Amnesty Hearings — Mmabatho — 1998-08-04

UNKNOWN: Yes, Mr Chairman, thank you.
	Mr Chairman, as the Chair has made an indication on the question of full disclosure, what my learned friend said at the beginning, when he mentioned our small discussion, is actually what happened, but I indicated to him that the major problem that I've seen as far as the full disclosure is concerned is not actually the full disclosure itself, but the question of credibility finding, and I want to believe that one can safely leave to the discretion of the committee, but be it as it may, the issues raised by the committee member, Advocate Bosman, and the issues raised again by the Chair on the question of full disclosure, I would urge the committee, with respect, to take them into consideration when a credibility finding is being made.
	May I then, Mr Chairman, move directly to the question of political objective?   Mr Chairman, the Act is well-known to all of us, it requires satisfaction of both elements or requirements.   My learned friend has correctly indicated that section 20.2(a) of the Act is the only section that is apposite to this application.   May I then venture, Mr Chairman, to analyse what is said under sub-section (a), starting from the third sentence, which I think is the most apposite, where it states that:-
"In furtherance of a political struggle waged by such organisation or movement against the State or any former State or another publicly known political organisation or liberation movement."
	Mr Chairman and members of the committee, much has been said about Inkatha, and Inkatha was one of the, if I may call it, liberation movements or publicly known organisation, but what is surprising, despite the fact that Inkatha is mentioned even in the application, Inkatha as an organisation is mentioned in passing by the applicant, even in evidence in chief as well as under cross-examination, the only thing mentioned about Inkatha is that the warlords were terrorising people in the trains, the warlords were at a particular hostel or they were all over in the hostels, but we're not told as to what they did that warranted the reaction of the appellant and his colleagues.  If that is the position then we do not have an opposition against which we can say the appellant and his colleagues waged the action.
	The second part is that, still on that issue, yes the appellant may be regarded as a supporter, although I must admit, with respect to my learned friend, even the organisation which he alleges he supports, the ANC, really one would have expected, as Advocate Motata had indicated, as well as Advocate Bosman, that you are a supporter of an organisation but you do not attend the meetings of that organisation, and he went further, did not even know the chairman of the local chair, the name of the local chair of the organisation. 
	Mr Chairman, to get further than that, before we adjourned for lunch, and ask him directly, "Was it a deliberate decision by yourself not to attend meetings?", and if my memory is my good servant, I have no doubt that the answer was yes.   Now really, if I support an organisation and I'm aware of their meetings, I'm aware of their operations on the ground, of that operations, I would like to be seen to be aligned to that organisation, but it is not the issue, it is not the question with the appellant.
	Mr Chairman, I do not want to belabour this point, Advocate Bosman has done a lot on it, I do not want to be heard or to be understood to be saying that I'm an expert inasfar as political structures that existed then in the 1980's and the 1990's, but Mr Chairman I want to put it on record that there was nothing like street defence units.   Yes, we had SDU's, formed in the 1980's, formed by the UDF, which was a body operating on the ground in order to pursue or to advance the interests of the ANC, which was operating covertly.

CHAIRPERSON: There were street committees, but you say the street committee, there weren't street defence units but there were street committees, which came under the umbrella of the self defence units?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: That is correct, Mr Chairman.   Appellant stated correctly when he said there were street committees, those were in existence, the street committees would form blocks, the blocks would form regions, then they would have an SDU, SDU which meant self defence units, not street defence units.   That is, Mr Chairman, if we have to accept that this was under the ANC.   Now if he says this was under the ANC, then he is completely incorrect, but if the appellant was mentioning another organisation which is not known to myself, I would agree, but once attached to the ANC, that would not be correct.

ADV MOTATA: But, Mr Chair, if he says, for instance, "I was merely a supporter of ANC", like he says in his application, "but supporting ANC, I was a member of the street defence unit", would we say, when we look at the political objective, that would we not, for instance, accept that?   Are you saying to us, "No, no, leave that aside"?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Mr Chairman, with respect, if he says, "I was a member of the street defence units", I will still have a problem, but if he says, "I was a member of the self defence units supporting ANC", I would have no problem.   My target here is the existence of the organisation or the movement to which he alleges he belonged.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you submitting that, because of his use of the term "street defence units" which, in your submission, never existed, is an indication of his ignorance of the ANC structures, which ignorance would tend to negate his allegation that he was a supporter of the ANC?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Correct, Mr Chairman, that is my point.

ADV MOTATA: Again, let's suppose your opposition to that, and specifically the name of that SDU which you know as self defence unit, I want you to address us that without evidence, other than his evidence before us, is there anything to gainsay that, other than what you know personally?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Yes, Mr Chairman, there will be, there's a lot of documentation on this topic.   I can refer the Chair and the committee members to the submissions, three submissions that were made by the ANC specifically on the origin of the SDU's, and further the submissions that were made by the UDF itself, that was the last submission in Cape Town, in which I had the opportunity of leading that, representing the Truth Commission, against the UDF.   Documentation, I can make documentation available, there's a lot of it, and if documentation does not suffice, if evidence is needed, I can lead that type of evidence, from the very people who were operating on the ground.

ADV MOTATA: So his mention of Makarov, Motepa, that those were trained MK members, should we believe him on that, that there could be such people existing, for instance we take the one gentleman, Morris, whom he grew up with, who left in the early 80's and came back 1991, should we believe him in that respect as well and say if those people were really ANC people and them too, being outside, should have known about the structures which existed within the country, or within the various townships, then they elected to say, "Now we've got a street defence unit", was he probably not taken on a ride as well, to believe that?