Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1998-04-28

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Martindale I have spoken to my colleagues. It is quite clear that the incidences were clearly of a political nature and committed for political reasons, political motivation. So we do not think it is necessary to hear any evidence on that score. If there is any other evidence you wish to place before us based on the actual merits then we will be willing to hear those people or place documentary proof whatever.

MR MARTINDALE: No Mr Chairman then there is no other evidence apart from that.

CHAIRPERSON: No you can accept that we accept that all these activities were politically motivated. We accept that.

MR MARTINDALE: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there nothing else?

MR MARTINDALE: Nothing else Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma is there any evidence you would like to place before?

MR MAPOMA: No Sir, no further evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Martindale is there any submissions you would like to make? There is certainly one aspect we would all like to hear you on. It is the question of whether we are able to grant amnesty in respect of Mr Dlala's killing. In view of the fact that the applicant has denied participation in it.

MR MARTINDALE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman the situation here is that the applicant was convicted by the court at the time of the three murders. They are similar in nature. If I can refer to the record. I mean they were all committed by a crowd of people. Common elements were stabbing, stoning and burning. Mr Dlala was one of them. The statement that the applicant was caught up with that at the time. And rightly or wrongly he was convicted of the murder of Dlala. He has come before you and he has admitted his role in the stabbing of two of the deceased. I submit that he would have nothing to gain to not, or to try and avoid the situation with Dlala.

CHAIRPERSON: Assuming we believe everything he tells us on that basis, on what basis can we grant amnesty in respect of Dlala's matter when he himself says he had nothing to do with it? In other words how can he get amnesty for something he did not do?

MR MARTINDALE: Mr Chairman he might not have physically done it but he was convicted of it.

CHAIRPERSON: Well you talking indemnity, we are not a committee of indemnity. Isn't it? We are a committee of amnesty.

MR MARTINDALE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: It is pardoning, it is recommendation for pardoning guilt.

MR MARTINDALE: Yes. Mr Chairman can I just raise an interesting thing and I submit that this is a question that crossed my mind as well that this applicant actually did apply for indemnity.

CHAIRPERSON: Now we are aware of that, we have seen that.

MR MARTINDALE: And it appears that he was kind of caught between the situation where the amnesty committee had just been convened and on the papers there appears to be a situation where his actual indemnity application was affected by the fact that the amnesty committee had been formed. But I concede Mr Chairman that it is a problem. But what he is saying is that he was convicted of this thing and it should fall part and parcel of his amnesty application.

CHAIRPERSON: I have got a problem. As much as I sympathise with his position. The law provides and allows us to grant or recommend the granting of amnesty which is pardoning guilt. Now I have difficulty in pardoning something that the applicant says did not occur, he is not guilty. He may or may not have been erroneously or wrongfully convicted, indemnity does not form part of our brief. I do not know why but that is the position. That is why I raised the issue with you because maybe there is something we overlooked.

MR MARTINDALE: Yes Mr Chairman can I ask on that issue then possibly if we could have an opportunity to address you at a subsequent stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Tomorrow morning?

MR MARTINDALE: Tomorrow morning?

CHAIRPERSON: I am asking you (...indistinct)

MR MARTINDALE: Yes that would be fine Mr Chairman.

ADV POTGIETER: Mr Martindale when you consider this aspect won't you have regard to the definition of an act associated with a political objective in our founding Act 34 of 1995 and see whether there is any scope for this committee to deal with conduct which does not amount with an offence or a delict in the process of considering an amnesty application?

MR MARTINDALE: Yes. Thank you Mr Chairperson. I will do that Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Martindale we have discussed the matter. We will adjourn till tomorrow morning nine 'o clock. And we will listen to your further submissions then.

MR MARTINDALE: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: We will adjourn till tomorrow nine 'o clock.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION ON THE 29-04-98  -  DAY 2

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Martindale we adjourned yesterday for the purpose of allowing you time to make further submissions this morning.

MR MARTINDALE: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Mr Chairperson at this point I think there might have been some confusion about Mr Nxkwa's support in the matter of what happened to Mr Dlala. And with the leave of the committee I would like to just put some questions to him so that he can clarify a certain aspect. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Please.

MR MARTINDALE: Mr Nxkwa yesterday you told the committee that you knew nothing about.

CHAIRPERSON: Before you carry on I just need to remind him that he would be under oath.

NORMAN GILINDOTA NXKWA: (s.u.o)

MR MARTINDALE: Yesterday you told the committee that you did not actively participate in the killing of Mr Dlala?

NORMAN GILINDOTA NXKWA: That is correct.

MR MARTINDALE: Now as a member of the comrades did you support that actions taken against Mr Dlala?

NORMAN GILINDOTA NXKWA: Yes I supported it fully because it was my own comrades that did it.

MR MARTINDALE: Sorry Mr Chairman can I just confirm that Mr Nxkwa's, does he have to operate this microphone? Thank you Mr Chairman on evidence that is the one part that I wanted to just clarify before I address you on the other issues that you raised.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma have you got any questions?

MR MAPOMA: No questions thank you.

MR MAPOMA: Potgieter?

ADV POTGIETER: Mr Nxkwa can I just clarify something with you? The action committee that you refer to, do I understand it correctly that one of the purposes of the action committee was to protect the community in Uitenhague? Community in the township that is.

NORMAN GILINDOTA NXKWA: That is correct.

ADV POTGIETER: And was it the policy or the attitude or the decision of the action committee that as part of that protection of the community it was necessary to eliminate people who were identified as impimpis, as informers?

NORMAN GILINDOTA NXKWA: It was important to eliminate informers because they were not helping the community at all.

ADV POTGIETER: And you, is it correct that you were part of the action committee?

NORMAN GILINDOTA NXKWA: Yes.

ADV POTGIETER: And did you support that approach of the action committee?

NORMAN GILINDOTA NXKWA: Correct.

ADV POTGIETER: And did you associate yourself with that policy and that approach?

NORMAN GILINDOTA NXKWA: Yes I associated myself with that approach.

ADV POTGIETER: And was Mr Dlala eliminated as part of that policy or approach?

NORMAN GILINDOTA NXKWA: Yes he was killed because that approach.

ADV POTGIETER: Thank you very much.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Mr Nxkwa I assume that what would happen before these people are necklaced is that they will be hunted down from the community, they will be fetched from their houses. Is that correct?

NORMAN GILINDOTA NXKWA: Correct.

MR SIBANYONI: And when the action committee was looking for these people from within the community were you part of the action committee?

NORMAN GILINDOTA NXKWA: Yes that is correct.

MR SIBANYONI: Will that also include the instance where they were looking for Dlala?

NORMAN GILINDOTA NXKWA: No I was not there when they were looking for Dlala.