Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1997-03-27

JUDGE MGOEPE: Is the truth not going to implicate them?  They were absolved then because the truth was not revealed.  I have not read what is going to be said, but I assume that when an applicant makes, applies for amnesty he, in most instances, the version that was given then would be different from the version that he will be giving now, in the sense that the version we are going to receive now would be the truth.  Now, they might have been resolved on the basis of the previous version, but are they now not going to be implicated by the new and truthful version?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman.  Mr Chairman, the truth will not make them implicated because the Attorney-General, when I discussed with him this morning in the presence of my learned friend he said at the trial, as State witnesses, they told the whole truth, how they were involved in this and what they have done and the applicant also stated that he does not, he, by mentioning them here, he is not implicating them because they have said what they know which was the truth at the trial.  So what the applicant will say today will confirm what they told the court as Section 204 witnesses.  I do not know whether I am clear.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Well, I understand you.

JUDGE WILSON: I noticed that while you were saying that the applicant was nodding his head.  I take it from that you mean that you will not be giving any evidence today that will conflict with the evidence they gave at your trial in respect of their behaviour.

MR DE RU: Your Honour, I confirm.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: And further, Mr Chairman, to complete on this, this will be the only incident that we are going to deal with.  At the end of the evidence on this aspect, then the application will stop as agreed upon.

JUDGE WILSON: Defeating the ends of justice.

MR MADASA: As agreed earlier on, defeating ends of justice is not going to be dealt with as a separate application.  It is part and parcel of the reconstruction of the scenes which the applicant has already referred to earlier on.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Mr Chairman, if I may, may ...

JUDGE WILSON: Carry on.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: If I may, Mr Chairman, may I request that my learned friend confirms what I have just put on record, Mr Chairman, please.

MR MADASA: I confirm it, Mr Chair.

JUDGE WILSON: Do I understand, do I understand correctly that the charge of defeating the ends of justice were the falsification of the reports made about the killings?

MR MADASA: That is correct, Mr Chair.

JUDGE WILSON: Thanks.

MR DE RU: Your Honour, I would just like to add that it was not with regard to the murders.  I was convicted with regard to defeating the ends of justice, it was on culpable
homicide, it was not with regard to the specific murder on the plot.  The defeating the ends of justice was because of changing of the evidence on the scene.

ADV DE JAGER: Could you just draw the microphone closer to you.

MR DE RU: Should I repeat?  The charge of defeating the ends of justice, that was there the scene was changed.  It was not with regard to culpable homicide.

JUDGE WILSON: The scene of the culpable homicide, that scene was changed?

ADV DE JAGER: I cannot hear him speaking.

MR DE RU: Yes, that was also changed, but I was not convicted on that.

JUDGE WILSON: Well, what were you convicted, of changing the scene where?

MR DE RU: That was on the murder charge and I am going to testify about that now.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Sorry, who was the victim, the victim?

MR DE RU: Zachariah Mofokeng.

MR MADASA: Please carry on, Mr de Ru, with the second incident.