Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-04-26

CHAIRPERSON: You see in you first application for amnesty you talk about, in paragraph 10(a), you say you were
"Retaliating to the atrocities committed to your family.  There was no positive goal-directed behaviour as far as my activity was concerned."
This is to the political objective.  You then in your second amnesty application said that you did all this with the aims of politics because they burnt your house, your garage, your car:
" ... and my boy or son"

ELIAS KESLA MTOLO: My home, my cars and my garage were burnt and this boy and girl were killed because we were supporters and members of the IFP.

CHAIRPERSON: Your garage you ran as a business I understand.

ELIAS KESLA MTOLO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And then you talk - and you refer to yourself, explaining about the war, you said you were the fore-head of Chief Patrick Majozi.

ELIAS KESLA MTOLO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And you also in the same application say it was to prevent - the political objective behind this attack, was to prevent attacks on yourself because seven times the members of the ANC attacked you, they even attacked your wife, is that correct?

ELIAS KESLA MTOLO: It was not really to prevent them, because they had already burnt down my home.  I was just attacking the enemy that had attacked me at my home.

CHAIRPERSON: And you, in the affidavit made by you, signed on the 25th of November 1997 - 1998, it may be, you say that your house was attacked three days before this incident.  That is paragraph 3 on page 19.

ELIAS KESLA MTOLO: I was attacked more than 10 times.

CHAIRPERSON: But were you attacked three days before this incident?

ELIAS KESLA MTOLO: My house had already been burnt when this incident took place, because from the court I asked the police to escort me to go see just how badly my house had been burnt and when I got there, there were people waiting for me already and they started shooting at me.

CHAIRPERSON: Right, thank you.

MR DE KLERK: Just one further question, Mr Chairman.  Mr Mtolo, you received 8 years imprisonment for robbery, is that correct? - in the Regional Court in Maritzburg.

ELIAS KESLA MTOLO: That's correct.

MR DE KLERK: When will you be released on parole?

ELIAS KESLA MTOLO: On the 5th of December this year.

MR DE KLERK: Thank you, Mr Chairman, no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DE KLERK

MS MTANGA: No questions from me, Mr Chairman.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS MTANGA

MR LAX: Just one question.  Did I understand you correctly, you did not agree with the vehicle being taken away, you were angry about that.

ELIAS KESLA MTOLO: Yes, I did not agree with it.

MR LAX: And you didn't associate yourself with that at all?

ELIAS KESLA MTOLO: Yes, I did not, because I even went to see the kombi only when the police took me to the spot.  I was only concerned with the person who had attacked me.  I had 8 counts of arson against me, but those were withdrawn because that was not true.  Those ...(intervention)

MR LAX: Thank you.  No further questions, Chair.

MR SIBANYONI: Maybe to take it further.  In other words, you are not applying for amnesty for robbery, robbing the taxi?

ELIAS KESLA MTOLO: I can ask for amnesty because that was the reason why I was convicted.  I was even forced to admit to that robbery, something that I did not even do.

MR SIBANYONI: Let me put the question this way, your conduct in attacking the driver of the taxi, enabled the people which were in your company to take the kombi away, do you concede to that?

ELIAS KESLA MTOLO: Yes, I do concede, although it was not an order from me that they should take the taxi.

MR SIBANYONI: I heard you saying that you recognised the driver as the person who ferried the people to your home, what about the conductor, was he also present on that occasion?

ELIAS KESLA MTOLO: The conductor was a son of the taxi owner.  At that time he did not even stay at home because he had fled as he was an ANC member.

MR SIBANYONI: But was he present on the occasion when the house was attacked?

ELIAS KESLA MTOLO: I think I saw this boy on two occasions when my house was attacked, because on one occasion I even found him with a certain group of boys from Maniba's house and they were coming to attack me at home.

MR SIBANYONI: Lastly, so you were also intending to attack him on this particular day when he ran away?

ELIAS KESLA MTOLO: Yes, I would have attacked him, I would have killed him.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, Chairperson, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: If can just clarify something, I've got a note and I'd just like to make sure.  The owner of this vehicle was your uncle and you were on good terms with him.

ELIAS KESLA MTOLO: Yes, we were on very good terms.

CHAIRPERSON: It was only the driver that you personally wanted to sort out?

ELIAS KESLA MTOLO: Yes, well as well as ...(indistinct), because I had already noticed that ...

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR DE KLERK: No, questions.  That's the application, Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DE KLERK

MS MTANGA: I have no questions, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you any witnesses to call?

MS MTANGA: No, none, Mr Chairman.

MR DE KLERK: Mr Chairman, I don't have any argument.  If there is any specific aspect, maybe the fact that he was convicted of robbery, he should have been convicted of attempted murder it seems.

CHAIRPERSON: It appears, reading the judgment, that although he said he, it was shown he had the firearm and it was used to shoot, for some reason he wasn't convicted of attempted murder and the robbery and basically is that he was in charge of the gang and that's it.  But it appears to me, subject to discussion later, it could be a little bit technical where a man is serving a long sentence for robbery, to say that well legally it wasn't quite robbery so you are not entitled to amnesty, although you would have been entitled to amnesty for another offence.

MR DE KLERK: I can argue that.  I presume that the sentence would have been much the same if it was merely attempted murder, but that's like the Chair says, it's very technical.

CHAIRPERSON: What is your attitude on this?

MS MTANGA: I will leave it in your hands, Chairperson, I have no submissions.

CHAIRPERSON: As I understand it, subject to what I'm told, looking at the two applications, he has only asked for amnesty for robbery.

MR DE KLERK: It seems that so.

CHAIRPERSON: He has not asked for the attempted murder.

MR DE KLERK: I presume that his application would include the facts, that means being in the situation, shooting at the person and then being convicted for robbery.

CHAIRPERSON: Well he goes further, his shooting was when he was chasing him in the sugar cane fields and it was a one-on-one situation.  As I recollect, the information in the papers was that there was some general shooting at the vehicle.  The court wasn't given quite the same picture as we have been, but we can consider that.  Thank you, we will take time.

ELIAS KESLA MTOLO: There are a few questions that I would like to pose.

MR LAX: Carry on.

ELIAS KESLA MTOLO: As I am about to be released from prison, what should I do because I am now homeless, let alone about my business and everything else.  What am I supposed to do now, because I am well aware of who burnt my house down.  I am not afraid of them, I only respect the law.

MR DE KLERK: Maybe I can assist.  It seems that the applicant is referring to reparation, it seems so.

CHAIRPERSON: Or that he wishes to institute action.  I think he could be advised in this regard of his rights to, there may be some question of conscription if he's known about it for a long time, or reparation.  Could you perhaps assist him further in that?

MR DE KLERK: Yes, I will do that.  Actually when I consulted with him, he did bring this up and I told him that we will follow it up.