Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1999-03-25

MR MBANDAZAYO IN REPLY: Through you, Chairperson and all the Members of the Committee.  I would just briefly reply on the aspects raised by Mr Prior.
	Chairperson, the question of the evidence and the information, that is the statement by Mr Makuala, Chairperson, I have no qualms about the statement, that it was made by Mr Makuala, the only thing is that, my question is that how much weight should be attached to it because Makuala was subjected to a very lengthy cross-examination regarding some aspects of his statement, but none this was, which was the subject of the hearing to ask him to comment as to why his evidence is contrary to what he gave before the magistrate.  That was not done and unfortunately there is no question that now he can be called to answer that.  So that information was never tested.
	Inasmuch as my learned friend is saying that this Committee should do as it did with the submission of the PAC before the HRV Committee, Human Rights Violations Committee, I think that information, that statement, submission of PAC was tested because those people who were there to make the submission were questioned lengthily about all those submissions, and as such it was accepted as part because they were required to do that.
	With this statement of Mr Makuala one can raise many questions, as it did, that he was tortured by the police, it was not voluntary, all those things.  There are many questions that can be raised with this statement.  So it cannot be likened to the submission, the statement made by Mr Makuala.
	Coming to the point that they were shot, these words "they were injured", I think they made it clear that their purpose was to kill, it was not to injure anybody.  It may be the opinion of Mr Prior that he feels that this political statement was made, but to them that was a totally different matter, they had to kill those people and they did exactly that.  And as such, the question of injuring ...(indistinct), their purpose, their mission was to kill and they did exactly that.
	Coming to the question of Sterkspruit Hotel.  With due respect, inasmuch as the evidence would portray as it if was after that, they were questioned at length.  They went home, they went to their area after that incident.  It was after that, it was not the same day that this happened.  It never happened the same day, the question of the Sterkspruit Hotel.  
	And inasmuch as it was mentioned during the evidence, but it was not the subject of, though they were questioned about it and who was involved.  I still remember it was because there were many names and these names kept on cropping up and that the name of Mr Dolo, Kenny, was there and where he said he was not there and ended up saying it was not Dolo, Kenny was not this Dolo.  I still remember it in those things when he was questioned about the names which were there.  He kept on changing the names, Mr Makuala, that it's not this one, he was making a mistake it was another incident.  So it came during that time, the question of the hotel.
	Now coming to the question of this 4X4, the other ...  I think if I may, maybe the Honourable Member interpreted it as if he was saying he must just shoot at the car.  My interpretation I thought that he was saying he must shoot at the car, at the person but who was driving the car.  That's how I interpreted it, that the instruction to Makuala was that he must shoot at that car.  So I interpreted it that he must shoot to the occupant of the car, but it may be interpreted the other way around.  But my interpretation was that at the time when the evidence was led was that he must shoot at the person.   But I think Mr Makuala indicated that I think he missed it, he was unable to hit at the car, but I think the instruction was, my interpretation, but I cannot take it any further, Honourable Member, if that's how you saw it.  My interpretation was that I thought that when you're saying shoot at the car, you must shoot at the occupant together.  He will shoot through the car in order to get the occupant.
	The other last point I would like to make is that of Mr Tsemane.  I think that was made clear by the applicants, that he was not part of them, it's only after they have shot at the car, because it was said that the view, since it was in the morning they could not see properly.  And they indicated that it was not their intention to kill, but they did shoot at the car and it ended up falling on the other side of the, in the bridge.  But I don't think we can make much about that, as if they did it, they saw him as he was reading at the statement.   It's another thing to make a statement after the event because you have a knowledge now.  They were aware a the time he was making a statement that that person who was killed was a black man, not necessarily at the time when the incident happened that he knew.  
	And these, Chairperson, are the dangers which I was seeking to avoid when I said, when it was not tested and the applicant asked about that you will have different interpretations about the whole matter.     Thank you, Chairperson.
	The other aspect.  I would like some of these incidents, I would like the Committee to take into account is that some of these incidents, Mr Makuala was not arrested for, was arrested for another matter and they mentioned some of these incidents.  And especially also Dolo, he made an application, he was never arrested, he was never any suspect, he just gave the information voluntarily.  He applied for amnesty not knowing that he was involved in the whole of this matter.  Thank you, Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: In a nutshell, are you saying then the killing of Mr Tsemane was accidental?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Through you, Chairperson, what I'm trying to say is that it was accidental in the sense that he was not their target.

ADV SANDI: Can you have an objective for an act which has been committed accidentally?  Is it possible to have a political objective if the act that was committed was not committed intentionally, in other words it is something that had happened accidentally?  Is it possible to have an objective in those circumstances?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you, Chairperson, through you, Chairperson.  I wouldn't like to dwell much on that, but my interpretation with that, if definitely my intention, my objective was to achieve a political purpose with that, we know that there are many people who have been killed in the cross-fire and I think the Committee, inasmuch as this is not this Committee which was sitting.  If I may, we had one of the similar cases which I think Mr Lax was sitting in one of the Committees which something like this happened in Natal, where a taximan was shot at accidentally and it was during this and they were granted amnesty.
	We had similar incidents like this.  And also an ambush of this nature, but none of the members of the Committee were present in Johannesburg, which happened at Vereeniging Road, where Zola Mabala who was an applicant in Heidelberg was also an applicant.  It was the same like this, an ambush, and he was granted amnesty by the Committee.  So we've had some similar cases of this nature which actually did take place.

MR SIBANYONI: Just a slight - on the same issue, Mr Mbandazayo, wouldn't you say the attack having started when Mr Tsemane assisted the people who were being attacked, one would argue and say he might have been perceived as interfering with the attack and also assisting the victims and to take it further, to say their action would cover that because at the time they started the attack they've already made an objective to say we are attacking these white people and now the action during which Mr Tsemane was injured can be regarded as arising out of the one and the same act?