CHAIRPERSON: Good morning. We are going to start the proceedings. For the record, it is Tuesday the 27th of July 1999, it is the continuation of the sitting of the Amnesty Committee, held at Port Elizabeth. The Panel is constituted as has been indicated earlier on the record.
Today we will be hearing the amnesty application of Mzixholo Stokwe, amnesty reference AM6538/96. For the record, for the applicant, Mr Nyoka. Will you put yourself on record please.
MR NYOKA: Thank you, Mr Chairperson. I'm Pumelo Nyoka, for the applicant.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Nyoka. And for the victims, Mr Ntonga?
MR NTONGA: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I am B B Ntonga, from B B Ntonga and Company, East London, for the victims.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Ntonga. And then Ms Thabethe?
MS THABETHE: Thank you, Mr Chair. I'm Ms Thabile Thabethe, the Evidence Leader for the TRC.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Yes, Mr Nyoka, is there anything that you want to put on record, or do you want us to administer the oath to your client?
MR NYOKA: Just one, Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR NYOKA: I just wish to place on record that I was instructed in this matter yesterday at 2 o'clock and I wish to beg the Committee to bear with me if I don't show, you know hundred percent readiness, but I am ready, I tried my best. I was only instructed at 2 o'clock. We consulted yesterday and today. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Nyoka, I can perhaps just indicate that we appreciate your willingness to assist in this matter and we bear in mind what you had put on record.
MZIXHOLO STOKWE: (sworn states)
CHAIRPERSON: You may be seated. Mr Nyoka?
EXAMINATION BY MR NYOKA: Thank you.
Mr Stokwe, how old are you?
MR STOKWE: I'm 32 years old.
MR NYOKA: Where were you born?
MR STOKWE: In Jansenville.
MR NYOKA: And what is your current position now?
MR STOKWE: I'm a Captain in the South African Police Service and I'm also a protector of the President of the country.
MR NYOKA: Are you a bodyguard of the President?
MR STOKWE: Yes, that is correct.
MR NYOKA: Before, what was your position?
MR STOKWE: I was also the bodyguard of the Premier of this province, Mr Stofile. From here I was sent to Cape Town, to protect the President.
MR NYOKA: On page 11 of the bundle you have an affidavit, a statement about this application. I request you to read it briefly for the Commission into the record and if you have any additions to make you can make them. Page 11.
MR STOKWE: Yes, I will do that.
"I joined the COSAS in 1984, when I was at school, in Uitenhage Thandixholo Junior Secondary School. At that time the unrest already started and the police used to recruit informers from the outside places like Jansenville, because in those small places there was no pressure from the community.
The leadership of COSAS decided that we should spread to those small places so that we could challenge the government in all areas. And it was also decided that as I was from Jansenville, I should go there for schooling.
In 1985, I, together with other students from Uitenhage, went to register at Jansenville School, but the principal, Mr Takayi refused to admit us and on those basis that we were coming from Uitenhage, he had a fear that we were going to influence the other students and make his school ungovernable, like schools in Uitenhage, immobilise other students and the community to challenge the decision of the principal, but at the end of the day he admitted that.
We formed the COSAS at the school and I was the Chairperson of the COSAS. We started to question the rules which were forced by the principal at school and that resulted in school boycotts.
The students were harassed by the police from their homes and that involved their parents as well. The unrest started in Jansenville. They councillors were chased from the location and they were offered accommodation in the township, in the police ...(indistinct) and so on.
The same year the problem of the ...(indistinct), when the arrest was in high note, we learnt that one of the community members, Mr Skoone Maarman was a police informer, but I don't know his real name, but we knew him as Skoone.
After we received that information he went to stay at the police barracks. Thereafter he used to come with the police in the location to identify comrades to the police. He used to come in day and night to see. And also police still again after identification, assaulted the comrades and in front of the crowd. At that stage it was an open secret that he was the police informer.
One night we had a COSAS meeting, when I was chairing, and in that meeting we took a decision to kill Maarman because he was dangerous to us, he was dangerous to us. We heard information that night, he was going to attend a disco. In fact, the purpose of the disco is just to identify our comrades there you see, because it is where we entertain ourselves, in discos. In fact this disco was at the coloured location. And we sent a few comrades to go and kidnap from the disco.
We were about 200, +-200 people at that night. Mr Maarman was brought to us by the delegation and we stoned him into death. Thereafter we burnt him with a tyre on his neck. But only eight people were charged for the killing and I was accused number one. In fact it was myself, Raymond Kwebushe, Ouman Saule, Ouman Manduna, Umdumiso Mansimbe, Ntoto, were involved, Olang Boy Ntombenza, Siphiwe Zito and others."
But there is something that I would like to correct in this statement. They are people here that we included. The TRC told me to respond and confirm the names of the people and I responded on the 19th, to the fax that was sent to verify that the following did not participate because those people were sentenced for life in jail and they were released as political prisoners. In this statement their names they still appear, even though I sent a fax saying that they were not there.
"We were given bail with conditions, like to report to the police station twice a day. 8 o'clock ...(Xhosa) and five afternoon. While the case was still proceeding, the police turned Ms Ntiki. But I don't know the real name, but I knew her as Ms Ntiki. They turned her to be a State witness, whereas she took part in killing also.
The police took her away from the location for her safety. On a certain day when the comrades were from the police station as per the bail condition, in fact ...(Xhosa) they were attacked by the people - sorry, they were attacked by the police together with the special constables. So the special constables - there were people that were recruited by the police to fight the comrades, but they were also called. And I was already at home by that time.
Some of our members were injured in that fight. The youth were angry and the house of Mrs Jaye and Mr Sooka, who were the Councillors, were burnt down. The property like the furniture and the clothing of Mr Takayi were destroyed.
While the location was on fire, same night, we got information that Ms Ntiki was at her home together with the police with the intention of removing her property. We rushed to the place and when the police saw the crowd they drove away, they left Ntiki inside the house. We took her out and set the house alight. Thereafter we stoned her to death and set her alight with the tyre on her neck.
No meeting took decision to kill Ms Ntiki, but we had to deal with the situation immediately as she was there during that conflict moment. After we killed her, we had a meeting where we took a decision to cross the borders of South Africa, to Lesotho for military training and to join Umkhonto weSizwe.
As we were supposed to report to the police station the following morning, we escaped the same morning and our group was arrested at Tha'Nchu and only four of us managed to cross the borders. So it was myself, Sylvester Matshaka, Sandile Matcang, Pendile Lukas.
In fact, after my military training I was based at Angola."
Also I want to correct something here because the statement. It is written here "Lesotho". We did not have camps in Lesotho, I was in Angola.
At Angola where I was an MK instructor until 1990. I came back to South Africa and I was at Transkei, responsible for the Self Defence Units, as an order it was given ...(Xhosa) to train people in order to defend themselves. I was the instructor in the underground houses.
By that time I was outside of South Africa and by that time I was trained in self-defence. ...(Xhosa) Transkei by then you see. That is why I'm saying outside South Africa. ...(Xhosa) my co-accused in these cases is like in the case of Maarman, Raymond Kwebushe was sentenced to death and others were sentenced long terms imprisonment and Raymond Kwebushe was hanged.
And then that is why I decided to apply for amnesty because the cases - we left the cases like this and Ndumiso Mansebe also disappeared in that raid in Tha'Nchu. In fact after they were arrested in Tha'Nchu. Ouman Saule is also involved in this case and he is working for the South African National Defence Force now.
In fact I'm applying for the amnesty for the death of Mr Maarman and Ms Ntiki, as well as the two houses which were burnt down, like ...(Xhosa) and also for the property of Mr Takayi. But my actions were necessary to dismantle the apartheid. All these offences were committed under the order the youth organisation, under the COSAS and so on, more especially our umbrella body, African National Congress, because ...(Xhosa) said let's make the country ungovernable you see."
MR NYOKA: Thank you, Mr Stokwe. On page 9 of the bundle, paragraph (c), you have stated that you are applying for amnesty for murder and public violence, but what in your statement, ...(indistinct) statement, you are saying that it's for arson and malicious injury to property. I understand you're not a lawyer, public violence, by public violence, do you include the offences of arson and malicious injury to property? Because public violence is something else, arson and malicious injury to property are two different things. Were you including arson and malicious injury to property in that term of public violence?
MR STOKWE: Yes, because I was trying to write one word for all those things.
MR NYOKA: I would like the Honourable Committee to note that answer.
CHAIRPERSON: Very well.
MR NYOKA: Further, how would you describe the situation in 1984 and 1985, politically?
MR STOKWE: In 1984, in 1985, it was a very difficult situation because we were under the white government and at the time we were fighting to liberate the people of South Africa that were oppressed. So the situation was very difficult. Thank you.
MR NYOKA: Is it correct that you were not under threat of prosecution, criminal prosecution or you do not apply because someone else was applying for amnesty for this offence? You applied voluntarily, is that correct?
MR STOKWE: I applied voluntarily, nobody forced me. I thought that I should apply because we're staying in Jansenville, it's a small town, everybody knows each other. But at that time there was this conflict, but because we are one community I thought that I should satisfy the people that we did these things to them, so that we can have peace in that area. That's why I decided to apply for amnesty.
MR NYOKA: From the documentation there is no ...(indistinct) objection by the families of the victims. What do you wish to say to them today?
MR STOKWE: I want to say to the families I apologise to them for whatever happened to them. All the family members. But the situation at the time forced us to do what we did. For example in the case of councillors, my mother was also a councillor, I told her to resign and we ended up both in jail. So what I'm trying to say is that I did not have a personal grudge against them, but it was a situation of the time. Thank you.
MR NYOKA: Finally, the instruction that you got as COSAS was that you must render the government of the country ungovernable and unworkable, what did you construe that to mean, as a COSAS member at the time?
MR STOKWE: As a member of COSAS, when it was said that the country must be ungovernable, those were the means to try and send a message to the government. That is why we are in this present situation today.
MR NYOKA: To those that were perceived as informers and councillors, were they part of the machinery of governability or were they those that were targeted to make to country ungovernable?
MR STOKWE: In a war, if you focus on a certain target and there are stumbling blocks in front of you, you would start with them because we would not be able to reach our goal because they were informers. So in order to reach our target we had to start with them, so that was our strategy.
MR NYOKA: No further questions, Mr Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR NYOKA
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Nyoka. Mr Ntonga, have you got any questions?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NTONGA: Thank you, Mr Chairman, just a few questions.
Will I be correct to say that because you were a chairperson of the youth movement or COSAS, you had to be involved in a decision taken by the members of the organisation?
MR STOKWE: In that kind of a situation I was forced to do so because in other cases I would be arrested even if I was not present in a certain action. But as a leader you have to be involved because at the end of the day you end up not knowing what happened. So it's better to be arrested for something that you did, something that you were present in.
MR NTONGA: So you agree with me that basically you were involved because you were the leader of that group and you had to be there? That is what I am trying to put to you. You personally, you had to be there because you're the leader and if the groups take the decision you have to implement that decision, basically.
MR STOKWE: Yes, I was supposed to be there because I also guided them in certain issues and if we have meetings I was the chairperson of those meetings.
MR NTONGA: And another question. During that time, you also agree with me that the question when somebody has been labelled as an informer there were no means to check that, people had to act immediately to safeguard their interest and also to go on with the struggle. Is that not correct?
MR STOKWE: I can answer that question saying that there was no other way, but now that I have skills I can verify such an information. But we also acted on the information that we got, even though we were ...(indistinct) at the time.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Ntonga, just on this.
Let us start with Maarman. Why did you think Maarman was an informer?
MR STOKWE: We didn't think that he was an informer, we were sure that he was an informer because in everything he was doing he was together with the whites. Because I still remember when I was interrogated he was present, saying that I must tell the truth. And again, what I've already mentioned, he went to the discos just to identify the comrades. Even he was also seen with the police in the police van, but that doesn't mean that he was an informer, but his action showed us that he was an informer.
ADV SANDI: The second person, what is the name? Is it Ntiki or Ntsiki? The lady.
MR STOKWE: Ntiki.
ADV SANDI: You also believe that she was an informer?
MR STOKWE: Surely, because she also turned a State witness.
ADV SANDI: When you say she turned a State witness, do you mean that she appeared in Court and she testified against your comrades?
MR STOKWE: She did not testify if I still remember well, but we knew the State witnesses at the time. If you were working for whites they wouldn't hide your name, they would quote your name and say that we would buy houses for people such as Ntiki. So the whites used to say those things.
ADV SANDI: Now explain this, it's not very clear to me. Did the police say Ntiki was working for them?
MR STOKWE: Yes.
ADV SANDI: Who did they say this to?
MR STOKWE: They said it to me during the interrogation.
ADV SANDI: Can you repeat what they said to you?
MR STOKWE: Yes, during the interrogation they told me to leave whatever I was doing because that would not take me anywhere and they said that the people that were working with them, they were going to buy houses for them and they also quoted Ntiki's name. So I told them that I was not going to turn against the comrades.
If I can clarify this. When we arrested or got Ntiki, she said that she was not alone, she also quoted the names, but I've forgotten the name, saying that that particular person must also follow her.
ADV SANDI: Why was the house of Mr Takayi attacked?
MR STOKWE: He was a school principal and the school principal when we - it was not the house, it was a property of Mr Takayi, he was renting a certain house, and we took out his property and we burnt his property in the street. He was a stumbling block. As a school principal, he refused to give us permission to have meetings in the school. He also called the police because we didn't want the police to come in the school premises. We tried to discuss with him and he said that he would not discuss anything with the children.
ADV SANDI: There was another house which you said was burnt, was it Mr Sooka or Mrs Sooka?
MR STOKWE: Mr Sooka.
ADV SANDI: Why was that property burnt?
MR STOKWE: To repeat again, at the time the councillors we took them as people who were collaborating with the government of the time, so that's how he got involved. He was a councillor.
ADV SANDI: There's a third name, was it Mrs Jaye?
MR STOKWE: Yes, it's Mrs Jaye.
ADV SANDI: Was her property burnt as well?
MR STOKWE: It was the same Mr Sooka's.
ADV SANDI: Was she a councillor?
MR STOKWE: Yes.
ADV SANDI: Thank you.
MR NTONGA: Mr Stokwe - I'm trying to find my notes, is it not correct somewhere in the notes, somebody or someone in a meeting announced that Maarman was an informer and that person was - somebody else confirmed that allegation? Is that correct, or did I read the notes wrongly? Do you remember that?
MR STOKWE: Yes, I remember that, but I ...
...(end of side A of tape)
MR NTONGA: So this person was identified by this particular person in that meeting, as an informer?
MR STOKWE: Not necessarily to identify him, but we already knew that he was an informer.
MR NTONGA: Okay. Lastly, are you saying to the Committee that the second person, that is Ntiki, sealed her fate by being involved in the attack and thereafter turning against the comrades to be a witness? Is that the impression that you are giving me?
MR STOKWE: Yes, that is correct, because she turned against us.
MR NTONGA: Thank you, Mr Chairman, that is all.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR NTONGA
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Ntonga. Ms Thabethe, any questions?
MS THABETHE: No questions, Mr Chair.
NO QUESTIONS BY MS THABETHE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Stokwe, can I just verify the dates of this incident, of these incidents. The Maarman one appears to have happened in 1985, is that right? The attack on Maarman.
MR STOKWE: Yes, that is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: You're not able to give us a more precise date than that?
MR STOKWE: No, I'm not able to do that.
CHAIRPERSON: You don't remember the month?
MR STOKWE: No.
MS THABETHE: May I interpose, Mr Chair?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MS THABETHE: If I can be of assistance. On page 31 of the bundle, there is an indictment and it talks of the day of the 6th of April 1985.
CHAIRPERSON: Now there is an indication from the Court's records, that this could have occurred on the 6th of April in 1985. Does that assist you at all in locating or putting a date to this incident?
MR STOKWE: I'm not sure about the dates and I also stated that in my statement, because when we were arrested for this case, we were arrested when the schools were going to be reopened, in the first quarter.
CHAIRPERSON: Were you arrested soon after the incident?
MR STOKWE: Yes, soon after the incident, because the schools were going to be reopened in April of May, I'm not sure.
CHAIRPERSON: So it was when the schools were about to reopen for the second term that you were arrested?
MR STOKWE: Yes, they were going to be reopened for the second term.
CHAIRPERSON: So this could be right, this date of the 6th of April?
MR STOKWE: Yes, this could be right, even though I'm not sure about it.
CHAIRPERSON: And then the incident where Ntiki was killed, in terms of placing or putting a date on that incident. Are you able to recall in which year that happened? Was it still in the same year, was it still in 1985, or what?
MR STOKWE: Yes, it was still in 1985, but as I've already said, I'm not sure about the date, but I can still remember that I was from detention in Middelburg. I think it was in September/November, round about that time, I'm not sure.
CHAIRPERSON: So it was late in the year that this incident concerning Ntiki happened?
MR STOKWE: Yes, it was late in the year.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Thank you, Mr Stokwe. Any other questions from the Panel? Mr Nyoka, is there any re-examination?
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR NYOKA: Yes, just one, Mr Chairperson.
Page 54 of the bundle - just one question, Mr Stokwe. In the statement of Mr Nkundla, Elliot Takayi, the principal, second last paragraph, he states that:
"I was during that time the principal of Jansenville Primary School, but had also worked as a councillor, a job that the local youths had shown hatred of. I believed that this incident occurred as a result of me being a councillor."
Do you confirm that or not?
MR STOKWE: Yes, I confirm that.
MR NYOKA: No further questions, Mr Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR NYOKA
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Nyoka.
MR NYOKA: That is our evidence.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Stokwe, you are excused. Is that the case for the applicant, Mr Nyoka?
MR NYOKA: Yes, Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ntonga, were you going to present any evidence?
MR NTONGA: No, thank you, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabethe?
MS THABETHE: No. Maybe I can come to the assistance of the Committee again with the dates.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MS THABETHE: On page 67 of bundle it indicates the date of the 14th of December 1985, when Ms Ntiki Fibana was killed.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I didn't hear that, can you just repeat that?
MS THABETHE: Page 67 of the bundle and the date is 14 December 1985.
CHAIRPERSON: Oh, is this Gladys Fibana?
MS THABETHE: Yes, Kibana.
CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps I must just ask.
Mr Stokwe, I'm just going to ask you again, we have a name here, again from the Court records, a name Gladys Fibana. Is that name familiar to you? Is that possibly the proper name of Ntiki?
MR STOKWE: I would be lying if I said so. I only knew her as Ntiki, but the surname is Fibana.
CHAIRPERSON: Oh, was Ntiki's surname Fibana?
MR STOKWE: Yes, that's correct, but I also know the name Ntiki. So I don't know this name.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. You don't know this name that I've read to you now, Gladys?
MR STOKWE: No, I don't know this name.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it seems to be an English name, Gladys. Thank you.
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nyoka, have you got any submissions on the merits of the application?
MR NYOKA IN ARGUMENT: Thank you, Mr Chairman, not more than 10 minutes.
1985 is one of the most intense and active years in South Africa's political calendar on both peaceful and military or paramilitary fronts, in that it was in 1985 that (a) the ANC in exile in the Kabwe Conference, called for a people's war, where revolutionary struggle was directed towards mass struggle and the apartheid regime and its State was to be rendered ungovernable and unworkable.
The implementation of the people's war strategy comprised three elements. Firstly, to render South Africa ungovernable. Secondly, the erection of liberated zones. Thirdly, the arming of the masses. Calling on people to render South African ungovernable, the late Oliver Tambo said:
"We must begin to use our accumulated strength to destroy to the organs of government of the apartheid regime. We have to undermine and weaken its control over us. Exactly by frustrating its attempts to control us. Render the enemy's instruments of authority unworkable and creating conditions in which the country becomes increasingly ungovernable."
This call, though made in 1985, coincided with the ongoing internal mass struggles that had been taken place in South Africa since the Vaal uprisings of 1984.
Other 1985 events are the PEBCO 3 and the CRADOCK 4 abductions and murders, the two excruciating states of emergencies and the last of which lasted until the dawn of the new democratic era in 1989. Even the white business community inside South Africa secretly defied the apartheid bulldog regime by taking the first steps of meeting the ANC in exile, on a peaceful resolution of our political problems.
The application was not opposed by anyone, either in writing or verbally. The applicant was not in detention nor under any threat of detention, arrest or prosecution for this offence, neither did he apply as a joinder to any other application by any possible co-perpetrator. He came forward completely voluntarily and on his own and most importantly to set the record straight, with the full spirit and letter of the TRC process and in promotion of that spirit.
Thirdly, the applicant made a full disclosure of all the facts as required by the law, to the extent of even mentioning incidents or events for which he was not at the relevant time facing prosecution.
The applicant's statement in writing and his oral evidence which supplement the written statement, clearly demonstrates that there was a political motive and objective. Firstly, he was a COSAS member and chairperson, which was a strong affiliate of the UDF, which was known as the internal wing of the ANC, the UDF.
Secondly, the deceased was a police informer or at best a police collaborator, bearing in mind that there were no firm sources of verification as to who an informer is. There were no sources. That was deducted from the circumstances of each case.
The victims or arson were councillors, thus then perceived extensions of the apartheid regime. Although that ensured that the system was workable and governable. I wish to refer to page 36 of the Court judgment on extenuation by Judge Eksteen, where there was a hint that the person was an informer or a collaborator. It is stated that - on paragraph 2:
"The crime presently under consideration was a particularly gruesome one. The deceased was a young man of 19 years of age, whose only offence was that he as a law abiding citizen had lent assistance to the recognised forces established to maintain law and order in this country."
What can you deduce from the fact that, from the terminology, had lent assistance to the recognised forces established to maintain law and order in this country? That is collaboration at best.
Bearing in mind also - what I find absent in the past judgments is that there is no indication that whilst this is a crime, a gruesome crime, there was political motivation for that crime because once the judiciary mentions that, that is immediately an extenuating circumstance. In all the matters that have appeared I've never seen a sentence saying that though the crime is gruesome, it had political connotations. Why is that absent?
The million dollar - Fourthly, the ANC on page 14 fully supports the applicant's application and declared it to demonstrating fully political, the fully political motivation and political motive and seeks the granting of the amnesty to the applicant.
The million dollar question that remains to be answered is whether there was proportionality in the actions of the applicant to justify amnesty being granted, where the actions of the applicant disproportionate with the objectives sought. Alternatively, could the applicant and others have done anything else in the circumstances than killing an alleged informer and collaborator or destroying their properties? Without condoning deaths of people of the destruction of property.
Firstly, there was a general instruction from the ANC and the UDF umbrella body throughout 1984 and 1985, that comrades must do everything possible to render apartheid ungovernable and unworkable. That is a blanket instruction. Informers and collaborators and their properties were essential cogs in the apartheid wheels of governability and workability. The firm removal of any such wheel will render the entire vehicle of apartheid un-drivable.
Secondly, what informers and collaborators did to activists in the past, like the initial - even the initial arrest of our former President, the mass arrest of the leadership in Rivonia. Their information activities which led to the exiling of fellow South Africans and the detention and even death of others, they led to the raids and massacres in the Southern African countries like Lesotho and Mozambique. All the work of perceived informers and collaborators. This demonstrates the huge dangers posed by them. And the sustenance of the apartheid structures through urban councils or apartheid bantustans beyond their life because of the work of collaborators.
Indeed proportionality is present, without sounding cruel. If you want to kill a lion you cannot do so with a toothpick, otherwise the lion will end up killing you. Desperate measures required - desperate situations required desperate measures.
However regrettable such a step was, as human life is human life and will always be precious, blood relatives - if a few people had to die on the other side of the fence so that many could live like us, that could have been ordained by the Almighty. And here the applicant will answer on judgment day about his cruel actions, but today he's here to show two things, political motive and full disclosure, which he has satisfied, I respectfully submit. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Nyoka.
ADV SANDI: Mr Nyoka, this letter from the ANC, at page 14. You are not suggesting that the ANC in this letter are saying that they issued orders - they issued instructions to the applicant, that he should commit the acts we are talking about today, are you?
MR NYOKA: I'm saying that they have looked at the application and they have satisfied themselves that he has complied with the TRC requirements of full disclosure and political motive. That he acted within the ambit of the general instruction of rendering the country ungovernable and unworkable.
ADV SANDI: Ja, but you see my understanding of this letter, it is a just a restatement of the general political context which existed at the time in question. I don't understand them to be saying that they gave orders, they issued orders to the applicant that he should commit the acts. They are not saying that.
MR NYOKA: No, I am saying that even the ANC supports his application. In other applicants there were indications that they were not - that applicant who is applying for amnesty has not shown any political motive and the ANC will say so in the letter. What I'm saying, in this letter they are saying that there is political motive to them, whether they are right or wrong. That's the gist of my statement.
ADV SANDI: They are supporting his application because of the context in which it occurred. They are not saying they gave him instructions to do those things. But okay, anyway, it's our problem.
MR NYOKA: Let me say, Honourable Chair, there was an instruction to render the country ungovernable, which was confirmed three months later in Kabwe. Everything that happened is within that broad instruction. Therefore, by implication they are supporting what he did. Even without saying that, you Stokwe, go and do that to X, Y, Z. That was not the instruction, but there was an implicit instruction that what you are doing is consistent with our policy. And today therefore, post the political traumatic situation we are condoning, it was within that broad instruction.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Mr Ntonga, have you got any submissions?
MR NTONGA IN ARGUMENT: Yes, Mr Chair. The victims instruct me, firstly that they don't oppose the application. They accept what has happened. They have grieved, cried and now they've forgotten about it. They also accept the fact that in any
war there will be casualties. They accept the fact that what was done by the applicant was done under those circumstances that existed at the time, which brought the freedom we are enjoying today. Even, Mr Chairman, in their application, I read only the last portions of their statements. Mr Maarman says this:
"We wholeheartedly (that's the family) would like Mr Mzixholo Stokwe to be granted amnesty because we believe in the Bible, which states that we must forgive those who sin against us."
Mr Jantolo(?) states that:
"We, that is myself and my wife, do not have any problems in the applicant being granted amnesty by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission."
Mr Takayi, my client says that:
"I have no objection in the applicant, Mr Mzixholo Stokwe being granted amnesty by the Committee."
Mrs Jaye also says this:
"I do not have any problems in the applicant being granted amnesty."
So all in all my instructions are that they now, after having cried, having lost their loved ones, understand the problem, understand the justification. As has already been said by my colleague, that it's not a nice thing to lose somebody that you love, but through this process they are at peace. They know what happened, they know why it was done and they see the reason and the consequences.
So my submission from instructions which were in the statements taken in April, and my consultation today is that all the victims who have dried their tears, ask the Amnesty Committee if possible, to grant amnesty to the applicant because they feel that there is peace now after the ...(indistinct) devastating circumstances. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Ntonga. Ms Thabethe, have you got any submissions?
MS THABETHE: I don't have any submissions, Mr Chair, but I would like to put it on record that I have no objection to amnesty being granted to the applicant. I have noted that the victims seem to be raising hands. I don't know whether there is something that they want to say. I was going to suggest that maybe we take a short adjournment and allow the lawyer - because they even sent Peter to me to tell me something and not to their lawyer.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MS THABETHE: So I would request a short adjournment just to make sure that they were not shut out.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we will do that. You've got no other submissions?
MS THABETHE: No.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nyoka, can I just come back to you. Don't you want to just list the incidents that your client is asking amnesty for and if possible, let's try and put a date to them. We've got two. I've forgotten to raise some of the other incidents with him. But would you just list the incidents that your client is asking amnesty for. It's the killing of Mr Maarman, alright? We've got that date. I think it was the 4th of April - 9th, was it the 9th of April 1985? And then the killing of - 6th of April. And then it was Ntiki or Gladys Fibana. We've got that date. 12 - 14th of December '85. And then just list the others. There seem to have been some attacks and malicious damage to property and all sorts of things. Just list the rest of the incidents.
MR NYOKA: The dates aren't known, but it's the same year, 1985 also.
CHAIRPERSON: 1985?
MR NYOKA: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: The remaining incidents?
MR NYOKA: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: All in 1985?
MR NYOKA: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: And what happened? Just list them.
MR NYOKA: Thank you. Your Worship, the first arson in on Jaye's house.
CHAIRPERSON: Is that arson?
MR NYOKA: Yes. Jaye's house.
CHAIRPERSON: On the house of Jaye. Have you got a correct spelling of that?
MR NYOKA: And Sooka's house.
CHAIRPERSON: Is that also an arson?
MR NYOKA: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Sooka?
MR NYOKA: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Right?
MR NYOKA: And then the last one is property of principal Takayi, malicious injury to property. It was taken out and burnt, so it was malicious injury to property. This it must be stressed, happened before the other events, the other Maarman and Ntiki events.
CHAIRPERSON: But still in 1985?
MR NYOKA: Still in 1985.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. So property of the principal was destroyed. And the principal's name?
MR NYOKA: ...(indistinct) the name, but it's Mr Takayi.
CHAIRPERSON: Takane.
MR NYOKA: Takayi T-A-K-A-Y-I.
CHAIRPERSON: Say again.
MR NYOKA: T-A-K-A-Y-I, Takayi.
MS THABETHE: Mr Chair, there is a summary of the victims on page 1 of the bundle.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we seem to have his particulars from his statement. Sorry, Mr Thabethe?
MS THABETHE: I was saying that there is a list of the victims on page 1 of the bundle.
CHAIRPERSON: Page 1?
MS THABETHE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you very much, we've got that. We understand we will be standing down just for a brief moment just to enable Mr Ntonga and if needs be, Ms Thabethe, just to hear if there's anything else that the interested parties wanted to raise. We'll adjourn.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
MR NTONGA: Mr Chairperson, the daughter of Ntiki Fibana would like to give evidence to try to straighten up or clear up certain portions of the applicant's evidence about the activities of the mother. We have tried to see whether we can't avoid that, but she insists on coming to give evidence and I ask the Committee with due respect, whether it can allow her to give short evidence about that. It's only to clear up certain portions in relation to the mother, the late Ntiki Fibana.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, what are her names? Have you got her names, Mr Ntonga?
MR NTONGA: No, not yet.
CHAIRPERSON: Well perhaps you just want to call her to come forward.
MR NTONGA: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Can you just give us your full names please.
MS FIBANA: Bongisa Fibana(?).
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ntonga has indicated that you wanted to tell us something in regard to your late mother, is that right?
MS FIBANA: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Alright. Now before you tell us that, I'm going to let you take the oath. So for that purpose you must please stand. And we've got your full names as Bongisa Fibana, is that right?
BONGISA FIBANA: (sworn states)
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Please sit down. Mr Ntonga?
EXAMINATION BY MR NTONGA: Mr Fibana, is it correct that your mother was the late Ntiki Fibana?
MS FIBANA: Yes.
MR NTONGA: Is it also correct that you heard the evidence led by the applicant in this application?
MS FIBANA: Yes.
MR NTONGA: Is it also correct that you read his statement, which forms part of the bundle?
MS FIBANA: Yes, I read his statement.
MR NTONGA: Is it also correct that you read the statement of your grandmother?
MS FIBANA: Yes, I read the statement.
MR NTONGA: I think at page 52, Mr Chairman.
Is it also correct that your instructions are that there are a few, one or two points that you want to clear from the applicant's statement?
MS FIBANA: Yes.
MR NTONGA: Can you assist the Commission by advising it exactly where you want to clear the applicant's statement or correct it?
MS FIBANA: First of all, I would like to ask to Mzixholo, because he said he was coming here to tell the truth and I know that this happened - what happened had passed and I would like him to tell the truth. Saying that my mother was present when Skoone was killed, that is not true.
MR NTONGA: So are you saying that your mother was not involved in the first killing of the first deceased.
MS FIBANA: Yes.
MR NTONGA: Okay. Can you proceed and try to correct other points?
MS FIBANA: Secondly, he said that my mother, they didn't want to kill her.
WITNESS DISTRESSED
MS FIBANA: Because what they did, they took my grandfather from ...(indistinct?) and from there they went to my home. They found myself, my mother and my grandmother and they looked for her and she hid herself next to the sofa or couch and she ran to the neighbour's house trying to hide herself. They ran after her, they took her to Mangwene.
After that they said that they were coming to take me and my sister and Membi's father helped us. He took us together with my grandmother to my grandfather's house and the police then arrived. So they did not burn the house, they burnt the dustbin.
And Mbasi said to the police that my mother was selling dagga, so the police went to my mother looking for that dagga. They beat my mother up. And the arrived the other day at my home, saying that she must clean the yard. So in that way that is how she tried to get the police to my home so that it would look as if my mother was an informer. I would like him to tell the truth.
And he is saying that they did not intend to kill her, but what I know ...(intervention)
MR NTONGA: Sorry, I don't think that is the applicant's evidence, that they didn't intend to kill your mother. Actually that's why he's here applying for amnesty, because they killed your mother. But he said that it was instantaneously, without being planned or decided in a meeting. So can you continue under that explanation.
MS FIBANA: Can you please repeat your question.
MR NTONGA: The applicant's evidence is not that they went there - the applicant's evidence is to the effect that the killing of your mother was not planned in a meeting and decided in a meeting, it was only done on the spur of the moment when they arrived there and found her there. That's the evidence. So continue, but with under that guideline, that is was - when they arrived there they did that.
MS FIBANA: He is lying because they have planned this. What I know, my mother's friend she got a call and that call said that my mother was going to be killed - they were going to be killed and that friend managed to run away, but my mother was not told. That tyre that killed my mother was found. My mother's boyfriend. That tyre was taken by a child. My mother's boyfriend. So the fact that he is saying that they found the police at home so they killed her without intending to do that, that is not true, they intended to kill her.
MR NTONGA: Is there any other point that you'd like to clear up with the Committee on the applicant's statement?
MS FIBANA: No, there's nothing else.
MR NTONGA: So in other words, you have finished your clarification or your version of the events? Is that so?
MS FIBANA: Yes.
MR NTONGA: Thank you, Mr Chairman, that's ...
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR NTONGA
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Ntonga.
Have you got other brothers and sisters?
MS FIBANA: Yes, I have one sister.
CHAIRPERSON: Are you the elder of the two?
MS FIBANA: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Are the two of you the only children of your mother?
MS FIBANA: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: What is the name of your sister?
MS FIBANA: ...(indistinct) Fibana.
CHAIRPERSON: Can you just repeat that, I haven't hear the interpretation. What is the name of your sister?
MS FIBANA: Nomisa Fibana.
CHAIRPERSON: Is your father still alive?
MS FIBANA: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: And do you have contact with your father?
MS FIBANA: No.
CHAIRPERSON: What are your circumstances at the moment? Are you employed, are you studying?
MS FIBANA: I'm studying.
CHAIRPERSON: Where are you studying?
MS FIBANA: Peninsula Technikon.
CHAIRPERSON: Is that in Bellville?
MS FIBANA: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: And what are you studying, what course are you doing?
MS FIBANA: Marketing.
CHAIRPERSON: Marketing. And which year of study are you in?
MS FIBANA: First year.
CHAIRPERSON: And subsequent to the death of your mother, who did you grow up with?
MS FIBANA: With my grandmother.
CHAIRPERSON: Is that in Jansenville?
MS FIBANA: No, we stay in Cape Town.
CHAIRPERSON: Cape Town.
MS FIBANA: Yes, in Cape Town.
CHAIRPERSON: At the time when your mother was killed, were you living in Jansenville?
MS FIBANA: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: But did you then subsequent to that move to Cape Town with your grandmother?
MS FIBANA: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Have you just got a grandmother or have you got a grandmother and a grandfather?
MS FIBANA: Only a grandmother.
CHAIRPERSON: Only a grandmother. And she supports you?
MS FIBANA: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Your sister did she also then grow up together with you with your grandmother?
MS FIBANA: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: And your grandmother looks after her and supports her too?
MS FIBANA: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: And what does your sister do?
MS FIBANA: She is in standard seven now.
CHAIRPERSON: At a school in Cape Town?
MS FIBANA: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: What school is that?
MS FIBANA: Hottentots Holland High.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, say again.
MS FIBANA: Hottentots Holland High.
CHAIRPERSON: I'm terribly sorry, I just need to put this on to hear properly.
MS FIBANA: Hottentots Holland High.
CHAIRPERSON: Is that in Somerset West?
MS FIBANA: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Is she a boarder at the school?
MS FIBANA: No, she stays with my gran.
CHAIRPERSON: And you?
MS FIBANA: I also stay with my gran.
CHAIRPERSON: And your grandmother, what does she do? Is she a pensioner or what does she do?
MS FIBANA: No, she's not a pensioner, she just gets money from the government. It's grants for me and my sister.
CHAIRPERSON: So she - is your grandmother responsible for your tuition fees and the school fees of your sister? So she's got to pay it from the money that she's got?
MS FIBANA: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: You don't get a bursary?
MS FIBANA: No, we didn't get a bursary, but sometimes - last year I was doing like jobs on weekends.
CHAIRPERSON: Oh so - okay, so you have been trying to partly finance your studies?
MS FIBANA: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Have you only done that last year, have you stopped this year?
MS FIBANA: Yes, I stopped this year. I did it during holidays, June and December.
CHAIRPERSON: But were you in matric last year?
MS FIBANA: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: In 1985, when this incident happened, how old were you?
MS FIBANA: I don't know, but I was born in 1978.
CHAIRPERSON: You would have been very young, you would have been about seven years old.
MS FIBANA: Yes. Seven years old, but I can remember all the things that happened.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes. No, I'm not asking you in regard to what happened, I just want to know what your own circumstances are.
MS FIBANA: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: And when was your sister born?
MS FIBANA: 1983.
CHAIRPERSON: And how does your sister progress at school? Normally. She hasn't got a problem?
MS FIBANA: No.
CHAIRPERSON: And yourself, did your schooling progress normally?
MS FIBANA: No, I didn't have a problem at school.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.
I don't know if you've got anything that you want to ask, Mr Nyoka.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NYOKA: Thank you, Chairperson.
Ms Fibana, I'm representing the applicant and I'm sorry I have to ask a few questions in the interest of justice, and I hope you'll bear with me. Just a few. You have said that in 1978 you were seven years old.
MS FIBANA: No.
MR NYOKA: Or if you were born in 1978, in 1985 you must have been seven years old.
MS FIBANA: Yes.
MR NYOKA: By a simple calculation, not so. Did you understand what it meant to be a State witness when you were seven years old?
MS FIBANA: No.
MR NYOKA: Did you know that your mother was going to be a State witness in this case, when you were seven years old?
MS FIBANA: No, what I know is that my mother was not going to be a State witness, because my mother was always at home with me. There were only times that she would leave me and Nomisa when she was going to Uitenhage to go and buy the dagga and alcohol. Those were the times she would leave us behind at home. The fact that she was going to be a State witness is not true. I would like this gentleman to tell the truth. That is not true at all.
MR NYOKA: My instructions are that your mother was going to be a State witness and at seven years you could not have understood that.
MS FIBANA: My mother was not going to be a State witness. My mother did not attend the toyi-toyi. She phoned my grandmother saying that if she was to be arrested she wouldn't be able to leave us alone at home.
MR NYOKA: I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR NYOKA
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Nyoka. Ms Thabethe, have you got any questions?
MS THABETHE: No questions, Mr Chair.
NO QUESTIONS BY MS THABETHE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. The Panel got any questions?
ADV SANDI: Sorry, do you know the name Miriam Fibana?
MS FIBANA: Miriam Fibana? Gladys.
ADV SANDI: ... Evidence Leader, do you have - who could that be?
MS THABETHE: It's Gladys.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I'm just intervening. Was one of your mother's names Gladys?
MS FIBANA: Yes, her English name is Gladys. Gladys Ntiki
Txhokiso Fibana.
CHAIRPERSON: And there was a third name you say - just a minute.
ADV SANDI: Sorry, Ms Thabethe what did you say? But Miriam - did you say it's the same person as Gladys?
MS THABETHE: No, I said her name was Gladys. I actually referred you to page 67 of the bundle, because I wanted to clarify the date.
ADV SANDI: So this Miriam Fibana that's being mentioned at 20, will be a different person then?
MS THABETHE: Page 20. I think it would be a different person.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Ntonga, have you got anything else?
MR NTONGA: Thank you. Nothing, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Yes, Mr Fibana, we have noted what you have said, the evidence that you have given. If there is nothing else that you want to add, then we are going to excuse you. Is that everything that you wanted to tell us?
MS FIBANA: What I would like to ask, because in this, my grandmother's statement, at the bottom it is said that she has forgiven him and we were told by telephone that we would come to the Truth Commission. We thought that we would come here and listen to his testimony and then forgive him is he had said the truth. I personally, I'm going to forgive him if he had said the truth.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Is that all that you wanted to add?
MS FIBANA: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for coming, you are excused.
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Nyoka, is there anything else that you want to add in the light of the further evidence?
MR NYOKA: I've got the request, if it's procedural, by the applicant to set the record straight. I don't know whether it's procedural, but he has made a request to me. Maybe it might take two minutes or whatever.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Does he want to make a further statement?
MR NYOKA: Yes, just to set the record straight, if that is acceptable to the Committee.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Yes, we have to allow the applicant, if he so wishes, an opportunity to respond if he so minded.
MR NYOKA: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I don't know, perhaps I should just remind him that he is still under oath. I'm not sure what the effect of what his statement is going to be, but we'll treat it like that.
Mr Stokwe, Mr Nyoka has indicated to us that there is something else that you want to add, I assume in the light of what Ms Fibana has told us. For the purposes of what you tell us further, I remind you that you are again under oath. Do you understand?
MZIXHOLO STOKWE: (s.u.o.)
CHAIRPERSON: What is it that you further wanted to tell us?
MR STOKWE: I don't want to add necessarily, but to the fact that she's saying that I must tell the truth, I said that nobody forced me to come here. So what I have said is the truth. Because she was seven years old, she heard what happened and what I said is the truth as it is, because nobody forced me to come forward here, so there's no need for me to tell lies. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Ntonga, just for the ...(intervention)
MR NTONGA: Nothing, Mr Chairman.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR NTONGA
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Thabethe, I assume that you don't have anything further?
MS THABETHE: No, Mr Chair, except to draw your attention to page 67, the last line, the motive. The last sentence which starts with the motive.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And I assume that it wouldn't be strictly necessary for purposes of this kind of inquiry, to establish the factual basis for this kind of view, of belief, so long as it is a reasonable belief. It's not really one of the issues that we have to decide positively.
MS THABETHE: Certainly, Mr Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.
We are minded to dispose of this matter and to, in this particular instance, in view of the circumstances that prevail here, to give our decision immediately. We will stand down just for a minute or two. I'll indicate when we are ready to reconvene.
MS THABETHE: Mr Chair, can I please ask for a 10 minute adjournment, I want to consult with the victims of the next matter.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)
MS THABETHE: Yes. Thank you.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
CHAIRPERSON: We would like to give the decision in the matter of Stokwe.
F I N D I N G
This is an application for amnesty in terms of the provisions of Section 18 of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, number 34 of 1995, by Mzixholo Stokwe, a 32 year old male, presently a Captain in the South African Police Services and a member of the VIP Protection Unit, responsible for the protection of the President.
The applicant testified in support of the application and the victims and interested parties participated in the proceedings through the representation of Mr Ntonga. All of these interested parties, save for the further testimony that was presented to the Panel by Ms Fibana, which will be dealt with later, have indicated that they do not oppose the application and in fact requested the Committee if possible, to grant the application.
They accepted that what has happened, resulted from the political circumstances which prevailed at the time of the incidents and as difficult as it was for them to deal with their loss, they accept that all of the suffering and sacrifices contributed to the peace that presently prevails and is being enjoyed in our country.
In view of the particular circumstances of the case, we feel constrained to give our decision in this matter immediately, unlike the normal situation where we require time to consider the matter and where we normally reserve the decision to be handed down at a later stage.
The factual background to the application is briefly as follows. The applicant joined the Congress of South African Students, also known under the acronym, COSAS, while he was schooling in Uitenhage in the Eastern Cape, during 1984. There was then already a prevailing situation of political unrest in the Eastern Cape and the police followed a strategy of recruiting informers from smaller outlying areas such as Jansenville, for their purposes. COSAS decided to deploy some of its members to these outlying areas, to counter this trend.
Applicant was born in Jansenville and it was accordingly decided that he should return there and implement the COSAS policy by establishing a presence in the area. Pursuant to this decision, applicant attempted to enrol at the school in Jansenville, but these efforts were initially opposed by the then principal of the school, also one of the victims in this matter, Mr Nkundla Elliot Takayi.
Through concerted pressure brought to bear on the principal, applicant and other students from Uitenhage enrolled at the school. They launched a local COSAS branch and applicant was elected its chairperson. A situation of unrest and confrontation with the police resulted in Jansenville.
During the course of this conflict it became known that Mr Skoone Thembisile Maarman was a police informer. Various actions on his part confirmed this fact. At a COSAS meeting chaired by the applicant, a decision was taken to kill Mr Maarman. This was in line with the call at the time by the anti-apartheid political forces led by the ANC, to render the country ungovernable and to remove any obstacles to the liberation struggle.
This decision was implemented on the 6th of April 1985, when Mr Maarman was abducted from a local discotheque and killed by a group of approximately 200 persons, including the applicant. A number of persons were arrested and charged with this incident. Applicant was in fact accused number one. They were all released on bail, subject to certain conditions.
At one stage after they had reported to the police station in accordance with their bail conditions, they were attacked by police and special constables. The youth responded to this attack by burning down the houses of Mrs Elizabeth Jaye and Mr Sooka, and also by destroying the property of the school principal, Mr Takayi.
That same night, Ms Ntiki Gladys Fibana, who according to information worked with the police and had decided to turn a State witness against the accused in the Maarman incident even though she participated in that incident, was brought home by the police to collect her belongings from the township. The youths approached the house and the police fled the area, leaving Ms Fibana behind. The latter was killed by the crowd. The applicant formed part of this incident.
The decision to kill or attack Ms Fibana was taken on the spur of the moment and because the opportunity presented itself, to act against her. After these incidents, applicant fled the country and received military training under the auspices of Umkhonto we Sizwe, the military wing of the African National Congress. He subsequently returned to the country and was deployed on Umkhonto weSizwe activities and business.
He has decided to apply for amnesty without being pressurised by anyone and basically in order to make a full disclosure of these incidents, so that the community of Jansenville and the interested parties may be fully apprised of the facts.
After the conclusion of argument in the matter, the daughter of the late Ms Fibana, Bongisa Fibana, indicated that she wanted to draw certain aspects concerning the evidence of applicant to the attention to the Panel. The effect of her evidence was that she and her younger sister are the only children of her late mother. They were born in 1978 and 1983 respectively. Their father is still alive, but they have no contact with him. After the death of her mother they have grown up with the grandmother, who maintains them from a State grant. She is a first year marketing student at the Peninsula Technikon and her sister is attending the Hottentots Holland High School in Somerset West, where she is doing standard seven. Their progress at school is normal.
She disputed that her mother was to be a State witness against the applicant and the other people accused of the killing of Mr Maarman, or that her mother was working with the police. She also expressed the view that the killing of her mother was planned and not committed on the spur of the moment because a friend of her mother's was telephoned and informed that her mother would be killed.
It is clear to us that the incident has been a particularly traumatic one for Ms Fibana, which is understandable, given the tragic circumstances under which she has lost her mother at a time when she was still very young. She still experiences difficulty to recount the circumstances of the incident.
Pursuant to the repeated requests by Ms Fibana that applicant should tell the truth, the applicant asked for an opportunity to respond, which opportunity was granted to him. He basically repeated his earlier evidence that he had acted and he is acting voluntarily in applying for amnesty and that he has no reason not to tell the truth.
In our view there is no real dispute of fact or a contradiction of the version of the applicant. The perspective expressed by Ms Fibana is perfectly understandable under the circumstances.
Having carefully considered all of the circumstances of the matter, the evidence, all of the evidence and the argument submitted to us, we are satisfied that the applicant has made a full disclosure of all relevant facts and that the incidents applied for constitute acts associated with a political objective, as set out in the Act 34 of 1995.
We are accordingly satisfied that the application complies with all of the requirements of the Act and applicant is accordingly GRANTED amnesty for:
1) The murder of Mr Maarman, on or about the 6th of April 1985, at or near Jansenville;
2) The murder of Ntiki Gladys Fibana, on or about the 14th of December 1985, at or near Jansenville;
3) The following offences committed during 1985:
i) Arson. In respect of the house of Mrs Jaye of 27 Dicksfield Location in Jansenville;
ii) Arson. In respect of the house of Mr Sooka, presently of 16 Tonyelo Street, Podwezi, Port Elizabeth;
iii) Malicious injury to the property of Mr Takayi, presently of 135 Stimela Street, Qwamagaki, Port Elizabeth.
In our opinion, the mentioned victims in respect of arson and malicious injury to property, as well as the next-of-kin of the mentioned deceased, namely:
Mrs Stina Maarman of 915, Madnisi Street, Dry Location, Jansenville, the grandmother of the late Mr Maarman and;
- Mrs Tandiwe Jantolo of 15567 Nonkubela Street, Luandle, Strand, the mother of the late Ms Fibana, and particular in this regard, the daughters of the late Ms Fibana are victims in relation to the incidents mentioned and they are referred for consideration in terms of the provisions of Section 22 of the Act. That is in respect of the issue of reparations.
In conclusion we wish to record that it is on the whole encouraging to note the reconciliatory attitude of the victims in this matter and the positive attitude they have expressed in regard to their sad loss resulting from the incidents which have been identified in this decision.
In our view, it is this kind of situation that creates real hope for the realisation of the overall objectives of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, namely national unity and reconciliation.
We express the hope that the situation of peace and normality which has returned to the community of Jansenville, will eventually result in their experiencing the real benefits of our new democracy.
That is the decision in the matter of Mr Stokwe.
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabethe, is the next matter ready to proceed, or would it be better to take the adjournment at this stage?
MS THABETHE: Mr Chair, we're ready to proceed. I was going to suggest that maybe we take the adjournment after the applicant has led his evidence.
CHAIRPERSON: His evidence-in-chief?
MS THABETHE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Mr Nyoka, you are appearing for Mr Cekwana, is that right? Just for the purpose of the record, we
will hear next the application of Mr Nukuleko Cekwana, amnesty reference AM7829/97. The Panel is constituted as previously indicated on the record.
Yes, Mr Stokwe, you are excused.
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: For the sake of completeness, Mr Nyoka, perhaps you must just put yourself on record again for Mr Cekwana.
MR NYOKA: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.
MR NTONGA: Mr Chairman, may I be excused?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, of course. Mr Ntonga, we thank you very much for your assistance and we'll excuse you. My colleague indicates that you're always welcome to observe.
