(TAPE 1 STARTS AT THIS POINT - BEGINNING OF HEARING & ARGUMENT APPEARS LOST)
MR JANSEN: ... those to a large extent revolve around one's factual findings of this incident, but there is no doubt that the evidence as a whole is strongly suggestive of a fairly typical example of somebody who was associated with political activities of the ANC, was abducted and interrogated and thereafter killed. It, clearly in the mind of somebody in the position of Matjeni, if one can put it callously, was business as usual, there was nothing extraordinary from the facts to suggest that this was not ordinary political work or work that the Security Police had over time, engaged in. I respectfully submit that he fairly and squarely falls, complies with (2), whether it be (b) or (f).
Now, Madam Chair, the provisions of (3) and I suppose to some extent, the issue of full disclosure can be dealt with together for convenience. In this sense, I respectfully submit that any of the factual issues that may be controversial and that has been in, or that became contentious as the hearing went on, none of those can reflect negatively on Matjeni simply by virtue of his position as a Constable primarily tasked with the guarding, not with the interrogation, secondly being somebody who obviously is in a position where he must almost mechanically simply follow orders, and do what is told to him. His application cannot be embroiled in those controversies relating to exactly who was Mr Lubane, was his abduction justified, secondly was - what was the position, what was the real motive behind his killing? Did they, are the allegations that they first tried to turn him and to try and get him to work for the police or whether there is in fact truth in the allegations that he posed a danger to an informant, etc. Those facts simply are neutral, as far as the Matjeni application is concerned.
I believe that the other applicants, and to the extent that it may be relevant to either show full disclosure or to the extent that it shows justification in terms of (3), is not for me to address you in the Matjeni application. It would be unfair to embroil him in those controversies. There is the one small fact which I think the, I think it was applicant Bester or somebody, who suggested that he was, Matjeni was present at the assaults or while there were assaults taking place.
Now, my respectful submission there is that that evidence is not sufficient. Firstly it is not categorical evidence, it has its own uncertainties built into. If I remember correctly, Bester even made the concession that he may be wrong, so that in itself should be enough to bring one to a position where one cannot reject Matjeni's evidence in this regard. Furthermore, there is nothing in Matjeni's evidence itself, or the evidence as a whole, to suggest that Matjeni has any reason to lie about this or that he was in fact involved in any assault and that he is trying to, as it were, gloss his version. In fact, if one wants to see any corroboration for Matjeni's evidence, then one must see it in the fact that none of the other applicants really mention him as far as assault is concerned. That simply cannot take the matter any further in my respectful submission.
I believe that you have to take Matjeni's version and his evidence as it stands and obviously all applicants deal with the situation where they must testify about something that happened a long, very long time ago, and something that happened as part of many other incidents, or where they were involved in various other incidents, as Matjeni himself said that he was involved in many interrogations in his career as a policeman. Obviously to recall the details of one specific incident, one can accept that individuals may very well simply reconstruct on the basis of what was their routine, and what their mind may be subconsciously speculate about what was probably what happened. It is of course difficult for somebody to differentiate between something that they have a very convincing independent recollection of and what their mind as it were, reconstructs for them.
For those reasons respectfully, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee, I believe that Matjeni qualifies on all those scores. He also does not fall within any of the disqualifications mentioned just after (3) and I think it is, all that remains is to properly formulate what he should be given amnesty for. I believe that he should be given amnesty for the kidnapping or abduction, whatever one wants to call it, of Mr Petrus Lubane, his actions in guarding him sufficiently makes him common purpose with the actual abduction and the continuing act of kidnapping. The murder is slightly different. I believe there amnesty should be granted to him as an accessory. They were not even present at the scene when it happened, it was just afterwards that they realised what had happened. It would then be for accessory to the murder on Petrus Lubane. And then malicious damage to the property, the burning of the vehicle afterwards and where he was present. Unless there is a specific aspect that you want to hear me on, I don't have any further submissions, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Jansen. Mr Prinsloo?
ADV PRINSLOO IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Chairperson. Honourable Chairperson and members of the Committee, in as far as it has regard to Mr Prinsloo, my argument is firstly with respect that his application complies with the requirements of Section 20(1) of the Act.
I would just like to go back to the facts of the matter and these are - because of the information which were received from an informer, who supplied information, in connection with the activities of the deceased Mr Prinsloo and Mr More became involved in this instance. There is a dispute as to who managed the source, but with respect, I would just like to argue that this is not a relevant fact which needs serious consideration in the light of the fact that More as well as Prinsloo had indeed obtained information from the source and that information does not differ. The contents of the information does not differ, and the information led to the fact that More and the informer infiltrated the deceased. The information which was obtained in such a manner, led to the fact that Prinsloo gave instructions that the deceased be apprehended and abducted. And the deceased was then indeed apprehended, that is not disputed, he was indeed abducted and he was indeed taken and his vehicle taken along or the company vehicle, and he was taken to a farm and on that farm, he was illegally detained and the purposes of that detention was firstly interrogation. He was indeed questioned by Prinsloo and according to evidence by others, he was smacked by Prinsloo. There is evidence that he was slapped by others. Prinsloo said he was not present when it happened, he did not know of it. Afterwards information was supplied by the deceased and what is of import is that information that was in regard to a plan to attack and blow up the House of Coffees and Wachthuis, that this information was embodied in a plan which was found in a vehicle door, which was used by the deceased and the deceased had made sketches which according to Prinsloo had concurred with the plans which were found in the vehicle and the aspect that the plans were sketched, was supported by the evidence of Bester. Capt Crafford who was the Commander was present during these events, he had knowledge of the action and it is clear according to all the evidence, Prinsloo's evidence is not solitary here, that Crafford had control of the events on the farm, and had approved it. He had participated in the interrogation.
On this point, I want to respectfully argue that there can be no dispute that the deceased had indeed been interrogated and that information had been obtained from him and that he was the person who had indeed done reconnaissance for the purposes of
blowing up Wachthuis and the other building, and this aspect is supported by the evidence of More, that this person had reconnoitred Wachthuis at some stage along with the informer and with respect Chairperson, the evidence of Prinsloo that a decision was taken between himself and Crafford that this person under the circumstances had to be eliminated and that Crafford because of this, went to Brig Cronje and returned and said "approval has been given for such an execution by Brig Cronje". This is supported by Bester and other evidence that Crafford had indeed left and returned and furthermore it is also important with respect that Prinsloo gave a beer to the deceased and that beer had contained a tranquilliser of sorts that caused that this person, the deceased, became unconscious and was taken afterwards to a hole that had been enlarged and that he was shot there in the head by Crafford and was afterwards blown up. The evidence is that he was blown up once, and there is a dispute whether he was blown up twice.
With respect, I would want to argue Honourable Chairperson, that the points which are in dispute with regard to the relevant facts, that there are no essential diversions in that aspect. The fact that was mentioned by Mr Strydom, that Prinsloo had bought beer at Pienaarsrivier, he says Prinsloo and the others bought lime beer and with respect Honourable Chairperson, apparently if one looks at the evidence of Strydom, I would not want to say that he is a liar, it is clear that his memory fails him and that he has a drinking problem. He states it himself in paragraph 2 of his supplementary affidavit and it is also clear from his previous statement and the Committee also has to consider with respect, that Strydom was just a passenger, who just drove along with Prinsloo to this place, and with respect Honourable Chairperson, in other cases for whatever reason, would he have had reason to do specific observation. This was not court orientated, he was drinking, he has this drinking problem. It appears that he has this drinking problem.
In a previous matter - I would not like to burden the Committee with that now, but in the sense that where his evidence could be accepted as reliable, one has to approach this with caution. There is no evidence with respect, that this person, the deceased, was interrogated by any of the members while they were under the influence and there is no evidence that these persons because of their inebriated state had just assaulted this person and because of such action, this person had been killed.
There is a puzzle before the Honourable Committee and with respect, there are different persons who are represented by different legal representatives, and if we have a look at the pattern, we look at evidence as to what role everybody played, there would be no room for evidence where the persons could have agreed to say something which was not so. I speak of the essential aspect and with respect, the essential aspects are solid in this matter. The applicant, Prinsloo, was thoroughly questioned, many questions were asked by the Committee and with respect, I want to argue that Prinsloo's answers were honest, reference was made to aspects in his application and with respect, it was pointed out in various matters where statements were drawn up and an indication was given by the Presiding Judge that a person, what had said there, one could not compare it to what a person said afterwards in court. What is the value of police statements? Prinsloo testified that this statement was drawn up under pressure, Prinsloo has conceded and with respect Chairperson, to penalise a person for that, is unfair.
Strydom comes now and he makes a statement and in some instances, this is contradictory to other statements and there are issues where the issues differ and my learned colleague has said that this had taken place 12 years ago and in that sense, one can expect that memories might fail these people.
One has to consider that Prinsloo applied for various aspects where he was involved, which had taken place over a period of time. But once again, I would like to emphasise that there is no contradictions in his evidence and with respect, I would argue that questions was put about, as to why Mr Bester would have questioned this person and he answered this, he said that he was a person who had five years' experience as a Detective and with respect the Committee has to consider and keep in mind that at that stage of these events, there was a war as it was observed by this situation, the conventional methods were not applicable, there were explosions and attacks the order of the day. If we look at the methods that were used to take a person to a farm and interrogate that person, with respect it is clear that they could not have made use of normal practice. It does not mean that a person has to be taken to a farm to be assaulted, every person had his own experience and has to be dealt with under the circumstances. There were various cases in the ANC where they had made confessions without being assaulted, there was the others that complained that they were assaulted to make confessions and with respect Chairperson, one has to have regard of the merits for this matter. Prinsloo had said previously that his modus operandi was not to assault a person, and Mr Malan said that there was another case where another person was present where the person was strangled and every case has to be dealt with on its own merits, but it would seem clear from the matters that he dealt with, I am not speaking of the applications now, his modus operandi was not to assault a person where there was court oriented investigation. It is clear that when a person is detained on a farm illegally, that the purpose was not for court orientated investigation, because there was a war. As the ANC made use of their methods, so the Security Police used their own methods.
Inasfar as Prinsloo said that this person had to be killed in order to cut off the communication line to the ANC and to cause confusion and to protect the informer and the police, with respect Honourable Chairperson, think for one moment if they had released this person, he could say exactly where he had been taken, what he had done there, who was there and so forth in the struggle that reigned at that time. One must not thing in compartments, one has to take the given circumstances and think objectively and not sit on a sole chair being critical.
I would like to argue with respect, that Prinsloo has made a full disclosure with regard to the relevant facts, and the fact here was were these persons sent to buy beer or not? Strydom says he was sent to buy beer. How does he recall that and in other instances his memory fails him. The persons who went, said that they went and bought beer, there is not one applicant who said Prinsloo gave them beer and said "drink the beer" except for the beer he gave the deceased and with regard to that aspect, with respect Chairperson, there is a good reason. If he gives the deceased a beer and he does not drink a beer, it would appear very strange and the motivation that Prinsloo gives, is probable in the circumstances and there is nothing that indicates that it could not happen that way, so nothing could be made of that.
The evidence, I would argue that the evidence of Prinsloo be accepted and there was a full disclosure made and he complies with the requirements of the Act as it is required in 20(b) or (f) as Mr Jansen has already argued before the Committee and under the circumstances, the facts which prove which offences flow from here and if the Committee wants me to table all these offences, I will do so, but otherwise I request amnesty for all offences which emanate from this action and any delict which might flow from it. As I have said, I am prepared to assist the Committee as far as possible in spelling out all these offences. Thank you Honourable Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Prinsloo. Ms van der Walt?
MS VAN DER WALT IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Honourable Chairperson. There are certain aspects which I would like to highlight with regard to Mr Dos Santos and Mr Bester. Following on Mr Malan's question to Mr Dos Santos, I would like, I want to state it with respect as follows - I think it was an exhausted argument in the Committee where an application was drawn up by the same legal representatives, it looks the same, and I would like to submit to the Committee that if there was a problem, then it was my fault that I told the person to confirm it. I wish to submit to the Committee that I think Mr Dos Santos who apparently was a very nervous person, had entirely been surprised because later he could not answer any questions, and I would submit that he knew what had happened there for the other applicants said that he was present when Mr Lubane was transported to the other vehicle close to Klapperkop and he was also at the farm.
I would request the Committee to accept his evidence that he had indeed known what was going on there, and that Mr Lubane had been abducted, but his task, he was the explosives expert, his task was to destroy the corpse. Mr Bester on the other hand was tasked, as Mr Matjeni says, to guard the person and to question the person. Mr Matjeni could not recall the photo album, but he said photo albums were used and Mr Prinsloo testified as to the person who was identified by the name of Sugar, and this was because of the interrogation of, the questions put to Mr Bester, and I would submit that there is no point of dispute with regard to the evidence of Mr Bester, because interrogations did take place, and interrogations were undertaken by several persons if Mr Prinsloo was not present.
What according to me is in dispute, if I understood the questions which were put to my applicants yesterday, if I understood these questions properly, I might not have comprehended it entirely, but it was put to - the statement of Mr Strydom, I would argue that the liquor did not play a real role in the real facts which serve before you, because there is no evidence and I have gone through the evidence of all the applicants, that during the interrogation there was no liquor used.
Afterwards, and Mr Prinsloo said he cannot recall that liquor was consumed, but even if liquor arrived afterwards, I would argue that the offence which was committed was not caused because of the use of liquor. But what was put to my clients was that Mr Strydom's statement which says that there was liquor and there was an assault, specifically the assault, and I would just like to point out to Mr Jansen that he in his argument said that Mr Bester said that Mr Matjeni was present during the assault, that is not correct. Mr Bester's evidence is that when Mr Matjeni and he arrived at the farm, and taken over that task, there was never any assaults, that was Mr Bester's evidence. There was never any assault in their presence and I think Mr Matjeni also confirmed this, that he did not see any assaults. But now Mr Strydom comes along and he says on page 4 of his statement, his new statement, that he saw that the person was assaulted during interrogations. That is not right, because he was not present, because he had bruises and that the assault indicated that it was a serious assault. But when he was taken under cross-examination about this aspect, I would like to submit with respect that he was extremely weak because in his new statement, he himself says that these were marks and bruises, he could not differentiate when he was asked what these marks looked like, because it was swollen, and then you told me that I should leave this for argument and not question him further, and then one has to look at this person. I do not want to break him down, he is an old person, he does have a problem, but then I would submit to the Committee that before any finding could be made that this person had been assaulted and he is the only person who speaks of marks, and bruises, not a single other applicant mentions anything about it, and one has to look at his amnesty application.
I would submit that, and I would arrive at the point that my applicants specifically, specifically with what they say in their application that this person was seriously interrogated. But let's just conclude the matter of Mr Prinsloo, in his statement in the second paragraph, page 5 he mentions members were interrogating the activist who was involved in terrorist activities. He then puts it that he was present during the interrogation, otherwise he cannot say that. It does not matter what his memory loss was, he could not say this, because he could not recall it. And then he continues further down the page he says at that time, this was during the interrogation -
"... we drank much beer and the activist also drank beer and the person was severely assaulted by our members."
That is just not the truth, that is a lie because he was not present. During the interrogation the activist mentioned several names and gave us plans. He was not present. The following paragraph -
"... at a stage the activist, terrorist, was offered a final beer which contained a tranquilliser",'
an entirely different version than what he put in his second version. And in his second statement he was not even present. Why does he include this? Why does he include these facts which are entirely incorrect because the only evidence by all the applicants is that the deceased received the one beer that contained a tranquilliser, there is no evidence that other beer was offered to him beforehand and Strydom cannot say that because he was not present.
Now I would submit to the Honourable Committee, if he can diverge from his application to such an extent, I would request the Committee to, not to consider his evidence at all that he had seen any marks or bruises to this person, on this person, because it cannot be true.
The second point which I would wish to submit to the Honourable Committee is the two explosions. Mr Bester was exhaustively questioned with regard to his application and specifically that he has to make a full disclosure with regard to the two explosions. It is indeed so that no one mentions two explosions. During the drawing up of the amnesty applications, it was said that this person's corpse was destroyed by means of explosives and this is what Mr Bester says on page 372 -
"... we placed Comrade's body in the hole where Warrant Officer Dos Santos then destroyed the body by means of explosives."
It was put to him that he had to make a full disclosure here and he had said that there were two explosions. I would submit to the Honourable Committee that when this application was drawn up, this policeman came along and said "we destroyed the body with explosives", it could be once, twice, thrice. The first one could not have destroyed the body entirely, but in his mind, the destruction of the body was the action that he had committed and with respect, I would submit that it can never be said that if one looks at that sentence, specifically if one looks at the manner that Strydom, even if his second application says to the Committee it cannot be said that he is hiding anything because whether there be one or two explosions, their purpose was to destroy the corpse by means of explosives and that is what is being said there. No-one before Mr Prinsloo gave evidence, said there was a second explosion, knew there was going to be a dispute. The other members, according to Mr Bester said that he did not see the other applicants. According to him, they were sent away, he did not even see Mr Strydom there. According to him it was himself, Mr Prinsloo and Mr Dos Santos who were present there at the explosion.
I would submit that with regard to Mr Bester, there is no other divergence through his oral evidence and I would submit that that is why the hearing is here, there are many instances where applicants in their oral application elaborates more on points, because it is not always possible to put everything in writing.
I would submit to the Honourable Committee that both Messrs Dos Santos and Mr Bester has made a full disclosure. I would submit that their oral evidence and their written applications, should convince the Committee, shall I put it different, I would not want to say convince, I would say satisfy, and that they satisfy the requirements of the Act, and I would request that according to Section 22(b) or (f) that amnesty be granted to them with regard to any offence which might flow from the death, the killing and abduction of the deceased, Mr Lubane, as well as any delicts which might flow from there, thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms van der Walt. Mr Joubert?
MR JOUBERT IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Madam Chair. To start off Madam Chair, in so far as certain issues have been dealt with by my colleagues prior to this, I wish to have that incorporated as part of my argument as far as it may be relevant to the applicants on whose behalf I appear. I submit that the political motive has sufficiently been dealt with and that the evidence given at previous hearings, prior to this at this Committee, and background evidence, should be considered as part of my clients' applications in this instance.
I will accordingly then continue merely to address you on Section 20(1)(c), the question of full disclosure and I respectfully submit that this is the only issue which may be contentious at this stage. Pertaining to the question of full disclosure, I would submit that as has been indicated by some of my learned colleagues prior to me, that the discrepancies which did arise during this hearing, pertaining to for example, the issue of the informer, the issue as to the buying of the beer at the farm, certain issues that may have arisen pertaining to assaults that took place during the interrogation of Mr Lubane, that these discrepancies do not or are not, or do not implicate a sense of incredibility with the clients More and Mathebula. Their evidence, I submit has been corroborated by most of the evidence that has been presented to this Committee and that would also include evidence which has been provided by Mr Strydom although I have heard my learned friend's argument pertaining to his evidence. There is also certain issues which can be extracted from that, for example the issue pertaining to the buying of the beer.
I am however of opinion that these issues are not relevant or relevant issues which need to have been disclosed for purposes of this application, and I submit that the disclosure of the abduction, the involvement in the interrogation and the assault on Mr Lubane and then the involvement in so far as being accessory to the blowing up of Mr Lubane at a later stage, has been fully disclosed, and to the best of both Mr More and Mathebula's recollections. The discrepancies which may have arisen, I would submit could possibly relate to a poor recollection or a poor reconstruction of the events pertaining to the finer detail as has been testified and fully evidenced, there have been numerous occasions and numerous incidents. I submit that the fact that every part of the detail cannot be remembered by the applicants, should not be held against them when considering whether they have made a full disclosure.
I submit furthermore that it is clear from the evidence that both Mr More and Mr Mathebula had acted on instructions from superior officers, and that they had acted in the course of their duties and their belief that their actions were duly authorised. I would then request in conclusion, unless there is an issue on which I should address the Committee specifically, that in terms of Section 20(2((b) and or (f) amnesty be granted to both applicants for abduction or kidnapping of Petrus Lubane, any assault that may have taken place, accessory to murder, malicious damage to property, defeating the ends of justice or any other crime that may be deduced from the facts as placed before the Committee, as well as any delictual liability that may arise from these facts. Unless there is any other issue that you wish me to address you on specifically, that would be my argument, thank you Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Joubert. Mr van Heerden?
MR VAN HEERDEN IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Madam Chair, there is two issues that I need to address. The first one is that a representative of the family wants to testify and I understand it is not testimony under oath. They just wish to make a statement. I don't know at what stage we can deal with that.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. We should have dealt with that before we presented legal argument.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, yes Madam Chair, the formal statement was drawn up by Jacob Lubane. If it is not appropriate for him to testify now, I will then beg leave to hand up the statement.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you wish to give evidence under oath Mr van Heerden?
MR VAN HEERDEN: No Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think it is quite unfortunate that you are raising this issue after legal argument has been presented by the applicants, but before we deal with this issue that you are raising of wanting to read a statement by a member of the victims' family, can I find out from Mr Jansen if he wishes to reply?
MR JANSEN: In argument now?
CHAIRPERSON: In argument.
MR JANSEN: Oh, no, not in argument, no.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Prinsloo, do you wish to make a reply?
ADV PRINSLOO: Madam Chair, we don't know what is the contents of that statement.
CHAIRPERSON: Not with regard to the statement. With regard to the argument presented.
ADV PRINSLOO: Thus far?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
ADV PRINSLOO: No Madam Chair, thank you.
MR JANSEN: Sorry Madam Chair, may I interject, I am just reminded that there is one aspect that I should reply on, because I checked my notes, it is correct that I was incorrect in saying the issue that Mr Bester raised, I see what I was referring to was it was the one aspect that Dos Santos raised, where he said that Matjeni and the others must have been there at the second explosion, and that was the one aspect where there is a difference, and where Bester said that he was there when the maps were shown. I believe that both those issues are sufficiently neutral, but in any event Dos Santos is, there is simply no corroboration for what Dos Santos says there and it must be a faulty reconstruction of events, thank you Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Jansen. Mr Swart, we have not had you presenting argument in respect of the applicants you are appearing for, you are appearing on behalf of Mr Strydom and on behalf of Mr Cronje.
MR SWART: And Mr Crafford.
CHAIRPERSON: And Mr Crafford.
MR SWART: Mr du Plessis prepared Heads of Argument that I beg leave of you to hand up.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Were these also distributed to the various legal representatives?
MR SWART: Well, I had copies made and I can do it now.
CHAIRPERSON: When Mr du Plessis came to see us in chambers to advise us that he would not be available to present oral argument, he intimated that he had already prepared written Heads and we had requested him to see to it that those were distributed amongst the legal representatives of other applicants as well as to Mr van Heerden, just to facilitate the smooth presentation of legal argument. So you say this was not done?
MR SWART: No, not yet.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I must apologise that this was not done, I think it will be appropriate at this stage, to distribute such Heads to the various legal representatives and to afford them an opportunity of going through the written submissions in order to enable them to make any reply where necessary.
MR SWART: If you want me to read it quickly ...
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Is it a lengthy document?
MR SWART: No, it is not a lengthy document.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR SWART: May I proceed?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may proceed Mr Swart.
MR SWART IN ARGUMENT: It is accepted that the political motive has sufficiently been dealt with in previous applications, and it is suffice to say that the evidence of Brig Cronje at previous hearings, and background evidence, should be considered as part of his applications in respect of political motive. The argument will therefore be directed towards full disclosure.
It is submitted that the Committee should be conscious of the fact that this incident happened more than 10 years ago. I refer to the decision in the London bomb incident where the Committee said the following pertaining to the relevant facts -
"... objectively it would be relevant in the murder case, to ascertain by whom, where, how, why and under what circumstances a human have been deprived of his life. It would also be relevant as to what happened immediately prior to his death and what happened to the corpse."
It is clear from the evidence of Cronje, Prinsloo and Crafford that Cronje was requested to give authorisation to the elimination. It was justified in the light of Crafford's evidence. However the incident took place while Cronje was the senior officer and therefore Cronje accepts responsibility. The reasons for eliminations are the following - Lubane knew the names of the informer, he had information about targets, he was a trained MK terrorist, he could not be free to carry on with operations, he knew the Security Police officers who took part in his interrogation, he refused to become an informant or an askari, to cooperate, MK would have become aware of information which Lubane had given to the Security Police.
It is submitted that the versions of Cronje and Crafford should be accepted in respect of the order which was given, namely to eliminate Lubane. It is therefore submitted that it should be found that the version of Cronje and Crafford is the correct version in respect of reasons for elimination. Strydom has been honest and frank with the Committee by admitting that they had clearly assaulted Lubane during interrogations from marks on him as well as injuries. Strydom testified that Lubane was interrogated, but that he did not participate therein, because he only accompanied Prinsloo to the farm. The probable reason for accompanying Prinsloo was that Security Policemen usually accompanied each other and never drove alone, for safety reasons. Strydom testified fully and frank about the drinking of beer before Lubane was given the spiked beer. Strydom was also frank about the picking up of pieces of hair and bone. He disclosed the purchasing of beer at Pienaarsrivier before he and Prinsloo arrived at the farm. His evidence accords with the evidence of Matjeni, Mathebula, More and Crafford ... (tape ends) ... pertaining to the elimination.
Amnesty is therefore sought for murder, assault with intent, being an accessory after the fact, any other criminal offences and any delicts appearing from the facts.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Swart.
MR SWART: May I just respond to Ms van der Walt.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR SWART: I would like to do it in Afrikaans if you don't mind. Mr Crafford not at any stage testified, he testified that much liquor was consumed. One cannot deduce from his evidence that it was a drunken party, they were not drunk, going around on the farm. With regard to the assaults, in so far it is of import, he testified that he had seen marks on the deceased's face and his evidence there is supported by Mathebula who testified that he did indeed assault him. My submission is that it could not adversely affect his matter, that there were marks on this face, because Mathebula testified that he had indeed assaulted him. That is all, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Jansen, when you earlier on replied, you had not had privy to the written Heads of Mr du Plessis. If you wish to reply subsequent to having had sight of the written Heads of Argument by Mr du Plessis, you may proceed to do so.
MR JANSEN: I have read them, thank you Chair, I have nothing to add. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Prinsloo?
ADV PRINSLOO: Thank you Madam Chair. In as far as paragraph 9 of the submissions are concerned, it is submitted there by Mr Strydom, by Mr du Plessis rather on his behalf, with regard to the assault, with respect Madam Chair, how can Mr Strydom say that the person sustained those injuries during an assault? He does not know whether he sustained them during the time when he was kidnapped or prior to that or what, unless he was informed about that. There is no evidence that he was informed about any assault. It is clear from the evidence that he was never present during any alleged assault. That I submit is not probable in the circumstances. Then with regard to the drinking Madam Chair, in paragraph 10, according to Strydom, he said he was, to du Plessis, he was fully and frank about the drinking beer before Lubane was given spiked beer. With respect Madam Chair, there was no evidence before this Committee that persons consumed beer prior to the beer being given to Lubane by Mr Prinsloo. I respectfully submit that is not correct. Where Mr Strydom gets that from and then he says, his version as far as that is concerned, is corroborated by that of Mr Matjeni and Mathebula, and that is not correct. The aspect of them buying beer at a later stage does not corroborate the fact that beer was consumed prior to spiked beer being given to the deceased. Just a second Madam Chair. Thank you Madam Chair. Madam Chair, my respectful submission is still at this stage that Mr Prinsloo had made a full disclosure and that particular aspect must be considered by the Committee at the end, after he had given his evidence in conjunction with his application. I have nothing further to add, and the crimes are already described, unless the Committee wants me to specify them, thank you Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Prinsloo. Ms van der Walt?
MS VAN DER WALT: Nothing further, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Joubert?
MR JOUBERT : Thank you Madam Chair, I have nothing further to add.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr van Heerden, before we proceed to hear you, whether you do have any submissions to make before the Committee, you are requesting to have a statement of Mr Petrus Lubane read to the Committee?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, will this be read by you or will this be read by Mr Petrus Lubane?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Madam Chair, the request was that he will read it out himself.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. This is slightly irregular, but because of the nature of the proceedings, I am inclined to allow it. I will however get an indication from the other legal representatives as to what they feel, we should allow Mr Petrus Lubane to read the statement. As you are aware, it is not any evidence, it is merely a statement that he wishes to read to the Committee.
MR VAN HEERDEN: I appreciate that.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Swart, do you have any objection to allowing Mr Petrus Lubane reading the statement?
MR SWART: No objection Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen?
MR JANSEN: No objection Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo?
ADV PRINSLOO: Madam Chair, I haven't read the statement as yet, but is it merely going to be read?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
ADV PRINSLOO: And nothing further is going to take place?
CHAIRPERSON: Nothing further.
ADV PRINSLOO: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Walt?
MS VAN DER WALT: No objection.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Joubert?
MR JOUBERT : I have no objection, thank you Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Heerden, we will then proceed to allow Mr Petrus Lubane to read the statement.
MR VAN HEERDEN: I appreciate it Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Heerden, what is the name of the person who will be reading the statement? This is in respect of Mr Petrus Lubane, the victim?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, the name of the person who will read out the statement is Jacob Lubane.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lubane, you are now being afforded an opportunity to address the Committee pursuant to a request made by your legal representative.
MR LUBANE: Thank you, the Chairperson. The statement is being brought forward by the family, so I am here on behalf of the family. This concerns the procedure of the hearing, the evidence we have heard for the past two days and ultimately the feeling from the family. The allegations against Petrus Lubane, one, he intended to train people to use AK47's, handling of explosives and to establish a base in Pretoria, the findings that is now regarding the first allegations, the police received information through their informer. They followed up the information by sending out one of their members who disguised as an informer, but still they did not get what they were looking for. The police couldn't prove beyond reasonable doubt whatsoever that Petrus Lubane was involved in the allegations.
Allegation two, he was planning to use explosives to destroy Wachthuis, that is the South African Police Headquarters in Pretoria and kill the police. They furthermore allege that they found a map that outlines the construction of the building, Wachthuis, the South African Police Headquarters. The working hours of the police involved. They furthermore allege that they found the map hidden in Petrus' car after they were told by him through interrogations. Facts on the second allegation, when Petrus was first arrested at the spot which were arranged between him and the police, they never found a map in his car, they only found it later, during the interrogations. The map was not presented to the hearing to substantiate their allegations. They don't want or - prepare to discuss their informer to the hearing. Perhaps they were dealing with a ghost or such a person was not even existing. They allege that he was a courier of MK and was operating from Swaziland where he was getting instructions from his Commander.
The findings on this allegation, we don't understand what was he, that is Petrus, couriering, because he, Petrus, was never before arrested by the South African Police or found in possession of MK or any other terrorism material or perhaps spotted in any of the political meetings. The police never presented the hearing valid information and proof of these allegations. In conclusion, Madam Chair, we feel that the evidence heard in this hearing, was not the true reflection of the event, what actually happened, wherever it happened and we as family, feel that we really don't understand if a person is applying for amnesty, how does that person expect you to give him an amnesty whereas he is not telling the truth? We feel that these people shouldn't be given amnesty. We would like the Commission to assist the family in perhaps taking us to the place of the incident, as traditionally we would like to bury the remainder. I thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Jacob Lubane. As you are aware, we have in chambers tried to bring you abreast with the process of amnesty and what it entails as far as we could under the circumstances. Can you confirm that we have discussed the process with the victim's family in chambers?
MR Lubane: Yes Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. We thank you for having come forward to read the statement on behalf of the Lubane family. You may now step down. Mr van Heerden?
MR VAN HEERDEN IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Madam Chair. There is one aspect that I need to raise, and that is that the family informed me that, or instructed me actually that they will abide by the decision of this Committee regarding amnesty. The statement is just a personal view of some of the family members. They felt they needed to express that on record to the Committee, but they are abiding by the decision of this Committee. One further aspect regarding the identity of the informer, we have the evidence of Mr Prinsloo and More regarding the informer, his actions went much further than just informing. He took an active part in the operation. I refer to two instances, the first one is the reconnaissance of Wachthuis and the planning and abduction of Petrus Lubane. I request this Committee to order that his identity be disclosed.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Heerden, in as much as I understand your application, with regard to the disclosure of the identity of the informer, I somehow am a little perplexed by the fact that this is being raised now, after we have concluded the evidence in respect of the incident. I would have thought that the appropriate stage to raise the issue, would have been before the evidence of all the applicants was posed, that is prior to the submissions made on their behalf this morning.
MR VAN HEERDEN: I will accept that Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: I think it is quite irregular to raise that issue now, unless you have very firm instructions and you wish to re-open the whole case.
MR VAN HEERDEN: No Madam Chair, I am not going to take you that far. It is a mistake on my side for not bringing this aspect to the attention of the Committee before.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. It however still remains open to Mr Prinsloo, the applicant, to write the name of the informer and hand it up to the Committee for the Committee's perusal if Mr Prinsloo so elects. It is a route that remains always open in proceedings of this nature.
ADV PRINSLOO: Madam Chair, during consultations I had with Mr Prinsloo, his view was not to disclose the identity of the informer, as he also testified, that he had a moral obligation towards him and a legal obligation towards him. But least the Committee authorises, instructs otherwise, I will have to take instructions from him with regard to the Committee's views in this regard.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think ...
ADV PRINSLOO: But those were his initial instructions to me as the Committee will recall during his evidence.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. He was questioned very slightly on this issue by Mr ...
ADV PRINSLOO: Mr van Heerden.
CHAIRPERSON: Van Heerden.
ADV PRINSLOO: Van Heerden, that is correct Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: The issue was not taken up further.
ADV PRINSLOO: That is correct Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Is it possible just to find out from Mr Prinsloo if he would be amenable to handing up the name of the informer to the Committee, it is a procedure that we have used in the past without having to disclose the name.
ADV PRINSLOO: To the Committee? And that is for the information of the Committee only?
CHAIRPERSON: That is for the information of the Committee only.
ADV PRINSLOO: May I just take instructions from him, Madam Chair?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may.
ADV PRINSLOO: If you would just grant us a moment Madam Chair, he will write the name and I will hand it up the Committee.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Prinsloo.
ADV PRINSLOO: Just a moment.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Prinsloo.
ADV PRINSLOO: As you please, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Heerden, are you through with your legal argument?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, Madam Chair, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp?
ADV STEENKAMP IN ARGUMENT: Madam Chair, unless there is anything specific you want to hear me on, I've got no further comments to add, unless there is anything specific to add. I can maybe just add, it is my submission that I think the only question that must be before the Committee is the question regarding Section 20(1)(c) of the Act, dealing with full disclosure. It seems to me as far as that is concerned, the previous, although this Committee is not bound by that, the previous decision by this Amnesty Committee has referred specifically to this Act stating that all relevant facts, whether not by commission, omission, must be at least fully disclosed. It seems to me although there is specific inconsistencies clearly in the evidence as it stands, the relevant facts was as far as I am concerned, Madam Chair, was put before this Committee, in a lesser extent corroborated or not. The difficulty with the victims is, like in other matters, there is no factual basis upon which this evidence can be contested on. Only the evidence that was, not the evidence, but only the information that was put before the Committee which was taken via investigation, via further other information sources, was put before the Committee and it seems that in that respect, that is my respectful submission, that at least the relevant facts were corroborated by the applicants. That is my only submission I can make at this instance, thank you Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We have now come to the end of these proceedings in relation to the killing of Mr Petrus Lubane. Our decision that we are required to make in respect of these applications, will be reserved and the legal representatives will be informed in due course, once such a decision has been made. We thank you for having attended these hearings as members of the public and in particular we thank the victims for their attendance. Our gratitude to the legal representatives of both the applicants and the victims, thank you.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
