Amnesty Hearings — Nelspruit — 1999-02-03

MR CLAASSEN: Madam Chair, it is true, I believe that inference might be drawn as to the value of his testimony regarding this particular incident.
	Madam Chair, the lines along which amnesty is granted and the requirements for the granting of amnesty, is very clear and it is, I think, best described by the three major or prime requirements, being full disclosure from the side of the applicant, the fact that the crime was committed with an expressed political objective and the proportionality of this said incident.
	Madam Chair, if I might just address the Committee on these requirements, if I may start with the political objective.  Madam Chair, I think looking at the circumstances surrounding or preceding this incident, it is clear that there had been struggles, there had been incidents as Mrs Msibi testified, after the strike when FAWU members returned, there was indeed incidents between FAWU and the union supported by the applicant, which was predominantly perceived to the IFP supported.
	It was also the evidence of the applicant that he had several run ins prior to the incident, with members of FAWU.  Under questioning from the Committee, he stated that he feared his life at his work place, and thus he came to the conclusion that there was no other way.  It is also expressly stated in his evidence, it was decided at this meeting that steps should be taken to decrease the popularity of the ANC and increase the possibility for the IFP to broaden their political hold in this particular area.
	Madam Chair, it is my submission that as far as this particular motive is concerned, it is clearly established in that with reference to the two unions, UWUSA and FAWU involved, I think it was also to some extent corroborated by the applicant, although she said she was not a member of any political party, that UWUSA was perceived to be IFP and FAWU was predominantly perceived to be ANC orientated.

CHAIRPERSON: You don't have to elaborate on that, we are satisfied.  I think that was confirmed also by Ms Msibi.

MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Madam Chair.  Specifically in this regard, I think the inference can be drawn to the fact that there was no clear distinction between party politics, that being the fight between the ANC and the IFP, and the fight which extended perhaps to the work place between FAWU and UWUSA.  It was clearly a political quarrel.
	Madam Chair, in this regard, as far as the political objective is concerned, it is my submission that I think it has been satisfactorily indicated that there was a very express political motive behind this crime.
	Madam Chair, as far as full disclosure is concerned, it is so that in a court of law, the accused had been, the applicant, at that stage the accused, had been convicted of a crime, and in the capacity of not a conspirator, but the one who actually committed the crime.
	This necessarily raises some questions, and I think the applicant answered to some of these questions in saying that what had happened that day, he had several reasons for it, in that he wanted to protect some people, but he also concluded by saying that the evidence given before this Committee in his application, is the actual truth.
	Madam Chair, based on those submissions, I am also of the opinion that the applicant did disclose his actual role, I think it goes further in his saying that had he been asked to do so, he would have.
	I think that might indicate that not the intention of a person who wants to hide anything from this Commission.  Madam Chair, if I may just as far as the proportionality is concerned, it is true that this was a very serious crime indeed, but I think it also follows from the evidence surrounding this particular meeting, that the accused said that according to his version, there was a not trying to exaggerate but the impression was created by him, that there was almost a running battle between the Ratanda hostel, the Ratanda residence and this also extended to his work place, between FAWU and UWUSA members.  
	He said that he felt threatened on a daily basis, and on that particular Monday, he said that he felt his life was threatened, when he was pointed.  I stand to be corrected, I think he also said that it was said to him that he was going to be killed.
	Madam Chair, he said that it was decided that drastic measures should be taken and it was decided to bomb the bus and it was also clearly stated why this decision was taken.  He said that they wanted to increase the support of the IFP to the detriment of the ANC.
	Madam Chair, as far as the merits of this application is concerned, and the applicant's worthiness or the value of his testimony, it is true that it was often asked of him to clearly explain himself on some of the very elaborate answers he gave to I believe, fairly simple questions.
	Madam Chair, as I said, it would be naive to say that he was a very, he was an outstanding witness.  It is however my submission, and I think he was truthful and tried to answer the questions to the best of his ability.
	Madam Chair, in conclusion, it would be my humble submission before this Committee that taken into account, the value of his testimony, it is my submission that I think the applicant should be believed in the truthfulness of his application.
	As such, should the merits warrant it, we are still as I explained or tried to convey with this doctrine of common purpose, the question remains that which the applicant in his viva voce evidence gave before this Commission and that which was actually applied for, is not in the same context.  It is my submission that this could be remedied if the inference is drawn that although not convicted as a conspirator or a co-perpetrator, the accused, once again the applicant, in his criminal case, might have received the same sentence.
	In this regard, I would like the Committee to view it as such, that he clearly states his involvement and the fact that he reconciled himself with what was going to happen, that he was also a perpetrator of this crime, and as such fall under the ambit of the granting of amnesty.
	I therefore request this Honourable Commission to consider his application as such.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Claassen.  Can I find out what you think this Committee should do about not the evidence that was given at a criminal trial, but the evidence that is before us from Ms Johanna Msibi, which puts Mr Radebe not only at the scene of the crime, but which identifies him as the principal perpetrator of the offence?
	That is my problem.  You heard that evidence, you are unable to punch holes on the evidence given by Ms Msibi.  That evidence stands in stark contrast to that given by Mr Radebe?

MR CLAASSEN: That is very true Madam Chair, and I think it would be no less than fair to say that there was - Ms Msibi was a truthful witness.  Madam Chair, it is indeed so that there are two directly opposing versions.
	It was my instruction, it was also put to her that the applicant will deny any such involvement, but it is nonetheless true that these are two directly opposing versions and I must concede that that does create a problem.
	Madam Chair, it remains my submission however that in weighing these two, I think it ultimately boils down to weighing these two versions against each other and seeing which one ought to be believed.  Madam Chair, not taking anything away from Ms Msibi's testimony, I would like the Commission to consider the evidence of the applicant as being truthful despite the obvious difference between the two versions.