Amnesty Hearings — Pinetown — 2000-02-14

CHAIRPERSON: Not because some other Court may have erroneously come to a wrong conclusion, that does not mean to say that we will then grant amnesty in respect of that, does it?  I would like to hear argument on this at the end of the hearing.

MR DEHAL: Certainly.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And we can grant amnesty for an offence.  If he's committed no offence we can't grant amnesty.

MR DEHAL: I agree.  I think what we'll do is - let me look at the situation and address the Panel at the end of this matter.  Presently it would seem his version is that indeed he did inflict stab wounds and he accepts in retrospect, that the stab wounds, all three were inflicted by him and indeed caused the deceased's death. - inasmuch as he acted in self-defence.
	Mr Chairperson, that is the evidence of the applicant, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DEHAL

MR PANDAY: Thank you, Mr Chairman.  Mr Chairman, as I've indicated earlier on at the inception of this hearing, at the moment I'm acting on instructions that I received on the previous attendance, where the application was opposed at that stage.  In light of that, Chairperson, I shall go through the merits of the application and most probably address Mr Chairman at the end of the matter.

JUDGE DE JAGER: You're appearing on whose behalf?

MR PANDAY: On the victims' behalf, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Ja, but which victims?

MR PANDAY: The victim was the girlfriend, Alzina Luthuli, that was on the previous occasion when she had appeared and the matter was then adjourned.  So as at that point my instructions were that this matter was being opposed, this application.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Ja, perhaps you should address us also at the end whether she's a victim in terms of the definition of the Act.

MR PANDAY: I accept that Mr Chairman.  At the same time if I may bring to Mr Chairman's attention, there's also the brother that has been present this morning.  He is in the process of trying to locate the girlfriend.  The girlfriend's evidence is crucial in terms of verifying or not verifying what actually took place on the day in question.  So as I say, Mr Chairman, once the brother has returned, then I'll be in a proper position to advise the Committee as to whether the amnesty application is opposed in its entirety.

CHAIRPERSON: Well the brother was present and is now endeavouring to assist the Committee by finding the missing witness.

MR PANDAY: That is what I was informed, Mr Chairman.  Thank you.  May I proceed, Mr Chairman?

JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes.

MR PANDAY: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
	Mr Ngubane, just before we go any further, your attorney handed in an Exhibit A, a further statement by you, I'm going to refer to paragraph 2 and I just want you to confirm the date.  You indicate that on the 17th of December 1982 you were sentenced, convicted and sentenced to a term of six years, should that 1982 be 1992? - just for the purpose of clarification.

GEBU FANYANA NGUBANE: Yes, I do see that it's a mistake, it happened in 1992.

MR PANDAY: Thank you.  Now Mr Ngubane, you indicated that you're an ardent follower and supporter of the ANC, is that correct?

GEBU FANYANA NGUBANE: That's correct, Sir.

JUDGE DE JAGER: He's confirmed his affidavit, so you need not repeat it, he's already confirmed that it's correct and it's true.

MR PANDAY: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE DE JAGER: If you differ from him, put wherever you differ.

MR PANDAY: Mr Ngubane, when did you join or become a follower of the ANC?  In what year.

GEBU FANYANA NGUBANE: If my memory serves me well, I first became interested in the ANC when I was in standard two, in 1977.

MR PANDAY: Now Mr Ngubane, I'm going to take you to the day in question of this incident, that being the 7th of January 1992.  In your statement, that is paragraph 9, you ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: Sorry, is it the 7th or the 1st?

MR PANDAY: Sorry, the 1st of January.  Sorry, Mr Chairman. - no, it's the 7th, Mr Chairman, according to the statement in paragraph 6, which reads
"On the morning of the 6th of January 1992, the deceased in the company of seven black males approached the house of Izak Msomi ..."

JUDGE DE JAGER: In paragraph 5 he refers to the 1st of January, but that didn't relate to the incident I suppose.

MR PANDAY: Didn't relate, thank you.  Thank you, Mr Chairman, may I proceed?
	Mr Ngubane, you indicate in paragraph 9 that you managed to somehow overpower the deceased and you took away his knife from him and stabbed him.  Now I'm going to refer you to page 4 of the bundle of documents, that page 4, the second-last paragraph which reads as follows -
"Izak Msomi and myself ran away.  The seven men chased us and I had a knife in my possession.  These men chased us and the deceased was the one who caught up with me.  I then turned around and stabbed the deceased.  I stabbed him about two times."
Now the discrepancy I have with your two statements is that in paragraph 9 you indicate that you managed to take away a knife from the deceased, but now you seem to contradict yourself in your affidavit on page 4, where you say you had a knife in your possession.  Now how did you get hold of this knife?  There seems to be a contradiction whether you had the knife or the deceased.

GEBU FANYANA NGUBANE: I dispute that I had a knife in my possession.  Another factor is that I did not write this statement myself, I related it to the person who was writing it down for me.  That person may have made a mistake.  What I know is that I removed the knife from the deceased and that is when I stabbed him.

CHAIRPERSON: But you swore to the correctness of that statement, Mr Ngubane, didn't you?

GEBU FANYANA NGUBANE: I do admit that I did take the oath, but as a person who is not literate in English, I did not read the statement so I did not know what was contained therein.

MR PANDAY: Mr Ngubane, do you recall the person who assisted you to draft this affidavit?

GEBU FANYANA NGUBANE: No, I do not.

MR PANDAY: Did that person speak to you in English or in Zulu?

GEBU FANYANA NGUBANE: The people that I spoke to conversed in isiZulu.

MR PANDAY: They conversed with you in Zulu, so you understood what they were asking you, is that correct?

GEBU FANYANA NGUBANE: Yes, I did.

MR PANDAY: Why do you say to us today that you did not understand when they asked you who had the knife?  Or you made a mistake.

MR DEHAL: Sorry, may I just interject.  That is not what he said, he said that he did not read the statement and therefore he cannot tell whether what was contained in it is correct, he spoke in Zulu, but he understood the person who questioned him.

MR PANDAY: Let me ask the question.
	Mr Ngubane, after the person helped you draft this affidavit, did they read this affidavit back to you?

GEBU FANYANA NGUBANE: I cannot say for certain, but I do not recall ever having read a statement or having somebody read a statement to me because they assisted me when writing.

MR PANDAY: Now on the day in question ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: Sorry, who assisted you in drafting this affidavit?

GEBU FANYANA NGUBANE: I would say it was the police who handled the case.

JUDGE DE JAGER: No this affidavit was drafted last year in November, the 15th of November last year and it was attested before a Captain of the police, but who assisted you in - how did it come that you filed this affidavit?  Who assisted you in drafting it?

GEBU FANYANA NGUBANE: If I recall it was Mr Madladla who assisted me.  He just wrote the statement, but he did not read it back to me although he made me sign and I could not have read it because I do not understand, I do not read English.

JUDGE DE JAGER: How did you come to see Mr Madlala?  Who asked you to come to the police station, or who accompanied you to the police station?  Or did you go to the police station on your own, out of your own free will?