Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-10-13

CHAIRPERSON: We are reverting to the application of Mr Manyamala, AM3150/96.  Mr Shayi, you had indicated to us when we adjourned yesterday, that there was an application that you would want to address to us.  Would you please proceed to deal with that first, and then we will come to the argument after that?

MR SHAYI: Mr Chairman, as I indicated yesterday that on page 13 of the bundle, and page 15 of the bundle, mention is made on page 13 of three AK47 firearms and nine shotguns, and on page 15, of two AK47's and several pistols and several revolvers.   It is my submission that when the application was made by the applicant, he was not advised by any legal representative, it was done by the applicant himself.
	When he actually alluded to the affidavit, he made mention of how he came to be in possession of the three AK47's that are mentioned on page 13 as well as the nine shotguns and the other weapons that are mentioned on page 15 of the bundle, my submission is there is no any other ...(indistinct) evidence or any other evidence, to actually support his application for amnesty, as far as these firearms are concerned.
	In other words, the affidavit that he actually made in support of his application, deals adequately with the AK47's, the nine shotguns, and the pistols and the other firearms.  My submission is there won't be any prejudice that is going to be suffered by any other party should an amendment be made by the applicant, and such amendment be allowed by the Committee.

ADV GCABASHE: Mr Shayi, could I just ask you, that affidavit, do you have a date?  Mine doesn't have a date reflected on it?

MR SHAYI: If my memory serves me well, I think the affidavit was made Tuesday last week, that will be, I think that will be - may I just bring it to the attention of the Committee that I actually received the bundle on Friday last week, and that is the day on which I actually started working on the application itself.
	My understanding of the matter was when I first received notice that I may actually come to represent mr Manyamala in the application, my understanding was, because at that stage I had a copy of the affidavit, my understanding was, he in the application, that is in the form, dealt with the firearms that are mentioned on pages 13 and 15.
	So, when I received the bundle on Friday, that is when I actually noted that the firearms on pages 13 and 15 are not mentioned in the form.  But I came to the conclusion, or it is my submission that as far as the application is concerned, if an amendment can be allowed, the facts pertaining to the firearms, are adequately mentioned in the affidavit.
	He actually alluded when evidence was adduced by Mr Manyamala, he actually told the Committee as to how he came to be in possession of the firearms, mentioned on page 13 as well as the firearms mentioned on page 15.  My submission is as far as Section 74 of the Act is concerned, there wouldn't have been any need to actually give notice to any other third parties, as the Committee pleases Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, there is no apparent interested party victim, in respect of the possession of the arms and ammunition.  But in any case, the application form itself does foreshadow SDU activities on the part of the applicant.
	And of course, the possession of these arms related directly to the SDU activity, so it is not as if it is something that was not covered at all in the original application form.  Although it was obliquely covered there, it does refer to the fact that the applicant was engaged in some or other SDU activity.
	Just, can you just confirm the affidavit was drawn with the assistance of legal representation?

MR SHAYI: As Mr Chairman pleases, I understand from my learned colleague, that is Mr Gila, that when the affidavit was drafted, he was present, and it was after it was drafted that they actually came to me.  I understand that it was somewhere on Tuesday last week, or Monday last week, but it was during the course of last week.

CHAIRPERSON: All right, but at that stage the applicant was assisted by a lawyer?

MR SHAYI: That is correct Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Adv Steenkamp, do you have any submissions on the application to amend?

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, I don't have any objection whatsoever.  May I just ask something, I am not clear what happened to the weapons, I understand they were used for SDU activities, but I would like if possible, just to ask what happened to them, because if they were sold, there is a question of financial gain.  It seems to be a lot of weapons.
	It is nowhere raised exactly what happened to them, except that they were stored somewhere, or they were cached apparently.  I think that is the only thing I am asking, with respect Mr Chairman, but I don't have anything further to say.

MR SHAYI: In that respect Mr Chairman, then I will allow the Committee to find out from the applicant himself, but as far as the weapons mentioned on page 13 are concerned, if my memory serves me well, this was actually alluded to by the applicant, that is when he said that the said weapons were lost during the course of the activities.
	As far as the weapons on page 15 are concerned, those are the weapons that were taken from the mentioned comrade Gadaffi and those were the subject of the criminal activity that was involved here, as the Committee pleases.

CHAIRPERSON: The applicant in this matter has completed his testimony, and in the course of questioning by Adv Steenkamp, the Leader of Evidence of the Committee, the issue concerning a number of firearms which are referred to in the affidavit, submitted in support of the application, arose and more particularly the question whether or not the amnesty application before us,  includes the possession of those arms.
	Mr Shayi, who appears for the applicant has applied for the amendment of the amnesty application to include the possession of the particular arms which are referred to on pages 13 and 15 of the record before us, amongst other things a number of AK47 assault rifles, shotguns, pistols and revolvers.
	Mr Shayi makes a submission that no prejudice can be suffered by anyone in the event of the application being granted.  There are no apparent interested parties or victims in respect of this particular aspect of the matter.
	Adv Steenkamp has indicated that he does not oppose the application, and it is quite clear that the applicant's possession of these arms have been fully canvassed in the course of the testimony that was given in the matter.  We are therefore satisfied in the circumstances, that the applicant has made out a proper case for the amendment of the application, to include the possession of the arms referred to on pages 13 and 15 of the record.
	We can just add that it has been drawn to our attention that the applicant was not legally assisted when he completed the application form and therefore the form obviously is not as detailed as one would have expected it to be in the event of the applicant having been assisted by legal representation.
	In any event, there is reference in the application form itself to the fact that the applicant has been engaged in activities of a Self Defence Unit, and it appears that the possession of these arms relate to those activities.
	So, in our view the details relating to the possession, has been foreshadowed in the application form itself and that a sufficient basis has been laid in the original application for the particulars which are contained in the affidavit.
	Accordingly the application is granted and the amnesty application is amended to include possession, unlawful possession of the arms and ammunition in question.

MR SHAYI: As the Chair pleases.  Mr Chairman, at this stage, I will ask the Committee to allow Mr manyamala to address the Committee on forgiveness, just a short address.