CHAIRPERSON: This is the 19th day of January 1999. We are continuing with the application of Mr Dingane and Mr Wanga.
Mr Dingane was - yesterday you were being questioned by Ms Patel, our Evidence Leader. Ms Patel, will you proceed from where you left off yesterday.
MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson, I have no further questions for this witness.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Patel. Mr Motata?
ADV MOTATA: Thank you, Chairperson, I've got no questions.
CHAIRPERSON: Advocate Bosman?
ADV BOSMAN: I have no questions, thank you, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: That being so, Ms Patel and Mr Mbandazayo, are you ready to present your argument? Mr Mbandazayo?
MR MBANDAZAYO IN ARGUMENT: Thank you, Chairperson and Honourable Members of the Committee, I'm ready to present argument.
Chairperson and Honourable Members of the Committee, I'm not intending to waste the time of the Committee. Mine is a simple one in that this Committee has been presented with enough evidence to able to reach a fair and equitable decision in this matter.
I need not add anything to what has been said by the applicants in case I delude what has been said by them, unless the Committee would like me to address it on any specific point. That is all, Honourable Members of the Committee, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mbandazayo, what argument can you present to this Committee to show that the applicants have complied with the requirement of full disclosure insofar as the versions given by them is different in material respects when it comes to the structure of the unit that allegedly committed the offences for which amnesty is being sought under?
Mr Wanga has indicated, or has testified that the unit consisted of approximately four or five members, whereas Mr Dingane who was the commander of that unit has insisted that the unit consisted of seven members, and the names of the members are different. Mr Wanga has given names which are completely different from those given by Mr Dingane, not to mention the code names. What do you say about that requirement that worries me, that there has been no full disclosure, not going even anywhere further than that.
MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you, Chairperson and Honourable members of the Committee. Chairperson, I think I was trying to sum it up when I said that in case I delude what they have presented before this Committee, because it means that I will be giving my own version which also will be totally different to what they have said, thank you, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for conceding to the difficulties that you are being presented with by your applicants.
Ms Patel, do you have anything to say in respect of the evidence that has been tendered before this Committee?
MS PATEL IN ARGUMENT: I'll be very brief, Honourable Chairperson. I do not wish to traverse the evidence that was led yesterday. It is clear that there were so many inconsistencies, that besides the inconsistencies the versions that were given to us were so highly improbable. Both the applicant's political motivations was highly doubtful, given their lack of knowledge on even basic information about the organisations that they belonged to.
It is my respectful submission that both the applicants have not met the basic requirements of the Act, and I respectfully request that the applications for amnesty in respect of both the applications be denied.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. This Committee is unable to pronounce its decision on this application because we still have an outstanding application for Mr Dingane which will be standing down until tomorrow morning. Once we have finalised that application we will then be in a position to give our decision in respect of all the applications that Mr Dingane and Mr Wanga have applied for.
We are however - Ms Patel and Mr Mbandazayo, we are in a position to pronounce what we ...(indistinct) in respect of the matter that we heard yesterday morning, and that was the matter of Mr Mfazo.
F I N D I N G
This is our decision in respect of the matter of Mr Mxedisi(?) Geoffrey Mfazo whose application was heard by this Committee on the 18th day of January 1999.
Mr Mfazo applied for amnesty in respect of the killing of Mr Thozamile Mtoni(?) at Newport on the 4th of April 1993. He was convicted of murder on the 26th of May 1995 and sentenced to five years imprisonment. He has since been released from prison.
In his application, Mr Mfazo stated that he was attacked in a shebeen by two ANC supporters, one of whom was the deceased, after they had taunted him for being a PAC supporter. At this hearing, Mr Mfazo unequivocally stated that the reason for the killing was because of an argument that he and the deceased had had over a girl. And to quote his evidence he said:
"We quarrelled over a girl."
In cross-examination by Ms Patel and when questioned by the Chairperson, he once again reiterated that the ANC was against him because he was a PAC supporter but that in fact the grudge was about the girl and that was what sparked the whole argument.
In the light of the above, this Committee finds that there was no political motive for the killing, as required by the Promotion of National Reconciliation Act 34/1995 and accordingly the applicant has not satisfied the requirements of Section 21 of the above Act, and his application is accordingly REFUSED.
That is our decision, Mr Mbandazayo.
MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you, Chairperson and Honourable Members of the Committee.
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel, are we in a position to proceed with the next matter? We are aware that yesterday we had made provision for the next matter to commence at
10 o'clock.
MS PATEL: I see that the attorneys for the next matter have not arrived yet, Honourable Chairperson, but they said that they were on their way.
CHAIRPERSON: We will then adjourn until I think the attorneys arrive, which we expect to be around 10 o'clock. Will you then just call us once they are here?
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
