Amnesty Hearings — Carltonville — 1998-08-12

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Honourable Chairperson.  May I, without really taking a lot of time, take your honourable selves to the period before September 1991, in South Africa and in particular in the townships of the Rand, the West Rand in this instance.
	This was a period where there was a lot of political activity amongst young people.  The political activity that obtained at that stage has been described to the TRC and I believe to members of this Committee by the ANC when it gave its submissions to the TRC.  I know for a fact that the Honourable Chairperson has had recourse to these documents, and I am not sure whether the other Commissioners had had benefit of that.  
	It is in these documents that it becomes very clear that the period before September '91, there was a clear-cut strategy from the government to sow a lot of unrest in our townships, and a result of that was we had people being motivated to go into self-defence units and they call themselves in different names.  
	It is in the ANC's submissions that it becomes clear that there were third force elements that were running chaos in the townships and it has become something of common knowledge that one of the tactics used buy the government then, was to create a lot of anarchy in the townships, create a lot of crime in the townships to make people disillusioned with everything, and I believe that the township of Kutsaong was nothing different, the township of Kutsaong was in the same situation as all other townships.
 	Now although the self-defence unit in the area was not formally launched, not even the Youth League was formally launched, but we see that we had youngsters in Kutsaong who believed that they had a duty like all other youngsters in the country, to protect their communities.  And it is my humble submission that this duty was a political duty than perhaps what one would call a citizen's duty.  
	We are here Mr Chairperson and Honourable Committee Members, talking about a community that would, if not political, would not be organised.  There general trend at that stage was that it has to be political for people to be together, there was nothing like a citizen's duty.
	Having gone through that, I believe that the two deceased persons, in more ways than one, resembled the pattern of third force elements that ruined the townships.  And it is my humble submission that the applicants and their fellow comrades who decided to go and look for these deceased persons, to find them, it's my submission that their intention was clearly political, there was not citizen's duty, they did not do it because they felt that everybody had to stop crime, but the feeling was that the crime perpetuated in the townships was something pushed by a bigger force, and it therefore was political.
	Now may I briefly deviate from what I'm talking about and perhaps go into what I would perhaps refer to as untested evidence before this Honourable Committee.  This is the evidence of Mr Nzeku, which came to us in a form of an affidavit.  Mr Nzeku says that the applicants were members of a break-a-way movement.  
	It is also common cause now in this Committee that Mr Nzeku was a secretary of the region in this area, not even the sub-region and not the branch.  And it is my submission that he is the last person amongst the last witness that we had here and perhaps Jeremiah Ramogatedi who came to us through an affidavit, Mr Nzeku would be the last one to know if people were still members or not members, because of his situation, because of where he was situated.  I would therefore ask that this Committee reject his evidence inasfar as that is concerned.  	He goes on to give an opinion that the killings were not politically motivated.  It is unfortunate that he has not come here, for all of us and Honourable Committee Members, to test why he says so.  
	I will then go to a gentleman named Jeremiah Ramogatedi.  It appears from this unlabelled document, that is the document that I've handed in, that Jeremiah Ramogatedi was one of the office bearers.  He appears as a media information and publicity secretary in that document.  However, he seems to say in his affidavit that he was the Secretary of the ANC Youth League at that stage.  The fact of the matter is, there was no ANC Youth League, it was only an Interim Structure and the General Secretary was G Mahuma, Gordon Mahuma, the witness we've just heard.  And therefore, this very glaring discrepancy in his statement makes me ask that his evidence also be treated with extra caution.  	He mentions in paragraph 3 ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: But that we could only really reject or accept, either persons' evidence, if there was any evidence of the exact date when the official organisation has been launched.  Was it before September or was it after September 1991?

MR KOOPEDI: I will concede that there is no formal evidence as to when it was launched.

CHAIRPERSON: He says in paragraph 3
"During September 1991, I was the Secretary of the ANC Youth League"
which means that he was elected either in September or sometime before that, because during September he was the secretary.

MR KOOPEDI: Without really making a bit issue out of that, I would like to say that:  1)  because his evidence has not been tested: 2)  because of the evidence that has been given by the applicants here, and Mr Mahuma, and perhaps because of my perusal of the document I have handed in, I believe that if one of the applicants, Mr van Rooyen was already arrested, he would then not be a member as it appears here, and therefore I am still trying to dwell on this point that I believe that this document was drawn up somewhere between the 7th of April and September.  And if that is the case, it is clear from this document that at this stage there was still that Interim Structure.  But I would not like to dwell much on that.
	What I would want to say, like I said, is that his evidence be treated with extra caution, hence I was not suggesting it be rejected or accepted.  What is noteworthy of his affidavit is that he does not go on and say the applicants were members of a break-a-away group.  He is a person who has been in Kutsaong at all times and most certainly he would know if they belonged to a break-a-away group, but all he says here is that SL van Rooyen was a member of the Kutsaong ANC Youth League at that time.  Evidence is that before they were arrested, they Youth League was not launched, it was only launched after their arrest.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Koopedi, I think you're correct in saying that we should treat the affidavits with caution because they didn't give oral evidence and you didn't have the opportunity to cross-examine them, so we will bear that in mind.

MR KOOPEDI: I also wish to address a point on Mr Ramogatedi's affidavit, the 7th paragraph where he states that the ANC refused to arrange and pay for their defence.  I would also draw from personal knowledge in this instance.  At this stage the ANC was not paying for anyone's expenses, no matter what the offence was.  	The Honourable Committee Members may recall that at that stage there was a fund called: "Saldev", and this is the fund that assisted ANC people and not ANC directly.  I would also want to mention that the applicants here have stated what is my opinion somewhat uncontested evidence, to the effect that in fact their Legal Aid application was facilitated by the ANC, and that being the case and the fact that their evidence is in my opinion not contested, I would then ask that the evidence on this paragraph be rejected, in that in fact one can safely say that the legal defence, the ultimate pro deo defence that came about was a result of an initiation of the ANC, to have the people represented.
	Now in closing up I would also want to ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: Wasn't anybody who has been charged with murder entitled to pro deo defence?