Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-09-16

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you, Mr Chairman.  Hence I've said in my beginning that it seems as if it's not doubt - at least in dispute that he was a member of PAC.  Now, Mr Chairman, without taking much of your time, I want to say to this court that in the absence of contrary evidence to what the applicant has put before this Committee, that he was a member of PAC and that because of the political conflict which was existing then between the PAC and the ANC in that area, he has to act in order to defend the members of the PAC and also their homes in order that everybody's in better - there's nobody harassing or intimidating any other person.  Everybody has got political space.  And in the absence, 	Mr Chairman, of any contrary evidence to that, I want to submit and request this Committee to take that the applicant has made full and proper disclosure as regard to his role in the killing of Mr Dludlu, who was the deceased in this case.  That he indeed was the person who shot the deceased, and that he shot him because of the political conflict, and because of the threats and also in actual fact what was happening that the homes of the members of the PAC were being burnt down and they were being chased away from the area and that on the day in question the deceased told him that the only organisation that is going to exist in this area is the ANC, and that he also has to leave Bethal and that he interpreted that he is going to continue with the killing of the members of the PAC and they are going to continue harassing them, and that he has to act in order to prevent recurrence of those incident.  And it was those circumstances that the deceased was shot by the applicant.  And that I humbly submit to this Committee to grant Mr Sibiya amnesty as he has applied for it.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mbandazayo, do you submit that we should find that the killing of the deceased happened a day after the applicant and Mandla and Sipho were searching for the people who identified as being responsible on the ANC side for the conflict?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you.  That's the position, Mr Chairman.  As he put it in the affidavit, that a day before he went on searching for these people, and that it happened thereafter, after they have failed to find them and he managed to get them during the day whilst he was on his own, and that it happened after they were searching for them, Mr Chairman.  I want it to be taken on ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: And what are your submissions on the criticism that was levelled at your client's testimony based on the content of the three application forms?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman, I must hasten to concede that I've been in many of these cases and from the start of this hearing, 1997, early 1997, you find that in most of the cases it's difficult for the applicants to admit that, "I'm not the person who filled the application form I signed, somebody was assisting me in doing this thing".  And most of the time, Mr Chairman, I would like the case I quoted in particular I have, which I referred to was, as I indicated, this was Mr Mandla, this one Eastern Cape Azapo guy, where WILSON J was said, after hearing the whole evidence, and he went through the application and he found that he does not meet the requirements of the Act, after we have almost completed everything.  And he looked at the application and he said, "No, this application is not supposed to be before the Committee".  And I asked him one question that, "Mr Chairman, taking into account your experience that even mine is not even a third of yours in terms of experience, you did not pick it up.  You have this application for more than a month".  He admitted that he had, but he did not pick it up that he does not fill.  How much more to the applicant who is not trained legally to fill these forms.  And most of the cases they don't understand what is actually wanted in the application forms, and you find that in those circumstances.  For instance, as Mr Lax put it in one of these, it seems as if it was a revenge killing, and it's clear what he has written there, as he put it, that it's what was said in court.
	In court it ended up being regarded as a revenge killing, and he puts it in the application form.  So, those are the problems, Mr Chairman, you find in these application forms, and you find that he had three application forms and it's almost most of the problems you find those things.  Because you submit application forms through the prisons and some receive letters that, "We acknowledge receipt of your application", and he does not receive it and he will think that, "Mine was not sent", and he do the other application, and in the meantime some come up with new facts and they recall what actually happened, and they get some advice and to how they applied and you find that it improves in some of them.  
	And most of the application, Mr Chairman, are - I want to submit that most of the applicants, some of those application have been rejected and some were helped because the dates were extended and we have them to fill.  And you find that there is no political motive.  Most of them were filled by prison warders in Afrikaans, and he does not understand Afrikaans, and when it's read there you find that there was no political motive, and when you go there and you find that there was a political motive in actual fact.  So, Mr Chairman, I want the Committee, when dealing with this, taking into account this application, the difficulties in filling this form in some of them in prison, it's not that easy because some of them don't understand the language in which they are put and what in actual fact is wanted in the application form, and that create difficulties.

CHAIRPERSON: Looking at those three application forms as a whole, what is your submission, does the effect of those three taken together, does it support the case that your client has presented in his testimony today or not?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman, I would submit that it support his case in some respects, in some of the instances where there are - in some instances there are, in as far as saying that, "What I did it for was to protect the organisation", though always it crops up the question of the family which, Mr Chairman, I want the Committee to understand in that context that, as he put it, that he regarded the attack in his family as a political incident which was not necessarily aimed at his family, but aimed at him.
	And it's in that context that he always put the family, that his family was attacked and he was next, and that he regard that the primal target was him, not the family.  And it's only on those instances where his family crop up, and that's why there's always the point of revenge always crop up, because he always mentioned the family.  And it's only the way it is put regarding the involvement of the family in the whole incident that I submit, Mr Chairman, creates some questions.  But, Mr Chairman, my submission is that it's only the way it is put, that makes it as if it was sort of a revenge.  But taken as a whole, Mr Chairman, I submit that it's in line, his application forms in line with his testimony today.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have any submission on the weight that we should attach, relative weight, to a situation where an application form which is completed without legal representation, legal assistance conflicts with testimony that he's presented subsequently, where a person is legally represented?  Do you have any submissions in regard to the relative weight that has to be attached by us to either the application form or the testimony under those circumstances?