CHAIRPERSON: Good morning. It is Thursday the 11th of November 1999. We are continuing with the session of the Amnesty Committee at JISS Centre in Johannesburg. We will deal with the application of L G Mohale this morning where the parties have to present their submissions on the merits of the application. Yes Mr Knopp have you got any submissions on the merits of your client's application?
MR KNOPP: Thank you Mr Chairman.
MR KNOPP IN ARGUMENT: It's my submission that there are three criteria which had to be satisfied in order for the Panel to grant amnesty to the applicant. The first is, does the applicant's application comply with the requirements of Act No 34 of 1955? Secondly, were the acts or offences committed by the applicant associated with a political objective? Thirdly, did the applicant make full disclosure of all the relevant facts to the Committee?
I'm going to go through the various motivations, but at the end of the day I'm going to submit that the applicant has complied with all these requirements.
Concerning the first requirement. Does the application comply with the requirements of the Act? The applicant's written application for amnesty is enclosed in the bundle before this Committee on page 126, 127. This is made on the 6th of December 1996.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I don't think you need to address us on the formal requirements, perhaps you can deal with the remaining two.
MR KNOPP: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: And possibly deal with that in respect of each of witnesses and the various incidents we have.
MR KNOPP: Thank you. The offences which we're concerned with here is the murder of the one one victim, the late Rev Namane. The date of that is given as 25th of June 1992 but I've gone through the court record again and the indictment was actually altered. The incident in fact took place on the 15th of June 1992. One can recall that the deceased didn't die immediately. After he was shot, he was first taken to hospital and he died in hospital, so the date of death is in fact 25th of June, but the instant in fact happened on the 15th of June.
The second instant is that of the attempted murder of Samuel Songo. The date of that is 26th of August. Fortunately that victim survived, therefore the conviction was only for attempted murder, not for murder.
The remaining offences relate to the unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition. The firearms involved here are the Stashkin pistol which the applicant, on his version, says was issued to him by the MK, in fact by Twana and Radebe together with an AK47 plus ammunition for these firearms. The other firearm which is relevant here is the .38 pistol, which is connected to the ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: The .38 was that a revolver?
MR KNOPP: .38 revolver, sorry, which is connected to the attempted murder. We've heard evidence, both from the applicant and Ashley Sessing that it wasn't strictly issued by the MK for the purposes, it was recovered during a private instant but from part of an arms cache, so to speak, of the unit. So those are the three instances.
Firstly, concerning whether the acts were politically motivated or not, in this connection for what it's worth, I'd like to refer to the judgment of the high court trial, which has been reported in the law reports under State vs Mohale and Another 199 volume 2 SACR (i) Witwatersrand. However the judgment as reported in the Law Reports doesn't deal with the details of the sentence, but the judgment also appears in the bundle before this Commission from page 40 to 50, so I'd like to refer to passages of this judgment.
On page 42 of the judgment on the merits, the Judge had to consider whether the, incidentally the applicant was Accused 1 in that case and the witness Allie Tliane was Accused number 2, so the Judge had to consider whether Accused 1, that's the applicant, was a member of MK and he was acting out of political conviction and so on, so on page 42 of the judgment the Judge said, from line 21 onwards:
"I doubt as to whether he was in fact a member of MK as alleged by him. However, this was not disputed by the State and I will accordingly accept for the purpose of this judgment that he was a member of MK and in killing Mr Namane believed he was acting under orders to do so. Similarly, in regard to the attempt upon the life of Mr Songo, the State did not disprove or put in issue his allegation that he was acting under instructions of Accused 2."
Then furthermore on pages 48 and 49 of the bundle which was part of the sentencing stage of the judgment, the learned Judge had to consider whether the offences were committed out of personal motive or some other personal circumstance, perhaps financial motive, were the political considerations and in this connection the learned Judge said the following:
"He gave evidence in this court at some length and I am satisfied that he is in fact a highly intelligent man with certain fixed and unshakeable convictions. I personally have great sympathy for the moral dilemma which he faced in 1992. However, I cannot overlook the fact that he killed someone in brutal circumstances and in the presence of that person's children. The further attempt to kill Mr Songo, a person not only against whom he did not have any personal grudge, but a person whom he respected. Mr Songo had in the past been his teacher and was at the very when he attempted to kill him, trying to assist him in the furtherance of his career. I feel that the community must be aware and I'm sure is aware that political killings are not the way that political disputes are solved. If politics is practised through violence, you are not practising politics but are practising civil war. No country can allow this as it can only lead to anarchy and death of innocent people."
And then the Judge goes on at the end of page 48 and 49 to allude to the possibility of political amnesty.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes of course the only real relevance of this kind of thing to us is possibly an indication that even at the trial stage there was a reference to the fact that this particular matter could have been politically motivated.
MR KNOPP: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Otherwise the views of the trial judge are really not all that relevant to our purposes. He was of course commenting on what was placed before him. We're performing a totally different function so you know, that's really the value of this sort of thing, otherwise we're not bound by what the court said. We, from our experience, we are always taken aback by the extent to which the administration of justice is being perverted and frustrated through misleading courts, presenting false testimony, so we have found that there is a limit to this sort of material. I thought I'd just raise it in case you had thought that perhaps you must go in great detail through the judgment which is not really necessary.
MR KNOPP: Yes, thank you Mr Chairman. Just to place things in perspective of time, the events occurred in 1992. The court is probably not aware that the 19th of October 1993 the applicant was arrested. He was not arrested for the offences which form the subject matter of the High Court trial and this tribunal, he was arrested for some unrelated offence.
Then on the 1st of November 1996 after having made arrangements for the police to come to Leeukop prison, he made his first confession and on the 8th of November 1996, he made his second confession. Just for the assistance of the tribunal, for some or other reason only the second confession was included in the bundle from pages 3 to 12. For some or other reason the first confession dated 1st of November, was not included in the bundle. Perhaps it's merely an administrative oversight or perhaps some difficulty in obtaining that document. However for the tribunal's information, the reason why there are two confessions and they were both made to the same Magistrate incidentally, is that because the confessions were so long, the Magistrate could not finish the confession completely on the 1st of November and therefore the applicant had to be brought back on the 8th of November to complete the second phase of the confession. Then, as I've already referred to, in December 1996, which is the date of the written amnesty application of the applicant, then the applicant stood trial in the High Court last year, 1998 and this year his amnesty hearing.
CHAIRPERSON: Why was his trial not suspended pending these proceedings?
MR KNOPP: I'm not quite sure. By the time I was seised of the brief, so to speak, it was like half-way through the trial and...
CHAIRPERSON: You're not sure what happened in the earlier stages?
MR KNOPP: I'm not sure what happened in the earlier stages but my point is this, that perhaps if the Amnesty Hearing had taken place before the trial, that trial would never have taken place in the first place.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well often that's the first thing that the legal representatives do. They stay the criminal proceedings. They stay the proceedings in the normal course and they deal with these proceedings, the amnesty proceedings first and often it saves resources, time, etc and makes good sense that is why it's just peculiar that your client having applied 96 for amnesty, his trial commenced in wherever in 97 last year and continued to it's conclusion without anybody mentioning a word about the fact that he's applied for amnesty. The court ...(indistinct) to have raised the point as well. It is normally for the accused to apply, to take corrective steps but I'm quite sure the court might very well have raised the possible waste of resources, but in any case, you're not sure what happened.
MR KNOPP: So that is the time context in which these events took place.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR KNOPP: Concerning the evidence of the if I can call them witnesses before the Panel, the first one was the applicant himself. He testified that he's now 31 years of age, so in 1992 he must have been 24 years of age and it's my submission that at the age of 24 one is still relatively young, one's character is still being formed and it's my submission that at that age, after having being trained in exile in both military affairs and politics, he must have been susceptible to instructions or suggestions from Commanders and leaders on his return to Tembisa.
1992 was before the first democratic elections in this country and in the High Court the Judge's comment on page 47 of the bundle:
"The crimes were committed at a time when there was considerable political turmoil in the townships in this country.
CHAIRPERSON: I think that is common cause. You can accept that this Panel is aware of that situation.
MR KNOPP: Yes. So in other words the acts were not committed when things are relatively more settled today after two democratic elections.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR KNOPP: This was before the first democratic elections and there was a lot of political vying for possession and so on.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR KNOPP: And also lots of hate and suspicion about what was considered the old apartheid structures, councils and so on.
The objective as claimed by the applicant concerning the offences was to consolidate the ANC operations and stop interference by victims. Concerning Namane, Namane was considered to have aligned himself with the Civic structure, viewed as counter revolutionary to the ANC aligned Civic structures and concerning Songo, it was considered that he was unpopular among the community, most of the community because of his historical involvement with former council structures in Tembisa.
Now it's my respectful submission that the issue here is not whether those two victims, the deceased and Songo, were in fact guilty of the allegations as described, the issue here is whether there could have been a perception in the community that they were guilty of those allegations and furthermore whether the Twana/Radebe concerning Namane and Tliane, concerning Songo, could have told the applicant that they must be eliminated, the victims must be eliminated because of those so-called crimes and for instance when Radebe who was in the witness box, the one Panel member specifically asked him whether it was not unheard of that Councillors would be murdered because of it was considered that they were aligned to apartheid structures and the witness, after first being reluctant, later on conceded that there is such a possibility. So, then the applicant in that time context, 1992, returning to the area is now being told to murder people, assassinate them, eliminate them by Commanders and a leader and it's my submission that it's highly probable that the applicant would have been influenced by being told to do these things under those circumstances.
The question of course arises, how is it that there were political acts of violence perpetrated at a time which although before the first democratic elections, were after 1990, like the date of 1990 with respect is important because on the 6th of August 1990 the ANC formally committed itself to a cessation of armed hostility, there seems to be, on a superficial level, a conflict of contradiction in that respect. That's the one problematic aspect with this matter.
The second problematic aspect, if I may call it such, is it's all very well the applicant taking instructions to commit an act from MK Commanders, but with Allie Tliane, he's not a soldier or MK by any stretch of the imagination, he's merely a political leader. How is it that the applicant then could take instructions to act in committing a murder on his behalf?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that is perhaps not such a major problem, provided that the source of the orders represent leadership of the organisation. It might not be problematic. Perhaps a bigger problem that your client has in this matter, is that he has been contradicted on both incidents and perhaps that is where the biggest source of potential difficulty lies, which I'm quite sure you agree with.
MR KNOPP: Yes, I'm getting to that. But just briefly concerning these two problems, I want to refer the Panel to the ANC's statement to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which I've referred to earlier and on page 47 of the ANC statement with more specific reference to the ANC's approach to the role of armed actions in the struggle for democracy and which targets he considered legitimate to continuous threats in all ANC policies and public statements on this issue have been that armed struggle is only one of a range of interrelated methods of struggle with political leadership at all time directing the arms struggle, so here we see that the tradition in the ANC is always that the military action was never an end in itself, it was only to, as a vehicle, to execute the will of the political leadership, that's my interpretation of the statement.
Then on page 48 of the statement:
"Concerning Operation Maivuya, in it's study the Committee should bear in mind the following main targets: Strategic power stations, police stations and irredeemable government stooges."
So I would argue that in a sense the victims could have been regarded as, the applicant has called them proxies of apartheid.
MR LAX: Mr Knopp what, so that we don't confuse things here, that aspect of the statement is referring to a particular time of the struggle, are those comments applicable to a later phase, particularly as you've raised with us the fact that the arms struggle was ceased at that point in time and are these in fact not policy statements referring to a prior period? You see the structures that the ANC had to politically make the struggle accountable were quite detailed and quite extensive and those statements should be seen in that context, should they not?
MR KNOPP: Yes, that is correct. I'm coming ...(intervention)
MR LAX: We're dealing with a subtly different time frame here. One accepts that the so-called stooges of apartheid were legitimate targets at one time or another so that's not in issue I don't think.
MR KNOPP: If I may come then to the 1992 period. On page 65 of the Statement, I quote
"By April 1991 there had been no respite from the violence. Over 2 400 civilians had been slaughtered and the ANC announced an ultimatum. Unless certain actions were taken by the government to halt bloodshed, it would withdraw from the negotiation process."
Then later on:
"President Nelson Mandela emphasised that the 1991 National Conference of the ANC, where MK can it must of course make it's expertise available to those communities that are engaged in a process of establishing Self-Defence Units."
And in the next paragraph:
"Some members of MK Military HQ were asked to attend to the issue relating to SDUs. The organisation, training and the provision of weaponry. It was however made clear that the overall control of the SDUs was to remain with the community structures and MK cadres were to participate as members of the community. MK Command was to play a secondary role. Various clandestine units for the training and organisation of the various SDUs was set up and some cadres were tasked to provide weaponry where possible."
So, it's my submission that this statement, taken together with the applicant's testimony that he set up SDU Units at that time. He did this as part of his duties as an MK cadre, that he's assisted in this by Twana and Radebe and obtained firearms and ammunition from them and that despite the cessation of violent acts, there were still violent acts being perpetrated and furthermore according to the applicant, there was a lot of suspicion whether the government would keep to it's undertaking and therefore it was thought prudent to keep caches of firearms and operate underground.
MR LAX: It's common cause that SDUs were formed and that they had arms and that they kept those arms hidden from the police and that they were raided continuously. It's common cause that there was violence during that period. Your client however, places himself outside the bounds of the SDUs in a so-called MK unit. Now MK units weren't authorised to act at that time. Only SDU units were authorised to act at that time, in defence of the community. That's one of the problems, from my point of view, I'd like addressed.
MR KNOPP: Mr Commissioner, it's my respectful submission that things weren't well-organised at that time in Tembisa. There wasn't a well-oiled military machine over there like perhaps SANDF or the Police Force, things were a bit chaotic, cadres were coming from exile and it's my submission that there had not been uniformed training, the discipline was not all that strict and it's my submission that there must have been some confusion between strictly the SD units and the MK units, not always clear boundary and also not always a clear boundary concerning what orders or instructions the applicant was obligated to carry out.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it appears that the returnees were assumed into the local structures.
MR KNOPP: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: In fact I think that the applicant said that he didn't come back with any specific instructions from the MK Command. They accepted as returnees that they had to join up with the local situation, to put it that way.
MR KNOPP: Yes. If I could borrow a term from Administrative Law, perhaps there was a sort of a legitimate expectation that after having been trained in exile to perform military functions, he then came back and assumed that he was supposed to do that.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, there wasn't the sort of conventional MK operation against government installations, that sort of high-profiled warfare going on, those kind of hostilities had been ceased in terms of the Agreements that were entered into by the parties, but they joined up with the local realities, they were now citizens back at home, residents of the townships and so on and so forth. Obviously they participated in whatever was going at that stage, it seems.
MR KNOPP: In this connection it's interesting that Allie Tliane had a long acquaintance with both Patrick Twana and Radebe. They'd known each other for a long time. Although this didn't come out specifically in their evidence, assuming that for the sake of argument, the applicant had performed the murder of the late Rev Namane on instructions of Twana and Radebe, that was in June 1992, now Allie Tliane gets to hear that this hit man is in town, he's been trained overseas, he's friendly with the brother-in-law of the hit man and this now is a good opportunity to use him to do the dirty work with Namane. It's my submission that that is highly probable, if one accepts the first proposition.
Concerning the applicant's evidence himself, it's my submission that he was not compelled to come out with any information whilst he was serving out a sentence in Leeukop, he could have remained silent, yet all of a sudden he comes out with these two confessions in 1996. It's my submission that the confessions made in those circumstances tend to indicate that he has made full disclosure of the facts as he experienced them and what is more, he's been consistent, largely consistent, in his version from 1996 throughout the High Court trial, although in the High Court trial there were some problems because his first advocate was, according to him, not carrying out his instructions, but from when I took over as counsel and also his version here before this Tribunal is largely consistent. So it's my submission that he has made full disclosure.
CHAIRPERSON: Did he say in his confession that Twana and Radebe gave him the orders to kill Namane? If you can remember offhand, I'll look at the confession again.
MR KNOPP: No, no, that's not so. I'll check up on that point but if my memory serves me correctly, he didn't say that.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR LAX: Just on that point, that's contained in the first confession I would think, because the second confession deals with the Songo incident and it might be helpful if we had a copy of that in due course please.
MR KNOPP: If the Tribunal will just bear with me.
CHAIRPERSON: Have you got a copy of that first one?
MR KNOPP: I have a copy. I've made some marks on it, but ...
CHAIRPERSON: Oh, is that the one you're looking at?
MR KNOPP: Yes. If the Tribunal doesn't mind, I can have copies made for you.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Does it jog your memory a bit having looked at that? Is there any reference to Twana and Radebe there?
MR KNOPP: Yes, indeed there is.
CHAIRPERSON: It doesn't matter.
MR KNOPP: Yes, the Namane incident is linked to Twana and Radebe and then he touches on his stay in KwaNdebele and how he had to come back for monies from KwaNdebele and the second confession goes into, I think, into the other, the Songo offence.
CHAIRPERSON: We'll have a look at that. Thank you Mr Knopp.
MR KNOPP: So it's my respectful submission that the applicant has been largely consistent and he's made full confession. He did so in his confessions, he did so in the High Court and he's done so before this Panel.
I'm going to get presently to the evidence of the other witnesses but, so my main submission is that the Tribunal should accept the version of the applicant above those of the other witnesses.
However, my alternative submission is this, even if the Panel finds that Twana, Radebe and Tliane, one or more of them, did not in fact instruct the applicant to commit these crimes, the preponderance of the evidence would seem to suggest that it's quite likely that some other persons told the applicant to commit these crimes in a political context. I say that for the following reasons: If one looks at the Namane incident, the applicant didn't know this victim from a bar of soap, if I can use that crude term. He comes back from exile, he doesn't know who the victim is, he's never heard of his name before, he doesn't even know where he lives, he's got no personal connection or grudge or argument with the victim, then all of a sudden he's got to make elaborate preparations to stalk this victim and then go and murder him.
MR SIBANYONI: In the same breath, wouldn't you say concerning his hiding place in KwaNdebele, the applicant didn't know Ephraim Gohale or the other person Felapi, but he ...(indistinct) he knows Ephraim Mohale, they were together in prison and also on some political organisations?
MR KNOPP: Yes, I would submit that too.
CHAIRPERSON: There is, speaking for myself, there is some force in your submission concerning the lack of a personal motive on the part of the applicant to act against Namane.
MR KNOPP: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: The only issue that arises on the basis of your submission is that if it is found that neither Twana nor Radebe ordered him to commit that deed, then of course the question of a full disclosure comes into the picture and even though more than likely it would have been a politically motivated attack and more than likely emanating from some or other political authority in the area, you might, your client might have difficulty with the full disclosure element of it.
MR KNOPP: Yes, with respect, I foresee that problem.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR KNOPP: My respectful submission in that case would be that applicant would then have made full enough disclosure before the Tribunal. We know that principle in our criminal law connection with intent dolus, is a principle called, doctrine called dolus indeterminatus. Say you aim at one particular person who has an identity in an attempt to kill him, but for some or other reason the shot doesn't strike him, it misses him and strikes someone else that one had no intention of striking in the first place, one is just as guilty of the murder or culpable homicide of the other victim as one is of the first, so in that context I would argue that even if it isn't one or more of these Commanders or leaders that gave instructions, someone did give him instructions.
MR LAX: Surely the issue of instructions is a relevant fact?
MR KNOPP: Yes.
MR LAX: And the Act speaks about full disclosure of the relevant facts.
MR KNOPP: Yes.
MR LAX: Furthermore your client is relying on the fact that he received instructions from someone. If you don't disclose the source of the instruction, isn't that an issue which affects full disclosure? Yes, with respect, it would be very relevant.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, what you'd also bear in mind, I know that we are jumping a bit, but just to give you some advance notice, the significant difference between the two incidents, your client is contradicted on both by would-be instructors. However, in respect of the second incident, in respect of Songo, your client is, on the face of it now, let's assume for the purposes of this debate, he seems to be corroborated by at least somebody.
MR KNOPP: By Sessing.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And then my colleague has referred to one of the factors that would come into the picture in regard to KwaNdebele and so on and then various others that one can identify. It seems to affect the probabilities. However, there's a material difference in respect of the first incident because there your client is pitted against the evidence of the instructors who say that they have not instructed him to do this.
MR KNOPP: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: And I'm quite sure you will deal with the significance of that.
MR KNOPP: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: And how we should be approaching this matter if for example it is found that in respect of the one your client has not made a full disclosure in regard to the source of the instructions as the two people that he alleges gave the instructions did not, his version is rejected on that score, but on the second incident, his version is accepted. Whether there are any submissions to be made around that sort of approach.
MR KNOPP: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: But as I say, just to give advance notice. I'm quite sure you'll get to all these things.
MR KNOPP: Thank you Mr Chairman. Concerning, if I may get then to actually assessing, this was the witness called by the applicant to support his case. It's my submission he corroborates the applicant on the attempted murder of Songo. Of course the difference between the two instances is that in the first instant the applicant acted as a sole perpetrator. He didn't have a right-hand man or other persons acting with him as accomplices. If that had been so, perhaps he would have had witnesses to call to support him, but in the second instant, the Songo instant, the applicants had then formed the SDU units and in this particular unit it was Simon himself as the Commander and Sessing, whom the applicant refers to as his right-hand man, the so-called accomplice. So that's why, it's my submission, that's why he's in a position to call Sessing on the second instant, but he doesn't have witnesses for the first.
I've already touched on this aspect during the Hearing, that for the Tribunal's information, Sessing was warned as a possible accomplice during the High Court trial in terms of Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Act. That was at the commencement of Sessing's evidence. In the judgment of the High Court, it's interesting that, page 44 of the bundle:
"Whilst both Accused 1 and Mr Sessing were ad idem in regard to the instructions they received in regard to the attempted killing of Mr Songo, they were completely at odds in regard to the killing of Mr Namane."
So there are some problems with Sessing's evidence but it's my submission that Sessing does largely corroborate the applicant concerning the Songo incident and what is more, although it doesn't appear from the judgment as published, I was in the High Court trial and at the end of everything the Judge in fact granted Sessing indemnity in terms of Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Act, so despite any reservations which the judge might have had concerning Sessing's credibility, it does seem as if the judge was satisfied to indemnify him, that he's made full disclosure in the High Court and likewise my submission here is that I would ask the Tribunal to accept the evidence of Sessing as being a full disclosure and the truth as well and that definitely supports the applicant at least on the second instant.
One can also see what type of hit men were used in the offence. These are not persons in their twenties, sorry thirties and forties, mature cadres, they're youngsters. Sessing had barely come from school and the applicant, 24 years old, young political firebrands, not very mature. That's the type of hit men that were used for the tasks.
It's my submission there is some slight difference about whether Sessing did freeze when he was supposed to shoot the victim himself, whether there was an exchange of the firearm from Sessing to Simon or not, but it's my submission that those are minor discrepancies and in essence, his version does corroborate that of the applicant.
Still on the second instant, although not in strict chronological order, I come to Allie Tliane, because he was the last witness in fact. Now it seems to be common cause that the applicant didn't know Tliane from before. There was never, and even when he got to know him, there was no real close personal relationship between the two men. The connection was the brother-in-law of the applicant George Bila, he was also a political activist and served on the same committee as Tliane. There was that connection.
Now one knows from the evidence that the applicant had been using the motor vehicle, or motor vehicles of George Bila, in other words his own family motor cars and it seems there was a shortage of motor cars in Tembisa, people had to borrow cars of other people to use and I think it was Patrick Twana that said they did use George Bila's motor vehicles from time to time for various things, requirements. So it seems that George Bila was the Avis Car Hire company, if I can call it that, of the Tembisa activists, political activists. But in the Songo instant lo and behold, it's not the George Bila vehicle which is used. We know for a fact that Allie Tliane obtained the transport from someone else, some old man he said Julius Mane.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes and under false pretences.
MR KNOPP: Under false pretences and to the prejudice of the owner of the motor car whom he has a stronger connection to than the applicant and ...
CHAIRPERSON: And it appears that this owner of the vehicle was not just an average resident, he was politically involved, he was the chairperson of one of the local structures there.
MR KNOPP: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: So it's not as if it would be somebody who's standing unsympathetic towards returned MK cadres who might have personal difficulties with transport even if you know it's a well-looked after car of an older person.
MR KNOPP: Yes. Then the applicant had no valid driver's licence. Allie Tliane, he says, well he assumed he must have had a licence because he had been driving the motor car of his brother-in-law, but if one's concerned about the safety of a motor car, of a close contact, surely you do some more diligent investigations about the valid driver's licence which he concedes he didn't do. So the transport is obtained under false pretences to the prejudice of the owner of the car and then entrusted to the applicant, on Tliane's version not for political purposes, but for the applicant to take his mother to Standerton. It's my submission, with respect, that this whole version of Tliane is absurd and it's a pack of lies.
The second aspect concerning the criticism of Tliane is that we know that SANCO and other political organisations were not wealthy organisations in Tembisa. They had to scrounge around to find a few rand for petrol and so on when cars are available.
Now it comes to - the applicant makes these two confessions and now all of a sudden Tliane, with a delegation from SANCO, comes to visit the applicant in Leeukop prison and lo and behold an amount of nearly R40 000 is conjured up from SANCO coffers to pay for the legal defence of the applicant and the same organisation also funded the legal defence of Tliane himself.
MR LAX: The only difference, Mr Knopp, is that this point was 96, 97, 98, SANCO was quite a different structure, the whole political scenario was different and of course that's just from a financial point of view, there was a completely different situation to what existed and pertained in 92, but that aside I think the issue of the delegations and all that stuff, well that's a different matter.
MR KNOPP: Yes. It's my respectful submission, the applicant qualified for legal aid, he was sitting there in prison, he was unemployed and in fact he did get legal aid eventually, that's how I was instructed in the matter.
MR LAX: Of course the applicant didn't refuse the assistance.
MR KNOPP: No, he didn't refuse the assistance until a certain point and that point came in the High Court trial when according to the applicant, that counsel was not carrying out the instructions of the applicant for obvious reasons. It's the applicant's version that the reason why funding was obtained from SANCO with Tliane behind this, this was referred to in the High Court judgment on page 45 of the bundle
"A further strange aspect of this matter is that Accused 2 was partially instrumental in getting SANCO to fund Accused 1's defence. This seems to indicate that Accused 2 was trying to influence Accused 1 as testified by him, not to implicate Accused 2 in the crimes."
And that's what the applicant says, that when this delegation came to the prison, the funding for legal representation and so on, the whole idea behind it was to persuade the applicant not to implicate Tliane in the High Court trial.
MR LAX: But of course if that was the thesis, why did he then accept the assistance and then appear to go along with that plot, if that was in fact the reason why they came to see him, and then only later changed his mind.
MR KNOPP: Yes.
MR LAX: So, it's a situation where you can't have your cake and eat it, sort of, the one thesis is correct, then his conduct seems to defeat it. Of course the judge does go on to say in the next sentence
"I can't say that this was the only reasonable inference to be drawn"
but all I'm doing is saying that if one makes one inference, you've got to stick with the logical consequences of that inference.
M KNOPP: Yes, I won't labour this point then too much, but ...
CHAIRPERSON: We've taken the point.
MR KNOPP: Yes. So it's my submission that this Tribunal cannot rely on the version of Allie Tliane, he's a self-confessed liar, his version is absurd, it's a lying version and I would ask the Tribunal to accept the version of the applicant above that of Tliane, the applicant as supported by the evidence of Sessing.
Coming then to Radebe and Twana, these were high up functionaries in MK and Twana in the ANC in Tembisa and it's my submission, one gets the impression that they're trying to give the impression to this Tribunal that whatever they did was acting in accordance with the official policy of the ANC and the MK. It's my submission that they would have noted not to own up to having instructed the applicant to commit these offences because it may bring the ANC and the MK into disrepute. It's not strictly in accordance with the policies of the ANC and the MK.
It's my submission furthermore that they're underplaying their role and the Tribunal should be wary when approaching their evidence. Because they're not owning up, it's easy to see why the applicant feels betrayed at the end of the day. As he stated:
"Most of us MK soldiers have been used by leaders for dirty jobs. After the execution we are dumped. I am standing here alone today as an individual while my leaders are living in comfort."
So that's the feeling that the applicant ...
CHAIRPERSON: What possible reason did Twana or Radebe have for wanting to get rid of Namane, having him killed?
MR KNOPP: Well I would submit, that is one of the puzzling aspects of this whole thing. What is clear is that there were political divisions to a greater or lesser extent. There were divisions between the PAC and the ANC. That victim was a PAC member.
CHAIRPERSON: How strong was the PAC? How much of a force were they, on what is before us?
MR KNOPP: Apparently not very strong. Then there was the association with the old council.
CHAIRPERSON: But was there - I had the initial impression that Namane was actually a, or had been a councillor but then from the subsequent testimony it appears that he hasn't been, it appears that he's been on the side of the liberatory forces all along.
MR KNOPP: Yes. Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: And it appeared he was part of the Tembisa Civic Association, the original community structure which was a sort of a church, whatever the expression is, that accommodated, an umbrella sort of a body that accommodated all sorts of political sentiments and then there was this ANC, pro ANC breakaway.
MR KNOPP: TRA.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, the TRA subsequently.
MR KNOPP: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: But Namane seemed to have been part of the TCA structure.
MR KNOPP: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: And seemed to have been into the Pan Africanist Congress structures.
MR KNOPP: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: So I became a bit confused and my eventual impression, the one that lingers on now is that he was not linked to the council structures, he was not a councillor.
MR KNOPP: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: And that is probably why I was thinking of the possible reason for getting rid of him. He seemed to have been though into some sort of a property development business.
MR KNOPP: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: In respect of which Twana and Radebe don't seem to have any sort of interest. I don't know what Tliane's position is in respect of that sort of activity, bearing in mind of course also that Sessing said at one stage that Tliane reminded him about the Namane hit. So it's all those kind of issues that are hanging loose.
MR KNOPP: I concede that on the face of things, no strong reason has come out for murdering that victim but it may be that there was a reason which didn't come to the fore and which Twana and Radebe aren't being honest about.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. There are all these reasons, I mean, for conduct, except that of course here we've got to weigh all of these things up. You have these two versions, mutually exclusive versions, so we have to look at all the surrounding factors to try and assist us in coming to a conclusion.
MR KNOPP: Yes, but assuming that there was some other reason fro Radebe and Twana wanting to take out Namane. It's not to say that they would be honest with the applicant in telling that is the reason, they would then try and clothe the whole thing in a respectability of a political motivation.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it was always open to abuse, to use people with a military knowledge, to settle personal feuds, yes indeed, so that is always a possibility particularly when it comes to the political realm where often there are these personal differences.
MR KNOPP: Yes.
MR LAX: Just one other thing on the issue of Namane. It was your client's version and his evidence in chief that Namane was a problem because he was associated with the councils. It wasn't just what his instructions were, he appeared to have verified that himself and in fact that was never so.
MR KNOPP: Yes.
MR LAX: Even he was under that misapprehension, even if we give him the benefit of the doubt, which sort of - one wonders how that could be, when he was clearly not of that ilk.
MR KNOPP: Well perhaps it was some disinformation that was fed to the applicant. So the question then arises why the applicant would, out of the blue, then accuse these two Commanders if they had nothing to do with the instant. It would have been easier to have pointed a finger perhaps at the people that had disappeared from society or had since died, because one couldn't then follow up the leads but here he points at two MK Commanders. In fact my impression, when I got the brief to defend the applicant, I saw the two names and in going through the papers I thought to myself, these must be two persons that have either disappeared or can't be traced and lo and behold I then managed to trace them to Tembisa, they were still very much around, so that's why I'm arguing, with respect, that it seems very strange that the applicant would point his finger at two persons who are very much still around in the area.
CHAIRPERSON: This whole statement was taken first by the police, the confessions or the statements. I know Radebe made a statement, Twana as well, if I'm not mistaken. Were those taken first, prior to the 1st of November, or ...?
MR KNOPP: If I may just be given an opportunity to refer to the bundle.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR KNOPP: He only made a statement in August 92.
CHAIRPERSON: Who's that?
MR KNOPP: Mr Tliane, that's on page 16 of the secondary bundle and Radebe and Twana in November and October 1996.
CHAIRPERSON: November and October. Who made the October statement?
MR KNOPP: That's Twana.
CHAIRPERSON: Twana, so that was before the confessions was it?
MR LAX: No the confession was in August.
MR KNOPP: The confession was in November.
CHAIRPERSON: You said November?
MR LAX: November, I beg your pardon.
MR KNOPP: November 96.
CHAIRPERSON: November 96?
MR KNOPP: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: So Twana's statement was prior to the confession?
MR KNOPP: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: And what about Radebe?
MR KNOPP: Radebe, ...
CHAIRPERSON: After the confession?
MR KNOPP: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: 20th of November?
MR KNOPP: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: So the police, did the police get to Twana first before they got to your client?
MR KNOPP: Unless the dates are wrong, it seems like that must have been the case.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Yes, thank you.
MR KNOPP: So it's my submission that the Tribunal should accept the version of the applicant and should find that he has satisfied all the requirements which I've dealt with. Those are my submissions. If I may be given an opportunity perhaps later I can have copies made of the first confession of the applicant.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, we'll appreciate that Mr Knopp. Ms Vilakazi?
MS VILAKAZI IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Mr Chairman. As I indicated yesterday, that the submission of the Namane family would form part of my closing argument, I would start off with their submission.
I'll start first with the message that Mrs Namane asked me to convey to the applicant himself and the message is that firstly she feels compelled as a Christian to forgive him for having killed her husband because as a Christian she also expects that she would be forgiven by those that she transgresses against, but that her willingness to forgive does not, on it's own, mean that all is forgiven. Her message is that she's not in a position to forgive the applicant on behalf of the deceased himself and she's also not in a position to forgive on behalf of her kids and all the people who have been affected by the death of Mr Namane. She further says that by killing Mr Namane, the applicant has not only deprived her of her husband, but it has affected quite a number of people and it has affected the deceased himself in the sense that he has been deprived of the opportunity to be part of the development of his own kids and also to play a meaningful role in their upbringing and to see how they develop as kids and into adulthood. But the children have also been affected by this in the sense that they have not had a fatherly figure to look up to in their critical developmental stages of their lives. She says that Rev Namane was a very active person in the Tembisa community. As a Reverend in his congregation, or in his church, he was involved with raising funds for the building of a church for the community and he was the key figure because of the connections that he had in the fund-raising campaign. His death has affected the process of building the church for the community. Rev Namane was also actively involved in finding temporary or casual jobs over holidays for youth within his community. His death has affected those youths who benefited from his involvement in that regard.
It is on that basis that Mrs Namane feels that her own perceptions of her own reaction to the plea for pardon by the applicant play an insignificant role. With regard to the application itself, I should mention that the family came to the hearings with quite an expectation. They went through the trial. The trial has at least to some extent, assisted the family in answering the question as to who killed their loved one. But the question that remained unanswered at the conclusion of the trial, or let me say two questions that remained unanswered were firstly who gave the instructions that Rev Namane should be killed and secondly, why did he have to be killed?
So the family expected that these hearings would provide the answers to those two questions. The family understands the context in which this application is made being that it is part of the process of reconciliation and therefore the family appreciates the fact that it is expected to accept what has happened in a positive spirit, painful as it may be, but the family expects also that this process would help it to close the chapter. It is my submissions that the expectations of the family are yet to be met.
The Committee is required in terms of Section 20 of the Act to focus on the requirements outlined in determining whether or not to grant amnesty. It is my respectful submission that the focus should not be only on the three requirements but that the Committee should at all times be mindful of the greater context in which the Hearings take place. The context being that of seeking reconciliation amongst perpetrators and victims and it is in that context that the whole matter should be approached. It is common cause, I submit, that the applicants did not have any personal grounds to kill Mr Namane. It has never been actively conversed that the applicant knew Rev Namane personally or that he had anything to do with Rev Namane and on that basis, I would submit that it should be accepted that the applicant did not have any personal motivation to kill Rev Namane.
The question that remains is, or before I come to that, it is also I submit common cause that the applicant acted on instructions. Now the question that is pertinent is, whose instructions was he acting on? The version of the applicant is that, with regard to the death of Rev Namane, he was acting on the instructions of Mr Radebe and Mr Twana. Mr Radebe and Mr Twana have vehemently denied, vehemently and consistently denied ever giving instructions to the applicant to kill Rev Namane. The caution is, why would the applicant implicate Mr Twana and Mr Radebe, in view of the fact that firstly the applicant was not arrested in connection with the death of Rev Namane, he volunteered information relating to the death, so why would he initiate the process and then lie about it? That is the question that hangs in the air and the question that has to be answered.
The next question is, if indeed it is to be accepted that Mr Twana and Mr Radebe did not give instructions to the applicant to kill Rev Namane, Mr Twana and Mr Radebe being prominent members in the Tembisa community would at least have a hint as to who would have given those instructions or who might be behind the killing of Rev Namane. I posed the question to Mr Twana as to who could have given instructions and his response was that he doesn't know.
CHAIRPERSON: Isn't it a bit difficult for him to speculate under oath at a very public hearing of this nature? A) he might very well have suspicions, everybody might have suspicions but I mean it's a bit tough and it occurred to me when you did ask him the question, that it puts a witness in a very difficult position if he is asked that question under these circumstances. It might assist if the question is repeated outside of this sort of context and he might very well have some responses. The other point that I wanted to just raise with you, did the applicant actually volunteer information or did he only make a statement after he was approached by the police because there was a bit of uncertainty around this question, but the impression that I have and that's why I'm asking you, I might be mistaken, from the eventual situation is that he was first approached by the police and then he co-operated with them because there was an impression created I think by Mr Knopp's questioning that the applicant in fact initiated the contact with the police, almost like calling the police to the prison to now tell them a story that they didn't know about, whereas eventually it seems to me that what happened was that he was, the applicant was approached by the police and then he started giving those statements. I'm not sure whether you have any clearer recollection of that particular aspect.
MS VILAKAZI: Now that you have hinted on it, Mr Chairman, my recollection is that yes, indeed, from the applicant's version itself, he did indicate that he was approached by the police and then he volunteered the information.
I was still on the aspect of the question that I asked to Mr Twana. I accept the view that it might have been difficult for him to just volunteer information given the nature of the context in which he was asked, or the circumstances in which the question was asked, but the fact of the matter is he stands implicated and I submit that it would be in his interests to clear his name, particularly in view of the position that he holds in the society.
MR LAX: Did he not offer or allude to a possible cause, which was to do with the building and the houses and the development and the conflict around that, but he couldn't take it any more than that. That was the only thing that he could think of that might have been some basis for that.
So it's not fair to say he didn't give any reasons bearing in mind the problems raised by the Chair. He still speculated, well that's the only thing he could possibly think of.
MS VILAKAZI: The impression that I gained, it might be an incorrect impression, but the impression that I gained from the response of Mr Twana, he said something like: "The applicant knows who gave him instructions, let him talk" and the inference that I drew from that is that you know, he sounded so confident that there is somebody else that could have. Perhaps it's a wrong inference to draw but I have reason to believe that Mr Twana has a slight idea as to who might have been instrumental in this whole matter.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct) your clients might even be tempted to pursue that line with him outside of this context. They might get some information. I mean to put your head on a block to do it under oath here and possibly defame people and to open yourself up to consequences might be a bit of a hard call on him, but he's still there, I mean he hasn't disappeared, he's still around. I don't know if your clients have ever done it before, they might want to do it now. Who knows? In any case that's just by the way.
MS VILAKAZI: Okay, but I would really take that point up with the family.
Alright. Now the three implicated persons have highlighted the fact that Rev Namane was not a threat to anyone within the political structures and although Rev Namane was a member of the PAC, he was not an active member, he was not in the leadership of the PAC and it appears from the versions of the three implicated persons that his membership of the PAC was not even known. Mr Tliane himself has said that if he was a member he didn't know that he was a member, so it rules out the possibility that perhaps his death could be linked to the feeling that might have existed between the ANC and the PAC. What has come out strongly is the fact that Rev Namane was an active member in the Civic arrangement within the community and that raises the possibility that his death might be linked to the Civic movement, the intentions that Mr Tliane has indicated that existed within the Civic movement and the fact that there were some splits within the Civic movement. Now the point that I want to put across is that there are ever so many possibilities as to why Rev Namane was killed and who instructed him or who might have instructed the applicant to kill. The fact of the matter is that for as long as there is that question mark, the question still remains as to whether or not there has been full disclosure and I think the Panel has also indicated that the lack of clarity in that manner is likely to affect the question as to whether or not there has been full disclosure.
CHAIRPERSON: And also under all those circumstances, has there been a political objective established before us for the death of Rev Namane under those circumstances? Is there indeed a political objective which has been established on what has been placed before us in respect of his death? That's the other requirement.
MS VILAKAZI: The only political connotation that exists, I submit, is the fact that the people who are said to have given instructions are members of the MK but as to the motive or the objective, the political objective to be achieved by the killing of Rev Namane, that has not been proved.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I mean the implicated dispute the evidence implicating them and they go a step further. They say but there is absolutely no reason why Rev Namane should be killed from a political perspective.
MS VILAKAZI: Of course that is the position, but perhaps if one could view it from the point of view of the applicant, it could be that he was made to believe that there was a political objective, whether it existed or not is something else.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I take your submission.
MS VILAKAZI: I think in conclusion I would make a submission to the Committee that the evidence put before it with regard to the death of Rev Namane has not been sufficient enough to answer the questions as to why he had to be killed and who gave instructions that he should be killed. The tensions that have been referred to time and again may have played a role and I underline the word "may", may have played a role in the killing of Rev Namane and I think it would be in the interests of the community that that aspect should be cleared. It's not only in the interest of the Namane family that the possible link between, of the tensions within the Civic movement could be the reason behind the death of Rev Namane but the community has to be assured that the members of the community are not likely to be sacrificed in the quest for leadership within the Civic movement.
The question still remains who gave instructions as to the killing of Rev Namane and why were those instructions issued and I would submit that the conspiracy that Mr Tliane referred to more than once is a possibility that needs to be explored as to what the conspiracy involves and who is involved and for that reason I would submit that whether or not amnesty is granted to the applicant, a thorough investigation still needs to be conducted.
I submit that with the question still hanging in the air, it would be a travesty of justice for amnesty to be granted despite the fact that there are still questions to be answered but on the other hand I would also submit that it will also be a travesty of justice that the applicant be the only one who pays the price whereas there is that apparent possibility that there are certain other people who are involved.
In the absence of questions of the Panel, I would conclude in that fashion.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes we note your concluding remarks as well and those might very well be questions that have to be dealt with beyond the framework of the work of this Committee but can I just ask you pertinently what are your submissions, has there been a full disclosure in this matter and secondly has a political objective been established in respect of the death of Rev Namane? Just a crisp answer to those questions. You might very well have answered them in your submissions, but just to conclude.
MS VILAKAZI: Well in short, the two requirements have not been met. The political objective has not been proved. There hasn't been full disclosure because there's still that question as to who instructed him to kill.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Ms Vilakazi. Ms Mtanga, do you have any submissions?
MS MTANGA IN ARGUMENT: The issues I wanted to canvass in my submissions have been touched on by the lawyer for the applicant. I am not opposing this application and my basic position is that the applicant has disclosed information within his knowledge. As regards to the political objective, I would say he has also disclosed what he was told. If the Committee is to believe that he was acting upon instructions of some other people to carry out these two offences, he has disclosed information in as far as why this would have been furthering the political objectives of his organisation.
CHAIRPERSON: Now if it is found that the persons that, on his version, gave the orders did not do so, would there have been a full disclosure or not? In other words, the point that was raised by my colleague earlier whether the identity of, under these circumstances, the identity of those who gave the orders, is that a relevant fact that has to be disclosed?
MS MTANGA: Chairperson in the event that the Committee finds that he was not acting upon instructions of any person, I would say there definitely has not been full disclosure because the applicant on his own could not own up or account to what activities were the two victims involved in which would have made them legitimate targets for his organisation and therefore he would have grounds to claim that his actions were actions that were furthering the political objectives of his organisation.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Kopp, have you got any further issues that you want to respond to?
MR KNOPP: Just briefly, three issues.
MR KNOPP IN REPLY: Concerning Songo, the applicant also had not personal or financial motive for instance to get at him. The only connection there was that Songo was a former school teacher who taught him Mathematics at school. There were no problems between the two of them. The applicant then goes into exile, he doesn't see him for a large number of years. He comes back and he'd already broken contact with this person. There was really no connection between the two of them by the time the applicant came back. In fact the applicant's evidence is that he respected this person as a teacher so likewise with Rev Namane, the motivation for the act could not have been otherwise than political with regard to Songo. This was also touched on by the High Court. The High Court said that the applicant was in a dilemma. On the one hand he had these instructions, on the other hand he respected Songo as a school teacher. That's the one aspect.
The other aspect is although my learned colleague, Adv Vilakazi ...(indistinct) on behalf of the one victim and the family of the deceased Namane, she does not act on behalf of the other victim Songo. Songo is still alive, he did testify in the High Court trial but for reasons better known to himself, he has not attended this Tribunal Hearing. However, it's my submission that Songo and the applicant have made peace and there has been reconciliation and in this connection I would refer the Panel to page 49 of the bundle, that's the sentencing part of the Judgment, from line 10 onwards. I quote:
"Mr Songo who was the victim in relation to the count of attempted murder gave evidence in mitigation of sentence in relation to the accused. He displayed great forgiveness for the accused and told the Court that he had made peace with the accused."
I confirm that.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, he has also joined the ANC.
MR KNOPP: Yes, so in the High Court trial in fact he was called as a defence witness in regard to sentence.
Then just briefly with regard to how the applicant came to make his confessions, whether it was voluntary or whether the police came there and extracted it from him, my instructions are that the applicant in fact at first approached the Ministry of I think it was Public Safety and Security. I think there were two Ministries, one for police and one for safety and security, but the applicant first approached the Ministry and some officials were sent to see the applicant in Leeukop but that wasn't taken any further. He never heard from them again and after that delegation then the police came to him and he told the police: "I want to make the confession." In this connection I refer the Panel, there is an illusion to this firstly in the document that I'm going to hand up to the Panel presently, that's the first one on page 2, paragraph 12 (i), he's asked:
"Het u van tevore 'n verklaring in verband met hierdie voorval aan enige persoon gemaak?"
And his answer is:
"Ja, op band geneem by tronk toe Minister van Openbare Veiligheid die tronk besoek het, maar dit was nie die hele weergawe nie, net die in verband met die poging tot moord"
That's the one allusion to that. The other is also in the second confession which is already part of the bundle before the Tribunal, page 2, paragraph 12(i):
"Het u van tevore 'n verklaring in verband met hierdie voorval aan enige persoon gemaak?"
Answer:
"Ja."
12.2: "Indien wel, aan wie, wanneer en onder watter omstandighede?"
"Twee mense kom by die trok vanaf Publiek Safety and Security hierdie jaar, dit was op Woensdag, 6/11/1996 aan Mnr Pretorius se ek moet eers DG gaan sien."
3. "Waarom verlang u om die verklaring te herhaal?"
"Ek het laas keer nie my verklaring gemaak nie. Ek het my besonderheded, die mense van Openbare Veiligheid en Sekuriteit het nie teruggekeer nie so ek is nie seker hulle het my boodskap gegee nie."
So that is what the applicant says happened. He first approached the ministerial officials, when they never pursued the matter then the police came to attend to the confession. That is all.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Knopp. That concludes this matter. The Panel will consider the applicant and will notify the parties as soon as a decision is available in this matter. We will, under the circumstances, reserve the Panel's decision on the application. We would in conclusion express our gratitude to Mr Knopp and Ms Vilakazi and Ms Mtanga for their assistance in this matter.
MR KNOPP: Thank you Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: And we excuse you Mr Knopp.
MR KNOPP: Thank you Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. We will take the short adjournment at this stage. We will adjourn for 15 minutes and reconvene and deal with the remaining matters on the roll. We're adjourned.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
