Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 2000-08-30

TOM MADLALA: About indemnity, it came about in 1990 during the negotiations that were in Groote Schuur in Cape Town.
	When there was this law that would be passed by the National Party government, that law was passed in November 1990, and then people had to apply for indemnity early in 1991.  I was in prison at the time.  The manner in which things were happening, was very disorganised.  There was no formal structure like the TRC.  I am one of the people who applied.  The prison warder would fill in the form for you, if you would try and show that you know something about politics, at least you would get a form, but there would be additional statements that had to be done by the prison warders and in their own handwriting.
	I actually think that the ANC did not like this process of indemnity, nationally.  That is why there was a problem in 1992 in September.   The indemnity did not make any move to release the ANC prisoners, because this was just a cover up to save the National Party prisoners, the ANC submitted a list of about 1500 people who were in prison, but only 40 people were released, and those people were criminals.  The people who were arrested for political activities, were still in jail.
	That is why this TRC body was established, this was the only platform where all the people who were arrested for political reasons, would be released.  As far as I am concerned, this indemnity was not such a good process at all.
	Including the Indemnity Act of 1992, was not a good process.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Ms Thabethe?

MS THABETHE: Thank you Mr Chair.  Mr Madlala, Mr Sithole have applied to the Committee for amnesty for a robbery, you were listening, for the robberies and the attempted robbery?

TOM MADLALA: Yes.

MS THABETHE: He claims that he did this under the auspices of the ANC.

TOM MADLALA: Yes.

MS THABETHE: What would you say in response to that, what would be your comment to the Amnesty Committee in terms of granting or refusing amnesty?

TOM MADLALA: About granting amnesty, I am not, I want to explain about what I heard from him.  ANC is a very organised organisation.  The ANC  President, the current President was the one who had been to the ANC, to the TRC, for submissions, submissions that were covering each and every activity of the ANC.
	If the TRC is considering Mr Sithole's application, they would use those that were covered in the submission.  I would also like to request the TRC to take a note, this is not for the first time for me to come here to the TRC, long before the establishment of this TRC, Lucky Sithole had mentioned something like instructions.  I remember at some stage he was very, very angry, he staged a walkout.  It is not for the first time that he speaks here about the instructions that were given to him by the ANC, he started talking about that as early as 1995.
	I would further request that the TRC when considering his application, should take note of those issues.  As a person who was a former Chairperson of the ANC in prison, all these applications were in my hands, all the members of the ANC who were in prison in KwaZulu Natal, were in my hand.  I started working with them while I was in prison.  When I was released in this year in March, the ANC gave me a portfolio of going ahead with these applications, up until the last date of the TRC.
	I am so used to communicating with the TRC office in Cape Town.  There are problems that sometimes I would be told that a person did not get amnesty, but the same person would be called again, because of some problems.  I am not sure whether there is a communication breakdown or not.  The example of Dannyboy, I received a letter that Dannyboy, his application was turned down, but yesterday he was here to appear before the TRC.  I think that I know more about Sithole and the others' applications.  I am not hearing about them for the first time here.

MS THABETHE: Thank you Mr Chair, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS THABETHE

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Mohamed?

MS MOHAMED: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MS MOHAMED

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you are excused.

TOM MADLALA: Okay, thank you.
WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Are there any other witnesses?

MS MOHAMED: No, Mr Chairman, that is the applicant's case.

MS THABETHE: No witnesses.

CHAIRPERSON: Any submissions, Ms Mohamed?

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, I would just like to address you very briefly.   I understand that in the course of his evidence the applicant mentioned certain statements, and then later on it turned out to be inconsistencies and the like.
	I understand if viewed, if one particular view is taken, then obviously that is totally detrimental to his application and it could go to the very foundation and basis of that application, but what I would like to say is that on instructions received from the applicant himself, it seems that given the finer details of the operation at Stanger may not have been canvassed properly and things like that, but he at all stages, was the Ordinance Officer as appointed by the Commanders in the Umhlazi area.
	He was a trained MK person and he was quite familiar with the manner in which ...

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think, and I speak for myself, but I don't think we've got any illusions about his training and his affiliations.

MS MOHAMED: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: I speak for myself.  The difficulty I have is the reasons why the crimes were committed.  He has told us one version now, accompanied by the statement which he signed and handed up by you, this morning, Exhibit A, but yet in all other statements which was canvassed with him, some different reasons.
	He has made valiant attempts as far as I am concerned, to explain that away, but fundamentally,  and really significantly, he concedes that the contents of the letter on page 35, read together with the application for indemnity on page 34, is in fact the truth?  That is the difficulty with which I am confronted.

MS MOHAMED: Yes, Mr Chairman, I understand that and that can be an insurmountable difficulty.

CHAIRPERSON: I appreciate your position, I mean sometimes those mountains cannot be climbed.

MS MOHAMED: It is my instructions that the applicant views this as a forum at which he can actually speak quite freely, and the evidence given by Mr Madlala clearly indicates his bona fides and his involvement in this activity, from as early as 1995.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, the trouble with Mr Madlala's evidence is that it does not reflect on the actual offences?

MS MOHAMED: Yes, I understand that, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: It doesn't deal with it.

MS MOHAMED: Yes, but the applicant has maintained that he was acting under instructions and apart from those submissions, I can take it no further, and I leave it in the hands of the Committee.  Thank you.

UNKNOWN: Thank you Mr Chair.  I have no submissions, except to say that I support Ms Mohamed's.

CHAIRPERSON: Why?

MS THABETHE: Mr Chair, it is because from the evidence led, it appears, and also from Mr Madlala, it appears that the applicant was acting under instructions when he committed these actions.
	With regard to the indemnity form, what I would submit Mr Chair is that it appears that the applicant did not have legal representation or legal advice.

CHAIRPERSON: So what?

MS THABETHE: As to how to, as to what information should be revealed in this form.
	My submission Mr Chair, would be that what he has written is the truth.

CHAIRPERSON: If he is telling us the truth today, then he lied in the indemnity form, isn't it?

MS THABETHE: I wouldn't argue so, Mr Chair, because these could be his personal, these facts could be correct in as far as his personal capacity is concerned, the fact that he had kids, the fact that the ANC didn't take care of its own.

CHAIRPERSON: But he tenders that paragraph as reasons for committing the crime or crimes?