bitter-aloe/trc-testimonies huggingface dataset:
Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1998-09-09

CHAIRPERSON: Just give me the number of the paragraph, or sub-paragraphs.

MR WARNER: If I may just turn to the affidavit.  18(iii).

CHAIRPERSON: Is that (iii)?

MR WARNER: (iii) yes.  It is alleged that the applicant's grounds for believing that he was acting within the scope of his duties or an expressed or implied authority, were not reasonable grounds.  Paragraph 4(d).  The object of the act was not primarily directed at a political opponent or State property or personnel.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR WARNER: Paragraph (e), the act was not primarily directed even at white people as the staff compliment of the restaurant was approximately 50 percent black.
	We also allege in paragraph (g) that neither the PAC or APLA was aware of the nature of the target prior to the commission of the attack.
	Apart from that, the respondent is in agreement with the affidavit.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.  As leader of evidence, are there any comments you wish to make?

MR MAPOMA: Thank you sir, no comment.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Arendse, do you wish to say anything to supplement what you have said already?

NORMAN ARENDSE: No, just two things Chairperson and Members of the Committee.  Firstly to congratulate Mr Warner on a very reasoned and balanced address having heard the evidence.
	And then just secondly to say that notwithstanding his objections, I think his problem which is a fatal one, is that no evidence was led before this Committee to support any of the objections or the contentions that he otherwise makes, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: The Committee will now, or rather in due course, consider the evidence that has been adduced before it, and will consider the submissions that had been made by Counsel and make known its decision in due course.  Thank you very much.
	I wish to express the thanks of my Committee members and myself for the assistance we had been given by Counsel.  Thank you very much for the trouble you have taken in preparing these heads at such short notice.  Thank you.
	We will now adjourn.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1999-10-18

CHAIRPERSON: For the record, it is Monday the 18th of October 1999.  This is a hearing of the Amnesty Committee, held at Cape Town.  The Panel consists of myself presiding, Denzil Potgieter, I am assisted by Advocates Bosman and Sigodi.  We will be hearing the application of Michael Philip Luff, the amnesty reference number is AM3814/96.   I am going to ask you to put yourself on record, gentlemen.

MR RHEEDER: As the Committee pleases.  My name is Bennie Rheeder, from the firm of Attorneys De Klerk & Van Gend Incorporated.  I am assisted by my colleague, Mr Robbie Engela from the same firm of attorneys, and we appear on behalf of the applicant Michael Philip Luff.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Rheeder.  And then Ms Patel.

MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson.  Ramula Patel, Leader of Evidence, I also appear on behalf of the parents of the deceased, the Dyasi family.  I wish to indicate at this stage the position of the family is that they are not at this stage opposing the application, but  reserve their rights in this regard, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Ms Patel.  Mr Rheeder, is there anything else that you want to put on record or are you ready to present the evidence of your client?

MR RHEEDER: We are ready.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.  I assume your client will be testifying in Afrikaans?

MR RHEEDER: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Luff, will you just switch on your microphone please.  Can you give your full names for the record?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: Michael Philip Luff.

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, please be seated.  Mr Rheeder?

MR RHEEDER: Thank you honourable Chairperson.   Mr Luff will read his affidavit as evidence into the record, the affidavit compiled and attached to his application, whereafter I would like to ask him a few questions and then turn him over to Ms Patel, as the Committee pleases.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Rheeder.   The affidavit, just give us the numbering in the Bundle.

MR RHEEDER: That will be number ...

CHAIRPERSON: The page number?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: Number - two pages, 6 to 14.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you very much.

MR RHEEDER: Thank you.   Mr Luff, can you then continue to read your affidavit into the record as evidence?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: Mr Chairman, I just want to make a few changes to this affidavit because this was made in 1996.  I am a few years older, I am 40 years old now and my children are 12 and 16 years old.  I am not 37 years old and they not 9 and 13 years like in the record.  The children are 12 and 16 years old, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: Can I continue?  I, Michael Philip Luff, declare as follows under oath - I am a 40 year old man, an Inspector in the service of the South African Police Service and I am stationed in Ceres.  I live in 21 Orange Street, Ceres, I am married and have two children of 12 and 16 years old.  I have no previous convictions of any nature.

CHAIRPERSON: Don't go too fast please for the Interpreters' sake.
Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1999-10-18

MR RHEEDER: Honourable Committee member, Mr Luff sits in an interesting legal situation.  The use of force and especially where the arrestee died during the use of force, you can only rely on the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act.  If he was arrested for specific crimes and there is a certain schedule attached to the Criminal Procedure Act, if a person is arrested for one of the crimes in that schedule and he flees and is then killed, the policeman can rely on that Section.  At the time when this was committed, political unrest, the crime, was not in the schedule, it was added later on.  Mr Luff is in the position that at the time when this happened, political unrest was not one of the crimes defined in this Section as a crime for which the person must have been arrested.

ADV BOSMAN: You mention that it was indeed as the law stood then, an unlawful action?

MR RHEEDER: Looking at the definition in the Criminal Procedure Act, let me put it this way, honourable Committee member, my client is not able to rely on the Criminal Procedure Act to escape prosecution in this matter, or conviction in this matter.   There are other principles applicable in the Criminal Law and I am sure you know, dealing with intent and negligence and going even further, error and so forth, but he is not able to rely on the Criminal Procedure Act in this instance, whereas if it would have happened in 1990 or 1989 I even think, he would have been able to do that.  The specific crimes were later added to the schedule.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  Have you got any other submissions?

MR RHEEDER: None, thank you honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
	Yes, well that concludes the formal part of these proceedings.  The Panel will consider the matter and will notify the parties as soon as the decision is available.  Under the circumstances we would reserve the decision in the matter.  Ms Patel, is there anything else that is on the roll for today?

MS PATEL: No, honourable Chairperson, we have only set this one ...

CHAIRPERSON: Does that conclude the proceedings?

MS PATEL: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.   Then we will adjourn at this stage and we will reconvene here tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock.  We are adjourned.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1999-10-19

CHAIRPERSON: Good morning, we want to start the proceedings.  For the record, it is Tuesday the 19th of October 1999, we are continuing with the amnesty hearings at Cape Town.  The Panel is constituted as has been indicated on the record earlier.  The matter that we'll be hearing this morning, is the application of Johannes Africa Hlapo, amnesty reference number AM6368/97. Mr Crossley, do you want to put yourself on record for the applicant?

MR CROSSLEY: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.  My name is Malcolm Crossley, I'm the legal representative for Mr Johannes Africa Masweng Hlapo, in his application for amnesty, under amnesty reference number AM6368/97.  	This is an application by Mr Hlapo, for amnesty arising out of his actions which resulted in his conviction of the charges of participation in terrorist activities in contravention of Section 2.1(a) read with 1.2.2, 4.5 and 9 of Act 83 of 1967, as amended, and the murder of Mr Henry George Beeton and the murder of Mr Frederick Casper Jansen.
	The facts and circumstances surrounding the events of 11 August 1980, are set forth in the judgment of Williamson J, which forms part of the bundle and the affidavit of Mr Hlapo, which is file of record with the TRC.  I ask leave to call Mr Hlapo to give evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Crossley.  Ms Patel, do you just want to put yourself on record before we proceed with the application.

MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.  Ramula Patel, Leader of Evidence.  For the record, both the next-of-kin of the deceased, Mr Beeton and Mr Jansen, are present.  They are not formally opposing the application at this stage, but reserve their rights to do so.  Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Patel.  Yes, do you want to present the evidence of your client, Mr Crossley?

MR CROSSLEY: Yes, I call Mr Hlapo.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.  Mr Hlapo, will you please rise.  Your full names are Johannes Africa Masweng Hlapo, is that correct?

JOHANNES AFRICA MASWENG HLAPO: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you may be seated.  Yes, Mr Crossley.

MR CROSSLEY: Mr Hlapo, you filed an affidavit in support of your application for amnesty.  Could you please take the Commission through your affidavit.
	My client, Honourable Chairperson, has elected to read through his affidavit in support of his application for amnesty.

JOHANNES AFRICA MASWENG HLAPO: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm sorry, Mr Hlapo, just before you do that.  The affidavit doesn't form part of the bundle before us, so for housekeeping purposes we will call the affidavit Exhibit A.  Sorry Mr Hlapo, you can proceed.
Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1999-10-20

CHAIRPERSON: Good morning.  We want to start the proceedings, for the record it is Wednesday the 20th of October 1999.  It is a hearing, a continuation of the sitting of the Amnesty Committee in Cape Town.  The Panel is constituted as has been indicated on the record earlier.   The application before us this morning is that of Derek Grootboom, reference number AM5868/97.  Mr Williams, do you want to put yourself on record, for the applicant?

MR WILLIAMS: Thank you Mr Chairman, members of the committee.  My name is Peter Williams, I am appearing on behalf of the applicant, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Williams.  Ms Patel?

MS PATEL: Thank you honourable Chairperson, Ramula Patel, Leader of Evidence.  I am also appearing on behalf of the victim Heinrich Martin Tarentaal and wish to place on record at this stage, that my client does not oppose the application.  Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Patel.  Yes, Mr Williams, is there anything else that you wish to put on record or do you want to present the evidence of your client?

MR WILLIAMS: I would like to present the evidence at this stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.  Won't you just switch on his microphone?  Yes.  Mr Grootboom, would you please stand and give your full names for the record.

DEREK GROOTBOOM: My name is Derek Grootboom.

DEREK GROOTBOOM: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, please be seated.  Mr Williams?

MR WILLIAMS: Thank you Mr Chairman.  Mr Grootboom if you look at pages 1 to 7 of the bundle of documents that we have in our possession, is it correct that your formal application is contained on those pages?

DEREK GROOTBOOM: That is correct.

MR WILLIAMS: Were you legally assisted when you drafted this application?

DEREK GROOTBOOM: No, I drafted it myself.

MR WILLIAMS: Okay.  Then is it correct that you also drafted a supplementary statement which is dated the 18th of October 1999 in Cape Town, and that we have handed that to the Committee this morning?

DEREK GROOTBOOM: That is correct.

MR WILLIAMS: Would you mind going through that statement and reading it into the record?

DEREK GROOTBOOM: I, Derek Grootboom ...

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Grootboom, just a moment, that we will call Exhibit A.

DEREK GROOTBOOM: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: You can go ahead.

DEREK GROOTBOOM: I, Derek Grootboom, applicant before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's Amnesty Committee, reference number 5868/97 hereby wish to state as follows
	I was born on the 24th of August 1966 in the rural Eastern Cape town of Klipplaat as the eldest of five children from the union between the late Wilbur Grootboom and Sarah Williams.  My father was Fengu and my mother a coloured.  I grew up with my family in the coloured part of town, Kaap Lokasie, whereas my grandparents on my father's side, resided in the African part, named Green Point.  My family moved from Klipplaat in the late 1970's.
Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1999-10-21

CHAIRPERSON: Good morning.  We want to start the proceedings.  For the record it's Thursday 21 November 1991.  We are continuing with the session of the Amnesty Committee at Cape Town.  The Panel is constituted as has been indicated earlier on in the record and we will be hearing the application of Mr Siyali this morning, Amnesty Reference AM 7997/97.  Mr Rheeder, are you appearing for the applicant?

MR RHEEDER: That's correct, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Rheeder.

MR RHEEDER: As the Committee pleases.  Good morning from this side of the applicant and myself.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  And then Mr Williams, are you appearing for Mr Jonas?

MR WILLIAMS: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  And I assume Ms Patel that you are appearing as the Leader of Evidence?

MS PATEL: That is correct, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.  Yes, you are all on record.  Mr Rheeder, is there anything else that you want to put on record before we listen to the testimony of your client?

MR RHEEDER: Just a formal matter.  I have in my possession the original duly signed affidavit of Mr Siyali, which I just would like to hand up to the Committee.  It is exactly the same as the copies that were handed in earlier on, at that stage Mr Siyali was just out of town.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so this is the originally signed one.

MR RHEEDER: It was - this one was signed later again, but it is exactly the same affidavit.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well, in any case just for the sake of completeness, Mr Rheeder, we'll mark it as Exhibit A.  It is really identical to the one on pages 10 to 14 of the bundle.

MR RHEEDER: That's correct, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well.  So that will be Exhibit A.  Would you want your client to be sworn in?

MR RHEEDER: If the Chair pleases.

ISAIAH PATRICK SIYALI: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rheeder.

MR RHEEDER: As the Chair pleases.  Honourable Chairperson,
we are again going to start off by my client just reading his statement into the evidence, which will naturally be done in English.  Thereafter, I'll ask him a few questions to clarify a few points and certain general question and then turn him over for questioning.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.
Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1999-10-21

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Rheeder.  Yes, that concludes the formal part of the application.  We will consider the matter and we will notify all of the parties once the decision in the matter has been formulated.  Under the those circumstances the decision in the matter will then be reserved.  We thank you Mr Rheeder for your assistance, Mr Williams, your client Mr Yengeni, Ms Patel.  That concludes the matter and I have an idea that that concludes the roll that we had for the week.

MS PATEL: Yes, it does, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  And if I'm not mistaken the Panel here will reconvene on Tuesday.  On Monday there's a session in Port Elizabeth.

MS PATEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, then we will adjourn this session and we will reconvene at this venue on Tuesday at 9 o'clock or as soon thereafter as possible, to proceed with the remaining matters on the roll.  We will now adjourn.

MS PATEL: All rise.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1999-10-28

CHAIRPERSON: What effect would that have had on your MK unit in Cape Town?

FUMANIKILE BOOI: First of all, in the unit in MK, there are going to be two mixed feelings, (1) some will take decision to continue with their missions which they designated for inside the country, secondly the leadership, some leadership members would also feel that the government has not been serious in negotiation, there could be an impact and also the masses, because we've been known around the streets of Cape Town as three of us were coming from Cape Town, the masses, the people outside there could have reacted in the same manner, maybe taking up to the street or whatever way it is and it could have been a high loss for the MK because all of us were belonging to the Special Ops Unit and it is a highly trained unit, to lose four highly trained members of your force.

CHAIRPERSON: And therefore it would have politically reduced the effectiveness of MK?

FUMANIKILE BOOI: Well, maybe one should, can also assume that, you see, maybe one should not, you see?  It could have depended on the thinking at that particular time.

CHAIRPERSON: If Special Ops lost four highly trained combatants, it should or must reduce.

FUMANIKILE BOOI: Yes, it's a blow to MK.

CHAIRPERSON: A political blow.

FUMANIKILE BOOI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Now you say in your younger days you were involved in rent boycotts and boycotts of service pavements etc.

FUMANIKILE BOOI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Looks like you did a good job.

FUMANIKILE BOOI: I did.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there no way to reverse it now?  Is there no way we can reverse that mentality?

FUMANIKILE BOOI: No.

CHAIRPERSON: We can't reverse it now today?

FUMANIKILE BOOI: Of rent boycott and what?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

FUMANIKILE BOOI: Actually today I won't be rent boycotting and going out to the community as I've since whenever, since I've come back.  People go and pay the services, people go and support the government, people go and stop the crime on the street because those day we were fighting, today we are supposed to reconstruct the country and build unity across the country.
WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.  We will reserve our decision on this matter.  I thank you.  Mr Papier, I omitted to give you a chance to address but perhaps I must ask Ms Patel first if she has anything to say.

MS PATEL: No, I'll leave it in your capable hands, thank you Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Well then I don't think it's necessary to hear you.

MR PAPIER: Thank you Judge, thank you Commissioners.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1999-10-28

CHAIRPERSON: I understand that you did everything necessary to minimise the risk.  All I'm asking is, why wasn't the bomb placed somewhere else, which would have given you the same results?

SIDNEY HENDRICKS: The unit had decided that the front door was ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: The place to put it.

SIDNEY HENDRICKS: The place to put it to have a greater damage on the building.

CHAIRPERSON: And when did you find out that somebody was in fact injured?

SIDNEY HENDRICKS: I can't remember.  I think it was via the radio or early the next morning, or that same night I think which we then reported.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Thank you.

MR PAPIER: Thank you Judge.

CHAIRPERSON: We are going to break for lunch now.  We'll adjourn till 2 o'clock.
WITNESS EXCUSED
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1999-10-28

MR PAPIER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Now in his application, or in their applications, all the applicants refer to the incident where the Rent Office was attacked, they attempted to attack it and in so saying, all the offences that flow from that incident are included in the list.  If one of the applicants wanted to make an application for possession of a firearm in general, unconnected to this incident, that would have been a separate application and I'm afraid I don't see such a separate application in these applications.

MR PAPIER: As it pleases.  I confirm the position and our application therefore would be limited to the application before you which relates to the limpet mine and arson.

CHAIRPERSON: And to the extent that we can grant for attempted murder, we'll consider that.  So you're abandoning the application in respect of arms and ammunition?

MR PAPIER: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: You haven't perhaps referred yourself to the Sections which have been contravened in respect of the Explosives Act?

MR PAPIER: I don't have instructions on that.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I'm not talking about instructions, I'm talking about you doing research yourself?

MR PAPIER: No, I haven't done that research.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't expect your clients to know the section and title.

MR PAPIER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Anything else?

MR PAPIER: Finally I would just submit that the application complies with the requirements of the Act in all material respects and I would respectfully request the application to be granted.  Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel.

MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson.  I'll reiterate that the position of the victim in this matter remains unchanged.  I accordingly have no address.

CHAIRPERSON: Well what's your comment about attempted murder?

MS PATEL: My respectful submission in that regard, Honourable Chairperson that the applicants haven't made out a case in respect of which they can apply for amnesty on attempted murder.  The evidence was clear in fact from both Hendricks and Vanessa Rhoda, they at no stage even foresaw the possibility that somebody would walk past and in fact be injured, so it wasn't part of their plan, it was never ever foreseen, in fact as far as they were concerned, it was almost impossible.

CHAIRPERSON: Had someone been injured inside the building, had the attack been successful, that may have been another matter.

MS PATEL: Yes, no of course.

CHAIRPERSON: Anything else?

MS PATEL: Nothing else, thank you Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you.  We will reserve judgment.  We thank everybody for attending and contributing to the process and we will adjourn.

MR PAPIER: Thank you.
HEARING ADJOURNS
Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-11-18

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry for the small room that we're sitting in, apparently it was the best that could be done.  I'm told it's extremely difficult to get hold of venues in Cape Town over weekends.  I've seen you've already done it, please feel free to remove your jackets if it gets hot.
	We, as you all know, are here for oral argument in this matter.  I'd like to thank all of the legal representatives for the comprehensive Heads of Argument, which took up a lot of my time to read, I'm sure you've all read them.  Thank you very much.  Unless anybody has anything they wish to say at this stage, you can commence the arguing.

GEORGE BIZOS: There's a small supplementary argument ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you, Mr Bizos and Mr Kahanovitz, we've got it, the addendum relating to the word "satisfied".  Yes, we do have that.  And we also go the annexures to Mr du Plessis' argument as well this morning, the Indemnity Act and
the Decision relating to the application of Williamson.  Have the applicants' legal representatives amongst them decided who is going to argue first?  From our point of view we have no problems who commences.

MR WESSELS: I think I'll start, the same order that applied initially, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.  I think it would be better to switch the airconditioning off, because fortunately it's quite a cool day and there's a bit of a breeze, but maybe just to switch the airconditioning off and let's see how it goes.  Mr Wessels?
Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-11-18

CHAIRPERSON: I know the situation in relation to askaris who carried out various types of operations, their manner of payment was a bonus.  There was almost a tariff, you know R7 000 for a takeout and R3 000 for an abduction, that sort of thing, and they got paid ex post facto for what they had done, and the Amnesty Committee has granted amnesty to askaris, because that was the manner of payment, they way they got paid.  I don't know if it's right or wrong, but I'm just saying that askaris got paid on the same fashion, about being paid bonuses for work done.

MR COETZEE: Yes.  My submission is that the mere fact that there were bonuses that were paid, or that there were possibilities of bonuses, does not subtract from the fact that he did what he did with a political motive and that he therefore falls into the cadre of the Act and that he thereby qualifies within the parameters of the Act.  It is my respectful submission, whether or not the Commission finds that full disclosure should be on a limited interpretation or a wide interpretation, Mr Barnard exposed whatever he knew, inside the country, outside the country and certain things known and many things not known to the Commission and that regardless of the interpretation, he did comply with that requirement.
	Then just to deal with one further aspect and that is criticism with regard to the fact that the version was never put to the witnesses.  With great respect, he gave a very detailed reasoning for that and with great respect, what happened in this Commission in my submission is what this whole amnesty process is all about.  This is to change people's hearts and to create a spirit of reconciliation, which is exactly what has happened here and for which I am very proud of.  Thank you, Mr Commissioner.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Coetzee.

MR VAN ECK: Mr Commissioner, before Mr du Plessis proceeds may I at this stage ask this Honourable Commission to excuse me from the further proceedings, Wynanda(?) Coetzee, my instructing attorney will sit in my place and for any replies tomorrow.  And I also want to express my thanks to this Commission for this hearing throughout.  As the Commission pleases.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van Eck and thank you for the assistance that you have given us during these hearings.  Thank you.  Mr du Plessis.
Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-11-18

UNKNOWN: No, if something is probable, I submit that it means the same, virtually the same as that is reasonably possibly true.  There's a fair probability if you look at the defence, like it was stated here in a civil matter, the Defendant's defence is a good one.  It means that what is analysed here is the what the Defendant said virtually in isolation, on paper, does it create a fair probability that it's a good one?  It's an impression which is formed on the probabilities.

CHAIRPERSON: But once you're dealing with probabilities, you're beyond possibilities, you're at a level above possibilities.

UNKNOWN: That is so, Mr Chairman, but the fact is if one in a criminal case, for instance, says that there's a reasonable possibility that something is true, like the test in a criminal matter, then obviously it must also mean that it's probable, it's reasonably probable, otherwise it can never be said to be a reasonable possibility.  But in any event, ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Just before it slips my mind, just to go back to 2.6 where you quoted this "amnesty in its most comprehensive and generous meaning", were you taking that to mean that the granting of amnesty should be more generous rather than strict?

UNKNOWN: Strict.  Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Because doesn't that mean "in its most comprehensive and generous meaning", doesn't that mean that the amnesty should be far reaching, like if delicts and crime and expunging the record, as opposed to just what it usually is relating to criminal prosecution?  This is comprehensive and generous in that it goes beyond just confining itself to indemnity from prosecution ...(intervention)

UNKNOWN: Yes, Mr Chairman, I would agree with that with respect, but I would also submit that if one reads the full report it is clear, especially with reference to the history of the amnesty process, that what the Constitutional Court says here is that as many people as possible who could be taken into account for amnesty, should be granted amnesty.  It's a wide interpretation of the Act.
	For instance, why would the reference to people supporting the apartheid regime, the previous government, be necessary in comparison to people supporting the struggle if the Judge did not here intend to indicate that in the interests of national unity and reconciliation and the future, that as many people as possible should be included in the amnesty process on as liberal a basis as possible.  He was definitely not here only referring to the fact that it doesn't only apply to criminal but also to civil claims.

MR LAX: Isn't the simple point that arises from that quote really nothing more than this, that it's an evenhanded process that applies equally to both sides?
Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-11-18

GEORGE BIZOS: Sort of parole, so that - may I appeal to the Committee, Mr Chairman, to look at our argument which I submit is, with due respect to all our colleagues, based upon the facts and what we submit, the correct interpretation of the Section, and particularly the facts.  Because I am reminded, Mr Chairman, by these arguments, that when the Professor was told: "But you know, your theories Professor, are all very well, but they don't fit the facts", his answer was: "Well it's too bad for the facts".  Now we have to deal with definite findings of fact having made the findings of fact, and this is why our argument has taken this ...(indistinct).  And if I may say so with respect, Mr Chairman, that I do not want to criticise the Committee, it isn't my place, that some of the bets decisions are those which set out 'these are the facts that we find proved, we apply the law, we grant amnesty or we refuse amnesty', not well you know, 'the bare bones of what is it and we grant amnesty or we refuse amnesty'.  That is not the basis upon which the Committee is called upon to ...

CHAIRPERSON: Would this be a convenient time to adjourn, Mr Bizos?

GEORGE BIZOS: Yes, thank you Mr Chairman.  We'll start with paragraph 21 tomorrow, on page 9, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Then we'll adjourn to the same venue at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning.

GEORGE BIZOS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

MS LOCKHAT: All rise.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-11-19

MR COETZEE: Mr Commissioner, there was just one aspect which I can just, before it slips my mind, which I wish to refer to regarding proportionality which, I see I made a note but I didn't mention it.  It is that the question was raised, where does the buck stop and that was - Mr Barnard, when he gave his evidence he was quite bitter about that, that he felt that the politicians and the Generals did not come to take responsibility for what they have done and what they have created here and with great respect, they are the only people who can objectively indicate to this Commission where the proportionality comes from.

CHAIRPERSON: I think Mr Kahanovitz when he was dealing with proportionality, conceded that persons acting under orders, if somebody is acting under orders, that does have an effect on the inquiry relating to proportionality, but then he stressed the point that these particular applicants, including Mr Barnard, had the opportunity of election, to say:  "Well look, no I'm not", they weren't in the same situation as the soldier in some sort of regiment in the Defence Force.

MR COETZEE: Just, with great respect, also on the other hand, they used that as one of the criteria on which they do oppose his being granted amnesty, that as well as personal gain, of course.  I just wanted to say that and I also want to thank the Commission for all the assistance here.

CHAIRPERSON: Well that then brings us to the end of the hearings in this matter.  All that remains, as we've heard, is the submission maybe of extra reply in writing and then of course the decision in this matter.  I don't know when that decision will come out but we are very near the end of our life, it shouldn't be too far away, because I personally would like to get my desk clean as soon as possible.  I've informed my own Court that I shall be back on duties next term, so it will be in the not too distant future.  I would like at this stage to thank everybody involved, the legal representatives, for their assistance in this matter.  I'd like to sincerely thank the staff who had to work this weekend, I know that it's a great intrusion on everybody to give up their weekend and we've actually spent many hours here this weekend.  I'd like to thank them all for that, without exception and thank you very much.  We shall then adjourn this matter.
HEARING ADJOURNS
Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-03-14

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: Correct, Chairperson.

MR WILLIAMS: Was that always the case?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: That was the procedure within the system, yes, that is how it had to be.

MR WILLIAMS: And your men were aware of those procedures?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: Yes, I was aware.

MR WILLIAMS: No, I'm asking whether the men that functioned under your command, whether they were aware of those procedures?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: The people who were responsible for that were the Co-ordinators.  They were aware of the procedures Chairperson.

MR WILLIAMS: Mr Chairman, I'm going to be quite a while with the witness.  Would you mind if we adjourn at this stage?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think we've had quite a long day.  I'm sure the translators are probably exhausted by now.  We'll adjourn.  Will 9 o'clock tomorrow morning be convenient?

MS COLERIDGE: Chairperson, just before we adjourn, I just want to get the exhibits into the record, so that we can start afresh tomorrow.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh yes, sorry.  Just before we adjourn, we've got an affidavit that was handed to me this morning.  I don't know if you've all got one.

MS COLERIDGE: Everyone has received it.

CHAIRPERSON: It's an affidavit by one Dirk Kotze Genis and then also there's another document.  This was a document referred to by Mr Bizos yesterday, it's an extract from the evidence given by Gen Webb, which was read into the record, but this is just the hard copy.  Do you have that one as well?  Two pages.  Could we call the extract of Gen Webb's evidence as Exhibit D?  Is it E?

MS COLERIDGE: It's E, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

MS COLERIDGE: D was the final report.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, Exhibit E and the affidavit of Dirk Kotze Genis as F.  Thank you.  We'll now adjourn until tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock, the same venue.  Thank you.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-03-16

MR HOCKEY: Now that conclusion, Mr Verster, just to put the record straight as well, is that
"The CCB as a result of the development in the country, engaged in activities which constituted (the Commission's says), a system pattern of abuse which entailed a deliberate planning on the part of the leadership of the CCB and the SADF.  The Commission finds these institutions and their members accountable for this aforesaid gross violations of human rights."
	Now you're saying that you agree with that, but you don't consider your acts as an abuse, is that right?

MR VERSTER: That's correct, I was a soldier.  I have great problems with whoever wrote this paragraph, but I know that in terms of the law it could be seen as such and therefore I accept it.

MR HOCKEY: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HOCKEY

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Coleridge, any questions arising?

MS COLERIDGE: No questions thank you, Chairperson.
NO QUESTIONS BY MS COLERIDGE

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Verster, that concludes your testimony, you may stand down now.

MR VERSTER: Thank you, Chairperson.

MR LAX: Sorry, Mr Verster before you go, I just thought I'd, once we'd concluded your evidence - yesterday you raised an issue about the proceedings in the Commission and how you felt about, in a sense, the perception that you have about our proceedings and who is coming before it, and I just thought I'd share with you the fact that people of all ranks, of all persuasions from every liberation movement and State structure have appeared before us and I've sat through many amnesty hearings, everybody is applying for amnesty, literally.  Yes, there are certain high-ranking people that haven't, we accept that, that's common knowledge, but I just thought I should share with you the fact that in fact your perception that only certain people are being made to beg for forgiveness is not quite what is happening, in the sense that we are experiencing people from all different organisations and structures applying for amnesty.  What their personal approaches to amnesty are, well that's neither here nor there, I don't intend to deal with that.  I just thought I'd share that with you.

MR VERSTER: I accept that, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Verster.
WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Is the next applicant going to be Mr van Zyl, Mr Martini?

MR MARTINI: Yes, Chairperson.
MACHINE SWITCHED OFF
Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-03-16

GEORGE BIZOS: ... between the person that is being led and his legal representative, Mr Chairman.  These chummy discussions are not ...(indistinct - no microphone) my chair for one of them to come here, Mr Chair, so that we can ...(intervention)

MR MARTINI: Sorry, Mr Chairman, I object to this, my client - this is a Commission, this is not a court case ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Bizos, I know that usually they sit next to each other, even in huge halls the applicant and the ...(intervention)

GEORGE BIZOS: Sorry, but this has not been my experience, we always put the passage between us and the witness, but I don't want to make a big point out of it.  It has the effect of, Mr Chairman, sometimes them speaking too softly, which is not a problem here because of the smallness of the room, but also this consultation and showing documents.  I know it's a Commission, but he's a witness and the legal representative, Mr Chairman, and there must be some distance between them, with respect.

MR MARTINI: Mr Chairperson, I certainly don't understand what Mr Bizos is getting to, is he suggesting that I'm going to be helping my witness answering questions?  What is Mr Bizos' suggestion?  We haven't even started and he's making innuendoes. My client's entitled to sit here, we're at the Commission, there might be times where I have to confer with my client, he might want legal advice under cross, are we going to then adjourn the proceedings for me to walk around that end and consult?  There's no basis for this ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I think we can proceed as we are now. If it appears as if there's any assistance being rendered by showing documents without invitation or reference, then the matter can be raised again and we can see if we can make a plan.

MR MARTINI: Chairperson, thank you.  Chairperson, we were going to lead the evidence as we had discussed in chambers the other morning, by confirming the statement, but having seen what has transpired, we believe in the interest of the public who do not have these documents, my client's entire statement, subject to other questioning which will flow from me and obviously from the Commission, we intend leading his evidence by reading his statement which is before the Commission.  Subject of course, Mr Chairperson, to me questioning my client on certain issues and thereafter obviously the victims, Mr Bizos, and all other parties, are entitled to question the witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ABRAM VAN ZYL: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Martini.

MR MARTINI: Chairperson, I call Mr van Zyl to lead his evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Could you just give us the reference.

MR MARTINI: Sorry, Mr Chairperson.  It is bundle A and it appears at pages 75 to page 128, of bundle A.
Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-03-16

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Zyl, I've been requested, if you could please just read a little bit slower, the translators who are giving a simultaneous translation, are finding that you're going a bit too quick and it's very difficult for them to properly translate simultaneously.  It's difficult to translate and read.  Just carry on for about approximately another five minutes then we'll take the lunch adjournment.  Thank you.
MR VAN ZYL
"We were also informed that the disruption of the enemy could, for example, entail from the breaking of a window to the killing of a person and that it depended on the priority class.  The organisation would identify targets, chiefly from available information, after which we would receive our instructions.  Various non de plumes were used and we also had to take the oath in terms of the law or the Act on the Internal Security or the security of Intelligence.  We were also informed that the CCB would be a covert organisation.
		During the course we were told that we would recruit unaware members who would not be able to determine our real identities.  Before the commencement of the course the name Andries Rossouw was given to me.  I would also like to mention that during the course the Managing Director told us that we were indemnified from any prosecution for any acts of violence which we would commit during the execution of approved projects.  We had to see to it that our actions could not be traced back to the Defence Force.  The argument was put forward that the Defence Force and therefore the State had approved the projects for execution and therefore we would not be prosecuted because the country internally was also in a situation of war.  
		We were also informed that the acts against the enemy of the Republic, were aimed at the enemies of the Republic of South Africa.  We were also informed that these enemies were persons who endangered State Security and against whom the South African Police could not act and that such persons were the targets of the CCB.  These targets would receive priority class.  I should also mention that persons of far right organisations who would endanger the State, would also be targets for the CCB, as we were informed.
		Projects, we were informed, could be executed by aware members of the CCB after it was approved, when it was a low-risk project.  Unaware members, also known as indirect members, would be used for the execution of high risk projects which were approved.  The reason for this was that the conduct should not be traced back to the CCB.  
		During the course, it was repeatedly told to us that the four members on the course would form a new cell, who would be active internally and which would be known as Region 6."
	Chairperson, if I may pause here, it would be an appropriate time.

CHAIRPERSON: This will be a convenient period to take the lunch adjournment.  If we could take the adjournment until quarter to two.  Thank you.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Zyl.
Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-03-16

MS COLERIDGE: May I just interrupt at this stage?

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly, Ms Coleridge.

MS COLERIDGE: ... (indistinct - no microphone) we are currently busy with, you'll see that it goes page 90 and then page 92.  I see that there's page 91 of the fax, there's 38, 39 is missing Chairperson, just for ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but the paragraphs seem to follow.

MR MARTINI: Mr Chairperson while you have this debate, can I go ask for amnesty outside quickly?

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly, Mr Martini.  Sorry, I'm not following you.  If you get to the bottom of this page, it's page 89, ...

MR LAX: This one here.

MS COLERIDGE: 39.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

MS COLERIDGE: I do believe we have a page there, but just ...

CHAIRPERSON: So it's page 91 that's missing.

MS COLERIDGE: That's right, Chairperson.  We will make it available to everyone, if that is okay.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes but Mr van Zyl, do you have it?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I haven't got it.

CHAIRPERSON: So you're going to have difficulty reading it if you haven't got it?

MS COLERIDGE: We've got one copy so we can just give it to him.

CHAIRPERSON: I wonder if that perhaps could get across just until Mr van Zyl's finished reading page 91.  Thank you very much and then we'll get it back to you and a copy will be made for everyone concerned.

MS COLERIDGE: Thank you, Chairperson, I am indebted to you.
Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-06-13

UNKNOWN: Now Mr Hardien says in his statement that he placed the bomb in an empty cardboard apple box on a trestle table against the wall.  Now did Mr Hardien, when he came back to the airport, did he report to you where he'd placed the bomb?

MR VAN ZYL: My understand was that he placed it in a cupboard as to his instructions.

UNKNOWN: Would you be prepared to comment as to why he's made a statement that he placed it on a trestle table against the wall?

MR VAN ZYL: I cannot comment to that.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, you haven't properly answered Mr Kahanovitz's question.  Did he tell you at any stage that he had put the bomb in a cardboard box?

MR VAN ZYL: No, Chairperson, not that I can recall.  What I do recall is that I met him at the airport and that he told me that he had placed the bomb and then I accepted that he had concurred with my instructions as we had agreed upon.  I know for a fact that I would have asked him whether his identity was disclosed in this process and he denied that.

CHAIRPERSON: So as far as you were concerned, that evening the bomb was in a cupboard in the hall?

MR VAN ZYL: Correct.

UNKNOWN: Now you arrive there at 7H45, correct?  Quarter to eight, according to your statement.

MR VAN ZYL: That is so.

UNKNOWN: Sorry, 19H45.  And according to your earlier evidence you were aware that the meeting was intended to start at half past seven, so you arrived fifteen minutes after the Kewtown youth meeting had started, correct?

MR VAN ZYL: That's correct.

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, I would now go into the detail of what happened on that night, so this - unless we're going to ...

CHAIRPERSON: Do want to sit longer, carry on, or do you want to adjourn now?  Yes I see that it is 4 o'clock, we will adjourn until half past nine tomorrow morning.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-06-14

CHAIRPERSON: We may go into the hall and Mr Martini and take a look.  Yes, so if we can do that, I don't know how we are going to go, but we will have to follow, because I've got no idea where the hall is.
	All right, we adjourn now until half past, till Athlone Early Learning Centre and then we will reconvene in this hall at half past nine tomorrow morning.  By the way, before we adjourn, tomorrow, are we stopping early, what is the situation, people catching planes?  I am not affected, I am staying in Cape Town.

MS COLERIDGE: Chairperson, I believe we can adjourn at one o'clock tomorrow.

MR MARTINI: Sorry Chairperson, I was asked a few questions yesterday by my colleagues as to when our tickets are booked, I said ours were booked for six.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MARTINI: Unless there is some difficulty for somebody ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we can sort that out, I am personally not involved, but I know that some people are flying out, but we can see what can be done there.
	Yes, so we will now go on the inspection in loco and come back here half past nine tomorrow morning.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr Chairperson, we are a bit worried about the suggestion, we don't want a situation where people are going to say "I am on a plane at quarter past two", we are worried about the amount of time that these proceedings are taking, as I assume most of the representatives for the other side are.
	We would prefer to make use of a full day, in any case, it is a short week, consisting of only four days.

MR MARTINI: So would we, Chairperson, if possible.

CHAIRPERSON: Right, okay, we will then proceed off and I will find out from people what time they are flying, and I will let you know.
	Will we be following you, Mike?  Yes, thank you.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS FOR IN LOCO INSPECTION
Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-06-20

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes, alright.  Yes we'll adjourn.  Would 9 o'clock tomorrow be a convenient time to start, or not?  Would it be possible to start at nine?  Alright, we'll adjourn until tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock at this venue.  Thank you.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS