Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — UNKNOWN

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: ...but I believe when counsel said to usthat it may not be necessary to take this witness detail by detail,I think he did that in good faith trying to assist us as not toconsume time unduly and I think he was really saying in broadterms.   Unless the difference is of earth-shattering importanceI don't think it is fair to tax a witness on that, to look for,I'm not saying differences which are of importance must not beelicited, but I'm saying that one should bear in mind that thatcourse was adopted not as a way of trying to avoid the witnessfrom giving details, but as a convenient way of trying to dealwith an
4b application /...
MR MPSHE 322 P J J VAN VUUREN
application which deals with exactly the same incident, peoplewho were exactly together exactly in the same vehicle.   I'm sayingthat it may not be fair to tax a witness as if the purpose wasfor the witness to hide some information.   I think it was donein good faith to expedite proceedings.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MPSHE (contd)

<UNKNOWN>: Thank you, I stand indebted Mr Chairman andmembers of the Committee.   Warrant Officer, before you couldgive evidence an application was made by your legal representativethat another offence or act or omission be added namely underthe Arms and Ammunition Act, what is that which you know thatyou have done that you are asking for amnesty for in regard ofthis offence?

MR DU PLESSIS: : Mr Chairman may I, for the first timeduring these hearings, object to this question.   The witnessis not a legal expert, anybody who knows that Act knows exactlyhow many offences are contained in that Act, how technical theyare and it is surely unfair to ask the witness to answer specificallyto which specific offence he is applying for amnesty.   That iswhy it was stated in broad terms, offences in terms of the Armsand Ammunition Act.

JUDGE WILSON: : But if we are to grant amnesty we mustsurely know what specific offence he's asking for amnesty for?

CHAIRPERSON: That's the point, there's been no evidenceon that, it might have been appropriate had you led that bit ofevidence because right now none of us know what that particularoffence relates to, what incident, what date, where.
4b MR /...
MR MPSHE 323 P J J VAN VUUREN

MR DU PLESSIS: : Right Mr Chairman then I will be forcedto amend the applications to refer specifically to the specificSections of that Act and I will do so tomorrow.

JUDGE WILSON: : I mean if you tell us, is it the AK-47,is it the 308, is it the 22?

MR DU PLESSIS: : Yes it deals with all three.

CHAIRPERSON: In other words it was that particular incident?

MR DU PLESSIS: : Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I think that perhaps Mr Mpshe was reallythinking about that.

MR DU PLESSIS: : I'm sorry then I misunderstood the effector the intention of his question.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MPSHE (contd)

<UNKNOWN>: Thank you Mr Chairman.    Mr Chairman I neednow guidance here, I intend to abandon that on the basis of whatmy learned friend has disclosed that it is in respect of the AK-47and the other two pistols, is that the position?

CHAIRPERSON: (Inaudible).

<UNKNOWN>: Thank you Mr Chairman.   Warrant Officer areyou a member of any political organisation or party now?

ANSWER: No I am not a member of any political organisationYour Honour.

<UNKNOWN>: At the time of carrying out these operationswere you a member of any political organisation or party?

ANSWER: No I was not a member of any political organisationat that time, I did however vote for the National Party.

<UNKNOWN>: ...you did that is the operations, in yourown mind for whom were you doing these operations or carryingthem out?
4b ANSWER: /...
MR MPSHE 324 P J J VAN VUUREN

ANSWER: Chair I believed in what I did and I believedthat it was done with the purpose of maintaining the Governmentof the day, then the National Party, in power, to maintain itscounter-revolutionary campaigns, to counter the ANC and communism.  This is what I believed at that time.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MPSHE

MR DU PLESSIS: : Mr Chairman I beg your pardon, may I beafforded the opportunity of asking one further question to thewitness?

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly.

MR DU PLESSIS: : Thank you Mr Chairman.
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS

<UNKNOWN>: Mr Van Vuuren can I please take you to page77 of your application?   Judge Wilson asked you about the sentence"a severe argument ensued between Captain Hechter and GeneralSmith" because Captain Hechter told General Smit that wecould not continue with the operation because we did not trusthim.   Was that sentence meant to, was the reference to Capt LeGrange and Sgt Van der Merwe were part of the operation and that'swhy you did not want to go on with the operation?

ANSWER: No, the reason was the way in which General Smitwanted us to perform the operation.   The problem regarding CaptainLe Grange and Sgt Van der Merwe was discussed between us.

<UNKNOWN>: Was this problem specifically discussed withGeneral Smit?

ANSWER: No it was not, not when I was there.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS

MR DU PLESSIS: : I can give you the specific Sections ofthe Arms and Ammunitions Act under which the possession of these
4b guns /...
MR DU PLESSIS 325 ADDRESS
guns might fall.   It is Act 75 1969 and the Sections are Section2, Section 36, Section 32(1)(a) and Section 32(1)(e).    Thankyou Mr Chairman.

MEMBER OF COMMITTEE: Could you perhaps help us and tellus what they say is it about the fact of possession or the baffleson the guns?

MR DU PLESSIS: : It's primarily about possession.   I cansay that I was helped in this regard by somebody who gave me theinformation.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Mpshe?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: : Thank you Mr Chairman.   Mr Chairman I wasinformed that the hearing adjourns at 4 o'clock Mr Chairman, butMr Chairman I was going to make an application that seeing thatReverend Makatshwa is present that I ask for the indulgence ofthe Committee to hear Rev Makatshwa today and now Mr Chairmanif that is permissible?

CHAIRPERSON: In the meanwhile Mr Mpshe and Du Plessis weare going to give our ruling tomorrow morning at 9:30 on the applicationyou made at the commencement of the proceedings on the questionof subpoenaing of certain State witnesses and the informationcontained in the dockets.   Will you be so kind enough to informthe Attorney-General's representative as well that that rulingwill be given tomorrow morning at 9:30?

MR DU PLESSIS: : Mr Chairman there is a representativeof their office here in this chamber at this point in time.

CHAIRPERSON: Who is he?

MR DU PLESSIS: : Mr Du Toit.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Du Toit you heard what we said, you areaware that there was an application made on Monday morning, youwere there, very well.   Our decision in connection with
4b that /...
MR MPSHE 326 S MKHATSHWA
that application will be given at 9:30 tomorrow morning.   Thankyou.
SMANGALISO MKHATSHWA (ss)
EXAMINATION BY MR MPSHE

<UNKNOWN>: Mr Mkhatshwa will you give the Committee yourfull names please?

<UNKNOWN>: Can I correctly address you as Reverend?

ANSWER: Please do.

<UNKNOWN>: Rev Mkhatshwa what is your occupation at thismoment?

ANSWER: I am a Catholic priest but who also happens tobe a Deputy-Minister of Education.

<UNKNOWN>: Before being a Deputy-Minister of Education,were you in full-time services of the Lord as a Catholic priest?

ANSWER: That is correct.

<UNKNOWN>: Before that what were you doing?

ANSWER: Well I've always been, well after my ordinationto the priesthood, I've always been in the services of the Lord,I spent about 18 years in Shoshunguwe as a pastor and thereafterI worked at the Institute for Contextual(?) Theology for fiveyears until I was elected to Parliament in 1994.

<UNKNOWN>: Reverend you were present in the hearing todayand the other days and you had the opportunity of reading throughthe application about you.   Do you have any comment to make onthis application?