Amnesty Hearings

CHAIRPERSON: Good morning. For the record, today is Wednesday the 2nd of August 2000. We are continuing with the sitting of the Amnesty Committee at the JISS Centre in Johannesburg. The Panel is constituted as it appears on the record. The first matter to be heard this morning is the amnesty application of Frans Nyoni Mandlazi, amnesty reference number AM5027/97. For the record I am going to ask the legal representatives to put themselves on record. We'll start on behalf of the applicant.

MR NGOBE: Thank you Commissioner. My name is ...(indistinct) Ngobe, the legal representative for the applicant, Mr Frans Mandlazi.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Ngobe. On behalf of the victims?

MR MNISI: On behalf of the victims, they are represented by Mr P C Mnisi of Mnisi Attorneys Incorporated, in Nelspruit.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mnisi. And then Mr Jordaan.

MR JORDAAN: Thank you Chairperson, Koert Jordaan from Groenewald and Jordaan Incorporated, Nelspruit, on behalf of Capt. Shongwe.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Mtanga.

MS MTANGA: I am Lulama Mtanga, the Evidence Leader for the Commission. Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Mtanga. Mr Ngobe, is there anything that you want to put on record, or do you want to proceed to present the evidence of your client because ...

MR NGOBE: Mr Chairman, I want to place on record that the original affidavit that we received and the one that was signed by the applicant, we had to make a supplementary affidavit just to add some information that she's going to lead.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that has been placed before us and I assume that the other parties would have copies of it. It's signed on the 26th of July 2000 and for purposes of the record, we'll mark that as Exhibit A. Do you want your client to be sworn in?

MR NGOBE: Yes, he may be sworn in.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Mr Mandlazi just indicate to us if your headset is working, whether you can hear the interpreters.

MR NGOBE: Yes, I can hear.

FRANS NYONI MANDLAZI: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Ngobe.

MR NGOBE: Thank you Commissioner.

EXAMINATION BY MR NGOBE: Mr Mandlazi, do you confirm that you are the applicant in this matter?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

MR NGOBE: Can you tell the Honourable Commission where do you stay?

MR MANDLAZI: I reside at stand 1493 at Matsolosi.

MR NGOBE: Are you presently working?

MR MANDLAZI: No.

MR NGOBE: Where have you been working before?

MR MANDLAZI: I was working at the Military Intelligence in Nelspruit.

MR NGOBE: In which year did you start working for the Military Intelligence?

MR MANDLAZI: I started in 1985. I joined the SADF in 1985 and in 1986 I went to study at the Military Intelligence School in Kimberley.

MR NGOBE: Are you still in the employment of the military?

MR MANDLAZI: No.

MR NGOBE: When did you last work there?

MR MANDLAZI: In July 1994.

MR NGOBE: The affidavit that is before you, which is paginated from page 8 to page number 23. Is this an affidavit that was made and signed by you?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

MR NGOBE: Do you confirm the contents of this affidavit?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes it is the truth but there are parts that are not completely correct, that is with regards to the death of Portia and Alfred Ndawu, that is on page 12.

MR NGOBE: Well you say there's a problem in the section which refers to Alfred Ndawu and Portia Shabangu, is that right?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

MR NGOBE: Can you tell the Honourable Commission, clarify what is it that is supposed to be the correct facts in this affidavit, referring to Portia Shabangu and Alfred Ndawu?

MR MANDLAZI: With regards to Portia, we searched for her in 1988 and we received information from the source that she would cross the border into South Africa. We then lay in ambush for her but she was not found on that particular day.

MR NGOBE: You are saying she was supposed to cross the border to South Africa from where?

MR MANDLAZI: From Mozambique. That was the information we received from the source.

MR NGOBE: Who was your source by that time?

MR MANDLAZI: It was Steve Mbuyisa.

MR NGOBE: Did you happen to see Portia on that day on which you were waiting for her?

MR MANDLAZI: No, we did not find her on that particular day.

MR NGOBE: What happened thereafter?

MR MANDLAZI: We remained there until the following morning, upon which time we returned to our base in Komatipoort.

MR NGOBE: Is there something more which you need to clarify for the Commission with reference to Portia Shabangu? Were you involved in any action against, or commission against Portia Shabangu?

MR MANDLAZI: No, I was not involved.

ADV SANDI: For the sake of clarity, then what happened to Portia Shabangu in the end?

MR MANDLAZI: She was on the list of people who were to be killed. I later received information after I had been transferred to another camp, that she had been found and killed.

ADV SANDI: Who gave you that information?

MR MANDLAZI: Captain Lily.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

MR NGOBE: With regard to Alfred Ndawu, can you clarify for the Commission?

MR MANDLAZI: Mr Ndawu was on the list of the people who were to be killed. We then received information that he had been killed. In fact Capt Lily informed me that he was killed by hanging in Nelspruit.

MR NGOBE: Are you aware that Alfred Ndawu died in 1983. Were you working, or were you engaged with any activities with the Military Intelligence or SADF at that time?

MR MANDLAZI: No, at that time I had not yet joined, but I had information to the effect that such a person had to be killed.

ADV SANDI: Just explain this. You see in 1982 you were told by Capt Lily that Ndawu had been killed. Is that correct?

MR MANDLAZI: That is correct.

ADV SANDI: You were not formally part of the SADF?

MR MANDLAZI: I was informed about him when I was already working at the Military Intelligence in Nelspruit.

ADV SANDI: Okay, thank you.

MR NGOBE: In the affidavit, Mr Mandlazi it appears that you placed yourself on the scene. You mentioned that

"We assaulted and tortured him until he died. Thereafter Sgt Shongwe prepared the rope by joining the police long socks and hanged him in a cell in Nelspruit Police Cells."

Do you know anything about this? It's page number 22.

MR MANDLAZI: As I've already mentioned that Capt Lily explained to me, what I can say to the Committee is that we were taught at Military Intelligence School on how to conduct a torture session, so then Capt Lily explained to us that if somebody is not forthcoming with the truth, he must be tortured.

MR NGOBE: Mr Mandlazi you have not yet answered my question. My question was, you placed yourself on the scene. Were you involved, or you were not involved?

MR MANDLAZI: No, I did not take part. I think the person who wrote the statement did not write what I had told him.

MR NGOBE: Thank you. Another clarification, may I refer the Honourable Committee on the supplementary affidavit which I need Mr Mandlazi to clarify to the Commission, paragraph 5 ...(intervention)

JUDGE MOTATA: Before you go to number 5, what about this clarification, because you have just said to him he placed himself on the scene, but it goes further that: "We arrested Alfred just a day before I bombed his brother's house. It clearly places you on the scene, that you were involved with Alfred Ndawu.

MR NGOBE: Thank you Mr Commissioner. Can you just clarify on that for the Commission?

MR MANDLAZI: As I've just explained, at that time I was not involved with the SADF, I was not involved with his death and what I know is what I learned from Capt Lily about Alfred's death. It was at his brother's home at which I threw a bomb, but I was not involved with his death.

JUDGE MOTATA: Did you bomb the brother's house? Did you do it personally?

MR MANDLAZI: That is correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: Thank you Mr Ngobe.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, just on that. Give us the name of the person who was taking this statement from you.

MR MANDLAZI: It was taken by the secretary of Mr Mabone, who is the Minister of Safety and Security in Nelspruit.

ADV SANDI: In the course of that interview, in what language were you communicating?

MR MANDLAZI: In Zulu.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

MR NGOBE: Thank you Mr Chairman. May we proceed to the supplementary affidavit paragraph 5, where I need the applicant to clarify on the question of a reward of R50 000 that was mentioned about a mission to kill Mr ...(indistinct) Modipane. Were you promised a financial award to do anything that you ...(indistinct- background noise)?

MR MANDLAZI: What I can explain, I will say that was classified as a bonus merit, or a merit bonus, not that you'll be paid for carrying out the action.

MR NGOBE: Thank you Commissioner. The points that I wanted to clarify have been clarified and now I'll request the applicant to take the Commission step by step on all activities that he took part while he was in the employment of his former employer. Mr Frans Mandlazi, can you in your own words, take the Commission step by step and reveal everything that you know about your activities?

MR MANDLAZI: I joined the SADF in 1985 at Amsterdam. I did my training, after which I went to the Intelligence School in Kimberley in 1986. After that I returned to Amsterdam at our base. After my return from the Intelligence School in 1986, Brig Otto and Lieut Lily from Nelspruit, Eastern Transvaal Command, arrived at Amsterdam and they took us, there were 26 of us, and we were taken to Nelspruit. On our arrival there, we were informed about our enemies who were ANC, SACP, UDF and APLA as well as Umkhonto weSizwe. It was explained that these were our enemies and as the Military and the Police, we should fight against these. At Nelspruit we were also shown into a board room where there was a list of people who were supposedly our enemies and we were supposed to kill these people. This was said by Capt Lily. The first one was ...(indistinct) Mabusa, who's now and MEC at Nelspruit. The second was Jack Modipane, who is the MEC for Finance in Nelspruit. Parks Mankahlane, the Presidential Spokesman. Joey Nkoena, a member of the UDM, Matthews Phosa, the former Premier of Mpumalanga, Alfred Ndawu, who is now deceased, Steve Mbuyisa, who is an MP in Cape Town, Teddy Culmen, who is a Senior Intelligence Officer in Nelspruit, Willie Siagopela who works with Culmen, Skumbuso Nkosi who is a teacher, Teaspoon Nkosi, who's deceased, Lawrence Moyi, who is working for COSATU in Nelspruit, Sam Sambo, also in COSATU, Sibongile Mabusa who is on Local Government in Nelspruit, Doreen Mafiega, who's also in Local Government in Nelspruit, Violet Moyi who's working at the Women's League office in Nelspruit, Boikana Phiri, Lucky Lobisi, Patrick Mlazi, Luvuno Mlazi, ...(indistinct) Masisela, Jackson Mthembo and Michael Ndawu.

MR NGOBE: You may proceed.

MR MANDLAZI: From that time, there was a hit squad that was formed, the Eastern Transvaal Top 20 Hit Squad. The person in command was Brig Otto, then there was Commandant Ramsley, who was second in command, then there was Col Taljaard, Lieut van Staden, Major Lynn, Adj Walters, SAP, Sgt Venter SAP Nelspruit, von Dama, SAP Nelspruit, Shongwe, SAP Nelspruit, Sgt Shongwe SAP Komatipoort, Patrick Mathebula, SADF, Rifle Mbatha, SADF, Const Vilakazi, CIS Secretary Branch, Nelspruit, Jerry Dlamini, SADF, Alfeus Mondlane, SADF Nelspruit, ...(indistinct) Masego an askari, Sgt Lynn, SAP, CIS Nelspruit, Const Hlope, SAP, CIS Komatipoort, Lucky Sambo, SADF, Major van Jaarsveld, SAP CIS, Nelspruit, Col van Zyl, SAP, Nelspruit, Capt Botha, SAP CIS Nelspruit, de Costa, SAP CIS Nelspruit, Sgt Nyatigazi, SAP CIS Nelspruit, askari Johnny, askari Spencer, myself, Frans Nyoni Mandlazi, SADF Corporal, Corp Steyn, Nelspruit, Corp Alberts, SAP, Corp Potgieter.

MR NGOBE: Thank you Mr Mandlazi. On page number 11 of this affidavit you referred to names of three people as recruited as sources. What do you mean by that? The names of the people appears - Steve Mbuyisa, Josias Maisela and Jongo. What do you mean by the word sources?

MR MANDLAZI: These are the people who supplied us with information and they would be paid for that.

MR NGOBE: What kind of information did you elicit from these people or did they give?

MR MANDLAZI: For example, information regarding Jacks Modipane, as to what portfolio he holds in the ANC.

MR NGOBE: Okay. Can you proceed on page number 13 as it appears here, the question on Jacks Modipane.

ADV SANDI: Just before you proceed, on page 13, did you personally deal with these so-called sources?

MR MANDLAZI: That is correct.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

MR MANDLAZI: Our first operation was to kill Mr Jacks Modipane. We received information that Mr Modipane handled funds for people who went into exile to join MK and he was then supposed to be killed. It was the source who supplied that information, that was Steve Mbuyisa. After supplying the information, I and my colleagues went to attack Mr Modipane's home. What I recall is that I threw a hand grenade into the house and the others surrounded the house and they fired shots from AK47 rifles. I still remember vehicles that were used in that attack, their registration numbers were MWD776T, that car was used by Adj Walters from the Security Branch.

CHAIRPERSON: Just a minute Mr Mandlazi. In the MWD 776T...

MR NGOBE: It was a Toyota bakkie whose colour was green and stripe blue.

CHAIRPERSON: And what? What did you say?

MR NGOBE: The car was a green colour and it had a blue stripe.

CHAIRPERSON: A blue stripe and who - you said that vehicle was used by who?

MR MANDLAZI: Adj Walters, he was the driver.

CHAIRPERSON: And who did that vehicle belong to? Was it an South African Defence Force vehicle, or what?

MR MANDLAZI: It belonged to the Security Branch in Nelspruit.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright, the next vehicle?

MR MANDLAZI: KWJ982T, it was used by myself, it was a 4 x 4 Toyota Hi-Lux, brown in colour.

CHAIRPERSON: Just a minute. This vehicle, the 4 x 4 brown Toyota Hi-Lux, who did that vehicle belong to?

MR MANDLAZI: It was myself who used it.

CHAIRPERSON: But who did it belong to?

MR MANDLAZI: It belonged to the Military Intelligence.

CHAIRPERSON: Did it belong to the South African Defence Force then, or what?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Right, the next vehicle?

MR MANDLAZI: It was registration number KWJ981T, it was also a 4 x 4, similar to KWJ982T, it was also brown in colour and that was used by Capt Lily.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it also a Toyota Hi-Lux?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, it was.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry and it was used by?

MR MANDLAZI: It was used by Capt Lily.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that also the property of the South African Defence Force?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: The next vehicle?

MR MANDLAZI: The next one was registration number PND305T. It was a Toyota bakkie, a long base. It was green in colour.

CHAIRPERSON: Whose property was it?

MR MANDLAZI: It also belonged to the SADF.

CHAIRPERSON: Now when did this attack on Mr Modipane happen?

MR MANDLAZI: I cannot recall the date.

CHAIRPERSON: Just give us an indication, if you can't remember the exact date.

MR MANDLAZI: Around 1987, or 1988.

CHAIRPERSON: 1987 or 1988.

MR MANDLAZI: If I'm not wrong, it must be 1988.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, were these vehicles in use by your colleagues and yourself for some time prior to this attack on Mr Modipane?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, those were the vehicles that were used by the hit squad.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, but for some time prior to 1987/1988?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, we would use those vehicles when carrying out certain attacks, depending on the area that we were going to attack. For instance if the terrain was not good, we would use Casspirs.

CHAIRPERSON: You joined this hit squat in 1986. Were these vehicles then already in use?

MR MANDLAZI: When I arrived, they were there, they were already in the Force in Nelspruit. I would just like the Committee to know that I'm not certain whether these registration numbers really belong to those vehicles, whether those were the correct registration numbers, but those numbers were on those vehicles.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, just one other aspect, whilst we are at this, that I might as well just clarify now. You say on page 13 in your statement that you were going to be given, you were going to be paid a reward of R50 000 for this operation, is that correct?

MR MANDLAZI: The R50 000 that is referred to in the statement was the amount that we would be given as a group if the mission was successfully, sort of a merit bonus.

CHAIRPERSON: But this was decided beforehand? You were told before you embarked on this mission that provided you were successful, you will be paid R50 000 as a group, as a hit squad, would that be correct?

MR MANDLAZI: We were informed that if the mission is successful, we would be given an amount of R50 000.

CHAIRPERSON: You knew when you embarked on this enterprise that if you can kill Mr Modipane, you will get R50 000?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And you did it on that basis, on that understanding?

MR MANDLAZI: We did not carry it out for the sake of the R50 000, it was just money that was supposed to be a merit bonus.

CHAIRPERSON: But you knew, before you embarked on this enterprise, you knew you were going to get paid R50 000 if Mr Modipane is killed and you executed this operation on that understanding, or do I misunderstand you?

MR MANDLAZI: That is true.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Ngobe, sorry.

ADV SANDI: Just on that aspect, sorry Mr Ngobe. This R50 000, was it to be given to you personally, or were you to share it as a group amongst yourselves?

CHAIRPERSON: It was supposed to be shared as a group.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

MR NGOBE: Thank you Commissioner. Mr Mandlazi, can you take us further and tell this Commission what did you do exactly at Mr Modipane's house? Tell us everything that happened there. On your arrival, what did you do and what happened? Who did what?

MR MANDLAZI: I remember that I personally threw a hand grenade into the house. That is what I remember doing.

MR NGOBE: What did the other people who were with you do?

MR MANDLAZI: I recall that the others were shooting at the house from outside, because we carried out the attack at night.

MR NGOBE: Mr Mandlazi, can you be free? Just tell us what happened, we were all not there, take us into the picture, tell us how did you arrive there, what happened, who did what? Not in one line, tell us everything that happened there.

MR MANDLAZI: Mr Steve Mbuyisa who was our source, accompanied us on this mission and when we arrived at Mr Modipane's home, Mr Mbuyisa remained in the vehicle and he confirmed that this was the house. We alighted from the vehicle. When I threw the hand grenade the others started shooting and thereafter we returned to the vehicle and went back.

MR NGOBE: Tell us everything that happened there.

JUDGE MOTATA: Mr Mandlazi, for instance, where did you leave from?

MR MANDLAZI: We were at our base in Bongweni, that was a Military Intelligence Camp and we left with Mr Mbuyisa from there, proceeded to Bosbokrand.

JUDGE MOTATA: Was Mr Mbuyisa always with you at that camp?

MR MANDLAZI: Mr Mbuyisa arrived the day before and informed us that Mr Modipane would be at home because on previous occasions Mr Modipane had not been found at his home. Therefore on that particular day, Mr Mbuyisa came and informed us that Mr Modipane was indeed at home because he used to flee his home and could not be found there.

JUDGE MOTATA: How far is the camp from Modipane's place?

MR MANDLAZI: I would say it's about 60 to 70 kilometres away.

JUDGE MOTATA: You may proceed Mr Ngobe, we are making progress.

MR NGOBE: Thank you very much. Is that all that you want to tell the Commission as far as Mr Modipane is concerned? Did you go there only once or return on another date?

MR MANDLAZI: We did not return at a later date. That was the last time. I will just beg your pardon, we did go there on another date, but we did not find Mr Modipane, we were informed that he's at Matsulu. On that occasions we were with Mr Mbuyisa, who went into the house alone and he returned to inform us that Mr Modipane was not at home but at Matsulu.

CHAIRPERSON: Just a minute. Where did this - was there an order to kill Mr Modipane, or where did this idea originate from?

MR MANDLAZI: He was to be killed, as per instruction of Gen Otto and Capt Lily, who were our Commanders, because he was allegedly the person who handled funds for the ANC and was responsible for sending people, or assisting people to go into exile.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you plan this operation at all before hand?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: At your base?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Now you say that on a previous occasion, Mr Modipane was not at his home. Did I understand you correctly?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And this time round, Mbuyisa came and he said look that man is going to be at home now.

MR MANDLAZI: He said he was present at home. That was on the night when I threw a bomb and his house was shot at.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, now why did Mr Mbuyisa go with you?

MR MANDLAZI: We thought that it would be a good idea to take Mr Mbuyisa because he was known to Modipane, so we thought it was better for Mbuyisa to go there so that if he finds him, he would pretend that he was just visiting and then he would return and inform us if he indeed was at home.

CHAIRPERSON: That's precisely why I'm asking you, you told us that when you got to the house, Mbuyisa was - he remained in the vehicle.

MR MANDLAZI: When we arrived, yes he remained in the car and by that time it was already at night and we could not carry out the attack with him present because as we carry out the attack we did not want Mr Modipane to see him or somebody to recognise him amongst us, so that for instance if Mr Modipane survived, he should not be in a position to recognise Mbuyisa.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Ngobe.

MR NGOBE: Thank you Mr Commissioner. Can you proceed on the aspect on Michael Ndawu from Matsulu?

MR MANDLAZI: We left from our base and proceeded to Michael Ndawu's house. On our arrival, Sgt Shongwe tied the doors from outside. No one fired any shots there, but we threw bombs into the house. I personally threw a bomb. It was during the night. The reason to kill Michael Ndawu was also similar to that with regards to Modipane, that is he was also responsible for handling ANC funds. Our information was received from Albertina Mtunya who was our source.

CHAIRPERSON: What information did you get from the source?

MR MANDLAZI: The information regarding Michael Ndawu. She informed us that Michael Ndawu assists people to go into exile and he also handles ANC funds.

ADV SANDI: Where were you when this information was conveyed to you by Albertina Mtunya?

MR MANDLAZI: Albertina Mtunya was recruited and she was a person whom we told that we needed information about political activists and she knew that we had to get such information and she will be paid for it. I would go to her regularly for that information as to the identity of the people who were working to overthrow the government.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying that she gave this information to you personally?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, she would give information to me and I would pass it on to my superior Capt Lily.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. No I'm just talking about the information in regard to Mr Michael Ndawu, did she give that information to you personally?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, she gave it to me personally.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you going to get paid for this operation?

MR MANDLAZI: Well I was employed and paid every month, so I do not know what I would have been paid, but the R50 000 bonus was mentioned in all the operations that were carried out.

CHAIRPERSON: So was there talk again of what you refer to as a merit bonus of R50 000, should your hit squad succeed in killing Mr Michael Ndawu?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Ngobe.

JUDGE MOTATA: Before you do, was Michael Ndawu not on the list which you were shown on the board when you first arrived in Nelspruit, in other words that there was already information about Michael Ndawu? Page 10, Michael Ndawu is already there.

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, Ndawu was on the list in Nelspruit. What I can say is that we wanted to know what all these people were involved in and also to know their addresses, therefore we tried to recruit sources from, who came from the same areas as the people who were on the hit list, so we could get information about them because when we were informed about these people, we were just told that they should be killed and there were also people who were supposed to be killed, but who would be turned into sources, for example Mr Mbuyisa was on the list, but he was recruited and turned into a source and thereafter he was removed from the list.

JUDGE MOTATA: Why were they supposed to be killed, because now you obtained information subsequently when you were handling or receiving information from Albertina Mtunya, because if I understand you correctly it's that she told you that he's the one who assists people to go into exile and also handle ANC monies.

MR MANDLAZI: Michael Ndawu was supposed to be killed, just as Mr Modipane. The intention for attacking Ndawu's house was for him to be killed.

JUDGE MOTATA: Are you saying to us, at first when you arrived and you were shown the list of 23, that they had to be killed, you were not told why they should be killed?

MR MANDLAZI: At that time there was a source who worked with Capt Lily. Unfortunately the source died. This I had not explained to my attorney. When that source died ...

JUDGE MOTATA: Whatever you haven't explained to your attorney, explain to us.

MR MANDLAZI: Please repeat.

JUDGE MOTATA: I say whatever you have not explained to your attorney in consultation, you now have the opportunity to explain it to us.

MR MANDLAZI: I was explaining that Michael Ndawu was supposed to be killed for the reason that he handled ANC funds.

JUDGE MOTATA: No, my question was, I understood that. I said, when I look at page 10 I see Michael Ndawu is number 23 and on your arrival at Nelspruit after you had been trained in Military Intelligence in Kimberley, you were told that these people, the 23 people, had to be killed. Did I understand you correctly thus far?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: And in your oral evidence you subsequently said that Albertina Mtunya told you that Michael Ndawu assisted people to go into exile and further, Michael Ndawu handled ANC funds.

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: Now, my question was, when you were given the 23 names written on the board, were you told why they were to be killed?

MR MANDLAZI: We were just informed that these people wanted to overthrow the Government.

JUDGE MOTATA: And Albertina Mtunya merely provided further information after you turned her to be your source?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, she provided additional information that Mr Ndawu handled funds and also assisted people to go into exile.

JUDGE MOTATA: When you say we, who was she telling this to?

MR MANDLAZI: She informed me.

JUDGE MOTATA: Thank you Mr Ngobe.

ADV SANDI: Were you not known in the area to be a member of the SADF?

MR MANDLAZI: ...(not translated)

ADV SANDI: Did people know in your area that you were working as a member of the SADF?

MR MANDLAZI: They did know that I was a member of the SADF but were not aware of what activities I was up to. We carried out Hit Squad activities at night, but during the day they would just see me as a soldier.

ADV SANDI: What time exactly would you normally go and see Albertina Mtunya? Would it be at night, during the day, or when?

MR MANDLAZI: I would go there just as it was getting dark, or just after dark.

ADV SANDI: And during the time you were going about doing your businesses, members of the SADF, were you wearing any uniforms?

MR MANDLAZI: No, we used civilian clothes.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

MR NGOBE: Thank you Mr Commissioner. Mr Mandlazi, you made mention of the name of Capt Shongwe and Sgt Shongwe here, where did you meet them and where did you go to with them and how did you deal with them at that particular stage with regard to Michael Ndawu?

MR MANDLAZI: They had arrived at our base.

MR NGOBE: Take us through what happened after you met them until you came to the place where you were supposed to go. Tell us everything.

MR MANDLAZI: What I recall is that Capt Shongwe tied the doors, the front door from the outside, so that no one could be able to escape from the inside and several grenades were thrown into the house. It was at night and because there were several grenades that were thrown there, there was a lot of smoke and I threw one hand grenade.

MR NGOBE: How were the doors tied?

MR MANDLAZI: They used wires, they had these wires with which they tied the door. We were told to fire a warning shot, which was done by Capt Lily, after which hand grenades were thrown into the house. The gates of the premises were locked but they threw...

MR NGOBE: What was the purpose for tying the doors?

MR MANDLAZI: The reason was that no one should be able to escape from the inside so that everyone is killed.

MR NGOBE: By tying the doors, your aim and purpose was that when you through in grenades there, no one should escape from the bombs that were being hurled into that house.

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that part of your orders?

MR MANDLAZI: It was part of the orders by Capt Lily that the door should be tied after which hand grenades should be thrown.

INTERPRETER: The Speaker's mike is not on.

CHAIRPERSON: Was the order that you must just kill anybody that was inside the house?

MR MANDLAZI: We were told that everybody who is inside there should be killed.

CHAIRPERSON: And if Michael Ndawu is not in the house, what should happen?

MR MANDLAZI: From the information received from Albertina, it was known that he was there.

CHAIRPERSON: So you had information from an informer that he was in the house. Now how long before your attack, did you receive that information?

MR MANDLAZI: I went to Albertina's home on the same day. We arrived at Matsulu Satellite Police Station and thereafter I went to Albertina who informed me that Michael Ndawu was present at home. From there, from the police station we then went to Michael Ndawu's home, which was about a kilometre away from the police station.

CHAIRPERSON: And did she tell you who else was present at home?

MR MANDLAZI: She just mentioned that Michael Ndawu was at that house.

CHAIRPERSON: You didn't ask who else was in the house?

MR MANDLAZI: No, she just informed us that Michael was there. We did not inquire about who else was there.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Yes, Mr Ngobe.

MR NGOBE: Thank you. You made mention again of the name of Parks Mankahlane. Can you tell the Commission in your own words what happened and what he did?

MR MANDLAZI: That that operation was to kill Parks Mankahlane. We received information from our sources, Steve Mbuyisa and Joey Nkoena. Steve Mbuyisa took us to show Mankahlane's house. If I recall, I was with Jerry Dlamini, Capt Lily, Potgieter and Adj Walters.

ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr Mandlazi, before you proceed, tell us what information were you given concerning Mr Parks Mankahlane.

MR MANDLAZI: We received information to the effect that he was also one of the people who wanted to overthrow the Government. He called on people to stay away from work and other such things and he was supposed to be killed for that reason.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. Proceed.

MR MANDLAZI: We proceeded to Mr Mankahlane's house. On our arrival, I asked for Parks Mankahlane and he said that Parks had just left. When I returned to the vehicle to inform them of what I'd been told, Steve Mbuyisa said it was Mankahlane himself who had been telling me, because Mr Mbuyisa had binoculars. When I mentioned that I could not find Parks, Mr Mbuyisa told me that it had been Parks himself who had told me that that person was not there and when we returned to the house, he had already left.

MR NGOBE: To attack or to do whatever you wanted to do on Parks Mankahlane was not successful, is that so?

MR MANDLAZI: It was not successful.

ADV SANDI: Can you tell us, when was this attempt on Mankahlane? Do you remember the date?

MR MANDLAZI: I cannot recall the month and the year, because there were many incidents that took place. For instance on one night we could partake in different actions. We then went back and arrested Adam Mianga, took him to Kabokweni Camp, Capt van Zyl who was the head of Security Branch took him away to Nelspruit. We then returned Mr Mbuyisa to his home. However Mr Mbuyisa was in a different vehicle so that Adam did not see him.

MR NGOBE: You may proceed.

MR MANDLAZI: Another operation was to kill Mr Wallace Mkabela. A bomb was thrown into his house. I was with Adj Walters and Sgt Venter. Information regarding Mr Mkabela was received from our source, Albertina Mtunya. A bomb was thrown into the house, but he survived.

MR NGOBE: What was the information that you received about Wallace Mkabela?

MR MANDLAZI: He was allegedly the Chair of the ANC/UDF in the area. He held the top position in the ANC.

CHAIRPERSON: What year was this?

MR MANDLAZI: I cannot clearly recall, but I think it was around 1987.

CHAIRPERSON: But you know that the ANC was banned then. He could not be the Chair of the ANC because it was banned.

MR MANDLAZI: I cannot recall the year clearly, but I do recall that Mr Wallace Mkabela was the person responsible for holding meetings at his home, calling on people to stay away from work and he held a top position in the ANC. He also travelled overseas to ANC camps in Swaziland, Mozambique, reporting to them on the state of affairs in South Africa.

MR NGOBE: Who instructed you specifically to throw a bomb to Wallace's house?

MR MANDLAZI: It was Adj Walters.

MR NGOBE: Yes, you may proceed.

MR MANDLAZI: Another operation was to abduct Teaspoon Nkosi. We assaulted him and dumped him next to the railway station, that is the Kaapmuiden/Bushbuckridge station. He was unconscious when we left him there. After that he laid a charge with the police against me. I went to an identity parade and he identified me. He knew me from our township.

MR NGOBE: Were you prosecuted on that case that was opened by Teaspoon Nkosi?

ADV BOSMAN: Capt Lily informed me that he had given Sgt Mabusa, who was the Station Commander, to withdraw the case, so I was never prosecuted for it.

MR NGOBE: Who else was with you when you took Teaspoon Nkosi to Kaapmuiden/Bushbuckridge Railway Station, as you said? The names of those people who were with you.

MR MANDLAZI: I recall Capt Lily, Corp Potgieter, Corp Steyn and Sgt Hlope from the CIS in Komatipoort. I cannot recall the others, those are the only ones I can recall.

MR NGOBE: Why was Teaspoon Nkosi to be abducted and tortured, as you have testified?

MR MANDLAZI: Teaspoon Nkosi was one of the persons involved in staging stay-aways, stopping people from going to work and also organising boycotts. He was one of the prominent people who organised such events.

MR NGOBE: Will you proceed to Richard ...(intervention)

ADV SANDI: Sorry, before that, whose order was it that he should be abducted and beaten up?

MR MANDLAZI: It was from Capt Lily and Col van Zyl, who was the head of the Security Branch.

ADV SANDI: Just tell us more about how he was tortured.

MR MANDLAZI: His hands were tied and he was also - his head was - he had a black sack thrown over his head and he was assaulted with a pick handle.

ADV SANDI: Did you also take, I'm talking about you personally, did you take part in that assault and how, if so?

MR MANDLAZI: I also used that handle to assault him. I cannot recall how many times. What I do recall is that he eventually became unconscious and we thought he was dead.

ADV SANDI: What was the purpose of torturing him as you have explained?

MR MANDLAZI: It was for the reason that he called boycotts, prevented people from going to work and children from going to school. That information was received from Albertina Mtunya, our source. She informed me that Teaspoon Nkosi is responsible for people staying away from work and children also not attending school.

ADV SANDI: I understand that was the reason why you were torturing him, but what is it that you wanted to achieve by embarking on this exercise?

MR MANDLAZI: At that time, if people didn't want to go to work, it affected the economic situation.

ADV SANDI: Anyway, thank you.

MR NGOBE: Thank you Mr Commissioner. May you proceed to Richard Sono?

MR MANDLAZI: Richard Sono was also abducted from his home. We arrested him and went to assault him at a bush near Tonga. He also became unconscious and we thought that he was dead. We left him there. I was arrested for that incident and was fined R300.

MR NGOBE: Before you go to that Mr Mandlazi, can you just tell us what part did you take in this aspect on Richard Sono and what happened? What did you do? Before you go on to the matter where you were arrested.

MR MANDLAZI: I arrested him at his home and I hand cuffed him. On our arrival at the forest I covered his head with a bag, I assaulted him with a pick handle and spread tear gas on him.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ngobe, what are you listening to on the head set? Did you hear the interpreters or are you listening directly to your client? Because you see what happens, you obviously understand what he's saying. We are still listening to the interpretation then you already go to your next point, so you're going to have to unfortunately synchronise what you're doing with the interpreters, otherwise you're speaking over one another, you see.

MR NGOBE: Thank you Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright.

MR NGOBE: May I proceed?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MANDLAZI: When we left Richard Sono, we thought he was dead. I was the Section Leader on that operation. After that, he laid a charge because he was apparently found by Head boys the following day. Richard Sono from the information that we received from the source, Mahlahla Nthombi Mhlongo, it was alleged that he assisted people to go into exile and receive MK training.

ADV SANDI: What did you say was the name, the name of your source?

MR MANDLAZI: Mahlahla Nthombi Mhlongo.

ADV SANDI: Was that information conveyed to you personally?

MR MANDLAZI: That lady was recruited by myself.

MR NGOBE: Thank you. May you proceed to Lucky Lobisi.

ADV SANDI: Just before you proceed to that incident, let me ask one thing, in both the incidents of Teaspoon Nkosi and Richard Sono, was it your intention to kill these people? Were you wanting to kill these people?

MR NGOBE: Yes, they were supposed to be killed because they were trying to overthrow the then government. We were informed at that time that such people should not be tolerated.

ADV SANDI: So when you left them at those places which you indicated, was it your belief that you had achieved your objective of killing them?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. You may now proceed to the next incident. What incident was it?

MR NGOBE: It's Lucky Lobisi. Lucky Lobisi was abducted from his home in Matsulu. He was tortured and thrown into an old swimming pool. After being dumped in the swimming pool Capt Lily said that if he does not want to become our source, we would continue assaulting him and dumping him into the pool. He eventually agreed to become a source. I have never seen Lucky since that time. In 1989 we arrested Patrick Mlazi who was a teacher at Sibosili Primary School in Matsulu. He was taken to our base. He was also recruited after being tortured at the base in Kabokweni. However, he never brought any information and I never saw him again. He was just tortured and freed thereafter.

Gift Khosa was arrested at his home in ...(indistinct) near Komatipoort. He was taken to our base at Saskomans. He was tortured near our camp and we left him there unconscious. I never saw him thereafter. I do not know what happened to him.

MR NGOBE: On Gift Khosa, could you say maybe you left him to die or he did die?

MR MANDLAZI: We left him there. He was assaulted and tortured and assumed to be dead.

ADV SANDI: Did you subsequently talk amongst yourselves about Gift Khosa?

MR MANDLAZI: Gift Khosa was a woman. We were informed by our source, Malahlela Ntombi that she was responsible for assisting other women to escape into exile.

ADV SANDI: No, I'm trying to make a follow-up on your evidence. You say you left her at this place and you believed that he was dead? You never saw Gift again?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct. No I never saw her again.

ADV SANDI: Did you later have any conversation amongst yourselves about Gift Khosa after that incident?

MR MANDLAZI: I beg your pardon. I received information the week after that that Gift had died and such information I received from the source.

ADV SANDI: What source was that?

MR MANDLAZI: Mankahlane Ntombi Hlongo.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

MR NGOBE: You may proceed on Sam Sambo.

MR MANDLAZI: We abducted Sam Sambo from Matsulu and he was taken to a base near Barberton. He was also tortured and he was left at a forest. We assumed that he was dead, but he was not, he still lives up to this day. When we left him we thought he was dead but he was just unconscious.

MR NGOBE: Can you mention the names of the people who were with you on the operation on Sam Sambo?

MR MANDLAZI: It was Capt Lily, Corp Potgieter, Lucky Lobisi, Patrick Mathebula, Corp Steyn.

MR NGOBE: You may proceed to Lawrence Moyi.

CHAIRPERSON: And why - sorry Mr Ngobe, why did you act against Mr Sambo?

MR MANDLAZI: We were informed that Sam Sambo went to different companies enquiring about how much the workers were being paid and he was also responsible for encouraging people to stay away from work, which affected the economy badly. It then became necessary to torture and kill him.

JUDGE MOTATA: Now Lucky Lobisi, because I think I heard you say that he was to gather information with you, was he now and operative with you people?

MR MANDLAZI: Lucky disappeared around that time in 1994.

JUDGE MOTATA: I think the question from my colleague was that, with whom were you in this operation and you counted Lucky Lobisi as well, of Sam Sambo.

MR MANDLAZI: No, Lucky was not present. I would ask the Commission to pardon me about Lawrence Moyi. I am the person who issued an order to the unit members that he should be abducted, tortured and left there. Mr Moyi was not arrested.

MR NGOBE: Mr Mandlazi, I can't understand what you're saying about Lawrence Moyi. Can you explain what really happened to him, what happened?

MR MANDLAZI: Lawrence Moyi was on the list. When he was arrested I was not present but he was taken to our base and he was tortured at the base.

MR NGOBE: Were you there when he was tortured, did you say?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, I was present.

ADV SANDI: Just explain yourself, I don't follow you. What order exactly did you give in relation to Lawrence Moyi? What was this order that you say you issued?

MR MANDLAZI: It was for him to be arrested at his home and be brought to the base.

ADV SANDI: Was that your order?

MR MANDLAZI: I had received the order from Capt Lily, but since I was the section head I passed it on.

ADV SANDI: Just explain, was he being tortured simply for the reason that he was a friend to Sambo?

MR MANDLAZI: It was alleged that they would be together when they went around encouraging people to stay away from work.

MR NGOBE: Can you tell us what exactly happened to Lawrence? How was he tortured? What did you do to him?

MR MANDLAZI: He was brought to the base, but I did not take part in his torture. He was tortured by Adj Walters.

MR NGOBE: Did you see the people that you are mentioning torturing Lawrence Moyi?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes.

MR NGOBE: How was he tortured?

MR MANDLAZI: They assaulted him, kicking him, that's what I recall.

MR NGOBE: Is he still alive?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes and he is present in this hall.

MR NGOBE: Thank you. You can proceed to Life Ngwenya

MR MANDLAZI: Life and Keith Ngwenya came from one home. We received information to the effect that they assisted people to go into exile to receive MK training. We abducted them and tortured them in a forest near Komatipoort. They were twin brothers so I cannot recall who died between them. After torturing them they were dumped at the forest.

MR NGOBE: Tell us, why did you have to do this to these two people?

MR MANDLAZI: Our sources Mankahlane Ntombi informed us that they assisted people in crossing the border to receive MK training.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, where did you get this information that one of them had died?

MR MANDLAZI: Capt Lily.

ADV SANDI: Capt Lily told you that one of them had died?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes.

MR NGOBE: You may proceed.

MR MANDLAZI: Another operation relates to people who were from Mozambique whom we arrested at the border gates. They were brought to our camp. They were then given money to purchase firearms in Mozambique. There was a base in Magadamas and on their return, they were taken there, whereupon they were shot at and they were thrown into a dam which was infested by crocodiles and they were eaten up by those crocodiles. They were put into a container, shot and thereafter they were transported by lorries and thrown into that crocodile dame. Those dams are still in existence up to this day.

MR NGOBE: You mentioned names here on page number 20, Honourable Commission, Col van Zyl, A/O Walters, Sgt Drag, Gen Otto, Sgt Mandlazi and Col Alberts, you said they used to take - arrested illegal immigrants from Komatipoort police station and train them Schoemans base on how to get into South Africa with illegal firearms. Can you take us through all this?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, I did not explain fully. These people were illegal immigrants and they were arrested and kept at the police station. They would then be removed from the police station to the base. From the base, they would be trained in obtaining illegal firearms from Mozambique. On their return from Mozambique with these firearms, these firearms would then be taken and stored in the forest as if they were hidden. Then one illegal immigrant will be placed or made to stand near those firearms. A photo will be taken of that person as if he had been caught with these illegal firearms. The police would then claim that they had found so many firearms and money would be claimed from these firearms. I was also given some of that money.

MR NGOBE: How much were you given?

MR MANDLAZI: I think it was about R48 000 and I bought a house or I deposited a house in Matsulu.

ADV SANDI: Who gave the money to you?

MR MANDLAZI: Capt Lily.

ADV SANDI: Did he say why he was giving you this money? what was it for? Did he explain?

MR MANDLAZI: I was money received because of the firearms that had been found, the illegal firearms that had been found.

ADV SANDI: What was your role in that process you've just described?

MR MANDLAZI: I used to train those illegal immigrants at the base.

ADV SANDI: Was that all you had to do?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

ADV SANDI: Did I understand you to say that you're applying for amnesty in respect of that operation of taking illegal immigrants and training them and they get killed in the end? You're applying for amnesty for that?

MR MANDLAZI: I applied for amnesty because those immigrants would be trained and thereafter killed and their bodies thrown into the crocodiles, because I also personally shot at some of them.

ADV SANDI: What is political about that?

MR MANDLAZI: ...(not translated)

ADV SANDI: Did these immigrants have anything to do with one of the liberation movements?

MR MANDLAZI: No. Capt Lily informed us that Renamo was responsible for fighting against Frelimo.

ADV SANDI: And these so-called illegal immigrants, did they have anything to do with Renamo and Frelimo?

MR MANDLAZI: On arrival, they asked which side they supported and because of their ignorance, they would say whether they supported Renamo or Frelimo. Frelimo was engaged in a battle against apartheid.

ADV SANDI: Yes, but were these people really political enemies of the SADF and the government of the day? Illegal immigrants, people who just come to this country looking for opportunities, looking for jobs, people who just wanted to be able to survive. Why would such people be political enemies?

MR MANDLAZI: At that time, we were fighting against Samora, that is in apartheid times.

ADV SANDI: Why would Frelimo members or supporters come to this country at that time, if at that time, as we all know, the government of the day was supporting Frelimo, that was supporting Renamo in that country against Frelimo? Why would those people come to a hostile country, if I may say so?

MR MANDLAZI: I'm not in a position to explain that.

CHAIRPERSON: Wasn't it just a fraudulent scheme to make money?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Are there any other incidents, Mr Ngobe, you're going to lead on, because I want to take the short adjournment once you've done all the incidents.

MR NGOBE: There's only one.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright. I think just deal with it quickly before we take the short adjournment.

MR NGOBE: Mr Mandlazi, can you tell us, on your verbal suspension from the SADF, can you tell us more? How you were intimidated?

MR MANDLAZI: I met Lawrence Moyi and we would see each other time and again. Some people from the SADF saw me doing this and they assumed that perhaps I was giving Moyi information. What actually happened was that Moyi came to my place ...

MR NGOBE: Can you proceed?

MR MANDLAZI: Thereafter Mr Moyi recruited me. He explained to me that he needed information and I informed him of everything that we had been involved in. At that time he was working in the ANC office. He then took me to his superiors in the ANC.

ADV SANDI: What happened when you got there?

MR MANDLAZI: Before meeting Mr Moyi, I was detained by the ANC when I went to their offices to place a bomb, which had been given to me by Capt Lily. They found the bomb in my possession. Somebody then suspected that I had gone there to place that bomb, because he knew that I worked for the military intelligence. They questioned me on where I was from, but I lied and said I was coming from some place else, looking for Doreen Mashiela. They searched me, found that hand grenade, a Magnate HE. I recall Craig Padayachee who is an MEC for Education in Mpumalanga and Solly Zwane as well as Teddy Culmen. I cannot recall the rest of the people who detained me.

MR NGOBE: Did you always believe that all actions and omissions that you took part, were politically motivated?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct. Yes, they were politically motivated. At that time, I was fighting for the apartheid State.

MR NGOBE: Did you at all material times, act on orders from your superiors?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct. At that time, if you were given an order which you refused, you would also be killed.

MR NGOBE: Did you at all material times, believe that the orders were correct by the time?

MR MANDLAZI: I believed them to be correct at the time.

MR NGOBE: Did you believe that they were legal orders?

MR MANDLAZI: I believed so, because even with regards to the people we tortured, we were never arrested for such incidents.

MR NGOBE: Did you disclose everything that you wanted to disclose to the Commission for the purposes of your application for amnesty? If there's anything left out, this is your opportunity to tell the Commission.

MR MANDLAZI: I am here to seek amnesty before the Committee and I would also like to apologise to the people that I harmed. I realise only now that what I did was wrong. I also request the people whose houses I bombed, to forgive me.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR NGOBE

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We'll take the short adjournment for exactly 15 minutes and we shall reconvene just after 11.45.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

FRANS NYONI MANDLAZI: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Mnisi, questions? Mr Mnisi, do we have a list of your clients? Perhaps you can just put it on the record.

MR MNISI: Okay. Chairperson, I represent all the victims in this matter. I don't know whether I should mention all their names.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it the victims in respect of the incidents that Mr Mandlazi testified about this morning? I assume that except for so-called illegal immigrants. Yes. Very well.

MR MNISI: Okay, that's my brief.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MNISI: Mr Mandlazi, could you tell us firstly about your activities before you joined the then South African Defence Force, period prior 1985, because I understand that you joined the South African Defence Force in 1985, what were you doing prior the year of 1985?

MR MANDLAZI: Before 1985 I was still in school.

MR MNISI: You attended a school until which level?

MR MANDLAZI: Until 1984.

MR MNISI: Is it until Standard 10?

MR MANDLAZI: Standard 8.

MR MNISI: So I assume that you could read and write and understand English, am I correct?

MR MANDLAZI: No, you're not correct.

MR MNISI: During the proceedings I've seen you referring to some documents. Are these documents written in seSwati or in Zulu, which I presume is your language?

MR MANDLAZI: They are written in English, that is why my lawyer was trying to clarify some of the aspects which are in my statement and that is why it was also interpreted to me.

MR MNISI: So when you were reading or presenting your evidence-in-chief, naturally you are referring to the documents which are written in English, am I correct?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, that's correct.

MR MNISI: So I'll be correct to say that you do, you are able to read and understand English?

MR MANDLAZI: I am not well eloquent in English because at work we used to use Afrikaans, even in the Military we were using Afrikaans mostly as a media language, not English.

MR MNISI: Mr Mandlazi, can you answer my question? I'm saying, you were referring to those documents, your application. That application is written in English and during the proceedings I have observed that you were looking at that document and referring to it, so my question is, you can read and understand English, am I correct?

MR MANDLAZI: Correct.

MR MNISI: Thank you. So coming to the affidavit which you filed with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, this affidavit you indicated that in actual fact it was written by the secretary to one Mr Mabone, who is an MEC for Security, for Safety and Security, is that correct?

MR MANDLAZI: I was relating everything to her and I was relating in Swazi and she was writing down in English.

MR MNISI: Can you tell us, did he file these affidavits

himself, after you have presented the incidents and the events in which you participated? Did you present the evidence - I mean did you present the story to him and thereafter he decided to write that in English without showing you this affidavit, is that what you are telling the Commission?

MR MANDLAZI: I was relating to her in Swazi and she was writing in English. I don't know who typed the statement. She was writing, using her handwriting.

MR MNISI: You say that you never saw this affidavit until you actually maybe consulted with your attorney? You never saw this affidavit which was typed, after you have discussed with the secretary to Mr Mabone?

MR MANDLAZI: After it has been typed, I received it the following day. The secretary of the Minister Mabone said I must go to Adv Sogo to sign, that is what I've done.

MR MNISI: When you went to Adv Sogo, you saw this affidavit. Was this affidavit read to you or did you read this affidavit yourself before you signed for it?

MR MANDLAZI: I only read it from the first page, the front page. I looked at it and I just believed that it was right because I could see from the top page my name and I thought everything was right.

MR MNISI: Is it in the affidavit?

MR MANDLAZI: The first page, the front page where it says: "I Frans Mandlazi ..."

MR MNISI: So you looked at page number 8 of your affidavit and you felt that this affidavit is the one that you - actually contains what you presented to the secretary to Mr Mabone, is what you are telling the Commission?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes.

MR MNISI: Mr Mandlazi, you have testified that you were trained in Kimberley Intelligence School, am I correct?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

MR MNISI: And I believe that at the Military Intelligence School they taught you that you can't sign for a document which you don't know the contents thereof, is it not so?

MR MANDLAZI: Military Intelligence does not teach one those things, but they teach one about politics, not about affidavits.

MR MNISI: Aright. They didn't teach you that before maybe you sign a document, you should look at the contents thereof and then sign after being satisfied that maybe you acknowledge the contents, you know what is contained in those contents?

MR MANDLAZI: No, they never taught us that.

MR MNISI: Now this document has been signed and initialled, who initialled on each and every page of this affidavit? Is it yourself?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, that's correct.

MR MNISI: So in actual fact, you didn't sign only after seeing the first page, which you allege you did, page number 8, you signed each and every page of this affidavit. How then do you explain that you only signed after seeing the first page?

MR MANDLAZI: I just looked at the front page and I read where it says that: "I Frans..." and also my I.D. number was there and I just assumed that everything was correct.

MR MNISI: Then you signed each and every page without looking what is contained in each and every page, is what you are telling the Commission?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes.

MR MNISI: Alright, let's come to the question of the incidents. You indicated to the Commission that each and every operation which you were supposed to carry, or which you carried, you were promised the sum of R50 000. Was that applicable in all these incidents on all operations? Was that sort of a merit bonus, as you call it, which was allocated for each and every operation which was supposed to be carried out by yourselves and your colleagues?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, we were told that if we participated and succeeded in the operation, we were going to receive R50 000 to divide among the members of the unit, even though I never saw the R50 000 myself.

MR MNISI: In actual fact the amount of R50 000 you were told that that amount is available should you carry out any operation, like eliminating people as you mentioned, who were the main targets, under page numbers 9 to 10?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

MR MNISI: If I can understand you, this R50 000 was to be given to yourself in person?

MR MANDLAZI: No, it was not going to be given to me, but it was going to be given to the unit, the entire unit, if they succeeded in the operation or in their operations, not just myself, I was one of the members of the unit.

MR MNISI: How then do you explain, on page number 14, you indicated that although the operation was successful, the incident, Chairperson, which relates the assassination of Jacks Modipane, you indicated although the operation was successful, Gen Otto refused to give me the R50 000 as promised, claiming that however, claiming that because Jacks Modipane was not killed I would get half of the amount.

MR MNISI: So how do you reconcile your testimony that it was given to the unit because if the unit, as you claimed, has about 7 members, your unit, am I correct, it has 7 members? Now if the amount has to be shared, therefore the R50 000 has to be divided, I suppose, or shared among the 7 members, but here in your affidavit you indicate that: "He said to me I will get half of the amount"?

MR MANDLAZI: That is so, but I never received even half of that amount because we then quarrelled about the money.

MR MNISI: In actual fact the R50 000 was supposed to be given to you, that's why you put it in your affidavit that you would get half of that amount. We are not talking about whether you did receive that money or not, but we are talking about the R50 000 prize on the head of Mr Modipane. It was the amount which you were supposed to get if you carried out that instruction successfully, am I correct, Mr Mandlazi?

MR MANDLAZI: No, it is not so. That is why I'm saying the lady who wrote my statement, didn't write the exact way I related the incident to her, because I did tell her about the R50 000, but I only told her that we were promised as a unit that the head quarters in Pretoria were going to send R50 000 so that we divide it among the unit members.

MR MNISI: How was the amount shared among yourselves, if you can tell us? They told you that okay you'll get R50 000, how was the money divided amongst yourselves?

MR MANDLAZI: We never received the R50 000.

MR MNISI: How were you told then that amount would be divided amongst yourselves? Were you told how would the amount be divided amongst yourselves?

MR MANDLAZI: I just thought that they were going to calculate the number of the members of the unit and then it was going to be put in our salaries on that particular month.

MR MNISI: The question is, out of R50 000, you were 7 members, was there any discussion or did you think that it would be divided amongst yourselves being 7 and of which, if you divide it roughly, maybe you'll get R7 000 each? Is that what you had in mind at the time?

ADV SANDI: Mr Mandlazi, before you answer. Mr Mnisi isn't that really a mathematical question? If there's seven of you and I say I'm going to give you R50 000 for doing x,y,z? It's simply a matter of calculating how much each one of you is going to get, if you divide that 50 000 by 7. Do you want him to testify to that?

MR MNISI: Okay, I will withdraw that question.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

ADV SANDI: Mike please, Mr Mnisi.

MR MNISI: On page number 15 about the incident of Michael Ndawu, whereby you indicated that your involvement was you threw a hand grenade, you also on page 15 that: "I was not given the R50 000 reward because Michael was not killed."

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

MR MNISI: So even in this instance are you telling the Commission that you were not supposed to get the R50 000 yourself? Was that - that statement was also incorrectly captured?

MR MANDLAZI: As I've already mentioned that I explained to the lady who took my statement and I don't think she wrote the facts as I had related them to her.

MR MNISI: So what you are saying to the Commission is that you never said that the R50 000 would be received by yourself? You never mentioned that to the person who was taking your statement?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, I never said so, I explained to her that there was money which was promised to us for all the incidents, that is why she had written the R50 000 and if I had received the R50 000, I would have told the Committee that I received R50 000, but I didn't.

MR MNISI: So how much did you receive for your participation in all these operations, except the amount that you mentioned, the R40 000?

MR MANDLAZI: I only received money for the operation of the immigrants in Komatipoort, that's the money I used to deposit my house.

MR MNISI: So you never received any funds?

MR MANDLAZI: No, other than that one, I never received any other money. He also explained to me that it was for the operation of Komatipoort of the immigrants.

ADV SANDI: May I just come in here Mr Mnisi? The person who prepared this affidavit for you on which you are being questioned by Mr Mnisi, do you know that person's level of proficiency in the English language?

MR MANDLAZI: I think she is quite eloquent because she is the secretary of the Minister or of the MEC. I don't think they can hire someone in that position who doesn't have good enough English.

ADV SANDI: Yes, but do you know if she's a native speaker of the English language?

MR MANDLAZI: She's a Coloured woman, and also she does speak Zulu, but she is a Coloured woman.

ADV SANDI: Were you not speaking to her in Swati?

MR MANDLAZI: I was speaking in Swati.

ADV SANDI: Do you know how much Swati she can understand?

MR MANDLAZI: I think Zulu and Swazi are almost the same, she could understand me.

ADV SANDI: Isn't Swati, I must confess that I'm no linguist, but isn't Swati closer to Xhosa - sorry, I beg your pardon. Isn't Zulu closer to Xhosa than Swati?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, it is so.

ADV SANDI: Would you say that in that interview you were able to communicate and understand each other without any difficulty?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, I'll say so.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thank you Mr Mnisi.

CHAIRPERSON: So the secretary's Seswati was better than her English, because she seemed to have made all the mistakes in English.

MR MANDLAZI: I think her English is better than her Seswati.

CHAIRPERSON: But the mistakes that she made were all in English.

MR MANDLAZI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: But she understood you perfectly in Seswati.

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, it is not the spelling which is wrong, I think it is the facts. Some facts are correct and some of them aren't.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I mean she got this story, she understood you well in Seswati, you were communicating quite easily in Seswati, but she reproduced that conversation in English, making a number of errors, not so?

MR MANDLAZI: I didn't realise this problem here for the first time. When Mr Dumisa brought the affidavit from Cape Town to me, or when I went to Cape Town I explained to him that there were facts which aren't correct in the affidavit.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Mnisi.

MR MNISI: Are you also telling the Commission that Adv Sogo did not actually read this affidavit to you when you went to sign in his office the following day?

MR MANDLAZI: No, he didn't. What he said he asked me if this was my affidavit and I said yes, it was my affidavit and he said to me, he wanted to know if it was correct and I said yes and then he signed, I also signed.

MR MNISI: Now Mr Mandlazi, you told the Commission that you were given a list of people to be eliminated, or to be killed, which list you actually mentioned. It's contained 9 to 10. Now these were the only people which you were supposed to kill in those operations, am I correct?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, that's correct.

MR MNISI: And those are the people - these are the people who are identified as enemies, except for Joey Nkoena and Steve Mbuyisa who turned to be your sources later on.

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

MR MNISI: These are the people which you got instructions that these are the people who must be eliminated.

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

MR MNISI: Why I'm asking this question is because when you went to attack the house of Michael Ndawu, I mean you claimed that you got it from your source Mtunya. You attacked the house of Michael Ndawu and I would say that you knew very well that in that house there would be people, because Michael Ndawu is a person who is actually married, is it not so? You knew very well that he is actually staying with his family, not so?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

MR MNISI: So would I be correct to put it to you that in actual fact, you were not actually going to kill Mr Ndawu, you wanted to kill his entire family and those people who are not involved in any political organisation?

MR MANDLAZI: I would agree, but the instruction came from my seniors and I wasn't in a position to question those instructions. I couldn't ask my seniors or tell them that we were going to kill innocent people. I just took the instruction as it was.

MR MNISI: Mr Mandlazi, I'm talking to you, not your bosses, in your mind did it occur to you that anyway you were given instructions to kill this Michael Ndawu who is listed there, but now why are we killing even maybe the children and the persons that are not in the least, if your act really was politically motivated, did it occur in your mind, in your mind as a person, or you were just doing it actually for actually getting money or the promises that you were given, because if you are a human being, you are given an instruction, this is what we should do, we should kill Michael Ndawu. That is an instruction. It is a clear instruction, Michael Ndawu should be eliminated and now you went there in your operation and you knew that there were people in the house and even closed the doors and you actually continued your operation.

MR MANDLAZI: I would explain it this way. We operated according to the instruction and we couldn't question the instruction even if they were killed, but if the instruction said you must just go and attack.

JUDGE MOTATA: Didn't you say in your evidence-in-chief for instance that before then you had Albertina Mtunya who was your source? Do you recall that?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, I do.

JUDGE MOTATA: And information you personally got from Albertina Mtunya, was that she was assisting people to go to exile.

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: And thereafter he was also handling monies which belonged to the ANC.

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: And this information you carried forward to Capt Lily.

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: Over and above what I've just enumerated what you said in your evidence-in-chief, what else did Albertina Mtunya tell you about Michael Ndawu?

MR MANDLAZI: Albertina told us that Michael Ndawu was in his house. We went back to the police station where Capt Lily and others were and I informed them that the source had just explained to us that Michael Ndawu was present in his house and we then left to go to Michael Ndawu's house.

JUDGE MOTATA: Your response to Mr Mnisi was that you knew that he was married. Did Albertina tell you that?

MR MANDLAZI: I knew that he was married and he had children. I knew that he had family, but the intention was actually to eliminate him.

JUDGE MOTATA: How would you, by bombing the house, eliminate him only because you knew he had a wife?

MR MANDLAZI: The instruction was to kill everyone who was in the house and if he was in the house, he would have been killed.

JUDGE MOTATA: What I want to know from you is that you had a list and Michael was amongst, Michael Ndawu was amongst the people who, you were initially told, before you even handled or using Albertina Mtunya as your source, Michael was already there, that he had to be killed. That is the list when you arrived from Kimberley.

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, but in that list it was not mentioned about his job, or his activities and also his address, I didn't even know that.

JUDGE MOTATA: When they said those people mentioned in the list had to be killed, were you told where all these people live?

MR MANDLAZI: No, we didn't know, but Capt Lily knew as to where they were residing, but we didn't know that.

JUDGE MOTATA: Did he accompany you, this Capt Lily, when you executed the mission?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, he was present.

JUDGE MOTATA: What I want to know from you, why was it then necessary that you had to have somebody like Albertina to even give you information that he was assisting people to go to exile, because all that information was known apparently. Why was it now necessary?

MR MANDLAZI: We required a lot of information about Michael Ndawu, that is why we saw a need to find a source, because all things were reported in Pretoria. Pretoria had information that in such an area there is someone who is doing this and that, that is why even the order, sometimes came from Pretoria direct to Capt Lily and down the line to us, the operatives.

JUDGE MOTATA: Now when you were told on your arrival that these are the 23 people you've got to eliminate, what other orders were you given, other than the elimination of the 23 people?

MR MANDLAZI: We were also told that we should recruit among the 23 people who were on the list, we should try and recruit them. We should try and recruit them and tell them that if they were to give us information, we were going to give them so much money and people who were hungry they will give us the information and we will give them the money.

JUDGE MOTATA: Was that all?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, that's all.

JUDGE MOTATA: Thank you. You may proceed Mr Mnisi, I'm sorry for having taken so long.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, just a minute, just - I'm just trying to understand your orders. You say the orders, or the order was to kill everybody in the house. Now for what purpose would the other people accept Mr Michael Ndawu, ...(indistinct) to be killed?

MR MANDLAZI: No, I was trying to explain the instruction or the order didn't say go and kill everyone, it said we must go and kill him but since he was in the house and they knew that he was in the house and we were going to use bombs to kill him, therefore it was clear to all of us that others would have died as well. I also knew that he might not die alone.

CHAIRPERSON: So you never had an order to kill anybody else, except Michael Ndawu in that house?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, it is so, we were not given an order to kill his children or his wife, we were given an order to kill him.

CHAIRPERSON: So the attack upon the children and the wife is unauthorised, will I be correct?

MR MANDLAZI: When we left the office, everyone knew that we were going to bomb his house. They didn't say we must first remove the children or the wife, but we left the office knowing that we were going to bomb his house.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but the point is and I'm asking you to answer that question, the attack upon anybody else in the house except Mr Michael Ndawu was unauthorised.

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, that's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Mnisi.

ADV SANDI: If I can just ask one question on this. Ja, but surely if you people were a group of intelligent army officers, you must have known who he stayed with in that house, not so?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

ADV SANDI: What information did you have in that regard? Who did you know him to be sharing the house with?

MR MANDLAZI: The source informed us that he was present and he was in his house, but the source didn't tell us as to who else was in the house with him.

ADV SANDI: No I'm asking, did you know who he was staying with in that house before this source comes to you to say he is there today, you can go and attack him? Did you know before who he stayed with?

MR MANDLAZI: No, I didn't.

ADV SANDI: Were you interested to know?

MR MANDLAZI: No, it wasn't important as to who else was staying with him.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thank you Mr Mnisi.

MR MNISI: Mr Mandlazi, did they actually train you who is an enemy in your intelligence school in Kimberley or during, when you were part of that hit squad operation?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, we were told that ANC, Umkhonto weSizwe, UDF, APLA, these were the people who were in arms with us, they were our enemies.

MR MNISI: Alright. So you understood correctly, ... (indistinct), it's the person like member of the ANC or furthering the aims of the ANC, like Michael Ndawu. Am I correct?

MR MANDLAZI: Correct.

MR MNISI: And you also indicated to this Commission that you were selected amongst the best probably because you were plus or minus 26 in that school who passed the examinations for your military intelligence course.

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

MR MNISI: So which means you are not just an average person, or a person who doesn't understand intelligence as such. You understand correctly, you are not like an ordinary soldier, so to put it.

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

MR MNISI: Alright. Now my question is, how then given your background, how then do you accept it that it's correct to eliminate everybody, even if it's not a member o - if we assume that okay Mr Michael Ndawu was, as you allege, he was involved in giving people monies from the ANC but how then do you justify in your conscience or even in your mind about the children because they are not connected in any way and as an intelligent man from intelligence school, military intelligence for that matter, you would know the children are not involved in any way. How do you then accept it in your conscience to say that this operation is politically motivated, let me carry it, it's in accordance with the instruction?

MR MANDLAZI: I didn't know whether there were kids in that house. The source didn't explain as to whether there were kids and his wife, he just told - she just told us that he was in the house.

MR MNISI: So you didn't care, if you eliminate Michael, that's enough. Whoever is injured in the process, it doesn't matter to you?

MR MANDLAZI: When there's war innocent people get injured as well.

MR MNISI: The fact of the matter is, you are from the military intelligence school and you are not just an average soldier, you were taught very well who's your enemy and you've just described the enemy, a person who is furthering the aims of the ANC or APLA or UDF, whatever the case it is, but now given that understanding by yourself, and then you allow yourself to continue knowingly that if I carry this operation, there might be casualties. I might accept there might be casualties and shoot-outs, but in this operation you were supposed to kill Mr Ndawu, that is an instruction. You were supposed to kill Mr Ndawu, it was not Mr Ndawu trying to fire against yourselves, so you were protecting yourselves. So if you say in the military situation, it's not in a military situation you were in, am I correct? It's not a military operation whereby you are trying to protect yourself and then civilians are caught in the cross-fire, this is what you were saying. The fact of the matter is, you knew correctly that there are children who are not associated with any political organisation and there are other people who are not associated with any political organisation, but you continued and then you carried out that mission.

MR MANDLAZI: I do agree with you, that's true.

MR MNISI: Okay. Let's come to the bombing of the house of Mr Jacks Modipane. In your evidence-in-chief you indicated to the Commission that you took Steve Mbuyisa, so that Steve Mbuyisa should be able to talk to Jacks Modipane and thereafter you move out of the house and then you carry the mission, am I correct? That's what you said in your evidence-in-chief, you said you took Steve Mbuyisa, so that Steve Mbuyisa, because he's a friend to Jacks Modipane, Mr Steve Mbuyisa would be able to go to the house of Mr Modipane and talked to Mr Modipane, then he'll move and he'll give information and therefore you carry your mission.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he not initially say that Steve Mbuyisa was going to point out the house and then subsequently when I asked him about that he then added the bit about Mr Mbuyisa being able to call Mr Modipane out of the house and things like that. I might be speaking under correction, but that seems to be my recollection, that he started off on that basis.

MR MNISI: ; Yes, ...(indistinct - mike not on) they went to the house and Mr Mbuyisa was to point the house, but when the Commission asked questions, then he indicated that Steve Mbuyisa was to go inside the house and talk to Mr Modipane and thereafter Mr Steve Mbuyisa will move out and then they will carry their operation, is that the position?

MR MANDLAZI: No, I didn't say so. This is the second time, when it was not bombed, we took him, he was going to look as to Mr Modipane was present and he will come back and tell us if he was present, second occasion, not the first one.

MR MNISI: So the bombing of the house of Mr Modipane, in actual fact, you didn't care whether Mr Modipane stays with people in there, because my understanding was that Steve Mbuyisa would advise you whether Mr Modipane is there and he's maybe alone or what is the status in the house, so you also didn't care whether, if you bombed that house, whether Mr Modipane is staying with a friend or a brother or a third party, who's not associated with the ANC activities.

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

MR MNISI: So would I be correct therefore to put it to you that the fact that you didn't identify the enemies which you were instructed to eliminate and the fact that you were promised some money, in actual fact you can be classified as a mercenary, a person who just kills for the sake of killing and maybe he's killing to be paid. It was not something which is inside you, it was not something about a conviction that you had, but it is something which I mean you didn't have any conviction to kill those people, because before you act, I assume, if you're working for the State and you feel that you State was at - I mean the State would be actually overthrown by another political organisation, that is a conviction. You want to protect the State, you want to protect the status quo, but in your admissions that you didn't care whom you eliminate in the process, killing that, actually I'll be correct if I classify you as a mercenary, not that you were acting under instructions or there was an order?

MR MANDLAZI: I did mention the word hit squad and hit squad means killing everyone.

ADV SANDI: Mr Mnisi, maybe you should try and keep it short and simple here, not put too many things to him at one going. If a proposition is made to you that you were just a mercenary who was getting paid for killing people, would you agree with that?

MR MANDLAZI: No, I was not employed to kill people but we were selected and a hit squad was formed in order to eliminate people who were trying to overthrow the Government.

ADV SANDI: ; In your functions as a member of the SADF, what else did you do besides going around attacking people? Did you do anything else?

MR MANDLAZI: We were only responsible for the attacks, not that the entire Defence Force was responsible for that. There were other people who were doing other activities, but our group or our unit was a hit squad unit and there were people who were also responsible for medical attention and also for road blocks and other things.

ADV SANDI: I understood you to say that if one refuses to carry out orders as a soldier, he can be killed by his superiors. Did I understand you correctly?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, I did say so and it is true. At that time we were just told to do something and we do exactly as we were told according to the instruction, otherwise you were going to be killed.

ADV SANDI: Is it then the position that you carried out all these attacks and operations because you were scared of your superiors, they would have killed you for refusing to carry out orders? You had to carry them out to save your own life?

MR MANDLAZI: No, besides being scared, but it was our job as well and we were getting paid every month.

ADV SANDI: Thank you Mr Mnisi.

CHAIRPERSON: But the question is, Mr Mandlazi, did you agree personally did you agree with any of these orders that you're referring to?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You agreed with them, is that what you're saying?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, I agreed with them because I didn't see them as wrong at the time.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you politically motivated in anything that you did, that you told us about here?

MR MANDLAZI: I only realised later that what we were doing was actually wrong, but at the time I didn't see it as being wrong, that is why I'm here to apply for amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that might be so, we might speak about that a bit later on, but what I'm asking you now is whether you personally were politically motivated in doing any of these things that you were ordered to do?

MR MANDLAZI: No.

JUDGE MOTATA: That is the job you did as a member of the South African Defence Force, that you were now put in this hit squad and you did nothing else other than to eliminate the 23 which have been, you were told about and nothing else?

MR MANDLAZI: After the hit squad was formed I did just this. Before the hit squad was formed I was in uniform and I was doing something different and that's when I left the uniform.

JUDGE MOTATA: I seem to recall, please correct me if I'm mistaken, in your evidence-in-chief you said during the day you wore uniforms and in the evenings you performed these duties of elimination. Did I hear you correctly?

MR MANDLAZI: No, I didn't say that. We moved from uniform to private clothes. When we were hit squad members we never wore uniforms at all.

JUDGE MOTATA: What did you do before you joined this hit squad, before you were selected into this hit squad? Because I'll tell you what I understood you to say in your evidence before you respond, you said you joined in 1985.

MR MANDLAZI: Yes.

JUDGE MOTATA: You were trained as a soldier, is that not correct?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: Thereafter you were taken to Kimberley to be trained in the intelligence of the military.

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: You returned in 1986.

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: And you were taken to the East Rand Transvaal Command in Nelspruit.

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: Where you were shown all the enemies and these enemies were contained in a list in the intelligence room and that is the 23 you referred to.

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: Now I hear you to say you performed other duties prior to belonging to the hit squad. When did you perform such duties?

MR MANDLAZI: I'm referring to my training to Kimberley. I was in uniform and after training I went to Nelspruit. When I arrived in Nelspruit, that's when I stopped wearing uniform. This is after the list had been shown to us and after we had been selected as hit squad members and that's after we were told that we were not going to continue with the jobs which we had been trained for. After the training as a soldier we were told that we can still continue specialising in other fields as soldiers and we were just selected and sent to Nelspruit as hit squad members.

JUDGE MOTATA: So in short you never did any other duties but you specialised in the hit squad, you never did any other duties when you came back from Kimberley?

MR MANDLAZI: We used to accompany uniformed soldiers when they had road blocks. Sometimes we would participate and also in the borders we will go and work with them, so that we make sure that there were no guns entering the country.

JUDGE MOTATA: Thank you. You may proceed Mr Mnisi.

MR MNISI: Thank you very much. ...(indistinct)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike.

MR MNISI: Thank you. I want to take the witness back to - Mr Mandlazi back to the issue of the R50 000 if I may be allowed. I just realised something here. Mr Mandlazi is it correct that you filed with your attorney, Mr Ngobe, a supplementary affidavit which was presented before this Commission this morning? I want us to refer to paragraph number 5 of that affidavit. You indicated that: "As far as the reward that has been mentioned in my application, I want to state that I was promised a merit bonus of R50 000 if the mission to kill Jacks Modipane was accomplished." Earlier on I asked you a question about whether the amount of R50 000 was actually promised to you in person and you indicated that it was promised to the group, then my question is: What do you mean when you say: "I was promised a merit bonus of R50 000"?

MR MANDLAZI: I did explain that it was promised if the operation were to be successful. Capt Lily told me that there was an amount of about R50 000 if Mr Modipane were to be eliminated. I'm not running away from the fact that R50 000 was mentioned, this is the information I received. I do agree that I was told about the R50 000.

MR MNISI: Ja but earlier on, if I can recall very well, you indicated that the R50 000 which was mentioned, was for a group. It was not for you personally and I'm trying to ask you in terms of - also with regard to Mr Michael Ndawu, you also denied that it was for a group, but here in this affidavit, I understand in "I was" not "we were". "I was promised a merit bonus". Whether it is a merit bonus, whether it's a reward, but: "I was", as an individual, "I was promised a merit bonus of R50 000."

MR MANDLAZI: If the Committee can forgive me, the reason I'm referring to "I" it's because I'm alone here and I'm applying for amnesty alone. The unit members aren't here and I'm just ...

JUDGE MOTATA: No, no, this was to correct what you said and if you were, you'd have regard to pages 13, 14, 15, you speak of R50 000 reward and again you say, when you have regard to the top of page 15, just the last sentence

"I was not given the R50 000 reward because Michael was not killed"

and you did not get the reward again because Jacks Modipane was not killed and what Mr Mnisi is asking you is that in your evidence you said this R50 000 was for the group and you went into some mathematical calculations, which my colleague was averse to and you said that did not belong to you as an individual and this supplementary affidavit was to cure some of the defects which did not come clearly in your affidavit, whilst you were conversing with the lady in Seswati and she was writing in English, so you are putting the position clear here, but what he's asking you, you refer to the merit bonus that it was promised to you as an individual, personally, not as a group. That's what Mr Mnisi wants to know from you.

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, I do agree.

JUDGE MOTATA: What do you agree to, because he wants to know from you that you are no longer speaking of the group in the supplementary affidavit, or I didn't hear you?

MR MNISI: Ja, that's correct Mr Commission, that's correct because initially Mr Mandlazi indicated that the amount would be paid for the group and now when asked, he said they didn't get that amount and now in this affidavit he is saying

"I was promised a merit bonus",

so what I want to know is which one is correct, was the money allocated as a group or now the money was allocated to you as an individual because both, if we assume that the person made a mistake and if we assume that the secretary made a mistake in capturing what you said, because you were talking in a different language, you're talking in Zulu and he wrote your affidavit in English, your initial affidavit and you claim that you didn't actually read the affidavit, so now you want to attend and your attorney finds, or we depose to an affidavit, that affidavit confirms the initial affidavit, so we want to know which one, was the amount allocated to you as an individual, or was the amount allocated to you as a group. Can you clarify us there?

MR MANDLAZI: There's a problem there because I'm being asked two questions. I don't know whether for Jacks Modipane or Michael Ndawu.

MR MNISI: I think what I'm trying to say is that it relates to the R50 000. Was the R50 000 promised to you as an individual or as a unit of the hit squad?

MR MANDLAZI: It was promised to me.

ADV SANDI: Are you going to ask him a question on something else, because I have a question on this particular aspect of his evidence.

MR MNISI: ...(indistinct - mike not on)

ADV SANDI: Can I proceed and ask him? Was anyone present during the time this promise was being conveyed to you?

MR MANDLAZI: I wasn't alone in the office, we were together with my colleagues.

ADV SANDI: Are you referring to the same colleagues who were involved in the activities of the hit squad?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes.

ADV SANDI: Yes, but if you were not alone in that particular room or wherever the promise may have been made to you. That makes it even more compelling for you to say: "We were promised R50 000" and not to say: "I was promised."

MR MANDLAZI: My apology there.

JUDGE MOTATA: It's not as simple as that. You have just concede that this promise of R50 000 was made to you, you personally, that you were going - that's my understanding, that you were going to get R50 000 and when they further probe, you say you were with your colleagues in that office. Was each and every member of the 7 hit squad promised R50 000 each as a merit bonus?

MR MANDLAZI: I only know of one R50 000, even though I don't know how many R50 000 were going to be issued, but it was just mentioned R50 000.

JUDGE MOTATA: Understand me correctly. I just want an explanation, I want to understand what you are saying. You were asked about paragraph 5 of your supplementary affidavit. Do you follow the questioning thus far?

MR MANDLAZI: I did mention that it was promised to me R50 000.

JUDGE MOTATA: Now I understood you to say this happened in the office whilst your colleagues were with you, do I understand you correctly?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: And were you the only person when they said: "Look, Rifleman Mandlazi, you successfully killed Jacks Modipane, you will get R50 000" and not to the others?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: You indicated that you were going to deal with something else, that you're done with the R50 000 issue.

MR MNISI: Ja, I'm done.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Well then you can deal with whatever remains when we reconvene. We'll take the luncheon adjournment now and we will reconvene at 2 o'clock. We are working under some time constraints here. We've got another matter on the roll and a lot of people who are interested in this one, so we're hoping that we can perform one of the miracles that are expected of us. We'll reconvene at 2 o'clock.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

FRANS NYONI MANDLAZI: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Mnisi.

MR MNISI: Thank you Commissioners.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MNISI: (Cont)

On page number 5 of your form from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, you indicated that, under C on top there ...(indistinct)

"Did you benefit in any way financial or otherwise?"

You indicated yes from your application, so Mr Mandlazi, to move away from this issues, will I be correct to assume that in actual fact the primary objective for you was not politically motivated but it was financial, because you were getting money if you executed an instruction which you were given, would I be correct to assume that?

MR MANDLAZI: That is not correct.

MR MNISI: Alright. That aspect is on persons who are not mentioned in the list, but were eventually tortured by yourself. If I may, Life Ngwenya was not mentioned, he's not on your list. Is that correct? And there are other people who were tortured like, he's not alone there.

JUDGE MOTATA: Life Ngwenya is on page 2, right at the bottom, 3. Tortured - Life Ngwenya, of the application, the actual application, he does mention Life Ngwenya.

MR MNISI: The question is ...(indistinct - mike not on)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

JUDGE MOTATA: Your speaker is not on Sir.

MR MNISI: You were given a list of the enemies who were, I mean the enemies which were identified by your superiors, that they would overthrow the then Government and the list, it's a list of 23 persons and now in your affidavit you include Life I think and Alfred, who is not actually included like Wallace Mkabela and Clive Mokoena and Life Ngwenya, is not on that list, so we want to know whether, at what stage did you get information that those people were enemies?

MR MANDLAZI: I received information later. They were not on that original list, that is Life, Gift, Khosa, but they were discovered later.

JUDGE MOTATA: Nor did you include Portia in your list.

MR MANDLAZI: Because they were discovered later.

JUDGE MOTATA: Who found them later?

MR MANDLAZI: It was the source, Mankahlane Ntombi Hlongo.

MR MNISI: ...(indistinct - mike not on)

JUDGE MOTATA: Your mike once more.

MR MNISI: Do I understand you that you have withdrawn your application in respect of Portia Shabangu, you didn't participate in any way?

MR MANDLAZI: That is correct.

MR MNISI: And also Mr Simon Ndawu.

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

MR MNISI: Okay, coming to the sources now, sources which you in your evidence-in-chief you indicated that you were dealing with the sources like Steve Mbuyisa, Joey Nkoena and also the lady of Matsulu, I don't remember the name, Albertina Mtunya and Mankahlane Ntombi that you mentioned, were these sources paid any amount or were they compelled for their safety to exchange information?

MR MANDLAZI: They were paid.

MR MNISI: Who was paying them, is it yourself?

MR MANDLAZI: It was Capt Lily.

ADV SANDI: How were they getting paid?

INTERPRETER: Please repeat the question.

ADV SANDI: How and where were they getting paid?

MR MANDLAZI: Capt Lily would give me the money in envelopes which I would pass on to them.

ADV SANDI: Would the envelope indicate as to how much was contained inside?

MR MANDLAZI: No.

ADV SANDI: Where would you go and pay them once given the envelopes by Capt Lily?

MR MANDLAZI: I would go to their residences.

ADV SANDI: When would you go there?

MR MANDLAZI: For instance if a source had brought information on a Monday they will be paid on a Wednesday or Thursday.

ADV SANDI: Would you go there in the morning? What time during the day, midnight, what time?

MR MANDLAZI: In most instances we would go there in the evening when it's already dark.

ADV SANDI: How would you make them know that you are coming?

MR MANDLAZI: We had the telephone numbers kept in our offices, therefore we would phone them to inform them of the fact that we were coming.

ADV SANDI: Would you identify yourself, who you are, on the telephone?

MR MANDLAZI: I would inform them that I work with Capt Lily and because he was white, he could not go into the township, that is why he sent me.

ADV SANDI: Were there instances when these sources would also call you telephonically?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

ADV SANDI: Would they identify themselves who they are?

MR MANDLAZI: Sources were identifiable by their codes.

ADV SANDI: That's not answering the question. How did they identify themselves? If a source telephones you, what would this person say? Would he say: "I'm so and so" or would this person use a code name? Just answer that one.

MR MANDLAZI: We would give them pseudonyms. One was John Swipe, so we would know who that refers to.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry. Would you ever know how much money was in the envelope?

MR MANDLAZI: No, I cannot tell, but I'm assuming it could have been around R1 000.

CHAIRPERSON: Was the envelope sealed?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, they used those brown envelopes.

CHAIRPERSON: And then you would take it to the house of the source and you'd simply just hand over the sealed envelope to the source?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, I would hand over the envelope and they were supposed to sign a form to indicate that they had received the money.

CHAIRPERSON: What would they sign?

MR MANDLAZI: They would just append their signature to indicate that they received the money. It was on a piece of paper.

CHAIRPERSON: What paper is it?

MR MANDLAZI: It was a form.

CHAIRPERSON: And what information was on the form?

MR MANDLAZI: It was the person's name and surname as well as the person's address.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it all that was on the form, the only information that was on the form?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: There was no amounts on the form?

MR MANDLAZI: No, it was just the name and surname and they would be required to sign.

CHAIRPERSON: So you never got a receipt signed by the source for the amount of money that was allegedly paid to the source?

MR MANDLAZI: No, I was never given a receipt.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Mnisi.

ADV SANDI: Just one question on this aspect. How did you go to these people's houses? How did you get there when you had to go and pay them?

MR MANDLAZI: I would use the vehicle with the registration KWJ 981T which I would park a distance away and I would proceed on foot to the house.

ADV SANDI: But were you not - okay I suppose - was that the vehicle you said was allocated to you as a member of the SADF?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

ADV SANDI: But were you not concerned that someone could arrive there unexpectedly to visit your source whilst you were busy handing over the money in an envelope? Wasn't that a matter of concern to you as a possibility?

MR MANDLAZI: Well, we were taught for instance if I find him or her in the company of other people, I will pretend to ask for directions or something like that.

ADV SANDI: Did it ever happen that you would visit a source for the purpose of handing over payment and find this source with some stranger, or a visitor?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, it used to occur.

ADV SANDI: Thanks, Mr Mnisi, you may proceed.

MR MNISI: Thank you Commissioners. Now with regard to the sources, they didn't inquire about how much was in the envelope? They didn't inquire from you, or they just accepted the envelope?

MR MANDLAZI: They did not inquire. I would just hand over the envelope.

MR MNISI: Okay. Now in your evidence you indicated that you were dealing with the sources, were you also recruiting them to join the hit squad, or to be sources of the hit squad? Were you recruiting them yourself, personally, or you were not?

MR MANDLAZI: I recruited them to supply information. After recruiting a source, I would inform Capt Lily as my superior, I would give him the personal details of the person and his or her address.

MR MNISI: Right. You never discussed with the source any amount? Look let's assume you want to recruit me as a source for your hit squad, obviously I would love to know how much will I get, so you'd never discuss any amount with the source, that he'd be paid so much in exchange of the information of the ANC activities, or for UDF, or COSATU?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, when I recruit a person, I would give such information and would estimate the amount to be more or less a R1 000.

MR MNISI: One information is R1 000, that's what you are telling us? It's R1 000 for an information which a source would give to you?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, I would estimate more or less R1 000.

MR MNISI: Alright.

ADV SANDI: I'm sure Mr Mnisi, you are not suggesting that you are recruitable, you're just making an example here. Sorry can I just - just on this aspect again. Are you able to recall any code names that you could link to any persons?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes.

ADV SANDI: Don't give all the code names, just make two or three examples, so and so's code name was this, so and so's code name was this.

MR MANDLAZI: Joey Nkoena was Nemazana, Steve Mbuyisa his code name was Paulus Magam, Albertina Mtunya was Shirley.

ADV SANDI: Proceed Mr Mnisi. I was just asking.

MR MNISI: I've got just a few questions about the, not necessarily the incident, about the matter which you mentioned in passing, which you are not applying amnesty for. You said you were in a four-wheeled ambush of some kind. I just want to know the persons who were with you when you went to wait for Portia Shabangu. Portia Shabangu in Komatipoort, that you'll be crossing from Komatipoort to Mozambique, was it the unit of the seven people or can you mention the names of those people whom you were with?

MR MANDLAZI: I recall Jerry Dlamini, Lucky Sambo, Corp Potgieter and Corp Steyn, Happy Hlope, Patrick Mathebula, those are the names I recall.

MR MNISI: Okay. Another issue - on the issue of Mr Parks Mankahlane, you also mentioned that there was in your company a Mr Walters, am I correct, during the night when you were supposed to execute or kill Mr Parks Mankahlane?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

MR MNISI: So are you saying that Mr Walters was aware of this mission and he was to participate in that mission, is this what you are telling the Commission?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

MR MNISI: And coming to the matter of Michael Ndawu, are you sure, I just want to make sure, are you sure that Capt Shongwe and Sgt Shongwe were part of the operation of the bombing?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, I'm certain.

MR MNISI: And do you still stand by your testimony that they are the people who locked - tied the doors so that the people - with wires, so that the people inside should not escape?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

MR MNISI: No further questions from me.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MNISI

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mnisi. Mr Jordaan, any questions?

MR JORDAAN: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JORDAAN: Mr Mandlazi, this statement that you submitted this morning, that is the three page statement that is dated the 26th of July 2000, that which is said in that statement is the truth, is that correct, everything that appears in there?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

MR JORDAAN: Where there are differences between that statement and the statement that is contained in the application, that is the short statement that you submitted, that statement is the truth, is that correct?

MR MANDLAZI: The statement that was submitted this morning is correct.

MR JORDAAN: And where it differs from the other statement, is the one that you submitted this morning the correct one?

MR MANDLAZI: The statement that is in front of me, to which I attested, is the truth.

MR JORDAAN: I understand the answer, but the question goes further. I say to you that where there are differences between the short statement and the long statement that accompanied your application, that the short statement is correct and the longer statement is wrong, is that correct?

MR MANDLAZI: I'm not sure which one you are referring to.

MR JORDAAN: Mr Mandlazi, you made two statements. The first statement is the short statement that you submitted this morning that I referred you to, the other statement to which I referred you is page 8 in your application, up until page 24.

MR MANDLAZI: The part of - in fact it is one statement, that is the statement that is three pages long and the other one.

MR JORDAAN: That is exactly what I would like to know. Where there are differences between the long and short statement, is it that the short statement is the correct one?

MR MANDLAZI: They are both correct.

MR JORDAAN: I am asking you that where there are differences, which one is the correct one? I will name an example. In the long statement where you said that it is wrong in terms of the R50 000 issue, you later changed it and in the short statement you said that the R50 000 was given to you, so there's a difference and there you said that the short statement is the correct one. Where there are further differences, which one is the correct one?

MR MANDLAZI: The statements are both correct. The statement dated the 26th is correct and the other one is also correct.

ADV SANDI: Mr Mandlazi, the question is very simple. Counsel is saying to you, where there are differences between the true statements, which one should be accepted as the final word on the issue? Is it the first one or the second one? He's not talking about the differences at this stage, but he just wants to know from you which one should be accepted in the event of conflicts and contradictions between the two.

MR MANDLAZI: I regard both the statements as the truth. That is what I know.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Jordaan, maybe you must be specific if you want to carry on with this point.

MR JORDAAN: Thank you Mr Chairperson. I will specifically refer you to an example to demonstrate this to you. In the long statement you say that you were part of a group of people who killed Mr Ndawu in the police cells in Nelspruit. In the short statement you said it is not true. Now I would like to ask you which one is the truth, which one is correct?

MR MANDLAZI: I explained that I was informed by Capt Lily that somebody had been murdered in the cells.

MR JORDAAN: Mr Mandlazi will you please answer the question?

MR MANDLAZI: I was informed by Capt Lily that Sgt Shongwe and others had received some money for murdering Mr Ndawu. That information I received from Capt Lily.

MR JORDAAN: Mr Mandlazi, that is not the question that I put to you. The question that I'm asking you is that in the long statement you say that you were present and at the scene where a person was killed. In the short statement you deny that. Which one is the correct one?

MR MANDLAZI: I explained that the person who wrote the statement made a mistake. This statement I saw previously when I was with Mr Nzemena in Cape Town, that it contained some inaccuracies.

JUDGE MOTATA: Do you follow what you are being asked? I would say to you, if you don't understand the question, please ask the interpreters to repeat the question and we would take shorter time doing that because even up to now you haven't answered the question. You may repeat your question, Mr Jordaan.

ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr Jordaan, maybe I misunderstood the applicant. I thought this was an issue the applicant had attempted to put the record straight right from the word go, that was before his evidence-in-chief. Well I think whether we accept his explanation so far as that issue is concerned, is another question, but I thought he tried to put the record straight to say that was wrong and he gave evidence as to what the true position is in so far as that incident is concerned.

MR JORDAAN: Commissioner I do agree with that aspect but the reason why I am specifically referring to it is that one of the examples that I'm quoting is, I'd like to know from him if there's a difference between the statements that he submitted and the one that he made later. Which one is the truth, that's what I'd like to know and that is one of the examples that I presented to him and I am asking which one should we accept.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that would appear that it would be the later statement and the explanation that he gave this morning is that the original statement is the incorrect one.

MR JORDAAN: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Mr Mandlazi, a further aspect that I'd like to clarify, you mentioned Mr Shongwe and you also mentioned three ranks, the first is a Sgt Shongwe, the other one is a Warrant Officer or Insp Shongwe, then you also mention a Capt Shongwe, are they three different people or is it the same person?

MR MANDLAZI: The Shongwe present today was at that time a Warrant Officer. The Sgt Shongwe worked in the Security Branch, he was a different person. I am not sure whether they are brothers. The person who is present today was a Warrant Officer at the time, but he is now a Captain.

ADV SANDI: Do you know his first name? Sorry.

INTERPRETER: Please repeat the question.

ADV SANDI: Do you know the first name, or let's say full names of the Shongwe who is present here today?

MR MANDLAZI: I do not know his full names. He was referred to as Adj Shongwe, but I could differentiate the two of them.

MR JORDAAN: I would like to know from you what the name was of the hit squad of which you were a member.

MR MANDLAZI: It was called Top Twenty.

MR JORDAAN: Why did you call this, or name it Top Twenty?

MR MANDLAZI: It was a name that originated from Capt Lily.

MR JORDAAN: I accept it, but why did you call it Top Twenty, to what does this refer?

MR MANDLAZI: I do not know the reason why, I just knew it as Top Twenty.

ADV SANDI: Doesn't he refer to this unit as a hit squad. Did he specifically say Top Twenty hit squad?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, that's what it was called and that's how it was referred to in documents and it was named so and that was what was written on official documents.

MR JORDAAN: Mr Mandlazi I would like to refer you to a very interesting aspect in your short statement in paragraph 6. You there discuss the matter concerning Michael Ndawu's house. You say here that

"Michael Ndawu was locked from outside by Sgt Shongwe and W/O Walters, Sgt Venter, Capt Lily, Lucky Sambo, Sgt Mashego and Jerry Dlamini, Corp Steyn, Commandant Marais, Maj van Zyl."

You never mention W/O Shongwe. There is a big difference in what you mentioned in your long statement that accompanied your application. Can you explain this discrepancy?

MR MANDLAZI: I beg your pardon there, perhaps there was a mistake when the attorney wrote the statement because when the statement was written W/O Shongwe had been referred to. Perhaps when he wrote W/O Walters, he meant to write Shongwe.

MR JORDAAN: It is very interesting. It is once again your attorney that set up this new statement that you said is correct, who made this mistake. Do you not find it strange that such a mistake appears in your statement?

MR MANDLAZI: Perhaps there was a mistake that was made by the typist.

MR JORDAAN: Mr Mandlazi in your long statement you said it was also correct there, you never made mention of any of these people. You said that the people who did the locking up of the house were only Shongwe and W/O Shongwe, Sgt Shongwe and W/O Shongwe.

MR MANDLAZI: I do not regard my not mentioning them as a problem. What I felt was important was to explain about the typing up of the door and who had done that.

MR JORDAAN: Mr Mandlazi, you specifically say in your long statement

"The two people are the ones who tied the doors with wires from the outside, so that the occupants of the house could not run away during the blast."

That is with reference to Sgt Shongwe and W/O Shongwe. In your statement that is now the truth, you say and you furthermore refer to, apart from Shongwe and W/O Walters, you also refer to the people who closed it, that is Sgt Venter, Capt Lily, Lucky Sambo, Sgt Mashego and Jerry Dlamini, Corp Steyn, Commandant Marais and Maj van Zyl.

MR MANDLAZI: I will ask the Commission to pardon me from not mentioning those people in the long statement, but the short statement in which they are mentioned is correct and so I would request the Commission to pardon me for not mentioning them earlier.

MR JORDAAN: Why didn't you mention it before?

MR MANDLAZI: They are mentioned in a separate list which is contained in the long statement.

MR JORDAAN: I'm talking about this specific incident, why didn't you mention them there?

MR MANDLAZI: I do not understand who you are referring to, it has not been mentioned. Who do you say is missing?

MR JORDAAN: Mr Mandlazi, I'd like to know from you why you didn't mention the rest of the people in your long statement.

MR MANDLAZI: When I made the statement, the short statement to my attorney, it was when I had recalled some of the details that happened and for the reason that these incidents happened a long while ago as well as for the reason that this statement which was submitted earlier, has been in Cape Town for a long time. I only saw it quite recently.

MR JORDAAN: Your answer is very interesting in the light of the fact that the statement that was taken from you in 1996, was - what happened then was more vague in your memory and the memory that you have now four years later. Do you not find this strange?

MR MANDLAZI: As I explained to my attorney, I made the statement and forwarded it to the Secretary-General of the ANC and at that time I did mention them.

ADV SANDI: What was your purpose when you sent a copy of this statement to the Secretary-General of the ANC?

MR MANDLAZI: When the ANC detained me as I went to bomb their offices, Mr Moyi told me that I should explain all my activities to the ANC and he thereafter took me to the Secretary-General of the ANC and that is where I made this statement. That is, I explained all of my activities to them after my suspension.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

MR JORDAAN: The incident at the house of Michael Ndawu, can you tell the Committee if you were accompanied on that day by Sgt Walters?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes he was present, driving a car, registration number MWD 776T, which was a 4 x 4, blue in colour.

MR JORDAAN: Then that does not fit in with the explanation that you gave earlier on with the mistake that you made in paragraph 6. You specifically said that it must not be W/O Walters, but it should be W/O Shongwe.

MR MANDLAZI: I explained that at that time both of these people were Warrant Officers, therefore the mistake may have been made because there was a Sgt and a W/O Shongwe in the Security Branch at the time.

MR JORDAAN: Mr Mandlazi, I have got three statements to make to you. The first is that the person sitting next to me, Mvele Robert Shongwe denies that he was with you at an alleged incident at the house of Michael Ndawu.

MR MANDLAZI: That is not correct.

MR JORDAAN: Secondly, Mr Shongwe will put it to you that he became aware of your existence for the first time in 1993. ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR MANDLAZI: Where did he know me from?

MR JORDAAN: The statement that I'm putting to you is that he will say that he only became aware of your existence, or he only heard of you for the first time in 1993 as an informer of the Murder and Robbery unit in Nelspruit. (transcriber's interpretation)

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, I hear that, but I would like to know where did he get to know of me?

MR JORDAAN: Would you like to react on the statement or not?

MR MANDLAZI: I would also like to be given an opportunity to ask as to where he knew me from. If, as he claims, he started knowing me in 1993, for example I know my lawyer from his office, I would just like to know, if he started knowing me in 1993, where exactly was that?

CHAIRPERSON: Do you agree or disagree?

MR MANDLAZI: He knows me.

CHAIRPERSON: So you disagree with the statement that he's made to you?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, I disagree with the statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jordaan.

MR JORDAAN: Thank you Chairperson, no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR JORDAAN

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Mtanga.

MS MTANGA: Thank you Chairperson, I think I've got one or two questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS MTANGA: Mr Mandlazi, in your testimony you indicated that at some point you tortured Life and Cliff Mokoena. Is that correct?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

MS MTANGA: And you also testified that you were informed by Capt Lily that one of the two Mokoenas died, is that correct?

MR MANDLAZI: Capt Lily informed me that one of them had died and that information had been gained from the source. We dumped his body about 500 metres from a cemetery.

MS MTANGA: Did he die as a result of your assaults on him?

MR MANDLAZI: I assume it was from his injuries sustained during his torture.

MS MTANGA: In your application you refer to Capt Lily as a person who was your Commander. Was he your Commander?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

MS MTANGA: And then there is also a term used that he was your handler, what does that mean, that he was your handler? What is a handler, Mr Mandlazi, in your understanding, in the military environment? When a person is called a handler what does it mean?

MR MANDLAZI: He's also the person who has contacts with sources.

MS MTANGA: Because in a letter that's confirming your membership to the SADF at that time, if you check on page 105 of the bundle, paragraph 4, it is said there

"A certain Scout Masuku of Eastern Transvaal Command says that he did intelligence gathering with Rifleman Mandlazi. Apparently the handler of Rifleman Mandlazi was a certain Wayne Lily."

What is the difference between the Commander and the handler, Mr Mandlazi, if there is one? What is the difference between a Commander and a handler?

MR MANDLAZI: This Wayne Lily refers to Capt Lily, therefore he was my Commander at the time.

MS MTANGA: The reason that I'm asking you this is that I have heard of the word handler being used in situations where a person is an askari or is an informer, so I'm trying to understand, in your situation if you are indeed a member of the SANDF, as you say you were and you trained personnel, why would you be referred to be having a handler instead of a Commander?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, my attorney did point this out to me. It means that these people who wrote the letter, were trying to distance themselves from me because originally they denied that I was in the force, but when my force numbers were discovered, they had to admit that I was a member of SADF.

MS MTANGA: Okay. In the incident of Parks Mankahlane, you mention that you abducted a certain Adam Mianga. What happened to this Adam? Was he tortured and then after he was tortured, what happened to him, the Adam that you found in the house of Parks Mankahlane, when he had fled?

MR MANDLAZI: Adam was tortured at the base. From there Adj Walters detained him at Nelspruit prison.

MS MTANGA: And do you know what happened to the people who were your informers, Steve Mbuyisa, Albert Mtunya and Mhlongo, what happened to them or where are they now?

MR MANDLAZI: From what I heard, or from what I read in the papers, Steve Mbuyisa was arrested for stealing a cell phone and Albertina I last saw at that time. Joe Mkoena is a member of UDM in Mpumalanga.

MS MTANGA: And Mhlongo? Mahlahla Ntombi?

MR MANDLAZI: I last saw her at that time. I have not seen her since.

MS MTANGA: What about Albertina Mtunya?

MR MANDLAZI: I sometimes see her in Matsulu.

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

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS MTANGA

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Mtanga. It's been brought to my attention that Mr Walters and Venter are here as well. Who is Mr Walters?

MR WALTERS: I am, John Anthony Walters.

CHAIRPERSON: And I assume that seated next to you is Mr Venter. You are both implicated parties in this matter. Was there any submission that you wanted to make or any question that you wanted to ask of the applicant at this stage?

MR WALTERS: If I can from my side just ask a few questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Just for the record it is Mr Walters. Yes, proceed.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WALTERS: According to the applicant - Mr Mandlazi, you were in the SANDF in 1985, but according to the papers on page 104, the SANDF says you only joined the SANDF 1986. Can I get some clarity on that please?

MR MANDLAZI: You first do orientation training for six months in the Force. After that you do your basic training for a year. That is when you receive a Force number, that is why my Force number goes back to 1986 and not 1985, because I had to do orientation prior to basic training.

MR WALTERS: You received military training, do you know the difference between an HE hand grenade and a petrol bomb?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, I used an HE grenade quite often. I was trained in its use.

MR WALTERS: So what you are stating is that you know the difference?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, I do.

MR WALTERS: According to Mr Ndawu's statement, which is also in this bundle, we see that his house was petrol bombed and he recovered eight broken bottles. How can you relate the difference between the HE hand grenades and the petrol bombs that were thrown into his house?

MR MANDLAZI: What I recall are the grenades that I used. I do not know about other people, whether they used petrol bombs or not. I do not know anything about petrol bombs. What I do know and recall is that at that time we would perhaps use AK47's to mislead people to think that a person had been murdered by the ANC, that is an example I can make. So it is possible that one of use did have this to use for that reason.

MR WALTERS: I put it to you Mr Mandlazi that the blue 4 x 4 double cab bakkie that you make so much reference to, I admit that I used it, it was only taken into use in 1989, so that fact is irrelevant in this statement of yours.

MR MANDLAZI: I will say that is not true, because I recall the vehicle you used with the registration MWD, it was a car that was in existence at the time, but I am not sure of the model, but the registration number MWD776T is a number I recall that belonged to a vehicle that you used at the time.

MR WALTERS: I'd like to put it further to you Mr Mandlazi, that I, John Anthony Walters, was never with you in any Top Twenty hit squad and I never participated in any of these allegations that you are standing here before the Truth Commission for. Thank you Mr Commissioner.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR WALTERS

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Walters. Mr Venter?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VENTER: Chairperson. Mr Mandlazi, do you know me personally?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, I do know you. Don't you know me?

MR VENTER: Which year onwards would you have worked with me allegedly?

MR MANDLAZI: If I recall correctly, if I remember correctly, I think you were from the Railway to CIS - when ...(indistinct) police station when you came to join the Security Branch. Were you not a member of the Railway police station before you went to join the CIS?

MR VENTER: I'm referring to your dates in the statement of 1986 and 1985 when this so-called hit squad was established and I want to know whether you knew me from that time.

MR MANDLAZI: I will ask for the Commission's indulgence. My question has not been answered. When you came to join the CIS, were you not from Railway Police Station? Will you please respond to my question?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mandlazi, we have a lot of work to do. There are people sitting there whose case we must hear tonight still, they're not available tomorrow, so we don't have much time. Please respond to that question. Did you know Mr Venter in 85/86 and try and do that when you are being asked questions. Just respond directly to the question then we'll get some progress.

MR MANDLAZI: I beg your pardon. I have a problem with dates. I just know and recall that he was involved in those incidents, particularly when we abducted and detained Michael Ndawu in prison, he was present, so I do not understand his question.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you understand? Did you follow?

MR VENTER: I will keep it very brief. I will just make a statement, a sort of an affidavit. I was employed by the South African Railway Police in 1985 and I was transferred to the South African Police in October 1986 and in that period I was a member doing my service in South West Africa, I was not present in Nelspruit. In April of 89 only I joined South African Security Police and in 93 I was injured and I was medically disabled for a year and in 94 I was discharged from the service and in my period in the South African Security Police I never had any contact with Frans Mandlazi. He was never an informer in my office and I did not operate and take part in any action with him. That's all I have to state.

CHAIRPERSON: The effect of that statement is that Mr Venter there denies that he was involved in any of these things with you. Well you can either say you agree with him or you disagree, if you want to say anything.

MR MANDLAZI: Please repeat that statement.

CHAIRPERSON: He says that, he's given us his history. The effect of that is that he was never involved in any incident with you at all, in other words he denies what you said. Now you can respond if you want to. You can either agree with that or you can disagree with that, or you don't need to say anything if you don't want to. Do you follow?

MR MANDLAZI: I maintain that when we went to Michael Ndawu's home, he was present. He was in a panel van whose registration number I cannot recall now.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. So you don't agree with this? Mr Venter is that all you wanted to say? I beg your pardon?

MR VENTER: That is all. That's all I want to state yes, thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VENTER

JUDGE MOTATA: Just one Chairperson. Mr Mandlazi, paragraph 7 of your supplementary affidavit says the reward was secondary to the primary object, so when you refer to reward, what other rewards did you get other than the deposit of R40 000 to your house?

MR MANDLAZI: Nothing.

JUDGE MOTATA: So when you make mention of the reward here, are you mentioning the R40 000?

MR MANDLAZI: I explained to my attorney that I did receive R40 000 and I used it to deposit the house and later the police or my colleagues, the white colleagues wanted to kill me and ANC took me and found a safe house for me. When I came back I discovered that my house had been bombed.

JUDGE MOTATA: No my question is simple, it's that when you're referring to the reward here are you referring to the

R40 000, or were there other rewards, that's all I'm asking you? I just want to know about the reward, I've heard you on the other aspects.

MR MANDLAZI: No I didn't receive anything other than the R40 000.

JUDGE MOTATA: And you say you believed that, on 8, that your actions had some political connotations? Do you see that?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes.

JUDGE MOTATA: Did you believe that the 23 personally, the 33 people mentioned as the enemies of the then government were also your enemies because they were mentioned to you?

MR MANDLAZI: The way I was trained, I did believe at the time that they were my enemies as well.

JUDGE MOTATA: Are you suggesting that when you are told that is the enemy of the government, you were taught also to say if that is said to you, you should also believe that?

MR MANDLAZI: At that time, I did believe that. That is how I was told, that a person or people who are referred to as terrorists, they were my enemies because I was also taught that if they were to overthrow the government, I was to be eliminated as well.

JUDGE MOTATA: When you left school in 1984, what made you join the South African Defence Force?

MR MANDLAZI: There were papers which were distributed by the whites who were soldiers and they were written, join the army and see the world.

JUDGE MOTATA: And why did you join? Did you want a job?

MR MANDLAZI: Since there was no one who was going to pay for my education, I decided to join the Force because my father had just passed away those years.

JUDGE MOTATA: So you needed a job to sustain the family?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: Not because of your political convictions.

Never shake your head, these things are - what you are saying here is recorded and we have our technician there who's recording that and it won't take anything by shaking your head. Would you do that, that whatever you are asked and you give a reply, don't nod or shake your head, okay? So my question was, when you joined the army, you wanted money to sustain your family.

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: You mentioned when you were asked, that you would for instance phone Steve Mbuyisa, Joe Nkoena, Miss Mtongo, Albertina Mtunya and say: "I am working for Wayne Lily", do you recall saying so?

MR MANDLAZI: I didn't say I was working for him, I said I was working under him, he was my Commander.

JUDGE MOTATA: Ja. I want you to explain this to me, that the impression I got from your testimony was that for instance Albertina, Miss Mtongo, were your sources, you got information from them, now what I don't understand, why should you say: "I work under Capt Lily", why would you say that? Were you not known to these people because they gave you information?

MR MANDLAZI: I was told to recruit people.

JUDGE MOTATA: No, no, no, you'll take a long time. What I want to know from you, from what I say I want you to clarify that to me. I'm not cross-examining you or anything, I want to clarify things which are not clear to me. What I understand from you for instance from these people is that at least Albertina Mtunya and Ms Mhlongo were people who gave you information and if you were to speak to them to arrange for their payment, why would you say: "I work under Capt Lily", why should you say that? Why can't you say, even if you were using a code name that: "I'm so and so, I want to see you", or give you what is due to you. Why wouldn't you say that and instead now phone them and say: "I work under so and so"?

MR MANDLAZI: I was explaining to them because one source did ask me as to how I was going to pay them, where I was going to obtain the money to pay, therefore I did explain to that one that there was my boss and I was going to go back to my boss.

JUDGE MOTATA: Do you follow what I want you to explain to me Mr Mandlazi? I'll repeat myself. I say, I asked you about these sources and I say, correct me if I'm wrong, but what I understood from you was that for instance Albertina and Mhlongo gave you certain information because they were your sources, didn't I understand you to say that?

MR MANDLAZI: Correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: Now I say, now you've got to give them what is due to them, pay them in other words, now you've got to say: "I am working under Capt Lily", why is that necessary? Why can't you say to them: "Look, now I've got your money, I want to pay you", why couldn't you say that? Because you know these people, I assume, because they gave you information.

MR MANDLAZI: I do not quite understand your question.

JUDGE MOTATA: Did you know Albertina Mtunya?

MR MANDLAZI: I didn't know her.

JUDGE MOTATA: Did you know Ms Mhlongo?

MR MANDLAZI: I didn't know her.

JUDGE MOTATA: Which people told you that certain people whom you attacked, gave you information about them assisting people to go in exile and others handling monies for ANC? Where did you get that information from?

MR MANDLAZI: These people were actually Patrick Mathebula's sources. I took over Patrick Mathebula's job.

JUDGE MOTATA: What do you mean by that now, that you took Mathebula's job over, what do you mean by that? I'll tell you why I'm asking you this, when you testified this is my note, it may be wrong, you correct me. For instance when you testified about Michael Ndawu, you said: "Our source was Albertina Mtunya. Michael Ndawu used to assist people to go to exile and he handled monies on behalf of the ANC. She told me personally and I told Capt Lily", that's what I've written down, so the way I've taken my notes, unless I've been wrong, I didn't hear you correctly, is that you knew for instance Albertina Mtunya personally, because if you say she told you personally and you carried the information forward, it means you got the information first hand, that's how I understood you.

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, I did say so. Albertina was Patrick Mathebula's source. Patrick Mathebula told Albertina that she was no longer going to work with him but with me.

JUDGE MOTATA: Did she work with you?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: Now why can't you answer my question that why couldn't you say: "Hey, Albertina it's me, I want to bring your money"? Why do you say to her: "Look, I work under Capt Lily, I want to pay you", why do you say that? Why don't you say: "It's me"?

MR MANDLAZI: I made a mistake there.

JUDGE MOTATA: You made an example for instance that a source would give you information say on a Monday and that source would be paid either on a Wednesday or on a Thursday, do you recall that?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, I did say so, this is how we handled.

JUDGE MOTATA: Would you first verify such information before you pay, or you would simply pay because information was given to you? By you I mean the Top Twenty.

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: When you say correct, what do you mean? Because I want to know whether you verified the information or you simply paid without verifying the information.

MR MANDLAZI: We would verify as to whether the information was correct, or not correct and then we will only make the payment after we've verified if the information was correct. We didn't pay for every information which came from the source, we only paid for the information which was more likely to be true.

JUDGE MOTATA: Why I'm asking you it's because - and why I want to understand is because Michael Ndawu for instance had been identified as the enemy. Now why should you be told about Michael Ndawu again when he is already identified, first day Top Twenty, or during the period the Top Twenty was formed, he was already an enemy, why should you need information about him again? And further, you said Capt Lily knew where Ndawu lived.

MR MANDLAZI: It was difficult for us to know or to find Michael Ndawu at home. It was really difficult to find him at his home because he knew that we were after him and he knew that whoever was after him wanted him dead, that is why we needed someone to assure or to let us know whenever he was present so that when we go there we know we will find him.

JUDGE MOTATA: Now lastly, Patrick Mlazi, after torturing him, he agreed to work for you people. Do you recall saying so, even though he did not deliver any goods in terms of information?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, I do remember.

JUDGE MOTATA: What I want to ask you is actually what he has said? There's a statement you'll find on page 35 and 36 to 37 rather and I want clarity in this respect because you said when you recruited sources you would promise payment of

R1 000 for information delivered, do you recall saying so?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, I do remember.

JUDGE MOTATA: And he says there, you will find it in paragraph 10, that he was told by this man he didn't know, whom he couldn't have defence against these blows after being assaulted, that if he gives information about Matsulu Civic Association, he would get R5 000 and about the ANC, R10 000. Were sources paid the same amounts?

MR MANDLAZI: This is what he said.

JUDGE MOTATA: Ja, no, no, this is what he says. That's why I said in all fairness to you, I'm telling you what he says, that's his statement, that's why I said where you could even find it, page 35 to 37, that's Patrick's statement. Now what I want to know from you were all sources getting the same remuneration or rather, when he agreed to be a source to the Top Twenty, what remuneration, what package was he offered?

MR MANDLAZI: I think it was minus R1 000, less than

R1 000, that's what I said to the Committee.

JUDGE MOTATA: No, no, no, I'm now talking about Patrick Mlazi. Okay, look at the statement there and now after looking at the statement, concentrate on my question. You see Patrick was an enemy and what you said to us, the 23, you either had to win them over, or eliminate them, do you recall your evidence in that respect?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, I do.

JUDGE MOTATA: Now what you must have in your mind which I want you to explain to me, Patrick was, unlike Albertina, unlike Mhlongo, unlike Steven Mbuyisa, unlike Joe Nkoena, this was an enemy and this was a big catch, whom you turned over, even though he did not deliver. How much was he promised?

MR MANDLAZI: No, I do not know how much he was promised.

JUDGE MOTATA: Did he not agree after you tortured him and with a few kicks and fists, that he would work for you? Were you not present?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, I was present.

JUDGE MOTATA: Rather, let's us you, where did you take him to after that, when he agreed that he would work for the Top Twenty as a source?

MR MANDLAZI: Capt Lily took him, I don't know where he took him.

JUDGE MOTATA: When he says in paragraph 4: "They took me to their camp somewhere in Ngodini", did you have a camp at Ngodini?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, we did.

JUDGE MOTATA: ; When they took him there were you there?

MR MANDLAZI: When they arrived at Ngodini in that camp, I was there.

JUDGE MOTATA: Where was he tortured?

MR MANDLAZI: There was a certain house and it was a little, dark house.

JUDGE MOTATA: Was it at Ngodini?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, at the camp.

JUDGE MOTATA: And that's where he agreed to be turned around?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes.

JUDGE MOTATA: And when he agreed, you were present?

MR MANDLAZI: I heard him agreeing to Capt Lily that he will be a source and he will deliver information to us.

JUDGE MOTATA: No promise was made to him, whilst you were present, how much you would receive?

MR MANDLAZI: No, I didn't hear.

JUDGE MOTATA: Did you walk out after he agreed with the torture, after being tortured rather?

MR MANDLAZI: After I tortured him, I left them and he was still being tortured when I left.

JUDGE MOTATA: ; Thank you. Thank you Mr Mandlazi. Thank you Chairperson, I've got no further questions.

ADV SANDI: Very briefly, Mr Mandlazi, is there any particular reason why you've got no difficulty at all to mention names of people who worked with you as informers?

MR MANDLAZI: I decided that since I was requesting for amnesty, it was better for me to tell the truth and I mustn't hide anything or leave anything behind.

ADV SANDI: I'm asking the question because I find this very - I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, but I find it very unusual. We're usually confronted here with the applicants who were members of the Security Forces in the past, who simply refuse to give names of the people who were working with them as informers. But okay, let's go on to another issue. The R50 000 story, were you able to find out from your colleagues who had also been promised that they would be given money for carrying out these operations, were you able to find out as to whether they did in fact receive these monies?

MR MANDLAZI: I wouldn't be able to say whether they received the money or not, I don't have information on this because the ANC took me after this, so I don't know whether they eventually did receive the money or not.

ADV SANDI: Whilst you were working with them in the SADF, I'm talking about your colleagues, did you take any steps to find out as to whether they had in fact received such monies, say by way of asking them questions, you know?

MR MANDLAZI: I discovered later in about 1997 or 98 that my colleagues did receive money, but I don't know as to how much because I only discovered this by hearsay when I came back from where I had hidden.

ADV SANDI: Who specifically are you talking about when you say "my colleagues"?

MR MANDLAZI: One of them I can mention his name because he told me he received the money and he did buy a car with that money, his name is Rifleman Mathebula.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. One other question I thought I would ask you. Tell me, during the time you were being trained, the time you were being prepared to be an intelligence officer, were you taught anything on propaganda tactics and strategies against the perceived enemy?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, we were taught.

ADV SANDI: When you started working in the field, did you implement any of those propaganda tactics against the enemy?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, for instance we were using weapons which were not South African weapons, but were of foreign.

ADV SANDI: Thank you, that is all from me Mr Chairman, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ngobe, any re-examination?

MR NGOBE: Thank you Mr Chairman.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR NGOBE: Mr Mandlazi, can you just clarify the question of you getting employed in the SADF?

Was it for the purpose of getting a job to support you and your family?

MR MANDLAZI: I wanted a job to support my family.

MR NGOBE: So at what stage did it come to you to become politically involved?

MR MANDLAZI: When Lawrence Moyi came to me, who was from the ANC, he actually showed me that my job was not right.

MR NGOBE: Did you feel that you were politically involved in the job that you were doing, which you were hired as a soldier, at what stage? After going through military training or after intelligence school?

MR MANDLAZI: After my training.

MR NGOBE: Did you at all material times, believe that your activities were politically motivated?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes.

MR NGOBE: You were asked a question by Mr Jordaan that you mention a number of Shongwes and on your last affidavit, the one dated 26 July, you didn't mention Capt Shongwe. Except for calling people with their ranks, can you identify the Shongwe that you are talking about?

MR MANDLAZI: The one who is seated next to Mr Jordaan.

JUDGE MOTATA: Who would he be, Captain or Sergeant as at that time?

MR MANDLAZI: At that time he was a Warrant Officer.

MR NGOBE: As you are applying for amnesty today, did you approach the victims to ask for forgiveness?

MR MANDLAZI: I went to Mr Mike Ndawu and I explained to him about the incident of the bombing of his house and also told him that I was one of those people, I was present.

MR NGOBE: Did you only go to one victim only, or you approached all of them?

MR MANDLAZI: I also went to see Mr Sam Sambo and I also requested forgiveness and I told him what I've done to him and I apologised for that.

MR NGOBE: Do you have more to say?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes. I would like to request for forgiveness, especially to the victims.

MR NGOBE: No further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR NGOBE

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Can I just clarify something, Mr Mandlazi? At the time when you were involved in these activities that you spoke about here, did you hold any political views?

MR MANDLAZI: I was residing in a rural area where I grew up and we never had any political conflict when I grew up. I didn't know anything.

JUDGE MOTATA: What did you think the South Defence Force was doing when you got a job with them? Did you know what they were doing, what their job entailed?

MR MANDLAZI: I would see them in roadblocks, searching cars and I thought it was a good job.

ADV MOTATA: I was not taking that down ...(indistinct)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that's fine. I'm just not sure how I should understand you and respond. It looks like you're saying that you were not exposed to any political conflict where you grew up, but I was more interested to hear whether you held any political views at all when you were involved in all these incidents you spoke about.

MR MANDLAZI: That I only discovered after I've spoken to Mr Moyi from ANC and he told me that my job was not the right job and I realised that it was wrong to just go around torturing people and dumping them anyway.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that the first time that you started developing political views, that you were exposed to politics, when you had contact with Mr Lawrence Moyi?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, it was the first time.

CHAIRPERSON: And then did you then start developing political views after that contact with Mr Moyi?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And on which side of the political spectrum did your support then lie?

MR MANDLAZI: I don't quite understand which political organise, I would like you to repeat our question.

CHAIRPERSON: After you have now been exposed to politics through the contact with Mr Moyi, did you then form your own sort of views? Were you supporting any political organisation, any political point of view from that point onwards, or not? That's what I'm trying to ascertain and if you did, which political point of view did you then support?

MR MANDLAZI: ANC.

CHAIRPERSON: So your - would it be correct to say that the first time in your life that you really became involved in or developed a political conscience, you were supporting the ANC?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, before I wasn't.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Thank you.

JUDGE MOTATA: No but you're now confusing me. Emanating from what my brother has just asked you, it makes me thoroughly confused because I'll take you back to your supplementary affidavit. You say in paragraph 7

"The reward was secondary to the primary object of doing away with political enemies of the then government which was the political masters of the Military Intelligence that I was working for and obeyed all instructions from my immediate Commander, Capt Lily. I always believed that all our actions had political connotation."

Could you explain that because what you just told my brother here, I thought I understood your supplementary affidavit, but from the questions of my brother, now I do not understand you, that you were merely attempting to eliminate these people without any political objective, or motivation, what are you saying to us?

MR MANDLAZI: No, I'm not saying that. I probably didn't understand.

JUDGE MOTATA: Who did you not understand? Judge Potgieter, did you not understand him?

MR MANDLAZI: No, we were fighting against our political enemies, we were not just fighting anyone on the street. We were fighting the people whom we perceived as people who were going to overthrow our government of the day.

JUDGE MOTATA: But you, on the way, said you had no sense of politics then till Mr Moyi came into the picture, Lawrence Moyi when he told you that what you are doing is wrong and you then subsequently joined the ANC because in the homelands or wherever you were, politics was something unheard of. I thought I understood you that way, or was I not listening properly?

MR MANDLAZI: What is written in paragraph number 7, it's correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: Thank you Mr Mandlazi. Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Yes, thank you Mr Mandlazi, you're excused.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Are you presenting any other evidence Mr Ngobe?

MR NGOBE: Mr Chairman, that's the applicant's case.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Mnisi, are you presenting any evidence?

MR MNISI: No ...(indistinct)

MR JORDAAN: I will not lead any evidence, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Mtanga?

MS MTANGA: I will also not lead any evidence Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Walters, were you going to present anything?

MR WALTERS: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Venter? Thank you. Mr Venter, I think Adv Sandi just wants to clarify something with you, or Mr Walters, I'm sorry.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. Mr Walters, I understood you to say, now this concerns the vehicle which the applicant says you were using during the time in question. Now I understood you to say that: "I used that vehicle only in 1989", but now before 1989 where was this vehicle? Was it one of the motor vehicles that were being used in the SADF?

MR WALTERS: Mr Chairman, that vehicle was a new issue to the South African Police Force in 1989.

ADV SANDI: I also understood you to say you have never been with the applicant before. Now do you mean to say that you only met him, you saw him for the first time here today?

MR WALTERS: I do recognise this man as somebody who I saw at the police station, but I never worked with him.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. If I can ask Mr Venter the same question, did you see the applicant for the first time here today?

MR VENTER: The applicant is well-known at Nelspruit Police Station as a person who gave information to various divisions, murder and robbery, ...(indistinct), it's not the first time that I see him, I do know him because he visited the police station in Nelspruit many times, but I and the Security Police in Nelspruit, never ever worked with the army in our time.

ADV SANDI: Did you ever have any direct dealings with the applicant?

MR VENTER: None whatsoever.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Mr Ngobe, have you got any ...(indistinct)

MR NGOBE: Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR NGOBE IN ARGUMENT: I'd like just to address the Commission in support of the application for the applicant for amnesty. This is an application in terms of section 20 of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act 34 of 1995. It's my submission that the applicant complies with the requirements of Section 20(a) and further complies with Section 20(1)(c) in that he has made full disclosure of all relevant facts, perhaps that will help the Commission to take a proper decision.

Mr Chairman, I would like to humbly submit again that the applicant also complies with Section 20(2)(b), where it indicates that the acts committed by a former State employee were bona fide acts, or for the object of countering or otherwise resisting the said struggle at the time.

Mr Chairman I would like to mention further that it is common cause that there was unrest in the country for the past years, until when we came to 1994 elections for the new democracy and people who have been employed in the Security Forces, it's only a few who are coming in to apply for amnesty. Some of them are hiding the truth, some of them have disappeared and died with the truth, so only a few people are coming forward revealing the truth and any person who's trying to say - an applicant who is trying to reveal the truth, to tell everyone what happened in the past, to say he's a liar will be hindering the purposes of this Act.

It is further common cause that people who have been trained in Military Intelligence or military training in the past, they were told about potential enemies, or those who were regarded as enemies. I can safely submit, Mr Commissioner, that the Intelligence School that the applicant attended, he was politically indoctrinated, all that he was doing, he was doing to appease or to obey all the orders that were given by his masters by then, though the applicant is an unsophisticated person in the sense that he cannot understand the technical words that we are using here, but the fact of the matter is that what he was doing, he was carrying out orders that were given to him by a Commander.

There's no dispute today here that the man was not even a member of the SADF by that time. The force number that is appearing here clearly shows that he was, no one from the Military today is coming to deny him, though they tried by writing letters saying that he was employed as a cleaner.

JUDGE MOTATA: But there is, 104 (a)

"The above mentioned member was a member of ...(indistinct) BN (which I take is Battalion) at Eastern Transvaal Command."

MR NGOBE: Thank you Mr Chairman.

To reply on that, it is my submission, according to my instructions, that the document appearing as page 104 of the compiled list, it was just a ploy for them to deny him that he was a member of the hit squad as he alleged here. The further notion that he was discharged, if we are talking about the same document, page 104, on paragraph (e). They refer here that he was discharged on the 31st of July 1987 from the military, which is not true according to my instructions that I have. By 1987 he was still an operative, he went on until 1994. So it is my submission that this was a letter from the SADF by that time, trying to deny a person that they knew.

It is my further submission that the applicant tried by all means to bring all the information that he knows and to admit where he did wrong, as I've mentioned that he is so unsophisticated, he cannot understand when you talk about a reward and other things. Where that has been mentioned, he tried to outline and bring to light everything that used to happen by that time, though those things might have happened, his was just to highlight for the Commission, to apply for this amnesty. He went to an extent of revealing names of other people who were injured, maimed, others alleged to have been thrown into a pool which is full of crocodiles. All this information up to today and up to this stage has not been disputed, so this shows how the applicant is so remorseful on what he did. We are talking about one applicant here. He mentions so many people. We are not sure if those people that he mentions have ever tried to apply for amnesty. We don't know whether they are keeping the truth because they want to apply for at a later stage, we are not sure, but for his own purpose he's applying for amnesty, as he has just mentioned that he approached some of the victims trying to ask for forgiveness, as much as he brought all these applications today before the Commission so that he can be considered for an amnesty.

I therefore Mr Chairman, request on behalf of Mr Frans Mandlazi, that he be granted amnesty in terms of Section 20 of Act 34 of 1995. Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Ngobe. Mr Mnisi, any submissions?

MR MNISI: Thank you Chairperson, I do have.

MR MNISI IN ARGUMENT: I need to mention from the onset that my instructions from the victims mentioned in the applicant's application, it's not necessary to oppose the granting of amnesty, but that is conditional. The applicants appreciate the provisions of the Act which my colleague actually did refer to, that is the Promotion for National Unity and Reconciliation, Act 34 of 1995, provided the applicant ...(intervention)

ADV SANDI: Did you say the applicant? The victims.

MR MNISI: In principle they don't oppose amnesty, but provided that the requirements which are laid in the Act are complied with and I therefore want to make the following submissions to the Commission that I don't believe that applicant has taken the Commission into confidence in trying to disclose all the relevant facts. I would say - I say this because of the following

Firstly, with regard to the motive, why the applicant personally executed - okay we understand there was a list provided of people to be eliminated, but also the innocent people who were involved, the children at Ndawu's bombing, I mean Ndawu's house, no consideration, even on his part when he was cross-examined whether really were those people identified as enemies.

So therefore if we look at Section 20(1)(b), the question of an act or an omission or an offence should be - the Act says that it should be associated with a political objective. I would argue therefore that there must be a conviction in mind. You must have sort of a conviction to believe that you know, if I do this I will live with my conscience, so the applicant ...(intervention)

JUDGE MOTATA: No, but what would you say if a counter argument is given to you that people were conscripted, it was law, age 17 you go to the army? Would you say ...(no sound) executed such deeds, those people should also have had the belief, because they were simply conscripted and said: "No we're not going" and those who refused to go were prosecuted. ...(no sound) there's the enemy, should you have that belief?

MR MNISI: I think it depends on an individual, but in this instance, the question which I asked earlier on was whether, I think which was also asked by the Commissioners whether did he believe that what he was doing, I mean the fact that Mr Ndawu was on the list, if we assume that that was correct he had to be eliminated, but did he believe in his mind that when those children were inside the house, was that in actual fact, did it occur in his mind that was that correct? Then the answer was to the Commission, it was correct for him to execute because those people were casualties of war. I think that was the line of his answer. So I don't believe therefore ...

JUDGE MOTATA: But what would you say to the evidence that is before us that Capt Lily said we should go to Michael Ndawu. When we got there the two Shongwes rushed and bolted the doors with wires and I was told to hurl the petrol, the bomb, the hand grenade. Is that classified as an order?

MR MNISI: It's not classified as an order because I mean the applicant indicated that he was ordered to kill Michael Ndawu and when they arrived at the scene he was ordered to throw the hand grenade, but my question is actually, in the mind of the applicant, was he doing that act, was that actually in pursuance of his political objective to believe that also the children were enemies? And then as far as he's concerned, it's that everybody has to be eliminated, which to me, it brings to a conclusion therefore that the applicant did not have a political objective because if you are a human being, even if you are an askari, I mean if you attack an enemy you will feel that okay, right, these children are not supposed to be part and parcel of the process because our enemy, if you have a political objective, that's my argument, so therefore I don't believe that his acts per se were associated with the political belief or omissions.

JUDGE MOTATA: You're arguing that the 23 were not per se his enemies because they were identified by somebody else and he was merely told to eliminate them or torture them where they were not his enemies.

MR MNISI: I do believe that if he has been advised that the 23 were his enemies, he might believe that okay, these are the enemies that I must execute, but I have a problem with his assertion to say that whatever he did was for political objective, because the other thing which has cropped up in these hearings is that Mr Ndawu was not candid now, or very clear on the issue of the amount which was awarded to themselves, I mean awarded to himself.

JUDGE MOTATA: No, no, I want you to finish the enemy part first because this is the question I have to you. Soldiers within South Africa, that is prior to 1994, was the ANC, the PAC, the SACP, not enemies of the State of the Republic of South Africa, were they not viewed as such?

MR MNISI: Do you mean the soldiers Commissioner?

JUDGE MOTATA: Hence the Act refers to them.

MR MNISI: The soldiers and the police were perceived during that period to be furthering the aims of the State then, which people perceived to be illegitimate and they were used as instruments.

JUDGE MOTATA: And if they are viewed as such, wouldn't they vis a vis APLA, MK, also have the same view that we eliminate these people because they are enemies as well?

MR MNISI: You mean the members of the SADF would view APLA and the ANC as enemies?

JUDGE MOTATA: Why I'm asking you this, Mr Mnisi, when I was prodding Mr Mandlazi about other duties he performed, he said he was patrolling the borders before he got into this Top Twenty hit squad. Patrolling the borders for what? Insurgents. And who were the insurgents then? The present ANC, MK, APLA members who were infiltrating the country according to the then system that they must be warded off. Wouldn't that be right?

MR MNISI: Yes, that would be correct. You'll perceive them as enemies. Okay, my next point is that the primary objective, I would associate with the acts of the applicant, I think the applicant indicated that the main aim was to get a job and he also conceded earlier on that he was promised money if he executes those acts and he never considered whether somebody who is not an enemy would be injured in the process. To him actually was that he would follow an order and execute it, irrespective, so I don't believe Commissioners that a person who went to a military school, a School of Intelligence for that matter, would not have consideration to other people who are not his enemies, if we assume that the list which came from the sources and other who were mentioned like, who are not mentioned in the list, are his enemies.

JUDGE MOTATA: ; You're saying that he could have disobeyed orders from superiors, wouldn't such a person be hauled before the martial court for disobeying orders, wouldn't he?

MR MNISI: ; Ja, as far as the orders are concerned, in terms of him going to execute somebody, because my understanding of the order was that Capt Lily would say to him: "You must go and kill so and so" and he would then, there would be then that mission where you would go there and even throw the hand grenade at the place concerned. That is an order, that is, I think it's a lawful order, which must be executed by a soldier.

CHAIRPERSON: He seemed to have testified that he never really held an independent political view and he seemed to be saying, if I understand him correctly, that he was following these orders and he accepted at that stage that well, if this is what the superiors say, then these people are probably then enemies or opponents and he only really formed an independent political view after he had been exposed to Mr Moyi and that his independent political view was an pro ANC point of view, so he seems to have simply been doing what his colleagues were doing. He might have even executed a criminal, if it came to that, or anybody else that superiors said that well you know, these people are averse ...(indistinct - static interference) you must eliminate them.

MR MNISI: Let me therefore go to the other question, the question of rewards. The question of the amounts. I think the applicant was not, did not take the Commission into confidence in describing exactly how he was actually paid. In his statement he indicated that R50 000 was promised to a group, later on he changed that it was promised to himself as an individual and I believe therefore that if he assumed that he had no political convictions or objectives at the time, I will therefore submit that his actions were merely actually to get money in the whole process and also that the applicant has refused to disclose that the affidavit which he had, which he actually signed, was made by himself to people that took the affidavit and in signed form. I don't believe for a moment that the applicant could have signed an affidavit, especially a guy from Military, an affidavit, page by page, up until to the end, under oath and claim that no, certain things are not correct, because they might not be correct today. So what I'm trying to say is that in the applicant's attempt to disclose, there are certain things that he's hiding before the Commission the truth and also that he cannot be considered to be an ordinary soldier who was executing lawful orders. He's a military man from the Intelligence School, as he claimed, trained accordingly. God knows whether he is still using the same teachings and skills which he acquired in that particular school today, because the question of the amount is not whether, if you were given R50 000 and therefore you can't get amnesty, it might be a sort of motivation, but Mr Mandlazi did not take the Commission into confidence in explaining clearly. We don't know, as the victims, whether he was promised R50 000 as an individual, whether at the end of the day he did receive that money.

In closing, I would therefore state that as I have indicated, the applicants will leave to the Commission's capable hands to decide - the victims will leave to the Commission to decide whether he does actually qualify in terms of the provision, but our submission is that there was no full disclosure as far as these events are concerned and the fact that the applicant denies the original affidavit, is just to cover up his evil deeds, some of his evil deeds.

ADV SANDI: ...(indistinct) can I ask was the applicant in danger of being prosecuted in respect of these incidents in which he now confesses that he was involved? Was there such a danger?

MR MNISI: ... (indistinct - mike not on) whether he was actually going to be prosecuted.

ADV SANDI: Now why does he talk about full disclosure, but doesn't the Act say it has got to be material, full disclosure on material issues?

MR MNISI: I'm indebted to you Commission, I'm not aware of that provision that it must be material. Section 20(1)(c) indicates that applicant has made a full disclosure of the facts, that's what it says.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you reading the record?

MR MNISI: ...(indistinct)

ADV SANDI: Having regard to the evidence before us, is there anything one can say, anything material and relevant one can say the applicant has failed to disclose?

Considering also that we've only received evidence here from the applicant, there's been no ...(indistinct) evidence to refute what the applicant has to say on these things. Of course, it does not mean that we have to accept anything the witness says, because there's no evidence from the opposing side. In other words, we can't accept obvious affronts to common sense.

MR MNISI: No, I rest my submission on that evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: You mean my colleague has argued both sides.

ADV SANDI: Can I just ask one thing, is there anything - don't you think perhaps the evidence in this case is such that it calls for a closer examination of the provisions of the Act? Is there anything in the Act which indicates that a member of the Security Forces, an applicant who acted as a member of the Security Forces must have held a subjective belief by way of political convictions, in order to classify what he did as an act associated with a political objective? Is there anything in that direction in the Act?

...(indistinct)

MR MNISI: ... view or he must hold a subjective view, as the Commissioner is trying to suggest. But what the Act stipulates clearly ...(indistinct - static interference) is associated with a political objective.

CHAIRPERSON: You mean if the superior officer says to you: "Go kill Mr X, this is political" and you know for a fact that this has absolutely nothing to do with politics, that man is a drug dealer, he's never been involved in politics ever and you go and kill the person, are you then covered in terms of this Act in spite of your own clear belief that this had absolutely nothing to do with politics, would you then still qualify for amnesty? In other words, is your subjective belief absolutely irrelevant, or is it required of you to be bona fide, because that's the wording that is used in the section, and in order to be bona fide, you must at least have a reasonable belief in what you are doing, is in furtherance of a political struggle and you can't be bona fide if you know for a fact that that's not a political enemy.

ADV SANDI: In the hypothetical example the Chairperson has given, wouldn't the political context in which that particular order is given, wouldn't that be the first stage of the inquiry in attempting to arrive as a conclusion as to whether this is an act associated with a political objective? Where do you start? Don't you look at the - wouldn't you have to look at the context?

MR MNISI: I think you have to look at the context and also you must have your personal, that's my own view, that you must have an individual conviction more than, it's not only the context which applies or the political climate ...(indistinct) at the time, but at some point you must have political individual conviction that this is what must actually happen, this I think is wrong.

ADV SANDI: I'm not expressing an opinion, I'm just asking, I'm just thinking aloud.

CHAIRPERSON: The test seems to have both objective and subjective elements to it.

MR MNISI: ...the objective part of it. That's all, I think.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Jordaan.

MR JORDAAN: Thank you Chairperson.

MR JORDAAN IN ARGUMENT: Although today I came to assist Capt Shongwe who was part of the implicated persons, I wish to, in brief, make a few submissions to you. Although there are various aspects which have to be taken into consideration with the application of the applicant, firstly here it is about the truth. The banner hanging behind you, the first word says truth and that is what it is about.

CHAIRPERSON: Full disclosure. Indeed it's the truth, in other words.

MR JORDAAN: In other words that's the truth. I submit to you and my learned friend Mr Mnisi also told you this, that this did not take place here. It appears quite clear according to the evidence of the applicant that the things as he had described it that happened with regard to specifically Michael Ndawu's house and the attack there, does not concur with what was found there, except Ndawu's evidence which he offered at the Provisional Inquest. If you study page 77 of the record, it says there clearly

"It seems perpetrators bolted the front door to prevent the victim and family members from escaping the fire."

It appears from this that only the front door had been barred, the other doors and windows are not mentioned and the applicant tells you in his long statement that the two Shongwes barred the doors with wires and this he changes in his newest statement which has been handed up today and in his newest statement he does not mention the one Shongwe, but he involves various other persons who would have allegedly perpetrated these acts. In other words it cannot be said that, with regard to that, there was a full disclosure and from this, that legal argument is being heard by you and considered by you.

It is further very interesting that if one has regard for his long statement, with the exception of the attack on Mr Modipane and Mr Ndawu's houses, if one reads it further as to what had happened there, the applicant nowhere says in the statement that he did this or he did that, it is only "we did this, we did that". His own part he tries to cover up here and tries to hide it.

ADV SANDI: But is he not clearly placing himself in the scene?

MR JORDAAN: Honourable Commissioner yes, he does place himself at the scene, but full disclosure goes further than just placing yourself at the scene. It goes further. There are various other persons who also could have been at the scene, but did not do anything physically there and where it goes, with regard to full disclosure, one has to describe one's own role in detail also in the statement that accompanies the application.

JUDGE MOTATA: Why would we then hear somebody if everything is on paper because then we would decide on paper? Why should we have a hearing?

MR JORDAAN: Honourable Commissioner, the hearing of the evidence is indeed to test it, that is why it is heard, indeed, under cross-examination and questions that are asked. Papers cannot be tested, but when one wants to make a full disclosure, one will tell the whole story right from the start and one will tell it in detail.

It appears quite clearly that an affidavit was taken here, an affidavit which was signed on each and every page by the applicant and he does not hesitate to describe on pages 22 and 23 that he participated in the horrible murder of a person in the police cells. He does not hesitate there to involve other persons in this and mention their names. He does not hesitate to say there that persons used socks to make a long rope.

JUDGE MOTATA: Mr Jordaan, that is withdrawn. Alfred Ndawu, he was not involved, that was the purpose of the supplementary affidavit, so that is ...(no sound) because this happened in 1983 ...(indistinct - mike not on)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

JUDGE MOTATA: That he made a mistake in that respect, Alfred Ndawu is withdrawn.

MR JORDAAN: Honourable Commissioner, that may be so, but it forms part of the affidavit. It is not only a story being told. This is evidence under oath. An oath was taken here and an affidavit was taken there in which this information is entailed and the reason why this is mentioned is quite clear today, it would have jeopardised the application because this act or the death of Alfred Ndawu is clearly described by Adv Bizos in his book and from that book it would appear that the incident had taken place in 1983 and there are some of my colleagues here who have the book here and who would have confronted the applicant with it, but the applicant realised and that is why he withdrew that part and tried to extract it because he knew that this would influence the rest of his application here today, indeed because of the fact that he did not hesitate to lie about this under oath in detail and that is indicative of the fact that there was no full disclosure here. That is briefly my argument in that regard and if there's anything else, I shall address you about that. Thank you.

JUDGE MOTATA: No, what I want to know is that you argue that for instance he doesn't, in the supplementary affidavit make mention of the other Shongwe, but in his evidence viva voce he mentioned it and we get it in the first statement as well, that the two Shongwes are the ones who bolted the two doors, that's why nobody could get out and hence Ndawu, before the Human Rights violations Committee, he says the doors were locked, that's why they had to go out through windows when the house was burning. Would you say that with that kind of evidence before us, wouldn't we say there was material disclosure here?

MR JORDAAN: Honourable Commissioner, indeed there was no full disclosure with regard to that aspect. The applicant still owes you an answer which I asked him in cross-examination, I asked him why did he not in his initial application speak the truth with regard to the issue of the closing of the doors and the windows. If we have regard specifically with reference to the attack of Ndawu's house, page 14, he pertinently refers that there were only two persons who had executed that task and that was the two Shongwes and in the amended affidavit he contradicts himself by saying that all these persons were involved in this and he mentions them by name. I repeatedly asked him why did he not mention their names in his initial application and he still owes you an answer. He tried to use every kind of counter question there, but he undoubtedly did not give you and answer and that is also indicative of the non full disclosure.

JUDGE MOTATA: No, but what should we understand? In his initial affidavit he mentions several names and then he says: "We were divided into units of seven which carried out these operations". What should we understand by him saying so? And he mentions the people who fell under his unit, whom he had to execute with the eliminations. Should he again, referring to an incident and say: "X, Y, Z"? Hence my understanding with Ndawu, he says over and above the unit of seven, there are the two Shongwes, wouldn't that be material disclosure.

MR JORDAAN: Honourable Commissioner I would have agreed with you if it was that he described it as such in that statement, but that is not how he described it. He chooses to make specific mention in his statement of

"are the ones who tied the doors with wires".

He goes out and he mentions the two Shongwes. He distinguishes the two Shongwes as the two persons and then in the further affidavit which was handed up today, he says all the persons did this. So with regard to that aspect, I would have agreed with you if it was not for the fact that in his initial application he delineated that aspect and only said that it was those two persons who did it.

JUDGE MOTATA: No, no, let's read the sentence in its perspective. He starts and says we were a unit of seven. Out of the Top Twenty, we were divided into seven, then he comes with the Michael Ndawu. He says

"The only persons who were added"

wouldn't you read that,

"added to the unit of seven are Capt Shongwe and Sgt Shongwe"

The only two persons added because we have his affidavit, he says they were a unit of seven and he told us who were the members of the unit of seven, then he says in respect to the elimination of Ndawu, two persons were added and it's the two Shongwes.

MR JORDAAN: Honourable Commissioner I agree with you that he indeed had said that it was the seven persons and the two persons who were added, the two Shongwes, but my argument here is that it goes further. In the following paragraph he refers once again to two persons and it is there where he does this delineation by saying that the persons who did the closing work, who wrapped the wire around the handles, door handles, was the two Shongwes and this differs from the affidavit that he had handed up today and it still goes even further.

CHAIRPERSON: But you are saying that he contradicts himself because in the original application the blame is put on the two Shongwes and in the later one he says there were a whole lot of people. That is the point you are making.

MR JORDAAN: Honourable Chairperson, that is the point I want to make, but it goes further than that. Indeed on the argument that the Honourable Commissioner put forward to me about the seven persons, if we study page 13, who are these seven persons? Gen Otto, A/O Walters, Capt Lily and Venter, Steyn, Frans Mandlazi and A/O de Costa and to that he adds the two Shongwes and now we compare the names that he gives in paragraph 6 today, he says it is Sgt Shongwe, Walters, which is indeed so, Sgt Venter, Capt Lily, Lucky Sambo who is not mentioned in his original statement that he is added, Sgt Mashego, who is not mentioned in his previous statement, he is also added, Jerry Dlamini, who is also not mentioned in the previous statement, he is also added and interesting that de Costa was one of the persons who according to the original statement was there, was no longer there. That specifically tells you furthermore that there was no full disclosure because in his original affidavit he says that these seven persons, plus the two Shongwes and now according to the statement today that there were various other persons whom he omitted and new persons that he adds and that fortifies the argument that there was no full disclosure.

CHAIRPERSON: So there's approximately three versions then? So there are three different versions with regard to this aspect?

MR JORDAAN: Indeed Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Any other submissions you wish to make?

MR JORDAAN: Honourable Chairperson, there are no further submissions, thank you very much.

MS MTANGA: ; Chairperson, I do not intend to make any submissions in this matter, I leave this matter in your hands.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Walters, was there anything that you wanted to say? We've noted what you said to the applicant already, but is there anything else that you wanted to add?

MR WALTERS: No, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Venter ...

MR VENTER: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay thank you. Any reply?

MR NGOBE: Thank you Mr Chairman, I'd like just to say one thing.

MR NGOBE IN REPLY: My colleagues here are referring to full disclosure. It's surprising today that the man who's applying for amnesty brought all these facts, which I submit that

these are material facts. If he did not apply for amnesty today, he could not have been sitting here today, so it is my submission that he disclosed all material facts as required by the Act and my colleagues, they should tell us what is it that he did not disclose? Maybe they know but they didn't put it to him, but they say he did not disclose. What is it, we don't know, but as far as we know he has disclosed everything that is supposed to be disclosed. Thank you Mr Commissioner.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much Mr Ngobe. Yes, well that concludes the evidence and the hearing in regard to this application. As you would have gathered from what has happened here, there are a number of matters that we have to look into, that we will have to consider in order to come to a decision in this matter. The Panel would take time to consider the case and will formulate a decision on this application as soon as we can in the circumstances that we are operating under, so in the circumstances the decision will be reserved. We take the opportunity to thank the legal representatives for your assistance in this matter and if you so wish you are excused. We have a further matter that we will be dealing with. Thank you.

Ms Mtanga, shall we give you a moment just to rearrange things?

MS MTANGA: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Before we carry on?

MS MTANGA: We would like to get ten minutes to organise ourselves.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. We will just stand down briefly.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS