Amnesty Hearings — Nelspruit — 1999-12-08

VOICE MORRIS SAMBO: Yes, it is so.

CHAIRPERSON: And you also had intentions to kill Mr O'Farrell.

VOICE MORRIS SAMBO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: It was not an ambush that one, was it?

VOICE MORRIS SAMBO: No, it wasn't an ambush, but I was killing them because we were fighting.

CHAIRPERSON: Now how does this fit under this general instruction which was given to you?  Because you just told us that according to the general instruction, you were supposed to choose areas where you can kill them and how you can kill them.

VOICE MORRIS SAMBO: When you do an ambush you don't do this alone, you have to be a group, a number of people, it depends how many.  But when O'Farrell came to my house, it was just an opportunity because they were armed and I took that gun and I decided to just finish them so that I fulfilled that order which was given to us.

MR LAX: Why did you not say in your amnesty application form, where it asks you about orders, that you were acting in terms of a general order to kill?

VOICE MORRIS SAMBO: You mean the form I filled in prison?

MR LAX: There's a question that says - "Was this act committed in execution of an order on behalf of, or with the approval of an organisation, liberation movement?  State department or Security Force concerned.  Your answer was "No".  The question is, why didn't you say there that you were acting in terms of a general order?  Which is the truth as you understand it.

VOICE MORRIS SAMBO: It was the person who was helping me filling in the form, because I didn't write it myself.  Maybe I didn't quite understand, so he wrote something.  I just answered something I didn't quite understand.

MR LAX: Did you tell him you were acting under orders?

VOICE MORRIS SAMBO: I explained that it was a general order.

MR LAX: Well you see he's written the exact opposite of what you told him here.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm sure that will be appropriately dealt by you, Mr Wills, during your legal argument.

MR WILLS: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Wills, may we offer you now an opportunity to re-examine if you so wish?

MR WILLS: Yes, one point.  Thank you, Madam Chair.
	On these other incidence's, when the police used to come to your house and in the main search for weapons etc., how many policemen were there?

VOICE MORRIS SAMBO: Many.

MR WILLS: You mentioned sometimes there were even helicopters, is that not correct?  And they were backed up by the army.

VOICE MORRIS SAMBO: Yes, that's correct.

MR WILLS: And at the time van der Spuy and O'Farrell came, they were the only two, is that right?  There were no other policemen around at the time.

VOICE MORRIS SAMBO: That's correct.

MR WILLS: Thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR WILLS

MR LAX: Just one thing I forgot, if you'll allow me.

CHAIRPERSON: I will begrudgingly allow you, Mr Lax.

MR LAX: Originally when you testified before us, you gave the impression that you were killing van der Spuy at least, because he was a killer and a threat to you and others and you implied that you were acting to a certain extent, out of some kind of self-defence.  Do you remember that evidence?

VOICE MORRIS SAMBO: Would you please repeat your question.

MR LAX: In your previous testimony you said that you were shooting van der Spuy because he was a killer and you implied that you were acting to a certain extent, out of self-defence, to protect yourself.

VOICE MORRIS SAMBO: That's correct.

MR LAX: At no stage did you say you were killing him because he was your enemy.  Why has this difference come into your evidence now?

VOICE MORRIS SAMBO: Would you please repeat that question.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Sambo, do you still have a problem with the interpretation?

VOICE MORRIS SAMBO: I would like Ms Interpreter not to be fast, I would like her to speak to me slowly so that I quite follow her.

CHAIRPERSON: For us not to waste time I will repeat Mr Lax's question and I would like you to open your ears and listen carefully.  The question is, do you remember your evidence when you came here before, not today, previously?  Your evidence suggested that you were protecting yourself or you were defending yourself when you shot Mr van der Spuy.  This is the evidence that you gave.

VOICE MORRIS SAMBO: I do remember.

CHAIRPERSON: You didn't explain what you just explained today, that the reason of killing him was intentionally because as police there was this general instruction that they were supposed to be killed because they were seen as enemies in the community.

VOICE MORRIS SAMBO: I didn't understand the question when it was put to me and my attorney didn't advise me quite well.

CHAIRPERSON: You were lying when you gave evidence before this Committee initially, is it not so?  Whether you were advised by your attorney or not, but all we want to know is that you didn't tell the truth before, is it not so?

VOICE MORRIS SAMBO: It is so.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you advance any reason why you lied before?

VOICE MORRIS SAMBO: I didn't have full information as to what exactly I was supposed to divulge and my attorney didn't explain to me that I should have told everything about what happened and also the people who were involved.

MR LAX: You've already told us that you knew you had to tell the truth here, even the last time.  What I'm trying to understand is, what didn't you understand about your motive?  You say your lawyer didn't put it clearly to you, he didn't tell you clearly what you were supposed to say, but we asked you questions and it wasn't a matter of not understanding our questions, you deliberately lied about your motive, isn't that so?

CHAIRPERSON: Would I be lying or will I be saying something which is not true if I am saying that you didn't know the instructions as your attorney has explained?

VOICE MORRIS SAMBO: Yes, it is so.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Wills, we interrupted you whilst you were re-examining Mr Sambo.

MR WILLS: That was the only aspect of re-examination I had at that stage, thank you, Madam Chair.
WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  What do you propose to do, Mr Wills?  We already have Ms Mtanga who is not prepared to lead any evidence, save obviously to address the Committee, which would be a question of legal argument about the value of the evidence presented before us today.

MR WILLS: Yes.  Madam Chair, I would request that in view of the fact that there have been quite serious challenges as regards the previous evidence of the applicant, I would request an opportunity to supply written argument and to deal with each of those aspects comprehensively in written argument.
	Whilst I have prepared certain argument, I think it would be better if I provided a comprehensive argument on the basis of the evidence which has been given today, and I'd request an opportunity to do so.  I don't think that it would be necessary for the Commission to go to the expense of getting all the parties present, I think we could possibly agree on a date which I would like to suggest, should be after the transcription of today's proceedings.  I do think that it would be important for these proceedings to be transcribed.  Possibly a month after the receipt of the transcription of that argument we could agree to have written argument in.
	I know that the applicant obviously is in prison and I have discussed this with him and he has no objection waiting for that delay, he thinks that it is in his interests.  Thank you.