Amnesty Hearings — Tzaneen — 1999-06-30

MR MBANDAZAYO IN REPLY: Yes Chairperson, justbriefly.  Chairperson, I think I will start with the question of the gun.  Ithink Mr Thobejane made it clear that for instance he was not sure about whatit was, because he thought, the other, that it was a camera and it is clearfrom what he told the Committee that the dogs were barking, so definitely thoughhe did not put it in so many words, he expected Mr Swanepoel to come up witha gun and in fact he saw a gun.  Under cross-examination he admitted that hewon't dispute that it was not a gun.  So definitely if he was fabricating that,he would have stuck it out and said "look, I don't care who says what,he was carrying a gun."
        Coming tothe question of that, Chairperson, I would not go to the question that theydid not make out the question of political motivation because Mr Swanepoel wasnot a right-winger, he was not belonging to any political organisation, it hasbeen stressed that irrespective of what, the farmers were the targets.  Chairperson,I would like to come to this question of armed robbery.  I am sure I would beseen to be monotonous to the Committee, I have been arguing this question, theapplication in respect of the applicants.   It is always you find that mostof the time these people make them in jail and they don't understand the wholeprocedure of the court, when they are being convicted and all that, they don'tunderstand the whole of this thing.  Most of the time you find that they alwaysleave out what they are supposed, in fact if you can go to all of them, onehas left something like explosives, the other has not applied for another thing,because the problem is that it is read to them, it is Greek to them what isbeing talked about in court, all this being separated, all these crimes, andnow it creates problems when he is not assisted.

CHAIRPERSON: It would seem on their own version,that they wouldn't have applied for amnesty for attempted robbery because theysay they never had any intention.  It is not for us to - is it - let me ask,put it this way, is it for us to now rectify a conviction that shouldn't havebeen made on their version?

MR MBANDAZAYO: I am coming up to that point,others have put armed robbery.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MBANDAZAYO: If I remember very well, myfirst amnesty application Judge Khampepe maybe will remember in East London,we had a similar case of Madenazapo, a guy who was convicted of kidnapping. It so happened that he did not know that he was convicted of kidnapping andI still remember Judge Wilson said so, it was far fetched because it was allin the process of committing the same crime, because they took away the peoplewho were there and at the end of the day, they were blowing, if I still remember,they were blowing a petrol station in Uitenhage and they took away people atgunpoint and they were saving them from being blown up.    At the end of theday they were convicted, and they did not apply and the Committee found thatit was part and parcel of the whole process, that was a whole incident.  Itis therefore still my argument, and he was granted amnesty, despite not havingapplied for that, because it felt that it was part and parcel and it is stillmy contention even today, that in as much as they don't believe that they were,but still it was part and parcel of the whole incident.  That is what I wantedto touch on Chairperson and Honourable members of the Committee, thank you.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Did you not in this case fail,therefore, Mr Mbandazayo to bring this particular aspect to the attention ofthe Committee before you commenced leading evidence in respect of in particularMr Thobejane, because what is confusing is that in as much as Mr Thobejane hasnot specifically mentioned this offence even though they all did not believethat they should have been convicted in respect of this offence, because itwas not their stated objective as they believed at the time, the other applicantshave indicated that they wanted amnesty in respect of the offence of attemptedrobbery.  I think Mr Mukhawana and the other applicant have done so, knowingthat this is something that as a result of the incident, that in any event hasbeen dealt with in their amnesty application, and it would not be like allowingyou to apply for an act that you had not originally applied for, within theperiod that you are allowed to, why was it not brought to our attention?  Shouldn'twe blame you more than blaming the applicant?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Chairperson, I want to concedeon that Chairperson, I want to concede definitely Chairperson, I did not pickit up in fact Chairperson, I did not realise that it was not amongst the - whenI looked at the application, I looked, I think I looked at the others, so Ithought that also it is covered on that, that one I concede Chairperson, thatI also failed to pick it up Chairperson.  I only picked it up, in fact I wantedto object to my learned friend when I realised that, I thought that he studiedthe application, now I realise that he is the only one who does not have itin the application Chairperson.  That I concede Chairperson, I thought thatbecause I saw it in the others, then it was automatically also present in hisapplication, I concede that Chairperson, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  We will reserve ourdecision in this matter and hope that it would be handed down in the very nearfuture.  That brings our role to an end, we will now be adjourning.  I wouldjust like to thank everybody who made it possible for this hearing to take placehere today.  We have been here before and enjoyed our stay.  I would like tothank Mr Van Rensberg and Mr Mbandazayo and Ms Mtanga for their assistance inthe matter and the Interpreters for the work that they have done, the SoundTechnicians, the security provided for us, very efficient and the catering,the Logistics Officer, I would also like to thank very much as well, and thetelevision crew.  Thank you very much indeed and we will now adjourn and thatdecision will be handed down within the very near future.
HEARING ADJOURNS