Amnesty Hearings

CHAIRPERSON: Good morning to you all. Today is the 2nd February 2000. The panel that will sit to consider the applications set down for today comprises Judge Khampepe, Judge Motata and Judge De Jager. The evidence leader is Mr Steenkamp. Will the legal representatives appearing on behalf of Mr Mokati and Mr Mthembu and Dube place themselves on record?

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson. My name is Brian Koopedi, I indeed appear for the three applicants before you, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll proceed with the applications of John Itumeleng Dube, Edward Theise Mokati, Sipho Nicodamus Mthembu in respect of an incident referred to as the Vanderbijlpark Bus Terminus and Naladi Power Station Bomb Explosions.

Mr Koopedi?

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, I believe we are ready to proceed and I would ask that Mr Dube be sworn in. They would be appearing in the order they have been written in the applications.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR STEENKAMP: Madame Chair, if I may just interrupt and say something about the victims?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR STEENKAMP: Under section 94 requirements, Madame Chair, the TRC has taken a few steps to identify the victims. There was 19 people injured in this incident as far as we could establish. In all the local newspapers there was advertisements placed last year as well as this year. Only one person came forward which is Ms Collette Dawson. Ms Dawson was available yesterday, she's actually present here today, she's one of the victims in this matter and the only one we could trace. I've spoken to Ms Dawson. Ms Dawson has indicated she has no objection to amnesty. She's just here according to herself as an interested party and she wanted to hear and listen what the applicant has to say in this matter. If there is anything she would like to raise, the request is she will raise it through me but at this moment she doesn't have any objections and nothing to add. I can just maybe add that the original case docket, Madame Chair and Honourable Members, was apparently destroyed in this matter and no information could be traced either through the police or any of the security services in this specific area and the documents contained in the bundle were the only documents that we could trace which is part and parcel of the judgment as you might have seen. I would humbly submit that all reasonable steps were taken to identify and locate victims and unfortunately only one victim came forward which is Ms Dawson who is present here today. Thank you Madame Chair.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Koopedi, did Mr Mokati receive indemnity?

MR KOOPEDI: He has received indemnity.

JUDGE DE JAGER: So one of the applicants already has indemnity, the other two did they apply or what was the position, didn't they apply for indemnity?

MR KOOPEDI: The situation, my Lord, is that only one person was arrested for this matter which is Mr Mokati. He was sentenced to 14 years and he got indemnity.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. In that case we are satisfied with Steenkamp that all reasonable steps were taken to locate the whereabouts of the victims.

MR STEENKAMP: Thank you Madame Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: We also take note of the presence of Ms Dawson and of the fact that you are only watching brief on her behalf and that she has no intention at this stage to oppose unless you are further instructed during the course of these proceedings?

MR STEENKAMP: That is correct, absolutely correct, thank you Madame Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Koopedi, in what language will Mr Dube be testifying?

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, Mr Dube will be testifying in Zulu. Mr Mokati in seSotho and Mr Mthembu in Zulu. I might as well add that we have spoken to the interpreters and explained the order of appearance of the applicant, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we don't want to have the same unfortunate incident happening to your witnesses. I see you've taken steps to speak directly to the translators?

MR KOOPEDI: We try and learn from our previous mistakes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: That's good. Mr Dube, will you please rise in order to take an oath?

JOHN ITUMELENG DUBE: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR KOOPEDI: We beg leave to proceed Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you. Mr Dube, is it correct that you are an applicant in this matter which has been explained as the

Vanderbijlpark Bus Terminus and Naladi Power Station explosions which happened in 1988?

MR DUBE: That is correct.

MR KOOPEDI: I will refer you to page 4 of the bundle of documents which I am showing to you, it is the bundle which I believe has been given to you, Honourable Chairperson and Committee Members. I refer you to page 4 of this bundle, is this your application form?

MR DUBE: Yes that is correct.

MR KOOPEDI: And on page 9 of the same bundle there is a signature appearing at the end, is this your signature?

MR DUBE: That is correct.

MR KOOPEDI: Okay. You have prepared a statement for easy facilitation of these proceedings.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you referring him to page 4 of the bundle?

MR KOOPEDI: Yes, I was referring to page 4 of the bundle, Chairperson, which was his application form.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I have a problem with what's contained in his application form. Paragraph 9 refers to acts which have no bearing on the incident, the two incidents that we have to consider. It is my bundle, he's referring to the bombing of Ellis Park Stadium and Witbank Car Bomb. Do I have the right application before me?

MR KOOPEDI: That is indeed the right application form and application form I'm referring to. Perhaps I should add a little history to this application. Chairperson, this applicant had completed a number of application forms for amnesty without advice really. He could not remember what acts he was involved in and as and when he would remember he would then complete an application form. It was then agreed at a previous hearing that this application form, because of the last part of the paragraph 9(a)(i) you've referred to should be used in the various applications which would come. What I'm saying is that I am not certain whether there would be a single application form, his, which refers directly to this incident because that time some could not be found and it has then been standard practice to use this application form for the various other applications in which he might be appearing.

CHAIRPERSON: I have a problem with your submission if indeed you are submitting anything to us. I don't know what argument was presented to the panel that sat in a matter in which this panel was not involved with regard to paragraph 9(a) insofar as it seeks to refer to incidents which the applicant did not specifically mention in this written application before us and dated 7th May 1997.

MR KOOPEDI: I understand the predicament. I would perhaps, if I am allowed, I would Chairperson apply for condonation and apply for amendment to add this application to the things that might be brought against me that I might not remember.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But can you apply for a new incident that's not on the papers, never been applied for after the cut-off date?

MR KOOPEDI: My lord, what I'm suggesting is that this is not a new incident. He might not have mentioned the incident but this is not a new incident.

JUDGE DE JAGER: No, it's not a new incident in the sense that it occurred afterwards, but it occurred before the cut-off date. Similar applications have been made previously and we've declined it?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Koopedi, I think you've started on a very wrong footing, if I may be bold so to speak, I would have expected you to have moved an application for an amendment of paragraph 9(a) and address us on your request for that application and lay proper ground why you contend that even though this incident has not been specifically mentioned by the applicant, the fact that he has made reference to other incidents and his memory, he had a problem in remembering all the other incidents that he was involved in and having regard to the other applications of Mr Mokati and Mr Mthembu. There is a basis for your amendment to be granted by the Committee. I would have thought it would be your starting point?

MR KOOPEDI: I would apologise for not having started that way, Chairperson and I would also perhaps add this comment to my apology that it is because of having travelled this path before and ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: But not before us you see, we have no facts.

MR KOOPEDI: That is indeed ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: There is no evidence before us, we cannot proceed with an incident when we are having an application form that prime facie is defective?

JUDGE MOTATA: I think your starting point as the Chairperson has said is the Amnesty Committee has proceeded to set this matter down thinking that they're dealing with the right incident and your application for amendment and laying the bases would succeed on those bases, would I be correct Mr Steenkamp?

MR STEENKAMP: That is correct, Madame Chair.

MR KOOPEDI: I believe that is why when I realised that this is a Committee which in fact has no knowledge about this matter in particular, I then requested that if I may be allowed I would ask for an amendment and an addition to this paragraph, to say, to include the Witbank and the Naladi Power ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Vanderbijl.

MR KOOPEDI: Yes, the Vanderbijl and then Naladi Power Station to include them as meaning or as in reference to the things he said he does not remember.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR KOOPEDI: Perhaps I would also add that the ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: You haven't made any application Mr Koopedi. I am putting it to you that you should make such an application. Let's proceed on those bases. We give you now an opportunity to make such an application. If you want to have a two minute adjournment in order to move that kind of application, we'll allow you to have that opportunity.

MR KOOPEDI: I would try without preparing to move that application in an attempt to have these proceedings go on their way.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, proceed then and make your application.

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, I hereby make application on behalf of the Mr Dube, firstly that he be included formerly as an applicant in this matter. Secondly, I move for an application that the words Vanderbijlpark Bus Terminus and Naladi Power Station be added to paragraph 9(a)(i) of the applicant's application form which is page 5 before you. I would briefly motivate my application as follows.

This applicant was involved in a number of operations and this applicant has completed a number of application forms other than the forms before you. In some of the hearings where we have appeared some of the application forms could only be traced as and when we were sitting. It then became apparent that there was a problem with the application forms, some having been received by the Truth Commission and some not received by the Truth Commission because we were informed that they do not have such application forms. Now ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: But is it your contention that you completed an application form in respect of these two particular incidents?

MR KOOPEDI: It is not my contention that an application form was submitted for these two in terms of me being honest, I have enquired as to whether has he in particular applied for this one, he said to me he believes he did, we are not saying he did, you know, in all honesty and certainty.

CHAIRPERSON: And what would be the basis of that belief?

MR KOOPEDI: The basis of the belief was simply that at some stage he met with the two other co-applicants.

CHAIRPERSON: Who have applied?

MR KOOPEDI: Who were on the verge of applying I believe so he spoke to them about this matter and it is on those bases he believes that he also then completed yet another application form but I ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: And would those two applicants be Mr Mokati and Mr Mthembu?

MR KOOPEDI: That's right.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR KOOPEDI: They are his co-applicants before you. It is on those bases and I would not wish to refer to a precedent that I believe that there has been matters which have been heard, I do not have the amnesty numbers in my head but perhaps for clarity sake I would also show you page 4 of their application form.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR KOOPEDI: It has an application number which was also deleted.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR KOOPEDI: And this has been a trend in his application forms in that there would be numerous forms which are found and different numbers put on the application form but my submission is that the application form, the one before you, if the amendment is allowed should cover for this incident and further that this application form was submitted timeously before the cut-off date. Yes and that is my application.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Well if it's been filed it should be traced, if there was a number for 698 or other forms, it should be traced at the office but I want to put it to you I'm of the opinion that we can't add anything that hasn't been applied for, it's been refused in the matter of Schoon for instance, when he applied for something that he forgot and there's no room in the Act for us to condone this, that's my opinion.

MR KOOPEDI: I will leave that in the hands of this Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR KOOPEDI: And perhaps I should add that perhaps before this Committee makes a ruling on that, if the Committee would allow that we lead evidence and it will be come apparent as to his role in this application or in the operations. It is my belief genuinely that he does not need amnesty for this, his co-applicants do need amnesty for having anticipated in this but he added as an applicant for completeness sake, there is a role that he played however minimal and I would ask that perhaps we proceed and the ruling as to whether he's included as an applicant or not being made at the end of the proceedings.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

JUDGE DE JAGER: You see the trouble is, if he has rightly applied for this and if it could be traced then it would be injustice to exclude him. I think steps should be taken to find out whether he in fact - but I'm in agreement that we could proceed and make a ruling later but something should be done if there was a mistake at our offices that should be rectified?

JUDGE MOTATA: Madame Chair, I suppose let's hear Mr Steenkamp why they proceeded to set this matter down together with the other applicants.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, before we hear Mr Steenkamp, would I be correct Mr Koopedi in summarising your submissions as being twofold. The first submission you make is that your instructions are that Mr Dube believes, bona fide believes, that he made an application in respect of the two incidents and the belief is based on the discussions he had with Mr Mokati and Mr Mthembu where the incident was discussed with a view of taking steps to apply for amnesty and that Mr Mokati and Mr Mthembu's applications are before us and it is on that basis that he reasonable believes that he must also have made an application in respect of the incidents in question? You also submit that previously quite a number of applications have not surfaced when Mr Dube had applied for amnesty because of some administrative error by the Committee of some kind and to that extent you have previously been accommodated because of course that could not be faulted to Mr Dube who had applied if his applications could not be located by the Amnesty Committee due to some administrative error.

Your second submission is that notwithstanding the reasonable belief that he has applied for amnesty and that his application form in respect of the two incidents is not before us, you would argue for an amendment, Section 9(a) and contend that even though the two incidents have not been specifically referred to under that paragraph, they should impliedly or he did impliedly refer to them by the usage of the words "also anything that might be brought against me that I might not remember" which is what is appearing on paragraph 9(a) and you therefore submit that this application would not be a new incident for which he now seeks to incorporate under that paragraph because the words "by implication" would mean and refer to an incident such as the one before us there. Have I summarised your submissions correctly?

MR KOOPEDI: You have Chairperson, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. We'll reserve our ruling and we'll proceed to hear Mr Dube.

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson. Although belatedly so, maybe I should also add that under ordinary circumstances the evidence analysts would write and enquire from an applicant or his legal representative in the event the risk such as the statement that refers to anything that I might not recall and also say to them that, that is the applicant, and say to them that we will not hear - your matter will not be heard if we do not have answers to this. I believe at some stage there has been a number of communications telephonically and even by way of letters where a number of incidences were referred to. We do not have that in the bundle, I'm referring to the letters written to him or any responses thereto so perhaps it would be possible to find any such correspondence which might add in our favour.

JUDGE DE JAGER: While we're at it, on page 13, the application of Mr Mokati, it was attested to on the 24th November 1999 and at the back of page 14 there's a receipt also dated that day whilst on the front on page 11 there appears a date stamp of the investigative unit dated 10th September 1997. Mr Steenkamp, can you enlighten us on this?

MR STEENKAMP: Madame Chair, if I may just get this specific date stamp you're referring to? Which page is that?

JUDGE DE JAGER: Page 11 and the cut-off date was in fact the 10th, wasn't it?

MR STEENKAMP: If I'm correct that's absolutely correct, it was the 10th Mr Chairman.

JUDGE DE JAGER: It was received timeously but apparently not attested to and it was attested to later, is that what happened?

MR STEENKAMP: Prima facie on the documents that looks to be the case, it was signed or least attested to on the 24th November 1999 but the document on page 14 is only an acknowledgement of receipt but the date stamp on that specific day was the official stamp of the TRC and this document, acknowledgement of receipt is not necessarily, according to the document, is definitely not referring to the application itself. It can be anything else, Madame Chair. I think what normally happens, if there was other information or documents or just documents or applications, it looks readable, or probably not in a position to read, normally what will happen, you'll just receive another application where it's properly to be - or to be able to read it but that document I would humbly submit on page 14, is not necessarily referring to the application although it forms part of the application.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not activated.

CHAIRPERSON: Simply because the application number bears a '97 number and not a '99 number.

MR STEENKAMP: Madame Chair, unfortunately there was not a practice but it happened in the past where an application was not attested to, they were attested to later on a certain application.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR STEENKAMP: I would suggest with a lack of saying anything else this is probably exactly what's happened here because if the cut-off date was exactly on that day, there was a number of applications where people didn't attest it to but it was received timeously.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR STEENKAMP: So prima facie it didn't comply with the rules of the Act or the requirements of the Act but they were later just attested to. I don't know if my learned colleague knows this Advocate van Heerden, but if necessary we can get this person, I see he is from the legislature of Free State, I'm sure we can get this person to testify if necessary or even get a sworn statement from him, if necessary. I'm sorry, thank you Madame Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Before proceedings to hear Mr Dube, Mr Steenkamp, are you in a position to enlighten us with regard to the submissions made by Mr Koopedi? Particularly the first submission that several applications were lodged with our offices and there is this belief that this incident was also applied for and the applications, original applications, cannot be located as has happened also in other applications for which he has applied for amnesty?

MR STEENKAMP: Madame Chair, absolutely, that is a very unfortunate fact but it has happened in the past.

CHAIRPERSON: It has happened.

MR STEENKAMP: It definitely has happened, I mean that's a fact.

CHAIRPERSON: So you do have factual knowledge?

MR STEENKAMP: Madame Chair, what I'm saying is, my understanding of this specific application was that in this specific application, this specific application form was used in the previous amnesty hearing. I'm not trying to gainsay what Mr de Jager is saying, what I'm saying is, as I understand it there was an understanding between the applicant or at least his lawyers, that this application formed the basis of his application in similar applications but the application I refer to by 4698, what I would suggest is, because what I would suggest, after the applicant has testified that if necessary we at least find out what has happened to this specific number and who this number belongs to now and if necessary get proper information from our office or if necessary get the original documents to be couriered or get them here today by say 12 or whatever and find out exactly what the position is. My understanding was, with respect, the previous precedent was that this application was allowed in this specific Ellis Park Bombing.

CHAIRPERSON: On what basis?

MR STEENKAMP: I'm not quite sure, I wasn't involved in that matter Madame Chair but I can find that out.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Koopedi has contended that it was allowed on the basis that the TRC office has lost quite a number of written applications for which Mr Dube has applied for amnesty.

MR STEENKAMP: Unfortunately that is a fact. Whether or not it was his specific application got lost, Madame Chair, the fact that certain applications could not be traced, it's also factual.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Yes.

MR STEENKAMP: But I will endeavour to get a proper picture for you and enlighten you the moment we have more factual information on this.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Will you then inform us in writing so that that information can be taken into account when we make our ruling?

MR STEENKAMP: Yes, Madame Chair, not from the point, I'll do that but not from the point. My instruction from Ms Dawson is that she would humbly ask the Commission or the Committee, the panel, if at least the evidence of Mr Dube can be led. At least she can know and if he was involved and what basis he was involved just for the time being then, if that can be allowed?

CHAIRPERSON: We appreciate your concerns.

MR STEENKAMP: Thank you Madame Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: But we've got to make a ruling based on a legal foundation.

MR STEENKAMP: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: We have, however, stated that we'll allow Mr Dube to lead evidence and we'll reserve our ruling.

MR STEENKAMP: Thank you Madame Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Simply because we still are not sure whether indeed there was some administrative bungling in respect of the application for these particular incidents.

MR STEENKAMP: Yes thank you Madame Chair.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Could I just have clarity on this? You've stated that he's discussed this incident with his co-applicants at a time when they applied and then he also applied for this incident, is that correct?

MR KOOPEDI: He believes that he also applied after having spoken to them whereafter having discussed this matter.

JUDGE DE JAGER: I'm a bit concerned because this application was filed, was signed on the 7th May, so it must have been filed, also filed a day or two before the cut-off date, the final cut-off date. His application that we're dealing with, Mr Dube's application and I find it then strange that at that stage he could state "I might not and might be brought against me, I might not remember because at that stage it was so late, a few days before", and he discussed it with his co-applicants who were also applying that it would be strange if he wasn't reminded of this incident?

MR KOOPEDI: With respect, Chairperson, I don't know as to whether this form was completed on the 7th May or the attestation thereof was done at this stage, I do not have instructions as to the date when this matter was - when the form was completed but I know that there was a lack of knowledge from various applicants, some of the applicants would contend that the application forms which they were furnished with did not have the last page, there was no space for a Commissioner of Oaths and what they would do would be to simply complete the forms and send them over and these forms would at some stage be returned for being commissioned. I am therefore not in a position to say whether this form was completed on the 7th or only ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: It was attested to on the 7th and at that stage you said this isn't true so at that stage on the 7th he implicates that he doesn't remember ...(indistinct) incidents.

MR KOOPEDI: What I am saying is that I do not know because I do not have instructions, I do not know as to whether on the 7th did he just receive a form, take to a Commissioner of Oaths for attestation or whether this form was completed before then.

CHAIRPERSON: I note again that on page 4 we have a TRC stamp bearing a different date by a few good months from the date of the attestation, attested in May and the form is received or purportedly received on the 30th May, or September 1997, so there really is a lot of administrative errors that need to be investigated by Mr Steenkamp in respect of Mr Dube's application but if I understand again your submission, you are submitting that he applied, he had several written applications in respect of a great many incidents in which he was involved and you don't know when each application was attested to by Mr Dube?

MR KOOPEDI: That is indeed so. You know, without really deliberating this issue, for instance when he was - I think it's the Ellis Park hearing, when it started he was not even part of that and I think purely because there was a mistake in having put his form with the other forms, when the Ellis Park matter started, he was not part of it. Two, three days down the line he was not part of it, two three days down the line it's only realised that, you know, somebody should have been put in as an applicant, merely adding this to show that there was a problem in his application forms, I do not know as to whether he sent them late or but ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes but Mr Steenkamp has conceded that he's aware that there have been administrative problems in relation to his application forms but you will in due course, Mr Steenkamp, address us in writing?

MR STEENKAMP: Madame Chair, we are waiting for the information now at this present moment to find out whether what exactly the position this specific application is.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR STEENKAMP: I'm waiting for a response as we sit now.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR STEENKAMP: Thank you Madame Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: In the meantime we are reserving our ruling. You may proceed Mr Koopedi.

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Madame Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Dube has already been sworn in.

MR KOOPEDI: That is indeed so and he, I believe, just to recap, he has also confirmed that this is his application form and further that it was his signature that appeared on page 9 of the bundle of documents before you. I will then proceed Madame Chair.

EXAMINATION BY MR KOOPEDI: Mr Dube, you have prepared a statement to assist this Honourable Committee or to explain to this Honourable Committee as to your involvement in these two operations, is that correct?

MR DUBE: That is correct.

MR KOOPEDI: Could you please read the statement? Madame Chair, I might as well warn that the statement prepared is in English and I would apologise for the shabby manner it looks, it was prepared hastily. Could you please proceed and read the statement?

MR DUBE: Thank you Madame Chair.

"I joined the ANC in 1980 at Swaziland and I underwent military training in Angola, the GDR and the USSR. I became a member of ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: Sorry, did you join in 1990 or 1980?

MR DUBE: I said 1980.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Then there was a wrong interpretation or statement.

INTERPRETER: There is no interpretation of English.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Right proceed, we're happy that you joined in 1980.

MR DUBE: "I became a member of special ops machinery in 1986. I was infiltrated into the country in 1986. My mandate was amongst others to carry out armed actions against the regime, it's police force and all it's support structures. I duly proceeded with my mandate. I recruited for the ANC and trained many people in the usage of firearms and explosives. I formed various units which I commanded and also supplied the said units with literature and operational material. My co-applicant, Sipho Mthembu, belonged to one of my units in Soweto. He received his military training inside the country during 1986. My other co-applicant, Mr Edward Mokati, did not belong to any of my units. When I met him in Soweto during 1987 he was already a trained MK cadre infiltrated into the country to carry out military operations. I met Mokati in Soweto and during our discussions at a later stage it emerged that his unit, the one which he commanded, was engaged in preparing for activities planned for the October 1988 municipal elections. Mr Mokati also informed me about two targets which he had considered. It was the Vanderbijlpark Bus Terminus and electrical power station in Naladi, Soweto. The significance of the bus terminus was that (i) mainly White people use the bus terminus, (ii) it is in the centre of Johannesburg. I was considered that by causing an explosion at this place we could be taking the struggle to the White areas as the ANC leadership had directed. It also signified that the regime's police force would be denied the monopoly of harassing and killing innocent victims both in our townships and neighbouring states. The White electorate which had kept the regime in power for so long had to be sent an awakening call. I advised Mr Mokati that the recent ANC policy was to avoid killing White civilians. I believe it was on the strength of this advice that measures were then taken not to cause that and maximum damage."

CHAIRPERSON: Is it "but" or "and", but maximum damage?

MR DUBE: And maximum damage.

CHAIRPERSON: So your intention was not to cause death and neither was it your intention to cause maximum damage or was it your intention to cause maximum damage without causing death?

MR DUBE: Can I repeat the sentence?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so should we read it as it appears on the statement?

MR DUBE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes you may proceed.

MR DUBE: "The significance of the power station was that by blowing the power station the masses would be encouraged in opposing the forthcoming municipal elections. I then agreed to second a trained person to Mr Mokati. This person was to be Mr Sipho Mthembu. We agreed that they would not use a bomb but rather use a limpet mine which would not cause a big damage. We agreed further that no explosive would be put inside any of the buses as this would result in killing the civilians. I supplied the mines which were to be used in the two operations. I did not have anything further to do with this operation as it was being commanded by Mr Mokati."

MR KOOPEDI: Madame Chair, Honourable Committee Members, that is the evidence in chief of Mr Dube. I'm not sure whether to call him an applicant at this stage but that would be his evidence in chief.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR KOOPEDI

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Koopedi and Mr Steenkamp, shall we locate a number to this statement? Shall we give it the number A, Exhibit A?

MR KOOPEDI: We agree from this side, Madame Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp?

MR STEENKAMP: Thank you Madame Chair. I think it was marked now Exhibit A?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR STEENKAMP: If you could just bear with me one second, Madame Chair?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR STEENKAMP: Madame Chair, my instructions from Ms Dawson is that at this moment she's not in a position or she doesn't want to ask any questions at this moment from the victim and she's satisfied with receiving this statement from my learned colleague. Thank you Madame Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Steenkamp. Judge de Jager?

JUDGE DE JAGER: Nothing.

NO QUESTIONS BY JUDGE DE JAGER

CHAIRPERSON: Judge Motata?

JUDGE MOTATA: I've got none Madame Chair.

NO QUESTIONS BY JUDGE MOTATA

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Dube, you may step down as a witness.

WITNESS EXCUSED