DAY: 4


CHAIRPERSON: We thought it would be polite for us to come in and advise you that there is a delay in commencing with our proceedings today, because the applicants still have to consult with their legal representative, Mr Mbandazayo.

There is also a further development in that an important witness who is material to these proceedings, have recently been located and attempts are being made to also consult with him. We would request you to bear with us because we will be starting a little later than we had anticipated.

We anticipate to start within 30 minutes from now. If this matter that has to be proceeded with, is unable to be commenced with, after 30 minutes, this Committee will come back and deliver its judgement in respect of the two matters that we heard previously, being the matter of Mr Ngesi and Mr Dingane and Mr Wanga. Thank you very much, I hope you will be able to bear with us.



CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much ladies and gentlemen for your patience. Before we proceed with the next application, we would like to deliver our judgement in respect of the Ngesi matter and Dingane and Wanga applications.


This is our decision in respect of the application brought before this Committee by Silimela Ngesi (Ququmbana).

Mr Ngesi has applied for amnesty in respect of the following offences: an attack on the East London petrol depot on the 19th of August 1993, attempted murder of one Sergeant Oosthuizen and any other policeman involved in the shoot-out with the applicants on the same date, malicious injury to property in respect of cars damaged in the abovementioned shoot-out with the police, malicious injury to property in respect of a police R5 rifle, unlawful possession of firearms, being an R4 rifle, an R5 rifle, an AK47 rifle, RPG7 rocket and two RPG7 rocket launchers which were used in the attack on the depot and in the shoot-out with the police, respectively.

The application by Mr Ngesi is not opposed. Mr Ngesi testified that he had never been arrested for nor charged with the said offences.

He further testified that the acts were committed in the execution of the orders of his Commander, one Bulelani Quma, who was then a Director of Special Operations of APLA who also provided the weapons for the operation.

The applicant was one of the members of a Unit commanded by the said Quma. Mr Ngesi testified that the mission was unsuccessful in that the petrol tank did not explode as it was intended and subsequently resulted in the abovementioned shoot-out with the police.

Quma is known from the evidence previously led before the Amnesty Committee, to have been indeed a Director of Special Operations of APLA.

On the evidence placed before us by way of an affidavit by the applicant, incorporated into the record and marked Annexure B, as well as his viva voce evidence, the Committee is satisfied that the applicant complies with all the requirements for amnesty as provided for in the Promotion for National Unity and Reconciliation Act, 34 of 1995 as amended.

The reasons for the Committee's decision are as follows: the Committee accepts that the applicant was a trained soldier of the PAC's military wing, APLA, as set out in his application.

The Committee is further satisfied that the offences were committed in the execution of an order of APLA and therefore are acts associated with a political objective, as required by Section 29(1) of the Act.

The applicant's evidence broadly corresponds with a statement of one Warrant Officer Robertson, who was at the scene of the shoot-out at the time of the incident, involving the shoot-out with the police.

Accordingly, AMNESTY IS GRANTED to Mr Ngesi in respect of the following offences: the attack on the East London petrol depot in East London, on 19 August 1993; secondly the attempted murder of Sergeant Oosthuizen and any other policemen involved in the shoot-out between Mr Ngesi and the police in East London on the 19th of August 1993; thirdly malicious injury to property in respect of any cars damaged in the abovementioned shoot-out; fourthly malicious injury to property in respect of the police R5 rifle; fifthly unlawful possession of firearms being an R5 rifle, an R4 rifle, an AK47 rifle and two RPG7 rocket launchers.

That is our decision. We shall then proceed to deliver our decision in respect of the application


We shall then proceed to deliver our decision in respect of the application brought in by Mr Xabiso Aaron Dingane and Mr Bongile Steven Wanga.

The applicants apply for amnesty firstly in respect of the armed robbery of Johan Claasen at Kirkwood on the 28th of November 1988 in the district of Port Elizabeth. Secondly the applicants apply for separate incidents. The first applicant applies for armed robbery of Mr Robert Chapman Moss, committed at Grahamstown on the 20th of December 1985.

The second applicant applies for possession of, illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition and escape from prison. He was arrested on the 15th of October 1989.

The applicants are serving prison sentences of 13 years and 24 years and six months respectively. Both applicants gave evidence and stated that they were members of the Pan Africanist Congress.

The first applicant stated that he joined the PAC during 1976, whilst the second applicant only joined the PAC during 1980.

After joining the PAC, they both underwent instant military training in the then Transkei. The applicants further testified that the armed robberies were committed in the furtherance of the policies of the PAC and to acquire arms to prosecute their organisation's struggle.

In respect of the robbery at the Claasen's farm, both applicants were given instructions by one Jabu Mdunge and the proceeds derived therefrom, handed over to him.

There is however no unanimity from the applicants on this point. The first applicant in his application avers that such proceeds were to be utilised by their Unit in order to enable it to continue to prosecute their struggle.

However, in his viva voce evidence, his version was that not all the money was handed over to Mdunge, but some of it was retained by the Unit. The applicant's evidence on this point is contradictory and is accordingly not accepted by this Committee.

The first applicant also testified that even the Moss robbery during 1985, instructions were also given by Jabu Mdunge.

The applicants have testified that the 1988 robbery, they as applicants both belonged to the Assault Unit. During cross-examination, both applicants were unable to support their contentions that their offences were in pursuance of the PAC's policy, nor how the same would alleviate the oppressive situation in South Africa.

The applicants did not give the same code names of the Unit under cross-examination. From the evidence adduced herein, the Committee finds it highly improbable that the offences were committed by the applicants in the furtherance of the PAC policy.

Having regard to the evidence already led before the Amnesty Committee on how the Assault Unit of the PAC operated, it is quite clear that the evidence given by the applicants, on how their alleged Unit operated, is incomplete discord with that already led before the Committee.

In the premises, their evidence is accordingly rejected on this issue. The Committee is therefore not satisfied that the applicants being Mr Dingane and Mr Wanga have satisfied the requirements of Section 20(1) of the Act and THEIR APPLICATIONS ARE ACCORDINGLY REFUSED.

Thank you.




















APPLICATION NO: AM 3849/96 & AM 3838/96


DAY: 4



CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel, are we now in a position to commence with the next application?

MS PATEL: Honourable Chairperson, the next matter on the role is that of Lulamele Baleka and Mr Mazile Dingane. Honourable Chairperson, I wish at this stage to request that this matter be postponed.

There is certain information that has come to light, that needs to be investigated. There is also a witness whose testimony is crucial to the fair and just adjudication of this matter, who unfortunately was not subpoenaed and it is on those grounds that I request that the matter be postponed.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mbandazayo, what is your response to a request for a postponement?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Chairperson, and Honourable members of the Committee.

Chairperson, on our side, in view of the fact that this is the Truth and Reconciliation matter and all of us, we are interested in getting the truth of what actually happened, we want to get and also the Committee to be able to reach a fair and a just decision in whatever matter it is handling, we are not opposed to the postponement, as long as on the next date when the matters are scheduled, this matter will be given priority as it has been done in the matter of Dingane, which was also postponed in the last hearing.

If it can be given a priority, we will be glad Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel, are you able to give Mr Mbandazayo an undertaking that this matter will be given priority in the event of it being postponed?

MS PATEL: Yes, most certainly Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel, can we again implore your Department to ensure that when matters are set down, they have been fully investigated and very ripe for a hearing in order to avoid matters being postponed only when we are here in a venue and at great costs I think to the people who are attending these hearings, the public, the applicants and also the members of the Committee?

We will grant you a postponement. The matter is accordingly removed from the role.

MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson. I will certainly convey the sentiments of this Honourable Committee to my Department.

CHAIRPERSON: That being the case Ms Patel, what is the next matter scheduled for today?

MS PATEL: The next matter scheduled Honourable Chairperson, is that of (indistinct), it is the witness that we were waiting for this morning.

She unfortunately has just arrived, I haven't had an opportunity to consult with her yet. I would accordingly request your indulgence in this matter, so that I can consult with her before we proceed with that matter.

CHAIRPERSON: How long to you need for your consultation?

MS PATEL: I think half an hour would suffice.

CHAIRPERSON: We will then take an adjournment for 30 minutes. In fact I think, we will simply break for tea Ms Patel.

MS PATEL: All right. Maybe at this stage, I can also raise the matter of Lunco Nkuamanda. The position with that matter is also that certain information was brought to my attention only this week.

Certain crucial information that also requires further investigations and my request as in the Baleka matter, is the same with this matter, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: We must again reiterate our despondency about how these matters are being run.

I cannot emphasise the unhappiness of this Committee in having to be told that matters set down, have been erroneously set down without having been fully investigated. I hope Ms Patel, this situation will be avoided at all costs next time.

We must attempt by all means to make sure that matters which have been scheduled, are matters which are ripe for a hearing, because this Committee has a very short life span and it cannot afford to miss an hour of its time in not hearing matters.

I know this is not a situation of your own making, and it is on those bases that this Committee greatly sympathises with the position in which you are. We will again then remove that matter from the role.

Was it supposed to have been heard today as well?

MS PATEL: Yes, it was Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you discussed that matter with Mr Mbandazayo?

MS PATEL: I have Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mbandazayo, do you have anything to comment on the request made by Ms Patel in respect of the matter she has mentioned?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Chairperson. I confirm that we have discussed with Ms Patel, this matter. Also Chairperson, in as much as I agreed to her postponement, I also voice my displeasure at this Chairperson, because definitely it is strenuous to come all the way and the matter is postponed, is not ready for hearing.

Chairperson, we have agreed to the postponement of the matter.

CHAIRPERSON: I think this Committee is greatly indebted to your understanding Mr Mbandazayo, because I think it must be very difficult for you to try and convince your clients who are serving sentences and are in custody, that they have to come here, expecting that their applications will be heard, only to be told that their matters will not be proceeded with, because of administrative problems from the side of the Amnesty Committee.

We hope that this will not happen again. Thank you very much for your indulgence.

We will then adjourn for 30 minutes.























APPLICATION NO: (?) & AM 3847/96


DAY: 4



CHAIRPERSON: What is the situation now?

MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson. The next matter on the role is that of Damane and Mroxe. I believe my learned friend would like to address you on the matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mbandazayo?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Chairperson. Chairperson and Honourable members of the Committee, I have consulted with the applicants who are still coming up and they have decided to withdraw their application for amnesty, but I would like them to be present so that they can confirm that.

CHAIRPERSON: Where are they Mr Mbandazayo? Why were they not made to be seated before the Committee came in?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Chairperson. Chairperson, as I have already indicated that the applicants wishes to put on record that they are withdrawing their application for amnesty in this matter, and I would like the Committee to enquire from them, whether they confirm that they are withdrawing their application. Thank you Chairperson and members.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mroxe, do you understand what your legal representative has communicated to this Committee that you wish to withdraw your application?

MR MROXE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you confirm that?


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Damane, do you also confirm that you wish to withdraw your application as explained by your legal representative?

MR DAMANE: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel, I suppose you don't have anything to say about their withdrawal?

MS PATEL: No thank you, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: The applications of Mr Mroxe and Mr Damane are hereby withdrawn. Thank you very much Mr Mbandazayo.

Ms Patel, where do we go from here? Give us good news, we have spent the better part of the morning, not being able to proceed.

MS PATEL: Unfortunately Honourable Chairperson, I seem to be the bearer of bad tidings for the day.

The next matter on the role is that of Manqunyana. Unfortunately I believe my learned friend hasn't been in the position to consult with his client. I accordingly request that the matter stand down till two o'clock to enable him to consult with his client.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mbandazayo, I am aware that the application that we have received as members of the Amnesty Committee is very scanty and it has also been brought to my attention that you, yourself, recently became aware of the application by Mr Manqunyana, just a few days ago, and you have not been able to consult with Mr Manqunyana.

Because of the scanty information contained in this application form, we cannot expect you to proceed Mr Manqunyana, on what is contained herein.

We as a Committee do not understand how an application with such scanty information, came to be set down for a hearing.

We will therefore afford you an opportunity to properly consult with Mr Manqunyana, with a view of eliciting more information that will enable this Committee to finalise this application as speedily as possible.

We will then stand this application down until two o'clock, when we will commence. To the members of the public, we again wish to thank you for the patience that you have displayed throughout the day. I cannot emphasise the apologies that we would like to proffer to you for the inconveniences that you have had to suffer because of the technical hitches that we have experienced.

Again, we are greatly indebted for your patience. Thank you.













DAY : 4



CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mbandazayo, you requested for an opportunity to consult with your client in order to be able to lead his evidence in chief. What is the position now?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Chairperson and Honourable members of the Commission. Chairperson and members of the Committee, I have consulted with the applicant and during consultation, it transpired that it would be very difficult for us to proceed with this matter, as there are a number of issues that need to be investigated and that we prepare properly for the hearing.

As such, with the concurrence of the applicant, we decided that we should approach the Committee and ask for a postponement of this matter, until we are fully prepared for the hearing of this matter. Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Manqunyana, is a prisoner, isn't he?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes, Chairperson, he is a prisoner.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel, do you have any objection to a request for an application for the matter to be postponed?

MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson, no, I don't have any objections.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mbandazayo, we will grant you a request for the postponement of the matter. We are aware that it has not been possible for Mr Manqunyana to have an earlier consultation with you with a view of properly presenting his application.

In the premises, this matter is hereby removed from the role. That will bring us to the end of the proceedings the day. The Committee will adjourn until tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock.