Amnesty Hearings — Ermelo — 1998-07-30

CHAIRPERSON: The factual issue, the present situation is that you must argue and we'll listen to your argument or read your argument and make a decision.  One must always bear in mind that one of the crucial aspects in determining whether amnesty must be granted or not is the position of the applicant himself.  The evidence of witnesses are not really taken into consideration to make those crucial decisions.  The best witnesses can do is to fortify versions maybe but to really clarify the issues that's the applicant's job, after all he makes the application and I would like that your argument will have to carry a lot of weight then, quite honestly.

MR PATEL: My problem is this, I haven't consulted with this particular person, I'm not exactly sure what he's going to say but I do understand that he's Mr Israel Sugar Shlongwane, that he was the commander at the time of the attack.  My problem is that I don't know whether the Committee will look at his evidence to any extent when he gives evidence at a further hearing in so far as it - which I understand is going to take place in September of this year.  If that is the case and I don't have to take it any further because I can then argue that once you look at his evidence.  If that is not the case then I want to reserve my right.  I will speak to him during one of the intervals and then maybe at a later stage ask the Committee if I can call him.  He is present at this hearing.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kemp do you intend calling any witnesses?

MR KEMP: Mr Chairman we have about fourteen witnesses.
No Mr Chairman ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: One of those questions are the trivial pursuit you were playing just now?

MR KEMP: No Mr Chairman, I couldn't resist it, I apologise.  No we do not intend to call any witnesses.

CHAIRPERSON: I take it in the spirit.  It's about time we get a little lightheartedness.

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, I indicated that I wish to bring an application to get back to Mr Andries Gomedi.  At that stage I had no instruction from Mr Msibi and I believe it's just a few statements I'm going to make.  Mr Msibi is going to be called up as a witness otherwise I'm just going to put Mr Msibi's version if you would grant me the opportunity.

CHAIRPERSON: Is he going to say what happened there.  Is he going to be a victim?

UNKNOWN: Mr Msibi?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

UNKNOWN: Yes.  He was shot at.

CHAIRPERSON: Madame you know how these things work and I'm going to grant you the opportunity to call him.  I do not look forward to a whole string of people cross-questioning him.

UNKNOWN: You would understand I have an instruction to have him testify.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand that.  If you could lead him in the normal procedure just to air his feelings.  I know why he wants to testify and it's his right to do so.

UNKNOWN: I will do so.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo do you have any witnesses?

MR PRINSLOO: None Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you got less than six left Mr Hattingh?

MR HATTINGH: About six Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: One of whom want to come testify on the merits isn't it?  A lady who was shot at near a shop.

MR HATTINGH: That was the incident where Chris Ngwenya got killed together with his wife.

CHAIRPERSON: She going to come say how people ran and that type of thing?

MR HATTINGH: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: In her case too I would appreciate if you lead her in a way that doesn't invite a whole string of questions.  She's after all a victim and she wants to come tell her story and that's basically what the Act is designed for to allow her to say what she needs to say.
	I assume the other five are in a similar position - they just want to come say how they struggled and suffered as a result of what happened to their loved ones or themselves?

MR HATTINGH: Yes.  Mr Chairman ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: It ought not to take too long.

MR HATTINGH: No, I do not foresee that we're going to take too long but on the incident of Obed Nhlabathi there will also be witnesses pertaining to the incident itself but that is well I don't think is going to take much time.

CHAIRPERSON: Well Mr Hattingh is it been disputed that when he died only the two applicants were present when they were shot?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, I in fact have a problem that I since got hold of witness statements to the effect that there were in fact more people present.  I at this stage do not intend calling on those witnesses but I think what I should do is and perhaps I could get some direction from the Committee to make available whatever statements I since gathered from Police dockets.

CHAIRPERSON: As opposed to leading that evidence?

MR HATTINGH: Yes, just to make it available.

CHAIRPERSON: For what it's worth.

MR HATTINGH: For what it's worth as long as the Committee has ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: I think that's better.  Okay.
	Mr Mapoma you haven't got any witnesses or do you?

MR MAPOMA: No sir, no witnesses.

MR BLACK: Mr Chairman may I indicate that I have been approached by Mr Nkosi who was one of the victims.  He would like to testify, it relates to Mr Khaba's application.  He's asked me whether he could have an opportunity.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Black do you really think you could appear for him?

MR BLACK: I don't intend to appear for him, he's approached me - I will tell ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: You should refer him to the evidence leader.

MR BLACK: That's what I intend doing, thanks.

CHAIRPERSON: I want to point out to everybody concerned that this is not the time to score political points and I'm not addressing the representatives, so those who are entitled to come testify want to hear how you feel about the situation.  We don't intend to listen to evidence regarding political stances.  We'll adjourn now for tea and reconvene in fifteen minutes time.
HEARING ADJOURNS

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] must come tell us why they feel they are victims.  Usually that takes a very, very short while because really it is easy to establish whether someone is a victim or not.  Victims include people who were either injured themselves or the nearest relative of those who died.  I want to point out also that where a person has died, not both his mother and father are referred to the Reparations Committee but only one of them.  That's just by way of an example.  The opportunity to testify now is only for such people and the Act is designed for that purpose only and not to accommodate or facilitate political speeches.  I want to warn that I will stop any political speeches and put the witness who may want to do that back onto the track of the Act.  In fact I am duty bound to do that because the Act says so and who is going to come and give evidence - or the decision as to who is going to give evidence are the domain of the representatives.  There is no point in two people coming to give evidence on the same incident and I hope I've made myself clear.  This hearing is not a political gain.   Mrs van der Walt you can call your witness.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, before Mrs van der Walt calls her witness Bengi Mlangeni, the brother of victim Mlangeni, he says that he opposes the amnesty of Gushu.  Msibi who was also involved in this case will be called as a witness by my colleague and that evidence or testimony will be about that case or incident.  In other words it would not be necessary for me to call Mlangeni as a witness but he sees himself as a victim because he was family of his brother who was killed.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, I appreciate what you just said and I would definitely note it.  We will also take it into consideration.

UNKNOWN: Can we then at this stage call Mr Gomedi again in order to ask him a few questions?  Mr Andries Gomedi.

CHAIRPERSON: Ma'am the alternative was to submit this in the statements.  Just remind me please I did not think about it very well.  Why did you want to call Mr Gomedi back again?