Amnesty Hearings — Pietermaritzburg — 1998-02-10

MR PRIOR: Thank you Mr Chairman.  Mr Chairman, we proceed this morning with the amnesty applications of Andile Shiceka, Walter Falibonga Tanda and Bongani Malevu, on the 10th of February 1998.
	Mr Chairman, sorry, just for the record, Adv P.C. Prior representing amnesty and in this matter, Mrs Swarts, one of the victims in the application.

CHAIRPERSON: For the record you will say they are applications 5939/97, the next one 5784/97 and the third one 293/96.

MR PRIOR: Yes, I confirm that Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And the panel consists of myself, Ngoepe J, Adv Potgieter SC, and adv Sandi.  And the other people please place themselves on record.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Thank you Mr Chairman, members of the panel.  My name is Norman Arendse, I am from the Cape Bar, I am appearing together with my learned friend Vuyani Ngalwana.  We appear on behalf of all three applicants.  From left to right Bongani Malevu, in the middle Walter Tanda and on the right Andile Shiceka.
	And I would like, with your leave Mr Chairman, deal with them in that order, thank you.

MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman, before we continue, we have agreed the status of the bundle of documents which have been already handed up to the panel, as Exhibit A.  That Exhibit A is a bundle of documents which sets out the amnesty applications, the indictment and medical legal post-mortem examination report, a court judgement, three witness statements and certain press and newspaper articles.
	Without further proof thereof, the bundle is what it purports to be.  Obviously the veracity of each and every allegation in those documents is not cast in stone, it is open to be challenged by any party and or the Committee.
	So the agreement is basically that proof thereof is dispensed of.  The status is accepted.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, which is the bundle that you are referring to?

MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman, the prepared bundle.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, you mean the whole thing?

MR PRIOR: Yes, that is the bound bundle.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

MR PRIOR: May that be marked Exhibit A with leave of the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: All right, very well.  Thank you.

MR PRIOR: May I also place on record Mr Chairman, that notices were sent out to all the victims.  Mrs Swarts, I have indicated is present.  Mr Wolfaardt and Mr Maloney who were the other two victims in the incident, were notified.  They indicated that they were unable to attend.
	Both victims, Maloney and Wolfaardt expressed the following, that they had no objection to the application for amnesty and obviously would leave the decision in the hands of the Committee.
	Certain implicated persons have been notified, those are the persons whose names appear at item 5 of Exhibit A, that is the bundle.  I understand, I have only been handed the fax report or the return of service, is that the notices, the Section 19(4) notices, were delivered to their last known addresses and their inmates of those addressed brought it to the attention of those persons.
	I understand that Mr Dube was the only one who contacted Mr Arendse in so far as representation was concerned.  So from amnesty's side Mr Chairman, all the notices were handed to all the interested parties.  I do have the returns if it should be necessary.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, Mr Arendse, the formalities have been dispensed with now.  I am sure we can proceed now.

NORMAN ARENDSE: As you please Mr Chairman.  Mr  Chairman, members of the Committee, I just have a short prepared opening statement to make and thereafter I would like to call on each of the applicants to give evidence in support of their applications.
	I believe that copies of prepared statements on behalf of the applicants, have been made available to you.  They are unsigned.  They will stay substantially as they are, there will be some deviations here and there because, and the reason for that is, for the first time only today, this morning, I had an opportunity of meeting all three applicants together in the same room.

ADV POTGIETER: Mr Arendse, you say they are prepared statements from the applicants?

NORMAN ARENDSE: That is correct Adv Potgieter.

CHAIRPERSON: The statements cover incidents other than the one we (indistinct) with?

NORMAN ARENDSE: That is correct Mr Chairman, because there was a request from the Amnesty Committee Secretariat for the applicants to provide details to the other incidents, but yes, you are right, we only intend to deal with the Newcastle Crazy Beat disco matter and unless you specifically or Mr Prior wants to refer to the others, I don't intend to deal with them.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, I suppose ordinarily we would confine ourselves to what is before us.

NORMAN ARENDSE: As you please Mr Chairman.  If I may continue Mr Chairman.
	Mr Chairman the applicants were arrested in connection with what is referred to as the Crazy Beat disco incident in Newcastle on the 15th of February.  The incident itself took place on the 14th of February of 1994.
	The applicants were then charged with murder, attempted murder, unlawful possession of arms and ammunition and grenades.  These charges arose from the shooting which took place at the Crazy Beat disco on the 14th of February.  As a result of the attack on the disco, a 31 year old white female I hope the pronunciation is correct,  Guibrecht Solomina van Wyk was killed.	
	Applicant malevu was convicted.  They appeared in court, he was convicted or murder, attempted murder and the unlawful possession of machine guns.  Applicant Tanda was convicted of murder, attempted murder and unlawful possession of machine guns, grenades and three rounds of ammunition and a pistol.  Applicant Shiceka was convicted of murder, attempted murder, unlawful possession of machine guns and grenades.
	Malevu was sentenced to an effective 10 years imprisonment, the trial court having found that he was an accomplice to the murder and the attempted murder as well as being an accessory after the fact.
	Tanda and Shiceka were found to have perpetrated the attack on the Crazy Beat disco.  They were sentenced to effective terms of imprisonment of 25 years.  The applicants, Mr Chairman, accept that they were properly convicted and sentenced by Judge Hugo, sitting with two assessors on the 24th and 26th of May 1994.
	We submit that the summary of substantial facts in the criminal trial which I see is not part of the record before you Mr Chairman, read together with the facts found by the trial court, and those facts are before you, are substantially correct.
	The trial court also found correctly that the applicants were members, in the case of Mr Malevu, the members of the Pan African Congress and in the case of Messrs Shiceka and Tanda, members of APLA.
	The trial court also found that the attack was politically motivated.   That they acted on orders from the APLA high command and that the applicants gained nothing personally from the attack.
	Mr Chairman and learned members of the Committee, we submit that on these facts as found by the trial court, albeit with respect, that it is an opinion from another tribunal, we submit that this Committee after hearing evidence will make the same if not similar, the same findings and accordingly we submit that having regard to the Act, and in particular the requirements for amnesty, that the applicants should be entitled to be granted amnesty.
	Mr Chairman, if I may proceed to call the first applicant to give evidence, Bongani Golden Malevu.

BONGANI GOLDEN MALEVU: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Arendse, in the criminal trial, who was accused 1?

NORMAN ARENDSE: Accused 1 was Malevu.  Accused 2 was Tanda and accused 3 was Shiceka.  And accused 4 was also a Malevu, the brother of Bongani Malevu.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, yes you may proceed.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Thank you Mr Chairman.  Mr Malevu, you have made an application, a formal application for amnesty to this Committee, is that correct?

INTERPRETER: The speaker is not audible.