Amnesty Hearings — Thohoyandou — 1999-06-29

MR MEYER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.  Mr Chairman, I wonder if I can maybe just have a short adjournment so that I can give a proper summary of which ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Get your ducks in a row.

MR MEYER: Yes, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we'll take a short adjournment and then you can just ask in respect of what, who, which in respect of what acts, yes.

MR MEYER: Indeed, thank you, Mr Chairman.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Meyer?

MR MEYER: (cont)
	Thank you, Mr Chairman, I appreciate that adjournment.  If I can just give you a summary of which victims, which the applicants are asking amnesty for.
	And if I can start with Mr Ramaligela.  He will be asking amnesty with regards all the victims except for Rev Mahamba.  Although I think in all the applications it's mentioned the Mr Mahamba was never assaulted by any of them.  So, I think you can take it for granted that none of the applicants are asking amnesty with regard to him.
	And if I can just maybe elucidate a bit, Mr Chairman.  The applicants are also asking amnesty with regard to the people or the victims with regard to whom - they said they can't remember but there's a possibility they were involved.  And the reason for that is that should they be charged in a court of law and they are confronted with evidence by the victims of the assaults, they will not be able to deny it because they cannot remember clearly.

SISI KHAMPEPE: I am not on the same page with you, Mr Meyer, with regard to your last submission.  You are saying they will asking for amnesty in respect of people that we don't know.

MR MEYER: No, no, I'm sorry, maybe I didn't make it clear.  It's only with regard to the victims but you will recall that certain of the victims, some of the applicants were quite sure whether they were involved or not and, they also said then that it's possible that they were involved but they cannot remember clearly.  It's only ...(intervention)

SISI KHAMPEPE: You are talking about the victims who are present here?

MR MEYER: The victims that were listed in their applications.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Yes.

MR MEYER: Only those victims, yes.

SISI KHAMPEPE: You are saying for instance, Mr Ramaligela initially did not apply for the assault on Mr - he didn't apply for amnesty in respect of Chikororo so, you are saying he would like to be considered for amnesty in respect of Mr Chikororo's assault, notwithstanding the fact that he has not applied for amnesty in respect of Mr Chikororo?

MR MEYER: Indeed so, Mr Chairman.

SISI KHAMPEPE: On what basis can we entertain an application if he has not in his amnesty application, applied for the assault on Mr Chikororo?

MR MEYER: Well, Mr Chairman, I'm not exactly certain of what the procedure is but, the reason why he's also asking, for instance, with regard to Mr Chikororo at this stage as well is the fact that he also, in the oral evidence, it came out that he was involved in the assault.

SISI KHAMPEPE: You are familiar, you are the lawyer, you are familiar with the Act, you are familiar with the fact that there is a cut-off date for when people had to apply for amnesty and that after that cut-off date, you can't just come in and apply for amnesty.  Now how are we as a Committee going to be enabled to entertain Mr Ramaligela's application in respect of the assault on Mr Chikororo if he did not, within the time that he was allowed to apply for amnesty, can we do that?

MR MEYER: Yes, I understand your problem, Mr Chairman.  Well, if that is the situation and there is a cut-off date, then you can only consider their amnesty applications with regard to the people who they are actually asking for in their written statements.

SISI KHAMPEPE: That is in fact the law.

MR MEYER: Yes.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Our hands are tied.

MR MEYER: I agree.  Can I just have a moment, please, Mr Chairman.  Excuse me, yes, Mr Chairman, well, then the amnesty will only be asked for, with regard to the victims which are listed in each of the separate applications.

SISI KHAMPEPE: That's paragraph 15 of each and every of these applicants, yes.

MR MEYER: Yes. That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, have you any further submissions?

MR MEYER: Nothing, thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Meyer.  Mr Van Rensburg?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you, Mr Chairman.  The events that led up or followed the attack on the Sibasa police station on 26 October 1981 must have been very scary and confusing.  It seems that a lot of people and that was people in senior positions lost their nerves and their heads.  We have heard the evidence before this Commission, I think it was from Mr Ramaligela who testified that the order came right from the president, that there should be no stone left unturned to identify the perpetrators of this bombing attack.

SISI KHAMPEPE: That was the evidence of Mr Ramushwana.

MR VAN RENSBURG: That is correct, thank you, Mr Chairman.  The evidence was further led that the same pressure was exerted through all the ranks, right down to the constables involved in the investigation.
	This is the situation that the fifth applicant found himself to be in at the time.  He was a fairly newly appointed member of the Security Branch, he was a constable, he did not form part of the inner core of the investigation team.  Mr Netshivale was not involved in any decision making, he was not involved in the arrest of any of the victims or suspects at the time.  He formed part of the core of young policemen who were co-operating or asked to co-operate on an ad hoc basis on a day to day basis to support the interrogation team.  From all the evidence it is clear that he played a minor role during this whole investigation.
	He testified himself that he received direct orders from his superiors.  At least, I submit that from the actions of the superior officers, he deducted that it was his implied orders to assault and to interrogate the victims in the ways that he has testified.
	There is no doubt that the actions that he has admitted to falls under the ambit of gross human rights violations.  It falls within the definition of the Act and it falls within the definition of each and everyone here present.
	Mr Netshivale has admitted to slapping on the body and also on the head of the victims with the open hands.  He has admitted to assisting other superior officers when they used the electricity shocking device as well as the wet bag method.
	In principle his evidence is corroborated by that of the victims themselves.  They, although they did not say that explicitly, it can be deducted from their evidence that Mr Netshivale was not the person in charge during their interrogations.
	Rev Phoshwana testified that the fifth applicant was the first person who pulled his hair and he said that this incident was imprinted or left an imprinted picture in his memory.  It must be stressed that he could not identify the fifth applicant by name as also being one of the persons who pulled hair from his private parts.  And it must also be stressed that Rev Phoshwana did not mention the fifth applicant by name in any of the previous statements that he has made, including the statement handed in this morning.
	Regarding the evidence of Mr Mahumela, he again corroborated the evidence of Mr Netshivale in that he testified that it was Mr Netshivale who slapped him in the face.  It was only at a very late stage during his evidence that, on a question from Adv Bosman, he testified that the fifth applicant was actually the one who gave him instructions to do the so-called flicker exercises.  This was omitted during his evidence-in-chief and even did not come out during cross-examination.