Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1997-05-15

JUDGE WILSON: Yes, but I don't think he could have - it relates only to the attack on Mrs Winnie Mandrel's house, doesn't it?

UNKNOWN: No, no, no, M'Lord.  What I am saying to his Lordship is whether we are concerned with the question whether he was applying for amnesty or whether he was making a statement of information generally.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes.

UNKNOWN: To the police.

JUDGE WILSON: And I think he was - he wasn't making a statement to the police, he was making a statement to the Human Rights Committee.

UNKNOWN: Yes, but he does refer to incidents wherein he was not involved, as a person who is not applying for amnesty too.  He refers only to incidents in which he himself was implicated and in my submission that is an indication that the person intended applying for amnesty, unless someone is going to come and tell the Committee that the applicant does not know of any human rights violations, except those that were committed by himself.

JUDGE WILSON: And the only ones he refers to in this thing, are the attack on Winnie Mandela's house and the burning of a car at Mr Jannie Mohapi's.  Is that not so?

UNKNOWN: M'Lord, I am - the document starts at paragraph 1, which is the declaration or introduction of the person making statements.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes.

UNKNOWN: And then it runs up to paragraph 6.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes?

UNKNOWN: And there he does not refer to Winnie Mandela only.

JUDGE WILSON: In paragraph 6 he refers to Jannie Mohapi.

UNKNOWN: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: All the rest is Winnie Mandela.

UNKNOWN: That I accept, M'Lord.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes.  Is it not more likely that he was asked by somebody to make a statement and that that's what he did and for some reason, which appears and we do not know, the statement was then taken and handed to the Amnesty Committee, because he gives - you have now got your Annexure B.

UNKNOWN: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: Numerous offences. If he was asking for amnesty why didn't he deal with them?

UNKNOWN: Mr Chair ...

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Mr Memani, isn't it perhaps good argument for you, when you look at paragraph 3 "brief description of the violation of human rights", you see that, the heading there?

UNKNOWN: Yes.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: In big and bold letters. While the heading speaks of "brief description of the violation of human rights", the whole of that page in fact says nothing about violation of human rights.  It has, now the contents thereof have nothing - they are not telling us anything about the violation of human rights. They talk about burning a house, damaging property, which in fact it is not a violation of human rights.   Wouldn't that indicate that he was in fact, he was not making it his business to tell us about the violation of human rights, but rather he was trying to say something else, which could we have been that he was maybe, as you say, talking about himself, and setting out the offences which he committed, possibly for which he might be seeking amnesty, because it seems to me although the heading asked for violation of human rights, what he is saying here is really ...

JUDGE WILSON: Somebody from the TRC took this statement from him, and sent it to the Amnesty Committee. As a result of which on the 15th of March, is it, a letter was written to your attorneys, in which they were asked whether this statement formed part of his application for amnesty.  They replied on the 17th with a fax in which they set out - they annexed Annexure B and said this sets out in full our client's application or words to that effect, and the final sentence of that letter reads we trust this will be in accordance, will meet with your requirements, or something of that nature.  I haven't got the letter in front of me.  There was such a final sentence.  Have you got the letter there?

UNKNOWN: Yes, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: What is the final sentence written by you?

UNKNOWN: It says that
"We trust that you will find same in order."

JUDGE WILSON: Yes, that is what you wrote to the Amnesty Committee and it was apparently accepted as being in order.  And are we not then stopped from saying that this was an amendment to your application, from holding this was an application in the light of the fact that you were misled.  You were first told in the first letter, you were asked whether the statement form part of your application and then when  you replied and set out Annexure B which does not comply with the requirements of the Act, but does set out in detail various offences that he was - had committed, this was apparently accepted.

UNKNOWN: That is correct, M'Lord.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Judge Wilson perhaps asked a question how really this document came into your possession.  I think maybe you should explain to us how, if you know, could it be because one is just really trying to think how it came into the hands of the Amnesty Committee.  It may very well be that it was received by the Human Rights Violations Committee and when they looked at it, and as I said earlier on, they looked for example at page 3 and they realised that no, this has nothing to do with the violation of human rights.  They passed it over to the Amnesty Committee.  How did this come into the hands of the Amnesty Committee?

MS THABETHA: To tell you the truth, Judge, I don't remember how it came into my hands, but what I remember is that there was a discussion that transpired between Mr Motsamai and one of our TRC members, where Mr Motsamai explained that he had applied for amnesty or he intended applying for amnesty and he was referred to the offices at the TRC.  This occurred when we were here in Bloemfontein the last time. He was referred to the offices of the TRC where he explained that he had applied for amnesty and wants to make a further statement to that. And then Mr Bosman took the statement.  So I really cannot remember off-hand how the statement got to - how it came to me. I really cannot.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: And then after you received it, for some reason - well, I know that you have accepted blame, perhaps correctly so, and that was gracious of you to have done so. After receiving this document then, you wrote a letter to Mr Mthembu and then you asked him whether this document is part of the application or something like that.

MS THABETHA: Actually before writing a letter to Mr Mthembu, I went to Adv Mpshe's office because it was also, I think on the news that Mr Motsamai had applied for amnesty. I think it was on the radio or something, and I went to Adv Mpshe to discuss it with him and to discuss the fact of actually putting in the application form.  That is when I opened it up.  It is just that I can't remember how the statement got into me.

JUDGE WILSON: One further problem with the letter which I haven't got before me, unfortunately, I am quoting from memory now, that you say you had at that stage an application from Mr Motsamai, relating to a killing in Melck Street, and that was all.

MS THABETHA: Yes, and of course the hand-written statement.

JUDGE WILSON: The only application you had at that stage was the killing in Melck Street, the murder in Melck Street.

MS THABETHA: In the application form, yes.

JUDGE WILSON: In the application form. You also had a document that had been taken by the Human Rights Commission apparently, and a declaration, you had those, that paper.

MS THABETHA: Yes, M'Lord.

JUDGE WILSON: You wrote in your letter that you were going to set it down as the same time as Ngo's application, because the applications related to the same incident.

MS THABETHA: Yes, I said I intended ...

JUDGE WILSON: Yes.

MS THABETHA: to set them down, yes.

JUDGE WILSON: But the only valid application you had from Mr Motsamai related to an incident that had nothing to do with Mr Ngo.

MS THABETHA: Like I explained, I also had a statement with me, but ...