Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — UNKNOWN

ANSWER: Sir this took place in a very short space of time, stabbing him, by the time he fell I looked around for Johnny Mohani and I found, I didn't find him next to me and I found him inside the house because this incident took place in front of the house.   I called him and saw that he was already inside the house.

JUDGE WILSON: He was involved in the struggle, got stabbed, and then just left you struggling with Mr Lourens and went into the house.   Is that to get the money you'd come to steal?

ANSWER: Yes I assume so.

JUDGE WILSON: As far as he was concerned you were taking care of Mr Lourens and he'd get the money, is that the position?

ANSWER: I would say that was probably his intention.

JUDGE WILSON: He knew you were stabbing Mr Lourens at the time?

ANSWER: I would say so sir.

MR DE WET-MARAIS: Mr Chairman I have no re-examination but before this witness stands down I want to place certain matters on record with regard to the drafting of his affidavit, since there has appeared contradictions between the evidence of this witness and the contents of his affidavit and it could be necessary for him to confirm certain of the matters that I place on record inasfar as they fall within his knowledge.   Mr Chairman since August
2a	1996 /...
MR DE WET-MARAIS	239	ADDRESS
1996, my instructing attorney Mr Knight has endeavoured to get instructions and funding for this matter through the police where Nofomela was employed at that stage.   He could not do so and when the dates were set for the hearings in Durban of this Committee, he still had not obtained instructions to instruct counsel.   After the dates were received, I went to the Legal Aid Board with Mr Jansen to convince them that Mr Nofomela is entitled to legal aid and that we should carry on with drafting the affidavit.  Until today we have not received formal notification from the Legal Aid Board with regard to this application.   Our attorney was also in contact with Mr Mpshe's office during that time and submitted affidavits for Mr Coetzee and Mr Tshikalanga.   Mr Mpshe's office urgently wanted an affidavit from Mr Nofomela and I and Mr Jansen drafted this affidavit on a Sunday afternoon from my consultation notes with Mr Nofomela from seven years ago, during the Harms Commission and from the affidavits of Mr Coetzee and Mr Tshikalanga.   The next day, the Monday, I went to prison to consult with Mr Nofomela in order to get him to sign the affidavit and to correct whatever needed to be corrected.  When I arrived at the prison I was informed that, which was quite surprising for a prisoner serving a life sentence, that a computer said that he was "temporarily out".   Apparently he was at the De Kock trial where the judge in the trial summoned all witnesses to attend the sentencing of De Kock and we could not consult and we could not change anything in the affidavit at that stage.   That night we faxed an unsigned copy of the affidavit to Mr Mpshe's office since they insisted that they needed it urgently in order to try and get the witnesses and victims together for the
2a	hearing /...
MR DE WET-MARAIS	240	ADDRESS
hearing which was due to start the next Tuesday in Durban.  I was not available the rest of that week and Mr Jansen on the Wednesday assisted us and went to prison and got the affidavit signed after Mr Nofomela browsed through it and corrected the one glaring mistake where he at the Harms Commission gave the false evidence with regard to De Kock shooting Mponja in his presence.    We arrived in Durban for the hearing which, as you will know, the Committee wanted to start with as soon as possible since there was a criminal trial set down in the matter of Mr Mkenge's murder for 2 December.   We consulted on the Mkenge matter that morning before the hearing started in Durban and that is how the evidence was led there.   After the hearings in Durban you will also remember that I withdrew then since we still had no instructions from the Legal Aid Board and it was not sure what our situation was.   Mr Nofomela was also not happy with the way things went in Durban since we could not have proper preparation and proper consultation due to the time pressures at that stage.   I was only re-instructed last week Wednesday to continue with the matter.   During the December recess or just before the recess there was an application in the Supreme Court in Pretoria brought by Generals in the Defence Force to get a court order that the State Departments where they were employed during the times they committed the acts for which they now seek amnesty, that they should be ordered to pay for their amnesty applications and this has still not been sorted out.   However, we consulted last Thursday and Friday on the five matters that we prepared for Monday's hearing and those were, according to Mr Mpshe's instructions, that we could decide which matters we wanted to call first.   None of
2a	those /...
MR DE WET-MARAIS	241	ADDRESS
those matters included any of the matters that the applicant confirmed in his evidence yesterday.   Yesterday we did not expect to do the confirmations before all the evidence on all the incidents had been finalised and therefore when we were asked by Mr Mpshe whether we would do the confirmations yesterday after lunch, we did not consult on those incidents, it would have necessitated a further adjournment in order to do that and the applicant has rectified the shortcomings in his affidavit during his evidence.   His evidence before this Committee should therefore be regarded as his evidence on these matters, correcting the shortcomings in his affidavits.   None of this was due to any negligence or lack of interest on the part of the applicant and it is my submission that he should not be in any way blamed for it.   Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.   Mr Mpshe do you have anything to say on that?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Mr Chairman I don't know whether I should respond to this, I'm...

CHAIRPERSON: What do you wish to say?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Yes Mr Chairman I want to respond to the effect of the matters that were confirmed.   My learned friend states that I indicated to the - which is correct- that we do the confirmation after lunch and that is very correct, but it would seem unless if I did not understand him well, it would seem the fact that there were mistakes and certain things from the applicant when giving evidence on these confirmatories, it would seem this fact has been alluded to my having said that this be done after lunch, if I interpret him correctly.   If my interpretation is correct then I would say that really to me does not hold water at all
2a	because /...
MR MPSHE	242	ADDRESS
because he is defending his client, he should have known that I cannot confirm matter No this, this and this, I need to consult first, that is if my interpretation of what my learned friend is saying is correct.   Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Be that as it may, Mr Marais and Mr Jansen when we resume after the short adjournment I would like you to consider whether it is possible for you to draw our attention to the relevant pages and passages in the document which has been compiled by Mr De Kock, concerning those items which we merely confirmed, in which evidence was not directly led.   There were several items on which we had agreed, because of the modus operandi being the same in all those matters, so if you could refer us in respect of those matters to the relevant pages in the manuscript which has been prepared, we would be pleased, in respect of all these matters on which we agreed yesterday.   If there is any amendment that you would like to make in that regard in respect of those matters which we confirmed yesterday, Mr Marais, you would be at liberty to do so.   If it is convenient we should do that shortly after the adjournment.