|News | Sport | TV | Radio | Education | TV Licenses | Contact Us|
Type AMNESTY HEARINGS
Starting Date 05 August 1999
Names SIBOSISO ERIC NGCOBO
Case Number AM0588/96
Matter MURDER OF MAROBE MAJOSE
MR FALCONER: Mr Chairman, if I may have an opportunity. My learned colleague representing the applicant has indicated to me this morning that the applicant does not implicate my client, Mr Zuma in any regard whatsoever. As is borne out by the application papers, it seems that the applicant furthermore in the papers does not implicate Mr Zuma and if my colleague could confirm that on record, I'd respectfully request to be excused from these proceedings.
MR NGCOBO: I will first relate to the circumstances which occurred when Sepo was killed. Policemen came to my home and my mother was inside the house. My mother heard a gun fire and when she rushed outside she found Sepo lying down. He was been shot by the police.
MR NGCOBO: My mother was the one who reported this matter to him. What I can explain is that he said he was going to report this thing to the police and other police were going to investigate the matter, so that the police were to be arrested.
MR NGCOBO: Mfanfuti was killed. We were at Mr Zuma's place on that day because we had heard rumours that we were going to be attacked and I was at home. My brother was at Mr Zuma's place. When I was home I heard gunfire. As I was wondering, I was told by my mother that Mfanfuti had been killed.
MR NGCOBO: What I heard is that the attackers came from the other street and the main road divided the area, the other side was the IFP and the other side was the ANC and what I heard is that the attackers came from the ANC stronghold to the IFP, that's where he was shot and killed.
MR NGCOBO: What I know, as I've already explained, that it was late at night and when he was shot, he was shot at Mr Zuma's house and the attackers came from the other side of the street and they were shooting each other, that's how he was killed.
"My brother Mfanfuti Mbelo was killed by one of the members of the ANC. The name of that member of ANC is Mr Lucky Cele."
I know it happened a long time ago and perhaps you can't remember, but now do you remember? It was Jabulane Dlamini who informed you that your brother was killed by an ANC member, can you remember that?
MR NGCOBO: Bongane. As they were inside the kombi, this is what Jabulane explained. A group of people came, approached the kombi and some of them pointed at him and saying, "There's and Inkatha member" and when he tried to escape they ran after him and they killed him.
MR NGCOBO: What I was trying to explain was that it was not Jabulane Dlamini who told me that my brother was killed by Lucky Cele, it was Jabulane Zuma, but the other Jabulane who was accompanying my brother to town then was Jabulane Dlamini, he's the one who told me how my brother was killed.
MR NGCOBO: As I've already told the Committee about the death of my brothers, after the killing of my third brother, I decided that I was going to do whatever it takes. In 1991 we were in a shebeen and after the liquor had run out, we started talking or discussing and I was one of those people who decided to go and attack the ANC area.
MR NGCOBO: I was the one who was armed with a gun and it was my gun. We left. In the middle of the road we saw that or we realised that some of us were too drunk and we decided that those who were too drunk should be left behind. Lindau and the others were left behind because they were too drunk. Myself and Themba, we continued. When we arrived at the shop where they were, I saw the deceased in the shop and the other two men and the third one I didn't see, the one from Nkateni.
When I got inside the shop, when I looked at this other guy, I decided then and there that he was the one I was going to kill. I don't know what happened, whether he got scared because what happened, he went right inside the shop. When I got inside the shop after him, he was now coming out. I pulled my gun. The deceased grabbed me and I decided there and then that if I do not kill him now, he was going to kill me, that's why I shot at him. A kombi came and it reversed and I heard they were telling me that there was a kombi and the people were armed with guns. That's when we ran and they started firing.
MR NGCOBO: No, I didn't know as to who will be there in the shop when I arrived there, but what I had told myself was that if I arrive there and found people who were ANC members, I was going to kill them.
"I then went with Themba Dladla, who was the owner of the firearm, 9mm, I then took it from him as I wanted to revenge my brothers who were killed by the ANC."
"After planning the attack, other people got drunk and there was no use in taking them to the shop. I then went with Themba Dladla, who was the owner of the firearm"
MR NGCOBO: I think they didn't get me right. What I said is that we were all together and then those who were drunk, we told them to remain behind. Themba and myself we went, we continued to go to the shop.
MS LOONAT: Perhaps my client is trying to say that it is his gun. He owns the gun but it might have been in the possession of Themba Dladla which is why he just grabbed it and went, that is perhaps what ...(intervention)
MS LOONAT: As I understand, he says that this statement was made to policemen who wrote it out and I may stand to be corrected, but it was not reread to him, so he's not fully au fait with what is in this statement, Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ngcobo, are you sure it was a policeman because you see both these statements were apparently made on paper belonging to the department of correctional services. It was filled in in accordance with their procedure. It contains the address and the telephone number of the prison, your prison number ...(indistinct) prison warder.
MR NGCOBO: Initially when I made my application another inmate helped me to fill the application form and then later I received a reply from TRC that I should write in details and that's when the police helped me. Probably the prison warder.
CHAIRPERSON: It's probably the prison warder, yes, because I have never known the police when they are preparing a statement to do so on paper belonging to the Department of Correctional Services. So you say it's probably a prison warder who helped you after the TRC made certain inquiries?
ADV DE JAGER: Ms Loonat in fairness to your client I must point out that the two statements seem to be, the one appearing on page 7, 8 and 9 and the other one appearing on pages 10 and 11, seems to be contradictory. In the later one on page 11 he said he started the shooting, he'd done the shooting, he'd emptied the magazine and on the previous one as I've quoted, on page 9 he's saying that
"Themba Ndladla was there when I committed the crime. Mr Themba Ndladla shoot three and I person died."
MS LOONAT: Mr Chairperson, my client is now telling the truth as he can remember it. He has, I admit, written two contradictory statements and it would appear to me that he was, that what was said was not taken down correctly the first time, or so he tries to implicate now. I think that what he's trying to say right now is the final statement.
CHAIRPERSON: Right, so you can go on then. You say this is his final statement. This is the statement which is typed at page 4 and there's the statement at page 10. You said in your statement that you went with him and you took the firearm and went to Sinando's shop
CHAIRPERSON: So in your sworn statement you set out accurately what happened, that you went there, you found people drinking beer and just emptied your gun at them and killed them. You knew the people who were there, you knew some of them, you knew the three who were injured and you knew the name of the one who was killed. Correct?
MS LOONAT: The police clothing that you wore, in your opinion, is clothing worn by policemen who are ANC affiliated, is that what you honestly believed? Is that why you wore police apparel that day and went into an ANC area?
MR NGCOBO: As I've already explained, the reason I've worn that tracksuit, it was because I didn't want to raise any suspicions, it was sort of a disguise so that when people see me, they will think I am a policeman.
MR NGCOBO: This is how I thought, that if I do not disguise then it will be easy for them to recognise me. It's better if they just see me when I'm there or when I'm ready to start committing the crime.
MR NGCOBO: I got injured one Friday morning, I think it was Friday evening and I got injured in one of the shebeens where we were drinking and I was admitted in hospital the following day, on Saturday.
ADV DE JAGER: You see, I want to put it to you because this is sort of troubling me in your application, you've been at a shebeen there, you've been drinking, now you tell us again you've been injured a week later while drinking in a shebeen. Wasn't this killing only as a result of the drinking and the brawls that result after drinking, or was it in fact a political killing? Had it anything to do with politics or was it because of heavy drinking that you landed up killing people?
MR NGCOBO: I wouldn't say that it was because of alcohol because even if I was sober, I was still going to do that. Yes, I do drink, but I didn't do this because I was too drunk, I did that because I wanted to and I thought it was right for me to do that.
MR NGCOBO: I will put it this way. The reason they were killed, it was because of politics, therefore if I decided to revenge it is still because of politics. They were killed because of political reasons, that's why I took those steps.
MR NGCOBO: As I've already decided to come before the Commission and tell the whole truth about what I've done, I think I am supposed to apologise to the victims about what I've done and the way I've done it. I am not hiding anything and I'm sure they really want to know as to what really happened to their loved ones and I am telling them the whole truth and I do feel a great remorse about what I've done.
ADV DE JAGER: Ms Loonat, that would really not assist us in granting amnesty or not granting amnesty. It's not one of the aspects required by the Act to consider whether he will be friends today with the ANC or not, it's irrelevant as far as our decision is concerned. As far as reconciliation is concerned, he's expressed his regret towards the family, that's as far as you need go.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS JELALL: Sir I point out to you page 2 of your application, which is page 2 of the bundle, paragraph 10(a) where you state your political objectives sought to be achieved was to revenge because
ADV DE JAGER: He said that there was a war and he can't say whether he personally injured anybody, but he was involved in the fighting and I presume it's like two armies shooting at each other and I wouldn't know whether I'm the one who's killed the other one, or whether it was my, the person next to me.
MS JELALL: So as you've indicated in your questioning before and your answer, you have heard from other people that the ANC was actually responsible for the attacks on your brothers. You have no direct knowledge thereof, do you?
MS JELALL: So every time you went out on the prior attacks that you spoke of that you said you were not certain whether you were responsible for injuring anybody, were these directives to attack given from Zuma or did you confer or concur with him before you went out on these attacks?
ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, I don't want to interrupt but this may now lead to problems, because at the beginning it was stated here and it was conceded by all parties present that he wouldn't be implicated and I think you confirmed it too. If the answer to your question may be yes, then we'll have to recall Mr Falconer, because then in fact he must be present.
ADV DE JAGER: No, I don't want you to understand me but - I just want to show you the implications, but if you think you should ask the question, you should continue, I'm not restricting you from asking it.
MS JELALL: Sir, I have read a document which I don't think the Evidence Leader has given to us, which has a statement from Zuma saying that he had nothing to do with this at all. That document has been shown to me by the investigator in this matter. Unfortunately it is not contained in the bundle and that is why I posed the question. I don't know if the Evidence Leader knows of it, whether he would give copies thereof, which would actually bring finality to that question.
ADV DE JAGER: Ms Loonat I really think you should consult with your client. I don't know whether he understands the procedure, but if this is correct, perhaps it's time that you have a discussion with him and see what's the position.
ADV DE JAGER: The trouble is, I don't know whether the people understands the position. We have often heard that the IFP didn't approve of anything and that would, if that's the position, if that's the official position, everybody who acted in this war were acting on their own, not on behalf of a party, not on behalf of any known political party and that would seriously affect the application of members here of the IFP.
CHAIRPERSON: There is also the problem that arises in respect of, where acts are committed for reasons of personal, where there's a personal vendetta, personal malice. Out of personal malice, ill will or spite, Section 23 (ii). Perhaps you'd like to discuss that with your client. We'll take an adjournment. You can let us know as soon as you're ready.
MS LOONAT ADDRESSES: My submissions are, on behalf of my client, is that he still stands by the fact that this attack was undertaken on his own. As far as the relation with Mr Zuma, who is the IFP leader, where he is situated, all attacks from about 1987 I think it is, they were never ever reported to Mr Zuma, not always did they get instructions from Mr Zuma, he seems to be a figurehead there.
MS LOONAT: He says it was always, there was never any personal agenda. It was always IFP related. ANC attacks on IFP related properties, people wherever and they sat, the motive was always a political one, there was never a personal agenda and although he did not take direct instructions from Mr Zuma, it has always been a silent mandate that they would do these things, Mr Zuma would hear of it but no comments would be made of it, so it seems that whenever attacks were made in this area, it was by this group of which sometimes he was the leader and sometimes the others were, but Mr Zuma was not always informed nor did he comment or make approval, or give his approval or disapproval, but it continued for a long time and it was for the purpose of creating peace between the, of creating peace and harmony in his own community from attacks from the ANC.
ADV DE JAGER: We've made you aware of our problem and you'll have to address us on that please, because it's creating a difficulty. We've got the Act and if we can't sort of get it within the framework of the Act, we've got problems and you'll have to show to us that it falls within the framework of the Act.
FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS JELALL: Just one, in order to assist the Committee. Sir, you've indicated to the Committee that you know the victims by sight. The victims being Ndundu Absolom Sebokulu, Michael Gadebe, Domisane Welcome Mahlatini and Mr Bongane Wellington Mojose. Do you really just know them by sight or did you know them personally?
MR NGCOBO: Before there was a demarcation in the area that the others were IFP and the others were ANC, I've known them and later after there were conflicts and fights between the IFP and the ANC, then we were no longer in good terms and we never chat with each other.
MS JELALL: Is it not correct that Mr Michael Gadebe, a victim, his name was mentioned earlier, was accosted by yourself on the 18th of October 1991 at The Grange, which is in the Pietermaritzburg area, and you requested money from him at gunpoint. When he did not give you the money you asked him to remove his clothes, took his clothes away and he has no idea what would have happened to him, because a taxi arrived and the lights of the taxi is what actually diverted your attention and Mr Gadebe got away from you on the 18th October 1991 which was the Friday before the Sunday of this attack.
MS JELALL: So, like I said to you there was a taxi in the area. On page 26 of the bundle, which is actually the Judgment, Mr Gadebe's evidence is there and Mr Gadebe is before the Committee to give evidence to the same effect. Page 26 of the bundle, read it, it actually starts on page 25. This is the evidence of Mr Gadebe, where he goes on in examination to say
"He described it as the Friday before the Sunday on which the shooting took place. He said that on the Friday he had been on his way to a place Grange at about 9 in the evening when the accused"
MS JELALL: "... when the accused and a companion had accosted him and first asked him for money, but upon being told that the witness did not have any money, the witness, we must bear in mind is Mr Gadebe, they had ordered him to take off his clothes he was wearing, which he refused. A scuffle ensued and just as the accused and his companion were about to attack Mr Gadebe, the companion being armed with a stone, the kombi had arrived in the vicinity with it's hazard lights flashing and Mr Gadebe had seized the opportunity to break free and run away."
MR NGCOBO: No, I don't know anything like that. He is saying a motor car approached. If there was enough time for us to ask for money and ask him to take off his clothes, I think that was enough for us to attack him and if it wasn't at night, why was I going to be scared of light?
MR NGCOBO: What I'm trying to say is that I don't know anything or any incident that occurred on Friday, the only incident that I know happened on Sunday and during the day, I don't know anything about Friday.
MR NGCOBO: As I've already mentioned, that before the conflicts and before there were fights between IFP and ANC, we will chat with these people, we will sit together, but at the time when the incident occurred, it was no longer the same, therefore we were no longer talking to each other.
MS JELALL: So your description of what happened on that particular day, the 20th October, is that you walked towards the store, you saw one person walking into the store and you thought the person was going to come out with some type of weapon, so therefore you shot at this person. That is correct, isn't it?
MR NGCOBO: What I said was, when I arrived at the shop I saw the deceased sitting down and someone was standing and the other one was next to him. Before I could draw out my gun I saw someone getting inside the shop and I went inside the shop and there were kids inside the shop and females as well. He didn't stay that long inside the shop. He came back and he stood right where he was and I took out the gun and as I wanted to shoot at this guy, the deceased grabbed me, that's when I shot at the deceased and I shot at these other two guys. That's when they started running away.
MR NGCOBO: What I can say is that everything that happened, it was because those people were the ANC and they were attacking IFP. I cannot say I was just doing these things for myself because it was, they were attacking IFP because they were ANC, therefore I was attacking them, because they were attacking us.
MR NGCOBO: I wouldn't be able to remember that, but what I can say is that we would hear that someone had been killed, not in the attacks as such, you wouldn't find a group of IFP attackers or a group of ANC attackers, but you will hear that someone had been shot dead.
MR NGCOBO: You will hear afterwards that a certain political organisation had shot someone who belonged to another political organisation, like when you're driving past a certain street or you're walking in a certain street, you will hear that someone had been shot dead.
MS JELALL: So again we come to the question of this police tracksuit. If you were a member of the IFP and you know that you're attacking the ANC, I put it to you that there won't be a reason to disguise yourself as a member unless your motives were for your own cause and you were trying to actually commit some criminal activity for your own personal gains.
CHAIRPERSON: Well, why had you disguised yourself in a tracksuit so people could not recognise you, when nothing had been discussed for that day when you got dressed and left home? It's not true, is it? That's not why you put the tracksuit on, is it Mr Ngcobo? I see you're licking your lips, are you having problems?
MR NGCOBO: I did explain that I had been wearing that tracksuit and then and there I knew that it wasn't going to be a problem for me to go and commit these crimes because I was wearing the tracksuit.
MS JELALL: So I put it to you that these, this attack that you carried out, was not done in the interest of the IFP but was done for your personal gain and for your own personal sense of wanting revenge, it had nothing to do with politics whatsoever. What would you say to that?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MAPOMA: Mr Ngcobo, I just want your comment on some few aspects here. For your information, the TRC investigator went to consult with Mr Zuma and Mr Zuma, as you have already pointed out, said he never instructed you to go and attack there. And I take it that you confirmed that?
MR MAPOMA: And he went on to call your mother who verified this and Mr Zuma went on to say that you were never instructed to attack there and at that time when you attacked there, the political violence had subsided, the situation was relatively peaceful at that time. What is your comment to that?
MR NGCOBO: What I can say is that Lindau came and he found us at the shebeen. He was from Kwampumusa and he wasn't drunk. He got drunk there where we were drinking, but he found me in the shebeen, the very shebeen I'm referring to, not in the hostel.
MR MAPOMA: I will give you what Lindau Mkhize’s version is and I would like a comment on this. He says that you drank at the hostel and thereafter you left with a view to drink at Slenger in a shebeen and that on your way you did not go to Slenger, you decided to go and drink at a place which was the ANC stronghold and that is where he disagreed with you and then he went back and at all, at no stage was the question of attacking discussed. That is his version. What is your comment?
MR NGCOBO: He knew about it, that we were going to attack, because I did explain here that he was one of the people we left the shebeen with, but then he was too drunk. We told them that those who were too drunk should be left behind, that's when we left them. This is what I know.
MR MAPOMA: Mr Ngcobo, I understand that as you have said, it troubled you that your brothers were killed and I take it that had your brothers not have been killed, allegedly by the ANC, you would not have made this decision to go and attack on that day, is that correct?
RE-EXAMINATION BY MS LOONAT: Mr Ngcobo, is it correct for us to understand that when you attacked ANC members and yes, I'm talking about attacks over the past few years, the pattern that was established was one of not reporting or even relating to your IFP leader, Mr Zuma, before or after the attack, is that how you practised in your area when it came to the political faction fighting? Is that correct?
MS LOONAT: I stand to be corrected, but I think Mr Chairman, that generally Mr Zuma didn't take, yes he didn't take an active part in it so, but he was aware, but he was just a figurehead they called a leader, but didn't do anything either way.
ADV DE JAGER: If you went to Mr Zuma and told him "Listen, my brothers have been killed, I want to retaliate, I want to revenge, I want to attack the ANC people because I think they were responsible", what would he have said to you, or what do you believe he would have said to you?
MR NGCOBO: He never approved any of the attacks. He never told us to go and attack but we used to attack and sometimes we used to counter attack, but he wouldn't issue any orders or instructions, but these things were happening.
MS LOONAT: On the evidence of Mr Lindau Mkhize, you say that he was too drunk to participate on that day, can one assume that he was so drunk that he really, his evidence generally is one that he can't remember very much and so he denies a lot of the association that you were implicated him, would that be correct?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, remember he said that, but that on the way you and Themba deviated and went to the ANC area and said you were going to attack some people. Do you remember him saying that when he gave evidence?
MS LOONAT: On the issue of wearing police clothing. You in your mind and you have an education of standard 3, you in your mind were convinced that the policemen in your area were ANC party affiliated, is that correct?
MR NGCOBO: I am not certain whether they're affiliated with the ANC, but what I know is that they came at home and they killed my brother. That time I did believe that they were aligned with the ANC and we never got to know exactly why he was killed.
MS LOONAT IN ARGUMENT: Mr Chairperson, Honourable Members of the Committee, my learned colleague, I wish briefly to bring, on recapping, I wish briefly to bring to the attention of the Committee Members that at the time my client committed this horrendous and callous murder of Mr Majose, he was only 19 years old. His background was evaluated by a social worker who confirmed and it is in the bundle that inter alia he had been deprived of the good influence which a closely knit family should afford him. His single parent mother was the sole supporter of my client and his three brothers, whom as we have heard, were murdered, according to his evidence, by people who were in his mind, he firmly believed were supportive of the ANC party. Mr Majose's political affiliation is confirmed by his wife in an affidavit on page 13 of the bundle. She goes on to confirm further in the 5th line from the bottom that political violence did exist at the time in Slengerspruit.
Unfortunately, sadly, it appeared that he was at the wrong place at the wrong time and it would appear that he was not singled out by my client other than that he belonged to the wrong party and that is how he, that is how my client lost his three brothers. They too, it seems, were at the wrong place at the wrong time and it was all to do with the political intolerance that existed at that time.
My client's youth was made more difficult when he chose to leave school in standard 3. Politics became a focal point in his life from the time he left school at the tender age of 14. His peers knew little about politics and their influence in this regard proved detrimental to my client's future. The IFP was the party my client was affiliated with. He has, throughout the hearings, shown instances where he has done acts relating to party politics unlike, in spite of what Mr Zuma has stated. The ANC party was the enemy, as we have established, in my client's mind.
Donning police apparel, he could not control his overwhelming urge finally that day to revenge the death of his brothers. He dared to take his life in his own hands and he risked and he entered what was well-known to be the ANC side of the are he lived in and he reeked havoc on people he believed to be ANC affiliated. So desperate was he in his purpose to avenge the political onslaught on his family finally that he's applying for amnesty today having conformed with what the Act requires, full disclosure.
Themba Dhlala's firearm was what was used for the shooting. My client subsequently admits that the firearm belonged to him and he emptied the magazine of all 16 of its bullets. Obviously he had to be so enraged by the senseless deaths that he behaved as irrationally as he did. It was not personal revenge.
Client has expressed his deep remorse and apologises profusely to the victims' families. He has spent 7 years in prison and wishes in the spirit of truth and reconciliation, to tell all as far as he could remember and to reach our and discuss each other's political views instead of being intolerant of them. He is now a mature man. He wishes to live in peace and harmony with his neighbours whatever their political beliefs. He wishes to take this opportunity to apologise to his single parent mother who lost him to a prison sentence when she needed him most to fill the void left by the death of three other children.
I humbly submit that the members of the Honourable Committee bear in mind the above personal circumstances of my client and afford him the opportunity to become a useful member of society and grant him the amnesty he seeks. Thank you, Chairperson.
took place. He further confirmed that his acts were not to the benefit and furtherance of the IFP and that he spoke about the deaths of his brothers and the revenge that he felt, which is also stated in his application, he said revenge for his brothers and for the burning of his house.
MS JELALL: No, it is not associated with politics whatsoever. In my further submissions you will see that it's stated by the applicant's behaviour in itself, the fact that he'd finished school in standard 3, did not get employment, then he goes ahead and he attacks Mr Gadebe on the Friday preceding this attack, it was ...(intervention)
ADV DE JAGER: I've got problems with this. Wasn't the whole war in KwaZulu Natal and we can't get away from it that we had a war between two factions. I don't know who did the first killing, but wasn't it a revenge and retaliation since then by one group to the other and we don't know whether they're revenging or whether they're attacking. Altogether it may be that they're revenging yesterday's killing and tomorrow the other side would come back and say well you yesterday attacked us, so we're revenging, well we're attacking. Could he distinguish at that stage whether it was a revenge or whether it was an attack?
MS JELALL: Cognisance has to be taken of the fact that as by the applicant's submission itself, he could not remember when was the attack prior, when the ANC attacked the IFP prior to the 20th October 1991, so therefore it could ...(intervention)
MS JELALL: But we also have to keep in mind that in areas like this, they do not leave a large period of time to go before they counter attack. It's that idea, simultaneously or a short while later. So taking into consideration those sets of facts and the fact that he cannot remember, if the applicant on the other hand had said to us, okay an attack was made on the IFP section by the ANC two weeks prior, three weeks prior, and then the IFP attacked, yes, then we could say he remembers it, there is grounds for him actually saying that it was political. Over and above that, if you look at the circumstances of the disguise especially, the question of the police tracksuit comes into question. How would a person come into possession like that? His answer was he got it from somebody from Slenger, but nobody can just come into possession of something like, of some item of clothing like that. Over and above that with Mr Gadebe's version of what happened to him on the night of the 18th, it proves a criminal mind, not a politically motivated, but a criminal mind.
Also further to that, in terms of the Act, Section 20 sub-section 2(b), it is stated in essence that the person applying for amnesty ought to act bona fide for the furtherance of the political party to which he has affiliated himself, but it is the applicant's own submission that there was no, he did not intend to further the cause of the IFP in any way.
It is therefore submitted that in terms of Section 23 sub-section 1 and 2, that this attack was carried out by the applicant for personal circumstances and for his own gain, for revenge, but definitely not for political reasons and it is therefore, it is for these reasons that the victims oppose the application for amnesty.
CHAIRPERSON: Can you help me with this approach to the matter, that we know there was no prior planning of an attack, there was no political purpose at all, we know that a group of young men went to a shebeen and consumed a considerable amount of liquor. The applicant was under the influence of liquor he says, though not very drunk, but they came out of the shebeen and they then decided they were going to attack, but they were at that stage, the majority was in such a state of drunkenness that they were told to go, that only two of the group felt they were sufficiently sober. Could that ever, and something committed in those circumstances, be classified as an act of a political objective? Wasn't this just drunken behaviour by young men?
MS JELALL: Mr Chairperson, I do agree, that is how this act could have been carried out as well. The entire basis is that if it was politically motivated, a state of drunkenness could induce people to act together still and they would have gone together despite their state of drunkenness because even the applicant had also consumed alcohol. Mr Chairperson, it is submitted that that could actually also be the reason, it was just a state of drunkenness.
Mr Chairman, it would appear that this application falls under Section 20 sub-section 2 (a) of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act because the applicant was a member or supporter of a political organisation. Now what the Committee is invited to determine is whether this act was an act committed bona fide in the interests, in furtherance of the interest of the Inkatha Freedom Party and my submission, Chair, is that no, because in the circumstances the Inkatha Freedom Party through the person of Shabande Zuma, has distanced itself from this particular action. The applicant himself, in his own words, has confirmed that this act had nothing to do with the IFP, did not further the interests of the IFP. He went on to say that had the IFP leader Mr Zuma knew of this, he would have discouraged them to go on with it. It is my submission therefore, Sir, that in the circumstances, this is an act which cannot be described as an act which was committed bona fide in the furtherance of the interests of the Inkatha Freedom Party.
I want to go on, Chairperson, to refer further to the criteria that are set out in Section 20 sub-section 3 of the Act in determining whether really an act is an act associated with a political objective as defined by this Act. I would invite Chairperson, the Committee to look at the motive for the attack. It is clear, Chair, at this stage and in fact the applicant himself has clarified it, that what bothered him much was to revenge the killing of his brothers and in fact he has confirmed that had his brothers not have been killed, he would not have continued with that act. This, I submit Sir, is a blatant revenge which can not be said to have been intended by the Legislature to fall under the ...(intervention)
MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, not in a situation where the act is not in furtherance of the interests of the political party of yours and further one may need to take into account the political context of course within which this happened. It is common cause that there was a clash between the Inkatha Freedom Party and the ANC in that area but it is important as well to take into account that that political violence has subsided, the applicant himself has confirmed that. Now once you proceed to foment that violence in a situation where there is peace, because your brother ...(intervention)
MR MAPOMA: Exactly Chairperson, it subsided, it has not stopped, but it means once in the situation where there's quietness, you proceed. It clearly shows that yours now is nothing else but to revenge, it's no longer politics now.
ADV DE JAGER: I've got problems with that because then somewhere there should be a cut-off point. Nobody committing an act after that date could get amnesty because it's now subsided and if you then kill somebody, you can't get amnesty.
MR MAPOMA: No, it must be looked at against the other aspects of the argument that has been advanced already. It's not just a point in isolation from other aspects, Chair, which have been put forward. It's important that this act has clearly not been an act which has been performed now in furtherance of a political party. The political party itself has distanced itself from it and the applicant himself ...(intervention)
ADV DE JAGER: I don't understand, I think that's the main point that the IFP said well "we're not taking responsibility, we didn't order, we don't condone" and he himself said the IFP wouldn't have approved it if they'd approached them.
MR MAPOMA: That may be the position, Chair, I don't intend taking the matter any further except to mention as well that cognisance will have to be taken as well to the gravity of the offence, because this is an act which was committed in a shebeen where people were drinking peacefully. 16 bullets were emptied at people drinking in a shebeen. Now can it be said, for that matter, that you want to revenge against that political party? There are beer drinkers there. Not even a night vigil conducted by the ANC, not even a political rally conducted by the ANC, but mere beer drinkers. That, to a certain extent, puts the question of proportionality in issue again, but I don't intend taking it further Sir, but this is another point which must be taken into account. Thank you, Sir.
MS LOONAT IN REPLY: Just one quick point, Mr Chairperson, on the issue of Section 23. The motive of the person is 3(a). The motive, I just want to, perhaps I'm repeating myself, was, it just so happened to be that it was his three brothers that were murdered by the ANC but had it not been ANC people whom in his mind he was convinced were responsible for their deaths in the circumstances, I don't think that this would have occurred, if I make myself clear.