Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1999-05-27

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you, Chairperson. Chairperson, in just to be able to reach a conclusion of this matter, I think it is not necessary for me that he should be here physically. Chairperson, as I indicated that the gist of his evidence which mostly, Chairperson, is not in dispute, but we want it just to put into perspective that these people who are talking about Bongani Moyo and Mrapapa are indeed people who did exist and they were members and they were known within the PAC and Apla, Chairperson. But, Chairperson, if I may, just for the sake of conclusion, Chairperson, if I may address the Committee, maybe if the Committee won't be in a position to reach a decision now, I can do the affidavit and send it to the Committee, in addition to that, just to avoid us delaying the matter and wrap up other issues. Just to confirm this.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well, let me tell you, if he is not going to be called, then we would certainly prefer to get the affidavit because at the very least, my intention is drawn to the fact that, for example, he would be referring to the position of Mr Ngubeni vis a vis the organisation, which, in a sense, might be something that he hasn't drawn to our attention previously. So it would assist in that regard. But, seeing that he is not going to be called personally to testify, we are going to, and Mr Steenkamp has indicated he's not going to lead any further evidence, we are going to listen to your addresses and we will call upon you to submit the affidavit of this witness to us before we then prepare our decision in the matter.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you, Chairperson. I'll do that. I'll ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please. Have you got submissions?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you, Chairperson and honourable members of the Committee. Chairperson, I wouldn't like to detain the Committee, but I would like just to take a few points. Specially I would like first to take the question of task force and Apla.
	Chairperson, according to Apla and the submission they have made regarding task forces, I would say they were similar to the SDUs of the ANC and SPUs of the IFP. They were internally trained cadres and their task was not the same as Apla. They were only involved in security matters, protecting the members of the community, also using VIP protection of the leadership of PAC. But they were a pool from which Apla was drawing its members from. And they were used in certain instances too, in operations. But all the operations they are involved with, always led by Apla. There must be a member of Apla, because they were not actually trained members of Apla.
	So, they did not have a specific programme as Apla that they are going to this and that operation. They are just called upon at certain times and called upon and performed that particular operation. And so, that is why they don't have any programme as such for them except to protect the community as I indicated and VIP protection, some of them were using VIP protection. 
	And as such, it's not like when people are, in actual fact, members of Apla where they can say that, "I was involved in this operation and that operation, and my main purpose was to be involved in operation." So, there is a slight difference in as much as they were trained together. But they did not have those duties and they cannot take initiative on their own, and also identify targets, because that was not their purpose. They were just roped in, within Apla structure, but their structure within Apla, which was trained to protect the community and also for VIP protection.
	Now, Chairperson, moving forward to the two applicants, three applicants, Chairperson, I just want to sum their evidence as a whole. Chairperson, I would like thus, to take into account that the time difference from the date of the incident and that until today, the date of the application. There are might, there may be some instances where they don't remember actually, but it is my submission that, Chairperson, they, they attempted, they have made their best to recall as to what actually took place. And in fact, they did not even once, Chairperson, if I put it, if one person would say, they would have come here and say, look we were members of Apla and after this incident we were in constant contact with Bongani Moyo, but they never did that, though the Committee does not know that. They never hide it that we difficulties, we run for our lives and we have problems. They didn't hide that.
	And, therefore, Chairperson, it is my submission that these two, these three applicants have complied with the requirements of Section 20 and sub-section 1 and sub-section 2 of the Act, that when they indeed undertook this specific operation, they were indeed acting on behalf of Apla. Which, of course, is known and is a recognised political liberation. And if that what they did was not for political gain.
	Chairperson, we know, for personal gain, Chairperson. We know, Chairperson, there have been submissions about Apla regarding that they had units which, as they called it, repossession units, specifically which were dealing with this repossession of money, which was robbery, which is, in fact, a name for robbery. They were robbing these moneys for the survival of the organisation.
	But, of course, before they formed it, it is to formalise it as a structure, it was done by other people, the members itself who were involved in other operations. And until it was formalised that there must be difference between an offensive and defensive, they were calling it defensive structures, because they were only dealing with that particular operation.
	And as such, Chairperson, it is therefore my submission that the three applicants have, have made up their case. That what they did was politically motivated and that, and when they acted, they bona fide believed that what they were doing, was for the interests of the organisation. Because the man who was commanding them, who was at the top of them, was indeed an Apla Commander and he, I'll quote my information, was that he was also a member of the high command of Apla. And as such, Chairperson, they bona fide believed that they were acting on behalf of the organisation, and what they were doing was for the benefit of the organisation. And it was to help moving the struggle forward as far as they're concerned.
	And as such, Chairperson, it is therefore my humble submission that they should be granted amnesty in respect of this incident. And also, Chairperson, I move with regard to Ngubeni's escape from prison, Chairperson. Chairperson, if I may use Mr Wynand Malan once was involved in that hearing, with that hearing in Bloemfontein, and I still remember my learned friend was, Mr Steenkamp was ...(indistinct) and some of the applicants attacked police who were trying arrest them. And they were moving weapons from one area in, where Judge Wilson said "are you trying to say that somebody, a member of the liberation movement, who was trying to avoid being arrested, would you say that he was not ...(indistinct) (gap on tapes). 
	Chairperson, I would like to advance the same argument with regard to his escape that his escape was politically motivated because he believed that his presence in jail would not take the struggle forward. If he had means to get out of jail he must, and he tried his best, but unfortunately, he couldn't. 
	And as such, Chairperson, it is my argument that also his attempt to escape from prison was politically motivated, and that he did that in the bona fide belief that if he managed to get out of jail, he will be able to pursue the struggle forward.
	Chairperson, I was not intending to detain the Committee unless there are specific points which it would like me to address it on.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Mbandazayo. Adv Steenkamp, any submissions?

ADV STEENKAMP: No submissions,  thank you, Mr Chairman.