Amnesty Hearings — Aliwal North — 1998-04-22

ADV SANDI: Did you hear what the applicant was saying about the role of the Police in the past?

MR MARTENS: Yes, I did hear him.

ADV SANDI: I suppose you also heard when he went on to say for the role, for the reason that the Police were perceived by APLA to be maintaining the previous system, they saw the Police as legitimate targets.  Do you have anything to say to that by way of response?

MR MARTENS: Well, I feel that at that stage I just did my job. At that stage I served that government like I serve this government of today.

ADV SANDI: No further questions, Sir.  Thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't want to get involved in a long discussion about this, but I wonder if in a few words you can tell us about the layout there.  We have been referred to the charge office and then we were told the single quarters were next-door.  Is that so?

MR MARTENS: That is correct.  As you come in in town, the single quarters is at the bottom of the road.  It boarders on the road, but it's lower than the road and approximately 20m to 30m from there is the charge offices or the Police Station.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there a wall ...(inaudible) single quarters?

MR MARTENS: No, it's just a safety fence that is around the buildings.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you tell me what a safety fence, what you mean by that?

MR PRIOR: Sir I think it was a translation problem, it's  a "sekuriteitsheining".  It could be a security fence as well.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that a barbed wire, a wire fence, or is it a concrete fence?

MR MARTENS: It is a high wire fence.

MR LAX: Just one last thing, Mr Chairperson.  It may interest you, Mr Martens, to know that it is not a requirement for the granting of amnesty, that the applicants should show remorse.  In other words, in terms of our statute, they are not required to show remorse in order to get amnesty.  I just wanted you to understand that.  It doesn't affect how you feel, but just so you understand.

MR PRIOR: That's the evidence.
Sorry, Mr Chairman.  May I place something on record that's been brought to my attention.  And I don't know if my learned friend will maybe confirm or agree to this.  The two ladies that were injured on the vehicle, that is the first vehicle referred to by the applicant, and which is referred to in the affidavit of Mr Mpele at page 40.  The two ladies names I understand, this has been confirmed by the evidence analyst who made enquiries a short while ago, was Voncela Ngojo and Nomonde, I'll spell it, Mkhasakhasa, or it could be "na" at the end.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, Mr Prior, that was too fast, "Mkha"?

MR PRIOR: Mkhasakhana, sorry "sa".  Mkhasakhasa.

ADV SANDI: Would that be Mkhasakhasa?

MR PRIOR: Yes.  Thank you, Mr Chairman.  May I just read out the note that's before me.  I understand this was taken from a medical report which wasn't put up in the bundle.
"A single bullet went through from one side of Nomonde's mouth, through the other, and then went into the front of Nonthebe's neck just below the jaw, but missing the gullet.  It went, and narrowly missed the jugular vein, and remained lodged at the back of her neck until it was removed at the Aliwal-North General Hospital.  Nomonde had to have teeth removed as a result of those injuries."
Now, Mr Chairman, I haven't had any opportunity to confirm this, but I understand that Miss Ntanga obtained this information from hospital records, or from an investigation report.  I don't know if my learned friend wants time to consider that, but I would like it to be placed on record and possibly agreed to, otherwise I'm, if there's a dispute, I'll have to produce better evidence.

MR LAX: Chairperson, if I could just add one thing.  It's clear from one of the statements somewhere in this bundle, that a bullet was recovered and sent for ballistics.  It's not in this particular bundle, I think it's in the farm bundle, but it relates to this incident.

MR PRIOR: Also the affidavit of Andele Mpele at page 40 clearly indicates that he saw blood on both of these women when they stopped.

MR LAX: Perhaps we could just hear from Mr Mbandazayo what his attitude would be, or his client's attitude?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman, as I don't think I need even to consult, as the applicant has already given evidence.  He does dispute that he says that it was so and he accepts it if that's the case.  He won't be in a position to say what sort of injuries and he can't dispute those injuries which were suffered. I don't think, Mr Chairman, we have to waste our time in ...(indistinct) evidence.  If that's the position, the medical evidence, it should be a subject by the Committee.  We have no objection to that.

CHAIRPERSON: And it appears to some extent to support your client's version that it was only a single shot that was fired.  It wasn't more.  It was a single shot which caused both injuries.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR PRIOR: Thank you.  I'm indebted to my learned friend for his concession.  Mr Chairman I have no further evidence to lead in this matter.

MR LAX: Just one thing, Mr Prior, it may be important to know what the calibre of that bullet was, because it's highly unlikely that a bullet from a pistol would have gone straight through somebody in that way.  I just want to raise that.  One would expect a high calibre bullet to do that, but not from a pistol or a .38.

MR PRIOR: It went through the soft portion of her mouth.  I beg you pardon, her cheek.

MR LAX: No that's quite likely then.

MR MBANDAZAYO: In fact, Mr Chairman, I was going to say, I happened to be involved in one case which we had a similar incident where one bullet managed to hit, nobody knew where it is, but it managed to hit and went towards the side, and went to the car.  This person was standing next to the car.  So, it ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Well was their ever a decision in this matter?

MR LAX: Chair, just one aspect, and that is, Mr Mbandazayo has reserved the right to call Mr Mphahlele, or someone of the similar statute, so I think it's ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: That's to say if they ever become available.

MR LAX: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't, as I understand him, he is not seeking to keep that reservation for a long time.  If we came dispose of the matter, we will dispose of it.  You don't want us to reserve the matter for months to see if you can get someone, do you?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes, Mr Chairman, it won't be months, Mr Chairman.  Definitely, if we can't get Mr Mphahlele himself, personally, there will be somebody, but it must have to have his blessings, definitely, because he was the person.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, we'll reserve our decision in this matter subject to the applicant's right to notify us if certain evidence, further evidence becomes available and arrangements can then be made to hear that evidence.  It may well be that it can be combined with other hearings.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman, that's the roll for this week.  We postponed the, all the, there were five farm incidents that couldn't proceed, and then the, next week we have the two Sterkspruit Mayaputi matters.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, we adjourn till next Tuesday.  Monday being a public holiday.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS