Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1998-02-10

MR JANSEN: No, I'm sorry.  Mr Chairman, I don't think you have any of these documents before you at the moment.  The first document I show is a computer print-out from the personnel records of the South African Police showing the history of Mr Otto's police career where he was stationed at different times and which illustrates that he was transferred from Komatiepoort or from Lebombo actually - which is the same place, to Evander on the 17th of August 1981, that is right at the bottom of that document.

CHAIRPERSON: Before I give it a reference number, is there anything material that turns on this document?  Do you want to hand it in as an exhibit?

MR JANSEN: Yes, provisionally, certainly Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  Is there anything material that turns on it?

MR JANSEN: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

MR JANSEN: Mr Chairman, then there is another document which I submit might be the very last pages of Volume 4, unless it's not in your - Mr Chairman, I don't think it's in your bundle.  These are the leave forms.

ADV DE JAGER: Volume 4 is a ...[inaudible]

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

MR JANSEN: Then it's not in there.

MR VISSER: Well, while my learned friend is searching - Visser on record Mr Chairman, may I point out that we've had a pre-trial conference in this case with Commissioner de Jager as the Chairperson and certain specific agreements were made relating to documentation and the one at page 189 of the Wagener bundle - that is Volume 3, you will see that it was agreed - I'm sorry, I've given you the wrong page number, Volume 2, page 189, it was specifically agreed that documentation to be used by any interested party would be given by notice one month prior to this hearing and any other documentation would only be allowed on special leave being granted.
	Now the point is here Mr Chairman, we haven't even been offered copies of what my learned friend is now freely handing up to the Commission.  I don't know what he's talking about, I haven't seen any of these papers and there's no application for special leave. And your question to my learned friend is pertinent. How is this relevant to the present case of the amnesty application of these four people here before you?
	With respect Mr Chairman, I don't want to object but there should be some sort of organisation in handing out documents freely to the Commission.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen, you must concede that there was this arrangement isn't it?  That document that were relevant and which were going to be used, would be handed in in time.

MR JANSEN: Yes.  Mr Chairman, I concede that absolutely.  My instructions are that notice of these documents were given to all the parties.  It was placed in possession of the TRC although not within the 30 days, within the last 10 or 10 days before the hearing, specifically notifying the parties that an application will be made in terms of the pre-trial minute that use is subject to the permission by the Commission.
	I must apologise in the sense that I made copies of the leave forms itself available to the parties yesterday.  I think I simply just forgot or I just - for some or other reason, did not make the copies of this computer print-out available, that's my mistake Mr Chairman.

ADV DE JAGER: It wasn't given to us either.

MR JANSEN: Mr Chairman, because it doesn't form part of the existing volumes.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, but you intended to use it and at least you should read the pre-trial conference, you've been there, you've agreed to this and we need at least an explanation from you.  Mr Jansen, you're experienced with these things.

MR JANSEN: Yes, Mr Chairman, but that's why I say unfortunately that letter is not available right now, it's in our hotel room but it was forwarded to the TRC ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: The other documents Mr Jansen, not this document that you've handed up, Exhibit B.

MR JANSEN: No, but reference is made in that correspondence to both documents.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, without wasting too much time ...[intervention]

MR JANSEN: Sorry, Mr Chairman, I understand from my instructions in fact, that this document was a document that was never in our possession, this document was obtained from the TRC.  The leave form was in our possession, not this document.

CHAIRPERSON: You're referring to Exhibit B?

MR JANSEN: And the computer print-out.

CHAIRPERSON: And the computer print-out.
	Well now, Mr Visser, do you now have copies of these documents?

MR VISSER: No, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Well now, can you - is there any other aspect of the matter that you can deal with in the meanwhile while copies are being made?

MR JANSEN: I can hand them copies in the meantime Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, please do.  Now, this computer print-out will go in as Exhibit B.

MR JANSEN: And the leave form as C.

CHAIRPERSON: And the leave form as C.

MR JANSEN: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes please?

MR JANSEN: Mr du Plessis, would you accept that that application for leave form, that from that it seems as though Otto in 1981 from the 6th of July till the 31st of July was on ordinary leave?

MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct, yes.

MR JANSEN: For 26 days.  Then, if you skip one line, from the 3rd of August to the 9th of August he was on sick leave for seven days.

MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.

MR JANSEN: And from the 10th of August to the 14th of August, for five days on ordinary leave.

MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.

MR JANSEN: It is improbable that he was part of the operation then?

MR DU PLESSIS: The other side is also true, it could have been the tactics of Dirk to put Roy on leave so that he could have worked with him so the other side can also be true.

MR JANSEN: But you would agree that Mr Coetzee did not know about this incident a month before.

MR DU PLESSIS: You don't need a month to obtain leave.

MR JANSEN: But according to the documents it was a month before.

MR DU PLESSIS: Here it says from the 10th he was on ordinary leave.

MR JANSEN: So you mean - you're referring to the last piece of leave?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes.

MR JANSEN: In any case, Mr Coetzee denies that Otto was there. And you are aware of his version that the person who pulled the trigger was a tall person with light hair - fair hair and he was slender.

MR DU PLESSIS: I cannot agree with that.

MR JANSEN: But you would at least concede that Otto does not fit that description?

MR DU PLESSIS: No, definitely not.

JUDGE PILLAY: Mr du Plessis, can you remember what Mr Otto looked like?

MR DU PLESSIS: I have seen his photo, yes.

JUDGE PILLAY: Is it the same person or not?

MR DU PLESSIS: It's difficult for me to say, he was balding but I can't pertinently say that it was him.

MR JANSEN: In conclusion, I'd just like to put it to you that the fact that you are implicating Roy Otto which is part of a pattern of implicating people who are dead so that you cannot implicate people who have not applied for amnesty.

MR DU PLESSIS: That's not the case.  I do not think - I might be a big fool but I'm not such a fool.

MR JANSEN: Are you aware of anyone - unfortunately I do not have access to your application, but are you aware of any person in your application on a whole who you have implicated and who has not applied for amnesty?

MR DU PLESSIS: I do not believe so.

MR JANSEN: Furthermore, I want to put it to you that if one looks at the history of Kondile's detention in Bloemfontein, the periods that he was detained in Humansdorp and Jeffrey's Bay and seen together with the bomb attacks in the background, that he was suspected of them, that on the 8th of August there was a bomb attack in Port Elizabeth, that this is the background to Kondile's detention after 10th of August and to further assaults on Kondile and not this overly dramatic version which you are presenting to us.