Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — UNKNOWN

MR LAMEY: But didn't they have to come back to Glen Connor in order to proceed together to Pretoria?

JOE MAMASELA: I don't know about that, what time they came back and what time they left because I was not there.  I cannot talk for them.

MR LAMEY: You described that Mr Koole was bloodied, it looked like he was involved in an assault himself all over his body and clothes and shoes.

JOE MAMASELA: That is true.

MR LAMEY: Did he arrive at Glen Connor in that condition?

JOE MAMASELA: Yes, he arrived at Glen Connor in that condition, he was in the car.

MR LAMEY: Thank you, no further questions Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY

CHAIRPERSON: When you left Glen Connor to Pretoria, did you not travel together with the other Askaris?

JOE MAMASELA: No, we travelled with Mr Koole, Mr Mogoai and myself, we just went there.  The other Askaris left with the other kombi already.

CHAIRPERSON: I see. So it was just the three of you all the way from Glen Connor to Pretoria.

JOE MAMASELA: When we came to Glen Connor, we changed into our other clothes because our clothes were at Glen Connor and then we washed and put clean clothing and then we proceeded to Pretoria.

CHAIRPERSON: I see.

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, I don't want to ask questions, I just want to place something on record.  We've been in contact with Schalk Hugo, Eugene de Kock's legal representative, we will try to have an affidavit here tomorrow about exactly what his position is pertaining to the giving of an instruction according to Mr Mamasela's evidence.
	If we don't succeed in having it here tomorrow, we will endeavour to place it before you when we argue the matter.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm going to excuse Mr Mamasela unless somebody feels otherwise.
	Mr Mamasela, thank you, you are excused.
WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Koole?

MR BRINK: Mr Chairman, I understand that if, wherever he gives evidence from the operator just requires a couple of minutes to sort out the microphones, if we can just adjourn for say three or four minutes.

CHAIRPERSON: We will adjourn for a few minutes, as soon as they are ready they should let us come in.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: I understand we do not have an interpreter Mr Lamey, unless it has since been resolved.  Is the position that we cannot proceed without an interpreter?

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, Mr Mogoai has previously elected to  ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Koole.

MR LAMEY: Mr Koole has elected to testify in his mother language and I submit that it is fair that he be given again an opportunity especially under cross-examination Mr Chairman, so that things go fast although he can speak Afrikaans.  That is not the position.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright, his choice is that he wants to speak in his language.  We will adjourn until to-morrow morning 9 o'clock then.

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, may I just request, I don't know if Mr Mamasela was excused permanently but I've come into our - I've determined now that in Colonel de Kock's amnesty application certain allegations are made which direct contradict Mr Mamasela and his evidence, especially pertaining to the watch which may be relevant for purposes of cross-examination and credibility.
	I don't know why the excerpt was not made available to you by the people who should have been responsible to have made it available.  I also ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: It is because we are not dealing with de Kock's application.

UNKNOWN: I realise that but it is obviously it is important that such a version, if such a version existed under oath, be place before you and especially where it relates to the credibility of one of the witnesses.
	I don't think it would be necessary to cross-examine Mr Mamasela, I just wanted to know if you excused him permanently or what the position would be.

ADV DE JAGER: Well, then Mr Mamasela would say: "But I'd like to cross-examine de Kock because how could you accept de Kock's version and not my version".

UNKNOWN: Yes well, Mr Chairman I'm placing that before you, I will be in a position to place the contents of de Kock's application before you, either contained in an affidavit or otherwise a copy of that and then I will ask you that I be permitted or be given the opportunity to argue in respect of credibility on the contradictions.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, you said you were going to try to get an affidavit from Mr de Kock.

UNKNOWN: Yes, Mr Chairman, that was before I knew exactly what was in the amnesty application.  When I saw or realised now what was in the amnesty application, it's clear that a lot of the evidence of Mr Mamasela does directly contradict it.  But if it's the only way to deal with it, by way of placing an affidavit before you I will do so.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, we could be able to justify the inclusion of Mr de Kock's affidavit on the basis that, or at least so I thought, on the basis that he's being implicated by Mr Mamasela so we can allow the opportunity to file an affidavit.
	Now when you, if you come with the question of his application, de Kock's application for amnesty, I see it in a different way.

UNKNOWN: No Mr Chairman, it doesn't make a difference, I'll place whatever is in his amnesty application, I will contain that in an affidavit.  I believe that has already been contained in an affidavit that is with the Attorney General.
	The only point I'm trying to make is, I wasn't  afforded the opportunity to confront Mr Mamasela in cross-examination on the contradictions and I will then be forced to argue that there are contradictions and that, I'm just asking that I'm not prejudiced because of the fact that it wasn't made available to me beforehand so that I could cross-examine Mr Mamasela.  And I'm just making that point now.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright, we'll adjourn until 9 o'clock ...[intervention]

MR BRINK: Mr Chairman sorry, before you adjourn, just for the sake of convenience, I've been in touch with the good offices of your secretary with regards to the dates of the next hearing.  I raise it now so that my colleagues can consult their diaries and just save time.
	Mr Coetzee of the Cape Town office suggests that the matter be postponed to the 18th/19th of May but if any member of the Committee is not available by virtue of sitting in other matters, then all the representatives will be notified timeously.  So tomorrow morning I will remind you and when you've finished the hearing that the matter be adjourned provisionally to that date.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it the 18th and 19th?

MR BRINK: I understand from my colleagues they require two days for argument.  I don't know if they require three?

CHAIRPERSON: No, two days.

MR BRINK: Two days.

CHAIRPERSON: So we are looking at the 18th and the 19th?

MR BRINK: 18th and the 19th for the verbal argument, oral argument at this venue.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright, yes.

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, just we before we adjourn, I have in the meantime discussed the proof of Exhibit P2, the bundle of photographs and the subsequent bundle of photographs with them.  I'm told that that can be handed in by agreement as evidence, the total contents thereof.  As it pleases you Mr Chairman.

MR BOOYENS: I confirm that on behalf of my clients Mr Chairman.

UNKNOWN: Yes, I confirm that too Mr Chairman.

MR BRINK: Yes, I made that clear to Mr Lamey earlier, that I had no objection.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nyoka?

MR NYOKA: I have no objection.

CHAIRPERSON: Miss Hartle?

MS HARTLE: No objection.

CHAIRPERSON: Was is this P?  Okay it is so noted.  Anything else before we now adjourn?  Until tomorrow 9 o'clock.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS