Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1999-04-29

MR KINCAID: I appreciate that Mr Chairperson, it appears to have been an application for general amnesty based on their convictions in the Supreme Court.  I realise that some of the offences for which they were charged, not all the applicants were found guilty, some of them were and some of them not.  Maybe I do need a sit down and be more specific in what is actually being applied for.  To do that I'd appreciate a little bit of time.  I may have misunderstood the whole purpose of this application, by having regard to the Provisions of Section 20 of the Act, I was of the view, rightly or wrongly, that it's not what was committed but it was with what purpose, with what objective, with what motive, these acts were committed, that is of importance and that is why through the applicant I have attempted to establish the conflict in the community in which he lived in and why it was decided to attack the particular victims which they did.  So I didn't, when I led the applicant, I didn't really deal with the merits of the application, I kind of accepted the fact that they were guilty of the acts with which they were charged and rightly convicted and that the convictions aren't being attacked.  What we have attempted to show the Committee is the reason why we committed those acts and what motivated us and what the purpose was.  So that's why it was left as a general broad application but if you're inviting me to be more specific then I see the merits of doing so, I would just appreciate some time with which to apply my mind to that aspect.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, in fact we did not actually - it would have been good if you had but we thought that you would probably not have applied your mind completely to that at this state which often is something that happens in argument but if your application, if this applicant's application annexed to the offences in respect of which he had been convicted in the criminal trial then of course that is an indication of the ambit of the application at this stage but if you can specify further than that or more closely then of course it would assist but in any case, I mean, the other submissions that you've made, you know, what motivated your clients and the background, obviously those are very, very relevant issues for our purposes.   Don't see it as a sort of a criticism of what has happened here, it's just that we want to help to focus the process and we thought that if we have some clear indication as to the particular offences that your client to be asking amnesty for then it will assist us so if it is only those that he was convicted for then of course, you know, it's clear but if you want to specify it further it will assist.

MR KINCAID: Thank you Mr Chairperson, I think in the case of this particular applicant it is most definitely those offences of which he was convicted.  I know in his statement to the investigator, Mr Jabu, he makes mention of a criminal act, the act of burning the garage of a farmer known as Madameni.  No amnesty is being sought for that, he wasn't as he correctly points out, he wasn't charged or convicted of that offence.  Say for the purpose of this application and for the purpose of this applicant if we can just accept, if the Committee can just accept that it is amnesty sought for the offences for which he was convicted of and which I've set out in the judgement, you know, annexure at ...[intervention]

MS PATEL: Honourable Chairperson, if I may be of assistance to my learned colleague, on page 12 of the bundle the offences for which this applicant is being found guilty and the sentences received for those defences are in fact set out.

MR KINCAID: That is the reference I was looking for Mr Chairperson, thank you Ms Patel.

CHAIRPERSON: No, thank you very much and Ms Patel as well, yes it does focus the enquiry slightly more.  My colleague just reminds me that it might be a good idea when you do address at the end of the proceedings perhaps to prepare in respect of each one of your clients a specific list of offences.  That would assist.

MR KINCAID: I shall do so, Mr Chairman.  Have you got re-examination Mr Kincaid?

MR KINCAID: Thank you Mr Chairperson.
	Jimmy, you were asked by the evidence leader or more by way of comment she commented that none of your victims, none of the farmers who you attacked were in fact invited or told that they should leave their farms.  Did you really expect them, Jimmy, to abandon their farms just by mere verbal invitation?  Did you really think that that was going to happen or did you appreciate that it was only going to be through violence and intimidation that you were ever going to persuade anyone to abandon their property?

ADV BOSMAN: Isn't that perhaps a bit too much of a leading question?

MR KINCAID: Let me rephrase that.  The comment was made, Jimmy, that no verbal invitation was every extended to the victims of your attacks.  Do you confirm that?

JIMMY NOKAWUSANA: No, what I'm saying is they were told because it was also announced over the radio that they were saying that they were not going to leave their farms.

MR KINCAID: So when you visited the farmers, Mr Hansel, Mr Cobus and Mr Pretorius, Ms Marulia, did you know that they were not going to be leaving their farms, that to leave their farms verbal persuasion wasn't going to be enough?

JIMMY NOKAWUSANA: Yes that is correct, we knew that they were not going to leave.  We wanted to intimidate them to leave or threaten them so that they can leave their farms.

MR KINCAID: Jimmy, when you were questioned by the legal representative for Mrs Clackers, you mentioned that whilst you were in the roadblock formation, when you and your colleagues were manning roadblocks, ad hoc decisions were taken at those roadblocks.  Do you confirm that part of your testimony?

JIMMY NOKAWUSANA: Yes I do confirm that.

MR KINCAID: These ad hoc decisions, Jimmy, were they just decisions taken at roadblocks or was the decision to attack the farmers also an ad hoc decision?

JIMMY NOKAWUSANA: These decisions were taken in a meeting on a soccer ground, that's where we took these decisions.

MR KINCAID: So the two decisions, the two meetings held subsequent or consequent on the shooting at Matamela Hall decided that the farmers were to be targeted, that was not an ad hoc decision taken by you or your applicants at a roadblock?

JIMMY NOKAWUSANA: Yes that is correct, those decisions were concluded on the soccer field, it was not only ourselves who took those decisions.

MR KINCAID: And were there any leadership figures at that meeting?  The two meetings on the soccer field?

JIMMY NOKAWUSANA: Yes there were leaders, people like Umfana Green and Michael Manele, Randele Manele.

MR KINCAID: These were community leaders as you're testified earlier, the two that you mentioned were community leaders?

JIMMY NOKAWUSANA: Yes that is correct.

MR KINCAID: You've been asked to confirm, Jimmy, the contents of the statement you made to the TRC investigator, Mr Jabu, in July of last year.  I similarly ask you whether you contents of the affidavit you deposed to in April of this year.  Do you confirm the contents of that affidavit, Jimmy?

JIMMY NOKAWUSANA: Yes I confirm that.

MR KINCAID: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Kincaid, does that conclude the evidence of this applicant?

MR KINCAID: It does, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR KINCAID
WITNESS EXCUSED