Amnesty Hearings — Ermelo — 1998-07-27

MR HATTINGH: Their perception is yes, that it is number one the Committee's duty to - not to accept the applicant's word for everything, but to test and investigate and - but in particular not to assist the applicant in placing only an abbrieved or concise version before the Committee and not to prod too deeply into things which may place him outside the ambit of the Act.

CHAIRPERSON: This has nothing to do with the actual application Mr Hattingh, but then the people who instruct you, should help you.  They should tell you specifically what really did happen, so it places you in a position to put that version, is that not so?
	I just make that comment.

MR HATTINGH: I accept that Mr Chairman.  The applicants are unhappy about the fact that amnesty applicants can elect not to disclose any other criminal acts that occurred during that time and in this area, pertaining to this amnesty application hearing.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh, this is also not a question you need answer if you don't want to, did you attempt to explain to them what the ethics of criminal law is?
	If I am not mistaken, that is a rule to which we are all bound.  Did you try to explain that to them?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, not to incriminate yourself, is that what you are referring to?  No, I did not because my own submission would be that this Act in fact makes provision for an applicant or for any witness for that matter, to be compelled to tell the truth or anything, even if it may incriminate him.
	The safeguard in the Act is that whatever he tells this Committee, cannot be used against him in a court of law.   He is compellable to testify, even if it may incriminate him but we can't use it against him.  In the circumstances, I could not tell my clients that well, you cannot ask a person to tell this Committee about something which may incriminate him or anyone else.

CHAIRPERSON: There is a presumption, well, of course you must think you are right in that interpretation,, but of course the whole concept will be wrong if your interpretation is wrong, not so?

MR HATTINGH: I agree Mr Chairman.  So the point is that the applicants in this application for recusal feel that this Committee is not looking for the full truth, not trying its best to obtain the full truth from the applicants, and that the applicants are being protected by the Committee in not telling the full truth.
	In this regard, I would specifically like to make reference to Gushu and the other incident to which he refer in his confession and the pointing out statement.
	As well as the response to questioning regarding the fact that he committed only two robberies, armed robberies during the course of two and a half years for the purposes of arming the SDU's and that he was protected from cross-examination with regard to any further illegal activities in attaining his aim of providing arms for the SDU's.
	If you would just bear with me for one moment please.  That is my submissions in terms of my instructions, all I want to say is that if one have regard to the case law and the test which is to be applied, it is not a matter of what I think, what the Committee itself may think, even if the Committee consider itself to have done a pretty good job in being unbiased and not biased in this matter, it all boils down to the perception ...

CHAIRPERSON: Don't worry, we are not that modest.

MR HATTINGH: It all boils down to the what the perceptions are of the lay people out there, who are party to this matter even if only in the sense that they are entitled to place their case before this Committee and have this whole thing thrashed out properly because their rights in fact, are also on the line here.
	They can loose their right of civil litigation for damages if anything.  Thank you Mr Chairman, I will leave this then to the Committee to decide and I will abide by your decision, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there anybody else who would like to associate themselves with the application?  None?
MACHINE SWITCHED OFF