Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1997-04-09

JUDGE WILSON: Right, the next matter?

MR BLACK: The next matter is the matter of Mr Phineas Ndlovu.  It is application number 1702/96.  In this matter I may inform the Committee that all the victims and relatives are in fact present and three of the victims will want to give evidence in this matter and perhaps depending on what Mr Ndlovu says, may wish to cross-examine, put questions to him.

JUDGE WILSON: Mr Currin, you have been connected with this matter in one capacity or another for some time.  We have had the papers served on us of the various applications and of such matters, and it appears there were originally a number of persons involved in this incident and that - five or six weren't there?

MR CURRIN: Six.

JUDGE WILSON: Six.  And that all the others, save for the applicant, have been granted some form of relief.  They are no longer serving their sentences, either indemnity or as a result of negotiations.  A recommendation was made that the applicant should be treated in the same way.  The only information we have or the only information I have been able to see, subject to anything Mr Black may point out, is that it was refused.  But no grounds are set out in the papers
before us.  So perhaps you could tell us briefly, if you know of what the reasons were or are.

MR CURRIN: I too have not been given the reasons.  So I am not in a position to enlighten you, other than to say that -well, I don't know, because the Minister of Justice recommended, if he accepted our recommendation, that is the Scrutiny Committee's recommendation and made a recommendation to the President.   So I am not really in a position to say why the President decided not to grant amnesty in terms of the previous legislation.

JUDGE WILSON: Thank you.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Black, you informed us that the victims are present and that they would like to cross-examine the applicant maybe.  Have they got any legal representation?

MR BLACK: No, Mr Commissioner, they haven't any legal representation. I canvassed that issue with them.  They don't - I have explained fully the procedure and what the purpose of this hearing is all about and that it is not a re-trial as it were.  They feel that they are quite satisfied if they don't have any legal representation and I will assist them in every possible way.

ADV DE JAGER: They have been informed of their rights that they could make use of legal aid and they prefer not to have legal or they are satisfied not to have legal representation and that you could represent them in this matter?

MR BLACK: That is so.  I did tell them that they are entitled to legal representation and financial assistance would be afforded in any other way possible, and that I would be assisting them in this instance, should they require any form of legal assistance.

JUDGE WILSON: Mr Currin, one other matter which I will ask
you to confirm if I am correct in this, and that is that apart from the recommendation by the Minister, the Attorney-General was asked to comment on the applications of all of them, and in a letter dated the 23rd of March 1993 he put all six of them in the same category.  He did not in any way seek to say that the present applicant should be treated differently.  His words were "die applicant en sy mede-beskuldigdes se optrede nie 'n politieke merk daar stel nie".  So it was, he treated them all as having the same purpose.

MR CURRIN: That is correct.

JUDGE WILSON: You may carry on.

MR CURRIN: Could I then call the applicant, Phineas Ndlovu.
Mr Chairman, Mr Ndlovu will testify in English, he is fluent in English, so there will not be a need to translate his evidence.

PHINEAS NDLOVU: (sworn states)

ADV DE JAGER: But for the sake of the victims, I think that they have got, if the people sitting there, they have got earphones and it will be translated for their benefit.

JUDGE WILSON: Mr Ndlovu, you can move that loudspeaker across in front of you and a little closer to you.  That will be better, I think.

MR CURRIN: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Ndlovu, your amnesty application was drafted by you with the assistance of my assistant, Paula McBride.  You have a copy of that application.  Do you have it with you?

PHINEAS NDLOVU: Yes, it is in front of that desk.

MR CURRIN: I would just ask you to, in broad terms, to confirm the content of the application insofar as it relates to your personal knowledge.  Those aspects which relate to
your personal knowledge, I would just in broad terms like you to confirm.  Is its contents correct as far as you know?

PHINEAS NDLOVU: Yes, it is.

MR CURRIN: Thank you.  Before we deal with the actual incident which resulted in the deaths of four people, I would like you to give some background information to the Commission, to the Amnesty Committee, and I would like you to start with your activities, in general terms, your activities as a young comrade in Daveyton during the mid-eighties, starting with how you became a comrade.

PHINEAS NDLOVU: During the years of eighties, it was in the year 1983 that the government decided to legislate or pass laws that would say there were age limitations to education.  I was not affected by that immediately but as one of the people who were at high school, we took that as an offence because we regarded that there was no age limit in education, and why was this being fostered to us as students of the other race.  And immediately thereof I, with my fellow students, challenged the government. We boycotted classes, we went on rampage, helping workers with their consumer boycott and all other means that would help us register our protest against what was being fostered upon us.
	During those years it became evident to me that all along I was not aware of the system that had given me the inferior education, and it is then that I realised that there are people like Comrade Mandela and others, who have been jailed for speaking out against oppression that is being enforced on us.  It is then that I became aware of the political environment that I lived in, day in and day out.

ADV DE JAGER: What was your age then?

PHINEAS NDLOVU: My age was 18.

MR CURRIN: At what stage  - sorry.

ADV DE JAGER: (Microphone not switched on).

PHINEAS NDLOVU: 1983.

ADV DE JAGER: But weren't you born in 1986, ag, 1968?

PHINEAS NDLOVU: 1968, yes, that is correct.

MR CURRIN: I think he meant when the offence was committed he was 18.  You can continue.