Amnesty Hearings — Pretoria — UNKNOWN

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mpshe, are we ready to start?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Yes, Mr Chairman, thank you, we are still in the hands of Adv Bizos, Mr Chairman, we are ready to start.

MS VAN DER WALT: Could you please excuse me Adv Bizos, I would just like to place something on record.  With regard to the video cassettes made available to us, one of these cassettes, tape number six, very clearly dealing with the interrogation of Mr Walus by Captain Deetliefs, I know that Adv Bizos' attorney also looked at this cassette, watched it and the person in control of the sound system was asked this morning whether he could possibly test the cassette for me as well, because his apparatus is much stronger than the type that one has at home, but the sound does not come through at all in this particular interrogation.  Captain Holmes, yesterday was requested by me to see if there were, perhaps, other tapes relating to the interrogation and he informed me that Captain Nick Deetliefs, the person who did the interrogation, was in possession of the same tape, but with the sound being of a better quality. I would like to request the Committee that Captain Holmes be instructed to place us in possession of that cassette, because it is absolutely essential before Mr Walus can testify to look at this tape and I would not like a delay at a later stage.  Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: What can you tell us about that Adv Bizos?

UNKNOWN: About those tapes?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, about the tapes.

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, we are not clear precisely what the position is.  May I ask that this question be left over until Captain Holmes arrives.  I have asked him to be here this morning.  We need not take up more time in relation to it.  Could we wait until Mr, Captain, the then, he is promoted now, but the then Captain Holmes...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

UNKNOWN: Comes?

CHAIRPERSON: Mrs van der Walt, we will deal with that matter at an appropriate stage.

MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Mr Derby-Lewis, you are reminded that you are still under your former oath.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CLIVE DERBY-LEWIS: (Still under affirmation).

UNKNOWN: (cont)
	Mr Derby-Lewis, you signed two application forms for amnesty.  Is that correct?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, yes, I am not clear, Mr Chairman, on whether the first form I signed was for amnesty or indemnity.  Is that what Mr Bizos is referring to?

UNKNOWN: No, I did not use the word "indemnity".  I asked you whether you signed two applications for amnesty?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I am not ...

UNKNOWN: Is that correct?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I am not sure, Mr Chairman.

UNKNOWN: I beg your pardon?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I am not sure.

UNKNOWN: You are not sure?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No.

UNKNOWN: Well, ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Can I just have a minute to ...

UNKNOWN: ... let me try and help you.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Please.

UNKNOWN: Have a look at the document which you signed on the 24th of April 1996 and tell us whether that is an application that you signed.  You can have my copy or you may, your attorney may also have it.

JUDGE WILSON: It is in the bundle A at page 11, is it not?

UNKNOWN: The ...

JUDGE WILSON: The application signed on the 24th of April 1996.

UNKNOWN: Yes, that is so.  And then ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, yes, that is correct, Mr Chairman.

UNKNOWN: And then there was a subsequent application which is dated later, is it not or they are both dated the same time, but they are different.  I would just like you to explain why there are two applications with the same date and why they are different.

CHAIRPERSON: Where are these to be found Mr Bizos?  All in bundle A?

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, there is one on the 24th of April which appears on page 13 and then there are substitute pages on a different application.  Yes, we got two from the Committee Secretary, Mr Chairman, and they are different.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, to the best of my knowledge, that was what caused the confusion at the last hearing and I believe it was explained to the Committee what happened. That, somehow or another, an incorrect document had arrived at the Committee and that it was then included in the application and we have another document and then we said, well, that documents which were submitted to the Committee, is the document which we had, but there was not a second application.  It was, as far as I remember, it was only in the, in relation to 9(4), nature and particulars, the motivation explanation.  Is that what Mr Bizos is referring to?

UNKNOWN: Yes, in November new, in November last year new pages were put in which were not in the original application.  Do you agree with that?

MR PRINSLOO: To which pages are, Mr Bizos referring to, Mr Chairman?

UNKNOWN: If you have a look at the application of Mr Walus has the date of the 30th day of November, but what I am concerned with is that there are applications with different, there are pages with different allegations and I want to know how that came about?

CHAIRPERSON: Well, perhaps, before you ask him questions of that kind, I would like to know where these two applications are?  I have an application in manuscript, the form filled in in manuscript, attached to that are answers to certain paragraphs of the application form in a typed form.

UNKNOWN: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, are you referring to those?

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, we have the application which we have called the first application which appears, which we have marked 1 to 15.  May I just hand this up for you to have a look at, please?

JUDGE WILSON: Because the original application you have referred to, which is at page 11 of bundle A, when it comes to paragraph seven, eight, nine and says see attached, see attached, see attached, see attached.  All of it says that and then there are the attached pages, the typed pages.

UNKNOWN: We have been given two different versions and I do not think that the one version is before you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, we will have to sort that out.  Mr Mpshe, what can you tell us about this?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Mr Chairman, thank you, there was, the applicant submitted only one application, Mr Chairman.  The one that is on, from page 11 to page ...

CHAIRPERSON: 13.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: ... as it goes on up to page 13.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: That is the only application filed by the applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Right.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: The only thing that was done by the applicant, Mr Chairman, is that they changed or amended the annexure to their application.

CHAIRPERSON: In other words, from page 15 onwards?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: From page 15 onwards and, particularly, Mr Chairman, just for an example, page 17 thereof makes it clear what happened, page 17.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: It makes it clear that letters were written to the applicant that certain information has not been forthcoming or has not been given and they had to supply extra information to the original application.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: So the only change, Mr Chairman, is not on the application itself, but is on the annexure responding to questions as clarified by page 17.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: While we are talking about this, I think I would like to draw attention to the fact that, as far as I have been able to see, my paragraph, pages 15 and 16 are identical.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: That is so, that is a duplication.  15 And 16 is one and the same.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes, it is a typing error.  Then we go on to 17 and then 94 at page 18 goes on to the end.

CHAIRPERSON: So what has happened then, Mr Bizos, it seems that the original application has been supplemented by additional information.

UNKNOWN: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: In other words, there are not two separate applications.

UNKNOWN: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that correct?