Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1999-10-21

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  Mr Rheeder, are you in a position to address us?

MR RHEEDER: Honourable Chairperson, can I maybe ask for a short adjournment just to get everything ready for that?  Ten to fifteen minutes, if it will suite the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll adjourn for 15 minutes and we'll reconvene to take the addresses.  We're adjourned.

MS PATEL: Would everyone please rise?
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, the addresses remain.  We unfortunately took slightly longer than we anticipated we would, but we had to attend to an internal matter of some importance, so we apologise that we're running slightly late.  Mr Rheeder, have you got any submissions on the merits of the application?

MR RHEEDER: There are certain submissions I wish to make Honourable Chairperson.

MR RHEEDER: Honourable Committee Members, Mr Patrick Siyali is sitting today in front of you applying for amnesty and a lot of questions were raised by a lot of people attending, relating to but was any offence committed, what was your intention that day, what did you do, why did you do it and so forth.  I, with respect, wish to refer the Committee back to the Act which I'm sure the Committee knows by heart at this stage.  It is not only offences that one applies for, for amnesty and I would clearly like to, my learned colleague especially who hammered on the fact of an offence, would like to draw the Committee's attention to it that it's not only offences, but any act, omission or offence and those type of acts associated with a political objective.  That is again defined as any act or omission which constitutes an offence or delict.
	It is at best, I submit, difficult to try and think up, or try and conjure up what kind of offences or omissions, or delicts, one deals with, in many of these applications and it is my respectful submission and just as examples, it's possible that Mr Siyali can be tried for the offence of negligently firing a firearm or shooting a firearm in a municipal area.  Mr Siyali was also in the vicinity as a policeman when Mr Jonas was in actual fact shot.  There are certain delictual, civil remedies that Mr Jonas might look at in that sense and where Mr Siyali can possibly be held responsible for.  In that sense, and I respectfully submit that the Act allows the Committee to grant Mr Siyali amnesty and I want to frame it as follows.  Amnesty for all acts, omissions or offences relating to the apprehension, shooting and arrest of Mr Bongani Jonas.  
	I further would like to submit it's not necessary for the Committee to specifically decide if Mr Siyali acted with the political motive of the struggle or with the political motive of the State as long as the Committee is satisfied that the acts, omissions, or offences committed in the presence and/or by Mr Siyali on a specific date, are associated with political objectives.
	I would submit that is enough to consider granting amnesty for Mr Siyali.  Just on that point and dealing with acts and omissions, the Act also provides in Section 20 any person who associated himself/herself with any act or omission committed."  The chasing of Mr Jonas, surely Mr Siyali associated himself with that.
	On one point of fact, it is my instructions that Mr Siyali at all times intended to testify and that it is his testimony that when he took out his firearm in the motor vehicle, he had the intention of shooting at Mr Jonas and it was only at a later stage that he changed his mind and fired a shot in the air.  I would again submit that it is very difficult for us today to try and establish if Mr Siyali might be guilty of any offence or not.  
	I am and I would like to submit, that it is quite certain that there were certain acts, omissions and offences committed that day and it is certain that Mr Siyali might be held responsible in a criminal fashion or civil fashion and for that he's applying to this Committee for amnesty.  As the Committee pleases.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Rheeder.  Mr Williams, have you got any submissions?

MR WILLIAMS: Mr Chairman, would you just allow me one minute to confer with my client?  Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

MR WILLIAMS: Mr Chairperson, I just want to deal with just two issues.
	The first one is that the Committee must find that the act, omission or offence that was committed, was an act associated with a political objective and in order for the Committee to find that there was a political objective, the Committee must be able to find clearly what that political objective was.  Now it is my respectful submission that it is not clear from the testimony of the applicant here today, what his political objective was at the time because in this regard, he tendered vastly contradictory evidence here and it is my respectful submission that the Committee can't rely on that evidence because it would in any case be difficult for the Committee to accept which version is the correct version because on the one hand he says he tried to assist the freedom fighters and on the other hand he says that he was combating terrorism.  It is clear that these contradictions differ as day differs from night.
	There are also other contradictions in his testimony.  I'm not going to still bother to pick out all the contradictions, save to say that in the one instance he said that he had an intention of shooting and then later on he says that he had no intention whatsoever of shooting Mr Bongani and he actually wanted to alert him, he actually wanted to help the person, so it's my respectful submission that there's not a clear coherent application here before this application, which would enable this Committee to find that what the applicant's saying here is in fact correct and I'll submit that amnesty cannot be granted on the basis of that.  That's my submissions Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Williams.  Mr Yengeni was there anything that you wanted to say?  Thank you.
Ms Patel, have you got any submissions?

MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.  My learned friend Mr Williams, I believe has adequately dealt with the submissions I would have made in respect of the applicant not complying with the requirements of the Act insofar as his political objective remains a mystery, given his contradictory evidence to us.  Thank you Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there anything further that you wanted to add Mr Rheeder?

MR RHEEDER IN REPLY: A short reply Honourable Chairperson.  I would like to differ from my two learned colleagues and I, with respect, submit that they should also differentiation between the political motive of a person and I submit that they're both referring to his political motive and not the political objective of the act.  The political motive of Mr Siyali is only one of many factors to be taken into account in determining the political objective.  The political objective as described in sub-section (ii) of Section 20 of the Act, relates to various numbers of situations, either acting on behalf of the struggle, or acting on behalf of the State.
	I submit it's not necessary for this Committee to decide on which side Mr Siyali acted at the stage when he committed one of the possible offences that he could be prosecuted for as long as it was committed in a political context, as defined in sub-section (ii).  His political motive as a requirement described in sub-section (iii) (a) is not so important  because there are further other factors also to be taken into account.  Nothing further Honourable Chairperson.