Amnesty Hearings — Boksburg — UNKNOWN

MR MAPOMA: I submit, sir, that his testimony is credible, because he acknowledges, and he has given a clear account of events that took place during that day, which led to the killing of the deceased persons, I mean the deceased who are subject of this hearing now.
	He goes to the extent of admitting that he himself is one of the persons who killed Blanko.   If he was not a credible witness, sir, he was at will to deny that particular aspect of his evidence.   That in itself, sir, impacts strongly in appreciating his credibility as an honest person.
	He has also been honest that when they formed the SDU's, they were together with the SDU members, who were adults, and as adults they thought that they're going to teach them discipline, because they were adult persons.  Whereas he was in hostility with them, but such hostiles can be explained at the stage, but initially he was honest with  them and there arose that later on, the hostilities.
	Otherwise, all in all, sir, I won't deal with, piecemeal with his evidence, but I just want to say his credibility is quite outstanding in the accounts that he has made.
	That's all, Chairperson, and it is my submission, sir, all in all, that, well I won't take it much, the question of full disclosure, sir, but I submit that the act of killing the deceased persons by the applicants was not an act associated with political motivation or political objective in terms of the Act.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Mapoma.   Mr Madasa, do you want to respond very briefly to the question whether or not, the point raised by Mr Mapoma, whether or not the applicants did assist in their application for amnesty in respect of Motloung, because they don't know how he was killed, even though they admit that they associated themselves presumably with those who killed him?

MR MADASA - IN FURTHER ARGUMENT: Yes, thank you, Mr
Chair, yes the applicants, inasmuch as they do not know how Vips was killed, but they persist on the application because they felt they were involved because their act of capturing him was associated with the killing of Vips.   That is my short answer, Mr Chair.
	Mr Chair, just one point on Tusanang, which my learned friend seems to be wanting the committee to accept his credibility.   I'm thinking of, for example, he said the Youth League only had two AK47's, it was the arms they had, but now it transpires, for example, Thabo, with whom he went to Blanko's place, had a revolver, and from other evidence which is in (indistinct), they had other sort of firearms.  All right.
	Mr Chair, an important point I want to raise on the issue of section 20 again, my learned friend has, as it was pointed out by Mr Chair, that he was intending to state that his submission was that the target of the SDU, that is the ANC Youth League, was not a State or a political opponent.   My answer to that is that section 23, which is an expansion of the meaning of political objective, the criteria given there, especially I want to draw Mr Chair's attention to 3(d), 3(d) specifically, amongst other things, that when this question is looked at, the objective or objective of the act or mission ordered, but not only the State but State property, personnel, or against private property or individuals.   So individuals are now included, and I submit that the ANC Youth League, from the perspective of the SDU, for example, could be seen as those individuals.  But besides that, even if you, it can be viewed, rather they can be viewed as part of the State machinery if they were seen as being infiltrated, which is what the applicants have been saying right through their application.
	Mr Chair, especially the evidence of Michael Nkomo, Moishe August Ndabe, Armoed, all these people, in their evidence in chief, when I dealt with the political objective, they all mentioned the fact that in addition to Blanko's case, they perceived these people as agents of the State.
	On the issue of, Mr Chair, of the community, that these people were not taken to the community and the community did not order their killings, I submit, with respect, Mr Chair, that as it is apparent from the evidence, as much as we are not told how the SDU execute people, it's clear, Mr Chair, that the community would never order executions.   I mean people had their own relatives within the (indistinct), how could they, there would have been discord, therefore it's obvious that it was a matter of SDU separately to decide whether, what should be done to people, but the community had to know.   So I submit that the issue of taking these people to the shack before the community was for the community to see the people who were involved.   Hence it is said Dondolo called the SDU members aside, because that was a matter now for SDU's to decide on the issues of killings.  The community would never have ordered killings, I submit, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Isn't it because it was perceived as an attack against the SDU?

MR MADASA: I submit, Mr Chair, that is not the case.   I think it's a case of an understanding between the community and the SDU that matters of that nature were handled by the SDU, they are the people who were, they are the police, they are the people who were armed.

CHAIRPERSON: But were we not told that if a person is captured, he's supposed to go to the community and account ...(intervention).

MR MADASA: That is my submission.   The community's role ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Did these, did the deceased get the opportunity to account?

MR MADASA: From the evidence ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: They didn't.

MR MADASA: ...the deceased people gave their accounts, there were counter-accusations in the shack against each other.

CHAIRPERSON: But to whom did they give, did they give their account to the community?   They didn't.

MR MADASA: Yes, but Mr Chair ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: They were asked at random by curious people, it would appear, who wanted to know why (Indistinct) was being apprehended.

MR MADASA: It is at that point, Mr Chair ...(inter- vention).

CHAIRPERSON: Would you call that accounting to the community?

MR MADASA: Thank you, Mr Chair, I'm saying, Mr Chair, their intention was for that, that is what these applicants were told, that run out these people, take them there to account.   Now in that process, there emerged Dondolo.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MADASA: And the whole ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MADASA: ...thing changed now.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MADASA: This is what I'm saying, Mr Chair.    Therefore it was Dondolo's action, which cannot be attributed to them.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MADASA: Thank you, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MALAN: Mr Madasa, just now follow up on this, if the applicants persist in applying for the death of Vips Motloung on the basis of their association and his killing, without having any knowledge about how that happened, shouldn't we deduct that that they, in any event, prior to the order, associated themselves with the killing of the deceased?

MR MADASA: I do not think so, Mr Chair, because from what I can glean from what they have said is that at that stage, before the order, they were not aware what was going to be done with the people, that's what they say, but that is open to that kind of interpretation.

CHAIRPERSON: Or did they accept the order which was issued by Mchebe just before the deceased were marched to the veld, to include Vips as well?

MR MADASA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the position?

MR MADASA: Yes, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well.

MR MADASA: Thanks, Mr Chair.