Amnesty Hearings — Boksburg — UNKNOWN

MR MADASA: Mr Chair, let me put it this way, I submit that what is important here is to look at the thinking of the SDU at the time, the perceptions, we should be guided by what they thought at the time was the situation.   Oscar Motlokwa has testified that when he saw Vips and Tusanang running away from Blanko's place, he was then sure that the Youth League was attacking them, and this is the word that was spread amongst the SDU members.   Now whether that was in fact the case, I submit is not that much to coming to to the conclusion that their acts were justifiable, because this is what they perceived to be happening at the time.   Subjectively the applicants thought that they were under attack, and they saw senior members of the Youth League at Blanko's place, and indeed Blanko was killed in that manner and to them, that they thought that they were under attack, and they responded to that.   So I'm saying it is their perception that that is important at the time, taking into account the whole situation prevailing in Katlehong and the structures themselves, the informal nature of the structures, I submit the community shouldn't be that pedantic or legalistic when viewing this question.   These were lay people, unsophisticated, thinking that they were carrying the mandate to defend the community, and they apprehended people they thought were enemies of the community, thinking like that because of the conduct of these individuals.   That is how I would submit, Mr Chair, on that aspect.

MR MALAN: Mr Madasa, may I just ask you, if indeed that this was the perception that they were all going to be rounded up and killed, should that not be construed, at best for them, as a self-defensive - an act of self-defence, and therefore falling outside of the ambit of the Act, that it's not politically motivated, but motivated by the protection of their own lives?

MR MADASA: Thank you Mr Member of the Committee.
	According to the applicants' evidence, in fact it was not even their contemplation that these people should be killed, they were purely following an order.   That was to round up these people and bring them together before the community.   It subsequently turns out some of the members of the SDU left after rounding up these people, because they thought they had done their part.   This order of the killing came about as a result of Commander Dondolo ordering the killings of these people.   Some of them did not participate in the killing, they testified that it took them by surprise.   So what I'm saying is that this was not in the contemplation of the applicants that because Blanko has been killed, these people must be killed now.   It was purely a compliance to the command by Dondolo, who said these people must be rounded up and taken to account, and then Dondolo, out of the blue, so to speak, ordered that these people must be killed, and the SDU, the applicants, did likewise.   
	So I wouldn't agreed that they were revenging.   These applicants have explicitly explained to this committee that they were merely conduits to the commands of the structure.

CHAIRPERSON: The issue is not so much whether they were following the command of Mchebe Dondolo, the issue is whether what they did was politically motivated.   All of them made it clear that these deceased were killed because they had killed Blanko primarily, they described them as being a gang of criminals, that's how they described them.

MR MADASA: Thank you, Mr Chair.   Mr Chair, I've addressed this, I've answered this question, I've said, Mr Chair, the mandate from the ANC was not only to kill the identifiable, the known enemy, which is perhaps the State and its agent and IVP, was to eliminate, as Tusanang admitted, elements, individuals within the community who were perceived to be harassing the community.   I'm saying, therefore, Mr Chair, the issue of Blanko and Bulelwa should be seen in that light and it should not be isolated from the general activities of the victims, which there is objective evidence that, or at least allegation that indeed they were involved, and Tusanang has admitted that he heard that there were issues of protection fee being demanded by his members from people, but he intervened and tried to stop that.   So there is overwhelming evidence, Mr Chair, I submit, as to the activities of the ANC Youth League, but the killing of Blanko and Bulelwa was, it was a build-up, it was a culmination of these activities.
	So at that time it was clear, but I'm saying the applicants, even then, did not make a decision that, because of this killing, these people must be eliminated, but when they complied with their order, their understanding was that they were rounding up, and when they complied with the order of killing, they were killing people who were the enemies of the community, not only Blanko, but Blanko's case exacerbated the problem.   
	So I submit that those acts, in the thinking of the applicants were associated with a political objective, especially in view of the facts which they had at hand at that time.

ADV MOTATA: Mr Madasa, whilst you're looking at your notes, your argument amounts to that, firstly, the members of the Self Defence Unit had this objective of accounting to the community.   Let's take that day in question when the deceased were rounded up.   The sole objective was that they should be brought before the community to account, and in this instance let's speak of Bulelwa and Blanko, how they met their death, but listening to the evidence it would not appear at this juncture, unless you shed some light on that, that there was a decision taken by the community, or when Dondolo issued the order that they should be killed, that this order is concurred to by the community.   I sort of miss that link when listening to your argument.

MR MADASA: Thank you, Mr Committee Member.
	The committee must guard against attributing Dondolo's actions to the applicants.   The applicants are saying...
...(tape ends)
	...commanded them, ordered the killing, and they felt they had no other way, they had to obliged to do the order, but as to whether the order, at that time, was a legitimate order, I think that is the question that could be answered by Dondolo more than it could be answered by the applicants.

CHAIRPERSON: We do know, do we not, that notwithstanding the fact that an order was issued, some chose not to participate and chose to go home?

MR MADASA: Thank you, Mr Chair.    If I remember well, the applicants who left explained that they did so because they were expected to leave, because they had been doing these duties for the SDU during the evening, and because it was ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: But the others told us that if an order has been issued, it has to be complied with, and yet others told us that they were free to go?

MR MADASA: Mr Chair, yes, I accept there was that evidence, but my submission is that the fact that certain members disobeyed the order does not distract from the fact that an order was given.   So recalcitrance or impertinence on the part of certain members of the SDU cannot take away the fact that the applicants who in fact complied with the order were ordered to do so.   So those were isolated incidents of people who did not want to comply with the order, but that does not invalidate the order inasfar as the applicants were concerned at that time.

CHAIRPERSON: Whilst it may not, in their mind, have rendered ineffective the order, but what that conduct does demonstrate is that those who did not want to comply with the order did not comply with it, and it must be true therefore that those who complied with the order, did so because they chose to comply with the order?

MR MADASA: Thank you, Mr Chair.   Yes, I take that point, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: I think you've made, we've heard the argument, you've made the point.

MR MADASA: Yes, Mr Chair, I'm coming now to the point of full disclosure.