ON RESUMPTION
CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) AM 1146/96. It is a matter that was before us previously and it was postponed, couldn't be disposed of at that session and which we will now continue with and hopefully dispose of.
The appearances are still the same as before. Mr Makanjee is acting for the applicant and Ms Makhubele represents the interests of the victims and Mr Mapoma is the Leader of Evidence this time around.
Mr Makanjee, we have progressed to a point where we had listened to the testimony of the applicant. What is the further conduct of the proceedings?
MR MAKANJEE: At the time of the last hearing of this matter the matter was postponed for the investigators to attempt to locate people who had been implicated in this matter. I notice that there is a report that has been provided to myself by the offices of the TRC in connection with this.
The one difficulty I wish to just raise is whether the people who were located, whether it was the intention of the Committee to have them served with notices to appear at this meeting, Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: I gather that they were located and they were notified. Well, those who could be located were notified and it's quite apparent that most of them are not interested in the proceedings. Some had denied any knowledge of the matters in contention and so on. So it was quite clear from the reports that the investigative unit had done what it could in terms of locating people, some had died apparently and some were located and it looked as if, as is apparent now as well, that those people are not interested in participating in the proceedings. So it looks as if we have done what we could in terms of locating and notifying people who could possibly have been implicated in the matter.
MR MAKANJEE: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Mr Chairperson, may I just confer with my client for a second?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
Mr Makanjee, I believe that your client's testimony is concluded, if I'm not mistaken?
MR MAKANJEE: That is correct, Mr Chairperson, I think it was only postponed for any possible further evidence that could assist.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well apart from what could have come up through the investigation, I don't think any of the other parties were going to present any evidence, is that not so Ms Makhubele?
MS MAKHUBELE: That is correct, Chairperson. What Mrs Daza wanted to say I believe is what was already put during cross-examination which is not in dispute so there's nothing further.
CHAIRPERSON: Very well. As I've already indicated there's none of the other people forthcoming so, you know, in the circumstances - and I'm not sure if you formally closed your client's case or not but I assume it was closed because there was nothing else that ...(intervention)
MR MAKANJEE: If you may permit me, Mr Chairperson, if I could place one more fact on record if it's possible. Just in connection with regard to the people who were implicated by my client, I have a fax from the offices of the Truth Commission which states that the person who was not found at his house, on the second visit the Investigation Unit found his wife. The Investigation Unit left contact numbers of the concerned investigator of the case. Up to date the person has not contacted the IU. I just wasn't certain whether the person implicated was meant to be served with a notice as opposed to just leaving the phone number of the investigator.
CHAIRPERSON: Of course it is always open to an implicated person to either participate in the proceedings or not. I was led to believe that the nature of the matter was fully explained on these occasions, so there's no uncertainty about the fact that these people are implicated by your client. This person obviously shows no interest because they had spoken to his wife, he shows no interest in the proceedings. Under those circumstances, you know, there's nothing practically that could be done further to the matter because I mean he has been informed through his wife about the proceedings, about what was the nature of the business that brought the investigator to him and he was invited to respond. He hasn't responded, so that is the end of the matter insofar as that is concerned. In any case, it's open to an implicated person to decide whether he wants to participate or not, there's no obligation at all.
MR MAKANJEE: Thank you Mr Chairperson, I just wanted to clarify that.
CHAIRPERSON: I assume that everybody's cases are closed then under those circumstances?
MS MAKHUBELE: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Makanjee, are you in a position to address us?
MR MAKANJEE IN ARGUMENT: Yes Mr Chairperson.
Mr Chairperson, this is an application for amnesty for two murders and an attempted murder. It has been our client's submission further that in response to requests for further particulars, he submitted further information which was incriminating upon himself. It is our submission that our client was attempting to make a full disclosure with regard to the facts and this could only be done in response to the request for further particulars.
Our client has testified that he was a member of the ANC. Unfortunately, given the error at the time, many card carrying members of the ANC never actually carried a card with them. Our client does not have confirmation from the ANC that he was a member but then so do many other applicants as well.
ADV BOSMAN: Mr Makanjee, your client stated in his application form that he was just a supporter?
MR MAKANJEE: I think at the last hearing of this matter the question was put to him as to whether he was a supporter or whether he had joined any particular branch and the evidence was that he had joined the Zonkisizwe branch of the ANC.
ADV BOSMAN: How do we reconcile that now? Was there any explanation offered for why he stated on the form that he was just a supporter? I cannot recall, can you?
MR MAKANJEE: The only explanation I can give is that my instructions are that this form was not filled in by my client.
Our client further was quite, with regard to the aspect of full disclosure - our client has been in prison for more than five years. He has stated in his evidence of chief the reasoning behind him not naming his accomplices at the time of his trial. The logic was that one doesn't implicate one's fellow comrades if one gets arrested by the Police.
Unfortunately, this is a case where the information available to all the parties concerned is not as vast as other amnesty applications have been. We are left with the word of the accused or the applicant against - there's no other concrete information that can contradict the applicant's version and it is our submission in light of the submissions made by the applicant, we believe that amnesty should be granted to him. Thank you Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Makanjee. Ms Makhubele?
MS MAKHUBELE IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Chairperson.
In my address I can simply point out to the circumstances which at the end of the day would indicate that there was no political motive. First I would start with the 1992 incident where two people died and one was injured. Mr Joshua Misha Kokoa and Reginald Mopeng died and Mr Owen Dava Fodaza was injured.
The evidence, on his own evidence, he only confirmed that that was theirs. He only confirmed that that was theirs. Supposing the Springbok Security was helping the government when they attacked the car, he only confirmed that it belonged to Springbok Security after they found a bag which was marked Springbok. The car was not marked. The two security officers were not dressed in any uniform. This, although none of the persons in their gave evidence would indicate the circumstances that it was just a private vehicle hired by a company which, I'm sure the Committee can take judicial notice, that at the time in townships due to the unrest businesses were not safe, they were burned, delivery vehicles were prevented from entering townships and as a result some companies to protect their interests had to hire some private security companies.
Furthermore, after they took the applicant and his accomplice to the vehicle they kept it for themselves. When it comes to the other - if I may just address, although the decision has been taken as to whether he is applying for amnesty in respect of the TPA robbery, but then in that incident too, we have heard his evidence that after they robbed the R89 000, they shared - there was no decision as to how to share it, they were to keep it to buy firearms and at some stage the money, according to him, was given to some Street Committee members whose names I believe are amongst those that were investigated. But there's no clarity as to actually who the money was given to. Under the circumstances, my submission is that these incidents were just criminal activity, no political motive and amnesty should be refused.
Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Makhubele. Mr Mapoma, have you got any submissions?
MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, I have no submission.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Makanjee, is there any reply?
MR MAKANJEE IN REPLY: I'll be brief, Mr Chairperson.
As far as I understand it, it's not a requirement for the victim of the alleged political activity to be a confirmed member of any opposition party. It is based on the suspicion of the applicant or the impression that the applicant gets. Surely the victims of bomb blasts by members of the African National Congress, not all of them were IFP members or not all of them were South African Police. What I'm trying to say is I don't believe that the issue of amnesty should depend on whether the victims of the applicant were in reality card carrying members of any opposition political party or members of the State. I think the important thing is the impression that was created at the time of the incident was that members who were working for security companies were colluding with the State at that time. That's what I wish to say.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Makanjee. Yes, thank you. That concludes the outstanding aspect of the hearing of this application. The panel will consider the application and will take some time to prepare a decision in the matter. We will endeavour to do that as soon as the circumstances permit us and once the decision is available we will then notify all of the parties with an interest in the matter. So under those circumstances the decision be reserved. We once again thank you, Mr Makanjee, for your assistance and Ms Makhubele for your assistance as well, Mr Mapoma and we will gladly excuse you if you so wish.
Mr Mapoma, is there anything else on the roll for this afternoon?
MR MAPOMA: No Chairperson, that is all for today. We are left with one matter now for tomorrow - Shabalala.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we will then adjourn the proceedings and we will reconvene here tomorrow morning at 9.30. We're adjourned.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
