CHAIRPERSON: Good morning to you all. Today we are going to hear the amnesty application of Mselele Sives Ndamane. I believe Mr Ndamane is legally represented and before I proceed to ask his legal representative to state his name for the record, I would like to take this opportunity to introduce the Panel that will be sitting here to hear all applications set down for the week at this venue, starting with myself. I am Judge Sisi Khampepe and on my right-hand side is my colleague Advocate Francis Bosman. On my left-hand side my other colleague Mr Ilan Lax. Will the legal representative representing Mr Ndamane place his name on record?
MR MOTEPE: My name is Advocate Motepe, I'm representing the applicant here.
MS THABETHE: I'm Ms Thabethe for the TRC.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Motepe and Ms Thabethe, are we in a position to commence with the application of Mr Ndamane?
MR MOTEPE: I believe we are ready to proceed.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. The ball is in your court Sir.
MR MOTEPE: As I've already handed in supplementary affidavits, I believe it deals extensively with this application and at this stage we don't have anything to add unless there are questions from the Committee.
CHAIRPERSON: Will Mr Ndamane give his evidence in Zulu?
MR MOTEPE: He will give it in Zulu.
MSELELE SIVES NDAMANE: (sworn states)
MS THABETHE: The victims don't have earphones. Can we have earphones for them please?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Will the technical assistant kindly come to the victims' assistance by providing them with headphones?
Ms Thabethe, are we in a position to proceed?
Mr Ndamane, your legal representative has handed up a supplementary affidavit. Are you aware that a supplementary affidavit has been handed up to the Members of the Committee?
MR NDAMANE: Yes, I am.
CHAIRPERSON: Are you aware of the contents of the supplementary affidavit?
MR NDAMANE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Do you confirm the correctness of the facts contained in the supplementary affidavit?
MR NDAMANE: Yes.
MR MOTEPE: As it pleases the Committee.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MOTEPE
INTERPRETER: Excuse me Chairperson, I think we are having a communication problem here with the applicant.
CHAIRPERSON: Do you have any questions to put to Mr Ndamane?
MS THABETHE: Thank you, Madam Chair, I do.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETHE: On paragraph 2 of your supplementary affidavit you talk about the material which was going to be used in home made weapons for Self Defence Units. How were you going to defend yourselves? Sorry, let me start here. Who was going to make these home made weapons?
INTERPRETER: Can you repeat the question? The volume was very low.
MS THABETHE: On paragraph 2 of your affidavit you talk about material that was going to be used in home made weapons to be used for Self Defence Units. What I'm asking is, who was going to make those home made weapons?
MR LAX: Sorry, I'm not sure whether you're interpreting or you're just listening to the story, but we're not getting any interpretation at all. I'm not sure what the problem is. It might just be that switch in your cubicle there. Not?
CHAIRPERSON: We'll take a five minute adjournment so that this problem of translation can be sorted out.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
MSELELE SIVES NDAMANE: (s.u.o.)
CHAIRPERSON: We wish to express our apologies to the members of the public and the legal representatives involved, for the delay. The delay was caused by a major technical problem which had to be sorted out. We have now been assured that we can proceed with this hearing without any interruptions due to technical problems. Ms Thabethe, we adjourned when you were still busy cross-examining Mr Ndamane. You may proceed with your cross-examination.
MS THABETHE: Thank you Madam Chair, I'll start from the beginning. Mr Ndamane, my first question to you was, you speak about the material that was going to be used in home made weapons, my question to you was who actually made these weapons?
MR NDAMANE: Comrade Nkosi Kwana.
MS THABETHE: Was he part of your unit as well?
MR NDAMANE: He was a leader of the unit that was in charge of constructing these home made weapons.
MS THABETHE: You also talk about the fact that you were going to use - these weapons were going to be used by your Self Defence Unit, also in paragraph 2. My question to you is, why did the Self Defence Unit need to use these weapons? What was the reason?
MR NDAMANE: The problem we encountered was that we did not have enough weapons to defend the community.
MS THABETHE: Actually what I was asking is why did you need to defend the communities? Why was it necessary for you to defend the communities?
MR NDAMANE: The situation was not quite friendly, the violence was rife and the situation was quite volatile. The perpetrators being the IFP, mistreating the community which was predominantly ANC.
MS THABETHE: Coming to the robbery that took place on the 23rd December, which is on paragraph 3 of your supplementary affidavit, can you briefly explain exactly how did you try to rob this car that you had to rob? If you read your supplementary affidavit you say, "On the 23rd of December at Nigel, whilst still trying to rob a car, the police arrived at the scene". So my question is, what were you doing when the police came?
MR NDAMANE: As we were busy trying to rob the car away from the owner, he was resisting our attempt and as we were still busy the police approached and we fled the scene.
MS THABETHE: Actually, my question - I wanted you to briefly clarify, you know, how the whole thing happened. Did he come, you stopped him, did you have guns, you know, just to give us a picture of what happened before the police came.
MR NDAMANE: Exactly what happened, the car was not in motion. He had stopped. Apparently he was coming from somewhere to the car. As he was opening the door of the car I drew out my gun and pointed it at him and my comrades immediately joined me and we asked for the car keys and he did not want to give the car keys voluntarily to us. I therefore threatened him, that if he does not give us the keys, he might put himself in danger. So as soon as he gave us the keys, we put the key in the ignition and we tried to start the car and the car could not respond. Now it was clear to us that there was some immobiliser involved and we asked him to start the car for us and he refused. He did not want to do that as we requested. Suddenly the police emerged and we fled.
MS THABETHE: How was this car identified?
MR NDAMANE: The car was identified by our commander that we were with and he said "this is the car we need to get hold of" and we alighted from the kombi in which we were driving and we charged forward towards the car and they went past.
MS THABETHE: Did your Commander tell you why you had to take that car specifically?
MR NDAMANE: Unfortunately at that time there was no time to sort of discuss and talk over the matter and we just followed as he instructed, that we need to get hold of that car because the idea was that the car must not belong to any of the SDU members.
CHAIRPERSON: So your evidence is that your commander never identified a particular car to be stolen by you, you were merely given instructions to get hold of the car? No car was ever specified or pointed out to you to steal? That was left to your discretion, is it not so?
MR NDAMANE: Yes, there was no specific instruction as to which car or what type of a car we must get. It just so happened at that particular time that the car was pointed to us and we had to follow the instruction.
CHAIRPERSON: Now who pointed the particular car to you?
You said it was your commander. Is it the same Commander Mr Comrade Manyana?
MR NDAMANE: Yes, that's true.
CHAIRPERSON: Was he with you when you attempted to rob this person of his car?
MR NDAMANE: No, when this robbery took place he was not present because they went past, driving in a kombi.
CHAIRPERSON: How many of you were there at the scene of this motor car robbery?
MR NDAMANE: We were four.
CHAIRPERSON: Name the other comrades who were there with you.
MR NDAMANE: Comrade Zakele Simelane was there, Comrade Mpikelele, as well as Comrade Vincent. I was the fourth one.
CHAIRPERSON: Can you please give us surnames, Mpikelele's surname and Vincent's surname.
MR NDAMANE: I only knew them with their first names, I did not know their surnames.
CHAIRPERSON: Did they belong to your unit? Mpikelele and Vincent, were they members of your unit?
MR NDAMANE: They were the members of the Self Defence Unit, not particularly my unit, or the one I was in.
CHAIRPERSON: Were they also instructed by Comrade Manyana to accompany you when you had to go and fetch the hardware material at Standerton?
MR NDAMANE: I got the instruction or the message alone, but I met them on that day when we had to undertake this mission.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Did you meet them because they were also similarly instructed as you had been by Comrade Manyana?
MR NDAMANE: I believe so.
CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed Ms Thabethe. Sorry for the interposition.
MS THABETHE: Thank you, Madam Chair. Coming to the second robbery for which you apply for amnesty, on the 10th of February 1992. Can you also briefly tell us how you robbed that car? Like exactly what did you do in robbing that car?
MR NDAMANE: The car was identified on the 9th at night, that we should get the car the following day on the 10th in the morning. On that day we woke up and we went to convene at Khumalo where we always gathered. Then we left to where we should get hold of the car, or get the car. We arrived there and we found the owner reversing the car outside the premises and we approached close to him and we asked him to borrow us the car because there is some mission we have to bring to fruition. As soon as that mission has been brought to fruition, we will bring back the car to him in order. He had a problem giving us the car and I pointed the gun at him, no in fact the gun was in my position and I showed him the gun, I did not particularly point it at him and he gave us and we left.
MR LAX: May I just interpose for a moment? You say you spoke to the owner of the vehicle. Was that Mr Sambo?
MR NDAMANE: I think that's him, Your Honour.
INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone.
MR LAX: Sorry, thank you. You saw him in the criminal trial, the man who was the owner?
MR NDAMANE: Yes.
MR LAX: And you're sure you spoke to him?
MR NDAMANE: Yes, I'm sure.
MR LAX: Sorry, Ms Thabethe, please proceed.
MS THABETHE: Thank you. You spoke about a gun, that you pointed him with a gun, where did you get this gun from?
MR NDAMANE: The gun was given to me by Comrade Manyana.
MS THABETHE: And then you say you proceeded to rob the bank. Can you also give brief details as to how you committed this robbery?
MR NDAMANE: When we got to the bank, the bank was not opened yet. We waited. Shortly the workers arrived and the bank was opened and we parked right in front of the bank and we went inside. I was the first one to march in and I drew my gun and I pointed it to the workers of the bank and we asked them to give us some money and indeed they gave us.
MS THABETHE: How many were you?
MR NDAMANE: We were two.
MS THABETHE: Who was the other person, the name of the other person?
MR NDAMANE: Comrade Zakele, that was the other person.
MS THABETHE: In paragraph 7 of your supplementary affidavit you talk about the fact that you seek amnesty because the acts, the offences you committed were not criminal in nature but they were motivated by political objectives. What were those objectives?
MR NDAMANE: Our objective was to establish and arm the Self Defence Unit because their duty was solely to defend the community from Inkatha which was based in Kosenye Hostel.
MS THABETHE: Thank you Madam Chair, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS THABETHE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Thabethe. Mr Motepe do you have any re-examination?
MR MOTEPE: I do not have any.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR MOTEPE
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lax do you have any questions to put to Mr Ndamane?
MR LAX: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Ndamane, with regard to the first incident, that's the one where you took Mr Pretorius's vehicle, the Jetta, you said that he was resisting. What do you mean he was resisting? What was he doing to resist you?
MR NDAMANE: He did not want to start the car and gave us the reason that the car had no fuel.
MR LAX: So he wasn't resisting you. You had the key, you were trying to start the car, the car wouldn't start. That's not the same thing. Do you agree?
MR NDAMANE: No, he did not want to co-operate because the car would not respond to our effort of starting it and we asked him to do that for us and he refused still and he said no, he will just not do that for us because there's no fuel in the car.
MR LAX: One other aspect of your application concerns me a great deal and that is you have not told us anything about how you came to part him with his money and his watch. What happened to his money and his watch? You people stole R400 from him and you took his watch and you were convicted of that. Why haven't you told us about that in this application?
MR NDAMANE: No, Your Honour, I have no knowledge of that money.
MR LAX: So you're not applying for amnesty for those aspects? Do I understand you correctly? If you don't know anything about it then you can't apply for amnesty.
MR NDAMANE: Not at all with regards to the money, I know nothing.
MR LAX: Then I assume you know nothing about the watch either?
MR NDAMANE: The first time I heard that information was at the police station after we'd been arrested.
MR LAX: One last aspect, Chairperson. You've just told us and I asked you a question about that piece of evidence just now, were you sure that it was the owner of the vehicle that you spoke to when you went there, the second vehicle, I beg your pardon, the vehicle of Mr Sambo. You said he was reversing the vehicle and you approached him and you told him you wanted to borrow the car. I got that right, didn't I?
That was your evidence?
MR NDAMANE: The certainty around the fact that he is the owner of the car, I don't know as much, but the person who was reversing the car that day is the very same person who told that evidence at the court of law and is the one who went for the parade at the police station.
MR LAX: Well, you see, the evidence of that person was, I'll give you his name, his name was Lemi Mabanga, he was a 20 year old man and his evidence was that he was washing the car when you approached him. He wasn't driving it, he was washing it for his father and he's the son of the owner of the vehicle.
MR NDAMANE: Your Honour, I think his intention was to reverse the car in order to wash it, but at the time when we got there, he was in the process of reversing the car, not that he was already washing the car.
MR LAX: He says that you asked him "whose vehicle is this?"
You don't remember that?
MR NDAMANE: No, but what I remember very well is that we approached him, we go to him and asked him if he can borrow us the car because there is some community project that we have to undertake and as soon as we've done that we'll bring back the vehicle to him, the car.
MR LAX: Well his evidence in court was that you asked him whose vehicle it is, he told you it was his father's vehicle, one of you pointed a firearm at him and you asked for the keys. He mentions nothing in his testimony about this being needed for a community project or a community operation or anything of that kind. Can you explain why there's no such evidence whatsoever in the criminal trial from this young man?
MR NDAMANE: Your Honour, I really don't know why his evidence is different, whether he had some intention in his mind I would not know but the fact is that when we got to him we explained to him as to what we were going to use the car for and when he denied us to use the car, we showed him the gun and as soon as we've done that, he let go.
MR LAX: Why did you choose that particular car?
MR NDAMANE: The car was identified by Comrade Manyana.
MR LAX: And how was it identified? What did he say to you?
MR NDAMANE: On the 9th when we met at Khumalo where we usually meet, we went to this house where we got the car and we were told when we got there that this is the car we need to come the following day and get because it's an informant's car.
MR LAX: It's a what car?
CHAIRPERSON: I think the problem with the translator is that the applicant has used the name umdlwembe. Just translate it as umdlwembe.
INTERPRETER: Okay, thank you very much.
MR NDAMANE: Because the car was identified to us because it was the car that belonged to umdlwembe.
MR LAX: Well you see, this is the problem I have with your evidence. Why would you go to someone who was umdlwembe, excuse my pronunciation, and say you wanted to use this car for a community purpose. You would know that someone of that nature would not be interested in that kind of purpose. You wouldn't go to a sell-out or an informer and say "hey, I want to use your car for a community purpose". Isn't that so?
MR NDAMANE: I was following the order and I was told never to question and defy the orders.
MR LAX: So was your order to go there and to say to him "we want to use your car for a community purpose"? Is that what you're saying?
MR NDAMANE: The order was we should go get that car and go and do the work. As to how to go about taking the car, we were not given those details.
MR LAX: So my question remains, why would you go to somebody who you've described as umdlwembe and say to him "this is a car, we want to use this car for community purposes"? You'd be giving yourself away for that.
CHAIRPERSON: Proceed.
MR NDAMANE: Your Honour, there was no other thing that appeared to me or that posed danger to us because there was no any other thing we were up to except that and it was not necessarily planned that this is how or this is the sequence we should adhere to.
CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose? Would you say by what you said to the person you spoke to when you demanded the car and said you wanted to use it for community purpose, you would have given your operation away by that? To me that does not indicate or suggest anything. You're being polite in attempting to take the car away from this person. You did not explain the nature of the community operation you wanted to do, to this person. You wouldn't have given yourself away. You didn't go further to explain the nature of the operation you wanted to use the car for, did you?
MR NDAMANE: Yes, it is so because we did not tell more or divulge any more information than the one we had already told him in regards to the nature of the operation that we had to conduct on behalf of the community.
MR LAX: Thank you, Chair, I have no further questions.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Lax.
Adv Bosman, do you have any questions to put to Mr Ndamane?
ADV BOSMAN: Just one or two thank you, Chairperson. Mr Ndamane, the morning in Nigel, how did it come about that you went to Nigel?
MR NDAMANE: We did not go in the morning to Nigel, it was during the day.
ADV BOSMAN: How did it come about that you went there?
MR NDAMANE: The reason why we went there, it is because Comrade Manyana had given us an instruction that we should go to Standerton and fetch the hardware material and the car that we were supposed to use in this regard, therefore we had to go to Nigel.
ADV BOSMAN: Was this on the way to Standerton?
CHAIRPERSON: May I just correct the translation? Didn't you say, the way passing through Nigel. Yes I just wanted to correct Madam translator.
MR LAX: Did I understand the translation correctly, so that was on the way to Standerton you passed Nigel, that's why they were there.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
ADV BOSMAN: What I do not understand is were you then going in two vehicles, or what was to become of the kombi you were travelling in?
MR NDAMANE: According to my knowledge the kombi that we were using, the owner was one person who formed part of the Self Defence Unit so we wouldn't have used that car in this kind of operation.
ADV BOSMAN: So it was because you would be traced through that car, that kombi, is that correct?
MR NDAMANE: Yes, if only we had used that car and the plan is blown out of proportion in a way we would have been easily traced.
ADV BOSMAN: Thank you. Thank you Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Adv Bosman.
Mr Ndamane, just a few questions of clarity. If you have sight of your affidavit, is it in front of you? Paragraph 3 with regard to the robbery on the 16th of December, 23rd of December. Now you state that you were charged with robbery with aggravating circumstances, 2 unlicensed firearms. Now what kind of firearms were these that you were convicted of?
MR NDAMANE: I was convicted for .38 firearm together with the ammunition.
CHAIRPERSON: Now which firearm did you possess? You were charged with having illegally possessed a .38 and a Smith & Wesson Revolver. Is it a mistake? According to paragraph 3 you have indicated that you were convicted of having been in possession of a firearm. This 2 is not to indicate the number of firearms?
MR MOTEPE: If I may come in here, it's just to indicate the number of the count.
CHAIRPERSON: I see. So otherwise you were charged with having been in illegal possession of a .38 firearm. Now where had you obtained this firearm?
MR NDAMANE: I was given to be Comrade Commander Manyana.
CHAIRPERSON: And the weapon that you used in the robbery of the car belonging to umdlwembe, Mr Sambo, where had you obtained that firearm?
MR NDAMANE: Also I was given by Comrade Manyana, the firearm that is.
CHAIRPERSON: And the ammunition thereof, were you also given by Comrade Manyana?
MR NDAMANE: Yes, that is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: And what kind of a firearm did you use in this robbery?
MR NDAMANE: It was a 9mm Your Honour.
CHAIRPERSON: In your application you have made a very long memorandum in support of your application and you indicated in your main affidavit that you were staying at Siluma, is it Khumalo section? Is that where you were staying?
MR NDAMANE: No, I resided at Siluma View.
CHAIRPERSON: And was Siluma View about 400 to 600 metres from Kosenye Hostel?
MR NDAMANE: Yes, that is so.
CHAIRPERSON: And there was this conflict between the residents in the township and the IFP dwellers at Kosenye Hostel?
MR NDAMANE: Yes, that is true.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Motepe, emanating from the questions from the Members of the Committee, do you have any re-examination?
MR MOTEPE: I do wish to ask a few questions.
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR MOTEPE: Now Mr Ndamane, there was a question asked about the money taken from the victim and a watch. Now did you at any stage take the victim's money and/or a watch?
MR NDAMANE: No, absolutely no.
MR MOTEPE: Did you see any of your comrades doing that?
MR NDAMANE: No, I did not see any.
MR MOTEPE: Now the reason you are not applying for amnesty concerning the watch and the money is because you know nothing about it, is that correct?
MR NDAMANE: That is very correct.
MR MOTEPE: I have got no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MOTEPE
CHAIRPERSON: Does this bring to an end the application of Mr Ndamane, or do you wish to call in further witnesses in support of his application, Mr Motepe?
MR MOTEPE: I do not have any witnesses to call.
CHAIRPERSON: So you close your application?
WITNESS EXCUSED
MR MOTEPE: Perhaps if one can just put in a legal argument, just to tie.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I will be coming to that. So you no longer wish to call any further evidence?
MR MOTEPE: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Ms Thabethe?
MS THABETHE: No witnesses, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Is this application opposed Ms Thabethe?
MS THABETHE: No Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Not opposed. Mr Motepe are you in a position to make your submission?
MR MOTEPE: I am in a position.
CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed to do so.
MR MOTEPE IN ARGUMENT: As we have heard the evidence before us, it is clear that the community, from where the applicant comes from, was faced with turbulent situations, being attacked
by IFP supporters, being attacked by Security Forces and it is clear that they did not have sort of arms to protect themselves against the well-equipped IFP and the Security Forces. It is for that reason that there was a need for the Self Defence Units to arm themselves and since they did not have resources, it was necessary for them to go and use even unconventional means and in this instance they robbed cars, they tried to rob a bank to get money in order to buy material to be used for weapons. That in itself is very unconventional and one might even think that it's criminal in nature, but if you look at the context from which it happened, it is very clear that there was a political motive. We know that we had liberation movements like the PAC. They have already confessed that they involved themselves in such acts, where they robbed banks in order to buy arms and it was a similar situation here.
The policy of the SD was to protect the community. Now how do you protect the community if you do not have arms? You have to bring yourself into a situation where you have those arms to protect that particular community and robbing a bank, getting the finances, was a way of acquiring those particular arms and in that regard I just wish to say that the applicant has sufficiently shown that this objective was not for personal gain, it was not personal motives, it was the objective of protecting the community in which he lived.
CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose? You've alluded to PAC's policy of robbing banks and we agree with you. The PAC had a policy of repossessing, they called it repossessing. But it wasn't the policy of the ANC to repossess, was it? So you cannot argue that because the PAC had such a policy, that you should actually clump this application within the policy used by a different organisation to which your client was not aligned to.
MR MOTEPE: It is true that the ANC did not have a specific policy on robbing banks, but as I've already said, the communities were faced with a situation and there was no always a clear command from the ANC that protect yourself in this way. They were faced with an urgent situation, they had to act. Now, in their opinion, and they were given instructions by their Commanders. The Commanders themselves realised that the way of getting arms was through robbing banks and getting finances.
CHAIRPERSON: So it is your submission that it was the policy of the SDU as a structure to rob banks.
MR MOTEPE: Indeed. The policy of the SDU as an institution to rob particular banks.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, confine yourself to that without having to make any reference to a different political organisation you are not dealing with.
MR MOTEPE: As it pleases the Committee.
MR LAX: Furthermore, just to be on the safe side, don't you want to rather rely on the fact that this man was following orders, regardless of what the policy was?
MR MOTEPE: Well, I was just trying to give a background and put it in a proper perspective that it must not be taken as a criminal offence per se. But the evidence on instructions, that one is very clear and it's not even in dispute, that they were acting on instructions and in that respect he does qualify for amnesty in terms of Section 20, sub-section 2, he does qualify. Also my submission.
CHAIRPERSON: And there is no evidence to suggest that he might have known subjectively that the instructions from Comrade Manyana was not in accordance with what was being done by the SDU as an institution.
MR MOTEPE: No, there's no such evidence. The applicant was what one would refer as a foot soldier. He was not in the high structures of command, so he had to take instructions without questioning. I have got no further submissions.
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabethe.
NO ARGUMENT BY MS THABETHE
MS THABETHE: Madam Chair, I have no argument, except to say that I have no objection if amnesty is granted in this application, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Motepe and Ms Thabethe, this Committee is in a position to give an extemporary decision in respect of this matter and we proceed to do so.
However, before we proceed to pronounce our decision in this matter, we just want to bring to your attention a few formalities that will have to be complied with before this decision is acted upon, particularly by Correctional Services.
The decision will be pronounced today. It will have to be typed and sent down to Cape Town to our CEO and Executive Secretary Mr Martin Coetzee, who will then do the necessary in terms of the Act as he is obliged to, to make sure that this decision is gazetted and communicated to the head of the prison before it is acted upon in accordance with the terms that we are now to pronounce. This we do so that Mr Ndamane can be aware that irrespective of the extemporary nature of our decision, there are some formalities that will still have to be complied with before the decision is acted upon. We hope you will also do much more than we have in explaining these procedures to him as his legal representative.
MR MOTEPE: I will explain.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
F I N D I N G
This Committee gives the following decision in respect of an amnesty application of Mr Mlungile Selele Sives Ndamane, AM 3124/97, /96, there has to be a correction there.
Mr Ndamane applied for amnesty in terms of Act 34 of 1995 as amended for three counts of robbery. He was at all times relevant hereto, a member of the African National Congress, the ANC, and also a member of the Self Defence Unit in the Khumalo area near ...(indistinct). He has given evidence that the area where he stayed was about 400 to 600 metres from Kosenye Hostel, which was an Inkatha Freedom Party stronghold. It is common cause that there was ongoing political conflict between the IFP hostel dwellers and the ANC people living in the nearby township. The ANC thus formed a Self Defence Unit to protect their supporters as well as their residents. This they did because they perceived the South African Police not to have been capable of preventing the ongoing violence between the two political parties. The SDU then sought means of trying to obtain arms in order to protect the community in the area. It is against this background that the events leading to this application took place.
The applicant testified that on the 16th of December 1991 he was instructed by one Comrade Manyana, who was his Commander within the SDU Unit, to go and fetch some hardware material at Standerton. The said material was to be used for manufacturing home made weapons for the Self Defence Unit. He, together with other SDU members, were ordered to first rob someone of a vehicle to be used for transporting the hardware material. In compliance therewith, on the 23rd December 1991 and at Nigel the applicant together with Vincent, Mpikelele and Simelane, tried to rob Mr Pretorius of a vehicle for the purpose of fetching the aforementioned material. They were however arrested by the police at the scene. The motor vehicle was recovered and no-one was injured.
The applicant was subsequently charged with and convicted of robbery and sentenced to 6 years imprisonment. On the 1st of February 1992 the applicant, together with others, were again ordered by Comrade Manyana, to go and rob someone of a motor vehicle which was to be used in a bank robbery operation. The money obtained there from would have been used for the purchase of weaponry for use by the unit in their activities. The owner of this motor vehicle was targeted, so it is alleged, because he was alleged to have been an umdlwembe, who we have now become to understand to mean an IFP supporter and a sell-out in the eyes of the ANC. In pursuance of Commander Manyana's order on the 10th February 1992 and at Heidelberg the applicant, together with Simelane robbed a person of a motor vehicle and thereafter proceeded to rob a Volkskas bank. They robbed the bank but were caught when the stolen motor vehicle broke down. No-one was injured in both robberies and both the motor vehicle and the money taken from the bank were recovered.
The applicant was charged with and convicted of these two counts of robbery. He was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment on each count, 7 years of the second count was ordered to run concurrently with the sentence on the first count and that effectively would serve 13 years imprisonment.
Having considered all the evidence before us, we as a Committee are satisfied that the crimes for which the applicant seeks amnesty are acts associated with a political objective, as defined in the Act. We are also satisfied that the applicant has made a full disclosure of all the facts and has complied with all the requirements of the Act. In the premises, the applicant is GRANTED amnesty in respect of the three counts of robbery referred to above. He is also GRANTED amnesty for having been in unlawful possession of the firearm as well as having been in unlawful possession of ammunition in respect of the two robberies.
Furthermore it is the opinion of this Committee that Mr Pretorius and Mr Sambo, as well as Mrs H M van Niekerk, are victims as defined in the Act and are hereby referred to the Committee on rehabilitation and reparation, for consideration as such. This is the decision of this Committee.
MS THABETHE: As the Committee pleases.
MR MOTEPE: As it pleases the Committee.
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabethe where do we go from here?
MS THABETHE: Madam Chair I would suggest that we proceed with the evidence of Mr Sishaba because lunch will only be ready at half past one.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Motepe are you in a position to commence with the application of Mr Sishaba or would you like to be given 5 minutes just to recollect yourself now that you have been busy with the application of Mr Ndamane, in order to be able to properly proceed with the application of Mr Sishaba? However, if you don't need to adjourn for whatever seconds, this Committee will proceed.
MR MOTEPE: Madam Chair, I do need a break. I would welcome a break.
CHAIRPERSON: Can we give you a five minute break?
MR MOTEPE: That would be good.
CHAIRPERSON: We'll adjourn for five minutes. Mr Motepe whilst we give you five minutes break we want to make you aware that our lunch will only start at half past one so that you can also make arrangements for Correctional Services to be ready to give the applicants who are appearing before us today their lunch at half past 1 and not at 1 o'clock.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
