Amnesty Hearings — Pinetown — 1998-10-22

CHAIRPERSON: And do you know on which part of the body the bullet struck the deceased?

MDUDUZI CYRIL NGEMA: The way I positioned the gun in my hand, I think it was on the head.  He was hit on the head, or shot.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Mr Mbandazayo, do you have any questions arising out of questions that were put to the applicant by the panel?

MR MBANDAZAYO: None Mr Chairperson.

MR MBANDAZAYO: .

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mpshe?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: None Mr Chairperson, thank you.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: .

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Ngema, that brings your testimony to an end, you may stand down.

MDUDUZI CYRIL NGEMA: Thank you.

<UNKNOWN>: .

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mbandazayo, are you in a position to address us?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairperson, yes, I would appreciate it if we could address before lunch, rather than after lunch so that we can then perhaps commence the other matter immediately after lunch, because if we address after lunch, it will crowd out quite a bit of the afternoon.
	We will now take a short adjournment just to enable the representatives to gather their thoughts prior to them addressing us.  We will take a short adjournment, if you can just let us know when you are ready to start.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes, sure Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: We will adjourn until half past twelve.
COMMISSION ADJOURNS

CHAIRPERSON: We will commence to make submissions.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairperson, I would repeat to quote the requirements of Section 20, suffice to say that my submission is that the applicant has met the requirements of Section 20(1) and (2), that at the time of the incident, he was acting on behalf of APLA, a publicly known political organisation and liberation movement, which was engaged in a political struggle against the State at the time.
	Also that the applicant did not act for personal gain or out of malice, ill will or spite, directed against the deceased.
	Mr Chairperson, I will start with the first incident.  It is clear Mr Chairperson, that the applicant was a foot soldier, he was given an order by a member of the High Command of APLA, which was the decision maker within APLA, that they have evidence that Mr Meheza was acting as an informer, and that he was sabotaging the activities of the organisation and has to be eliminated.
	Mr Chairperson, if I may refer the Committee to the Court judgement, if one follows the judgement of the Court, indirectly it was admitted by the State when it was argued that he must be punished severely because he killed an informer.

CHAIRPERSON: I think it was, it came out in the trial that the deceased was in fact an informer.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly not a recent fabrication or anything like that.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairperson.  In that context Mr Chairperson, one would argue that would one say that he was still a member of the PAC?  Was he a member of the PAC technically or was he working for the State.

CHAIRPERSON: On the books, but not in his heart?

MR MBANDAZAYO: In terms of the books, he was on both sides.

MR LAX: Does it even matter whether he was or wasn't?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairperson, I don't think it matters, because definitely when they acted the way they acted, they believed and what they did was within the scope and what they believed was that they were protecting the organisation.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, because I think the thing was, he was in fact a member of APLA and PAC and he was abusing that membership to pass information on.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Precisely.

CHAIRPERSON: Because otherwise he wouldn't have been a good informer if he didn't have excess to the people he was informing on?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairperson, I am indebted to the Committee Mr Chairperson.  As such Mr Chairperson, I think it is my submission on the first instance that the applicant has made full disclosure, with regard to this death and also his participation on the incident, as to what actually happened with regard to Mr Meheza.
	How they went on and how they looked for him, what happened and they eventually killed him.  As such Mr Chairperson, it is my humble submission that the applicant should be granted amnesty with regard to the killing of Mr Meheza.
	Coming to the second incident Mr Chairperson, Mr Chairperson, it is clear that the deceased was not the target.  They wanted his transport, to go to their mission, that is at Port Edward.

CHAIRPERSON: Just one thing, just out of interest more than anything else, I don't know if you could answer it.  I should perhaps have asked the applicant when he was giving evidence, but my impression was that they came from Transkei.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairperson, during the second incident ...

CHAIRPERSON: If that is so, and they wanted to get transport, why come all the way to Durban when you have big places like Margate and Port Shepstone in between, why come all the way to Durban to get transport when one could have got it a lot closer to the desired target?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman, if I may though I am not testifying Mr Chairperson, I admit that it was not.  When they came to Durban, they came in drips and drabs, so they have to meet here in Durban.  They did not come as a, all of them as a group.  They came by different transport and they have to meet somewhere.

CHAIRPERSON: They didn't come as a Unit just to get a car to go all the way back as a Unit?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, okay, thank you.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairperson, it is clear the applicant has admitted that he made a mistake.
	He did not look at the gun properly.  They wanted to threaten the driver and he pulled the trigger in the process, because they wanted the car, and they shot him.
	Mr Chairperson, it is clear to everybody, if Mr Chairperson, they can shoot a car, a moving car, definitely they will be in danger themselves and the possibility that the car can be damaged and also it will not use for the purpose they wanted it for, what will then be the purpose for them to shoot the driver?
	It is clear Mr Chairperson, and I submit that this Committee should accept his version that indeed it was a mistake, because they wanted a car.  It would not have served any purpose, because they would have also themselves been injured or killed in the process.  The car could have capsized and all of them died and they would not use the car for the purpose they wanted it for.
	Why would they just shoot the driver intentionally.  Mr Chairperson, it is my submission that the Committee should accept that the applicant did not shoot the deceased deliberately, but it was a mistake.  What they wanted was the car.
	The car was to be used for a specific purpose and they wanted to use it in a mission in Port Edward, which of course was a political motive, they wanted to go and kill the people who were there, which already, they had already identified as the target.
	As such the killing of this innocent person, the driver, was in the process, he was a victim in the circumstances, but he was not the main target.  As such it is my submission that the applicant has made full disclosure with regard to his participation with regard to the killing of Mr Meheza, as to why Mr Meheza was killed.
	That the purpose of killing him, though it was not intentionally, was to get a car to be used in a political mission.  It is therefore my submission Mr Chairperson, that he has complied with all the requirements of the Act and also in this aspect, he should be granted amnesty.
	Also Mr Chairperson, of course, as he was convicted I understand also of possession of arms and ammunition, which of course were the arms which were used in killing Mr - my learned colleague is saying that they were withdrawn, the possession of arms and ammunition.
	Thank you Mr Chairperson, unless the Committee wants me to address it on any specific point.