Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1999-03-26

ADV PRIOR: ... matter on the role is the amnesty application of Zukile Mbambo and Dumisane Ncamazana.  The Committee is as previously constituted.  The legal representatives are the same as before.
	Mr Chairman, the reason for reconvening was to lead the further evidence in this matter of Mr Jimmy Jones.  He is represented by Mr B B Ntonga, who is present. 
	Mr Chairman before that is done, may I bring the following matters to your attention.  Mr Chairman, you and your Committee will no doubt be aware of the ongoing communication and discussion regarding the availability of Mr Happy Mpahlele to give evidence in this matter, that although placed under notice to be he refused to accept the notice and there were also certain indications by his attorney, Mr Mbandazayo, in an attempt to try and secure his attendance, culminating in a meeting with this or with certain Committee Members in, I think was it Pinetown?  Mr Mpahlele has not made himself available and I understand is not prepared to give evidence.  He indicated that there were certain preconditions that would have to be met before he gave his evidence, and those preconditions have not been met.  They relate to certain lists of APLA cadres in the possession of the police and the police aren't willing to release those.  So by and all it's a situation where Mr Mpahlele is not making himself available.
	Now on the 1st of June - and as a result of an approach made to the PAC by the Commission, I think it was Doctor Alex Boraine that had spoken to Mr Mondane and the President of the PAC, the PAC submitted to the TRC certain submissions which is dated the 27th of May. Those were circulated to all interested parties by letter, or by fax letter on the 1st of June 1998, in particular the applicants' counsel was faxed a copy of those submissions on the 1st of June 1998.  May I enquire whether the Committee is in possession of those submissions?  Mr Chairman, if I may just show you it, it's on a PAC letterhead, signed by Patricia de Lille on behalf of Mr Mike Mondane.

MR LAX: Mr Prior, I remember receiving that many, many months ago.

ADV PRIOR: I'll make the copy available for the Committee if they require it and can have other copies made.
	I would also like to tender at this stage, or possibly no, I'll hold that over.  The issue regarding Mr Mpahlele will probably be raised at the end or at some other time this morning. - no, possibly I can raise it now because I think Miss, I think Advocate Collett before Mr Jimmy Jones' call, I think is going to address the Committee.  I want to tender a letter directed to Mr Theo Mabusela, the PAC Constituency Office in Cape Town, of 19 March 1998, which basically led to the submissions being sent to the TRC, where the Amnesty Committee raised certain concerns with the PAC regarding Mr Letklapa Mpahlele.  May I hand that up?
	And then finally, we are in possession of the judgment in the High Court, Bisho, under case CC01/97.  It was a judgment handed down by His Lordship, Mr Justice Dlodlo in Bisho, and that's dated the 15th of March '99.  In the judgment it is clear that the two applicants were convicted of the three murders, or the murders of Mr Buck Shindege(?), Mr Anvari and Mr Rasavi, as well as a count of robbery.  I ask that these documents - if the Committee deems it necessary to mark them, be handed up.
	And just finally, Mr Ntonga will lead Mr Tjabane's evidence as his legal representative.  Thank you, Mr Chairman.
MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, there are certain things that I would like to place on record before Mr Jones gives his proposed evidence.  The first is that on behalf of the applicants.  I was only informed last Wednesday of these sittings before the Amnesty Committee this week, by Ms Ntanga.
	The second thing is, I received no correspondence whatsoever that Letklapa had not received his subpoena, had said that he was not going to testify, and at all stages I was under the impression that he was under subpoena and would be here today to testify.
	As I understood it, last time we were at the hearing, Mr Chairman, it was the Committee's desire that Mr Letklapa should come and testify in view of the fact that I handed in certain testimony that he had given in the Bisho High Court.  I didn't understand that Mr Jones' evidence was as important to the Committee as that of Mr Letklapa.  
	I believe that in view of the fact that Mr Letklapa's not here, and I was not privy to any of the discussions that took place in Pinetown, neither was I informed thereof until today when my learned friend has just addressed the Committee, I believe that my clients stand to be prejudiced if Mr Letklapa is not here to give evidence in view of the fact that I have seen Mr Jones' affidavit and seen the nature of the evidence that he is to give.  I would ask for some form of a ruling on that in the interests of my clients.

CHAIRPERSON: Isn't the problem that we don't really yet know what evidence is going to be given?

MS COLLETT: The evidence of who, Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jones.

MS COLLETT: Mr Chairman, I have been provided with an affidavit ...
MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

CHAIRPERSON: ...Tjabane.

MS COLLETT: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Well in the judgment given in THE STATE AGAINST DUMISANE NCAMAZANA & ANOTHER, the judgement says at the bottom of page 5
"The State intended to call Xholile Tjabane to testify.  Through his lawyers Mr Tjabane said that he and other members of the APLA High Command had applied for amnesty and their applications are pending before the Amnesty Committee of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.  He said that if he testified before this Court, his application would be prejudiced.  He said that in any event his evidence would not favour the State."

MS COLLETT: Yes, Mr Chairman, but you are referring to Tjabane, I'm talking about Mr Mpahlele.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but if his evidence does not favour the State, do you want Mr Mpahlele?  It may be he says the same thing, we don't know yet.  That is the point I'm making.  All we do know is that at a trial in the High Court he said that, his lawyers said that.

MS COLLETT: With respect, Mr Chairman, you are mistaken.  The person that the judge was referring to was not Mr Mpahlele, he did testify ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, it was Mr Jimmy Jones, the witness we are to hear today.  And if his evidence does not favour the State it would favour, I read it as meaning it would favour the accused, your clients.  So shouldn't we hear his evidence and we can then decide the question of Mpahlele?

MS COLLETT: As it pleases you, Mr Chairman.

MR NTONGA: Mr Chairman, ...
MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prior, do you have anything to say?
	Do you have anything to say in that regard?

MR NTONGA: Yes, Mr Chairman.  I don't know whether I'd be helping the Committee, but my client did file an affidavit on this incident.

CHAIRPERSON: Which would appear to be contrary to what he told the High Court.  Were you acting for him in the High Court?

MR NTONGA: No, Your Worship.

CHAIRPERSON: He didn't himself give evidence, he did this through his lawyers.  So perhaps he could explain to us when he gives his evidence, why he did that.

ADV PRIOR: Mr Chairman, the situation as I understand it is that this was an address or a remark made by Mr Mbandazayo, information that he had given the Court at the time when the State wished to subpoena or call Mr Jimmy Jones, that was placed on record, that he had made an amnesty application, that application would be prejudiced and in any event his evidence would not assist the State, and that is why they left him alone.  I don't think the inference from that remark is that in fact his evidence would assist applicants.  I think it was stated in order to avoid him giving evidence at that stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it true, was his attorney or counsel telling the Court the truth?