Amnesty Hearings — Mmabatho — 1999-06-21

MR MULLIGAN: No witnesses will be called. Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Seabela?

MR SEABELA: We don't intend calling any witnesses as well. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Lockhat?

MS LOCKHAT: No witnesses, Chairperson. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well that then concludes this somewhat speedy hearing. We finished in short time. All that remains is now submissions. I don't know if you'd want to take the lunch adjournment now, or whether you prefer to make your submissions now?

MS LOCKHAT: Mr Chairperson, I think we can take the lunch adjournment and then do the submissions after lunch, if that is in order with the Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, would that be convenient?

MR DLAVANE: I will have no objection.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We'll take the lunch adjournment now and then after lunch, we'll hear submissions from those parties who wish to make submissions.

MS LOCKHAT: Chairperson, just a note from the Logistics Officer that the lunch will be available only from one o'clock.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well then, we can still - I think we'll take the adjournments and then we will resume again at two o'clock or quarter to two.

MS LOCKHAT: Quarter to two, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
COURT ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Dlavane?

MR DLAVANE: Chairperson, we are ready to make our submission.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DLAVANE: Chairperson, I must say that because this was the shortest hearing, my submission will also be as shorter.
	Chairperson, it is my submission that the two applicants before this Committee are deserving candidates for amnesty. Chairperson, section 20 subsection 2 of the Act, among others requires that the act in respect of which amnesty is sought, one, be associated with a political objective. Two, that such act should also have been advised, planned, directed, commanded, ordered, or committed, by an applicant, and an applicant should be able or rather they should fall under one of the categories of people described in section 22 subsection (a) to (g).
	Chairperson, it is my submission that in so far as the requirement of the association with the political objective, the two applicants will qualify in the sense that the, their participation in the said operation which resulted into a coup. It is my submission that that was a political act. The objective as outlined by the applicants being to remove the government of the day and substitute it with another government which they considered will be a government considerate to the needs and rights of the people.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, because section 20 subsection 2(e) of the Act provides that an act associated with a political objective means any person advised, planned, etc, who committed an act by any person in the performance of a coup d'etat to take over the government of any former state or any attempt thereto. So that would cover specifically this incident, wouldn't it?

MR DLAVANE: That is my submission, Chairperson. Chairperson, the question of whether there was a full disclosure as required by section 20 subsection 1(c), the evidence led by the applicants was not challenged, that is the facts as to what happened at the particular day. It is therefore my submission that the facts as outlined by the applicants be regarded as a full disclosure of actually what happened. Their role they themselves being ...(indistinct) they played in that particular day.

ADV BOSMAN: And one could perhaps add there that it was consistent with the findings of the trial court?

MR DLAVANE: That is my submission, Chairperson. Which was not denied also by the applicants when they agreed that the finding of the court as to their association, participation was admitted by the applicants.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and I think that another factor is that the applicants were, according to their evidence, at all times acting in conformity to orders given by a superior officer.

MR DLAVANE: That is my submission, Chairperson. The officer in command being Timothy Pirie who was above rank of the applicants. Chairperson, I submit therefore that the applicants be granted amnesty as requested in their applications. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Dlavane. Mr Mulligan, do you have submissions?

MR MULLIGAN: Yes, just very briefly, Chairperson. Like I said in the beginning, I'm representing the Seane family. It's unfortunate this afternoon that they are none the wiser at this stage. They still don't know who entered his house. They still don't know who was responsible for the death of
his aunt. And when I say that, I accept that there was full disclosure on the modus operandi of that morning by the second applicant. I accept that.

CHAIRPERSON: We see from the trial record that there was something like a 140 something accused persons, and we have two applicants, so it's credible to accept the evidence that they didn't know what was happening all the time at all the different places.

MR MULLIGAN: I fully accept that, Mr Chair, and that the modus operandi would be to hit all the houses simultaneously speaks for itself. But to us, it's just sad that there are still here and we still don't know who entered the house. We still don't know who was in the group that came to our house. And in a sense, we really don't know why we were here then, if that, if we couldn't take that any further, and that is unfortunate. I'm not pointing fingers or blaming anybody, it's just unfortunate.

CHAIRPERSON: We certainly understand the feelings of the family. One would have hoped that there would have been some  information that would have satisfied their interests here.  I'm sure that the notices served,  they've done that rather to err on giving people notices rather than not to give people  notices.

MR MULLIGAN: No, we accept that, Mr Chair, and like I say, we have no quarrel with the two applicants or with their applications, may it please the Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Seabela?

MR SEABELA: Thank you, Mr Chair. The instructions I have are that the Ntsime family do not oppose the application by the applicants and further they've asked me to put it on record that, in fact, in the spirit of promoting national unity and reconciliation, they forgive the applicants for whatever happened on the day in question. Thank you, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Seabela. I must say from the point of view of the Committee, the submission made by yourself is most appreciated. We know that forgiveness is not one of the criteria but it's always very, very welcome when it does come through in a hearing of this nature. And if you can convey the Committee's feeling in this regard to the family. Ms Lockhat?

MS LOCKHAT: Chairperson, it is common cause that the two applicants were employees of the State and that according to their submissions they acted within the scope of express authority and express instructions given by their commander, Mr Pirie. They also associated themselves with the coup and with their commander's intentions, and they committed the act in execution of this order. And that section 2 subsection 20, subsection 2, subsection (e) would be applicable in this instance, Chairperson, and we leave it in the hands of the Committee. Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any response, Mr Dlavane.

MR DLAVANE: No response, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you very much. We'll hand down a decision in this matter in the near future, hopefully with the time spared we'll be able to do it today or tomorrow, but it will take some time to come through because there's a procedure that has to be followed getting it published in the Government Gazette, etc. But, I'll be doing a decision, certainly this week in the matter. Thank you. Well, that then brings this roll to an end, does it, Ms Lockhat?

MS LOCKHAT: That is correct, Chairperson.