Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-03-13

MR MARTINI: Yes Mr Chairman, I think possibly this argument should be dealt with at the beginning and I think all legal representatives should participate in it, so we get a decision rather than go through it step by step as each applicant testifies, otherwise we're going to have these arguments.  I don't know how the rest of the legal - I just think it's a practical solution.
	Mr Chairperson, I agree with Mr Wessels that unfortunately this Committee today is an Amnesty Committee falling under the auspices of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.  There are various committees.  There are Committees on human rights violations, which gives that Committee different functions.  Now this Committee is the Committee on amnesty.   It's established to receive applications by applicants for amnesty.  Section 18 of the Act and by the Act I mean the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, Mr Chairman, specifically:  
"Any person who wishes to apply for amnesty in respect of any act, omission, or offence, on the grounds that it is an act associated with a political objective, shall: ..."
and it goes on.  Read with Section 20:
"In this Act, unless the context otherwise indicates, an act associated with a political objective, means an act or an omission"
Clearly the act in section 20 which refers to the granting of amnesty pursuant to having had an application filed before you, Mr Chairman, relates to the very act that you're seeking amnesty.  Possibly a Committee on human rights violations might have other powers, vaster powers than this Committee has, but in respect of this Committee, it's my submission that the evidence must be relevant to this act in respect of which the applicant applies for amnesty.  This is the mechanism which an applicant has been given to come forward and make application for a specific act and surely on the strict reading of this legislation, the evidence to be led or cross-examination must be limited to the very acts in respect of which amnesty is applied for, because it would serve no purpose Mr Chairman, if one has to investigate additional acts, it's nonsensical because an applicant, even if evidence had come out that he was guilty of another act, of another gross violation, this Committee is not empowered to give him amnesty for that act because its not an act that amnesty was sought for because it says...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I think that's quite clear.  We certainly wouldn't grant amnesty for a matter which hasn't been applied for.

MR MARTINI: Yes, so clearly the evidence must be limited to the very act in respect of which amnesty is sought.  That's my submission Mr Chairman.

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, I'm not going to burden the record with any further address on this matter.  I simply support Mr Wessels' and Mr Martini's submissions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis.

UNKNOWN: Thank you Chairperson.  I support the arguments of Mr Wessels and Mr du Plessis thank you.

MR COETZEE: On behalf of Mr Barnard, we agree with the arguments already tendered.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Eck.

MR VAN ECK: ... by the Counsel on my left.

MR WILLIAMS: Thank you Mr Chairman.  Mr Chairman, I would like to support the submissions made by Adv Bizos.  I'd also just like to say, Mr Chairman, that there is case law to the effect, I think its the Azapo case, which deals with the interpretation of the amnesty provisions and in that case and in subsequent cases it was said that one should interpret the provisions of the amnesty legislation liberally or generously, so that being the case, Mr Chairman, I think one should give the counsel for the victims, the opportunity to go beyond the scope of merely the amnesty applications.  I myself would like to, for example, ask Mr van Zyl what the extent of the co-option of gangsters in the Kewtown community was where the one act occurred and that is why I support the application by Adv Bizos.  Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hockey.

MR HOCKEY: Thank you Mr Chairman.  I associate myself with the comments made by my Learned Colleague here and the submissions made by Adv Bizos.  Mr Chairman, I just want to briefly refer to Section 21 of the Act which is headed Granting of Amnesty and the Effect thereof.  Now 21 (i)(b) reads
"The act, omission or offence to which the application relates is an act associated with a political objective in the course of the conflicts of the past in accordance with the provisions of (ii) and (iii) and the applicant has made full disclosure of all relevant facts."

CHAIRPERSON: I think that's section 20 (i), not 21 (i) (b).

MR HOCKEY: To say that the other activities of the CCB are not relevant is not right.  Mr Chairman, I represent some of the victims of one of the acts perpetrated by the CCB operatives and they want to know how they fit in in the grand scheme of things.  They for example say that they had nothing to do with the allegations made against them by the applicants, is wrong, they were an ordinary Youth Movement, they were not involved with bombings of the Athlone Police Station, or at the Athlone Post Office.  They relied - The CCB relied on information given to them by gangsters and they acted on that information and they want to know why did the CCB operate in this way.  In which other areas did the CCB recruit gangsters?  Where do they rely on information given to them by gangsters?  Another subsection (iii)(b) says
"Where a particular act, omission or offence  contemplated in (ii) is an act associated with a political objective, shall be decided with reference to the following criteria."
Now one of that criteria is, I'm referring to (b) then, 
"The context in which the act, omission or offence took place and in particular whether the act, omission or offence was committed in the course or a spark of a political uprising, etc, etc."
Now in this context Mr Chairman, my argument is that the victims are entitled to know how they fit into that broad objective of the CCB and therefore all the relevant facts are not restricted to these particular three incidents but other incidents that could ascribe to the CCB as well.  Thank you Mr Chairman.

MS COLERIDGE: Chairperson, I agree with my Learned Colleague, Mr Hockey.  The evidence must be led, it must be relevant and material to the matters at hand, to the amnesty applications and I agree that in terms of Section 20(iii)(b), that we must look at the context under which these acts and offences occurred, Chairperson, but obviously where it's relevant to these specific acts and material.

MR MARTINI: Mr Chairman, before Mr Bizos replies, may I just draw your attention to the powers that the Commission has in terms of Section 29, where an investigation can be made into any acts or in regard to anything that needs to be investigated.  Such an investigation was in fact held and evidence was given, I think it was about two years ago, so all these questions that parties wish to have answered, could have been dealt with if it was thought relevant at that particular time and as I understand the position, the Evidence Leader has made extracts of portions of that or those hearings that were held and if she believes that that was the only portions that are relevant to this amnesty application, then I submit you shouldn't allow the matter to be opened up again and all that ground be recovered during these proceedings.  That has already been done in the Section 29 proceedings.  Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you wish to ...?