Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1998-04-28

ADV POTGIETER: Now if Mr Hole's partner had been in that area twice looking for you, do you expect that your family would have learnt about that?

ZUKO ZUKILE MAKAPELA: Yes they would let my family know definitely.

ADV POTGIETER: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: You say you are at a college of some sort in East London?

ZUKO ZUKILE MAKAPELA: Yes that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you travel everyday to go home to Alice district?

ZUKO ZUKILE MAKAPELA: No, I go home during holidays.

CHAIRPERSON: Where do you stay in East London?

ZUKO ZUKILE MAKAPELA: I stay in Kwikni, Seaforth.

CHAIRPERSON: And how long have you been staying there?

ZUKO ZUKILE MAKAPELA: I started staying there in February when the schools commenced.

CHAIRPERSON: And did you tell your attorney of your new address in case he needed to contact you?

ZUKO ZUKILE MAKAPELA: Pardon?

CHAIRPERSON: Did you tell your attorney about this? That you have changed your address?

ZUKO ZUKILE MAKAPELA: No I did not tell them.

CHAIRPERSON: Why not?

ZUKO ZUKILE MAKAPELA: It must have been a mistake that I made.

CHAIRPERSON: And when you made the affidavit before you signed it yesterday, you made it last Thursday, what arrangements were made about you signing the statement?

ZUKO ZUKILE MAKAPELA: They went and got me from school so that we could make such arrangements.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes now in order for you to sign this document what arrangement was made with your attorney after he would have had it typed?

ZUKO ZUKILE MAKAPELA: The arrangements that we made was such that we would meet here yesterday in the morning at eight thirty before the hearing starts.

CHAIRPERSON: Even then you did not think it necessary to tell him: "Look I am in East London, I am accessible if you need me to sign it before then, then you can contact me"?

ZUKO ZUKILE MAKAPELA: No I did not think of that.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, yes thank you. Mr Mapoma do you still require the other applicant to testify?

MR MAPOMA: No Sir I do not need him.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hole?

MR HOLE: Thank you Sir. Thank you Mr Chairman, in that event Sir that will conclude the evidence on behalf of the applicants.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma have you got any evidence that you wish to place before us?

MR MAPOMA: No Sir, there is no further evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Then Mr Hole are there any submissions you would like to make?

MR HOLE: Yes Sir thank you. Sir I would submit that the act that the applicants made themselves guilty of is an act as envisaged in the Act, the founding Act of this committee. Mr Chairman I would submit further that it appears that the act that they committed was committed with a political motive to pursue or further the interests of a political organisation to which they belonged at the time. It is in my submission Mr Chairman clearly an act of a political nature, directed against a person who was perceived at the time as being an obstacle to what the applicants and the rest of the community wanted to achieve. In that sense Sir, Mr Chairman Sir, the act was indeed an act that had a political purpose. It in my submission fits in with the definition as contained in the Act. And it does not appear that there is a situation where the act that they committed is too remote from the purposes that they wanted to achieve.
	I would ask that the Committee should find it fit to extend amnesty to these applicants. Unless the Committee wants to hear me on any other aspect Sir that would be my address on the merits of this matter.

CHAIRPERSON: What about fees for yesterday?

MR HOLE: Yes. Thank you Sir I had. Sir the situation is as follows. Yesterday these applicants and myself attended yesterday from the beginning of the proceedings until the Committee adjourned for the day, yesterday. It appears Mr Chairman Sir that the question of fees for the attorney arises out of the failure to file the papers by a certain date. Mr Chairman on the face of it, it would appear that there could be imputed negligence but if not wilful default. But the Committee has painstakingly taken this applicant on the fact surrounding this issue for which I must thank them.
	It does appear from the facts Mr Chairman Sir that there is a  (...indistinct) situation here. Mr Chairman Sir you have an applicant who stays in the rural areas. From his evidence this is very far away from Alice town. This is a rural area where from the evidence of the applicant there are no addresses. There are no street numbers, there are no street names, no numbers on the walls of the houses there. 
	From his evidence Sir it appears that even to get his mail he must use his father's work address. And he says even in that instance, Alice being what it is he still cannot get his mail as he should get it. Looked at, in the background of what he has painted to the Committee, one can only appreciate the difficulties that his legal team had in getting access to him. It appears from what he says Sir that his legal team even resorted to asking the local ANC people there to assist. And it appears from his evidence clearly also that he says eventually his attorneys made contact with him in East London. This is after attempts were made to look for him in Alice. And clearly Mr Chairman had it not been for those circumstances the affidavit which is the cause of this whole dispute would have been filed in time. 
	And Mr Chairman has information to the effect that when members of the support group of the Committee telephoned they were made promises to about the progress of this affidavit and when it would be available. Certainly the details of the difficulties were not given to them but we do not have a situation where a blatant refusal was made or somebody told the person involved that look no such affidavit will be filed. It does appear from the facts that attempts were being made to comply. It does appear that endeavours were made to contact the applicants. The situation under which the applicants' attorneys worked are not to the ideal Port Elizabeth situation where everybody has an address and where there are postmen, and where you can simply drive to and get the person you want. Certainly not, they were not the most ideal situation.

ADV POTGIETER: Mr Hole what did you do with the notice of set down that was faxed to your offices on the 26th of March?

MR HOLE: Besides keeping it in file Sir, the local ANC office was notified.

ADV POTGIETER: Yes.

MR HOLE: And I might mention Sir that other than that notice of set down the attorneys for these applicants were telefaxed a letter on the 25th of March 1998. This was raised by Mr Chairman earlier to say a hearing of this application would be made on the 23rd and the 24th of March. And that document was filed to us on the 25th of March.

ADV POTGIETER: Now Mr Makapela tells us that about three weeks ago he was informed via the ANC office about the fact that this matter will be heard. And that seems to be fairly soon after you had received the notice and you had transmitted it to the ANC. Not so?

MR HOLE: Certainly.

ADV POTGIETER: So there does not seem to be any breakdown in communication in regard to communicating the fact that there was going to be a set down? That was done about three weeks ago?

MR HOLE: Yes.

ADV POTGIETER: Now had seen, I assume that you had seen Mr Makapela in East London, not so?

MR HOLE: Yes that is so.

ADV POTGIETER: By the looks of things although you said it was about a weekend or two ago it seems according to what he says last Thursday?