CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, good morning everybody, today is Thursday, the 25th of November 1999. We are due to hear the applications of Madonsela and Mahlangu. Could the legal representatives who are involved in these matters, please place their names on record please?
MS CAMBANIS: Thank you Chair, I am Crystal Cambanis, appearing for both the applicants in this matter.
MS THABETHE: Thabile Thabethe, the Evidence Leader, I am also representing the victims in this matter.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Has there been due notice to the victims?
MS THABETHE: Yes, Mr Chair, and they are present today.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MR MALAN: Can we just have it on record, that we failed to communicate with Chuene and Moloto who are also listed as victims in the judgment.
MS THABETHE: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: With whom are you going to start Ms Cambanis?
MS CAMBANIS: With the first applicant listed, Mr Obed Madonsela, who is seated to my right.
CHAIRPERSON: What language is he going to speak?
MS CAMBANIS: He prefers to speak in English.
CHAIRPERSON: Prefers to speak in English.
MS CAMBANIS: Yes, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Madonsela, could you rise please, put your microphone on. What are your full names?
MR MADONSELA: My name is Obed Salukwanda Madonsela .
OBED SALUKWANDA MADONSELA: (sworn states)
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you may be seated. You may proceed, Ms Cambanis.
EXAMINATION BY MS CAMBANIS: Thank you Chair. Mr Madonsela, you have applied for amnesty on the prescribed - you have applied for amnesty on the prescribed form and we have gone through that which is found at page 3 to page 9 of the Bundle, is that correct, do you confirm that that is your application?
MR MADONSELA: Yes, that is true.
MS CAMBANIS: You have also made a supplementary statement setting out more details and that is contained in a three page statement, a copy of which have been handed up to the Committee, I think.
MR MALAN: I have only a two page statement.
MS CAMBANIS: Thank you Chair. What happened is that I made it a little bit more fancy, by putting in the heading this morning, so it is the two-paged document, the content is exactly the same.
MR MALAN: I accept that thank you.
MS CAMBANIS: Please look at it and confirm that we went through it this morning, you read through it and do you confirm under oath that the contents of that is correct?
MR MADONSELA: Yes, it is true.
MS CAMBANIS: Thank you. Mr Madonsela, it is correct that you were the commander of this unit and that your co-applicant, Mr Mahlangu, who is seated next to you, is the second applicant in this matter?
MR MADONSELA: Sure.
MS CAMBANIS: And the third person, Mr Christopher Khumalo, of your unit, is also present today?
MR MADONSELA: Yes, sure.
MS CAMBANIS: Yes, and I may tell the Committee that Mr Christopher Khumalo, my instructions are that he confirms the contents of the events as set out in the applications as set out before this Committee. Mr Madonsela, at page 16 and 17, sorry and 18 of the Bundle, is your release from prison. You were convicted of these offences, is that correct?
MR MADONSELA: Yes, that is correct.
MS CAMBANIS: And largely it was for the incident at the police station, the municipal offices and for possession of arms and ammunition?
MR MADONSELA: That is correct.
MS CAMBANIS: And on the 23rd of June 1991, Judge Solomon in fact granted you a release from prison, it was not called amnesty, there were two categories Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Indemnity.
MS CAMBANIS: That was the indemnity and then the release from prison, and he got in terms of the release of prison, is that correct, that you were then released under the Indemnity Act?
MR MADONSELA: That is correct.
MS CAMBANIS: And your co-accused, the third party, Mr Christopher Khumalo, was he also indemnified and released from prison?
MR MADONSELA: No, our lawyer applied for us for appeal, he made an appeal for us and ...
MS CAMBANIS: That is right, he was acquitted?
MR MADONSELA: He was granted appeal, it was acquitted.
MS CAMBANIS: I apologise.
CHAIRPERSON: So the appeal was successful?
MS CAMBANIS: The appeal was successful, yes. Thank you Chairperson, I have nothing further for this applicant.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS CAMBANIS
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
JUDGE DE JAGER: And you confirm that you have been found guilty of these offences and in fact, you had these, you committed these offences?
MR MADONSELA: As is stated on the latter pages, that I submitted to the Judges, that I confirm the acts.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Also that you had these weapons in your possession?
MR MADONSELA: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Before Ms Thabethe starts, would we have the signed supplementary affidavits for proper records?
MS CAMBANIS: Yes Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Thabethe, any cross-examination?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETHE: Thank you Chair. I am not sure who the applicant is, is it Madonsela or Mr Mahlangu?
CHAIRPERSON: Madonsela, the first applicant.
MS THABETHE: Madonsela, thank you. Mr Madonsela, as I have indicated before, I am also representing the victims in this matter, and they have requested me to pose some few questions to you which I will do so. In your statement on paragraph 6 you have indicated that you did a reconnaissance in the building?
MR MADONSELA: Yes.
MS THABETHE: Is that correct?
MR MADONSELA: That is correct.
MS THABETHE: For how long was this?
MR MADONSELA: For a period of three weeks.
MS THABETHE: Three weeks? Now from the reconnaissance, would it be correct to say that you observed that there were two separate buildings in the municipality?
MR MADONSELA: Yes.
MS THABETHE: One which was mainly occupied by white people and one which was mainly occupied by black people? Did you observe this by any chance?
MR MADONSELA: No. It was a building that was used by everybody.
MS THABETHE: Just for the record let me say that my instructions are that in this building there was a section where, which was dominated mainly by black people and there was a section which was occupied by white people, what would be your response?
MR MADONSELA: I think we should define occupation, by mere fact of an office or by mere fact of using the very space, that is the Town Council offices. I want to be clear from that.
MS THABETHE: My instructions are that there were separate sections, that is the white people occupied, there was a building that was occupied by the white people.
MR MADONSELA: Only?
CHAIRPERSON: It was a building used by white officials and a building used by black officials for work purposes?
MS THABETHE: Yes.
MR MADONSELA: I am not sure of that.
MR MALAN: May I just get the record straight here, you said mainly, and it now on the follow up seems to be exclusively white, and exclusively black? What are your instructions on this, Ms Thabethe?
MS THABETHE: Well, my instructions are that the building, the whole building was used by black, both black and white, but there were sections which were occupied by white people.
MR MALAN: Mainly or exclusively, that is my question.
MS THABETHE: Exclusively, I would say, yes. And then there was a section where black people occupied offices.
JUDGE DE JAGER: But the public would have access to both sections?
MS THABETHE: Apparently the public had access to the offices where rent was paid.
CHAIRPERSON: Would that constitute the only access of the public into those buildings, that may be for rental purposes?
MS THABETHE: Well, I would have to take further instructions, but I wouldn't think so, Mr Chair. I don't think the municipal offices were used only for rental purposes, but my victims were targeted when they went there to pay rent.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay, you may proceed.
MS THABETHE: Thank you Mr Chair. Well, Mr Madonsela, if you say you did not observe this, it is going to be difficult for me to ask the question I was asked, because my instructions were to ask you why did the bomb explode in a building which was dominated by black people and why didn't you place the bomb in the offices where white people used to occupy those offices? You were acting against the apartheid government?
CHAIRPERSON: Wouldn't it be that if you were attached to the structures of the then regime, you were also targeted, it was not mainly white, wouldn't that be the case?
MR MADONSELA: The purpose of the attack itself, was not specifically meant for any individual but it was meant for the establishment, meaning the administration offices. As I have said earlier on that not necessarily if that building is divided, mainly it was exclusive, because if I may recall, the entrance into the very building, it is used by everybody, so it wouldn't suffice to say exclusively white and exclusively black, but my objective is to say the attack was not solely targeted to any individual, but it was targeted to the establishment, meaning the administration offices.
MS THABETHE: Thank you Mr Chair. I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS THABETHE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Thabethe. Mr Malan?
MR MALAN: I have no questions, thank you Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Judge de Jager?
JUDGE DE JAGER: No questions.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Thank you Mr Madonsela, you are excused. Let me rather put it this way, why I asked the Panel, Ms Cambanis, is that when you re-examine, you should have the opportunity of having heard all the sides, rather than us going backwards and forwards, do you have any re-examination?
RE-EXAMINATION BY MS CAMBANIS: Perhaps just for clarification, Mr Madonsela, you said that the office building was divided into - how was it divided, were there offices?
MR MADONSELA: If I may say, it is mainly, it is the one that was specifically targeted by us, was divided into two. There is where we normally pay rent, it is in the front portion of the very building and there is the other part, that is mainly offices, and the device that we placed, was placed on the side where offices were and then precisely the timing was set to at least, the explosive should explode during lunch time, because offices are used by people during lunch time who would be away, so as to minimise casualties, if I may say.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Why didn't you place it at night? Why didn't you place it at night, or timed it at night, then there wouldn't have been casualties, the building would have been damaged?
MR MADONSELA: I think the access to the building, was during the day, it wouldn't be possible for us to access it during the night.
CHAIRPERSON: Have you completed all the re-examination?
MS CAMBANIS: I have, thank you Chair.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS CAMBANIS
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: What do you propose to do, to lead Mahlangu and argue thereafter, or you want to argue immediately for Madonsela?
MS CAMBANIS: I propose to lead the second applicant, Mahlangu, and then to argue.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
