Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — UNKNOWN

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Prior?

MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman, the witness Sibaya is available, would this be an opportune moment to call him as I understand that Miss Qunta is present for that purpose.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  Where will he give evidence from?

MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman, I understand what occurred in a previous hearing or amnesty application - from the chair behind the applicants.

CHAIRPERSON: Will you see to it that there's a speaker there for him?
	Mr Sibaya, will you come forward?

CHAIRPERSON: Ask him for his full names.

INTERPRETER: We request that the interpreters be given a moment to change booths because of the position of the witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Tell me when you're ready.

ADV SANDI: No English Translation.

BENNET SIBAYA: Yes, I can hear.

ADV SANDI: Could you give us your full names please?

BENNET SIBAYA: Bennet Sibaya.

INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat that.

BENNET SIBAYA: Bennet Sibaya, I stay at NY72 number 52.

ADV SANDI: Could you please stand up Mr Sibaya.  We are going to swear you in Sir.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on - the witness' mike is not on.

ADV SANDI: The witness has been sworn in.

COMMITTEE: Discusses microphones - witness's microphone is not on.

ADV SANDI: Mr Sibaya, do you swear that the evidence you're going to give here is the truth?

BENNET SIBAYA: Yes, That is so, Sir.

ADV SANDI: Will you please get up when you are taking the oath.

BENNET SIBAYA: (sworn states)

MR PRIOR: Thank you Mr Chairman.  Mr Sibaya ...[intervention]

MS QUNTA: Mr Chairman, could I perhaps interrupt.  I wasn't aware that we're going to go straight into leading the witness, there are one or two things I would like to bring to the Committee's attention.

INTERPRETER: If we could be given a moment, the interpreters are having a problem with the equipment in this booth - please?
	Thank you, we may proceed.

MS QUNTA: As I was saying Mr Chairman, I would like to be given the opportunity to say something before the witness is being led by Mr Prior, with your permission.

CHAIRPERSON: Why?

MS QUNTA: Because I think Mr Chairman, there are certain anomalies about this matter which I think it's in the interest of my client to bring to the attention of the Committee now because that will give the Committee a background to what I am going to ask the witness during cross-examination.  For instance Mr Chairman, I would like to find out from the leader of evidence why my client is here, why my client was served with a Section 19 notice.
	On the evidence before us that we have been provided by the leader of evidence, by the Committee, there is absolutely no reason why my client should be here and I would like a statement from the leader of the evidence before we proceed.  I would like to draw the Committee's attention to Section 19, Sub-Section 2 of the Act and Sections 30, Sub-Section 2 because that's very, very pertinent to what I'm about to say - if you will allow me Mr Chairman, to proceed.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please do.

MS QUNTA: Thank you Mr Chairman.  I will draw the attention of the Committee to Section 19(2).  That refers to the Committee investigating an application for amnesty and it says that in respect of an investigation carried out under Section 19, the provisions of Sub-Section - of Section 30 Sub-Section 2 should be complied with.  Now that Section 30(2) deals with a person who is implicated in an application for amnesty and I will read Section (a) of Sub-Section 2
"If during any investigation by or any hearing before the Commission, any person is implicated in a manner which may be to his detriment"
And I want to emphasise the word: "to his detriment" in (a).  (b):
"The Commission contemplates making a decision which may be to the detriment of a person who has been so implicated"
Now that to me and to any person who has any legal training, suggests that a mere mention of a person in an uncorroborated statement, is not sufficient to implicate a person.  It's on that basis that I want the leader of evidence to explain to the Committee and to my client why on the basis of one solitary statement which gave rise to an investigation which was inconclusive, my client was brought before here. 
	It's quite important because what has happened in fact - if there is no sufficient explanation, there are issues I want to take up but I will give the leader of evidence an opportunity to respond to my response.  In terms of the reading of that Section and the definition of what implicated means, my client shouldn't be sitting here.
	The investigation unit - apart from my client whom I think the Committee knows is the head of investigation and he recused himself from this investigation.  The second statement which was made by the witness here has very serious contradiction and inconsistencies with the first statement.  None of the things mentioned in the first statement were - could be said to link my client or my client's vehicle in any way to the Heidelberg Tavern attack unless there is a victimisation of my client or incompetence within the section that deals with leading of evidence  and we need an explanation Mr Chairman. 
	I don't believe that in any way my clients presence here - and I want the leader of evidence to answer, does my client's presence and the bringing of the witness here, does it advance the case of the applicants in any way?  Secondly, if it doesn't advance the case of the applicants, does it hamper their case or does it show in any way that they should not be granted amnesty?  Does it counter their amnesty application?  I need an answer.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prior?

MR PRIOR: Well Mr Chairman, I'm not in a position at this stage - there are so many questions now being put by my learned friend, suffice to say that on the documentation at the disposal of the investigating unit, her client was implicated as is envisaged by the section.

CHAIRPERSON: Is he implicated in the commission of the offence by the applicants?

MR PRIOR: The information that was gathered by the investigating unit was to the effect that a vehicle was seen with a registration number which was linked to my learned friend's client.  The suggestion or the probabilities of this and the circumstances surrounding that piece of evidence seem to be linked, on the probabilities, to the Heidelberg Tavern incident.
	That information was contained in an affidavit and it was investigated  by the investigating unit and I understand that Mr Ntsebeza at some stage was aware or became aware of that investigation and certain things were done.  I don't know exactly what investigations were done but when I came on board - that is on the 1st of October, I became aware through handling the Heidelberg case that there was this information.
	And because he was implicated in - by a witness, in the circumstances which suggested that his vehicle was used to convey automatic weapons away from the scene, he was deemed to be implicated and he was given notice via Mr Mpshe.  It was dealt with on that level, and up until today there has been no indication that there was any objection to that procedure being followed or any objection to anything that was done by the investigative unit or the amnesty department, so I can't add anymore than that at this stage Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: So the decision to issue a notice was done by you but by Mr Mpshe?

MR PRIOR: It was done in consultation with all the senior officials of the Amnesty Department.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but I'm saying that you didn't do it, it was Mr Mpshe who did it?

MR PRIOR: It wasn't my decision solely, it was - as evidence leader, it was brought to the attention of Mr Mpshe and it was discussed at that level.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, now just tell us - you've been referred to the relevant section of the Act at Section 30, Sub-Section 2.  On your reading, is the position that Mr Ntsebeza can be described as an accomplice or an implicated person?