Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1997-10-28

NORMAN ARENDSE: Mr Chairman, if I may respond.  I - in re-examination Gqomfa also said that there's a possibility that someone may have entered.  He also said that he doesn't know whether his other members had carried out their task, that's what he said.  That's on Gqomfa's evidence, so although Gqomfa had categorically denied having entered, he never excluded the possibility that someone else may have entered - that's on Gqomfa.
	As far as the line of questions is concerned, I obviously cannot stop Mr Prior from pointing out that the application is blank as far as the details of the incident is concerned and I would submit that that should be the basis on which he proceeds.  But otherwise these prepared statements were handed purely to facilitate this process and purely to have the copies run off.

CHAIRPERSON: When the statements are prepared, one expects that they must approximate to the truth, isn't it?

NORMAN ARENDSE: Well it should approximate your instructions, I would agree with that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, now it this man says that he has an explanation why this was omitted, he will say so.  He can't be prevented from being questioned on that.

NORMAN ARENDSE: But I think it runs the risk of then drawing into question the credibility of the legal representatives and the instructions they took and how they put it across.  I think runs that risk.

CHAIRPERSON: You don't have to worry about that Mr Arendse.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Mr Chairman, can the people behind me stop making comments here, if they can just respect the process?

CHAIRPERSON: I will clear this hall if there is going to be any interference with these proceedings - please.
	Do carry on.

MR PRIOR: Thank you Mr Chairman.  Mr Madasi, is it correct - the statement that has now been amended in your evidence but as it stood as of yesterday, were those facts that were contained in paragraph 7 all the facts that at that stage you had stated to your legal representatives?

CHAIRPERSON: I think that you should just simplify your question Mr Prior.

MR PRIOR: As the Chair pleases.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it correct that in this statement short as it is, no mention is made of you having entered.

MR PRIOR: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: That's all.

MR PRIOR: Mr Madasi, is it correct that in the statement that was prepared yesterday, there's no mention in that statement that you in fact entered the tavern and fired rounds of ammunition or fired at anyone in the tavern?  Is that correct?

VUYISILE LEBRAN MADASI: We are at the present moment in prison, we are under the law.  The people that we're under in jail are not for this process, they don't even want us to come here therefore the time we're given with our attorneys was very limited because of the situation that we're under in jail.  The fact that I did not mention in my statement that I entered the tavern, could have - the reason behind that could have been that we were given very little time to consult.  This is why things have gone this way.  I think the Committee should remember that we're in jail and keep in mind the situation we're under in jail.

MR PRIOR: Is it not correct that you consulted with your legal representatives over the week-end?

VUYISILE LEBRAN MADASI: Yes, we consulted but even then the time was very limited.  We hurried up, we were given very, very limited time.  The people that we're under in jail, they are only considering their jobs and their attitudes, it is not important to them that we come here and what we're about here.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prior, just move ahead and carry on.  You realise that there was evidence of what transpired and what was found in the tavern indicating that firing took place from within the tavern.  All you're concerning yourself with is: "Why was it not indicated in this document".  I understand the point, when you address us you can make your argument - address the argument on the reason why, but I don't think that questioning him will take the matter any further.
	And we must take into account that they've been in prison all this time, their counsel and attorney have not had the fullest opportunity that one would expect in these circumstances, to prepare comprehensive statements and I think we will take that into account.

MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman, I'm bound in representing the interests of the victims, to possibly - just a last aspect of this, to suggest to him the reason why his statement is ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Put it to him.

MR PRIOR: Mr Madasi, first of all I want to suggest to you that indicating to your legal counsel that you simply entered into the restaurant and shot, would not have taken too much time, do you agree?

VUYISILE LEBRAN MADASI: I don't agree.

JUDGE WILSON: Surely the most important that you would have been asked was: "What did you do" and surely you would have said: "I went in through the door and shot people".

MS GOZA: Mr Chair?

JUDGE WILSON: I would like the witness to answer the question please.

VUYISILE LEBRAN MADASI: I want to emphasise that we are in jail ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] because we understand that you are in jail, we understand that - you've explained that to us.  The question that was put to you is, when you were asked - your counsel must have asked you what was your participation in this, you could have told him that you went in and fired from inside.  That is how it is put to you.  ...[inaudible]  a lot of time to convey that.

VUYISILE LEBRAN MADASI: There are a lot of aspects that we didn't deal with.  We get enough time to consult with our attorneys only when we are here.  The Committee told us only two days before we came here that we are going to appear here, we did not get enough time to explain things that we were supposed to have explained so that the Committee is clear.

CHAIRPERSON: Do carry on.

MS GOZA: Mr Chair, may I request insofar as I'm part of counsel, may I request to put something on record here which may have a bearing insofar as this matter may be important towards the credibility of the applicant?  With the Chair's permission, may I continue to do so?

CHAIRPERSON: ....[inaudible] so.

MS GOZA: I wish to put it on record that I consulted with the applicant - I went to Victor Verster on Wednesday, I think it was Wednesday and in my instructions with the applicant the applicant had always maintained that he went into the tavern.

JUDGE WILSON: Well why doesn't he tell us that?  His credibility I would say, is even more in issue - he's not told us that, he's gone on and on and on about having no time and things not being able to discuss.  You say now he did tell you this on Wednesday, when he knew he was going to be giving evidence here.

MS GOZA: Mr Chair, could I get the opportunity to explain the circumstances.  My colleague went and consulted in Victor Verster on Saturday - on that day I was not there, he drafted the statements on Sunday.  Those statements were produced in these hearings unsigned on Monday.  We all did not have an opportunity to have a look at those statements.  Insofar as this may be important for the full disclosure requirement that the applicant has to meet, I request that it be put on record that in my instructions when I consulted him, that is what he had always said.  Thank you.