Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1999-02-08

CHAIRPERSON: But where do you deduce that from, that he highlights the political conflict that occurred within the period in which the application relates?  Are you saying you glean that from the application?  I have not been able to glean anything from the application.

MS THABETE: Madam Chair, when you look at page 43 of the application, he speaks, he talks about the fact that the act, which is of course the murder of an IFP member as he puts it, was committed in the struggle of a large oppressed community of South Africa, since from 1990 during the violence, he became a member of the SDU providing protection to the large defenceless community.
	I think that he shows that there was political violence and as a result, he decided to become a member of the SDU.  And further, he talks about the fact that political objectives was going to be achieved, it was to provide protection, so that they could reach a goal first.  He talks about the fact that there was a need to protect the community at that stage.

MR LAX: Ms Thabete, are these not Skananda's words as he has told us?  He didn't even understand the question, Skananda told him what to write there, in both those places.
	We can't rely on this, what is written here as his words?

MS THABETE: I am indebted to you.

CHAIRPERSON: I think in so far as this application is concerned, we can only rely on what has been stated during viva voce evidence and nothing more, is it not so?
	It is one of those applications where it is an unfortunate situation that matters are set down, when the application form does not contain any information at all about the offence for which amnesty is being sought by an applicant and no blame can be and should be attached to an applicant, particularly because he is in custody and he is unable to seek any assistance from any person other than his inmates, who are prisoners and know nothing about what the Act requires, with regard to having to qualify for amnesty.

MS THABETE: I agree with that Madam Chair, but we didn't end there, even though we didn't seek further particulars from the applicant himself.  We had requested our Investigators to investigate into the matter and find out the precise facts of what occurred during this day.
	We've got that report with us, hence we saw it fit to set it down for a hearing, based on our Investigators' report on what took place on that day.

MR LAX: With respect Ms Thabete, that report isn't worth the paper it is written on.  It is merely a repeat of what the applicant might say in his application, there is no evidence of any other investigation into the matter.

MS THABETE: Sorry.

MR LAX: I am just saying there is no evidence of any other investigation that they conducted from that report, but I think we are wasting time on this issue, personally.

CHAIRPERSON: Does that conclude your address Ms Thabete?

MS THABETE: It does, Madam Chair.  Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.  Mr Mohlaba and Ms Thabete, this brings us to the conclusion of Mr Selahle's application.
	We will pronounce our decision in respect of this matter, tomorrow morning.  I thank you for your assistance.
	The next matter to be heard Ms Thabete is which matter?

MS THABETE: Madam Chair, I am told by my learned colleague that it will be Sandile B. Garani.

CHAIRPERSON: There seems to be a very serious interference.  And after Garani which matter will you proceed to?

MS THABETE: And we hope, Madam Chair, I would suggest that we proceed with the applicants who are in Leeukop prison thereafter, that is Mr Mukokwana and Mr Mahlagaza, and thereafter Mr Mahlangu if time permits.

CHAIRPERSON: May we request the members of Correctional Services to please ensure that Mr Garani, Mr Mukokwana and Mr Mahlagaza are brought here by half past eight tomorrow morning, to enable these proceedings to commence at exactly nine o'clock.
	I am told that Mr Garani is in fact not in custody, so may we therefore address our request only in respect of Mr Mukokwana and Mr Mahlagaza who are presently being held at Leeukop prison.
	We have been advised this morning, that  both applicants did not arrive timeously and further, that our Investigators were given problems by the Prison Authority at Leeukop when they attempted to have access with a view of facilitating these proceedings.
	If that is so, may we appeal to Prison Authorities to cooperate with our Investigators, because we have a very short lifespan as a Committee and we cannot be saddled with problems which are being presented by Prison Authorities in denying investigations to be carried out by our Investigative Unit, which will enable us to proceed with these applications, without any hinderance.
	I hope our request will be acceded to by the persons concerned.  Thank you very much.  We will then adjourn until tomorrow morning.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS