Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1999-03-25

MR LAX: Chair, I may be wrong, but my recollection was that some of those statements of Mr Makuala were referred to, he was asked about them at some point.  I know in some of them certain portions were crossed out as not being relevant and then we looked at them again, but I stand to be corrected, I don't have a clear recollection on the matter.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Chairperson, I think so, it was at a certain stage because they were not relevant for the farm attacks then it appeared.  It's when we were about to start farm attacks and these statements were there and they were not relevant, they were crossed out.  But my point is that if it was put to him, because the evidence before the Committee is different to what Mr Prior is putting, and Mr Makuala was never given a chance to answer as to the difference between his version and the one which appeared on his statement, so we have that problem, to explain himself.

ADV PRIOR: Mr Chairman, maybe we should properly take the luncheon adjournment now and then reconvene probably at half past one, if that's suitable.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, we'll do that.  We'll take the luncheon adjournment now and recommence at half past one.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

ADV PRIOR: Mr Chairman, the portion of Mr Makuala's statement to which I'm referring was not specifically put up in respect of this incident, but it was placed before the Committee as part of Mr Makuala's amnesty application in respect of other incidents which were set down at the same time in Aliwal North, although for specific incidents, portions of that statement had been crossed out.  In other words, where portions of that statement were not relevant to the specific hearing at hand, those portions were crossed out.
	My reference thereto is fairly simple and obviously I'm alive to the arguments of my learned friend, that if it wasn't specifically put, Mr Makuala's now deceased, what weight, but I submit that he can reply and argue that.  I simply draw the Committee's attention to the fact that this information does exist, it is before you, although not specifically and formally before you, my submission is that the Committee can have cognisance of all information that's relevant to an inquiry as to whether a gross human rights violation occurred or not.  	Similarly we have insight into the PAC submissions of October 7, '97 where these are not specifically placed before the Committee by formal evidence.  Those submissions were made to the HRV Committee and this Committee has insight and cognisance and can take those submissions into account.  So I submit, on a very similar basis this Commission can have cognisance and take cognisance of that information.
	Mr Chairman, quite simply the point I wish to make is that Mr Makuala in the statement, and he was cross-examined on this aspect in his evidence, as to the identity of the driver of the bakkie or the taxi as it was referred to, that is Mr Tsemane, and the indication from the applicants is that they were unaware that this was a black man, they were unaware that Mr Schroeder was a coloured man or looked coloured, or looked like a coloured person.  
	However, at page 32 of the bundle to which I refer to, and that's the bundle relating to Lady Grey Farm Attacks, it's on the actual first page of Mr Makuala's typed, that's the English typed translation of his statement, he stated that:
"Suddenly a taxi from Sterkspruit approached.  It was only one person driving in that taxi, the driver who was a black person."
	The point I wish to make then and to conclude on on that aspect is that at least if they were not aware at the time that Mr Tsemane stopped to pick up Mrs Brummer, then certainly when the vehicle had been shot at and had left the road, they must have been aware that Mr Tsemane was not a white person.  
	It would seem that Mr Tsemane could have been shot, and in all probability was shot at after the vehicle had left the road, if one then looks at the statement he makes regarding shots being fired from the bridge.
	Mr Chairman, that then brings one to the question of proportionality.  My submission is it is one case, it is one thing to say as APLA have consistently said, they were acting under orders, their information or intelligence was that a specific target was a sanctioned target.  For example the King William's Town Golf Club, where in military style and with military style precision the club was attacked, persons were killed during the operation and there was the withdrawal.  
	I submit that this particular incident, with respect, can be distinguished on the facts.  Here the applicants were not satisfied with simply attacking the target, being a white person driving the vehicle, in terms of their orders, but they went beyond that, they were not satisfied in injuring the persons, they proceeded to execute, to kill persons that had already been injured and that never posed any threat to them and could not have by their deaths, have furthered any political objective that they had in mind because by the initiating of the attack as they did, the political statement had already been made.
	So in respect of this particular application, my submission is that Mr Dolo in particular has not satisfied the requirements of the Act, particular Section 20, and that he is not entitled, he has not discharged the onus that rests on him to satisfy this Committee that he is entitled to amnesty.
	May I also mention, and this was also canvassed during the evidence, that after this specific incident they proceeded to the Sterkspruit Hotel where they robbed it.  There an amount of R65 000 was taken and the evidence was that it was because they were hungry, they felt hungry, they went past there and they robbed the hotel.  Surprisingly enough no-one in the hotel, which included the white manager, Mr le Roux, was not killed, he wasn't shot.  That doesn't, somehow it does not gel with their earlier evidence that their object was to kill white people, people involved or identified with the oppression.  And although that Sterkspruit Hotel is not specifically before the Committee, there's doesn't seem to be any explanation or any suggesting by Mr Makuala or Mr Dolo that that money was handed over to the hierarchy.
	At the level of suggesting that they have not, in respect of the Herschel/Lady Grey Attack, they have not taken the Committee into their confidence.  For example, Mr Dolo steered judiciously away from admitting that the vehicle which Mr Tsemane was driving was in fact driven by a black man and that Mr Schroeder in his view was a white person, I submit he realised the difficulty that he was in and steered judiciously away from that.
	For those reasons, Mr Chairman, I submit that Mr Dolo has not satisfied the requirements of the Act and he should be refused amnesty.  Thank you.
MR SIBANYONI(?): Mr Mbandazayo, before you reply I would like you to address the Committee on this aspect, the white person who was driving a 4X4, the one from the Telkom, was not killed, and then when I look at the evidence it is said that Dolo ordered Kleintjie to shoot at the car not at the white person and - ja, if you can cover that in your address, thank you.