Amnesty Hearings — Vanderbijlpark — 1999-05-19

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Berger, I understand that there was a problem this morning with the bus that transports the victims.  Would you investigate what was the cause of the problem and would you just let us know so that we can see what must be done to make sure that they are picked up in time, alright?

MR BERGER: I will, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Molete, may I remind you that you are still under oath.

FLORENCE MOLETE: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Strydom?

MR BERGER: Chairperson, before my learned starts, might I hand in to you three bundles.  They are the documents which were filled out and submitted to the Reparations Committee.  They have been divided into
- Deceased persons;
- Injured persons and;
- Damage to property.  
I'm not handing it in as an exhibit, but I'm handing it in for your assistance.  That should have the relevant details for each of the victims.  
	Chairperson, the other point that I just wished to raise before my learned friend continues with his cross-examination, relates to what was put yesterday by my learned friend, Mr Lowies, in relation to the criminal trial and the calling in of certain witnesses, including Miriam Molete and Florence Molete and in relation to their apparent refusal to speak to Mr Strydom and the other counsel, on instructions from the ANC.
	I've read the relevant section of the record and in particular it's pages 3208 through to 3215, 3-2-1-5.  And with respect to my learned friend, I don't believe that he put the position fairly to the witness.  At page 3210, Mr Botha is asked, Adv Botha is asked by the court whether he spoke with all the people concerned and he's asked; is it - I'm translating from the Afrikaans: 
"Is it everyone's attitude that they have instructions from the ANC, not to speak to anyone besides the ANC?"
And Adv Botha says: 
"M'Lord, I was not able to speak to any of the witnesses other than two, Abudnega Mabusa and Simon Moloi, who informed me that they were conveying the attitude of the other persons."
There's then a debate and the judge says:
"Tell them that I am busy with a trial arising from the attack on Boipatong on the 17th of June.  I've been informed by one of the advocates who acts for the accused, that they have summoned you here to give possible evidence after they've consulted with you.  And I've been further informed that you tell the advocates that you are not prepared to consult with them because you've been instructed by representatives of the ANC, that you should not speak to anyone about the case other than the ANC, is that so?"
And then there's - no-one speaks, the record simply reflects:
"All the witness indicate that it is so."
... but no-one speaks.  Then the judge says:
"All of them are satisfied, is that so?"
And then again no-one speaks and it's:
"All the witnesses answer in the affirmative."
And immediately after that the judge says:
"As a result of the "mededeling" (as a result of this intimation) I've been informed that they say that they are now afraid to speak to the advocates because they have been told to do so, or prohibited to do so by the ANC, is that so?"
And then the interpreter says:
"No, M'Lord"
And then the court says:
"Why will you not speak with the advocates?"
And the interpreter says:
"They are not our advocates, M'Lord.  Mr Abudnega Mabusa wants to speak, M'Lord."
And then the court says:
"Yes"
And then Mr Mabusa says:
"We don't know these advocates.  This is the first time that we come into contact with them.  It would have been better if the previous advocates, if it was the previous advocates who had called us.  At this stage it is not a question of fear, we don't have trust."
And then the court says:
"Who is the advocate that you consulted with previously?"
Mr Mabusa says:
"There they sit."
And the interpreter says:
"He is pointing to the State advocates."
Then the court says:
"Who at the ANC offices said that, or said to them that they should not speak to anyone about the case other than the ANC."
And then Mr Mabusa says:
"Concerning the ANC, they are not at issue here, we are talking about the advocates currently before the court."
I'm not going to go through everything in detail, but then two described as "women witness", "vroue getuie" not identified, are asked:
"Is this the position, that you have been instructed by the ANC not to talk to anyone?"
And they say:
"No, it is not so, M'Lord."
Both of them say.  And then the second one says:
"We are amazed that we have been called by strange people, not those who usually call us."
And then ultimately the court asks, this is at 3213 in the middle:
"Are there any of them who say that they were told by the ANC not to speak to anyone other than the ANC?"
And the interpreter says:
"Skud die kop ontkennend" (They shake their heads in the negative, M'Lord)
The whole debate is from the witnesses saying; we trust the State advocates, we don't know who these people are and we don't want to speak to them for that reason.

CHAIRPERSON: Doesn't it indicate though that what was asked of them was that they had received these instructions from the ANC, and what was conveyed back to the judge was that they had been and as the further debate then, then Mabusa comes in ...?

MR BERGER: He'd only spoken to two, Mabusa and Moloi.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, I mean at the beginning.

MR BERGER: Well the point I'm making is that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Of course that doesn't apply to Miriam because she denies that she ever went to court.  So that doesn't apply to her.

MR BERGER: No, but what I'm saying is, other than the note to say the witnesses agree that this is so, when someone speaks for the first time, which is the very next line, they say no, that's not the position.  And we've seen what happens or what has happened in these proceedings.  As you know, misinterpretations get put forward ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Well it is vague but what should have been done you know is simply that - because the part that you are referring to is also obvious from the record, what should have happened was that the other portion in which there was an indication that what appears to be the issue is not so much what the ANC said, ...(indistinct) it has to do with we don't know these people would prefer the advocates ...

MR BERGER: The State advocates, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, but from my reading of that portion I assume that that is covered by what Lowies said when he added, in fairness to you, there was some dissent amongst the people who were interviewed ...(intervention)

MR BERGER: Yes, I'm suggesting that it went further than dissent and that when the two women witnesses, whoever they were, were specifically asked, they said "no".  Chairperson, I don't want to take it any further, all I'm saying is that if one reads from 3208 right through to 3215, one gets the full picture.  Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, I want to enquire what the relevance of this evidence is, how does it become relevant what happened in Pretoria to these proceedings at this stage?  I was not here when certain things were said yesterday, but some of that was, and I'll repeat it and my question is, I want a ruling on that, to rule on the relevance of that what happened in Pretoria at that stage.
MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

CHAIRPERSON: ... recall what was the context of, but the witnesses were cross-examined at length about the statements that were made and in particular the interview which you are supposed to have had with them, okay, in Pretoria.  As I understand it's an issue which at this stage it's difficult to say which way, what it would affect.  It may well be that it's a matter of credibility, and the issue is whether the witnesses did testify in court or whether they were willing to testify.  I have no idea what counsel will arguing at the end.  It's difficult to say, to rule at this stage whether it's relevant or not relevant.