Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1999-02-18

CHAIRPERSON: Were you involved in that burglary?

MOLEFE MICHAEL SELEPE: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Were any of your comrades involved in that burglary?

MOLEFE MICHAEL SELEPE: No, they were all with me.  They were not involved in that burglary.

CHAIRPERSON: So if there was a burglary in that same street, it was committed by another group of people?

MOLEFE MICHAEL SELEPE: I think so.  If there was a burglary, I think it was another group of people.

CHAIRPERSON: The reason that you shot at Thompson and his group, was to defend yourselves from being taken with those firearms which you needed for SDU purposes?

MOLEFE MICHAEL SELEPE: Yes, that is correct.  We were protecting the firearms.

CHAIRPERSON: So that was a political activity on its own?

MOLEFE MICHAEL SELEPE: Yes, because I was sent by the community and I had to defend the community.  I think that was a political activity.

CHAIRPERSON: And Thami was along on that operation, all the time?

MOLEFE MICHAEL SELEPE: From the first time when the SDUs were established, Thami was always giving a hand, that is why I decided to choose him to come and assist me, because he was the nearest person.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.  Now, Mr Mashabane, there is about 11 offences listed for which application is made. If you look at the application on page 119, there is a general reference to acts, omissions or offences for possession of illegal firearms, murder, stolen vehicle, theft of firearm, Kliprivier.
	Now, I think we would agree that we will have to fit in those offences into the list here.  The possession of illegal firearms, would probably be related to this incident which ended in Dawn Park?  Am I correct?

MR MASHABANE: Indeed Mr Chairman, these are my instructions.

CHAIRPERSON: (Microphone not on) ... of Thompson, that is also a Dawn Park issue?

MR MASHABANE: Indeed Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And the stolen vehicle would be related to go and collect the firearms and therefore it was the stealing of the bakkie of Mr Tshabalala?

MR MASHABANE: Indeed Mr Chairman, as it is further written that the stolen vehicle ...

CHAIRPERSON: And the attempted, well, there is no attempted murder but I think we can read it within the context of the Dawn Park incident.   That will be Gehlig?

MR MASHABANE: Yes, indeed Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thefts of firearm, where would that be, is that the Kliprivier?

MR MASHABANE: It is Kliprivier.  It is.

CHAIRPERSON: Whose vehicle would that have been that you were driving in Dawn Park, that was a bakkie?

MOLEFE MICHAEL SELEPE: That is the car that I took from Mr Tshabalala, Shadrack Tshabalala.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  As far as the offences and incidents that are recorded in the application form at page 119, we have the robbery of firearms at Kliprivier?

MR MASHABANE: Indeed yes.

CHAIRPERSON: The murder of Glen Thompson, the attempted murder of Gehlig and the robbery of the bakkie of Tshabalala?

MR MASHABANE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: That would be the Dawn Park issue?

MR MASHABANE: Yes Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: These other offences listed, how do we fit it in?  Can we fit it into the incidents referred to in the application?  Are they separate incidents?

MR MASHABANE: Mr Chairman, if I may add, there is one incident which is now not yet addressed, the incident of shooting  where a Cressida was taken.  It was at a petrol station, where there was an exchange of gunfire between the policemen and the applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Where is that referred to in the application?

MR MASHABANE: That Mr Chairman, could be fitted under the theft of firearm, because the intention of the applicant was, he received information that firearms were kept.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but wasn't he referring to the incident at Kliprivier, Klip River police station?

MR MASHABANE: Yes Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: So he can't benefit from the theft of firearms on the Kliprivier, because that is one incident?

MR MASHABANE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And then say the matter that occurred at the filling station is now covered by that there?

MR MASHABANE: What he did in the application, he actually made the major points, like theft of firearms and then, what he ...

CHAIRPERSON: Intending to cover everything?

MR MASHABANE: Yes, to cover everything, every incident.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  You see Mr Mashabane, that may be a convenient way to bring all the offences.  If you read page 120, he goes on to explain which thefts and which firearms he refers to, and there clearly, he is referring to the incident at the police station at Kliprivier.
	He could not be referring to any other theft or incident?  Do you follow?

MR MASHABANE: Yes indeed Mr Chairman, I do follow, but here it, on that page 120, it is only referred to the Kliprivier police station.

CHAIRPERSON: Isn't the only inference that we can draw, is that his reference to theft of firearms has been a matter for which amnesty is sought, is with reference to what happened at Kliprivier police station?

MR MASHABANE: Yes, as it stands, that is the inference the Committee ...

CHAIRPERSON: And in the circumstances, if you look at it holistically, we cannot even on a generous interpretation, seek to include the other incidents?

MR MASHABANE: Indeed Mr Chairman, but my instructions when I asked him about that yesterday what was your intention ...

CHAIRPERSON: No, let's forget about the instructions, we have enough trouble about the instructions, I am saying looking at it legally, and looking at it logically, the logic of the matter is that an applicant whether he filled it in himself or not, is irrelevant.

MR MASHABANE: Indeed.

CHAIRPERSON: He is not obliged to get an Attorney or any assistance.  He has applied for certain incidents which covers the Kliprivier incident and there he says, in that incident he stole weapons and for that, he now seeks amnesty because it was a political matter.
	He comes to the hearing today and he includes a whole host of other incidents which on its own maybe able to be covered by a general statement, but we look at his whole application and then clearly we can see what he intended to apply for.
	Is there any leeway to think differently, never mind what he tells us now?  We are bound by what is contained in that, because if we can't bring it under any of those sections, then by allowing him to testify and deciding on the matter, would in effect allow a new application in.  Do you follow the reasoning?

MR MASHABANE: Yes, I do understand.

CHAIRPERSON: And therefore, I must question even at this stage, this long list of offences, whether they have indeed been covered by the initial application which falls before the closing date, and the rational is we can't allow new applications, because the closing date is gone.  I am sure you will appreciate what floodgates we will open if we interpret it in any other way?

MR MASHABANE: Indeed, I appreciate that.

CHAIRPERSON: And therefore, you need to decide what the position is with these other robberies and other offences like escape, whether it is worth pursuing in the circumstances.
	I will give you ten minutes to think about it.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

MOLEFE MICHAEL SELEPE: (still under oath)

MR MASHABANE: (continued)   Thank you Mr Chairman.   I was asked to address the Committee in so far as pages 119 and 120 is concerned.
	It is on those pages written and the explanation which is given by the writer thereof, it is only as far as theft of firearms or possession of illegal firearms are concerned, and further they explain the specific incident upon which the said offence was committed.
	But however, the writer omitted to include certain events or places upon which these offences, the similar offences were committed by the applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Just stop there.  If that is common cause that he omitted to include it in that application form, can he then make application now and we've got to talk strict principles.