Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-03-14

GEORGE BIZOS: ...(indistinct - no microphone) interrupt my learned friends consultation.  A witness is entitled to ask whether in law he's obliged to answer the question.  He hasn't got the right to discuss the answer with my learned friend, for my Friend to decide whether he should answer it or not, or to  seek advice whether he should answer it or not. The only thing he can ask is:  "Must I answer this question?"

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know what they were discussing.

MR WESSELS: Mr Chairman, if I don't know what the facts are, then I can't advise the witness as to what he should do in the circumstances.  We haven't prepared - I stated that - we haven't prepared on this issue at all.  If there's going to be an insistence on asking questions on this issue and if those questions are going to be allowed, then I would ask for an adjournment or the matter to be postponed, so that I can consult fully on the facts and on the legal issues with the witness.  I'm not in a position at the moment to deal with it.

GEORGE BIZOS: Mr Chairman.  It's about lunch time.  I'm sure that for what his client considered a joke, he has already told us, that we can take possibly a slightly longer adjournment over lunch in order to proceed with this matter.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll take the lunch adjournment, but I really and I'm sure all of you would agree that we wouldn't want a postponement of the matter, to deal around the fringes of that incident.  I don't think it would justify a postponement of the matter, so Mr Bizos if your questioning can just really relate to the fringes without getting ...(intervention)

GEORGE BIZOS: i don't want to take up any time here, Mr Chairman, and I will probably be finished in about 5 to 10 minutes with the witness in relation to this and my learned friend, I'm sure that his client has a version.  What we have heard thus far is that it is an exculpatory version.  If it's an exculpatory version, then he has no reason whatsoever to answer questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Not to answer questions.

GEORGE BIZOS: Not to answer questions.

CHAIRPERSON: It would be a convenient stage then to take the lunch adjournment.  We'll take the lunch adjournment until quarter to two, unless you require more time, Mr Wessels.  Then if you can just let us know and we can start a bit later.  We'll now take the lunch adjournment.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos.

MR WESSELS: ;   Mr Chairman, may I interrupt?

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Wessels, yes.

MR WESSELS: I consulted with my client and in an effort to see if there was really any issue between Mr Bizos and my client that could be resolved, I asked Mr Bizos whether he could tell me what questions he was going to ask relating to the Tutu incident.  He told me - he asked me whether the version would be incriminatory or exculpatory.  I told him that it would be incriminatory and he then said well then he was going to probe into the matter.  Mr Chairman, as a result of that, I am instructed that Mr Verster's version pertaining to the Tutu incident, is incriminatory.  That the reason that he did not apply for amnesty is that he rightly or wrongly believed that it was not necessary as it wasn't a gross human rights violation.  I submit that the requirements of the Act haven't been complied with in so far as notice is concerned, that  certain issues are going to be dealt with that are incriminatory.  That therefore, as this Committee whose jurisdiction is for amnesty purposes and not  an investigative unit, the witness cannot be expected to answer questions pertaining to the Tutu incident, in so far as it relates to that particular incident.  If there are any general questions that may be relevant in so far as the other matters are concerned, then he's obviously willing to answer those questions, but nothing about the Tutu incident in particular.

GEORGE BIZOS: Well I'll try, Mr Chairman, and ask questions.  They can be objected to individually and a decision can be made.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes because as stated earlier, we said that we would allow questions that are of a general nature, that might relate to consistency of procedures etc, but not into the actual incident itself, but we'll do it on that basis.  You just listen carefully Mr Wessels and object when you feel.

GEORGE BIZOS: ;   Mr Verster, your counsel said that you were advised that this was not a gross violation of human rights.

MR WESSELS: No Mr Chairman, that is not what I said.  I didn't say that he was advised that it wasn't a gross violation or anything, but that he believed at the time he didn't apply for amnesty as it wasn't a gross human rights violation.

GEORGE BIZOS: Yes, this belief that your counsel has spoken about, was this your own belief only, or did you seek legal advice?

MR WESSELS: Well if that is legal advice, it's privileged Mr Chairman.

GEORGE BIZOS: Mr Chairman, whether or not he asked for legal advice is not privileged, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, the question is whether or not it was based on legal advice, your view, it's not what the legal advice was.

GEORGE BIZOS: No, with respect, he's not entitled to consult on this, Mr Chairman, what his answer should be.  He's obliged to answer the question.  He is not entitled to consult what answer he should give.

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: Can you please ask the question again, Mr Chairman?

GEORGE BIZOS: Did you decide that this was not a violation of - a gross violation of a right on your own, or on legal advice?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: Mr Chairperson, I thought that it was not a gross violation.

GEORGE BIZOS: Did you have a legal representative at the time, that you decided to apply for amnesty and not to apply for amnesty for this incident, for the Tutu incident?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: Yes, I did not necessarily at that specific moment speak to them, but there was legal representation.

GEORGE BIZOS: Was there any reason why you did not ask for legal advice in relation to the Tutu incident once you were applying for amnesty and once had a legal adviser who could advise you?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: No there were no specific reasons for this.

GEORGE BIZOS: Now you, when first asked about this, you said that this was "grappies".  Did you say that?

MR WESSELS: Mr Chairman, that relates to the incident in particular?

GEORGE BIZOS: He's already given an answer, I'm entitled to probe it, Mr Chairman, what he meant by it.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think he's talking about what he said here in this hearing.

MR WESSELS: He didn't say anything about that in this hearing, Mr Chairman, you referred to the statement that is part of the bundle that was obtained many, many years ago.  The witness hasn't given any evidence about this.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I can't recall myself whether it was evidence or it was just from the Bundle yes.

GEORGE BIZOS: No Mr Chairman, the world "grappies" came from the witness's mouth.  That's where I heard it from.  Did you say that it was "grappies"?

CHAIRPERSON: At this hearing.

GEORGE BIZOS: At this hearing.

CHAIRPERSON: That's a fair question.  At this hearing did you say that it was a joke?

GEORGE BIZOS: Do you admit that you said that?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: No, I answered so many questions this morning Mr Chairperson, I'm not sure.

GEORGE BIZOS: Will you please accept that I believe that you said that it was "grappies"?  I want to ask you some questions about it. At the time of - please listen to the question.  At the time that the proposal was made and when you first read it, did you burst out laughing?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: No, Mr Chairperson, I just did not see it as important.

GEORGE BIZOS: You didn't burst out laughing?

CHAIRPERSON: No, I think he said no.  He said "Nee."

GEORGE BIZOS: You didn't, so where was the joke?

MR WESSELS: Mr Chairman, the witness objects answering the question.