Amnesty Hearings

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Today we are starting with the application of Mr Vusi Sidney Mononi, application number AM7913/97. The panel consist of myself, Judge Khampepe, on my right hand side, Adv F. Bosman, on my left hand side, Mr Ilan Lax. Who is appearing for the applicant?

MR LEOPENG: Thank you Madam Chair. I am Leopeng P.M., I am appearing on behalf of the applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. The Evidence Leader?

MS THABETE: I am Thabile Thabete, the Evidence Leader for the TRC.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Leopeng, are we in a position to commence?

MR LEOPENG: Yes, Madam Chair, we are in a position to commence.

CHAIRPERSON: May we for the benefit of the members of the public, indicate that English is to be found in channel 2, Zulu, channel 3, and Shangaan in channel 4. Thank you very much. Mr Leopeng?

MR LEOPENG: Thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Is Mr Mononi going to take an oath?

MR LEOPENG: Yes, I was going to indicate that I am not in a position to hand in a supplementary affidavit, I am just going to lead viva voce evidence of the applicant, Mr Mononi.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Mononi, will you please rise?

VUSI SIDNEY MONONI: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: You have been duly sworn in, you may take a seat. You may proceed Mr Leopeng.

EXAMINATION BY MR LEOPENG: Thank you Madam Chair. Mr Mononi, you are the applicant in this application for amnesty and you are now serving a term of imprisonment at Medium C, Johannesburg prison, is that correct?

MR MONONI: Yes, that is correct.

MR LEOPENG: Is it further correct that on the 19th of April 1996, and at Witwatersand Local Division, you were convicted murder and five other charges and you were sentenced to an effective period of 24 years imprisonment?

MR MONONI: Yes, that is correct.

MR LEOPENG: Now Mr Mononi, on or before the incident that is the 4th of August 1993, to which political party did you belong?

MR MONONI: The ANC. The ANC.

MR LEOPENG: Which offices did you hold within the ranks of the ANC?

MR MONONI: I was a member and I was a sub-branch Organiser within the ANC Youth League and also a supporter of the SACP and I was a Commander of the Self Defence Unit.

MR LEOPENG: You mentioned that you were the Commander of the SDU's, did you - were you trained to be a Commander of the SDU's and if so, when?

MR MONONI: I underwent crash courses inside the country.

MR LEOPENG: Who were your trainers during that training?

MR MONONI: Rivert Mkhize, Veli Khumalo and other MK members who had been trained outside the country.

MR LEOPENG: Now let's turn to the day in question, that is the 4th of August 1993. Very briefly, tell the Committee what happened.

MR MONONI: We were patrolling with other comrades on that day, patrolling at Mandela Village and it so happened that as we were patrolling, we came across two uniformed policemen and we approached these two policemen.

We were armed with firearms, a Makarov pistol, a 38 Special and well as a palm gun and two hand grenades. I was in possession of a Makarov pistol at the time.

MR LEOPENG: What were the reasons for you to patrol?

MR MONONI: Mandela Village was such that the people thereof were attacked by the members of the IFP and the vigilante groups and they were also harassed generally by the police, so that we had to protect the people against these things.

MR LEOPENG: On that day when you were patrolling, did you have instructions from above for you, to allow you to patrol the Mandela Squatter Camp?

MR MONONI: Yes. We received instructions.

MR LEOPENG: From whom and what rank was he?

MR MONONI: The person in charge that day was comrade Winki.

MR LEOPENG: So, are you saying that Winki is the person who gave you instructions to go and patrol the Mandela Squatter Camp?

MR MONONI: Yes, that is correct.

MR LEOPENG: Yes, proceed from where you said that you were armed with these firearms, and you met the two police officials.

MR MONONI: It so happened that we were deployed around the entrance of Mandela Village. These two policemen in uniform arrived and we at the time, happened to go to them. We pointed our firearms at them, and instructed them not to fight because we only wanted their firearms.

MR LEOPENG: You said we, who do you refer to when you say we?

MR MONONI: There were five of us, it was myself and other four comrades, comrade Winki, comrade Nyao Daniel and comrade Pat as well as Xolani.

CHAIRPERSON: Will you please repeat the names again.

MR MONONI: Winki, Daniel, Pat as well as Xolani. Myself included.

MR LEOPENG: So among five of you, who was your Commander or the Unit Commander?

MR MONONI: Comrade Winki was in charge.

MR LAX: Sorry Mr Leopeng, sorry to intrude. My arithmetic implies that there were six of them. He has given us five names plus himself? Winki, Nyao, Daniel, Pat, Xolani and himself?

MR MONONI: Daniel and Nyao are one person.

MR LAX: Okay. That is helpful, thank you.

MR LEOPENG: Thank you. Proceed from where you said you met these two police officials and you told them you are not fighting with them, and that they must hand their firearms to you.

MR MONONI: It so happened that one of the police threw himself to the ground and the other one, tried to fight Xolani who was in possession of a palm gun, he was trying to grab the palm gun and a shot was fired in the process. I saw him later on laying on the ground, having been shot.

We took the firearm and we fled, his service pistol.

MR LEOPENG: So is that your evidence that the police official who was shot, was shot by a bullet which was fired from the firearm which was in possession of Xolani?

MR MONONI: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Isn't that leading Mr Leopeng? Isn't that a leading statement? You have not established that evidence. Ask an appropriate question that will not be leading, but which will nevertheless enable him to give that kind of evidence.

MR LEOPENG: I beg your pardon, Madam Chair.

Just tell this Committee actually what killed the said police official?

MR MONONI: It so happened that as they were wrestling over the firearm, a shot went off and the police fell.

CHAIRPERSON: Who was wrestling with who? You say it so happened that as they were wrestling, who is he referring to?

MR MONONI: I am referring to Xolani and this other one policeman who happened to be shot later on.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you witness the whole incident?

MR MONONI: I only saw this other police falling on the ground after the shot went off. He apparently was shot on the chest.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you witness the wrestling?

MR MONONI: Yes, because after comrade Xolani pointed the firearm at him, at the police, the police tried to grab the firearm.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed.

MR LEOPENG: Thank you Madam Chair. After you noticed the said police official falling down with a gun wound, what happened thereafter?

MR MONONI: After that, one of our comrades took his firearm and we fled. The other police managed to flee uninjured.

CHAIRPERSON: Won't you try when you give your evidence, because there were only five of you, won't you try instead of referring to a person as a particular, I mean as one comrade, just mention his name. Will you do that as you give your evidence?

MR MONONI: The one person I am referring to here, is Pat. He is the one who took the firearm from the police who had fallen down.

MR LEOPENG: Thank you Madam Chair. After you fled, then what happened? What happened to the firearm which one Pat took from the police official who fell on the ground?

MR MONONI: We took the firearm along because our intention was to get the firearm.

MR LEOPENG: Why do you say that your intention was to get the firearm, what prompted you to go and look for the firearms?

MR MONONI: We were trying to gather weapons for the defence of the people, weapons such as firearms, so that our strategy as SDU's was to disarm the police.

MR LEOPENG: You said your strategy was to disarm the police. What were you going to do with these weapons that you disarmed the police officials of?

MR MONONI: We were going to use the firearms to defend the community against attacks by Inkatha and vigilantes and other people who were troubling the community.

MR LEOPENG: Was your action to disarm the police official, authorised by the Overall Commander of the SDU's?

MR MONONI: Yes, that is correct because the idea was to reinforce within the structures of the SDU's.

MR LEOPENG: If I just for a while go back to the evidence that you had given, you said that on that day you were patrolling in the Mandela Squatter Camp, so are you telling this Court that during the patrol, you deemed it necessary to disarm the police official, or that was within your instructions again during the patrolling?

MR MONONI: It was an order that had already been issued, that if we happened to see policemen in the area, we should disarm them to reinforce.

MR LEOPENG: Where did this order come from?

MR MONONI: This order was issued by comrade Winki who was in charge for the patrols on that day.

MR LEOPENG: If I go back, who was this comrade Winki that you are referring to, was he an ANC member or what was his rank within the ANC if I may just ask you?

MR MONONI: He was a member of the ANC as well as a member of MK. He was a Commander of the Unit within the structures of the SDU's.

MR LEOPENG: So he was your superior, you were under his command on that day, to patrol and to disarm the police officials, is that correct?

MR MONONI: Yes, that is correct.

MR LEOPENG: Now tell this Committee, what was your political objective that you wanted to achieve during the patrol and during the process of disarming police officials?

MR MONONI: Our objective was to augment on the firearms that we had, so as to be able to defend the community against the IFP and the vigilante attacks.

MR LEOPENG: Was the ANC office in Diepkloof aware of the activities of the SDU's and the command of comrade Winki regarding the patrolling and the disarming of police officials?

MR MONONI: Yes, that is correct.

MR LEOPENG: You said in your evidence that your intention was to disarm the said two police officials. Did you intend during the patrolling or during the process of disarming to kill anybody in disarming the police officials?

MR MONONI: No, our objective was not to kill. We were just intent on robbing them of their firearms.

MR LEOPENG: Are you now telling this Committee that you are sorry that the deceased died during your ...

MR LAX: Mr Leopeng, please try and contain your leading. He hasn't said anything about what he feels or thinks about this matter. You are putting words in his mouth.

MR LEOPENG: I beg your pardon. What do you feel about the whole incident on the 4th of August 1993?

MR MONONI: It makes me feel sad. Our intention was not to kill, but to get the firearms. That so happened and I don't feel good about that.

MR LEOPENG: Now tell us, what happened to the other four comrades that you are referring to, that is Nyao, Pat, Xolani and Winki?

MR MONONI: After the integration, comrade Winki was now stationed here in Johannesburg where he was a policeman, he died last year. Other comrades ended up joining the army and others are still around.

MR LAX: Can you be a little bit more specific? I think that is what your Counsel is wanting you to do.

Who did what and where are they today?

MR MONONI: Winki died last year. He was a police. Pat is in the army, I don't know where he is stationed. I have lost contact with comrade Xolani, Daniel is still around.

MR LEOPENG: And what about Pat?

MR MONONI: Pat is in the army.

MR LEOPENG: Tell us briefly, what active role did you play during the disarming of the said two police officials at which one died?

MR MONONI: I was part of the whole thing. I was armed with a pistol, but after this Peter took the firearm and we fled.

MR LAX: Sorry, who is Peter?

MR MONONI: Pat.

MR LAX: Thank you.

MR LEOPENG: So that day your role was that you were armed and you opposed these two officials, is that the only thing that you did?

MR MONONI: Yes.

MR LEOPENG: Lastly, why - let me rephrase the question, after you achieved the objective of disarming the police official, what were your intentions to do with the said firearm?

CHAIRPERSON: Hasn't that ground already been covered Mr Leopeng, unless you are trying to get new evidence, we already have evidence in that regard. It was to augment the weapons that the SDU had, which they intended to use in order to protect the community against attacks by the IFP and other people, against the community.

MR LEOPENG: Thank you Madam Chair. I will leave the question. How can you justify the act that you committed together with other comrades on the 4th of August 1993?

CHAIRPERSON: Hasn't that been covered by your questions when you questioned him on his political objective?

MR LEOPENG: I beg your pardon, I will also leave that question. I have no further questions.

ADV BOSMAN: May I just before Ms Thabete comes in, just clear something up Madam Chair. Mr Leopeng, if you could just have a look at paragraph 9(a) on page 219, you haven't led any evidence specifically as to which acts your client is applying for amnesty.

Is it that only covered in 9(a)(i)?

MR LEOPENG: Yes, I think so, but let me lead him on that.

CHAIRPERSON: AS you do so, have regard to the sentence which was imposed by His Honourable Justice Levison.

MR LEOPENG: Mr Mononi, you are here before this Committee to apply for amnesty for what act that you committed?

MR MONONI: Yes, that is correct.

MR LEOPENG: What specifically do you apply for? You apply for amnesty for a specific act that you committed on the 4th of August 1993?

MR LAX: Sorry Mr Leopeng, before you tie your client down to a specific thing, amnesty may be sought for an act, an omission, an offence or a delict. He may be applying in respect of offences, he may be applying in respect of acts, we don't know.

I think before you tie your client down to a particular act, maybe just think about the position and then put the question to him.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Leopeng, have you had an occasion to study the judgement of Judge Levison?

MR LEOPENG: Yes Madam Chair, I did.

CHAIRPERSON: And in the light of that judgement, and in the light of the instructions that you have already obtained from Mr Mononi, you may be able to advise us without having to ask your client in respect of which acts he is seeking amnesty. You may just tell us without having to lead his evidence in that regard.

MR LEOPENG: Well Madam Chair, my difficulty is that as already consulted with the applicant and as already he gave evidence, he is not the one who shot the deceased. He is applying for amnesty for solely the purpose, the common purpose.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, he was convicted of murder, his evidence is that he was there even though he did not fire a shot that led to the killing of the policeman concerned.

MR LEOPENG: Yes, that is true and that is what he is applying amnesty for.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so can you just tell us which acts or offences he is seeking amnesty for.

MR LEOPENG: He is seeking amnesty for the murder and the robbery of the service pistol of the deceased.

MR LAX: He was convicted of attempted robbery, not robbery. If you look at page 38 on the issue of sentence, you will see where he is sentenced in respect of what offences he has been convicted of. It is neatly set out there.

MR LEOPENG: The applicant is seeking amnesty on all offences that he was convicted of.

CHAIRPERSON: And you are aware that he did not confine himself of course, to offences for which he was convicted. He may apply for amnesty in respect of acts or offences for which there was no conviction.

MR LEOPENG: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Do you want us to take an adjournment to enable you to apply your mind in this regard?

MR LEOPENG: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Obviously bearing in mind the fact that the reason why he was convicted of attempted robbery, was because on the evidence that was before Justice Levison, there was no indication that the firearm of the policeman who was subsequently killed, not Mr Nkuna, I am trying to get the name of the deceased, Mr Mathonsi, the evidence was that Mr Mathonsi's firearm was not in fact taken by the applicant, and his assailants.

I am just drawing your attention to that fact. We will take a short adjournment and we will reconvene at twenty past eleven. Thank you.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

VUSI SIDNEY MONONI: (still under oath)

EXAMINATION BY MR LEOPENG: (continued) Thank you Madam Chair. I wish to go back to the question from the panel on specific acts that he committed which he is applying amnesty for.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LEOPENG: May I just not lead the applicant therein and just tell the panel on what is he applying for?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may do so.

MR LEOPENG: Thank you Madam Chair. The applicant is applying for amnesty on count 1, that is the count of murder, count 2, attempted robbery, count 3, 4 and 5, unlawful possession of ammunition, shotgun and the hand grenades and also he is applying for amnesty for count 6, which he was not convicted of.

The applicant in his evidence in chief stated that one Pat took the service pistol off the deceased, and he ran away. He still maintains that version, even if he was not convicted of and he is applying for amnesty for that taking of the policeman's service firearm.

CHAIRPERSON: He therefore cannot apply for attempted robbery, is it attempted robbery in respect of the firearm of Mr Nkuna?

MR LEOPENG: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And the robbery of Mr Mathonsi's firearm?

MR MONONI: Yes, that is so Madam Chair. He is applying for robbery of that firearm and for the attempted robbery of the firearm of Mr Nkuna.

CHAIRPERSON: Nkuna being the policeman who was not killed?

MR LEOPENG: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: That being the case, I think your evidence in chief, is lacking in only one material aspect, and that is with regard to where the firearms that were in possession of the applicant and his colleagues, were obtained. You haven't led evidence in that regard and before you close your evidence in chief, we would like to hear you in that regard.

You would have to give us evidence with regard to where the weapons which were in the possession of the applicant and his colleagues, were obtained. Can you do that?

MR LEOPENG: Thank you Madam Chair for your assistance.

Now Mr Mononi, on that day you said specifically, you were armed with a Makarov pistol and the other comrades were armed with hand grenades, pump gun and a .38 revolver. Where did you get such arms and ammunition?

MR MONONI: These were firearms belonging to the Unit, they were given to us by the Commander of the Unit. These were firearms belonging to the community.

MR LEOPENG: Do you have an idea where did the Unit get these firearms which were handed to you on that day?

MR MONONI: Some of the firearms were obtained as a result of the community having raised funds to purchase them and some of these firearms, were obtained by way of disarming the police.

MR LEOPENG: Madam Chair, through your permission, I want to go back to the evidence that he gave regarding the taking of the firearm from the deceased.

You said one Pat took the service pistol belonging to the deceased, where did he take that service pistol off the deceased?

MR MONONI: This firearm, I would say after every operation or mission, we would go back and report to the Commander of the Unit and hand over the firearms.

MR LEOPENG: So are you saying that that firearm was handed to the SDU or the Unit?

MR MONONI: Yes, that is correct.

MR LEOPENG: No further questions Madam Chair. I now close the evidence of the applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, when he refers to the Commander of the Unit, he is referring to Winki?

MR LEOPENG: When you refer to the Commander of the Unit, are you referring to Winki with whom you were on that day?

MR MONONI: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you are now through with your evidence in chief? Are you through?

MR LEOPENG: Yes, I am through. I have one other witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but before you can do so, I think an opportunity should be given to Ms Thabete the Evidence Leader, to put questions to Mr Mononi about his evidence and an opportunity will then be given to the members of the Committee to put questions to Mr Mononi, whereafter you may then call your further witness to support his application, thank you.

MR LEOPENG: Thank you Madam Chair.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS LEOPENG

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabete, do you have any questions to put to Mr Mononi?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETE: Yes Madam Chair, I do. Before I proceed, I would like to put it on record that I am also assisting the victim, Captain Nkuna in this matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MS THABETE: Mr Mononi, when you approached the policemen, where was the deceased standing, where was he?

MR MONONI: He was standing in front of the place where motor tyres are being fixed.

MS THABETE: Was he standing in front of Warrant Officer Nkuna or was he standing at the back of Warrant Officer Nkuna?

MR MONONI: I cannot recall as to how he was standing in relation to the other.

MS THABETE: My instructions are that Mr Mononi, he was standing at the back of Mr Nkuna when he was actually attacked, but I will move on as we go along with that point.

It is also your evidence that you gave an order that the firearms, they must put down their firearms, is that correct?

MR MONONI: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabete, do you mean Mr Mononi or do you mean an order was given by one of his colleagues, you mean he gave the order?

MS THABETE: I was still going to ask him who gave the order. Thank you Madam Chair. Who gave that order that the firearms must be handed over?

MR MONONI: It was Winki.

MS THABETE: Did they hand over the firearms?

MR MONONI: No.

MS THABETE: Did anyone drop their guns down?

MR MONONI: No.

MS THABETE: In your evidence you say that the deceased policeman struggled with Xolani, is that correct?

MR MONONI: That is correct.

MS THABETE: And that is how he was shot, is that correct?

MR MONONI: That is correct.

MS THABETE: Did you actually see or did you actually see the deceased being shot or you heard the fireshot?

MR MONONI: I only heard a gunshot.

MS THABETE: But you didn't actually see the policeman being shot at?

MR MONONI: I only saw him laying down.

MS THABETE: So when you say he was shot in the chest, where do you take that from?

MR MONONI: I saw blood stains on his chest as he was laying down, that is what I am saying.

MS THABETE: Mr Mononi, it is my instruction that Mr Mathonsi as I have stated before, was standing at the back and he was actually shot from the back, right through, I mean ...

MR LAX: Are you trying to say that the entry wound was at the back and the exit wound was in the front?

MS THABETE: Yes, thank you, thank you, I was short of words, yes, exactly. What is your comment on that?

MR MONONI: I would not know what the entry point of the bullet was. I only saw this injury on his chest.

MS THABETE: But it was your evidence that you actually saw this, you witnessed the struggle. Would you know why he was shot at the back maybe?

MR MONONI: No, I would not know because the last time I witnessed this happening, it was when they were struggling for the firearm. I cannot therefore say how he was shot from the back.

MS THABETE: It is also my instructions Mr Mononi, that the deceased never struggled with Xolani, instead what had happened is that the deceased was shot at the back and Captain Nkuna then struggled with one of you, whereupon or whereafter you ran away. What is your comment to that?

MR MONONI: What I can say here is that when we arrived, I ended up or should I say I lastly saw one of these policemen falling down. The other one wanted to grab the firearm from Xolani and that is when the shot went off.

MS THABETE: So are you saying that it is not correct, it is Mr Nkuna who actually struggled with you and not the deceased? Sorry who struggled with Xolani and not the deceased?

MR MONONI: It was the deceased who was struggling with ... (tape ends) ...

CHAIRPERSON: Are your instructions that Mr Nkuna knew who Xolani was?

MS THABETE: No Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: How can you put it to Mr Mononi that Mr Nkuna will say that Xolani struggled with him?

MS THABETE: No Madam Chair, I said is it his evidence that Xolani struggled with the deceased and not with Mr Nkuna?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS THABETE: Yes, I wasn't putting it to him.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, I thought you had.

MS THABETE: No, I was just asking him.

CHAIRPERSON: My apologies.

MS THABETE: Okay. Maybe I can clarify Madam Chair, my instructions are that it is not the deceased who struggled with any of the attackers, but it was actually Mr Nkuna himself.

With regards to the service pistol that was taken from Mr Mathonsi, did you actually see Pat taking the service pistol from Mr Mathonsi, the deceased?

MR MONONI: Yes.

MS THABETE: Where did he take it from?

MR MONONI: It was on a holster, on the side of his waist.

MS THABETE: Sorry I missed that.

MR MONONI: It was on a holster, or in a holster on the side of his waist, around his waist.

MS THABETE: It is also my instructions Mr Mononi, that none of you took the service pistol from the holster, the deceased's holster, but it is the policemen who came after the incident, who removed the deceased's service pistol. What is your comment to that?

MR MONONI: No, the firearm was taken.

MS THABETE: After you had shot the deceased, what happened thereafter, can you briefly explain?

MR MONONI: The deceased was killed by Xolani, was shot by Xolani, not myself.

MS THABETE: Sorry, I mean after the deceased had been shot, what happened thereafter? Did you leave the scene, what happened, were you there when the policemen came? Can you just briefly tell us what happened thereafter?

MR MONONI: When the police arrived, we had already left, because after the police was shot, and another one had fled, we too left. We fled.

MS THABETE: Since my instructions are that you fled because Mr Nkuna was trying to struggle with you, would you say that is a correct statement?

MR MONONI: No, we fled after this policeman had been shot, he was then laying on the ground. The other policeman had fled to a different direction.

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

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS THABETE

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Thabete. Mr Lax?

MR LAX: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Mononi, did you not see any of your colleagues wrestling or struggling with the policeman who didn't die, Mr Nkuna?

MR MONONI: No. This one policeman lay down at the time.

MR LAX: You see his evidence was at the trial, that he heard a shot, page 24 of the papers, Mr Leopeng, this is in the judgement, it starts at line 10.

You will see at about line 14, he hears the explosive sound of a firearm, his attention becomes drawn to the deceased, trying to run away and his conclusion was that the sound heard by him, was the sound of a shot, only one shot.

According to him, someone was standing there, holding a firearm, a shotgun pointed in the direction of the deceased. He says two other persons were also present, one of those had a firearm.

This person was trying to shoot at him. The other person was attempting to remove his firearm from his holster, he resisted, he pushed up the hand of one of his attackers. That hand held the firearm and a shot went off.

These two men were standing on each side of him. It appears the Inspector was holding his firearm in his own holster, so that the shot that went off, came from the firearm of one of the attackers. He fell to the ground, then got an opportunity to remove his firearm from his holster and when he pulled it out, all three the attackers ran away.

You say that didn't happen that way?

MR MONONI: Yes, it did not happen that way.

MR LAX: Well then, what did this other policeman do, not the deceased, the other policeman? Did anyone shoot at him?

MR MONONI: No, only one shot was fired that day. Nobody else attempted to shoot the other police.

MR LAX: Did no one try to take his firearm away from him?

MR MONONI: There is one person who attempted to do that, but at that time, he was laying down. That was after this other policeman had been shot and we fled.

MR LAX: So, when you told this man, or when Winki told the man these two men, to give you their firearms, what happened after that?

MR MONONI: We pointed our firearms at them and the deceased was in front of Xolani. He tried to grab Xolani and on pointing the firearm to the other policeman, this policeman lay down and after that, a gunshot went off.

MR LAX: How did he lay down, that is what we are interested in? Did he just lay himself down flat on the ground, did he fall down, did somebody hit him on the head, what happened, you were there, you must tell us?

MR MONONI: He threw himself on the ground.

MR LAX: Was that as the shot went off?

MR MONONI: No, that was before the shot went off.

MR LAX: What did you do, you haven't told us what you did? What exactly did you do?

MR MONONI: I pointed my firearm at them.

MR LAX: At who? At which one?

MR MONONI: I was standing in the middle of them, covering my other comrades.

MR LAX: Well, if you were covering your other comrades, you couldn't have been pointing your firearm at the two of them?

MR MONONI: It was possible, because I was watching for anybody who could draw his firearm first, in case my comrades did not notice that.

MR LAX: Now, which of these five people that you have mentioned, were your co-accused at the trial?

MR MONONI: It was Daniel, but we were not prosecuted together. He was acquitted before the trial.

MR LAX: Was his name Daniel Nyao?

MR MONONI: Yes, Daniel Dabula, Dabula is the surname.

MR LAX: And Lawrence Khumalo, which one is he?

MR MONONI: Lawrence Khumalo was a member of the Unit, but he was not present on the crime scene, he was one of the people I was arrested with.

MR LAX: And Vusi Mase?

MR MONONI: He too.

MR LAX: What are these people's names that were with you, what is Winki's name?

MR MONONI: Winki is the name, I do not know the surname, Maponya is his combat name.

MR LAX: And Pat?

MR MONONI: Pat is the name, I don't know the surname.

MR LAX: And Xolani?

MR MONONI: Radebe is Xolani's surname.

MR LAX: In your trial, you gave a completely different version of what happened on that day - you said you weren't there at all.

MR MONONI: The evidence in court, could not have been the same as the evidence before this Commission, because in court I was not supposed to tell the truth.

MR LAX: The Court accepted a confession that you made to the police, do you remember that?

MR MONONI: Yes.

MR LAX: In that confession, was detail of you pointing out some, you took the home to one Martha Marole, do you remember that?

MR MONONI: Yes, I do.

MR LAX: How did you know that the firearms were there?

MR MONONI: A few firearms were there, I knew that.

MR LAX: The question was how did you know that?

MR MONONI: These were places that we were using for dead letter boxes.

MR LAX: In your statement to the police, you gave the names of four other people that were with you. Do you remember that if you look at page 26 of the judgement, the extract is there Mr Leopeng. He mentioned the name of Nau, another name Zelani, Winki and Lawrence.

MR MONONI: Nau is Daniel, Winki as well as Xolani. Lawrence is one person with whom I was arrested, he was a member of the Unit, but he was not on the scene of the crime.

MR LAX: The question I am asking is, why did you give the names of your comrades in that statement?

MR MONONI: On writing this statement, I must say that I was being beaten up and forced to admit. I had to include Lawrence because he is the one with whom I was arrested.

MR LAX: I see. You have said that you were a Commander of a sub-unit within the SDU, is that right?

MR MONONI: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAX: How did it happen that your Commander went along with you, even though you were a Commander of a sub-unit of that Unit?

MR MONONI: He was present on that day. I could only be responsible if he was present, and I would be the one in those circumstances, to step in.

CHAIRPERSON: I think there was an error in your translation, he would have been responsible had he not been present.

INTERPRETER: Thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Meaning he would have taken command had the Commander of the Unit been present.

MR LAX: Thank you Chair, I have no further questions, I have covered everything for myself.

ADV BOSMAN: I have no questions, thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: I have no questions either. Mr Leopeng, emanating from the questions by Ms Thabete and by Mr Lax, do you have anything to re-examine Mr Mononi in?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR LEOPENG: Yes Madam Chair, just one issue.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed to do so.

MR LEOPENG: Mr Mononi tell us, how many shots went off during the operation on the 14th of August 1993?

CHAIRPERSON: Hasn't that been covered Mr Leopeng, I will not allow that question. You have already covered that aspect in your evidence in chief. I want you to re-examine him on any aspect that came up during Ms Thabete's cross-examination and Mr Lax's questioning.

MR LEOPENG: Madam Chair, other than that question, I don't have any other questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LEOPENG

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You may proceed to call your next witness.

MR LEOPENG: I beg leave to call Veli Mkhize.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Leopeng, is it still your intention to call a witness in support of your client's application?

MR LEOPENG: Mr Chair, after considering the matter, I have decided not to call the other witness any more.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Can you please make sure that the microphone of your client is switched off. Ms Thabete?

MS THABETE: Madam Chair, can I proceed to call Mr Nkuna? He is now Captain Nkuna.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed to do so. Captain Nkuna, will you please take the stand.

MS THABETE: Can I proceed, Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nkuna, are you prepared to take an oath? In that case, will you please rise in order to take the oath?

MBASIMA RICHARD NKUNA: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: You may be seated sir.

EXAMINATION BY MS THABETE: Captain Nkuna, can you state your full names for the record please?

MR NKUNA: My names are Mbasima Richard Nkuna.

MS THABETE: Is it correct that you were at the scene where Mr Mathonsi was shot and you were assaulted?

MR NKUNA: It is correct.

MS THABETE: Can you go ahead and tell this Committee what actually took place that day briefly, on the 11th of August 1993?

MR NKUNA: Yes, I can.

MS THABETE: Please proceed.

MR NKUNA: It was in the morning, I can't remember the exact time. It was myself and Bernard Mathonsi, we left our office and went to a place behind the police station, next to a post office because we were supposed to post some letters.

After posting the letters, we left and went to a place where they go repair my tyre. While I was talking to the person who was repairing my car tyre, Mathonsi was standing behind me and I heard a gunshot. When I turned and looked back, I saw Mathonsi trying to run away.

CHAIRPERSON: As you give your evidence, we are trying to make a record of what you are telling us. We therefore would request you to speak at a pace that will enable us to take down that which you are saying. We also have to ensure that the Translators are in a position to translate everything that you say to us, and that they do not miss a word because of the fast pace at which you are giving your evidence.

We therefore will implore you to slow your pace, thank you. You may proceed.

MR NKUNA: Can I start from the beginning?

MR LAX: No, you can start from the place where you said you went to the post office, you went to the tyre repair shop, you were talking to the owner and while you were talking to him, you heard a shot.

MR NKUNA: After I heard the gunshot, I looked back and I saw Mathonsi trying to run away.

MS THABETE: Mr Nkuna, was there any struggle that took place between Mr Mathonsi and one of the people who were attacking him before he was shot?

MR NKUNA: There was no struggle because he was behind me and facing the same direction. He was shot from behind, so he didn't get a chance to fight with these people.

MS THABETE: Can you proceed? You ran away and then what happened?

MR NKUNA: Instantly I saw two people next to me, the other one was pointing a firearm at me, and the other one was trying to disarm me, taking my firearm from my holster.

MS THABETE: Is the person who had pointed the firearm at you, present today, will you recognise him?

MR NKUNA: The person who pointed a firearm at me is not present before the Committee or in this hall.

MS THABETE: You may proceed.

MR NKUNA: Then I saw Mathonsi falling down. The other one was starting to shoot at me, I raised up my hand and he fired the other shot.

MS THABETE: You may proceed.

MR NKUNA: I tried to take my firearm from my holster and I fell on the ground, and it is then that they started running away from us.

MS THABETE: The applicant's evidence is that you ran away. What is your response to that?

INTERPRETER: Excuse me, we didn't get the last part of the question.

MS THABETE: What is your response to that?

INTERPRETER: We didn't get the statement you are putting.

MR LAX: Just repeat the question.

MS THABETE: The applicant's evidence is that it is not them who ran away, but you ran away. What is your response to that?

MR NKUNA: That is not true. They are the ones that ran away after they saw my trying to pull out my firearm from my holster.

MS THABETE: You have seen the applicant today, do you recognise him as being present on the day of the incident?

MR NKUNA: Yes, I do recognise him.

MS THABETE: Do you remember what he did that day?

MR NKUNA: I said the first gunshot, when I turned to look back, I saw him pointing the firearm at Mathonsi.

MS THABETE: Is that all you saw him doing?

MR NKUNA: He ran towards Mathonsi, trying to take the firearm from Mathonsi, but he was afraid at that time. He was running between me and Mathonsi, trying to disarm Mathonsi at the same time, but I could see that he was afraid, he wasn't sure that he is going to succeed in his mission.

MS THABETE: Can you clarify when you say he was attempting to disarm Mr Mathonsi, what do you mean, what was he doing?

MR NKUNA: After the shooting or I will say after I heard the first gunshot and I saw Mathonsi trying to run away, this one tried to follow him, trying to disarm him, but because Mathonsi had not yet fallen down at the time, he ran back. It looks like he was afraid to disarm him, he ran back towards me.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nkuna, let me try and get your evidence on this aspect. You have earlier on testified that as you were busy talking to the person who was repairing your tyre, you then heard a shot and thereafter you looked back and you saw Mathonsi trying to ran away.

You then saw Mathonsi falling down, I am a little confused with that aspect of your evidence. Then you proceeded to say you saw the applicant Mr Mononi running towards Mr Mathonsi, the deceased and attempting to dispossess him of his firearm. Now, at which stage did you see the applicant running towards the deceased and at which stage did you see the applicant attempting to dispossess the deceased of his firearm?

I am a little confused, maybe if you can assist us in that respect, do you understand what I am requesting of you, a kind of clarification as it were.

It is not clear to me at which stage you saw Mr Mathonsi running away and at which stage you saw him falling down and at which stage you saw the applicant running towards Mr Mathonsi with a view of dispossessing him of his firearm.

MR NKUNA: I will try to explain again. However, I would like to explain that these things were happening at a fast, quickly. I said after the first shot, I saw Mathonsi trying to run away.

The one was armed with a firearm at the time, was moving towards Mathonsi's direction, trying to grab his firearm, but he didn't. It looked like he was afraid to do so.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that person the applicant, the one who was running after Mathonsi?

MR NKUNA: Yes, it is the one before the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Was Mr Mathonsi shot at that time?

MR NKUNA: Yes, he was already shot because after seeing him, this man before us, trying to disarm him, it is after then that I saw him falling down, Mathonsi falling down.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you estimate the distance that he could have covered from where you initially had seen him standing behind you and where he ultimately ran to and fell onto the ground?

MR NKUNA: I will say it is, where he was standing, it was about from where I am, next to the table there, and after he was shot, he tried to run a distance from where I am to the table, opposite me where the lady is sitting.

CHAIRPERSON: He was standing from this table and covered a distance between that table and this table?

MR NKUNA: That is my estimation, but it is not really exactly.

CHAIRPERSON: That is about four to five paces.

MR NKUNA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Leopeng, five to six, about six paces? Do you agree Mr Leopeng? Yes?

MR LEOPENG: Yes, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Now you say that the applicant or the person that you identified as the applicant, was running after Mr Mathonsi and trying to dispossess him of his firearm. What in fact was he doing which suggested to you that he was trying to dispossess him of his firearm? What was the applicant doing as Mr Mathonsi was running away?

MR NKUNA: What made me to suspect that he was trying to disarm the deceased was that he was running in such a way like he was trying to grab the firearm from Mathonsi.

CHAIRPERSON: Was his hand outstretched?

INTERPRETER: Sorry, I didn't get the last part.

CHAIRPERSON: When you say he was running away in such a way as to try to grab the firearm from Mr Mathonsi, was the applicant's hand outstretched?

MR NKUNA: It wasn't stretched, however if someone is trying to grab something, it is easy to suspect or to see that this person is trying to grab something out of the place.

CHAIRPERSON: You in fact suspected that he was trying to do so?

MR NKUNA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. You may proceed Ms Thabete.

MS THABETE: I have no further questions Madam Chair.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS THABETE

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nkuna, I note that you have what looks like a docket. Is it a docket in respect of the trial that was conducted against Mr Mononi?

MR NKUNA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have a copy of the post mortem conducted on behalf of the deceased, Mr Mathonsi, in your docket?

MR NKUNA: Yes, it is present.

CHAIRPERSON: Can we please have a copy thereof? The post mortem report, I shall proceed with the proceedings herein. You may do so.

MS THABETE: Thank you Madam Chair. Would you like to have copies?

CHAIRPERSON: I would like to have a copy and definitely the Committee would like to have a copy thereof. Mr Leopeng would probably have to be given a copy, it will clear one aspect of the evidence already given by Mr Mononi which was not clear as to where exactly the deceased was shot at on his body.

We may however proceed with Mr Nkuna's evidence. Won't you assist. Have you been able to locate the post mortem report Ms Thabete?

Mr Leopeng, I will now give you an opportunity to put any questions if you have, to Mr Nkuna, now that he has completed his testimony in chief.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LEOPENG: Thank you Madam Chairman, I have some few questions.

CHAIRPERSON: I am not Madam Chairman.

MR LEOPENG: I beg your pardon Madam Chair. Mr Nkuna, in your evidence in chief, you said after you heard a shot and you saw the deceased trying to run away, you then saw someone standing holding a firearm, is that correct?

MR NKUNA: That is correct.

MR LEOPENG: And subject to correction from the panel, you said this is the applicant, the one who was holding the firearm is the applicant before this Committee?

MR LAX: Well Mr Leopeng, there were a number of people who were holding firearms. Just be specific about which one you are referring to, because in his testimony he refers to somebody pointing a firearm at him, he also refers to someone pointing a firearm at the deceased.

If you just clear up which person are you referring to, you will get the evidence that you are looking for.

MR LEOPENG: Thank you. The question that I put to the witness is that is it correct that the someone that he saw pointing the firearm at the, holding a firearm after the shot went off, was the applicant, and he said yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Maybe, not coming to Mr Nkuna's defence, you were not explicit with your question. Will you please put your question again and try to be explicit, segment it if possible.

MR LEOPENG: Thank you Madam Chair. Mr Nkuna, you said after you heard a shot and you noticed the deceased trying to run away, there was someone who was standing there, holding a firearm at that time, is that correct?

MR NKUNA: I don't understand your explanation at this present moment, or your question.

MR LEOPENG: But Mr Nkuna that was the evidence, your evidence in chief?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nkuna, your evidence was that.

MR NKUNA: I said I saw someone pointing a firearm at Mathonsi and at the same time, two people were next to me, trying to disarm me of my firearm.

CHAIRPERSON: That is precisely what is being put to you by Mr Leopeng, Mr Nkuna.

MR LAX: It is not quite Chairperson, because Mr Leopeng's question, that is what I tried to explain to him, he saw somebody holding a firearm. He said he saw someone pointing a firearm at the deceased, there is a big difference, and that is why he is confused.

MR LEOPENG: Thank you for the clarification. Did you see someone pointing a firearm towards the deceased?

MR NKUNA: When you say someone, I don't know whether you are referring to the one that I mentioned before, or someone else?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, did you see any person pointing a firearm at the deceased, yes or no? Did you or did you not see any person?

I think the identity of the person will soon come up, because Mr Leopeng is trying to take you stage by stage of what you have already said.

MR NKUNA: The person that I saw pointing a firearm at the deceased, was the one that I mentioned before this Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: His response is yes Mr Leopeng. Mr Nkuna, try and respond to questions which are being put to you the best way you can.

Did you see someone pointing a firearm at the deceased, your answer should be yes, then you may elaborate and say that person is so and so.

MR NKUNA: I appreciate to answer a question the way I understand it. The person that I saw pointing a firearm at Mathonsi, was the first person, it was only one person, I did not see any other person pointing a firearm at Mathonsi.

MR LEOPENG: And that person, in your evidence you have said it is the applicant before this Committee, is that correct?

MR NKUNA: Yes, he is the one before the Committee today.

MR LEOPENG: Is it correct further that you testified during the trial in the Johannesburg High Court?

MR NKUNA: That is correct.

MR LEOPENG: I now turn to page 3 of the judgement, on my paginated bundle, is marked page 10, but I am not sure if it corresponds with the panel's papers.

CHAIRPERSON: Ours is page 24. I think you can just continue telling us the numbers of the judgement as it appears on the judgement, without our paginated numbers.

MR LEOPENG: Thank you Madam Chair. During your testimony in trial, you said you could not identify the applicant before this Court during the identification parade, is that correct?

MR NKUNA: If I were not able to point him out at the identification parade, it will be a mistake on my part, because I could positively identify him. It is possible that I wasn't able to point him out and the reason might be that at the time when I saw him, he was very young and when I saw him for the second time, he was a grown up person.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nkuna, I have not been able to understand what you are saying. Will you please for my sake, come again. Just repeat what you have just said, the reason why you were unable to identify him before, but wee able to identify him later, what reasons did you advance?

MR LEOPENG: Madam Chair, through your permission, may I maybe rephrase the question in a very simple manner?

CHAIRPERSON: If it will assist Mr Nkuna and this Committee, you may do so.

MR LEOPENG: Mr Nkuna, I said during your testimony in the trial, you indicated and it was common cause before Court, that you could not identify the applicant before this Court who was the accused then, during the identification parade and you identified him only in court. Is that correct?

ADV BOSMAN: Excuse me for coming in Mr Nkuna, Mr Leopeng, I am now thoroughly confused. I don't know, where are you referring to when you say that he testified that he could not point him out?

MR LEOPENG: On the judgement, it is page 4 of the judgement.

CHAIRPERSON: And precisely ...

ADV BOSMAN: He says there in the judgement, the Judge, in his evidence, the Inspector said that he had attended an identification parade at which he pointed out the accused. This is what confuses me now.

CHAIRPERSON: I think it is a little confusing, you've got to read that judgement a little further down, then you will see from line 17 it is quite clear that the Inspector had not been able to identify the applicant, who was an accused then, at his criminal trial, he was unable to identify him at an identification parade immediately after the incident, but was able to identify him in court. He had not been able to identify him at an identification parade.

That is what you are putting to him Mr Leopeng?

MR LEOPENG: Yes.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you Chairperson, that ...

CHAIRPERSON: You are welcome, Ms Bosman. Mr Nkuna, do you understand the question which is being posed by Mr Leopeng? His question is that you were unable to identify the applicant at an identification parade, and you were only able to so identify him during the criminal trial.

MR NKUNA: I also in explanation before the Court explained that the reason why I was not able to identify him in the identity parade, is because it was a long time ago after the incident.

CHAIRPERSON: His problem is that when the identification parade took place, it was much closer to when the incident had occurred, and when you were able to identify him in court, it was much later. Can you give a reason why you were unable to identify him at an identification parade which was held much earlier but were only able to identify him during the criminal trial, which happened much later?

MR NKUNA: I said if I failed to point him out at the identification parade, my understanding is when I saw him, he was still young, and when the ID parade was conducted, he was a grown up person, so it is a mistake on my part, not having been able to identify him.

CHAIRPERSON: I think the question which is being posed to you is why were you still able to identify him when he was even much older, during his criminal trial. That is the question if the reason why you were unable to identify him during the identification parade, was because he had become much older, surely it must have been even more difficult to identify him during his criminal trial, because he had become even more older?

MR NKUNA: I said at the ID parade, I expected to see someone the same age at the time when I saw him during the incident, and my explanation was that he was grown up at the time.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Leopeng, I doubt if you can take this matter any further.

MR LEOPENG: Yes, I am leaving that.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed to the next item, sorry to the next aspect of his evidence.

MR LEOPENG: Mr Nkuna, when you said in your evidence in chief before this Committee that when the deceased was trying to run away, someone was running after him, trying to disarm him. What actually did he do which convinced you that he was trying to disarm him?

MR NKUNA: I explained that he was running in a way, like trying to catch the firearm and then comes back, withdraw back and go fast. I said I was in a position to see that he was trying to take something. I was looking at him and I came to the conclusion that he was trying to take the firearm.

MR LEOPENG: But your evidence after you had been questioned by Madam Chair, you said you just suspected because he was running after him. Is that not what you said?

MR LAX: With respect Mr Leopeng, he did actually say that the man, looked, thought he was trying to take something from him. That was his evidence.

MR LEOPENG: With respect, after Madam Chair took the matter further, he said I only suspected because if someone is running after him, I thought he was going to disarm him, there was no stretching of the hand, nothing.

MR LAX: I think we are confusing two different issues here. The fact that he suspected the guy was trying to take something, is one thing, but he very clearly said that the person was trying to touch him. He said he didn't have his arm outstretched, now that could be a question of interpretation.

If I stretch my arm out, it doesn't mean I am necessarily trying to grab something, and it wasn't followed up very carefully. Frankly, if you want to clear it up, go ahead and clear it up, but don't put it to him on the basis that he didn't say that, or did say something else.

MR LEOPENG: Thank you for that clarification. Mr Nkuna, what actually did the person who was trying to run after the deceased, do in trying to disarm the deceased?

MR NKUNA: I don't understand the question because I explained that he was running in a fearful manner, but trying as if he was trying to grab the firearm. I don't know what further you want me to explain on that point.

CHAIRPERSON: How was he running in such a way as to try and grab the firearm, is the question which is being put to you.

MR NKUNA: I said he was running quickly, like stinging, like showing that he wants to steal something from me.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know whether this is a question of a translation problem or these are words used by Mr Nkuna, which we cannot comprehend. We have had words like he was running in a fearful manner, we now hear he was running in a stinging manner, I don't know. Can we just clear that up. What is the meaning of all these adjectives?

MR NKUNA: I said he was running, but looking as if he wants to grab the firearm, so it looked like he was nervous and then withdrew. I will say it might be difficult to explain because it is so difficult sometimes to explain things which happened so fast.

What I am saying is, he was running, showing as if he was trying to grab the firearm, but at the same time, showing some nervousness and withdrawing back. Maybe he was afraid that Mathonsi will fight back, I don't know.

And finally, he didn't manage to take the firearm and he withdrew. That shows that he was nervous.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Leopeng, the ball is in your court.

MR LEOPENG: Thank you Madam Chair. One other question in respect of this issue, did that person who was running after the deceased, come in contact with the body, the person of the deceased?

MR NKUNA: They didn't come to contact. As I explained, he looked nervous.

CHAIRPERSON: May I find out Mr Nkuna, at which stage did this person completely withdraw from running after Mr Mathonsi? Are you in a position to elaborate on that? He was pursuing Mr Mathonsi up to some stage, at which stage did he stop his pursuit?

MR NKUNA: Mathonsi was running at the time, and he tried to follow him. He ran back towards me, and then there was a second shot fired while I was struggling with these people, that was the time when they ran away. I would like you to take into account that these things were happening very quickly.

CHAIRPERSON: No, we are fully cognisant of that. We are very mindful of the fact that they were happening very quickly, and on that aspect, how long do you think the pursuance lasted, that is by allegedly Mr Mononi? Was it a split of a second?

MR NKUNA: I didn't count, but I would say it was quick. He just went towards him, and quickly withdrew. I can't be able to give the exact seconds.

It could only be inferred from the actions what he did, as to how many seconds it could be.

CHAIRPERSON: But it was very quick as you say?

MR NKUNA: Yes, it was very quick.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed Mr Leopeng.

MR LEOPENG: Thank you Madam Chair. Mr Nkuna, why this evidence, let me specify, the evidence that after the shot went off and that you noticed someone running after the deceased, trying to grab, trying to disarm him, why was that part of evidence not tendered in court?

MR NKUNA: I don't remember what exactly I said before the Supreme Court. If I didn't put it on record, it means it wasn't required out of me to put it, because I did say everything that was necessary at the Supreme Court.

MR LEOPENG: This part of evidence was not tendered, that is what I am putting to you.

MR LAX: You can't say that Mr Leopeng. All you can say is it doesn't appear from the summary in the judgement. You certainly can't say that he didn't tender it and that is the difficulty we all have, we don't have the record here.

MR LEOPENG: Well, if the Judge did not include that in the judgement, then I leave the matter ...

Mr Nkuna, according to your own memory, how many shots were fired during that day, on that day?

MR NKUNA: Two times.

CHAIRPERSON: Before you proceed on the point that has been mentioned by Mr Lax, have you read the judgement closely and what do you make of the statement that Mr Lax has just said, do you agree with that? Do you agree with that statement, the one that has been made by Mr Lax if you have read the judgement closely, particularly, what do you say of a reference there which is being made by allegedly the evidence of Mr Nkuna about someone having stood next to the deceased, holding a shotgun and pointing that shotgun in the direction of the deceased, which appears on line 18 and 19, 19 and 20?

There obviously was reference to someone having pointed a firearm in the direction of the deceased?

MR LEOPENG: Madam Chair, that is not in dispute. What I say, the evidence, this portion of evidence that there was someone who ran after the deceased, trying to disarm him, that is not in the ...

CHAIRPERSON: Precisely. What do you make of the evidence that was led there, that a shotgun was the weapon that was pointed at the deceased as it appears in line 20? Are you still coming to that in the light of the evidence led by Mr Mononi that on that day he was armed with a Makarov pistol?

MR LEOPENG: Yes, I am still coming to that issue.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, you better come to that point fast then.

MR LEOPENG: Mr Nkuna, you said in your evidence in chief, that there was someone who was armed with a firearm. What kind of firearm was it?

CHAIRPERSON: Find out first Mr Leopeng, lay the basis for that conclusion you want out of him. Did he see the kind of a firearm that was used by the person that he allegedly identified as Mr Mononi, that is the question you should ask.

MR LEOPENG: Mr Nkuna, did you identify the kind of weapon which was in possession of the person who pointed the deceased?

MR NKUNA: Yes, I could identify it. I said it was a shotgun or a pump gun.

MR LEOPENG: So in your own words, a shotgun might be a pump gun?

MR NKUNA: Shotgun and pump gun is one and the same firearm.

MR LEOPENG: Is a pistol also a shotgun?

MR NKUNA: No, it is not.

MR LEOPENG: Thank you. The person who was holding a firearm, you said it was a shotgun and which means it was not a pistol? I put it to you that the applicant before this Committee, stated in his evidence in chief, that he was in possession of that specific day, of a Makarov pistol.

CHAIRPERSON: As him to comment.

MR LEOPENG: What do you say about that?

MR NKUNA: I am saying that he was holding a shotgun.

MR LEOPENG: No further questions Madam Chair.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LEOPENG

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Leopeng. Mr Lax, do you have any questions to put to Mr Nkuna?

MR LAX: No questions Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Bosman?

ADV BOSMAN: Just one question, thank you Chairperson.

Captain, did you hear anybody saying anything during the time that this shooting took place, and during this scuffle?

MR NKUNA: Nobody talked, it was only action.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Bosman. Mr Lax, would you like to put a question?

MR LAX: Just one question that nearly slipped my mind Chairperson.

Mr Nkuna, the question of the deceased's firearm, what happened to that firearm?

MR NKUNA: It was taken from the deceased by the Investigators. It was inside the deceased's holster, that is where they removed it.

MR LAX: It is common cause, do you remember whether that firearm formed the subject of any robbery charge?

MR NKUNA: May you please repeat your question.

MR LAX: Do you have any knowledge whether that firearm formed the subject of a charge of robbery or not?

MR NKUNA: It was taken by the Investigating Officers. I wasn't told of that and I am not aware of that.

MR LAX: Thank you, no further questions Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you see the Investigating Officers remove the firearm from the body of the deceased? Did you personally witness them removing his firearm?

MR NKUNA: Yes, the Investigating Officers removed the firearm from the holster.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you personally witness that?

MR NKUNA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And when was that in relation to when this incident took place? Was it immediately or after a few hours after the incident had occurred?

MR NKUNA: It didn't happen quickly because they arrived and did the scientific investigations. Before they could touch the deceased, they did all the tests, before they removed the firearm from the body of the deceased.

They didn't immediately went there and took it out.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there any reference in your docket to the deceased's weapon?

MR NKUNA: I only got a chance to look at the docket just now, when I arrived, and I didn't get a chance to look at the docket whether they explained whether the firearm was handed in any particular way.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nkuna, do you have any objection if you handed up your docket to the Committee in order that we may peruse and see whether such an entry with regard to the deceased's weapon, was made by the Investigating Officer who attended to him at the scene. Do you have any objection to us doing that?

MR NKUNA: The docket is not in my possession, I just found this with the Evidence Leader, so it is in the possession of the Evidence Leader, I don't know, you can talk to her to look inside it and see if it is there.

CHAIRPERSON: So you have no objection to us going through that docket?

MR NKUNA: Yes, I don't have any problem, they can have a look at it.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Thank you Mr Nkuna. Ms Thabete?

MS THABETE: Madam Chair, would you like me to hand it over to you?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS THABETE: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: It will not be handed up as an Exhibit, we will simply go through that docket to see if the relevant entry was made by the police, which will assist us in determining this aspect of the evidence.

We will after quickly perusing the docket, return it to Mr Nkuna. Was this in fact a copy made for your perusal Ms Thabete?

MS THABETE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Or is it a document that still has to go back to Mr Nkuna?

MS THABETE: It was my copy which I was given by the Investigative Unit.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we will return it to you as soon as we have completed perusing it.

MS THABETE: Thank you Madam Chair, can I put something on record as well that you had referred to earlier on?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS THABETE: On page 19 of the bundle, it is the summary of, it is the judgement, in the summary of substantial facts, they talk about the shot on the deceased, having been on the chest and abdomen.

MR LAX: Yes, that is apparent from the post mortem as well.

MS THABETE: From the post mortem report as well, so I would say that the applicant's version would be correct.

CHAIRPERSON: It concurs with, yes.

MS THABETE: Yes. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for drawing that to our attention. We had already quickly gone through the post mortem report and we noticed that, I think the description of the entry and the exit wound and the area where that entered, coincides with the understanding of Mr Mononi's evidence.

Mr Leopeng, you had ...

MR LEOPENG: Madam Chair, through your permission, I beg leave to go back to another question. I have closed my cross-examination, but I beg leave to ask just one important question regarding the sequence of events after the alleged person was running after the deceased to the falling of the deceased.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may do so.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LEOPENG: Thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: May I just explain to Mr Nkuna. Mr Nkuna, Mr Leopeng has requested this Committee to afford him an opportunity to put a question that he omitted to put to you during his cross-examination of you.

We have in the interest of justice and fairness, allowed him to do so.

MR LEOPENG: Thank you Madam Chair. Mr Nkuna, in your evidence in chief you said before the deceased could fall down, the person who was running after him, retreated, is that correct?

MR NKUNA: That is what I said.

MR LEOPENG: Now I turn to page 5 of the judgement, I am not sure about the paginated papers, page 4 of the judgement, the fourth line of the first paragraph.

Mr Nkuna, there was evidence that one of the assailants attempted to remove the deceased's firearm from his holster when he fell. What do you say about that?

MR NKUNA: What is written there, is what I said.

MR LEOPENG: But in your evidence in chief you said he retreated before he could even fall down?

MR LAX: That evidence says one of the assailants, it is not saying the same one. I think you put questions in a very lose way and then you try and pin him down to a very specific understanding of that question.

It is not fair Mr Leopeng, as the Chair said, if you want to cross-examine a witness, you must lay the foundation, then you must put your specific question. You can't come from a generalist kind of, what you have read is that another of the assailants, we don't know which one that is, we don't know who that refers to.

Unless you put it to the witness specifically, you can't then try and pin it down afterwards.

MR LEOPENG: Thank you for the clarification. Was there any other person except the one you referred that he was holding a firearm, who ran after the deceased before he fell down?

MR NKUNA: I said I am still talking about a person, I am saying it for the third time, I have answered this question for three times now.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nkuna, please you must answer questions which are put to you for as many times as it is necessary, unless the Chair rules otherwise.

Whether you ask them for the umpteenth time, if I feel that is a fair question, I will allow it, and it will be expected of you to respond to that question whether it is the second or the third time. Please answer the question.

MR NKUNA: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you want the question to be repeated or are you in a position to answer the question?

MR NKUNA: I said the person whom I saw running after Mathonsi, is the person whom, when I heard a shot which was fired, it was the one who was pointing the firearm at Mathonsi.

MR LEOPENG: So in other words, there was no any other person who you saw running after the deceased, other than the one who was holding a firearm?

MR NKUNA: I said there was no other person, except the person whom I have mentioned before.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nkuna, did any person attempt to remove Mr Mathonsi's firearm whilst he was laying on the ground?

MR NKUNA: I said the person whom I saw trying to grab the firearm from Mathonsi, is the same person whom I saw pointing a firearm at Mathonsi after we heard a shot. After Mathonsi was laying down, I never saw any person trying to grab the firearm from him.

That is what I was trying to explain.

CHAIRPERSON: During Mr Mononi's criminal trial, to the effect that you saw one of the assailants attempting to remove Mr Mathonsi's firearm whilst he was on the ground, was that not the evidence that you gave during Mononi's trial?

MR NKUNA: I said he tried to grab the firearm from Mr Mathonsi when he was laying. I don't know what is written there, but what I said is that he was trying to take the firearm, but he was nervous, so when he heard the second shot, he ran away.

I don't know how it is written in the documents there.

CHAIRPERSON: The Judge summarised your evidence as follows that when Mr Mathonsi fell, and was on the ground, one of the assailants tried to remove his firearm from his holster.

The Judge may not have gone further to say he was laying on the ground, but he said when he fell, you saw one of the, not one who was running after him, there might have been that incident, but how it is summarised to evidence is that you saw one of the assailants removing Mr Mathonsi's firearm when he fell.

MR NKUNA: What is written by the Judge, I think they look similar. It might be different in writing, when you put it on record, because I said he was running to him, trying to grab the firearm. That is why I am saying it looks or it seemed as if he was trying to take the firearm or he tried to take it while he fell down, I mean it is difficult because he didn't tell me that he was trying to grab the firearm from Mr Mathonsi.

It was just my own opinion.

CHAIRPERSON: It was your own speculation?

MR NKUNA: That is true.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Leopeng?

MR LEOPENG: The applicant denies having run after the deceased and further that he tried to disarm the Police Official. That is all Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Haven't you put that to him when you had an opportunity to do so? We can't allow you to have the second bite. You have already put that to him. I allowed you to cross-examine him further on the basis of one question that you requested the Chair to allow you to cross-examine him on. You may not put anything further to him.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LEOPENG

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabete, I suppose you don't want to re-examine Mr Nkuna?

MS THABETE: Not at all Madam Chair.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETE

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nkuna, thank you very much for having given evidence. You may take your seat.

MR NKUNA: Thank you Madam Chair.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabete and Mr Leopeng, now that we have finished oral evidence in respect of this application, are we in a position to proceed to legal argument?

MS THABETE: I am Madam Chair.

MR LEOPENG: I am too, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Before we do so, Ms Thabete, what are your instructions with regard to the relatives of the deceased, Mr Mathonsi?

MS THABETE: Madam Chair, I did not speak to them today, but I spoke to them the last time. It was very difficult to get any facts regarding this incident, because they were not present at the scene. I don['t have any instructions to oppose, nor do I have instructions not to oppose. I just used my discretion that since they were not there at the scene of the crime, I wouldn't take any instructions as to whether they are opposing or not.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have their particulars?

MS THABETE: With regard to address and everything?

CHAIRPERSON: With regard to names and addresses?

MS THABETE: Yes Madam Chair, I had requested Mteki to have their particulars with her, so I assume that she has them. I can ask her quickly.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know who is present today to attend this hearing from the deceased's family?

MS THABETE: Madam Chair, I would like to verify that, but as far as I know the mother is there. I am not sure about the father, he was there the last time. Like I say, I didn't speak to them today as such, so I can verify that Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We will take a lunch adjournment and reconvene at two o'clock. Please let's make sure that we keep to time.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Leopeng, are you in a position to give us your legal argument?

MR LEOPENG: Yes Madam Chair, I am in a position.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed to do so.

MR LEOPENG IN ARGUMENT: Madam Chair, it is clear from the evidence which has been led on behalf of the applicant, that the act committed on the 11th of August 1993, was committed on instructions from the command of the then Unit Commander of the SDU's in Diepkloof.

It is further clear that the intention of the Unit wherein applicant was, was solely to disarm Police Officials and not to harm or kill in order to enforce and to arm the SDU's in protecting the community from the attacks of the IFP and SAP. The objective sought to be achieved, was simply to disarm and to protect the community.

On the basis of that, I submit humbly that the action committed, was political. I further submit that it is clear from the evidence which has been led, that the applicant is not the one who opened fire and apparently the fire went off as a result of a struggle.

The intention was not to go and kill these people. This was not a premeditated thing to go and kill. That is also that appeared during the cross-examination of Mr Nkuna who clearly stated that the person was armed, the person who ran after the deceased, was armed with a shotgun which it was a palm gun, and that corroborates the evidence of the applicant to say I was armed with a Makarov pistol and not with a palm gun, which was armed by one comrade Xolani, who then during the struggle, the shot went off.

Under this circumstances, I submit that a proper case has been made out and that the applicant be granted amnesty in respect of all the offences that he has been convicted of, including that one of robbery of a firearm of a Police Official, which he was not convicted of. However, there was evidence that the firearm was taken by force from the deceased and it was handed to the SDU. Thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabete?

MS THABETE IN ARGUMENT: Madam Chair, without repeating what has already been said, it is also my submission that it is not a disputed fact that Mr Mononi was an SDU member and it should be accepted by this Committee that he was.

Evidence has also been led in several SDU hearings that it was common for SDU members to disarm policemen of their firearms in order to obtain firearms. It is also from the evidence of Mr Nkuna, he testified that he heard a shot, he did not see who shot Mr Mathonsi, so the accused's evidence stands unchallenged and undisputed.

I would also submit that I have no objections to amnesty being granted and that the act appears to have been political. Thank you Madam Chair.

Sorry Madam Chair, can I add something? I would also recommend that the victims be referred to Reparation Committee, the R&R Committee for reparation, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much Mr Leopeng and Ms Thabete, for the assistance that you have rendered to this Committee.

Our decision in respect of Mr Mononi's application will be handed down during the course of the day. We therefore will request you to be around Mr Leopeng in order to have the decision also.

MR LEOPENG: I will do so Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: So that I think can explain it better to Mr Mononi, it is always advisable if we hand down decisions in a set up of this kind, that Counsel is around in order to further explain the decision to the applicant concerned.

MR LEOPENG: I will also do that, and explain to the applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. We shall now proceed with the matter that was adjourned yesterday and were unable to proceed with this morning, in order to enable the victims who are from Giyani to be able to be part of the process in the application of Mr Mononi.

You will be excused whilst we proceed with the application of Mr Radebe and Mr Mkhwanazi.

We hope to be able to pronounce our decision in respect of Mr Mononi at about half past four or five o'clock. It is merely an approximation. Please don't hold us down to time.

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: We are going to proceed with your matter. I don't have my pad, I think my Secretary has omitted to bring my pad. Ms Moloisane, I think we left the matter yesterday at a point where you were going to call your next witness, being one Bonga Khumalo?

MS MOLOISANE: As it pleases you Madam Chair. Bonga Khumalo.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Khumalo, is it your intention to give your evidence under oath?

MR KHUMALO: Yes.

BONGA KHUMALO: (sworn states)

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

EXAMINATION BY MS MOLOISANE: Mr Khumalo, where do you stay?

MR KHUMALO: I reside at Sebokeng.

MS MOLOISANE: And during 1991, you were not in the country, not so?

MR KHUMALO: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Don't put a leading question Ms Moloisane, rephrase your question.

MS MOLOISANE: Where were you during 1991?

MR KHUMALO: I was in Botswana.

MS MOLOISANE: Why were you living in Botswana then?

MR KHUMALO: I was in exile in the camps of the ANC.

MS MOLOISANE: When did you come back to the country?

MR KHUMALO: In February 1992.

MS MOLOISANE: Upon your arrival in the country, back in Sebokeng, were you given any political portfolio in the township?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, I was a member of the ANC Youth League, being Secretary of Politics in the ANC Youth League.

MS MOLOISANE: Where was your office located then?

MR KHUMALO: My office was in Zone 12.

MS MOLOISANE: Where exactly at Zone 12 was your office?

MR KHUMALO: Actually Sebokeng is just a branch and Zone 12 is a sub-branch of Sebokeng, and we had our office at Hollywood.

MS MOLOISANE: Are you referring to Hollywood Night Club?

MR KHUMALO: Yes.

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

MR KHUMALO: Yes, I know them.

MS MOLOISANE: Briefly explain to the Committee how you know them.

MR KHUMALO: One person that I know very well, is Fanie because he belonged to our branch of the ANC Youth League and Mkondo was an activist too, even though I cannot confirm his membership because he belonged to another district.

You would bear with me, I don't know their real names.

MS MOLOISANE: I have here as applicants John Radebe and Fanie Mkhwanazi.

MR KHUMALO: It is Radebe.

MS MOLOISANE: You say both were members of the Youth League, is that what you are saying?

MR KHUMALO: Yes.

MS MOLOISANE: Do you know anything about the establishment of the Self Defence Units in the township or in Zone 12, Sebokeng?

MR KHUMALO: Yes.

MS MOLOISANE: How were the structures operating and how were the formulated, start with the formulation, how were they composed of?

MR KHUMALO: Are you talking about the structures in Zone 12? When I came back into the country in 1992, it was during the violence. There was this conflict between the ANC and the IFP and there were no Defence Units and the organisation made a call after the suspension of the armed struggle, a call to the effect that people should set up structures to protect the community so that people who had been exiled, are the ones who were targeted and assigned with the task of setting up these structures.

I was assigned to assist in setting up such a structure in Zone 12 Sebokeng.

MS MOLOISANE: You talked about the organisation, which organisation are you referring to, clarify please.

MR KHUMALO: The ANC and the call had come from the National Office of the ANC that people should set up structures for self defence.

MS MOLOISANE: How were they set up?

MR KHUMALO: Zone 12 had four blocks. What happened is that we had to make sure that each area has its own Commander in charge, whose responsibility would be among other things, to recruit. There were four Units in existence and these Units had different Commanders.

MS MOLOISANE: How was each Unit composed, how many members?

MR KHUMALO: Each Unit doesn't have to have more than 10 comrades, but because of the circumstances in the township and we had many Units mushrooming, we resultantly ended up saying that each Unit should have about 18 to 20 comrades as members.

MS MOLOISANE: Now, who were the Commanders in charge in Zone 12?

MR KHUMALO: I was a Commander of my Unit. I was a Unit Commander of Zone 12.

MS MOLOISANE: If I understand you well, do you mean that you were the Unit Commander of all four Units, is that your evidence?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, that is my explanation.

MS MOLOISANE: Who were the Commanders in charge of these four Units?

MR KHUMALO: You mean the four of them?

MS MOLOISANE: Yes?

MR KHUMALO: There is one Unit that was commanded by Mabuza Mhlongo. Another commanded by Mzwakhe Stuurman, Senki Zakwe commanded another one and ...

CHAIRPERSON: Just come again with regard to the third Commander.

MS MOLOISANE: Pardon Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: I didn't get the name of the third Commander. I've got Mabuza Mhlongo, Mzwakhe Stuurman.

MR KHUMALO: Senki Zakwe. And then one Unit that was commanded by Skosana.

MS MOLOISANE: Now, to which of these four Units, did the applicant in this matter belong? In whose Unit were they, Fanie Mkhwanazi and John Radebe, do you still remember?

MR KHUMALO: They were under Mabuza Mhlongo's Unit.

MS MOLOISANE: How did this Unit operate in relation to the protection of the community as you say? How did they protect, how were they required by you to protect the community?

MR KHUMALO: The name is self-explanatory, Self Defence Unit.

Initially it was a question or the question of defending the community so that we had nightly patrols. Madam Chair, you will bear with me, when we say a person should protect oneself, this means everything, but what we meant was defending the community and this involved killing.

The main thing was defending the community, including patrols, nightly patrols and daily patrols.

MS MOLOISANE: Which cases justified killing, as you say? Under what circumstances would there be killings?

MR KHUMALO: When the members were out on patrol and happened to come across an enemy, they for example had to have a Commander in charge of that Unit, during the patrol.

When they were out on patrol, the Commander in charge was authorised to issue orders to the effect that if killing was necessary, that had to be done.

MS MOLOISANE: Do you know one Hapile Nduno and Elsie Mokoena?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, I know them.

MS MOLOISANE: How do you know them?

MR KHUMALO: First of all I know them as girls who resided in Zone 12.

MS MOLOISANE: It is common cause that Hapile Nduno was shot and killed on the 15th of August 1993 and her friend Elsie Mokoena was shot and injured on that day. Do you know anything about those events?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, I heard that that incident happened.

MS MOLOISANE: From whom did you hear about them?

MR KHUMALO: I met with the Unit Commander of the applicants and I received from him a report to the effect of this incident having happened and that Hapile was killed and Elsie injured.

But it was after a few days.

MS MOLOISANE: Did he tell you under what circumstances or what led to the killing of Hapile and the injuring of Elsie Mokoena?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, he did explain it to me. Mostly Chairperson, it is that we had information regarding these ladies, this is why I did not ask many questions as to why she was killed, because we already had information about them.

MS MOLOISANE: What information did you have about them?

MR KHUMALO: Maybe I should talk about myself as to how I knew them. When I came back into the country in 1992 as I have explained, that I came back at the time when there was violence between the IFP and the ANC, and when I came back, I did not know who belonged where and what was happening.

As it is commonly known in the township that everyone would fall within their organisations, but what happened was that when I arrived, I was shown what kind of vehicles the IFP were using and who was who.

I used to see these vehicles each time when I went to the shops in the morning or during the day, going to the shops, I sued to see these vehicles. There is one friend of the victims, Meme is the name, I am not quite sure of the surname, and in most instances one would see these people parked with their vehicles there.

I started suspecting that something was going on, but at the time, the harassment of the community was not common practice. I mean concerning the involvement of girls, because what was common was that the IFP members used to come to the township, kidnap girls and take them to the hostels.

At the time it was not a question of kidnapping people, but it was a question of relationships between these girls.

CHAIRPERSON: Without interrupting your evidence in chief, the witness is giving testimony about vehicles, we don't understand which vehicles he is talking about and what they have to do with the incident in question. If you can just take charge and try and direct him so that we can get evidence that we will be able to better understand and relate to the incident in question.

MS MOLOISANE: Thank you Madam Chair. You said, you mentioned a girl by the name of Meme who was a friend to Hapile Nduno and Elsie Mokoena, is that not so?

MR KHUMALO: That is correct.

MS MOLOISANE: And you say this Meme was used to, or rather let me put it this way, you often saw Meme in the company of vehicles being driven by IFP members, is that your evidence?

CHAIRPERSON: No, that is not the evidence before us. That is what I want you to clarify. Ask him what vehicles he is talking of. There is no evidence who the vehicles belong to.

MS MOLOISANE: To whom did this vehicles belong in which you often saw Meme travelling?

MR KHUMALO: We had one prominent leader of the IFP in the township, his name is Gatise Keswa and he had his members. One person whom I used to see quite often was Oupa Smith. I don't know with whom he had an affair, but each time I saw these vehicles there, Oupa Smith was part of the group. Their vehicles were known in the township. Their Cortina's and their registration numbers for the vehicles, all of these were known.

MS MOLOISANE: Yes, now you say this Meme was a friend of Hapile Nduno and Elsie Mokoena, but we are here concerned with the incident of Hapile Nduno and Elsie Mokoena. Had you ever seen them travelling in those vehicles, or not?

MR KHUMALO: What I have said is that that is how I know them. Each time I saw them, I saw them as a group. I am referring here to Meme and Hapile and Elsie.

CHAIRPERSON: Doing what Mr Khumalo, may we ascertain because we have not been able to hear you tying Meme and her friends to anything in particular. You also made a reference to having seen Oupa Smith as being a part of a group that drove the vehicles.

You have only been able to tell us that one of the prominent IFP members called Gatise, also drove these vehicles. We however have not heard in relation to what Oupa Smith's name has been mentioned.

Is it in relation to his association with Gatise, was he also seen driving the cars that were seen being driven by Gatise and were the victims Elsie Mokoena and the deceased, Hapile Nduno seen in the company of any of the drivers of the Gatise group? Can you just clarify those issues?

MR KHUMALO: Madam Chair, with all due respect, for me to be able to respond, I would like to explain the situation in the township as it transpired. I think that will enable me to answer the question, as to how this girl died.

CHAIRPERSON: You may do so.

MR KHUMALO: What used to happen in the township was that it had become common that these girls were associating with the IFP group.

I am talking about the people who had left the township for kwaMadala hostel, or the hotel where they were staying, so that it had become difficult for people to go to town to do shopping.

People who were going to town were harassed. If a person went to town and known to be associated with an ANC person or a girl, these people would be harassed, so that a very serious hatred developed because people were being assaulted in town and the people were attacked in their homes.

They were always in the company of girls. Each time they went to the township, they would not leave the township without having harassed or attacked people.

We wanted to know how they came to the township and who they were seeing in the township, and we later on got to know who they were seeing in the township. They were continuing to harass people in the township. It was okay before the girls disappeared from the township, but later on, that created a very serious problem for the community and that I must say was not an order from the SDU, the ANC or Umkhonto to the effect that the girls must be killed, whoever was associated with Inkatha.

The situation had become out of control, that is people had decided to take the law into their own hands. We decided that we would not allow for people to be killed and if I was a member of the IFP and fled to kwaMadala, on coming back to the township, I would talk to the girl, maybe see whatever was happening, because the girl was afraid of me, she would be part of what I was saying, so that I was appointed to be in charge of the IFP, or should I say the Self Defence Unit members in the township.

They had started this quite a long time ago.

MR LAX: There is some serious translation problems going on here. We are hearing that if a girl from the township was met by somebody from the IFP and there is something very wrong going there, I am sure it is not right.

Can you just repeat that piece of your evidence please. You said you wouldn't allow the situation to happen and you wanted to start defending yourselves. Carry on from there.

MR KHUMALO: My apologies. What I am saying here is that the organisation ended up getting itself involved in the SDU matters, that was after people had become very angry having started their own Units which did not directly account to the organisation.

This came about as a result of the fact that the organisation was doing nothing about protecting the people. That is how we got involved. What is happening is that I was trying to explain that we would not as an organisation, stand aside and look while people were killed, for the mere reason that they were associating with the IFP.

In so far as Hapile and her friend is concerned, it is that they were once warned about this. They apparently did not understand what was happening within the IFP, they were just happy about the fact that they were travelling in vehicles with these people. They were lashed. Unfortunately that did not happen and that continued, so that when I arrived, I indicated that I came back in 1992, but I witnessed the situation myself. They were trafficking with these people, so that I cannot be sure as to whether they were members of the IFP or not, or whether they were just ordinary people who used to receive visits from IFP members, because they were in love or whatever.

That is what I am saying.

MS MOLOISANE: With regard to Hapile Nduno and Elsie Mokoena, what was the situation concerning these vehicles that were seen driven by Gatise and his friends, or his associates?

MR KHUMALO: What I am saying here is that I cannot directly implicate a person. I was not dealing with them, what I am saying here is that I only knew about these resulting from the rumours that were circulating. People were complaining about these things.

People had to verify this as it was rumoured, so that we could not react upon rumour to the effect that a person is an informer. At that time, (indistinct) was a common term used to refer to an informer.

We therefore could not have allowed this situation to persist. At the time, there were comrades deployed in that area which would justify the acts of certain people. The duties of the SDU was to make sure that people are protected, but we had underground Umkhonto structures who people or structures who would verify information as to whether a person was an informer or not.

I personally was not part of that, and as a result, I do not know what became of the Hapile case. All I know is that she was killed. I am trying to explain that people ...

MR LAX: Mr Khumalo, sorry to interrupt you. You are going in a very long roundabout, is the bottom line really not this, you have no personal knowledge that these two victims were involved in? Everything that you know about is rumours, stories that were circulating in the township about being seen in cars and all that stuff, this is just speculation and rumours and hearsay on your part, is that not correct, yes or no?

MR KHUMALO: No. What I am saying here is that apart from the rumours, yes, these girls were associated with the informers. As a result of that, this created an impression that they were informers or spies of the IFP.

CHAIRPERSON: You know Mr Khumalo, I am sure before you came to give evidence before this Committee, you must have been apprized by Ms Moloisane, about the relevant aspects of the evidence that you will have to testify about which would go to support the application of the two applicants, Mr Radebe and Mr Mkhwanazi.

Your evidence must be in context and relate in a material respect, to that given by Mr Mkhwanazi and Mr Radebe. By so saying, I am trying to say I still have not been able to understand where this evidence is taking us in relation to the applications that we have to decide on.

Ms Moloisane, we will urge you on behalf of the Committee and in the interest of time, that you please direct questions that are really going to assist us in deciding the applications of Mr Radebe and Mr Mkhwanazi, bearing in mind the evidence already given by the two applicants.

It is very important for us to put supporting evidence in context.

MS MOLOISANE: I do understand Madam Chair, I have explained to the witness during consultation what the purpose and the relevance of his evidence would be in this application.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I hope you will be able to intervene periodically in order to direct and redirect his evidence.

MS MOLOISANE: As it pleases you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: And I am sure you will understand that you are doing this because you know what is material and what may not be that material in relation to what he wants to tell us.

MS MOLOISANE: As it pleases you Madam Chair. Mr Khumalo, don't be too fast, be slower and wait for questions to be posed to you, don't just go about explaining things the way that they were.

In relation to the orders that you were required to give as the Commander of the Zone 12 Unit, did you issue any orders to either of the Unit Commanders that Hapile Nduno and Elsie Mokoena should be shot and killed?

MR KHUMALO: Are you talking specifically about the Nduno incident? No.

MS MOLOISANE: Hapile Nduno and Elsie Mokoena?

MR KHUMALO: No, those orders did not come from me.

MS MOLOISANE: Who was in charge with such orders, with the issuing of such orders?

MR KHUMALO: I would like to go back and say that each one of the four Units, had their own Commanders, authorised to give such orders, without having to wait for me to issue such orders.

Such orders were justified.

MS MOLOISANE: If I understand you well, you said in your evidence that (indistinct) or spies had to be killed, is that correct?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, that is correct.

MS MOLOISANE: Did you issue any kind of orders to the Unit CHAIRPERSON: Commanders that (indistinct) should be killed?

MR KHUMALO: What I am saying is that the order was general so that any Commander would have to kill (indistinct) on seeing one.

MS MOLOISANE: So you also said in your evidence that this order came from the organisation, is that correct, meaning the ANC? In fact the instructions that (indistinct) should be killed.

MR LAX: He didn't say that Ms Moloisane. He didn't say that at all. He said the ANC had set up structures to defend the community. It was much earlier in his testimony, but if you want to elicit that information from him, go ahead and do so.

MS MOLOISANE: Committee member, let me put it this way, did the National - the organisation give you any orders as to what had to be done with the (indistinct)?

MR KHUMALO: You will remember that the setting up of the SDU's were after the ANC had committed itself to peace in the country so that it could not have said that people should be killed, but the SDU's was assigned with the task of protecting the community.

In that operation of protecting people, people would be killed, not that the ANC said the SDU's should kill people.

CHAIRPERSON: May I with your indulgence Ms Moloisane, just clear one aspect which is causing me some problems.

You have just testified that you did not issue any order that Ms Nduno and Ms Mokoena should be killed. You however, have gone on to say each of the four Unit Commanders were authorised to issue such an order.

Now, who would have been the person to have given the Unit Commanders such authority?

MR KHUMALO: Madam Chair, I said here in particular with reference to the Nduno and Elsie incident, I did not issue any order.

I used to issue orders to the effect that on seeing (indistinct) in the township, such a person should be killed and it transpired that Elsie and Hapile became victims following the general order, not that the order was specifically issue for them.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you therefore saying that you gave a general order as it were, to the Unit Commanders of the four blocks in Zone 12, to kill (indistinct), is that what you are saying?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, that is what I am saying.

CHAIRPERSON: How different is that from the order to kill the ladies in question, may we understand you on that one?

MR KHUMALO: What I am trying to explain here, what I am trying to say here is that I did not specifically talk or speak to a specific Unit Commander that they should go and kill Elsie and Hapile. What I am saying is that these two became victims of a general order.

There was no specific order for them to be killed.

MS MOLOISANE: Who issued that order, that general order that you are referring to?

CHAIRPERSON: You wouldn't know, would he, he gave a general order to specific Unit Commanders and it would be upon the individual Commanders to effect his general order.

MS MOLOISANE: As it pleases you Madam Chair. Earlier on you were testifying about the involvement of Hapile Nduno, Elsie Mokoena and this Meme with Gatise and other IFP people. Would you clarify or elaborate what you mean?

MR KHUMALO: I said this in response to your question as to how I knew Hapile and Elsie. I was explaining that apart from the rumour that was circulating, a rumour to the effect that they were trafficking with the IFP, I am saying here that mostly I used to see them all together.

I am talking here about a group of girls who used to exchange visits, and the IFP members would come and pay them visits. That is what I am saying.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Khumalo, I am at a loss now with your evidence in this aspect. I thought when you were questioned by a member of this Committee in relation to this aspect, you admitted that your evidence in that regard was hearsay and that you were relying on wild rumours which was circulating and was rife in your community.

Now you are saying you used to see this group yourself, you personally witnessed amongst others, Ms Mokoena and Ms Nduno in the company of people who were perceived to be IFP. Which is which?

MR KHUMALO: What I am saying here is that Mr Lax came in too soon. I wanted to rectify that that yes, there was a rumour circulating in the township, but then apart from the rumour, I did explain that each time I went to the shop or wherever, I would walk past Meme's parents' home and I would see them.

I did say that that is besides the rumours that were circulating in the township.

CHAIRPERSON: ... Meme doing, can you be specific?

MS MOLOISANE: Pardon Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON: What did you see Meme doing in relation to persons who were perceived to be IFP members whose cars would be parked outside her house?

MS MOLOISANE: Before he answers, he said all three of them, Meme, Hapile and Elsie so I want to know whether Madam Chair is confining the question to Meme alone, or to all three of them?

CHAIRPERSON: I would like to clear the air with Meme first, because that is where I think the car would be parked, it would be parked at Meme's home. Have I understood your evidence correctly Mr Khumalo, in that regard? Yes?

MR KHUMALO: What I am saying, here we are talking about association, the association of the girls with the IFP people.

I am therefore saying that I confirm that they associated with these people and I used to see them there. There is no one incident to which I can refer as to what they were doing with the IFP members, but I am saying that usually they were visited by the IFP members in the township. I don't know what they were discussing, I have no idea.

MR LAX: The question that has been put to you is a very simple one. You are making a very generalised statement which you have already conceded is largely based on hearsay and rumours.

However, we are trying to understand that from the things you did see, what did you see so that you could maybe form an opinion to substantiate something. What we would like to understand from you is, what facts, what things did you actually see with your own eyes and so far, all you have told us, is that you saw these cars parked outside Meme's parents' home and some very vague reference to the three girls, but exactly what they were doing and who was doing what with whom, is not clear.

That is what the Chairperson is asking you. Do you understand? Do you understand, just yes or no and then I will ask you my question. Don't argue with me, just answer.

MR KHUMALO: Yes, I understand.

MR LAX: Thank you. Now please explain to us, on how many occasions you saw these girls at Meme's house where there were IFP cars there?

MR KHUMALO: I wouldn't say how many times, but it was more than once.

MR LAX: Did you see the cars outside the house on how many occasions?

MR KHUMALO: I cannot recall.

MR LAX: Did you actually see the girls at the house or did you just see Meme at the house, or which girls did you see at the house?

MR KHUMALO: It was a group of girls, they were always in a group.

MR LAX: Can you identify which girls were in the group and on how many occasions you saw each of them present?

MR KHUMALO: Meme, Hapile, Elsie, Ndonbimbi who has since passed away, I still remember the four.

MR LAX: There were four girls at Meme's house and you saw them there as a group? Were they always there as a group or were there different permutations of them?

MR KHUMALO: I would not for certainty say that they were always in that group of four, but I used to see their faces often.

MR LAX: Did you see them at that house quite soon before they were killed? I mean quite soon before the one was killed, I beg your pardon, and the other one was attacked?

MR KHUMALO: Would you please repeat the question.

MR LAX: Well, you will be able to have a point fixed in your mind, because you made enquiries or you discussed this matter with the Unit Commander a few days after it happened, remember that? You told us that in your evidence?

MR KHUMALO: Yes.

MR LAX: So you will be clear about when it happened, correct?

MR KHUMALO: Yes.

MR LAX: Did you see these girls present at that place in Zone 12, just before they were killed? Say a week or two weeks before they were killed, or even whenever, I am not sure?

MR KHUMALO: No.

MR LAX: How long before this incident took place, did you last see those girls at that house?

MR KHUMALO: I had not come across them since I was a Commander. I don't think I could have come across them again, because most of the IFP members were avoiding me in many instances.

We only met at a battlefield.

MR LAX: That was Meme's parents' home, wasn't it?

MR KHUMALO: That is correct.

MR LAX: You didn't see her at her parents' house roundabout the incident?

MR KHUMALO: I saw her.

MR LAX: But I have just asked you, roundabout the incident, did you see these girls and you said no, you didn't see them.

MR KHUMALO: I thought you were talking about Hapile and Elsie.

MR LAX: Mr Khumalo, we were talking about the group of girls which included Meme, Elsie, Hapile and one other person who died subsequently. We were talking about a group, we weren't talking about individuals.

MR KHUMALO: Yes.

MR LAX: Please continue Ms Moloisane. Sorry to interrupt in that way, but I think you would have noticed that we have now narrowed the issues and the focus of the information much more clearly.

MS MOLOISANE: As it pleases you. Mr Khumalo, you said these girls that were associating with the IFP members, was there anything wrong in them associating with them?

MR KHUMALO: As I am saying that in the township, violence was so bad because the girls allowed the IFP easy access into the township. Not so much referring to Hapile and Elsie, but it was common practice in the Vaal, in Sharpville, these people gained easy access into the township as a result of the girls.

That is the reason why the community had a problem with people associating with the IFP, especially girls.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Khumalo, with the knowledge I have, having stayed in a township myself, is it true that it was the easy access they were affording the IFP members that was seen to be the problem with your community or was it the mere association with the IFP, not because it gave the IFP any easy access to the township, is it not so? Is that not common cause, the mere association with a person that the community perceived as its political opponent, the community that perceived itself as being aligned and associated to another political organisation, and that was opposed to the IFP and those who were aligned to the IFP, was that not the problem?

MR KHUMALO: Madam Chair, your question was very long.

CHAIRPERSON: Let me shorten it. Your evidence is to the effect that the reason why there was anything wrong in these girls associating themselves with the IFP, was because they allowed the IFP easy access to the township, that is your evidence.

I am, my question is is it in fact not true that the mere association with the IFP was that which was perceived by the community as being wrong and not because the girls were associating with people who would then have an easy access to the township?

MR KHUMALO: Chairperson, to me these are two things referring to one thing because if such a person was associated with these people, I would say one task of the SDU's was to defend the community.

If there was an easy way of gaining entry into the township by the IFP, that had to be stopped. I therefore bring these two together.

CHAIRPERSON: But did you not raise eyebrows to people who were perceived to be associated with the IFP, did that association on its own, not cause you any problems?

MR KHUMALO: The association of certain people with the IFP, did not give us problems. Is that your question?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. No, I am saying did the association of any member of the community with the IFP, not give you problems, the mere association?

MR KHUMALO: I am repeating here that we would not have said that Bonga of the IFP who associates with Sibusiso of the ANC, that would not be a problem. That should not mean that I am a member of the IFP, the difference here is that I would also like to be specific on this one, and say that the manner in which they used to enter into the township and the manner in which they used to enjoy themselves and be happy in the presence of these people, gave a certain impression to the people in the township.

We had a problem which was later solved at the end of the violence.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, I can take this issue no further. You probably had a different reaction to people's association with people who were perceived to be opponents of the community with different communities, the situation was not the same where I come from. You may proceed Ms Moloisane.

MS MOLOISANE: As it pleases you Madam Chair. You talked about (indistinct), now in relation to these girls that is Hapile Nduno and Elsie Mokoena, what was your opinion about them after having seen them in the company of the IFP members?

MR KHUMALO: I used to receive reports about a host of things and it took me some time before I came across them, because they disappeared for a while so that it was not a question of me having a follow up on them as to what they were doing and the blocks had orders to take care of.

MS MOLOISANE: How did you regard them when you saw them in the company of the people you thought or you said were IFP people?

MR KHUMALO: In my earlier evidence I explained that the role of the girls of the IFP, was to spy. It was to spy, because they were not killed. If they wanted something, ...

CHAIRPERSON: Are you not diverting and moving away from the question that has been put to you by Ms Moloisane?

MR LAX: The question was how did you regard them when you saw them in the company of these IFP people?

MR KHUMALO: To me they were spies.

MS MOLOISANE: Now was there going to be any financial gain on the part of any of the SDU members who would execute (indistinct)?

CHAIRPERSON: Shouldn't you make a follow up on what he has just said Ms Moloisane, in order to assist us? He has just come with his conclusion, he regarded them as spies, why?

MS MOLOISANE: As it pleases you Madam Chair. As a follow up question, why did you formulate that opinion that they were spies, why did you conclude that they were spies?

MR KHUMALO: What happened is that I explained that the role of the girls in the township, was to spy. IFP girls, that is, so that ...

CHAIRPERSON: That is not your explanation. Your explanation has always been that they allowed IFP easy access to the township. You kept on insisting on that version, continuously. You have tangentially mentioned the fact that it was widely rumoured that they were spies, but what you knew, that was within your personal information, is that they allowed easy access to IFP members.

Ms Moloisane, please ask your question that will enable him to proceed with this kind of evidence he wants to lead.

MS MOLOISANE: Why do you say they were spies?

MR KHUMALO: I based this on the association they had with these people.

MS MOLOISANE: Is that all?

MR KHUMALO: Yes.

MS MOLOISANE: Was there going to be any personal gain or financial gain on the part of any of the SDU members who would participate in the killing of (indistinct)?

MR KHUMALO: The SDU was working for the community. There is no way the community could have financed the SDU's, so that there was no financial gain.

CHAIRPERSON: Obviously you wouldn't know, Mr Khumalo, if they were on a frolic of their own? That is not information that would be within your personal knowledge, would you?

You wouldn't have been able to know whether they had financially benefitted from this operation or not if they were on a frolic of their own, and did this under the guise of SDU membership, that would not be within your personal knowledge?

MR KHUMALO: What I am saying here is that that is how the organisation intervened, because such possibilities existed. A small group of people would obtain two or three firearms and claim to be members of the SDU's, that is why the organisation had to intervene.

MR LAX: No, you haven't understood the question directly. Let me help you maybe. The question you are being asked is by the killing of Hapile and by the shooting of Elsie, would these members who are applying for amnesty of your SDU's, would they have gained financially from that? That is the question you are being asked.

Nothing is asked about how the SDU was funded by the community or anything like that.

MR KHUMALO: Okay. I cannot answer that one.

MR LAX: Thank you.

MS MOLOISANE: But according to the police of the organisation, and with you as a Unit Commander of the Unit in Zone 12, would there be any financial remuneration for such kind of act?

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Moloisane, I will disallow that question.

MS MOLOISANE: As it pleases you Madam Chair. I have no further questions Madam Chair.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS MOLOISANE

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabete, do you have any questions to put to Mr Khumalo?

MS THABETE: Yes, Madam Chair, I do, but can I have a two minute adjournment?

CHAIRPERSON: You may do so. We will adjourn for five minutes.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

BONGA KHUMALO: (still under oath)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETE: Thank you Madam Chair. Mr Khumalo, can you briefly explain whether the Commanders, that is in these four Units, the sub-units that you commanded, were they elected or appointed?

MR KHUMALO: They were appointed.

MS THABETE: What was the answer, sorry I didn't get it?

MR LAX: The answer was that they were appointed.

MS THABETE: Who appointed them?

MR KHUMALO: The sub-regional structures of the SDU.

MS THABETE: Was there any criteria that the sub-regional structure used to appoint such Commanders?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, there was a criteria.

MS THABETE: What was the criteria?

MR KHUMALO: They would satisfy themselves whether a person had qualities to be a Commander.

They would try and establish whether a person could assess a situation and if such a person were to issue an order, would it be political or not. They would basically look at the qualities that a person had.

MS THABETE: Did you take into consideration any training that such appointed people have undergone? Did you take into consideration, any education that they had undergone too?

MR KHUMALO: For the Commandership I think what was important was for a person to understand, that is where education comes in, and their experience.

MS THABETE: I don't get your answer.

MR KHUMALO: Whatever move was made, it had to be political. One had to understand politics quite well and be able to interpret and understand orders.

Even though we would not say that a person should have standard 6 or 8, but a person had to understand politics.

MR LAX: The question you were asked was would the person's training or education be taken into account, and you have gone on some ramble about politics and stuff like that, but that was the question you were asked. It is straight forward, yes or no.

MR KHUMALO: All the Commanders that I am talking about here, were trained personnel of MK, they had an understanding.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying all these four Commanders were former MK operatives?

MR KHUMALO: Only two were not.

MS THABETE: Was Mabuza Mhlongo one of them who was an ex-MK?

MR KHUMALO: Yes.

MS THABETE: Who were the said Commanders accountable to?

MR KHUMALO: All four Commanders would form a Unit in Sebokeng and I was the Commander of that Unit, so that they were accountable directly to myself.

MS THABETE: What do you understand by that, by the fact that they were accountable to you, what does that mean? Maybe let me guide you.

If I am accountable to you, before I make a decision, I will come and discuss it with you. If I am accountable to you, I cannot just make a decision independently of you, because I am accountable to you.

MR LAX: Ms Thabete, your understanding of what accountability means, is totally irrelevant to this hearing. How did he understand the notion of accountability, that is what is much more important for us.

Mr Khumalo, do you understand what we are asking you? These people were accountable to you, you were their Commander. How did they account to you, how did you understand the idea of them being accountable to you, what was required of them in other words in order to make them accountable to you?

Do you understand the question?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, I understand the question.

MR LAX: Please try and answer it.

MR KHUMALO: I would like to apologise for this, my understanding was that this accountability meant that they had to know from whom they would get instructions and who they had to report back to so that what was happening in their accounting, it was such that whenever there was a target that had been identified, we had to sit down and strategise as to whether the mission needed a joint venture, we could operate as a solo operation or one person could handle it or not. Basically that is how we operated.

We used to have meetings overnight.

MS THABETE: Bearing in mind what you have said Mr Khumalo, what if the said Commanders are not accountable to you, what steps would you take to try and correct that unaccountability?

MR KHUMALO: Fortunately ...

CHAIRPERSON: Before you answer, I don't understand Ms Thabete's question. Do you want to say if the Commanders acted out of authority, what would be his reaction to that situation?

MS THABETE: Yes, Madam Chair, thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS THABETE: That is the question.

MR KHUMALO: I have forgotten the question.

CHAIRPERSON: If one of your four Commanders acted without authority, what reaction if any, did you take? What measures did you take in a situation where a person either acted without authority or exceeded the bounds of his authority?

MR KHUMALO: The house will remember that I did point out earlier on that we had an underground structure of Umkhonto weSizwe apart from the SDU's, and that was not accountable to the Youth League of the ANC, but directly to the MK.

If somebody defied, we had to report that to the underground structure.

CHAIRPERSON: This is not an act of defiance, this is either a person who has acted without authority or exceeded the bounds of his authority?

MR LAX: Do you understand the question?

MR KHUMALO: I think I understand the question.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you have any rules in place for such a situation?

MR KHUMALO: I think I explained.

CHAIRPERSON: Don't prefix your response by saying you think you have already explained. Questions would not be put to you if your explanation was well understood. Just give your response without having to start by saying you think you have already explained.

MR KHUMALO: I would like to apologise. When a Commander of a certain Unit or if a Commander of a certain Unit, oversteps the bounds, I like the question that was posed earlier on as to whether we gained financially or not.

If a member of a Unit had overstepped bounds by receiving money from certain people, such a person would be violating our policy, because we did not receive monetary gifts from the community, such a person therefore, or even a person who goes out and conducts a robbery, that would be a defiance of the existing orders, standing orders of the SDU's. Such a person had to be dealt with, that is what I was trying to explain, please bear with me.

CHAIRPERSON: How was it dealt with, that is the response we are more interested in, not that you dealt with him. How was such a person dealt with?

MR KHUMALO: I think that I should refer to a specific incident as to what we did to who. I don't know whether you are leading to that.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't want you to be specific, I merely want your general response. In the event of anyone exceeding his bounds of authority, what action if any, did you take?

MR KHUMALO: In my case, I did not experience such a problem with my Commanders, except one of them, who did that and we dealt with him.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying that you did not have any rules of conduct that would have addressed a situation like this, in the event of it occurring? It is that simple, if you had rules of conduct to address the situation such as the one posed by Ms Thabete, you would have known about how you would have dealt with the situation.

Did you or did you not have rules? There is nothing wrong in not having rules.

MR KHUMALO: Yes, we did have rules.

CHAIRPERSON: What did they provide for a situation like this? If you've got rules, you are the General Commander, these persons were accountable to you, you must have told them that in the event of your transgression in respect of the following acts, this will be the measure that we will have to take against you, if you have rules.

MR KHUMALO: Even now afraid to say I think, for example people were not supposed to accept monetary gifts from whoever. Like in a case that implicates certain girls ...

CHAIRPERSON: You still are not responding to my question Mr Khumalo. You have already testified to that effect and I have said your testimony was not relevant. What we wanted to know is not what would a person do that would amount to a transgression, we wanted to find out what action you would take in the event of the person overstepping his or her mark.

MR KHUMALO: Shortly Madam Chair, I did not experience such a thing in my Unit.

CHAIRPERSON: I know that, you have already also told us that, but you are saying there were rules, what did your rules provide in the event of a person overstepping his or her mark?

MR KHUMALO: We did not have rules to say if a person has committed crime A or B, this is what we would do. If I happened to have a problem that would lead to that, I would have to consult with the comrades.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so your earlier testimony was incorrect because it suggested that you had rules? That is what you testified, you said there were rules to cater for such situations, so it was an error?

MR KHUMALO: I don't see it as a mistake. As I say that, yes, we did have rules. There are ten commandments, don't kill, don't do this, etc, as it is in the Bible. People were not supposed to fall in love with a person who was perceived as this or that.

CHAIRPERSON: But the ten commandments also specify that if you kill, you won't go to heaven, you go to hell. This is what I am trying to get from you. In your case, what did your commandments state? What kind of heaven or hell did you have to go to in the event of transgression?

MR KHUMALO: In our case, we did not have a solution as to how many years a person would be sentenced, but such a person would have to be dealt with.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed Ms Thabete, I doubt if there is any point in belabouring this point.

MS THABETE: Thank you Madam Chair. You see Mr Khumalo, what I am trying to ascertain from you is that earlier on you said before the Commanders took any action, they were accountable to you, they needed to sit down and strategise with you. Is that correct?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Not all the time, Ms Thabete. His evidence was very specific, he said in the event of a target being identified, it is then that they would have to sit down and discuss that issue with him.

It was not as generally as you are putting it.

MS THABETE: Thank you Madam Chair, maybe I can get some clarification on that. If the Commanders had identified a target, are you saying that they had to come back and discuss it with you?

MR KHUMALO: Ms Thabete, I am lost now.

MS THABETE: Sorry?

MR KHUMALO: I am lost now.

MS THABETE: I am saying can you answer yes or no? If they had identified a target, they had to come and account to you and you had to sit down and strategise, that is your evidence, is that correct?

MR KHUMALO: I would like to say yes with an explanation.

MS THABETE: Yes, your answer is yes, I would like to proceed with my question.

CHAIRPERSON: Allow him that.

MR LAX: What is his explanation, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Allow him that.

MR LAX: He says he would say yes with an explanation. What is your explanation Mr Khumalo?

MR KHUMALO: What I am saying here is that when we are talking about a target, when we are talking about attacking a police station, that is a target. When we are talking about killing a person, that is also a target.

These, there are orders that did not require strategising.

CHAIRPERSON: Your evidence was simply that in the event that a target would be identified, then it was incumbent for the Commanders to come and sit down with you so that you would strategise on how to carry out the mission regarding the identified target.

That was your evidence.

MR KHUMALO: Yes, that is correct.

MS THABETE: Let's be more specific and talk about the target of (indistinct). You say you gave a general order that (indistinct) must be killed whenever they are targeted, is that correct?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, I said that.

MS THABETE: Did you give any instructions as to how the said (indistinct) should be identified or it was up to the Commanders how they identified (indistinct)?

MR KHUMALO: What identification are you talking about?

MS THABETE: I am talking about the fact that if they had identified somebody as (indistinct), did you give them any instructions as to what will comprise of (indistinct) and what will not comprise of (indistinct)?

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabete, I hope you have been listening attentively to the evidence, I don't want us to traverse a ground that we have already traversed.

His earlier testimony is that they had an underground structure which was part of MK, which would verify whether a person was such an (indistinct) or not. Is that not what you said in your earlier evidence?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, thank you.

MS THABETE: Thank you Madam Chair, I must have missed that one. In the case of Hapile Nduno and Elsie Mokoena, my question to you is when they were identified as (indistinct), was the said information verified with the underground structures as you have given evidence that they would have to verify such information?

MR KHUMALO: It was a matter of protocol.

CHAIRPERSON: Was the information that you received that the two ladies in question, were informers, verified with your underground structures, whose duty and task it was to do such verification?

MR KHUMALO: Unfortunately Chairperson, I was in the process of running away at the time, I could not have confirmed that.

CHAIRPERSON: You were in the process of your running away?

MR KHUMALO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: When did you have to run away?

MR KHUMALO: This does not mean that I had left the township, I was around the township, but then I did not at the time, have direct link with the Commanders. I only met the Commander after the incident.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but did you at least take the trouble to ascertain from one of the senior officers in that Unit, Mr Radebe, who was second in charge to Mr Mhlongo, whether there had been such a verification, and why this information was being told to you and not to the Commander and whether in fact the Commander had been apprised of this valuable information.

MR KHUMALO: I am a little bit confused. What I am saying here, is that the people who were operating on the ground, were not accounting directly to myself. They accounted to their Commanders, after which the Commander would come and account to me pertaining to an operation that had been carried out, that is what I am saying.

That is how it happened, I only heard after the incident that this had happened.

MR LAX: Is it therefore not correct Mr Khumalo that you had no knowledge of any such verification with your underground intelligence structures? Isn't that so?

MR KHUMALO: Yes.

MR LAX: Thank you, let's move on Ms Thabete.

MS THABETE: Thank you. Is it not correct also Mr Khumalo, that based on the evidence that as an Overall Commander, the sub-Commanders had to be accountable to you. Isn't it correct that in the incident of the killing of Hapile Nduno and the assault on Elsie Mokoena, the Commander Mr Mhlongo did not account to you before the incident took place?

MR KHUMALO: He did not come to me because of procedure. I explained something here about targets.

If you understand the situation as it was, it is that there was no direct mission to go and seek these people. They happened to meet her on the way and they then received an order from Radebe. There was no way we could have met, sat down and get a permission from myself as to whether they should proceed with this or not.

MS THABETE: I am getting confused Mr Khumalo. What is confusing me is that you had said before someone is targeted, they should account to you so that you can strategise and the evidence led earlier on, regarding this incident, is that Hapile Nduno and Elsie Mokoena were wanted.

I don't understand if you say they just met them on that day.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you forgotten that he had given a general order? Have you forgotten that aspect of his evidence?

MS THABETE: No Madam Chair, I haven't.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, tied together with the identification of targets. I think it is unfair to put that aspect in isolation. It must be in context with the general order that he had issued to his four Commanders to eliminate (indistinct).

MS THABETE: Madam Chair, I understand that, but what I don't understand is that he had said before someone is targeted and actually killed, they would sit down and discuss.

MR LAX: Ms Thabete, his evidence is very clear on this matter. Unit Commanders and people on the ground, had a general discretion to carry out operations as they happened. Can you imagine this, say an IFP impi attacks a section of the township, do you think they are going to have a meeting and strategise about what to do in order to defend themselves? As Commanders they are going to react, they are going to operate, that is how Commanders work. That is how Units work, people have a general authority, based on that general authority, they take decisions and take action.

What he said is that he gave a general instruction that (indistinct) should be eliminated. This Unit in the course of it, they weren't even a Unit, they just happened to be walking somewhere on that day, but they came across somebody whom they felt was an informer, and they decided to deal with him.

What he is saying in essence is that Radebe as a 2IC, had the authority to make that decision. He is not saying that directly. Maybe I am taking it a bit far, maybe that is what you should be exploring.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Ms Thabete, let's assist you, what is your problem?

MS THABETE: My problem Madam Chair is this, my understanding is that before they could act on killing Hapile Nduno and Elsie Mokoena, they had to verify whether they were indeed (indistinct) or not. The evidence is that such verification did not happen.

My next question, or my difficulty is that if such verification did not happen, doesn't that amount to them not having been accountable to, didn't they act outside what they were supposed to do, or outside their instructions, because according to Khumalo's instructions, they were supposed to verify.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I understand your difficulty. It is a difficulty that you will be able to argue. Just explore it, the situation for what it is whilst you are able to, but that situation you will be able to address us on as you present your legal argument.

It is an issue appropriately dealt with in your legal argument. You however are more confused because he has given what could amount to some contradictions.

There is a general order given to the Unit Commanders to eliminate (indistinct), on the other side of the coin, he has already spoken about a need for a discussion with his Commanders whenever a target is identified.

You know, you can probably go and clear the air in that respect, whether the target would also include (indistinct) for which a general order had already been issued to the Commanders. You may proceed further to clear that aspect.

MS THABETE: Thank you, Mr Khumalo, maybe you can clarify this by saying that every time a target, someone was targeted, you had to come back and discuss on how to actually implement whatever plan you had on that target, did this involve the targets of (indistinct)?

MR KHUMALO: This is a very long question. When we are talking about a target, I don't think it is correct to say a person is a target.

I did explain before that when we are talking about a target, we strategise to try and establish whether it was necessary. For example when talking about a target, we include the attacking of a police station. Like when the IFP is entering the township ...

MS THABETE: Sorry Mr Khumalo, my question is does the target you are talking about, include (indistinct)? I understand it includes police stations and whatever, my question is does it include (indistinct)?

CHAIRPERSON: Let me come in, did your understanding of targets include what you called (indistinct)?

MR KHUMALO: With all due respect, I don't think we understand one another on this term (indistinct).

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we understand each other very well. You have told us what you meant by (indistinct), you mean informers, isn't it? That was your evidence, so we understand what you mean by (indistinct).

MR KHUMALO: No, I said (indistinct) is one who is regarded as an enemy in the township, it is not impimpi, specifically an enemy.

CHAIRPERSON: Were informers not regarded as the enemy? Is that what you are saying, they do not fall within the definition of an enemy?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, they are part of (indistinct). Yes, they are. What I am saying here is that when we are talking about a target, we are referring to the enemy, that includes for example when Inkatha, when we receive information that at such a time Inkatha will be coming in their vehicles and we would sit down and plan an ambush. In that instance, we are talking about a target, deciding whether a certain Unit should operate alone in a certain area.

We are not talking here about an individual as (indistinct), discussing how such a person should be killed. That is what I was trying to explain when I was saying that we strategised prior to the action.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Khumalo, you are giving your evidence in a fashion that makes it difficult to understand you. You are supposed to have been called in to assist us in understanding the applications of the applicants. You are making it extremely difficult to be on the same wavelength with you, wittingly or unwittingly so.

Unfortunately you are not talking to people who are unaccustomed to terms like targets, to terms like (indistinct). We have become accustomed to such terms, we have been busy with this process for almost three years. We have already heard testimony from other applicants in relation to the activities of the SDU's in different parts of our country.

We would expect you to assist us as a General Commander of Zone 12, SDU structure. I must register my disappointment with the manner in which evidence is being given. I don't know whether you were prepared before you came in, to give evidence, because instead of assisting us, you are impeding our progress. This matter is taking more than it should have taken. We cannot allow this to go on.

We must in so saying lay some kind of blame to Ms Moloisane whom we expect as Counsel, who is conducting an application on behalf of her applicants, to make sure that whoever comes here to give evidence, has been properly prepared to give such evidence, and is in a position to assist us in coming to a just and fair decision.

I have found you to be an extremely difficult person to follow in the manner in which you have given your evidence. I thought it was so during your evidence in chief, but to my surprise it is so when you are also being questioned by the

Evidence Leader, it is so when the members of the Committee are trying to assist you in trying to understand, in trying to comprehend your evidence.

You are making it very difficult for us to understand what you are saying. We are now going to take a short adjournment and when we come back, we shall proceed with your evidence. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and think for you that you must be tired, that you probably need a break.

We will adjourn for five minutes.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

FINDING : VUSI SIDNEY MONONI

CHAIRPERSON: This Committee is now in a position to give its decision in respect of the application of Mr Vusi Sidney Mononi.

This is an application in terms of Section 18 of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, 34 of 1995. Mr Mononi applies for amnesty in respect of the following convictions: the murder of Mr Mofumani Bernard Mathonsi, the attempted robbery of Mr Mathonsi's firearm, contravention of Section 2,36 and 32(1)(b) read with Sections 1, 39 and 40 of the Act.

He further applies for amnesty in respect of the robbery of a firearm from Mr Mathonsi. All these offences were committed on 11 August 1993 at or near Diepkloof in the district of Johannesburg.

The applicant alleges that he and four other members of his SDU, were patrolling in the vicinity of Mandela Squatter Camp when they saw two uniformed policemen. Their Commander, one Winki ordered that they should approach the policemen in order to disarm them, and take their firearms.

It is common cause that the applicant was a member of the SDU and that the SDU's engaged in such activities in order to arm themselves with a view to defending their communities during the political conflict of the time.

We are therefore satisfied that the applicant complies with the requirements of Section 20(1) of the Act with regard to his convictions.

However, with regard to the act of robbery of Mr Mathonsi's firearm, we are not satisfied that this firearm was in fact removed from Mr Mathonsi by the applicant or his comrades at all, and accordingly refuse amnesty for this act.

The Amnesty Committee is of the opinion that the relatives and dependants of the deceased, Mr Mofumani Bernard Mathonsi as well as the victim, Mr Nkuna, are victims as defined in the Act and are accordingly referred to the Committee on Reparation and Rehabilitation for consideration as such in terms of Section 26 of our Act.

That is the decision Mr Leopeng. AMNESTY IS THEREFORE GRANTED IN RESPECT OF THE FOLLOWING offences: the murder of Mr Mofumani Bernard Mathonsi, the attempted robbery of a firearm belonging to Mr Mathonsi and in respect of contraventions of Section 2,36 and 32(1)(b) read with Section 1, 39 and 40 of the Explosives Act. Thank you.

MR LEOPENG: Thank you Madam Chair. Madam Chair, may I be excused?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may be excused. May we also take this opportunity to extend our appreciation to the members of the Correctional Services and in particular the Johannesburg prison for having accommodated us with regard to keeping Mr Mononi here until this hour. We are aware that we had been requested to have Mr Mononi taken back to prison by no later than half past three.

We however, wish to bring to the authorities all Prison Authorities that this Committee sits usually from nine o'clock till half past four. We however appreciate the fact that you were able to accommodate us because the time is now quarter past five. We thank you.

I think your Counsel will explain to you the procedure that the Committee will now have to follow in order to have this decision communicated to the Commander of the prison where you are being kept. This decision will have to first go to Cape Town, which is our Head Office and our Executive Secretary in Cape Town will then cause this decision to be communicated to the Head of the Prison. The Executive Secretary will also have to publish in the Government Gazette the content of the decision, particularly with regard to the types of offences for which you have been granted amnesty and the names of the victims in relation to which amnesty has been granted and then you will be able I think, to leave prison.

However, your Counsel will make this explanation to you.

MR LEOPENG: ... and he was very grateful so apparently that has not been translated to the public.

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: When we adjourned, you were still in the process of putting questions to Mr Khumalo. You may proceed Ma'am with your questions.

BONGA KHUMALO: (still under oath)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETE: (continued) Madam Chair, I have decided to leave the aspect that I was cross-examining him on, I will move on.

Mr Khumalo, in your evidence you said that you were placed in the township because there was a situation where the comrades or the SDU's were ungovernable, people were being killed because, mainly or solely because they were IFP members, is that correct?

MR KHUMALO: Yes.

MS THABETE: And then you were brought in into the township to try and change that situation, is that correct?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, that is correct.

MS THABETE: My question is what was your role going to be in relation to the Commanders in the township, how were you going to change the situation where people were killed solely because they associated themselves with certain political organisations or IFP to be direct?

MR KHUMALO: What happened was that as an organisation, we decided that all the SDU's which claimed to belonged to the ANC, should be known and be accountable to the organisation because there were many Units which were not known, where they belonged to. There were firearms around, so that it was a way of trying to eliminate those problems.

MS THABETE: So did you manage to eliminate the problems where people were just killed, just because they associated themselves with a certain organisation? Would you say you managed to overcome that problem?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, I would say I managed.

MS THABETE: How did it change? Did the fact that people belonged to let's say were associated with the IFP, were they not killed any more, is that what you are saying? How did that situation change?

MR KHUMALO: The IFP was seen as an enemy in the township, and at the time, there was no way in which a person who associated with the IFP, could be left alone.

MS THABETE: I don't know whether you are not understanding my question or I am not understanding you. I thought that your evidence was that before you came, people would be killed merely because they associated with certain organisations, but you were brought into the township to change that situation. What I am asking is, how did that situation change?

Does it mean that people were no longer killed merely because they associated with the IFP?

MR KHUMALO: I did explain that a person who associated with the IFP, was known as (indistinct). There was an order that (indistinct) must be killed.

A person could belong to any other organisation like the PAC, etc, we were just fighting against the IFP. I did not stop people from killing other people, but what I am saying here is that wrong people should not be killed.

MS THABETE: Were you ever involved in any other activity or in any SDU activity with Mr John Radebe, the applicant?

CHAIRPERSON: You may rightfully refer to him as Mkondo, he knows him better if you refer to him by that name.

MS THABETE: My question is were you ever involved in any SDU activities with Mkondo?

MR KHUMALO: No, I cannot recall any joint venture. I do not remember having a direct venture or operation with him. I cannot recall really.

MS THABETE: It is because on page, I don't know whether I am allowed to do this Madam Chair, I would like your guidance, in page 148, paragraph 6, Mr Radebe states that when they were hunting for Maletsatsi to be killed, you were one of the people who was there with him.

CHAIRPERSON: Just put it to him what Mr Radebe has said in his affidavit and refer Ms Moloisane to the necessary page and paragraph and line.

MS THABETE: It is page 148, we can start from line 4 where it reads during hunting, I was with the following comrades. He is referring to the hunting of Maletsatsi who had to be killed. He says he was with Godfrey Sheya, Fidel Kenneth Skosana, Oupa Keswa and Bonga Khumalo. What is your comment on the statement?

MR KHUMALO: I would like to apologise. I would like to apologise on his behalf. I think it was his way of dragging me into this.

I would like to dispute that.

CHAIRPERSON: You are aware of the incident that you are being questioned about, is not the incident of Ms Mokoena and Nduno, it is an incident that relates to the killing of one Maletsatsi.

MR KHUMALO: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Radebe says that you were amongst those that were hunting Maletsatsi with a view to killing him?

MR KHUMALO: Chairperson, I think I have explained that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. So you are saying you were not amongst the persons that Mr Radebe has stated in his affidavit? Ms Thabete, let's proceed.

ADV BOSMAN: Ms Thabete, can I just clear up something here because I may forget it later on.

Mr Khumalo, do you know the name Kennel Paulus Malukwane?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, I know him.

ADV BOSMAN: Was he also a Unit Commander?

MR KHUMALO: No, I have no idea with regard to his district.

ADV BOSMAN: Can't you tell us anything more about him?

MR KHUMALO: What I know is that he was a member of Umkhonto weSizwe and he was operating in that district. I know him to have been a camp colleague outside the country.

ADV BOSMAN: That will be sufficient thank you. Sorry for the interruption, thank you.

MS THABETE: Thank you. Did you know John Radebe to belong to the Unit commanded by Mabuza Mhlongo?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, I know him.

MS THABETE: From when did he belong to this Unit?

MR KHUMALO: I don't know. I don't know how his Commander recruited him, but I know that he belonged to Mabuza's Unit. I don't know when he started with this Unit.

MS THABETE: In 1992 you arrived in Zone 12, is that correct, sorry in 1990?

MR LAX: He said 1992.

MS THABETE: In 1992, you arrived in Zone 12, isn't that correct?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, that is correct.

MS THABETE: Was he already a member then of the Unit under Mabuza when you arrived?

MR KHUMALO: We had not yet started the Units at the time, I would be telling a lie.

MS THABETE: When did the Units start?

MR KHUMALO: I arrived in February 1992, it could have been around June or thereabout. Even though I am not sure of the month, but it was thereabout.

I would like to remind you that I said that on my arrival, there were already Units that were in existence and I only became involved when I was assigned to be in charge. I therefore cannot say who belonged where, but the appointment of Mabuza as a Unit Commander, it was therefore incumbent upon him to recruit his own people.

MS THABETE: Mr Khumalo, I was just asking with regard to Mr Mabuza whether when John Radebe joined the Unit?

MR KHUMALO: My apology, really I don't know.

MR LAX: Could I just ask a follow up question, while you are on that issue.

As far as you know, Radebe only belonged to Mabuza Mhlongo's Unit, is that right?

MR KHUMALO: Yes.

MR LAX: So you don't know of him belonging to any other Unit?

MR KHUMALO: When Mkondo came to our district from another district, he must have belonged to another Unit in that district from which he came.

MR LAX: So you do remember him coming to your district?

MR KHUMALO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Proceed Ms Thabete.

MS THABETE: When did he come to your district?

MR KHUMALO: I made a mistake by saying I remember. I just know that he was in our district, I cannot recall exactly when he came to our district.

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

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS THABETE

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Thabete. Mr Lax, do you have any questions to put? I am sorry, it must be the lateness of the day.

INTERPRETER: The Chairperson is not coming through.

CHAIRPERSON: Then it definitely is not the lateness of the day, there is something wrong.

INTERPRETER: The sound is not coming through.

CHAIRPERSON: There is a problem with my microphone.

INTERPRETER: I can hear you now, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lax, do you have any questions to put to Mr Khumalo?

MR LAX: Thank you Chairperson, Mr Khumalo, just for the record, what are your full names please?

MR KHUMALO: Bonga Norman Khumalo.

MR LAX: When exactly did you become a Commander?

MR KHUMALO: In 1992, it was in the middle of the year.

MR LAX: Was this once you had established some sort of control structure for the SDU's?

MR KHUMALO: A member of what?

MR LAX: I said was this once you had established some sort of control structure for the SDU's?

MR KHUMALO: That was my first assignment as a Commander. No.

MR LAX: So, you came to Sebokeng in February 1992 and you were only assigned this task in the middle of 1992?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAX: Thank you Chairperson.

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

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Khumalo, were there any rules in regard to the movement of a member of an SDU from one SDU to another or could he just abandon one and join another?

MR KHUMALO: Even though it was not a rule, but there was a time that if we wanted reinforcement from another district, we would request other comrades to give us combatants.

ADV BOSMAN: If a member of an SDU had problems with his SDU, could he just say well, now I want to go to another SDU and join that one?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, we used to do that. It depended on the relationship.

ADV BOSMAN: But there were no rules. Did he have to apply or how did it come about, this is what I am trying to understand?

MR KHUMALO: One does not simply join the SDU, instead one is recruited into a Unit. One does not necessarily apply, one is appointed.

ADV BOSMAN: If, I have forgotten the other name now, Mr Radebe, if he said that he had problems with his SDU at Small Farm, would it have been necessary for his Zone 12 Commander to recruit him, in order for him to become a member of the Zone 12 SDU?

MR KHUMALO: I don't know how his Unit Commander handled that situation in that regard, but it happened in some instances that there would be no good relations among members of a Unit and he would have to decide then to move.

If the combatants felt that they required the services of a particular combatant, they would recruit him. He would not simply leave to go and join, they would simply recruit him to come and join.

ADV BOSMAN: And then on the issue of promotion, there was evidence about having undergone an orientation course for underground training. Do you know of any such courses that Mr Radebe, Mkondo, attended?

MR KHUMALO: That was the responsibility of an underground structure, after a person was appointed.

ADV BOSMAN: But do you know anything about it, do you know whether he attended such a course?

MR KHUMALO: No. No, I cannot answer that but because he had - what I am saying here is that as I stated earlier on that he was not operating with me directly, but because he was a member of the SDU, he definitely must have taken the same route.

ADV BOSMAN: Now this incident took place in 1993, do you know whether underground training was still given at that time?

MR KHUMALO: That is a very difficult one. I would rather not answer that one.

ADV BOSMAN: Then there is also evidence given that the two girls were going to be taken to the ANC office in Zone 12, to be questioned. Would you say that that was in line with the policy at the time?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, such a thing used to happen that if a person was found and known such as in this case, verifications had to be done to that effect. If you remember what I said earlier on that I for one, was not in the area at the time, so that I did not receive a report to confirm that.

ADV BOSMAN: That is not my question. My question is simply there was evidence from Mr Mkhwanazi that they were going to take the girls to Zone 12 and question them. My question is is that in line with the policy of the SDU at the time?

MR KHUMALO: Yes.

ADV BOSMAN: If that was the policy and if at this time, there was some doubt as to whether the girls were informers in the narrow sense, true informers, not just associating, was it competent for Mr Radebe, Mkondo, to decide that no, they must be killed?

MR KHUMALO: As a person who was second in command, if the Commander in Chief was absent, therefore he had such authority.

ADV BOSMAN: Are you personally aware that he was second in command or have you just heard this?

MR KHUMALO: I knew that.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: If you say that you were aware that Mr Radebe was second in command to Mr Mhlongo, are you aware because you were made privy to the appointments of senior members within the four Units, or did you in fact actively participate in the appointment?

MR KHUMALO: The Unit itself would after the appointment of a Commander allocate one person to whatever position, as to who was going to be a Commissar and a second in command, etc. We only played a role in so far as the Commanders were concerned.

CHAIRPERSON: You did not actively participate in the appointment of senior members within any particular Unit?

MR KHUMALO: It was our responsibility for Commanders.

CHAIRPERSON: You were only responsible for the appointment of a Commander and not for other positions, is that not what you were saying?

MR KHUMALO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Since you were then responsible for the appointment of Mr Mabuza Mhlongo, to your knowledge since the Unit must have started approximately around June 1992, that is when the SDU Units became operational from your evidence, when did you appoint him as a Commander?

MR KHUMALO: Chairperson, I would like for you to bear with me. I cannot refer to dates. What I am saying here is that my responsibility within the organisation was to first of all identify people within different blocks and make out who were capable of helping us to establish the SDU's.

I cannot be sure but one of my duties after my appointment was that I had to meet with the Commanders that I had appointed so that they could continue with their own appointments.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. We have already heard from your testimony that the Units under your command, became operational in June 1992, at least you said June and later on you said mid June, I mean mid 1992.

If you made that a pointer, are you in a position to approximate how soon after your Units had become operational, you appointed Commanders in respect of the four Units?

MR KHUMALO: It was not a very long time after my appointment, because what happened was that I took over from Units that were already in existence so that my responsibility was to normalise the situation by disbanding those Units that were not performing accordingly.

It was merely a question of directing the Units.

CHAIRPERSON: But your evidence is that you nevertheless appointed Commanders in respect of the four Units, is it not so?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: After assuming office, can you just estimate in terms of weeks or months, now that we know that your Units became operational mid 1992, how soon thereafter did you appoint inter alia Mr Mabuza? Was it immediately once they became operational, did you take a few weeks, did you take a few months since your Unit only started being operational mid-1992 and this incident occurred on the 15th of August 1993?

MR KHUMALO: Chairperson, I would like to go back. My Unit I would say I appointed my Unit, taking people who were already serving in different Units.

CHAIRPERSON: There is no translation coming through.

INTERPRETER: I was requesting the speaker to slow down Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Would you please slow down as to be interpreted easily? When you speak as fast as you do, you make it difficult for the Interpreters to explain or interpret, what you are saying.

MR KHUMALO: After my appointment and the appointment of Commanders, it was then a question of one to two weeks because all the Units were now resourced, materially speaking, so that the patrols continued. It was now a question of recruitment and the Commander in Chief, had to continue with the people whom he had recruited.

They started operating in two weeks' time after the appointment of the Commanders.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but when did you appoint the Commanders, that is the question? Can you estimate, if you can't, let's move on.

MR KHUMALO: Yes, we can continue.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Are you also in a position to tell us when you issued a general order to your Unit Commanders to have (indistinct) killed?

MR KHUMALO: Will you please repeat the question?

CHAIRPERSON: Are you in a position to tell us when you issued an order to your Unit Commanders to have (indistinct) killed?

MR KHUMALO: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Why not, it is an important aspect that we are dealing with, you gave a general order, you must be in a position to assist this Committee with regard to when that order was issued?

MR KHUMALO: I cannot refer you to the month. What I am saying here is that the first assignment was to ensure that no informers were seen in the township. That was a general command to that effect. That is the way it was.

CHAIRPERSON: I am asking this question because of the evidence that you have given in this regard. Your evidence was that you issued a general order to your Unit Commanders to have (indistinct) killed and that you did not issue a specific order to have Elsie Mokoena and Hapile Nduno killed.

You definitely conceded that you gave a general order to your Unit Commanders to have (indistinct) killed. I am not misunderstanding your evidence. I remember it vividly.

When did you issue that general order, you did issue that general order, did you not?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, I did.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Let's get on with our evidence in order to conclude this matter Mr Khumalo.

You do understand my question quite well, when did you issue that general order to your Unit Commanders? I am not interested in you being specific in terms of the time of the day, the day of the week. You need to approximate if you can in terms of the month or if you are unable to give an approximation in terms of the month, give us an approximation in terms of the year.

MR KHUMALO: In June 1992 I made this, or I issued this general order.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you in a meeting when the order was issued or did you go to Commanders individually and told them about this order?

MR KHUMALO: It was at our meeting, the meeting of the Commanders.

CHAIRPERSON: The Commanders were all there when you gave this general order?

MR KHUMALO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Now there is one aspect that I want to deal with in relation to your general order. When you gave that general order, did you made yourself understood that verification is still needed to be made in instances where persons were accused of being IFP spies and or passing on information to the police?

MR KHUMALO: I am getting confused now Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I will repeat myself. When you issued your general order, did you explain to the Unit Commanders that that order was to be given by them to their members, but only in circumstances where an individual had been accused of being (indistinct), which I understand to be an informer or as you have sought to understand it to be an enemy of the people. Where a person is accused of being an enemy of the people, or an informer, that that accusation had to be verified with your underground structures, that you were aware were in existence to do just that, to assist the Units with the verification of such information?

Did you advise them of that or you didn't? It is a simple question, did you or did you not advise them?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Your evidence is that you heard about this incident a day after it had occurred. Am I correct?

MR KHUMALO: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And you were told by Mr Mabuza Mhlongo, is that correct?

MR KHUMALO: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: When he told you of this incident, did he give any indication whether they had verified the accusation that had been levelled against Ms Mokoena and Ms Nduno of being IFP spies and passing on information to the police?

MR KHUMALO: First of all, we did not have a relationship with the police in the township at the time. Secondly, what thing I discussed with him as I was supposed to do.

CHAIRPERSON: I am sorry about that, there was some interference.

MR KHUMALO: What information I got from the Commander, as you were asking me about verification, my understanding was that the deceased confessed when she was captured, she confessed that she was involved in the Boipatong massacre. That was a general rumour. She confessed that she was part of it and gave them all the information but unfortunately, there was no cooperation until that which happened, happened.

CHAIRPERSON: What do you mean there was no cooperation, from whom, from the deceased? Are you referring to the deceased when you say there was no cooperation?

MR KHUMALO: I am talking here about cooperation with reference to taking her to the office to explain to the leadership. There was no cooperation.

Madam Chair, would you please understand that I was not part of this. This is just one information that I later on received.

CHAIRPERSON: I am aware of that. I am just asking questions as a result of the evidence you have given before us.

So save for the confession that you were told the deceased made at gunpoint, when she was threatened with death, no verification had been made? Remember your evidence is that the verification that would be made, would be made by your underground structures, so no such verification was made? He didn't say he had made such verification or he did not say anything about that kind of clarification.

MR KHUMALO: Yes, there were rumours as I have indicated. I personally did not get a confirmation but he said she personally confessed. There was no special assignment pertaining to Hapile.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. That is all that I wanted. When you say there was no special assignment, you mean no verification had been made regarding the accusations that were being levelled at her and Ms Mokoena?

MR KHUMALO: Can you repeat that please.

CHAIRPERSON: Did Mr Mabuza Mhlongo ever confirm with you that verification with regard to the accusations that have been levelled at Ms Mokoena and Ms Nduno had been made? Did he say listen, we have verified this information with our underground structures? Did he ever say that to you?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, he did say that.

CHAIRPERSON: He did?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, he did.

CHAIRPERSON: And can you elaborate on what he said about the verifications? I take it that you don't mean the confession that Ms Nduno made at gunpoint, when she was threatened with death. I mean the verification that you have already testified to, that would be conducted by your underground structures.

MR KHUMALO: Madam Chair, I did explain earlier on that on the day when I met this Commander, I was on the run and we did not discuss many things. I just wanted to know what happened and he gave me that statement.

He had to confirm whether there was verification conducted by the underground, and he confirmed that. But then I did not go into detail trying to establish what happened.

He did say that yes, there was a verification and I was satisfied.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he specifically say your underground structures had verified the information regarding the activities of Ms Hapile, did he say that?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, that is what I am saying.

CHAIRPERSON: Why has it taken you so long to answer to such a simple question, because now you have had to lead evidence with regard to the confession of Ms Hapile and things that he had said when she was being threatened with death and you wanted to suggest that as being the only verification that you were informed of by Mr Mabuza Mhlongo. Why has it taken so long to say verification had been done by your underground structures?

MR KHUMALO: In my evidence, I said during that period I was on the run and resulting from that, I did not consult directly with the underground structure.

That is why I am saying that I don't know whether Mabuza consulted them directly, right up until he later on told me that yes, he did verify that information.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Khumalo, you know, you do not know how to respond to questions which are simple, unsophisticated, that are put to you.

MR KHUMALO: I am sorry for that.

CHAIRPERSON: We expect you to be able to do so. You are a General Commander, you are the one that has led evidence about verification having to be conducted by your underground structures.

The fact that you were in a hurry, what has that to do with whether Mr Mabuza did say anything about the information that they had having been verified by your MK structures. What really has that to do with the question that was put to you, a very simple question? Whether he did indicate that that information had been verified by your underground structures or not?

You are very dilatory in your response.

MR KHUMALO: I would like for the house to bear with me in regard to that.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Moloisane, emanating from the questions that have been put by the members of the Committee, and Ms Thabete, do you wish to do any re-examination on Mr Khumalo?

MS MOLOISANE: Madam Chair, I do not want to complicate the evidence further. I have no re-examination.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MS MOLOISANE

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Khumalo, you are happily excused by this Committee. Thank you.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: ... of this Committee to proceed today with the testimony of one of the victims, at least the only victim, in respect of the incident we are currently dealing with, Ms Mokoena as well as having to listen to the testimony of the parents of Ms Hapile Nduno who was killed in this incident.

It is our regret that we will not be able to do so because of the lateness of the hour. We have requested Correctional Services to grant us an indulgence with the applicants until six o'clock. We are eternally grateful for their continuous accommodation.

We have extended beyond that which they had been prepared to accommodate us in. The time is almost quarter past six, and in view of the lateness of the hour, we will have to adjourn these proceedings until tomorrow morning at nine o'clock. Thank you very much again to the members of Correctional Services.

Keep on accommodating us in this difficult process. Thank you.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS