NALADI POWER STATION BOMB EXPLOSIONS

______________________________________________________CHAIRPERSON: Good morning to you all. Today is the 2nd February 2000. The panel that will sit to consider the applications set down for today comprises Judge Khampepe, Judge Motata and Judge De Jager. The evidence leader is Mr Steenkamp. Will the legal representatives appearing on behalf of Mr Mokati and Mr Mthembu and Dube place themselves on record?

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson. My name is Brian Koopedi, I indeed appear for the three applicants before you, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll proceed with the applications of John Itumeleng Dube, Edward Theise Mokati, Sipho Nicodamus Mthembu in respect of an incident referred to as the Vanderbijlpark Bus Terminus and Naladi Power Station Bomb Explosions.

Mr Koopedi?

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, I believe we are ready to proceed and I would ask that Mr Dube be sworn in. They would be appearing in the order they have been written in the applications.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR STEENKAMP: Madame Chair, if I may just interrupt and say something about the victims?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR STEENKAMP: Under section 94 requirements, Madame Chair, the TRC has taken a few steps to identify the victims. There was 19 people injured in this incident as far as we could establish. In all the local newspapers there was advertisements placed last year as well as this year. Only one person came forward which is Ms Collette Dawson. Ms Dawson was available yesterday, she's actually present here today, she's one of the victims in this matter and the only one we could trace. I've spoken to Ms Dawson. Ms Dawson has indicated she has no objection to amnesty. She's just here according to herself as an interested party and she wanted to hear and listen what the applicant has to say in this matter. If there is anything she would like to raise, the request is she will raise it through me but at this moment she doesn't have any objections and nothing to add. I can just maybe add that the original case docket, Madame Chair and Honourable Members, was apparently destroyed in this matter and no information could be traced either through the police or any of the security services in this specific area and the documents contained in the bundle were the only documents that we could trace which is part and parcel of the judgment as you might have seen. I would humbly submit that all reasonable steps were taken to identify and locate victims and unfortunately only one victim came forward which is Ms Dawson who is present here today. Thank you Madame Chair.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Koopedi, did Mr Mokati receive indemnity?

MR KOOPEDI: He has received indemnity.

JUDGE DE JAGER: So one of the applicants already has indemnity, the other two did they apply or what was the position, didn't they apply for indemnity?

MR KOOPEDI: The situation, my Lord, is that only one person was arrested for this matter which is Mr Mokati. He was sentenced to 14 years and he got indemnity.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. In that case we are satisfied with Steenkamp that all reasonable steps were taken to locate the whereabouts of the victims.

MR STEENKAMP: Thank you Madame Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: We also take note of the presence of Ms Dawson and of the fact that you are only watching brief on her behalf and that she has no intention at this stage to oppose unless you are further instructed during the course of these proceedings?

MR STEENKAMP: That is correct, absolutely correct, thank you Madame Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Koopedi, in what language will Mr Dube be testifying?

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, Mr Dube will be testifying in Zulu. Mr Mokati in seSotho and Mr Mthembu in Zulu. I might as well add that we have spoken to the interpreters and explained the order of appearance of the applicant, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we don't want to have the same unfortunate incident happening to your witnesses. I see you've taken steps to speak directly to the translators?

MR KOOPEDI: We try and learn from our previous mistakes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: That's good. Mr Dube, will you please rise in order to take an oath?

JOHN ITUMELENG DUBE: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR KOOPEDI: We beg leave to proceed Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you. Mr Dube, is it correct that you are an applicant in this matter which has been explained as the

Vanderbijlpark Bus Terminus and Naladi Power Station explosions which happened in 1988?

MR DUBE: That is correct.

MR KOOPEDI: I will refer you to page 4 of the bundle of documents which I am showing to you, it is the bundle which I believe has been given to you, Honourable Chairperson and Committee Members. I refer you to page 4 of this bundle, is this your application form?

MR DUBE: Yes that is correct.

MR KOOPEDI: And on page 9 of the same bundle there is a signature appearing at the end, is this your signature?

MR DUBE: That is correct.

MR KOOPEDI: Okay. You have prepared a statement for easy facilitation of these proceedings.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you referring him to page 4 of the bundle?

MR KOOPEDI: Yes, I was referring to page 4 of the bundle, Chairperson, which was his application form.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I have a problem with what's contained in his application form. Paragraph 9 refers to acts which have no bearing on the incident, the two incidents that we have to consider. It is my bundle, he's referring to the bombing of Ellis Park Stadium and Witbank Car Bomb. Do I have the right application before me?

MR KOOPEDI: That is indeed the right application form and application form I'm referring to. Perhaps I should add a little history to this application. Chairperson, this applicant had completed a number of application forms for amnesty without advice really. He could not remember what acts he was involved in and as and when he would remember he would then complete an application form. It was then agreed at a previous hearing that this application form, because of the last part of the paragraph 9(a)(i) you've referred to should be used in the various applications which would come. What I'm saying is that I am not certain whether there would be a single application form, his, which refers directly to this incident because that time some could not be found and it has then been standard practice to use this application form for the various other applications in which he might be appearing.

CHAIRPERSON: I have a problem with your submission if indeed you are submitting anything to us. I don't know what argument was presented to the panel that sat in a matter in which this panel was not involved with regard to paragraph 9(a) insofar as it seeks to refer to incidents which the applicant did not specifically mention in this written application before us and dated 7th May 1997.

MR KOOPEDI: I understand the predicament. I would perhaps, if I am allowed, I would Chairperson apply for condonation and apply for amendment to add this application to the things that might be brought against me that I might not remember.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But can you apply for a new incident that's not on the papers, never been applied for after the cut-off date?

MR KOOPEDI: My lord, what I'm suggesting is that this is not a new incident. He might not have mentioned the incident but this is not a new incident.

JUDGE DE JAGER: No, it's not a new incident in the sense that it occurred afterwards, but it occurred before the cut-off date. Similar applications have been made previously and we've declined it?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Koopedi, I think you've started on a very wrong footing, if I may be bold so to speak, I would have expected you to have moved an application for an amendment of paragraph 9(a) and address us on your request for that application and lay proper ground why you contend that even though this incident has not been specifically mentioned by the applicant, the fact that he has made reference to other incidents and his memory, he had a problem in remembering all the other incidents that he was involved in and having regard to the other applications of Mr Mokati and Mr Mthembu. There is a basis for your amendment to be granted by the Committee. I would have thought it would be your starting point?

MR KOOPEDI: I would apologise for not having started that way, Chairperson and I would also perhaps add this comment to my apology that it is because of having travelled this path before and ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: But not before us you see, we have no facts.

MR KOOPEDI: That is indeed ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: There is no evidence before us, we cannot proceed with an incident when we are having an application form that prime facie is defective?

JUDGE MOTATA: I think your starting point as the Chairperson has said is the Amnesty Committee has proceeded to set this matter down thinking that they're dealing with the right incident and your application for amendment and laying the bases would succeed on those bases, would I be correct Mr Steenkamp?

MR STEENKAMP: That is correct, Madame Chair.

MR KOOPEDI: I believe that is why when I realised that this is a Committee which in fact has no knowledge about this matter in particular, I then requested that if I may be allowed I would ask for an amendment and an addition to this paragraph, to say, to include the Witbank and the Naladi Power ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Vanderbijl.

MR KOOPEDI: Yes, the Vanderbijl and then Naladi Power Station to include them as meaning or as in reference to the things he said he does not remember.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR KOOPEDI: Perhaps I would also add that the ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: You haven't made any application Mr Koopedi. I am putting it to you that you should make such an application. Let's proceed on those bases. We give you now an opportunity to make such an application. If you want to have a two minute adjournment in order to move that kind of application, we'll allow you to have that opportunity.

MR KOOPEDI: I would try without preparing to move that application in an attempt to have these proceedings go on their way.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, proceed then and make your application.

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, I hereby make application on behalf of the Mr Dube, firstly that he be included formerly as an applicant in this matter. Secondly, I move for an application that the words Vanderbijlpark Bus Terminus and Naladi Power Station be added to paragraph 9(a)(i) of the applicant's application form which is page 5 before you. I would briefly motivate my application as follows.

This applicant was involved in a number of operations and this applicant has completed a number of application forms other than the forms before you. In some of the hearings where we have appeared some of the application forms could only be traced as and when we were sitting. It then became apparent that there was a problem with the application forms, some having been received by the Truth Commission and some not received by the Truth Commission because we were informed that they do not have such application forms. Now ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: But is it your contention that you completed an application form in respect of these two particular incidents?

MR KOOPEDI: It is not my contention that an application form was submitted for these two in terms of me being honest, I have enquired as to whether has he in particular applied for this one, he said to me he believes he did, we are not saying he did, you know, in all honesty and certainty.

CHAIRPERSON: And what would be the basis of that belief?

MR KOOPEDI: The basis of the belief was simply that at some stage he met with the two other co-applicants.

CHAIRPERSON: Who have applied?

MR KOOPEDI: Who were on the verge of applying I believe so he spoke to them about this matter and it is on those bases he believes that he also then completed yet another application form but I ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: And would those two applicants be Mr Mokati and Mr Mthembu?

MR KOOPEDI: That's right.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR KOOPEDI: They are his co-applicants before you. It is on those bases and I would not wish to refer to a precedent that I believe that there has been matters which have been heard, I do not have the amnesty numbers in my head but perhaps for clarity sake I would also show you page 4 of their application form.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR KOOPEDI: It has an application number which was also deleted.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR KOOPEDI: And this has been a trend in his application forms in that there would be numerous forms which are found and different numbers put on the application form but my submission is that the application form, the one before you, if the amendment is allowed should cover for this incident and further that this application form was submitted timeously before the cut-off date. Yes and that is my application.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Well if it's been filed it should be traced, if there was a number for 698 or other forms, it should be traced at the office but I want to put it to you I'm of the opinion that we can't add anything that hasn't been applied for, it's been refused in the matter of Schoon for instance, when he applied for something that he forgot and there's no room in the Act for us to condone this, that's my opinion.

MR KOOPEDI: I will leave that in the hands of this Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR KOOPEDI: And perhaps I should add that perhaps before this Committee makes a ruling on that, if the Committee would allow that we lead evidence and it will be come apparent as to his role in this application or in the operations. It is my belief genuinely that he does not need amnesty for this, his co-applicants do need amnesty for having anticipated in this but he added as an applicant for completeness sake, there is a role that he played however minimal and I would ask that perhaps we proceed and the ruling as to whether he's included as an applicant or not being made at the end of the proceedings.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

JUDGE DE JAGER: You see the trouble is, if he has rightly applied for this and if it could be traced then it would be injustice to exclude him. I think steps should be taken to find out whether he in fact - but I'm in agreement that we could proceed and make a ruling later but something should be done if there was a mistake at our offices that should be rectified?

JUDGE MOTATA: Madame Chair, I suppose let's hear Mr Steenkamp why they proceeded to set this matter down together with the other applicants.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, before we hear Mr Steenkamp, would I be correct Mr Koopedi in summarising your submissions as being twofold. The first submission you make is that your instructions are that Mr Dube believes, bona fide believes, that he made an application in respect of the two incidents and the belief is based on the discussions he had with Mr Mokati and Mr Mthembu where the incident was discussed with a view of taking steps to apply for amnesty and that Mr Mokati and Mr Mthembu's applications are before us and it is on that basis that he reasonable believes that he must also have made an application in respect of the incidents in question? You also submit that previously quite a number of applications have not surfaced when Mr Dube had applied for amnesty because of some administrative error by the Committee of some kind and to that extent you have previously been accommodated because of course that could not be faulted to Mr Dube who had applied if his applications could not be located by the Amnesty Committee due to some administrative error.

Your second submission is that notwithstanding the reasonable belief that he has applied for amnesty and that his application form in respect of the two incidents is not before us, you would argue for an amendment, Section 9(a) and contend that even though the two incidents have not been specifically referred to under that paragraph, they should impliedly or he did impliedly refer to them by the usage of the words "also anything that might be brought against me that I might not remember" which is what is appearing on paragraph 9(a) and you therefore submit that this application would not be a new incident for which he now seeks to incorporate under that paragraph because the words "by implication" would mean and refer to an incident such as the one before us there. Have I summarised your submissions correctly?

MR KOOPEDI: You have Chairperson, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. We'll reserve our ruling and we'll proceed to hear Mr Dube.

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson. Although belatedly so, maybe I should also add that under ordinary circumstances the evidence analysts would write and enquire from an applicant or his legal representative in the event the risk such as the statement that refers to anything that I might not recall and also say to them that, that is the applicant, and say to them that we will not hear - your matter will not be heard if we do not have answers to this. I believe at some stage there has been a number of communications telephonically and even by way of letters where a number of incidences were referred to. We do not have that in the bundle, I'm referring to the letters written to him or any responses thereto so perhaps it would be possible to find any such correspondence which might add in our favour.

JUDGE DE JAGER: While we're at it, on page 13, the application of Mr Mokati, it was attested to on the 24th November 1999 and at the back of page 14 there's a receipt also dated that day whilst on the front on page 11 there appears a date stamp of the investigative unit dated 10th September 1997. Mr Steenkamp, can you enlighten us on this?

MR STEENKAMP: Madame Chair, if I may just get this specific date stamp you're referring to? Which page is that?

JUDGE DE JAGER: Page 11 and the cut-off date was in fact the 10th, wasn't it?

MR STEENKAMP: If I'm correct that's absolutely correct, it was the 10th Mr Chairman.

JUDGE DE JAGER: It was received timeously but apparently not attested to and it was attested to later, is that what happened?

MR STEENKAMP: Prima facie on the documents that looks to be the case, it was signed or least attested to on the 24th November 1999 but the document on page 14 is only an acknowledgement of receipt but the date stamp on that specific day was the official stamp of the TRC and this document, acknowledgement of receipt is not necessarily, according to the document, is definitely not referring to the application itself. It can be anything else, Madame Chair. I think what normally happens, if there was other information or documents or just documents or applications, it looks readable, or probably not in a position to read, normally what will happen, you'll just receive another application where it's properly to be - or to be able to read it but that document I would humbly submit on page 14, is not necessarily referring to the application although it forms part of the application.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not activated.

CHAIRPERSON: Simply because the application number bears a '97 number and not a '99 number.

MR STEENKAMP: Madame Chair, unfortunately there was not a practice but it happened in the past where an application was not attested to, they were attested to later on a certain application.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR STEENKAMP: I would suggest with a lack of saying anything else this is probably exactly what's happened here because if the cut-off date was exactly on that day, there was a number of applications where people didn't attest it to but it was received timeously.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR STEENKAMP: So prima facie it didn't comply with the rules of the Act or the requirements of the Act but they were later just attested to. I don't know if my learned colleague knows this Advocate van Heerden, but if necessary we can get this person, I see he is from the legislature of Free State, I'm sure we can get this person to testify if necessary or even get a sworn statement from him, if necessary. I'm sorry, thank you Madame Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Before proceedings to hear Mr Dube, Mr Steenkamp, are you in a position to enlighten us with regard to the submissions made by Mr Koopedi? Particularly the first submission that several applications were lodged with our offices and there is this belief that this incident was also applied for and the applications, original applications, cannot be located as has happened also in other applications for which he has applied for amnesty?

MR STEENKAMP: Madame Chair, absolutely, that is a very unfortunate fact but it has happened in the past.

CHAIRPERSON: It has happened.

MR STEENKAMP: It definitely has happened, I mean that's a fact.

CHAIRPERSON: So you do have factual knowledge?

MR STEENKAMP: Madame Chair, what I'm saying is, my understanding of this specific application was that in this specific application, this specific application form was used in the previous amnesty hearing. I'm not trying to gainsay what Mr de Jager is saying, what I'm saying is, as I understand it there was an understanding between the applicant or at least his lawyers, that this application formed the basis of his application in similar applications but the application I refer to by 4698, what I would suggest is, because what I would suggest, after the applicant has testified that if necessary we at least find out what has happened to this specific number and who this number belongs to now and if necessary get proper information from our office or if necessary get the original documents to be couriered or get them here today by say 12 or whatever and find out exactly what the position is. My understanding was, with respect, the previous precedent was that this application was allowed in this specific Ellis Park Bombing.

CHAIRPERSON: On what basis?

MR STEENKAMP: I'm not quite sure, I wasn't involved in that matter Madame Chair but I can find that out.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Koopedi has contended that it was allowed on the basis that the TRC office has lost quite a number of written applications for which Mr Dube has applied for amnesty.

MR STEENKAMP: Unfortunately that is a fact. Whether or not it was his specific application got lost, Madame Chair, the fact that certain applications could not be traced, it's also factual.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Yes.

MR STEENKAMP: But I will endeavour to get a proper picture for you and enlighten you the moment we have more factual information on this.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Will you then inform us in writing so that that information can be taken into account when we make our ruling?

MR STEENKAMP: Yes, Madame Chair, not from the point, I'll do that but not from the point. My instruction from Ms Dawson is that she would humbly ask the Commission or the Committee, the panel, if at least the evidence of Mr Dube can be led. At least she can know and if he was involved and what basis he was involved just for the time being then, if that can be allowed?

CHAIRPERSON: We appreciate your concerns.

MR STEENKAMP: Thank you Madame Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: But we've got to make a ruling based on a legal foundation.

MR STEENKAMP: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: We have, however, stated that we'll allow Mr Dube to lead evidence and we'll reserve our ruling.

MR STEENKAMP: Thank you Madame Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Simply because we still are not sure whether indeed there was some administrative bungling in respect of the application for these particular incidents.

MR STEENKAMP: Yes thank you Madame Chair.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Could I just have clarity on this? You've stated that he's discussed this incident with his co-applicants at a time when they applied and then he also applied for this incident, is that correct?

MR KOOPEDI: He believes that he also applied after having spoken to them whereafter having discussed this matter.

JUDGE DE JAGER: I'm a bit concerned because this application was filed, was signed on the 7th May, so it must have been filed, also filed a day or two before the cut-off date, the final cut-off date. His application that we're dealing with, Mr Dube's application and I find it then strange that at that stage he could state "I might not and might be brought against me, I might not remember because at that stage it was so late, a few days before", and he discussed it with his co-applicants who were also applying that it would be strange if he wasn't reminded of this incident?

MR KOOPEDI: With respect, Chairperson, I don't know as to whether this form was completed on the 7th May or the attestation thereof was done at this stage, I do not have instructions as to the date when this matter was - when the form was completed but I know that there was a lack of knowledge from various applicants, some of the applicants would contend that the application forms which they were furnished with did not have the last page, there was no space for a Commissioner of Oaths and what they would do would be to simply complete the forms and send them over and these forms would at some stage be returned for being commissioned. I am therefore not in a position to say whether this form was completed on the 7th or only ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: It was attested to on the 7th and at that stage you said this isn't true so at that stage on the 7th he implicates that he doesn't remember ...(indistinct) incidents.

MR KOOPEDI: What I am saying is that I do not know because I do not have instructions, I do not know as to whether on the 7th did he just receive a form, take to a Commissioner of Oaths for attestation or whether this form was completed before then.

CHAIRPERSON: I note again that on page 4 we have a TRC stamp bearing a different date by a few good months from the date of the attestation, attested in May and the form is received or purportedly received on the 30th May, or September 1997, so there really is a lot of administrative errors that need to be investigated by Mr Steenkamp in respect of Mr Dube's application but if I understand again your submission, you are submitting that he applied, he had several written applications in respect of a great many incidents in which he was involved and you don't know when each application was attested to by Mr Dube?

MR KOOPEDI: That is indeed so. You know, without really deliberating this issue, for instance when he was - I think it's the Ellis Park hearing, when it started he was not even part of that and I think purely because there was a mistake in having put his form with the other forms, when the Ellis Park matter started, he was not part of it. Two, three days down the line he was not part of it, two three days down the line it's only realised that, you know, somebody should have been put in as an applicant, merely adding this to show that there was a problem in his application forms, I do not know as to whether he sent them late or but ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes but Mr Steenkamp has conceded that he's aware that there have been administrative problems in relation to his application forms but you will in due course, Mr Steenkamp, address us in writing?

MR STEENKAMP: Madame Chair, we are waiting for the information now at this present moment to find out whether what exactly the position this specific application is.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR STEENKAMP: I'm waiting for a response as we sit now.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR STEENKAMP: Thank you Madame Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: In the meantime we are reserving our ruling. You may proceed Mr Koopedi.

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Madame Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Dube has already been sworn in.

MR KOOPEDI: That is indeed so and he, I believe, just to recap, he has also confirmed that this is his application form and further that it was his signature that appeared on page 9 of the bundle of documents before you. I will then proceed Madame Chair.

EXAMINATION BY MR KOOPEDI: Mr Dube, you have prepared a statement to assist this Honourable Committee or to explain to this Honourable Committee as to your involvement in these two operations, is that correct?

MR DUBE: That is correct.

MR KOOPEDI: Could you please read the statement? Madame Chair, I might as well warn that the statement prepared is in English and I would apologise for the shabby manner it looks, it was prepared hastily. Could you please proceed and read the statement?

MR DUBE: Thank you Madame Chair.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Sorry, did you join in 1990 or 1980?

MR DUBE: I said 1980.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Then there was a wrong interpretation or statement.

INTERPRETER: There is no interpretation of English.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Right proceed, we're happy that you joined in 1980.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it "but" or "and", but maximum damage?

MR DUBE: And maximum damage.

CHAIRPERSON: So your intention was not to cause death and neither was it your intention to cause maximum damage or was it your intention to cause maximum damage without causing death?

MR DUBE: Can I repeat the sentence?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so should we read it as it appears on the statement?

MR DUBE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes you may proceed.

MR KOOPEDI: Madame Chair, Honourable Committee Members, that is the evidence in chief of Mr Dube. I'm not sure whether to call him an applicant at this stage but that would be his evidence in chief.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Koopedi and Mr Steenkamp, shall we locate a number to this statement? Shall we give it the number A, Exhibit A?

MR KOOPEDI: We agree from this side, Madame Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp?

MR STEENKAMP: Thank you Madame Chair. I think it was marked now Exhibit A?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR STEENKAMP: If you could just bear with me one second, Madame Chair?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR STEENKAMP: Madame Chair, my instructions from Ms Dawson is that at this moment she's not in a position or she doesn't want to ask any questions at this moment from the victim and she's satisfied with receiving this statement from my learned colleague. Thank you Madame Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Steenkamp. Judge de Jager?

JUDGE DE JAGER: Nothing.

CHAIRPERSON: Judge Motata?

JUDGE MOTATA: I've got none Madame Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Dube, you may step down as a witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Your next witness Mr Koopedi?

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson, Honourable Committee Members, the next applicant is Mr Mokati, he is number two on the list. He is before you and I believe he is ready to be sworn in?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, his statement will then be Exhibit B, the written statement.

MR KOOPEDI: Yes, we will mark it accordingly as Exhibit B.

EDWARD THEISE MOKATI: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Madame Chair.

Mr Mokati, is it correct that you are an applicant in this matter, the incident that has been referred to as the Vanderbijlpark Bus Terminus and also the Naladi Power Station?

MR MOKATI: That is correct.

MR KOOPEDI: I refer you to page 11 of the bundle of documents which is before the Honourable Committee, is this your application form?

MR MOKATI: That is correct, that's my application form.

MR KOOPEDI: On page 13 at the bottom thereof, there is a signature on this application form, is it your signature?

MR MOKATI: That's my signature, that's correct.

MR KOOPEDI: You have been prepared a statement which has been labelled Exhibit B for facilitation of these proceedings, would you read this statement?

MR MOKATI: I will do so.

MR KOOPEDI: Mr Mokati, I would ask you to read a little slowly for the interpreters and the Honourable Committee Members to follow?

MR MOKATI: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: 1987.

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, that will be the evidence in chief for this applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Was Mr Sipho Mthembu involved in any way whatsoever in the Vanderbijlpark Bus Terminus incident or did you do that operation all by yourself?

MR MOKATI: Yes Mr Sipho Mthembu was involved.

CHAIRPERSON: He was involved.

MR KOOPEDI: May I, in that instance Chairperson, refer you to the fourth paragraph from the bottom of his statement where he refers to?

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Steenkamp, I take it that you are adopting the same attitude with regard to Mr Dube?

MR STEENKAMP: Yes thank you Madame Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Advocate de Jager?

JUDGE DE JAGER: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Judge de Jager. Judge Motata?

JUDGE MOTATA: I've got none Madame Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Koopedi, you won't be daring us to want to re-examine?

MR KOOPEDI: I would not be allowed to re-examine even if I wanted to, that would be his evidence in chief and we are not calling any other witness for his application.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Mokati, you may step down as a witness. Your next witness Mr Koopedi?

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you. The next witness is the third applicant, Mr Sipho Mthembu. Perhaps for completeness sake I would ask that we also label his statement as an exhibit, Exhibit C in this instance?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR KOOPEDI: He is before you and he is ready to be sworn in. CHAIRPERSON: In what language?

MR KOOPEDI: He will be speaking Zulu but reading the statement in English.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

SIPHO NICODAMUS MTHEMBU: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson, we will proceed.

MR KOOPEDI: Mr Mthembu, I'm showing you page 15 of the bundle of documents which are before this Honourable Committee wherein they said document which is an application form. Is that your application form?

MR MTHEMBU: That is correct.

MR KOOPEDI: Now on page 20 of the same bundle of documents at the bottom of it there is a signature, is that your signature?

MR MTHEMBU: That is correct.

MR KOOPEDI: Now you have also prepared a statement which we have labelled Exhibit C to facilitate the proceedings in this hearing. I would ask you to read the statement for the Committee.

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, that will be the evidence in chief of this applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Steenkamp, you're adopting the same attitude I suppose?

MR STEENKAMP: Thank you Madame Chair, indeed.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Judge de Jager, any questions to put to Mr Mthembu?

JUDGE DE JAGER: Same attitude.

CHAIRPERSON: Judge Motata?

JUDGE MOTATA: I've got none other than to say Vanderbijl Square Bus Terminus which would amend anything ...(indistinct) Vanderbijlpark to Vanderbijl Square. Thank you Madame Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Off the record Judge Motata seems to have been there at the time of this operation.

MR KOOPEDI: The only sad part Chair is that Judge Motata's comments were not recorded as his mike was off and I believe it is important for us to note that it is indeed the Vanderbijl Square and not Vanderbijlpark which is a town in the Vaal. I would then say, Chairperson, that is the application for these three people before you. We do not intend calling any other witness and this then completes their application.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR STEENKAMP: Madame Chair, a request from Ms Dawson, just to say a few words to the applicants and maybe say something to the Committee as well, if that could humbly be allowed, it doesn't necessarily have to be under oath?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR STEENKAMP: But we are in the hands of the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we'll allow Ms Dawson.

MR STEENKAMP: Thank you Madame Chair, if I would just allow then to ask her one or two starting questions?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR STEENKAMP: Then we can proceed on that basis if that can be allowed?

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed.

MR STEENKAMP: Thank you Madame Chair.

Ms Dawson, for the record your full names?

______________________________________________________MS DAWSON: Collette Deborah Dawson.

MR STEENKAMP: And where are you currently staying and where do you work?

MS DAWSON: I'm currently working at the Sound Stage in Midrand and I live in 5 Paul Street, Glenvista, Johannesburg.

MR STEENKAMP: At the time of the incident, in 1988, you were 18 years old and you were staying in Vanderbijlpark, am I right?

MS DAWSON: No, I was still staying in Glenvista.

MR STEENKAMP: Glenvista. Can you say something to the Committee about this incident and what's happened to you, did you suffer any injuries and you have a result of that still problems with the injuries?

MS DAWSON: Yes, as you stated I was 18 years old. At that time I was training to become a tennis professional. With the bomb blast, all the impact went into my back. All the shrapnel from the dustbin went into my back. I was the person closest to the dustbin. I was in hospital that evening. They had to cut out all the shrapnel out of my back. I was off work for two weeks. Five months down the line I collapsed at work with a severe back injury which was caused by the impact of the blast, I was told. All the impact was still stuck in my back. I was paralysed for three months in hospital. I had to have extensive physiotherapy in order to walk again and to basically carry on a normal life and at that point I was basically told that my plans to be a tennis professional was then over and basically that was the injuries. I still suffer from extensive back pain and have to have physiotherapy on an ongoing basis. I have been told that that will have to carry on for life and there's also the possibility that I might not be able to bear children purely because of the fact that my back will not be able to stand the added weight and the impact of the pregnancy. That is not proven but it's basically a risk that I have to face if I ever want children.

MR STEENKAMP: Ms Dawson, you've heard the evidence of the applicants today. You've listened to them. You've also had the opportunity to look at the applications and the statements. What is your feeling about the applications and applicants themselves today after listening to their evidence?

MS DAWSON: Well I can certainly understand the reason why they did what they did but I think it just needs to be put on record that while they had no plans to kill or to cause serious damage, many peoples lives were affected, not only the people that were injured but all of our family and friends. I do know that I was not the only one that was badly injured. Two of the friends that I know personally, one guy had a heart attack straight afterwards, another lady is in hospital at present having a back operation, also I believe was caused by the blast as well, so I just felt that that does need to be taken into account that when these decisions are made, people's lives do get affected and while that was the intention, we have suffered as a result and on a personal note, I just feel it was very ironic that being 18 I had not even had a chance to vote for any regime whether it had been the previous regime or not, but purely I was an innocent bystander in the whole thing and I just hold that as a difficulty to deal with, the fact that innocent people were intended to be suffered because of that incident.

MR STEENKAMP: Is there anything else you would like to add?

MS DAWSON: No, that is all.

MR STEENKAMP: Thank you Madame Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Dawson. I think it will be appropriate for this Committee to thank you for your attendance today at our hearing. We know this attendance triggers terrible memories to you and as you have searched during these proceedings and relieved your painful experience, we hope that your life which has been adversely affected will somehow with God-speed and grace find something positive with the passage of time. Time is a healer, that's the only thing that I think will enable you to move forward, at least today you will be able to put behind your terrible experience now that you have been able to come face to face with the perpetrators of the terrible deed that happened to you. This is a very painful process but we hope that this process will enable you to be stronger and that last to lead your normal life the best way you can notwithstanding your terrible injuries. We thank you.

MR STEENKAMP: Thank you Madame Chair, I will not be calling any further witnesses.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Koopedi?

MR KOOPEDI: Perhaps one should just add for completeness sake, Chairperson, that as it has become common practice in all matters that I am involved in, whether for applicants or for victims and also in line with the reconciliation that we so much speak about, the applicants would meet with the victim after the proceedings and we thought that it would not be necessary to put on record what they're meeting about but I could assure the Committee it's purely a reconciliatory act on the part of the applicants.

CHAIRPERSON: We are happy that you've brought this to our attention, Mr Koopedi. We always hoped that this process also has that very important objective of reconciling the victim with the perpetrators. We are happy that you will be able to do that because I think that Ms Dawson will truly appreciate your gesture

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Madame Chairperson we have discussed this matter.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed to legal argument.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Steenkamp, we've been made aware of another victim who is presently in hospital and she seems to know another one. You couldn't trace victims but you should try and get the addresses of those so that they could be forwarded.

MR STEENKAMP: Absolutely, Madame Chair, we're already in the process of doing so. Unfortunately I was not aware of that but those victim's addresses will definitely be submitted to the Committee as well as soon as possible. Even today.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Steenkamp. Mr Koopedi?

MR KOOPEDI IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Chairperson, I will try to be brief in my address. Honourable Chairperson, Honourable Committee Members, my submission to you is that the applicants before you were at the material time members of a political organisation being the ANC. They were also members of it's armed wing known as MK, uMkhonto weSizwe.

I further submit that these applicants have to the best of their recollection informed this Honourable Committee and everyone present here of the role they played in the two incidences and my submission is therefore that they have complied with the requirement, the requisite of full disclosure. These are applicants who had no pressure to come before you. The one applicant was convicted and released on indemnity. One of the applicants was never mixed with this matter, that is Mr Dube. The last applicant, Mr Mthembu, was arrested and released after seven months, even police could not put everything to him but in terms of fully disclosing what happened and in terms of indeed taking forward the message of reconciliation, these applicants came before you and asked for amnesty for the deed that they did.

I would submit, Chairperson, that perhaps it was an error on my part not leading the evidence in as far as whether there was any personal gain which any of these applicants received but it is my submission, Chairperson, that for an act of this nature and the result having been just explosions where no money was involved I would submit that these applicants did not receive any personal gain.

CHAIRPERSON: There is documentary evidence to that. We do have their original applications.

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson, I am indebted. It is on the basis of that very brief submission that I submit that these applicants have complied with the requirements for being granted amnesty and I would ask that they be granted amnesty for having exploded the Vanderbijlpark - the Vanderbijl Square Bus Terminus and also having exploded or caused an explosion at the Naladi Power Station in Soweto and thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: In respect of which acts, omissions or offences is amnesty sought for Mr Dube?

MR KOOPEDI: In respect of Mr Dube, amnesty is sought for him having supplied the explosives that were used in this instance. Amnesty is also sought in terms of him having gained knowledge of the impending attacks or operations but did not notify the police in that it was an offence, I believe during those days in terms of the Terrorism Act to have such information and not pass it on to the police. I would perhaps go on and say in terms of the second applicant, Mr Mokati, amnesty is being applied for having caused the explosion. He was charged with high treason, it was a treasonable offence, there were other sub-charges so to speak which were terrorism related. He was also in possession of explosives, he also had knowledge that at a certain stage the Vanderbijl Square Bus Terminus and the Naladi Power Station would be bombed but he did not give this information to the police.

With regard to the last applicant, Mr Mthembu, Mr Mthembu was at all material times, I submit, acting under orders. Both orders from his commander, I would say his natural commander was Mr Dube. Mr Mthembu was seconded to Mr Mokati's unit. He still acted under orders and I would ask the Honourable Committee to view him as that person who did all he did under orders. Thank you Chairperson.

JUDGE MOTATA: But wouldn't Mr Dube in this instance, because he had knowledge of the Vanderbijl Square Bus Terminus and supplied the material after having been informed of what is going to happen there, that he participated, he had an act which he participated that he wouldn't be in common purpose with the others because there is something he did, by supplying a limpet mine?

MR KOOPEDI: I am not sure that I follow your lordship's question but I would say that Mr Dube's application would centre precisely around the knowledge that he had of the impending attacks and of course the supplying of these weapons. He would not have personally participated on the day of the explosions but he is to a certain extent an accomplice to this matter by the mere fact that he participated in the discussion and had knowledge about what was going to happen and even went further and seconded one of his unit members to go and assist in this matter.

JUDGE DE JAGER: He supplied the explosives?

MR KOOPEDI: That is correct my lord, I have said so that he supplied the explosives.

JUDGE DE JAGER: I see on page 35 we've got a list of damaged property so I presume that you're asking amnesty for all offences connected and following out of these incidents?

MR KOOPEDI: That is so, my lord.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Koopedi. Mr Steenkamp?

MR STEENKAMP: Madame Chair as I've indicated previously, Ms Dawson is not opposing the application and maybe just for the record refer you to page 34, where a full list of all the victims does appear.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR STEENKAMP: The two persons that we've been referring to, the one being Ms Whiting, number 14, the person who is currently in hospital, Ms Juanita Vivian Whiting, we know where her parents are now situated but we'll get the full address and the other person we're not quite sure of, it is number 11, Mr Robyn Richard Els. Those are the two people that Ms Dawson was referring, no 11 and no 14 and I can just for the record state that during our preparation in this matter we could confirm that those were the 19 people actually injured in this specific incident. Nobody else as far as our knowledge serves us, who were injured in this matter. Thank you Madame Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp and Mr Koopedi. Now that during these proceedings it has come to our attention that Mr Robyn Richard Aus and Juanita Vivian Whiting could not have been located by your office in terms of the steps and the measure you took in trying to locate them because they are hospitalised, I think it would be prudent and in the interest of fairness and equity that these proceedings be forwarded to them and that they be notified in terms of Section 30 of our Act in order to enable them to make any representations if they do so require. In response to the applications made by the applicants before us, before we can decided ultimately on these applications.

MR STEENKAMP: Madame Chair, I will endeavour to go and visit these victims personally, even this week or early next week.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR STEENKAMP: Explain the position to them and exactly what has happened and if necessary a typed record will be handed to them or at least a copy of all the documents that were submitted to the Amnesty Committee in this matter, at least will be submitted to them and I will, the moment I get a response, I will inform the Committee and Mr Koopedi, if that can be arranged. I will do that immediately. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I think because we are a hard pressed Committee which really is operating on a shoestring in terms of time we would be happy if you could indicate to us what time limit we should give for representations to be made by the two victims in order to be able to dispose of this matter in due course?

MR STEENKAMP: Madame Chair, I think it is a question of getting to them and speaking to them. I would humbly request that the time say until next week, Tuesday which I think will basically be a week from today.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, will that be sufficient in view of the fact that you might actually need the typed record of these proceedings?

MR STEENKAMP: Madame Chair, I doubt that if that is necessary because the statements are basically forming the typed record.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes basically.

MR STEENKAMP: That was my view, at least giving because that is the basis of the testimony, it's only the sworn statements. Giving that to them I would doubt if they would be interested, with all due respect, to what I've said and what everyone else has said so what I will suggest I do is get the full records, the copies of the statements and the bundles and prepare that, submit that to them and get their response and if I could get say, because we're sitting this week, I can maybe just speak to them on Monday morning. I'll immediately give you feedback.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR STEENKAMP: Thank you Madame Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: In the event there are representations such representations will be forwarded to Mr Koopedi as well as to the Committee. In the event that you should receive such representations, Mr Koopedi, we'll afford you two weeks within which to make your response, your written response to those representations.

MR KOOPEDI: I have noted that Chairperson and clearly would go along with the suggestion that all the victims that can be traced at this stage be supplied with the ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, only two victims, our ruling is only respect of the two victims we've identified.

MR KOOPEDI: That's okay, the two victims be supplied with the statements and the bundle of documents and I have made a note that in the event one needs to make a further submission it should be done within two weeks from the date of receipt.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Well this brings us to a close of our proceedings in respect of these applications. We wish to thank Mr Koopedi and Mr Steenkamp for their assistance rendered by them to this Committee. You are now excused Mr Koopedi.

MR KOOPEDI: I thank you Chairperson. Before I leave could I refer you to another matter?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR KOOPEDI: And find out whether we have been furnished with the argument by Mr Schultz. Chairperson, you might recall that's an argument which we must receive today. I have to leave town and I would be very much privileged if I could have a copy of that document if indeed same is ready. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes we had a visit this morning by Mr Schultz in which I think the legal argument, his legal argument was given to us. We're made to believe that a copy thereof had been sent by fax to your office. However, if you do not have such a document, Mr Steenkamp will gladly give you one because I'm sure he also has a copy, then we can just make a photocopy for Mr Steenkamp from our documents.

MR KOOPEDI: I thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR STEENKAMP: Madame Chair, may I ask if Ms Dawson may be excused from further attendance?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Ms Dawson you are excused.

MR STEENKAMP: Madame Chair, I don't want to sound insensitive but the next matter is a matter that's been standing down. My colleague, Mr Richard, has just appeared, just arrived here and it's the first time I will ask for indulgence, Madame Chair, normally - I see it's about 11 o'clock, I would ask for some indulgence specifically on behalf of Mr Richard to discuss the coming matter. He's appearing for two applicants and supply him with certain background documentation. If a break or at least some adjournment can be taken say until half past eleven and maybe not later than that, if that's possible?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we'll adjourn until 11.30. Shortly before we commence we would like to see Mr Richard in chambers.

MR STEENKAMP: I'll do so, Madame Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

______________________________________________________

CHAIRPERSON: We will proceed to hear the applications of Tsepo Matlala Makola and Mogupudi Bierman Mphaga. The panel sitting to consider these two applications comprises Judge Khampepe, Judge Motata and Judge De Jager. Will the legal representatives appearing on behalf of the two applicants place themselves on record?

MR RICHARD: Thank you Chairperson, my name is Tony Richard.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Richard.

MR STEENKAMP: Thank you Madame Chair, my name is Andre Steenkamp, I'll be representing the family Skosana. Thank you Madame Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Steenkamp. Mr Richard, are we in a position to commence?

MR RICHARD: Yes Chairperson, I'm indebted for the indulgence granted on behalf of adjournment. I've proposed to call the second applicant first, that's Mr Mphaga. He was indeed the commander of the unit in the area and with the Committee's

permission, may I proceed?

CHAIRPERSON: You may, you will be testifying in what language Mr Richard?

MR RICHARD: He will be testifying in Sotho.

CHAIRPERSON: In Sotho.

MOGUPUDI BIERMAN MPHAGA: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR RICHARD: Sir, in and during 1990 were you or were you not a member of the ANC?

MR MPHAGA: I was a member of the ANC.

MR RICHARD: When did you join the ANC?

MR MPHAGA: I joined the ANC - I crossed the border in 1989 and then after that I filled the membership forms, I was part of the Marshall unit.

MR RICHARD: While you were over the border what did you do there?

MR MPHAGA: I underwent military training of uMkhonto weSizwe.

MR RICHARD: For how long?

JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Richard, I don't think - we've got a peculiar situation here. He's already been granted amnesty. We've got his application on oath before us so you could as far as the background is concerned you could be very short about it.

MR RICHARD: Chairperson, I accept that but if one looks at page 19 of the bundle there the victim makes the statement that the applicants who claimed to be MK trained cadres. I believe it was necessary in lieu of that to shortly report that there was training. I'm going to proceed.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR RICHARD: My next question is, as at June 1990, what position within MK did you hold?

MR MPHAGA: I was a commissar of the unit which was operating in Gangala.

MR RICHARD: Now who was the commander of that unit?

MR MPHAGA: The commander was Mbata assisted by J P Sibanyoni because they knew Gangala more than I did.

MR RICHARD: Now who was in charge of them and where was that person or persons?

MR MPHAGA: They were staying in Gangala, because ...(indistinct) of Gangala area.

MR RICHARD: Now in that area there was a certain Wiseman Mbata, do you remember the name?

MR MPHAGA: Yes Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: Now he made certain reports to you concerning a person known as Boy Skosana. Is that not correct?

MR MPHAGA: That is correct.

MR RICHARD: What were those reports?

MR MPHAGA: We worked with Boy Skosana in our unit in Gangala. The report which he made is that I gave him a task to gather intelligence about people who were opponents of the organisations of our liberation. Then the name of Mr Skosana came up, then we asked questions about that then it was discovered that Mr Skosana was working at the former Vanderbijl government and then again he is a guest, he is supporting the amalgamation of Gangala to KwaNdebele.

MR RICHARD: Now what was the opinion of your organisation of persons such as Mr Skosana who worked for homeland governments?

MR RICHARD: If I remember well that the former government used to employ people if not all but many of them, where those who were supporting their policies because you were not able to bite the hand that feeds you. Therefore it shows that Mr Skosana was prepared to fight against our liberation struggle. That is why in June 1990 we went to his place and fought him.

MR RICHARD: At page 10 of the bundle, paragraph 10(a) you make mention of the forceful incorporation of Gangala into KwaNdebele. Whose policy was that forceful incorporation?

MR MPHAGA: I did not understand your question, may you please repeat that question?

MR RICHARD: Thank you, there's a question at page 10 at paragraph 10(a):

There your answer is:

Now my question is from your memory of the times, who wanted the incorporation of Gangala into KwaNdebele?

MR MPHAGA: It is the former government together with our people, some of our people who were benefiting from that system.

MR RICHARD: And what was the ANC's attitude to that incorporation of Gangala into KwaNdebele?

MR MPHAGA: The ANC was against that policy of that incorporation as it was the same with Mutsi to be incorporated in KwaNdebele. ANC in terms of my knowledge was against that policy that Gangala should be amalgamated with KwaNdebele forcefully.

MR RICHARD: Now who was responsible for the selection of targets to attack in your unit?

MR MPHAGA: My seniors who were instructing me in Zimbabwe, they told me that because they would not be there then I'll be the one who would be in that particular area as I was in Gangala at the time but when I was in association with the comrades were staying at Gangala, we would investigate those who were against the liberation of our people. Then after we've identified people who were supporting the system which was not popular to the masses. After that we identified Mr Skosana then we informed Chief Matebe, then he informed others who were senior to me, that is why we went to Mr Skosana's place. Then we attacked his house.

MR RICHARD: So who specifically gave the approval for you to attack Mr Skosana's house?

MR MPHAGA: I've already explained that is.

MR RICHARD: So it was then command structures above you?

MR MPHAGA: Chief Matebe.

MR RICHARD: And Chief Matebe had command structures above him?

MR MPHAGA: That is correct.

MR RICHARD: And the command structures above you approved of the operation of attacking Mr Skosana?

MR MPHAGA: Yes that is correct because you could not reveal the secrets of the military structures. I regarded that they have agreed to that proposal of the attack.

MR RICHARD: Now when I make this proposition, is it right or wrong? At that time in June 1990 people such as Mr Boy Skosana were seen as government stooges, is that right or wrong?

MR MPHAGA: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: Now when you conducted the attack who was with you?

MR MPHAGA: I was together with Tsepo Makola.

MR RICHARD: And he is the second applicant sitting next to you?

MR MPHAGA: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: Now would you briefly tell us at what time of the day or night and with what weapons you attacked the house?

MR MPHAGA: It was at midnight and then we used AK-47s, we made use of two AK-47s. I had one and Makola had one, then we had handgrenades but we did not use them.

MR RICHARD: Why did you not use the handgrenades?

MR MPHAGA: We knew that he was not staying alone at that particular place therefore we foresaw that if we threw handgrenades therefore we would kill all people who were occupying that house at that particular time, that is why we did not use handgrenades.

MR RICHARD: Were the lights on in the house when you arrived there?

MR MPHAGA: No Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: Now at what did you shoot in the house, did you shoot at all the windows, no windows, doors, roofs, walls?

MR MPHAGA: I was facing towards the bedroom which I received information that he was sleeping in therefore I directed my bullets to that particular room. We were shooting above the shoulder heights of the wall even though some bullets went directly lower because we knew that you could not be perfect in your shooting.

MR RICHARD: So in other words you shot either at a horizontal or upwards, is that correct?

MR MPHAGA: We were shooting above the windows but some of the bullets went below the window because you cannot be perfect.

MR RICHARD: Now there was a community hall in the area where Mr Skosana lived and operated ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: ...(inaudible). Was your intention to kill him or what was your intention?

MR MPHAGA: The intention was to frighten him but the firearms we were using were lethal.

MR RICHARD: In other words you foresaw the possibility that he might be injured?

MR MPHAGA: Correct, Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: Now in that area where Mr Skosana lived and operated there was a community hall. What was his relationship with this community hall?

MR MPHAGA: I would explain it this way that Mr Skosana, I did not know Mr Skosana but I learnt from various comrades complaining that he was in touch of the access of the hall or usage of the hall and then he many instances he did not allow them to use the hall because he was employed by the oppressive regime. That is why I agreed with them that he was not supporting us but he was supporting the previous regime. That is why at the end we attacked Mr Skosana.

MR RICHARD: Do you believe that he stopped the ANC conducting free political activity and he interfered with their right to do so?

MR MPHAGA: If a person denied people the right of association, therefore he was against or he was an obstacle.

MR RICHARD: Now what do you know of an organisation called Imbokodo, I-M-B-K-O-D-O?

CHAIRPERSON: What is the relevance of that Mr Richard in relation to the incident we are dealing with?

MR RICHARD: At page 20 of the bundle, paragraph 5 ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I'm aware of what Mr Skosana has said about Imbokodo.

MR RICHARD: It's relevant only in that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, because the witness has not referred to Imbokodo in his evidence, has he?

MR RICHARD: No, but it is in the bundle and if he can speak for it?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes but he really has not said he was associated with Imbokodo, that he reportedly acted on instructions of Imbokodo?

MR RICHARD: The witness was a member of the ANC.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR RICHARD: Not Imbokodo.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Didn't he allege in his evidence that the victim was a member of Imbokodo?

CHAIRPERSON: Nothing has been said about Imbokodo. Either in relation to his participation or in relation to why Mr Skosana was identified as a target. I'm quite familiar with the bundles and I'm aware that Mr Skosana has referred to Imbokodo but it has no bearing on the issues we have to decide.

MR RICHARD: Chairperson, I accept your direction, it's relevant only in the sense that it is raised as a name in the papers and if the indication is that we do not need to investigate that then I leave the point.

CHAIRPERSON: We don't know why Mr Skosana has raised it because neither in the papers before us nor in the viva voce evidence of Mr Mphaga has any reference been made of Imbokodo.

MR RICHARD: Chairperson, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Is that the end of Mr Mphaga's evidence?

MR RICHARD: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp?

MR STEENKAMP: Thank you Madame Chair. Madame Chair, I just want to put on record that my previous colleague, Advocate Madikwa, could because of unforeseen circumstances not be able to present Mrs Skosana and the family and under the instruction of Mr Skosana, I've been asked just to raise a few issues with the applicant. I've explained to him position, all these objections as far as I can understand has been raised in his affidavit contained in page 19 and 20. I've also indicated to my learned colleague, Mr Richard, that they will be opposing the application, specifically contained in page 20. As far as I can understand, he has dealt with the majority of them in his testimony in relation to applicant number two who testified first. There's only one or two questions if I can be allowed just to put to the applicant and that would basically be suffice if I could be allowed, just to raise two issues.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR STEENKAMP: It's been contained in the statement that my instructions are just to raise them.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR STEENKAMP: Sir, it's Mr Skosana's view on it's his contention that he was never a member of any political organisation. What is your view on that, what is your answer to that?

MR MPHAGA: I would not dispute and I would not agree but his actions did not show as to whether he was part of the people who were struggling for liberation, that is why we decided to attack him.

MR STEENKAMP: And secondly, it's his view and his submission that he has never done anything to frustrate the community only by doing his duty and taking up his responsibility as a civil servant of KwaNdebele government. In short, he was never involved in any political action or conflict or anything to that extent. Do you have any comment to that?

MR MPHAGA: I'd repeat again and I would dispute just a little. You'd remember that at the time we did not know how the government was operating. When he denied with the keys, if he explained maybe we would not have done that but because he did not explain and then because of petty talks which were out of the way, that is why we attacked him.

MR STEENKAMP: Lastly, he is saying that since you raised the question of the hall, he can respond and he will respond if necessary to say that he was never asked for any key or any access to the hall which you concede he was in charge of? Do you have any comment on that? Basically he said he was never asked by any political party or any organisation for authorisation to use the hall which he was in charge of.

MR MPHAGA: I've already explained that I was not a resident of Gangala, I was staying in Moutsi. We were using Mbata as an intelligence gatherer. He is the one who brought the information that Mr Skosana is not prepared to work with the people's organisations. At the time I referred to Gangala Civic Association and Gangala Youth Congress. There were rumours that he was not willing to give people the keys for them to have access to the hall and that he was not prepared to work with comrades. You know that during that previous regime it was a serious issue because that government killed many people notwithstanding that our organisations killed other people but the previous government killed many people.

MR STEENKAMP: Thank you Madame Chair, that will be sufficient, thank you for the indulgence.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Steenkamp. Judge de Jager?

JUDGE DE JAGER: No questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Judge Motata?

JUDGE MOTATA: No questions, Madame Chair.

MR RICHARD: No further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Will you proceed to call your next witness?

MR RICHARD: I shall, Chairperson.

______________________________________________________MR RICHARD: I ask the second witness, the second applicant, to be sworn.

CHAIRPERSON: Is he also giving his testimony in Sotho?

MR RICHARD: Yes, in Sotho.

TSEPO MAKOLA: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR RICHARD: Thank you Madame Chair.

Sir, in and during 1990 did you belong to a political party and if so to which?

MR MAKOLA: I was a member of the ANC and again I was a member of the MK.

MR RICHARD: And to which unit did you belong?

MR MAKOLA: Ntchabaleng unit, Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: And who was the commissar of that unit?

MR MAKOLA: It was Mphaga.

MR RICHARD: And is he your co-applicant sitting next to you?

MR MAKOLA: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: Now could you please tell us who Wiseman Mbata was?

MR MAKOLA: According to my knowledge, Wiseman Mbata was the commander of our Ntchabaleng unit in Gangala.

MR RICHARD: And what was his function?

MR MAKOLA: Furthermore he was an information gatherer.

MR RICHARD: Did you know him personally?

MR MAKOLA: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: Did you know - now, there's a person whose house was attacked and that was the act which you apply for amnesty, Mr Boy Skosana. Did you know Mr Boy Skosana as well?

MR MAKOLA: Yes that is correct, Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: What work did he do at the time?

MR MAKOLA: He was in the employ of the KwaNdebele Government.

MR RICHARD: And did you ever have any discussions or meetings with him? Did you ever talk to him?

MR MAKOLA: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: And what were those discussions concerning?

MR MAKOLA: We were talking in public, that is the day when we had a meeting. We had a meeting of the youth league then the leadership when they arrived without the youth outside, outside the hall, when we enquired what was the problem we found out that the hall was locked because Boy Skosana did not unlock the hall and he was not present. We delegated people to look for him and when he arrived he was uncontrollable, his behaviour was undesirable. Then as a leader of the youth I tried to talk to him.

MR RICHARD: And did Mr Skosana make any threats towards you and if so what was the nature of those threats?

MR MAKOLA: He was arrogant, I'd put it clearly, if the Committee allows me, he was arrogant at that particular time, he used to say things to the effect that he would not be afraid of a person of my age. Those of the kinds of threats he used to do and then he said one day we would meet. One of the threats, he came at my place. When he arrived there he found out I was not present, I was at a youth meeting as I had a position in the Youth League. When I returned some members of the youth told me that I should not go home because they saw Boy going to my place together with his friends. I went home. When I arrived I found my sister and she was frightened, then I asked her what is the problem? She told me that Boy Skosana was here and he was angry and he had a firearm on his person and she told me that I should be careful.

MR RICHARD: Now did you report these things to Mr Mbata?

MR MAKOLA: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: Now what was your relationship with your co-applicant, Mr Mphaga?

MR MAKOLA: At that time he was my commander. Everything which I wanted or which I wanted to know I'd go directly to him. We were close friends.

MR RICHARD: And did you discuss the Skosana problem with him?

MR MAKOLA: That is correct, Chairperson, I explained to him that Skosana started this problem.

MR RICHARD: Now sometime later your commander told you you were going to do something. How much later was it after these events?

MR MAKOLA: At the time when Boy Skosana came to that place, even before then, his issue of being uncontrollable, we used to discuss the ...(indistinct) in our underground meetings. At the day when he came to our meeting, after that when I led this issue to my commissar, we went to Mr Mbata and then we discussed about this issue, that this person is going to be dangerous, we should try to control him.

MR RICHARD: Now in June 1990, there was an attack on Mr Skosana's house. When did you first learn that there was going to be an attack?

MR MAKOLA: The attack happened in June 1990, that was the day when I learnt that we were going to attack him.

MR RICHARD: Who told you that you were going to attack him?

MR MAKOLA: It's Wiseman Mbata.

MR RICHARD: Now what did Wiseman Mbata tell you?

MR MAKOLA: Whilst we were discussing about this issue, at that time this Skosana issue, it was a serious issue. He wanted our preparedness or our courage. Wiseman purchased two AK-47s and handgrenades then he gave them to us then he said we should go to Boy Skosana's house then we should shoot there and shake him. We should shake him seriously to show that uMkhonto weSizwe was present.

MR RICHARD: Now what do you mean by shake him?

MR MAKOLA: We should shoot with as small bullets as possible on the walls, on the windows and then we should leave a check that uMkhonto weSizwe was present.

MR RICHARD: Now when you say us, who was us? Was it more than just you?

MR MAKOLA: Myself and Bierman.

MR RICHARD: Now what time did you go to Mr Skosana's house?

MR MAKOLA: I don't remember the exact time but it was at midnight.

MR RICHARD: Now did you and your co-applicant discuss and plan the attack?

MR MAKOLA: May you please repeat your question?

MR RICHARD: Before you went to Mr Skosana's house did you and your co-applicant discuss what you were going to do?

MR MAKOLA: I remember that we discussed about the proposed attack on our way to that place.

MR RICHARD: And what was the decisions that you came to while discussing it?

MR MAKOLA: We decided that when we arrived at Skosana's place I would attack the front portion. Then he would concentrate on the side of Skosana's bedroom.

MR RICHARD: Now what portion of the room did you shoot at?

MR MAKOLA: I shot at the dining room side and the kitchen because the house was L-shaped, I was shooting on the dining room and the kitchen portions.

MR RICHARD: Was the house lit or dark?

MR MAKOLA: It shows that they were asleep at the time.

MR RICHARD: Now when you shot did you shoot up or down or horizontal with the ground?

MR MAKOLA: I was shooting at the windows because the firearm was heavy, it was shooting above just near the roof. It was heavy for me.

MR RICHARD: Did you know whether anyone was inside the kitchen or dining room or the rooms that you were shooting at?

MR MAKOLA: On the dining room and kitchen side there was no sign of any person on that side.

MR RICHARD: Chairperson, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Richard. Mr Steenkamp?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR STEENKAMP: Madame Chair, again if you would allow me just one or two submissions on behalf of Mr Skosana to be put to the applicant?

Sir, according to your amnesty application on page 4 I see you're saying that Mr Skosana at one stage was a threat, apparently to yourself and Chairperson, referring to the middle of the page, page 4.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR STEENKAMP: You're saying that Mr Skosana at one stage was carrying a 9 mm pistol and then he was a threat when he visited your home basically, is that correct? Is that what you're saying?

MR MAKOLA: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR STEENKAMP: Mr Skosana will deny this and he is saying and he said this in your amnesty application, it's a lie and it has never happened since he has never possessed a 9 mm pistol or any firearm whatsoever, do you have any comment on that?

MR MAKOLA: At that time if I remember well, Boy Skosana you would know as to whether he was a police officer or he was just a government employee the way he was behaving. Even that firearm, I did not know as to whether it was licensed or not.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you at any stage see Mr Skosana in possession of a 9 mm?

MR MAKOLA: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR STEENKAMP: Furthermore, he will say that he, according to your application, that he was never a legitimate target since he was never a member of any political organisation, neither was he a threat to yourselves or any political aspirations you might have had at the time. What is your view on that?

MR MAKOLA: The education I received, the person who was behaving like Mr Skosana at that particular time, he was an enemy. He was an enemy.

MR STEENKAMP: And lastly, Mr Skosana will say if needs be that as far as he knows even sitting here today he's not sure what exactly the motive was for the attack on his house or his family and for that purpose he's of the view that you're not giving a full disclosure exactly why you did attack his house and that of his family? What is your view on that?

MR MAKOLA: I would say to him our motive is the one which was already explained. Mr Skosana's behaviour, if you were present you'd be angry with him. He was not respecting any political structures. His comments when he was talking about any leadership of ANC or civic association or youth league, he showed that he was disrespectful to the leadership of that particular time. He was demeaning the leadership of the political organisations therefore we decided that we should do something. That is how I would respond to your statement.

MR STEENKAMP: Thank you Madame Chair, those were the questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Steenkamp. Judge de Jager?

JUDGE DE JAGER: No questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Judge Motata?

JUDGE MOTATA: Just probably one.

Did you know how many people lived with Mr Skosana in the house, Mr Makola?

MR MAKOLA: That is correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: How many?

MR MAKOLA: If I remember well it was Boy Skosana, his mother, his other brother or his wife to his other brother and the two nephews or niece.

JUDGE MOTATA: How many rooms, since you said this house was L-shaped, it consisted of how many rooms if you do know. Do you know?

MR MAKOLA: 8 rooms if I'm correct but I'm not quite sure but it was approximately an 8 roomed house.

JUDGE MOTATA: When your commander concentrated on the bedroom were you absolutely certain which bedroom Mr Skosana slept in?

MR MAKOLA: I was not sure about that Chairperson.

JUDGE MOTATA: Thank you Madame Chair, I've got not further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Judge Motata. Mr Richard, do you have any re-examination pursuant to questions asked by Mr Steenkamp and from Judge Motata?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR RICHARD: The question I would like to put onto the record doesn't arise from the cross-examination but it is very simply, is Mr Wiseman Mbata dead or alive? With your permission I'd like to put that question?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR RICHARD: May I? Sorry Sir, is Mr Mbata, that's Wiseman, available to give evidence? Is he alive or dead?

MR MAKOLA: He has since died.

MR RICHARD: Thank you, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that's contained on page 18 of his statement which is forming part of the bundle.

MR RICHARD: No further questions and that is the applicant's case.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Steenkamp, do you intend to lead any evidence in opposition?

MR STEENKAMP: Madame Chair, I do not intend leading any opposition and if I may allow just on the question of Judge Motata, it was negligent on my side not to mention it but there were seven people in the house, that's my instructions and secondly I can confirm that Mr Mbata's actually dead. He died recently if I'm not mistaken. Thank you Madame Chair but I'm not going to lead any evidence, that will be the case for the victims.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it known by Mr Skosana that Mr Wiseman Mbata was an MK member?

MR STEENKAMP: If you could just indulge me a minute Madame Chair? Madame Chair, Mr Skosana's views that he was not aware of the status of Mr Wiseman Mbata, his view is that as far as he was known he was a confused person, referring to him respectfully. In other words, saying that he can't confirm or say whether or not he was a member of any political organisation.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR STEENKAMP: Thank you Madame Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Richard, this brings us now to the argument stage. Are you in a position to argue?

MR RICHARD: Yes Chair, I will proceed to argue.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR RICHARD IN ARGUMENT: We'll start with the facts that are common cause. The two applicants were members of a recognised political organisation, the ANC, and were also members of it's armed wing, MK. At that time during 1990 it is also common cause that government employees, such as Mr Skosana, were seen as to quote Sithsaba, "government stooges, sell outs, collaborators with the then regime". I do not believe it's necessary to bring the numerous volumes of Sithsaba where that sort of rhetoric was propagated from 1985 right through to the early '90s.

Now with that perception alone for the command structure of Wiseman Mbata, those above the two applicants, it would be permissible to contemplate an act of aggression on the residents, officer's home, person of Mr Skosana. While it is so that the individual victim naturally has difficulty and understanding why they might then have been a victim or understanding in hindsight why they came to be a victim. The individual perception and that is all the applicants need to establish, is that they were legitimate targets and their attack would further the interests of the ANC.

We have heard in evidence, very briefly, at the time the local political issue was the incorporation of the area in which the second witness, the first applicant resided, into KwaNdebele, it was - and I don't intend to amplify it by calling much evidence, a hockey dispute at issue which was supported by the then government and opposed by the ANC as an extension of the homelands and therefore apartheid policies. So that means whether the political motive was to further the interests of the ANC or further and in addition to further the interests of the ANC by opposing the incorporation of the area into KwaNdebele as was then intended by the homelands strategy, that in my submission would be in legitimate political objective for the act to have been committed with.

The question then that I must apply my mind to further is proportionality. In this particular situation the applicants' first witness concedes live ammunition was used. it was foreseen that injuries, even death, might ensue, but it did not. In reality, taking into account the description of the attack and the amount of ammunition used the result is consistent with what was said by the applicants. The intention was not to kill or injure anyone. No one was killed or injured. However, as is want in the time of war, an armed attack did take place.

Now the next one is full disclosure. It's difficult to fault what the applicants have said on the basis that they should have said more. In the nature of things the first witness, the second applicant, acted on the information and advice received by him from the local information officer, his friend and comrade, the first applicant. There was nothing suspicious about the information about Mr Skosana being a member of the State's apparatus. There was nothing to make him doubt that the man had not been co-operative in allowing the ANC freedom of political activity.

Then, there's further no evidence at all to contradict that in this particular instance, with regard to both applicants, the commanding structures of their party and organisation above them had sanctioned, cleared, applied their minds specifically to the attack and given the authority and go ahead for it to have to take place. In these circumstances, Chairperson and Committee, I believe that the applicants had established that an act which constitutes an offence or delict, was committed with a political objective furthering the interests of the ANC which was proportionate and in accordance with the circumstances prevailing and to fault them in their attack would be fatuous and to exercise an armchair judgement in retrospect. I submit that they have made out a case for their amnesty and it should be granted. As the Committee pleases.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. We are aware that Mr Mphaga applied for indemnity and was as a result of that application granted same in respect of this particular incident. We however are not aware of Mr Makola made any application for indemnity at the time when Mr Mphaga did.

MR RICHARD: I am correct in saying both were given indemnity.

CHAIRPERSON: Both were given indemnity?

MR RICHARD: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR RICHARD: Not for amnesty, indemnity.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we are aware. In respect of the same incident nevertheless?

MR RICHARD: The attack using firearms.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, on Mr Boy Skosana's house.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp?

MR STEENKAMP IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Madame Chair.

Madame Chair, the view of the Skosana family regarding the position of the amnesty application of both applicants basically rests on three things. It's my information first of all that the Gangala region was actually incorporated into KwaNdebele in 1986 while this incident actually took place in 1990 in opposition to what applicant number two has testified. So the view of the Skosana family, if that was one of the motives, it clearly had to fall away because Gangala at the time was already part and parcel of KwaNdebele.

Secondly, it is also the view of specifically Mr Skosana that the act of both applicants was disproportionate to the political aim or view to be achieved since if he was the aim, there was no reason to attack his house and for that reason his whole family, there was women and children staying in the house and basically destroying his livelihood and his house and his possessions. What he is basically saying that the fact was that, in other words, it was totally disproportionate.

And thirdly, what Mr Skosana's view is, that of the family is that they were never a threat to the community at large, he was a civil servant actually serving the interest of the community as an elected person in the civil government at the time and he fails to understand how he could be seen as a legitimate target even looking at the policies of MK at the time as existed and as far as he is concerned, even looking at the submissions of the ANC itself, he could never have been a legitimate target and in that instance he is specifically feeling that they did not make full disclosure, but he is really, honestly telling the Committee today why he personally and his family were identified as legitimate targets. Those are the submissions Madame Chair, Honourable Committee Members, why the Skosana family feels today to oppose the application of both applicants and it is their view, with respect, I submit on their behalf, that applications of both applicants must be refused and amnesty must be denied.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Steenkamp, have we got any authority to reverse the granting of indemnity?

MR STEENKAMP: Clearly not, Honourable Member, but the question is the effect of indemnity clearly is not clearly stretching as far as that of amnesty. The question of civil liability clearly must stand.

CHAIRPERSON: No, it's included.

JUDGE DE JAGER: No, it's included.

CHAIRPERSON: All criminal and civil liability are included under the indemnity act.

MR STEENKAMP: I understand that clearly but it's the view of Mr Skosana that at the time he was not part and parcel when the applications for indemnity was heard. In that view what he is basically saying, although indemnity was granted, surely this Committee can't just be held hostage by a previous tribunal's decision of the Indemnity Board while only dealing with specific facts and not the whole political spectrum as it existed at the time. That is basically his view but the question is I agree, wholeheartedly, but he still feels that that is the position.

CHAIRPERSON: But the decision of the tribunal stands, how can we not have regard to that decision?

MR STEENKAMP: Surely ma'am ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Obviously both Mr Mphaga and Mr Makola can never be prosecuted?

MR STEENKAMP: Madame Chair, the documents as it stands, as it contains in the bundle or the documents as been received, it's quite, with respect, Mr Skosana's view, it is definitely not quite clear on which charges are for what specifically both applicants got amnesty. He was not in a position to deny the fact that they got indemnity but for what specific incidents. It was only for this attack, was it for attempted murder, was it for possession of firearms, was it for anything flowing from that or not? That is the reason why they are rejecting the application.

JUDGE DE JAGER: We've got Mr Skosana's statement before us and we're indebted to him for giving his statement and that would give us a better prospective as far as the background is concerned.

MR STEENKAMP: Thank you Madame Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Richard, what is your response pertinently to the submission made on behalf of Mr Skosana that Gangala had already been incorporated into KwaNdebele by 1990?

MR RICHARD IN REPLY: With regard to the opposition to the homeland policy and the forced creation of homelands or incorporation of areas into homelands, I don't think it's relevant as to when which particular act took place. What is relevant is that at all times the ANC was flatly opposed to the balkanisation of South Africa and it's subdivision into homelands and the incorporation of various pieces of territory into various homelands. That opposition continued despite the creation of a homeland or the incorporation of a particular area in a homeland. So with respect to my learned colleague, I don't understand the point. If I am mistaken as to when the area was incorporated or to be incorporated into KwaNdebele, the issue remains the same. It was an act which was vehemently and passionately opposed and that opposition continued at all relevant times.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Perhaps you could help me to understand his point? The evidence was that in Gangala some parties propagated the incorporation and they were opposed to that and that was why they attacked but it was already a fait accompli at that stage.

MR RICHARD: But with respect, Member, if two people have opposing political views about something, the fact that a fact has become a fait accompli doesn't resolve the argument? In other words the fact that the area might have been incorporated into KwaNdebele at a previous time wouldn't resolve the argument or the feelings or the passions surrounding the issue.

The other point I would like to move on to, is that in sub-section 4 of section 20 of the Act, reference is made that in applying the criteria contemplated in sub-section 3 of section 20, that's the section which legislates the motivation of the person, the context, the legal and factual nature of the objective, etc., the Committee shall also take into account the criteria applied in the acts repealed by section 48. Section 48 ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: It repeals the Indemnity Act.

MR RICHARD: Repealed the Indemnity Act.

JUDGE DE JAGER: So we can take cognisance of that fact and the criteria applied there.

MR RICHARD: But in sub-section 2 of section 48 continues to ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Your microphone, Mr Richard.

MR RICHARD: That any indemnity granted under the provisions of the Indemnity Act 1990, the Indemnity Amendment Act 1992 and then the Further Indemnity Act of 1992 shall remain in course notwithstanding the repeal of those acts so from those references it is apparent that first the Norgaard Principles which were certainly part of the Further Indemnity Act which factors were then legislated into section 20 and the wording of sub-section 4 of section 20, is that this Committee indeed must take into account all those factors and that it is indeed highly relevant to the Committee what the previous Indemnity Boards held. May it please, Chair, I'll leave the point.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR RICHARD: I'll leave it rest.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR RICHARD: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: In respect of which acts, omissions or offences

is Mr Mphaga the first applicant seeking amnesty?

MR RICHARD: I have taken the attitude that in an amnesty application, while obviously it is desirable to be precise and accurate in the formulation. However, to take an overtechnical point of view would be highly artificial. Amnesty applications were largely prepared without legal assistance ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: No, we're asking you what are you asking for?

MR RICHARD: What I am saying is that the correct approach would be is that the acts disclosed constitute attempted murder ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, just give us the acts for which you want us to consider the amnesty applications?

MR RICHARD: If there were nine people in the house then nine potential charges of attempted murder.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Seven.

MR RICHARD: Seven. There is certainly possession of firearms, possession of ammunition, malicious damage to property. I believe that's the list.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes and these would apply for both Mr Mphaga and Mr Makola?

MR RICHARD: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR RICHARD: As the Chair pleases.

CHAIRPERSON: We are going to reserve our judgement in respect of the two applications and this brings us to the close of our proceedings for the day. Both the applicant and the victims will be informed in due course of the decision that we'll pronounce hopefully in less than a month from today.

MR RICHARD: Thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: We will be communicating with the applicants through you, Mr Richard. As they are not in custody and will communicate with Mr Skosana directly as we are in possession of his postal address. We thank you Mr Skosana for attending our

hearing and being party to the process of reconciliation which this process is aimed at primarily achieving. We don't know whether any endeavours have been made by both Mr Richard and Mr Steenkamp to facilitate mediatory talks between the two applicants and Mr Skosana. If no such endeavours have been made we will recommend that every attempt be made to secure such talks. Thank you very much for the assistance you've rendered to the Committee.

This brings us to the close of the proceedings for the day. We will adjourn until tomorrow morning at 9.30.

MR STEENKAMP: Thank you Madame Chair.