--------------------------------------------------------------------------ON RESUMPTION:

CHAIRPERSON: For the record, it is Friday, the 4th of June 1999, it is the continuation of the Amnesty Committee hearings at Telkom Park, Pretoria. The Panel is constituted as previously indicated on the record. The matter on the roll is that of Nkozinathi Immanuel Mavuso, amnesty reference AM7921/97. Mr Prinsloo, would you just want to put yourself on record?

MR PRINSLOO: As it pleases you, Mr Chairman, I appear on behalf of ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BIZOS: May it please you Mr Chairman and Members of the Committee, I appear on behalf of the family of the deceased who are present here today, I am from the Legal Resources Centre in Johannesburg and I am instructed by Ms Miriam Wheeldon in the matter. Mr Chairman, we have had discussions with Counsel for the applicant and we, our colleague I think for - the Evidence Leader for the Commission, and we are agreed subject to the Committee's concurrence, that no useful purpose would be served in starting this matter today. There are facts and circumstances which are to be investigated and on information available to us and the Commission, it would appear that there are people who are not here today who may have an interest in the outcome of these proceedings. We are constraint to ask for a postponement of the matter. We have raised that with the persons responsible for the calendar and we have been informed that the Committee will be available from the 5th to the 9th of July and I think although we hope and trust that it will not last as long as that, it would be as well to allow that sort of period in order not to have part-heard matters involved. We would ask for a postponement to that date.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Bizos, you have raised a matter about my previous involvement. If there is any objection, I would like to know at this stage, because otherwise if it is raised then and there is a problem, then we will have to postpone it again.

MR BIZOS: ... a witness on the information presently at our disposal, whose name is Msibi and who is present here today, appeared before a Committee of which you, Adv De Jager, was a Member. He applied for amnesty, his application for amnesty was refused. I have seen the ruling, I do not on the information available to us, it was not really a credibility issue that you had to decide upon, but rather partly on his own evidence. He had committed the act in respect of which he was applying for amnesty for personal gain, and on that ground, the application was refused. I do not object to your sitting in this matter, I don't believe that there are sufficient grounds, but I thought that I would raise it least anyone else has any objection and also you, yourself, of course I don't know how much of it you remember, having done so many cases, but it would be your decision finally as to whether you are going to sit or not.

ADV DE JAGER: I would appreciate it if perhaps you could discuss it with the witness and you could later tell me what is his...

MR BIZOS: (Microphone not on)

ADV DE JAGER: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Bizos. Ms Mtanga, what is your position in regard to postponing the matter as indicated by Mr Bizos?

MS MTANGA: Chairperson, I do agree with the postponement and also I do confirm the date that has been arranged, that is the 5th of July to the 9th of July.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Mtanga. Mr Prinsloo?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, we did arrange the date as the 5th to the 9th of July. I would request the Committee with respect Mr Chairman, that a statement of this particular witness be made available to us to avoid a further delay in this matter, as this matter was originally set down for February this year and the matter was then removed from the roll at the instance of the community of Pongola from where the victims originated from. Mr Chairman, in the interest of the applicant, to expedite this matter, I would ask the Committee to make a ruling that the applicant's Attorneys furnish us with a statement of this witness Mdu Msibi. We have been furnished a statement this morning of a certain person, only this morning, with certain details and a summary of certain information which we got from the Evidence Leader and it contained certain information, but not the detail which would be required to prepare for this matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you mean the victim's legal representative? I thought you said the applicant.

MR PRINSLOO: The victim.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Yes Mr Bizos?

MR BIZOS: I don't know whether an applicant is entitled to a statement as of right, I know of no procedure, but we will undertake to do this at least that we will indicate by notice to the Committee and to the applicant the nature of the evidence of the witness upon which we will oppose the application. I think that would be more than enough to enable the applicant to prepare a case, to present to the Committee, I don't know that he is entitled to a statement, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Prinsloo, perhaps it is a bit premature at this stage, to make any particular rulings, isn't it more advisable that you await the communication from the victim's legal representative to see to what extent that meets whatever difficulty you might have?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, with respect, in all the recent matters, we have had pre-trial conferences and we have resolved all the issues beforehand, and that saves time for the Committee and also expenditure, and we know exactly where we are going and what evidence to lead and what not. It will also be in the interest of the Committee Mr Chairman, with respect, otherwise I would suggest that the pre-trial conference be held that we be given the documents and the information timeously so that we know exactly what is going on.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but what I am referring to is information which Mr Bizos has undertaken at the very least, to make available to you, shouldn't you consider that and see whether you still have any difficulty subsequent to that?

MR PRINSLOO: I will accept it on that basis at this stage, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Bizos, if there is any ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, unfortunately it is not possible to proceed with this particular matter this morning. There are a number of outstanding issues that need to be clarified before it is possible to proceed with the matter. We prefer to listen to the matter in one sitting and to dispose of it in one sitting rather than having a situation developing where it is inevitable that we would only be able to hear a portion of the matter and then be compelled to postpone it in any event. Under those circumstances we are going to postpone the matter and it will be enrolled for hearing as from the 5th of July 1999, we have reserved five days for the matter, in all likelihood it would not take all of that time, but in order to avoid us being left with a partly-heard matter in view of the rather pressing schedule of the Amnesty Committee, we are providing a five day period for this matter. It will then be postponed to the 5th of July 1999, we reserve the week until the 9th and it will be heard at the IDASA Centre in Pretoria. The matter is postponed.

We will stand down for a brief while just to allow for the next matter to be ready. We will adjourn briefly.

ON RESUMPTION:

CHAIRPERSON: The next matter on the roll for today are the applications of Johannes Veli Mazibuko, amnesty reference AM6033/97 and Teboho Bennie Tlatsi, AM7397/97. The Panel is as indicated previously on the record. For the applicants, Mr Koopedi?

MR KOOPEDI: Honourable Committee Members, I confirm that I appear for both applicants, Mr Mazibuko and Mr Tlatsi. I believe we are ready to proceed with leave of the Committee, may we proceed?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Koopedi. Ms Mtanga, do you want to put yourself on record?

MS MTANGA: Thank you Chairperson, I am Lulama Mtanga, the Evidence Leader from the Truth Commission.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Mtanga, are there any other interested parties in this matter, victims, other interested parties?

MS MTANGA: Chairperson, we have four victims as per our information in the Bundle, they have all been notified and they responded to our, they did sign the acknowledgement of receipt, but they have not attended the hearing and they have not indicated whether they oppose or not.

CHAIRPERSON: So those four known victims have been properly notified?

MS MTANGA: That is so Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And they are not present at the proceedings?

MS MTANGA: Yes Chairperson, and the notification we received indicated that the hearing would start yesterday and they also did not attend yesterday.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, and you are asking that we proceed in the circumstances?

MS MTANGA: Yes Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well, Mr Koopedi, who is the first applicant to testify?

MR KOOPEDI: The first applicant to testify would be Veli Mazibuko, but may I just comment about what we have just been talking about and add that in fact the victims have indicated in their statements that they do not oppose the application.

CHAIRPERSON: It is Mr Mazibuko that will be testifying first?

ADV DE JAGER: And the other co-perpetrators, they were given notice too?

MR KOOPEDI: That is indeed so, to my knowledge, the other co-perpetrators who formed the core of the Unit, were also notified of the hearing. I must add that they are co-perpetrators but not co-applicants, that is right.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. In those circumstances, we will proceed to hear the applications. Mr Mazibuko, in what language are you going to present your evidence?

MR MAZIBUKO: I will present it in English.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, will you please rise to take the oath? Are your full names Johannes Veli Mazibuko?

JOHANNES VELI MAZIBUKO: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Please sit down and will you just arrange for both your microphones to be switched on, Mr Koopedi. Just for the record, the second name of the first applicant is Veli, not Veli but Veli. Yes Mr Koopedi?

EXAMINATION BY MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, there is a document entitled "TRC Submission Basil February" which is a statement prepared by the applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you wish that to form part of the record?

MR KOOPEDI: Looking at time, the interest of time, instead of us reading it into the record, we would like that to form part of the record.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR KOOPEDI: Unless you specifically direct that we read that into there record, which we are willing to do.

CHAIRPERSON: No, that will be Exhibit A in this matter, the TRC Submissions Basil February. Yes Mr Koopedi?

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson and may we proceed. Mr Mazibuko, is it correct that you are an applicant in this matter?

MR MAZIBUKO: Yes.

MR KOOPEDI: Is it also correct that Mr Tlatsi is a fellow applicant?

MR MAZIBUKO: Yes, it is correct.

MR KOOPEDI: Now you have applied for amnesty for incidents that occurred between 1988 and 1990, is that correct?

MR MAZIBUKO: That is correct.

MR KOOPEDI: Is it correct that, let me rephrase, were you a member of any political organisation?

MR MAZIBUKO: Yes, I was. I was the member of the African National Congress and its military wing, Umkhonto weSizwe.

MR KOOPEDI: Do you know if your fellow applicant was a member of any political organisation?

MR MAZIBUKO: He was, because we served in the same Unit.

MR KOOPEDI: What was this Unit called?

MR MAZIBUKO: The name of the Unit was called Basil February.

MR KOOPEDI: Okay, now the offences you are applying for, would you state for the Committee what offences you are applying amnesty for?

MR MAZIBUKO: The operations that I am applying amnesty on are firstly the attack on the Police vehicle at Duduza stadium with a super limpet mine.

MR KOOPEDI: Would you recall when this happened, a date perhaps?

MR MAZIBUKO: I am actually not sure of the actual date, but it happened before - I am not sure whether was it after the commemorations of the June 16 in 1989 or was it actually before the 26th, which we also celebrated as the Freedom Day by then.

MR KOOPEDI: This incident, when it happened, could you briefly tell the Committee how it happened, who took part in that?

MR MAZIBUKO: Well, what we did as a Unit firstly, we planned together as a Unit on this attack. After having planned as a Unit on this attack, I personally went for two weekends at the stadium for reconnaissance purposes, where I reconnoitred because there was a soccer team of Policemen who every weekend were used to come into the township to play with other soccer teams of civilians in the township. I personally reconnoitred the place for almost two weeks before this event and after a conviction of the fact that we would be in a position to sort of inflict considerable damage to the military personnel of the South African regime, I personally indicated to members of the Unit that as Commander of the Unit, I would be more interested to be the one who is going to carry out this operation. On that day, which I am not certain exactly whether was it before the 16th or after the 16th of June, we decided that I will go out and carry this operation. On that particular day, I went to our DLB, DLB - dead letter box - that is where I took a super limpet mine. That super limpet mine, I walked all the way to the stadium, at the stadium I paid the due fees which normally any person that enters the stadium, pays. I went inside until it was half time. After half time, I stayed for almost 20 minutes to see the soccer teams playing there. Immediately after the 20 minutes, because I had a super limpet mine which I was supposed to be attaching to a Police van which that Police van would be taking that soccer team of Policemen who it was going to off-load at Murrayvale Barracks where they stayed. After that 20 minutes into the extra time, I went outside, having already primed the detonator, I took the safety pin off. The element that I used for the detonation, was a 45 minute element, which would have allowed the situation where at least it would be almost 25 or 30 minutes when the match had finished and this van would now be travelling on its way back to the Barracks. I then with the limpet mine, went to a bumper closer to a tank, a fuel tank of this LDV van and I attached it underneath there, facing down. Thereafter I left the scene. That is how basically I conducted this operation of the attack on the Police van.

MR KOOPEDI: Now there were certain people who were injured in this operation, do you know anything about them?

MR MAZIBUKO: Yes, it is true. Subsequent to this event, one got arrested, that was on the 26th of June 1989 and in our trial, the people who got injured, were presented before - as State witnesses in our trial. That is when I sort of got the first encounter with them at the trial, basically.

MR KOOPEDI: Okay, now that is in as far as the first incident is concerned, or is that the only incident for which you are applying for amnesty.

MR MAZIBUKO: No, it is not the only incident.

MR KOOPEDI: Could you briefly tell the Committee about the other one?

ADV DE JAGER: (Microphone not on) Is this the incident referred to on page 50 of the Bundle?

MR KOOPEDI: No, it is not.

ADV DE JAGER: Oh, not that one? I thought that may be helpful for the dates. Thank you.

MR KOOPEDI: It appears it is, the problem is we have it saying Duduza soccer stadium and then (indistinct), a different place, but this is the incident. This is the incident and the applicant it should have been the 11th of June 1989. May we proceed to the next incident?

CHAIRPERSON: Let me just ask him, who were injured in this incident, you saw them as State witnesses, who were they?

MR MAZIBUKO: I actually know one of them, that is Magalie and the others, I think they belonged to the Malinga family.

CHAIRPERSON: Are they Policemen or what is it?

MR MAZIBUKO: No, they were not Policemen.

CHAIRPERSON: Were they injured when the limpet mine exploded, or what happened?

MR MAZIBUKO: It was through the shrapnels because of the glasses that broke within the vicinity of the explosion.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, I see, so where did the, where was this Police vehicle when the explosion eventually happened?

MR MAZIBUKO: It was actually parked outside the stadium.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, so they hadn't moved away from the stadium yet, there was nobody in the van?

MR MAZIBUKO: What exactly happened was the match was supposed to last for 45 minutes, but instead because they were playing for a tournament, then it was a draw, then they had to go into extra time, that was the reason why the van was still parked next to the stadium.

CHAIRPERSON: So these people that were injured, were they just spectators or passers-by or whatever?

MR MAZIBUKO: Yes, I would assume so.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you, Mr Koopedi.

MR KOOPEDI: Can you briefly tell the Committee about the next incident for which you are applying for amnesty?

MR MAZIBUKO: The next incident is the attack at the Duduza Administration offices. This attack, I am actually not certain of the exact date, but it was in 1989, when it was effected. I was personally involved there as well. I used a mini-limpet mine which was put at the drain, the drainage which was part of the foundation of the building of the Administration offices. The sole purpose of this was to create structural damage within that particular building of the Administration offices of the then Duduza Town Council.

MR KOOPEDI: Do you know if anyone was injured in this operation?

MR MAZIBUKO: No, no one was injured in this operation. What happened was after a certain time, this mine was apparently, there was a blockage which developed within the drain and it was discovered by the Police and they subsequent to that, used a blanket to defuse it.

MR KOOPEDI: More than anything else, you only planed the device and it did not explode?

MR MAZIBUKO: Yes.

MR KOOPEDI: Okay. Please go on with the other incidents.

MR MAZIBUKO: The other incident which I carried out, was an attack at kwaThema Police station. This attack was also in 1989, it could have been around May if I am not mistaken.

ADV DE JAGER: Maybe, to assist you, maybe on page 47?

MR MAZIBUKO: Yes, yes. The one that you pointed is the one that I have just spoken about, which is the Duduza Administration offices, those offices were also used by Municipal Police.

ADV DE JAGER: Oh, I see, so that is on page 47?

MR MAZIBUKO: Page 47, that is the second one that I have spoken about.

MR KOOPEDI: This second incident, the Duduza Administration office, just for the sake of clarity, it was also used by Security Police personnel, that is other than for administrative purposes?

MR MAZIBUKO: Yes, predominantly it had been a Municipal Police station basically.

MR KOOPEDI: Would it be correct to refer to it as a Municipal Police station, like the State has it in a matter that was heard against you, as it appears on page 47?

MR MAZIBUKO: Yes, I wouldn't have a problem with that because it was adjoined to the admin offices, as well.

MR KOOPEDI: Okay.

MR MAZIBUKO: Life I have indicated that I am actually not certain on the date at kwaThema Police station, but it could also have been around May when I carried out this attack. I carried out this attack right in the middle of the night, it was at two o'clock in the morning when I went to kwaThema Police station, I was actually carrying a mini-limpet mine. I went through a fence after I realised that the initial plan which, after having reconnoitred the place, I thought I was going to implement, which was going to enter right into the building, but due to the fact that there was maximum security after there was alert on a number of the blasts which were taking place in the area, and what added up to resorting to in this operation, was to go and put the mine under the gutter at the building of the Police station. That is how I basically carried out this attack.

MR KOOPEDI: Would it be correct to say that this attack could have happened on the 22nd of June 1989?

MR MAZIBUKO: 22nd? Yes, yes, it could be correct.

MR KOOPEDI: I am looking at page 57 of the Bundle of documents, Chairperson. Please go on to the next one.

MR MAZIBUKO: The other attack was carried, I actually carried out in 1988, October. This was within the midst of pre-election bombing where we intended disrupting elections which were taking place at that particular time. On this particular attack, I went to Dunnottar post office after a constant surveillance of the area, with a super limpet mine, with the sole objective of also entering the building and placing this mine inside the building. On my way to Dunnottar post office, just as I was going to the toilets to prime the detonator, to ensure that I removed the safety pin, I realised that there were Security Branch members who were standing next to the toilets there. On realising that, I then sort of got scared by virtue of the fact that I thought maybe there could be possibilities that there was something wrong within the area. Based on the original plan of entering the building, I then after having primed the super limpet mine, chose instead of getting inside the building, to place it in a dustbin close to the wall, it is almost - I am not sure whether am I good with metres on this - it could be three or four metres away from the wall of the post office. That is how I basically carried out this attack at Dunnottar post office.

ADV DE JAGER: Is that the same as the Nigel post office, page 43?

MR MAZIBUKO: It is different, it is a different attack.

ADV DE JAGER: Oh, it is a different one.

MR MAZIBUKO: The next one was an attack at the Brakpan Home Affairs offices. This attack I carried out, it was in December 1988 where I went to the Home Affairs offices at Brakpan. It was Sunday, it was closed, I placed the mine against the wall of the Home Affairs offices and that is how basically I carried out this attack.

MR KOOPEDI: Was there an explosion?

MR MAZIBUKO: Yes, there was an explosion.

MR KOOPEDI: Was anyone injured?

MR MAZIBUKO: There was no one injured.

MR KOOPEDI: Do you know if there was any damage to property?

MR MAZIBUKO: Yes, there was damage to the building.

MR KOOPEDI: Okay, please go to the next incident.

MR MAZIBUKO: The next incident pertains to an attack at Tsakane Police Barracks. There as well after a constant surveillance of movement of SAP personnel and Municipal Police personnel, I decided to carry out an attack. It was in 1988, yes, it was in 1988 where after a constant surveillance of movement of military personnel, I also placed a super limpet mine against the wall of one of the houses which were occupied by SAPS personnel, but before I could get out of the Barracks itself, some of the personnel saw me and they fired shots at me and Ii ran away from the place. Then later on they went out to check what is it that I placed there, and they discovered a mine and they also defused it.

MR KOOPEDI: I see, is it correct that you are also applying for amnesty for having planned an executed all these attacks, is that correct?

MR MAZIBUKO: Yes.

MR KOOPEDI: What I need to know for the Committee's sake, when all these were planned, did you do this on your own, were you with other people, how was this planning done?

MR MAZIBUKO: Before answering that, I think on the original application, there is one attack which maybe by mistake, is not included here, which is the attack at the Nigel post office which will be reflected in the original application, but in terms of this submission, it is not indicated.

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, he is referring to page 3 of that document, submission.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and has he dealt with kwaThema Administration offices, the bombing?

MR MAZIBUKO: Yes, I have not covered that as yet.

CHAIRPERSON: You haven't covered that? And there is another one in addition to that you say?

MR MAZIBUKO: Yes sir, the one at Nigel post office.

CHAIRPERSON: The one at Nigel post office.

MR MAZIBUKO: Which according to the original application, it is covered, but here I did not include it.

CHAIRPERSON: All right, so there are two further incidents that you want to refer to?

MR MAZIBUKO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: All right, very well.

MR MAZIBUKO: Firstly I will deal with the one at kwaThema Administration offices. The attack at kwaThema Administration offices was carried, I think it was the 20th of October 1988. The Administration offices at kwaThema were used as a voting station for local government elections and then subsequent to that, because obviously we were opposed to these elections, it ultimately became a target. As the Basil February Unit in terms of the overall mandate of disrupting these elections, I indicated to the Commissar of the Unit, the Commissar of the Unit being Teboho Ben Tlatsi, for him to take charge of this operation and ensure that it is carried to the letter. But over and above that, as Commander of the Unit, I could not leave comrade Ben to be alone there out on the field. On that particular day I happened to be writing an exam in kwaThema. Before I could write for, or before I could go for sitting on the exam, I went via the place to ensure that the operation is carried properly. Comrade Ben Teboho Tlatsi carried out this operation successfully in these Administration offices, by placing a mine inside the toilets of the building, which subsequently exploded.

MR KOOPEDI: Were you present when the explosion occurred?

MR MAZIBUKO: No, I was writing an exam at that time.

MR KOOPEDI: Okay, so your evidence is you went passed the scene and went to write the exams, you were not present when the explosion occurred?

MR MAZIBUKO: Occurred, no.

MR KOOPEDI: Okay, just go to the last incident.

MR MAZIBUKO: The last incident which I also personally carried out, was the attack at the Nigel post office. This attack was carried in 1989, I am actually not exact about the date on that, the month. The attack was carried, that is I personally carried it out by placing a limpet mine on a manhole under the building itself, of the post office.

ADV DE JAGER: That is the one referred to on page 43 of the Bundle?

MR MAZIBUKO: Yes, that is the one.

MR KOOPEDI: Was there an explosion?

MR MAZIBUKO: Yes, there was an explosion.

MR KOOPEDI: Could we perhaps drift back to my original question in terms of you know, your planning, who was with you, how was it done right up until execution time?

MR MAZIBUKO: What we did as a Unit, we planned most operations as a Unit. In terms of execution, the operations which I personally applied for, were operations which were personally carried by me. There is one area which I also feel I need to cover here. Initially when we started operating, the Basil February Unit, we sort of started more dealing with structural, hitting buildings basically, but with time, like as you can see in terms of the incident which happened at the stadium, at the Duduza stadium, we sort of decided to change the focus because apart from the fact that we were sort of trying to paralyse the racist regime by then, there could be no way in which we could wish away with forces that kept on killing our people in the area. When I actually speak about this, I do not speak about it maybe as someone who is at a distance, I speak about it as someone who has been a victim where Security Forces tried to cold-bloodedly murder me when I was still a student activist. Where people like De Kock, people like Johan van der Merwe, it is known, it is known to this Commission that there was an incident in Duduza where they booby-trapped certain students, I was one of those, where I was nearly cold-bloodedly murdered by elements of the racist regime. When we changed the focus in 1989, it was solely with the view of sort of ensuring that we show the enemy, the enemy which in this instance, was the racist regime, that there could be no target beyond our reach.

MR KOOPEDI: Okay, now your Unit, did you get any orders from anyone else in the ANC?

MR MAZIBUKO: Maybe what one needs to deal with here is to try and indicate the difference between a military man and a militarist. Within the context of a militarist, a militarist always - he is someone who is dormant, who always waits for orders to be fed down to him, but within Umkhonto weSizwe we operated within a broader mandate which obviously according to the submission that I have given to the Commission, in terms of the modus operandi, I indicate exactly what is it that we sort of, that is the way in which we were operating, which was to stretch the enemy forces, paralyse lines of communication, so it was within that particular mandate which is commonly known to each and every political soldier, because we were different from other soldiers, hence we refer to ourselves as political soldiers rather than as militarists. It was within that broad mandate in which we acted which was within the quest of the liberation of the black majority.

MR KOOPEDI: Okay, you have made an interesting reference to the fact that you were also one of those victims of the booby-trapped hand grenades. I believe you are aware that you will not get amnesty if the actions, your actions, were for any personal gain. My question to you is after you were injured, the operations that you were involved in, were these operations carried on because you had been injured or were these operations carried on you know, in terms of the broad mandate you would have had as an MK combatant?

MR MAZIBUKO: I would wish to place it on record before this Commission that when I understood the first incidents, I am also on record when I appeared before the TRC as a victim, when they asked me whether do I have any grudges or whatever against people who perpetrated the acts of ensuring that I become limbless and I indicated that I understood that whatever those people did, they did within a particular context, you see. The way I understand the struggle, all that I did, was to carry the mandate of ensuring our people. The fact that I was without fingers, the fact that I got injured in the first instance, for instance, in my submission, there is somewhere where I deal with the fact that De Kock and the others planned this attack on us, it was solely to discourage a number of people who after a call of saying, the ANC was saying they are establishing military bases inside the country, those acts were solely to discourage people from actively participating in those events and when one came out of prison, I came out of prison with a view that what I stood for at the beginning, I still stand for, which was the broad mandate of ensuring that we liberate our people. In essence, what I am indicating here is that whether one was limbless, whether one was headless, one would still have continued to fight until the original objective which was liberation, was achieved. It was not a revenge basically.

MR KOOPEDI: Would you regard all these instances for which you are applying amnesty for, as having been politically motivated?

MR MAZIBUKO: Yes, I do.

MR KOOPEDI: Now finally, your Unit, I asked a question and perhaps I should rephrase it, and the question was where did your Unit get orders. Perhaps let me rephrase it and say who trained you, who gave you the mandate that you had? Was there anyone like that, who did that?

MR MAZIBUKO: Well, the submission covers the training part, you see. When we were trained, we were trained inside the country, we were trained by comrades from Johannes Nkosi Unit which was the Regional Command Structure of MK. Comrade Ernest Sigasa was the Commander if that particular Unit. It was within that particular mandate that as Basil February Unit, we acted.

MR KOOPEDI: Were there any reporting procedures, were you supposed to report to him or to the Johannes Nkosi Unit in terms of your activities?

MR MAZIBUKO: Yes, for co-ordination purposes, as Commander of Basil February Unit, I was supposed to report to the Regional Command which in this instance, was represented by Ernest Sigasa.

MR KOOPEDI: Did you report, that is the instances as they occurred, were there any reports being given to the Johannes Nkosi Unit?

MR MAZIBUKO: Yes.

MR KOOPEDI: As far as you are concerned, the reports that you gave, were received favourably in that you were not told that you had gone out of your mandate?

MR MAZIBUKO: Yes.

MR KOOPEDI: Okay. Is it correct that you therefore are asking for amnesty for all these incidents?

MR MAZIBUKO: Yes, I am.

MR KOOPEDI: And perhaps for the Committee's sake, there was a criminal trial in this matter, is that correct?

MR MAZIBUKO: Yes, there was.

MR KOOPEDI: And what happened to it?

MR MAZIBUKO: We got indemnity.

MR KOOPEDI: When was this?

MR MAZIBUKO: It was in 1991.

MR KOOPEDI: The indemnity that you got, does it cover the offences that are before this Committee?

MR MAZIBUKO: Yes, it covers some of them.

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, that is the case for the applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Koopedi, have you got any questions Ms Mtanga?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS MTANGA: I only have one question Chairperson, thank you. Mr Mazibuko, the incident that you referred to, kwaThema Administration offices where local government elections were going to be carried out, at the time you placed the limpet mine there, were there people there or was the elections going on or not?

MR MAZIBUKO: Yes, the elections were going on. The mine was placed inside the building, in the toilets. I would sort of wish to indicate as to the exact position, because I did not put it personally there. I commanded that it be placed into the Administration offices, so as to whether there were people or not, I would not be certain to be honest.

MS MTANGA: So you don't know if there were people injured in that incident?

MR MAZIBUKO: No.

MS MTANGA: Who placed the limpet mine?

MR MAZIBUKO: Ben Tlatsi did.

MS MTANGA: That is all Chairperson, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Mtanga. Are there questions from the Panel?

ADV DE JAGER: As far as you know, no people were injured in that incident?

MR MAZIBUKO: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you got any re-examination Mr Koopedi?

MR KOOPEDI: No re-examination from my side, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mazibuko, you may be excused.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

MR KOOPEDI: As the Committee pleases and may I at the same time request leave to call in the second applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we will first excuse Mr Mazibuko and then are you calling Mr Tlatsi?

MR KOOPEDI: That is indeed so.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, won't you just move the microphone to Mr Tlatsi. Can you remain standing, Mr Tlatsi. Are you also going to testify in English?

MR TLATSI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Are your full names Teboho Bennie Tlatsi?

MR TLATSI: Yes.

TEBOHO BENNIE TLATSI: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, please sit down. Mr Koopedi?

EXAMINATION BY MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Tlatsi, is it correct that you are a co-applicant in this amnesty application?

MR TLATSI: Yes, it is correct.

MR KOOPEDI: Now, there is a Unit which was called Basil February Unit, is it correct that you were a member thereof?

MR TLATSI: Yes, it is correct.

MR KOOPEDI: This is in terms of the submission written by your co-applicant. Now, did you have an opportunity to go through this submission?

MR TLATSI: Yes, I did.

MR KOOPEDI: Would I be correct to say that in fact when this submission was drawn up, you were party thereto?

MR TLATSI: Yes, it is true.

MR KOOPEDI: And is it then correct to say everything or things that appear in this submission, should also be read into your application as if specifically handed in for your separate application?

MR TLATSI: It is true.

MR KOOPEDI: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: You confirm that the contents of the submission, Exhibit A is correct?

MR TLATSI: Yes, I do confirm.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well.

MR KOOPEDI: Now, is it also correct that the first applicant, Mr Mazibuko was your Commander in the Basil February Unit?

MR TLATSI: Yes, it is true.

MR KOOPEDI: Now looking at your application form, you are applying for amnesty for one incident.

MR TLATSI: Yes.

MR KOOPEDI: And the incident is the attack at the Administration offices?

MR TLATSI: Yes, it is true.

MR KOOPEDI: Now is it also your wish that in as far as your involvement is concerned, that is referring to all the activities of the Basil February Unit, that you be given amnesty?

MR TLATSI: Yes, it is my wish.

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, on that breath, we would request that the application for this present applicant be amended so as to include the other offences that the first applicant has applied amnesty for, the reason simply being that he was involved as a Unit member in the planning of these operations, although in his application form, he has only referred to the one incident where he actually took active part.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Now as it stands at present, does his application only explicitly refer to the kwaThema Administration offices incident?

MR KOOPEDI: That is how the application form stands.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but you are applying for his application to incorporate all of the incidents that appear on page 3 of Exhibit A?

MR KOOPEDI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that correct?

MR KOOPEDI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes? Very well, I assume there is no objection to that Ms Mtanga?

MS MTANGA: I have no objection, Mr Chairperson.

ADV DE JAGER: Did you refer to these other instances at all in your application?

MR TLATSI: No, I didn't sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there reference to the fact that you were part or a member of an Umkhonto weSizwe Unit in your application?

MR TLATSI: Yes, there is. Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. We have noted the application to incorporate the other incidents. We will deal with that when we deal with deciding the matter, but proceed in the meantime and present his case.

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson, we are indebted. Now, I would ask you to concentrate on the operation that involves you as in where you took part, the attack at the Administration offices, please briefly tell the Committee, this Honourable Committee, what happened on that day and how you went about it.

MR TLATSI: It was on the 20th of October 1988 and there were local government elections, I think it was all over the country, specifically in kwaThema. There was a call by the broad democratic movement, UDF, that people should refrain from voting for illegitimate Councillors at that time. As a Unit, Basil February, we decided to disrupt those elections because we felt they were illegitimate. What happened, we took a super limpet mine, myself and Veli, to kwaThema and that is where we actually planned this meeting, this incident. After a while, because he was writing examinations, he went to write his examinations and I went to the target, which was the kwaThema Administration offices. This limpet mine was intended to be placed inside the Administration offices but because there was a heavy Police contingent on those premises, I decided to place it on the toilet which were inside the building, very close to where I was supposed initially, to place it. I want to clarify this that it was already in the afternoon, and most people who were voting, were - actually the voting was about to be finished at that time, but those elections were continuing the following day. In order to scare off the voters, that is why we decided to place it in the afternoon, when the voting was finished and trying to minimise casualties. I placed it in the toilets and then it exploded after 30 to 40 minutes.

MR KOOPEDI: Do you know if anyone was injured in this explosion?

MR TLATSI: No, I do not know whether people were injured.

MR KOOPEDI: In the criminal trial that ensued, did anything come out to the effect that there were people injured during that explosion?

MR TLATSI: No.

MR KOOPEDI: No such thing occurred?

MR TLATSI: No.

MR KOOPEDI: Do you regard this activity as having been politically motivated?

MR TLATSI: Yes, it was.

MR KOOPEDI: And that you had a political objective to carry through?

MR TLATSI: Yes, it was.

MR KOOPEDI: Do you think there was any personal gain on your side, did you gain anything out of it, personally?

MR TLATSI: No, I did not.

MR KOOPEDI: Okay, and have you told this Committee all there is to tell about this incident?

MR TLATSI: Yes, I think so far I have told everything.

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, that will be the applicant's case.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Koopedi. Any questions Ms

Mtanga?

MS MTANGA: No questions Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Tlatsi, are you aware of the other incidents that are referred to on page 3 of Exhibit A?

MR TLATSI: Yes, I am.

CHAIRPERSON: How did you gain knowledge of those incidents?

MR TLATSI: We planned them together as a Unit, Basil February.

CHAIRPERSON: kwaThema Administration offices was the only one that you personally executed?

MR TLATSI: Yes, I personally executed that.

CHAIRPERSON: Were the others executed by other members of your Unit?

MR TLATSI: Pardon?

CHAIRPERSON: The others were executed by other members of your Unit?

MR TLATSI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: But you were aware of them?

MR TLATSI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And you are aware that they were being executed?

MR TLATSI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: My attention has just been drawn to the fact that you were charged at the trial with all of these incidents which are referred to in Exhibit A, is that correct?

MR TLATSI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: What happened in that trial, what happened, were you convicted of these things or what happened?

MR TLATSI: Pardon?

CHAIRPERSON: What happened in the trial, were you convicted of all these incidents or not?

MR TLATSI: No, we got indemnity. Sorry, there is something I want to clarify, this attack at kwaThema Administration was not part and parcel of that case we attended.

CHAIRPERSON: So were you never charged with the kwaThema attack?

MR TLATSI: No.

CHAIRPERSON: But you were charged with some other attacks including these ones that are referred to in Exhibit A?

MR TLATSI: That is correct. That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And did that case ever go to court and was there ever a court case?

MR TLATSI: Yes, there was a court case.

CHAIRPERSON: What happened in that court case, were you found guilty or was it never completed?

MR TLATSI: It was never completed, it was just after the release of Mandela and we got indemnity.

CHAIRPERSON: The court case started off, there were witnesses that came and gave evidence?

MR TLATSI: Yes, there were.

CHAIRPERSON: But before it could be finalised, you were granted indemnity?

MR TLATSI: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Are there other questions? Any re-examination Mr Koopedi?

MR KOOPEDI: No re-examination, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the case for Mr Tlatsi?

MR KOOPEDI: That is his evidence, Chairperson, although I would like to call a witness who is going to be very short.

CHAIRPERSON: In respect of both the applicants?

MR KOOPEDI: In respect of both applicants.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Mr Tlatsi, thank you, you are excused.

WITNESS EXCUSED

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, the witness I am calling, his name is Ernest Sigasa. He is being referred to in this application.

CHAIRPERSON: Ernest who?

MR KOOPEDI: Sigasa.

CHAIRPERSON: Sigasa.

MR KOOPEDI: Sigasa.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Sigasa, are your full names Ernest Sigasa?

MR SIGASA: Yes, Ernest Phumuzi Sigasa.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just give the second name, would you just spell your second name.

MR SIGASA: Phumuzi.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

ERNEST PHUMUZI SIGASA: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, please sit down. Mr Koopedi?

EXAMINATION BY MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Sigasa, you have fortunately been following the evidence that has been given in this hearing, is that correct?

MR SIGASA: Yes.

MR KOOPEDI: It has been said that you gave training and you were in command so to speak of the Basil February Unit, would that be correct?

MR SIGASA: Yes, it fell under our command structure.

MR KOOPEDI: You have also been referred to as having formed the Regional Command in the East Rand, would that be correct?

MR SIGASA: That is correct.

MR KOOPEDI: And a Unit has been mentioned here, the Johannes Nkosi Unit, were you a member thereof?

MR SIGASA: That is correct, yes.

MR KOOPEDI: Is it also correct that in fact you have applied for amnesty and have appeared for the incidents as carried by your Unit and in that application, you have referred to this application?

MR SIGASA: That is correct.

MR KOOPEDI: Now, for this Committee's sake would you briefly detail the mandate that could have, that you gave or that you could have given to the Basil February Unit and how you got the powers you know, to be giving people mandates.

MR SIGASA: Well firstly, I think my fellow applicant, Veli Mazibuko elaborated very broadly with regard to the mandate and the modus operandi when it comes to the ANC cadres, because we were not a conventional army, but a guerrilla movement, we were given basically a broad mandate and as I went through their submission and so on, I realised that part of the mandate that was given, it is in fact reflected in their submission as well. So basically what they would do, they were given as Umkhonto weSizwe broadly, overall and each front command like Botswana, Zimbabwe, Zambia and so on, will take that as an overall command and so on, that would cascade into our Operational Units and so on, and in this case as well, the Basil February Unit derived their mandate from ourselves as the Regional Command Structure.

MR KOOPEDI: Did the Basil February Unit report to you in terms of their activities and actions, did they come and report what they had done?

MR SIGASA: I would - what I would say is that in all our Units, including Basil February as well, we had a particular modus operandi like in terms of making sure that people act within the parameters of the policy and also the mandate given, we had that contact where people would in fact sit and go through the mandate itself and also get some reports back, the ammunitions used, the target you know, actions carried on and so on and so forth. I would say yes, we consistently or constantly had some report backs about the activities of the Unit.

MR KOOPEDI: Now, in turn, what did you do with those reports, did you keep them, did you pass them anywhere else, what did you do with it?

MR SIGASA: Well, definitely as a Command Structure responsible and accountable to the front command, the Military Headquarters in Lusaka, so that the ANC would be able to account for the activities taking place. Of course others, it was difficult to pass them over to the Headquarters, but most and in fact all of the operations or activities and so on, were passed over to the MHQ.

MR KOOPEDI: Okay, finally, would you regard the activities, the operations of the Basil February Unit as operations of the ANC?

MR SIGASA: Well, of course, of course, we regard that because when we look at in fact our mandate, when we look at the 25th advisory from Umkhonto weSizwe, the attack, annihilation of the enemy forces, the infrastructure of the enemy, the lines of communication and so on, all that formed part of the broad mandate that was given to all of us, and that would include Basil February as well. So that, yes, was in fact the activities as sanctioned by the ANC.

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson, that concludes this witness' testimony.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Koopedi. Ms Mtanga, any questions?

MS MTANGA: No questions, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Mtanga. Any questions from the Panel?

ADV DE JAGER: And even today you are satisfied that they acted within their broad mandate?

MR SIGASA: Even today, yes, I am satisfied that they acted within the broad mandate, despite an extreme provocation and so on, but they tried their level-best to be disciplined members of the Unit.

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination Mr Koopedi?

MR KOOPEDI: Nothing in re-examination, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the case for the applicants?

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, that will be the case for the applicants.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Sigasa, you are excused. Thank you.

MR SIGASA: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Mtanga, any witnesses, any evidence?

MS MTANGA: I won't be calling any witnesses Chairperson and no further evidence from my side.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Koopedi, have you got any submissions?

MR KOOPEDI IN ARGUMENT: Very short verbal submission, Chairperson. Chairperson, I would request on behalf of the applicants that they be granted amnesty for the offences having been mentioned. The reason is simply that the applicants have fully disclosed to this Honourable Committee all their offences and in their evidence, the applicants have made it clear that there was no personal gain on their side and finally, that all their activities, there was a political objective. These people were acting within the mandate of a political organisation, namely the ANC. Briefly it is on those grounds that I ask that they be granted amnesty, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Koopedi. Ms Mtanga, any submissions?

MS MTANGA: Chairperson, I am not opposing this application and I will therefore not make any submission, I will leave the matter in your hands.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Ms Mtanga. Just in regard to the application to amend Mr Tlatsi's amnesty application, to include the other incidents which appear in Exhibit A, has in your submission, has provision been made sufficiently in the application in order to cover the incidents, the further incidents referred to in Exhibit A, or would it amount to us allowing Mr Tlatsi to raise completely new matters which had not been alluded to at all in the original application?

MR KOOPEDI: The answer is no Chairperson, the application was simply based on the fact that Mr Tlatsi was present during certain planning meetings and in as far as that is concerned, he asks for amnesty and that is why there is that application that those offences be read into his application. There is no new or further facts that are going to be brought about or that are coming.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, in other words the question is, is the original application broad enough to cover the further incidents and if so, which particular portion or aspect of the original application, would make sufficient provision for these further incidents also to be included, in addition to the kwaThema Administration office attack?

MR KOOPEDI: In the application that is not clear, that is the original application form. The original application form gives the impression that there is only one offence that he is applying amnesty for and which would be the attack at the kwaThema Administration office.

CHAIRPERSON: But is there reference in the original application to the activities of the Unit, the Basil February Unit and the fact that the applicant was a member of that particular Unit?

MR KOOPEDI: That doesn't appear on the application form.

CHAIRPERSON: As it appears from the evidence, from the testimony of Mr Tlatsi, he seems to have been charged with these further incidents that are referred to in Exhibit A, now does that assist him at all in laying some basis for the application to amend, because of course you realise the difficulty if there is absolutely no basis at all in the original application, then of course you know, it is incompetent for us to entertain incidents and acts which have not been raised at all in the application.

MR KOOPEDI: I understand the dilemma if I may call it that, Chairperson, the fact is on the original application form and like I have mentioned, the applicant only centres on the attack at the kwaThema Administration office. He does at some stage mention that he was charged criminally and the question would be, that is on page 14 going to page 15, and there is a question was there a prosecution, and if so, in what court. He goes on to explain that it was in the Pretoria Regional Court. He also goes on to state what charges was he facing and it is my submission that the ten counts that he is referring to in his application here, would incorporate those that appear on Exhibit A, but the fact is other than that, there has been no specific reference so as, specific reference to the other matters which we apply that they be incorporated, but he does as I have said, refer to the ten counts that he was charged with.

ADV GCABASHE : Mr Koopedi, are you saying that that is sufficient to grant him leave to now amend a rather substantive portion of his application?

MR KOOPEDI: I have said that I did not think that that is sufficient, but in response to the Honourable Chairperson's question, I thought it would be fair to mention to this Committee, to state to this Committee that it has been mentioned, you know, in some far fetched way so to speak, that is he refers to him having been charged. You look at the charges, the charges refer to those offences, but he did not specifically refer to those matters in his application.

ADV GCABASHE : Were further particulars either requested or supplied at any stage?

MR KOOPEDI: To my knowledge, no further particulars were requested, but further particulars were supplied without being requested, if you look at Exhibit A and if Exhibit A is seen to be you know, part of his application.

ADV GCABASHE : Yes, but Exhibit A is a 1999 document I presume? One other question, the indemnity that the applicants got, what is the effect of that, what do you understand the effect to be?

MR KOOPEDI: Well, the effect of that is that they will not be criminally charged for this matter any more, nor even be civilly, you know be civilly charged or face any civil action for this matter, nor will most probably the organisation that they represent.

ADV GCABASHE : And their reason for applying for amnesty in respect of the very same offences?

MR KOOPEDI: Well, by and large the reason for applying for amnesty is two-fold. The first one is to ensure that all the truth has been told about the activities of the past, and I would imagine a Unit like theirs would also want to form a part of the history, the recorded history and that is the first reason. The second reason would be I am not sure, but I believe the second reason would be to make sure that the organisation that they are members of, the ANC, would not in any way face any civil suits because the indemnity that they were granted was in a certain sense silent on that issue.

CHAIRPERSON: I am sorry, I am just going to intervene for a moment, Mr Koopedi, we will come back to you in a minute. Mr Bizos, you are still present unfortunately I see, for you. Have you got anything that you wanted to bring to our attention?

MR BIZOS: ... whether or not Adv De Jager should continue being a Member of the Panel, he said he has no problem with that. I just thought that I would indicate that so that you don't have to reconstitute the Panel for the adjourned date. Thank you for the opportunity.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, we appreciate that Mr Bizos, thank you very much. Yes of course, thank you. Mr Koopedi, who has completed the application form of Mr Tlatsi, I see it is a hand-written application form?

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, I am going to have to enquire from him, I have no idea. May I do so Chairperson? I am informed that he completed the application form personally and then handed it over.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I understand ...

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Koopedi, are you satisfied that the indemnity being granted, that he wouldn't be liable to prosecution any more and that the reason for applying now for amnesty was actually to put the whole background and record and background and what they did, on record sort of?

MR KOOPEDI: Honourable Committee Member, yes, I am satisfied and perhaps I should refer to the fact that there was a criminal trial in this matter, which incorporated all these allegations or offences, indemnity was granted with regard to them, and that criminal trial was stopped. I am satisfied that, I do not think that any criminal charges can arise out of any of these activities.

ADV DE JAGER: Neither civil claims?

MR KOOPEDI: Well civil claims I believe personally, yes, he would not be liable if he has been given indemnity, I am just not sure as to whether the organisation for which he acted, enjoys the same status in terms of the indemnity. I would know that if he is granted amnesty, then his organisation would also enjoy that status of not being civilly liable.

ADV DE JAGER: I think in fact, because I think the government, the then government wouldn't be personally liable at this stage too if they had granted amnesty to say a Policeman or indemnity to anybody, I think it was on the same basis.

MR KOOPEDI: May I also say Chairperson that the - this application that these offences be incorporated, is not material to this application in that the big purpose, the purpose which it would serve, has already been covered by the fact that a fellow applicant has made application for these offences. Without prejudging the matter, but if he was, if the first applicant is to be denied amnesty, it goes without saying that the organisation for which he was acting for, would be liable, similarly if the first applicant is granted amnesty on those actions, and supposing the second applicant is not granted amnesty on that, that organisation will still be covered civilly because a member of it has been granted amnesty for those offences and what I am saying is that the application is not material to this application, but we thought it would be proper to have him present the entire picture, have him own up for having been part of a Unit that was involved in the planning of all these operations.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes, technically one might, if lawyers look at the matter, you might conclude that yes, well, there was an offence involved in planning, being part of the Unit, but if an applicant in person prepares his application form, then it is more likely that he would deal with those matters which he himself has actually committed. So that I mean an applicant in person won't look at this matter in a technical way as lawyers would look at it and say, well, you know, although you haven't gone out to place a limpet mine there, you could actually be charged, it could be said that you had committed an offence, you know, there could be a question of common purpose or whatever, whatever technical sort of argument there might be, so one understands it.

If the applicant prepares the application in person, that he would obviously focus on the issue where he was involved, but I mean strictly speaking, there can't, it is very hard, let me put it this way, it is very hard to think of personal prejudice that might affect the applicant if for example he is not, no amnesty is granted in respect of these other incidents which he hasn't specifically dealt with in his application form. If the criminal liability is taken care of, you have quite correctly referred to the other aspects and so on. It looks as if there is no real prejudice.

MR KOOPEDI: I concede that there wouldn't be any prejudice whatsoever in my own thinking.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, I assume you wouldn't have any further submissions.

MR KOOPEDI: No further submissions, thank you Chairperson. CHAIRPERSON: Well, that concludes this particular matter. The Panel will consider the matter and will make a decision on it and will notify all of the interested parties once a decision is available. We will reserve the decision in the matter.

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You would be excused Mr Koopedi. Ms Mtanga, is there anything else that we have on the roll?

MS MTANGA: No, this is all for today Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, under those circumstances, we are going to adjourn the proceedings in any case. We will reconvene in this venue on coming Monday morning and the proceedings will commence at ten o'clock. We are adjourned.