ON RESUMPTION
ADV STEENKAMP: Honourable Members, thank you for the indulgence. We're ready for the next matter, Mr Chairman. The applicant being Mr Manyamala, thank you, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Advocate Steenkamp. For the purposes of the record, it is Monday, 12th October, 1998. It's a sitting of the Amnesty Committee in the application of Saint Mkululi Manyamala, matter number
AM 3150/96. The panel is chaired by myself, Denzel Potgieter. I'm assisted by Advocate Gcabashe on my right and Mr Sibanyoni on my left.
Mr Steenkamp, just for the record.
ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I'm Andre Steenkamp, the Evidence Leader. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Mr Shayi?
MR SHAYI: Mr Chairman, I am Gama Shayi, I am for the applicant, Mr Saint Mkululi Manyamala.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.
Advocate Steenkamp anything that ...[inaudible]
ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Just for the record's sake, as far as the requirements of Section 19 and 18 is concerned specifically you will see it from the record, Mr Chairman, there was actually two victims in this matter, the first one, Mr Willem Stephanus Fronemann who was actually killed in this incident and then there was also Mr Rush Jennifer Barker who was shot and injured in this incident.
My information is the following, Mr Chairman, regarding the tracing of this witness. She was notified but the notification was sent back to the Commission without being filed on her. The other thing is, Mr Chairman, I specifically asked the Investigation Unit again to go and see if they can find Mrs Barker but to no avail. She left a previous address. Certain enquiries were done in the specific vicinity and even information which we were trying to obtain from the old security firm that used to work at her house was also to no avail.
As far as we are concerned, Mr Chairman, it was not possible to trace the victim at all and I would move to ask the Committee, Mr Chairman with your indulgence, that we proceed with this matter as it stands. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Advocate Steenkamp. In the light of the circumstances that you have placed on record we are satisfied that all reasonable steps have been taken to locate the single remaining victim in this matter and that in the circumstances we will proceed to hear the application.
Mr Shayi, do you want to put anything on record before ...[inaudible]
MR SHAYI: Nothing before, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MR SIBANYONI: Which language are you going to use, Mr Manyamala?
MR MANYAMALA: I'm going to use isiZulu.
SAINT MKULULI MANYAMALA: (sworn states)
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Sibanyoni.
Mr Shayi, over to you.
EXAMINATION BY MR SHAYI: Mr Manyamala, you have brought an application for amnesty for an incident which took place on the 3rd of February 1993 and which led to multiple convictions and sentences, is that correct?
MR MANYAMALA: Yes, that is correct.
MR SHAYI: Now just for your background, where were you born and where were you resident between these incidents?
MR MANYAMALA: When these incidents happened I was staying at Zola North in Soweto where I was born and grew up.
MR SHAYI: And how far have you gone in your education?
MR MANYAMALA: I went as far as standard nine.
MR SHAYI: Now how was the situation in Zola North or in your locality when this incident happened?
MR MANYAMALA: The situation at Zola North were I grew up was such that there wasn't much of violence. We don't have hostels nearby, thank you.
MR SHAYI: Were you a member of any political organisation at that stage?
MR MANYAMALA: Yes.
MR SHAYI: And which political organisation were you belonging to?
MR MANYAMALA: I was a member of the African National Congress.
MR SHAYI: ...[inaudible] were you a straight supporter or were you a card-carrying member of the said organisation?
MR MANYAMALA: I was a card-carrying supporter of the ANC.
MR SHAYI: Now were there any duties that you were doing at that stage for the organisation?
MR MANYAMALA: I was an activist at the time.
MR SHAYI: And how active were you?
MR MANYAMALA: Before this incident happened I had already recruited a self-defence unit which was under the ANC.
MR SHAYI: And what were the duties of the SDU's?
MR MANYAMALA: The duty of the SDU was to defend the people.
MR SHAYI: Defend the people against who specifically?
MR MANYAMALA: Between 1992 and 1993 people were being attacked by the IFP in Soweto. Those were problematic people together with the security forces.
MR SHAYI: Were these people who were attacking the people in Soweto residents in Soweto as well?
MR MANYAMALA: ...[no English translation]
CHAIRPERSON: We might have had some technical difficulty, won't you just repeat the question, Mr Shayi?
MR SHAYI: These people who were attacking residents of Soweto, were they also residents in Soweto?
MR MANYAMALA: Yes, they were residents at the hostels in Soweto.
MR SHAYI: Were they members of any political organisation?
MR MANYAMALA: I would not say that they were members or not but as far as I'm concerned they were followers of the IFP.
MR SHAYI: And what necessitated the formation of these SDU's?
MR MANYAMALA: As I have already explained that people in Soweto were being killed and victimised by these IFP followers, that is the reason that led to the formation of the SDU's.
MR SHAYI: Was this option of forming SDU's formulated by the residents of Soweto or was it an instruction from any political organisation that you were affiliated to?
MR MANYAMALA: If I were to take you back to the time during the negotiations, shortly after the unbanning of the ANC people were being killed, government on the other side was negotiating with liberation movements so that people complained and they appealed that a structure be put in place so that they could be protected.
MR SHAYI: And who came with the solution?
MR MANYAMALA: Shortly, it was the community that came up with this idea.
MR SHAYI: Was it taken to the political organisation itself?
MR MANYAMALA: Yes, here before me I have a statement or a submission that was submitted by the ANC before this very same Committee. There is a passage where the ANC clearly states that people were complaining and appealing to the ANC that a structure be put in place so that they can be protected. I don't know whether it is permissible for me to continue explaining about this.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I see that you have the ANC Submission to the Truth Commission. Do you want to draw our attention to a specific section, specific page in that submission or ...
MR MANYAMALA: I would refer you to paragraph - would you please bear with me, I'm trying to locate the page.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please take your time.
MR MANYAMALA: Okay. Chairperson, I would request that we proceed for now, my lawyer is trying to locate the page.
MR SHAYI: So are you in a position to say that the action by the community was sanctioned, positively sanctioned by the political organisation, namely the ANC?
MR MANYAMALA: Yes, the complaints of the community were complaints that were understood by the ANC, realising that people were dying like flies.
MR SHAYI: Now in the execution of their duties were the SDU's allowed to use any weapons whatsoever?
MR MANYAMALA: I think everybody knows that the ANC is a non-violent organisation but at the time the people who were attacking the community were using arms and therefore we were forced to do the same, use arms to defend ourselves.
MR SHAYI: So do you know whether the said arms were licensed on not?
MR MANYAMALA: These arms I would say we took our own initiatives, these arms did not come from the ANC.
MR SHAYI: In other words they were not licensed?
MR MANYAMALA: That is correct.
MR SHAYI: Now, you belonged to a particular SDU, is that correct?
MR MANYAMALA: That is correct.
MR SHAYI: Now do you know whether there was anybody in the said unit who was dealing directly with a political organisation or were you directly involved with the political organisation in your personal capacity and as a member of the self-defence unit itself?
MR MANYAMALA: We have Thembasi Sinamela a comrade who trained us in self-defence. He is the person to whom we took our complaints and he would take these complaints further.
MR SHAYI: So when you say further, are you referring to the people above, namely the top echelon of the ANC?
MR MANYAMALA: I wouldn't want to elaborate on that because I'm not sure, I was not there, I just knew he took these complaints further.
MR SHAYI: Now briefly can you just tell the Committee what aspects led to the incident on the 3rd of February 1993? In other words what went wrong?
MR MANYAMALA: I would say that we had just been trained, it was after a month of fighting at the township where there is a hostel opposite Mzimhlope. There was a fighting between the SDU against the IFP members. Six guns were lost.
I was a leader or a commander of 12 people within the SDU. I then decided that I should go and try and get hold of other firearms because people were in danger and we were short of firearms. I organised successfully and came back with firearms from Gadafi who resided in Thokoza.
MR SHAYI: When you say that you decided that you should go for firearms, did you personally take the initiatives or did you consult with this comrade Sinamela?
MR MANYAMALA: Myself as a leader or commander of the unit had a responsibility of taking care of anything that was in short supply. I contacted the comrade beforehand and he agreed, knowing what the situation was like.
MR SHAYI: When you said "the comrade", are you referring to comrade Sinamela or this Gadafi?
MR MANYAMALA: I'm talking about comrade Sinamela who was above us in rank.
MR SHAYI: And then after reporting the said incident to comrade Sinamela, what instructions were given to you?
MR MANYAMALA: I explained the situation to comrade Sinamela, indicating to him that guns were lost and I indicated to him that I intent procuring other firearms. He agreed and he said provided I will find them at a good supply so that people are not endangered.
MR SHAYI: Did you at that stage have any contacts as far as firearms are concerned?
MR MANYAMALA: Yes, I tried comrades around Soweto but I failed. And before the 3rd of February 1993 we were at a night vigil at Spruit and that is where I met comrade Gadafi whom I had already met before and I discussed the matter with him and we agreed that we should meet on a particular day at Spruit.
MR SHAYI: This comrade Gadafi did agree to supply you with firearms?
MR MANYAMALA: When I arrived at Spruit he indeed told me that guns were ready and available.
MR SHAYI: Now did you at any stage arrange with him on how the firearms should be collected and on what day?
MR MANYAMALA: When I arrived at Spruit I had thought he would not have organised the guns when I got there. We were travelling in a car that was not in a good condition and I explained to him that I would not be in a position to carry the guns in the car that was in such a bad condition and indicated to him that it's quite a distance from Thokoza to Soweto and should it happen that we are pursued by police along the way, they would definitely apprehend us and should we happen to come across a roadblock we would be arrested. The car was a legal car and it was not safe to transport these guns in this kind of vehicle.
MR SHAYI: And then what solution was given to you by this comrade Gadafi or what decision did you come to to actually get you out of this dilemma?
MR MANYAMALA: Chairperson, let me indicate that Gadafi is not the one who made the decision. I indicated to him that he should lend me his .38 which he did so that I could to and organise a vehicle that could transport the weapons.
MR SHAYI: Now when you moved from Soweto to Spruit, did you have a firearm in your possession?
MR MANYAMALA: As I have explained before, Chairperson, we did not have firearms, we were only in the position to get hold of firearms when we arrived at Spruit after having met comrade Gadafi. I think that's understandable.
MR SHAYI: And then after having been given this .38 and after having decided that you should go for an alternative transportation, what did you do?
MR MANYAMALA: After having received this .38, Gadafi remained behind and he indicated that we will find him at a particular spot when we came back. We moved around but we could not find what we were looking for and we went towards Gosforth Park. As we were approaching we went just behind the golf course where I saw a red Toyota Corolla Twin Cam and I observed that it was a roadworthy vehicle.
At home I have a half-brother who fixes broken cars and I'm used to seeing to seeing roadworthy cards and I realised that that was a car that we could use for the mission.
MR SHAYI: And then were you on your own when you saw this Toyota Corolla?
MR MANYAMALA: As I have explained, I indicated that "we", that means I was not alone, it was the driver, myself and another comrade.
MR SHAYI: And after seeing the motor vehicle, what did you do?
MR MANYAMALA: After seeing the vehicle, myself as a person who is knowledgeable about vehicles, we walked past and, or should I say we drove past the area and took a different direction from the one from which we came and I indicated to one of my comrades to take the left direction.
I went to speak to the driver, a white male and white female who was seemingly a passenger and I requested this person to please get out of the car and he reacted as if he understood what I was saying but he drew his firearm, a 9mm, he may have locked the safety pin, he tried to shoot, I side-stepped, there was nothing that I could have done and then I retaliated.
MR SHAYI: You retaliated by shooting back?
MR MANYAMALA: That is correct.
MR SHAYI: Now at the time of the shooting at this white person, what was in your mind?
MR MANYAMALA: Myself as a kind person was not for the idea of shooting but the situation was such that I was forced to shoot. Our lives were in danger and therefore I was forced to shoot.
MR SHAYI: Now did you hit this white man and the woman as well or was it just the white man?
MR MANYAMALA: I meant to shoot only the male but unfortunately the woman was also hit by a bullet. I don't know whether it is the same bullet that I used to shoot the male. The female died and the male got injured.
MR SHAYI: And at the time of your deserting or of your leaving with this Toyota Corolla ...(intervention)
ADV GCABASHE: Sorry, can I interrupt? I think the interpreter didn't quite understand what the applicant was saying because he interpreted different facts to us as to what the applicant is saying about who died and who survived. He got them mixed up. Can you just go over that testimony?
MR MANYAMALA: ...[no English translation]
ADV GCABASHE: It was simply just getting the persons mixed up, who died and who survived, that's all.
MR SHAYI: Now Mr Manyamala, who was hit ...(intervention)
MR MANYAMALA: Let me put it this way, I shot the male and he died. The female was hit by what I can call a cross-bullet, she didn't die.
MR SHAYI: And then when you drove off in the motor vehicle were you aware that the female was still alive?
MR MANYAMALA: Yes, we opened the door because our intention was not to kill her. We opened the door and she got out and we drove away.
MR SHAYI: Then did you finally load the firearms?
MR MANYAMALA: Do you mean the guns that we were to pick up from Gadafi or which ones?
MR SHAYI: Yes, the ones which were to be picked up from Gadafi.
MR MANYAMALA: Yes, that is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: What did you do with the other body of the deceased?
MR MANYAMALA: We removed the body from the vehicle, put it on the grass and we drove away in the vehicle. We also took the gun which he was using to try and shoot us.
MR SHAYI: What were you intending to do with the motor vehicle after you had acquired the firearms?
MR MANYAMALA: After loading the firearms our intention was to drive from Thokoza to Soweto, deliver the arms, after which I ordered the comrades in my company to go and burn the vehicle. The reason being that the police should not be able to trace us.
MR SHAYI: Would it have made any difference whether the occupants of the motor vehicle were of any race but the white race?
MR MANYAMALA: That would not make any difference because we were not after the skins, a person's skin colour but we wanted the vehicle.
MR SHAYI: And you were later arrested and brought before the Court of law.
MR MANYAMALA: That is correct.
MR SHAYI: And in the Court itself you pleaded not guilty and you denied everything, is that correct?
MR MANYAMALA: That is correct.
MR SHAYI: Mr Chairman, no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR SHAYI
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Advocate Steenkamp, any questions?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, if you would allow me just one or two questions.
Sir, as I understand it you took the car and the gun, is that all you took from the deceased or the two occupants, only the car and the gun?
MR MANYAMALA: As far as I'm concerned those are the only two things that we took because we found nothing in the boot, we just wanted the car. Fortunately we also got a firearm.
ADV STEENKAMP: What about the handbag of the lady with all her personal belongings, what about that, didn't you take that?
MR MANYAMALA: I did not see a handbag, I don't know whether it was taken away with the car when it was going to be burnt or not. I wouldn't say yes or no but I personally did not see it.
ADV STEENKAMP: Because this was uncontested in Court that only after you'd killed the deceased you took the lady's handbag with the gun.
MR MANYAMALA: That is news to me, I did not see any bag. It may have been in the cubby-hole, not in the boot but really, I did not look around inside the car. I wouldn't say yes, there was a bag or not, I'm not in a position to say.
ADV STEENKAMP: When you told the Supreme Court, via your advocate, that you were never on the scene you lied to the Supreme Court, is that correct?
MR MANYAMALA: Let me briefly explain that I pleaded not guilty in Court, the reason being that after my arrest I was not treated well by the police and I was not treated well in Court and I realised that I was already convicted. That is why I pleaded not guilty.
ADV STEENKAMP: No, no, no, Sir, my question is, you told the Supreme Court specifically on page 36 that you were never on the scene, that would be your testimony, is that correct? Is that what you said to the Court, because this is part of the record? Now my question to you is you lied to the Supreme Court. I can maybe just ask you the follow-up question, are you also applying for perjury for when you testified in the Supreme Court or not or are you also applying for amnesty?
ADV GCABASHE: Mr Steenkamp ...(intervention)
MR MANYAMALA: Yes, I told lies in Court but I am here to divulge the truth.
ADV STEENKAMP: Are you also applying for amnesty for that?
MR MANYAMALA: As far as I am concerned the Court is not the same thing as the Truth Commission. I'm here to ask amnesty for killing the male and wounding the woman and taking the firearm.
ADV STEENKAMP: Can I ask you maybe to look at page 13 of the bundle, Mr Chairman. My question and I'm referring to paragraph 21, Mr Chairman.
Maybe you can help us - sorry, you don't have that in front of you.
MR MANYAMALA: No.
ADV STEENKAMP: You see there, paragraph 21
"Firearms used by the unit were provided to us by comrade Sinamela and these were three AK47s, 9 shotguns."
And if you look at paragraph 22 at page 40, Mr Chairman:
"The ammunition was also provided by comrade Sinamela but addition ammunition was obtained from various sources and sympathisers, some of whom were policemen."
Are you also applying for amnesty for possession of the three AK47s and the 9 shotguns?
MR MANYAMALA: Is that a statement or a question?
ADV STEENKAMP: It's a question Sir, are you applying for amnesty for those guns and ammunition because I don't see it in your original amnesty application?
MR MANYAMALA: The guns that appear here were not found by the police and I was not prosecuted for them, I was only prosecuted and sentenced for killing and taking the firearm away from the person that I had killed.
ADV STEENKAMP: I think you misunderstand me Sir. According to this additional statement of yours it seems to me that you were also in possession of these firearms and my question to you is are you also applying for amnesty for the possession of these firearms, because in the statement you admit being in possession of them. Do you understand my question?
MR MANYAMALA: Mr Chairman, before answering I would like to confer with my attorney.
MR MANYAMALA: Yes, Chairperson, this amnesty application I did it at the time before consulting with my attorney. I did not discuss the firearms in my application form, I only discussed the .38 and the 9mm and now that these guns are included here I would say yes, I include them in my application for amnesty.
ADV STEENKAMP: I'm sure that is for the Chairperson to decide, whether or not this will be amended, whether or not your application will be allowed to be amended. I'm sure that is for the Chairperson to decide.
My next question to you Sir is, was it ANC policy to rob people of their vehicles, take their personal possessions and kill them at the scene? Do you understand that as part of ANC policy?
MR MANYAMALA: The policy of the African National Congress is silent on attacking people. You must understand that we were engaged in a struggle. I would not have used sacks or bags to transport these in a train. I was engaged in a struggle here.
ADV STEENKAMP: Maybe just a yes or no, was this part of ANC policy as you understood it or not?
MR MANYAMALA: No, it was not policy of the ANC.
ADV STEENKAMP: And you say this was not a racial attack, am I right?
MR MANYAMALA: Would you please repeat your question, my gadget is dysfunctional and now I don't know what's happening.
ADV STEENKAMP: I'm just trying to confirm your evidence that you said in chief that this was never intended to be a racial attack or conflict at all, am I right?
MR MANYAMALA: Yes, that was not an intention, it was not meant to be a racial attack.
ADV STEENKAMP: The reason why I'm asking this is because looking at your amnesty application, page 3 if I maybe can refer the Honourable Chairperson and the Committee Members to page 3 and specifically paragraph 10(b), the first five lines.
Do you have that in front of you, Sir?
MR MANYAMALA: Will you please give me a chance so that I can browse through?
ADV STEENKAMP: I would just refer you to the first five lines or maybe the fifth line to be exact. I will read for you there. I will start with the sentence
"I mean"
This is the third sentence ...(intervention)
MR MANYAMALA: Okay, I have identified the paragraph. I believed that ...(intervention)
ADV STEENKAMP: Can you listen to my question first?
MR MANYAMALA: Okay.
ADV STEENKAMP: I will read for you from
"I mean if the previous didn't practice maladministration to the native of this beloved country by killing them because of their skin colour ..."
What did you mean by this sentence or paragraph?
MR MANYAMALA: I am trying to explain here that many people who were victimised were victimised by the police who were serving the them racist government.
ADV STEENKAMP: Are you saying people were killed because of their skin colour, is this what you're saying here?
MR MANYAMALA: Yes, that was the case insofar as the previous government was concerned.
ADV STEENKAMP: Was this the reason why you attacked the white people in this car, was this your motivation?
MR MANYAMALA: No, this is not the motivation. I have already indicated here before that I did not intend to kill a white person. It didn't matter whether the person behind the steering wheel was black or white. It just happened that the person was at the scene at the wrong time.
ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, I didn't want to waste your time, if you can bear with me with one or two questions. I'm nearly finished.
Sir, maybe you can answer this question for me. You're saying today to this Committee that this accident or incident was politically motivated, may I ask you why there doesn't appear a shred of evidence in the whole of the Court record about this politically motivated incident as you put before the Committee today? Nothing in the Court record indicates at all that this incident was politically motivated, why didn't you put that before the Judge when you had the opportunity? Can you explain this to me please?
MR MANYAMALA: I think you must have forgotten what I've said here earlier on. I did not want to admit guilt in Court because I have already suffered victimisation at the hands of the Court officials and the police and thirdly, I was convicted before I appeared before the Court of law because the attorney at the time told me that I would be given, or sentenced to 25 years if I pleaded guilty and if not I'd be sentenced to death.
ADV STEENKAMP: Why was this never put before the Judge maybe as a mitigating factor before sentence, that you had a politically motivated motive when this incident happened? You were under instructions, you believed that this was ANC policy, why didn't you tell the Judge that?
MR MANYAMALA: I don't know whether you understood my answers. I indicated to you just now that I did not say or render that testimony because of the attitude of the Court officials.
ADV STEENKAMP: My last question to you, maybe you could elaborate on that. What was the attitude of the Court officials, was there a problem with any of the Court officials and if so, did you discuss this with your attorney or did you tell the Judge about this?
Thank you, Mr Chairman, that will my questions.
MR MANYAMALA: When I explained everything to my attorney I indicated to him and I said to him that the confession statement was compiled in an illegal way and I requested him to expose it and he told me that all the testimony that appears in that statement convicts me. He indicated to me that he was going to try as much as he could to convince the Court insofar as the confession statement is concerned.
ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV STEENKAMP
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Advocate Steenkamp.
Can you just explain to us the person that you referred to as comrade Sinamela, you say that he was a higher ranking official than yourself, is that correct?
MR MANYAMALA: Yes, that is correct. He is the one who was training us within the self-defence unit.
CHAIRPERSON: And was he a member of any political organisation?
MR MANYAMALA: Comrade Sinamela was a member of the ANC and he was also an MK soldier.
CHAIRPERSON: And you would normally report to him within the activities of the self-defence unit?
MR MANYAMALA: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: And did you assume that he would then report further, either to MK or to the ANC?
MR MANYAMALA: I wouldn't say the MK because the MK had already been disbanded at the time but I would think of the ANC. I knew that he was reporting to the ANC but to whom exactly in terms of position or ranking I would not say.
CHAIRPERSON: So you saw him as a link between the self-defence unit and the ANC?
MR MANYAMALA: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: And you had reported to him that your unit had lost some of the weapons and that you were going to look for ways of finding new weapons for the use of your unit?
MR MANYAMALA: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: And did he agree that you can go ahead and do that?
MR MANYAMALA: Yes, he did but I would like to explain briefly as to how he agreed. He agreed with the full knowledge that the African National Congress did not bring back home trucks and horse and trailers full of firearms.
CHAIRPERSON: So he knew that you had to use your own initiative to find ways and means of getting firearms for the unit?
MR MANYAMALA: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: And what he in fact did was to confirm that you should use your initiative and get weapons for the unit?
MR MANYAMALA: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Did he at any stage repudiate you, did he at any stage indicate to you that he disagreed with the way in which you went about procuring these arms?
MR MANYAMALA: You see comrade Sinamela was a matured person politically speaking. He was trained as a guerrilla, he knew what was happening in a war situation. I did not struggle explaining the situation to him, he understood and he agreed with me.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Are you there any other questions? Mr Sibanyoni?
MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.
Mr Manyamala, I heard you saying after the use of the vehicle the intention was to destroy it so that you could not be traced by the police, was it because of the shooting incident or even if the vehicle was handed over to you without any resistance, would you still dispose of the vehicle?
MR MANYAMALA: I'd like to rectify your statement if you say we tried to burn it. I ordered that it be burnt. You see if supposing nobody was hurt or shot we would still burn the car so that no testimony or evidence should I say, could lead to our arrest.
MR SIBANYONI: The reason I'm asking you this question is, we have heard of incidents where comrades use other people's property, like a motor vehicle but after using that motor vehicle they would take it and abandon it somewhere. Now I'm asking you to tell us the reason why was the vehicle supposed to be disposed of instead of being abandoned somewhere after it has been used?
MR MANYAMALA: As I have explained Chairperson, the intention behind the burning of the vehicle, myself as a person in charge of the unit was thinking about the possibility of police locating the vehicle and securing fingerprints that my lead or could lead to our arrest.
MR SIBANYONI: Was the vehicle eventually burnt?
MR MANYAMALA: The vehicle was not burnt. The comrades who were operating under my command were not trustworthy, they vehicle was subsequently recovered from them and this led to my arrest. That is why they did not apply for amnesty, because I told them that for example I indicated to them that we all went to look for a car and after the car was used for that purpose I indicated to them that they should burn the vehicle and should it happen that it transpires later on that they did not burn the car I will not take that responsibility because you defied my orders.
MR SIBANYONI: When you approached this vehicle or these people sitting in this vehicle, did you expect them not to offer any resistance from you taking the vehicle from them?
MR MANYAMALA: As far as I am concerned, as a peace-loving person, I did not expect any shoot-out between the two of us.
MR SIBANYONI: If they didn't resist, if they surrendered and let you have the vehicle, what would you do after using the vehicle, what would you do with the vehicle after using it?
MR MANYAMALA: I did explain earlier on and I'm going to explain today or now that it was not important whether a person was hurt in the process or not, what's important is that the car had to be burnt after it has fulfilled its use.
MR SIBANYONI: Last question, if the gentleman in the car didn't offer resistance would you have still shot at him?
MR MANYAMALA: As I have explained that I'm a peace-loving person I would not have shot him if he were not fighting.
MR SIBANYONI: No further questions, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Sibanyoni. Advocate Gcabashe?
ADV GCABASHE: Thank you, Chair.
I have a couple of questions. Let's start with Soweto. You lived in Zola?
MR MANYAMALA: That is correct.
ADV GCABASHE: Essentially the SDU that you were part of operated in Meadowlands at Mzimhlope? This is what you have testified, is that correct?
MR MANYAMALA: Yes, that's how I testified but the unit that I led operated near hostels in three places, Meadowlands, Motelsani near Merafi Hostel and Jabulani near a hostel.
ADV GCABASHE: Now did this SDU unit report to any particular local ANC structure, because in 1993 there were branches all over the place? How did you operate in relation to the ANC?
MR MANYAMALA: I have already explained but because I'm patient I will explain again. I was commander of the unit and there was another person above myself and that is the person who liaised with the ANC. He is the one that I reported to and he would report further.
ADV GCABASHE: I heard that explanation but the question is a very different question. You were a card-carrying member of the ANC, yes?
MR MANYAMALA: That is correct.
ADV GCABASHE: You were also a member of a particular SDU, yes?
MR MANYAMALA: That is correct.
ADV GCABASHE: That SDU was a structure of the ANC?
MR MANYAMALA: That is correct.
ADV GCABASHE: The ANC had been unbanned in 1993, preparations were being made for the elections, there was a lot of trouble around, I don't dispute that. What I am asking is, in relation to your mother organisation, the ANC, you as a card-carrying member of that ANC, which branch did you relate to? Where did you get that card?
MR MANYAMALA: From the Zola branch.
ADV GCABASHE: So you chairman, your secretary, everybody at the Zola branch knew that you were a member, that's not disputed. Out at Meadowlands, how did you relate your ANC activities to your activities, your activist activities at Meadowlands? How did you connect the two, your chairman and secretary who knew you and what you were doing for your organisation but in a totally different area that's a long way from Zola?
MR MANYAMALA: I am trying to explain here that at the time during which the struggle was still very strong, fighting the apartheid system, we used to use a slogan to the effect that an injury to one is an injury to all(?) and at the time there wasn't much of violence in Zola and therefore we decided to go and assist in other areas where the violence was rife.
ADV GCABASHE: Now did your branch, be it your chairman, your secretary, anybody at your branch, know about your activities out in Meadowlands or was it only Sinamela who knew about your activities in that locality?
MR MANYAMALA: Let me explain that our chairman knew about the existence of the self-defence units but I would not agree or disagree that he knew or not about certain things because we fed information or reported to Sinamela.
ADV GCABASHE: Let's go to Spruitview ...(intervention)
MR MANYAMALA: No, Spruitview, Natal Spruit or Thokoza.
ADV GCABASHE: Thank you, it was said to us it was Spruitview and I happened to know Spruitview which is why I was ... Let's go to Thokoza and Gadafi and the fact that on the day you arrived he had these firearms. My question is, knowing you had a car that was not quite roadworthy, that you were not too comfortable about in relation to transporting the firearms, what was the urgency in finding a better car there and then? Can I follow it up with a related question? Why couldn't you sit down and plan either as a group or with Gadafi, on how to transport these without repossessing somebody else's vehicle?
MR MANYAMALA: I earlier on explained that I met comrade Gadafi at a night vigil and he told me to come and see him on the day which the incident occurred. We had not any idea at the time that he had already procured firearms.
When we arrived there he told us that firearms were already available. I had to go and try to get hold of a vehicle because our people were dying and we wanted to do everything as quick as possible so that people's lives could be saved.
ADV GCABASHE: So you in your judgement felt it was important to immediately transport those firearms back to Soweto, there was no room for thinking about how else to do it?
MR MANYAMALA: Yes, that is correct. People were dying and sometimes our heads would jam, we would not think properly. We just wanted to come up with a solution to make it a point that our people are safe.
ADV GCABASHE: Now correct me if I'm wrong, in your testimony you say that you looked around for a vehicle and couldn't find one and then decided to go to Gosforth Park but you looked somewhere else first. Tell me if I'm wrong, before you went - you didn't go directly to Gosforth, is that correct?
MR MANYAMALA: That is correct. I explained that on that very same day we did not find any vehicle that was suitable for the job, in town that is.
ADV GCABASHE: I want to know where you looked before you went to Gosforth Park.
MR MANYAMALA: Let me not tell a lie here, I'm not quite familiar with Germiston and I was not even familiar with Gosforth Park at the time, I just knew that that was a place for horse races and that's where we landed. I only got to know that it is Gosforth Park after my arrest.
ADV GCABASHE: So you were really not expecting to find a car at Gosforth Park, you just happened to come across a car that looked suitable, by sheer chance?
MR MANYAMALA: That is correct.
ADV GCABASHE: Now the woman who was in that motor vehicle gave evidence in Court and page 35 of the Judgment - I want to come back to the handbag issue because I have understood that you were really the leader of the group of three and my understanding is correct, isn't it?
MR MANYAMALA: That is correct, I was leading these three people but I don't want to bind myself to the evidence about the bag because I did not see one.
ADV GCABASHE: Who did all the talking as of the time that you to this motor vehicle?
MR MANYAMALA: Would you please explain, I don't understand as to who was talking and saying what.
ADV GCABASHE: You approached this motor vehicle and my perception is you were in charge, so my perception is the plan was you would do all the talking essentially because you approached the driver, am I correct in this?
MR MANYAMALA: Ourselves as activists within the ANC do not take solo decisions, we would put our heads together and discuss a matter.
ADV GCABASHE: Yes, so what had you discussed, who was going to do the talking, because I'm sure you didn't expect the two of you to be giving instructions at the same time? I could be wrong. What did you discuss and then what actually happened? What did you discuss and how did you go about putting those discussions into operation?
MR MANYAMALA: Yes, I was in charge of the unit. I came up with ideas that I am the one who should carry the firearm because I have knowledge about firearms, so that nothing should go wrong. I also explained this to comrade Sinamela.
ADV GCABASHE: You see the reason I ask this is, if you were at the driver's door and your colleague was at the passenger door and your colleague spoke to this particular woman about her handbag, is it possible that you would not have heard him? Just explain because you were there, you can explain it best.
MR MANYAMALA: Let me explain this. There is something that I did not explain quite well. My colleague on the left-hand side of the vehicle stood there and the window was closed. He broke it. I am the one who was talking to the people, the window was closed on the other side.
ADV GCABASHE: I'm sorry I think the interpreter - you were going a little fast, he missed a little bit about what you were saying but from trying to listen to both you are saying that the passenger window was closed and the comrade on the other side broke that window. I didn't quite get that, what I'd like to know is did you not hear him say anything at all, certainly to this particular woman about this bag? Because the record on page 35 speaks about a bag that was taken. She may have been lying, you are best able to help us with that. I don't know.
MR MANYAMALA: Let me take my time and go slower. As I was on the right-hand side, my colleague on the left-hand side, the window on the left-hand side where the lady was sitting was closed and when the first gunshot was fired I retreated and retaliated. It is only then that my colleague broke the window. I would not tell a lie and say I heard him talk because there was an exchange of gunfire at the time.
ADV GCABASHE: Then you got into the driver's seat and did the driving, is that right?
MR MANYAMALA: No, after shooting him my colleague after breaking the window unlocked the door, took the woman out, came to the other side of the driver's seat, we pulled the white man who was already lying down and I took the left-hand seat and we fled.
ADV GCABASHE: And you saw no handbag as you sat on the passenger's seat?
MR MANYAMALA: No, I did not see any handbag.
ADV GCABASHE: Then a final question, when did you find out that the motor vehicle had not been burnt?
MR MANYAMALA: I learnt about this on the day during which I was arrested at dawn because the police came and they asked whether I was Saint Manyamala and I said yes and they indicated that they had come to arrest me for stealing a car at Gosforth Park and killing a white male and injuring a white female. It then occurred to me that that is how the evidence led to me. My comrades met me after my instruction and they told me that they had burnt the car but I learnt later on that they were telling me lies.
ADV GCABASHE: I know I'd said that was the last question but there is one I missed when I was asking you about arriving at Gosforth Park and the car at Gosforth Park. How did you get there, were you walking or in the other car that you were not happy with? How did you get to Gosforth Park?
MR MANYAMALA: We went to Gosforth Park by car and we took the back side of Gosforth Park, we drove past this red vehicle, parked our vehicle further down and we walked back towards the car that we had seen parking or parked somewhere.
ADV GCABASHE: Thank you. Mr Shayi?
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR SHAYI: Thank you, Mr Chair.
Now Sir, you say during your cross-examination that when you were in Court you never disclosed the whole truth, is that correct?
MR MANYAMALA: That is correct.
MR SHAYI: And you say this was on the advice of your attorney who said that you will be given 25 years or death if you were to plead guilty, is that correct?
MR MANYAMALA: That is correct. That's one of the reasons yes, and the police had already harassed me. At the time there was an Interim Constitution, there was a clause in the Constitution, if I'm not mistaken, a clause which indicated that police or anybody else does not have a right to harass or intimidate any other person.
MR SHAYI: And you are here today to disclose the whole truth?
MR MANYAMALA: That is correct.
MR SHAYI: And you say ...(indistinct)
INTERPRETER: Chairperson, the speaker's mike is off.
MR SHAYI: Thanks, Mr Chairman.
You say that although your branch was in Zola, you were in the SDU in Meadowlands, is that correct?
MR MANYAMALA: That is correct.
MR SHAYI: Was there any danger that was caused by the hostel dwellers to the Zola residents?
MR MANYAMALA: Very much so.
MR SHAYI: And between Zola and Meadowlands, which is closer to the hostel?
MR MANYAMALA: Would you please repeat that question?
MR SHAYI: Which is closer between Zola and Meadowlands to the hostel that you were protecting the resident against?
MR MANYAMALA: Meadowlands is nearer to the hostel. I agree that the people of the hostel were creating problems in Zola because these IFP members did not car whether it was nearer the hostel or not. As long as they were assigned to carry out those duties, they would go out and carry out those duties regardless of whether the spot was nearer the hostel or not.
MR SHAYI: I'm now referring to the answers that you gave relating to the Court record on page 35, on the handbag. You say that you weren't aware that your colleague was actually talking to this lady about the handbag, is that correct?
MR MANYAMALA: Would you please explain, you're talking about two females, there was one female. Would you please explain that, I don't understand quite well?
MR SHAYI: Ja, you say that your colleague who was on the left-hand side of the vehicle where the lady was seated didn't, as far as you are concerned, talk about the handbag or you never heard him talking to the lady about the handbag, that is your colleague, is that correct?
MR MANYAMALA: As I have already explain after breaking the window, he actually broke the window after the gunfire because the window was closed all along. For example if a gun were to be fired now each one of us would try to save themselves, that is why I'm not in a position to say whether he did speak about the handbag or not.
MR SHAYI: But if there were any valuable items in the motor vehicle, would he have had an interest in them?
MR MANYAMALA: If there was anything that I had seen in the vehicle, because I'm the one who was in charge, first of all we were not after people's property, we were only forced by the situation to take the car. Had it not been so I would not have instructed my underlings to go and burn the vehicle after its use had been fulfilled.
MR SHAYI: No further questions, Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR SHAYI
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Can you just indicate to me, Mr Shayi, have you managed to find the portion in the ANC Submission on SDU's?
MR SHAYI: May I beg Mr Chairman's indulgence in ...(indistinct), I thought that my colleague was actually busy perusing it. Mr Chairman, according to the instructions that I have, that are relayed to me by my colleague here, it seems as if it's just a general layout of how the SDU's would actually operate and this is actually listed on page 64 of the submission of the ANC of documents itself.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Is that the testimony of the applicant?
MR SHAYI: That would be the case for the applicant, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Advocate Steenkamp, is there any other witness?
ADV STEENKAMP: No further witnesses, thank you, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Are you able to address us, Mr Shayi?
MR SHAYI: Mr Chairman, we actually were of the opinion that we would actually move for an adjournment until tomorrow morning for summation. Before doing that I would actually move for an application after having consulted with client on the three weapons that are mentioned in the affidavit, to likewise move for an amendment to actually seek amnesty in relation to those other weapons.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but I just want to understand, are you saying you're not in a position to address us?
MR SHAYI: Yes, maybe tomorrow morning, Mr Chairman, if an indulgence can be sought, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Well we have reached about quarter past four in the afternoon. We have unfortunately through circumstances which could not be controlled by us entirely, not been able to commence at the normal time this morning. I am about adjourn the proceedings but perhaps before I do that, were you going to make the application for the amendment now or what is your position in regard to it? Can I just get clarity on that as well?
MR SHAYI: If the Committee allows I'm made to actually move the application from where I am, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Yes, you are able to motivate one if you so wish. Did you intend to do it now?
MR SHAYI: That will be in order, Mr Chairman. May I just be given a short recess, maybe two minutes just to consult with him or maybe I can bring it prior the summation tomorrow morning?
CHAIRPERSON: No, okay, if you're not in a position to do it straight away then I'm going to adjourn the proceedings in any event until tomorrow. So you might as well bring your application for the amendment and to address us on the merits of the application then tomorrow morning.
MR SHAYI: As the Committee pleases.
CHAIRPERSON: We will be adjourning the proceedings now until tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock when we will reconvene and finalise the matter which we are presently hearing. We're adjourned.
WITNESS EXCUSED
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
