Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 2000-08-30

MS THABETHE: Which is why, Mr Chair, I am arguing that I think that can be ascribed to the fact that he did not have legal representation as to what factors should have been revealed by him, and as to what reasons he should put forth in order to get indemnity.

MR LAX: You see  my difficulty, if I could speak for myself, is based on Mr Madlala's evidence.  We are not dealing with your average lay person, we are dealing with someone who was the leader of the prisoners, who made representations on their behalf, who dealt with these kinds of things?  Do you understand, we are not dealing with somebody who was just an  uneducated somebody who didn't know what all of this was about?
	Whether he had a lawyer or not, is irrelevant and Mr Madlala has given evidence to that effect?

MS THABETHE: With respect, honourable member of the Committee, the indemnity form was completed in 1994 and it is clear that at that stage most prisoners did not know exactly what information should be revealed in those indemnity application forms.

MR LAX: There is no evidence to that effect, there is no evidence whatsoever to that effect?  There is evidence to the contrary, that this person was the leader of the prisoners and that he was helping them do all these things.

MS THABETHE: At what stage though, Mr Lax?

MR LAX: That was Mr Madlala's evidence.

MS THABETHE: From what I heard, Mr Madlala was talking about the period from 1995 onwards, when the leaders ...

MR LAX: He said he was in the prison from 1990, this man came there in 1992, 1993, after his conviction, then his evidence was, they used to talk about these matters before and regarded them as a joke, before the meeting?

MS THABETHE: Well, that is not how I gathered the information from Mr Madlala.  I thought he was saying from 1995, that is when they started pursuing for amnesty, but ...

CHAIRPERSON: Let's leave that point, we will discuss it.  What do you say about Mr Sithole's credibility?  How do we handle his failure to deal with certain conflicts?  How do we deal with the particular conflict that is germane to this application, the one hand he gives us what appears to be a well-founded political reason for committing this offence, whereas he says what is contained in his indemnity letter, is in fact the truth?  How do we deal with it?

MS THABETHE: Mr Chair ...

CHAIRPERSON: How would you like to deal with it?

MS THABETHE: I would like to argue it, Mr Chair, the way I understood his evidence, of course I was following it in Zulu, I would say I didn't see any material contradictions or conflicts in his evidence, more than an issue that maybe some issues were not canvassed, especially as to what happened after the bottle store was robbed, up to where he got arrested.
	But with regard to the indemnity form, I would argue, Mr Chair, that what was written in the indemnity form, is the truth, in as far as his personal reasons are concerned.

CHAIRPERSON: But he says that is the truth, and that is why it happened, he admits that under oath today?

MS THABETHE: But he did concede Mr Chair, with respect that what he wrote in his application, was the personal aspect.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  But it is the truth?

MR LAX: It wasn't the personal aspects, it was an attempt, you see, this is my problem, it was an attempt to deflect responsibility from the ANC.  If that is the case, then it is not the truth, because the truth is that he got orders from the ANC to commit the act, that is the truth.
	Now many applicants have appeared before us, as you well know, and they have said "yes, I have lied in my indemnity application, but I lied because I wanted to protect the ANC."

MS THABETHE: Yes.

MR LAX: This man isn't saying that he lied because he wanted to protect the ANC, he says he told the truth.

CHAIRPERSON: As it happened?

MS THABETHE: Oh, that is not how I understood it.  I thought he was saying he spoke about his personal circumstances in the indemnity form, as opposed to the political circumstances because he did not want to reveal the incidents, thus exposing the name of the ANC, that is how I heard him, but of course I was listening in Zulu.
	I don't know whether my learned colleague heard the same thing, maybe being translated?

CHAIRPERSON: Well, Ms Thabethe, if I can remind you, you in fact asked him a particular question related to that.

MS THABETHE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: The question, he was in effect, that in the indemnity paragraph ...

MS THABETHE: Paragraph 11?

CHAIRPERSON: Paragraph 11, he is specifically asked to explain how the act for which he seeks indemnity is one that is politically justifiable.

MS THABETHE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I think you are the third or the fourth person to ask him that question.  What did he answer?

MS THABETHE: I cannot remember precisely Mr Chair, what he answered.

CHAIRPERSON: That is when he said that he didn't choose to tell the truth in order to protect the image of the ANC.

MS THABETHE: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: But we must remember he has also said under oath that what is contained therein, is in effect the actual truth, the actual reasons why he did it.  That is a conflict that we are saddled with.

MS THABETHE: Yes.  Mr Chair, I would leave it at that, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  We will take time to consider this application and deliver the decision in due course.

MS MOHAMED: As the Committee pleases.

MS THABETHE: As the Committee pleases.

CHAIRPERSON: We will adjourn until two o'clock.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

CHAIRPERSON: Good afternoon.   We now come to a new matter and for the purposes of the record, the Panel is as before.  I am going to ask the representatives to identify themselves for the purpose of that record.

MS MOHAMED: Thank you Mr Chairman, I am Ms Mohamed, from the firm Dehal Inc, on record for Mr Mpanza.

MR PANDAY: Thank you Mr Chairman, I appear on behalf of the victims, Mr S. Panday.  Mr Chairman, just to place on record, there were two victims located in this matter, however there is only one present, that being Mr Jobe, from the Jobe family.  Thank you.

MS THABETHE: Thank you Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: What is the position about the other?

MR PANDAY: Mr Chairman, in principle the application is not being opposed, save to say that the family seeks full disclosure as to the incidents.

CHAIRPERSON: But are you representing both victims?

MR PANDAY: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Despite the absence?

MR PANDAY: Well, unfortunately one cannot be present.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, I accept, but you carry instructions of that victim?

MR PANDAY: Yes, that is correct Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: What are the names of those victims?

MR PANDAY: The first victim is Mergen Raymond Samuel.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and the other?

MR PANDAY: And the second set of victims is Anthony Jobe.

CHAIRPERSON: Spell the surname please.

MR PANDAY: J-o-b-e.  That is the next-of-kin of Kanyile Petrus Jobe.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?  Ms Thabethe?

MS THABETHE: Thank you Mr Chair.  I am Ms Thabile THABETHE, the Evidence Leader.