Amnesty Hearings — Pinetown — 1999-12-13

MR LAX: Do you see the problem?  We have viva voce evidence on that one hand and we have untested affidavits on the other, what weight do we give to the untested affidavits in the light of the viva voce evidence?

UNKNOWN: It may not be a hundred percent weight but something has to be given to it, some cognisance has to be taken that those affidavits were made and they were made under oath.  It may not have been given as viva voce evidence, we may not have cross-examined on the affidavits but the fact that it is there, cognisance has to be taken of it.

ADV SIGODI: But the applicant disputes that.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)
NO SOUND

UNKNOWN: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: That was the affidavit made by Mapumulo to the police, correct?

UNKNOWN: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: If you look at page 20 you'll see another affidavit by apparently the same Kenneth Sipho Mapumulo, where in the second paragraph he says
"Majola chaired the meeting but he was not involved in the fracas around Mbuyisa, the deceased.  As I was new to the area I did not really understand the politics involved in this case."
It does not indicate, to me anyway, that Majola was forcing them to do anything, rather the contrary.  Sorry, I hadn't put my machine on.  I'm saying you referred to page 17, which is the affidavit that Mapumulo made to the police, and my colleague has already referred to the problems attaching to those affidavits, but if you look at page 20 you see a second affidavit that he made a few months ago, where he says -
"Majola chaired the meeting but he was not involved in the fracas around Mbuyisa, the deceased.  As I was new to the area I did not really understand the politics involved in this case."
... which does not appear to be consistent with Majola forcing the meeting to do anything.

UNKNOWN: I do submit that that is correct.  Mr Chairperson, Members of the Committee, like you said there were discrepancies, we may not have called people to testify on the affidavits that have been submitted, but cognisance has to be taken of the discrepancies of the fact that there were so little, it took so little, it took a mere fraction of a few minutes to convince the applicant, by his own evidence, that the victims in this matter were actually in opposition to him.

MR LAX: But you see what all these people say, including the applicant, is that the whole community was infuriated.  They have a situation where a whole community is up in arms, they're irrational, they're behaving badly, is it fair to say that he was the sole instigator of it all?  That's the only question I'm suggesting.  These statements are contradictory.  I mean Ndlovu - I've just quickly re-read Ndlovu's police statement as opposed to the affidavit, he doesn't talk about being threatened in any way to go to the meeting.  You understand?  In the light of all these contradictions it's very difficult for us to place a huge amount of weight on these statements.  If you'd called those people and they had testified and they had explained these contradictions, it might have been a different story.

UNKNOWN: Yes, I concede that that would be the position.  However, it is the applicant's own submission that he gave the orders, he gave the instructions.  Again, I mean that at the end of the day that is the crux of the matter, he maintains he gave the instructions to carry this out.
	Further to that, there is no operation of this - the ANC hierarchy somewhere you know, from upper authority where this power was given or the authority to go ahead and kill anybody that was Inkatha in the area.

MR LAX: Yes, he doesn't say that.  In his application he makes it clear that he takes responsibility for this, no-one else gave him orders to do it.  It's clear from that section of the application form that he did it himself.

UNKNOWN: In closing Mr Chairperson ...(intervention)

ADV SIGODI: Sorry, just to bring something to your attention. On page 14 of the applicant's affidavit, the second-last paragraph
"I asked Oswald what he thought we should do with him.  He replied that we should let him go and he will leave and take his family to the IFP at Lindelane."
And then he says -
"I then asked the comrades what they thought we should do.  Some responded that if we let him go he would return and attack them with the other Inkatha members and that he would be able to identify the leaders in the area."
	Now isn't that indicative of the fact that despite the fact that the applicant gave the order, but also there was consensus amongst the crowd that if he should be allowed to go, then the main reason why the order was given for him to be killed is that he would come back with other Inkatha members and then he would be able to identify the leaders.  He was never cross-examined on this part.

UNKNOWN: There again if you look at the explanation, the applicant never once bothered to ask the rest of the community if they knew what type of affiliation the victims had, nobody did, nobody cared about it.  The fact that this firearm was found ...(intervention)

MR LAX: They didn't need to, with the greatest of respect.  On his version they'd confirmed they came from Lindelane, they confirmed their association with Ngobo, to the applicant it was as clear as daylight that that's what they were.  And the mere fact that they then agreed to go back to Lindelane with their family, reinforces that idea because Lindelane is a stronghold of the IFP.

UNKNOWN: I may not have cross-examined on that question but the question was put that it was, the victims were actually sent away from Lindelane because they were ANC, alright.  It may not have been questioned, cross-examined what you've put to me, but in the same vein that would have counteracted or answered that question, or put it to the applicant that the victims were actually ANC.

ADV SIGODI: Yes, but the crux of it is that here it says that some of the other members - I'm asking you in relation to the fact that the applicant was not the only person who instigated this, the whole crowd was up in arms against these people.  Because he's saying "Some responded that if we let him go he would return and attack them with the other Inkatha members and that he would be able to identify the leaders in the area."
	In other words, it was not just his own decision, there was general consensus amongst that the people that these people should be killed.  ...(indistinct) that he is the leader, gave the order that alright then, go ahead and let us kill them.

UNKNOWN: I do concede that it seems there was common purposes between all of the people that were at this meeting.  I mean there were stab wounds that were found on the victim, Oswald, where the applicant maintains he cannot give reasons for that.  So there were a whole group of people involved in it, but my instructions are that these were ANC people.
	The victims in this matter were ANC people.  At the end of the day as I said, my instructions are to ask the Committee to, or to inform the Committee that the families of the victims want to oppose the application.  At the end of the day it is for the Committee to take what's in front of it and to take cognisance thereof and make a decision on those basis.
	It is conceded that so many people - there was something that would have incited them or caused them to have behaved in that fashion, yes.  Thank you.

MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson, I have no address.
NO ARGUMENT BY MS PATEL

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

CHAIRPERSON: ... thank you all for your help today in getting us through this.  We will consider the evidence we have heard and the argument you have advanced and make our decision known later.  And are the families of the victims present?

UNKNOWN: Yes, Chairperson.