Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1997-03-17

SISWE MANNETJIE BLAAU: Mr Chairperson, if I would admit to this it will take a long time because as I have already said if you were involved in the structures you would see what happened.  The decision was taken by the community and outside there was a caucus whereby we discussed what will be done, but we never said she must be killed.  What we said is that comrades you will see what to do about her.

JUDGE WILSON: You see we've been told that Klipplaat's youth, the Youth League Executive, not only decided she must be killed, but decided which three people should do so and that you were a member of that Executive, that you were there when this decision was taken.  Do you agree with that or not?

SISWE MANNETJIE BLAAU: As I have said Sir, it is so, however it was not from my lips that she should be killed.  It is a vote from the comrades.  Today we are not ashamed to accept that it is a member EAST LONDON HEARING	AMNESTY/E CAPE
JUDGE WILSON	106	MR BLAAU
of the ANC that almost killed this woman.   There is nothing we are hiding and so forth.

JUDGE WILSON: So you accept that you were at the meeting where the decision was taken that she should be killed and where you nominated three people, Jongi Lucas, Sipiwe Saki and the applicant to go and do it.  You are now saying that you were at that meeting and that you were one of those who took a decision.  Is that what you are telling us?

SISWE MANNETJIE BLAAU: I do not know anything about the three people that were nominated.  I know there was a meeting that I was at.  We did not make a concrete decision that she should be killed.  It was the individual people that decided from the anger from within to kill this woman.

MR BLOEM: I certainly do not have any further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BLOEM

SISI KHAMPEPE: Why was there a meeting convened amongst the five of you, that is yourself, Jongi Lucas, Nsikelelo Johnson, Julian Makapele, Sipiwe Saki?  Why was there a meeting convened?   What were you to discuss at that meeting?

SISWE MANNETJIE BLAAU: As I have said previously, the Committee's conclusion was that something must be done about Mrs Hanabe.   We then had to decide what exactly, what to do about Mrs Hanabe.   This is when we realised that the comrades that thought they were up to do something about it would have done it, had they wanted to.

SISI KHAMPEPE: I do not understand whether the interpretation is correct because you response does not make any sense.  Did you decide at that meeting on the manner in which you were to eliminate Mrs Hanabe?   Was that what you decided at that meeting?

SISWE MANNETJIE BLAAU: We reached a point where we realised that something must be done about Mrs Hanabe.   We then decided to campaign to EAST LONDON HEARING	AMNESTY/E CAPE
JUDGE WILSON	107	MR BLAAU
illustrate to people that what Mrs Hanabe was doing was not proper.   I do not know anything about the conclusion that she must be killed.

SISI KHAMPEPE: So you are saying that the applicant is incorrect in including you in a meeting which was held on the 12th of February where a decision to eliminate Mrs Hanabe was taken and where a decision was taken on how she was to be eliminated.  Are you saying he is mistaken?

SISWE MANNETJIE BLAAU: I do not know anything about the meeting.  I am not saying that he is mistaken.

HASSAN MALL: Mr Brink are there any questions that you wish to ask?

MR BRINK: No thank you.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BRINK
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR BLOEM

MR BLOEM: That is the case for the applicant.

HASSAN MALL: Yes, the witness can be excused.
WITNESS EXCUSED
EAST LONDON HEARING	AMNESTY/E CAPE
 
MR BLOEM	108	ADDRESS

HASSAN MALL: We have to consider others who were involved in these proceedings.  I say that to you because I want to know whether it is convenient to you to hear your argument at this stage or to hear it early in the morning.

MR BRINK: I understand my friend will not be here tomorrow morning.  He is otherwise engaged, but ...

HASSAN MALL: Are you prepared to address now?

MR BLOEM: I certainly am.  May I just mention that I am not going to be long.   My friend has also indicated that he is not going to be long, so I think we will be out here sooner than we thought we would.

HASSAN MALL: Yes, please proceed.

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairperson and members of the Committee, it is my submission that despite the performance of Mr Blaau in this matter that the applicant should be granted amnesty.
	It is my submission, to start off with, that he made full disclosure of all relevant facts to this Committee.  It is my submission that it cannot be said that he was not open with this tribunal.  He said everything which he could and he played open cards with this Committee.   I therefore submit that he has made full disclosure of all the relevant facts.
	As to whether or not the act - or rather I will refer to an act, the act of the attempted killing.  He was also charged with possession of a firearm and ammunition, but I am not dealing -  I will refer to the act as referring to the attempted murder.   As to whether or not that act was associated with a political objective committed in the course of the conflicts of the past, Mr Blaau has given this Committee a background of what happened not only in our country at the time but specifically what 
happened at Klipplaat and the same was said by the applicant, except for the question of the burning of the houses of the 
EAST LONDON HEARING	AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR BLOEM	109	ADDRESS
Councillors. Whether or not, we are dealing with the objective, 
whether or not the applicant was aware of the policy of the ANC which organisation the aims of which he was trying to promote at the time, that I submit is not what is relevant at the time. What is relevant is what was his bona fide belief at the time when he fired the shots at this woman and the events which occurred before that, in other words a decision was taken and that decision, it is my submission, cannot be said was for personal gain.

JUDGE WILSON: What about the proportionality of that decision?  Here he wished to bring about an end to the local authority.   You have done so.  You have caused all the Councillors to resign and you caused this woman to leave the area, can you possibly argue that you were then justified in murdering her, because she won't resign as a Councillor?

MR BLOEM: I think, with respect, we must look at the prevailing circumstances at the time and what drove the applicant to committing this act he said he is sorry for.  I think, with respect, we will be making a mistake by looking at things in retrospect as if the circumstances at the time are they as ...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: I am not doing that.  I am saying looking at the circumstances at the time, they wanted to bring about the end of the local authority.  They had achieved it.  All the Councillors had resigned save this one woman.  She had left town.  And out of pure stubbornness, because she would not resign, that is all, she was not doing anything, they decide to kill her.

MR BLOEM: Mr Chairman, you will remember ...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: What did they have to achieve by killing her, tell me?

MR BLOEM: You will remember that the evidence was that albeit EAST LONDON HEARING	AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR BLOEM	110	ADDRESS
she was now in Uitenhage she was still coming through to Klipplaat ...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: And doing nothing.  There was not a suggestion that she did a single act as Mayoress, is there?

MR BLOEM: Well the evidence from - and this was asked by me when I re-examined, was whether he knew what was going on, at the time what was going on, how the Council operated at the time.  And he did not know how.

JUDGE WILSON: But he decided to kill.  Thank you.

MR BLOEM: Well that was the evidence.  He decided to kill her.

JUDGE WILSON: When on his own evidence he didn't know what was happening.