Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1998-08-20

CHAIRPERSON: You've just told us you told the Magistrate, and you chose to mention it because you thought it would help you.

GEORGE THABANG MAZETE: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR MALAN: Mr Mazete, in an amnesty application you have to satisfy the Committee of two things, the one is that you had a political motive, the other is that you're telling the truth, making a full disclosure.  If you don't satisfy the Committee on both, we cannot, even if we'd want to, give you amnesty.  So in the interest of a full disclosure, because this is now confusing and we will have to study the evidence and the transcription, let me ask you a straightforward question.  Did you ever see any of the money taken at the supermarket, any of the money?

GEORGE THABANG MAZETE: No.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairman.  I think the last aspect I would like to canvass before he steps down would be the one of the signature with him.  I would like the Committee to go back, to re-visit the signature aspect.
	Mr Mazete, do you still have the bundle that you were given yesterday, the copy of your application form where you have that signature.

GEORGE THABANG MAZETE: Yes, I do have it.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Now do you have the application in front of you?  Can you look at the place where you signed where it said: "Deponent".

GEORGE THABANG MAZETE: Yes, I do have.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Now I want to ask - I asked you yesterday, and even the Committee has requested you to make a specimen of your signature.  I want to ask you again, is that your signature?

GEORGE THABANG MAZETE: Yes, that is correct.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Can you be able to make that signature again, for the benefit of the Committee?

GEORGE THABANG MAZETE: Yes, I will do.

CHAIRPERSON: We don't want him sitting and copying the signature now, that will have no value.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman, I'm not saying he must copy,  I want him to make a signature.
	Now I'll give you a paper.
PAPER HANDED TO APPLICANT FOR 2ND SPECIMEN SIGNATURE

CHAIRPERSON: I propose changing the original signature to being D1 and to marking this D2.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairman.
SPECIMEN SIGNATURE HANDED IN AS EXHIBIT D2

CHAIRPERSON: You might like to compare it with the
signature he did yesterday, D1.  
	While you're on the question of signatures, will you look at page 2 of your application, have you got it there?  Somebody has made a mark on paragraph 9.4 where it's been scratched out.  My recollection is that you said that was not yours, is that correct?  I think you said yesterday that was not yours.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes, that is correct Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you remember that?

GEORGE THABANG MAZETE: Yes, that is what I said yesterday.

CHAIRPERSON: You're quite sure that is not yours, that you did not make that?

GEORGE THABANG MAZETE: Yes, it is my signed.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you say now it is yours?

GEORGE THABANG MAZETE: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Well why did you say yesterday it wasn't?

GEORGE THABANG MAZETE: There were many things that did not satisfy me in this form yesterday, that is why I said all the things that are written on this paragraph were not written by me and that is not my sign.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm sorry I don't understand.  You were either telling the truth when you looked at it and said it was not your sign, or you were not telling the truth.  You now say it is your sign, is that the truth or isn't it?

GEORGE THABANG MAZETE: Yes, I'm telling you the truth.

CHAIRPERSON: Well why couldn't you recognise your own sign yesterday?

GEORGE THABANG MAZETE: I realised that it was my sign but I did not agree with the things that were written in that paragraph, that is why I ended up saying that it is not my signature.

CHAIRPERSON: So you were lying to us.  You say you recognised it as your signature but you lied to us when you said it was not yours, is that what you are now saying?

GEORGE THABANG MAZETE: No, I was not lying.

CHAIRPERSON: Well how can it not be a lie?  You tell us you recognise it as your signature, that you recognised it yesterday as your signature but when you gave evidence you said it was not.  Your counsel has confirmed it, my note confirms it.

GEORGE THABANG MAZETE: I don't understand your question, can you please repeat?

CHAIRPERSON: I have repeated it several times.  Yesterday you were given this document to look at and you said that that mark was not yours, do you remember?

GEORGE THABANG MAZETE: Yes, that's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: You have just told us that it was your mark and that you recognised it as your mark yesterday.

GEORGE THABANG MAZETE: Yes, I realised that it is similar to my signature although I did not agree.

CHAIRPERSON: Now you say it is similar to your signature, are you changing your evidence yet again?

GEORGE THABANG MAZETE: No, I'm not changing my evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: I do not intend to take the matter further, we will come to the necessary conclusions on the evidence he has given.

MR MALAN: Chair, may I just ask this question then, just in the interest of the applicant?
	If you recognised it yesterday as simply similar, what in the meantime made it sure that it is mark?  Why can it not still be a similar mark made by someone else?

GEORGE THABANG MAZETE: I don't think so.

MR MALAN: Are you sure that it's your mark?

GEORGE THABANG MAZETE: That is correct.

MR MALAN: And yesterday you were not sure?

GEORGE THABANG MAZETE: That is correct.

MR MALAN: And you say yesterday you were not sure?

GEORGE THABANG MAZETE: Yes, that is correct.

MR MALAN: And you said so because you didn't agree with the contents of the application?

GEORGE THABANG MAZETE: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Do you today agree with the contents of the application?

GEORGE THABANG MAZETE: Yes, that is correct.

MR MALAN: So what did you not agree with yesterday?

GEORGE THABANG MAZETE: Not necessarily that paragraph but in other paragraphs in that statement, for example 10(a).

MR MALAN: I still don't understand why you are today convinced and yesterday not but let's leave it there.

CHAIRPERSON: Does that conclude your questioning?

MR MBANDAZAYO: That's correct Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MBANDAZAYO

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp?

MR STEENKAMP: No further questions, thank you Mr Chairman.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR STEENKAMP

MR MALAN: I just want to ask you one thing.  The two men that you refer to in both statements that were not known to you when you met up with Bhani and the others, have you since established who they were?

GEORGE THABANG MAZETE: No, even today I don't know them.

MR MALAN: Have you never discussed that occasion with any of your colleagues?

GEORGE THABANG MAZETE: We did discuss with them about them.

MR MALAN: Did they know the two men?

GEORGE THABANG MAZETE: They also know where these two people are.

MR MALAN: No, that's not my question.  Do they know what the names of those two people are, not where they are, what their names are?

GEORGE THABANG MAZETE: They know them.

MR MALAN: Now did they tell you?

GEORGE THABANG MAZETE: Yes, they did.

MR MALAN: Now what are their names?

GEORGE THABANG MAZETE: Because I don't them so I don't remember their names because we don't discuss these names on a daily basis.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: You may go.
WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman, he is the only person I wanted to call, ...[indistinct] two statements.  I'll not be calling Mohape.

CHAIRPERSON: You are aware that the statements conflict almost entirely with his evidence, his prior statement?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman, I agree with you fully but I'm of the view that when Mr Malan yesterday, most of the parts he canvassed when he was looking at the Judgment, most of the parts of the statement which are covered in the Judgment, he canvassed most of the parts of the statement which don't agree with his evidence ...[indistinct]