Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1997-03-27

JUDGE WILSON: When you read two, two, page, the first page, he talks about the trial that is pending where he is going to prosecute.  Is it fair to read it, put in letters written from someone who has a very real interest in the matter if you are not going to call him?

ADV DE JAGER: Mr de Ru, I think the essence of what is being said is that the Attorney-General came to a conclusion that your acts were not politically motivated.  You now mention it, but during the trial you never mentioned it.

MR DE RU: You are quite correct, yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Given the facts of, the facts, the disposal of the person writing this letter, do you think it was fair that he could draw such a conclusion?  Do you agree with the conclusion?

MR DE RU: It was based only on the trial in front of him, yes.  The conclusion was made based on the trial, yes, then it is quite fair.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Mr Chairman, I just want to state this to the Chair and the Committee, with respect, that this letter was written by the Attorney-General in response to the letter sent to him asking for the judgment in the case where Mr de Ru was convicted and the case numbers were mentioned as you can see on page one thereof.  The heading states, "Amnesty Applications de Ru, case numbers 9/93 and 12/ 94".  These are finalised matters and he is commenting on the finalised matters, Mr Chairman ...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: Have you ...(intervention)

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: ... but I will ...

JUDGE WILSON: Have you read paragraph nine (indistinct), Mr Mpshe, (indistinct) after the (indistinct)?  How can you put something like that into (indistinct)?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: What about that portion, Mr Chairman?  He is simply stating what, what ...

JUDGE WILSON: Mr Mpshe, please speak into your microphone.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: He is stating his opinion about the applicant.

JUDGE WILSON: But he is not a witness, he is not a witness.  How can you put his opinion in before us?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Mr Chairman, I have never referred the Committee to paragraph nine and I ...

JUDGE WILSON: You have, have you not read the conclusion, "I wish to state I have come to know the applicant quite well in the course of four years"?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Indeed, Mr Chairman, that, but that is when I was addressing the Chair when the Chair said the author ...

JUDGE WILSON: Yes.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: ... of this letter did not prosecute so I had to refer to this ...

JUDGE WILSON: Yes.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: ... in order to clarify the Chair's point.

JUDGE WILSON: You are putting it before us without calling him as a witness.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: It was, it was solicited by the Chair.  I was having ...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: The letter was not solicited by me, Mr Mpshe.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: No, not the letter.

JUDGE WILSON: It was to clarify you.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Paragraph nine, ...

JUDGE WILSON: Yes.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: ... the section that I read was solicited by the Chair.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: I was clarifying the Chair.

JUDGE WILSON: I am asking how you can put a letter like this up before us if you are not going to call the author as a witness, where he expresses opinions?

JUDGE MGOEPE: Mr Mpshe, is it not so that we have on many, we have, as a matter of practice, adopted practice that in matters where persons have been convicted, we sought the views of the Attorney-Generals as to whether or not the matter could have been politically motivated?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: That is so, that is a practice that has been followed.

JUDGE MGOEPE: And we have, we got quite a few of them.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: That is so and this letter is based on that practice that we have been following all the time.

MR MADASA: Mr Chair if I may come in.  Be that as it may, my objection still is that it is unfair to put this question to the applicant because the opinions of the Attorney-General, which he wrote down, were as a result of the information he had during the trial and that information excluded what the applicant is testifying now before the Committee.  So he was not aware of the facts which now have been divulged before the Commission.  So it is unfair to put that question to the applicant because the Attorney-General was not aware of what he is now telling the Committee.

JUDGE WILSON: It may not be unfair, but it seems to be a complete and utter waste of time.  When the Attorney-General tells us that he has evidence disclosing that it was
committed with a political purpose because he has evidence.  Here we are being asked about conclusions drawn from the evidence and from the judgment.  Mr Mpshe wants to put it, he has put it.  The witness has agreed that those conclusions are entirely right in the light of the evidence that was led at his trial and the attitude he adopted.  Where do we go from there?

JUDGE MGOEPE: Sorry, it depends on whether or not the, it will not always be unfair to put something to an applicant, because the office of the Attorney-General may be possessed of some information which can be valuable and if he gives us some information we will, we could put that to the witness and find out what his comments were as I am indeed going now to do in that very letter which was written by the Attorney-General.  What page is that, Mr Mpshe?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: I was referring to page 32.  32, if the Chair is looking for what, where I was.

JUDGE MGOEPE: I do not have the copy of the judgment here, Mr de Ru.  I read from paragraph eight and the following that, it reads,
"During Mr de Ru's first trial his defence was simply that he had at all times acted in accordance with the provisions of section (this and that) but that he was being framed by members"
and the word framed is being underlined, 
"..that he was being framed by members of the Security Police because of his investigation into the so-called Three Million gang".
What I want to know from you is whether it is true that during the trial you said that you had been framed by members of the Security Police?  Did you say that during the trial?

MR DE RU: Yes, I did say that, your Honour.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Thank you.  Before I leave that, is that
still your view, that you were framed by the Security Police?

MR DE RU: Your Honour, let me put it in such a way, not with regard to these two applications.  There are others that will be submitted to the Truth Commission where I will elaborate on these incidents.  It is not something that I ask amnesty for.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Well, which was your first trial?

MR DE RU: It is the two that you have in front of you now.  That is the first trial.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Is it Mofokeng or the Rampalile?

MR DE RU: Yes, they were both heard in one trial.  It was charges one, two and three.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Now, I am now asking you in respect of these matters which you have already testified before us and it seems in respect of those matters you say that you had been framed by the Security Police.

MR DE RU: Yes, that is so.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Now, I want to know from you whether in respect of these matters that you have already testified about before us, you are still of the view that you were framed by the Security Police?

MR DE RU: No, not.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Thank you.  Did you, in your representations to the Minister of Justice, still say that you had been framed by the Security Police?

MR DE RU: I did make mention of that.

JUDGE WILSON: Page 127, 127 and it is at page 130.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Were you then asking, for what, for amnesty or indemnity or what was the purpose of this representation?

MR DE RU: Your Lordship, the plan, the intention of this
request was......

JUDGE MGOEPE: Now, when was this letter written, I do not see the date here.

MR DE RU: It was on the 5th of July 1994.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Did, did you, did you disclose in this letter or did you say in this letter as to what the motive was for the killing of the people as you are now telling us?