Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN: Thank you Mr Chairman.  Mr Mpshe and myselfhave, as I have told you, decided that we won't go ahead withColonel Venter and that for purposes of the speaker of the NorthwestParliament if you give permission that we can go ahead with furtherevidence we would like to deal with one specific incident relatingto Mr Tebedi.  I beg your pardon she reminds me that they haveto make their submissions, I forgot about that, I am sorry.
MS HARTEL ADDRESSES COMMITTEE
 Mr Chairman, honoured members of the Committee the families ofthe Pepco 3 have some idea of what happened to their loved ones,from revelations outside this Commission which they have beenunable to test.  They know that they were abducted, tortured andmurdered at the hands of the police.  They had hoped, however,to establish today from Venter's submissions and testimony thefiner details of what exactly happened on that day, who the responsibleperpetrators are and most importantly where the bodies are.  The families have brought three applications since the fatefulday when their loved ones disappeared for the police to producethem to the Court.  In every one of those 
4B applications/...
223 ADDRESS
applications the police vehemently denied that the men were arrestedor detained.  
 The families want only to establish who committed these grossviolations and to find the bodies so that they can give theirloved ones a proper burial and put the matter to rest.  This isafter all the whole purpose of the Truth and Reconciliation Commissionto establish the whole truth so that reconciliation and reconstructioncan be advanced. 
 When an amnesty applicant fails to make a full disclosure ofall relevant facts we submit, with respect, that such applicationmust fail.  Venter's submissions are disappointing to say theleast.  His application for amnesty is limited to acts, omissionsor offences which he describes as abduction, malicious injuryto property, theft, other minor offences associated therewithand any other offences which may appear from his submissions orthe facts to which he has deposed.  He has added murder, but wewould submit, with respect,  that  it doesn't take the matterany further as the facts to which he has deposed does not discloseor make out any case of murder or even an association with murder.
 The application is lacking in material detail such as an absencein response to the question, at page 114 of Venter's submissions,in response to the question 10A "Mention political purposes",no response is noted.  It also fails even to identify the Pepco3 as victims and I refer in this regard to page 113 of Venter'ssubmissions, where the response to all the questions regardingwho the victims are, their names and addresses and other informationwhich would assist this Committee in identifying them, the answeris "onbekend" "unknown" "no informationto assist".
4B We/...
224 ADDRESS
 We would submit for this reason alone the application shouldfail for want of proper compliance with the requirements of theAct.
 It is the families' contention further that Venter's applicationfor indemnity is disingenuous as he does not even begin to acknowledgehis complicity in acts which amount to gross violations of humanrights.  In fact Venter has made every effort to disassociatehimself with the crux of the matter which is the death of thePepco 3 activists.  He denies that he had any part in the interrogationof the three or assaulting them or intimidating them.  He evengoes further and denies that they had suffered any injuries whichwere obvious to the eye.  He denies that he has knowledge of anyother acts committed in relation to them.  He has no knowledgeof the fate of the yellow bakkie which conveyed them to the airport. And he bears no personal knowledge of their eventual fate.
 Mr Chair one is at a loss to understand the purpose of his applicationfor indemnity.  Venter has not furnished this Committee with anyinformation in addition to the revelations made by the Vlakplaasoperatives outside of this Commission.  In fact he's not evenassociated himself with the allegations made by these operatives. He has only detracted therefrom. 
 It is inconceivable, given the public knowledge of the Vlakplaas,of the agenda during the period in question, that they would haveinvolved themselves in the affairs of the Eastern Cape in relationto the three for any purpose other than to permanently eliminatethem.  
 I submit further that Venter has failed to assist this Committeein identifying any key perpetrators in respect of 
4B the/...
225 ADDRESS
the atrocities and in all the circumstances we respectfully submitthat he has failed to take this Commission into its confidence,and he must therefore not be rewarded with amnesty in respectof any acts of violence committed against the Pepco 3 activists.
 Those are my submissions Mr Chairman.

UNKNOWN: For one minute Mr Chairman.  Thecrucial consideration is full disclosure of all relevant facts,not half truths.  The evidence and statements of Mr Venter constitutedlame exercise to undermine the noble objectives of this Commission,that is truth, reconciliation and unity and should be rejected. Thank you.

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman I am caught a littlebit unawares.  I was under the impression that I would, at theend of the hearings give full argument in respect of all the incidentsand I intend to do so in respect of this incident as well.
 I just want to make one or two off-the-cuff submissions pertainingto my learned friends' submissions which they have made now.
 If it is expected of an applicant who applies for amnesty todo a full police investigation about a matter in which he wasinvolved in; if it is expected of him to go and speak to all otherwitnesses involved in the matter, at his own cost, to try andfind out their versions to give further evidence to this Commissionabout happenings where he wasn't present, which he has no furtherpersonal knowledge of; if it is expected of him to try and obtainother facts such as for instance the names of the victims, whichhe didn't remember when the applications were drawn, if that isexpected of him Mr Chairman then I would venture to bet that 4Bvery/...
226 ADDRESS
very few applicants to this Commission would ever get amnesty. I do not read the Act as placing an obligation upon an applicantto make such enquiries.  I don't read the Act and don't interpretthe Act as meaning that an applicant should do more than makefull disclosure of that of which he has knowledge of.  That iswhat...(tape ends)
 No witnesses have been called to show that his evidence is untrue.

JUDGE WILSON: We haven't finished the case have we sowhat's the point of arguing that one?  We might call many witnesseson this aspect.

UNKNOWN: Yes.  Mr Chairman I'm arguing it on thebasis that the legal representatives argued that there was notfull disclosure.  And I'm saying ...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: You were arguing that no witnesses havebeen called to disprove, that is because we haven't got to thatstage of the case yet.

UNKNOWN: Yes Mr Chairman but up to now, on thesame basis, the legal representatives of the families cannot arguethat full disclosure has not been made.  If other ...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: They argued that on his evidence.

UNKNOWN: With the fullest of respect Mr Chairman,they argued that but there was no indication of any fact withinthe knowledge of Colonel Venter which he has not disclosed.  Therewas no statements made to him that other witnesses might be calledby the families during these proceedings who would contradicthis evidence.  There is no indication, at this stage, that theremight be other witnesses who would contradict his evidence.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr du Plessis when you started your argument5A you/...
227 ADDRESS
you said that your intention was to argue at the end of the casein full.

UNKNOWN: Yes Mr Chairman, I ...(intervention)