CHAIRPERSON: Before you carry on. Mr Claassen, are you intending to call any witnesses?
MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Mr Chairman. I will speak to my clients. There was an indication that one family member would like to speak to the applicant, but if I could just perhaps get instructions in this matter, I'm sure that ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Well, I'll tell you what I'll do, I'll break for five minutes now. Find out also if they want to talk privately or did she want to get it on the tape or whatever because I can help facilitate a private meeting if the parties so desire.
MR CLAASSEN: As it pleases Chair. I will get instructions on this.
CHAIRPERSON: Let's break for five minutes.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
MR CLAASSEN: I took what you said up with the family. Chairman, there's just a very short issue that Mrs Margaret Rahube, which is the cousin of the deceased, she says it doesn't pertain to any questions or to the merits at all, she'd just like to say something to the applicant.
CHAIRPERSON: No, fine.
MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Chairperson.
DANIEL LIONEL SNYMAN: (sworn states)
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Snyman, you have heard the evidence of Mr de Kock.
MR SNYMAN: That is correct Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: I have also studied your documents. I am sorry to hear that you are suffering from certain illnesses but as I understand your application, all that you did during this incident was to observe an order to fetch a limpet mine and to give it to Mr de Kock.
MR SNYMAN: Yes, that is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Is that all?
MR SNYMAN: Yes that is all.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cornelius, for which charges is Mr Snyman requesting amnesty?
MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Mr Chairperson. It can only be for the supply of the explosives in terms of the Explosives Act.
CHAIRPERSON: Well unlawful possession thereof and supply.
MR CORNELIUS: Yes, unlawful possession and supply. We're not asking for defeating the ends of justice obviously because we didn't know about it.
CHAIRPERSON: He wouldn't have known what the reason was, all he was asked by his superior was to go fetch this and hand it over.
MR CORNELIUS: That is correct Mr Chairperson, they worked strictly on a need-to-know basis and there were no questions asked.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Mr Cornelius, flowing from the evidence of Mr de Kock and the affidavits submitted on behalf of Mr Snyman, is there any likelihood of Mr Snyman shedding more light during viva voce of whether he participated in this incident or not? I mean we are aware of the medical reports which accompany his application documents. My main concern is the fact that Mr de Kock has not been so specific in saying whether he gave Mr Snyman or the other person, I can no longer remember the other person's name, the order to issue explosives to Mr Andreiowitch.
MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Mr Chairperson. I intensively and deeply consulted with Mr Snyman about this issue. He can shed no further light. How it came about is that the Attorney-General's investigating team approached, after they spoke to Andreiowitch, they approached my client and they said: "But do you know anything about this?" and he said: "Well, it might be I was in control of the explosives and if I was requested, I would supply it" and that is still his attitude today. As a matter of fact I did not draw this amnesty application and he indicated to me that the first three lines of the application are actually not correct. He said that he can't remember if he supplied it or not, but if he received such an order he would have done it. I could get no further detail. I think ...
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes, so it could have been him or the other person that worked in that department, because according to Mr de Kock's evidence there were two persons he could have given such an instruction to.
MR CORNELIUS: That is correct, Mr Chairperson. It was Snor Vermeulen, N J Vermeulen and my client and it could have been one of the two, so we'd love to take the matter further, but we really can't.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cornelius, you will have to persuade us that your client has in fact committed a crime.
MR CORNELIUS: That was the big problem I had prior to the sitting.
CHAIRPERSON: Well think about it. I don't know how you're going to get out of it. This is one of those anomalous legal principles that we're faced with and probably never thought we'd get faced with.
MR CORNELIUS: Yes. Mr Chairperson, I refer to what my Learned Colleague said about how the explosives were obtained and the original nature. That's my only problem I have.
CHAIRPERSON: Well maybe you can think of the probabilities.
MR CORNELIUS: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Because we have not been saddled with a specific ...(indistinct) of onus and if it is probable that it was him, then maybe it will favour you, I don't know. Think about it and when we give an opportunity to argue,that's the single point that we want to hear you on.
MR CORNELIUS: I'll be prepared to address you. Thank you Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hugo, have you got any questions for this witness?
MR HUGO: I have no questions, thank you Mr Chairman.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR HUGO
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Claassen?
MR CLAASSEN: Thank you, Mr Chair, I have no questions.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR CLAASSEN
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chair, just one for sake of clarity I think whilst we have Mr Snyman here. I don't believe we're going to have
another explosives expert to perhaps clear for me in my mind what I found very strange in this situation.
Mr Hammond who testified, he was the expert who had investigated the matter, was of the opinion that once he had viewed the scene and looked at the state of the body, you know that only his legs were found and parts of his hand and they were actually able to take fingerprints, his view was that the deceased could not have been in a sitting position, or he couldn't have been on the ground when the mine exploded, that he had to be in a standing position when the mine exploded. Are you in a position to comment on that?
MR SNYMAN: Is it possible just to explain slightly more? I didn't hear the beginning.
CHAIRPERSON: Let me try. You can use the headset. According to the expert, the post mortem inquest, due to the fact that the deceased lost his legs, he came to the conclusion that when the body was blown up the person must have been in a standing position and not on the ground, whether he was lying or seated. Do you have any comment on that?
MR SNYMAN: I did not read that report.
CHAIRPERSON: No I'm just telling you that this is what he says. What do you say?
MR SNYMAN: If they allege that this person was standing ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: They say that he must have been standing due to the fact that his legs were blown away.
MR SNYMAN: I don't know. Were his legs blown off, or was his body blown away? Because what I heard was that his face and his hands were also blown away. Were his legs blown away, or was it only his legs that remained?
CHAIRPERSON: No, I understood that his legs were blown away.
MR CORNELIUS: Mr Chairperson, it was in fact his legs remained totally uninjured, it was cut off below the hips.
CHAIRPERSON: What do you say about that?
MR SNYMAN: In other words his hands and his face remained unscathed?
CHAIRPERSON: No of his entire body which was blown up, only his legs remained as entire pieces.
MR SNYMAN: It is possible that if a person was holding explosives and if the explosives were to go off in one's hands, whether one was standing over these explosives or holding the explosives in one's hands, the most immediate body parts to the explosives would be blown away.
CHAIRPERSON: What would have been the case if he had lain on the ground and those who had blown him up placed the bomb on his chest, or wanted him to lie over the bomb device so that his back would have covered the bomb? Wouldn't that have produced the same results?
MR SNYMAN: Yes. It depends what the nearest point of contact is between the bomb and the body. Whether he was standing, sitting, whether he lay on the ground, it wouldn't really have made a difference to the injuries or cause of death, or let's rather refer to injuries which were incurred to the body.
MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson, that is all.
CHAIRPERSON: Is that all?
MS PATEL: Ja.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cornelius I don't really believe that there is anything further that you could ask the witness.
MR CORNELIUS: Just one aspect which I think might provide clarity.
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: According to the post mortem inquest, there was a square hole which was blown into the ground where the blast went off. Could that happen if a limpet mine was placed on the ground?
MR SNYMAN: Yes a limpet would blow a square hole which is ascribable to the fact that it is a square explosive.
CHAIRPERSON: I see. So if the limpet mine was placed on the ground and a body placed over this with the chest facing the device, it would mean that the torso would be blown away and that the legs would remain?
MR SNYMAN: Yes, that is how I would imagine it.
MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: Have either you or Mr Hugo got any witnesses to call?
MR HUGO: I have no witnesses, thank you Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Claassen?
MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Chairperson. I would like to call the cousin of the deceased, Welcome Khanyile, Mrs Margaret Rahube.
CHAIRPERSON: Can you spell that please?
MR CLAASSEN: It's R-A-H-U-B-E. Chairperson the witness indicated that she's not, she doesn't want to testify under oath, she would just like to say something before the Commission.
MARGARET RAHUBE: (states)
EXAMINATION BY MR CLAASSEN: Mrs Rahube, you are the cousin of the deceased, Mr Welcome Khanyile, is that correct?
MRS RAHUBE: Yes.
MR CLAASSEN: At the time of your cousin's death, or let me just - you came to live in Wembezi in Escort?
MRS RAHUBE: That's correct.
MR CLAASSEN: You are living there with Mrs Janet, or in the same township as Mrs Janet Khanyile, who is also present today, which is the elderly mother of the deceased, Welcome Khanyile?
MRS RAHUBE: That's correct.
MR CLAASSEN: Since Mr Khanyile's death, you indicated that it's been financially difficult for you as well as the aged mother of the deceased. Why is this?
MRS RAHUBE: That is because there is no one to support the mother and the children.
MR CLAASSEN: And during Mr Khanyile's life, who ...
CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - mike not on)
INTERPRETER: The witness said there was no one to support the mother and the children.
MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mrs Rahube ...
MRS RAHUBE: I am a cousin to the deceased. I am referring to the deceased's mother who is deaf.
CHAIRPERSON: How many children were there?
MRS RAHUBE: Two children.
CHAIRPERSON: What were their ages?
MRS RAHUBE: The eldest is male, the last born is female.
INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike. I can't hear you either.
CHAIRPERSON: I didn't get the last answer.
MR CLAASSEN: Mrs Rahube, could you just indicate to the Chairperson, how old - how many children? You say there's two and the ages of these children respectively?
MRS RAHUBE: The eldest is the boy and he is nine.
CHAIRPERSON: What is his name?
MRS RAHUBE: Rapelani Khanyile.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: ...not translated.
MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Mr Chairman. I would like to confirm that q. I had written it down from his birth certificate.
CHAIRPERSON: Instead of R.
MR CLAASSEN: It's a q instead of r, the rest of the spelling is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: And what's the surname?
MR RAHUBE: Khanyile.
CHAIRPERSON: K-H-A-?
MR CLAASSEN: N-Y-I-L-E.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and the next child?
MRS RAHUBE: Nelisiwe. I've forgotten the English name.
CHAIRPERSON: It doesn't matter.
MRS RAHUBE: She is seven.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you say she?
MRS RAHUBE: She. Yes, it's a female.
CHAIRPERSON: And what's her name?
MRS RAHUBE: Nelisiwe.
MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Mr Chair. I have it that the name I have just is Gift.
CHAIRPERSON: Look, tell her I'm not interested in the English name, I prefer the customary name and I'd just like to know...
MRS RAHUBE: Nelisiwe.
CHAIRPERSON: Is that N-E-L-I-S-I-W-E?
MRS RAHUBE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Also using the surname Khanyile?
MRS RAHUBE: Yes.
MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Where are ...(indistinct - mike not on)
MR RAHUBE: One stays with the grandmother and myself, and the other one resides with his mother in Heidelberg.
CHAIRPERSON: So they are separated. Now can you give an address?
MRS RAHUBE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: The boy?
MRS RAHUBE: The boy resides with us at Escort, that is myself and the grandmother.
CHAIRPERSON: And what address would we have to use to contact him?
MRS RAHUBE: I have given it to my attorney.
MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Mr Chairman. The address that I have is Wembezi ...
CHAIRPERSON: Spell it please.
MR CLAASSEN: It's W-H-E-M-B-E-Z-I.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: It can't be. It has to be W-E-M-B-E-Z-I.
MR CLAASSEN: It might be Madam, unfortunately...
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes, I know that's how it's spelled.
CHAIRPERSON: Wem ...?
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Wembezi.
CHAIRPERSON: Further, is that the only part of the address or is there anything else?
MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Mr Chair, there is a postal address, it's Box 50856, Escort, Natal 3310.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes and the other child?
MR CLAASSEN: I can, I believe the address where the other child is at the deceased's brother, which is Mr Simon Khanyile, he lives at P O Box 28, or it's his postal address.
CHAIRPERSON: The child is living with it's mother?
MR CLAASSEN: With it's mother in Heidelberg, but I believe Mr Chair, that the mother has contact with the brother, Mr Simon Khanyile who is also present and they prefer to use his address.
CHAIRPERSON: What's the mother's name?
MR CLAASSEN: Lillian Thambatha.
CHAIRPERSON: Care of, what's the brother's name?
MR CLAASSEN: Simon Khanyile.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR CLAASSEN: Box 28, Heidelberg 2400.
CHAIRPERSON: Would this witness accept any correspondence on behalf of Qapelani?
INTERPRETER: Please repeat that question.
CHAIRPERSON: Would this witness, Margaret Rahube, receive, is she prepared to receive any correspondence on behalf of Qapelani Khanyile?
MRS RAHUBE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, proceed.
MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Mr Chair. Mrs Rahube, you indicated that on behalf of the family present today, you would just like very briefly to make a statement to the applicant. Is that correct?
MRS RAHUBE: That's correct.
What I'd like to say is that I do hear what the applicants are saying but I would like to request them to support the deceased's mother and children. If he can do that, yes, he should then be granted amnesty.
MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Mrs Rahube, is that all?
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CLAASSEN
MR HUGO: Yes, Mr Chairman, do you want me to start arguing now? Thank you Mr Chairman.
MR HUGO IN ARGUMENT: We submit, with respect, that the applicant has complied with all the formal, the official requirements of the Act, in that it was submitted timeously etc, etc. I'm not going to waste any further time on that aspect.
Mr Chairman, as far as the question of full disclosure of the relevant facts is concerned, you don't need ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: I don't think we've got a problem with that.
MR HUGO: Thank you Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: By process of elimination, you're stuck with another.
MR HUGO: Thank you. Mr Chairman, obviously the next question in this particular matter is as to whether the act was directed against was directed against a publicly known political organisation or a Liberation Movement. Now let me, Mr Chairman, with all due respect start off by saying that and I think it's become clear from the evidence, that is not our argument that this particular deed or act was directed against an IFP member. Our argument, whether we're wrong or right, is whether he was an IFP member, whether he was an innocent bystander is, as far as Mr de Kock's application, irrelevant. The fact that had to be assessed was the effect of this particular deed and whether revelations about this particular deed would have adverse and serious negative consequences for the South African Police, the Government, the erstwhile Government and then obviously to a certain extent, for the applicant itself.
Now Mr Chairman, it is clear, if Mr de Kock had decided to assist here, just because Mr Andreiowitch was a personal friend of his, we could not have approached this Amnesty Committee, but we submit that there were compelling reasons for him getting involved in this particular matter. We say, Mr Chairman, that Mr Andreiowitch possessed very sensitive information about cross-border raids and we say that Mr Andreiowitch in the event of him having been prosecuted, would in all probability have revealed his participation in this particular operation.
Now, Mr Chairman, we can argue and say, but look this is mere speculation. We submit of the converse and we say it's not really speculation in that Mr de Kock testified and it's now common knowledge that two policemen actually revealed damaging evidence and facts about the Security Police. Mr de Kock's assessment of the situation, his ultimate decision to partake and to assist was to a large extent prompted by the events that flowed from, first of all Nofomela's revelations and then obviously also Dirk Coetzee's revelations.
Now it is also, I think, clear that, I think it could be argued in the sense that Mr Andreiowitch must have been a weakling to a certain extent and I say a weakling in abbreviated commas and that there was no evidence to say that he would have actually revealed his participation in, for instance, the Chand incident.
Mr Chairman, Nofomela's situation goes against that but what's even more revealing was the fact that when Mr de Kock was asked about the strong personalities and the endurance abilities of koevoet members and Vlakplaas members, that he said Willie Nortje for instance, whom he regarded as one of the toughest operators, when he was put in a situation where he was being pressurised, immediately started singing like a canary, so we submit, Mr Chairman, that there was a very likelihood of Mr Andreiowitch spilling the beans.
CHAIRPERSON: Well, tell me, apart from the likelihood and the probabilities, if I were to ask you if there existed a risk to that effect, you don't need to record the arguments ...(tape turned off)
MR HUGO: Mr Chairman, we submit that our argument would be the same. What was actually more enlightening was when Mr de Kock said that if the problems with the protection of sensitive information, that they actually went so far as to kill people to protect those sensitive information and details that could come to the fore, so in the circumstances, we really submit for him to partake and assist here, where they had in the past actually killed people to protect Vlakplaas and the identity and what they were up to, is not far-fetched at all.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: In that case Mr Hugo, didn't the possibility also exist that Mr de Kock would, instead of supplying Mr Andreiowitch and Mr Odendaal with explosives, probably also take some pre-emptive action to stop him from ultimately revealing about Vlakplaas's operation?
MR HUGO: Yes, Mr Chairman, obviously he could have done that but what sort of pre-emptive steps do you take? I shudder to think. Most probably ...
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: You kill.
MR HUGO: Yes.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: As he had done in other instances.
MR HUGO: Absolutely, Mr Chairman and that would have been obvious, we submit, worse in this particular situation.
Mr Chairman, as far as the question of Mr de Kock being a member of the IFP of the time, you could I suppose argue that there was a division in loyalty, etc., etc., but I think he's addressed that particular situation and he said what his feelings were. As far as the other aspect that came to the fore, the fact that the Chand matter was really directed at the PAC and not the ANC, I readily concede that. Mr de Kock has said that he actually saw the PAC and the ANC as much of a muchness.
Mr Chairman, I'm not sure whether there are any other aspects. What I could say also, is that maybe the subtlety of the situation escaped Mr de Kock. My perception was the fact that Andreiowitch came to him specifically was to a certain extent putting Mr de Kock in a very invidious situation and maybe he was trying to tell Mr de Kock in a subtle way: "You better help me here because I know of various other things that we have been up to." That's speculation from my side.
We submit that had this information come to the fore, it would have had serious consequences for the Government of the day. It would have had very serious consequences for the Security Police and ...
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Why do you say that's speculation from your side? Because if I understood Mr de Kock's evidence, he wasn't that precise, but the totality of his evidence was that he really felt that this person could have been able to carry out this deed on his own without having to come to him and that's what really made him a little bit scared and tempted him to accede to his request. This is how I understand the totality ...
MR HUGO: You're absolutely right, Mr Chairman and that's actually what Mr de Kock testified. So when I say it's been speculation, it's not really speculation, that was really the driving force behind Mr de Kock's decision to partake in this.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: ...(indistinct - mike not on)
MR HUGO: Absolutely. Mr Chairman, we have already given you an indication, maybe there's just another question that I should address and that is when it was said that you could not foretell with certainty as to whether Mr Andreiowitch would reveal information, then it was also very interesting when Mr de Kock said: "Well, look, there are various members of the CCB who were tough operators, that came to the fore and testified and they asked for amnesty" and it's abundantly clear they didn't come here because they like it, they came here because they were in fear for their lives and they didn't want to go to jail.
Mr Chairman, I don't know, these are the submission that we'd like to make, unless there are other matters that you'd like to address you on.
MR CORNELIUS IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Mr Chairperson. I've given it some thought. The explosives fell under the control of de Kock assisted by two men, Vermeulen and Snyman, so probabilities of any supply of explosives from the supply lot, would obviously come to my client's attention. Furthermore circumstantial evidence from the investigation by the Attorney-General's office, there must have been some type of evidence that pointed to my client because they approached my client and not Vermeulen and they said to him: "You know about the supply of Andreiowitch". So he says in his application
"Dit is moontlik dat ek dit kon verskaf het"
and that is as far as I can take it. The possibility of him supplying it to Andreiowitch or to de Kock is probable, otherwise it would have come to his knowledge if it was drawn from the supply. Only Vermeulen and Snyman held the keys to the explosives lot and they were explosives experts stationed at Vlakplaas.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Were they of the same rank, that's Vermeulen and ...
MR CORNELIUS: They were of the same rank, Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: You argue that even if it was Vermeulen that handed over physically, that this applicant by the very nature of his job, would have come to know about it and therefore would be just as guilty?
MR CORNELIUS: He would be an accomplice in a certain way, in the supply of the goods. I had no, well I think my predecessor had no - he had to approach the Amnesty Committee with an application because there is some type of evidence pointing to my client and he wants to indicate to the Committee that he's making a full disclosure of any possible fact he might know of, although it might look doubtful in the light of the application, that he's not certain if he did, but he says: "It's probable I might have."
CHAIRPERSON: I appreciate your problems. I don't know if there's very much more you can say about ...(indistinct - mike not on) but I must say we haven't made up our minds ...(indistinct - mike not on)
MR CORNELIUS: Yes. I can only add one more thing Mr Chairperson, is that I've done many amnesty applications for my client where he did in fact supply limpet mines on previous occasions. I must keep that in mind that the probability that he would have supplied it, is very high.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes. ...(indistinct - mike not on)
MR CORNELIUS: That is correct. That is quite so, especially with the desecration, disposal of bodies which was almost a usage at Vlakplaas.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - mike not on)
MR CORNELIUS: Yes, it is so, but it's a further indication that the desecration of this present Khanyile wasn't done in the same expertise way it would have been done by Vlakplaas, if Vlakplaas had done it, with all due respect, because they carefully removed all clothing and everything and there would have been no trace, so I think that supports my Learned Colleague's ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: They were selected for their expertise.
MR CORNELIUS: That is a fact, Mr Chairperson.
ADV BOSMAN: May I just ask you? There is still the requirement of political objective. Just for the record, how would you argue the requirement of political objective?
MR CORNELIUS: My client was in support of the Nationalist Party of the day. He was in support of Vlakplaas. He was a policeman and he was an applicant in terms of section 20(ii)(b) and 20(ii)(f) of Act 34 of 1995. He was - had the Nationalist Party objective at that time which supported the fight against the ANC and PAC alliance.
ADV BOSMAN: The argument that all limpet mines which were handed from that arsenal, would have been for a political objective.
MR CORNELIUS: No, not necessarily, Mr Chairperson, some of the limpet mines were handed out for training as well. My client was an expert in training the police as well.
CHAIRPERSON: The question is that everything that flowed from Vlakplaas was accepted to be politically unlawful.
MR CORNELIUS: Yes and there was a political decision made by the Commander of Vlakplaas which the foot soldiers accepted, especially in the light of the decorations received by Vlakplaas and they were impressed by the decisions made by De Kock on previous occasions, they wouldn't have dealt with the decision at all, they would have accepted it as a political decision made and they would have accepted that fact.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: ...(indistinct - mike not on)
MR CORNELIUS: That is exactly so, they also trained certain of the askaris in the use of explosives, which we have also heard before this Committee.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: In any event ...(indistinct - mike not on)
MR CORNELIUS: Very much so. He was acting within the ambit of his duty as well and he obviously didn't receive any remuneration bar his remuneration he received as part of his salary, there's no bonuses or anything like that. Thank you.
MR CLAASSEN IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Mr Chairman, I will be very brief as far as the application of the second applicant is concerned, I'll have nothing to say to the Committee.
Mr Chair, as far as the application of Mr de Kock is concerned, the Committee has now listened to the argument of my Learned Colleague Mr Hugo as to what led Mr de Kock to aide Messrs Andreiowitch and Odendaal on that particular day that he decided to supply the explosives to them. Mr Chairman, I would like to take a bit of a different approach. In his testimony, the applicant said that he became involved voluntarily, he was under no pressure to do so. He was never threatened by anyone to do so. Mr Chair, it's my submission that what had happened that day is that the deceased was picked up by two policemen who grossly exceeded their powers as policemen and actually went as far as to kill the deceased and it is my submission that after doing this, they realised that they might be in trouble and they then decided to approach the applicant who at no stage, as I have said, was under any pressure to help them, he could have just said no.
Mr Chairman, this is the bit I find a bit funny in the sense that applicant says he was furthering the cause of the Government. It is clearly that the killing of the IFP member, doesn't constitute the political objective, but in helping the two people who came to him for help, he was trying to further the objectives of the Government of the day. With respect, Mr Chairman, it is my submission that this was an ex post facto argument. While assisting, while helping out the people that came to him, it is evidenced that they are, or evidence was given that they are both explosives experts, they were well able to dispose of the body themselves, without involving Vlakplaas. There was no need at that stage to protect Vlakplaas, since they weren't involved at all.
Mr Chairman in deciding whether applicant qualifies for amnesty, the Committee is clearly guided by the Act in this respect and just in closing I'd like to refer, as the Committee well knows, to Section 20 (ii) which clearly states, if I may:
"In this Act unless the context otherwise indicates, acts associated with a political objective means any act or omission which constitutes an offence or delict which, according to the criteria in (iii)"
which the Committee is well aware of,
"is associated with a political objective and which was advised, planned, directed, commanded or committed within or outside the Republic after 1960."
It is my submission that this was not the case at all. There was no calling for the applicant to get involved. There was a crime that was committed by the two policemen. He, out of his own free will, decided to get involved and it is my submission that no political objective could be drawn, could be seen in what was done by the applicant.
In view of what I've said, I would leave it in the hands of the Committee to make a decision on amnesty.
MS PATEL IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Honourable Chairperson. I too will be brief. In respect of Mr Snyman, Honourable Chairperson, my respectful submission is that in as much as I have empathy for Mr Snyman's state of memory, my submission is that he hasn't qualified for amnesty, that he isn't certain whether he was involved in the matter, neither is Mr de Kock who has testified, so there can be no full disclosure in terms ...
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Wouldn't he be eligible if we understand Mr Cornelius's argument that he was an accomplice?
MS PATEL: Even on that score, Honourable Chairperson, Vlakplaas operated on the basis of need to know. What are the probabilities that they would have shared such information and then still it's mere speculation. So that - ja, I can't take it much further than that except to say that he hasn't complied with the basic requirements.
ADV BOSMAN: But Ms Patel, if you say that neither Snyman or de Kock can say that he actually was involved in handing over the limpet mine, then shouldn't your argument be that there's no offence disclosed?
MS PATEL: Certainly, that is why I said he hasn't complied with the basic requirements.
ADV BOSMAN: Yes, but that's different to full disclosure. I mean one can only disclose what one knows and what one can remember. Then there's - it is akin to the general amnesty for the ANC 37 then, isn't it? On your argument.
CHAIRPERSON: The application becomes defective because he himself can't say whether he committed a crime or not.
MS PATEL: Absolutely.
CHAIRPERSON: And you can't get amnesty for something you didn't commit.
MS PATEL: Or omit to do, as the case may be. Yes.
In respect of Mr de Kock, my submission in that regard is that he hasn't complied with the requirement of having committed this act with a political objective. If one considers his motive in terms of Section 20(iii), he states that his motive was to ensure that Andreiowitch was not place in the position where he would then be forced to reveal the activities of Vlakplaas as had gone before with Nofomela and Dirk Coetzee. My response to that is that Mr de Kock at no stage - he goes purely on speculation in respect of Mr Andreiowitch himself. He stated without doubt that Mr Andreiowitch was a loyal member, that there was nothing about Mr Andreiowitch that led him to believe that he had the capacity at that stage to in fact disclose any of the information that he had had. He also stated that he didn't even attempt to refuse to assist Mr Andreiowitch which would have, at least in his mind then have clarified the position as to whether he felt Mr Andreiowitch was going to take further action, or not and I would at this stage for the record like to take issue, perhaps I misunderstood Mr de Kock's evidence that in response to a question from the Committee as to whether he felt Mr Andreiowitch was testing him, my understanding of his response, of Mr de Kock's response to that was no, he didn't think so. Perhaps he was just closest to him at the time and that he knew that Mr de Kock had kept explosives at hand and that is why he might have approached him. So my understanding of his response is quite different to that that was put to I think it was Mr Hugo in the argument, during the argument stage.
And then also a curious factor in Mr de Kock's application is that he himself was am IFP member at the time, not merely a supporter, but a member which is a lot stronger than just a supporter or somebody who aligns himself on the general level with the aims and objectives of the organisation and there's a clear contradiction between his affiliations or his allegiances in that regard and his allegiances to the State in as much as he would have us believe that his allegiances to the State was much stronger, my response to that is that it's purely convenient for him at this stage to say that his allegiances to the State were a lot stronger than to the IFP.
Also in - no if I could - if you would just grant me moment. Also just finally to state that my Learned Colleague Mr Hugo has argued that whether or not the deceased in this matter was an IFP is irrelevant, my submission respectfully in that regard is in fact that it is pertinent to the issues at hand. In fact, that it goes directly to the question of whether in fact Mr de Kock has complied with the criteria of political motivation objective in this matter.
Thank you Honourable Chairperson, unless you want to hear me on anything further, those are my submissions.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. We will take time in determining this decision and we'll adjourn for the next matter tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
