Amnesty Hearings

CHAIRPERSON: Today we are proceeding with the application of Mr John Radebe in respect of the killing Ms Ndumo and the attempted murder of Ms Elsie Mokoena.

Ms Moloisane, are you ready to proceed?

MS MOLOISANE: ...(indistinct)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

MR LAX: Sorry, could you just switch your microphone on, thank you.

MS MOLOISANE: Madam Chair and Committee Members, we are in a position to proceed with this application, and we haven't prepared any supplementary affidavit. At this stage I wish to call the applicant, Njanjana John Radebe.

CHAIRPERSON: Is he going to testify in Sesotho?

MS MOLOISANE: He has indicated to me that he is willing to testify in Sesotho. He's not that well-conversant in English and he therefore prefers to present his evidence in Sesotho.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Radebe, will you please rise. Are you prepared to take an oath?

JOHN RADEBE: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: You may be seated. You may proceed, Ms Moloisane.

EXAMINATION BY MS MOLOISANE: As it pleases you, Madam Chair and Committee Members.

Mr Radebe, you are in prison right now, serving a period of 13 years for having committed two counts of murder - let me rephrase this, Madam Chair.

You are in prison right now, serving a term of imprisonment of 13 years, is that correct?

MR RADEBE: Yes, that is correct.

MS MOLOISANE: And you were convicted on two counts of murder and possession of arms and ammunition, is that correct?

MR RADEBE: That is correct.

MS MOLOISANE: Let me put it this way, you were first convicted for the murder of one, Maletsatsi Marumo, is that not so?

MR RADEBE: That is correct.

MS MOLOISANE: And later on you were convicted for the murder of Hapile Ndumo and for the assault on Elsie Mokoena, is that correct?

MR RADEBE: That is correct.

MS MOLOISANE: Briefly tell this Committee the circumstances surrounding the murder of Maletsatsi Marumo in 1992.

CHAIRPERSON: I thought by agreement, we had all agreed that we will get the testimony from Mr Radebe in respect of the killing of Ms Ndumo and the assault of Ms Mokoena first because the Evidence Leader has to lead evidence of Ms Mokoena in respect of that particular incident and thereafter you'll be given an opportunity to call Mr Radebe to give evidence in respect of the killing of Maletsatsi.

MS MOLOISANE: As it please you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: So we would expect him to give evidence only in respect of the Ndumo and Mokoena incident, for now, and once that incident has been testified to by him we'll then afford the Evidence Leader an opportunity of proceeding to lead evidence of Ms Mokoena.

MS MOLOISANE: As it pleases you Madam Chair.

Now you and your co-accused were accused of the murder of Hapile Ndumo, the assault, you were convicted of the murder of Hapile Ndumo, the assault on Elsie Mokoena and the illegal possession of arms and ammunition, together with your co-accused in that case, Samuel Neti, Abraham Mkhwanazi and Borman Letsulo(?), is that correct?

MR RADEBE: That is correct.

MS MOLOISANE: And you are currently in prison, serving a term of 13 years, is that correct?

MR RADEBE: That is correct.

MS MOLOISANE: Now tell this Committee about the circumstances that led to the events of the 15th of August 1993 in Sebokeng, that is that led to the killing of Hapile Ndumo and to the assault on Elsie Mokoena and to the possession of those arms and ammunitions illegally. Proceed.

MR RADEBE: It was in 1993 on the 15th of August, it was on Sunday. I was at Small Farm, my two comrades arrived, that is Borman Letsulo and Abraham Mkhwanazi. They were on their way to Zone 7. I requested them that we should start at Ndluli's place, then I'll accompany them to Zone 7 so that they will be able to see one person there at the tavern. We agreed that we should start at Ndluli's place ...(intervention)

MR LAX: Could you just slow down a little bit please. We are very worried that what you say will not be interpreted if you're going too fast. It also makes it very difficult for us to take the notes down. Do you understand?

MR RADEBE: ...(no English interpretation)

MR LAX: So if you could please, without interfering in the way you testify, just try and be a little bit slower, it would really help all of us, thanks.

Just to say this, you said it was a Sunday, you were at Small Farm, your comrades, Letsulo and Mkhwanazi stopped, they were on their way to Zone 7, you requested them to pass - I didn't catch the name, was it Ndluli's tavern, Ndluli's place?

MR RADEBE: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAX: Carry on from there please.

MR RADEBE: We arrived at that tavern, the three of us, we entered the tavern. I looked for the person whom I was looking for and then he was not present there. When we went outside I informed my comrades that I saw Hapile and Elsie inside the tavern.

As I knew that those people were wanted within Sebokeng community that is why I informed my comrades that we should take these people to the office in Zone 12 ...(intervention)

MS MOLOISANE: You said they were wanted, would you please explain to this Committee why were they wanted, why do you say they were wanted?

MR RADEBE: It was in regard to the murders which prevailed in Sebokeng, about the shootings of innocent people. We called them. They went outside the tavern and we stood outside.

CHAIRPERSON: Did what? - you caught them?

MR RADEBE: I called them at the gate in the tavern. It was myself, Letsulo, Abraham Mkhwanazi, Hapile Ndumo and Elsie Mokoena. I told them that you are wanted within Sebokeng community. Hapile replied and said: "We know that we are wanted, but about what?" I told them that at this time we cannot talk much about those issues. I confronted Elsie that we are going to Zone 12 now.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Radebe, try and give your evidence at a pace that will enable the translator to translate everything that you are saying and enable the Committee as well as the Evidence Leader to take down that which is being translated from Sesotho into English by the translators. So try and be a little slower.

MR LAX: Can you just go back please. You said you were at the gate outside the tavern having called them, there was Elsie and yourself and your comrades and then a discussion takes place at that point, just continue from there. If you wouldn't mind just repeating the details of the discussion to us please.

MR RADEBE: I was the one who was talking and then I told that: "You know that you are wanted in Sebokeng", and then I told them: "I request you to go to Zone 12 in the office". That is when Elsie Mokoena said she is not going there. I wanted to verify as to whether she is not prepared to go there, then she said she's not prepared, then I asked her for a second time that is she not prepared to go, then I took the pistol, that is a 7.65. I shot her twice.

MS MOLOISANE: Why were you having a pistol in your possession?

MR RADEBE: It was for my protection and to protect the Sebokeng community. I used to have it all the time with me because we were patrolling ...(intervention)

MR LAX: ...(indistinct) 7,65.

MS MOLOISANE: In what capacity?

MR RADEBE: There were IFP groups who were staying at Kwamadala Hostel. Always they would enter in Sebokeng and shoot people, people who were defenceless, to a point where we as comrades met and discussed about that problem. That is where we formed the Self Defence Unit. That is why all the time we would be armed to protect people, our people, from the people who were shooting the community. Because at times a car would just enter the township and they would start shooting, then I'd be unarmed, so at all times I would have that pistol so as to protect myself and the community.

MS MOLOISANE: You said you were a member of the Self Defence Unit, was it aligned to any political organisation?

MR RADEBE: Yes, it was aligned to the ANC.

MS MOLOISANE: Who formed this Self Defence Unit? I mean what I want is somebody in authority who formulated this unit.

MR RADEBE: May you please repeat your question.

MS MOLOISANE: How were these units formed, by whom?

MR RADEBE: They were not there before. There was an Inkatha group or Inkatha groups which were killing people in Sebokeng communities, to a point where people went outside for MK trainings. They came up with the idea and they said we are present and we are here as MK cadres.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm going to stop you there. I'm not on the same page as you, Ms Moloisane. You are now asking him questions about something which is completely different to what he was busy testifying to. He was right in the middle of giving us testimony in respect of a particular incident and you're questioning elicits information which is completely different to what he was still busy testifying. It's going to play havoc with our record. However, he is also not responding to your questions.

MS MOLOISANE: Madam Chair, we will tackle this at a later stage. I will ask the applicant to proceed with the events as they happened on the 15th of April, on the 15th of August '93.

Mr Radebe, let's go back to the events of the 15th of August 1993 outside the tavern. After having shot Elsie Mokoena twice, what happened?

MR RADEBE: She ran away. There was a two-roomed house around the tavern, she ran into the two-roomed house. Hapile ran inside the tavern. I had two pistols with, on me. I took another pistol and gave it to Mkhwanazi. A 7.62. Mkhwanazi chased the one who entered the tavern, then I chased the one who ran inside the 2-roomed house. I found people inside that 2-roomed house. When I looked ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Try and be slow again Mr Radebe, sorry. We must plead with you, we have to take notes of what you are saying and we’ve got to make sure that there are no errors in the interpretation. If you don’t speak in a slower fashion your evidence will not be interpreted properly by the translators. We don’t want you to have any errors in the evidence that will be translated by the interpreters to us, so try and give your evidence at a pace that will enable him to translate properly everything that you say in Sesotho. Now you were still saying that you had two pistols in your possession and that you gave one to Mkhwanazi and that Mkhwanazi ran after Hapile whilst you ran after Elsie. Do I have that correct?

MR RADEBE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Then let’s proceed.

MR RADEBE: Whilst I was chasing Elsie she has already entered the 2-roomed house. When I entered at the kitchen I found people inside that house. Then I requested them to show where the person who ran into that house is. They said she did not enter in that particular room and I told them that I saw her running inside that house and that I would search for her and shoot her in the house. When they saw that I was serious they instructed her to get out of the room. She went outside, then I pointed a gun at her, then I pointed her to the direction where she should take. I returned to the point where we were before, next to the gate, then I found that Abraham Mkhwanazi went outside to wait for me. Abraham Mkhwanazi, I found him pointing a gun at Hapile. We took them to Zone 12. On our way to Zone 12 I discovered that the guns we had had no bullets, then I came with an idea that we should start at Mr Sipapo’s place, that is a person who was helping us in that regard. ...(intervention)

MR LAX: Sorry, just repeat the name for me please.

MR RADEBE: Mr Sipapo. Sipapo.

ADV BOSMAN: Is he also known as Stanley?

MR RADEBE: No, that’s not the one.

CHAIRPERSON: You said something about Mr Sipapo having helped you. In what respect?

MR RADEBE: He was helping us with the bullets. We felt that that is a place where we would want to go to get with the comrades, and then we don’t have transport, that’s the one, the person who was helping us with transport all the time, but in many instances he used to help us with the ammunition because he had a licensed firearm.

CHAIRPERSON: Was Mr Sipapo’s residence on your way and road to Zone 12? Did you have to go past Mr Sipapo’s place?

MR RADEBE: It’s not on the way to Zone 12, but it’s not far from the route we took.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you deliberately take a different route in order to go to Sipapo’s place for your ammunition?

MR RADEBE: It was only myself and Mkhwanazi who took a different route. We instructed the others to wait for us somewhere, and then we took a different route to Sipapo’s place.

CHAIRPERSON: Well you’ve not stated that in your evidence. At what stage did you decide to go to Sipapo’s place for ammunition, and where exactly did you leave the others, and what do you mean by the others?

MR RADEBE: When I say others I mean Hapile Ndumo, Elsie Mokoena and Letsolo. I left another gun to Letsolo. I went with Abraham Mkhwanazi to Sipapo’s place, because they were not aware that we did not have the ammunition with us.

CHAIRPERSON: Now where did you leave Letsolo and the two ladies, at the gate next to the tavern?

MR RADEBE: It’s a long distance from the tavern.

CHAIRPERSON: Does that place have a name, like in terms of a Zone?

MR RADEBE: Tavern is in Zone 8, then we left them at Small Farm. We went to Mr. Sipapo ...(intervention)

MR LAX: Sir, before you go on. Where did you leave them? At some house, or in an open place, or in the middle of the road?

MR RADEBE: We left them at the road because it was dusk at the time. Then I went with Mr Mkhwanazi to Mr Sipapo’s place to look for ammunition.

CHAIRPERSON: Wasn’t Sipapo’s place also at Small Farm?

MR RADEBE: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Just how far from Sipapo’s place were the ladies and Letsolo?

MR RADEBE: Approximately 300 metres.

CHAIRPERSON: Just be precise when you give evidence because you now give us an impression that they were left quite far away from where Sipapo was staying. You may proceed.

MS MOLOISANE: Madam Chair, before we, before he proceeds,

INTERPRETER: The speaker’s mike is not on.

MS MOLOISANE: Madam Chair, before we proceed, I just want to draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that the applicant said Ntjolo, not Letsolo. Referring to Borman Ntjolo, former accused, co-accused.

CHAIRPERSON: Proceed.

MR RADEBE: We went to Mr Sipapo’s place. We found that he has only 9 mm ammunition, he doesn’t have ammunition for a 7.65. We went back to Ntjolo and together with the two women we took the direction toward Zone 12 to the office. On our way to the office, because I knew that in Zone 12 these people are known, it may happen that one informer or a spy would inform the police, then I decided that we should pass at comrade Kraai’s place, who is Samuel Neti. We found Samuel Neti at the stockvel. I entered inside and I found him and we went outside together. I informed him that we caught those people who were wanted. When we talk Bopi we talk about Ntjolo. I found that Ntjolo is alone and then we should go to Zone 12. I requested him that he should remain so as to guard these two women, so that we should go to Zone 12.

CHAIRPERSON: May I get clarity? In your evidence you state that because the ladies in question were well known ...(inaudible) and because you knew that there could be a spy that could go to the police, presumably to inform the police about your abduction, you decided to go to Samuel Neti’s place.

MR RADEBE: That’s correct.

CHAIRPERSON: What was the purpose of going to his place?

MR RADEBE: I discovered that these two people, and we were three and they were two, and where we went to fetch the ammunition, I was supposed to go with another one, because in many instances I would not go alone. There should be one member of the unit who would accompany me to that place. That is why Ntjolo had to leave with Neti, and that we should leave, that is why we went to pass at Neti’s place.

MR LAX: So do I understand correctly that you went there to pick up an extra guard, to assist you to guard them while you went off to look for further ammunition? Is that what you’re saying?

MR RADEBE: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: But why was it necessary for another guard to be obtained? You already Mkhwanazi there and Ntjolo.

MR RADEBE: It was necessary that Samuel Neti should remain with Ntjolo. Myself and Abraham Mkhwanazi should leave together.

CHAIRPERSON: Why? You are only going there in order to get ammunition, why was it necessary for you to be accompanied by Mr Mkhwanazi?

MR RADEBE: There would be a place where we would store our arms. I have no right to go there alone. I should be accompanied by another comrade, because if I go there alone I would not get anything. That is why it was necessary to go with Abraham Mkhwanazi.

CHAIRPERSON: Your evidence is not that you stored arms. You were looking for ammunition and you went from people after people ...(intervention)

MR LAX: Sorry, you haven’t pressed the button for the translation.

CHAIRPERSON: You had to go from Mr Sipapo’s place for him to assist you with ammunition, not because you stored your ammunition at his place. Is it not so?

MR RADEBE: Yes, that is correct. In fact there would be no-one whom I would go to any community member because we used to address these issues in our meetings, that there will be no person who should go to our assistant alone, because tomorrow I will get there on my personal reasons, because maybe one of my friend is looking for that ammunition, then I would take my friend there and collect them. That is why there should be a comrade who would accompany me, as members of the defence unit were known.

MR LAX: Does that mean you were not known as a defence unit member?

MR RADEBE: That is why I’m saying as we were known as members of the self defence unit I would go to that particular place to look for assistance in terms of arms alone, or ammunition, alone.

CHAIRPERSON: I think the interpretation was incorrect because it came out as, as because SDU members were known. That’s how it came out.

MR RADEBE: They were known.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so I think for the record that should be corrected. That’s not what you said. You said as SDU members were known, not unknown.

INTERPRETER: The interpretation was, they were known.

MR LAX: Sorry, I’m still confused. Please Advocate, stop hitting your button. You cut me off every time you do. When you’re ready to talk, you can press the button. I’m just puzzled here because I’m not understanding you properly. Why was it necessary for two of you to go every time if you were known to the community?

MR RADEBE: The community knew us ourselves as members of the unit. We have our own way of operating. That is, in terms of the code of conduct. Because for example I would have a friend who is not known by the community, then I would go to that particular place, perhaps Mr Sipapo or somebody, and give me the ammunition. That is not the way we used to operate, but something of that sort would happen. That is why we did not find ourselves in that particular situation that one comrade would collect ammunition and misuse them.

MR LAX: But, if there were two comrades and you both had some ulterior motive you could still get away with it. What difference would it make?

MR RADEBE: I don’t think so.

MR LAX: I still don’t understand, but carry on.

CHAIRPERSON: Proceed.

MR RADEBE: Then I went with Abraham Mkhwanazi. Our ANC office was in Hollywood Night Club.

MR LAX: Can we just clarify something? So when you left with Mkhwanazi, you left Neti and Ntjolo guarding the two ladies, and you went off to Hollywood, is that right?

MR RADEBE: That is correct.

MR LAX: Please continue.

MR RADEBE: In Hollywood we met comrade Stanley, and I informed him that we caught the two people, these two, these particular two people. Then we are going to kill them. Then he instructed us that we should do the good job, so that we would be able not to be arrested. I told him that we would not make a mistake, they would be killed.

MS MOLOISANE: Did you explain to Stanley who you were talking about, the people you were talking about? Did you explain to him who were the people that you were talking about?

MR RADEBE: Yes I did, that it is Hapile and we used to call Elsie Mandayi. That is why he did not ask many questions, only told us to do the good job.

MS MOLOISANE: Will you explain to the Committee who this Stanley is. Why was it necessary to talk to Stanley about Hapile Ndumo and Elsie Mokoena?

MR RADEBE: Stanley was the chairperson of the ANC. He was a member of, he was the chairperson of the ANC youth league. Stanley is, was there before when they were assaulted, in regard to their Inkatha activities. That is why it was necessary for me to inform him.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Moloisane, may I just get clarity on this. I seem to have read something in the judgment of Mr Goldblatt Justice, that Mr Stanley, I can’t recall, but you said Stanley was the branch secretary of the ANC. Are you certain that he was the chairperson of the ANC?

MR RADEBE: He had two portfolios. I don’t know as to whether he has already changed to another position, but then I knew that he was the secretary and he was the chairperson at various stages. I don’t remember when was he the chairperson or the secretary. That is why I’m not able to verify as whether, at this particular time, he was the chairperson or the secretary.

CHAIRPERSON: At the time when you gave evidence before Justice Goldblatt, did you say that Stanley was the branch secretary. And that is at page 3 of the judgment. I just recall reading something which is contrary to what you are saying now in your viva voce.

MR LAX: Page 3 line 30, it goes over the page onto page 4 of the judgment, first line.

MR RADEBE: I don’t know as to whether you understand me the way I am trying to explain, because usually we would have elections and the committee would be changed, and a person would be moved from one position to another position. That is why I am not able to verify, because even the person who was interpreting, maybe he was the one who made a mistake as to whether he was the chairperson on the secretary, because I was not sure that, but he was an office bearer of the branch.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you or did you not say, during your testimony, at Mr Neti, Mkhwanazi and Ntjolo’s trial, say that Stanley was the branch secretary?

MR RADEBE: I did.

CHAIRPERSON: That’s all I wanted to find out. Are you now sure that he was the chairperson, because in your viva voce evidence you say he is chairperson and you have not suggested any doubt about his portfolio?

MR RADEBE: Yes, I verify that he was the chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Of the ANC youth league?

MR RADEBE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Could he also held the portfolio of being a secretary of the branch of the ANC, not necessarily the ANC youth league?

MR RADEBE: He was the secretary of the ANC youth league, and when we elected again, we, when portfolios were shuffled, then he became the chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: At the time when you went to him to advise him of this incident for which you are seeking amnesty, are you sure he was then chairperson of the ANC youth league?

MR RADEBE: Yes, he was the chairperson of the ANC youth league.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you may proceed.

MR RADEBE: From Stanley we went to Abraham Mkhwanazi’s place. He gave me my lumber jacket. We returned again to Borman Ntjolo, and Samuel Neti. When we left there, I found Borman Ntjolo not there, and Elsie Mokoena was not there either. It was only Hapile Ndumo and Samuel Neti. When I tried to enquire about the whereabouts of Ntjolo he replied to me and say he was running after Hapile without a waste of time as Elsie has run away she would come back with the police. Then we went again to Small Farm. When we arrived at Small Farm there was a certain comrade who is called Nkosana. I went to Nkosana then I gave him the pistol which I had, then he gave me 2.2 calibre. I found comrades interrogating Hapile Ndumo. That is where I shot at her with that gun. After that my self and Abraham Mkhwanazi went to my place. I took my suitcase. Before we left Samuel Neti was together with a certain comrade who was not known to me and we learned that he is from Soweto. Samuel Neti sacrificed that they would take Hapile Ndumo and take her to the ground, then myself and Mokolasi ...(intervention)

MR LAX: Just slow down. There was some rather strange term in the way it way interpreted. You said Samuel Neti sacrificed that he would stay behind and together with this other comrade drag her to the ground. Did I understand that correctly?

MR RADEBE: Yes. That is what it is.

CHAIRPERSON: Can we just get clarity, because we do not comprehend that sentence. What do you mean when you say Samuel Neti said he would sacrifice?

MR RADEBE: He volunteered that we should leave and they would drag her to the ground.

CHAIRPERSON: He volunteered that you should leave and they would drag Ndumo, or he volunteered to drag Ndumo, and that you should leave?

MR RADEBE: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Why was it necessary for someone to drag Ndumo?

MR RADEBE: I am still asking myself that question again because I don’t know why. I don’t know why it was necessary for her to be dragged because she was dead at that time.

CHAIRPERSON: What did you say when Neti said that to you? Did you ask him to explain himself?

MR RADEBE: No I did not want to ask him questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it because you understood what he meant, that you didn’t ask him any questions?

MR RADEBE: Because I’ve already done the job, therefore there was nothing which I wanted to know thereafter. I wanted to kill that person so I did, therefore I left with Abraham Mkhwanazi.

CHAIRPERSON: Will you proceed and tell us what happened after he had volunteered to drag her?

MR RADEBE: Please repeat the question.

CHAIRPERSON: Will you proceed and give us more information after Neti had volunteered to drag Ms Ndumo. What happened thereafter?

MR RADEBE: I went to my place and I took my suitcase.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you see Neti indeed dragging Ms Ndumo?

MR RADEBE: No, I did not.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR RADEBE: I went to my place and took my suitcase. ...(gap between tapes) Then I went to Zone 2. Then we returned to Abraham Mkhwanazi’s place. Then he packed his suitcase and then the following morning we left those suitcases at his place. Then we went to where we left her corpse. That is where we collected the cartridges. Then we left. We took a taxi to Johannesburg. We went to ANC office. That is where we met Viva Umkhonto, together with Dakav.... We informed them about what we did. We informed them what we did about the sell outs, and what we wanted was a hide out or a safe place. Then we went to Mamelodi in Pretoria.

MS MOLOISANE: Now you’ve mentioned Nkosana, do you know his surname?

MR RADEBE: That is Nkosana Tshabalala.

MS MOLOISANE: Why was it necessary to go to him?

MR RADEBE: That was the person who was there within that group at the time when we were together with Hapile. Unfortunately I saw, fortunately I saw Nkosana then I gave him another gun.

CHAIRPERSON: What do you mean when you say he was the person who was there? Was he part of a group, and if so, we have not heard any evidence about a group having been there at any stage. We only know Ntjolo, Mkhwanazi, Neti and yourself.

MR RADEBE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Where did this group come from?

MR RADEBE: That is the time when we left at Neti’s place and the people who followed us and those who heard that the informers were caught, then they became a group. As I knew that Nkosana was a member of the self defence unit at Small Farm, then I took his gun, that is the .22 calibre, and I used that gun.

CHAIRPERSON: I am still a little unclear on this aspect. You say that you left Neti’s place in the company of a small group of persons.

MR RADEBE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Who had gathered immediately on hearing that you had caught some IFP spies.

MR RADEBE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Was this group comprising comrades, or ordinary members of your community?

MR RADEBE: They were members or supporters of the ANC.

CHAIRPERSON: You do understand when I use the term comrades, don’t you?

MR RADEBE: Yes I do.

CHAIRPERSON: Now I’m going to repeat my question. Did the group consist of the ordinary members of the community, or did it consist of comrades?

MR RADEBE: Some of them were just ordinary members of the community, others were comrades. I did not have time to identify those who formed that group.

CHAIRPERSON: But you say that Nkosana was a comrade?

MR RADEBE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he belong to a self defence unit structure?

MR RADEBE: Yes, in Small Farm.

CHAIRPERSON: And his unit was located at Small Farm?

MR RADEBE: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And where was your unit located?

MR RADEBE: I started at Small Farm.

CHAIRPERSON: So he belonged to the same unit as yourself?

MR RADEBE: Yes. Because later I operated in Zone 12. Then from Zone 12 then I went to Sasol, where I received underground military training.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Radebe my questions are only confined to the incident around the 15th of August 1993, so I do not understand your evidence where it alludes to later. Around the 15th of August 1993, was your unit located at Small Farm?

MR RADEBE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And when did you move to the Zone 12 unit as you’ve just stated?

MR RADEBE: I discovered that I had problems in Small Farm.

CHAIRPERSON: When did you move to the Zone 12 unit, that is the question?

MR RADEBE: That is in 1993.

CHAIRPERSON: Which month in 1993, because you’ve just stated now that when this incident happened your unit was located at Small Farm, and this incident happened on the 15th of August 1993. So when you say you became a member of the unit that operated at Zone 12 in 1993, can you be specific?

MR RADEBE: I’m not able to remember well which month.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it before this incident occurred, or after the occurrence of this incident.

MR RADEBE: After this incident.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You may proceed Ms Moloisane.

MS MOLOISANE: As it pleases you Madam Chair. Now, after Nkosana had given you the 7.22 pistol you said you went to shoot Hapile. Briefly explain to this Committee why did you have to, you have already said so, but outline in detail why did you have to shoot her?

MR RADEBE: The reason for me to shoot at her was the information we already had before, that together with Elsie Mokoena and others who were not involved in this particular case, we had that information that they were involved with murders which happened in Sebokeng. That is why it was necessary for me to shoot her, because they would take the information from the township and take it to Kwa Madala Hostel, because those people who were residents of Kwa Madala Hostel, some of them did not even know Sebokeng. They knew everything about Sebokeng from the people who were staying in the township. Some of them were Hapile Ndumo and Elsie Mokoena.

MS MOLOISANE: You say you had this information about them. From where did you get that information?

MR RADEBE: I did not know that very well about these particular two people. ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Answer the question Mr Radebe. Where did you get the information?

MR RADEBE: From comrade Mabusa.

CHAIRPERSON: Who is he?

MR RADEBE: He was a member of the underground structure of MK.

CHAIRPERSON: Where did he stay?

MR RADEBE: Zone 12.

CHAIRPERSON: And when did he tell you this information?

MR RADEBE: I’m not able to tell when, but that is the person who told me.

CHAIRPERSON: You must be in a position to tell. Was that in 1993 or was it a year before 1993?

MR RADEBE: I would say, I may say it’s late 1992 or early 1993.

CHAIRPERSON: When you were told by comrade Mabusa about the activities of the ladies in question, where were you staying?

MR RADEBE: In Small Farm.

CHAIRPERSON: With your indulgence Ms Moloisane, in what capacity were you informed about the ladies in question’s activities?

MR RADEBE: I was his second in charge. That is why he had to inform me about these issues.

CHAIRPERSON: Won’t you just tell us about the structure that you are referring to, to which you were his second in charge? Your only evidence has been that comrade Mabusa was a member of the MK and operated underground. Can you just be more explicit about the structure you are referring to when you say you were his second in charge?

MR RADEBE: In regard to the self defence unit structures, because at times when we observed things going on the community in regard to the murder or the killings of people, people would be deployed in that particular area, usually I would assist him in deploying people. We would know that certain people are in particular areas and other in particular areas, then we will be able to deploy them. That is why I am saying I was his second in charge.

CHAIRPERSON: Was he a commander of an SDU as a structure?

MR RADEBE: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And which unit?

MR RADEBE: Zone 12 unit.

CHAIRPERSON: How many members did that unit comprise?

MR RADEBE: Many members.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, give an estimate. We are trying to establish the command structure.

MR RADEBE: Approximately eighty to a hundred members, because every member of the youth would volunteer to be a member of the self defence unit.

CHAIRPERSON: What year was this when he was the commander of the Zone 12 unit?

MR RADEBE: From 1993. Even if I’m not sure, but if I remember well it was as from 1993.

CHAIRPERSON: And was Mr Mkhwanazi as well as Mr Ntjolo, members of that particular unit?

MR RADEBE: Yes they were members of the self defence unit in Zone 12.

CHAIRPERSON: To which you were second in charge?

MR RADEBE: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You may proceed Ms Moloisane.

MS MOLOISANE: As it please you Madam Chair. Now you told this Committee that you had, Stanley had given you some orders. I just want you to clarify this. If Stanley hadn’t given you orders to do a clean job, would you still have killed Hapile Ndumo?

MR RADEBE: Yes. Would still kill her.

MS MOLOISANE: Why?

MR RADEBE: Because of the evil work which was done by Inkatha within Sebokeng. Because people were worried about the activities of Inkatha at all times. Which they did within Sebokeng community.

MS MOLOISANE: Just explain it further. If, what do you mean by saying because of the activities of Inkatha? I mean you would still have killed her because of the activities of Inkatha. What do you mean? Explain it further.

MR RADEBE: Some of the comrades who were members of various units were killed by Inkatha. That is why when I saw Inkatha I saw an enemy.

MS MOLOISANE: Now, why did you kill Hapile Ndumo on that particular day, the 15th of August 1993?

MR RADEBE: I killed her because of playing a role in the killings of Vaal triangle communities. That is the reason why I shot her, and to spy on our comrades. Because at any time I would be eliminated by Inkatha, or my colleague who was a member of my unit, or an innocent member of the community. That is why I killed her.

MS MOLOISANE: Now why did you shoot Elsie Mokoena?

MR RADEBE: I killed, I shot at her because of playing a role in the killings of Vaal triangle community members, and to spy on our comrades. Because innocent people were killed, like small children sleeping at night. Those things made us feel bad.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Moloisane, I have not been able to understand with better clarity in respect of which acts your client seeks amnesty. With regard to this particular incident.

MS MOLOISANE: Madam Chair I am here concerned with the event of the 15th of August.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS MOLOISANE: That is the murder of Hapile Ndumo,

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS MOLOISANE: The assault of Elsie Mokoena,

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS MOLOISANE: and the illegal possession of arms and ammunition.

CHAIRPERSON: That is right. What is not clear to me is whether he is saying to us he wanted to kill Ms Mokoena and he therefore seeks amnesty for attempting to kill Ms Mokoena, or he is only applying for amnesty for the assault with intention to do grievous bodily harm as was found by the criminal Court. That is not confined to the conviction that came out of the criminal trial. That’s why I just want clarity in respect of the Elsie Mokoena incident.

MS MOLOISANE: As it pleases this Committee. Madam Chair, if, we are actually applying for amnesty for the attempted murder, the murder of Hapile Ndumo, the attempted murder in respect of which he was convicted for assault.

CHAIRPERSON: These are different offences. He is talking of the offence for which he was convicted, which is assault GBH. I understand that he would apply for that, but does he want to go further and say it was his intention to kill Ms Mokoena, and not just to assault her?

MS MOLOISANE: May I get instructions thereon?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS MOLOISANE: When you shot Elsie Mokoena what was your intention? Was your intention to kill her, or just to assault her?

MR RADEBE: My intention was to kill her.

CHAIRPERSON: At the time when you shot her, immediately after they had been taken out of the tavern, your intention was to kill her? When you fired the shot, it was not to scare her?

MR RADEBE: My intention was to kill her.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. I see you find this amusing. It is not amusing to us Mr Radebe. I see you are smiling as if there is something amusing. We do not find this process to be amusing.

MR RADEBE: It’s because I saw the actual mistake because I wanted to continue therefore Chairperson stopped.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You may proceed Ms Moloisane.

MS MOLOISANE: Now, I want you to clarify this point. When you shot at the two girls, that is Hapile Ndumo, Elsie Mokoena and later on at Hapile Ndumo, was this because you were, was it a revenge killing, let me put it that way, or were you doing it because of a particular reason?

MR RADEBE: Mainly it was protection. To protect myself. Because the information received in Boipatong, young people would knock, and when you opened the door people would start shooting, that is how we had to shoot them. And again because of their spying activity, because comrades were arrested or detained by the police, that is how we had to protect ourselves.

MS MOLOISANE: Thank you. Now, in your affidavit, when you applied for amnesty in respect of this event, on page 149 thereof, paragraph 14, you told, 149 of the bundle, paragraph 14 thereof. You said

"...we then took Hapile with us at a distance of about plus minus four hundred metres. I shot Hapile with two bullets, shots, and Fani also shot her with two bullets."

This is not your evidence now. I want you to clarify this point to the Committee.

MR RADEBE: In that instance, when I said he shot twice, I included that in my evidence in the Supreme Court because they were arrested first and the police showed me their exhibits and evidence that I’m the one who took the major, or played the major role in the murder which happened on that particular day. As I knew as a member of the self defence unit the, no member of the SDU would be able to testify against another comrade, then when I found out that they gave evidence against me, therefore I decided that I should give that evidence so that all of us would be convicted. But truly, I’m the one who shot. He did not shoot. Because his gun had no ammunition.

CHAIRPERSON: You are basically saying you lied before Justice Goldblatt when you said Mr Mkhwanazi had shot at the deceased?

MR RADEBE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: I cannot understand however why you lied when you applied for amnesty to this Committee, knowing fully well that the requirement for a successful application is the truth. Why did you do that? I can understand you lying during the criminal trial. I want you tell me why you lied when you applied for amnesty here.

MR RADEBE: On the statement which I made before the TRC investigator, that is Judge Mdluzi, I did not know that TRC is, does not align itself with what is happening at Court, because I thought that I would say exactly what I said in the Supreme Court when I came before this Committee, because a certain woman who came to me, that is Sissy Rampepe explained to us that as we have already applied we would get legal representative who would inform us about the procedure of the TRC. That did not happen, that I should know my legal representative in time before I came before this Committee. That they want only relevant facts in regard to the incident, not what happened in Court. That is when Ms Moloisane on the 7th and then on the 8th we were to appear here, that we should only tell what happened on that particular day only. That is why I tell the truth today of what happened on that, the particular day of the incident.

MR LAX: Mr Radebe, when you applied for amnesty, did you understand that you had to tell the Commission the truth?

MR RADEBE: ...(not translated)

MR LAX: Just yes or no, simple answer.

MR RADEBE: I wouldn’t know that it is a truth commission.

CHAIRPERSON: That is not the question that is being put to you. When you applied, did you know that you had to disclose the truth about what had happened? That is the question being put to you.

MR RADEBE: I did not know.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you not visited by several members of the Truth Commission, who explained to you the process, and advised you that you further had the right to be legally represented? Were you also not visited in prison by members of the community who understood the Act and were placed in places like Vereeniging and explained to you the requirements of the Act? I am now talking about the prison wherein you were.

MR RADEBE: That did not happen to me, that a particular person would come to me and visit me and inform me about the requirements of the Act. That what happened in Court has nothing to do with the TRC. What I knew was that a legal representative would come and inform me what would happen, what should happen in regard to my application for amnesty. I only knew my advocate on the 7th, and then on the 8th I came before this Commission.

MR LAX: What does TRC stand for Mr Radebe?

MR RADEBE: That is the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

MR LAX: Doesn’t that mean you must tell the truth?

MR RADEBE: Yes.

MR LAX: So you knew that at the time you filled out the form, and at the time you made the statement. Please let’s not play games here. You beat around the bush with a long story. Just give us a straight answer please.

MR RADEBE: My answer is that I should say before this Truth Commission what I have said in the Supreme Court. I didn’t know anything other than that.

MR LAX: Was it the truth?

MR RADEBE: I regarded that as the truth because that’s what I said in Court.

MR LAX: So then what you’re saying today is a lie.

MR RADEBE: As from this morning I only told the truth of what happened on the particular day.

MR LAX: You knew very well that what you said in this affidavit was not the truth.

MR RADEBE: ...(not translated)

CHAIRPERSON: May I find out why you applied, Mr Radebe? When you completed your application on the 16th of April 1996, what were you applying for?

MR RADEBE: I was applying for the murder of Maletsatsi Marumo, the murder of Hapile Ndumo, the attempted murder of, and the illegal possession of arms and ammunition.

CHAIRPERSON: And what did you understand the application to be seeking to do?

MR RADEBE: It was in regard to the incidents which I was convicted for and that is why I included those case.

CHAIRPERSON: But what do you understand those incidents to ...(intervention)

MR RADEBE: ...(not translated) ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I haven’t completed my sentence. What did you understand the incidents to be relevant to, in terms of politics?

MR RADEBE: Because I was a member of the ANC and they were Inkatha members and they were responsible for the killings and we were protecting the community.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you understand that you had to apply only if the offences for which you sought amnesty were politically related? Did you understand that when you completed this application form?

MR RADEBE: Yes, I was explained in that way.

CHAIRPERSON: Who explained that to you?

MR RADEBE: Mr Mfolo who is the prison warder.

CHAIRPERSON: And why then would you believe that you were committed to the lie which you had given during your criminal trial, and the lie which you gave when you were a State witness against your fellow comrades during your criminal trial, when it was explained to you the offences for which you could succeed for amnesty were politically related?

MR RADEBE: May you please repeat the question.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you believe that you were committed to the lie which you had given during your own criminal trial, and the lie which you gave whilst you were a State witness in a criminal trial of your fellow comrades, when it was explained to you that the requirement for amnesty was that the offences for which you sought such amnesty had to be politically related?

MR RADEBE: I said so in Court, because I thought that they testified against me, and even I informed the Court that we did all these things in the protection of the community. That is why I thought they were politically inclined, because we were protecting the community against those who were attacking them.

CHAIRPERSON: You still have not responded to my question. I will ask the question again for the third time. Why did you believe that you still had to be committed to the lies you had told initially during your own criminal trial and subsequently when you gave evidence against your comrades during their criminal trial, when it had been explained to you by the warder that the offences for which you could apply for amnesty had to be politically related?

MR RADEBE: I hear but I don’t understand the question.

CHAIRPERSON: What is it that you don’t understand in the question when you hear, when you say you understand?

MR RADEBE: I understand it from the beginning, that is why should I commit myself to the lie which I said in Court in my case and then against my comrades, but at the end of that question I did not understand.

CHAIRPERSON: I don’t know whether there is a problem of interpretation or is the question on it’s own a little complex? I will attempt to dilute it further. You have already testified that the offences for which you could apply for amnesty had to be politically related, and that this information you were advised by a prison warder.

MR RADEBE: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: My simple question ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: Sorry Chairperson we have a disturbance.

CHAIRPERSON: What disturbance do you have, is it from the passing cars?

INTERPRETER: No from somebody talking.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh. May I proceed?

INTERPRETER: Just a moment.

We may continue.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Radebe, I’m going to try and dilute my question. You probably are not on the same page. You’ve already testified that the prison warder had explained to you that the basis on which your application could succeed was that if the offences for which you sought amnesty were politically related.

MR RADEBE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And you had already during your criminal trial indeed pointed that out that the offences were committed within this context of the IFP and ANC fight, and that the reason why you were there as SDU members, you were there to protect the community.

MR RADEBE: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Now my question is in relation to the lie you committed yourself to during the various stages of you giving evidence. Initially during your own criminal trial and subsequently when you were a State witness, in the matter of Neti, Mkhwanazi and Ntjulo, in which you lied about the details relating to how the offences were committed.

MR RADEBE: Yes, I do understand.

CHAIRPERSON: Now why did you feel that you still were committed to the lies that you had given during the criminal proceedings, when you were applying for amnesty before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission?

MR RADEBE: My reason is only one. My reason is only one. I would not make a false statement which I made in Court if I knew before that I should not associate myself with what happened in Court, I should only associate myself with the relevant facts of what happened during that incident, that I shot twice and Mkhwanazi shot twice. If I knew that I was supposed to say what I know has happened on that particular day. That the TRC does not associate itself with what happened in Court, I would only tell what I knew has happened when I come to apply for amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you feel that the TRC had to have any regard to what had been said by you during your criminal trial? Did someone specifically say that to you?

MR RADEBE: No-one told me that.

CHAIRPERSON: So why did you hold that belief?

MR RADEBE: That’s what I thought alone, then I thought that is so. I am asking for forgiveness for that mistake which I did, to say what I said in Court before this Commission.

CHAIRPERSON: Now you’ve already alluded to the fact that whilst you were in prison members of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission visited you, amongst others, Sissy Rampepe, is that not so?

MR RADEBE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it before you completed your application form?

MR RADEBE: It was after I filled in this form.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you apprize them of your understanding of what the process was all about?

MR RADEBE: What I wanted to know from them is when am I going to appear, then they told me that I must wait for a reply or a notice from the TRC office in Cape Town, that when would my application be before this Commission, that is then I will be assisted with the legal services of what is going to happen at the TRC.

MR LAX: So, Mr Radebe, when these people came to you and spoke to you in prison, didn’t they explain the process to you? You wanted to know when you would be appearing. Didn’t they say to you well before you can appear there are a whole lot of things that need to happen?

MR RADEBE: Yes they did.

MR LAX: And did they explain the process of investigation and of getting further particulars from you and replying to letters and so on?

MR RADEBE: May you please repeat that.

MR LAX: Did they explain the whole investigative process to you, that it could take time, that the investigators would need to get more information, that they would come and ask you questions, they might write you letters, etc?

MR RADEBE: Yes they told me that there would be people investigate, that they would go to the place of the incident and they would come to me and try to find out about further particulars.

MR LAX: Well didn’t that suggest to you that they would want to know the truth about what happened, and that there was a difference between that truth and anything you might have said in Court?

MR RADEBE: I just told myself that they would go and investigate then I’ll just wait the day where I would be told to come before this TRC.

MR LAX: So you wilfully misled the TRC’s investigators when they came and asked you about what really happened?

MR RADEBE: I told them what I said I said in Court.

MR LAX: You misled them about the facts that really happened?

MR RADEBE: Yes the truth is what happened there.

MR LAX: When they wrote you letters and you replied to those letters, do you remember you wrote a letter to the Commission?

MR RADEBE: Yes.

MR LAX: Was that not the truth?

MR RADEBE: I wrote many letters. But I believe that the contents of all those letters is the truth.

MR LAX: Well why were you telling the truth? I thought you were going to stick to a lie?

MR RADEBE: Even in Court, some sections of my evidence was the truth. In Court it’s the mix of the truth and the lie.

MR LAX: You see let me show you page 157. The Commission asked you about where your orders came from,

MR RADEBE: I do see.

MR LAX: And there you said

"...I didn’t like to mention the names but as the Commissioners have asked for them I mentioned. I could not disobey the orders as I took an oath I would die for South Africa."

MR RADEBE: Yes.

MR LAX: So in spite of having taken an oath not to reveal your comrades, you knew at the time you wrote this letter that you had to tell the truth to the Commission and reveal your comrades. Isn’t that so?

MR RADEBE: Will you please repeat.

MR LAX: Even ‘though you took an oath that you would die for South Africa, that you wouldn’t disclose who your comrades were, here you are in the face of the Commission’s request understanding that you must tell the truth, and so you disclose who your comrades and who your commanders were. Isn’t that so.

MR RADEBE: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAX: So you didn’t wait ‘til today to tell us the truth. You already began to tell the truth in letters to the Commission.

MR RADEBE: I wrote this letter after, in response to the letter from the TRC, as to whether what I did I did that under orders. That is why I wrote that letter in that way. Although I know that that would complicate issues because other comrades are not interested to be before this Commission because they think that I’ll be testifying against them. As this is the problem which I have now, because a person thinks that if you expose his name this way you put him in trouble.

CHAIRPERSON: That is not the question that was put by Mr Lax to you.

MR RADEBE: What is the question?

CHAIRPERSON: I think you understand the question Mr Radebe, very well. You know, we just do not have time to waste, nor time to play games. Do you understand. This is an important process and it’s also one which does not afford this Committee much time to waste. And the question which was put to you by way of a statement by Mr Lax was that in your letter dated 2nd of April 1997 you disclosed names that you were reluctant to disclose but for the truth you were prepared to disclose.

MR RADEBE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So you disclosed them because you knew that the Commission was dealing with the truth.

MR RADEBE: I read the letter from the TRC saying, asking me questions whether who gave me orders, and then I was not prepared, but because you are requesting me to disclose those names, here are the names.

CHAIRPERSON: You did not mislead the Commission by giving them wrong names. Is that not so?

MR RADEBE: Yes, I did not lie.

CHAIRPERSON: And that’s the crux of the matter. You told the truth, when you could have lied. Is that not so?

MR RADEBE: I don’t understand the question.

CHAIRPERSON: When questions were put to you by way of a request for further particulars, by the Committee, you did not disclose untruths. You did not give wrong names to the Committee. You stated the names of Paulos Kennel Malakwane, Stanley and Mabusa Mhlongo, as having been persons who had given you orders to commit the offences for which you are now seeking amnesty. You spoke the truth.

MR RADEBE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you not lie to the Committee when they were asking you for the names of people who had ordered you to commit those offences?

MR RADEBE: I saw that there was no need because the Committee was looking for the identity.

CHAIRPERSON: You saw no need to lie because you recognised that there was no need to lie to the Truth and Reconciliation Committee? Is it not so?

MR RADEBE: It was not my intention to lie to the investigator of the TRC. It was not my intention to lie. What I lied about was that I wanted to say what I said in Court, because I did not foresee what I said in Court, it is not necessary for me to say it. I did not know that I had to say exactly what happened on that particular day, and that must be the truth.

CHAIRPERSON: You have continuously misunderstood our questions, and responded to things that did not emanate from our questions. I must note that with a great amount of distress. We’ll take a tea adjournment for ten minutes. We hope that in future what we saw happening when we came in will not be repeated.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

JOHN RADEBE: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Moloisane, you may proceed with the evidence in chief of Mr Radebe.

EXAMINATION BY MS MOLOISANE: (Cont)

As it please you Madam Chair and Committee Members. Now Mr Mkhwanazi, Abraham Mkhwanazi, the previous applicant, who was also your co-accused in the High Court in Johannesburg, mentioned ...(intervention)

MR LAX: Sorry, he wasn’t a co-accused Advocate. There was actually a separation of trials I understand.

MS MOLOISANE: He was a co-accused and after ...(intervention)

MR LAX: Sorry, just press your button.

MS MOLOISANE: Initially he was a co-accused and the trials were separated because Radebe pleaded guilty and that is the reason why he had to be used as a State witness against Mkhwanazi and others.

MR LAX: Yes, we understand that. Mkhwanazi, in Mkhwanazi’s trial, Radebe wasn’t a co-accused, he was a State witness at that stage. That’s all I’m clarifying.

MS MOLOISANE: As it pleases you. Now on page 180 of the application for amnesty by Mr Abraham Mkhwanazi, at paragraph 11(b), he stated that he got orders from you, John Radebe. Can you elaborate on this?

MR RADEBE: I was his senior.

MS MOLOISANE: What kind of orders did you give him?

MR RADEBE: On that day we did not know who we would meet, but I instructed him that in any operation which he should take part.

CHAIRPERSON: Come again because I don’t understand your response to the question put to you by your Counsel, and the question was what kind of orders did you give Mr Mkhwanazi? I do not comprehend the response that was interpreted. Will you please come again and respond to that question?

MR RADEBE: The order which I gave him was, is that he should chase Hapile Ndumo after he ran into the tavern.

MS MOLOISANE: And Mr Abraham Mkhwanazi again mentioned one person by the name of Bonga Khumalo. Do you know this person?

MR RADEBE: Yes I do.

MS MOLOISANE: Who is he?

MR RADEBE: He was a general commander of all units in Zone 12. Of all units in Zone 12 he was a general commander.

MS MOLOISANE: When you say all units are you referring to the self defence units?

MR RADEBE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose Ms Moloisane? You say he was a general commander of all units in Zone 12. Are you suggesting that there was more than one unit in Zone 12?

MR RADEBE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And to be precise, how many units operated in Zone 12?

MR RADEBE: I have explained that Sebokeng is a big area, so we had approximately 80 to 100. In any particular unit you’ll find that it has 15 to 20 members each.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you understand my question? If you don’t understand a question please do not attempt to respond to a question which is incomprehensible.

MR RADEBE: Yes, I did.

CHAIRPERSON: Now your response does not suggest to me that you have understood my question. Do you understand that?

MR RADEBE: Yes, I did.

CHAIRPERSON: I am going to put my question to you again. How many units operated in Zone 12?

MR RADEBE: There would be approximately four, but I’m not quite sure. But I will just approximate it to four units.

CHAIRPERSON: And you were a member of one of the units that operated in Zone 12?

MR RADEBE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And when you say Bonga Khumalo was a general commander, are you suggesting that each commander, I mean each unit, had it’s own commander?

MR RADEBE: Yes, that’s correct.

CHAIRPERSON: In your unit, who was the commander?

MR RADEBE: Mabusa Mhlongo.

CHAIRPERSON: And it was known by all members within your unit that you took, as a member of that particular unit, instructions from Mabusa Mhlongo, as your commander? Was it known to each and every member in your unit that Mr Mhlongo was your commander and you took instructions from Mr Mhlongo?

MR RADEBE: Yes, all the members of the unit knew that we take instructions from Mr Mhlongo.

CHAIRPERSON: Whilst we are on this point, whilst we try and ascertain the structure of command, and the structure of your unit, which is important for us to do, can we find out from you who were members in your particular unit? Can you enumerate your members in your unit?

MR RADEBE: ...(not translated)

CHAIRPERSON: We didn’t get the translation of what the witness said.

INTERPRETER: I was still asking him to come closer to the mike.

MR RADEBE: Fani Abraham Mkhwanazi, Godfrey Shiya, Bopipo Borman Ntjulo, and Bongani. I don’t know his surname. And Shakes. There were many. And others.

CHAIRPERSON: And how many others?

MR RADEBE: Do you mean in my particular unit?

CHAIRPERSON: That’s what my question is trying to establish. We are talking about your particular unit.

MR RADEBE: Approximately we were 18 to 20 members.

CHAIRPERSON: And Mr Mabusa Mhlongo were the commander and you assisted him?

MR RADEBE: Yes, that is correct, I was his assistant.

CHAIRPERSON: When did you become a member of this particular unit?

MR RADEBE: In 1993.

CHAIRPERSON: Which month in 1993 did you become a member of this particular unit?

MR RADEBE: I’m not able to remember.

CHAIRPERSON: How long had you been a member of this unit when the Ndumo incident occurred?

MR RADEBE: I would say approximately three or two months before this incident, but I don’t remember when.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. That will assist us in estimating how long you had been with the unit prior to the commission of the offence in which Ms Ndumo was killed. You may proceed Ms Moloisane.

MS MOLOISANE: As it please you Madam Chair. Now, how old were you at the time Mr Radebe, in 1993 on the 15th of August?

MR RADEBE: If I’m not mistaken I was 15 years old.

MS MOLOISANE: When were you born?

MR RADEBE: On the 23 of February 1977.

MS MOLOISANE: Is there anything that you would like to say to the families of the victims right now?

MR RADEBE: What I would say is that I’m asking for forgiveness from them. And I’m saying that on behalf of the members of my unit because we did not do this to benefit either monetary or otherwise, it was in the name of protection, or protecting the community. If our comrades were not killed in Boipatong and in other places we could not have done this, therefore I would ask for forgiveness of what happened to Elsie Mokoena and Ms Ndumo.

MS MOLOISANE: Now, there’s one other aspect that I would like to cover. You said Mr Sipapo used to supply you with ammunition. In what capacity did he do this? Was he one of you, or why did you identify him as the person who had to supply you with ammunition?

MR RADEBE: There were people who would approach us that they aware that we are protecting the community by all our means, then as a businessman he used to contribute, so he used to say whatever type of help you would seek I’ll be available for your assistance. So there were many people who were assisting us in many ways.

MS MOLOISANE: This particular day, the 15th of August 1993, he’s the one you approached first for assistance.

MR RADEBE: Yes.

MS MOLOISANE: Do you know if he was a member of any political organisation?

MR RADEBE: He was a member of the ANC.

MS MOLOISANE: Thank you Madam Chair, Committee Members.

NO FURTHER QUESIONS BY MS MOLOISANE

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Moloisane. Ms Thabethe, do you have any questions to put to Mr Radebe?

MS THABETHE: Yes Madam Chair, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed to do so.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY MS THABETHE: Thank you. Mr Radebe, you say you instructed that Elsie and Hapile be called outside. What was your intention of calling them outside the tavern?

MR RADEBE: My intention was to take them to the office.

MS THABETHE: Why did you want to take them to the office?

MR RADEBE: On the side, on the other side of the office, usually we would not have, you will not find people there. That is where I was intending to shoot them.

MS THABETHE: So are you saying you were taking them to the office to shoot them? Is that what you are saying?

MR RADEBE: I was going to interrogate them, so that they would inform me about their role in the killings of our people, as to whether who are they with and where they stay, they stay with whom, then after that we will shoot them.

MS THABETHE: So why did you change your mind? Why didn’t you take them to the office and question them? Why did you change your mind?

MR RADEBE: The reason is that, for us not to go to the office, on the way I discovered that we did not have ammunition, and therefore if a mistake may happen we would not, if ...(indistinct) happen that the police would find us therefore we would be taken by the police and we would not find them again.

CHAIRPERSON: May you please repeat yourself. Why didn’t you take Ms Ndumo and Ms Mokoena to your offices as you had previously intended? I want to understand your reason.

MR RADEBE: It just to aid in asking them questions, but there was nothing, there was no information which we wanted from them. It was just to verify some of the information we had, we have, so that may be of benefit to us, but the reason for us to take them there was to kill them.

CHAIRPERSON: The question is why did you not proceed to take them to Zone 12, to the ANC offices, as you had originally intended? Why did you abandon your intentions?

MR RADEBE: We thought that maybe we would meet the police and then the police would find us and they would run away and the police would take them.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed Ms Thabethe.

MS THABETHE: Thank you Madam Chair. When actually did you change your mind that you are no longer going to take them to the office now, you are going to kill them?

MR RADEBE: When we took the direction towards Samuel Neti, because that is the direction towards Zone 12.

MS THABETHE: Do you remember that when you went to Samuel Neti’s place you actually left them there?

MR RADEBE: Yes.

MS THABETHE: And then you came back and Hapile had escaped.

MR LAX: You mean Elsie.

MS THABETHE: Sorry, yes Elsie had escaped. Thank you.

MR RADEBE: Yes.

MS THABETHE: In your statement on page 149 paragraph 14 after you saw, or you found out that Elsie had escaped, you then took Hapile with you, that’s what you say. Where were you taking her?

MR RADEBE: We took her from Samuel Neti’s place and took her to Small Farm.

MS THABETHE: You see I’m trying to establish something. You do what in Small Farm. Let me ask that, what were you taking her to do in Small Farm?

MR RADEBE: That is where I would kill her.

MS THABETHE: Why didn’t you kill her where you found her, at Samuel Neti’s place? Why did you need to take her to Small Farm?

MR RADEBE: We did not have the gun to use at Samuel Neti’s place. We would kill her with whatever instrument we would find, but we were informed that you should not touch the blood of your victim. That is why in many instances we wanted to use a gun so that we would not touch the blood of our victim.

MS THABETHE: Mr Radebe I don’t understand what you are saying, because you already have, you had guns, you went to Mr Sipapo’s place you got ammunition. ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No Ms Thabethe. Put your question in such a way that you are in a position to cover both. You will recall that this Mr Radebe has given a version which is different to that which appears in his affidavit. In his viva voce testimony he obtained a gun which had ammunition from a comrade who was part of a group of persons that accompanied them from Samuel Neti’s house to where the deceased was shot. In his affidavit he says he obtained ammunition from Sipapo’s place, and he goes further to mention the number of bullets that were obtained from Sipapo’s place.

MS THABETHE: That was before Hapile was killed.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And his affidavit stands in stark contrast to his viva voce evidence in respect of that particular aspect of what you are trying to address.

MS THABETHE: Madam Chair can I proceed to find out ‘though, because he said he didn’t have guns and he didn’t have ammunition, and in his evidence it was clear that he had obtained ammunition and he had guns.

CHAIRPERSON: Try and get him to respond why you have two versions in respect of that particular aspect. Refer him to the relevant page and paragraph and put to him his viva voce evidence and find out his explanation to the inconsistency.

MS THABETHE: Mr Radebe, can you explain why you had said initially that Mr Sipapo gave you ammunition, and you already had guns, and then later on in your evidence you say you were given guns and ammunition by your fellow comrade after you had taken Hapile to where you were going to kill her. Can you explain that contradiction to the Committee.

MR RADEBE: In regard to Mr Sipapo that we received ammunition, it is the evidence I gave in Court, which is a lie again that I shot and Abraham shot. The gun which we used on that particular day, that is a gun I took from comrade Nkosana. That is the gun I used which is from Nkosana Tshabalala.

MS THABETHE: Mr Radebe, didn’t you say in your viva voce evidence that Mr Sipapo gave you ammunition?

MR LAX: No he didn’t.

CHAIRPERSON: No. That’s why I am saying you are confusing his evidence which appears in his affidavit with that which he gave during his viva voce evidence.

MR LAX: Just to clarify Ms Thabethe. His evidence in his viva voce evidence was that Sipapo only had 9 mm ammunition, their firearms had 7.65 mm calibre, therefore they had to go elsewhere. I then turned out that later, when they saw Tshabalala he in fact got a triple two, .22 firearm which he then did the deed with. It’s just to clarify it. That’s his viva voce evidence.

MS THABETHE: Thank you Madam Chair, thank you member of the Committee. In your evidence you also said when you called Elsie and Hapile outside it’s because the community wanted them. Do you remember saying that? Or they were wanted by the community.

MR RADEBE: Yes, that is correct.

MS THABETHE: What do you mean? Who is the committee in this instance? Who in the committee wanted them?

MR LAX: Sorry, you’re using the word committee and community interchangeably, they’re quite different.

MS THABETHE: Community, community.

MR RADEBE: Any member of the community at that time knew that those people were enemies, because we were not hiding this information for us or from the community. The community would receive information from us. We are going to tell them that on a particular, we saw these people who have diverted and took another direction, because tomorrow you you’d shoot the person and then the community would be surprised why. That is why I said the community were seeking them.

MS THABETHE: When you had killed Hapile Ndumo, it’s a follow up about my question of the community, since the community had wanted them, wouldn’t the community then be glad that you got them and managed to shoot them?

MR RADEBE: Yes, they were satisfied. The community was satisfied.

MS THABETHE: Now can you explain to the Committee Members, if the community was satisfied and you had the approval of the community, why then, after you had committed this act, did you see a need to get away from the community?

MR RADEBE: Within the community there were those who were working hand in glove with the police. They would dress in the ANC uniform, but they would work hand in glove with murder and robbery squad, so that the comrades would be arrested and be shot by the police. That is why we had to get out of Sebokeng, because I don’t know the person who would sell me.

MS THABETHE: Mr Radebe I don’t quite get you because you say the community. I asked you who in the community wanted Elsie and Hapile. You said everyone in the community. Now I don’t understand why then you would feel unsafe in a community that wanted these people dead in the first place. Why you would need to get away from such a community who were satisfied with what you did.

CHAIRPERSON: Except that the police were not satisfied. Is that not clear Ms Thabethe.

MS THABETHE: Yes Madam Chair, but he had the support of the community in which he lived in.

CHAIRPERSON: Does having a support of the local prevent the police from investigating and arresting a person, simply because he has the support of the community?

MS THABETHE: Madam Chair with due respect, I didn’t think that was his evidence, that he was afraid of being investigated and arrested.

MR LAX: Of course he was, that was the whole issue. He was worried about informers.

CHAIRPERSON: He was scared of being arrested by the police. That’s his evidence in chief.

MS THABETHE: Thank you Madam Chair. Was it common cause that if SDU members had killed somebody they would run away from that area and not continue to do such activities?

CHAIRPERSON: Was it common for SDU members to run away from their local communities after committing such deeds as you had committed?

MR RADEBE: I would say they were not running away from the community but they were running away from the police, because I would see the person in the absence of the police. In the evening vanderBijl Park murder and robbery squad would know the identity of the person responsible for that murder, and it was difficult to think, or to suspect, that a certain person is responsible for informing.

CHAIRPERSON: Confine yourself to questions put to you. Don’t go outside the ambit of a particular question. So you are saying it was common for SDU members to run away?

MR RADEBE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And seek refuge in different areas from where the crime had been committed?

MR RADEBE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Proceed Ms Thabethe.

MS THABETHE: Thank you Madam Chair. Mr Radebe, with regard to the shooting of Elsie on the cheek, you said you had an intention to kill her when you shot her. Is that correct?

MR RADEBE: Yes.

MS THABETHE: And then she ran away. She went to a 2-roomed house where you requested the people of that house to take her out of the house. Is that correct?

MR RADEBE: Yes, that is correct.

MS THABETHE: Then you thereafter took her to Samuel Neti’s house. Is that correct?

MR RADEBE: That is correct

MS THABETHE: My question is, since you already had an intention to kill her, you know when you shot her on the cheek, why didn’t you kill her when she came out of that room? Why did you still took her to Samuel Neti’s house?

MR RADEBE: I don’t understand the question.

MS THABETHE: The question is, when you shot her on the cheek in the tavern, you already had an intention to kill her then, isn’t it?

MR RADEBE: Yes.

MS THABETHE: And then she ran away into a house. You took her out of that house isn’t it? My question is why didn’t you kill her thereafter immediately? Why did you still proceed to take her to Samuel Neti’s house?

MR RADEBE: I did not have ammunition.

MS THABETHE: Where do you know Hapile and Elsie from since in your evidence you had said that you worked for the Small Farm unit and not for the unit in the township?

CHAIRPERSON: I think at one stage he was a member of the Small Farm unit of the SDU’s then in 1993 and approximately two to three months before the incident in respect of Ndumo, he became a member of the Zone 12 unit.

MS THABETHE: No that was not the evidence Madam Chair. The evidence I remember you asking him, when did he become a member of the unit after Hapile was killed, he said yes, after Hapile was killed.

CHAIRPERSON: His evidence in this regard is conflicting. He gave two conflicting versions. When I questioned him then it was when he was in the middle of his viva voce evidence. That’s the evidence he gave. However, towards the end of his evidence in chief his evidence was that he became a member of the Zone 12 unit two to three months before the Elsie Mokoena and the Hapile Ndumo incident occurred. Maybe you may want to get his explanation as to the contradictory versions he has given.

MS THABETHE: Thank you Madam Chair I’m indebted to you. Mr Radebe in your viva voce evidence when the Chairperson asked you a question as to when you became a member of an SDU in the Zone 12 Sebokeng township, you said you only became a member of the SDU Zone 12 unit after Hapile Ndumo was killed. Whereas later on in your evidence you indicated that you became a member of the Zone 12 SDU unit before, three months before Hapile was killed. Can you explain why you have given contradictory evidence in that respect?

MR RADEBE: There was no mistake. I became a member of the Zone 12 self defence unit two to three months before the incident, and I did not know them then.

MS THABETHE: No that’s not my question. My question is, earlier on you said, I remember very well your evidence, you said you were a member of a SDU unit in Small Farm when Hapile Ndumo was killed, it’s only after she was killed that you became a member of Zone 12 SDU incident. Don’t you remember saying that?

MR RADEBE: May you please repeat your question.

MR LAX: Mr Radebe it’s really quite simple. You’re confronted here with a contradiction. In the first part of your evidence you testified that you were a member of the SDU in Small Farm. We confirm from you whether, when this incident took place you were a member of that Small Farms unit, you were clear that it was the Small Farms unit. You then indicated that you joined the Zone 12 unit sometime after this incident, because, as you put it, there were problems at Small Farms. Later on in your testimony you then said something quite different. You said that you had been a member of the Zone 12 SDU for about two to three months when this incident took place. Do you understand that? Now there is a contradiction there. Do you understand that there’s a contradiction?

MR LAX: Just answer me yes or no. Do you understand that there is a contradiction there?

MR RADEBE: Yes.

MR LAX: Now please explain the contradiction. That’s the question you are being asked.

MR RADEBE: I think the difference is that, the conflict is because, is because when I change from one unit to another there is nowhere where I would write down that I’m changing from the one unit to the other unit. That is a thing which just happened, and I found myself in a different unit. And all units within Sebokeng are united.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Radebe, I don’t know whether it is part of your nature to respond to questions in the fashion in which you have been responding. You do not respond to what is being sought to be established by a particular question. You do on to ramble about unnecessary evidence that is not material to your application. I must implore you again to try and keep to issues which are sought to be elicited by a question. Questions are not put to you for the sake of being put to you, they are intended to elicit important information that will assist us in deciding your application. You at time do more damage than good in the manner in which you are responding to questions. Try and confine your responses to issues which are sought by any question put to you. To come back to the problem at hand. What is being asked of you is to try and explain why we are sitting with two different versions, particularly in regard to when you became a member of the Zone 12 unit. You will recall that before we took our tea adjournment, and when I asked you when you became a member of the Zone 12 unit after you had stated in your evidence in chief that you were a member of a unit that was located at Small Farm, your evidence was that you became a member of the Zone 12 unit after you had experienced problems at Small Farms and then you moved to the Zone 12 unit. When I asked you to estimate when you became such a member, you said you would be unable to do so. Then I said you must do so by making use of the occurrence of the Elsie Mokoena and Hapile Ndumo incident which occurred on the 15th of August 1993, and your response that was that you became a member of the Zone 12 unit after that incident had occurred. However, when we came back from our tea adjournment and you were still being questioned by your counsel, you gave a different version of when you became a member of the SDU, and your evidence in that regard was that you became a member of the Zone 12 unit SDU approximately 2 to 3 months before the incident occurred. Now you have been requested to explain how you could give two conflicting versions with regard to when you became a member of the Zone 12 unit.

MR RADEBE: Let me try to explain.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may do so.

MR RADEBE: We had only one unit in the whole unit in the whole of Sebokeng. For us to have various sub-units was that we should uniformity because even the criminals may be part of us and then do things which are not in accord with our structure. That is why I had a problem. I’m asking. I will ask that I’m requesting that if I made that mistake the community, the Committee should try to understand because I’m able to operate in Zone 7 and in Zone 8. If I found comrades in Zone 18 and they were fighting I cannot just leave them alone, I should try to intervene. I’m requesting the Committee to forgive me for the conflict or the contradiction.

CHAIRPERSON: Proceed Ms Thabethe.

MS THABETHE: On the same point Mr Radebe, I’m not quite sure of what you are saying. Are you saying now that you were confused because even if you were a SDU member of Small Farm you could still operate in Zone 12? Is that your evidence now

MR RADEBE: Yes.

MS THABETHE: Then can you explain why there was need for you to change from Small Farm unit to Zone 12 unit, whenever, whenever you changed? Why was there need for you to change if it didn’t matter in which unit you belonged to in the first place?

MR RADEBE: ...(not translated)

CHAIRPERSON: There is no translation, Mr translator, through our headphones.

INTERPRETER: I beg your pardon.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you able to translate to us so far? Will you need Mr Radebe to repeat?

INTERPRETER: Yes I request so.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Radebe when you were giving your evidence in Sesotho the interpreter was unable to pick up what you said. Will you please just repeat yourself so that what you said earlier on can be translated to us in English.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(not translated to English)

INTERPRETER: May you please try to repeat your question because we are not able to hear in English because it was not translated.

MR RADEBE: What I was saying is that for a person to change from a particular unit, I beg your pardon, Ms Thabethe was asking me why did I change from Small Farm to Zone 12 unit. CHAIRPERSON:   Yes, we want your answer to that question.

MR RADEBE: My answer is that in, within the SDU unit in Small Farm I was not satisfied the way they were operating because I was prepared to patrol day and night but at times you would find that there was a car at a particular post and some people were shot and they would not give you the full account of the incident. Because I observed that the community would not have trust in us because we would say people were shot and the car has left the scene without being noticed. That is why I joined comrade Mabusa and others because they were committed to their work.

MS THABETHE: So are you saying whilst you were still in Small Farm, you were working for the Small Farm community as an SDU there?

MR RADEBE: Yes, that is correct.

MS THABETHE: So it’s not true that whilst you were an SDU in Small Farm you could also operate in Zone 12?

MR RADEBE: That is true I would work in a different unit.

MS THABETHE: Is your evidence that SDU’s used to work interchangeably in different sections or in different zones?

MR RADEBE: Yes, that is my testimony.

CHAIRPERSON: I am finding some problems in understanding this aspect of your evidence. I have understood you to be giving us the reason why you left the Small Farm unit and joined comrade Mabusa’s unit in Zone 12 as having been because of your dissatisfaction with how that unit operated.

MR RADEBE: Yes that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And not because you could work, you could be a member of a particular sub-unit and still operate in the activities of other sub-units in your area. Do you understand my difficulty?

MR RADEBE: Within Sebokeng all units were helping, every unit were helping one another, we’re helping each other in different ways. Other comrades would inform us that we’re going to have a night vigil in a particular area. We would go there to that particular place to patrol that area for the whole night. ...(indistinct) those people were shooting at the community during the night vigils.

CHAIRPERSON: My difficulty emanates from understanding your evidence. Is it your evidence that you could have been a member of the Small Farm unit and still participate in operations and or activities of another unit? For instance the Zone 12 unit. Is that your evidence?

MR RADEBE: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: If that is so, it would not have mattered therefore whether you were dissatisfied or otherwise with the way in which your unit was performing its function. That wouldn’t have mattered.

MR RADEBE: At that time it was important to me. I thought it would be better if I would be part of the Zone 12 unit.

CHAIRPERSON: You elected to leave the Small Farm unit. You resigned from the Small Farm unit and joined comrade Mabusa’s unit in Zone 12.

MR RADEBE: I would not say I resigned because we were working hand in hand with other units. It was just to change position to another sub-unit. But it doesn’t mean that if I move from that unit I would not go back and help them.

CHAIRPERSON: Let’s understand your comprehension of moving. If you move from one unit and you then become second in charge of another unit, what do you understand that to be?

MR RADEBE: When I talk about moving I’m talking about a base. As I was in my unit in Small Farm during the day and during the night I should be at the bases in Small Farm for anything which would happen unexpectedly, for reinforcement. That is why I said moved from Small Farm unit to Zone 12 unit.

CHAIRPERSON: You know that has not been the ambit of your evidence, that you operated interchangeably within different units. That’s not been the way your evidence has been led by your Counsel.

MR RADEBE: My evidence is that we were helping each other as various units.

CHAIRPERSON: That has not been your evidence sir. That’s not your evidence in chief. That’s not in the evidence when questions were put to you by Members of the Committee for clarification. That has not been your evidence.

MR RADEBE: I think I’ve not been asked as to whether we were working hand in hand as units within the same township.

CHAIRPERSON: Your evidence has always been that you were working, you, were a member of a particular unit. You went on to explain to this Committee the membership within your sub-unit. You went on to name different persons who belonged to your sub-unit. Do you recall when you enumerated members of your sub-unit in Zone 12? You were specific Mr Radebe.

MR RADEBE: Yes I do.

CHAIRPERSON: How can you then say you have not been given an opportunity to explain that you belonged to a number of units? How could you proceed to explain the membership and the structure of your unit, and the chain of command within your sub-unit, if you did not understand your evidence to be addressing that particular problem?

MR RADEBE: May you please repeat your question?

CHAIRPERSON: I am telling you that we have not understood your evidence to be to the effect that you were acting within different units at any given time. We understood your evidence to be saying you belonged to a particular unit at any given moment. You went on to explain when you were a member of the Small Farm, went on to explain why you left Small Farm. Your evidence in chief only referred to the fact that there were problems, without specifying the nature of the problem that you had in Small Farm. And then you said you joined the Zone 12 unit.

MR RADEBE: Yes I said so.

CHAIRPERSON: Now how can you then say you did not understand the questions that were asked of you?

MR RADEBE: I understood the questions, but they were not in regard to my movement or a movement of any SDU member in relation to various units. But immediately we know that there is a particular incident, all of us would go and attend that situation.

CHAIRPERSON: You know your Counsel led you in this regard. In fact, she introduced her first leading question in ascertaining the structure of command and the structure of your unit by asking you about one Bonga Khumalo, and it was in that instance that you referred to the fact that Bonga Khumalo was a general commander of all units. That’s what you stated.

MR RADEBE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And that you, however, were a member of the Zone 12 unit. I went on to request you to name the members within your unit in Zone 12, and I told you that my question sought to elicit the membership of the Zone 12 unit because that’s the unit that you were a member of, and you went on to explain that Mr Fani Abraham Mkhwanazi, Shiya Ntjolo, Gomani, Shakes, and others, whose names you could not remember, were a member of your particular unit, meaning the Zone 12 sub-unit and that you became a member of that unit in 1993. Wasn’t sufficient ground laid for you to explain yourself better, to show that ‘though you could have been a member of Zone 12 you also operated in other activities of the other units?

MR RADEBE: Not that I would engage in various operations of that particular unit, for example, the Chairperson is, I’m trying to explain that there would be an incident in Zone 2. They would send somebody, not that they would send somebody to call us, but because we would know, we would go there.

CHAIRPERSON: To do what, if you went there? If you did not go in to do something, what would you be going there to do?

MR RADEBE: For example, the Inkatha IFP hit squad they would use the Ford, the Ford cars. If we can meet a particular car which may be identified as the one used by the IFP we would attack it.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabethe you may proceed.

MS THABETHE: Thank you Madam Chair. Just a clarification Mr Radebe before I move to the next aspect. I just want to find out. You said you were a senior commander to Mr Mkhwanazi. Was this now before or after you had changed from Small Farm unit to Zone 12 unit? Was it before or after you had changed?

MR RADEBE: When I arrived and joined the SDU in Zone 12 I became his senior. When I was in Small Farm I would not give him commands.

MS THABETHE: So now between the two versions that you’ve given as to when you changed, which one, which one are you sticking with? Was it before or after Hapile Ndumo was killed?

MR RADEBE: I would maintain the one which I said is before, this is correct, because I’m making mistakes about the months. I’m confusing the months because I’m not exactly sure in which month.

ADV BOSMAN: Ms Thabethe can I just clear up something here. It is not clear to me what the position was in regard to seniority. What was your rank in Small Farm? Where were you in seniority, in the Small Farm unit?

MR RADEBE: I was just an ordinary member of the unit.

ADV BOSMAN: So how did it come about that you got promoted in the Zone 12 unit?

MR RADEBE: A few weeks before I left Small Farm, that is when I received my underground military training in Sasolburg.

ADV BOSMAN: Are you then saying that you were promoted in Zone 12 because you had in the meantime undergone training as underground?

MR RADEBE: Yes, that is correct.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

MR LAX: Now I’m totally confused. Your evidence in chief was when you were being, you weren’t actually led on this issue but you expanded on it yourself, on the issue of training and so on, and your evidence was very clear. That you were a member of Small Farms, then you went to Zone 12, then after Zone 12 you went to Sasolburg, and it was there you got your underground training. Now you’re saying you got your underground training while you were at Small Farms. Which one, what is the true version now?

MR RADEBE: In those weeks I was attending some training because we felt that I’d go to the underground training without understanding, so I had orientation before. That is why I saying I received training after.

MR LAX: So now you’re saying you had two lots of underground training, one when you were at Small Farms, and one after you’d gone to Sasolburg much later.

MR RADEBE: Whilst I was in Small Farm I was attending some orientation courses in Sasolburg about the real training. So that I would understand first before I undergo the real training. The after I went to Sasol to do the real underground training.

MR LAX: Well your evidence now has just been that you got your underground training while you were at Small Farms.

MR RADEBE: Yes.

MR LAX: Well please explain to us, which version do you now want us to accept as your evidence? Because we now have three different versions. Firstly you went for your underground training after you left Zone 12 and went to Sasolburg. Secondly we have you went for your underground training when you were at Small Farms. And now thirdly in an attempt to explain yourself, you went for a sort of pre-training, and initiation training to prepare you for your underground training later.

MR RADEBE: When I said I received training whilst I was in Small Farm, it was an orientation kind of training. Then after that I had to go for training as to whether am I fit enough so that I will be able to confront any particular incident. That is where I went to Sasol that I passed that training.

MR LAX: I just want to place on record you’re not explaining this thing satisfactorily at all, but carry on Ms Thabethe.

ADV BOSMAN: Ms Thabethe, just one question to follow on here. Can I just repeat my question again? If you had not undergone underground training but were just sort of orientated, on what grounds did you get promotion so soon in the Zone 12 unit?

MR RADEBE: What’s the question?

ADV BOSMAN: You told me that you were promoted because you had undergone underground training before going to the Zone 12 unit, now you say it was not underground training, it was just an orientation to see if you fit for underground training. So could you just explain again then, how did it come about you were, so soon after you’d gone to Zone 12, promoted?

MR RADEBE: Maybe they were satisfied with my progress. Maybe because of the tasks which I performed before. I would not know the criteria they used in my promotion. I was informed that in the absence of Mabusa I would be in charge, that is why

ADV BOSMAN: Who informed you? Carry on.

MR RADEBE: Sorry. That is Mabusa and a certain person in Sasol.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you Ms Thabethe.

MS THABETHE: Thank you. Mr Radebe, exactly how and where did you shoot Ms Hapile Ndumo? I mean, maybe I’m not clear, did you shoot her on the head, the neck, how did you shoot her?

CHAIRPERSON: Does it matter Ms Thabethe?

MS THABETHE: Madam Chair, there’s a follow up question, yes I think it matters, because he had said earlier on that, he gave evidence that Mr Mkhwanazi also shot Ms Hapile Ndumo. So now I want him to explain because it’s like he’s the only one who shot him. I want him to explain how did he do it and what the others were doing while he was shooting her.

CHAIRPERSON: I’ll allow it but I don’t see it’s relevance, the intention was to shoot to kill.

MS THABETHE: Thank you Madam.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed.

MS THABETHE: How did you shoot her, Ms Hapile Ndumo?

MR LAX: The question is where did you shoot her on her body? When you say how then you go into all sorts of other areas Ms Thabethe.

MS THABETHE: Thank you Member of the Committee. Where in her body did you shoot her?

MR RADEBE: I would say on the chest.

MS THABETHE: How many times?

MR RADEBE: I would say it was four, four times if I’m not mistaken.

MS THABETHE: There was evidence that there was, the name IFP was written on Hapile’s thigh. Who, who wrote that on her thigh?

MR LAX: It wasn’t written on her thigh, it was carved with a knife on her thigh.

MS THABETHE: Thank you Member of the Committee.

MR RADEBE: I don’t know who did that.

MS THABETHE: So you lied in your evidence in Court when you said you saw Mr Neti doing it and that you also saw him tearing off her clothes?

MR RADEBE: Yes, I lied.

MS THABETHE: In your evidence you said you shot Elsie and Hapile because you wanted to achieve a political objective against IFP. My question is how was shooting Elsie and Hapile going to achieve that political objective? Can you briefly explain?

MR RADEBE: The community would be free.

MS THABETHE: From what?

MR RADEBE: They would be freed from their murderers and their spies.

MS THABETHE: In your evidence you said Mabusa told you more about Elsie and Hapile. Exactly what did he tell you?

MR RADEBE: He told me that they were Inkatha members and they are wanted, together with others.

MS THABETHE: Did he tell you about a Johannes Msimbe, or is it the first time you hear about him now?

MR RADEBE: I don’t know him.

MS THABETHE: So you don’t know that there was a policeman in Zone 12 by the name of Johannes Msimbe, who happened to be Elsie’s boyfriend. You don’t know that?

MR RADEBE: No, I don’t know that.

MS THABETHE: You see Mr Radebe, it’s my instructions that you actually targeted Ms Mokoena because she happened to have a relationship with this policeman. What is your response to that?

MR RADEBE: He may take it that way because the police were helping Inkatha.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you know at that stage that she was having a relationship with a policeman?

MR RADEBE: No, I did not know.

MS THABETHE: My next question is, if Mabusa Mhlongo had not told you that Elsie and Hapile were IFP, would you have killed them, or would you have shot them?

MR RADEBE: No, I would not.

MS THABETHE: Thank you Madam Chair, no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS THABETHE

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Thabethe. Ms Moloisane do you have any re-examination?

MS MOLOISANE: No questions in re-examination Madam Chair.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MS MOLOISANE

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lax, do you have any questions to put to Mr Radebe.

MR LAX: If you’ll just bear with me one moment Chair, there were one or two small things.

MR LAX: You said that when you left from the stokvel, from Neti’s place, this group of people then followed you. Is that right, did I hear correctly?

MR RADEBE: No.

MR LAX: So when did this group of people then begin following you?

MR RADEBE: When we left at Samuel Neti’s place.

MR LAX: Well that’s what I’ve just said.

MR RADEBE: You said at the stokvel.

MR LAX: Where was the stokvel?

MR RADEBE: It was far from Samuel Neti’s place, next to the tarred road.

MR LAX: You found him at the stokvel.

MR RADEBE: Yes.

MR LAX: Now, you, who had gone to find him, yourself and Mkhwanazi?

MR RADEBE: It was, I entered inside, but I left them outside.

MR LAX: Who is them?

MR RADEBE: Hapile Ndumo and Elsie Mokoena.

MR LAX: Yes.

MR RADEBE: I left Hapile Ndumo and Elsie Mokoena

MR LAX: So it was just the three of you?

MR RADEBE: ... and Abraham Mkhwanazi. I left the three of them outside when I entered there, then I came back with Kraai.

MR LAX: Where was Ntjolo?

MR RADEBE: Who?

MR LAX: Ntjolo.

MR RADEBE: We were together with him.

MR LAX: So? All of you went to the stokvel?

MR RADEBE: Yes, all of us went to the stokvel, I was the one who entered inside.

MR LAX: And you got Samuel out and then you went to Samuel’s house.

MR RADEBE: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAX: What did you do there?

MR RADEBE: We did not do anything we just left them there and then we left.

MR LAX: Now, did you leave them on the road there, or did you take them into Samuel’s house?

MR RADEBE: We left them on the street.

MR LAX: At that stage when you left them there was no crowd there yet?

MR RADEBE: Yes.

MR LAX: You then proceeded to Hollywood?

MS THABETHE: Yes.

MR LAX: Why did you go to Hollywood?

MR RADEBE: We were looking for ammunition.

MR LAX: Is that the only reason you went to Hollywood?

GAP BETWEEN TAPES

MR RADEBE: Yes.

MR LAX: Each consisting, well you said yours consisted of between 18 and 20 members. Did the others consist of 18 to 20 members?

MR RADEBE: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAX: Well you said that in total in the whole of Sebokeng there were between 80 and 100 SDU members, and that Bonga Khumalo was the general overall commander of them. Is that right?

MR RADEBE: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAX: So at most to service the rest of Sebokeng there would have been 20 other people. That can’t be possible.

MR RADEBE: I don’t understand your question.

MR LAX: Well you see, you’ve told us there were 4 units in Zone 12 alone, and each of those units had been 18 and 20 members, that’s 80 people at best. So of the balance of 100 people at best, or on your version, there are 20 other SDU members for the rest of Sebokeng. That can’t possibly be true, you must be making a mistake.

MR RADEBE: I said in my unit we were approximately 18 to 20 members. I did not say each unit in Zone 12.

MR LAX: I’ve just asked you whether each unit in Zone 12 had about 18 to 20, you confirmed that.

MR RADEBE: I would not be able to explain that.

MR LAX: If you’ll just bear with me Chair, I just want to make a little note here. You said that the reason these people were killed was that they played a role in the killing of your comrades and they were involved in the spying of your comrades for the IFP. Did I hear that correctly?

MR RADEBE: Yes, that’s correct.

MR LAX: And if I understand you correctly they were doing this by passing information to the hostel residents, is that right?

MR RADEBE: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAX: Is it not true that there were many township people who fled the township and went and lived in the hostels?

MR RADEBE: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAX: So why would two women who were living in the township have to go and give information to the hostels, when there were people already in the hostels who were from the townships, who understood the SDU’s, who knew a lot about them, and who were actively engaged in killing your members? Why would these two young girls have to go and do that, when there were already people who were doing that, famous people who were doing that?

MR RADEBE: I would not know why.

MR LAX: You know about Getisi and his gang and all his people.

MR RADEBE: Yes I do.

MR LAX: Weren’t they involved in attacking your people?

MR RADEBE: Yes they did.

MR LAX: Weren’t they ex-township people?

MR RADEBE: Yes, they were staying in the township before.

MR LAX: Now you said something very interesting later on in your evidence. Towards the very end of your evidence you spoke about these ladies also being involved in giving information to the police.

MR RADEBE: Well, that’s the first time we’ve heard that bit of evidence. Where did you learn that from?

MR RADEBE: The comrades were discussing about that generally because if, if you were a member of Inkatha you aligned yourself with the police. Because whatever the comrades were doing it would be reported to the police.

MR LAX: You had no personal knowledge of that, did you?

MR RADEBE: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAX: It was just a general rumour.

MR RADEBE: Yes, I agree with you.

MR LAX: How come then Mr Mkhwanazi didn’t say anything about the involvement of this woman giving information to the police?

MR RADEBE: I don’t know sir.

MR LAX: Now, you also went on to mention Boipatong. What’s the relevant of Boipatong to this killing?

MR RADEBE: The information we received from the comrades from Boipatong is that young people would knock at the doors. When the doors are opened the people, the occupants of those houses, would be shot.

MR LAX: You heard no such information that these two women were involved in that issue. This was just a general statement, as you’ve put it to us here. Isn’t that so?

MR RADEBE: Yes, that was a general information we received.

MR LAX: But you see that’s not what Mkhwanazi told us. He said he questioned these people and they admitted it, that they were involved in Boipatong. You never heard that before, have you?

MR RADEBE: He told me after I shot Hapile Ndumo.

MR LAX: Well then why did you not say so now before I put it to you?

MR RADEBE: I thought the Committee would ask me in the process.

MR LAX: I asked you what you knew about Boipatong, you said nothing about Mkhwanazi having told you anything. All you knew was that it was general information, but you didn’t have any information that linked these two girls to that information. I asked you very carefully about that, and you agreed with me.

MR RADEBE: I made a mistake because that was the issue I knew of this time.

MR LAX: So there were a whole range of reasons why you killed them. One you thought they were Inkatha, right?

MR RADEBE: Yes.

MR LAX: Two you thought they were spying on township people for Inkatha, correct?

MR RADEBE: Yes.

MR LAX: Three you thought they were involved in the deaths of your members and other innocent people by Inkatha.

MR RADEBE: Yes.

MR LAX: Four, you thought they were spying on the police, spying for the police and therefore giving them information which led to the arrest and killing of your members.

MR RADEBE: You talked about spying late, earlier.

MR LAX: Well, there are two separate forms of spying. One is for the Inkatha people themselves, and one is for the police. There are two separate kinds of spying her.

MR RADEBE: We regarded the police and Inkatha as one thing. Because Inkatha was injuring people, they would use the Caspers together with the police having guards, therefore we saw them as one.

CHAIRPERSON: In your mind the fact that the police were perceived by your community to be collaborating with the IFP, you did not draw a very fine distinction between the two. When you speak of spying for the IFP and you speak of spying for the police, you also don’t necessarily are drawing a distinction?

MR RADEBE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: We know that the time is twenty to two, and I think Mr Radebe would probably want to have some lunch. We can’t allow a witness to give evidence with a hungry stomach. I therefore suggest that we adjourn for lunch and we reconvene at five past two. Thank you.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

JOHN RADEBE: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Questions were still being put to you by Mr Lax. He will continue to do so. Mr Lax.

MR LAX: Mr Radebe did you know these two women?

MR RADEBE: I did not.

MR LAX: You didn’t know where they lived or what their whereabouts were?

MR RADEBE: I did not know their whereabouts.

MR LAX: Thank you Chairperson, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAX

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Lax. Ms Bosman, do you have any questions to put to Mr Radebe?

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you. Mr Radebe in your evidence you said that on the 15th of August 1993 when Letsolo and Mkhwanazi arrived, you accompanied them to Zone 7. Where were you when they arrived?

MR RADEBE: I was at Small Farms.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Interpreter could you please just repeat that for me, I didn’t have my headphones on.

INTERPRETER: I was at Small Farms.

ADV BOSMAN: Now is, Mr Mkhwanazi said different to what you are saying. He said that they sort of bumped into you and you insisted that they should accompany you. How do you explain this different version.

MR RADEBE: Yes, I did.

ADV BOSMAN: Now, what happened now, did you accompany them or did they accompany you?

MR RADEBE: They accompanied me to stop at the tavern.

ADV BOSMAN: What were you going to do at Zone 7?

MR RADEBE: They told me that they were going to visit other comrades, then I told them that I am going there.

ADV BOSMAN: And what did you intend doing there? I mean, you must have had something in mind when you accompanied them.

MR RADEBE: There was nothing specific which I was going to do.

ADV BOSMAN: How many guns did you have with you?

CHAIRPERSON: A questions was put to you, what you were going to do at Zone 7, what you were going to do at Zone 7, and you responded by saying Ntjulo and Mkhwanazi told you that they were going to see other comrades.

MR RADEBE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So they didn’t go with you because they were accompanying you, you were accompanying them to see and visit their comrades in Zone 7. Is that what you’re saying?

MR RADEBE: Yes, I said so.

CHAIRPERSON: As it has already been put to you, that is not the version of Mr Mkhwanazi. Mr Mkhwanazi says that you requested them to accompany you to Zone 7 because you had to collect your money from somebody who was owing you. What do you say to that version given by Mr Mkhwanazi?

MR RADEBE: The person who was supposed to give me money was the one we were going to at the tavern, not in Zone 7. The person was at the tavern not in Zone 7.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but the fact of the matter is that his version is that they accompanied you to the tavern because you had insisted that they should do so because you had to collect some funds from somebody who owed you.

MR RADEBE: I did not insist, I requested them.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Bosman, you may proceed.

ADV BOSMAN: At that time how many guns did you have with you?

MR RADEBE: Two guns.

ADV BOSMAN: Why were you carrying two guns?

MR RADEBE: 7.65 which is a Star had a problem with the firing pin.

ADV BOSMAN: Who issued these guns to you?

MR RADEBE: I got them from one supporter of the ANC.

ADV BOSMAN: And this rule that two of you had to go if you wanted to collect guns or ammunition, who had made that rule?

MR RADEBE: We formulated that rule together as members of the self defence unit.

ADV BOSMAN: But which unit formulated the rule? You were apparently the member of a few units.

MR RADEBE: It applied to all units.

ADV BOSMAN: But who formulated the rule?

MR RADEBE: We, the members of the self defence unit, made that rule.

ADV BOSMAN: Did each and every unit make such a rule?

MR RADEBE: In every unit nobody would do the way he likes, so we used one uniform rule.

ADV BOSMAN: Did all the units have this rule?

MR RADEBE: Yes.

ADV BOSMAN: Was there any rules in relation to guns, whether you were allowed to carry more than one gun? Could you have as many guns as you wished to?

MR RADEBE: Yes.

ADV BOSMAN: Yes, my question was a bit double. Could you have as many guns as you wished to have?

MR RADEBE: Yes.

ADV BOSMAN: I just find it strange that there is a rule in relation to the collection of ammunition and guns, but on the other hand you are allowed to have as many guns as you wish, that there were no rules in that regard.

MR RADEBE: As I have already said that operations were not the same. I would not be able to shoot one, I would not shoot one person with a rifle, I would use a pistol, then I would have a pistol and a rifle at the same time, depending on the operation. If it’s, if necessary I would carry a grenade in addition.

ADV BOSMAN: Alright, I don’t quite understand but I won’t pursue that any further. Mkhwanazi also said that your intention was to question the two girls, that was how they understood it. And you told us that you had decided to shoot them almost from the start, when you said, after you’d seen them. What is the correct version?

MR RADEBE: There was nothing which Mkhwanazi would do without my instruction.

ADV BOSMAN: But did you not tell Mkhwanazi that you were going to question them?

MR RADEBE: No, I did not.

ADV BOSMAN: So is he giving us the wrong information?

MR RADEBE: I said that we were going to Zone 12 to our office, where we would ask them questions, then after shoot them. But our main objective was not to interrogate them on that day.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Mkhwanazi knew that?

MR RADEBE: I would say yes.

ADV BOSMAN: Now why is he telling us a different version now?

MR RADEBE: I believe it’s not different from my version.

ADV BOSMAN: But it’s not the same.

MR RADEBE: I mentioned that we were taking them to the office to ask them questions, then thereafter shoot them.

ADV BOSMAN: Did you know that Mkhwanazi knew Hapile, that he lived near her?

MR RADEBE: Please repeat the question.

ADV BOSMAN: Do you know that Mkhwanazi knew the deceased, Hapile?

MR RADEBE: Yes.

ADV BOSMAN: So why did you ask her whether you should her? Why did you ask him whether you should shoot her?

MR RADEBE: I was asking not that whether I should shoot her or not. I was asking him in regard to the place where she should be shot, as to whether is it the right place for her to be shot.

ADV BOSMAN: Why did you ask him that question?

MR RADEBE: ...(not translated)

ADV BOSMAN: There’s no translation coming through.

MR RADEBE: Zone 8 is a quiet place. It was not infested with violence, that is why I would not just shoot, that is why I had to verify with our comrades as to whether should we take them further or should I shoot them at that place.

ADV BOSMAN: I still don’t understand. You say Zone 8 is a quiet place. It was not infested with violence, therefore you had to ask the comrades. Now why did you have to ask them, if you knew that it was a quiet place?

MR RADEBE: In my unit there were people who were able to survey the place as to whether should we continue with the operation or not, so on that day I sought his advice as to whether is it the right place to execute the operation.

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose Ms Bosman? That is not the question that was put by Ms Bosman to you. Ms Bosman wants to know why you asked Mr Mkhwanazi whether to shoot the ladies or not. Now your response should be in relation to whether you did say that, or you didn’t. Did you ask Mr Mkhwanazi?

MR RADEBE: Yes I did.

CHAIRPERSON: Whether the ladies should be shot or not. Not about the place where they should be shot at, but about whether they should be shot at all. Do you understand the distinction between the two?

MR RADEBE: Yes I did.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you ask him that? The question does not want you to address facts about the locality of where they were to be shot. They want you to explain why you asked that question about whether they should be shot at all?

MR RADEBE: It is because Abraham has knowledge in the surveillance because I would not make a decision on my own.

CHAIRPERSON: What surveillance are you talking about? I do not understand in what relation Abraham’s surveillance impinges on what you are saying.

MR RADEBE: The reason for me to ask as to whether should I shoot them there or somewhere else, it is not because I sought his instruction.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you or did you not say to Abraham, should I shoot at these ladies? Not about should I shoot at these ladies here.

MR RADEBE: I asked him as to whether should I shoot or not.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, why did you have to ask him? You were the second in charge. You were the one who was given orders. Do you see the contradiction in terms? You are asking your subordinate about whether you as a commander should do something or not.

MR RADEBE: As I’ve already explained that I did not seek his instruction or order. My problem was as to whether that place was conducive for that operation or not, because it was in the tavern and people would run away. As many things used to happen that people think that it was Inkatha which was attacking.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Radebe you are taking us nowhere with the way in which you are responding to questions. You know the question that you asked Mr Mkhwanazi did not seek to establish whether the place was safe or not, that is quite clear. You asked the question, and you agree that you did ask that question. You surely cannot want to have us believe that you wanted to establish facts about the place, when your question clearly sought to seek his guidance about whether you can shoot or not.

MR RADEBE: I asked Abraham that way in regard to as to whether the place was conducive or not for that operation. I did not have a problem of shooting them there.

CHAIRPERSON: We do not comprehend your response. We, however, will not belabour the point. You may proceed Ms Bosman.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you Chairperson. You also said in your evidence that the whole community wanted them, the two, the girls. Is that correct?

MR RADEBE: Yes that is correct.

ADV BOSMAN: Now is Zone 8 part of the community?

MR RADEBE: Yes.

ADV BOSMAN: So why would the girls come to a tavern in the community which wanted them, if they were spied for Inkatha? I don’t understand that. Can you suggest anything?

MR RADEBE: Zone 12 is far from Zone 8. You do your terrible things in Zone 12 then you’d go to Zone 8 and the people in Zone 8 would not know you. There are members which I did not know at that time because we were many.

ADV BOSMAN: No you don’t understand my question. You told us that the whole community wanted the girls, and then you were asked about the community and you said all the Zones had SDU units, and now my question is, if these girls were wanted by the whole community including Zone 8, why would they go to a tavern in the community to expose themselves?

MR RADEBE: I don’t know the reason why they went to that tavern. I have just used my own analysis that they knew that Zone 8 is not, they were not known, and it’s not infested with violence.

ADV BOSMAN: Did you hear me ask that question to Mr Mkhwanazi?

MR RADEBE: Yes, I heard.

ADV BOSMAN: That’s why I’m not really surprised at your answer. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Radebe, you have listened to the evidence that was given by Mr Mkhwanazi with regard to when the community became aware of the activities of Ms Ndumo, who is now deceased, and Ms Mokoena, and how he himself became aware of their activities, and the period in which he became aware of their activities.

MR RADEBE: Yes, I heard.

CHAIRPERSON: Now his evidence differs with that given by you.

MR RADEBE: Yes, I’m aware, because he’s staying in Zone 12 and I was not staying in Zone 12, which means he knew these things before I did.

CHAIRPERSON: My problem however, inasmuch as I’m aware of what you are saying, and I would agree with you, you didn’t stay in Zone 12, where at least we have established that Ms Mokoena stayed, no evidence was led by Mr Mkhwanazi, on where Ms Ndumo stayed. My problem however is what Mr Mkhwanazi said in this evidence. He stated that he as a member of the SDU advised his unit about the activities of the ladies in question. Do you recall Mr Mkhwanazi when he gave testimony to that effect?

MR RADEBE: When he said what? ...(not translated)

CHAIRPERSON: Don’t change my gender.

INTERPRETER: I think he’s talking to the interpreter.

CHAIRPERSON: I thought that was referred to me. Mr Mkhwanazi stated that he shared his information about the activities of the ladies in question with his unit, that would be your unit, in Zone 12. He went on to say in any event the ladies were quite notorious with the community at large because of their activities. The community at large was aware of their activities. In a way you’ve also admitted that the community was aware of their activities, however, in your evidence in chief you sought to rely on the information given to you by your commander, comrade Mabusa Mhlongo, and stated that had it not been him you wouldn’t have been aware of the ladies’ activities. What I do not therefore understand, is whether Mr Mkhwanazi was telling us the truth when he said he as a member of your unit shared this information with you. When I say you, I am talking about your unit to which you were a second in command. Now why should you wait for comrade Mabusa Mhlongo to give you information in that regard, when on the evidence of Mr Mkhwanazi that information had been freely given to you as members of your unit?

MR RADEBE: As I was the second in command in that unit, it’s not that I did not trust what Mkhwanazi said, as he was in my unit, but I would not take any instruction from him, that a particular operation should be executed. I had to wait for Mr Mabusa to give an order that the situation is like this, and this should be done.

CHAIRPERSON: Your evidence was that Mr Mabusa told you about the activities of the ladies in question. It was not to the effect that he gave you the order to kill them.

MR RADEBE: Yes, I said s.

CHAIRPERSON: Now you first became aware of the, your evidence said you got the information about the activities of the ladies from comrade Mabusa, and that you heard this in 1992 or early 1993. That was your evidence.

MR RADEBE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Was Mkhwanazi telling us the truth when he said he had shared this information, with his unit to which you were also a member?

MR RADEBE: He was telling the truth.

CHAIRPERSON: Why then, did you only have to have this information from the lips of comrade Mabusa?

MR RADEBE: Because he is the commander.

CHAIRPERSON: So you only trusted the information that was told to you by a commander, and not the information shared with you by a person who was staying closer to one of the ladies in question? You didn’t trust Mr Mabusa when he told you that, Mr Mkhwanazi?

MR RADEBE: I trusted him.

CHAIRPERSON: So, I still do not understand what you are saying. Did Mr Mkhwanazi tell you about the ladies’ activities? Was that before you were told by comrade Mabusa?

MR RADEBE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you not believe his information but only believed the information and act upon it once it was told to you by comrade Mabusa?

MR RADEBE: Not that I did not trust Mr Mkhwanazi’s information, but as we are all members of the unit I would not take a decision on my own that this what we should do. It would come to the ears of Mr Mabusa and then he would be the one who would issue a command.

CHAIRPERSON: But I’m not even addressing the issue of whether Mr Mabusa gave you an order or commanded you to execute the ladies in question. I haven’t come to that stage yet. I am merely trying to establish whether Mr Mkhwanazi shared this information with you, and if he did, why did it not say in your evidence that you first became aware of the activities of the late Ndumo and the person you assaulted, Ms Mokoena, when Mr Mkhwanazi advised the activities to your unit. Why did you not say that?

MR RADEBE: I said it is the truth of what he said, and it’s true that he told us, but we would not act according to that information. We had to wait for Mr Mabusa to inform us, then it’s then that I can take an action.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I will leave that aspect there and take your answers for what they are worth. Is it your evidence that you were commanded by comrade Mabusa to kill the ladies in question? Is that your evidence?

MR RADEBE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And comrade Mabusa commanded you to execute these ladies in his capacity as a commander of your unit in Zone 12. Is that correct?

MR RADEBE: Let me try to explain. In Vaal we had ANC structures. You’ll find there is ANC youth league, there is a civic associations, and then the SDU’s and members of the MK. There are problems which would make us to meet, therefore we would discuss about that particular problem. Then from there a decision would be taken. But the major decision would be taken by those who are responsible for the defence. That is why I said the command came from Mr Mabusa.

CHAIRPERSON: It’s a very simple question that I’m putting to you. It did not necessitate an explanation that you gave. Comrade Mabusa gave you an order to execute, and he gave such an order as your commander, and you belonged to the Zone 12 unit?

MR RADEBE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And may I ask when this command was issued by your commander, Mabusa?

MR RADEBE: I will say some months before this incident. Or maybe weeks, but it’s not on that particular day of the incident. The command was issued that wherever or whenever we see these people we should execute the operation.

CHAIRPERSON: I was about to go, I was going to ask you about the nature of the command and you have now come to my assistance. The command was whenever you as members of the unit, you used the word plural, when we, when you as members of the unit saw the ladies in question you were to kill them. Was that the command?

MR RADEBE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And this command was given to you as a unit, not necessarily to you as Mr Radebe?

MR RADEBE: Yes it was issued to us as seniors of the unit, then it will depend on me, on myself, as to whether what will be the situation with whom am I among members of the unit. That would be the one who would help me to execute ...(gap between tapes)

CHAIRPERSON: The command was issued to you as seniors of the unit. How many seniors did your unit consist of?

MR RADEBE: We were four, senior members.

CHAIRPERSON: And what were the positions held by the three other seniors?

MR RADEBE: They were commanding other sub-units.

CHAIRPERSON: What sub-units are you alluding to? I thought you were talking about Zone 12 which already was a sub-unit of the entire SDU structure in Sebokeng.

MR RADEBE: In the sub-units within Zone 12.

CHAIRPERSON: So in Zone 12 you had your unit, which was further sub-divided. Is that what you are saying?

MR RADEBE: We had one unit. We executing operations as, and we were eight when we did some of the operations, but the people who are responsible for the operations are ourselves, the eight, but other were doing other, other works.

CHAIRPERSON: So when you say there were four seniors, you are talking about your units and the other units that you’ve already testified to their existence, because you earlier on said Zone 12 consisted of four units, and your unit was one of the four.

MR RADEBE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Now the problem which I have with this aspect of evidence, is that Mr Mkhwanazi testified that the commander of your unit was one Bonga Khumalo, and you are saying the commander was comrade Mabusa Mhlongo. Am I correct? That’s the surname you gave us, Mabusa Mhlongo.

MR RADEBE: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, how is it that Mr Mkhwanazi, who was a member within your unit, your particular unit in Zone 12, can say that you were all being commanded in your unit by Bonga Khumalo, and you say you were commanded by comrade Mabusa Mhlongo?

MR RADEBE: Mr Mkhwanazi is tell you the truth that Bonga was the commander of that unit, because he was not falling under one particular unit. He was a general commander of Zone 12 SDU’s.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand your evidence. That was not his evidence. Did you understand my problem. Let me repeat.

MR RADEBE: Yes I did.

CHAIRPERSON: Now how, how does it come that Mr Mkhwanazi should speak about Bonga Khumalo as having been a commander of your unit, and you say he was an overall commander of all units in Sebokeng?

MR RADEBE: In Zone 12, not in Sebokeng.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR RADEBE: I would say he was, Bonga Khumalo is my commander. I would say he was my commander because he’s an overall commander. But I would not go to him to receive instructions. Instructions were via from Mabusa to me from Mr Khumalo.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mkhwanazi went a step further. He said you were second in charge to Mr Khumalo, which really crystallises the issue. See, if he had left it at Mr Bonga Khumalo having been a commander there would have been no problems with me, but he went further to say you were the second in charge to Mr Khumalo. Now this brought problems in my mind when you gave your evidence. If he believed that Bonga Khumalo was a commander by virtue of him being an overall commander in Zone 12, why should he go a step further and say you were second in command to him?

MR RADEBE: He was supposed to say so because on that day I, on that particular day I gave him orders in that operation. Therefore would say I am in second in command from Bonga because he did not understand the overall commander and the commander of a particular unit, but I was second in charge to Mr Mabusa.

CHAIRPERSON: Why would Mr Mkhwanazi, who is a member of a unit, not understand the structure of command? Why wouldn’t he understand an ordinary structure and the nature of its command? We have evidence from him that he had been a member of that unit since 1992. We have evidence from you that were joined, coming late into that unit. You only came in either late in 92 or early in 1993. Now on what basis would you believe that he would make such a mistake, when he’s been a member of long standing in that particular unit?

MR RADEBE: I’m not able to tell this Committee why he would make that mistake.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mkhwanazi further gave testimony to the effect that so notorious were the activities of the ladies in question, that sometime in 1992 they were captured by one comrade Skosana and brought to the offices of the ANC, whereat the community administered lashes to show their disapproval of the community in the activities conducted by Ms Mokoena and the late Ndumo in spying for the IFP. Are you aware of that incident?

MR RADEBE: Yes I heard about it.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you in Zone 12 already when that incident took place? Were you part of the unit?

MR RADEBE: No, I was not yet in Zone 12.

CHAIRPERSON: And when you say you heard about it, were you aware of that incident before Ms Ndumo was killed?

MR RADEBE: Yes, I heard it from the comrades.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, did that incident not suggest to you that the community on whose behalf you were acting in protecting them against the IFP, did that incident not suggest that the community had condoned the ladies for their participation or association with the IFP?

MR RADEBE: They did not do anything to them because at that, for a long time they were not there. They were disciplined by being sjambokked, then from then they went back to the community as if they have been rehabilitated, but after some time they disappeared.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you, after their disappearance, have any tangible evidence that they had continued with their activities, notwithstanding the punishment meted out to them by the community? Did you have any facts in your possession as SDU’s?

MR RADEBE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, what were the facts which were at your disposal, and on which you then believed that they had not indeed become rehabilitated?

MR RADEBE: Because the killings continued. Then we received information that they were still involved. That information came from some members of the community and some members of our SDU’s or our comrades.

CHAIRPERSON: You received information that they were still involved from who?

MR RADEBE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: From whom?

MR RADEBE: From some comrades.

CHAIRPERSON: Which comrades? Bearing in mind that you were unable to act on what Mr Mkhwanazi had told you, until it was, it came from the lips of your commander comrade Mabusa.

MR RADEBE: It was discussed generally in the offices. We would just discuss it in passing.

CHAIRPERSON: But isn’t it true, and you heard the evidence of Mr Mkhwanazi, that you believed them to be spies because of what they had done previously?

MR RADEBE: Yes, I did.

CHAIRPERSON: And not because of what they had done subsequent to the punishment by the community?

MR RADEBE: I received information that they were doing these things before they were disciplined. Even after they had disciplined they returned to the community and after some time they disappeared. Then we received information again that they are still continuing with their association with IFP.

CHAIRPERSON: I’m surprised that this information that you are referring to ...(indistinct), according to Mr Mkhwanazi’s evidence, at least with regard to Elsie Mokoena, she disappeared for a very long time, and was not seen or heard of by him even ‘though he was staying very close to her home.

MR RADEBE: Yes, he’s telling the truth.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, the information that you obtained, you obtained from which sources?

MR RADEBE: I would tell a lie if I would say I received that information from a particular person. It was discussed under general. You would not know who is the source of that information.

CHAIRPERSON: To use Mr Mkhwanazi’s words, there was a wide rumour, and this wide rumour had been going on since 1992, and had not stopped. And it was as a result of that rumour that Skosana captured these women, brought them to the offices of the ANC, and the community participated in their interrogation, they gave their version, and the community decided to condone their actions.

MR RADEBE: I don’t believe that Skosana would just discipline them for something which is not relevant. If we were supposed to kill people because of rumours we could have killed many people. We used to receive information then we would verify that information from other comrades, and then if a person says that a certain person is that kind of a person, you must tell your reasons why he says that, up to the point where you would understand that that person is a member of Inkatha. Because at times the people would label you as Inkatha member whilst you’re not a member.

CHAIRPERSON: I don’t understand your response to what I have put to you initially.

MR RADEBE: I hear the Chairperson saying that wide rumour continued and it did not stop, or it was not stopped.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and it was the same wide rumour that resulted in the ladies in question being captured by Skosana, being interrogated by members of the community, and the community at that meeting decided to administer lashes to them and did not execute them. It was the same wide rumour that continued, notwithstanding the community’s action in administering the lashes, and condoning their actions.

MR RADEBE: All I can tell this Committee is that I did not act because of wild rumours. I did this based on the information received from my comrades.

CHAIRPERSON: You know I at times find it difficult to comprehend your evidence, and I don’t know whether you keep on contradicting yourself deliberately or not. You have been the one to be saying it was a wide rumour that was going around that these women continued to act in the way they had been acting before. Now why are you saying you couldn’t have acted on a wide rumour because this is your evidence, it’s coming from you? You say it was widely rumoured, the same words that Mr Mkhwanazi also referred to when he gave evidence. Now why do you want to now appear to be a person who would never act on a rumour?

MR RADEBE: It is true because I said I heard those rumours, but that would not be the reason for me to kill a person because it was rumoured in the township. There would be comrades who would chase the real facts, and be verified, and then it would be verified how they received that information.

CHAIRPERSON: You were second in command. Do you know whether in this case there was any verification conducted? Since you would have us believe that you wouldn’t act on a wild rumour or one of your comrades pointing out somebody as being an IFP member or collaborator.

MR RADEBE: There was nothing which I would do without receiving orders. Comrade Mabusa came to me and told me that we have these two people who are doing this kind of work. Then I thought that comrade would not tell me something which was not there.

CHAIRPERSON: So it is not within your personal knowledge whether comrade Mabusa relied on information which had been verified, and whether he did not rely on the information that was the same, and the preceded the administration of punishment by the community. You wouldn’t be able to say anything about that, that’s not within your personal knowledge, is it?

MR RADEBE: May you please repeat the question.

CHAIRPERSON: You would be unable to say for a fact whether comrade Mabusa relied on the information which had been verified. You can’t say that. And you cannot say that comrade Mabusa did not rely on the same information that led to the community administering lashes on the two ladies in question. You wouldn’t be able to say that.

MR RADEBE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Now when I asked you earlier on about when the command was issued to you by Mabusa, you gave me two answers. You said it could be a few months before the incident, then you corrected yourself, you said it could be a few weeks. In relation to the occurrence of this incident, which is the 15th of August 1993. In relation to that incident.

MR RADEBE: That is true.

CHAIRPERSON: In relation to that incident, how would you approximate the month in which you were given an order to execute these two women?

MR RADEBE: I would tell a lie if, I don’t remember.

CHAIRPERSON: Were these not important orders?

MR RADEBE: Yes, they were important.

CHAIRPERSON: Had you been given such orders before? To execute women.

MR RADEBE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Specifically women?

MR RADEBE: No, not women.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so why are you unable to remember an incident which must have left some mark?

MR RADEBE: At that time I was thirteen years old, and we did so many things at that time. We were thirteen years old if I was not mistaken.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you not almost seventeen years old?

MR RADEBE: I said if I’m not mistaken. I was approximately fifteen years old.

MR LAX: You were actually sixteen and a half at the time. Based on the date of birth you gave us earlier. But that’s a factual matter, it’s, just clear up your misunderstanding.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the reason that would make you forget when orders were given to you?

MR RADEBE: It’s not the reason for me to forget. The reason is that we did many things.

CHAIRPERSON: But definitely you had not received any orders from your commander prior to this incident, to execute women who were suspected of being IFP collaborators.

MR RADEBE: I said I did.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, I thought you had said you didn’t?

MR RADEBE: The instruction was not to kill women. The instruction was that I should kill whoever brings death among the community. That’s why I say it’s a woman or it’s a man is immaterial.

CHAIRPERSON: But in respect of this incident, your evidence is that you were given specific orders to execute two women. That is your evidence. The order was specific, in terms of who and the gender of the person you had to execute.

MR RADEBE: Yes that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And you had never been specifically ordered to kill women.

MR RADEBE: Yes that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Now you gave evidence about the specific orders you gave to Mr Mkhwanazi. Have I understood your evidence properly, if I encapsulate it in this fashion, that your order to Mr Mkhwanazi was to go after Ms Ndumo, after she had fled into the tavern? Was that the nature of the order you gave to Mr Mkhwanazi?

MR RADEBE: I produced a gun and then I said chase after her.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Did you understand that to be an order from you, and that your order was only in respect of him pursuing Ms Ndumo, and nothing further than that?

MR RADEBE: He would decide what he would do because as I said he must pursue her. He knew that that person should be killed, because he would ask me why should I pursue her. He did that because he knew what should happen, what was happening. It was not a new thing to him.

CHAIRPERSON: If you give evidence to the effect that you ordered Mr Mkhwanazi, and if you were asked to detail the kind of order you issued to Mr Mkhwanazi, just tell us briefly what would be your response. What order did you give to Mr Mkhwanazi?

MR RADEBE: Is that she, he should pursue this lady. I was in a certain mood, because there were other things which I said to him but in my mind I had a picture of this person running away, then I ordered Mkhwanazi to chase after him because I shot somebody run away then I give him the gun.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you know that the gun you were giving him had no ammunition?

MR RADEBE: Yes, I did.

CHAIRPERSON: What then was the purpose of giving him a gun which had no ammunition?

MR RADEBE: Because that person did not know that the gun did not have ammunition by seeing that gun he would stop.

CHAIRPERSON: So it was not your intention that Mr Mkhwanazi should kill Ms Ndumo?

MR RADEBE: It was my intention because that gun had no ammunition he would not kill her.

CHAIRPERSON: It was or wasn’t? I’m finding it difficult, I don’t know whether it is your evidence, which is very confusing because it’s contradictory, or the problem with the translation. Was it your intention to have Ms Ndumo killed by Mr Mkhwanazi when you gave him the gun which had no ammunition.

MR RADEBE: Yes, it was my intention.

CHAIRPERSON: How can it be your intention to have somebody killed by someone when you give Mr Mkhwanazi a gun without any ammunition? How can you intend, how could you have intended for Ms Ndumo to have been killed by Mr Mkhwanazi?

MR RADEBE: I knew that we would take them, then we would look for ammunition at Sipapo’s place, then later they would be shot, because both of them did not know as to whether those guns had ammunition or not.

CHAIRPERSON: You did not tell Mr Mkhwanazi that the gun you had handed to him had no ammunition?

MR RADEBE: No, I did not.

CHAIRPERSON: Why not?

MR RADEBE: I knew that after I gave him that gun it is up to him to check the gun as to whether how many ammunition would be there. That is why he pointed the gun at her and they came together.

CHAIRPERSON: Why should it be up to a subordinate to check whether a weapon has any ammunition when it is given to him by a person who is in a senior position?

MR RADEBE: Any member within the unit or we are at a certain patrol, if I give that person a gun, it is up to him to check as to whether that gun is ready for use or not, because I would give him a gun without noticing as to whether it is in order or not in order. Then he would be injured whilst he’s carrying this gun. I believe that after he, when he pointed the gun at his person he knew already that there were no bullets inside.

CHAIRPERSON: How could he have known that?

MR RADEBE: Because immediately the gun is in his hand he must check the gun first at to whether is it in use, is it ready for use.

CHAIRPERSON: If Mr Mkhwanazi says that he believed that he was acting under orders, and therefore was justified in committing the offences in question, and your evidence is that the order was to pursue Ms Ndumo, and he did just that as you had ordered, he pursued Ms Ndumo, was able to bring Ms Ndumo back, you then continued to shoot Ms Ndumo. What order would you have given to Mr Mkhwanazi in those circumstances?

MR RADEBE: I don’t understand when you said he pursued him.

CHAIRPERSON: Pursued him. Mr Mkhwanazi pursued Ms Ndumo, as you had ordered that he should do, brought her back, and then you continued to shoot her. Would I be correct that he had then complied with your order of pursuing her and of bringing her back to where you were, which was, according to your evidence, next to the gate at the tavern?

MR RADEBE: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Moloisane, are you closing your case of Mr Radebe in respect of the Elsie Mokoena assault and the killing of Ms Hapile Ndumo? Do you wish to call further witnesses?

MS MOLOISANE: There are two other witnesses Madam Chair that we still would like to call.

CHAIRPERSON: In respect of this incident?

MS MOLOISANE: In respect of the incident of the 15th of August.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I think we’ll give you an opportunity to do so. We are through with Mr Radebe.

MS MOLOISANE: Before I call the other witnesses to come and testify, Madam Chair, I don’t know whether I am allowed to ask at this stage a question that emanated from the questions that were put to the applicant by the Committee, and in particular the question that, the questions that were put by the learned Committee Member, Mr Lax.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes you may do so.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MS MOLOISANE: Now Mr Radebe, as question was put to you that there were a whole range of reasons that led to, or that made you, to kill Hapile Ndumo and to attempt to kill Elsie Mokoena.

MR RADEBE: Yes.

MS MOLOISANE: And the answers that you gave, according to the interpretation that I got, were preceded by I thought that they were spying for the IFP, I thought they were this, this, this. So can we just clarify that to the Committee. I’m not quite sure whether it was a problem of interpretation or whether it was your own problem, but would you please clarify this whole issue as to what led to the killing Hapile Ndumo and the attempted killing of Elsie Mokoena.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Moloisane may I just get clarity? You obviously are asking this question because you believe that there could have been translation problems.

MS MOLOISANE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: That you are quite fluent in Sesotho.

MS MOLOISANE: That is correct Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: And you are sitting next to your client and can actually hear him quite well as he gives his evidence in Sesotho, and are able to listen to the translation which is in English.

MS MOLOISANE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. You are also willing to just raise this issue without resorting to him having to give an explanation, if you feel that there was a problem with a translation in this regard, just draw our attention to that, and whether what your client has said was I thought or I know.

MS MOLOISANE: Actually what the applicant said was, I believed, the information that he received concerning the activities of the two girls.

CHAIRPERSON: May I also say whenever you pick up this peculiar situation where things have not been properly translated just bring it immediately to the attention of the Chair so that we can appropriately attend to that problem before we move on.

MS MOLOISANE: As it please you Madam Chair. Shall I continue to call another witness at this stage. I am through with,

CHAIRPERSON: You are through at this point. We’ll take it as correct that what was said was not his thinking but his belief.

WITNESS EXCUSED

MS MOLOISANE: As it please you Madam Chair. At this stage I’ll call another witness, Stanley Gqiba.

CHAIRPERSON: Should we adjourn?

Mr Stanley Gqiba, what language do you speak?

MR GQIBA: ...(not translated)

CHAIRPERSON: We would prefer that you choose a language that you are most comfortable in. If you would like to lead your evidence in Zulu, please say so. Don’t say even Sotho will be okay. We want to know which language you prefer to give your evidence in.

MR GQIBA: Zulu.

INTERPRETER: English

MR LAX: Zulu Mr Interpreter. You’ve just interpreted Zulu for us. You said English instead of Zulu.

INTERPRETER: Thank you very much for the correction.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you please stand Mr Gqiba. Are you prepared to take the oath?

STANLEY GQIBA: (sworn, states)

CHAIRPERSON: Now you may be seated.

EXAMINATION BY MS MOLOISANE: As it pleases you Madam Chair and Committee Members. Mr Gqiba, where do you stay?

MR GQIBA: Zone 12 Extension.

MS MOLOISANE: Is that Sebokeng?

MR GQIBA: Yes.

MS MOLOISANE: Are you a member of any political organisation?

MR GQIBA: Yes, the ANC.

MS MOLOISANE: On the 15th of August 1993, to which political organisation were you aligned, or to which organisation did you belong?

MR GQIBA: I was a member of the ANC youth league.

MS MOLOISANE: Did you have any portfolio there, or not?

MR GQIBA: I had several portfolios from the treasurer to secretary, etc.

CHAIRPERSON: You mean in 1993?

MS MOLOISANE: That is correct Madam Chair. If you say etcetera, which other portfolios are you referring to?

MR GQIBA: We used to hold Annual General Meetings, so that a new structure had to be elected every 12 months. I was a treasurer in 1991 and secretary in 1992, and chairperson in 1993.

MS MOLOISANE: If I understand you correctly, on the 15th of August 1993 you were the chairperson of the youth league. Is that your evidence?

MR GQIBA: Yes, that is correct.

MS MOLOISANE: Do you know the applicants in this matter, Abraham Mkhwanazi, and John Radebe?

MR GQIBA: Yes, I know them.

MS MOLOISANE: Yes. Just explain to the Committee how you know them, and whether they occupied any, or whether they were any, whether they were members of your organisation or not, and if so what portfolios did they have.

MR GQIBA: Let me start off with Abraham Mkhwanazi. He is the one that I knew first. He was staying at Zone 12, we recruited them into the organisation. He was still young by then and could only qualify as a member of the so-called pioneer movements, who the members of which were under sixteen. We had set up their own structures to which we referred as the pioneer movement, and that is where we groomed the leadership of the ANC. Radebe I knew very late, and I got to know that he came from Small Farm. I knew him through other members of the organisation at Zone 12.

MS MOLOISANE: And did he, Radebe, belong to any specific structure in your organisation?

MR GQIBA: Yes, he was a member having been introduced to the organisation by other members of the youth league. I cannot remember whether he had a membership card or not, but I think he did because we wanted that everybody who was to be a member of the organisation had to have such a card.

MS MOLOISANE: Now, tell this Committee about the events of the 15th of August 1993. Did you see them on that particular day or not?

MR GQIBA: I do not remember what day you’re referring to. I cannot even recall the date the 15th. I don’t know, I cannot recall what happened.

MR GQIBA: Let me put it this way. Can you recall the events of the, that led to the killing of Hapile Ndumo and the attempted murder of Elsie Mokoena, during August 1993?

MR GQIBA: I cannot recall what happened prior to their murder, but I remember hearing that they had been killed. I only heard this the following day.

MS MOLOISANE: Prior to their killing, had you or hadn’t you see John Radebe and Mkhwanazi? Did they, or did they not, come to you, and tell you something about the two girls?

MR GQIBA: Yes, but they did not tell me about the two girls. They told me about their, our enemies which they had already captured. I remember we were talking about that, but then I was at work, not at the office of the organisation.

MS MOLOISANE: Where did you work?

MR GQIBA: At the Hollywood Night Club.

MS MOLOISANE: Where were your offices? The offices of the ANC youth league, where were they?

MR GQIBA: They were within the premises of the night club. There were rooms where we were accommodated by the owner, where we had an office. That’s where our office was, but the night club was detached from the offices and we had separate entrances.

MS MOLOISANE: What I want to know is was it in the same, was this office and the night club in the same building?

MR GQIBA: Yes, that is correct.

MS MOLOISANE: So on this particular day when they informed you that they had captured your enemies, how many were they?

MR GQIBA: I can only recall that there were two of them. Radebe, even ‘though I cannot be sure, but the two people that I can still remember were two, Radebe and Abraham.

MS MOLOISANE: So, is there any other thing that they asked or required from you, or wanted from you, apart from the report that they made to you concerning the capture.

MR LAX: Well maybe, maybe you should canvass what report they made to him, because it’s very, it’s very unclear from his testimony what they said to him. Maybe you should just canvass that.

MS MOLOISANE: You earlier told this Committee that they told you that they had captured your enemies. Can you just elaborate on that.

CHAIRPERSON: If there is anything to elaborate upon.

MS MOLOISANE: Pardon Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: He can elaborate on that if he feels there is anything to elaborate on that.

MS MOLOISANE: I do agree Madam.

CHAIRPERSON: Maybe it’s sufficient for him to say that’s what they told him.

MS MOLOISANE: It was his evidence that he did not know, they did not specify whether they had captured girls, but they told him that they had captured their enemies.

CHAIRPERSON: Does he feel he can add on further on what was said by Radebe and Mkhwanazi?

MS MOLOISANE: Can you add anything further onto that, or is that all that they told you concerning the said capture, their captives?

MR GQIBA: One other thing that they said was that they wanted ammunition, which I said I did not have.

MS MOLOISANE: Yes, proceed.

MR GQIBA: One other thing that I can still recall is that they told me that these are the people who have been sought for a very long time, they are informers, spying on people in the township, and they have been warned several times about things that they were doing, passing on information, wrong information to the police, etcetera. If I still remember very well, what I said to them, and this is what I used to say on a daily basis, that what we wanted, or what we liked as an organisation, was that a person or units who allege that people are informers have to be sure, bring forward evidence to that effect. That was our stance.

MS MOLOISANE: Now, did they disclose anything concerning their captives. I mean, the way you have just explained right now, you say they had to have evidence against the alleged spies.

MR GQIBA: They did not have a chance to explain that to me because I was also busy at work. They were disturbing me. I only tried to establish this the following day. One other thing that also happened was that I had heard about Hapile previously. This was a rumour that’s been going on for a while that he was apparently a member or an informer, she was apparently an informer. One other person who was alleged to have been an informer, even ‘though they were not friends were, one other friend of hers, Elsie, was later rumoured to have been an informer, Hapile as well transpired earlier on to have been an informer. These people were apparently warned together with others earlier on. They were called to order and presently we still have others in the township and as to whether they were continuing with their activities this time I don’t know about that. They are the ones who should testify to that effect. To the effect that they continued passing information on to the police.

CHAIRPERSON: I think what we are interested in getting from you Mr Gqiba, is whether you, in your capacity as the chairperson of the ANC in 1993, knew whether the persons concerned were alleged to be still continuing in their activities as previously rumoured before they were warned.

MR GQIBA: Yes, it oftentimes happened that we, for example, were within a political organisation, it so happened oftentimes for example we had SDU’s in the township, we would hear the following day that so and so was in a particular place and that person has been killed and we would not know because such information would not be disclosed, and we would later on learn that such a person was an informer and this you would only learn during an investigation. We usually did not get information, the whole information about a person alleged to have been an informer. We would only get such information after the death of the person.

CHAIRPERSON: In this case, what information did not come to your attention?

MR GQIBA: In this instance I am talking about the information to the effect that they were continuing about the activities on which they were warned about passing information on to members of the police, and those who were killing the community, the SPUs’ we used to refer to them as MSPU. They were the self defence unit of IFP residing at the hostel. They would come to the township and shoot people, using vehicles. I can quote a number of people who were killed. ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: You are deviating from, you are deviating from the ambit of the question. Did you, in this case, know about whether the women concerned continued with the activities for which they had been warned by the community, which activity you described as having passed information to the police? I’m talking about the 15th of August.

MR GQIBA: I have no knowledge in that regard. They are the ones who are in a position to say because they were close to these people, especially Abraham Mkhwanazi.

MR LAX: ...(inaudible) in fact correct, isn’t it, Mr Gqiba, that you didn’t even know who they were talking about on that day when you spoke to them?

MR GQIBA: Would you please repeat the question.

MR LAX: Is it not in fact correct that on that day when you spoke to these two comrades of yours, you didn’t know who these people were who they had captured? You had no idea who they were.

MR GQIBA: Yes, I did not know. Not even the time during which they were captured. I only knew the following day what their identities were.

MR LAX: Continue please.

MS MOLOISANE: Just before they left Hollywood Night Club is there any other thing that you told them as they were leaving, concerning the operation that they wanted to carry out?

MR GQIBA: I was not in the nature of issuing instructions to members of the SDU’s. It was for the first time that they came to me with such a request, so I did not say anything to them. I did not tell them anything. They would not have taken my instructions above those of their commanders.

CHAIRPERSON: Why don’t you just put it to him what is alleged to have been said by him? That is categorically by Mr Radebe, about him having to do a clean job so that he cannot be traced.

MS MOLOISANE: Now Mr Radebe testified to the effect that you told them that they should do a clean job. Do you have any comment thereon? And that they should make sure that they are not traced. Do you recall saying that to them?

MR GQIBA: Yes, I said that, it was upon me to say that. There was no way they could have done a thing without being arrested. I had heard about that and I requested that they do a clean job because we didn’t want to be arrested. My understanding was that what they were doing was part of defending the community. Yes I requested them, and appealed to them to make sure that they do a clean job.

MS MOLOISANE: So that is your evidence? That you in fact, indeed, issued that statement?

MR GQIBA: Yes.

MS MOLOISANE: Do you, did they specify what operation precisely were they going to carry out, that is regarding their captives?

MR GQIBA: At that time we used to have a certain language. We used to refer to informers as Imidwembe. That is when it came to me as to who these people were. I learned that Imidwembe were captured, and I then knew that there were our enemies. These are people who are making our lives difficult.

CHAIRPERSON: The question put to you Mr Gqiba is a very simply and straightforward question. Did Mr Radebe or Mr Mkhwanazi specify to you what they intended to do to their captives? That is the question, and the response that you have now given to us does not address the question put to you.

MS MOLOISANE: Thank you Madam Chair.

MR GQIBA: It was known ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I don’t want to listen to hearsay evidence. You are here to give us facts about that which you know in relation to this incident. I suppose that was explained to you quite precisely by Ms Moloisane. We do not have time to waste. We don’t want to hear any hearsay evidence. We want to have evidence that is within your personal knowledge. So don’t tell us about what was known. Tell us about what happened on this particular day. That is the 15th of August. Did they specify what they intended to do to their captives, yes or no?. If yes, what did they say?

MR GQIBA: They did not give me any explanation.

...(inaudible)

INTERPRETER: The speaker’s mike is not on.

CHAIRPERSON: I know that although your, although your microphone was not on, the translator was able to pick up what you were saying. There is something wrong with the lines because your microphone is on.

MR GQIBA: It was known that when they want ammunition obviously the captured were going to be killed.

CHAIRPERSON: You know, I want you to confine yourself to what is being put to you. I thought you had concluded your response to the question that was put by Ms Moloisane, whether they did specify what they intended to do to their captives. I thought you said they didn’t say anything to you.

MR GQIBA: They did not tell me what they were going to do.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Moloisane.

MS MOLOISANE: But by virtue of your position as chairperson and the language that you used that is ...(intervention)

MR LAX: Are you not leading this man on? Are you not leading him? Are you not leading him? You’re telling him what the answer to your question is the way you’re putting it. Do you know what a leading question is?

CHAIRPERSON: Kindly rephrase your question Ms Moloisane, so that it does not suggest to the witness what answer he should give.

MS MOLOISANE: As it please you Madam Chair. Now you said when they asked you for ammunition it was known what would happen to the captives. Just clarify that point. Did you personally know what they were going to do with their captives, or didn’t you?

CHAIRPERSON: How could he, when he has just responded to your question by saying they didn’t say anything to him?

MS MOLOISANE: That is correct, he says ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Are you not actually wanting him to speculate?

MS MOLOISANE: Then I’ll leave it there Madam Chair. Let me leave it there Madam Chair. Now, do you know how your structures, your SDU structures, operated within the township, Sebokeng township?

MR GQIBA: It would be difficult to explain the operations of the structures, because usually these structures were operating according to blocks with commanders. We as people who were involved in politics were not so much part of the SDU’s.

MS MOLOISANE: Were these SDU’s at Sebokeng not aligned, or not attached, to the ANC itself?

MR GQIBA: Yes, they were, but there were times where certain things would happen without involving the organisation. I’m talking her about decisions that would be taken by the SDU’s and only inform the organisation about the decision at a later stage.

MS MOLOISANE: Do you know a person by the name of Bonga Khumalo?

MR GQIBA: Yes, I know him.

MS MOLOISANE: What portfolio did he hold?

MR GQIBA: He was secretary or the political affairs within the organisation.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Moloisane, I think your question was a little more elastic. You didn’t confine it in terms of months and years. Won’t you just find out what portfolio he held ...(intervention)

MS MOLOISANE: I will do so.

CHAIRPERSON: by August 1993.

MS MOLOISANE: I will do so Madam Chair. During August 1993, what portfolio did Bonga Khumalo hold within the organisation itself, and within the SDU structures?

MR GQIBA: I would not say what position he held within the SDU, but at least we as the organisation had deployed him as a repatriated MK from exile, so that the entire SDU’s should fall under his control. We used to consult with him quite a lot pertaining to the SDU’s.

MS MOLOISANE: And the position that you’ve just told this Committee about, that is the secretary for political affairs, when did he hold this portfolio?

MR GQIBA: I cannot recall, but he held this position for quite a while, I think from around 1992 and 1993 he was occupying this position, playing a role within the SDU’s at the same time.

MS MOLOISANE: Now what was the stance of the ANC youth league in regard to people who were spying for the police and for the IFP?

CHAIRPERSON: What bearing would that piece of evidence have in relation to the offences which were committed under the command structure of the SDU’s, which operated independently, as Mr Gqiba has already testified to the other organisations, whether it be the ANC youth league, or the ANC itself?

MS MOLOISANE: As it pleases this ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: You already have a very comprehensive picture. After the ANC had made its submission in relation to how the SDU’s were established, and what role the ANC played in establishing the SDU’s, and how they operated. We don’t need evidence in that regard. We fell the evidence we have is sufficient.

MS MOLOISANE: As it pleases this Committee Madam Chair. I leave it there. Now after the event of the 15th of August 1993, that is after Hapile was killed and after the attempted, attempted murder of Elsie Mokoena, did you see the applicants again, that’s Abraham Mkhwanazi and Radebe?

MR GQIBA: Yes, I think I did see them again, but it was after a while. They disappeared. They fled. I cannot recall whether it was 1994 or not, but I did see them after a while.

MS MOLOISANE: But did you manage to discuss the events that led, I mean the offences that they had committed, that is the murder of Hapile and the attempted murder of Elsie?

MR GQIBA: Yes, I did discuss that with them.

MS MOLOISANE: What is it that you discussed with them?

MR GQIBA: In my discussion with them I wanted to know whether they were sure whether these people were informers or not, and they had to convince me that indeed these people were informers and they were guilty of all the offences that were levelled against them. They assured me that these people were informers, and they went as far as to say that they had witnesses, people who could testify to that effect. And usually in the township one could not have been singled out and be pursued for a very long time accused of being an informer, if that was not the case. If a person was singled out definitely there must have been something about that person.

CHAIRPERSON: Now I’m very interested in what you are saying now, in view of what you said earlier on, when you explained that the stance that you and the ANC took then, was to explain to people that they were not to believe any rumours which sought to allege that any person was an informer, without having to verify that information or rumour, and that that was the advice you gave to Mr Radebe and Mr Mkhwanazi when they came to see you at Hollywood on the 15th, because it was known that some people could be said to be informers when they were not, and that’s why your organisation took that stance. So you are now saying something contrary to what you earlier on said. Now you are saying there could be no accusation about someone being an informer unless there was merit to that accusation. That stands in stark contrast to what you said when you first gave your evidence. I’m just reminding you what you said earlier on. You may proceed Ms Moloisane.

MS MOLOISANE: Now evidence was adduced to the effect that the two girls were at some stage prior to the 15th of August 1993 punished for their activities. Do you know anything about the punishment that was imposed on the two girls?

MR GQIBA: Yes I do recall that, but it was not at the office. We did not have the office yet. We were using a garage as a place in Zone 12.

MS MOLOISANE: Were you there, or were you not there?

MR GQIBA: I was present.

CHAIRPERSON: When did this take place?

MR GQIBA: This took place in 1990 or 1991, one of the two, I’m not quite sure.

MS MOLOISANE: Now on, during that time, what were the specific charges that were levelled against the two girls?

MR GQIBA: That is when the killing of people started, and they were accused of the fact that they were seen in vehicles that were alleged to have been driving around shooting people in the township. These vehicles included vehicles driven by Getisi among others, and ...(indistinct) that they were trafficking with the police. It was not only two of them accused of this, there were others but I cannot remember them. There could have been 5 or 6 of them.

CHAIRPERSON: May we know as a matter of interest, what their response was when these charges were read to them?

MR GQIBA: They were revealing the names of people involved indicating that so and so came to fetch me and said we should go to such a place, and we would go there and meet people like Getisi. They revealed the names of people involved.

CHAIRPERSON: Did they admit to spying for the IFP?

MR GQIBA: Yes they did, because they went as far as to tell us that they had handed over certain names of comrades to the IFP and we already knew that our names were known to the IFP, the enemies.

CHAIRPERSON: And on what basis did you decide to impose the punishment that you ultimately meted out, which was a lashing?

MR GQIBA: On lashing them out, actually I must say that it was not only the youth league that was involved, I’m talking her also about the civic itself. Other people in the township were also involved. They were punished and warned that they should not continue with these activities.

CHAIRPERSON: Was there any basis on which you based the punishment you imposed?

MR GQIBA: Yes, we had a basis because some of their parents were present at the time of this discussion. They were ...(indistinct) down as we were discussing that they should be punished. Some of the parents came forward and gave us information to the effect that they had not seen their children from such a date, and the accused would then speak on their own, indicating who came to fetch whoever where they went thereafter.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed Ms Moloisane.

MS MOLOISANE: Do you know about the Boipatong massacre?

MR GQIBA: Yes, I know about that.

MS MOLOISANE: Can you recall whether this was, that is, the time when the punishment was ...(indistinct) on these two girls, was it before or after the Boipatong massacre?

MR GQIBA: What I can say is that we were now using the Hollywood office during the Boipatong massacre. I think it was before the Boipatong massacre, because at that time we were using the Hollywood office.

MS MOLOISANE: If you say you think, are you sure you were using that, or are you not hundred percent sure.

MR GQIBA: Let me say I am sure, because we started using the office in 1992, that is the Hollywood office.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, in any event you say that this incident occurred between 1990 or 1991, and the Boipatong massacre definitely occurred in June 1992, that’s common cause.

MS MOLOISANE: As it pleases this Committee. That is all Ma’am.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS MOLOISANE

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabethe do you have any questions to put to Mr Gqiba.

MS THABETHE: Yes Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Please proceed to do so.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETHE: Thank you. Mr Gqib.

MR GQIBA: Gqiba, G Q I B A.

MS THABETHE: Yes. Where did you reside in Sebokeng, exactly where did you reside?

MR GQIBA: Zone 12.

MS THABETHE: Did you personally know Hapile Ndumo and Elsie Mokoena?

MR GQIBA: Yes, I now them

MS THABETHE: Where did you know them from?

MR GQIBA: I know them from Zone 12.

MS THABETHE: Did you know them to be IFP members?

MR GQIBA: I have only heard about that, but not myself personally, I don’t have evidence to that effect.

MS THABETHE: You say, between 1990 and 1991 the community called people, about six people you said, who were going to be questioned about their affiliation with the police. Is that correct?

MR GQIBA: Yes.

MS THABETHE: Was Hapile Ndumo and Elsie Mokoena one of those people who were called?

MR GQIBA: Yes. They were among those.

MS THABETHE: And my instructions, Mr Gqiba, are that Elsie had a boyfriend who was a policeman. It would be common cause that she would be seen in his vehicle. Did you know anything about this? Did you have such information?

MR GQIBA: Yes, I had that information.

MS THABETHE: So was it strange if you, was it strange if she was seen travelling in her boyfriend’s car, who happened to be a policeman?

MR GQIBA: By then the people of Boipatong would have kill you instantaneously if one was seen in the company of police. Police were not permitted in the township. Their houses had already been burned and some of them had fled.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabethe I probably understand his evidence differently. He did not at any stage of his evidence say that the reason why Ms Mokoena and Ndumo were taken to the garage to answer accusations levelled against them, he never said those accusations were in relation to them having been seen in the vehicles driven by the police. His evidence is that they were accused of having been seen in vehicles driven by amongst others, Getisi, who is not a policeman, which vehicles were used by the likes of Getisi to shoot at people in Sebokeng. Getisi is not alleged to have been a policeman.

MS THABETHE: Madam Chair I am open to correction. I thought he had said Getisi and policemen.

CHAIRPERSON: I don’t have that in my notes. My notes only refer to people who were driving vehicles that were shooting at people, and Getisi being one of those. There was no reference to a police or a police vehicle in that regard. However, ...(intervention)

MS THABETHE: Can I clarify it with him?

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) you can clarify that aspect.

MS THABETHE: Mr Gqiba can you please clarify whether you said they were called to be questioned about them being seen in Getisi and in policeman vehicles. Did you actually say that?

MR GQIBA: I cannot speak about all of them. They had different allegations against them. Some of them were seen in the company of the police and some of them were seen in the company of Getisi. At the time it was known that the police were assisting Getisi’s group, so that if a person was seen in the company of the police such a person would be assumed to be collaborating with Getisi and his group.

MS THABETHE: With regard to Hapile Ndumo and Elsie Mokoena specifically, would you remember what charges were made against them.?

MR GQIBA: I cannot recall.

MS THABETHE: Earlier on you had said you were aware that Elsie Mokoena had a relationship with one policeman. Did you know this policeman?

MR GQIBA: I am saying I cannot recall what charges were placed on him at, on her at the time of the accusation and the meeting, but the one that was accused of going out with a police person is a friend.

CHAIRPERSON: That’s not what you said, when you were asked this question by Ms Moloisane. You responded to that question by saying that they were accused of being seen in vehicles driven by people who would shoot at the local community, and that Getisi was one of those who would be seen with the persons against whom an enquiry was held, during 90 and 91.

MR GQIBA: I think the whole lot of the police and Getisi were seen as one bunch of people.

MR LAX: Just to clarify something here, Mr Gqiba. Ms Thabethe had put it to you that Elsie had had this relationship with a policeman, and you confirmed that you knew about that relationship. You confirmed it in reply to her question. It wasn’t in relation to anyone being punished at that stage. That came in a later question she put afterwards. Is that not right?

MR GQIBA: Yes, I did confirm that.

CHAIRPERSON: My questioning had nothing to with what you had already confirmed to Ms Thabethe. I just wanted to get clarity on what you alter on said, that you did not know, because she asked you whether you knew, she asked you on what charges did they appear before your enquiry in 90, 91, and you said you didn’t know. It was in relation to that that I then reminded you what you had earlier on said in respect to the charges that you said you knew, and then that was those charges were in relation to having been seen in the company of Getisi and those who drive vehicles that would shoot at the community in Sebokeng.

MR GQIBA: The mistake that I made is that I confused the information about these people being seen in the company of Getisi and this one girl who was in love with a policeman. I answered that way, confusing the two as a result.

CHAIRPERSON: Proceed Ms Thabethe.

MS THABETHE: Thank you Madam Chair. I was asking you if you knew the policeman that Elsie Mokoena was in love with.

MR GQIBA: No, I did not.

MS THABETHE: It’s my instructions that he used to come in the township and he was in good relation with the comrades. What do you have to say to that?

MR GQIBA: I don’t know which comrades. I don’t know.

MR LAX: Well perhaps if you tell him the name of the name he might know who you are talking about.

MS THABETHE: Mr Gqiba do you know Johannes Msime who was a policeman?

MR GQIBA: No I don’t know him.

MS THABETHE: Earlier on in your evidence you said that when Mr Radebe and Mr Mkhwanazi came to you at the, what is it, stokvel?

MR LAX: It was the Hollywood club.

MS THABETHE: Hollywood Club. Thank you. Thank you Member of the Committee. They did not tell you what they were going to do with whoever they had captured. Is that correct? Do you remember saying that?

MR GQIBA: Yes, I remember, they did not say that they were going to kill them.

MS THABETHE: You actually said they did not tell you anything about what they were going to do. That was your evidence. Can you explain then why, on what basis, did you say they must do a clean job so that no-one can chase them, if they didn’t tell you anything about what they were going to do?

MR GQIBA: They had said that these people are informers, and it was known what was going to be done to informers. I already knew that they were going to be killed.

MS THABETHE: And then you also state that later on after the incident was committed, you met ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: May I, before you proceed, Ms Thabethe I’m sorry to do this, haven’t you earlier on stated that when they came to you and told you about their captives and the fact that they were enemies of the people, you reminded them of the stance that you as an organisation usually takes, that is to verify the information before they can act upon that information. Wasn’t that your earlier evidence?

MR GQIBA: I did not say it to them then, but I knew they knew this, that they had to be sure and verify the information.

CHAIRPERSON: That is your evidence. That’s the evidence you gave us. That came from your lips said. And let me remind you it came after you had recalled what else they had said to you on the persistence of Ms Moloisane and you then remembered that they said that the person they were having as captives were persons who had been sought by the community for a long time and were persons who were alleged to have been spying and passing on information about the members of your community to the police. Then you went on to say you told them that a person, or a member of a unit, who alleges that persons are informers, should ensure that that kind of information is verified before it is acted upon. That was your evidence. I am not misquoting you.

MR GQIBA: Yes, that is correct. I don’t know myself to have changed in that evidence. Yes I did say that. I said everything you have just said. I went as far as to say that insofar as our organisation is concerned, anybody who was alleged to have been an informer should be investigated and have the information thereabout verified, because members of the MK and others were adamant that such information had to be verified.

CHAIRPERSON: The only problem that I have with your evidence is when you are asked by Ms Thabethe on what basis you then said to Mr Radebe and Mr Mkhwanazi they must do a clean job so that they can not be traced, and the response that came after that question was put to you. And that’s the problem. I was only trying to draw your attention to the fact that your response creates a problem to me because you are the one who had told these young people to verify information and not to act on unverified information, yet you are the one who is saying you already knew what was going to happen to the captives, when you had not been given any facts about whether that information that they were tell you about had been verified or not. That was the ground norm of your organisation. You wouldn’t incite a member to act on unverified information.

MR GQIBA: What I said at the time, I must say that people were dying in large numbers at the time. At the time people were dying in the township, even ‘though I was at the night club I knew that we could be attacked at any time. Many things were happening at the time, so that I knew fully well that one could not have waited for many statements and verification. The fact that the told me that these people were Imidwembe informers, I already knew therefore that it is possible that these people were now going to be killed and I assumed that they were now following instructions, having verified the information.

CHAIRPERSON: You are assuming sir that they had verified information. On what basis was that assumption?

MR GQIBA: I knew these people as members of the organisation, card carrying members of the organisation. I knew them to be involved in the SDU’s. I knew that they were commanders, except that I did not ask them who else were involved in that group as they were moving with these captured people. I concluded that they were sure about the information now that they were looking for ammunition.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you ask them about whether the information they were giving you about their captives had been so verified? And if so, what prevented you from doing so? If they did not say we are telling you an information which has now been verified by our unit, why did you not ask if they had verified that information? As a chairperson of an organisation that has a cornerstone rule of verifying information before acting upon it.

MR GQIBA: That is what I am trying to explain, that had they found me at the office I would have asked all those questions, but at the time I was at work, busy, attending to patrons, and I did not have time for them to try and find out exactly what was happening. It was not safe at the place because there were many people, patrons, at the night club. We therefore could not have discussed these questions in the presence of so many people.

CHAIRPERSON: Proceed Ms Thabethe.

MS THABETHE: Mr Gqiba, you said you met with the applicants later on when the incident happened, and you asked them to convince you as to whether Elsie and Hapile were informers or not. My question to you is, exactly what did the applicants say to you to convince you that Elsie and Hapile were informers?

MR GQIBA: They emphasised that the evidence they had about the two, one of whom was killed, was that there was a time when they disappeared from the township, and during that time they were dealing with the people to whom they were informing. They said something to that effect that they were sure that these people once disappeared from the township, during which time they were away with the people to whom they were informing.

CHAIRPERSON: Didn’t you also proceed to say that they advised you that they had witnesses who could testify to the fact that indeed these persons were informers?

MR GQIBA: Yes, there was evidence at the time. Evidence ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, I’m not saying. I’m saying you said to us that the applicants further advised you that they had witnesses that could be called to confirm that indeed Elsie and Hapile informed on the community. That’s what they told you, that they could call witnesses to corroborate the allegations levelled against them about them being informers and passing on information to the police.

MR GQIBA: Yes, that is correct.

MS THABETHE: No further questions, Madam Chair.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS THABETHE

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lax do you have any questions for ...(inaudible)

MR LAX: You said that they asked you for ammunition.

MR GQIBA: Yes.

MR LAX: What sort of ammunition did they ask you for?

MR GQIBA: I cannot recall what kind of ammunition they requested, but yes, they wanted ammunition.

MR LAX: Did you go and check in the store room in the office whether there was ammunition there or not?

MR GQIBA: There, the fact that there are ammunition in the office that was something that was not known to me. They knew that. Maybe they as members of the SDU’s had a cache but we as leaders, no, we did not know. There is no time where I came across ammunition at the office.

MR LAX: Mr Gqiba the effect of Mr Radebe’s evidence was that you did know about that store room. And he understood your answer to say there was no ammunition to mean that there was nothing in the store room.

MR GQIBA: I think he is a little bit confused. I think he is forgetting some of the facts. Maybe one of them, or one of us there, or maybe their commanders knew, not myself. I did not have that knowledge.

MR LAX: He was emphatic that you should have, that you must have known. Be that as it may, let’s turn to the question of after this event you went to them and you asked them to convince you that the people who had died were the informers. Why did they need to convince you? Why did you need convincing at all?

MR GQIBA: I did not go to them. I did not go to them, I only met them after a while since they had fled the township. I had not seen them for a while and when they came back from whence they had hidden, that is when I came across them. They actually came to us where we were, that is when I started asking all these questions.

MR LAX: Why did you ask the questions? It’s a simple question I asked first out. Why did you want to be convinced about this?

MR GQIBA: It was known that we as an organisation had to know, because we already knew. We only knew the following day who did that and therefore it was encumbent upon us to make sure that the information was correct, to prepare ourselves in order to account to other structures in the community. It is for that reason that I asked for verification or information to the verification of the evidence, and it transpired that one of them was in love with a policeman.

CHAIRPERSON: You are saying you wanted to be convinced about the veracity of whether the two ladies were informers or not, because you still wanted to account to other structures, even ‘though you needed this convincing sometime in 1994. You still felt you had to account to other structures.

MR GQIBA: When I met them at the time, yes it is true it was in 1994. What I am saying here is that we have civic structures and it is know that these are structures members of which are adults from the community, and here I was dealing with members of the youth league, and I would be expected to meet members of the civic and explain to them, because it was now known who were responsible for the death of Hapile. I had to go to the structures such as the civic and explain to the elderly in those structures, explain to them that I had met members of the youth league and give them a full account.

CHAIRPERSON: I find your explanation very upset in the strongest terms. Are you saying these people were operating outside the structures, that you had to wait for individuals to come back in order for you to get information? You couldn’t have obtained this kind of information from Mr Khumalo, who had been deployed by you to be part of the SDU structure? Your explanation does not make sense with me, with respect. Proceed Mr Lax.

MR LAX: You see the issue’s a very simple one Mr Gqiba. They disappeared from the township immediately after this thing’s happened, the very day after they tell you what they were about to do, from which you inferred, from what they told you, exactly what they were about to do. There was no secret in your mind as to who had committed this offence. And then some six months later people are still asking who did it and why it was done. Now if we believe you that that was the case, then these applicants have a serious problem, because then what they allege was common knowledge in the community wasn’t in fact so.

MR GQIBA: It was a norm that things had to be explained to the community as to who had died and who was injured. I am no talking here about everybody, but there was a time that it was necessary to remind or inform the community that such a person whom we have been warning for a very long time has done it again, hence the result. It was therefore necessary that this be explained to the community as to how it came about that these people be killed. There was no way everyone in the township could have known that these people had just left the township. Others could have thought that these people were still in the township, members of the SDU who were making a follow up are the ones from whom we had to get information, which information we would in turn take to other structures, which structures would in turn take the same information further on.

CHAIRPERSON: You know Mr Gqiba, you are giving a very long winded explanation about the simple problem which has been posed to you. Why was it necessary for you to explain to the community about this incident, about who had done the deed, and why a deed had been committed, when it was public knowledge that the ladies in question were spying for the IFP and passing on information to the police?

MR GQIBA: It is not my knowledge that the general public knew. It was not generally known who was an informer and who was not. There were people for example in one street there would be certain people who had that information, not the entire community. For example, my mother did not know that, and my brother too, and yet they were part of the community. They were part of the community but they did not know about this. People who knew are people who came across the incident or heard about the incident, and therefore it was necessary to inform the structures, and this included parents of the people who were victims in the incident, and therefore we as leaders had to account, meet with the people who were responsible for the deeds, take them along to the different structures and explain so that ultimately the information will arrive at the parents.

CHAIRPERSON: In short what you are saying is that it was not public knowledge that Ms Elsie Mokoena and Ms Hapile Ndumo were spying for the IFP and passing on information to the police. In short that’s what you are trying to explain.

MR GQIBA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR LAX: Did you know Mabusa Mhlongo?

MR GQIBA: Yes, I know him.

MR LAX: Who was he? Who is he if he’s still alive.

MR GQIBA: He’s a member of the youth league.

MR LAX: Was he a member of the SDU?

MR GQIBA: Yes, he is still alive.

MR LAX: Was he a member of the SDU?

MR GQIBA: Yes.

MR LAX: Was he a commander in the SDU?

MR GQIBA: I don’t know anything about the commanding position, etc. I know there were commissars etc. I cannot say for sure who was who.

MR LAX: As chairperson of the youth league and together with other structures did you not meet with the leadership of the SDU to discuss problems?

MR GQIBA: Yes, we used to meet.

MR LAX: And who would you meet with when you met with them?

MR GQIBA: We used to meet with people such as Bonga.

MR LAX: You see it’s the evidence of the applicant that Mabusa Mhlongo was one of Bonga’s next, next layer of commanders, so he would have been at such meetings, had you had them.

MR GQIBA: I would not deny that or admit that. Those people in those structures are the ones who are supposed to answer to that.

MR LAX: Now after these two, after this lady was killed, you heard about it the next day. Is that right?

MR GQIBA: Yes.

MR LAX: What steps did you then take once you heard about this, to verify whether she was in fact an informer? Yourself, as chair of the ANC youth league?

MR GQIBA: What I did was that I met with those who were present, the ones who were present at the office at the time. There was a shock about these incidents, incident, some were justifying this action saying that they have been warning these girls for a very long time, and finally this has happened.

CHAIRPERSON: Let me get your evidence properly. Are you saying that the next day there was a meeting, and in that meeting a portion of those present expressed their shock, and others however were not surprised, and pointed to what the ladies had been doing to justify the deed? ...(intervention)

MR GQIBA: Yes, what I am saying is that we are not all from one place. Others were hearing this for the first time at the office, and when such people came to the office they came across this for the first time, that’s when they reacted and they were then informed about what happened the previous day and who were responsible for that. Do you understand that? That’s when people got a shock. That is why I am saying that some of the people got a shock and wanted to know when it happened, and at the same time there were others who were saying it is true, everything, or every accusation levelled against these people was correct. Because there were certain comrades out.

MR LAX: So then you were convinced at that stage, in the light of what these other people were telling you in the meeting?

MR GQIBA: When asking other people who knew about this evidence or suspicions others would come forward and testify to the veracity of the information, so that we ultimately in unison agreed that this could have been a correct step to take.

MR LAX: And that was the day after the event?

MR GQIBA: I am not quite sure. It could have been a day or so after. This happened on a week-end. I’m not quite sure whether it was Saturday or Sunday. If it was Sunday then the whole thing happend on Monday. We did not operate on Sundays, so that our offices were closed on that day.

MR LAX: Well it was the evidence of both applicants, or at least Mkhwanazi, that the office was open at all times on every day. You don’t agree with that? Twenty four hours a day he said.

MR GQIBA: Sometimes there would be reasons for the office to be open 24 hours, for example, discussing crime. The office was not always open 24 hours except for exceptional cases where certain things had to be discussed, meetings, like criminal cases.

MR LAX: Now, in any event, within a few days after this incident you had had a meeting of community people, the issue had been discussed, some had expressed their shock, but at the end of the day you were satisfied on the evidence presented at that meeting that this was a correct action. Have I understood you correctly? Just say yes or no, not a long story, please.

MR GQIBA: Yes, I would say so insofar as the evidence that was brought before us that that had to be done.

MR LAX: Well then why did you need convincing six months later when you finally saw these chaps again? Just explain that to us.

MR GQIBA: I had to meet the people who were responsible for that to satisfy myself. I wanted an explanation from them how they did it and all the steps right up to the ultimate day where these people were shot. That’s the information I was trying to get.

MR LAX: Thank you Chairperson, I have no further questions at this stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Lax. Ms Bosman?

ADV BOSMAN: I have no questions thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you say that you knew Mr Mabusa Mhlongo, or did you say you did not know him?

MR GQIBA: I said I knew him. I know him.

CHAIRPERSON: You knew him to be what, within the SDU structures?

MR GQIBA: I did not know his position within the SDU’s. Bonga is the one who can know better.

CHAIRPERSON: In what capacity did you know him?

MR GQIBA: He was a member of the youth league, a card carrying member of ANC youth league. I knew that he used to received certain instructions from the SDU’s, but they were under our control insofar as politics is concerned, but yet they had their commanders, the SDU’s. I therefore cannot say what his role was.

CHAIRPERSON: When Mr Radebe and Mr Mkhwanazi came to see you at the night club on the 15th of August 1993, and told you about the fact that they had captured the enemies of the organisation, in what capacity did you think they were telling you about their capture?

MR GQIBA: I thought that even ‘though they did not meet me there but meet any other member of the committee they would have informed such a person the same thing or told the person the same thing as they did me, about trying to procure ammunition, and they just happened to tell me that they had captured informers.

CHAIRPERSON: So you thought that they are just telling you as an ordinary member of the ANC youth league?

MR GQIBA: I think they told me about this knowing that I was a chairperson of the youth league, knowing also that I was working at the night club. It could as well be that they met other members of the youth league before they ultimately came to me.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it common practice for members of the SDU’s to report to the youth league about their activities?

MR GQIBA: It was not common practice, especially those, with reference to those that were not known to us. We had meetings with people such as Bonga where Bonga for example would have to give us details of what happened on such a date and reasons therefor, and how that came about.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it therefore not peculiar that they should have access to you with regard to an information that involved the execution of the enemy of the organisation? Did that not strike you as being peculiar, and not being accord with the common practice, that you as chairperson of the youth league, was well conversant with?

MR GQIBA: No, I was not familiar with this. What I know is that I had thought that they were doing what they were doing because they were desperately seeking ammunition, and because they were desperate they were trying to secure those ammunition, or that ammunition.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you make any attempt to find out if the capture had been done by them in their capacity as SDU members?

MR GQIBA: Yes, I tried to establish and I learned that they captured these people themselves.

CHAIRPERSON: When you say themselves, in their capacity as SDU members, was my enquiry. Did they specifically say that?

MR GQIBA: I know them to be members of the SDU. I knew them at the time that they were members of the SDU, so that I was sure they were members of the SDU.

CHAIRPERSON: You simply assumed that the capture had been done in accordance with their association with their SDU structure?

MR GQIBA: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Moloisane, emanating from the questions put to Mr Gqiba by the members of the Committee, ...(intervention)

MS MOLOISANE: I have no re-examination Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: I notice that the time is now quarter past five and we are now going to reap the wrath of correctional services for not having stopped timeously. We have repeatedly been requested to stop at 4 o’clock for logistical reasons. May I on behalf of the Panel apologise for having transgressed this important rule, they know why it has been placed by the members of correctional services, and state that they should please just draw to our attention once we go over 4 o’clock. We actually find ourselves not looking at our watches and being so keen to conclude with the evidence of Mr Gqiba that by the time we did now it was well after five o’clock. Our apologies again. The time being 5:15 we will adjourn this hearing until tomorrow morning at 09:30.

WITNESS EXCUSED

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS