Amnesty Hearings — Pretoria — 1997-02-24

<UNKNOWN>: before this evidence is placed before this Committee.
	I also want to draw a distinction between Mamasela and van Jaarsveld simply and purely because 
of the fact that Mamasela would have been a witness if the Committee allowed him to be called on behalf 
of the applicants, would have been a witness pertaining to specific incidents.
	Captain van Jaarsveld is only needed by the applicants at this stage and that is the only request 
that we make, is to call him on this issue.  He was also a State witness which was included in the previous 
application which was refused by the Committee and that application entailed evidence pertaining to the 
specific facts of these specific deeds. This application is of a much more limited nature and the evidence 
will also be of a much more limited nature.  	The submission by Dr Pretorius that whatever information 
we obtain during consultation this morning, could be put to General van der Merwe, I find that strange.  I 
cannot see how that can lead to evidence before this Committee, which can be taken into account at the end 
of the day when the amnesty applications are considered.

ADV DE JAGER: But Mr du Plessis the information that you obtained and which you want to put before 
us, why can't you put that on paper and give it to Dr Pretorius and ask him whether he has got any objection 
to this information being placed before us?

ADV DU PLESSIS: We don't have any problem if Dr Pretorius is prepared to let the evidence be dealt 
with in that way, we don't have any problem.  The most important aspect for us is to place the facts before 
the Committee and we don't mind if Captain van Jaarsveld gives evidence or if he does it by way of a 
statement which could be placed before the 
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

ADV DU PLESSIS: 50

<UNKNOWN>: Committee, we are simply interested in putting the facts before the Committee and specifically the facts 
pertaining to the counter-revolutionary strategy because that will lend tremendous support to what the 
applicants have testified up to now in respect of specifically incidents such as the Nietverdiend 10.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Shouldn't that course be more diligently followed because unlike in the case of 
General van der Merwe, who did not complain about possible prejudice to himself, in this particular case 
Mr Meintjies has specifically raised the point that Captain van Jaarsveld may very well be prejudiced if he 
comes to testify here.
	So that the Committee is now in a difficult position of whether in his quest to assist the applicants, 
we should compel Captain van Jaarsveld, albeit at the danger of, on the other hand, prejudicing that other 
person, so we wouldn't like to prejudice anyone, anyone of the applicants.
	So shouldn't you more diligently follow that course
which my colleague is suggesting that you could put something in writing to Dr Pretorius and then sort it 
out along those lines?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes.  Mr Chairman, clearly that would involve further consultations with Captain 
van Jaarsveld in the presence of Dr Pretorius which I don't have a problem with.

JUDGE MGOEPE: But then you can come back to us as soon as possible and spare us the agony 
of trying to decide whether we should sacrifice your clients or Captain van Jaarsveld.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, if Dr Pretorius gives an indication now that he is prepared to do it that 
way, and if the Committee finds that that would be acceptable, taking 
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

ADV DU PLESSIS: 51

<UNKNOWN>: into account that the Committee obviously then cannot ask questions to Captain van Jaarsveld to clarify 
certain issues, then we will stand by that.
	Obviously we think that, and we would submit that the best procedure would be evidence, but if 
that is not something that the Committee would want to order, the second best thing would be a procedure 
such as that.
	What I don't want to do Mr Chairman, or what I wouldn't like to do, is to waive the applicants' 
rights, if I can put it like that, pertaining to the giving of evidence. Obviously the applicants would prefer 
that Captain van Jaarsveld can be asked questions in respect of these issues.  And we cannot see that there 
is any detriment to that regard, but if the only possible alternative is to place it before the Committee by 
way of a statement, we will gladly do so.
	I don't know what Dr Pretorius' view to that is.

DR PRETORIUS: Mr Chairman, the State supports a solution
like that where we can come together in further consultations and that we can do it by means of a 
statement.  The State supports such a solution.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Mr Currin, what would be your response to the proposal which has been put?  Do you 
think it would impinge on the rights of your clients if a statement in writing is put before the Committee?

HASSAN MALL: If you are afforded an opportunity to see that statement before it is handed into us.

MR CURRIN: Yes, I was actually going to suggest that if we are given that opportunity, then I think we 
could go with the proposal.

HASSAN MALL: No objection to that?
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

GAUTENG: 52

ADV DU PLESSIS: No objection.

HASSAN MALL: Assuming that this is the most amicable way in which to go about and the most 
expeditious way in which to deal with this matter, is there any suggestion as to how soon this can be done?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, yes, we wouldn't have a problem in trying to do that over, during 
the evenings, during this week so that may be possible to finalise that at the end of the week or over the 
weekend.  I just wish to mention Mr Chairman that the applicants would obviously prefer that Captain van 
Jaarsveld gives evidence instead of the second procedure.

HASSAN MALL: I understand that.  This is a balancing act that is required to be fulfilled.  If  your clients 
were not faced with a trial, maybe this problem wouldn't arise, but you have got a situation where there are 
conflicting interests.
	The function and purpose of this Committee is to arrive at the truth insofar as it is possible to 
arrive at that
truth.  Now in order to arrive at that truth, the best evidence possible should be made available to this 
Committee.  I realise that it has been said that the best evidence is the evidence in open court tested under 
cross-examination, but if evidence is submitted by consent of the parties and your clients will know what is 
being said in that statement before it is submitted in its final form, they may be able to instruct you to 
formulate it in a way that would meet their requirements.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, I will accept the Committee's decision on this and we give 
our undertaking to try and obtain that evidence and finalise it as soon as 
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

GAUTENG: 53
possible and to be able to place it before you.

HASSAN MALL: Yes.  And Mr Currin, this might impinge on your request about subpoenaing a number 
of people because the ground that maybe will be covered in the kind of information that might be placed 
before us, might eliminate to call or subpoena a lot of people.

MR CURRIN: It may well do so and if that is in the interests of this Committee and justice in the broader 
public, we would accept that, but we would reserve our rights to deal with that once we are in possession of 
the information which is to be made available.

HASSAN MALL: Yes.  But you will apply your mind to the need and the possibility of dealing with the 
matter in this way?

MR CURRIN: We certainly would do so.

HASSAN MALL: Alright then, may we proceed then with the hearing of evidence Mr Mpshe?