CHAIRPERSON: Mr Manqele, which language would you prefer to use?
MR MANQELE: Zulu.
CHAIRPERSON: Have you any objection to the taking of the oath?
S F MANQELE: (sworn states).
EXAMINATION BY MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Mr Chairman.
Mr Manqele, I would like you to just very briefly -you are currently serving a sentence with regard to offences of which you had been committed, the same offences of which the previous two applicants applied for amnesty, is that correct?
MR MANQELE: Yes.
MR CLAASSEN: Mr Manqele, I would just like to point you to - if I may Mr Chairman, page 12 of the bundle.
Mr Manqele, on the 2nd of February, 2nd of January 1996, you completed an application for ...(indistinct) in terms of an indemnity with regard to the crimes for which you had been committed. Do you recollect completing such a statement?
MR MANQELE: Yes.
MR CLAASSEN: It is also true that during December of 1996, almost 12 months later, 11 months later, you completed an amnesty application form, Form 1, with regards to an application for amnesty which relates to exactly the same conviction, is that correct?
MR MANQELE: Please repeat.
MR CLAASSEN: Later the same year, after making application for indemnity, you also filled out an application for amnesty which greatly differs from your initial application.
MR MANQELE: Yes.
MR CLAASSEN: Mr Manqele, could you just indicate to the Committee, the initial application, the indemnity application, the information which you gave on that application, is that the true facts of what occurred on that particular day?
MR MANQELE: I would not be in a position to indicate that, because what I filled in on the indemnity application is not true.
MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Mr Chairman.
Mr Manqele, could you just explain to this Committee, they have the bundle in front of them, the information which you disclosed in this indemnity application, why that is not the truth.
MR MANQELE: It is because I did not obtain the full truth pertaining to the indemnity or how it works. We were told that when you tell the truth, you will get further sentence, so it is best that one lies.
MR CLAASSEN: Mr Manqele, now how did things differ from that time to the time of your amnesty application? Why - let me just maybe ask you this, the information given in your amnesty application, is that the correct version of events?
MR MANQELE: Yes.
MR CLAASSEN: Why did you decide to tell the truth in your amnesty application and not in the indemnity?
MR MANQELE: It is because the IFP legal reps came.
MR CLAASSEN: And it was explained to you how the amnesty process works and that you should make a full disclosure should you want to qualify for amnesty?
MR MANQELE: Please just repeat that part.
MR CLAASSEN: Mr Manqele - Mr Chairman if I may just - could you just briefly tell us what occurred on this particular day of the death of the deceased, what was your involvement, your role and what exactly happened?
MR MANQELE: On this particular day in question, when this event took place or happened, I had previously been there to inspect the area, the place which was told to me by Wiseman Kanyele, together with my colleagues. He showed me the way too and the way to effect service and he further told us that these people have money and indeed I went there with my colleagues and I showed them exactly as it was shown to me that here ...(intervention)
MR CLAASSEN: Mr Manqele, if I may. You, in the application form which you completed, which you went through, you initially said it was written down that you did not receive instructions from anybody, is this the correct version, or did you receive instructions from anyone?
MR MANQELE: May I ask which application are you referring to now, because you have made mention to two applications here, one being the indemnity one and the other amnesty, which one are you referring to at this point.
MR CLAASSEN: The amnesty application, the one which you just said contains the correct information. You also state in that particular paragraph in which you shortly put down the facts of what occurred, you say that
"I did not receive instructions from anyone".
Is this correct?
MR MANQELE: That I did not receive any instruction from anyone, being a superior or a leader, in the organisation.
MR CLAASSEN: Are you now referring to yourself?
MR MANQELE: Right now I am referring a member of the organisation, being Wiseman Kanyele.
MR CLAASSEN: Mr Manqele, could I just put it to you like this, did you receive instructions from anyone?
MR MANQELE: Yes.
MR CLAASSEN: From whom?
MR MANQELE: Wiseman Kanyele.
MR CLAASSEN: And what were these instructions?
MR MANQELE: Wiseman Kanyele gave us an instruction that entailed the fact that for us to be able to be free of all the problems that emanated in the hostel from the ANC people, we should be in a position to obtain firearms and be in a position of having cash or money, then there is one way we could come out of this problem, where he works there is money that we would be able to obtain to be able to fulfil the mission we were up to.
MR CLAASSEN: What is this mission that you are referring to?
MR MANQELE: That would be - in fact myself, I was an IFP member, but each time an IFP member died or got killed, I would not be in a position to donate some money. Secondly, as a member of IFP I did not have any firearm that would enable me to stand and fight against, and defend myself from any attackers. Thirdly, sometimes we would run into a situation where we need monies in case we have activities such as rallies, we would be in a position to have money, but we would not be in a position to have money, so that would have helped.
MR CLAASSEN: Mr Manqele, just very very briefly, explain to the Committee, what was your role and what exactly happened that particular day that the deceased was killed, what exactly happened?
MR MANQELE: On this day of this event I was one of the people who was directly facing the deceased and I was pointing my firearm at her.
MR CLAASSEN: What happened then?
MR MANQELE: As I was pointing my firearm, in fact as I drew out my firearm and stopped her, we did not particularly agree, in fact I could tell that she was shocked by the fact that I was drawing out a firearm and she screamed and jumped around and there were cars around us, and by so doing she happened to get into contact with the other car and suddenly the alarm from that car went off from that car and now I could not further explain to her and to why and what I wanted from her because of all this commotion that took place. And now in that very commotion with myself this side trying to pull the bags, I therefore heard the sound of a gunshot and I was confused. In fact I got confused for a minute because I did not know where this gunshot was coming from, and I let go of her and we ran off. In fact we fled.
MR CLAASSEN: Mr Manqele, this gunshot came from your firearm, is that correct?
MR MANQELE: Yes, but I was only told by the police. That got clear to me when the police was relaying the whole thing to me, but when it happened I could not quite tell as to where it was coming from.
CHAIRPERSON: How far were you from this lady when you shot her?
MR MANQELE: We were quite close to each other because I was trying to pull off the bag which she had on her arm.
CHAIRPERSON: And how far was the firearm from her body?
MR MANQELE: It wasn’t too far.
CHAIRPERSON: Give us an indication.
MR MANQELE: As she hung her handbag around her arm, as is the practice with the ladies, I tried to pull the bag and she was trying to run away and then I had my firearm pointing at her, but it is not that it is in direct contact with her body, the firearm that is.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Manqele, all I am asking is how far was the firearm from her body.
MR MANQELE: The estimation will be from where I am and my legal rep is, but one thing I won’t be able to explain is ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Less than half a metre? Did we agree?
MR CLAASSEN: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: And to which part of her body was your firearm directed when you shot her?
MR MANQELE: Because as I was pointing the firearm at her - this was not planned you know as such, that where shall I point the firearm exactly where, so that I am not able to tell exactly as to which part of her body my firearm was pointing at, but what I will try to explain is that it would be on the upper part of her body like from the head right towards the chest, the upper part of her body.
CHAIRPERSON: Look Mr Manqele, you were less than a half a metre away from her, pulling her and pointing your firearm at her, do you really want us to believe that you are unable to say at which portion of her body this firearm was being pointed?
MR MANQELE: What I would like you to believe is that you should have an idea as to where my firearm was pointing. I think it was from the head, face, right up to the chest because my firearm was not pointing down, but it was pointing to the upper part of her body, as I indicated.
CHAIRPERSON: The back or the front, on the side, or where?
MR MANQELE: The front side.
MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Mr Chair.
Mr Manqele, this attempted robbery went terribly wrong. Did you know Wiseman Kanyele before this incident?
MR MANQELE: Yes, I knew him.
MR CLAASSEN: Did you know him in a political capacity and what specific capacity?
MR MANQELE: I knew him as a member of the IFP, so was I.
MR CLAASSEN: Mr Manqele, did you in your personal capacity stand to gain anything from what occurred that particular day?
MR MANQELE: The one thing that I wanted to gain personally was that if it meant that I too should die under the circumstances that we lived in, should die, because some of our members had already died during the conflict.
MR CLAASSEN: Mr Manqele, how do you feel today about what had happened on that particular day?
MR MANQELE: I can say it is very, very hurtful. I am full of remorse because ultimately when I landed in jail I concluded and understood that I violated the policies of the IFP, and that is why I took it upon myself to make an application for amnesty and direct my apologies to the families of the deceased.
MR CLAASSEN: Mr Manqele, maybe just in conclusion, were there any prior specific political incidents which led to the decision that such an act should be committed, anything specifically that happened with you, with any of the people involved, that made you decide that you should take this drastic action?
MR MANQELE: Yes, there were certain things that occurred, like the dying of many IFP members, something which necessitated us to gather some money so that we could transport them back home where they could be buried. When Wiseman Kanyele came up with this suggestion, I associated with it because I too show myself waiting for my death, possibly the same way as my fellow IFP colleagues.
MR CLAASSEN: Mr Manqele, was there nothing else to be done about the situation?
MR MANQELE: I would say that I did not know exactly what to do to satisfy the needs to which I have already referred, so that when Wiseman came up with this plan I felt it within myself, I saw this as an opportunity to face the challenge that we were faced with.
MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Mr Chairman, that would be all from us.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CLAASSEN
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabete, do you have any questions?
MS THABETE: Yes, Mr Chair, but may I please have a two minute adjournment.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
S F MANQELE: (s.u.o.)
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETE: Thank you Mr Chair. Mr Manqele, would you agree with the other applicants, that there was a plan, specifically to rob Miss Govender?
MR MANQELE: Yes.
MS THABETE: Would you also agree that you were chosen to go with Mr Wiseman so that he could show you who this specific woman was that you had to rob?
MR MANQELE: Yes.
MS THABETE: What did he show you, what did Mr Wiseman Kanyele show you?
MR MANQELE: He showed me the vehicle that they were using.
MS THABETE: When you say ...(Zulu), who are you referring to? Who is "they"?
MR MANQELE: I am referring to the one person who died at my hands and this other white male who was in her company.
MS THABETE: So who was your target, was it the lady or was it both of them, according to your plan?
MR MANQELE: Both of them.
MS THABETE: What were you supposed to do to them, according to your plan?
MR MANQELE: We were supposed to point our firearms at them on arrival.
MS THABETE: Is that all?
MR MANQELE: And then rob them of the money that they had in their possession.
MS THABETE: How did you know they carried money with them?
MR MANQELE: Wiseman Kanyele gave us that information.
MS THABETE: Did he tell you how he knew these people?
MR MANQELE: Yes, I still remember.
MS THABETE: Can you tell us?
MR MANQELE: Yes.
MS THABETE: Please tell us.
MR MANQELE: Wiseman indicated that he was employed at the place of employment of these two people, but then he did not indicate. What he told me is that he was employed there but then he did not indicate to me as to whether he was employed with the two targets or not.
MS THABETE: So would it be correct for me to say Mr Wiseman identified these two people because they worked in the same area and he used to see them carrying bags of money to the bank?
MR MANQELE: Will you please repeat the question.
MS THABETE: Would it be correct for me to say Mr Wiseman Kanyele identified these two people, that is the white man and the woman, because he worked in the same area with them and as a result he used to see them with bags of money, going to the bank? Would it be correct for me to say so?
MR MANQELE: The information to my knowledge is that he was working there, whether he was working in the same area as these people or the same firm is not quite clear, but then the one information that I had was that he was working there. Whether he was working with these people or he was working in the same area as the people was not quite clear.
MS THABETE: When you say ...(Zulu) who are you referring to, what does ...(Zulu) refer to, is it the same company, does it refer to the same area, what does it refer to?
MR MANQELE: He showed me a building in the shopping centre, but then I don’t know how or what was happening inside in terms of the different companies, who was working where or where these other people were working, etc. I did not have quite the same, or should I say, knowledge, as to whether they were working for the same employer or whether they were just working in the same shopping complex.
MS THABETE: So, in your indemnity statement, when you said Mr Wiseman Kanyele told you that he was working with this lady, were you lying, or did you mean what you just explained?
MR MANQELE: Yes, he told me that he was working at the place where these people were to be robbed were working, but then I don’t know as to whether they were working at the same company or department or different companies or what.
MS THABETE: Was Mr Kanyele employed when he went to show you these people?
MR MANQELE: Would you please repeat the question.
MS THABETE: Was Mr Kanyele still working at this building when he went to show you these people?
MR MANQELE: He was not working at the time.
MS THABETE: Did he tell you why he was not working there anymore?
MR MANQELE: No.
MS THABETE: Were you employed at this time? Were you working anywhere at this time?
INTERPRETER: It looks like we have a technical problem, Chairperson.
MS THABETE: Can you answer the question then, were you employed during this time?
MR MANQELE: No.
MS THABETE: Was Mr Mvelase employed?
MR MANQELE: I would not know because we did not live under one roof.
MS THABETE: Was Mr Sigudu employed?
MR MANQELE: He, too, I would not be in a position to say whether he was employed or not because we used to see one another as residents of the hostel and we did not discuss anything pertaining to employment.
MS THABETE: I find that a bit strange Mr Manqele, in the sense that you got together, you planned a robbery, but you did not know whether the others were working or not. What is your comment to that?
INTERPRETER: It looks like the applicant still has a problem with reception, may the question please be repeated.
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabete, will you repeat the question please.
MS THABETE: Yes, Mr Chairperson.
I say I find it strange Mr Manqele that you came together, you made a plan with these people to go and rob two people but you didn’t know whether they were working or not, what is your comment to that?
INTERPRETER: Mr Chairperson it looks like the applicant still has the same problem with reception.
MR CLAASSEN: Speak to me please, Interpreter, on channel 4. Speak to me on channel 4 please. I hear you perfectly. It’s fine, I don’t know what the problem is, it’s perfect here.
MS THABETE: Shall I repeat the question? I was saying Mr Manqele, I find it strange that you got together with these people, you stayed in the same hostel but somehow you didn’t know whether they were working or not. What is your comment to that?
MS THABETE: Chairperson I’m not getting any response.
MR CLAASSEN: There’s nothing wrong with the system Judge.
PROBLEMS WITH MICROPHONES
MR MANQELE: Yes, I can hear now.
CHAIRPERSON: Will you give it one more try Ms Thabete, please.
MS THABETE: Thanks, Mr Chairperson.
My question, Mr Manqele was, I find it strange that you stayed in the same hostel, You made a plan, you got together and you planned to go and rob these people but you didn’t know whether Mr Mvelase and Mr Sigudu were employed or not. What is your comment to that?
MR MANQELE: I did not know.
MS THABETE: Sorry Mr Chair, can I get some guidance. In my recollection, I think that we asked whether they were employed or not at that stage and they said they were not employed. Would I be correct to say so?
CHAIRPERSON: As I remember it, yes.
MS THABETE: Yes.
Mr Manqele, in the light of the fact that - even though you didn’t know at the time that Mr Mvelase and Mr Sigudu were also not employed, how do you justify or how would you explain to the Committee member that you did not commit the robbery for personal gain, but you committed the robbery to further the objectives of the IFP as you have alleged?
MR MANQELE: I would say that - pertaining to what befell us, I can say that we did not involve ourselves in the crime for personal gain. I am confident that had it not been for the things that were happening at the place where I was residing, I would not be here. I had been in Johannesburg for quite some time and I had come here specifically to look for a job so that I could take care of my parents, but then the situation at my place of residence was such that I ended up being here where I am today. Had it not been for the fact that members of the IFP found themselves faced with conflict which could not be escaped to save oneself, it is therefore for that reason that we did what we did for that one reason, because it was peaceful and there was stability in the years when I arrived here in Johannesburg, but then I later on found myself deeply involved in the violence that landed me here. What I can say to the Committee is that what I did with my colleagues was not that I wanted any personal gain but instead we wanted to further the aims of the members of the IFP.
MS THABETE: What were the aims of the IFP that you wanted to further?
MR MANQELE: If I still remember very well, according to what I heard from the IFP from my childhood, the aim was that we had to unite and be one and stop hatred and conflict so that things should be resolved through negotiations.
MS THABETE: So how did you seek to achieve that aim by robbing somebody?
MR MANQELE: The aim was such that myself and my colleagues found ourselves in a conflict situation. It was not the intention or aims of the IFP that we found ourselves in that position. I, for one, do not remember any IFP member coming to me or other members in a meeting or whatever, saying that we should fight, but instead what was happening is that I heard the IFP meeting, that I heard from IFP members in some of the meetings that these people are talking rubbish, they are not going to dictate to us.
MS THABETE: In other words you were not going to listen to IFP?
MR MANQELE: The ones that I am saying were talking rubbish.
MS THABETE: What I am asking is, in other words you were saying that you were not going to, by doing this you were going to go against the policy of the IF, because, as far as you were concerned, they were talking rubbish. Did I hear you correctly?
MR MANQELE: No, you did not get me well. The people whom I am saying they are talking, it is actually IFP members who were talking, referring to ANC members with whom we were in conflict...... (end of Side A of tape) ... from my childhood, as a member of the IFP, I was told that problems can be resolved through negotiations. That is why I am saying that the conflict itself was not part of the policies or aims of the IFP.
MS THABETE: Yes, but how did you seek to achieve the aims of the IFP by going to rob somebody?
MR MANQELE: There was no other way through which we could accomplish the aims of the IFP. Our involvement in the conflict was in itself the violation of the policies of the IFP. It is we members of the IFP who were involved in violence.
MS THABETE: Thanks. Mr Manqele, considering the fact that what you did was against the IFP policies, if you were so concerned about fund-raising for the IFP, why didn’t you go to IFP officials or the authorities at the hostel, because from the letter that is in the bundle it was clear that there were IFP authorities at the hostel? My question is why didn’t you approach them to find out how you could fund-raise for the IFP and do something that was within the policies of the IFP if you were so concerned about fund-raising for the organisation?
MR MANQELE: According to my knowledge, the reason for us not going to the leadership of the IFP is that the conflict - the reason for us not going to the leadership of the IFP at the hostel is that the violence that we were facing at Dube was directed at us, not them. And for the violence to reach them or affect them, it had to affect us first.
MS THABETE: Sorry Mr Manqele, can I cut you there, I am talking about authorities in Dube Hostel, I am not talking about authorities from elsewhere.
MR MANQELE: Yes, I am referring to the leadership at the hostel. The leaders at the hostel, they as leaders at the hostel were leaders because of us. Every bad thing ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Who were they? Let’s hear that. Who are these leaders at the hostel?
MR MANQELE: The ones that I still remember are Mr Hlongwane, Mr Xinde and Mr Zulu. Those are the ones that I still remember, and a few others.
CHAIRPERSON: Those were IFP members. They were the IFP leaders in the hostel, am I correct?
MR MANQELE: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: They would know who their foot soldiers were, their members in the hostel, correct?
MR MANQELE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: And they knew you, as a resident of Dube Hostel?
MR MANQELE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Please proceed.
MS THABETE: Thank you Mr Chairperson.
I am coming now to the incident in question. Considering the fact that there were four of you, some of you were armed, including yourself, you approached a lady, you were all men, the four of you, you approached a lady who was unarmed, how do you explain and justify this politically. Oh, sorry, before you answer that one, why did you shoot her?
MR MANQELE: It was by mistake that she got shot.
I am saying it was not my intention to shoot her.
MS THABETE: No, what I am asking is what do you mean
"She was shot by mistake"
Did the gun fire by mistake, what mistake are you talking about?
MR MANQELE: No, the gun did not go off by itself, but a shot went off because I made the gun to fire.
MS THABETE: So my question remains. Was it necessary for you really to shoot her, considering the fact that there were four of you, armed men, the victim was a woman, unarmed, was it really necessary for you to shoot her?
MR MANQELE: No, it was not necessary.
MS THABETE: So why did you do it?
MR MANQELE: I, too, cannot even explain how this happened. I also got a shock when the police told me that we had shot a person but at the time when this was happening and when this gun went off, it did not occur to me that I was the one who was shooting. That is why I am saying that what happened was not within my intentions. It is for this reason that I am asking for forgiveness from the family of the deceased, because it was not my intention to shoot the deceased.
MS THABETE: My last question to you. I understand what you are saying, that it was a mistake, you did not intend to kill her, did not plan to kill her, she was killed nevertheless. How do you justify that politically? What would you say is your justification politically?
MR MANQELE: The political motive is that I found myself in that situation because we had gone there to try and get some money for the IFP.
MS THABETE: Who told you that the IFP did not have money?
MR MANQELE: ...(no English interpretation)
MS THABETE: Where do you get that from? I mean, the IFP has a leader, Chief Mangasutho Buthelezi, it would hold rallies, where did you get the idea that the IFP did not have money?
MR MANQELE: I got this from the death of members of the IFP because in the event of a member of the IFP dying, we would be informed at the hostel that a member had passed away and we would have to contribute so that the corpse could be transferred back home where it should be buried.
MS THABETE: Surely there were people who were IFP members at the hostel who were working and who would make such contributions, is that not so?
MR MANQELE: That is correct.
MS THABETE: So why was it necessary to go and rob for that?
MR MANQELE: It was important and necessary because we did not have money to contribute at the time in the event of monies being required to be contributed towards the meeting of the transportation of the corpse to be buried at home.
MS THABETE: In other words, you wanted to get this money in order that you were able to contribute money if it is called for, to transport or to pay for transport for people to be taken back home, is this what you are telling us?
MR MANQELE: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabete, any more questions?
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS THABETE
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Claassen have you got any?
MR CLAASSEN: No questions, thank you Mr Chairperson.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR CLAASSEN
CHAIRPERSON: Well, you go first.
ADV SIGODI: Do you know why Wiseman was not at the scene of the robbery?
MR MANQELE: Yes, I know.
ADV SIGODI: Why did he not go?
MR MANQELE: He told me that it would not be appropriate because he was known in that area.
ADV SIGODI: He was also known by the victim, is that not so?
MR MANQELE: Yes, and many others who used to work with him in that area.
ADV SIGODI: I’ve got a statement here on page 16, the typed statement. It is not signed, but your written version of it is on pages 13, 14 and 15. That is the statement which you say is not true. However, you mentioned that - sorry, I cannot seem to find that statement, but there is a statement where you said Mr Kanyele was bearing a grudge against this lady particularly because she was responsible for his retrenchment at work, do you remember that? Do you know anything about that?
MR MANQELE: ...(no English interpretation)
ADV SIGODI: Okay, I’ll just get it now. Oh, yes, it’s the typed statement on page 16. Well, I get the impression that you were accompanying Mr Kanyele here to Parktown to collect his money for his retrenchment but then you go on to say
"... we then saw two people approaching us and he told me those were also employed by the company and told me that the woman who was with the white man is the one there that he be retrenched from work because she hated black men, especially members of Inkatha Freedom Party. She used to say we are hard to crack(?) because we haven’t got understanding."
Do you know anything about that, do you remember that statement?
MR MANQELE: Which statement are you talking about?
ADV SIGODI: I have referred to page 16, if you can help me.
MR MANQELE: Yes, now I can see the statement. Yes I can answer. My legal representative asked me about this statement earlier. I will repeat what I said to my legal representative, that this letter of indemnity did not, on arrival at the prison, or should I say the situation was such that I did not have anybody coming to me to explain to me as to how I should go about filling it in and the people who were assisting me in filling it in were people who were arrested.
ADV SIGODI: Mr Manqele, that is not the issue here. What I am trying to find out is, is there some truth in this statement? Is it not true that Mr Kanyele was retrenched whilst he had been working at the place or with the people that he instructed you to rob?
MR MANQELE: This statement is not correct.
ADV SIGODI: Alright, let’s take it step by step. Is it not true that Mr Kanyele was working at the place where these people that you robbed were working?
MR MANQELE: Yes, it is true that he was working at the same place where these two people who were robbed were employed.
ADV SIGODI: Alright, is it not true that he is the one who went to show you who the targets would be?
MR MANQELE: Yes, he took me along to show me as to who or which people were to be robbed.
ADV SIGODI: Yes, and he showed you Miss Govender and the white man, is that not true?
MR MANQELE: He showed me a car.
ADV SIGODI: Didn’t he show you the two people?
MR MANQELE: No.
ADV SIGODI: How did you identify them on the day that they were going to - on the day that you robbed them, how did you manage to identify them?
MR MANQELE: I knew them because they had come out of the same vehicle which he pointed out to me.
ADV SIGODI: How did you know that they were the right people?
MR MANQELE: I knew because of the identity of the vehicle which they were using.
ADV SIGODI: But you knew that it would be a woman that you would have to rob?
MR MANQELE: Yes.
ADV SIGODI: So where did you get this information that you supplied in your indemnity statement? Did you just pick it up out of the blue?
MR MANQELE: The information contained here is information that is such that it is information part of which was concocted between myself and my co-inmates. Some of this is a lie.
ADV SIGODI: And some of it is not a lie?
MR MANQELE: That is correct.
ADV SIGODI: Is it true that Wiseman Kanyele had been retrenched?
MR MANQELE: According to his explanation he indicated that he was employed there but when he later on told me that we had to go and get his money, he was no longer working at that place.
ADV SIGODI: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON: Was that lady involved in his losing his job?
MR MANQELE: That is a lie.
CHAIRPERSON: That’s all. Doctor? Yes, thank you, you are excused.
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: Is that all the evidence you have got Mr Claassen?
MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Mr Chair that is indeed all the evidence that I have.
CHAIRPERSON: Are there any witnesses that you would like to call?
MS THABETE: No Mr Chairperson, but I would like to take this opportunity to put it on record that the victim’s next of kin were notified. They are in Cape Town and they said they are not interested in attending the proceedings.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Claassen, there are just a few things that we need to find out from you before we ... As far as you are concerned, what are the applications directed at, because I am not really certain myself.
MR CLAASSEN ADDRESSES COMMITTEE: Thank you Mr Chair. Mr Chair, having looked at the applications and I mean the applications that was submitted by the three applicants, with specific reference to the convictions and also the evidence given by the three applicants in chief today, Mr Chair, it is true that, as far as it is true that in the application mention is made of the possession of illegal firearms, the attempted murder as well as the specific murder of, I think it was Miss Govender, the deceased.
Mr Chair, I think one would be more than naive to say that if one takes into consideration the requirements for the granting of amnesty and specifically the proviso or the provisions that is made by the promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, if I may just start, Mr Chair, by, I think that it clearly strikes on the three main considerations that being the objective had to be politically associated, there had to be full disclosure and obviously the question of proportionality of the act that they committed.
Mr Chair, maybe even before getting to the evidence of the applicants and their version of what had occurred, surely the question stands to be argued or was what they did, indeed politically motivated or even vaguely associated with a political objective. Mr Chair, maybe if I could just get to the letter which you specifically brought to the attention of the second applicant and it's clearly stated by both the applicants that the situation in Dube Hostel was such that they deemed it necessary to commit this act to relieve the immediate situation and their immediate pressing political turmoil in which they found themselves.
They acted, it is the version of the applicants, on the instruction of Mr Wiseman Kanyele, yet they only know him to be a member of the IFP, not a senior member or a member who holds any rank of significance within the IFP. And they say that had this robbery gone according to plan, that the money would be given to the IFP, yet in stark contrast to what they alleged they wanted to do, they admit that this is very expressly not the policy of the IFP and the IFP goes so far to, in writing, distance them from what has happened.
Mr Chair, if one looks at Section 20, and it is very broadly defined, and even if one looks at it very broadly one would be naive not to say the question remains, was there any mention whatsoever, that higher structures in the IFP knew of this and had they known would they have condoned it, which by their own account is not the situation, Mr Chair, and ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Claassen, do you think that everything that was needed to be said in order to comply with the Act has in fact been said?
MR CLAASSEN: Mr Chair, it is true if one looks at, once again, at the Act itself, a broad picture of, or if one looks at the specific requirements for amnesty, surely all the points which might be considered to grant an amnesty application, might not by all the accused have been uncovered by the testimony of all the accused.
Even if that, Mr Chair, considering that and just taking into account the versions of the applicants, surely the requirements stand that these requirements should not be seen separately but they should all be met and in view thereof, certainly there are shortcomings which one cannot overlook.
Mr Chair, if I may just, with specific reference to the testimony of the applicants, and should it be considered I think, even if one gets past the political motive and should the Committee feel that there was sufficient underlying political motive, the versions of the accused themselves should be taken into account and whether they are truthful witnesses and what they allege happened could be believed ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: I think you would be best served by leaving that in our hands.
MR CLAASSEN: I believe so. Thank you Mr Chair, I would not ... ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: I appreciate your position.
MR CLAASSEN: As the Chair wishes. I would leave the decision of these applications in the capable hands of the Committee.
CHAIRPERSON: Have you got any submissions to make, Ms Thabete? It is not necessary if you don’t want.
MS THABETE: I will leave the decision in the capable hands of the Committee Members, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay. We will take time to consider this application and the decision will be published in due course. We're adjourned till 9 o’clock tomorrow morning.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
