Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-12-02

MR SWANEPOEL: Yes, I understand that the matter is distinguishable.  What I would like ...(end of tape)
... is that the individual was held accountable for what was in his application, regardless.  And on that basis, the difficulty with illiterate applicants I understand fully, and the Committee is with respect, better versed than I am in these matters as to what extent leniency should be applied in that regard.
	My submission is that on the probabilities, and it if was only one particular paragraph or one particular circumstance for example, that was to be condoned, then that was of course a different matter but it just appears from the written document and the oral evidence, that the two are totally irreconcilable because of several difficulties there are in the document.  Not only one, but two specifically in each of the applicants' cases.  
	The other important matter is that it did not appear, and the Committee had the advantage of having sight of the applicants and asking them questions, it did not appear that Jabu was overly gifted as apposed to the other applicants, with respect.

CHAIRPERSON: That is true.

MR SWANEPOEL: Even though his application conforms to the standards, conforms to the norms, he was assisted by the same people on the same date, there is no real reason save lack of diligence, to the omissions in the written applications on behalf of the other applicants.  The reason that something was contrary to instructions, people should read documents, that is the rule, especially documents as important as this.
	Condonation of that regard and acceptance of that reason regardless will purely result in a flurry of useless applications, as was the case before this Committee with respect, only a very small portion of the total amount of applications was heard in the end because of this difficulty.
	The disadvantage to the process of truth and reconciliation is by far larger than the disadvantage to the individual, greater than the disadvantage to the individual.  With respect, the difficulties could have easily been rectified even by supplying further particulars at an earlier stage or at an earlier stage setting the wheels of rectification in motion.  There were several ways.  
	But it's strange that a person supplies the Committee with a written document and without a word inbetween comes and sits on the day of the hearing and he gives evidence that cannot possibly be reconciled with the contents of the written document.
	And also with respect, it's difficult to understand as a mistake because each of them gave oral evidence regarding one or two specific instances, not a great amount of events that could easily be confused, that he could easily not remember, where he did what, when.  They were specific on specific events, and then the chances of a mistake greatly diminishes.  There was not a great deal to occupy their minds with in the meantime.  And the probabilities with respect, is that when these applications were lodged, the evidence that was given was not contemplated on the ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: And was on purpose not given?

MR SWANEPOEL: Mr Commissioner, with respect, possibly inadvertently not given.

ADV DE JAGER: ...(inaudible) you're burning a person's house and they ask who is the victim, what is the damage caused, and you don't supply it, and that's the only thing you are applying for amnesty for.  Why wouldn't you supply it, except to sort of make investigation difficult  or so and come at the last moment and give it.

MR SWANEPOEL: There might be a very good explanation for that, and that is simply that in the flurry before the cutoff date, several people in this country were worried about prosecution, that they did not know what the information was that was supplied to the organs of State and the organs of reconciliation and truth and that they purely filed applications just to make sure that they are covered, and that it later appeared that they might be implicated to the one or the other side and that they then adapted their applications.

ADV DE JAGER: The cutoff date was 1994, 10th of May.  The deadline for filing your application was the 30th of September 1997.  So the 10th of May as such wasn't the last sort of day to ...

MR SWANEPOEL: That might be so, but the applicants put that as the reason for any mistake or discrepancy before the Committee in their application, in their oral evidence.  It was specifically put so by Perry Dlamini.  He specifically gave evidence to that effect.  He said he was in a great hurry, that must be a mistake.  He was the only person who gave evidence as to a mistake in any event, the other people did not even explain their discrepancies.
	Mr Mhlapho specifically said that the form was filled out according to his instructions, he didn't take the oath but he certainly gave instructions and what stood there was according to his instructions.  There was only one applicant who tried to explain the mistake, and that was after you, with respect, pointed it out to him, that he tried to explain it by virtue of some mistake of some sort that was not according to his instructions.   
	And with respect, there is nothing even from the applicants, before the Commission, that can justify such a deduction.  Unless there's anything specific any further, I have no more submissions to make.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Swanepoel, I want to say something about you first.  I want to thank you for your co-operation throughout your attendance here and the fairness you've displayed, it's impressed us.  I thank you.
	This hearing is therefore adjourned.
HEARING ADJOURNS