=====================================================================
&#9;TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION
=====================================================================
&#9;TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION

&#9;AMNESTY HEARINGS

DATE:&#9;&#9;11 MAY 1998

HELD AT:&#9;&#9;JOHANNESBURG

NAME:&#9;&#9;MR KRUSER

APPLICATION NO: 5542/97

DAY:&#9;&#9;1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] on my left, will counsel appearing for the interested parties please place yourselves on record.

MR BIZOS: Members of the Committee together with my learned friend, Mr Karel Tipp SC, Danny Berger and Gomotso Moraka, I, my name is G Bizos, appear on behalf of all the applicants except Mr Neo Potsane who is listed as applicant no 9.

MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman, I have been side-lined here on your left, I feel more like an applicant sitting here. Brian Currin, from Bell Dewar & Hall with Kabelo Negane, we together are representing the ninth applicant, Neo Potsane.

MR VAN WYK: Sir, my name is A van Wyk. My firm is acting for four objectors, first one is Phuthile Zondi, Gezephi Dlamini, Dazeli Nqanjana and Eric Majozi.

MR PRETORIUS: May it please the Commission Mr Chairman, my name is B Pretorius. I appear on behalf seven objectors, the first is Mrs Saraphina Lembede Langa, the second is Mr Alfred Maphanga, the third is Mr Philemon Dlamini, the fourth is Mr Themba Mazibuko, the fifth is Mrs Zani Selina Sokhela, sixth is Mrs Zini Zungu, the last is Bashitshile Mqanti Masikane. That's all thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR P A VAN WYK: I'm sorry, Mr Chairman, my initials are P A, I'm also Van Wyk. I'm acting on behalf of seven objectors, their names being Sesi Ntombela, Agnes Ntombela, then it's Christine Chonco: C-H-O-N-C-O, the next one is Jabulani Langa, then Msolwa: M-S-O-L-W-A Madondo, then Muziwandile Msizazwe: M-S-I-Z-A-Z-W-E and the last one is Amos Ngobese: N-G-O-B-E-S-E. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Mr Chairman, my is Helena van der Westhuizen. I'm acting on behalf of the following objectors, first one is Simon Mbhele, second one Lucas Nyoko, third one Phoyisa: P-H-O-Y-I-S-A, Gasela: G-A-S-E-L-A fourth is Johan Mikayipheli: M-I-K-A-Y-I-P-H-E-L-I Shlatswayo, the fifth one Lucky Mzuza, the sixth one is Nicholas Ntlobe, the seventh one is Gawetha: G-A-W-E-T-H-A Mbatha, the eighth one is Rista: R-I-S-T-A Buthelezi, the ninth one is Obert Sithole and the last one if Frank Nene.

MR DORFLING: May it please the Committee, Mr Chairman, the name is Danie Dorfling. I'm appearing on behalf of the following nine objectors on instruction of Mosselson & Associates, Mr S Ndwonde, Mr K P Khathi, Mr B Mvelase, Mr M E Mbense, Mr M Ntombela, Mr T K W Mhlongo, Mr M Mpungose, Mr B V Buthelezi and Mr M Ngqulunga: N-G-Q-U-L-U-N-G-A Mr Chair. Thank you.

MR HUMAN: Thank you, Mr Chairman, my name is Dirk Human. I appear on behalf the following seven objectors, Mr R P Buthelezi, Mr F M Majozi, Mr F M Myeza: M-Y-E-Z-A, Mr O Mpanga, Mr K Bangani, Ms M Dombi, Mr J Q Biyera. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

MS PATEL: May it please the Committee, Mr Chairman, I am Ramula Patel, leader of evidence for the Amnesty Committee, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Bizos?

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman and members of the Committee, you are all aware that a lengthy inquest was held in order to determine what happened in this matter. Mindful of the length and the extent to which the matter was investigated, and in order to avoid a lengthy and expensive hearing, we took the initiative in filing a document which was served on the objectors, except the last one, I am told because there was some lack of clarity in relation to it, and a document was filed which is before you in a file, paginated by counsel for the Commission. May I suggest that that file be marked as file A.

CHAIRPERSON: No further ...(indistinct) 

MR BIZOS: No, the other one that was before you, which has the first document, applicant's request for further particulars and admissions. 

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MR BIZOS: Yes, that is the one. Could we call that file A, Mr Chairman? 

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] 

MR BIZOS: There are additional documents filed by the objectors, which have not yet been paginated. We will take care of it in due course in consultation with counsel for the Commission so that all those facts which really is an attempt to define the issues before you, we will put them all into that file. 

&#9;Now, Mr Chairman, our approach to this matter is that this is neither an appeal nor a review of the judgment given by his Lordship, Mr Justice Nugent. The Committee has a statutory duty to perform which, or the section in it which deals with what it has to enquire into and make up its mind and give a decision on the facts and circumstances that have been placed before it. Nothing said by Nugent, J is binding on this Committee. &#9;We do not have to quote authority for this proposition, because the learned Judge himself on an early page of his judgment clearly states that inquest findings are not bound on anyone, they are made on a prima facie basis and that in any event there is a different test and different legal requirements in this regard. &#9;Now, we have attempted by asking a number of questions before to place before you facts by way of admission and for that purpose we served a document on the objectors, which is the document before you, pages 1 to 12 in which various questions were asked. We thought that we would obtain sufficient information about what we believe to be matters which were either common cause or not seriously contested by way of admission. It is with some regret that we wish to place on record that the objectors did not avail themselves of this opportunity of responding to what we believe were facts which ought to be either common cause or not seriously disputed. 

&#9;The other was that right at the outset on page 2, Mr Chairman, we asked questions in order to identify the objectors and tell us what it is, what harm they have suffered in order that the Committee may decide as to whether their injuries, if any, and precisely where they were injured and whether their injuries really qualify them as objectors proper. I'm not of course speaking in relation to the eight deceased, Mr Chairman. Unfortunately we have not had much joy as a response, but more importantly on page 3 we asked the following questions:

&#9;&#9;"The objectors are requested to state on what grounds each of them intends to oppose the applications for amnesty;"

Paragraph 3 -

&#9;&#9;"If it is alleged that the applications do not comply with the requirements of the promotion of national unity and reconciliation, Act no 34 of 1995, the objectors are requested to identify the applications which allegedly do not comply with the requirements of the Act;"

and 3.2 -

&#9;&#9;"To specify in what respects the said applications allegedly do not comply with the requirements of the Act. If it is alleged that the acts of offences to which the applications relate are not acts associated with a political objective committed in the course of the conflicts of the past in accordance with the provisions of Section 22, 23 of the Act, the objectors are requested. To identify the acts or offences which allegedly are not acts associated with a political objective, committed in the course of the conflicts of the past and in accordance with the provisions of Sections 22 and 23 of the Act;" 

and 4.2 - 

&#9;&#9;"To specify in what respect the said acts or offences allegedly are not acts associated with a political objective, committed in the course of the conflicts of the past and in accordance with the provisions of Sections 20.2 and 20.3 of the Act;"

5 -

&#9;&#9;"If it is alleged that the applicants for amnesty have not made a full disclosure of all relevant facts, each of the objectors is requested to identify the applicants for amnesty who allegedly have not made a full disclosure of all relevant facts, and in respect of each applicant for amnesty to specify in what respect the said applicants for amnesty has allegedly not made a full disclosure of all the relevant facts and to specify all relevant facts which the said applicants for amnesty has allegedly failed to disclose."

&#9;Now, we want to indicate to you Mr Chairman, the answers. Unfortunately not all the documents have not all been paginated but the first one has, it is the applicant's request for further particulars and admissions on page 108.

&#9;This was a response by Mosselson & Associates in a document dated the 5th of May and Miss van der Westhuizen has associated herself with the answers given, so this is the document of those two objectors, and in relation to paragraph 2 they say on page 111 -

&#9;&#9;"The applicants are referred to the affidavits by the objectors in this regard." 

The affidavits by the objectors in relation to this issue is to be found on page - I'm sorry, we have paginated it for ourselves, and we will try and persuade counsel for the Committee to paginate the same. It's at page 122 -

&#9;&#9;"I have been advised that the applications of the guards who were injured do not comply with the requirements of the promotion of the National Unity and Reconciliation Act, and state that full legal argument of this point will be advanced before the Commission at the hearing of the matter."

CHAIRPERSON: Where are you reading from?

MR BIZOS: Page 122 Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Of the same document?

MR BIZOS: Of the same.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that paragraph ...[indistinct]?

MR BIZOS: Yes, Mr Chairman. Then, as far as question no 3 is concerned, the answer given on page 112, paragraph 9 is -

&#9;&#9;"This request is the subject of legal argument which will be advanced at the appropriate time during the course of the proceedings."

Again hardly a helpful response in the circumstances Mr Chairman. The same answer is given on the same page 112, in answer to paragraph 4 on page 3, and paragraph 5 on page 4. So that our attempt to define the issues and possibly save time thereby has failed. It may not be too late, Mr Chairman, because our learned friends may be persuaded that they ought to respond meaningfully to this during the course of the proceedings. 

&#9;I may say right at the outset, Mr Chairman, that we will object to any court time being sought in order to do this. We are anxious to conclude the matter as soon as possible. What I mean by that is that they may want to make use of the court hours, the time, in order to really try and define the issues before the Committee. They're not obliged to do it, however, Mr Chairman, but we thought that we would draw your attention to that fact.

&#9;Now, we ask in paragraph 6 what each of the objectors must specify whether the said objector intends to be present and to testify at the hearing of the applicants for amnesty, what evidence the said objector intends to adduce at the hearing, what article or articles the said objector intends to submit at the hearing to be taken into consideration. 

&#9;May I indicate, Mr Chairman, that the spirit in which these questions were asked was not to tie the objectors down to anything specific to which they did not want be specific about, but rather we hoped that if the information was given, we may be able to admit if we were given for instance medical records that this person was shot in the thigh or in the knee and if we could go outside court hours investigate this matter, we could make admissions which would may have been unnecessary for witnesses to be called. However, we failed in that endeavour to shorten the proceedings as well. 

&#9;Now, in relation to part B, on page 5, Mr Chairman, we also asked for admissions. Firstly that the transcripts identified below accurately record the conversation and speeches of referred to therein, noting in certain instances the third transcripts do not cover the entire conversation or speech concerned and that such transcripts can be used at the hearing without further proof. 

&#9;Firstly, the SAP radio reports, channel 27, on the 28th of March 1994, here we are pleased to inform the Committee that there has been a helpful response by the objectors in that they admit that what is referred to as "channel 27", which is an important document and which was an important document at the inquest but which unfortunately was only produced by those who had possession of it, the police, in July after the inquest had been going on for a number of months but it does contain important information. I am corrected, Mr Chairman, on page 94 of this bundle you will find that Mr Wilsenach who appears for some of the objectors, the firm of attorneys for the objectors, they admitted Mr Chairman, on page 94 in paragraph 1.1.1 - it's particularly Dr van Wyk, Mr Chairman, who's is appearing here, who made that admission. On page 5, that's page 5 of our documents, Mr Mosselson, by way of contrast - or Mosselsons by way of contrast, in paragraph F on page 114, paragraph 15 there says -

&#9;&#9;"The objectors are not in a position to either deny or admit the documents referred to in paragraph 1.1 to 1.9 of the request."

So that we are in a position that you will see on page 5, 6 up to top of page 7 that Mosselson could not admit or deny any of the matters that we asked for, we therefor have to prove them, Mr Chairman. 

&#9;In relation to the radio channel 27, again we would urge that the legal representatives in consonance with their duty to the Committee and possibly to their clients, that the matter of the proof of that recording should possibly be admitted as the other matters that we have referred to, so that we can make some progress Mr Chairman.

&#9;Then, in paragraph 2 of page 7 of our request -

&#9;&#9;"That the gathering at Library Gardens on the 28th of March 1994 and the marches associated therewith, took place at the instance of the IFP."

We would have thought Mr Chairman, that that matter could easily have been admitted but it has not. The objectors represented by Dr van Wyk cannot - they deny it outright at page 95, paragraph 1.2 and Mosselson cannot admit or deny it, at page 114, paragraph 16. 

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MR BIZOS: It's 114, paragraph 16.

MR BIZOS: Now, I would like to now introduce, Mr Chairman and members of the Committee, the bundle that we handed in this morning headed "Bundle submitted by the applicants", and I would suggest, with respect, that this should be bundle B. 

&#9;Let us see what the applicants deny - yes, and it consists of documents from page 1 to page 253. It may become necessary, Mr Chairman, to add documents to it. We will ask that they be numbered consecutively. Now, remember, Mr Chairman, what the question we asked was on page 2 of page 7 - please turn to page 2 of bundle B. The question was -

&#9;&#9;"That the gathering at the Library Gardens on the 28th of March 1994, and the marches associated therewith took place at the instance of the IFP."

The one says that they deny it, the other says that they have no knowledge. I am going to refer to documents which are, and have been available to the objectors Mr Chairman, at least since the beginning of 1977, 1997 - it only ages me Mr Chairman, or shows my age - sorry, if I'm twenty years out sometimes, please feel free to correct me. 

&#9;Now, here we have a document which has been in their possession since the beginning of 1997 when the documents were distributed by the Attorney-General from whose possession they came, and they were made available to all the parties. It's on the letterhead of the Inkatha Freedom Party, it is signed by Mr Humphrey Ndlovu, whom I may say one or - I think he had separate counsel for himself but they worked in close co-operation with our learned friends who appear for the objectors: 

&#9;&#9;"I hereby wish to ask for permission for the IFP launch of its anti-election campaign at the Johannesburg Library grounds on Monday the 28th of March 1994. This gathering will be peaceful and will be from 09h00 - 14h00. Approximately 20 000 people will be attending this launch. Your assistance will be highly appreciated. Yours in the continuous search for peace and democracy in our country.

&#9;&#9;Mr Humphrey Ndlovu - IFP : West Rand - Chairperson."

&#9;Now, if we go to page 3, "Name of the Organisation", you will see on the application form:

&#9;&#9;"To the Magistrate" 

in Johannesburg. 

&#9;&#9;"Name of the Organisation - Inkatha Freedom Party - IFP" 

and the address of the IFP right on top. 

&#9;Now, Mr Chairman, the absence of this admission and a fiction which has been created that the IFP had nothing to do with this march, is a deliberate smoke-screen in order to avoid responsibility for what happened on the 28th of March 1994, and we don't intend leading viva voce evidence in relation to whose march it was, unless Mr Chairman, specific evidence is led by the objectors to contradict this documentation that we have put before you. We submit that the section requires you to hear evidence and receive information. We have given the information, we have said where it comes from, we do not want to take up time, through calling the Magistrate or anyone else. 

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MR BIZOS: Yes. &#9;Now, then, Mr Chairman, page 4:

&#9;&#9;"Purpose of the demonstrations, protests, march - Anti-election campaign" 

If you could go back to page 3: 

&#9;&#9;"Names of all the organisers - Humphrey Ndlovu" 

on page 3 and it will emerge during the course of the evidence that Mr Humphrey Ndlovu is not an Induna or a representative of His Majesty the King of the Zulus, but a member of the IFP and a senior office bearer of what was then known as Transvaal, and particularly the western branch, and that it was in that capacity that he put these matters into motion.

&#9;Then, page 4:

&#9;&#9;"Purpose of the demonstration protest - Anti-election campaign" 

not the King's demands, Mr Chairman. Now, the fact that marches and not only a gathering was envisaged by Mr Ndlovu is proved by the answer to the question:

&#9;&#9;"Route which procession would follow or venue for staging demonstration" 

on page 4, towards the bottom, Mr Chairman, 

&#9;&#9;"people will come from different destinations and some will be coming around the town and suburbs of Johannesburg."

So, we submit that this is a clear indication that it was anticipated that there would be marches, and that they would be coming on trains and foot, on page 5:

&#9;&#9;"And for what purpose" 

again:

&#9;&#9;"the anti-election campaign". 

&#9;If you would turn, Mr Chairman, to pages 15 and 16 of bundle B, you will observe an indemnity given and entered into by the Inkatha Freedom Party and not His Majesty the King, or anyone else, represented by one Peter B Mangwasa, who says:

&#9;&#9;"On behalf of and duly authorised to by the Organisation" 

and the organisation is defined in the first whereas on page 15 as the Inkatha Freedom Party. They indemnify and hold ...(inaudible) the counsel and others Mr Chairman. It's signed on the 25th of March and it's duly witnessed. 

&#9;Now, there can be no doubt in our mind as to who organised this and we submit that the evidence clearly, placed before you clearly shows that. We also ask that Mr Humphrey Ndlovu and Mr Themba Nkosa, in their capacities as senior office bearers of the IFP were instrumental in the conception of the gathering at the Library Gardens and the associated marches. The response is the same, the one says "I can't admit or deny" and the other denies. &#9;Now, we will place material before the Committee by reading transcripts of telephone conversations on the morning of the 28th of March 1994, again which became available to all our learned friends at or about the beginning of the inquest in April 1997 and our learned friends have had copies of these. They have listened to evidence in relation to the provenance and authenticity of these transcripts and they should have had no difficulty in making an admission in that regard, but - if you could please turn page 101 of bundle B and refer you to the hand-written portion:

&#9;&#9;"H Ndlovu and Captain Wilken" 

Both these persons gave evidence at the inquest. Our learned friends could ascertain quite easily whether they should make an admission or not but the contents clearly show that Captain Wilken, who was identified as the Liaison Officer of the South African Police and the conversation was at 07h45 in the morning. They are apparently on good terms, because the first entry is: 

&#9;&#9;"Humphrey!, good morning and how are you." 

&#9;&#9;"Hi I'm looking for you. I wanted to page you but I'm on my way to the office." 

&#9;&#9;"Humphrey, listen, we have big problems this morning, man."

&#9;&#9;"Where?"

&#9;&#9;"You know, in Alexander, at the Hostels. People are throwing stones to the vehicles. They are shooting, shooting at the policemen who have got big chaos in town. I wonder, can you make contact with the people at the Hostels, man, to tell them to discipline and come into town? Either discipline, or we're going to have big problems today."

&#9;&#9;"I see." 

&#9;&#9;"You know really, we want to give our full support, but the people seems to me, they're getting out of hand now, man. We need your support, but from your side Humphrey as well, you must try your utmost to calm the people down and tell them they must not loot the places or throw stones, etc."

&#9;&#9;"That is true."

&#9;&#9;"Otherwise we're gonna have chaos in town this morning. Tell me, Humphrey, another thing, are you going to the election office as well?"

We will ask you to not the election offices, because there was an attempt to occupy the Electoral Commission offices and we will prove that Mr Chairman, as evidence of what these peace loving people were doing on the streets of Johannesburg on that day.

&#9;&#9;"No, I want to, I hear the statements that they are going."

&#9;&#9;"I heard it over the radio, you see, that's why I want to ask you from you personally, are you people going there today."

&#9;&#9;"No, they are not marching."

&#9;&#9;"You are not going there."

&#9;&#9;"No, we are just going to our spot where we stay there until disperse."

&#9;&#9;"At the Library Gardens?"

&#9;&#9;"At the Library Gardens, that is all."

&#9;&#9;"And you will also be addressing the people there, and I am asking you to please before we put everything there, to bring the dogs."

&#9;&#9;"What time are you going to put things together, Humphrey?"

&#9;&#9;"We are going to start now."

&#9;&#9;"Okay, I want to do that for the dogs too."

&#9;&#9;"Okay, I will arrange that. That is no problem, I will arrange that."

&#9;&#9;"And I will also help you on this side for the people to behave."

&#9;&#9;"I will be there, but Humphrey, I want you as the leader, to announce to the people there on the ground when you are addressing the people, to behave and to discipline, etc. Please, man."

&#9;&#9;"Really, I will do it, Sir. Okay, I will do it, Sir."

&#9;&#9;"Okay, please I would like your co-operation there, Humphrey, man."

&#9;&#9;"Okay."

&#9;&#9;"But I will see you on the ground then."

&#9;&#9;"Alright then."

&#9;&#9;"Okay, Humphrey, bye."

Now, remember, Mr Chairman, what the question was that the gathering at the Library - I beg your pardon, 3, that Mr Humphrey Ndlovu and Mr Themba Nkosa, in their capacities as senior office bearers of the IFP, were instrumental in the conception of the gathering at the Library Gardens and the associated marches. The one denies it, the other one says they don't know. They can so easily have found out and can so easily make an admission, Mr Chairman. 

&#9;Let us now deal with Mr Themba Nkosa because the question was concerned with him as well. Could you please turn to page 98 on bundle B, Mr Chairman. I'm sorry, can you just bear one moment, one of our - we'll just find the page, my page is different to Mr Tipp's. On page ...(indistinct) 28th of March '94, this too was produced by the Attorney-General's office and handed to the parties at the commencement of the inquest proceedings and if we look at it, we submit that in the absence of an admission the Committee ought not to have much difficulty in finding as a fact that together with Mr Ndlovu, Mr Nkosa was orchestrating the happenings on the streets of Johannesburg on the day in question. 

&#9;&#9;"Themba your people n, are breaking down the place, man."

We will refer to this later for another purpose, but let us -

&#9;&#9;"Your people", 

says Mr Wilkins, the Senior Police Officer who obviously knows Mr Themba Nkosa quite well, and what is his answer,

&#9;&#9;"you must expect that"

You must expect that my people will break the place down. Mr Chairman, we are becoming impatient with the attitude of the persons that are opposing these proceedings and who were at the inquest. We asked them a simple question which can be answered truthfully on behalf of their clients, when they have the information. We ...[indistinct] foot to the proof of it, and we are told that this was a peaceful march for a demand of their things. 

&#9;&#9;"No, man, there's people on their way to work now, and they're throwing stones, etc, etc, and I don't want to act, man, is their now way that we can make contact with the people at the hostels and tell them to just don't throw stones and that stuff?

&#9;&#9;MR NKOSA: "I have a problem"

&#9;&#9;"Yes?"

&#9;&#9;"Things have changed now, you know, I don't need to tell you. It looked like Inkatha is not going to be the same all the way now, so it's a question of expect that."

&#9;&#9;"What area are you referring to?"

&#9;&#9;"I am referring George Kok, all the hostels, man, and the road from Alexandra. Since this morning, man, they've been throwing stones."

&#9;&#9;"Yes, people are coming to work now."

&#9;&#9;"That's our main problem, otherwise, you know, I've been in touch with the Stability Unit, they want to block the people not from coming into town."

The next sentence has great significance we will submit as to what happened that day, and what Mr Themba Nkosa's authority was,

&#9;&#9;"Tell them not to try that"

Mr Themba Nkosa, a senior IFP official tells a senior policeman who appeals to him to use his good offices to stop intimidation and other crimes being committed, otherwise they may have to stop the people from coming into town, his response tantamounts to a threat:

&#9;&#9; "Tell them not to try that"

What we're saying is that that is proof absolute by way of admission by Mr Nkosa that he was orchestrating the events, that he was, if not orchestrating, most certainly involved. It was an IFP march ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: ...[indistinct] I understand your position to be that you are saying that these requests were made, there was not justification for them in not responding the way they ought to have responded. 

MR BIZOS: ...[inaudible]

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think we are not here to weigh the merits of the point you are going to make in that regard at this stage.

MR BIZOS: ...[inaudible]

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please.

MR BIZOS:

&#9;&#9;"No, we won't do that, but Themba listen here, the thing is n, people are coming to work, now they're throwing stones at them. Now, to block the people they're going to keep them in there but they don't want to do that, they want the people to come into town. There is no problem with that as long as we can just - we don't know who to liaise with on the ground man, that's our main problem now."

&#9;&#9;"Even in Alexandra?"

&#9;&#9;"Yes."

&#9;&#9;"They can speak to Xhoso, Elias Xhoso. I'm not sure if that is right, or Philip Langamandla, okay. Philip Langamandla or Elias Konko or David Khumalo."

&#9;&#9;"Tell me Themba are you also coming here to town?"

&#9;&#9;"Yes."

&#9;&#9;"Tell, me, to address the people here at the library?"

&#9;&#9;"Yes."

&#9;&#9;"And tell me, another thing that I want to ask you Themba, are the people going to Pretoria as well?"

&#9;&#9;"I think so."

&#9;&#9;"To the IEC?"

&#9;&#9;"Yes, but we are still going to negotiate with them not to do so."

So, we submit this too proves that he was a person to - there should be no difficulty there.

&#9;&#9;"Did the ...(inaudible) speak to you last night?"

&#9;&#9;"No, he didn't speak to me last night."

&#9;&#9;"We quickly need some sniffer dogs yes, because we have information that the podium there will be, the ANC will do something and the National Party Government Police or agents"

I draw attention to the fact that there was obvious, that it may be inferred that there was consultation between Mr Ndlovu and Mr Themba Nkosa because you will recall that Mr Nkosa ...[indistinct] 

&#9;Now, the rest, Mr Chairman, we put the document in, but we don't have to read it in, Mr Chairman. &#9;That the IFP made no attempt to co-ordinate the activities with the relevant peace structures and the SAP. That again should have been an easy matter for an admission, but it was not made. 

&#9;&#9;"5. That the IFP foresaw that there would be wide public violence committed by many of those attending the gathering or participating in associated marches"

Well, they were not prepared to make any admission in relation to that. 

&#9;&#9;"That groups of marches attending the gathering attacked and killed pedestrians and motorists on their way to the gathering".

They deny those allegations. The one denies and the other one says, no knowledge, does not have any instructions in relation to it. 

&#9;In view of the evidence that was available, we will submit that it's quite easy to make - they should consider, possibly, before these proceedings get out of hand, that they make a formal admission.

&#9;&#9;"That a number of groups of marches passed Shell House earlier on the 28th of March 1994, during which they behaved provocatively and launched mock attacks on ANC security guards, but there were not shot at by the said security guards."

Again there are videos, there are - well, let me put it this way, although there may not be videos of these particular marches, there is video material and there is sufficient evidence from persons other than the security guards from whom we appear, for them to be able to ascertain and whether they should make an admission in relation to that remark. Then paragraph 8,

&#9;&#9;"That the organisers of the gathering and the marchers were at all material times aware that the Shell House was the national headquarters of the ANC and that Lancet Hall was the regional headquarters of the ANC."

There is a denial of that by Dr van Wyk and Mosselson says that they can't admit or deny. 

&#9;&#9;"That the said organisers were at all material times aware that there was an extensive history of conflict 

frequently violent between members of the IFP and members of the ANC and that in view of the imminence of the first democratic election, political feelings were running very high as at 28th March 1994."

Again we have in 1.4 page 96, there is an admission of they were aware of the history of conflict, Mr Chairman, but that is Dr van Wyk but Mosselson says that they can't admit or deny it. So we are in this position Mr Chairman, that if one of the parties only admits, we have to prove it. 

&#9;Then, in relation to paragraph 12: 

&#9;&#9;"That from Park Station the marchers did not move in the direction of Library Gardens"

11, I beg you pardon, I'm reading paragraph 11, 

&#9;&#9;"That from Park Station the marchers did not move in the direction of Library Gardens but split into groups, some moving east along Loot Street and then south down King George Street, and others moving south down Wanderer Street then east along De Villiers Street."

I'm sorry, I omitted paragraph 10,

&#9;&#9;"That the marchers involved in the shooting incident at Shell House were from the Mansfield Hostel and had travelled from there by train to Park Station."

Now, 10, 11 and 12 are admitted, which I must read,

&#9;&#9;"That the marches moving into these groups then advanced at the intersection of King George, converged I beg your pardon, and De Villiers Streets being at the north-west corner of Shell House."

Those three paragraphs are admitted by Dr van Wyk in paragraph 1.5 on page 96. Mosselson say that they can't admit or deny it. Again, we would submit that having regard to the evidence that was given and the information that would be easily ascertainable in relation to 11 and 12, Mosselson say that they had not instructions in 11 to 12. May I indicate that this document was served on the 16th of April and no instructions have yet been obtained. 

&#9;Paragraph 13 on page 9,

&#9;&#9;"That the portion of King George Street between De Villiers Street and Plein Street, adjacent to Shell House on its western side, had a number of substantial concrete barricades spread across the road both at its northern and its southern points, which barricades rendered the passage by large number of people patently it difficult and unsuitable."

This is partly admitted and partly denied on page 96, paragraph 1.6, they say that,

&#9;&#9;"The objectors admit that there were some concrete barriers spread across the road in King George Street, at the corner of King George Street and De Villiers Street and at the corner of King George Street and Plein Street but would not admit that these barricades rendered the passage by a large number of people patently difficult and unsuitable."

May I indicate, Mr Chairman, that there is a plan of the area which is being referred to. Copies are available and we will make them available to the Committee. Perhaps I should hand them in at this stage so that - it was one that was handed in at the inquest. My learned friends are familiar with it but we will have them copied.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] Have you finished with that?

MR BIZOS: Yes. No, Mr Chairman, I'm going on, but I'm merely referring to the map so that the question and the answer may be meaningful when you look at them Mr Chairman, but I have no objection to handing it in formally as a piece of evidence later on and we can identify it.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MR BIZOS: Perhaps we should merely add it to the bundle, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Will that be bundle B?

MR BIZOS: Bundle B, page 254, Mr Chairman. Because the plan is also germane to the question and answer in paragraph 14 on page 9:

&#9;&#9;"That King George Street does not continue in a southerly direction beyond Plein Street, and that it is not suitable for the movement of a large number of people."

This is responded to on page 96, paragraph 1.7. The objectors admit that King George Street does not continue in a southerly direction beyond Plein Street, but they deny that it is not suitable for the movement of a large number of people. 

&#9;In relation to paragraphs 13 and 14 Mosselson's reply is at page 116 and 117, paragraph 21 on 116:

&#9;&#9;"The position and number of concrete barriers positioned in King George Street between De Villiers and Plein Streets appear from the photographs and video footage depicting the scene of the incident. It is admitted that these documents correctly reflect the position at the time of the shooting. No further admissions are being made by the objectors in this regard."

And in paragraph 14 at page 117, paragraph 22:

&#9;&#9;"It is admitted that the photographs as well as the video footage depicting the scene of the incident correctly reflect the position with regard to King George Street. No further admissions have been made in regard to the objectors, in this regard by the objectors"

We will, unless an admission is forthcoming, we will have to show the video and produce the photographs, Mr Chairman.

&#9;&#9;"That the", 

Paragraph 15, 

&#9;&#9;"That the number of marchers which converged at the intersection of King George and De Villiers Streets was in the region of 1000 - 1500." 

The answer to that is to be found on page 96, paragraph 1.8 by Dr van Wyk:

&#9;&#9;"The objectors do not admit the number of marchers, but do admit that there was a large number of marchers who converged at the intersection of King George Street and De Villiers Street."

And in paragraph 23 on page 117, Mosselson says:

&#9;&#9;"The objectors are not in a position to either admit or deny that the number of marchers that converged at the intersection of King George and De Villiers Streets were in the region of 1000 - 1500."

They do not say how many they say there were.

CHAIRPERSON: No, Mr Bizos, fine details as to how many people where there and so on, are they going to be relevant in deciding whether amnesty should be granted or not? 

MR BIZOS: Suffice to say that there was a large group of people, but - a large group is a relative term ...(intervention) 

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) carried out as to how many people there were, so I think that the words "large group" will be adequate for present purposes, isn't it?

MR BIZOS: For whatever purpose it may be, but, Mr Chairman, "large" is an amorphous word. It could be hundred in particular circumstances or a thousand in other circumstances. What we thought was, this is why we put it in an approximate basis, we didn't ask them to count them or to give us precisely how many there were, so that the Committee could get some idea of what sort of group they were involved with.

CHAIRPERSON: You're dealing with an approximation yourself.

MR BIZOS: Yes. And 16, Mr Chairman:

&#9;&#9;"That the marchers were armed with a variety of dangerous weapons, including some firearms, amongst which were AK 47s" 

This is paragraph 16, 1.9 by Dr van Wyk. The objectors deny the contents of this paragraph. They were armed with so-called traditional weapons only.

And on page 117, paragraph 24, Mosselson's says:

&#9;&#9;"The individual objectors on whose behalf we act, deny that they were armed with any firearms and/or AK47 rifles. It is admitted that a number of the marchers carried a variety of traditional weapons."

Mr Chairman, we will have to prove by viva voce evidence and video material that there were such firearms, including AK47's. 

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MR BIZOS: I beg your pardon?

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MR BIZOS: By the group that we say attacked Shell House Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: The answer given on behalf of some of the objectors is a fair answer. They are saying that on behalf of the people they represent they won't know whether there were people, they didn't say there were some people that carried arms. MR BIZOS: They don't say they were traditional weapons, not arms Mr Chairman. Yes, traditional weapons, not arms.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) to the knowledge of their clients. MR BIZOS: Except Mr Chairman, that the Committee will not only, with respect, be concerned with the knowledge of their clients.

CHAIRPERSON: That's understandable, we are going to be looking at the totality of the evidence.

MR BIZOS: Yes, but what I am saying is this, that evidence is available which doesn't emanate from us, about how some of the persons that were in the immediate vicinity of Shell House at the relevant time were armed. 

CHAIRPERSON: We will hear that when the evidence is led.

MR BIZOS: In the absence of an admission that that was so, then we will have to lead the evidence, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Then at paragraph 17, Mr Chairman:

&#9;&#9;"That as the marchers were leaving Park Station some of them fired shots from heavy calibre weapons."

Now, Mr Chairman, we will also have in due course maps of the whole area in order to show the distance between Park Station and Shell House so that - it's denied by Dr van Wyk, page 97, 1.10 and Mosselson says on page 118, paragraph 25, that they have no instructions.

&#9;&#9;"that as the marchers moved from Park Station in the direction of Shell House some were knocking over bins, smashing cars, shouting and screaming and making violent gestures."

&#9;Page 97, paragraph 111, Dr van Wyk says the objectors admit that they moved from Park Station in the direction of Shell House. They however deny that they were aware of the whereabouts of Shell House and state that they merely marched behind their Indunas. Save ...[indistinct] the objectors deny the contents of this paragraph. Mosselson's say that they have no instructions, on page 118, paragraph 25,

&#9;&#9;"That these groups of marchers were not accompanied by police escorts of independent monitors."

&#9;Paragraph 19 on page 9, Dr van Wyk says that they have no knowledge of page 97, 1.12, and Mosselson say that they have no instructions, at page 118, paragraph 25.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, I've been reminded that we're about to take the customary adjournment, is there very much further that you are going to go along these lines?

MR BIZOS: I'm finishing off with one page on paragraphs 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 in relation to this matter. There are other matters that I will have, but it will not be inconvenient in any way to just continue after the adjournment.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well, we will take a short adjournment ...[inaudible] this morning. We'll take a short adjournment and if it is at all possible, let's try and make a short adjournment. We will resume, it's 12h00 now, we will - can we resume in not more that 15 minutes from now. We will resume at 12h15.

HEARING ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

MR BIZOS: Page 10:

&#9;&#9;"That the presence of armed members of the ANC on the balcony of Shell House in King George Street was claimed invisible to persons in the position of the marchers."

And the answer to that is to be found on page 98. They say that the objectors were not aware of the presence of armed members of the ANC on the balcony of Shell House until the shooting started. We will have to live with that answer for the time being Mr Chairman. 

And paragraph 21:

&#9;&#9;"That after the groups of marchers had converged at the intersection of King George Street and De Villiers Street, they paused for a short while and then charged forward moving south into the portion of King George Street, directly adjacent to Shell House. The objectors denied that they ..." 

Page 98, paragraph 114:

&#9;"The objectors deny that they charged forward south in the portion of King George Street directly adjacent to Shell House. They merely marched in the direction of aforesaid, ...[indistinct] aforesaid the contents of this paragraph is admitted."

Now, and Mosselson says at page 118, paragraph 26:

&#9;&#9;"It is admitted that the number of marchers converged at the intersection of King George and De Villiers Streets prior to the shooting incident taken place. The remainder of the contents of this paragraph is however not admitted."

And 22:

&#9;&#9;"That the marchers ignored the attempt by two uniformed members of the South African Police to stop and/or divert them, and that as they charged forward one of those policemen was struck and injured with a sharp instrument."

Dr van Wyk, page 98, paragraph 1.15:

&#9;&#9;"The objectors admit that the objectors ignored the attempt by the two members of the South African Police to stop them and/or divert, however, they deny that they charged forward and state that they merely marched forward, ...[indistinct] aforesaid, the objectors deny the contents of this paragraph."

And as far as Mosselsons are concerned, on page 119, paragraph 27:

&#9;&#9;"It is unknown at this stage whether the individual objectors were aware of the attempts by the persons mentioned in these paragraphs to either stop and/or divert the marchers."

Then in paragraph 23 on page 10:

&#9;&#9;"That the marchers ignored the attempt by a civilian, being Mr Ralph von Eggedy, to stop them and that as they charged forward he was struck a number of times by the marchers and knocked to the ground."

Now, if you would have a look at page 98, paragraph 1.16:

&#9;&#9;"The objectors admit that they ignored the attempt by Mr von Eggedy to stop them, however, they deny that they charged forward and state that they merely marched forward, sabres aforesaid, the objectors deny the contents of this paragraph."

And paragraph 24:

&#9;&#9;"That the marchers fired a number of shots with various firearms, including at least one AK47, in the direction of Shell House, on the security personnel of the ANC. The objectors deny the contents of this paragraph."

Mr Chairman, you will have seen a reference to the evidence of Mr von Eggedy. We have a situation in this instance Mr Chairman, where, and let me refer you Mr Chairman, to a statement made in heads of argument by Mr D F Dorfling, our colleague appearing for the objectors, at page 148 - the document is not before you, we can put the page before you if necessary but I want to read into the record what he said about Mr von Eggedy because we are going to ask you to accept the evidence of Mr von Eggedy and a copy of it has been inserted in the bundle. And the reason why we believe that his evidence is to be treated differently and that it should go in as uncontested facts is because of the following, at page 85 of these arguments before the inquest, it is said,

the evidence of Mr Ralph von Eggedy, 6.1:

&#9;&#9;"It is submitted that the witness Von Eggedy is an independent witness who, on the evidence, has no motive to lie and/or falsely implicate any person or group. As a result it follows that strong reliance can be placed on the evidence of this witness for purposes of the findings of this Honourable Court."

We agree, Mr Chairman, and because of that, in bundle B we have incorporated - if you have a look at bundle B at 110, you will see a drawing and a statement by Mr von Eggedy going on to page 113 and 114. This statement came into - although made shortly after the event, Mr Chairman, was only brought forth by the police who had it for some time whilst the inquest was in motion. &#9;In the evidence led Mr Chairman, there was reference by our witnesses to a white person that tried to stop the marchers but we didn't know his identity. However, the evidence on a video did show a person who did what we had said he had tried to do. The learned Judge then called for this person to be found. This was given publicity, and the person came forward and said: "This is me. I made the statement shortly after the event". The learned Judge then asked the Attorney-General's office to take a statement from him which you find at page 115 - 121, I beg your pardon, 122. This was taken by one of the counsel in the Attorney-General's office Mr Chairman. He was then asked questions by the learned Judge and his evidence is to be found at page 123 right up to 158. Mr Chairman, we consider this evidence to be reliable and we may say Mr Chairman, that he was questioned by the learned Judge. He was not cross-examined in the true sense of the word by any of the persons there. My learned friend Mr Tipp asked a few questions on page 148, 149, 150 and up to the top of page 152. He was then asked questions, by our learned friend, Mr Dorfling, from page 152 - page 156, top of page 156, Mr Chairman. 

&#9;Now, I want to read at the bottom of page 152.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MR BIZOS: It's three lines, Mr Chairman, and I want to be completely accurate because that we believe is its important:

&#9;&#9;"What you saw was certainly not a gathering for a picnic?"

&#9;&#9;"Quite correct."

&#9;&#9;BY THE COURT: "But now, you will tell him what was the gathering for and that is what we are having difficulty with now."

&#9;&#9;"Yes."

&#9;&#9;MR DORFLING: "I will move onto that just now, My Lord."

&#9;&#9;COURT: "Yes."

&#9;We will show Mr Chairman, we will lead evidence to show that no, no-one has ever given any credible suggestion as to what this large group of marchers was doing at Shell House once they left the Johannesburg Railway Station, we will show they had to turn eastward in order to go to Library Gardens. We will show that they turned westwards towards - I beg your pardon, westwards to Library Gardens but they turned eastward to go to Shell House. Mr Dorfling promised that the would put to Mr von Eggedy what their purpose was and the record will show that he didn't and we're waiting to this day to hear the reason why this group went to Shell House, out of its way and from which evidence we will ask you to draw certain influences and I do not want to make any further comment in relation to it at this stage, Mr Chairman.

&#9;Now, this evidence will also show that there is substantial corroboration of our evidence which will be led that there was an attack, a charge against the guards appointed and having taken a position to guard Shell House, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I think that statement you've just made, I have no doubt it will form part of your argument after we've heard all the evidence.

MR BIZOS: I'm merely saying Mr Chairman, the reason - we're characterising the nature of the evidence that we'll be able to give but we will go through the evidence at the end together with - now the other matter Mr Chairman, that we want to deal with is this, that the issue of what information there was available to the leadership of the ANC and the guards from the evening of Sunday the 27th right up to shortly before the attack took place at 11h13 at Shell House. 

&#9;In bundle A you will find from page 13, a summary of what appears and a detailed index of what appears on SAP channel 27. That only starts at 07h38 on the morning of the 28th. However, information as to what might or was likely to happen was available to the ANC leadership from the night before. A number of affidavits were filed at the inquest proceedings including the affidavit of Mr Tokyo Sexwale in bundle B, pages 68 - 74 - there was more than one affidavit, Mr Chairman, from which it appears in point 2.1 that he had information that the ANC and PWB Regional Office in Shell House would come under attack. In paragraph 4 at page 69 he communicated this to General Calitz because there was a query Mr Chairman - you will recall that paragraph 2 says what his information was and what the people were going to do,

&#9;&#9;"There was a query during the inquest proceedings as to whether I immediately telephoned General Koos Calitz at his home late in the afternoon to inform him of the above that that did not refer to paragraph 2."

We submit that it is a wrong interpretation of paragraph 4 but wanting to make it clear that that is what he meant. On page 73 - 74 you will find a supplementary affidavit in which he spells out what he clearly meant. He considers that he had clearly said in the previous affidavit but in any event the supplementary affidavit puts it beyond any doubt.

&#9;There is also on page 75 an affidavit by Nagede Matthews Phosa, who states that he had information which he conveyed to the then President of the ANC, Mr Nelson Mandela. Mr Mandela's affidavit on page 47 to page 54 deals with the information that he received from Mr Phosa and others and that the steps that he took in order to prevent the widespread violence that the information indicated there was, and the steps that he took. He phoned the then President of South Africa, Mr de Klerk, the Commissioner of Police, Mr van der Merwe. And Mr van der Merwe's statement is also in bundle B, pages 42 - 46. There is a statement of Mr Joe Mtlandla on page 55 - 57, a statement from Mr Maduna on page 58 -62 and a supplementary statement from page 63 - 67.

&#9;Mr Chairman, Mr Mandela's statement we will also refer to in due course under another heading because we submit that the picture that he paints in his affidavit informs the Committee of what we may say is recent, if not present history, to the effect that the issue at the time was whether or not there would be a free and fair election or not, and - but we will refer to that. I'm sure that every member of the Committee has lived through that history, it may not even be necessary to have evidence before it but it is there. 

&#9;Now, that there was going to be difficulty Mr Chairman, that there were going to be difficulties, that is the information in the possession of the ANC, is also evidenced by a confidential report appearing on page 1 of bundle B. The origin of that is from the files of the police, Mr Chairman, which was handed in into the inquest proceedings. Firstly, Mr Chairman, we will draw attention to the fact in the first paragraph, that the information then available was that the IFP Transvaal, would organise originally a march for the 25th but the information then - there will be evidence that there was this information, but then it was changed to the 28th, paragraph 3, 

&#9;&#9;"That the march is intended"

I'm translating to the best of my ability, Mr Chairman, paragraph 3: 

&#9;&#9;"that the march is aimed of bringing about disruption in the city."

&#9;The other matter, Mr Chairman, is what happened during the morning from 07h38 on. For this we refer you to page 13 of bundle A to page 76, Mr Chairman. I do not intend reading this out Mr Chairman. May I explain what the document is. The police have a central radio facility to which policemen out in the field report. A particular channel is indicated for particular events, channel 27 was chosen for this. As I indicated earlier it was only disclosed in July when the inquest had been going on for a few months, and what you will see is the time and the report that is made and is recorded on a tape at the centre. This is a summary.

CHAIRPERSON: This is not a transcript of the tape? 

MR BIZOS: This is not a - the complete transcript is a very bulky document. What we have done, Mr Chairman, is to make a summary which we have handed in. It will be open of course to our learned friends to go through it and add to it if they so wish but we intend to rely on it and particularly to those events described, that there was generalised public violence, death, injuries and destruction on a large scale. The transcript is available, we have a copy of it in court. We submit that we do not foresee that it will be necessary to burden the Committee with such a lengthy document but our learned friends we know have a copy or copies of this because it was made available at the inquest. 

&#9;The one explanation that we want to give, Mr Chairman, is that you will see that it is in time sequence but what we want to indicate is that although it is given in hours and minutes, the time given is not necessarily the precise time in which the event occurred, it is the time which the report came in, so that when a police officer reports, he may have had to do something urgent in between, before going to his radio and saying, this is what has happened but we submit that it is a useful piece of evidence which is admissible as evidence as part of the - if we were in a court of law, as part of the ...[indistinct], but certainly is reliable and we submit, vital information for the Committee to have regard to.

&#9;Mr Chairman, the inquest held by His Lordship Mr Justice Nugent concerned only 19 of the deaths that occurred on that day. It was established that over 50 people died in greater Johannesburg on that day and not only the 8 that died in the vicinity of Shell House. These dockets and/or inquest records were and are in the possession of the Attorney-General. 

&#9;We have made a summary of those documents. It was handed in at the inquest. Our learned friends were given copies. We have included it in bundle B from pages 197 - 253 and intend to make use of it as information tending to prove the nature and extent of this violence that this gathering and marches led to, from which we will ask the Committee to draw an inference as to what this large group of people were doing and intended to do at Shell House. 

&#9;I do not intend, Mr Chairman, taking up anymore time in relation to this document. Our learned friends had an opportunity to check what was - whether it accurately reflects what was in the Attorney-General's files and so on. 

&#9;Mr Chairman, we have also included in the file two newspaper cuttings, one containing a statement which if need be we will show, that Mr Ndlovu admitted to have been correctly reported. It's to be found on page 85 and a newspaper report appearing on page 86 relating to a finding made public by the Goldstone Commission of Mr Themba Khoza's involvement in third force activities, all be it on a prima facie basis, Mr Chairman. We will draw inferences from that, Mr Chairman. 

&#9;We will deal with - Mr Chairman, there are also two videos recording Mr Themba Nkosa - I beg your pardon, Mr Humphrey Ndlovu and his attitude to violence and the possession of firearms. There is a transcript of the one of a speech made in Vosloorus outside a hostel. You will find a transcript of both the vernacular and an English translation of what he said, and a video transcript on page 94.

CHAIRPERSON: Will you find out from your clients, if these are your clients, as to what the nature of the complaint is please?

NO SOUND

CHAIRPERSON: May I address my remarks to counsel who are appearing for the victims and the objectors, we can't carry on like this. I'm going to adjourn for a short while to enable you to find out whether you can articulate their problems at the appropriate time or not, because if they have no confidence in you, and wish to do it themselves, then these proceedings will have to take a different turn. I'm now going to adjourn for a short while to enable all of you to find out what precisely it is that is concerning your clients, if they are your clients. If they are not your clients then it's another matter. If they are not your clients, then it may be we have to conduct these proceedings in the absence of people who are preventing us from working properly. I'm going to take a short adjournment. I am just reminded that it is 13h00. We will take the luncheon adjournment now and resume at 14h00.

HEARING ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, may you proceed.

MR BIZOS: ...(inaudible) 

CHAIRPERSON: No.

MR LAX: Just put your mike on, Mr Bizos.

MR BIZOS: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Each time you read anything out, all this gets transcribed as part of the evidence again, and that's duplication, which one wants to try and avoid.

MR BIZOS: Yes, Mr Chairman, ...(inaudible) to the bundle. I merely wanted to indicate that on page - of this video, it is made clear on page 95 and 96 that no election is going to take place and that violence is going to be used to stop it. That's all I need to say at this stage. You will satisfy yourself in relation to the video and may I indicate that this speech was made at Library Gardens by Mr Ndlovu before the shooting at Shell House. 

&#9;Mr Chairman, in order to lead a witness that is going to tell you in detail what happened, and although we were going to draw your attention to certain passages in Mr von Eggedy's evidence, we will leave that for the time being because you will have an opportunity to read it and judge the evidence given by the witnesses taken with it. 

&#9;What the witnesses will tell you, Mr Chairman, is that once these two groups moved to the corner of De Villiers and King George Street, they were without police escort and notwithstanding Von Eggedy's efforts and the fact that the armed men of the ANC were fully visible, the crowds surged forward. Von Eggedy described them as being on a full charge and intent to attack. They were acting with a common purpose and they were in an aggressive, violent and attacking mode. &#9;Immediately before they charged forward, the crowd was chanting and jeering in the way that Von Eggedy described as the kind that one would do to charge oneself up when one is charging. Von Eggedy was overrun by a charging crowd, he was struck a number of times, he can be seen on the video material film shortly after the shooting with a good deal of blood running down his head. 

&#9;The two uniformed and armed policemen had also tried to stop the crowd, they had run up King George Street from where the ANC men were stationed, at the corner of Plein Street. These two policemen were also roughly shoved aside. One of them received a wound with a sharp instrument in the process. May I say that large maps of the area have now become available and whilst the evidence is being led, the witness will indicate to you precisely on those large maps and the small ones that you have, both of the general area and particularly of that corner so that we may follow the evidence, Mr Chairman. 

&#9;Our clients will say that the charge was accompanied by gunfire from the crowd. In response to this, the ANC men on the parapet fired shots, those on street level also fired, warning shots were fired. And then the first applicant, Gary Kruser, who was in command, gave the order to repel, shots were fired into the crowd. Kruser gave the order to cease fire when it appeared to him that the charge had stopped. 

&#9;It must be appreciated Mr Chairman, that these events you will be told, took place very rapidly and under circumstances of great stress. Although the applicants believe that they acted in a justifiable manner throughout there are objective indicators that they may not have been so. Forensic evidence was presented in detail towards the end of the inquest, Mr Chairman. This evidence has been, was agreed to by all the parties and you will find that in bundle B, page 156 - I beg your pardon, 159 right up to page 196. 

&#9;Now, there is a report which is in Afrikaans, if there is any problem in it, the Committee will have to deal with it, we only have it in Afrikaans, Mr Chairman. Then, you will see that from pages 180, 182 - 188 there are diagrams in colour on which the experts agreed shots came from and where they landed. The Lancet Hall ballistics start at 190 - 196, and it's signed by all three experts. This does not require further proof, we submit. The report also refers to medical evidence because the ballistics was married to the medical evidence but the medical evidence itself is not before you, certain assumptions are made in the report, and we will deal with it in due course Mr Chairman, during the course of the evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there evidence to it in the inquest, in the judgment that conducted the inquest proceedings?

MR BIZOS: It is, Mr Chairman, but may we say Mr Chairman, right at the outset, that in so far as there are findings of credibility or finds of fact which are in dispute, we submit that you have to make up your own decision in relation to the common cause facts and those portions that are not in dispute, it may be a useful summary for you to have regard to. 

&#9;Then, it dealt of the course only with the position of those who had died. Seven died as a result of gunshot wounds, one was stabbed with an assegai in the back. It is clear that almost all of them were hit after they had turned away. This is a fact which we accept Mr Chairman. This objective evidence correlates also with the evidence of Von Eggedy that gunfire was continuing while those who had charged forward were retreating. Shots were still ringing out from the direction of the ANC men while these people were running back. 

&#9;As set out in the supplementary affidavits filed by each of the applicants, the effect of this evidence has been explained to them. They accept it, although each of them maintains that there was indeed an attack and we will try and show that there was in fact an attack, that our clients were telling the truth then and that they are telling the truth now when they tell you that there was an attack. 

&#9;The applicants also accept the implications of part of ballistics evidence which suggests that the impression that they had at the time of the intensity and direction of the gunfire from the crowd is not objectively corroborated. 

&#9;The ballistics evidence points also to Khumalo who was armed with an AK47 at the time at the corner of King George and Plein Streets, having fired in a far less controlled way than he would like to think. This too would have contributed to the confusion of the situation. 

&#9;May I refer you to - if I may indicate by way of illustration, if you have a look at page 183 Mr Chairman, you will see the cluster of red lines from ground level onto the underside of the parapet at SW1, do you see that, Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Now, the ballistics show that 10 of those shots came from Mr Khumalo's AK47. Now, he believed that he actually shot in the direction of the crowd. We will show that he actually was less in control of his firearm than he thought he was and that has certain consequences in relation to the evidence. You can imagine how much dust was kicked up and how much noise and panic this may have incurred, without the people actually around Mr Khumalo knowing where the shots that were kicking up that dust were coming from and we give it as an example of the confusion that was created. 

&#9;It will also be shown, Mr Chairman, the ballistics will also show that two shots from a pistol were in fact fired into the ceiling in corroboration of Rama's evidence, which was - I beg your pardon, Kruser's evidence, was that he ordered him to fire two warning shots, and the ballistics will show that there were two pistol shots in fact against the under portion of the parapet or the counter-lever slam. 

&#9;Now, for - what it boils down to is that the applicants accept that their belief and recollection what happened may not be fully correct. They accept that there may have been mis-judgment on their part. In particular they accept that the shooting by them may have continued for too long and that they would therefor have exceeded the bounds of legitimate self-defence. That was one of the findings of the inquest record. Although that finding is not in a way binding on the Amnesty Committee, it has been explained to the applicants that another court, whether it's criminal or civil, may come to the same conclusion. It is on that basis that they seek amnesty. 

&#9;Each of them has declared that what he did was purely on behalf of the African National Congress, to protect its members and its leaders and ultimately to protect the long cherished dream held by each of them for the truly democratic and non-racial election.

&#9;Mr Chairman, the first witness is going to be the first applicant.

MR DORFLING: Mr Chairman, perhaps before we proceed with the first witness, Mr Bizos has made certain co