Amnesty Hearings — Boksburg — UNKNOWN

MR MADASA: Yes, Mr Chair, that's very important.   Actually that lends support to the submission that this is the background against which the SDU's must be seen, and these applicants cannot therefore be faulted if it is revealed in evidence before the hearing that what they did was beyond a mandate, what they did was beyond the reason why they were formed, they committed excesses, that statement sought to therefore accept that there were those problems, and those problems were attributed by the people concerned as squarely on the government of the day, that because people were defenceless, these impromptu structures were put up, and it was difficult to monitor them, hence there were excesses.   So that statement was admitting that there were excesses, but I'm saying, my submission is that therefore even if there's evidence here that the committee may find that there were excesses or, therefore it should be seen in that light.

CHAIRPERSON: You see, at the beginning of your argument, I pointed out to you that one ought to make a distinction between the political objective with which the SDU's were formed, and the conduct of the individual members of the SDU.   You are not submitting that, because a person happens to be a member of an SDU, therefore everything that that individual does as a member of the SDU must be regarded as being politically motivated, that's not a submission, is it?

MR MADASA: No, I cannot submit like that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MADASA: I'm saying the activities of the applicants in relation to this particular case were done as a collective, and with the understanding of the order given to them at the time, if they did not do things as individuals which was outside the operations and the work of the SDU at the time.
	Lastly, Mr Chair, I submit that the requirements of the Act is sufficiently satisfied by the application in view of the submissions I have made, and I ask the committee to grant the amnesty.
	My last general submission, Mr Chair, on the issue of the Act would be that the Act came into being with a view to encourage communities to heal, and in this particular instance, as much as there victims' relatives who are against the amnesty, but I submit it's the duty of the committee, in view of the closeness of the applicants and the victims and their place of residence, that the committee should do all it can possibly do to encourage these people to be reconciled, as this is the objective of the Act.
	Thank you, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Just before you conclude your evidence, the applicants are seeking amnesty in regard to the death of Alfred Philemon Buthelezi, Thokozani Buthelezi, Ithumeleng Edward Moetzi, Lukas Buti Hlatswayo, Isaac Mogadi, Ditaba Joseph Mthembu, Peter Mavuso Modishwa, Miles Simon Simelane, Isaac Mbijana Motloung?

MR MADASA: Yes, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: They are not seeking amnesty in regard to Theodora Bulelwa Zwane, Julia Maitse-Buthelezi?

MR MADASA: Yes, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.   Mr Mapoma?

MR MAPOMA -: Thank you, Chairperson.   Mr Chairman, I would like to have your direction as to whether I am expected to go through the heads?

CHAIRPERSON: Speaking for myself, I've skimmed through your heads of argument and you can speak to (indistinct).

MR MAPOMA: Thank you, sir.
	Chairperson, the argument I'm going to present here will be applicable to all the applicants collectively, and I will start, Chairperson, with the political objective.
	The applicants aver in their applications, sir, that they kidnapped and killed the deceased persons, with the sole objective of protecting the community against those whom they perceived as criminals, and such persons happened to be the ANC Youth League members predominantly.   They aver that the political objective they intended achieving was to restore peace in the community.
	Sir, it is not disputed that the victims, except for Mr Buthelezi, were members of the ANC Youth League ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Well Mr Madasa submits that they claimed to be, they were not.

MR MAPOMA: Well, Chairperson, I don't want to make very much of an issue out of that, but, Chairperson, throughout the evidence of the applicants, they always refer to the ANC Youth League, the ANC Youth League as having done that (indistinct).   I thought, sir, that it is commonly understood that the deceased persons were members of the ANC Youth League, but I don't want, sir, to make an issue out of that.
	What I want to refer, Chairperson, to, in our approach as to whether these actions were actions committed with a political objective, I would invite the committee, Mr Chair-person, to look into the provisions of section 20.2.1, where, Chairperson, the Act defines what is it that constitutes an act associated with political motivation and political objective.   
	The section, Chairperson, defines an act associated with political objective, as:-
"An act or mission which constitutes an offence or delict which, according to the criteria set out in section 20.3, is associated with a political objective and which was advised, planned, directed, commanded, ordered or committed by, amongst others, any member or supporter of a publicly known political organisation or a liberation movement on behalf of or in support of such organisation or movement bona fide in furtherance of the political struggle waged by such organisation or the political movement against the State or any former State or another publicly known political organisation or liberation movement."
	Now, Chairperson, my submission here, firstly, is that the Self Defence Unit were not a political organisation, are not a political organisation within the meaning of the Act.  Therefore, sir, any order in the compliance of which these acts were committed, which order came from the SDU, is not an order, sir, which came from a political organisation within the meaning of this Act.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, (indistinct) Act, doesn't the Act speak about
"Any member or supporter of a publicly known political organisation or liberation movement on behalf of or in such support of such organisation or movement"?
All the applicants are members of the ANC, right?

MR MAPOMA: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.   Who happens to have become members of the SDU?

MR MAPOMA: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And the SDU was formed with the blessing of the ANC, was it not?

MR MAPOMA: Absolutely, sir.

CHAIRPERSON: So how can one separate the SDU's from the ANC?

ADV MOTATA: Well, or even the PAC, because the evidence was that the SDU would not only be members of the ANC, they would be members of the community, even those political organisations.

MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, it is acknowledged that the self-defence units, these, the self-defence units in particular, the one we're dealing with, were formed under the auspices of the ANC, and in fact they were members of the ANC.   That one is common cause, Chairperson, but the matter doesn't end there.
	The argument, Chairperson, goes to say the committee needs to look into the actions, were those actions actions geared in furtherance of the political struggle waged by the ANC?

CHAIRPERSON: That's a separate question.   It is distinct from the question of whether or not they belonged to a political organisation, and I understand that, which is a separate question, but do you still take issue with the fact that they were not members of, the SDU's are not, that the SDU's are not political organisations, therefore to the extent that the applicants were members of the SDU when they killed, there can be no, they fall outside the ambit of the Act?

MR MAPOMA: Well I may amend that position, Chairperson, because my emphasis is on the command that was given.   I'm saying, Chairperson, that the command that was given is not a command which came from a publicly known political organisation, that is the ANC in this particular instance.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.