Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1997-03-27

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Mr Chairman, may we then without adjournment, Mr Chairman, is the applicant excused?  The next matter will be the De Ru matter, Mr Chairman, as explained in chambers. The De Ru matter.

JUDGE WILSON: We were informed that it was the intention of the parties that this application should be divided and heard as two separate applications, that we would deal with one incident today and that the other matters would be set down for a separate hearing on some other occasion.  Is that so?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Mr Chairman, that is so.

MR MADASA: I confirm the arrangements.

JUDGE WILSON: Well, which incident is it that you intend to proceed with today?

MR MADASA: I intend proceeding on the two cases on which the applicant was convicted and is presently serving sentence.  Those cases relates to his conviction on the, in August 1993.

ADV DE JAGER: If you, if you look at the summary on page 29 and 30, 29 And 30, it is in the front of the bundle, short summary.

MR MADASA: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Which of the matters is it?

MR MADASA: Number 7, the one, number 7, the one which relates to the deceased Mofokeng and number 9 the one which relates to Jonas, the deceased, Jonas Rampalile.  I am sorry, Mr Chair, it is number 9 which relates to Jonas Rampalile and number 10 which relates to the deceased Zachariah Mofokeng.

JUDGE WILSON: Mr Mpshe, before we finally decide to do this and to go on with this, I have just seen, again, I had overlooked the letter from the Attorney-General dated the 30th of December 1996 which is it page 31 of the papers?  Have you been in communication with the Attorney-General about this hearing?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Just to go through the letter quickly, Mr Chairman.  I see reference is myself up there but let me just refresh the contents, myself of the contents.

JUDGE WILSON: What I am particularly disturbed about is paragraph 2.2.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: 2.2.

JUDGE WILSON: Where he says that,
"This trial has not been finalised nor has Mr de Ru been convicted on these charges as stated.  This trial has continuously been remanded with the sole intention of affording Mr de Ru the opportunity of applying for amnesty.  The matter will either be withdrawn or will proceed once the finding of the TRC is known.  The next date of appearance in the Supreme Court is the 10th of February 1997 at which time it is hoped that the TRC will have reached a decision".
Well, we have not by the 10th of February, that is clear.  Is that matter now to be adjourned again because we are not proceeding with the hearing?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Mr Chairman, if my memory serves me well, Mr
Chairman, I recall telephoning the Attorney-General that the application has not been heard as yet, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: But does he understand that it was being heard now?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: No, Mr Chairman, I did not give him that information.

JUDGE WILSON: Well, should he not have been informed?  Is he not a very interested party?  Might he not be able to supply a great deal of information?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Can I just - Mr Chairman, I am informed that the Attorney-General is aware thereof and he was also present here on Monday and Tuesday which means that he did get information about the ...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: But he has not been told that it is your intention to adjourn it again.  On Monday and Tuesday you were telling us, as I recollect, that we would dispose of this matter, that it would not take very long.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Well he has not, that has not been conveyed to him, Mr Chairman.  This has not been, been conveyed to him, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: If he was here he would have heard it.  You said here in open, at the hearing because I do not like this idea that we, by adjourning matters, interfere with the administration of justice, upset court rolls without having at least the courtesy to talk to the Attorney-General and to find if the matter has been set down and whether he would prefer to proceed with the prosecution rather than wait for yet another adjournment.  Should this not be done, Mr Mpshe?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Mr Chairman, on the basis of courtesy, this should have been done.

JUDGE MGOEPE: How does this matter number 9 and 10, how do they, do they fall under 2.1 or 2.2?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: 2.1.

JUDGE WILSON: They are under 2.1, are they not, the matters you want to dispose of?

MR MADASA: Yes, Mr Chair, both matters, number 9 and 10 fall under 2.1 only and the remark on 2.2 relates to the matters which we have agreed to withdraw at this stage.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: I have just been told that, by a member who is just here next to me that the matter has been postponed to the 6th of June by the Attorney-General who was here present and the gentleman who has just moved away says he is aware if the Committee wants, he can phone him, he can be present to listen to the proceedings.

JUDGE WILSON: No, if he is aware of the fact and if arrangements can be made that the matter is disposed of before the 6th of June, not the day before the 6th of June, but sufficiently long before the 6th of June not to, again, interfere with the court rolls.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: So you are now withdrawing the hearings in
respect of the other matters.

MR MADASA: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Well, we grant you leave to withdraw them from the roll.

MR MADASA: Mr Chair, I beg leave to call the applicant.  I beg leave to call the applicant, Mr Chair.

ADV DE JAGER: Are you Afrikaans or English speaking.

MR DE RU: Afrikaans.

MR DE RU: (sworn states)

MR MADASA: Mr Chair, I would like to bring it to the attention of the Committee that I will be putting my
questions in English to the applicant.  We have agreed to that arrangement, but he will be giving his evidence in Afrikaans.

JUDGE WILSON: If he puts on the earphones he can get, your question will arrive at him translated in Afrikaans.  I am not sure which one he has to dial to.  Number one, number one.

MR DE RU: I can hear, thank you.

MR MADASA: As Mr Chair pleases.  Mr de Ru, is it correct that you are the applicant in this matter and you are applying for amnesty, is that correct?

MR DE RU: That is correct.

MR MADASA: Is it correct that on the, in August 1993 you were convicted for culpable homicide and defeating ends of justice and on another count of murder, is that correct?

MR DE RU: That is correct, your Worship.

MR MADASA: On, let me put, let me re-put that question again.  On what convictions are you presently serving sentence?

MR DE RU: A charge of culpable homicide, a charge of murder and a charge of defeating the ends of justice.  I am serving an effective sentence of 13 years.

ADV DE JAGER: Murder of whom, culpable homicide of whom, where did it happen and when did it happen?

MR DE RU: With regards to the culpable homicide, it took place on the 15th of June 1990 on the farm Vrisgewacht in the district of Kroonstad.  The deceased in this matter is Jonas Rampalile, Jonas Rampalile, R A M P A L I L E.  The deceased died as a result of a shooting wound.  On the charge of murder, it took place on the 2nd of January
1991 on the farm called Beltren, spelt B E L T R E N, in the district of Sasolburg.  The deceased was a Mr Zachariah Mofokeng.  With regards to the charge of defeating the ends of justice, it emanated from these charges of murder.  I would just like to hear from the Committee whether you would like to know now how the charge of defeating the ends of justice emanated or if you are going to wait for me to testify to give you that information?

ADV DE JAGER: Could you also possibly tell us what the sentences were in each, on each charge?