Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-10-15

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have any response to Mr Van Schalkwyk's submission that we should make a negative inference regarding the omission of your client and the other applicants' to call either Van Rensburg or Van Schalkwyk to this hearing?

MR PRINSLOO: With respect Honourable Chairperson and members of the Committee, Ford and Van Rensburg are implicated persons, they are all people who have their own protection and it is not within my capacity to call him as a witness.  He has a right to testify if he wishes, but that is a matter for him and his legal representative.
	If I might add, in as far as that evidence, there is no basis that what they testified according to, is contradicted that they were members of an organisation.  That is my submission.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Coetzee, any further submissions?

MR COETZEE IN FURTHER ARGUMENT: Thank you Mr Chair.  Yes, just with regard to my learned friend's remark that taking a gun apart and throwing it away is an act, a criminal act.  One must bear in mind that the evidence was that AWB members had a standard order to always be in possession of their legal firearms.
	It is clear that the AWB members in general were very well armed.  The question originates, would anybody really have the need to have two firearms?  They have a hand weapon, they don't need any more, they have enough of their own.  This item could have led to the identification of people who were definitely sought, because of their connection to a crime.  That is why the structure of command decided to destroy it, and I submit therefore with respect, that criminals indeed would keep a weapon like this, and criminals would definitely make use of these items in other criminal activities. 
	That was not the case here, and therefore that inference is not justified.  With regard to the issue of a negative inference to not call those who were people in command, I can only reiterate what my learned colleague, Mr Prinsloo said and say that Mr Van Schalkwyk's status as an implicated person, must be regarded and that it is not up to him to incriminate himself.
	He would probably say that he had a common set up or cause and that he would have incriminated himself.

CHAIRPERSON: Can we accept that the AWB gave the order that the gun should be destroyed because it did not fit in with their objectives as your clients testified that they were interested in automatic weaponry and they obviously didn't want too many of these hand weapons at that stage?

MR COETZEE: Yes, that would be in line with my submission.

CHAIRPERSON: The panel will take the time to consider the findings of this hearing and ultimately we will notify the interested parties according to the regular procedure, what our findings or our ultimate findings are.
	All that remains for us to do is to express our gratitude to the legal representatives as well as to you Mr Van Schalkwyk, which you have offered us in this matter.
	The matter will then be adjourned and the decision in the matter is reserved and will be announced in due course.
	That takes care of the roll.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Mr Chairman, that is the end of the roll.  I would just like to thank our learned colleagues and certainly the victims who testified here, thank you for your indulgence and assistance.  Thank you Mr Chair and Honourable Committee members.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.  And of course, in conclusion we would like to thank all those people that assisted us in making it possible to have the hearing here, and of course our Interpreters for their assistance and for members of the South African Police Services and the Trustees, the controlling body of this venue which we have used for the past few days.
	On that note we adjourn.
HEARING ADJOURNS