Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-11-23

RE MR MBANDAZAYO: And he has not been charged in respect of all these incidents except this one.  Not a single one except this one, he was charged with this one and convicted and he came up with all of them voluntarily.  The one he refers as about 28 operation he was involved in.  Of course the others are already with the Committee, they submitted affidavits, they said they can be Chamber matters.  Some of them are still outstanding for the hearing and if I can throw some light Madam Chair, the Committee would not be aware that he was not initially to be put in this, he was not supposed to be in this hearing himself.  It was at my instance that he be put in, he was going to be put in Welkom, they said they can fit him here because I'm having difficulty getting him to give evidence in other cases because we are using him in getting, as the head of this unit, as we're still sorting out the question of Letslape so it's difficult sometimes, the prison authorities, for him to transport on this ...[indistinct], so we agreed with the leader, the Chief Leader, Advocate Mpshe that his matter be set down so that if he may be granted amnesty ...[indistinct] would be able to use him in some of these incidents which some of these operations were involved.  Some of them he has assisted us, some he is able to say this one was not because we have those problems so it makes it easy for us now to differentiate because it's difficult when he's in prison.  Some of them will say no I was in the unit which so and so, the unit commander, some of them are dead so we are unable to differentiate that.  Then he is the person who are in a position to do that and so look, this was not in that and he has done that in many others.  Now the problem we have is that the SAP are holding the documents which are using them in arresting some of these people we are asking if they have not applied for amnesty, that's the reason they are given that they are not receiving this information and we are having that problem in some cases because what is happening that you find that I ask "who is Junior" and they tell me the name of Junior and you find that there are other seven Juniors and you are caught up in the situation where we go to the wrong Junior and the only assistance you can get is the documents which were confiscated which have all the records which are throwing some light in some of these incidents.  If I may in passing, Honourable Members of the Committee, the case at issue, though I know it's a controversial one, the Eikenhoff incident which I'm also involved, the applicant.  The same issue is still we are ...[indistinct] by those documents but I may say that I'm trying to make a headway.  They have given me some names but unfortunately, they just give you that if they give me Junior, they'll tell you Junior was used by so and so and so and so, about ten.  Now the question is, at the particular point in time where he was operating, the documents are still there, they are still keeping, they don't release the whole information, you have to fight to get the information so that you can know that at that particular time, point in time, when that operation happened at a certain point in time, Junior was so and so.  So we have those handicaps and I'm glad to say the Committee, the Members of the Amnesty Committee, assisting as I indicated, Judge Wilson is also helping, pushing, exercising some waiting these incidents to try and get this information which is handicapping us and as such, what I'm saying is that it's not because the applicants don't want to come up with the names but some will come and confuse with the others, some - Advocate Prior may say that we had a hearing in Aliwal North, we have to abandon it because of this problem.  When somebody mentions that so and so and so and so was involved, then he will come and say he is also an applicant - "no I was not involved in this operation I mentioned, I was involved in such and such and such an operation" and you will find that there was a mix up of names.
	So those are the problems we are faced with this but what my point I'm driving at is that Maseko has come forward and gave the information, also the information, the application is here, he has not been charged because he came here voluntarily with the whole information.  He not been charged because he has applied for amnesty and that they were not known, most of them, which were pre- or the writing of the incident and also that Madam Chair and the Committee, I want this Committee to take into account that during this operation when these monies were asked, R300, R400, it's not a question that this operation was done today the other one tomorrow and the other one the following day or two days thereafter.  Those are the problems, although there are not dates you have a problem where somebody has to sustain himself, he has to stay for a month and taking a unit of that magnitude, who can be sustained with R300?
	Definitely, when we go to the next operation that R300 is no longer there so ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: I think what is the problem Mr Mbandazayo, of the Committee in respect of that particular issue is the question of guidelines, what criterion did the director of operations under whom Mr Maseko had to report, give in respect of the utilisation of proceeds obtained from these repossession operations?  That seems to be the crux of the problem.  If you are able to address us on that, the problem would be greatly pleased.

RE MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Madam Chair and Honourable Members of the Committee.  Madam Chair, the criterion is Maseko put it that first and foremost they were sent inside the country and they were told that what you want is inside the country, everything you will get there, you have to be able to sustain yourselves and as such it became clear that some of the operations will only, what they get from those operations will only be able to sustain themselves, not to use it to finance other operations for other units, that is to hand it over, the money.  So that is the crux of the matter, that they did not have resources available to themselves that "look, we are sending you, you have so and so, you will be supported, yours is to do this and after doing this you have to hand over."  Also themselves, they have to depend in what they are getting from these operations and now it became very difficult now to say that there was a criterion which can be used.  Say it was a uniform one, maybe if we say for instance they get R10 000 and then they hand over the R10 000 and they have a pressing need where they have to use it, this for instance they were using in purchasing weapons, if they found that people were selling weapons, here we can get weapons so that when the other unit comes in, when people come inside the country, will be able to supply weapons because it was part of their duty to repossess weapons.  So that's where I think the Committee also, all of us have problem, is the discretion which Maseko as the commander had, more than the guidelines, it's the discretion which he had.

CHAIRPERSON: You see Mr Mbandazayo that seems to be my problem because as I tried to understand Mr Maseko's testimony I ended up not really getting a clear picture whether there indeed was such a criterion or whether indeed there were any such guidelines or whether the issue was not entirely dependant on his discretion which they hoped he would use in the best interest of his organisation.