Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1999-02-08

MR MOHLABA: Thank you Chair.  Yes, I was still saying that he mentioned that he did not get orders from Skananda, he met him in prison and he said I am prepared to take responsibility for that.
	Madam Chair, it would have been very easy if the applicant wanted to create a particular impression that orders were given to him by Skananda to come and say that in fact, yes, Skananda gave me these orders.  I have interacted with him before, but he does not come and tell that and I will say that that should come as a compliment on his part, that it only suggests that he tells the truth.  He does not go beyond the truth.

CHAIRPERSON: In as much as I would like to agree with you, why would it have been easier for him to maintain that version?  Why do you think it would have been easy for him to maintain that version that Skananda gave him orders, and that Skananda was his Commander.

MR MOHLABA: Because he would want to accord with his application form, and come and say to this Committee that my application form carries this information and I am here to corroborate it.  This is the truth.

CHAIRPERSON: You are aware obviously that we investigate all applications that come before us?

MR MOHLABA: Certainly I am aware of it.

CHAIRPERSON: And during the course of our investigations, we would have I think found out whether indeed this Skananda was or was not the Commander, so it would not have been that easy for the applicant just to name a name for the sake of naming and hoping that that would carry weight in his application.
	That name will have to be investigated, and would have had to serve notice on Mr Skananda  in terms of Section 19(4) as an implicated person and Mr Skananda might actually come here and tell a different story.  I wouldn't say it is that easy to name Skananda and maintain the version that he is a Commander and hope that your application will simply succeed, simply because you have given a name.

MR MOHLABA: Certainly Chair, I agree with the Chair.  It may not be within the applicant's knowledge that certain investigations are being done, notwithstanding that, he may not be aware that investigations are being done, he did not want to come and tender evidence which is not the truth, just to corroborate information which are in his form.
	I submit that giving that information as he did here, shall be attributed to honesty as opposed to dishonesty on his part.

CHAIRPERSON: I wouldn't ascribe it to anything, and I would prefer to leave it that way.  Had Mr Skananda indeed had been dead, and was that within the knowledge of the applicant, and he came here with the evidence saying that I know that Skananda is dead, however, I am now saying in as much as I said that in my application, that is in fact not so, then I would definitely say he is being honest, because he knows there is no way we can gain say what he says, because the person so implicated, has passed away.
	I don't think it is a point that needs to be belaboured that much.  
	Can I just ask you something whilst we are on this point.  Can one not assume that the fact that Skananda completed or advised the applicant to insert the fact that he was the Commander of the SDU, is not intended to suggest that Skananda was the overall Commander of the SDU's in the township?

MR MOHLABA: Madam Chair, it was mentioned here that his name has been mentioned but applicant never met with Skananda.  As we don't have evidence to that effect, one can assume that the applicant was at liberty to discuss and agree to be assisted by a person who is just a co-inmate in prison without any suspicion.  One may assume that is because this name was not being heard for the first time.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you may proceed Mr Mohlaba.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you Chair.  The last aspect of my address Madam Chair, it is the question of compliance with the Act with regard to the application form, and it was entangled in my previous address when I was dealing with the haphazardness of the evidence which was tendered here, and I would submit that the application form as it is, together with the evidence subsequently tendered, is able to shed and give some light to the Committee about the actual involvement of the applicant.
	The omission to state certain things in the application form, should be condoned.  Finally I would submit that the applicant has proved the, has complied with the Act in so far as the application form is concerned, supplemented by the subsequent oral evidence which was tendered here in that it is clear that there was a political objective which sought to be achieved by him in carrying out the act and that there was full disclosure of all relevant facts.
	Consequently I submit that the applicant has passed the test and I request the Chair to grant him amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabete?

UNKNOWN: Madam Chair and members of the Committee, without repeating what has already been said, my opinion, or I am of the view that notwithstanding the omissions that the applicant has made in his application, it does appear, I mean the political objective does appear from his application.
	For example in page 43 he says the act was committed in the struggle of large oppressed community, of a country, South Africa.  He does highlight the violence during the 1990's even though he doesn't specify the actual incident that he committed.
	Without repeating what my colleague has said, I would have no objection is amnesty is granted.  I don't know whether the Committee would like me to address them on a certain aspect, because I am avoiding repeating what my learned colleague has said.
	Also,  when looking at the independent Board of Enquiry which the Committee has copies of, and my learned friend also have copies of,  I don't know, I stand to be corrected, but from the way I heard the applicant's evidence to be, he didn't say that there weren't taxi attacks that occurred in the area, he just said that they did not occur all the time, or they scarcely occurred, I don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: Let me correct you.  He was very specific, this was the first incident that he knew of.

MS THABETE: I stand to be corrected, but from reading the Independent Board of Inquiry, there was on page 38 ...

CHAIRPERSON: Where is that, is that part of the record before us?  I have not heard Mr Mohlaba introducing that document to enable us to consider it, when we will decide whether to grant or deny his client amnesty.

MS THABETE: Well Madam Chair, I don't know whether I am breaking the laws of evidence, but I was under the impression that the Committee members have got a copy and I have given a copy to my colleague as well, hence I am referring to it.

CHAIRPERSON: I would have expected if there was going to be a reference to that document, for proper indeed, proper rules of procedure to have been followed by properly introducing that document.  I would have expected Mr Mohlaba to have done that or you to have done that.  You must have known that you would rely on that document?

MS THABETE: Madam Chair, I am not relying on it as such, but I was just highlighting that there was taxi violence in the Vosloorus area and I was just highlighting that by referring to this, but my submission is that I wouldn't have any objections if amnesty is granted.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you think any weight should be attached to the way in which Mr Selahle's application was completed, having regard to the fact that he completed his application whilst he was in prison?

MS THABETE: Madam Chair, my opinion would be he completed the form without any proper legal representation.  I would suggest that not too much weight should be attached, more especially because he does highlight the political conflict that occurred within the area even though he does not specify what his role was when Mr Mkhabela was killed.