Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1997-05-20

JUDGE WILSON: You must also have regard for the fact that the sole information they had, was given by some young girl that morning and on that basis they killed this man.  On the basis of that, they shot this man, on the basis of that information that some young girl told them there was going to be a meeting.

ADV MATHANA: Yes, if they had been hearing about these particular meetings to the extent that they began to believe that they were in fact taking place, then they could be expected to proceed to Mr Mpisane's house.

CHAIRPERSON: You see, one gets the impression that on the 27th they spoke to Mr Mpisane when they saw him at court and one got the impression that it was a fairly normal discussion, they did not part as enemies.
	And two days later, they go there heavily armed, they have made up their minds that they are going to kill him and others who are going to be with him at a meeting.  Now that is the one impression that one is left with, the other is that they operate on rumours, it is rumoured that this was happening, it is rumoured that that was happening and they act on rumours.
	That is how it seems to have been operating in that area?  And they act heavily armed, based on what has been fed to them as rumours.

ADV MATHANA: Mr Chairman, the position is as they have also explained, since they didn't have evidence to prove that this person was an informer, they had to follow this rumour up and in an attempt to do so, and on the day when they approached Mpisane, they had several reasons.
	One of them was to see if there was not still a chance that they could win, in fact that they could win him back.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Mr Mathana, with due respect, that is not the evidence before us.  There is no evidence that the intention was to follow up the rumour, they acted because they believed the young lady who advised them that Mr Mpisane was an informer and also based on their observation which had happened earlier on, on the 27th when they were in court when Mr Mpisane was seen openly associating himself with the police in court.
	So they actually believed that he was an informer.  They did not intend to verify that information.

ADV MATHANA: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: And they told us several times that the purpose of going there was if there was a meeting being held, they were going to kill.
	They weren't going to try to convert him, there was a meeting, they were going to kill.  Didn't they say that repeatedly?

ADV MATHANA: That is correct sir.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Do you wish to proceed further Mr Mathana or are you through?

ADV MATHANA: Is there any other aspect that the Committee would like to hear me on?

CHAIRPERSON: It is for you with regard to the Act, it is for you to apply your mind to the relevant portions of the Act and satisfy us that your clients' case falls within the provisions of those sections.

ADV MATHANA: Thank you sir.  As far as the next aspect of the requirements, I have already covered it in fact.  The fact that they when they attacked Mpisane that they had as the object of their act, the State in a sense that they eventually were trying to eliminate the ISU and also eventually in trying to eliminate the township municipalities against which the community was standing.

CHAIRPERSON: You see that is a political aim, that is that they were opposing a municipality which was imposed upon them.  We are talking about the attempt to kill this particular individual, do you understand?  There was no suggestion that he was part of the municipality.  Do you understand?
	So that has got nothing to do with their political wish of doing away with the local municipal government, that might have been one of the aims of their political organisation of SANCO.  SANCO was determined to make the locality ungovernable, because they did not like the municipality.
	Now, we are now talking about Mpisane, Mpisane was not a member of that council or that municipality.
	The argument on Mpisane can only be that they were going for Mpisane because Mpisane was looked upon as an instrument used by the police.

ADV MATHANA: That is my argument, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Because he was somebody who was used or was associated with the police, they were entitled to kill him?  Is that it?

ADV MATHANA: Because that is what they said they were supposed to be doing.

CHAIRPERSON: Because somebody is known to associate with the police, then you are entitled to kill him?

ADV MATHANA: ;	Not merely associated, but being used by the police to inform on them, or their activities Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And their conclusion was based on rumours? ... that they were convinced because on the 27th they saw him at court while they were there and he was talking to the police, so that is proof beyond doubt as far as they are concerned that because he was seen talking to the police, Mr Mpisane knows that they are at court, he sees them, they talk to him after the occasion to fix a venue for a meeting and a time for a meeting, and that is the background.
	On the 29th they go there armed, fully determined to wipe him out whether he is seen with the police or not?  That is the picture that we are left with.

ADV MATHANA: Unfortunately Mr Chairman, the wisdom with which they acted, that particular day, may be what as cause has led them to this situation at the present moment, but at that particular time, they were believing that this person is in fact an informer and that therefor they were supposed to deal with him, in the manner in which they did.

JUDGE WILSON: Would an informer openly speak to the policeman at court when there are all sorts of people around?  Would an informer arrange to have meetings involving about six or eight other people at his shop, open to the public, can one possibly believe that that anybody would think that that was the conduct of an informer?

ADV MATHANA: It cannot be expected of a reasonable person to believe that under those circumstances that person is in fact an informer, but as I've already maintained, we have to deal here with what was happening in their minds at the time.
	Whether they truly believed what they believed at that particular moment in time, which led them to act in the manner in which they did.

CHAIRPERSON: These are people who have been from their own evidence, involved in all kinds of activities, where violence and firearms were used, they have been dispossessed of their firearms by certain units of the ANC, so these are experienced people?  They are not novices, they are commanders of the SDU in the area or leaders of the SDU, they are not just the ordinary rank and file?

JUDGE WILSON: And they are not children, and they weren't children at the time.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Mr Mathana, the problem that I have is that they believe that Mr Mpisane was an informer and Mr Mpisane is not an ordinary person within the community, he was a senior member of the ANC and a member of the SDU, he was charged at one stage with an important responsibility of collecting funds for the purposes of buying arms on their version, you see.
	Now if you then believe without any further information only because you actually have seen a person of Mr Mpisane's standing openly associating himself with the police, at a public place for that matter, in court, I mean, I find it highly improbable to believe that a person of Mr Mpisane's status would be in a position to do that, that would be too risky, isn't it?
	He is a well known figure in the community and to be seen openly associating with the police, would be putting his life in danger and his credibility as a senior member of the Organisation and to believe that a meeting with the ISU could be arranged and convened at his house, for a person of his standing, that is highly improbable.
	That is the problem that I am sitting with.