CHAIRPERSON: Will the legal representatives appearing in the application of Mr Tsotetsi, kindly place themselves on record.
MS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE: As it pleases you, Madam Chair and Committee Members. This is an application for amnesty by Koos Gahutla Tsotetsi. Madam Chair, I have prepared an affidavit deposed to by the applicant himself - excuse me.
INTERPRETER: What language will the applicant use?
MS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE: The applicant is Sotho speaking.
INTERPRETER: Let the applicant switch to channel 3 for Sotho. Everything is in order, we can proceed.
MS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE: Madam Chair and Committee Members, I have already indicated that I have prepared an affidavit deposed to by the applicant, Gahutla Koos Tsotetsi. It has been duly attested by him and I wish to hand copies thereof - I've prepared three of them.
CHAIRPERSON: You haven't stated your name for the record.
MS MOLOISANE: My name is Moloisane L M.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)
INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.
ADV STEENKAMP: Madam Chair, if I may just put the following on record. Indeed there were a number of other people implicated in this matter. We've checked and double-checked, none of the people who are implicated in this matter have applied for amnesty. We checked again yesterday. All those people who received notices according to Section 19(4), the majority of them, I think all of them, are still in prison. Some of them were here yesterday and there is one individual who is also an implicated person who has actually asked us to be present today. He is still present here today, one of the implicated people.
My information at this stage is that none of them are in the position at all, they want to have interest in this matter whatsoever. That's as far as the implicated persons is going.
Then there's the question of the two people who were identified as victims as indicated in the application, they were also served notices on the 17th of January this year, also as is customary to the head of the prison. I've already spoken to the investigating officer, they did receive these notices and none of them are interested to attend this hearing or to be part and parcel of it.
It was also indicated to me via my learned colleague, just for the record, that she also had the same information that none of these implicated people or the victims were interested to attend this hearing at this stage. Thank you, Madam Chair. Those Section 19(4)s are in my possession. Thank you, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. So you are saying Section 19(4) notices were served on the victims.
ADV STEENKAMP: Correct Madam Chair, as well as the implicated parties.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And we've got Return of Services as proof thereof.
ADV STEENKAMP: Yes, Madam Chair. All these documents not only were they orally confirmed but they were faxed and letters to the effect were received. And like I've said, we have spoken to the head of the prison as well, these documents were in actual fact served on the implicated persons as well as the victims.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I'm talking about the victims for now.
ADV STEENKAMP: Both the victims.
CHAIRPERSON: When were such notices served on the victims?
ADV STEENKAMP: It was the 17th of January, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And you were informed by the had of the prison on behalf of the victims, that they had no interest in attending these hearings.
ADV STEENKAMP: Correct, Madam Chair. The victims for the record are Mr Abraham Jeremiah van Rooyen and the other person, Mr Paledi Kopani.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
ADV STEENKAMP: Sorry Madam Chair, I said the 17th - yes, it was served on the 17th of January this year. Thank you, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: You will in due course let us have your Return of Service.
ADV STEENKAMP: Yes, Madam Chair, I will do that.
CHAIRPERSON: And was a Section 19(4) served on Mr Buddu? He is an implicated person.
ADV STEENKAMP: Yes, Madam Chair, a document was served on Mr Buddu, the physical address - if you will bear with me, 9th Floor, Longbanks Building, Cnr of Bree and Rissik Street, Johannesburg.
CHAIRPERSON: We are aware that he's attending these proceedings.
ADV STEENKAMP: He is attending the hearing. He was here yesterday as well, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Ms Moloisane.
MS MOLOISANE: As it pleases the Committee, Madam Chair. I intend calling the applicant just to clarify certain issues, but as I have already handed in an affidavit deposed to by him, I beg leave to read the contents thereof into the record after he has been sworn in.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. You won't have to read it, we don't need you to do that. We take it that he has read the document, you will let him confirm and there is no need for you to read it out because it has already been read by him and Mr Steenkamp has read the affidavit as well.
Mr Tsotetsi - in what language is he going to testify?
MS MOLOISANE: In Sotho, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we are going to ask Judge Motata to swear you in. Will you please stand up.
JUDGE MOTATA: Please stand. Give us your full names.
KOOS GAHUTLA TSOTETSI: (sworn states)
JUDGE MOTATA: Thank you, please be seated.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Moloisane?
EXAMINATION BY MS MOLOISANE: Mr Tsotetsi, you have deposed to an affidavit which has been handed in to - which has just been handed in today, is that correct?
MR TSOTETSI: That is correct, Chairperson.
MS MOLOISANE: You fully understand the contents thereof, is that correct?
MR TSOTETSI: Correct, Chairperson.
MS MOLOISANE: Do you still adhere to the contents thereof? - to the correctness of the contents thereof.
MR TSOTETSI: Correct, Chairperson.
MS MOLOISANE: Now you also made an affidavit when you were applying for amnesty, is that also correct?
MR TSOTETSI: Correct, Chairperson.
MS MOLOISANE: Madam Chair, in this regard I refer this Honourable Committee to page 15 to 18 of the handwritten affidavit that was deposed to by Mr Tsotetsi.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MS MOLOISANE: I just want you to clarify certain issues, Mr Tsotetsi. In paragraph 3 of this handwritten affidavit ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: That's page 15?
MS MOLOISANE: Page 15, paragraph 3.
You say - line 2 -
"I heard from the radio news that Mr de Klerk, the former State President, said all prisoners who are held for robbery, rape, attempted murder and unlicensed firearms are not going to be allowed to vote."
MR TSOTETSI: That is correct, Chairperson.
MS MOLOISANE: Now in the affidavit that you have handed in you have told this Committee that you heard from the prison warders that you were not going to be allowed to vote. Can you clarify us on this issue.
MR TSOTETSI: As I've already stated in my statement I learnt from the prison officials that we would not have the right to vote. On that particular day I heard from the radio that we would not have the right to vote, all people who were convicted for rape and robbery.
MS MOLOISANE: So what you are saying is that you first heard from the prison warders and then ...(intervention)
JUDGE DE JAGER: I think that's not a material difference really, I think it's common cause that there was an announcement that people convicted of murder and rape didn't have the right to vote, and maybe other categories too.
MS MOLOISANE: As it pleases you Mr de Jager.
That is all - what is your general feeling about that hostage drama that took place at Boksburg Prison on the 18th of March? - your general feeling right now.
MR TSOTETSI: We did a terrible thing to hold prison officials hostage to fight for our rights to vote, as they are people like us.
MS MOLOISANE: And what can you say about that incident?
JUDGE MOTATA: I think he covered in 4.2 page 6 of the affidavit.
MS MOLOISANE: As it pleases you, Judge Motata. That is all, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS MOLOISANE
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp?
ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you, Madam Chair, I have no questions.
NO QUESTIONS BY ADV STEENKAMP
JUDGE DE JAGER: Were you a member of SAPOR?
MR TSOTETSI: That is correct, Chairperson, I was a member of SAPOR at the time when I was in prison.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Was that a political organisation?
MR TSOTETSI: It's the political organisation which fights for prisoner's rights.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes, but would that be a political organisation or a unit - was that a political organisation or an organisation fighting for the rights of prisoners, not minding whether they're IFP or NP or ANC at all?
MR TSOTETSI: It was an organisation which was helping prisoners.
CHAIRPERSON: To which political organisation were you affiliated at the time of you joining SAPOR?
MR TSOTETSI: Before I was a supporter of the ANC.
CHAIRPERSON: Are you no longer a supporter of the ANC now?
MR TSOTETSI: I'm still a supporter, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And when did you become a member of the ANC?
MR TSOTETSI: It's a long time, whilst I was still a student. It was somewhere around 1988 or '89.
CHAIRPERSON: How did you regard the association, if there was any, between the ANC and SAPOR?
MR TSOTETSI: ...(no English interpretation)
CHAIRPERSON: How did you regard the association if you think - was there, let me first ask you, in your opinion was there or has there ever been any association between the ANC as a political party to which you were a member, and SAPOR as an organisation to which you were a member by virtue of you being a prisoner?
MR TSOTETSI: I don't know, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Judge Motata?
JUDGE MOTATA: I've got no questions Madam Chair, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Ms Moloisane, do you intend to call any witness in support of Mr Tstoteti's application?
MS MOLOISANE: I intend calling Mr Golden Miles Buddu, Madam Chair, who is present now.
CHAIRPERSON: Now. I didn't ask if you intended to re-examine, I don't think there is anything for you to re-examine on.
MS MOLOISANE: Correct, Madam Chair, there's nothing in re-examination.
CHAIRPERSON: That concludes Mr Tsotetsi's evidence.
MS MOLOISANE: That concludes his evidence, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may proceed to call your next witness. Mr Tsotetsi, you may stand down as a witness.
MS MOLOISANE: At this stage Madam Chair, I beg leave to call Mr Golden Miles Buddu.
GOLDEN MILES BUDDU: (sworn states)
CHAIRPERSON: You may sit down.
MR BUDDU: Thank you.
EXAMINATION BY MS MOLOISANE: Mr Buddu, is it correct that you were one of the founding members of an organisation known as SAPOR, South African Prisoners' Rights Organisation?
MR BUDDU: Yes, Ma'am.
MS MOLOISANE: Just to correct myself Madam Chair, I didn't say it correctly ...(intervention)
MR BUDDU: South African Prisoner's Organisation for Human Rights.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes.
MS MOLOISANE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Maybe we may just indicate, Ms Moloisane, what will be our difficulty. You obviously are aware of the requirement of Section 20 and the fact that Section 20(2), pertinently (a), requires an applicant to have been a member or a supporter of a publicly known political organisation or liberation movement and the applicant must have acted on behalf of or in support of such organisation or movement, bona fide in furtherance of a political struggle waged by such a publicly known organisation or liberation movement.
I think what we are going to expect of you is to show us how SAPOR - whether SAPOR can be taken as SAPOR as a publicly known political organisation, either on its own or by extension or by association.
MS MOLOISANE: As it pleases you, Madam Chair.
Now Mr Buddu, will you explain to this Committee what SAPOR stands for - we know, not the full name thereof, what it stands for.
MR BUDDU: Look, the South African Prisoners' Organisation for Human Rights is a human rights organisation fighting for the rights of detained persons, regardless of their political affiliation. Though I need to put on record here that since my release from prison in '91, the South African Prisoners' Organisation up to the elections of 1994, was perceived as ANC baby or brainchild. The reason why people associated SAPOR with the African National Congress was simply because of my dramatic and outstanding postures during protest marches, rallies, demonstrations initiated by the ANC. So in short, people positively associated us with the African National Congress, and I was then also a registered and signed up member of the ANC.
May I also put on record that when we engaged in SAPOR in a legitimate struggle towards outsing an illegitimate apartheid regime, we were fighting as prisoners, as detained persons, whether we were sentenced or not, for a little bit of acknowledgement, recognition, respect and after all we were fighting for our rights to be recognised as lawful citizens and owners of the land by casting our votes for organisations of our choice. And we were supported fully by all the progressive forces which was headed by the African National Congress.
MS MOLOISANE: What was your portfolio within the ranks of SAPOR?
MR BUDDU: I was the founder Member and then President, but my colleagues used to call me the supreme ruler.
MS MOLOISANE: Now after you release from prison in 1991, did you have any communication or constant liaison with prisoners throughout the country?
MR BUDDU: Yes, that I could only do through the mass media, both printed and electronic, that's TV, radio and the newspapers.
MS MOLOISANE: Now you have been called to come and testify in this amnesty application of Gahutla Komane - sorry, Gahutla Tsotetsi, and this application is a sequel to the events that took place on the 18th of March 1994, at Boksburg Prison. Will you just - is there anything that you know concerning this unrest that took place at Boksburg Prison on this particular day?
MR BUDDU: Of course, Ma'am.
MS MOLOISANE: Just briefly explain to this Committee what happened, the circumstances that led to the unrest.
MR BUDDU
"After an announcement was made by the previous apartheid regime leader, the now oust de Klerk, FW de Klerk, that prisoners were not going to cast their vote, that in fact angered us and we started to communicate with liberation movements, particularly the African National Congress, because they were in full support that prisoners be given an opportunity for the first time in the history of this country, to cast a vote for an organisations regardless.
And as an organisation we met, we discussed strategies and then we started asking for permission to picket, to demonstrate and to submit memorandums to the apartheid regime. It seem to me that the pressure exacerbated of course from other liberation movements, then de Klerk ended up saying that he would allow prisoners to vote, but excludes rapist, child molesters, robbers and murderers. That for us was also not good enough. And he insisted that the day of election will come and go, these categories won't vote and then as an organisation we had no other alternative but to announce mass rolling action in all South African prisons.
Coming back to the particular matter. Whilst the mass action was in progress I recall receiving a telephone call from an inmate in Boksburg, informing us that the authorities wouldn't allow them to peacefully protest, the authorities were threatening them and harassing them. And because I was in the line of command I told the inmate who spoke with me - I cannot recall who he was and from which section he was calling, because we were receiving calls from all over the country, by then Rome was burning. I recall instructing that inmate that if the authorities and not going to stop and leave you alone to protest in peace, I give a command or an instruction that they must take prison officers hostage and if possible they must burn down that prison and that's the only way how this matter was going to receive the intention it deserves.
And I said to them, if they have held these Correctional officers hostage, they must demand to call me, I will see to it that I call representatives of the liberation movements. And it did happen like that the following day".
MS MOLOISANE: Now when you issued this call that prisoners should embark on a mass action in prisons, did you have any mandate from any political organisation?
MR BUDDU: Look, ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: I don't understand the ambit of that question, Ms Moloisane, why should he have a mandate from any organisation, he was the founder of an organisation that was representing prisoners.
MS MOLOISANE: That is correct, Madam Chair. The witness ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Are you probably leading to something that we are not aware of?
MS MOLOISANE: No, Madam Chair. Maybe let me just clarify this. This witness earlier said SAPOR was aligned to the African National Congress ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Was perceived.
MS MOLOISANE: Was perceived, thank you, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: SAPOR existed as a juristic entity.
MS MOLOISANE: As it pleases you, Madam Chair. I will leave it there, Madam Chair.
JUDGE DE JAGER: And he was seen as a supreme ruler, so he wouldn't ask permission from anybody.
MR BUDDU: Well that was not the case, Your Honour, this was a name that was nickname that was given to me in the corridors of power.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but you were the President of SAPOR.
MR BUDDU: Yes, so to speak.
MS MOLOISANE: You may proceed.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you were still in the business of asking him questions with a view of eliciting evidence from him.
MS MOLOISANE: Yes, Madam Chair, I earlier indicated that I leave this question of a mandate there and I want him to proceed with his evidence now. We have discussed this, he knows the ambit within which the evidence has to be led.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Buddu, are you in a position to proceed? I thought your counsel would lead you.
MR BUDDU: What I would like to add for the sake of the record, Your Honour, is that yes, it is true that in our announcement for the rolling mass action we never even thought about it, to say that some of the tactics will be taking hostage and possibly burning down the prisons because that was not only going to be suicidal, it was going to be irresponsible.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR BUDDU: That is why I am saying when I gave the instruction for the taking of the hostage in Boksburg, it was done because I was kept abreast with the development of a certain situation at a certain prison. And I am aware of taking full responsibility for having given that instruction.
CHAIRPERSON: Was that instruction confined only to Boksburg Prison?
MR BUDDU: To be quite frank with you, the other instructions which I gave happened after the 27th of April 1994, because then the demand was different than the one prior to the elections of 1994.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think the ambit of my question was merely to ascertain whether the instruction that the mass action must also include the taking of hostages, whether that particular instruction was a general instruction that was given by you to all your members in all your prisons, or whether that specific instruction was only confined to the Boksburg Prison, of which Mr Tsotetsi is an inmate.
MR BUDDU: Comrade Chair, as I've earlier indicated, the reason why I gave the particular instruction at the respective institution was because I was kept abreast with the developments by our members and I was informed that Correctional officers didn't want to leave them alone peacefully exercising their right to protest.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR BUDDU: The other instruction which I gave was in Modder B Prison, but as I said earlier on, was after the elections. Where I was informed, I was informed from other prisons throughout the country where inmates were given that right to peacefully protest without breaking down the prison or without burning anything. They were left in peace to peacefully toyi-toyi, chant slogans and so forth.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes. In short, Mr Buddu, this particular instruction was confined to Boksburg Prison because the warders or the prison authorities were refusing to give your members the right to peacefully protest.
MR BUDDU: Correctly so, Comrade Chairperson.
MS MOLOISANE: Thank you, Madam Chair.
If I have to make a follow-up on what Madam Chair has asked you, they were being denied the right to peacefully protest against the decision to deny them voting rights, is that not so?
MR BUDDU: Yes, Ma'am.
MS MOLOISANE: Now on this particular day, that is the 18th of March 1994, you were at some stage summoned or called to Boksburg Prison, is that not correct?
MR BUDDU: It is correct, Ma'am.
MS MOLOISANE: Just briefly explain to the Committee how it happened.
MR BUDDU
"When the action was taken as per instruction, I was called by the head of the prison or the assistance, but it was somebody up high there in the hierarchy of the Department of Correctional Services. I was called in to come to the institution immediately because there was a nasty situation that has unfolded and if my memory still serves me well however instructed me to come to Boksburg. I was also requested to try and get representatives of both the ANC and the Pan Africanist Congress of Azania. I managed to get Bennie Alexander and if I'm not mistaken, when I got there with Bennie Alexander, Mac Maharaj was already there, if I'm not mistaken.
We were then briefed by management about what happened during the course of the day and we were escorted to the section where the incident had occurred and we advanced in the section, inmates welcomed us, we spoke with them and then we spoke with the Correctional officers that were locked up a the cell. And inmates in fact briefed us about their problems, that they were denied the right to vote, or they will be denied the right to vote, that's why they have acted in this manner and besides that they were complaining about numerous other grievances in terms of conditions and treatment etcetera, etcetera.
And I can still remember very well that whilst Bennie Alexander and Mac Maharaj were busy chatting with the hostages, I had a frank talk with inmates and I said to them "Guys listen here, you keep these warders in this cell until we get a resolution of this matter". Because it was not only really about grievances and conditions, it was also about the right to vote.
And after there was a discussion, inmates agreed that okay, they will release the hostages and I proposed to the two leaders that we have to go back to the administrative block, brief the management about the grievances of inmates and hear what they are going to do to try and let us come nearer to the solution. And there was an agreement that they are not going to release the hostages, we will have to go and brief management, none of them have been heard, none of them will be heard. These are the problems. As we left the section hardly metres from there, the special task SAP team then intercepted the section. We heard shots and we heard people screaming and I knew that ja, the task team has intercepted the situation. And before even we could get to management to brief them, the hostages were released by the task team".
MS MOLOISANE: And ultimately the prison inmates were granted the right to vote, to participate in the 1994 elections, is that correct?
MR BUDDU: That's correct, Ma'am.
MS MOLOISANE: That is the evidence, Madam Chair.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS MOLOISANE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Moloisane.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Could all the prisoners vote in the end?
MR BUDDU: Yes, what happened because of the dirty tricks of these architects, one could say, or so to speak, or apartheid, they gave an instruction at the eleventh hour that prisoners must vote. Now at the eleventh hour that message did filter throughout the country one, and if it did, Correctional officers with their own hidden agendas made sure that certain prisoners must vote and others must not vote. You know it all depended on the attitude of prison authorities at a particular institution at the time. But the instruction, Your Honour, overall was that the floodgates are opening that all prisoners must vote.
CHAIRPERSON: In your opinion, was the condition removed pursuant to an action such as the one embarked upon by Mr Tsotetsi?
MR BUDDU: Your Honour, you will have to ask that question all over again because I think in my own small little understanding, I have misunderstood you somewhere.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Do you think the right that was ultimately given to all prisoners in the country was so given as a result of an action embarked upon by people like Mr Tsotetsi?
MR BUDDU: I would say yes so, Your Honour, because it was because of this legitimate struggle which prisoners embarked on that in fact initiated liberation movements to press the outgoing apartheid regime to allow this category of human beings to vote because yes, they are citizens of this country and it was the first time in so many years that they would be given an opportunity to vote in their own country. Yes, I would say yes, yes.
JUDGE DE JAGER: It's not relevant for this application, but didn't we have a similar sort of problem before the last elections?
MR BUDDU: Yes, Your Honour we did, but this time because of the infrastructure which was put in place by a constitutional democracy, this is South Africa, a Constitutional Court where we instead of embarking on mass action, we went and studied the Constitution and the Constitution said yes, everybody is allowed to vote in this country and regardless of whether they are in prison or whether they are in the squatter camp or wherever. So it was not necessary for us to embark on any mass action.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you were however refused such a right on a technicality. I think it was infrastructural.
MR BUDDU: Is it now the 1999 elections?
CHAIRPERSON: The 199.. - no, the 1999 elections.
MR BUDDU: Yes, we were refused in the Supreme Court, but we went to the Constitutional Court and we won the case.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I have a problem, Mr Buddu let me be frank, in trying to see exactly where Mr Tsotetsi's application will fall in terms of Section 20(2) of the Act. You as the founder member and high-ranking member of SAPOR, would you say that you were regarded by the prisoners who were your members, as a political organisation?
MR BUDDU: Your Honour, that's somewhat a very tricky question. You see in the minds of the people, whether they were prisoners or not, here was an opportunity to vote of which they were deprived for many years and because of my association personally with a particular political organisation, it was obvious to these prisoners that I was pushing political agenda.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so what would be your short response to my question? Would you say that you were regarded or perceived by your members as a political organisation?
MR BUDDU: Yes, Ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON: As SAPOR.
MR BUDDU: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Why? Was it because SAPOR was the only vehicle that could transport the political needs of the prisoners who otherwise would not be in a position to engage in activities that would normally be embarked upon by people who were not incarcerated?
MR BUDDU: I would say yes, Ma'am, in the sense that - you see whether it was before or after the 1994 elections, it was not going to be fashionable for any political party to publicly come out and support these nasty categories of human being which are criminals.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. But I'm confining myself to the pre-election of 1994.
MR BUDDU: Yes, I do have press releases of particularly the ANC, where they supported us in our call for prisoners to vote. And in fact one could say we were a blessing in disguise because we could concentrate on this target group of prison - this target group which were prisoners, whilst the liberation movement could spend and waste most of their time addressing the civilians overall, so to speak, law-abiding citizens.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Can you estimate the total number of members that you had nationwide as SAPOR?
MR BUDDU: The population of prisoners has in the past five years increased drastically. One would of course estimate that then we had about 115, between 115-120 000 incarcerated persons, whether they were sentenced or unsentenced.
CHAIRPERSON: This is around March 1994?
MR BUDDU: '94.
JUDGE DE JAGER: And were they all - or, how many approximately were members of your organisation then?
MR BUDDU: Your Honour, you see the Department then was not as it was now, we had to operate like also an underground movement where inmates who had the guts, who were openly displaying their cards, they are card-carrying members as SAPOR, and those who didn't have the guts applied and kept their membership cards secretively with them and there were those who couldn't have access to us to join the organisation because of the apartheid regime didn't want to have anything to do with SAPOR, because they themselves perceived us as a political party or a human rights organisation with a hidden political agenda.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. But I mean I think Judge de Jager is merely interested in the total number of supporters you estimate in terms of support.
MR BUDDU: Your Honour, if you go back to 1994, pre the elections and you then recall the spread of our rolling mass action which was also coupled with violence, that was the number of our support.
CHAIRPERSON: This one?
MR BUDDU: Yes, we can't put it in numbers, but the response alone told me that we've got the support.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I thought the 115-120 000 was your estimate of the total support around South Africa that you had, am I correct?
MR BUDDU: Yes, yes, Ma'am.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Wasn't that the number of inmates in the 115 000 to 120 000 in 1994 round about?
MR BUDDU: No, no, that's not what I mean.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes. How many inmates were there round about in the prisons then?
MR BUDDU: You see Your Honour, if I have to estimate sentenced prisoners and unsentenced prisoners it would be a bit difficult, but for the sake of the record one needs to make this estimation because it's been requested by yourself. I estimate our support then between 110, 115 to 120 and the rest which remained maybe fall in the category of unsentenced prisoners because our support was not so massive amongst unsentenced prisoners you know.
CHAIRPERSON: One can understand why.
MR BUDDU: Yes. But also if I'm not mistaken I think the unsentenced prisoners, there was also a rumour that they won't vote, but they ended up voting because of the struggle which was initiated by us.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
JUDGE DE JAGER: And did you membership include IFP members all across political lines?
MR BUDDU: Yes, Your Honour because when we called for the right to vote we said that the previous regime would allow convicted and unconvicted prisoners to vote for organisations of their own choices. But I must also add though that the ANC knew for a fact that the majority of prisoners will vote for them and that is exactly what happened.
CHAIRPERSON: You as SAPOR you were open to membership from all kinds of political parties or so-called liberation movements then.
MR BUDDU: Yes, Ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you never had any preclusions.
MR BUDDU: No, not at all.
CHAIRPERSON: As you were the only vehicle of people particularly who were sentenced.
MR BUDDU: Even those who were not sentenced, but some of them saw it not necessary to belong to a party because they presumed themselves as innocent.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes. And is that the reasons why you enjoyed more support those who were sentenced?
MR BUDDU: Yes, Ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Moloisane, I don't think there is a need for any re-examination.
MS MOLOISANE: As the Committee please, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Is it your intention to call for further testimony in support of Mr Tsotetsi's application?
MS MOLOISANE: Pardon, Madam Chair?
CHAIRPERSON: Is it your intention to call for more testimony in support of Mr Tsotetsi's application?
MS MOLOISANE: That is not my intention, Madam Chair, this concludes the case for Mr Tsotetsi's application.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Are you in a position to proceed to address us?
MR BUDDU: Comrade Chair, I think it's okay now. I ...(indistinct) it.
CHAIRPERSON: No, I'm talking to Ms Moloisane.
MR BUDDU: Sorry for that.
MS MOLOISANE: To address?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, to proceed to legal argument. Are you in a position to do that?
MS MOLOISANE: Yes, I'm in a position, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: That being so, Mr Buddu, we'll request you to step down. Thank you very much for appearing before us.
MR BUDDU: Thank you very much, Ma'am and the rest of the Panel.
WITNESS EXCUSED
MS MOLOISANE IN ARGUMENT: As it pleases you Madam Chair and Committee Members.
It is my humble submission that the applicant has made out a proper case to be granted amnesty in terms of Section 20 of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act of 1995.
Madam Chair and Committee Members, I will start with the provision of (1) of Section 20. I submit that the applicant has met all these requirements and that the holding of the hostages at Boksburg Prison on the 18th of March 1994, was done in compliance with orders issued by SAPOR and that the said mass action was aimed at achieving a political objective which in this instance was to be granted the right to vote, which is a very important political right.
Madam Chair and Committee Members, it is further my submission that the applicant has made a full disclosure of all the relevant facts that pertained to the said mass action, or rather to the holding of the hostages on that particular day.
Madam Chair and Committee Members, I also wish to submit that Mr Tsotetsi, the applicant, stated in paragraph 2 of his affidavit that he was an active supporter of the African National Congress. And Madam Chair, Section 20(2)(a) makes provision for a member or supporter of a publicly known political organisation ...(intervention)
JUDGE DE JAGER: But he didn't act on their behalf or in their support in this instance, he acted as a supporter and on behalf of SAPOR
MS MOLOISANE: I fully agree with you, Committee Member, Mr de Jager. The last witness who testified, Mr Buddu, expressly told this Committee that SAPOR was perceived to be aligned to the ANC and coincidentally the applicant, Mr Tsotetsi, happened to an active supporter of the organisation. Although here ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct) perceptions, Ms Moloisane.
MS MOLOISANE: Pardon, Madam Chair?
CHAIRPERSON: Let's leave aside perceptions for now and concentrate on the factual evidence before us. Mr Tsotetsi was a member of the ANC, Mr Tsotetsi was incarcerated at the time, Mr Tsotetsi joined SAPOR and became a member of SAPOR. It is a fact that SAPOR instructed them to be part of this mass action, which mass action included the holding of hostages and it is as a result of the direct instruction by SAPOR that Mr Tsotetsi proceeded to act the way he did, which is an offence today for which he seeks amnesty. So as a fact before us, Mr Tsotetsi was acting on the instructions of SAPOR to participate in the mass action which included the holding of a hostage, as a fact.
Now let's leave perception. You can address us on that. What is your submission, would you submit to us that SAPOR can be defined as political organisation in terms of the Act? We know it represented quite a large number of inmates, so there can be no doubt that it was a public organisation. In my mind there is no doubt about that. A person who represents over a hundred thousand prisoners nationwide can never be said to be a private organisation.
Now I'm not worried about whether it was a private or otherwise organisation, the Act however requires us to take cognisance not of a public organisation, but of a public political organisation or liberation movement. Now what you have to submit before us is whether you would contend that SAPOR was in your submission, a public political organisation as defined in the Act.
MS MOLOISANE: Madam Chair and Committee Members, my contention is that SAPOR qualifies as a publicly known liberation movement in that it was catering for the needs and the interests, both political or otherwise, of the prisoners. And in that instance, Madam Chair and Committee Members, I submit that it clearly qualifies to be called a liberation movement.
CHAIRPERSON: Or a political organisation.
MS MOLOISANE: As it pleases you, Madam Chair.
And the fact that SAPOR stepped in when - or rather, the fact that SAPOR stepped in after an announcement had been made that prisoners in certain categories would not be allowed to cast their vote in the first historic democratic elections in this country, shows, clearly shows that SAPOR was a political organisation otherwise they wouldn't have stepped in, they had no reason to step in. And the fact on this particular day, that is on the 18th of March 1994, Mr Buddu, Mr Bennie Alexander of the Pan Africanist Congress of Azania and Mr Mac Maharaj of the ANC went to prison, to the Boksburg Prison to go and sort out this matter, clearly shows that this had something to do with a political objective. They had to go there - I mean, there is no reason why Mr Buddu had to take or to invite Mr Bennie Alexander and Mr Mac Maharaj who arrived before they could arrive there, or before them at prison.
The fact that I'm trying to drive home, the point I'm trying to drive home is that if SAPOR was not a political organisation, Mr Buddu would not have taken along Mr Alexander and Mr Maharaj with him to prison to go and address this whole issue surrounding the demands to be allowed - by the prisoners, to be allowed to cast their votes.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Do you know whether SAPOR had a Constitution?
MS MOLOISANE: Pardon?
JUDGE DE JAGER: Do you know whether SAPOR had a Constitution on paper?
MS MOLOISANE: As a fact, Mr Committee Member, I am aware that SAPOR has a Constitution and a physical address, that is their offices in Johannesburg. They operate as an organisation, it's a juristic ...(indistinct), a fully recognised one.
JUDGE DE JAGER: I've got no problem with that, but our only problem in this case, my only problem is whether SAPOR can be defined as a political, a known political organisation or liberation movement. And I would think that a Constitution could assist us in coming to a conclusion.
MS MOLOISANE: Unfortunately, Mr Committee Member, I'm not in a position to can give or disclose that Constitution at this stage unless ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. You will be in a position if you are requested as we will be requesting you to furnish us with some document.
MS MOLOISANE: I will try my best, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: As a result of what you are trying to submit to us.
MS MOLOISANE: I will try my best, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Your submission must be based on some documentary evidence.
MS MOLOISANE: I will try that, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Would you submit that SAPOR was waging a struggle against the State and anything that was seen to be associated or perceived to be associated with the State? Like the prisons for instance and the directive that came from Mr de Klerk that affected prisoners nationwide? In your submission would you contend that they were waging a struggle against the State, and if so, why?
MS MOLOISANE: In my submission Madam Chair and Committee Members, I wouldn't submit that SAPOR was waging a struggle against the State, I will rather submit that SAPOR was waging a struggle against injustices that were being committed against ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: By who? Committed by who?
MS MOLOISANE: Well because they are being incarcerated obviously they are waging that struggle against the Department of Correctional Services, but not really against the State as a whole.
CHAIRPERSON: But wouldn't you regard Correctional Services as being part of the State?
MS MOLOISANE: I do, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Wouldn't you interpret the word State to include Correctional Services?
MS MOLOISANE: I do, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: So why shouldn't you submit that they were waging a struggle against the State?
MS MOLOISANE: Thank you Madam Chair for that indulgence.
MR PRETORIUS: And that perhaps a right was being taken away by the State, either through the President or by the Correctional Services Department and that right was important to them, the right to vote.
MS MOLOISANE: That is my contention, Judge Motata.
And I further wish to submit that the right to vote was a very important one being a political right which every citizen has to enjoy.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Does that conclude your legal argument?
MS MOLOISANE: That concludes my legal argument, Madam Chair and Committee Members, thank you, unless if the Committee still wants to hear me on certain aspects.
CHAIRPERSON: We are going to request you to forward to this Committee through Mr Steenkamp by not later than Thursday this week, to give us a copy of the Constitution as at 1994.
MS MOLOISANE: I will try my best, Madam Chair and Committee Members. I will actually try to contact Mr Buddu this afternoon.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And Mr Steenkamp will then if possible, if you are not dealing with a bulky document will you please see to it that you give us three copies so that Mr Steenkamp can simply distribute the copies to the various Members of the Panel.
MS MOLOISANE: I will comply with your request, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. We'd like to have this Constitution I must stress, by Thursday because we hope to finish either on Thursday or at the latest on Friday, and after that this Committee will not be constituted as it is and we'd like to look at the Constitution whilst we are still constituted as we are, so that we can make some opinions about the Constitution in relation to the pertinent question we have raised with you regarding whether SAPOR can be regarded as a publicly known political organisation or liberation movement.
MS MOLOISANE: As it pleases you, Madam Chair and Committee Members. As I've already indicated I will be contacting Mr Buddu this afternoon immediately after the adjournment.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I think this brings us to the conclusion of the application of Mr Tsotetsi. Mr Steenkamp, are we in a position to proceed with another application?
ADV STEENKAMP: Madam Chair, unfortunately we had some difficulties for the matter - there are three matters standing down. The one of Vanderbijlpark, the attorney there, Mr Brian Koopedi unfortunately had - sorry Madam Chair, Mr Koopedi unfortunately had urgent arrangements this afternoon and he couldn't wait any longer. The victims are available. I've arranged with him that this matter be proceeded with early tomorrow morning, whatever time it suits the Committee.
CHAIRPERSON: Which matter is that one?
ADV STEENKAMP: That's the Vanderbijlpark matter, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
ADV STEENKAMP: And then the other matter standing down which is a more bulky and I would suggest a more complicated matter, it's the Ngeni matter. I'm probably not pronouncing ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Ngubane.
ADV STEENKAMP: Ngubane. There is - the appeal record, I've got the appeal record from Bloemfontein. The attorneys are preparing it at this moment. And the last matter, Madam Chair, on the roll is a matter that we discussed just shortly and that's the matter where one of the applicants are currently in the Kruger National Park. He's a member of the military there. That's the matter of Mr Mokati.
My difficulty there is Madam Chair, on request we've tried all our means to make sure that this applicant be brought to the hearing either today or tomorrow. It is logistically probable to get him here tomorrow morning, but the legal representatives are not able to be available tomorrow morning and in the circumstances they've also been excused from attendance not to sit here until 5 o'clock. So I would suggest Madam Chair, that the roll for the day is complete and tomorrow morning we can start immediately with the Vanderbijlpark three, the matter where Mr Koopedi will be appearing.
CHAIRPERSON: That's the matter of Mr Mokati, Mthembu and Dube?
ADV STEENKAMP: Correct, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: That being so we are going to reserve our judgment in this matter, Ms Moloisane. We cannot even indicate how long we are going to do that, it is a matter that requires us to think about it, it requires some legal issues which are not the kind of issues that we deal with every day. We will however once our decision is ready, have our decision conveyed to you as soon as possible with obviously a view of you communicating with Mr Tsotetsi. Our office however in Cape Town will also communicate with the head of the prison where Mr Tsotetsi is being kept directly.
We thank you for the assistance you've rendered to this Committee. Mr Tsotetsi you are excused for the day.
WITNESS EXCUSED
MS MOLOISANE: Thank you Madam Chair and Committee Members.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
