Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-05-06

MR VISSER: Yes Mr Chairman I appreciate fully that the questions which I am putting to the witness now are largely based on argument, and certainly I don't want to now start arguing the requirements of the Act and particularly the requirement that it has to be an act, omission or offence which should be interpreted to mean an incident.  But all that I am attempting to do at this point in time is to give the witness an opportunity to say where he disagrees so that at least by the time we come to argument that I know on what evidence I should address you.  That's the only purpose at this stage.
	Can I give you an idea of what the confusion is which we are suffering under.  You gave evidence and I believe the reference is Exhibit A paragraph 51 to 55, I am referring to your Exhibit A.

ABOOBAKER ISMAIL: Yes.

MR VISSER: If you look at paragraph 55, this paragraph says, and that was your evidence
"The unit comprised...."
that's the Dolphin Unit,
"...of Comrade Mahomet Igbal Shaik Dolphin and my brother Mahomet Abdullah Ismail, Joe, some of their activities which form part of these hearings are set out in Annexure D".
	Are we to understand that those were the only two members of the Dolphin Unit?  Up to a point where I think you said your brother ceased to be operative and Mr Shaik kept on on his own, am I correct with that?

ABOOBAKER ISMAIL: As far as my knowledge serves me, yes.

MR VISSER: Yes.  Thank you.
	Now in Annexure D you see, to Exhibit A, there are two references which I wish to refer you to.  The one is number 4 and the other is number 9.  Now number 4 reads -
"The South African Police Soweto East Security Branch, Roodepoort on 17 August 1984".
Annexure D Mr Chairman, D to Exhibit A.  They are not paginated, paragraph - well Annexure D right at the top Justice Pillay you will see that the paragraphs are numbered.  I am referring not to paragraph no 4 and 9.  This is under the heading, Annexure D, Dolphin Unit, Mr Ismail. 
	Now is it your evidence that you instructed Dolphin Unit to attack the South African Police Soweto East Security Branch Roodepoort, is that your evidence?  Those were done on your instructions?

ABOOBAKER ISMAIL: Mr Chairperson as I had put it, with regards to the Dolphin Unit, they had the mandate by that time to select their own targets.  They selected those targets and they carried out those operations.

MR VISSER: Yes.  How do you know that they carried out the operation specified in paragraph 4?

ABOOBAKER ISMAIL: Because they reported that back to me.

MR VISSER: I see.  And does the same apply to paragraph 9?

ABOOBAKER ISMAIL: Yes.

MR VISSER: Prior to your appearing here before this Committee did you have discussions with your brother, Mr Ismail, and Mr Shaik in regard to the incidents for which the three of your were applying for amnesty?  Did you talk about it?

ABOOBAKER ISMAIL: Well we had talked about it at various stages ...(intervention)

MR VISSER: Yes of course.

ABOOBAKER ISMAIL: Over the years.

MR VISSER: Of course.  It's not, and please don't get me wrong, I don't want to criticise you if you say you did talk about it because I think it would have been foolhardy not to do so because one wants to give the Committee a full picture of what had happened, certainly.
	Now the point is this though, that would it surprise - I am referring now to volume 6 Mr Chairman, this is a document which we received on Monday, and specifically to page 67, do you have that in front of you Mr Ismail?

ABOOBAKER ISMAIL: I do, yes.

MR VISSER: That purports to be a form 1 annexure application for amnesty by your brother Mahomet, Mahomet Ismail, would you agree with that?

ABOOBAKER ISMAIL: Yes.

MR VISSER: Now you can read through it if you wish but I want to suggest to you that your brother, Mahomet Ismail, did not apply for amnesty in regard to either paragraph 4 or paragraph 9 of Annexure D.

ABOOBAKER ISMAIL: Because Mr Chairperson he had indicated he was not part of that operation.

MR VISSER: I see.  But then you would have expected Mr Shaik to have applied for both those incidents?

ABOOBAKER ISMAIL: Yes.

MR VISSER: Yes.  Will it surprise you then if you turn to page 75 to find that in the application of Mr Shaik he applies for amnesty only in regard to the Roodepoort bomb which is item 4 but not ...(intervention)

ABOOBAKER ISMAIL: You are now on page?

CHAIRPERSON: No.4 is the Soweto, 4 is the SAP Soweto East, oh Roodepoort sorry.

MR VISSER: Roodepoort.  I was confused myself Mr Chairman.  I am informed the position here is that the Security Branch for Soweto East was stationed at Roodepoort and that perhaps is the confusion.

CHAIRPERSON: And you say he only applies in respect of no.4?

MR VISSER: My attorney tells me I am wrong Mr Chairman.  He says that he applies only in terms of - for amnesty for paragraph 9, the Krugersdorp Magistrate Court.  My note must be incorrect.  But be that as it may he does not apply then, so it seems from his document before this Committee, for the one which you expected him to apply for, being paragraph 4.  Yes my attorney points out it's actually at page 82 of that volume you will find the reference, the Krugersdorp bomb.  Would you like later, to leave this question for later and to check for yourself whether our reading of the document is correct?  I don't expect you to read it now.

ABOOBAKER ISMAIL: Mr Chairperson I did not read their applications at the time when they were made, and if Mr Shaik had omitted to it it may be an omission on his part.

MR VISSER: Yes.

ABOOBAKER ISMAIL: However, he will testify I am sure, that he was part of it and his application will state that if people have forgotten or mistakenly left out any one operation as it seems the operations with regard to Roodepoort are concerned, because you've got to remember that they struck at the Roodepoort offices twice.  Once in 1983 and once in 1984 and they may then have confused it or the lawyers may have confused, whichever way the situation may be.  That is something that Mr Shaik will respond to and they will then answer to that.

MR VISSER: Yes I ...(intervention)

ABOOBAKER ISMAIL: As far as I state that they had informed me that they - that Mr Shaik had carried out that operation and I take responsibility for it and therefore I have applied for amnesty in that regard.

MR VISSER: Of course.  Well you have just answered the question which was really the only question.  I am not asking you to answer on behalf of Mr Shaik or your brother for that matter.  I am simply pointing out that if they, none of them, applied for amnesty for that item 4, the Roodepoort bomb explosion, then obviously your application in that regard would fall away.

MR TRENGOVE: I don't understand the logic of that at all.

CHAIRPERSON: He's applied, yes, well carry - I think perhaps what Mr Visser is getting at is that he received a report, he doesn't have personal knowledge of the Roodepoort bombing and only relies on ...(intervention)

MR TRENGOVE: But they either did it or they didn't.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR TRENGOVE: Whether they applied for amnesty for it or not is irrelevant.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes it doesn't affect the application of Mr Ismail.

MR VISSER: If I put the question unfairly Mr Chairman I will rephrase it.  If they, none of them, neither of them, performed this act stated in paragraph 4 of Annexure D, then what would be the status of your amnesty application?  Because your evidence is based on what you have been told by them.