Amnesty Hearings — Thohoyandou — 1999-11-16

CHAIRPERSON: I accept the political realities of the time.  As I understand your submission that these two particular applicants had no understanding of the apartheid effects on this country and in so saying you say that it should be refused?  From that submission flows the questions, if that be the case and they didn't link it to apartheid, which means South Africa, and they directed it at the government illegitimate as it may be, of Venda, how competent are we to deal with the application or is the application a good application?  I raised the question because of your submission, I don't necessarily agree with the submission but if you are correct, we find your submissions correct, then of course the question I posed to you then follows?

MS PATEL: Perhaps I should re-explain the basis of my submission, Honourable Chairperson, from my submission I am trying to say and I don't think I have stated it clearly enough, what I'm trying to say is that the applicants have raised their political motivation to the extent that they are dissatisfied with the particular administration.  Now that administration in my understanding or in the lack of their understanding could hold true today so that extent it's not related to apartheid and to the past, that argument that they have raised in terms of their objections to the administration can be raised at any place, at any time.

ADV DE JAGER: That government was opposed to re-incorporation into the R.S.A. and wouldn't that link that government in the R.S.A. and to the conflicts of the past?

MS PATEL: Certainly they stated at some stage that the government was opposed to re-incorporation but they didn't explain or they didn't go further and state that that was the reason for their conduct that at the end of the day that is what they really sought, that they sought re-incorporation.  Their problem that they sought to solve was the manner in which the Venda government officials were managing Venda itself and not a question of whether re-incorporation was going to improve that situation or not and that is the link, that is how they chose to draw the link between the officials and the witches, it never went further than the witches, the officials and the apartheid regime or the question of re-incorporation?

CHAIRPERSON: But what is being posed to you is that your submission is that their political motives never extended to apartheid because they didn't understand it, they didn't know how to link what they were doing to actual apartheid and I think you forget the following, that they say that they wanted incorporation into South Africa, not under apartheid, rather a new government but the apartheid structures were being propped up and this I say on interpretation of their evidence.  They didn't actually say it in so many words, propped up by the lackeys of the National government in the Venda government who maintained their power with the assistance of witches and therefore they targeted witches.  What do you say about that?

MS PATEL: With respect, Honourable Chairperson, I'm not sure from what evidence we are able to draw the inference that they drew that link between the apartheid government using the Venda government officials to then control and that is my difficulty with their testimony.

ADV DE JAGER: Could I perhaps pose this to you?  Section 22(a) summarised would read as follows
"A supporter of a publicly known political organisation or liberation movement in support of such movement bona fide in furtherance of a political struggle waged by such movement against the State or any form of State or another publicly known organisation."
Wouldn't this be against a form of State if they'd directed it against the government of Venda and wouldn't that then be part of the conflicts of the past in terms of the definition?

CHAIRPERSON: It has to be, Ms Patel?

MS PATEL: Yes I have to concede, yes.  Then I have to concede.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

MS PATEL: No thank you, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ndou, we don't need to hear you unless you want to specifically address us on something special?

MR NDOU: I would just be ...(indistinct), I won't take the matter further.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  We will reserve this judgement and we will adjourn for lunch till 2 o'clock.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Ms Patel, which one are we doing now?

MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson, the next matter on the roll is according to your list number 2, it involves the applicants Nimoloyde and Molovetsi and the victims Masithi, Netshivhumbe, Mafulani, Ralulimi and Nemandandila.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ndou, you represent the applicants?

MR NDOU: ...(inaudible)

CHAIRPERSON: That Mrs Masithi in this matter, is that perhaps the same Mrs Masithi in the previous matter?

MR NDOU: No, in fact in the previous matter it was a different person altogether.

CHAIRPERSON: Who have we now here in front of us?

MR NDOU: In fact all in all there are two applicants but the first applicant, Mamelodi, although he has been made aware of these proceedings has decided not to come because he has already been released from prison.

CHAIRPERSON: You're withdrawing that matter?

MR NDOU: As far as they are concerned because they've made him aware and if he's not turning up we'll have to withdraw the application.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you any specific instructions?

MR NDOU: I don't have specific instructions from him himself.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel have we got proof that the notices were properly served?

MS PATEL: Honourable Chairperson, we had an arrangement with Mr Laruli who is in fact the co-ordinator and we agreed with him that the notices would be given to him and that they would then be properly served.

CHAIRPERSON: Now what is the position with Mr Nemoloydi?

MS PATEL: It's the first that I hear that there's a problem with him.  Mr Laruli also instructed Mr Ndou from what I understand to appear for all the applicants in this matter.

CHAIRPERSON: How soon can we find out about whether this notice has been properly served?

MS PATEL: I can make a phone call now.

CHAIRPERSON: I think we'd better adjourn then to find out what's happened.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Ms Patel?

MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson, I've made the enquiries, unfortunately it appears that this applicant has been released from prison, his whereabouts according to Mr Laruli are unknown to him.  He unfortunately failed to inform us that that applicant had been released.  We are accordingly not in a position to serve the notice on him.  I would accordingly in the circumstances request that we postpone this matter in order to give us an opportunity to at least try to get hold of him.

CHAIRPERSON: Any comments?

MR NDOU: Nothing thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: What is the position of this applicant, is he in custody?

MR NDOU: This one is in custody.

CHAIRPERSON: Were they sentenced together?

MR NDOU: Yes they were.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you any idea why the one is out and not this one?

MR NDOU: Well the other one, depending on what he was convicted of, he was sentenced I think to ten years and because of parole he was released this year.

CHAIRPERSON: Is he on parole?

MR NDOU: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Well that's going to be a help, if he's on parole then Correctional Services ought to be helpful.  Mr van Rensburg, have you got an interest in this matter?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes indeed I do have.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you got any comments to make about the postponement?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No I have no comments I can't object to that.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for your approach.  Then this matter is postponed sine die.  Mr Ndou, will you explain to your client it's upsetting and it's inconvenient as it may be to him there's really not much we could do in the circumstances.  We'll try to speed it up, I can't make any promises.  Thank you.