Amnesty Hearings

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Smit, are you ready to proceed?

MR SMIT: I'm ready to proceed. I'm indebted to you, Mr Chairman, for the opportunity.

CHAIRPERSON: That's fine.

MR SMIT: I would then request that Mr Mametse be sworn in.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MOTSEPE EZEKIEL MAMETSE: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Smit.

EXAMINATION BY MR SMIT: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I might just indicate that Mr Mametse indicated that he wishes to testify in English.

Mr Mametse, you're presently 30 years old and a major in the South African National Defence Force, stationed at Nelspruit Headquarters, is that correct?

MR MAMETSE: Not correct. 38.

MR SMIT: 38 years old, yes, but stationed at Nelspruit as a Major in the army?

MR MAMETSE: Yes.

MR SMIT: During 1993 you were a member of the ANC is that correct?

MR MAMETSE: Yes.

MR SMIT: And there was evidence led by Mr Mohele that you were the Commander of MK in the sub-region Katorus, is that correct?

MR MAMETSE: Correct.

MR SMIT: Is it also correct that Mr Mohele was your second in Command?

MR MAMETSE: Correct.

MR SMIT: Now during 1993, specifically in February, you were involved in an armed robbery at the Ormonde Satellite Police Station, is that correct?

MR MAMETSE: Correct.

MR SMIT: Was Mr Mohele with you at that stage?

MR MAMETSE: Yes, he was.

MR SMIT: How many people were you, when you went to, well when you robbed the police station?

MR MAMETSE: Six.

MR SMIT: And what did you exactly do? You, yourself, now?

MR MAMETSE: Oh myself? Somebody went into the police station, somebody we were going with, went into the police station, I was immediately after him.

MR SMIT: Did you ...(intervention)

MR MAMETSE: And then ...(intervention)

MR SMIT: Carry on. Sorry.

MR MAMETSE: They went into the police station. I was immediately after him. He had a short conversation with the police. As he got out, he signalled to me. I got in, pointed the policeman with an AK and then the other people stormed in. Immediately they stormed in, each went to his target and I turned my back and looked outside, towards the outside.

MR SMIT: So you were keeping watch to the outside, is that correct?

MR MAMETSE: Yes, I was keeping a watch to the outside.

MR SMIT: Your objective when going to rob the police station, what was that?

MR MAMETSE: One of the objectives was to acquire handguns, short guns because the material that we had mostly consisted of AK47 and there was a need to have a short gun for personal protection, among other reasons.

MR SMIT: Was this for yourselves or for SDUs?

MR MAMETSE: Like I was saying, there are several reasons. Among them was to acquire personal weapons for personal security, short guns and then another reason was to, like we were saying, to change the balance of forces in the security establishment in the country. This was done after calls by several leaders of the African National Congress, I think it was a week or two after Harry Gwala was in the Vosloorus area, whereby he called strongly that there is a need to challenge the security establishment, to take the security of our community as our task, that should be wrestled away from the SAPS because they were SAP run.

There was this activity of the police being involved in third force activities, murdering communities, so there was that need at that time that the security situation should be wrestled out of the hands of the SAPS, the community should be responsible for their own security.

MR SMIT: Were you specifically instructed by Mr Harry Gwala to establish these units?

MR MAMETSE: I don't know if instructed would be an appropriate term. I would rather say he made a call.

MR SMIT: And this call, was it made during a rally or a meeting, or when was this made?

MR MAMETSE: It was made in a rally in a stadium and after it was made in an address to MK cadres only, by the same mentioned individual.

MR SMIT: So would I be correct in stating then that you decided to specifically go and rob the Ormonde police station because of this so-called instruction from Harry Gwala?

MR MAMETSE: Like I was saying, it's not a simple question, but that there are multiple factors that led to this, it is not only specifically this incident. The incident also transpired after we had handed a memorandum to the Station Commander of Vosloorus, indicating to him that if he does not call his policemen to task, then we'll have no option but to act against them in one way or the other. So it's not a question of only this question that Harry Gwala says this. There are multiple factors that led to this.

MR SMIT: Okay and if we can then concentrate again on the robbery at the police station, testimony was given by Mr Moele that firearms, pistols were indeed then taken there. Were these handed to yourself?

MR MAMETSE: Yes.

MR SMIT: And what was done with them? What did you do with them?

MR MAMETSE: Like I said initially, firstly for personal protection. Secondly for training the SDU's with these weapons because they were readily available weapons.

MR SMIT: So did you actually hand them to members of the SDUs to utilise?

MR MAMETSE: I did keep one for myself, like I said for personal protection and others were utilised in one way or the other, personal protection, training the SDUs. I think we should clarify this point when we're talking about the SDUs. The SDU is not an army, it is a loosely structured body and we must make a differentiation when we're talking about SDUs. If I have a certain quantity of armaments under my control, they belong to the SDUs. Self Defence Unit - exactly that, but it's not a military structure. Truly it was controlled by MK combatants but it could not function entirely as an army, I mean properly as an army. It was more loosely structured than an army.

CHAIRPERSON: In fact, Mr Mametse, the way I understood it was that this, the Self Defence Unit was really a community initiative and the input from ANC Umkhonto weSizwe was to make MK members available, to assist the communities in setting up these structures, so it was more a community initiative.

MR MAMETSE: Allow me to answer in this fashion. The first call I heard of about the creation of the SDU was directly from the ANC and I think that was round about 1989, so community structure yes, but the MK cadres had their express instruction to create the SDUs.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but it was not a structure that reported to MK or to the ANC, it was an initiative where the ANC possibly took the political initiative and the more high a profile sort of call for this initiative to be established, but the actual nitty gritty was really very much within the realm of the communities themselves.

MR MAMETSE: In our community SDUs differ from community to community but in our communities our SDU's reported directly to MK who had an office that was specifically for that purpose, 8 hour office, working office.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, in fact I understood that the SDU activities were roughly divided between call it a paramilitary side and a political side. The paramilitary side would be something which would reach MK through its MK members, be closely related to it, but the political leadership, the control and so on, very much emanated from persons within the community itself, in fact there were community structures that were established in order to deal the management and the control and so forth of SDU activities.

MR MAMETSE: To an extent, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Smit.

MR SMIT: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Mametse, just two aspects. Testimony was given by Mr Moele that during the robbery at the police station, no shots were fired. Can I then accept, was it an order by yourself that no violence was to be used?

MR MAMETSE: Yes, it was an express order.

MR SMIT: And you confirm that that indeed nothing violently was done there except the pointing of firearms at the policemen?

MR MAMETSE: No, nothing violent was done to the policemen.

MR SMIT: And then just one last aspect. Yesterday testimony was given by Mr Mohele, if the Committee would permit me just to confirm this, regarding a robbery at the Transvaal Galvanised Company where Mr Mohele was involved. He testified that you did not specifically instruct him to go to that specific company and rob them, but that he made that decision on his own. Would that be correct?

MR MAMETSE: Yes, correct.

MR SMIT: Did you specifically tell them, or him to gather funds for the purchase of weapons?

MR MAMETSE: Prior to the offence there were people who were selling firearms, AKs, 8 of them I think and some grenades. We did have an arsenal of AKs but then there was this danger that people were killing people in the community, this third force or whatever one may call it, if we don't acquire that, it's going to fall into their hands. I went to the Regional Office, explained the situation to them, unfortunately at that time I was informed that the budget, one two three, one two three, I don't know if maybe one could do it for a month or so until ...(indistinct) and I was given R3000 and the persons who were selling the firearms wanted to sell them en masse, did not want to sell them one one and they wanted R10 000 for all of it. I was provided with R3 000, that there are no immediate funds. We had a discussion with some MK people and yes I did say it, that we need to raise funds and to be frank, by raising funds, behind my mind I also knew that raising fund can be anything including armed robbery that he has committed.

MR SMIT: And just a last aspect. The Learned Committee had a question to Mr Moele just now regarding his integration into, a possible integration into the Defence Force or the SAPS, if he gets granted amnesty. You being a Major in the SANDF, can you elaborate on that, is there a possibility?

MR MAMETSE: Yes there is a very high possibility, in fact there is a likelihood that he can either be integrated into the police or the SANDF because he's entitled to, but now there is a problem if he's still in prison because the process is going to round up quickly and should the cut-off date of integration be completed, he's going to forfeit his right to integrate.

MR SMIT: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR SMIT

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Smit. Ms Vilakazi, have you got any questions?

MS VILAKAZI: I do have a few questions, Honourable Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VILAKAZI

MS VILAKAZI: Mr Mametse, going back to the day of the Ormonde police station robbery, you have testified that one of the 6 people you went with to the police station went in first and chatted to the police.

MR MAMETSE: Correct.

MS VILAKAZI: Who is that person?

MR MAMETSE: He is deceased now, Sparkie.

MS VILAKAZI: Do you know what he chatted to the police about?

MR MAMETSE: I don't know, I was out of earshot.

MS VILAKAZI: So you are not the one who went in first?

MR MAMETSE: No, no, I'm not the one who went in first.

MS VILAKAZI: Yes, but Mr Moele has testified that you are the one who went in first and then you signalled to them to come in.

MR MAMETSE: Okay, maybe let me explain it in this fashion. I said this person went in. He was going to check the coast, whether it's clear and he chatted to the policemen and as he went out, he signalled to me. I stormed in. I pointed the policemen. Moele followed me immediately.

MS VILAKAZI: Yes, but your version contradicts that of Mr Moele because he said that you are the one who went in to check the coast and then you signalled to them to come in.

MR MAMETSE: Let me repeat this again.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no, no, I don't think that was quite his testimony. It was not that Mr Mametse went to see if the coast is clear. As there - at the time when they entered in order to execute the robbery, Mr Mametse was the one who led, went inside and he followed. Mr Mametse looked around inside, went to stand guard at the door and then the three, Moele, the SDU member Tommy Manyedza and one of the MK people then executed the actual robbery inside the charge office.

MS VILAKAZI: I'm indebted to Your Worship for that. Mr Mametse, after the robbery, did you personally as the Commander, take stock of what has been robbed?

MR MAMETSE: Yes, I did.

MS VILAKAZI: And what did you find?

MR MAMETSE: Three pistols, magazines, cleaning kits, communication radios and a tape recorder.

MS VILAKAZI: What type of a tape recorder was it?

MR MAMETSE: A cheap stuff of a cheap broker, like these little cheap recorders.

MS VILAKAZI: Was it the type that is used, a personal tape recorder, not a ...(indistinct-talking simultaneously) tape recorder?

MR MAMETSE: Yes, exactly.

MS VILAKAZI: Now Mr Moele has vehemently denied that a tape recorder was taken. What's your comment on that?

MR MAMETSE: My comment on that is that possibly he did not see it, but I saw it.

MS VILAKAZI: Were you not in the same place when you took stock?

MR MAMETSE: Like we were saying, we were travelling in two cars and as we left the place, he got into the different car from which I got in and the tape recorder was in the car that I was in.

MS VILAKAZI: So where did you take stock? Did you take stock in the individual cars?

MR MAMETSE: I don't understand you when you say "take stock", it's not the question ...(intervention)

MS VILAKAZI: Just to check. To check was has been robbed.

MR MAMETSE: I see. Our specific objective there was to acquire handguns. We did that. That's what I was more concerned about. So taking stock, I took stock of the short guns, that what we went there for, that's what I took stock of.

MS VILAKAZI: Okay, but then the tape recorder was not part of your objectives.

MR MAMETSE: Definitely.

MS VILAKAZI: And you found it there.

MR MAMETSE: Definitely.

MS VILAKAZI: Do you know who took the tap recorder?

MR MAMETSE: I cannot say with certainty but one of the guys we were with.

MS VILAKAZI: Did you ask why the tape recorder was there?

MR MAMETSE: I saw no reason to.

MS VILAKAZI: But as the Commander, you knew what the objectives were and the tape recorder was definitely not part of what you were looking for, so why were you not concerned with it?

MR MAMETSE: In as far as I'm concerned, it was a side-line, petty issue.

MS VILAKAZI: So you were not interested in side-line petty issues?

MR MAMETSE: Not at all, not at all.

MS VILAKAZI: Is discipline not part of your duties as a Commander?

MR MAMETSE: I don't think there is any ill-discipline there, in as far as I'm concerned.

MS VILAKAZI: Besides ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Ms Vilakazi, did you question the communication radios that ...(intervention)

MR MAMETSE: Yes, I was concerned about the communication radios, of course.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it police issue?

MR MAMETSE: Yes, police issue.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright. Sorry.

MS VILAKAZI: Besides the tape recorder, what else did you find that was not supposed to be there?

MR MAMETSE: Nothing.

MS VILAKAZI: At the time of the robbery, you said that you waited at the door and you faced outside.

MR MAMETSE: Yes.

MS VILAKAZI: Are you telling the Committee that you did not see what actually happened inside?

MR MAMETSE: No.

MS VILAKAZI: Your focus was at all times outside?

MR MAMETSE: Yes.

MS VILAKAZI: Okay I have no further questions Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VILAKAZI

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Vilakazi. Ms Lockhat, any questions?

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LOCKHAT: Mr Mametse, can you just tell us, who did you report to? Who was your head?

MR MAMETSE: To the PWV Regional Commander.

MS LOCKHAT: And who was there? Who was at the head there, at the PWV?

CHAIRPERSON: Viva, presently a Colonel in the army, I've forgotten his surname.

MS LOCKHAT: Because at page 36 of the bundle you say that higher authorities of MK and ANC SA knew and sanctioned these activities. Did you report to your Commander or anybody else of the higher authorities regarding to this act?

MR MAMETSE: Yes, I did.

MS LOCKHAT: And who did you report to?

MR MAMETSE: I reported to Oupa. Let me state this. I had expected that there would be an affidavit from the ANC office, because when the TRC investigators came to me, I informed them about this and I gave the contact number and I took it upon myself to telephone the higher authorities that the TRC investigators will be coming to them and they'll be required to testify to some things that, to the chain of command, that these actions that we undertook were reported and were done with the legitimate authorisation. I'm surprised that I don't see any affidavit coming from the ANC higher authorities.

MS LOCKHAT: Yes, we just have a statement where they confirm your membership, that's at page 33 that we have received from the ANC offices.

MR MAMETSE: No I'm talking about, I referred him specifically to Oupa who was the Chief of Staff of the PWV region and I phoned Oupa and he said he has no problem if these guys want an affidavit from him, he'll be glad to make it available to him.

MS LOCKHAT: Okay thanks, that's noted. Just one other issue. Were you responsible for obtaining the arms for your unit?

MR MAMETSE: Yes, I was.

MR LOCKHAT: And who did you obtain these arms from?

MR MAMETSE: Some acquired from the ANC, MK, the Chief of Staff PWV Region, Oupa Monareng. Some acquired like these pistols, from the police stations, some acquired by being bought, so we had various sources.

MS LOCKHAT: Then just one last question. You know that, I'm just going back to the previous incident, that is the armed robbery at Transvaal Galvanised Company. You know that armed robbery was not part of the policy of the ANC?

MR MAMETSE: Let me put it this way. When you're talking about the policy, immediately before the suspension of the arms struggle, it was an express order that every cadre who infiltrates the country, the money, operational funds that he's going to acquire, if they dry up he must make a plan, so when you're talking about policy, it is a very, it is not as straight-forward as all that. It was an express order from the highest leadership of the organisation, that if you infiltrate the country and the resources that you were being given from Lusaka or wherever, from Mozambique, from wherever you infiltrate that, if they dry up, make a plan. Even if the organisation at times did not state it on the paper, for propaganda purposes of course, but the reality of the situation was that these things happened.

MS LOCKHAT: So would you say that you would have, if you had known about this, the Galvanised Company incident, you would definitely have authorised that act?

MR MAMETSE: Definitely. Definitely.

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you, Chairperson, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS LOCKHAT

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

ADV DE JAGER: I understood you to say that he reported it back the galvanised, you reported back that these incidents happened, did you also report back about the robbery?

MR MAMETSE: Yes, I did.

ADV DE JAGER: And was the robbery approved?

MR MAMETSE: Like I was saying, I only knew about the robbery after it happened, what I did, I only reported about it, it cannot be approved when it has already been done.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes. Was it condoned then?

MR MAMETSE: Nothing was said about it.

CHAIRPERSON: In other words they didn't take disciplinary action against anybody?

MR MAMETSE: Not at all.

CHAIRPERSON: In any event it was an abortive robbery, there was no - it wasn't successful, in any case.

MR MAMETSE: Yes, it wasn't successful.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it was just an attempt.

MR MAMETSE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Smit ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, sorry, but you've also told us that you were ordered, if the money dried up, the resources, you should make a plan and did that include robbery?

MR MAMETSE: Yes. In fact, I don't know if it would be appropriate but okay, I won't mention names, but in fact at highest, at the National Executive, there were individuals who told you: "When you infiltrate the country, that you know that the ANC's not a government, there ere limited resources. Those resources in the country are resources of, are your resources. You are being deprived of your resources. So don't be over moralistic. Be realistic. You need it, it is there, you're justified to get it." At the highest level.

CHAIRPERSON: I think the term is repossess.

MR MAMETSE: Not really, not really repossess. No not really repossess. Repossess might be for individual benefit, which differs. For the progress sake of the organisation, if you have to do it, do it.

ADV DE JAGER: Would that include robbery of banks?

MR MAMETSE: Not with the express instruction that "go and rob a bank", but what I'm saying in essence is that I for a fact know that before the suspension of the struggle, operatives, for them to survive, they did organise money, in one way or the other. You had to have two cars, you had to have a safe-house which is different from the one you are staying at, with a car parked inside, with food inside, which would be different from the place you are staying in, which is a very expensive kind of a life and for the organisation to be able to - that cadres should operate effectively, it would have been impossible for the organisation, this is personal opinion, but what I'm saying in a sense is that at leadership level, it was said in front of 1000 people, a leader addressing 1000 people, soldiers: "look when you go home, one two three, one two three, one two three", so this should be understood in this context that such kind of a robbery at that point in time, from the reality of the situation that prevailed at that point in time, I'm talking about before the suspension of the arms struggle, we did not consider that as being a crime, we considered it as being legitimate and necessary actions for the progress of the struggle, so these, after the suspending of the arms struggle, what made that kind of a mentality maybe to continue, was the violence that was prevalent in our communities, that there is still a need for level of organisation.

ADV BOSMAN: When you say "we did not consider", do you mean the ANC and MK or do you mean MK, or do you mean the ANC?

MR MAMETSE: I said, leader at the highest level addressing soldiers, that means MK.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think the point of view of the ANC and MK was that you were engaged in a war. It was never recognised in, for obvious reasons, by the legal system here in the country, but that was your point of departure, that you were engaged in a war and it might even be recognised conduct within a war to commandeer resources.

MR MAMETSE: Exactly.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Smit.

MR SMIT: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR SMIT

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Mametse, you are excused thank you.

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry Mr Mametse, only one thing. It wasn't put to you now, but it was put to the previous witnesses that I think in total it would be three watches and three wallets from the policemen present there, were also stolen, personal property. Could you comment on that?

MR MAMETSE: No, I can comment on nothing. Like I was saying, I was looking to the outside, so I did not see what transpired inside the police station, but like I was saying earlier, should I have discovered later that he has taken watches, I don't think I would have made a great deal about it. Maybe a slap on the shoulder, but I would not have considered it a very grave matter.

ADV DE JAGER: But that wasn't police property, it was the private property of the individual.

MR MAMETSE: Like we were saying, that these things should be viewed from the background. Internally, like I was saying, leaders like Harry Gwala came, openly stated ...(indistinct), policemen were very brutal towards us at that time, in fact two weeks before the action, they came to my home, harassed my family, a young boy of 21 burned at the fire armed to my mother, she got a heart attack. After the incident they got into the bedroom using a pick ...(indistinct) on the floor, instead of opening the wardrobe, the keys there on the wardrobe, they turned the wardrobe around, burned down the back of the wardrobe. Now what I'm saying is, I would have seen no reason, whereas when they get into my home they behave in this fashion and I should make an issue about the tape recorder. To be frank, I consider myself to have been very decent towards them.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Mametse. You're excused.

MR MAMETSE: Thank you.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Smit, does that conclude the case for the two applicants in respect of this particular incident?

MR SMIT: That indeed concludes this case.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Ms Vilakazi.

MS VILAKAZI: Thank you Honourable Chairperson. I have the three victims whom I'm representing present but for the sake of expediency I would call just one of them, unless the Panel feels that all of them should, because they would be saying one and the same thing.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no I don't think so, Ms Vilakazi and I'm not even sure whether this is strictly speaking in dispute but you know perhaps you must call one of them and he can say what went missing.

MS VILAKAZI: Okay, thanks Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Which of the three are you calling?

MS VILAKAZI: Zulu, not Zulu sorry, Mbhele.

CHAIRPERSON: Say again.

MS VILAKAZI: Constable Mbhele.

CHAIRPERSON: Mbhele?

MS VILAKAZI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

SIBUSISO JUSTICE MBHELE: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Vilakazi.

MS VILAKAZI: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

EXAMINATION BY MS VILAKAZI: Mr Mbhele, testimony has already been given with regard to the robbery, can you just confirm that you were there at the police station on the date of the robbery, without going into details?

MR MBHELE: Yes, I was there, I was in charge of the guys, we were working with them.

MS VILAKAZI: Who else was on duty on that day?

MR MBHELE: We were three. It was me, Zulu and Molapi.

MS VILAKAZI: And of the applicants who are applying for amnesty, did you see any of them at the police station on that day?

MR MBHELE: Really I cannot say he's the one who do this and all these things, I cannot remember, I cannot recall seeing them.

MS VILAKAZI: Okay, I would like you to put it on record that your instructions to me are that we are not opposing the application. Can you confirm that?

MR MBHELE: Definitely, I'm not opposing their amnesty, but I only want the truth from them.

MS VILAKAZI: Okay. Your only interest is with regard to the personal things that were taken from you, is that correct?

MR MBHELE: Yes, I'm also much concerned about that.

MS VILAKAZI: Can you tell the Committee what was taken from you?

MR MBHELE: It was a radio cassette, a Panasonic radio cassette, some few tapes, a wrist watch and R180, in a wallet.

MS VILAKAZI: How do you know that the amount in the wallet was R180?

MR MBHELE: Okay, it was the month end so the following Monday I was supposed to go and pay my account at Morkels, it's an instalment.

MS VILAKAZI: So your instalment was R180?

MR MBHELE: Definitely.

MS VILAKAZI: Okay. Do you know if anything was taken from the other police officers?

MR MBHELE: According to them, that's what they told me, that's what they told me, that there's also some cash missing from them.

MS VILAKAZI: At which stage was the, your cassette, watch and wallet taken from you?

MR MBHELE: It was taken while we were on the ground, lying on the ground, so while they were executing the robbery.

MS VILAKAZI: Did you see the person who searched you?

MR MBHELE: Not really.

MS VILAKAZI: Were you searched or did you, were you told to surrender them?

MR MBHELE: I was on the ground, facing down, so they searched me while I was facing downwards.

MS VILAKAZI: So you did not surrender anything personally?

MR MBHELE: No, not really personally.

MS VILAKAZI: So you did not see who took those things?

MR MBHELE: Yes, I didn't see anybody taking, I can't say this is the one who took this and this is the one who took that.

MS VILAKAZI: When you started with your testimony you said that you just wanted the truth from the applicants.

MR MBHELE: Definitely.

MS VILAKAZI: You listened to their testimony, is there anything that you feel has not been told which is, or which has been incorrectly put to the Committee?

MR MBHELE: Okay, can I briefly explain what happened? Is it okay?

MS VILAKAZI: Okay.

MR MBHELE: By that day, it was about Twenty-five to Eight in the evening.

ADV DE JAGER: Could you perhaps tell us whether you agree with what they've told us and if there are aspects where you disagree, tell us where you disagree, but you need not tell us everything that you agree, that they've already told us.

MR MBHELE: Okay. There were six inside, not four. That's the first thing I disagree with. So some of them were armed with a pistol, not only that there were AK47s also. And there was no passage there, it's just a room and a small cell just on the side of the room.

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, what was on the side of the room?

MR MBHELE: There is that small, there was that small sort of a cell, not really a cell, but a small, a toilet ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: A toilet?

MR MBHELE: More like a toilet, but it was a cell where we used to put some people being detained. That's all I can recall at this stage.

MS VILAKAZI: Is there anything else that you want the Committee to know?

MR MBHELE: Yes, after the robbery, okay what happened, I changed, my entire life changed. I have become now a violent person, ignorant, sometimes being even nasty to my kids at home and all those things.

ADV BOSMAN: Are you still in the police force?

MR MBHELE: Definitely, yes I'm still in the police. So the robbery entirely changed me, so, yet I'm coping but not very well at this stage. Up to now I'm not still okay.

ADV BOSMAN: Did you get any support, psychological counselling or anything from the police after this had happened?

MR MBHELE: Yes, they did ask me whether I do need some help. By that time I was okay, I said to them "No, it's alright".

ADV DE JAGER: And at this stage, are you still able to make use of that facility?

MR MBHELE: Not really because the time has passed already, so I might, this might come to my own expense.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there an available counselling service to the members of the South African Police Services?

MR MBHELE: I'm not too sure about that because lastly there was that support group that mainly deal with the victims of the rape and all those things, or the abused and all those things.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you attempted recently to go to use that?

MR MBHELE: Not really yet.

CHAIRPERSON: For your assistance? Shouldn't you consider doing that? It may be, I'm quite sure I'm speaking for my colleagues as well, it might be advisable for you to do that. If your outlook has changed, as you have sketched to us here, then it can only do good, if you were to approach the police facility and see. I'm quite sure that they can't raise an argument that it was after a certain period of time, your right of access lapses and if it's necessary, the Committee at least will have some infrastructure that could possibly write in support of such a ...(intervention)

MR MBHELE: I'll be very pleased.

ADV BOSMAN: May I ask what, do you know what the position is in regard to your colleagues? Has it affected their functioning in the police force at all?

MR MBHELE: Nobody has told me yet what had happened thereafter, or what effect did he suffer from.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, we know that you're working under stress, even today all the police and it wouldn't be to the advantage of the public if you're sort of violently minded, so we would really request you to see whether you can't get help and a real good policeman should be very, very patient, well we wish you all the good luck.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we need very many good policemen at this point.

MR MBHELE: Thanks.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Ms Vilakazi.

MS VILAKAZI: One last question. It has been testified that no shots were fired and in my instructions with you, you also confirmed that no shots were fired. Can you say that no amount of violence was used at all?

MR MBHELE: There was, there was because as we were lying on the floor I mean, I was kicked, booted.

MS VILAKAZI: Was it before or after you were disarmed?

MR MBHELE: After I was disarmed.

MS VILAKAZI: Do you have any idea how many pistols were taken from the police station?

MR MBHELE: It was - they took three which belonged to the State and my private one, it was the fourth one, so they took all four.

MS VILAKAZI: So they took four pistols?

MR MBHELE: Yes.

MS VILAKAZI: That will be all, Mr Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VILAKAZI

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Vilakazi. Mr Smit, have you got any questions?

MR SMIT: I have no question thank you Mr Chairman.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR SMIT

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Lockhat?

MS LOCKHAT: No, thank you Chairperson.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LOCKHAT

CHAIRPERSON: And the Panel?

ADV BOSMAN: No, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: is there anything else that you wanted to add, Ms Vilakazi?

MS VILAKAZI: No, that will be the case for the victims.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Mr Mbhele, thank you very much. You've noted what we have said and your colleagues, I've gathered, are also present here, so they've also heard. So we wish you the best of luck.

MR MBHELE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You're excused.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Lockhat, I suppose you don't intend to lead any witnesses?

MS LOCKHAT: No, Chairperson, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Smit, in that case we have also the incident standing over since yesterday, so are you in a position to address us on both those two?

MR SMIT: I will be in a position, they're very closely linked, so it's not a problem.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR SMIT: May I then proceed?

MR SMIT IN ARGUMENT: As it pleases, Mr Chairman, the learned Committee.

First of all, if I can address you on the incident that was dealt with yesterday, the robbery at the Transvaal Galvanised Company, first of all my submission would be that this is clearly an instance where the applicant complies with everything necessary for amnesty.

It is obvious, well it is not opposed, it is further obvious that he was acting within the scope of, well as second in Command, his actions were to obtain funds to purchase weapons for distribution first of all in SDU's and further to purchase these, well to obtain the money to purchase the weapons to get them out of the hands of third force elements, as called, in the Vosloorus township and the area there, which at that stage was obviously in some tumult, due to the fact that the necessary policing was not done properly, that according to the evidence of the applicant as I understand it.

Therefore, I would submit that this puts him specifically in line, or if I can state it, that this puts a political objective there that shows that he was under instructions first of all to do this and that the objective then was political of nature, which then in my submission would be sufficient for the Panel to favourably grant him amnesty regarding that specific incident.

Regarding the second incident, the robbery at the Ormonde police station, both the applicants, I would submit, played open cards, their testimony was given properly. It is also obvious that they are both members of the ANC and were at that stage when the police station, satellite police station was robbed, that they did this with the purpose also of obtaining, it seems like it was a dual purpose, first of all to obtain hand guns for SDU members and secondly to make a point in saying that the policing in the area was not properly done.

First of all it was not very hard to rob a police station and secondly in the townships itself, the police were busy with activities that at that stage were not approved of by Umkhonto, if one can say it in that line. There is the aspect regarding their evidence of a contradiction, of a possible contradiction regarding the Panasonic radio that might have been or might not have been taken from the police station. I would submit that the explanation given by Mr Mametse that the radio might not have been seen by Mr Moele, is sufficient in this instance and would not in any event take the matter any further.

CHAIRPERSON: They're not applying for amnesty for that either.

MR SMIT: No, it's not amnesty it's just for the robbery ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Robbery of the weapons and the radios.

MR SMIT: And the two radios, indeed. So that would - it's not necessary to deal with that anymore.

Also the second incident, the robbery at the police station is not opposed and I would submit that there was a political objective, that it was done in line thereof and therefore request the Committee to also, in this instance, grant both of them amnesty regarding that incident. As it pleases.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Smit. Ms Vilakazi.

MS VILAKAZI IN ARGUMENT: As it pleases, Mr Chairperson.

Mr Chairperson, with regard to the Transvaal Galvanised Robbery, I do not have much to add to what Mr Smit has said, mainly because of the fact that Mr van der Walt, the victim in the incident, is not opposed to the application and he has said himself as a man of God he has been able to recover from the ordeal that he went through and that he holds no grudges.

My focus would then be on the Ormonde police station robbery. In as far as that is concerned, I would like to draw the attention of the Panel to the fact that the application was made with the intention of obtaining amnesty and therefore as one of the requirements of the Act, full disclosure had to be made. From the testimony of the two applicants, it is quite clear that whereas they have been willing to disclose some facts and to make a full disclosure with regard to those that they chose to disclose, they have not been fully honest. They have been economic with the truth with regards to other issues, specifically the issue relating to the robbery of the policemen themselves, of their personal effects.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, they're not asking for amnesty on that and so if they're, and they won't get amnesty on that, because they're not asking for amnesty on that, so your clients are not losing any of their rights.

MS VILAKAZI: May I respond in this fashion, Honourable Commissioner, that the process of reconciliation is not a one-sided process and although it is a fact that my clients have a right to take action against the applicants, but I do not think that it would be proper for the Committee to overlook the aspect of reparation which could also be coupled with the question of amnesty. I do not think that it would be proper for the Committee to disregard the fact that other facts which are also material to the application, material in regard to the question as to whether there has been full disclosure or not, the question as to whether there has been honesty of not, should be disregarded.

It is in that light that these facts are brought to the fore.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. No, no, we appreciate that very much. The point however is that in so far as these two applicants are concerned, Mr Mametse has disclosed the fact that the tape recorder was in fact amongst the items that were confiscated at the police station. The others, the watches, the monies and smaller items that you can put in your pocket, we can assume it was also taken there from your clients but that doesn't necessarily impact on the application of these two applicants.

There is no, to my mind, indication that Mr Moele for example, should have been aware of any of these other items and that, or likewise Mr Mametse, so that when it comes to full disclosure, you know, there has to be at least a basis upon which one is able to find that they must have known about this and they are lying about that, they are not telling the full truth of what happened there, but it doesn't appear to be that kind of case. It appears as if one can accept that those things were taken, but at the same time also, accept that apart from the tape recorder, these two applicants were not involved in that for one and secondly there's no particular reason why they should have been aware of those other things.

So that is the, that of course is the flip side of the coin that you have raised now. But we have your submissions on the full disclosure question.

MS VILAKAZI: Thank you, Mr Chairperson. In that light then, based on the honourable advice from your learned selves, I would then not pursue the matter further, save to request that perhaps my clients could be advised as to what measure they could take within the Act itself, not looking at the Amnesty Committee or the amnesty process only, but within the ambit of the entire Act, what measures could be taken with regard to recovering their possessions without having to incur expenses, legal expenses.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, there is the facility that still exists, although the Commission has gone into suspension, in regard to the reparations question. However, in so far as the application before us is concerned, which deals basically with the weapons and so on, possibly as we've already indicated, some assistance from our side to help the rendering of, you know, the necessary services to your clients, is possible. The other question is more of a moot point, which obviously will have to be considered, but it might be a bit problematic, although I don't want to express a firm view on that at this stage, but certainly in regard to assisting the psychological and other difficulties, that possibility does exist.

MS VILAKAZI: That would be my submission, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Vilakazi. Ms Lockhat, have you got any submissions?

MS LOCKHAT: No, I don't have, Chairperson, but if you feel I need to address you on a certain issue, I'll be willing to do so, but I think my learned colleagues addressed the issue at hand.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we always like to hear you Ms Lockhat, but if you're not assisting this time, we're not going to compel you.

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Smit, have you got anything else that you wanted to add?

MR SMIT: I have nothing else to add, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. That concludes the formal proceedings in respect of these two incidents. The Panel will consider the applications and will notify the parties as soon as the decision is available, mindful of the possible time pressure, particularly bearing in mind the situation of Mr Moele, we will endeavour to formulate a decision and make it available as soon as it's practically possible, but we will notify you.

MR SMIT: I'm indebted, Mr Chairman, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. It only remains for us, I think it concludes your business with us, both of you.

MR SMIT: That does.

CHAIRPERSON: In that event we want to thank you for your assistance which we appreciate and you're excused if you want to.

MR SMIT: Thank you so much.

MS VILAKAZI: Thank you.

MS LOCKHAT: Chairperson, the next matter on the roll is the killing of Mr Mojaji Pakati. The amnesty applicant is Mr Ntuli and if you so wish we could call the applicant now.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think we would like to do that. Perhaps we must just stand down for a moment so that you can just rearrange the situation. We'll stand down briefly.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS