Amnesty Hearings — Umtata — 1998-08-25

MR DUKADA: Mr Chairperson, without wasting the time of the Committee as such, if we can just hand to the Committee the magnified version of the press statement, issued by President Matanzima.  Just confine yourself to the portion of it which I find it very profound for purposes of the application by Mr Dandala.
	I quite appreciate that there is no evidence led in this Committee to say that Mr Dandala conspired, you can appreciate that, but if I can just give you ...

CHAIRPERSON: Once it is accepted, then there is no such evidence that he has not conspired, where do we go from here?

MR DUKADA: Mr Chairperson, I will appreciate that this is not a Commission of Enquiry, it is confined to the nature of the application, I just want to read the third paragraph there of the magnified version of the press statement.
	It says, he, that is the deceased, is the one who came from Lesotho with others and exploded a bomb in Umtata.  The petrol depot which exploded and should have killed the whole of the Umtata population, was destroyed by this young fellow, Ndondo.
	The reason why we sought Chief Matanzima to be called, was to clarify whether this murder was premeditated.  If it was premeditated, naturally the police including Dandala would have known about that.

CHAIRPERSON: But there isn't, there wasn't such conspiracy and so is the evidence of Tshabalala?

MR DUKADA: Yes, I appreciate that, but there are other applicants, they adduce their own evidence in this Committee, but we don't know what Chief K.D. would say.  He might come and say ...

CHAIRPERSON: He is going to say what appears in this statement, this press statement.

MR DUKADA: Mr Chairperson, our stand is that we want Chief K.D. Matanzima to be called, and that is subject to the ruling of the Committee.

ADV SIGODI: Mr Dukada, in this magnified press statement, is there anything that suggests that there was a conspiracy?

MR DUKADA: Honourable Member and the Committee, we are very much au fait about the evidence led here, there is absolutely nothing which suggests a conspiracy.

ADV SIGODI: No, no, I am referring to the press statement that you are referring us to.

MR DUKADA: The paragraph which I read to the Committee, gives one obviously an inference that the killing was premeditated.  Or if I am wrong in my interpretation of the statement, that is precisely the reason why we took the initiative for Chief Matanzima to be called and questioned relating to the statement.
	He might come and say that there was nothing indicating a premeditation, this was not a premeditated killing.  He might come and say it was a premeditated killing, which will definitely go straight to the nature of the application brought by Mr Dandala here.
	Let me reiterate my stand on this aspect, we have taken the initiative to call Mr Matanzima and he has been subpoenaed and we have indicated the area on which we want clarity from questioning Mr Matanzima.  The whole matter now stands entirely on the ruling of the Committee.
	I can't take the matter any further.

ADV SIGODI: Yes, I hear what you say, but I mean if one reads the statement as it is, one can infer that - I mean people knew that - he is saying that many people are asking why Ndondo was killed, and then he goes on to describe who Ndondo was.  He is the one who came from Lesotho with others and exploded a bomb in Umtata.
	The petrol depot which exploded which should have killed the whole of the Umtata population was destroyed by this young fellow, Ndondo.
	The statement itself does not seem to indicate that there was any prior conspiracy.  He may have been an activist, but the fact that he was involved in this, does not per se mean that there was a conspiracy to kill him, from the statement itself?

MR DUKADA: Well, Honourable Member, I have already indicated my case and I have exhausted my point.  Without repeating myself the point I seek to, crave to the Committee is that if - some different interpretations could be made up of the press statement, why if a gentleman has been subpoenaed, he cannot come and clarify it?  He cannot even take a minute to clarify it.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you finished?

MR DUKADA: I have completed?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Zuko, Mr Mapoma, I beg your pardon?

MR MAPOMA: Thank you Sir, I have nothing to add.

CHAIRPERSON: Is this your submission?

MR MAPOMA: My submission Chair is that the Commission has subpoenaed Mr K.D. Matanzima at the instance of the victims.
	We did indicate in writing Chairperson, to the victims that we have subpoenaed him and we would expect the victims to take an active role in questioning him.
	Unfortunately the way things are happening now, he has failed to comply with the subpoena, and that being the case Mr Chairman, for these proceedings, there is nothing which can be done now for these proceedings.
	What the Commission can do is to pursue the matter through criminal court proceedings, by laying charges of contempt of Court, in terms of Act 34 of 1995.  Therefore Chairperson, for the purposes of this hearing, my submission is that the matter has now to come to an end.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hugo?

MR HUGO: Mr Chairman, the possible evidence of Mr Matanzima will have no bearing whatsoever on my client's application, so for my client's purposes, we are satisfied that all the evidence had been led and that brings this matter to an end as far as his application is concerned.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Dilizo?

MR DILIZO: Thank you Mr Chairman.  Though Mr Chairman, it is not our version that Dandala was acting on instructions to kill, or that there was any conspiracy, but when one is having a regard to paragraph 38 appearing on page 15 of the bundle, which states that the operation which resulted in the killing of Batandwa was done at the instance and in the interest of the government of the then Republic of Transkei and I was acting in the course and the scope of my employment of the Department of Police of the said government.  The government of the day was fully appreciative of the operation. When one is having a regard on that matter, Mr Chairman, then if K.D. Matanzima does give evidence, it would make the benefit of that in terms of that paragraph to elicit what is beneficial to the, what may be beneficial to the success of the application a lot.	But, we are at the hands of the Court, if the Court decide that he should be called, we would appreciate that, but if the Committee, I am sorry, decides otherwise, then we will abide by that decision.  Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: What was his evidence in regard to the appreciation, the issue whether the government of the day appreciated the mission?

MR DILIZO: Mr Chairman, that is an inference which is gathered from the conduct of the senior authorities afterwards.

CHAIRPERSON: But he was specifically asked in his evidence, what did he say there?

MR DILIZO: Sorry, at the moment, until I can have a glance at that particular answer, I cannot just be able to reply now.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Knight?

MR KNIGHT: Mr Chairman, I share the view of Mr Hugo in this matter.  Mr Matanzima's evidence doesn't take my case any further.  However, just a suggestion from my part, with regard to his representative.
	My recollection is that he said he was going to take instructions.  It might be an idea for the Evidence Leader to contact him possibly by phone, to find out what those instructions are, because he didn't exclude the possibility that the person would be called.  All he said that he wanted to be excused for the purpose of taking instructions.
	I can't take the matter further on that, thank you My Lord.

MR MAPOMA: I am sorry Mr Chairman, I have just received information from Mr Majokweni, that he has communicated with Mr Hobbs.  He has indicated to him that he is on his way.
	So I wonder if the Committee cannot perhaps give him some indulgence by an adjournment, to hear what he is coming to say?