Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1999-02-16

ANTONY MACI: As he was called to the meeting, the intention was to question him as to why he was giving information to the police concerning the arms.  He told the community that he was sick and tired of that in Makula community and he was about to bring the IFP members to come and attack the Makula Section.  That is why he was killed.

MR SHANE: So from what you are saying, he actually threatened the community at the meeting?

ANTONY MACI: Yes, that is correct.

MR SHANE: Can you give the names of the other people that also were involved in his killing?

ANTONY MACI: Members of the community, all of them were there.  The people who shot at him, it was myself and Solomon and this other gentleman who is in Natal now.  His nickname was Gorgothi.

MR SHANE: You were the one who shot first, is that right?

ANTONY MACI: Yes, that is correct.

MR SHANE: How many bullets did you fire?

ANTONY MACI: I cannot remember but I was using my pistol.

MR SHANE: What happened afterwards with all the weapons that you had, what became of them?

ANTONY MACI: The weapons, I went to Malusko for police training and the weapons were left with the community members, and when I came back, I was told that those weapons were taken to the police station as they were instructed to do so.

MR SHANE: That is evidence, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR SHANE

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp?

ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you Mr Chairman, I don't have any further questions, thank you sir.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV STEENKAMP

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you Mr Chairperson, I don't have questions for the applicant.

MR SHANE: I have no more applicants, Mr Chairman.  May I be excused please?
WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Is that it for today or ...

MR SHANE: That is it.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Shane, we just wanted to deal with one aspect before you go, Sicelo, in terms of your client's testimony, was killed accidentally.  How does that event fall into the Act?

MR SHANE: Mr Chairman, as he testified, he only realised it was an accident after the event, in other words, when there was that knock on the door, and he described the type of knocking, it was a rough kind of kicking, that is what he described, he also asked who it was when there was this knock on the door.
	There was no answer.  We also heard that he had recently been released from detention without trial.  In his mind, this was the police, the ISU coming to arrest him to detain him, as he said.  Quite clearly they were the enemy, he had his weapon, his AK47.  In order to avoid giving these "police", though they weren't the police, but he shot.  It is clearly I submit with respect, a political act on his part. 
	Notwithstanding the fact that it was an accident.  I hope that answers your question Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: If that is your view, deal with the following, that the Act gives particular guidelines in Section 20(3) where one has to consider the factual position and how it really improves the political situation of the party on whose behalf a person, the applicant, acted.
	Now, how did the killing of Sicelo improve the political position of the party on whose behalf your client acted that day?  Never mind intention, what is the factual position?

MR SHANE: The factual position with respect is it didn't improve any political position.  I am not going to argue that it did, because it didn't.

CHAIRPERSON: Now bearing that in mind, how does it fall within the ambit of the Act?  First of all it can't be murder, he had no intention to murder Sicelo, not so?

MR SHANE: No intention to murder.

CHAIRPERSON: In the criminal court, what would it be?

MR SHANE: It would be negligent killing boiling down to culpable homicide.

CHAIRPERSON: As I understand the Act, it makes provision for the commission of crimes with the intention of improving a political position, not so?
	Does the Act make provision for accidents?

MR SHANE: First of all Mr Chairman, dealing with intention, I submit that intention is quite significant here because his intention when he fired the shot, was to kill the police, or to shoot the police, and that in itself, improves the political position that you were talking about.
	I would submit that the Act does not exclude mistakes or negligence.

CHAIRPERSON: Why do you say that?

MR SHANE: Well Mr Chairman, in this case, one would ask is all the negligence on the part of the applicant, remember as he said, had the deceased answered to his name when he was asked, there was no answer, but had he answered his name before he opened the door, had he answered his name, this incident would not have happened at all.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  If he thought it was the police outside banging as he was asked to describe so graphically, why didn't he shoot through the door?

MR SHANE: I can't answer that Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I ask that question in view of your argument, because you make out a particular argument.  It follows then as I understand your argument, that if he really thought it was the police and he wanted to get away or whatever reason he shot, he should have shot through the door.

MR SHANE: Well Mr Chairman, it is significant that even though it is a bit hazy as to how he shot, the fact is when he shot, he did not know, when he shot, he did not know it was Sicelo, in his mind it was the police he was shooting at.  It was only after Sicelo fell, that he realised the mistake.
	That is clear Mr Chairman, it was a mistake, but before the mistake was made, when he pulled the trigger, at that crucial time he pulled the trigger, in his mind, he was shooting at the police.

CHAIRPERSON: How does that help him?  Let's assume that we accept that that was what his mind set was at that time, how does it help him?  You've got to help us here, we are in a (indistinct).

MR SHANE: Mr Chairman, I will submit at the end of the day, it must be his intention.  It was his intention to shoot the police.
	Everything, all the surrounding circumstances indicated to him that this is the police that is behind the door.  There was no answer to his request for the person to identify himself, there was no response.
	The way that the door was knocked on, indicated to him this was the police.  After there was no response, when he saw the door opening, he fired a shot through the door.  That is as I understood his testimony.

CHAIRPERSON: Significantly that door opened and then he shot?

MR SHANE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: He didn't shoot through the door.  He shot at the door once the door was opened, that is what happened?

MR SHANE: Well Mr Chairman, that is my argument, I can't take it any further.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR SHANE: Excuse me Mr Chairman, I must bring to your attention my client informs me that as far as he is concerned, he says he shot through the door.  That was what he says and he says this might have been misinterpreted.
	I can't take that further, I don't know what the interpretation is.  I don't know if it can be replayed, but I will say this as well Mr Chairman, my instructions in fact were, but I heard what you heard Mr Chairman, it certainly didn't come through in the interpretation that he shot through the door.
	That is certainly not the impression that I got from the interpretation.

CHAIRPERSON: What was interpreted, as soon as the door opened, he shot him?

MR SHANE: Yes, Mr Chairman, that is how I got it as well.  I am told by my client that that is not what he said.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp, is it possible for you and Mr Shane to listen to the tape recording and agree on what was actually said and whether the interpretation was correct or not?

ADV STEENKAMP: I will do that Mr Chairman.

MR SHANE: I can't assist, I don't understand the interpretation.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the new interpretation?

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, that is not my interpretation at all.