UNKNOWN
Thank you, Mr Chairman. On behalf of the victims in the four incidents under the scrutiny of this Committee for amnesty.  Mr Chairman, some remarks regarding random issues that cropped up.  We have a situation where I submit the proximity to the general elections in April 1994 is a very strong feature or factor which must militate strongly against the credibility of both applicants when they say or they want you to believe that they had no idea that the armed struggle had been suspended.  We have the direct evidence of the camp commander, Mr Tjabane.  He certainly was not severely or to any extent in my mind, materially discredited on this particular aspect.  I think it is common cause and well-known that during March, especially around the latter part of March, the entire nation was galvanised into preparations for the elections.
	Now I would gladly concede that if we were dealing with a terrain for example, like Burma or the Koreas where we know from World War II, 30 or 40 years later people emerged from the jungle not knowing that the war had ended, one would say well, one can understand, there was no communication.  
	We have the evidence that the applicants moved freely between Butterworth, the Transkei and the Eastern Cape, they had contact points, Mr Mtura, Mama's Restaurant, they were able to use a telephone, they were able to listen to the radio and they were able to watch the television.  So we don't have a situation that these were combatants cut off from any form of communication with their hierarchy.  
	We also have the evidence of Mr Palapala at page 138 of the bundle, which is a portion or an extract of his evidence in the High Court at Bisho.  He was asked from line 10 onwards, whether he came to know about the armed struggle which was suspended or not and he was being asked that at the time when he was being questioned why he went to East London and Mdantsane for purposes of obtaining a vehicle, and he said at the bottom of the page from line 20:
"I mean I was staying there at the camp, at the base rather."
He was asked by Mr Christoford(?):
"Did someone tell you that?"
		"I was told.  We were discussing this at the base and we had heard about it over the radio."
That with submission, corroborates what Mr Tjabane has told this Committee, that the message had been delivered.  And it would seem from Mr Palapala who was a colleague of Mr Ncamazana and Mbambo at that specific stage, that this certainly was a topic of discussion at that time.
	The other aspect which is indeed troublesome is the motive.  Now the applicants have given the sort of general political motive as wanting to liberate the country from the white oppressor.  At that stage the country was virtually in the hands of the majority.  One by no stretch of the imagination accepted that the ANC would return a resounding majority.  So political motive I submit, doesn't appear to feature very strongly in my respectful submission.  
	If one looks at Palapala's evidence from page 139 of the bundle where he is questioned about the reasons for him going to East London.  He teamed up with accused number 1, who was I think Mr Ncamazana, who accompanied him for purposes of stealing a motor vehicle.  They then join up, with respect, with the others and they go to Cambridge that is in this area, Mr Chairman, where we are sitting at present, and they that they couldn't get hold of a vehicle because the security was tight, there were too many policemen in the area.  They then retired to Mdantsane and there it was said there is a church or a place where white people are and there would be vehicles there.  Then on the Sunday they moved towards the Bahai Church.  Now on the way they first go to a place where they obtained drugs, or frequent a place where drugs are sold, and I think they spend about R20 on obtaining drugs.  We don't specifically know what the drugs are, but Mr Palapala alluded to that in his evidence.
	They then get to the Bahai Church and they see a Sierra motor vehicle, grey in colour, but they don't steal that one because it's an oldish model.  Someone says no, there'll be a newish model or they must wait a while.  They then retire and from the place where they were waiting saw the Jetta motor vehicle being driven towards the church, and that is when they struck.
	My submission is with respect, that this was a robbery pure and simple disguised in order to evade justice by the applicants.  It was convenient for them to say well, we did this on behalf of APLA, we did this on behalf of the PAC, yet the PAC was saying the armed struggle has ended.  And my submission is that Ncamazana at least knew that the armed struggle had ended and that was the instruction given by the High Command.
	The fact that Mr Letklapa Mpahlele gave evidence in the High Court, if one really looks at his evidence what does he say, he gives evidence in general terms.  He as Operational Director takes responsibility, the Bahai Church was in line with APLA policy, it was the type of target that they would have attacked and so on.  He knows that this unit did not get knowledge or have knowledge of the cessation of the armed struggle.  But on what does he base that?  There are no surrounding facts which he gives the Court to bolster or corroborate that.  Here we have the commander himself who has testified that that was not the case. in fact Ncamazana was in the base camp when in fact that instruction went out.
	So generally we have a - certainly the impression I get is that Mr Letklapa Mpahlele is trying to assist the applicants to either be acquitted or to receive a lesser sentence, in my respectful submission.  Because there is nothing really in his evidence, apart from his speculation that there was difficulty in the word getting down to grassroots level, which one I think has certain difficulties accepting in the light of these particular circumstances of the evidence of this case.  It's unlikely and improbable that Mr Ncamazana and Mr Mbambo did not know about the cessation of the armed struggle.
	And if one argues that away, what is left for them?  Then one must question their evidence, have they then made full disclosure, have they not attempted to mislead this Committee by packing the blame on Mr Tjabane?  It's convenient to say we acted on his instructions in order to avoid the consequences of their terrible deeds.
	Mr Tjabane made application for amnesty, he could have spelt out what he did, he didn't.  The suggestion by counsel that the reason now that he denies it is to avoid prosecution, he may well be prosecuted, he may be investigated, he has not guarantees in that regard.  What I'm simply suggesting is that it seems unlikely from the fact that he applied for amnesty, even in general terms, that he was trying to protect himself.
	The other aspect relating to Mr Tjabane is the question of the letter Exhibit F.  In the light of what was stated by Mr Mbandazayo it is clear that if Mr Tjabane had given evidence as he testified today, it would have severely impacted not only upon the trial of the two applicants, but also possibly on the hierarchy of the PAC.  And it would seem that that letter was drafted for a specific purpose, was to avoid having Mr Tjabane testify. 
	Now there may be certain sequelae or consequences flowing from that and it may not be the task of this Committee to pronounce upon that, but Mr Mbandazayo was clearly at unease when he said the way in which it was drafted it was clearly for tactical purposes and to keep him out.  We don't know whey the State advocate did not pursue it and ask for more particularity, but the nett result was that Mr Tjabane never testified and the prejudicial information did not land before the Court.  However, this is not a trial, this is an inquiry, it is an inquiry after the truth and to obtain the fullest picture possible of the gross violations of human rights which occurred.
	My submission is that although in strict legal terms a letter written on behalf of someone must be attributed to that particular person.  However, in these circumstances it is clear from the tone of the letter that Mr Mbandazayo drafted that letter in legalese after consulting with the PAC's senior counsel and upper structures in order to politically make the best statement possible at the time and to avoid the political consequences, or possible fallout resulting from the testimony of Mr Tjabane in that trial.
	Mr Tjabane has come today without fear, without any reservation, he's exposed himself to all sorts of questions.  And my submission is that whatever criticisms one has of the way in which he answered certain questions, whether he properly understood the gist and soforth.  One aspect was where he didn't reply to Mr Chairman's question of:
"In the light of what you say, is it not then correct that Mpahlele must have been mistaken or not telling the truth."
Yes, he did not reply directly, but it would flow from the evidence that he gave it was implicit that Mpahlele was not correct or not telling the truth.  With submission it's a conclusion that the Committee must come to, it wasn't the fact that he would answer aye or nay.  His opinion with respect is irrelevant to these, to the weight to be attached to the evidence, whether he believes ...(intervention)