Amnesty Hearings — Messina — 2000-07-05

UNKNOWN: Mr Chair I know the rules differ before the Commission, but with the greatest respect, I have a problem with the credibility of the two applicants.  Applicant number one conceded under cross-examination that it was their intention to rob the bank at Mankweng, Standard Bank, it was their intention to rob the bank at Lebowakgomo, it also was their intention to go back to two shops to rob those shops.  Applicant number two under cross-examination and despite his statement said no, it was never their intention to rob the two Standard Banks and the two respective shops.  That's number one.  Number two, as far as applicant number two is concerned Mr Chair, he now avers that his statement to the police, which was never used in Court, is false.  His evidence before the Court was false and even his instructions to his counsel were false.  So Mr Chair, firstly and I know the rules therefore I have a problem with the credibility of the two applicants.

CHAIRPERSON: Well the credibility goes to disclosure.

MR VAN DER HEEVER: That's correct, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: I mean we've got to be satisfied that there's been a full disclosure and we can only be satisfied that that disclosure not only has been full but has been truthful.

MR VAN DER HEEVER: Mr Chair, I will be very brief.  The second problem, or my second submission I would like to make Mr Chair, it was asked to the applicant
"Why did you rob, or why did you attack the shop or cafe or restaurant in Roedtan?"
and the answer was:  
"To get petrol money"
not to achieve a political gain.  To get petrol money.  Why did they want petrol money?  To go back to Alexandra, not to go and attend the political meeting or anything like that.  They conceded under cross examination that the reason why they've robbed the Bouwer family or the restaurant and killed the two Bouwer husband and wife and wounded the young Mr Bouwer was to get petrol money, it wasn't for any political gain.  It was solely and they conceded that under cross-examination, to get petrol money.  Why did they want petrol money?  To go back to Alexandra.  Therefore Mr Chair it is my submission that from the statement and from the cross-examination, it's my submission that the applicants were busy with criminal activity and not with, as far as the Bouwer family are concerned, I'm not appearing on behalf of the Pyper family Mr Chair, was there was no political aim or political gain to be obtained by killing the Bouwer family.  The reason was to get petrol money to go back to Alexandra.  Thank you Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr van der Heever.  Ms Mtanga, do you wish to make any submissions?

MS MTANGA: I have no submissions to make Chairperson.  I leave this matter in your hands.
NO ARGUMENT BY MS MTANGA

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Mr Mbandazayo, do you have any reply?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Just briefly, Chairperson.

MR MBANDAZAYO IN REPLY: Chairperson firstly on the question that the applicants, the other applicant indicated that the intention was to rob and the other one said it was not the intention to rob this place, Chairperson it's my submission that both applicants agree that they went to this with the purpose of
reconnoitring the place for purposes of attack, so they are not denying that.  It was reconnoitred for purposes of that, so it's not in dispute that the purpose was, at the end of the day, for going there to rob, though they did not do it that time because the others were saying it was for reconnaissance first, which is understandable Chairperson.  
	Now coming to this point, the other point is that, Chairperson, it must be borne in mind by the Committee that there was a Commander.  They were always acting on the instruction of the Commander, Morapapa, who they were depending on.  They did not take the decision on their own and coming to this point, the decision was that they need petrol and it's agreeable, the petrol for what?  They were busy reconnoitring the places and for whose benefit were they reconnoitring these places when they ran out of petrol?  Was the purpose of pursuing the struggle.  And then they ran out of petrol and the petrol, they were going to use it, was in furtherance of that and according to them, but at the end of the day, who was commanding?  The Commander decided at that time, as the first applicant indicated, he never said anything and he attacked.  
	Now Chairperson, should they be now at the end of the day - unfortunately he cannot come and answer for what as to when did he decide to change his mind.  We don't know whether, Chairperson, at the end of the day he was going to take the money and also kill the people, but what they were told was that they wanted - they have to have the money for petrol because they cannot continue with their activities without the money for petrol.  So definitely Chairperson, if one reads that in all in perspective as to what the activity was, but if you take incident by incident as to what was happening, definitely Chairperson we will punch all the holes, definitely, you won't get the gist of the whole thing as to what was the purpose and we'll remain with many questions, but unfortunately the person who's supposed to answer the question, is the person who was tasked with the duties to establish APLA.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, he didn't seem to have been very efficient.  I mean they get a vehicle, they rob it, they sell it for R7 000, they run out of petrol money five days later.  That doesn't sound like good planning, it doesn't sound like a thing a reasonable person would do.

MR MBANDAZAYO: I agree with you Chairperson.  Who knows that when they were going to Alexandra he wanted to go and collect the money for which they sold the vehicle.  Nobody knows about that because he cannot answer, he's the person, but Chairperson if one, in all the operations he has been involved in, unfortunately the one which he did not look like he did not plan properly is the one at the end of the day he died in because in all the operations he was involved in, he was regarded as an efficient person ...(indistinct - speaking simultaneously)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, because normally with these sort of operations you'd have reconnaissance work done, check it out.  I mean what happened in Roedtan, they send in the second applicant, a chap who's had no training at all.  It just seemed sloppy and unprofessional.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes, I agree with you Chairperson, 100% on that aspect and that's why he met his fate exactly in the operation in which he has been doing, in all the operations in which he was involved in, all the others where he has been mentioned, he was involved in, was everybody - they were done efficiently and everything.  He was doing reconnaissance and everything, but on this one where he met his fate and it's where he was ...(indistinct) in all his preparations for this, he died.
	So Chairperson it's my submission that at the end of the day, the applicants themselves they bona fide believed that what they were doing was in pursuance of the struggle.  It may well be that the Commander has his own ideas but they won't know that, but themselves, they bona fide believed this is a Senior Commander of APLA and what we are doing, we are doing in pursuance of the struggle and I think that's the test, Chairperson, what they believed in when they did that.
	Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mbandazayo.  That then brings us to the conclusion of this hearing.  We'll reserve our judgment.  We are obliged to hand down written judgments and in any event we would require to deliberate with each other on the submissions made and on the evidence presented and we'll endeavour to hand down the decision as soon as possible.  I would like to thank the legal representatives, Mr Mbandazayo and Mr van der Heever and Ms Mtanga for their assistance in this matter.  And this, Ms Mtanga, brings us to the end of our roll.

MS MTANGA: Yes, that is so Chairperson.