Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1998-09-10

CHAIRPERSON: My Committee has been thinking about whether a man whose name has been mentioned here in connection with the murders that took place, Tinage, apparently it is known, it seems, that he is serving a term of imprisonment at some place or the other, his name - we are told what his name is, it may not be the same Tinage, it may be somebody else, but assuming it is the same person, is he not an implicated person and ought notice not to be served on him?
	Have you any views on that?

MS GOSO: He definitely qualifies as an implicated person Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, in terms of the Act I think, I think in terms of the Act, we are obliged to serve a notice on him, don't you think so?

MS GOSO: I am not so sure whether that is a discretionary matter or an obligation matter.  Maybe the leader of evidence can assist in that regard.

MR MAPOMA: Yes Chairperson, in terms of Section 19(4) of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, the Commission, we are enjoined to notify him as an implicated person.  In fact Chairperson, had we known beforehand what his uncoded name is, we would have notified him.
	The problem that led us in not notifying him was that at that moment sir, we did not know his uncoded name, we only knew the name Tinage.  But now that we had the benefit of knowing who actually Tinage's full names are, I think we are obliged to notify him sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Fortuin, have you any views on that matter?

MR FORTUIN: I would go along with my colleagues Mr Chairperson, that certainly Tinage is being implicated, and therefore I think he is entitled also to respond or to the audi alteram partem rule should apply here, that he be given an opportunity also to say whether he is part of this conspiracy or not.

MS GOSO: If I can come in Mr Chairman.   Tinage qualifying as he may be as an implicated person, I do not know whether there is an obligation on the Committee to hear his matter jointly, together with ...

CHAIRPERSON: No, implicated means he is afforded an opportunity to clear his name, if he chooses to.  In other words we are not calling upon him to apply for amnesty.
	No man can be compelled to apply for amnesty.  If Tinage did not apply for amnesty, it is too late in any case at this stage for him to apply.  It is merely to afford him an opportunity as an implicated person, to clear his name or to comment on it if he chooses to.  That is the, as I understand it, the provisions of that Section.

MS GOSO: Yes Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, okay.  Yes?  My colleague tells me that even on your affidavit the name Victor Sam appears.

MS GOSO: Yes, it does Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Not your affidavit, the affidavit of the applicant, as a person who came with a bag which contained weapons?

MS GOSO: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And to that extent he may be an implicated person as well.  The Committee will take an appropriate decision in the matter, after having given it due consideration.	If it comes to the conclusion that there is no need to serve this notice, if it does come to that conclusion, then we will proceed with considering the evidence and coming to a decision on this application. 	If we come to the conclusion that we are obliged to serve notices on implicated persons, we will hold back our decision and in due course, you will be informed and you Mr Fortuin, you will be informed of our decision.
	Is there anything else that you wish to add at this stage?

MR MAPOMA: No sir, there is nothing more.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, the Committee will now adjourn.  We have come to the end of these proceedings, for the time being at any rate.  Thank you.
HEARING ADJOURNS