Amnesty Hearings — Tzaneen — 1999-06-30

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think if we could adjournlet's say for 10 minutes, thank you.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

BRIAN CLIFFORD THOBEJANE: (still under oath)

CHAIRPERSON: I see that the photocopying machinehas arrived, so we should all be in possession of the affidavit.  Mr Van Rensberg?

MR VAN RENSBERG: Thankyou Mr Chairman.  Mr Thobejane, can you please tell us who identified the farmof Mr Swanepoel as the target for your attack?

BRIAN CLIFFORD THOBEJANE: It was identified by the latePrince.

MR VAN RENSBERG: At what stage were you informedof the identity of the farm that you were going to attack?

BRIAN CLIFFORD THOBEJANE: I arrived in March, in April,he told me about this.

CHAIRPERSON: Could you give, Mr Thobejane,some indication of approximately how long before the actual attack was, wereyou informed of the target?

BRIAN CLIFFORD THOBEJANE: It was three weeks before.

MR VAN RENSBERG: Did you actually yourselfcarry out a reconnaissance of the property before the attack?

BRIAN CLIFFORD THOBEJANE: No, I was not in the ReconnaissanceTeam.

MR VAN RENSBERG: But is it not so that bythe time that you went to the farm to attack the farm, you knew that it is achicken farm, owned by a white farmer, is that correct?

BRIAN CLIFFORD THOBEJANE: Can you please repeat your question.

MR VAN RENSBERG: The question is, by the timethat you went to the farm to attack it, you knew that it was a chicken farm,owned by a white farmer?

BRIAN CLIFFORD THOBEJANE: Yes, I knew that was a chickenfarm and it was owned by Mr Swanepoel.

MR VAN RENSBERG: Did you also know that ona daily basis, because of the sale of chickens, there are large amounts of cashbeing kept on the premises?

BRIAN CLIFFORD THOBEJANE: As to whether there is a lotof cash which they used to put in the house, I did not know.  I did not knowwhether he was putting money or not in the farm.  It was not my responsibilityto know about that.

MR VAN RENSBERG: Mr Thobejane, for exactlywhich counts, charges were you eventually found guilty of in a court of law?

BRIAN CLIFFORD THOBEJANE: It was murder, attempted murder,possession of arms and ammunition and explosives and attempted robbery.

MR VAN RENSBERG: Were all five of you foundguilty, or all three of you found guilty of attempted robbery?

BRIAN CLIFFORD THOBEJANE: Yes, all of us.

CHAIRPERSON: Just on that point, if I mayask a question.  At your trial, Mr Thobejane, did you raise the political elementof your operation?

BRIAN CLIFFORD THOBEJANE: During the trial, no, but afterwe were found guilty, during the mitigation of sentence, I indicated that Iwas a member of APLA, I was trained as a member of APLA and I was a member ofthe PAC as well.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Van Rensberg.

MR VAN RENSBERG: Thank you Mr Chairman.  MrThobejane, when you gave evidence this morning and also in your applicationfor amnesty and in particular paragraph 9(a)(i) thereof, it is very conspicuousthat you did not mention this conviction of attempted robbery and the questionis, why not?

SISI KHAMPEPE: Is he seeking amnesty in respectof that, that should be the question?

MR VAN RENSBERG: Thank you Mr Chairperson,I don't think from the application it seems that the applicant is seeking amnestyfor that and that is part of my question and my cross-questioning, why not,if that is then omitted.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Which paragraph are you referringto, 9(a) "furnish sufficient particulars of the acts associated with apolitical objective in respect of which amnesty is sought", if he is notseeking amnesty, did you expect him to include an offence for which he is notseeking amnesty?

MR VAN RENSBERG: Yes.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Is that the ambit of yourquestion?

MR VAN RENSBERG: Yes, yes, in fact I wouldexpect them because obviously my question aims in the direction of the fulldisclosure of the facts, also the motivation on which the attack was based andI will try to show through my cross-examination that these facts are deliberatelyomitted from the application and also from the statements made by the applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Proceed.

MR VAN RENSBERG: Thank you Mr Chairman.

ADV BOSMAN: I don't know whether I am perhapsnow jumping the gun, but should you not then be referring to paragraph 12(e)where the applicant is specifically asked to state in respect of what he wasfound guilty and sentenced?  Surely paragraph 9(a) is self-explanatory?

MR VAN RENSBERG: Yes, I agree, thank you MrChairperson.  I have omitted to quote that specific one, I have it here on mynotes, it is actually omitted to be mentioned in 12(e) as well.  Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed.

MR VAN RENSBERG: Mr Thobejane, do you wantme to repeat the question?  The question is, why did you omit to bring to theattention of the hearing in your statement this morning, as well as in yourapplication referring to paragraph 12(e), the fact that you have also been convictedof attempted robbery?

BRIAN CLIFFORD THOBEJANE: When I went to Mr Swanepoel'splace, my intention was not to rob.   I was convicted of something which I didnot know and I was forced by the Security Branch, that now I went there to rob,but that was not my intention, that was not our intention.

MR VAN RENSBERG: Yes, Mr Thobejane, we mayaccept that, the question is why didn't you tell this Commission and why wasn'tit mentioned before during your evidence this morning?

BRIAN CLIFFORD THOBEJANE: The reason I did not tell theCommittee is because I didn't even tell them about the murder, the attemptedmurder, the possession of arms and the possession of - I never explained specifically,I never mentioned to them specifically what I was charged with or convictedwith.

MR VAN RENSBERG: I put it to you Mr Thobejane,that that is exactly what you did say.  You were exactly asked what you wereconvicted of and it was also requested of you to disclose that in paragraph12(e) of your application?

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think so, sorry.  Ohyes, in 12(e), sorry, I am looking at 9(a).  Yes?

SISI KHAMPEPE: Yes, that is applicable MrVan Rensberg, in respect of paragraph 12, but not in respect of paragraph 9(a),I think it is - that is what I was objecting to, that it is unfair to put itin that fashion, because what paragraph 9(a) merely seeks from an applicantis to indicate in respect of which acts he seeks amnesty.  If it is not hisintention to apply for amnesty for attempted robbery, then it is his prerogativenot to include it, because then if he has not applied for that, this Committeewill not grant him that.  It doesn't prejudice him and it is not, it doesn'tgo to the question of whether he has properly disclosed or not.

MR VAN RENSBERG: Yes, thank you Mr Chairperson,as I have stated, my question aims more  to the particulars contained in 12(e)than in 9.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Sorry members of the Committee,we just have a slight problem in terms of interpretations.  We were asked touse only one language, but we have a problem because the applicant is a Tswanaspeaking, but we adopted to Sotho, but there is a problem.  Now he is goingto try to use English in answering the questions.

SISI KHAMPEPE: What is the problem?

MR MBANDAZAYO: He was answering in all thelanguages.

SISI KHAMPEPE: (Microphone not on)

MR MBANDAZAYO: The problem is that there isno Interpreter for his language, so he is trying to adopt ...

SISI KHAMPEPE: (Microphone not on)  I don'twant to sit with an applicant who is now going to say "this is not whatI intended saying, if I said it in my  language, I would have been understoodproperly", is he going to be able, is it going to be comfortable to giveevidence in a language that he has previously indicated, he is not comfortablein?  I have noticed that he uses English and the other Sotho languages interchangeably,but maybe he is comfortable with that.  Is there any problem with the Sothotranslator in understanding Tswana?