Amnesty Hearings — Pietermaritzburg — 1997-02-10

MR WILLS: Yes, Mr Chairperson, that is indeed so.  I submit that as a result - the close relationship that existed between the applicant and his two brothers, he must have been very traumatised by their death.  However, in view of his political involvement, and the general political situation that pertained in that area, particularly emphasising the fact that the applicant was one of the first organisers for the ANC in that area, he was one of the prime movers which later in 1992 resulted in the formation of a branch structure, a formal branch structure.  I think that his evidence to the effect that his concern far exceeded the personal aspects of this tragedy.

JUDGE WILSON: Isn't it also a case, as one we've had before, where one must not overlook the tribal politics involved.  One must not overlook the fact that he and his brothers were the sons of the previous Chief, were the
5B - 11.2	people/...
MR WILLS	176 	ADDRESS
people who would in the ordinary course of events have become the Chief and that there was apparently a deliberate attempt to kill the whole line.  Three of his brothers had been killed, including the elder brother who should have been the heir.  So it was not only just a personal family it was the line of the Chief's sons and that is one of the reasons I think he said he wanted to stop this killing.

MR WILLS: Yes, that is indeed so, Sir.  I think this is a particular tragedy in that it is a clear example of where different political persuasions have caused dramatic divisions within a family and line of Chiefs and obviously this has added to the intensity of the problem.

CHAIRPERSON: He said it had been decreed that all Chiefs had to be members of Inkatha.

MR WILLS: Yes, clearly his belief was to that extent.  I think the Committee can take judicial notice of the fact that by far the majority of Chiefs in KwaZulu/Natal are indeed Inkatha supporters.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there anything you wish to say.

MS THABETHE: Members of the Committee, all I want to say is according to the Act there should be full disclosure of the  act committed, and the act must be associated with a political objective.
	In my opinion the applicant has made full disclosure of why and how he killed the deceased. 
	On the question of whether we can have evidence as to whether the deceased was involved in the killings of ANC, it is a fact that we may never know.   And we have no evidence to the contrary.  Even though the applicant was not acting under any orders, we cannot ignore the fact that unfortunately in the northern KwaZulu/Natal areas IFP and
5B - 11.2	ANC/...
MS THABETHE	177	ADDRESS
ANC war fights are a problem, such that most of the time the members of the supporters are faced with having to partake without getting any orders.  
	I don't think it is my duty really to say whether amnesty can be granted against him.  I think that is clearly the Committee's function.

CHAIRPERSON: But you can tell us if you think amnesty ought not to be granted.

MS THABETHE: I was just about to say I think the requirements of the Act have been met, but I reserve my opinion whether it ought not to or it ought to be granted.
Thank you.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Ms Thabethe, I thought you earlier on opened your submissions by stating that in your opinion the applicant had complied with the requirements of the Act.

MS THABETHE: Yes.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Particularly with regard to full disclosure.

MS THABETHE: Yes, I did say so.  Nevertheless, I would like to reserve my opinion as to whether it ought not to be granted or it ought to be granted.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.  Have you nothing further to say?

MS THABETHE: Nothing further to say, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Wills, anything you wish to add?

MR WILLS: Nothing further thank you Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: The Committee will consider this application and in due course give its decision.  Thank you.
	This Committee now stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at 09:15.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS TO 12.2.1997 AT 09:15
5B - 11.2	ON RESUMPTION:/...
178
ON RESUMPTION ON 12 FEBRUARY 1997 - PIETERMARITZBURG

MS THABETHE: Members of the Committee, the two applicants who appear before us today are applying for amnesty regarding events that occurred at Mdaleni Magoda and Townlands areas where seven kraals were attacked.  It happened on 23 June 1991.
	The applicants are not represented, so I will assist them in leading evidence.

ADV DE JAGER: Were they informed that they are entitled to representation and that they could get Legal Aid?

MS THABETHE: As far as I know from the Durban IU they were informed and we did send Form 2 to the prisons informing them that they can get legal representation if they want to.
So yes, they were.

JUDGE WILSON: Were the other people who were convicted with them informed?

CHAIRPERSON: Or have they applied?

MS THABETHE: Unfortunately I don't have that information.  I don't know if they did apply or not, but as far as I know I don't have any information to that effect.
	Mr Ashley says he has called the Durban office to find out if there are any applications, but as far as we know in Cape Town we haven't received any.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.  They can be sworn in.

JUDGE WILSON: Sorry, before that.  What are they applying for amnesty for?

MS THABETHE: Member of the Committee, actually it is the first question I would like to ask them.

JUDGE WILSON: We would like to know before we hear it.

CHAIRPERSON: What do they say on the application form?

MS THABETHE: I would refer the Committee members to No 9
1A -12.2	of/..
MS THABETHE	179	ADDRESS
of Gumbi's application, the translated version.

JUDGE WILSON: I have great difficulty.  He there says:  "What I did resulted in my arrest, namely murder and I committed this crime".  It would appear there he is referring to a single crime ... attempted murder and six counts of murder.  But as I read it Zuma was also convicted of robbery with aggravating circumstances.  Is he applying for amnesty in respect of that?  Aren't these matters that must be clarified before the application can be heard?

MS THABETHE: As I said before, I was going to clarify that when I lead evidence what crimes are they applying for, because from their applications they are talking of crimes that they did, but it is not clear which ones they are referring to.

CHAIRPERSON: I think in fairness, so that their own minds are focused when they are giving evidence on the crimes for which they are in fact applying for amnesty, that you should take those details from them now before we start the hearing.  Take the particulars of the people who were involved, the victims and the circumstances.  As things stand, when we have before us among the papers, part of their application form in one of the official languages and part of it translated into English, and yet there does not seem to be sufficient clarity on precisely what offences because if we are required to give amnesty we can only do so in respect of specific offences.   I think that should be cleared up before you start leading evidence and you can then tell us before you start leading evidence as to what the offences are in respect of each one of them.   Will you do that?

MS THABETHE: I will do that.
1A - 12.2

CHAIRPERSON: /...
MS THABETHE	180	ADDRESS

CHAIRPERSON: We will take a short adjournment to enable you to do that.

ADV DE JAGER: And could you kindly enquire too whether they have in fact been informed of their right to be legally represented and that they have a right to legal assistance through the Legal Aid Board.

MS THABETHE: I will do that.

CHAIRPERSON: It seems to me clear that these other people, from the information you have, have not applied for amnesty.

MS THABETHE: I am not aware that they have applied for amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: I thought that it was possible from your Mr Ashley that that could be ascertained.

MR ASHLEY: They are checking on that now.