Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1997-08-13

MR PRINSLOO: Excuse me, Mr Chairman, before Mr Purshotam begins to present his evidence - yesterday we handed up Exhibit B, a letter from the Legal Resources Centre in Durban.  There weren't enough copies - they have been made and they're now available to the Honourable members of the Committee.  May these be handed up to you?
	Mr Chairperson, the document in Exhibit B, which was apparently written by Mr Purshotam was presented to the Committee yesterday already and from it, it seems that Mr Purshotam expected the applicants to sign a consent to sentence and if this were to be signed, then wouldn't have continued with his application.   Paragraph two of Exhibit B, if I may present that to you:
"We take note with regret, that you have made no attempt whatsoever to compensate our clients or their families.  This seems to be a good indication that your application for amnesty is untimely"
With respect, Mr Chairperson, it does seem that this is about reparation or compensation.  And then later on it said"
"Alternatively, it might be an indication of an absence of remorse on your part.  We consequently of the intention to oppose your application with all the means at our disposal".
	It seems from this, if this is an application, that a person should simply show remorse and with respect I'd like to suggest that that was done yesterday and then it would unnecessary for Mr Purshotam to lead evidence.  Could the Committee request Mr Purshotam to indicate the basis on which he wants to call these witnesses and then, what they will testify to so that we can perhaps shorten these proceedings because it also seems on page two, the last paragraph:
"If you sign these documents then we hereby undertake not to oppose your application for amnesty in any way".
	With respect, it therefore seems clear that if the person consents to the sentence, then no further application by the members of the families and the injured will be considered.  Could Mr Purshotam please explain this matter to the Committee and then present his basis to us.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Purshotam, how do respond to these points that have been made?

MR PURSHOTAM: Mr Chairman, it came to notice of the Legal Resources Centre quite late that this Committee intended hearing these applications.  There was no opportunity for us to consult our clients and get a mandate about whether to oppose the applications or not.  Our main mandate was to obtain compensation for them, that's correct.  And that's why civil proceedings were instituted against the applicants.  Due to the time constraints, this letter was sent to the applicants, indicating to them that if they signed the consents to Judgment, the Legal Resources Centre would not oppose their application for amnesty.
	Subsequently, I have had an opportunity of speaking to a number of our clients, most of them by the way are still not present before this Committee and all of them have indicated to me, their opposition to the applications.  And secondly, the suffering which has occurred as a result of this incident and the lack of reparation or compensation on the part of the applicants.
	So, as I sit here now, I've got a mandate - a fresh mandate from the individuals who I'll be calling this morning, to lead their evidence and if necessary, oppose the applications for amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Purshotam, can you outline for us, the basis on which you're opposing the actual application for amnesty.  I'm now not talking about your clients' claim for reparations but the basis on which you seek to oppose the application.

MR PURSHOTAM: Yes, Mr Chairman, I have prepared an address in that regard and I intended relating it to the Committee towards the end of the proceedings but if the Committee wishes that I address them on that aspect, I shall do so now.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]  benefit of counsel ...[inaudible] on what basis ...[inaudible]

MR PURSHOTAM: Well, my address at this stage will be restricted to requirements which are stated in the Act and which in my submission, haven't been complied with.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, your outline ...[inaudible]

MR PURSHOTAM: Section 20 of the Act mentions that, in considering an application for amnesty, this Committee shall satisfy itself that the application complies with the requirements of the Act.  The Act, omission or offence to which the application relates, is an Act associated with a political objective.  The term, "associated with a political objective" is mentioned on numerous occasions in the Act and it appears to be a central part of - central consideration in any application which comes before this Committee.
	The evidence which we heard yesterday - in my submission, does not relate at all - not even remotely to any political objective.  The applicants did not indicate to the Committee what political objective they intended achieving by killing innocent Black workers who were proceeding home after their late shift.  It's my submission that it's really stretching credibility and logic or any other consideration to suggest ...[intervention]

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Sorry to interrupt you Mr, you are by the way not addressing us for the purpose of dismissing the application, you are - you should really be tabulating to us, the grounds on which you oppose the application, not addressing us on the merits for the purpose of dismissing the application.  That you're still going to do in the future.
	What we want from you is just to - for example, from what you've said so far, I can gather that the first ground on which you oppose is that the act was not politically motivated forcefully.   That's the first point and you know, you could just tabulate the points on which - if that's the only point on which you oppose that, then so be it but you are not addressing us on the merits at this stage.

MR PURSHOTAM: Do you want me merely to indicate to you, the points which I'll be raising towards the end?  At this stage?

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Yes, and you will then grant me an opportunity later to address you on each of those points.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  Yes, all you require is the outline ...[inaudible] on what basis you are here to lead evidence, in the light of the contents of that letter.

MR PURSHOTAM: The basis on which I propose leading evidence is, the basis that the actions of the applicants on that particular day had no relevance to any political purpose.  And the witnesses who come before this Committee will mention the circumstances of the incident.  It's for the Committee thereafter, to determine whether that kind of incident can be brought within the ambit of the Act.  That's the basis on which I propose leading evidence.  	May I mention something else Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR PURSHOTAM: I have also apprised my clients of provisions of the Act relating to their right to be present at these hearings and to testify and deduce evidence.  And they wish to exercise that right and that's irrespective of what I have to say in relation to the letter which was sent.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, we are disposed towards granting Mr Purshotam the right to proceed with the calling of evidence.  We are satisfied that he has outlined the basis on which he is approaching this case.

MR PRINSLOO: As you please, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  Yes Mr?

MR PURSHOTAM: Thank you Mr Chairman.  I call Tabani Richard Zulu as the first witness.   Mr Chairman, will this evidence be on oath?

CHAIRPERSON: He must be sworn in.

TABANI RICHARD ZULU: (sworn states)

MR PURSHOTAM: Thank you Mr Chairman.   For the record Mr Zulu, what is your age?

TABANI RICHARD ZULU: I'm 45 years old.

MR PURSHOTAM: Are you married and do you have children.

TABANI RICHARD ZULU: Yes, I'm married.

MR PURSHOTAM: How many children do you have?

TABANI RICHARD ZULU: I've got seven children.

MR PURSHOTAM: Are you employed presently?

TABANI RICHARD ZULU: I'm not working.