Amnesty Hearings — Welkom — 1998-11-18

UNKNOWN: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
	Mr Chairman, it has emerged in evidence that all four applicants knew about the suspension of the armed struggle and each and every one of them has conceded that they did not obey the suspension of the armed struggle, and they further conceded that they placed themselves beyond the policies of the ANC.  In that respect, Mr Chairman, I would submit that the applicants were carrying this shooting of the policemen for their own benefit and that was totally not related to the activities of the African National Congress.
	It is again, Mr Chairman, clear from the evidence of all applicants that only one and in particular, Mr Mofokeng, has mentioned the issue of two Self Defence Units, namely one which was known to the community and the other one which was not known to the community and was operating underground.
	I am of the respectful view in that regard, Mr Chairman, that applicants are not making, applicants have failed to disclose the background that led to this killing in that regard.  And further, Mr Chairman, Mr Mosia has said that he knew before the 5th of June 1993, that there was an armed robbery case pending against Mr Mohomane but then he went on like the others to deny that they carried the shooting of the policeman because of that pending case.  
	But then when one goes further to look at the evidence of in particular, Captain van Staden, who was called as a witness in the criminal matter and seeing that that evidence was uncontradicted, the only reasonable inference that can be drawn from that aspect, namely that Sergeant Makau was the investigating officer and coincidentally this unit these applicants only targeted Sergeant Makau as a policeman and also in the process of targeting Sergeant Makau, Sergeant Mosebi was killed also. 
	It is my respectful submission that the coincidence in that respect, Mr Chairman, can only lead to one inference, namely that Mr Mohomane solicited the other applicants in furtherance of his objective which was completely not related to the political activity in terms of the Act.
	It is my further submission, Mr Chairman, that because, the fact that the applicants tend to rely on their commander, Mr Mohomane, and deny having knowledge of any other person in the higher hierarchy of the so-called SDUs, can only lead to one inference that they were not acting in terms of the mandate of any SDUs of the ANC, if ever there was any such structures operating in terms of the policies of the ANC.
	It is my respectful submission, Mr Chairman, that all applicants have failed to disclose that they were politically motivated and they are therefore not entitled to the benefit granted in terms of this Act, namely that their amnesty must be refused.  That is all, thanks, Mr Chairman.

MR SIBANYONI: Mr Sesele, have you familiarised yourself with the document which was part of the submissions of the ANC, the document entitled: "For the Sake of our Lives", where it was among others said that the SDUs were supposed to be established and thereafter they should be owned by communities.  In other words, not necessarily as structures of the ANC, only the ANC provided MK cadres to train those members of the SDUs.  In other words my point is, are you saying the SDUs were supposed to be carrying out operations on behalf of the ANC strictly or they could have also taken or made their own initiative within the various communities where they found themselves?
	And the second one is concerning the killing of Makau.  Is your argument to say that Mohomane benefitted by the killing of Makau who was an investigating officer in that robbery case?  Was the killing of Makau equal to the killing of a witness, which will have the effect of destroying evidence?  That's the two issues I want you to address us on please.

MR SESELE: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
	I have personally not had a look in the document mentioned by Mr Sibanyoni, from the ANC regarding these SDUs, but having said that I would say that in the light of the evidence that there was one commander, Mofokeng who was a trained member of MK and who recruited Mr Mohomane and to who Mr Mohomane had to report, it would seem that the SDUs in this context, if ever they were creations of the African National Congress there had to be some measure of control.  There had to be some measure of reporting back to the higher authorities if ever the situation is as is stated by the applicants.
	Coming to the second point, the killing of Sergeant Makau, it is my submission that that act cannot be equated to the killing of a witness, in that even if Mr Makau as an investigating officer had been killed, the docket would probably be handed to the next available police officer to carry on with the investigation.
	Having said that I would submit that probably because of the understanding of Mr Mohomane and the other applicants, they might have laboured under the impression that if the investigating officer was killed then that would be the end of the case against Mr Mohomane.  Thank you, Mr Chairman, that is all.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Sesele.  Mr Mapoma, do you have any submissions to make?

MR MAPOMA: Thank you, Chairperson, I have no submissions.
NO SUBMISSIONS BY MR MAPOMA

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mhlaba, do you have any reply?

MR MHLABA: No, thanks, I've got none.
NO REPLY BY MR MHLABA

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, that brings this hearing to a conclusion.  We will have to deliberate and a decision will be reserved and handed down in the near future, in written form.
	I'd just like to thank you, Mr Mhlaba, you've been with us since the beginning of the week and you have helped us greatly.  Mr Sesele as well, thank you very much for your assistance in this particular hearing and also Mr Mapoma for your assistance.
	Mr Mapoma, that's the roll for today.  The next hearing you informed us yesterday could not be brought forward until today because of the availability or unavailability of legal representatives.  So it now correct that we adjourn until tomorrow morning for the next hearing?

MR MAPOMA: Yes, Chairperson, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Until what time should we adjourn?  Sorry, are the legal representatives coming through from elsewhere or are they local, do you know?

MR MAPOMA: Yes, Chairperson, they are coming from Pretoria but I will see to it that I convey the message to them that we start at half past nine tomorrow.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think the earlier the better.
	Thank you, that then brings this hearing to a conclusion, and as I said the decision will be reserved and handed down in the near future.  We have no other matters for today but we will be proceeding with other matters tomorrow.  We are accordingly adjourning until half past nine tomorrow morning at this same venue, thank you very much.
HEARING ADJOURNS