Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1997-05-16

ADV TSHONGWENI: I do have enough copies, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: We will make them available in a moment.

ADV TSHONGWENI: Mr Chairman, as you would see the yellow or gold copies are the latest which have been submitted on the 12th of May, this year by the ANC.

JUDGE WILSON: Can we keep these copies?

ADV TSHONGWENI: You can keep them, Mr Chairman.  Mr Chairman, if I can take you to the first statement, which is headed "Statement to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission", a black and white copy. On page 64, first column, paragraph 3, which starts with an extract. On page 64, the left column.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes?

ADV TSHONGWENI: The paragraph which begins with the words "An extract from the ANC's discussion document entitled broad guidelines and organs of people's power".
The ANC submitted that it made a call to the communities to defend themselves and take initiatives, where necessary in order to defend themselves. If I may read the code therefrom, which reads:
"The forms of armed action and self-defence activity varied. The march revolutionary violence of the people, units to protect leaders of people's committees and democratic organisations.  A system of patrolling the streets and warning signals, units to harass enemy patrols, attacks on enemy encampments, alienation of agents ..."
And which is relevant to this matter, is -
"... procurement of weapons."
This was also confirmed in the latest submission where questions were put to ANC leaders as to their role and connection with the SDUs. They confirmed this position, but they admitted that in other instances things went wrong, because these structures were manned by members of the communities themselves.  They were not controlled by the headquarters of the ANC.  
	So one would appreciate that in all this conflicts of the past, one would appreciate that number one, there was a conflict of the past.  Secondly, when addressing the conflict of the past by either party, something would go wrong, as it has been accused by all the applicants. 
	In short, Mr Chairman, I wanted to highlight that in respect of applicant Nos 1 and 3, they responded to a call made by the ANC, that communities should defend themselves. As to the nitty-gritty and the rules of how one should conduct such operations, it was left to the communities.  That is why we are here today, listening to people giving their experiences of the conflict of the past.  
	In regard to applicant No 2, a question was asked to him, whether he still regards applicant 1 and 2 as enemies, and he answered no, because of the changes which took place in South Africa and he thought that the spirit of reconciliation should prevail.  
	Thank you, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Do you wish to say anything?

MS THABETHA: I wish to say something.  Can you give me one second to complete my sentence.

JUDGE WILSON: While you are doing that, can I ask something that has nothing to do with this application.  When did these become available, these new submissions?

ADV TSHONGWENI: A limited number of copies were submitted at Cape Town TRC offices there.

JUDGE WILSON: So they have got them there.

ADV TSHONGWENI: They are - yes, they do have some of the copies, but it is a limited number. As far as my recollection can take me, only limited numbers were given to the Presiding Commissioners at that time.

JUDGE WILSON: Do you know if the other submissions are also available, the other parties?

ADV TSHONGWENI: The National Party submission is available, and today, I want to believe the Freedom Front is making a submission.

JUDGE WILSON: And the PAC?

ADV TSHONGWENI: No idea whether they are making a submission or not.

JUDGE WILSON: Thank you.
MS THABETHA ADDRESSES COMMITTEE ON MERITS OF CASE
Without repeating what my learned friend has said, I would be brief to say that concerning the matter of Moalosi, I think the big question is, was the murder of Mr Plaatjies associated with a political objective.
	According to the evidence that the applicant has furnished to us today, it appears that even though he ended up shooting the wrong man, he had aimed at an MK member, who had assaulted him before, for reasons that he was an opponent or that he was an enemy.	  
	Concerning the applicant, Mr Cholota and Mr Thoabala. From their evidence it appears that they acted, they assaulted Mr Plaatjies, in furtherance of the ANC as an organisation, and as my learned friend has read the ANC policy, I have no objections to that. I mean, it is an ANC, it is the organisation which has today stated its policy.  However, I think the question as well is, was Mr Plaatjies the enemy; was he one of the people who acted against the ANC. Unfortunately we have no evidence to the contrary, to the effect that Mr Plaatjies was not a gang member. We have heard the evidence of the sister, but as she gave her evidence, it became apparent that she can't say with certainty whether what the activities of Mr Plaatjies were.

JUDGE WILSON: I think her evidence is just as reliable as the evidence that he was a gang member.

MS THABETHA: That's what I wanted to say, that I think at the end of the day we have got two contradicting evidence, in the sense that the applicant says he was a member, the sister says he wasn't a member.

JUDGE WILSON: On the evidence we have heard, isn't it overwhelmingly improbable that he would have been any party to the murder that was committed by this gang, that he would have been totally opposed to a member of his family having been killed or a potential member of his family?

MS THABETHA: I was referring to him being a member of the Noxie gang, not necessarily that the activity of the death of Mr Qukwa who was murdered by the gang.
	It appears as if as Mr Cholota and Mr Thoabala were acting as members of the ANC and the act was committed in reaction, according to their evidence, the act was committed in reaction to a political conflict, if I may put it like that.  
	In my opinion I have no objections to whatever the Committee decides. I have no objections to them granting amnesty.

JUDGE WILSON: There is one point I would like to ask you about, which I unfortunately neglected to put to the applicant when he gave his evidence, and this relates to the applicant Moalosi.  If you look at his application, the annexure to his application at page 29 of the papers, under the third paragraph, he says "I was under the strong influence of liquor that night". That, his evidence was that they had gone to the tavern to enjoy themselves and that this happened when they were leaving, which I think supports the conclusion that he probably was - are you prepared to accept that he was under the influence?

MS THABETHA: Yes, I do.

JUDGE WILSON: Thank you.  Anything in reply?

ADV TSHONGWENI: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I have nothing to reply.

ADV DE JAGER: I think perhaps one should point out that Mr Moalosi also said "I wanted to stop them from attacking people who did not support them. I wanted to stop them from forcing their will on people who didn't agree with them".  Wouldn't that also point to a political objective?

ADV TSHONGWENI: That is correct, Mr Commissioner. As I have stated there in my address,  I said that you were either on the side of the comrades or of the enemy at that time.

ADV DE JAGER: And enemy or a friend.

ADV TSHONGWENI: An enemy or a friend, unfortunately, and that is what the Commission has to address.  Thanks, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: I think he went a little further even, didn't he? He said he also wanted to protect or stop them attacking people, particularly those working for the government, who had not done them any harm.  So it was a very much political, that you support one side or the other, wasn't it?

ADV TSHONGWENI: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: We will adjourn this matter and give our decision in due course.   And have you got good news for us now?