Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-10-19

CHAIRPERSON: To what extent do you rely on the fact that he too also has done something that he was told to do?

MS VAN DER WALT: I most definitely support it.  In fact his evidence is of such a nature that he has discussed it with Brig Goosen and that he told him to do so.  That is according to the evidence from all the applications and that is how it is discussed and I would like to put it to you that he has never done it of his own accord, he was told to do so.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - mike not on)

MS VAN DER WALT: My sympathies go to the family.  I think it must have been a very traumatic experience if you didn't know what happened to a family member.  However, what does bother me with regard to this whole aspect, I think if one looks into all the statements of the family, it points to a degree of payment, because there are family members involved and children involved.  The documents are referred to, towards the end, the print-outs on page 137 and the fact that what was very interesting in terms of Mr Madondo was the fact that the registration plates, that BK something, she refers to it in her statement that she makes to Priscilla Jana, she repeats those letters here again and all of us know that in 1979 those number plates never existed.  Then read together with what is stated on page 137, there has to be doubt in one's mind as to what really happened to Oupa Madondo, because what would the police do with Oupa Madondo since September 1979 until,  let us accept my client's version that it must have been the second part of 1980, I think Mr van Zyl also linked it to certain other cases.

CHAIRPERSON: He linked it to one April.

MS VAN DER WALT: Even one April is a long time and somewhere something must have gone wrong because the implication is that Oupa Madondo was not the ordinary illiterate prisoner because he knew about his rights, he complained at the Magistrate and something must have shown there.  If the police were to have kept him for such a long time, they must have kept him somewhere and there was nothing in the evidence to speak against this and the fact that there was a ruling on one day and the next day we had the operation.  That is what I would like to say as regards the application or the fact that the family is against the application.  That is what it is all about.  But like you have said, if my client's version is accepted as to why this was done, then it would make no difference.

MR LAX: Ms van der Walt how about the possibility that all of them were actually slightly wrong and that it happened late 1979?  Mr Schoon thought it was, it happened in the very early eighties.  If it happened at that stage, your problem is actually non-existent because then he was detained for a long time.

MS VAN DER WALT: Yes, Sir, I do listen to you, but if you look at the application then it is quite clear from it that my two clients were not in contact with Mr Gold at all and nor with Mr van Zyl.  The applications were done by different people in different parts of the country and then the possibility does exist that all of them would say 1980 in their applications, especially if you look at Mr van Zyl and I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that I think he was a remarkable witness and my client really could not remember, but Mr van Zyl in that regard was a superb witness, because those things he could recall, he did so and he coupled them to certain instances  and times and then I would accept that it was in 1980.  I don't think all of them would make the same mistake.
	Further, I don't know whether you would like to hear anything else from me as regards this aspect.

CHAIRPERSON: I think one does accept the problem that the witnesses had with regard to time and even the family of, they even have indicated that this happened years ago and one couldn't expect one to remember all these dates unless something really got stuck in one's mind.

MS VAN DER WALT: That is true.  I did speak this morning to the other legal representatives.  It was not placed on record, I should have done so, but Mr Visser had a brain operation.  I have handled two applications of his which were very good.  I do not always want to come up with excuses which is why I haven't placed it.  Next time I will remember about them, but really I felt sorry for him because he simply couldn't remember and I do know that the photographs, like I have said, were faxed to us.  We never really saw the originals, but there is no real reason as to why he should shy away if this were to be Oupa Madondo.  I think he really cannot remember, he cannot remember the person's name and as to what is in this bundle, he cannot identify him according to that information.                                                 	I would furthermore like to say to you that he does apply with the law.  I do believe that his evidence was convincing.  I must say that it sounds very strict.  I should try to say in English that he did reveal all the facts satisfactorily and that he would adhere to Section 20 (ii) (b) as well as (f).  I would then, what you have mentioned to Mr Booyens, in terms of that I have also asked you that should you consider to give amnesty to both him and Mr Schoon, that they should receive amnesty as to any murder of that person.  Perhaps that can be cleared with Mr Meyer later on.  I haven't said anything about Mr Schoon.  I think his part was of such a nature that as he was saying here, it was confirmed now, therefore I don't think there was anything else that I can elaborate on as regards his evidence.  Thank you very much.

MS SAMUEL: Thank you Mr Chairman.  Unfortunately I'm not in a position to argue this matter.  May I be granted an indulgence in regard to the argument of the matter to be held over until we have listened to Mr Meyer who in fact positively identified the deceased as being Scorpion or alternatively Oupa Madondo.  Also if Mr Visser would be given an opportunity, I'm sure an adjournment, if granted, will give Mr Visser an opportunity to look at proper photos of the deceased and maybe then it will jog his memory as to whether we are talking about the same Mr Madondo, alias Scorpion.  Also what is
very important is the evidence of Mr Des Carr.  I think only after we have listened to Mr Des Carr's evidence will we be representing the victims only, the victims will be in a position to argue for or against the granting of amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: So at this stage you're not saying you're opposing and you are not saying you're not opposing.

MS SAMUEL: At this stage we are uncertain, at this stage looking at the evidence we are uncertain as to whose application we should in fact oppose because clearly there are some persons here who did not even know, they just merely followed instructions like the blowing up of the body.  One cannot reasonably expect to oppose such an application because it seemed like it was from higher authority and they made full disclosure.  However, in regard to Mr Visser's application, there might definitely be reason to oppose his application.  In the circumstances, only after listening to all the evidence will we be able to make some certain decision as to our application.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.  I'll note it.  Mr Mapoma, any suggestions at this stage?