Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1996-05-13

MR VAN DER MERWE: In other words you thought it was necessary to find out from the leaders and to have peace of mind that what you're going to do carried their approval.  Is that correct?

N JACK MENERA: Yes it depends which kind of act you would require from whom.  There were things which we did on our own volition as the youth, there the things before we'd do we'd go to the leadership and enquire about a certain problem so that they would help us with the solution, but there were things which we would do which didn't meet the approval or the advice of the leadership, then we would approve of that thing and do it on our own.  That is my answer to that question.

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairperson may I request the applicant to repeat his answer?

JUDGE WILSON: If he can remember it.

N JACK MENERA: What I'm explaining is that there were things, we'd say that we have a problem, there were things which we would enquire or look for direction from the leadership, and again there were things which we as the youth would use our own discretion, like as we did we just decided on our own that we should not look for advice from the leadership.  Like for example in this incident we did it on our own discretion.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Mr Chairperson I notice that its nearly the customary time, perhaps this would be a good opportunity.

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairperson I ask this question because I have some doubts as to the correctness of the interpretation of his initial answer and am wondering whether you are accepting the second answer as the correct answer or whether you have in mind what ...(intervention).

JUDGE WILSON: Well tell us what the mistake was. What you say you had doubts about the interpretation.  How was it misinterpreted, tell us?

UNKNOWN: I didn't understand him to mean that, well  Mr Chairperson to mean what was interpreted I can't recall what the exact interpretation was and that is why I asked the answer to be repeated.

JUDGE WILSON: Basically it was that we would consult with the leadership about something but the self defence units would do other things which didn't need leadership approval or consultation and we would do it on our own.

ADV DE JAGER: The only difference was that in the second, when he repeated it he said the youth and not the SDU.

UNKNOWN: I'm indebted to the chair.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

JUDGE WILSON: Right we can now continue with this matter.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Chairperson before I continue with my questions, it is my instruction from both my clients that they do not intend testifying.  I also have a further instruction to only ask a few questions to the applicant.

UNKNOWN: I beg Mr van der Merwe's pardon.   If the victims now do not intend to testify, on what basis may we continue to cross examine him.  I believe that the cross examination was allowed on the assumption that the victims were going to come and be cross examined on the things that they have put to the applicant.

JUDGE WILSON: No one cannot attach any weight now to what was put to the applicants on the basis, the victim will say, because he's not going to say it, but someone objecting to the grant of amnesty is entitled to question the applicant and the victims are objecting, as I understand it and are still objecting to the grant of amnesty.  It does not of necessity mean that they must give evidence.

UNKNOWN: Should I understand therefore that the cross examination now will be limited to a kind of testing of the version without putting matters to the witness.

JUDGE WILSON: He can put a great deal to the witness that is history, that is common knowledge, that has been said by others publicly.  He cannot put something that he says that the witness is going to say if he's not going to call that witness, but you know very well when you cross-examine, you say, how can you say that, it was announce two years ago that this was going to happen.  How can you say that, you know we had a change of government.

UNKNOWN: As the chair pleases.

JUDGE WILSON: Carry on.

MR VAN DER MERWE: I am indebted to you Chairperson.       	Mr Menera, you testified that the reason why you committed this act was to show that the ANC, in your own words is alive.  Is that correct?

N JACK MENERA: That's correct.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Did you, or let me rephrase that. What made you think that the ANC would ever agree to something like that, approve of something like that?

N JACK MENERA: The question is simple.  What I was explaining is that the ANC or what was done by ANC which was an obstacle to those objectives, we as ANC members we should remove that obstacle in front of the people or the movement. The organisation was fighting for the people and whatever was an obstacle to those objectives should be removed from the activities of the ANC so that the ANC should operate smoothly.  That's what I meant.

MR VAN DER MERWE: If I understand you correctly, you say that the ANC would have approved this act?

N JACK MENERA: Yes as now it is supporting me with that act which I committed.

MR VAN DER MERWE: In other words you are saying that you acted out of your own accord and you were convinced that this act, namely the killing of  Mrs Phelane and also attacking her 13 year old son with a knife and also attacking her other son with a knife and then also burning her shop and then also burning her son's motor vehicle, that the ANC would have approved that?  Is that what you are saying?

N JACK MENERA: I want to answer you directly because I understand your question. Firstly I want you to understand that there was a call from the ANC that councillors should step down.  That call was not made by Jack Menera, it was made by ANC.  I want you to understand that where the call came from, that these people should step down as councillors.  For us to negotiate with him that he should step down, we were not doing that on our own accord but were doing that on the direct instructions of the ANC. I think I've answered your question.

JUDGE WILSON: Could I come in here and say that I want you to explain to me. As I understand your evidence before us, there was no intention when you went to that place of causing any harm to this little boy. Is that correct?

N JACK MENERA: That's correct Sir.

JUDGE WILSON: You yourself did not harm him in any way?

N JACK MENERA: Yes I protected him, as he is still alive today.

JUDGE WILSON: That as soon as you realised that Patrick Moluisani was attacking him, you stopped him?

N JACK MENERA: That's true.

JUDGE WILSON: So you were clearly not guilty in any way of any attack on this boy Patrick Phelane?

N JACK MENERA: Yes Sir.

JUDGE WILSON: Carry on.

MR VAN DER MERWE: I am indebted to you Chairperson.  The reason why you launched this attack on the Phelane family was to let you progress and to make Brandfort a better place for you too.  Is that correct?

N JACK MENERA: You will forgive me Sir.  In regard to the question you asked, I want you to repeat the question Sir.

N JACK MENERA: The reason why this attack had to take place was in order for the community of Brandfort to move forward, to progress and so that that it could be made a better place for everyone and yourself included?

N JACK MENERA: That's true Sir.

MR VAN DER MERWE: How did you think that you would, after it had become known, that you and these other four members of the Self Defence Unit, that you were responsible for this attack, how would you have fitted in with Brandfort's future plans?

N JACK MENERA: We saw that we were not able to continue with the future plans of ANC because ANC could not operate freely whilst Mr Morgan Phelane and his gang were still alive. That is why we decided that Morgan Phelane, Susan Phelane and the people I've named should be removed.

MR VAN DER MERWE: My question to you was also, how would you and your four colleagues have gained any benefit from this?