MR DLUDLA: Morning everybody. We proceed with our hearings this morning and I'm informed that the first matter that we'll be dealing with is the application of Mr Thulani Jerome Dludla. I'd at this stage kindly request the legal representatives to place themselves on record.
MR DEHAL: Thank you, Mr Chairperson. The name is Dehal, attorney from Dehal Incorporated, Durban. I represent the applicant in this matter and propose calling just the applicant. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Dehal.
MR PANDAY: Thank you, Mr Chair. The name is Mr Panday, I represent the families of the victims in the matter. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Panday.
MS THABETHE: Thank you, Mr Chair. My name is Thabile Thabethe, I'm the Evidence Leader for the TRC.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Thabethe.
THULANI JEROME DLUDLA: (sworn states)
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Dehal?
EXAMINATION BY MR DEHAL: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.
Mr Dludla, do you confirm that this application which I show to you for amnesty, completed in the Zulu language, pages 1 to 10 in the bundle, is indeed your application?
MR DEHAL: The document you have before you, a statement of yours consisting of two pages, with you having crossed on the second page on the 1st of December 1999, is, you confirm, your statement in your application as a supplementary statement, correct?
MR DEHAL: Mr Chairperson, I hand this statement in. I presume all the Members have copies. May I mark that Exhibit A?
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Dehal, this statement will be received as Exhibit A.
MR MALAN: Mr Dehal, just before you proceed. Neither the application nor the statement has been attested to. Can you just have him confirm the correctness, truthfulness of the contents.
Mr Dludla, the application for amnesty itself was completed by you, was it? This application that I ...(intervention)
MR DLUDLA: Yes, that's correct.
MR DEHAL: And do you confirm that the contents contained therein are indeed correct?
MR DEHAL: Insofar as the statement placed before you is concerned, this two-paged statement, do you confirm that the cross thereon is yours?
MR DEHAL: Do you confirm that the contents of the two-paged statement were formulated, recorded, on your instructions and are indeed correct in every respect?
MR DEHAL: Thank you. Exhibit A then is your statement which reads briefly as follows. You are an adult male, you were born on the 29th of June '72, you're unmarried, you are currently detained at Serfontein Prison, with that prison number and that you were born and brought up in Matsha, Empangeni, correct?
MR DEHAL: You first became a member of the ANC in 1990, you joined the ANC for the sole reason that they were fighting for human rights, equality and justice, you believed in the ANC and what they fought for, correct?
MR DEHAL: During January of 1994, there was an ongoing violence between members of the IFP and the ANC in the Empangeni area. Around the beginning of January '94, you visited your girlfriend nearby, at approximately 5pm on that day, your friends who are also ANC members, had come to your girlfriend's house and informed you that you should go back home to Empangeni because great damage was there caused, correct?
MR DEHAL: When you returned home you saw that your house was burnt down, you were informed that members of the community - sorry, informed by members of the community that your three sisters and niece were gunned down and burnt, correct?
MR DEHAL: And on the day of the incident you were informed by Sipho Dlamini, that Vusimusi Lembethe killed your three sisters and your niece and burnt them down, correct?
MR DEHAL: Then you say that this Vusimusi Lembethe belonged to the IFP and that you became angry at this as Vusimusi caused your sisters' death and you planned to kill him. You then purchased a 9mm rifle, decided to kill Vusimusi yourself and there was no need to tell anyone about this. You planned to go to his house in the morning to kill him, correct?
MR DEHAL: Then on the next page in paragraph 8 you say, on the 30th of January '94, at approximately 11pm, you arrived at Vusimusi's house but the gate was locked, so you had to jump over the fence to get into the yard, you saw the door was open and you entered. You noticed that Vusimusi was in the dining-room, he was hiding at the side of the wall in the passage and you waited for Vusimusi to enter the passage. When he entered the passage you fired three shots at him, you fired two shots in the chest and one on his head, correct?
MR DEHAL: Vusimusi then fell down, you stole his gun and you ran away.
MR DEHAL: The following day you returned to work in Empangeni, to clean fridges and airconditioners. Many weeks later you were arrested by the police, and you now apply for amnesty for this act.
MR DEHAL: You say that your sisters and Vusimusi died mainly because they belonged to opposing political parties, correct?
MR DEHAL: You then say that you are deeply sorry for killing Vusimusi Lembethe, you apologise to his family. And that ends your statement. Is that correct?
MR DEHAL: Mr Chairperson and Honourable Members, that is the statement. Before the matter proceeds and lest there be witnesses called and exhaustive cross-examination, I think it would be prudent for me to record at this stage that as his legal representative I've advised that he has grave difficulties on this application and I concede at this stage that this is not an application which I think merits the grant of amnesty. But because the motions had been formulated and proceeded with to this late stage, I out of respect to this Committee, decided to more fully record the statement in the format that we've done. Thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DEHAL
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Dehal. Mr Panday, do you have any questions you'd like to put to the applicant?
MR PANDAY: Just a point of clarity, Mr Chairman. Mr Dehal has recorded that this is not an application that warrants the need for amnesty. Now if we could get more ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: We'll have to obviously consider it you know, that that’s Mr Dehal's expressed his opinion and I don't think it would be correct and proper for us now to express our opinion. We'll have to consider it at the end of the hearing, in the usual way.
MR PANDAY: Actually what I was putting to you, Mr Chairman, is that if we could get clarity that - you see the confusion is that it does not warrant any amnesty application. Now what I'd seek is that whether the legal representative is actually conceding that this is not an act of political aggression ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: I think what you must do, Mr Panday, is just approach the matter as you normally would because you know we're not necessarily bound by any concessions, in one way or the other way.
MR PANDAY: As Mr Chairman pleases.
CHAIRPERSON: We take them into account, but we're not bound by that.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PANDAY: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Mr Dludla, you confirmed that - well, do you confirm that the affidavit, the application that appears on page 11 to page 16, is the application that you had brought as your amnesty application?
MR MALAN: I don't think he can confirm that because you're referring to the translation. But you can accept that that is the office translation and unless the interpretation is in question, we can work on that basis.
MR PANDAY: Mr Dludla, why is it in your application for amnesty you did not mention that a niece was killed as well and only that your three sisters were killed?
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, while you're answering that, Mr Dludla, perhaps you could give the name of your niece.
MR DLUDLA: ...(no English interpretation). The child was still young, so I tend to forget the name.
MR PANDAY: Unfortunately I did not get the translation.
CHAIRPERSON: He said that "The child was still young, so I intend to forget her name."
MR PANDAY: And why did you not mention in your application initially, that your niece was killed as well?
MR DLUDLA: I thought I had included my niece there. I don't know how it came about that she was not mentioned.
MR PANDAY: Where was your niece living?
MR DLUDLA: She was my sister's child and she resided with them at home.
MR PANDAY: Now Mr Dludla, you mentioned that you were at your girlfriends house nearby, in Empangeni, how long were you at your girlfriend's house for? Were you living there?
MR DLUDLA: I did not reside there, I had gone there to visit.
MR PANDAY: And for how long did you go to visit her?
MR DLUDLA: On that day I went past my home and informed my sisters that I was going to the Ndlovu family and I was going to return only the following morning, but they were shot and killed the very same night when I was away.
MR PANDAY: Do you recall the day that your sisters were shot and killed?
MR DLUDLA: I cannot recall the date well because a long time has elapsed. I cannot recall the date.
MR DLUDLA: Yes, it was in 1994, mid-year.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible - no microphone) on your application form you say it was on the 30th of January 1994, now you say it's mid-year. What is the situation? I'm referring to page 12 of the documents, paragraph 9(a)(2).
MR DLUDLA: It was the 30th of January. It's just that a long time has elapsed so I do not recall the ...(indistinct) very well.
MR PANDAY: Now Mr Dludla, ...(intervention)
MR MALAN: Just before you proceed, Mr Panday.
You killed, according to the record you killed Vusimusi on the 30th of January, did you kill him on the same day your sisters were killed?
MR DLUDLA: No, it was not the same day.
MR MALAN: How many days after?
MR DLUDLA: I think a week elapsed.
MR MALAN: Thank you, Mr Panday.
ADV SANDI: Sorry, why did you not kill him immediately, what were you waiting for?
MR DLUDLA: The reason why I did not take action on that day was I wanted to prepare for my sisters funeral and get it over and done with properly before planning this other mission.
MR PANDAY: Mr Dludla, do you know the Lembethe family?
MR DLUDLA: Yes, I know them, all of them.
MR PANDAY: How do you know them?
MR DLUDLA: I would say I grew up around them and in that way I knew them.
MR PANDAY: So it will be correct to assume that you were neighbours?
MR DLUDLA: Yes, we were neighbours, there was a just a small road separating the two families.
MR PANDAY: Would you agree that your sisters were also well-known to the family, to the Lembethe family?
MR PANDAY: Now Mr Dludla, after having consulted with the family, my instructions are that the sisters that you refer to that were killed, were in fact, or rather only died or alternatively killed after the death of Vusimusi Lembethe.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, on that one as well - sorry, Mr Panday,
Before you answer Mr Dludla, I'd just like to refer you to page 30 of the documents, it's about line 13, when the judge at the trial was trying to work out or think what the motive might be, he said well -
" ... the other is that it was revenge for some real or perceived act by the deceased against him or his family. That is possible, because there is evidence that the family's huts had been burnt down. But again, in the absence of any evidence to that effect, it is dangerous to speculate."
Why I'm pointing this out is that it makes no mention to the killing of any sisters here, but only the burning of huts. Now Mr Panday has put it to you that your sisters died but only after the death of Mr Lembethe. What do you say to that?
MR DLUDLA: They are only telling him what they know and I am saying what I also know. I had no grudge against Vusi Lembethe. He would normally come to my home to drink and he is married to the - the woman that he is married to shares the same surname as my brother's wife, so they were very close.
MR PANDAY: Mr Dludla, if you maintain your sisters were killed by Vusimusi Lembethe, why did you not tell the court that your sisters were in fact murdered by Vusi Lembethe?
MR DLUDLA: I did not explain much in court because even the person who testified there, was unknown to me, but he claimed to know me.
MR PANDAY: Mr Dludla, did you testify in court?
MR PANDAY: Now you testified in court that your hut was burnt, is that correct?
MR DLUDLA: Yes, I also mentioned it in court, that my house had been burnt down and my sisters had been shot.
MR PANDAY: Mr Dludla, I'm going to refer you to pages 30 to 31. Now these pages are copies of what transpired in court. I put it to you, had you mentioned about the deaths of your sisters, there would have been a recording of this and that you're actually in fact lying to this Commission that you mention this.
MR DLUDLA: I did mention it. I do not know why it was not recorded there. I even informed the investigator, Mr Xaba, he told me that he was not interested in the death of my sisters, but in that of Mr Lembethe. When I enquired about why he was not interested in that, because the very reason that prompted me to carry out that attack, was the death of my sisters. It puzzled me then that it was not mentioned in court because I had made it known.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Panday, if I could just ask a question.
Mr Dludla, you say that you grew up around the Lembethe family, you were on very close terms, your families were on very close terms with each other, why did you just accept what Sipho Dlamini told you, that Vusimusi Lembethe killed your sisters and then you just go and kill Lembethe? Why did you believe that he was the killer if you were on good terms with each other? Surely you should have found out first from Vusimusi himself.
MR DLUDLA: The reason why I believed Sipho Dlamini was because before his death, Vusimusi came to my home at about eight in the evening, we were watching TV at that time, when he entered he was carrying a knopkierie and an axe and he said our house was going to be burnt down. When I attempted to respond to him my brother stopped me and my brother and Vusi went out to speak privately outside, but my brother came back and informed me on what they had discussed. That is why I believed Sipho Dlamini when he came and told me this because my house had indeed been burnt down after he had said so. That was a week after he had come to our home to tell us this.
MR DEHAL: Sorry, whilst Mr Panday is getting ready, may I just also point out that it would appear this line of cross-examination may not be the only reason and line, for in the sentence on page 30 on line 6, the Honourable Judge says
"He has not told us why he did so."
It would appear as though when he arrived at court he didn't give a full version. So to say that he lied in court would not be totally correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Dehal.
MR MALAN: The statement was that he lied to the Commission.
MR PANDAY: Now Mr Dludla, was Sipho Dlamini also an ANC supporter?
MR DLUDLA: Yes, he was an ANC supporter.
MR PANDAY: And for how long was he a supporter?
MR DLUDLA: I am not certain as to when he joined the ANC, because he does not reside very close to my home, he comes from an area called Mvamhlope(?).
MR PANDAY: Now Mr Dludla, what would you have done if somebody else had killed your sisters?
MR DLUDLA: For the reason that I did not have any knowledge to the contrary, had I received that information I would have thought that I'd made a mistake by killing Vusimusi Lembethe.
MR PANDAY: So is it possible that you would have killed any person that killed your sisters?
MR DLUDLA: It would not have mattered to which organisation that person belonged to, if he had killed my own blood I would have killed him too.
MR PANDAY: So Mr Dludla, based on what you said now, it is correct to assume that the only reason you killed Vusimusi Lembethe was not because he was IFP, because he you were told he killed your sisters, your three sisters you grew up with. Isn't that correct?
MR DLUDLA: Yes, that is what angered me.
MR PANDAY: So it was not because he was IFP?
MR DLUDLA: I had no problem with him being an IFP member. I was an ANC person, but I did not have a problem with it.
MR PANDAY: So in your affidavit, Exhibit A, when you mention that the reason your sisters were killed was because they belonged to opposing political parties, is incorrect, isn't that so?
MR DEHAL: No, the inference doesn't ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: He can answer. I know what you're saying, it actually came to my mind, but it's not an unfair question.
CHAIRPERSON: It's quite clear what the statement says. I think perhaps you should repeat the question.
MR PANDAY: Mr Dludla, I refer you to page 2 of your affidavit, Exhibit A ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: I do agree with Mr Dehal, I think you're drawing the wrong conclusion because he says - that relates to the burning of the house rather than the killing of Vusimusi.
Now Mr Dludla, is it correct to assume that your sisters or the possible political affiliation of your sisters and the actions you took on the so-called person who killed your sisters, was not related?
MR DLUDLA: It was related because firstly, the house was burnt. At that time no-one was injured. On the second occasion that it was burnt, they were also killed and burnt.
MR PANDAY: Sorry, Mr Chairman, I'm having a terrible difficulty with the translation, there's a problem.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, if you could perhaps bring another headphone please. I've also known, Mr Panday, that sometimes it best - this instrument must be pointing there and as little interference with it or the cord.
MR PANDAY: Thank you. Mr Dludla, ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: His last answer was "On the first occasion the house was burnt, no-one was injured, on the second occasion that it was burnt my sisters were killed."
MR PANDAY: Mr Dludla, you mentioned earlier on that you would have killed anyone that killed your sisters ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Irrespective of what their political affiliation was, I think he said.
MR PANDAY: Sorry, Mr Chairman, I didn't hear you.
CHAIRPERSON: He said irrespective of what the killer's political affiliation might have been he would have killed the person who killed his sisters.
MR PANDAY: Now Mr Dludla, based on that reply of yours I put it to you that the only reason you went out to kill Vusimusi was not because it was political, it was because you were angered by the death of your sisters and that you decided to take revenge. Would you like to comment on that?
MR DEHAL: He's agreed with that, Mr Chairman.
MR MALAN: He's said it in his application too, Mr Panday.
MR PANDAY: Mr Commissioner, the point I'm trying to make is that we merely reiterate that his entire action was not politically motivated.
CHAIRPERSON: He can answer that question.
MR DLUDLA: Please repeat that question.
CHAIRPERSON: We've already got the answer, I don't know if you want to drive the nail any further.
MR PANDAY: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I'll rest.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PANDAY
MS THABETHE: No questions, Mr Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Do you have any re-examination?
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan, do you have any questions?
MR MALAN: I just want to hear from you, Mr Dludla, do you have any idea why Vusimusi killed your sisters?
MR DLUDLA: The following day we discovered a lot of cartridges on the yard, they were R1, 9mm and G3 cartridges.
MR MALAN: My question is why would he have done it. If you were on good terms, the two families, why would Vusimusi have killed your sisters as you allege? Do you have any idea?
MR DLUDLA: I would not know the reason why, but I can only speculate that it was because of these opposing political views. Moreover, because he had once mentioned that the house was going to be burnt down.
MR MALAN: And he had no intention or threat of killing you, he never said he would be killing you?
MR DLUDLA: I learnt that there were people who had been sent to kill me. These were two Malodgwa sons, who are now deceased.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Malan, if I could just on that point.
You see we've got a statement before us on page 21 of the papers Mr Dludla, it's a statement made by Mashangase Ethel Lembethe who is the mother the deceased, Vusimusi Lembethe, and I'll just read to you from paragraph 4, which is what she says -
"I have no knowledge of the allegation put up by the applicant that my son caused the death of his sisters and the damage to the house. I have no knowledge that my son was ever a member of a political organisation, the IFP. In as far as my knowledge, none of my family was a member of any political organisation. If the applicant claims the attack on his sisters and damage to the home to have been associated with my late son's political acts or affiliation, he was mistaken, thereby costing the life of my son."
What do you say to that? That is what Mrs Lembethe says.
MR DLUDLA: Well I did have knowledge that Mr Lembethe was involved in the IFP, together with a Mr Mkletche(?), as well as his brother-in-law, Mr Ximba. He was also known as Ndini.
MR MALAN: I just want to make sure. On page 15, question 10(d), and I'm reading from the translation there, you say you were defending yourself because you were going to be killed. Why did you say that? Can you read, Mr Dludla? - English.
MR MALAN: Well let me just give you the interpretation. You made this statement, according to the translator of your application, that you were defending yourself, apparently because you feared or expected that you would be the next, that you were going to be killed and one would assume, by Vusimusi. Do you have any comment on that?
MR DLUDLA: I have not received that knowledge that someone was going to kill me on that day, but I did know that there were people who were after me. To the extent that Nkosinathi Buthelezi, as well as Skakane were both attacked and Nkosinathi Buthelezi was killed. What we knew was that the targets that they were after were the Buthelezi, Skakane and myself. Therefore after the death of Nkosinathi Buthelezi, they were still looking for myself and Zaki Skakane.
CHAIRPERSON: Who was "they" that were looking for you?
MR DLUDLA: We did not know the specific people but we were of he opinion that they were IFP members. But the one person we knew that was burning people's houses was Mr Mkletche, but he had been driven out of the area because we had tried to attack him and he fled.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Sandi, do you have any questions you'd like to ask?
ADV SANDI: Where did you buy this firearm you used to kill the deceased?
MR DLUDLA: I had bought it from Mandene and brought it home because I worked in Mandene from 1993.
ADV SANDI: So when your sisters were killed you already had this firearm with you, is that what you mean?
MR DLUDLA: At the time that my sisters were killed I did have another firearm but the one that I'm speaking of I had already sold to somebody else.
ADV SANDI: Did you have a political objective for killing the deceased?
MR DLUDLA: With regard to that, I did not have a political objective because I did not have any quarrel or grudge with him, we were on very good terms because he and my brother were in-laws. So even when they had feasts I would go to their home. I was very close, I liked him very much.
ADV SANDI: Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Sandi. Mr Dehal, do you have any questions arising out of the questions that have been put by Members of the Committee?
MR DEHAL: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, none at all thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Panday, do you have any questions arising?
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Dludla, that concludes your evidence.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Dehal, are you leading any further evidence in this application?
MR DEHAL: No, that concludes the case for the applicant, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Panday?
MR PANDAY: In light of the applicant's concessions and confessions, I call no witnesses, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: That then concludes the leading of evidence in this matter. We will now receive submissions. Mr Dehal?
MR DEHAL ADDRESSES: Thank you. Mr Chairperson, in view of my earlier concession, read in conjunction with the applicant's concession that there were no political motives, in response to Mr Sandi's question and read in conjunction with the fact that his testimony is clear on the basis that he would have killed almost any person who killed his sisters, I take the matter no further, I leave the matter in your respectful hands. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Dehal. Mr Panday?
MR PANDAY ADDRESSES: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Save to say that it's quite clear that the applicant's objective was not political, it can also be inferred that in terms of his disclosure he's not disclosed fully and as such he falls fatefully short of disclosing any reason as to why he should be granted amnesty.
It is my respectful submission that he is not a candidate to be granted amnesty as he does not comply with the requirements of the Section 20. Thank you.
MS THABETHE ADDRESSES: Thank you, Mr Chair. I think the applicant has made full disclosure to the effect that what he did was not political. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Any response, Mr Dehal?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. We'll reserve our decision which will be handed down in the near future. Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON: We've been handed some documents for the next matter which we haven't read yet and it might be a good opportunity also just to take the short tea interval and then we'll resume in 15 minutes time. Thank you.