Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1999-02-10

MR SHANE: If that is the case, then he decided to attack as these problems, as pointed out by the Chairman, he decided to attack when he retreated, that is the problem that he faces because if he decided to attack, the question is why was he running away?
	That obviously becomes significant.

MR SIBANYONI: That is all Mr Chairperson.

MR SHANE: I don't know if Mr Steenkamp is going to address you or if I am excused.

CHAIRPERSON: No, you are excused.

MR SIBEKO: Thank you Mr Chairman, Mr Chairman, the applicant Mr Madlala gave testimony about the plan that they had firstly to rob a motor vehicle.  The said motor vehicle as part of the plan, was to be a vehicle belonging to a company, not a private citizen.
	The said vehicle had to be robbed for the sole purpose of transporting arms from Duduza to Tokoza, where the said arms were to be used in the defence of the community.
	It is common knowledge that the Self Defence Units used every method of acquiring arms to be used in such actions.  In this particular instance, his evidence was that the arms were bought from one Zidtu at Duduza squatter camp.
	The said vehicle that was robbed, was robbed at the industrial sites in Alrode, which I submit Mr Chairman, is one of the economic strongholds in the East Rand, where the government derives its income.
	Mr Chairman, I would submit that the said robbery in itself, was politically motivated firstly because had it not been for the fact that a targeted vehicle should be a company vehicle, then it would loose - the political motive would loose its meaning.  It had to be a company vehicle so that the government should also feel by the cries from the industries, about the crime.
	The industries which are taxpayers, the said taxes which were used in sponsoring the State's violence.  Mr Chairman, intertwined to this motive, as  I have already stated, the purpose was to fetch arms and it is also common cause that there was violence already in that township.
	Mr Chairman, the applicant further testified that they succeeded after he was instructed or commanded by his Commander to rob the vehicle which happened to be a bakkie, and which I submit Mr Chairman, was identifiable as a company vehicle.  Although a question was asked, whether wouldn't it have made sense if it was a sedan rather than a bakkie, to transport arms.  I would submit Mr Chairman, that what was a plan, was to get the vehicle to transport arms.
	As to whether it could be a bakkie, a kombi or a sedan, it was not of much importance.  All that was important was a motor vehicle.

CHAIRPERSON: Why would it not be important?  They are transporting illegal arms which was a contravention of the law at the time?  That must have ranked as one of the top priorities of the Police Force at the time?
	They want to transport these weapons in the back of a bakkie, of course he did say they put the weapons in the front.  That may be so, but wouldn't it be safer to have hijacked an ordinary sedan?  Does the fact that they didn't, not cast a bit of doubt as to actually why the van was hijacked?

MR SIBEKO: Mr Chairman, I would concede that a sedan most obviously would have been much more safer and easier to use to transport the said illegal arms.  Having said that Mr Chairman, I would state, I would submit that applicant testified that the mission was they had to transport these arms at whatever cost.
	Mr Chairman, as I have already conceded that it would have been safe to have used the sedan,  the instruction that was given by the Commander was clear and bold enough, even if the police had to stop them, at the end of the day they had to do something so that they succeeded in transporting these arms.
	So Mr Chairman, I would submit that although the sedan could have been much more safer, or convenient for this purpose, the applicant testified that all that they needed is a transport.

ADV GCABASHE: You see Mr Sibeko, I have the same difficulty that the Chairman has.  I understood the testimony to be that the priority was not to make a political statement about companies and people who owned companies, complaining to the government about crime.  The priority was to get the firearms.
	Why they would then go and get a, hijack a company motor vehicle, that they are going to use at night, a vehicle that is being sought for, and it is probably a marked car, a car that is obviously not a car that would be running around at night, in Tokoza or at any other area for that matter, why they would use that particular vehicle as the best vehicle to transport a rather important package, is something that I still do not understand.
	He was asked about the bakkie as opposed to a sedan, as has been indicated, and the answers were difficult to fathom, they were really unsatisfactorily.
	At the end of the day your argument that there was some political statement they were making, vis-a-vis crime and companies and complaints, is also rather difficult to understand, I must say, in the circumstances as set out for us by the applicant.

MR SIBEKO: I would submit that as it has been correctly pointed out, the evidence that we have before us, is that they targeted the bakkie and although questions were asked, not a single satisfactory answer came forth.
	I therefore submit that the plan was initiated and put into action, on the same day, that is on the morning, at a later stage, when the said vehicle was to be used.  I wouldn't argue and say the plan was properly thought or there were some flaws in it, but I would submit that in the mind of the applicant, and his comrades, what they thought to be important for them, was to get a vehicle, which vehicle they did get.

CHAIRPERSON: What time of day did they collect these firearms?

MR SIBEKO: Mr Chairman, the firearms were collected in the afternoon.

CHAIRPERSON: Remember that is the evidence, yet, I don't know the area, maybe you can help me.  From Dawn Park to I think it was Duduza where they collected the firearms, how long would one drive in that bakkie?

MR SIBEKO: Mr Chairman, it could be 20 to 30 minutes' drive, driving at a ...

CHAIRPERSON: At a reasonable speed?  Just keep your finger on that button please.  They were arrested around half past seven that night?  How do you explain that then?
	They say, or your client says that on their way from collecting these firearms, they came across a roadblock, these firearms, they came across a roadblock which required them to turn around and enter Dawn Park and go park under a lamp post.  I thought that was at night but when my colleague asked about it and it became clear from your client's evidence that no, the lamp post was not a significant issue because it all happened in the afternoon?  Now this gentleman who died in the whole arrest scene, that occurrence occurred about half past seven at night.  How do you gel the two?  Are we really being told the truth?