Amnesty Hearings — Pretoria — UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN: Yes, Sir, that is so.  They link this to the stick hand-grenade and the shells of the AK-47 that were found in the premises.  But with respect, I still repeat, these findings were never at all linked to the deceased.  We have on record as to how many Black members were working in Fidelity Guards.  It was said in evidence by themselves, the applicants, that they were PAC members, ANC members and Apla members.  No trouble was ever taken to establish any link whatsoever between these findings and the deceased.
	Further a linkage was attempted, I must say, by my learned friend, that the deceased was found in suspicious conditions.  Reference is here made to the fact, to the evidence when Mr Gerber met the deceased when the deceased was coming in the downstairs.  The deceased gave an explanation that I was on the toilet. In fact, this was explained and it was never attacked at all by my learned friend.  It was explained by Jack Mkoana, who said I must explain the procedure of the guards when they go off duty.  Thirty minutes before they report off, they go to the showers, they change into civilian clothes, and the deceased had done exactly that.
	Now the question of him being found in suspicious conditions should really not mislead the Committee in arriving at a just decision.
	Mr Chairman and honourable members of the Committee, I am not going to belabour this Committee on the question as to whether full disclosure has been made by any of the applicants or not. But I will abide by the decision of the Committee.  
	Suffice it for me to say that I want to move directly to the more crucial, the most crucial criteria in this application.  The question of the political objective.
	Section 20(2) of the Act, 20(2) deals with categories of people applying for amnesty, designating people of this nature.  
	Mr Chairman and members of the Committee, just a glance look at Section 20(2)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f).  None of the two applicants qualifies there at all.  None of them qualify there.  It is never in evidence, it was never put on evidence, even in the court record that any of them did what he did or he did -
"... in an act associated with a political objective and which was advised, planned, directed, commanded or committed within or outside the Republic, during that period cut-off date, by any member or supporter of a publicly know political organisation."
We don't have such evidence.
"(b) By an employee of the State or any former State or any member of the security forces."
We don't have evidence before us. The only linkage attempted to be made is that "hulle het opgetree ten behoewe van ..."  They acted on behalf of the South African Police, and they tried to link that to the fact that they have been - the Fidelity Guards was linked with the security forces.
	Mr Chairman, members of the Committee, I must say right away now that this very morning, on Good Morning South Africa, the director or the national financial director of Fidelity Guards, Mr Fourie was quoted to have said that the Fidelity Guards had no bearings, no dealings whatsoever with the security forces of the Republic.  This was said this morning on Good Morning South Africa.

ADV DE JAGER: Would that be evidence before the Commission, Mr Mpshe?

UNKNOWN: Member of the Committee, that is not evidence before the Commission, but this is the news, to explain further what was said. It is common cause that that was said.

ADV DE JAGER: Should we pay attention to what he said on TV in the hearings?

UNKNOWN: Not necessarily, but this is by way of amplifying my argument.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes.

UNKNOWN: Thank you. Paragraph (c)
".. should have been done by any employee of the State or former state."
We don't have evidence to that effect.
	(d) also, (e) also, as well as (f).

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: But what was said over the news, doesn't it (indistinct) reported in the newspapers, doesn't it?

UNKNOWN: Mr Member of the Committee, I did not check what was reported in the newspaper.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: No, the newspaper we saw this morning.

UNKNOWN: I did not see it, with respect.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Didn't you see Exhibit B tot D, cuttings from the newspapers?

UNKNOWN: I do not recall that.  But I also ... (intervention).

JUDGE WILSON: The exhibits that were handed in.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: It took you by surprise, the newspaper cuttings which took you by surprise.

HASSAN MALL: He is talking about this morning's newspaper.

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, I am saying to you ... (intervention).

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: The newspaper which you said took you by surprise this morning.

UNKNOWN: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: B, C, D, the exhibits.

UNKNOWN: I did not take them into consideration when I was preparing my argument, but I can go through them and respond accordingly.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Whether there is any difference from news received from Good Morning South Africa, or news received through newspapers. I am asking whether there is any difference.

UNKNOWN: I cannot say whether there is any difference, but I did not concentrate on that much.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Right, continue with your argument.  Sorry to interrupt you.

UNKNOWN: Thank you.  Thank you, Mr Chairman.
	Then, Mr Chairman, my conclusion that Section 2)(2)(a), (b), (c), (d) actually does not qualify or the applicants do not qualify or do not satisfy.
	Then we move to Section 20(3).  That deals actually with the criteria to be considered when applications of this nature are made.   I will deal with them seriatim as they appear on the Act, (a) up to the last alphabet.
	(a), Mr Chairman, is about the motive.  I want to state to this honourable Committee that the motive for the death or the motive for the killing of the deceased was to cover up the applicant's bad deeds.  To conceal the torture and extreme assault on the deceased.  There was no, at any moment, there was no desire to change any unjust situation.  There was no desire on their part to bring about any political change whatsoever, and no evidence was ever tendered that when they did what they did, it was their desire.  But one can safely say that the killing came as a result of the anger and that is all.  The killing didn't come because they wanted to change the political situation or they wanted to change any unjust situation that prevailed.  But it emanated from the anger, human anger.
	Mr Chairman, for us to determine exactly what we are talking about when we speak of political objective, criteria has been laid down and I want to state to the Committee that the following are to be looked at in order to assist in the ascertainment of political objective.
 	These are.  One, use should be made of the evidence at the trial.  We have the copy of the judgment in the criminal trial.  Right through the judgment, mention is not made of any political objectives sought to be achieved by the applicants.  The applicants went as far as petitioning the Chief Justice and when one reads through that petition, the petition is clearly on the merits, strictly on the criminal aspects. Further in that petition no mention is made.

JUDGE WILSON: Have we got the petition?

UNKNOWN: Member of the Committee, I doubt if you have the petition.  But I will, if that will be permissible, I can make a copy of the petition available, if the Chairman permits me, later on.

HASSAN MALL: Yes, you may do so, Mr Mpshe.

UNKNOWN: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
	Now I am still saying, on the petition no mention is made of the political objective.  Even in the trial itself.  	Two.  We should look at ... (intervention).

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Sorry, sorry, why should they have?

UNKNOWN: Member of the Committee ... (intervention).

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: I am trying to find out what is the importance of that omission?