Amnesty Hearings — Durban — UNKNOWN

MR MALAN: Was he also the driver of the kombi?

NKANYISO WILFRED NDLOVU: I have never seen him driving it.  i only heard from colleagues in Nkanyezini.

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination?

MR ALBERTS: Nothing thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you very much.  You may go to your seat.
WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Are you calling any further witnesses?

MR ALBERTS: No, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Wills, are you calling any witnesses?

MR WILLS: Mr Chairperson I see that it's just about on teatime, I would like to take this opportunity just to consult with a broad range of clients that I have.  It's impossible for me to do it now.  I don't know if something has come up that somebody would want to counter.  But I very much doubt that I will be calling any witnesses but I would just like to put it to them and to establish whether that is indeed so.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, we'll take a short adjournment now and resume in 15 minutes.  The Committee adjourns.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

MR WILLS: Thank you Mr Chairperson we will not be leading any witnesses.

MR ALBERTS: Thank you Mr Chairman.  Mr Chairman it's my submission that the two applicants did comply with the requirements of Section 20 in that there was surely full disclosure, they told the Commission exactly what happened at the time.  The one aspect regarding the mini bus taxi, there was a witness called who somewhat contradicted what the applicants have said.
	Firstly the applicants merely related the information they believed to be true at the time.  It was information given to them and what they stated is that they believed it at the time and therefore acted bona fide.  Mr Mkhize also could not exclude the possibility that this Peta could have driven in the vehicle.  He doesn't know what happened with this vehicle while he is at work.  Therefore, that point as such should not be taken to mean that they did not fully disclose.
	The other point regarding the mini bus is, it's true that the Judge at the trial made, came to a different decision, it was on the facts or it was actually an inference that he'd made from the facts given to him at the trial.  The two accused at that time obviously were lying.  They explained to us why they believed this and they were telling the truth.  It's my submission that this Commission should not be bound by that ruling by the Judge.
	The fact that there were innocent people in the vehicle eventually, that was only realised according to the two applicants at a later stage while this attack was already under way and they decided to continue.  This should also not be a reason for them not being given amnesty.  It's my submission Mr Chairman that for example a person who plants a bomb at a restaurant, surely he doesn't know who h is going to be there or what those peoples' political affiliation, if any, is going to be or a person who plants a bomb in the street and the mere fact that it was in the end innocent people that died and that surely they should have foreseen the possibility that should also not be a reason for them not being granted amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: Even if they continued after realising that they were women and not the men they were targeting?

MR ALBERTS: Mr Chairman, with respect, in a number of incidents violent, politically motivated incidents in the past, some of them who have received amnesty.  The people surely should have known that they were going to attack innocent people.  If you plant a bomb in a street or in a busy restaurant, surely you know you are, right from the start, your intention is to kill innocent people.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm now, you know I think that I'm concerned with the facts of this case ... [inaudible] in other cases, you see.  I want to know an answer to this question here, precisely what is the answer to this question.  That even when they realised that they were women in the bus, they continued attacking.  What is the explanation for that?

MR ALBERTS: Mr Chairman, as I have been saying, surely this Commission is not bound by decisions on other matters by the Truth Commission but where a person do get amnesty, that should be taken into account, other decisions made by the Commission.

CHAIRPERSON: ... [inaudible] decisions, I am asking you a question about what is the answer to this point.  You see, if you are saying the answer to my question to you is that it was just unfortunate that they were innocent people who got killed but this was in the course of events where innocent people who were being killed on both sides.  If that is the answer then I can understand.  Don't go around referring to what happened in other cases.  My question to you is what is the answer to the question I've put?

MR ALBERTS: Yes Mr Chairman, I was going to get to it, I'm sorry that I've taken so long.  That is exactly the point, innocent people did die.  In this case they did not go out, they were maybe a bit reckless in that innocent people could have died.  They didn't go out to kill innocent people and when they realised it was innocent people they, as Mr Chairman has pointed out, they did continue and it was an unfortunate situation that innocent people had to die but that was unfortunately the nature of the conflict at the time, that innocent people also sometimes died and it's merely my submission that because of that fact, it should not be a, prevent these people from being granted amnesty.  Is there anything else on this aspect.

CHAIRPERSON: ... [inaudible] whether the Act, the requirements of the Act have been satisfied apart from the point that you have mentioned and that is that they have made a full disclosure.

MR ALBERTS: Yes Mr Chairman.  The other aspect obviously is whether they were acting on behalf of the IFP.  It is true that the call from the IFP leadership was for calm but it's my submission that these people almost acted as custodians.  They decided yes the IFP leadership wants calm but the only way we are going to stop this violence is by hitting back and like Mr Ndlovu in his application stated intimidating the ANC to the extent that they would be scared of attacking us for fear of retribution and that is what both the applicants stated.
	I think that Mr Dladla also stated that after this attack, the area became calm.  So although they were not acting on instructions of the party and they didn't even have the go ahead of the, or the approval of the party, there bona fide belief was that they were doing the party a favour although that was not what the party wanted at the time, they believed that was what the party needed at the time.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but they weren't carrying out the orders or the instructions of the party.  They weren't instructed by the party, to do what they did.  They did it on their own bat, in the belief that what they were doing, however wrong, might in some way advance the cause of their party?