Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1999-02-08

GLADWELL SELAHLE: He did not tell me, he said it is because he agrees with what stands on this paragraph, he would then sign to verify that he stands by this paragraph.
	That is what he told me.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Mr Mohlaba, emanating from the questions posed by this Committee, do you have any re-examination?

MR MOHLABA: No Madam Chair, only to clarify one aspect.  It is not in the form of re-examination.  It was suggested by Adv Bosman that the applicant strangely mentioned names of people who has passed away and also talked of Skananda.  I just want to indicate to the Chair that we do not have evidence that Skananda has passed away and that should not be the case.

CHAIRPERSON: You are saying the applicant is not aware that Skananda has passed away, if he has indeed passed away, those are not your instructions?  The applicant is not aware that Mr Skananda is now dead?

MR MOHLABA: Certainly Madam Chair, he is not aware of that fact and I myself, carry a knowledge that Skananda was alive during December last year, I saw him myself.

CHAIRPERSON: I appreciate your bringing it to our attention Mr Mohlaba, but it is an issue that really should be appropriately brought during your legal address.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you Chairperson.  That is all from my side.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR MOHLABA

CHAIRPERSON: That being the case Mr Mohlaba, do you propose to call further witnesses in support of Mr Selahle's application?

MR MOHLABA: No thank you Madam Chairperson, I have no other witnesses to call.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  Ms Thabete?

MS THABETE: No witnesses to call Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Was the Section 19(4) notice served on the relatives of Mr Mkhabela?

MS THABETE: Madam Chair, according to the report that we have from the Investigators, notice was going to be served on the 4th of February 1999, that is the report that I have with me, but I can't say for sure, for certain that it was served.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabete, I was under the impression that a Section 19(4) notice was indeed served on the relatives of Mr Mkhabela otherwise I wouldn't have allowed these proceedings to proceed and I was asking this by way of introducing that kind of evidence formally to this Committee, so that that notice can be in fact handed up to the Committee as an Exhibit.

MS THABETE: Madam Chair, it was served.

CHAIRPERSON: Can it be handed up as an Exhibit?

MS THABETE: Certainly.

CHAIRPERSON: It will be Exhibit B and the applicant's documents will be Exhibit A.
	According to the notice, when was it served on the relatives?

MS THABETE: On the 4th of February 1999.

CHAIRPERSON: And from the notice, to whom was it served?

MS THABETE: It reflects that it was served on a Mr Mkhabela.  I would have to ascertain the first name from our Investigator, Ms Sally Seale.  It looks like she served it herself.

CHAIRPERSON: Will you please ascertain the name of the person to whom it was served and the nature of the relationship he or she has with the deceased, Mr Mkhabela?

MS THABETE: I beg your pardon Madam Chair, it says at the bottom, I served, or - this is from Sally Seale, I served the original of this notice on the witness named in such a notice as C. Mkhabela, being it is not clear whether, no, I can't read this handwriting, I will have to confirm with Ms Sally Seale.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, will you please do so, so that I think for the purposes of the record, we can have that information properly reflected on the record.

MS THABETE: Certainly Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: And also will you ascertain whether it was ever the intention of the relatives to attend these proceedings and to oppose this application?

MS THABETE: I will do that Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: In view of the problems that are being experienced by Ms Thabete, with regard to the content of the notice, we will take a short adjournment of about five minutes, to enable Ms Thabete to communicate with the Investigator who attended to the service of that notice, so that we can have full information as to the nature of the relationship to whom the notice was served, and the full particulars of the person to whom such notice was served and whether it was ever an indication of the deceased's family, to oppose this application or not.
	If it is not their intention to oppose this application, Mr Mohlaba, I would expect you to address us immediately after Ms Thabete has put that information on record.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Whereafter we, I don't know whether we shall be in a position to proceed with the next applicant in this hearing, seeing that the time is almost four o'clock and we really are at the hands of the Department of Correctional Services, and whilst talking about the Department of Correctional Services, can we for the record, state our serious displeasure at the manner in which the Department of Correctional is treating the applicants who are appearing before us, by not providing them with food when they know that it is an obligation to so provide such applicants with food.
	We cannot proceed in any hearing with witnesses who have not been given what is fundamental, like food and can we also stress and request Correctional Services to try and make sure that applicants who are due to be heard during this week, do arrive timeously to enable our hearings to start promptly at nine o'clock every day.
	We will take a five minute adjournment.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

UNKNOWN: May I then be at liberty to conclude that it is of common cause that the applicant was in fact a member of the SDU's and further it is common cause ...

CHAIRPERSON: How is it common cause, shouldn't you tell us why you think we should accept that he was a member, it is not common cause?  It is common cause that there were units called Self Defence Units, and that is to the extent  of which issues are common cause.  As to whether indeed the applicant was such a member, it is something that you have to satisfy us.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you Chair.  Madam Chairperson, the applicant has explained and testified before this Committee that he was recruited into the SDU's, that he has undergone some crash training courses and that he was also a member of the ANC Youth League, and I submit that that piece of evidence should be accepted.
	It is common knowledge Madam Chairperson, that the SDU's were establishments of the African National Congress.  It is also common knowledge that the East Rand during the period on which the offence for which the applicant is applying for amnesty, was committed, the East Rand, there was a conflict, people were getting killed in the East Rand and it has been testified here by the applicant that it is on that basis that he joined the SDU's.
	The mandate which they SDU's had, in particular the Unit in which he was operating within, was to protect the community against attacks.  Madam Chairperson, the state of mind of the applicant at the time of the event, that is the killing of Mr Mkhabela, is of primary importance for the Chair to decide on whether the applicant does qualify for amnesty or not, as opposed I submit Madam Chairperson, to the state of mind of the victim.
	I submit Madam Chair ...

CHAIRPERSON: Even if it was of such importance, we wouldn't have been able to have been aware of what his state of mind was, he is dead, isn't he?

MR MOHLABA: Certainly, the victim is dead.  The point which I however wish to bring forward is the fact that the victim belonged to a political organisation, which is not known or did not belong to any political organisation.
	It is not of much relevance towards deciding the state of mind of the applicant.  The political objective or the political goal which needs to be proved, it is the political objective or goal which the applicant sought to achieve in engaging himself in a particular act.