MR BERGER: Chairperson, Mr Makhura tells me that if the services of a Sesotho interpreter is not available now, he would be prepared to take the alternative course and that is to get questions in isiZulu and he would speak in Sesotho. Apparently the interpreters would be able to follow it that way.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well if he is happy with that course we have arranged an interpreter, a Sesotho interpreter, who is supposed to come from the hearing at IDASA Centre in Pretoria. If he is happy to proceed then you know, we can do that.
MR BERGER: He indicates he is happy to proceed yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Have you heard what your counsel has told us that you are prepared to continue without the assistance without a Sesotho interpreter and that you are prepared to follow the suggestion that is made that the interpreter who is present would translate the questions to you in Zulu and that you would communicate via that sort of means. Would that be in order, do you accept that?
JOSEPH ELIAS MAKHURA: (s.u.o.)
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, as we have indicated we do have, the Amnesty Committee has the services of Sesotho interpreters but presently they are engaged at a hearing which is in Pretoria at the IDASA Centre so the one who would have come to our assistance here would not be able to come before 1 o'clock, so are you happy with the arrangement?
MR MAKHURA: Yes for saving time I felt that I can go in on that to save time.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes and you will indicate if there is any difficulty?
MR MAKHURA: Yes Sir, I will indicate.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well. Well you've already taken the oath. Mr Berger you can proceed.
EXAMINATION BY MR BERGER: Thank you Chairperson.
Mr Makhura, you were born on the 23rd September 1959, is that correct?
MR MAKHURA: That is correct.
MR BERGER: And you were raised by a single parent, by your mother, is that right?
MR MAKHURA: That is correct.
MR BERGER: She died in 1976, am I right?
MR MAKHURA: Ja, I think it's 1976 or 1977.
MR BERGER: Now you went to school in Mamelodi and in 1980 you commenced Standard Nine, is that right?
MR MAKHURA: That is correct.
MR BERGER: But you didn't finish Matric am I right?
MR MAKHURA: That is correct.
MR BERGER: Can you tell the Committee briefly what happened, why it was that you didn't finish Matric?
MR MAKHURA: In 1980 as I was attending school, the situation in the township was bad. There was a general crime wave, I was once stabbed in 1980 whilst I was growing up so that I felt if I continued staying on at home I might end up in prison so that I was pushed to skip the country. When the Silverton siege occurred our soldiers were killed at the Volkskas Bank so that I decided that I too should contribute positively towards the liberation of our people.
MR BERGER: Mr Makhura, can I ask you to speak a little slower because the interpreters have to interpret what you are saying.
MR MAKHURA: I am saying I was motivated to skip the country after the Silverton siege. The incident at the bank, that was after I saw the incident on the media I then concluded that too have to go instead of staying on to die resulting from crime. The only decent thing I could do was to go and join the ANC and those people were regarded as heroes.
MR BERGER: When did you leave the country?
MR MAKHURA: I left after the Easter in 1980. I went through Swaziland.
MR BERGER: In Swaziland you met officials of the African National Congress and you joined the ANC, is that correct?
MR MAKHURA: That is correct.
MR BERGER: And from there you were taken to Maputo in Mozambique?
MR MAKHURA: That is correct.
MR BERGER: Now that was 1980. Can you tell the Committee very briefly what you did from 1980 until the end of 1985 when you joined the unit?
MR MAKHURA: From 1980 on arrival in Maputo we left for Angola by plane. When we arrived there we were taken to a transit camp in Hera and we were then taken to Malangi Province for our training. We underwent a military training for 8 if not 9 months. We were training at this camp called Jahanda. After finishing the military training in 1981 I joined the anti-air unit in Kampoon and trained as a medical officer at the camp actually and in 1982 and '83, I went to Tazamaya where I continued with my course in medical training. In 1994 before the end of '93 actually, I came back to Angola and I stationed at the refugee camp of Swapo on the southern part of Angola. I think I spent about two months there after which at the time we should say there was a fight between the ANC and Unita in the Eastern part of Angola. I was sent over from 1994 right up to - from late 1993 up to early 1994 during which time we withdrew back to Luanda and in 1994 I was approached by my camp commander saying that I should go for special training in Banco so that we should prepare ourselves for the establishment of a unit.
I went for assassination training and in 1995 ...(intervention)
MR BERGER: Mr Makhura, you've been talking about 1990's, I think you must go ten years back.
MR MAKHURA: I'm sorry, I'm actually talking about '80s.
In 1985, in late 1985 I left Luanda for Lusaka. In Lusaka that is where I met Jabu Masinga, Ting-Ting Masango and Neo Potsane as well as Mandla. So that we formed the unit that operated inside the country and in later 1985, it could have been November, December, we left Lusaka as the same group and we went to Botswana.
In Botswana, myself Neo Potsane, Mandla and Rufus were arrested in Botswana and we reported back to Lusaka.
MR BERGER: When you say you reported back to Lusaka isn't it correct that you actually deported?
MR MAKHURA: We actually deported, we were deported to Lusaka by the Botswana government. Arrangements were again made for us to come back to Botswana and these arrangements were made around March/April. I cannot be sure but we came through Botswana and entered South Africa. That is where we met Jabu Masina and Ting-Ting Masango.
MR BERGER: Now we're talking about March/April 1986?
MR MAKHURA: Yes that was 1986.
MR BERGER: Okay, now you've submitted an application for amnesty and you also deposed to a supplementary statement, if you would look at the bundle A in front of you? Pages 5, 6 and 7. Do you confirm that that is your signature on page 7 and that this is your statement?
MR MAKHURA: Yes that is my signature and this is my statement.
MR BERGER: Do you confirm the contents of this statement?
MR MAKHURA: Yes I concur with the contents.
MR BERGER: Now as far as the anti-tank mine in Mamelodi is concerned, that was February 1986 and the killing of Sergeant Vuma March 1986. Is it correct that you were not yet in the country at that time?
MR MAKHURA: That is correct.
MR BERGER: And then as far as the killing of Mr Lukhele is concerned, you were not involved in that operation at all, is that right?
MR MAKHURA: That is correct.
MR BERGER: So the first operation that you were involved in was the bomb which was placed in Silverton, is that correct?
MR MAKHURA: That is correct.
MR BERGER: Can you tell the Committee or can you detail for the Committee what happened in the planting of that bomb, perhaps if you can take the Committee through what happened that day?
MR MAKHURA: On that day or should I say the day before that Ting-Ting came to me and told me about the bomb that had to be planted in Silverton. We discussed this and we agreed so that we left Winterveld the following day carrying a land mine, headed for Silverton. We travelled by taxi and when we arrived there Ting-Ting showed me the place where the bomb had o be planted next to the bus shelter. Ting-Ting was armed with a pistol. It was round about 11, 12, we planted this land mine in a plastic dustbin. The blue ones, the ones that hang around poles in town. After that we took a taxi back to Winterveld.
MR BERGER: Now that dustbin that you planted the bomb in, was that the dustbin at the bus stop.
MR MAKHURA: Yes, there was a pole next to the bus stop and this dustbin was hanging against this pole.
MR BERGER: You actually placed that mine or bomb in the dustbin, is that correct?
MR MAKHURA: That is correct.
MR BERGER: Did you set the timing on that bomb as well?
MR MAKHURA: That is correct.
MR BERGER: Okay, can you explain to the Committee how you did that and when the bomb was set to go off?
MR MAKHURA: The limpet mine used lead plates and the ones that I used, the lead plates that I used, the ones that were supposed to let the bomb go off after 20 or 30 minutes.
MR BERGER: What time of the day was it when you planted the bomb?
MR MAKHURA: It could have been twelve or one, or after twelve.
MR BERGER: We know that the bomb only exploded after five o'clock that afternoon. Do you have any explanation for that?
MR MAKHURA: As to why it exploded around that time I cannot know, it could have been a technical fault but the time was synchronised to go off in twenty or thirty minutes time.
MR BERGER: So you expected the bomb to explode somewhere around between half past twelve and one o'clock?
MR MAKHURA: Thereabouts.
MR BERGER: After you planted the bomb, you and Mr Masango left the area before waiting to see if it exploded, is that right?
MR MAKHURA: Yes we left.
MR BERGER: The next incident that you were involved in was the placing of the bomb in Soshanguve, now that was - well Silverton was the 4th July and this was the 21st July 1986.
How did it come about that that operation was started?
MR MAKHURA: The main person who participated in the operation was myself because I am the one who reconnoitred the movement of the military vehicles around that area. They were moving I think between Block H and Block F in Soshanguve and one of the military vehicles used to pass there. I went to Ting-Ting and briefed him about this and on the particular day we went there during the day to show Ting-Ting the spot and get his opinion. He agreed with us and we decided that we had to confirm or should I say make sure that military vehicles were using that route. There was a house next to the heap of soil. I went to the house while Ting-Ting was waiting outside. I enquired in the house, I found a male person, I introduced myself and asked him about the movements of the military vehicles and he confirmed that they do use the road especially in the night. He asked who I was and I told him that I was a member of MK and he told me that he was working for the police and he is like working for the liquor squad and after confirming that the vehicles passed through every day I went to Ting-Ting, informed him that I found a person inside and confirmed that military vehicles used the road. We then decided that we should come that evening to plant the mine. The person did not ask me whether I wanted to plant a land mine or ambushed the military vehicles. We then went back to Winterveld.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Makhura, just if you could slow down? So when he said to you that - or you first told him that you were a member of MK and then he told you that he was a policeman and that didn't deter you from proceeding with the operation?
MR MAKHURA: No it did not deter us.
MR BERGER: So you came back that night. Now when you came back that night, it was you with a number of people?
MR MAKHURA: That is correct. We actually took the land mine inside a cooler bag and I was in the company of Masango, Mandla as well as Mr Potsane and when we arrived near to the spot we parked the vehicle a distance from the actual spot and myself, Mandla and Potsane went to the spot and Mandla was standing guard on the other side of the road and while Mr Potsane was on the other side of the road I then planted this land mine under a heap of soil after which I then went to the same house to which I had gone to during the day ...(indistinct), I told that person that I am back but my request it would you please shift your vehicle, take it deeper into the yard so that it should not be effected. He told me that his vehicle has a mechanical problem, it's not moving. He then came out and the two of us pushed the vehicle inside the yard and that was the last time I saw this person. We then left. I called Mandla and Mr Potsane. We then went back to the car and drove back to Winterveld and that night nothing happened and nothing happened the following day either and on the third day I went to Mandla and Mr Masango to say look, it looks like we have a problem because this thing has not gone off yet, what should we do now and we discussed the fact that we have to remove it before it is discovered. We discussed this during the day and on the very same day of our discussion, I think it exploded around the afternoon and according to the news reports it's like it went off as it was detonated by a bulldozer or something but nobody got injured.
MR BERGER: The sort of mine that it was, what sort of things would be able to detonate it?
MR MAKHURA: It was an anti-tank land mine.
MR BERGER: So you're saying it would be detonated by tanks or other very heavy objects?
ADV DE JAGER: We had evidence on this before, I think yesterday also they said it could be detonated by any weight greater that 120 kilograms and I think that's also correct according to the submission by the ANC?
MR BERGER: I'll leave it at that point. You did in fact see that the man whose car you moved out of range of the bomb again when he identified you at an I.D. parade after your arrest, am I right?
MR MAKHURA: That is correct.
MR BERGER: Mr Makhura, you've heard the evidence of what happened at your trial. Do you confirm that?
MR MAKHURA: That is correct.
MR BERGER: Again I want to ask you the question, since you've been prosecuted, sentenced and released, for all of the incidents for which you seek amnesty, why is it that you are here today in seeking amnesty?
MR MAKHURA: Firstly I'd like to state to this Committee that people are surprised as to why I have come forward for amnesty because I've been sentenced. If you still remember very well during the trial witnesses came to testify, we said nothing to them. All we wanted to do was that victims should hear from us today, get to know what happened so that we should get an opportunity to reconcile with the victims and make sure that such similar things do not recur because after the people saw us at the trial this thing was over but we felt and we took it upon ourselves to come forward, apply for amnesty so that we could get an opportunity to meet these people. The situation at the trial was ...(indistinct) but today we'd like for them to get our feelings so that they can understand what situation prevailed at the time so that we ended up in loggerheads with them and we therefore wish that such similar things should not recur in our country ever.
MR BERGER: I've no further questions, thank you Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Berger. Mr Booysen?
MR BOOYSEN: No questions thank you Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Booysen. Mr Rammutla?
MR RAMMUTLA: No questions to direct to the witness Mr Chairperson, thanks.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Ms Mtanga?
MS MTANGA: No questions Chairperson, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Thank you very much. Have you got anything further Mr Berger?
MR BERGER: No questions Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Makhura, you're excused. Thank you very much.
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: Is that the applicant's case?
MR BERGER: That is the case for the applicant yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booysen, have you got any evidence that you want to lead?
MR BOOYSEN: Mr Chairperson, if you'll give me five seconds, I just want to confirm. I'll be very brief, thank you.
Chairperson, for the time there's no evidence I'd like to lead, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much Mr Booysen.
Mr Rammutla have you?
MR RAMMUTLA: No evidence to lead Mr Chairperson, thanks.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Mtanga?
MS MTANGA: No further evidence from myself as well.
MR BERGER: Yes Mr Berger, are you ready to address us?
MR BERGER IN ARGUMENT: Mr Chairperson, I will.
Chairperson, in terms of Section 20 of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act 34 of 1995 that there are three requirements which must be satisfied before amnesty can be granted. The first Section 21(a) speaks about whether the applications or the application complies with the requirements of the Act. I submit that the applications do so comply and that there's been no suggestion by ...(inaudible) in the applications. I would submit that Section 21(a) has been satisfied.
21(b) I will leave for the moment because that requires a little further debate and I move to 21(c) which talks about whether the applicant and in this case the applicants have made full disclosure of all relevant facts.
Chairperson and Members of the Committee, you've heard the four applicants testify. They at times went to - perhaps said more than what was necessary for them to say, they've told you everything about themselves, they've told you everything about the events, the incidents in which they were involved. There's been no suggestion by anybody, even in the cross-examination there's been no suggestion that they have held back and that they have not disclosed any relevant facts.
I submit that I don't need to say more than that and I submit that they have made a full disclosure of all relevant facts and a disclosure of perhaps some irrelevant facts as well but all of that was done in an effort to be absolutely open with this Committee. You've seen the four applicants and you've seen what kind of people they are. I submit that it's apparent from their evidence that they haven't held back at all.
Which brings me to Section 21(b) of the Act and that is that the requirement that the acts which they had committed must be acts associated with a political objective committed in the course of the conflicts of the past and in accordance with provisions of sub-sections 2 and 3. Now it's often mistaken by the general public that all you have to prove is that there was a political objective but the Act is specific in it must be a political objective which complies with sub-section 2 and sub-section 3 of the Act.
Before I go through sub-section 2 and 3 Chairperson, I'd like to read to you from the judgement of State versus Masina and others that I referred to in my opening address, 1990 Volume 4 SA709 Appellate Division. From the bottom of page 716 next to the letter I, Lordship Mr Justice Friedman said:
"After the appellants had been found guilty and before evidence was led in litigation, first appellant who is Mr Masina read out a lengthy statement. In that statement which was clearly intended to be made not only on his own statement which is clearly intended to be made not only on his own behalf but also on behalf of the second and third appellants. The second appellant was Mr Masango and the third appellant was Mr Potsane. The first appellant explains that the ANC "and those they represent" turns to the armed struggle as a last resort after years of non-violent resistance to apartheid proved fruitless."
In this context he quoted the following words of the late Chief Albert Luthuli, the former leader of the ANC:
"Who will deny that 30 years of my life have been spent knocking in vain, patiently, moderately and modestly at a closed and barred door. What had been the fruits of my many years of moderation? Had there been any reciprocal terms for tolerance for moderation from the government? No. On the contrary, the past 30 years have seen the greater number of laws restricting our rights and progress until today we have reached a stage where we have almost no rights at all."
And that was Chief Albert Luthuli.
First Appellant added:
"It was only when all other forms of resistance were no longer open to us that we turned to the armed struggle."
He went on to explain his position as follows:
"I must myself are a survivor of the Soweto revolt of 1976 where I suffered the trauma of seeing hundreds of innocent children and young people including my own relatives and friends drop dead from police gunfire. That event shocked us, shocked us all into the realisation that the life of the Black person had no value under apartheid and will have none until this system is destroyed. Indeed the slaughter has continued and many more have been killed or hanged since 1976. The trauma of the Soweto killings has been with us ever since. The actions which we undertook were not for private gain nor prompted by revenge. These actions were taken by ourselves as soldiers in the army of the African National Congress acting generally under instructions and orders from our leaders."
The reason I read this to you Member of the Panel is because this was said in 1989, long before the TRC Act, to use a colloquialism, was drafted. At a time when they faced or three of the applicants faced the death penalty and it's ironic in fact that they should say the actions we undertook were not for private gain nor prompted by revenge, it's ironic when those are the words as you well know, used in Section 20 sub-section 3 of the Act which says that or very close to the words which says that an act associated with a political objective will not include any act committed by a person to act with (i) for personal gain, or (ii) personal malice, ill will or spite directed against the victim of the acts committed. In 1989 the applicant said "the actions which we undertook were not for private gain nor prompted by revenge, they were taken by ourselves as soldiers in the army of the African National Congress.
At the bottom of page 717, next to the letter - well between the letter G and H, his Lordship Mr Justice Friedman said:
"In a very careful and well considered judgment De Klerk J. made a number of findings based on the appellants statements and confessions and in the light of all the evidence before the court which included that of police witnesses who testified as to the modus operandi of the ANC. De Klerk J's findings may be summarised as follows
(i) The appellants believed themselves to be soldiers generally under the command of their leaders in the ANC, fighting a war of liberation for their people.
(ii) The appellants were highly trained members of MK.
We don't agree with this finding but this was the finding nevertheless:
(iii) They were indoctrinated whilst being trained to believe that their actions and conduct of this nature were fully justified and necessary.
(iv) The indoctrination was intensive and was of a political as well as a military nature.
(v) They were all loyal, dedicated members of the ANC who were acting under the instructions and orders of their superiors, carrying out the missions which they'd been sent to perform.
(vi) The accumulative effect of the unrest during 1976, the poverty and frustrations experienced by Black people at that time and the general hostility which existed between the police force and the Black community was so traumatic that it could radicalise even moderates.
(vii) On the probabilities and in all the circumstances, the situation which existed in 1976 and thereafter was the direct reason for the decision taken by the respective appellants to leave the Republic to join the ANC and to undertake the functions assigned to them.
A bit further down, Friedman A.J.A. says:
"In respect of the fifth finding it needs to be mentioned that the evidence does not reveal that the appellants were mere puppets who were obeying the orders of their superiors in the ANC without thought or questioning although they were under the general command of their leaders, they themselves identified as targets for assassination, people whom they considered, in accordance with ANC policy, to be appropriate victims."
Subject to this rider, I agree with all the findings of the trial judge. Obviously the evidence before you is clear that the applicants were not indoctrinated and that they believed in the aims and objectives and policies of the ANC.
The subject of that, Chairperson, Members of the Committee, I submit that it's abundantly clear that the four applicants before you were dedicated and committed soldiers of uMkhonto weSizwe who believed that their actions were necessary in order to further the aims and the struggle of the African National Congress and in order to achieve liberation. The fact that they were prepared to face the death penalty must indicate, their stance during the trial, must indicate how dedicated they were to the cause that they were fighting for.
The Section 20 sub-section 2 of the Act says that an act associated with a political objective means any act - I'm leaving out words - which constitutes an offence or a delict which was committed by - and then I submit that the appropriate sections of the Act which would cover the applicants are sub-sections 22(a), 22(d) and 22(f). I submit that there can be no doubt that they were bona fide ...(intervention)
ADV DE JAGER: ...(inaudible) they meet the requirements of Section 20 and even Section 22 sub-section 3 so if you want to address us further, I don't know what the rest of the panel's opinion is on that but I don't think it's - for me it's clear they fall within the Act but I don't know what the rest of the panel's opinion is on that but I don't think it's - for me it's clear they fall within the ambit of the Act.
CHAIRPERSON: Ja well perhaps you should reserve the bulk of your submissions to hear what the other parties have to say, it might not be necessary to go into all this detail?
MR BERGER: I'll wait for a reply, thank you Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: I'm sorry, have you any further submissions?
MR BERGER: I thought I was leaving all my submissions for the end but perhaps I could just wrap up so that it's not left hanging in the air.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes, sorry.
MR BERGER: Chairperson, I submit that it's clear that all the incidents for which the applicants have applied for amnesty fall within the ambit of Sections 22 and sub-section 3 of the Act, either there was a direct instruction to kill a particular person or there was a general instruction to kill certain people whose positions or stances or actions were considered inimical to the aims and objectives of the ANC or there was a general instruction or authorisation to do what the unit considered necessary in order the further the aims and objectives of the ANC. In that implied authority, I submit is the arming, the provision of arms of heavy calibre weapons, of land mines, of limpet mines, of hand grenades to this unit and that would cover every incident for which they have applied for amnesty.
Seeing as though there was specific questions put by our learned friends in relation to firstly the Silverton bomb, I submit that there is evidence before you in the form of - well from all the applicants but particularly the evidence of Mr Masango and the evidence of Mr Potsane about the Kabwe Conference, the decisions that were taken there, it's in Mr Chaba's editorial, Mr Chaba was the official organ of the ANC and it's clear, it's also clear that if one has a look at the cover of Exhibit B, on the left hand side it says Apartheid Attacks Soft Targets", there's Maputo on the 30th January 1981, Maseru the 9th December 1982 and Gaberone, the 14th June 1985 which was the day before the conference opened. It's clear that the message that was going out from Kabwe and which went out from Kabwe was that the line between soft and hard targets was going to disappear and Mr Masango himself being political commissar, being tasked with disseminating that information to cadres of the ANC then disseminates that same information to members of his own unit. I submit that the implied authority for the Silverton Bomb is there. Of course afterwards the fact that the unit was not disciplined, the fact that they reported the incident to the leadership indicates that if - well as Mr Masango said, if we thought we were going to be disciplined, we wouldn't have reported that incident so we believed that we had the authority. And I submit that that belief at the very least was a reasonable belief.
The fact that - there was some questioning both from my learned friend and from the Committee in relation to well, not only White people were targeted, well, not only White people could have been hit by this bomb, the uncontested evidence is that it was a White bus stop, it was targeted for it's symbolic value and that White people who used that bus stop were the targets. The fact that Black people could have been hit by the bomb was not something that deterred, as you were told, deterred the unit. I submit that that doesn't disqualify any applicant because the Act requires that the Committee look at the political objective sought to be achieved by the applicants and the political objective which they sought to be achieved was to send a message to White South Africa.
Mr Masango said that there was one person - one Black person in the vicinity of the bomb and he said to him you and your Black friend, get out of this area but obviously they could not make sure that everybody, every Black person in the area could be warned in advance.
There are decisions of the Amnesty Committee, I'm not going to go into detail but I just mention for example the Heidelberg bomb where the target was White people but where I believe it was one Indian woman, one Coloured woman killed in that blast, if my facts are correct. The St James Church, I don't know - Advocate de Jager, you were on that panel, I don't know if there were Black members in the church, I seem to remember that there might well have been Black congregants, Coloured congregants in the church when the attack took place.
ADV DE JAGER: ...(inaudible)
MR BERGER: No, none were injured but they were there and could have been injured in that attack.
So I submit that the requirements of Sections 22 and 23 of the Act are met in relation to the Silverton incident as well and as far as the Lukhele incident is concerned, their specific authority was obtained and was sought and obtained from the leadership of the ANC. Again, the fact that Mrs Glugu was caught in the crossfire, Mrs Glugu was in the same position as for example a Black person who could have been caught by the Silverton bomb. Mr Potsane explained that his mission was to kill Mr Lukhele. Mrs Glugu was right next to Mr Lukhele when he opened fire and she was killed in the rain of bullets. The judge accepted that Mr Potsane had no direct intention to kill Mrs Glugu but that there was indirect intention, dolus eventualis in relation to her death.
Again I submit that the Committee must look at the political objective sought to be achieved which was the killing of Mr Lukhele. If and I submit the facts speak for themselves, if it had been the intention of Mr Potsane to kill everyone in the room, Mrs Lukhele would not be sitting here today.
Chairperson, I'm in the position it seems like Mr Koopedi has decided he's not coming back to this hearing and there's Mr Simelane who is applying for amnesty in relation to the killing of Mr Chapie, I don't know if it's my job to make any submissions on his behalf but perhaps as an amicus I can simply say that he too would qualify for amnesty for the giving of the order, in fact his evidence was and it wasn't disputed that the order came from higher up and it was passed through him to Mr Masina. I submit that he would qualify for amnesty.
Chairperson, I do not have any further submissions to make at this stage and I'll wait to see if there's anything for reply. Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Berger.
Mr Booysen, have you got any submissions?
MR BOOYSEN IN ARGUMENT: Yes, thank you Mr Chairperson.
Mr Chairman, I'm appearing for certain victims, I will quickly name them:
Gloria Rosaline Randals, Nelia Terblanche, ...(intervention)
ADV DE JAGER: Have you got a list of them perhaps with addresses?
MR BOOYSEN: I don't have addresses now but I can furnish the Committee with the addresses at a later stage.
The other one is Nelia Spyt and then there is Mrs A E Williams and Mrs G B Williams, Mrs Trollip and Mrs Voysa, that is the victims I'm appearing for.
My instructions were from the word start that they are willing to forgive, they came to this Committee to listen to the applicants' story to why certain deeds were done. I was also instructed during the course of this Committee that they came to a certain understanding or that the deeds that were done felt very wrong to them, they do have an understanding now why it happened. They have a big fear that something like that will happen ever again. When the applicants gave evidence, the names of the victims, it wasn't really touched if it was Whites or Coloureds or Black and that's why the questions were asked. I think it was more human questions, didn't you think about them? Surely it could have been more appropriate for the ANC to get another target to kill say two White people according to their policy and non-coloureds or Black people. The question wasn't asked to oppose this application, it was only asked on behalf of the victims, they wanted to know "why us?". It's very simple, but it comes down to "why us?"
I've read the Act, I think they complied with all the regulations of the Act and we have no objection against the granting of amnesty for all four applicants. Thank you Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Booysen.
Mr Rammutla, have you got any submissions?
MR RAMUTTLA IN ARGUMENT: Definitely, Mr Chairperson, I've got submissions even though much more short and brief.
Mr Chairperson, on behalf of the Glugu family, on behalf of the surviving Mrs Lukhele and other members of Mrs Lukhele's family. Mrs Lukhele, what she is saying that her husband was murdered. It has been accepted that he has been murdered by the cadres who were executing the orders of their command but she is saying to the community at large, those who are here and those who will be hearing of this matter that it is regrettable that her husband died, died as a result of politics. Politics belonged to the - or perhaps relating to the Kangwane government and the ANC and South Africa at large. She is further saying that it must be born in mind even though she is not opposing, she is officially not opposing the amnesty application brought by the applicants all of them, that her husband must not be taken to be the person who wanted to destroy the Swazi community in particular instead as the person who was driven by the goals of achieving the good standing of the Swazi community and the community must know and take it and accept it as a fact that some of the or perhaps part of the Swazi community where at it is today, it is because of Mr Lukhele's contributions and tireless hard working. I have personally went through the Act briefly going to the background of the application brought by the applicants. I duly submit that the applicants do comply with all the requirements as stipulated for them to obtain amnesty for the acts they have committed and I therefore submit that they, the Committee consider their application to be in order and be granted amnesty. Thanks Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thanks Mr Rammutla.
Ms Mtanga, have you got any submissions?
MS MTANGA IN ARGUMENT: Yes Chairperson, I'll be brief.
It is my submission as well that the applicants' amnesty applications have complied with the requirements of the Act and I'm therefore not opposing their application.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Ms Mtanga. Have you got any further submissions Mr Berger?
MR BERGER: Just to ask the Committee to grant the four applicants amnesty for the acts for which they seek amnesty. Nothing further thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we've come to the end of these particular applications. The panel will formulate a decision and will release it to all of the interested parties as soon as possible. We have some further matters that require our attention so we are not in a position to finalise this matter immediately. We will in the circumstances reserve the decision and through our offices notify the parties when the decision is available.
It only remains for us the thank the legal representatives, Mr Berger, Mr Booysen, Mr Rammutla and Ms Mtanga and your clients for the assistance that you've given us in this particular matter.
MR BERGER: Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON: We'll excuse you gentlemen and yes, possibly we could get to the other matter and hear some of it before we adjourn for lunch. Would it be possible or do you want us to stand down for a few moments to rearrange the situation or what?
MS MTANGA: Yes Chairperson, we need about five minutes.
CHAIRPERSON: Very well gentlemen, we will excuse you and your clients as well. Thank you for attending and we deal with the next matter when they are ready.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
