Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-06-22

ADV DE JAGER: It's not directed against a political opponent, it's directed against criminals.  And then you fail to meet the requirements of Section 20(2), which defines the categories of applicants.  Because the category of applicants referred to is political people acting against another political organisation, or the employee of a political organisation, or the State.  Because it must be committed by - and it starts off
"... committed by a person falling in one of the categories"

MR MOLOHLANYE: Thank you, Honourable Member.
	I'd like to make an example in that submission, that in other organisations, as we heard in the media that some of the organisation members committed robberies as a political objective ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we know that, but that's not what we are dealing with.  And they would prefer to call themselves as repossessing rather than robbing.  We are familiar with that.  The purpose of establishing this informal structure, from the evidence led before us, was to curb crime, crime which was taking place at Manyasene only, crime which was merely perpetuated by criminals, crime which was not committed by people who were undermining the ANC.
	These were acts of criminals and they were not aimed at the ANC, as a community of Manyasene.  These were criminal acts aimed at the community at large.  As such an informal structure was formed.  
	We are quite familiar with the fact that the ANC Youth League and other ANC structures bearing the name ANC, came up in reaction to some of the criminal activities which became prevalent in different areas.  In this case there was no ANC formation, this was an informal structure.  I don't know how I'm supposed to really emphasise my comprehension of this particular aspect of evidence.

MR MOLOHLANYE: Thank you, Chairperson.
	I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to page 166, paragraph 20, of the Honourable Judge McCall.

MS THABETHE: 116?

MR MOLOHLANYE: 116, my apologies.  Paragraph 20, where it starts with - I'll start at paragraph 10, just three lines after paragraph 10
"On the hand, accused numbers 1, 2 and 4 testified that they were at the time members and supporters of the ANC, and as such active so-called comrades in the area.  Accused number 1 also says that the deceased was an Inkatha supporter.  Although the children of the deceased deny this, the evidence of Ngcobo and Zulu(?) certainly shows that the killing was an ANC killing.  It is suggested by certain of the accused and the children of the deceased, that ill feeling was purely on an ...(indistinct) basis and not on a political basis.  At the end of the day it seems to us however, that the probable difficulty was a political one and the ANC supporters as such were responsible for the killing of the deceased as an Inkatha supporter."
I submit that the acts by the applicant was political, relying on the judgment by the Honourable ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: We don't - we can't rely on the judgment.  No such evidence was led before this Committee.  We can only rely on the evidence adduced before us.  Now you have to rely on the evidence that you were responsible to have led before this Committee.

MR MALAN: Mr Molohlanye, I think in any event if you want to rely on the judgment you should look at the full judgment and if you'd read the following paragraph starting with "apart from anyone else".  It's clear the whole summary that the judge says the essential players were two sections of a family.  And it talks about the rejected son, and that's the essence of his finding.  What you said, indeed in terms of the possible political and what was adduced, the judge did make comment on that, but he proceeds to say
"The essential players on the matter were the family called Cele and the family called Ngcobo."

MR MOLOHLANYE: I stand to be corrected, Honourable Member, but I think when he meant essential players in the killing by the ANC supporters, or on Inkatha members, the essential players were the Cele, the family Cele - were members of the Cele family.  That's how I understand it.

MR MALAN: You may proceed.

MR MOLOHLANYE: That will be the end of my submission.

CHAIRPERSON: Does your submission address the assault on Dudu Ngcobo and the killing of Amos Cele, which are the two offences for which Mr Roy Cele seeks amnesty?

MR MOLOHLANYE: My apologies.  I thought I've finished with this.  That will include, Honourable Chairperson, the assault on Dudu Ngcobo, as well as the murder of Mzimbene Amos Cele.  Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Thabethe, I know you've already presented your argument in respect of both applicants, however, if you wish to reply, because we actually went ahead before Mr Molohlanye could conclude his presentation which was divided into two parts, we allowed to present your argument in respect of both applications.  If you do wish to reply we will afford you that opportunity to reply, in view of the fact that you had already presented your argument in respect of both applications.  If you don't, we will then conclude these applications.

MS THABETHE IN FURTHER ARGUMENT: Thank you, Madam Chair.
	I can just emphasise the fact that on the evidence that the applicant gave to the Committee Members, he was asked the reason why Amos Cele was killed.  He did not suggest anything about the fact that it was political or the fact that Amos Cele was an IFP member.  I won't repeat the reasons that he gave.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Molohlanye and Ms Thabethe, this Committee would like to express its gratitude for your assistance in assisting it to come a just and equitable consideration of the matter.  We will reserve our judgment in respect of the two applications.  We hope to be able to pronounce our decision by the end of the week, which we contemplate to be some time on Thursday or Friday.  The applicants will be duly informed through their legal representative, Mr Molohlanye, about the outcome of their applications.

MS THABETHE: As the Committee pleases.

MR MOLOHLANYE: As the Committee pleases.

CHAIRPERSON: I know that Mr Molohlanye, you will be with us for quite some time, so we will be able to pronounce our decision in an open sitting like this, either on Thursday or Friday, and we hope that you will then be in a position to convey the decision to your respective clients.  Thank you very much.

MR MOLOHLANYE: Thank you, Chairperson.