Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1998-10-08

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you, Mr Chairperson ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes, Mr Chairperson, I do get your point on this aspect.  That is why I'm saying, Mr Chairperson, inasmuch as we are applying for amnesty with regard to this incident but also it goes to the credibility of the applicants.  If for the sake of them wanting to be released by this Committee, they tell the Committee a lie because definitely if they say that when they have not - they have nothing to lose, they have been convicted, Mr Chairperson, why would they lie and say: "Look we didn't rob that firearm"?  They have nothing to lose.  Though they have been convicted but ...[intervention]
...[inaudible]

MR MBANDAZAYO: Can I finish?  They have come to tell the Committee the truth as to what happened.

ADV DE JAGER: Ja, unless they didn't hand over the 410 shotgun and that gun was later found in the possession after the second robbery, then they didn't disclose to us that they've handed in certain weapons but they kept one and committed a second robbery with that one.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.  It may well be the case, Mr Chairperson, but my point is what were they going to lose by telling the Committee that: "We did rob also this firearm but we didn't hand it over"?  If they wanted amnesty at all costs and to mislead the Committee, they have no reason not to say that: "We did also this one but we didn't hand it over"

CHAIRPERSON: What are you going to ask us to grant amnesty for, the theft of a .22 rifle, that's the evidence?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes, Mr Chairperson, definitely Mr Chairperson.  As we are not applying for R150,00 which they stole because they said they didn't take any money and there is no reason for them not say: "We took it", if they took it.  But here if they say they took it when they didn't take it because they want amnesty, they will be misleading the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: You are aware of the problem that - it is not our problem but really the applicants' problem and your attention has been drawn to it and you are going to ask us to grant amnesty in respect of the .22, 2.2 or whatever it is, rifle.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairperson, I want to emphasise I've said the Leader of Evidence will bear me, last week in Johannesburg we had a similar problem where the applicant did not want to do the same thing said: "I'm prepared to stay in jail if I'm not released if I'm going to say I did this when I did not do it".  I was convicted of it.  That is the same case, Mr Chairperson, because he told the Committee that: "I'll be misleading the Committee if I say I did it, inasmuch as I know if I say I did it, I was going to be granted amnesty as I did with the other ones but I'm not prepared to mislead the Committee because I'm here to tell the truth, I did not do this one".

ADV DE JAGER: You haven't perhaps got a copy of the judgment in this matter so that we could see on what exactly and what the evidence was that's been dealt with as far as the type of rifle that's been stolen.  You see the trouble is, we're now granting you amnesty for stealing for instance, a Mercedes Benz motorcar but you've been convicted of a BMW and then you've got the problem, you've got amnesty here but you've not got amnesty for what you've been convicted for.

CHAIRPERSON: The other prospects is that both of us may be relying on the expert knowledge of people able to identify firearms when in fact they could easily be wrong.  Both the people who identified it for the purpose of the criminal case and the people who identified it in this hearing.  I don't know where the answer lies but it is definitely a problem.

ADV SANDI: It's a potential problem for the prison authorities as well.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairperson, as I indicated to this Committee, I don't have a problem with the Committee.  The problem you have I also have it, Mr Chairperson, because definitely when I received this document on Monday and luckily I've consulted with them on the previous week on a Saturday, when I was given instructions on a Friday that they are going to appear, and I immediately saw that there's this difference.  And they insisted that the firearms they robbed were these and that's what happened.  And now it's ...[indistinct] in that problem.
	Definitely Mr Chairperson, what I'm saying is that the Committee will have to do what it is enjoined by the law to do.  It's not their fault, it's not also our fault but if the applicants are insisting, insist as they insisted to me, I even put to them and I told them that I have a similar problem but fortunately for the guy in Johannesburg he was released despite that he was not granted amnesty in a robbery.  
	But what I'm saying is that the applicants are saying: "What we did is this, if we say another thing to this Committee" - it may well have the problem, as Mr Chairperson says the problem of identifying the gun but what they are saying is this gun and ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: I think you've made your point and we'll act accordingly if we grant amnesty.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.  Unless the Committee raises another point they want me address it on.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm going to take a bit of time on this matter, consider it.  As you may appreciate it's not the easiest of matters.  We'll give a decision as soon as we can.  We are aware that the applicants are in prison and whether we grant it or not, they have an interest in the decision and we will do our best to give it as soon as possible.
	We'll adjourn until tomorrow 9 o'clock sharp.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS