Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1999-04-13

CHAIRPERSON: And having been arrested you committed a second robbery of a motor vehicle at the time you robbed the bank?

ZAKHELE SIMELANE: We got out of jail on bail and we pursued with our struggle.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, you are excused.

ADV SIGODI: The second vehicle that you used, who did you get it from, where did you get it from?

ZAKHELE SIMELANE: Our commanders - or should I say, on the 9th of February 1992 they took us along to point the car to us at Maluleki Section and they said this is the vehicle that we were going to use.

ADV SIGODI: How was it identified, I mean why was it chosen, that particular vehicle?

ZAKHELE SIMELANE: The reason here is that we had been told that his person was an Umdlembe(?), he was not contributing and he would not come to assist during times of fighting.

ADV SIGODI: Sorry, I don't understand, what is an Umdlembe?

ZAKHELE SIMELANE: It's a sell-out.

ADV SIGODI: And then what happened to that vehicle?

ZAKHELE SIMELANE: We took it on a Monday, but it broke down along the way and its owner found it after we were arrested.

ADV SIGODI: Thanks.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you are excused.
WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: He can leave, he can go back.
	Is that all you have to produce by way of evidence, Mr Motepe?

MR MOTEPE: In terms of evidence yes, but I just wanted to point in tying up.  I don't know if this will be the time ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: We'll come to that.

MR MOTEPE: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabete, is there any bits of evidence you want to lead?

MS THABETE: No, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Are we done with the evidence?

MS THABETE: We are done with the evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Motepe, you wanted to say?

MR MOTEPE: When one looks at the evidence that has been given before the Committee, one would realise that the offences were as a result of the attacks that were mounted on the communities by several forces, be it Inkatha, be it Security Forces, and one can see clearly the link between these types of offences, that the communities didn't have arms to defend themselves, they had to go and get arms somehow and robbing the bank is getting the money to buy the arms was one of the means that they used to acquire those arms.

CHAIRPERSON: If that was not the policy of the organisation on whose behalf he operated, would he be entitled to then rely on the allegation that he operated on the basis of a command?

ZAKHELE SIMELANE: If one looks at Section 20(3), it is enough for one to have acted on the orders of the commander of the SDU.  Even though the policy of the liberation movement was not to rob banks as it were, but they had specific orders from the SDUs, which were protecting the communities at that time.  And one must remember that there was not always a clear command between the ANC headquarters and the SDUs.  Communities were faced with urgent situations where they were being attacked.  At times they had to come up with their own means of protecting themselves, and that was the situation in this case.

CHAIRPERSON: So you are saying that it could have been the policy of the SDUs to do that?

MR MOTEPE: The policy of the SDUs at that particular time, not a long-standing policy.  And as one knows even liberation movements like the PAC have admitted that they used to rob banks and that is ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: The SDUs were not established by the PAC.

MR MOTEPE: That is correct, but ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: We all know they were established by the ANC.

MR MOTEPE: That is correct, I was just indicating the robbing of banks was not a different thing, it was actually done by other movements.  And if one looks at this sub-section I've just referred to, the motive of the person is of relevance here as well.  It is clear that it was a political motive, nothing else, there was no personal gain on these particular offences, it was a political motive.  If one looks at, I believe it's (3)(e)
"... whether the act, omission, offence was committed in the execution of an order, on behalf of, or with the approval of the organisation, institution, liberation movement ..."
I believe it would fall under - SDU could be regarded as an institution, not necessarily a liberation movement.  The ANC in this particular instance will be a liberation movement, but provision is given that policies might have been of institutions, organisations, even liberation movements.  In this particular instance the policy of SDU institution.  So in my submission the applicant does qualify in terms of the Act.

CHAIRPERSON: Anything more?

MR MOTEPE: Save to refer again to the same section, but under (b), the context.  This was as a result of the uprisings that were being experienced and I have already addressed this point I believe.  I just wanted to tie it with this sub-section.  That is all at this stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabete?

MS THABETE: I have no argument, Mr Chair, except to say that I would have no objections if amnesty is granted and I leave it in the capable hands of the Committee to make a decision.  Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we're going to take some time to give a decision in this matter.