Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1997-07-07

MADODA STANFORD TISANA: I passed standard four and left school in the middle of standard five.

MR BRINK: What year was that?

MADODA STANFORD TISANA: 1985.

MR BRINK: How do you support yourself?

MADODA STANFORD TISANA: My parents supported me.

MR BRINK: Very well.  You told the Committee that the first time you learnt of the gardener's death was when you were in prison.

MADODA STANFORD TISANA: That is so.

MR BRINK: So that you had absolutely nothing to do with his death.

MADODA STANFORD TISANA: I was shocked that he had been shot.  I knew, however, about the domestic worker.

MR BRINK: Just let us confine ourselves to the gardener.  You had nothing to do with his death?

CHAIRPERSON: He said that he heard it in prison.

MR BRINK: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: That is implicit.  The answer is implicit in it is it not?

MR BRINK: Very well.  Very well, Mr Chairman.  Did you disapprove of the death of the domestic servant?

MADODA STANFORD TISANA: Did I disapprove?  It is not something that we discussed, that we would get there and kill.  It is something that happened.  I cannot explain it.  I was not expecting it.

JUDGE WILSON: Did you disapprove of it after it had been done?

MADODA STANFORD TISANA: I disapproved, it is not something that I would encourage.  It is not something that I would applaud.  It is incorrect.  The person had their own right to live.

MR BRINK: So that when you were holding her by the arm, I take it that was not to make it easier for Mr Maxam to shoot her?

MADODA STANFORD TISANA: It was not for Mr Maxam that I held her.  It was not our intention to do so.  I held her, because I wanted to explain to her what was going on.  She was screaming, trying to run away.  I was trying to tell her what was happening.  She did not want to accept what we were talking about.

MR BRINK: Thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BRINK

JUDGE WILSON: Did you expect her to just let you go ahead and search the house and steal everything you wanted to?

MADODA STANFORD TISANA: In the way I was explaining to her she did not even want to listen.  Whether she was going to agree or not, I was going to here then.  My intention was to explain to her the situation.

JUDGE WILSON: That the group of you had come there to steal from her employer and that she should open the door to let you do it.  That is what you were going to explain, is it?

MADODA STANFORD TISANA: I am not understanding.

JUDGE WILSON: You were explaining to her, as I understand your evidence, that the six or seven of you had come there to break into the house, to search it and to steal her employers possessions and you wanted her to open the door so you could do that.  Is that what you were explaining to her?

MADODA STANFORD TISANA: Yes, we wanted her to open the door so that we could search the house.  We wanted weapons.

JUDGE WILSON: Were you surprised that she tried to break away from you and run away?

MADODA STANFORD TISANA: No, because when I held her this is when I was trying to explain that we did not intend to harm anybody, we wanted weapons.  This is when she got shot.

JUDGE WILSON: And you also want, as well as weapons, you wanted jewellery, you wanted money, you wanted anything else you could take in exchange for weapons.  That is your evidence is it not?

MADODA STANFORD TISANA: I would say it is so, because we did not get the weapons we expected to get, but when I saw that if I could take this jewellery I could buy some weapons.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Mr Tisana, were you aware that Mr Maxam was carrying his firearm with him when this incident happened, when you decided to go to Vlakkeland to rob, were you not aware that Mr Maxam had his firearm with him?

MADODA STANFORD TISANA: I knew that he was armed.  I had gone to him as well to ask for a weapon so that we could protect ourselves should the need arise.  I knew that we had a weapon.

SISI KHAMPEPE: And how would you have protected yourself?

MADODA STANFORD TISANA: It would have depended on the situation.  We had the weapon to protect ourselves.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Was it not your intention to use a firearm in the event of there being people in the houses that you intended to rob?

MADODA STANFORD TISANA: It was not our intentions to shoot anybody.  We wanted weapons to protect ourselves and our community.  To murder was not our intention.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Thank you.

MR BRINK: Mr Chairman, may I just ask the applicant a question.  I am not quite sure which offenses he was, of which he was convicted, because he is applying for.
	Mr Tisana, were you and Mr Ndinisa, Ndinisa rather, tried together?  Were you in the same trial?

MADODA STANFORD TISANA: Yes.

MR BRINK: In respect of which murder or murders were you convicted?

MADODA STANFORD TISANA: For both people.

MR BRINK: For both?

MADODA STANFORD TISANA: For both the gentleman and the lady.

MR BRINK: Yes and does that also apply, as I take it, to Mr Ndinisa?

MADODA STANFORD TISANA: Yes.

MR BRINK: Thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BRINK

CHAIRPERSON: Are there any other witnesses you propose calling?

ADV LOURENS: We do not propose calling any further witnesses.  Mr Swart, do you propose calling witnesses?

MR SWART: No thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: It is half past four.  What do you suggest we should do?

JUDGE WILSON: I do not know.

CHAIRPERSON: It is half past four.  They will not finish an argument in half a hour.

JUDGE WILSON: I do not think they should ...

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brink and Mr Lourens, time is running out and ...

ADV LOURENS: I noticed that Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you think you could submit some written argument by the close of the day tomorrow?

MR BRINK: Is there any prospect of continuing this afternoon, Mr Chairman, or do you wish to adjourn? Otherwise start earlish tomorrow. I will not be able to put out a written argument with the workload I have got at the moment.  Absolutely not.

ADV LOURENS: Mr Chairman, I would be able to, by the end of Thursday, failing which if it is a problem with Mr Brink, I would be able to, if we could start at nine o' clock tomorrow morning, if, I would be able to make oral submissions.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV LOURENS: Or even if it is at ten o' clock, it should not take all that long, but I would be in a position to do written submissions, but only by the end of Thursday.

CHAIRPERSON: Nine o' clock tomorrow morning.  Mr Brink, if we adjourn now until nine o' clock tomorrow morning.

MR BRINK: Yes, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Will you arrange to see that it does not inconvenience the others early in the morning.

MR BRINK: I do not think it will.  We have only got the one matter tomorrow, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BRINK: That, as you know, is Amy Biehl matter ...

CHAIRPERSON: I understand.

MR BRINK: ... and I do not think, even if that starts later I am sure we will finish in a day.

JUDGE WILSON: It is hard to say.  It is not going to start before ten.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  Well, can we tell them that it is not going to start before ten o' clock?

MR BRINK: Yes, I think people have been notified it will be half past nine, but I will get in touch with the Press in the light of this and ...

JUDGE WILSON: The family.

MR BRINK: ... tell them.  I will be phoning the family Judge.

CHAIRPERSON: Applicants do not have to be present tomorrow then.  They are in prison are they not?

ADV LOURENS: That is so.  They are all three incarcerated in ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV LOURENS: ... various, in two different prisons.

CHAIRPERSON: In two different prisons.

ADV LOURENS: But their representatives are around here, but I will inform them in any event.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  Have you anything to say as far as the adjournment of this case until nine o' clock tomorrow morning?

ADV LOURENS: That would suit me Mr Chairman.  Thank you.