Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1998-10-08

CHAIRPERSON: You're for the applicants.  We are not a court of law, we are a Commission.  We are not married to certain rules and practices of court.  You're not compelled to make any submissions if you don't want to, if you feel satisfied we've been given everything that you can possibly give.  You can lay it rest there.  If you want to make certain submissions we are prepared to listen to it.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairperson, that is why Mr Chairperson, it's not because I have quarrels with the procedure but I was taken aback.  Normally what happens, if it's the view of the Committee that I have to make a closing argument in this matter ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Like I've said you're not compelled to.  We're quite comfortable with either, whether you make one or not.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairperson, if that's the case, the only thing left with me to make is closing argument.
	Mr Chairperson, Section 20 (1) of the Act provides as follows:  
"If the Committee after considering an application for amnesty is satisfied that the application complies with the requirement of this Act, the act, omission or offence with the application relates is an a act associated with political objective committed in the course of conflict in the past in accordance with provision Sub-section 2 and 3, that the applicant has made full disclosure of relevant facts, it shall grant amnesty".
	Mr Chairperson, I submit that the applicants have complied with the Act, Section 20 (1) and (2).  That they were quite clearly acting on behalf of APLA, a publicly known political organisation and liberation movement which was engaged in a political struggle against the State at the time.
	Mr Chairperson, I won't like to waste the time of this Committee.  You have heard the applicants.  They have told the Committee that they were given instructions to go to Mr Franciscato's house and kill Mr Franciscato and repossess arms and this instruction came from Mr Duma.  Mr Duma came and told the Committee that he indeed gave those instructions and that he got those instructions in his capacity as a commander then, of APLA.
	Mr Chairperson, the applicants have told this Committee their roles, their respective roles in regard to this incident.  It is my humble submission that with regard to their roles they have made full and proper disclosure before this Committee.
	Mr Chairperson, there is no doubt that the first applicants, Mr Biko and Veveza have previous criminal records.  There is no doubt about that.  And that they were related to various incidents regarding dishonesty. 	Mr Chairperson, with regard, there is a difference with this one.  If one looks at all the incidents that they were involved in, none of them involved the taking of human life.  It was the first incident where a human life was taken.  ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry.  Are you asking for amnesty in connection with the murder?  They've been found not guilty for murder.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairperson, through Mr Chairperson, there is no way that - Mr Chairperson, I'm going to, I know that they were not found guilty of murder but there is no way that you can separate the two.  Definitely if I'm arguing for the question of robbery of the arms, I cannot separate the question of the killing of Mr Franciscato from that robbery.

ADV DE JAGER: Alright.  Now as far as the robbery is concerned, at Mr Franciscato's house, they've been found guilty of robber of a 410 shotgun.  I've asked questions about the shotgun.  This shotgun, if it's been robbed there, wasn't handed over to the, because they're speaking about one rifle and three pistols and the rifle was a .22.  So did they rob a shotgun there or didn't they?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Through you, Mr Chairperson.  Mr Chairperson, as you have heard the evidence of the applicants, the weapons which they robbed from Mr Franciscato, they handed over to Mr Duma.  Those were the weapons which they said was .22, which Mr Chairperson, is totally different to what they have been convicted of.

ADV DE JAGER: Well, then they're not guilty of, or they are not asking for a 410 shotgun.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairperson, it may well be the case, Mr Chairperson, that they have mentioned weapons in this Committee which they believe that they took from Mr Franciscato.  It cannot be wished away.  It may happen that there was - that weapon is one of the weapons which got lost, but they are saying to the Committee that: "The weapons which we took from Mr Franciscato are these".  It's as well as they have been - it's alleged that they took money.

ADV DE JAGER: The trouble is that shotgun was used that very evening ...[inaudible].

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

ADV DE JAGER: That shotgun was used that very evening in the other attack.  So it wasn't handed over.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairperson, I've said to this Committee when this evidence was given here, it would
have been better if this case, if we were hearing it with the other case because that was not the subject of inquiry, that matter.

ADV DE JAGER: But the other case, they testified here was not on orders, they didn't relate to any political objective.  That was the evidence before us.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairperson, I wouldn't like to argue that because I have my own interpretation with regard to that.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, okay.

MR MBANDAZAYO: That's why I've said to this Committee, I objected when this evidence relating to that, because we now we are using, because we have information before because this case was dealt simultaneously in the High Court and yet here the subject of inquiry is not related to that incident.

ADV DE JAGER: Right, but it's related to the weapons and according, they've been found guilty of robbing a 410 shotgun.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairperson, I want to say again that they have been found guilty of that weapon but Mr Chairperson, there is no evidence.  That is why I'm saying to this Committee that incident is not related here.  We don't know how it comes to their possession, that 4 whatever type of a gun.

ADV DE JAGER: That is why I ...[intervention]

MR MBANDAZAYO: Whether that gun was robbed on the same day or was taken from Mr Franciscato on the same day which was used there and we don't know who took it.  That is why I've said to this Committee I have a problem when evidence is, when information is being tendered regarding the second incident because we are going to have a problem with this one.  If they were being dealt simultaneously I wouldn't have problems because we would also ourselves have prepared for that matter.  Because there are also other people who were involved in that who are not before this Committee.

ADV DE JAGER: You see my problem is this. Suppose we grant you amnesty for three hand guns and a .22 robbed at Mr Franciscato's place, you've been found guilty, maybe wrongly, of a 410 shotgun but we're not sitting as a court of appeal, we can't alter that.  So we're granting you amnesty for the robbing of four weapons of which you've not been found guilty.  So it wouldn't alter your sentence.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

ADV DE JAGER: And that is why I'm putting this to you and that is what my problem was.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairperson, I fully agree with you, Mr Chairperson, but also we are here to disclose as to what happened on the day in question and tell the Committee the truth.  Now I don't think it will be fair to come to the Committee just because people want to get out of jail and tell the Committee a lie.

CHAIRPERSON: Can I ask you this question?  The evidence before us now is that it was a .22 rifle that was stolen.  If we grant them amnesty on that, will you be satisfied?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, definitely Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] The question then directed at you is, how does that come to the assistance of the applicants?