Amnesty Hearings — Boksburg — 1999-02-25

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Chair I believe I am in a position to argue.
	Thank you Mr Chair.  Mr Chairman, this Committee has now for the past three days listened to the applications of the four applicants before this Committee.  Mr Chair I would just like to start out by saying it is, it is true that in the applications a lot of issues were covered and they were extensively cross-examination and led, as to what exactly occurred on that particular day.  Mr Chairman and I would just like also to say that I believe as in any criminal matter of this nature, or trial of this nature, where there's several applicants and there's several witnesses as well, two witnesses as well, it is my respectful submission that it is to be expected that there are going to be certain inconsequences between the, inconsistencies ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes I think one can always expect inconsistencies, as you say, when there's a number of witnesses, and also when one takes into account the time span, it's been five years now, and also obviously one can't overlook the trauma that was taking place at the time that the incident took place.  That also affects one's recollection to a lesser or greater degree.  And we're not going to go with a fine toothcomb through the evidence and pick out little inconsequential inconsistencies and add them all up and have a score sheet at the end of the day.  But when it gets to material matters of course, then it's a different question.

MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Mr Chair, that was exactly what I was getting at.  Obviously the question still stands is, and I mean that is the base criteria for granting of amnesty, was there full disclosure, and was the applicants indeed truthful with this Commission and what they alleged occurred on this particular day.  Mr Chair in as far as the applicant Mr Sithole is concerned, I think it's common cause that he was a member in the community, he was a respected member, if one looks at ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I think that's quite clear from the evidence, even from Mr Dastile's evidence, that prior to this incident Mr Sithole was a leader, was in the IFP group and was respected, because he always tried to find the peaceful route to settle a problem.  I think that was quite clear from both sides.

MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Mr Chair.
	Mr Chair and without further ado I would just like to point out, I mean I think it's, it needs to be looked at, and this is some inconsistencies, it is true that there were certain inconsistencies in the application of Mr Sithole, Mr Chairman.  And I'd just specifically like to refer to an incident, it was alleged by Mr Cachalia that as far as the applicant Mr Sithole was concerned he allegedly fired his weapon from the roof of a shack.  This was denied.  
	There was a further issue it think it was that the accused, that the applicant said in his testimony in chief that he fell down to the ground and shot from the ground and was later then by some of the other applicants alleged that he had shot from a shack, from behind shelter.  Mr Chairman as far as that specifically is concerned it's my submission that in the situation as it was, I believe there was a lot of confusion, there was according to the applicant shooting to and fro, they were under attack, and as you said it was a long time ago.  I believe these inconsistencies will creep in. ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Except you know, it might be argued there that, you know, I dropped to the ground and fired.  Why did you drop to the ground?  To avoid being hit by firing from the other side, hence put myself on the ground.  If you jump up on the roof in the face of fire it would be an unlikely sort of thing to do, so you know, it's quite an important difference in that evidence.

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Chair that is exactly what I would like to get at.  I think it was in, by the witness for Mr Cachalia, Mr Dastile, and I think it was also noted by the Committee, upon asking him what had proceeded and with specific reference to this group of ANC people referred to, and I think it was also clear from the judgment and the pieces stated out of that, that there was an angry ANC crowd who, by his own submission, said that they might disobey ANC orders not to attack IFP people and he, at that stage, in his own submission, feared a revenge attack.  	Mr Chairman it is true that as far as the incident in Mr Moloetsi's tavern is concerned it is disputed and Mr Mpongosi's version is that there was an incident earlier, the 4th, a week earlier than what the witness for Mr Cachalia alleges.  Mr Chair what I would like to get to is, I think from all the versions given by the applicants it is quite clear that there was a threatening situation in Zevenfontein at that stage.  As to what exactly led to this, is still open to questioning.  If I may I think Mr Sithole indicated that there had been a problem with the civic organisation.  There had been a problem with this usurping of the powers by the ANC.  The IFP people were unhappy with what was going on.
	So I think it is quite clear that there had been a bit of animosity there and there was quite a feeling between the two parties.

CHAIRPERSON: I think there must have been, looking at it from any angle, there must have been some tension because it's common cause that at that particular time you had two large groups, factions, of the community, politically orientated, facing each other.  I mean that didn't just happen because they wanted to have fun.  So there was obviously a problem.  It wasn't a bed of roses at Zevenfontein otherwise you wouldn't have had that confrontation.

MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Mr Chair.

ADV SIGODI: Sorry, and I think for me bordering on full disclosure is whether or not there was an attack by the IFP on the ANC or there was an attack by the ANC on the IFP.  I think that is the crucial question that borders on full disclosure.  If you can explain why none of the ANC people, who none of the IFP people were injured, and so many ANC people were injured.  If you can just address us on that aspect.

MR CLAASSEN: Thank you madam.  It is absolutely true that  from the evidence led it is, even 'though I think it Mr Ndlovu that said he saw some ANC members injured, I think it's common cause that none of the ANC members or very few, not to an obvious extent ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: We've got the evidence of Mr Dastile that stones were thrown.  And we've got the evidence that some, I think Mr Ndlovu said, some of the people were injured from stones, but when we mean injured we mean seriously injured, yes.