Amnesty Hearings — Ermelo — 1998-07-22

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Black, how can your client have had two statements, two applications in respect of the same incidents?  What has happened to the original?  Is it still with the TRC or was it withdrawn or torn up or what?

MR BLACK: No.  The original application was submitted by a firm of attorneys.  A statement, a document headed "statement" I gather, which I've now seen, it's unsigned, but I'm told it was sent together with the application form by way of listing and an explanation of the events in respect of which amnesty is being sought.  That was sent to the Truth and Reconciliation ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma, what happened to the original statement, do you know?

MR MAPOMA: Mr Chairman, we did have the original statement, I mean the first statement.  Let me say the first statement and upon us receiving the latest statement from Advocate Rodney we just took it that they are substituting the initial statement with the latest statement and therefore when we formulated a bundle for the hearing we took only the latest statement as the relevant statement and we just surmised that the first statement is being withdrawn.  It is for that reason that we did not include it here.

CHAIRPERSON: In respect of the first statement, in respect of also incidents that are not mentioned in the second statement, the application for amnesty in respect of the incidents not mentioned in the second statement is not before this hearing.

MR MAPOMA: Yes, sir.  That is the position, because our understanding is that ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: The application in respect of those particular incidents may still be alive or maybe still be in process.

MR MAPOMA: That is the position, sir.  Can I also add, sir, that there are victims involved, even in the incident which seems to be made reference to now.  Those victims have not been notified because we were dealing with only this particular statement.

MR SANDI: You will also have implicated persons I suppose in that statement you're talking about, not so?

MR MAPOMA: Yes, sir.

MR SANDI: And they will also have to be notified in terms of the Act?

MR MAPOMA: Exactly.  Even, sir, investigation will have to be made for that matter which is not ready for hearing surely.  I mean the matter now which comes now is not ready for hearing, even though amnesty application may have been made in respect of that matter, but it has not been investigated, it is not ready for hearing.  That is the position.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, Mr Black, you've heard the position.  So, the application in respect of those incidents is not before us.

MR BLACK: Mr Chairman, I wanted to alert the Committee to that because what had happened I gathered, because I was approached by Mr Hattingh about the first statement and what I wanted to avoid is I had to then clear it up with Mr Gushu.  He said that those were his original instructions.  It would appear, and my respectful submission is that he has applied for amnesty timeously in respect of this, it's one incident of an issue.  So, it would be my submission at a later stage, if necessary, that matter could be heard.  It would remain alive perhaps.  I was hoping that we could either at the end of this written submission explain to the Committee that he has applied for an additional one and that he wouldn't be prejudiced.  If the Committee is not going to be prepared to allow him to apply for that matter at this hearing because of the variety of difficulties which possibly a person might have to be notified, I don't know, then I will just proceed with the incidents which are now in terms of the signed written document and I would then have to object to any suggestions or questions being put to Mr Gushu about the other incident which does not appear on the written document.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Black, carry on.  Where is that signed document now?  Well, Mr Mapoma, when the witness is finished, will you take custody of the original signed document?

MR MAPOMA: Sorry, sir, can I just explain.  The initial statement is also not a signed statement.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm not talking about the initial statement, I'm talking about the one that is now said to have been properly signed.

MR MAPOMA: Yes, sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Will you take custody of that as soon as the witness is finished with it?

MR MAPOMA: Yes, sir.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, before we leave this subject, may I be allowed to also have a word about these statements.  The problem that we have is that I was placed in possession of another statement.  Now, the way I read it, it is not pertaining to any other applications, but pertaining to the application we are dealing with in this hearing.  And as I was told by Ms Mohammed, that there was a duplication of amnesty applications at the time, the one prepared by herself and one prepared by Mr Black.  That was told to me during the break.  I'm not trying to give evidence at this stage, but what I believe is that this document was submitted to the Amnesty Committee.  It does form part of the documentation which is to be made available to the public at this stage and to be made available to the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: I've just been informed by the evidence leader that the original statement is still subject to processes.

MR HATTINGH: On my understanding, that is not correct.  I believe, as told by Ms Mohammed, that there was a duplication of applications for the same matters and the statement that we are now having a problem with is more or less the same statement as this witness is now dealing with, but with differences.  So there is not another application to be dealt ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Is there no other incidents or incident referred to in the original statement?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, if that could be pointed out to me, but I couldn't find such a difference at all.

MR SANDI: Mr Hattingh, I think the Chairman is trying to enquire from you as to whether there are no - you see, we have not even seen this other document people are talking about.

CHAIRPERSON: And is it signed?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, no, it's not signed like all the others.

CHAIRPERSON: Precisely the point you made earlier.  So, what is the status of that document?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, that was in fact my problem with documents not being signed or statements.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, we have one document signed.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, that is true, but as I've indicated, I was told during the break that this statement came to be as an annexure to an application.  It's referred to in the  application to the Amnesty Committee, a former application, timeous application.  It did form part of the application.  So, whether it was signed or not, that perhaps is only a matter of evidential value or not, but it was ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: What is the importance of this document?

MR HATTINGH: The importance of this document is to enable me to compare the various versions of this applicant and to cross-examine him on his various statements.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you concerned that it may not be an admissible statement?