Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1999-03-25

ADV PRIOR: Well certainly Dolo on the evidence occupies a far stronger position and a far more responsible position than his comrades, I mean he was in charge of the operation.  He could tell them where to go, he could tell them to withdraw or not, to shoot or not.  And in fact because we don't have a clear chain of accountability further up, because we know that APLA chose targets or allowed the local commanders to choose the targets, what they were doing was part of a broad offensive but there is not clear line of accountability beyond Mr Dolo except for example, Mr Letklapa Mpahlele who says well we accept responsibility because it was part of, he never gave a specific order to do that specific attack.
	So Mr Dolo chose the target, he must ultimately be responsible for that decision and everything that flowed from that incident.  And possibly yes, he may have a greater degree of moral accountability than for example, Mr Makuala or the others who were simply there to carry out instructions.  Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Right, we'll take time to consider our decision.

ADV PRIOR: Mr Chairman, that leaves us with the two remaining matters and ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Wait a bit, before we go onto that, what victims are there in this matter?

ADV PRIOR: The family of Mr Schroeder, Mr Peter Schroeder, it's the family of Mrs Brummer, Mr Brummer, and it's the family of Mr Tsemane.

CHAIRPERSON: Have we any information about what that comprises?

ADV PRIOR: Well we know Mr Tsemane was the breadwinner and he leaves a widow.  The children are all adult and employed, so strictly speaking Mrs Tsemane would be the victims or the survivor, would be directly.

MR LAX: I understand from the evidence we heard that there are four Mrs Tsemane's in fact.

ADV PRIOR: That is so.  We only had one Mrs Tsemane at the hearing in Aliwal North, but possibly if the Committee could rule that the wives of Mr Tsemane be referred to the R&R Committee for consideration, because if they're wives in terms of a customary union then I would submit that they all equally must be victims or dependants.

CHAIRPERSON: Dependants I think rather than wives, we don't know, there may have been young children somewhere which we don't know about.

ADV PRIOR: I know Mrs Brummer is in Aliwal North although she had indicated she did not want to attend, but nevertheless she remains a dependant and a victim - sorry, what did I say, Brummer?

MR LAX: Yes.

ADV PRIOR: Sorry, Mr Brummer is in Bloemfontein and Mrs Schroeder is in Aliwal North.  I know Mr Schroeder had young children, so they ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Well should we refer the dependants of Mr Tsemane, Mrs Brummer and Mr Schroeder to the Reparations Committee?

ADV PRIOR: Thank you, Mr Chairman, yes that would be appropriate, thank you.
 
LUYANDA GQOMFA
ARGUMENT:  MAYAPHUTI/ZASTRON BRIDGE ATTACK

ADV PRIOR: We have the matter of Mr Gqomfa which involves the death of Mr Smit and the injury to Mr Fransen(?).  That was at the Mayaphuti/Zastron Bridge.  And then we have one of Mr Dolo, also at the Zastron/Mayaphuti Bridge.  Now that involves Mr Griesel.  Mr Griesel was not killed, he was injured in the attack.  Mr Chairman, I think that one is a straightforward matter in the sense that the evidence is before you.  I don't have any submissions to make on the various aspects of the requirements of the Act, so I leave that in the hands of the Committee.  Obviously Mr Mbandazayo can be led by that, that there's no opposition formally on behalf of the victims on this matter, which would then leave us with arguing Luyanda Gqomfa and the Mr Smit murder.  I would like to address specifically on that aspect, or that matter.
	I hope I've made myself clear.  The Zastron/Mayaphuti Bridge involving Phila Martin Dolo, AM 3485 which was heard on the 28th of April, I don't have any address and that may assist my learned friend not to take too much time with his argument.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Chairperson, what I wanted to say, I was going to say in this matter, I think it is on ...(indistinct) the one which we argued, except that no person died.  I think the reason would be because they held fire from that because they realised that there was a black man in the car, I think that's the, so they did not proceed with that.  So that's what they did.  Because when they saw that, they started firing when it was nearer they could see that there was a black man so they decided to abandon the whole thing.
MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

CHAIRPERSON: Any victims here?

ADV PRIOR: Mr Griesel committed suicide thereafter.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it in consequence of the injuries he suffered?

ADV PRIOR: Mr Chairman, my information is that Mr Griesel went into a very deep depression after this attack.  He got shot through, I don't know if it was the neck or the face, and after that he lost his job and thereafter in that state of depression, my understanding - I haven't seen a psychiatric report, my understanding from the investigating officers and the, I think it was Mr Griesel's widow who is now remarried, was that he never recovered fully from this particular incident.  So he possibly was a victim and the dependants may well be, but I understand she is now remarried.

CHAIRPERSON: Well that ...(indistinct)

MR LAX: Did he have any children?

ADV PRIOR: Yes, I'm unaware whether he had children, but if it could be referred and if there are no dependants then obviously then the R&R Committee would decide that and that would be the end of the matter but possibly to be safe, maybe the Committee could make, in the event that there are dependants of Mr Griesel  ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Well should we make the finding that in the event firstly, that there are dependants of Mr Griesel and that his suicide was in consequence of the injuries he sustained during this attack, then we think that such dependants should be referred to the Committee.

ADV PRIOR: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I'm indebted to the Committee.  Sorry, there are two others.  If you look at page 2 of the evidence, there was a Mr Tladi(sic) and Mr Delene who were with Mr Griesel at the time.  Also to the extent that they may have been affected by this incident, may they also be referred?

CHAIRPERSON: Well is there any suggestion at all on the papers before us that they were affected?

ADV PRIOR: Mr Chairman, I ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Because we are supposed to refer people whom we consider to be.  ...(indistinct) would surely serve some function in filtering out.

ADV PRIOR: Could you just bear with me please, Mr Chairman.
MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

MR SIBANYONI: ... had cut marks on his face as a result of the glass, abrasions, pieces of bullet that hit the glass that caused the injuries, but there's no indication from his evidence that there was any lasting consequences of this, Mr Chairman.  I think he indicated at page 62 of the record that he was shocked.

CHAIRPERSON: There's no suggestion of any injury.

ADV PRIOR: And there's no indication that he suffered damages in the sense that he lost employment or that his dependants suffered as a result of this incident, yes.  There's no suggestion of that.

MR MBANDAZAYO: I think that Mjale was injured, cut by glass on the face, superficially.

MR LAX: If we're going to grant amnesty for the matter - if amnesty is granted, even if he was superficially injured he's still a victim in terms of the Act, so I think we have to refer to him.
MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

MR MBANDAZAYO: ... yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Not to Tladi.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Not Tladi, he did come.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

MR MBANDAZAYO: No.
MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

ADV PRIOR: Thank you, Mr Chairman.