Human Rights Violation Hearings — King William's Town — 1997-05-12

CHAIRPERSON: Welcome Mr Redpas. You are representing Madoda Kula.

MR REDPAS: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Do you want to address us?

MR REDPAS: Mr Chairperson, yes.  On behalf of the implicated person, Madoda Kula, he has submitted a written statement, it is not in affidavit form, to the Commission and to the Committee and he has, in respect of an unrelated matter, made application for amnesty, a copy of which is attached to his written representation of his statement.  Mr Chairperson, you will note from the content of that statement it is a short one, Mr Kula, Mr Madoda Kula maintains that he was not present at the incident to which two witnesses immediately preceding us have testified.  Based on what I have heard and, presumably, what you yourself Mr Chairperson, members of the Committee have heard, there is no evidence to show that Madoda Kula was indeed a member of that group that attacked that house.  It was a tragic incident.  We also are not without emotion.  We sympathise with the members of the family.  However, we maintain our innocence in respect of that particular incident.  We also wish to point out that two other persons mentioned in the notification send to us, were, in fact, according to our knowledge, charged with that incident and subsequently acquitted.  It is not as has been testified to by the witnesses that the case was simply withdrawn.  Our knowledge is to the effect that they were acquitted after due process of law.  We wish to confirm ...

CHAIRPERSON: You are referring to Mr Magodola and Mr Mati? Here, alright, it says that ...

MR REDPAS: Welcome Makaloba

CHAIRPERSON: Makaloba, it is wrongly spelt.  You are saying that those two where charged and a trial held and they were acquitted.

MR REDPAS: That is the extent of our knowledge.  We cannot present that to the Committee as a fact.  That is just our knowledge and belief at this stage.  As I presume, the knowledge and belief of the family was that the case was simply withdrawn.  There is a substantial difference.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

MR REDPAS: We wish to confirm, however, this is on behalf of Madoda Kula, that he was questioned by the police in respect of the incident to which the witnesses have testified, but he was released and he was not charged for that incident which, in itself, I present to the Committee, corroborates their evidence that they were unable to identify the perpetrators as eye-witnesses.  Such information which came to hand later was hearsay, second or third-hand at best and it is upon that basis too that the submission is made on behalf of Madoda Kula that he cannot be implicated at this stage on evidence before the Committee in that incident.
 An additional aspect which we wish to highlight and to confirm, because it has been testified to by the two witnesses preceding us, is that Mr Madoda Kula was on the identity parade about which there has been evidence before this Committee and he was not identified.  At this stage that is all Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kula we will put you under oath and then just to have you confirm what your lawyer has just submitted to us.  Could you then ...

MADODA KULA: (Duly sworn in, states).

REV XUNDU: Mr Chairperson he has been sworn in.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you listen?  Do you understand English?

MADODA KULA: Yes

CHAIRPERSON: You heard Advocate Redpas take us through your statement and adding a few things to your written statement.  Do you confirm that, to your knowledge, all that has been said is the truth, just for us to have it on record that you have confirmed it?

MADODA KULA: Yes

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Are there any questions?  Ntsiki Sandi.

ADV SANDI: Thank you Mr Chairman.  I just want to start off by asking Mr Redpas, I see that there is a copy of an amnesty application here.  Do you want to refer to that, the amnesty application that was made by your client to the Amnesty Committee?  Do you want to refer to that or would you have a problem if we refer to the contents of the applicationer?

MR REDPAS: I have no problem with any reference being made to the contents of that.  That is after all Mr Madoda Kula's version of the events.  That incident ...

ADV SANDI: Is a separate incident.

MR REDPAS: ... is not the incident to which the two witnesses preceding us have testified.

ADV SANDI: When was that application for amnesty made?

MR REDPAS: Mr Chairperson, if I could just quickly take instruction on that.  Does the date not appear on the application itself, Mr Chairperson?

ADV SANDI: Is it the ninth May 1997?

MR REDPAS: It was signed on the ninth and submitted on the tenth.

ADV SANDI: The tenth, that was the last day for the submission of applications for amnesty.

MR REDPAS: I believe so, yes.

ADV SANDI: Now let us talk about the incident in regard to which your client had applied for amnesty.  When did this happen?

MR REDPAS: 22nd Of October 1992.

ADV SANDI: This is five years later.  The incident happened in 1992, as you have said, and the application is made and submitted on the tenth May 1997, the last day for the submission of applications for amnesty.  Am I correct?

MR REDPAS: In everything but one.  The incident happened seven days after the incident to which the witnesses before this court testified before this Commission.  The witnesses testified that the incident happened on the 15th of October 1992.  The incident in respect of which Madoda Kula has applied for amnesty happened on the 22nd which is seven days.  Otherwise everything that has been put to me is correct.

ADV SANDI: I have heard the contents of the application for amnesty and it seems to me that the matter in which he had applied for amnesty appears to be less serious than the one in which he is alleged to have been involved.

MR REDPAS: Correct.

ADV SANDI: In this particular amnesty application matter no people were killed, no human being died as the result of the action which he has confessed to have committed.

MR REDPAS: Correct.

ADV SANDI: Is it a coincidence that he should submit an application for amnesty in regard to a matter in which no people died?  Is it a coincident and not a matter where some people have died?

MR REDPAS: I am not certain what you mean to convey to me by suggesting is it not a coincidence.  The only reason for placing that before this Committee is to distinguish between the two incidents.  There was one incident to which Madoda Kula says, I did do it, but that is not the incident for which he has been requested to appear before this Committee and in respect of which the witnesses have testified.

ADV SANDI: The matter in which he has applied for amnesty is a matter or it is a crime that was committed in Alice?

MR REDPAS: Yes, Msobomvu, Msobomvu Location.

ADV SANDI: Is that the same place, is it the same locality where the incident that was referred to by the witness, by the two witnesses it took place?

MR REDPAS: Correct.  Seven days apart.

ADV SANDI: Can I ask your client some questions, sir?

MR REDPAS: Certainly.

ADV SANDI: Did Mr Galana speak with you?  Did he ask you about what Mr Xhanda had said?

MADODA KULA: No.

ADV SANDI: What did he ask you about?

MADODA KULA: He asked me about the Ngece incident.

ADV SANDI: Did he not say that there was a certain Mr Xhanda from King William's Town who was a member of the Ciskei?

CHAIRPERSON: Have access to the earphones.

ADV SANDI: Thank you Mr Chairman.  A Mr Galana who is investigating this case, did he speak to you?

MADODA KULA: Yes, he did.

ADV SANDI: What did he ask you?  What did he say to you?

MADODA KULA: He was asking me about the Ngece incident.

ADV SANDI: He did not ask you about what Mr Xhanda said?

MADODA KULA: No.

ADV SANDI: Did he ask you whether you knew Mr Xhanda?

MADODA KULA: Yes, he asked me.

ADV SANDI: Do you know Mr Xhanda?

MADODA KULA: Yes, I know him.

ADV SANDI: Where do you know him?