Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1999-02-11

LEVY RAMONANA MAKOE: As a member of his unit I did not have the authority to question him or ask him why he wanted an order to be executed before that time, I had to follow orders only.

CHAIRPERSON: I know you followed orders, my question is did he advance any reason why his order had to be carried out by no later than 8 o'clock?  Did he advance any reason?

LEVY RAMONANA MAKOE: No, he did not advance any reason, but as a soldier I was not supposed to ask for reasons, I was going to ask for reasons after I had completed the job.

CHAIRPERSON: I am not saying you should have asked for a reason, I'm just asking whether your instructions were not followed by an explanation why an order had to be carried out by a particular time.

LEVY RAMONANA MAKOE: He did not give me reasons.

CHAIRPERSON: You must listen to a question carefully so that you are able to give us the information that is sought from a particular question.
	Where did Ace stay?

LEVY RAMONANA MAKOE: I did not know his actual place of stay.

CHAIRPERSON: How did you interact with him?  He was your commander, did you have a place where your unit met and from where you were given instructions by him?

LEVY RAMONANA MAKOE: The commissar of the unit who was his vice, advised us of the meeting points each time we were supposed to meet.  At times he would give us the meeting places individually.

CHAIRPERSON: And when this order was issued to you, where were you?

LEVY RAMONANA MAKOE: On the day of the issuing of the order I was going to my patrol point.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you in a house, were you in a meeting with other unit members?  I am trying to establish the place where Ace and yourself were when this order was given by him.

LEVY RAMONANA MAKOE: We were next to the shops where I used to patrol.  He knew exactly where to find each person he wanted.  That's how he managed to come to the point which I was about to patrol, he found me right there.

CHAIRPERSON: Was this outside the place where you patrolled?

LEVY RAMONANA MAKOE: It was in the street.  We only got into the houses, into the yards, for cover but he knew that I would be around that area.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Motepe, emanating from the questions to Mr Makoe by this Panel, do you have any re-examination to do on Mr Makoe?

MR MOTEPE: Indeed, Madam Chair.
	Mr Makoe, when the sister came to stop you, telling you that she has spoken to the street committee, did you know her as a member of the street committee?

LEVY RAMONANA MAKOE: No, I did not know members of the street committee as such.  Whether she was a member of the street committee or not, I did not know.

MR MOTEPE: Did she tell you where she met with the street committee, did they hold a meeting or did she speak with one member of the street committee?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Motepe, what is the relevance of the information you are seeking from your client and from which you want it to form part of the evidence in respect of his application?  Does it have any bearing at all?

MR MOTEPE: Indeed, I believe so.  I believe for him to follow his orders, that is defying what the lady was saying, he must have had a reasonable belief that at least she actually didn't meet the street committee.

CHAIRPERSON: No, that's not his evidence.  The evidence before us is that in any event Mr Makoe did not believe the lady, that what she was saying was the truth and that he believed that the lady would say anything in order to protect her relative from being killed.  That's the evidence.  Do you think you can take that issue any further in view of the fact that we have that kind of evidence before us?

MR MOTEPE: One just wanted to make sure that there is no blemish on his evidence, but if the Committee is satisfied I will stop there.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, because you are now seeking to elicit information which would make us question how you(sic) would have known that there had been a meeting, because he did not give the lady even an opportunity to give any elaborate explanation about the content of the street committee meeting because he did not believe.  That is the evidence before me.

MR MOTEPE: My apologies, I will stop.  I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MOTEPE

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Do you propose to call any further witnesses in support of Mr Makoe's application?

MR MOTEPE: No, not at all, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: You therefore close your case in respect of his application?

MR MOTEPE: That is correct, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabete, I believe there are no victims in this matter and this matter is unopposed.

MS THABETE: That is correct, Madam Chair.  Mr Motepe, are you in a position to address us now that you have closed your client's case?

MR MOTEPE: That is so indeed, Madam Chair.

MR LAX: You just need to put your mike on, Mr Motepe.

CHAIRPERSON: Please make sure that Mr Makoe's mike is off and yours is on, thank you.

MR MOTEPE COMMITTEE: Well we listened to the evidence of Mr Makoe as supplemented by the affidavit, and one can just ask himself a question as to the background of the applicant, whether he was a person who was involved in politics or not, and he says that very clearly ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Why should we ask ourselves?

MR MOTEPE: I'm not entering into the details, I'm just passing there.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I don't want details about that.  Just address us on whether the offence is an offence that can be associated with a political objective, that's all, bearing in mind that of course his version is a simple one, he was acting on instructions, he only executed the order of a commander.

MR MOTEPE: Well then I should move straight to the motive, as the Committee would like it to be.  The question then should be asked, was he indeed following orders of the commander and was there a political motive behind it, but first you have to find out was there any other reason except the political motive.
	And in my submission you couldn't say that there was any personal gain, there was no monies, no spite, as the Act 34/95 will want that to be clarified.  There was no personal gain, there was no monies, there was no spite.  
	In fact the only reasonable conclusion, if one analyses the evidence correctly, is that due to the circumstances prevailing then, the political situation, the tensions between the ANC and Inkatha which are common cause to this Committee, the applicant had no choice but to follow the command of his commander as it were and to indeed eliminate the victim.
	Should I continue?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please continue.

MR MOTEPE: And it is not an act that on his own he just decided to go about, he actually had instructions to eliminate this particular victim.  And as he had testified, a person in his position, that is a trained soldier, couldn't question the commander's command ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: That is not in dispute, we are not querying  whether he had any need to question the orders.

MR MOTEPE: As I've already stated, from the evidence which is not disputed it is very clear indeed that there was a political motive.  Unless if the Committee wants anything specific to be traversed ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: What do you say about whether he qualifies in terms of the subsections which are under Section 20(2)?

MR MOTEPE: Subsection 3.

CHAIRPERSON: To would subsection would you say your applicant, your client, qualifies under?

MR MOTEPE: Well in fact ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Subsection 2(a), (b), (c), (d)?

MR MOTEPE: Well I would submit that he qualifies under subsection 3(a - f).

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have a copy of your Act?

MR MOTEPE: Yes, I've made a copy.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you have recourse to Section 20(2)?

MR MOTEPE: Subsection 2.

CHAIRPERSON: And the sub-subsections under 2, there's (a), (b), (c), (d) and so forth.  To which section would you say Mr Makoe would fall under?