Amnesty Hearings — Benoni — 1997-06-23

MR LUBBE: Thank you for the opportunity Chair.  The position, if I may resume my argument, is that once these amendments had been made, initially only to the statement of Mr Derby-Lewis during October of 1996 and then that of Mr Walus during January of 1997, on the request of Advocate Mpshe there had been additional information with regard to Addendum C.  You must take into account the original Addendum C, consisting of three pages, as mentioned in the heads of argument, that those three pages contained photocopies of all of the articles to which the reference is made, known as so-called "Press clippings in periodicals".  Copies of these were not attached, or rather what had not been attached was photocopies from the books mentioned in the index available to- Advocate Mpshe mentioned as items 4 5, 6 and 7.  For practical purposes no copies were made of these books.  A request then had been made by your Committee on the 12th of March 1997 that additional photocopies should be supplied, not only with regard to the books of which the copies were not made available originally, but also with regard to the so-called "Press clippings in periodicals".  This request was met in May of 1997 and these are the documents which arrived in the possession of the team of Mr Bizos on the 7th of June of 1997.
	The point made by the applicants is that there is something far deeper behind this application for postponement, namely, that there still remains the notion that there had been a far broader conspiracy in which these two applicants were involved.  I will, in a moment, substantiate this.  
	Since the death of Mr Hani there had been consistent pressure and there were consistent claims that there had been a broader conspiracy this despite several occasions on which there were opportunities to investigate this.  Information with regard to the conspiracy has not in fact yet emerged.  
	The submission of the applicants is that the opposition to their application has two parts.  Firstly that this Committee should never hear the application, and secondly, that should it be heard that the two applicants should not be granted amnesty.  
	On page 40 of the heads of argument you will find an example of an instruction given by the lawyers acting on behalf of Mrs Hani, an instruction given to Spartan Tracers, an investigative firm, you will find this on page 14, it is Annexure JL15, and this is addressed by way of instructions to Spartan Tracers.  Mr Chairman it states,
"Re full financial disclosure.
		We would be pleased if you would obtain full financial disclosure of the abovementioned persons.  We are particularly interested in the periods of 1992, 1993 and 1994.  Details of the past two years, though not important, would also be appreciated.  Particular emphasis should be placed on the period January to April 1993".
This is the period of time during which the crime was committed, planning committed.  The names of the individuals and of Mrs Derby-Lewis and there are full reports from ITC etc.  
	The conclusion could be drawn that there has throughout been an investigation continuing by the persons or institutions opposing this application to be able to trace the links of the applicants to third party activities, if you wish to call it so, or links to the previous government or whatever you want to refer to, to expose such links.  Until today these efforts have failed.
	It is the submission of the applicants that these efforts will continue and that this is exactly the reason why the opposition attempts to postpone the hearing.  
	You can hardly find a clearer example than in the final paragraph of the final letter directed on Thursday past, 19 June 1997, you will find this on page 37 of the heads of argument, Annexure JL13.  Here is a full elaboration by Mrs Nicholls of the circumstances bringing about the request for postponement.  That letter concludes with this very interesting paragraph, and I want to quote it for you.  The letter reads:
"In the circumstances, and in the view of the fact that we are awaiting reports on other investigations it is still our submission that we have had insufficient time to properly prepare".
It is very clear from this that there is an expectation of other investigations by the instructing attorneys of Mrs Hani and/or the ANC and/or the SACP.
	It is the submission of the applicants that until these organisations or institutions are satisfied that no link can possibly be proved or achieved between the applicants and such organisations that this Committee should not decide on this matter.  My submission is, with respect, that this is as clear as daylight.  
	I do not want to mention all the matters in the heads of argument with regard to public pressure, with regard to certain leaders in the political parties, who clearly and publicly have indicated that they would rather see the applicants in jail for the rest of their lives, and with respect, in contravention of the spirit and intention of the legislation.  
	I want to suggest Mr Chair that there are sufficient grounds to indicate that this is merely a tactic of delay on the part of the persons making the application for postponement and that this application should be denied.
	With regard to the Communist Party, with respect, it would appear that they are also giving instructions for the opposition of this application.  The South African Communist Party knows from whenever of this application.  Why then were no preparations made, no preparations whatsoever to oppose these applications?  With respect this simply does not hold water.
	Except if there are specific aspects which you would like me to address I will now conclude.

JUDGE WILSON: I would like to ask you about one thing I am confused about, if you look at JL1 at page 19 of your heads, this is a letter from the Amnesty Committee to you which says
"Attached to your clients' applications are newspaper clippings as well as various periodicals.  These periodicals are one copy each and it makes it difficult for me to compile documents for five Committee members.  My request is, therefore, that I be favoured with five extra copies for the convenience of Committee members as well as the opposition".
and then he lists them.  But it would seem that when you made your application you filed with the Amnesty Committee a copy of all of these, well almost all these papers.  It was not something that was only done later, that was filed by you as part of your application.  It was not something that was requested by the Amnesty Committee?

MR LUBBE: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

JUDGE WILSON: And for some reason it seems that it had not been given to the objectors.

MR LUBBE: That is correct.  At that time the applicants were not aware of the fact that they had the responsibility of availing the opposing party of these documents ...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: I am not suggesting that the applicants should have done these things, the documents were available but were never forwarded to the objectors, as far as you know?

MR LUBBE: The point, Chair, is that the applicants would claim that Mr Bizos is opposing the application and that they must therefore ensure, or rather they must make sure what the contents of the applications are.  They can't, when they get to the hearing, see what documents are founding documents to the hearing.  I believe that these documents were available to them at the time when the date of this hearing was arranged.

JUDGE WILSON: And you are unable to explain how it is that you have a different version of the application to the one we have?  You can't tell me which is the earlier version?

MR LUBBE: No I can't tell you that.  I have to check the documents and compare them - but I can't tell you offhand.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo is there anything you wish to add?

UNKNOWN: No Chair I have nothing to Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos?