Amnesty Hearings — Pinetown — 1999-12-13

UNKNOWN: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
	Mr Chairman, it is my respectful submission that it is not in dispute that there was violence at some time during the period of October 1990 to the period of December 1990, between the IFP 
and the ANC.  That violence thereafter subsided as a result of the accused's or the applicant's interaction with the SADF which had resulted in them removing the IFP to a different area, that being Lindelani.
	Now where the Commission now has to make a decision is on the events and sequence of events that took place on the 7th of April 1991.  Mr Chairman, whilst one must accept that during the period of January 1991 to the 7th of April 1991 there may not have been violence, but one must not lose sight of the fact that tension between the IFP and the ANC was an on-going issue.
	Now what led to the killing of the two people, Mavis and Oswald, at this meeting, it is correct that it was a meeting for the community benefit, that was predominantly ANC, the community. The suggestions made by Oswald and Mavis would have obviously raised the interests of the applicant in that why are these two people now suggesting that we go to the Inyanga ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Can you say "and Mavis"?

MR PANDAY: Mr Chairman, I may ...(indistinct) is also the husband of Mavis, where she was implicated by association as being his wife.

CHAIRPERSON: She said nothing.

MR PANDAY: She said nothing.  I concede that point, Mr Chairman.
	Now by the husband Oswald making these suggestions that they go to an Inyanga and the ZP, merely raised the suspicions of the applicant that there seemed to be some imbalance in the community, we being a community that's driven by ANC values, why is now somebody motivating that we look towards the IFP for support, or the ZP, which was then known to be associated with the IFP and the Inyangas.  As a result of this people were sent off on the instructions of the applicant to search the premises of the deceased' and it was established that a weapon and muti was found.
	Now upon questioning of the deceased the applicant testifies that he was informed that this weapon was for the killing of the ANC people.  Now this obviously now ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: But he didn't tell us that today did he?

MR PANDAY: Under cross-examination, yes.  ...(indistinct), Mr Chairman.  And all of these events now merely agitated the community, threatened the safety of the community, that being the ANC community, and as a result of this the instructions were given to eliminate the two victims, as a result of their association with a well-known leader, Mr Ngobo, who was the IFP.  That is not in dispute, Mr Chairman.
	Mr Ngobo being a leader of the IFP obviously was a threat to the progression and the people of the ANC, and the applicant reacted accordingly.  There has been suggestion or instructions by the victims' attorney that there was no need to kill the victims as there was merely a purchase that was going on between Ngobo and the victims and obviously the people and the community of the ANC, namely the applicant and the other comrades, did not except the version or did not believe that Oswald would require a weapon to protect himself from the community.
	It hasn't been put to the applicant that there was a need for Oswald to protect himself, by the victims' attorney ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: But Oswald was living there at the time that attacks took place.

MR PANDAY: Mr Chairman, that is the turning point when these attacks may have taken place, by Oswald's behaviour at the meeting, motivating for Inyanga, motivating for the use of the ZP, merely now raised the suspicions as to whether he was on the side of the community.

CHAIRPERSON: No, this in relation to your suggestion, there was no need for any weapon to protect himself.  ... suggesting that there has been evidence that he was living in a dangerous area where attacks had taken place.

MR LAX: And also the issue is not that he was protecting himself from the community he was living in, thousands and thousands of people managed to find illegal firearms to protect themselves in those communities during that time, no matter what side they were on.  We've heard countless evidence.  We've heard evidence of ANC people going to IFP areas to buy weapons, pretending to be IFP people, for example.  So that's hardly the issue.  I think your strongest point so far is the question of the ZP.

CHAIRPERSON: If one takes it further, we have also heard a great deal of evidence about the type of weapons that were available to the IFP, and they were in the main not home-made firearms.

MR PANDAY: I concede the point, Mr Chairman, but with regards to the applicant, the issues of the ZP and the Inyanga, coupled with a firearm, gave them a perspective totally different as to how they would view the victims in the matter and as a result of this they viewed them as a threat and the actions thereafter were a reaction to this possible threat that they may be in for another attack or they may be in for some problem with the IFP, and as such the applicant acted the best way he knew how, was to protect the community and the ANC people.  And having regard to all of the above, Mr Chairman, I would submit that the applicant would fall within the ambit of Section 20 of the Act, in that his actions were politically motivated in that he was protecting a community, that being namely the ANC.  He was their recruiting officer as well as a believer in the policies of the ANC.  And in terms of his disclosure he has given evidence to the Commission as to what took place on the day in question.
	One accepts that there may have been discrepancies, namely in his statement.  But I think that has been clarified, namely that he has a standard eight education, he was being assisted to make statements by officers of the TRC, who themselves we are not aware of whether they had the necessary interpretation skills or the understanding of the language and as a result of which there may have been discrepancies that would have occurred.
 	But on the evidence of the ...(intervention)

MR LAX: Sorry Mr Panday, you didn't when you led your client, take him through that statement, point out anything you were unhappy with.  Surely as a legal practitioner leading your client's evidence, if there was anything in that statement that your client wasn't happy about, it's your duty to lead him on those points and draw our attention to the fact and offer an explanation.

MR PANDAY: Mr Commissioner, I concede that point but after having Mr Chairman raise the issue we tried to remedy the situation as to when and how this affidavit or statement was obtained and as a result of which we tried.  The applicant may have differed or there may have been discrepancies in his statement, but at all times he maintained as to the sequence of events that had taken place to that which led to the killing of the victims in this matter.  And as such whilst there may be discrepancies, it was put to him, the various versions, he still stood by and explained exactly what took place. There was a discrepancy as to whether he went to the house, he clarified that discrepancy, that he did not go to the house, 10 people ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: There was no discrepancy about that, the discrepancy was, did he order the killing, and he specifically denied having done so in his statement.  A few days later he says he did.

MR PANDAY: Mr Chairman, as you say he first - in his application he mentions that he ordered the killing, he instigated the entire action.  Thereafter there was a discrepancy as to whether he ordered the killing again.  And then in his evidence after cross-examination and leading, he then confirms that he had ordered and instigated the killings against the victims.