--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, good morning everybody, today is Thursday, the 25th of November 1999. We are due to hear the applications of Madonsela and Mahlangu. Could the legal representatives who are involved in these matters, please place their names on record please?

MS CAMBANIS: Thank you Chair, I am Crystal Cambanis, appearing for both the applicants in this matter.

MS THABETHE: Thabile Thabethe, the Evidence Leader, I am also representing the victims in this matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Has there been due notice to the victims?

MS THABETHE: Yes, Mr Chair, and they are present today.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR MALAN: Can we just have it on record, that we failed to communicate with Chuene and Moloto who are also listed as victims in the judgment.

MS THABETHE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: With whom are you going to start Ms Cambanis?

MS CAMBANIS: With the first applicant listed, Mr Obed Madonsela, who is seated to my right.

CHAIRPERSON: What language is he going to speak?

MS CAMBANIS: He prefers to speak in English.

CHAIRPERSON: Prefers to speak in English.

MS CAMBANIS: Yes, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Madonsela, could you rise please, put your microphone on. What are your full names?

MR MADONSELA: My name is Obed Salukwanda Madonsela .

OBED SALUKWANDA MADONSELA: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you may be seated. You may proceed, Ms Cambanis.

EXAMINATION BY MS CAMBANIS: Thank you Chair. Mr Madonsela, you have applied for amnesty on the prescribed - you have applied for amnesty on the prescribed form and we have gone through that which is found at page 3 to page 9 of the Bundle, is that correct, do you confirm that that is your application?

MR MADONSELA: Yes, that is true.

MS CAMBANIS: You have also made a supplementary statement setting out more details and that is contained in a three page statement, a copy of which have been handed up to the Committee, I think.

MR MALAN: I have only a two page statement.

MS CAMBANIS: Thank you Chair. What happened is that I made it a little bit more fancy, by putting in the heading this morning, so it is the two-paged document, the content is exactly the same.

MR MALAN: I accept that thank you.

MS CAMBANIS: Please look at it and confirm that we went through it this morning, you read through it and do you confirm under oath that the contents of that is correct?

MR MADONSELA: Yes, it is true.

MS CAMBANIS: Thank you. Mr Madonsela, it is correct that you were the commander of this unit and that your co-applicant, Mr Mahlangu, who is seated next to you, is the second applicant in this matter?

MR MADONSELA: Sure.

MS CAMBANIS: And the third person, Mr Christopher Khumalo, of your unit, is also present today?

MR MADONSELA: Yes, sure.

MS CAMBANIS: Yes, and I may tell the Committee that Mr Christopher Khumalo, my instructions are that he confirms the contents of the events as set out in the applications as set out before this Committee. Mr Madonsela, at page 16 and 17, sorry and 18 of the Bundle, is your release from prison. You were convicted of these offences, is that correct?

MR MADONSELA: Yes, that is correct.

MS CAMBANIS: And largely it was for the incident at the police station, the municipal offices and for possession of arms and ammunition?

MR MADONSELA: That is correct.

MS CAMBANIS: And on the 23rd of June 1991, Judge Solomon in fact granted you a release from prison, it was not called amnesty, there were two categories Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Indemnity.

MS CAMBANIS: That was the indemnity and then the release from prison, and he got in terms of the release of prison, is that correct, that you were then released under the Indemnity Act?

MR MADONSELA: That is correct.

MS CAMBANIS: And your co-accused, the third party, Mr Christopher Khumalo, was he also indemnified and released from prison?

MR MADONSELA: No, our lawyer applied for us for appeal, he made an appeal for us and ...

MS CAMBANIS: That is right, he was acquitted?

MR MADONSELA: He was granted appeal, it was acquitted.

MS CAMBANIS: I apologise.

CHAIRPERSON: So the appeal was successful?

MS CAMBANIS: The appeal was successful, yes. Thank you Chairperson, I have nothing further for this applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And you confirm that you have been found guilty of these offences and in fact, you had these, you committed these offences?

MR MADONSELA: As is stated on the latter pages, that I submitted to the Judges, that I confirm the acts.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Also that you had these weapons in your possession?

MR MADONSELA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Before Ms Thabethe starts, would we have the signed supplementary affidavits for proper records?

MS CAMBANIS: Yes Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Thabethe, any cross-examination?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETHE: Thank you Chair. I am not sure who the applicant is, is it Madonsela or Mr Mahlangu?

CHAIRPERSON: Madonsela, the first applicant.

MS THABETHE: Madonsela, thank you. Mr Madonsela, as I have indicated before, I am also representing the victims in this matter, and they have requested me to pose some few questions to you which I will do so. In your statement on paragraph 6 you have indicated that you did a reconnaissance in the building?

MR MADONSELA: Yes.

MS THABETHE: Is that correct?

MR MADONSELA: That is correct.

MS THABETHE: For how long was this?

MR MADONSELA: For a period of three weeks.

MS THABETHE: Three weeks? Now from the reconnaissance, would it be correct to say that you observed that there were two separate buildings in the municipality?

MR MADONSELA: Yes.

MS THABETHE: One which was mainly occupied by white people and one which was mainly occupied by black people? Did you observe this by any chance?

MR MADONSELA: No. It was a building that was used by everybody.

MS THABETHE: Just for the record let me say that my instructions are that in this building there was a section where, which was dominated mainly by black people and there was a section which was occupied by white people, what would be your response?

MR MADONSELA: I think we should define occupation, by mere fact of an office or by mere fact of using the very space, that is the Town Council offices. I want to be clear from that.

MS THABETHE: My instructions are that there were separate sections, that is the white people occupied, there was a building that was occupied by the white people.

MR MADONSELA: Only?

CHAIRPERSON: It was a building used by white officials and a building used by black officials for work purposes?

MS THABETHE: Yes.

MR MADONSELA: I am not sure of that.

MR MALAN: May I just get the record straight here, you said mainly, and it now on the follow up seems to be exclusively white, and exclusively black? What are your instructions on this, Ms Thabethe?

MS THABETHE: Well, my instructions are that the building, the whole building was used by black, both black and white, but there were sections which were occupied by white people.

MR MALAN: Mainly or exclusively, that is my question.

MS THABETHE: Exclusively, I would say, yes. And then there was a section where black people occupied offices.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But the public would have access to both sections?

MS THABETHE: Apparently the public had access to the offices where rent was paid.

CHAIRPERSON: Would that constitute the only access of the public into those buildings, that may be for rental purposes?

MS THABETHE: Well, I would have to take further instructions, but I wouldn't think so, Mr Chair. I don't think the municipal offices were used only for rental purposes, but my victims were targeted when they went there to pay rent.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, you may proceed.

MS THABETHE: Thank you Mr Chair. Well, Mr Madonsela, if you say you did not observe this, it is going to be difficult for me to ask the question I was asked, because my instructions were to ask you why did the bomb explode in a building which was dominated by black people and why didn't you place the bomb in the offices where white people used to occupy those offices? You were acting against the apartheid government?

CHAIRPERSON: Wouldn't it be that if you were attached to the structures of the then regime, you were also targeted, it was not mainly white, wouldn't that be the case?

MR MADONSELA: The purpose of the attack itself, was not specifically meant for any individual but it was meant for the establishment, meaning the administration offices. As I have said earlier on that not necessarily if that building is divided, mainly it was exclusive, because if I may recall, the entrance into the very building, it is used by everybody, so it wouldn't suffice to say exclusively white and exclusively black, but my objective is to say the attack was not solely targeted to any individual, but it was targeted to the establishment, meaning the administration offices.

MS THABETHE: Thank you Mr Chair. I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Thabethe. Mr Malan?

MR MALAN: I have no questions, thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Judge de Jager?

JUDGE DE JAGER: No questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Thank you Mr Madonsela, you are excused. Let me rather put it this way, why I asked the Panel, Ms Cambanis, is that when you re-examine, you should have the opportunity of having heard all the sides, rather than us going backwards and forwards, do you have any re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MS CAMBANIS: Perhaps just for clarification, Mr Madonsela, you said that the office building was divided into - how was it divided, were there offices?

MR MADONSELA: If I may say, it is mainly, it is the one that was specifically targeted by us, was divided into two. There is where we normally pay rent, it is in the front portion of the very building and there is the other part, that is mainly offices, and the device that we placed, was placed on the side where offices were and then precisely the timing was set to at least, the explosive should explode during lunch time, because offices are used by people during lunch time who would be away, so as to minimise casualties, if I may say.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Why didn't you place it at night? Why didn't you place it at night, or timed it at night, then there wouldn't have been casualties, the building would have been damaged?

MR MADONSELA: I think the access to the building, was during the day, it wouldn't be possible for us to access it during the night.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you completed all the re-examination?

MS CAMBANIS: I have, thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: What do you propose to do, to lead Mahlangu and argue thereafter, or you want to argue immediately for Madonsela?

MS CAMBANIS: I propose to lead the second applicant, Mahlangu, and then to argue.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: What language does he prefer to speak?

MR MAHLANGU: English.

MS CAMBANIS: Also English, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Mahlangu, could you stand up please and have your microphone on. What are your full names for the record?

MR MAHLANGU: My name is Lawrance Bongani Mahlangu.

LAWRANCE BONGANI MAHLANGU: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you may be seated.

MR MAHLANGU: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Cambanis?

EXAMINATION BY MS CAMBANIS: Thank you Chair. Mr Mahlangu, we have gone through your application, in the prescribed form for amnesty and this is contained at page 10 up to page 13 of the Bundle, would you look at that and confirm that that is your application?

MR MAHLANGU: Yes, I do confirm.

MS CAMBANIS: Yes, and then we have prepared a supplementary statement, which again Chair, your copy is two pages and for the same reason, I am handing in a three page document.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MS CAMBANIS: Do you confirm that you read through this this morning and you confirm it under oath, the contents?

MR MAHLANGU: Yes, I do.

MS CAMBANIS: You have heard the evidence of your Commander, Mr Madonsela?

MR MAHLANGU: Yes, I did.

MS CAMBANIS: Do you agree with the contents thereof?

MR MAHLANGU: Yes, I do.

MS CAMBANIS: Thank you Chair, nothing further.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Cambanis. Ms Thabethe, do you have any cross-examination?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETHE: Thank you Mr Chair. Mr Mahlangu, in paragraph 5 of your statement you say that the decision of the unit was to place a limpet mine which was to go off during lunch hour in order to minimise injuries to civilians?

MR MAHLANGU: Yes.

MS THABETHE: Yes? Would you tell the Committee what time did the municipal offices close?

MR MAHLANGU: Roughly I think half past four.

MS THABETHE: Half past four? And the bomb which exploded, what time did you place it?

MR MAHLANGU: I cannot remember exactly what was the time. It was during lunch time.

MS THABETHE: Before how many minutes, maybe?

MR MAHLANGU: Before how many minutes before lunch or what?

MS THABETHE: No, before it exploded?

MR MAHLANGU: It exploded in roughly 20 minutes later.

MS THABETHE: 20 minutes later?

MR MAHLANGU: Yes.

MS THABETHE: Now my question is, in the testimony, in the evidence of Mr Madonsela, he said you targeted the lunch time because or during the day, because you needed to have access to the building. My question is ...

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, that is not what he said. What he said is that, the question from Judge de Jager why didn't you do it in the evening, he said "no, we didn't have access to the building in the evening."

MS THABETHE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And then he said further that why they had the lunch hour is that people would go out of the building and it would minimise any casualties to civilians. I think you should put your question in perspective.

MS THABETHE: Yes, thank you. I am indebted to you, Mr Chair. My question is why didn't you place the bomb, let's say at half past four, so that it explodes at five, when there was nobody in the building?

MR MAHLANGU: Yes, I think the placing of the bomb and the timing, it came as a result of us, as it is stated here, that we have made a reconnaissance and we satisfied ourselves, when we took a decision, that was the time which was suitable for us to go into the building, which is lunch time when people go in and out. That was the most suitable time for us to go in with the explosive.

MS THABETHE: During this period, were the rent boycotts already in process?

MR MAHLANGU: Yes.

MS THABETHE: Thank you Mr Chair, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Thabethe. Mr Malan?

MR MALAN: No questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Judge de Jager?

JUDGE DE JAGER: No questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination?

MS CAMBANIS: Nothing, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Does that conclude your evidence?

MS CAMBANIS: It does thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: And you are closing your cases as well, in respect of this incident?

MS CAMBANIS: Yes, we are.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you in a position to argue?

MS CAMBANIS: Yes, I am Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed. Let me ask Ms Thabethe as well, it will be unfair just to ask you?

MS THABETHE: Always, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Thabethe.

MS CAMBANIS IN ARGUMENT: Thank you. It is trait knowledge that for the application for amnesty to succeed, there are three requirements. The first is that the applicant should have applied in the prescribed form, we submit from the Bundle that that is ...

CHAIRPERSON: We accept that.

MS CAMBANIS: That has been done. Regarding the supplementary affidavits, in terms of Section 19, the Commission could have asked further questions, they did not do so. We chose to elaborate by way of affidavit, which is now, forms part of the Bundle and therefore the requirement is satisfied of application. Regarding the political motivation which is the second requirement, in the submissions by the ANC to the TRC, these incidents have already been acknowledged as ANC activities, and that is at page 98 of the ANC's second submission, where it has a question mark of what date, but it has the right month and the right year of the attack on the police station. Added to that, with all due respect to Judge Solomon, he has already found that political motive does exist and there is nothing different between the Indemnity Act as it then was, and the Amnesty Act, in terms of requirement and I respectfully submit that the finding on political motivation of Judge Solomon should be followed in this case. It is also common knowledge that there was rent boycotts, that the policy of the ANC which is sited at page 48 of the ANC's main submissions to the TRC, sets out what it viewed as legitimate targets, that police stations were certainly listed amongst legitimate targets and then at (iv) it referred to irredeemable government stooges, in the language of the day, and we will submit that the admin buildings, enforcing rent payments and so on, would fall under that. The final consideration is full disclosure.

We submit that the applicants have disclosed the names of all the persons in their unit, they have revealed their commander and they have fully disclosed to this Committee who, how and when they were responsible for taking these actions, including the bringing in of weapons. I therefore submit that they have complied with all three requirements and that they must therefore be entitled to amnesty in respect of these, the police station and municipal offices and the possession of arms and ammunition. Thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any questions to Ms Cambanis? Thank you, Ms Thabethe?

MS THABETHE IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Mr Chair. Mr Chair, on behalf of the victims, I would just like to put it for the record, that I did read the statements of Mr Madonsela and Mr Mahlangu for the victims and I explained the contents thereof. I also explained the three requirements that a person has to comply with in order to be granted or refused amnesty, and there was an agreement that there was nothing to oppose on with regard to the three requirements, because the victims understand as well that the act was committed for political reasons with a political objective.

However, they requested me to inform the Committee that they feel that there was, the applicants were careless in a way because they could have avoided casualties, especially in the municipal bombing. Also they said I must relate to the Committee the fact that they have sustained injuries. Yvonne Madlala informed me that she had to have an operation after this incident, after she sustained injuries, and she could not bear children any more. Esrom Mothagu informed me that ...

CHAIRPERSON: Esrom?

MS THABETHE: Mothagu.

CHAIRPERSON: How would you spell that?

MS THABETHE: Mothagu.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MS THABETHE: That his eardrums were injured and he's got problems with hearing properly. With regard to the incident in the police station, I also explained to Mr Ramela the requirements and everything, Mr Ramela was also injured in this incident, and he understood the three requirements of the Act and he also understood that the offence was political.

JUDGE DE JAGER: On page 1 in the summary there, victims number 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, were they injured at the Tembisa or who were the - administration office?

MS THABETHE: Yes. They were injured whilst they went to pay rent there, they were not working there per se.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes. And in the other incident, Mr Ramela and Chuene and Moloto were injured?

MS THABETHE: Moloto? Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed.

MS THABETHE: On those basis, Mr Chair, I would for the record request the Committee to consider these victims for purposes of R&R. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: I suppose Ms Cambanis, you don't have a reply to that?

MS CAMBANIS: No, we have no personal knowledge who the victims are, we certainly are not in a position to dispute it. We would support if the victims be made available to the Reparations Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MS CAMBANIS: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: This concludes the applications to be heard today. I am just advised by my colleague that there is people from Correctional Services, whom did they bring today? Michael Bentswana? Who would that be, which application is that, Mrs Thabethe, Ms Thabethe, sorry, to elevate your status.

MS THABETHE: I think it is Bentswana and Nqanda.

CHAIRPERSON: Bentswana?

MS THABETHE: Yes.

MS CAMBANIS: That is my client.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, your client, we will come to that later, so we haven't concluded the proceedings until you advise otherwise, Ms Cambanis. What would be the position with them today?

MS CAMBANIS: I understand the matter has been struck off the roll, but he has been brought through any way.

CHAIRPERSON: Struck or removed?

MS CAMBANIS: Removed, I beg your pardon.

CHAIRPERSON: I think it would be better for us to remove it than struck it off the roll, because he is present.

JUDGE DE JAGER: In what instance was he involved? Not in the same incident?

MS CAMBANIS: No, it is a separate incident relating to Self Defence Units.

MS THABETHE: Maybe just ...

CHAIRPERSON: Had the Department of Correctional Services not advised that this matter, that the Bentswana matter has been removed from the roll?

MS THABETHE: No Mr Chair, because I spoke to Crystal, that she would like to consult with them after these proceedings.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you confirm that?

MS CAMBANIS: Yes Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. To the Department of Correctional Services, legal representatives had always had problems when they go to prison, we know it is inconvenient for you, but it is also convenient for the process that whilst these matters are set down and removed from the roll, the applicant should be brought to this venue, so that the legal representatives could consult with them. Could you bear with us in that aspect, that there wouldn't be a formal application being heard today, but for the purposes of the legal representatives? Then we would have concluded for the day?

MS CAMBANIS: That is correct, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We also wish to thank the victims named in the summary Elias Moshishi, Esrom Mothagu, Yvonne Madlala, Simon Phahlamohlaka, Elizabeth Behomane, Marcus Ramela for having come to this hearing at least for today, you know precisely why the conflict of the past was committed. The conflict situation occurred and now I hope you are satisfied of what happened, because you have heard the applicants, why they did that and how it was done, and further the evidence was that it was not against any individuals, but they were fighting the government of the day. We thank you for your attendance.

We also say sorry you have sustained injuries, and more so to Mrs Madlala who can no longer bear children, our greatest sympathies to you. We hope probably with the new technology of today, medical technology, something could be done. We shall refer all of you to our other Committee, the Reparations Committee, your names there, they will deal with you. We have no powers, but your name shall be forwarded, you will be contacted later and if you have your full particulars like I think, Ms Thabethe does, give them. If you have changes, please advise Ms Thabethe that you could be contacted later. It does take some time, but you would definitely be consulted.

We thank the legal representatives, Ms Thabethe as well, for the assistance rendered to this application. We reserve our decision and you shall be informed not very late, but later Mr Madonsela and Mr Mahlangu. You would know of our decision shortly. Thank you to everybody who attended today. We adjourn for the day.

----------