Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-06-22

MS THABETHE: I agree, Madam Chair.
	Madam Chair, I would argue though that the suggested version from the judgment be taken rather than Roy Cele's evidence, because it is very likely that from what, from the instructions that I got, that Amos Cele was taken from the house, or from what I read in the judgment he was taken out of his house and killed in the nearest bush, as opposed to the fact that he participated in attacking Roy Cele at his house, which is very, very far away from the bush where he was found.  	I would argue that the probable version should be that he was taken from his house, killed in the nearest bush from his house, rather than the version that he participated in the attack of Roy Cele, chased fro quite a number of kilometres, to be killed nearer to his house.  I would argue that the Committee members not accept his version as being true, as to how Amos Cele died.
	Further than that, Madam Chair, the applicant seems to suggest that when he shot at the person who the following day was found to be Amos Cele, he did not know who he was shooting at.  Actually when he was asked the question as to the reason for shooting this person, he said that it was to defend himself against the attack.  And for that reason there is no political motive in that killing, except to say that he wanted to defend himself from the people who were attacking him.

CHAIRPERSON: But wasn't his evidence also that he, a thought did cross his mind that the attackers might have been the ones that he had allowed to live after sjamboking them?

MS THABETHE: Even if so, Madam Chair, still it wouldn't make the act political, because he was merely defending himself against the said attackers.  So still it wouldn't make the act political anyway.  That is my submission, Madam Chair.
	Madam Chair, based on those facts, that there was no full disclosure and that the truth was not told and also this seems to be a family conflict more than a political conflict, I would submit that the amnesty be refused on both applications.  Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: What do you say to the fact that, from the evidence of Mr Roy Cele, the person that he shot at was unknown, was never identified by him and up to now he cannot say who that person is?  What sayest thou to that kind of evidence?

MS THABETHE: Madam Chair, I would argue that that makes the matters even worse, because then he would be denying guilt to the fact that he is the one who killed Amos Cele.  I think still the consequences of his application would not change, in that he would be denying the fact ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: Apart from that, this man that he shot at could be an ordinary criminal who had nothing to do with politics?  He doesn't know who he shot, so it might have been Piet or Albert or whoever, he wouldn't know.

MS THABETHE: Precisely, Honourable Member.

CHAIRPERSON: No evidence was led was it, Mr Thabethe, that this was the only incident that happened during that time to have made him think that the person that was later identified to be Amos Cele, could be the same person that he thinks he killed?  Because he never stopped for a second to even look at the person that he had shot at, he never stopped for a second to even look at the person that had been shot, whether that person had died.  It's also possible that the person that he shot at, stood up later and recovered somewhere, is that not probable?

MS THABETHE: It is probable, Madam Chair.

MR MALAN: I think, Ms Thabethe, that my recollection is that he said that the reason why he believed that to be Amos Cele, was the fact that only one body was found, which was reported to him and no other body in that area.  And that's the basis of his deduction, and he was quite happy that he shot, did indeed hit the person he shot at.  So we need to bear that in mind.

MS THABETHE: I'm not sure, I stand to be correct, Honourable Member of the Committee, but he said it was at night, he fired a shot, Bongani Khumalo also fired a shot.  We're not even sure whether the shot that he fired actually did kill anyone or injure anyone.

MR MALAN: No, I'm not disputing that.  But the point is, he said he believed that he shot, did hit and he believed that to have been Amos Cele, because of the fact that that was the only body discovered the next day.  Although he wasn't present when the body was discovered, it was simply reported to him, on his evidence.

MS THABETHE: And of course I guess the Honourable Members of the Committee have to take into consideration that when the body was taken to the doctor for the post-mortem, from the judgment it's clear that the body was burnt so much that it was not even clear whether there were shots fired on him and any stab wounds on him.  So the evidence which is clear is that the body was burnt, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: The evidence is that there was a body discovered and whether it was the same person he might have fatally shot at, it is something that we are unable to deduct from the facts before us.

MS THABETHE: Precisely, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Molohlanye, do you have any reply?

MR MOLOHLANYE: No reply, Madam Chair.
NO REPLY BY MR MOLOHLANYE

MR MALAN: I'm not sure that we had argument from Mr Molohlanye on Roy Cele.

MS THABETHE: We did, Honourable Member of the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think ...

MR MALAN: My apologies then, I've lost myself somewhere.

CHAIRPERSON: My colleague is a little lost now.  We did have argument on Roy Cele?

MR MOLOHLANYE: No.  Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: "No, yes", what is it?

MS THABETHE: As I started I started my submission is divided into two parts.  The first part ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: It started with Thulani and then Ms Thabethe had her chance to argue and she went through to arguing about Roy too, but the presentation of Molohlanye did not present the argument for Roy Cele.

MS THABETHE: I'm indebted to you, Honourable Member.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm sorry for that, Mr Molohlanye, I wasn't aware, I thought you were arguing.  You had mentioned that your submission was divided into two parts and I thought you had dealt with the first part and then followed your submission by the second part.

MR MOLOHLANYE IN FURTHER ARGUMENT: Thank you, Chairperson.
	My second part of the submission is that of Roy Cele, application for Roy Cele.  That is the public violence, the assault on Dudu Ngcobo and the murder of Mzimbene Amos Cele.
	On the acts of public violence, as I've stated with Thulani Cele's submission, that these acts were committed by a member of a political organisation, who was acting in concert with other members of the political organisation to which he belonged.  And when it comes to - and the objective was to maintain or to curb crime in the area.
	On the issue of assault on Dudu ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Is that a political objective?  Can we take it as common cause that that's a political objective?

MR MOLOHLANYE: Can you ...

CHAIRPERSON: When a structure is formed to curb crime in the area, in an area where in other areas there were ANC structures and in this particular area some kind of an informal structure is formed, specifically to curb crime in the area, would you say that's a political objective?

MR MOLOHLANYE: Yes, I would say so, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Why?

MR MOLOHLANYE: On the grounds that - in terms of political organisation, the purpose of political organisation entails a number of reasons, or a number of objectives.  Amongst others, the political organisation, any political organisation will like to keep crime low at any of its areas where it ...(intervention)