Amnesty Hearings

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kopedi?

MR KOPEDI: Chairperson, I beg leave to call the last applicant, Sazi Ronnie Ndlovu. May he be sworn in Chairperson.

SAZI RONNIE NDLOVU: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Kopedi?

EXAMINATION BY MR KOPEDI: May we proceed Chairperson, thank you. Mr Ndlovu, is it correct that you are a co-applicant in this matter?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, it is true.

MR KOPEDI: Is it also correct that since yesterday and throughout today, you have been listening to the evidence given by the four other applicants in the matter?

MR NDLOVU: Yes.

MR KOPEDI: Now, is it also correct that you have clearly listened to the evidence given by the first applicant, Linda Mntambo?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, it is true.

MR KOPEDI: He has implicated you or rather, he has placed you on the scene in certain instances, can you confirm or deny what he has stated to this honourable Committee?

MR NDLOVU: According to what I have said, I confirm what he has said.

MR KOPEDI: Is there anything that you wish to add to what he has stated?

MR NDLOVU: Unless required ...

MR KOPEDI: You don't think there is anything to add?

MR NDLOVU: Well, so far I think everything that has been mentioned, it has just happened the way he has just mentioned it, so that is why I am saying unless the House feel that there is something that needs to be clarified.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ndlovu, is it correct, you were only involved, of the incidents that we have heard from the various witnesses, you were only involved in the armed robbery at the Tattersall's?

MR NDLOVU: And the other one, I think it has been mentioned again here.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, which other one?

MR NDLOVU: Shomane.

CHAIRPERSON: Shomane? Oh yes, sorry.

MR KOPEDI: Not the tenant.

CHAIRPERSON: It is my fault, I see your name there. That is the one on the tenant?

MR NDLOVU: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Just the two?

JUDGE DE JAGER: You didn't apply for amnesty in your application, for the Shomane case? You didn't mention it at all? Is that so?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, I can see here, it is not included.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, who completed this form Mr Ndlovu, the one that appears on page 48 of the record? Did you do it yourself?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, I did.

CHAIRPERSON: Or did you have a lawyer doing it, helping you, what was the situation?

MR NDLOVU: I did it personally.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kopedi?

MR KOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson. Now other than these two incidents, the robbery and the Shomane incident, is there any other incident that involves you together with this unit?

MR NDLOVU: No.

MR KOPEDI: Now, in as far as you are concerned, do you think this Committee, honourable Committee has been given a full disclosure in terms of what you did?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, with no doubts.

MR KOPEDI: Now, did you receive any personal gain out of any of the two operations?

MR NDLOVU: No.

MR KOPEDI: Other than that, do you think that all these operations were politically motivated?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, they were.

MR KOPEDI: Chairperson, that will be the evidence from Mr Ndlovu.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR KOPEDI

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Kopedi. Ms Lockhat?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LOCKHAT: Thank you Chairperson. What was your role in the Shomane incident?

MR NDLOVU: We were three there, so ours was to wait outside so that when Mr Shomane comes out, so that when the person that we had come to ... (tape ends) ... so unfortunately he did not come out, so we decided to go back.

MS LOCKHAT: Were you personally armed at that stage?

MR NDLOVU: No, I was not armed.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I think, is there a bit of confusion here again or not, because you say that the Shomane incidents, you went there and the person, what happened? Was a brick thrown through the window or something?

MR NDLOVU: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And with the plan to entice the occupant out, when he came out, you would shoot him, but that didn't happen?

MR NDLOVU: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: The brick was thrown, the stone, but nobody came out?

MR NDLOVU: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: My understanding was that that was the attack on Mr Shomane, not on the tenant, whereas in my notes again, I've got Mr Ndlovu down here as the attack on the tenant, where a person was actually shot and learnt later that he died? Were you involved in that one Mr Ndlovu?

MR NDLOVU: No.

CHAIRPERSON: So, it would seem that the original names we got when Mr Mogapi's name was for the Shomane incident, it should have been for the tenant and Mr Ndlovu for - the other way round, for the Shomane incident and not the tenant?

MR KOPEDI: Yes, that is so. Maybe let me restate them. On the tenant, I have Linda, I have George, I have Sandile.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and Mabatha? Yes, but who is not before us?

MR KOPEDI: That is right, and on Shomane, I have Linda, I have Andrew, I have Sazi, the applicant before you.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, so we've got that. So, Ms Lockhat, you can continue.

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you Chairperson. You were three there, who was armed, just one person?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, one person.

MS LOCKHAT: Who was that person?

MR NDLOVU: It was Linda.

MS LOCKHAT: I want to come to the armed robbery incident, what was your role in that incident?

MR NDLOVU: Since we were four and there was a driver and a person who had a firearm, so the two of us, which is myself and Andrew, Andrew was armed with a knife and I was just armless, so my role there was to take, because one of our other aims was to even disarm the security there, so I was to take the guns from them and also take the money to the car. We had divided that operation into four.

MS LOCKHAT: So you were going to disarm the security guards, you had no weapons on you, you were disarmed and take the money, how were you going to do that?

MR NDLOVU: Well, by disarming actually mean if this other guy, which is Linda, is going to point at these two guys with the firearm, so mine was to go, to come to them and take their arms, because their arms were here, so mine was just to go and take the arms. I would not do that having an AK47 at the very same time, so it was not possible for Linda to do all those things, to take the guns and even to point them, because we only had one gun at that point, which was the gun that Linda was having.

MS LOCKHAT: So did you feel quite comfortable with this operation, seeing that there were security guards, they were all armed, there was more than one, there were three security guards, armed and here you were, four guys, one armed, didn't you feel uncomfortable about going into a situation like that?

MR NDLOVU: Of course when we are planning something of this sort, we are going to feel uncomfortable, but because our primary objective was to overcome and win this, so we had to do it nevertheless.

MS LOCKHAT: Because Mr Viljoen will say that there were more than one person armed on that day? Can you comment on that, you don't have to?

MR NDLOVU: Well, it is unfortunately he is going to say that, but I understand his situation, because that thing happened in an unexpected manner. Point number one, he might have thought that there were so many people armed that day because he was under so much pressure that there was a gunfire, and all the noise on the surroundings of the people, so anything, it is possible for a person who was attacked by then, I cannot blame him for that, but truly speaking, there was only one person armed that day.

MS LOCKHAT: And Andrew had a knife?

MR NDLOVU: Yes.

MS LOCKHAT: And then, tell me where was Andrew situated?

MR NDLOVU: Andrew was in such a position that he would see these people, when they come out with their money, then give the signal to me, which I am going to relate the signal to the guy who was driving the car, because Linda was still inside the car, so we positioned in such a way, because I was across the street and Linda was just nearby, so that nobody could suspect us because we never wanted to be a group, just there, but we saw them when they went in, so we started to strategise and take the positions, then when Linda gave me the signal, then I also gave the signal to the guys who were in the car. That is when the car came nearer to the place and they off-loaded Linda so that the car could come the other way.

MS LOCKHAT: And Andrew, was he close to the door of the Tattersall's, or in relation to the vehicle where the security guards were in, where was he?

MR NDLOVU: That place is situated next to the main road, so it is possible for a person just to stand in front, just nearby the road as if he is waiting for the taxi, so that is where Andrew was standing at that point in time.

MS LOCKHAT: Do you know how many people were injured on that day besides your own comrades?

MR NDLOVU: No, I don't have any idea.

MS LOCKHAT: Because Mr van Vuuren and the other security guard was injured. Mr van Vuuren suffered, they shot him in the arm and the leg, and then the other security guard was shot in the chest? And do you know of anybody perhaps being on the roof?

MR NDLOVU: Amongst the people I was with, there was nobody at all which was on top of the roof, because it was not even possible for us to climb to the roof, because that place is situated - at the back of it, is Chicken Licken, so I am just imagining, where would one effort to climb the roof, because there is a store here, Chicken Licken, and this side people are busy doing this business of toting, so it is not possible for anyone to can climb on the roof of that place.

MS LOCKHAT: And tell me, after the incident, did you have any contact with the money?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, what happened is after that incident, just a day after the incident, we went straight to the place where we discovered that Linda has been shot also, so that is when we decided to take Linda to hospital. But myself, when they took Linda to hospital, they decided to leave me behind, so that I could look after the money which was there and after the car again, because already the police were looking after the car which was on the scene. So I did not personally go to the hospital with them. I just remained behind until they came back, and after that, when they left Linda in the hospital, George because he was, they had Ms Popo's car, so they took us back to the place where, that is Andrew, the money was left with Andrew thereafter, so that we waited for our Commander which was Bles, to come back to Andrew, so that Linda - Andrew would report, would give the whole report to Bles, and give him the money.

MS LOCKHAT: And you were also with them when they gave some money, R500-00 to Popo Tshabalala, is that so?

MR NDLOVU: Some R500-00?

CHAIRPERSON: Some amount of money, were you present when an amount of money was given to Popo Tshabalala?

MR NDLOVU: What I could quite remember is that when, there was some amount of money which was taken out immediately when Linda was taken to hospital, so I cannot quite remember how much money was that, but there was a substantial amount of money that was taken during that day, so when they personally gave it to Ms Popo, I was not there presently, because they left me behind by then.

MS LOCKHAT: And just to - for my own, who is Ronnie?

MR NDLOVU: It is myself.

MS LOCKHAT: Because at page 63 Popo Tshabalala says, just the third paragraph, the accused, that was Mr Mogapi, Linda, Ronnie and Andrew came to her house where George had given her the money for her assistance in this whole incident. What is your comment on this?

MR NDLOVU: After the incident she said we came to her house to ...

JUDGE DE JAGER: ... after he was released from hospital?

MR NDLOVU: You know, I think that might be possible because this is something that happened a very long time, it is about ten years' time ago from now.

MS LOCKHAT: Do you know what happened to the money after it was given to Andrew and to your Commander, do you know anything else that could assist us?

MR NDLOVU: With the report I got from, report back I got from Andrew is that he gave the money to Bles, as it was supposed to happen, so after that short period of time, because it was during the festive season, we just stopped operating by then, because Linda was still, was still not right in as far as health was concerned. After that time, when we were supposed to resume, then we got arrested. I never personally got in touch to contact with Bles at that time.

MS LOCKHAT: Did you know that armed robbery was not part of the policy of the ANC?

MR NDLOVU: When you are talking about policy, it is true, it might not be part, but given the reasons that we were operating under, it was necessary and it was a primary solution for our problem that we had by then.

MS LOCKHAT: Did you say the sole reason for getting this money was to release your Commander from hospital?

MR NDLOVU: Amongst other reasons. It was one of the reasons, because we had the reason of releasing our Commander which was a primary reason, secondary to that, we needed to have weapons because we only had operated with one AK47 for a very long period of time, so another thing, we needed money to fund our unit, so that it can get working, so we had a number of reasons that made us to want to have money.

MS LOCKHAT: Tell me, did you at any stage apply for indemnity for any of the incidents?

MR NDLOVU: Whilst I was still in prison, yes, I did.

MS LOCKHAT: And what happened in that application of yours for indemnity?

MR NDLOVU: I was released unconditionally.

MS LOCKHAT: Are you serving a service for another offence?

MR NDLOVU: Yes.

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you Chairperson, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS LOCKHAT

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Lockhat. Ms Kopedi, do you have any re-examination?

MR KOPEDI: Nothing in re-examination, thank you Chair.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR KOPEDI

CHAIRPERSON: Judge de Jager, do you have any questions?

JUDGE DE JAGER: None, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Adv Sigodi?

ADV SIGODI: Just one question. When you were discussing with Bles that the Fidelity guards be targeted so that you could get money to rescue your General Commander, did he tell you how much money was needed to pay the police?

MR NDLOVU: First of all, if I can clarify this, it is not a matter that was being discussed between myself and Bles, because Bles was a Commander in the very highest position, that I could possibly had discussed that. He would give orders directly to Mntambo, so that Mntambo will liaise with the rest of the unit, because we operated in a pyramid sort of situation, because there was the highest and there was the one who followed him, until to the last subordinate. We would take orders or directions directly from our Commander in the unit by then, which was Linda. So, he came to us directly and then he told us the situation that it is like this, and there are orders that we must raise some funds for one, two and three.

ADV SIGODI: Well, I got the impression from - maybe I was wrong, but I just got the impression from the previous witness that the reason why you needed money was that you did not want to cause a bloodshed in the hospital and that this was discussed together with Bles and the other members of the unit? I cannot get my note clearly there.

CHAIRPERSON: I think the last witness said, I think it was in a question in response to what Adv Sigodi put to him, saying why not release your Commander, Mr Metsing, through a normal operation, go into the hospital and physically taking him out as part of an operation, and his response was well, the hospitals are busy, that would probably result in innocent people being injured, therefore it was decided to follow the route of bribing the police and getting him out.

ADV SIGODI: And this was discussed together with Bles, and I got the impression that this was discussed with Bles, together with the unit?

MR NDLOVU: Well, you might have got that, but I don't think my name does appear in that particular place. Not every member of the unit happened to be present, maybe during some other discussions, but I happened to be present when Linda which was my direct Commander at that time, and the other members of the unit, directed me and told me. But when Bles was there, I think I was not present, because I got the report that Bles was also around, so this is just a directive which comes directly from him.

ADV SIGODI: Okay, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ndlovu, did you receive training, military?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, I did receive, but it was a crash course.

CHAIRPERSON: Locally?

MR NDLOVU: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: From whom?

MR NDLOVU: From Simon Modise, Metsing.

CHAIRPERSON: That is your Commander who was in hospital?

MR NDLOVU: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you ever operate with a gun? The two incidents we have heard you didn't have weapons?

MR NDLOVU: Exactly.

CHAIRPERSON: In fact the only weapon was in the possession of Mr Mntambo, who was third in command in the unit, and the only other weapon we have heard of, is a knife?

MR NDLOVU: Exactly. So if I may clarify that, what happened, I was not just long been operating with the unit, I have just been a recruit for a short while. During the time when our Commander in Chief, which was Metsing, was supposed to give us the arms, it happened unfortunately that he was shot, so which is the other reason which made us to want to rescue him, so that we can get the other material, so that we can continue to operate. At that point in time, we only had one AK47 which we used to operate with.

CHAIRPERSON: It was normally used by Mr Mntambo?

MR NDLOVU: Exactly.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kopedi, do you have any questions arising?

MR KOPEDI: None Chairperson, thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR KOPEDI

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Lockhat?

MS LOCKHAT: No questions, thank you Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS LOCKHAT

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Ndlovu, that concludes your evidence.

MR NDLOVU: Thank you.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kopedi?

MR KOPEDI: Chairperson, that will be all the evidence for all the applicants, we intend calling no other witness and that is their case, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Kopedi. Ms Lockhat?

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you Chairperson. The only person I will be calling is the victim, one of the Fidelity security guards, and that is Mr Viljoen.

CHAIRPERSON: To give evidence?

MS LOCKHAT: Correct Chairperson.

PHILLIPUS ANDRIES VILJOEN: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Lockhat. Sorry, what is your full names please?

MR VILJOEN: Phillipus Andries Viljoen.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Lockhat?

EXAMINATION BY MS LOCKHAT: Mr Viljoen, did you sustain any injuries during this operation that took place?

CHAIRPERSON: I think before you start, just get what his situation was at the time. Was he employed by the Fidelity company?

MS LOCKHAT: Were you employed by the Fidelity Guard Security Services at that time?

CHAIRPERSON: The 5th of November 1988?

MR VILJOEN: Yes.

MS LOCKHAT: Can you tell us how many of you were on duty at that day, to fetch the money from Tattersall's?

MR VILJOEN: It was myself and van Vuuren and Blackie Swart and Plaatjies.

MS LOCKHAT: And tell me, were you all armed, did you all have ammunition?

MR VILJOEN: That is correct yes.

MS LOCKHAT: Can you tell us, on that particular day, what happened, in your own words?

MR VILJOEN: Plaatjies and I were in the back of the vehicle when we arrived at the Tattersall's and we wanted to climb out through the backdoor, when shots were fired. I looked through the window and I saw that Blackie fell on the ground and then we said "no, they were trying to rob us there" and then I saw the one passing the back of the vehicle, and then a vehicle came around the Tattersall's from around the back and Hennie van Vuuren, I saw him running to this side, over a fence. I saw that he did hit one of the robbers with his shot and then they left there with the money. That is all that they could take from us at that stage, the money that was there.

MS LOCKHAT: Can you tell us how many men were there, how many of the applicants, or anybody else involved in the incident?

MR VILJOEN: I saw four of them.

MS LOCKHAT: And where were they in relation to you?

MR VILJOEN: One was on the roof because he shot Blackie Swart from above, into the chest and the bullet exited at the bottom, below his ribs. And this is the one that I saw coming around the vehicle with the container with the money in it. The other one was in the vehicle, he came from behind, around and now I cannot recall where the fourth person was. I cannot recall now.

MS LOCKHAT: Did you see anybody around you with an AK47 or with ammunition, arms and ammunition?

MR VILJOEN: Yes, I saw the one that had shot Blackie Swart.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Viljoen, was the situation that you got to the Tattersall's, did somebody, one of your people go into the Tattersall's and then come out with the money, to put it back in the truck?

MR VILJOEN: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And that money that came from the Tattersall's was the money that was taken?

MR VILJOEN: Yes, that is correct.

MS LOCKHAT: I just want to clarify one issue with you regarding Blackie Swart, was he the one that was shot through the chest?

MR VILJOEN: That is correct yes.

MS LOCKHAT: And you also said to us that you thought that it was the person on the roof that shot Blackie Swart?

MR VILJOEN: Yes, because they shot him from the top and the round exited towards the bottom of his back.

MS LOCKHAT: Did you personally see the person at the top, on the roof?

MR VILJOEN: I actually saw him the first time after he shot Blackie Swart.

CHAIRPERSON: The question is did you see him on the roof or not? Or did you see him after the shooting, on the ground, when he was behind the vehicle?

MR VILJOEN: Actually the first time when I saw him, was when he ran around the vehicle.

CHAIRPERSON: So you deduced that he was on the roof because of the nature of the wound of Mr Swart, that it entered in the chest and exited below the ribs, so it was a downward trajectory of the bullet?

MR VILJOEN: Yes.

MS LOCKHAT: Did you sustain any injuries from this incident?

MR VILJOEN: No.

MS LOCKHAT: Did you receive any therapy after the incident?

MR VILJOEN: Yes, psychological therapy.

MS LOCKHAT: And how long did you still work for the security company after that?

MR VILJOEN: I still work for them.

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you Chairperson, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS LOCKHAT

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Kopedi, do you have any questions you would like to ask?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR KOPEDI: Just a few Mr Chairperson. Sir, do you know how many times was Blackie Swart shot?

MR VILJOEN: He was shot once through the chest.

MR KOPEDI: Okay. Did you ever get out of your vehicle on that day?

CHAIRPERSON: While this was going on?

MR KOPEDI: Yes, at the Tattersall's, while the robbery was going on, did you get out of the car?

MR VILJOEN: No, we did not. We wanted to, that vehicle has large windows, we could see everything that was going on.

MR KOPEDI: Was this vehicle not a panel van?

MR VILJOEN: Yes, it was one of the old vehicles, it had the large windows at the back and then the door that opened towards the rear, where the armed guards sit at the back, but it had windows. It had windows, it was tinted windows.

MR KOPEDI: Okay. Is it possible that the bullet that hit Blackie Swart, could have ricocheted, that is could have hit a wall first and then came back to hit him?

MR VILJOEN: No, I don't believe so.

MR KOPEDI: I put it to you, it is possible, why not, why is it not possible?

MR VILJOEN: You see, from our side, they said it was a clean shot.

MR KOPEDI: Well, I don't understand the answer, but I will let it pass. I have no further questions for this witness.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR KOPEDI

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Kopedi. Any re-examination Ms Lockhat?

MS LOCKHAT: No, thank you Mr Chairperson.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MS LOCKHAT

CHAIRPERSON: Judge de Jager, any questions that you would like to ask?

JUDGE DE JAGER: Do you know how much money was stolen?

MR VILJOEN: No, I don't know exactly how much was stolen that day, because if we pick up the cash, then we don't know what the contents is that is in the container.

JUDGE DE JAGER: You according to the evidence, there was a note from the Tattersall's, so much silver, so much notes, you don't receive such a note?

MR VILJOEN: No, we only receive a sealed container, we don't know what the contents is.

CHAIRPERSON: Adv Sigodi, do you have any questions you would like to ask?

ADV SIGODI: Just one aspect. It was put to the applicants that it wasn't one person who was armed, could you see how many people were armed?

MR VILJOEN: I only saw one, it may be circumstances that I assumed that there were more firearms.

ADV SIGODI: You assumed, you never saw any people with firearms?

CHAIRPERSON: He said he saw one with a firearm. I might be wrong, but as far as I can recall, it was also put that there were more than four people involved in the robbery, but you say you only saw four people?

MR VILJOEN: Yes, I only saw four. From the side where I was, I only saw four. The side that I was on, there were only four.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, because Mr Swart also, he gave evidence at the trial at one of the persons, one of the perpetrators and his evidence also seems to indicate that there were four people. He says three or four he saw in a motor vehicle and then another witness, a certain Cynthia Tsolo also said she saw three people and one sick one, four people. Any questions arising, Ms Lockhat?

MS LOCKHAT: No questions, thank you Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS LOCKHAT

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kopedi?

MR KOPEDI: None Chairperson, thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR KOPEDI

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Viljoen, that is your evidence, thank you.

MR VILJOEN: Thank you.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Lockhat?

MS LOCKHAT: That concludes the case.

CHAIRPERSON: That means there is no more evidence then in these matters?

MS LOCKHAT: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kopedi, are you ready to make some submissions?

MR KOPEDI IN ARGUMENT: A very brief submission. Mr Chairperson and honourable Committee members, my submission is that these five applicants before you, were undisputedly members of a political organisation, being the ANC and also belonged to an underground structure of the Umkhonto weSizwe. They operated in the areas of Soweto in Johannesburg as they gave evidence. It is my submission that in all the instances where they attacked someone or property or including the robbery, all the incidents were politically motivated. I can find none of the incidents which is not politically motivated. The evidence before you also clearly shows and suggests that none of these applicants received any personal gain, and in particular, on the robbery. The evidence that was given to you is that there was a need as they were told, to execute this robbery, to get the funds to primarily free one Metsing, who was their Overall Commander. They, being locally trained cadres. They proceeded with this robbery, they did not succeed in all their intentions, in that they were not successful in disarming the Fidelity guards. One of them, being Mntambo was hit during the robbery, money was taken out and perhaps it is this money which is, I think around R5 000-00, which puts question marks, which might be translated to be it went for their personal gain. It is true that part of this money was used to pay the hospital for Linda Mntambo's medical bills, for the injury he sustained.

CHAIRPERSON: I think Mr Kopedi, if that was the case, it is difficult to say that that was for personal gain as such. Normally when you talk about personal gain, you are utilising the money although it is being used for himself, but it is not, it does not normally include payment of medical expenses of this nature.

MR KOPEDI: I am indebted, thank you Chairperson. That was the point I sought to illustrate.

CHAIRPERSON: I think, you know, when the Act talks about personal gain, the intention in committing the robbery is to get the loot for your personal gain, in other words it is a prior type of intention, that is also - one of the elements involved.

MR KOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson. Perhaps the final aspect would be to deal with the very few and I must say strikingly so, very few contradictions in this matter. Under normal circumstances, one would expect to find many contradictions, but there are very few contradictions that we have heard. The one contradiction revolves around whether or not there was a person on the roof when this robbery occurred. It is my submission that...

CHAIRPERSON: Well, we haven't got any evidence of that, because Mr Viljoen says he didn't see anyone on the roof, but he deduces it from the fact, the nature of the injury, but you know, a person could be bending down when he is shot, whatever, and one doesn't know.

MR KOPEDI: That is indeed so.

CHAIRPERSON: It becomes a more scientific ...

MR KOPEDI: Yes, perhaps the last aspect where there would be a contradiction is whether or not Mr Monamodi participated in strikes. I wish to say Chairperson, that I think that matter is not material to determining whether the applicants before you are eligible for amnesty or not. But should it be material Chairperson, I would urge this honourable Committee to be subjective in viewing this matter, subjective in the sense of putting itself in the shoes of the applicants at that time. The applicants had a genuine belief, even if it may have been incorrect, that Mr Monamodi was a legitimate target through his actions. In my mind, there would be no reason for them to attack a person who is co-operative, who is on the strike, that would be counter-productive.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, they weren't actually attacking the person, were they?

MR KOPEDI: They were scaring him off?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, because the evidence was that they threw the grenade into the dining room, as soon as the lights were switched off, knowing that no one was in the dining room and it was to send a message, to back off or to stop whatever he was doing. Why would some, why would an attack of that nature take place unless you want to scare someone?

MR KOPEDI: Precisely Chairperson. And I would finally submit Chairperson, that all these applicants before you, have told you the truth, they have fully disclosed and it is my submission that they are therefore legible for amnesty. Thank you Chairperson.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Kopedi, some of them have already received indemnity?

MR KOPEDI: That is indeed so.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Who have received indemnity?

MR KOPEDI: Other than Mr Mntambo, all of them have received indemnity, in that Mntambo was not - he was arrested, he fled and left the country.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes, but why are some of them still in jail, it is not for this?

MR KOPEDI: There is only one who is still in jail, Mr Ndlovu, but it is for another offence, not related to this.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Oh, not for this?

MR KOPEDI: I must also say that I have a difficult task here in that one of the would-be applicants who is in the hall, who has also been put on the scene, Mr Mbatha, on the scene of certain instances, has been denied amnesty and my belief is that he has been denied amnesty in respect of all these offences. If I am given the opportunity one would like to argue that in as far as these offences are concerned, where he was involved with these applicants before you, my submission is that he was politically motivated, he had no personal gain, and that he is also entitled to amnesty. Thank you Chairperson.

JUDGE DE JAGER: We cannot do anything about it, we are functus officio, if it has been refused in this regard?

MR KOPEDI: I concede and agree. I was told that by my learned friend yesterday that in terms of the Act, there isn't a thing that you could do.

CHAIRPERSON: You see, I think perhaps what happened, if there were to be a situation where some people get amnesty and others don't, in respect of the same incidents, and arising from that, there would appear to be some sort of inconsistency and indeed injustice, then it is correct that we are functus officio with regard to that application which has been already received, we are a statutory creature and our powers are confined by the limits of the statute and the statute doesn't give us the power to set aside our decisions, so we don't have the authority, no matter what we might feel or might want to do. We just don't have it, if we do that, it would be wrong. When I say wrong, I mean unprocedural and ultra vires, but the route would be to have a decision reviewed and set aside by the High Court, which has an inherent jurisdiction and does have authority to do that. That would be seen to be the route, if that is elected to be done.

MR KOPEDI: I think I agree with your comments Chairperson, and basically that is why we then did not even attempt to bring him in as an applicant, realising that it would be expecting the impossible from this honourable Committee, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Kopedi.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Did he also receive indemnity?

MR MBATHA: Yes.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Mbatha, that is not an applicant, that has been refused?

MR KOPEDI: Yes, he did.

MR MBATHA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Lockhat?

MS LOCKHAT IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Chairperson. Just in relation to the armed robbery and the one policy relating to the ANC's policy that armed robbery is not part of their policy. The question was asked to Mr Mntambo and he said well, he didn't really know that that was the policy, and then the other applicant, Andrew as well said well, he knew that that was their policy, but they any way continued to participate in the armed robbery. Just looking at the flipside of the coin, that people on the ground, MK activists and so forth, there is a need for arms and ammunition, so it would seem that in this instance, that they felt they could ignore that policy and that they were in a position where they needed more funds and ammunition, and that no one else was going to supply that to them.

CHAIRPERSON: What is the situation, Ms Lockhat, with regard to adherence to policy? Okay, we know what the policies were of the various movements, we also know that particularly in the military wing of the movements, there was discipline, well, hierarchy and orders and one was expected to obey orders. If you are dealing with a situation where people are acting on instruction, under order, and those orders may be contrary to the broader policy of the movement, they are fighting for, what is the situation there? You know, you cannot just ignore the fact that there are orders.

MS LOCKHAT: That there are policies? Yes. Well, in terms of the persons following instructions, they would ordinarily follow the instructions of their Commander, in this incidents their Commander was Mr Mntambo and although he also had his other Commanders, it would also appear, I don't know if it is possible that he did not know about the policy, but on his evidence, it was that he didn't know that this was in fact the policy.

JUDGE DE JAGER: We had evidence in numerous applications that it was never the policy of for instance the IFP, to kill people and yet we know it happened and amnesty was granted notwithstanding the evidence that it wasn't policy.

MS LOCKHAT: I agree and therefore we should look at the circumstances ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think one has to take each case on its own merits.

MS LOCKHAT: Exactly, each case on its own merits. And in this case, the applicants was involved in a number of incidents. In some incidents, force and violence was used, but very minimal and in others, not. The issue relating to questions posed by myself in relation to the armed robbery with the - one of the applicants being at the top of the building, it has come out in the evidence ... (tape ends) ... and that he just drew the inference from the bullet wound, that it had struck the chest of his colleague. And also the fact, my submission also in relation to the questions whether there were more than one persons armed, according to Mr Viljoen ...

CHAIRPERSON: We've got no evidence to contradict that and also one wonders why would, on the versions that we have received, taking into account the admissions that they did it, that they participated in the robbery, that they shot people, etc, etc, why lie about not going on the roof, whether you are on the roof or on the ground, what is the difference?

MS LOCKHAT: That is correct Chairperson. And then just in the instance of Mr Monamodi, his instructions were that he participated in all the strikes, and the information that was obtained by the applicants, were indeed incorrect. But the inferences were drawn by the applicants through contact with them, they obviously formed a different opinion. So, that is basically my submissions Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Kopedi, any response?

MR KOPEDI: No response, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. That then brings this hearing to a conclusion. We will reserve our decision in this matter. Thank you very much Mr Kopedi, for your assistance in the matter and in other matters. You are finished now?

MR KOPEDI: I believe so, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for your assistance.

MR KOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson and honourable Committee members. May we be excused?

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly.

MR KOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh yes, I see we have sat through the tea time, I think we will take the tea adjournment now.

MS LOCKHAT: All rise.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS