Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-05-11

GEORGE BIZOS: Yes, Mr Chairman.   Then, as far as question no 3 is concerned, the answer given on page 112, paragraph 9 is
"This request is the subject of legal argument which will be advanced at the appropriate time during the course of the proceedings."
Again hardly a helpful response in the circumstances Mr Chairman.  The same answer is given on the same page 112, in answer to paragraph 4 on page 3, and paragraph 5 on page 4.  So that our attempt to define the issues and possibly save time thereby has failed.  It may not be too late, Mr Chairman, because our learned friends may be persuaded that they ought to respond meaningfully to this during the course of the proceedings.  
	I may say right at the outset, Mr Chairman, that we will object to any court time being sought in order to do this.  We are anxious to conclude the matter as soon as possible.  What I mean by that is that they may want to make use of the court hours, the time, in order to really try and define the issues before the Committee.  They're not obliged to do it, however, Mr Chairman, but we thought that we would draw your attention to that fact.
	Now, we ask in paragraph 6 what each of the objectors must specify whether the said objector intends to be present and to testify at the hearing of the applicants for amnesty, what evidence the said objector intends to adduce at the hearing, what article or articles the said objector intends to submit at the hearing to be taken into consideration.  
	May I indicate, Mr Chairman, that the spirit in which these questions were asked was not to tie the objectors down to anything specific to which they did not want be specific about, but rather we hoped that if the information was given, we may be able to admit if we were given for instance medical records that this person was shot in the thigh or in the knee and if we could go outside court hours investigate this matter, we could make admissions which would may have been unnecessary for witnesses to be called.  However, we failed in that endeavour to shorten the proceedings as well.  
	Now, in relation to part B, on page 5, Mr Chairman, we also asked for admissions.  Firstly that the transcripts identified below accurately record the conversation and speeches of referred to therein, noting in certain instances the third transcripts do not cover the entire conversation or speech concerned and that such transcripts can be used at the hearing without further proof.  
	Firstly, the SAP radio reports, channel 27, on the 28th of March 1994, here we are pleased to inform the Committee that there has been a helpful response by the objectors in that they admit that what is referred to as "channel 27", which is an important document and which was an important document at the inquest but which unfortunately was only produced by those who had possession of it, the police, in July after the inquest had been going on for a number of months but it does contain important information.  I am corrected, Mr Chairman, on page 94 of this bundle you will find that Mr Wilsenach who appears for some of the objectors, the firm of attorneys for the objectors, they admitted Mr Chairman, on page 94 in paragraph 1.1.1 - it's particularly Dr van Wyk, Mr Chairman, who's is appearing here, who made that admission.  On page 5, that's page 5 of our documents, Mr Mosselson, by way of contrast - or Mosselsons by way of contrast, in paragraph F on page 114, paragraph 15 there says -
"The objectors are not in a position to either deny or admit the documents referred to in paragraph 1.1 to 1.9 of the request."
So that we are in a position that you will see on page 5, 6 up to top of page 7 that Mosselson could not admit or deny any of the matters that we asked for, we therefor have to prove them, Mr Chairman.  
	In relation to the radio channel 27, again we would urge that the legal representatives in consonance with their duty to the Committee and possibly to their clients, that the matter of the proof of that recording should possibly be admitted as the other matters that we have referred to, so that we can make some progress Mr Chairman.
	Then, in paragraph 2 of page 7 of our request -
"That the gathering at Library Gardens on the 28th of March 1994 and the marches associated therewith, took place at the instance of the IFP."
We would have thought Mr Chairman, that that matter could easily have been admitted but it has not.  The objectors represented by Dr van Wyk cannot - they deny it outright at page 95, paragraph 1.2 and Mosselson cannot admit or deny it, at page 114, paragraph 16.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

GEORGE BIZOS: It's 114, paragraph 16.

GEORGE BIZOS: Now, I would like to now introduce, Mr Chairman and members of the Committee, the bundle that we handed in this morning headed "Bundle submitted by the applicants", and I would suggest, with respect, that this should be bundle B.
	Let us see what the applicants deny - yes, and it consists of documents from page 1 to page 253.  It may become necessary, Mr Chairman, to add documents to it.  We will ask that they be numbered consecutively.  Now, remember, Mr Chairman, what the question we asked was on page 2 of page 7 - please turn to page 2 of bundle B.  The question was -
"That the gathering at the Library Gardens on the 28th of March 1994, and the marches associated therewith took place at the instance of the IFP."
The one says that they deny it, the other says that they have no knowledge.  I am going to refer to documents which are, and have been available to the objectors Mr Chairman, at least since the beginning of 1977, 1997 - it only ages me Mr Chairman, or shows my age - sorry, if I'm twenty years out sometimes, please feel free to correct me.  
	Now, here we have a document which has been in their possession since the beginning of 1997 when the documents were distributed by the Attorney-General from whose possession they came, and they were made available to all the parties.  It's on the letterhead of the Inkatha Freedom Party, it is signed by Mr Humphrey Ndlovu, whom I may say one or - I think he had separate counsel for himself but they worked in close co-operation with our learned friends who appear for the objectors: 
"I hereby wish to ask for permission for the IFP launch of its anti-election campaign at the Johannesburg Library grounds on Monday the 28th of March 1994.  This gathering will be peaceful and will be from 09h00 - 14h00.  Approximately 20 000 people will be attending this launch.  Your assistance will be highly appreciated.  Yours in the continuous search for peace and democracy in our country.
		Mr Humphrey Ndlovu - IFP : West Rand - Chairperson."
	Now, if we go to page 3, "Name of the Organisation", you will see on the application form:
"To the Magistrate"
in Johannesburg.  
"Name of the Organisation - Inkatha Freedom Party - IFP"
and the address of the IFP right on top.  
	Now, Mr Chairman, the absence of this admission and a fiction which has been created that the IFP had nothing to do with this march, is a deliberate smoke-screen in order to avoid responsibility for what happened on the 28th of March 1994, and we don't intend leading viva voce evidence in relation to whose march it was, unless Mr Chairman, specific evidence is led by the objectors to contradict this documentation that we have put before you.  We submit that the section requires you to hear evidence and receive information.  We have given the information, we have said where it comes from, we do not want to take up time, through calling the Magistrate or anyone else.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]