Amnesty Hearings — Boksburg — 1999-02-25

CHAIRPERSON: Yes but sometimes the lack of education does not in any way affect the lack of intelligence.  A person might be uneducated by highly intelligent.  I think there's many many people who are uneducated that are more intelligent than any of us in this room here, they just haven't been given the opportunity.  But I take your point.  We understand that they're uneducated in the sense that they might not be able to read or write, they're not literate, but it doesn't affect their intelligence at all, they might be highly intelligent.

MR DRAHT: That's correct Chairperson indeed.  Statements were not completed by the applicants themselves, but by their legal representative.  Statements were also not always read back carefully.  The writer of the statements couldn't speak Zulu and the words used is almost the same in each statement.  It's clear that the statements were taken in haste and that there was no due consideration to the persons, by the persons taking the statements, to the specific wording used.  These persons can hardly write their own names, and it's my submission that it would be extremely unfair to judge the acceptability of their application on the basis of the specific use of words being used or not used.

CHAIRPERSON: What about the?  I hear what you say on that point, and also, they did describe to us the circumstances  in which the statements were taken.  They were taken more than one at a time, in the prison, there was a bit of a rush going on, etc.  But what about the omission of certain facts that one would think should not have been omitted.  Like I had a firearm.  Not only did I have a firearm I shot it.  Not only did I shoot with my firearm, I pointed it at the opposing side and shot at them.  None of that comes in.  Why would that sort of thing be left out by accident?  I mean even if you were in a hurry and writing, it would be quite an important feature of the narration, unless, particularly to get amnesty with regard to making a full disclosure.  Unless the view of the person giving the version is that, I'll play my role down as little as, as much as possible.  I don't want to stick my neck out and admit in public that I shot, at that stage.  Then you change your mind later when it gets closer to the day and they have further consultations, etc.

MR LAX: Especially where they've been, some of them, directly implicated in shooting.

CHAIRPERSON: It was only Mr Sithole who admitted on the application forms that he actually shot.  The others didn't even make reference to having a firearm.

MR DRAHT: Sorry Mr Chairperson.  The feeling I get is when the statements were completed by the legal representative, it was only completed to submit the statement to the Amnesty Commission, and I don't think it's that the applicants would have left so much detail out.  I think that the legal representative taking those statements didn't enquire as to the full detail, and there wasn't any evidence led to that, but that is my submission and the feeling that I've got from going through the statements.  There's a lot of other detail also omitted.  The statements weren't, in fact, written in much detail.

MR LAX: That's precisely the point though.  The point is, the evidence of some of them was that it was explained to them they had to tell the truth.  It was explained to them that this was their opportunity to apply for amnesty.  There was even a senior IFP person there in the form of Msizi.  And yet there is such a clear reticence to say anything about the facts of, around the matters which they were convicted for.  It seems almost like they're just deliberately avoiding saying anything about it.

MR DRAHT: Chairperson I can also maybe mention that it seems as if the legal representatives came upon them, it wasn't that they wanted, they had this knowledge of applying for amnesty and filling in in detail, the legal representatives, it seems as if they went to them and they were only asked to fill in forms.  I don't think that at that stage they fully understood that they must, in detail, tell the whole truth in the statements.  And maybe they did tell the truth but it wasn't written properly in the statements.

MR LAX: You know we can speculate here until the cows come home.  What we have is their evidence on this point, and the fact that the probabilities of that create a problem.  Why would lawyers not tell their clients their rights?

MR DRAHT: Chairperson I don't say lawyers will not tell clients their rights.

MR LAX: Or the requirements of the Act.  Here they are, coming to fill out application forms for amnesty, with their clients.  Doesn't it strike you as odd that a lawyer wouldn't tell his client what the purpose of this thing is, and what's required in terms of the Act?  You know if they were unassisted by lawyers, as many, many other were, and as in fact they probably were in relation to their first application forms which for some reason have gone astray, one would understand that.  But these were people who were assisted by lawyers and political party representative.  If you see my point.

CHAIRPERSON: And then Sithole, for instance, gives quite a full version, although the first one he changed, but he gave a full story about taking his gun and trying to get down to the river and coming back and having to shoot, etc. etc.  Same lawyer is involved.

MR DRAHT: Chairperson I don't think that the lawyers didn't explain to them.  Maybe they just, well, didn't, as you say we can speculate on that.  But none of them, in full detail, completed it, and maybe that can also be an indication that, it isn't that they didn't tell the truth, it's just that they didn't tell it in detail.

CHAIRPERSON: It's quite common that we get, what we hear, in this sort of situation is, oh well, I left it to do later because I knew I was going to come and give evidence and that is when I would tell my full story.

MR DRAHT: Thank you, Chairperson.
	It's my submission that the applicants who are serving quite a long period in gaol would not lie just for the cause of it.  It became clear throughout their evidence that there is no names or acts that they could have hidden, or that there was any reason for them to hide any instructions given to them from any higher political figure.  They would have gained nothing in telling lies to this Committee.  
	One must bear in mind that the incident took place more than five years ago, and people's perceptions of a traumatic incident that happened to them are not the same.  It's therefore obvious that discrepancies in the way of experience in the incidents relating to this day may differ from one another.  Even the statements, this is during the evidence in trial, differed from each other, even 'though the Court case took place barely two years after the incident.  The applicants' knowledge that they have lied here in the trial, the applicants acknowledge that they have lied during their trial, and that at this hearing they gave explicit evidence of their acts in this regard.
	It's also clear from Mr Dastile's evidence that the ANC group has been armed, and that they were a much bigger group than the IFP supporters.  I submit that there would be no reason for the Committee not to find that the applicants didn't or did disclose the full facts. 
	I hereby request the Amnesty Committee to grant the applicants amnesty in the light that they meet all the requirements of the Act.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Draht.  Is that it, you're finished?

MR DRAHT: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cachalia?

AZHAR CACHALIA: Chairperson I thought Ms Lockhat wanted to address you firstly.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright, Ms Lockhat, do you have any submissions.

MS LOCKHAT: Just give me one second Chair.