Amnesty Hearings — Pretoria — UNKNOWN

MR BOTHA: Thank you, Mr Chairman.   Mr Chairman, I had a look at Mr Prinsloo's intentions on behalf of the first applicant.   My respectful submission is that at this stage there is no real reason and no real real reason for this, as he describes it as a mistake, and that should be clarified, why is there such a mistake on the documents, and this mistake goes to the essence of this whole hearing.   Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I agree with my learned colleague.   I would like to lead evidence, but that will have to take place with your permission, because that is actually in the nature of evidence in chief, and therefore I would have to ask permission from you to find out whether I can deal with this matter.

CHAIRPERSON: It is in order.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Chairperson.

JAMES WHEELER: (still under oath)

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Wheeler, is it correct that this application form of yours was drafted in consultation with your legal representatives?

JAMES WHEELER: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Is it correct that you considered the questions in paragraphs 11(a) and 11(b) of the application form?

JAMES WHEELER: That's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: When the form was completed, the answer to 11(a) was "no"?

JAMES WHEELER: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Can you recall what the motive was at that stage why the correct answer to this question in 11(a) was "no"?

JAMES WHEELER: I misinterpreted the question and I thought they, or I thought it referred to whether there was money involved.

MR PRINSLOO: Is it correct that as far as 11(b) is concerned, that you read 11(b) with 11(a)?

JAMES WHEELER: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And did the question in 11(a) have any effect on your interpretation of 11(b)?

JAMES WHEELER: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Can you recall how you reasoned at that stage, why 11(b) or why 11(a) had an effect on your answer in 11(b), or otherwise, the other way round?

JAMES WHEELER: If I'd said yes in the previous one, then that would have implied that we would have had to give them names of the people, because I misinterpreted it in the previous question, I thought that it referred to money being involved and that's the reason why I thought it had to be answered in that way, I thought it would cause a big misunderstanding.

MR PRINSLOO: Was there any issue of you having argued that there was a direct order being given for the commission of the offence which you committed?

JAMES WHEELER: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Please listen to my question carefully, did you at any stage consider to say in this application that somebody gave you a direct order to commit this specific offence and kill this specific person?

JAMES WHEELER: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Is it also so that the portion which appears on page 5 of this application at the top of the page, that that portion was completed simultaneously with the rest of the application?

JAMES WHEELER: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: That also includes the portion which appears on page 5, I quote, it's the fourth line from the bottom, the typed version
"In that way I wanted to, in respect of the political struggle of the AWB and the CP, SACP, I wanted to promote that political struggle."
It included that part as well?

JAMES WHEELER: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: That is then the evidence in respect of this aspect of Mr Wheeler's application.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR PRINSLOO: I submit, Chairperson, that as far as the application for amendment is concerned, that it appears very clearly from the top portion of page 5 that in reality there is no misunderstanding as far as the correct interpretation of the application as a whole.   I want to emphasise the sentence that I've quoted, that it had to have followed logically that that would have been the answer, if there was no interpretation problem, then the answer in view of what the applicant had said at the top of page 5 must, the answer must have been yes, that is the answer now to 11(a), there can be no other logical conclusion, because these two things, as they stand, are contradictory and in view of this it can have no prejudicial consequences for any interested parties if this amendment is granted.   It is actually self-evident.

MR BOTHA: Thank you, Mr Chairman.   Mr Chairman ...(intervention).

INTERPRETER: Speaker's microphone.

MR BOTHA: ...my argument on this point over until the end of these proceedings, regarding this, especially there's a few questions that still has to be asked pertaining to this.  How can he think that this was, this meant something to do that he, that there was money involved, but with your permission I will hold it over for argument at the end of the proceedings.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Prinsloo, it doesn't really have much effect whether the application to amend is granted or refused at this stage or at a later stage, would you agree with that?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, Mr Chairman, I just wanted to do it earlier rather than later, to not create the wrong impression.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: But I agree with you, with respect.

CHAIRPERSON: What would your attitude be to Mr Botha putting a few questions to Mr Wheeler at this stage?   It might save making an application to recall him later on this point, as to how he could make that mistake, I think, would you have any objection to that?

MR PRINSLOO: No objections.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Botha, would you like to ask some questions now at this stage?   It might save some time later.

MR BOTHA: Yes.   Yes, I will do it now.   Thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR BOTHA: Mr Wheeler, your explanation is that this question 11(a), you interpreted it to refer to  financial reward or interest.   If you read question 11(a)
"Was the act, commission or offence carried out in the execution of an order of or on behalf of or with the approval of the particular organisation, institution, body, liberation movement, State department or security force?"
And your answer was initially no.   How could you have interpreted this question as referring to any financial reward?

JAMES WHEELER: Maybe I can explain it like this, when I drafted these documents, I was still in prison, and I read through it very briefly, and that's how I interpreted it.

MR BOTHA: You say you read it briefly, when was that?

JAMES WHEELER: I really can't tell you at this stage.

MR BOTHA: 27th of March 1997, that was the date on which the statement was attested to.   Was it more or less at that stage?

JAMES WHEELER: It's possible.

MR BOTHA: And in this period of almost a year, you haven't realised this mistake before, it's only now that you realised this mistake?

JAMES WHEELER: As I said in my affidavit, I apologise for misunderstanding, and this is something that we actually just didn't notice, due to an oversight.  After we sent these documents away, I never again read through it, I just assumed that what I wrote down here was correct.

MR BOTHA: Can you remember today what you thought at that stage, a year ago?

JAMES WHEELER: No.

MR BOTHA: Then how can you tell the committee today that you at that stage thought there was an issue of money involved and that the question referred to money?

JAMES WHEELER: It may be one of the thoughts that entered my mind, and what I thought was that nobody had offered me any money to commit this act, I hadn't received anything from the movement, and that is why I interpreted it in this way.

MR BOTHA: So you're saying that it could have been something that you thought about a year ago.   Could one of the other thoughts that came to you not have been that it was indeed so that the act had not been committed with the approval of the organisation?

JAMES WHEELER: No.   We mention in the paragraph above that, it was simply a matter of an oversight.

MR BOTHA: No further questions on this particular point.