Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1999-04-12

MS THABETE: No Mr Chairperson, but I would like to take this opportunity to put it on record that the victim's next of kin were notified.  They are in Cape Town and they said they are not interested in attending the proceedings.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Claassen, there are just a few things that we need to find out from you before we ...  As far as you are concerned, what are  the applications directed at, because I am not really certain myself.

MR CLAASSEN COMMITTEE: Thank you Mr Chair.  Mr Chair, having looked at the applications and I mean the applications that was submitted by the three applicants, with specific reference to the convictions and also the evidence given by the three applicants in chief today, Mr Chair, it is true that, as far as it is true that in the application mention is made of the possession of illegal firearms, the attempted murder as well as the specific murder of, I think it was Miss Govender, the deceased.
   Mr Chair, I think one would be more than naive to say that if one takes into consideration the requirements for the granting of amnesty and specifically the proviso or the provisions that is made by the promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, if I may just start, Mr Chair, by, I think that it clearly strikes on the three main considerations that being the objective had to be politically associated, there had to be full disclosure and obviously the question of proportionality of the act that they committed.
   Mr Chair, maybe even before getting to the evidence of the applicants and their version of what had occurred, surely the question stands to be argued or was what they did, indeed politically motivated or even vaguely associated with a political objective.  Mr Chair, maybe if I could just get to the letter which you specifically brought to the attention of the second applicant and it's clearly stated by both the applicants that the situation in Dube Hostel was such that they deemed it necessary to commit this act to relieve the immediate situation and their immediate pressing political turmoil in which they found themselves.
   They acted, it is the version of the applicants, on the instruction of Mr Wiseman Kanyele, yet they only know him to be a member of the IFP, not a senior member or a member who holds any rank of significance within the IFP.  And they say that had this robbery gone according to plan, that the money would be given to the IFP, yet in stark contrast to what they alleged they wanted to do, they admit that this is very expressly not the policy of the IFP and the IFP goes so far to, in writing, distance them from what has happened.
   Mr Chair, if one looks at Section 20, and it is very broadly defined, and even if one looks at it very broadly one would be naive not to say the question remains, was there any mention whatsoever, that higher structures in the IFP knew of this and had they known would they have condoned it, which by their own account is not the situation, Mr Chair, and ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Claassen, do you think that everything that was needed to be said in order to comply with the Act has in fact been said?

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Chair, it is true if one looks at, once again, at the Act itself, a broad picture of, or if one looks at the specific requirements for amnesty, surely all the points which might be considered to grant an amnesty application, might not by all the accused have been uncovered by the testimony of all the accused.
   Even if that, Mr Chair, considering that and just taking into account the versions of the applicants, surely the requirements stand that these requirements should not be seen separately but they should all be met and in view thereof, certainly there are shortcomings which one cannot overlook.
   Mr Chair, if I may just, with specific reference to the testimony of the applicants, and should it be considered I think, even if one gets past the political motive and should the Committee feel that there was sufficient underlying political motive, the versions of the accused themselves should be taken into account and whether they are truthful witnesses and what they allege happened could be believed ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I think you would be best served by leaving that in our hands.

MR CLAASSEN: I believe so.  Thank you Mr Chair, I would not ... ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I appreciate your position.

MR CLAASSEN: As the Chair wishes.  I would leave the decision of these applications in the capable hands of the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you got any submissions to make, Ms Thabete?  It is not necessary if you don't want.

MS THABETE: I will leave the decision in the capable hands of the Committee Members, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.  We will take time to consider this application and the decision will be published in due course.  We're adjourned till 9 o'clock tomorrow morning.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS