Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — UNKNOWN

MR MEINTJIES: If it pleases the Committee I am Roelf Meintjiesfrom the firm Meintjies and Hoegh from Pretoria North.  I am appearingon behalf of Mr J J H van Jaarsveldt, identified as Captain vanJaarsveldt and mentioned in this proceedings.  It refers to theincident of Piet Ntuli as well as any other matter where the gentlemanis identified in these proceedings.  This is apart from the PietNtuli matter.  It also refers to any other incidents with regardto which my client has been identified in the testimony beforethe Committee and is implicated in this testimony.  I must putit on record that my client is a State witness in the intendedcriminal case.  Thank you Chair.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Mr Chairman another legal representative isnot present here today, that is Advocate T Botha from the PretoriaBar representing the Ntuli family.  He was here with us yesterdayMr Chairman.  That is all.

JUDGE WILSON: Is that the killing of Piet Ntuli?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: That is so.  Advocate Botha.

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman I would like in response tothis, I would like to raise one possible problem which I would like  to  deal with now instead of when it arises.  Mr RoelfMeintjies has placed on record that he appears on behalf  of Captain van Jaarsveldt who is a State witness, he has indicatedto me that he intends, when his client is implicated, he intendsto stand up and put his client's version if it in fact differsfrom the evidence given.  Now as I read
the Act, and specifically section 30(2) it says that "Duringany hearing before the Commission, if any person is implicatedin a manner which may be to his or her detriment, the Commissionshall, if
1B such/...
130
  such person is available afford him or her an opportunity tosubmit representations to the Commission within a specified timewith regard to the matter...."
I read that as after the hearing.  And then 
  "....under consideration, or to give evidence at the hearingof the Commission".
I want to place on record here that we do not read the Act asallowing a legal representative on behalf of a person implicatedin evidence simply to stand up and to state his or her client'sversion without that person being able to testify and withoutme being afforded the opportunity to cross-examine that specificwitness.  
 If Captain van Jaarsveldt is a State witness he would clearlybe affected by the application I made yesterday pertaining tothe State witnesses and our attitude is that either he must testifyin these proceedings if he's implicated or otherwise his legalrepresentative cannot simply stand up and put his version withouthim testifying.  I thought it convenient to raise this now sothat we can deal with this matter perhaps now or in any otherway that you deem fit.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Meintjies is your client not available?

MR MEINTJIES: Mr Chairman my client is available, he isin this room.

CHAIRPERSON: And is there any reason why he won't give evidence?

MR MEINTJIES: My client has got no reasons not to giveevidence.  The State has, however, opposed the application bythe applicants and we have already made our decision clear thatwe do accept the decision of this Commission on
1B the/...
131
the question whether the State witnesses should give evidencebefore the Commission or not.  Thank you.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Mr du Plessis that section gives the personimplicated the opportunity if that person so wishes to clear himself,to clear his name in whatever best way that person may think. Now I don't know whether it is for us to prescribe to such aperson as to how he should go about clearing his name.  If thatperson chooses, well I don't think really he can stand up everytime, but I would have thought that Mr Meintjies would, at somestage, put questions to such witness as shall have implicatedhis client.  Now he may succeed in so putting questions to theperson implicating his client.  He may succeed in showing thathis client is being wrongly implicated to such an extent thathe may see no need to put his client in the witness box to clearhis name.  And your suggestion has a further difficulty, if weallow Mr Meintjies to put questions to whatever witness, to oneof your clients on the understanding that he should put his clientin as a witness, what if he refuses later to put his client inas a witness?

UNKNOWN: Yes ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Quite clearly if he does not got into the boxand if all we are left with is no direct evidence from him butmerely a statement by his attorney or his counsel, when the timecomes to evaluate that evidence due regard will be taken of thatfact.

UNKNOWN: Yes I understand that completely.  Theonly reason why I raised this is to make this point clear thatthis is the attitude of Mr Meintjies.  I wanted to make our pointclear that we wanted Captain van Jaarsveldt from the beginningto give evidence and if he simply cross-examines
1B and/...
132
and puts the version I want the Commission to be clear on thesituation.  On that basis I will accept it.  Mr Chairman obviouslythe value of such statements we will then argue about that atthe end of the hearing.

CHAIRPERSON: Are we then ready to proceed wit this witness?

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman I am ready, I just want toplace one other aspect on record.  I was approached by certainmembers of the Press asking for copies of the applications andI just want to place on record that we have no obligation, theapplicants have no obligation to provide the Press with copiesof the applications.  The evidence will be read into the recordand it will be treated as evidence on that basis.  I just wantedto place that on record for purposes of the Press.  Thank youMr Chairman, may I go ahead.
 Brigadier you must help me I can't remember where we stopped,I think it was page 8, the second paragraph.  Could you startat the top of page 8.

UNKNOWN: The ANC/SACP alliance was supported by Easternblock countries and specifically the USSR.  It was general knowledgethat several activists left South Africa to undergo training abroadand to then return as trained terrorists, to commit acts of terrorin South Africa.
(The Interpreters cannot hear the witness properly)

CHAIRPERSON: Can you, unfortunately the Interpreters can'thear you so please talk a little more loudly.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Could you talk a little bit slower to enablethe translators to translate your statements properly.
(Could the witness please speak up the Interpreters are strugglingto hear him).  
 Sorry to interrupt you, would you please speak up, the 
1B translators/...
133 BRIG CRONJE
translators are unable to pick up your voice.

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman I will deal with it.

CHAIRPERSON: Please.
Mr du Plessis discusses with Brig Cronje regarding the sound