Amnesty Hearings

CHAIRPERSON: ...the death of Amy Biehl. Before commencing proceedings I should place on recordthat the original date by which applications for amnesty had to be lodged wasthe 14th of December 1996. It was announced that this date was to be extendedto the 10th of May 1997. This decision has yet to be promulgated in the Gazetteand it is anticipated that this is due to take place shortly.

Of the four applicationsbefore us three were lodged after the original closing date, one was lodgedtimeously. The date for today's hearing was finalised to meet the convenienceof Mr and Mrs Biehl, the parents of the deceased Amy Biehl, they are here today,they have come from America to attend these proceedings. The Committee has thereforedecided that notwithstanding the fact that the closing date has yet to be proclaimed,overall convenience to all parties, including the applicants, dictates thatthe hearing should proceed today. I trust that this meets with the agreementof counsel for the parties concerned.

ADV ARENDSE: Thank you Mr Chairman, just for the record, Norman Arendse, I'm appearing togetherwith my colleague Advocate Gozo. We are both from the Cape Town Bar, we havebeen provided with legal assistance by the TRC to represent the applicants inthis matter. We don't have any objections with the proceedings going ahead onthe basis as outlined by you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. I think that it should be made known to people that we have channelsof interpretation in three languages, namely English, Afrikaans and Xhosa. Simultaneoustranslation or interpretation is made available to all parties.

The order inwhich the applicants are sitting should be placed on record. Will you tell usin which order they are sitting Mr Arendse?

ADV ARENDSE: Thank you Mr Chairman, learned members of the Committee. On my far right isNtombeko Ambrose Peni. Next to him Eazi Mzikhona Nofemela. Next to him MongesiChristopher Manqina, and next to him Vusumzi Samuel Ntamo.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Brink is there anything else you wish to say before we commence?

MR BRINK: Yes Mr Chair. I would place on record that all the victims involved in thisincident, in other words those who were assaulted in some way or another weretimeously notified about the hearings today and I am informed that they havedecided that they do not wish to attend.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Arendse you may begin.

ADV ARENDSE: Thank you Mr Chairman, learned members of the Committee. Subject to your furtheror any other directions, we wish to propose dealing with this matter in thefollowing manner. We have prepared written sworn affidavits on behalf of theapplicants, they have been prepared in English for everyone's conveniences.We propose, that's myself and my colleague Ms Gozo, propose reading their affidavitsinto the record. The applicants individually can then confirm the contents ofthese affidavits. They will then, after we have read their affidavits into therecord and they've confirmed them, they are then available for questions fromthe Committee and from Mr Brink.

Before we dothat, Mr Chairman we have prepared an opening statement which I would requestmy colleague Ms Gozo to also read into the record with your leave Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Ms Gozo you may proceed.

ADV GOZO ADDRESSES: Thank you Mr Chair. Mr Chair and members of the Committee, the names of theapplicants have already been read into the record.

This is an incidentin which the deceased, Amy Biehl, a Fullbright scholar and an American citizenwas killed. This incident took place on the 25th of August 1993 at about4:40pm at NY 1 road in Guguletu. Nofemela, Manqina and Ntamo were convictedand sentenced on the 24th of October 1994 in the High Court in Cape Town inCase No SS136 of '93. Peni was subsequently arrested, tried and convicted andthen sentenced. They were all convicted of murder and they are presently servingtheir sentences.

Mr Chair I wishto put in front of the Committee today that this act constituted gross violationsof human rights as contemplated by the Promotion of National Unity and ReconciliationAct of 1995, Act No 34 of 1995. The applicants submit their applications interms of Section 18 of that Act. The applications are made on the grounds thatthese acts were associated with a political objective as defined in that Act.The applications appear from pages 1 to 33 of the record. It is submitted thatit will appear from these applications and from the sworn statements that arepresented and sworn to on behalf of the applicants, that the applications fullycomply with the requirements of the Act.

JUDGE NGOEPE: No that is not correct, that is subject to the proviso that the closing datewill be promulgated.

ADV GOZO: That is correct and I thank Justice Ngoepe for the correction.

JUDGE NGOEPE: At least with regard to the three.

ADV GOZO: That's correct yes.

Further it issubmitted that the offences to which the applications relate were associatedwith a political objective committed in the course of the conflict of the past.Also that the applicants make full disclosure of all relevant facts as contemplatedby Section 20 of the Act.

It is furthermoresubmitted that the provisions of Section 22 and 23 of the Act have been compliedwith in that the applicants were members of the Pan African Students Organisation,a publicly known political organisation usually referred to as PASO which atthe time waged a political struggle against the State.

It is submittedthat they were members and supporters of the Pan African Congress, popularlyknown as the PAC, which is also a publicly known political organisation andliberation movement which waged a political struggle against the State at thetime.

The applicantswere active supporters of the Azanian Peoples Liberation Army, popularly knownas APLA. This is also a publicly known political liberation movement and italso waged a political struggle against the State at the time. The applicantsdid associate themselves with APLA as is contemplated in Section 22G of theAct.

Furthermore itis submitted, Mr Chairman, that the particular offences in respect of whichamnesty is sought by the applicants are offences associated with a politicalobjective when one has regard to the following:

The motive ofthe applicants who committed the offences in question were clearly politicalin that at the time in question they were furthering the aims an objects ofan operation called Operation Great Storm. This was an operation adopted byAPLA and PASO. Just as much as there was at the time an operation adopted bythe Congress of South African Students, popularly known as COSAS, which wasa student organisation affiliated to the African National Congress, popularlyknown as the ANC. The main aim of both these operations was to make the townshipsungovernable, more particularly by preventing government and company suppliesand services from coming into the townships and also by killing, maiming andinjuring what was popularly known as settlers and this was a term that was usedto refer to White persons.

The context inwhich these offences were committed is that at the time a volatile politicalclimate prevailed, particularly in the township of Guguletu, when both operations,and that is Operation Great Storm and Operation Barcelona were put into operation.

Underlying thefurther aims of Operation Barcelona was to secure the recognition of the SouthAfrican Democratic Teachers Union, popularly known as SADTU by the State. Massivesupport was shown by students for teachers belonging to SADTU and to furtherthese objectives, and that is to gain recognition for SADTU, PASO declared itselfto be fully committed to that struggle, and to that end had adopted the slogan,One settler one bullet.

The objectiveof the offence in question was primarily directed at making townships ungovernableand was also aimed at destroying State and company property, State personneland private property and individuals. State personnel was also targeted. Alsotargeted was private property and individuals who were seen as standing in theway of realisation of these objectives. The applicants acted on the instructionsand with the approval of PASO and APLA.

It will be submittedthat the offences committed by the applicants were directly proportional tothe political objectives pursued by PASO and APLA.

In conclusion,Mr Chair, it is submitted that the offences committed by the applicants werenot for personal gain, they were not committed for personal malice, ill-willor spite but that they were purely politically motivated actions which werecommitted under the bona fide impression that the political objectivesof PASO and APLA were being pursued.

Thank you MrChair.

ADV ARENDSE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman may I just - you and the learned Committeemembers all have copies of these affidavits, just for the record, these arethe originals if I could just hand them up.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps we should identify them for the purposes of the record. Is there anyspecial order in which you wish to hand them in?

ADV ARENDSE: Yes Mr Chairman the first, or let me just hand up the first on Ntombeko AmbrosePeni.

CHAIRPERSON: That will go in as Exhibit A.

EXHIBIT A HANDEDIN - AFFIDAVIT N A PENI

ADV ARENDSE: Thank you. Mr Chairman, learned members of the Committee, if I may just thenproceed to read into the record what is stated by applicant Peni.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Chairman can I just check for the record whether the applicants are comfortableand they can hear what is being said? Thank you.

ADV ARENDSE: Reads

"I the undersignedNtombeko Ambrose Peni do hereby make oath and state that

1. Iwas born in Cape Town on the 28th of September 1975 and I am 21 yearsold.

Iam a member of the Pan African Congress, the PAC and a member of thePan African Students Organisation PASO.

2. Thefacts to which I depose are true and correct and within my personalknowledge unless the context indicates otherwise.

3. On6th June 1995 I was sentenced to 18 years imprisonment by the High Courtsitting at Cape Town after that Court found me guilty of the murderof Amy Biehl on 25 August 1993. I am currently serving my sentence atthe Victor Verster prison.

4. On25 August 1993, I was 18 years old and I was attending Langa High School.On that day the Langa High School Unit of the Pan African Students Organisation,PASO, was re-launched at the school and I was elected chairperson ofthat unit.

5. There-launch of PASO was attended by between three to four hundred studentsfrom the Langa High School and the surrounding schools. I am personallyaware of the attendance of Easy Mzikhona Nofemela because we knew eachother having grown up in the same street at NY 111 in Guguletu. At thattime I had no personal knowledge of Vusumzi Samuel Ntamo or MongesiChristopher Manqina. I knew Ntamo and Manqina only by sight having seenthem on occasions at Pan African Congress and PASO meetings and marches.

6. Nofemelawas aged 22 at the time and was attending Joe Slovo High School.

7. Themeeting which re-launched the Langa High Unit of PASO held on 25 August1993 lasted from between one to three pm that day. At the meeting politicalspeeches were made, the main speakers being Simpiwe Mxengu the regionalsecretary of PASO and Wanda Mathebula, the regional Chairperson of PASO.The speeches made by the speakers were militant and were characterisedby inter alia the following:

1. Thatthe battle to win back the land for the African people was not onlythat of the Azanian People's Liberation Army, APLA, but was onein which all of us must actively assist. The instruction was thatall PASO members must assist APLA operators on the ground and thatwe would do so making the country ungovernable.

2. In1993 APLA had adopted the slogan "Year of the Great Storm". Thatslogan was also adopted by PASO at that meeting and then put intooperation by PASO.

3. PASOmembers were instructed to actively support the teachers' strikefor recognition and we were to refuse to pay examination fees, theaim being to destroy the whole system of education, and,

4. Thesespeeches were closed with the slogan One settler onebullet. I understood this slogan to applyto every White person who came into the line of fire during an APLAoperation or an operation to support APLA, or where we, as PASOmembers, were to assist in making the country ungovernable.

8. Thespeeches at the meeting and my election as Chairperson inspired me andmade me eager to "operate" to assist APLA. In fact Nofemela and I hadbeen receiving training from APLA operators in the township. This traininginvolved physical training, attending political classes and also instructionson how to handle arms and ammunition.

9. Agroup of approximately 200 left the meeting and decided to walk to BonteheuwelStation. The balance of those who attended the meeting were those whoresided in Langa and they decided to stay behind. This group of approximately200 decided to walk from Langa to Bonteheuwel along Vanguard Drive withthe aim of targeting government and company vehicles. As we walked alongVanguard Drive we threw stones at some government and company vehicles.Whilst walking we were singing, toyi-toying and chanting political sloganslike 'One Settler one bullet'.

AlongVanguard Drive we had stopped a truck and were in the process of tryingto burn it down but before we could do so the police came onto the sceneand we then threw stones at the police van damaging its windscreen.The policemen in the van were White policemen and they fired shots atus causing us to retreat. As we retreated we split into two groups,the one group going back to Langa and the other group, which includedme and Nofemela, moved onwards towards Bonteheuwel Station.

10. Nofemelaand I were now in a group of between 80 to 90 students. When we approachedBonteheuwel Station a train pulled into the station and we boarded thetrain. We passed Natrec Station and got out at Heideveld station. Weboarded the train at approximately something to four and disembarkedat Heideveld station at approximately five to ten minutes later.

11. Wewalked past NY110 to NY1 in Guguletu in a group of between 80 to 90,still toyi-toying, singing and chanting the slogan "One settlerone bullet". As we walked in a group we did not see anygovernment or company vehicles.

Nofemelaand I then walked to Iona shopping centre which is situated at NY1 inGuguletu. At the shopping centre we got onto a bakkie and this bakkietook us to section 3 in Guguletu, which is where we stay.

Whilein the bakkie we had passed a BP garage, which is on the corner of NY1and Klipfontein Road, and there we noticed the other group which hadearlier retreated back to Langa station. Another group of students whomwe identified as Congress of South African Students, COSAS, has alsoformed themselves into a group.

Thebakkie was driven by a man named Maleleke. Maleleke works at the shopcalled Viveza which is situated at NY119 in Guguletu. I know him fromthe area. I do not know whether he also owned the bakkie.

WhilstNofemela and I were on the bakkie we had approached the Caltex garagewhich is situated at NY1 and NY132 in Guguletu and it is here that wesaw Amy Biehl running across the road, that's in NY1 towards the garage.She was bleeding from the head. She was pursued by a group of betweenseven to ten people.

Ijumped off the bakkie and also pursued her, throwing stones at her.I did so twice. I was about three to four metres from her when I threwstones at her. Manqina tripped her and she fell and I saw Manqina almoston top of her making a stabbing motion towards her. Stones were alsobeing thrown at her from a very short distance. Nofemela also jumpedoff the bakkie...."

Can I just pausethere Mr Chairman and learned members, to make an amendment which has been discussedwith applicant Peni, just wishes to change the next sentence to read as I amgoing to read it into the record,

".....Nofemelahad also jumped off the bakkie and he threw stones at Amy Biehl".

Thank you.

"Allthis was happening very quickly and soon after we arrived on the scenethe police arrived and the crowd dispersed in all directions. I myselfran home.

13. Iconfirm having filled in the amnesty application in May 1997 when Iwas assisted by Letlhapa Mpahlele, the Director of APLA operations.

Iam applying for amnesty because I have been found guilty of killingAmy Biehl by a court of law.

Iparticipated in the killing of Amy Biehl.

Iam also taking responsibility as PASO Chairperson.

Ideeply regret the killing of Amy Biehl and I ask her parents, relativesand friends to forgive me.

14. Ialso wish to comment on the statement made by Comrade Makwetu, who isnow the ex-President of the PAC, whose comments appear on pages 36 and37 of the record which is before the Committee.

Firstly,it is correct that PASO is not part of APLA. However, on the day inquestion when Amy Biehl was killed the PASO leadership implored andinstructed us to assist APLA in its struggle by making the country ungovernableand by preparing the groundwork for APLA operators.

Secondly,it is correct that at the time there was a strike by SADTU in the WesternCape and we as students supported that strike. We also supported OperationBarcelona which was the slogan of COSAS, an ANC affiliate.

Thirdly,however, at the PASO meeting that day we were incited by militant politicalspeeches and we were instructed to support Operation Great Storm whichwas adopted by APLA in 1993 and which PASO adopted and supported. Thisoperation involved using essentially the same tactics as that to beadopted by Operation Barcelona, i.e. to make the country ungovernableand to refuse to pay school examination fees.

15. Iwas arrested in October 1993 and I was held for two days. I was requiredto attend an identification parade, but at the identification paradenone of the witnesses called to testify against me could identify me.I was then released but rearrested on 13 January 1995 and I was convictedof the Amy Biehl murder in June 1995.

16. Irespectfully submit that,

1. Myapplication for amnesty complies with the requirements of the Act".

That is now subjectto what Judge Ngoepe correctly pointed out, that formally it doesn't complybecause of the cut-off date hasn't been promulgated.

"2. Thatthe offence in respect of which I was found guilty, namely the murderof Amy Biehl, was an offence which is associated with a politicalobjective committed in the course of the conflicts of the past andwhich complies with the criteria set out in Section 20(2) and (3)of the Act and,

3. Ihave made full disclosure of all the relevant facts.

Signed byNtombeko Ambrose Peni, signed and attested to on the 7th day of July 1997".

Mr Chairman thenthere are just a few questions I would like to put to Mr Peni myself beforethe Committee does.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I think Mr Peni ought to, on oath, confirm the contents of that affidavit.

NTOMBEKO AMBROSEPENI: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Your counsel has read out your affidavit, I am going to ask you now whetheryou confirm the contents of that affidavit?

MR PENI: YesI do confirm.

EXAMINATION BYADV ARENDSE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Ntombeko on the day in question youthrew stones at Amy Biehl and you contributed to her death, can you tell thisCommittee why you threw stones at her and why you caused her death?

MR PENI: Theaims of PASO was to bring back the African land to the African people.

ADV ARENDSE: Mr Chairman unfortunately I didn't hear the answer.

MR BRINK: Can I assist in that regard?

MR PENI: Theaim was to bring back the African land to the African people.

ADV ARENDSE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Ntombeko Amy Biehl was a single White female, how wereyou going to achieve your stated political objectives by causing her death?

MR PENI: Itis not the sex that we considered, we just considered that she was a White personbecause the African land was being ruled by a small minority of White people.

ADV ARENDSE: Ntombeko you hear evidence during the criminal trial that the three passengerswho were in the car with Amy testifying that when they got out of the car theyimplored people in the crowd not to harm her or cause her further harm becauseshe was what they called a "comrade", did you hear this?

MR PENI: Idid not hear of this.

ADV ARENDSE: If you did hear from the passengers that she was also a comrade that day wouldyou have acted any differently?

MR PENI: Idon't think so.

ADV ARENDSE: Can you elaborate?

MR PENI: Atthe time we were in very high spirits and the White people were oppressive,we had no mercy on the White people. A White person was a White person to oureyes.

ADV ARENDSE: There was also evidence during the criminal trial that goods belonging to eitherAmy or to the passengers in the car, that they were taken from Amy or from thepassengers, do you know anything about that?

MR PENI: Ido not know of these goods.

ADV ARENDSE: Can you elaborate for this Committee on your understanding of the slogan "oneSettler one bullet"? Is it not only confined to the use of firearmsor does it mean anything else to you?

MR PENI: One Settler, one bullet was directed towards the White people. Wejust needed weapons to attack, it did not need to be a firearm, whatever youcould use you utilised.

ADV ARENDSE: Now some people might say or allege that the killing of Amy Biehl that day wasa senseless act of mob violence, I want you to comment on that.

MR PENI: Thereis no such because even where we were from we were from a re-launch of PASO,where PASO was given instructions to prepare the land for the APLA people, forthe operations of APLA.

ADV ARENDSE: Ntombeko how do you feel today about what happened and what you specificallydid that day?

MR PENI: Ifeel sorry and very down-hearted especially today realising the contributionAmy Biehl played in the struggle. When I look closely at what I did I realisethat it was bad. I took part in killing someone that we could have used to achieveour own aims. Amy was one of the people who could have, in an internationalsense, worked for our country so that the world knows what's going on in SouthAfrica, so that the government of the day would not get support, sanctions so-to-speak.

I ask Amy's parents,Amy's friends and relatives, I ask them to forgive me. Just to hear that theyhave forgiven me would mean a great deal to me. For me it would be startinga new life. I have led an abnormal life under the struggle in South Africa.I do not think I would commit such an act again because right now the situationin South Africa is different. I ask for forgiveness and I am sorry.

ADV ARENDSE: Should you be granted amnesty what are your plans?

MR PENI: Tofinish my matric because it's difficult to do so in prison. I would like tocontinue with my studies and be what I have always intended to be in life withoutpolitics.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONSBY ADV ARENDSE

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brink are there questions you wish to put to this applicant.

MR BRINK: Yes, yes thank you Mr Chairman.

CROSS-EXAMINATIONBY MR BRINK: Mr Peni, in August 1993 you must have been aware that constitutionalnegotiations between the various political parties were virtually at an endand peace was coming to the land.

MR PENI: YesI was aware, however, the constitution of my party, the PAC, was not totallyin line with that.

MR BRINK: In paragraph 5.1 of the opening statement made by your counsel you indicated,or he indicated, and presumably on your instructions, that the PAC affiliateorganisations were working together with one or two of the ANC affiliate organisations,is that correct?

ADV ARENDSE: Mr Chairman if I may just interject, perhaps if ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: I had not interpreted the question to the applicant yet.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes will you please interpret that to the applicant first.

MR PENI: Itis so.

MR BRINK: In other words in your township, in your area, there was no specific rivalrybetween African National Congress affiliates and Pan Africanist organisationaffiliates, is that correct?

MR PENI: Yesthey worked together.

MR BRINK: And were aware of the fact that there were a number of White youths who weremembers of COSAS?

MR PENI: Iwas not aware of that.

MR BRINK: Were you aware that there might have been White members of the South AfricanDemocratic Teachers Union?

MR PENI: Ionly knew Black members.

MR BRINK: I am not asking whether you only knew Black members I am asking you whetheryou knew that White people might have been members?

MR PENI: Idid not know.

MR BRINK: Did you know Mr Joe Slovo by sight or by reputation?

MR PENI: Yes.

MR BRINK: Did you know Mr Ronnie Kasrils by sight or by reputation?

MR PENI: Yes.

MR BRINK: Did you know that they were both prominent members of the African National Congress?

MR PENI: Yes.

MR BRINK: Did you know there were many other White people who were members of the AfricanNational Congress?

MR PENI: Ido not know about that.

MR PENI: Wellnow you were a leading light in your organisation, I presume you kept abreastof politics in general?

MR PENI: Areyou stating or are you asking a question?

MR BRINK: I am asking you a question. You, according to the information in front of me,you were a leading light in your organisation and you must have had a generalawareness of political personalities and political organisations throughoutthe country.

MR PENI: Yesthat is so.

MR BRINK: Yes. So you must have been aware that there were more than just two White peoplewho were members of the African National Congress?

MR PENI: Yesbut they are confined to their own areas.

MR BRINK: Yes, but the point is you knew there were White people who were members of organisationswith whom you were then in alliance.

MR PENI: Yes.

MR BRINK: Had Mr Joe Slovo been in the township that afternoon would you have also stabbedand stoned and killed him?

MR PENI: NoI would not have.

MR BRINK: Why not?

MR PENI: Everybodyknew him.

MR BRINK: Yes, but you see I ask that because in answer to your counsel you said thathad you known that Amy Biehl was a comrade you probably wouldn't have behavedany differently. In other words notwithstanding the fact that you were awarethat she was a comrade you would have taken part in her killing.

MR PENI: Couldyou please repeat that Sir.

MR BRINK: In answer to your counsel at this inquiry you told the Committee that had youbeen aware of the fact that Amy Biehl had been a comrade you would nonethelessnot have acted any differently. In other words you would have taken part inher murder.

MR PENI: Areyou stating or are you asking a question?

MR BRINK: I am asking you a question.

MR PENI: Pleaserepeat it.

MR BRINK: Very well. In answer, for the third time and listen carefully, I will go veryslowly, this morning your counsel asked you whether if you had known that AmyBiehl had been a comrade you would have acted any differently, your answer tohim was no, because a White person was a White person. Now what I want to knowis why would you treat or would have treated Joe Slovo differently from AmyBiehl?

MR PENI: Thereason is that we know about Joe Slovo, we have read about him even though wehad not seen him face-to-face we know about him.

MR BRINK: Mr Peni, Joe Slovo was a White man. Now you have told us that a White personis a White person and you would kill merely because of that fact. Now I wantto know from you, why, if Amy Biehl had been a comrade, and you knew that shehad been a comrade, you would have killed her but not killed Joe Slovo? Thequestion is quite simple.

MR PENI: Nobodyknew about Amy Biehl first of all. At the time we were very angry as studentsas well. The reason why I said that it would not have made a difference if Ihad known she was a comrade it is because of the high spirits of the studentsat the time.

MR BRINK: Are you then saying that your reason for killing Amy Biehl was because of yourhigh spirits at the time?

MR PENI: Iam saying that the reason why I said it would not have made a difference itis because it was due to the aims of the organisation.

MR BRINK: You had absolutely no idea of what Amy Biehl's political views were, isn't thatthe situation?

MR PENI: Idid not know.

MR BRINK: And your evidence here was that you participated in this murderous attack becausethe aims of your organisation was to bring back land to the African people,now what I want to know is, how would the killing of an unarmed, defencelesswoman possibly help you to achieve that aim?

MR PENI: Webelieved that the minority White people ruling the country would realise thatwe wanted our land back. We also believed that they were going to give up thisland back to the African people.

MR BRINK: Is it your evidence that by murdering, in the most brutal fashion, Amy Biehl,the African people would get their land back?

MR PENI: Yesit's my evidence.

MR BRINK: The killing of one, single, defenceless woman would effect that?

MR PENI: Firstof all I would like to rectify something, gender was not significant. Our aimwas to attack each White person and go forward.

JUDGE WILSON: But it was not the aim of the PAC at that time to kill every White person theysaw, was it?

MR PENI: Pleaserepeat the question.

JUDGE WILSON: It was not the aim of the PAC at that time to kill every White person they saw,was it?

MR PENI: Itis true, if it was necessary for the youth to do so it would happen.

JUDGE WILSON: You are not answering my question. Was it the policy of the PAC to kill everyWhite person they saw?

MR PENI: Itcould not happen that every person be killed, but there was one slogan 'OneSettler, one bullet'.

JUDGE WILSON: Do you agree it was not the policy of the PAC to kill White persons on sight,which is what you did on this afternoon, do you agree with that?

MR PENI: Itis true that the PAC could not have killed everybody that they saw, however,the PAC was aware that killing each White person the land would come back tothe African people.

JUDGE WILSON: And you say that was PAC policy, to kill every White person?

MR PENI: Idid not say every White person.

JUDGE WILSON: You said if they killed every White person the land would come back.

MR PENI: Yes,I said that the land would come back to the African people through their killing.

MR BRINK: Mr Peni, isn't it the position that on that dreadful afternoon you were involvedin a mindless, savage attack on this young woman, and that it was not politicallymotivated at all?

MR PENI: Ourkilling Amy Biehl had everything to do with politics.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONSBY MR BRINK

QUESTIONS BY THECOMMITTEE

CHAIRPERSON: In your mind what did you achieve by killing Amy Biehl?

MR PENI: Eventhough I am sorry that I contributed in the death of Amy Biehl, but I realisedthat the unrest at the time and the international recognition helped South Africato be where it is today.

CHAIRPERSON: You are really saying that as far as you are concerned your taking part in thekilling of Amy Biehl achieved the recognition that your organisation wanted,is that what you are saying?

MR PENI: Pleaserepeat that.

CHAIRPERSON: I should perhaps put my question as I did, what did you achieve by killing AmyBiehl?

MR PENI: Isaid that having killed Amy Biehl I am not happy about that, however, it issuch things that have helped South Africa to be where it is today.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Peni, you have been asked what did you achieve. I think it's relevant forme to know what you wanted to achieve? What was your motive? Not whether youin fact succeeded in your motive but what you in fact wanted to achieve.

MR PENI: Itwas for the land of the African people to go back to the African people.

ADV DE JAGER: Right. And you told us that you were inspired by the slogan of "One Settler,one bullet", is that correct?

MR PENI: Itis so.

ADV DE JAGER: And Mr Brink then asked you whether you would have killed Mr Slovo because hewas also White. You said no, because you knew him. But in the slogan " OneSettler, one bulett", did they differentiate between settlers and sayyou should only kill particular settlers, or did they say kill settlers?

MR PENI: Icannot hear the interpretation well, there is a technical problem.

ADV DE JAGER: Could somebody kindly assist him. Could you kindly repeat, interpret the questionto him.

INTERPRETER: Please repeat the question Sir.

ADV DE JAGER: Could I re-frame it then. The slogan One Settler, one bullet didit differentiate between settlers, it said kill all settlers, or it said atleast kill the settlers?

MR PENI: Inour understanding of the slogan our land was taken by British settlers.

ADV DE JAGER: And did you understand settlers to be White people?

MR PENI: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: And although you might not have achieved what you politically wanted to achieveby killing one person, one White, but the fact is that if you have killed hundredsof Whites or thousands of them you would have had your land back, or all ofthem, if you've killed all the Whites?

MR PENI: Theland is in the hands of the African people, it is not that the PAC was totallyagainst the White people, all they wanted was their land back.

ADV DE JAGER: And the struggle, as you understood it, was directed against the Whites, isthat correct?

MR PENI: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: And I am correct in saying that it was because the Whites had the politicalpower in hands?

MR PENI: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: So if we want to come to the truth, as we try to do, we can't say that it wasn'ta racial war that's been fought in this country, it was based on race, isn'tthat so?

MR PENI: Pleaserepeat your question.

ADV DE JAGER: Wasn't it in fact a racial war that's been fought in this country and the reasonfor that was because the Whites had the political power and the Blacks strivedto get that power?

MR PENI: Yesit is so.

ADV DE JAGER: And wasn't that the reason why you would have killed any White you see?

MR PENI: Yesit is so because we wanted our land.

JUDGE NGOEPE: At the time of the incident in what standard were you at school?

MR PENI: Iwas in standard eight.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And before then how much experience in politics did you have?

MR PENI: Ihad not had much experience.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Before belonging to PASO or joining PASO then did you belong to any other politicalorganisation?

MR PENI: Nobut I was supporting the struggle.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Were you ever schooled in the politics of the PAC, in particular?

MR PENI: Iwas arrested whilst in the process of being educated about that.

JUDGE NGOEPE: So the policy of the PAC as you are articulating to us was the way you understoodit at the time of the incident?

MR PENI: Pleaserepeat the question.

JUDGE NGOEPE: The politics of the PAC as you articulated, as you have just articulated tous today, was the way you personally, you as an individual Mr Peni, understoodit to be at the time of the incident?

MR PENI: Itis how we were taught.

ADV GOZO: Mr Chair could I interject at this stage, I think the interpretation is notcoming out clearly. I can pick this up because I can understand both languages.I think there is a bit of a problem with the interpretation into Xhosa in termsof the sense in which Justice Ngoepe is asking his questions.

CHAIRPERSON: What seems to be the difficulty? Let's try again.

JUDGE NGOEPE: The politics of the PAC as you explained to us this morning, was the way youunderstood it on that fateful day?

MR PENI: Itis how I was taught.

JUDGE WILSON: So were you a member of the PAC on that day?

MR PENI: Yes.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And PASO was an affiliate of the PAC, am I right?

MR PENI: Itis so.

JUDGE NGOEPE: But didn't the PAC have a constitution which allowed White people to be members?

MR PENI: Inthe way I was taught there was no such.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Peni, when did you become a member of the PAC?

MR PENI: In1990.

MS KHAMPEPE: And when were you elected as the Chairperson of PASO?

MR PENI: In1993 on the 25th of August.

MS KHAMPEPE: And prior to the 25th of August 1993 did you hold any executive position withPASO?

MR PENI: No,I was just helping.

MS KHAMPEPE: So meaning you were just an ordinary member of PASO?

MR PENI: Yesit is so.

MS KHAMPEPE: Now in your evidence you stated that you were inspired to a great extent bythe speeches delivered by Mr Mfengu and Mr Mathebula which encouraged you tomake the country ungovernable?

MR PENI: Yes,it is so.

MS KHAMPEPE: Now did the speakers on the day in question, that is the 25th of August 1993,explain to you how you were to make the country ungovernable? Were you givenany ideas on how you would achieve the state of ungovernability of the country?

MR PENI: No.

MS KHAMPEPE: Did you think that by killing a person that you met on that day would actuallyassist you in achieving that state of ungovernability?

MR PENI: That'swhat we believed.

MS KHAMPEPE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know the difference between a political slogan and the policy of a politicalparty?

MR PENI: YesI do know.

CHAIRPERSON: Am I correct in saying that the PAC is on record as having said that OneSettler, one bullet was not part of the policy of the PAC but merelya slogan that was used by some members?

MR PENI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I would like you to go back because I think that this might have some relevanceto your conduct on that day when you said that "you were in high spirits" atthat time, do you recall saying that?

MR PENI: YesI do recall.

CHAIRPERSON: Precisely what do you mean by that?

MR PENI: WhenI say what Sir?

CHAIRPERSON: When you were in "high spirits" at that time, that is the 25th of August.

MR PENI: WhatI am saying is that we were very eager to obey the instructions of PASO thatwe make South Africa ungovernable.

CHAIRPERSON: I thought that being in "high spirits" is something that happened or lasts fora time, for a short period of time, that afternoon was not just something thatjust happened that afternoon that you were in "high spirits"?

MR PENI: Yesthere are times when the spirits would be high, sometimes they would be down,but on that day we were sent to do a job, to work.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry, with the Chairman's permission may I interrupt here and find out fromthe Interpreter whether, well I don't know the language that the applicant isspeaking, but would it not be correct to say that what he says is that theywere excited by saying high spirits, isn't that what he's been saying?

INTERPRETER: Yes Sir.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Thank you.

INTERPRETER: That's what I interpreted.

JUDGE NGOEPE: We really wanted to hear the word "excited", that's what we are looking for.

INTERPRETER: Oh alright.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Do I understand that if you had not been as "excited" as you were that afternoon,shortly after being elected to this official position, you may not have donewhat you did by participating in this attack?

MR PENI: WellI do agree that if we were not sent out to act I would not have done it.

CHAIRPERSON: My question really boils down to whether you had given this matter thought inyour mind before you actually took part in the attack or whether you did itinstinctively?

MR PENI: (Answernot interpreted)

ADV GOZO: Mr Chair may I interject, the Interpreter has just used an English word andif she can please translate that word because the applicant is indicating thathe does not understand that word.

INTERPRETER: Please repeat the question.

ADV GOZO: The word is "instinctively". The Interpreter when interpreting into Xhosa usedthe word "instinctively" as it is, if she could please interpret that word.

INTERPRETER: Please repeat the question Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: My question was, on that afternoon did you consider the implications of whatyou were going to do before you did it, or did you merely act instinctively?

MR PENI: Icould say that on that day we obeyed orders from our leaders.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Peni I am going to ask you, I will try to speak Xhosa, he wants to know ifat the time you attacked Miss Biehl did you do it thoughtfully or had you plannedit prior to the act after having been excited by speeches by Mr Mfengu and Mathebula?

MR PENI: Itdid not just happen.

MS KHAMPEPE: Therefore are you saying that you planned it?

MR PENI: Atthe time we were told to act and help APLA to fight and burn down governmentvehicles so that South Africa would be ungovernable. We obeyed the orders.

MS KHAMPEPE: You did not think it, you understood the order to be as you acted?

MR PENI: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: Who gave you these orders?

MR PENI: Isaid it was Simpiwe Mfengu and Wanda Mathebula.

JUDGE WILSON: And where are they now?

MR PENI: Theyare around.

JUDGE WILSON: So they are both available to come and give evidence that they ordered you tobehave like this on the day in question, is that so?

MR PENI: Idon't there would be a problem.

CHAIRPERSON: Was the order that was given to you, "go out from this meeting and kill Whitepeople", was that the order that was given to you?

MR PENI: Theorder was that we should make South Africa ungovernable, burn down governmentvehicles and every White person that we come across was an enemy.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Peni was the speech delivered by the two speakers you've alluded to, to theeffect that every White person was an enemy?

MR PENI: Thespeakers said the White man is an enemy.

MS KHAMPEPE: Now what did you understand by The Year of the Great Storm?

MR PENI: WhatI understood is that this is the Year of the Great Storm.

MS KHAMPEPE: But what did that mean if you were to explain to a person like me who did notunderstand what that slogan stood for?

MR PENI: Itwas an APLA slogan helped by PASO, the APLA meant that that year, that particularyear especially, they were going to attack.

CHAIRPERSON: Did that "Storm" take place?

MR PENI: Iwould say so.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Peni, earlier on my brother asked you whether you knew the difference betweena slogan and a policy, and your answer was that you did know the difference,which I personally am not sure I know. Can you tell us what the difference isbetween a slogan and a policy?

MR PENI: Apolicy is a constitution set so that the whole organisation can see what waythe organisation is going to take.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes.

MR PENI: Aslogan contributes to the policy of the organisation. A slogan is aligned tothe policy of the organisation. The policy was the African land was left throughstruggles and it will come back through struggles. The slogans were supportingthe policy.

JUDGE NGOEPE: In that context you would then say that - where would you put One Settler,one bullet?

MR PENI: ThePAC policy is that they would bring back the land through the struggle.

JUDGE NGOEPE: My question was whether this was policy or slogan?

MR PENI: Thepolicy gives birth to the slogan, therefore the slogan is aligned to the policy.

JUDGE NGOEPE: No I wanted to know whether, "One Settler, one bullet", is policyor slogan?

MR PENI: Itis a slogan.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Arendse any re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATIONBY ADV ARENDSE: Thank you Mr Chair. Ntombeko you were a member of the PACand you were a member of PASO. PASO is part of the PAC, is that correct?

MR PENI: That'scorrect.

ADV ARENDSE: Do the PAC and PASO have the same policy? Do they sometimes differ on mattersof policy?

MR PENI: Thepolicies of PASO are taken from that of the PAC, there are just minor differencesbecause we were students.

ADV ARENDSE: The slogan One Settler, one bullet was that an APLA slogan orwas it the PAC slogan?

MR PENI: Itwas a PAC slogan.

ADV ARENDSE: Your alliance with COSAS was that alliance following a meeting that you hadwith COSAS or did you as an organisation, PASO, decide to support COSAS andto put into operation Operation Barcelona?

MR PENI: Wegave support because we had a problem and COSAS had adopted a programme of OperationBarcelona.

ADV ARENDSE: The question was did you have a meeting, physical meeting with COSAS, or didyou as an organisation decide on your own to support COSAS in what they weregoing to do?

MR PENI: Wedecided on our own because it was our own problem anyway.

ADV ARENDSE: It was put to you without any, if I may say so, without any facts being putto you, but it was put to you nevertheless that COSAS had White members andof course so had the ANC, did you actually see or know any White persons whowere members of COSAS or the ANC?

MR PENI: PersonallyI did not know of anybody.

ADV ARENDSE: Now your evidence is that you were on a bakkie and you jumped off the bakkieand you pursued Amy and you then described what you did. Now it was put to youhypothetically that if this were Joe Slovo what would you have done then. NowI want to ask you, in the highly unlikely event that the late Mr Slovo wouldhave gone there without any bodyguards and without - and he would have beenin the car with the three passengers as Amy was, would you have known that itwas him, someone stumbling across the road, blood streaming from the head orthe face, would you have known it was Joe Slovo?

MR PENI: Iwould not have known that it was Joe Slovo.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Arendse his evidence was that he didn't know Joe Slovo by sight, that's hisevidence.

ADV ARENDSE: Ms Khampepe I understood that they knew him from his standing and photographspresumably.

MS KHAMPEPE: That is not how I understood his evidence. I thought he said he didn't knowhim by sight. He knew about him but not that he knew him by sight. He had notseen him face-to-face, that's how I recollect his evidence.

ADV ARENDSE: I accept the bit about not seeing him face-to-face, but I understood - but perhapsif we can clear this up, can I ask Mr Peni?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes certainly.

ADV ARENDSE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Ntombeko if you had seen - had you seen Joe Slovo beforethe 25th of August 1993?

MR PENI: Isaid I read about him in the newspapers before I saw him with my own eyes.

ADV ARENDSE: Had you seen a photograph of him?

MR PENI: Yes.

ADV ARENDSE: So if he appeared in front of you you would have known that it was Joe Slovo?

MR PENI: Itwould depend what angle I would be seeing him at.

ADV ARENDSE: Now just to go back to what I was asking of you, you had jumped off the bakkieand had seen a White woman who turned out to be Amy Biehl, you had seen thisWhite woman run across the street, now if it had been Joe Slovo running acrossthe street with blood streaming from his head or down his face would you havetaken the trouble to see whether it was Joe Slovo or whether it was some otherWhite male?

MR PENI: Iwould not have taken part.

ADV ARENDSE: I don't understand your answer. You would not have taken part if you had seenit was Joe Slovo, or you would not have taken part if you had seen it was someother White male?

MR PENI: Pleaserepeat the question.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry can I interrupt if you do not mind and just put the question to the witness.The question is, suppose that particular afternoon and under those specificcircumstances where somebody had - where you had jumped out of the bakkie andyou saw somebody running in the manner in which the deceased was doing withblood in the face, suppose that person had been Joe Slovo would you have recognisedhim as Joe Slovo?

MR PENI: Itwould depend, but if I had recognised him....

JUDGE NGOEPE: Well we are asking you, I don't know what you mean you when you depend, I don'tknow on what it would depend but I have put you back to the 25th of August 19whatever, and I am asking you, I am putting hypothetically Mr, the late Mr Slovoin precisely the position in which the deceased in the matter was, the questionis, would you have been able to recognise him if it had been Joe Slovo?

MR PENI: Ifhe was running in the same way that Amy had been running I would not have recognisedhim. I would not have seen that it was Mr Slovo.

ADV ARENDSE: I am indebted to Justice Ngoepe for clearing that up.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONSBY ADV ARENDSE

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Brink if I may ask you, did any of the applicants give evidence in mitigationand is it possible for us to have a copy thereof?

MR BRINK: I will endeavour to get that. All I do have is the judgment on the merits. Yousee Mr Peni was tried separately from the other three applicants and in yourpapers, in your bundle you've got a judgment relating to the three applicants,excluding the first applicant Peni.

JUDGE NGOEPE: But we are singularly missing the record relating to, if there was any evidence,in mitigation, but maybe you can take it up with your colleagues, we would dearlylike to have copies of the record relating to the evidence if there was any,which was given in mitigation.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Arendse do you know anything about it, or Ms Gozo?

ADV GOZO: I was representing the accused in the trial and the accused put on aspects relatingto their ages and their personal circumstances in mitigation.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that all that was led?

ADV GOZO: Yes.

ADV ARENDSE: Mr Chairman if I might just add that obviously at the trial, or maybe it's notso obvious, but their defence was that they had alibis and they were not - theydidn't place themselves on the scene, so if the Committee is looking for anythingthat they may have said about what happened and so on, and about the policyand slogans etc I am afraid we did ask about that and it's not available.

CHAIRPERSON: So I understand that the situation at that stage in the trial was consistentwith the attitude that they had adopted as far as their defence was concerned?

ADV ARENDSE: That would be correct Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. So no evidence, extraneous evidence about their frame of mind or what ledthem to do what they did, that evidence was not placed before the court as partof extenuating circumstances?

ADV ARENDSE: That would be correct Mr Chairman.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Arendse the Operation Storm or even Barcelona, you are not in possessionof any official documents of the party stating what Operation Storm in factwas about?

ADV GOZO: No documentation relating to Operation Great Storm in particular, but what Ican put before the Committee is that around the date of the commission of theoffence there was a lot written about Operation Barcelona in the media. I don'tknow if that would be of assistance to the Committee, but I know that therewould be that kind of documentation. And in relation as well to the whole situationabout SADTU, the Teacher's Union.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes but as far as the evidence of this applicant is concerned he merely mentionedBarcelona in passing and it doesn't seem to have played a role in his motivationfor the killing of Miss Biehl.

ADV ARENDSE: Advocate de Jager the short answer is that we had requested whether there isany documentation which can help us to understand ourselves what this meant.The applicants were unable to provide us with any documentation simply becauseit was adopted by APLA, it was carried across to them inter alia at thismeeting and whatever their understanding was of what it meant came out of whatthey heard at the meeting and those are our instructions.

CHAIRPERSON: We understand.

JUDGE WILSON: Have you spoken to the people they said addressed the meeting? Do you know howto make contact with them, whether they are available?

ADV ARENDSE: Justice Wilson the answer is no.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brink this might be a convenient stage to take the adjournment.

MR BRINK: Yes. May I suggest we resume at two o'clock?

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. The Committee will now adjourn and we will resume at two o'clock.

WITNESS EXCUSED

HEARING ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

ADV ARENDSE: Mr Chairman, learned members of the Committee, if there are no further questionsof Mr Peni, if we could move on to Mr Nofemela.

Similarly canI hand up the original affidavit of Eazi Mzikhona Nofemela, and can that bemarked Exhibit B or Annexure B. Exhibit B, thank you.

EXHIBIT B HANDEDIN - AFFIDAVIT M NOFEMELA

ADV ARENDSE: Mr Chairman Ms Gozo will deal with this part of the evidence of Mr Nofemela.

CHAIRPERSON: Will you be reading his affidavit first?

ADV GOZO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Do proceed.

ADV GOZO ADDRESSESCOMMITTEE: Mr Chairman, members of the Committee may I now proceed to readEasy Mzikhona Nofemela's affidavit into the record.

ADV ARENDSE: Mr Chairman may I just interject. Over lunch time one of the journalists askedme about disclosing the contents of the further affidavits which we intend toput before the Committee. I said, look in my view they shouldn't do so becausethey haven't been disclosed to this Committee yet officially, and perhaps MrChairman if you could just give some clarity on that.

CHAIRPERSON: You have been approached?

ADV ARENDSE: Well it would appear that at least that particular journalist was keen to putthat on the wire even before these details were made known to this Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I think journalists ought to be advised that unless an affidavit has beenaffirmed by this witness they ought not to make use of the contents of thatdocument. I am not too sure whether they are entitled to access to that documentbefore that stage either. Your clients, and I think you should ensure, thattheir affidavits are not made available until the appropriate time.

ADV ARENDSE: Mr Chairman we have certainly done - we were under the impression it's partof the standard procedure that we've been requested a copy of each affidavitthat we intend to hand up and that's what we've done, so if I did so mistakenlythen I apologise, but as you could have seen just now I passed on an affidavitand apparently that was for the Press.

CHAIRPERSON: That's unfortunate that that has happened. It seems that you can't undo whathas been done, and there would be no point in my making any statements at thisstage in that regard because these documents are in their hands. One can onlyappeal to them to hold back making any comments on those documents or publishingthem until the contents of those affidavits have been confirmed on oath.

ADV ARENDSE: Thank you Mr Chairman.

ADV GOZO: Mr Chairman may I then proceed?

"1. I,the undersigned, Easy Mzikhona Nofemela, do hereby make oath and statethat...."

Mr Chairman I don'tknow if this is being interpreted for the applicant.

" ....dohereby make oath and state that, I am 26 years old and I am currentlybeing held at the Victor Verster Prison where I am serving a sentenceof 18 years imposed upon me by the High Court in Cape Town after I wasfound guilty of the murder of Amy Biehl on 25 August 1993.

Iam a member of the PAC and PAS0.

2. Thefacts to which I depose are true and correct and within my personalknowledge unless the context indicates otherwise.

3. Ihave read the affidavit of Ntombeko Ambrose Peni and I confirm the contentsthereof insofar as it relates to me.

4. Inparticular I confirm having attended the launch of the Langa High unitof PASO on 25 August 1993. At the time I was a student at Joe SlovoHigh School and I was an organiser for PASO.

Bythe time I left the meeting I felt very inspired by the political speechesmade at the meeting. To that extent I was in the group, together withPeni, which stoned a truck and a police vehicle along Vanguard Driveon our way to Bonteheuwel Station.

Iconfirm further, having boarded the train at the Bonteheuwel Stationtogether with Peni and a group of between 80 and 90 students. We disembarkedat the Heideveld Station and from there we marched in a group lookingfor Government and company vehicles to stone.

Iconfirm further that Peni and I had got onto a bakkie at the Iona ShoppingCentre in Guguletu as the bakkie was to go in the direction in whichwe were staying, namely in Section 3.

5. Wegot to the scene of the incident at the Caltex garage at NY1 and NY132whilst on this bakkie. This is where I saw Amy Biehl stumble acrossthe road, NY1. I jumped off the bakkie and ran towards her also throwingstones at her. As we pursued her Manqina tripped her. I had a knifeand with seven or eight others we stabbed at Amy. I do not know whetherI in fact stabbed her. I stabbed at her about three or four times. Ialso went to throw stones at the vehicle and with others tried to overturnit. When the police van arrived I ran away.

6. Ihave received training from APLA operators in the township, which trainingincluded physical training, attending political classes and demonstrationson how to handle arms and ammunition.

Atthe time of the Amy Biehl incident the only other applicant known tome was Peni. We were brought up together and lived in the same streetat NY111 Guguletu.

Ihave only come to know Vusumzi Samuel Ntamo and Mongesi ChristopherManqina after I was arrested with them and appeared in the lengthy trialwith them.

7. Ihad made a statement to the police. It appeared at record 48 and 49.This statement is largely correct except the failure to disclose myparticipation in the killing of Amy Biehl. I made it freely, voluntarilyand without any undue influence. I apologise to the High Court and tomy lawyers for challenging the admissibility of the statement on thebasis that I was forced to make it. The statement confirms my attendanceat the meeting at the Langa High School and that at NY1 and NY132 Ithrew a stone at a light brown motor vehicle.

Itis also correct that I ran away after the police arrived on the scene.

Thereference to the stoning of a big truck is the reference to a truckwhich was stoned in Vanguard Drive and not at NY111. The only explanationI can give for the reference to NY111 in my statement is that I madethe statement in Xhosa and it was translated into Afrikaans. In anycase I had pleaded not guilty and denied having made the statement freelyand voluntarily and that is why this aspect of my statement was notchallenged by me or by my legal representatives at the time.

Iwish to confirm also that on the day in question and during that periodI was highly politically motivated, not only by the political climateprevailing in the township but also by the militant political speechesmade at the PASO meeting which I had attended. At the time PASO wasacting in solidarity with COSAS, employing the same tactics, namelyattempting to make the township ungovernable by stoning government andcompany vehicles.

Theslogan One Settler, one bullet also inspired me to hurt,injure or kill White people.

8. Onthe day in question I actively participated in the killing of Amy Biehl.

Ido deeply regret what happened to her and I wish to sincerely apologiseto her parents, relatives and her friends, and I seek their forgiveness.The deed was committed at the time when we, as PASO members, were highlypolitically motivated and when we were hostile towards any Settler whomwe regarded as any White person living in this country.

Atthe time we were still under White minority rule and the objective ofPASO was to make this country ungovernable by whatever means necessary.

9. Irespectfully submit that I have made out a proper case for amnesty tobe granted by this Committee as contemplated by Section 20 of the Promotionof National Unity and Reconciliation Act 1995.

Myapplication complies with the requirements of the Act..."

on the proviso thatwas mentioned by Justice Ngoepe being met and satisfied.

" Theoffence in respect of which I was convicted and that is the murder ofAmy Biehl, is an offence which was associated with a political objectivecommitted in the course of the conflict of the past and which complieswith the provisions of Section 20(2) and (3) of the Act.

Iwould furthermore respectfully submit that I have made full disclosureof all the facts relevant to the Amy Biehl incident and to this application".

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

EAZI MZIKHONANOFEMELA: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Are there any questions you wish to put to him in addition to what you haveread in the statement?

ADV GOZO: There are no questions I am going to put to this particular applicant, and thismay be the appropriate stage for Mr Brink and the members of the Committee toput their questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nofemela your counsel has read your affidavit into the record, do you confirmthe correctness of what is stated in your affidavit?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Brink any questions to put to this witness?

CROSS-EXAMINATIONBY MR BRINK: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Nofemela you have heard the questionswhich I put to Mr Peni and the answers which he gave to those questions, isthat correct?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Please talk into the microphone.

MR BRINK: You can sit back if you wish to as long as it's close to your mouth. If youwant to be comfortable be comfortable but just have it close to you.

And do you agreethat you were working in association with COSAS, which is an affiliate of theANC?

MR NOFEMELA: Would you please clarify that.

MR BRINK: At the time in the townships you were working in association with COSAS, youwere a member of PASO which was a PAC affiliate, but you were working togetherwith COSAS to bring about your objectives and COSAS was an affiliate of theANC, is that correct?

MR NOFEMELA: COSAS was the only, was separate from PASO, but we were together with the fights.

MR BRINK: Yes. So that all political rivalry which might have existed between COSAS andPASO were set aside at that time?

MR NOFEMELA: They were not alike.

MR BRINK: No but the point is, isn't it, that your rivalry, you as a member of PASO, thatorganisation had set aside your rivalry with the members of COSAS at that time?

MR NOFEMELA: What we were fighting for or rivalry for?

MR BRINK: Well that's what I want to know what you were fighting for.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Brink I think ...(intervention)

MR BRINK: Did I mis-hear him?

JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes, I am being confused by what you are saying. The witness says what werewe fighting for? He's referring to PASO and COSAS. Now you say yes, we wantto know what you are fighting for, but that is not in the spirit of your principalquestion. Your principal question is that there was no conflict between youand COSAS.

MR BRINK: Well that is correct, that's what I wanted to get from him, that's what I wantedto get from him that there was no conflict between those two organisations atthat time.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Then you can't say what were you fighting for if he says there was no fightingbetween them.

MR BRINK: I understood him to ask me the question what were they fighting for, maybe Imisheard him.

JUDGE NGOEPE: You tried to know - you must first understand what he means thereby before takingit further.

MR BRINK: Well I understood that I wasn't, it wasn't a situation where I answered hisquestions, it was the other way round Judge.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Well let's try again.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps you can ask him at that time was there common cause between your organisationand COSAS?

MR BRINK: You've heard what Judge Mall has just put, can you answer that please.

MR NOFEMELA: Will you please ask the question.

CHAIRPERSON: At that time was there common cause between your organisation and COSAS?

MR NOFEMELA: As I have said the only thing that we were combined with PASO is the strugglethat we were fighting for.

MR BRINK: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: And what was that, what was the struggle that you were fighting for?

MR NOFEMELA: The only thing that caused us to fight or to be in struggle not to pay the schoolfees, the SADTU teachers to be recognised and that PASO wanted the land to goto the Black people.

MR BRINK: And what did you think the killing of Amy Biehl, what effect would the killingof Amy Biehl have had in regard to that struggle relating to land coming backto the people?

MR NOFEMELA: What's the question exactly?

MR BRINK: You have told the Committee that your struggle, amongst other things, was toget land back to the people, is that correct?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes it's correct.

MR BRINK: What effect would the killing of Amy Biehl have had in regard to that aspectof your struggle?

MR NOFEMELA: Is it the question that what's the killing of Amy Biehl is it made an effectto the killing, to the bringing back to the land?

MR BRINK: Yes.

MR NOFEMELA: I do understand that even today we are also talking about changes, changes thathappened.

MS KHAMPEPE: Will you try and speak a little louder, I can't hear you from here, and I don'tknow if you have a problem with the translation, and if you do have a problemwill you please just alert us to that. Do you understand what is being translatedto you properly?

MR NOFEMELA: No I don't get the question clearly and the Interpreters are very soft.

MS KHAMPEPE: Yes. Now if you do experience such problems will you please just raise themup with your counsel and advise that you do not understand the translation.Also will you also turn up the volume on your head phones.

MR NOFEMELA: It's okay now.

MR BRINK: Can you hear me clearly?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Miss Gozo, sorry, because you understand both languages, English and Afrikaans,we will assume, unless you indicate otherwise, we will assume that you are satisfiedwith the quality of the interpretation which, with all due respect as far asI am concerned, on some areas I am not.

ADV GOZO: Yes Justice Ngoepe I was still looking, my view was that that question neededto be broken down. There was a question of understanding what the exact questionwould be.

MR BRINK: I will put it again. The aims of PASO, you told us, were,

1. torender the country ungovernable and,

2. toget land, owned by the Whites back to your people,

am I correct in thinkingthat was the policy of PASO?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I think in addition to that he said that non-payment of exam fees and the factof the recognition of teachers were issues as well.

MR BRINK: Yes. How did you think the killing of Amy Biehl would bring about PASO's objectivesin the two respects I have mentioned?

MR NOFEMELA: That's what we believed in, that the country will go back to the Africans.

MR BRINK: But what was your objective in murdering Amy Biehl?

MR NOFEMELA: I've already mentioned my objective and I was one of PASO's members. What PASOwas involved in I was also involved.

MR BRINK: Do you accept that the ANC and COSAS had White members?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes but only one member.

MR BRINK: Well, there were more than one member, there was more than one member of theANC certainly, wouldn't you agree?

MR NOFEMELA: No I am sorry I don't know that. I only said there was only one member I knew.

MR BRINK: I am asking you whether you as a, if I may put it this way, a junior politician,were aware of the fact that the ANC had a fairly substantial membership consistingof White people?

ADV GOZO OBJECTS: Mr Chair may I interject to that question, I think that question has been answered,he knew only of one.

CHAIRPERSON: It's being put to him that he ought to have known more, he's a junior politician.

MR BRINK: Can you answer that please Mr Nofemela.

MR NOFEMELA: There was only one member I knew from the ANC which was White.

MR BRINK: You went to a school named after the late Joe Slovo.

MR NOFEMELA: I went there whilst it was Mvusi Mvusi, it was changed to Joe Slovo after Iwas there.

MR BRINK: Oh I see. Did you know about Joe Slovo?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes.

MR BRINK: Did you know about Ronnie Kasrils?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes.

MR BRINK: Did you know about Karl Niehaus?

MR NOFEMELA: No.

MR BRINK: Never heard of him?

MR NOFEMELA: No.

MR BRINK: Alright. Did you know what Mr Kasrils looked like?

MR NOFEMELA: I can't remember.

MR BRINK: Did you know what Mr Joe Slovo looked like?

MR NOFEMELA: I can't clearly remember.

MR BRINK: So it's not possible for you to say if either Mr Kasrils or Mr Slovo, the lateMr Slovo had been in Guguletu that afternoon you would have killed them?

MR NOFEMELA: What's your question exactly?

MR BRINK: Well perhaps I won't press this, I don't think he understands. What I reallywant to know is that had you known that the late Amy Biehl was a comrade ora supporter of the comrades would you have killed her?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes.

MR BRINK: Why would you have killed her if you had known that she was an ally of yours,a friend of your movement?

MR NOFEMELA: It's because during that time my spirit just says I must kill the White.

MR BRINK: So you would have killed any White, even if such White had been a member ofthe ANC, the South African Communist Party, AZAPO or even the PAC?

MR NOFEMELA: If I know that person I wouldn't have killed.

MR BRINK: But such person was White.

MR NOFEMELA: Yes I know.

MR BRINK: So why wouldn't you have killed that person?

MR NOFEMELA: During the apartheid era it's because what we were doing or what we were involvedin it's because we were in high spirits and violent.

MR BRINK: Well was it your own view then that you had to go out and kill White peopleor a White person merely because of the colour of their skin and regardlessof what their political views might have been even if such political views werethe same as yours?

MR NOFEMELA: During those days we were told to assist APLA. What I knew and what I believedin is that if you are killing a White person it's how we are going to get ourland back to the Africans.

MR BRINK: So you tell the Committee as Mr Peni did as I understood his evidence, thatthe killing of a young, unarmed woman would help to bring back the land?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes it's like that.

MR BRINK: And is it correct that at your trial evidence was led that those who accompaniedMiss Biehl in the motor car had said to you, and those who attacked her, thatyou were to desist because she was a comrade? I will give you the referencein a minute.

MR NOFEMELA: No I have never heard that.

MR BRINK: Very well. I refer to the judgment, page 42 of the bundle at line 30.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Brink could you kindly repeat the page number?

MR BRINK: It's page 42 of the bundle which is page 3337 of the judgment and it appearsat the bottom near line 30.

Now I want toread to you what the Judge said when giving judgment at your trial. I beg yourpardon it's line 24.

"EveronOrange was the last to leave the car. While he was still in the carhe asked a bystander on the left-hand side of the car what he shoulddo, and he was advised to get out of the car. He enquired of the sameperson what the crowd was going to do with the deceased and was toldthat the crowd was not interested in him, they wanted the "Settler",by which he understood the White person, namely, the deceased.

Theother passengers spoke to the crowd and tried to explain to them thatthe deceased was not a Settler but was an American citizen and a comrade".

Do you remember thatevidence having been given at your trial?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes I do remember.

MR BRINK: And the people who tried to dissuade you from killing Amy Biehl were Black peoplewere they not?

MR NOFEMELA: I don't even know that there were people who asked us not to do that.

MR BRINK: Well then I won't burden the record but I refer the Committee to page 45 line2, page 46 line 28 where much the same sort of evidence was given.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you please just give us the reference again because my papers have notbeen paginated.

MR BRINK: Have they not Judge?

CHAIRPERSON: If you'll just give me the typed page number.

MR BRINK: The typed page number is 3340.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BRINK: Line 2 to line 10.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And Mr Brink you must just bear in mind please that the applicant, accordingto his affidavit, arrived at the scene only after the deceased was already outof the vehicle, and not at the time when these people were pleading with thecrowd before that stage. Well this is what the applicant is saying in paragraph4 or 5 of his affidavit.

MR BRINK: Yes, yes. But if I could just clarify this aspect in the light of the judgmentJudge.

CHAIRPERSON: You may do so.

MR BRINK: Starting at the bottom, the last paragraph at the bottom of page 3339 of thetyped judgment and page 44 of the bundle.

"TheMazda came to a standstill in the lane in which they had been travelling.She alighted from the car on the service station side. She saw peoplewho were throwing stones running towards the car. She spoke to themtelling them to leave the deceased alone as she was a student and acomrade, by which she meant that the deceased was a member of the sameorganisation as she was, namely the National Women's Coalition".

Were you there atthat stage?

MR NOFEMELA: When I arrived there I was in a bakkie with Peni. While they were pleading Iknow nothing about that.

MR BRINK: So is it your evidence here that you know absolutely nothing about any peopleasking Amy Biehl's attackers to desist?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes I have heard that in court that there were people asking for Amy Biehl notto be killed, but when I arrived there while the scene was still in motion Ididn't hear such a thing.

MR BRINK: How long have you been a member of PASO?

MR NOFEMELA: As from June 1990.

MR BRINK: How old were you at that stage, that is when you joined PASO?

MR NOFEMELA: I was 18 years old.

MR BRINK: You see what I am going to suggest to you Mr Nofemela that the attack and brutalmurder of Amy Biehl could not have been done with a political objective, itwas wanton brutality, like a pack of sharks smelling blood, isn't that the truth?

MR NOFEMELA: No that's not true, that's not true, we are not such things.

MR BRINK: Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONSBY MR BRINK

CHAIRPERSON: Can you remember how long after this incident that you were arrested?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes I do remember.

CHAIRPERSON: Tell us when you were arrested.

MR NOFEMELA: I was arrested on the 26th of August.

CHAIRPERSON: You have also said that on that day, that's the 25th of August, you two werein "high spirits" as a result of hearing the speeches.

MR NOFEMELA: I can't hear your question clearly, can you repeat the date for me.

CHAIRPERSON: No I wasn't mentioning the date, I said that on your evidence you were in "highspirits" on that day, presumably as a result of hearing the speeches.

MR NOFEMELA: Yes, it's like that.

CHAIRPERSON: And the fact that you were in "high spirits" was responsible for your conductthat day, is that it?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes it's like that, even what we were told it's to ungovern the country.

CHAIRPERSON: Had you not been in similar "high spirits" on previous occasions?

MR NOFEMELA: I am sorry I can't hear the question clearly.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you not been in similar "high spirits" on previous occasions?

MR NOFEMELA: Are you saying before that day?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR NOFEMELA: We were used to be that.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you kill many people on those occasion?

MR NOFEMELA: No we never did such a thing.

CHAIRPERSON: Well why on this day?

MR NOFEMELA: It's because she came to Guguletu during a very wrong moment.

CHAIRPERSON: What was wrong about the moment?

MR NOFEMELA: It's because students who were in PASO really wanted the land to go back tothe Africans and we were in very high emotions.

CHAIRPERSON: Well now my question was also were you in similar high spirits on previous occasionsand you said yes, this was not the first time, do you understand that?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes I understand.

CHAIRPERSON: And on those occasions when you were in high spirits did you kill people, Whitepeople?

MR NOFEMELA: No we never killed anyone before.

CHAIRPERSON: Well why on this occasion?

MR NOFEMELA: That day we were very much emotional and we find Amy in our locations.

JUDGE WILSON: Why were you so emotional?

MR NOFEMELA: It's because of what we heard in the launch that we were from.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes, but that took place at about one or two o'clock didn't it? Isn't that whenthe meeting was?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes Sir.

JUDGE WILSON: And you left the meeting, you walked down to the station, you caught trainsand this finally happened at five o'clock.

MR NOFEMELA: Yes Sir it's true.

JUDGE WILSON: What was it that kept you so emotional all afternoon?

MR NOFEMELA: As we were throwing stones at the truck on Vanguard Road we were shot thereby the policemen, White policemen.

JUDGE WILSON: Mmm, you ran away.

MR NOFEMELA: Yes we ran away and we split into two groups.

JUDGE WILSON: Mmm, you caught a train to Heideveld.

MR NOFEMELA: Yes Sir.

JUDGE WILSON: And then you got into a bakkie which was going in the direction where you stayed,you were going home.

MR NOFEMELA: Yes Sir.

JUDGE WILSON: But you happened, by chance on the way, to meet, to arrive where Amy Biehl was,to arrive at the Caltex garage, that's correct, when you were on the way home?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes Sir it's like that.

JUDGE WILSON: And you jumped out of the bakkie and chased after her and stabbed her. Threwstones at her first and then stabbed her.

MR NOFEMELA: Yes Sir.

JUDGE WILSON: That's your version. Why were you emotional, you were sitting in the bakkiegoing home? And yet you see this unfortunate girl running across the road, youjump out, chase her, throw stones at her and stab her, tell me why?

MR NOFEMELA: There was nothing that could cause us to cool down, we were still in very highemotions so we knew that we had another group that went the other way and wewere the one on this way.

JUDGE WILSON: And you stabbed at her three or four times but you don't even know if you stabbedher, why was that? What condition were you in that afternoon, can you explain?

MR NOFEMELA: Are you saying while I was stabbing her?

JUDGE WILSON: You told us in your affidavit that you stabbed at her and you don't know ifyou stabbed her or not. You tried three or four times and you don't know ifyou stabbed her. I am asking you why you did not know. You feel if you stabsomeone, why you didn't know. What condition were you in that you didn't knowif you had stabbed her or not?

MR NOFEMELA: Things were happening very fast. There were more than seven, eight or more ofpeople, so that's why I don't know whether I did stab her or not because therewere many people there.

JUDGE WILSON: You had the knife in your hand, you could feel if you did it. Don't say it wasbecause there were seven or eight people you don't know. You in fact know fromthe medical evidence that you didn't stab her, don't you? Don't you?

MR NOFEMELA: Can you repeat your question please.

JUDGE WILSON: You know from the medical evidence that you didn't stab her. She was only stabbedonce. You heard the evidence of the post mortem didn't you? MR NOFEMELA:Yes I've heard that in court.

JUDGE WILSON: So you can't give any explanation why you didn't know what you were doing?

MR NOFEMELA: No I am sorry, I won't know whether I did stab her or I attempted to, but Ican remember that it was three or four times.

ADV ARENDSE: Mr Chairman I think just to be fair to the applicant on the questions that JusticeWilson asked, the evidence from Professor Knoebel was that there was one stabwound which caused her to die. We ourselves searched through the record andthe judgment to find out whether there was any evidence from Professor Knoebelabout any of the other stab wounds because it's common cause that seven to tenpeople, from the State witnesses, stabbed at her. We couldn't find any so Iam not sure, Mr Chairman, whether it's fair to put it to the witness as a factthat there was only one stab wounds and there were no other stab wounds.

JUDGE WILSON: Didn't the Court find that?

ADV ARENDSE: Through you Mr Chairman the Court found that there was one stab wound whichcaused her to die ...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: Where's that?

ADV ARENDSE: There was no finding ...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: What page?

ADV ARENDSE: I will try and assist Judge Wilson.

JUDGE WILSON: At page 60 of the record, 3433, the Judge says,

"Itis appropriate to mention in regard to the evidence of the eyewitnessesas to the stabbing of the deceased that the post mortem revealed onlyone stab wound, whereas the witnesses indicated that more than one personwas armed with a knife and stabbed the deceased".

That is the passageI rely on, the finding by the Judge that the post mortem revealed only one stabwound.

ADV ARENDSE: The fuller evidence of Professor Knoebel appears from pages 57, I think throughto that passage which Judge Wilson is referring to. But I accept, I am not takingissue with the fact that there was a finding that there was only one wound,I am just saying that it is common cause that a number of people stabbed atAmy, but there was no finding on the record in the judgment that there wereother stab wounds.

JUDGE WILSON: No, the finding was there was only one stab wound, the passage I just read toyou.

ADV ARENDSE: I am concerned about the suggestion coming from Judge Wilson that the applicantis now tailoring his evidence to suit the finding.

JUDGE WILSON: I am not suggesting he is tailoring his evidence to the finding, I am sayinghe must have known now that he did not stab her at all.

ADV ARENDSE: Well, with respect Mr Chairman, he is saying that he doesn't know, there werea number of other people who at the same time they were all stabbing at her.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Let's go back to a question which was put to you about what particularly stirredyou up that afternoon to commit the crime that you did, and you said that inthe past you had been excited, I recall. What I want to ask you is, had youin the past, on any occasion, been addressed in the same way that you were thatday during the launch and given what you said were the instructions that weregiven to you that day? Had you in the past been given similar instructions whateveryou conceived of them to be?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And on the occasions that you had been given similar instructions, as you wereon that particular day, you were not moved enough to go and commit a likewiseoffence?

MR NOFEMELA: Each and every activity that we attended we become very emotional insomuch thatwe feel that we can free the Africans.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Just tell me quickly, you left the scene and boarded the train and then? NoI am sorry, I am terribly sorry, when you left the place where the branch waslaunched did you board a train?

MR NOFEMELA: As from Langa High where this meeting was launched we went as a group of 300to 400 students to Vanguard Road. Our aim was to ungovern the country, throwingstones at government cars, that's our aim.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes. I am going to go through that pace by pace, I want to try, if I can, tocapture the atmosphere of that particular afternoon, and you must listen tomy questions in instalments. Well when you left the place where you had launchedthe branch you were a group of people were you not?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes Sir.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Were you singing and toyi-toying?

MR NOFEMELA: We were singing and toyi-toying.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Where to?

MR NOFEMELA: We were off to Vanguard Drive.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Well did you get there?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes we did arrive there.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Still in a group?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes Sir.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Still singing and toyi-toying?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes Sir.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Now you are there and what happened?

MR NOFEMELA: We throw stones at White people's cars and government cars and then after thatwe hijacked a truck and we throw stones at that and we try to burn it down andthe police vehicle came and then we went to the police vehicle and throw stonesat them and they shoot back at us.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes just give me time also. I told you that I want to take this step-by-step,and you know don't run away with it.

When you didwhatever you have just said you did were you still in a group, stoning the truckand police vehicle, were you still in a group?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes we were still in that big group.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Were you still singing and toyi-toying at the same time?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes Sir.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And then after stoning the police vehicle what happened, where did you go?

MR NOFEMELA: We split, some left at Langa, some went to Bonteheuwel station and some to Langastation.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Where did you go, you as an individual, which group did you follow?

MR NOFEMELA: I went to Bonteheuwel.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Were you walking when you went to Bonteheuwel station?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes we were walking.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Were you still singing and toyi-toying or not?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes we were singing, running and toyi-toying.

JUDGE NGOEPE: About how many were you, just a rough estimation?

MR NOFEMELA: Just an estimation, about 80 to 90 students.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And did you board a train there?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes we boarded a train.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And what was happening in the train? What did you do in the train? Did you assaultpeople, what did you do in the train?

MR NOFEMELA: We were singing like clapping the trains to raise our emotions.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Eventually the train stopped and you got off the train.

MR NOFEMELA: Are you saying in Heideveld?

JUDGE NGOEPE: Whatever station. I am not familiar with Cape Town.

MR NOFEMELA: We got off at Heideveld station.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And where did you go?

MR NOFEMELA: We get off there, through NY110 toyi-toying and singing up till we reached NY1.

JUDGE NGOEPE: How many were you at that stage?

MR NOFEMELA: Just estimating I think we were still a group of 80 to 90.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes and then what happened further, where did you go from there?

MR NOFEMELA: We went down the road singing to Iona Shopping Centre.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes.

MR NOFEMELA: While we were at Iona it was me, Ntombeko Peni, we saw a bakkie, a red bakkie.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes.

MR NOFEMELA: And we asked for a lift to the places where we were staying.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And then you got on to the bakkie?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Now how many of you got onto the bakkie?

MR NOFEMELA: We were three, the driver was the third person.

JUDGE WILSON: So does that mean two of you got on to a bakkie that had a driver in it? Twoof you...

MR NOFEMELA: Yes Sir.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And - well the bakkie drove off and then what happened? You must remember, likeI told you earlier on, I wanted to take you through these paces because I amtrying to get a feeling or a view as to how the afternoon was like, the atmosphere.You got onto the bakkie and then what happened?

MR NOFEMELA: We drove with the bakkie and we passed the police station where we were to passthe BP Service Station and we've noticed that in NY108 there's a group of studentstoyi-toying and singing and we saw the COSAS flag.

JUDGE NGOEPE: About how many students were there, can you estimate the size of the group?

MR NOFEMELA: I estimate 90 to 100 students.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes, and then what happened?

MR NOFEMELA: We went down, still in the bakkie, and we saw in front of us that the cars werenot driving as normal as if there is something happening there in front.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Why did you get off the bakkie? What was the purpose?

MR NOFEMELA: The purpose for us to get off we saw Amy Biehl crossing the street. While shewas crossing the street that's the purpose that made us to get off the bakkieand the cars were at standstill.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Where was this crowd of people, about 90 to 100, in relation to the deceasedwhen you first saw her?

MR NOFEMELA: They were very far from her because NY108 is up the street and NY1 is at theother side of the street.

JUDGE NGOEPE: When you saw the deceased what was happening actually? Tell us more about whatyou saw there.

MR NOFEMELA: What I saw, she was crossing the street. She was bleeding from her face.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes.

MR NOFEMELA: There were stones that were thrown at her. Someone tripped her, which is Mongesi.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Well what you are saying to us is that when you saw her she was being attackedand she was possibly running away from an attack?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes she was running away from the attack.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Now how many people appeared to have been attacking her, or chasing her?

MR NOFEMELA: The first one I saw was Mongesi and then afterwards while she was crossing thestreet I've noticed that there is a group of seven to eight people attackingher.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And was this some distance away from the group of 90 to 100 students, or whatwas the position?

MR NOFEMELA: Not a distance. What happens all those people who were there, but the peoplewho were really attacking, those who were attacking them were throwing stonesand those who were stabbing her while she is on the ground were eight or seven.They were stabbing her.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And in the meantime what were this group of 90 to 100 doing, if anything atall?

MR NOFEMELA: While some of them were busy throwing stones at the cars, some were throwingstones at her, although I have noticed that most of the people - okay no, someof them who were stabbing her were seven or eight.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I don't know if you will be able to tell us, how many vehicles were stoned,or did you see being stoned by this group of 90 to 100 people, that is in thevicinity of the place where the deceased was attacked? In the vicinity of theCaltex Garage.

MR NOFEMELA: I only arrived and seeing Amy Biehl's car and Amy Biehl, those were the onlythings I've noticed that were attacked, otherwise I have never seen anythingfurther.

JUDGE NGOEPE: If that is your answer I think I will have to go back to the question whichI asked earlier on and ask you, what were these 90 to 100 people doing at thetime when some of them were attacking the deceased, what were they doing, ifanything?

MR NOFEMELA: I would like to correct something. I said I saw the 90 to 100 group of peoplewhile we were passing NY108 and I've noticed that the flag was COSAS' flag,those I saw, the 80 to 90 group who were throwing stones at Amy's car and herself.

JUDGE WILSON: How could they have been throwing stones at her when there were seven to eightpeople around her stabbing her?

MR NOFEMELA: They were throwing stones at her while she was still running and crossing theroad.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Was there any singing or chanting that you could hear of emanating from thedirection of the crowd?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes Sir.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes what?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes there was singing and chanting and singing the slogan "One Settler,one bullet".

JUDGE NGOEPE: Thank you.

JUDGE WILSON: Can I interrupt before anybody else gets on to anything, is there a full copyof the judgment available?

MR BRINK: I believe there is, yes. Would you like me ...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: Do you know where?

MR BRINK: I think it's in my office in fact. Obviously I didn't burden the record withit ...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: No, but I wanted to look up something before I ask this witness something.

ADV DE JAGER: My colleague here tried to bring you back to the atmosphere prevailing during1993. That was quite a different atmosphere than is prevailing today, is thatcorrect? Is that correct?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes Sir, it's correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Would I be correct to say that during that period there were abnormal circumstancesprevailing?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes Sir it's like that.

ADV DE JAGER: And it was a volatile period, is that correct?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes Sir.

ADV DE JAGER: You should say if you don't agree with what I am putting to you. Now you saidthat day you were very emotional and "we find Amy Biehl in our location". Canyou tell us, during that period, would it have been safe for any White to go,as you stated, to "our locations" unprotected?

MR NOFEMELA: It was totally unsafe because PASO was demanding the land back to the Africans.

ADV DE JAGER: And did Whites frequently go into the townships, visiting the townships, withoutprotection?

MR NOFEMELA: They used to go there protected by Police.

ADV DE JAGER: And in fact if you have gone alone into the townships during those years itwould have been at a great risk, as a White person going to the townships?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes Sir.

ADV DE JAGER: You stated in your statement that you received training from APLA operatorsand even demonstrations how to handle arms and ammunition, do you remember thatpart of your statement?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes Sir I do remember.

ADV DE JAGER: Where did you receive the training?

MR NOFEMELA: I just got it inside.

ADV DE JAGER: Where inside, inside what? Inside the township - where?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes Sir.

ADV DE JAGER: And what did the trainers tell you, what should you do, why are they trainingyou in arms and ammunition?

MR NOFEMELA: They trained us how to handle the ammunition. You must not face the guns tothe Africans or you must not play with the guns.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, and why should you be trained in handling of arms and ammunition, whatshould you do with the arms and ammunition?

MR NOFEMELA: They trained us for future so that when the PASO members are marching we canprotect them as marshals.

ADV DE JAGER: Was that the only reason why they trained you in arms and ammunition? They didn'tgive you any other instructions?

MR NOFEMELA: I was arrested while I was still in training.

ADV DE JAGER: Ja. But what was the motive of training you? Should you use the arms and ammunitionin a war or was it only to safeguard yourself?

MR NOFEMELA: We were trained in order to defend and to protect the Africans.

ADV DE JAGER: And then you stated,

"Atthe time we were still under White minority rule and the objective ofPASO was to make this country ungovernable by whatever means necessary".

Did you ever attenda meeting of PASO where a resolution was passed what you should do, or wherethey instructed you what to do?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes I attended PASO meetings when PASO was re-launched.

ADV DE JAGER: And what in fact were you told that day what should you do?

MR NOFEMELA: We were told to make this country ungovernable by stoning the government cars.

ADV DE JAGER: Right. Now was that the full instruction, "by stoning government cars"?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes that's what we were told. We then we were told to implement the slogan,"One Settler, one bullet", and that each and every Whiteperson we must stone that person in order to bring back the African countryto the Africans.

ADV DE JAGER: So apart from being told to attack government vehicles you were also told tostone people, is that correct? Do I understand you correctly?

MR NOFEMELA: Which people? I don't clearly understand your question.

ADV DE JAGER: Were you told to stone White people, or weren't you told to stone people atall?

MR NOFEMELA: Our land was taken from us by White people so we were throwing stones to Whitepeople and to their cars because they were those who were in power.

ADV DE JAGER: Okay, I understand that you did that, but who told you to do it? Was that atthe meeting or was it before or after the meeting, or when did this - or didn'tanybody tell you to stone White people?

MR NOFEMELA: We were at the meeting.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes I - you were at the meeting, did they tell you at the meeting to stone peopleor to kill people, to kill Whites?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes they said that the African land has to return back to the Africans. Ouremotions led us to throw stones at this White person because our land was takenfrom us by the White people.

ADV DE JAGER: You see I am putting the questions to you because we must decide whether youhave been ordered to do so or whether your deeds were approved by a politicalorganisation, and that's the only reason I am asking it, or whether you wereon a frolic of your own.

MR NOFEMELA: We were told to do this, we did not do it on our own. It was not for our ownbenefit.

ADV DE JAGER: Right, no I understand that, now who told you to do it?

MR NOFEMELA: Simpiwe Mfengu and Wanda Mathebula.

ADV DE JAGER: And they were leaders of the PAC at that stage, or in the leadership cadre ofthe PAC, is that correct?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes that is correct. One of them was a chairperson, the regional chairperson.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes. And you understood them to have the authority to give you these instructions,that they were speaking on behalf of the party, is that what you believed?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes we believed in our organisation.

ADV DE JAGER: And do you know subsequently, after the unfortunate offence was committed, didanybody in the party approve of what you had been doing?

MR NOFEMELA: Please repeat your question.

ADV DE JAGER: After Miss Biehl was killed did any of the party leaders or personalities, leadingpersonalities in the party say something about it? Did they approve of whatyou did or what did they say if they said anything?

MR NOFEMELA: Did they say this to us?

ADV DE JAGER: Ja to you or your friends in your presence.

MR NOFEMELA: Yes they did say something to us.

ADV DE JAGER: Could you tell the Committee what they said?

MR NOFEMELA: They said that we made a mistake.

ADV DE JAGER: So they didn't approve of what you've done?

MR NOFEMELA: They approved of what we used to do, but they investigated about Amy Biehl andthey said that we made a mistake about her.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Nofemela, it is true that PASO had been making the demand for the returnof the land to the African people long before 1993, but that on the 25th ofAugust 1993 you were particularly inspired because of the speech delivered toyou by Mr Mfengu and Mathebula. Had you, before the 25th of August 1993, beenaddressed by Mr Mfengu and Mathebula or by either of them?

MR NOFEMELA: Before?

MS KHAMPEPE: Before the incident in question. Remember you were addressed by Mr Mfengu andMathebula on the 25th of August 1993, before that date had they previously addressedyou as members of PASO?

MR NOFEMELA: No I don't remember. I only remember this particular meeting.

MS KHAMPEPE: Now the evidence already led by Mr Peni was that at this meeting the organisationPASO for the first time adopted the slogan which had previously been adoptedby APLA, the military wing of the PAC, which was the Year of the Great Storm.

MR NOFEMELA: Maybe I don't understand your question very well.

MS KHAMPEPE: I will repeat it. Did you at this meeting of the 25th of August 1993 adopt forthe first time the slogan which has been referred to as the Year of the GreatStorm?

MR NOFEMELA: In 1993, it was the Year of the Great Storm, it started in 1993.

MS KHAMPEPE: And it was at that meeting that you decided to put it into operation, am I correct,that's the evidence of Mr Peni?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes that is correct, in that meeting in Langa High School.

MS KHAMPEPE: Now what did you understand the slogan or the Operation to entail? What wasexpected of members of PASO since that was the Year of the Great Storm?

MR NOFEMELA: On that particular day?

MS KHAMPEPE: Yes, what were you expected to do since you had adopted that slogan the Yearof the Great Storm?

MR NOFEMELA: To make this country or the government ungovernable.

MS KHAMPEPE: And how did you translate that to the One Settler, one bullet".killing of Miss Biehl?

MR NOFEMELA: We had a slogan "

MS KHAMPEPE: But how did this operation affect your conduct in the killing of Miss Amy Biehl?Did you believe that in doing what you did to Miss Biehl you were participatingin what was expected of you by Operation Great Storm?

MR NOFEMELA: The case of Amy?

MS KHAMPEPE: Yes.

MR NOFEMELA: Yes it did.

MS KHAMPEPE: And to what extent did the slogan, "One Settler, one bullet" influenceyou in your participation in the killing of Miss Biehl?

MR NOFEMELA: "One Settler, one bullet", according to our knowledge.....

MS KHAMPEPE: I am still listening. I don't know whether the translators are getting the translationthrough.

MR NOFEMELA: "One Settler, one bullet", according to our knowledge is thatwe kill a White person with one bullet.

MS KHAMPEPE: If Mr Mathebula and Mr Mfengu had not addressed you on the 25th of August 1993do you believe that you would have been able to do what you did and that isparticipate in the gruesome killing of Miss Biehl?

MR NOFEMELA: You mean that if there were other speakers except these two saying the samewords that Mathebula and Simpiwe said?

MS KHAMPEPE: Yes. If they had not delivered the speeches which so inspired you do you thinkyou would have done what you did on the 25th of August?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes we would have done it because we believed that our land was taken from usby the White people.

MS KHAMPEPE: Thank you.

JUDGE WILSON: Did you take a wallet out of Miss Biehl's car?

MR NOFEMELA: I don't know anything about Amy's wallet.

JUDGE WILSON: Well do you know that evidence was led at the trial that you took a wallet outof her car.

MR NOFEMELA: I heard that in court but I don't know anything about that wallet.

JUDGE WILSON: I think it should be placed on record that the Judge in the portion of the judgmentmade available to us indicated he didn't think the witness was a very satisfactorywitness. But in the portion of the judgment lent to me by Mr Arendse the Judgemade the finding that as no ownership had been proved as regards the wallethe could make no finding, so no finding was made at the trial although evidencewas led.

One other aspectI would like to ask your comments on, you have told us, as has the previouswitness, what One Settler, one bullet meant, that it meant killthe Whites, that is so isn't it?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes that is correct.

JUDGE WILSON: Now do you remember at your trial Mongesi Manqina gave evidence? He is the gentlemansitting at the end of the row isn't he?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes I do remember.

JUDGE WILSON: And he said he was the vice chairman of his branch of PASO.

MR NOFEMELA: That is correct.

JUDGE WILSON: And he gave evidence that the slogan One Settler, one bullet,a settler means anyone who was not in agreement with what theAfricans want, do you remember him giving that evidence?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes I do remember.

JUDGE WILSON: And when he was asked to give an example of this sort of person he gave thename of Chief Gatsha Buthelezi as being a settler, do you rememberthat?

MR NOFEMELA: I do remember that.

JUDGE WILSON: He further said the slogan was not aimed at killing. ...(intervention)

ADV ARENDSE: Mr Chairman may I interject.

JUDGE WILSON: He further said it was a slogan that was not aimed at killing, do you rememberhim saying that?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes I do remember him saying that.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Nofemela do you agree with that explanation given by Mr Manqina before thatforum? Do you agree with the explanation given by Mr Manqina of what the sloganOne Settler, one bullet means?

MR NOFEMELA: No I don't agree because we did not want to be sentenced, we only wanted tobe found not guilty.

MS KHAMPEPE: So the explanation that you have given today you would regard in your opinionas the right explanation, or at least as how you understand the slogan to meanto you?

MR NOFEMELA: That is correct.

JUDGE WILSON: He was the only one of you who gave evidence wasn't he?

MR NOFEMELA: If I remember well he was the only one.

ADV ARENDSE: Mr Chairman if I may now interject. I think it should also then be put to theapplicant that accused no.1 the Court found that he did not impress the Courtas a truthful witness, in fact the Court found that he lied. And the applicantManqina will deal with that aspect when he testifies before this Committee.

JUDGE WILSON: He was then dealing with the fact that he wasn't guilty wasn't he?

ADV ARENDSE: That's correct.

JUDGE WILSON: He said he wasn't at the launch of the branch, he made all sorts of denialsand that is what the Court made findings about.

ADV ARENDSE: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Miss Gozo any re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATIONBY ADV GOZO: Mr Nofemela what was the situation in the township?

CHAIRPERSON: When?

ADV GOZO: During the time when Amy Biehl was killed.

MR NOFEMELA: The situation was very bad in the township.

ADV GOZO: Why do you say that?

MR NOFEMELA: Because the teachers were fighting for their own rights and the students werealso fighting for their rights. Cars were stoned and some were burnt down.

ADV GOZO: And would you say that was in fact the reason why it was, the reason why youhave said earlier in your evidence that it was not safe for White people tocome to the township unprotected?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes, because they were not safe to go to our locations.

ADV GOZO: Nr Nofemela, in your own words, do you think you can today, you can tell theCommittee what effects the incident had on the people who were coming from thelaunch, what effect did the incident with the police have on them?

MR NOFEMELA: What happened with the police is that they shot at us. Some of the White peoplewho were passing by also helped the police. That made us to be very emotional,that each and every White person we met we will try and do something to thatperson.

ADV GOZO: Could this have been the mood that you have time and again referred to in yourevidence before the Committee?

MR NOFEMELA: Could this?

ADV GOZO: Could this have been the mood that you have time and again referred to in yourevidence before the Committee? May I interject Mr Chair, the interpretationis not quite accurate. Can I please repeat that. Could this have been the moodthat you have time and again referred to in your evidence today before the AmnestyCommittee?

ADV DE JAGER: Could you put it to him in your language.

ADV GOZO: Is this the mood that you are talking about in this evidence you are givingin front of the Committee, that has had an effect on what you did, can you tellthe Committee?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes.

ADV GOZO: Can you please tell the Committee, you have already said you were a PASO member,did you hold any position in the leadership?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes.

ADV GOZO: Can you please tell the Committee?

MR NOFEMELA: I was the organiser.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONSBY ADV GOZO

JUDGE NGOEPE: Were you an organiser for the branch or the regional or the national?

MR NOFEMELA: Our unit at school.

JUDGE NGOEPE: By the way, in what standard were you that year?

MR NOFEMELA: I was in standard eight.

JUDGE WILSON: Do I understand that the unit was only launched on the 25th of August 1993,that that was what the launch was? Oh no sorry, you were at Joe Slovo High Schoolweren't you? What is now called Joe Slovo High School and you attended thisother launch, no, sorry, I withdraw that question.

MR NOFEMELA: That is correct.

NO FURTHER RE-EXAMINATIONBY ADV GOZO

CHAIRPERSON: Yes you may proceed.

ADV ARENDSE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Can I then move on to Mongesi Christopher Manqina. CanI also then hand up the original affidavit as Exhibit C.

EXHIBIT C HANDEDUP - AFFIDAVIT M MANQINA

ADV ARENDSE: May I proceed Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Please do.

ADV ARENDSE: Reads

"I, the undersignedMongesi Christopher Manqina do hereby make oath and state that

1. Iam 24 years old and I am currently serving an 18 year sentence at theBrandvlei Prison for the murder of Amy Biehl.

Thefacts to which I depose are true and correct and within my personalknowledge unless the context indicates otherwise.

Ihave read the affidavit of Ntombeko Ambrose Peni and I confirm the contentsthereof insofar as it relates to me.

Ihave also read the affidavit of Vusumzi Samuel Ntamo and I confirm thecontents thereof insofar as that relates to me.

Inparticular I confirm having attended the meeting at the Langa High UnitPASO launch at the Langa High School. I attended that meeting with Ntamo.I also attended the meeting in my capacity as vice chairperson of theGuguletu Comprehensive Unit branch of PASO.

Iconfirm that political speeches were made at the meeting as describedby Peni in his affidavit and that we were inspired and motivated bythe militant speeches made.

Weleft that meeting in a group but that group split into two groups afterthe police had arrived on the scene in Vanguard Drive while we werestoning a truck and trying to burn it.

Ntamoand I were in a group which ran towards the Langa Station. We were about50 to 60 people in the group. We ran towards the Langa Station but therewas a delay because someone had allegedly stolen a gun from a policeman.When the Khayelitsha train came we changed platforms and boarded thattrain and got off at the Heideveld Station.

Wegot to Heideveld just before five p.m. We re-grouped and walked alongNY110 towards NY1. On the corner of NY1 and NY110 there is an ApostolicChurch and this is where I met a girlfriend. She wanted to know whatwas happening and I told her that we had been at a meeting and thatwe were on the lookout for "targets", by which was meant governmentand company vehicles.

Atthis point we were singing and chanting political slogans.

WhileI was talking to this girl I saw that a truck was being stoned by therest of the group. NY132 is about 15 to 20 metres from the corner ofNY1 and NY110 where I was talking to this girl.

Abeige Mazda 323 was also being stoned. The car stopped and the driver,Amy Biehl, stumbled out of the car and started running towards the Caltexpetrol station. We chased after her and I tripped her and she fell downnext to a box with the name "Caltex" inscribed on it. I asked one ofthe persons in the crowd for a knife. I got the knife and moved towardsAmy Biehl as she was sitting down in front of the box facing us. I satin front of her, probably a foot or two away, I took the knife and stabbedher once in front on her left-hand side. I only stabbed her once. Sevenor eight others armed with knives also stabbed at her.

Iheard the evidence of Professor Knoebel at court and he confirmed thatshe was stabbed once and that this blow was fatal. I accept that itmust have been the wound which I inflicted.

AsI stabbed her some people were still throwing stones at her and someof these stones struck me on the shoulder. However, I only sufferedsome minor injury which did not require any treatment.

AfterI stabbed her the police came and I saw people running away and thatis when I also decided to run away.

Istabbed Amy Biehl because I saw her as a target, a Settler.

Iwas highly politically motivated by the events of that day and by theclimate prevailing in the township. Political tensions were furtherheightened after White policemen and some White passers-by had shotat us along Vanguard Drive.

Ihave always been inspired by the slogan "One Settler, onebullet". I share the understanding of the meaningof the slogan as set out by Peni in his affidavit.

Iconfirm that Ntamo and I are friends because we grew up together inLanga, but I have only come to know Peni and Nofemela because of theAmy Biehl case. I may have seen them that day, but like many othersin the crowd, I did not know them.

Iconfirm that I had completed my application form which is on the recordat pages 18 to 20 on the 9th of May 1997 with the assistance of LetlhapaMpahlele. I had also completed the application form in Xhosa which isfound at record pages 21 - 26. The translation appears from the recordat pages 27 - 33.

Iwish to deal with some of the particulars which I mentioned in my application.

Firstly,in paragraph 9 at record 28 I mention that I killed Amy Biehl. I alsomentioned the names of Nofemela and Ntamo.

Inparagraph 10(a) at the record pages 29 and 30 I mention that the objectivewas to get the government to abolish Standard 10 examination fees. Thisis correct.

Atthe time there was large-scale dissatisfaction amongst PASO membersand all Black students about examination fees which we had to pay. Atthe time COSAS had also launched Operation Barcelona which we, as PASO,supported.

Theissue of fees was also on the agenda at the PASO meeting which we attendedon 25 August 1993.

Inparagraph 10(b) at the record on page 30, I set out my justificationfor committing the murder of Amy Biehl. I have always been inspiredby the slogan "One Settler, one bullet", and at the timeI was aspiring to become an APLA operator. When the PASO executive membersordered us to go out and prepare the groundwork for APLA and to makethe township ungovernable I regarded this as an instruction to alsoharm, injure and kill White people.

WhenI saw that the driver of the vehicle which we had stoned, and whichhad come to a standstill was a White person I immediately asked oneof the comrades in the crowd for a knife. For me this was an opportunityto put into practice the slogan, "One Settler, one bullet".

Inparagraph 11(a) of the record at page 31 I state that the deed was committedunder the instruction of Sabelo Pama. Pama of course is now deceased.In 1993, either in March or June, SABC TV had relayed a speech madeby Pama which inspired me. Pama was a very well-known military figurein APLA. It is not correct, as I state in my application, that he mentionedOperation Barcelona. It is well-known that Operation Barcelona was aCOSAS slogan.

Mentionof "this is the year Cream Stone", is not correct. It should read "thisis the year of Operation Great Storm". Operation Great Storm was ofcourse adopted by PASO and was also adopted by the PASO meeting thatday.

Duringthe criminal trial the statement made by Ntamo was admitted as evidence...."

and his statementMr Chairman, is at record pages 49 and 50.

"Inthat statement he correctly mentioned that I had asked for a knife andthat I was the one who stabbed Amy Biehl".

That's on the recordat page 50.

"Ideeply regret what I did. I lied during the criminal trial in orderto get off. I did not reveal to my legal representatives that I hadstabbed Amy Biehl and throughout the trial I had maintained my innocence.I was, however, subjected to ill-treatment by the police and they forcedme to make a statement. What I had said in the statement was, however,largely correct, namely that I was the one who stabbed Amy Biehl.

Iwish to apologise to my legal representatives and to the Court whichfound me guilty, for not telling them the truth. I am now revealingto this Committee what actually happened.

Iapologise sincerely to Amy Biehl's parents, family and friends and Iask their forgiveness.

Irespectfully submit that I have made out a proper case for this Committeeto grant me amnesty as contemplated by Section 20 of the Act.

Irespectfully submit that I have complied with the requirements of theAct that the offence which I committed was associated with a politicalobjective committed in the course of the conflicts of the past and thatit complies with the provisions of Section 20(2) and (3) of the Actthat I have made full disclosure of all the facts relevant to the AmyBiehl murder and to this application".

End of affidavit.Thank you.

I don't haveany additional questions to ask Mr Manqina.

NO EXAMINATION BYADV ARENDSE

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MONGESI CHRISTOPHERMANQINA: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: You have heard the affidavit read out by your counsel, made by you?

MR MANQINA: Yes I did.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you confirm the correctness of its contents?

MR MANQINA: Yes I do confirm.

CROSS-EXAMINATIONBY MR BRINK: Mr Manqina, I just want to refer firstly to paragraph 9.3 ofyour affidavit. You say,

"WhenPASO executive members ordered us to go out, prepare the ground workfor APLA and to make the township ungovernable, I regarded this as aninstruction to also harm, injure and kill White people".

Now how did youcome to put that interpretation upon his order?

MR MANQINA: Will you please repeat the question, I don't understand clearly.

MR BRINK: In paragraph 9.3 you said that when PASO executive members ordered you to goout and prepare the groundwork for APLA and to make the township ungovernableyou regarded that as an instruction to harm, injure and kill White people. WhatI want to know is how did you come to interpret that order in the way that youdid?

MR MANQINA: According to my interpretation as we were given these instructions we were toldthat we must kill anyone we see in the road so that if we did such a thing thiswill be heard by the government and the government will respond to our grievances.

MR BRINK: Was there a specific instruction given to you to go out and kill White peopleor not?

MR MANQINA: Clearly there was a specific instruction although they did not give it to usdirectly, was that we must kill White people. But if you can listen to it clearlyyou can see that this instruction says that we must kill anyone in front ofyou so that this country can be ungovernable.

MR BRINK: Do I understand your evidence to be that you were then given a specific instructionto go out and kill White people who might happen to be in the township?

MR MANQINA: "One Settler, one bullet", that's what it means.

MR BRINK: No Mr Manqina you must try and answer my question because it's very importantin your own interests.

When these orderswere given to you to make the township ungovernable was a specific instructiongiven to you to kill White people who happened to be in the location or township?The answer requires a yes or no.

MR MANQINA: Yes.

MR BRINK: Who specifically instructed you to kill White people in the township?

MR MANQINA: It was Simpiwe.

MR BRINK: If an ambulance came there to fetch Black people, but the ambulance was drivenand manned by Whites but coming on a mercy mission to help Black people, wouldyou have killed the ambulance workers?

MR MANQINA: The ambulance and the journalists were not targeted because we knew that theywere there to help people.

MR BRINK: And Amy Biehl, as far as you knew, might also have been there to help you people?

MR MANQINA: We did not know about that because we did not know Amy.

MR BRINK: Were you at any stage present when people, just before she died, implored youto leave her alone as she was a supporter and a comrade?

MR MANQINA: I did not hear that.

JUDGE WILSON: Looking at the thing you saw her driving a car in which there were, what, threeBlack people, wasn't it obvious she was giving them a lift?

MR MANQINA: Please repeat your question Sir.

JUDGE WILSON: Looking at what you saw, that there was this young White girl, driving a carat five o'clock in the afternoon with three Black passengers, wasn't it obviousshe was giving them a lift somewhere?

MR MANQINA: No, because I was talking to a person at this time. I did not see when theystopped the car. I just saw when she was stoned, I then went there to help.

MR BRINK: You joined the pack, is that what you are saying? You joined a pack of murderers?

MR MANQINA: Yes.

MR BRINK: Surely when you got the order to render the township ungovernable didn't thatmean merely to destroy municipal property, to stop paying rent, to destroy ordamage State property, wasn't that the order?

MR MANQINA: Before answering your question I want to know about the rent you are talkingabout.

MR BRINK: Well was there ever a rent boycott in your township?

MR MANQINA: No I don't know about that.

MR BRINK: Very well then I withdraw that aspect and I put it to you this way again. Wasn'tthe instruction which you received to render the township ungovernable confinedto damaging State property, Municipal property and that sort of thing?

MR MANQINA: Yes that is correct.

MR BRINK: You must be quite clear. Was that instruction confined to causing damage toMunicipal property and government property?

MR MANQINA: Yes.

MR BRINK: So then it didn't include the senseless killing of White people who happenedto be in the township at the time?

MR MANQINA: It is the same thing because she was White, one of the oppressors, that's howwe saw her.

MR BRINK: You had no mercy in your heart that day?

MR MANQINA: No.

MR BRINK: I go to paragraph 9.2 of your affidavit. You say that you killed Amy Biehl andthe reason that you killed her was to get the government to abolish matriculationfees?

MR MANQINA: Yes, that is correct.

MR BRINK: How did you possibly think that the killing of a single, unarmed, young Whitewoman would bring about your objective relating to examination fees?

MR MANQINA: The government would react when a White person would be killed. The governmentdid not want Black people to kill White people, so by killing Amy Biehl thatwould make us proud and the government would be able to respond to our grievancesas Black people, because the government did not want to respond to our grievancesat that time and we were going to continue with that if it did not respond.

MR BRINK: Were you going to send a message to the then government that unless you abolishmatriculation fees we will continue to kill unarmed, single, defenceless womenwho might happen to be in the township?

MR MANQINA: Yes that is correct because our own people died, they were killed by White people.

MR BRINK: But you were told subsequently that you had made a mistake in the killing ofAmy Biehl by your, was it the PAC organisation?

MR MANQINA: Please repeat your question.

MR BRINK: Were you told subsequently that you had done wrong in killing Amy Biehl, andthat you were told that by the PAC or an affiliate of the PAC?

MR MANQINA: In prison these people did not visit me to tell me this. Some of them came andthey told us that I made a mistake in taking part in killing Amy because shewas helping us in our liberation as Africans.

MR BRINK: You see I find it very, very difficult to understand how a dispute with theauthorities over school fees could justify the killing of an innocent personwho happened, as one of the members of the Committee indicated to you, was clearlyassisting her Black friends in the township.

MR MANQINA: How was I supposed to identify that she was helping Africans?

MR BRINK: I put to you again, how could her killing possibly resolve a dispute which PASOmight have had with the authorities regarding the abolition of matriculationfees? How could it?

MR MANQINA: As I have already said before, her death would have made the government to answerour grievances.

JUDGE WILSON: Did it make the government answer your grievances?

MR MANQINA: Yes we thought that the government would answer if we killed Amy because nowwe are liberated and we will not kill White people again.

MR BRINK: Mr Manqina, thinking about it now would you not agree with me that it is absolutenonsense to suggest that the killing of Amy Biehl would have solved your problemrelating to school fees? Do you not think it's absolutely nonsense?

MR MANQINA: (The speaker's microphone is not on)

MR BRINK: I am afraid you will have to start again or are you able to answer the question?

MR MANQINA: You can ask the question.

MR BRINK: Very well. I am suggesting to you that it is absolute nonsense to say that thekilling of Amy Biehl would resolve the problems which you and your organisationmight have had with the education authorities.

MR MANQINA: If you see it that way it will not solve the problem but we were going to keepon killing White people, but lastly the government would have answered our Africangrievances. It was not only the exam fees. We also wanted our land to come backto the African people.

MR BRINK: And the killing of Amy Biehl would bring the land back to the African peopleis that your evidence?

MR MANQINA: Yes ...(intervention)

JUDGE NGOEPE: That is not his evidence Mr Brink. He is saying we would have continued killingmore people. He is not saying the killing of Amy Biehl that afternoon on the15th of August would have that afternoon brought back the land to the people.

MR BRINK: I misunderstood him. I do know that one of the other applicants made that point,the killing of Amy Biehl would have brought the land back, if I am not mistakenit was the first applicant.

But let me putit to him, let's get clarification Mr Chairman. Was one of your objectives inkilling Amy Biehl to get your land back, land back to the African people?

MR MANQINA: Yes.

MR BRINK: So there was a two-pronged, a two-pronged reason for killing Amy Biehl, oneto resolve the educational dispute, and the second to get land back to the Africanpeople and the third to make the township ungovernable?

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Brink isn't he trying to convey to us that if they continued killing peoplethe situation would have gone out of hand and the government would have realisedwe should do something about it, we should listen to the grievances and, becauseif we don't listen they will continue to do it and it would be to the detrimentof the whole country, isn't that what he's trying to convey?

MR BRINK: He might be trying to convey that, but what I am concerned with and what thisCommittee is concerned with, with respect, is the murder of Amy Biehl, how thatparticular murder could have resolved these various difficulties or problems.That's my point. It's the proportionality bit - it's matter for argument possibly.But that's what I'm getting from him, whether that was his objective in takingpart in this murder. But I won't take it any further at this stage Mr Chairman.I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONSBY MR BRINK

CHAIRPERSON: Just so that I understand you correctly, in your mind is it clear that in doingwhat you did you realised that that single act by itself was not going to achievea change in the government's attitude on the examination fees or on the questionof getting your land back to the African people?

MR MANQINA: I do hear you, but according to my view AZANIA is free today, South Africa isfree because of the bloodshed even though we are not ruled by the PAC, we areruled by the ANC, the fact remains that it's a Black person who is ruling thiscountry, the land is back to its owners.

CHAIRPERSON: My question related to this particular incident. I tried to understand you andto be fair to you that in your mind that you realised that the killing of thisone person was not going to resolve your problem about your exam fees and gettingthe land back to the Black people, you knew that?

MR MANQINA: No.

CHAIRPERSON: What does that mean, do you agree with me or disagree with me?

MR MANQINA: I don't agree with you.

CHAIRPERSON: You don't agree with me. So in other words you believed that killing this oneperson was going to achieve the results that you wanted, is that what you aresaying? Are you sure?

MR MANQINA: Yes, I am sure.

JUDGE WILSON: Did you know at this time there were negotiations going on about the futureof the country, that the matter was being discussed by political parties?

MR MANQINA: Yes I knew.

JUDGE WILSON: And that the negotiations were being handled smoothly and agreement was beingreached?

MR MANQINA: That did not mean that we won the armed struggle.

JUDGE WILSON: Did you think that at that time killing one person like this could really achieveanything as against what could be achieved by negotiation, by discussion?

MR MANQINA: Please repeat your question.

JUDGE WILSON: Did you really, at that time, knowing that negotiation and discussion were goingon, did you really believe that killing one young person could achieve anythingthat would not be achieved by the negotiation and the discussion which was goingon between the parties?

MR MANQINA: We were following instructions.

JUDGE WILSON: So you are now not saying you believed it, just we were following instructions,is that what you are now saying?

MR MANQINA: Please repeat.

JUDGE WILSON: You are now saying not that you believed something would be achieved by doingthis, you are saying we were following instructions, that's your defence, isthat the position?

MR MANQINA: Yes, we were following instructions.

JUDGE WILSON: Thank you.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Can I take you back to the exchange you had earlier on with the Chairman here.Was your view that the killing of just that one person would bring about allthe change in the country?

MR MANQINA: That was my view, I saw it that way, when I was alone I saw it that way.

JUDGE NGOEPE: That the death of the deceased was enough to cause the country to come backto the Africans?

MR MANQINA: Yes that is so.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Now you must explain to me how you manage to entertain that kind of view.

MR MANQINA: Can you please explain?

JUDGE NGOEPE: How can you manage to entertain the view that the killing of one single personon one particular afternoon in Guguletu could change the whole of South Africa,cause it to revert to Black people?

MR MANQINA: As I have already said before, the death of Amy Biehl we wanted the governmentto answer to our grievances, but if the government did not answer we were goingto continue to make this country ungovernable until the government would cometo us and answer our grievances. What I believe is that the government was goingto answer our grievances.

JUDGE NGOEPE: You would have continued to kill more, as you put it, White people?

MR MANQINA: If there was a need we would have done so.

JUDGE NGOEPE: In what standard were you at that time?

MR MANQINA: I was doing standard six in Guguletu.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Have you progressed any further since then with your studies?

MR MANQINA: Yes even in prison I am continuing with my studies.

JUDGE NGOEPE: What standard now are you?

MR MANQINA: I am doing standard ten.

JUDGE NGOEPE: You didn't do standard eight and nine did you?

MR MANQINA: I did standard eight, but there's no standard nine there, Adult Education.

JUDGE NGOEPE: So you have followed the unconventional route? What I mean is you didn't gothrough, you didn't pass standard seven and standard eight, standard nine, whatever,because you are reading privately you can enrol for whatever standard?

MR MANQINA: Yes.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Thank you.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Manqina I want to take you back to what you've said at paragraph 9.3. I justneed clarity with regard to one issue. Your statement reads as follows, or yourevidence

"WhenI saw the driver of the vehicle, which we had stoned and which had cometo a standstill, was a White person, I immediately asked one of thecomrades in the crowd for a knife".

Now what I want toknow is, when you started throwing stones at the car had you not, at that stage,realised that the driver of the car was a White person?

MR MANQINA: First of all I did not throw any stones. I went looking for a stone but it waswhen the driver left the car, running. I did not get a chance to throw any stones.She was then tripped, we then went to her, I arrived at her before others did.

MS KHAMPEPE: I am just reading what has been read by your counsel. So there was never a stagewhen you actually observed, while the car was being stoned, that the driverwas a White person, that is not so?

MR MANQINA: I did see when stones were thrown to the car and I saw that the driver was aWhite person.

MS KHAMPEPE: And did you at that stage see that the passengers in that car were Black people?

MR MANQINA: I don't remember clearly, I don't remember seeing any other people, but whenI was in court I was told that there were four other people with her, becauseat the time there were a lot of people around the car throwing stones at thecar.

MS KHAMPEPE: So you didn't see that the passengers in the car were Black?

MR MANQINA: No I did not see, I just saw White hair.

MS KHAMPEPE: Thank you.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I think that counsel would help us a lot in when they lead evidence-in-chiefin dealing with the aspect of the applicant's level of education. I have beendoing this in respect of every applicant. I think it is very important becauseit would enable us to gauge the level of an applicant's political sophisticationand that may impact on his understanding of an interpretation of the politicalsituation. And we have been listening to somebody who has been testifying andright at the end of it he tells us that he was only in standard six at the time.I would have preferred to deal with that right at the beginning without prescribingto you exactly how the evidence should be tendered.

JUDGE WILSON: You have told us you saw them stoning the car, you saw the car stop, you sawthe White driver get out of the car, correct?

MR MANQINA: Yes that is correct.

JUDGE WILSON: Now the evidence given at your trial by the passengers was that one of themgot out and stood there telling them to leave the deceased alone as she wasa student and a comrade, so she must have been clearly visible. You say youdidn't see this?

CHAIRPERSON: Answer the question, you shake your head and it is not on record.

MR MANQINA: No I did not see this.

JUDGEWILSON: "While she was standing there a man with a knifecame and tried to take her bag away from her".

do you remember?

MR MANQINA: Taking a bag from who?

JUDGE WILSON: From the woman, Malesatsi, she gave evidence, remember her?

MR MANQINA: I do remember her.

JUDGE WILSON: Do you remember who she said came and tried to take the bag from her?

MR MANQINA: Yes I do.

JUDGE WILSON: Who?

MR MANQINA: She said I was the one who wanted to take the bag from her.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes. You went and tried to take the bag from one of the passengers and you sayyou don't know the passengers were Black.

MR MANQINA: What I am saying is that I met these people in court while they were givingevidence that they were together with her. I don't know her.

MS KHAMPEPE: The question is did you or did you not try to grab her bag?

MR MANQINA: No I did not.

JUDGE WILSON: And the other witnesses identified you as being with the group and leading thegroup didn't they, the anonymous witnesses? Do you remember that? They gaveevidence as Miss A, Miss B and Miss C, their names were not disclosed. Two ofthem said they saw you, didn't they?

MR MANQINA: Yes I do remember them.

JUDGE WILSON: H'n. Right now, the last aspect I want to deal with, you gave evidence at yourtrial didn't you? You gave evidence on oath didn't you?

MR MANQINA: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: And you were questioned at some length about the slogan "One Settler,one bullet", weren't you?

MR MANQINA: Yes that is correct.

JUDGE WILSON: And you remember the passage I read to the previous witness that you said itmeant, Settler meant someone who was not in agreement with you,with what the Africans want, do you remember telling the Court that and givingChief Buthelezi as an example?

MR MANQINA: That is correct.

JUDGE WILSON: And you said that it was a slogan used by APLA during their training, do youremember telling the Court?

MR MANQINA: Yes, that is also correct.

JUDGE WILSON: You also said that the slogan wasn't aimed at killing, that the use of the wordbullet didn't mean the slogan was aimed at killing, do you remember sayingthat?

MR MANQINA: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: Thank you.

ADV DE JAGER: Well could you explain why you said that, and you are saying the opposite today,about the slogan not being aimed at killing?

MR MANQINA: The reason why I said that was that I was trying to defend and protect myselfin the court of law because I did not want to be found guilty.

ADV DE JAGER: I want to ask you something else. At that time was that the only killing ofa White person in the country, a political killing, if it was political, thisone?

MR MANQINA: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Weren't Whites also killed on farms and at other places?

MR MANQINA: That was the duty of APLA and MK.

ADV DE JAGER: And what was the reason advanced for those killings, why did it take place?

MR MANQINA: That can be answered by MK or APLA members because I don't have a knowledgeabout that.

ADV DE JAGER: Wasn't there statements at that time giving the reasons why they were killed?

MR MANQINA: Please repeat your question Sir.

ADV DE JAGER: Didn't you hear of any statement by political parties or armies why they killedpeople?

MR MANQINA: No, according to what I heard they were killed because Africans wanted theirland to be given back to the Africans. As I have already said before, when oneperson dies, when one White person dies the government reacts to that, thatwas the reason I heard.

ADV DE JAGER: And in fact at that time more than one White person died, isn't that so?

MR MANQINA: Where?

ADV DE JAGER: In the country, in South Africa as a whole.

MR MANQINA: Ja, it was not the first time that a White person died.

ADV DE JAGER: And well, that may sound, I know it's not the first person, the time that theWhite person died or other persons died, I think they die every day of the year,but what I am trying to say is was it the only murder committed for politicalreasons, to influence the government?

MR MANQINA: Is that a question?

ADV DE JAGER: Ja. Or do you agree with what I am saying, or do you differ?

MR MANQINA: Can you please explain your question.

ADV DE JAGER: What I am trying ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: He's trying to put a statement to you, not as a question, he's putting a statementto find out whether you agree or disagree with that statement, that's what he'strying to do.

ADV DE JAGER: Do you agree that during that period other Whites were killed, and the reasonfor the killing of those Whites was to send a message to the government, wouldyou agree with that or not?

MR MANQINA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination?

NO RE-EXAMINATIONBY ADV ARENDSE

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brink what is the position at this stage of the game?

MR BRINK: Mr Chairman it is now very nearly quarter to five. Possibly if we adjourn nowwe can start tomorrow morning at nine o'clock. I am a bit concerned about theSt James application because I expect there will be a crowd as big as today'sand we will have enormous logistical problems unless we can get an announcementout we will probably start about quarter past 11. I think you will be callingone more applicant. Do you have anymore witnesses? I have no witnesses. Thelast applicant will give evidence and then Mr and Mrs Biehl are here to makea presentation, a statement. I think we should possibly - St James is set downfor two days, we might be safe to start St James at 11H30.

CHAIRPERSON: Whatever happens tomorrow will happen tomorrow, but for the time being the positionis we can't proceed very much further.

MR BRINK: No.

CHAIRPERSON: One has to take into account the logistical people and others.

MR BRINK: Yes, yes. But what happens tomorrow is extremely important.

CHAIRPERSON: You will have to do the best you can.

JUDGE WILSON: Well I think what is being suggested is we should ask the Press, the local Press,to give as much publicity as possible to the fact that this hearing will beproceeding at nine o'clock tomorrow and that the St James hearing will not takeplace until later, say 11H30, do you agree?

CHAIRPERSON: Ja. What time is the St James case scheduled to start Mr Brink?

MR BRINK: It would have started in the ordinary way at 9 o'clock, 9H30.

CHAIRPERSON: Well if you can communicate with the attorneys involved in that matter.

MR BRINK: There I can.

ADV ARENDSE: That helps Mr Chairman that we are all involved in the same....

CHAIRPERSON: You will assist in seeing that things will work as smoothly as we can arrangeit?

ADV ARENDSE: Yes, we this morning they brought the applicants through quite early, just after08H30 and we can ...(intervention)

JUDGE NGOEPE: If we start at 9 o'clock and say we finish at 09H30 are we going to have towait until 11H15 or whatever time before we start with the next matter?

MR BRINK: I don't think there is any prospect of this matter finishing at 09H30. Thisapplicant still has to give evidence, that is the last applicant, Ntamo, hehas to give evidence. The Biehls have a statement to make and then there willbe addresses to you, similar to this morning's matter, we didn't finish tillelevenish.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Arendse I think that counsel for the applicants in that matter must makethe necessary arrangements to make sure that their clients are here in sufficienttime for us to make a beginning tomorrow morning, whether it will be at 10 o'clockor shortly thereafter one can't say at this stage. But I am now going to adjournuntil 9 o'clock tomorrow morning in the hope that we finish as soon as we canthereafter.

ADV ARENDSE: We will do everything to assist Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: The Committee will now adjourn until 9 o'clock tomorrow morning.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS