Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-10-13

MR MHLABA: Mr Chairman, the interpretation from Zulu to English may have escaped my comprehension to that extent, and the reason for that is that I am sitting close to the applicant and I am able to follow the proceedings in both languages.
	That I submit, was not the manner in which it should have been presented.

INTERPRETER: Excuse me, from the Interpreters, ...

CHAIRPERSON: Is it your submission that the version should be accepted on the basis that it landed by accident in the house and exploded because of the attack on the applicant?

MR MHLABA: That is correct Mr Chairman, and in addition to that, it became very apparent by Mr Moloi's testimony that the safety pin was out of the hand grenade itself.
	He further stated that he was stabbing him with a fork on his hand.  He said he had hoped he could have found something which could inflict more harm to the applicant, and unfortunately could only find a fork, which he used.
	On that basis, I would persuade the panel to agree with the interpretation that it was accidentally left there, it was accidentally released.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mhlaba, this point can be of some importance to your client's application, specifically in regard to this hand grenade incident.
	We, as I have said my colleagues and I had heard, of course the interpretation on the basis of what was really an intentional throwing of the hand grenade into the house to explode.
	Now, of course these proceedings are recorded, but perhaps it is easier to clarify this issue, in fact I am inclined to subject to what Adv Steenkamp has to say as well, I am inclined to have this issue clarified with the applicant, with your client, so that we put it beyond any doubt.
	Have you got any submission about that before I go to Adv Steenkamp?

MR MHLABA: Not, if I could maybe be afforded an opportunity to talk to the applicant in that regard, whether this opportunity is afforded to me now or after you have handed it over to Adv Steenkamp, does not really matter Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: All right, so what you are saying is that you don't have any objection if we were to recanvass this particular issue with the applicant?

MR MHLABA: That is correct, I've got no objection Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Provided that you are given an opportunity to consult with him or what?

MR MHLABA: That not being a condition for, I will also ask for an opportunity to consult.  It will not take me long, just less than three minutes Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, I will come back to you.  Adv Steenkamp, I don't know what your notes reflect about that particular portion of evidence, but as I have indicated, we have this note here, we've got that recollection, we are inclined towards the view that perhaps we should clarify this with the applicant, that particular question of clarifying it with the applicant?

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, my notes as far as I am concerned is also that it was quite intentional.
	Maybe I misunderstood the translation, but that is what I understood.  I can just maybe add, if this will be of any assistance, on page 40 of the Court judgement, there is a specific finding by the Court and I am referring to line Mr Chairman, it starts on page 40, line 7 until lines 15.  The Court there refers to an intentional throwing of the hand grenade.
	The last paragraph, the applicant left the hand grenade in the house or he threw it in the house, intentionally Mr Chairman.  Then there is also a reference to Mrs Elizabeth Mazibuko who apparently was an eyewitness.
	If you read the whole court record Mr Chairman, maybe I am mistaken, I think that is maybe the strongest point of the victims, is that this hand grenade, although whatever happened, it was the intention of the applicant to throw this hand grenade quite intentionally into the house.
	If you read that specific section Mr Chairman, I would say this is actually going the side of my understanding of the evidence of the applicant.  Thank you  Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you got any objection if we decide to recall the testimony, recall the applicant on this particular aspect, to let Mr Mhlaba be afforded an opportunity, a brief opportunity to consult with his client?

ADV STEENKAMP: No Mr Chairman, I think it is in the interest of justice, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mhlaba, I am sorry to interrupt you because I was going to give you that opportunity in any case now.
	I don't know if you want to say anything further, but we intend to stand down for a few moments, to allow you to consult with your client on this particular issue, and then I intend to call him back just to clarify this particular issue for us so that we don't have any misunderstandings around what might turn out to be a very important aspect of this particular aspect of his application.
	Of course, it would be good to at least have it authoritatively clarified also for the purposes of our interpretation service that we have here, so I think it is important all round to clarify the matter.  I am going to stand down for a few moments, won't you just indicate to me when you are ready and then I am going to reconvene.  We will adjourn for a short while.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mhlaba, have you had an opportunity to consult?

MR MHLABA: Certainly Mr Chairman, and I just want to apologise, it was a mix up on my interpretation of what was said by the applicant.
	The applicant indicated to me that at the time he was attacked, he had in fact an opportunity to get out of the property himself, then threw it back to the house.

CHAIRPERSON: Does that largely confirm the impression that the panel had of that particular portion of the evidence?

MR MHLABA: Mr Chairman, I could not get the question clear?

CHAIRPERSON: Does what you understand now, coincide with how the panel heard the testimony on that aspect?

MR MHLABA: That is correct Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: All right, I don't know whether there is any sense in actually recanvassing this with the applicant, because I think that the original potential difficulty arose because of the way in which you had understood the testimony, so I don't know if there is any sense in recalling the applicant really.

MR MHLABA: I agree with the Chair, there will not be any sense.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you want to add any other points to your submission?  I have been discussing this particular issue with you at the last juncture?

MR MHLABA: Mr Chairman, yes, only in so far as I had already finalised by submission, I just want to recap on this very issue which prompted the short adjournment.
	Mr Chairman, the conduct of throwing the hand grenade into the property was because the applicant tells me that he had viewed the victims there in particular Mr Moloi, to be a person who is anti-liberation and that is the reason that he threw the grenade back into the property after he safely went out.
	Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mhlaba.  Have you got any submissions?

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, I have no submissions except to say that on behalf of the victims, they are opposing the application of the applicant, as stated by one of the victims on the basis that there was no clear, full disclosure by the applicant.
	He just wanted to use this amnesty process to clear his name.  They feel that they were victims, the majority of them, they were victims because of a personal feud between Mr Moloi and himself and they had no influence on this, and as far as political content is concerned, they were never members of any political organisation and they feel in the circumstances, the application of the applicant must therefore fail and be turned down.  Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know if you want to add anything further Mr Mhlaba?

MR MHLABA: Nothing to add Mr Chairman.