Amnesty Hearings — Thohoyandou — 1999-06-29

MS MTANGA: Thank you, Chairperson.  I have been instructed by the victims to submit that all five applicants have not complied with the requirements of the Act.  Specifically Section 20, subsection 1c in that they have not made full
disclosure of all the relevant facts relating to the tortures they administered on the victims.  The methods of torture used by the applicants, especially with due regard to the severity, the savage and the dehumanising nature of these methods constitute relevant and material facts as required by Section 20, subsection 1c which ought to have been truthfully placed by them before this Committee.  The applicants have failed to do this.
	I further submit that the nature and the extent of injuries sustained by the victims as a result of the tortures were deliberately minimised into nothing by the applicants.  These injuries I submit also constitute relevant and material facts in terms of Section 20 subsection 1c which the applicants ought to have placed - which the applicants ought to have truthfully placed before this Committee and they haven't done so.
	I would like to refer the Committee to the statements that I have submitted here this morning, specifically the paragraphs relating to the tortures on the private parts of the victims.  The statement of Dr Farisani, the relevant paragraph would be paragraph 23, 25 and 26.  The statement of Rev Phoshwana, paragraph 9, 10 and 15.  And Rev Phosiwa, paragraph 3.
	These I submit in so far as the implication made by the applicants that their evidence that they were tortured - electrical shocks were applied on their private parts and the hair of Rev Phoshwana was pulled from his pubic hair, that is.  This is to refute this implication that they had recently fabricated this evidence because they have given this evidence to the Truth Commission in 1996 even though they had not given this evidence specifically at the hearing but, this information was before the Human Rights Violations Committee that they appeared before in 1996.  The evidence that they have given viva voce before this Committee is consistent with evidence contained in these statements.
	It is my submission that all the applicants participated or knew or had seen at all times that electrical shocks were applied to the genitals of the victims who have so testified before this Committee.  The applicants knew or had seen or participated in the pulling of hair of Rev Phoshwana, I would like to specifically state that in respect of Rev Phoshwana, it would be the people who were involved in his torture, even though he was unable to identify them, the people who were there must have seen this happening and in their evidence here they denied ever seeing this or knowing about hair being pulled from his private parts.  And this is specifically referred to in his statement that when he walked in, this is the first thing that they did, they jumped at him and they pulled off the hair.  So, the people who had arrested him and who had taken him to the torture room would have known about this and they have denied before this Committee.
	The victims suffered humiliation and the most gruesome treatment in the hands of the applicants, their dignity as human beings, as adults and as senior people in the Church was stripped off by the acts of the applicants during the tortures.  The lies, the denials under oath and the consequent implication by the applicants that the victims fabricated the evidence under oath is not only an affront to their religious principles but also constitutes an affront to the spirit of the Act which, amongst other things, was intended to restore human and civil dignity to the victims of gross violation of human rights.
	To conclude, I would like to quote the words of Dr Farisani that:
"If amnesty is based on the whole truth we have not heard the truth from the applicants."
I therefor request the Committee to refuse the amnesty of the five applicants on the grounds that they have not given full disclosure as required by the Act.  That ends my submission, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Mtanga.  Mr Meyer, do you have any reply to Ms Mtanga?

MR MEYER: Mr Chairman, no, I don't intent to reply to what Ms Mtanga said.  There's just one aspect which I actually left out during my address and that is the question of the amnesty for the false statements which were made in connection with the civil proceedings.  And I haven't really addressed the Committee on that.
	I don't think it's necessary to say much about that, the evidence wasn't disputed in any way and that I would just like to formally place on record that all the applicants are asking - or the applicants ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: In respect of that, those false statements.  Do you have anything to say, Ms Mtanga, perhaps ...(intervention)

MS MTANGA: No Chairperson, I have nothing to say to that.

CHAIRPERSON: On the false statements?

MS MTANGA: No.

MR MEYER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: They've applied for that in their applications?

MR MEYER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it all of them?  I can't recall?

SISI KHAMPEPE: Yes, I don't recall all of them having applied for that, Mr Meyer.  I think some of them did, including Mr Ramushwana.

MR MEYER: Yes, but, I think it was all of them, Mr Chairman, I beg your pardon, I'm not quite sure.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think so.

MR MEYER: But it is contained in the written application.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Van Rensburg, do you have any reply to Ms Mtanga's submissions?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you, Mr Chairman, there's just one thing.  I do not agree with Ms Mtanga that the evidence supports her allegation or her submission that specifically the fifth applicant deliberately minimised his involvement in these events.
	And, as support therefor, I would like to quote one of the victims, it was Mr Mahumela who said about Mr Netshivale, that he, that is Mr Mahumela, could not read any concealment in the evidence of Mr Netshivale as it was led before this Commission.
	And I think this should be significant.  Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.  We'll reserve our decision and we hope to have it published as soon as possible.  That brings our hearings in Thohoyandou to the end of the roll, is that not so, Ms Mtanga?  We now proceed to Tzaneen where we'll have the hearing tomorrow.
	Before we adjourn I'd just very much like to thank the authorities for making this wonderful venue available, it's a very convenient venue, a very nice venue.  I'd like to thank all the people who made this hearing possible, the sound system people, the television people, the security people and certainly not least, the caterers who have spoilt us.
	We have travelled far to come to this part of the world and I can assure you that I'm sure I speak on behalf of my two colleagues here that, our travels this far was very much well worth it, it's a beautiful part of the country, we're pleased to be here and we'll be sorry to leave it.  Thank you very much and we'll get that decision out as soon as possible.
	We'll now adjourn.  I'd also like to thank the legal representatives, for their assistance in this matter, Ms Mtanga, Mr Meyer, Mr De Klerk and Mr Van Rensburg, thank you very much, indeed.  And the Logistics Officer, Ashley who sets everything up for us, he works so hard, mustn't forget him or else I'll get into trouble.  Thank you, We'll adjourn now.
HEARING ADJOURNS