Amnesty Hearings — Boksburg — 1999-02-25

MR CLAASSEN: I think that absolutely summarises what I intended.  I mean, when the judicial system failed them or could not accommodate them further, then decided that now let's tell all and hopefully we'll have mor success with the Amnesty Committee.
	Mr Chair, and it would be, it would be my submission that be that as it may, and I mean it's not to be contested that they did lie, they did conspire, I believe they, and I think it was viva voce evidence on questions, the answer to several questions, they said that, we did lie, we had not been truthful, but today, today we are truthful and what we telling today are in fact the truth.
	Mr Chair I can do no more than ask of this Committee to accept the position that they were in, insofar as their explanation for the technical shortcomings may be, there was no explanation offered for the fact that they admitted to lying and then saying that they, that they told the truth today.  But it would be my humble submission that what they came and testified before this Commission was indeed the truth of what actually occurred this day.

CHAIRPERSON: Just on a different aspect, Mr Claassen, quite clearly all the applicants were convicted of all the counts on the basis of common purpose.  Now, we know that their, the factions that opposed each other were political, they were split on political lines, and that the whole incident was, in that sense, had an underlying political basis.  But what about the death of that unknown person next to Skosana's shebeen?  Now we heard on the evidence of the applicants that they said, okay let's go to see who's at Skosana's shebeen, you know, so they go there, it's not at the scene of the battlefield, out comes a fellow carrying a briefcase, and they don't know him, they set upon him and kill him.  It turns out that no-one knows what his political affiliation is, he certainly wasn't there fighting for the ANC.  In that particular case is there going to be said that there was a political objective, as required by the Act in terms of Section 20 sub section 3?

MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Mr Chair for pointing that out, and I mean it was quite clear from the evidence by Mr Ndlovu and also on the question, he was not sure who this person were, whether he had any political affiliation.  He went further and said that they were angry and they set upon him and assaulted him, and he died as a result of that.
	Mr Chair if I might just, I've got the note here, it says, I think it was by question from Advocate Sigodi, Mr Ndlovu said it was Zwane, himself, Noymiya and Kitchamane, which is none of the other applicants but once again the doctrine of common purpose applies.  Mr Chair it's my humble submission that the question remains, where did the common purpose start and where did it end?  I think Mr Ndlovu also said that, after the initial attack had been repelled him and, himself and the other fellows mentioned, started running back towards the shebeen. ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: There was a call to retreat, I mean to come back, I think.

MR CLAASSEN: That is correct.  I think they said a voice said not to pursue them any further.  But I think as far as this going to the shebeen and attacking this person that came out the shebeen, it would be my submission that I don't think that at that stage, seeing that they had been recalled, I think, and by his own account, not all of them fell back to the shebeen, I think there was, I think that the evidence of some of the others is that they waited, because they feared they might come back.  It is my submission, and I'm, that was at that stage not ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: But if it wasn't part of the common purpose, and therefore your client's been incorrectly convicted, then he can't get amnesty on it, because he's got nothing, it's only through common purpose that he has a link to that death.  You take away that common purpose and say no he's got nothing to do with it, then he can't get amnesty for something he didn't do, therefore he must go through the

ADV SIGODI: He must go through the High Court, and appeal.

CHAIRPERSON: Which he can't because the appeals process is finished.

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Chair I stand to be corrected but I think it was the State v Safatsa where this issue was dealt with and in very much the same circumstances, and it is true that they were all convicted on the basis of a common purpose and as such the application was drawn through on that basis.  It obviously, I think on Mr Ndlovu's own account, it can't be reasoned past the point that he said he did not know who this man was, he was angry, he was confused, it was in this very vicious frame of mind that they attacked this person.

CHAIRPERSON: What you're saying is that that particular deceased person was just an unfortunate innocent victim caught up in this battle, or this prevailing frenzy?

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Chair I can't think of explaining it in any other way, other than the whole atmosphere was so politicised, and I think he was just a very unfortunate victim of that political turmoil and the incident which had happened as a result.

CHAIRPERSON: Caught in the crossfire I think it's been referred to.  Although he was specifically targeted.

MR CLAASSEN: That is true, Mr Chairman, but Mr Chairman ...(intervention)

ADV SIGODI: And can you also agree with me that they had absolutely no reason to link him with the other ANC people?  They could see that he was coming out of the shebeen.

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Chair, if I'm not mistaken, I think, and I stand to be corrected, the version was he was coming out of Skosana's shebeen, and I think on a question by Mr Draht just recently I think he specifically put it to Mr Dastile whether Skosana was, I think Mike was the first name, ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: He was an ANC member.  We know that from Mr Dastile's evidence.  He said he wasn't a leader, but he was a member of the ANC.  But we also know that the ANC and IFP also drank together, wasn't split.

MR LAX: It's certainly not your client's case that there were segregated pubs or taverns or shebeens.  You see the other issue is that Skosana's is away from where the battle was taking place.  Quite some distance away apparently, so it wasn't on their direct route chasing anybody or following anybody, or even retreating back.  And that's what concerns me.

MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Mr Lax.  That is very true.  I wouldn't want to speculate as to why this decision was made.  I think the question was put directly to Mr Ndlovu and he just said it was in that frame of mind.  Obviously now later it transpired that Mr Ndlovu had been an ANC but it was never offered as a reason why this person was attacked, and on the basis of the logistics, and how things was explained, I believe Mr Skosana's wasn't on the route, the general attack route, if one ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: It's quite clear from the evidence that he was attacked basically in a frenzy.  He said maybe the reason why he was attacked was because he tried to run.  That's hardly a reason to attack somebody.  If he had stood still maybe it would have turned out different he said.

AZHAR CACHALIA: May I interrupt and interject at this stage Chairperson?  I'm sorry but I interject at this stage.  I'm asking that in order not to create any further problems may we have three minutes only convenience break.  It is very essential that I have a break.

CHAIRPERSON: We've had a request for an absolutely essential three minutes adjournment which I shall grant.  We'll just take a short adjournment
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION