Amnesty Hearings — Boksburg — UNKNOWN

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MADASA: Mr Chair, I submit that the applicants have made a clean breast of the activities which they were involved in at the time, especially I was more impressed by Oscar Motlokwa, who gave the background to all the activities.   I submit that, Mr Chair, he was straight-forward, honest, and attempted to all his ability to explain and describe to this committee what had happened.

CHAIRPERSON: But what he didn't disclose was that when he met Likana, he shot somebody four times on his chest, that he didn't tell us.

MR MADASA: Thank you, Mr Chair, I'll come to that point just now.
	Therefore, I submit that in the overall, all the applicants were honest and disclosed their participation as individuals and collectively in the killings.
	Now, coming to what Mr Chair has just highlighted, these are allegations that are coming from Tusanang, that somebody will killed.   Oscar Motlokwa denies this, that he killed any person.   Now, therefore, there's a conflict on this point.   
	I submit that the way to look at it is to look at the overall conduct of the applicants when they were rounding up these people.   Oscar is one of the people who saw Vips and Tusanang, with his own eyes, at Blanko's place.   Yet when he met Tusanang, he did not kill him.   The conduct of the applicants, Mr Chair, was not that of killing on sight.   I submit the evidence, any suggestion is going against the evidence which is before the committee that the applicants wanted to execute people.   I submit that that allegation from Tusanang must be rejected.    
	Another reason for that, Tusanang goes on to say Armoed also wanted to kill him, but the gun, his firearm jammed, and I submit that was another demonstration of that Tusanang was lying before this committee, because if Armoed wanted to do so, he could have done so too, because other people were armed, if it had jammed, he could have taken another firearm and shot at him, and in fact Armoed admitted before the committee that he killed people, those he killed, he did not deny it, he did not run away from killing people.    He would not have hidden the fact that he wanted to shoot Tusanang but the gun jammed, but I submit that Tusanang exaggerated or lied before this committee, with a view to discourage the committee from granting this amnesty, but he did not have good enough evidence to do so, he merely made bold allegations against them.    
	I therefore say the conduct of the applicants when they were rounding these people, does not indicate in any manner that they were out to kill them on sight.  In fact people were released, those they thought had nothing to do with the incidents, and that conduct, Mr Chair, does not support the view that Tusanang, I mean Oscar Motlokwa killed somebody, and I'm saying this against the background that Motlokwa was a straightforward witness, he never contradicted himself, he revealed matters which were not even important to his application.
	Now coming to Vips's mother ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: And yet when it came to the question of who was patrolling Moleleki township, blocks A to F, he professed ignorance?

MR MADASA: Mr Chair, all I can say about that, it must be admitted that he knew nothing about that particular fact.

CHAIRPERSON: He was an operator, he told us, he was patrolling, he told us, now how do you patrol without knowing where you're patrolling?
	I accept that perhaps some of these changes may have occurred perhaps whilst he was in custody, I gather, because from his evidence it appears that he was released on a Thursday, and I believe shortly thereafter the events which triggered the killings occurred.   Whether that is the explanation, I don't know.

MR MADASA: Thank you, Mr Chair, for highlighting that particular fact, which is probably the reason, but all I could say there, which is what I mentioned in my heads, is that some of these (indistinct) really are not that relevant and important.   It must be understood that at some point Mr Chair will know that when people are giving evidence, they will omit something, or say something that was in fact not true, but I submit that, Mr Chair, nothing turns on that point as to taint his credibility before the committee.

CHAIRPERSON: What do you say about Michael Sonti?   The picture of himself he painted was that of a person who accompanied the groups that went out to round up these youths, did nothing either to harass or assault any of the persons who were abducted.   Jabulani Nkmalo gave us a different picture of Mr Sonti.   He said Sonti had a spear, he stabbed him on his right arm, and I gather that he stabbed somebody else with a spear.   Now, if we are to believe Jabulani Nkmalo, would you still argue that failure by Sonti to disclose the fact that he stabbed Jabulani Nkmalo is a minor inconsistency or discrepancy which is irrelevant?

MR MADASA: Mr Chair, assuming that the committee finds that in fact he lied on that point, but before I come, I address it in that manner, I submit that Sonti has denied it, and he said it's Holomisa who did so, and then taking in to account that this young man, at that time he was surprised by the, when he was accosted by the applicants, and there were many, I submit that there is a chance that he may be mistaken as to who exactly, not that he was not stabbed, but who exactly did so, because Sonti does not deny that he was stabbed but he says somebody else did so.
	But assuming that his version is rejected on that point, the way I would look at it, Mr Chair, I submit, would be that the main allegations against the applicants is that they rounded up these people and later killed them, and therefore Sonti's evidence must be seen in that light, that he has admitted his involvement, his participation in apprehending the victims and taking them to the shack.
	As to what happened when they were apprehended, I would again submit, Mr Chair, with respect, that it is important, but not that important.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, as I understand his evidence, it was to the effect that he did not take part in the killing, did he?  He didn't, he didn't take part in the killing, yes.   You see, if we are to believe Jabulani Nkmalo, I think Sonti's evidence must then be viewed against his failure to disclose that he had stabbed, that he stabbed someone.    Now if one accepts that he deliberately failed to disclose that fact, you know, as well as everybody knows, that when the clock strikes 13, it calls into question every hour that has gone before.   How do we know that he's been candid with us in regard to his degree of participation in the actual killing?  Was he a bystander, as he claimed he was?   That's the difficulty that it will present.    But that, of course, if we accept Nkmalo's evidence.   Of course if we reject Nkmalo's evidence, the problem doesn't arise.

MR MADASA: Yes.   Thank you, Mr Chair.   I accept, Mr Chair, that the concealment of that fact by Sonti, if he did, does pose a problem as to if he has invented everything, but I'm saying that should be seen against the allegations that were levelled against them, namely that they captured people from their homes and took them to the shacks to be killed and people were killed.   In his favour I could explain that by saying that if he did conceal that point, that he may have thought that it was sufficient to tell, to disclose the fact that in fact he did participate in capturing people from their homes and took them where it is alleged that they were taken.    In other words, he may have felt that he has answered the allegations which have been levelled against him.   Now as to whether he fully dealt with that when he was answering those allegations, I submit that he may be excused for thinking that by answering the allegations he was therefore making a full disclosure with that regard.   But nonetheless ...(intervention).