Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1998-04-07

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: I will hand the copy to the Chair.  It is from the firm Wagenaar, Miller and Du Plessis, re amnesty hearing, 6 to 20 April, IFP hit squad.  Kindly note the following:  (1) the applicants in this matter were members of the so-called Caprivi trainees, this group was thoroughly investigated during 1992 to 1993 by the Goldstone Commission when certain allegations were made inter alia against individual members of the South African Police, who are clients of ours.  During 1997 the human rights violations committee also conducted a hearing dealing with the subject, and where we represented amongst others the following individuals, Mr A.J. Vlok, General P.J. Coetzee, General J.V. van der Merwe, Major General J.A.P. Berger, Major General G.N. Erasmus, Major General B. Steyn and Brigadier A. Laas.
	Paragraph 3, I have now received the present applications herein and have noted that not one of the above-mentioned clients are specifically mentioned or implicated therein.  However, I have been approached by Mr Steenkamp and Mr Peens, who are mentioned in the applications with a request to protect their interest in this regard.
	As you have already once again failed to comply with the provision of Section 19(4), we find it impossible to do so in a proper way.  I am going to address that one, Mr Chairman, as they are not directly implicated, my instructions are not to appear before you on their behalf, but to put on record that should their rights in any way be infringed upon, we expect to be notified immediately in order for us to respond in an appropriate way.
	Some of the applicants herein also apply for amnesty in respect of crimes committed as part of the so-called Black Cats of Ermelo.  As you are aware, we represent certain individual Policemen who have in the past, falsely been implicated in this regard.
	In the present applications they are not directly implicated, but should that become the position at your hearing, their rights are also specifically reserved.  The same applies in respect of my clients mentioned in paragraph 1.2 above.  These are the names I have just mentioned.
	You are kindly requested to read this letter into the record at the commencement of your hearing on the 6th of April 1998.  Signed by Jan Wagenaar.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mpshe.
	Do you have anything to say about it?  You said during the course of reading ...

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Yes, Mr Chairman, there is a sentence here that says as you have obviously once again failed to notify us, this is a very, very untrue statement because myself and the firm, we agreed that both of us will sit down and check if there is anybody implicated and come to an agreement, then issue the said notices.  Hence he had to peruse the applications himself and hence he wrote this letter.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.   As I said before that letter was read, we have got seven applicants, and in the bundle of documents that has been made available to all of us here, they haven't been numbered, so I think just for convenience purposes, if I could place on record, the numbering of the applicants.
	The first applicant will be Mr Dalaqolo Wordsworth Luthuli, the second applicant will be Mr Bekhisiso Alex Khumalo.  The third applicant will be David Zweli Dhlamini.  The fourth applicant will be Bertwill Bekhi Ndlovu.  The fifth applicant will be Romeo Mbuso Mbambo.  The sixth applicant will be Brian Quna Mkhize, and the seventh applicant will be Israel Neyoni Hlongwane.
	I think it will be convenient if during the course of the proceedings, the applicants could be referred to by making reference to their numbers.

MR STUART: Mr Chairman, by way of opening remark, if I might have an opportunity to mention, last year I appeared on behalf of a number of people before a Human Rights Violations Committee at the same venue and similarly they were submitted with notices that there was a strong likelihood that they would be implicated by witnesses who would testify.
	Mr Chairman, if I may mention at this early stage, we have a concern in the sense that the names with which we have been submitted, of people who may become implicated, is significantly shorter than that with which we were previously submitted, and having regard to the documentation which we have, it would appear that a number or persons who I previously represented, are again mentioned, and have not received notification.
	I mention this, because we will obviously, if they are implicated, possibly have to obtain instructions from them and assess what manner we will treat it in.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.  Obviously if somebody is implicated who hasn't been given notice, we will have to deal with that when it comes, the Act makes provision for that and we obviously are not going to interfere with any implicated person's rights in so far as this hearing is concerned.

MR HEWIT: Mr Chairman, if I just may add to what those instructing me have said, one of the persons on the list whom we represent is a Mr M.Z. Khumalo.  I just want to place on record that all the testimony which we gather is going to be led in this trial, was led against Mr M.Z. Khumalo in a protracted trial where he was acquitted of all the charges which basically will be referred to, or the offences which will be referred to in these hearings.
	Although we represent him now, representation of him to a large extent will be academic because although he will be named in these proceedings, he certainly is not in any jeopardy in the light of his acquittal of all the charges concerned.  I just want to place that on record so if in our cross-examination of any witnesses, we don't pay much attention to Mr M.Z. Khumalo because - on that evidence Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Hewit.  Mr Stuart, with regard to the now numbered applicants, you are appearing for the first applicant, are you ready to proceed?

MR STUART: That is so Mr Chairman, thank you.  Perhaps immediately before doing so, if I might respond to my learned friend Mr Hewit in the last statement, of course it is true that Mr M.Z. Khumalo was acquitted of all the charges that were brought against him in the case of S v Msani, commonly known as the Malan trial, it is not true that all the evidence which will be led here, was led there because it wasn't most particularly that of Mr Luthuli, the first applicant.
	And secondly, of course the charges in that case were restricted, and the evidence in these proceedings cover a much broader range of incidents and so on, so in my submission it is not simply the case that it is academic, but I am sure that can be dealt with as we go along.

MR HEWIT: I must reply to that Mr Chairman.  The charges against the 20 accused in the trial that became known as the Magnus Malan trail, did not only relate to 13 counts of murder in relation to what has also become known as the KwaMakutha massacre, but also involved a conspiracy charge, the planning and conspiracy to commit acts of murder and mayhem in the Province of Natal generally, covered a lengthy period of time, which also covers all the events in Mr Luthuli's statement.
	So, we stand by what was stated earlier on that Mr Khumalo has been acquitted of all these events.