Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-09-16

UNKNOWN: I'll try my best, Mr Chairman.  Mr Chairman, the applicant is Sonnyboy Johannes Sibiya.  He is applying for amnesty in respect of the death of Mr Dludlu.  In terms of the Act, is it required he must belong to a recognised political organisation and what he did must be associated with political objectives, and that he must have been acting within the course and scope of his mandate of that particular organisation, and that he must have made proper and full disclosure before this Committee.
	Mr Chairman, I would say that for purposes of this case, that it's not in dispute that he was a member of the PAC, which is a recognised political organisation.  And the second leg will be whether what he did on the day in question was associated with political objective or within the course and scope of his mandate as a member of that particular organisation, that is the PAC.  That's the point this Committee has to decide.  That's the first point.
	Mr Chairman, the evidence, it's not in dispute that the applicant killed the deceased, and the question is the circumstances under which he was killed.  It is not in dispute, Mr Chairman, that the family of the - that the deceased was once charged for the killing of the family of the applicant and this incident happened on the 25th of February 1990, and the incident of killing of the deceased happened in October 1992, which is, Mr Chairman, a period of more than two and a half years after that incident.  Now, the question is whether would that fall within a revenge, that he has to wait for almost two and a half years before he pays revenge for what happened to his family.
	Mr Chairman, I submit that though that is slightly, but taking in the circumstances under which this matter happened, one would ask himself why he did not for all these months and years seeing this person coming here at Bethal, not go and do as he did on the day in question, and approach this guy and go to him and just shoot him or do whatever he wanted to do for him for almost two and a half years.  Then definitely ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Well, there doesn't seem to have been sufficient evidence that linked the deceased to that particular incident.  It appears as if nothing came of the charges.  So, you know, the indications before us linking the deceased to the attack on the home of the applicant's aunt is very, very tenuous in fact.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you, Mr Chairman.  I was going to just come to that point, Mr Chairman.  That the deceased was charged and I assume that the charges were withdrawn, and the applicant, taking what the applicant has said to this court, though he was not clear, coming up clear on whether he knew when he was asked by Advocate Sigodi, member of the Committee, as to, "Why did you not have shown any interest in somebody being charged for the killing of your family", and he said that he only believed that it was not intended for them, it was intended for him, and also put it that sometimes the police arrest people because they are suspects, not necessary that they have evidence, which also was the case in this matter.
	It's clear that had he acted because this person has been charged and saying it was a revenge, he wanted to revenge his family, definitely it's clear that he would have in all likelihood that he was attacking an innocent person if it was going to be a revenge, because definitely even the court of law did not come up with any conclusive evidence against that particular deceased.
	Now, what I'm driving at, Mr Chairman, is that as you correctly put it, that there is a slim linkage that what was done by the applicant on the deceased on October 1992 was as a result of the incident of the killing of his family.  The applicant puts it to the Committee that what led him to that was a conflict between ANC and PAC.  Mr Chairman, I want to put it clear to this Committee, also to ourselves accept from the mouth of the applicant, we don't have any evidence to support that there was a conflict.  But, Mr Chairman, I want the Committee to take into account that after the unbanning of the organisation when they came inside in the country, there was a conflict between the organisations for a political space.  That happened.  That did happen, and members of both organisations were killed, not necessarily ... (indistinct), that did happen.  Especially in 1990 and 1991.  And even, Mr Chairman, at schools, some school kids they were chased away from schools because they happened to belong to a particular organisation.  So, there was a political conflict at this time, but as I indicated, I'm hastening to say that we did not accept from the mouth of the applicant, not any more evidence to put it that in actual fact this was the case from the time.  And also unfortunately maybe the victims would have thrown some light on this aspect as to what was actually taking place at the time, with the exception that from what I read from the court record, that the police were saying that there was no political conflict at the time.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know what sort of weight one attaches to that kind of information, and what weight one attaches to what transpired in these trials.  In any event, what is the onus on your client on the balance of probabilities to satisfy us that the incident indeed happened as he has testified, not so?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes, Mr Chairman, that's the point, Mr Chairman, I'm trying to drive at.  That I was going to say that the police inasmuch as they gave that evidence, also the applicant in the case denied, came up with a defence of alibi.  So, there was no way that this could have come up as a defence because he was disassociating himself even being present at the scene where the deceased was killed.  So, in that circumstances it was going to be difficult to come up with a political motive at the trial, because he wanted to get away that, "I was never there".

CHAIRPERSON: He did say, according to the judgment, that he was a member of PAC, that he was normally an active member of the PAC, but that in the area of Bethal it was more of an ANC stronghold and that he was there maintaining a relatively lower profile.  So, it appears at least from the trial there, that he has given an alibi, as often happened in these cases, and at least he seemed to have owned up to his political affiliations at the very least, even at that stage.