Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1999-03-24

ADV PRIOR: Today is the 24th of March 1999.  Mr Chairman, originally there were two matters scheduled for argument, one was the Unitra Robbery, where the applicant was Mr Maseko and the other one is the Yellowwoods Hotel Attack.  It's clear that at the last hearing in April, the Committee had indicated  that it wished to, before it gave judgment in the Unitra matter, it would either hear evidence or gain further information on the other 28 outstanding matters regarding Mr Maseko.  These matters still have not been scheduled for any hearing, Mr Chairman.
	There was one matter, the Lebanon AK Store in Westonaria, where Mr Maseko appeared before another Committee in November of last year, and he was granted amnesty in that matter for the killing of one, Mr de Sousa and the attempted murder of the other shop assistant, and robbery.  He was granted amnesty by a panel consisting of Ms Khampepe, Mr Malan and Ms Bosman.  Thank you.  Mr Chairman, it seems that this matter cannot be disposed of today.

CHAIRPERSON: I have a note dated the, made after the hearing of the 31st of March 1998, saying this applicant has applied for amnesty for 28 incidents.  The Unitra incident was heard and completed.  The attorney for the applicant, Mr Ntonga, is to consult with the applicant this week to obtain further information and details.  The remaining 27 incidents can then be investigated fully by our Investigation Unit, thereafter decisions can be made re setting down the new hearings and which matters should be heard in chambers.  It was decided that no argument be heard until the hearings had been finalised before the same Committee.  It would appear that nothing has been done in that connection, there hasn't been a full investigation by our Unit, as far as I know.

ADV PRIOR: Mr Chairman, I spoke to Advocate Coetzee this morning from Cape Town.  He indicated that those matters were still pending.  I understand from Mr Mbandazayo that affidavits have been supplied from Mr Maseko.  I understand that the Evidence Analyst, Ms Ntanga, has been working on the matter.  I am unable to tell the Committee what the status of the investigation is at this stage.  What I can report is that the matters are pending, they haven't yet been scheduled before any particular Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Well it was resolved here that we couldn't come to a decision, we wouldn't hear argument until the hearings had been finalised.

ADV PRIOR: If the Chairman will look at the note, or the report that I filed in October of last year, it was conveyed to the persons, for example, Advocate Coetzee's office, that the Unitra matter was one that the Committee required further investigation into the other incidents.  It was brought to his attention that further investigation was required.  Unfortunately I am unable to tell this Committee what the status of that investigation is.

CHAIRPERSON: I have seen an affidavit by the applicant, dealing with the Eastern Cape matters.

ADV PRIOR: I also understand that he has made other affidavits explaining the Gauteng matters, and those affidavits have been forwarded to our office in Cape Town.  I understand there's been quite a comprehensive communication between Mr Mbandazayo and our Evidence Analyst, Mr Ntanga, in this regard.  May the ...(indistinct) verify that.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you, Chairperson.  It is correct that I'm representing Mr Maseko in connection with all the Gauteng incidents in which he was involved.  All the affidavits regarding those incidents were submitted.  We made arrangements, it was in June last year.  He came down to St Albans Prison where I consulted with him for more than a week for all those incidents and after that the affidavits, though unsigned, are all in the office, in the TRC office.  All were faxed.  I still have copies on my computer in the office, for all the affidavits, but they are in the office, including the one he was granted amnesty for, it was there with them.  They were sent together, Chairperson.  Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I'd like to hear you on this subject.  It seems to me, and I think it seemed to all the Committee from the beginning, that the matters should be heard as one.  As I understand it, I haven't seen the papers in the others, but his attitude has been that he was in charge of the Repossession Unit and that he conducted numerous operations on behalf of that unit.  	Once one has come to a firm conclusion on that, then we can decide all the matters at once.  It would be very much quicker, very much more in the applicant's interest that they be heard as one rather than one Committee here, one Committee there and you've got to get transcripts and everything else.  So do you agree that the matter should be set down afresh, all the matters set down?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes.  Chairperson, I agree with you fully, that one Committee should handle all these matters, especially as you indicated that he was the head of that unit.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prior, what are your feelings?

ADV PRIOR: Well I share those sentiments, it's just that experience has shown that this Committee, it's taken virtually a year to get this Committee back together as constituted when it was hearing the matters, and that is the practical problem.
	Certainly Mr Chairman, it's advisable to do all the matters together.  And as you have correctly pointed out, if a decision is taken like it would appear, by another Committee in an incident up in Gauteng where the Amnesty Committee was satisfied that Mr Maseko acted within the provisions of the Act, Section 20 and granted him amnesty, it would seem to my mind that the other matters would obviously, if the corroborative evidence also indicated that would a matter of simply hearing the applicant on those matters and granting or handing down a decision without having a full-blown hearing.  I'm ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Well, Mr Prior, as you know perfectly well, the Act does not allow us to hand down decisions in matters where policemen have been killed, as they were in several of those other incidents, without having a hearing.

ADV PRIOR: Yes.  Mr Chairman, maybe just to mention, my understanding is also that in a lot of these matters there's just no trail, there's just, there's been difficulty in obtaining dockets, there's been difficulty in obtaining - but that, if you wish me to go into it, I can furnish this Committee with a detailed report on the status of the investigation and possibly that's something that should happen very quickly.

CHAIRPERSON: Have they considered the affidavits, because it appears the applicant is prepared to cooperate to the full in telling them when and where.  I find it very hard to believe that if a policeman was killed in the course of an armed robbery, there would not be records available.  This is not a body found lying in the veld somewhere, this is a matter that there would have been interest in.  You said that it had taken so long to get this Committee together again, well we're going to have to come together again to hear the, even if we decide we're only going to proceed with the University of the Transkei matter, we would certainly want to see the applications, the affidavits, the evidence led in other matters.  So you will have to reconstitute this Committee.  It seems to me that when that is done, set it down for a couple of days and set all the matters down.
	Because as I understand it, and I speak subject to correction, what will be at issue will not be so much the details of what happened, as the motive behind what happened, and the result.

ADV PRIOR: Mr Chairman, ...

CHAIRPERSON: It's always possible that five hundred thousand was more tempting than three hundred.