Amnesty Hearings — Pietermaritzburg — 1997-02-10

MR MADLALA: Yes, that is true.
2A - 11.2

CHAIRPERSON: /...
CHAIRMAN	110	MR MADLALA

CHAIRPERSON: Question 10(b)
"Your justification for regarding your acts, your omissions and offences associated with a political objective".
In other words, how do you justify what you did as having a political objective.  And your answer was:
"We found out Jama was an ANC member.  I have been trained to kill ANC members.  I regarded them as the enemy".
That is correct?

MR MADLALA: That is true.

CHAIRPERSON: That is the real reason why you regard your offence as having a political objective.

MR MADLALA: Yes, that is true.

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination?
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR BANADE

CHAIRPERSON: Is there any way in ascertaining whether Mr Jassat is here?  He is not.

MR BRINK: Mr Chairman, I wonder possibly before you release him, I wonder possibly if Mrs Jama might be invited to find out what her attitude is towards - if you want to?  Two of the applicants have expressed their remorse.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brink, I think it appropriate that I should take an adjournment at this stage for you, the leaders of evidence, to consult with Mrs Jama and if there are any questions which she would like to be put to these witnesses it should be done through you.

JUDGE WILSON: There is one question I would like you to raise with her, otherwise I will endeavour to raise it with the applicants, or you may perhaps agree it with them, and that is what the age of Mr Jama was at the time of his
2A - 11.2	death/...
111
death.

CHAIRPERSON: You will of course tell Mrs Jama that even though she may have no questions to ask of these witnesses, she may wish to make a statement and, if necessary, and if she is prepared, it should be done through one of you.  You should call her so that she can make her statement.   We will take the short adjournment now.
COMMISSION ADJOURNS
2A - 11.2	COMMISSION RESUMES: /...
MR BRINK	112
COMMISSION RESUMES

MR BRINK: Mr Chairman, I understand that Mr Jassat is on his way here.  I have just been given that information as you came in.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there any other witness that you propose calling?

MR BANADE: Mr Chairman, there are no further witnesses in this application.  It is just the three applicants.  If the Committee so pleases, we would like to conclude and possibly just make a few closing remarks and be on our way.

CHAIRPERSON: I can understand ... and what is expected of you is not just closing remarks.  I think what is expected of you is, I am sure, as much assistance as you can give this Committee on the interpretations you wish to place on the provisions of the Act that are relevant to your clients' case.  You may do that now.

MR BANADE: Mr Chairman, I would like to make use of the opportunity granted to me and start by referring to section 21 of the relevant Act.
	As you are well aware, there are mainly two important provisions and that is that this Committee, after considering the application, has to be satisfied that the relevant Act - and here we are referring to the murder of Jama - had to have been done with a political motive.  And interestingly enough, there are also references made to the conflict of the past.  
	The second aspect is the applications of all the relevant facts being put before the Committee, full disclosure that is, and the further requirements are these contained in section 22 and in submission all three applicants resort to ... (CHANGE-OVER TO TAPE 2B)
2B - 11.2	... As/...
MR BANADE	113	ADDRESS
... As far as full facts go ... that is probably the aspect that bothers the Committee, otherwise I do not understand the detail which has been gone into. 
	In submission, the facts in question were brought before Judge Thirion in court beyond a reasonable doubt, and that is why all three of them were convicted of murder.  So there can be absolutely no doubt that they are murderers.  
	The finer details as to why they stopped, why the person was searched, who saw what, with all due respect had to and in anyone's memory would have somewhat become vague by now.  The applicants have absolutely no reason to come here and lie before this Committee and I think that can be accepted.  What they said before, and specifically before the Court, should be differentiated from what they have said today, if there are some differences, because the aim in a criminal trial is adversary.  Facts are withheld and others are emphasised.  But, it is the State's duty to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas here the facts are being brought to the fore as far as they can remember and to disclose, as far as they can remember, fully to the Committee.  
	In submission, Sir, if there are differences in their versions, it is with regard to smaller aspects.  The fact is, and that has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and they acknowledge, that a certain ANC supporter had been murdered by them.  So as far as the Act refers to - I would say that it should be read in connection with the full disclosure.  The Act refers to "full" disclosure, and it should once again be read in the light of the fact that this incident took place six years ago, and everyone's memory is not as good.  And this is one aspect I would like to touch
2B - 11.2	upon/...
MR BANADE	114	ADDRESS
upon, the fact that there were verbal agreements in certain paragraphs in the submission of Harrington and Erasmus.  
	You have to take into cognizance that they are being held together and I would like to bring to your attention, after I had consulted with them and given the main facts they were told right, you go and do this on your own, and that was on a Saturday afternoon where I instructed them to fill in the missing pieces, and that they might have consulted with each other.  Under those circumstances,  that is neither here nor there.  
	Harrington is the one who was consulted with more verbally and in his submission Mr Erasmus borrowed some of his terminology.  I do not think that it should affect their credibility before you in any way.

JUDGE WILSON: It wouldn't if they had said that, but they didn't, did they?  And does that not affect their credibility?

MR BANADE: That is what Mr Erasmus said in his brief reply to you.  He said yes, we did prepare it together in consultation with the advocate and that was the part where he was wrong, because the advocate was not present when they wrote them down, but he was not given the opportunity to elaborate on that.

JUDGE WILSON: He was given the opportunity to answer the questions fully.  Nobody tried to shut him up.  He also, referring to earlier documents that had nothing to do with you, said there had been no consultation when there clearly had.  There was only one document he agreed they had consulted about.  And he was not being truthful, was he.  If you read the document it is quite clear.   There was a great deal of consultation.
2B - 11.2

MR BANADE: /...
MR BANADE	115	ADDRESS

MR BANADE: I don't think there can be any doubt that there was a great deal of consultation.  Before, if I understand correctly, in November of last year they gave evidence about a certain Seven Day War, and apparently for that aim they also prepared the submissions together and some of the sentences, which also appear as such now, come from that submission.  The way I see it, it cannot affect their credibility.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Banade, what do you understand when you speak about full disclosure or facts in question?  I only have the English text in front of me.  "The applicant has made a full disclosure of all relevant facts".  What do you understand to be "relevant facts"?