Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1998-10-13

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairperson, Mr August is available, I do not intend calling him unless you wish to hear him.

CHAIRPERSON: No no we have no intention of calling him but I must offer you the opportunity to call him if you so wish.

UNKNOWN: I do not wish to call him.

UNKNOWN: As a victim, are you opposing the application and if so on what grounds?

UNKNOWN: The major ground is that the applicant for amnesty has not made full disclosure to the Committee of circumstances surrounding the attack upon Mr August and secondly even if it is accepted that there was this conflict between these two organisations in Fort Beaufort, they did not warrant the taking of such drastic measures as the applicant in this case did.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you intend to call any other witnesses?

UNKNOWN: No Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, to whatever extent you have an interest in the matter, that's it?  You don't intend calling any witnesses for that purpose?

UNKNOWN: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma, any witnesses that you intend calling.

MR MAPOMA: No Chairperson there's no further evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm going to adjourn for a short while then.
WITNESS EXCUSED
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mbandazayo, do you want to add anything for the purposes before we consider the issues?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm sorry I thought you were done.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairperson, I do understand.  Mr Chairperson I won't waste the time of this Honourable Committee, suffice to say that Mr Chairperson it's not in dispute that there was a political conflict in Fort Beaufort
between ANC and PAC.  I would use those major organisations Mr Chairperson knowing that they had structures which ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: By way of alliance or whatever, those were the key groupings.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Then I will use it in that context Mr Chairperson.  Mr Chairperson there's no dispute regarding that matter, as you would see in the bundle.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you agree that maybe even if it started as a student problem it developed into what we call basically a two party fight.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes Mr Chairperson, that's what I'm trying to get to, it started as a student thing but it ended up being handled at a higher level Chairperson. As you would recognise in the bundle that also United Nations, OAU went there because of the conflict which was there trying to resolve the matter at Fort Beaufort.  Then if that the Committee accepts it, now the  ...(indistinct) would be Mr Chairperson whether the applicant has made full disclosure with regard to this incident Mr Chairperson.
	Mr Chairperson the applicant has been convicted for this incident, for attempting to murder the victim Lucky August, there is no dispute about that but the question is whether the way he alleges that he did this is the way it happened.   Mr Chairperson, it is my submission that the applicant has nothing to lose, he is not going to be convicted again, there is no reason for him to mislead this Committee and tell him the other way around.  As such Mr Chairperson taking into account the circumstances at the time of the happening of this incident, that some other things happened not necessarily the way they happened but because of the passing of time some events, people tend not to narrate the events the way they happened as all of us know Mr Chairperson, I can't lecture to you about that.

CHAIRPERSON: I think it is clear by the interpretation of the Act given all the influences on memory, one cannot expect anybody to relate a blow for blow account but rather to narrate a substantial material account of what occurred, why and how, not whether, if for example someone was stabbed, not whether the knife was six inches long or ten inches long, that's irrelevant, but whether a knife was used is material.  Do you follow what I'm saying?

MR MBANDAZAYO: I do get your point Mr Chairperson.  I agree with you Mr Chairperson exactly, that's the point I was trying - you put it more, I can't put it more than you have put it.  What I'm getting at Mr Chairperson is that the medical evidence is there that an object was used, which of course the applicant is saying that he used a pick handle to assault the victim ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I think that's common cause.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairperson my contention is that I'm not here to come and dispute what the doctor is saying, that's the finding that's his specialisation with regard to that but Mr Chairperson what I would like to tell the Committee is that the evidence we have is that of the doctor and also what was said by the victim in court which of course Mr Chairperson it's not the intention of this Committee, it is not a court of law this one.  What I'm getting at is that taking into account, regard the circumstances of the matter, that also the applicant is here, he is saying: "I agree inasmuch in court I came up with an alibi that I was not there but I admit I am the person who caused the suffering on the victim."

UNKNOWN: In that connection you said he's got nothing to lose and I think it's correct, but Mr Biko has also been convicted but he was never sentenced because he disappeared and according to the evidence it was actually Mr Biko who used a sharp instrument and stabbed the victim.  The applicant here said no Mr Biko could never do so because he's a reborn person and he's a religious person and he's a ...(intervention)

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairperson without - I think there are two Bikos, the other one you are talking about is not the one who is religious that he was talking about, I'm not sure, Mr Chairman.

UNKNOWN: You see you've got no reason not to tell us the whole truth.  Couldn't it be that he's protecting Mr Biko because he had been convicted but never sentenced, he never served a sentence and if he would now say it's true that in fact Mr Biko used the sharp instrument then that may in the long run be to the detriment of Mr Biko?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairperson if I can answer this way.  The applicant has the liberty to say it was one of he people he mentioned that he was with who stabbed him but he did not do that and both of them died.  If he wanted to convince the Committee or to lie to the Committee and say look one of the applicants who happened to die did stab the victim, but he's not saying that.
	I don't think Mr Chairperson he's protecting Mr Biko.  Mr Chairperson just for the benefit of the Committee I happened to meet Mr Biko in Butterworth because I was trying to get to the whole truth of this matter and I was trying to - even before the dead line, I was trying to assist people to apply for amnesty and he's one of the people I approached to apply for amnesty.  Unfortunately Mr Chairperson he couldn't apply for amnesty.  What he told me was that he can't apply for amnesty because he does not want to lie because he would be lying to the Committee to say that he was there, yet he was not there, just because he wants to get off and that was there reason he explained to me he ran away because he cannot confess because he was never there.
	So I wouldn't know, I won't be able Mr Chairperson to throw some light, to say he's protecting him in that aspect.  Mr Biko had an opportunity -  I can even tell the Committee I happened to speak to him about this matter and he totally refused, that's what he told me, that you need to confess.  Now if I'm confessing I'm confessing to something which I did not do.

UNKNOWN: Well according to all the evidence, even according to today's evidence Mr Biko wouldn't have made a false confession if he confessed that he was there.