DAY: 1


CHAIRPERSON: Good morning. We want to start the proceedings. For the record, today is Tuesday, the 11th of April 2000. This is a hearing of the Amnesty Committee, sitting at the Christian Centre in Durban. The Panel is chaired by myself. My name is Denzil Potgieter. With me on the Panel is Adv Sigodi and Mr Sibanyoni.

We will start off by hearing the amnesty application of Thami Ndlovu. The reference number is AM5630/97.

Just for the record Ms Loonat, would you put yourself on the record.

MS LOONAT: Good morning, Chairperson and Members of the Honourable Committee. My name is Sereni Loonat. I'm a barrister and I'm appearing on behalf of Mr Thami Ndlovu this morning. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Loonat. And the Leader of Evidence?

MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson. Ramula Patel. If I may at this stage just place on record that the victim in this matter, Mr Jerome Tamsanqa Mbele(?), has refused to accept the Section 19(4) notice from our office, saying that he is not interested in the application. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Patel, we've noted that. Are you satisfied in the circumstances that we are able to proceed with the matter?

MS PATEL: I am thank you, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Well under those circumstances, we'll proceed to hear the amnesty application. Ms Loonat, is there anything else or do you want your client to be sworn in?

MS LOONAT: Yes, Mr Chairperson, please.


Mr Ndlovu, do you heard the interpretation on your headset? What are your full names?

THAMSANQA NDLOVU: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, please be seated. Just a minute, Mr Loonat. Just give us a minute, we've got a technical problem with the sound.

MR SIBANYONI: Chairperson, may I just ask one thing?


MR SIBANYONI: Mr Ndlovu, I see in the documents you say Thami S Ndlovu, what does the "S" stand for?

MR NDLOVU: Siabonga, but this is the name that is not included on my ID.

CHAIRPERSON: So do you only want to be, for our purposes, to be known as Thamsanqa Ndlovu?

MR NDLOVU: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Yes Ms Loonat.

EXAMINATION BY MS LOONAT: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

Mr Ndlovu, how old are you?

MR NDLOVU: 28 years old.

MS LOONAT: And where do you reside?


MS LOONAT: Where do you live? What area?

MR NDLOVU: At KwaMashu, F1067.

MS LOONAT: Are you married with children?


MS LOONAT: You have no children either. Do you have any previous convictions?


MS LOONAT: Are you a South African citizen by birth?


MS LOONAT: Do you belong to any particular political party?


MS LOONAT: Which party do you belong to?

MR NDLOVU: ANC member.

MS LOONAT: Before I go on please tell me, are you employed at the moment?


INTERPRETER: Can you please ask the witness to wait for the interpretation before responding to your question.

MR SIBANYONI: Or to put it the other way around, can the witness listen to the interpretation and not to his legal rep, and talk directly to the interpreter.

MS LOONAT: Thank you, Mr Sibanyoni.

Mr Ndlovu, do you own a firearm?

MR NDLOVU: No, I do not have any firearm.

MS LOONAT: You did say you were a member of the ANC, are you a card carrier or a supporter, a registered member?

MR NDLOVU: I was in the organisation called MK Umkhonto weSizwe, that is why I say that I am an ANC member, because I was in the military wing of the ANC in exile.

MS LOONAT: So do you have any proof that you are attached to the ANC Party?


MS LOONAT: Can you produce the same please.

MR NDLOVU: I believe that these have been handed to your - I apologise, I thought photocopies were made and given to you. This is proof that he belongs to the MK Party, he has no other registration other than this. May I pass it on please.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - no microphone)

MR SIBANYONI: Mr Ndlovu, what was your operational or your MK name?

MR NDLOVU: I was called Patson Digale.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you.

ADV SIGODI: I didn't get the name, what was it?

MR NDLOVU: Patson Digale.

MS LOONAT: Mr Chairperson, I've also enclosed another form as well, to show further proof of his position. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we have two documents, we have a document headed:

"Voluntary repatriation to the Republic of South Africa - Application Form."

That will be Exhibit A. And then we have a document with the heading:

"Identification on the Certified Personnel Register (CPR)."

And that would be Exhibit B. Yes, Ms Loonat.

MS LOONAT: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

Mr Ndlovu, how long have you been a member of the ANC?

MR NDLOVU: From 1989, when I left South Africa, up until when I came back to South Africa.

MS LOONAT: Prior to joining the ANC, did you support any other political party?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, there was another organisation.

MS LOONAT: Please tell the Committee Members what that is.

MR NDLOVU: When I was still at school I was a supporter of the UDF.

MS LOONAT: And why did you change from the UDF to the ANC?

MR NDLOVU: The reason for me to change is because when I left South Africa, when I arrived in Swaziland I was welcomed by the ANC people. That was the organisation that sent me to the other countries where I had to get training.

MS LOONAT: Why did you leave South Africa?

MR NDLOVU: The reason for me to leave South Africa, we knew that South Africa was a country with some problems and my intention was to go and fight with the South African people, to try and free them from the oppression.

MS LOONAT: Who assisted you in leaving South Africa?

MR NDLOVU: The main person who helped me, there was this other comrade who had crossed in 1986, who used to be my neighbour, he was working as an underground in Swaziland and he came to fetch us and then he sent us to Swaziland.

MS LOONAT: Does he have a name?

MR NDLOVU: His full names were Moosa Eric Mbatha.

MS LOONAT: And where is he at present, do you know?

MR NDLOVU: Presently he was just - he died in prison in Westville and then he was buried two weeks ago.

MS LOONAT: You say that whilst you were at school you joined the political movement, is that correct?

MR NDLOVU: That is correct.

MS LOONAT: What exactly did you do at school, as far as the political side was concerned? Did you attend rallies, meetings, what was your position?

MR NDLOVU: I used to attend rallies and attend meetings that would be held at school, because we had SRCs in the schools.

MS LOONAT: Were these not banned at the time?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, they were banned.

MS LOONAT: So how did you attend?

MR NDLOVU: We would meet and there would be people guarding the premises if there were no police because if the police would come to that situation they would disperse the meetings by shooting.

MS LOONAT: So these were done secretly. Was it at night, during the day?

MR NDLOVU: They would be done during the day because they had to take place inside the school premises and the other pupils or students would guard the premises and watch out for the police till the end of the meeting.

MS LOONAT: And what message did you receive when you attended these meetings?

MR NDLOVU: The message that I would get was to the effect that I would be told about the people's lives, the rights that were taken away from us and the encouragement that people should unite and fight for their country. All the South African people were supposed to do the same thing.

MS LOONAT: You say you left South African in 1989, who assisted you financially and where did you go?

MR NDLOVU: No-one ever helped me with any finance. When we left South Africa, we approached the Swaziland border gate and while we were in Swaziland, Moosa Eric Mbatha knew some people who were working for the ANC underground, who were stationed in Swaziland. Those were the people who took us in a car, took us to the refuge camp.

MS LOONAT: What did you do whilst you were in Swaziland?

MR NDLOVU: I left Swaziland for Zambia in Lusaka.

MS LOONAT: So you didn't stay in Swaziland, you moved on, is that correct?

MR NDLOVU: I stayed for a short while, something like two weeks, because we were still arranging a flight ticket for me.

MS LOONAT: You say "we", how many of you were involved?

MR NDLOVU: Four of us who were there for the very first time and Moosa was the fifth person.

MS LOONAT: Were these school friends of yours or relatives of yours or comrades, who were these four people?

MR NDLOVU: The other people were comrades, but the comrades that were known to me.

MS LOONAT: Can you give us their names and their whereabouts please.

MR NDLOVU: Some of them unfortunately are no longer alive, but some of them are still alive.

MS LOONAT: Do you have any contact with those who are alive?

MR NDLOVU: The one who is present right now is working with the SANDF. If possible or necessary, I would be able to contact him.

MS LOONAT: And his name please, for the record.

MR NDLOVU: His name is Mbogi.

MS LOONAT: And what is his position in the ANC hierarchy?

MR NDLOVU: I do not understand the question.

MS LOONAT: You say he was a comrade of yours and together you belonged to the ANC Party. What I'm asking is, what is his position, his status in the Party, is he just a supporter, is he a Commander, what is he?

MR NDLOVU: He was just an ordinary comrade, but when we got to exile after training, then he became an MK Commander, until we came back. I was later arrested and he was integrated to the SANDF. He is employed there at the moment.

MS LOONAT: Mr Ndlovu, whilst you were in exile, from Swaziland you went to Uganda, is that correct?

MR NDLOVU: When I left Swaziland I went to Zambia and then from Zambia I left for Uganda.

MS LOONAT: And what did you do whilst you were in exile?

MR NDLOVU: When I arrived in Uganda, I started with my training in guerilla warfare. I trained and I completed the course and after completing the course in Uganda, I was transferred to Tanzania. I stayed there in the camp until I left to a certain place and I stayed there for a short while. That is when I got to repatriation and then I came to South Africa.

MS LOONAT: How long did you train in guerilla warfare whilst you were in Uganda?

MR NDLOVU: For a year. My training took a year, because I started in 1990, up until the end of that year.

MS LOONAT: Who trained you and what exactly, what kind of firearms and things were you trained in?

MR NDLOVU: In the camp, normally there are so many instructors because there are different programmes, tactics physics, MCW, political education. It's a combination of selected people, people who have finished with their training and therefore they convene classes with different programmes. We were trained in each and every firearm, firearms that are used by soldiers, footsoldiers and the other types of firearms.

MS LOONAT: And you say that lasted for approximately a year, is that correct?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, that is correct.

MS LOONAT: You then say you were transferred to Tanzania - why? What did you do in Tanzania?

MR NDLOVU: When I was transferred to Tanzania, there was a special course that we had to attend, that was part of the training. When I arrived there in Tanzania, that particular course was removed and they started with another course which the emphasis was more on repatriation, and the situation forced them to establish a regular army, training people in protecting so that when we'd come to South Africa, we would be integrated to the SANDF. The course that we went there to do was stopped and we couldn't continue and we were repatriated to South Africa thereafter.

MS LOONAT: Were you trained in jungle warfare as apposed to guerilla warfare?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, that is correct.

MS LOONAT: Please tell us where and for how long.

MR NDLOVU: The course that we went there to do from Uganda, after the guerilla warfare, then in Tanzania we went there for jungle warfare and we were told that it was going to take four years. The training itself was going to take four years. Because of the changes here in South Africa, that was changed and we couldn't continue with the course. And then there was this new course that was introduced, the regular training. Some comrades took that course and myself and the others were taken back to South Africa, because we were waiting to be integrated in the SANDF.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and your military background seems to be corroborated by the exhibits that were handed in, so I don't think there's very much in dispute here, in regard to that. Perhaps you want to deal with the situation when you got back to South Africa. Can you tell us what happened then?

MR NDLOVU: After getting into South Africa - I arrived in 1991, December, I experienced a lot of problems. According to the briefing before leaving the exile, we were told that as were entering the country, there are lots of things that we had done and the community at large was waiting for us. There were no people who were still harassing other people. As we knew that we left the country in a very tense situation, therefore we were waiting to be integrated to the South African soldiers, but when we arrived here, we realised that there were gangsters, there were still killings and gangsters associated with organisations that were my organisation's rivals. There were unknown gunmen driving, shooting people in cars and the police belonging to Murder and Robbery, they would come to the township and shoot at the people and no-one will get a clue as to who did that.

As that was happening, myself and the other comrade that I was with in exile, Keke Nyawuse, when we saw this happening, we sat down and talked with the other comrades ...(intervention)

ADV SIGODI: Sorry, could you speak a little bit slower, so you can give the interpreter time to interpret for us and we can take down the notes.

MR NDLOVU: Yes. We sat down and talked about it, myself, comrade Keke Nyawuse and the other comrades who were in exile, but they were not coming from my neighbourhood. We saw a reason as trained people, to do something to help the community.

We decided that in order to be able to protect ourselves - we had nothing as trained people, we had nothing like firearms to protect the community, we decided that we should get the firearms to be able to protect ourselves as well as the communities.

We agreed on the first step as to get the firearms. As trained people we knew how to disarm a person and it was very easy for us to see a person who is not expecting anything. We decided that the people who did not belong to our organisation would be our targets, people like police.

It happened on the 2nd of July in 1992. We saw this person who had a firearm and we did not know this person and we suspected that he was one of the people who were in the other organisations, other than the ANC. Our opponents, or perhaps a policeman.

Myself and Keke, we saw this person as we were standing at Section F. He was walking down the road. When we saw him and we took a closer look we saw a firearm on the left-hand side of his jacket and when we saw that he had a firearm we followed him, because that was what we were looking for at that time.

As he was not expecting anything, when we arrived at the stop sign, Keke Nyawuse went to talk to him as a person who was asking for something else, but he just wanted to distract his mind. I had an empty bottle, cool-drink bottle, and I hit him at the back of his head. He fell down and I took his firearm. I shot in the air twice, though I cannot remember very well if I shot twice or three times, because I wanted him to run away, so that he cannot be able to follow our tracks.

We took the firearm and it happened after a week or two, I was arrested. I was sentenced to seven years in prison.

MS LOONAT: Besides the firearm, what else did you take from the gentleman?

MR NDLOVU: Nothing else, except the firearm. We only took the firearm. We left him there in the road.

MS LOONAT: What were your plans thereafter? Once you'd got the firearms, what were you planning to do?

MR NDLOVU: Our main intention was to get the firearms first and then we would be able to protect the community against the unknown gunmen, because people would come and shoot randomly at people on the streets. Our intention was to get firearms so as to be prepared to fight those people, to make it difficult for them to come and harass the community.

MS LOONAT: Did you think one firearm was going to be sufficient for what you planned?

MR NDLOVU: Truly-speaking, it was just the beginning of our plan. That was not the end, we were still going to continue acquiring firearms. According to what transpired in our discussion, we were still to go to get the firearms from the police as the people who were also our targets.

MS LOONAT: Mr Ndlovu, when you came back to South Africa and joined the ANC, what was your status at the ANC, whilst you were living in F-Section, KwaMashu? What was your position, your status in the ANC?

MR NDLOVU: When I came back from the exile to South Africa, many things still had not happened, like the structures to operate freely. They couldn't do that. Even ourselves as the MK soldiers, we were encountering problems because there were no ANC people in our areas, people whom we would be able to contact and tell them about the problems and get assistance from them.

MS LOONAT: So in fact, when you planned to carry out these retaliatory attacks on the other party, were you given any particular order or instruction to do so? Or to report to anybody when you'd done so?

MR NDLOVU: There was no order that was given to us, there was not even a person that we would report to after an operation, but as the MK cadres, trained cadres, we realise that it was very important for us to protect the people. As we were trained, we were trained for such purposes, that we should protect our communities against harassment. That was a joint decision that was taken by us as the MK cadres, to defend the people.

MS LOONAT: So in fact, what you're saying is that it's because you relied entirely on your training whilst in exile, you took the initiative to act as you thought fit, in order to protect your people from these attacks by other political parties, is that correct?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, we decided that that was a good idea, because even during our training we were allowed to take an initiative when necessary, more especially when it has got something to do with protecting the community, without waiting for anyone to come and tell you to do something.

CHAIRPERSON: So are you saying that that was part of the policy of your organisation? - your actions.

MR NDLOVU: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: It was not against the policy of the organisation that you were part of, not to - it was not against the policy to protect the community?

MR NDLOVU: I want to explain this. The problem that we were facing was not our own problem as the people from the exile, but the problem was more about the community, the whole community, because they were subjects of harassment.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but was your organisation against protecting the community? Or was it part of their policy?

MR NDLOVU: As I've explained initially, what we were doing was our own initiative and because of what we knew and the training and the commitment as the MK members, I can say the reason for us to go to the exile was to protect the people. When that was happening we realised that it was important for us to take an initiative to protect the people, because even it was my commitment to die for the people and to protect them any time.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I know that. I'm not talking about the initiative, I just want us to get to the point of this application - hopefully. All that I want to know is, was it against the policy of the ANC to protect the community, the policy of the ANC and MK, or was it in accordance with their policy? So in other words, what you did, was that against the policy of the ANC, or was it in accordance with that policy?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, what we did was in accordance with the policies of the ANC, to protect the people.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, that helps. Yes Ms Loonat, anything else?

MS LOONAT: Mr Chairperson, could I refer you to page 28 of the bundle, the last paragraph and in fact the last line.


MS LOONAT: Page 28.

CHAIRPERSON: 28, sorry, sorry. Yes. Last line?

MS LOONAT: Last line. He says:

"We want to ambush them"

and he's referring to the IFP and the police.


MS LOONAT: I'd just like Mr Ndlovu to elaborate on what he meant by "ambush" and what he intended to do. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes alright, go ahead.

MR NDLOVU: What I was trying to explain is that in our intentions we had planned that the only way for which we could procure firearms to protect ourselves, would be to obtain these from those organisations who were harassing us, including the police, and we had agreed that these should be the target from whom these firearms could be obtained, because they were always in possession of these. And we concluded that once we have satisfactorily obtained a certain number of these firearms, we would then be in the position to stop them from shooting as they pleased. They were to be made aware of our existence in the area. They had to know that there are people who are protecting the community.

MS LOONAT: Since your return to South Africa, were you employed? Since you returned to South Africa, what employment were you involved in?

MR NDLOVU: At the moment, yes, I am employed. There is an organisation in KwaMashu for repatriated exiles, called KVA. What they do is they help the comrades and they work alongside the former RDP, assisting the community insofar as construction companies are concerned in the area, for the building of roads etcetera. We make sure that these employees from these companies are not harassed whilst doing their work in the township.

MS LOONAT: Thank you. Have you, or do you foresee that in seeking employment in the future you might have a problem with this conviction against you?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, that is in my mind. That is the reason why I am before this Commission today, I am thinking that the criminal record against me might pose a problem in my efforts to secure myself a job. But now what hurts me is that I did not commit the crime for personal gain, but I did it to protect the community.

CHAIRPERSON: You were convicted and you were sentenced to seven years, or what? Were you sentenced to seven years?


CHAIRPERSON: And you served those seven years? Your sentence is finished.

MR NDLOVU: I spent about four to five years in prison, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And now you're employed and you're back in the community, is that correct?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, I am back with the community. That's where I am working for the community.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Ms Loonat, anything else?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, I wanted to say something.


MR NDLOVU: What I wanted to say is to express my sincere apology to the person whom we victimised and his relatives, it was not my intention to gain anything from this personally. I knew him as one of those people in the community who was not problematic, save to say, we just wanted to secure the firearm from him. That is what I wanted to say, and further say that if the Commission can assist me in any way, because see, everything that happened did not happen necessarily because of an intention for personal gain on my part. I am aware now that my fate is apparently affected by this, because there are some places where I cannot employment as a result of this criminal record against me.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Ms Loonat, anything else?

MS LOONAT: I have no further questions.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

MR SIBANYONI: Chairperson, maybe while he's still here, can I just ask a question?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Sibanyoni.

MR SIBANYONI: You said, Mr Ndlovu, you hit him with an empty bottle and my question is, did the bottle break? Did he sustain any injuries?

MR NDLOVU: The bottle did not break. I hit him with the middle side of the bottle and he fell down. He did not even bleed, he just got confused and in the process I took the firearm and shot in the air so as to confuse him even further.

MR SIBANYONI: Was he in a position to stand up immediately thereafter? Because you say you shot in the air to scare him from following your tracks. Was he able to stand up?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, after I had removed the firearm from him, he stood up, came forward with an intention to talk. I shot in the air and that's when he fled.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Ms Patel, any questions?

MS PATEL: No, thank you Honourable Chairperson.


CHAIRPERSON: Anything else from the Panel?

ADV SIGODI: Just one thing that bothers me. In your last - as you were saying that you were sorry for this, you said that you knew the victim as somebody who was not problematic. Do you remember that?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, I said I did not know anything against him, to me he was like anybody else, but because we saw this firearm, that is when we suspected him, otherwise he did not have anything against us.

ADV SIGODI: I see. This firearm, where did he have this firearm?

MR NDLOVU: The holster was hanging on the side of his waist and you could see the barrel through the jacket that he was wearing, just below the jacket.

ADV SIGODI: Thanks, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Ms Loonat, anything else? Is that the evidence?

MS LOONAT: That is the evidence, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Thank you Mr Ndlovu, you're excused.

MR NDLOVU: Thank you.


CHAIRPERSON: Have you got any other evidence?

MS LOONAT: No, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel, do you have any evidence?

MS PATEL: No, I do not. Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Loonat, have you got any submissions on the merits of your client's case?

MS LOONAT: Your Worship, just in mitigation. May I proceed?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes certainly.


Mr Chairperson, Honourable Members of the Committee, my learned friends, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Ndlovu is a 30-year old man, unmarried, with no criminal record except the present one. That is why we are here today. As we have heard, he was caught up as a student, in the ugly apartheid times. He was a young virile, impressionable teenager at the time and he was very frustrated with the political situation as it existed in the 80s. He did not sit back and accept the situation. He went into exile, leaving his single mother and family, to fight for something he strongly believed in -freedom for his people.

He spent approximately three years abroad training in guerilla warfare and rose to the status of a CO, when it was announced that the ANC and other political parties were unbanned, together with the release of President Mandela from Robben Island. It was safe to return home, or so he thought. The truth was that those were the headlines, but at grassroots level, nothing changed for him. In the townships there was still political turmoil amongst the residents. IFP attacking the ANC and vice versa, followed by the retaliatory attacks in some instances. My client could not sit back and do nothing, whilst his people were subjected to these sporadic attacks.

My submissions are that he soon learnt that gangsters were influenced by the IFP, to carry out raids on the ANC. To name one of the gangs, my client submitted a name called "Sinoras"(?) My client was trained for close on two years to defend his people and he realised he had to take the initiative to do so> Relying on his training whilst in exile and fearing for the safety of his family and people, who wanted to live their lives without these attacks, he did what he did. Essentially he wanted firearms and ammunition, in line with his training, to defend his area.

Chairperson, he has made full disclosure, he has served five years prison sentence for this conviction, he has no other previous convictions, no criminal record whatsoever. It is my submission that the application complies with the requirements of the Act, and his application for amnesty should be granted in terms of Section 20(1)(a), (b), (c), (2)(a), more especially (d) and (f) and (3) and (a). Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Loonat. Ms Patel, have you got anything to say pertinent to this case, not anything inspired by the spiritual atmosphere?

MS PATEL: No, Honourable Chairperson, I do not believe that there is anything material that I can add to this. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: That helps, Ms Patel, thank you very much. I assume you don't want to say anything further.

MS LOONAT: No, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. That concludes the formal part of the application. We would have been minded to give an extempore judgment in this matter if the applicant was in custody. He's not in custody, so there is no need to do that, it does bring with it some pressure on our administrative system. So under those circumstances, we will follow the normal route and reserve the decision in this matter, which should be available very, very soon. But in the circumstances we will reserve the decision.

We thank you, Ms Loonat, for your assistance.

MS LOONAT: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: And Ms Patel, in anticipation for the rest of the assistance that will be forthcoming from you. Thank you.

Has Mr Ntiyane been located?

MS PATEL: Just before we commenced, the Pinetown office had called to say that he is there. I don't know if he's been brought through already or not. If you would grant me a moment just to check.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, in fact I just thought that I'll raise it to hear if he is here. We will adjourn now - let's call it the tea adjournment, and then we can see when the next matter is available to be proceeded with.

MS PATEL: Yes, I will come and see you in chambers as soon as I know what's happening.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you very much. You're excused, Ms Loonat. We're adjourned.

MS PATEL: All rise.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Yes we want to carry on. The next application that we will hear is that of Mr Lindane Ntiyane. The amnesty reference number is AM3688/96.

The Panel is constituted as has been indicated on the record earlier, and the Leader of Evidence is on record as well. I will allow Ms de Klerk to place herself on record, on behalf of the applicant.

MS DE KLERK: Mr Chairperson, I'm Marcia de Klerk, and I appear for the applicant in this matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ma'am. Is there anything that you want to put on record? Can we proceed?

MS PATEL: Yes we may, Honourable Chairperson. If I may just state that the victims in this incident, the Dladla family, have been served notices and have also said that they don't have any opposition to this matter and do not wish to oppose it.

CHAIRPERSON: You're happy that we can proceed in the circumstances?

MS PATEL: Yes, Honourable Chairperson, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Patel. Ms de Klerk, is there anything that you want to put on record, or do you want your client to be sworn in?

MS LOONAT: My client to be sworn in, please.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Are your full names Lindane Ntiyane?

LINDANE NTIYANE: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you may be seated. Yes, Ms de Klerk.

MS PATEL: Sorry, Honourable Chairperson, it appears that the victims have been arrived. I've just been informed. If you would just grant me a few moments.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Ms de Klerk, can you just hold on, I just want to make sure that it is in fact victims.

MS PATEL: Sorry Honourable Chairperson, it appears that they wish to oppose the application, I'm going to need to take instructions.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I was going to suggest if it were in fact the Dladla family, that we stand down to allow you to at least just investigate what the situation is. I mean, you'd just better investigate whether they really want to oppose or whether they just want to be present.

MS PATEL: Absolutely.

CHAIRPERSON: And let us know what the position is.


CHAIRPERSON: We will then stand down.



CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel, can you just first of all, indicate to us who is actually present?

MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson. Present we have Regina Dladla, R-e-g-i-n-a, and Themba Dladla.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you had an opportunity to talk to them?

MS PATEL: I have, thank you Honourable Chairperson, and I have explained the applicant's version as it appears on the papers before us, and my instructions are that they do not wish to oppose the application.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Patel. Yes that is very much in line with what is before us in any case. It appears that that has been a consistent attitude on their part.

Ms Dladla and Mr Dladla, we have noted that you are present and we have listened to what Ms Patel has told us. We've made a note of that. We were busy hearing the application of the applicant. He hadn't started giving evidence yet when you arrived. We will now carry on, or proceed to listen to his evidence. But we have noted your presence.

Yes Ms de Klerk, I think you can proceed.

EXAMINATION BY MS DE KLERK: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

Mr Ntiyane, where were you living before going to prison?

MR NTIYANE: At Danganya at Umkababa.

MS DE KLERK: How long did you live there?

MR NTIYANE: I think I was six years old when I got there.

MS DE KLERK: In the time that you were living there, did you belong to any political party?


MS DE KLERK: What was the name of that political party?

MR NTIYANE: First of all, it was Danganya Youth Congress, under the UDF, and in 1990 when political organisations were unbanned this group became part of the ANC Youth League.

MS DE KLERK: Which branch of that political party did you belong to?

MR NTIYANE: The Danganya branch.

MS DE KLERK: How old were you when you joined that party and that particular branch?

MR NTIYANE: In 1990 I was sixteen years old.

MS DE KLERK: And why did you join that particular political party?

MR NTIYANE: The reasons for my involvement in a political organisation is because of what was happening at the time. The government of the time - many things that were happening were not pleasing to us blacks. The manner in which we were handled. That is the reason why we joined these organisations. That's the reason why I joined this particular organisation, because I believed it could help us out. That is the reason why I joined the ANC.

MS DE KLERK: You say you thought they could help "us out", in what way?

MR NTIYANE: It would help us because many things were wrong. There are so many things that we blacks noticed which were not done right. Even though I was still young, I realised that our education was not the same as that of the white children and I came to a conclusion that if we one day obtained freedom and the ANC came to power, all of these were going to change, and our treatment at the hands of the whites would obviously change. That is why I believed that the ANC would in the position to bring about change in this regard.

MS DE KLERK: So as a youth you played an active role in the ANC Youth League.

MR NTIYANE: That is correct.

MS DE KLERK: What was your role?

MR NTIYANE: When the branch was launched I was appointed as, or elected as Chairperson of the ANC Youth League.

MS DE KLERK: How were decisions made in that branch?

MR NTIYANE: Decisions were such that a Committee would convene a meeting and the Branch Executive of the Committee would be the one making and taking decisions within the ANC, but that would go only insofar as the branch itself was concerned.

MS DE KLERK: Did you as a member of the branch, have any authority in making decisions?

MR NTIYANE: Yes, as Chairperson.

MS DE KLERK: Can we move on now to the history of the fighting in the area. Tell us about the political instability in the area in which you lived.

MR NTIYANE: I would say there was this youth organisation, it was called Danganya Youth Congress. If I still remember very well it was established between 1987 and 1988, so that in 1988 when we were officially launched, I became President of this organisation and the first conflict started I should say, in 1989. Where we were in conflict with people who did not belong to any organisation, but were on the side of the chief in the area and the headman. These are the people who were fighting us at the time, saying they did not want any political organisation in the area.

MS DE KLERK: Were people killed regularly in that area?

MR NTIYANE: Yes, the real change in terms of how many people were dying, happened in 1990.

MS DE KLERK: Were any of your branch members killed?


MS DE KLERK: You said that the real change occurred in 1990, what caused this change to occur in 1990?

MR NTIYANE: I would say that was the time when political organisations were unbanned, and many areas in the province of KwaZulu Natal experienced this problem. I cannot say exactly what led to the conflict and the dying of people, but I as a member of the ANC then, would conclude that these attacks were directed at the ANC, so that it should not grow.

MS DE KLERK: Can we move now to the day of the incident, the 12th of April 1992. What happened on that day?

MR NTIYANE: On the day of the 12th of April, I think it was on a Sunday, if I still remember very well, we got up in the morning and we heard from members of our community within our neighbourhood, we heard that some people had been attacked the previous night and we also heard from two - or should I say, we heard that two of our community members were attacked and killed on that very same night and that several houses had been torched on the same night. So we got together and tried to establish what it is that we could do. We then met with members of the self-defence unit. There were five members of the self-defence unit within our branch. That is where we took a decision to say that now that our members of the community - or members of the ANC for that matter, were always complaining that their members were continuously killed and we as he youth were unable to protect them. The people who were dying at the time were mostly adults or the elderly. So we took a decision that - because we knew that these people were dangerous when it came to a war situation, we then made a decision.

MS DE KLERK: Okay, let's go back a bit. You said that you held a meeting, okay.


MS DE KLERK: You said there were five members, can you name the five members that were present at the meeting?

MR NTIYANE: There was Mhle Msomi, the second one was Lucky Sithole. I cannot recall the other ones very well, I'm even not sure whether the names that I will give are their real names or not. That would pose a problem because I might be giving you nicknames. For example, one other such person, even though he was not resident in our area, was Linda. He was a member of the MK. He was helping us out as we were facing violence. I want to believe that that was not his real name. He had come originally from the Transkei.

MS DE KLERK: You were present at the meeting as well.

MR NTIYANE: Yes, I was present.

MS DE KLERK: Who was in control of this meeting?

MR NTIYANE: I was the Chairperson.

MS DE KLERK: And exactly what was discussed at this meeting?

MR NTIYANE: The prime reason for our meeting was to look at possible things that we could do, possible attempts to be taken in an effort to protect our community, because we were not able to defend ourselves in the event of attack and we decided that the best defence would be for us to attack. Because if you attack a person who is not anticipating an attack, you then neutralise that person. So when we took the decision to attack on that day, we were trying to do exactly that, to scare them off so that they should not come to our place and attack as they pleased.

MS DE KLERK: Was the national branch informed of this decision?


MS DE KLERK: What was your reaction to this decision?

MR NTIYANE: I regarded this as an appropriate decision at the time.

MS DE KLERK: And what was the reaction of the others to the decision?

MR NTIYANE: All of us were in agreement about the appropriateness of the decision, nobody objected to it.

MS DE KLERK: So how did your branch then implement this decision?

MR NTIYANE: I would say the situation at the time was a little difficult, communication was quite bad, but I as a Chairperson of the ANC Youth League and head of the SDU, I came to a conclusion that if there is anything that we would have to explain, that can be explained later because we were not in the position to bring together all the committees and inform them about what was happening. We had to act swiftly.

MS DE KLERK: I asked you how did your branch implement this decision, what did you do to carry out ...(indistinct) decision to attack?

MR NTIYANE: We took the decision in the morning of the same day and the attack was launched on the same day, so as a branch we were not able to bring together all the members belonging to this branch.

MS DE KLERK: Can you tell us about the incident, can you describe to us in detail what occurred that evening?

MR NTIYANE: It was in the evening, it could have been headed for 10 o'clock in the evening, there were two of us, myself as well as Mhle Msomi, and the other members of the Self-Defence Unit remained behind because our area was so vast. When we went to the area they were standing guard, watching over certain areas to make sure that they are not attacked. Myself and Mhle then left. I had a handgrenade in my possession, it was an M75 handgrenade.

MS DE KLERK: Where did you get this handgrenade from?

MR NTIYANE: This we obtained from Linda, who had come from the Transkei, the one who was a member of the MK.

MS DE KLERK: What happened next?

MR NTIYANE: When we went to - when we arrived at Mr Dladla's place, we ascertained that nothing would disturb us in the process. I removed the pin and hurled it into the house. I meant for it to go through the window, but it didn't, instead it hit the wall, bounced back and exploded next to us, resulting in us getting injured. I am the one who got injured the most. I only heard an explosion and I only gained consciousness in hospital.

MS DE KLERK: How did you personally feel about the attack on the Dladla's home?

MR NTIYANE: At the time the situation was that of a war situation and we had come to conclude that perhaps if we attacked the Dladla household, that would minimise their attack on us.

MS DE KLERK: So did you or did you not believe that it was wrong what you did?

MR NTIYANE: It was wrong.

MR SIBANYONI: Sorry, Ms de Klerk.

How was the Dladla home identified and decided upon as a target?

MR NTIYANE: We knew the Dladla household and the reason why we targeted this household was not because Mr Dladla was in the forefront in the conflict. You see, our area was divided into two, there was this ANC base from which I came and there was the IFP base and that is where Mr Dladla resided. Now the reason why we targeted this one particular house is because it was on the border separating the two bases, so that it was easier and safer to attack the one house on the border, than getting into the thick of the area.

MR SIBANYONI: In other words, Dladla's home was at the border starting the area which was IFP dominated.

MR NTIYANE: Yes, it was on the side of the IFP, but yes, on the border.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, Ms de Klerk.

MS DE KLERK: And did you believe that Mr Dladla was a member of the IFP, or a supporter of the IFP?

MR NTIYANE: It was very difficult to vouch to that, but I would say that what criteria we used at the time was on which side of the two strongholds a person resided, and if a person resided on the opposition's side we would conclude that he supported the opposition. For example there were many people who were killed on our side, but later on it transpired that they were not members of the ANC, they only got killed because they resided in the area that belonged to the ANC.

MS DE KLERK: Did you believe that at the time of the incident, Mr Dladla was an IFP supporter?

MR NTIYANE: I would say we believed that even though he was not a card-carrying member, but he was towing the IFP a line, such as that when these conflicts started and when this division happened in terms of bordering the two areas, those who belonged or those who followed the ANC, fled the IFP stronghold and came to the ANC area and vice versa, but Mr Dladla remained on the other side of the IFP. That led us into concluding that he was IFP.

MS DE KLERK: So were there any steps taken to confirm that he was or he wasn't an IFP member?

MR NTIYANE: No steps were taken.

MS DE KLERK: You said that you were unconscious after you threw the handgrenade, what happened once you regained consciousness?

MR NTIYANE: May the question please be repeated.

MS DE KLERK: You said that you were unconscious after you had thrown the handgrenade, what happened after you had regained your consciousness?

MR NTIYANE: I think I spent about a week in hospital, after which the police came to arrest me on this very same Dladla charge.

MS DE KLERK: And were you convicted in terms of the charge?


MS DE KLERK: How long were you sentenced to imprisonment?

MR NTIYANE: Eight years.

MS DE KLERK: Who represented you at the trial?

MR NTIYANE: First of all I was represented by Ms Linda Zama, and later it was Adv George Webster.

MS DE KLERK: Who paid for your legal representation?

MR NTIYANE: The ANC, I would assume, because it is the ANC that communicated with my family and offered this legal assistance.

MS DE KLERK: Did you tell the truth at your trial?


MS DE KLERK: Why not?

MR NTIYANE: First of all, I didn't like the idea of being sent to prison.

MS DE KLERK: Is there any other reason why you didn't tell the truth at your trial?

MR NTIYANE: No other reasons.

MS DE KLERK: When I consulted with you, you spoke about not having faith in the judiciary, the judicial system of the time.

MR NTIYANE: Yes, I did not have faith because the then legal system and justice system was flawed.

MS DE KLERK: How do you fell now about what you've done?

MR NTIYANE: To give you a brief explanation, I would say the crime for which I was convicted is a crime for which I had served my sentence and I'm here before this Commission, asking for amnesty, so that I can also get the opportunity to ask for forgiveness from the family of Dladla, and others who may have been affected. I feel bad about what I did, but the circumstances at the time prompted us to behave in the manner in which we did.

MS DE KLERK: Is there anything that you'd like to say personally to ...(indistinct) Dladla?

MR NTIYANE: Yes. I would say if I were to be granted an opportunity to meet with Dladla's family, sit down and have a chat with them, so that I can apologise to them directly.

MS DE KLERK: There's Mrs Dladla across from us and there's Regina Dladla, that's why I asked you if you'd like to say anything to them. Is there anything you'd like to say specifically to the, or would you like to wait until after the hearing?

MR NTIYANE: To Mr Dladla I would say as I have stated earlier on, that I know it is very, very unfortunate what they went through. As I am saying I am very, very sorry and my apologies to the Dladla family. I still maintain that I would still like to have another opportunity to talk to them, so that if possible a relationship can be established between myself and the Dladla family, because we belong in the same area.

MS DE KLERK: Mr Chairperson, that is the evidence for the applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you, Ms de Klerk. Ms Patel, any questions?

MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson. I think there's just one aspect that I need to clarify with Mr and Mrs Dladla. They indicated during - if you would just grant me a moment to check what it is.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, certainly.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: Thank you. It appears that there is some confusion as to whether there was one explosion or two explosions. Regina Dladla says that there might have been one or two explosions that she heard and that possibly one was detonated, one of the grenades was detonated by the policeman who appeared on the scene afterwards. In light hereof, perhaps just to clarify, Sir, can you tell us how many handgrenades you took along with you?

MR NTIYANE: I had only one, only one handgrenade.

MS PATEL: And Mr Msomi, who went with you, was he armed in any way?

MR NTIYANE: Yes, he also had a handgrenade, but I'm not quite sure whether he had one or two, but the one that we used at the scene was the one in my possession.

MS PATEL: Given that you lost consciousness immediately after the explosion, you wouldn't be in a position to say whether he would have in fact have dropped another handgrenade on the scene, or can you - did you two have a discussion afterwards? Can you clarify this for us?

MR NTIYANE: We never discussed that, but as I am saying, I cannot testify to what happened after I lost consciousness.

MS PATEL: But before you lost consciousness there was only one handgrenade that was thrown and one explosion that you're aware of.


MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Patel. Panel, any questions?

MR SIBANYONI: I've got no questions, Mr Chairperson.

ADV SIGODI: Mr Ntiyane, on page 6, which the typed version of the letter which you wrote to the TRC, to the Amnesty Committee, I think it was - I'm not sure, but there is a letter which you wrote to the Amnesty Committee, now in the typed version on page 6 you mentioned how you identified Mr Dladla's house as a target. Now at the top of page 6 you said:

"We saw the IFP members that had attacked us in the morning, at Mr Dladla's house. One of the IFP leaders. We decided to attack them at night."

Now what I want you to clarify is, in your evidence today you said that Mr Dladla was not an active person politically, and yet in this letter which you wrote to us you said he was an IFP leader and you also said when you identified his house as a target, it's because his house was at the borders of the area which was IFP dominant, and yet here you say you attacked it because you had seen some of the IFP members that had attacked you that morning. Can you clarify that distinction for us?

MR NTIYANE: I would say insofar as Mr Dladla's membership is concerned, I did indicate I think, earlier on, that we did not have any proof that he was indeed a member, a card-carrying member of the IFP. Yes, I must agree that the report that we received in the morning when we arrived, was a report to the effect that there were some people who were seen gathering, either at Mr Dladla's household or thereabouts. And another reason why we believed that he too was a member of the IFP ...

ADV SIGODI: So does it explain why you've described him here as a leader?

MR NTIYANE: Yes, I would say so, because I have indicated that the report that we received was that there were many people gathering at his household, but we were not quite sure whether they were in the household on the premises or in the neighbourhood, and that is one other report that we received in the morning prior to our meeting.

ADV SIGODI: That's all, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms de Klerk, have you got any re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MS DE KLERK: Just one question, thank you.

Mr Ntiyane, was it a culmination of a whole lot of things or a whole lot of reasons why you believed that Mr Dladla was a member of the IFP, or a supporter of the IFP? Not one particular reason but a culmination of a whole lot of reasons, as you pointed out to us today.

MR NTIYANE: In fact there were many reasons why we attacked, because we had lost numerous members on our side, but our attack ...(intervention)

MS DE KLERK: No, I'm not talking about the attack, I'm talking about the attack on Mr Dladla's home. You've given us lots of reasons. One reason is - as one of the learned Members of the Panel has pointed out, where you say that you believed that he was an IFP leader. Another reason you've given us is the fact that he remained on the IFP stronghold and he didn't move over to the ANC stronghold. So I'm saying to you now, was it a whole lot of reasons that led you to believe that Mr Dladla was a supporter or a member of the IFP?

MR NTIYANE: I would say the reason is only one and that is the fact that he resided on the IFP part of the area and he was a member of the IFP, but we cannot particularly point out single events or reasons to say "these are the reason why we had to attack him".

MS DE KLERK: I have no further questions.


CHAIRPERSON: Did you regard the IFP as your political opponent, enemy, at that time?


CHAIRPERSON: And did you think that they were responsible for the attacks that were launched on your area?


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Yes Mr Ntiyane, thank you very much, you're excused.


CHAIRPERSON: Ms de Klerk, have you got any other evidence?

MS DE KLERK: There is only, a Mr Mkhize, who is on the list as an implicated person. However, we haven't received any statement and I'm advised by my learned friend that she doesn't have a statement by Mr Mkhize either. Mr Mkhize is present, he has been all morning. However, the extent of his evidence was merely to support the fact that the applicant was an ANC member at the time of the incident.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I don't think - that doesn't seem to be really in dispute, but I'll enquire from Ms Patel. Does anything really turn on that issue?

MS PATEL: No, Honourable Chairperson, I don't believe it's a material point of dispute.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I gathered that. Yes, well then there doesn't seem to be very much sense in calling him as a witness, but of course you're free to do it if you want to.


CHAIRPERSON: It wouldn't necessarily, I think, assist the case, its just for us to decide the matter.

MS DE KLERK: That's the applicant's case.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Patel.

MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson. We do not intend to lead any evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Patel. Ms de Klerk, have you got any submissions on the merits of your client's case? Oh sorry, just before we get there.

ADV SIGODI: Ms Patel, I notice that some damage, there was some damage which the victims sustained to their house, have you got any idea how much was involved, how much was involved in that damage to the house? If you see Regina Dladla's statement on page 19 of the bundle, it says, paragraph 5:

"Lots of police came and inspected the premises. The front windows and wall were badly damaged, but ...(indistinct) fortunately was not injured."

Do you have any idea how much damage they suffered, or what was the value of the damage to their house?

MS PATEL: I will take instructions on the value of the damage, but in terms of the extent of the damage, if you'd turn to page 24 of the bundle, ...(indistinct) Dladla's statement from the docket, she outlines the extent of the damage. If you look at paragraph 6, she mentions the hole in the window, damage to the roof, three windows and that the wall was damaged. If the value thereof is important I can take instructions on that if you so wish. Would you like me to?

ADV SIGODI: At a later stage possibly. ...(indistinct) refer them to the Reparations.

MS PATEL: Alright, I will do that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so will you bear that in mind?


CHAIRPERSON: It might not be something that's very easy to deal with at this stage, but if they could give information it would assist.

MS PATEL: I will try to ascertain that later.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Yes Ms de Klerk, have you got any submissions?

MS DE KLERK ADDRESSES: Just very briefly.

I submit that the applicant has made a full disclosure and it is my respectful submission that he has met the requirements of the Act, and therefore he should be granted amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: What does your client do at the moment?

MS DE KLERK: At the moment he says that he's assisting, he's still active within the ANC organisation. He's assisting them. He's brought along a pamphlet which he says he went to a rally on Sunday, but that is as far as my instructions go.


MS DE KLERK: He's obviously hoping to get a proper job.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you, Ms de Klerk. Have you got any submissions, Ms Patel?

MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.

Given my client's instructions to me, I have no submissions, thank you.


CHAIRPERSON: Ms de Klerk, what was your client convicted of? What offences?

MS DE KLERK: He was convicted of attempted murder.

CHAIRPERSON: Attempted murder. And in respect of the - was that all?

MS PATEL: And there was one count of possession of a handgrenade.

CHAIRPERSON: Possession of a handgrenade as well. Is it in this judgment here?

MS DE KLERK: Yes, it's in the judgment.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, on page 51 the court seems to say that he was found guilty.

MS DE KLERK: There wasn't sufficient ...(intervention)

MS PATEL: Sorry, I apologise, he was charged for possession.

MS DE KLERK: And acquitted of the other count.

CHAIRPERSON: So it was really only on the attempted murder.

MS DE KLERK: It's only on the attempted murder. The State failed to prove the possession of the handgrenade.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Is that the offence that he's applying for?

MS DE KLERK: My instructions are that he has served his sentence. He was released in 1997. ...(indistinct) five years of his ...(indistinct)

CHAIRPERSON: But for purposes of deciding the application, the application has to be in respect of a particular offence or delict.

MS DE KLERK: Yes, it's in respect of the offence on the 12th of April 1992.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it just the attempted murder that he's applying for? Or is he also applying - he admits that he was in possession of handgrenade, so is he asking for amnesty for being in unlawful possession of a handgrenade as well, explosive, and attempted murder? Alright.

ADV SIGODI: And what about malicious injury to property?

MS DE KLERK: Well any other related offences that he could be found guilty of.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, because it seems it can be - I don't know whether it would have been a duplication, splitting of charges, but there was malicious injury to property as well. So on the face of it there was an attempted murder, there was an unlawful possession of explosives and there was malicious injury to property.


CHAIRPERSON: It might be academic, from his perspective, but from our perspective and in terms of the provisions of our Act, we have to at least specify what we are giving your client amnesty for.

MS DE KLERK: I would like to thank Mr Chairperson and the Members of the Panel, I think it has been pretty obvious that I haven't consulted extensively with the applicant.


MS DE KLERK: And I thank you for bearing with me in that regard.

CHAIRPERSON: No we appreciate your assistance, but we thought we can squeeze a little bit more assistance out of you.

Yes well that concludes the formal proceedings. We always endeavour to give these decisions, for obvious reasons, as quickly as we can. We always try, especially when people are in custody, because it makes such a big difference to their circumstances normally, it could make a big difference to their circumstances, we attempt to give these decisions as quickly as we can, but in this case we will take a bit of time and we will reserve the decision and make it available as soon as circumstances permit us to actually finalise the decision in the matter. So under those circumstances we will reserve the decision and we will notify the parties as soon as it is available.

We thank you once again Ms de Klerk, for your assistance in this matter, and Ms Patel we appreciate your assistance. And Mr and Mrs Dladla, we thank you for coming, showing an interest in the matter, and we hope that you have at least by being present here, you have found out a little bit more about this particular incident and that you have found some benefit in having gone to the trouble of at least coming here to listen. We regard that normally as important and we thank you for having come.

I think that concludes our matters for today. We believe that the remaining applicant for some or other reason hasn't managed to come through from Cape Town yet, and he's only expected later on today.

MS PATEL: Yes, that is correct, Honourable Chairperson, he's apparently only arriving at 7 o'clock this evening, so unfortunately I must request that we roll that matter over till tomorrow morning.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, there's not much that we can do under those circumstances. We have, I think, kept the pace with the matters that we do have on the roll. So under those circumstances we are going to adjourn the proceedings and we will reconvene here tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock. We're adjourned.