Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1997-05-12

DATE: 12-05-1997          	NAME: J.J. DE RU
DAY 1

JUDGE WILSON: Before we commence the hearing of the De Ru case, there are certain questions I would like to ask.  Firstly I understand that the evidence that we have heard up to now, has been transcribed.

MS THABETHA: Yes, it has.

JUDGE WILSON: As far as I know, none of the members of the Committee have been given a copy of that transcription.  Can you tell me why?

MS THABETHA: Because I was under the impression that I was not supposed to give them transcriptions unless they ask for them.  I didn't know I had to give you a copy of the transcription.

JUDGE WILSON: But what are we, the whole purpose of the transcription is to enable the hearings to proceed smoothly, so we will know what happened at the last one.  You think it is not necessary for the Committee to know?

MS THABETHA: I think it is necessary, but I was under the impression that if the Committee needed a copy, it would be furnished to them.  I was not under the impression that I should give a copy, even though the Committee members didn't request one.

JUDGE WILSON: Have you never appeared in a court where there has been an adjourned trial?  Where the judicial Officer is given a copy of the transcriptive proceedings?  Very well, I trust copies will be made available.
	The next question is have the victims, and interested parties been told of the hearing, of the time of the hearing and of the place of the hearing because I don't see, as far as I can see a single victim or a relative of a victim or anyone else at the hearing.

MS THABETHA: From the report that I have from the Investigative Unit, apparently the victims were traced but they were not found.  The victims' next of kin ...

JUDGE WILSON: None of them?  And the interested parties who have been named by the applicant?

MS THABETHA: I spoke to Adv Madasa for the interested parties and he reassured me that there were no interested parties, but what I did is I ...

JUDGE WILSON: That there were what?

MS THABETHA: There were no interested parties regarding this matter, nevertheless what I did, is I did call the Sasolburg police station to inform Mr Nel, Mr Hammond, I've got the list....

JUDGE WILSON: How can we say there are no interested parties?

MS THABETHA: Can I request Adv Madasa to explain what he explained to me?

JUDGE WILSON: But what's he got to do with it?

MS THABETHA: Because I spoke to him about this.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes, but it is not his job to notify interested parties.

MS THABETHA: I did notify the relevant parties to this matter.

JUDGE WILSON: Hm?

MS THABETHA: I did notify the relevant parties to this matter, but after speaking to him, he said ...

JUDGE WILSON: You did notify the interested parties?

MS THABETHA: I did speak to them over the phone.

JUDGE WILSON: Hm?

MS THABETHA: I did speak to them over the phone.

JUDGE WILSON: All of them?

MS THABETHA: Not all of them because some ...

JUDGE WILSON: Who did you speak to?

MS THABETHA: To Mr, can I have the copy of the transcript because I've got their names at the back.

JUDGE WILSON: Where's this transcript?

MS THABETHA: Mr Chairperson, I spoke to Mr Mojafa.  Mr Nel, apparently he is no longer working for the Sasolburg police station.  Detective Pienaar as well is no longer working for the police station, and Captain Max, I couldn't get him on the phone, but I did leave a message with Mr Mojafa or Detective Mojafa, but that was telephonically and I spoke to Adv Madasa, who reassured me that there wouldn't be a need for implicated parties in this matter because we had separated the two matters, or the two incidents.  So it was on those basis that I didn't see the need of serving a written form to ...

JUDGE WILSON: Because he named numerous police officers as having influenced him, guided him, congratulated him, didn't he?  Colonels, Generals.  Have they been notified?

MS THABETHA: Not all of them, but after speaking to Adv Madasa, he said it was for background information.  They were not implicated as such.

JUDGE WILSON: So Mojafa you say you have notified?

MS THABETHA: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: Of the time of the hearing and that he is implicated?

MS THABETHA: I said he had been implicated, yes.

JUDGE WILSON: Did you tell him in what way?

MS THABETHA: No.

JUDGE WILSON: As I understand the Appellate Division has requested?

MS THABETHA: No.

JUDGE WILSON: And Colonel Voigt?

MS THABETHA: Colonel Voigt is deceased.  Like I say ...

JUDGE WILSON: And Mr Brand, the Regional Magistrate?

MS THABETHA: Mr?

JUDGE WILSON: Mr Brand the Regional Magistrate, the District Commandant, Colonel Mouton, Brigadier Geldenhuys, all of whom phoned him up so he said and wished him luck after he had murdered this one man?

MS THABETHA: No, I didn't think they were implicated.

JUDGE WILSON: So practically nobody has been notified?

MS THABETHA: No.

JUDGE WILSON: Right, thank you.  I see the applicant is Mr De Ru.  I take it we are proceeding with his matter now.

MS THABETHA: We are proceeding with this matter Mr Chairman.  Mr Chairman, we have agreed that we won't deal with any new matter as far as Mr De Ru's matter is concerned, we will only deal with the two matters that were dealt with last time and no new evidence will be heard in this hearing.

JUDGE WILSON: Have other applications been lodged on his behalf?

MS THABETHA: They have been lodged.

JUDGE WILSON: They have been?

MS THABETHA: Yes.  I would hand then over to Adv Madasa to proceed with the submission if it is okay?

ADV DE JAGER: Can we perhaps be informed, I see that there was an agreement that no other applications or no other incidents will be dealt with now, but can both you and Mr Madasa tell us why was this agreement reached because as far as I could see the Attorney General said that he is postponing a case against the applicant on the condition that amnesty, an application for amnesty be made before the 10th of February and if it is not being made, he is proceeding to prosecute the applicant.  Now it is, I can understand that you could agree that a matter will be postponed, but now we will have to come back at some stage or other, to hear the same applicant, perhaps the same legal representative or others and a whole new hearing will have to be convened, while it was an opportune moment to deal with all the matters and get rid of them?

MS THABETHA: As you aware Members of the Committee, that Adv Mpshe dealt with this matter.  He is the one who spoke to the applicant telephonically so maybe I can ask the applicant to explain further because Adv Mpshe and the applicant spoke about this and they agreed.

ADV DE JAGER: I believe Mr Madasa will be in a position to tell us why we are not dealing with the matter as a whole and why we should deal with it piece meal.

ADV MADASA: As the Committee pleases.  This hearing was adjourned specifically to conclude this particular application which has been dealt with partially before.  At the previous hearing it was agreed between myself and Mr Mpshe not - to separate the applications for the simple reason that it transpired at that hearing that a number of interested parties had not been notified in terms of the requirements of the Act and with a view to avert further delay in the case issues were separated, I mean rather the applications were separated, that is why even today we are still proceeding with the very same application, not adding other additional matters.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Madasa at the previous hearing it was recorded that you are proceeding with the two applications in respect, or the two matters in respect of which there were convictions and "the other applications are withdrawn and new applications would be made."  Now I don't know whether you in fact realise the implications of that because if they were withdrawn, did you in fact lodge new applications before the 10th of May?