Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1998-08-17

CHAIRPERSON: It must be weighed against the other investigation which has emerged as a result of investigations.

MR MADASA: Thank you, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Don't you agree?

MR MADASA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You do agree with that?

MR MADASA: Yes, Mr Chairman.  I submit as well that if the applicant's version on the issue of these people being members of political organisation or MK, even after the Committee has made investigations, remains unchallenged, then the Committee must accept it, and I submit on this point that there is objective evidence to support his claim, namely on the second bundle which I referred to in evidence yesterday, on page 42, on that page the activities of deceaseds' unit or organisation in that article of the newspaper clearly explained or described, and those activities only relate to political activities, nothing else.
	Besides that, there's also Fouche's statement on page 252 of the bundle, paragraph 4.  Fouche is said to have told the applicant that the deceased talked about their political feelings, expressed their preference for an ANC government.  Elsa confirmed the fact that the gang, or the organisation or unit, would attend rallies, political rallies, and were involved in fighting with IFP.  
	Elsa corroborated the applicant in this aspect in all material respects, namely that the deceased were MK ANC activities and underwent training, but she said, which appeared to be a discrepancy, which I submit it was not, her understanding of political activities were involvement in political violence, so to speak, bombings, murder and so on, and she was firm that her group did not involve in those, but then explained what they were involved in, but obviously the Committee knows that from what she admitted and denied it's one and the same thing, all these activities were political activities.  Whether she was aware of that or not is irrelevant.

CHAIRPERSON: What activities do you say were political?  Trying to make money out of selling or handing in weapons to the police, do you say that's a political activity?

MR MADASA: No, Mr Chair.  She admitted that there was gun-running, that they were fighting the IFP, Inkatha, she admitted that ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: She didn't admit that members of her group were doing that.

MR MADASA: She did, Mr Chair.  She did, Mr Chair.  It's a pity that I didn't make a note of her particular instance in her evidence, but she did make reference to that, and on your question to her, she admitted as well that she was trained to handle an AK, and in fact used it when Mr Fouche was present.  Isn't that enough?

MR MALAN: Mr Madasa, did she not say that she only on one occasion fired two times, two shots, with an AK, and that was under the direction of Fouche shortly before the incident, that was the only occasion on which she ever fired a weapon?

MR MADASA: Thank you, Committee Member.  In any case, my argument here, submission, is the following, that what we are looking at is the belief subjectively of the applicant, based on information that he received, and the information that he received, wrongly or correctly, is that these people were involved in political activities, and Fouche, in his statement on page 252, paragraph 5, alludes to that, and Elsa told the applicant the same, and then he believed that.  Therefore he had a factual basis to believe that these were activists and he needed to act on them.  That is all that the applicant has to show.

MR MALAN: Sorry, I missed that, Mr Madasa, will you repeat, what did she tell the applicant, what did Elsa de Lange ...(intervention).

MR MADASA: I say Elsa and Fouche gave information to the applicant as to the political activities of the unit or organisation in which she belonged, and on that basis she believed, I mean the applicant believed that they were therefore political activists.

CHAIRPERSON: But she repeatedly told us they were not political activists, didn't she, she said the only one who was a member of a party was Joseph, the others weren't, didn't she say that?

MR MADASA: But, Mr Chair, I've addressed that.  Obviously that witness is naive inasfar as politics were concerned.

CHAIRPERSON: Well when, if that is what she believed, what would she have told De Ru about political activities?

MR MADASA: She would have told De Ru what she did not believe were political activities, but which De Ru in fact that they were political activities.

MR MALAN: What was the evidence that she gave that you rely on, that she communicated to De Ru, I cannot recall that, can you refresh my mind?

MR MADASA: She said she met De Ru and spoke to him, and gave him information, but she did not expand on that, but De Ru gave evidence to say he received information from her in this regard, and from Fouche, and if you look at that page 252, Fouche specifically says
"I told the applicant that these people were involved in terrorist activities".

CHAIRPERSON: She said in her evidence, she said, "I never reported to De Ru about my involvement.  I don't know if Fouche gave him information", that was her evidence, and she's your witness.

MR MADASA: I say, Mr Chair, be that as it may, De Ru, in is evidence said ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: "I did not tell De Ru I was a member of Umkhonto we Sizwe, I did not tell him anything, he never asked me", but you have now been relying on what she told De Ru.

MR MADASA: I'm not relying on that alone, I'm saying the applicant himself says he received information from her, and from Fouche, and even ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: But who must we believe, her or the applicant?  We have conflicting evidence here now.

CHAIRPERSON: But on that point, importantly, Mr Chair, is the fact that there's objective evidence to support this view that this person was involved in political activities.  She may have denied it for her own purposes under oath, but the fact of the matter is, this is corroborated by objective evidence from (indistinct), first white woman in Sasolburg to join the ANC.  She has admitted to that.
	This person it appears from evidence that she was an informer, she worked for the police for ANC as well, she's got every reason to duck and dive on this aspect, but there's objective evidence to support this view.

CHAIRPERSON: What objective evidence?  Fouche?

MR MADASA: (Indistinct) correctly.

CHAIRPERSON: So we accept also Fouche's evidence in the bundle that the applicant told him they would have to kill these people and that she must make them fire shots on the way to the scene, that is also evidence in the bundle from Fouche, do you say we must accept that?

MR MADASA: I'm not saying that.

CHAIRPERSON: Well you're picking and choosing.  You must either say, "We accept it" ...(intervention).