Amnesty Hearings

CHAIRPERSON: Good Morning. For the record it's Friday the 3rd of September 1999 and we are continuing with the amnesty applications of N J Vermeulen and A B Nofomela. Appearances are as indicated earlier, composition of the Panel as well. Mr Shezi.

MR SHEZI: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you calling any witnesses?

MR SHEZI: That is so, Mr Chairman. I'll be calling just one witness Mr Chairman, it's Mr Tebello Mbatha.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright, we'll take the name just now. Mr Shezi, just give us those full names again.

MR SHEZI: Tebello T-E-B-E-L-L-O Trywell T-R-Y-W-E-L-L Mbatha M-B-A-T-H-A.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

MR SHEZI: If I may further indicate to you, Mr Chairman, he's one of the survivors who survived the shooting incident, which is what this hearing is about.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Very well. Thank you, Mr Shezi.

TEBELLO TRYWELL MBATHA: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Sibanyoni. Mr Shezi.

MR SHEZI: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

EXAMINATION BY MR SHEZI: Mr Mbatha, you are one of the people who were involved in this incident, now termed Chesterville incident. Can you confirm that?

MR MBATHA: Yes, I do confirm.

MR SHEZI: At the time this incident took place, how old were you? Sorry, can you repeat that?

MR MBATHA: I was 14 years old.

MR SHEZI: Can you just tell this Hearing as to how it came about that you were there, just put this Panel in a picture as to the whole incident of that night in question.

MR MBATHA: As it was explained before, that this Chesterville was a place where there were many comrades. I can say there were ANC supporters there. All of us, we were politically educated from a young age. We were used to attending meetings and the young boys would be victimised or harassed by the police because of that. That led to a situation whereby we wouldn't sleep at our homes as young boys. I am one of those boys who did not sleep at home during those days, who couldn't sleep home.

On the 20th, I think it was between 6 and 7, I met with Russell who was my neighbour. We used to sleep together or spend nights together. We used to sleep at his sister-in-law's place with Stanley, because he was also in the neighbourhood there. I cannot be sure at what time it was, I think it was before or after 10, I'm not sure, we went up to the house where we were going to sleep. We stood at the door. We were still smoking our cigarettes, as we did not want to do that inside the house. As we were still smoking there at the door, we were at the road called number 15 as we were going up to number 16 road. The coming from road 16, going to 15th road. The house is in road 15 where we used to sleep. If you are at road 15, 16 would be further down. We noticed a car, as we used to take note of each and every car that would go past. It was white E 20, if I'm not mistaken. It was standing right at the end of the road at road number 16. That was next to a shebeen. We asked ourselves some questions as to what was the car doing there because it had been there for some time, but we decided to go to sleep.

When we got into the house we went to bed. Perhaps after an hour and a half or so there was a knock at the dining room in that house. We could not respond because we were not the occupants of that house. The owner of the house went to open the door. When he opened, we saw a person who was known to us, it was Sandile who was staying at road 16. He was with another gentleman called Ray, who was staying at road 8. Road 8 is quite at a distance but Chesterville is such a small area, therefore we used to know one another, therefore that did not disturb us, meaning the seeing of the seeing of the ...(indistinct).

Sandile came to tell us that he was there to wake us up. He said there were people who were at the ring who were looking for Charles. Perhaps he had some idea that we can tell him about Charles' whereabouts. We told him that we do not know where Charles sleeps. He said the people had showed him some guns, or firearms and hand grenades, they said they were looking for the youth of Chesterville, to help the youth as they were with another person from Chesterville, who was in exile but they did not want that person to be seen.

We woke up because we were in need of firearms in Chesterville. Russell told them that we could not meet with the people that we did not know at the door. He told them to meet us at Ncapeshe's shack. When we left there it was myself, Russell and Stanley and Sandile and Ray, the people who came to wake us up. We told them to go to those people and we told them that they would find us Ncapeshe's shack. We got in there and we told Ncapeshe that there are people who were around. We waited for them to come. We couldn't trust them and we just closed the door and we were not saying anything inside the shack. After some time we heard the footsteps and they were talking in some rather strange language. I cannot say it was Zulu or Xhosa. At least I know those languages, I even know the Sotho language. That was a language that was not familiar to me.

They knocked at the door. We kept quiet. No-one told the other that we should keep quiet, but we just kept quiet. They tried to knock, or they kept on knocking until such time that we realised, that we heard some footsteps, that they were rather, they were like going back to where they were coming from. Though I cannot remember who said that the door should be opened for them, though I cannot remember who said that the door should be opened, but someone said that we should open the door. When they came back, they came back with Sandile as well as Ray. Two men came into the shack as well as one woman. We were seated in such a way that we were crammed together because the shack was small. The door of the shack was on the side and we were sitting on the other side of the door. There was a bed and I was sitting on the bed, Ncapeshe as well, Russell as well. Sandile and Ray came in and they stood on the other side of the shack. The people who came into the shack stood next to the door and one of them stood somewhere in the middle of the shack but not nearer to the position where we were sitting. They introduced themselves. There was one dark-skinned person and he said they were coming from exile, they were ANC soldiers sent to Chesterville because of the problems that were prevailing there and that there is one person in the car whom we knew, the person is from Chesterville, but we would not be allowed to see the person because we were told they were working underground.

They then started asking us questions as to what was happening at Chesterville and what problems we had. We then explained to them what problems that we had. Our major problem was the police, we explained and the vigilante group, the group that was called A Team, which group was assisted quite a lot by the police, that was our main problem. They then asked us while we were there, they referred directly to Ncapeshe, because he used to be a boxer and he was wearing these boxing pants and he was naked on the other part of his body. They then indicated to us that they were going to make arrangements for us to go to exile. They also mentioned the death of Moses Mabida.

We had discussed with them to such an extent that one person among them, one person who was standing at the door, unzipped his jacket and drew a firearm. It could have been of this size. He indicated to us that that was an AK47 and gave us a brief course on how it operates. One person, I think it was myself, requested to have a look at this AK47 and he removed something which I think was a magazine. He then handed it to me. We then all came together to have a look at this AK47. We then requested to use it, to see if it was indeed working properly and they responded by saying if we were to fire a shot, that might draw the attention of the police because there was a police camp nearby. We accepted that.

After discussing with them, they then agreed that they were going to fetch some firearms and ammunition which they thought we needed. The lady then went out. She apparently was their Commander. They had indicated to us that she was their Commander. They were still standing at the door and we were sitting down. When they went out, I requested to go out to relieve myself. They refused. That is when we started suspecting that something was wrong.

After a while after the woman had left, she came back. She just opened the door ajar and whispered to the person who was standing next to the door. They then went out. On moving out of the shack, gunshots were immediately fired. Gunshots were fired to what I can estimate to have been 6 to 7 minutes. I think it was 2 minutes, I wanted to use seconds in my estimation, but it was something that happened swiftly. After the shots I heard footsteps. I heard a car engine running and I heard the revving of the engine, that the car was moving at a high speed.

I shouted once I was sure that they had left. I called out to Ray. I think he tried to respond to my shout but something that sounded like water dropping was happening at the same time and when I shouted again, trying to establish who was still alive in the house, I was alive, but I didn't know whether I was injured or not. What I knew was that I was not able to move. I could only move my hands and my head. There were people who were on top of me.

INTERPRETER: Okay, let's rectify that, Chairperson.

MR MBATHA: Nobody responded to my shout when I called out to their names. I then pushed the people who were lying on top of me. I didn't know who they were because it was dark in the house. I only realised that I could not move when I attempted to get up and walk. I then remained there for a while and somebody responded, asking whether I was still alive and who am I and I indicated that I am Tebello, I am still alive and my whole body is burning from the bottom to the top, I cannot move and he indicated that he was thinking of going out to seek some help. I then realised that it was Stanley because he had already identified himself. I then requested him, that is just before he went out, people were dying and I was in the process of dying too, I requested that he takes me out of the shack and hide me among the mielie fields because these people might come back. He did not listen to me. When he went out of the house, he started making noise. His explanation is that he travelled, or walked a distance from the house to the street shouting, by which time a lot of people had started gathering and he then gave them an explanation to the effect that they had now been injured.

There were people who came to the scene first. These were not members of my family, but neighbours. One such person was Skolo, he was a next-door neighbour. He was a middle-aged person and Mdo as well. When they came it was dark. There was poor visibility and he lit some matches. On lighting matches he exclaimed with shock and he withdrew, he went out of the house. That's when I started realising that indeed a person is badly injured.

The second group of people to come in were my two uncles. They attempted to lift me up, but they realised that they could not. They tried to put me onto a blanket then they lifted me by the blanket. When they came, a van had already arrived, that is the van into which I was taken and they covered me with a sail, or a canvass. Before this van left, came this police minibus. It had doors on both sides and when these people explained, they said they had come for the injured people. By that time I had already been taken away in that van, so they missed us.

Then I was taken to Makhote Hospital. When I arrived at Makhote Hospital I was told that they could not help me because they didn't have certain machines, so that I had to be taken to King Edward Hospital. There were certain whites with whom we worked at the King Edward Hospital. These whites had come from the Black Sash. These are the people who took me and hid me in a certain compartment, because when we arrived there we were told that the police had been there looking for us.

I refused to go to the theatre until about 2 o'clock. My aunt arrived at 9 o'clock in the morning. By that time I had already been informed that others with whom we were shot, had already died. It was my aunt who convinced me to go to the theatre.

I think I regained consciousness after 6 or 7 days because my family say I would stare at them when they came to visit me but I would not say a thing. So when I regained consciousness, I inquired as to what happened. They explained the whole story again. I managed to have a recollection of the whole scene and I had several gun shot wounds on my body, about 9 of them, I think, such that I spent about 4 to 5 months recuperating in hospital. There was a time when I was under police guard and some police would come and take statements from me. We had a lawyer, Mr Shezi. He came to me. He indicated to me that I should not give the police any statement. If they wanted to arrest me, so be it. I had already read in the newspapers stories to the effect that we had fired shots at the police. The police who were guarding me spent about a month, if I'm not mistaken, after which they disappeared. I have no reason to say I know why they disappeared. I think what explanation I have given you here is, to my knowledge, according to what happened.

MR SHEZI: So, Mr Mbatha, these people came in a vehicle and after the shooting, they drove back, in a vehicle?

MR MBATHA: That is correct.

MR SHEZI: And you also mentioned that, at the time when they were there with you initially, you were all sitting one side and with them on the other side, they were standing by the door?

MR MBATHA: That is correct.

MR SHEZI: During the discussions between you and these people, you mentioned that they asked you for the problems which you had in Chesterville. Did they ask you as to what do you have as equipment to counter or solve those problems?

INTERPRETER: I would like to request the witness to wait for the interpreter to finish first.

MR SHEZI: Okay, so they offered you that they were going to provide you with firearms and ammunition?

MR MBATHA: Yes, that's what they told us.

MR SHEZI: Would you say between you and these people, some form of a relationship of trust, if one could say so, within that very short space of time, had developed?

MR MBATHA: We indicated that we were trusting them because we were free as we were talking to them. I could see they could not trust us according to what I heard from them, but we had trust though that raised suspicions when I wanted to go out to relieve myself, I did not do anything when he refused me going out, because if we had any suspicions we would go out by force.

MR SHEZI: Two more last questions. Did you have firearms or hand grenades at that time, at the time of the conversation and during their visit?

MR MBATHA: No.

MR SHEZI: The shots which they say were fired supposedly from within the shack, did such a thing ever happen?

MR MBATHA: That never happened.

MR SHEZI: You said that you were in the process of going to sleep and one of you was half naked, is that so?

MR MBATHA: The other one was in pyjamas, that was an indication that we were ready to go to bed.

MR SHEZI: And Charles, there is this Charles who has been referred to quite often as a person that they were looking for, was there such a person by the name of Charles amongst you in the group at the attack?

MR MBATHA: There was no Charles. They did inquire about him. There was a person with Charles' height who had permed hair. Charles had hair that looked more like a coloured person. I think they thought that person was Charles.

MR SHEZI: Thank you, Mr Chairman, that will be all.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR SHEZI

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Shezi. Mr Ramawele, any questions?

MR SIBANYONI: Maybe, Mr Chairperson, before Mr Ramawele?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR SIBANYONI: Who was that person who was permed with the long hair looking like Charles?

MR MBATHA: It was Russell, Russell Ngomezulu.

MR SIBANYONI: When you said you regained consciousness, do you mean there was a stage where you had lost consciousness?

MR MBATHA: Yes, there was some time when I did not know what was happening to me. I was still in the hospital, for 4 to 5 days, I'm not sure.

MR SIBANYONI: At what stage did you lose consciousness?

MR MBATHA: After coming from theatre, because I know everything that was happening before being taken to the theatre. I know very well that I refused to go to the theatre from when I arrived at the hospital until 9 o'clock the next morning.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Ramawele.

MR RAMAWELE: Thanks, Mr Chairman, I've got no questions.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RAMAWELE

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Cornelius, any questions?

MR CORNELIUS: Only four questions, thank you, Mr Chairman.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Did you testify at the inquest?

MR MBATHA: No, I never testified.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you consider the Security Police at that time as your enemy?

MR MBATHA: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: You were obviously interested in the AK47 as to defend yourself against the A Team and possibly the Security Police, is that correct? I beg your pardon? What is the answer Translator?

INTERPRETER: The Interpreter did not get the answer because he doesn't wait until the interpreter finishes.

MR MBATHA: Will you please repeat your question, Sir?

MR CORNELIUS: You considered the Security Police as your enemy and you were interested in the AK47, obviously to defend yourself against them and the A Team?

MR MBATHA: Yes, that is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And finally, you testified that when this group left the room, you were suspicious?

MR MBATHA: I am not sure what group you are referring to. I said a lady went out of the room and after that I requested to go out to relieve myself. Those who were left inside were only two. They refused, they did not want us to go out.

MR CORNELIUS: You were suspicious?

MR MBATHA: Yes, after that I became suspicious because we were chatting nicely with them.

MR CORNELIUS: I understand that. Last question, they did arrive in a kombi on the scene, is that correct?

MR MBATHA: Will you please repeat the question Sir?

MR CORNELIUS: Lastly, they did arrive with a kombi at this specific house?

MR MBATHA: Yes, but I cannot say they came with a kombi, but the kombi was parked there at the joint where they were before. After being shot at, I heard the car starting. I do suspect that the sound of the engine was the kombi, the E20.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Mbatha.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS

CHAIRPERSON: Has the Panel got any questions?

MS PATEL: Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: Mr Mbatha, the other persons who were killed in the room that evening, can you tell us whether they were also involved in activities against the police during that time?

MR MBATHA: Ray - I know nothing about him concerning that, he was coming from Chesterville but he normally stayed at Ntuzuma. He used to stay in the shebeen. During those days the activists wouldn't be found in the shebeens, that is why they found him there. Ray was the on who went to wake us Sandile at his place because Ray had no knowledge about the whereabouts of the comrades. Sandile woke up. He had nothing much to do with politics, but he was staying at road 16, that is where a lot of things would happen, therefore they would see some of the things. At least he was a bit older. I can say the people who were that involved in politics was myself, Russell and Stanley.

MS PATEL: Okay and then finally, can you tell me, a number of cartridges were found in the room, can you recall whether any of the group that had come there, had come into the room to shoot?

MR MBATHA: During the shooting, the people who came to us were three gentlemen and one lady and during the shooting she called them outside and they started the shooting. I do not know who actually fired, but I had 9 bullets in my body or 9 bullet wounds in my body and the others, some would be found with 20 bullets in their bodies and the other one had 15 bullets, that is the information that I received while I was in hospital.

MS PATEL: Alright. Thank you, Honourable Chairperson, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Patel.

ADV DE JAGER: Had there been a light in the room switched on when they were there and when the shooting happened?

MR MBATHA: Yes, it was bright, but during the shooting it became dark, that is as far as I'm concerned, it just became dark because after feeling a burning sensation on my body, it was dark.

ADV DE JAGER: The door, when the shooting started, when the light was still burning, can you remember if the door had been open, or did they close the door when they left?

MR MBATHA: The girl knocked and the door was closed. It's not that it was locked, but he was just leaning against the door and she had closed the door. When she whispered, she opened the door slightly and when they went out, they went out with pulling the door, they went out with the door, pulling it, that is.

ADV DE JAGER: Was the door closed then, when they went out?

MR MBATHA: Yes, I can say so. The door was opening into the inside therefore if you were going out, you would pull the door. When they went out we were left all alone and the shooting started immediately.

ADV DE JAGER: I know it's very difficult to remember, it happened so many years ago and it's a rather confusing affair, but did they kick the door open before they started shooting, or did they just shoot through the door, or what did they do?

MR MBATHA: There was no time when they hit the door because we were sitting there nicely. I think when they went out they closed the door and they even shot at the door. I think so because immediately after they went out, they started firing. I think they were ready for the action and the house that we were in was very small. I think it was the size of the space there from that table up to here.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it just one room?

MR MBATHA: There was only one window, a small window. I cannot remember very well but the house was very small and it had a very small window.

CHAIRPERSON: What kind of light was there inside, before the shooting started?

MR SIBANYONI: Is Mr Mbatha listening to the interpreter or to the...you are not listening to the correct channel. Can you help him Mr, I mean, use the channel there.

ADV DE JAGER: Just...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Hold on, hold on, they're just fixing up this thing, it's not working.

ADV DE JAGER: You say ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Hold on, hold on, just a minute. Just indicate to us when, Interpreters, just indicate when this thing is fixed up please. I can't see, you'll have to tell us.

MR MBATHA: Though I cannot remember, I think it was a bright lamp because some of the people who were there, I could still identify them, that is why I am saying I think the lamp was rather bright. I can even tell you the clothes that they were wearing. The other one was wearing a grey jacket and a jeans, with a sling body. The lady was wearing a khaki trouser, a black jacked and a hat, though if it was dim I couldn't identify them. The other one was wearing a cream jacket and some trouser and shoes. If it was dim, I couldn't see those colours, but I still remember very well the colours that they were wearing. I can say it was bright.

ADV DE JAGER: At the first house where you had been, they arrived there with a motor vehicle, is this correct?

MR MBATHA: Where - they did not come to the first house where we were sleeping, we were woken up by Sandile and Ray.

ADV DE JAGER: I see. Where did you see the Nissan E 20 minibus?

MR MBATHA: The minibus was 16 and we were at 16 road and 15 was up the hill on our way to sleep at Manzini's house. You would see the car at road 16 and we even commented about this car and even Ray said that they had seen this car before, but we decided to go and sleep after that.

ADV DE JAGER: And then after the shooting did you hear a vehicle depart?

MR MBATHA: Yes and I heard where it accelerated and it left at a very high speed, I could hear that too.

ADV DE JAGER: Did it depart close to the house where the shooting took place, or was it a vehicle that had left far away from the house?

MR MBATHA: Though I cannot estimate in metres, I heard the car starting because it was not far from the ring where the car was parked. That is why I could hear them starting the car and even when the car left I could hear that, though sometimes you cannot say for sure that this happened, but I could say that that was an E 20 engine and it was a car that we had seen for quite some time and it was in the evening and no one would go to road 16 during the night except for the police.

ADV DE JAGER: How far is road 16 from the bridge? The bridge going to Chesterville.

MR MBATHA: I can say the bridge is at the entrance that goes to Chesterville and road 16 is the first road from the bridge. I cannot estimate the metres, but it is not that far. I think it's from here, it's a distance from here in this house to the second robot, it is not that far because the bridge and road 16, there is a graveyard in between the bridge and the road 16.

ADV DE JAGER: Thank you.

MR SIBANYONI: Stanley Dlamini was also in the shack and he also survived, am I correct?

MR MBATHA: Yes, that is correct.

MR SIBANYONI: Where is he today?

MR MBATHA: He is working in the army but I don't know where, but it's not here around. I'm not sure whether it is the Orange Free State. I once tried to tell him about this Truth Commission Hearing but his mother did not welcome us. I tried, I think he was also willing to come forward.

MR SIBANYONI: Mr Radebe said they were trying to arrest you and you people shot at them. Is he correct in saying that?

MR MBATHA: It was so easy for them to arrest us because I think as the people who were trained for the job, they had seen that we were not armed. Secondly, they were armed. Thirdly we were inside the house and they were at the door, it was so easy for them to arrest us if they wanted to, but their intention was to shoot us.

MR SIBANYONI: You said the bridge was about a robot away from this Session. We are not very familiar with this place but could a person walk on foot from the bridge to the shack where the incident took place?

MR MBATHA: Yes, it was easy, it was very easy. It was even safer to walk because you would go through the graveyard and you would get to road 16, that was very easy. It was going to be easy to block the car, it was so easy to walk.

MR SIBANYONI: Lastly, Mr Radebe said there was a stage when Nomashosha and the other two constables walked up the hill to another house looking for Charles and then thereafter you returned to the shack, but I didn't hear you talking about that, did that happen?

MR MBATHA: According to my understanding, some of the things happened before they could come to our place. Firstly, the car had been there for quite some time and we decided, though we were suspecting the car, we decided to go and sleep. They first went to the shebeen where they found Ray. Perhaps Ray took them to some place to look for this Charles, because they came to us after some time and we were sleeping and we had seen the car some time ago. I think it was after an hour after seeing this car outside. It could have happened that at the shebeen there, as they were sitting there with Ray, something else happened until such time they went to wake up Sandile. Perhaps Ray accompanied them to our place, I cannot say that did not happen, I do not know.

MR SIBANYONI: You said the car was parked next to a joint. A joint - by joint you are referring to a shebeen, am I correct?

MR MBATHA: That is correct.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

ADV DE JAGER: And this is not at the bridge?

MR MBATHA: You cannot see the bridge from Road 16. There's a graveyard separating the bridge and the street. You cannot see the bridge unless you cut down the gum trees.

ADV DE JAGER: Did you at any stage maybe see another vehicle with this bus or had it just been the bus?

MR MBATHA: I would be telling a lie. I am saying, as we were still smoking cigarettes, myself, Russell and Stanley, just before we went to sleep, we also commented about this vehicle. I am saying it was not easy to go through to the 16th road because it was unusual for us to see a vehicle in that road, except for police vehicles and we went to sleep as the car was still parked there.

CHAIRPERSON: You're saying that Ray was just somebody who stayed in a shebeen, slept in a shebeen? He was not a comrade?

MR MBATHA: I am not necessarily saying he stayed at a shebeen, I am saying he - Ray was from Chesterville but he spent most of his time at Ntuzuma. At the time of the incident he had been around for a month or several days, so as a comrade we had a policy such as we should not spend time at shebeens, should not follow people that you don't know, everybody was a comrade at Chesterville, but there were those who were known to be active comrades.

CHAIRPERSON: So where did Ray fall in, what category?

MR MBATHA: He was a comrade. I am saying there were two groups, two or three, the police, the comrades and us. He was on the side of the comrades.

CHAIRPERSON: But he wasn't an active comrade. Then you drew another distinction, a further category. You said everybody at Chesterville were comrades, but not everybody was an active comrade, is that right?

MR MBATHA: Yes, exactly.

CHAIRPERSON: Where did he fall in?

MR MBATHA: He was an ordinary comrade among comrades in the township.

CHAIRPERSON: He didn't seem to follow the normal rules because he seemed to have been frequenting a shebeen?

MR MBATHA: Let me explain this. He had a girlfriend at the shebeen, not that he spent most of his time there because whatever, I am saying he was not that active, the reason being possibly that he did not spend most of his time at Chesterville. At Chesterville there was a time when one had to identify one's camaraderie at Chesterville. He was an active soccer player, we liked him for that as well, but he was not so much active. He sometimes, if not most of the time, spent his time at Ntuzuma.

CHAIRPERSON: So, and he wasn't really in the inner circle of the active comrades, in other words he wasn't really well aware of all of the main activities of the active comrades?

MR MBATHA: Yes, I think so, that is possible because as I am saying, he sometimes was out of Chesterville.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And then it seems as if these people linked up with him first, it seems like they had gone to a shebeen, these attackers.

MR MBATHA: Yes, that's the first person that they came across.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MBATHA: The second one was woken up by him when these people came. Apparently these people went to the shebeen first and they found some few people at the shebeen, including Ray because when they came to us, they had been in the company of the other person who had been woken up.

CHAIRPERSON: And Sandile, the other person, was himself also not an active comrade but he stayed in road number 16, if I heard you correctly, where a lot of things were going on?

MR MBATHA: I would say Ray and Sandile's participation in comrade affairs was almost similar, except to say Sandile was a little older. You see the comrade thing was very active, or very strong, among the youth, so that they were almost on the same par in terms of their activities of the comrades.

CHAIRPERSON: And did you gather that these attackers were trying to locate active comrades?

MR MBATHA: Yes, when they came to Sandile and Ray they indicated that they had been sent to Charles to try and get hold of comrades. We refused to go and wake other people up because when they came looking for comrades, we knew that they were people from exile. We were convinced however that they were coming from exile because they had produced hand grenades and firearms. Maybe they had already gathered information that the youth in Chesterville are in dire need of such things and they were persuasive, indicating that we should go there and get those things, the hand grenades.

CHAIRPERSON: And it seems that it was only when they got to the shack where you and the others were in, that they now for the first time had a group of active comrades together in one place.

MR MBATHA: Yes and no. I can say that, yes, but you have things such as mass meetings, such meetings which would also be attended by a granny, but if you get the manner in which people participated in the comrades affairs, it's a different situation.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I'm just talking about this night, this fateful night of the shooting, it seems on that night, only when they got to the shack where you and the others were in, it seems to be the first time that they actually now had a group of active comrades, a group of people with a few active comrades amongst them, together in one place that night it seems.

MR MBATHA: I wouldn't say, I wouldn't speculate as to what was going on in their minds. I am saying, for example when we're talking about a mass meeting, Sandile too would attend a mass meeting, but it was known that he was not an informer, he was not a police, he was not a member of the vigilantes. I therefore cannot say or speculate on what they were thinking.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes and then you started speaking, they with you, your group started speaking the proper comrade language, you spoke about firearms, you spoke about the enemy in Chesterville and so on.

MR MBATHA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And you were on the same wavelength?

MR MBATHA: Yes, we were on the same wavelength, because I trusted them.

CHAIRPERSON: They offered to take you into exile so that you can get military training and that sort of thing?

MR MBATHA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And then soon after that you were all shot down?

MR MBATHA: Yes, after that they started firing the hail of bullets, after the woman left and came back.

CHAIRPERSON: After it was clear that you were all speaking the same language?

MR MBATHA: Yes, I think so because in the discussions that we had, not all of us were conversing. Ncapeshe, for example, was a quiet person, Russell was one of the people who were answering, you know, engaged in the conversation. Peter and Stanley as well.

CHAIRPERSON: And you say that in your view their sole intention was to shoot and kill you in that shack?

MR MBATHA: Yes, I cannot recall anybody speaking isiZulu present from among the group. I cannot recall anybody calling out saying "let's arrest them". Nobody among us was armed. We did not have firearms. Sandile was also wearing pyjamas. Ncapeshe was half naked, he had just woken from his sleep. It was very easy for these people to arrest us, they could have pointed their firearms at us and handcuffed us. It is for this reason that I am concluding that these people had come solely for the purpose of killing us.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Shezi.

ADV DE JAGER: Which language did the woman speak?

MR MBATHA: We were speaking isiZulu.

ADV DE JAGER: And the people who were with her, did they also speak Zulu?

MR MBATHA: What I noticed here is that even though I am not seSotho speaking, I can hear a Sotho speaking and I can respond here and there. I am not well conversant in Xhosa also, but I can respond to questions. I can engage a little bit in a conversation. These people were talking a very strange language. We could pick it up before they even came into the shack.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Shezi.

MR SHEZI: Thank you, Mr Chairman, just one question.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR SHEZI: Mr Mbatha, you said they asked you about Charles and then you said amongst you in the house there is someone who fitted Charles' appearance?

MR MBATHA: Yes, I can say that. Russell's height was similar to that of Charles and his hair as well. If you didn't know Charles very well, Russell fitted that description and this Indian hair, you know, he was exactly of the same height as Russell, as Charles rather.

NO FURTHER QUESTION BY MR SHEZI

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Shezi. Mr Mbatha, thank you, you're excused.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Shezi, you had indicated you would only call the one witness.

MR SHEZI: That is so Mr Chairman, I've got no other witness to call, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Ms Patel.

MS PATEL: No, thank you Honourable Chairperson, I do not intend to lead any further evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Mr Ramawele, have you got any submissions on the merits of this application?

MR RAMAWELE: Yes, Mr Chairman, I'm just going to be very, very brief.

MR RAMAWELE IN ARGUMENT: Mr Chairman, I'm going to request this Hearing to believe that the, to accept that the version that has been put forward by Mr Nofomela is a full disclosure of the particular events which occurred on that particular day and that his application also complies with the Act and that he had made a full disclosure.

There is just one aspect which I want to touch on his evidence, the question of the vehicle, which Mr Nofomela says there was a vehicle and the survivor says there was no vehicle. I just want to point out that one has to take into account the fact that the witness himself has not seen, suspected - first of all, he saw the vehicle and he suspected that that vehicle could have been used by the attackers. When the vehicle left the scene, he heard the vehicle being started but he is not able to say conclusively that in fact the attackers were using the very same vehicle, therefore the question arises whether, under the circumstances, would it be a - would the reasonable inference be that the attackers were travelling in a vehicle under those circumstances?

That is a question that I will just leave to the Hearing to consider, but I will also further say that if the Hearing comes to the conclusion that in fact the attackers were using the vehicle, it is my submission that it could not be said that Mr Nofomela did not make a full disclosure. In fact he will obviously not be deliberately lying about the fact that a vehicle was used and I would then attribute, if the Hearing comes to a conclusion that the only reasonable inference to be drawn under the circumstances is that a vehicle was used, that due to the failing recollection of the memory of Mr Nofomela. Particularly in view of the fact that when regard is had to the evidence of Mr Nofomela and the evidence of the last witness, they are ad idem in the sense that they make sense. According to Mr Nofomela he was told that people were going to get shot, he was not supposed to get involved and indeed, according to the survivor yes, the people were shot at and there were no - the inmates of the shack did not have any firearms or nothing, so nobody was trying to arrest them and therefore what Mr Nofomela is saying does make sense.

Now when you look at what the last witness is saying and one considers also what Mr Nofomela says Mr de Kock told him, they agree. Mr Nofomela says: "Mr de Kock said to me that the people are going to get shot" and indeed according to the evidence, those people were assembled in one point and then shot at, so it does make sense. It does make sense what Mr Nofomela is saying, it is actually the truth about what happened on this particular day.

On the other hand when you look at the evidence which was given by Mr de Kock, Mr Radebe, Mr Vermeulen, it doesn't make sense at all. It doesn't make sense at all. For instance, Mr de Kock talks about the fact that two Security or three Security Police officers were killed in Durban and that's why they had to go to Durban. If you look at, I think it's Exhibit B, the one of, which was an application for a firearm, an AK47 of Mr Nortje, according to that exhibit there was just to be an infiltration in Natal, in Durban. The note was compiled, the note was made in a hurry on the 3rd of June but they went to Durban on the 20th. Why do you go to the police headquarters to seek for a permission to carry a firearm on the 3rd of June, in a hurry, without typing the document and then you leave on the 20th? You have more than 15 days you know to type a proper document and get permission. So that doesn't make sense.

Now Durban was a flesh point, it was a boiling point, police officers were killed, etc, etc, etc. Now they come to Durban, according to their version and they attempt infiltration. They get shot at and they never even attempt to arrest the survivors or to check what happened and they never pursued the case of attempted murder against the police officers. Now what is very strange again is a whole contingent of Vlakplaas went to Durban. Immediately after the shooting they go back to Vlakplaas. Almost 40 members of Vlakplaas went back to Vlakplaas. Now, the killing of the police officer was not yet resolved. Now why would they go back to Vlakplaas, because the murder is still unresolved, but they went back to Vlakplaas. It is quite clear, as Mr Nofomela says, that they went to Durban precisely to go and shoot at those people. They shot the people and then they went back to Vlakplaas because the mission was accomplished.

It is my submission that my client's version of events as to what happened on this particular day, is the one that has to be believed, because it also is being corroborated by what the survivor said on this particular day and the survivor has nothing, the survivor and the applicant are people who are not, you know, they don't have the same interest and therefore there is no reason why the survivor cannot be believed and there is no reason why Mr Nofomela should not be believed and I therefore request that Mr Nofomela's application for amnesty be granted in this particular instance.

CHAIRPERSON: And is there any significance in Mr de Kock's testimony that Vlakplaas was really an operational unit? "Bevegseenheid", which is now deployed to investigate. In fact I think Mr de Kock himself says that they were very ill equipped to investigate. He has never done any, he's got very little background himself, the Commander, Mr de Kock, about investigations. Now they are deployed to come and investigate the killing in Durban. They don't know the area at all, they're dependent on people who know the area.

MR RAMAWELE: Yes, Mr Chairman, that is precisely my argument, that it was, according to Mr de Kock, this was a purely investigative matter, where they had to go and investigate the killing of two or three police officers. Now it was the whole contingent which went to go and investigate, but according to his own testimony the same time also, they had no such skills to investigate you know ordinary murders, because that was an ordinary murder of police officers, they just happened to be Security Police officers and in the evidence that has been led today, there is absolutely no shred of evidence which shows that the killing of those two or three police officers was pursued in Durban. There is absolutely no evidence that indicates that anybody tried to find out who the killers were. Radebe talks about Municipal police and a Municipal Police officer and a police officer, but there is no evidence that anybody tried to investigate any murder in Durban. There is absolutely no evidence. The only evidence before you Mr Chairman is that they went to Durban, they went to Chesterville, they shot at people and that they went back. What happened, what they did, except that, is very vague, Mr de Kock is very vague. He cannot remember what they did, whatever, that is the only evidence which is very clear as to that they went to Durban, Chesterville and shot at the activists and then came back. That is the only evidence which is very, very clear.

CHAIRPERSON: If I understood the evidence correctly, the entire Vlakplaas contingent left in a great hurry from Pretoria in order to deal with the murder of the Security Police, if I'm not mistaken. I think that was Mr de Kock's evidence, that Brig Schoon or whatever his title was, had ordered him, de Kock, to take down the entire Vlakplaas contingent to deal with this murder of these Security Policemen, so that seems to have been the reason why they left in a great hurry.

MR RAMAWELE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: But you say that they left in another great hurry from Durban again, without having resolved this killing?

MR RAMAWELE: I would say what is crystal clear is that after the shooting of the activists, according to the evidence of Mr de Kock, he was the Commander in Durban, he was the Commander, he was in charge, but according to his evidence, after the shooting, after this shooting, he cannot tell the Hearing as to what the Security Police officers who remained in Durban, the small band of Security Police officers who remained in Durban, what they did. In other words, you know, there is no evidence as to what they did and anyway about 40 of them had already left, so the question arises, why did they leave for Pretoria because they had a specific task to come to Durban to undertake. Now they left for Pretoria in large numbers, so that should be, one is - it will be fair and reasonable to draw a conclusion that they had already accomplished their mission because if they didn't, as Mr de Kock says, they will never ...(indistinct) at doing anything. Now if Chesterville was a boiling point and they haven't accomplished their mission and it is Vlakplaas, you know they never hesitate to do anything, they are trained, now they should have remained there to resolve their problem. They never did so and we are talking about a unit which is specifically trained to deal with opponents in a very vicious way. So if they go back, then my conclusion is that they had accomplished what they went for to do.

I will also further say that that document which was handed in relating to the fact that, which was Nortje applying for a firearm, that document is very suspect. It's a very suspect document because it was issued on the 3rd of June and they only went there on the 20th of June.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there any significance in the dispute between your client's version and that of Mr de Kock about Mr de Kock's presence on the scene, in other words at the bridge?

MR RAMAWELE: Yes, Mr Chairman, the significance is that my client says that he was, firstly he was told by Mr de Kock that people were going to get shot at and also that Mr de Kock was at the bridge. The significance lies in the fact that, should the evidence point that Mr de Kock was at the bridge, in fact then that will actually mean that Mr de Kock also knew about what was going on and what was going to happen in Chesterville and that is the significance, as far as I see it and when looking at that particular point, I think one should also consider the background of Mr de Kock himself, his position, he was a Commander, he had a lot of experience, he was involved in a lot of illegal activities at that time and now, if you look at his background, you look at the number of people who went to Durban and you look at the fact that he was in Durban and Chesterville was a boiling point, the comrades were in control of Chesterville, as he put it, it was a liberated area, when you look at that particular situation and you look at the evidence of Mr de Kock that he was asleep, it doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense. Here was a man who was in charge, who was a Commander, he was very dedicated to his cause and the place is in turmoil, the comrades are in control, but yet he goes to sleep. He doesn't even know when people go into Chesterville, he doesn't know it. When an AK47 is given, he hasn't seen it and if you look at his background and what he was doing at the time, it is my submission that it is not really consistent with what he was doing at that time as a Commander at Vlakplaas, it is not consistent.

CHAIRPERSON: Then one other thing is, you know all of the other people that testified deny that your client was even at the scene at all. They say he wasn't part of this operation. Now what do we do about that? What is your submission about that?

MR RAMAWELE: Mr Chairman, it is the version of Mr Nofomela that indeed he was there and the problem that we sit with is the fact that you are sitting with Mr Vermeulen, you are sitting with Mr Radebe and Mr de Kock who say that Mr Nofomela was not there. If you look at Mr Vermeulen himself, you look at his evidence in order to see whether you can believe his version that Mr Nofomela was not at the bridge. If you look at Mr Vermeulen's version, Mr Vermeulen, with due respect to him, he says you know they went to, they drove to the bridge and at the bridge they were waiting at the bridge and upon being asked he says, no they wanted to assist the people who had gone into Chesterville by vehicle but according to Mr Vermeulen, he did not know where they had gone into, he did not know how far they had gone into, they didn't even know Chesterville. So according to his own testimony, Mr Vermeulen, you know he wouldn't have been able to assist them because he didn't know where they had gone to and his own testimony, he doesn't - it is not clear, there is no reason whatsoever why they were at the bridge, because they couldn't offer assistance to those guys. Those guys had gone there with the car, so his own testimony as to why they were at the bridge doesn't make sense. He was just at the bridge. He couldn't say why he was at the bridge.

ADV DE JAGER: Could you help - oh, are you still?

MR RAMAWELE: Yes, I was just saying that his testimony as to why they were at the bridge, fails to give an answer as to why they were stationed there. Therefore, it is my submission that when a lot of Security Police officers are at a bridge, surely a person of Mr Vermeulen's position should know why he was there. He should know. If he doesn't know why he was waiting there, then there is something wrong with his evidence. That is Mr Vermeulen.

Mr Radebe is the same position. He says they went there - firstly, Mr Radebe, he says they went there to infiltrate but he doesn't know, after infiltrating, what they were supposed to do. You see, you must remember, the Hearing should consider the fact that they went to the UDF activists to infiltrate them, according to Mr Radebe and if you take the background that the comrades were in control, police officers were killed etc, now they would infiltrate the UDF. After infiltrating them, what then? What they were supposed to do? Are we to believe that a specialised unit from Vlakplaas will send people into Chesterville to infiltrate the UDF without telling them what they were supposed to do after succeeding, succeeding to infiltrate them? Are you infiltrating and do nothing? It's a boiling point. You have taken the whole contingent to Durban, now you instruct people to infiltrate but you don't tell them what to do. Does it make sense? It doesn't make sense. His own version again about the fact that, I know he's not an applicant but his own version about the fact that he was acting in self-defence, also it doesn't make any sense. Even if we take his own version, we don't take the version of the survivor, he says that only one shot was fired and then they emptied all their ammunition.

CHAIRPERSON: What about his version about the arrest? First of all the reason for the arrest, which is very hard to understand, but the method of the arrest. I don't know how, I don't pretend to know exactly how arrests are effected, but I'm quite sure that if you want to arrest people, you must make contact with them, you can't move away from - move out of the room to arrest people who are inside the room.

MR RAMAWELE: Like the survivor says, the survivor says they were unarmed and Mr Radebe's own testimony is that nobody told them that the inmates were armed, so the version of the survivor that they were not armed is more probable because even the police officers who were at the scene, never mentioned that those people were armed but at the same time, the way the arrest was supposed to be effected, it leaves much to be desired.

ADV DE JAGER: Let's assume that we accept your argument. Mr Nofomela wasn't a member of the group who killed the people.

MR RAMAWELE: Yes, Mr Chairman.

ADV DE JAGER: In fact he was explicitly excluded. He shouldn't go there, because he's needed for something else. So he's got nothing to do with the murder, if it's been a murder.

MR RAMAWELE: No, Mr Chairman, the position is that, as Mr Nofomela testified, he was informed by Mr de Kock that the people were going ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: No, I'm coming to that. I just want to take it step by step. So he wasn't a - he didn't commit the offence himself.

MR RAMAWELE: He was an accomplice, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: He wasn't a perpetrator.

MR RAMAWELE: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: But he wasn't an accomplice in the sense that he associated himself with the murder, because he was, then he would have acted contrary to the instructions in the sense that he shouldn't partake, but he might have associated him with a conspiracy to murder.

MR RAMAWELE: Mr Chairman...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: If there was a conspiracy to murder.

MR RAMAWELE: Our position is that he was an accomplice to murder. He knew that people were going to get killed. He transported the killers to the scene, not to the scene but near the scene of the shooting. He waited for the killers to return. He took the killers. Our position is that his position is not dissimilar to those people who went to do the actual shooting, the only difference is that he was not at the scene, but surely because he was just part and parcel of the group.

ADV DE JAGER: But then we should accept, he took them to the scene and there is then no room for a coming to the conclusion that de Kock might have told him that they're going to kill those people, but that might not have happened at the scene, at the bridge, it might have been on the trip down to Pietermaritzburg, for instance.

MR RAMAWELE: I don't follow your question.

ADV DE JAGER: Suppose, while they were driving from Pretoria, de Kock told him: "Listen we're going down to kill people", so he would have been aware of a mission to come down and kill people.

MR RAMAWELE: The testimony of Mr Nofomela is that ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: And then, because it's a long time ago, it may be that he's been mistaken about exactly where de Kock told him about this mission, whether it was on the trip down, or whether it was that very evening at the bridge.

MR RAMAWELE: No, Mr Chairman, Mr Nofomela was told in Durban that the people were going to get shot at.

ADV DE JAGER: So you're saying we must accept that de Kock was at the bridge and we must accept that he told Nofomela there?

MR RAMAWELE: Mr Chairman, if the Hearing comes to a conclusion that Mr de Kock did not know about this incident, I submit that it will absolutely not make sense about what happened ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: No, no, no, no that's not what I'm saying. Kindly listen to what I'm saying. De Kock could have known about the incident without being at the bridge.

MR RAMAWELE: But I think for the Hearing to come to that kind of conclusion, then the Hearing also has to analyse the evidence of Nofomela, Mr Mbatha, Radebe, Vermeulen, to be able now to come to a conclusion that was Mr de Kock at the bridge or not. The Hearing has to look at the credibilities of the people who testified here and it is my submission that when we look at their credibilities and their testimony, because we have to try and look whom to believe, if we have to look at that, it is my submission that my client has to be believed, because somehow we have to use a criteria of believing somebody and if we look at their evidence, we analyse the evidence of the people who testified, it is my submission that, when Mr Nofomela says Mr de Kock was at the bridge, yes indeed, the evidence, his version should be believed particularly when we have regard to the evidence of Vermeulen, Radebe and de Kock and then you have the evidence of Mr Mbatha. Then it must be believed that Mr de Kock was at the bridge.

CHAIRPERSON: On your client's version, Mr de Kock and all the others who were not the actual perpetrators of the deed, were in a similar position as he was, in other words they would all have been accomplices to those murders?

MR RAMAWELE: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: They were part and parcel of facilitating the killing, be it by issuing firearms, be it by making it possible for them to get to Chesterville, they would all be in the same position as your client.

MR RAMAWELE: Yes, yes, yes Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Now of course the one question that does arise is, and I've asked you earlier on this question about you know this dispute between all of them and your client, is I'm struggling to think of a reason why your client implicates himself falsely.

MR RAMAWELE: Mr Chairman, the ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Why does you client say he was on the scene if he wasn't there, if it's not true?

MR RAMAWELE: You see, I don't know of any reason why my client would come to the Hearing and say he was at the bridge when he wasn't at the bridge and I don't know of any reason why he would implicate himself of such a very serious offence, when in fact everybody, all the police officers are saying that he was not there.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it a self-defence? I mean, look, on the version of the other people this is a self-defence. These askaris went on legitimate business and the thing went wrong. They got attacked and they defended themselves. Nothing wrong, nothing happened, now your client comes and he says no, he places himself on the scene, he makes himself an accomplice to four murders and an attempted murder on a young boy and it's not true, he's putting himself in this case for no reason at all.

MR RAMAWELE: That is why I'm saying that it's very difficult for me to understand what could the reason be if that did not happen. I wouldn't think of a reason, there is definitely no reason why he would say so if it didn't happen.

CHAIRPERSON: So in other words, in order to be able to accept the evidence of the other witnesses that your client was never on the scene at all, there would have to be some or other reason why your client falsely implicates himself?

MR RAMAWELE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You say you can't help with that conundrum?

MR RAMAWELE: No, I really cannot help the Hearing with that.

ADV DE JAGER: On the same basis, just after the Hearing they made statements. They implicated other people being there. They mentioned names. What would the reason then have been not to mention the presence of your client near the scene at least, because they're stating that nothing has gone wrong?

MR RAMAWELE: I don't understand. Are you saying that the police officers made statements?

ADV DE JAGER: Yes.

MR RAMAWELE: To whom?

ADV DE JAGER: To the police.

MR RAMAWELE: To say who was at the scene?

ADV DE JAGER: Yes.

MR RAMAWELE: Mr Chairman, I think we also have to take into account that this was in 1986 and to say that the police officers who made statements in 1986 after the shooting were being very truthful, I think it will be missing the point particularly if one has regard to the activities at Vlakplaas.

CHAIRPERSON: And were those statements made on the basis of a self-defence, in other words the case that they were making after those statements was that they were acting in self-defence, therefore there's no murder.

MR RAMAWELE: There's no murder, yes and the evidence of Mr Radebe itself shows conclusively that self-defence was never an issue at that particular place. It is definitely not self-defence and therefore ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: No, I'm happy with that, but making a statement implicating for instance Seleka, Magopo ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: Your mike please.

ADV DE JAGER: Making at statement on the 27th of June 1986, mentioning all the other people present but excluding Mr Nofomela, why was he the only one excluded?

MR RAMAWELE: But Mr Chairman, they were not actually implicating them, they were actually saying they were acting in self-defence.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, but then why wouldn't they say too also he was there, but they all acted in self-defence?

MR RAMAWELE: I don't have any access to the docket itself, but I see it as the police officers made a statement about the people who were at the scene and then how the shooting occurred and they were not implicating the attackers, they were just saying the police officers who shot were acting in self-defence, so Mr Nofomela was not there, so I wouldn't see any reason why ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: No, they mentioned Vermeulen, they mentioned Bosch, they mentioned McCarter.

MR RAMAWELE: They never mentioned Mr Bosigo also and Mr Nofomela says Mr Bosigo was also at the bridge.

CHAIRPERSON: Beside you see, your client was really playing a very peripheral role.

MR RAMAWELE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: In fact on his version he was told by de Kock he shouldn't be part of the operation so what did he do? He drove the vehicle, on his version.

MR RAMAWELE: He just drove the vehicle.

CHAIRPERSON: To the bridge and back.

MR RAMAWELE: Yes and back, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And that's it.

MR RAMAWELE: Yes.

MR SIBANYONI: Would you say maybe this is one of

the deck stories, the cover stories which we normally hear about after the police have acted, that they will sit down and make up a story, maybe that their cover story excluded your client, Bosigo as well as de Kock and that they are now sticking to that version which was initially given.

MR RAMAWELE: Yes, Mr Chairman, because if you look at what happened, if we accept the fact that they were going to eliminate those activists, it is my submission that I cannot see any reason why the truth should have been told to the police just after the shooting. This was Vlakplaas. I cannot see any reason why the truth would have been told as to exactly what happened. I cannot see any reason why it should have been because it was a clandestine operation, why would they speak the truth?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes and we should have a reason, if we want to reject the evidence of Mr Mbatha, we must have a reason for doing so and it appears on Mr Mbatha's evidence that these attackers were busy until they had a group of people gathered in the same place, in one room with one door and one window, all bunched together inside and they were speaking comrade language, exiles, the people in the room were responding on the terms that they wanted to hear about wanting to leave the country for military training and everything else and then there was a shooting without any warning at all.

MR RAMAWELE: I agree entirely. I agree entirely that the sole purpose there was just to shoot. As I said earlier, even when you take the evidence of Mr Radebe himself, even if, when you ignore the evidence of Mr Mbatha, on the evidence of Mr Radebe himself, it is quite clear that the intention there was to shoot, even if we disregard Mr Mbatha's evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Have you got any other submissions, Mr Ramawele?

MR RAMAWELE: No, Mr Chairman. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cornelius, any submissions?

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS IN ARGUMENT: My client has complied to the statutory requirements of the Act as stipulated in Section 20(2)(a) and 20(2)(f) Act 34 of 1995 and has at all times acted in the course of his duties and in the execution of his orders from Mr de Kock.

If we look at what the order had been to the Vlakplaas members, they went there to infiltrate and to gather information and then to do further planning. I have quoted in the cross-examination, the point of view of Gen Coetzee on page 10 of Exhibit C of the aims of Vlakplaas and this, just to use this as a starting point, Gen Coetzee says in paragraph 2.2, Gen Coetzee's point of view, as can be drawn from this is that it was countering terrorism and this was to identify so-called terrorists and then after this they would be arrested and then they would be convinced to co-operate as askaris with the members. In these cases where there had been people who had been followed up, if you can remember then I quoted a part where they say that the specific Commanders of the unit then had to take responsibility for this. I would then ask that after this information had been gathered, then a return would be made. It would be conveyed to the Commanders and then the Commanders would make a decision in the Security Branch, what the further steps would be. The reason why I'm saying this Mr Chairperson, is that I am getting the impression that this shooting had been a sporadic incident that happened. Something must have happened.

If we look at this and you have heard many of the hearings of de Kock, this is not the normal covert operation. We don't have a weapon that has been drawn from Vlakplaas's stores where there is no record of which had then afterwards been used in a covert operation or afterwards been destroyed or burned. This is not the normal action of the Vlakplaas unit.

Nortje in this case, he goes and he draws on a written document and we can have all sorts of suspicions about this document, Chairperson, but it is very clear that it is aimed at Section C1 Security Headquarters and we do not know what the roles of Brig Schoon in the past had been and it surprises me that Mr Wagener is not present in this aspect today, but he did approve it, he approves it. We draw a weapon, we give a reason for wanting this weapon, we say that we want to use this weapon for a period, 30 June 86 or 3 June to 30 June 86 and this weapon is necessary to secure the credibility of this team, to ensure the infiltration of this team with a group of ANC terrorists

in Port Natal and this is, according to my experience of the few hearings that I've done, not the normal action, if it was not an overt operation. There was nothing covert about this operation and now they come down and this incident takes place.

My application is to a very lesser degree. I realise this, but in the light of the evidence of Mr Nofomela where he makes very serious allegations, we had to get involved. Let's look at the evidence of Mr Nofomela and then we see all the answers that I had taken down in English. He said:

"I do not remember, if my memory serves me well, could have been, not sure if de Kock was, cannot remember if Vermeulen was in the car."

You see and I'm not criticising him in this respect, it did happen a long time ago, but the fact is that his evidence is full of unsureties. If we look, then most of his assumptions are based on hearsay. He says de Kock had dealt out the weapons and later on he says Nortje had dealt out the weapons and later in cross-examination he says but they were both there when these weapons had been handed out and these are important aspects and what had been said at those scenes would have been very important evidence. He remembers Steve Bosch, Frank McCarter, but he cannot identify Vermeulen. He can admit that it is a possibility. In his application he gives evidence on page 85 that AK47s had been given and when I questioned him about this, he tried to rectify this and he said well actually it was only one AK. One does not make such a plural mistake if you had been present when these weapons had been handed out Chairperson. I then put it to him if he wants to correct the version in his application and he said yes he would like to do that, it was actually just one AK47.

When my learned colleague, Mr Schalk Hugo, cross-examined Mr Nofomela, then it became very clear that a vendetta is being held by Mr Nofomela against Mr de Kock and you asked the legal representative what reason would Nofomela have to imply de Kock and there you have the answer, Chairperson. There is a vendetta that has come from the Court case, there is evidence before you that de Kock had received a message when he was in the Adriaan Vlok Prison, with the following idea and this is an indication Chairperson, that it's not necessarily just from Nofomela's side, it's from both of them because I understand that the same message had been sent to him for the murder on Lourens, this man on the farm and de Kock said: "You just have to take the pain" and then between these two there had been a vendetta and there is a vendetta which would definitely give an indication or give a reason why he would like to imply de Kock and if we ask, what is the easiest way to get de Kock in trouble? If you say that you had been on a scene where de Kock gave orders, then de Kock has problems, that's logical. So you are implying yourself, in other words.

CHAIRPERSON: You are implicating yourself falsely in 4 murders and 1 attempted murder, just to be able to get to de Kock?

MR CORNELIUS: You are implicating and you can apply for amnesty and you say that de Kock gave orders and then de Kock knows that he did not apply for amnesty for this case although he did apply for 9 other cases and then he has problems and Adv de Jager asks a very relevant question: "Why has Nofomela's name not been mentioned directly after the incident in the statements?" CHAIRPERSON: Isn't it true that he played a very peripheral role? On his own version, if we have to accept this, then he only drove the vehicle. He drove the vehicle there and back.

MR CORNELIUS: Mr Chairperson, apart from this aspect that he now places himself on the scene where the weapons had been handed out, he transports these alleged murderers to the scene and he played a very actual role according to his evidence, with all respect and if you look at page 29 to Willem Albertus Nortje's statement, then you see that he says that the following members departed to Chesterville to go and do duty there and then he mentions 10 names and it's a complete list. What could the reason be why at this stage Nofomela's name had not been mentioned? He says: "We departed, the driver ..." He could say "We departed, the driver of the vehicle was Nofomela" and there was no reason at all to leave out his name and this appears in all the documents that had been handed in at the inquest and this really puts a question mark over his evidence for me. And if we look at the evidence of Mr Nofomela, I have problems with his political motive. I think members of the Committee specifically asked about this, but he associated himself almost with the aims of Vlakplaas. We could maybe try and infer this as a political motive.

Important, Mr Nofomela was not present when the orders had been given that the comrades had to be killed. We have evidence that he said:

"Those people will be shot."

This could be interpreted in many different ways. It could be that the askaris could be shot or it could be that the white members could be shot or it could be that other people could be shot. It does not necessarily mean that enemies would be shot. It could be, as it was put, but this is an inference, that he possibly wanted to protect Nofomela. He did not, he shouldn't be at a scene where a possible shooting could take place. They go into a flash point in Chesterville where there are serious unrest with active ANC activists and comrades and A Teams and it is logical that it possibly could have been said, but it does not mean that he had knowledge that steps would be taken to eliminate people in a kind of an ambush.

If we then - Nofomela cannot remember what Radebe had said. He said Radebe just said that it would appear to me as if the mission was everything but successful. It is not the normal type of action to leave survivors. From the hearings that I had seen, it is definitely not the case. We have the perfect example with the Nelspruit murders where Tiso had been the spanner in the works, to put it this way and he was murdered. Maybe a miracle that Mr Mbatha's sitting here today. He was shot 9 times and apparently this was the intention to kill him. You shoot a person 9 times if you want to kill someone. There are other people who have been killed 20 times, the other people 15 times and it appears to be a very serious attack. It was undoubtedly a very serious attack, we cannot doubt this, but something happened to trigger this off. There is a very interesting allegation that, I don't think you missed it, that one of the people's machine guns had gone off too quickly and this appears in one of the statements and it wasn't brought up by my learned colleague. It's a point. Something happened that then triggered off this incident. If it had been a shot from inside the so-called shack, or an uzi that had been triggered off too quickly, but something happened that then led to an incident that was not planned.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, we have Mr Mbatha's evidence. He said that there'd been no weapons inside the shack, there'd been no shooting from within the shack, so the attack only came from the outside. The shooting was the attackers. The people who had shot had been the attackers from the outside.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes, but you will also notice from the inquest that there'd been one statement and a statement that had been made approximately a year after the incident, Mr Radebe who said that the one person's finger was a little bit to quick on the Uzi and the Uzi then went off and this could have started it. I can refer you to this. I will later find it, but there is a specific incident, I've forgotten the man's name. So this could have started it, but important in this aspect is that - let me just find it for you, Mr Chairperson.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes. I'm just trying to think who it is.

MR CORNELIUS: Nortje, Mr de Jager, I think it's Mr Nortje. Yes on page 23 of the piece in front of you, paragraph 12, the second half. He says

"I can only mention that approximately one or two years after the incident, Simon told me that one of the members of Vlakplaas by the name of Aubrey Magopo, that specific evening had gotten very nervous and that he had pulled this trigger of his Uzi machine gun in a hurry and after this the other members also shot."

This could have happened, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but strangely enough after that they had withdrawn their members from this room.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And now this accident takes place. The accident doesn't take place while their people are inside, the accident happens while the targets are inside.

MR CORNELIUS: I do agree with you Chairperson, I just have a problem. Naturally I do not have my applicant on the scene to argue with authority on this, but I am speculating on the balance of probabilities to indicate this was also a cause. They withdrew, whether they wanted to discuss something or whatever they wanted to do, but when the trigger was pulled and everyone is nervous, then this could have been the cause of the shooting, but the relevance and the reason why I am saying this, Chairperson is that this negates the possible pre-planning and conspiracy or any aspect that could have led to the murder on the scene. In other words there had not been subjective animus directus.

CHAIRPERSON: I do realise this, but it does not go further than a suggestion. Someone who years afterwards had then come up with this idea, or come up with this thought. Yes, you are correct, the one person was nervous.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes, exactly.

CHAIRPERSON: And then they just emptied their magazines. I said and then they just emptied their magazines, just because of one person who got nervous and that is what the evidence is and these are professional people, hardened operational people.

MR CORNELIUS: I agree with you Chairperson, but Mr Chairperson, as far as my applicant's point of view is concerned, I will concentrate on a conspiracy.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Cornelius, your client is applying just for the illegal possession of a firearm?

MR CORNELIUS: That is correct, Chairperson. I can just ask for the unlicensed possession of a firearm, for the use thereof and then also for a contravention on the weapons Act.

ADV DE JAGER: Doesn't the police have the right to issue an unlicensed firearm? Is this still an offence?

MR CORNELIUS: Mr Chairperson, the problem I have with this is the face value of this document. I can accept that at face value this thing is correct, that Brig Schoon had approved it and then one can say yes, it had been an issued document. That then gave relaxation to the Weapons and Ammunition Act but on this face value I cannot make finding and this is why I am for safety sake applying for the possession of unlicensed weapons and also the use thereof, because the possession is only active at the bridge.

CHAIRPERSON: The possession then, does this have a mens rea element?

MR CORNELIUS: I have considered this, Chairperson and I think the animus possidendi is with the association of the position of Nortje who had been the Commander of the group to which he eventually belonged, but he only saw the weapon when Nortje handed it over and he does associate himself with this, Chairperson, this is my problem.

CHAIRPERSON: But what did he have to do then? Did he have to arrest Nortje?

MR CORNELIUS: No, but he does associate himself with this deed. It is a group acting with the same animus. I have discussed this matter with my learned colleague Mr Visser, because this is an aspect that bothered me and I decided to continue on this basis. We have associated ourselves, especially with the use of the weapon and the weapon had been used and it had also been handed out.

CHAIRPERSON: But was this an irregular use of this weapon?

MR CORNELIUS: Well, it is the use of an unlicensed weapon. The problem is with the unlicensedness of it.

CHAIRPERSON: If it was used in an ambush, part of an authorised police action.

MR CORNELIUS: I still have the problem with the unlicensed aspect, Chairperson. You can make a finding, you do not give instructions, but I leave it in your hand to make a finding. My application is still for an unlicensed firearm.

Can I just round off with a few aspects Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: Surely.

MR CORNELIUS: The problem naturally why I continue with this application is due to allegations made by my fellow applicant's statement. One or two aspects. In Nofomela's evidence, you can remember that I cross-examined him about whether it had been two incidents, first the infiltration and then returning for the showpiece weapon and then the further return to the scene where the shooting had then happened and then he said it could have been two to three days apart. It was two incidents and then later on he acknowledged that it could have been the same evening. An aspect that had been important that the Assessor Adv de Jager had asked about, is that according to Mr Nofomela they walked into the township and I think it is rather clear, even from Stanley Dlamini's statement and the evidence of Mr Mbatha, that a vehicle had been on the scene.

ADV DE JAGER: And Mr Nofomela himself initially said that they drove in and when I asked him about it he said this is a mistake.

MR CORNELIUS: This is correct, Chairperson, on page 85. This is correct, Chairperson and then later on it appeared that according to his evidence he said that they had walked in and this is a serious contradiction of fact and something that you have to remember, that for me casts his entire evidence in this aspect in doubt. Then Mr Nofomela on page 85 of his application says

"The plan was that the Squad member who were to meet with the UDF people, would kill them."

The plan. This is a fact. He says it's a plan, but he was not present when the orders had been given by de Kock. Then how would he know about a plan? How can he make such a statement? If he had said, as the Committee had noticed, that something might have been said in the vehicle on the way from Pretoria, then this could possibly have solved it. he says:

"The plan was that..."

and then he continues. He cannot make such a statement, he was not present. He does not know what the instructions had been and the instructions of de Kock could have been infiltrate, get information and report back. He can't say what the plan was. It then bothered me and the Committee also asked questions: didn't he talk to the other askaris afterwards, didn't he gain information that would then tell him what exactly had happened? He said, no, the askaris were afraid, they did not talk to him. So for his suspicions he has no backing afterwards from anyone, it's still hanging in the air.

Mr Chairperson, I think I have covered all the aspects. Oh yes, and then lastly, if one looks at the political aims, then we have a case here where Mr Mbatha had given evidence earlier honestly and said that they had been activists, that he was interested in the firearm and that he would have used it against the Security Police and that he would have used it against the so-called A-Team, be it for Self-Defence Unit or whatever, but as a 14 year old boy he was interested in the weapon, he handled the weapon and he would have used it and this is an aspect that was also interesting and that he also says that they had been suspicious about this group of Radebe and it looks as if an amount of nervousness had been there and accordingly Mr Chairperson, I ask that you grant me amnesty as requested.

Is there any specific aspect that you would like to hear me on, Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: No thank you, Mr Cornelius. Mr Shezi, any submissions?

MR SHEZI IN ARGUMENT: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, first with regard to the application by Nofomela, it is apparent and even from his evidence, both under cross

examination and his evidence in chief, even though the point was not canvassed in much detail by his legal representative that there was no political motive. In fact under cross-examination it would appear that Nofomela, he himself never had any political motive, nor was he even aware or sure of the political motive of his masters, that there was any. All that one can submit, Mr Chairman, is that he just followed orders and on those basis Mr Chairman, his application ought to fail.

However, Mr Chairman, the significance of his application serves to highlight one point, that the Chesterville Incident, with regard to that incident and how it came about, there were more forces at play and that there was planning, there was conspiracy. Infiltration, as one understands it, whether in the manner it was being used or applied or practised at the time, or if one follows the convention or the dictionary meaning of the word infiltration, it is not something that can be done within the span of a short space of time and something which can just be delegated to some junior officers or to some junior members of the operation. It is something which is normally well-planned, with such precision. For Mr Radebe to come and say their instructions were to go, infiltrate, look for information about Charles, if you find any, well and good, if you find no co-operation, kidnap them, come back with them. That Mr Chairman I submit doesn't make sense.

Mr Radebe in his statement which he made subsequent to the event, he says they came after he had decided that the people in the room must be arrested on whatever basis, however questionable that basis might be. They took up positions around the shack. What for, it is not clear and even the whole question of arrest, it was canvassed thoroughly during Mr Radebe's cross-examination and some questions came from the Chairman and the Panel, that how did they go about arresting you know, when they asked other members of the group to go out?

My submission in that regard, Mr Chairman, is that this was part of a plan, they took position because they intended to shoot and calling out the other members was that it's now time. The whole plan of going to Chesterville was to, I submit, assemble as much comrades as you can, wherever you can and then shoot. This was very much well-planned, use and AK to elicit their co-operation and their trust and then once they trust you, then you can shoot them. And it is not something that Sgt Radebe and the askaris that were in his company, with respect, Mr Radebe's competence and capability, it is something that I submit it was not within his domain to plan and do, but somebody in the higher echelons of the C10 Vlakplaas Unit had to do.

Mr Eugene de Kock was the Commander of the C10 Vlakplaas Unit which came down from Durban to Pretoria, yet according to Mr Vermeulen, when this aspect was discussed of going to Chesterville or of rather conducting the search of the killers of Security Policemen at the initial briefing the Commander was not there. This whole thing of going to Chesterville, it would appear that it was just an initiative by Willie Nortje. The taking of the AK47 which was under the control of Commander de Kock and who had requested it, somewhere at some point in time he never knew where it was, he never knew it was controlled, Willie Nortje could take it and go wherever he wanted to go. I submit even some junior member of the Unit could have taken it to Umlazi or to kwaMashu if Sgt Vermeulen was to be believed.

Also and finally Mr Chairman, Mr Vermeulen applies for amnesty for unlawful possession of a firearm, an AK47. His evidence under cross-examination reveals that both in fact and in law, he never possessed any firearm. Under cross-examination he told this Hearing that in fact he did not even know that there was even a firearm in the vehicle he was driving from Pretoria to Durban and he only saw it, or alternatively became aware of it when Willie Nortje handed it over to Sgt Radebe, somewhere in Chesterville.

CHAIRPERSON: There is not even an indication that Vermeulen knew for what purpose...(intervention)

MR SHEZI: That is so, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: The firearm was handed over.

MR SHEZI: That is so and even at that time, he did not even touch it. Mr Chairman, I thought that maybe had he told these two legal representatives, they would surely have advised him, but you have committed no offence here, there is no point for you to apply any amnesty because as I indicated, even if he was charged, I do not believe that any competent or right-minded prosecutor will take this thing anywhere, even if is taken anywhere, it was not contested in court.

I submit Mr Chairman, that his only purpose to bring an application here, it was merely to cover up and dispel any fear that there was any conspiracy from the higher-ups, in the higher echelon's of the C10 Vlakplaas unit. His application with respect Mr Chairman, is nothing else but a farce. One cannot understand why Nofomela would just out of the blue, out of whatever vendetta, however that vendetta might be defined, would place himself in the scene, implicate himself on a number of other charges, purely because he wants to get back at de Kock. I submit, Mr Chairman, that there are far more serious issues, or there are far more many ways even, Nofomela said it before with regard to Mr de Kock, that he was going to take this incident as part of the thing. The idea that de Kock was sleeping when this whole thing happened, that he never knew anything about it, I submit, Mr Chairman just doesn't make sense.

Finally Mr Chairman, shortly after the incident in Chesterville, the shooting, they left. That whole crew left Durban, they abandoned the main purpose why they came down here i.e. to search for the killers of the Security Policemen, because of the incidence in Chesterville, they just abandoned it and went back. The people who came to conduct such a search, by their own admission, they had no investigative skills. These were murder cases, whether of Security policemen or Municipality policemen, they were murder cases, local policemen ought to have been involved, local C I D's ought to have been involved, but they weren't part of it. I submit a specialised unit was sent to Chesterville to carry out a certain .... (intervention) mission i.e. to kill comrades, i.e. to kill the people that had been assembled at that point in time. I submit, Mr Chairman that, as I said earlier on, that application by Mr Nofomela in particular, is nothing else but a farce, this is not a Commission of Inquiry, one may add, however Mr Nofomela's application highlights the fact that there were more other forces at play, de Kock and the others were involved. Those are all my submissions, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: You mean the case that was raised by the other witnesses was that Nofomela hates de Kock so much that he's prepared to implicate himself in the murders falsely and taking the risk that de Kock is able to bring incontrovertible evidence that places him totally elsewhere from where the scene of the attack was, so he took that risk, if I understood that argument correctly. He took the risk that he's now going to lie and say that de Kock was on the scene, well knowing or taking the risk that de Kock is able to bring witnesses like it's happened here, to indicate that clearly he was elsewhere, he was somewhere else.

MR SHEZI: Mr Chairman, it might be difficult for one to comment on the merits or the demerits or the extent of the hatred that Nofomela might have against de Kock, but the fact that de Kock was the Commander of the unit, he was in charge of it and that such a mission was going to be carried out involving the use of this AK, on its own indicates that de Kock ought to have known and must have been there and also to say Nofomela would rather implicate himself merely to get back at de Kock, I submit Mr Chairman that that kind of an argument from de Kock's side and his witnesses is just not persuasive enough, that Nofomela would just, you know when he has nothing to lose by not bringing an application, when there is nothing to lose, when he knows that he was not involved, if he himself was not even there, or rather come and place himself on an incident totally unrelated to him and say yes, I was there and de Kock was there. I submit Mr Chairman, that that does not have any merit.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Shezi. Ms Patel, any submissions?

MS PATEL IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Honourable Chairperson, I will be brief. I wish to state at the outset that my submissions to a large extent accord with that of my learned colleague Mr Shezi and I won't repeat those.

It is my respectful submission that the probabilities in this case are overwhelmingly in favour of the fact that there was in fact a conspiracy to murder. My submission is, after having listened to the evidence of Mr Mbatha, that the primary intended target of this operation was indeed Mr Charles Ngcobo. We have the affidavit of Mr Hamilton, who states specifically that Mr Nortje and company requested information on Charles himself and not the other way round. We have Mr Mbatha saying that the physical features of Charles and that of one of the deceased was very similar. It appears to me a reasonable inference that the group that had gone to Chesterville were falsely under the impression they'd in fact found the intended target and then proceeded as instructed.

My difficulty ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: And what about the presence of comrades, of active comrades? Wouldn't the aim have included whatever active comrades there were who were responsible for making Chesterville ungovernable, including Mr Charles who was seen as the prime mover, so in other words, Charles and his bench people were responsible for the ungovernability of Chesterville, they're the targets?

MS PATEL: Absolutely, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And then you try to gather them in one place and that's it.

MS PATEL: Certainly. No they killed many birds with one stone here, that's for sure. My difficulty however with Mr Nofomela's application is his lack of political motive for this. He acted purely under instructions, his evidence to us was clear. As early as 1984 he had difficulties with the role and function of Vlakplaas, the only reason he stayed there was to a large extent that he didn't have any other options, that he stayed there out of pure duress.

So my submission is, purely on that ground, Mr Nofomela's application should fail.

Regarding the application of Mr Vermeulen, I think Mr Shezi had addressed you quite thoroughly and competently on that score and I will not repeat those submissions. Thank you Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Patel. Gentlemen have you got anything that you want to add? Mr Ramawele, Mr Cornelius? Anything else?

MR RAMAWELE: Yes, Mr Chairman, I just have just three points which were raised.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR RAMAWELE IN REPLY: The first one is the instruction which has been raised by Mr Vermeulen, Mr Cornelius. I just want the Hearing to note that the evidence of Mr Nofomela is to the effect that he never heard Mr de Kock instructing the unit members to go and shoot the people. His evidence on the contrary is that Mr de Kock told him that people were going to get shot, so one should make a clear distinction about that.

The second point is the political objective. It is my submission that the act which was committed by Mr Nofomela is an act which is associated with a political objective and that he knew that the UDF activists were going to be killed and he associated himself with that particular act and therefore he qualifies in terms of the Act.

The last one is the vendetta. Mr Chairman, I would like the Hearing to consider this in analysing the evidence. firstly the Hearing to determine whether Mr Nofomela does have a vendetta against Mr de Kock and if that is the position, then the Hearing should continue further and find out from the evidence itself whether the vendetta that Mr Nofomela had against Mr de Kock led to Mr Nofomela actually saying that, implicating Mr de Kock because you can have a vendetta, a grudge against a person, but it does not necessarily mean that each and everything that you are saying is not true. One cannot say, "Once a liar, always a liar", therefore, if the Commission finds that Mr Nofomela does have a vendetta against Mr de Kock, the Committee also has to further on, to determine whether in fact this vendetta led to Mr Nofomela saying what he said and I submit that when the Hearing does so, if it finds that indeed his vendetta led to him saying what he has testified about, then we would be left with the improbable version of Vermeulen, Radebe and Mr de Kock himself.

CHAIRPERSON: You mean Mr Nofomela could have done better if he really wanted to get Mr de Kock into trouble, he could have said he was present, for example.

MR RAMAWELE: Yes, his implication of Mr de Kock was not very detailed.

CHAIRPERSON: You say he never heard de Kock giving orders to the infiltrators.

MR RAMAWELE: Yes,

CHAIRPERSON: I understand.

MR RAMAWELE: That's all. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Ramawele. Yes, Mr Cornelius, I think you've indicated that you don't have any further submissions.

MR CORNELIUS: I've got nothing to add, thanks Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Yes, that concludes the proceedings. The Panel will take time to consider the applications and once the decision is available, we will notify the parties and we will make the decision available. So in those circumstances the decision is reserved. It takes care of our session here in Durban. We extend the traditional thanks to everybody who has assisted us in having this hearing and a special word of thanks to the lawyers, Mr Ramawele, Mr Cornelius, Mr Shezi and Ms Patel and Mr Hugo in his absence, for your assistance in dealing with this matter and then to my colleagues on the Panel for their assistance. We're adjourned.

HEARING ADJOURNS