Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-11-19

UNKNOWN: Let me take 99 and 100 as read, except in 100 they might very well face prosecution on the fourth last line of the second paragraph, very well face prosecution, but for these applications they might well.
	Let us take the Rosskam incident for which no amnesty has been applied, but nevertheless we've had evidence.  They stole the money, there's a relevant factor that they were in it for the money.  Is that irrelevant?  And if that is admissible, why what happened in relation to Webster?  The general motives of what their activities in relation to the South West African situation was about Lubowski and we agree, Mr Chairman, that with respect, there have to be some limitations, but what we asked questions about were in relation to a limited period were a small number of the 170 odd projects and in respect of which one of the applicants made very relevant notes in his diary.  If we are to get the - how could they refuse if one of their main operatives makes notes in a diary in the course and scope of his employment, how can they refuse being parties to this conspiracy, how can they refuse to answer questions about Webster, about Lubowski, about all the other people whose names appear in that diary?  I'm sorry Webster doesn't appear, not refer to Lubowski by name, but by clear inference Mr Chairman, as my learned friend showed during the cross-examination.  And also, if they were - once they claim that they were merely monitoring him whilst he was in Johannesburg, why can't we ask searching questions and why can't they answer honestly what it is that they did in relation to it?  To merely say well because it was outside and because we chose not to apply for amnesty, this is the end of it.  Yes, Mr Chairman, that they couldn't get amnesty for things outside, we have indicated what applications for amnesty have been made, but on the question of relevance, Mr Chairman, the relevance is to be found in the Judgment of Motoung, which we refer to in page 55.  If you do things as a gang in furtherance of a conspiracy, you cannot say that what the gang did is irrelevant in relation to motive, circumstance.  We have - 	Then we deal with the credibility of witnesses Mr Chairman.  This really deals in detail ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I've just got one question on the credibility of witnesses, perhaps just before lunch.  Somewhere in the argument, correct me if I'm wrong, it was said that the applicants were not credible witnesses and the evidence of Verster should not be accepted and the same applying to Webb.  Now on the point of whether or not authority was given in respect of the Omar and Evans operations, Verster said Webb gave him authority, Webb says:  "I didn't give authority".  That's all that we have.  We haven't got any other evidence to suggest whether or not authority was given.  You've got to look to those two sets of evidence.  Now you've argued that we must find that Verster had no authority.

UNKNOWN: He has not proved it.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

UNKNOWN: But he has not proved that he had authority.

CHAIRPERSON: So now you want us - I just want to get your argument, you say that he must have ...(intervention)

UNKNOWN: I can understand and I have a submission to make.  You have two mutually destructive versions.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

UNKNOWN: There are some probabilities for the one version and some probabilities for the other, but I submit that they can cancel themselves out.  Firstly that there is something to be said in favour of General Webb that Verster hi-jacked - there was some evidence to support that.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, I think Mr Barnard was one of the proponents of that saying that ...(intervention)

UNKNOWN: Ja, but having observed him in the witness box, it's not an unfair comment to make on the overall, but on the other hand you have Webb to say that:  "The only thing that I did during my stewardship is to authorise hurriedly and get a bomb for the purpose or a trigger for the purpose in one incident only" which is highly improbable in the circumstances and they both refused to answer questions.  Under those circumstances you can believe neither the one nor the other.  Verster has applied for amnesty.  There is no credible evidence that he had the authority in accordance with the rules.  The suggestion made in argument that even if he didn't have the authority, he believed he had the authority is negative and we will give you a reference, if we haven't already done so, but he has actually said that he went and got authority.  It is quite bizarre to speculate that he thought he may have implied authority when he himself says:  "I went and got actual authority".  It's a complete nonsensical ...  So that we believe, or rather we submit that the proper finding in relation to that is that Webster has not, Webb has not applied for amnesty.  There are unsatisfactory features in his evidence, but on the question of whether he gave authority and not to Verster, we find that there is no credible evidence that he had authority from Webb and refuse the application for Verster on that and the other grounds.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.  I think that this might be a convenient time to take the lunch adjournment.  We've only got this afternoon left, I don't know how much longer you're going to be Mr Bizos, because there's Mr Hockey and then some reply.  I don't know, Ms Coleridge are you going to be making submissions?

UNKNOWN: What I would suggest Mr Chairman, that we do an audit during the lunch hour and we'll say well - you do not have to assure us that you will study it because it's quite clear that you have been through our argument.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we've been through it and we'll be going through it again.

UNKNOWN: And have, with respect, a grasp of, judging by your questions that have been asked, so that it isn't - we will not be able to complain that we were cut short.  Let us try and finish this afternoon, but we would like an audit during the lunch hour so that we can come back at what time we shall resume and say we want to draw special attention to this, that and the other.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes and then maybe if you could also talk with Mr Hockey and get some idea of how long Mr Hockey wants as well. ...(intervention)

UNKNOWN: Yes, so we'll leave some time for reply in order to finish it Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

UNKNOWN: A suggestion has been made which we have rejected.  We want to complete this matter, Mr Chairman, we don't want written Heads of Argument that we will have to look at, to be submitted by anybody in reply.  We must finish this.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

MR LAX: Sorry, then Mr Bizos ...(indistinct - mike not on)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, this is what we're ...

UNKNOWN: No we will not take more than ten minutes this afternoon.

MR LAX: Ten minutes?

CHAIRPERSON: It's on record Mr Bizos.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos.