JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Gen Viktor is not on the list so far, so his statement which has been handed to you now will be Exhibit P. Chairman his amnesty application is in bundle 1 page 108 and follows.
General you applied for amnesty with regard to your participation in an instance which took place as we know on the 8th of December 1981 just inside the border of Swaziland. Is that correct?
MR VIKTOR: That is correct Chairperson.
MR VISSER: You have completed an amnesty application which serves before the Amnesty Commission in bundle 1 on page 108 up to page 109. Do you confirm ...(intervention)
MR VIKTOR: This is not the complete application.
MR VISSER: Or up to page 114. Do you confirm the correctness and truth of that application?
MR VIKTOR: That is correct Chairperson.
MR VISSER: In 1981 you say on page 109 of bundle 1 you were the Commander of the Security Division, Northern Transvaal. Is that the Security Division or the Security Branch Northern Transvaal?
MR VIKTOR: It's the Security Branch, Northern Transvaal.
MR VISSER: And what was your task there precisely and the people under your command?
MR VIKTOR: I was the Commander there, Chairperson. Our task was investigation of acts of terror, terrorism, politically motivated offences, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: And the previous witness Mr Nel, was he under your command?
MR VIKTOR: Yes, he was.
MR VISSER: And at that stage was Mr Gert Visser also under your command?
MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: A statement was drawn up for you which serves as Exhibit P before the Committee. Do you have that before you?
MR VIKTOR: I do, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: And there you refer to Exhibit A, have you read Exhibit A;?
MR VIKTOR: Yes, I have Chairperson.
MR VISSER: Is there anything in Exhibit A which you feel is not applicable to you?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, I feel that I can reconcile myself with what is said there.
MR VISSER: And do you request the amnesty application to consider Exhibit A when considering your amnesty application?
MR VIKTOR: That is correct Chairperson.
MR VISSER: You have also already testified in the hearing or before the Amnesty Committee on the 23rd of June 1997 in Benoni, is that correct?
MR VIKTOR: That is correct Chairperson.
MR VISSER: And you request that all that evidence be taken into consideration here?
MR VIKTOR: That's correct Chairperson.
MR VISSER: If you could continue, there are two paragraphs 1, I apologise for that. If you can continue and please tell us what your participation and knowledge is of this incident, Mr Viktor.
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, I confirm that I acted in this incident as mediator between Security Head Office as represented by Gen Coetzee and Brig Schoon and the particular members of the Task Force and the Security Branch at Middelburg. The action was pre-empted by actions to which F J P Nel refers to and I confirm his evidence, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: You do not have to go through all of this but you have set it out here, the rocket attack in 1981 at Voortrekkerhoogte, the limpet mine attack on the Impala electrical sub-station that the ANC accepted responsibility for both these attacks. You have referred to Seshaba October 1991, that Visser and Nel handled these dossiers, that a certain Philemon Molefe was arrested in Mamelodi and that he had conveyed, or supplied information and that with his co-operation Johannes Mnisi was later arrested and you confirm the plastic with the blue stripes which was found in his possession and what his tasks were. You yourself knew of the sabotage group which would come into the country and you were also aware that it was arranged by Johannes Mnisi that he would be joined.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, you are also always reminding your witnesses that they should speak slowly for the interpretation yet you are running the gun here.
MR VISSER: I will accept the criticism. It is very applicable. Johannes Mnisi arranged that M K George, who was a prominent leadership figure in special operations, would meet him at or close to the border in the Republic and that it would seem that M K George was not willing to come to South Africa and that the operation changed into an operation of abduction or kidnapping. Then you say that, on page 4, that you received, or you requested authorisation from Gen Coetzee to co-operate with Gen Wandrag and the Special Task Force and a person from the Security Branch who would arrest this person at the Swaziland border and the authorisation was then granted. That it was your purpose to attempt to rather arrest these persons, than to eliminate them because you had a need for more information with regard to these sabotage groups. is that correct?
MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: Will you please continue on page 4 at paragraph, well page 5 at paragraph 4.
MR VIKTOR: You said page 4 paragraph 4?
MR VISSER: Would you please continue on page 5.
MR VIKTOR: The reason why the Task Force's assistance was called in was because we foresaw that these persons would be armed and that they would resist any attempts of arrest. It seemed later that MK George was not willing to come to the RSA side. It was decided to continue with the attempt to find MK George, but this would entail abduction. It was then arranged that Johannes Mnisi arranged a rendezvous point close to the border where it would also be attempted to arrest them.
ADV DE JAGER: May I interrupt you General? You say in paragraph 6 that a decision was taken to continue but it would now be abduction. Where was it decided? Amongst you at the border, or who decided this?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson no, if I recall correctly it was there at Security Branch if I recall correctly, during telephone discussions between Mnisi and his contact in Swaziland that he was not willing to come to the RSA.
ADV DE JAGER: And was that at Oshoek?
MR VIKTOR: No, no.
ADV DE JAGER: This was at the office?
MR VIKTOR: Yes, this was at the office, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: Maybe we should just offer some clarity here.
Before you departed for Oshoek it was already decided that it would be an abduction?
MR VIKTOR: To be truthful we would later hear that Mr Gert Visser and Mr Strydom already beforehand left and that the Task Force had Russian arms because they knew that they would act across the border.
MR VISSER: Were you aware of that?
MR VIKTOR: It is indeed so, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: It is then clear that before you left you knew that you would cross the border. Very well. At paragraph 7 I have to say that I have just copied this from Mr Nel's statement. You can criticise me if I have put in something that should not be here. I did not discuss this with you specifically but will you please go through paragraph 7 and say if you agree with it.
MR VIKTOR: The following persons were involved with the operation, myself, I think it was Brig Wandrag, Capt Visser, Detective W/O Selepe, Johannes Mnisi, Major Nel, the then Lieut. Schalk Visser, Divisional Commander of Security Branch Middelburg, and some members of the Special Task Force under the command of Capt Strydom.
MR VISSER: Do you recall whether Brig Schoon was there?
MR VIKTOR: Yes, he did accompany us.
MR VISSER: Did he accompany you?
MR VIKTOR: If I recall, he accompanied me. Chairperson, if I can just inform you. Col Schoon, although he was my junior in rank was at Head Office and an action like this Col Schoon was in command of C1 where I was the Commander previously and it would be the correct procedure to follow to go through him to the Commander of the Security Branch at Head Office who was then Gen Coetzee.
MR VISSER: He was therefore a delegate of Head Office?
MR VIKTOR: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Why did he have to accompany you?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, I would believe that to have first-hand information from the incident, to report to his Head Office.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you go through him to Gen Coetzee?
MR VIKTOR: I had to do this, this was the procedure and this is what I did.
CHAIRPERSON: And you received permission to continue with this operation?
MR VIKTOR: Yes, from Gen Coetzee.
CHAIRPERSON: And was it in your mind that Mr Schoon had to accompany you?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, at this stage I cannot say, but he did indeed accompany me. I don't know whose idea it was.
CHAIRPERSON: Was it not the order of Gen Coetzee that he had to accompany you?
MR VIKTOR: As I have said Chairperson, I do not know. Maybe I might have invited him to come along, I do not know.
CHAIRPERSON: Otherwise, he just drove with you?
MR VIKTOR: Yes, he was a passenger here, he was not really involved in this whole operation.
CHAIRPERSON: Very well, please continue.
MR VIKTOR: Gen Wandrag later in the day joined the group to arrange, to make the necessary arrangements at the border post with regards to patrols along the RSA/Swaziland border so that there would not be a collision between the planned operation and the patrols.
MR VISSER: The patrols you refer to are the normal border patrols?
MR VIKTOR: That's correct, Chairperson. At Oshoek Capt Gert Visser accompanied the Task Force members to the agreed rendezvous point. The other officers remained at Oshoek. At some stage the members returned with the news that the car which was previously described to Mnisi did not stop at the correct place and that the action was abandoned. The Task Force members then departed for Pretoria. Nel drove with Mnisi to Carolina where he contacted MK George to inform him that he had seen his motor vehicle but that he had stopped at the wrong place. He once again indicated the place which Capt Strydom identified.
MR VISSER: Did you, is this from all of your personal knowledge?
MR VIKTOR: No, this was reported to me. The Task Force was then returned and went into Swaziland. At some stage we heard some gunfire within Swaziland and a while later Capt Visser and Capt Strydom reported that the vehicle had arrived. An attempt was made to arrest the persons and a skirmish followed. No person or persons escaped from the vehicle because the vehicle was on fire and the occupants had died. I will accept that two persons were killed in this action. I will also accept that they are MK George and MK Brown. I unfortunately do not have any information with regard to the deceased identities or any other information.
MR VISSER: But the persons are described on the roll here as MK George and MK Brown. And you say you cannot argue with that, if it is indeed so?
MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: You know from reports that came to your knowledge that two persons were killed in this action?
MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson. I am aware that the attempted abductions of persons out of Swaziland was illegal. I also accept that the killing of these persons is illegal. I also realise that where the arrest would be executed the chances were good that these persons would be armed and that they would resist. I therefore foresaw that there would be a skirmish where people could be killed or injured and I reconcile myself with that. The actions and omissions which I have executed during the execution of my official duties was part of the struggle and this was aimed at the supporters of the liberation movements. What I have done was to protect the Government and the National Party's interests and to oppose the revolutionary onslaught. I therefore request that amnesty be granted to me with regards to these actions and omissions.
Thank you Chairperson.
MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman, that's the evidence in chief.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Viktor, your function was also the tracking down of terrorists?
MR VIKTOR: That's correct.
MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Oh, just another question Chairperson. In paragraph 1 of your application or of your statement you say that what was previously described, it should be by Mnisi not to Mnisi, I read it wrong.
MR VIKTOR: I read it wrong. That's correct Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO
CHAIRPERSON: Any questions?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you, Chairperson. Mr Viktor on page 2, paragraph 2 you refer that you were the mediator between Security Branch Head Office and Security Branch at Middelburg. At that stage was Brig Schalk Visser Chief of the Security Branch at Middelburg? is that correct?
MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: Why did you contact him? Can you tell the Honourable Committee?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, it is only correct that when there is any action in another person's division that that person be contacted.
MS VAN DER WALT: And Oshoek was part of the Security Branch of Middelburg in the Eastern Transvaal?
MR VIKTOR: That's correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: No further questions thank you Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabethe any questions?
MS THABETHE: Just one, Mr Chair.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETHE: Mr Viktor exactly who were the persons who carried out the abduction or the arrest of MK George and Brown? Who had to carry it out?
MR VIKTOR: Please repeat, you speak very softly.
MS THABETHE: Who were the persons who had to carry out the abduction or the arrest of MK George and Brown?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson it was the persons under the command of Capt Strydom.
MS THABETHE: No further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS THABETHE
CHAIRPERSON: The question is who were they?
MR VIKTOR: I knew Capt Strydom, the other members I just knew by face, by seeing them.
CHAIRPERSON: Were they under your command?
MR VIKTOR: No Chairperson, this was a uniformed branch.
CHAIRPERSON: So you do not know any of their names?
MR VIKTOR: Capt Strydom was the Commander.
CHAIRPERSON: Except for him you do not know any of the other names?
MR VIKTOR: No, I do not know the other names, I just knew them by face.
CHAIRPERSON: With regard to the patrols that you mention in paragraph 8.
MR VIKTOR: This was uniformed patrols Chairperson, as I have it.
CHAIRPERSON: Were these police officers?
MR VIKTOR: Yes, they were police officers.
CHAIRPERSON: Would there be a problem surrounding this?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson it could be that if they had no knowledge of any operation in the area, our operation, or the persons in our operation could be confronted with this group and problems would emanate.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you inform them?
MR VIKTOR: This was left to Gen Wandrag because it was uniform members and he is a uniform man.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you leave it to him to inform them?
MR VIKTOR: Gen Wandrag would have informed them because he was a uniformed man and it was a uniformed branch.
CHAIRPERSON: Do you know whether he informed them?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson yes, he did do so.
CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Yes, thank you. Are there any other questions?
ADV GCABASHE: One question. The identities of George and Brown. Mnisi did not tell you during his interrogation, during the time you had him under arrest, who these people might be, their real names?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson no, they were just known as MK George and MK Brown.
ADV GCABASHE: Thank you. Thank you Chair.
ADV DE JAGER: At some stage when things did not go according to plan you abandoned the arrest or the abduction?
MR VIKTOR: No Chairperson.
ADV DE JAGER: Or you postponed it?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, the Task Force persons departed immediately and if I recall correctly, it was, we stopped them on the way and we told them please return because in the meantime
Maj Nel went with Mnisi to establish telephonic contact in Swaziland to say that there is a problem.
ADV DE JAGER: This is all that I wanted to find out. Did you also depart and did you return?
MR VIKTOR: No, no Chairperson.
ADV DE JAGER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: ...(indistinct)
MR VISSER: No thank you, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Viktor, you are excused.
WITNESS EXCUSED
MR VISSER ADDRESSES COMMITTEE: Mr Chairman, may I move an application? May I hand up to you an affidavit by Brig Willem Frederich Schoon. I'll just wait a moment to allow the documents to be handed to you. Mr Chairman, in his evidence before you in regard to the two PAC persons for whom Brig Schoon applied for amnesty, he gave evidence to you, which evidence has been included in this affidavit, about some confusion in regard to his amnesty application. He now says Chairperson in his affidavit that he was the Commander of Unit C at Vlakplaas, at Security Head Office, paragraph 2 and paragraph 3 tells you that he was also therefore in control of Vlakplaas and he refers in paragraph 4 to the evidence which he already gave before you about how matters developed from the beginning when the amnesty process started and how there was doubt in the minds of many policemen that it would be the right thing to do. He then says that he was convinced, together with others, by Gen van der Merwe and Attorney Wagener, my attorney, to participate in the process and to apply for amnesty and at that stage there was very little time. Now he has applied, I believe it is for 18 incidents Chairperson and he handed in his amnesty application, he says in paragraph 5, before the first closing date in December 1996 and he says "My intentions were to make a full disclosure of all the incidents were I was involved during the struggle". If one looks at the evidence which Brig Schoon has given on various occasions before the Amnesty Committee, it is clear that that was his bona fide intention. He says Chairperson, paragraph 6, that there was very little time left when a decision was taken by the policemen to apply for amnesty and he says that during that short period of time the applications of approximately 100 other applicants had to be processed at the office of Mr Wagener. He says that long after he handed in his amnesty application, paragraph 7 he says this, but in any event after the last closing date for applications to be handed in, he re-read his whole amnesty application and then he realised that there were problems. He says first of all two incidents were duplicated and we refer to them, paragraph 9 at the bottom, two incidents were duplicated and one incident apparently fell out in the wash. Now he says, Chairperson, he has a very bad memory and he says that as a result of circumstances at the time, this gave rise that in his written application form the incident under Voorval 12, that is bundle 1 page 68 and Voorval 15, bundle 1 page 81, were duplicated and he explains what this means. He says "Insofar as both refer to an incident in Swaziland on the 14th - 16th December 1986, where three members" ... (indistinct) Sepo and Busi but in the other one he doesn't "were killed while incident 12" has to refer to an incident where three ANC terrorists were killed in Swaziland on the 12th February 1989. In this process the incident of MK George and MK Brown and the death of two ANC terrorists in Swaziland, 8th December 1981, went missing". But as far as Swaziland is concerned the police, as you heard the evidence, that was an area where the police operated, not the SADF so there were many incursions into Swaziland at the time. Brig Schoon, if I'm correct and I might be making a mistake, is involved in 4 such incidents. One has been duplicated but is explained by him here as referring to two incidents. That leaves us with MK Brown and MK George and then there's yet, well I think there's another two incidents. The one is Nyanda and McFadden and then there's another incident as well, so in all there are 5 incidents Chairperson and the long and the short of it is this, in the time where Brig Schoon completed his amnesty application, somehow he overlooked the fact that he was involved in George and Brown. Now he's never hidden that as a fact. The moment he was reminded about that, we realised that it is not in his amnesty application and at all times it was the intention for him to bring this application at the appropriate time, which is now.
He sets out in paragraph 11 his explanations and apologies for the incident, Chairperson, and he says in paragraph 12 that in the circumstances he was bona fide under the impression that he had applied for everything, but apparently the facts show that he didn't. Chairperson we know that the TRC Act expected and required of amnesty applicants to hand in their amnesty applications prior to certain dates which were later extended the last of which was in May, September 1997. We also know that this application comes after that date. The point here Chairman is that, and this is the only submission I wish to make to you, that in terms of the Interim Constitution which gave stature to the agreements which were entered into in which the Watershed agreement was reached, that a political solution was found for the conflicts of the past in this country. It was done on the basis that amnesty would play a major important role and as was stated in the Azapo case, that amnesty had to be approached on the widest possible basis. Here we have a person who has made application but one of his incidents has fallen by the wayside.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Visser, what does that mean? Does it mean that he had forgotten or does it mean that he had instructed that that incident should be included and somebody has left it out? Or what does it mean, what has gone wrong according to him?
MR VISSER: Chairman, he thought it was there while it wasn't and how precisely the mistake came about is not clear today. My attorney says that he doesn't know whether the fault doesn't lie with him. Schoon says he can't remember whether he told the attorney specifically about this matter. At the end of the day, Schoon thought he had applied for everything in which he was involved. It now turns out that he didn't apply for everything in which he was involved.
CHAIRPERSON: Does he give any reason why he is only raising this thing today?
MR VISSER: I thought that that was clear Chairperson. We had to wait until the appropriate time which is now, when the George and Brown incident is heard. This is the reason why we waited until now. We've known for some time about this now, but where should we then apply for an amendment other than at the time when the incident is heard and that is what we advised him, that at this stage today will be the appropriate time to move such an application.
CHAIRPERSON: Well, if that's his advice, perhaps that doesn't really touch upon the crux of this matter which is you know, do we have the power to condone this sort of thing? We're way beyond the time for these applications. What happens if we open the floodgates now, where do we end with this kind of thing? Wasn't it exactly this kind of scenario that legislature wanted to avoid, to get us into this situation?
MR VISSER: Chairperson, you're actually correct. That is the ...(indistinct). The submission I was busy making is this. Clearly if you look at an interpretation, the normal interpretation of the words of the Act, what you've put to me is precisely that which is in the Act, but we want to invite you to consider where there isn't a wider scope of it and I want to refer you to what happened in regard to the 37 members of the ANC who applied for amnesty on the broad basis of what was done by persons under their command, without specifying any incidents. You will recall that as late as this year even, 1998, we're in 1999 now, towards the middle of last year, in 1998, the Amnesty Committee still extended to these people an invitation to come forward with specification of incidents. Chairman, we have had situations also before where a person would say that I know that I participated in attacking ANC supporters' houses, there were many, I can't remember all the instances, but they took place between such- and-such a date and such-and-such a date. And in that which we submit are the broadest of terms, a person like Hechter for example, got amnesty, where those separate incidents were not spelled out.
Now here Schoon does not say I apply for amnesty in regard to incidents which took place in Swaziland, I can't remember all the incidents but as time goes by hopefully I will, and if I don't give me the kind of blanket amnesty which you gave to Hechter, that's not his case. What he is saying is that I genuinely thought that what I placed before the Amnesty Committee was all the incidents in which I was involved. He turns out he's mistaken. It turns out there is one that has fallen out.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Visser, I think an application, I think there was, we've had quite a lot of precedents where an application has been amended. This is not quite an amendment, but we've got an application before us. It's not that we're introducing a late application, but have we got facts which we could say would include this although it's not specified. I think, for instance I had been sitting SDU matters where they applied and said "I've been involved in various incidents during that period. People have been killed." Well, that sort of gave you a framework in which you could fill in and here we have a broad framework in this sense that he was involved and that he gave orders and that he was involved in the struggle, but I don't know if there is a framework in which this can actually be managed.
MR VISSER: Brig Schoon's sin is that he tried to be specific in the interests of making full disclosure rather than simply saying what has just been put to me.
"I was involved in all these many incidents, I can't remember which is which, and I will ask for amnesty for all of them. And as time goes by and as the amnesty process continues, evidence will come about which will allow me to identify it more accurately."
Perhaps that is his sin, he didn't say that in his amnesty application, but what we're saying he did say, in the interests of full disclosure, he really believed that at the time and under the pressure in which he was due to his bad memory he did not include this incident which he never intended to deny. That's the point and what I'm saying Chairperson is that, if the Amnesty Committee was prepared in a spirit of granting amnesty in the widest possible terms, to invite the 37 ANC people to give them specifications at the end of the day it should be something that should be handed out even-handedly to all the applicants.
ADV DE JAGER: In Hechter's case we had medical evidence that he could not remember certain things and his evidence was that if the other people say that I was involved in this, then I accept that I was involved in this, but I cannot remember it. But you see, initially in his application he said that there might be incidents that I cannot recall and thus there was a framework in which one could find the details.
MR VISSER: ...of what Commissioner de Jager is putting to me and I wish I could tell him that it was different in Schoon's case or the same, but it isn't. What you're referring to Commissioner de Jager is at page 26, I don't think you've got this volume before you, the decisions, it was at page 4 of Hechter's application , his decision on his application, under the heading Schedule 4 and it's simply mentioned to be various incidents of arson relating to the burning of houses in Mamelodi, Soshanguve and Attridgeville during the period 1985 to 1987 and ...(end of tape) that is what he received the amnesty for. Amnesty is therefore granted to the applicant and the said van Vuuren, as will be seen, for various incidents of arson relating to the burning of houses in Mamelodi, Soshanguve, Attridgeville between 85 and 87. Now that is not the application of Brig Schoon. He has attempted to give you specifics as I say in the interests of full disclosure and in the process either he forgot about it, or he might have thought that he told his attorney about it and he didn't, or he might have told his attorney about it and his attorney may have been confused. We don't know today what the position is. All that we know is inadvertently this incident was left out and that's the furthest I can take it Chairperson. On the basis of here is a man who's applied for 18 incidents of amnesty, it would be a sad day in the whole amnesty process if he obtained, if he were to obtain amnesty for 18 incidents and at the end of the day have to go to jail for something which he fully intended to disclose, but for some reason or other, which he can't remember exactly it happened, it fell out and on that perhaps passionate ground I want to ask you to consider this application favourably. I see it's 10 past 1, I'm sorry to have kept you past your lunch hour.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Those are your submissions in regard to this matter?
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, you are not directly involved in this matter, do you have anything to say?
MR PRINSLOO: I do not have anything but it handles here on full disclosure. I am not participating in his case, it just handles on full disclosure.
CHAIRPERSON: Please make your submissions as you think you should.
MR PRINSLOO: I don't have any submissions.
NO ADDRESS BY MR PRINSLOO
CHAIRPERSON: Have you got any submissions?
MS THABETHE: I leave it in the capable hands of the Committee. I have no submissions.
NO ADDRESS BY MS THABETHE
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we'll adjourn and reconvene at 2 o'clock.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
CHAIRPERSON: This is an application by Willem Frederich Schoon for an order condoning his failure to include the incident known as the murder of MK George and MK Brown in his amnesty application.
There are a number of former colleagues of the applicant in the S A Police who have applied for amnesty in respect of the same incident and we are presently hearing those applications. The present application for condonation has been interposed in the sequence being followed in hearing the applicants referred to.
According to the applicant and in terms of the submissions made by Mr Visser, who appears on his behalf in these proceedings, this omission was discovered some time after the expiry, the cut-off date for submitting amnesty applications.
The applicant indicates in an affidavit which has been filed in support of the application, that he was under extreme time pressures to timeously lodge his amnesty application, that he's experiencing problems with his memory, and that he has moreover been involved in a large number of incidents of a similar nature of which there are no documentary records and these have all exacerbated the situation in which he finds himself.
It is not clear and it appears that the applicant is not sure whether he simply forgot to include the incident in his original application, or whether he might have mentioned it to his attorney who in turn might have neglected or forgotten to include the incident in the, when the amnesty application was drafted. The original application which is serving before us in that we are hearing a number of the incidents which are detailed there, is an extensive and a detailed one which deals with 18 incidents in which the applicant was apparently involved. We have no doubt that it is so as submitted on behalf of the applicant, that he never had any intention to conceal his role in the incident in question. We have in fact already heard the testimony of a number of applicants in this matter, who have all confirmed the applicant's involvement and the role that he had played in the particular incident.
We have considered the matter and we feel constrained to give this ruling forthwith in order not to unnecessarily delay the proceedings before us. Unfortunately this is the normal kind of pressure which goes with this process.
The application, in our view, is seeking leave for the applicant to be allowed to raise a matter which has not been raised at all in the original application. There is moreover, in our view, no basis or framework which has been established for entertaining the incident in the original application. In fact there has simply been no reference to the incident at all. In our view there is no legal provision entitling us to grant the application. It is in our view a necessary result of failing to submit an application for amnesty in respect of a specific offence or delict in the stipulated time period that the matter cannot subsequently be considered by the Amnesty Application.
In all the circumstances of the matter the application has to be refused and it is ordered accordingly.
MR VISSER: As it pleases you Mr Chairman, and members of the Committee.
May I go on directly with the next witness Mr Chairman?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think you indicated it would be Mr Wandrag.
