Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — UNKNOWN

MR LAMEY: I want to refer you to a further paragraph, paragraph 17.  You must understand me Mr de Lange, I am trying to clarify something here which could possibly have happened in a different way.  Paragraph 17 in the 3rd line reference is made to Hashe who fell down on the ground unconscious and was dragged out onto the stoep and they tried to bring him around with water, now Mr Koole's evidence was that that word to bring him around with water was not used.
	He could possibly have said something like that to you and he doesn't deny the essence of that sentence, all that he says is that water was poured over him or something to that effect but he never used the word "gelawe".

CORNELIUS PETRUS DE LANGE: That can be true, yes.

MR LAMEY: The word that you used, because it's a rather sophisticated Afrikaans word, would you say that in your interpretation that you used the word "gelawe" yourself"

CORNELIUS PETRUS DE LANGE: I concede that that could have been so.

MR LAMEY: Just a minute Mr Chairman, may I just - if your Lordship will just bear with me for a minute.  Mr Chairman, I've got no further questions but I would request that the first amnesty application, that document be handed in as an exhibit.  I think it would be Exhibit V, I will beg leave just to uplift that document provisionally so that we can prepare copies.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it will be Exhibit V.
	Mr Nyoka?

MR NYOKA: No questions.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR NYOKA

CHAIRPERSON: Miss Hartle?

MS HARTLE: I have no questions.
NO QUESTIONS BY MS HARTLE

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brink?

MR BRINK: No questions, thank you Mr Chairman.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR BRINK

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Sir.
WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Just a minute, I'm sorry.  We will go back to Mr Mamasela.  Mr Mamasela, you are still under oath.

JOE MAMASELA: (s.u.o.)

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, before we proceed with Mr Mamasela's evidence, may I just get an indication from my other colleagues that Exhibit P which is now Exhibit P2, the bundle of photographs as well as the one that follows thereon, can we accept that the contents of that document and also the statement of Mr Ellis and as well as the pointing out, as evidence before the Commission of what was recorded when he photographed the scene during the pointings out at Post Chalmers as correct?  I just want to know whether I must actually call Mr Ellis to give evidence?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I'm sure that you can discuss that with them after the adjournment.  I'm not so sure that there will be any problems about that but discuss it with them fist and then let us know what the question is, what their attitude.

MR LAMEY: The further aspect that I just want to - at a certain stage during the cross-examination of Mr du Plessis regarding the amnesty application of Mr de Kock, the question was raised whether Mr du Plessis knows that as a fact that he hasn't applied for amnesty regarding the PEBCO 3 incident.  I have in the meantime established via Mr Mark Whale of the Attorney General's office who is in possession of the amnesty application of Mr de Kock, that Mr de Kock only applies for amnesty with regard to accessory after the fact with regard to the watch that he talked to Mr Beeslaar about and when he suggested to Mr Beeslaar that he must destroy the watch.  But there's no application for any conspiracy with regard to the elimination of activists and conspiracy to murder.  I just want to place that on record.  That fact can be verified also, Mr Mark Whale is available with the amnesty application.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think we, well I think it's a periphial issue anyway and besides, we would not be comfortable to base on a decision of the premise that for sure Mr de Kock has not made an application or has made an application in this regard.
	I just don't see how this can be of concern to us and I wouldn't like to think that this should become an issue before us unless somebody motivates it to bring it to the level where it should be of our concern.

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, may I perhaps just say something, I elicited that in cross-examination and I cross-examined Mr Mamasela about that and about the fact that Mr Mamasela indicated that de Kock gave the order for them to come to Port Elizabeth and it is important in respect of the credibility argument relating to Mr Mamasela, so I wish to state that for that purpose it is important that it goes onto the record that that is the factual situation pertaining to de Kock's application so that one can use it in argument eventually.

CHAIRPERSON: Well we can only record that Mr Lamey has been told by somebody that that somebody said that he has looked at de Kock's application and that as far as he could see de Kock applied only for this and that and that, that is as far as we can go.

UNKNOWN: Yes.  Mr Chairman, that's obviously a representative from the TRC but if that's not sufficient, what we will do we will endeavour to obtain a written affidavit from de Kock stating that that's the situation.  I will endeavour to do that and if necessary we can hand that in when we hand in the heads of argument Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I suppose we can do that.

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, the point that I want to make is, I want to say something more about the hearsay.  The document is available, present here, Mr Mark Whale is present and this fact could be verified by inspection in the document.

CHAIRPERSON: But what do you want, do you want to - you can put questions to the witness on the assumption that Mr de Kock did not apply for this if you want to.

MR LAMEY: Yes, but it's important that that aspect be recorded as a fact.

CHAIRPERSON: No, we won't record it as a fact, we don't see it, why must we record as a fact something that we don't know, something that you have been told by somebody, now why must we record that as a fact?
	What we can record if you want, is that we can record that you were told by somebody that de Kock has not made an application, that we can recall.  Why must we make it as a fact that Mr de Kock has not applied for this and that, why?  Why should be do that?  It's not of concern to us.

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, may I just then reserve my right then to place then the most reliable evidence then before the Commission?

CHAIRPERSON: Well, you can do that but I don't see any reason why anybody should try to push us into accepting as a fact that de Kock did not make that application.  We can't make that finding.

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, my intention is not to push the Committee to do that, I'm just trying to save time and let us just ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: You are free to put questions on the assumption that he did not make that kind of application, we will allow those questions but please don't ask us to accept as a fact that he didn't make that kind of application.

MR LAMEY: May I just ask one question to Mamasela about that Mr Chairman?

MR LAMEY: Mr Mamasela, if we for a minute assume that Mr de Kock has not applied for amnesty for conspiracy in killing activists regarding the PEBCO 3 incident, what would you say about that?

JOE MAMASELA: My assumption will be that, my comment would be that Mr de Kock has committed hundreds of criminal offences in this country and I don't think for a moment that he call recall all, even the minutest details of all these crimes that he has committed, I don't think so.  He might have omitted it.

MR LAMEY: I've got not further questions Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY

ADV SANDI: Can I just get some clarity Mr Mamasela on this.  When you gave evidence on this particular you said Mr de Kock participated briefly in this meeting?

JOE MAMASELA: Yes, just briefly and then he left, we left with Colonel Venter to Port ELizabeth or whatever, we left him behind.  It was very brief.

ADV SANDI: Whose office was this?  Was it Mr de Kock's office or Mr Venter's office?