FALAKE PROFESSOR MADLALA: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY MR DEHAL: Mr Madlala, is it correct that you are the younger brother of the first applicant, Mr Tom Madlala and that you featured prominently within the ranks of the UDF Youth League, under the command of your brother, the first applicant, Tom Madlala?
MR MADLALA: Yes, it is.
MR DEHAL: I show you this bundle of papers, in particular pages 33 to 39. This is the English translation of your original application which is contained in the bundle on pages 40 to 49, which you completed in the Zulu language. Is this your application for amnesty and do you confirm that?
MR MADLALA: Yes, I do confirm.
CHAIRPERSON: In whose handwriting was that?
MR DEHAL: In whose handwriting is this application in Zulu?
MR MADLALA: It is mine.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MR DEHAL: Thank you. And is this your signature on page 48 of the bundle?
MR MADLALA: Yes.
MR DEHAL: Is it correct that you seek amnesty for exactly the same incidents, offences, acts, omissions that the first applicant seeks amnesty for?
MR MADLALA: Yes, that is so.
MR DEHAL: You were present at these hearings when the first applicant testified. You heard him talk about the political activity at the time in the area you lived in, the background to that political activity, the issues between the IFP and the ANC, UDF alliance and particularly the issue with the chiefs. Do you confirm all of that as correct?
MR MADLALA: Yes, I do.
MR DEHAL: Do you generally align yourself with the testimony of the first applicant Tom Madlala, insofar as it relates to you, particularly since both of you are applying for amnesty on the same counts?
MR MADLALA: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Was he convicted of the death of the same people as the first applicant?
MR DEHAL: May I just clarify that? Bear with me, Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR DEHAL: Thank you Chair. He was not even arrested on this count. In fact shortly after the incident and the arrest of the first applicant, this second applicant escaped from the area, was pursued by the police, but never successfully arrested, so he was not charged with these incidents.
CHAIRPERSON: And has he been - what is he serving a term of imprisonment for?
MR DEHAL: He's not in prison, he's actually outside prison. He's not serving any term. He's not been charged with any of these offences.
CHAIRPERSON: I'm sorry.
MR DEHAL: He's seeking amnesty purely because he now makes an open admission that he featured prominently and actively participated in these incidents.
CHAIRPERSON: Does he know the names of the people whose death he may have personally caused or would he not know this?
MR DEHAL: On the same lines as the first applicant deduced, he would have difficulty in recalling their names.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MR DEHAL: Mr Madlala, there is on page 51 a statement made by a man who says he's your uncle and who refers to an incident in which the first applicant had caused injury to his property. Do you see this? That's a Mr Mzelemu. Is he firstly your uncle?
MR MADLALA: Yes, he is.
MR DEHAL: This uncle talks in paragraph 3 of his affidavit on page 51 of an incident on the 3rd February, 1990. I understand that you and your brother, the first applicant, have a problem with that date. You know of this incident, but you say it occurred on a different date, but apart from that, I understand that you had nothing to do with this incident. Is that correct?
MR MADLALA: That's correct.
MR DEHAL: Thank you. You have a statement which you made, a copy of which I have placed before you. This statement - sorry Mr Chairperson, would this be Exhibit B?
CHAIRPERSON: I think it should be Exhibit B, yes.
MR DEHAL: Thank you. this statement, Exhibit B, is a statement that was compiled on your instructions to your attorney, is that correct?
MR MADLALA: That's correct.
MR DEHAL: I see that you've actually signed it, confirming it's correctness.
MR MADLALA: Yes.
MR DEHAL: On the basis that you have already aligned yourself with and confirmed as correct the testimony of the first applicant, Tom Madlala, and since the incidents are the same for which you both seek amnesty, I will not take you through the statement, especially since you've confirmed it as correct. I would ask you generally, do you - sorry, I think you say this in your statement. How do you feel about the victims? Do you wish to reconcile with them? I see in paragraph 14 you say you are deeply sorry for your actions and involvement in the attack, but you were forced to participate in these activities, so as to further the cause of the UDF as an organisation.
"It was very frustrating to stand by and watch our people being constantly attacked. I do wish to reconcile with the families of the victims."
That's correct, is it?
MR MADLALA: Yes, that's correct.
MR DEHAL: Is there anything else you wish to add?
MR MADLALA: No, nothing.
MR DEHAL: Mr Chairperson, thank you very much. That's the evidence of the second applicant. Thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DEHAL
CHAIRPERSON: Any cross-examination?
MR HARKOO: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no questions.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR HARKOO
CHAIRPERSON: Have you any questions?
MR MAPOMA: No questions Chairperson, thank you.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR MAPOMA
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank's very much, you are excused. WITNESS EXCUSED
MR DEHAL: My Chairperson, on the same lines as applicable to the first applicant, relative to the second applicant, there are a number of witnesses who are available to testify to support his version, corroborate his version, but again there seems little purpose to be served in calling them, given again the lack of any cross-examination, the uncontested aspect of his version and for reasons of expediency, I will not call them.
CHAIRPERSON: Counsel for the objectors, or rather the dependants and so on, I have no doubt, has gone through the papers and seen from affidavits and statements made by relatives of the victims, who themselves in their statements say that there has been on-going conflict in the area between IFP and ANC and that all the violence that we've been hearing about stems from that conflict, so I think that whatever limitations counsel for the objectors has, quite clearly emerge from the papers themselves.
MR DEHAL: Indeed.
CHAIRPERSON: Do you propose calling any witnesses?
MR HARKOO: I have indicated, Mr Chairman, that I will not be opposing the application. I would however, make a request at the end of the argument that the applicants are at liberty to approach those victims or family of the victims that are here, merely as an attempt to apologise.
CHAIRPERSON: A reconciliation.
MR HARKOO: To reconcile. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: So you don't propose calling any evidence at this stage?
MR HARKOO: Not at all.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Right you are. Have you any desire to call any witnesses?
MR MAPOMA: No Chairperson, I have no further evidence to tender.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: All the evidence that has been adduced before us is adequately covered by the papers that have been submitted to us and I'm going to ask you to address us on what you think are essential matters to which special attention has to be given by this Committee and any other point that you would like to make.
MR DEHAL IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Mr Chairperson, in as much as there has no been specific objection to any aspect of either the first or the second applicant's application for amnesty, apart from that, I submit respectfully that both the applicants' applications do fall squarely within the purview of Section 20(i) of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act and that it is not only uncontroverted, but abundantly clear that the testimony of both the applicants supports the political objective, the preponderance thereof is also evident from the papers before us, the aspect of full disclosure is neither contested, nor questioned at any other level. Full disclosure has indeed been made by both the applicants and the level of proportionality has also not been contested.
My respectful submission is that given the nature of the issues of the day, the ongoing strife, the political strife, the acts perpetrated by the first applicant in both his capacity first as a person, secondly as a leader in the issuing of instructions, had been indeed proportional to the events of the day, had been fully political and they have both made full disclosure.
There seems little purpose for me to traverse the other aspects of the sections particularly (ii), (iii) and (iv). It seems to me abundantly clear that these two applicants have made out a case for amnesty.
I submit respectfully that their applications ought to be granted. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Dehal, there's only one thing. I've asked - you're applying for amnesty in the respects of those incidents on the 25th of March, is that correct?
MR DEHAL: That is correct, but it seems as though in his statement, the first applicant deals also with incidents on the 1st of January, the 10th of February and the 11th of February and ...(intervention)
JUDGE DE JAGER: Well, that's what's troubling me and that's why I asked are you asking for amnesty for those incidents too?
MR DEHAL: Indeed, but that would be covered in the amnesty application within the context of the general words used meaning other incidents and other persons. You see the difficulty I have is that this applicant formulated this application whilst in custody without any of the papers before him and constrained by those limitations, he was forced to record general statements in this application.
CHAIRPERSON: Are the names given in the application form of the victims, the people who were murdered? Are those the people in respect of whom he was in fact convicted in the trial?
MR DEHAL: Those would be only some of them, yes. So it would be ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: When you say some of them, those are the only people in respect of whom he was convicted.
MR DEHAL: I see on page 3, Mr Chairperson, he refers to four names.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR DEHAL: As I recall it, he was convicted of the murder of three of those persons. Thulani Gumede I looked for and I couldn't find in his record when late last night I read through it, but I think he was convicted of those three and another whose name I haven't managed to establish.
JUDGE DE JAGER: You haven't got a copy of the indictment, perhaps?
MR DEHAL: Unfortunately, no.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: I understand that it had not been possible to obtain this because the recording has been destroyed, or the tapes have been destroyed.
MR DEHAL: Indeed. As is evident from that page of the Secretarial Services letter, which is contained in the bundle, I forget what page that is.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I've seen that.
MR DEHAL: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Alright. Mr Harkoo, is there anything you wish to say at this stage?
MR HARKOO: I will leave the matter in the hands of the Committee members.
NO ARGUMENT BY MR HARKOO
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Have you anything to say?
MR MAPOMA: I have no submissions Chairperson.
NO ARGUMENT BY MR MAPOMA
CHAIRPERSON: The Committee has heard the evidence on behalf of the applicants and in due course it will consider that evidence and make its decision known. However, because of the general background against which these offences were committed, it might be appropriate for the applicants to be afforded an opportunity when the Committee adjourns to meet with those dependants of the victims who are present here and attempt at reconciling themselves to those people and ask them for their forgiveness. Judging from the evidence of the applicant, he had taken the trouble himself to encourage dependants of IFP victims to fill in applications for the Reparations Committee. This is the first time we are confronted with that kind of attitude by an applicant who belonged to the ANC, who has gone around encouraging members of the other side, his erstwhile enemies or opponents, to take the necessary steps to apply to the TRC for rehabilitation. That's an indication that the time is very ripe for bringing about reconciliation and we'll now adjourn this hearing and we'll be please if the two applicants take advantage, if they haven't already done so, of meeting with and seeking reconciliation from those who are here from the other side. The Committee will now adjourn.
MR DEHAL: Thank you Chair.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS WITH JUDGE MALL AS CHAIRPERSON
