Amnesty Hearings — Tzaneen — 1999-06-30

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes Chairperson, I agree withyou fully that there is no concrete evidence that it was frequented by rightright-wingers, but as I put it that it was not the case that the attack wasbecause it was frequented by right right-wingers.  Chairperson, coming to the- and also Chairperson, all the people in line of command, Lethlapa Mpahlelawho gave authority, I need not go to that, the Committee knows about LethlapaMpahlela, his role within APLA and it has been confirmed by Gen Fihla that itcame to their knowledge after this incident.
        Chairperson,coming to the evidence, Chairperson, I wouldn't like to put my neck on the blockon what happened, but I would like the Committee to take into account the eventsof that day, that this incident happened almost six years ago, if my calculationsare correct, 1993, and everything happened very quickly.  Chairperson, I neednot preach to you, all of you, you are experienced more than myself, all ofus we can witness one incident here, but if we are called upon to narrate, youwill doubt that other people were present when this happened.  Not necessarilybecause they are lying, but it is always the human factor, I don't know, I wouldn'tlike to say what is the reason, but that is my experience. 
        What I amtrying to say is that there might be some discrepancies as to what actuallyhappened actually there, but the fact is the applicants, they are saying "yes,we did it, it was us, we went there.  We committed this offence."

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Mbandazayo, I think the questionis whether all of these discrepancies are of a material nature.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes Chairperson, through youChairperson, I am just going there Chairperson, that definitely it is my submissionthat the discrepancies which are there, are not of material nature that theChairperson would see that they are make or break.  Those are minor discrepancieswith regard for instance if I may take the evidence of Mr Swanepoel, takinginto account the situation in which he was, terrified, pointed with a gun, alsodefinitely the Committee have to take into account his observation would beat least, definitely somebody in his position won't be to be able to say thatthe applicant, especially the first applicant, that he was the person who waspointed, except to say that because the applicant has admitted that he is theperson who was carrying an AK47.  For instance if I can take to, it was notdisputed though he disputed in his evidence that the shooting, the Commanderwent outside, on the outside window, there was a shooting and then he came backinside the house and also there was a shooting with the wife of the applicant.
        If one takesthat into account, it may not have been disputed because the victim was goingto testify, but if one takes that into account, one would come to what I havealready said that it is always the human factor, not necessary even to say,I am not saying Mr Swanepoel is lying, what I am saying it is how he recollectsthe events of the day and which is the same with the applicants, it is how theyrecollect the events of the day as to how it happened.  It is therefore Chairperson,my submission that the differences in what happened on that day in questionexactly in the house, as whether they shot whilst Mr Swanepoel was running insidethe house and trying to close the door and whether he was shot before he wentinside the house.  What I am trying to say is that the fact of the matter isand it is not disputed that the deceased was shot with a pistol, she was notshot with an AK47 and the person who was carrying a pistol, was the Commander,Prince and that the first applicant was carrying an AK47.  That Chairperson,I think is very important.  I would understand it if the victim, it would sayit was material if the applicant was saying that he was shot with a pistol,whilst he was shot with an AK47.

CHAIRPERSON: What you are saying is thesediscrepancies, none of them can lead one to deduce that the applicants wereplaying down any role that they might have played?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Exactly Chairperson, becauseit remains ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: And you are saying if he wasarmed with the pistol and then said he was shot with an AK47, which was foundto be incorrect, then one could arrive at the conclusion that he intentionallymade that statement to protect or lessen his liability, but that is not thecase with these discrepancies?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: On both versions it seems clearthat the bullet was fired from a pistol and that Modau had the pistol?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes Chairperson, and also Chairperson,it would have been easy for the applicant to say look, "I did not evenattempt to kill Mr Swanepoel".  On his own he said "my firearm jammed,I wanted to kill him when he was running."  It was easy for him becausenobody knows, to say, "look, I did not even attempt to do anything"and it is my submission Chairperson, that taking into account the events andwhat has been said to this Committee even by Gen Fihla, it is clear that theirmotive was to attack Chairperson.  If they went there for robbery, it is mysubmission that I don't see any reason for them not to shoot their way throughthat door, and go and take whatever they wanted to take, if that was the case.
        And alsoChairperson, the fact that the deceased had a firearm, it is clear though MrSwanepoel said the safe was locked, one - unfortunately, I didn't want to takehim through the events of the day because I could see that it is taking himback, but it is clear that definitely I suppose that also the firearm of thewife was kept in a safe, and it will be my submission that definitely, I don'tthink at that time, it was locked, the safe, as it was put here that he wastrying to open the safe at that time.  I am not trying to say that he is lying,but I what I am trying to say is that this all revolves around the fact thatit is a human factor, because things happened a long time ago and all this happenedfast.  Therefore Chairperson, it is my humble submission taking into accountthe previous decisions of the Committee, not necessarily this Committee on someof the issues involving farm attacks, which one I would quote, the DannysideFarm which happened on 19 November 1992, it happened when Adv Bosman was involvedin East London, which somebody, Mrs - Leon Pretorius died as a result of APLAattacks on the farm which of course was spelt out it was the policy.  
        Chairpersonwithout boring you, it is my submission that the applicants have made theircase in respect of the requirements of the Act and that on that basis, it istherefore my humble submission that they should be granted amnesty as appliedby them.  Chairperson, unless the Committee wants me to address it on any specificissue?

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mbandazayo.  MrVan Rensberg?