Amnesty Hearings — Boksburg — UNKNOWN

CHAIRPERSON: Reply (indistinct).

MR MALAN: Ja, to just explain to us in his reply the issue of continuing with the application for amnesty.

MR MAPOMA: Thank you, sir, I won't take that matter any further, sir.
	Now I just want to go to the application regarding Mr Michael Mneba vis-a-vis the attack on Jabulani Nkmalo.   Chairperson, I understand Mr Mneba Sonti denies ever assaulting him, but the evidence that is before us now is that he did commit that offence.   Now it goes to the credibility of Jabulani as a person.   It was put on him that his sense of judgment must have been affected while he was in the shack, because he was in the state of shock, which he admitted, but before that, that is when he was taken from his place, there's nothing, sir, which can suggest that his judgment was affected.   For that matter, he says, he identified Mr Mneba as the first person to get inside the shack where he was and committed that offence.  And, sir, I even put it to Mr Sonti during cross-examination that Jabulani Nkmalo claims to have been assaulted by him in the shack.   His reply was that Jabulani Nkmalo is a person who stays in (Indistinct), was not even there, he denies that that person was ever there in that place.    There's some element, Chairperson, therefore of not telling the truth insofar as that particular aspect is concerned.   
	It came later on, when Mr Mkmalo was cross-examined by his lawyer, that Mr Sonti says in fact someone else assaulted him and not Mr Sonti.   When I put that question to him, he did not come with that version.   Therefore, sir, I submit that his credibility is compromised in this, Mr Sonti's credibility is compromised in this particular regard.
	Now about Mr Oscar Motlokwa, the killing of Alizulu.   He has not made full disclosure to the committee beforehand that he killed Alizulu by shooting him six times, but I remember when he was giving evidence, sir, he said that there was a shooting, when he gave evidence regarding the incident of catching, amongst others, Tusanang, he said they saw them and they, and Tusanang's group shot at them and they shot back, and someone died, but he has not gone to the extent of saying that he himself shot (Indistinct), and as a result of which Alizulu died.

CHAIRPERSON: What if he says he's not applying for amnesty in regard to Zulu?

MR MAPOMA: Yes, sir, but it is one of the relevant facts to the acts for which he applies for amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: But isn't disclosure supposed to be, to relate to the act in regard to which one is applying for amnesty?

MR MAPOMA: Yes it is, Chairperson, but, sir, if I would take into account the pre-hearing conference which was held by my learned friend and I, and which was recorded here, it read in No 1, sir, that all the applicants apply for amnesty in respect of the killings which took place at the incident referred to as the Katlehong massacre.

CHAIRPERSON: And those killings of the persons named in the applications.

MR MAPOMA: Yes, and it says "and any other criminal act or offence related thereto", to that incident.

CHAIRPERSON: To the killing of those persons.

MR MAPOMA: Okay.   I won't take that any further, sir.   Thanks.

CHAIRPERSON: Whether failure to disclose that killing raises a question as to his credibility is another matter.

MR MAPOMA: Yes.   I want to refer specifically, Chair-person, again to Mr Michael Armoed as one of the witnesses who were here about the kidnapping of Jabulani Mkmalo.   Jabulani Nkmalo gave testimony that Mr Armoed is one of the persons who was there when he was kidnapped, and Mr Armoed denied that when it was put to him.   It is again, sir, another issue which put the credibility of both Mr Armoed and Nkmalo into a question here.
	It is my submission, Chairperson, that Mr Nkmalo's version is a preferred version here, because Mr Nkmalo, when he gave evidence here, acknowledged, he was honest to Mr Michael Armoed, he acknowledged what Armoed did and what he, even good and bad, there is no reason, sir, to expect him to say he kidnapped him, and at the same time say, "Had it not been for him, I would be killed by now".   So I submit, sir, that this witness was very honest regarding this particular issue to Mr Armoed.

ADV MOTATA: Before you proceed, what would you make out of the evidence of Mr Michael Armoed when he says, "I wasn't involved, I was guarding the shack, and at some stage there were fewer in the shack and I had to relieve myself, and when I came back, that's when I found extra ANC Youth League members in the shack and I recognised Jabulani Nkmalo in that process and to me he was a young person that was to be released", in a broader perspective that is his evidence, what do you make out of that?

MR MAPOMA: That is so far as his release is concerned, and not the actual kidnapping.   He might have, (indistinct) I may be bordering on speculations here, but he might have changed his mind, that is the person who was releasing him.  It would be remembered, sir, that Armoed and Jabulani Nkmalo are neighbours, so to speak, and perhaps that may have appealed to his conscience, to have him released and not face the hazard that was being faced by others there, but the point is that during kidnapping the witness says he was there, and the same witness says, "He's the person who released me".   That's a good thing that he did, but the one of kidnapping is a bad thing that he did.   I mean he says again about him.
	So it is against that background that I submit that Mr Nkmalo's version is preferable in this regard.

ADV MOTATA: That he perpetrated any act of human violence against him is neither here nor there, but what we are saying is that his credibility, in your submission, should be rejected inasfar as the kidnapping of Jabulani is concerned, is that your submission?

MR MAPOMA: No sir, I won't confine his credibility to that only, because the fact that he kidnapped him or not is not really an issue, but what is in issue is that, is the selectiveness in saying what, in what to say.   That is what puts his credibility at stake, that one can have a judgment is that he selects to say that which is convenient to him and not to say that which he may perceive as problematic.

CHAIRPERSON: It is not alleged that, other than being present there, he did anything, is it, other than being present when Jabulani was abducted, is there anything else that he's ...(intervention).

MR MAPOMA: No sir, there's nothing else that is said.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.   So does failure by Armoed to disclose that he was present when Jabulani was abducted, rise to such a level that we should find, having regard to his evidence as a whole, that he did not make a full disclosure?

MR MAPOMA: Well sir, just simply because there was an injury which was committed to a person by the name of Nkmalo, one would expect him to ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: He did say that one of the things that he saw was that Jabulani had been injured, and I think he mentioned, as far as I recall, that he should go to his wife and ask for money to go to hospital.

MR MAPOMA: Yes sir.

CHAIRPERSON: He mentioned that, so he did not conceal the fact that he had been injured.

MR MAPOMA: Right, no, I acknowledge that, sir, I'm not taking that any further.
	Chairperson, I must deal specifically with the evidence of Tusanang Lukabe, especially his credibility, which is being contested by my learned friend.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, what is your submission regarding that?