CHAIRPERSON: And you want to get Mrs de Lange? Can I just before you settle, can I also ask you just to stand? Are you going to affirm or are you going to take the oath?
MRS DE LANGE: I'll affirm.
SUSAN CATHERINE DE LANGE: (affirms and states)
EXAMINATION BY MR RADITAPOLE: Thank you Chairperson.
Mrs de Lange, do you confirm that you've applied for amnesty in relation to the matters we've been discussing today?
MRS DE LANGE: Yes I do.
MR RADITAPOLE: Do you confirm the joint statement laid out by Mr de Lange?
MRS DE LANGE: Yes, I confirm the statement.
MR RADITAPOLE: And you confirm all the answers provided by Mr de Lange to questions asked today?
MRS DE LANGE: Yes, I confirm all the answers.
MR RADITAPOLE: Do you have anything else to add?
MRS DE LANGE: No, I've got nothing else to add.
MR RADITAPOLE: Thank you, Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR RADITAPOLE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Mr Coetzee?
MR COETZEE: I've got no questions, thank you.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR COETZEE
MR KOOPEDI: I also have no questions, thank you, Chairperson.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR KOOPEDI
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Ms Mtanga?
MS MTANGA: I have no questions, Chairperson.
NO QUESTIONS BY MS MTANGA
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Has the Panel got anything? I assume you won't have any re-examination?
MR RADITAPOLE: I beg your pardon, Chairperson, I missed that?
CHAIRPERSON: I've assumed that you don't have any re-examination?
MR RADITAPOLE: I have no re-examination, Chairperson.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR RADITAPOLE
CHAIRPERSON: At least we agree on that.
ADV SANDI: I thought you were going to break the monotony and ask a question there?
MR RADITAPOLE: Chairperson, I thought I would defer to the Leader of Evidence, I thought she would at least ask one.
CHAIRPERSON: I won't allow the Members of this Panel to intimidate you. So Mrs de Lange, you're excused.
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: Would that be the case for the applicants?
MR RADITAPOLE: Well Chairperson, save to say that the applicants believe they've complied with the requirements of the Act, particularly Section 21 and also that they are entitled then, in the light of that, to the benefit of sub-section of Section 20.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I might come back to you on that score. Mr Coetzee, were you going to present any evidence?
MR COETZEE: Chairperson, I'm not going to present any evidence, no.
MR KOOPEDI: Not at this stage, Chairperson. The only evidence we will present will be tomorrow when applicant number one gives evidence.
CHAIRPERSON: Very good. Ms Mtanga?
MS MTANGA: No evidence, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. I was just going to clarify that that was the case. I expected that to be the case. If there's anything else you want to add on the merits of the place please, you can feel free to do so.
MR RADITAPOLE IN ARGUMENT: Chairperson, I have nothing. Again I've jumped the gun as I did last time round. I made my submissions before finishing the round. Save to repeat that the applicants have complied with the requirements of the Act, more particularly Section 20 and that they are entitled therefore to the benefits of Section 20.10, which relates to the expunging from the records of their convictions. Thank you, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
JUDGE MOTATA: I wanted to ask you, Mr Raditapole, in respect of expunging the criminal records or what they normally term previous convictions. If we just look at the two incidents boldly, you know, the attack on the communications tower and the airforce bus, would it do justice in the expunging or should we, as appears from the statement given by Advocate Sogget, in tabulating the charges for which they were found guilty? Because if we simply say the attacks on the bus and the tower, would it be picked up for those who, you know, keep these records? I just want some clarity there.
MR RADITAPOLE: Thank you Chair for raising that point. In fact the application as much as we'll refer to the two incidents really relate to the counts, to all the counts that are then related to the incidents as tabulated by Mr Sogget.
JUDGE MOTATA: Thank you, because I thought if we deliberate and find that my colleagues and I are in agreement probably to give amnesty, we wanted to do justice because if you look at the preamble, that is point 1 of the joint statement says that these crimes should be expunged, you see? So I thought probably if we approach it that way but thanks for the direction you have given.
MR RADITAPOLE: I'm also indebted to the Chair, thank you Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Coetzee, have you got any submissions?
MR COETZEE IN ARGUMENT: Mr Commissioner and Honourable Panel, as I've stated from the onset already in chambers that I am not opposing this application. I was here on behalf of the family to clear up some factors which were not clear to them and which they needed to know what the situation was. I therefore do not oppose the application as such. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Coetzee. Mr Koopedi?
MR KOOPEDI: No Chairperson, I have nothing to submit at this stage. I'll limit my submissions to tomorrow's evidence, thank you.
NO SUBMISSIONS BY MR KOOPEDI
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Koopedi. Ms Mtanga?
MS MTANGA: Chairperson I'll also not be making any submissions.
NO SUBMISSIONS BY MS MTANGA
JUDGE MOTATA: Just to go back to you, Mr Coetzee? At the beginning, I don't know if I've got everything right, you said you are representing the family of Mr Neethling, the driver, who is now deceased. We are supposed to, in terms of the Act, if we do grant amnesty, that we should refer to the people who have been victims in this instance. So from whom did you get instructions when you say the family of the deceased?
MR COETZEE: Mr Chairperson and Honourable Panel, I got instructions from the son of Mr Neethling. His name is Schalk Neethling and I consulted then with his mother and his sister who were all at that stage, well still living at home and it was also my instruction from Mrs Neethling, the wife of the deceased, the bus driver, not to oppose as such. She did not want me to oppose the application for amnesty. She wanted me to know, there's some answers that she wanted which I obviously then believed that was clarified during this hearing, either through the direct evidence or from my cross-examination and in the light thereof, it is in fact my instructions from Mrs Neethling and her children and I just wish to state it clearly that although they do not propose that there was a legal nexus between the bombing and the death of Mr Neethling, they felt that it did have some effect to the sudden deterioration of his health after this incident and that's why there is some emotions involved with the family as to the incident. However, I must reiterate, I was clearly requested not to oppose it as such. Thank you.
JUDGE MOTATA: Other than Schalk, what is Mrs Neethling's names?
MR COETZEE: The surname of the daughter I know is Swart now, she's been married so it's Mrs Swart actually, the young - the daughter and I addressed Mrs Neethling as Mrs Neethling. I did not get her first name. If the commission so pleases, I'm going to phone them tonight, to give them feedback. I will get the full names of all the people involved.
JUDGE MOTATA: I would say get in touch with our Evidence Leader. Why I'm asking that is that sometimes it becomes very difficult if you just say the Neethling family are victims, you know? Now they want us to be specific so that we don't give them too much work. So get her telephone numbers and give the names to her.
MR COETZEE: I'll be here tomorrow any way, I will give her feedback. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Raditapole, have you got anything further you wanted to say?
MR RADITAPOLE: Chairperson no, simply to confirm that obviously it's patently clear there's no legal nexus and therefore there was no need for me to address the issue of Mr Neethling at all, Chairperson. The other point simply being a more logistical one, that second to fourth applicants would not be here tomorrow, that I will be here simply for the sake of completeness, really. I do not believe there's material need or any difference in the evidence that will be given tomorrow in relation to the second to fourth applicants.
JUDGE MOTATA: Thank you, because I was going to advise you that for their interest, even though they are applicants in the same, more or less you know, that somebody should be here to represent their interests.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you very much, Mr Raditapole. Well that concludes the testimony and the formal aspects of the applications that are before us. Insofar as those applications are concerned, we will deal with them on the basis of what has been placed before us and consider the testimony as well as the applications and formulate our decision on this matter as soon as circumstances permit. We will then notify everybody with an interest in the matter once that decision is available. So we'll reserve it under those circumstances.
MR RADITAPOLE: As the Chair pleases.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Raditapole, you're finished? You don't have anything further?
MR RADITAPOLE: I have nothing further to add, Mr Chair. Then we're going to excuse you as well. We've already excused your clients. We know that you - you've indicated you will be present tomorrow just for the formality?
MRS DE LANGE: That is correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes but for insofar as his applications are concerned we thank you for your assistance and you're excused.
MR RADITAPOLE: Thank you Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Mr Coetzee, you've indicated you will also still be here tomorrow?
MR COETZEE: Yes Mr Commissioner, I will be here tomorrow.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes and Mr Koopedi we know will be present. Very well. Well thank you very much, that concludes the matter that was before us.
There's another matter Ms Mtanga that we have to attend to not so?
MS MTANGA: Yes Chairperson, the next application is that of Shabangu and Mr Koopedi will be appearing for him. He has requested that the Committee adjourn for five minutes before he can organise himself?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well. We'll stand down briefly.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
