Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1997-03-27

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: I made an application but in Correctional Services, in prison they told us that they want a comprehensive report about the events that took place about Mr Venter, and I had to furnish full details of Mr Venter's event and application.

JUDGE WILSON: Which I think you told us you got typed out in the prison for you, was it you who said that?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Mr Chairman I have just discovered a letter that was addressed to the applicant in the working file, dated 26 February 1997.

JUDGE WILSON: What?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: A letter.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: From our office to him dated the 26th of February 1997, may read the contents thereof Mr Chairman?

JUDGE WILSON: Yes.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Thank you.
"Dear Sir
		In connection with your application for amnesty kindly furnish us with the following information: In respect of which offences is amnesty applied for?  That is, is it for offences you have been convicted of or for other acts committed by you but which you have not been convicted of?
		We advise that unless you furnish us with complete and comprehensive details (not application) details within one month of receipt hereof amnesty in terms of the ..... Reconciliation be dealt with on paper before us as it appears. 
		There are hearings in Bloemfontein during the week of 24 - 27, it is of vital importance that you respond to us immediately so that we can decide whether we should enrol your matter for this forthcoming hearing".
The letter does not mention that the application form as supplied is incomplete, it simply says give us more information.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes.  And then the letter was put away
somewhere and nobody took any notice of it and the matter was set down, is that the position?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: The letter was sent Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes, and what was the response to the letter?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: I will check in the file again Mr Chairman.  Mr Chairman I do not find any response to this letter.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Sorry, when is that letter dated?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: (...indistinct)

JUDGE MGOEPE: The application form that he subsequently completed, is it not supposed to be the response to the letter there.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: (The speaker's mike is not on).... another application form, it only wants certain information pertaining to the application, that is for what - in respect of which offences he is asking for amnesty.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Ja you see you are dealing with lay people here and now I understand why he has been desperate to try to say that he did receive a letter from the Commission to say that something more was needed, all along he has been trying to (...indistinct)

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: That is why, that may be because of this letter that he filled up another application form which was not forwarded.  Thank you.

JUDGE WILSON: And did you prepare, as a result of that letter, you prepared this new application form and this new statement, the handwritten statement, is that so?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: Yes I tried because I thought maybe they meant to say that they lost the first statement because the office they don't show you what happens to your statement thereafter or your application, therefore I resubmitted an
application.

JUDGE WILSON: With a new statement annexed to it, this one?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: Yes, I thought there was a problem in the printing or an error, therefore I wrote the statement out with my hand.

JUDGE WILSON: Based on the typewritten statement.

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: Ja.

JUDGE WILSON: It reads very much the same.  You wrote out from the typewritten statement, so we needn't look at that.

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: That's correct Sir.

JUDGE WILSON: I think that we should adjourn now and perhaps sort out this confusion.  I gather there's also trouble with tapes at the moment.  Rather than adjourn and let them get more tapes we will be adjourning very soon anyway and let us make - do you mind if we take this from you and make copies available now?  Will you discuss it with Mr Visser about making them available?

MR NEMANE: As Mr Chairman pleases.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman we will have to know one thing, and I am sure you won't be able to give us the answer to it straight away, but we would have to know which is the application form we are dealing with here, either the one or the other or both.

JUDGE WILSON: If you look at the other one, it's very similar, it's different in wording, but the sense of the things are very much the same.

MR VISSER: Yes, thank you.

JUDGE WILSON: You find the same feelings.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Mr Chairman may I enquire if I heard correctly the Chair saying we are adjourning, are we adjourning for
the day Mr Chair?

JUDGE WILSON: Yes.  We are adjourning until 09H30 tomorrow morning.  If you had listened at two o'clock you would have heard me say that we would adjourn fairly early because counsel has not had an opportunity of consulting with his clients.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Mr Chairman the position is that the adjourning in this matter would be in order, but there is another matter that is ready and the counsel is read Mr Chairman.  I will abide by the Chair's decision.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Mpshe they haven't got tapes for the other matter.

MR VISSER: If we have to proceed I could proceed Mr Chairman, I am really in your hands, I am just trying to be of assistance to my learned friend.

JUDGE WILSON: How long will the other matter take....(the Speaker's microphone is not on?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: The Menera matter Mr Chairman, one applicant therein Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: How long will it take?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Estimation Mr Chairman one hour, thirty minutes.

JUDGE WILSON: We will adjourn for the moment while they get tapes.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: (s.u.o.)

JUDGE WILSON: The application form is not before us, we have only got the original application form and I accordingly don't think it would be proper to introduce it or the statement annexed to it.  I do think you can if you
want to, explore the one paragraph 10A which the witness himself introduced, but I do not think, subject to what 
counsel has to say that we should now re-open - we should open up a whole new field with this application that was apparently prepared as a result of a letter he received but which is not one of the documents before us and I don't think we should make use of them.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman our reaction would be that we do agree with you with respect.  The only issue is the one that we mentioned in chambers, if there is anything in those papers that are so contradictory so as to warrant your attention we will look at it tonight and we will draw your attention to it.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes then we can (...indistinct)

MR VISSER: But apart from that may we then take it that we are ignoring the new application, we are going on the original application?

JUDGE WILSON: Yes, if he wants to discuss the wording of that one particular paragraph which he introduced I don't think there's a great deal, and on the other it would only be if there is a complete contradiction.

MR VISSER: A material discrepancy.

JUDGE WILSON: A material discrepancy, not just the changes you would expect.  Thank you.

MR VISSER: (cont)
  Thank you Mr Chairman.  Now Mr Ngo do you have your original application form, the one that you wrote out in your handwriting in front of you?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: Yes Sir I do have it.

MR VISSER: Could you please turn to page three.

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: Yes I've found that.

MR VISSER: For the sake of the typist I am going to read what the words in paragraph 10A say
"The total suppression or removal of the political activist and their liberation movement and the crushing of military wings of the organisations".
is that what you read there?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: Yes that's exactly what I read.

MR VISSER: Is that what you wrote there?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: Yes Sir.