Amnesty Hearings — Boksburg — UNKNOWN

MR MALAN: My question really comes down to this, the evidence of the applicants, more than one of the applicants were saying that here the community and they themselves were outraged, emotions went high, it's very difficult to control and calm people under such situations, but at the same time then they argue, and I mean from the first statement is deduced the revenge approach and what they did subsequent to that, but secondly they were also saying that they showed a lot of restraint, self-discipline, they rounded them up, they didn't kill them, and this was part of the protection of the community which eventually led to their execution.   Now my question is, even if one were to read the revenge element into it, could that not be set aside and one still argue that it was indeed also in the execution of their duty to protect the community?   I'm just asking you to argue the principle of that approach.

MR MAPOMA: My argument there, Chairperson, is that the act of killing was not sanctioned by the community, and in fact the applicants themselves, some of them, as I've said already, considered that in fact that the community did not necessarily authorise them to do what they did, the command came from one Mchebe, who commanded that they killed, and not necessarily from the community which they claim to have been protecting.   While it may have been claimed that when doing their actions, they were protecting the community, but in this particular act, the community was not given an opportunity to deliberate on what to be done of the captured persons.   Therefore it is highly, Chairperson, it's highly inconceivable that this was still in the process of protecting the community, going to that extent.

CHAIRPERSON: Well the community doesn't get involved, does it, in deciding how it is to be protected.   The SDU, from what we gather, patrolled the township as part of the process of protecting the community.   Now, there was the killing of Blanko, which was a threat to the peace in the township, which the SDU had set themself up to maintain.  Therefore, in order to restore peace, they had to round up those who were responsible and kill them, so that the killing of the deceased was part of the process of achieving their larger objective, namely to maintain peace and protect the community against what they then perceived as being criminal elements within the community.

MR MAPOMA: Yes, the objective of maintaining peace, it was, I assume, it must have been focused on the community, because the conflict that must have existed was conflict which involved the community.   Therefore, sir, in this particular case, I may argue that whatever approach they were adopting, if it was geared at achieving peace in the community, the community surely should have been involved.  	Now it is highly inconceivable that when peace is geared at, some members of the community are killed by those who claim that their intention is to restore peace.
	One can go, Chairperson, to the distance of quoting the assertions which were made by some of the members when they were advising the community of what happened, when they were inviting them also to see those who were captured, they were referred to as dogs, I mean Mr Mneba Sonti, acknowledges that, that he went around the community to announce that anyone who has his dog must go identify him at the place which he describes.   Surely, sir, that kind of an atmosphere is in contrast with an intended object of maintaining peace in the society?   Even before going to the act of killing itself, that in itself does not seem to have created an atmosphere that an intention was to restore peace in the community.   
	The question of killing them now, it goes, sir, a great deal against that intended purpose also, because the deceased persons now had to be killed with the sole purpose of achieving peace.   It's very difficult, Chairperson, to comprehend that.

ADV MOTATA: Mr Mapoma, could you perhaps deal with that submission against this background of the evidence before us that there were perceptions at first that some of the criminal acts perpetrated against the community were done by the ANC Youth League, and the ANC Youth League had the same perception.   Then we have one of the applicants, Shongwe, who says, "I belonged to both", and in this instance we would refer to the evidence of siphoning of petrol or paraffin, that he was even prevented by his own colleagues in doing so.   That, because at first that is the case of the applicants, they didn't have hard core evidence against the ANC Youth League, at first.   Then the evidence emerged, when Blanko was killed, and them also perceiving that Bulelwa is killed by the same ANC Youth League, even though I'm saying there's no evidence, because there are suspicions between the parties who killed Bulelwa, but they say that concretised their suspicions about the ANC Youth League.

MR MAPOMA: Chair, we are dealing here with a situation where there are two situations which are sharply contrasting each other, and the crux of the matter is that before this happened, there was a killing of one, Bulelwa. Either of the parties deny responsibility for killing Bulelwa, in fact either of them accusing the other.   That is where it started.   And then Blanko was killed, killed, admittedly so, by the ANC Youth League, they claimed that they have been doing that in retaliation for the killing of Bulelwa.  So, when these killings took place, sir, they were done as a revenge to whatever actions that was done first.   The killing of Bulelwa was revenged by the ANC by killing Blanko, and there was revenge also for killing Blanko, to kill the deceased persons.   It is for that reason, sir, that I submit that the motive behind was to revenge.    It recarried from one side accusing, the other side accusing the other, ultimately the deceased were killed.

CHAIRPERSON: Is the submission that we should not pay much attention to what the applicants are saying was the motive for the killing, but we must pay attention to what, on the evidence as a whole, was the true motive for the killing?

MR MAPOMA: Yes, Chairperson, that is my submission, that much emphasis must be on what is it that caused the actual killing, I mean during that period.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying that the true motive for the killing was nothing but the revenge for the killing of Blanko?

MR MAPOMA: Absolutely, sir, that's what I'm saying.   I'm saying so, sir, because the question, the allegation of criminality has long been in existence, and no-one was ever killed because that person was suspected of being a criminal.   These killings happened only after Blanko was killed.
	Another (indistinct), Chairperson, I would like to draw the committee's attention to ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: If it is a revenge killing, where does that take us to?

MR MAPOMA: It takes us, sir, to the criteria which must be taken into account in determining the political objective of the applicants when they committed what they committed, because if it's revenge killing, it cannot be said, Chairperson, that it was killing with a political motive, or with a political objective which was aimed at by any political organisation.   So it was an act which was done out of personal malice, so to speak, if it's revenge killing, and therefore does not form part of those criteria to be taken into account and associated with political motivation.