Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1999-10-27

MR WILLIAMS: Yes, thank you Chairperson.  Mr Chairperson, we've heard the evidence of Mr Andile as well as the evidence of the applicant.  It is my respectful submission that there's nothing inherently improbable in the evidence of Mr Andile Jack.  His evidence is logical, it's coherent and it's consistent.
	My learned colleague Mr Riley said that he gained the impression that Mr Andile Jack drew inferences when he testified about the fact that he heard the perpetrators calling out the name of Mr Pro Jack, but Mr Chairperson, Mr Riley does not tell us on which facts does he gain that impression.  On the contrary I get the impression that Mr Andile did not draw inferences because his direct testimony is consistently that he himself heard people calling out the name and he also says that Mr Pro Jack also said that people were calling him.
	Mr Chairperson, the evidence on record is also that there was no-one else in the immediate vicinity and an argument which runs that other people might have called him, is based purely on conjecture and does not tally with the facts before this Commission.  It is also my respectful submission that that also does not tally with the probabilities, it does not tie in with the probabilities that the testimony of Andile is that they were driving in the car, they heard someone calling out Pro Jack's name, they then reversed and the fact of the reversal of the motor vehicle is important here, Mr Chairperson because it then explains or, let me put it this way, it explains the fact that they heard someone calling out his name and it is therefore more probable that someone did call out his name and that is the reason why he reversed.
	Mr Chairperson, with respect, if one looks at the testimony of the applicant, his version is riddled with contradictions, inconsistencies and improbabilities and I just want to refer the Commission to a few of those.  
	As far as contradictions are concerned, it might be minor aspects, but if one looks at his testimony as a whole, it diminishes the value of his testimony.  He says at some stage that when his statement was taken, that he was not explained his right to legal representation, he later contradicts this evidence.  He also initially says that he was pressurised into making a statement, he later contradicts this statement and says that it was voluntarily made.  When asked whether high-placed ANC officials knew about his actions, he says yes, but then he goes on and he directly denies that they knew it.  He says that when Chris Hani approached him, he denied any knowledge and when Msondile Jacobs approached him, he denied knowledge.  
	If I look at some of the inconsistencies of his testimony, the following few emerge.  Firstly, he says that they went out looking for a police van and it is common cause that the vehicle in question, a Golf, does not resemble a police vehicle in any way.  When asked why he did not go to the ANC and tell them, he says that he was waiting for someone to ask him, but yet he also testified that numerous people asked him, Msondile Jacobs asked him, Chris Hani asked him, other people also asked him but he denied it.  He says further that Mr Mthama was his Commander, but then he also goes on and then the effect of his testimony is that Mthama wasn't really his Commander.  He also says that Mthama knew that they were going out to attack the police and when he asked why didn't he tell the people beforehand that they were going to attack the police, he said no he was scared that the police might arrive there and wait for him.  These also are inconsistencies which I wish to point out.  
	Mr Chairperson, I also want to show quite a few improbabilities in his version.  The applicant states that he did not hear the vehicle or see the lights until the vehicle was two to three metres away from him.  Now with respect, Mr Chairperson, I want to submit that this is highly, extremely improbable, given the fact that the applicant was a trained cadre, he went out on a mission, he had experience in those type of missions.  He knew that he had to be cautious, he had to be alert and he would in all probability have noticed the vehicle beyond two or three metres from him.  So I want to say that his testimony in that regard is highly improbable.
	Mr Chairperson, it is also highly improbable that Mr Pro Jack  would leave his path of travel and then for some inexplicable reason, go to the place where the applicant and his friends were hiding.  Go, for some inexplicable reason, leave his path of travel and go to the trees.  That doesn't make sense to me, it doesn't tie in with the probabilities and Andile's evidence in this regard makes more sense.   Mr Chairperson ...(intervention)

ADV SIGODI: Sorry Mr Williams, when the applicant, or when Andile was being asked questions, some questions from the Panel, it transpired that before this Andile and his uncle were at home, they were watching TV and it's like he decided at that point that he was going to take Andile home.  He mentioned that there were other routes available to him to go back to his home, that was not the only possible route.  I want you to address this aspect.  Yes, just hang on.  Now what concerns me is the fact that it doesn't seem that anybody knew that Pro Jack was going to go that route on that particular day and if the applicant and the other co-perpetrators had wanted or had targeted Pro Jack on that particular evening, they would have chosen a place closer to his home, to me that seems more reasonable, because from the way it has been explained to us, Pro Jack's home was two streets further down and you had to go into the street and go into the fourth house.  There doesn't seem to be any evidence linking that, or to give one reason to believe that they must have targeted him particularly on that particular night, because nobody seemed to have known that he would have travelled that route on that particular night and at that time.  So is it not also possible that whilst somebody may have called him, we do not know who called him and Pro Jack may have thought that he was being called by the applicant and the other perpetrators, that he went towards them and surprised them.  Is it not also a likely possibility?

MR WILLIAMS: Thank you.  Adv Sigodi, with respect, there's no evidence by the applicant himself that other people were in that immediate vicinity and it is highly likely that if there were in fact other people that called out April Jack's name, that the applicant would have heard that.

ADV SIGODI: Sorry, but the applicant has stated that he did not hear anybody calling out Pro Jack and at that time he was looking out for police vehicles.

CHAIRPERSON: Also bearing in mind that this seemed to have been not the best of weather conditions that applied there, it looks as if it was a misty evening.

MR WILLIAMS: Thank you.   Mr Chairperson, Adv Sigodi, ...(tape blank)
Mr Chairperson, the evidence before us is that the house from whence Mr Pro Jack came was in close proximity of where the applicant and his friends were hiding out.  There's no maybe reliable evidence in that regard, or it's not very clear but it's possible that maybe they could have seen the house or the car from the distance where they were and they were just in luck.  That's a possibility.  When he actually came down - when he actually decided to follow that route.

ADV SIGODI: Isn't it more likely that if they wanted to shoot Pro Jack particularly, they would have shot him also on the road?  He need not have reversed and come to them.

MR WILLIAMS: Mr Chairperson, I will leave it at that.  I can take the matter no further on that aspect.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.