Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1999-10-21

ADV SIGODI: Yes, but you still haven't answered the question.  In order for us to be able to consider your application, we have to ascertain what political objective you sought to achieve.  Now it confuses me in my mind what it was that you sought to achieve when you fired the shot in the air.  Were you giving Mr Jonas an opportunity to run away, or were you trying to apprehend him?  What is it that you sought to achieve?

ISAIAH PATRICK SIYALI: I was giving him a chance to run away.

ADV SIGODI: On which side were you?

ISAIAH PATRICK SIYALI: I was on the side that was fighting for my freedom.

ADV SIGODI: But then in paragraph 16 you say you were at all times acting in your capacity as a constable policeman of the Security Branch.  Now that I find contradictory.

ISAIAH PATRICK SIYALI: Yes, what is written here is true.  I was doing my job, but on the other hand, I do agree that I was doing my job as the Special Branch, but on the other hand, as a black person, I turned and as I joined the Special Branch in 1985, I became the person that I was when Bongani was arrested.  In 1986 I was turned and I could see the way.  Yes, I was fighting for what is written here in point 16.  I do agree with that, but because I was also oppressed at the Special Branch I was turned and I became the person that I am.

ADV SIGODI: The other - the last part which I want to clarify with you is what the legal representative for Mr Jonas has already asked.  I just want to know, why did you deem it necessary to obey David the askari?  You had not duty to take any orders from him, isn't it?

ISAIAH PATRICK SIYALI: As I've already said, the askaris were senior in position to us as black people because they were associates of these white people, they would have braais with them and we were not allowed to go with them.

ADV SIGODI: Okay thank you, Chairperson.

MR WILLIAMS: Mr Chairperson, can I be allowed to ask a few questions based on the questions that the Panel have asked him?

CHAIRPERSON: I note that you say a few Williams.

MR WILLIAMS: Maybe three points that I want to clarify.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  We'll allow you to do that.  Mr Siyali, just one more thing, would it be correct to say that you never intended, during this incident, to cause any harm to Mr Jonas?

ISAIAH PATRICK SIYALI: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And you never associated yourself with the conduct of anyone of the police or askaris who in fact caused or wanted to cause harm to Mr Jonas?

ISAIAH PATRICK SIYALI: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Williams.

MR WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

MR WILLIAMS: Mr Siyali, Mr Jonas tells me that David is known as David Moseneki, that's his surname.  Can you confirm that?

ISAIAH PATRICK SIYALI: Yes, thank you Mr Jonas for reminding me, I had forgotten.

MR WILLIAMS: Now you've already said that you did not agree with the shooting of Mr Jonas.  You're saying that you did not commit that act of shooting Mr Jonas.  If I understand you correctly, you are saying that you had no part in the shooting of Mr Jonas.  In other words David Moseneki acted on a frolic of his own, is that correct?

ISAIAH PATRICK SIYALI: That is correct.

MR WILLIAMS: So what you're in effect saying is that you did not commit the offence of shooting Mr Bongani Jonas, is that correct?

ISAIAH PATRICK SIYALI: After shooting at the car, I tried to shoot while he was driving the car.

MR WILLIAMS: Let me just understand you correctly.  What you're say or what I understand is that you did not mean to shoot Mr Bongani Jonas and in your opinion, I'm sure, he should not have been shot.  You don't associate yourself with the shooting of Mr Jonas, is that correct?

ISAIAH PATRICK SIYALI: That is correct.

MR WILLIAMS: David Moseneki acted on a frolic of his own.

ISAIAH PATRICK SIYALI: Yes, that is correct, he shot at him.

MR WILLIAMS: So as far as the offence, whatever offence it might be to have shot Mr Jonas, you have nothing to do with that and consequently you can't apply for amnesty for an offence with which you don't associate yourself with, do you understand what I'm saying?

ISAIAH PATRICK SIYALI: Yes, I understand what you're saying.

MR WILLIAMS: Now secondly, you've stated earlier that you consider the offence of pointing a firearm to be equal, to be one of attempted murder.  Now Mr Siyali, you've been in the force for 15 years, you've been a member of the police service for 15 years and do you want to tell, or do you want this Committee to believe, that you do not know the distinction between the offence of the pointing of a firearm and the one of attempted murder?

ISAIAH PATRICK SIYALI: I'm listening.

MR WILLIAMS: The question is, do you really want the Committee to believe that you do not know the difference between these two offences?

ISAIAH PATRICK SIYALI: I'm listening, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know if you're going to be able to take it much further than that Mr Williams.  Possibly a lot of this is material for argument.

MR WILLIAMS: Mr Chairperson, then can I take it then further?  Mr Siyali, did you shoot at Mr Jonas with the intention to murder him?

ISAIAH PATRICK SIYALI: I was going to shoot at him and kill him, but instead of doing that, I shot in the air.

MR WILLIAMS: Mr Siyali, I get the impression you're evading the question.  The question is simple.  Did you shoot at Mr Jonas with the intention of murdering him?

ISAIAH PATRICK SIYALI: As I was pointing in the air, I was pointing in the air.

MR WILLIAMS: So in other words, you did not point the firearm directly, or you did not shoot directly at Mr Jonas, is that correct?

ISAIAH PATRICK SIYALI: That is correct.

MR WILLIAMS: So one can then eliminate a possible offence of attempted murder, is that correct?  You did not commit the offence of the attempted murder?

ISAIAH PATRICK SIYALI: I don't know.

MR WILLIAMS: But I think your testimony is clear that you did not attempt to murder Mr Jonas.  Mr Siyali I'm asking you these questions, because I'm trying to get clarity in my own mind, for what specific offence are we here today.

CHAIRPERSON: Often it is, even policemen in the applicant's position, it's often not the easiest of things to formulate as lawyers would formulate them and that's why often these things are left for argument.  I mean, if the evidence constitutes an offence, it does, if it doesn't, it doesn't.  I mean you know it's a matter of fact.  There's the evidence.  We have to decide whether there's an offence.  Mr Rheeder will address us.  You'll address us.  Ms Patel will address us and we'll decide the matter.  I don't know whether whatever this witness is going to say is going to assist us very much in that regard.  We are all lawyers.

MR WILLIAMS: Mr Chairman, with your permission then, a very last question.  Mr Siyali, did you fire a shot in the air?

ISAIAH PATRICK SIYALI: Yes, that is correct, Sir.

MR WILLIAMS: Now what was the purpose of that shot?

ISAIAH PATRICK SIYALI: Can you repeat the question, Mr Williams?

MR WILLIAMS: Sorry, okay I'm not going to take it much further, but maybe that's ...(interventon)

ADV SIGODI: He already stated the answer.  He stated the answer that he wanted Mr Jonas to be aware of their presence, so he could run away.  That was the answer.

CHAIRPERSON: You might ...(intervention).

MR WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I'll leave it there.

CHAIRPERSON: You might kill the point dead.

MR WILLIAMS: I'll leave it there.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rheeder, have you got any re-examination?

MR RHEEDER: No re-examination, Honourable Chairperson.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR RHEEDER

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the case for the applicant?

MR RHEEDER: That's the case for the applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Williams, did you intend to present any evidence?

MR WILLIAMS: No, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Ms Patel?

MS PATEL: Same here, Honourable Chairperson, we do not, thank you.