Amnesty Hearings — Boksburg — UNKNOWN

ADV MOTATA: Mr Mapoma, if we look at it, I want you to help me, from this angle, that the SDU's are formed with the blessing of the ANC, and the SDU then had its own structures, where there was a hierarchy which controlled the SDU, and then you look at the patrollers and operators, they would get a command from somebody.   Are you necessarily making an argument that even with those structures in place within the SDU, the ANC, when they were formed with their blessing, had still to give that order, are you suggesting that in your argument?

MR MAPOMA: No, Chairperson, my argument is just simply on the order itself, the order in this particular case, the order to kill the deceased persons, that it was an order not from a publicly known political organisation, but from a structure that existed independently, which would invite a question as to whether that structure, in putting that order, was it an order within the blessings of the political organisation itself, and I say no, Chairperson, I'm saying it is an order which was really not an order attached to the political organisation, that is the ANC in this particular instance.

CHAIRPERSON: Isn't your argument that if one looks at, you know, section 20.2, which seems to require inter alia that the act or mission must have been advised, planned, directed or commanded, ordered or committed by and then it describes who can, you know, who can commit that, but more importantly, against the State or any former State or another publicly known political organisation or liberation movement?

MR MAPOMA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: That tends to define the act.

MR MAPOMA: Yes sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, is your submission that the act of these applicants was not directed against any, against the State or a publicly known political organisation, liberation movement?

MR MAPOMA: Yes, absolutely, Chairperson, that is my argument, but I was just, I was taking the argument, developing it towards that point.

CHAIRPERSON: Well can you just make the point then.

MR MAPOMA: Yes sir.   Yes, so while it is acknowledged that the SDU's in this particular instance were members of the ANC, it is my argument, sir, that their actions were not actions waged in furtherance of a political struggle waged by the ANC, and in that they were not directed to another political organisation but they were directed to the members of the ANC Youth League.
	The ANC Youth League, Chairperson, is a youth wing of the African National Congress, and therefore envisaged in the Act is that a particular organisation whose actions were committed must have been actions directed against another political organisation if it is not a State or a former State, and I argue, sir, that in this particular case, that is not the case, these were directed against the internal structures of the very ANC of which the applicants were members.   It is therefore, sir, along those lines that I argue that their action should not be construed as an act associated with political objective within the meaning of the Act.
	The second ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: What about the submission that they were perceived, rightly or wrongly, by the members of the SDU as being an enemy because they carried the same firearms that were carried by the police, and secondly Buthelezi is alleged to have had (indistinct) association with the IFP and was therefore perceived as being a member of the IFP, because that's the submission that was made?

MR MAPOMA: Yes, Chairperson, that version has been contested strongly, sir, by the evidence of a witness who appears to have been a member of the ANC Youth League, Tusanang Lukabe.   There's a dispute, therefore, Chairperson, as to that particular point, a dispute of fact there.   Then it would be a matter which would draw attention to the credibility of Mr Likana as a witness, and I hope to deal with that, Chairperson, later on, but I can argue, sir, that it is highly inconceivable that an ANC Youth League as an organisation can work together with a person belonging to the IFP, which was a political enemy of the ANC, and then all that be considered as an act against the SDU's.

ADV MOTATA: I want you, in your argument against that, to deal with this evidence we have before us that, firstly, other than the SDU's formed to fight the enemy.    The second point would be the enemy was also the people who were harassing the community, that they perceived as being against that objective.   Thirdly, there is evidence that these members of the ANC Youth League were gangsters who were operating under the umbrella of the ANC Youth League, I want you to deal with that in your argument.

MR MAPOMA: Thank you, sir.
	I wish to first deal with this issue of political struggle waged by the ANC vis-a-vis the alleged criminals.  Chairperson, there's never been any struggle by the ANC waged against the criminals, but I can understand, sir, that there was, there may have been a struggle waged by the SDU's against those perceived as criminals in the community, but not under the ANC command.
	It is disputed, Chairperson, that the deceased were necessarily criminals in the community.

ADV MOTATA: So there was no struggle?

MR MAPOMA: There was no struggle waged against people who were perceived as criminals by the ANC.

ADV MOTATA: Just as an addendum to my discursive requirement that you should deal with the same under your argument, if I understood the evidence and the submissions by Mr Madasa, was that the ANC in coming with the formation of the SDU, the objective was that the community should be able to protect itself, it's just an addendum, not to be quite fair to you?

MR MAPOMA: Yes, I take that one, but if I can just respond directly to that one? In their evidence, the applicants acknowledged that it was not authorised by the community for them to do what they did on the deceased persons.   In fact Mr Oscar Motlokwa, under cross-examination conceded that it was neither the ANC nor the community which authorised them to kill the deceased persons.
	If I may proceed, with you permission, sir?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, proceed.

MR MAPOMA: I wish, Chairperson, to deal with the criteria which the section refers to.   In particular it says, if, according to the criteria set out in sub-section 3 of section 20, the act is associated with political motivation. In this particular instance, Chairperson, evidence has been led, and it has transpired out of evidence, that the motive behind what has happened was, amongst other things, a revenge against the killing of one Blanko, who was a member of the SDU's, and it is my submission, sir, that the actual motive behind the killing of the deceased persons was to revenge, and not necessarily to protect the community as the applicants claim to have been acting.

MR MALAN: May I not just follow this up please, Mr Mapoma?  Even if one would see the revenge as a possible motive, is it not possible to argue that both the protection and the revenge element went exactly the same way and sort of in tandem, or that the one would not necessarily have affected the other?

MR MAPOMA: Yes, I agree, Chairperson, but I would go on and say it - sorry, sir, can I hear your point once again?