Amnesty Hearings — Ermelo — 1998-07-22

CHAIRPERSON: I honestly don't follow you.  There is no intertwining of the two.  Those are two separate requirements.
	When you told us that the basis of your opposition was a lack of political motivation, I for one, accepted that you had no quarrel with the factual issues.
	All we needed to investigate was whether the commission of the offences was done with a political motive.  If he failed, if the applicant fails to persuade us and satisfy us that it was done with a political motive, then his application must fail.
	But it has nothing to do with the disclosure.  If he passes that test, then we must then enquire as to whether he has made full disclosure.  Quite distinct.

MR HATTINGH: Perhaps then my use of the word full disclosure in this respect, is not correct.  But the same word can be used for proving or disproving his political aims and objectives.
	To enable us to make a finding whether he in fact acted at the time in the furtherance of the aims of the ANC, we need to deal with the facts pertaining to those incidents and ...

ADV SANDI: You see the problem Mr Hattingh, is that you did not indicate from the beginning that that was one of the grounds of your opposition of his application and it was asked of you quite categorically on numerous occasions, on what ground is the application or applications being opposed and the only ground that was mentioned is the lack of political motivation.
	It would seem to me that you are now introducing a new ground of opposition?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, if I did say that, then I have to apologise.  When we discussed this whole issue whether I will indicate the grounds of my opposition, I distinctly remember I said as we carry on with each and every incident, and each and every applicant, I would indicate to the Committee what my grounds are.
	I did not at that time said on all the applicants, I would restrict myself to only the motives.  If I did so, I would like to retract that and I - then I made a mistake and I would rather then say that I do not base it only on their motives, but the way I see full disclosure is that I would then also base it on full disclosure.

CHAIRPERSON: The only way you can proceed to do so is with the help of those documents?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, when we commenced this Committee meeting on Monday, I already indicated to both yourself and the Evidence Leader that we required certain documentation which we did not have at the time, including police dockets and so forth, and court judgements.
	At this stage we have been placed in possession of the two documents I am referring to now and which I would like to submit now from the Evidence Leader.  At this stage we have not received any other documentation and in particular not any police dockets pertaining to these incidents, which would enable us to see what occurred at the time.

CHAIRPERSON: You see Mr Hattingh, my problem is that it seems to me that we are on a one big fishing expedition here, because we don't know how to oppose the application.
	We are looking for all types of things like previous records, etc to maybe, perhaps sow a seed of doubt.  We are not about that.
	If your clients have concrete reasons to believe that it is good enough reason to oppose the application, one, because of a lack of political motivation, or two, that not everything or the applicant is not disclosing everything in its true context, fine, but for them to give you instructions to come and see if you can find things to oppose, when are we going to finish?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, I appreciate that.  I think in the instance of this particular applicant, no doubt he was convicted for those offences which he now admit, so we are not fishing for something which does not exist.  That is the first point I would like to make.
	The second point is, if in fact I was fishing for information, I did in fact catch two big fish then because I have something which I believe is relevant for this matter and if we carry on with this hearing without the full perspective, then we might as well sit back and listen to the applicant and that will be the end of it.
	Then there will be no need ...

CHAIRPERSON: Because your clients do not have any information at hand that can even suggest that the applicant is not making full disclosure, is that not so?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, if I may respond.  There may very well be instances where a family member was killed by an applicant for no apparent reason.  We cannot submit any evidence, we cannot call on any witnesses, we cannot do anything to oppose the killing of a family member for no apparent reason, but still I believe that the victims are entitled to say well, our opposing of the applicant's application, we cannot say exactly on what basis, but we say at least we would like to know why he did it, full disclosure, and if there was a political aim.

CHAIRPERSON: So, then he comes here and he says look, I am a member of Umkhonto weSizwe, I did certain things in the furtherance of my instructions.  One of my instructions were to beat or kill Mr X.  Mr X was a member of an opposing political party and he was doing this, that and the other against the community.
	He comes to submit this and your clients are unable to initially tell you and even at that stage, tell you look, we want to know what happened, and now they are being told.  On what basis can they oppose it, because they have no concrete information to oppose it?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, if we say we just have to accept the version of the applicant at this stage, then it would negate the necessity of the purpose of cross-examination, then we ...

CHAIRPERSON: Cross-examination is not a matter that must follow.  If there is nothing to cross-examine about, then you don't cross-examine.  Not so?

MR HATTINGH: But if we have every belief that the version as submitted by the applicant or at least some elements thereof, the political part, is a fabrication of the event, how are we then to test that or oppose that.
	If we have instructions or believe that it is a fabrication of the event.

CHAIRPERSON: Now we are coming to the crux of the matter then.   If you have a belief, that belief must be based on some concrete evidence, not so?
	It wouldn't exist, that belief wouldn't exist if you didn't know anything about it, and if there is a reason such as I have just described, please carry on.
	But to state that look I need this document to find out if he has in fact made full disclosure, suggests to me that there is nothing to rely on.

MR HATTINGH: As I have already explained, I believe that there are circumstances where you don't really have available any witnesses or any instructions to the contrary, but still you have a tremendous amount of proof which is available and which does form part of the Amnesty Committee's documentation that the version is not true, it is a fabrication of the event.

CHAIRPERSON: Just to avoid any misunderstanding, the fact that certain documents form part of a bundle that was made up by the TRC, doesn't mean that the truth of the contents of those documents forming the bundle, is accepted by anybody. It should not be construed that way.

MR HATTINGH: I accept that, but what I am saying is that at least one should be given the opportunity of putting it to the applicant and allowing him the chance to respond to that and to comment on that and not just to take it off the table and say we are not considering whatsoever ...

CHAIRPERSON: Maybe, why don't you put to him that it is alleged that he is supposed to have made certain pointings out, was it correct or does he agree with it or doesn't he agree.
	Depending on his answer, you can take it further.  But to produce a document like that in the circumstances, I am not too sure how it came into being, and I am not happy at this stage to accept that everything was okay with the drafting of that document.  Then you can proceed on that basis.