Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-09-16

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you, Mr Chairman.  Mr Chairman, my submission is that the Committee should take the evidence and the application all as a whole in totality, and take them into account, all of them.  And taking into account the circumstances under which the application form was filled, and also to take into account that the applicant, at the time he was filling the application was not legally represented, in that sense somebody who understands the contents of the application form, what is required in the application forms.
	When taking his testimony, that the Committee should take into account that it had an opportunity this time when he was giving an oral testimony under oath to question him on some of these aspects regarding the application and also regarding his testimony.  And that should be taken all in totality when deciding the matter.  And also, Mr Chairman, that the shortcomings of the applicant most of the time, as it appear in the - he was honest, Mr Chairman, that although he did not refer to him personally, that most of the time as how I interpreted, I may be wrong, Mr Chairman, that though somebody will find him that he goes up to standard  10, it's not necessarily because it reflects his ability, sometimes it's because he managed to get in that high standard, if I interpret it, in an improper manner.  It's not necessarily that it was his ability to go there.  That's how I interpreted that.  
	So, the Committee should take into account that, you know, somebody who is going to say look, though he did not say it in many words, "That you must understand that it's not necessarily that it was because of my ability that I managed to get to that standard".  So, we have those problems, Mr Chairman, and I want the Committee to take those into account.  Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Mbandazayo.  Mr Lax, yes?

MR LAX: Mr Mbandazayo, can you just address one issue, and that is an area of concern in my own mind, and that is the question of if he was the primary target, as he says he was, why did he take so long to do anything about dealing with the threat to himself and the other people?  I mean how must we understand his replies in that regard?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you, Mr Chairman.  Mr Chairman, if I may interpret his replies in my way, which is of course subject to the correction to the Committee, how he interprets it.  That especially the question you ask as to, "Why did you take so long for that", and he ended up - he told the Committee that, "I was busy with the workshop and the meetings".  The way I interpreted it is that, Mr Chairman, I was trying to solve this matter in other means, that we were involved in workshops, though I haven't so ... (indistinct), Mr Chairman, I've said I'm subject to correction, that he was trying to solve this matter in other means.  That is the conflict, trying to avoid, that is the confrontation per se.  And also that, Mr Chairman, though I know that maybe it was not interpreted, but he came up with this answer which came through, which also I happened to listen in Zulu, when he said that, "I contacted Mandla, but he promised me to bring me something which he did not know that I already have".
	And though, Mr Chairman, I don't want to put it in many words, that it was clear that what was that means, that he was waiting for weapons which he already have one himself.  That's how I interpreted it.  And so that's the reason why it takes so long.  And also, Mr Chairman, I wanted to take into account that he told the Committee that he was not staying full time at Bethal, and that also has an affect, that he was coming in and out of Bethal, and as such definitely he did not have enough time to attend to that matter at Bethal.  And also that, Mr Chairman, in those conflict it was not easy, Mr Chairman, even if you have to act because of the circumstances under which they were happening, Mr Chairman.  The situation was volatile, it was risky.  You have to make calculated moves before you can act because it can end up being also yourself being also being cannon fodder, if I may put it that way, and you lead yourself to sacrifice.  
	So, there are many risks which are entailed in whatever action you are going to take during those days.  So, it was not easy just because you have been instructed to do that and you do it immediately, because the situation in most of the cases which I know, I happen to know some of the areas, they were volatile, it was not easy.  So, I don't want, Mr Chairman, as I put it, I don't want to ...[end of tape] is that the Committee should take various factors into account as to that regard.

CHAIRPERSON: What sort of time lapse is one talking about?  I'm not quite sure about that.  How do you understand the time lapse that's in question here?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman, my argument is based on the question of Mr Lax, because I don't know whether it was confusing, but I don't want to now in my address to change what happened, but my understanding when I was leading evidence was that the applicant in fact initially, when Mr Lax asked it, "When were you given this order by Mandla to do this", he said, "Early", and he said "Early", the record can bear me, "Early, and it was early, early in October".
	And the question subsequent to that, he asked him questions and he ended up agreeing with Mr Lax that it was early 1992.  Now, that's why my argument is based on the time lapse, because my understanding initially and also my consultation with him, was that it was given - it was early in October when he was given order to do that.  But I don't want to put words into his mouth because he was answering, he was here under oath and he agreed with the member of the Committee when he said that it was given early in the year.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, but that's my difficulty, whatever that means.  He said early, let's assume his testimony was it was early in 1992, we don't know what that means, and that's why I've asked you.  I mean from your understanding of the testimony, is there any assistance that we can get in terms of trying to pin that down?  I don't know how much it helps.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman, I don't want - I would mislead the Committee if somebody say - you can't say in October it was early '92, definitely.  That's my concession.  By any standards, Mr Chairman, you can't say October was early '92.  It's towards the end of the year.  So, that's why in my argument I ended up saying that the Committee should take into account various factors, because my understanding initially and my consultation was that it was in October.  Hence the whole thing happened in October.  But when the member of the Committee Mr Lax asked him, he agreed with him that it was early 1992, which by any standards it can't be October if it was early '92.

CHAIRPERSON: But it could be the first half of '92?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes, it could be the first half, Mr Chairman, of '92.  It could be.

MR LAX: If I could assist there.  You will recall that I spoke about early 1991 when he went for his training.  We actually spoke about months and when it was, and when he would have come back by.  So, I think that all preceded the subsequent set of answers.  I think the context would have been clear to the witness by that time.
	But I accept that his evidence was not in terms of your instructions initially, and there's potentially some possible confusion there.  Perhaps that's a matter that should have been dealt with in re-examination.  But be that as it may, my only concern was I also spoke of 10 months and we clarified that in the process of the questions.  So, really that was why I'm raising the delay with you.