Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 2000-08-28

MS LOONAT: Mr Chairperson, Honourable Members of the Committee, my Learned Colleagues, Ladies and
Gentlemen, my client is today seeking amnesty for this horrendous crime.  In his evidence he states that he was 19 years old when he committed the first offence which was stealing a purse to the value of R4 for which he received four strokes.  
	He has since had a clean record. ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Loonat, we're not really interested in his personal factors and his previous convictions.  Tell us how does he comply with the requirements of the Act.  Firstly, how do you say that what he did was based on a political decision.

MS LOONAT: Mr Chairperson, okay.  Can I just go on to how he has made full disclosure etc throughout the evidence?  okay
	He admits that the horrendous crime that he embarked upon in the company of two others, namely the pre-planned armed robbery at the Umhlanga Centre, on 26th of October 1991, ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Was it with two or three others, that's the first.

MS LOONAT: When I was liaising with him, he mentioned the two co-accused, he'd not mentioned the driver which came about during proceedings.  It has left him full of remorse.  More so as one person lost his life that day and another lost the sight in his one eye.  My client has maintained throughout this hearing that it was a politically motivated attack.  Having been subjected to an incessant political warfare in the 80s where he lived and having witnessed the death of friends and the ambushing of the school children and even the death of a lady he most respected, Mrs Ntenye, an ANC stalwart, he knew he had to retaliate to protect his home, his people, their possessions.  After all, he was a fully trained cadre of the ANC Military Wing.

CHAIRPERSON: Fully trained?

MS LOONAT: So he said in his application.  Lack of finance to procure the necessary weaponry was the only obstacle to obtaining peace, or so Mandla propagated at their meetings.  Mandla, a leader in the ANC, who trained  my client and supplied the shot gun and other weapons used by all the accused on that fateful day.  He planned the robbery and instructed that the spoils be handed to him to further the cause.  The instructions were not to use the firearms.  Human nature being what it is, things went awry and panic rained that day.
	My client admits to removing cash from the tills.  He was in charge of the cash at all times.  He did not assault anybody, including the lady who lost her gold chain.  It was not him, according to his evidence.  My client admits that the cash, all of it, was in a maroon bag which was in his possession at all times.  He knew that he had to hand over same to Mandla that day.  This was how the instructions, the political objective was planned and he knew that he would convince, or he thought he would convince his co-accused, in Mandla's presence, that the cash would be used to promote a peaceful climate to live in, thereby handing it all over to Mandla, the leader. 
	My client admits that Saturday was a busy day.  Lots more cash would be available and as no-one was to be injured, it made no difference that it was a busy, busy day.  Therefore it did not occur to him that more people's lives would be at risk, as a result of their actions.  My client did not fire at or injure anyone that day and he stands by that.  He's trying to make full disclosure as far as he can remember.  He still maintains that one shot went off from his gun whilst running away and that shot almost injured him.  He admits that whilst he was trying to enter late Mr Walters' motor vehicle via the passenger side, it was his co-accused number three, who did in fact shoot at Mr Walters in panic because he thought, that is number 3 thought the gentleman was reaching for a gun when in actual felt he was trying to loosen his safety belt.  He knows now that he was in fact trying to do his seatbelt.
	My client is deeply saddened by this tragic death, saddened by the whole event.  Money, not murder and mayhem was uppermost in his mind when he set out on this actions.  Money, not for personal gain, as he's been maintaining, but for the cause, peace and protection against attacks, political attacks in his section and surrounding.  The police did nothing to assist.  To quote the Honourable Judge Wilson on page 62, line 20:
"The killings were not committed during the course of the planned robbery, it was during the course of the get away, after arrangements had collapsed"
There was no mens rea until after the get away car wasn't there and foiled their plans, hence the death penalty was not imposed.  In fact my client was only trying to enter Mr Walters' motor vehicle to use as a get away, when the co-accused pulled the trigger.
	Indeed Mr Mahambane admits to hand picking his co-accused, without Mandla's instructions to pick these particular men, but he did not inform them deliberately that the proceeds had to be handed to Mandla for the course.  Mandla, the mastermind, who was my client's mentor, who trained him in firearm use and who had the wherewithal to procure more if necessary, all not for personal gain but for the cause.  My client except for that one shot that went off accidentally, injured no-one, not even when he fled in panic and things went awry.  
	Today he advises that he wish to express personally to the victims families his deep remorse, to Mrs Walters for the loss of her husband, whom his co-accused shot in panic and to the other victims that day.  At that time he was full of hate because of the political situation which existed in his area for several years in KwaMashu especially.  Today he's full of contrition.  The attack that day on the NBS was politically motivated in his mind, to obtain cash for firearms and ammunition for the cause, a far cry from that R4 that he stole.  He has made full disclosure today as far as he can remember.  He acted on an instruction from a leader who propagated ANC slogans, policies, at their clandestine meetings in the late 80's and early 90's.  I humbly submit that the honourable members of the Committee grant my client amnesty in terms of Section 20(1)(2)(a), (d), (f), (g) and (3) (a) to (f).
	Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms de Klerk, we don't need to hear you.  We don't need to hear you also.  We'll take our time deliberating this matter and we'll issue a decision in due course.

MS THABETHE: Sorry, Mr Chair, can I just find out something.  With regard to Mr Grubb, ...

UNKNOWN: Yes, he's mentioned in the Judgment as a protection services person who was shot at with Mr Craven.  If you'd like, I'll give you the page reference.

MS THABETHE: Yes, in the Judgment, the person who was charged, who is, I think its accused number - page 57,  says he was not found guilty and there was no evidence led of any attempt to murder or ...(indistinct), so I wanted to know whether he is part of the victims?

UNKNOWN: Just because there was no evidence led about it in the trial, doesn't mean that he wasn't there.  We know he was there, but it's ...

MS THABETHE: He was there in his capacity as a police officer, but what I'm questioning is, was he - would we say he's one of the victims in the fact that there was no evidence led as to whether he was shot at or not, so can we really conclude that he was a victim?

UNKNOWN: It becomes academic in any event.

CHAIRPERSON: No, but whether the criminal court found that or not, we've got to go on what was led here and if it's proved to us that he was there and shot at, then he would, in a normal situation, be a victim by definition.  Okay.  We'll adjourn till 9.30 tomorrow morning.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS