Amnesty Hearings — Pinetown — 2000-02-15

UNKNOWN: Sorry Mr Chairperson, just wondering a bit.  What motive does the applicant have to launch his application for amnesty?  That answer is quite simple, Mr Chairperson.  It's my respectful submission that when this application was launched for amnesty, if one looks at page 3 of the bundle of documents, one would note that this application was commissioned on the 1st November 1996.  Now at that time the applicant would have still been serving his sentence.  In his attempt to launch his application it would have given the will to foresee that he may be out of prison sooner than expected and more importantly had he most probably stuck to this application itself as opposed to submitting Exhibit B, he would have had almost no problem in most probably succeeding his application.
	The Committee sits here today and has to make a decision as to whether (i) was the act or acts of the applicant political?  And (ii) has he fully disclosed as to what had taken place on the day?  He has expressly stated under his evidence in chief and cross-examination that he acted in self-defence.  He has also in paragraph 11 of his statement submitted on the 14th of this month stated that his act was self-defence.  Now the Committee now faces a problem in deciding whether we need to grant him amnesty for this application.  As the Committee you are faced with an issue of a political agenda.  Now the applicant has abandoned his political agenda and has brought to the Committee's front that this action was one of self-defence and his most fateful submission that this is not the forum to have raised this issue.
	My learned friend has argued that one can look at Section 20 and consider the acts, offences, in it's wide sense to embrace this argument.  My learned friend has further argued that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: But on this one it's a matter that causes me some problems.  If you get what is obviously a political fight between an ANC group and an IFP group who are seeking to take over a building or something and it is in furtherance of their objective, but during the course of that fight one of them gets cornered and he manages to take the knife away from the person who has cornered him and stabs him so he can get away safely.  Does that mean it's no longer political?

MR PANDAY: Well Mr Chairperson, I concede the point that that still remains political.  The action stems from a political objective and continued.  Now the applicant seems to now distance himself from the political objective.  He mentions that he did not have the intention to kill the person and thereafter goes on to say it was self-defence.  He merely had to stick to his version that the killing of the victim was as a result of the original act that was political?

CHAIRPERSON: He is saying "they were political in coming to attack us and drive us out of the area.  We were just fleeing for our lives."

MR PANDAY: Mr Chairperson, I may concede that point that it can still be very well construed as political.  	Now the second test of this application is that there has to be full disclosure.  Now as my learned friend has pointed out, he cannot submit or make any submissions with regards to full disclosure.  The full disclosure of the applicant is hampered seriously by the evidence of Alzina.  Even if one has to disregard or not hold the evidence of the brother Frederick Mbukazi in much light, it is my respectful submission that Alzina was straightforward, she was candid, she was able to give a detailed account and a precise account of what took place.  She was not able to have been broken under cross-examination and she merely related what took place on the day in question.  Now if one has to look at the version of the applicant who suggests that she was there to just merely see the people punished, a person of that sort, Mr Chairperson, would not have been able to sustain a detailed cross-examination.  She gave her evidence straightforwardly, she had no problems in relating the sequence of events that took place.  She detailed the place where they were at as well as the incident and as to how the body got to the hospital.
	Now the applicant would like us to believe that the incident took place at the ANC stronghold, that being Dangani and she quite emphatically denied that.  She states that they were on the way to the market and this took place near the power school, that is in the Hlangesi area and that is where the incident took place where the applicant attacked, together with two other, attacked the victim.
	The applicant further denies there being a person namely Mbambo, Kwazi Mbambo.  Now judging from the evidence delivered by Alzina she was very sure as to who was present.  She gave a detailed account, there were three people.  So and so gave the knife to the applicant and he did the stabbing.  Shows the person that did not add frills and thrills, if she did not know something she blatantly denied it, "I do not know, I can't say for sure" and that was it.
	Now even if one accepts this entire in the mind of the applicant there was a political feud going on, everyone accepts he is an ANC activist, he is an ANC supporter, everyone has to accept that the victim was an IFP supporter or IFP activist, that will cover the political aspect of this application. 
	The second issue to address is the full disclosure.  It is my respectful submission that the applicant has not made any full disclosure or has not made full disclosure.  It is common cause that the victim was killed but the circumstances under which the victim was killed and as to why exactly he was killed, that in my respectful submission is not full disclosure and it is therefore my respectful submission that the applicant has failed the test to be countered amnesty and accordingly his application should be refused.  Thank you.

MR MAPOMA: I have no argument Chairperson, thanks.
NO ARGUMENT BY MR MAPOMA

MR DEHAL: I have nothing to add, thank you.