Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1997-03-17

MR HOLE COMMITTEE: Honourable members of the Committee you have heard the evidence by these applicants.  They have sketched a story of having been members of a Security Unit in the Ciskei Police, specifically called the Elite Unit.
It does seem to be common cause that whatever acts, deeds or crimes that they stand before you in respect of, these were committed in the course and scope of their employment as members of the Security Forces of the government of the day in the former state of Ciskei.   
	A question has to be answered whether these acts that they have confessed to confirms with the definition of the Act in respect of which this Committee may extend amnesty.  In my submission, Mr Chairman, the offences or the acts that they have made themselves guilty of, which they have now confessed before this Honourable Committee, are offences or deeds or acts or missions as defined in the Act.
	It also has to be asked whether they have made application which complies with the requirements of this Act and in my 
EAST LONDON HEARING	AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR HOLE	51	ADDRESS
submission they have.  They have made a proper application which were duly processed by the Logistic Unit of the Commission and it was decided that a hearing should be held and the hearing has duly been held and they have been afforded an opportunity to state their case and in my submission the acts of which they have made themselves guilty of relate to an act associated with a political objective, committed in the course of the conflict of the past.
	The Committee will recall the evidence they have given at large about their political situation in the country which they served at the time, the tensions between the so-called states of Transkei and Ciskei and the role that the security forces had to play to try and calm the situation.
	It will also be asked by the Committee whether they have made a full disclosure of the relevant facts. In my submission Mr Chairman, they have, in fact in two instances, if I am not mistaken, they have even applied for amnesty in respect of offences for which they were not even been convicted of.   
	We are here dealing with convicted persons who are sitting in jail and it would not make their case any lighter if they confess to other deeds than for which they are sitting in jail, but in the case of Mr Makom for instance, the third applicant, he has confessed to the torture and assault on Miss Msutwana.  Mr Thoba and Mr Thompson have also confessed to the assault on Miss Maqoma.   The Committee will recall their evidence to the effect that they were acquitted in respect of these assaults, but they have laid their souls bare to the Committee and confessed heir guilt in respect of these.
	The Committee, Mr Chairman, will recall that extracts of the judgment by the Regional Court magistrate and in one instance the Supreme Court of Ciskei, detailing the assault, some of it very EAST LONDON HEARING	AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR HOLE	52	ADDRESS
tviolent, which they perpetrated on these victims, were put to them and they readily admitted their complicity in those offences.   In my submission they have thereby satisfied the requirements of Section 20 of the Act regarding the granting of amnesty to applicants.   
	Perhaps I should now, Mr Chairman, deal with whether or not the acts they have made themselves guilty of, the acts for which they seek this tribunal's amnesty are according to the definition acts or missions which were done with the political objective which were advised or planned or directed or committed within or outside the Republic.   
	It is common cause, Mr Chairman, that they were members of the state security forces.   It is common cause that at some instance some of them were commanded and at one instance one of them was in command of an interrogation team.   It is common cause also that, as I have stated before their interrogations were in terms of an Act of Parliament, the National Security Act of Ciskei, which enabled agents of the state to detain and question persons who were held indefinitely at times at the pleasure of the state.   So, there is no dispute as to the official nature of these detentions, but a question might be asked, Mr Chairman, whether acts such as these, the undressing of a lady, the abusing of a lady, pouring her over with water and applying a substance which had a burning effect on her private parts, or switching on a fan and place it next to a lady who is 
unconscious in order to revive her, could be acts as contemplated by this Act.   In my submission, Mr Chairman, all these acts were.  
	This Committee has heard quite gruesome acts perpetrated in the name of the state.   In some instances, Mr Chairman, murders were committed and people came forward and confessed to murders EAST LONDON HEARING	AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR HOLE	53	ADDRESS
of persons for a political objective.  
	In this present case, Mr Chairman, people, especially women were given the worst treatment one can imagine, short of killing them, but having said this I wish to say that it is indeed an act contemplated by this Act.   
	One might perhaps ask why not simply slap her around, why not kick her or why not shove her against the wall?   But it does appear that the whole object, Mr Chairman, was to instil fear.  The whole object was to make anybody afraid, or shall I use the term Mr Chairman, the whole object was to terrorise members of a political organisation which sought to overthrow the government of the day.  Whether this government was legitimate or not is now besides the point, but what was done, Mr Chairman is that terror was used, extreme fear was unleashed on people for two reasons.  	One, to gain information from them about their activities or the activities of members of Illisolomzi who might be in Ciskei or about the escape of Mr Charles Sebe from prison, or the people who assisted him to jump prison and the abduction of the Head of the Elite Unit, General Kwane Sebe.  
	The other objective Mr Chairman, was to instil as much fear in the hearts of anybody who associated himself, sympathised with or was a member of this political organisation Illisolomzi, or the Ciskei Peoples' Rights Protection Party.
	Perhaps the difference would be in the methods used in instilling fear and terror, but I think the Committee will agree with me that we have lived through very terrible times. At some instances hit squads were used to mow down people, women and children in the name of the government.  In some instances women and children were killed in the name of the struggle.   
	And in the present case before this honourable Committee a man and women were tortured very severely, I readily concede, but EAST LONDON HEARING	AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR HOLE	54	ADDRESS
this was still in the name of the government of the day, the government of President Lennox Sebe.
	If one has a look at Section 20, Subsection 3(B) of the Act, the Act reads:
"Whether a particular act, mission or offence contemplated in Subsection 2 is an act associated with a political objective, shall be decided with reference to the following:   the motive of the person who committed the act, mission or offence".
I have already submitted Mr Chairman that this was to instil fear and to extract information for the government of the day and
b)  the context in which the act, or mission or offence took place, and in particular whether the act, mission or offence was committed in the course of or as part of a political uprising, disturbance or event or in reaction thereto."
	Clearly, Mr Chairman, there were treasonable acts being done in Ciskei, according to the laws of Ciskei at that time.  People were detained, a member and the Head of the Elite Unit, the son of the President was abducted and taken to Transkei, people claimed responsibility for detaining him, a neighbouring state was training troops to overthrow Ciskei, pamphlets were distributed by Illisolomzi in Ciskei, inciting and fanning the flames of revolution in Ciskei.   The Security Police of which these applicants were members had to act against this kind of conduct.
	Rightly or wrongly, Mr Chairman, but what they did in my submission they did in reaction to acts of a political uprising or a disturbance.
	If one had regard to Subsection 3(D) of Section 20 which enjoins us to look at the object or objective of the act, or 
EAST LONDON HEARING	AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR HOLE	55	ADDRESS
mission, or offence, and in particular whether the act, or mission, or offence was primarily directed at a political opponent, or state property or personnel or against private property or individuals.
	In my submission, Mr Chairman, the acts of these people, the applicants, gruesome as they may have been, were directed against people perceived to belong to Illisolomzi or have association with members of Illisolomzi or agents of Illisolomzi.    Whether this information was correct or not, in my submission, does not affect the case either way.
	What we should look at, Mr Chairman, is the state of mind of the applicants at the time.  Whether they believed that these people had this information.  They have given evidence, Mr Chairman, to say there was a whole lot of information about Brig Simandla, the question about the key having been lost, which the Brigadier has also alluded to in his unsworn statement.   There was a question of the guard who was not posted at the tower.  There was a question of the guards who were disarmed, shortly before the assault on the prison and all these things, the 
relations between Miss Msutwana, her sister and Gen Charles Sebe who has escaped from custody.   The information that the Elite Unit had that she was acting as an agent or a contact of Mr Sebe.  	In respect of Mrs Nomoy ...(intervention)