MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, may I lastly call Mr Pierre le Roux please?
PIERRE LE ROUX: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, you'll find his application on page 137 of Volume 2.
Mr Le Roux your background is given from page 1 to 9, do you confirm that this is correct?
MR LE ROUX: Yes, I do confirm this.
MR DU PLESSIS: And your political motivation is given on page 159 until 162, do you confirm that as correct?
MR LE ROUX: Yes I do.
MR DU PLESSIS: You were involved only in the Cosatu House incident?
MR LE ROUX: That is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: And you commander was Colonel Hattingh?
MR LE ROUX: That is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: And you heard the evidence of Minister Vlok, General van der Merwe and the other witnesses here with regard to the political motivation for this incident, do you confirm that as correct?
MR LE ROUX: That is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: Do you agree with it?
MR LE ROUX: Yes I agree with it.
MR DU PLESSIS: And in that time did you support the National Party and it's ideologies?
MR LE ROUX: Yes, that's correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: And did you believe that you were fighting to maintain apartheid?
MR LE ROUX: That is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: And that your action was aimed against the liberation movements, their ideologies and specifically communism?
MR LE ROUX: That is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: And where you say on page 159, you say the same as Mr Hammond, you also mean that during the operation you were not entirely aware of what the political motivation was?
MR LE ROUX: That is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: But you were aware that your action was aimed against the liberation movements and the proponents of communism?
MR LE ROUX: That is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr le Roux did you receive any advantages, financial or other, from this operation?
MR LE ROUX: I did not receive anything.
MR DU PLESSIS: And regarding the events you heard the evidence of Mr Hammond regarding this matter, do you confirm that as correct?
MR LE ROUX: Yes I do.
MR DU PLESSIS: And do you confirm your own version from page 157 to 158?
MR LE ROUX: Yes, except paragraph 3, the second sentence in the middle of the page.
MR DU PLESSIS: The word "and" should be omitted?
MR LE ROUX: Yes that was incorrectly typed in.
MR DU PLESSIS: It should read the order was given by my commander Colonel Hattingh to me, Pierre le Roux?
MR LE ROUX: That is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: Anything you wish to add?
MR LE ROUX: No there is nothing I wish to add.
MR DU PLESSIS: I've got no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS
CHAIRPERSON: I should perhaps warn you, it seems to be your last chance, gentlemen.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, may the witness be excused?
WITNESS EXCUSED
ADV DE JAGER: Do any of the applicants know what has become of Mr Paul Francis Erasmus?
MR VISSER: Chairperson my information is that he is somewhere in Central Africa or that he was recently in Central Africa with Mrs Winnie Madikizela Mandela, I don't know in what capacity.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Mpshe you didn't hear whether he in fact received the notice?
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, the notice went out, unfortunately my file of all returns is upstairs but I can check that and verify for the Committee but notices went out.
CHAIRPERSON: If he's got notice and didn't bother ...[inaudible]
MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, I don't know if this will be a convenient moment to enquire from the Committee, my client Mr Willemse is not so far away but he is in the Southern Cape, whether I can perhaps have an indication as to how you intend to deal with his application?
CHAIRPERSON: We have considered the applications and arrived at a decision on the other applications. I may well be then thought necessary to hear him on certain aspects or not to hear him.
MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman ...[intervention]
CHAIRPERSON: You of course would be informed and given the opportunity of making any representations that you might wish to do in that regard but I do not think, I certainly do not think it would be necessary to reconvene this hearing to hear Mr Willemse's evidence. We have heard a number of witnesses in the last day or so and he seems to fit into that category. There is no suggestion, nobody, none of the applicants or any other person has suggested that he had any different motive or that he received large sums of money for his services or anything of that nature and it may well be possible that an affidavit could meet any requirements that we may have for further information but that will just have to stand over for the moment.
MR ROSSOUW: Thank you Mr Chairman.
MR VISSER: We would assume, Mr Chairman, that the same by and large made out to ...[indistinct] would apply to Greyling?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I just make an enquiry about heads of argument?
CHAIRPERSON: I don't want enquiries, I want suggestions please. I take it you do not propose to start arguing now?
MR DU PLESSIS: No, Mr Chairman, my proposal would be written heads of argument and then we just need an indication of a time period and a time frame. Obviously we know from previous experience that typing of the record takes a while, probably about a month to six weeks, was my previous experience.
CHAIRPERSON: There have been various hearings recently so I think it would be safer to say six weeks than a month.
ADV DE JAGER: I think that the representatives should seriously consider that one should be prepared to argue without the record which is what is normally expected of you. There might be exceptional cases during which the evidence was of such a nature that it requires finer analysis but we could have asked you today to argue orally and then you would have had to argue without the record.
MR DU PLESSIS: You are aware of the heads which I have submitted in the past at very short notice and I would probably have been able to work through the evidence in a mornings time and I would have been able to argue orally.
CHAIRPERSON: This has not been a hearing where there's been a great deal of conflicting evidence where one has to weigh up the evidence. There have been differences between various people as to who was at what meeting, who did precisely what but the picture of what happened is reasonably clear, isn't it and it's really the object, the intent of the parties and couldn't that, as my colleague has said, couldn't we dispense with reference to the record and merely have your submissions on your clients' contentions and of course any comments you wish to make about other evidence which may appear to conflict with that of your clients and what weight to attach to that and I think, speaking for myself, I think it would be preferable if we all endeavour to dispose of this matter on that basis that if we give you, what, two weeks, three weeks?
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, however - may I just come in here? I would really want to request you to give us the opportunity to at least have some reference to the record. There may be certain instances where one would want to deal with some of the evidence in a broader context that was given here and it may be, just be relevant. Unless you're in a hurry to have argument but at the end of the day, I would, I know myself, I would prefer if I don't have to argue without the record, to do it with the record.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, what are your views?
MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, our attitude has always been to try to put a full argument on paper before you. We've always tried and you will bear testimony to that, that we've tried to give you the references to the record.
CHAIRPERSON: So you want the record?
MR VISSER: Certainly we would prefer it and in this particular case, Mr Chairman, we have the evidence of Vlok and Van der Merwe which do seem to be the first time that the Amnesty Committee has really received a full explanation right from as high as we're going to go in this whole process from a politician's point of view and it just occurred to us, Mr Chairman, that it might be relevant to incorporate some of that in our argument or at least to address it.
CHAIRPERSON: Well I can understand it if you are confining the record to the record of certain applicants not the record of the entire proceedings because we already have a fairly substantial part of General van der Merwe's evidence and if we were to restrict to the record, to the evidence of certain of the applicants, I think we could then get the record in considerably less than six weeks. Now what are your views on that, Mr du Plessis?
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes that may be so Mr Chairman but I must state Mr Chairman that in respect of my clients I know the evidence was very quickly but it is important for purposes of my clients that the evidence of Mr Vlok, for instance on his credibility, should stand and therefore I would want to address you, not in conjunction with Mr Visser but probably in support of Mr Visser on his evidence because it is important for ...[intervention]
CHAIRPERSON: No, I'm saying, but do you agree we do not need the evidence of all the applicants? If we need the evidence of Mr Vlok, General van der Merwe then that would be sufficient to enable you gentlemen to prepare your argument?
MR DU PLESSIS: And Bellinghan, Mr Chairman, yes.
ADV DE JAGER: If there are 35 transcripts of this record to be made, it has major cost implications. The second is that after a period of two months our memories regarding this matter will have faded and we will have to consider the entire content of this matter from the beginning to the end once more while we are proceeding with other matters. That's why it's important that the heads of argument be submitted as soon as possible while it is still fresh in everybody's memory and you can also expect a quicker judgement.
MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, may I make a suggestion? Give us a month and we'll simply see how quickly. We might very well be able to do it within that month. If we run into a problem, well then we'll discuss that problem at that time but my learned friend said three weeks, you were referring to, somebody else referred to six weeks. Make it a month and within that time I'm sure Commissioner de Jager wouldn't have forgotten all about this hearing and by which time I'm sure we could have our written argument in.
CHAIRPERSON: And it will be your responsibility to obtain what portions of the record you want.
MR VISSER: Yes, Mr Chairman, if we can just state that it would be on the basis that if we have problems in obtaining the record in time from the Truth Commission that we can approach you for an extension of time.
CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] dramatic happens you always can but otherwise I think I agree that we say that we want argument submitted within, to be lodged at the office in Cape Town by the 31st August. It is still July.
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, if the question of heads is round up I want to come up with something else.
CHAIRPERSON: Certainly.
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, I don't know whether it can be done here but I want to make that application in compliance with Section 22 of the Act, insofar as the opinion of the Committee is concerned for victims, that I request that it be on record that the victim, Welcome Ntumba ...[intervention]
CHAIRPERSON: Is a victim.
ADV MPSHE: Is a victim and there is another one Mr Chairman but it came by way of a letter. I don't know whether I can also place that also on record? This is the response to the media request we are making and the name is Felicia van der Hoven, only those two.
CHAIRPERSON: Well on what basis?
ADV MPSHE: That she was one of those who were occupying the flat that was attached to Khotso House and she's still alive but she is mentally retarded, she gets some seizures and the like.
CHAIRPERSON: Can I see that letter please? There are still persons concerned with the reparations who have been transferred to the Amnesty Department. I would suggest that we ask one of them to make enquiries in this regard to get more details as to precisely when the onset of these diseases and illnesses took place, matters of that nature and then we will certainly consider it.
ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: I'm returning the letter to you now.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I must perhaps just respond in that regard. That is one of the persons I think that was mentioned on page 58 of Volume 2. I'm not sure if it's the right one or it looks like it, Van der Hoover, ja, Felicia van der Hoover. It is mentioned there an according to the records she had no injuries, she just suffered from shock. I have the record that we obtained the information from with me, I don't know if you would be interested to have that?
CHAIRPERSON: That is why I suggest that we should make further information, because the letter Mr Mpshe has got refers not only to her mental state due to shock but to an actual illness that may have been present before and I think that it should be enquired into. It is of course one of the things that I think are accepted that post-traumatic shock happens to victims not to perpetrators and also sometimes emerges sometime later.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, we don't have any problem with that Mr Chairman.
MICROPHONES SWITCHED OFF
