CHAIRPERSON: ...(start of tape) submissions and a ruling on the question relating to the disclosure of the names of certain people. I notice Mr Dreyer is not here but however this aspect does not really concern him, it's a point that was raised by Ms Monyane and it concerns obviously her and also Mr Mohlaba who appears for the applicant concerned, Mr Pitsi.

Ms Monyane, do you wish to make any submissions?

INTERPRETER: Before she does that we need time to dish out the earphones for the victims.

MS MONYANE: Mr Chair, before I can make any submissions I would like to know if the applicant is going to answer that question or he is refusing to answer that question.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mohlaba, is your applicant still of the same view that he had yesterday or has he reconsidered the position relating to the disclosure of names?

MR MOHLABA: Thank you, Chair. The applicant wants to address the Committee first. He still adopts an attitude that he should not disclose the names of his informants and after that address we may ask for a ruling from the Chair with regard to that aspect.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, certainly. Mr Pitsi?

MR PITSI: Mr Chair, it is very unfortunate that we are missing certain facts here. We have been members of the liberation movement and for that matter we were not operating freely like what the then Security Branch would do, go into areas, publicly, openly and seen by everybody.

We solemnly depended on the information of the operatives which were inside the country. You know we operated like fishes whereby our water was the community that we were serving. So I don't think it would be a good idea to disclose those names.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Pitsi. So it's quite clear from what Mr Pitsi has said, Ms Monyane, that he's not prepared to disclose names. Now the question is whether we as a Panel can compel in any way.

MS MONYANE ADDRESSES COMMITTEE: Mr Chair, my instructions are that if Mr Pitsi is not prepared to disclose the names of those informers, the Phenyane family are saying that there were no informers involved in this matter. Mr Pitsi knew Mr Phenyane very well and he knew he was born and bred in Atteridgeville and he knew every corner of Atteridgeville.

I would like to submit that if Mr Pitsi doesn't disclose those names, the purpose and the aim of this Committee or the whole purpose of the Truth Commission would not have been met.

The families are saying they're still going to leave this Commission with the questions that they had 10 years back. They don't see how can Mr Pitsi be granted amnesty in this matter if he doesn't fully disclose the names because the whole process of the Truth Commission is that you must tell the truth and nothing else but the truth.

CHAIRPERSON: I think that argument that you are raising now and the points that you are raising now would probably more properly be raised at the end of the hearing on the question of whether or not there's been full disclosure, but do you have any submissions on the point as to whether we have any authority or whether it would be proper for us, the Panel here, to compel the applicant concerned, Mr Pitsi, to reveal the names.

MS MONYANE: On that point, Mr Chair, I'm going to leave that question in the hands of the Committee and the Committee will have to apply the Act, the 1995 Act, what does it say about that point. Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

ADV DE JAGER: Could you perhaps assist us? We've been created by this Act as a Committee, could you find anything in the Act that would empower us to force an applicant to give certain information in his evidence or is it up to an applicant to come and say I'm applying for amnesty, I'm willing to disclose this, and if we find it's not a full disclosure or we're not satisfied with what he's told us, then you can't get amnesty but if he satisfies us that he's disclosed all the relevant facts - the Act stipulates he should disclose the relevant facts as far as his offences are concerned. Is there anything in the Act that would empower us to make an order that he should disclose names and have we got any, is there any sanction that we could apply if he would fail to do so?

MS MONYANE: Mr Chair, I tried to go through the Act yesterday and I couldn't find anything compelling the Committee to authorise the Committee or empower the Committee to force the applicant to disclose the names of the informers. But I would like to say that the Act talks about full disclosure in Section 20, or the 1995 Act, and if we talk about the full disclosure you must disclose everything ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Well it's full disclosure of - the Act specifically says a full disclosure of all relevant facts. So the point that would have to be decided at the end of the day, not at this stage, would be; does the non-disclosure of the names of the people who provided the information amount to the non-disclosure of a relevant fact in the whole application, in other words, was it relevant.

But that argument comes at the end of the hearing, on the question of full disclosure. It would seem that the only section in the Act, Act number 34/95 relating to the compellability of witnesses or witnesses being compelled to testify, is Section 31.

It is also, on a reading of that section in the context of the whole Act, that that section does not apply to an applicant in an amnesty application but rather to hearings held by the Human Rights Violations Committee and also perhaps of witnesses in amnesty applications who are not applicants themselves.

It would be for instance very unlikely that it was the intention of the legislature that we as a Panel would have to consult with the Attorney-General as required by Section 31, for an applicant to give certain evidence. Surely it's not the intention. In any event, another reason why one can say that Section 31 does not apply to applicants in an amnesty application is because of the requirement of full disclosure because if there has not been a full disclosure in the view of the Committee of all relevant facts, then that would be a non-fulfilment of an essential requirement for the granting of amnesty. So there is a type of a built in penalty for refusing to give evidence if it is deemed to be relevant evidence, the failure to give it amounting to a non-disclosure. So that is our view on the matter.

MS MONYANE: In that instance, Your Honour, I would leave this question in the hands of the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Monyane.

Mr Mohlaba, I don't think it's necessary for us to hear you on the, to hear any legal submission as to whether or not Mr Pitsi should be compelled by us now to disclose those names, particularly taking into account the attitude of Ms Monyane, and we as a Panel have also considered the matter overnight, subject of course to any argument that we may have received on the

matter and we are of the view that it would not be proper for us as a Committee to compel Mr Pitsi or indeed any other amnesty applicant to give certain evidence.

R U L I N G

We therefore make a ruling that he will not be compelled to disclose those names, but as indicated yesterday, this question will no doubt be raised again at the end of the proceedings when we receive legal argument and whether or not the non-disclosure of the identity of the people who provided the information amounts to the failure to provide a relevant fact and therefore be not a full disclosure, is a question which will be dealt with later. I make no comment at this stage as to whether or not there will be a full disclosure or not. So I think that then concludes this point.

Is there anything further that Mr Pitsi wishes to say on this matter, Mr Mohlaba?

MR MOHLABA ADDRESSES COMMITTEE: Chair, except to mention that this aspect of not disclosing has been seriously taken into account between myself and Mr Pitsi and he believes that the act of disclosing amongst other things, this would amount to him passing the buck whereas he has come here and accepted full responsibility for the murder of the three officers. So he believes that the disclosure will not be in the furtherance of reconciliation

which this Commission seeks to promote and that's amongst other considerations. The rest is just the legal argument which would be brought at the end of the matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Mohlaba.

ADV DE JAGER: Except, Mr Mohlaba, he must realise and that's what we've told, I hope he's fully aware of it, that this may be a consideration against the granting of amnesty. That would be a factor that would be considered and he's aware that we've made it quite clear to him that this could be a factor weighing against him.

MR MOHLABA: That is well appreciated by Mr Pitsi, thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Mohlaba. Well then, Mr Pitsi, that then finally concludes your testimony. Thank you, you may stand down now.

MR PITSI: Thank you, Mr Chair.

TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMITTEE

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mohlaba?

MR MOHLABA: Thank you, Chair. I will now want to call upon Thapelo Reuben Kgotsa who is the 4th applicant in this matter. Thank you, Chair, Mr Kgotsa will prefer to give his testimony in Sotho.

CHAIRPERSON: South or North Sotho?

MR KGOTSA: Northern Sotho.

CHAIRPERSON: Northern Sotho.

THAPELO REUBEN KGOTSA: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Mohlaba?

EXAMINATION BY MR MOHLABA: Thank you, Chair. Mr Kgotsa will be applying for amnesty in respect of the attack at Ndala's house and also in respect of the grenade attack at Mphahlele's house and the attack at Mveke's house.

Mr Kgotsa ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: And escaping from prison?

MR MOHLABA: And escaping from prison. I'm indebted to the Chair.

ADV DE JAGER: I see his application hasn't been signed either and I think we didn't point out that Mr Mathe's application hasn't been attested, not signed but signed by a Commissioner, and what we've said before would also apply here.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you, Chair.

Mr Kgotsa, ...(intervention)

ADV SANDI: Sorry, Mr Mohlaba, just whilst you're dealing with the list of offences in respect of which the applicant is applying, was he not in possession of certain weapons whilst involved in these attacks?

MR MOHLABA: Certainly, Chair, he was in possession, unlawful possession of amongst others, handgrenades.

ADV SANDI: So he will be applying for amnesty for those also?

MR MOHLABA: Certainly, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Mohlaba, you may proceed.

MR MOHLABA: Mr Kgotsa, you filed an application which appears on page 23 of the paginated bundle, being an application for amnesty and it has just been noted that your application was attested before a Commissioner of Oaths, can you confirm whether this is the form which you have completed and whether the signature appearing at the foot thereof is that of yourself, and whether you ...(intervention)

MR KGOTSA: That is correct.

MR MOHLABA: And do you consider the contents of this application form to be the truth and binding on your conscience?

MR KGOTSA: That is correct.

MR MOHLABA: You are applying for amnesty in respect of the incident ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: We didn't hear the answer.

INTERPRETER: That is correct, the answer is "that is correct." Either channel 2 or channel 1 which is Afrikaans.

ADV DE JAGER: Was this form completed by yourself, is this your handwriting?

MR KGOTSA: Yes, that is my handwriting.

MR MOHLABA: Mr Kgotsa, can you tell this Committee whether you belonged to any political organisation during the period of the commission of these offences?

MR KGOTSA: Yes, I was a member of the African National Congress and then again a member of Umkhonto weSizwe.

MR MOHLABA: Can you explain to the Committee, supply full details of how you joined the ANC and its military wing, Umkhonto weSizwe and also explain the nature of training if any, which you underwent.

MR KGOTSA: I joined ANC in 1986 - I beg your pardon, in 1985. The person who recruited me is, I don't know where he is. I joined Umkhonto weSizwe the late 1987. I was recruited by Alfred Kgase. After we met we went to Rodney Toka who confirmed my membership, then I was trained by Rodney Toka. He trained me in the use of handgrenades and AK47s.

MR MOHLABA: Where was this training conducted, was it inside or outside the country?

MR KGOTSA: Inside the country.

MR MOHLABA: Did you belong to any unit and if so, can you mention the name of that unit?

MR KGOTSA: I was a member of Macedindaba Unit.

CHAIRPERSON: Could you just spell that name.

MR KGOTSA: M-A-C-E-D-I-N-D-A-B-A.

MR MOHLABA: How many persons ...(intervention)

ADV SANDI: Sorry, Mr Mohlaba, I think - did you say Maqedindaba Unit?

MR KGOTSA: That is correct.

ADV SANDI: Is that not: M-A-Q and not C as the interpreter has said?

CHAIRPERSON: We've got a dispute between a Panel Member and the interpreter, is it a C or a Q?

MR KGOTSA: I'm Sotho-speaking and I don't know the correct spelling.

ADV DE JAGER: Perhaps the people down in the south are spelling it with a Q.

CHAIRPERSON: It seems that the general view from the people attending is that it's a Q, so we'll change the C to a Q. (M-A-Q-E-D-I-N-D-A-B-A)

MR MOHLABA: Thank you, Chair.

How many persons did this unit consist of?

MR KGOTSA: Three members.

MR MOHLABA: Can you mention the names of those members?

MR KGOTSA: Reginald Legodi, James Kgase and myself.

MR MOHLABA: Can you take this Committee through the incident which occurred around the 15th of April 1998, namely the hand-grenade attack at Mphahlele's house.

MR KGOTSA: I was together with Reginald Legodi. Reginald Legodi is the one who threw the hand-grenade in that house. I was waiting somewhere. After he threw the hand-grenade we left the scene.

MR MOHLABA: Can you explain to the Commission why, or rather how this attack was planned. I believe that you first sat down, planned about this attack and there should be a reason why this house was attacked and who was the target who was aimed at.

MR KGOTSA: The reason for the attack, the person we were looking for was a policeman and it seemed that he rented that house. I went there to make surveillance before. We took a few days to make the reconnoitring and then I went again on the same day of the attack to make surveillance, then I saw him entering the house or in that room.

From there I left and went to collect Lefti, then we returned to accomplish our mission.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, when you say that you saw the target, the policeman entering the house on the day of the attack, at approximately what time of the day was it that you saw him entering the house? Because we've heard from Mr Legodi that the attack took place after dark at night, when did you see him entering the house?

MR KGOTSA: At the time when I went to make surveillance before I collected to fetch Lefti. It was approximately 10 o'clock. When I came back with Reginald Legodi ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: 10 o'clock in the morning?

MR KGOTSA: No, in the evening, Sir.

MR MOHLABA: You have mentioned that you went back to collect Lefti, can you explain to the Commission who is Lefti.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, but we still don't know now ...(intervention)

MR KGOTSA: That is Reginald Legodi.

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, we still don't know, the Chairperson asked you to say at what time did you see him entering the house.

CHAIRPERSON: He said at 10 p.m.

ADV DE JAGER: No, he started surveillance at 10 p.m.

CHAIRPERSON: At what time did you see him entering the house before you went to fetch Legodi?

MR KGOTSA: I saw him entering the house, I don't know exactly but it was approximately 10 o'clock at night.

CHAIRPERSON: Continue, please.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you, Chair.

Can you explain to this Committee why was, who was this police officer who was your target, do you know his surname or his name?

MR KGOTSA: I do not know his name, I know his surname. That is Molatezi: M-O-L-A-T-E-Z-I.

MR MOHLABA: And can you explain whether you were given any orders to attack this person, orders or approval from somebody to carry out that attack and if so, explain who gave such orders or authorization.

MR KGOTSA: When we have identified a target we would go to our commanders, then we'd explain to our commanders about the type of target and then they would approve and give us an order to attack.

CHAIRPERSON: Did that happen in this instance?

MR KGOTSA: Pardon?

CHAIRPERSON: Did that happen in this particular case, did you get orders?

MR KGOTSA: Yes, they gave us an order, an approval.

MR MOHLABA: Who did this approval come from, do you know?

MR KGOTSA: That is our commander, Rodney Toka.

MR MOHLABA: At the time of this attack, who was heading this Maqedindaba Unit of yours, was it yourself or anybody else?

MR KGOTSA: During this attack the commander was Lefti, that is Reginald Legodi.

MR MOHLABA: Let us now move over to the incident which happened during May ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, sorry, before you do, Mr Mohlaba. We heard from Mr Legodi that no-one was killed or injured in this attack, do you confirm that or was anybody in fact injured or killed?

MR KGOTSA: Nobody was injured and nobody was killed in this attack.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you, Chair.

May we now move over to the incident which happened during May 1998, which was an attack in Ndala's house. Do you remember this incident?

MR KGOTSA: Yes, I do.

MR MOHLABA: Did you take part in this attack?

MR KGOTSA: Yes, I did.

MR MOHLABA: Can you explain in full details how this attack was planned and carried out?

MR KGOTSA: It was not our intention to attack him directly or his house. The police used to stay there, for example, Mr Hlongwane. We wanted to scare off Hlongwane from Mr Ndala's house. That is why we threw the grenade outside, just outside the gate.

MR MOHLABA: And do you know if anyone was injured?

MR KGOTSA: No, nobody was injured or killed, it's only damage to property, that is windows.

CHAIRPERSON: Who was present at the operation?

MR KGOTSA: I was together with Reginald Legodi.

MR MOHLABA: And can you explain whether you were given any orders to carry out this attack and if so, who gave such orders?

MR KGOTSA: The attack was approved by Rodney Toka.

MR MOHLABA: May we now move over to another attack ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: Where did you get the hand-grenade from?

MR KGOTSA: We were given it by our commander, that is Rodney Toka.

MR MOHLABA: May we now move over to the attack at Mveke's residence. Do you know anything about this attack?

MR KGOTSA: Yes, I do.

MR MOHLABA: Who was in your company, or rather let's put it this way, did you take part in this very attack?

MR KGOTSA: Yes, I took part.

MR MOHLABA: Who was with you when this attack was carried out?

MR KGOTSA: I was together with Alfred Kgase.

MR MOHLABA: Can you explain why was this residence, there was an attack on this residence?

MR KGOTSA: It is because the father of that family was a policeman.

MR MOHLABA: And did you get any orders or approval from somebody to carry out this attack?

MR KGOTSA: Yes.

MR MOHLABA: Can you explain in full details to this Commission how ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Who did you receive orders from?

MR KGOTSA: We received the approval from our commander, that is Rodney Toka.

MR MOHLABA: Can you explain with details how this attack was carried out and the type of weapons used to attack this residence?

MR KGOTSA: We used a hand-grenade to attack this house.

MR MOHLABA: Who threw the hand-grenade, was it yourself or somebody else?

MR KGOTSA: I threw the hand-grenade.

CHAIRPERSON: Where did you throw the hand-grenade, did you throw it into the house or again just in the garden or what did you do, can you just give a bit more detail please.

MR KGOTSA: I threw it in the yard.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you throw it in the yard?

MR KGOTSA: It was dark and then I was a little bit far from the house, I was not near for me to hit the target.

MR MOHLABA: Where were you intending to throw the grenade? You wanted to throw it through the window into the house or was it your intention to throw it in the yard?

MR KGOTSA: I wanted to throw it through the window.

MR MOHLABA: The comrade who was in your company, what role did he play there?

MR KGOTSA: He was at a distance so as to protect me and to disturb people who may pass by.

MR MOHLABA: In carrying these three attacks, what were you trying to achieve?

ADV DE JAGER: Could we just dwell on this last one.

You intended to throw this hand-grenade into the house, is that correct?

MR KGOTSA: Yes, that is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: In that house Mr Mveke's family was staying.

MR KGOTSA: Yes, that is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: His wife and children.

MR KGOTSA: I did not know as to whether his wife and his children were in the house at that time.

ADV DE JAGER: Didn't you keep this house under surveillance?

MR KGOTSA: Sorry?

ADV DE JAGER: Didn't you keep this house under surveillance before you threw this hand-grenade?

MR KGOTSA: Yes, we did surveillance but at the time when we were going to attack this house it was dark.

ADV DE JAGER: So you didn't care whether you would kill women, children or whoever in that house?

MR KGOTSA: Because it was an operation it was difficult for us to pull out Mr Mveke and attack him alone.

CHAIRPERSON: It was dark at the time, your intention was to throw the hand-grenade through the window with the objective of killing your target, why then throw the hand-grenade when you're far away from the house, that you can't even reach the house? Why didn't you go up to the window and hurl it through the window seeing that it was dark?

MR KGOTSA: There were some disturbances in the street.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR MOHLABA: In carrying those three attacks, what did you hope to achieve?

MR KGOTSA: Our intention was to further the aims and objectives of the ANC.

MR MOHLABA: So the people who you attacked, did you view then as stumbling blocks to the accomplishment of the objectives of your organisation?

MR KGOTSA: That is correct.

MR MOHLABA: In support of your application, is there anything that you wish to mention to the victims of these attacks and the Commission?

MR MOHLABA: Please go ahead.

MR KGOTSA: I, Thapelo Reuben Kgotsa, I would like to say to all the victims who were affected by my attacks from the depth of my heart I want them to forgive me. I'm requesting them to forgive me and that we should all start all over again so that all of us should forgive each other and start building our new nation. To all the families which were affected by our attacks.

MR MOHLABA: Were you arrested for these activities and stood trial?

MR KGOTSA: Yes, I was arrested but I was never prosecuted.

MR MOHLABA: There is evidence here that some of your comrades escaped from custody in Modderbee, were you part of those comrades who escaped?

MR KGOTSA: Yes, that is correct.

MR MOHLABA: And you're also applying for amnesty for escaping from custody and leaving the country unlawfully?

MR KGOTSA: Yes, I do.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you, Chair, that will conclude the evidence of the applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Mohlaba. I see Mr Molefe is not here. Mr Mokone, do you have any questions to ask?

MR MOKONE: I have no questions, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Monyane, do you have any questions?

MS MONYANE: No questions, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Joubert, do you have any questions?

MR JOUBERT: No questions, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Dreyer.

MR DREYER: No questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Mtanga?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS MTANGA: I do have one question, Mr Chairman.

Mr Kgotsa, when Mr Legodi testified yesterday he mentioned that the reason for attacking Mr Ndala's house, well the reasons were twofold, it was that he was informing or he was suspected of informing and that information came from you. Then second one was that he had these visits from Mr Hlongwane. And in your testimony today you've only mentioned one, that you attacked his house to scare off Mr Hlongwane, so what is the position?

MR KGOTSA: Could you please repeat your question?

CHAIRPERSON: What Ms Mtanga is asking you is, what she is saying is that yesterday when Mr Legodi gave evidence with regard to the attack on Ndala's house, he said that it was suspected Ndala was an informer, a police agent and he also said that another reason why the house was attacked was because he got regular visits from a policeman who worked in the Security Branch, by the name of Hlongwane. You have only mentioned the fact that the reason for the attack was Hlongwane's frequent visits to the house. She also said that Legodi said that you had informed him that Ndala was an informer, what do you say about that?

MR KGOTSA: The way Reginald Legodi was testifying, that is the way it is, we suspected that he was an informer. Then again, Hlongwane used to visit Mr Ndala or Ndala's house. That is why we had that suspicion that Mr Ndala is an informer.

MS MTANGA: Are you able to tell this Committee what nature of information you suspected Mr Ndala to be informing on?

MR KGOTSA: Not that he was informing about us.

MS MTANGA: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Mohlaba, do you have any re-examination?

MR MOHLABA: None, Mr Chairman, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr de Jager, do you have any questions?

ADV DE JAGER: In this last instance, the attack on Mr Mveke's house, why did you attack that house?

MR KGOTSA: Mr Mveke was a policeman.

ADV DE JAGER: Wasn't he a retired policeman and not serving as a policeman anymore?

MR KGOTSA: I don't know as to whether he was on pension, I only know that he was a policeman.

ADV DE JAGER: Did you target him, did you make surveillance and ask that he should be declared a legitimate target?

MR KGOTSA: Yes, I did the surveillance on him.

ADV DE JAGER: And what did you see? Was he an active policeman or was he a retired policeman?

MR KGOTSA: As I've already said, I did not know as to

whether he was on pension or not.

ADV DE JAGER: Why did you make surveillance on him?

MR KGOTSA: The surveillance was based on as to whether what time does he come at home and how ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kgotsa, the question is why did you initially decide to do surveillance? I mean we know what surveillance is but why did you elect to keep a watch on Mveke's house to determine what are his comings and goings?

MR KGOTSA: Sorry to make use of the word "surveillance", let me use the word "reconnaissance".

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you reconnoitre in the first place, why did you decide to reconnoitre Mveke's house?

MR KGOTSA: We do the reconnoitring so that we will be able to identify that place and look at the movements.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kgotsa, I know that. If I decide - I can go outside, I can walk out here and I can walk down the road and I can reconnoitre any number of houses but I've got no reason to do it, I'll only properly reconnoitre a house if I've got a reason. Why did you decide to reconnoitre the house? Why pick on Mveke's house, why didn't you pick on somebody else's house down the road? Or did you say; we're going to pick this house, reconnoitre it so that it can become a target, without knowing anything about it? Why did you choose to reconnoitre that house?

MR KGOTSA: We did reconnaissance because he was a policeman.

CHAIRPERSON: But now you say you don't know whether he was a policeman, whether he was on pension or not.

MR KGOTSA: At that time when we started reconnaissance I knew that he was a policeman, I didn't know that he was on pension.

ADV SANDI: Yes, but did you - Mr Kgotsa, did you ever see Mr Mveke going out of his house in uniform?

MR KGOTSA: No, I never saw him in police uniform.

ADV SANDI: In which branch of the police was he in?

MR KGOTSA: I did not know as to whether he was a CID or working at Compol, I did not know.

CHAIRPERSON: How did you know that he was a policeman?

MR KGOTSA: It was known that he was a policeman.

CHAIRPERSON: What do you mean, it was known? It was known to you, I'm asking you how did you know?

MR KGOTSA: For a person to be known as a policeman you can identify them because he was in uniform. There were those whom you were not able to identify on their uniform because they're on the private clothes. The CID's don't put uniforms and the Security Branch, but it was known around Mamelodi community that he was a policeman.

ADV SANDI: Did you ever see him in a police vehicle, Mr Kgotsa?

MR KGOTSA: I did not see him in a police vehicle because he was using a private car. I did not verify as to whether that car was a policeman(?) or not.

ADV SANDI: Did you get to know whether he was staying with a wife and children in his house?

MR KGOTSA: Yes, I knew that he had a family.

MS MTANGA: Mr Chairperson, can I just come in here. According to Mr Mveke, he retired on the 31st of May and when the applicants carried out the attack on him it was on the 4th of June, that is four days after he had retired.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Mtanga.

ADV DE JAGER: You knew he had a wife and children and yet you were prepared to throw a hand-grenade into his house.

MR KGOTSA: I did not know the wife and the children.

ADV DE JAGER: But you watched this house, you kept surveillance there, didn't you see the wife and children?

MR KGOTSA: I would usually see people in his yard.

ADV DE JAGER: What people did you see there? Because you just told us a minute before that he had a family, you were aware of that.

MR KGOTSA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you see children there?

MR KGOTSA: During the day I used to see children and people in the yard.

ADV DE JAGER: And where do you think they slept at night?

MR KGOTSA: Inside the house.

ADV DE JAGER: So they would have been killed if the hand-grenade had reached its target?

MR KGOTSA: The site we chose that we would throw the hand-grenade was on the sitting-room side or on the north side. I know that they would be injured.

ADV DE JAGER: What was your order, could you kill the women and children?

MR KGOTSA: Sorry?

CHAIRPERSON: What was your order, did it include the killing of the family besides the intended target?

MR KGOTSA: No, it was not including women and children.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Sandi, do you have any questions to ask?

ADV SANDI: Just to dwell on the reasons for the attack on Mr Mveke. Was Mr Mveke attacked simply because he was a policeman or were there any acts Mr Mveke was conducting against comrades?

MR KGOTSA: He was a policeman.

ADV SANDI: We have been told that when this attack was carried out at his house, it was a matter of days that he had retired, would that have made any difference to you?

MR KGOTSA: Please repeat the question.

CHAIRPERSON: If you had known that Mr Mveke at the time of the attack was retired, that he had retired from the police force, would you still have carried out the attack?

MR KGOTSA: If I knew there was no reason for us to attack him.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. From the legal representatives, I'll ask you collectively, does anyone have any questions arising out of questions that were put by Members of the Panel?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mohlaba, do you have any questions arising?

MR MOHLABA: Thank you, no questions, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Kgotsa, that concludes your testimony, you may stand down.

MR KGOTSA: Thank you.

WITNESS EXCUSED

MR MOHLABA: May I now call on Alfred Kgase. Thank you, Chair. Mr Kgase wants to give his testimony in Sotho.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that also Northern Sotho, Mr Kgase.

MR KGASE: Northern Sotho.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kgase, do you have any objection to taking the oath?

ALFRED KGASE: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR MOHLABA: Thank you, Chair.

Mr Kgase, on the 4th of June 1988, there was an attack on a residence of Mr Mveke, did you take part in that attack?

MR KGASE: Yes, I did.

MR MOHLABA: And during this period, did you belong to any political organisation?

MR KGASE: I was a member of the ANC and then again a member of the MK.

MR MOHLABA: Do you remember when you joined the ANC and its military wing, Umkhonto weSizwe?

MR KGASE: Yes, I do.

MR MOHLABA: Tell the Committee.

MR KGASE: It was in 1987.

MR MOHLABA: Can you explain with full details how you came to join this organisation and its military wing?

MR KGASE: I joined the ANC and MK in 1987. It was after my brother's funeral. I met my commander, Rodney Toka.

MR MOHLABA: And he is the one who recruited you into the movement?

MR KGASE: Yes, he was the one who recruited me.

MR MOHLABA: Who is your brother and can you tell the Commission how he was killed or how he died?

MR KGASE: My brother is Moses Kgase. He died in a roadblock in Sandton. He was a member of MK.

MR MOHLABA: Do you - can you explain to the Commission what was the role you played at Mveke's residence?

MR KGASE: I went with my commander, Reuben Kgotsa and he told me that there was a policeman at Mamelodi West and his name was Mveke. He went there and he showed me the house where he was staying. I told him that I was going to do the reconnaissance before we could come and attack. I wanted to do so, so that we were safe after the attack.

MR MOHLABA: Yes, proceed and explain what happened until the attack was carried out.

MR KGASE: After I've done my reconnaissance and I've told him that I've already done so, he said we were ready to proceed.

MR MOHLABA: Yes, proceed.

MR KGASE: When we went there on our way he said to me before we could proceed we should meet our commander so that he gives us the weapons or the hand-grenade. He went and saw the commander and afterwards he came and fetched me so that we could proceed.

When we arrived there he told me that I should wait somewhere at a distance so that I make sure that he's being covered or protected. I looked for a cover and I waited there, protecting him. He was the one who had the hand-grenade. We made sure that we were safe after he threw the hand-grenade at Mveke's house.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you armed?

MR KGASE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: With what?

MR KGASE: A hand-grenade.

MR MOHLABA: So the hand-grenade you had in your possession was never used at the attack at Mveke's residence?

MR KGASE: No, it wasn't used.

MR MOHLABA: Were you arrested for having taken part in this attack?

MR KGASE: Yes, I was.

MR MOHLABA: And did you stand trial and what was the outcome thereof?

MR KGASE: No, I wasn't sentenced but I was arrested.

MR MOHLABA: How did you get out of prison, did you escape?

MR KGASE: I escaped.

MR MOHLABA: And after escaping, where did you go to?

MR KGASE: I went to exile.

MR MOHLABA: Where?

MR KGASE: I went to Lusaka.

MR MOHLABA: So are you also applying for amnesty for escaping from lawful custody and leaving the country unlawfully?

MR KGASE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mohlaba, I notice also like the previous applicant, the copy of which we have in our bundle of the application has not been signed before a Commissioner of Oaths.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you, Chair.

You have lodged an application in a prescribed form for amnesty, is that correct? Is this the form which you have completed, is it a copy thereof?

MR KGASE: Yes.

MR MOHLABA: The signature appearing at the foot of the form, is that your signature?

MR KGASE: Yes.

MR MOHLABA: Do you confirm that the contents of these application forms are the truth and that they are binding on your conscience?

MR KGASE: Yes.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you, Chair, that will conclude the evidence of the applicant.

ADV DE JAGER: Before we continue, you've just confirmed that the contents of this application is the truth, now you're applying in this application for amnesty for murder, who did you murder?

MR KGASE: I didn't murder anyone.

ADV DE JAGER: So that's a mistake, it's not the truth?

MR KGASE: Yes, it's a mistake.

MR MOHLABA: When you were arrested after this attack at Mveke's residence, did you also face a charge of murder or several charges of murder?

MR KGASE: No.

MR MOHLABA: Were you not co-accused of Rodney Toka, Francis Pitsi and the others?

MR KGASE: No.

MR MOHLABA: When you were arrested, where were you kept or tell us the prison from which you escaped, which prison was that?

MR KGASE: Modderbee Prison.

MR MOHLABA: You were not arrested together with Legodi and Kgotsa?

MR KGASE: We were arrested together.

MR MOHLABA: Do you know whether they also escaped from Modderbee Prison?

MR KGASE: Yes, we escaped together.

MR MOHLABA: In completing your application form for amnesty, who was assisting you?

ADV DE JAGER: Were you accused number 12?

MR KGASE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: It would seem here from the papers, page 56, he says that he was charged with murder, attempted murder and malicious damage to property in case number CC349/89, which case is the same as the other applicants' cases, and it's apparent from the indictment that appears at page 66 etc., that there were a number of murder charges there as well. Obviously the basis for the, including all the accused and the charges, they were going to try for common purpose or something like that I'm sure.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you, Chair, that will conclude the evidence of the applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Molefe, do you have any questions to ask the applicant?

MR MOLEFE: None, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mokone?

MR MOKONE: None, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Monyane?

MS MONYANE: No questions, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Joubert is not there, Mr Dreyer is not there. I'm sure they wouldn't have questions, they had no interest in this matter. Ms Mtanga?

MS MTANGA: No questions, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr de Jager, do you have any questions?

ADV DE JAGER: ...(inaudible) for what purpose? Why did you carry a hand-grenade on that specific evening?

MR KGASE: The reason was we wanted to protect ourselves and at that time in Mamelodi there were too many soldiers' vehicles and we wanted to be safe and to protect ourselves, to defend ourselves.

ADV DE JAGER: So what would have happened if 10 passed by? What would you do?

MR KGASE: I wasn't going to do anything because they were not going to arrest me.

ADV DE JAGER: Was this only in case of you being threatened with an arrest, then you would use this hand-grenade?

MR KGASE: Yes, that was my only reason, to protect myself from the police.

ADV DE JAGER: So it was for self-protection?

MR KGASE: Yes, it was.

ADV DE JAGER: And you said that you kept a watch on this house, did you see people entering the house or playing in the yard or standing in the yard?

MR KGASE: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Were there children?

MR KGASE: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Did they sleep in the house?

MR KGASE: That's where I don't know because in that house there was a garage and outside rooms.

ADV DE JAGER: But didn't you keep a watch that night to see whether the target would come home and whether he'll sleep there?

MR KGASE: I didn't check that.

ADV DE JAGER: Did you check whether he was involved in any police activities or acted against the community?

MR KGASE: He was a policeman.

CHAIRPERSON: Well we've heard at the time of the attack he was retired.

MR KGASE: We didn't know that at the time, we only knew him as a policeman.

ADV DE JAGER: Were you sent to kill him?

MR KGASE: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Was anything said about his family?

MR KGASE: No, the only person we were targeting was him.

ADV DE JAGER: Now if you throw a hand-grenade into a house you are aware that other people present could be killed?

MR KGASE: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: You've been trained and told that, isn't that so?

MR KGASE: In our training we were never told about that.

ADV DE JAGER: Weren't you trained and told this is a deadly weapon, be careful it could kill the people around when it explodes?

MR KGASE: Yes, we were told.

ADV DE JAGER: So you knew it could other people in the house?

MR KGASE: Yes, I knew.

ADV DE JAGER: But you didn't worry about it?

MR KGASE: I worried about that.

ADV DE JAGER: And what did you do to prevent it?

MR KGASE: That hand-grenade didn't go inside the house.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you think it was thrown purposely not to go into the house for that reason, so other people wouldn't be injured?

MR KGASE: It hit the wall, that's why it didn't go inside the house.

CHAIRPERSON: But if it went inside the house as it was meant to have gone in the house it may have killed innocent children. You see I can't understand how anyone can say that care was taken not to injure other people by hurling a hand-grenade at a house, unless before you throw it you go, you look in the window and you see that the only person in the room in which you're throwing the hand-grenade is the target and there is no-one else. That would be the only circumstance. But just to throw it blindly at a house, how can anyone even begin to think that any steps were taken to prevent injury to other people, it's just irrational to think so, would you agree?

MR KGASE: I wasn't there, I was just protecting him.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes? Mr Sandi, do you have any questions?

ADV SANDI: Yes, Chair.

Mr Kgase, I noticed that in your application form at page 52 of the bundle, in reply to the question where you are asked to state the nature and the particulars of the offences in respect of which you are applying, you make mention of AK47s. Was there any incident in which you had to use an AK47?

MR KGASE: No, I was just trained on how to use an AK47.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Are these any questions arising from questions put by Members of the Panel? Mr Mohlaba?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR MOHLABA: Yes, just one aspect.

You mention that after you were, after a target was identified your comrade went to collect the weapons from your commander, ...(indistinct), is that correct?

MR KGASE: That's correct.

MR MOHLABA: And other than knowing that the target is Mveke's residence, were you told how the operation is going to be carried out, that is who was going to throw the hand-grenade and so forth?

MR KGASE: That's correct.

MR MOHLABA: What were you told?

MR KGASE: We were told that we were supposed to attack Mr Mveke's house and Reuben was going to be responsible on throwing the hand-grenade there. I was going to be responsible on protecting him so that he could go ahead.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you, Chair, I've got no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Thank you, Mr Kgase, that concludes your evidence, you may stand down.

CHAIRPERSON: Does that exhaust your clients' testimony, Mr Mohlaba?

MR MOHLABA: That's correct, if I may be excused for a while, while Mr Molefe is proceeding with his other applications.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Mr Molefe? Is Mr Joubert here?

MR MOLEFE: He is around, Mr Chairman. Mr Chair, we beg leave to call Mr Joseph Nkosi. He is the 6th applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Molefe.

Mr Nkosi, in which language will you be testifying?

MR NKOSI: English.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have any objection to taking the oath?

JOSEPH NKOSI: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Molefe?

MR MOLEFE: Mr Chair, Mr Nkosi will be applying for amnesty in respect of the attack Kulele's house where a one year old baby passed away in Mamelodi. He will also be applying for amnesty in respect of possession of arms and ammunition, as well as escaping from Modderbee Prison.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Molefe.

EXAMINATION BY MR MOLEFE: Mr Nkosi, you were staying in Mamelodi just before you were arrested, is that correct?

MR NKOSI: That's correct.

MR MOLEFE: And you had joined the African National Congress and its armed wing, Umkhonto weSizwe, is that correct?

MR NKOSI: Correct.

MR MOLEFE: Can you just briefly explain to this Court as to how you joined Umkhonto weSizwe and when was it?

MR NKOSI: I joined the ANC in the early '80's. I underwent the military training in 1984 in Angola.

MR MOLEFE: Whereabout in Angola?

MR NKOSI: In the northern camps.

MR MOLEFE: Northern camps?

MR NKOSI: Ja, in the north, they called them the north.

MR MOLEFE: Okay, you can continue.

MR NKOSI: And then I came back and filtered back into the country ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, could you perhaps speak a little bit louder or I suppose I should increase the volume here.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, continue please. You said that you were trained in northern Angola in 1984 and then you came back into the country.

MR NKOSI: Yes, yes. Then I started to operate as an MK cadre inside the country in the logistic section.

MR MOLEFE: What type of training did you receive in Angola?

MR NKOSI: Basic military training.

MR MOLEFE: Now you said you started to operate inside the country in the logistics.

MR NKOSI: Yes.

MR MOLEFE: Can you just explain briefly what you mean by that or what did that encompass?

MR NKOSI: Logistics, I used to transport some of the cadres within the country, weapons, retrieving weapons from the DLBs and distributing the weapons into different units.

MR MOLEFE: Right. We have heard that at one stage you served under the command of Mr Toka, is that correct?

MR NKOSI: Yes.

MR MOLEFE: And can you just briefly give us a background as to how it came about?

MR NKOSI: Okay, Mr Toka was brought to me by Mr, comrade Lekombi(?) to assist him in his units with transport.

MR MOLEFE: Was Mr Lekombi already a member of MK at that time?

MR NKOSI: Yes.

MR MOLEFE: Okay, you can continue.

MR NKOSI: There I assisted Mr Toka to retrieve the weapons around the farm between Middelburg and Witbank and to distribute the weapons to his units around the country.

MR MOLEFE: Now we've heard that a number of units existed which were under the command of amongst others a Mr Toka, in which one did you belong?

MR NKOSI: I operated as a unit on my own.

MR MOLEFE: Did you operate on your own until you were arrested or, can you just explain?

MR NKOSI: Yes, I operated on my own but during the process of assisting Toka with transport I recruited one guy because as a busy man I couldn't afford to serve my units and Toka's units with all the logistics I have, mainly transport.

MR MOLEFE: And who is that person?

MR NKOSI: That's Bennie Mokonyane.

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry I couldn't follow, Ben?

MR NKOSI: Bennie Mokonyane.

MR MOLEFE: Did you give any training to Mr Mokonyane?

MR NKOSI: Yes.

MR MOLEFE: If so, when and what kind of training did you give to Mr Mokonyane?

MR NKOSI: I trained Bennie Mokonyane on handling, in the uses of handling of a pistol and explosives and hand-grenades.

MR MOLEFE: Just to be of assistance to the Committee, Bennie Mokonyane is accused number 8 in the charge sheet.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Molefe.

ADV DE JAGER: So he was in fact one of those that remained, he didn't escape and he was sentenced? ...(inaudible) found not-guilty.

MR NKOSI: He was the one who acquitted.

MR NEL: Now you are also applying for amnesty in respect of the attack on Kulele's house.

MR NKOSI: That's correct.

MR MOLEFE: Can you just briefly tell us what your involvement was inasfar as that is concerned?

MR NKOSI: Okay, since there was a call from the ANC headquarters in Lusaka that all the policemen in South Africa must be isolated and commanders who had infiltrated the country at that time, they gave orders that they must, their units must reconnoitre or identify the policemen who can be attacked.

Bennie Mokonyane was given also that order to go and identify some policemen who can be attacked around Mamelodi.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know who he received the order from?

MR NKOSI: That's from Mr Toka, Webster and myself.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, continue please.

MR MOLEFE: Just for the sake of clarity, in this unit, this two man unit of yours and Mokonyane, what was your position?

MR NKOSI: At that time I was his commander but I was preparing him to hand him over to Mr Toka for logistical purposes.

MR MOLEFE: Okay, you can continue from where Mr Mokonyane has been given an order to identify policemen who can be attacked. Continue.

MR NKOSI: So Bennie Mokonyane went. After a few days we met and he brought back the report that he already identified the targets. And then Toka ordered Webster as he is an intelligence man, to go and do the surveillance on the targets which were identified by Mr Bennie Mokonyane.

MR MOLEFE: Do you know which targets are those?

MR NKOSI: At that time I didn't know.

CHAIRPERSON: Was there more than one target at that time that had been identified by Bennie?

MR NKOSI: No, I didn't know. He didn't disclose the number of targets.

CHAIRPERSON: Continue.

MR MOLEFE: Yes, you can proceed from where Toka had ordered Webster to reconnoitre.

MR NKOSI: Okay, they went to do the reconnaissance. I don't know whether they were together with Webster or Webster was alone, I don't know because I was not there at that point in time, but after some time we met again and Bennie - okay let me, a point of correction, Webster gave the report to Toka that the target is okay, the attack can continue.

MR MOLEFE: Which target was that?

MR NKOSI: Of a policeman.

MR MOLEFE: Which policeman?

MR NKOSI: At that time I didn't know but at a later stage I realised that it's Mr Kulele.

MR MOLEFE: Okay you can continue, Webster has given the report, what happens thereafter?

MR NKOSI: So Mr Toka issued out an order that Bennie Mokonyane can continue with the attack. And after some ...(indistinct) days Bennie Mokonyane had already attacked the house, he gave back the report to Mr Toka which I - okay, I already got it from Mr Toka that Bennie Mokonyane has attacked the house. Unfortunately the target, the operation was not successful.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Nkosi, were you present during the attack itself?

MR NKOSI: I wasn't present.

CHAIRPERSON: Well who, who ...(intervention)

MR JOUBERT: Excuse me, Mr Chairman, I didn't hear the answer on that question.

CHAIRPERSON: He says he wasn't present at the attack himself.

MR JOUBERT: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Who conducted the attack? You've mentioned Bennie, was there anyone else? When I say "conducted the attack", I mean the actual physical attack on the house, not the planning that you've referred to etc., but the actual attack.

MR NKOSI: With due respect, Mr Chairman, I really don't know exactly who attacked the house, or Bennie was someone or he was alone. I didn't know exactly.

CHAIRPERSON: But you know that Bennie did it, Bennie was there?

MR NKOSI: Ja, the report I got from Mr Toka is that the house was attacked by Bennie Mokonyane. I don't know with whom.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, continue.

MR MOLEFE: So the reason why you are applying for amnesty in respect of this offence is because you were part of those who gave Mr Mokonyane the command?

MR NKOSI: Exactly.

MR MOLEFE: Is so that at a later stage you were arrested and stood trial at Delmas?

MR NKOSI: Exactly.

MR MOLEFE: And is it so that you are one of those who escaped from the Modderbee Prison?

MR NKOSI: That's correct.

MR MOLEFE: Is there any other thing that you'd like to say in respect of this application?

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just one thing before he answers. Sorry, is there anything you wish to say? I just want to draw your attention to the copy of the application form and the Commissioner of Oaths.

Perhaps you can deal with that Mr Molefe.

MR NKOSI: Ja, what I can say to this Commission and to these people of South Africa, is that you see, it's a pity that in that attack there was that crossfire and it's unfortunate that a kid died. I do apologise for that and for my orders but that was not the aim, to kill the kid, the aim was to kill the policeman. I ...(indistinct) my apology on that.

MR MOLEFE: Did you know that Mr Kulele lived with his wife and his kid in that house?

MR NKOSI: I didn't know because I didn't do the reconnaissance at the place and I didn't do the surveillance on the place.

MR MOLEFE: Is it so that you completed the application form for amnesty by yourself?

MR NKOSI: Yes.

MR MOLEFE: Were you not assisted by any attorney?

MR NKOSI: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Is your mike on Mr Molefe? Perhaps you can repeat that, I don't think your mike was on when you said that.

MR MOLEFE: Thank you, Mr Chair.

Is it so that you completed the amnesty application by yourself?

MR NKOSI: That's correct.

MR MOLEFE: And that you were not assisted by anybody to complete this application?

MR NKOSI: That's correct.

MR MOLEFE: And that the signature appearing on that application is your signature?

MR NKOSI: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you sign it before a Commissioner of Oaths? Did you sign your application form before a Commissioner of Oaths, because if you take a look at page 43 of the papers, and what I have here before me is merely a photocopy, it doesn't appear so but I don't know if the original was or wasn't signed before a Commissioner of Oaths.

MR NKOSI: No, no, Mr Chairman, but I do have my copy which I took it to, recently I took it to a Commissioner of Oaths and he signed it.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have a copy signed by a Commissioner of Oaths? I wonder if that could be submitted up to us.

MR NKOSI: ...(indistinct)

MR MOLEFE: I will forward it, Mr Chairman. That is all.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you confirm that this one that we have before us was completed by yourself and you confirm the contents as being correct and binding on your conscience?

MR NKOSI: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR MOLEFE: That is all, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mohlaba, do you have any questions?

MR MOHLABA: I have no questions, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mokone has none, Mr Mohlaba has none. Ms Monyane I'm sure she doesn't, she wouldn't have not being involved. Mr Joubert?

MR JOUBERT: Mr Chairman, I would like just a five minutes stand-down if I may.

CHAIRPERSON: I see it's just shortly before eleven, perhaps we can take the tea adjournment at this stage for approximately half an hour.

MR JOUBERT: I will continue after that, Chairman, thanks.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We will now take the tea adjournment and resume at about twenty past eleven.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR MOLEFE: ... with Mr Nkosi.

Mr Nkosi, you have testified about Webster, can you just briefly give us his background?

MR NKOSI: After, before or?

MR MOLEFE: His background, what was he?

CHAIRPERSON: What do you know about Webster?

MR NKOSI: Okay. Webster was the intelligence guy working for Rodney Toka, working under Rodney Toka's command.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know what his name was, other than Webster?

MR NKOSI: No, I didn't know his name. And during our arrest in 1988, Webster was separated from us and during the trial in Delmas Webster, according to the information I got, he was a State witness who ended up working with the police, who ended up being an Askari member.

The information I got after my return from exile is that Webster, after the trial of Bennie Mokonyane, Webster was killed. I don't know in the barracks or the police or was he killed in the township but what I know is that Webster is no more with us.

MR MOLEFE: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Molefe.

ADV DE JAGER: Do you know whether he gave evidence at the trial?

MR NKOSI: I heard so.

CHAIRPERSON: Was Bennie's trial separate from yours? Didn't you say Bennie was accused number 8?

MR MOLEFE: If I could just be of assistance to the Committee, after the escape of the nine other co-accused the trials were separated.

CHAIRPERSON: So Bennie's trial proceeded in the absence of the other applicants?

MR NKOSI: That's correct, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Joubert, do you have any questions to ask the witness?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JOUBERT: I do have questions, Mr Chairman.

Mr Nkosi, if I can take the Commission to page 40 of your application in which you also admit that the handwriting is your handwriting. I'd like to point out that in your application you said:

"Special Branch." Now this week the Commission has heard different versions of how policemen were attacked. In the one instance Mr Toka said his version was people that were an enemy or attacking ANC comrades' houses and then your version, or in your application you said:

In your testimony you said:

Now what version is the right version?

MR NKOSI: There's nothing wrong in Special Branch and the SAP, they are all policemen.

CHAIRPERSON: No, but I think what Mr Joubert is getting to is, when you testified here today you said that the order was received that all policemen should, I think the word you used was "be isolated".

MR NKOSI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: In other words, that all policemen be regarded as the enemy.

MR NKOSI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Whereas in your application in paragraph 10(b) which appears on page 40 of the papers, you say:

You confined the enemy to only be a portion of the police, namely the Special Branch who we know were that branch of the police involved in political investigations. So Mr Joubert is asking you why this difference, why do you now say "all policemen" whereas in fact you restricted it to only members of the Special Branch in your application.

MR NKOSI: To explain it in a broader perspective is that Special Branch policemen mainly they were used to arrest ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no we know what the difference is but we ...(intervention)

MR NKOSI: But I want to bring it, Mr Chairman, I want to bring it why ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Why you said this.

MR NKOSI: Special Branch and why the policemen.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

MR NKOSI: They were used to arrest the MK cadres but during the process of arresting an MK cadre they can employ and usually employed assistance from the SAP, uniformed policemen.

CHAIRPERSON: So what are you trying to say, that when you said in your application that you regarded the Special Branch as your enemy, you meant all the policemen?

MR NKOSI: Ja, that's what I meant.

MR JOUBERT: Mr Nkosi, yes it's quite easy to, at this time to rectify your meaning of Special Branch and/or policemen.

Tell me, Mr Nkosi, in your testimony you said that you - a question was asked that you stayed in Mamelodi before you were arrested, so I can assume that after you came back into the country in the beginning of the '80's you went straight to Mamelodi as well.

MR NKOSI: Yes.

MR JOUBERT: Did you in that time start knowing people around you, get acquainted with people around you?

MR NKOSI: I knew the people who were around me.

MR JOUBERT: And was there any possibility that you - let me put it this way, when was the first time you have met Webster?

MR NKOSI: It was - the time I met Mr Toka that's when I met Webster.

MR JOUBERT: Is that the time you met Mr Toka?

MR NKOSI: Yes.

MR JOUBERT: Now tell me Mr Nkosi, did you at certain times meet Mr Webster at different places or did you meet him at home or where did these meetings usually take place?

MR NKOSI: Different places.

MR JOUBERT: Different places?

MR NKOSI: Yes.

MR JOUBERT: But if you say different places, at your house, Webster's house, Mr Toka's house, where?

MR NKOSI: At times at my place.

MR JOUBERT: Ja.

MR NKOSI: At times at a meeting point, meeting points.

MR JOUBERT: Ja, and Mr Toka's house?

MR NKOSI: Toka had no house.

MR JOUBERT: And Webster?

MR NKOSI: They had no specific place where they stayed.

MR JOUBERT: So Webster was ...(intervention)

MR NKOSI: Let me clarify you. Mr Toka was roving the country, he had a place to sleep maybe in Mamelodi East, he had a place in Mamelodi West, he had a place in, maybe in Atteridgeville, I don't know, maybe in Krugersdorp. When he's absent in Mamelodi, I don't know about the outside Mamelodi.

MR JOUBERT: And tell me, there was no instance that you had met Webster at his house?

MR NKOSI: No.

MR JOUBERT: How long did you know Webster?

MR NKOSI: I know him through Mr Toka.

MR JOUBERT: For how many years? Let me put it this way, how many years?

MR NKOSI: I know him just - when Mr Toka was introduced ...(intervention)

MR JOUBERT: I'm asking how many years did you know Mr Webster.

MR NKOSI: Not years, months.

MR JOUBERT: How many months?

MR NKOSI: I can't recall, it can be six or less than six, plus-minus.

MR JOUBERT: And he never mentioned his address to you?

MR NKOSI: Pardon?

MR JOUBERT: He never mentioned his address to you?

MR NKOSI: His address? No.

MR JOUBERT: Okay. Mr Nkosi, in what unit was Webster stationed or attached to, what unit?

MR NKOSI: He was in the commanding structure of Mr Toka.

MR JOUBERT: But we've heard this week that there were different units operating with two or three cell members in Atteridgeville and Mamelodi, so I'm trying to establish what unit was Mr Webster being appointed to.

MR NKOSI: I don't know - I can't tell the structure of Mr Toka's units, but what I can tell you it's between me and Mr Toka, between me and Mr Webster, not about their units.

MR JOUBERT: You can say nothing about the units even though the possibility to be arrested, you didn't find out the background about each other, if this is a real comrade or not.

MR NKOSI: You know we operated illegally in the country, I don't have know someone, his background because you don't trust, you cannot trust so much whether is he a police, he's an informer or what but you had some limits. You talk with someone for a specific job you are doing at that point in time, then you stop there and then you disperse.

MR JOUBERT: Well, Mr Nkosi, the problem I have is that Webster was the person that only operated and only featured in one action, and that was the action or the executing of the hand-grenade into Mr Kulele's house. This whole week in the whole Mamelodi no other cases where attacks in Mamelodi on policemen's houses happened Webster's name appeared or was mentioned, it's only this specific case and I find it very, very strange.

MR NKOSI: So?

MR JOUBERT: The point I want to make to you is that Webster didn't exist, what do you think about that? It's only a person that's floating around in the evidence in the house attack where a little baby of 14 months died, what do you say about it?

MR NKOSI: So there was no person called Webster, it's what you are saying?

MR JOUBERT: Well I'm putting it to you, what's your answer on that?

MR NKOSI: Webster was there. Webster was the intelligence man. I did say in my chief evidence that he was the intelligence man of Mr Toka's commanding structure.

MR JOUBERT: You know, Mr Nkosi, ...(intervention)

MR NKOSI: So he did exist, Webster and he did some reconnaissance, not only on that house. Just to - I know an intelligence guy is being utilised in any different attacks but at this point I was there when he was giving that order, that's why I'm testifying that.

MR JOUBERT: What order was given?

MR NKOSI: To go and reconnoitre, to go and do surveillance in that area, target of Bennie Mokonyane.

MR JOUBERT: Who was present at that meeting?

MR NKOSI: At that meeting it's myself, Mr Toka, Webster and Bennie.

MR JOUBERT: And Bennie?

MR NKOSI: Ja.

MR JOUBERT: Tell me, Mr Nkosi, as far as I know in the surveillance only Webster was being sent to do intelligence on Mr Kulele?

MR NKOSI: Ja, since I've - is you recall my chief evidence, I was preparing Bennie.

MR JOUBERT: You were preparing Bennie?

MR NKOSI: Ja, to hand him over to Toka so he can assist them.

CHAIRPERSON: You were training him in logistic work?

MR NKOSI: Ja, but I did train him in a pistol and in explosives, I did mention that. So he was in the process of training. He was a civilian so to speak. You can't compare Bennie with Webster. Webster he was a trained personnel.

MR JOUBERT: In intelligence?

MR NKOSI: Yes.

MR JOUBERT: Only intelligence?

MR NKOSI: No, not only intelligence, he start basic training, military basic training and then he was specialised.

MR JOUBERT: So Webster was also trained in handling grenades and handling ...(intervention)

MR NKOSI: He was a soldier.

MR JOUBERT: He was a soldier.

MR NKOSI: Mm.

MR JOUBERT: I thought he was only in army intelligence. Tell, Mr Nkosi, now who gave the actual instruction, after gathering the intelligence, to attack Mr Kulele's house?

MR NKOSI: Who gave the instructions?

MR JOUBERT: Ja, who gave the instructions and authorization for it?

MR NKOSI: Mr Toka. All of us okay we were together, the instruction was given to Bennie Mokonyane that he can continue the attack. So since I was there I also was part of that, that I gave also instructions.

MR JOUBERT: So you also gave instructions?

MR NKOSI: No, Mr Toka gave instructions, since I was there listening also.

MR JOUBERT: Tell me, can you recall why it was decided to use a hand-grenade to conduct the attack?

MR NKOSI: Pardon?

MR JOUBERT: Can you recall why a decision was taken to use a hand-grenade to attack Mr Kulele's house?

MR NKOSI: I can't get your question clearly.

CHAIRPERSON: The question, Mr Nkosi is, do you know why it was decided that a hand-grenade be used in the attack?

MR NKOSI: I wasn't there.

CHAIRPERSON: When the order ...(intervention)

MR NKOSI: Because the attack, the agreement, we agreed that the attack must take place but the attack took place after some days which I was not there. So why it was agreed that a hand-grenade must be used, I don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: Where did Bennie get his weapons from for the attack?

MR NKOSI: I think he got it from Mr Toka, or I don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: Why wouldn't he have got them from you seeing that you were dealing with the weapons?

MR NKOSI: Weapons.

CHAIRPERSON: Mm.

MR NKOSI: That was - as I've said that I handed over Bennie to Mr Toka, so it was his duty to see that Bennie is being utilised effectively.

MR JOUBERT: Mr Nkosi, Mr Toka in his evidence said that he only gave the authorization, he was not further involved in the attack or the planning, he gave the authorization. Now you're sitting here today and you're telling me that you hand Bennie over to Mr Toka and Mr Toka, from there on it was in Mr Toka's hands and he gave the instructions and he gave the authorization but Mr Toka said he only authorised the attack.

MR NKOSI: I'd like to bring this into attention that you know as I've said that we operated illegally we didn't keep records. If Toka as a busy man he had more than four to five units around the country, so if he can't recall, Mr Toka, that he gave the instruction, me now as I'm sitting here I'm telling you that he gave the instructions because I can recall on that particular day.

MR JOUBERT: And you can recall basically, you remembered quite well what exactly happened from the identification till afterwards, you recall everything?

MR NKOSI: No, I recall where I was present and ...(indistinct) we discussed. That was the things I was telling you in my chief evidence, that reconnaissance, surveillance, Bennie Mokonyane, Webster, myself and Toka, when we were discussing the target.

MR JOUBERT: What was discussed?

MR NKOSI: Pardon?

MR JOUBERT: What exactly was discussed in that meeting?

MR NKOSI: The targets.

MR JOUBERT: The targets, how many targets?

MR NKOSI: Generally I've said the policemen.

MR JOUBERT: You see Mr Nkosi, I still have a problem. In Mr Toka's main evidence he didn't even refer to meetings where discussions took place, how it's going to be executed, he only authorised the attacks and you're sitting here today and saying there was meetings, yourself, Mr Toka, Webster, Bennie Mokonyane.

MR NKOSI: How can you authorise ...(indistinct).

CHAIRPERSON: Did we hear the name Bennie Mokonyane? Was Bennie's name mentioned earlier?

MR JOUBERT: Bennie's name was mentioned in that meeting, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: By Mr Toka? I mean in this evidence, have we heard the name before this witness?

MR JOUBERT: No, no, not in Mr Toka's evidence, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there any reason, Mr Nkosi, why you didn't mention Bennie's name in your application form and why we hear his name for the first time when you testify now?

MR MOLEFE: Mr Chairman, before he answers this question, I'd just like to correct my learned friend. Mr Toka did mention Mr Mokonyane in his application. And inasfar as my client's application is concerned, you will see that he just generally refers to the case ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no, I'm asking him is there any reason why he didn't mention Bennie in his application form.

MR MOLEFE: Okay.

MR NKOSI: Because Bennie Mokonyane was acquitted in this trial, in a court of law.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, continue, Mr Joubert.

MR JOUBERT: While we're on that subject, Mr Nkosi, why do you think Bennie was acquitted?

MR NKOSI: I can't think because - I don't know, I was not present.

MR JOUBERT: Let me help you. Most probably because there was not enough evidence to find him guilty on all charges laid against him, so he walked out of the court in the South African law. And today the indications - after listening to Mr Toka's evidence, listening to your evidence the question now is, who did because the implication is that Bennie did the assault or he threw or executed the attack on Mr Kulele's house? Now who did or who committed himself to attack a house where a 14 month old baby was sleeping in, because before this Commission this question is hanging in the air.

MR NKOSI: As I've mentioned earlier that I had my units to take, to look after, Mr Toka had his own units to look after but according I had my logistics in hand I had to assist Mr Toka but since the job was too heavy for me, that's why I introduced Bennie to Toka. So if they utilised Mr Mokonyane other way around, I was not there, I cannot answer for Bennie Mokonyane or for Mr Toka because I was also busy as much as Mr Toka was busy. So I just ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry. Mr Toka in his evidence according to my notes said that this attack was approved in Botswana before the attack, do you know anything about that?

MR NKOSI: I don't know that.

...[inaudible] why she mentioned that because myself ...[indistinct] and he utilised Benny Mokgonyana.

MR JOUBERT: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mr Nkosi, as far as I remember in your main evidence or testimony you said that you mostly operated alone. I'm a little bit confused, you just said that you had your units to take care of. Can you clarify that for me.

MR NKOSI: Okay, to clarify on that I was working with people in Swaziland myself and Mr Toka was reporting his orders in Botswana so he knew that I have people, have to work this, but since he lacked transport he was brought to me to come and assist him to retrieve his arms in the ...[indistinct] around the country. So I did but since I had my units to look after I introduced Benny Mokgonyana since he was a driver also to assist Mr Toka, that was the plan.

MR JOUBERT: Mr Nkosi you also said that a meeting took place after the attack to establish if the attack was successful or not. How long did the meeting take place after the attack, how many days?

MR NKOSI: You see all the attacks were being reported in the newspapers ...[intervention]

MR JOUBERT: Just answer my question. How many days afterwards?

MR NKOSI: I can't recall.

MR JOUBERT: You said a few days, is that correct?

MR NKOSI: Ja.

MR JOUBERT: You said a few days. Now I'm going to put it to you that Mr Toka in his main evidence also said that the meeting shortly afterwards took place. Now once again there's a vast difference between your testimony and Mr Toka's testimony?

MR NKOSI: Yes.

MR JOUBERT: Now who is correct now, who is speaking the truth here in front of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission?

MR NKOSI: As I'm telling you Mr Chairman that we didn't keep records of this, if someone mentioned this then you can mention the correct date, I cannot dispute that. If he mentioned a day after that, I cannot dispute that but for me it's a few days because I'm not sure of the dates and the times.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just if I may interrupt Mr Joubert?

Mr Molefe do you know who accused number 9 was at the trial? There doesn't seem to be - I haven't got a list of the - no there's nothing there.

MR MOLEFE: That is Mr Nkosi, the applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Because I'm just putting this - apparently at the trial there were certain witnesses who gave evidence in camera and if you take a look at page 199 of the papers at lines 20 following, it says:

that's one of these witnesses who testified at the trial in camera, this is from the judgement, the judge says"

Now that was the evidence at the trial where this witness, I don't know who the witness was but some witness who gave evidence in camera says that number 8, that is Benny, accused number 8 said that - to him - that you and he, that's Benny, threw this grenade through. Do you have any comment on that evidence that I've just read?

MR NKOSI: Ja my comment is that if this is Webster's evidence, it is well known it he was a police informer already, it can be fabricated another way round to turn me down.

CHAIRPERSON: So you don't agree with that evidence at all?

MR NKOSI: I don't agree with this one.

ADV DE JAGER: Were you known as Tiger?

MR NKOSI: Pardon?

ADV DE JAGER: Were you known as Tiger?

MR NKOSI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Joubert?

MR JOUBERT: Mr Chairman, I was just looking into the documents can I ask for permission just for Mr Nkosi to

repeat his answer on the question of the panel?

CHAIRPERSON: And he says - he was read that extract of the evidence page 122, line 28 and he said that if it was Mr Webster testifying then it's probably - then it's a fabrication, he didn't say probably, and he says disagrees with the evidence, it's incorrect, it's not the true evidence. This extract that it was Benny and him.

MR JOUBERT: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mr Nkosi, I've listened to the answer on the question of the panel, now can you explain to me why would Webster say something that incriminated him in a trial like that?

MR NKOSI: As I've said earlier that Webster after we were arrested was separated from us. The reason why we didn't know because we were in solitary confinement for over plus minus six months so why he was separated we don't know but at a later stage we realised this guy is a police informer and he is working with the police, he came to be a state witness, he ended up being an askari and he ended up being dead in the hands of the police.

MR JOUBERT: Mr Nkosi, can you remember who provided a hand grenade for the attack?

MR NKOSI: I didn't provide.

MR JOUBERT: You didn't provide so ...[intervention]

MR NKOSI: Okay sorry, to whom?

MR JOUBERT: No, who provided a hand grenade for the attack?

MR NKOSI: To whom?

MR JOUBERT: To Benny.

MR NKOSI: I didn't provide.

MR JOUBERT: You didn't provide and Mr Toka didn't provide he only authorised. Now who gave the hand grenade?

MR NKOSI: I don't know but if it was my operation I had my own weapons anyway, I would have given him ...[intervention]

MR JOUBERT: Now why were you in a war in this operation if you didn't have any function in this operation?

MR NKOSI: It's my - I said it was not my operation, I had my own units as I'm telling you. I wanted to utilise Benny Mokgonyana as an operative like Mr Toka did, I would have done it so without handing over to Mr Toka but I'm telling you that I had my own weapons, I had my own explosives, I would have given him whatever I wanted him to have to go and execute those operations, I wanted him to execute.

MR JOUBERT: So you weren't really involved in this attack, in the planning, you weren't really involved?

MR NKOSI: No I was involved in the planning as I mentioned earlier.

CHAIRPERSON: You were involved in the extent that you happened to be present when certain reports were made?

MR NKOSI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: But did you make any contribution yourself to the planning?

MR NKOSI: Yes generally, not for a specific target but general target.

CHAIRPERSON: What did you do, what did you actually do other than being there and hearing what was being said?

MR NKOSI: No we were discussing the policemen but mostly the notorious ones and Benny had to identify those notorious policemen but anyway the target was general, the policemen must be attacked.

MR JOUBERT: Now just to clarify that Benny identified or did Webster identify the policemen.

MR NKOSI: Benny did the identification.

MR JOUBERT: And Webster only did surveillance on the house?

MR NKOSI: Ja according to the report I got.

MR JOUBERT: Can you remember if Benny was with him during this surveillance?

MR NKOSI: No I wasn't there. He parted after...[intervention]

MR JOUBERT: I'm just asking, can you remember if he did go with Webster to - Webster and Benny go together to do surveillance on the house?

MR NKOSI: No I don't remember.

MR JOUBERT: You can't remember. You see Mr Nkosi, I have a problem in the sense that we're sitting here with a situation that you weren't actually involved in the matter and that's why I'm finding it very strange that you apply for amnesty for this action because your involvement was very limited, it looks like in your testimony today in front of the Commission so what was the exact reason for applying for amnesty for this specific attack on the Kulele's house?

MR NKOSI: It's because I was there when it was discussed, when they bring back the report but he reconnoitred - okay, he didn't mention earlier, he didn't mention earlier that it was a specific target of Mr Kulele's house but he set the target.

CHAIRPERSON: But do you also apply for amnesty because you were in fact charged with this?

MR NKOSI: Yes.

MR JOUBERT: Mr Nkosi so in the beginning you said you didn't know what policemen's houses were the targets, that was not revealed at all. So when did you realise that Mr Kulele's house was attacked?

MR NKOSI: When we were in prison.

CHAIRPERSON: And just on that - sorry again, Mr Joubert, if you take a look at page 53. No, no, sorry. Don't worry.

Sorry, it's page 45. You applied for - oh no, this is the court hearing again, sorry. Yes, no I won't put that.

ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr Joubert, just to make a follow up on your very last statement you say you only realised whilst you were in prison that the house of Mr Kulele had been attacked. Who told you that whilst you were in prison?

MR NKOSI: Through the lawyers.

ADV SANDI: None of your comrades had told you? Benny had not told you anything about this before that?

MR NKOSI: We know that the house was attacked before that but I didn't know exactly which house was that.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

MR JOUBERT: Now Mr Nkosi I must say I still find it strange that you've applied for amnesty on the attack on this house because of your statement today, you were not really involved there. Mr Nkosi, if I can ask this, I know you said that your knowledge of this attack was very limited so can I ask the indications that Benny threw or executed the attack and he threw a hand grenade through the window?

MR NKOSI: You're asking me that?

MR JOUBERT: I'm asking you that.

MR NKOSI: I don't know.

MR JOUBERT: Could it be Webster?

MR NKOSI: I don't know.

MR JOUBERT: So this question will never be answered, who actually executed the attack?

MR NKOSI: Ja I didn't know because I wasn't there.

MR JOUBERT: Well I've put it to you Mr Nkosi, that you were involved in this attack, it's just a statement I'm making. Webster has been used as a person that's just disappeared, no one can answer it, you know Mamelodi well, you stayed there, you know the people and Benny, he didn't apply for amnesty and that's it but in the meantime your role was very limited and you applied for amnesty. I'm putting it to you that your involvement was more far in this attack than you put it today to this Commission. No further questions Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Dreyer, do you have any questions?

MR DREYER: I've got no questions Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Monyane do you have any questions?

MS MONYANE: No questions Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Molefe, do you have any re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR MOLEFE: Yes, just one.

Mr Nkosi, you said in your evidence in Chief that you were Mr Mokgonyana's commander in this two man unit is that correct?

MR NKOSI: Yes.

MR MOLEFE: And you say that you were present when Mr Mokgonyana was given this thing, the instructions to proceed?

MR NKOSI: Yes.

MR MOLEFE: Can we just briefly tell this Committee again as to why are you taking responsibility of Mr Mokgonyana's actions because you said also in your evidence in chief that you accept responsibility of what Mokgonyana has done?

MR NKOSI: I must take responsibility because I recruited Benny Mokgonyana. I trained him, I introduced him to Mr Toka and we discussed that Benny Mokgonyana must work with Mr Toka.

MR MOLEFE: That's all Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MOLEFE:

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Molefe, Mr de Jager do you have any questions?

ADV DE JAGER: I only want to put it that at the trial there was evidence given that you were in command of Benny, you were his commander and you in fact was in command of the operation when this child got injured and killed. What do you say on that?

MR NKOSI: I would say that I was Benny's commander, yes it's true.

ADV DE JAGER: At that stage when the child was killed?

MR NKOSI: At that stage because I was not there, I was not his commander.

ADV DE JAGER: Ja but he was still - was he still in your unit sort of at that stage although you were not there?

MR NKOSI: Yes he was still with me because I would have - if I wanted him I would have utilised him in my operations as well as much as Duka would have done that as well.

ADV DE JAGER: In all the other operations, I can't think of a single one that wasn't planned that two people would sort of go together to the same vicinity at least. Do you know what you've been doing on the day of this attack or can't you remember?

MR NKOSI: I can't remember since it's we didn't keep records and it's a long time past but then what I just want to clarify to the Committee is that since I had so many units, I had the unit in Nelspruit for example, I had the unit here in Mopani, I had a unit in Kwandabele, I had a unit in Witbank, so you see I had to travel and check and do whatever I do, the daily procedures with my unit but at that time during this operation I was not in Mamelodi so to speak, even if I was in Mamelodi I'm wasn't aware that there was an attack going on, on the other side of the township.

ADV DE JAGER: And did you order all those other units whatever they should do as far as the struggle is concerned?

MR NKOSI: Yes I did. My units I did order.

ADV DE JAGER: You haven't applied for anything illegal that your other units have done?

MR NKOSI: Yes because they haven't done anything anyway to talk, which is involving a gross human rights violation.

ADV DE JAGER: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Sandi do you have any questions?

MR SANDI: Thank you Chair.

Mr Nkosi, when you were infiltrated back into the country by the ANC as a soldier of uMkhonto weSizwe, what was your brief, what were you supposed to do. Did you have any specific task in relation to the police?

MR NKOSI: The police? Okay, the orders came after, of the police, but my general duties for the ANC was to recruit and establish more units as much as I can around the country but the order of policemen, it was just a call, the statement of I believe the time that we must isolate the police so we followed the call.

ADV SANDI: That call was made whilst you were already inside the country?

MR NKOSI: Yes.

ADV SANDI: Would I be correct to believe that from the evidence you have given it was part of your task to make it possible for the police to be attacked by members of uMkonto weSizwe?

MR NKOSI: Pardon, I can't hear you?

ADV SANDI: Was it part of your duty to make it possible to provide the logistics for attacks on members of the police force?

MR NKOSI: Yes it was my job.

ADV SANDI: Would it be necessary for you to know each and every specific incident in which a policeman has been attacked?

MR NKOSI: Not in my unit, not in someone's unit, but in my unit they have to know because the reports are coming to me direct so I have to draft a report and sent it to Lusaka, to Swaziland and to Lusaka.

ADV SANDI: Were you not supposed to get a report about this attack on the house of Mr Kulele?

MR NKOSI: It was falling in my unit, it was not my operation.

ADV SANDI: But you were present when the discussions took place?

MR NKOSI: It was a common target not specifically my operation.

ADV SANDI: I get the impression from your evidence that you had no contribution to make in that particular discussion? You seem not to have made any contribution in the discussion when Benny and Toka were talking about attacking the house of Mr Kulele?

MR NKOSI: Not specifically - no I contributed because Benny, he came, his my - at that time - he knew these guys because of me and I was there, so my contribution, since I was there, discussing these common targets, the policemen, generally, that was the contribution I made that they must be attacked.

ADV SANDI: Did you make any contributions specifically in regard to Mr Kulele?

MR NKOSI: I didn't specifically but not with regard to Mr Kulele's house.

ADV SANDI: Was that name, Mr Kulele, specifically mentioned in that discussion?

MR NKOSI: It was not mentioned. It was not mentioned.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

ADV DE JAGER: Why do you think, with Mr Toka, named you as an operative in the attack on Mr Kulele's house?

MR NKOSI: I can't - I don't know why he was mentioning that because he can answer that, he's here, Mr Toka. I can't answer for him because I don't know why he mentioned me as an operative in that house but if he mentioned me through Benny, that is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: No he said you and Benny were the operatives in this attack?

CHAIRPERSON: Just like in the evidence that I read in the trial?

MR NKOSI: Yes but I don't know why exactly he mentioned that but the point is Benny, if he did the attack, him alone or if someone as I was not there and I don't know with whom he was there during that attack.

CHAIRPERSON: Now if he was with anybody?

MR NKOSI: If he was, I don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: Now if you were Benny's commander, why wouldn't he have reported back to you?

MR NKOSI: I was his commander.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR NKOSI: But at that time he was in the hands of Toka.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes but I mean he was your pupil, you were his mentor, you were the person training him, you trained him in the use of guns, you trained him in logistics, you said that you were his commander, why wouldn't he have gone back, why would he do his first operation and then just be quiet about it to you, his mentor.

MR NKOSI: The person who gave him the ammunition or explosives who armed him to go and do that attack, he must report back to him.

CHAIRPERSON: No but you said you gave the order, you were one of the people who gave the order in your evidence in chief?

MR NKOSI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I know, I'm just trying to ask if you can explain why he wouldn't have come back, taking into account you recruited him?

MR NKOSI: Ja.

CHAIRPERSON: You trained him?

MR NKOSI: Ja.

CHAIRPERSON: Not only in logistics but in the use of weaponry?

MR NKOSI: Ja.

CHAIRPERSON: You were present when the order was given that the operation be carried out?

MR NKOSI: Ja.

CHAIRPERSON: Now when that's - I'll get back to that just now. You were his commander and yet he doesn't even tell you, make mention, even in passing conversation that he's carried out an act? Don't you find that to be somewhat strange?

MR NKOSI: We didn't meet immediately with Benny.

CHAIRPERSON: It's when you met later, I'm not talking about how quick or soon, even if you met him a year later, even if you met it doesn't matter how much later. Isn't it strange that he didn't talk to you about the operation?

MR NKOSI: Because I already had information that ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: But for him to talk to you, you find that strange or not?

MR NKOSI: No we talked about it later at a later stage.

CHAIRPERSON: And what did he say?

MR NKOSI: He said that no the attack was unsuccessful.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he say he threw the hand grenade?

MR NKOSI: Pardon?

CHAIRPERSON: Did he say he threw the hand grenade?

MR NKOSI: I didn't ask him so far.

CHAIRPERSON: So he was with somebody?

MR NKOSI: I didn't ask him that, just mentioned to him that the attack was not successful.

CHAIRPERSON: Now can you explain something else to me Mr Nkosi, you said that Benny was still being trained. Why should some - and he was not yet a full member of MK?

MR NKOSI: Ja.

CHAIRPERSON: Why should somebody like that be sent on an operation without his commander because we learn from the facts that the operation was botched up, a one year old baby was killed instead of the target?

MR NKOSI: That was the way - that was the part of the training.

CHAIRPERSON: And you were doing the training, that's why I'm asking you why should he be sent alone to conduct an operation when he's not properly trained, he's still going through the training and we also as Mr de Jager says, every incident we've heard there's always been more than one operative.

MR NKOSI: Yes because you see Benny Mokgonyana, if I hand over Benny Mokgonyana to Mr Toka, I don't hand him over to a civilian guy.

CHAIRPERSON: But Mr Toka in his evidence said the operatives were you and Benny?

MR NKOSI: No I'm answering that, if I handed him over to Mr Toka, I know Mr Toka is well trained, he will still go through the drills with whatever weapons he is going to use for that operation. You can't just - even in a military norms, before you do that you must do the drills before and then you attack.

CHAIRPERSON: Are there any questions arising Mr Molefe from questions put by the panel?

MR MOLEFE: No Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Joubert, any questions arising?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JOUBERT: Yes Mr Chairman if you'd allow me just a minute or two?

Mr Nkosi, you said as well now to questions from the Commission that you have learned that the attack took place or the attack on Mr Kulele's house that you have learned about that in jail, am I correct?

CHAIRPERSON: He said he learned of the name of the victim in the jail, he'd heard of the attack before but he learned for the first time that it was Mr Kulele's house that was attacked.

MR JOUBERT: My apologies Mr Chairman.

Now you have heard his name in the jail and you said in your testimony that you were present in a general meeting where attacks on policemen's houses were discussed but policemen's houses were notorious? Now I'm asking you the question again, why are you asking amnesty on this specific case and not on all the other cases?

MR NKOSI: It's because I was charged with these cases, it was a common purpose when I was charged.

MR JOUBERT: Yes but all you see what Mr Joubert is asking you, all the other cases were there as well, it wasn't only Mr Kulele's house. There was the Ndala's house and the other houses, Mashele's house etcetera that we've - Mveke's house as well in the charge sheet. Now what Mr Joubert is asking is, he's saying that you said that you were present when there were these discussions taken about policemen's houses being attacked in general and that the police were to be isolated etcetera, etcetera. Why then are you only applying for amnesty in respect of the attack on the Kulele household and not in respect of the attacks on the Mveke, Ndala, etcetera, other households where other policemen - not Ndala, he wasn't really a policeman but where other policemen's houses were attacked especially taking into account the very small minimal, as you say, role you played in the Nkosi attack?

MR NKOSI: Because when I was sitting in prison I was interrogated about that house.

CHAIRPERSON: So is that the only reason why you're applying for amnesty only in respect of that?

MR NKOSI: So I learned that rumour, that trial in Delmas that I've been charged with this operation, that's why I'm now applying for amnesty for that because why, I took part in the discussion of this operation in Mamelodi.

ADV DE JAGER: You also took part in the discussion of the operation on Mveke's house or on the other policemen that were attacked?

MR NKOSI: No except police, general police, not specifically namely Mveke, Kulele and the other police.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes but these names you told us, you didn't even know the names so you didn't specifically know that it was Kulele's house?

MR NKOSI: During the discussion at the earlier stage before I was arrested so we learned this during the preparation of the case through the lawyers, that house was Mr so and so, that house was Mr so and so and that house was Mr so and so.

ADV DE JAGER: But then you have learned at that discussion too that the house of Mr Mveke was attacked?

MR NKOSI: Which discussion?

ADV DE JAGER: With your lawyers, they would have put it to you because according to the charge sheet you were charged with all the events for common purpose and they had to go through every event?

MR NKOSI: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: And you're in fact asking for amnesty for all the events in your papers and now you've singled out this one and we want to know why specifically single out this one if you were not involved at all?

MR NKOSI: Because I was charged with that one.

ADV DE JAGER: You were charged with every one Mr Nkosi.

MR NKOSI: No because during my interrogation, even my lawyers told me I was charged specifically with this one, that is if I didn't escape from prison I would have stand in the witness box specifically for this case, specifically for that operation.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Joubert?

MR JOUBERT: No further questions.

ADV DE JAGER: But if you're not guilty on this one, have you committed any offence as regards this operation?

MR NKOSI: ...[indistinct]

ADV DE JAGER: No, on my Kulele's house, have you committed any offence?

MR NKOSI: I can tell you that if I knew that was Mr Kulele's house, for general policemen yes I committed an offence, for ...[indistinct] policemen were discussed.

ADV DE JAGER: Ja but in this one how would it differ then if it's for general policemen, how would this one differ from the others?

MR NKOSI: Yes because I was implicated in that case.

ADV DE JAGER: But you yourself, as you sit there, did you commit any offence as regard the Kulele's?

MR NKOSI: No.

ADV DE JAGER: So why do you ask for amnesty then if there's no offence?

MR NKOSI: Because of the implication, it was made to me.

ADV DE JAGER: You were aware of it that you can't get amnesty for something you haven't done?

MR NKOSI: No because I was implicated then, I was charged with that so I had to ask for amnesty for that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you.

ADV SANDI: You were implicated by who?

MR NKOSI: By Webster.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Molefe?

FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR MOLEFE: On that issue, you testified earlier that Mokgonyana told you that the operation was not successful and unfortunately a child was killed. Is that correct?

MR NKOSI: That is correct.

MR MOLEFE: And therefore must have realised at that time that your subordinate Mr Mokgonyana has committed an offence, is that correct?

MR NKOSI: Yes.

MR MOLEFE: That's all

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you. Thank you Mr Nkosi, that concludes your evidence. You may stand down.

CHAIRPERSON: During the tea adjournment we received

information that there's a possibility that a further witness may be called and I don't know, have you any further information on further witnesses at this stage?

MR JOUBERT: Mr Chairman, if you'll excuse me just for a minute I can go and establish if ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: While Mr Joubert is doing that are any other witnesses to be called? Are any other persons to be called to testify.

MR JOUBERT: Well if that includes the victims, yes Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: How many victims do you intend to call Mr Dreyer? I just want to get some idea of the logistics involved.

MR DREYER: Mr Chairman at this state at least one of the victims that I represent indicated that she would want to give evidence. There might be more than one as I also indicated yesterday, would not be lengthy evidence but still they would wish to give evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes I understand. Mr Joubert?

MR JOUBERT: Mr Chairman if I can request the Commission to stand down until 2 o'clock, I've established that he's at work, we have established where his work address and we're on our way to send people to go and fetch him from his work so if I can humbly ask the Commission to stand down until 2 o'clock which will enable me to get the witness to come and testify.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Dreyer would you want to call the victim now? Not the victim, your client?

MR DREYER: Mr Chairman I would in any way if that would be the next witness to testify I would also ask just to finalise the situation.

CHAIRPERSON: Well perhaps in order to save time if it's possible, I don't know if Mr Joubert wants to be present, or there's nothing for you to do until 2 o'clock, you're waiting basically. If it's possible to do it before the lunch hour then we can do so if you want otherwise we can start at half past 1 and take the lunch hour now.

MR JOUBERT: I'll take a very brief standing down.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll take a brief adjournment at this stage.

MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, I would call Mrs Prinsloo which is one of the victims of the so called Juicy Lucy blast. I would just like to place it on record that Mrs Prinsloo wishes to give her evidence in Afrikaans and also wishes to be cross-examined in Afrikaans. I would however if necessary address the Commission in English.

CHAIRPERSON: But yes the cross-examination of course can be done in any language but it will be interpreted into Afrikaans so what she will receive through her headphones would be all Afrikaans.

ANNA MARIA PRINSLOO: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR DREYER: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mrs Prinsloo, you are one of the victims of the so called Juicy Lucy bomb blast or limpet mine blast which took place on a specified date in 1988, is that correct?

MRS PRINSLOO: Yes it is.

MR DREYER: 88-5-26. I would like to take you back to the event on that day, it's a number of years ago we realised that as far as details are concerned it might not be as fresh in your memory but I would like to ask you to reply to my questions to the best of your ability.

Mrs Prinsloo, on that particular day what was your occupation and in whose service were you?

MRS PRINSLOO: I was a librarian in the service if the City Council of Pretoria.

MR DREYER: At that stage, madame, did you support any particular political party?

MRS PRINSLOO: No, not at all, I was totally apolitical.

MR DREYER: On that particular day according to your instructions to me you visited the Juicy Lucy in the vicinity of the crossing of Andries and Vermeulen Streets during a lunch hour, is that correct?

MRS PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR DREYER: Were you alone?

MRS PRINSLOO: No, four of my colleagues were with me - five of my colleagues and we were on lunch there.

MR DREYER: And four of these five persons including yourself were then eventually injured in the incident, is that correct?

MRS PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR DREYER: Okay let us start with this Juicy Lucy where you spent your lunch hour. Testimony had been put forward by the various applicants that on the basis of information they obtained by observation of this specific restaurant, if I may call it that, that according to their information it was a restaurant which was regularly frequented by, in particular, members of the South African Defence Force as it was known at the time and more specifically because about a block away there were certain Defence Force offices. What is your comment to this?

MRS PRINSLOO: Because the restaurant is just across the street from the library, it is a place that I myself also visited quite regularly and my impressions were that it was mostly a restaurant visited by women and I did from time to time see female members of the Defence Force there but very seldom the male members of the Defence Force.

MR DREYER: If you were to guess the distribution or the grouping of the people who visited the restaurant, what would you say percentage wise how the distribution of men versus women were when you visited the restaurant.

MRS PRINSLOO: It could be about five to 10 percent men who visited the restaurant, mostly women visited the place.

MR DREYER: At one stage I stated to one of the applicants that this specific restaurant, the Juicy Lucy, was known for the fact that it was a restaurant group that specialised in serving health food?

MRS PRINSLOO: Yes that is correct, that is also why I went and ate there regularly, I know on more than one occasion my colleagues and I for that particular reason went to spend lunch there, to enjoy lunch there.

CHAIRPERSON: Mrs Prinsloo, could you give us an indication as to how regularly you used to visit there, was it once a week or every day or once a month, every second Thursday of the month, whatever?

MRS PRINSLOO: It could easily have been once per month - once per week I beg your pardon.

MR DREYER: On some occasions I put it to the applicant that during lunch hour the menu not always included the cheapest of items, would you agree with that?

MRS PRINSLOO: Yes that is correct.

MR DREYER: So you would agree that it was not really something that fitted the pocket of the average man in the street?

MRS PRINSLOO: Yes that is correct and I don't think the normal Defence Force staff member would on a daily basis go and enjoy lunch there.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes but the generals might, the officers might go there.

MRS PRINSLOO: Yes if I were to think what men mainly enjoy eating, it's not the type of food they would enjoy.

MR DREYER: Just to place that in perspective, the restaurant's menu specialises in health breads, fruit juices and salads, this type of meal, is that correct?

MRS PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR DREYER: On the particular day when this bomb explosion occurred were you together with some of your colleagues were injured, can you remember whether there was a high concentration of Defence Force members besides the normal pattern in the Juicy Lucy?

MRS PRINSLOO: No.

MR DREYER: If this had been the case would it have been something that would have struck you?

MRS PRINSLOO: Yes it would have been something that would have struck me because I was a regular visitor to the restaurant.

MR DREYER: If there had been a fairly high concentration of Defence Force staff for example in the Juicy Lucy would you have expected those people for example to have assisted you and the other ladies after the bomb explosion?

MRS PRINSLOO: Yes I would imagine so.

MR DREYER: Was there any reference of this kind?

MRS PRINSLOO: No.

MR DREYER: Let us look at the premises. It was stated on your behalf to some of the applicants that this flower box in which the limpet mine had been placed was about between 20 and 30 metres from the entrance of Juicy Lucy, would you agree with that?

MRS PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR DREYER: When one left the Juicy Lucy premises, if I understand your instruction correctly and I put it in that manner to the applicants as well, when you left the entrance you would go onto an area which you could refer to as a stoep and then you had to pass between some flower boxes and pillars to get onto the sidewalk, is that correct?

MRS PRINSLOO: Yes, one had to walk forward, about four or five steps and then to the right to go down a ramp onto the sidewalk.

MR DREYER: Now am I correct if I say that this stoep portion which also was situated in front of the Juicy Lucy is on a somewhat elevated level in relation to the sidewalk?

MRS PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR DREYER: That would then explain why one had to walk down a ramp eventually to the sidewalk?

ADV DE JAGER: I beg your pardon but Mrs Prinsloo, was the Juicy Lucy situated on the south-western block, not on the corner itself but on the south-western frontage of the building?

MRS PRINSLOO: No the north-western corner.

ADV DE JAGER: Is that opposite the Legal and General building?

MRS PRINSLOO: Right opposite it.

ADV DE JAGER: And where the Department of Finance and Receiver of Revenue's offices were?

MRS PRINSLOO: Yes that is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: And that building is situated on the corner and then there is virtually like an alleyway right round the building with shops situated and fronting on this alleyway?

MRS PRINSLOO: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: So those entrances were basically away from the entrance and not fronting on the sidewalk?

MRS PRINSLOO: Yes that is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: And was Juicy Lucy one of these shops fronting on this walkway or alleyway, is that correct?

MRS PRINSLOO: Yes that is correct.

MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, if I may just for the purpose of clarification state the following because that might be an item of confusion. The flower box is one of several such flower boxes and there are also pillars which in fact formed part of the outer construction of this very building so you get the limit of the premises I would say, then there's a sort of as Commissioner De Jager indicated there's a sort of a passageway right around the building and on the edge of that, on the very edge and limit, there are these flower boxes and pillars. If that would make it little bit more ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you.

ADV DE JAGER: I think it is very difficult for somebody who doesn't know the building to understand it but perhaps it would assist if you had a sketch plan at some stage that you could submit because the impression is that Juicy Lucy was one of the little shops fronting on the street which is not the actual fact.

MR DREYER: I take cognisance of this Mr Chair, we will submit such a little drawing as soon as possible or practicable.

Okay, so you moved out of Juicy Lucy onto the stoep portion then you said you had to move forward a number of steps and then turn right towards this ramp leading onto the sidewalk, is that correct?

MRS PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR DREYER: And when you moved through this area you eventually then also pass next to this flower box into which the limpet mine had been placed, is that correct?

MRS PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR DREYER: Where more or less in relation to Juicy Lucy or how far compared to the Juicy Lucy entrance were you when the bomb exploded?

MRS PRINSLOO: 20 plus yards.

MR DREYER: And how close would you say you were to the flower box when the explosion took place?

MRS PRINSLOO: I was directly next to it, I could have touched it.

MR DREYER: Upon your instruction you told me that you indeed had actually been looking in the direction of the flower box and the flowers in particular when the explosion occurred, is that correct?

MRS PRINSLOO: Yes that is correct.

MR DREYER: Does that also explain why the largest number of your injuries were on your right hand side of your face?

MRS PRINSLOO: Yes although it actually struck me fully in the face although the injuries to my right ear, the right eye and right arm were more than on the left side of my face and body.

MR DREYER: Could we briefly pause and just get a summary of the nature and extent of the injuries you sustained there?

MRS PRINSLOO: I sustained shrapnel wounds, sever shrapnel wounds to my face and right hand side of my neck. Both eyes were injured, I had to undergo a cornea transplant, both of my eardrums were pierced, had burst, the left one had closed up after about six months but I had to undergo two operations to my right eardrum and I still have problems with my right ear. I also had massive shrapnel wounds to my right arm, particularly my elbow and it is giving me daily problems, I still have shrapnel in my arm and in my face and in my eyes.

MR DREYER: In addition the surgical procedures that had to be carried out to correct his damage you also had permanent scars to your face and other portions of your body, is that correct?

MRS PRINSLOO: Yes that is correct.

MR DREYER: And as you had indicated you still experience pain today as a consequence of what had happened and the shrapnel that still remains in your body?

MRS PRINSLOO: Yes that is correct.

MR DREYER: Madame you already indicated that at that stage you were apolitical, was that only limited to you yourself or was that the point of view of the household of which you were part?

MRS PRINSLOO: Well it was our point of view because my husband was employed in the Department of Justice.

MR DREYER: Did you at that stage or at any stage when this incident took place maintain a certain point of view with regard to human rights or the rights of other members of our population group regarding their call on normal human rights and being allowed a normal life?

MRS PRINSLOO: I then and still now am against any detrimental act to human right.

MRS PRINSLOO: All the applicants, Mr Toka in particular, or the relevant applicants as well as Mr Toka asked me while I was cross-examining him whether it would make any difference to me as legal representative representing you if the persons who were injured there had been blacks. I would like to pose the question to you whether it would have made any difference to you if it were to become apparent that the people who had planted the bomb had been whites?

MRS PRINSLOO: It would have made no difference to me whether it was a white dog that bit me or a black dog that bit me, I would have had a bite mark and I would have had a feeling about it.

MR DREYER: Would it be possible for you to say that you were to forgive the people who had caused these injuries to you? What is your feeling about this?

MRS PRINSLOO: It is not possible for me to forgive them because they over and over said that they had forgotten after ten years but unfortunately I myself, nor my family, cannot forget after ten years because we have to live with this for the rest of our lives.

MR DREYER: You said in your instruction to me that part of the reason why it was difficult for you to forget this and remove these events in your memory, it is because of the continuation of senseless violence in this country?

MRS PRINSLOO: Yes that is correct.

MR DREYER: Can you qualify?

MRS PRINSLOO: Well we lived in Cape Town over the past two years and with all the senseless pipe bomb attacks there, particularly the Planet Hollywood attack, it brought back all the memories again and one just realises anew the senselessness of all of this.

MR DREYER: Madame would you say that there is a difference in your mind between attacks that were carried out at that stage by members of the South African Security Forces on institutions and active participants in the liberation organisations and vice versa, in other words also actions carried out by for example uMkonto weSizwe on Defence Force establishments and police force. Would you distinguish in your mind between these two kinds of actions which were typical of a war situation or semi-war situation as opposed to the incident which involved you?

MRS PRINSLOO: They were in a war situation, I was an innocent citizen out on lunch in the centre of Pretoria so that was not war.

MR DREYER: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mrs Prinsloo. Mr Mohlaba do you have any questions to ask the witness?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MOHLABA: Thank you Chair, just one aspect.

Mrs Prinsloo, is it correct that the people who planted this device were not known to you prior to this explosion?

MRS PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR MOHLABA: And is it correct that either than sustaining injuries after this bomb went off you were not robbed of any of your personal belongings?

MRS PRINSLOO: No, I did not lose consciousness.

MR MOHLABA: Lastly Mrs Prinsloo, this is not a question. You have heard the evidence of all the applicants here and they have indicated that they were - they planted that bomb or caused

these injuries to you because of the conflict of the past and that this bomb was not placed at that position to target you in particular or other persons who were injured with you but it was aimed at bringing down the apartheid regime. Do you accept their explanation?

MRS PRINSLOO: If they wanted to attack the Defence Force members they would have planted the bomb in front of the Defence Force headquarters, not in a flower box where thousands of people have to pass by on a daily basis.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you Chair, I've got no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Molefe do you have any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MOLEFE: Yes Mr Chair.

Ma'am you said that you visited this particular restaurant at least once a week, is that correct?

MRS PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR MOLEFE: And for how long would you stay at this restaurant when you visited it once a week?

MRS PRINSLOO: Sometimes I bought food to take away and often I sat there, so sometimes it could have been half an hour, often half an hour.

MR MOLEFE: Would you agree with me that probably never more than an hour at any particular stage?

MRS PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR MOLEFE: And did you visit this restaurant at particular times, that is when you were there or did you just go there randomly?

CHAIRPERSON: In other words did you always go there at lunchtime or would you go there at eleven o'clock in the morning sometimes three in the afternoon or was it always at lunchtime?

MRS PRINSLOO: It was always at lunchtime.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Molefe, Mrs Prinsloo can you remember what time this bomb blew up?

MRS PRINSLOO: It was just past 1 o'clock in the afternoon.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Molefe?

MR MOLEFE: So the views that you expressed about the people who frequent that restaurant is limited only to your lunchtime and which is not more than thirty minutes a week, that is when you went to that restaurant?

MRS PRINSLOO: Can you please repeat the question?

MR MOLEFE: The views that you had expressed in your evidence in chief about the people that frequent this restaurant, those views you formed them on the basis of this time that you spent at that restaurant which is about 30 minutes a week and during particular times, your lunchtime?

MRS PRINSLOO: My lunch hour could have been from quarter past 12 to 2 o'clock, it fluctuated. It was 45 minutes long so I didn't go at a specific time and also not on any specific day.

MR MOLEFE: Okay and you'll agree with me that if it is on the average once a week it adds to two hours a month because you went there only for ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think we need any evidence on this, we can work it out arithmetically but you can put it to her.

MR MOLEFE: Ma'am you said that you were apolitical at that stage, is that correct? You were not?

MRS PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR MOLEFE: Did you vote in the elections just before that bomb blast?

MRS PRINSLOO: When was the election before the explosion.

MR MOLEFE: I was not on ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: I think what Molefe's asking you is did you vote in the elections prior to the bomb blast in the elections for the new government, were you a voter?

MRS PRINSLOO: I didn't always go and vote even though I could vote, I was eligible to vote.

MR MOLEFE: So what I just wanted to be sure about is whether you had voted at any stage in the past before this incident happened?

MRS PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR MOLEFE: Okay. Ma'am were you aware of ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Molefe, I understand the line of your question. That would be relevant if for instance this witness was targeted because she voted for the Nationalist Party or some other party but as I understood the case she was never a target so whether she voted for the CP or the NP or the PFP or whoever was irrelevant?

MR MOLEFE: Maybe the relevance of my question will come later if you can just allow me to continue with my cross-examination?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes continue.

MR MOLEFE: Ma'am...[intervention]

MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, may I just at this stage enquire ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: I think you're enquiring about the relevance because you specifically asked what her political affiliations were and she said she was apolitical so I don't think it's unreasonable, you know, it's just to ask on that whether a person voted or not.

MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, that was not the purpose of my intended question. If I may just enquire, if I remember correctly, none of the applicants represented by Mr Molefe was ever indicated to have been involved in this particular incident so I suppose he's entitled to ask questions. The only problem is that I fail to see the relevance of any cross-examination that pertains to the particular applicants on ...[indistinct]

MR MOLEFE: If I can just be allowed to continue with it, just ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Just a second.

ADV DE JAGER: Perhaps you could respond.

MR MOLEFE: Okay.

ADV DE JAGER: Your clients didn't apply for amnesty in this case so are you ...[inaudible] are you authorised, are you mandated to ask questions to this Commission?

MR MOLEFE: I am representing Mr George Mathe who has applied for amnesty in respect of the so called Juicy Lucy bombing, Advocate de Jager.

CHAIRPERSON: Continue.

MR MOLEFE: And maybe if I may just respond to the relevance of this question. It will be argued that the ANC instructed it's cadres to take the war from the townships to the white areas and if I can just maybe be allowed to ask a few more questions you will realise probably why it was decided that the war should be extended ...[intervention]

MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, if I may just respond to my learned friend's remark now. I have pointed it out explicitly to some of the applicants quoting from the very statement of the ANC to the TRC in this regard from the Kabwe.

CHAIRPERSON: The Kabwe Conference.

MR DREYER: In terms of the statement, the official statement of the ANC, it was clear that the struggle was to be expanded to these so called white areas but still limited to police and military installations situated within the white areas and not to white civilian targets. That is how I understood the official statement of the ANC so once again I fail to see how my learned friend intends to argue at the end of this case something which is clearly contrary to the policy of the ANC as organisation.

CHAIRPERSON: But my understanding from the evidence on that, Mr Molefe and we're being derailed now, we're talking about argument when we shouldn't be. Is that the evidence of the applicant? On my understanding, you can correct me if I'm wrong when you argue ultimately, was that that specific corner was targeted because of the presence of military personnel? They didn't come and say we put it there because we were taking the war into the white areas and in any event we know that the CBD of the town can't be classified as a white area, I mean there's all sorts of people from all sorts of backgrounds and races congregate to make their living.

MR MOLEFE: With due respect Mr Chairman, I don't want to dwell on this issue, it is not necessarily the cornerstone of our client's application.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's proceed, I think we're wasting time now, just proceed, you can carry on, you can ask some questions.

MR MOLEFE: Just one or two questions in respect of this aspect, I'm not going to dwell on it any longer.

Were you aware of the existence of the African National Congress and uMkonto weSizwe just before you were injured in this blast?

MRS PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR MOLEFE: How did you become aware of that, was it through newspapers, through T.V. or any other medium?

MRS PRINSLOO: I was a librarian at that stage, I read widely, books, newspapers, magazines, I listened to the radio, I watched television.

MR MOLEFE: Okay, maybe I should leave that one at that.

You worked in that area in the corner of Andries and Vermeulen Street. Can you just tell us of the government buildings that are around that corner, just around that vicinity?

MRS PRINSLOO: Across the road is the Department of Finance and further down the road closer to Van der Walt Street was the liberty life building where the defence force was.

MR MOLEFE: Will you agree with me that this particular building that is occupied by the Defence Force stretches close to the corner of Vermeulen and Andries Street up to Van der Walt Street probably? It's quite a big building.

MRS PRINSLOO: Yes it is quite a big building but it's closer to Van der Walt street as to Andries Street. I think you must just go and check again how close to Van der Walt Street it in fact is and how far it is from Andries Street.

MR MOLEFE: Were you and your four colleagues the only people who were injured according to your knowledge?

MRS PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR MOLEFE: And is it so that the four of you were very close to this flower pot where the explosion happened?

MRS PRINSLOO: Yes we were directly next to the flower box.

MR MOLEFE: And all the other people who were further away from you or from that flower box were not injured, is that correct?

CHAIRPERSON: She said that they were the only ones injured, Mr Molefe. Do you have any further questions?

MR MOLEFE: Yes I'm just considering one or two more questions. No, that's all, that's all Mr Chair.

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

MR MOKONE: I have no questions Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Monyane do you have any questions?

MS MONYANE: No questions Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Mtanga do you have any questions?

MS MTANGA: No questions Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Joubert, he excused himself and he said that he wouldn't have any questions. Mr Dreyer, do you have any re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, just before I commence, my witnesses indicated to me that she just wanted to enquire something. Before I start may I just get instructions? Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mrs Prinsloo, just to put some of these questions in perspective, the impression was created by Mr Molefe that one should look at the closeness, proximity or the concentration of buildings housing state departments at that stage and you then answered that across the road there was the Department of Finance, their office and that one block further down there was the Liberty Life housing the Defence Force, is that correct?

MRS PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR DREYER: Now the Department of Finance, their offices, could you indicate to us is that at street level or is that higher up?

MRS PRINSLOO: It is higher up, a multi-storey building.

MR DREYER: Just for purposes of clarity, if you go and look at the corner diagonally across from Juicy Lucy there is the De Bruinpark Building?

MRS PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR DREYER: Is it correct that that is a building consisting of several levels of shops and also they have several storeys of offices above street level?

MRS PRINSLOO: Yes that is correct.

MR DREYER: So there's a high concentration of ordinary normal people?

MRS PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR DREYER: And then the building on the corner of Vermeulen and Andries where the City Library is to found, what kind of offices and businesses would one find there in that building, if any?

MRS PRINSLOO: The City Library is on the corner and immediately next to that further down in Vermeulen towards Paul Kruger Street is the State Library.

MR DREYER: Alright, let's take the building in which Juicy Lucy was. How many other shops, businesses were there at street level on that corner?

MRS PRINSLOO: There was a travel agency exactly on the corner, further down in Vermeulen Street there was a bank.

MR DREYER: If I'm not mistaken the offices of one of the newspaper groups are also found there?

MRS PRINSLOO: Yes, the Pretoria News offices are there.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Dreyer, I don't think we need to go through every shop in the vicinity, we know that it's in the centre of town and that there are all different sorts of businesses and shops, government and private sector.

MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, I was merely limiting myself to the four corners of the ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Yes we know.

MR DREYER: So the question I want to ask you is this, if you look at the concentration of civil premises as opposed to government premises in that area, what would you say, what would the distribution be?

MRS PRINSLOO: There were far more civil premises than State or Government premises.

MR DREYER: Lastly, Mr Molefe asked you how far away you were from this flower box. Could you perhaps just clarify that for us?

MRS PRINSLOO: I was walking down the path and it was very path where you had to walk in single file. I walked right in front of this group, I looked at the flowers, I suddenly saw blue light and I heard a very loud explosion, so that bomb exploded right next to me.

MR DREYER: And just one last question Mrs Prinsloo, the stoep area of this building, would that be used only by people coming from Juicy Lucy going down to the walkway where you were when the bomb exploded or was it also used by other people who were visiting some other premises in the building?

MRS PRINSLOO: It's also used by other people.

MR DREYER: So it's not only exclusively for the use of Juicy Lucy customers?

MRS PRINSLOO: No.

MR DREYER: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr De Jager do you have any questions? Mr Sandi?

ADV SANDI: Thank you Chair. Mrs Prinsloo, I understood you to say that there were female SADF members who would sometimes visit this Juicy Lucy. How did you know that these people were working for the SADF?

MRS PRINSLOO: They were dressed in Defence Force uniforms.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mrs Prinsloo for your testimony.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Dreyer, you should perhaps just take down the names and addresses of the victims because at the end of the case we must make a recommendation regarding possible victims.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps you submit names of victims, it would assist if we had names and addresses for forwarding to the Reparations Committee.

MR DREYER: Mr Chairman may I just at this point for the purposes of logistics point out that Mrs Prinsloo is the only one of the three victims that I represent that elected to give evidence, the other two victims would want to give evidence but at this stage do not feel themselves emotionally in a state to do so. That

does not however in any way indicate that they do not feel the same about themselves as victims. If need be the necessary statement or whatever may be submitted at the end of the hearings on behalf of them but at this stage it's only Mrs Prinsloo that's going to give evidence and I do take note of what the Commission said in respect.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Dreyer, we'll now take the lunch adjournment and we'll start again at 2 o'clock.

TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION

______________________________________________________ON RESUMPTION

MR JOUBERT: Phuti Benny Mokgonyana - M-o-k-g-o-n-y-a-n-a.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mokgonyana, in which language would you prefer to testify in? Can you push the button?

MR MOKGONYANA: I would prefer to speak English.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

PHUTI BERNARD MOKGONYANA: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Joubert?

EXAMINATION BY MR JOUBERT: Thank you Mr Chairman, before I'm leading Mr Mokgonyana's evidence, I want to put on record that I'm calling Mr Mokgonyana as a witness, he is not as an applicant before this Commission, to come and testify due to

the fact that he was implicated this morning on the attack of the Kulele's house and this is solely calling this witness to come and clarify in front of the Commission what was his involvement especially in that attack.

Mr Mokgonyana, you at present, where do you live at present?

MR MOKGONYANA: I live in Acacia.

MR JOUBERT: And your occupation presently?

MR MOKGONYANA: I'm actually the senior officer at the Medical Council.

MR JOUBERT: Mr Mokgonyana, you know what this week was all about in the amnesty application where certain applicants applied to appear in front of the Commission to hear evidence of attacks that took place in the early years '88 and this is why the Commission sits this week and can I ask you, are you aware of the facts that were presented or not presented of the Kulele attack and what happened there and if not, I will briefly inform you exactly what was the events that took place during that attack?

MR MOKGONYANA: I would like you to brief me, okay.

MR JOUBERT: In '88 there was an attack 10th May of '88 ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: Could we just find out, do you know a person with the name of Kulele?

MR MOKGONYANA: Yes, yes definitely I know him.

ADV DE JAGER: Do you know of any attack on his house?

MR MOKGONYANA: Yes definitely I know.

ADV DE JAGER: Can you perhaps tell us what you know about the attack?

MR MOKGONYANA: Well actually I read in the paper that there was an attack on the Kulele house, I read it. Actually the story appeared in the Sowetan, actually if my memory serves me well.

CHAIRPERSON: And would this have been during 1988?

MR MOKGONYANA: Yes definitely it was during 1988.

ADV SANDI: When you read it in the newspaper did this come as news to you, was it something new?

MR MOKGONYANA: Actually it came as a shock to me.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Joubert?

MR JOUBERT: Mr Mokgonyana, can I put it this way to you, can I ask you what was your - was there any involvement in the planning, executing, logistic support in the attack on the Kulele's house?

MR MOKGONYANA: I was never involved in the planning or that attack on the Kulele house, I was absolutely never involved.

MR JOUBERT: So what you're saying Mr Mokgonyana that you didn't know at the time of the attack, you didn't know there was going to be an attack on the Kulele's house, you found it out in the Sowetan and you were not at all, you were not aware of any such attack and at all involved in such attack?

MR MOKGONYANA: It is true, I was never actually that thing, aware of any impending attack on the house.

MR JOUBERT: Mr Mokgonyana, did you know Mr Nkosi at all?

CHAIRPERSON: Joseph Nkosi.

MR MOKGONYANA: I know him yes.

MR JOUBERT: And can you state that Mr Nkosi was in any way -assisted this attack in any manner?

MR MOKGONYANA: I don't have any clues or leads whether actually Mr Nkosi was actually that thing involved in the attack.

MR JOUBERT: And can I put it to you that Mr Nkosi at any stage hand you over to Mr Toka to do some work or to be an operative and to execute some attacks?

MR MOKGONYANA: Now actually, I mean the fact that I got involved with Mr Toka was the fact that I supplied transport to Mr Nkosi.

MR JOUBERT: So at no stage Mr Nkosi, Joseph Nkosi, took you to Mr Toka and said "Mr Toka, here's Benny, he is ready to continue with the struggle, he's been trained and he can continue now with the struggle. If there is certain things that he can go and do and execute"? Sorry, "I have trained him and he is now a soldier to commit certain activities for the cell or for the ANC" at that stage?

MR MOKGONYANA: Actually I would say, I mean the first time I met Mr Toka was in Kagiso, I mean Krugersdorp. It was the day that I have actually transported Mr Nkosi and Mr Gutrim Ncube and Toka actually himself, the two that ...[indistinct]

MR JOUBERT: Can I ask you were you in any way trained in weapon handling or handling in explosives?

MR MOKGONYANA: Actually we never - I mean got involved with - I mean that ammunition or weapons actually in the presence of Mr Toka.

MR JOUBERT: Mr Mokgonyana, and lastly can you tell the Commission that you know or who did execute the attack on the Kulele's house or who was involved?

MR MOKGONYANA: I don't have any idea really.

MR JOUBERT: And is it correct if I'm saying that you were charged, you stood trial and you were acquitted on all charges?

MR MOKGONYANA: It's true, yes, it's true.

MR JOUBERT: No further questions Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Joubert. Mr Mohlaba, do you have any questions to ask the witness?

MR MOHLABA: No thanks, I've got no questions.

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

MR MOLEFE: Just one or two questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MOLEFE: Mr Mokgonyana, Mr Nkosi has already testified to this Committee that he recruited you and that the part of what he was doing, that it was logistics, providing transport for various reasons, is it correct that he recruited you and you also provided transport sometimes?

CHAIRPERSON: When you say recruited, recruited into what? ANC or MK or both?

MR MOLEFE: Into MK?

MR MOKGONYANA: Actually I was a member of the African National Congress, I joined it in 1981.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes but the question was did Mr Nkosi recruit you to assist with MK? With uMkhonto weSizwe, the military wing of the African National Congress?

MR MOKGONYANA: Actually I would say it's - I knew after actually we have actually transported the arms that actually some of, I mean that the people that were linked to Mr Nkosi were actually members of the MK but I was never actually that thing involved in subversive - I mean that activities, I mean I never took part in any armed action but I was actually sympathetic towards the cause of the ANC.

MR MOLEFE: So is it correct that whenever you transported these people it was per request from Mr Nkosi?

MR MOKGONYANA: Okay could you repeat yourself?

MR MOLEFE: Is it correct that usually when you transported these people it was per request from Mr Nkosi?

MR MOKGONYANA: Yes it's true.

MR MOLEFE: Do you remember a gentleman by the name of Webster?

MR MOKGONYANA: Yes, I know him, Webster. I've met with him before.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know what his name was besides Webster?

MR MOKGONYANA: No. No.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay Mr Molefe, continue?

MR MOLEFE: Thank you. And did you - when did you meet Webster, under what circumstances did you meet Webster?

MR MOKGONYANA: The first time when I met Webster actually, actually if my memory serves me well we actually went out on an outing, you know it was just ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Social?

MR MOKGONYANA: I mean outing, pleasure outing that we went out for.

MR MOLEFE: And in your company was he or were you, when you met Webster?

MR MOKGONYANA: Excuse me?

MR MOLEFE: In whose company was Mr Webster?

MR MOKGONYANA: He was with Mr Nkosi.

MR MOLEFE: Any other person?

MR MOKGONYANA: No we were actually only - if I remember when we left Mamelodi we went to Atteridgeville and actually we also went to Sashengube and I was also with my girlfriend there, it was also my girlfriend involved.

MR MOLEFE: Did you ever meet with Webster in the presence of Mr Toka?

MR MOKGONYANA: No I don't recall really.

MR MOLEFE: But could it have happened?

MR MOKGONYANA: Well actually as I've been declared actually those encounters I had with Toka was in, I mean Krugersdorp. That was the first encounter I mean that I had with Toka.

CHAIRPERSON: But would you say is it possible that you met Webster in the company of or together with Mr Toka?

MR MOKGONYANA: No I don't think it actually did I mean happen.

MR MOLEFE: Earlier on you had said that you were a member of the ANC?

MR MOKGONYANA: Yes I joined it in 1981 in Botswana.

MR MOLEFE: And were you trained at any stage whatsoever in the use of arms?

MR MOKGONYANA: Well actually I mean during that time actually I was involved in I mean that thing, the distribution of literature.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you trained in the use of firearms such as AK47's and pistols and maybe even hand grenades?

MR MOKGONYANA: I mean when I joined it I was never really trained really at all, I mean by that time I actually had never undergone a crash course I mean during that time.

MR MOLEFE: Okay although it is not a subject matter of this application, you know just to take things chronologically, it is so that you once, you served time at one stage for the activities of the African National Congress. At one stage you were sentenced?

MR MOKGONYANA: Ja.

MR MOLEFE: That is before this Kulele incident?

MR MOKGONYANA: Ja I was sentenced in 1982.

MR MOLEFE: Right. Now Tiger, that is Joseph Nkosi?

MR MOKGONYANA: Ja.

MR MOLEFE: Says that at one stage he did train you, he did give you some crash course, I mean crash course training in the use of pistols, makarof and hand grenade?

MR MOKGONYANA: No actually, I mean taught me how to use the pistol, I mean I knew how to use the pistol before.

MR MOLEFE: But did he ...[intervention]

MR MOKGONYANA: I mean this crash course that I had was in I think during 1986 but Tiger didn't I mean train me in the use of that and the pistol or whatever.

CHAIRPERSON: And the hand grenade and the AK47?

MR MOKGONYANA: Well actually the hand grenade I know how actually it worked even if I didn't actually use it physically.

CHAIRPERSON: The question is very simple, did Mr Nkosi ever train you in the use of firearms, AK47's, pistols and in the use of hand grenades?

MR MOKGONYANA: No. No.

ADV DE JAGER: Who trained you?

MR MOKGONYANA: Actually the person who trained me was Mr Joseph Ntoli.

ADV DE JAGER: And that was in 1986?

MR MOKGONYANA: Ja during 1986.

ADV SANDI: Where was this training?

MR MOKGONYANA: Well it, I mean took place in Mamelodi.

ADV SANDI: How long did it take?

MR MOKGONYANA: Well roughly a week or two, I'm not so sure which one.

MR MOLEFE: And Mr Nkosi was not aware that you were trained when you were assisting him to transport people in 1988?

MR MOKGONYANA: He knew that I was that thing, I mean that thing, activist, I was involved. I mean due to that fact that he knew that I was actually that thing involved, in that struggle but you know, he had that trust in me, that's why he approached me, I mean for transport.

MR MOLEFE: Now as an activist living in Mamelodi during that time and as a member of the African National Congress and as a member of uMkhonto weSizwe, I take it you're a member of uMkhonto weSizwe, is that correct?

MR MOKGONYANA: Ja, that's correct.

MR MOLEFE: What were your views in as far as policemen were concerned?

MR MOKGONYANA: Well we, I mean that thing perceived the policemen as actual depressive machinery you know during that time and I mean millions, even including myself, you know my family were actually victims and you know.

MR JOUBERT: Excuse me Mr Chairman, I must object to this question, Mr Mokgonyana is only testifying especially in terms of the Kulele incident and he's not really an applicant in front of this Commission and I object against the situation what was his views towards the government and the police at that stage. He's not an applicant to this Commission at the present moment.

MR MOLEFE: I do not in anyway whatsoever, you know, labour any interpretation that Mr Mokgonyana is an applicant. We are all well aware that he's not an applicant but there are certain statements that had been made which in one way or another involve him not necessarily, not all the statements in actual fact link him to the commission of an offence but some of them may have led at a later stage to a commission of an offence.

CHAIRPERSON: You can proceed Mr Molefe but don't let's dwell on too much time on the opinions of the witness.

MR MOLEFE: You see, Mr Nkosi testified that there were discussions that were held within MK structures that there has been a call to isolate a policeman and that policemen have to be attacked and policemen must be - those policemen that have to be attacked have to be identified. Were there such discussions?

MR MOKGONYANA: I mean you mean between me and Mr Nkosi or I mean generally in the township? Are you actually referring to - that the general discussion in the township or what?

MR MOLEFE: Maybe let's start it as generally, is it so?

MR MOKGONYANA: Ja, there was talk in the township ja, about you know, actually isolating the policemen and women.

MR MOLEFE: Ja and Mr Nkosi went further to say that during some of the discussion that - in which you were present, such discussions were held that some, I mean policemen have to be attacked have to be identified and so forth and responding to the ANC call to isolate and attack policemen?

MR MOKGONYANA: Actually what actually I would say actually during the period that I was involved with Mr Nkosi, I would say that we never actually carried out, any - or myself, carried out any armed attack in his presence you know because I remember when we met, you know within a month or two and you know he was - I mean that thing, arrested actually, but we never actually discussed any armed attack on any person, we never did at that stage.

MR MOLEFE: Ja well Mr Nkosi himself has also said that he was not present when an attack, I mean took place where you ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Molefe if you'll press your button please?

MR MOLEFE: Mr Nkosi also said that he was not present or no attack took place in his presence where you could have allegedly been involved in, he never witnessed anything like that?

MR MOKGONYANA: Well that's his - I mean that's his opinion and I've haven't even seen him in any attack.

MR MOLEFE: Okay.

ADV DE JAGER: But there was evidence by Mr Toka that you were instructed, you and Mr Nkosi to go and throw a hand grenade at Mr Kulele's house?

MR MOKGONYANA: Well that's not true. Toka, we never had any discussion about the Kulele affair.

ADV DE JAGER: And Mr Nkosi says he was also present when you were ordered to go and throw that hand grenade and that months later you told him that you threw the hand grenade but it was an unfortunate situation.

MR MOKGONYANA: That's not true, I never had any discussion with Mr Toka about any armed attack on any person, absolutely.

The first encounter and the last encounter I had with Toka was in Krugersdorp and you know the atmosphere didn't allow us to discuss such things you know.

ADV DE JAGER: And Mr Nkosi said that he was your commander?

MR MOKGONYANA: Well actually it would say it's - Nkosi was actually my comrade and we never, you know, I mean during that period we never discussed anything, even if that would have been, that thing a possibility at some stage, you know to get that thing involved but during that period we never had any discussions about attacking any person, I didn't have any weapon with me, on me, I didn't have any grenade, I didn't have any ammunition so I couldn't have carried out any attack at that point in time.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Molefe?

MR MOLEFE: Thank you Mr Chair.

You have testified that you had met a gentleman by the name of Webster or - what happened to him?

MR MOKGONYANA: Webster, during our trial we learnt that he was killed, that was just through the, you know, the grapevine but I don't have facts, you know, to confirm that but that's what came to our ears during our trial in Delmas.

MR MOLEFE: Did he testify in your trial?

MR MOKGONYANA: Webster yes, I think he did testify, ja. He did testify and - ja he did testify.

MR MOLEFE: That's all Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Molefe. Mr Mokone, do you have any questions?

MR MOKONE: I have no questions Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Monyane, do you have any questions?

MS MONYANE: None Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Dreyer do you have any questions?

MR DREYER: No questions Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Mtanga do you have any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS MTANGA: Yes Mr Chairperson thank you.

Mr Mokgonyana, you have just testified that you believe that Mr or Webster did testify at your trial?

MR MOKGONYANA: No he did in fact testify, it's a fact ja.

MS MTANGA: Can you remember what was the essence of his testimony?

MR MOKGONYANA: Some years back - let me see. Just it's difficult to say but all in all I think maybe he was, if my memory serves me well, you know, he was you know, trying to prove maybe the case of the state that you know, the accused were actually members of the ANC and were trained and you know they were part of it's you know, unit, you know, cells but I don't - I remember faintly what he said, ja, during the trial.

MS MTANGA: Do you recall if he testified against you or in your favour?

MR MOKGONYANA: Well actually the case of the state against myself and Mr Nkosi was the Kulele incident, we were linked with the Kulele incident actually and he could have testified to the fact that I and Mr Nkosi were actually that thing involved, in the attack.

MS MTANGA: I agree with you with what you have just said now. In the judgement it is said that Webster testified that you and Mr Nkosi were involved in the attack on the Kulele house. What I would like to ask you now, there's evidence from Mr Toka, from Mr Nkosi and there was evidence by Webster that you were involved in the attack at the Kulele house. Do you still deny that you were never involved even despite these three people that are implicating you in the incident?

MR MOKGONYANA: No I was never involved and I mean to some extent, Kulele, we grew together, Mr Kulele, we grew together and we are actually I mean indirectly related, you know, to some extent to Kulele. I couldn't have attacked his house.

MS MTANGA: Okay as an MK member to which units were you attached?

MR MOKGONYANA: Actually I worked with Mr Astoli and the other gentleman by the name of Don.

MS MTANGA: Okay, if you work in a particular unit can you still work with other units because Toka and Nkosi belonged to two different units, how come you worked at some point with Nkosi and Toka as in accordance with evidence you've just led with ...[intervention]

MR MOKGONYANA: No, Nkosi, you know I became involved with him for a brief time and it was the fact that I had transport and you know, as I've said you know, I come from a family of I mean that thing, activists and he was aware that actually I was aligned to the ANC and I was an activist and he approached me solely on the basis of having to actually - approached me solely on the basis of transport and that's where actually the discussion took place, it never involved any attack at that stage. Maybe he could have come up with it you know at some point but the discussion I had with him was solely based on transport.

ADV SANDI: Sorry Ms Mtanga, can I ask Mr Mokgonyana how did Mr Nkosi address you?

MR MOKGONYANA: Me? He addressed me as Peto.

ADV SANDI: How did you address him?

MR MOKGONYANA: Tiger.

ADV SANDI: And Mr Toka, how did you address him?

MR MOKGONYANA: Toka was called when I was introduced to him he was called Aduza.

ADV SANDI: So all of you were using codenames?

MR MOKGONYANA: Well it's true.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. Sorry Ms Mtanga, carry on.

MS MTANGA: As a trained member were you trained because you said you received a crash course in handling of weapons, as a trained MK member, what activities were you involved in exactly?

MR MOKGONYANA: Well I was never actually in carrying - I even actually despite the fact that I received training, but I was never involved in any attack.

MS MTANGA: Mr Mokgonyana, I'm just going to ask you for your opinion. At the time of the attacks in 1988 it's been given here as evidence that there was turmoil in Mamelodi, Atteridgeville, there were soldiers in the township and comrades were like operating and involved in a lot of activities and you were a trained MK member and you were still not involved in any activities in the township, is that your evidence?

MR MOKGONYANA: Well I mean as I've said, I mean during that period I remember you know when I was trained, you know there was a problem with actually getting the arms into the country. You know there was a lull actually, I mean at that time you know, there weren't any armed attacks actually in the township because you know of the shortage of arms and ammunition.

MS MTANGA: During which time? When exactly?

MR MOKGONYANA: I mean during '85, actually I remember during the time I was trained, you know, we actually didn't have any arms and ammunition at our disposal during that time.

MS MTANGA: In which year did you have contact with Mr Nkosi and Mr Toka?

MR MOKGONYANA: Mr Nkosi, I've known him before but actually with regard to I mean this issue, we met in 1988 but I've known him before, Mr Nkosi actually.

MS MTANGA: But then you have testified that your involvement in the activities of Mr Nkosi and Mr Toka was to transport weapons for them but there were weapons, that was in 1988 and you were a trained MK member and you still didn't get involved in any activities?

CHAIRPERSON: He said he hasn't been involved, Mr Mtanga. Now you can use that for argument, the probabilities, but if we keep asking, we know he wasn't involved.

MS MTANGA: Thank you Mr Chairperson, that's the end of my questioning.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Joubert do you have any re-examination?

MR JOUBERT: No further questions Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr de Jager, do you have any questions for this witness?

ADV DE JAGER: No further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Sandi?

ADV SANDI: No further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mokgonyana, that concludes your testimony, you may stand down.

MR MOKGONYANA: Thanks

CHAIRPERSON: What is your name please?

MRS MALEKA: Tickey.

CHAIRPERSON: And your surname?

MRS MALEKA: Maleka.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it Mrs or Ms?

MRS MALEKA: Mrs.

CHAIRPERSON: Mrs Maleka, in what language would you like to talk?

MRS MALEKA: Tswana.

CHAIRPERSON: Mrs Maleka, you just want to say something, you don't want to give evidence under oath, you just want to make a statement?

MRS MALEKA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, proceed? Sorry we're just waiting for the man who interprets into Tswana. Yes just for the interpreter's information, this is Mrs Tickey Maleka who is going to be making a statement, so she's not giving evidence. She just wants to say something to us. Please proceed Mrs Maleka. You can start.

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, I think he is signalling that you should - they'll help you to switch to number three there.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thanks, if you could now proceed Mrs Maleka?

MRS MALEKA: I, Tickey Maleka, I'm staying in Atteridgeville. My address is 60 Marion. That is where the three policemen were killed. I listened to the applications of the applicant applying for amnesty. I understand as a person that I'll be able to do something to a person and ask for forgiveness. I am of the opinion that if somebody asks for forgiveness you must tell the truth, the whole truth. In all the applications and the testimony I've heard I was not satisfied with one applicant, that is Francis Pitsi. I'm not satisfied with his evidence that what he told this Commission, he was not telling the truth.

Firstly I would say when these people came to my place I was entering at my front door, I saw them, then I was surprised by their movements with brown overalls and they were behaving not normally, as if they were hiding themselves. My opinion I was thinking of the liquor squads because we were not allowed to sell liquor. I tried to observe their movements. They stopped at a certain corner. They were seeing that I was looking at them, then they started to shoot, that is why I was saying they started shooting me before they started shooting the police because I'm the first person who saw them and those who were drinking did not see them.

Secondly is that Francis, when he was saying that these policemen were three, there were four policemen including David Madaiwu was present among the police. To say that they went in a certain direction and came back, I did not see them, but when they started shooting, David was there.

The other aspect is that when they left after they finished the operation, they went to George Mathe at Minaka Street, they passed a certain place first before they went to George Mathe where they threw those overalls they were wearing and Francis was injured. They washed his blood and went to another house where in that house where they entered and left their overalls, a certain man came to my house and told me that those boys who came to shoot here, they left their overalls and they washed the blood in my yard.

The other issue is that when he was saying Mr Phenyane, Mr Phenyane was not a usual customer at my place, those people who used to come to my place is David and another one called Les and Freeman and Mope and Mphahlele. Mr Phenyane was not a usual customer. On that day when he - for the first time when he came to my place was the day when he was shot. I just wanted to clear off my chest by saying they were not telling the truth. That is my testimony.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mrs Maleka. Sorry, the lady next to you, does she also wish to make a statement?

MS MTANGA: No she's ...[indistinct]

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, yes thank you, as you said this wasn't evidence, she was merely making a statement here, she hasn't been sworn in. Thank you, you may stand down Mrs Maleka.

MS MTANGA: Another person wishes to say something is Mr Mgwane who was also a victim in this incident.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes? And in which language would you like to make your statement?

MR MGWANE: I will use Tswana.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you just want to make a statement to the Commission?

MR MGWANE: Yes that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: What's your full name please?

MR MGWANE: Alanius Mgwane.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Mgwane?

MR MGWANE: I am not living freely like before I was shot. After I was shot I was one of the shop stewards at work. After I was shot the whole of the Atteridgeville community labelled or informed the other people that they've shot the target and together with their informer. I learnt of this after three months after being shot and after I came out of the hospital and at work it happened that the union voted me out because they labelled me an informer because I would inform them to their employers.

Before I was shot I was elected a member of the street committee because of supporting ANC. I am a neighbour of Mrs Maleka at the time, I was drinking alcohol. I used to go there because it was near my place. Unfortunately on that day when we were shot I heard many stories, even now. I'm known as an informer. I am requesting that these people who have attacked me together with others and those who are members of the committee of the shop stewards, I am requesting these people they must try to go back to the community. Even at the time when I was a member of the street community, my head is called Ghost Town, I was informed that I can no longer be a member of the street committee whilst I'm always in the company of the police. What I'm trying to say is that with the injuries I have sustained, as I understand that these people are applying for amnesty and that they were saying they were not directing their bullets at me. We know that in our culture if somebody can label me an informer everybody will just believe that I'm an informer without the proof that I'm one. I believe that I was labelling people because I was shot with the police. I remember after hospital when George was arrested, I don't remember when but I think it's George, they brought him to my place and said "do you know this person?" then I said to the police I don't know this person I've seen him for the first time. I was told by the police that they are responsible for my injuries. Even at the time I was caught I was not able to identify them, the only one whom I can identify was the one who was brought at my place. I don't know as to whether it will be possible that these people who have done this because there is rumour among those people, relatives of those who were killed. I'm requested to come forward because people think that we know that other people were killed because of the information I supplied to the police. That is why I came forward to declare that I did not know anything, I was just a normal person drinking my beer. That is the end of my testimony.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you perhaps I don't know what to suggest other than you perhaps meet with the legal representatives of the applicants who are involved in that incident with a view to maybe speaking to the applicants if you want to. Yes and then of course we know all of us that have been hearing the evidence in this matter that there was nothing whatsoever in the evidence to suggest that you were an informer at all. It only came through from the evidence, all that came through from the evidence was that you were an innocent victim of that incident. Thank you, you may stand down.

MR MOLEFE: Just to add on that in the ...[indistinct] the applicants have requested to meet with the victims and if possible that they will meet with some of them this afternoon. I understand that some of the victims are not as yet ready to meet them but those who are would appreciate meeting with them this afternoon.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you Mr Molefe, I appreciate that, I've been involved in various hearings where such has happened and my experience is that it's usually been a beneficiary exercise. Mr Joubert?

MR JOUBERT: Mr Chairman, it seems as though he's just outside, while they're looking for him may I just at this juncture, as requested by the Commission just hand up a hand drawn drawing of the vicinity of Juicy Lucy area together with a key there to which I have prepared. I do not profess to be an artist but this is just something which I tried to make it clearer as well as the request in respect of the particulars of the victims I represent. If I may just hand that up?

CHAIRPERSON: Have your colleagues seen the plan, the drawing?

MR JOUBERT: No Mr Chairman, I don't know, if there's any one of them that wish to do so, I'm more than ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps if they could see it, just send it down the table and see if they agree rather than there being any objection raised at a later stage?

MR JOUBERT: Mr Chairman I suppose in that case they will probably have to deal with that together with their particular applicants otherwise it's going to be of no - but in the meantime can I at least hand up the particulars of the victims?

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Mr Joubert are you ready?

MR JOUBERT: Mr Chairman, I've asked if the Commission will just excuse me, I've asked Advocate Dreyer to stand in for me for a moment, unfortunately I must take Mr Menyani, he's got a doctor's appointment this afternoon. I've promised him the moment he's finished I will take him back so if the ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: But what is the position with Mr Kulele or Mrs Kulele or whoever?

MR JOUBERT: The instructions are they want to lead evidence, testify in front of the Commission.

CHAIRPERSON: They just want to make a statement?

MR JOUBERT: They want to make a statement yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So who is it then Mr Dreyer? Do you know about it?

MR DREYER: Yes Mr Chairman, I've been furnished with the necessary opportunity to assist in the leading of the evidence if the Commission is prepared to accept it on that basis, I'm prepared to do so instead of Mr Joubert.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you Mr Joubert. Mr Dreyer?

MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, the first person would then be Mr Kulele himself.

CHAIRPERSON: This is just going to be making a statement?

MR DREYER: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kulele, what language do you want to make your statement in, what language do you want to use?

MR KULELE: I'll use Sotho.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. What's your full name please?

LUCKY MANETTE KULELE: Lucky Manette Kulele.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry what was the second name?

MR KULELE: M -a-n-t-t-e.

CHAIRPERSON: Kulele?

MR KULELE: K-u-l-e-l-e.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Dreyer, are you going to lead him or is he just going to make a statement?

MR DREYER: Mr Chairman I've been requested to just lead the evidence by means of a few questions so I think just to facilitate the leading of evidence I will do so.

CHAIRPERSON: Please proceed.

MR DREYER: Mr Kulele, could you just for the benefit of the Commission state your particulars, your current occupation?

MR KULELE: I'm still a policeman in the South African Police Services. I am stationed at National Logistics as a G.P. clerk, I'm a sergeant.

MR DREYER: During 1998 and on particularly on the ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: '88.

MR DREYER: Thank you Mr Chairman. During 1988 and more particularly on the 10th May 1988 were you a member of the South African Police and if so where were you stationed then?

MR KULELE: Silverton Police Station.

MR DREYER: In which division or branch of the South African Police?

MR KULELE: Could you repeat your question Sir?

CHAIRPERSON: In which division or branch of the police was he involved in at Silverton?

MR KULELE: I was at the uniformed branch at Silverton.

MR DREYER: Did any of your duties as such in the capacity that you served at that stage entail anything involving security branch or the work conducted normally by the security branch of the South African Police Force?

MR KULELE: No, I was not involved with the work of the security branch.

MR DREYER: On the 10th May 1988 you were resident at 855 Mamelodi Gardens, is that correct?

MR KULELE: That is correct.

MR DREYER: On that particular day between the hours of 6 o'clock and 6 of the next morning you were on duty, is that correct?

MR KULELE: Yes I was at work.

CHAIRPERSON: At six in the - was that night duty or day duty.

MR DREYER: 18.00 hours in the evening till 6 the next morning, Mr Chairman. Is that correct?

MR KULELE: That is correct.

MR DREYER: A certain incident happened at your house during your absence on duty, is that correct?

MR KULELE: That is correct.

MR DREYER: What do you know about the incident, how did it come to your knowledge, can you briefly explain to the Commission?

MR KULELE: I will explain in this way that on that particular day I left home around 5 p.m., I went to work, I was doing night duty. At dawn, if I'm not mistaken, around 1, past 1 in the morning I was taken by the police van, I was taken to Mamelodi. It was running fast. I enquired about the speed of the car, they did not explain but I could feel that there is something which has happened at home. When we were approaching the entrance in my yard, I met soldiers. They've cordoned off the street which is in my yard. When I alighted the police van, I alighted before it stopped. I saw my main bedroom where I used to sleep, I could see the smoke, I knew that that is where my wife and my child were sleeping. When I entered the yard ...[intervention]

INTERPRETER: Can you give him a moment please?

MR KULELE: ...[inaudible - no interpretation] so blankets and water and blood. One of my neighbours was busy with a hosepipe. In the bedroom there was nobody. I enquired about what happened. Those who were there told me that the house was bombed. I left there with the police car to my parent's home. I found my parents standing, all of them were crying. They told me that they received information that my house was bombed and it seems my child has died. We ran to the hospital, that is Mamelodi Hospital. When I arrived at the hospital I found my wife on a stretcher naked and she was bleeding. I asked her about the child. Other people told me where my child was. She was on the stretcher. They put a blanket over her. I pulled the blanket, the hand grenade fell on the child so I saw by the marks. I left the hospital and went home.

We went to Delmas Court after a while. In court the people I saw those who were alleged to be accused. Some of them I saw them here. If this Commission allows me to mention their names? The first one that is Bernard Mokgonyana. The second one, that is Toka. I last saw them in Delmas and then we went for the second time. We were informed that one of them escaped from prison, only three of them were left until I received a notice ...[inaudible] here because of that notice.

Some of them who are asking for amnesty before this Commission, I attended school with them especially Rodney Toka, we attended school together and Benny Mokgonyana, I used to stay with him at his place and at different houses and in my relatives, I used to see him every day. When I heard the day that it is him who is responsible or one of those who threw the hand grenade in the house and that person doesn't take responsibility, I don't know where we will get the truth, even where my child is sleeping, I don't know as whether she will sleep peacefully, but we who are behind, we will live without knowing the truth that my child was killed but we don't know who killed her.

Lastly what I want to say, there is nothing which I will do without the truth. I will not forgive anyone. The person who killed or the people who killed my child and who injured my wife and then who damaged my property, that would haunt them for life.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Kulele and if you want to do it on behalf of everybody involved with the Truth Commission that we extend our sincerest sympathies and our most hearfelt condolences to your tragic loss. Thank you, you may stand down Mr Kulele.

MR DREYER: Thank you Mr Chairman, I've also been requested to lead the evidence of Mrs Kulele which I suspect will be of a shorter duration. I would then call Mrs Kulele.

CHAIRPERSON: Mrs Kulele, what are your full names please?

ROSEMARY KULELE: Rosemary Kulele.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DREYER: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mrs Kulele, we have now heard the evidence of your husband in respect of this particular incident so I would immediately want to move to the incident as it occurred on the 10th May 1988 at your residence at that particular time. Can you just at the outset give us an indication of the fact that when this particular instance occurred, with whom were you at that stage, were there any other people in the house except yourself and your late baby?

MRS KULELE: When this attack happened I was sleeping but in my other bedroom there was my cousin. Whilst we were sleeping I heard a loud bang, then I woke up, I took the child quickly from the bed, I took her in the bedroom where my cousin-in-law was sleeping. I opened the door quickly then I shouted and told neighbours that the house was burning. After that the one neighbour came then I told them that I don't believe that my child is still alive.

MR DREYER: Mrs Kulele that particular evening your husband, as a policeman, was working nightshift, is that correct?

MR KULELE: Yes he was doing night duty.

MR DREYER: At what time did he leave in order to perform his duties that night?

MR KULELE: He left around 5 o'clock because he was going to start work at 6 o'clock.

MR DREYER: What type of injuries did you sustain yourself as a result of this particular blast, ma'am?

MR KULELE: I have a horrible scar behind by right shoulder, then some of my left fingers are not working properly.

MR DREYER: Mrs Kulele, we've already established that your baby died in this attack, is there anything in particular that you wish to relate to the Commission in respect of your child itself?

MR KULELE: She was a normal child, I don't think that she deserved to die that way. To will be able to do what these people would be able to do, the killers are occupying high positions now and I had a hope that he would contribute to this society and occupy high position like they do.

MR DREYER: And then lastly, Mrs Kulele, is there anything else that you would want to express in respect of the total incident and your viewpoint or your comment on that?

MR KULELE: May you please repeat your question?

CHAIRPERSON: The question was, was there anything else she would like to say regarding the incident or her viewpoints as to the incident.

MR KULELE: After this incident my life has changed and especially the injury I received at the back. I feel burdened, I don't feel normal like before. I'm not able to work physically with my hands as I used to.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you very much for that information Mrs Kulele and I'd just like to say how truly sorry we all are with the death of your child and our thoughts are with you. Thank you very much.

MR DREYER: Thank you Mr Chairman, that is what I was requested to do and that concludes the evidence tendered on behalf of those victims for which I appeared in the interim for my learned friend Mr Joubert.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Dreyer, I think then that

concludes all the evidence in this matter, is that correct?

MS MONYANE: Mr Chair, I have just - my client has indicated that she will also like to give a statement, just a little statement. It's Mrs Penyane.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you. How many more are we going to have, how many did you say? Mrs Penyane and then?

MS MONYANE: Mr Ndala would also like to be given an opportunity.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think we must co-ordinate these because otherwise it becomes an impossible situation and it might even lead to the stopping of it because it's not part of the hearing.

MR MOKONE: Mr Chairman, I am representing two families here and I have two wives also of the deceased policeman, your worship. They have just now indicated to me that they want to say something.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes I won't - but they've got to be short statements because you know we allow the victims to make statements because we think it's a good thing but if everyone after hearing the first one wants to speak, it will become impossible. Some hearings that I've been involved in have three, four, five hundred victims and what we normally do is we get a spokesperson to do it, you know, but I'll allow it but you must please say we want - it's got to be short, we're not trying to be hard on this, it's just - otherwise it becomes an impossibility, we won't have to be allowed to allow it at all if it gets out of hand.

ADV DE JAGER: Whose client would this be? Whose client is?

CHAIRPERSON: Who have we got here now.

MS MONYANE: Mr Chairperson, Mr Ndala is one of the victims who were injured in the three policemen attack. Oh sorry -

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I mean this - Mr Ndala what are your full names please?

CHARLES NDALA: I am Charles Ndala.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Ndala, what do you wish to say?

MR NDALA: The person, somebody said that I was a target because I was informing to Mr Ndala, that was a lie. I heard Kgotsa saying that I used to be visited by policemen, that was not the truth. There was a child who was staying in that house who left before and went to exile. We were looking for him not knowing where he was. We did not know where to look for him. Then Hlongwane came with the police and say she - the child slept for a long time and the police kept on asking us where this - or her whereabouts. We knew later that he was in Lusaka. After a few months my house was attacked. What was Hlongwane looking for in my house? Hlongwane was looking for this child and they alleged that I was an informer. Why does he lie in this way? He is lying, I was not the target, I was not hosting the police in my house because I was not a police, I was a taxi driver and I didn't concentrate on what was happening then they come before this Commission and say I am a target. This child and he was staying next to my house - where did he get this information that I was a target? I'm not even on the same age with his father. Who told me that I'm a target, why does he lie? He's asking for amnesty and he is lying. You can only forgive the person who tells the truth. He grew up in front of my house and he is the one who is coming to attack my house again. Why? I told his father and his mother that why that child attacked me. He is not telling the truth.

MS MONYANE: Mr Ndala, the Committee only allowed you to - they said they'll give you an opportunity to just make a short statement and you're not contributing to any evidence before the Committee and they would like to give an opportunity to also make statements such as yours.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Ndala.

Your full names please?

TAMELA MARY PENYANE: Tamela Mary Penyane.

I'm coming to talk on behalf of Mr Penyane. He was coming from work, he was taken by another policeman to somewhere then 8 o'clock they phoned me and say your husband has died. I was surprised about his death. I woke up, we were not at home at that time because we were busy renovating the

house at that time. I went to inform his family members. When we went to the hospital we found him certified dead. We enquired as to whether where did he die. After some time we were informed to appear in court.

When we arrived in court, at the Magistrate's Court, the case was postponed. When we were supposed to go again we were informed that they escaped. These people who have committed this crime grew just in front of us, I know even their parents because these people knew us, especially Pitsi. My mother-in-law knew them. We were neighbours and I'm surprised that he is stating today that he doesn't know my husband and that my husband was a target, I'm surprised why. It was for the first time my husband left and it was for the first time he entered that house. I don't know maybe he is the one who identified him as a target, now I am in difficulties. That house was not complete because we were renovating. The insurance didn't insure the house. When he was supposed to pay for the instalments, that is when I was mourning. After that I started selling liquor and then I was able to finish that house. I am unemployed. I started selling liquor so that I'll be able to pay the house because there was nowhere where to go. My children were sleeping late and were not able to study well. I don't know what Pitsi is thinking because he is my neighbour. You will suppose that when he's going to reconnoitre the house, seeing that my husband with there, I'm left with problems, I'm not able to take my children to school.

I started working four years back. It is difficult at home, I don't have somebody to help me. How can I forgive them, I cannot forgive Mr Pitsi, my neighbour. Why should I forgive him, he must just forget that he is even telling this Commission a lie, that he doesn't know my husband.

MS MONYANE: I think that will be enough. Let's give other victims an opportunity to also make a statement. We requested short statements. Thank you.

MRS PENYANE: Thank you for this opportunity.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mrs Penyane.

MR MOKONE: Mr Chairman, this is Constable Mope's widow. Ma'am please, we felt going back ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Could we just have your full names please?

ELIZABETH MOKADE MOPE: Elizabeth Mokade Mope.

MR MOKONE: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mrs Mope, we felt going back to the whole evidence of this Committee, can you just tell this Committee how the death of your husband has effected you but you must be as brief as possible.

MRS MOPE: Firstly I would say I want to thank this Commission or let me say I thank the Government for forming

this Commission because we felt pain that we knew that there were people who killed my husband and their case would not come to conclusion because they escaped. What hurt me most is that when my husband died we had just arrived in a new house and starting to pay for that house. When I told my children that I was coming before this Commission they were scared, afraid and emotionally hurt and they wanted to be here before this Commission. The people who killed my husband are working and I am suffering, I am unemployed. We'll not be able to forgive them. I will just say I forgive you but in my heart I will not. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mrs Mope.

MR MOKONE: Mr Chairman, the lady is the widow to Constable Mphahele.

CHAIRPERSON: What are your full names please?

WINNIE LUCILLO MPHAHLELE: Winnie Lucillo Mphahlele.

MR MOKONE: Thank you. Can you explain to this Committee briefly how this, the death of your husband, has effected you and your family?

MRS MPHAHLELE: I want to tell this Commission this that I am pleased that the people who were responsible for the death of a husband expose themselves, identify themselves. We saw them once in Delmas so I see them for the first time. I believe that they did not know me, I did not know them before. They killed my husband when my child was seven years. I have three children. I am working, I am a domestic worker and that the money I receive cannot meet all the means at home.

I'm still young to be a widow and then I'm not even able to take my children to school. At this time I know that they are working and they're dressed in suits and neatly. I want to tell this Committee that I will not be able to forgive these people because I'm still having a scar. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mrs Mphahlele.

MR MOLEFE: I have received a request from the applicants, they have elected a spokesperson and they request an opportunity to address all the victims, just to address them jointly at the moment and they will meet with those who would like to meet with them after.

ADV DE JAGER: They all had an opportunity.

MR MOLEFE: Yes Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: I think what we've done in the past, we can do that, we don't have to do that in full session. You know it's better than they meet separately and that can be arranged that they can meet in a room somewhere and speak. So that in fact it can be encouraged to do it, but I don't think you do it in full session.

MR MOLEFE: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: That concludes the evidence in the matter and all statements, now it's a question of submissions. That plan, Mr Dreyer, has that been agreed upon?

MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, Mr Molefe didn't seem to have any problem neither my colleague next to me. I don't know if Mr Mohlaba hasn't indicated if I can just hear from him?

MR MOHLABA: Chair, I'm unable to comment at this stage, I was unfamiliar with this situation as it was before the forming, I only came to Pretoria after the fact but if my colleague ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: I think what we'll do is, we'll have a very short five minute adjournment. If we could see legal representatives in our chambers as well, in our room as well.

Let's just take a short adjournment.

MR MOHLABA IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Chair. I would like to start Mr Chairman by addressing the - starting with the last aspect of the requirement of the Act for granting of amnesty. More particularly with regard to the incidents involving the killing of the three police officers.

Mr Chairman, I would want to start by addressing the question of full disclosure. One of the applicants here, being the first applicant, Mr Pitsi, elected not to mention the names of the informers who supplied him with information regarding the activities of the three deceased officers. It is submitted Mr Chairman that the names or the identity of the informers is not relevant to the Act or the offence for which they apply for amnesty, namely the killing of these three officers.

The importing of the word "relevant" in section 20(i)c of the Act in the Promotion of the National Unity and Reconciliation Act, in importing that word "relevant" you worship, I shall submit the legislature intended to highlight the facts which need to be disclosed, namely relevant facts only. The facts which the applicant is expected to fully disclose in order to pass the disclosure test are those facts which are relevant to the act of murdering the three police officers or the conspiracy to such murder, I submit, Mr Chairman. The identity of the ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: We seem to have Bach playing here. Continue?

MR MOHLABA: Thank you Chair. The identity of the source which furnished the applicant with information regarding the activities of the three deceased officers, Mr Chairman, I submit does not add or remove anything to the killing of the three deceased officers or the conspiracy to such murder. If for instance, Mr Chairman, acquisition of information from another person or soliciting of information from another person constituted a criminal offence and these applicants were approaching this Commission and apply for amnesty for such an offence, namely the soliciting of information or getting information from the informer, Mr Chairman, the disclosure of the identity of the informant will then become relevant. So I submit, Mr Chairman, that the applicants omission to disclose the identity, or rather let me call it an election not to disclose the identity of the informer, would make him to fail the full disclosure test if it was an offence to solicit information or to acquire information from an informer and he was applying for amnesty for such an act.

Mr Chairman, as the applicant is accepting full responsibility for the murder of the three officers, he is of the opinion that the disclosure of the identity of the informers will amount to passing of the buck or passing the blame to the informers and it will be a qualified acceptance of responsibility on his part which the applicant feels is not proper and he further believes that such disclosure will not be in the interest of reconciliation which this Commission seeks to promote. Consequently, I submit Mr Chairman that his election not to disclose more information about, rather the identity of such informers, renders him in no way to fail the test of full disclosure.

Then Mr Chairman, I would then want to move over and just highlight issues which were of common cause before this Committee. It is of common cause that all the applicants here, the nine applicants, were members of the African National Congress and it's military wing, uMkhonto weSizwe. It is further common cause that all applicants were arrested and charged with various offences which included, Mr Chairman, charges of being members or sympathizers of ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: I think the charges all relate to the contents of the applications as well if one looks at the indictment and the applications.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you Mr Chairman. And it is further common cause that all applicants belonged to various units of MK which operated in Atteridgeville, Pretoria and Mamelodi area. The commander of those units, the overall commander of these different units was the second applicant, Rodney Toka.

It's further common cause that the second applicant, Mr Toka, did not personally carry out the attack of which he is applying for amnesty. He was however involved in the planning and the authorization of the execution of such activities. Mr Toka confirms having issued various orders to his co-applicants and also confirms that there were in fact members of the ANC and it's military wing uMkhonto weSizwe.

The motive for which these offences were committed, Mr Chairman, I'll want to submit it was political. They wanted to achieve a political objective. I want to deal specifically with the issue of the Juicy Lucy, the so called Juicy Lucy bombing. We have heard the evidence of the victim, one of the victims, Mrs Prinsloo and she confirms that the operatives or the perpetrators of this offence, the people who had planted that bomb, were not known to her and she confirms that after this incident she was not robbed of any of her personal belongings. It is also known that the location where this explosive device was placed, it's not an area which is visited by people of a specific colour or people of a particular gender, it is known that every other person could have an access into this Juicy Lucy shop. The exact location of the explosive device I don't believe it's very material but it is fit that people of all walks of life would access that area. So it is very clear that in placing this device, the person who has placed the device did not have a score to settle with any person, in particular Mrs Prinsloo and her companions at that moment, so it is clear that the applicant did not benefit personally from this activity and this act of placing this device there was to dismantle the apartheid regime and consequently to enhance the - to further the aims of their principal, being the African National Congress and it's military wing.

ADV DE JAGER: The only question there would be if they were to enhance the battle of their principal, was in accordance with the policy of their principal.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you Mr Chairman. It has been - it's common cause, it's known also in the submissions of their principal, that civilians were not the target of the African National Congress and throughout the evidence of Mr Toka in particular, he was subjected to a lengthy cross-examination on that aspect. He confirms that the intended target was in fact the personnel of the South African defence force who according to the information gathered by their unit were frequenting that area and they believe that they were the targets aimed at. Mr Chairman may I just ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: A moment ago, the rest doesn't say, that place was visited by people - your own words - from all walks of life?

MR MOHLABA: Certainly Chair, if you'll allow me to continue with my address it will - I would want to address that point specifically that the area where this device was placed, anybody who is not a member of the SANDF would have been injured by that but it would appear that the specific instructions given to the particular operative was not "go out, place this bomb anywhere where you feel you want to place it, regardless of the fact that there could be innocent civilians who could be injured there". It would appear that they were given specific instructions to carry out. The fact that the instructions were not carried out the way the commander has instructed them to do, does not Mr Chairman I submit, changes the motive of the commander who applies for amnesty here.

Mr Chairman, the question of recklessness, or negligence on the part of the operative does not remove the motive which the commander seeks to achieve. It is true that innocent civilians were in fact injured as opposed to the intended target but that does not substitute the motive for which the device was placed there.

So Mr Chairman, I believe that the applicants have satisfied the requirements of the Act insofar as granting of amnesty is concerned, more particularly with regard to the two elements of the political objective and the disclosure aspect.

The third aspect will be the question of the application forms. It appeared Mr Chairman, that most of the application forms of some applicants were not attested by a Commissioner of Oaths. I want to submit Mr Chairman that the evidence which was led with regard to the contents of the application forms remedied the defect and Mr Chairman these forms were submitted I believe during May 1997 and this process of application of amnesty, it is a new process so the applicants relied mainly on the assistance of the TRC officials to who would normally be expected to request further particulars from them, send back the forms to them, ask them to get them commissioned but that I believe, due to their workload on the part of the officials of the TRC, that was not followed and the matter was enrolled for hearing, meaning that it is right for hearing. Had they been given an opportunity they could have clearly remedied that before the fact but I believe there is no prejudice with regard to the aspect of attesting before a Commissioner of Oaths and in conclusion I would submit that they have complied with the requirement of the Act and qualify for amnesty.

Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mohlaba. Mr Molefe, do you have any submissions?

MR MOLEFE: To save time, can I address the Committee from where I am?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes certainly.

MR MOLEFE: Thank you.

MR MOLEFE IN ARGUMENT: Mr Chairman, first and foremost, I'd just like to place it on record that we unfortunately received instructions very late in these applications. I received instructions on Monday afternoon after 5 o'clock actually and I was here the following day, that is on Tuesday, but however we bent backwards in order not to waste this Committee's time and we hope that this Committee will have that in mind when it considers my clients' applications, that it will take into consideration the fact that I only received the instructions very late. I've been advised by my clients that there was some confusion, they were under the impression that their applications will only be heard in February as one of the applicants had been advised like that. Having done that, I would like to now tend to the applications.

First and foremost, I will deal with - or let me say I represent amongst others, Mr George Mathe and I also represented Mr Johannes Maleka as well as Mr Joseph Nkosi. All of them Mr Chairman are members of the African National Congress and were members of the military wing uMkhonto weSizwe. In particular Mr Toka that their actions were part and parcel of their activities of members of uMkhonto weSizwe and that their actions had been sanctioned by the command structures of uMkhonto weSizwe under which they operated.

Mr Chairman, when it comes to Mr George Mathe, he also applied for amnesty in respect of the three policemen who died at Mariana Street and also for the people who were injured in that incident. He has testified that he was under command and as a soldier obeyed the orders of his commanders. His commander at that time, Mr Francis Pitsi has also testified and he has confirmed that indeed Mr Mathe was obeying his orders. I would just like to bring it to the attention of the Commission that even in the submissions that have been submitted by the African National Congress, the African National Congress, that is to say the National Executive of the African National Congress has accepted responsibility for this particular event. It is in one of ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Yes I've seen that Mr Molefe. It came up earlier in the proceedings that all the incidents, save for the Juicy Lucy one, were contained in the list.

MR MOLEFE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Mathe also applied for amnesty in respect of the blast that took place at Proess Street. He is the operative who placed the bomb under a Renault vehicle and no one was injured in that blast except for the property which was damaged. This particular blast coincided apparently with an important day in the calendar of the National Party and it was also intended as a propaganda action by the African National Congress and it's armed wing uMkhonto weSizwe. I submit that in as far as occurrence as well, Mr Mathe should also be granted indemnity in that it was in furtherance of the political objectives of uMkhonto weSizwe and the African National Congress. Although Mr Mathe did not take part in the blast which took place at the corner of Vermeulen and Andries Street, he has also applied for amnesty in respect of that event in that he was present when the planning took place and that he travelled together with the operative who eventually placed this particular blast at the corner of Andries and Vermeulen Street. It is my submission Mr Chairman that these two blasts could not be in actual fact separated but they served the same purpose, they were exposing the ruling party at that particular time, at the time when the ruling party was supposed to be celebrating on a date when in actual fact - on a date that was very important to the ruling party. It served some propaganda purposes. It is unfortunate that innocent civilians were injured in that particular blast.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Molefe, as far as the Juicy Lucy is concerned and as far as Mr Mathe there is concerned, I can appreciate that he was involved in the conspiracy to - or the planning, but he himself had no intention to injure any person there, he didn't partake anything there but he himself had no intention to injure any person there, he didn't partake in anything there so he didn't commit any offence except for the being involved in the conspiracy, is that correct?

MR MOLEFE: That is correct, that is correct Mr Chairman and I will leave it at that.

Mr Maleka also applied for amnesty in respect of the three murders and as well as for the people who were injured there and he has testified that the only reason why he applied for amnesty in respect of these offences was because there was an omission on his part.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think you really need address us on that I mean he said that he heard later about them and he didn't go and report them to the police. What offence would that be? I mean if I've heard that you've punched Mr Makona on the nose and I don't tell the police am I guilty of anything?

MR MOLEFE: Yes, that might be defeating the ends of justice or ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Yes but ones got to actually scratch around to find an offence, one's got to scratch to find an offence.

MR MOLEFE: He also applied for amnesty in respect of that blast which took place at the Atteridgeville municipality offices and it is a known fact that these were structures that had also been identified by the African National Congress as structures that have to be attacked and that it was in furtherance of the aims and the objectives of the African National Congress. He also applied for amnesty in respect of the blast which took place at the Saulsville Railway Station. This particular blast was according to him in support of the national stay away that had been called that was going to start on that particular Monday. It was therefore also in support of political objectives of the African National Congress and uMkhonto weSizwe in supporting the mass democratic movement inside the country at that time.

They also have applied for amnesty in respect of escaping from the Modderbee Prison and fortunately no one was injured in that particular incident and no property was damaged. Now I will ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: As far as escape is concerned nobody actually applied for the offence of escaping but they referred in their applications to the court case and from the court case it was clear from the evidence led at the actual trial of the last three that there was an escape so the facts of the escape was in fact covered in the documents before us.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on. The speaker's mike is not on.

ADV DE JAGER: ...[inaudible]

MR MOLEFE: That is correct Advocate de Jager and my submission is that it should be taken into consideration that the applicants completed these applications by themselves, they were not assisted by any attorney or any person who may have better knowledge of how to complete these applications and that it should be condoned and that the fact that at least they referred to the case which also referred to the issue of the escape, should be regarded as sufficient and that they should be granted amnesty.

Right, I will then turn to Mr Nkosi. Mr Nkosi basically is applying for amnesty in respect of the incident which happened at Mamelodi where Kulele's child died and where Kulele's wife was injured. I have to also put it on record at this stage that in the submissions by the African National Congress, this particular event is also listed and the African National Congress has accepted responsibility for the particular offence and I have also to place it on record that the applicant, as well as his commander, agree that a mistake, a terrible mistake happened in respect of this operation and that it was not the intention of the organisation to kill an innocent child and injure a women and that the intended target actually was Mr Kulele who was a policeman at that particular time.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Molefe, his commander said that he was an operative, that he was instructed to carry out the deed. He denies that.

MR MOLEFE: I agree and I concede that the commander, Mr Toka, has ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just before you get into - there's actually three contradictions, two at least. You've got the contradiction between Benny the operative, the alleged operative, let me put it that way and Mr Nkosi. Mr Nkosi said he was present when Benny was given the instruction to carry it out and later, some months later, Benny told him that he had done it. Benny denies that, so that's contradiction number one and then the other contradiction is between Mr Toka and Mr Nkosi. Mr Toka says Benny and Mr Nkosi were the persons who carried it out whereas your client says no, he wasn't involved at all except that he was present when the planning was done.

MR MOLEFE: I will first deal with the contradictions or perceived contradictions between the applicant and Mr Toka. Mr Toka in his evidence did not or he said that the operatives who carried out this particular action were Mr Nkosi as well as Benny. Now I don't remember anything in the evidence of Mr Toka which said that the person who threw the hand grenade ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: No there wasn't any evidence, Mr Toka didn't identify the person who threw the hand grenade, he didn't say either of them, he just said that the operatives, the people who were involved in that incident were Messrs Nkosi and Bonyana I think the name was, Benny.

MR MOLEFE: That is correct and Mr Nkosi has accepted responsibility in respect of this particular offence. He has said that he is also equally to blame, he accepts responsibility. However, he has denied that he is in actual fact the person who threw the hand grenade into Kulele's house. He advanced his reasons why, he said that ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Denies that he was there at all.

MR MOLEFE: That is correct, he denies that he was there on the day when this incident took place, he was not at that scene. He has advanced his reasons as to why he takes responsibility, equal responsibility for this particular offence in that he was Mr Mokgonyana's commander and that he is the one who introduced Mr Mokgonyana to Mr Toka and then as a result of this contact that eventually this action took place. There is mention in Mr Toka's evidence of a certain gentleman by the name of Webster whose whereabouts are presently not known.

CHAIRPERSON: It seems from the evidence, we don't know but he's probably dead if - that's what we've heard.

MR MOLEFE: That is correct and from the evidence it appears that he in actual fact crossed sides in that he apparently became an Askari. This particular person apparently also had a lot to do with this particular incident in that he's the one who provided Mr Toka with the intelligence report. He's the one apparently was responsible for the reconnaissance of Mr Kulele's house and it is important to note that eventually this person apparently became an Askari. The contradictions between Mr Nkosi and Mr Mokgonyana, Mr Mokgonyana apparently has denied that he was in the same unit as Mr Nkosi but from his evidence it's clear that he definitely was carrying out instructions from uMkhonto weSizwe and he was carrying those instructions out in cahoots with Mr Nkosi. He did not carry out those instructions for instance providing transport to members of uMkhonto weSizwe, transporting arms and so forth, he wouldn't have done that as a civilian, it's improbable that he did that as just somebody who did not know what he was doing and I submit that Mr Mokgonyana is just trying to save his skin by denying all knowledge of Mr Nkosi or of the discussions that may have take place in between Mr Nkosi and himself as well as Mr Toka. It is my submission that Mr Nkosi disclosed everything that he was supposed to disclose in respect of this particular offence, that his disclosure was full and that he too should be granted amnesty in respect of this particular offence.

I would also like to refer the Committee to some of the submissions made by the African National Congress to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and I will just quote just briefly from them so that maybe the context of some of the statements should be understood. I will start with the first submission made by the African National Congress, dated August 1996, at page 51 and that will now be on the right hand side -no, no, I think page 52, that's correct. Yes, where Oliver Tambo issues the following statement:

He's explaining now the position taken at Thabwe.

And on the right hand side on page 52: ...[intervention]

ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr Molefe, as I recall when I read that document I think about two years back, do they not later explain that there was deliberate action on their part to phase out the distinction between the two, so called soft targets and hard targets?

MR MOLEFE: That is so but I think the essence of what Oliver Tambo said is that we have now at that stage entered a new terrain and that the distinction between hard and soft targets was slowly going to disappear as the struggle intensified.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Molefe I think we've had that before us but if you could kindly give us the references, the page references to all the extracts you'll refer to and we could have a look at it?

MR MOLEFE: Maybe I should just not necessarily read all the extracts but on page 52 as well, there is reference to an ANC official pamphlet titled "Take the Struggle to the White Areas" and that targets were identified and this is very important:

police in this particular instance is not even qualified, just "police".

"...death squads, agents and stooges in our midst"

and I will also like to refer to page 58 at paragraph 6.2.4. I also don't think it's necessary that I should read the whole paragraph but it deals with conduct of/or civil casualties and my submission in this respect is that African National Congress realised that there will be civilian casualties as and when some operations are carried and that it would be difficult to altogether avoid civil casualties. Now in as far as the forms are concerned, I have read Section 18 of the Act which says that the applicants must complete an application in the prescribed form and the prescribed apparently needs that it must attested before a Commissioner of Oaths. Section 19 says that:

I suppose the legislature had in mind here applicants who are not sophisticated, who would not know or who would not for instance complete the forms properly and that they should be given assistance by the Committee by referring the form back and are given such directions as may be necessary in the completion of the forms and none of the applicants that I represent had their forms sent back but it is my submission that they have testified under oath and confirmed what is in their applications and the fact that they've testified under oath remedies the shortfall that was in their applications and the fact that it was not before a Commissioner of Oaths should be condoned.

That is all Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Molefe.

Do you want to continue now or do you want to continue tomorrow morning?

MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, I would prefer continuing tomorrow in view of my own commitments that I have but I would also like to do some - on a certain aspect which has now come to light in the address of my learned friend which I would just like to follow up?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Joubert?

MR JOUBERT: Mr Chairman, I don't know, the other colleagues, I've just discussed with Advocate Dreyer, we can even start tomorrow morning at 8 o'clock, we don't have an objection to an early start.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes unfortunately tomorrow you can only sit until 1 o'clock, you can't sit later than 1, I unfortunately have to catch an aeroplane and I don't have the option in the destination I'm going to change the flight. There's only one flight and I miss it then I'm stranded for the weekend sort of thing.

MR JOUBERT: Mr Chairman, as far as I'm concerned I have no foreseeability that we won't be able to finish before 1.

CHAIRPERSON: If we start at 9 do you think we'll finish at 1?

MR JOUBERT: I would submit so, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes alright then thank you. We'll then adjourn now and we'll continue with the argument at 9 o'clock tomorrow, between 9 and 1 but hopefully we should finish. I must say the argument up to now has taken - has gone through quite quickly.