Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 2000-04-11

MS DE KLERK: I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS DE KLERK

CHAIRPERSON: Did you regard the IFP as your political opponent, enemy, at that time?

LINDANE NTIYANE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And did you think that they were responsible for the attacks that were launched on your area?

LINDANE NTIYANE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Yes Mr Ntiyane, thank you very much, you're excused.
WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Ms de Klerk, have you got any other evidence?

MS DE KLERK: There is only, a Mr Mkhize, who is on the list as an implicated person.  However, we haven't received any statement and I'm advised by my learned friend that she doesn't have a statement by Mr Mkhize either.  Mr Mkhize is present, he has been all morning.  However, the extent of his evidence was merely to support the fact that the applicant was an ANC member at the time of the incident.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I don't think - that doesn't seem to be really in dispute, but I'll enquire from Ms Patel.  Does anything really turn on that issue?

MS PATEL: No, Honourable Chairperson, I don't believe it's a material point of dispute.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I gathered that.  Yes, well then there doesn't seem to be very much sense in calling him as a witness, but of course you're free to do it if you want to.

MS DE KLERK: No.

CHAIRPERSON: It wouldn't necessarily, I think, assist the case, its just for us to decide the matter.

MS DE KLERK: That's the applicant's case.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Ms Patel.

MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.  We do not intend to lead any evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Patel.  Ms de Klerk, have you got any submissions on the merits of your client's case?  Oh sorry, just before we get there.

ADV SIGODI: Ms Patel, I notice that some damage, there was some damage which the victims sustained to their house, have you got any idea how much was involved, how much was involved in that damage to the house?  If you see Regina Dladla's statement on page 19 of the bundle, it says, paragraph 5
"Lots of police came and inspected the premises.  The front windows and wall were badly damaged, but ...(indistinct) fortunately was not injured."
Do you have any idea how much damage they suffered, or what was the value of the damage to their house?

MS PATEL: I will take instructions on the value of the damage, but in terms of the extent of the damage, if you'd turn to page 24 of the bundle, ...(indistinct) Dladla's statement from the docket, she outlines the extent of the damage.  If you look at paragraph 6, she mentions the hole in the window, damage to the roof, three windows and that the wall was damaged.  If the value thereof is important I can take instructions on that if you so wish.  Would you like me to?

ADV SIGODI: At a later stage possibly.  ...(indistinct) refer them to the Reparations.

MS PATEL: Alright, I will do that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so will you bear that in mind?

MS PATEL: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: It might not be something that's very easy to deal with at this stage, but if they could give information it would assist.

MS PATEL: I will try to ascertain that later.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.  Yes Ms de Klerk, have you got any submissions?

MS DE KLERK: Just very briefly.
	I submit that the applicant has made a full disclosure and it is my respectful submission that he has met the requirements of the Act, and therefore he should be granted amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: What does your client do at the moment?

MS DE KLERK: At the moment he says that he's assisting, he's still active within the ANC organisation.  He's assisting them.  He's brought along a pamphlet which he says he went to a rally on Sunday, but that is as far as my instructions go.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS DE KLERK: He's obviously hoping to get a proper job.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you, Ms de Klerk.  Have you got any submissions, Ms Patel?

MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.
	Given my client's instructions to me, I have no submissions, thank you.
NO SUBMISSIONS BY MS PATEL

CHAIRPERSON: Ms de Klerk, what was your client convicted of?  What offences?

MS DE KLERK: He was convicted of attempted murder.

CHAIRPERSON: Attempted murder.  And in respect of the - was that all?

MS PATEL: And there was one count of possession of a handgrenade.

CHAIRPERSON: Possession of a handgrenade as well.  Is it in this judgment here?

MS DE KLERK: Yes, it's in the judgment.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, on page 51 the court seems to say that he was found guilty.

MS DE KLERK: There wasn't sufficient ...(intervention)

MS PATEL: Sorry, I apologise, he was charged for possession.

MS DE KLERK: And acquitted of the other count.

CHAIRPERSON: So it was really only on the attempted murder.

MS DE KLERK: It's only on the attempted murder.  The State failed to prove the possession of the handgrenade.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  Is that the offence that he's applying for?

MS DE KLERK: My instructions are that he has served his sentence.  He was released in 1997.  ...(indistinct) five years of his ...(indistinct)

CHAIRPERSON: But for purposes of deciding the application, the application has to be in respect of a particular offence or delict.

MS DE KLERK: Yes, it's in respect of the offence on the 12th of April 1992.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it just the attempted murder that he's applying for?  Or is he also applying - he admits that he was in possession of handgrenade, so is he asking for amnesty for being in unlawful possession of a handgrenade as well, explosive, and attempted murder?  Alright.

ADV SIGODI: And what about malicious injury to property?

MS DE KLERK: Well any other related offences that he could be found guilty of.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, because it seems it can be - I don't know whether it would have been a duplication, splitting of charges, but there was malicious injury to property as well.  So on the face of it there was an attempted murder, there was an unlawful possession of explosives and there was malicious injury to property.

MS DE KLERK: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: It might be academic, from his perspective, but from our perspective and in terms of the provisions of our Act, we have to at least specify what we are giving your client amnesty for.

MS DE KLERK: I would like to thank Mr Chairperson and the Members of the Panel, I think it has been pretty obvious that I haven't consulted extensively with the applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes.

MS DE KLERK: And I thank you for bearing with me in that regard.