Amnesty Hearings — Nelspruit — 1999-02-04

MS THABETE: Yes, Madam Chair, I do, but before I do, can I please have five minutes to consult?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.   We'll take a five minute adjournment and we'll return at ten to twelve.   If you do need more time Ms Thabete, will you please just give us an indication well ahead of the time that we have now set down to reconvene, ten to twelve.

MS THABETE: Thank you, I'll do so, Madam Chair.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

CHAIRPERSON: It's been drawn to my attention that I didn't apprise you of the fact that if you so wanted to take off your jacket, you may do so.

MR BLACK: I'll be indebted to the committee for that.   Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabete, you may proceed to put questions.

MS THABETE: Mr Sambo, you spoke about the army coming into your house on that day in question.   Did they see the cars that were parked - the four cars that were parked in your house - at your house, sorry?

VOICE SAMBO: Yes, they saw them.

MS THABETE: Did they search them?

VOICE SAMBO: Yes, they searched them.

MS THABETE: Did they find anything?

VOICE SAMBO: Nothing.

MS THABETE: And then, later on that day, when Mr Van der Spuy and Mr O'Farrell came, you were asked a question as to what you thought they would be doing there, or you were asked a question who you thought they were, and you said well, because you as a Shell emblem you thought they were from the garage, do you remember that?

VOICE SAMBO: Yes.

MS THABETE: And later on you said you thought they were there to kill you.   In your application at page 5 of the bundle, No 10(a), you've written that you thought they were thieves.   Can you just clarify who you thought Mr Van der Spuy and Mr O'Farrell were, when you saw them that day, in the light of the answers that I've given you, or that you gave to us?

MR BLACK: Sorry to interrupt my learned friend here for the -I did indicate to the Court and it slipped my mind, that I would be leading evidence to clarify that issue, in my opening address, but I must - I'm afraid it did slip my mind and, with all due respect, I could be given the opportunity, although I've no objection to my learned friend explaining now, as I've tried to indicate the difficulty in leading this evidence, if she refers to paragraph 5, it means nothing to the applicant, he doesn't read, but if she had to say in... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: It's page 5, not paragraph... (intervention).

MR BLACK: Ja, page 5, but if... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: ...paragraph 10(a).

MR BLACK: But if she had to say what is written in paragraph 10(a), that being the document which was filled in at the prison at the time of his making - in other words explain to him what the nature of the document... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BLACK: ...otherwise I could do it, I could clarify that if the Court, if the committee gives me that opportunity, but I forgot to do it at the end of the evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: I think you did indicate at the commencement of your evidence, Mr Black, that you intended, you identified certain paragraphs that you intended to clarify to the committee, I just took it for granted that the further questioning also addressed this particular issue, because I made a note that you referred to paragraph 10(a) on page 5.

MR BLACK: Yes.   What I wanted to do was, just explain to the committee the circumstances under which this was completed, this form, and how it's come about that this wording is there, and I did indicate that it was a language problem.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BLACK: Would the committee give me that opportunity just to clear it up, otherwise we could end up having questions and questions about it the whole time?

CHAIRPERSON: Let's give Ms Thabete an opportunity to respond to that.

MR BLACK: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you recall Mr Black making that request, that he wanted to have certain paragraphs contained in the application form... (intervention).

MS THABETE: Yes, I recall that.

CHAIRPERSON: ...clarified?

MS THABETE: I recall that, Madam Chair, and I have no objections to him doing that, more especially why I'm asking this question is that it was also raised at the trial that at some stage the applicant thought these people were thieves, so I would gladly like him to clarify it please.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Black, in view of the nature of the inquiry that we are conducting and the fact that you had indeed, right when you started with your evidence in chief, raised these concerns with the committee, we will grant you an opportunity to clarify that issue by leading this aspect of evidence with Mr Sambo.

MR BLACK: Thank you, I'm indebted to you, Madam Chair, and I'm certain, I'll be sure that it's brief.

MR BLACK: Mr Sambo, you were asked a question, now you will recall that... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Clarify on the basis of what you could have gone ahead, had... (intervention).

MR BLACK: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: ...that opportunity not slipped you.

MR BLACK: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Not on the basis of the question asked by Ms Thabete

MR BLACK: No.   Mr Sambo, you will recall that when you applied for amnesty the first time, when you were in prison, a form had to be completed?

VOICE SAMBO: That's correct.

MR BLACK: Right.   Now who completed that form?

VOICE SAMBO: Another prisoner.

MR BLACK: Now when you spoke to this prisoner, in what language did you speak to him?

VOICE SAMBO: In Swazi.

MR BLACK: Now it appears, apart from all the spelling and the difficulties here, but without going through this form one by one question, the one question that is asked, and this is what is relevant now, is it says, there's a question or a request that you must state what political objective you wanted to achieve by your actions, okay?   Now in reply to that question, what is written here, although very bad English, it says, what's written here
"No, I..."
presume it must be:-
"...thought they were thieves."

VOICE SAMBO: I think the person who was helping me didn't understand what I was saying to him, but what I know is that the reason I said they were thieves, I meant security branch, they were people who were working for the government, the old government, who were thieves and who used to steal.

MR BLACK: Ja, but Mr Sambo, let's not get into long detail, what words did you use, what word did you use to describe these people in Seswati?

VOICE SAMBO: Thieves, criminals.

MR BLACK: So that could... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: He means it's more criminals than thieves.

MR BLACK: Ja.   So you mean you considered them to be criminals?

VOICE SAMBO: Yes.   I meant security branch, they were criminals.

MR BLACK: Okay.   Thank you, Madam Chair, I don't want to, need to go into...
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BLACK

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Black, now that you've been afforded the opportunity that you had earlier on indicated that you would want to be afforded, we'll go back to Ms Thabete.

MS THABETE: (cont)
	Mr Sambo, in the light of the clarification that you've given, maybe you can explain, you see on page 39 of the bundle, in the judgment, there is a suggestion, or the judge said, in your evidence you say that you thought that these two whites were going to perhaps steal from the car, or look to see if they could steal from the car.   Did you give such evidence in court, or do you remember giving such evidence in court?

VOICE SAMBO: I don't remember saying so.

MS THABETE: So are you saying that when the judge said you did say this, he was not telling the truth?

CHAIRPERSON: Won't you read to him the relevant portion of the evidence to which you are alluding?

MS THABETE: Mr Sambo, in court the judge says you said... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: What page, Ms Thabete?

MS THABETE: It's page 39 of the bundle, page 13 of the judgment... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS THABETE: Line... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Which paragraph?

MS THABETE: ...20, or line 19.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.