Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1998-04-28

CHAIRPERSON: The point of the matter is that these applications are very important to a number of people. We are not playing the fool here.

MR HOLE: Certainly not.

CHAIRPERSON: And we need to be equipped and acquaint ourselves with the facts of the matter in order to make a decision. The wanton disregard for the procedures of this committee is not something that I am happy with. Now I want to ask you one question also that would you agree that we are not compelled to listen to this application, not so? Because we have only received this affidavit yesterday.

MR HOLE: Sir I would concede that the applications were only received yesterday.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja but we are not compelled then to hear the matter.

MR HOLE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Because of that.

MR HOLE: Certainly the committee would not be compelled to do anything that is outside the Act.

CHAIRPERSON: Or the rules?

MR HOLE: Or the rules yes formulated under the Act.

CHAIRPERSON: Now why should we continue with the hearing?

MR HOLE: Sir I cannot say much more than to, in the light of what I have tried to explain to the committee through you Mr Chairman. I would in the interest of these people that I have to, and certainly not in my own interest ask that notwithstanding the fact that the rules of this committee have been breached in the sense of noncompliance with them, ask that this committee should in the interest of these applicants and perhaps in the interest of any family members of the victims who might be here, I am not aware of any, if any of them are here. That this committee should, even if reluctantly condone the non-compliance and deal with the matter in the ordinary course. It might well be Mr Chairman that rules have been breached but the circumstances for that have been laid before yourself Sir and the committee should rather exercise its discretion in this instance and try and lean in favour of the families of the victim and then the applicants themselves. Perhaps deal with the attorney or any party who may have been party to any negligence at a later stage. If that might be necessary.

CHAIRPERSON: Well now that you raise that issue I want you to think of the following point I want to make with you. So that you can argue the point when we come to the end of this hearing. I understand that this application has been funded to the Legal Aid Board. Is that correct?

MR HOLE: The position is that an application has been made to the Legal Aid Board and they still up to date have not replied.

CHAIRPERSON: I want you to argue the following point why we should grant fees for yesterday. When the time comes I want you to argue that, okay?

MR HOLE: Certainly yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes we happy to proceed with the matter.

MR HOLE: I am grateful to you Sir. Thank you Mr Chairman. Sir I had discussed a point with the evidence leader, subject to what the committee will say Sir. I intended proceeding with the application in the following manner Sir. Namely to read the statements of the applicants, if the committee will allow me and ask a few questions of them. And there later there the committee members and the evidence leader ask them questions. I know this looks somewhat different to what the other applicants have done. I do not know if, I am asking for directions from the committee in this instance.

CHAIRPERSON: As I understand the versions of both will be the same?

MR HOLE: Certainly yes Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there any reason why we should not hear the evidence of one only and deal with both applications on the basis of that evidence?

MR HOLE: That would short circuit things and save the time of the commission yes.

CHAIRPERSON: But is there any reason why we should not do that?

MR HOLE: None that I can think of not Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Are there any other agreements you have come to with the evidence leader?

MR HOLE: Sir the agreement that we have reached is that there is no dispute as far as to the circumstances that prevailed in the Ciskei at the time of the offence. The only point on which we could not come to an agreement is their participation and the extent thereof, of each of the applicants in the commission of the offence. It appears that the circumstances in Ciskei and the effect of the headmen system are common cause between ourselves and the evidence leader.

CHAIRPERSON: But is there, the different participation or the participation of the different applicant a matter of dispute?

MR HOLE: Only in the sense Sir that the evidence leader indicated that he might want to hear the applicants orally in that regard.

CHAIRPERSON: Can we Mr Mapoma leave that matter in abeyance until the first applicant or whoever gives evidence first, then we can decide on the issue?

MR MAPOMA: Certainly Sir. I am (...indistinct) with that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes then proceed?

MR HOLE: Thank you Mr Chairman Sir. May I then Sir with the leave of the committee call Mr Makapela (...indistinct)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Makapela do you have any objections to the taking of the oath?

ZUKO ZUKILE MAKAPELA: No objections.

CHAIRPERSON: Then would you please stand?

ZUKO ZUKILE MAKAPELA: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Be seated.

MR HOLE: May I proceed Sir? Thank you. Mr Makapela is it correct that you are resident at Apagumashe area in Alice?

ZUKO ZUKILE MAKAPELA: That is correct.

MR HOLE: And you make application for amnesty in respect of your participation in the killing of the late Mr Maseti in Alice?

ZUKO ZUKILE MAKAPELA: That is correct.

MR HOLE: And you are presently doing a diploma in marketing at the Oxford University College in East London?

MR HOLE: Is it correct that during 1990 there was disturbances in the Ciskei area where residents attacked and tried to force headmen out of the Ciskei?

ZUKO ZUKILE MAKAPELA: Correct.

MR HOLE: Is it also correct Sir that whilst this turmoil was going on a coup took place, led by the military in the Ciskei?

ZUKO ZUKILE MAKAPELA: That is so.

MR HOLE: And is it correct Sir that later after this coup a government was formed led by the military?

ZUKO ZUKILE MAKAPELA: Correct.

MR HOLE: What was the attitude of the people of Ciskei and in particular your village in Apagumashe towards the military government shortly after it was formed?

ZUKO ZUKILE MAKAPELA: They approved of it.

MR HOLE: Is it also correct that one of the things that the military did was to remove the headmen who were a hated institution in Ciskei at the time?

ZUKO ZUKILE MAKAPELA: Correct.

MR HOLE: And do you know whether the headmen were ever reinstated into their positions?

ZUKO ZUKILE MAKAPELA: Please repeat your question?

MR HOLE: Sir do you know whether these headmen continued to be removed from their position or were they again reinstated?

ZUKO ZUKILE MAKAPELA: They were reinstated.

MR HOLE: Reinstated by the same government that had removed them?

ZUKO ZUKILE MAKAPELA: Correct.

MR HOLE: Somewhere in your statement Sir you say the headmen were seen by the people as being the stumbling block and as being what stood between yourselves and the liberation that the people wanted?

ZUKO ZUKILE MAKAPELA: That is so.

MR HOLE: Can you explain to the committee why you thought at that time that headmen were such an obstacle to the attainment of liberation?

ZUKO ZUKILE MAKAPELA: What would happen at the time is our people were under the ANC so would want pensions. They had to be under these headmen or be supportive of these headmen to get their pensions.

MR HOLE: And did the headmen belong to any particular organisation?

ZUKO ZUKILE MAKAPELA: They were under the tribal organisation.

MR HOLE: Do you know anything about the African Democratic Movement?

ZUKO ZUKILE MAKAPELA: It was formed after the coup by the army in Bisho. The headmen then joined this ADM.

MR HOLE: And you mentioned something about people getting pension. What was the procedure during the headmen time for attainment of pensions by old people?