Amnesty Hearings

CHAIRPERSON: Good morning everybody. Today we have two applications on the roll and I believe I will be starting with the application of Mr M.R. Ndlovu. Before we start with this application, I'd just like to introduce the panel to you. On my right is Mr Jonas Sibanyoni who is an attorney from Pretoria, member of the Amnesty Committee. On my left is Mr Ilan Lax who is also an attorney but from Pietermartizburg and a member of the Amnesty Committee and I am Selwyn Miller, a Judge from the Eastern Cape and attached to the Transkei Division of the High Court. I'd like the legal representatives please to place themselves on record.

MR DE KLERK: Thank you Mr Chairman, my name is Lourens de Klerk, I appear on behalf of the applicant, an attorney Lourens de Klerk Attorneys in Durban.

ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman, Members of the Committee, J. Mpshe for the Amnesty Committee, I will be appearing for the victims who unfortunately could not be traced and there is only one victim here, the next of kin, the mother to the deceased, Mrs Buyaleni Joanna Ngobo. She could not be found anywhere according to the record.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you, but attempts were made to trace her?

ADV MPSHE: Attempts were made Mr Chairman, I even have with me the 19/4 which could not be served.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr de Klerk?

MR DE KLERK: Thank you. I call the applicant to testify, I think he may just be sworn in.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Ndlovu do you have any objection to taking the oath?

MR NDLOVU: Before I start I would like to apologise to the members of the family...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Ndlovu, we are not getting any translation coming through the mikes, the earphones.

I might just say to people in the gallery that these proceedings will be translated into English and Zulu and to benefit from the translation you need one of these sets. Yes, it sounds better now.

Mr Ndlovu do you wish to take the oath or do you wish to make an affirmation?

M. R. NDLOVU: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Ndlovu. Mr de Klerk?

EXAMINATION BY MR DE KLERK: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mr Ndlovu, will you briefly explain to the Commission how you got involved in politics?

MR NDLOVU: I would like to give thanks for the opportunity granted to me as well as the Chair and the Committee. Before I get to this issue, I would like to say a few words to the members of the family who lost their beloved because of the incident I was involved in. I would like to apologise for what happened during the conflicts in Pietermaritzburg. I pass my sincerest apologies even though that may not help them because they have already lost their loved ones. I would like the Committee to help me in conveying my apologies to them.

I first got involved in politics in 1987 when I resided at Pietermaritzburg at Mpumuza area. That is where I joined the IFP. We would attend meetings in the area.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Ndlovu, sorry to interrupt you. Whatever you're saying is being translated simultaneously by the translators and it's very difficult when you're speaking fast for them to keep up with you. So if you could just speak a little bit slower so you could make their task easier. Thank you.

MR NDLOVU: Yes. Thank you.

MR LAX: Did you say you were from the Mpumuza area?

MR NDLOVU: Yes the Mpumuza area.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may continue.

MR NDLOVU: I joined the IFP in 1987, January 6th. I resided at the Mpumuza location at Pietermartizburg, that is where I was born.

MR NDLOVU: There was a time when people joined the IFP during 1987 in the area and I was one of those people who joined the IFP because my family were also members of the IFP and I liked their organisation. We then attended a few meetings and I took part in those meetings. That is how I joined the IFP. Even today I'm still a member of the IFP. In 1991, during between January and March of that year, there was conflict in Pietermaritzburg between members of the ANC and the members of the IFP and their supporters. That was in the Kaluza area in Pietermartizburg. With regards to Mpumuza, the Kaluza people wanted to absorb this area and make it ANC stronghold but the Mpumuza area was an IFP stronghold therefore this conflict started between the ANC and the IFP, that is between the two areas, Mpumuza and Kaluza. The ANC was very strong in attacking the Mpumuza area, they will be coming from Kaluza and other areas like Ashtown and attacking that area because they wanted to make that area, Mpumuza, an ANC stronghold.

MR DE KLERK: Mr Ndlovu, can you go a little bit slower, even myself, I find it difficult to write down what you are saying, so please go a little bit slower, please?

MR NDLOVU: Okay.

MR DE KLERK: Okay go ahead?

MR NDLOVU: During the course of that conflict there were attacks on Mpumuza where we resided. This conflict between Mpumuza and Kaluza and Mpumuza was where I was born and bred and that's where I also joined the IFP. We realised that the conflict had gained momentum and we did not understand what was going on at Kaluza. We later discovered that they had acquired weapons to attack Mpumuza to actually turn it around into an ANC stronghold. We discovered that somebody was behind all of this. There was a man supplying ANC with weapons to attack the Mpumuza area, that is where I stayed. Some person who had fled Mpumuza to Kaluza and Mr Sibonelo Dlamini gave us information that at Kaluza there is somebody who supplies weapons for them to go attack the Mpumuza area and this person apparently worked at one of the police stations in Durban, that is in kwaMashu and that was the person who was helping the people in Kaluza to attack Mpumuza so that Mpumuza can become an ANC stronghold. We then met and we discussed this issue.

CHAIRPERSON: When you say "we" who are you talking about? When you say "we met and we discussed the issue"?

MR NDLOVU: It was with my brother, my elder brother, who was an IFP, Youth Chairperson, Mr Tabani, who is now deceased. We met and discussed with Tabani and we discussed the information given to us by Sibonelo Dlamini, that these people were now being assisted in attacking us by somebody meeting at a police station in kwaMashu.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Ndlovu, you mention a name Dlamini, what was his other name?

MR NDLOVU: Sibonelo Dlamini.

MR LAX: And who else was with you? You say "we" so was it just you and Tabani and Sibonelo are were there others present as well?

MR NDLOVU: It was myself and Tabani at my home because Tabani was the leader of the Youth of the IFP organisation and he was a guard of IFP leaders in the area. He used to work in the former ZP force.

MR LAX: At that time was he a policeman or was he just a special constable or what was he?

MR NDLOVU: He was a constable at the time.

MR LAX: So he was a proper constable trained at Ulundi etc.

MR NDLOVU: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes continue?

MR NDLOVU: We discussed this matter with Tabani and he told me that after receiving this information that this person supplies weapons to the ANC. I should try and find out information. He said he had also worked at kwaMashu Police Station. I said that I will try and trace this person Sumusesu Gumede and he said I should try indeed to trace him and try to find out if he does work at the kwaMashu Police Station because he was the one behind our attacks at Mpumuza. I did this as he had instructed me and because he was a youth leader. I then left for kwaMashu and I did discover that he indeed worked at the police station as a reservist at the police station. I then reported to my brother that yes I had found out about Sumusesu Gumede and he said that it fine, he would then try that we meet and we obtain a vehicle that will transport us to go attack him because we could not get hold of him Kaluza. They would sometimes meet at Kaluza when he came to bring the weapons but there were a lot of people around that area including women and children therefore other people would get hurt, people who were innocent if we actually attacked him there, but because we wanted just him alone we decided that we should go and attack him at kwaMashu. We then planned this in 1991 on the 16th April, that we should proceed to the kwaMashu Police Station where we found out there was where Mr Gumede worked. Tabani said that we should try and contact Mr Patrick Zondo who was on good terms with him, who could help us in supplying a vehicle for us to transport us to Durban. I had also discovered that this person used to work at the school, Tandakwazi was a school in kwaMashu, doing the night shift 6 to 6. We left my home and we went to Mr Zondo at the Mpumuza area and Tabani asked him to transport us to Durban but we did not give Mr Zondo the entire information that we were going to attack this person. Tabani told him that he was going to see a friend in Durban. We could not divulge everything we had to Mr Zondo because we did not completely trust him to keep the information to himself.

Mr Zondo agreed to take us. We then used his car and proceeded to Durban to kwaMashu where we would find Mr Gumede. We left Pietermaritzburg at about 5 p.m. and arrived at kwaMashu at about quarter past 6 in the evening. We parked our car opposite the school, Tandakwazi, and my brother said I should get off and I alighted from the car and I looked around and I realised that he had not arrived as yet so we decided to go back to the police station because the police vehicles would transport people who were going to do guard duties around the area, therefore it could be that maybe they had not left the police station. We went back to the police station. We met a certain man and I enquired if the guards had left and he said, yes it seems like the had left. We then returned to the school where he was supposed to be, that is Mr Gumede. When we arrived near the school we saw this person approaching from the hostel, approaching the school. We sat in the car and he went into the school where he was supposed to do his guard duties. We told Mr Zondo that we were returning shortly and we left him in the car.

My brother and I went in and I showed him, I pointed him out the school. I stood outside the school and my brother went in and he called out to him. Mr Gumede seemed surprised when my brother called him to come to him and he tried to run away and my brother still tried to call him. My brother drew his gun, he fired a shot, he missed him and Mr Gumede ran away. He followed him, fired another shot and Mr Gumede fell. He shot him at the back of the head and Mr Gumede fell. We then went back to the car. On our way back to the car I told him that we are sometimes attacked by people from the townships. If you leave that gun behind and there is a bus stop nearby where he fell there will be people around, it could happen that those people would pick up this gun and use it to attack other areas. I told him that we should not leave the gun behind because somebody else may see it and take it and use it elsewhere and it could be used in attacking other people, other IFP supporters or even ourselves and my brother agreed with me and we decided that we should take that gun.

Tabani picked up the gun and we went into the car. We told him that we had found our friend and then we had to return. We then returned to Pietermaritzburg to the Mpumuza area. Mr Zondo dropped us at home and he proceeded to his home and we thanked him for his assistance.

Tabani was very pleased with my information because the ANC had gained strength because of the assistance that they had received from this person. Our members were even afraid and people were afraid of joining the IFP. I was also happy that we could find this person and we felt that the violence maybe will subside because this person was the one behind the supplying of the weapons that were used in the conflict.

After a while, in 1992, it was discovered that the people who had killed Mr Gumede were now known to the police, that is myself, Tabani and Mr Zondo. I do not know how this information leaked to the police, I just heard that Mr Zondo had been arrested in Durban and I was also being sought by the police. I was also arrested with regards to the crime and I was charged and convicted. Tabani was also arrested with regards to the same incident. In 1992 we were released on bail. During the same year in June, on the 3rd, police arrived, that is from the ...[indistinct] Police Station. They said that they had gotten information.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, is it back on? The interpretation just went off for a little while but I think it's back on. Yes, carry on, sorry Mr Ndlovu.

MR DE KLERK: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Ndlovu, were you then subsequently charged in the High Court and convicted?

CHAIRPERSON: I think you were saying the police arrived after you were released on bail. What happened then? I think there was something he was going to say. Probably about ...[inaudible]

MR NDLOVU: After we were released on bail on the 3rd June 1992, police arrived, the SAP police and they were with some ANC members from Kaluza. They said they were looking for Tabani because they'd heard that he was the one who had killed Gumede. I told them that Tabani was in town. They also asked if I was present during that incident. They said I should pass the message to Tabani that they were looking for him. Amongst the people who were there was Skiza Zuma, an ex IFP member and they said Tabani should be killed because he was responsible for killing ANC members. I told that we had already been arrested and charged for this crime, what more do they want because we have been charged for that crime.

When Tabani arrived I told him that the police and ANC

members had been to our house and they were looking for him and we could see that they were looking out for a fight.

On the 4th at about 1.30 a.m. some people who called themselves police knocked on our door. My mother enquired what did they want because they were kicking all doors. They said we should open the house, they're looking for Tabani. My mother refused to open the door because it was early in the morning. They should return in the morning. They insisted that they were the police, if we do not open the door they will kick the door down. I said that we should not open the door. They kicked the doors, broke the doors down and then they also threw petrol bombs and fired shots. We could realise then that these were not the South African Police because police could not behave in that way. We all went into the dining room, the house was burnt and they were firing shots. One of the girls was shot in that incident. I tried to run away. I went outside into the veranda and they started firing at me. I even saw one person who was with these people from kwaKaluza. Skisa was saying they should kill me but I managed to break away and run away. They continued firing. I phoned the police from the one house, the Mabizela house, I phoned the police, the ...[indistinct] police, informing them of this incident. When the police arrived we went to my home and we discovered that my mother had been shot and also my sister as well as that the house had been burnt down. Tabani had also been shot and he was at a neighbour's house temporarily. We picked him up from that house. His girlfriend, Kyansile, had also been shot. We took him to the Grey's Hospital.

On the following day Tabani was dead. We buried all my family members and we continued staying at my aunt's house in Westgate because our home had been burned down.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, you said Mr Ndlovu that you buried all your family members. You said that your mother was shot, did she die?

MR NDLOVU: Yes she did die.

CHAIRPERSON: And your sister, did she die?

MR NDLOVU: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And Tabani's girlfriend, did she die?

MR NDLOVU: No, she did not die but she sustained injuries because she was shot as well. It is only Tabani who died at hospital.

CHAIRPERSON: So the three people died, your mother, your sister and Tabani who died the next day?

MR NDLOVU: Yes that is correct.

MR DE KLERK: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Ndlovu, just to clarify a few aspects. Firstly do you have in this time, this incident in 1991, were you also a member of the kwaZulu Police?

MR NDLOVU: Yes I was.

MR DE KLERK: What was your rank?

MR NDLOVU: At the time I was a special constable awaiting training.

MR DE KLERK: Where did you go to, to be trained as a special constable?

MR NDLOVU: I was trained at Cape Town Training Centre.

MR DE KLERK: At Koeberg?

MR NDLOVU: Yes.

MR DE KLERK: Okay Mr Ndlovu, remember that you filled in an annexure form 1 as an application for amnesty?

CHAIRPERSON: What page are you referring to Mr de Klerk.

MR DE KLERK: I can assist the Commission, there is two form 1's. I just want to explain why there's two.

CHAIRPERSON: Which pages are you on there?

MR DE KLERK: The first form is from page 2 to page 4 and the other one starts on 5 to 11. There's two of these forms, why is there two?

MR NDLOVU: I first filled a form at Westville Prison. When I followed up the process, I'm enquiring if the form had been sent or not and it was discovered that it was not clear whether the form had indeed reached the TRC or not or maybe it had been lost. I then wanted to proceed with the matter and I did not know what was going on. I then filled in another form so that if the first one got misplaced the second one could be used.

CHAIRPERSON: I just might say, Mr de Klerk, that we're missing and I think you probably are as well, a page from one of these forms. If you take a look at page 8 of the bundle, in response to the question contained in paragraph 10(a), 10(b) at least, the applicant writes out his version and then at the bottom it says p.t.o. separate page and that separate page isn't there.

MR DE KLERK: Yes I also noticed that Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Bottom of page 8 Mr Mpshe.

ADV MPSHE: Is he perhaps not referring to the affidavit, Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: You can see this sentence is incomplete, yes.

So maybe the original will have the separate page which was omitted to be photocopied.

MR DE KLERK: May I proceed Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes indeed, thank you.

MR DE KLERK: Okay, Mr Ndlovu, if we look at page number 3, that is the second form that you filled in. I just want to clarify one aspect. In the nature and particulars it was written down and it seems that it was not your handwriting

"The deceased had been supporting ANC by supplying them with firearms. ANC was fighting with IFP and they killed my brother."

Am I clear that your brother was killed after the incident of Mr Gumede?

MR NDLOVU: My brother was indeed killed after we had killed Mr Gumede.

CHAIRPERSON: Was Tabani your only brother?

MR NDLOVU: He was my elder brother. There are other younger brothers but he was older.

CHAIRPERSON: Where any of the younger brothers killed before the Gumede incident?

MR NDLOVU: No.

MR DE KLERK: Then Mr Ndlovu, on page 9 of the original application which you wrote out in your own handwriting. The question was asked and that is point 11(a)

"Was the act committed in the execution of an order or on behalf of, or with the approval of the organisation/institution/body liberation movement/State Department or Security Force concerned?"

Then you answered there in your own handwriting:

"I was participated in the offence with the approval of the kwaZulu Government because they were employed me to defend and protect the IFP members whom they were attacked by ANC."

Can you just explain, what did you mean by this paragraph?

On whose behalf did you act and who did you want to protect when you killed Mr Gumede?

MR NDLOVU: What I did, I did under the banner of the IFP. The kwaZulu Government and the IFP are regarded as one and the same thing. I knew them to be one. Whatever I did, I did under the banner of the IFP, that is what I was trying to explain.

MR DE KLERK: Did you receive any moneys or any benefit from this act?

MR NDLOVU: I have never received any money or any reward for this action.

MR DE KLERK: If you could just clarify the following? When you were charged in the High Court and subsequently convicted, during that stage, as I went through the notes and the judgement, am I correct that at that stage you did not mention to the High Court that this was a politically motivated attack, is that correct?

MR NDLOVU: That is correct, I did not mention it.

CHAIRPERSON: In fact I think the applicant pleaded not guilty in the High Court.

MR NDLOVU: Yes.

MR LAX: Why was that?

MR DE KLERK: Can you just explain to the Commission why at that stage you did not tender the excuse of political violence?

MR NDLOVU: I pleaded not guilty in court. I wanted to deny the charges so that I could be acquitted and because the Commission seeks to learn the truth therefore I find it or I see it important that I tell the truth, the entire truth regarding the objectives and the reason for committing this crime.

MR DE KLERK: In the High Court you were also found guilty on the charge of robbery. Was it your intention to go to Mr Gumede and rob him of his firearm?

MR NDLOVU: It was not my intention to rob Mr Gumede of his firearm. We did have firearms at the Mpumuza area. There was no reason for us to drive all the way from Pietermaritzburg to Durban to attack Mr Gumede just for robbing him of his firearm. Our reasons for attacking him were to stop him from supplying the weapons that he gave to the ANC members in Pietermaritzburg, that is why we decided to kill him.

CHAIRPERSON: While you're on this point, sorry to interrupt, Mr de Klerk, but while we're dealing with this point, we have before us a copy of the judgement that was handed down at your trial and I'd just like to read one paragraph, short paragraph, from that judgement, it's on page 30 Mr de Klerk at line 9. This is what the judge said

"The key witness on this issue is one Nkosa Nati Ngobo. He testified that a meeting took place at Tabani Ndlovu's house in April 1991 at which he, Tabani Ndlovu, the accused and Bright Dlamini were present. At this meeting Tabani Ndlovu said that they should go to kwaMashu to take a firearm at gunpoint from a policeman."

So that, it would seem Mr Ndlovu, that this witness Nkosa Nati Ngobo says that the prime objective of the mission was to rob a firearm. What do you say to that?

MR NDLOVU: I disagree with that statement because I was seeing him for the first time when he made this testimony but he had been on goods terms with my elder brother. He made a lot of statements in court. He even said that I was responsible and at some other times he would say it was my brother who planned the whole thing, therefore I would not regard him as a reliable witness because at the time he had become a member of the ANC who had fled the Mpumuza area.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you Mr de Klerk.

MR DE KLERK: Mr Ndlovu, if at that stage 1991, you wanted for argument sake an automatic firearm, was it difficult or easy for you to acquire such a firearm?

MR NDLOVU: I did not have difficulty in obtaining a firearm. If I wanted a weapon or a gun I had many avenues open to me in Pietermaritzburg. We would have not driven from Pietermaritzburg to Durban when there were guns in Pietermaritzburg.

MR LAX: Just while you're there, sorry to come in Mr de Klerk, what were those avenues?

MR NDLOVU: We could make our own home made weapons to protect ourselves.

MR LAX: Yes, what else?

MR NDLOVU: That was the way in which we obtained weapons. My brother, Tabani, was also the IFP Youth Leader who had the responsibility of protecting IFP members. He had legal weapons in his possession.

MR LAX: Well you said you had many ways of getting weapons, you've told us two. What are the others? You see a home made firearm is not an automatic firearm. You said you had many ways of getting other weapons, especially automatics. If you're here to tell us the truth, well open up about it.

MR NDLOVU: With regards to the conflict in Pietermaritzburg, IFP supporters and members from other areas would come and they will sell us weapons. Those are the people that we asked for assistance from.

MR LAX: Where would they have got the weapons from?

MR NDLOVU: I would not know where they obtained those weapons because we were only concerned with what they sold to us and we did not enquire from them where they actually got these guns.

MR LAX: Thanks Chairperson.

MR DE KLERK: So Mr Ndlovu, if I understand you correctly, it was easy to buy a firearm in that period of time?

MR NDLOVU: Yes it was easy.

MR DE KLERK: What was the sentence that you received from the High Court?

MR NDLOVU: I was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

MR DE KLERK: And how long have you been in prison now?

MR NDLOVU: This is my fifth year in prison.

MR DE KLERK: Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DE KLERK

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr de Klerk. Mr Mpshe, do you have any questions to put to the witness?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV MPSHE: Yes Mr Chairman.

Mr Ndlovu, do you have an application with you?

MR NDLOVU: No.

ADV MPSHE: Okay I will read to you what is in the application. On page 3 of your application, page 3 of the bundle, Mr Chairman, I'm sorry. Responding to a question under question 10(a) where it says

"State political objective sought to be achieved"

You said the following:

"We wanted to eliminate the enemy's supply and by doing that.."

Now here comes my problem:

"..we were defending our organisation."

Did you get that?

MR NDLOVU: Yes.

ADV MPSHE: Now from what were you defending your organisation?

MR NDLOVU: We were defending the organisation from attack by the ANC.

ADV MPSHE: Did the deceased in this matter ever attack your organisation or attempt to attack your organisation?

MR NDLOVU: The deceased was behind all those activities organising ANC members and supplying them with weapons to attack IFP members.

ADV MPSHE: Did you, Mr Ndlovu, have any personal knowledge whether this man, the deceased, ever attacked your organisation?

MR NDLOVU: From the information that we received from Sibonelo Dlamini with whom the deceased used to discuss these matters, that was the knowledge we had.

ADV MPSHE: Let's move to page 7 of the bundle, still the application, the second application. Still paragraph 10(a), question of paragraph 10(a). Just to mention to you in passing, you're now bringing something different to what I've just read to you and you state

"The political objective sought to be achieved was stopping the confliction of two organisation's supporters which is IFP and ANC. I've achieved for protecting my supporters on that confliction."

MR DE KLERK: Mr Chairman, I have to object. To be fair to the witness and the applicant, I don't see the conflict here. It's just a different way of stating the same thing.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's hear what Mr Ndlovu has to say. Mr Mpshe can, if he believes there's a conflict and make submissions later on that point. I think by Mr Mpshe saying that there was a conflict between this paragraph, telling the others he is expressing his personal view.

ADV MPSHE: That is so, Mr Chairman.

....[inaudible] of two organisations?

MR NDLOVU: The stopping of the conflict between the ANC and IFP, rested on attacking Mr Gumede because he was the one who was perpetrating the conflict because he supplied weapons to the ANC. Therefore, for the conflict to stop between these two organisations he would have to be removed.

ADV MPSHE: Do you then agree with me that stopping a conflict and defending an organisation are not the same thing?

MR NDLOVU: Yes I would.

ADV MPSHE: Let's proceed. Now my learned friend, your lawyer, with regard to page 9 of the papers, paragraph 11(a) elicited from you the evidence that you were doing this on behalf of IFP and the Government, do you still recall that?

MR NDLOVU: Yes I do recall.

ADV MPSHE: Was it the policy of the IFP to kill opponents?

MR NDLOVU: It was not the policy of the IFP to kill it's enemies but there was no policy pertaining to attacks on IFP members, they did not say that we should not defend ourselves when we are being attacked. The IFP policy is that negotiations is what you should endeavour to do but if there were attacks, the IFP had never instructed us to sit back and watch on, we would have to defend ourselves.

ADV MPSHE: Now let's go back to what I'd said to you initially or sometime in the beginning. Before you could attack and kill the deceased, were you told of any physical action by the deceased where he attacked IFP?

MR NDLOVU: We had received information from Sibonelo Dlamini that the deceased supplied weapons to the ANC for them to attack Mpumuza and organising them to actually attack the area. This war went on and some people were injured and killed during the course of the conflict.

ADV MPSHE: Were you told by your informer, once more, as to when was the IFP attacked and as to whether the deceased was involved in that attack by supplying arms?

MR NDLOVU: Sibonelo told us that the deceased was behind all these activities. He supplied them with weapons and he would also instruct them or recommend to them how they should attack the area and he would be amongst them.

ADV MPSHE: When was the last attack on the IFP orchestrated by the deceased on the period?

MR NDLOVU: It was in 1991. There was an ongoing war between January and March 1991.

ADV MPSHE: And your informer told you that the deceased was involved in that fight or war?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, that is what he told us.

ADV MPSHE: Did you tell this when you were being led by your lawyer?

MR NDLOVU: I explained it to my lawyer.

ADV MPSHE: No, in evidence now, when you're giving evidence about the information given to you?

MR NDLOVU: He did not ask me about that, I only responded to questions that were put to me.

ADV MPSHE: Let me remind you, you were telling on your own about the informer who came to you and told you everything. He never asked you questions about informer, you volunteered then you told what happened. Is that not so?

MR NDLOVU: That is correct.

ADV MPSHE: And you did not tell us this portion that you are telling us now?

MR NDLOVU: I am explaining it because you are enquiring about it now.

ADV MPSHE: Don't you think this was an important part because you alleged that you killed this man because he was orchestrating wars against the IFP. Was that not important for your case?

MR NDLOVU: Yes.

ADV MPSHE: Now you discussed this incident, unfortunate incident with your brother, Tabani, and you went and executed your plan by killing the deceased. Did you not have leadership in your earlier IFP leadership?

MR NDLOVU: There were some leaders at Mpumuza but Tabani was the IFP Youth Leader and everything was reported to him. I received many orders from Tabani, I did not see a reason to go report or discuss this matter with other leaders because Tabani was there and he was also a leader, a youth leader, in the area.

ADV MPSHE: Now seeing that you are going to carry out as you allege you carried out this operation on behalf of the IFP, wasn't it necessary for you and Tabani to discuss this with the local leadership, not youth leadership, the local national leadership or any regional leadership?

MR NDLOVU: I assumed that Tabani communicated with the leadership because Tabani was a leader and he was the one who was closest to us as the youth leader and I assumed that he communicated whatever we discussed with the other members of the leadership in the area.

ADV MPSHE: Did Tabani or yourself have any authority in terms of the IFP structures to - can plan and execute a plan and kill a person or authorise any operation?

MR NDLOVU: Yes we had that right to plan that because Tabani was responsible for the security of IFP members in the Mpumuza area.

ADV MPSHE: Are you saying you even have the authority to can authorise a killing of a person on behalf of IFP?

MR NDLOVU: Yes he could have that authority because even the leaders at Mpumuza relied on him. They all came to report to Tabani at Mpumuza about the war and what they suffered.

ADV MPSHE: Let's turn to page 12.

MR LAX: Sorry, before you go away. Which leaders came to report to him?

MR NDLOVU: IFP youth members from Mpumuza and some other men, people like Mr Ngobo, they were attacked and they would come to Tabani and complain to them that they're being attacked and there he was as their protector and he was doing nothing. Women and children also come to Tabani to report to him.

MR LAX: Yes I asked you which leaders, which leaders at Mpumuza came to him? You said the leaders came and reported to him. I know ordinary people might have come but which leaders came to him?

MR NDLOVU: Mr Ngobo and Mr Phillip Umhlongo reported to Tabani.

MR LAX: And who gave him the authority to look after the security, which senior people?

MR NDLOVU: Tabani used to work in the kwaZulu Police, he had been stationed at the Mpumalanga from Ulundi, he would report at the police station. I do not know who specifically he reported to but it was known that he was in the area protecting IFP members.

MR LAX: Mr Ndlovu, if your brother and this is your oldest brother and it's clear you were close to him and you discussed these matters with him, if he was responsible for the whole of Mpumuza's security, he would have discussed it with the IFP leadership at Mpumuza at least. You've not mentioning any of their names here, why? Why are you not telling us about these other people?

MR NDLOVU: We discussed some things but some of the things he would not tell me because I was younger and maybe he suspected that I may not keep that information to myself but whatever we knew we heard from him. Even if there were meetings, maybe if he had meetings somewhere else he would tell us but he had never mentioned to me the specific leaders who he met because I was younger and I was also afraid to ask him some of the things.

MR LAX: Who were the leaders at Mpumuza of the IFP?

MR NDLOVU: It was Mr Phillip Umhlongo.

MR LAX: Yes, what was his role?

MR NDLOVU: He was the chairman of the IFP.

MR LAX: And what police station was your brother based at?

MR NDLOVU: At the Mpumalanga Police Station in Hammarsdale, that was the one station closest to Mpumuza in Pietermartizburg.

MR LAX: And who was he responsible for guarding?

MR NDLOVU: He was responsible for protecting IFP members in ...[indistinct] and Mpumuza and he also protected IFP members in parliament like Mr Nabisa Ngobe.

MR LAX: Carry on Mr Mpshe.

ADV MPSHE: Thank you. Just to go a little back, the meeting where the plan was done between yourself and your brother, where did this take place?

MR NDLOVU: It was held at my home at Mpumuza.

ADV MPSHE: It was started there and finalised there then execution followed?

MR NDLOVU: Yes.

ADV MPSHE: When you say your brother was a leader, was a youth leader, what position did he hold in the youth leadership?

MR NDLOVU: He was the chairperson of the IFP Youth League.

ADV MPSHE: Would I be correct to state that there was a youth committee in that area as well for which he was a chairman?

MR NDLOVU: I did not fully understand the workings of the youth committee but he was in the youth committee and he was the chairperson.

ADV MPSHE: You don't know whether he was a chair of a committee, all what you know is that he was a chair of the youth?

MR NDLOVU: He was the chairperson of the youth.

ADV MPSHE: At any given moment did yourself and your brother discuss this with any leadership in the youth?

MR NDLOVU: Other people that we could have discussed the matter with that those people that my brother trusted were already deceased.

ADV MPSHE: No I'm not talking about brothers, I'm talking about leaders in the youth leadership, he was a chair of the committee. Were they involved in this planning?

MR NDLOVU: No, they were not involved.

ADV MPSHE: After doing all this, did you report your actions to the IFP leadership?

MR NDLOVU: Tabani reported.

ADV MPSHE: To whom did he report?

MR NDLOVU: He once reported to Mr Phillip Umhlongo that such an incident had occurred but he only reported it after he had been charged with the crime, that was the killing of Mr Gumede.

ADV MPSHE: So your brother informed the chairperson, Mr Umhlongo, only when you people got arrested?

MR NDLOVU: That is correct.

ADV MPSHE: And it's the first time that the IFP leadership knew about this incident, am I correct?

MR NDLOVU: That is correct.

ADV MPSHE: Did you hold in position in the organisation, IFP?

MR NDLOVU: I was a member of the youth and I was involved in the security and protection services in the community.

ADV MPSHE: No, no, no. I'm talking about organisation IFP, did you hold any position of leadership?

MR NDLOVU: No, I was a member, I did not hold a position.

ADV MPSHE: What is a requirement for a person to become a member of the IFP, or to be fair to you what was the requirement then?

MR NDLOVU: For you to join the IFP you would have to formally join and obtain a membership card.

ADV MPSHE: You simply go and tell them you joined and they write and you are a member?

MR NDLOVU: You mention, when you mention that you want to join, you state the reason why and then you join the IFP.

ADV MPSHE: Is there any payment done for you to become a member, subscription of some sort done?

MR NDLOVU: At that time, yes you did, payment of a fee of R10.

ADV MPSHE: Now let's go back to your informer, Sibonelo Dlamini. What made him divulge this information to you?

MR NDLOVU: Sibonelo had fled the Mpumuza area and he had fled to Kaluza which was an ANC stronghold. He had left his parents at Mpumuza and there were rumours that he would come to Mpumuza, he would come there and hide himself because if people saw him they would kill him. He tried to get into contact with Tabana and he requested to see his parents in Mpumuza and he mentioned that he had fled the area because he wanted to continue with his schooling in a peaceful area and because of that he was asked to give information about what happened in Kaluza because his family was residing at Mpumuza and he would be one of the people who would be protected by the information that he would give.

ADV MPSHE: Did yourself or your brother make any attempt at verifying these allegations against the deceased before you could decide to kill him?

MR NDLOVU: Yes we did try, we even contacted the police in Pietermaritzburg. We told them that there were weapons that were being sent to Kaluza, they should try and investigate about it. We discovered one day that there was a gun that had been found in Kaluza and it had been seized in from one house during a raid but this gun had been obtained from kwaMashu. This information we got from a Sergeant Wessel from the SAP in Pietermaritzburg. In that way we confirmed that it must be one of those guns that were being sent by this person from Durban.

ADV MPSHE: Oh, the police investigation did not link this gun to the deceased, you just drew inference that it must have been one of the guns he has been exporting?

MR NDLOVU: That is correct. We made that assumption because the guns used by the KZP were different, for example the 7.65 used by the ZP were different from those used by the SAP. When Sergeant Wessel told us that it was a 7.65 which was used by the ZP's we realised that it must be one of those guns that are brought in to Kaluza.

ADV MPSHE: We have been told many times in other hearings, I need your confirmation, that even within the police force there were certain members of the force who were supplying guns either to IFP or to ANC. Would you say that is correct?

MR NDLOVU: With regards to kwaZulu Natal, it is true that some members of the police force used to collaborate with political organisations, some of them were ANC or IFP members but that is something that is something they would not divulge but it did happen that ANC and IFP members were part of the police force but as a member of the police you were not supposed to show that you indeed collaborate with either party. Many people in KZN assumed that the Zulu police used to work for the IFP which is not true because there were members within the ZP's who worked for the ANC and used to supply them with weapons to attack the IFP. Some of them will give weapons to the SDU's to promote or to strengthen the ANC.

ADV MPSHE: Good. On what you've just explained, it cannot be said conclusively that that gun, investigated by yourself, by the police, was the gun supplied exclusively by the deceased, it could have been any policeman or any other person, will that be correct?

CHAIRPERSON: He has already said that he's inferred that it was the deceased which I think is implicit it could be anybody else from the ...[intervention]

ADV MPSHE: I take the point, thank you Mr Chairman.

Now let's go to the scene. When you took ...[intervention]

MR LAX: Just before you do, I'd just thought you might be asking something on something else. While we're still talking about how you found out from the police and so on, this Wessels, was it Wessels or Wessel?

MR NDLOVU: Sergeant Wessel.

MR LAX: Where was he from?

MR NDLOVU: He was stationed at Mountain Rise in Pietermaritzburg. He was in the dog unit.

MR LAX: Was he the person you went to speak to? How was it that you were working with him in relation to guns that were being taken from Kaluza? You were a kwaZulu Police, he was SAP, how come you were working with him?

MR NDLOVU: Sergeant Wessel would also come to Mpumuza to look for weapons therefore we told him that they should also go to Kaluza to look for weapons, not just from Mpumuza. We wanted assurance that they also raided Kaluza in the same way that they raided Mpumuza because they would normally come to us looking for weapons and we told them that they should do the same at Kaluza. We were not working with him.

MR LAX: Well how did he come to tell you about the weapon that they raided in Kaluza if you weren't - why should he do that?

MR NDLOVU: He had come to my home to look for weapons and we told him that the people who had given him information that there were guns in my house were also, they also had guns in their possession and later he told us that we were indeed right that there were weapons that were being stored in Kaluza because he had found one in that area.

MR LAX: So you knew this Wessels, you obviously spoke to him on many occasions?

MR NDLOVU: Yes I knew him because he used to come to the area often.

ADV MPSHE: Mr Ndlovu, you told us the reason why the deceased firearm was taken, you gave us a very lengthy reason. But my question is to you, what did you intend doing with it?

MR NDLOVU: We would not have left the gun lying there because I used to work in these areas.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I know, I think the question Mr Ndlovu is once you had - you have given the reason why you took the gun but once you had taken the gun, what was your intention, what did you intend to do with that weapon once you decided to take it and in fact took it?

MR NDLOVU: Tabani said we should keep the weapon so that we should show it to the IFP members.

ADV MPSHE: Was that done?

MR NDLOVU: Tabani said he had informed Mr Umhlongo that there was a gun that had been removed from the deceased but he gave this information after we had been released, upon bail.

ADV MPSHE: So Mr Umhlongo was - let me put it this way - this gun was reported to the IFP leadership four, five months down the line, am I correct? This offence was committed ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Well no it was about fourteen months down the line because he was released on bail on the 3rd June 1992 and this occurred during April 1991, yes.

ADV MPSHE: I stand corrected. This was reported to Umhlongo months down the line? More than a year down the line?

MR NDLOVU: Yes a long time ...[indistinct]

ADV MPSHE: Now finally, will I be correct to state that yourself and your brother Tabani did not have any authority from the leadership to kill the deceased?

MR NDLOVU: All the information that I received was from Tabani and I assumed that he had communicated to the leadership because I knew him to be responsible for the protection of IFP members in the area and whatever I did I did in assisting Tabani. I was sent by him to monitor and trace this Gumede.

ADV MPSHE: Mr Ndlovu, I'm asking you this question deliberately because on page 12 of the papers, I'm going to quote to you what you've said. You say

"The attacks on the victim was our own initiative, we were not instructed by any person."

MR LAX: Just to add to that, in your earlier evidence this morning when you were asked initially whether Tabani had got approval from anybody else, you also said he didn't need approval, he was the youth leader, he could do what he liked, he was charge of the security?

ADV MPSHE: Thank you.

MR NDLOVU: I was trying to explain that this matter had been discussed between myself and Tabani because he was the person closest to me as a youth leader.

ADV MPSHE: Then just let's not confuse it, let's go back to my initial question and just answer that question. Yourself and your brother had not authority, were not given any authority by the IFP leadership to kill the deceased?

MR NDLOVU: I would not lie and say some people had given us that instruction, nobody did.

ADV MPSHE: Now the last question. By killing the deceased, what did you hope to achieve politically?

MR NDLOVU: Our political objective was to stop the supply of weapons by Mr Gumede to the ANC in Pietermaritzburg. We wanted to strengthen our organisation and to defend it against or protect it against attack.

ADV MPSHE: Was the deceased's death going to enhance the political picture of the IFP or the political status of the IFP?

MR NDLOVU: The death of the deceased would have assisted the IFP because the conflict between the two organisations would stop because the ANC would no longer receive those weapons from Mr Gumede.

ADV MPSHE: I don't want to belabour this point but let me put it something as a follow up for the last time. Am I correct from your last answer to state that the conflict between the ANC and the IFP, actually that's what you say in your second application, paragraph 10(a). The conflict between the IFP and the ANC would be stopped, am I correct? Is that what you said?

MR NDLOVU: Yes.

ADV MPSHE: Will I be then correct to state that that would have no political gain for the IFP but simply that there should be peace in the area. Is my conclusion correct?

CHAIRPERSON: What are you trying to get at here, Mr Mpshe?

What do you mean by political gain? In that by stealing the gun they're going to get more voters in the election or not? What do you mean by political gain?

ADV MPSHE: By political gain, Mr Chairman, I'm referring to the enhancement of the political status of the IFP inter alia that they inter alia ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Well I mean if you've got a war situation and you get peace, doesn't everybody gain from that?

ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, everybody would gain but I'm being particular to the IFP because it was during this particularly.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright we can hear it but it seems a little bit obtuse.

MR NDLOVU: There would be peace and people would be able to join the IFP because we wanted to strengthen our organisation. We wanted the IFP to be strengthened at Mpumuza.

ADV MPSHE: That was the question I was expecting, Mr Chairman, thank you it was very clear, my question, thanks.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV MPSHE

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mpshe. Mr de Klerk do you have any re-examination?

MR DE KLERK: No questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Sibanyoni, do you have any questions to ask the witness?

MR SIBANYONI: Yes Mr Chairperson.

Mr Ndlovu, you said at that time subscriptions for IFP was R10. Did you ever pay subscription to be a member of the IFP?

MR NDLOVU: Yes I did.

MR SIBANYONI: At that stage were you as a police officer from kwaZulu Police allowed to be a member of a political party?

MR NDLOVU: I joined the IFP in 1987 before I became a member of the kwaZulu Police. That is how I came to pay that R10.

MR SIBANYONI: So as a member of a political party you would be employed as a police officer in the kwaZulu Police?

MR NDLOVU: Yes they did employ me.

MR SIBANYONI: The deceased was a police officer. You were also a police officer. Was it not the proper thing to report him to the police instead of attacking him?

MR NDLOVU: Because of our support for the IFP we did not see a reason to report the matter to the police because there was already a war going on in Pietermaritzburg. We felt that the deceased should be attacked without having to report the matter to the police.

MR SIBANYONI: When you were before the court for your criminal trial was it not the best thing to say to the court this person was supplying arms to the ANC, he was committing an offence, I was trying to stop him from doing that or defending the IFP?

MR NDLOVU: I pleaded not guilty in court. I thought that because nobody else knew about it, nobody else had the information except for myself, Tabani and Mr Zondo and Mr Zondo did not see anything and therefore I decided to plead not guilty and I decided not to admit that I had indeed committed the crime.

MR SIBANYONI: Is it merely a coincidence that you and the deceased were police officers and the planning was done by you and your brother and it took place at your home and after the operation the firearm was never reported to the IFP. In other words everything just ended between you and your brother. Was it a sheer coincidence?

MR NDLOVU: As far as I knew, I thought that Tabani had communicated and explained and reported the matter to the IFP leadership, that is what I knew because he told me everything was alright and was going well and I was surprised that nobody else had been informed because I knew him to be a trusted member of the IFP.

MR SIBANYONI: Will you perhaps try to clear this perception. The perception would be, or it would seem that this was more of a personal thing than of a political thing, this attack on the deceased? What is your response?

MR NDLOVU: I would strongly disagree with that. We had political objectives. We would not travel from Pietermaritzburg from Durban to kill the deceased just because of a personal grudge. We had received information that he was supplying weapons to the ANC to attack us.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, no further questions Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Lax do you have any questions?

MR LAX: Thank you Chairperson. Just to pick up where my colleague is busy with you. This person came from Maritzburg, it's not like he was some person from Durban that was based in Durban, isn't that so, this deceased?

MR NDLOVU: The deceased will come to Sibonelo Dlamini's place in Pietermaritzburg. He did not reside in Pietermartizburg as according to the information that we received.

MR LAX: So are you saying that Gumede didn't come from Pietermartizburg and he himself didn't come from Kaluza?

MR NDLOVU: Mr Gumede would come to see ANC members in Pietermartizburg but according to the information that I got, he did not reside there but he would come there to see his colleagues.

MR LAX: Why didn't you just go to Gumede and say to him: "Listen Gumede, we know about you, if you don't stop this business we're going to kill you and we're going to report you to the police and we're going to insure that you never do this again."?

MR NDLOVU: I tried putting this opinion forth to Tabani, that I wanted to approach this man. Tabani said I shouldn't do it because if Mr Gumede discovers that I am close to him he may send some people to kill me because Tabani was well known in the Pietermartizburg area and if Gumede knew that I was Tabani's brother they could plot to kill me because Tabani was a wanted person in Pietermartizburg because of his IFP activities. Therefore Tabani realised that I could be placing myself in danger if I approached Gumede.

MR LAX: Why didn't you just go to your IFP colleagues in the ZP of whom there were many and say we now know of one of our colleagues who are supplying the enemy with arms. Let's set him up, let's catch him and let's prosecute him and thereby stop him. You didn't have to kill him? You could have set a nice trap for him.

MR NDLOVU: I would not have had the authority to do that because Tabani was the one who actually instructed me on what to do, I could have not communicated or contacted those IFP leaders.

MR LAX: I wasn't asking you to contact IFP leaders, I was suggesting you could have contacted IFP policemen. Your colleagues in the police, in the ZP, who would have been very happy to catch a colleague who was supplying the enemy?

MR SIBANYONI: Where I was stationed at kwaMashu where we were deployed the people who were close to me with whom I had been trained and were also members of the IFP were not at my police station, they worked in different police stations. I only worked with the people whom I had found at the station and I was not close to them and I did not know just how loyal they were to the IFP. I could be telling somebody who was an ANC member. If I did something like that I thought I could be placing myself in danger because I could be telling this information to the wrong person.

MR LAX: Well then why didn't you go to Wessels. You knew he was neutral, you knew he was looking for firearms, he would be very happy?

MR NDLOVU: As I explained before, Wessel used to investigate weapons and we told him that he should go investigate the Kaluza area.

MR LAX: Why didn't you tell him to go and investigate the deceased?

MR NDLOVU: We did tell him to go and investigate in Kaluza because this person was said to be responsible for supplying weapons in Kaluza. That was when he informed us that he had indeed uncovered a gun in Kaluza which meant that our information was correct.

MR NDLOVU: The point is, why didn't you tell him about the deceased, just give him his name and say this guy from kwaMashu is supplying. What you've just told us about a weapon from kwaMashu, this must be your source. You can easily catch him now, you've got a weapon from kwaMashu, here's the man, this is your man? Instead you go and kill him, why?

MR NDLOVU: As I explained before we did inform Wessels that there was a person responsible for supplying weapons to the ANC, that is Mr Gumede and we asked them to trace this matter, we did explain it to him.

MR LAX: So why didn't you then give him a chance to do his job? Instead you went and killed the man.

MR NDLOVU: When we realised that the situation was ongoing, people were suffering, people were killed and the houses were burnt down and we were also not safe and my home was on the boundary between the ANC and IFP area. We realised that police sometimes took their time in investigating and we don't know even if they did investigate the matter. We did not know how far Wessels was going to take the matter. We therefore decided that this person should be attacked in order to stop this ongoing violence.

MR LAX: Chair, maybe we can take the tea adjournment now?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes alright, we'll take the tea adjournment at this stage.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: When we adjourned Mr Lax was still asking the witness some questions. Mr Lax?

MR LAX: (continues) Thanks Chairperson.

Mr Ndlovu, did you fill out any other forms for amnesty?

CHAIRPERSON: Besides the two that are in the bundle.

M. R. NDLOVU: (s.u.o.) I think there were only two.

MR LAX: The reason I'm asking is that your form has a 1996 number and both these forms, if you look at page 5 you'll see the application number is 1632/96. Both these forms are dated 1997 so in order for you to have a '96 number there must have been a prior form of some description. Do you understand?

MR NDLOVU: Yes.

MR LAX: And I'm just wondering whether you remember whether you might have filled out another one or not. It's not a trick question, it's easy to forget that you might have done another one before this. It's just to help us get our papers right and for us to, if necessary, go and look at that other form and find it before we make a decision.

MR NDLOVU: These are the two forms that I filled in. I was in Westville Prison and thereafter transferred to Pietermaritzburg and the second form was returned to me at the Pietermartizburg Prison and I had to depose to it at a Commissioner of Oaths.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mpshe?

ADV MPSHE: I just want to bring your attention, perhaps it may be of some help that the first application, even if it was filled out in 1996, it was received on the 10th May 1997.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm just wondering how it got a '96 number.

MR LAX: Do you see the problem?

CHAIRPERSON: The application number is /96.

MR LAX: If you look at page 5 there's a reference number there, 1632/96.

CHAIRPERSON: Unless of course the person who entered the number made a mistake or wrote '96 instead of '97.

ADV MPSHE: Still on page 5, there's an indication of - it doesn't say when it was written but we used to write by hand, 23rd July 1996.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh well that explains it then.

MR LAX: So it could be that this hand-written form was received in '96, sent back for corrections and re-signature and then in the interim he did the '97?

ADV MPSHE: ...[inaudible]

MR LAX: Yes but in the interim the other form was done in '97.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, the second form stated.

MR DE KLERK: Mr Commissioner, I know that some of the applications that I took to the Commission was not attested by the prison authorities, I think some of them went back.

MR LAX: Okay, I just wanted to clear it up so we didn't - we weren't left with a situation where there might be a third one and then we were deciding on only these two and not on a third one as well.

Now you said in reply to a question by Mr Mpshe that your brother didn't tell you everything because you didn't think that he trusted you or you thought that maybe he didn't trust you. Do you remember you said that?

MR NDLOVU: Yes I do remember.

MR LAX: Well if that is the case, why would he take you on this murder mission with him if he didn't trust you or he was a bit worried that you might talk about things and so on?

MR NDLOVU: He knew that I worked in Durban but he's at the kwaMashu Police Station and I knew the area whilst he didn't have enough information about the township.

MR LAX: Yes, the issue is if he didn't trust you why would he involve you, he might have got all the information from you but why would he involve you in a murder if he didn't trust you? It's a very serious thing, a murder, you will agree with me on that?

MR NDLOVU: He does not mean that he did not trust me completely or maybe he mistrusted me completely. The Mpumuza

area and the attacks on Mpumuza were well known issues and Sibonelo had given us information, he had given the information in my presence therefore he knew that I was aware of Mr Gumede's activities and because I worked at kwaMashua, I was in a better position to monitor and trace Mr Gumede and that is how he came to involve me at that time.

MR LAX: Now we understand from you now in your evidence under cross-examination that you were based at kwaMashu?

MR NDLOVU: That is so.

MR LAX: So did you know the deceased?

MR NDLOVU: I knew him by sight because he would sometime come to help during the weekend. I did not have details on him like where he resided or who he was because he was not in the same unit that I was in, I would just see on occasion when he came to the station.

MR LAX: Well, you see if you go to your statement at page 12 and page 13, I'll just read from the bottom of page 12. Well let me read the whole paragraph so we don't lose everything

"I then got information that there was a man who was a policeman in kwaMashu who was supplying arms to the ANC members in Kaluza. I also got information that this policeman was known to Sibonelo Dlamini, born from Mpumuza and was staying at Kaluza after running away from IFP at Mpumuza. I learnt that this victim Gumede used to visit Sibonelo Dlamini at Kaluza. I got information that this Gumede was staying in the hostel at kwaMashu. I did not know his home district, I presume it was on the North Coast. On realising this, we made a plot to kill this Gumede. I first made investigation in kwaMashu Police Station until I got a positive identification of the victim, with the assistance of Sibonelo Dlamini."

Now, you knew this man by sight already, you say. You didn't need Sibonelo Dlamini's help to get a positive identification?

You worked with him.

MR NDLOVU: As I explained before, he was one of the people who used to come to the station on weekends to help out as a reservist. I tried to trace him through other police officers and I discovered that he was indeed one of the reservists who used to come to the police station to assist. That is how I got to know that he is the reservist at a police station and that he is residing at the hostel.

MR LAX: But you see I've just asked you a few minutes ago and you said you knew the man by sight, you didn't say you had to find out who he was?

MR NDLOVU: I did say that I knew him by sight when he came to help out.

MR LAX: You're also say in your statement, before you made the plot to kill him, that you knew he stayed in a hostel in kwaMashu. Earlier in your evidence you said you didn't know where he stayed. Please explain this?

MR NDLOVU: From the information that I received form Sibonelo, he said this person lived at the hostel and when I discovered that there were police reservists who came to the station occasionally to assist, I then realised that that indeed was the person, that is Mr Gumede and it happened that I had seen him before at the station.

MR LAX: It still doesn't explain why you told us earlier that you didn't know where this man stayed but you did work with him and you knew him by sight. If Sibonelo had told you that he stayed in the hostel before this you would have known where he stayed?

MR NDLOVU: The hostel itself is a massive place and I did not know whereabout the hostel did he stay.

MR LAX: The point I'm trying to make is just what your evidence told us and in any event you weren't going to go and kill him at the hostel, that would have been too dangerous for you? You also weren't going to kill him at Kaluza because there would be too many people around there as well. That was part of your earlier evidence, do you remember?

MR NDLOVU: Yes.

MR LAX: Did you not maybe have some quarrel with this man?

MR NDLOVU: No, we've never had a quarrel.

MR LAX: This Sibonelo Dlamini, he was scared of you guys, isn't that so?

MR NDLOVU: I do not think that he was afraid of me because I had not harmed him in any way. He had grown up in the Mpumuza area and had fled the area to the ANC area. As far as I'm concerned I don't think he would have been afraid of me.

MR LAX: But you told us that you discovered he was in the area and you sent for him and the only way you would let him stay, carry on staying in Mpumuza was that if he would give you information about Kaluza. So it could hardly have been voluntary on his part? Do you understand what I'm saying?

Now the question I have for you, in the light of that, is how could you trust the information he gave you when he would have just given you anything that you wanted from him so that you would leave him alone and let him be there?

MR NDLOVU: We trusted the information that was given to us by Sibonelo because this person is to come to his place and he also explained that this person worked at the police station and when I traced this person I did discover that that information was true and he also had an interest in protecting his home against ANC members because he also did not want his home to be attacked by the ANC. So for his home or for his family to be safe he also had to help Tabani with that information even where there were people who were supposed to be attacked. His home would be safe and not be attacked because Sibonelo supplied us with information.

MR LAX: Just two last small issues. This witness in your trial, Mr Ngobo, you say you never saw him before you arrived in court, you'd never seen him before?

MR NDLOVU: As I explained before, Mr Ngobo used to stay at Mpumuza but he was an ANC supporter. He was one of the people who fled the area.

MR LAX: You said that you hadn't seen him before he testified in court. That was your evidence earlier this morning. You said that Tabani told you that he knew him, remember?

MR NDLOVU: Yes.

MR LAX: Now the question I want to ask is, how could Tabani have told you that he knew him if Tabani was dead at the time your trial started and at the time Mr Ngobo gave evidence and you had never seen him before to know that there was any connection between them.

MR NDLOVU: Mr Ngobo used to stay in Mpumuza. I knew him from Mpumuza.

MR LAX: How did - do I understand you correctly that Ngobo had no part in these arrangements between you and Tabani to go and kill this man, this Gumede? You're nodding your head, I take that's a yes?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, he was not part of those arrangements.

MR LAX: Well then how did he have such detailed information that he could give at the trial about the conversations that took place and all the planning meetings and so on, if that is the case because the court relied on his evidence to convict you and you are saying that you were correctly convicted?

MR NDLOVU: That is a question that still troubles me up to this day because if you notice he made two statements. In one he will say I had orchestrated the plan and in another he will say Tabani had planned this. He made contradictory statements with regards to killing Mr Gumede. If the Committee would look through those documents. Even the court asked him with regards to who indeed was close to him between myself and my brother.

MR LAX: You see the court accepted his explanations for those contradictions, it's clear from the judgement and that's why it relied on that evidence. What is difficult for us to understand and this is why I'm asking you this, because it seems he couldn't have been told all that information by the police, they wouldn't know that detail. Only someone who was present would know that detail and yet you insisted he wasn't present and so that leaves us with a problem, we can't understand it. That's why I'm asking for your explanation, you see? So it's not a trick question, it's just to help us understand.

MR NDLOVU: Mr Ngobo was an ANC supporter. If he had the information about us, we would have not left him behind when we went to commit the crime because even Mr Zondo who transported us to Durban was not told everything about the crime because we did not trust him completely, therefore we would have no reason to leave him, Mr Ngobo, in Pietermartizburg when we went to commit such a serious crime. I was also surprised and confused as to where he got that information that he testified on in court.

Well in the trial he gave a reason why he didn't go with, that he didn't feel good about the operation and he gave you guys an excuse about why he shouldn't go. You remember that? He said he had to cook food and just didn't want to come. Anyway let's leave that. Thank you Chair, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Just very briefly Mr Ndlovu, when you proceeded on the operation were you armed? You yourself?

MR NDLOVU: No, I did not have any gun in my possession.

CHAIRPERSON: What sort of weapon did your brother Tabani have?

MR NDLOVU: He had a shotgun.

CHAIRPERSON: A shotgun?

MR NDLOVU: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: A short gun or a shotgun?

MR NDLOVU: Shotgun, pump action gun.

CHAIRPERSON: A pump action shotgun? Did it spray when it shot or did it shoot a bullet?

MR NDLOVU: He shot the deceased at close range because the bullets that were used were SSG's.

CHAIRPERSON: Now could you just give an indication in this room as to how far away he was from the deceased when he actually shot him?

MR NDLOVU: It might have been just about Mr Mpshe's distance away.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you agree that's plus minus 5 paces and they were running at the time?

MR NDLOVU: Yes he was running.

CHAIRPERSON: And did the deceased at any stage attempt to fire at you or your brother?

MR NDLOVU: He had his gun on his link and he was still trying to aim or to get it off his arm but my brother shot him first. If he had not carried the gun over his shoulder maybe he could have managed to shoot but because he had it on it's link and because he didn't expect this to happen he had the gun on it's link or his shoulder.

CHAIRPERSON: What sort of gun did he have, the gun that you took from him?

MR NDLOVU: An HMC 9 mm parabellum, a sub-machine gun.

CHAIRPERSON: A police issue?

MR NDLOVU: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you or your brother use that firearm at all after the incident?

MR NDLOVU: No it was never used.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr de Klerk, do you have any questions arising from questions that have been put by members of the panel?

MR DE KLERK: No questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mpshe?

ADV MPSHE: No questions Mr Chairman, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Thank you Mr Ndlovu, that brings your testimony to an end, you may stand down.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr de Klerk?

MR DE KLERK: That's the only evidence I'm going to lead.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Mpshe?

ADV MPSHE: I'm leading no evidence Mr Chairman thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Ndlovu?

MR NDLOVU: I would like to convey a message that I wish to reconcile with the deceased family. Everything that I did was not for personal gain, I did not have any grudge with the deceased but it was because of the political situation at the time therefore I would like to apologise to the victim's family. Even if I do not get amnesty, I would like them to accept that it was the situation and I pass my sincerest apologies. I am also a victim because I lost my family members, my mother, my sister and my brother.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you very much Mr Ndlovu, we can understand your distress.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Mr de Klerk are you in a position to address us?

MR DE KLERK IN ARGUMENT: That's right Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR DE KLERK: Firstly, Mr Chairman, it is my opinion that the applicant should receive amnesty. Firstly, this matter happened quite a while ago and surely there will be some questions asked about exactly what happened and exactly how it happened. That is something that we would expect in circumstances like this.

It is clear that from the beginning when the applicant applied for amnesty he gave the same story and the golden thread came through until today. It may be asked yes, why did Mr Ngobo testify regarding this matter if he weren't there but the same question may be asked why didn't the applicant implicate him then because there's no gain for him or loss for him to implicate Mr Ngobo at all. Especially if he knew, very well, that according to him Mr Ngobo implied or testified in a certain way, falsely at the court in the sense ...[indistinct]

CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying that there was good reason for him to implicate him, to explain the contradiction between Ngobo's evidence and the applicant's version here?

MR DE KLERK: That's correct, Mr Chairman. It is my opinion that after this whole incident, if he tried to lie and tried to tell a different story of what happened, he would have come to the Commission and say but Mr Ngobo was there, he was one of the perpetrators in this whole thing but he doesn't do that so it seems that in my opinion and this is the problem with these sort of questions, the Commission and anybody that thinks about it, must speculate and that's where the danger comes in. We cannot sit here today and say definitely what Mr Ngobo said during the trial was the truth. We know that criminal courts are not courts of truth, it's courts of process.

CHAIRPERSON: Could be courts of truth but ...[intervention]

MR DE KLERK: I'm talking about ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: What you've saying in reality is probably closer to the mark.

MR DE KLERK: Thank you Mr Chairman. Be that as it may, I don't want to go too much into the facts. Commission has listened to all the facts. The problems regarding these sort of applications is usually the political motive, was there any order or was it on behalf of a political party or organisation. Clearly in these circumstances, according to the evidence of the applicant, there was a political motive. The question usually now derives and that is usually the problem of these situations where we can accept that there was a - let's call it, the applicant also called it - a war situation on the ground. The situation perceived at that stage differs from any other situation in a normal community. The dynamics of that situation was two groups fighting with each other. The one group and it doesn't matter how we look at it, the one group trying to overpower the other group.

In this situation and dynamics, the one group will decide to attack the other group and kill people because that will benefit them in some or other way. In these circumstances the applicant said no, it was done to take away the threat. So the motive is clear, the take away the person which they perceived as the person supplying firearms would have been to a great benefit for his party, his community and even as he thought at that stage, his government.

Then to say, well he didn't have a political motive, well we're almost saying well in a war situation there's two groups and one group wants to overpower the other and somebody dies according to that, there's no political motive, it just can't be. Now the question is usually asked, the IFP especially in those circumstances, had a policy of non-violence. So anybody that was a member of the IFP that had to live in these circumstances where we all know that people died, IFP died and ANC people died, that because they belonged to a party which officially said that there should not be violence, that makes any act of a member of that party doing something against that party's policy because that is not really true because the political party at that stage said and it was said by many of the leaders that the people may protect themself.

If these members now say well, we have to protect ourselves and by protecting ourselves we have to take out the persons that is involved in killing us, what is he doing against what his party is telling him?

MR LAX: Are you in essence saying this is a - that that sort of pre-emptive strike, if you like, is a part of defence?

MR DE KLERK: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

So we sit with a problem that it's very easy to sit back and say well the political, even today say, no violence. For that reason, no amnesty. But we know the truth is that they had to protect themselves.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we also know through experience and it's general knowledge that there was huge conflicts within the province of KwaZulu Natal and that conflict involved various political parties. I mean that's common knowledge.

MR LAX: And if I can just add particularly the areas he's talking about, I bear personal knowledge of those conflicts, so that's not an issue.

MR DE KLERK: In this specific instance, there's no indication that there was a quarrel between Mr Gumede and the applicant. It seems that the applicant, as he explained, was under the impression that his brother who was a youth leader was in control of the situation. He didn't deem it necessary to go and ask for permission, go to higher levels to clarify it ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: On that one, Mr de Klerk, the applicant said he assumed that Tabani had done, so we don't know he did or didn't and then after questioning by Mr Mpshe he eventually said "well we didn't have any specific instruction" and that fits, you know, as far as he's aware he didn't think or know that Mr Phillip Ngobo or any of the others had said "okay you go ahead" but he assumed that Tabani may have communicated and got, so there may have been that authority or there may not have been.

MR DE KLERK: Yes Mr Chairman I agree. My argument about that is that for him, his subject of thought at that stage is that there was nothing wrong with it because his brother even told him everything is alright.

Furthermore, taking into consideration the situation where there was attacks and everything, surely any person at that stage staying in those areas would have acted and would have thought that he actually did a great thing for his community and behalf of his party. The reason why I'm saying that is, if you look then at Section 20, sub-section 2(e) where it says "the omission or offence was committed in the execution of an order of or on behalf of", I'm of the opinion that it is clear from his subjective thoughts at that stage that this was done on behalf of the IFP, his community and the KwaZulu Government which he perceived as one. So in that sense, I think there it should be no question about the fact that this was a politically motivated killing.

There's only one last aspect I want to mention Mr Chairman and that is my personal opinion regarding applications for amnesty, the fact that it must bring reconciliation also into the picture.

CHAIRPERSON: It's not a requirement, but if one looks at the preamble of the Act, what you say is incorrect.

MR DE KLERK: Because of that, the reason why I'm mentioning that is, if you take that reconciliation part and you put it in to the situation as it was at that stage, it easier to understand why people acted on the information like this, why they didn't go to the police. It was a divided community, it was difficult to go to police, it was difficult to trust people. Sometimes family members did not even trust each other and my request is, taken the situation, taken the fact of the time lapse that has transpired from then until now, I don't see the few contradictions in the evidence as of such a nature to reject the evidence of the applicant. It's clear to me that he didn't try to hide anything. He even, in cross-examination, when specific names was requested from him, he did give names of the leaders that referred back to his brother and so forth.

I think that if there is a motive, it must be this motive, there was no other reason for them to kill this person. If they needed firearms it's common knowledge it was easy to get firearms at that stage.

Even Mr Ngobo initially did not give any reason of a personal nature why this should have happened.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think there's anything on record at all, certainly not on the documents of a personal ill-feeling between Gumede and the applicant. The only suggestion on the papers is that, according to Ngobo, it was to get the firearm.

MR DE KLERK: I know that was said, my only explanation for that is if that person did receive information at a later stage, we don't know how. He knew that this information was the correct information. Let's say he did testify regarding the information that he got, he wouldn't have known what was the real reason behind it and the only reason at that stage would have been the robbery of the firearm. But I don't think it fits into the logic following of the facts.

MR LAX: Except to say this that the two people worked together. Again it's total speculation but it's a possibility like all others and if one is going to weigh up probabilities, they worked together, he knew he worked in a secluded school, he was easy picking.

MR DE KLERK: Yes Mr Chairman, the only answer that I do have to that, it's clear from the applicant's evidence that he knew him from sight, he didn't know his name. So if you know somebody from sight and somebody else tells you of Mr Ilan Lax, I know you from sight but I don't know what's your name, I still need somebody to point you out or to give me more information about you.

MR LAX: The thrust of my point was, here was somebody from whom a firearm could very easily be obtained. He was an easy target, he's sitting out in a school at night as a guard. I'm just saying that, let's not dwell on it.

MR DE KLERK: Yes, no I accept that but the counter argument can be, it can also be extremely dangerous for that person without an automatic firearm walking up to him, that person could have ...[intervention]

MR LAX: You see, what I'd like you to just address me on, if you look at the post-mortem, the entrance wound was basically 3 cm by 2.5 cm. With a shotgun, that's got to be at very close range and 5 metres would not be sufficient at all, must have been much, much closer than that to have such a small entry wound from a shotgun, it's practically a spread of - it's a little bit bigger than the barrel, literally, of any ordinary shotgun, so that's very close range. That's what worries me, but anyway.

CHAIRPERSON: Well it does say birdshot - it says: "Entrance wound in front of right ear, 3 cm long, 2.5 cm wide, no burn mark, with an abrasion and with birdshot pellets recovered from the left cheek.

MR LAX: Gone right through.

CHAIRPERSON: Probably gone right through and birdshot wounds.

MR DE KLERK: Yes. No I accept that. Once again I would refer to the fact of the time period that has lapsed, the fact that it was dark, the fact that these two people were running away, so it is quite possible that they were much closer than the applicant tried to explain today.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes and also there's no burn mark.

MR DE KLERK: Yes. The fact remains it could have been possible, let's accept it was only one metre shorter and you take in consideration the length of the firearm and so forth. It could clarify that quite easily. I think the Commission has experienced that quite often, that these distances are so difficult stand and fall by. If it ...[intervention]

MR LAX: No one accepts, Mr de Klerk, that the fluctuation of time and darkness and we don't expect perfect memory from witnesses, honestly, we accept that.

MR DE KLERK: Any other questions, I would love to ...[inaudible]

ADV MPSHE: ...[inaudible] Mr Chairman, I'll just go to the legal part of it, the question of authority and the question of whether he acted on behalf and in interest of an organisation. The section quoted by my learned friend, Section 20, cannot remember what sub-section that is.

CHAIRPERSON: Sub-Section 22(e).

ADV MPSHE: I'm indebted to the Chair. Mr Chairman, what follows under Section 20 is preceded by a preamble wherein that Section 20 connects all those (a) up to (g) to the political objective and all what it means is that for a person or for a community to decide that was a political objective, the following have to be satisfied.

CHAIRPERSON: No, not all of them because they all can't be satisfied because some relate to people in the service of the State as opposed to others relating to people being members of liberation movements, but at least one of them being satisfied.

ADV MPSHE: That is correct Mr Chairman. One of them has to be satisfied. I'm taking particularly the aspect of the order or instruction by the organisation you purport to have been acting on it's behalf. The applicant has put it very clearly that this was their own initiative and that is also on the papers on page 12 and he put it on record under my questioning that they intended informing the leadership of the IFP of this action but that was never done.

CHAIRPERSON: Well it was only done when they landed in the soup, as it were.

ADV MPSHE: Yes Mr Chairman, the Chair reads my mind I want to believe. I was going to say Mr Chairman, but funnily enough this is done 14 months down the line, when they were in the soup, when actually the quagmire was taking charge of them but if really, the intention was to act on behalf of the IFP and report to the IFP, what would you have expected then after the operation before landing in that quagmire to go to leadership, Mr Umhlongo and say "this is what we have done and this is on behalf of the organisation". Fact, that was not done. Then one really questions as to whether this was on behalf of the organisation.

Mr Chairman, it is true as the Chair also commented or remarked that the people heard from leadership that they had to protect themselves but we cannot go that distance and say the protection meant even the killing. For that matter actually, the applicant said it clearly it was never the policy of the ANC to kill.

CHAIRPERSON: You're now going on the question of proportionality?

MR LAX: Sorry, you said the ANC. You said the ANC.

ADV MPSHE: Oh, my apologies, the IFP. The IFP, that's not the question of the proportionality, Mr Chair, I'm indebted to you, that's Section 23, I want to believe, (g).

The protection has always been there, by all organisations but more in particular to the IFP it was also there but not to the extent of killing and this is what the applicant has testified to. If this is what he has said then in essence he is saying to us: "I did that which was not sanctioned by the IFP" which would not sanctioned by the IFP that is the killing. So that takes him out of the realm of authority as expected in terms of Section 20.

Mr Chairman, the war situation, although I must say, refer to the remarks by the bench, particularly the bench to my right, that there was war in that area, the member said particularly in this area. I don't want to say there was no war but what I'm saying is, are we saying this was a reaction to a turbulence or a disorder that was taking place in that particular area. I may jump into Section 23, that is Sub-Section (b) where it says it must be reaction to a disorder to a - to mention those words. Are we saying because of knowledge that this was a war zone at that time when the applicant and his brother approached and killed the deceased, it was a time when there was war?

MR LAX: Mr Mpshe, I don't think we would and I don't think Mr de Klerk either would rely on that Section because that is a question of an imminent response, an immediate ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: It's a sort of situation that Section 23(b) where somebody is at a rally or something of a political nature and the lid blows off and there's a problem and then he does some act in response to the prevailing situation around him. I think that's what that section is referring to rather than like an ongoing war that's been going on for a year and the last battle was two months ago but now we hear that somebody is bringing in guns, let's take that person out.

MR LAX: This scenario certainly, the present scenario wouldn't fit within that context because they planned it, they went out and did it. It was premeditated, it wasn't a matter a matter of simply reacting to a situation. While you're on the issue of proportionality, could you just consider the implication of what the evidence was to a certain extent in that the applicant may have been under his brother's control and other his brother's orders as the leader? From the judgement it's fairly clear that the brother played the dominant role, he actually pulled the trigger. Just bear that in mind, maybe you could just address us on that in particular to Section 20?

ADV MPSHE: Yes I would agree that the brother played a prominent role but if we connect this with Section 20, I want to believe it's on the aspect of the authority.

CHAIRPERSON: I think you - were you talking about proportionality or authority?

MR LAX: I was talking about, well in relation to proportionality, proportionality falls out the window to a certain extent if you're acting on an order or under command of someone else and it's in that context that I'm asking you around authority and command because at one level it may dispose of the proportionality argument, so it's just in that context. They are sort of interwoven in this particular scenario.

ADV MPSHE: To be fair to the applicant and to the question, I do concede and that is what the applicant also said that he was the leader and he gave commands and he ordered us to do whatever that needed to be done, I do concede to that, but I do not think the applicant was not in the position where he could disagree with the brother, more so that information was begotten and a meeting between the two of them ensued and if you think, if you talk of a meeting between two persons, it was this person, these people can negotiate and talk on certain issues on the same level. Perhaps the influence, if it may be referred to, influence of the brother could be put onto the action itself but insofar as the planning and all, it was only the two of them in the meeting. If their brother was so dominating, there won't even have been a meeting between the two of them. The brother would have said, look fine we've got this information now this is what we are going to do and you carry out that. But that is not the evidence, I don't know whether I've addressed this aspect.

Mr Chairman and Members of the Committee, on the question of the firearm, the intention as testified to by the applicant is that they wanted to give the firearm over to the leadership and to believe if this was the intention and if this was done, given to the leadership of the IFP, then one would be having no problem with the political objective insofar as this firearm is concerned, but the firearm is not even given to the leadership of the IFP. If the leadership of that piece told thereof at court fourteen months down the line, now can it be said that the firearm, the taking of the deceased's firearm was done also on behalf and in interest of the IFP, I think the answer will be in the negative.

In conclusion, Mr Chairman and Members of the Committee, my submission is that this, even if there is no such evidence as correctly indicated that there was, there could have been a fight between the applicant and his brother and the deceased, but what is funny here is that the planning is done by two brothers in their own house at home, not involving anybody of the organisation, two blood brothers and it's the two blood brothers from the house who go out and carry out this execution. I find it very absurd. I don't say that he should have called the informer but one would have expected really in the circumstances that I want to tell what has happened, I going to tell the Amnesty Committee that this is what happened and this was my informer and my informer is here to can testify to that effect. We were just told about the informer but no evidence has been led in as far as the informer is concerned to endorse that actually this was done on behalf of the IFP, to protect the IFP. I think, Mr Chairman, that is all, unless the Committee would like me to refer to any other thing. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mpshe. Mr de Klerk do you have any reply?

MR DE KLERK IN FURTHER ARGUMENT: One response, Mr Chairman, there is a matter and I know these sort of instances it's always a problem where these attacks that took place on a local situation, that is that there's problems in that area and persons from that area makes a decision to go and retaliate sometimes revenge and the question is usually asked, this is revenge, it's not political. All these matters, political motive is always intervened, so even in the circumstances where somebody’s brother was killed before the time, it was my experience that the mere killing of the other person was not merely revenge, it's still that war situation.

I went through some of the previous decisions of the Committee and several of them the same situation applied where there was a localised decision where the people after being attacked decided that they're now going to retaliate, that means the group of IFP or ANC people. There is one specifically, that is the matter of Nsumela whose application 435/96. What happened there, there was also violence and then there was a meeting. Maybe not two people, there was a little bit more there at the meeting and there they decided that they must attack to curb the violence and then they attacked and killed somebody and their perception was that they were curbing the violence, stopping the violence.

Now we must have a look at this applicant's subjective situation. His brother is the youth leader, the position in that as we know it, especially in Natal, is that these leaders have a lot of power and they are not questioned. This is not the normal situation. Leaders especially in an organisation that is built on the structures and historic structures of the Zulu, it is not easy to question your leaders. Strong men and strong leaders are usually accepted with open arms and accepted as good leaders. So I disagree with this questioning of what the brothers should have decided that maybe it wasn't right or it was wrong. It is accepted, it is normal for these people to accept these sort of decisions if made by a leader, even if it's your brother. That's all I want to say about that.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr de Klerk. We will reserve our decision in this matter. I'd like to thank Mr Mpshe and Mr de Klerk for assisting us in this matter and a decision will be handed down as soon as possible. Mr Mpshe, I think with regard to the list of the victims, we have to specify the victims. You said that you had difficulty or the TRC had difficulty in tracing the deceased family but if we could nevertheless have all the information relating to the victims name and address etc if possible.

ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman. The deceased family is known. He was single and the name that came forward is the name of the deceased's mother and her name is Buyeleni Joanah Ngobo. The address is just written as care of Umvuti, Mapumulo area.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

ADV MPSHE: Indeed Mr Chairman and when the ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Umvuti in Mpumalanga area?

ADV MPSHE: Mapumulo area and when the initiators went there to serve the notice, it was established that she was no more there. After this incident she had moved out of the area for fear of her own life and nobody knows where she had fled to. This is very common in this area. Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mpshe.

CHAIRPERSON: Now what is the position with the next application? The application of Messrs Cuba, Syisi and Mgengo?

ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, the application is ready. The lawyer is here and the applicants are here and other victims are here. We are ready to kick off at 2 o'clock with that application. Unless Mr Chairman wants to kick off now?

CHAIRPERSON: I see that it's 12.40 and it might be a convenient time to take lunch but we needn't take it right through to 2 o'clock it would be better if we could start at 1.30 or even 1.15, as soon as you are ready after 1.15 as possible that we can get started on that other matter. Thank you, thank you very much. We'll then now take this opportunity to adjourn for the lunch adjournment and we will resume with the next matter on the roll as soon after 1.15 as is possible. Thank you.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS