Amnesty Hearings — Mabopane — 1998-08-07

MR VAN DEN BERG: Yes, we would agree with that.  There is also the doctrine of common purpose which would come into it.
	If one then has reference to the criteria set out in Section 20, Sub 3, the motive of each of the applicants has been covered in their formal written application.  The context of the act or the context in which the act took place was summarised by the witness we called, Mr Lehobye.
	The legal and factual nature of the act is probably best encapsulated by the evidence of the applicant Makhura.  We heard from each of the applicants how the target was identified.  We'd from the applicant, Masango in respect of the reconnaissance and the preparatory work that was done, but at the end of the day the act was the death of Brigadier Molope.  
	There is the question of the proportionality of the act.  We heard this morning a suggestion that Molope died in a hail of bullets.  It would appear that he was shot 21 times but it is not as if Molope was kidnapped and tortured to death, it's not as if, it's difficult to say that this was a plain and straightforward assassination but that is really what it was.
	There was also the evidence of the applicant, Makhura, in respect of what arms and ammunition he had available to him and there was nothing which prevented them from throwing a handgrenade into the house.  	There was direct evidence from Masango and from Makhura in respect of the civilians present on the premises.  There was evidence that there was a woman and a child on the premises and that steps were taken to ensure that they were not caught in the cross-fire.
	I would submit that what the applicants sought to achieve and the means which they used to achieve that, that those were proportionate in the overall context of the struggle in South Africa. 
	In respect of an order, they've testified to a broad mandate.  The fact that the unit was tasked, that it was an elimination or an assassination unit and that it was tasked by Chris Hani with a category or categories of the persons who would be legitimate targets.  There is also the evidence that they reported back on this incident and on other incidents.
	There is no evidence of any personal malice on the part of the applicants against the deceased.  There is also no evidence of any personal gain.  It is so that the four applicants are now in one or other form employees of the state with the exception of the applicant Mr Masango.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think that that qualifies as personal gain, some employment that was received some eight years after the event.  I think personal gain we all know means getting a fee or a payment for a specific job done at the time or thereabouts.

MR VAN DEN BERG: I'm indebted Mr Chairman.
	Sub-Section 1(c) then requires that the applicants make full disclosure.  They have each candidly confessed their role in the death of Brigadier Molope.  It would have been very easy for the applicants, Masina and Potsane to say that all they had was knowledge but each and every one of them has associated themselves with the act, has associated themselves with the target identification and with the ends sought to be achieved.
	There is the painful aspect that the elimination took place at the home of the lover of the deceased but that was something that was particularly relevant and which had to come out.  The applicants may be criticised for the fact that they couldn't recall the number of bullets, the number of time that the deceased ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: The evidence in that regard was that Mr Makhura said that he counted them, him and Justice but he can't recall the number.  I'm sure that at the time of shooting, when you're using an automatic rifle, two automatic rifles being shot at the same time, you don't count the number of shots you hear.  I don't think that it's too serious.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you Mr Chairman.  There is also of course the passage of 12 years since this incident took place.
	In the circumstances we would respectfully submit that they have fulfilled the criteria as set out in the Act and that they are entitled to amnesty for the death of Brigadier Molope.
	Thank you Mr Chairman.  I have ...[inaudible]

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
	Mr Mpshe?

UNKNOWN: Thank you Mr Chairman.  Mr Chairman, in as far as the requirements are concerned, I'll start with the political objective.  I do not have anything to say to that Mr Chairman.
	In as far as full disclosure as well is concerned, Mr Chairman I discussed this with my learned friend that I find myself in a difficult position in that if you gainsay what has been said you must be able to substitute and say: "This is the truth", but in this incident I find myself in a difficult position in that before the applicants could come forward some other person has allegedly claimed to have done the job.  And in addition, this was not part of evidence but the PAC as well stood up and said: "We are responsible".  Now that clouds my mind further.  Unfortunately in this regard Mr Chairman, I cannot assist the Committee, so I'll leave it to the able decision of the Committee.
	Mr Chairman, the only aspect I want to refer to is the one referred to by my learned friend, one of the criteria under Section 20, Sub-Section 3, paragraph (f) and more particularly to what he said about the aspect of proportionality.  Mr Chairman, even if we are not sure as to how many bullets were used, but  ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: We know that it was a significant amount of bullets and probably the amount mentioned by Mrs Molope may be the correct amount.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman, I will abide by that Mr Chairman.  I will not belabour that point any further but just to draw the Committee's attention to that aspect.  That will be all.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van den Berg, it won't be necessary for you to submit further heads of argument.

MR VAN DEN BERG: That means I can have Monday off, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we will reserve our decision which we hope will be made public as soon as possible in the near future.
	Before we adjourn I would just like to thank first of all the authorities for allowing us to use this very nice and convenient venue for the hearing.  I would like to thank all the people who have made this hearing possible and all the people who work in the Logistics Department of the TRC, Mr Mpshe and others, our secretary Sonja how helped set up the meetings.  I'd like to thank the Interpreters for the work that they have done, it was very good.  I'd like to thank the police for the security arrangements that they've conducted at this hearing, it's been very good indeed.  I'd also like to thank all the people who have come to listen to the hearing.  The media for being here, thank you very much indeed.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Yes, Mr Chairman, before we adjourn, the ...[indistinct]

CHAIRPERSON: There's the question of victims.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: With regard to Exhibit A, I've established that that comes from the Sunday Times but I could not establish the date but that is a Sunday Times article.
	Mr Chairman, further I want to make an application in compliance with Section 22 of the Act, that the following people be declared victims in this incident.  I will mention their names Mr Chairman.
1.	Gadifele, spelt: G-A-D-I-F-E-L-E, Sinah: S-I-N-A-H Molope.
2.	Chelane, spelt: C-H-E-L-A-N-E, Gideon Molope.
3.	Lydia Morongwa, spelt: M-O-R-O-N-G-W-A Maphule, spelt: M-A-P-H-U-L-E.  
That is the daughter Mr Chairman, she is married now.  The last one:
4.	Lentheng, spelt: L-E-N-T-H-E-N-G, Violet Keetse, spelt
K-E-E-T-S-E.
That is another daughter, also married and who has a change of surname.  Their address Mr Chairman, is:
292 Unit D MABOPANE, MABOPANE spelt
M-A-B-O-P-A-N-E.
Thank you.  That will be all Mr Chairman, thank you.
HEARING ADJOURNS