Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-10-13

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but that is what you thought, you thought he was coming to look for you, but he never said that to anybody, he never asked for you when he came to the house there, do I understand it correctly?

SOLOMON MOLOI: He had said earlier on that he was going to come back and kill me.  I knew that when he came back, he had come for me.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mhlaba?

MR MHLABA: Just one or two questions Mr Chairman.  Mr Moloi, you told the Committee of a squabble which you had earlier with the applicant here, and you further mentioned that the applicant is a person who grew under you, that was very young to you.  Did you feel very much disturbed by getting engaged in a squabble with such a young man?

SOLOMON MOLOI: I do not get your question.  Could you please repeat it.

MR MHLABA: You have told the Committee of a squabble which you had earlier on with the applicant and you further mentioned to the Committee that the applicant is a person who is known to you, and he has grown under you.  That is, he is a very young person.  Did you feel offended by having to engage in a squabble with such a young man?

SOLOMON MOLOI: I wasn't prepared to fight with him, but the manner in which he addressed me, I ended up having to assault him.

MR MHLABA: It becomes very clear Mr Moloi, that you are still having a score to settle with the applicant here and it is the sole purpose which makes you to oppose this application, not that your opposition has any substance.

SOLOMON MOLOI: I do not have any spirit of revenge in so far as Bongani is concerned.  I am opposing what he said and this is what has prompted me to come and give testimony in order to enlighten the Committee as to what really happened.

MR MHLABA: I am saying to you Mr Moloi, that there is no material difference in what the applicant said.  The applicant said that the purpose for going to the house, was to request the people to switch out the light on the front, and I don't see any contradiction at all.  You are also saying that.

SOLOMON MOLOI: This matter is clear.  During the day he had a lot to say to me, that he was going to come back to me later on, and when he ultimately came, he was still reiterating his words, he uttered during the day, that he had come to kill this dog that he had referred to during the day.  He came for me.

MR MHLABA: Did you know the applicant to be belonging to any of the political organisations or the Self Defence Unit?

SOLOMON MOLOI: No, I never knew him to be politically active.  I heard later on that he was a comrade.  That is where our squabble started, when they were burning people.
	I had asked him as to why they were burning people, that is how I knew that he was a comrade.  As to whether he was involved in any political activity, I have no clarity.

MR MHLABA: Thank you Mr Chairman, I've got no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MHLABA

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you mr Mhlaba.  Any questions?

MR SIBANYONI: Mr Moloi, are you personally a member of any political organisation?

SOLOMON MOLOI: No.

MR SIBANYONI: That is the only question Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.  Adv Steenkamp, any re-examination?

ADV STEENKAMP: No further questions, thank you Mr Chairman.  If I may also ask if this witness may be excused?

ADV STEENKAMP: .

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Moloi for coming to give evidence.  You are excused from further attendance, thank you.

<UNKNOWN>: .

ADV STEENKAMP: That will be the case for the victims Mr Chairman, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mhlaba, do you want to address us?

MR MHLABA: Thank you Mr Chairman, my address will be a very short one.
	Mr Chairman, I submit on behalf of the applicant that amnesty should be granted as the applicant has complied with the provisions of the Act.
	I want to firstly deal with his application form.  The application form Mr Chairman, as subsequently amended, I submit it complies with the requirements of the Act.
	Secondly Mr Chairman, the offence in respect of which this applicant is seeking amnesty, clearly relates to a political motive, clearly relates to a political objective, and it is my submission Mr Chairman, that it became common cause that these offences were committed in the course of the conflicts of the past and it further became common cause that at all relevant times, this applicant was both a member of the African National Congress and a member of Umkhonto we Sizwe.
	It further became common cause that after he returned from exile, the applicant participated in Self Defence Unit establishment with the full approval of the African National Congress.
	Lastly Mr Chairman, I will want to submit that there was no material contradiction in the evidence tendered by the applicant and I also do not find any material contradiction with respect to the evidence tendered by Mr Moloi in opposition of the application and what has been tendered by the applicant.
	It is therefore my respectful submission that there has been a full disclosure and consequently the applicant is entitled to an amnesty and request the Committee to grant same accordingly.
	Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: When, on the applicant's version, when he threw the hand grenade into the house, we are just talking about this one incident, the question here - what was his motive at that stage, what motivated him?

MR MHLABA: Mr Chairman, I have understood the applicant to have indicated to the Committee that when he went into the house, he had in his possession a hand grenade, but he was attacked by Mr Moloi apparently who was trying to disarm him by stabbing him on the hand while he was holding this hand grenade, and it is in that scuffle that the safety pin was dislodged and the hand grenade subsequently exploded.

CHAIRPERSON: But the - I am speaking specifically about the circumstances under which the hand grenade landed up in the house.  How did it leave the hand of the applicant?

MR MHLABA: Mr Chairman, the evidence tendered here is that it was, it fell out of the applicant's hand after he was stabbed and in fact he threw it away after the safety pin had fallen and as he was rushing out of the premises, he dropped the hand grenade as he realised that it could explode on him.

CHAIRPERSON: Was the evidence of the applicant not that he had thought he would give these people this present that they wanted?  Wasn't that the testimony?

MR MHLABA: Not as far as I could remember Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying that the evidence is that it was purely accidental that the hand grenade fell out of the hand of the applicant?

MR MHLABA: That is exactly how I understood the testimony of the applicant Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I might be mistaken, I am just trying to locate the portion of the evidence.

ADV GCABASHE: Mr Chairman, I must say that was my note as well.  The interpretation was the present, that this thing they wanted, he was going to leave with them.  That was the interpretation, of a present.  My notes are similar.  My recollection is similar to what you have stated.
	Maybe it was interpreted incorrectly, but certainly that is what the interpretation was.

INTERPRETER: Excuse me, from the Interpreters, the interpretation was not incorrect.

CHAIRPERSON: My colleague has now confirmed my impression of the testimony and that is why I am raising it, to try and ascertain exactly under what circumstances did the hand grenade happen to explode and happen to land inside the house.
	Is your, well, I will just ascertain from Mr Sibanyoni, what his note is before I come to you.
	We, the panel, seems to agree that at least the interpretation that was relayed to us, was to the effect that the applicant was leaving this present that the people wanted, with them.  In other words, the effect of the translation of the testimony was that he had deliberately thrown the hand grenade into the house.
	Can you clarify that?