Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1999-02-09

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, in the circumstances, I think it is wise to do so.  Mr Shane, you are excused from this application.
	I just want to raise certain other issues with you afterwards.  Mr Selepe, it is unfortunate that your Attorney has to withdraw in your application.  I am going to postpone this application to next Tuesday.  I am aware that you are in prison and it would be a little more difficult than would otherwise be the case, to obtain the services and assistance of another Attorney.
	That is why I am going to postpone this matter to next Tuesday so that you can use this afternoon and the rest of this week, in an attempt to acquire the services of an Attorney and do so in time, such that he can consult with you properly, and prepare for your application.  Do you understand that?

MOLEFE MICHAEL SELEPE: Yes, I do understand.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there anything that you want to ask me?

MOLEFE MICHAEL SELEPE: No, there is nothing else at the moment.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, then you are also excused.
WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Shane, you asked me a little while ago about arguing at the end of the evidence and I indicated to you that we would make request to you in matters that we were uncomfortable with, where there were clear cases, we wouldn't need arguments on now and the one that does give us a problem, is the one of Thami Mahlala.
	I don't think it was yours.

MR SHANE: Indeed not sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you appear for Mr Makondo?

MR SHANE: Correct Mr Chairman, Jimmy Mkosinathi Makondo.

CHAIRPERSON: He is the one that said that he in fact, his actions at the time, were designed to defend himself, can you remember?

MR SHANE: Correct, he said his actions were designed, there were three vans and some of his actions were designed to defend himself, but the shooting of the white policeman in I think a kombi vehicle, was he said, to kill them so that he could get their weapons.

CHAIRPERSON: That is why I raise it with you, that is not how I understood his evidence.  I understood his evidence that he started to run away and he saw them chasing.
	Then he turned to retaliate in an effort to defend himself, that was his sole reason for shooting at those police, that is what he testified?

MR SHANE: Mr Chairman, he also testified that he wanted, he shot the white policemen with the view to killing them, so that he could get their weapons.  That is before you with respect, sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Shane, he went further at one stage of his evidence and said I knew I shot at them, because I knew they would take me to the hostel and do something to me.  Do you recall he said something like that?
	On another occasion, during his evidence, then it changed somewhat, and yes, he did say that he wanted to obtain the weapons.  We have a problem with that also because he was dealing with three motor vehicles and a number of people, that he was taking on single handedly.  How did he even hope to win that battle, never mind obtain the arms?
	I need you to argue and persuade us that he has in fact made full disclosure there, if we accept that he wanted to obtain their firearms.  On the other hand, if he wanted to shoot the white policemen to defend himself, then what political motive would he have had to shoot him?

MR SHANE: If that was the case Mr Chairman, then he is relying on the defence, he should not be applying for amnesty where he's got a defence to a crime.

CHAIRPERSON: I am not questioning his right to apply.  I am saying if his actions were, if what he did, was committed in self defence, and that was his intention, you've got to persuade us that he has complied with the Act which requires his actions to be based on a political motive.	Self defence in our view, is not a political motive because he could justifiably be found not guilty.

MR SHANE: Mr Chairman, he would also not only have to show that and show full disclosure, there is something that
you mentioned about you not being satisfied that he had made full disclosure.  I didn't get the whole picture of that Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: We have to consider the other version, and note that there are two versions that he gave, on that score as to why he shot at the police.  Could we believe him to put it crudely if he wanted to obtain these firearms, to take on more than six policemen alone?  Six armed policemen?
	In that case, has he then made full disclosure?  On two scores, he has given us two versions.  The other version is the probabilities of a single man, trying to disarm at least six policemen of their firearms.  Would you like to argue on that?

MR SHANE: If I may ask Mr Chairman, I would like to just prepare myself, if I could possibly argue it possibly tomorrow if that is possible Mr Chairman.  Nine o'clock if it suits you sir?  Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Is Mr Sibeko, is he here?

MR SHANE: I saw him, he could be outside Mr Chairman.  Mr Chairman, is that the only matter that I am to argue tomorrow on, thank you sir?

CHAIRPERSON: ... indicated to Mr Shane, we have no problems with most of the applications at this stage, and I indicated that I would ask the various representatives to address us on issues that gave us problems.  In the Madlala matter in which you appeared, we really have a problem with that whole application, in particular whether full disclosure was made, for example whether this was not an escapade in burglary and nothing more and what was the political motive?
	Our attention had been drawn to the fact that there seems to be a connection between the applicant and his colleagues and burglary at the house near the spot where they were found, and of course, the murder and the attempted murder becomes particularly a focal issue when one considers the question of political motive.
	I am not too sure whether all the offences for which application is made, is effected by our concerns and maybe you can pay attention to each offence in respect of our concerns.
	We think of perhaps also the attempted escape, it really doesn't make sense to us.  Maybe you can persuade us that it should make sense.  Perhaps the armed robbery was something that was done with a political motive, on the other hand it may be related to some kind of organised crime.  We need you to attend to that.
	Then I understand that you are in close contact with Ms Nhlayisi.

MR SIBEKO: That is correct so Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: There is a matter in which she appeared for Mr Joseph Motshwene.  The big question here is, in her case, Mr Motshwene has made application for amnesty in respect of attempted murder of a teacher or teachers and the unlawful possession of a firearm and associated ammunition.
	We have no problem with the unlawful possession of the firearm and ammunition, it is this attempted murder, shooting blindly at a teacher and a principal in a school yard, for what political purpose would that have been?  He says he couldn't identify the people, but yet he shoots at them?
	Somewhere one is uncomfortable with also the possibility of him not making full disclosure about exactly what occurred there.  His evidence was really bland and I think at one time, he even resorted to amnesia, because of the passage of time.  Those issues give us problems, and those are the only cases that we need argued.  Would tomorrow suit you?  We want to give judgement tomorrow in most of the matters.  No, not tomorrow, Thursday.

MR SIBEKO: Mr Chairman, on my side, I will be available for argument.