Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1999-02-09

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mzwake Buthelezi applies to this Committee for the enrolment of an application for amnesty.   Mr Shane appears on his behalf.
R U L I N G
	Mr Buthelezi submitted an affidavit in support of this application for enrolment.   We question whether this is the proper forum to hear such an application.  Despite the doubt, we will deal with the application, for what it is worth.
	Mr Buthelezi says that he was one of many applicants who completed the formal application forms on the 10th of May 1997 and wherein he set out the basis for his application for amnesty.
	He says he handed this to one Sally Sealy, at best for him, and we accept it at such, he did so on the understanding that she would ensure that the form reached the offices of the TRC.  Of course, he binds himself by her actions in doing so.
	It is further understood that it was intended that such a form reached the offices of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission before twelve o'clock that night.  The self same Sally Sealy deposed to an affidavit, confirming that Mr Buthelezi did in fact complete the form, and says further that she put all the completed forms into a box and handed it to Mr Ndlozi at the TRC offices in  Johannesburg, we assume, an employee of the TRC. 
	It is significant that she includes the application form of Mr Buthelezi in very gentle terms.  It is understandable that she is unable to specifically say that Mr Buthelezi's application was in fact in this box.  It is common cause that the TRC is not and never was, in possession of an application form signed by Mr Buthelezi.  The test which I have employed in the unusual circumstances, is that the Committee must be satisfied that the application form was received by the TRC.
	Mr Shane conceded that he could not properly argue and say for certain that the particular form was indeed received by the TRC, but went further and requested that we infer in the circumstances that he set out, that the form was in fact delivered and therefore received by the TRC.
	Section 19 of Act 34 of 1995 as amended, clearly deals with the procedures which relate to the manner in which the Amnesty Committee performs its duties.  Indeed there are quite a few procedures to be followed before matters are set down for hearing, for example it must be investigated and established whether any particular application is one that is required to be heard in public or one that could easily be dealt with in what is known to be chambers.
	Also, it is required to be established whether any particular people can be identified because they have been implicated by the applicant.
	And also that if this is so, certain investigations need to be completed to establish the whereabouts of such implicated people and a consequent notice of such implication, must be delivered to such implicated people and furthermore wherein it is stated what their rights are.  
	A failure to complete that basic procedure, makes such a hearing or subsequent hearing, invalid.   Mr Shane also conceded that there is no section in this Act, which specifically deals with this kind of application.  Indeed it is not surprising that there is no such provisions.
	It is also well known that the material date for submission of application, has been a contentious issue.  It has been the subject of various attempts to negotiate amendments, but clearly the cut off dates for submission of applications, as it stands today, is 12 o'clock, midnight, the 10th of May 1997.  The Act confirms this.
	It is (indistinct) that any application such as this, should have been submitted on that date, by twelve o'clock, midnight.  In any event, the application referred to by Mr Shane, has not been prepared for hearing, therefore even if it could have been enrolled by this Committee, it would not have been practical to proceed with it given that the compulsory procedures like the aforesaid notices, would not have been complied with.
	As we have indicated, we have serious reservations about the jurisdiction of this Committee to decide on this issue of enrolment of an application.  Even if we accept that the form was completed, we are not able to infer the submission of the form.  We have not been satisfied that the form reached the offices of the TRC.
	In the circumstances and for the reasons that I have mentioned, the proposed application cannot be enrolled and this application cannot be granted.
MR SHANE:   As you please Mr Chairman.

ADV STEENKAMP: As you please Mr Chairman.