Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1999-04-30

MS PATEL: Thank you Chairperson.  There's just one final thing I'd like to put to this applicant.
	Mr Bhayi, it is not disputed that there was political strife in Stutterheim, it is not disputed that there was in fact a meeting that had taken place and in which a decision was taken in terms of how to deal with the farmers.  What I'm putting to you now, however, is that when you embarked on these different attacks for which you have been convicted, I put it to you that you did not act in accordance with a political motivation, that you were not carrying out the mandate of the community.  What is your comment?

BONAKELE BHAYI: I disagree with your view because if we went there on our personal mission we would have even received or got a lot of money from those operations or those attacks and those people would have been killed.

MS PATEL: I furthermore put it to you that you haven't made full disclosure to this Committee, that you haven't been entirely honest with us.

BONAKELE BHAYI: If the farm owners were here, were present in this hall and if they would have been asked about this incident they would say that this happened as we have testified but I don't see anybody who was there.  Now it's like we're talking a lie, these people are not here.

MS PATEL: Alright, in response to your and or for purposes of the record I might just add, Honourable Chairperson, that the only victims in this matter we were really unable to trace were in fact, if I can just - I think it's the Cobus family that we were unable to, the rest of the victims, Mrs Marulia who was not involved with you but - and have stated that they do not wish to relive the incident again.  They were all old at the time that it happened and they didn't want to be traumatised again by this process and so that is the reason that the victims are not here, not because they agree with what you say.  Thank you Honourable Chairperson, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you Ms Patel.  Has the Panel got any questions?

ADV BOSMAN: Just one.  Mr Bhayi, how well did you know the other applicants at the time, Jimmy and Mr Ntonga and the other Nokawusana?

BONAKELE BHAYI: I only knew Rhandile Bhayi, I didn't know the others, I saw them when we were in prison, I didn't know them before.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you, that's all.  Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kincaid, have you got any re-examination?

MR KINCAID: I have none, thank you Mr Chairman.  That concludes the case for this applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.  Mr Bhayi, you are excused.
WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Have you got any further witnesses?

MR KINCAID: Mr Chairman, with the agreement of the evidence leader and the representative for Mrs ...(indistinct), I wish to have the following recorded.  It obviates the necessity of calling Mr Rhandile Maneni who was subpoenaed to appear before this body but has not done so.  My instructions were that the applicants wish to have someone from the leadership structure appear before the Committee and corroborate their testimony so
the agreement which the parties have reached obviates the necessity for calling such a witness and essentially there's that the civil conflict in the Stutterheim area has been accurately contextualised by Jimmy Nokuwasana for the period 1985 to 1990 when these incidents occurred and, secondly, that in consequence of the church hall shootings a community decision was taken to target the farmers of Stutterheim and to intimidate them and drive them from their farms, that is the  extent of the agreement I have with my colleagues.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there no agreement that the decision also encompassed dispossessing farmers of firearms?

MR KINCAID: That was the gist of Jimmy's evidence and it stands unchallenged so it's very much part of the applicants' case, I'm not sure whether for purposes of this record that fact could be agreed but it was certainly the applicants case, it has been right from the very first testimony led by Jimmy himself that the object was, as Jimmy's affidavit sets out in fact threefold, dispossess them of arms, intimidate them and then remove perceived support for the security forces.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, what I wanted to try and ascertain was whether this was something that was simply not focused on in the agreement or was it something that was discussed and disagreed on.

MR KINCAID: The specific terms were not discussed Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Kincaid.  Mr Clarke do you confirm what Mr Kincaid has ...(inaudible).

MR CLARKE: Mr Chairman, this doesn't really effect my client, the facts of circumstances surrounding my client are somewhat different and have been distinguished all along so from my client's point of view I've got no objection, I'm not party to it either really, I think my client's case is distinguishable entirely, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel?

MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson, I wish to confirm the agreement reached with my learned colleague.

CHAIRPERSON: What is your position on the question of the firearms that I raised with Mr Kincaid?

MS PATEL: Honourable Chairperson, I have no information at hand on which to dispute that specific point of the decision that was taken by the community in 1989.  Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you Ms Patel.  So that concludes your evidence, I assume you don't have any further evidence that you're going to lead Mr Clarke?

MR CLARKE: No Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel have you any evidence that you're going to lead?

MS PATEL: No none at all, thanks.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
	Mr Kincaid, have you got any submissions?