Amnesty Hearings — Nelspruit — 1999-02-04

MS THABETE: The judge says you said you thought that these two whites were going to perhaps steal from your car or look to see if they could steal from your car and then come back at night.   So what I want to know is, did you say that or didn't you say that, in the light of what you've explained?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Sambo, do you understand the ambit of Ms Thabete's question?

VOICE SAMBO: I don't truly understand.

CHAIRPERSON: When you gave testimony at your criminal trial, did you tell the truth about how Mr Van der Spuy was killed and how Mr O'Farrell came to be disarmed, and the surrounding facts around that incident, did you tell the truth?

VOICE SAMBO: I didn't tell the whole truth in court.

CHAIRPERSON: Now according to the judgment before us, it is stated that during that trial you said you thought that the two policemen, whom you described as two whites, were coming to your place to steal from your car, or to look to see if they could steal from your car and then come back that night and steal.   Did you say that?

VOICE SAMBO: No, I didn't say so.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you sure you did not give that evidence during your criminal trial?

VOICE SAMBO: I am not sure, I've forgotten as to what exactly I've said in court, but I didn't tell the whole truth, even though there was partial truth and somewhere I was lying in court.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying you do not recall what untruths you said in court in respect of the offences for which you were standing?

VOICE SAMBO: I do remember.

CHAIRPERSON: Now the simple question is, the judge stated that this is what you said during your testimony when your criminal trial was being conducted, you said two whites came and you thought those two whites were coming to steal from your car, or to look if they could come back later at night to steal from the car.   Is that what you told the judge, is that the lie you told the judge during your criminal trial?

VOICE SAMBO: That's true.

CHAIRPERSON: Proceed, Ms Thabete.

MS THABETE: Mr Sambo, I find that interesting because that same stealing, or that same factor is raised by you in your application.    Do you want to respond to that?

VOICE SAMBO: In my application I only referred to criminal, not stealing.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, suppose, you spoke about criminal activity and you didn't specify what kind of criminal activity.   Why did you say so, because what you are saying in your application seemed to coincide the evidence you gave during your criminal trial.   Even during your criminal trial, you referred to criminal activity, you regarded these people as criminals, or as potential criminals, who would come and steal from your car.   You didn't say, during your criminal trial, that the police in question were possible assassins because of the threats that you had been receiving from the security force, your suspicion that you would be killed by the security force, you did not allude to any political motive, the motive you alluded to was purely criminal.

VOICE SAMBO: In court I wasn't given a chance to explain like here today.   Even my lawyer didn't give me a chance to listen to me, I only had 30 minutes consultation with my lawyer, and I even told him that I'm seeing him for the first time and he's not giving me enough time to explain, and he told me that he knows exactly what happened.

CHAIRPERSON: Now let me just get clarity on one issue and one issue only, is it your evidence today that you deliberately lied in court in your criminal trial, is it your evidence?   And let me tell you why I'm asking that, we have had countless applications wherein applicants have said to us, "We lied during our criminal trials", then they give us the reason why they lied, and they say, "We are now coming with the truth before this commission, because we believe that we can trust them in the truth that we would like to unburden to them".   Now what are you saying?   Are you saying you also lied during your criminal trial, and if you did, why did you lie?

VOICE SAMBO: I didn't want to be sentenced.

CHAIRPERSON: And is it not true then that you would have maintained that lie whether you had consulted with you lawyer for 100 hours or for ten minutes?

VOICE SAMBO: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And the lie did not result because you had not been afforded a proper and sufficient opportunity to consult with your lawyer?

VOICE SAMBO: If you can please repeat your question?

CHAIRPERSON: You have today suggested that the reason why you lied during your criminal trial was because you had not been afforded sufficient opportunity to consult with your lawyer, that you had very little time to consult with your lawyer, that's what you have suggested to us today.   My question is, would the time of consultation with your lawyer have mattered at all to change your decision to lie, in the light of the fact that the reason why you lied was because you thought that lie would enable you to escape being convicted, you lied to escape a conviction, is it not so?

VOICE SAMBO: That's correct, but I was going to tell my lawyer, even if it was a lie, I was going to tell him, because I didn't want to be sentenced, I was going to tell my lawyer so that I escape from being sent to prison.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm getting more confused, Mr Sambo.   Did you say what is contained in this judgment or did you not say so?    No, you ask me, I have asked the question.   You can ask me to simplify my question if you think it's that complex, and I will endeavour to do so.   I am here to assist you, you are here to assist me.   I will simplify my question.    You have been referred to a version you gave during your criminal trial which is encapsulated in the judgment of Judge Curlewis, as appearing on page 13 thereof, and I quote what the judge said you had said during your criminal trial.    He says you said the follwoing, now listen carefully, you thought that these two whites, and by these two whites Judge Curlewis was referring to the deceased, Mr Van der Spuy, and the person who's still living, Mr O'Farrell, you thought that the two whites were going to perhaps steal from your car, or look to see if they could steal from your car, and then come back that night, and this was in broad daylight in front of your brother.   I think there is a typing error there, it should have read as this was in broad daylight in front of your brother, that they couldn't have stolen during the day, but you thought they would come back and steal from your car at night, and that's why they came to see what is it that they could back and steal at night.   I am not saying that, it is Judge Curlewis saying, summarising your evidence.   Now you would want to have us believe that Judge Curlewis was summarising the evidence that never came from you, which would be highly improbable.

VOICE SAMBO: I do remember.   I said so in court as it's written down, but it was because I had to explain this thing, or the incident which occurred on that week.   This BMW had no wheels... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: You know, Mr Sambo, you will make our job much more easier if you only respond to questions put to you, without having to come with elaborations, which tend to even distort what could be very good explanations by you.   What I want to know is, did you say what is contained in this judgment, as summarised by Judge Curlewis, did you say so?

VOICE SAMBO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And was that a lie, you were not telling the truth?

VOICE SAMBO: I was telling the truth.

CHAIRPERSON: You were telling the truth about the fact that you thought the two whites you saw were coming to steal from your car?   You must be careful now of what you are saying.

VOICE SAMBO: I wasn't telling the truth.

CHAIRPERSON: Now why... (intervention).