Amnesty Hearings — Pretoria — UNKNOWN

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it would seem from the evidence that we've heard now from Mr Wheeler and as you say what's on the documentation, that it would be difficult to foresee a situation of Mr De Bruin being convicted in a court of law in respect of the death of the deceased and the injury of the deceased's brother, you know either as an accessory before the fact or in any other way, because it would seem that from what Mr Wheeler has said, he made certain statements and he created certain impressions in the mind of the applicants as to what action they should take, but if it would assist, I think the panel would be of the view that the evidence of Mr De Bruin would assist in this matter, so that would satisfy sub-section 2(b) there.   I'll hear what Mr Botha has to say about it, but I don't - my prima facie view is that there wouldn't be a problem from the panel's point of view of complying with the provisions of 2(b) before he calls - section 31.2(b) before he's called, if that would assist.

MR BOTHA: I agree with the panel, Mr Chairman, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp?

MR STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, I actually pre-empted this position and I've already had certain discussions, not myself, but with Advocate Van Zyl, who is the senior deputy attorney-general in the office of the A-G.   I have also, one of the members, instructed one of the members earlier this morning to speak to Advocate De Vries.   He left a message on my cellphone and I've spoken myself to Advocate Van Zyl, and I have got a copy of the fax which was sent to Advocate De Vries's office this morning, he acknowledges the content thereof and as far as section 31's requirements is then stipulated, with all due respect, Mr Chairman, I did have certain discussions with the A-G regarding this specific issue and the position that may arise on this issue.   So I've got copies here, if necessary for ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: I think what Mr Prinsloo would be wanting would be some written confirmation from the attorney-general that the provisions of section 31 would apply in respect of the evidence given by Mr De Bruin, and that he would therefore benefit by the other provisions in the Act that his evidence given in this hearing would then not be used against him in any subsequent criminal trial.

MR STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, because of the, I would like to say the practical time concerned this morning, Advocate De Vries was unable to send me a written confirmation, but all I can say is that I did have oral confirmation by Advocate Van Zyl and Advocate De Vries, but if necessary I'm sure they will, if necessary, will give me a written undertaking, if necessary.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think that will - would you insist on waiting for that written undertaking?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, my position is this, that if the committee is satisfied that the prescribed prerequisites of section 31.2 have been met, paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), whether that is based on written acknowledgement or whether you satisfy yourselves in any other manner, I would be satisfied, as long as the committee says that it's satisfied that those prerequisites have been met, then in terms of this provision, with respect, you can issue an order that the witness should answer all questions, and then he has the protection under the section.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you'll notice also that the wording of section 31.2(a) says that the commission, after the commission has consulted, whatever that may be, and there has been that consultation through Mr Steenkamp.
	The committee is satisfied, as I've already mentioned, that the evidence would assist here and is therefore necessary.   
	With regard to (c), he may be asked a question which might incriminate him, although, as I've already indicated as well that that might be remoted, from what we've heard now, but it may well arise that he may have to answer a question which will incriminate him, so in that regard then, I would, and my members who are sitting with me here are in agreement, order that the provisions of section 31, particularly section 31.2, have been satisfied and that they would apply in regard to the testimony given by Mr De Bruin in this matter.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you be calling Mr De Bruin now, or would he be giving evidence also - I don't know if Mr De Koning will also be calling him again after that or not?

MR DE KONING: Mr Chairman, I would avail myself of my opportunity to elicit what I need to know from him in cross-examination, I haven't had the opportunity of consulting with him, I don't know what he will say.   So I will perhaps see what comes and also what comes from cross-examination.  I don't intend
leading him as such, if it pleases you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Mr Chairman.   I call Mr De Bruin.

JOHANNES JAKOBUS DE BRUIN: (sworn states)

MR PRINSLOO: Mr De Bruin, you have heard the evidence of Mr Wheeler this morning?

JOHANNES JAKOBUS DE BRUIN: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: You are an adult person living in Westonaria?

JOHANNES JAKOBUS DE BRUIN: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: I'm showing a document to you, do you recognise it?

JOHANNES JAKOBUS DE BRUIN: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: What document is this?

JOHANNES JAKOBUS DE BRUIN: It is a statement which I have made.

MR PRINSLOO: An affidavit?

JOHANNES JAKOBUS DE BRUIN: That's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you confirm that the contents of the affidavit are the truth and correct?

JOHANNES JAKOBUS DE BRUIN: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I have copies of this affidavit and I ask that it be handed out to all persons involved, after which I would beg your leave for it to be read into the record?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Prinsloo.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Chairperson.   With your leave, I'll ask Mr De Bruin to read his statement into the record.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll receive this affidavit then as EXHIBIT B.
AFFIDAVIT OF MR DE BRUIN HANDED IN AS EXHIBIT B