Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1997-05-12

ADV MADASA: Indeed, new applications have been lodged.  They were withdrawn at that stage for convenience, but a new application has been lodged.

ADV DE JAGER: In fact a totally new application had been lodged?

ADV MADASA: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Signed by the applicant and completed by him in terms of the Act, because if he hadn't done that before Saturday, there is no opportunity to do it again that is the only thing I want to make sure about.

ADV MADASA: I confirm the arrangement.

JUDGE WILSON: Those applications relate, I take it to acts performed by the applicant whilst a member of the South African Police Force.

ADV MADASA: That is correct.

JUDGE WILSON: When a great many of the factors which he has set out in the documents before us, are relevant?  The pressures he worked under, the what he was taught in the course of his training, all that will have to be repeated then to a, perhaps a new Committee.

ADV MADASA: That is correct.

JUDGE WILSON: What is the purpose of that?  Doesn't he want to dispose of the applications?  Why did you make this arrangement with Mr Mpshe?

ADV MADASA: Mr Chairman, if I may restate what I said.  At that stage there was a problem about interested parties not being notified.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes,  but how long ago was that?

ADV MADASA: At the previous hearing.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes.  And that you could have notified them then and there and heard the matters today, couldn't you?  Not you, it wasn't your function to notify - Mr Mpshe could have made arrangements then and there and notified the interested parties.

ADV MADASA: From my side, all I can say is that the other application is not ready Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Hm?

ADV MADASA: I cannot take the matter any further.  The other application which we are talking about is not ready at this stage.

MS THABETHA: Can I say something Mr Chairman?

JUDGE WILSON: Yes.

MS THABETHA: I don't think it is quite correct what Adv Madasa is saying about the reason for concluding that two matters will be dealt with today.  I am saying this because on the 9th of April we wrote a letter to Adv Madasa asking him, I don't know if I can read the letter, asking him to outline clearly the application he will be dealing with today and outline clearly the names and addresses of the victims as part of full disclosure and I specifically made it clear that we await his response because we will need to inform the implicated persons in time, that was the 9th of April.  So we could have had enough time to notify the victims, but because there was a discussion between Adv Mpshe and Mr De Ru, apparently Mr De Ru, I don't know if I am correct, he will correct me, said he would like these two matters to be finalised with because he in prison because of them and then the other matters can be heard later on because he is still, you know, he is still being charged of them, he is not in prison because of them.  So I think the reason that Adv Madasa is giving, is not quite correct.

JUDGE WILSON: The effect of that as I understand it, is that one of the matters which the Judge or the court had adjourned, pending the determination which was due now to be heard on the 6th of June, the court will simply be told oh, the application hasn't gone on, you just have to wait some more.  Is that the position?  Mr Madasa, is that the position, what is happening on the 6th of June now?

ADV MADASA: Mr Chairman, I am not in a position to tell the Committee what is going to happen on the 6th of June.

JUDGE WILSON: Are you appearing in this case on the 6th of June?

ADV MADASA: No, I am not appearing Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: I thought there was a case adjourned to the 6th of June, it is in the correspondence.

ADV MADASA: Mr Chairman, I have no instructions regarding that matter.

JUDGE WILSON: 2nd of June, that is another trial that is proceeding which was adjourned time and again to enable us to dispose of the matter and we have done nothing now, is that the position?  And we are supposed to dispose of these two to give a final ruling and then perhaps hear the applicant and find him to be a most unsatisfactory witness, is that what you contemplate because speaking for myself, I would be extremely loath to give any ruling until I've heard his version of all the cases in which he seeks amnesty.  We can continue and hear the evidence and dispose of the evidence in this matter today, but I am strongly of the view that we should not give a final decision until we've heard the other applications, it may well be that certain of the witnesses or certain of the evidence infringe on the present one.  And you wish to proceed with this today, let us proceed.

ADV MADASA: Mr Chairman, I have no comment in Mr Chairman's last remarks.  The Committee has the discretion to handle the matters as it pleases.  All I was explaining is that the purpose of this hearing today is a continuation as agreed and because of also the lack of sufficient time that was one of the reasons why it was decided at the last hearing that today, on the two specifically we will complete this matter and other matters will be decided further on, later on.

JUDGE WILSON: Let's dispose of the evidence in this matter now.

ADV MADASA: Mr Chairman, if I may begin.  The applicant is not going to call any further evidence.  I will be making submissions on the evidence already before the Committee.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Does the evidence propose to lead any evidence?

MS THABETHA: I do not propose to lead evidence except that I had one question but after speaking to Mr De Jager, we agreed that I won't re-examine or ask any further questions.

JUDGE WILSON: You are at liberty if you wish to put any further questions, you could do so.

MS THABETHA: I will proceed to ask my questions.  Mr De Ru, before killing the victims did you have any knowledge of their political affiliation?

ADV DE JAGER: Before answering, Mr De Ru, you are still under the previous oath.

JAKOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: (still under oath)

MS THABETHA: Mr De Ru, before killing the victims did you have any knowledge of their political affiliation?

JAKOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: No.

MS THABETHA: Did you subsequently find out if they were indeed political activists?

JAKOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: I believed so, Your Honour.

MS THABETHA: And can you tell the Committee members what political organisation did they belong to or what their political affiliations were?

JAKOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: Your Honour, I believed that they were members of APLA.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: I am sorry to interrupt.  I thought the question was did you subsequently find out whether they had any, well say, political affiliations and then your answer as I understand it, was I believed so, but really it is not an answer to the question, the question is did you subsequently actually find out whether they were affiliated to any political organisation?

JAKOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: No, Your Honour, I did not check this myself.

MS THABETHA: So it would be correct to say that you killed the victims on the basis of your believe that they were, they belonged to a political organisation?

JAKOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: That would be the case, Your Honour.

MS THABETHA: Thank you, no further questions.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Any re-examination?

ADV MADASA: Yes, yes Mr Chairman.  Mr De Ru, according to what you told the hearing, the Committee at the hearing before that your believe that the suspects belonged to a political organisation were based on the information you received from Colonel Voigt?

JAKOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: That is the case with regard to the crimes committed, that was the information made available to me.

ADV MADASA: Colonel Voigt ...

CHAIRPERSON: Did he really say that, or are you asking a leading question on that?  Did he say that he believed that they were associated with a political organisation as a result of information he received from Colonel Voigt?