Amnesty Hearings — Pietermaritzburg — 1997-02-10

MR BANADE: Now to go to the political motive.  This part in section 20(1)(b).  In submission I think that should be the aspect where the Committee should have the least problem.  The whole context within which this murder took place indicates that it was within and in connection with a political motive.  Eight persons from the riot squad were in a certain vehicle, three of them white, five of them were IFP affiliates, not just IFP affiliates, but	confirmed IFP supporters, and the evidence here is overwhelming that and ANC supporter could not be a constable at the time.  They picked the man up and eventually his corpse was found in the bushes.
	The point I am trying to make is before one even goes into all the detail you find this.  What might bother the Committee is were there no other objectives, and that is how I could understand the questions.  But i submission the Act says that it had to be in association with a political motive.  It does not say that it should only be a political motive or that the context in which it should have taken place should have been 99% a political motive.  
	The Act leaves a loophole that there could be other objectives as well with the individual.  The little loopgate which we can look at is that there could be an association or a political objective.  And in the light of all probability I think it is quite clear to this Committee.
2B - 11.2	The/...
124	MR BANADE
The people did not just say it in their submissions, but I think the entire context indicates such.  The murder was associated with a political objective.  I think if I could speak on behalf of Mr Madlala, I think it was much clearer in his case.  He was not a full policeman, he was a special constable, and from a very young age he was raised with being an Inkatha supporter.  Of course at that stage they still obtained information.  He heard about this man and his involvement in murdering IFP supporters.  So in my view he qualifies for amnesty in this regard.  
	The same with Mr Erasmus and Harrington;  their evidence to you was that at that stage they were not card-carrying members of the AWB or any other right-wing political party, but they had right-wing attitudes.  But these are young men and found themselves in a riot squad and they were indoctrinated along that line of thought and worked under violent circumstances.  
	It all indicates that they would have had this kind of attitude towards these people.  Here they apprehend a man, find a pocketbook in his possession.  Once again, after I read Judge Thirion's judgment last night, on page 814, where he refers to the pocketbook.  The pocketbook surfaced in that trial already.  They found a pocketbook.  Some of them understand Zulu.  Those who understand Zulu tell the others in the vehicle that this person has mentioned something about killing policemen and that he is anti-IFP and we also know that it took place approximately 14 days after the KwaShange bus incident.  With all due respect, I think this is ... (CHANGE OVER TO TAPE 3A) ... and at the very least  one of the objectives of this group was politically motivated. 
3A - 11.2	In/...
125	MR BANADE
	In submission I think that it was probably 80% politically motivated.    But it is something which the Committee has to consider in the light of the facts.

JUDGE WILSON: ... act committed with a political objective, not politically motivated.

MR BANADE: Yes, Mr Chairman.  The words in the English version speak about a political objective.  The Afrikaans one speaks about a political point of view.  A point of view has got a broad context.   Objective and point of view, I don't think it limits the fact that the act was committed 100% with a political view.
	The way I see it the Act made provision for that.  Because if one looks at the people who drew up the Act and you look at the act which was committed, your feeling tells you that this is the type of act for which the Amnesty Act was drawn up. 
	Mr Chairman, that is then my submission to this Committee.  As it pleases the Committee.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: With regard to the pocket diary, are you arguing that - I know that the trial Judge referred to the pocket diary - but on the evidence we have now, are you arguing that one can really make a finding that there was such a pocket diary, taking into account two points.  Firstly, the fact that this person was thorough searched and that they were in fact even looking for dagga.  And secondly, this bizarre behaviour on the part of the police simply throwing away such a document which would have been important to them.  (Inaudible) diary could have emerged from.

MR BANADE: Mr Chairman, as I understood the evidence, the pocketbook did not come from a pocket.  I think within the
3A - 11.2	context/...
126	MR BANADE
context, they were driving, they saw a person, or saw a group, they stopped, got out of the vehicle and now these people are being searched in the way Mr Madlala said.  And I think on a balance of probabilities it could have happened.  All 15 of them weren't thoroughly searched, but there was some sort of search conducted on Mr Jama.  The first problem which they would encounter is whether there was something hard on this person in the form of a weapon.  I do not think it was a thorough search and I do think it was possible that something as soft as a book could have been discovered at a later stage.  And the person who had initially searched him could have felt the book and probably not paid much attention to it since they weren't really looking for books, but rather weapons and so forth and that a weapon did not surface.  And at a later stage when they had this person in the back of the police van they could have felt that there was something else here and under more calm circumstances they could have found the book.  They saw that the man was trying to hide something and secondly they weren't merely searching for weapons but also for dagga. 
Which could still have been hidden in that little pocketbook.  
	Mr Chairman, I still do not think, notwithstanding the fact that there are probably a few questions about that, I do not think that the Committee can find that there was no pocketbook.  That was the version which surfaced in front of Judge Thirion.  And I think even in that trial there were differences.  But even his words on page 814 of the original judgment, with regards to why Harrington, accused No 6, went to go and sit at the back.  "The most likely reason why accused 6 would have wanted to question the deceased would
3A - 11.2	have/...
127	MR BANADE
have been in connection with the notebook or diary found in the deceased's possession".
	I read through it once again last night and Judge Thirion does not refer to it again, but it seems as though he was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a pocketbook found in his possession.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Banade, the pocketbook is highly auspicious.  But is there any evidence on which it can be found that there was no pocketbook?

MR BANADE: Mr Chairman, with all due respect, no.  I can't think of any evidence against that which was heard here.  To tell the truth, Erasmus says that he found the pocketbook - I beg your pardon - Harrington says that he found the pocketbook, Erasmus says that he was sitting in the front of the vehicle, he heard about the pocketbook.  He did not physically see the pocketbook.  Mr Madlala also confirms that there was a pocketbook found.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Be careful in your answer, because there is evidence that he was searched and nothing was found on him.  There is that evidence.   Isn't there?  Is there evidence that he was found and nothing was found on him?

CHAIRPERSON: And bearing in mind that Madlala did not tell the trial court anything at all about the pocketbook.  But be that as it may.  The point that concerns is, why was that pocketbook thrown away?  Can you tell us what the reason was?