and perhaps she could either confirm my submissions which would be made to you.   What I intended to put, Mr O'Farrell says that he identified the brother and the father of the applicant as being party, or some part of the party that attacked him.  Now my obstructions are, objectively, that first of all the father does not live on the premises, but apart from that, that no charges of assault have ever been brought or laid against these two parties, who have been identified.

CHAIRPERSON: But apart from the fact that no charges have ever been laid, which was Mr O'Farrell's choice, of course, and we can't disbelieve him on that aspect simply because no charges were preferred against the individuals who participated in his alleged assault, apart from that, what do you say to the fact that he was beaten to a pulp?

MR BLACK: Well, perhaps he was, I don't know what his definition, he speaks of a horde of people and according to him, his concept of a horde of people would be between five and six, his explanation is, given his physical make-up.   Now the applicant does not say it did not happen, it didn't happen in his presence, he didn't see it happen.

CHAIRPERSON: But according to the evidence before us, this must have been witnessed by the applicant.   I mean the version given by Mr O'Farrell and that one given by Mr Sambo as to what happened when would make the applicant to be right at the scene of the assault of Mr O'Farrell.   I just cannot explain how he could not have witnessed this.   I put this question to Mr Sambo, if I recall, that when he states that Mr O'Farrell came, approached him, with his gun cocked, where was he, he said he was there, he could see, and it was at that stage that Mr O'Farrell was actually hit by the so-called group of persons, because he was trying to come to Mr Van der Spuy's assistance, who had then called out for him to come to his assistance.

MR BLACK: Yes.   Well, with respect, that's not - when it was put to Mr Sambo that O'Farrell approached him with his gun cocked, he says it wasn't so, O'Farrell had left, had gone away, because he said if Mr O'Farrell had approached him with the gun cocked, he would have killed him.

MR LAX: Mr Black, there are two factors here.   The first is, your client and you surely haven't put it to Mr O'Farrell that he didn't suffer the injuries he said he suffered... (intervention).

MR BLACK: No.

MR LAX: ...very severe injuries, there's no question about that, and the version he gives is consistent with the injuries he describes... (intervention).

MR BLACK: Yes.

MR LAX: ...being hit with pipes and bricks and all sorts of things.   Now, your client's version is a simple one, only his wife was in the house, there was no-one else in the vicinity.   It's clear.    Now it's just not possible for the two to be consistent.   So that's what we want you to address us on.

MR BLACK: Well, he says he did not see anyone, he was not aware of any incident.   Now it's not quite clear where this incident - according to Mr O'Farrell, it took place, there were two incidents:  the first incident when he was leaving and going away, or according to him, attempting to shoot, and then the gun was taken out of his hand;  the incident where he was actually seriously assaulted, took place at a later stage when - there's no, at that stage, I don't know where Mr Sambo was, but he says he didn't witness any assault.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Black, there are two incidents wherein Mr O'Farrell was assaulted... (intervention).

MR BLACK: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: ...the first one was, according to the version given by Mr O'Farrell, was when he was dispossessed, not by Mr Sambo... (intervention).

MR BLACK: No.

CHAIRPERSON: ...but by that small group of persons who assaulted him.   The second incident happened after Mr O'Farrell had returned with an ambulance.

MR BLACK: Yes, that's so.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm not interested about that one wherein he was assaulted after he had come back with an ambulance, I'm interested in the first incident, wherein it's quite clear, on the version of Mr Sambo himself, that Mr O'Farrell was there and Mr Sambo was also there, and was observing Mr O'Farrell, and he should, therefore, have seen when Mr O'Farrell was being attacked, I am talking about the first assault and not the second assault.

MR LAX: Could I just add this, and I'm talking more about the second assault, because it's your client's evidence that when O'Farrell approached him from the ambulance, he warned him not to come any closer or he was going to shoot him, so he would have kept his eyes on this man very carefully at that point in time, and it was at that point when he tried to approach Van der Spuy that he was then beaten up by the crowd and chased away.   So in both instances it's your client's version, and it's consistent with your client's version, that he would have kept a good lookout at the man.

MR BLACK: Yes.   I think, if my recollection serves me correctly, and perhaps I could be, I stand corrected, I think O'Farrell alleges that he was dispossessed of his firearm by the applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Black, I think let's correct you there, it is Mr O'Farrell's evidence that he was dispossessed by a small group of persons, and to be precise, he would want to believe, and I use the word believe deliberately, he would want to believe that he was dispossessed by the applicant's brother.

MR BLACK: Okay, I'm indebted to you, but... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Black, we are happy to hear you on our second issue, and that's the... (intervention).

MR BLACK: Well, the explanation as far as the second issue is concerned, which I can only - it is - I don't want to speculate in great detail, but if one takes into the account the following:  soldiers had swept the area, it would appear they left that area and the premises at - after having cleared the area, let's put it that way - at about 12 o'clock that day, shortly after that this incident takes place, and I do not, with due respect, and I don't want to, I'm certainly not going to give expert evidence on this matter, but I have been involved in matters and cases where the arrogance of the security police has also manifested itself.   As far as they are concerned, they could do what they want to, they were satisfied that they were now not going to be attacked, that is the way he could think, and although it's in daylight, there are countless matters where they have demonstrated, the bad element of the security forces have demonstrated their arrogance and do not just operate at stealth of night.   That's my only submission.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, I do understand you on that one.   Ms Thabete, do you have anything to address us on?

MS THABETE: Yes, Madam Chair, I do.

UNKNOWN: Without saying much, I would say there's no doubt that the applicant had been subjected to previous harassment, by virtue of the fact that he was an MK member previously, and all the other reasons that have been stated in his affidavit, but I think the question remains as to whether - maybe let me not start there - Mr O'Farrell's version has been very consistent in court, today and even at the inquest.   As a result, there is no reason why - or it's my submission that there's no reason why the committee should doubt the evidence placed by Mr O'Farrell today before it.

CHAIRPERSON: We don't have any evidence before us from the inquest, and neither are we interested in the proceedings of the criminal trial... (intervention).

MS THABETE: I'm saying... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: ...we will take cognisance of what has been said only before this committee.