Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1996-05-13

N JACK MENERA: Yes I escaped and I went back to the Brandfort township and I hid myself at Tom Jacob's house who is a civic leader. I spent my time at his  home, it was on a Thursday evening and Friday morning the chairperson of the African National Congress, Comrade Bosman arrived at the place where I was hiding and I told him the situation, and I told him that I wanted to go to Johannesburg and I didn't have money for transport. Then they couldn't get me transport on Friday, not on Saturday but on Sunday they organised me transport. Unfortunately the person they were negotiating with for transport heard where I was but before he could do anything he started at the police and he told them that at a certain time I'm going to collect Jack. Now wait for us on the way. It happened just that way.  He collected me and we used the normal route out of Brandfort and we joined the main road to Welkom.  Between Brandfort an Theunissen there was a road block by the police.  That was my arrest, taken to maximum prison Grootvlei.
	I want to comment about this.  During our trial, I believe what I'm telling you is not new, it's the truth and it's even on the tapes.  I explained to the court about myself and my co-accused that we were members of the African National Congress.  We committed this act because of the reasons I've already put before the Commission and that Mr Phelane did not want to resign as a councillor.  Mr Morgan Phelane was asked by my advocate Essop Patel and he said Mr Phelane you yourself are of the ANC. Mr Phelane said no he had never joined politics, he rejected that. I was very shocked because Mr Phelane was an old man and he was a priest and he was telling lies that he never took part in politics, whereas the whole of Brandfort township knew him as a leader of the people.

UNKNOWN: You're going too fast now, will you please go slower, the Commissioners have to take notes.

N JACK MENERA: Mr Phelane rejected that in court, he said he'd never been involved in politics.  Now the advocate asked him the question about our arrest in Grootvlei maximum prison under the state of emergency together with him Mr Phelane rejected that he was arrested for political issues.  He said he was arrested for other things.

UNKNOWN: Just try and be slow and speak soft ...(indistinct).

N JACK MENERA: Please forgive me Mr Memani and the Commissioners.  This is how I am.  If you do not know me you will think I am emotional and yet not. This is how I express myself, please do forgive me. I want to explain a few points that we noticed during the judgement when this case was presented.  Mr Phelane explained that he had never been involved in politics in Brandfort, and we asked him, Mr Phelane, why did you refuse to resign as a councillor while the other members resigned?  His answer was, my colleagues who were councillors were intimidated by the youth.  He explained it , he gave it a certain name and he said he wasn't going to be intimidated by children.  This shocked me because in 1986 we were detained with Mr Phelane under the state of emergency.  I remember very well. I'm not mistaken.
	When he addressed the people who were arrested for the state of emergency, he said he was a member of the ANC and SACP from 1948, if not mistaken, 1958 and I was now shocked when he was telling his ...(indistinct) before the judge that he never took part in the peoples' struggle. The cassette was reminded about the discussions I had with him about burning the police houses.  I did many things that I planned with him, I'll give you an example.

JUDGE WILSON: Is this relevant? If so tell me why.

UNKNOWN: I am pondering the point Mr Chairman.  However the difficult that I have at this stage is that it has a tendency to suggest that Mr Phelane testified during the trial and when he testified during the trial, he told some lies, and that might have some kind of relevance taking into account that he is here and Mr Menera is likely to be cross examined on what occurred at the trial.  It is for that ...(intervention).

ADV DE JAGER: But didn't everybody tell lies at the trial?

UNKNOWN: I wouldn't like to say what he is saying about this but what I'm saying is regarding what he's testifying about at the moment, it tends to suggest that Mr Phelane told a lie and I'm also alive to the fact that he's likely to be cross examined about what was said at the trial.  It is for that reason that I haven't stopped him from saying these things because he's now telling us what occurred at the trial as well and...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: But he's not being very truthful about it, is he?  If you look at the judgement you'll see that Mr Phelane said he had been engaged in politics  from 1939 to 1950, he'd been a member of the communist party.  Your client says he said he was never involved in politics.  That's not true is it?

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairperson, these are matters that have to be dealt with, I think by way of cross examination or by way of seeking clarifications from the Bench. What I'm saying, and the question that I'm responding to is your question as to whether is there any relevance to these proceedings.

JUDGE WILSON: He's now not telling us about what happened at the trial, he is telling us about acts that he alleged that he committed in conjunction with Mr Phelane isn't he?  He's gone beyond the trial, he's now starting to tell you about acts that he allegedly committed, which have nothing to do with the trial.

ADV DE JAGER: And perhaps he should recognise that he's not applying for those acts and he's revealing acts that he's not being prosecuted for as far as I know and he's not asking for amnesty for those acts.

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairperson, with due respect, I think the Committee is kind of asking me to sensor the applicant.

JUDGE WILSON: Not to sensor but merely to lead evidence as to which is relevant to the proceedings before us and which is of the interests of your client. If he wants to now start confessing to offences for which he cannot claim amnesty, the cut-off date having passed, let him go on.

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairperson I think the crux of the matter here is whether the evidence, the main thrust of his evidence is relevant and I'm saying that will be determined by your attitude to the matter, whether he is at any stage going to be asked about what occurred at the trial because we are understanding that he is now going to what occurred at the trial.  He says at the trial, Mr Phelane lied, he said he was not an activist when I knew him to be an activist and I was involved with him...(intervention).

JUDGE WILSON: But he didn't go on and tell us about his activities now, the acts he committed with Mr Phelane...(intervention)

UNKNOWN: At the same time Mr Chair, I kind of agree that we must draw some line at some point, and this is what I see as a function of the Committee rather than my function.

JUDGE WILSON: Which is precisely why I asked you what the relevance of what he was now saying was, because it is our function.  If he wants to now tell us about acts, criminal acts that he committed, please let him do so, he's your client.

UNKNOWN: Mr Menera, let us stop where you stopped.  That is the evidence Mr Chairman.