Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1999-02-18

ADV GCABASHE: Incidents, I beg your pardon, December 1997.  The cut off date for the submission of applications, that is the cut off date I referred to, which is December, the 12th of December 1997.
	If something was filed before that date, you can present it.

CHAIRPERSON: Which is supplementary and confirms what you say.

ADV GCABASHE: Yes, that can be done.

MR MASHABANE: Thank you, can I ask for a five minute break to solicit that information from either client or my Attorney.

CHAIRPERSON: I will encourage you to investigate another possibility if you haven't got that information.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

MOLEFE MICHAEL SELEPE: (still under oath)

MR MASHABANE: (continued)   Thank you Mr Chairman.   In addressing the problem we are faced with, I would love again to go back to the decision which I referred the Honourable Chairperson to it and ratify one thing on that aspect.
	The issue there which was decided on that case, the Boipatong case, by the Honourable Nqobo, the facts were that the applicants, 17 of them, signed blank forms and they filled the application form when, at a later date, when the cut off date had already passed.
	The Judge in ruling on that one, he went on the intention.  He said we must look at the intention of the applicants, and clearly by applying, then the applicants had intentions to give further evidence on the date of the hearing.
	The one who was acting for the victims, he objected to that application, but the Honourable Judge in his ruling, he said what is required was an intention.  I therefore submit that even in this case, Mr Chairperson, I submit what is required is the intention, and clearly the applicant  in filling that form, showed intention to apply for amnesty and further evidence would have been given in a way of viva voce or by an affidavit, during the hearing proceedings Mr Chairman.
	That is the point which I would like to submit before the Honourable Chairperson.  In the event that the Honourable Chairperson is not satisfied with that point which I have just submitted, I would therefore ask that this matter be postponed so that compliance with the Act, Section 19(4) could, the victims to be informed.
	I submit that if a postponement can be granted, the TRC would then inform the victims and then there would be no prejudice if that postponement is granted and if the victims would attend the hearing at a later date.
	If that postponement is not granted, then the applicant would suffer prejudice in the sense that he will remain in prison for a long time.

CHAIRPERSON: And whose fault would that be as sympathetic as I may be to his cause, whose fault would that be?

MR MASHABANE: Mr Chairman, I would submit it is not the fault of the applicant, it is the fault of those who took the statement.
	Clearly the applicant furnished every information which was required by the TRC.

CHAIRPERSON: If that is so, how come it is not in the application form?

MR MASHABANE: That Mr Chairman, that is what I asked the Honourable Chairperson to ask the person who took the statement, Ms Sealy, to come and tell the Court why that is not in the, why was that information not included in the original application form and Ms Sealy is available, and she is prepared.

CHAIRPERSON: I am not going to call her.  Let me get to the other issue, would you agree that I am not bound by Judge Nqobo's decision?

MR MASHABANE: Yes, indeed Mr Chairman, indeed.

CHAIRPERSON: I may even think it is totally wrong to condone a fraudulent application.

MR MASHABANE: Indeed Mr Chairperson.  At the moment, I can't take this point any further.

CHAIRPERSON: But you seem to miss my point.  The position is that you must lead your witness on whatever.  Strictly speaking you should be leading him on the offences for which he applies, or has applied, timeously and properly for amnesty.
	In an attempt to do so, we ask what he is applying for and we got a long list of offences.  Most, at least half of them, don't fall in our view, within the ambit of any offence mentioned in the application. 
	Further to that, you ask for a postponement for the purposes of giving out the necessary notices.  The necessary notice must be based on the application.  How are we, or the TRC, going to identify those people who deserve notices, or who are entitled to notices?  It is not here?

MR MASHABANE: The TRC or the Committee can get, in terms of Section 19(1) can ask for further particulars from the applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Those further particulars have been supplied in supplement 2, page 1 and 2 - clearly he refers to two incidents basically.  It brings a further question mark as to his intention, what he really wanted to apply for.
	Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 relates to broadly speaking the Dawn Park incident, and paragraph 4, and the overleaf, refers to the Kliprivier police station incident.  I may as well tell you that we will encourage you also to include a count of assault on those two policemen in the Kliprivier policemen, despite it not being actually mentioned in your application, because that offence was incidental to the incident.  Do you follow how we are viewing this?

MR MASHABANE: Indeed.

CHAIRPERSON: We are willing to consider that offence within the ambit of the Kliprivier police station incident.  That is the crux of the matter.  Not, in my view, not what was intended by the applicant, because he is bound by his agents and I might as well say now, that I am not very impressed with the way that the agents represented all these applicants.
	I think some of the applicants would have done a better job.  But be that as it may, I am trying to describe, I am trying to give an example of how we can, some of the offences not mentioned in the application, can indeed be considered, but it has to be identifiable.  Do you follow?
	Now, if I may explain further,  it is not for me to tell you what to do.  I am entitled to ask you on what basis are you making a certain application, and if you give a reasonable, acceptable answer, then perhaps we will allow you to proceed, but if you want to proceed on all these irrelevant incidents, know full well that we have problems with it.  I am leaving it in your hands as to what to do.  We have adjourned twice to allow you to consider the issue.
	Let's carry on.  I know the Kliprivier incident can be proceeded with.  As to the rest, I leave it in your hands.

MR MASHABANE: We will proceed as far as the incident of the Kliprivier police station is concerned.
	Can you tell the Committee your involvement as far as the Kliprivier police station, the attack on Kliprivier police station is concerned?

MOLEFE MICHAEL SELEPE: The role that I played at Kliprivier police station, I was told by the Commander, Mduduzi Ngobesi, in 1993, that was on the 15th of December, he called me and he told me that there was a place that we were supposed to go to and disarm and get the firearms.

ADV GCABASHE: Let's just get the Commander's surname right.  We had Kubeka.  You say Ngobesi.  We had Kubeka when we heard the other applicants on the Kliprivier matter.  Mduduzi Kubeka, Bla?

MOLEFE MICHAEL SELEPE: Bla, Mduduzi, I think, I am not sure about the surname whether it is Ngobesi or Kubeka.

ADV GCABASHE: It is Kubeka.  He has told us it is Kubeka.

CHAIRPERSON: It was Bla that was your Commander?