Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1996-05-13

JUDGE WILSON: If we believe him when he says he stabbed the child then he would have been telling the truth.

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairperson I understand the difficulty that arises here but it is my submission that if you separate these offences in the fashion that you do, then there is possibility of error and in fact there is a possibility of stifling the very objectives to Act 6 to achieve.  That is knowing what happens to victims, he is telling these victims present here that you know, in court it was said that I stabbed Patrick your son ...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: Not it was said, I said I stabbed him. Now he says he didn't.

UNKNOWN: That is correct and that was the accepted evidence, but in fact that evidence that evidence was correct, now if it was incorrect, the truth is that it is Patrick Maluisani who stabbed him, now in my submission Mr Chairperson that would stifle the objects of the Act.  Now however Mr Chairperson I think...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: Would you like to submit argument in that respect you can do so.

UNKNOWN: Well I think I'm taken by surprise, I did not expect you to take that stance and it would require me to kind of prepare...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: Yes it is substantive...(intervention)

UNKNOWN: ... the matter for that purpose.

JUDGE WILSON: But this Committee has regularly taken, we only grant amnesty where a person admits having committed offences.

UNKNOWN: Now is it then the case that we are going adjourn this matter...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: And you can submit written argument.
	You're not suggesting your client's going to come and give different evidence and now say he did something else are you?

UNKNOWN: No in fact...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: The evidence is finished?

UNKNOWN: In fact Mr Chairperson I intend calling Patrick Maluisani.  Patrick Maluisani was here in the morning but apparently he...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: It does not help if he says he stabbed this young boy.  That does not affect the position.

UNKNOWN: But there's a related question on that aspect, that is whether do you accept then his evidence as correct and true that he stabbed Mr Patrick Maluisani (Phelane?)  and if you accept that as being true then there is no need for corroboration but the impression that I...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: He said that he didn't stab him.

UNKNOWN: And if that is so, as I have explained to you, we are not hearing an application for amnesty for an act he did not commit.

UNKNOWN: Now but then I've got this submission that I wish to make at the end of his case, that you have to give him amnesty on those...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: Well you can make it in writing, you're not prepared to argue it now, you said.  You can submit it in your written argument.  I have indicated to you the approach that this Committee adopts where persons deny having committed offences they do not get amnesty in respect of that offence.

UNKNOWN: Should I accept it Mr Chairperson that you accept his evidence as correct and being the truth that he did not stab.

JUDGE WILSON: We accept that that is the basis on which he is applying for amnesty.

ADV DE JAGER: There's no other evidence before us, before this Committee, we've got only the evidence of himself saying he didn't stab him, he didn't commit this offence.

UNKNOWN: And you are not going to have due regard to the context of the court record in so far as it says that he stabbed the child?

JUDGE WILSON: Well then we find he's a liar and he hasn't been frank with the Committee, if we do that.  Do you want us to do that?

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairperson I don't want you to find that he's a liar.  What I'm saying to you is that we've got essentially his version and some evidence which contra as some evidential material which stands to contradict what you said, and now I'm asking you if you are accepting his evidence now as being correct or are you going to accept the record as being correct and if you haven't made up your mind about that at this stage then I would have to call Patrick Maluisani to come and say that what he said in court was incorrect and it is correct that I stabbed the child.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Sorry Mr Memani, the gentleman you want to call is not here, is he here?

UNKNOWN: At the present moment he's not here Mr Commission.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: So you would be in fact asking for a postponement of the matter so that he could go and look for that person so that he should come and testify.

UNKNOWN: Yes My Lord, in fact he said that he's going to be, he came here fortuitously, but he's going to be here tomorrow because he's got a kind of subpoena saying that he must be here tomorrow, otherwise if we want to get him today we must arrange with his employers to be here today.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: But then again we would have to take into account that that particular witness is not available here today and as a the matter has been going for some time, but most importantly though, we know you want him to come and repeat what the applicant says, namely to come and confirm that it was not the applicant who stabbed the child.

UNKNOWN: That is correct and despite the fact it has to confirm what has been said already I think it tends to strengthen the evidence and he says that someone else admits to having committed an offence and one who didn't lightly admit to having committed an offence if he didn't commit that offence.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: But we must take into account the fact that there is no evidence contradicting the evidence given by the applicant that he has not stabbed that child, so what my colleagues are trying to tell you is that given the fact that there is no evidence competing against that of the applicant, that he did not stab the child, why should we adjourn the matter for somebody who is not here, solely for him to come and simply repeat to us what the applicant has said, when in fact there is no contra-evidence against the applicant?

UNKNOWN: I accept the point which has been made.  However Mr Chairperson, I still need an adjournment then for the purpose of specifically addressing the Committee either under these circumstances.  Mr Menera is entitled to amnesty in respect of the attempted murder on the child Patrick Maluisani (Phelane?).

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: No I don't think that is the point at this stage.  Let's take the matter in instalments.  Whether of not the applicant is entitled to amnesty in respect to the stabbing of the child, is an aspect which is going to be decided together with all other aspects.  In other words, it is going to be decided together when we decide on the other related offences. What we are concerned now at this stage is your request for the adjournment of the matter to go and call that person and personally I think that we should rule against you and say that we are not adjourning the matter solely for the purpose of going to call a witness who is coming to repeat something which the applicant has said, which something is not being opposed by anybody and I don't think we need to adjourn the matter so that you should come and address us on that point.
	As far as addressing us on the question of whether or not the applicant is entitled to amnesty in respect of an offence which he denies, that will be dealt with together with the other offences as well.  He doesn't enjoy any special treatment at this stage. At this stage we are just concerned with whether or not you should postpone the matter so that you can go and call a witness who is coming what the applicant has said, which thing is not being contradicted by anybody.