Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-09-14

MR MBANDAZAYO: Through you, Mr Chairman.  I would agree with the member of the Committee not in whole.  Though I agree that at that particular point in time the perception was changing, but there was still some people who was still sceptical even about the whole process, even about the process of negotiations.  Some did believe that PAC did not suspend the armed struggle and they believed that the Nationalist Party Government cannot negotiate itself out of power and the President of PAC went on record as saying that the PAC will never abandon the bullet until the ballot is secured.  And though, Mr Chairman, I wouldn't have the facilities, I thought that I'll photostat it, I thought that I'll have photostats of the quotation which is in the publication of APLA.  And if you follow that, members of APLA/PAC acted accordingly because they believed the President has said until the ballot is secured, which an ordinary person believes that they will only suspend the armed struggle after they have voted and they are sure that they have managed to get the ballot.

ADV SIGODI: No, I understand that.  Sorry.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes, I'm coming to that part, but I agree with you that at the time, in a way the perception were changing about the policemen, but not everybody was sure and were confident about the action of the police even at that particular point in time.  And taking into account the circumstances of the applicant at the point in time, his own organisation was still involved with the armed struggle and the policemen were still targets and the informers.

CHAIRPERSON: What was - the details doesn't readily come to mind at this stage, but first of all, there were interruptions in the negotiations process, where the African National Congress actually withdrew themselves from that process and were quite sceptical about the prospects of that process delivering a lasting peace and a democracy in the country.  And then at one stage when the negotiations were in progress and the Pan Africanist Congress was participating, there was a whole series of raids and arrests of PAC and APLA officials during that process.  I'm not sure whether you would have the details around the timing of those incidents when all of that was taking place.  I seem to recall that the ANC withdrawal of course happened before '93, before this incident in January.  I'm not sure about those raids when those happened.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman, I was going to come to that but I was trying - this incident happened before the raid but I was going to tie up with the raid.  The raid happened in May 1993 in the PAC.  If I'm not mistaken, around the 16th of May in that year.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, don't let me interrupt that line.  You deal with it when you feel comfortable to deal with it.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you.

MR LAX: Mr Chairperson, if I could just help out.  The armed struggle, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, Mr Mbandazayo, terminated on the 16th of December 1993 on behalf of APLA and it did take some time before that message filtered to all the units on the ground.  There was a congress at UNITRA at that time when the armed struggle was finally terminated.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman, that's a correction, it was in January where the armed struggle was officially suspended.  The congress in UNITRA took a decision that the leadership should suspend the armed struggle when it is appropriate.  The authority lies with the congress and the congress shifted it to the leadership when its appropriate time suspend the armed struggle.  That decision was taken at UNITRA and the armed struggle was suspended in January officially, 1994, Mr Chairman.
	Mr Chairman, if I may continue on this aspect.  And now, Mr Chairman, as I indicated that not everybody was comfortable with the situation of the negotiation and people were sceptical about the negotiation and in particular the organisation to which the applicant belongs was still engaged in the armed struggle and at that particular point in time when he committed this offence.  And to make it, Mr Chairman, to the sceptics in order to - the sceptics were vindicated when the PAC officers and the APLA cadres over the country were arrested during the negotiations.  And that PAC said, "We said that we need to go to neutral venue, the regime cannot be referee and the chairman, because they still have the arms and it is said that we must suspend the armed struggle".  And the police unfortunately were the people who had to do that job on behalf of the politicians and they were always on the first line, firing line.
	Now, Mr Chairman, I don't want to lose track, I want to tie it with the question of robbery, this instance because it is alleged that he was robbed R100,00.  The applicant has vehemently denied, I know that in terms of the Act, if you have to come and tell the Committee what you have done, but when it comes to him he still stand by his position that when it comes to this aspect in the whole incident of Hladi, there was no robbery.  I must confess, Mr Chairman, I have talked to my client, I've tried and he told me that, "If I tell the Committee other story just because I want to be granted amnesty I will not be honest to the Committee".  We would have done every means to make it sound political, even there, the robbery of Hladi but he did not want to budge because he said, "Look, it means I'm not honest.  I'm doing it for the sake that I want amnesty".
	And, Mr Chairman, I think that the Committee can take that in his favour because he had no way of misleading the Committee and say, "No, I did that.  I committed it.  We wanted this because we were going to sell it and raise funds for the party.  We didn't have funds".  But he decided to be honest and open to the Committee and say, "This one, I want to stand my ground even if the Committee decides whatever it decides".  Even if it means that he's not granted amnesty.  And I told him the implication and he said, "Look, if that it means that then let it be instead of saying go and mislead them and say I've done something which I have not done".  He said, "I have the opportunity now to say I've done it.  I can defend and say in court it was because I wanted to get away with the offence".  But he said, "Look, I'm still maintaining my ground.  If the Committee does not want to give me amnesty, he can refuse amnesty but I cannot say I've done something which I have not done".  And that, Mr Chairman, in itself, I think if the Committee can take the whole incident in totality, I think that it can count in his favour.
	Mr Chairman, having made those submissions, I don't want to bore you, maybe you still have questions.  I want to say that in conclusion, that the applicant has established that he belongs to a political organisation, a known one, publicly known one and he acted within the scope and course of that organisation and that what he did was not for personal gain but everything he did was in furtherance of the aims and objective of the organisation in which he was and as such, Mr Chairman, I humbly request and submit to this Committee that the applicant has made full and proper disclosure to this Committee regarding his role in the incident of the late Mashamahite and Hladi murder.  And I request that the Committee grant him amnesty accordingly.  Thank you, Mr Chairman.  Unless the Committee wants to ask question.