Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1999-02-08

CHAIRPERSON: I think you will be stretching it further, if you had to include the R50-00.  I think it is something that happened on the spur of the moment.  It was decided there and then when they recognised that the person who was driving the kombi, is the same person that they had, they thought was responsible for the shooting on the 25th of January.
	It was a spur of the moment thing, I wouldn't call that planning and the way I understood Mr Selahle's evidence was the other way around.  If there was any planning, the planning took place immediately after the 25th of January and definitely preceded the identification of Mr Mkhabela by Titus.  If you could allude to a plan, you could allude to a plan before the second sighting of Mr Mkhabela by Titus because the evidence of Selahle is that after they had witnessed the running into the hostel of the three men, who were armed with AK47's, they went to the scene, spoke to people who gave an explanation and from which it could then be deduced that the three persons they had seen running into the hostel, must be responsible for the shooting.
	They then went back and that is when they decided that they will have to get to the whereabouts of the three persons, with a view of making sure that they get, they got eliminated and he kept on using the word accosting and I had to get clarity on what he meant by the use of the word accosting.
	If there was any plan, if you want to put in any plan, I think that plan could be put in respect of the facts as I had described, which emanated from Mr Selahle's evidence, which definitely precedes the identification of Mr Mkhabela at a factory, by one Titus.

MR LAX: If I could just add one last thing, at best it was a decision taken to eliminate this man, but that is hardly a plan?  They didn't sit down and say you go down those roads on these days, you go down these roads on those days, there was no systematic approach to finding the man?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you Chair, I am indebted to the Chair and ...

CHAIRPERSON: Do you agree with that?

MR MOHLABA: I agree, it was just an unfortunate choice of expression on my part, it is more of a decision, it is something to go by.

CHAIRPERSON: If you don't agree with us, I think it is within your ambit to convince us you are correct in pursuing your line of address.  We are not here to tell you how you should address us.  We just want to make sure that we understand the evidence before us, the way your address is going.
	If you feel that we do not understand it the way in which you led, because you led the applicant, I think you can still argue against us.

MR MOHLABA: I will certainly agree with the Chair that it will be stretch it a bit further, if one was to talk of planning under the circumstances.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MOHLABA: Going back to that aspect Madam Chair, I was saying that I concede that the evidence of Mr Selahle with regard to the sequence of events, was not very coherent.  It was coming in a haphazard fashion, and I submit that the manner in which this was tendered, should not be construed by this Committee as an intention on his part, to deceive or to withhold certain information.
	As questions were getting put to him, more details of the event were given to the Chair.  Further, that links to his application form.  It is silent about the role which he has played in the killing of Mr Mkhabela, nor does it mention anything about the person who has pulled the trigger.
	It does not mention about the decision, it does not mention anything about the decision taken to eliminate Mr Mkhabela.  As the Chair has correctly indicated that this is an aspect which left the application to be bare to such an extent that it necessitated a request for further particulars from the part of the TRC.

CHAIRPERSON: But you can't blame us because I have blamed myself.  I think we have to share the responsibility.  It is also I think, it is something that lay within your provence to have come here this morning with a properly supplemented affidavit that would have obviated the problems that we are faced with, which you are exceeding to, the haphazard fashion in which the applicant has given his testimony.
	Had we had a properly prepared supplemented affidavit of the applicant, we would not be sitting with this problem.  I am sure we would even have curtailed this proceedings because we have had to go back to the evidence which if we had been sitting with a supplemented affidavit, we would not have had to.

MR MOHLABA: Certainly Chair, it was not an endeavour on my part to put blame on the Commission, however, I wanted to advance an argument that such failure to give certain information, it was not something which was intended by the applicant to withhold this information so as not to pass the disclosure test.

CHAIRPERSON: We are satisfied with that, you need not address us further on that.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: I was just however, making an observation that had you also come with a properly supplemented affidavit, I think this problem would not have been there.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you Chair, I am indebted to the Chair.
	The applicant has also indicated at one stage, that he was assisted by one comrade Skananda in completing this form.  He mentioned that certain aspects, he did not understand at all and he approached his comrade Skananda to assist him in completing those sections.
	He further mentioned that he got no assistance at all from the Correctional Services, nor was he armed with a copy of the relevant legislation which deals with this aspect.
	It became apparent that on his application form, there was some entries which was made by another person, not himself, other than those of the Commissioner of Oaths, and it turned up to be the righting of his comrade Skananda.
	He came and told this Committee that in fact Skananda did not command him, did not give him certain orders with regard to this transaction.

MR LAX: He didn't come and tell us that, it was prized out of him with all due respect Mr Mohlaba.  You didn't lead him on that aspect yourself.  You didn't say to him there is a mistake here, can you explain to the Committee why this mistake occurred and what is the correct version?
	You didn't do that when you led him in the first instance.  So to say that he wilfully told us that, is hardly an appropriate address.

MR MOHLABA: I did not mention that he wilfully came and said that in chief, but it was mentioned by him while under oath, when questions were posed to him.

MR LAX: That goes without saying.  It was part of his testimony in totality, but move on, let's not worry about it.  Carry on, I am sorry I interrupted you.

CHAIRPERSON: I would have imagined that you would argue against what Mr Lax is saying to you, it was mentioned by him in his evidence in chief, after you had referred him to paragraph 11(b), that is how I recall the evidence.
	I think I recall the evidence very, very well.  I would have expected you to have corrected Mr Lax, who is wrong in saying this was not mentioned by the applicant in his evidence in chief.  Don't you recall the evidence that you were leading Mr Mohlaba?
	You are here to protect the interest of the applicant, and I would expect you to do your utmost to do that, to make sure that your presence and your representation, advances the granting of amnesty to the applicant.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you Madam Chair, I am indebted to the Chair, however, it was my line of argument that whether that answer came or was solicited by means of questions which were put to the applicant, it was not in conflict of what he had said earlier, and therefore will form part of his evidence.
	It is on those basis that I omitted to take issue with the incorrect submission made by ...

CHAIRPERSON: You had taken issue, this is what I am saying to you.  You did do that during his evidence in chief, whilst you were leading him.