Amnesty Hearings — Pietermaritzburg — UNKNOWN

NORMAN ARENDSE: Now, what you told the Committee today, particularly in regard to what is contained in paragraph 17, i.e. that you went to the restaurant and the reason why you did not attack the restaurant is that you saw african people, black people milling around in front of the restaurant and that is why you never attacked the restaurant?  Is that the correct version?

ANDILE SHICEKA: That is the truth.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Is it also the correct version that you told the Committee today that you had, in advance of the 14th of February, already selected two targets, namely the restaurant and the disco?

ANDILE SHICEKA: That's correct.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Is it correct that your decision, your joint decision to attack the disco was not a spur of the moment decision but was a ...[intervention]

ANDILE SHICEKA: That's correct.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Then there's just two other aspects I want to deal with Mr Chairman.
 	Mr Shiceka, it was put to you that it wouldn't be possible for you to say how many white people were inside the disco?

ANDILE SHICEKA: I wouldn't know.

NORMAN ARENDSE: And you wouldn't also know whether the white people inside that disco, whether they supported apartheid or the apartheid structure, you wouldn't be able to say that?

ANDILE SHICEKA: That's correct.

NORMAN ARENDSE: But do you accept as a fact that the overwhelming majority of white people in this country had in fact supported apartheid through the ballot box?

ANDILE SHICEKA: That's correct.

NORMAN ARENDSE: It's also one of the aims of these attacks on white people, that it was designed to change their attitude and to change their mind and for them not to support the apartheid government?

ANDILE SHICEKA: That's correct.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Then just a last item, it was put to you by my
learned friend Advocate Prior that you would have exercised the discretion by not attacking the restaurant.  In other words you weren't just a soldier blindly following an order.  You in fact - as the Chairman correctly put it, you matriculated and you are able to use your discretion and change your mind.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prior did not proceed with that line of ...[intervention]

NORMAN ARENDSE: Sorry.

CHAIRPERSON: He did not proceed with that line of cross-examination after I had some discussion with him.

NORMAN ARENDSE: I won't pursue that point then.  Thank you Mr Chairman, no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR ARENDSE

CHAIRPERSON: Did you have one or two questions to put?

ADV PRIOR: Mr Chairman, I'm a bit concerned and I need to voice my concern on behalf of amnesty and the Evidence Leaders.  I understand and I have empathy with my learned friend's position, particularly in communicating with the client.
	But the situation becomes untenable when we are supplied with statements on whatever basis, that we are precluded from properly ventilating those matters because of uncertainty as to the instructions.
	I don't want to put my learned friend in an embarrassing situation but paragraph 17 contains factual information, and I believe in the interest of justice and the interests of this process that some explanation would be offered to the Committee where that information was obtained from.  It simply could not have been dragged out of the air.  
	I think Mr Chairman also had the same concerns as myself when I asked that question because the impression certainly was created in the statement that the discotech was a random target, they looked around.
	And I think in all fairness to the process and to the victims I think it's necessary for my learned friend, obviously if never personally consulted with the applicant Mr Shiceka in obtaining this information, that some explanation be advanced which obviously will be acceptable in the circumstances.  But at the moment it is left in the air.
	And secondly, for purposes of certainty the onus is on the applicants to make a full disclosure.  If we look at Mr Shiceka's amnesty application, it is very thin and one expects the - or expect the statement to be supplementary to that application.
	Obviously if one can't then rely on any information supplied prior to the giving of evidence, then it certainly I think detracts to a very large extent from the testing of that evidence.  Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you want to comment on that?

NORMAN ARENDSE: Mr Chairman yes, the applicants were held at three different prisons.  Mr Tanda at Pollsmoor and Mr Shiceka at Brandvlei and Mr Molefu at waterfall in Newcastle.  My learned colleague Advocate Ngalwana visited the three of them separately and he took statements from them.  He informs me that he would like to address the Committee on what he was told.
	I have, as I said earlier, had the opportunity for the first time to consult with them jointly and I cleared up with them amongst other things what is contained in paragraph 17 and I anticipated that it would raised during cross-examination.
	Unfortunately, being away from your home base I didn't have the facilities to amend the statement and to correct it and hand it up in that form to the Committee. 	But I'm satisfied that what Mr Shiceka and Mr Tanda and Mr Molefu have told this Committee are my instructions and that they've confirmed it under oath.