MOEGAMAT ANEEZ SALIE: (sworn states)
MR PAPIER: Thank you Judge, Thank you Commissioners.
EXAMINATION BY MR PAPIER: Mr Salie, you have also applied for amnesty in respect of the incident that occurred on the 28th of September 1988 and the Bontheuwel Municipal Rent Office, where Mr Bartlett, Nurudien was injured, is that correct?
MR SALIE: That's correct.
MR PAPIER: You were also the Commander of the Ashley Kriel Detachment of the ANC's military wing, MK, is that correct, at the time?
MR SALIE: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON: What do you mean the overall, Regional Commander or District Commander?
MR SALIE: Regional, Your Honour, we operated in the Western Cape but largely the Peninsula.
MR PAPIER: And is it correct that the Ashley Kriel Bontheuwel unit formed part of the so-called cells or a unit within your Detachment, is that correct?
MR SALIE: That's correct.
MR PAPIER: Now when were you recruited, Mr Salie?
MR SALIE: I was recruited in early 1985.
MR PAPIER: And can you give the Commission a brief history of your involvement in MK after that?
MR SALIE: Well, soon after Easter, I think it was, in 1985, I was recruited by one Leo Meyer. Leo Meyer was killed in the SADF operation into Lesotho. He was killed with his wife in the presence of their child of course. I was recruited and trained by Leo Meyer and I was trained together with Shirley Gunn and the two of us, Shirley Gunn and I formed a unit of MK in 1985. Shirley was detained on the 28th of August 1985 and sometime, I think the 24th or the 23rd of November or thereabouts, there was, the police had put out a ransom for me, they were looking for me and I was eventually forced to leave the country which I did on the 3rd of February 1986 illegally to Botswana. I trained in Angola and was deployed back into Cape Town, I think it was round about April 1987.
MR PAPIER: Where did you train in Angola?
MR SALIE: I trained at the David Rapkin centre which is commonly known as Pango in a town in the North West of Angola, called Pango.
MR PAPIER: Yes. Now when you returned to Cape Town in 1987, what was your position? What were you deployed to do?
MR SALIE: Well initially I was meant to be part of the Ashley Forbes Detachment. I had trained with Ashley Forbes and Peter Jacobs in Pango and they had preceded me and Ashley Kriel was part of that Detachment too. Ashley Kriel and I had stayed together, we'd come down to Botswana together and Ashley had left before me because I had other tasks to do, but I was meant to be part of the Ashley Forbes Unit or Detachment, rather. When I came back they unfortunately didn't make contact at the prearranged time and they were detained eventually, all of them, as you know and then I was instructed to be part of the Tony Yengeni Detachment and Tony Yengeni was detained on the day he was supposed to make contact with me and then thereafter we were asked to constitute the Ashley Kriel Detachment with myself and Shirley Gunn as the co-Commanders of the Ashley Kriel Detachment.
CHAIRPERSON: It sounds to me like in that way you worked yourself up to be in the command of the Western Cape.
MR SALIE: With due respect, in the military you can't really work your way up.
CHAIRPERSON: By whatever means, you found yourself in the position of Commander?
MR SALIE: Yes, Sir.
CHAIRPERSON: By 1990, what position did you hold?
MR SALIE: I was still the Detachment Commander.
CHAIRPERSON: Can you proceed from then? How did you play a part in the incident we are busy with here? I'm sorry, 88.
MR SALIE: Your Honour, my job as the Commander of the Detachment was to plan co-ordinated attacks. The blast at the Bontheuwel Rent Office happened simultaneously with two other blasts in the Peninsula that night and it was aimed at showing opposition to the Municipal elections, it was aimed at restoring MK's presence, ANC's presence in Bontheuwel in particular. So my role as the Detachment Commander was to plan operations in the furtherance of the aims of the ANC and MK and my job was also to procure the material for those operations. My job was to secure communication, to check on the safety, to be in charge of the logistics, the intelligence, all the normal duties that the Commander of such Detachment would have.
MR PAPIER: Yes, who did you report to Mr Salie?
MR SALIE: Your Honour, we reported to James Mkulu in Botswana. James, as you know was the past Secretary General of the Western Cape here, he's now a member of parliament and James reported to Chris Hani so we reported to Chris Hani through James, through Botswana.
MR PAPIER: Yes. Now I think similarly in your affidavit you referred to the incident occurring in 1998 due to a typing error, it should be 1988, is that correct?
MR SALIE: That's correct.
MR PAPIER: Now, I understand that you were also instrumental in the reconnaissance of the Bontheuwel area, is that correct?
MR SALIE: Yes, I participated in that.
MR PAPIER: And can you contextualise for the Committee why the location of the limpet mine?
CHAIRPERSON: Well, did you participate in the reconnaissance of the post office in this particular incident?
MR PAPIER: Rent Office.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, the Rent Office?
MR SALIE: I did, Your Honour. Would you like me to explain that?
CHAIRPERSON: No, no, no, I just wanted to know whether you participated in it?
MR SALIE: Yes, I did. We basically, when we received intelligence reports on possible targets, we checked it out very, very thoroughly. We had people who did that. I wasn't meant to do that. I wasn't meant to be operational in that way, but I did it none the less. I went to go and double check the information and of course we grew up in those areas, Your Honour, I stayed in Athlone before I went into the underground, so we knew the area very intimately and Vanessa and them grew up there. We know that target like the back of our hands. It's not as if we came from outside, we chose a target that was convenient, the reconnaissance was really - I mean it wasn't a target that was unfamiliar, it was the Rent Office that they used to go pay the rent anyway.
MR PAPIER: And the specific location of the door where the limpet mine was placed?
MR SALIE: Right, Your Honour, we attempted to destroy the building completely, which is why we added thermite to the charge and thermite, under certain circumstances, would cause a fire, which is why unfortunately Bartlett the victim suffered such severe burns. So our intention was to burn down the entire building with the use of this limpet, so it was placed strategically at the double wooden doors to the entrance of the building so that the force of the blast and the thermite would be directed into the building and as you previously heard, the idea was to disguise it amongst the rubble or the litter there. The wind blows terribly in those areas there in Bontheuwel and the litter collected at the doorway of the Rent Office, so this was a disused milk carton, it was part of the litter that was collected, that the wind would have blown towards the door of the Rent Office and it's also so disguised because there was a very heavy Security Force presence there. They were patrolling the areas all the time, they knew that these blasts were taking place, they knew Bontheuwel Rent Office was a target, so there were a lot of cops around, so it was well-disguised amongst that litter.
CHAIRPERSON: Was there another place where that bomb could have been placed, at possibly the same results?
MR SALIE: No Your Honour, that building, the windows had wire mesh, wire grills around it and the front door was the only door, double door. It wouldn't have made any sense operationally and in terms of our objective, to have placed that limpet anywhere else.
MR PAPIER: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: There was no back door?
MR SALIE: No Your Honour. The front were wooden double doors, Your Honour. Remember we had wanted to cause an explosion. The back door wasn't that accessible, there was a grill, there were all those types of things. The front door was really, if you would pardon the expression, it was the perfect place for us to be and it wouldn't have made it, if we had placed it at the back of the sides. It wouldn't have made it less dangerous Your Honour. It wouldn't have meant that there was a greater likelihood or a less of a likelihood of something going wrong had we placed it at the back or at the sides. It was really immaterial Your Honour.
MR PAPIER: In your view, Mr Salie, was there any prospect of placing any member of the public at risk by selecting and choosing that specific spot?
MR SALIE: Your Honour, no. The one issue we emphasised very, very much with all the operatives was to avoid civilian casualties. We were extremely, extremely insistent on that and they knew, the operatives knew that they would, that whatever they did, however they conducted themselves as they went through the operation, that they knew the instructions were that if there was the slightest chance of civilians being caught up in this operation, if the conditions at the target had changed in any way, then they were to abort the operation. They were not to come and tell us afterwards that: "Yes, we did notice that and the other but we were under pressure to perform this operation so we carried on." Your Honour, so in our opinion, Your Honour, that Rent Office is used during office hours. It's not used after hours at all. It's not used as something else after the Rent Office. It is an area where the public doesn't gather. It was at night. The limpet was primed to go off in the middle of the night, 4, 5, 3 o'clock thereabouts. Your Honour, it's our understanding from our discussion with Moegamat Noah and with his mother and with his sister that unfortunately the victim had a preponderance for exploring certain areas of his township that other people might not do. His mother said that he was such a sweet child, he would often bring her little things home everyday, little empty packets, little boxes of things, old cartons, old pieces of disused stuff.
CHAIRPERSON: How old was he?
MR SALIE: When, at the time? I think Mr Bartlett was 24.
MR PAPIER: I understand that Mr Bartlett is mentally challenged, is that correct?
MR SALIE: That's correct, yes. So Your Honour, without belabouring the point, I think we want to state quite respectfully that we really went to the ends of the earth to ensure that there wasn't a possibility of civilians being injured, being caught up in this. There was nothing requisite...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: While it may have been your intention to avoid it, you are saying that he caught in the cross-fire unfortunately.
MR SALIE: Unfortunately, yes.
MR PAPIER: Now Mr Salie, as Commander of the Detachment, what was your response to the injury of Mr Nurudien?
MR SALIE: Well Your Honour, we called for and we received very extensive reports from all those concerned as to what they did, step by step report on how they conducted the operation, how they conducted themselves. They were thoroughly interrogated Your Honour.
MR PAPIER: And I understand that, well, evidence before this Commission earlier today is that you had visited the family. Were you part of this initiative in 1997?
MR SALIE: Yes, Your Honour.
CHAIRPERSON: 19 when? Say again. 1997?
MR PAPIER: That's right. It's two years ago.
MR SALIE: Can I just speak to that quickly, Your Honour? You know we have been very troubled by the injuries to Mr Bartlett. It is something which weighs very heavily on us and there were basically four or five people who knew that we were responsible for this operation and once we were settling down into "normality", we said to ourselves that we really ought to go and approach the victim to say to the victim: "Look we are the people who did this to you and this is what we did and this is why we did it and how we did it and these are the people involved" and we didn't do that Your Honour for any other reason than we thought it was the correct, human, moral, ethical thing to do. In Umkhonto weSizwe we were instilled with a set of values, Your Honour, which made it incumbent on us, we felt, to do this. To go to the victim. To explain ourselves and to try and bring some peace to the victim and the victim's family and we did that not because we knew we were going to sit here one day eventually. At that stage we hadn't even thought of applying for amnesty. In fact, as you would know, Your Honour, there was always a little bit of grey areas as to what constituted a gross human rights violation and what not. We've got P W Botha who said that his bombing of Khotso House was a gross human rights violation because nobody was killed, but it was the most devilish operation Your Honour. It was right opposite a block of flats where there were old people recovering and they were and Eugene de Kock in his own testimony said that they were surprised by a Security Guard and they had to cut short the operation, had they carried it through, Your Honour, it would have been devastating but PW Botha felt that wasn't a serious...(indistinct), but I digress Your Honour.
MR PAPIER: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Well let me digress a bit. Then, and I don't mean to pose awkward questions to you, I just need to clarify it in my own mind. If it be a ...(indistinct) that was developed in the realms of moral wars, that you consider yourself with the injuries caused by the activities of MK and that when you did eventually go visit the family, you were not urged to do so by the prospects of Amnesty, why did it take you so long to go there?
MR SALIE: Well, there were a number of things that we had responsibility for as to Detachment, our work didn't end in 1990 when the ANC was unbanned. We had responsibility for weapons which we were ordered to hand over only in the beginning of 93 and, Your Honour, it was a very difficult thing for us to do, to go up to Mr Bartlett and to Mr Bartlett's family and to say: "We blew off your leg, we blew out your eye. I guess we are a bit cowardly, Your Honour, that's why it took us so long.
MR PAPIER: Now Mr Salie, in your capacity as Commander of the Detachment, you have also prepared a submission on pages 4 and 8 of this bundle, 4 to 8 of this bundle, which you now wish to read into the record, is that correct?
MR SALIE: I do, Your Honour.
CHAIRPERSON: I was wondering Mr Papier when I read this, how does this fit into the application?
MR PAPIER: Thank you, Judge. My instructions are that my client, Mr Salie wishes to, in fact regards this as his last opportunity to be able to place before the TRC process and particularly this Committee, his respects with regard to operatives that had fallen in his unit. It is so that evidence was placed before the Human Rights Violation Committee, which is now closed Your Honour. Judge, evidence placed before this Committee that has a bearing on this unit, my instructions are that Mr Salie, nor the unit or any operatives were not given an opportunity to respond. They were not informed of the evidence placed before the Human Rights Violation Committee and to that end wish to read into the record pages 4, 5, 6 and 7, as a last opportunity and in a last attempt to in fact honour those operatives who had fallen and also to in fact contextualise the, or to record the integrity of the unit which is an issue, that is held in high esteem by my clients collectively. So I beg your permission ...(intervention))
CHAIRPERSON: Indulgence.
MR PAPIER: Indulgence, to allow us to place that on record.
CHAIRPERSON: Well a few things come to mind Mr Papier. Firstly it is unfortunate that your clients were not able to say what they want to say in another section of this Commission. The regulations and the practice of this Committee is such that we cannot provide a forum for what ought to have been said in another Committee. As you will appreciate, we are the only surviving Committee of the Commission, that's not of our own doing I would like to argue, but really we're under pressure to complete our work. Aside from that, we strictly work to the rule of relevance and now if you wish to comment on my following comment, please do so when I'm finished. The real test here is whether what is contained in these three or four pages are matters which are either going to detract or improve the application. In my view it doesn't, one way or the other and therefore I must conclude that that is irrelevant. The bigger test of all is that I must protect the integrity of this Committee from being used as a forum to say something that is irrelevant to this Committee and I again repeat, it is unfortunate that the clients weren't given an opportunity to say it where it should have been said and maybe it can be taken up by you to the members of the Commission, but certainly I am not, I am loath to grant permission to put this on record because in fact it's not going to improve your client's case at all.
MR PAPIER: As Your Worship pleases. Thank you Judge. May I just be afforded one minute to take instructions on the issue? Thank you Judge. Thank you Commissioners. I have taken instructions and my instructions are to appreciate the view expressed and we will take it up with the relevant structure in an attempt to place on record what our response is. Thank you Judge.
CHAIRPERSON: I really appreciate that. Are you done?
MR PAPIER: We are done, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PAPIER
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel?
MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson. If you would just grant me a moment, I just want to check something with my client.
Thank you Honourable Chairperson, there is nothing except to place on record save that the victim Mr Bartlett, was in fact only 20 years old at the time of this incident and not 24 as you have stated. Thank you Honourable Chairperson.
NO QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL
MR SALIE: I stand corrected, Your Honour.
CHAIRPERSON: I don't suppose you've got any re-examination Mr Papier?
MR PAPIER: None thank you. Thank you Judge.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR PAPIER
ADV SIGODI: There is just one aspect that I would like to clarify with you. In your capacity as Regional Commander of the MK, did you not consider the fact that training young people with very very lethal weapons could be dangerous? I'm not saying that you should not have trained, but I'm concerned that some of the members of that unit were in standard 8, wasn't that a factor that you considered, you know giving them such lethal weapons to use?
MR SALIE: Yes, Your Honour, we did and it is correct that Vanessa in particular was very young, but you will know that it is a feature of our lives under apartheid that we grew up very, very quickly, so a Standard 8 girl in Bontheuwel High, with all due respect, Your Honour, is far more advanced than a Standard 8 girl from Sea Point High or Bishops or something like that, so our children were forced to take on responsibilities way beyond their years, Your Honour. We didn't go to seek out Standard 8 children. Vanessa was somebody who had presented herself first and foremost as a very disciplined person who could keep a secret, if I could put it so crudely, Your Honour. That was the first criteria. How suited was this person to underground work? Now we didn't, once we recruited them, we didn't just place weapons and explosives in their hands. Vanessa testified that her role in this blast was supplementary really. Her job was to go along, to gain experience, to go through the threshold of carrying out an operation. That's how our operators worked, Your Honour, that they went through different stages, they went through different thresholds. When Sidney went with Colleen Williams on previous operations, Colleen had detonated the mine. Colleen would previously have played the role that Vanessa did and so it was a very gradual, it was a very staged approach, so it wasn't a question of us giving Vanessa limpet grenade and AKs and stuff like that. They went through a stage Your Honour and as I have testified before, our emphasis was on avoiding civilian targets, casualties at all times, so the reply to your question, Your Honour is, yes, it does seem quite shocking and startling and irresponsible to have recruited the Standard 8 school girl to be part of an MK unit, but Your Honour, the planting of a bomb, or the firing of an AK is 5% of the work, there is an enormous amount of work that went into this operation at the Bontheuwel Rent Office and we needed all sorts of people to do that. There are some places where only schoolgirls could enter. There are some places where schoolboys would ask them no questions and let me just assure this Hearing that there were no other Standard 8 school children in this part of our Detachment, but really Your Honour, there was a multitude of tasks to be performed in an operation, we shouldn't just think of MK or military work as bomb blasts or armed attacks. That really was 5 or even less percent of the work and that's where people like Vanessa came in. Vanessa was somebody whom we could trust and we did trust her with our lives. Vanessa was somebody who grew up in Bontheuwel, who was passionate about justice, but who wasn't somebody who shouted from the rooftops Your Honour and she was very, very far advanced for her age.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. You're excused.
WITNESS EXCUSED
MR PAPIER: Thank you Judge. That is also our case.
MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson, I do not intend to lead any evidence thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Papier, are there any submissions you want to make?
MR PAPIER: Thank you Judge. Just very briefly.
ADV BOSMAN: May I, just before you commence with that, you were asked by the Chairperson to just clarify exactly for what your clients are applying for an perhaps you could just preface your submissions by telling us what the actual application is for.
MR PAPIER IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Judge. Please bear with me for one moment.
Thank you Judge, thank you Commissioners. Just very briefly, it's my respectful submission that this application relates to the activities flowing from the evidence presented to this Commission today and in particular the bomb blast executed at the Bontheuwel Rent Office on that date, which includes the possession of ammunition, arms and ammunition, malicious injury to property, attempted murder
CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)
MR PAPIER: Thank you Judge, in so far as relates to the aspect of dolus eventualis with intent, and in so far as it relates to the injuries sustained by Mr Bartlett, we of course submit that there is no prospect, or to put it the worst case scenario, very remote prospect of wanting to argue intent in the form of dolus eventualis but nevertheless I would submit that should, in an unlikely scenario, a charge of attempted murder be formulated in respect of Mr Bartlett, we would respectfully request this Committee to consider granting amnesty for that.
CHAIRPERSON: What are the prospects of a conviction on attempted murder?
MR PAPIER: I would submit close to zero, Judge and Honourable Committee Members.
MR SALIE: Your Honour, would you mind if I...?
CHAIRPERSON: No you have to ...
MR PAPIER: May I just take instructions?
Thank you Judge. I am reminded and instructed by my client that correspondence flowing from this office, the TRC office referred to the charge of attempted murder as well, but when I was addressing the Committee I wasn't mindful of that correspondence. Be that as it may, Honourable Commissioners ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: I must say that some strange questions have come out of this office and ultimately this Committee must decide on the issue and it's important because it's non-appealable and the future of people is at stake and we need to be certain of what we're about.
MR PAPIER: Yes. Thank you Judge and so it is with that in mind that I would submit that even though there is a remote chance of the prospects of success in respect of the attempted murder being very remote, I would nevertheless request this Honourable Committee to consider that.
Finally Judge, Honourable Commissioners, I submit, with respect, that the application ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: First attempted murder, what else?
MR PAPIER: Malicious injury to property.
CHAIRPERSON: Was there any malicious injury to property?
MR SALIE: The Rent Office was slightly injured, yes.
MR PAPIER: I'm instructed yes, Judge.
CHAIRPERSON: Well, the question then arises whether it's MITP or arson, you must tell us.
MR PAPIER: I would respectfully request this Committee to consider granting amnesty for arson alternatively malicious injury to property.
CHAIRPERSON: What was the damage and how was it caused? Arson must have been caused by fire.
MR PAPIER: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Now if that was the damage, yes, then it's arson. If not and it was caused some other way, then it may very well be malicious injury to property.
MR PAPIER: I would then respectfully request that the alternative be excluded and that amnesty be granted for arson, as well as possession of arms and ammunition.
ADV BOSMAN: Mr Papier, I don't want to be over technical, but we have no evidence before us about any damage to the property. We have no evidence before us on any form of dolus eventualis. Do you wish to make any submissions on that?
MR PAPIER: Yes, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Well before, just complete your list of offences. You said possession of arms and ammunition, anything else?
MR PAPIER: That would be the nett effect of ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: What about a contravention of the explosives Act?
MR PAPIER: Absolutely Judge, so I respectfully submit that it would be all contraventions flowing from the Arms and Ammunitions Act.
CHAIRPERSON: Explosives Act. Anything else?
MR PAPIER: That is my list Judge, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Now how do you come up by arson on the evidence before us?
MR SALIE: Your Honour if I could possibly assist. I testified that our intention was to burn down the building, that's why we had fitted the limpet with thermite and which is why Mr Bartlett had received such severe burns, the top half of his body was very badly burned Your Honour.
CHAIRPERSON: I want to make one thing clear now. When we listen to argument or evidence, we can only listen to one person.
MR SALIE: I beg your pardon.
CHAIRPERSON: Now either you fire your attorney and talk, or you continue with your representative.
MR SALIE: I beg your pardon, Your Honour.
MR PAPIER: May I take instructions on that? Judge, yes, I confirm that there is evidence before this Committee particularly with regard to the intention of ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: I can understand that, but we haven't got evidence as to whether it was successful or not, have we?
MR PAPIER: No evidence has been placed before this Honourable Committee by the applicant, but we respectfully submit that the consequences of their conduct would have amounted to mere speculation and hearsay on the point of the applicants. They did not embark on an assessment and a quantification of the damages.
CHAIRPERSON: We're not talking of quantification. We're just finding out if there's any evidence to say that the building was partly burned or scorched or whatever.
MR PAPIER: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Have we got that evidence?
MR PAPIER: I have no instructions on that Honourable Commissioners. What I am submitting ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: So how can you say that they're guilty of arson then?
MR PAPIER: I'm respectfully submitting, Honourable Commissioners, that the evidence placed before this Commission relates to the bomb that was planted by clients ...(intervention).
CHAIRPERSON: At best, Mr Papier, aren't they then guilty on the evidence before us of attempted arson?
MR PAPIER: As you please.
CHAIRPERSON: Would you agree?
MR PAPIER: I would agree with that, yes.
ADV BOSMAN: How would you deal with the malicious injury to property?
CHAIRPERSON: He's abandoned that.
ADV BOSMAN: Have you abandoned that?
CHAIRPERSON: And the possession of arms and ammunition?
MR PAPIER: I respectfully submit, Honourable Judge that there is evidence before this Committee that ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: From whom?
MR PAPIER: From Sidney Hendricks that he was in possession of the limpet mine. There's evidence before this Committee by Aneez Salie that it was his responsibility to in fact obtain the arms and ammunition and in so far as it relates to the doctrine of common purpose, I would respectfully submit that it is common cause that the applicants possessed or controlled arms.
CHAIRPERSON: Through Mr Salie?
MR PAPIER: Through Mr Salie but more in particular to the limpet mine, through Mr Sidney Hendricks.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Papier, the limpet mine relates to the Act concerning explosives and the contraventions thereof. Possession of arms and ammunition means firearms. I can understand that Mr Salie himself, possessed them or such-like articles at some time during his duties. I've got no quarrel with him obtaining amnesty for it, but I must be possessed to reason that the others are guilty of it.
MR PAPIER: Yes. Thank you Judge. In particular and specifically I refer this Honourable Commission to the evidence of Sidney Hendricks who testified that he was in possession of a survival kit which included an AK47.
CHAIRPERSON: For this incident?
MR PAPIER: Honourable Judge, the evidence placed before this Committee was in response to a question and he had indicated that he was in possession of this survival kit which included an AK47.
CHAIRPERSON: You see, when we ask you the question of listing the offences for which he's applied for, we assume that you would do so in respect of the incident relating to the application.
MR PAPIER: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Now in his application, or in their applications, all the applicants refer to the incident where the Rent Office was attacked, they attempted to attack it and in so saying, all the offences that flow from that incident are included in the list. If one of the applicants wanted to make an application for possession of a firearm in general, unconnected to this incident, that would have been a separate application and I'm afraid I don't see such a separate application in these applications.
MR PAPIER: As it pleases. I confirm the position and our application therefore would be limited to the application before you which relates to the limpet mine and arson.
CHAIRPERSON: And to the extent that we can grant for attempted murder, we'll consider that. So you're abandoning the application in respect of arms and ammunition?
MR PAPIER: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: You haven't perhaps referred yourself to the Sections which have been contravened in respect of the Explosives Act?
MR PAPIER: I don't have instructions on that.
CHAIRPERSON: No, I'm not talking about instructions, I'm talking about you doing research yourself?
MR PAPIER: No, I haven't done that research.
CHAIRPERSON: I don't expect your clients to know the section and title.
MR PAPIER: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Anything else?
MR PAPIER: Finally I would just submit that the application complies with the requirements of the Act in all material respects and I would respectfully request the application to be granted. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel.
MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson. I'll reiterate that the position of the victim in this matter remains unchanged. I accordingly have no address.
CHAIRPERSON: Well what's your comment about attempted murder?
MS PATEL: My respectful submission in that regard, Honourable Chairperson that the applicants haven't made out a case in respect of which they can apply for amnesty on attempted murder. The evidence was clear in fact from both Hendricks and Vanessa Rhoda, they at no stage even foresaw the possibility that somebody would walk past and in fact be injured, so it wasn't part of their plan, it was never ever foreseen, in fact as far as they were concerned, it was almost impossible.
CHAIRPERSON: Had someone been injured inside the building, had the attack been successful, that may have been another matter.
MS PATEL: Yes, no of course.
CHAIRPERSON: Anything else?
MS PATEL: Nothing else, thank you Honourable Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you. We will reserve judgment. We thank everybody for attending and contributing to the process and we will adjourn.
MR PAPIER: Thank you.
HEARING ADJOURNS
