Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-09-03

MR SHEZI: Mr Chairman, it might be difficult for one to comment on the merits or the demerits or the extent of the hatred that Nofomela might have against de Kock, but the fact that de Kock was the Commander of the unit, he was in charge of it and that such a mission was going to be carried out involving the use of this AK, on its own indicates that de Kock ought to have known and must have been there and also to say Nofomela would rather implicate himself merely to get back at de Kock, I submit Mr Chairman that that kind of an argument from de Kock's side and his witnesses is just not persuasive enough, that Nofomela would just, you know when he has nothing to lose by not bringing an application, when there is nothing to lose, when he knows that he was not involved, if he himself was not even there, or rather come and place himself on an incident totally unrelated to him and say yes, I was there and de Kock was there.  I submit Mr Chairman, that that does not have any merit.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Shezi.  Ms Patel, any submissions?

MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson, I will be brief.  I wish to state at the outset that my submissions to a large extent accord with that of my learned colleague Mr Shezi and I won't repeat those.
	It is my respectful submission that the probabilities in this case are overwhelmingly in favour of the fact that there was in fact a conspiracy to murder.  My submission is, after having listened to the evidence of Mr Mbatha, that the primary intended target of this operation was indeed Mr Charles Ngcobo.  We have the affidavit of Mr Hamilton, who states specifically that Mr Nortje and company requested information on Charles himself and not the other way round.  We have Mr Mbatha saying that the physical features of Charles and that of one of the deceased was very similar.  It appears to me a reasonable inference that the group that had gone to Chesterville were falsely under the impression they'd in fact found the intended target and then proceeded as instructed.
	My difficulty ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: And what about the presence of comrades, of active comrades?  Wouldn't the aim have included whatever active comrades there were who were responsible for making Chesterville ungovernable, including Mr Charles who was seen as the prime mover, so in other words, Charles and his bench people were responsible for the ungovernability of Chesterville, they're the targets?

MS PATEL: Absolutely, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And then you try to gather them in one place and that's it.

MS PATEL: Certainly.  No they killed many birds with one stone here, that's for sure.  My difficulty however with Mr Nofomela's application is his lack of political motive for this.  He acted purely under instructions, his evidence to us was clear.  As early as 1984 he had difficulties with the role and function of Vlakplaas, the only reason he stayed there was to a large extent that he didn't have any other options, that he stayed there out of pure duress.
	So my submission is, purely on that ground, Mr Nofomela's application should fail.  
	Regarding the application of Mr Vermeulen, I think Mr Shezi had addressed you quite thoroughly and competently on that score and I will not repeat those submissions.  Thank you Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Patel.  Gentlemen have you got anything that you want to add?  Mr Ramawele, Mr Cornelius?  Anything else?

MR RAMAWELE: Yes, Mr Chairman, I just have just three points which were raised.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR RAMAWELE IN REPLY: The first one is the instruction which has been raised by Mr Vermeulen, Mr Cornelius.  I just want the Hearing to note that the evidence of Mr Nofomela is to the effect that he never heard Mr de Kock instructing the unit members to go and shoot the people.  His evidence on the contrary is that Mr de Kock told him that people were going to get shot, so one should make a clear distinction about that.
	The second point is the political objective.  It is my submission that the act which was committed by Mr Nofomela is an act which is associated with a political objective and that he knew that the UDF activists were going to be killed and he associated himself with that particular act and therefore he qualifies in terms of the Act. 
	The last one is the vendetta.  Mr Chairman, I would like the Hearing to consider this in analysing the evidence.  firstly the Hearing to determine whether Mr Nofomela does have a vendetta against Mr de Kock and if that is the position, then the Hearing should continue further and find out from the evidence itself whether the vendetta that Mr Nofomela had against Mr de Kock led to Mr Nofomela actually saying that, implicating Mr de Kock because you can have a vendetta, a grudge against a person, but it does not necessarily mean that each and everything that you are saying is not true.  One cannot say, "Once a liar, always a liar", therefore, if the Commission finds that Mr Nofomela does have a vendetta against Mr de Kock, the Committee also has to further on, to determine whether in fact this vendetta led to Mr Nofomela saying what he said and I submit that when the Hearing does so, if it finds that indeed his vendetta led to him saying what he has testified about,  then we would be left with the improbable version of Vermeulen, Radebe and Mr de Kock himself.

CHAIRPERSON: You mean Mr Nofomela could have done better if he really wanted to get Mr de Kock into trouble, he could have said he was present, for example.

MR RAMAWELE: Yes, his implication of Mr de Kock was not very detailed.

CHAIRPERSON: You say he never heard de Kock giving orders to the infiltrators.

MR RAMAWELE: Yes,

CHAIRPERSON: I understand.

MR RAMAWELE: That's all.  Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Ramawele.  Yes, Mr Cornelius, I think you've indicated that you don't have any further submissions.

MR CORNELIUS: I've got nothing to add, thanks Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.  Yes, that concludes the proceedings.  The Panel will take time to consider the applications and once the decision is available, we will notify the parties and we will make the decision available.  So in those circumstances the decision is reserved.  It takes care of our session here in Durban. 	We extend the traditional thanks to everybody who has assisted us in having this hearing and a special word of thanks to the lawyers, Mr Ramawele, Mr Cornelius, Mr Shezi and Ms Patel and Mr Hugo in his absence, for your assistance in  dealing with this matter and then to my colleagues on the Panel for their assistance.  We're adjourned.
HEARING ADJOURNS