 |
News | Sport | TV | Radio | Education | TV Licenses | Contact Us |
|
News | Sport | TV | Radio | Education | TV Licenses | Contact Us |
Amnesty HearingsType 67, AMNESTY HEARING Starting Date 17 March 1997 Location EAST LONDON Day 1 Names NSITSIKELO DON JOHNSON Back To Top Click on the links below to view results for: +councillors MR BRINK: Mr Chairman and members of the Committee this is the application of Nsitsikelo Don Johnson who is seeking amnesty in respect of attempted murder and the illegal possession of a firearm. The Investigative Unit informed me during January that they had been, at my request, to see the victim, who is Mrs Nomsa Hanabe, with the view to obtaining a statement from her. She, however, declined to make a statement and advised the investigator that she was not interested in the amnesty or the Truth Commission, so she was completely uncooperative. Nonetheless, she has been served by registered post with a Form to a Notice and I don't know whether she is here but I very much doubt it. I would just call her name. Is Mrs Nomsa Hanabe here? She is not present. I understand that the applicant, for moral reasons, does not want to take the oath so he would be affirmed or affirmation administered to him. I just leave my learned friend to place himself on record. NSITSIKELO DON JOHNSON: (affirms) EXAMINATION MR BLOEM: Thank you Mr Chairman. Members of the Committee, I confirm that I appear on behalf of the applicant Nsitsikelo Don Johnson in this matter. I only this morning became aware of the fact that only a handwritten application was made available to you. I have caused copies of the typed application to be made available. Can I find out, Mr Chairman, EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE whether you have a copy of that? JUDGE MALL: We now do have. Thank you. MR BLOEM: I am sorry about that. I was totally unaware of it. Mr Chairman, from Annexure A to the application you will note that the applicant does not state the facts surrounding the offences for which he seeks amnesty. The intention is to lead the applicant in that regard and to contextualise the events. May I proceed to leading the applicant in that regard? JUDGE MALL: Before you do that, I think Mr Brink you appreciate the position that in applications of this kind at least one of the requirements is that an applicant must set out the detail of the offence and how it was committed, in respect of which he is seeking amnesty. Very well. EXAMINATION BY MR BLOEM: Mr Johnson, these offences were committed in Uitenhage. Is that correct? MR BLOEM: But they were planned in Klipplaat? MR BLOEM: Now what is your connection to Klipplaat? What were you doing in Klipplaat at the time? MR JOHNSON: I am originally from Uitenhage. I grew up in Uitenhage. I have family members in Klipplaat, my brother and my aunt. This is how I went to Klipplaat. Also in matters of the struggle they would connect me with Klipplaat. MR BLOEM: You were schooling in Klipplaat. Correct? MR JOHNSON: Yes I was schooling in Klipplaat. MR BLOEM: And in that school did you hold any position be it in social organisations or any other organisations related to the school? MR JOHNSON: I was a founding member of the SRC, I was elected EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE as the President of the SRC at school. MR BLOEM: And in the broader community, did you hold any MR JOHNSON: I was a member of the African National Congress Youth League. I was an organiser also in the SACP. Those were the organisations that were accessible to us at the time. MR BLOEM: That was your position. What was the position of Mrs Hanabe in the community of Klipplaat? MR JOHNSON: She was a Deputy Principal at my school. She was also a Mayoress at Klipplaat. These are the people that we referred to as 'puppets'. MR BLOEM: And what was your attitude and the attitude of the organisations which you represented towards people like Mrs Hanabe at the time? MR JOHNSON: In the entire South Africa they were seen as people who were terribly unrighteous, because they facilitated the oppressive ways of the apartheid era in our communities. MR BLOEM: Was there any cooperation between your MR JOHNSON: No not at all. What Mrs Hanabe did it was just for herself. She was not representing and working for the interests of the community. She just wanted to see the people of Klipplaat on their knees. JUDGE WILSON: I didn't hear that last word, "wanted to see the people of Klipplaat...." MR JOHNSON: She wanted to see the people of Klipplaat on their knees. JUDGE MALL: Why if she was the Mayoress, would she want people on their knees? MR JOHNSON: Because people did not like her as she did not care for anyone. There was a discrepancy between the two groups. EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE She would tell the people that there was nothing that she would do for them. These were the things that she would say. She had no interest at heart for the people of Klipplaat. (The speaker's microphone is not on.) MR BLOEM: There was a call for Councillors to resign during that period, is that correct? MR BLOEM: Maybe the witness, Mr Johnson should tell us. Let me rephrase it, is it correct that there was a call by the community at large for Councillors to resign in Klipplaat? MR JOHNSON: Yes it is true. There were boycotts, so that these puppet people could resign. MR BLOEM: Did the Councillors resign? MR JOHNSON: Some of them did resign. She is the only one who told us that she would never resign and she would continue with her job as she pleased, whether the community liked that or not. MR BLOEM: Like for instance cutting off the water supply to people? Is it correct that when she refused to resign she retaliated by causing peoples' water supply to be cut off? MR JOHNSON: When she realised that most of the community was against her she retaliated by stopping the water supply and also the bucket system that was used for toilets in Klipplaat was stunted. MR BLOEM: As a result of that there was a mass meeting which was held in Klipplaat, is it correct? Can you tell us what decision was taken at that mass meeting? MR JOHNSON: As the community was trying to make her resign, we than decided as the community at the meeting that if we want her out of the way she should be eliminated. That was the JUDGE WILSON: A meeting of who was this? EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE MR JOHNSON: It was a mass meeting. There were a lot of people. I was one of the people who was at the meeting. JUDGE WILSON: Who organised the meeting? MR JOHNSON: The Peoples' Organisation. JUDGE WILSON: Who is that? Who is the Peoples' Organisation? MR JOHNSON: The African National Congress. JUDGE WILSON: It took you a long time to say that, are you trying to conceal things? Why did you not tell me at the beginning that it was organised by the ANC? MR JOHNSON: I did not realise that you were specifically asking for the name of the organisation. JUDGE WILSON: My question to you was who organised the meeting. I couldn't have been much clearer than that could I? MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Johnson, who in the ANC convened that meeting.? Was it the Chairperson of the local branch of the ANC who convened that meeting? Was it a meeting convened by the ANC Youth League in the community? MR JOHNSON: It was comrade Jongikaya Lucas and comrade Mannetjie Blaauw. MS KHAMPEPE: Who are they Mr Johnson? Were they members of the ANC? Did they hold any particular office? MR JOHNSON: Comrade Lucas was the Chairperson of the ANC Youth League so they did hold certain seats within the ANC. JUDGE WILSON: Was this meeting arranged by the ANC Youth League? MS KHAMPEPE: Is this the meeting which was convened on the 12 MR JOHNSON: The meeting that was on the 12th of February was the meeting when the tripartite alliance met, the ANC, South African Communist Party and Cosatu. This is where we reached EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE a conclusion that Mrs Hanabe should be eliminated and how. MS KHAMPEPE: Now the meeting that you have just alluded to now on which date was that meeting convened, the one that you have just referred to us now? When Jonikaya Lucas convened as Chairperson of the ANC. MR JOHNSON: It was on the same day, the 12 February. After that mass meeting we went to meet as the Executive on the side. We were planning how Mrs Hanabe should be eliminated. MR BLOEM: Now Mr Johnson as a result of that decision which was taken at the meeting on the 12th of February 1991 you then with two other people went to Uitenhage where you committed these offences on the 14th, two days after this meeting in Uitenhage. Is that correct? MR JOHNSON: Yes Sir that is correct. JUDGE WILSON: Who were these two other people? MR JOHNSON: Comrade Jonkikaya Lucas and comrade Simpiwa Saki from Klipplaat. JUDGE WILSON: Sipiwa Jonikaya Lucas, is that the man you said was Chairman of the ANC Youth League? MR JOHNSON: Yes that is the one, Sir. JUDGE WILSON: What about Simpiwa Saki? MR JOHNSON: Yes we went together. MR BLOEM: Thank you. The incident occurred approximately 7 o'clock that evening. Will you please take us through the events of that evening at or near the church in Uitenhage. MR JOHNSON: On the 14th of February 1991 we took our arms and we set out for Mrs Hanabe at the Congregational Church in Uitenhage, Aona Street. We did not see her car because we went to check, I remember. When we got there we did not see her car. EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE We waited for about 30 minutes. We then saw her car coming towards the church. She parked next to a tree. She got out of the car, walked to the church. We waited another few minutes then we walked into the church. This was about 8 o'clock. We waited for her under the tree, because we knew that after church she would walk to her car. We were sure that she was not going to see us, because it was dark under the tree. At about five past eight the church service was over. She got to the car, as she opened the door, I was the one who shot at her. I shot her and then we left. MR BLOEM: Mr Johnson how far were you from Mrs Hanabe when you fired the shots at her? MR JOHNSON: The distance was approximately from the place I was sitting up to the stage, where your table is. MR JOHNSON: Perhaps I can get up and demonstrate, is that alright? JUDGE MALL: What do you say? About three paces Mr Brink or less? JUDGE MALL: Show us how far, how many steps. MR JOHNSON: It is the distance from the table to the stage. MR BLOEM: Mr Johnson how many shots did you fire at Mrs MR BLOEM: What was your aim? What was your intention? MR JOHNSON: I wanted to kill her so that she is totally eliminated from our community, because the problem within the community erupted from her. MR BLOEM: Now we all know that fortunately Mrs Hanabe did not EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE die but she was severely injured. Is that correct to say? MR BLOEM: In fact she gave evidence against you at your subsequent trial. MR BLOEM: Can you give an indication of what happened to her as a result of the shots? What is her condition? MR JOHNSON: I do not know exactly as I am in jail, but after we shot her she was taken to Tygerberg Hospital. MR BLOEM: What I want to know Mr Johnson is at the time when she gave evidence at your trial what was her condition like? MR JOHNSON: When she went to give evidence against me I could see that she was not very well but she was walking on her legs. MR BLOEM: She was not in a wheelchair was she? MR BLOEM: There is just one aspect I want to cover with you in your evidence. Do you know a group by the name of AmaAfrica? JUDGE MALL: I did not hear that name? MR BLOEM: AmaAfrica, Mr Chairman. MR JOHNSON: It's not AmaAfrica. There were gangsters called AmaAfrica in Uitenhage. I know some of the people who belonged to that group. These people would kill members of the African National Congress. When we discovered that they went to Klipplaat, organised by Mrs Nomsa Hanabe, there is one of their members whose name is Zola Sikiwe. He told us that as members of AmaAfrica they were given a list by Nomsa Hanabe concerning people from the ANC who should be eliminated. I was one of the people that were on the list. MR BLOEM: If Mrs Hanabe was here today what would you have said to her? EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE MR JOHNSON: If Mrs Hanabe was here today, as we are all aware that we are trying to reconcile within our country. What I would say to her is I ask for forgiveness for what I have done to you. MR BLOEM: Have you made any attempts to relay that message across to her? MR JOHNSON: I have never got a chance before to give her this message, because I was proud of what I had done, because I was doing it for my community. But in retrospect, I realise that now in 1997 things have changed. What we were struggling for we have accomplished. My wish now is to apologise and ask for forgiveness personally to Mrs Hanabe. This is why I am before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission today. I trust that Mrs Hanabe will get my message although she is not present here MR BLOEM: Thank you Mr Chairman. That is the evidence of the applicant. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BLOEM JUDGE MALL: Any questions, Mr Brink? CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BRINK: Mr Johnson you were the only person who was convicted of this crime were you? MR JOHNSON: Yes it is me alone. MR BRINK: Now I just want to clear one or two points. You remember you submitted an application form in manuscript. I think that was received in January last year, then it was sent back to you and finally came back to the Committee on the 15 May. Do you remember that? Your manuscript, the one you wrote out. Would you like to look at it, or a copy of it? MR JOHNSON: Yes I would like to look at it please. MR BRINK: Would you have a look particularly at page 4 of that application and that relating to paragraph 10(B). I want to read EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE it to you and you must tell me whether it is correct. "Typical of all our people who served in government- created structures Mrs Nomsa Hanabe saw herself as being accountable to the local authorities and not to the Klipplaat community." MR JOHNSON: Yes I do remember. "Attempts to reason with her and her Councillors were made by the community but all in vain." MR JOHNSON: Yes I do remember. "It was after her house was burned down and after she fled to Uitenhage that her Councillors resigned." MR BRINK: I just want to ask you at this stage. Were you responsible or any one that you knew responsible for the burning down of her house? MR JOHNSON: I was not responsible for burning down her house. I do know a number of comrades who were responsible for this. MR BRINK: And the purpose of burning down her house presumably was to drive her from Klipplaat to Uitenhage, or certainly drive her out of Klipplaat. MR JOHNSON: Will you please repeat your question? MR BRINK: The purpose of having her house burnt down was to drive her out of Klipplaat, is that correct? JUDGE MALL: Where does that appear? MR BRINK: The burning of the house appears in paragraph 10, page 4 of the original application. Have you found it Mr Chairman? EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE MR BRINK: I am referring to the original application. That is the manuscript one, page 4 of that application, paragraph 10(B), which starts "Typically all our people..." JUDGE MALL: Yes. ..."It was all in vain. It was after her house was burned down that she fled to Uitenhage." MR BRINK: That's correct. Yes. JUDGE MALL: And then her Councillors resigned. MR BRINK: Yes. So the purpose of burning down her house was to make sure that she left Klipplaat and left you people in peace? MR JOHNSON: The people wanted her personally, but she was not there. Then her house was burnt. It was not an original intention to burn her house down. The people wanted her personally. MR BRINK: Did they not want to drive her out of Klipplaat? MR JOHNSON: Yes, the major plan was to remove her from Klipplaat. MR BRINK: Yes, right. Now ...(intervention) JUDGE WILSON: When you say that they wanted her personally, do you mean they wanted to kill her? MR JOHNSON: I think so. I was not part of the planning for burning the house down, but I heard from other comrades that is what they wanted. MR BRINK: Yes, in any event you went on to say in your original application "After the house was burnt and after she fled to Uitenhage her Councillors resigned." MR BRINK: And then you went on EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE "We left them ..." presumably you left them alone, ".... because you also integrated them into the community". in other words they came back to join you people. They were no longer puppets as I understand it. MR JOHNSON: Yes, after they resigned we accepted them as members of the community, because they assured us that they would work for the community. MR BRINK: At that stage, at the time Mrs Hanabe was shot, do I understand then that there were no Councillors in Klipplaat? MR JOHNSON: She was the only one at the time, because she had stipulated that she would not resign. MR BRINK: But at that stage she had already gone to Uitenhage. Is that not so? MR BRINK: And there was no Council left in Klipplaat? MR JOHNSON: There was no Council but she was still working. Even though she stayed in Uitenhage she would go to Klipplaat to work. MR BRINK: Well she was a schoolteacher there, was she? MR BRINK: Because you went on in your application to say, "While exiled in Uitenhage she still effectively had control of Klipplaat". Now that I don't understand. There is no Council, if she was a Mayoress she was Mayoress in name only because there was no Council. MR JOHNSON: After the Councillors' houses were burnt down they resigned. She then went to Uitenhage. She had a house in Uitenhage, but she would regularly go to her office to work at Klipplaat. I do not know exactly how she operated, because she EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE MR BRINK: She was a Mayoress over no Council at all. The Council did not exist, so she had no one to control, surely? Do you understand me Mr Johnson, do you understand what I am trying to clear up with you? Here is a woman who is driven out, alright she has got an office in Klipplaat, she is driven out of Klipplaat to go to Uitenhage. Her Councillors resigned. There is no Council left. And although she had not resigned she did not have a Council to govern. MR JOHNSON: As a person who did not know how things worked exactly what I know is that the Councillors' houses were burnt down. They then were integrated back into the community. Mrs Hanabe, however, stipulated that as a Mayoress she would not step down. This is why we went after her. JUDGE WILSON: But did she do anything as Mayoress after you had burnt her house? MR JOHNSON: She stopped the water supply, the sanitation. All this she did whilst she still had a Council. JUDGE WILSON: I am talking about after she had left and gone to Uitenhage, did she do anything at all? MR JOHNSON: After she left she organised AmaAfrica to go and kill particular members of the organisation. JUDGE WILSON: But she did nothing as Mayoress. You decided to kill her just because she would not resign. Is that it? MR JOHNSON: Yes. It is because she would not resign and also the terrible deeds that were perpetrated on the community. MR BRINK: You see, the difficulty I have, Mr Johnson, is that after Mrs Hanabe left Klipplaat, because her house had been burnt down, the fact that there was no longer a Council, the fact that she could no longer exercise Mayoral authority in Klipplaat, surely you ends had been achieved? This woman had been driven EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE out of your community. She no longer had a house there. Why go to Uitenhage to kill her? MR JOHNSON: As I clarified, the reason we went to Klipplaat for is because the community was against Mrs Hanabe, because of her status as a Mayoress and the things that she did. She organised AmaAfrica to kill some of our comrades. It was also at the forefront of our minds that she did not resign as a Mayoress. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BRINK MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Johnson, when did she organise AmaAfrica to kill members of the ANC? MR JOHNSON: If I remember correctly she organised AmaAfrica in 1990. MS KHAMPEPE: But you did not take any decision to kill her in 1990, the decision to kill her was taken in February of 1991. Wasn't the real reason why you decided to eliminate her the fact that she could not and would not succumb to your call for her to resign as the mayoress of the then local Council? MR JOHNSON: Please repeat your question. MS KHAMPEPE: You are saying that Mrs Hanabe organised AmaAfrica, that is the vigilante group in 1990 to kill members of the ANC. Now you decided to eliminate her only in February of 1991. Wasn't the real reason why you decided to eliminate her the fact that she would not succumb to your call for her to resign as the mayoress? MR JOHNSON: The reason why we concluded that she should be eliminated in 1991 even though she had organised AmaAfrica in 1990, it was at the end of the year, that she organised AmaAfrica. They arrived the end of the year 1990, left and came back in January 1991, they beat one comrade and his bladder burst, M Mpati was his name. They came back in January 1991 and repeated the same acts. Therefore these deeds were from 1990 to EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE 1991. This is why we reached the conclusion that Mrs Hanabe MS KHAMPEPE: Had she not organised for the vigilante group to attack members of the ANC, would you have still continued to take the decision to kill her? MR JOHNSON: If she had not organised AmaAfrica and had resigned clearly like the other Councillors we would not have concluded that she should be eliminated. JUDGE MALL: So as I have got your evidence, I have got it down as saying that the reason for killing her was that she was still Mayoress. That was the reason that you killed her, is that correct? MR JOHNSON: Yes it is because she would not resign as Mayoress and secondly the deeds like organising AmaAfrica and infiltrating them into the community. JUDGE MALL: Now then do I understand that you people burnt down the houses of other Councillors as well, apart from her house? MR JOHNSON: Yes some members of the Councillors' houses were burnt down. MR JOHNSON: Two houses that I remember. I was not part of burning down, but I remember two houses, in addition to her house. JUDGE MALL: You were not against the idea of burning MR JOHNSON: I could not stand against that because it was also my wish that they should step down. JUDGE MALL: My question is that you were not against it. You went along with the decision that the houses should be burnt down. That is the position? EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE MR JOHNSON: Well I can say that I was not against such action. MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Johnson in your application on page 4 you said that, "Attempts to reason with her and her Councillors were made by the community, all in vain". what attempts did you make to dissuade her from further participation? MR JOHNSON: As I was one of her students at school, we met with her as members of the SRC, and told her that she must concentrate on one job. Sometimes she would leave the school and attend Councillors' meeting and then she would come back and would give us a lot of work. We requested that she should focus on her job as a teacher or forfeit her job as a teacher and be a Mayoress. MS KHAMPEPE: And when, Mr Johnson, were these attempts were made by you and the SRC members? MR JOHNSON: These attempts were made in February 1990. In March 1990 when we first formed the SRC we tried to meet with her and tried to explain to her, to ask her to resign as a Mayoress and continue being a teacher. JUDGE MALL: Did you know it was the policy of the ANC that people were not to be killed for political reasons? MR JOHNSON: According to my knowledge as a member of the Youth Organisation when there were acts such as these since 1985, 1986 and 1987 we burnt peoples' houses in order to push our aim of the struggle. We saw that certain things came true and other people died because of the struggle. JUDGE MALL: My question was not that, my question was did you know it was the policy of the ANC that people were not to be killed? That was the question. MR JOHNSON: I was not aware because the community was angry and they were uncontrollable. I know that the African National EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE Congress disagree with the killing of people. JUDGE MALL: And despite that you took it upon yourself to go there with a gun and fire five shots at this unarmed, unprotected woman in the dark, so that you would not be seen. That is how brave you thought you were. MR JOHNSON: As I have already said in my application that it was an instruction from the Executive Committee of Klipplaat. We were instructed by the Executive Committee that we have to eliminate Mrs Hanabe in this manner. JUDGE WILSON: Were you not a member of the Executive Committee? MR JOHNSON: Yes I was a member of the Executive Committee and we all agreed in that meeting, because I was also suffering as the community was suffering. JUDGE WILSON: I noticed that you have not told us that you were Chairman of Cosas. You were weren't you? MR JOHNSON: No I was not. No I was Chairman of SRC. JUDGE WILSON: I am reading from the evidence that you gave I think at your trial which is part of the papers put before us. "U en daardie Nomsa Hanabe. Is dit korrek dat julle nie langs dieselfde vuur gesit het nie?" MR JOHNSON: Can you please repeat the question? JUDGE WILSON: What is the name of this unfortunate woman? Nomsa Hanabe. What you said in your evidence is, "U en daardie Nomsa Hanabe is dit korrek dat julle nie langs dieselfde vuur gesit het nie?" "Ja dit is so". Do you remember giving that evidence? MR JOHNSON: No, no ...(not interpreted) JUDGE MALL: And the next recorded thing is, EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE "Wat is die redes daarvoor, die hoofredes sal dit....?" "Eerstens was sy my onderwyseres op skool, was 'n burgermeester terselfdertyd en 'n onderwyseres. Ek was die voorsitter van Cosas. Ek was ook die president van die Studenteraad." MR JOHNSON: Yes I was the President of the SRC at school and I even declared that in my statement, and other evidence that I gave in court is that I did not say the absolute truth in court because I didn't want to admit guilt. JUDGE WILSON: You said, "Ek was die Voorsitter van Cosas". MR JOHNSON: What I can recall clearly is that I did mention that I was the President of the Student Representative Council at school, not Cosas. Even in my application ...(intervention) JUDGE MALL: Just don't talk about your application, let us just talk about your evidence in court. You have told us that you did not want to tell the court the truth, is that what you said just now? You did not want to tell the court the truth. The truth was that you were not the President of Cosas, but you did not want the court to know that. You told the court that you are the President of Cosas. Is that correct? MR JOHNSON: No, I told the court that I was the President of the SRC, that was the genuine truth. ...(intervention) JUDGE MALL: Yes, no, we are talking about Cosas. MR JOHNSON: I do not want to lie, I don't remember saying that I was the Chairperson of Cosas. MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Johnson, was the Executive Committee of the ANC Youth League, the Students Representive Council aware of the policy of the ANC then not to kill members who belonged to the EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE MR JOHNSON: I am not sure whether they were aware thereof, but the decision was taken there and even if they were aware but we went beyond the policy of the ANC, because of the peoples' anger. And that is what led to the decision to eliminate Mrs Hanabe from the community permanently. And that is how she was shot. MS KHAMPEPE: You were a member of the Executive Committee of the ANC Youth League, were you not? MS KHAMPEPE: So if the Executive Committee was aware of that policy you would have known thereof. Were you aware of such a decision as an Executive member of the ANC Youth League? MR JOHNSON: Which decision are you talking about? MS KHAMPEPE: Were you aware of the policy not to eliminate members who belong to local Councils? MR JOHNSON: No I was not aware of that policy. I personally was not aware of that policy. That is why I became one of the people who took the action against Mrs Hanabe. If I knew that there were such a policy I would have not been in this position today. JUDGE MALL: That is not what you said two minutes ago. You said two minutes ago that the decision to kill was taken because of the anger of the people, we went beyond the policy of the ANC. That is what you said. MR JOHNSON: Can you please repeat what you have just said. JUDGE MALL: You said that the decision to kill Mrs Hanabe was taken because of the anger of the people. Do you understand? JUDGE MALL: You said that we then went beyond the policy of the ANC to kill her. EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE JUDGE MALL: So you knew you were going beyond the policy of the ANC. MR JOHNSON: If we look into the matter clearly the ANC policy was not so clearly seen at the time because of the anger of the people. And when people are controlled by anger they regret their deeds afterwards. JUDGE WILSON: Now you know you shot both her arms off don't you? MR JOHNSON: Please repeat the question. JUDGE WILSON: You know you shot both her arms off. You shot them both off at the elbows. MR JOHNSON: Yes I did see her in court. She revealed herself in court. JUDGE WILSON: And you had done the shooting with your five shots. JUDGE MALL: Any re-examination? RE-EXAMINATION BY MR BLOEM: Mr Johnson you told us that as a result of these offences committed you were convicted, is it correct? MR BLOEM: And that was on the 25th of May 1994 in Uitenhage by the Regional Court. MR BLOEM: And you were sentenced to ten years of imprisonment. Is it correct? MR JOHNSON: Yes it is so, Sir. MR BLOEM: All the counts were taken together. There were six counts altogether. JUDGE WILSON: They were not. He got a sentence on each count. EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE They were to run concurrently. They were not taken together. If you look at the end of the thing on sentence, on the first count he was given three years imprisonment, on the second count 18 months, on the third count six months, on the fourth count 18 months, on the sixth count six months and they were all to run together, with the sentence on the fourth count of ten years. They were not taken as one. MR BLOEM: Thank you. That is how I understand the position. He was sentenced effectively to ten years of imprisonment. That was what I was putting to him. JUDGE WILSON: You did not. You put to him that they were taken as one, which would indicate it was all one combined offence. It wasn't, was it, if your read the judgment? MR BLOEM: If I did put that to him then I must apologise. What I wanted to convey is effectively he was sentenced to ten years of imprisonment. So, Mr Johnson you are still serving a part of that ten years imprisonment. MR BLOEM: Let us just go back to the question of how the Council operated at the time, we are talking about 1991, did you know how the Council which you were against at the time operated in 1991? Did you know how it worked? MR JOHNSON: May I ask - because the question is not clear. MR BLOEM: You were asked quite a number of questions about wanting Mrs Hanabe to resign as Mayoress at the time and yet you said that she was still continuing in Klipplaat, can you remember that? MR JOHNSON: Yes I do remember that. MR BLOEM: What I want to know from you is do you know now as you are sitting there or maybe at the time in 1991 how the Council operated? In other words whether it was necessary for EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE people to be physically at the ...(intervention) MR JOHNSON: No I was not aware of how it operated. MR BLOEM: Now let's just deal with - you gave evidence about a certain Mr Mpati who was assaulted in Klipplaat by members of AmaAfrica. JUDGE MALL: Give that name again. Mr who? MR BLOEM: The person's name was Mpati. MR JOHNSON: Yes I did give evidence thereof. MR BLOEM: Now we know that the offences were committed on the 14th of February 1991 now when in relation to the commission of the offences did the assault on Mr Mpati take place? Was it six months, a year before, was it a month before, a week before, the weekend before? MR JOHNSON: He was assaulted before we eliminated Mrs Hanabe. Before the shooting incident of Mrs Hanabe he was assaulted. MR BLOEM: What I want to know, in terms of time was it a year before the time, a month before, a weekend before the time, before the shooting incident, the shooting of Mrs Hanabe? Can you remember? MR JOHNSON: It was not two months thereafter. As I can see I think it was a month but it happened a month before Mrs Hanabe was shot. MR BLOEM: Lastly I just want to clarify with you the question of who actually took the decision that Mrs Hanabe should be eliminated. Your evidence as I understood it was that there was a mass meeting in the community of Klipplaat and at that mass meeting a decision was taken that she be eliminated, is that correct? MR BLOEM: But stemming from that meeting a further meeting took place between the Executives of the ANC, Cosatu and the South EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE JUDGE WILSON: The ANC Youth League I think. MR BLOEM: Was it at that meeting that the decision was taken as to how she should be eliminated? Was it at that meeting that the decision was taken? MR JOHNSON: Yes the decision was taken there, not at the mass meeting, but at the Executive meeting that was held thereafter. MR BLOEM: You were present at that meeting when the decision was taken. MR BLOEM: Thank you, I have no further questions. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BLOEM MS KHAMPEPE: I think in all fairness to the witness, if I remember, I recollect his evidence, it was to the effect that a decision to eliminate Mrs Hanabe was taken at the mass meeting and the decision to execute that decision, I mean, plans to execute that decision, were then arrived at, at the meeting of the ANC Youth League. JUDGE WILSON: Ask him. What decision was taken at the mass meeting? MR JOHNSON: The decision taken at the mass meeting was to eliminate Mrs Hanabe, but it was not said who and how. Then another meeting was set as to the decision, as to the method to be used. The decision was not taken at the mass meeting but at the Executive meeting ...(intervention) JUDGE WILSON: And what position did you hold at that Executive meeting, what position did you hold on the executive? MR JOHNSON: At that Executive meeting I was the Secretary of that meeting. EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE MS KHAMPEPE: Were you the Secretary of the ANC Youth League at the time? MR JOHNSON: At that particular meeting I was the Secretary, I was the minute Secretary. The post that I was occupying in the ANC Youth League was being an organiser, not a Secretary. JUDGE WILSON: And Jongi Lucas was he Chairperson of the ANC Youth League? JUDGE WILSON: Mannetjie Blaau? MR JOHNSON: In that particular meeting Mannetjie Blaau was an organiser. Jongi Lucas was the Chairperson at the meeting, I was the Secretary and Mannetjie Blaau was the organiser. JUDGE WILSON: Leanda Makapela? MR JOHNSON: She was the Vice-Chairperson. MR JOHNSON: Comrade Simpiwe Saki was just an additional member. JUDGE WILSON: You see, these are the people you said in your application who took the decision, gave the instructions. Do you remember that? The application you drew up. MR JOHNSON: Yes I do remember Sir. JUDGE WILSON: I can see no mention there of any SACP or Cosatu representatives. There weren't any were there? MR JOHNSON: Let me just clarify something. The people that were working under the ANC, as Klipplaat is a small place, you could be an organiser for the ANC Youth League and simultaneously have a post within the SACP. JUDGE WILSON: Yes and you have not put down one of them in your application. You application says the order was given by the ANC Klipplaat Executive and you do not mention in your application any member, any person as representing the SACP or Cosatu. MR JOHNSON: These people who took this decision were also EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE members of the Communist Party Executive. They simultaneously held different posts. This is why I have listed those people because they had posts within the ANC and the SACP simultaneously. MR BLOEM: Mr Chairman, can I just draw attention to and I think a member of the Committee read from paragraph 11(A) of the typed application, where the answer is, "Yes, the order was given by the ANC Klipplaat Executive". I think that is what the member read from. I want to go further and say that we also need to look at paragraph 10 of the application which basically says "see annexure". And if we go to the annexure, the first paragraph will clarify the position. It reads: "The charge of attempted murder arises out of the acts committed on the 14th of February 1991 on the instruction and command, and with the full knowledge and support of the ANC, Cosatu and the South African Communist Party, the tripartite alliance leadership." So I am drawing attention to this to say that in his application he already said that it was a tripartite alliance leadership which took the decision. JUDGE WILSON: We have not got a copy of Annexure A as part of the written application that was submitted. It is merely annexed onto the typewritten copy. MR BLOEM: I must apologise. I was made to understand that what I and my friend here have, will be made available to you. I must apologise. JUDGE WILSON: We have the typewritten ...(intervention) MR BLOEM: No, no, no, I am talking about Annexure A to the typewritten copy. JUDGE WILSON: Yes, annexed to the typewritten. EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE JUDGE WILSON: It was not part of the original handwritten one submitted. JUDGE WILSON: Which was prepared when? JUDGE WILSON: When was it prepared? MR BLOEM: This was prepared this morning when I spoke JUDGE WILSON: Yes, so it's not part of the original application. MR BLOEM: I understand it is not part of the ... JUDGE WILSON: And I was questioning him about his original application which he made on the 17th of April 1996, and there he made no mention of these other groups. MR BLOEM: I am sorry, I am not sure whether we are talking about the same thing. What happened this morning when I came here I understood that all you had was an application in handwriting. I then realised that I was sitting with a typed copy. I then made arrangements for my typed copy to be made available to yourselves. JUDGE WILSON: And the original handwritten copy does not have an Annexure A on it, that we have. MR BLOEM: And that is precisely why I made a copy of my typed copy together with the Annexure available to you. JUDGE WILSON: And I asked you when was Annexure A made and you said, this morning. When did he write out Annexure A? MR BLOEM: On the typed copy which was made available to you this morning you will see that there is a date stamp from the maximum prison Port Elizabeth, dated the 2nd of April 1996. Now maybe I should just explain what happened here.... EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE MR BLOEM: I do not think I can take this matter any further, Mr Chairperson. I ..... MR BRINK: I do not know whether I can be of assistance here. The original application that is the handwritten one appears to have come in on the 16th of January 1996. It was then sent back by the Cape Town office, presumably because it had not been signed by the Commissioner of Oaths or whatever and it was returned on the 15 May 1996. The application which is in typed script is dated the 2nd April 1996 and Annexure A, that is the typewritten document attached to it, was compiled at that time, as I understand it, but was never received by the Amnesty Committee in Cape Town. I think what my friend was trying to indicate was he had this, and I never had it and you did't have it, Mr Chairman and therefore copies were made for the convenience of the Committee. This in fact, the typed script, is an amplification of the handwritten one. That is how I understand the situation. MR BLOEM: That is indeed. I could not have put it better than that. JUDGE MALL: Thank you. Are you calling any other witnesses? MR BLOEM: Mr Chairman, no, the applicant will be the only one who will testify in his own application. So there will be no further ...(intervention) JUDGE MALL: So we do not know whether Cosatu were in favour of killing people? Whether the Communist Party was in favour of killing people? MR BLOEM: There is a member of the ANC present. We have heard the name of Mannetjie Blaau He is here, but once again he is a member of the ANC and he is available to give evidence. EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE JUDGE MALL: No, we want to know. If the organisations' names are mentioned and as things read if one were to - it would indicate that organisations, such as the Communist Party and Cosatu... (tape ends) MR BLOEM: I do appreciate the situation. May I ask for a short adjournment to re-assess my position, Mr Chairman. MS KHAMPEPE: Whilst you are re-assessing your position you should be aware of the submission which has been made by the ANC with regards to the policy in 1991 with regard to such targets. Whether they were considered legitimate targets or not. Maybe you can take that into account as you reconsider your position. MR BLOEM: Thank you very much for that. I will. JUDGE MALL: We will adjourn for a short while. EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE MR BLOEM: I am indebted to you for granting me the opportunity to consult with the next witness who is Mannetjie Blaau. MR BLOEM: I wonder whether he should be sworn in. JUDGE MALL: Will he speak in English? MR BLOEM: I understand he prefers speaking in Xhosa. MS KHAMPEPE: MrBlaau can you please tell us your full names? MR BLAAU: I am Siswe Mannetjie Blaau. SISWE MANNETJIE BLAAU: (sworn states) EXAMINATION BY MR BLOEM: Mr Blaau in 1991, is it correct to say that you were a member and you are still a member of the African National Congress? MR BLAAU: Yes, that is correct. MR BLOEM: What position did you hold with the ANC in 1991? MR BLAAU: I was the Chairperson of the ANC. MR BLOEM: Except for the ANC did you hold any position in any other political organisation? MR BLAAU: I was only a leader of the ANC but the ANC was a leader of the alliance. MR BLOEM: The alliance being the SACP and Cosatu? MR BLAAU: The alliance was ANC, Cosatu, SACP and Sanco. MR BLOEM: Were you a member of the SACP? MR BLAAU: As a Chairperson of the ANC the constitution said that the Chairperson has a right and he has to be a member of the alliance. MR BLOEM: Now there was evidence here earlier today by Mr Johnson, the applicant in this matter, that there was a mass meeting that was held on the 12 February 1991 to the effect that Mrs Hanabe should be eliminated. Were you present at that meeting? EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE MR BLAAU: This mass meeting, I was in that mass meeting, I was part of that meeting. MR BLOEM: After the decision was taken another meeting stemming from ...(intervention) JUDGE WILSON: Would it not be a little better if he gives his own evidence rather than you put the words into his mouth? JUDGE MALL: About what the decision was. Let him first talk about that. MR BLOEM: Can you please tell us what the decision was? MR BLAAU: Firstly I want to make this point clear, as the Chairperson of the ANC the policy and the principles of the ANC said that no one has the right to kill, but a person has to protect himself from the enemy. The case of Mrs Nomsa Hanabe, it was a bad case in Klipplaat. I have a picture of the circumstances as I am sitting here. What happened is that Mrs Hanabe was Mayoress in Klipplaat and there was a national call that the Councillors have to resign and as the ANC we had to have a programme of the resignation of the Councillors, whereby which we made attempts to try and convince these people that we are not fighting against them personally, but we are fighting against the policy of apartheid in which they were defending. We called them one by one in a meeting and we asked them to resign. We were trying to show them that we are not fighting against them personally but we were trying to fight against the policy. Some of them, five of them, responded positively, and they resigned. Mrs Nomsa Hanabe was a stubborn person and she told us she will never resign. She has her own beliefs. It is when we went to the community to tell the people about the decisions taken from the meetings we had with the Councillors. We told the community that others have agreed to resign, but it was only EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE It happened that the community decided that they did not want Mrs Nomsa Hanabe in Klipplaat. As we were still busy with that decision we heard rumours from our sources that there is a list which was provided by Mrs Nomsa Hanabe to the AmaAfrica to eliminate the leaders of the community. It happened on that day. It was a Friday night and three taxi's came from Uitenhage. They were full of AmaAfrica. There was a Magutsa family where one girl Galane received a phone call, that we know that you are one of the people who want me to resign, to step down. I am coming together with my people. As we were looking at this matter we heard that AmaAfrica arrived in this Magutsa family. They were fully armed as we were still looking at that matter, the community of Klipplaat this was new to them and this was strange to them, because in this community such a situation never prevailed. The youth decided to go to that house to observe what was going on and we saw that some members of the AmaAfrica were outside and we tried to chase them away. We just heard people saying, shoot, shoot, and Mpati fell down. He was kicked as he was lying down and he was taken to the hospital. Victor Dose tried to protect him. As the Chairperson of the ANC I went to the police to ask them if they were aware of the situation. When I arrived at the police there was only one police there, and we did not know what to do. We decided to go in hiding as the leadership. And the decision was taken and the people were still discussing how to try and chase out Mrs Hanabe in the community. As we know in the past there were many ways we used in order to protect ourselves. There was a caucus held and it was concluded that this person is not willing to resign and we have EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE to see what we can do about her. And that is all. The following day after this incident with the AmaAfrica the women in the community stood up and they marched to the police station, asking for this group to be removed from the community, and that happened. There was a man called Jantjie, he was the leader of this group, the AmaAfrica group. This man said they did not go there to fight but they were trying to organise their organisation. We told them this was not the first time such incident happened. There was a function at school and they were looking for the Secretary General of the ANC, Nqele in that function. They were driving a red car but unfortunately they did not find him. MR BLOEM: Mr Blaau can I ask you are you aware of any decision that was taken and if so, please tell us under what circumstances that decision was taken to eliminate Mrs Hanabe? MR BLAAU: The decision to eliminate Mrs Hanabe was taken in Klipplaat. It was well known that if you were not working together with the people, the people come together and they decide against you. The decision was that she must be chased away from the community. That was the decision that was taken at that meeting. JUDGE WILSON: What does 'chased away' mean? MR BLAAU: It means that as we know that at that time people such as Mrs Hanabe were causing problems in the community, we wanted peace and cooperation in our community, we wanted to take her out of Klipplaat. JUDGE WILSON: Not kill her, you wanted her to move out of Klipplaat, is that what you are saying? JUDGE WILSON: Chased away from Klipplaat. Is that what you say? MR BLAAU: That was one of the decisions. What we cannot get EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE away from, Mr Chairperson, is that we know that the ANC had street committees and they were responsible for what was happening in the community and they could see whether - if the person was causing a problem and they would act against that person. MS KHAMPEPE: I think the question to come back to it again is whether you understand that decision that was taken at that meeting have meant that Mrs Hanabe should be chased away from Klipplaat to another community as long as it was away from Klipplaat. And you did not understand that decision to mean that she must be killed. MR BLAAU: Mr Chairperson, the situation was very difficult in the national organisation. We had difficulty in taking the decision that she must be killed. The community took a decision that they did not want her in that community. Because of the anger in our community it happened automatically that the comrades reacted in the way they reacted on that particular day. MR BLOEM: Mr Blaau please, you said now that the community had a problem with the decision that she should be killed and then you went on. I think what the members of the Committee want to establish from you, was that decision that she should be chased away, could anyone of you who formed part of the decision making, anyone have understood that decision also to mean that she should be killed? I think that is what we want to ascertain from you. MR BLAAU: I hear, I can understand you Sir. What happened is, as I have already said, we have street committees in the community and they were part of the youth and it was upon them to implement the decision taken. We are all activists and at that time as the situation was in the manner it was, we used to forget the ANC policy because we cannot run away from the fact that we were fighting against apartheid at that time. EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE MR BLOEM: I am made to understand that the policy of the ANC was that Councillors should not be killed, is that also your understanding? MR BLAAU: The ANC's policy as far as I understood it said we must not kill, but it also said that we have to protect ourselves against the enemy. At that time we were trained to protect ourselves against the enemy. JUDGE MALL: Who was the enemy? MR BLAAU: At the time, Mr Chairperson, we used to say that everything came due to the formation of the National Party Government. That was the enemy, the BLA, in the community they were considered as enemy because they sold people out, the Councillors sold people out, because at that time they did not consult with people, they did not act in favour of the needs of the people. They stopped water for the people and this clearly showed that they were enemies of the community. MR BLOEM: Mr Blaau can I just have your comments on the following. The applicant testified that he went to Uitenhage with the intention of killing Mrs Hanabe because of a decision which was taken in Klipplaat to the effect that she should be eliminated. Are you aware of that decision? MR BLAAU: I do understand your question, Mr Chairperson. As I have already said the decision was taken by the community that Mrs Hanabe was not seen as part of Klipplaat community or as one of the leaders of the people of Klipplaat. I do know about the decision that steps had to be taken against her. JUDGE WILSON: Do you know that her house had been burnt and that she had left Klipplaat and gone to live at Uitenhage? MR BLAAU: Mr Chairperson, the burning down of Mrs Hanabe's house, it was burnt down the same day that the ANC Youth League comrades were attacked. I also reported this to the police. EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE On that day no one could say that the house was burnt down by the supporters of the ANC, because up until today there is no clear evidence who actually burnt down that house. JUDGE WILSON: Well the applicant has told us that it was burnt down by his comrades and that he knows the names of them. JUDGE MALL: And that the houses of two other Councillors were burnt down. JUDGE WILSON: Are you seriously telling us you didn't know that it was burnt down by members of the ANC? If so, I will ask the applicant to give us the names of the people, so you can identify them. MR BLAAU: As I have already said, Mr Chairperson, I do understand the question, but what I am saying is this was a struggle between two opposing organisations and at that time it was very difficult to clearly say who burnt the house because it might happen that the AmaAfrica people were responsible for the burning of the house. If he knows the names of the comrades I am not aware of that, but people who were arrested were arrested for public violence. I never heard that they were arrested for burning down this house, because I was one of the people who were organising for lawyers for them at that time. JUDGE WILSON: And you know about the other two Councillors' houses that were burnt down. MR BLAAU: Mr Chairperson, I only know an ANC member's house that was burnt. There was an old man named Mr Gele, his house was at the back of AmaAfrica. That day Mr Gele's house was burnt down and he was a member of the ANC. That was the second house. And we went there to try to put out the fire. JUDGE WILSON: Do you know about the other two Councillors' houses who were burnt? It's a simple question. MR BLAAU: No, I only know about the Mayoress's house. EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE JUDGE WILSON: And you say you were the Chairman of the ANC and endeavouring to persuade the Councillors to resign, but you do not know that two of their houses were burnt. Is that the position? MR BLAAU: Yes that is the position. I was a Chairperson of the ANC and I only know of one house, the Mayoress's house. JUDGE WILSON: For how long were you a Chairperson of the ANC, before 1991 and after 1991? MR BLAAU: As we all know the ANC was unbanned in 1991. At that time it was then that we became leaders of the ANC. Before I was a member of the Residents' Association, named Wora. I was active in that organisation and the discussions concerning the Councillors' resignation started in 1991, in 1989 and I was elected last year to lead the ANC again. JUDGE MALL: Last year? When were you elected for the first time? MR BLAAU: It was in 1991 as I have already said. JUDGE WILSON: Was is by February of 1991? MR BLAAU: We all know that the ANC was unbanned in February when Nelson Mandela was released and since then we were all organising, from January, because we knew that the ANC will be unbanned. We prepared ourselves but the elections took place in February. JUDGE WILSON: And the applicant must have known that, that you were the Chairperson? JUDGE WILSON: What about Jongi Lucas? MR BLAAU: Jongi was an ex-official member of the ANC. The Youth League member becomes an ex-member of the ANC. MR BLAAU: You were the Chairperson of the ANC's local branch of Klipplaat and not of the ANC Youth League. EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE MR BLAAU: I was the Chairperson of the ANC local branch. JUDGE WILSON: And did you have anything to do with the Youth League? MR BLAAU: What happened is as the ANC has different structures the ANC Youth League, the Chairperson becomes involved in the meetings of the branch and Women's League. It is where they report about the progress of the organisation. They have their own autonomy. JUDGE WILSON: But you see the applicant just told us that you were an organiser and were one of the people who took the decision that the deceased, the woman in this case be eliminated. Do you remember doing that? MR BLAAU: Mr Chairperson as I have already said the decision was taken in that meeting and I was part of that meeting. JUDGE WILSON: This was a small meeting of about five people, not a mass meeting. You have not told us about taking part in a small meeting, coming to this decision. You now agree you were at a small meeting where the decision was taken by five of you, that she should be eliminated. MR BLAAU: Mr Chairperson I can say that is correct, because what happened is the decision that people would see what to do in this situation. As I have already said the organisation we have different people. You find people who believe in the struggle, such as Ghandi's struggle, some were radicals within the organisation and some believed in peace. And it happened that the comrades took the decision and they decided to do whatever was necessary. JUDGE WILSON: Why do you keep trying to avoid telling us that you were one of those comrades who took that decision? You keep saying other people, or the comrades. Were you one of the people who took that decision that this woman must be eliminated? EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE MR BLAAU: Mr Chairperson, I am not running away from anything. I was one of the people who wanted the truth to come out. What I am saying is I was part of the meeting where the decision was taken that we will see what to do to get rid of Mrs Hanabe. The comrades decided what to do. After the... (tape ends) JUDGE MALL: ... was taken, were you one of them to eliminate her, to kill her, that you were a party to that decision, is that correct? That she should be killed? Not that something should be done about her. I am talking about that she should be killed. MR BLAAU: I did not say she has to be eliminated, but what I said is that something has to be done. The comrades will see what to do. JUDGE MALL: So what you are saying is that you were not a part of a group that took a decision that she should be killed. Is that what you are saying now, is that correct? MR BLAAU: Mr Chairperson, if I would admit to this it will take a long time because as I have already said if you were involved in the structures you would see what happened. The decision was taken by the community and outside there was a caucus whereby we discussed what will be done, but we never said she must be killed. What we said is that comrades you will see what to do about her. JUDGE WILSON: You see we've been told that Klipplaat's youth, the Youth League Executive, not only decided she must be killed, but decided which three people should do so and that you were a member of that Executive, that you were there when this decision was taken. Do you agree with that or not? MR BLAAU: As I have said Sir, it is so, however it was not from my lips that she should be killed. It is a vote from the comrades. Today we are not ashamed to accept that it is a member EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE of the ANC that almost killed this woman. There is nothing we are hiding and so forth. JUDGE WILSON: So you accept that you were at the meeting where the decision was taken that she should be killed and where you nominated three people, Jongi Lucas, Sipiwe Saki and the applicant to go and do it. You are now saying that you were at that meeting and that you were one of those who took a decision. Is that what you are telling us? MR BLAAU: I do not know anything about the three people that were nominated. I know there was a meeting that I was at. We did not make a concrete decision that she should be killed. It was the individual people that decided from the anger from within to kill this woman. MR BLOEM: I certainly do not have any further questions. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BLOEM MS KHAMPEPE: Why was there a meeting convened amongst the five of you, that is yourself, Jongi Lucas, Nsikelelo Johnson, Julian Makapele, Sipiwe Saki? Why was there a meeting convened? What were you to discuss at that meeting? MR BLAAU: As I have said previously, the Committee's conclusion was that something must be done about Mrs Hanabe. We then had to decide what exactly, what to do about Mrs Hanabe. This is when we realised that the comrades that thought they were up to do something about it would have done it, had they wanted to. MS KHAMPEPE: I do not understand whether the interpretation is correct because you response does not make any sense. Did you decide at that meeting on the manner in which you were to eliminate Mrs Hanabe? Was that what you decided at that meeting? MR BLAAU: We reached a point where we realised that something must be done about Mrs Hanabe. We then decided to campaign to EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE illustrate to people that what Mrs Hanabe was doing was not proper. I do not know anything about the conclusion that she must be killed. MS KHAMPEPE: So you are saying that the applicant is incorrect in including you in a meeting which was held on the 12th of February where a decision to eliminate Mrs Hanabe was taken and where a decision was taken on how she was to be eliminated. Are you saying he is mistaken? MR BLAAU: I do not know anything about the meeting. I am not saying that he is mistaken. JUDGE MALL: Mr Brink are there any questions that you wish to ask? NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BRINK MR BLOEM: That is the case for the applicant. JUDGE MALL: Yes, the witness can be excused. EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE JUDGE MALL: We have to consider others who were involved in these proceedings. I say that to you because I want to know whether it is convenient to you to hear your argument at this stage or to hear it early in the morning. MR BRINK: I understand my friend will not be here tomorrow morning. He is otherwise engaged, but ... JUDGE MALL: Are you prepared to address now? MR BLOEM: I certainly am. May I just mention that I am not going to be long. My friend has also indicated that he is not going to be long, so I think we will be out here sooner than we thought we would. JUDGE MALL: Yes, please proceed. MR BLOEM ADDRESSES: Mr Chairperson and members of the Committee, it is my submission that despite the performance of Mr Blaau in this matter that the applicant should be granted amnesty. It is my submission, to start off with, that he made full disclosure of all relevant facts to this Committee. It is my submission that it cannot be said that he was not open with this tribunal. He said everything which he could and he played open cards with this Committee. I therefore submit that he has made full disclosure of all the relevant facts. As to whether or not the act - or rather I will refer to an act, the act of the attempted killing. He was also charged with possession of a firearm and ammunition, but I am not dealing - I will refer to the act as referring to the attempted murder. As to whether or not that act was associated with a political objective committed in the course of the conflicts of the past, Mr Blaau has given this Committee a background of what happened not only in our country at the time but specifically what happened at Klipplaat and the same was said by the applicant, except for the question of the burning of the houses of the EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE Councillors. Whether or not, we are dealing with the objective, whether or not the applicant was aware of the policy of the ANC which organisation the aims of which he was trying to promote at the time, that I submit is not what is relevant at the time. What is relevant is what was his bona fide belief at the time when he fired the shots at this woman and the events which occurred before that, in other words a decision was taken and that decision, it is my submission, cannot be said was for personal gain. JUDGE WILSON: What about the proportionality of that decision? Here he wished to bring about an end to the local authority. You have done so. You have caused all the Councillors to resign and you caused this woman to leave the area, can you possibly argue that you were then justified in murdering her, because she won't resign as a Councillor? MR BLOEM: I think, with respect, we must look at the prevailing circumstances at the time and what drove the applicant to committing this act he said he is sorry for. I think, with respect, we will be making a mistake by looking at things in retrospect as if the circumstances at the time are they as ...(intervention) JUDGE WILSON: I am not doing that. I am saying looking at the circumstances at the time, they wanted to bring about the end of the local authority. They had achieved it. All the Councillors had resigned save this one woman. She had left town. And out of pure stubbornness, because she would not resign, that is all, she was not doing anything, they decide to kill her. MR BLOEM: Mr Chairman, you will remember ...(intervention) JUDGE WILSON: What did they have to achieve by killing her, tell me? MR BLOEM: You will remember that the evidence was that albeit EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE she was now in Uitenhage she was still coming through to Klipplaat ...(intervention) JUDGE WILSON: And doing nothing. There was not a suggestion that she did a single act as Mayoress, is there? MR BLOEM: Well the evidence from - and this was asked by me when I re-examined, was whether he knew what was going on, at the time what was going on, how the Council operated at the time. And he did not know how. JUDGE WILSON: But he decided to kill. Thank you. MR BLOEM: Well that was the evidence. He decided to kill her. JUDGE WILSON: When on his own evidence he didn't know what was happening. MR BLOEM: And my submission is that one needs to look at why a person would go to the extreme of wanting to kill another person and you can only do that by looking at the circumstances at the time. And he said that it - I now when I look back I am sorry for what I have done, but at the time I thought, I thought at the time that that was the correct decision not for myself, but for the community in which I lived. And that, I would submit is a bona fide, albeit that now we realise it was a mistake on his part but at the time he was convinced that that was the right decision, given the circumstances at the time. JUDGE WILSON: You are having regard to the findings of the court who convicted him about his hatred for her. MR BLOEM: That Mr Chairman, is his evidence but that certainly is not his evidence that he killed her because he hated her. He hated what she was doing but it was not against her person per se. It was her deeds in the community, how she was cutting off water, what she was doing, to bringing in a vigilante group, that is what he was against, not the person, Mrs Hanabe, herself. It was not about that. It was what she was doing and what her role EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE in the community was at the time. That was his complaint as far as ...(intervention) MS KHAMPEPE: At the time of her elimination is there evidence that she was still cutting off water and sanitation services to the local community, all by herself? MR BLOEM: If the evidence is not clear in that regard I would submit that the evidence should be seen in the light, that the decision to kill was taken as a result of her conduct, and the conduct complained of, one of the acts she is accused of, was cutting off the water supply to the community ...(intervention) JUDGE WILSON: And you have driven her out of office, as a result. You have driven the Council out of office, because of that. You will recollect Mr Blaau said it was the Councillors who cut off the water. They all have been driven out of office. They cannot do a thing any more. Can you still say that you could have regard to that as a justification for killing? MR BLOEM: As I understand the evidence, firstly we all know that the intention was to kill, but certainly she was not killed. JUDGE WILSON: The intention, you are trying to justify that intention, by saying oh, she cut the water off. MR BLOEM: The evidence was that - the evidence certainly from the applicant was that she refused and he is corroborated by Mr Blaau in that respect, that Mr Blaau goes to the extent of saying that they went to these Councillors individually and they spoke to them and they resigned, but the one and only person who refused to resign was Mrs Hanabe and the retaliation was, of her, was to cut off the water ...(intervention) JUDGE WILSON: That is nonsense and you know it. There is no such evidence to suggest that that was done after the resignation. MR BLOEM: Mr Chairman please, I led the witness and my EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE recollection of that was, when I led him in this regard was, my understanding of his evidence was that the retaliation, the word retaliation was used, and the retaliation from Mrs Hanabe, when she was asked to leave the community, she refused to and she retaliated. That was his evidence when I led him and she retaliated by cutting off the water ...(intervention) JUDGE WILSON: When she realised most of the community was against her she retaliated by cutting off people's water. As the community was trying to make her resign we decided she should be eliminated. MR BLOEM: I with respect, can I just be allowed to deal with this point, because I was accused of making a submission that was absolutely nonsense and I believe that I have the right to respond to that. And I am saying that that is not so because I led the witness on that aspect and my recollection, the member of the Committee might be reading from something else, but I am talking, and my submission was made in the context of his evidence led here today, and his evidence was that as a result of the request for her to step down, she retaliated by cutting off the water. That is how I understand the evidence. And that is the submission I make. I do not make the submission based on what was read now by a member of this Committee. I am prepared to deal with that if it is asked. JUDGE MALL: Well, carry on with the ...(intervention) MR BLOEM: Thank you Mr Chairman. JUDGE WILSON: And do we ignore Mr Blaau's evidence when he said the Councillors stopped the water for the people and clearly showed they were the enemies of the people? MR BLOEM: I can only reply by saying that he was talking about Councillors and to be a Mayor or Mayoress you need to be a EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE Councillor and I think Mrs Hanabe - his evidence should be read in that context. JUDGE WILSON: He was talking about Councillors as a whole. At that time he said everything came from the Nationalist Government, the Councillors were regarded as enemies, they sold the people out, they did not consult with them. They stopped water for the people. MR BLOEM: I cannot take the point further, Mr Chairman by saying Mrs Hanabe obviously was one of the Councillors. So when Mr Blaau gave evidence about Councillors, he obviously must have included Mrs Hanabe. I cannot take that matter any further. JUDGE MALL: Very well. Make your next point. MR BLOEM: Just about the political objective. I know I was asked about the question of how proportional the intention to kill was in relation to the circumstances in Klipplaat at the time, but I want to make the submission that a decision was taken and the decision was not taken by the applicant alone, the decision was taken by a number of people. We know from his evidence, although Mr Blaau, and I am prepared to concede that that Mr Blaau was very vague about that, we know that from the applicant's evidence there were five people who took the decision that she should - there was a general meeting ..... JUDGE WILSON: I do not think Mr Blaau was vague about that one. It was a fairly categoric denial, was it not? JUDGE MALL: I think it was a denial but it was extracted out of him painfully. MR BLOEM: That is what I mean. Thank you very much. Now the applicant he believes that he was, and this is what he said, because a decision was taken in Klipplaat by that Committee of five people he then went with the other two people and he committed the act. EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE Now my submission is that it was basically an order given to him by that Committee in Klipplaat, whilst the applicant was a member, an Executive member of the ANC and aalso a member of the South African Communist Party. JUDGE MALL: I do not think you can go very much further with that kind of argument, acting under authority. This is hardly a case where these people were his superiors and he had to carry out an order by his superiors on pain of some punishment. He was one amongst five equals. Do you understand? He was as excited or keen about it as any of them were. So I think to say he acted on the orders of a group of five is pushing it too far. MR BLOEM: I readily must concede. Not 'order' what was meant, was a collective decision was taken. I am terribly sorry about the use of the word 'order', but it was a collective decision which was taken. And he formed part of that decision and we need to look at the acts which were committed in the light of the history of that decision. And that history is that it was a collective decision, based on the circumstances in Klipplaat at the time. Therefore, Mr Chairman, my submission is that the act was committed by the applicant because he bona fide believed that he was furthering the political struggle of the people in Klipplaat at the time. MS KHAMPEPE: What was that struggle, Mr Bloem, to topple the local Council's structure, which they have successfully done by having almost many of them resigning from that structure? JUDGE MALL: Either resigning or being converted to their view. MS KHAMPEPE: And being integrated into their own community. MR BLOEM: The word used by you, member of the Committee, is that 'almost' all of the members were either converted or driven out or were convinced to step down as Councillors, except for EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE one. And that person was Mrs Hanabe, who on the evidence before you refused, in fact the applicant goes to the extent of saying, albeit that she was now residing in Uitenhage she was still coming to Klipplaat. And it is in context of that. Whatever she was doing she still was, the word 'threat' would be strong under the circumstances, but something very close to a threat, because she was still a Councillor at the time. JUDGE MALL: I think isn't the reality that they were called in one by one and the community was told, all of them have agreed, she just refuses and to sum it all up, it is her refusal to step down, is the be all and the end all of the case against her. Plain and simple, she refuses to step down. Something must be done to eliminate her and the attempted killing is there for no other reason but to achieve one objective and that was to satisfy themselves that they have done something because she refused to step down. Isn't that basically the whole case? MR BLOEM: Can I just reply and say I agree because that is the evidence of the applicant. His evidence was to the effect that we wanted to kill her because she did not want to resign and the terrible deeds committed by her, but Sir, I must stress it was not to satisfy the applicant himself. The applicant bona fide believed that at the time when he was committing this offence he was not doing it out of personal greed or becuase he wanted to get at Mrs Hanabe, it was done in a certain context and the context which I am talking about is that he thought that he was acting in the best interest of the community from which he came. That is the context within which I submit, he committed this offence. MR BLOEM: Can I just have one second. EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE MR BLOEM: That I have no further submissions. JUDGE MALL: Thank you. Mr Brink is there anything you wish to say? MR BRINK ADDRESSES: Very, very briefly Mr Chairman. I think you will anticipate the submissions I make in regard to problems the applicant has in relation to ...(intervention) JUDGE MALL: Well, you need not repeat them. MR BRINK: No, I do not intend to, I say you can anticipate those. But I suppose in fairness to him it might well be argued that having regard to the history and the problems that happened in this country in the so-called black townships, black local authorities imposed from above, it was all over the country, the resentment and therefore the burnings, and the killings and the assaults and so on of those who were acting as what were regarded as puppets of the Government, one knows that that happened. It's a question of proportionality it seems to me is a real problem here. MR BRINK: But you see, although Mrs Hanabe was, to coin a word, 'an impotent' Mayor, not Mayoress, she was Mayor in fact, had no powers, she was still regarded by these people as an undesirable symbol of oppression and I suppose it might be argued on his behalf, get rid of that symbol and they were at peace. JUDGE WILSON: It was argued but they had driven that symbol out of Klipplaat. She came back because she was working there. She was still Deputy Headmistress of the school, wasn't she? MR BRINK: It is clear, I mean I hold no brief, I don't make a submission on his behalf, but I think in fairness, that is something that does possibly count in his favour. JUDGE MALL: Thank you. Mr Bloem, thank you very much for EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE rendering such assistance as you were able to render to the applicant. MR BLOEM: Thank you Mr Chairman. JUDGE MALL: The Committee will reserve its decision and will make it known in due course. JUDGE MALL: The Committee will adjourn and Mr Brink, what is the earliest - can we resume at nine o'clock tomorrow morning? JUDGE MALL: Have you satisfied yourself that the Attorney who is appearing for the applicants in that matter knows? MR BRINK: No. I do not know whether there is representation of Mr Makrosi. Arrangements were set in foot about that when the Form 2's were sent to these people. As soon as we knew the venue, we knew the venue was on the 23rd or 24th of February and notices were sent out on the 25th, through the Investigative Unit with the legal aid application form. Whether Mr Machaka has resolved that with his people I am unaware, but I will be talking to Mrs Burts about this this evening as well. MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Brink I am sure the Regional Office might be able to come to our assistance in that regard. MR BRINK: I sincerely hope so. JUDGE MALL: Yes. I don't want to go around saying that we will resume at nine o' clock tomorrow morning and find that we are delayed and that you have |
