Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1998-04-28

SIMPIWE LINCOLN BLEKI: First of all I was the political commissar working in the security department. I took my own initiative as I already said to plan to kill Mr Maliti after I had spoken to the leaders in the community of the ANC. I fully believed that if I had said to them as I said that I was going to kill him they were not against this. I was also convinced that the community would be glad because Maliti was the enemy to the community.

ADV POTGIETER: Did you harbour any personal grudge or feelings of enmity towards Mr Maliti?

SIMPIWE LINCOLN BLEKI: No there was no personal grudge. There was nothing personal about this. However in a political context there definitely was enmity.

ADV POTGIETER: So you were not intending to settle a personal score with Mr Maliti?

SIMPIWE LINCOLN BLEKI: No there was no personal scores to be settled.

ADV POTGIETER: And do I understand you correctly from a political point of view you had regarded Mr Maliti as part of the enemy?

SIMPIWE LINCOLN BLEKI: I thought that he was a very dangerous enemy in the community because a lot of times I saw these things with my own eyes that he did.

ADV POTGIETER: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Was the victim the ...

SIMPIWE LINCOLN BLEKI: Not the only one.

CHAIRPERSON: Was he the only one that committed atrocities like torture and so forth?

SIMPIWE LINCOLN BLEKI: Yes I think, yes he was the only one who committed these atrocities. (Could the judge please come closer to the mike?)

CHAIRPERSON: Why was he singled out for such treatment and not other members of the security police?

SIMPIWE LINCOLN BLEKI: If I remember correctly the security police in Nonzame, Middelburg he was the one who gave orders, who was more superior. He gave orders that led to the unrest. He was the cruel one who gave these orders.

CHAIRPERSON: Now the struggle you refer to, I think that is well documented. It ranged from housing, education and all these oppressive laws that kept our people down, correct?

SIMPIWE LINCOLN BLEKI: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Was the victim not aware that, that struggle or the success of that struggle would benefit even him?

SIMPIWE LINCOLN BLEKI: He did not see the future. He did not think that the struggle would be successful. He thought that he was in a respectable place, he was armed all the time, he was protected personally and his job was to be oppressor and permit all the atrocities. He was free according to his view. He did not care about anybody elses liberation.

CHAIRPERSON: Despite the possible benefit to him did that make you more angry that would normally be the case?
(Could the speaker please repeat the question?)

CHAIRPERSON: Despite the possible benefits of the success of the struggle and him being a hurdle to that, did that make you more angry than would otherwise be the case?

SIMPIWE LINCOLN BLEKI: Could you repeat the question please Sir?

CHAIRPERSON: Given the possible benefits of the success of this struggle did the fact that he a possible beneficiary of that success, did it make you more angry that he was presenting such a hurdle to this struggle?

SIMPIWE LINCOLN BLEKI: I would not be angry if the struggle would be successful and we both would benefit from the liberation. He would not have contributed in any way. I contributed to it and I am glad and there are no oppressive ways in Middelburg any more.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you. Are there any other witnesses Mr Wessels?

MR WESSELS: Mr Chairman there is just the second applicant. He is anxious to testify as well. Although the need for him to testify is questioned. His application is fully before the committee. May I just have a brief word with the other applicant?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Wessels you can tell him that he can rest assured that we will treat him equally on the evidence that we have before us. Other than that is there any other evidence you would like you would like to place before this committee?

MR WESSELS: There is no other evidence that I wish to present at this stage. Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Mapoma is there any evidence you would like to place before us?

MR MAPOMA: Mr Chairman there is no other evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Wessels we do not intend to call any other witnesses or obtain any other evidence. Is there any points you want to make before we close this matter for the time being until we can give a judgment?

MR WESSELS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman very briefly it is my submission that this application by both applicants conform with the requirements of the Act. It was clearly an act which was executed with the intention to benefit the struggle at the time. It is clearly a political objective which they intended to achieve. And it will certainly fall within the ambit of the definition of a political objective as set out in Section 22(a) of the Act. More than that there is nothing that I wish to elaborate on. Except there is anything in particular if the committee would like to hear me on. But viewed objectively everything points to a clear act with a political motive to achieve a specific objective which would have benefitted the whole community.

CHAIRPERSON: And for which you suggest that amnesty be granted?

MR WESSELS: For both applicants. May I just mention as it appeared from the evidence that as far as the first applicant is concerned the finalisation of this application has a specific relevance in respect of his freedom. It will not specifically affect the second applicant. But the first applicant has been in custody for many years already and so if in some way or another the committee could give preference to this application in particularly as far as Mr Bleki is concerned that will be mostly appreciated.

CHAIRPERSON: You are aware of the fact that we do not intend to waste more of his time. If we refuse that is the end of the matter. If we grant it, it is merely a recommendation to the state president.

MR WESSELS: That is so, no we understand that. As long as it can be given some sort of preference. Any preference will be valued by Mr Bleki in particular.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Wessels our committee treats all applicants with preference. (LAUGHS) Mr Mapoma is there anything you would like to point out to us?

MR MAPOMA: Thank you Chair, I find nothing Sir to point out. I may just mention Sir that from the side of the victims I do not have much Chairperson to raise in objection to these applications by the applicants. Thank you Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes we will adjourn and we hope to be able to make a decision as soon as humanly possible. We will adjourn.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION