Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-09-14

UNKNOWN: Thank you, Mr Chairman.  Mr Chairman, I will start by saying that Section 20(1) of the Act, that is the Amnesty Act, Mr Chairman, provides as follows
"If the Committee, after considering an application for amnesty is satisfied that the application complies with the requirements of the Act, the act, omission or offence to which the application relates is an act associated with political objectives committed in the course of the conflicts of the past in accordance with provisions of Subsection 2 and 3 and the applicant has made full disclosure of all relevant facts, it shall grant amnesty in respect of that act, omission or offence."
Your Worship, further just before I argue, I want to quote Section 20(2) provides:
"In this Act, unless the contents indicates otherwise, acts associated with political objectives means any act or omission which constitutes an offence or delict which, according to the criteria in Subsection 3 is associated with political objective and which was advised, planned, directed, commanded, ordered, or committed within or outside the Republic during the period of 1st March 1960 to the cut-off date by any member or supporter of a publicly known organisation or liberation movement on behalf of or in support of such organisation in furtherance of political struggle waged by such organisation against the State.  Any member of a publicly known political in the course and scope of his duties and within the scope of his express or implied authority.  Any person referred in paragraph (d) who, on reasonable grounds believed that he was acting in the course and scope of his duties and within the scope of his express or implied authority."
	Mr Chairman, I submit on behalf of the applicant, that he has complied with the requirements of Section 20(2).  That he was quite acting clearly on behalf of APLA, a publicly known political organisation and liberation movement which was engaged in political struggle against the State at that time.
	Mr Chairman, I also submit that the applicant did not act for personal gain or out of personal malice or ill-will or spite directed against the deceased and the victim.  It is quite clear that he had no personal knowledge of these people and that he had merely acted on behalf of his organisation.  
	Mr Chairman, you have heard the testimony of the applicant.  That APLA set, and PAC, certain parameters and he acted within those parameters.  That the main targets and the targets were the South African Defence Force, SA Police, reservist in general, the farmers, the informers and the white homes, who were regarded as garrison of apartheid and, Mr Chairman, that is not in dispute that he was also there, he had instruction as a cadre, he has to seek, identify and attack the enemy within that context of those parameters which have been set.
	Mr Chairman, I take you now back to the fateful incident on the unfortunate day of January 1993.  On the 21st January 1993 when the applicant attacked the late Mashamahite.  Mr Chairman, it's not in dispute that Mr Mashamahite was a policeman and it so happened that on the day in question he was coming from the police station and he was easily identified because he was wearing uniform.  So there was not even a dispute about his identity that he was a policeman and the applicant acted according to the parameters of his organisation and he killed Mashamahite and repossessed his firearm.
	Mr Chairman, I know that in court it transpired that from the eyewitness that they alleged that they first grabbed him and they held him before he was shot.  Mr Chairman, I wouldn't like to argue that point.  I was not there.  The witness saw what they saw on the day in question, but the point is if the applicant is lying why would he admit that he killed Mashamahite?  There's no doubt about that one.  He made it clear that he killed Mashamahite.  He does not say another person killed Mashamahite or his colleague pulled the trigger.  He said, "I pulled the trigger".  Even if, Mr Chairman, they started by holding him and they shot him thereafter, they would be acting within the scope because Mashamahite was regarded by APLA and PAC as working within the system and they were protecting the system as a policeman.  
	And as such, Mr Chairman, I wouldn't see any reason why the applicant would deny that he was shot in the circumstances described by the witnesses in court.  And as such, Mr Chairman, I request this Committee to find that on that aspect the applicant has made full disclosure as to regard to the killing and the robbery of Mr Mashamahite.  And that they acted within his course and scope of his being the member of APLA and furthering the aims of a publicly known political organisation.
	Mr Chairman, I proceed to the attempted murder and robbery of Hladi.  Mr Chairman, it's clear from what the applicant has told the Committee, that he perceived Hladi as an informer and that Hladi went around with the police trying to locate them after the killing of the policeman, and it was the reason that they decided to eliminate him because he was going to cause them to be arrested of that incident, and he believed that he would later give evidence in court and if he kills him there will be no evidence against him.  
	At that particular point in time though, Mr Chairman, it transpired that Hladi did not give evidence in court, but at the time he perceived and he believed that Hladi was the main person who made the police to know that they were the main people who killed Mashamahite and at that time he bona fide believed that he was an informer of the policeman and he has to be eliminated.  And also, Mr Chairman, it transpired that one APLA cadre Vusi told him and that Hladi is an informer.  It was during the drinks that he mentioned that though he did not know Vusi at that time, that he's a member of APLA, that he will pocket 50 grand if Shakes can be arrested.
	I think that, Mr Chairman, if the Committee accepts that, that that indeed was said by Vusi to the applicant and was said by Hladi, it will fit like a glove to the evidence of the applicant that Hladi was moving around trying to assist the police in arresting them, that he was an informer.  And as such, Mr Chairman, I want the Committee to believe and accept the version of the applicant, that by attempting to kill Hladi he acted bona fide and he believed him to be an informer, and he was acting within the course and scope of his organisation and trying to protect the members of his unit and himself being arrested so that they can be able to continue with the armed struggle.
	Mr Chairman, I want the Committee also to take into account that at that time, though everybody knew that the negotiations were in place, that PAC and APLA have not yet suspended the armed struggle, and also in the community it was not yet over where most of the time, I want to concede, most of the time people were killed just because somebody said he's an informer, and most of those instances you'll find that if you can go deep, you'll find that some of them were innocent.  But because of the political situation at the time everybody was sceptical even if he sees you talking to a policeman they wouldn't understand why you are talking to a policeman.  And as such, Mr Chairman, those incidents happen because of that.

ADV SIGODI: Sorry, Mr Mbandazayo.  Can't you say that was the case in the 70s and in the 80s, and if we look at this instance, it was in 1993 and at that time there was already, I mean a spirit of negotiation.  The perception of people speaking to the police then was somewhat different than it was in the 80s and in the 70s.  Would you not agree with me?