Amnesty Hearings — Carltonville — 1998-08-12

MR STEENKAMP: I'm a bit surprised at certain comments made by me learned colleague.  If you wish to tender new information about the ANC's initiative for granting legal aid, he can do so but then he must take the witness box so we can cross-examine him.  That information was never submitted to the Committee at all, so the value of that clearly must be taken as it is.
	Talking about the criminal action or the political motive then of the applicants, maybe we can start at the last witness that was called by my learned friend.  He is actually supporting the evidence of both Mr Nzeku and Mr Ramagotedi when he testified on a question of one of the Committee Members, that the ANC actually made an official decision that the actions of the applicants at that stage was not politically motivated at all.  I also find it a bit strange, from the families' point of view in any event, that those statements and those witnesses statements can be disregarded as it stands.
	The view of the family is that the killing of both the deceased was purely criminal, and as it stands it was a callous act, it was a revenge act for the killing or assault on Mr Mokome.  There was no evidence led whatsoever that there was third force motivation or third force actions that was responsible for the motivation of the killing of both the deceased. 
	The facts as is are isolated Mr Chairman, I would support.  The fact is that the applicants were in a group, they were looking for both the deceased.  Apparently what triggered this action was the killing or the assault of Mr Mokome.  They hunted both the deceased down.  On their own admission at least deceased number one was disarmed and then afterwards killed with his own knife.  How that can be purported as a political motivation for killing him is to me totally misunderstood.
	A further point I would like to make on behalf of the victims is that it's clear that none of the applicants took the Committee in their confidence by making a full disclosure, exactly what happened at the incident itself.  Proof of this is the differences between the different views and the statements of at least applicant number four and applicant number one.  And when there was difficulty to answer questions, they really couldn't answer any questions.
	A further important point is that the court a quo actually made a decision, a finding, that the actions of all the applicants was that of revenge, it was a premeditated action, a planned action to kill both the deceased.  The view of the victims at least is that the actions of all five the applicants were criminal and to this end their applications must therefore fail.  As it please you Mr Chairman.

MS GCABASHE: Can I just ask you Mr Steenkamp, there is of course no, they don't contradict the fact that people were killed in the townships, that there was a reign of terror by gangs or thugs, generally speaking.

MR STEENKAMP: I think that's a common fact Mr Chairman, that there was gangs, they actually terrorised the area, but this incident must clearly be isolated from the rest of the gangs.  Neither did the applicants admit to being members of any gangs as far as my knowledge serves me.

MS GCABASHE: But are you saying that the evidence that has been led or the cross-examination by yourself rather, has also confirmed that these two particular persons were not involved in criminal acts?  Maybe I just misunderstand you.

MR STEENKAMP: No, I'm sorry, if I said that then I retract that.  The fact is that there was some sort of motivation for the killing of the deceased and the facts as they are is that trigger method, that the triggering instant was the attack on Mr Mokome, apparently by both the deceased.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you wish to reply Mr Koopedi?

MR KOOPEDI: I will not reply, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: We will in due course consider the application and make its decision known.

MR STEENKAMP: As you wish Mr Chairman.

MR KOOPEDI: I thank you too.

CHAIRPERSON: We will now adjourn and resume in 15 minutes.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp?

MR STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, the next matter on the role is that of Mr Boetie Manuel Selepe.  I would ask leave for your indulgence, Mr Chairman, Honourable Members, that the application of Mrs Anna Poleng Ndlovu be added to the application of Mr Selepe.  Unfortunately I received it very late.  A copy of the application is in your possession.  As it please you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: These relate to the same occurrence, the same event?

MR STEENKAMP: That is correct Mr Chairman, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Koopedi, do you appear for both of the applicants?

MR KOOPEDI: As it pleases you Mr Chairperson.  May I state that I represent both the applicants, Mr Selepe and Mrs Ndlovu in this matter.  May I also say that I've been instructed a short while ago that both the applicants wish to withdraw their applications. The reasoning behind that is that they think they do no longer strictly speaking, require the amnesty. They have served prison sentences and believe that they do not wish to waste this Committee's time unnecessarily.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Selepe, will you come forward please?
	Mr Selepe, you've heard what Mr Koopedi has just told us, that you no longer wish to proceed with your application, is that true?

MR SELEPE: Yes, it's the truth.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
	Will Mrs Ndlovu come forward please?  We've been told Mrs Ndlovu, that you also do not wish to proceed with your application.

MRS NDLOVU: Yes, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: I have before me a document which seems to suggest that a member of the Amnesty Committee had considered your application, were you aware of that?

MRS NDLOVU: Please repeat your question.

INTERPRETER: Please repeat your question, the lady didn't have her headset on.

CHAIRPERSON: I have before me a document which was given to me a short while ago and which indicates that your application was considered by a member of the Amnesty Committee but unfortunately the document does not bear a date.  I want to know whether you know about that.

MRS NDLOVU: I don't recall anything about that.

CHAIRPERSON: You have received no notification from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission about your application?

MRS NDLOVU: The document I received is the one I brought here today, that I received from the Commission.

MR KOOPEDI: May I indicate Chairperson, for clarity's sake, that the document she received was a Section 19 (4) notification, where she was notified as an implicated person in the application of Mr Selepe.  That is the document which she is referring to.

CHAIRPERSON: So you've come here in response to a notification that you are an implicated person, but I understand that you are also an applicant.

MRS NDLOVU: No, I withdrew my application because I don't need it, I've already served my sentence in full.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, thank you very much.

MRS NDLOVU: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp, will you take the necessary steps to ensure that the attention of the TRC is drawn to the fact that Mrs Ndlovu's application appears to have been considered in chambers.

MR STEENKAMP: As you wish Mr Chairman, I will see to that.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] notify them that the applicant appeared today in response of a notice that was served on her in terms of Section 19, as an implicated person and that she has appeared today and has told us that she does not wish to proceed with her application?

MR STEENKAMP: I will do so Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: It remains for me to thank you Mr Koopedi, for having stepped in the breach at a late stage, and for your assistance in representing the applicants, your assistance has been appreciated by the Committee.
TAPE ENDS
HEARING ADJOURNS