Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-09-03

MR CORNELIUS: No, but he does associate himself with this deed.  It is a group acting with the same animus.  I have discussed this matter with my learned colleague Mr Visser, because this is an aspect that bothered me and I decided to continue on this basis.  We have associated ourselves, especially with the use of the weapon and the weapon had been used and it had also been handed out.

CHAIRPERSON: But was this an irregular use of this weapon?

MR CORNELIUS: Well, it is the use of an unlicensed weapon.  The problem is with the unlicensedness of it.

CHAIRPERSON: If it was used in an ambush, part of an authorised police action.

MR CORNELIUS: I still have the problem with the unlicensed aspect, Chairperson.  You can make a finding, you do not give instructions, but I leave it in your hand to make a finding.  My application is still for an unlicensed firearm.
	Can I just round off with a few aspects Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: Surely.

MR CORNELIUS: The problem naturally why I continue with this application is due to allegations made by my fellow applicant's statement.  One or two aspects.  In Nofomela's evidence, you can remember that I cross-examined him about whether it had been two incidents, first the infiltration and then returning for the showpiece weapon and then the further return to the scene where the shooting had then happened and then he said it could have been two to three days apart.  It was two incidents and then later on he acknowledged that it could have been the same evening.  An aspect that had been important that the Assessor Adv de Jager had asked about, is that according to Mr Nofomela they walked into the township and I think it is rather clear, even from Stanley Dlamini's statement and the evidence of Mr Mbatha, that a vehicle had been on the scene.

ADV DE JAGER: And Mr Nofomela himself initially said that they drove in and when I asked him about it he said this is a mistake.

MR CORNELIUS: This is correct, Chairperson, on page 85.  This is correct, Chairperson and then later on it appeared that according to his evidence he said that they had walked in and this is a serious contradiction of fact and something that you have to remember, that for me casts his entire evidence in this aspect in doubt.  Then Mr Nofomela on page 85 of his application says
"The plan was that the Squad member who were to meet with the UDF people, would kill them."
The plan.  This is a fact.  He says it's a plan, but he was not present when the orders had been given by de Kock.  Then how would he know about a plan?  How can he make such a statement?  If he had said, as the Committee had noticed, that something might have been said in the vehicle on the way from Pretoria, then this could possibly have solved it.  he says:
"The plan was that..."
and then he continues.  He cannot make such a statement, he was not present.  He does not know what the instructions had been and the instructions of de Kock could have been infiltrate, get information and report back.  He can't say what the plan was.  It then bothered me and the Committee also asked questions: didn't he talk to the other askaris afterwards, didn't he gain information that would then tell him what exactly had happened?  He said, no, the askaris were afraid, they did not talk to him.   So for his suspicions he has no backing afterwards from anyone, it's still hanging in the air.
	Mr Chairperson, I think I have covered all the aspects.  Oh yes, and then lastly, if one looks at the political aims, then we have a case here where Mr Mbatha had given evidence earlier honestly and said that they had been activists, that he was interested in the firearm and that he would have used it against the Security Police and that he would have used it against the so-called A-Team,  be it for Self-Defence Unit or whatever, but as a 14 year old boy he was interested in the weapon, he handled the weapon and he would have used it and this is an aspect that was also interesting and that he also says that they had been suspicious about this group of Radebe and it looks as if an amount of nervousness had been there and accordingly Mr Chairperson, I ask that you grant me amnesty as requested.
	Is there any specific aspect that you would like to hear me on, Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: No thank you, Mr Cornelius.  Mr Shezi, any submissions?