Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — UNKNOWN

MR WAGNER: Sorry, Mr Chairman, do I hear you to say that what I have done here this morning has no evidential value and that I should rather get Brig Schoon here to say the same things that I have said today.

CHAIRPERSON: I think you've been a practitioner long enough to know the difference between submission and evidence.

MR WAGNER: Thank you, Mr Chairman, in that instance I will liaise with Mr Mpshe for an opportunity for my client to appear before you and to repeat what I have said here today.

CHAIRPERSON: The advantage of him appearing and saying what he wishes to say would mean that Mr Mpshe and other parties might question him and clarify matters which they require clarification on.

MR WAGNER: In the last instance I may just say I was brought under the impression that the matter can be dealt with in this way in order to expedite the issues, but I hear what you say.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  I want to say that we are thankful to you at such short notice to make yourself available nevertheless to come and indicate to us what your client's attitude is in respect of the evidence given by Mr Coetzee. Thank you.
23.1 - 1A

MR WAGNER: /...
278

MR WAGNER: Thank you, Sir.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Mr Chairman, the next practitioner is Mr Hugo, on behalf of Eugene de Kock.  The affidavit is before the Committee.  It is in the form of an affidavit.

MR JANSEN: Mr Chairman, if I could possibly just interrupt at this stage.  The affidavit of Mr De Kock does not affect applicant Mr Coetzee's situation at all.  I think it is appropriate that I possibly respond at this stage to the submissions handed in by Mr Wagner.

CHAIRPERSON: You are perfectly right, Mr Jansen.

MR JANSEN: Mr Chairman, again I will just place on record that it is regrettable that the submissions or the factual allegations contained therein wasn't at least made by way of affidavit, because clearly in the form it presently is it surely can have no probative value at all.  Be that as it may, even if it does come by way of affidavit it is merely a matter of argument and we will deal with it in our argument.
	Also if I may be permitted just to place another matter on record.  In terms of section 39, more specifically subsection (c) thereof, these proceedings are regarded by the Act as being on the same footing as that of a court of law insofar as its rules of contempt is concerned, and that includes the rules relating to sub judice.  It came to our attention that this morning on the media certain statements were made by another witness, a Mr Mamasela, in the same vein as is contained in these submissions.  I would respectfully request you to remind the press and the media that although generally commissions, the rules relating to sub judice as not as strict, that they do apply to this Commission, and that they should be very circumspect in 
23.1 - 1A	commenting/...
MR JANSEN	279
commenting on the truthfulness or the untruthfulness of any evidence at this stage.  Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Whilst I would like to give a considered reply, if it is necessary, to the point you are raising, for your purpose at any rate and for those who are present, I think they should note that this Committee pays no attention whatsoever to what appears in the media by people who make comments about what is proceeding here.  We have refrained from engaging in any debate in the press.  We have refrained from refuting whatever is being said in the press or in the media on matters that we are seized with.  So no matter what the media says or what others say about our proceedings, we pay no attention to them.

MR JANSEN: Yes, I assumed that to be the position, Mr Chairman, thank you.

UNKNOWN: Mr Wagner, could I ask you, what is the intention of appearing in terms of section 19(4).  You've received a notice saying you are implicated.  Is your intention to come and oppose the application of Mr Coetzee to prove him to be an untruthful witness, or is your intention to come and put - whilst you have applied for amnesty - to make a statement to protect your client's rights and say well, I don't agree with what he is saying and I want to make it known that I don't agree for purposes of my own application.

MR WAGNER: Thank you, Mr De Jager, I should have made this more clear.  My client is not opposing the amnesty application of Mr Coetzee.  But the fact is exactly the way Mr De Jager described it, my client, I've said this today here, he has applied for amnesty himself for certain incidents, but he can't apply for amnesty for something
23.1 - 1A	which/...
MR WAGNER	280
which he was not involved with or has no knowledge of.  So therefore, to protect his rights in that regard against possible future prosecutions etc. it was my instructions to appear here and to put his denials regarding certain allegations and nothing more.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand.

MR HUGO: Thank you, Mr Chairman.  For record purposes I would like to confirm that I am acting on behalf of Mr De Kock.  Mr De Kock is also placed in possession of a notice in terms of section 19(4).
	Initially Mr De Kock's attitude was that he was not going to react since we are currently in the process of finalising his own application for amnesty.  As time went by it became apparent that there are certain far-reaching allegations which are being made in Mr Nofomela's application and I was thus instructed to bring to the fore Mr De Kock's version and submit it to you by means of an affidavit.   And I would now like to ask for leave and permission to read Mr De Kock's submission into the record.

CHAIRPERSON: ... necessary for you to read the affidavit since it is a document on oath we will treat it as we have treated other affidavits we have received, but you may wish to elaborate on any points that are contained in this affidavit in your address to us.  Perhaps for the purposes of record we will number this affidavit, EXHIBIT P.  The document submitted on behalf of Brig Schoon will be EXHIBIT O, even though that is not an affidavit.
	You may proceed.