Amnesty Hearings — Ermelo — 1998-07-28

MS VAN DER WALT: It says here only if the Honourable Committee received this application form because it is clear, and I do not want to pre-empt my cross-examination but what is meant here, what is said here in paragraph (b) says
"Background Statement"
The documents before this Committee, from that it would seem that the Background Statement did not come with this form, so if this had to be heard in chambers then nothing would have been said because the Background Statement is not annexed to this application form and that is what I wish to ask him because ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Madam, you are well aware that if that document was not attached then the Investigative Teams would have asked the attorney where the statement was which he referred to.

MS VAN DER WALT: That is correct.  I will go further Sir.
	I wish to put it to you, you mention here, and that is my problem, because with other applications where there was just a word wrong the poor applicant had a hard time.  Now I wish to take you to this Background Statement.  According to Volume 1, page 9, and in your testimony when it was lead by your legal representative you confirmed that this was the Background Statement, is that correct?

MR PATEL: That is not correct Mr Chairman.  The Background Statement which I put to the witness in his testimony with regard, which covers from page 9 onwards, was put to him on the basis that: "This was what was read to Mr Mndebele, do confirm the correctness thereof insofar as it relates to you"?  It's common cause that the Background Statement which accompanied the application form is the one which commences on page 5 of Volume 1.

MS VAN DER WALT: Sir, can you page to page 5 please?  Do you know that statement?

MR ZWANE: Yes, I do.

MS VAN DER WALT: Who compiled it?

MR ZWANE: It was members of the committee including myself assisted by my attorney.

MS VAN DER WALT: This statement that continues up to page 8, is that the statement?  Did you sign it at any stage?

MR ZWANE: Where is the signature that you are referring to?

MS VAN DER WALT: No, I'm asking you, did you sign this?

MR ZWANE: I do believe that the documents that were signed were signed on the day that there was a dispute with regard to signatures.  We did not sign at that particular time but we signed at a later stage but we did not read the documents.

MS VAN DER WALT: Either I'm making a big mistake, and the Chairperson would put me right, this is the first time since your evidence was led that there is reference made to this statement, that is from page 5 onwards.

MR PATEL: What is the purpose of the question, what is the relevance that it's not been referred to?

CHAIRPERSON: It wasn't part of his evidence in chief.

MR PATEL: I never led him on it.

CHAIRPERSON: Well the question begs the conclusion that it was never part of his evidence in chief.

MS VAN DER WALT: Sir, if one looks at your application form and you refer to
"See Background Statement"
Do you refer to this statement that is contained in pages 5 to 8?

MR ZWANE: Is that a question?

MS VAN DER WALT: Sir, I will put it to you again.  I do not know if you can hear the interpretation very well.  I would like to ask you again, if you look at your application on page 92 and 93, question number 9 ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Madam, before we continue, there are certain applicants who went to a certain attorney and said they would like to apply for amnesty and it seems to me as if there are two Background Statements that were compiled by the attorney and submitted as a broad background of what happened, the one more than the other it seems to me.
	In all these applications which this attorney dealt with it seems as if they refer to one or both of these statements.  Do you agree with me that it seems like that?  When I read these pieces I experienced exactly that same problem because I did not know what statement they are referring to.  
	It seems to me as if you've got the same problem but I do not know if we can blame the applicant for that.  We can however ask him whether he doesn't know, if he can maybe explain it.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairperson, it is correct.  I got the impression when I went through the documents, that this statement which is referred to now is a summary by someone and we do not know who.  No references are made to Annexure A or B in the statement.  The evidence of this applicant was led by an experienced legal person and when he was questioned on this it was confirmed, the evidence, Mr Mndebele's testimony but it when it was led by his applicant it was confirmed ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Let us assume or accept that it is not before this Committee, what regard to his application, whereto then?  What is then the point?

MS VAN DER WALT: That the statement on page 5 is not part of his application, is that what you are saying?

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MS VAN DER WALT: Oh, because you see, if that statement is part of his application then I would like to cross-examine him on that because now, and I know we are going to adjourn and he will get the opportunity to go through it because it does differ from the testimony that he just gave, and that is why I wanted to give him the opportunity to tell me that that statement is part of his application, because his legal representative did not do that.

CHAIRPERSON: Would it not be fair if we adjourn now, ask him to read through it and then we ask him tomorrow morning: "Does that form part of your application or not"?

MS VAN DER WALT: That would be fair but I do not think that the cross-examination would add onto anything.  It is a very long statement and a lot of detail is given.

CHAIRPERSON: It's just to be fair, he does not know what it says.

MS VAN DER WALT: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Let him say if it is part of his application or not.

MS VAN DER WALT: I agree with you.

CHAIRPERSON: Can we begin at a quarter to nine tomorrow morning?  Does anyone have a problem with that?  Very well, we then adjourn until a quarter to nine.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
 
ON RESUMPTION:  29TH JULY 1998

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Patel, in so far as it is necessary, would you undertake to report back to Mr Black any controversial issues?

MR PATEL: I will do so Mr Chairman.

NICHOLAS ZWANE: (still under oath)

MS VAN DER WALT: (continued)   Mr Zwane, did you have the opportunity to look at this document from page 5 in Volume 1?

MR ZWANE: (No translation)

MS VAN DER WALT: Can you tell the Committee what document this is?

MR ZWANE: I was supposed to go and read the background from page 5.

MS VAN DER WALT: Have you seen this document before?

MR ZWANE: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: When?

MR ZWANE: It was at the time when we were consulting with our legal representatives.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Zwane, does this document form part of your application?

MR ZWANE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And the other statement on page 9?

MR ZWANE: Let me start with page 5.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, I am just wanting to clear up something first.  The document from page 5 to 9, you say you wish to have that incorporated in your application, correct?

MR ZWANE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: There is a document starting on page 9 and it ends on I think page 14, am I correct?  That is a document that is headed Brief Historical Background, that is another document.  Do you wish that document also to be incorporated in your application in so far as it effects you?

MR ZWANE: Yes, this is the same part.

CHAIRPERSON: And the first document starting on page 5, do you wish to incorporate that into your application in so far as it effects you?

MR ZWANE: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Sir you say that this document was drawn up when you consulted with your legal representative, and then do you confirm the document, everything as it is here, you worked through it last night?

MR ZWANE: Yes, I did read it last night.