Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-03-14

GEORGE BIZOS: Well Mr Chairman I submit that he's obliged to answer the question.  Where was the joke?  What was the joke?

CHAIRPERSON: As I've said before, we can't compel to answer, but we ...

GEORGE BIZOS: No, well, I'm asking him to reconsider.  He's supposed to answer questions in order to make full disclosure so that he can get amnesty, Mr Chairman.  I'm repeating the question subject to your concurrence, Mr Chairman.  What was the joke that you spoke of?

MR WESSELS: Let me place on record my objection to the question, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, is this questioning going to get us anywhere with regard to the matters we're hearing now?

GEORGE BIZOS: ...(indistinct - no microphone) to this witness' attitude, we have evidence Mr Chairman, although he refuses to answer, we have evidence from others on their affidavits that this was a five point plan which would eventually have led to the death of Mr Trevor Tutu.

MR WESSELS: Mr Chairman, there's no such evidence on record.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes the witness - that was put from that statement, but it was - the response of the witness was that that was untrue.

GEORGE BIZOS: Yes, but we have other evidence Mr Chairman that you are going to hear that this was the five point plan that was proposed.  I want to know from this witness, he can persist in his denial that that was said, but I want to know from him what he meant when he said that whatever it was that was proposed, was a joke.

MR WESSELS: Mr Chairman, we're entitled to know and there should have been documents served on us, if anyone is to come and give that evidence.  If Mr Bizos has a witness who is going to come and say that, may I then formally ask, who is that witness, what is he going to come to say and where is the statement where that person is going to come and say that that is the truth?

GEORGE BIZOS: We have read the papers Mr Chairman.  It's Mr Barnard sitting behind my learned friend, or slightly behind to the side, who is a co-applicant Mr Chairman.

MR COETZEE: May I just intervene?  I'm appearing on behalf of Mr Barnard and the statement to which Mr Bizos is referring to is a Section 29 statement made by Mr Barnard whilst he was incarcerated in terms of that Section and I just want to state that clearly that it is not a simple affidavit in the normal course of events that was taken down.  In normal circumstances in the Court, that would not have been admissible even to refer to that statement as evidence and just to put that in context, that it is not a sworn statement of a witness compellable to give that evidence.

GEORGE BIZOS: Mr Chairman, the fact that it was taken when he was in custody, is no reason for it's inadmissibility.  The inadmissibility of statements in a criminal trial where questions of guilt or innocence is involved, is a completely different test.  I am sure that, I don't know whether - what Mr Barnard is going to say about it, but this is the prima facie evidence that we have before the Committee, of which my learned friend has had notice, Mr Chairman.  I can understand his sensitivity.  I am going to argue the matter but I will abandon this question and ask another.  Did the CCB have access to so-called anthropologists and ethnologists that purported to know the native mind?

MR WESSELS: Mr Chairman, that question can only relate to the Tutu incident and again ...

GEORGE BIZOS: ...(indistinct - no microphone)

MR WESSELS: Mr Bizos can place on record what he wanted to say, I couldn't hear.

GEORGE BIZOS: No finish because I interrupted you.

MR WESSELS: Yes and I submit that that is outside the ambit of this amnesty hearing.

GEORGE BIZOS: Mr Chairman, I submit that the question is a legitimate one.  The other persons that give evidence are not likely to know the policy and the practises of this organisation as this witness has and I'm entitled to an answer for the purposes of dealing with a matter where others have asked for amnesty, Mr Chairman.  It doesn't incriminate him in any way, Mr Chairman, as to whether they had such people giving them advice of that nature.

MR WESSELS: May I place it on record, Mr Chairman.  Mr Bizos says I shouldn't speak to my client.  I'm entitled to give him advice and I place on record that I'm giving him advice as to what the consequences are if he answers or refuses to answer questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think, I don't know what's being said there, but Mr Wessels has indicated that his version is incriminatory and he would be entitled to ...

GEORGE BIZOS: ...(indistinct - no microphone) await a ruling by the Committee as to whether it's an admissible question or not.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, with a view that any answer to that question would not necessarily be incriminating and it's of a general nature whether there was access to experts of that nature, I think we'll allow the question.  The question was, did the CCB have access to information from experts such as anthropologists as to the beliefs and customs of indigenous people?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: Just trying to get the Afrikaans for anthropologists.

GEORGE BIZOS: "Volksdeskundige", I think.  Far be it for me to tell my Afrikaans-speaking friends what ...(indistinct - speaking simultaneously)

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: Mr Chairperson we had the normal access that one has regarding to text books and structures, universities etc.

GEORGE BIZOS: Who were the anthropologists that you consulted here in South Africa, not about Tutu, generally?  Who were the anthropologists, the wise and learned men who told you how the Bantu think?

MR WESSELS: Mr Chairman, may I place on record that the witness is of the opinion that this is not relevant, that he doesn't have to answer these questions and I object to that.

GEORGE BIZOS: ;   Well Mr Chairman, it goes very much to the credibility Mr Chairman of this witness and the others.  I don't know whether the names of those persons will incriminate him.  How can the furnishing of those names incriminate him.

CHAIRPERSON: Anyway he's indicated he's not going to answer the question.

GEORGE BIZOS: He's not going to answer?  Well we will leave it then for argument that you are not prepared to answer the question and when we argue full disclosure.

MR WESSELS: Mr Chairman and that is why I object to these questions, because that is now precisely the argument that we're going to have at the end of this hearing, whenever it ends and before we get to the conclusion that he refuses to answer, I submit that you must make a ruling as to whether he's obliged to answer, whether he's obliged to answer questions that go beyond the three matters where he's applied for amnesty.  Is he obliged to answer questions about the time when he speeded with his car or went through a red robot for political purposes when he's asked questions about that.  Those type of questions are just as relevant as Mr Bizos's questions about anthropologists and all those sort of things.  It doesn't relate to the bomb, it doesn't relate to the attempts or the conspiracy to assassinate Mr Omar or Mr Evans.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think the question relating to the anthropologists, who they were, doesn't assist us here, whatever the answer might be, even if he told us or didn't tell us.

GEORGE BIZOS: I'll leave it at that Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: You're not obliged to answer that.

GEORGE BIZOS: Was there a policy of attacking people or their relatives who were involved in the Church?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Because of their involvement in the Church?

GEORGE BIZOS: Because of their involvement in the Church.

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: No Mr Chairperson, there was no such policy.

GEORGE BIZOS: Did you know that Mr Evans was the son of a Bishop?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: No, I did not know that Mr Chairperson.

GEORGE BIZOS: Didn't you go into the background or the upbringing or the public image of the people that you indicated as targets?