Amnesty Hearings — Boksburg — UNKNOWN

ADV MOTATA: Mr Madasa made a submission that we should look at section 20.3(f), where he said
"Whether a particular act or mission or offence contemplated in sub-section 2 is an act associated with a political objective, shall be decided with reference to the following criteria..."
and I would read (f) in that respect:-
"The relationship between the act or mission or offence and the political objective pursued, and in particular the directness and proximity of the relationship and the proportionality of the act or mission or offence to the objective pursued."
And he says we should give this sub-section a liberal construction, in that we seek to bring reconciliation, and in bringing reconciliation we should look at the parties involved here and say, "Should we reject it out of hand, or should we, for instance, take the proximity and the proportionality of the acts into account?"   Do you have anything to say against that?

MR MAPOMA: Taking the proportionality of the act into account, sir, I would start off by saying this, the objective of the deceased, I want to refer specifically to the killing, act of killing, the objective of the deceased when they took these persons was to have them killed, an order was made that they be killed ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: The objective of the applicants?

MR MAPOMA: Yes, Chairperson, the objective of the applicants was to have them killed.   They killed them by shooting them with an AK47, amongst others.    But they did not end there, sir, they went to the extent of hacking them with pangas and other sharp instruments, after they were shot at.   The act of hacking them, Chairperson, I submit was disproportionate to the intended purpose, because they took the matter too far, and the gravity of that has got a bearing for the committee in deciding whether this act was politically motivated.   If, Chairperson, the intention was to kill them, one finds it difficult to explain why hack them, because they were shot at with a firearm (indistinct) AK47, they should have shot and left there, without having to hack them now.

CHAIRPERSON: Well the evidence they led in that regard was that after the shooting some of them, some of the victims, moved, thus showing signs of being alive, and therefore an order was issued that "you must finish them".

MR MAPOMA: Well, sir, all I can say there is that it's a natural response that if a person has been fatally wounded, that person cannot just collapse immediately, surely there must have been some moves, but I submit, sir, that there was no need, if they were shot at and one of the applicants, in fact, they say they were shot at on the head.   If a gunshot wound is on the head, that person is inevitably going to die, there is no need to go to the extent of once again doing something else to the body of that person.    It is therefore, sir, my submission that that particular act was disproportionate to the intended objective of the applicants in this case, and therefore I submit that the political motivation has not been established by the applicants.
	On the question of full disclosure, Chairperson, I just want to go to, firstly to the death of Vips Motloung.   The applicants have applied for amnesty in respect of the death of Vips Motloung, but none of them claim to have been involved in the actual killing of him.   In fact they say he was killed by Jebe and Manyala, but the very same applicants have not applied for the killing of Buthelezi-Maitse, but that person was killed by a person in their company.    It is therefore my submission that if they have applied for the killing of Vips Motloung, they must have something, they must have some information regarding his killing which they are supposed to share, which they have not done.

CHAIRPERSON: How do we know that what they've told us of and concerning the death of Motloung is not everything they know about his death, because all they are saying is that he ran away, Manyala Ngosi apprehended him, Manyala Ngosi probably killed Motloung, none of them were present when he was killed.   Is there anything which suggests that they are not telling the truth when they say they were not there when he was killed so as to describe how he was killed?    I mean is there any evidence before us suggesting otherwise?

MR MAPOMA: Well I concede, Chairperson, there's no other evidence before us, but my submission is that why must they expect to be granted amnesty when they were not involved in the killing of Motloung, because what they did was to kidnap Motloung and he flew, and someone else must have captured him and killed him and not them, then why then must they apply for his killing?

CHAIRPERSON: Well some of the applicants went as far as the first and probably the last shack, they were not part of the group that went to the veld to kill them, but nevertheless they are asking for amnesty because their conduct, prior conduct in apprehending these people and taking them to these shacks was an act which was associated with the eventual killing of the deceased.   That's the only ...(intervention).
...(tape ends)

MR MAPOMA: Well ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Because they've given evidence and they've said he was caught by Manyala and Ngosi, and probably killed by Ngosi and Manyala, we don't know how and where, but is there anything on the evidence before us which suggests that they are not telling the truth in that regard?

MR MAPOMA: Well, in that regard, sir, let me concede there's nothing that we can suspect them, but ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: You may have suspicions, however strong they may be, but do we have evidence, that's the question?

MR MAPOMA: Yes.   But, Chairperson, it doesn't end there.  If we looked at the killing of Vips Motloung as a matter for whose killing amnesty is being made, I submit, sir, that it would be very difficult for applicants to qualify for amnesty in respect of killing Vips Motloung as a person, because there's nothing that they say they have done for killing Vips and there's nothing they say they know regarding how Vips died.   It is along those lines, sir, that I submit that insofar as the killing of Vips Motloung is concerned, full disclosure has not been made.

ADV MOTATA: What is it, when people come before us and they say, "This is all we know of and concerning his death, we know nothing else", and you have not produced the evidence to challenge that, how do we find that they're not telling the truth?   I mean if one bears in mind that, on the evidence that we've heard, there was no suggestion that Vips was brought to any of the two shacks, all we know is that he was part of a group of the Youth League who went to Manyala to report that they were being harassed by the SDU, Jebe arrived, gave a background of what had happened, he ran away, someone caught, and he ran away, and then the rest of the SDU's then returned to the two shacks, went to the killing field and then returned to go to Buthelezi's house and then dispersed.

MR MALAN: If I may just follow on this please, Mr Mapoma?  Am I perhaps hearing you correctly saying that the applicants shouldn't be granted amnesty for Vips, for the killing of Vips, because they say that they were not involved, and therefore we should take care of not granting amnesty for the killing of Vips to applicants, but at best for the abduction, the round-up, is that what you're saying?

MR MAPOMA: Yes, Chairperson, that's my view, but I'm not sure, sir, regarding the kidnapping and the rounding-up, because if I go to the extent of saying that for the kidnapping, then they can be granted amnesty, but whoever must have kidnapped him, it must be the person who killed him, but the only kidnapping I can concede to, sir, is the kidnapping, the first kidnapping, when he was kidnapped and then flew away.

MR MALAN: I wonder, Chair, whether we shouldn't put this question then to Mr Madasa, whether he wants to ...(intervention).