Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 2000-08-30

MS MOHAMED: Those are the relevant paragraphs.  And then Mr Chairman, what had happened is, based on that affidavits, the TRC then said to, actually by means of a letter, to both these applicants that it seems as if they had applied unilaterally, one application, and the necessary applications will then have to be made to a Committee who hears the matter.
	The TRC then confirmed that they didn't have any written application before them.  So what has happened is, when the matter came before the Committee on a previous occasion, I think it was in March this year, the Committee was then appraised of the situation and the two applicants at that stage were not represented.  It was at that stage, after that adjournment, that we became involved in the matter, upon receiving instructions from Mr Shandu and Mr Malevu.
	They said to us that the contents of this affidavit was put to them, because by that stage we had received the previous bundle that was prepared in this matter.  They said to us that these affidavits incorrectly represent the position, in that there was a misunderstanding at some level, between themselves and the Investigators who took down these affidavits.
	They then said to me that they wrote out their applications, it was sent to prison authorities and they had each done this on their individual forms.   The High Court papers which were then submitted to the NPD were then drawn on the same lines.

CHAIRPERSON: Which they understood?

MS MOHAMED: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And they signed?

MS MOHAMED: Yes, Mr Chairman.  It is on that basis now, that I am before you.  I have, apart from these submissions, I don't have anything further to make.  I am aware that the Act clearly says that application has to be made on the prescribed form.
	But given the, I understand that there is also a difficulty about the different versions and if need be, Mr Chairman, both the applicants are willing to testify as to the correctness or incorrectness of various versions that have been put forward.

MR LAX: If I may, have you made any enquiries at either Westville prison or Waterval prison, as to whether their names appear on any list of applications forwarded to the Truth Commission in about May 1997 as we have heard that there were such lists compiled, of various people's applications?

MS MOHAMED: Mr Lax, we had taken the applicants' word for it, that the forms were forwarded and I cannot say that we actually did an enquiry, no.

MR LAX: So the answer is no?

MS MOHAMED: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms  Mohamed, we are of the view that we need to consider this application, we cannot obviously do it here.  I don't think it is going to affect you or this hearing, if we proceed to listen to the application that is properly before us and make a decision thereafter about joining the other two.  Have you got any objections to that?

MS MOHAMED: Not an objection, Mr Chairman, if I may just clarify then, would you then, if we do proceed with Mr Mpanza's matter, at the conclusion of his evidence and the relevant witnesses ...

CHAIRPERSON: Then we can decide whether the other two can be joined or not.

MS MOHAMED: Yes, so will it be necessary for me to then call Mr Malevu and Mr Shandu at that stage, or should I just hold on to that?

CHAIRPERSON: For what purposes?

MS MOHAMED: Because - okay no, I follow what you are saying.  Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: If we decide that they are, or can be joined, then you call them as applicants.

MS MOHAMED: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: If we decide or find that they cannot be joined, then that is the end of the matter.

MS MOHAMED: Okay.

MR LAX: Sorry, there is a third permutation.  I didn't understand you quite clearly, but you may want to call them as separate witnesses in Mr Mpanza's application?

MS MOHAMED: Yes.

MR LAX: To back up his version, as opposed to them being applicants, is that what you were asking?

CHAIRPERSON: Well, then that doesn't matter, because then they come here in their capacity as witnesses.  I would think that you first wait for a decision on their status in this application first, it does not stop you from calling them as witnesses for this application.
	Mr Panday, have you got any objections to the proposed ...

MR PANDAY: No, Mr Chairman, no.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabethe?

MS THABETHE: It is just a concern, Mr Chair.  My learned colleague has indicated that the two, perhaps have indicated that there was a misunderstanding in them having stated the same thing, that they completed one application form, which they signed, and also they add that there was no, they did not furnish individual forms.  Now, I don't know whether it is necessary, but I would wish them to come if possible, and state the correct position because all of them are Zulu speakers and I am not sure whether there is a suggestion that maybe there was a misunderstanding, in terms of language, but because it is clearly stated what they said.
	I think it would be necessary to call the people who also took the statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, we will see at the end of the day what we decide.  Mr Mpanza, what language would you like to use?

MR MPANZA: I would like to use Zulu.