Amnesty Hearings — Pietermaritzburg — 1997-07-29

MR MIRANDA: Thank you Mr Chairman, committee.  The deceased's family has expressed to me that they leave the decision of the application for the amnesty by the applicants in the hands of the committee.  They also are thankful that they could be here and that they could be represented in this application for amnesty.  The deceased's wife, the widow, said that she is not in a position to forgive or forget what happened.  She is not in a position to forgive, because God Almighty is the only person that can forgive somebody for their sins and that is who, if one may use a term loosely, that is who they should be applying to to get, have their sins forgiven.
	She will never forget, because Mr Lombo was her first love, Mr Lombo was a loving husband and was a loving father to their children.  Subsequent to this killing of Mr Lombo, she has suffered tremendous hardships in having to emotionally and financially care for her family.  Her brother-in-law assisted her in this regard and she is thankful for that.  Nothing further.  Thank you.

ADV POTGIETER: Mr Miranda, how many children are there?

MR MIRANDA: There were two children.

ADV POTGIETER: Are you able to give us, perhaps, both the sex and their ages?

MR MIRANDA: I am not in a position.  I just know that the eldest was a daughter and that she was 17 years old at that time.

ADV POTGIETER: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: (Microphone not on).  Mr Mpshe, I understand that all three of the applicants and the fourth applicant were out on bail, but there is a trail pending against them.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: That is correct, Mr Chairman.  That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Which has been adjourned from time to time and it was, it would be desirable to make the position as clear as we can to the Attorney-General.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Right.  It is not the normal practice of this committee to give extemporary judgements and it is not our intention to do that today.  The method of granting amnesty is as prescribed in the Act, that is publication in the Government Gazette and due notification.  We feel, however, that in the light of what has happened here today, it would be of assistance if we were to place on record our views.  The three applicants have applied for amnesty.  Two of them, all three in respect of the killing of the late Mr Lombo and the first and second in respect of escaping from custody consequent upon their arrest in respect of that killing.  The late Mr Lombo's family was represented here today by Mr Miranda, who expressed the views of the widow, and I would like to repeat some of what he said that the family leave the decision in the hands of the committee, they have not sought in any way to influence that decision, but that the widow has placed on record the fact that she cannot, herself, forgive what has been done, that that is only something, something that only God can do and that is something that the applicants and others should bear in mind at all times.  That forgiveness is something they must earn and can only do so if they are truly contrite.  She has also explained, understandably, that she cannot forget the loss of her husband and with this we sympathise with her deeply.
	Returning to the facts of the case, of the evidence that was led it is another example of the tragic bloodshed caused in this province by the constant fighting between various political parties, in particular, the Inkatha Freedom Party and the UDF, as it then was, and the ANC, as it now is.  This has been particularly evident in the Edendale and Richmond areas and is, as we all know I think, a different aspect of it sprung up again last week.  It seems clear, and it was not challenged, that the first two applicants as well as being members of the UDF were also members of the organisation known as Umkhonto we Sizwe and had received certain training of a military nature.  
	It is clear from the evidence they gave and from the evidence of the third applicant that they believed that the deceased was, what has come to be known, as a warlord.  This was their belief, there is no evidence, as such, but what is clear from the evidence and the letters written by his own brothers, is that he was a well known, respected member of Inkatha.  He was a leader and it is for this reason that the opposing organisation decided that he should be eliminated and orders were given to the applicants, the first and second applicants, to carry out the elimination.  They were assisted in this by the third and fourth applicants.  It is clear that it was a deliberate assassination and we accept the evidence that it was so planned that there was no danger of injuries to innocent passers by.  This distinguishes it, in some ways, from other cases that we have heard where there has been reckless shooting which has killed not only the potential targets, but others who played no part in the struggle.  The evidence of the applicants was that they were ordered to do this, that they were obliged to carry out orders and that, accordingly, this was an act committed on behalf of the party they belonged to which was one of the more prominent of the liberation movements.  We also accept that the escaping was also part of the political struggle, that they were assisted in this by the organisation they belonged to and it is clear that almost immediately after the escape, they were smuggled out of the country and given further training.  
	For these reasons it appears to us this is a case where amnesty should be granted and it is our intention to take the necessary steps to ensure that that is done.  We do not, however, propose to nor do we consider it necessary, unless requested to do so by any of the parties, to give further reasons for our decision.  I think that what I have said here today explains why we have come to this decision and that one of the reasons why we have done this is we think it is in the interests of the victims and of other interested parties who have taken the trouble to come and listen to our hearings, that they should be aware of the result of them and not merely read them in the Government Gazette three weeks later.  
	I would also like to ...

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that all recorded.  I would also like to advise that the R & R Committee will henceforth handle the widow's application as we are of the opinion that the widow of the deceased and her children are victims as defined in the Act.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Mr Chairman, may I enquire as to whether the decision of the Committee includes the applicant who was here, not present, Dlamini.

CHAIRPERSON: That is what I am now going to deal with.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Sorry.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mpshe has now raised the question of the applicant who is not present, that is Mr Dlamini.  It seems to us that it would be an unnecessary waste of time to cause further emotional stress to have another hearing where he, on the information before us, clearly falls into the same category as the other applicants.  He, in fact, played the, a minor role.  He was there to assist in the getaway vehicle, but took no part in the killing itself.  In those circumstances we are of the view that his application should also succeed and we propose to make a similar recommendation in that regard.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman.  Mr Chairman, then, and members of the committee, then that takes care of today's work.

CHAIRPERSON: What time tomorrow, nine o' clock?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Tomorrow, Mr Chairman, I would propose that we start tomorrow at ten o' clock.

CHAIRPERSON: Ten.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: At ten o' clock Mr Chairman.

MR WILLS: Yes, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: That finishes the hearing for today.  We will now adjourn.  I would like to know, was what I said about the widow and her problems translated to her or, if not, could you explain it to her.

MR MIRANDA: Yes, Mr Chairman.