Amnesty Hearings — Pietermaritzburg — UNKNOWN

MR BRINK: Mr Chairman, at the outset I would like to apologise for the lateness of the start of this inquiry,
the reason being that the next of kin and victims were apparently delayed by reason of the roads being extremely wet, and they come from a fairly remote area.  
I'd like to thank my learned friend, Mr du Toit, his junior and his attorney for the considerable assistance given in the preparation of the record in this matter, which has saved the somewhat understaffed staff of your Committee considerable work, and of course time and money, and I appreciate their assistance in this regard.
Mr Chairman, Members of the Committee, as you know the applicant makes application for amnesty in respect of 11 counts of murder for which he was convicted and sentenced in the Pietermaritzburg Supreme Court in April 1992.  He is also asking for amnesty in respect of two attempted murders, and also for the crime of arson, in respect of which crime he was not charged.  
All these events took place - all these events occurred on the night of the 2nd/3rd December 1988 in a place known as Trust Feed in the district of New Hanover, at a time when the applicant was the station commander of the New Hanover Police Station, and the events have since been stigmatised as the Trust Feed Massacre.
If I can refer you, Mr Chairman, Members of the Committee, to Volume I, page 8, of the application.  You will see under the list of names of those deceased appear two persons, Ida Hadebe and Numbagoli Zulu, who were the complainants in the attempted murder charge.  All these people have been notified, and indeed I have called the roll.  They, together with those appearing on page 9 of 
	/Volume I
Volume I - you'll see those are other interested parties -have been notified.  I should indicate that the name of
the deceased, B R Makhatini - that's at No 71 on that page, page 9 - he has since died, but his family were advised.  The police sent me a fax indicating that they were all advised of the hearing today, and they indeed signed an acknowledgement in respect of the advice given to them.  In regard to the witness No 89, or the next of kin rather, on page 9 - that's No 89 - this person is also dead, but his family have been informed.  In regard to No 86, that is a duplication of No 54 on that page, Mr Chairman, Members of the Committee.  In regard to the witness No 87, that is a duplication of No 56, and in regard to the witness No 88, that is a duplication of No 55.  I understand from the briefers from the Rehabilitation and Reparations Committee that the witness, Ntombolo Rose Makhatini had not arrived this morning.  Joseph Makhatini had not, and Hlupegile Peregrine Xulu likewise had not, but they might be arriving at a later stage, and I can ascertain that during the short adjournment.
Now, just to put the Committee in the picture regarding the settlement known as Trust Feed, I should refer you to the judgment of the Trial Court, which appears in Volume II at page 383 the following, and I just paraphrase what the Trial Court found.  I don't intend to be long, but it was established during the course of the trial that the Trust Feed area was a so-called black area, and a number of black people bought land in that area in the early part of this century.  It was intended they would farm it, but nonetheless they rented the land owned 
	/by them
by them out to tenants.  At a later stage the tenants began to assert what they considered to be their rights,
and they formed a Crisis Committee.  In short the bulk of the landowners at a much later stage sought the assistance of the Inkatha Freedom Party, and the bulk of the tenants forming the Crisis Committee sought the aid of the United Democratic Front, and that caused a certain amount of difficulty.  But nonetheless at the time when the events with which you are concerned took place Trust Feed was a -to quote the Trial Judge - a haven of peace.
And in conclusion, in regard to the opening remarks, Mr Chairman, Members of the Committee, I wish to say that despite a strong recommendation by the Trial Judge - and this appears in Volume III at page 631 and following pages - that there be a full inquiry by the police relating to what appeared to be a cover up in the initial investigations of the murders and attempted murders, no such inquiry has ever taken place.  There were undertakings by the then Minister of Law and Order that such would take place, but nothing has been done.  
I received a telefax from a senior member of the South African Police Services the other day, who indicated that a captain who was accused No 1 at the trial, and who was acquitted, was subsequently promoted to the rank of major;  that Superintendent, as he is now, van den Heever, who was accused No 1 at the trial, has now been promoted to that rank;  and on the instructions of the Commissioner-General, that is Commissioner van der Merwe -the then Commissioner-General - Lieutenant General Basie Smit and a retired Regional Court Magistrate, a Mr Krugel, had consultations with the Attorney-General in this 
	/province,
province, and following that no departmental steps were taken against Superintendent van den Heever.  This matter
is now with the Investigative Unit, who have issued a subpoena on Lieutenant-General, as he then was, Basie Smit.
That concludes my opening remarks, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Toit.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Sorry, Mr du Toit, before you get onto it, can I just - I want to respond to some of the opening remarks by Mr Brink.  Mr Brink, with regard to the, as it were, return of service that you have there, I understood you to say that the report says that the police informed the interested parties that there would be this hearing today.  There is something that is deeply troubling me about this whole business, and that is that that is not what the Act says people must be told.  The Act does not say that the people should just be told about the date of the hearing.  The Act wants the families of the victims to be informed of much more than that.  In faction section 19 (4) says that the - that in a prescribed manner the victims or persons, etcetera, having interest in the application must be told when - the time when the application will be heard and considered, and then these people must be informed of their right to be present at the hearing and to testify, adduce evidence, and submit any article to be taken into consideration.  In other words the real purpose of this is that people must be appraised of their rights, not just to come and make a cosmetic appearance before us, or at the ... (inaudible) ... the victims and their families must be appraised of their rights, and what their right is all about.
/MR BRINK

MR BRINK: Mr Chairman, Members of the Committee, I have interviewed all the next of kin present when they arrived this morning.  I have explained their rights to them.  I have advised them that they are entitled to give evidence, that they are entitled to be represented, but because there are so many of them I suggested that amongst themselves they elect one, or possibly two representatives to testify if they so wish because of the constraints of time - this matter is set down for two days - if each and every one of them come.  But if they wish to they are at liberty to do so.  They understand their rights.  It was interpreted to them by members of the - briefing members of the R and R Committee, so they are fully aware of their rights, I can give you that assurance.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: I am not sure I understand what you mean.  Are you saying that you have fully appraised the families, the victims, of their rights, and the fact that if they so wish they could have legal representation?  Are you saying they have been so appraised of their rights?