Amnesty Hearings

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: The next matter on the roll is that of Mhlangeni James Ntuli, reference number AM 1563/96. The Panel is constituted as has been indicated on the record. Mr Daniels, do you want to put yourself on record for the applicant?

MR DANIELS: Thank you, Mr Chairman and Members. I appear on behalf of the applicant in this application, M J Ntuli. This is an application for amnesty. The application was lodged by the applicant on the 20th of June 1996, that's contained in pages 1 to 3 of the bundle. The application is amplified by a request for further particulars on behalf of the Committee and the answer thereto contained in pages 4 to 6, I beg your pardon, pages 4 to 8 of the bundle.

At the outset might I just point out that Mr Ntuli was convicted of murder, also illegal possession of a firearm, the application for amnesty is only in respect of the conviction for murder.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

ADV DE JAGER: If I may inquire, why was the conviction for illegal possession of the firearm included?

MR DANIELS: Mr Chairman, the illegal possession of a firearm, I have not been able to take any instruction in that regard from my client. As far as I understand it and as far as I could glean from the record of the proceedings in the WLD in 1996, resulting in the conviction of Mr Ntuli's concern, the - if amnesty is granted in respect of the murder, Mr Ntuli's sentence in respect of the illegal possession of the firearm would in any event fall away. The sentences are being served concurrently in any event. He was sentenced to a lesser amount of, or a lesser period of time in respect of the illegal possession of the firearm and I don't think the facts would support an application for amnesty in respect of the illegal possession of the firearm.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DANIELS: I don't know whether we're at cross purposes.

ADV DE JAGER: I think it was, the firearm was used in fact in this so it formed part of the whole episode and even if the sentence has been served, it would be a previous conviction. I don't know whether he was advised about it. I see he's in prison, now I don't know whether he personally sort of applied and whether he was advised about the, and I thought I would only draw your attention to it.

MR DANIELS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Daniels, I don't want to sort of come in now unnecessarily, but you are aware of the fact that amnesty has the effect of expunging a record, in other ...(intervention)

MR DANIELS: I am aware of that.

ADV BOSMAN: You have considered that?

MR DANIELS: I have considered it, Mr Chairman. I have not prepared a written application over and above the initial application submitted by the applicant. My instructions are to lead the applicant in testifying in support of his application and I will then ask for my client to be sworn in, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Daniels. Just for the record, Ms Lockhat appears as the Leader of Evidence.

JAMES MHLANGENI NTULI: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Daniels.

MS LOCKHAT: Chairperson, if I can just come in here.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS LOCKHAT: I just want to just place on record that we have not managed to trace any of the victims in this matter and I just want to hand up a notice that we've placed in the Sowetan advertising for family members of the deceased to come forward, Chairperson, so if you like, I just want to hand this up. It's not included in the bundle, we just received it late today, so if you could call that Exhibit C.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Exhibit C you say?

MS LOCKHAT: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Have we already got two other exhibits?

MS LOCKHAT: We've got A and B, in our first matter, the killing of, the Makhanye matters, we have A and B, do you want me just to give it A.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no we'll mark the Exhibits for each one of these individually for each matter, so this one will be Exhibit A for this matter.

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright, that's the advertisement in the Sowetan and in the circumstances you are satisfied that we proceed to hear the application?

MS LOCKHAT: Yes, indeed Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we accept, then we will then proceed to hear the application. Mr Daniels.

MR DANIELS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Might I just enquire, if I understand it correctly, this advertisement is then Exhibit A?

CHAIRPERSON: That's right.

EXAMINATION BY MR DANIELS: Thank you. Mr Ntuli, in 1993 you were convicted of the murder of one Mr Mojaji Pakati and on 20 September 1993 you were sentenced to a term of 15 years in prison for this murder, is that correct?

MR NTULI: That is correct.

MR DANIELS: Mr Chairman, my client, just for sake of convenience refer to pages 13 to 22 being the Judgment by Judge Goldblatt in respect of the conviction and pages 23 to 26 in respect of the sentence passed in the WLD. You are still in prison Mr Ntuli and you're still serving this sentence, is that correct?

MR NTULI: Yes, I'm still serving the sentence.

MR DANIELS: Mr Ntuli, you do not dispute that you committed this murder and that you were convicted for this murder?

MR NTULI: No, I do not dispute it. Yes, I did kill him.

MR DANIELS: Thank you, Mr Ntuli. During the trial in 1993 in the Jo'burg High Court, you did not testify in your own defence, is that correct?

MR NTULI: That is correct, I did not testify, I denied any knowledge of the crime, in fact.

MR DANIELS: Can you tell this Commission, this Committee, I beg your pardon, can you tell this Committee why you did not testify?

MR NTULI: I did not testify because I thought that maybe I would be fortunate and not be convicted and therefore I asked my legal representative to speak on my behalf.

MR DANIELS: Mr Ntuli, can you tell the Chairman here why you shot Mr Pakati?

MR NTULI: I shot Mr Pakati because of his action that he had killed my brother for the reason that my brother was an IFP member and he was an ANC member and that is what prompted me to go out and kill him.

MR DANIELS: Can I just clarify this? When you say he was an ANC member, are you referring to Mr Pakati?

MR NTULI: That is correct.

MR DANIELS: Whilst your brother ...(intervention)

MR NTULI: He used to reside in the hostel, but because - but when the violence erupted and because the hostel was mainly IFP dominated, he left that hostel.

MR DANIELS: And you say that he killed your brother and your brother, you say, was a member of the IFP, the Inkatha Freedom Party?

MR NTULI: That is correct.

MR DANIELS: Now, I will return to the actual shooting in a moment or two Mr Ntuli, I just need to clarify one or two other aspects. At the time that you committed this murder, where did you stay? Where did you reside?

MR NTULI: At Chief, at Judge Goch hostel.

MR DANIELS: Was that in Jo'burg?

MR NTULI: That is correct.

MR DANIELS: And you are originally from Natal, is that correct?

MR NTULI: That is correct.

ADV BOSMAN: ...(indistinct - mike not on)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

ADV BOSMAN: Was this Goch hostel the one where your brother also resided prior to his death?

MR NTULI: No, he was at home.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

MR DANIELS: And at the time when this occurred, Mr Ntuli, in 1993, how long had you been staying in Johannesburg for?

MR NTULI: It had been a long time.

MR DANIELS: I will return to that in a second Mr Ntuli. At the time when you committed this murder, Mr Ntuli, what political party did you belong to?

MR NTULI: I am an IFP member.

MR DANIELS: And were you an IFP member from before the time when you committed this murder?

MR NTULI: That is correct. I had joined the IFP long ago, before 1991.

MR DANIELS: Did you hold any specific rank in the IFP Mr Ntuli, or were you simply a member?

MR NTULI: I was an ordinary member.

MR DANIELS: And your brother?

MR NTULI: My brother did have a position. He was involved in organising a number of things. He held a high position.

MR DANIELS: Is it accurate to say that your brother was a ranking official in the IFP?

MR NTULI: That is correct.

MR DANIELS: You testified a little bit earlier that Mr Pataki actually shot your brother, killed your brother, is that correct?

MR NTULI: That is correct. We did witness him doing this but there was nothing that we could do because he was armed.

MR DANIELS: Can you tell the Chairman when this happened and when I say this, I'm referring to the murder of your brother or the shooting of your brother.

MR NTULI: It was around 4 p.m. I think I made a mistake, it was 9 in the evening.

MR DANIELS: That's fine, Mr Ntuli. Can you give an indication in relation to the time when you shot Mr Pakati, how long before the time did he shoot your brother? Was it the same day or the same week, or a month before? Just a somewhat more accurate indication, not necessarily the time of day? A month perhaps and a year?

MR NTULI: My brother was killed in December and I shot Mr Pakati in January on the 24th.

MR DANIELS: So December 1992, is that correct?

MR NTULI: That is correct.

MR DANIELS: You say you witnessed this?

MR NTULI: That is correct.

MR DANIELS: Where did this happen?

MR NTULI: It was at home.

MR DANIELS: Where is that?

MR NTULI: It was in Natal.

MR DANIELS: And how did it come that you actually witnessed this happening?

MR NTULI: I did see it when he shot him, because he was close to me but I could not approach and assist because he was armed with a firearm.

ADV DE JAGER: Were you at home for holiday at that stage?

MR NTULI: I had gone home for a few days, in fact I was on a four days leave.

MR DANIELS: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Ntuli, can you tell the Honourable Chairman what the relationship between the Inkatha Freedom Party and the ANC was at the time when you shot Mr Pakati and at the time when your brother was shot? How did you see it?

MR NTULI: At the time when I shot him, there was nothing that emanated from that action.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, but I don't think, you're not following the question. The two parties, did they love each other, did they oppose each other? What was the relationship between the followers of the parties?

MR NTULI: There was fighting.

MR DANIELS: Did you as a member of the IFP regard the ANC as your enemy, Mr Ntuli?

MR NTULI: That is correct, I would say yes, they were enemies because by that time the hostel was only occupied by IFP members, those who supported the ANC had already left.

MR DANIELS: Did you become aware during your stay here in Jo'burg of hostilities between the ANC and the IFP, not only in Jo'burg and not only in the hostel, but generally speaking, whether it be in Natal or in the hostels or in the taxis or the trains, did you become aware of that?

MR NTULI: Yes, I would say I realised that because even at the hostel, the ANC had already moved out.

MR DANIELS: Mr Ntuli, did anyone in the IFP order you to shoot Mr Pakati or did you decide to do this yourself?

MR NTULI: It is something that was my own initiative because we were involved in a state of war and he had already killed my brother and he was certainly going to kill me next.

MR DANIELS: Did you regard the shooting of your brother as an act and a sign of hostility by Mr Pakati and by the ANC in general?

MR NTULI: That is so.

MR DANIELS: Mr Ntuli, did anyone assist you in shooting Mr Pakati?

MR NTULI: No, this is something I did on my own.

MR DANIELS: You were acting alone?

MR NTULI: Yes, I was.

MR DANIELS: Where did you get the revolver that you used to shoot Mr Pakati?

MR NTULI: It was acquired illegally.

MR DANIELS: Did you buy that revolver?

MR NTULI: That is so, I did buy it.

MR DANIELS: When you bought the revolver, did you buy it for the purpose of going to shoot Mr Pakati and if you didn't, for what purpose did you buy it?

MR NTULI: It was for protection.

MR DANIELS: Mr Ntuli, is it correct that you knew Mr Pakati from before this shooting incident took place?

MR NTULI: That is correct. We knew each other prior to the divisions that developed between the ANC and the IFP.

ADV DE JAGER: Did you grow up in the same vicinity? You were childhood acquaintances?

MR NTULI: We are neighbours.

MR DANIELS: And did you have first-hand knowledge of the fact that Mr Pakati was an ANC member?

MR NTULI: That is correct.

MR DANIELS: Do you know whether Mr Pakati was a ranking official in the ANC or was he just a member?

MR NTULI: I do not have knowledge of his position within the organisation, but I know that he was a member.

MR DANIELS: Mr Ntuli, after you shot Mr Pakati, did you remove anything from the body?

MR NTULI: No, I did not remove anything. The intention was just to get at him.

MR DANIELS: You didn't take anything?

MR NTULI: No.

MR DANIELS: Mr Ntuli, am I correct when I say that you wouldn't have shot Mr Pakati had he not killed your brother?

MR NTULI: No, I would have not shot at him.

MR DANIELS: If he hadn't shot your brother first?

MR NTULI: Yes, if he had not shot at him, I would not have done so.

MR DANIELS: And am I also correct when I say that in your understanding, Mr Pakati would never have shot your brother, had it not been for the relationship between the ANC and the IFP at this time?

MR NTULI: It would have not have happened.

MR DANIELS: The proposition is then correct to say that you regarded the ANC generally and ANC members more particularly as your enemies?

MR NTULI: It was a war situation and I would not regard any person as an enemy, but because of the war there was that enmity.

MR DANIELS: And as a result of this, you regarded the death of your brother as one of the many consequences of this war, is that correct?

MR NTULI: Yes, that is so correct.

MR DANIELS: Mr Pakati, I beg your pardon Mr Chairman, Mr Ntuli, how long have you been in prison for?

MR NTULI: I have been in prison for 6 years.

MR DANIELS: And have you ever been in prison for something else? Is this your first conviction?

MR NTULI: This is my first offence.

MR DANIELS: Thank you Mr Chairman, that is my application.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DANIELS

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Daniels. Ms Lockhat, questions?

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you Chairperson.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Daniels shouldn't you perhaps let us know more about the actual circumstances of the killing? The real killing itself?

MR DANIELS: Mr Chairman, I'm in a position to lead evidence on that. I was not, I started out on the assumption that the actual killing and the circumstances surrounding it, would not be in dispute and I can say that my instructions are that the circumstances of the killing do accord in my client's instructions, exactly with the circumstances as in the High Court judgment, there is hardly any difference. I do not have a difficulty in leading that evidence, if that is required. I was simply, I'd omitted that, not for any other reason than to, in an attempt to really expedite the proceedings. I have no difficulty in presenting that evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you did refer to the two judgments, one on the merits and one on sentence.

MR DANIELS: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: When you led your client.

MR DANIELS: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: No, well let's see if there's anything in dispute really and then you could consider in re-examination whether you need to.

MR DANIELS: If there is something, I shall attend to it in re-examination, Mr Chairman, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Yes Ms Lockhat.

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you, Chairperson.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LOCKHAT: Mr Ntuli, tell me, you said you were an IFP member. Did you attend any meetings or rallies or anything in relation to IFP?

MR NTULI: Yes.

MS LOCKHAT: Would you say you were an active member, or were you just ...(intervention)

MR NTULI: I would attend meetings some times.

MS LOCKHAT: Let me just ask you one question in relation to your brother. Did Mr Pakati and your brother perhaps have any other altercation or quarrel besides your brother being an IFP that you know of?

MR NTULI: No, I did not know of any altercation.

MS LOCKHAT: And did you ask anybody why your brother was killed, what the reasons were?

MR NTULI: There was no - they did not have a quarrel before, there was no grudge between them, but it's just that when the violence started, Mr Pakati became an ANC member.

MS LOCKHAT: Was there any fighting at the hostel at that time when your brother died?

MR NTULI: At that time the hostel was quiet.

MS LOCKHAT: You also said that you thought that Mr Pakati was going to kill you next. Why do you say that?

MR NTULI: At that time, after he had killed my brother, he was then trying to get me as well, in fact we were after each other.

MS LOCKHAT: Can you elaborate on that? Can you tell us why? Did you say anything to him? Did anything occur, because you witnessed the killing, or why do you think?

MR NTULI: We did not have an altercation but it was just the political situation at the time.

MS LOCKHAT: Could it be possible that Mr Pakati thought that you were probably going to kill him because he killed your brother?

MR NTULI: He might have thought so because he also had intentions of killing me.

MS LOCKHAT: And how come Mr Pakati was also in Johannesburg area, the same time as you were? Wasn't he from Natal?

MR NTULI: We work here in Johannesburg.

MR DANIELS: Mr Chairman, if I might interpose for a second. I think the testimony was that Mr Pakati in fact at one stage, stayed in the same hostel here in Jo'burg and that I think the idea was then that the ANC members vacated the hostel and only the IFP, so I believe that it was testified that he did stay in Jo'burg.

MS LOCKHAT: I'm indebted to my colleague.

MR NTULI: Yes, he did reside at the hostel prior to the eruption of the violence.

MS LOCKHAT: And can you just explain to the Committee how you planned to kill Mr Pakati? How did you know where he was going to be on that particular day? What did you do to plan this murder?

MR NTULI: I was looking for him.

MS LOCKHAT: And then you eventually found him, followed him and killed him in Hillbrow, is that correct?

MR NTULI: Yes, I did look for him for some time and on the 24th I was fortunate to find him.

MS LOCKHAT: You did testify that you would not have killed Mr Pakati, if he did not kill your brother, is that correct?

MR NTULI: That is correct.

MS LOCKHAT: So I put it to you Mr Ntuli, that you actually killed Mr Pakati, solely for that purpose and solely for that reason and not for the reason being that he was an ANC member. Would you like to comment on that?

MR NTULI: I would say it was politically motivated because my brother was killed for political reasons and he would have killed me for political reasons as well.

MS LOCKHAT: I put it to you that you only killed him to revenge and avenge your brother's death and you don't have to comment on that. Chairperson, I have no further questions for this witness.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS LOCKHAT

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Lockhat.

MR NTULI: ...(no English interpretation)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, what is that?

MR NTULI: You may put it that way because he had killed my brother and he would have also killed me.

CHAIRPERSON: If you saw Mr Pakati kill another IFP member, forget about your brother, you saw him killing some other IFP members, what would you have done, if anything?

MR NTULI: Yes, I would have killed him because we were in a state of war.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Anything else from the Panel.

ADV BOSMAN: I have no question.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Daniels, any re-examination?

MR DANIELS: Mr Chairman at this stage I would ask your guidance in respect of the matter of the actual circumstances surrounding the shooting, whether it would be necessary for me to lead the evidence as far as that is concerned. I would submit that there's nothing particularly contentious that 's going to arise out of it, but I am prepared, I don't want it to rebound to the disadvantage of my client, to not present the evidence, but I submit that there isn't anything contentious, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well, you've already indicated that the circumstances on your instructions are as set out in the Judgments of the court.

MR DANIELS: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And it won't add anything further to that?

MR DANIELS: My instructions are that there's nothing to add and that also the circumstances as are set out in the respective judgments, are not being disputed by my client at all.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DANIELS: And on that basis, I don't have anything in ...(intervention)

MR NTULI: ...(no English interpretation)

MR DANIELS: I beg your pardon?

CHAIRPERSON: Just hear if the applicant wants to say anything, we might have interrupted him. Just ask him.

MR NTULI: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Daniels, he's now confirmed, or you confirmed actually that there's nothing in dispute here except the basis of the evidence as put forward in the Judgment and he didn't deny it, so we'll deal with the matter on that basis. Are you - I think that would be okay, but I would think you should perhaps consult with your client and explain to him about the possession of the firearm, because I don't know whether he understands that that's a previous conviction and it could be wiped out, if he would get amnesty.

MR DANIELS: If I might then ask for an indulgence of 5 minutes to just canvass this with my client, I'm quite satisfied that I have, but let me just make sure if it's in order that I can be indulged 5 minutes.

My final submission is literally going to be 5 minutes, if that long and I don't know whether this is perhaps a convenient time to take - I don't have a watch on me, unfortunately, whether it's convenient for the Committee to take the lunch adjournment.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, if you're going to - I assume you have already consulted with your client about the - because you have indicated to us that you have considered the question in response to Adv Bosman, that you have considered the question of the previous conviction, so one assumes that it won't take you very much longer to deal with whatever you want to deal with now. You say that your address is not particularly long.

MR DANIELS: No, I have a handful of submissions to make, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, then I would prefer that we allow you the opportunity to consult with your client and that we reconvene and we complete the matter.

MR DANIELS: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: So we'll stand down for a short while and you will indicate to us when you are ready.

MR DANIELS: I'm going to need 5 minutes.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

MR DANIELS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: What is the position?

MR DANIELS: Mr Chairman, I've taken instructions. Might I just for ease of reference, refer to pages 53 and 14 of the bundle?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DANIELS: The charges are set out there. Count 1 is the unlawful and wilful killing, obviously amnesty is sought for that. Count 2 is the attempted murder charge. Now Mr Ntuli was charged with that. The State did not seek a conviction on that and he wasn't convicted of that and then Count 3 and Count 4 relates to firstly the possession of a firearm and Count 4 possession of ammunition.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DANIELS: I have taken instructions and my client has clarified the position for me with a little bit of help from the Committee, I might add, but my instructions are then to amend my initial application, so as to include the unlawful possession. My understanding is that the Evidence Leader does not oppose this.

MS LOCKHAT: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Well what does he say in his form? What is your client for, for murder?

MR DANIELS: That is my understanding Mr Chairman.

ADV DE JAGER: Oh, murder and possession, page 3.

CHAIRPERSON: That's his convictions. He says that that is his ...(intervention)

MR DANIELS: If I might refer to paragraph 9(a)(i) on page 1.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DANIELS: I was guided by that initially, I must immediately say, I'm not entirely sure what the procedure is from now, whether a new application in this format has to be submitted, or whether this application, pages 1 to 3 of the bundle, could be amended at these proceedings.

ADV DE JAGER: You see Mr Daniels, I don't know, on page 4 we've got a, I don't know whether it's a separate form, it seems as though he's filed two applications.

MR DANIELS: It does seem like ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: They've got different numbers too.

MR DANIELS: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

ADV BOSMAN: And different handwritings.

MR DANIELS: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: On page 4, he is applying for murder, unlicensed firearm and ammunition and that was completed on the 12th of December 1996 while the other one was completed on the 20th of June 1996.

MR DANIELS: My understanding is that the application, the first application, the June application, if I could call it that, is in fact the correct application, that is just my understanding, but like I said, my client has now instructed me to in fact amend the application and to ask for the firearms and ammunition as well, or the unlawful possession as well. I'm sorry the situation is a bit confusing. I can't really add to any of this.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Did this incident happen in 1983? The killing? It seems to, on the judgment.

MR DANIELS: That is correct and that is what I looked, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So you might need to amend the paragraph 9 (a)(ii) as well. What is the status of the second form that we've got, because there he seemed to be referring to firearm and ammunition.

MR DANIELS: Mr Chairman, my understanding from the outset was that the first form was in fact the correct one, that is simply my understanding. I cannot really and neither can my client really explain the second form. I don't think it's really a position where my client completed the forms with legal counsel.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DANIELS: And I think that might perhaps explain a bit of the difficulty that we're faced with at the moment.

ADV DE JAGER: It might have been that he didn't receive an acknowledgement on the first one, for instance and then decided just before the cut-off date, to file another one, or he received perhaps advice to file another one.

MR DANIELS: That could certainly be an explanation. Mr Chairman, I don't know whether it is perhaps not the easiest solution, I don't know whether it can be allowed, to read these two forms and the two applications together for purposes of one application. I don't know whether, because obviously they relate to the same set of facts and the same circumstances, I don't know whether that would not make one's situation a little bit easier?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I assume it would be easier than applying for an amendment of the first form because if you want to amend in the sense of introducing the new offence, which is not disclosed in your original application, of course you can't do that.

MR DANIELS: I'm alive to the pitfalls, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so it might be in the interests of, better in the interests of your client if those could have been taken together., so there might be a misunderstanding, that the first one is the proper one.

MR DANIELS: And that that was amplified by the second one, perhaps.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes and that they should be read together.

ADV BOSMAN: Perhaps you could just establish whether it's indeed you client's signature on both forms and that would help and perhaps resolve the whole issue.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DANIELS: I'm sorry but I'm going to have to use the interpreter to just establish this.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DANIELS: Mr Ntuli, is this your signature? Mr Chairman, I'm referring to the second form, that is the numbered page 6 of the bundle. Is that you signature?

MR NTULI: Yes, that is so.

MR DANIELS: And I am now referring to the signature appearing on page 3, is that your signature? We just want to establish because they do not look the same.

MR NTULI: It is possible that it is me who signed on this particular form because I do not use the same signature all the time.

CHAIRPERSON: What are your instructions?

MR DANIELS: My instructions are that they are the same, Mr Chairman, they also, I've been faced with a similar difficulty in my application for legal aid for my client, that there were differences. There were also a number of forms to be completed and the signatures didn't correspond. I don't know whether you're prepared to accept that from me, or whether you want me to present evidence as regards the signatures. I don't know whether that would be necessary.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes, no, no, just what are you instructions in respect of the signatures? What did your client say now? I didn't listen to the - he's not giving evidence, he's only giving you instructions. My client indicates that they are the same and it's possible that he signed this because he says that he doesn't use the same signature always.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DANIELS: I don't know whether you're prepared to accept that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes and what are your instructions? Does your client wish the two forms to be taken together in the light of your original instructions that the first one is the proper one.

MR DANIELS: In light of my initial instructions that the first one is the proper one, I am taking it that my instructions are, in view of the fact that I need to apply for amnesty both in respect of the charges of murder and the charges in respect of the unlawful possession, that that is the only basis on which my client could get amnesty for the second, without formally amending it.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, now just ask him. Take instructions from him, ask him whether those, he's already identified the signatures, whether those are his two forms and whether he wants us to consider those two forms together?

MR DANIELS: I will do that, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And let the interpreter help you.

MR DANIELS: I will do that. Mr Ntuli, in the first form we ask for amnesty for, this is what I discussed with you there, for murder. Do you see?

MR NTULI: Yes.

MR DANIELS: and the second form, this form, you also talk about the firearm and the ammunition, do you see that?

MR NTULI: Yes.

MR DANIELS: So it's that the two forms differ in these respects.

MR NTULI: Yes.

MR DANIELS: Can we then, in order to apply for amnesty for the murder and for the firearms, can we read these two forms together, if they have both been completed by you?

MR NTULI: Yes.

MR DANIELS: My instructions are that we can read the two and I will ask that we read the two forms together for purposes of the application.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

MR DANIELS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. I assume that there can't be any objections to that Ms Lockhat?

MS LOCKHAT: No objections, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Yes, I think we've resolved the matter then.

MR DANIELS: I think so, thank you Mr Chairman, I'm indebted.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

ADV DE JAGER: And we've amended the date, because it's clearly the 23rd of January 1993 and not 1992.

MR DANIELS: Mr Chairman, on the basis of the evidence that was led and the fact that the evidence of the date of the incident wasn't disputed, I will ask that the date be amended. I don't know whether it's necessary to make formal application for amendment, but that is the date that supports the evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think you should. You're applying now to change the date from 1992 to 1993?

MR DANIELS: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Lockhat is there any objection to that?

MS LOCKHAT: No objections, Chairperson.

MR DANIELS: Once again, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Is there anything else that you wanted to add? Is that the case for your client?

MR DANIELS: As far as the actual application is concerned, that is my case Mr Chairman. I, save for a final submission or two, but no more evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes,

MR DANIELS: And no more amendments to any.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Ms Lockhat, have you got any evidence?

MS LOCKHAT: No, Chairperson. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Daniels have you got any submissions?

MR DANIELS: I do, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

MR DANIELS IN ARGUMENT: Mr Chairman and learned Members, my submission is that a case has been made out for amnesty to be granted in favour of the applicant as envisaged by the provisions of Section 20 of the Act.

The evidence placed before this Committee is, in a nutshell, the following. That at the time of the murder for which my client, the applicant, was convicted, the applicant was a member of the IFP. The deceased, Mr Pakati, was a member of the ANC. Immediately preceding this murder by the applicant, Pakati, the deceased murdered his brother who was at that stage, and that is the evidence, a ranking official of the IFP.

I submit that the applicant has made a full disclosure of all the facts and circumstances surrounding this murder and importantly, I submit that the applicant has established a political motive. Having said that, Mr Chairman, it's difficult to argue around the presence of a personal motive and more particularly a motive of revenge. I would however, submit that despite there being a personal motive involved in the matter, the act or the murder committed by the applicant cannot be divorced from the political climate at the time and I respectfully submit that such a personal motive, which most definitely was present, and cannot be disputed, can and did co-exist with a political motive seen in the larger political context of events at this time.

There are strong indicators of this political motive and of the political climate generally. The fact is that the applicant stayed in a hostel, inhabited exclusively by IFP members, he alluded to the fact that the ANC members and he mentions when the fighting started, in other words, in my submission, when the climate changed and when it became more aggressive, there was a definite segregation between the ANC and the IFP. He testified that he regarded the ANC as the enemy. He was a member of the IFP, he attended IFP meetings and as such, the murder of his brother and the personal motive that went with that, was in my submission, nothing more than the catalyst for what would under normal circumstances be a purely political act. It is underscored by his testimony, in so far as he says that had Pakati killed another IFP member and he was aware of that, he would have done the same.

I think, I beg your pardon, I submit that the absence of any other motive, once again seen in the political context and the political climate, strongly indicates political motive for purposes of this application. There was no peripheral criminal activity. Mr Ntuli did not commit a robbery. He didn't steal anything and his motive was, from the outset, to eliminate this member of the ANC. I submit that the fact that there was a political motive, I beg your pardon, a personal motive coupled with this, does not exclude a political motive and these two should co-exist and the one does not disqualify the other and I think for purposes of such an application, the distinction should be drawn to not make the mistake, with respect, to say that because any motive other than a purely political motive is present, that would exclude a political motive.

If Mr Ntuli committed a murder, coupled with a robbery or a theft or a car theft or whatever the case may be, I think that is a different situation than to say there was a political motive coupled with a personal motive.

I have no further submissions and I respectfully ask that the application be granted.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Daniels. Ms Lockhat, have you got any submissions?

MS LOCKHAT: Yes, thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS LOCKHAT IN ARGUMENT: Mr Ntuli states that he was an IFP member. We don't dispute that. He seemed like any other normal supporter, attending the meetings and rallies and so forth,

but it doesn't sound, on the facts before us, that he was really an active and strong supporter of the IFP. The fact that he had also known the deceased as well as his brother and they co-existed quite naturally with one another previously, is a factor we also have to take into account. The fact that he mentioned there was no violence at the time in the hostel when his brother died, we also have to take that into account, because if there was violence at that time between the IFP and the ANC one could understand that ...(intervention).

ADV DE JAGER: Wouldn't that be because the ANC moved out, so in the hostel there wasn't violence, because they were all IFP members staying there then?

MS LOCKHAT: That is possible, that's noted.

The other issue that we have to take into account is just the fact that the incidents occurred so closely to one another. The fact that the brother died December 1992 and then immediately in January 1993, when all of this was still very fresh with the applicant, it seemed that he had almost no choice but to go out and look and that's indeed what he did do. He admitted that he went out to search for the deceased, so and the fact that he said the deceased wanted to kill him, well it seemed more the other way round. He didn't mention of any attempts on the deceased to actually come out and search for him and attempt to kill him, but the applicant did the latter. He went out, searched for the deceased and killed him.

It is my submission, Chairperson, that the applicant killed Mr Pakati solely for the reason to avenge his brother's death and that is my submission Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Lockhat. Mr Daniels have you got anything else you want to add?

MR DANIELS IN REPLY: In response to what Ms Lockhat has said, Mr Chairman, perhaps just one aspect. To say that the applicant is not a strong or an active member of the IFP, I respectfully submit that that was in fact not the evidence. The amnesty proceedings are not reserved for high ranking officials, or certain denominations of officials of certain parties only. It is undisputed and with respect, indisputable. Mr Ntuli was a member at all relevant times of the IFP. I think it goes further than that. To say that he wasn't necessarily a ranking official, in my respectful submission, makes no difference. He stayed in a place where only IFP members stayed. Those were in fact ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, no Mr Daniels, I think the submission of Ms Lockhat relates to the motive for the killing. Her submission is that he's not such a strong IFP member that he would have been motivated through his membership and his active participation in IFP politics to have gone out to kill. She says that it was simply an avenge killing and it's in that context that she makes that submission. I think it goes without saying that there's no grading of membership, you are either a member or supporter and that's the only requirement in the Act.

MR DANIELS: As long as - I may have misunderstood, thank you, thank you Mr Chairman. I don't have any further submission.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Thank you. Yes, that concludes this matter. We will consider the application and formulate a decision and we will then notify all of the parties, once the decision is available. So we'll reserve the decision in this matter.

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: We will take the luncheon adjournment at this stage, but we wish to thank you Mr Daniels for your assistance in this matter.

MR DANIELS: Thank you, Mr Chairman, thank you for your assistance.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and if you so wish, then you can be excused.

MR DANIELS: I would appreciate it, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you very much. We will adjourn and we will reconvene at 2 o'clock.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS