Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1999-03-23

ADV PRIOR: And the evidence went further, was that the King William's Town Golf Club was certainly different in that they had opened their doors to all races far before any other club had done so.  And in fact the club secretary put up a list to the Committee of the members of the King William's Town Golf Club.  And on a count that I have made there seems to be 19 black members that belonged to the King William's Town Golf Club at the time.
	With respect, if Mr Xundu was attempting to also suggest that the attack was justified on that basis, that notwithstanding the political significance of Mr Radie's golf day, but also that the club was also seen as a symbol of racism at the time, then I submit that is not a correct perception and it is not true, on the objective evidence that was presented to you.
	Finally, Mr Chairman, just on the aspect of proportionality.   Mr Xundu in his application Form 1,  at paragraph 10(b) in response to the question:  Your justification for regarding such acts omissions or offences as acts omissions or offences associated with a political objective, he stated:
"The land was taken by whites through the barrel of the gun and they had to suffer the consequences."
Now inasmuch as that may be interpreted as an act of revenge or an act to make people suffer for consequences of their forefathers, then I submit that that is not sufficient political objective or an act sufficiently associated with a political objective to justify the operation that was carried out.
	Lastly, Mr Chairman, a lot of stock has been put in respect of the role played by Mr Letklapa Mpahlele.  It is indeed significant that nowhere in this application nor the other applications that served before this Committee in East London, and despite the several and many repeated attempts to encourage Mr Mpahlele to come before this Committee to support these applications, he has not chosen to accept that invitation.  One wonders why, and one can only speculate possibly why he does not wish to associate himself with these particular applications or these particular applicants, yet we are told at regular intervals that he was the person that gave the order, he was the person who identified the target, he is the person that provided the logistics.  It's inexplicable that in an application of such a serious nature, where the support or the corroboration seems to be so close at hand, that that support and corroboration is not provided.

CHAIRPERSON: But it's not been provided in any of the others, has it, Mr Prior?

ADV PRIOR: Equally so, yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Equally serious, consider for example the attack on the Heidelberg Tavern.

ADV PRIOR: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Where he was supposed to have played a very senior role in the attack.

ADV PRIOR: Yes, that is so.

CHAIRPERSON: As was Xhomiso Nonxuba.

ADV PRIOR: Yes Xhomiso Nonxuba was at the hearing but we don't know why he never testified but ...(intervention)

MR MBANDAZAYO: Chairperson, just to correct, Xhomiso Nonxuba passed away.  He was never in the hearing, he passed away before the hearings.  It was Sipho Xuma.  I went there with him to the hearing, he was there.

ADV PRIOR: I beg your pardon.

MR MBANDAZAYO: He attended the hearing to testify, but of course he was not required to testify.

ADV PRIOR: Mr Chairman, that is the position, I was mistaken as to the name, it was Mr Xuma.

MR MBANDAZAYO: He also submitted a statement to that effect regarding the incident.

ADV PRIOR: Just finally, Mr Chairman, it is so that the Committee has decided other applications similar in nature, for example the St James and the Heidelberg Tavern and obviously this Committee of necessity would have to take cognisance of those decisions for purposes of consistency.  I can't take the matter any further than that.

MR MBANDAZAYO IN REPLY: Chairperson, I wouldn't like to respond to some of these things but it's just on the question of the caddy issue.  I think that Mr Xundu told the Committee, and also that it was also conceded, that if there is any complaint about the money you are paid there was a committee.  Of course it was clear that Mr Xundu would not be, he was not interested in being a caddy so he wouldn't complain, whatever amount was paid to him because he was there for a specific purpose.  Nobody disputes that there was a certain amount.  Also it was not disputed that sometimes people were paid low amounts but there was a body of the caddies to complain to so that that can be rectified.  In his case definitely there was nothing of that effect because he was not interested in that.  So it cannot be said that definitely it's disputed that he was paid that amount, because he also himself didn't care about the amount he was paid.
	Now coming to the question of the report itself.  I think, Chairperson, he made it clear that he believed that it was doctored.  I concede that he floundered because he was amazed in fact to see that this report does not contain what he had written too, it contained totally different incidents and it happened now to be only in one report.  And unfortunately nobody has an original report to be able to confirm that exactly that's what was written.  It's only a copy of the report, nobody has the original to confirm that exactly it was the way it was.  So there is no evidence contrary to that, that this report was not doctored because there is not original of this report.
	Coming to the question of proportionality, Chairperson.  Chairperson, I submit that there's that clause in the Act, but it's always my submission of course subject to whatever criticism that, proportionality should be applied on the people who are making the decisions because the foot-soldiers have to carry the instructions at the end of the day, they don't make the decisions, theirs is to carry the instructions.
Now if now they are the people who are going to suffer because sometimes the leaders don't come forward and take responsibility and that the proportionality would apply to them when they have to carry the instructions, Chairperson I submit that it would also defeat the purpose of the very existence of the Committee.  Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: We will take time in this matter as well, that is we will not give a decision this afternoon, we will consider it and give it later.
	There's one matter I would like to raise with the interested parties, and that is the question of victims in this case.  The victims undoubtedly would be the surviving dependants of those persons killed, but we also have a list at page 90 of the original bundle setting out the names of some 23 people who were seriously injured in the attack.  Now we I don't think have any information before us as to the conditions of these persons at the present time.  It seems to me it's a matter that would have to be investigated further before we could submit or make any finding as to victims in this regard.  Obviously all of them would have been, if they were seriously injured in the attack, would have been victims for a limited period as mental shock as is provided for in the Act, but some of them may have suffered long standing loss and injury, and I think it is a matter that ...  Mr Prior, could you make arrangements perhaps for enquiries to be made?

ADV PRIOR: Mr Chairman, what I will do, because I noticed this list doesn't have for example, Mr Davis' name on it and he was one of the deceased.

CHAIRPERSON: This is not the deaths.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes.  But certainly this list will be brought to the attention of the Reparations Committee.  If the Committee could simply say all those persons ...(intervention)