CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, are you calling any witnesses in addition to your applicant?
MR VISSER: Chairperson no, except that it has occurred to us that we might call Mr Botha back because of questions that have been put to other witnesses which really concerns Mr Botha whether he brought the stuff along with him in this new view that we have on the matter of two separate occasions. I think that he should be given an opportunity to tell you what his evidence is. I'm not sure whether he is here, I don't see him. Can I ask for a brief adjournment just to see whether he is here, Chairperson?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, just before that I'll just ask Mr Nel whether his applicants are calling any witnesses?
MR NEL: No, Chairperson, I have no witnesses further to call. Thank you Sir.
CHAIRPERSON: We'll take a short adjournment.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
MR VISSER: Two issues which have arisen from cross-examination of other witnesses, Chairperson.
Mr Botha ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, before you commence.
Mr Botha, you're still under your former oath, do you confirm that?
HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: (s.u.o.)
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Mr Botha, I want to limit you to two aspects. The first is, do you know where the items which you used in the suffocation of Mr Gordhan and Mr Lalla on that day, that is the blanket, and you say you cannot recall whether it was a towel or what it was but do you recall where those things came from?
MR BOTHA: Chairperson, most probably from the offices in Bethlehem. The blanket could have been from the cells and I cannot recall that I took anything with me.
MR VISSER: Can you recall who brought the things to the office where you undertook the interrogation?
MR BOTHA: No Chairperson.
MR VISSER: And the following aspect, Mr Gordhan says that somewhere while it was still light the original three minutes to which you had referred, you spoke to him and then you left and an hour or two later you returned and then the assault took place. What do you say to that?
MR BOTHA: No Chairperson, it cannot be correct. My recollection is that the opportunity that I was with Mr Gordhan that was after 5, after the official closing time of the offices and secondly, from my interrogation of Mr Gordhan and Mr Lalla and the asthma attack, I sent Marius back to the chemist and that was before 6 o'clock. So in an hour and a half I worked with the two people and I cannot recall that there was such a big gap, it was continuous that I worked with Mr Gordhan and Mr Lalla.
MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nel, do you have any questions you would like to ask?
MR NEL: I have no questions, thank you Chairperson.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR NEL
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Gordhan, any questions?
FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR GORDHAN
Mr Botha, I put it to you that your first interaction with me was at the time when there was daylight out of the window?
MR BOTHA: Yes that is correct.
MR GORDHAN: I put it to you that you then had to wait until it became dark?
MR BOTHA: No Chairperson, there was no reason for me to wait.
MR GORDHAN: Your other colleagues have actually said that lights had to be put out and so on in order to find the right moment because here was a huge window one floor above a street in the centre of Bethlehem, if in fact it wasn't dark and the lights hadn't been put out any member of the public could actually see through that window and see what was happening?
MR BOTHA: Chairperson, it was on the first floor and I don't think there are adjacent buildings next door where one can see into the building so I cannot agree with what you are saying.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Gordhan, if I may intervene?
When the actual torture took place the lights were off?
MR BOTHA: Chairperson, I cannot recall whether the lights were on or off, I knew it was in a given time after the offices had closed between half past 4 and 6 o'clock.
MR LAX: There has been evidence already from two of your colleagues that it was dark, the lights were switched off and it was dark and the purpose of that darkness we are told was to frighten Mr Gordhan or that's what they speculated at any rate?
MR BOTHA: Mr Lax, I recall it is Free State and in the middle of winter so I don't know what time the sun goes down, it may have been dark.
MR LAX: Mr Gordhan?
MR GORDHAN: The only point - I don't think we're going to go too far and I don't want to take up your time, is my recollection of all of this is fairly crystal clear and I've already put it to Mr Botha, it's up to him to come forward with the facts.
CHAIRPERSON: Have you got any further questions?
MR LAX: Chair, if I may just interpose?
There's just one issue that's occurred to me and it follows exactly out of the questions you've been asked right now and that is at the time Mr Lalla was questioned, was it dark already?
MR BOTHA: Chairperson, I really cannot recall whether it was light or dark. If the lights were on and it was dark outside then it may be so but I cannot recall whether it was night or day.
MR LAX: Was Mr Lalla questioned in the very same office or in a different office?
MR BOTHA: The same floor, the offices were diagonally opposite each other.
MR LAX: And the same paraphernalia was used to question him?
MR BOTHA: Yes, that's how I recall it.
MR LAX: You wouldn't dispute the fact that your colleagues have indicated that it was some sort of a rubber tube like device that was used to smother them with? Not a handkerchief but something rubber that was stretchy?
MR BOTHA: My recollection was that it was a cloth or a towel. I have thought about it, I did not have a rubbery thing.
MR LAX: Obviously if it was some sort of fabric it would have to be wet to achieve your purpose?
MR BOTHA: To suffocate him, yes.
MR LAX: It means you would have had to wet it somewhere. Do you remember doing that?
MR BOTHA: No, I did not wet anything but the towel works just as well if you fold it over and pull it tight around his head.
MR LAX: I'm not engaged in that sort of stuff but anyway, thank you Chairperson.
ADV BOSMAN: Mr Botha, just one thing which I need clarity on. On the morning when you went out to interrogate the people did you foresee the use of violence?
MR BOTHA: No, I did not drive out with the purpose of torturing them.
ADV BOSMAN: You cannot recall where this equipment came from. Can you recall who brought it there?
MR BOTHA: No I cannot.
ADV BOSMAN: Because I find that strange. If you did not go out with the purpose of using violence then at the stage when you decided to use coercion you must have thought what type of coercion should you use?
MR BOTHA: Yes Chairperson, my decision would have been what was available there and that is why I usually would not wrap a person in blankets or the cells would be directly below and I would have obtained a blanket from there. I may have sent one of my colleagues to fetch it or whether I'd asked for it, I cannot recall. The towel would have been available because there were men's and women's toilets which had towels there.
MR LAX: And the blindfold?
MR BOTHA: It could have been a handkerchief.
MR LAX: And the piece of string that was used?
MR BOTHA: No, as far as I know no string was used.
MR LAX: Some of your colleagues conceded that string had been used?
MR BOTHA: No Chairperson, I cannot recall. A rope around the blanket is strange to me.
ADV BOSMAN: I may just tell you that is the strange aspect of the evidence that you cannot recall such an important facet of it.
MR BOTHA: No, that is not my manner of doing this thing if I can explain it as such.
MR LAX: Did you arrange it or did you ask it of someone?
MR BOTHA: Do you refer to the equipment?
MR LAX: The equipment yes.
MR BOTHA: I would have asked for a blanket. I cannot recall if the blanket was brought from the cell or who brought it but I would have asked for it.
MR LAX: And the bag or whatever it was?
MR BOTHA: Whatever was used I would have used what was available there. If there are towels in the toilets and blankets in the cells.
MR LAX: And there would have been a tube or something to that effect because it was used often?
MR BOTHA: There would have been but I cannot recall that I used a tube.
CHAIRPERSON: I think while Mr Botha is here, Mr Gordhan mentioned earlier that he felt that he was curtailed in his questioning and I made a ruling and I've just now been reconsidering, I think that I might have been acting too much like a judge in a trial situation with regard to relevancy. This isn't a trial and I don't think there will be any prejudice if the question Mr Gordhan wants to ask to the applicant, I think I'll allow him to ask the question about what was found - what was it Mr Gordhan?
MR GORDHAN: ...(inaudible)
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR GORDHAN: But before that could I could intervene in the current interaction just to reinforce two points, Chairperson. The first is that there was no towel wet or dry that was used. This was a substance through which you couldn't breathe and Mr Lalla has confirmed that in his evidence as well.
CHAIRPERSON: He referred to it as plastic and one of the other witnesses referred to it as a rubber type plastic.
MR GORDHAN: Something that's fairly firm, elastic, not easily porous and therefore no air would be available. In other words it would be pointless using that to suffocate any individual.
The second is that the necessity to have a rope and put around the blanket is to immobilise ones limbs and obviously if one is being suffocated one would resist that suffocation and it makes absolute sense to me that such a device was actually used to mobilise me but let's leave that for the record, Chairperson. I'm quite surprised that after all the details Mr Botha remembers that one he can't remember.
MR VISSER: Well Mr Gordhan can give evidence and he can be cross-examined about it, Chairperson.
MR GORDHAN: Well that's a choice I have, Mr Visser.
MR VISSER: But evidence is now given not under oath, Chairperson, as if it's fact for the record. It's not so.
MR GORDHAN: As any lawyer will do, Mr Visser, and you know as well, I can put that to the witness and it's for the Committee to then decide but I don't want to engage in any debate with you, I'm here to question your witness.
Let's talk about the Brickfield Road flat and the fact that some days before the arrest took place on the 12th July you claim that the flat was raided. My question was what information did you get from that flat?
MR LAX: Sorry, if I could just clarify the question? He's not saying the flat was raided, he's saying it was burgled.
MR BOTHA: I've already given that evidence, Chairperson, it is available on the record.
CHAIRPERSON: I don't know what it is, what evidence, what was obtained?
MR BOTHA: Information with regard to Operation Vula which gave me a better indication as to what the operation was about, Chairperson.
MR GORDHAN: I put it to you Mr Botha that no information on Operation Vula specifically was in that flat.
MR BOTHA: Chairperson, once again I support my legal representative. It is easy for him, for Mr Gordhan to say that there weren't things and there were things, I know what I found there and I have given complete evidence about it on a previous occasion. The information was more supplementary to what the informant had reported with regard to the content of the operation as it was known to him.
MR GORDHAN: I put it to you Mr Botha that you might have found it, I actually put it there and I'm saying to you that I put no information which gave any details about Operation Vula in that flat.
MR BOTHA: Chairperson, it is clear that Mr Gordhan is trying to cover up his negligence. They were sophisticated but they were negligent in their information.
MR GORDHAN: Chairperson, I'm unfortunately now tempted to say to Mr Botha that I've been an ANC operative from the early '70s. You've had me in detention three times as the security branch in Durban for a period of over a year in solitary confinement and until that moment you didn't find out anything about me and my involvement in the ANC, so let's just leave the question of sophistication there.
I again put it to you, Mr Botha, that that flat provided you with no detail on the question of the operation. All you found there was general political literature about the underground, the role of the underground, the role of political and military struggle and structures and that your real information came from a host of disks and documentation that you picked up elsewhere?
MR BOTHA: What is your point, Mr Gordhan.
CHAIRPERSON: He is asking what your comments are on that statement, do you agree with that or disagree with that?
MR BOTHA: The completeness of the operation came from the information which we obtained from the computers.
MR LAX: But just, sorry ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Those computers weren't in that flat, were they?
MR BOTHA: There was a computer, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Was the information obtained from that computer that was there at that flat?
MR BOTHA: There was one document that was on there, Chairperson.
MR LAX: That's exactly what I was going to ask on as well, it's fine.
MR GORDHAN: But you're using choice words like completeness, lets not let that dilute the facts for now. The core data about what Vula was, the reports that went out of the country and came into the country came from another computer, it wasn't in this flat and came from disks which were not in this flat were in some other place where you found them, true?
MR BOTHA: Once again, the completeness of the operation came from all the computers, which one exactly, which computer obtained which information, we'd have to go back to the investigation reports.
MR GORDHAN: So you can't place any clarity on the question that this flat and that computer in that flat and the documents in that flat didn't actually lend too much of core detail to your investigation about who was involved and what was happening?
MR BOTHA: Chairperson, about the who was involved, we already knew that and more complete from what my knowledge was up to the moment we entered the flat led that we could inform Pretoria as to the better picture of the operation. The more complete fact of the operation came from the time when all the information was taken from the computers and this continued up to months after the ...(intervention)
MR LAX: The problem here, Mr Botha, is this. Is that initially your answer to Mr Gordhan was emphatic, now your answer is not emphatic, now your answer is that yes, the totality of information - initially your answer was emphatic. From that house you got very definite information. Now it's not emphatic any longer. That's my difficulty because I heard your previous evidence and your previous evidence was in line with what you're saying now, not with the fact that it was emphatic information, so that's the difference.
MR BOTHA: No Chairperson, there may be a communication gap. If Mr Lax would please emphatic in this context as you understand it?
MR LAX: Your answer was emphatic in the sense that the information was definite and core. It's clear now from your subsequent answers which is in line with what you testified previously that the totality of the information only came about much later and in conjunction with further information from, on your version, Mr Ndaba and so on and once - the English word escapes me, the "ontleding", the analysis of that information had been carried out. At the time of raiding or burglarising this particular place and this is what Mr Gordhan is putting to you in essence, he is saying there was no information of such a nature that it could have given you core detail. Have I put it correctly? That's what I understood your question to be.
MR BOTHA: Chairperson, perhaps if I can explain. If you look at the scope of Operation Vula, perhaps that is the problem that the totality of the operation has never really been exposed completely here. We are familiar with an army bag, if you had to fill this with computer printouts that would be an idea of how comprehensive that information was. That information emerged at the end of the investigation and what was found at that apartment upon two occasions that we entered the apartment was information which was not in such a large quantity but which had enough core value and you will see that I gave evidence that there were three phases in which this information was evaluated and the final phase was at the end of the day. When we took the decision to inform Pretoria, it was as a result of the information that was embodied in those documents which were comprehensive enough to explain the NCW Network and if Mr Gordhan wants to deny that that existed I would say that that information was good enough for us to take the decision to consult Pretoria head office.
MR LAX: You see, what Mr Gordhan is putting to you is you didn't get that information, if I understand it correctly, from his computer in that flat, you got it from some other place.
MR BOTHA: Once again I will say I received that information from that apartment.
MR GORDHAN: Well Mr Botha, you must make up your mind. In the first instance you had a servant, so to speak, in Charles Ndaba who was your informant way back in '88 from the moment he came into the country, you had six weeks or so to interrogate him/question him/enquire into what he was happening. Was that the source of your information where the disks, the computers and the printouts that you collected at some other place were the key source of your information or are you saying that a flat would actually have administrative information and core propaganda material is a key provider of information to you. What are you saying?
MR BOTHA: Chairperson, perhaps Mr Gordhan could answer this question before I answer his. Does he know that weaponry was in that apartment?
MR GORDHAN: Yes and I'm sure that when you burgled the place you planted that as well?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes well we won't get into debate on that.
MR GORDHAN: Can we get back to my question please?
CHAIRPERSON: The question, Mr Botha, is it's put to you my Mr Gordhan that what was contained on that disk that was in the flat in Brickfield Road that was burgled was certain administrative information and what he called core propaganda information. Would you agree with that?
MR BOTHA: Chairperson, the information that we drew from that computer and not only from the computer, there were also other documents to be found in the apartment. What we found there was sufficient to supplement the information that we had already received from the informer, it was sufficient to inform the security head office that the information which had come to our knowledge at that stage regarding what the president's committee was and what later became known to us as Operation Vula. It was sufficient to inform them about it.
MR GORDHAN: When did you say you burgled the flat?
MR BOTHA: The Saturday evening or the Sunday evening, the 7th or the 8th.
CHAIRPERSON: Of July 1990?
MR BOTHA: Yes that is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Saturday and Sunday, two nights?
MR BOTHA: It was two nights.
MR GORDHAN: But ultimately you only go to the headquarters on the 11th July, many days later. You had the information from that Saturday or Sunday night, you had everything that you claimed that you have, conclusive proof that there was this operation on the way and yet it takes you three or four days to go to your headquarters and tell them this is what's going on?
MR VISSER: That's not the evidence. The evidence was that they went on the 10th, Chairperson, Tuesday the 10th for as far as this may be relevant.
CHAIRPERSON: I can't recall. So the burglary took place on - we take it that the 7th and 8th was a Saturday and Sunday and then you must have, Mr Gordhan must have been arrested then on the ...(intervention)
MR BOTHA: The 12th, the Thursday. The 10th was a Monday and that is when I informed General Steyn.
CHAIRPERSON: Oh sorry, so the 7th and 8th - so it must have been the 8th and 9th?
MR BOTHA: I beg your pardon, Chairperson, the 7th was the Saturday night, the 8th was the Sunday night, the Monday was the 9th and that is when I informed General Steyn, Tuesday the 10th we went to Pretoria. On the 12th Mr Gordhan was arrested after the arrest of Mr Nyanda.
CHAIRPERSON: So you went the next day after the last break in?
MR BOTHA: That is correct.
MR GORDHAN: Just for the record, Chair, of course I'm contesting, Mr Botha, that you arrested me after Mr Nyanda. You actually arrested me before Mr Nyanda.
MR BOTHA: Chairperson, I'm not going to dispute this point. The fact is that Mr Gordhan was not present when Mr Nyanda was arrested so I don't think that he has the capacity to put this. He was arrested by Warrant Officer van der Westhuizen and that is my response.
MR GORDHAN: Just one last set of questions, Chairperson, and that is again in terms of Mr Ndaba's relationship with Mr Botha and Mr Ndaba was the only of the two detainees, Chairperson, of Mr Shabalala and Mr Ndaba that knew of this flat so that you have that information. He was a member of, I think you mention in your earlier evidence, a military committee. What did he say about the membership of that committee, who were the members of that committee?
MR BOTHA: Chairperson, I did not give evidence indicating that he was a member of the military committee, you've just said so.
MR GORDHAN: Do you have any recollection of that information being passed on to you?
MR BOTHA: Yes.
MR GORDHAN: Who did he say were members of that committee?
MR BOTHA: He mentioned quite a few names.
MR GORDHAN: Can you think of one other than his own?
MR BOTHA: The detail is no longer known to me but it is available.
MR GORDHAN: Thank you Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR GORDHAN
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any questions - sorry, Mr Lalla, do you have any questions?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LALLA: Mr Botha ...(intervention)
MR LAX: Sorry, your mike's gone off again.
MR LALLA: Mr Botha, from the time that I came in to the time that I got arrested, so what are effectively telling me from the summary of all these events you knew my movements?
MR BOTHA: No Chairperson, I've already testified this morning that I did not know your movements.
MR LALLA: But you testified as well that you knew Mr Gordhan's movements?
MR VISSER: He did not say anything of the kind, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I don't know, I can't recall any evidence about knowing the movements of people.
MR LALLA: Okay, what effectively you are saying is that by observing and having surveillance of all these places, you knew the general movements of these individuals?
MR BOTHA: Some of the people, yes.
MR LALLA: Why I'm putting this question to you is a follow up to Mr Gordhan's question. Does that mean that you followed Mr Gordhan?
MR BOTHA: No, I did not say that.
MR LALLA: Okay. Were you aware that within the day, that since I came into the country and to the time I was arrested, that I had a meeting with Mr Gordhan and it's not reflected in any of your reports?
MR BOTHA: It is irrelevant to me, I don't know.
MR LALLA: Now why I'm posing these questions to you is that there seems to be selective coincidences and tying of issues and tying of incidences and tying of reports and a massive picture of some degree of control. What I'm trying to establish is that if Mr Ndaba was an informer at that time and if Mr Ndaba told you all about the house at the Knoll, surely you would have had surveillance of the Knoll and if you had had surveillance of the Knoll, surely at some stage or the other you would have known that Mr Gordhan and I met. Mr Gordhan, I was never questioned about any meetings of Mr Gordhan during the time of my interrogation which was quite alarming. What I'm reflecting is that I am saying that most of your information you got from the computers and some information in the process which could not have been achieved from the computer was basically the personal interaction and that's why I'm throwing some doubt on the issue of Mr Ndaba. If he knew, he would know the houses, there would be surveillance on the houses ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: I think if you could just put a question to Mr Botha so he can answer?
MR LAX: Sorry, if I could just clarify as well, the evidence has been that the Knoll was under observation during that time.
MR LALLA: So was anybody followed?
MR BOTHA: Yes Chairperson, that is what led to the arrest of Nyanda.
MR LALLA: But you are saying, you are saying that the house was observed, you are saying the people were followed but you are saying that you didn't know how I got arrested, how I was there?
MR BOTHA: Chairperson, perhaps I could facilitate this for Mr Lalla. The Knoll was under observation, the house in Brickfield was under observation, many other houses were under observation, we were a core group of people who had knowledge, one of the activities of Vula and those people involved, there was not a big team of observation which could observe these places for 24 hours at a stretch. We ourselves undertook the observation and if there had been a meeting between Mr Gordhan and Mr Lalla at the Knoll or at any other place, it is possible and I concede because we did not observe the place for 24 hours.
MR LAX: Just one question, if I may Chair? Who carried out the observation of these various places?
MR BOTHA: I was involved in The Knoll, Lieutenant du Preez was involved, Wasserman was involved, Brickfield Road was Warrant Officer van der Westhuizen because he lived closed by, it was easier for him to get there, we took turns to observe the place.
MR LAX: Those were the only people that kept observation there?
MR BOTHA: Those were the only people.
MR LAX: Thank you Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Any further questions?
MR LALLA: Only one last question. In relation to the night of the interrogation, what was unusual about the night and that's why I'm a bit doubtful whether this was not well thought of by yourself and when I'm saying yourself I'm excluding the other members. It was rather unusual for us, we were normally interrogated in another room on the ground floor with burglar bars. On that specific night or that specific afternoon we were taken to the first floor and it was the only afternoon that we were taken to the first floor. I think we were taken to the first floor round about ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: You were taken.
MR LALLA: Oh, I, I think it was the only afternoon where I was taken to that first floor around about 4.30 or 5 that afternoon?
MR BOTHA: Yes Chairperson, I don't know where the previous interrogation had taken place or in which office. I worked with them in those two offices and that was on the first floor.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LALLA
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any questions arising? Re-examination Mr Visser?
MR VISSER: No thank you Chairperson.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Gordhan?
FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR GORDHAN: Chairperson, the issue of houses under observation and following people comes up.
Was I followed around for those few days?
MR BOTHA: No Mr Gordhan, you weren't.
MR GORDHAN: Because just for your information all the information that I had about Vula was at another place which you actually never discovered. What did Mr Ndaba tell you about the houses at which these meetings took place that he attended, where were they? The meetings?
MR BOTHA: It was in Durban.
MR GORDHAN: Which area?
MR BOTHA: I cannot recall precisely.
MR GORDHAN: Thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR GORDHAN
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Yes, thank you Mr Botha.
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Gordhan and Mr Lalla, you've now got to make a decision whether you want to testify. You've indicated earlier that you had not but I haven't explained the implications of testifying or not testifying. At the moment we have evidence under oath from the applicants. We know that certain aspects of that evidence has been put into issue by yourselves and we know that from the nature and content of the questions that you have asked them. However, if the way to contradict evidence is to actually give evidence as well because if at the end of the day we only have the evidence of the applicants and no other evidence controverting that, that doesn't necessarily mean that the evidence of the applicants has to be accepted because we examine the evidence, we analyse it, we deal with it in connection with the probabilities, whether there's self-contradictions, contradictions amongst that evidence, so it's not automatic that it will be accepted but if it stands uncontroverted by any other evidence, it's more difficult to reject, it's got to be inherently weak in order to have it rejected. So I'd like you to think carefully before you make a decision as to whether or not you're going to give evidence bearing that in mind. If there's anything further you wish to know please ask and I'm sure between the three of us we will be able to answer your questions.
MR GORDHAN: Chairperson, just for your information, I have given this fairly careful consideration. It's a point I'm going to repeat when you give me an opportunity to sum up. I'm not an individual here, I was part of an organisation, I was part of a huge operation in the country. The leader of that operation was the former Minister of Transport, Mr Mac Maharaj who has already given evidence before the Committee but I don't think you were in the Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: No I wasn't, I've been actually brought into these hearings because of the unfortunate illness of my colleague and Chairman, Judge Mall.
MR GORDHAN: So that evidence was on oath, there was cross-examination on the part of the legal representatives of the other side. Secondly, I think you've had a fair balance of exposure to facts both from Mr Botha and others and the benefit of the questions and these huge piles of documentation available and thirdly is unfortunately, even if we start that now, I don't think we'll finish before the end of today and I'm afraid I'm not actually available to stay over until tomorrow. So those are the reasons so that you don't think that I'm slighting the Committee in any way.
CHAIRPERSON: No, it's not a question of us thinking you're slighting it, Mr Gordhan, but thank you. Mr Lalla?
MR LALLA: I've also given this a great deal of thought and I'm sure that this chapter will not remain closed after we leave here but for the interim I leave the process in the hands of the Committee to take further action or further decision.
CHAIRPERSON: So you both now confirm that, your decision that you will not be testifying?
MR LALLA: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: And you also of course have the right to call witnesses, do you have any intention of calling any witnesses?
MR GORDHAN: ...(inaudible)
CHAIRPERSON: Yes well thank you, that then concludes the leading of evidence in this matter and what remains now is for submissions to be made. It's for the information of Mr Gordhan and Mr Lalla, the submissions will be made. The applicants get the opportunity to make through their representatives submissions and then you two answer and then the applicants have the right to reply to your answer. Mr Visser?
MR VISSER IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Chairperson. Chairperson, I'm going to be brief. This is an application before you for the assault on both Mr Gordhan and Mr Lalla. One of the outstanding features here, Chairperson, is that there is no dispute about the method or the intensity of the assault as testified to by the applicants through Mr Gordhan's or Mr Lalla's cross-examination.
Chairperson, least I forget, the application for amnesty, I specified specifically assault at page 1 of D, Chairperson, or any other delict or offence. I did not specify, Chairperson, the obvious one and that is defeating the ends of justice by not having reported it later but in line with previous applications, Chairperson, we will ask you to include that under that general heading under B.
Chairperson, Botha has given evidence on a number of occasions about Operation Vula. You have documents before you about Operation Vula. We know what it was more or less about. What Botha said at the hearing when you were not present, Chairperson, was that he had received information - well, perhaps I should just fill you in on the background.
Botha says he went to Swaziland in 1988 and approached Mr Ndaba directly to become an informer and Mr Ndaba did so. Mr Maharaj gave a very good reason why that would have happened. He said that at the time in 1988 ANC MK operatives in Swaziland was under pressure because the enemy was making life very difficult for them. Perhaps that might have been the reason why Mr Ndaba decided to become an informer but that's not relevant why he did so. Mr Botha says he did.
Then Chairperson, in 1988 Mr Ndaba became the deputy commander of the Natal urban machinery of MK in Swaziland. That was a very important event because Mr Botha explained the moment that happened his name automatically was placed on the list of Trevits who was security organisation composed of different sections of the security establishment in order to identify targets in other countries, particularly in our neighbouring countries. And then Chairperson, what he did, that is Botha, is he suggested to Mr Ndaba that he should try to arrange for him to be recalled to Lusaka because Botha was afraid that Ndaba might be eliminated. That's just a little bit of background, Chairperson. He then gave Ndaba a name of a contact person in Malawi plus his address and telephone number as well as a contact person in Swaziland and his telephone number.
Then Chairperson, we come to 1990. According to Mr Maharaj, Ndaba came into the R.S.A. illegally on the 4th or the 7th February 1990. That accords with the evidence of Mr Botha who says it was early in 1990. Approximately six weeks before the 7th July 1990, Botha says Ndaba contacted him, it was a direct contact, telephonic and certain meetings were then held. Botha could remember as I remember his evidence of two or three such meetings. During this time Mr Ndaba informed Botha that he had become involved in an operation which was headed by Mr Oliver Tambo himself and he referred to the President's Committee and he gave Mr Botha certain information. Mr Botha was quite clear that he was unable to recall what information was precisely given to him at what date but what is important, Chairperson, was that Ndaba was arrested on the 7th July by an askari, as it turned out later by two askaris.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, but what date was that?
MR VISSER: Saturday, 7 July. Botha is called down to C.R. Swart Square and when he arrives there he finds Ndaba there and obviously he wants Ndaba to be released. There's already a risk because an askari, as it later turned out, two askaris had knowledge of the arrest and Ndaba is then taken - and I don't want to dwell too long on Ndaba, Chairperson, but Ndaba is then taken to a safe house in Verulam where he is debriefed by Mr Botha.
Very shortly after arriving there Botha is told by Ndaba that he has a prior arrangement to meet Mr Shabalala and to cut a long story short, Chairperson, due to circumstances prevailing at the time and what happened there, Mr Shabalala is arrested and also taken to the safe house. As a result of information, Chairperson, received from Ndaba on the 7th and on the 8th July that weekend on the Saturday and on the Sunday, suddenly the light goes up for Botha and he starts understanding how this whole operation of the president's committee or whatever you want to call it, fits together. He is given addresses of safe houses by Ndaba which are later confirmed, Chairperson. I refer you to Exhibit H, that is the statement of evidence by General Steyn in the Ndaba matter where he quotes from the judgement of the magistrate in the bail application of Mr Nyanda where the addresses were confirmed as were other things for example weapons importation etc. etc. and because of this new picture, Botha informs Steyn and Steyn says lets go to head office which they do on Tuesday the 10th. Now Chairperson, Mr Maharaj as well as Mr Gordhan has made a point of attempting to convince you that Mr Ndaba was no informer.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just before you proceed, this particular Panel sitting on this hearing will make no finding in that regard because we have not received that evidence, that will be for the Panel dealing with the so-called Ndaba and Shabalala incident but ...(intervention)
MR VISSER: Just so, Chairperson, I'm just mentioning this as a matter of background and because it was raised but of course, Chairperson, the fact of the matter is that Operation Vula was smashed because of information which could only have come from Ndaba.
Now if I may come to the present matter, Chairperson. At the time there was suspicion of a mole, an enemy agent, in the security branch at C.R. Swart. Mr Mac Maharaj confirmed that, that there was such a person. This at once explained why about two weeks - well, even less, after the arrests of the Operation Vula people had been made, he went to Bethlehem to go and ascertain from Mr Gordhan who - what the identity of this person was. He told you here that he had good reason to believe that Mr Gordhan knew who it was and that was in fact confirmed by Mr Gordhan's questioning here today, he knew who it was and the rest, Chairperson, are facts which you are aware of. Mr Gordhan and I take it Mr Lalla, appeared to oppose these applications on the trite issues set out in the requirements of the Act, no full disclosure. The closest that Mr Gordhan could draw the non-full disclosure is in regard to his arrest which is not to remain to the issues before you today. The fact that the - as it appeared, Chairperson, from the questioning, that the assault would have taken place because of a personal vengeance or personal malice or spite on the part of Mr Botha, no basis is laid for that. There's no evidence before you, tested under cross-examination which even vaguely hints at it except for the statements put by Mr Gordhan to Mr Botha.
And lastly then, Chairperson, there might even have been a hint of disproportionality. Mr Botha, with great respect, gave frank evidence before you. He has made various concessions which shows and proves in our respectful submission his credibility and we submit in brief, Chairperson, there is no evidence at all to make a finding against Botha on any of the counts which I've just mentioned.
Chairperson, it is clear that also again from the cross-examination of Mr Gordhan that what took place on that day in July/August 1990 in Bethlehem had everything to do with a political background and political motivation. It was quite clear that the armed struggle was still at the time proceeding, in fact the armed struggle was only suspended on the 6th August, if I remember correctly Chairperson, 1990 which is a date which follows the occurrences of the present incident and Mr Botha also gave evidence here to you to say that while the bomb attacks had diminished, other type of attacks were taking place particularly that in Natal or between the IFP and the ANC which was just another dimension as we all know, Chairperson, of the armed struggle. So the armed struggle was by far not something of the past when these assaults took place.
We say, Chairperson, that it is clear on the evidence that has been given to you under oath that it was a very brief encounter. Ten to fifteen minutes. Chairperson, nothing turns on another fifteen minutes for that matter but the fact is that all the witnesses recorded to have been brief, it was not a savage assault and even if it was, Chairperson, amnesty also provides for savage assaults but the fact is, in our submission, it does appear to be proportional to the ends which Mr Botha intended to achieve.
All in all, Chairperson, we submit that you would not have a problem with the evidence of Mr Botha or for that matter of any of the witnesses. The contradictions such as they appeared from the evidence are such as one would expect from honest witnesses attempting to recall what happened nine years before. There was no inherent improbability in anything that the witnesses stated and there certainly wasn't a fatal contradiction between them on any essential part of the elements for which - of the incident for which they apply for amnesty.
We would therefore ask you, Chairperson, to favourably consider that amnesty be granted to Mr Botha as prayed for. Thank you Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Visser. Mr Nel, do you have any submissions to make?
MR NEL IN ARGUMENT: Yes thank you, Chairperson.
As I've indicated at previous hearings, I'm always in the position, the nice position to argue after senior counsel so there is not much more that I can say but with regards to my applicants, Chairperson, I can only submit that it's my humble submission that my clients submitted their application for amnesty on the prescribed form. It's my submission to this Committee that the Acts to which these applications are related are associated with a political objective committed in the course of the conflict of the past. The main focus lies on Section 20, sub-section 1 (a), (b) and (c) and I do submit that those requirements have been met.
Of course the other hurdle that my clients have is to place them in the category as mentioned in Section 20, 2(a) to (g) and I respectfully submit, Chairperson, that all three of my clients falls within sub-sections (b) and (f) that being employment of the State and they believe that they were acting in the course and scope of their duties.
Finally, Chairperson, the provisions of Section 20 3(i) and (ii) excludes a person if he acted for personal gain or out of personal malice or ill will or spite and I do, with respect, submit that my clients did not do that.
CHAIRPERSON: It would also seem that your clients were acting under instruction?
MR NEL: Chairperson, the evidence given by my clients were straightforward, it was not disputed and not contested and I also ask this Committee to consider their application for amnesty favourably and I cannot see that it could be done otherwise. Thank you Sir.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it's been brought to my attention by Advocate Bosman that the applicants have all been applying for amnesty mainly in regard to the offence of assault. If one takes a look at the definition of gross human rights violations as contained in the Act, it talks about assault being one where there has been serious injury but it also specifically refers to torture. Now we all know that torture always involves an assault of some form or another but one would imagine that they've identified torture separately from assault to include torture even if there hasn't been serious physical injury so are there any submissions? If the applications were to succeed should it be granted in respect of assault or should the word torture be involved.
MR VISSER: Mr Chairperson ...(intervention)
ADV BOSMAN: Perhaps Mr Visser if I may just add, or perhaps assault with intention to do grievous bodily harm?
MR VISSER: Yes well assault in all it's various forms would fall under assault. Well, Chairperson, that I leave in your discretion but we're thankful for having been alerted to the issue which Commissioner Bosman has brought up. It would appear, Chairperson, speaking off the top of my head that the difference between an assault and torture would certainly involve also the mental agony to the victim and certainly, if on the facts of the matter it is found that there was such mental agony and apparently there was, then torture would be the correct thing to apply for. Chairperson, may I just on that score and I don't want to take up more of your time than is absolutely necessary, we have submitted very recently that perhaps, Chairperson, as you know that from the beginning we all have had difficulties with certain provisions of the Act which could have been a little clearer and one of the remaining issues, Chairperson, is - and I know very well what Commissioner de Jager's attitude about this is in specifying offences for which you apply for amnesty but the question really here is does the Act really expect the Committee to find on the facts which precise offences or delicts had been committed or is it not really the function of the Committee in the intention of the legislature simply to grant amnesty for all offences and delicts committed in the confines of a particular incident. Now I don't want to take that much further but if my submission is correct that on a proper reading of the Act the interpretation must be that it is not your function and that all that is expected of you is to grant amnesty for any delict or offence committed specifying a particular offence. Then Chairperson, all these issues fall away.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Do you agree with that?
MR NEL: I agree with Mr Visser, thank you Chairperson.
MR VISSER: I'm sorry, my attorney is again more clever than I was, I didn't think of this. There is of course no offence, torture.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes I know that, I know that but maybe just to - one could bring it in, you know, just to indicate that a hearing was held in this matter because there was torture and therefore a gross human rights violation.
MR VISSER: And apart from that then perhaps Commissioner Bosman's suggestion to me just now is becoming to make more sense to me that one should rather then perhaps speak of assaults in any of it's forms.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR VISSER: I'm not quite sure that one has to start with the intent to due grievous bodily harm because if you gave amnesty for assault, Chairperson, I doubt very much whether the Attorney General is going to prosecute for assault with the intention to do grievous bodily harm but be that as it may, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Mr Gordhan, are you ready to make any submissions now?
MR GORDHAN IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Chairperson.
In the first instance, Chairperson, I want to say that as far as Mr Duhr, Mr Bothma and Mr Greyling are concerned, I believe that the spirit in which they have approached this hearing and application is one in which they seriously regret their past conduct, that they have a commitment to building a new South Africa, that they have a commitment to being part of our new nation and above all they have a commitment to reconciliation and in those circumstances and given their political role, certainly in as far as the assault is concerned, I have no problems in agreeing to any decision that you would make that they be granted amnesty in that regard.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MR GORDHAN: I must however point out that as far as the last interaction about what is torture and what isn't and whether it's a human rights violation or not, the Committee might want to take into account that solitary confinement where you are a total captive to the whims, fancies, desires or otherwise of a group of persons who are there to perpetuate a racist ideology is one that must be considered a serious violation of human rights. If one is in the situation where you have no contact with family, no contact with law, you only have contact with the lawyer, a doctor that they can choose, you have no access to your own medical personnel, you have only access to a bible, upon request you can get religious material of any other denomination, you have no access to reading material, they will only allow clothes that they deem fit that a family might want to send to you, they might allow an odd packet of biscuits to reach you from time to time otherwise nothing if they desire not to, you'll have a bath at their leisure and pleasure, you won't have it if they don't want you to have it, if you can shave if they want you to shave, you don't shave if they don't want you to shave and I can go on, Chairperson. That's the condition in which people who subsequently played a leading role in both the negotiations for this country, that brought us where we are and in it's first democratic government were subjected to during the course of what we described as this set of events here.
The second thing, Chairperson, is Mr Visser has in the absence of Mr Maharaj tried to recapture his version or his interpretation of the set of events from 1988 leading right up to 1990. I don't want to counter every fact or detail, all I want to say is that one needs to balance that out with the evidence that a previous Panel which included two of the people that are here heard from Mr Maharaj as a contrary or alternate set of facts. But there is some interesting terminology used there when he says that during the weekend of the 7th and 8th when Mbuso Shabalala and Charles Ndaba were in the hands of Mr Botha and others, he used the word "the light goes up" and suddenly there's an understanding on Mr Botha's part of what were the circumstances that were prevailing in relation to the Vula project. I submit to you, Chairperson, that how can a light suddenly go up when here for four to six weeks you've had free access to an informer who is allegedly working for you from 1988? That at that stage no computer tapes, computer disks, computer material, computers or any other personnel were in the hands of the security police or Mr Botha but just having - and earlier I think we heard that Mr Shabalala was also not cooperative, so the same person who was the informant, having spent a weekend with Mr Botha, suddenly becomes the source of the lights going up. I think that's a very dubious interpretation to be granted to the circumstances of that point in time.
As far as moles/informants accessed by the ANC in the pay of the police or security branch are concerned, there's a long standing practice in the ANC, Chairperson, at that time to actually recruit the police. It's not something new, The Owl wasn't the first person to be recruited by the ANC, nor was it the last at that point in time. So moles or informants who were connected to the ANC were a permanent feature of the struggle for democracy as far as the ANC was concerned. Why there had to be this inordinate desire to suddenly find out who The Owl is and do it personally and then do it vindictively is something that in my view lacks credibility from the evidence that we've heard.
ADV BOSMAN: Mr Gordhan, if I may just sort of come in here? Should one not perhaps look at the extent of the Vula Operation and accept that, you know, the fact that the Vula Operation was seen to be such an extensive and almost dramatic operation that made it perhaps a little more important to find a particular mole?
MR GORDHAN: I submit not, the armed struggle has been going on from 1961 and from day onwards the ANC has been infiltrating cadres, it's been training cadres, it's been recruiting people within the country, it's been setting up structures and I can go on, Advocate Bosman. So Vula, whilst it was a big operation, should not be seen in isolation from the history of the struggle that this country has actually gone through.
Reference was then also made to the fact that the armed struggle was still continuing at the point in time that the assault took place. That's not true Chairperson. The fact of the matter is that Mr Maharaj was detained on the 25th July, that in his pocket when he was detained was the actual draft of the ANC's proposal to be tabled in the discussions leading to the Pretoria Accord dated the 6th August 1990 which stated explicitly as the court itself will demonstrate that the ANC had the intention to suspend armed actions and that in any event was the implicit understanding that both the government and the ANC through the dialogue that they were having from February 1990 onwards and indeed prior to that, through Mr Mandela and Mr de Klerk, Mr Mandela and Mr Botha while Mr Mandela was still in prison. That was the understanding that was already beginning to develop and to justify the assault on the grounds that either the Vula operatives or any other ANC operative was still engaging in active armed struggle is being less than frank with us. Equally problematic, Chairperson, is to deflect the importance of what was happening here by making reference to problems between the ANC and IFP in KwaZulu Natal. Now that alone will take many days of evidence ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Yes and I know and it was getting hotter and hotter at that period, it was the period with the SDUs and all sorts of things. All three of us here, Mr Gordhan, are fully acquainted with it having ...(intervention)
MR GORDHAN: I have no intention of repeating the facts, saves ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: In fact it crossed my mind when I was listening to the evidence about the cessation of the armed violence etc., it didn't take into account particularly what was happening here in KwaZulu Natal which continued right up through to 1994.
MR GORDHAN: But equally important is that a colleague of Mr Botha's of the same name Louis Botha was an instrumental person in passing on resources to the IFP and there's many things that have happened that I don't want to recall now save to say that that in my view and submission is purely a diversion which the Committee shouldn't become too preoccupied with.
Then Chairperson, there are a number of contradictions that we've heard in the course of the day, contradictions about whether I was calm or aggressive, contradictions about my level of cooperation, or otherwise the duration of the whole assault itself, the difference in time between when the first interaction took place with Mr Botha and the second interaction, contradictions about the time of my arrest in relation to that of Mr Nyanda, contradiction about whether there was daylight or dark when this whole set of sagas actually emerged and all of which I believe indicates the fact that we haven't had sufficient frankness in the evidence put to us by Mr Botha himself. It is my view that in the first instance, Chairperson, although Mr Botha has been quite frank about the fact that he solely took the decision to assault myself and that he went through some of those details in a fairly frank way. He still has not, I think, addressed sufficiently and persuasively the type of equipment if you can call it that and how it was obtained in my view and in that sense in part we do not have sufficient detail being put before the Committee about the facts of the matter. As far as political motive is concerned, Chairperson, there's no doubt this was a personal decision, it was part of a pattern which I believe Mr Botha has practised within the police, he admitted that he has operated outside the law, he has admitted that the Minister wouldn't necessarily be informed about what's going on.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I think on that one, Mr Gordhan, all these amnesty applications relate to offences or crimes so if it wasn't out of the law, there's no point in somebody applying for amnesty for an entirely legal act so that is given that it should be an offence or a crime.
MR GORDHAN: Well let me put it in - thank you for that clarification.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry or a delict I might say because one of the effects of the granting of amnesty is to affect the right of the victim to sue for compensation. So it's a crime or delict.
MR GORDHAN: Well even the law which prescribed how detainees should be maintained and that law - and in fact guidelines were initiated during my first detention in 1981 when Mr Agget was in our view murdered or killed in the hand of - committed suicide I believe whilst in detention in Johannesburg. But those laws are not followed, magistrates are ignored, district surgeons are not taken seriously so you have a paraphernalia, a set of mechanisms put into place which in fact are there for window dressing purposes and nobody actually took seriously. One can only say, Chairperson, that a very high level of personal vindictiveness and culture of violence was or the previous position to violence was the motivating factor in this regard.
As far as proportionality is concerned, I believe I have addressed that, the bulk of the information was available already. As far as moles are concerned there was no impelling reason to find out who that mole was in that point in time, information that we wanted we already had and many things were done with that particular set of information and in any event that particular mole called The Owl was not a unique phenomenon in the relationship between the ANC and the police at that point in time.
Finally, Chairperson, I believe that as the previous president would say we will have had less than frank answers, I believe, in the submissions put to you that there is no serious remorse about the kind of actions that were taken and the approach of Mr Botha as far as reconciliation is concerned is still wanting in sincerity in my view and I want to leave him with an appeal that he think seriously, not in my case, but having been party to the killing of Mbuso Shabalala and Charles Ndaba, that he gives very serious thought to letting those families have the bodies of their people, let those bodies be buried with dignity and with caring by their families and that perhaps when all these proceedings are over he should at least cooperate in that final and very important step of reconciliation to leave their minds at rest. My assault doesn't necessarily feature in this regard. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Gordhan. Mr Lalla do you have any submissions you would like to make?
MR LALLA IN ARGUMENT: Yes Chairperson. In regard to Mr Greyling, I have no objection to his amnesty application. In regards to Mr Botha I'm in a bit of a dilemma. Although I respect the Commission's viewpoint that his amnesty is for the individual assault of torture, I find it difficult to isolate all those various different assaults, incidents and killings which he himself has admitted to and to distinguish this between his personal character and that of an officer fulfilling the duties of a higher command. But however, I leave it to the wisdom of the Commission to decide on his fate. Thanks.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Lalla. Ms Thabethe, do you have any submissions?
MS THABETHE: No submissions, Chairperson.
NO ARGUMENT BY MS THABETHE
CHAIRPERSON: Any reply Mr Visser?
MR VISSER IN REPLY: Chairperson, very briefly. We've anticipated most of the points but as far as Mr Gordhan's submissions are concerned, he says that there was no or there was not sufficient frankness and as I understand it, Chairperson, nothing else is advanced to you except that he shows no sincere regret and that his evidence does not promote reconciliation. Well, with respect Chairperson, I don't need to address you on those issues. Certainly showing regret is no requirement of the Act and whether or not his evidence shows reconciliation does not detract from the fact that what he said may not have been palatable to some people as long as you are convinced and satisfied, Chairperson, that what he said was the truth.
Chairperson, the issue of the address of the type of equipment and how it was obtained, he was very frank, he says he can't remember and it really is a side issue, Chairperson, it is not a material issue. We've dealt with the personal vindictiveness Chairperson, there's no evidence to indicate that at all except statements made in cross-examination.
Chairperson, lastly as far as the mole is concerned, Botha tells you it was important to find out who it was and one can easily understand why. This person probably had access to information about informers, about information about reports that came in etc. etc. which he could pass on to the enemy. With great respect, Chairperson, if Botha tells you that it was important to find it out there's no reason to doubt that assertion. That's all we have to say, Chairperson, in response and we again ask you to favourably consider the amnesty application of Mr Botha.
Just perhaps lastly, Chairperson, the same goes for the alleged contradictions about times etc. etc., the contradictions were raised by Mr Gordhan, it wasn't raised by the applicants. The applicants in fairness conceded as possibilities certain time lapses which were put to them by Mr Gordhan. Mr Gordhan cannot on the strength of that now submit to you, Chairperson, that there are contradictions which are material. Thank you Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Visser. Mr Nel, do you have any reply?
MR NEL: I have nothing in reply, thank you Chairperson.
NO REPLY BY MR NEL
CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you, that therefore leaves just one aspect of this matter and that is the decision to be handed down by this Panel. We will reserve our decision, we will need to deliberate on it and in any event I prefer to hand down a written decision so the decision will be reserved and that then brings the hearing to a conclusion.
Our next matter, as I mentioned this morning, on the roll is the so-called Khubeka incident which will only commence tomorrow. I see now that it's just on 4 o'clock, we will then adjourn for the day. Ms Thabethe, the people involved in tomorrow, what time will be convenient to start tomorrow morning? Are there any other lawyers coming in who are starting who aren't here?
MR VISSER: I personally don't know, Chairperson, but we have in the past attempted to start at half past 9, we have more often than not, not been successful but we have tried to start at half past nine in the morning.
CHAIRPERSON: I'd prefer to start earlier in the morning and that will give us more meaningful day in terms of time.
MR VISSER: Could I suggest we try for half past nine?
CHAIRPERSON: Seeing as it's the first morning of that particular hearing we'll adjourn until half past nine tomorrow morning.
MR GORDHAN: Thank you Chairperson for your accommodation and attitude. Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for your assistance to the legal representatives, Messrs Gordhan and Lalla, thank you. We'll now adjourn until tomorrow morning at half past nine.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
