ON RESUMPTION
CHAIRPERSON: Yes we want to carry on. The next application that we will hear is that of Mr Lindane Ntiyane. The amnesty reference number is AM3688/96.
The Panel is constituted as has been indicated on the record earlier, and the Leader of Evidence is on record as well. I will allow Ms de Klerk to place herself on record, on behalf of the applicant.
MS DE KLERK: Mr Chairperson, I'm Marcia de Klerk, and I appear for the applicant in this matter.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ma'am. Is there anything that you want to put on record? Can we proceed?
MS PATEL: Yes we may, Honourable Chairperson. If I may just state that the victims in this incident, the Dladla family, have been served notices and have also said that they don't have any opposition to this matter and do not wish to oppose it.
CHAIRPERSON: You're happy that we can proceed in the circumstances?
MS PATEL: Yes, Honourable Chairperson, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Patel. Ms de Klerk, is there anything that you want to put on record, or do you want your client to be sworn in?
MS LOONAT: My client to be sworn in, please.
CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Are your full names Lindane Ntiyane?
LINDANE NTIYANE: (sworn states)
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you may be seated. Yes, Ms de Klerk.
MS PATEL: Sorry, Honourable Chairperson, it appears that the victims have been arrived. I've just been informed. If you would just grant me a few moments.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes Ms de Klerk, can you just hold on, I just want to make sure that it is in fact victims.
MS PATEL: Sorry Honourable Chairperson, it appears that they wish to oppose the application, I'm going to need to take instructions.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I was going to suggest if it were in fact the Dladla family, that we stand down to allow you to at least just investigate what the situation is. I mean, you'd just better investigate whether they really want to oppose or whether they just want to be present.
MS PATEL: Absolutely.
CHAIRPERSON: And let us know what the position is.
MS PATEL: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: We will then stand down.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel, can you just first of all, indicate to us who is actually present?
MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson. Present we have Regina Dladla, R-e-g-i-n-a, and Themba Dladla.
CHAIRPERSON: Have you had an opportunity to talk to them?
MS PATEL: I have, thank you Honourable Chairperson, and I have explained the applicant's version as it appears on the papers before us, and my instructions are that they do not wish to oppose the application.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Patel. Yes that is very much in line with what is before us in any case. It appears that that has been a consistent attitude on their part.
Ms Dladla and Mr Dladla, we have noted that you are present and we have listened to what Ms Patel has told us. We've made a note of that. We were busy hearing the application of the applicant. He hadn't started giving evidence yet when you arrived. We will now carry on, or proceed to listen to his evidence. But we have noted your presence.
Yes Ms de Klerk, I think you can proceed.
EXAMINATION BY MS DE KLERK: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.
Mr Ntiyane, where were you living before going to prison?
MR NTIYANE: At Danganya at Umkababa.
MS DE KLERK: How long did you live there?
MR NTIYANE: I think I was six years old when I got there.
MS DE KLERK: In the time that you were living there, did you belong to any political party?
MR NTIYANE: Yes.
MS DE KLERK: What was the name of that political party?
MR NTIYANE: First of all, it was Danganya Youth Congress, under the UDF, and in 1990 when political organisations were unbanned this group became part of the ANC Youth League.
MS DE KLERK: Which branch of that political party did you belong to?
MR NTIYANE: The Danganya branch.
MS DE KLERK: How old were you when you joined that party and that particular branch?
MR NTIYANE: In 1990 I was sixteen years old.
MS DE KLERK: And why did you join that particular political party?
MR NTIYANE: The reasons for my involvement in a political organisation is because of what was happening at the time. The government of the time - many things that were happening were not pleasing to us blacks. The manner in which we were handled. That is the reason why we joined these organisations. That's the reason why I joined this particular organisation, because I believed it could help us out. That is the reason why I joined the ANC.
MS DE KLERK: You say you thought they could help "us out", in what way?
MR NTIYANE: It would help us because many things were wrong. There are so many things that we blacks noticed which were not done right. Even though I was still young, I realised that our education was not the same as that of the white children and I came to a conclusion that if we one day obtained freedom and the ANC came to power, all of these were going to change, and our treatment at the hands of the whites would obviously change. That is why I believed that the ANC would in the position to bring about change in this regard.
MS DE KLERK: So as a youth you played an active role in the ANC Youth League.
MR NTIYANE: That is correct.
MS DE KLERK: What was your role?
MR NTIYANE: When the branch was launched I was appointed as, or elected as Chairperson of the ANC Youth League.
MS DE KLERK: How were decisions made in that branch?
MR NTIYANE: Decisions were such that a Committee would convene a meeting and the Branch Executive of the Committee would be the one making and taking decisions within the ANC, but that would go only insofar as the branch itself was concerned.
MS DE KLERK: Did you as a member of the branch, have any authority in making decisions?
MR NTIYANE: Yes, as Chairperson.
MS DE KLERK: Can we move on now to the history of the fighting in the area. Tell us about the political instability in the area in which you lived.
MR NTIYANE: I would say there was this youth organisation, it was called Danganya Youth Congress. If I still remember very well it was established between 1987 and 1988, so that in 1988 when we were officially launched, I became President of this organisation and the first conflict started I should say, in 1989. Where we were in conflict with people who did not belong to any organisation, but were on the side of the chief in the area and the headman. These are the people who were fighting us at the time, saying they did not want any political organisation in the area.
MS DE KLERK: Were people killed regularly in that area?
MR NTIYANE: Yes, the real change in terms of how many people were dying, happened in 1990.
MS DE KLERK: Were any of your branch members killed?
MR NTIYANE: Yes.
MS DE KLERK: You said that the real change occurred in 1990, what caused this change to occur in 1990?
MR NTIYANE: I would say that was the time when political organisations were unbanned, and many areas in the province of KwaZulu Natal experienced this problem. I cannot say exactly what led to the conflict and the dying of people, but I as a member of the ANC then, would conclude that these attacks were directed at the ANC, so that it should not grow.
MS DE KLERK: Can we move now to the day of the incident, the 12th of April 1992. What happened on that day?
MR NTIYANE: On the day of the 12th of April, I think it was on a Sunday, if I still remember very well, we got up in the morning and we heard from members of our community within our neighbourhood, we heard that some people had been attacked the previous night and we also heard from two - or should I say, we heard that two of our community members were attacked and killed on that very same night and that several houses had been torched on the same night. So we got together and tried to establish what it is that we could do. We then met with members of the self-defence unit. There were five members of the self-defence unit within our branch. That is where we took a decision to say that now that our members of the community - or members of the ANC for that matter, were always complaining that their members were continuously killed and we as he youth were unable to protect them. The people who were dying at the time were mostly adults or the elderly. So we took a decision that - because we knew that these people were dangerous when it came to a war situation, we then made a decision.
MS DE KLERK: Okay, let's go back a bit. You said that you held a meeting, okay.
MR NTIYANE: Yes.
MS DE KLERK: You said there were five members, can you name the five members that were present at the meeting?
MR NTIYANE: There was Mhle Msomi, the second one was Lucky Sithole. I cannot recall the other ones very well, I'm even not sure whether the names that I will give are their real names or not. That would pose a problem because I might be giving you nicknames. For example, one other such person, even though he was not resident in our area, was Linda. He was a member of the MK. He was helping us out as we were facing violence. I want to believe that that was not his real name. He had come originally from the Transkei.
MS DE KLERK: You were present at the meeting as well.
MR NTIYANE: Yes, I was present.
MS DE KLERK: Who was in control of this meeting?
MR NTIYANE: I was the Chairperson.
MS DE KLERK: And exactly what was discussed at this meeting?
MR NTIYANE: The prime reason for our meeting was to look at possible things that we could do, possible attempts to be taken in an effort to protect our community, because we were not able to defend ourselves in the event of attack and we decided that the best defence would be for us to attack. Because if you attack a person who is not anticipating an attack, you then neutralise that person. So when we took the decision to attack on that day, we were trying to do exactly that, to scare them off so that they should not come to our place and attack as they pleased.
MS DE KLERK: Was the national branch informed of this decision?
MR NTIYANE: No.
MS DE KLERK: What was your reaction to this decision?
MR NTIYANE: I regarded this as an appropriate decision at the time.
MS DE KLERK: And what was the reaction of the others to the decision?
MR NTIYANE: All of us were in agreement about the appropriateness of the decision, nobody objected to it.
MS DE KLERK: So how did your branch then implement this decision?
MR NTIYANE: I would say the situation at the time was a little difficult, communication was quite bad, but I as a Chairperson of the ANC Youth League and head of the SDU, I came to a conclusion that if there is anything that we would have to explain, that can be explained later because we were not in the position to bring together all the committees and inform them about what was happening. We had to act swiftly.
MS DE KLERK: I asked you how did your branch implement this decision, what did you do to carry out ...(indistinct) decision to attack?
MR NTIYANE: We took the decision in the morning of the same day and the attack was launched on the same day, so as a branch we were not able to bring together all the members belonging to this branch.
MS DE KLERK: Can you tell us about the incident, can you describe to us in detail what occurred that evening?
MR NTIYANE: It was in the evening, it could have been headed for 10 o'clock in the evening, there were two of us, myself as well as Mhle Msomi, and the other members of the Self-Defence Unit remained behind because our area was so vast. When we went to the area they were standing guard, watching over certain areas to make sure that they are not attacked. Myself and Mhle then left. I had a handgrenade in my possession, it was an M75 handgrenade.
MS DE KLERK: Where did you get this handgrenade from?
MR NTIYANE: This we obtained from Linda, who had come from the Transkei, the one who was a member of the MK.
MS DE KLERK: What happened next?
MR NTIYANE: When we went to - when we arrived at Mr Dladla's place, we ascertained that nothing would disturb us in the process. I removed the pin and hurled it into the house. I meant for it to go through the window, but it didn't, instead it hit the wall, bounced back and exploded next to us, resulting in us getting injured. I am the one who got injured the most. I only heard an explosion and I only gained consciousness in hospital.
MS DE KLERK: How did you personally feel about the attack on the Dladla's home?
MR NTIYANE: At the time the situation was that of a war situation and we had come to conclude that perhaps if we attacked the Dladla household, that would minimise their attack on us.
MS DE KLERK: So did you or did you not believe that it was wrong what you did?
MR NTIYANE: It was wrong.
MR SIBANYONI: Sorry, Ms de Klerk.
How was the Dladla home identified and decided upon as a target?
MR NTIYANE: We knew the Dladla household and the reason why we targeted this household was not because Mr Dladla was in the forefront in the conflict. You see, our area was divided into two, there was this ANC base from which I came and there was the IFP base and that is where Mr Dladla resided. Now the reason why we targeted this one particular house is because it was on the border separating the two bases, so that it was easier and safer to attack the one house on the border, than getting into the thick of the area.
MR SIBANYONI: In other words, Dladla's home was at the border starting the area which was IFP dominated.
MR NTIYANE: Yes, it was on the side of the IFP, but yes, on the border.
MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, Ms de Klerk.
MS DE KLERK: And did you believe that Mr Dladla was a member of the IFP, or a supporter of the IFP?
MR NTIYANE: It was very difficult to vouch to that, but I would say that what criteria we used at the time was on which side of the two strongholds a person resided, and if a person resided on the opposition's side we would conclude that he supported the opposition. For example there were many people who were killed on our side, but later on it transpired that they were not members of the ANC, they only got killed because they resided in the area that belonged to the ANC.
MS DE KLERK: Did you believe that at the time of the incident, Mr Dladla was an IFP supporter?
MR NTIYANE: I would say we believed that even though he was not a card-carrying member, but he was towing the IFP a line, such as that when these conflicts started and when this division happened in terms of bordering the two areas, those who belonged or those who followed the ANC, fled the IFP stronghold and came to the ANC area and vice versa, but Mr Dladla remained on the other side of the IFP. That led us into concluding that he was IFP.
MS DE KLERK: So were there any steps taken to confirm that he was or he wasn't an IFP member?
MR NTIYANE: No steps were taken.
MS DE KLERK: You said that you were unconscious after you threw the handgrenade, what happened once you regained consciousness?
MR NTIYANE: May the question please be repeated.
MS DE KLERK: You said that you were unconscious after you had thrown the handgrenade, what happened after you had regained your consciousness?
MR NTIYANE: I think I spent about a week in hospital, after which the police came to arrest me on this very same Dladla charge.
MS DE KLERK: And were you convicted in terms of the charge?
MR NTIYANE: Yes.
MS DE KLERK: How long were you sentenced to imprisonment?
MR NTIYANE: Eight years.
MS DE KLERK: Who represented you at the trial?
MR NTIYANE: First of all I was represented by Ms Linda Zama, and later it was Adv George Webster.
MS DE KLERK: Who paid for your legal representation?
MR NTIYANE: The ANC, I would assume, because it is the ANC that communicated with my family and offered this legal assistance.
MS DE KLERK: Did you tell the truth at your trial?
MR NTIYANE: No.
MS DE KLERK: Why not?
MR NTIYANE: First of all, I didn't like the idea of being sent to prison.
MS DE KLERK: Is there any other reason why you didn't tell the truth at your trial?
MR NTIYANE: No other reasons.
MS DE KLERK: When I consulted with you, you spoke about not having faith in the judiciary, the judicial system of the time.
MR NTIYANE: Yes, I did not have faith because the then legal system and justice system was flawed.
MS DE KLERK: How do you fell now about what you've done?
MR NTIYANE: To give you a brief explanation, I would say the crime for which I was convicted is a crime for which I had served my sentence and I'm here before this Commission, asking for amnesty, so that I can also get the opportunity to ask for forgiveness from the family of Dladla, and others who may have been affected. I feel bad about what I did, but the circumstances at the time prompted us to behave in the manner in which we did.
MS DE KLERK: Is there anything that you'd like to say personally to ...(indistinct) Dladla?
MR NTIYANE: Yes. I would say if I were to be granted an opportunity to meet with Dladla's family, sit down and have a chat with them, so that I can apologise to them directly.
MS DE KLERK: There's Mrs Dladla across from us and there's Regina Dladla, that's why I asked you if you'd like to say anything to them. Is there anything you'd like to say specifically to the, or would you like to wait until after the hearing?
MR NTIYANE: To Mr Dladla I would say as I have stated earlier on, that I know it is very, very unfortunate what they went through. As I am saying I am very, very sorry and my apologies to the Dladla family. I still maintain that I would still like to have another opportunity to talk to them, so that if possible a relationship can be established between myself and the Dladla family, because we belong in the same area.
MS DE KLERK: Mr Chairperson, that is the evidence for the applicant.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you, Ms de Klerk. Ms Patel, any questions?
MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson. I think there's just one aspect that I need to clarify with Mr and Mrs Dladla. They indicated during - if you would just grant me a moment to check what it is.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, certainly.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: Thank you. It appears that there is some confusion as to whether there was one explosion or two explosions. Regina Dladla says that there might have been one or two explosions that she heard and that possibly one was detonated, one of the grenades was detonated by the policeman who appeared on the scene afterwards. In light hereof, perhaps just to clarify, Sir, can you tell us how many handgrenades you took along with you?
MR NTIYANE: I had only one, only one handgrenade.
MS PATEL: And Mr Msomi, who went with you, was he armed in any way?
MR NTIYANE: Yes, he also had a handgrenade, but I'm not quite sure whether he had one or two, but the one that we used at the scene was the one in my possession.
MS PATEL: Given that you lost consciousness immediately after the explosion, you wouldn't be in a position to say whether he would have in fact have dropped another handgrenade on the scene, or can you - did you two have a discussion afterwards? Can you clarify this for us?
MR NTIYANE: We never discussed that, but as I am saying, I cannot testify to what happened after I lost consciousness.
MS PATEL: But before you lost consciousness there was only one handgrenade that was thrown and one explosion that you're aware of.
MR NTIYANE: Yes.
MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Patel. Panel, any questions?
MR SIBANYONI: I've got no questions, Mr Chairperson.
ADV SIGODI: Mr Ntiyane, on page 6, which the typed version of the letter which you wrote to the TRC, to the Amnesty Committee, I think it was - I'm not sure, but there is a letter which you wrote to the Amnesty Committee, now in the typed version on page 6 you mentioned how you identified Mr Dladla's house as a target. Now at the top of page 6 you said
"We saw the IFP members that had attacked us in the morning, at Mr Dladla's house. One of the IFP leaders. We decided to attack them at night."
Now what I want you to clarify is, in your evidence today you said that Mr Dladla was not an active person politically, and yet in this letter which you wrote to us you said he was an IFP leader and you also said when you identified his house as a target, it's because his house was at the borders of the area which was IFP dominant, and yet here you say you attacked it because you had seen some of the IFP members that had attacked you that morning. Can you clarify that distinction for us?
MR NTIYANE: I would say insofar as Mr Dladla's membership is concerned, I did indicate I think, earlier on, that we did not have any proof that he was indeed a member, a card-carrying member of the IFP. Yes, I must agree that the report that we received in the morning when we arrived, was a report to the effect that there were some people who were seen gathering, either at Mr Dladla's household or thereabouts. And another reason why we believed that he too was a member of the IFP ...
ADV SIGODI: So does it explain why you've described him here as a leader?
MR NTIYANE: Yes, I would say so, because I have indicated that the report that we received was that there were many people gathering at his household, but we were not quite sure whether they were in the household on the premises or in the neighbourhood, and that is one other report that we received in the morning prior to our meeting.
ADV SIGODI: That's all, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms de Klerk, have you got any re-examination?
RE-EXAMINATION BY MS DE KLERK: Just one question, thank you.
Mr Ntiyane, was it a culmination of a whole lot of things or a whole lot of reasons why you believed that Mr Dladla was a member of the IFP, or a supporter of the IFP? Not one particular reason but a culmination of a whole lot of reasons, as you pointed out to us today.
MR NTIYANE: In fact there were many reasons why we attacked, because we had lost numerous members on our side, but our attack ...(intervention)
MS DE KLERK: No, I'm not talking about the attack, I'm talking about the attack on Mr Dladla's home. You've given us lots of reasons. One reason is - as one of the learned Members of the Panel has pointed out, where you say that you believed that he was an IFP leader. Another reason you've given us is the fact that he remained on the IFP stronghold and he didn't move over to the ANC stronghold. So I'm saying to you now, was it a whole lot of reasons that led you to believe that Mr Dladla was a supporter or a member of the IFP?
MR NTIYANE: I would say the reason is only one and that is the fact that he resided on the IFP part of the area and he was a member of the IFP, but we cannot particularly point out single events or reasons to say "these are the reason why we had to attack him".
MS DE KLERK: I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS DE KLERK
CHAIRPERSON: Did you regard the IFP as your political opponent, enemy, at that time?
MR NTIYANE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: And did you think that they were responsible for the attacks that were launched on your area?
MR NTIYANE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Yes Mr Ntiyane, thank you very much, you're excused.
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: Ms de Klerk, have you got any other evidence?
MS DE KLERK: There is only, a Mr Mkhize, who is on the list as an implicated person. However, we haven't received any statement and I'm advised by my learned friend that she doesn't have a statement by Mr Mkhize either. Mr Mkhize is present, he has been all morning. However, the extent of his evidence was merely to support the fact that the applicant was an ANC member at the time of the incident.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I don't think - that doesn't seem to be really in dispute, but I'll enquire from Ms Patel. Does anything really turn on that issue?
MS PATEL: No, Honourable Chairperson, I don't believe it's a material point of dispute.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I gathered that. Yes, well then there doesn't seem to be very much sense in calling him as a witness, but of course you're free to do it if you want to.
MS DE KLERK: No.
CHAIRPERSON: It wouldn't necessarily, I think, assist the case, its just for us to decide the matter.
MS DE KLERK: That's the applicant's case.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Patel.
MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson. We do not intend to lead any evidence.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Patel. Ms de Klerk, have you got any submissions on the merits of your client's case? Oh sorry, just before we get there.
ADV SIGODI: Ms Patel, I notice that some damage, there was some damage which the victims sustained to their house, have you got any idea how much was involved, how much was involved in that damage to the house? If you see Regina Dladla's statement on page 19 of the bundle, it says, paragraph 5
"Lots of police came and inspected the premises. The front windows and wall were badly damaged, but ...(indistinct) fortunately was not injured."
Do you have any idea how much damage they suffered, or what was the value of the damage to their house?
MS PATEL: I will take instructions on the value of the damage, but in terms of the extent of the damage, if you'd turn to page 24 of the bundle, ...(indistinct) Dladla's statement from the docket, she outlines the extent of the damage. If you look at paragraph 6, she mentions the hole in the window, damage to the roof, three windows and that the wall was damaged. If the value thereof is important I can take instructions on that if you so wish. Would you like me to?
ADV SIGODI: At a later stage possibly. ...(indistinct) refer them to the Reparations.
MS PATEL: Alright, I will do that.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so will you bear that in mind?
MS PATEL: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: It might not be something that's very easy to deal with at this stage, but if they could give information it would assist.
MS PATEL: I will try to ascertain that later.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Yes Ms de Klerk, have you got any submissions?
MS DE KLERK ADDRESSES: Just very briefly.
I submit that the applicant has made a full disclosure and it is my respectful submission that he has met the requirements of the Act, and therefore he should be granted amnesty.
CHAIRPERSON: What does your client do at the moment?
MS DE KLERK: At the moment he says that he's assisting, he's still active within the ANC organisation. He's assisting them. He's brought along a pamphlet which he says he went to a rally on Sunday, but that is as far as my instructions go.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MS DE KLERK: He's obviously hoping to get a proper job.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you, Ms de Klerk. Have you got any submissions, Ms Patel?
MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.
Given my client's instructions to me, I have no submissions, thank you.
NO SUBMISSIONS BY MS PATEL
CHAIRPERSON: Ms de Klerk, what was your client convicted of? What offences?
MS DE KLERK: He was convicted of attempted murder.
CHAIRPERSON: Attempted murder. And in respect of the - was that all?
MS PATEL: And there was one count of possession of a handgrenade.
CHAIRPERSON: Possession of a handgrenade as well. Is it in this judgment here?
MS DE KLERK: Yes, it's in the judgment.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, on page 51 the court seems to say that he was found guilty.
MS DE KLERK: There wasn't sufficient ...(intervention)
MS PATEL: Sorry, I apologise, he was charged for possession.
MS DE KLERK: And acquitted of the other count.
CHAIRPERSON: So it was really only on the attempted murder.
MS DE KLERK: It's only on the attempted murder. The State failed to prove the possession of the handgrenade.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Is that the offence that he's applying for?
MS DE KLERK: My instructions are that he has served his sentence. He was released in 1997. ...(indistinct) five years of his ...(indistinct)
CHAIRPERSON: But for purposes of deciding the application, the application has to be in respect of a particular offence or delict.
MS DE KLERK: Yes, it's in respect of the offence on the 12th of April 1992.
CHAIRPERSON: Is it just the attempted murder that he's applying for? Or is he also applying - he admits that he was in possession of handgrenade, so is he asking for amnesty for being in unlawful possession of a handgrenade as well, explosive, and attempted murder? Alright.
ADV SIGODI: And what about malicious injury to property?
MS DE KLERK: Well any other related offences that he could be found guilty of.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, because it seems it can be - I don't know whether it would have been a duplication, splitting of charges, but there was malicious injury to property as well. So on the face of it there was an attempted murder, there was an unlawful possession of explosives and there was malicious injury to property.
MS DE KLERK: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: It might be academic, from his perspective, but from our perspective and in terms of the provisions of our Act, we have to at least specify what we are giving your client amnesty for.
MS DE KLERK: I would like to thank Mr Chairperson and the Members of the Panel, I think it has been pretty obvious that I haven't consulted extensively with the applicant.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes.
MS DE KLERK: And I thank you for bearing with me in that regard.
CHAIRPERSON: No we appreciate your assistance, but we thought we can squeeze a little bit more assistance out of you.
Yes well that concludes the formal proceedings. We always endeavour to give these decisions, for obvious reasons, as quickly as we can. We always try, especially when people are in custody, because it makes such a big difference to their circumstances normally, it could make a big difference to their circumstances, we attempt to give these decisions as quickly as we can, but in this case we will take a bit of time and we will reserve the decision and make it available as soon as circumstances permit us to actually finalise the decision in the matter. So under those circumstances we will reserve the decision and we will notify the parties as soon as it is available.
We thank you once again Ms de Klerk, for your assistance in this matter, and Ms Patel we appreciate your assistance. And Mr and Mrs Dladla, we thank you for coming, showing an interest in the matter, and we hope that you have at least by being present here, you have found out a little bit more about this particular incident and that you have found some benefit in having gone to the trouble of at least coming here to listen. We regard that normally as important and we thank you for having come.
I think that concludes our matters for today. We believe that the remaining applicant for some or other reason hasn't managed to come through from Cape Town yet, and he's only expected later on today.
MS PATEL: Yes, that is correct, Honourable Chairperson, he's apparently only arriving at 7 o'clock this evening, so unfortunately I must request that we roll that matter over till tomorrow morning.
CHAIRPERSON: Very well, there's not much that we can do under those circumstances. We have, I think, kept the pace with the matters that we do have on the roll. So under those circumstances we are going to adjourn the proceedings and we will reconvene here tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock. We're adjourned.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
