Amnesty Hearings — Pretoria — UNKNOWN

MR DE KONING: Thank you, Mr Chairman.    That means (indistinct).
NO FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DE KONING

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Botha?

MR BOTHA: Yes, I have a few questions.   Thank you, Mr Chairman, I do have a few questions.

MR BOTHA: Mr Wheeler, with reference to what Advocate Gcabashe asked you, he asked you whether you grew up with black people and you said no, you didn't actually grow up with them, but that you worked with them?

JAMES WHEELER: That is correct.

MR BOTHA: In your supreme court case, you called a black man to testify on your behalf, and he apparently was a colleague of yours at work?

JAMES WHEELER: Yes.

MR BOTHA: I refer the committee to page 75 of the first bundle, line 12, if I could read that to you?
"He is not a person with political convictions to one or the other side which could serve as a motive, a motivation for the conduct on that particular evening.   He is also not an aggressive person."
That is now referring to yourself:-
"On the contrary, the evidence is that he had very good working relationships with his subordinates and his colleagues."
The evidence of Klaas Mabaya in this respect is significant.  Was Klaas also lying, according to your instructions, was he lying to the judge?

JAMES WHEELER: If I could put it this way, in 1992, I was working at the mine and Klaas came to work for me, and since then a lot has happened, but in the context of what I said, that we should not follow a political line in the court case, I thought it a good idea to call him to testify.

MR BOTHA: I'm not understanding your answer.   Please just answer it again.

JAMES WHEELER: The last time that I worked with this man was in 1992.   He wasn't working for me at the time of the court case.

MR BOTHA: In 1992?

JAMES WHEELER: That's right.   I was working at Western Deep Gold Mines in 1992, and that is where I got Klaas from to come and testify for me, because I believed that we should not, or that we hadn't achieved our political objective and therefore we believed we shouldn't take the political line, and that's why I thought Klaas should come and testify for me, but this was two years before the incident that I had seen him last.

MR BOTHA: Very well.  So Klaas also misled the Court, because he testified as to things that happened before '92 and the incident took place in '94?

JAMES WHEELER: The things that he testified about took place in 1991, such as for instance when I referred to there that I took them to their homeland in Lesotho on Christmas day or New Years day.

MR BOTHA: Would you agree with me that that is not the conduct of the normal AWB person?

JAMES WHEELER: We were not opposed to black people, but we were opposed to what they stood for.

MR BOTHA: You then refer in your affidavit which you read to the committee today, in paragraph 12
"In the beginning of 1992, I resigned from my position at Western Deep Levels Gold Mine and I got a job at the Elsburg Gold Mine at Westonaria."
What was the reason for your resignation?

JAMES WHEELER: At Western Deep Levels, I worked quite far underground, and there were several incidences of rockfalls in which black people were killed, and after the last one I decided to resign and go to a safer mine.

MR BOTHA: The impression which your wife created during the bail application was that you could not, in respect of the death of these black people, that you couldn't actually deal with it and that's why you resigned?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I don't want to interrupt unnecessarily, but I want to ask if these questions are actually flowing from the questions that the committee put?  With respect, I can't see that it does.

MR BOTHA: Honourable Chairperson, if I may react, what I'm dealing with here is cross-examination by Advocate Gcabashe.  She put questions relating to the relationship between Mr Wheeler and black people with whom he'd grown up, or with whom he had not grown up, and the people with whom he worked, so it flows directly from that cross-examination relating to his relationship with his colleagues and so forth.

CHAIRPERSON: Advocate Gcabashe would dispute the word "cross-examination", questions by her.

MR BOTHA: I apologise, Advocate.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I'll allow it to continue, but if you ...(intervention).

MR BOTHA: I'm finished.   Mr Wheeler, the question is, isn't it so that at Western Deep Levels Gold Mine, that you resigned from that mine because you couldn't deal with the death of people in your team?

JAMES WHEELER: To a certain extent, yes.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BOTHA

UNKNOWN: Can I just ask for clarity, are we talking about the black people who were dying, you couldn't deal with that?

JAMES WHEELER: Yes, because of the rockfalls that took place on the mine.

UNKNOWN: Ja, but that still gives me even greater difficulty at your shooting at black people again who, in a sense, you cared for, and that here you don't bother to identify, can you identify that contradiction?

JAMES WHEELER: At that point our country was not in danger of being taken over by these people, and I believe that anyone, no matter who they may be, has black people working for them and that they should see to the needs of their workers, is that not so?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp, do you have any questions?

MR STEENKAMP: No questions, thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.   Thank you, Mr Wheeler.
WITNESS EXCUSED

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Chairperson, these are all the
questions for Mr Wheeler.   
	I would like to call another witness.   However, there is a technicality which plays quite an important role in my submissions and might influence my decision regarding whether I could call the person, and secondly under which disadvantage I may stand should I call him to give evidence.   As the honourable members of the committee have already heard from the testimony of Mr Wheeler, as well as the documentation in terms of the applications of both applicants, it is very clear that there is an exceptional chance that if Mr De Bruin were to testify, questions would be posed to him and in all probability they would, which might in effect incriminate him, and I wish to ask the committee whether, in terms of section 31 of the promotion of ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct) with the attorney-general, etcetera, that's the section you're referring to?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct, Mr Chairman.   Otherwise there will be severe limitations on the evidence and you will have the factual situation that every now and again, most probably, there will be objections to certain questions being put because it might have the result of Mr De Bruin incriminating himself.   If the committee, however, issued an order in terms of section 31, after the prerequisites had been met, in respect of questions which might elicit incriminating answers as to the role of Mr De Bruin and his own participating in any planning, then I submit to you then the full truth can come before this committee, and I would urge the committee to, before I call Mr De Bruin, or before I decide to call Mr De Bruin, that you exercise that discretion, so that he can be called and talk freely and so that we can hear the full truth, without technical ...(intervention).