Amnesty Hearings

CHAIRPERSON: The next statement will be Exhibit D. I presume you're amending the spelling.

MR KOOPEDI: Yes, we need to amend that and it be Alfred, Chairperson. Mr Alfred Simelane will testify in Zulu. He's ready to take the oath.

ALFRED SIMELANE: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR KOOPEDI: Mr Simelane, I'm referring you to page 21 of the bundle of documents before this Honourable Committee, there is an application form on that page, is that your application form?

MR SIMELANE: That's correct.

MR KOOPEDI: Now at the back of this application that is on page 27, there is a signature that appears there, is that your signature?

MR SIMELANE: Yes, it is.

MR KOOPEDI: Now you have a document before you which this Honourable Committee has titled Exhibit D, is it correct that this is a statement which you prepared to assist you in giving your evidence-in-chief in this matter?

MR SIMELANE: That is correct.

MR KOOPEDI: Would you please read this statement to the Honourable Committee.

MR SIMELANE

"I confirm that I was during 1986, a member of COSAS and Student Representative Council. I confirm further that I became a member of an underground unit commanded by Andrew Chauke.

I also confirm that Andrew Chauke has said and confirmed in particular, that I participated in assaulting and killing Rambo, Mr Ben Masinga.

I used stones to hit Rambo and I poured him with the petrol which I had taken from Joseph."

MR KOOPEDI: Now Mr Simelane, regarding had to the statement you have just made and the testimony given by your then Commander and now co-applicant, Mr Andrew Chauke, as far as you can recall, would you say that you have told this Honourable Committee all that you remember about this day?

MR SIMELANE: That's correct.

MR KOOPEDI: Now Mr Simelane, did you benefit anything financially or personally for having participated in this deed?

MR SIMELANE: No, I did not receive any financial benefit, nor any other benefit.

MR KOOPEDI: Do you think there was a political objective? Was there a political motive which would then have a political objective?

MR SIMELANE: Yes, there was a political objective.

MR KOOPEDI: What would you say were those political reasons?

MR SIMELANE: The first reason is that he was a member of the old regime, he was a police officer, and he was a notorious person and thus the name Rambo. He used to harass people in the community, that is why I say it was politically motivated.

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you, Chairperson, that will be the evidence-in-chief for this applicant.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR KOOPEDI

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NYAWUZA: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Simelane, this Rambo name, was it known in the Saulsville area or was it only known to underground units, because the family says there's no name like this that this guy was known about.

MR SIMELANE: It was a name known amongst the comrades in the township.

MR NYAWUZA: So the other communities who, for want of a better phrase, were not politically knowledgeable, didn't know this Rambo name, is that so?

MR SIMELANE: I cannot say.

MR NYAWUZA: Taking the matter further, is the other Simelane who gave testimony here, your brother?

MR SIMELANE: No.

MR NYAWUZA: What is your relationship? Were you only comrades or is he your cousin? What's the relationship?

MR SIMELANE: I knew him from school.

MR NYAWUZA: How far were you resident from Mr Chauke's place of residence?

MR SIMELANE: I would say the distance from here to Marabastad.

CHAIRPERSON: Would that be about two/three kilometres?

MR NYAWUZA: I'm not good at estimating distance but it's a bit far.

MR KOOPEDI: If I could assist, Chairperson, it is correct that Marabastad could be about three kilometres from where we're sitting.

MR NYAWUZA: And as regards the house that you had a meeting at, how many times had you held meetings at this house?

MR SIMELANE: It was the first occasion on which we held a meeting there. I remember this because we normally held our meetings at school and because of that fact we decided to change the venue.

MR NYAWUZA: Why did you decide to change?

MR SIMELANE: We changed the venue because the Security Police were monitoring the school and at that time we decided to rotate the venues amongst the different members.

MR NYAWUZA: Testimony has been given that the initial operation was to attack some other police officers residences, is that so?

MR SIMELANE: That is correct.

MR NYAWUZA: You knew where this police officer was resident, is that so? You in particular.

MR SIMELANE: Yes, I did know.

MR NYAWUZA: And you stated before this hearing that you were staying about three kilometres from where Andrew was staying. In relation to where you were staying and in relation to where Andrew was staying, who of you was nearer this other police officer's residence?

MR SIMELANE: I would say it was Andrew and Reginald, because Siso is not too far from Serote.

MR NYAWUZA: On this particular day, Mr Simelane, did you see this Linkie who has been referred to in these hearings?

MR SIMELANE: I did not see her.

MR NYAWUZA: An no stage, even when you attacked this house and after you had attacked this house on this day?

MR SIMELANE: No, I only saw her in Court.

MR NYAWUZA: And testimony has been given that Clement and I think it's Mr Motsepe, stood guard, or Clement went to call somebody else and Motsepe stood guard. Now when you entered into this house, I would assume that you also entered this house, what were you armed with?

MR SIMELANE: I had stones, I did not have any other weapon.

MR NYAWUZA: And besides stones, what else did you have?

MR SIMELANE: Nothing.

MR NYAWUZA: So you had - there's this Linkie, she comes into - she interrupts this meeting, all-of-a-sudden the whole thing changes, Mr X has now got to be a target, and testimony before this hearing was that you were advised to get weaponry, why didn't you go and look for weaponry besides stones?

MR SIMELANE: I resided the furthest away from Andrew's home, so that I did not go very far when these others went out to look for weapons.

MR NYAWUZA: So are you saying you remained with Andrew, because it was Andrew's residence? Or did he also go out to look for something too?

MR SIMELANE: I did go out, but I only returned with stones and that is what I decided to use.

MR NYAWUZA: When you got in the house, you saw - did you see - if I were to rephrase my question, did you see in what question the deceased was sitting?

MR SIMELANE: I was the third person in line, Andrew was in front, when I got inside he had already fallen. And with regards to the position he was in before, I only learnt of that later.

MR NYAWUZA: Did you know this Rambo before, did you know about his notoriety?

MR SIMELANE: At that time I had not been in the township for very long, I would hear about this Rambo who was alleged to punish comrades, torture them. Personally I did not know him but I had heard of him and I only learnt that it was Mr Masinga after his death.

MR NYAWUZA: Was it perhaps known ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: That last answer I couldn't follow. You only learnt that it was Mr Masinga after his death or what? What did you say, I couldn't catch it.

MR SIMELANE: What I'm trying to explain is that I did not know him as Mr Ben Masinga, I just knew of him as Rambo.

MR NYAWUZA: So you attacked him in the house and you hit him with stones whilst he was still in the house, is that so?

MR SIMELANE: That's correct.

MR NYAWUZA: And all-in-all, himself included, there were five of you in this room, is that so?

MR SIMELANE: That's correct.

MR NYAWUZA: And all four of you were attacking him, is that so?

MR SIMELANE: That's correct.

MR NYAWUZA: Put us in the know-how regarding his handling of weaponry, were you not afraid that he was going to shoot you, because he was known for his notoriety? Was he notorious for shooting people or was he notorious for torturing people?

MR SIMELANE: He was notorious for torturing people.

MR NYAWUZA: Do you perhaps know of an incident where maybe he was involved in some shooting of a comrade or anything?

MR SIMELANE: I cannot say that specifically, but comrades were killed by the police daily, but I cannot say whether he in particular murdered anyone.

MR NYAWUZA: And on this particular day as you were armed with stones, there's somebody armed with a stick and there's one armed with a stick again and Andrew was armed with an axe, and you are attacking somebody who is a police officer, police officers who are known to carry firearms wherever they are, it's 1986, there's turmoil in the country, people are against police officers, but the four of you armed with what you had, had the guts to attack a very notorious police officer, were you perhaps not advised on this particular day that this guy is lying on the table, he's drunk?

MR SIMELANE: What motivated us to attack him was that we planned the operation well and we had planned on surprising him because from the information we received, he was alone in the sitting-room, therefore we would easily ambush him.

MR NYAWUZA: Were you not at all advised that he's sleeping on the table and he is inebriated?

MR SIMELANE: I do not recall such information.

MR NYAWUZA: No further questions, thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR NYAWUZA

MS COLERIDGE: No questions, thank you Chairperson.

NO QUESTIONS BY MS COLERIDGE

MR KOOPEDI: Nothing in re-exam, thanks Chairperson.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR KOOPEDI

JUDGE DE JAGER: You didn't know Rambo, you haven't seen him alive ever in your life?

MR SIMELANE: No, I had not seen him before but I hated the police.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Now you're entering a dark room, how did you know you're killing Rambo and you're not killing Piet?

MR SIMELANE: The information we received was that he was in the dining-room, and with regards to darkness, it was not so dark that you could not see because there was an electric pole outside which passed some light.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Okay I accept that you could see, but now you see a person there, you don't know whether it's Rambo or whether it's Piet Masinga, or whether it's Piet Ntuli, because you've never seen him before.

MR SIMELANE: The information we received was that he was in the dining-room alone, therefore any person we encountered in the dining-room would be him.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And that was more than an hour before you went there.

MR SIMELANE: I would not dispute that.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Anybody could have entered there and sat there.

MR SIMELANE: Yes, but that was the person we found in the house.

JUDGE DE JAGER: It could have been a woman sitting there.

MR SIMELANE: We would not have attacked a woman.

JUDGE DE JAGER: How would you see in the dark whether it's a woman or a man?

MR SIMELANE: Even though I was young at the time, I could tell the difference between a man and a woman.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes, if you could see I suppose.

MR SIMELANE: As I mentioned before, it was not so dark that you could not see, it's just that the light inside the room was off.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And there was a person sitting at the table, not straight up but head down, and you could see whether it was a man or a woman.

MR SIMELANE: I do not wish to commit myself as regards to the position he was in, but as I entered the room I saw a man on the - lying down.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Lying down on the table or lying down on the floor?

MR SIMELANE: On the floor.

JUDGE DE JAGER: So he was lying on the floor?

MR SIMELANE: When I first assaulted him with a stone he was already on the ground.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Ja, but when you first saw him, was he on the ground or what?

MR SIMELANE: When I first saw him he was in the process of falling, he had been sitting but I cannot tell whether he had been sitting with his head lying on the table or not.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Now you said you had information that it was Rambo, could you give us that information? Exactly what did you know before going there?

MR SIMELANE: I do not understand the question.

JUDGE DE JAGER: How did you know it was Rambo sitting in that room?

MR SIMELANE: That was because of the information we received.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Who gave you that information?

MR SIMELANE: It was given to us by the Commander after he had met with someone. We were in a meeting and somebody came looking for him, he went out, returned and gave us that information and we had no reason to doubt it.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Now we have heard here that the family would say this man was never known as Rambo. - if I understood the question correctly.

MR SIMELANE: I do not know how to explain it but I myself have a nickname which is not known at home.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But how do you know, even today, that this policeman who was killed there was in fact Rambo, the notorious one? Wasn't that a different policeman? Because you've never seen him.

MR SIMELANE: I was the last person to be arrested and it was also published in the media as to who had been killed. The police also informed me.

JUDGE DE JAGER: What did the police inform you of, what did they say who was killed?

MR SIMELANE: They said it was Benjamin Masinga.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes, they told you Benjamin, and there's no dispute it was Benjamin Masinga, but how do you know it's Rambo?

MR SIMELANE: That was his nickname because of his conduct amongst comrades. I do not know whether other people recognised that nickname or not.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But would it have made a difference whether it was Rambo or not Rambo, as long as it was a policeman wouldn't you consider him to be your enemy? And you would kill any policeman.

MR SIMELANE: It would not have made a difference to me. I was satisfied that it was a police officer, not necessarily that it's Rambo or anybody else because the police used to harass us.

JUDGE DE JAGER: He didn't wear a uniform at that stage?

MR SIMELANE: No, he was not in uniform at the time. At the time they were afraid of being seen in uniform in the township.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Right, thank you.

ADV SIGODI: Who recruited you to the cell, to this underground unit?

MR SIMELANE: Joseph Motsepe recruited me into the unit.

ADV SIGODI: Were you present at any of the trainings which were given by the MK cadres who came in?

MR SIMELANE: Yes, I was present.

ADV SIGODI: Were you also trained on how to identify targets and what methods you used to identify targets to attack?

MR SIMELANE: Yes.

ADV SIGODI: What did the training entail, what were you informed on the identification of targets? What were you told?

MR SIMELANE: We identified them by their uniforms as well as information gathered from our comrades. At the time comrades would not have passed wrong information.

ADV SIGODI: Yes, but that would be information that you received from the other comrades, is that not so?

MR SIMELANE: That is correct.

ADV SIGODI: In other words you would rely on information that you received from other cadres, is that not so?

MR SIMELANE: We used to receive information from the cadres, yes, most of the time they used to give us political education, give us pamphlets and tell us about meetings and we also used to receive information from ordinary comrades from the township.

ADV SIGODI: Alright, maybe you're not understanding me. When you were trained, as part of your training as an MK soldier, most probably trained by MK cadres coming from outside into the country, training this particular cell and then going and leaving the country, you would be given training on how you identify targets that you would attack inside the country, is that not so?

MR SIMELANE: Yes, that's one other training we received.

ADV SIGODI: Yes. What I want to find out is, what did those MKs tell you what to do in order to be able to identify a target, besides the obvious one that when you see a person wearing a police uniform, what other methods were you told or taught to use to identify a target?

MR SIMELANE: There were numerous ways, some of which included photographs.

ADV SIGODI: Were you told about reconnaissance?

MR SIMELANE: I only learnt about reconnaissance in exile, not in the country.

ADV SIGODI: Oh so you also went into exile?

MR SIMELANE: Yes.

ADV SIGODI: What concerns me is the fact that in identifying this particular target, as a trained MK operative in a cell you relied on information which was given to you about someone whom you did not know and this information was given to you by somebody who was not a member of your cell, who was not a trained MK cadre but just an ordinary person, and you relied on that information.

MR SIMELANE: We used to assess the information, that is the reason that on that one particular day we did not just go out, you see we had petrol bombs and on receiving the information we gathered and even though we had planned to go and attack another target, this one target is more important. Honestly, he did escape from comrade attacks before, that is the reason why we decided to drop the other operation.

ADV SIGODI: But what measures did you take to make sure that the person that you killed was actually a legitimate target? What measures did you take to make sure that the information that you had about this person was actually correct, accurate and in fact the person you are killing is a legitimate target?

MR SIMELANE: We were at a meeting you see and the information was brought by our Commander, he's a person whom we trusted and we did other things together with him, things such as distributing pamphlets etcetera, and he's the one who gave us direction and we would not have undermined his judgement.

ADV SIGODI: Did he not say to you that he got the information from Linkie?

MR SIMELANE: No, he did not tell us where he got the information from, except that he indicated that he received the information from a comrade.

ADV SIGODI: Thank you, Chairperson.

MR KOOPEDI: If there are no questions from the Chair, Chair, that will be the evidence of this applicant and in fact that is our application, Chairperson, we have no other witness to call.

WITNESS EXCUSED

MR NYAWUZA: Thank you, Mr Chairperson. The family will be represented by Mr Charles Masinga, the younger brother to the deceased. Could he be sworn in?

ADV SIGODI: What language would you prefer to speak?

MR MASINGA: English.

ADV SIGODI: Do you have any objection to taking the oath?

CHARLES MASINGA: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR NYAWUZA: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Masinga, where was your brother resident in 1986?

MR MASINGA: He was staying at number 2, Fenyana Street at Saulsville.

MR NYAWUZA: For how long had he been resident there?

MR MASINGA: For 20 years if I can say.

MR NYAWUZA: And in relation to the address at which he was attacked, what do you know about that house?

MR MASINGA: Okay, that is where his wife was staying.

MR NYAWUZA: At the time of the arrest, for how long had he been married to this woman?

MR MASINGA: About two years.

MR NYAWUZA: And during the subsistence of this marriage, were they at any stage staying together? And if the answer to that is yes, where were they staying?

MR MASINGA: At one stage they were staying together, but at the time this murder happened, they were separated.

MR NYAWUZA: And during the period in which they were staying together, where were they resident, where were they staying?

MR MASINGA: The wife was staying at 40 Serote Street.

MR NYAWUZA: And your brother?

MR MASINGA: My brother was staying at 2 Fenyana at Saulsville.

MR NYAWUZA: So you're in essence saying they had been living apart from each other, even during the subsistence of their marriage, or what?

MR MASINGA: Okay, at one stage they were staying together but there was a quarrel and then they separated.

MR NYAWUZA: I would want you to tell the Committee where they resided, did they reside at his in-laws or did they reside at your brother's place or where did they reside?

MR MASINGA: They resided at his in-laws.

MR NYAWUZA: At his in-laws?

MR MASINGA: Yes.

MR NYAWUZA: Which happens to be the house at which he was attacked?

MR MASINGA: Yes.

MR NYAWUZA: For how long were they resident there, in terms of months or a year, just an estimate.

MR MASINGA: A year.

MR NYAWUZA: About a year?

MR MASINGA: Yes.

MR NYAWUZA: And you've alluded to this Committee that at some stage he had quarrels with his wife and they separated.

MR MASINGA: Yes.

MR NYAWUZA: Then during my consultation with yourself this morning you advised me that you had been with the deceased on the day in question, quickly take the Committee through what happened on that particular day.

MR MASINGA: Okay. We were together since in the morning until at about 6 o'clock when he left saying that he's going to see my uncle, but he told me that he wants to get some items that were still at his in-laws' house. He left at about six and then I didn't see him again that night until the next morning when we were told that he's been attacked.

MR NYAWUZA: There has been talk of him having been known as Rambo, what do you know about that?

MR MASINGA: It's the first time I'm hearing that name today, I never heard such a name given to my brother.

MR NYAWUZA: Your brother as a police officer, what was his relationship with your community, in general?

MR MASINGA: I can say he was a socialite, he used to mix with people and I was - in fact, all of us we were surprised when they say he was notorious, he was killing people. He was not like that.

MR NYAWUZA: No, there hasn't been testimony of him killing people, the testimony is that he tortured people.

MR MASINGA: Okay.

MR NYAWUZA: And was he - he didn't live with his in-laws after a year having stayed there, where was he staying? Was he still staying at Saulsville?

MR MASINGA: Yes.

MR NYAWUZA: Was your brother a church-goer, did he attend church?

MR MASINGA: Ja, he was a member of a youth club.

MR NYAWUZA: How old was he at the time?

MR MASINGA: I can't remember well, but he was at his early 30s.

MR NYAWUZA: And as a member of the youth club, would you agree with me when I say he integrated well with the congregation, is that so?

MR MASINGA: Yes, he even played the piano in the church.

MR NYAWUZA: So the address at which your brother was attacked and the address at which he was staying at that time, what is the distance, how far are they from each other?

MR MASINGA: It's about four kilometres.

MR NYAWUZA: So he - will you in essence say he was well-known in the area at which he was residing during the time of his death than at the other area?

MR MASINGA: Yes.

MR NYAWUZA: Did he have any problems with the community at which he was resident at the time of his death?

MR MASINGA: No.

MR NYAWUZA: And having stayed in Saulsville, was his house at any stage attacked by comrades?

MR MASINGA: No.

MR NYAWUZA: You're well aware that we've got four applicants here who have implicated two other guys who have not applied for amnesty, if these guys were to - they're seeking amnesty, they're saying "we did kill Benjamin Masinga", what's your attitude towards that, towards the application? What would you say to this Committee?

MR MASINGA: What I can say is that we haven't heard the real truth ...(intervention)

MR NYAWUZA: In your perception ...

MR MASINGA: ... in my personal opinion.

MR NYAWUZA: ... what would the truth be?

MR MASINGA: The incident was not politically motivated, they took advantage of the situation at that point in time.

MR NYAWUZA: And what was the situation?

MR MASINGA: The situation was like you know, the policemen were regarded as outcasts inn the society.

MR NYAWUZA: So you confirm that at that stage policemen were regarded as outcasts?

MR MASINGA: Yes.

MR NYAWUZA: And then just tell us why you say they took advantage of the situation, what makes you say so? What situation was that?

MR MASINGA: Okay, after his death - his wife is working with some friends of mine, he was telling the people that he has hit the jackpot.

MR NYAWUZA: He or she?

MR MASINGA: She has hit the jackpot.

MR NYAWUZA: And in layman's language what did that mean?

MR MASINGA: It meant that she's going to get all the pension monies.

MR NYAWUZA: Has she received them as yet?

MR MASINGA: I'm not quite sure on that one.

MR NYAWUZA: So what are you in actual fact saying, are you saying you believe somebody cuckoo was happening here?

MR MASINGA: Yes.

MR NYAWUZA: And what can that be?

MR MASINGA: They might have been recruited by the wife to commit this murder.

MR NYAWUZA: Do you know this Linkie who has been referred to in this hearing today?

MR MASINGA: Yes.

MR NYAWUZA: How do you know her?

MR MASINGA: I used to visit them and I used to meet her there.

MR NYAWUZA: Was she a cousin to your brother's wife or was she a sister to your brother's wife?

MR MASINGA: She was a cousin to my brother's wife.

MR NYAWUZA: Did you hear her testimony that she's the one who advised the applicants to come and attack the deceased?

MR MASINGA: Yes.

MR NYAWUZA: Tell me, at some stage you advised when I was consulting with you that there was also a police officer who was married to one of the sisters at this house, what's his name?

MR MASINGA: Mr Mashishi.

MR NYAWUZA: Where was this Mr Mashishi resident, was he staying at the house or he was staying somewhere else?

MR MASINGA: He was staying in that particular house.

MR NYAWUZA: Even at the time of this attack?

MR MASINGA: Yes.

MR NYAWUZA: Your brother and your sister-in-law had an argument, your brother moves out of this house where he's resident, would you say you still attended, you know you still paid your brother's in-laws visitations, even during his absence at this house?

MR MASINGA: No, what actually happened, she didn't even come to the funeral of her husband. I don't know even today whether she knows my brother's grave or not, she wasn't there at all.

MR NYAWUZA: My question, what I actually want to find out from you was, how sure were you that this Mr Mashishi was staying in that house? That was what I was trying to get from you.

MR MASINGA: He was stationed at Atteridgeville Police Station, so it was nearer for him to stay in that house than going to Soshanguve.

MR NYAWUZA: Are you assuming that that could have been the case or are you saying yes, he did stay at that place for convenience sake?

MR MASINGA: He did stay there.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Did you at any stage find him there at that house?

MR MASINGA: Did you ...?

JUDGE DE JAGER: Did you at any stage find him there at that house where your brother was also staying?

MR MASINGA: Yes.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Did you hear or do you know whether he was there on the night of the killing?

MR MASINGA: They just told me that he was there.

JUDGE DE JAGER: You never asked him whether he's witnessed this killing?

MR MASINGA: No, I didn't because after this killing there was some separation, we didn't communicate well with that family.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Do you know where Linkie is today?

MR MASINGA: I don't know the exact address but she's in Soshanguve.

MR NYAWUZA: So Mr Masinga, would you and your family pardon, you know forgive the applicants if they said "we killed him for a particular motive which was a political objective"? Would you and your family forgive them if they say so?

MR MASINGA: I don't want to take a unilateral decision, but I've consulted with the family members and they don't agree to.

MR NYAWUZA: So you believe they're not telling the truth?

MR MASINGA: The truth yes.

MR NYAWUZA: No further questions, thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR NYAWUZA

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR KOOPEDI: Thank you, Chairperson.

I just need to be clarified on a few things, if you could bear with me Mr Masinga. I need to understand how long was it, that is the time from when he had left his in-laws and returned home, until he was killed? What type of a period had passed?

MR MASINGA: It was roughly after he left my in-laws' house.

MR KOOOPEDI: During this three months, did you have any occasion to go to this house at Serote Street?

MR MASINGA: No.

MR KOOOPEDI: So it would be incorrect for you to say that this other policeman, Mr Mashishi, stayed at this house because you never went to this house, particularly at that time?

MR MASINGA: I've got a friend who is staying next to this house, so I normally visit my friend every week, so I used to see him.

MR KOOOPEDI: So you saw him there?

MR MASINGA: Yes.

MR KOOOPEDI: Do you know whether he was visiting or he was staying in this house?

MR MASINGA: Well I'm not quite sure on that one, but I normally used to see him over the week-ends at that house.

MR KOOOPEDI: Okay. But perhaps I could explain that it is strange that there would have been a policeman staying in this house and on all the documents and the inquests there hasn't been any mention of a policeman who was present. Would you perhaps know why?

MR MASINGA: I don't know that one.

MR KOOOPEDI: Okay. Another thing is, at that time, were you a member of the police?

MR MASINGA: Myself?

MR KOOOPEDI: Yes.

MR MASINGA: No.

MR KOOOPEDI: Were you in any way associated with the police?

MR MASINGA: No.

MR KOOOPEDI: Would you then know what your brother did when he went on duty, police duties? Would you know what he did?

MR MASINGA: Not really.

MR KOOOPEDI: Okay. Now, do you know of an incident where he was attacked and disarmed by some people?

MR MASINGA: Yes.

MR KOOOPEDI: I have no further questions, Chairperson, thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR KOOPEDI

MR NYAWUZA: As regards the last question ...(intervention)

MS COLERIDGE: No questions, thank you Chairperson.

NO QUESTIONS BY MS COLERIDGE

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR NYAWUZA: As regards the last question to Mr Masinga.

Mr Masinga, where was your brother disarmed, was it in the area at which he was killed or was it in your area, the area where he was resident.

MR MASINGA: It's not nearer to the same area where he was killed nor nearer to where he was residing, it was some way away.

MR NYAWUZA: Where away was it? Was it in Saulsville?

MR MASINGA: In Atteridgeville.

MR NYAWUZA: It was in Atteridgeville?

MR MASINGA: Yes.

MR NYAWUZA: Okay. Thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR NYAWUZA

ADV SIGODI: Did your brother have any children with his wife?

MR MASINGA: No.

ADV SIGODI: That's all.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Just on this last aspect. Did he have any children with another wife? So he's got children but not with this wife he's been estranged to?

MR MASINGA: Yes.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Would you be able to give the names and the address of the children to the Leader of Evidence here?

MR MASINGA: Okay, he had only one son whom he passed away in November.

JUDGE DE JAGER: So he's got no other children?

MR MASINGA: Ja, so far nothing.

ADV SIGODI: Sorry, do you know if this Mr Mashishi, the other policeman, if he's still alive?

MR MASINGA: I don't know whether he's still alive or not.

ADV SIGODI: You haven't had any contact with him?

MR MASINGA: No.

ADV SIGODI: Thank you.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Linkie, you said she's staying in Soshanguve, would you be able to point out where she is staying?

MR MASINGA: I don't know the exact address.

MR NYAWUZA: That's the evidence for the family members, thank you.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Any evidence to be led?

MS COLERIDGE: No, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Well does that now conclude all the evidence for this hearing?

MS COLERIDGE: It does indeed, Chairperson, we're just left with argument.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you ready to start argument now?

MR KOOOPEDI IN ARGUMENT: A brief submission, Chairperson.

I would perhaps first start with an issue that comes out of a statement on page 52, where Reginald Simelane was questioned.

Chairperson, my respectful submission is that the question asked to Mr Simelane was "which house is "dieselfde huis", as it is mentioned on page 52, the sixth paragraph. He said that the same house means the house where the deceased was killed. My understanding, Chairperson, and I believe the record will show that, at no stage was his answer that they had gone back to this house. I am saying this in mind of the statement that we have, which is the statement which was given to TRC Investigators. But what I'm trying to articulate here is that perhaps if we could go into the record and look at the record, the applicant had not said that he had gone to this house. That was the first issue.

To proceed, Chairperson, Honourable Committee Members, it is my submission that at the time when this murder or killing took place, all the applicants were not more than 19 years old, all the applicants were minors so to speak. It is also my submission that when this Honourable Committee considers making its decision it should objectively and in fact, subjectively look at the situation under which youths, particularly politically active youths, were living.

Chairperson, Honourable Committee Members, during this time it was just after the first very well-known 1985 State of Emergency, the police had very, very strong and big powers, the police were country-wide and particularly in youth and student sectors. The police were regarded as enemies. It is also a well-known fact and also it has been testified to by the applicants here that there were various calls that were made by prominent political activists, where the police had to be isolated and attacked.

Chairperson, it is my submission that it is common cause that this deceased person, Mr Ben Masinga, was a member of the police and was active as a policeman in the area. That is common cause. It is also common cause that the applicants before you were political activists in the area.

My submission, Chairperson, is that during that time all the political activists would want to - it would be to attack or kill a policeman. It's my submission, Chairperson, that it would perhaps so to speak, a cherry on top if they were to kill a notorious policeman. All members of the police I submit, were viewed as legitimate targets.

Chairperson, Honourable Committee Members, Mr Masinga for the family, has conceded that it was not know, or at least to him, he did not know what the deceased did during his working hours. I therefore submit that it is possible that the deceased could have been known, perhaps wrongly so yes, but the deceased could have been known as a very powerful policeman.

I therefore submit Chairperson, that even if the deceased was not as notorious as the applicant had believed, the deceased was a policeman. Mr Masinga has also testified to the fact that it is correct that this deceased person was at some stage disarmed by other people, his gun was taken from him. And in my mind, Chairperson, it is inconceivable that a person who would have been a friend of the community so to speak, a person well-known and liked by people in the community, would have his weapon taken away.

CHAIRPERSON: But doesn't the fact that he wasn't killed when his gun was taken, indicate rather that he was well liked? Haven't we had hundreds of cases of policemen who were killed when their weapons were stolen?

MR KOOOPEDI: Chairperson, the evidence that was given to you was that he escaped after he was disarmed. This is what Chauke told you in his statement, that he knows that this person was attacked and his gun was taken and thereafter he escaped from the people who had ..., and that evidence has not been challenged, Chairperson.

I submit, Chairperson, that the applicants before you have complied with the requirements of the Act and it is my submission Chairperson, that they be granted amnesty. Thank you, Chairperson.

MR NYAWUZA IN ARGUMENT: Thank you, Chairperson, Honourable Members.

The testimony before us today is in direct contrast with what the family members are saying. Firstly, we are given a situation where there's a meeting to attack a particular police officer and all-of-a-sudden Linkie comes. Linkie is more-or-less a neighbour of Andrew Chauke. Linkie knocks, Andrew goes out, Linkie speaks to Andrew, Andrew comes back into the house, the other applicants haven't seen Linkie, they haven't heard what Linkie told Andrew Chauke, and they take what Andrew Chauke tells them without questioning.

The testimony of the next-of-kin before this Committee today is that there was a separation between the deceased and Linkie's sister. The fact that he was a police officer and having stayed at the particular address for a year, even during the period alluded to my friend as the first State of Emergency, was not taken into cognisance. He had been staying there for a year during 1995 when the State of Emergency was introduced. There's further evidence that there is another police officer who was staying at the same address at some particular time. The evidence further goes on to say that they then instead - they were going to attack some house with petrol bombs, they were not armed, but all-of-a-sudden when they are advised that there's Rambo that they are alluding to, which the family do not know, which the last applicant, Alfred Simelane, also said he was not sure as to whether the community knew him as Rambo, when they're told about him they all-of-a-sudden have to arm themselves, even though they are attacking the same person that they would - the person in the same capacity as the one they would have attacked with petrol bombs.

So our submission, and being my instructions, are that these guys were told to eliminate the deceased, not necessarily for political motives, but for motives best known to them and his wife, as there is testimony that she said she had hit a jackpot. So the next-of-kin are not happy with their disclosure, they are saying it's not full disclosure and it's on that basis that they oppose the granting of amnesty to them.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Nyawuza, if you look back over the 14 years now, up to - let's see the position in 1986, wasn't it the position that a policeman was seen as an enemy by members of the liberation forces and that policemen were legitimate targets, that they even killed municipal policemen and that it wasn't only the notorious policemen but almost every policeman who didn't openly associate with the liberation forces? They were seen as enemies and targets and they were unfortunately killed in those circumstances, and isn't that what happened here too?

MR NYAWUZA: Honourable Chairperson, that is in fact the case, police officers were seen as targets, but we have police officers that stayed right throughout during that turmoil, they stayed in their houses and up until today they're staying in their houses. I lived with a police officer during that period. In 1985 I was doing Form 5, I was in Soweto in Pimville, police officers were being attacked but not all police officers were attacked.

Police officers that were seen to be aligned with the government at that time were the targets, but police officers that were seen to be very much on the side of the community were not attacked. I'm still staying in Pimville at the same address and I've been staying there for 34 years now. So the fact that - we concede, we do conceded that yes, it is so, most police officers were seen as targets, all of them in actual fact, but the whole thing in today's hearing is the motive.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes, but on that score, they didn't know the deceased, so the only motive there could be that they backed his ex-wife or his wife at that stage, in order to help her to gain pension. That's the suggested motive. But even that, there's no evidence even that some of them knew his wife. They knew Linkie. His wife doesn't seem to figure anywhere in this killing, Linkie figured. We don't know what Linkie's motive might have been, but as far as the evidence before us is concerned, they said they believed this is a policeman, they believed this is a notorious one, whether they're correct or not, and that was their motive for killing him.

MR NYAWUZA: Honourable Commissioner, I leave the decision as regards the granting of amnesty, in the capable hands of the Committee. With the evidence that we have before us, I believe a proper decision will be reached by yourselves. Thank you.

MS COLERIDGE IN ARGUMENT: Chairperson, I just want to get some - I will also just address the Commission on certain issues.

Regarding the position of Linkie, in the inquest she stated that she went to this specific house, Gilbert's house, and that she informed him that the deceased was presenting some problems at the time and then she had then - the applicant, Mr Chauke then approached her - I don't know where at that stage, she's not clear as to how he got to her or anything like that, and said that he would take care of everything. But her evidence goes further that she doesn't actually even ask him as to what he's going to do in the instance, she just leaves it at that and says "well I don't really know this person, he just said he's going to take care of everything", but she doesn't ask him or anything like that.

And then her evidence goes further that she was also in that vicinity in the room, not in the same room, but in the very same house where the incident occurred, Chairperson, and also she doesn't really know what had occurred and she doesn't really - she didn't see anything, she was with her baby there as well. That also seems a bit sceptical just at that evidence, Chairperson.

And then Alfred Simelane states that they received the information that he was in the dining-room and that seems to be specific information, and that only someone that is obviously linked to the deceased would be able to give that specific information. And it took them an hour, Chairperson, to arrange this whole operation and they went back and the deceased was still at the very same house. So there does seem to be some linkage as to the applicants and that particular house.

And then I don't think that it would have made a difference whether the deceased was known as Rambo, the notorious Rambo in this instance, I think that the fact that he was a policeman, that qualified him as a legitimate target for them, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: But isn't it also clear they have said that they changed because he was a high-ranking target?

MS COLERIDGE: Correct, Chairperson, that is the evidence.

And also the fact that the deceased lived in that very same location, Chairperson, and it would also be clear that people living in that area would also know that there was a policeman residing there and just the fact that he was back in that area, it's possible that people or even that Mr Chauke would have for instance known that he was a policeman.

CHAIRPERSON: He wasn't back in the area, he's just come to collect some things that evening.

MS COLERIDGE: That is correct, Chairperson, but what I'm saying is that the fact that he actually resided there at some stage and that the applicant, Mr Chauke's for instance grandparents lived there, so it's possible ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: But isn't it also, doesn't this add to this suggestion that the intention was a political one, it was to done, the body was to be left in the open so people could see that is what happens if a policeman comes back here?

MS COLERIDGE: Correct, Chairperson.

And then just in relation to the issue of motive. It was just that the wife's position in this instance was never put to the applicants, Chairperson. So in relation to that motive, the applicants in all fairness weren't cross-examined in relation to that.

CHAIRPERSON: There is no suggestion, as my colleague has said, of any relationship between the applicants and the deceased's wife.

MS COLERIDGE: That is correct, Chairperson. That's basically my submissions on this matter. Thank you, Chairperson.

JUDGE DE JAGER: There's only one strange thing for me, if they've expected a fight inside, going to kill somebody, why didn't they take the two strong men sitting at the bottom of the table with them and leave these two youngsters alone?

MR KOOPEDI: I believe I had asked this question and in particular to one of the applicants, who is Mr Modau, and I was told that he was not only very young but very thin at that stage. Having gone to exile made him look like he is today, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Right, the Committee will consider its decision and you will be notified in due course.

MR KOOPEDI: As the Committee pleases, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: We now adjourn till Wednesday morning is it?

MS COLERIDGE: That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: What time?

MS COLERIDGE: Is 9 o'clock in order?

CHAIRPERSON: 9 o'clock.

Are you coming back or are you finished?

MR KOOPEDI: I am coming back, Chairperson, I'm ready to proceed on Wednesday.

CHAIRPERSON: 9 o'clock on Wednesday.

MS COLERIDGE: All rise.

MR KOOPEDI: Perhaps Chairperson needs to explain that on Wednesday it's not for this matter. I heard them saying "Wednesday", believing that they should come back.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, on Wednesday it will be a completely different matter.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS