DAY: 3

______________________________________________________ CHAIRPERSON:   This bundle, Exhibit 4, I think that this will be in effect the fourth bundle we’ve received. The applications, supplement two, and supplement one.

ADV STEENKAMP:   ...(indistinct). Just again Mr Chairman, there is a sworn statement. A copy was made available to you yesterday afternoon and is in front of you. Additional statements also made available regarding this specific application, but I’m sure my learned colleague will deal with that. Thank you sir.

CHAIRPERSON:   Mr Sibeko I just want to enlighten you that we decided during the course of yesterday or the day before, that because some of the names were so closely related, either by sound or spelling, that when an applicant comes to testify, his identity number would be given to us as well. I don’t know if you’ve got it on hand. If not, during one of the breaks could you please get it, if you haven’t got it now.

MR SIBEKO:   I’ll find it our Mr Chairman.

MR SIBANYONI:   Mr Sibeko there is a number on page 111, can your client confirm whether the number is correct?

MR SIBEKO:   The number has been confirmed to be correct, sir.

CHAIRPERSON:   0210 5393 08 3. Is that correct?

MR SIBEKO:   It’s correct Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON:   Mr Radebe, which language would you prefer to use?

MR RADEBE:   Zulu.

CHAIRPERSON:   Have you any objections to the taking of the oath?

MR RADEBE:   (sworn, states)

CHAIRPERSON:   Be seated. Yes Mr.

EXAMINATION BY MR SIBEKO:   Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Radebe, you have made an application for amnesty. Is that correct?

MR RADEBE:   Yes.

MR SIBEKO:   You have also supplemented your application with a sworn statement that was signed in Alberton on the 1st day of February 1999. Is that correct?

MR RADEBE:   That’s correct.

MR SIBEKO:   Your application for amnesty, is it related to any Self-Defence Unit activities that occurred in Tokoza?

MR RADEBE:   That’s true.

MR SIBEKO:   During the periods 1990 to 1993, were you part of any political structures?

MR RADEBE:   Yes.

MR SIBEKO:   Do you mind letting us know about those structures.

MR RADEBE:   I was a member of Sanco, and executive member, sectional, Sanco executive sectional. I was a ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON:   Mr Radebe I prefer you to use your mother tongue, it’s being translated for me, for us. I think you’d be more comfortable with Zulu. You can answer in Zulu and we get the translation.

INTERPRETER:   May the applicant tune in to channel four.

CHAIRPERSON:   Turn that thing to channel four.

MR RADEBE:   I was a member of Sanco, and ANC member as well, youth league that is. As well as I used to assist in terms of establishing the SDU’s.

MR SIBEKO:   Sir, you have indicated that you were an executive member of the sectional of Sanco. Were you an office bearer in the ANC youth league, or the ANC?

MR RADEBE:   Yes, I was, I was a member of the executive committee. The ANC youth league, as well as the Sanco section, I was also an executive member.

MR SIBEKO:   Now at what level were you an executive member of the youth league? Is it branch level, regional, national?

MR RADEBE:   ANC youth league, I was the branch executive member, as I’ve already finished the information that with the Sanco I will go as far as section, so we would have such meetings that I will be part of, sectional meetings that is, as far as Sanco is concerned.

CHAIRPERSON:   Yes, at some stage during your, during the period, you were involved in the Self-Defence Units. Correct?

MR RADEBE:   Yes. I held, or I played some role in establishing the Self-Defence Unit.

CHAIRPERSON:   Is it correct that, that those Self-Defence Units were established as part of strategic plans, by the African National Congress, in order to defend its members against political attacks, physical political attacks?

MR RADEBE:   The motive behind establishing these SDU’s was to protect, protect and defend the dwellers from the attacks.

CHAIRPERSON:   Now, you’ve told us that you were involved in the establishment of these Self-Defence Units. Did you, at any time, become a member of one of them and participate in any of their activities, or what is the position?

MR RADEBE:   Yes, to a certain extent.

CHAIRPERSON:   Now tell us to which unit you were attached, and let’s carry on from there as to what you actually did.

MR RADEBE:   I’m thinking maybe the Amnesty Committee does not have the full background as to the formation and the activities of the SDU. Maybe I’ll be afforded an opportunity to explain and furnish further information as to the activities and operations of the SDU if the Committee so ...(indistinct).

CHAIRPERSON:   We have been given numerous documentation and in previous hearings there has been testimony, as to the strategic basis for which Self-Defence Units were established, and how it works. Should there be aspects that we are not sure of, we will ask you. At the moment we have an appreciation for the basis for which the Self-Defence Units existed.

MR RADEBE:   What I did ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON:   Well let me help you. To which SDU were you attached?

MR RADEBE:   I was attached to the senior people of ANC like Robert MacBride and others. I used to work hand in hand with them and we used to call them or refer to them with their code names, not with their real names. They did not want the police to know their real names, so in order to protect their identity we’ll have to use code names.

CHAIRPERSON:   Now in what capacity did you serve on, can I call it a senior committee?

MR RADEBE:   Yes, because there was a time when I was given firearms and it rested upon my responsibility to command others, so in a way I think I worked close with the senior, or the seniors of the organisation.

CHAIRPERSON:   Were you a commander?

MR RADEBE:   Yes, in that particular unit.

CHAIRPERSON:   Now that unit, where would it operate? In which area?

MR RADEBE:   There were times when we will get together or combine with another unit which was formed in a place called Polla Park. We’ll get together and also combine with other units that, whose leader was Allrose and other existing units around the area.

CHAIRPERSON:   But you talk as if those were isolated instances. I’m talking generally. Where were your area of operations?

MR RADEBE:   My unit was based in Penduka.

CHAIRPERSON:   Yes, now, as a commander in that unit, what did you do in connection with the incidents for which you applied for amnesty?

MR RADEBE:   First of all, there was a time after we combined with the unit from Polla Park, certain policemen were shot at night, and the Hippo, the police vehicle, Caspir that is, was, we took it and we used it to go to Katuza.

CHAIRPERSON:   Before we continue, let us establish, to make things easier, what is it you’re applying for in the first place, then we can deal with it incident by incident. Do you understand what I’m saying? Or maybe Mr Sibeko, you can guide us on that one, please.

MR SIBEKO:   With your permission Mr Chairman. The application is for his involvement in the establishment of the units. The incident that occurred in 1991.

CHAIRPERSON:   What crime would be involved there?

MR SIBEKO:   It will be a murder of a police officer. It would be attacks at the Katuza hostel, the very same, it’s connected to the very same incident.

CHAIRPERSON:   ...(inaudible) malicious injury to property, or arson, or something. What would that be?

MR SIBEKO:   It would be malicious injury to property.

CHAIRPERSON:   ...(inaudible)

MR SIBEKO:   It would be malicious injury to property, to a vehicle belonging to Bishop ...(indistinct) Khumalo.

CHAIRPERSON:   ...(inaudible)

MR SIBEKO:   It’s a second incident.

CHAIRPERSON:   ...(inaudible)

MR SIBEKO:   That will be all Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON:   ...(inaudible) two incidents but three crimes?

MR SIBEKO:   That’s correct so Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON:   ...(inaudible) Mr Radebe, let us take the first incident. The one of the murder of the policeman. Can you tell us what your part in that incident was?

MR RADEBE:   We were patrolling in the middle of the night in Polla Park, combined with the other unit. And police and soldiers came to harass the community. And we agreed amongst ourselves that the police are harassing us and yet the IFP was attacking during the day. We decided that we will shoot the police because of their acts. I took my firearm, and the other men took their firearms as well, and we left with the intention of going to kill. We shot indiscriminately, we kept shooting, until we got an opportunity to injure some of the policemen. But one policeman I saw in the morning, I realised he was dead. We decided to take the Caspir and use it for counter attacks to the hostel dwellers, because they had attacked previously during the day. And one colleague of mine drove the Hippo. If I remember very well, Nyauza was the name of the colleague who drove the Caspir.

CHAIRPERSON:   Just hold on. Mr Sibeko, the taking of the Caspir, would that not have amounted to theft?

MR SIBEKO:   It would amount to theft Mr Chairman. I beg leave it also be included.

MR RADEBE:   We proceeded to the hostel, Katuza hostel that is. We went, we got off, alighted from the Caspir and we knocked at the doors and the windows of the hostel, and we shouted they should wake up and open the doors, we are here to attack. And as they woke up they switched on the lights and we started firing towards them and threw the petrol bombs into their room. It took about some time because we did that to numerous hostel rooms, and we decided it’s time to go back now. We went back to the Caspir and we drove towards the first hostel, and we found them standing there amazed as to what was happening, and I do believe that they thought these were police and we started at shooting at them since they were not running away. We shot towards them and we drove towards Polla Park.

Just towards Polla Park we decided to stop the Caspir and alight from the Caspir, and walked into the neighbourhood.

MR SIBEKO:   Now sir, when you started telling us about this incident, you said you were with some men, and throughout you only mentioned Nyawuza who had been the driver of the Caspir. Who else was there? Who else was part of the group at Polla Park?

MR RADEBE:   We were together with Umshala, our cousin, the one who was deployed by ANC, plus Nyawuza and Dlamini. Well I will not be in a position to furnish the real names of the other colleagues, because we used code names. Taking into consideration the fact that this happened some time ago I may have, or I have certainly forgotten some of the names.

MR SIBEKO:   Now in carrying out this attack, was there anything that you gained? You as the group, that is the unit?

MR RADEBE:   We did not gain anything. But because there was this attack, continuous attack, that day, carrying from during the day towards the night, we sort of believed that we should take it upon ourselves to go and attack as well. In other words we were satisfied by what happened. They attacked and we attacked as well, because really they attacked us for no apparent reason.

MR SIBEKO:   Are you aware whether were the people who were attacked at Katuza who might have died, or injured as a result? That is when you got into Katuza with this Caspir.

MR RADEBE:   As I’ve already explained that, when they switched, immediately they switched on their lights and we will see people inside, we will start shooting immediately, but as for me, to say that we managed to kill or injure how many, I’m not able to furnish that much information. But somehow the following day we believed that there were some people who died. As to the number, we are not sure, or to date, I don’t know.

MR SIBEKO:   So in the event that information is to be said to be true, you would also want to be given amnesty for such activity?

MR RADEBE:   Yes, my request is that because of that atrocity that we committed I would like to be granted amnesty thereof.

CHAIRPERSON:   But you’re not too sure what crime was committed. You yourself.

MR RADEBE:   Please repeat your question. The question is a bit ambiguous.

CHAIRPERSON:   You are not certain what crimes were committed in that incident, are you?

MR RADEBE:   Yes, I don’t have evidence as to the people who were injured or who died as a result of that attack. But as I’ve already explained there, subsequently as we were going around trying to get some information in relation to the attack previously, we did manage to know that there were people who died as a result. The Inkatha Freedom Party leader did go to the hostel to inspect the damage after that.

CHAIRPERSON:   This all occurred during 1991?

MR RADEBE:   Yes, I think between 1990 and 1991.

CHAIRPERSON:   Carry on.

MR SIBEKO:   Who is the Inkatha leader who went to the hostel to inspect the damage?

MR RADEBE:   During the day, the following day, the president, the apparent president of the IFP did arrive at Tokoza. I’m referring to Mangasothu.

MR SIBEKO:   Now about the other incident where the bakkie of Mr, or of the bishop, was attacked. What happened?

MR RADEBE:   We were in one of the places called Lusaka A, together with the soldiers, the SDU members that is, of Lusaka A. We were contacted by the community that there was a van driving around shooting indiscriminately to the community members, and we had with us the AK-47. We then left instantly to go after the van. Fortunately we recovered the van and they were still shooting, and we had no choice but to shoot back at the van. Bishop Khumalo’s van that is. Because he also had harassed to great extent the community, especially the youth of Tokoza.

MR SIBEKO:   So, you just indicate that the said bakkie was attacked. How, and what is the extent of the damage to the said bakkie? How was it attacked? What was used? And what was the extent of the damage?

MR RADEBE:   We did not burn it, but I think the way we were shooting at that bakkie was ...(indistinct) and I’m sure of the fact that it was highly damaged. But they managed to escape still. Then we did not subsequently discover as to how much damage it sustained, the vehicle that is.

MR SIBEKO:   Is there any other thing that you would want to add that is, that relates to this application, that is the incidences that you have mentioned today.

MR RADEBE:   As we are well aware that there is peace and stability in the community of Tokoza, I think if Khumalo himself, or his, the organisation that he was affiliated, and people that sustained injuries as a result of this attack, I would like to voice out this plea. We should come together and reconcile in light of creating peace, this is essential for us to do. To reconcile and put back the past and move on peacefully.

MR SIBEKO:   And you also would agree with me that the same sentiment also goes to other people who might have been harmed or hurt as a result of all the activities that you were involved in during the times of violence?

MR RADEBE:   What I’m trying to explain here is that all the families that lost their beloved ones during the time of this violence, I would like to plead with them that we should move on now and peacefully so.

MR SIBEKO:   Thank you Mr Chairman. I’ve got no further questions for the applicant.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV STEENKAMP:   Thank you Mr Chair, just one or two questions. Sir according to the amnesty application on page 115, I’m referring to paragraph 11(b) Mr Chairman, do you have that? You’re saying there:

Did you, who was, can you first of all tell me who was your commanding officer, or did you have a commanding officer?

MR RADEBE:   As I was explaining, that the organisation of ANC had deployed people. If there was a need and we were in a situation that we are able to protect the community, the gentleman called Mashana was the one giving instructions or orders to me. In other words, Mashana was the one issuing orders to me.

ADV STEENKAMP:   And the actions for which you are applying for amnesty for, did he give you instructions to be engaged in these actions as well, or did he authorise these actions?

MR RADEBE:   I did not out of my own volition do this, or authorise myself to act the way I did. But the Committee must be clear about one thing, that the situation that prevailed at the time in Tokoza, there are some place, especially when being attacked, there would be no time to wait upon the commander or instruction. You would have to act and use your own discretion and counteract the situation. You would have to decide there and then to do something without any issuing of an order whatsoever.

ADV STEENKAMP:   Thank you Mr Chairman

ADV GCABASHE:   I have no questions thanks.

MR SIBANYONI:   On page two, paragraph 7, of your affidavit you are saying,

Were any people injured or murdered during those other several incidents?

MR RADEBE:   Yes. I think this I must say it in black and white, there are people who sustained injuries or died for that matter. Referring to paragraph 7 of the affidavit, I think there I’m trying to explain about the situation that prevailed during the day of the funeral of Sam Ntuli, where many people were killed, and where we were called as one of the units that people will be going to, or people attended Sam Ntuli’s funeral were being killed and attacked from the taxi ranks towards the inner part of the area.

Once you were seen wearing a T-shirt bearing ANC colours you will be attack for that. And there were kombis that were shown by people around. Those were the kombis that were attacking the people attending the funeral. And we started then shooting at such people who were attacking. Now on that very day many people sustained injuries and many were killed. So I’m not in a position to say as to exactly how many did I kill or how many did I injure, but because of the situation that prevailed I am certain of the fact that people were injured and people died.

MR SIBANYONI:   Thank you Chairperson, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON:   The Caspir that was stolen. Why was it stolen?

MR RADEBE:   Mr Chair, that Caspir we had to take. Number one, we were highly infuriated because during the day we were not able to attack back the attackers, IFP that is, because the very same stability Caspirs were escorting these IFP people to attack the community. Now the IFP was well protected by the police, and they had within their, on their possessions firearms, numerous of them. Now we had no-one to be on our side, or on our side, to reinforce us or to work hand in hand with us as Inkatha had police on their side as well as the soldiers.

Now the way we viewed the police were, was in such a way that they were working hand in hand with Inkatha attacking the community.

CHAIRPERSON:   And as I understand your evidence, is that broadly speaking the fighting was taking place between members of the, who were attached, to the IFP or supported the IFP, as against people who were members or associates of the ANC.

MR RADEBE:   Please may you repeat your question.

CHAIRPERSON:   Broadly speaking the fights that were occurring in the area, the battles, were being fought by members or supporters of the IFP as against members or supporters of the ANC, and their allies I suppose.

MR RADEBE:   Yes, that is correct. The IFP members were attacking the leaders and the followers of ANC as well as the community at large, because there were people who were harassed yet not politically affiliated to any of the organisations. And by the same token there were people that were killed from the IFP side who were not necessarily IFP members, but sustained injuries or were caught in this fire.

CHAIRPERSON:   And one last question. During this attack on the van of Bishop Khumalo, did you also shoot?

MR RADEBE:   Please repeat the last part of your question.

CHAIRPERSON:   Did you also actively participate in the attack by shooting or doing whatever else?

MR RADEBE:   Yes, I took part. I shot as well.

CHAIRPERSON:   And that attack was the result of your order?

MR RADEBE:   As I’ve already explained that, as the community we had, even the community, the other part of the community, had fired shots and we were not aware about the fact that Khumalo was there with his gang shooting and attacking. So it was not my decision as such that we should kill but it was the decision that was taken by the unit or the SDU members that I was in their company that we should now attack.

CHAIRPERSON:   And then you had to give authority for that attack, not so? I’ll tell you why I’m asking. Because in your supplementary affidavit, paragraph 3.1, you there say, that you instructed an attack on the bakkie belonging to Bishop Khumalo.

MR RADEBE:   Yes I will say that I did issue that instruction, but as I’ve already explained previously that the community was running and rushing to us to inform us that there was an attack that was going on, and I uttered such words as, "let’s go back, let’s go." So obviously that was, that formed a counter attack. But we took it as a group

CHAIRPERSON:   Now, this Caspir that you took also, was it taken purely for the purposes of facilitating the defence of people?

MR RADEBE:   I may agree with you. In that we were defending the community. You see the police plus the IFP people were coming to attack during the day, but we’re not, or we’re unable to retaliate or to defend ourselves at the time. But now at that time we deemed it fit for us to go now and attack.

CHAIRPERSON:   In short and in plain language, it was not taken for the purpose of running a taxi business, but it was taken for the purpose of progressing your struggle.

MR RADEBE:   First of all it was at night, people were asleep and we were ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON:   Mr Radebe listen to the question. You’ve repeated yourself on a number of occasions. I just want to get something straight here for the purposes of our decision. That Caspir was not taken from the police after they were shot for the purpose of running something for somebody’s private business, but it was taken to facilitate your struggle.

MR RADEBE:   Yes.

CHAIRPERSON:   Mr Sibeko have you got any questions?

MR SIBEKO:   None thanks, Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman this is the only application that I had for today. May I be excused for now? I’d like

CHAIRPERSON:   ...(inaudible)

MR SIBEKO:   Mr Chairman the other matters that I have are purely chamber matters. I therefore request that I be excused.

CHAIRPERSON:   In the circumstances you are then excused. Mr Steenkamp?

ADV STEENKAMP:   Mr Chairman I hate to ask for an adjournment, but I understand Mr Lawly Shane just gave me a request that needs another five minutes to prepare and in the circumstances I would like to ask that we make, if it’s possible to adjourn for two or three minutes Mr Chairman. I can just find out what ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON:   Where is he?

ADV STEENKAMP:   ...(indistinct)

CHAIRPERSON:   Well we’ll adjourn and you can call us as soon as he’s ready.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

MR SHANE:   I will be able to now run the next three matters without any adjournments Mr Chairman. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON:   Who’s the next?

MR SHANE:   This applicant Mr Chairman is Jimmy Nkosinati Makhondo, and his testimony is on page 233 to 239.

CHAIRPERSON:   Has he got an identification number?

MR SHANE:   He does Mr Chairman, he knows it off by heart and I was going ...

MR SHANE: Mr Chairman before you is Jimmy Nkosinati Makhondo, if he can be sworn in, I can -

CHAIRPERSON:   What is his ID number? Have you got it?

MR SHANE:   He doesn’t have an ID document. He informs me he doesn’t have an ID document. He might know his ID number.

CHAIRPERSON:   Advise him to get one otherwise he’s not going to be able to vote. Mr Makhondo, what language would you prefer to use?

MR MAKHONDO:  Zulu.

CHAIRPERSON:   Have you any objection to the taking of the oath?

JIMMY NKOSINATI MAKHONDO:   (sworn, states)

EXAMINATION BY MR SHANE:   Mr Makhondo, your ID number is 771106 9456 08 0 is that correct?

MR MAKHONDO:   Yes, that’s true.

MR SIBANYONI:   Can I interrupt you sir? How do you pronounce your surname?

MR MAKHONDO:   Makhondo.

MR SHANE:   Right, Mr Makhondo, you were an ordinary member of the ANC and also a member of the Self-Defence Unit in Extension 2 Tokoza. Correct?

MR MAKHONDO:   Yes, that’s true.

MR SHANE:   You are applying for amnesty for attempted murder, and for the possession of unlicensed firearms and ammunition, is that correct?

CHAIRPERSON:   What is he applying for?

MR MAKHONDO:   That’s true.

MR SHANE:   Attempted murder, and the possession of unlicensed firearms and ammunition. The attempted murder happened on the 26th of November 1993, correct?

MR MAKHONDO:   Nineteen ninety what?

MR SHANE:   Three.

MR MAKHONDO:   Yes, that’s true.

MR SHANE:   Is it also correct that for these offences, attempted murder and the unlawful possession of firearm and ammunition, you were arrested, charged and convicted, and sentenced to 12 years imprisonment?

MR MAKHONDO:   Yes, that’s true.

MR SHANE:   In which Court did this happen?

MR MAKHONDO:   Germiston Court.

MR SHANE:   You have also appealed but your appeal has not been dealt with pending these proceedings. Is that correct?

MR MAKHONDO:   Very true.

CHAIRPERSON:   Mr Makhondo, tell me what happened on the 26th of November 1993.

MR MAKHONDO:   It was in the morning around half past five, or five o’clock in the morning. I was given a command by my commander to patrol around and inspect the situation.

ADV GCABASHE:   Just the name of your commander? It will help now.

MR MAKHONDO:   Patrick Thandixolo Ngcobo. Yes, Patrick Thandixolo Ngcobo.

MR SHANE:   Yes, can you carry on explaining.

MR MAKHONDO:   I was approaching through the passage and I saw policemen driving three private cars. That marked the beginning of me investigating the way as to how they got there, and I had to take cover immediately because one of the cars passed. The second car was a car that belonged around the location and I knew it. The second car, that is I’m still referring to, parked by and there was one policeman and another ordinary man inside, black man. And they alighted from the car and they told me to throw away my gun, and I answered them, and I said, I’m not going to do as they instruct, and he started shooting. And I had to lie down on the ground and shooting back.

After shooting twice one kombi approached behind, and there were six white men in that kombi, about six white men, and they started shooting as well. And I fled. And they tried to block me, and I went up the tree, I climbed up the tree, and shooting from the tree down I shot about six times towards them and they shot back. I fell down, that was after I got shot on my leg.

MR SHANE:   So you got shot by these, one of these white people. Is that correct?

MR MAKHONDO:   The person I suspect shot me was the black one, the one who was talking in Zulu, speaking in Zulu. He is the first man who told me to put down my weapon previously.

CHAIRPERSON:   You clarified certain issues with him during consultation. Something troubles me.

MR SHANE:   Sorry Mr Chairman ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER:   The speaker’s microphone is not activated.

CHAIRPERSON:   ...(inaudible) to explain my concern.

MR SHANE:   Before that Mr Chairman ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER:   The speaker’s microphone is not activated.

MR SHANE:   I think you misunderstood me. I was clarifying something with my next client Mr Chairman, not this individual, sir. The person I’m calling, the person that I was clarifying something to was a person called Jimmy, I mean Goodman Nyadise Mbuli. He’s the ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON:   In the interests of your client I want to pose this question to him. On his evidence thus far, what crime did he commit?

MR SHANE:   With respect Mr Chairman I’m about to lead him. The crime is attempted murder. I’m, he’s, with respect Mr Chairman his evidence, he’s giving his evidence. He’s not completed. It will emerge ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON:   ... (inaudible) to cover it.

MR SHANE:   Thank you sir, no it’s coming sir.

ADV GCABASHE:   Can I just get a bit of clarity on one aspect. I’m sorry I just didn’t take note. Am I correct in saying that what happened was you were out on patrol, these three vehicles approached, essentially, you ducked for cover, they told you to give up your firearm, you refused to do so, and you shot and them, and shooting occurred. Is that essentially what you’ve said to us so far? After that a kombi with six white men came. Is that essentially what you’ve said?

MR MAKHONDO:   Yes, that’s true.

ADV GCABASHE:   I just didn’t get what happened after the six white men in the kombi came. If you can start from that point please.

MR MAKHONDO:   When I started shooting towards the second car, private car, the one that I said it was familiar to me because it was from the location or the residential area, I was not aware of the kombi that was emerging as well. The only time I got aware of this kombi was when I started shooting. The third car I did not see. I only saw that car after I shot the familiar private car, and I started shooting towards that one now, the other car.

MR SHANE:   When you shot into the vehicle with the six white policemen, why did you shoot? What did you want to achieve by it?

MR MAKHONDO:   Shooting of this vehicle, the motive of this, to kill all the white, all the boers who were in that kombi. That was the only reason why, or the motivation why I did that.

MR SHANE:   Now it’s also correct ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON:   This kombi, was that part of the three vehicles, or was that a fourth vehicle?

MR MAKHONDO:   The three cars were together.

CHAIRPERSON:   And the kombi, or was the kombi part of the three?

MR MAKHONDO:   There were three cars, plus the, including the kombi.

MR SHANE:   You said you wanted to kill the boers in that kombi. Was your life actually in danger at the time? In other words, you were not really defending your life when you did that. You just wanted to kill these whites because they were the enemy. Is that true?

MR MAKHONDO:   The reason why I started shooting was to defend myself, because the second car I’m referring to, they had already pointed a gun towards me.

MR SHANE:   After you got shot, who are the people that took you to hospital?

MR MAKHONDO:   I was ferried by the same police to the hospital. In fact they pulled me down. I think I went up to the hospital about eight or nine at Greywater.

MR SHANE:   Do you agree that it wasn’t the intention of the police to kill you, because if they wanted to kill you they would have anyway?

MR MAKHONDO:   I would say that the reason, what they’d aimed at, was to kill me. The reason why I’m saying that is the, firstly, the first car saw me and ignored me. The second car, the person inside the second car said I should drop down my weapon. He started shooting first and I fell down and shot back. I think if I did not fall he would have killed me.

MR SHANE:   Why were the police regarded as enemies?

MR MAKHONDO:   In attempting to answer you, the police were harassing the community to an extent that two of my colleagues that was in my company one time ago, were apprehended by the police even after they were arrested by the police they were killed by the same police, in hospital. So there was corruption that was rife committed by the police.

MR SHANE:   When you committed the act for which you were convicted, it was your intention to murder the white policeman, and nothing else. Is that correct?

MR MAKHONDO:   That led to my conviction? Please repeat that question. I’m lost.

MR SHANE:   When you shot at the vehicle with the six white policemen ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON:   Why did you shoot at the kombi?

MR SHANE:   Why did you shoot, what was the reason for you shooting at the kombi with the six white policemen? What was the reason?

CHAIRPERSON:   Were the occupants of the kombi policemen?

MR MAKHONDO:   Yes the occupants were policemen.

CHAIRPERSON:   Now why did you shoot at that kombi?

MR MAKHONDO:   What I knew very well was that once they arrest me it will be either they are killing me or taking me to the hostel, one of the two.

MR SHANE:   So why did you kill them, sorry why did you shoot at them?

MR MAKHONDO:   I was trying to run away from such or avoid being arrested by them. I just hated to see myself in their hands because they were going to take me to the hostel or do something to me.

MR SHANE:   Now, what did you think you would achieve by shooting at them?

MR MAKHONDO:   What was in, what occupied my mind was that, if the police would die in that car I would gain the firearms and ammunition in the car, and take that to the community.

MR SHANE:   So, to cut a long story short you wanted to kill them. Is that right?

MR MAKHONDO:   I wanted to kill them, yes.

MR SHANE:   That’s, were you alone, or who accompanied you?

MR MAKHONDO:   I was alone.

MR SHANE:   That is evidence, thank you Mr Chairman.

ADV GCABASHE:  Thank you, can you just clarify one point for me? What happened to the first car? On what you’ve just told us.

MR MAKHONDO:   The first car, that was the one that approached in the passage, and I was unaware about the car. It was a private car that was being driven by this boers. They were not the residents of Tokoza obviously, because the situation that prevailed at the time was violently and the police that were driving around the neighbourhood or the area, they will use police vehicles, Caspirs for instance, not private cars.

ADV GCABASHE:   What happened to that car?

MR MAKHONDO:   It went up straight towards the office road. What I think is that those were people who were going to the office to solve their problems, because even the second car had a police in it and an ordinary man in it. I never saw thought that there will be police, or the occupants of the car were the police or what, but I realised that after the second car emerged, that that could have been possible it was the police car.

ADV GCABASHE:   Thank you.

ADV STEENKAMP:   Mr Chairman I don’t want to cause a further disturbance here, but according to the record and according to the applicant’s own application, there seems to be a pending appeal. This was now after the applicant was convicted in the regional Court in Germiston. I don’t know why that record could not be traced, but as far as I’m con - as far as I know those appeals are being dealt with by the Attorney General, which office is just next door here. And I think it’s in the interests of not only the, of the appellant but also probably the interest of justice, that record must be placed before you. I’ve asked our police officers and witness protectors whose here now, because we have the full details and the numbers of the appeal record, and I would ask permission for that applicant to stand down.

Maybe we can start the next one while I’m waiting for the original record. Two copies will be made before say one o’clock, and be placed before you, if that can be allowed.

CHAIRPERSON:   ...(inaudible) going to use that record as a basis for cross-examination.

ADV STEENKAMP:   Mr Chairman probably but, probably or possibly, but I think it’s, that information will clearly be relevant to this applicant.

CHAIRPERSON:   How long do you think it’s going to take to get those records?

ADV STEENKAMP:   Mr Chairman it’ll take me probably half an hour, quarter of an hour to get the information. By then I will definitely know the position and which sections will be relevant. The only difficulty will be it will probably be in Afrikaans, but I’m not planning to use the whole record, probably just the summary of, because in the record we’ll find the summary of the essential facts of indictment, and probably the summary of the sentence. I think those sections can be relevant.

MR SHANE:   May I reply Mr Chairman? It’s quite clearly relevant, and I enquired from Sally Sealy about obtaining this when I first took instructions. I was informed that they tried to obtain these. There are no dockets. I was told there are no records, nothing, so if my, Mr Steenkamp thinks he can get it, I think he’s being very optimistic by saying he’s going to get it today. With respect sir.

CHAIRPERSON:   Mr Steenkamp I’m going to take a tea adjournment now. Come report to us within the next 15 to 20 minutes.

ADV STEENKAMP:   Mr Chairman I undertake to not waste your time. It’ll take me about 15 minutes to 10 minutes, 10 to 15 minutes, so maybe we’ll take the tea adjournment now. Thank you sir.

JIMMY NKOSINATHI MAKHONDO: (s.u.o.)

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR SHANE:   ...(inaudible) the Commissioners what you told the Court, was that the truth or not? What you said in your trial.

MR MAKHONDO:   All that I said in the Court of law was blatant lies.

MR SHANE:   So you lied in Court.

MR MAKHONDO:   Very true.

MR SHANE:   And what you told the learned Commissioners this morning, is that the truth?

MR MAKHONDO:   What I said to this Commission is the truth.

MR SHANE:   Thank you sir, nothing further.

CHAIRPERSON:   You are excused.

WITNESS EXCUSED

MR SHANE:   Mr Chairman I wonder if we could proceed with the next application? The next applicant is Goodman Nedisi Mbuli on page 65 to 71. He is present.

CHAIRPERSON:   Do you have an ID number for us?

MR SHANE:   Where’s your ID? ID number Mr Chairman is 740110 6251 08 8.

CHAIRPERSON:   Mr Mbuli what language would you prefer to use?

MR MBULI:   Zulu.

CHAIRPERSON:   Have you any objections to the taking of the oath?

MR MBULI:   No objection.

CHAIRPERSON:   Do you swear that the evidence you’re about to give will be the truth and nothing but the truth? Raise your right hand and say so help me God.

GOODMAN NEDISI MBULI:   (sworn, states)

MR SHANE:   Mr Chairman the applicant applies for amnesty for the murder of one Pinpin Ramahesa and also he applies for amnesty for the possession of unlicensed weapons and ammunition. That is all.

Mr Chairman I must ask the following to be recorded. The applicant also in his application applied for amnesty for the murder of Mkula Matulu Mbele. Now, Mr Chairman, after fully consulting with the applicant, it is quite clear that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON:   I don’t need explanations. Is he withdrawing those, that application?

MR SHANE:   He is withdrawing that Mr Chairman, but if I can just mention the applicant does so reluctantly because he feels that because this killing happened with a community weapon, that in itself should make it a political action, but that is not the case and he withdraws it. I also mention the family of the deceased, Matulu Mbele, is present, but he’s not applying for amnesty, he’s withdrawing that application.

CHAIRPERSON:   And you do so on his behalf?

MR SHANE:   I do so on his behalf.

CHAIRPERSON:   He is fully aware that you are doing so?

MR SHANE:   He is fully aware that I am doing so.

CHAIRPERSON:   It is so withdrawn. Carry on.

EXAMINATION BY MR SHANE:   Right, when did you join the Penduka Self-Defence Unit?

MR MBULI:   Ninety.

MR SHANE:   And when did you join the ANC?

MR MBULI:   In 1990.

MR SHANE:   While you were a member of the SDU you used to patrol, and on patrol you used to possess weapons, AK-47's as well as bullets. Correct?

MR MBULI:   Yes.

MR SHANE:   And your possession of those weapons was unlawful. Correct?

MR MBULI:   Yes.

MR SHANE:   Right. Now will you explain what happened during June or July of 1993, when you were on patrol with a certain person called Biza.

MR MBULI:   We were patrolling the area. I suppose it was about five or six. As we were on duty patrolling Daganyewe found out that Pinpin and a certain lady Maria, but I did not see the lady, they were coming to move some property or some goods, and that was a no-go zone. After that as I was in possession of AK we jumped and Biza got left behind, and gave me the keys. I went to stand right next to the house, taking it upon myself that I was going to see and watch as to who was going out and Pinpin was going out with a basket. As he was already out of the premises, or out of the house, I shot at him twice.

MR SHANE:   Now, can you tell what you knew about Pinpin, why did you shoot him? What was the reason?

MR MBULI:   This Pinpin was always in the company of Khumalo. He was the one administering the activities of the community in the area, and will go and give the report to Khumalo as to what he discovered. I will say in simple language, he was a spy of Khumalo.

MR SHANE:   When you say Khumalo, are you talking about the Khumalo gang which was mentioned before to this Committee, headed by a certain priest?

MR MBULI:   Yes, very true. I’m referred to that very one Khumalo gang.

MR SHANE:   And were you certain that Pinpin was a member of that gang?

MR MBULI:   Yes. I am certain of that. I used to see him as well and oftentimes than not he will be amongst the gang and he will always be part of the gang that would have terrorised the area.

MR SHANE:   What did you do after you fired the shots at Pinpin?

MR MBULI:   Subsequent to that I went back and gave Biza the neighbour, and we left, and fled. He was lying down there on the ground, dead.

MR SHANE:   ...(inaudible) was dead.

MR MBULI:   I saw the Caspir the one that will fetch the corpses, and it also came to the scene.

MR SHANE:   And did it take his body away?

MR MBULI:   Yes, it did.

MR SHANE:   Did you have any choice but to kill this person?

MR MBULI:   I had no choice whatsoever. It was common knowledge and public knowledge that the said people with such behaviour and habits should be killed because they were terrorising the community together with his gang, Khumalo gang that is.

MR SHANE:   Did you know this person from before, Pinpin Ramahesa? Was he a friend of yours? Did you know him?

MR MBULI:   He was a well known figure in the community. I also knew him, but he was not my friend as such.

CHAIRPERSON:   Do you yourself know if he belonged to a political party?

MR MBULI:   Yes, I knew that Pinpin was a member of Khumalo gang.

CHAIRPERSON:   ...(inaudible) political party.

MR MBULI:   The IFP.

MR SHANE:   How do you feel now having killed Pinpin? Do you got anything to say about that fact that you killed him? Do you feel sorry about it?

MR MBULI:   I had no other way but to execute this plan because of the situation that prevailed at the time. But as for now, I have this load of remorse, this is why I appear before the Commission.

MR SHANE:   That is his evidence, thank you Mr Chairman.

ADV STEENKAMP:   I’ve got no questions thank you Mr Chairman.

ADV GCABASHE:   I’m just not too sure as to where exactly you found Pinpin. Was he in a no-go area, or was he in your area? - the day you shot him.

MR MBULI:   He was at his house.

ADV GCABASHE:   Was that in a no-go area?

MR MBULI:   Yes.

ADV GCABASHE:   How did you manage to go into a no-go area, shoot Pinpin and come out of it without any difficulty at all. Just explain those circumstances to me.

MR MBULI:   This way we use, or we were patrolling at the time. It was in our area, it was our area, and they had fled and they had come back to get their clothes or their property.

ADV GCABASHE:   Had you been lying in wait for him, or did you simply come across him by sheer chance?

MR MBULI:   It was sheer luck that we encountered this.

ADV GCABASHE:   And how long before this incident did Thabo Sibeko, your commander give the order that Pinpin should be killed?

MR MBULI:   This was common knowledge that such people who are patrolling together with Khumalo should be killed.

ADV GCABASHE:   Are you able to give me an idea as to how long before the incident this general order would have been given to all the SDU members?

MR MBULI:   I’m not quite sure as to when in relation to the incident.

ADV GCABASHE:   And one last aspect. You have said that Pinpin was an informer. Now I understand you to mean that he was informing on your activities as SDU members. Am I right?

MR MBULI:   He was not only informing on us, but the entire community, so that anyone who will be doing something opposing Khumalo, or something Khumalo does not or did not like, then he would go and report such to Khumalo.

ADV GCABASHE:   Now how did you know that he was passing this information on to Khumalo? Just what were your sources?

MR MBULI:   The thing is we knew that they live together, they reside together and most of the time they’re in each other’s company, and some of the incidents will take part with the entire Khumalo group.

ADV GCABASHE:   Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

MR SIBANYONI:   No questions, Mr Chairperson.

MR SHANE:   That is all from this applicant Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON:   Thank you. You’re excused.

WITNESS EXCUSED

MR SHANE:   Mr Chairman can we proceed with the next one? The next applicant is Tankiso Koena on page 22 to 28. It is 741220 5694 08 6. It is confirmed as being correct.

CHAIRPERSON:   Yes Mr Koena, what language would you prefer to use?

MR KOENA:   Sotho.

CHAIRPERSON:   Have you any objections to taking of the oath?

TANKISO KOENA:   (sworn, states)

CHAIRPERSON:   Be seated.

MR SHANE:   Mr Koena you ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER:   The speaker’s mike is not on.

EXAMINATION BY MR SHANE:   Sorry, Mr Koena you were a member of the Slovo/Tambo sections, Tokoza Self-Defence Unit. Correct?

MR KOENA:   That’s correct sir.

MR SHANE:   And you were a member of the ANC since when?

MR KOENA:   Since 1990.

MR SHANE:   A member of the Self-Defence Unit 1990, and you were an ordinary member?

MR KOENA:   Yes I was a Self-Defence Unit member in 1990.

MR SHANE:   You seek amnesty for the murder of Kraai Mambaso, is that correct?

MR KOENA:   That’s correct, sir.

MR SHANE:   And also for possession of weapons and ammunition without a licence?

MR KOENA:   That’s correct, sir.

MR SHANE:   Kraai Mambaso was murdered in 1993 during October or November. Is that correct?

MR KOENA:   That is correct, sir.

MR SHANE:   Explain the circumstances as to how and why he was murdered.

MR KOENA:   He was killed in the circle at Khumalo section, because he was an informer.

MR SHANE:   An informer for who?

MR KOENA:   He was internal stability unit informer.

MR SHANE:   That is the internal stability unit of the former SAP?

MR KOENA:   That’s correct, sir.

MR SHANE:   How did you know that he was an informer?

MR KOENA:   The deceased Gamso told me that.

MR SHANE:   Now when ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON:   Which deceased?

MR KOENA:   The name is Gamso.

ADV GCABASHE:   His full names are Ivan Khumalo.

MR KOENA:   That is correct, it is Ivan Khumalo.

MR SHANE:   On this day in 1993, you accompanied Ivan Khumalo and other people, correct? You were with them?

MR KOENA:   That’s correct, sir.

MR SHANE:   Who were the other people?

MR KOENA:   It was Vusi Sithole, and Sifiso of which I don’t know his surname.

MR SHANE:   Where are these people now?

MR KOENA:   They are in gaol, both of them.

MR SHANE:   Now what happened regarding the murder of Kraai?

MR KOENA:   He was at Ndlapo section, sitting in the yard, and Gamso came to me accompanied by Vusi and Sifiso and they both told us that the person that we are looking for is at Ndlapo section. And having heard that they said I must guard him so that he should not run away. It was Gamso who instructed me to do that and I knew that I had to do that because we knew that he had to be killed. And then he ran away from Ndlapo’s initially, in Khumalo Street. He was standing outside with Beki and he ran towards the circle, and Gamso had produced a firearm. He ran into some house, and I was peeping through the window, some bedroom window, when I was looking for him inside. I spotted him inside and I told Gamso that this man is hiding inside one of the bedroom.

MR SHANE:   Right, now it is correct that you yourself were not armed, and you yourself did not in fact fire the shots at the deceased. Is that correct?

MR KOENA:   That is correct, sir.

MR SHANE:   And you were at all times aware that there was an order to kill the deceased Kraai? Is that correct?

MR KOENA:   Yes I was fully aware, because Gamso was told me that Thabo Sibeko who was our commander had already issued the instruction. Thabo Sibeko is deceased.

ADV GCABASHE:   Mr Koena you don’t have to approach your mike to speak. You can just relax and the tape will pick up what you are saying. Otherwise it just reverberates at the back.

MR SHANE:   Now you in fact told Gamso where Kraai was, and if you had not done so he would not have found the deceased in order to kill him. Is that correct?

MR KOENA:   That is correct, sir.

MR SHANE:   And when you pointed out the deceased Kraai to Gamso, you knew that he was going to be murdered. Is that correct?

MR KOENA:   That is correct, sir. I knew that he was going to be killed.

MR SHANE:   So that is how you played a role in his killing. Is that correct?

MR KOENA:   That is correct sir.

MR SHANE:   And you in fact had a common purpose with Gamso who actually did the shooting, to kill the deceased. Is that correct?

MR KOENA:   That is correct, sir. I had the same intention.

MR SHANE:   Yes, now before Kraai was shot, you knew him from before, he lived with you Tokoza. Is that correct?

MR KOENA:   That is correct, I knew him.

MR SHANE:   And before he was shot you were in fact confronted by the deceased’s sister. Is that correct?

MR KOENA:   That is correct, sir.

MR SHANE:   Who you also knew.

MR KOENA:   Yes I knew her as well.

MR SHANE:   Will you tell what, what did the deceased’s sister say to you, or what did she do? What did she say?

MR KOENA:   The deceased’s sister asked me as to why did we shoot him, and we asked her what we normally do with an informer. And she said the trend is to kill the informer.

MR SHANE:   And after that, he was shot, is that correct?

MR KOENA:   That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON:   I don’t follow her question then. If he wasn’t shot when she confronted, by the time she confronted you, then why would she have asked the question?

MR KOENA:   She was present at the moment when this incident occurred.

CHAIRPERSON:   Oh I see.

MR SHANE:   Did this incident occur at the house where the deceased and his family lived?

MR KOENA:   No it was not at the deceased’s home, but at the Khumalo section circle. Some circle in that section.

MR SHANE:   And his sister happened to be present at that same place?

MR KOENA:   I do not understand, are you referring to when we are shooting him? Please explain your question.

MR SHANE:   At the time when the deceased was shot, his sister was present at the same house where he was shot. Is that correct?

MR KOENA:   No she was not there.

MR SHANE:   Well explain when did you confront the sister.

MR KOENA:   Please repeat your question.

MR SHANE:   When did you confront the sister of the deceased?

MR KOENA:   We met the deceased’s sister before this happened, in the yard.

MR SHANE:   And did she know that you were going to, that her brother was going to be killed?

MR KOENA:   Yes, she knew because she had already told us what to do, or what is normally done with an informer.

MR SHANE:   Are you saying that the sister of the deceased in fact encouraged ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON:   I don’t know if you can suggest that Mr Shane. As I read his evidence, she was asking, "Why are you doing this to my brother?"

MR SHANE:   That is correct. And he then, he asked the question, "What do we do with informers?"

CHAIRPERSON:   She said the trend was to kill informers. It certainly doesn’t suggest that she encouraged the killing of her own brother.

MR SHANE:   Now after she suggests, after she said that informers, police informers are killed, was her brother then killed?

MR KOENA:   Yes he was killed thereafter.

MR SHANE:   And you, as you’ve said, you played a major role in his killing although you didn’t fire the shots.

MR KOENA:   That’s correct sir.

MR SHANE:   Where is Gamso now?

MR KOENA:   He’s dead.

MR SHANE:   Are you aware that the family of the late Kraai Mambaso is present here today?

MR KOENA:   Yes, I’m aware.

MR SHANE:   Is there anything that you wish to say to them?

MR KOENA:   Yes, I would like to say something to them.

MR SHANE:   Proceed. Say it.

MR KOENA:   Thank you. I would like them to forgive me because that was the situation that was prevailing at that time that led to his death.

MR SHANE:   Mr Chairman if I may just mention, I believe the family are there, they don’t have any equipment, I don’t believe they can hear anything, if I’m not mistaken. I don’t know if I should mention this now. I think it is important that they hear what the applicant says, sir. I’m sorry sir, they can hear. That is evidence thank you Mr Chair.

ADV STEENKAMP:   Mr Chairman my instructions is that, it may be just for the record purposes, the deceased’s full names and correct names were Morris Auri Ngozo. The first name is Morris with two R’s. Morris. The second name is Auri, A U R I. And the correct spelling of the surname is N G O Z O, Ngozo. Morris Auri Ngozo. That’s the deceased’s correct name sir.

CHAIRPERSON:   Was he also known as Kraai Mambaso?

ADV STEENKAMP:   Mr Chairman, my instructions is that the sister of the deceased is available and she is here today. She is opposing the application of the applicant. My suggestion at this stage is Mr Chairman, because of all sorts of reasons, that a sworn statement will be handed in in this regard. I would like, however, in fairness sake, to put a version of ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON:   No plan that she should testify?

ADV STEENKAMP:   There is a request from her to do so, Mr Chairman. My suggestion is she wasn’t in attendance when the deceased was killed. However, the reason why he was killed is, according to her, far different to what the applicant is putting before you.

CHAIRPERSON:   ...(inaudible)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV STEENKAMP:   So my suggestion and my request is, Mr Chairman, I’ll ask a few questions on ...(indistinct) and then in support of that a sworn statement will be handed in, which is currently being taken. If you would allow me that. Thank you Mr Chairman, Honoured Members. Sir, according to the sister of the deceased the deceased were never a member of the IFP. He was actually a member of the ANC. Do you have any comment on that?

MR KOENA:   That I, I’m not aware of that.

ADV STEENKAMP:   But you’re not disputing that?

MR KOENA:   Please rephrase your question.

CHAIRPERSON:   You said that the deceased was a member of the Khumalo gang and therefore supportive at least of the IFP. The sister of the deceased is going to say that this not so, you are not telling the truth, he was in fact a member of the ANC.

MR SHANE:   Sorry Mr Chairman, the reason is not that. The reason is he was an informer of the internal stability unit of the SAP.

CHAIRPERSON:   Didn’t you say that the deceased was attached to the IFP?

MR SHANE:  No sir, the reason was his membership of, his being an informer for the South African police internal stability unit. It’s the only reason.

CHAIRPERSON:   I beg your pardon.

ADV STEENKAMP:   I beg your pardon as well Mr Chairman. My notes must be wrong but I had it as saying that. I withdraw the question. So the sister’s view is this. The reason why the deceased was killed was because he was working for a security company called Alert Industries. Do you have any knowledge of this? Do you know or did you know that at the time he used to work for Alert Industries?

MR KOENA:   That I was not aware of, and I don’t have any evidence to that.

ADV STEENKAMP:   The reason for him to be killed was because he did make, or reported you to the police, in his capacity as a security guard working for Alert Industries, because according to the information she had he reported you for being involved in a car theft incident.

MR KOENA:   I’ve never stolen a car in my life. I don’t know anything about that.

CHAIRPERSON:   No, but what is being put to you is that the reason for him being killed was because he named you in a car theft incident. Whether the car theft incident was true or not is not the point.

MR KOENA:   He reported the deceased, not me.

CHAIRPERSON:   So you, as far as you’re concerned he was not killed because of a report related to his work, but because he was an informer of the internal stability unit.

MR KOENA:   That’s correct, sir.

ADV STEENKAMP:   The last question to you is, if necessary a statement will be handed in, and a statement, a sworn statement will be handed in, where the sister will indicate that the deceased, her late brother was killed because there was a pending criminal action against you.

MR KOENA:   That is not so, sir.

ADV STEENKAMP:   Thank you Mr Chairman. That is in broad lines the reason for the opposition of the application, and if you would allow me if time concerns I will later hand in a sworn statement, and a copy thereof will also be made available to my learned colleague as soon as possible.

Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON:   Do you intend to call the sister now?

ADV STEENKAMP:   The sister is present if you would allow that Mr Chairman. She can just testify quickly.

CHAIRPERSON:   ...(inaudible) These other formalities, and while he is still in the box maybe he wants to listen to what she’s got to say.

ADV STEENKAMP:   As you - I would then call the sister.

CHAIRPERSON:   Wait, before, I just want to finish other aspects.

ADV STEENKAMP:   Sorry Mr Chairman.

ADV GCABASHE:   Thank you Chair. What did you know about the criminal matter? What did you know about the criminal matter that was pending viz a viz this theft of this car?

MR KOENA:   I was not aware of that. I never stole any car.

CHAIRPERSON:   Was there a case about it?

MR KOENA:   No, sir.

CHAIRPERSON:   Were you not arrested for car theft?

MR KOENA:   No, sir.

CHAIRPERSON:   And you never appeared in Court on charges of car theft or something related to a theft out of a car or whatever?

MR KOENA:   No, sir.

ADV GCABASHE:   Did Gamso say anything at all to you about this car theft?

MR KOENA:   No, sir. No.

ADV GCABASHE:   Where did you get your information that Kraai was an informer for the ISU?

MR KOENA:   The deceased Gamso told me that.

ADV GCABASHE:   No other source? Was Gamso your only source?

MR KOENA:   That’s correct.

ADV GCABASHE:   So when Gamso approached you as you were sitting outside, and asked you to guard Kraai, at that time did you know that Kraai was an informer, or did you only hear about it afterwards?

MR KOENA:   I already knew. He had already told me.

ADV GCABASHE:   Thank you Chair. Thank you.

MR SIBANYONI:   Did I heard you say the alleged car theft was against Gamso?

MR KOENA:   I did not know, maybe it was as to whether Gamso was stealing cars. I did not know. I did not hear that.

MR SIBANYONI:   In other words you are hearing it for the first time today, about car theft. Are you hearing it for the first time today?

MR KOENA:   Yes, that is correct. I hear it for the first time.

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

CHAIRPERSON:   I just want you to sit next to your attorney, because I am going to give an opportunity to the deceased’s sister to testify. I’m going to allow you to sit there just in case she says something with which you don’t agree, and you can tell it. Do you understand? Do you understand that?

MR KOENA:   Yes, I do.

CHAIRPERSON:   Mr Steenkamp is this going to be a sworn, under oath, testimony under oath.

ADV STEENKAMP:   Yes Mr Chairman that will be testimony under oath. The deceased’s sister, her name is Thabatha, T H A B A T H A, and her surname is Ngozo, N G O Z O. That’s confirmed. Thank you Mr Chairman. I would, it’s miss. Mr Chairman I would also like to ask for permission if I can maybe just to save some time lead her in asking a few questions to get to the point. Thank you Mr Chairman, she can be sworn in.

THABATHA NGOZO:   (sworn, states)

EXAMINATION BY ADV STEENKAMP:   Ms Ngozo, am I right in saying that you are the sister of the deceased in this matter, Morris Auri Ngozo? Is that correct?

MS NGOZO:   Yes, that’s correct.

ADV STEENKAMP:   Can you tell us for record purposes exactly when was he killed, when did he die?

MS NGOZO:   He died on November the 20th, a Saturday afternoon, 1993 the year.

ADV STEENKAMP:   Can you also tell us as far as your knowledge serves you, did the deceased belong to any political party?

MS NGOZO:   He was ANC member.

ADV STEENKAMP:   Can you tell us what was his occupation? What did he used to do for a living? Just before he died, or when he was killed.

MS NGOZO:   He worked for Alert Industries Security in Alrode.

ADV STEENKAMP:   Am I correct in saying this now near Germiston?

MS NGOZO:   It’s very close to Tokoza. Alrode South that is.

ADV STEENKAMP:   And what type of work did he do there?

MS NGOZO:   He was a security guard.

ADV STEENKAMP:   Now before we get to the incident itself, do you know the applicant before the Committee today?

MS NGOZO:   I know him as a neighbour.

ADV STEENKAMP:   For how long have you been knowing him? That is, how long did he stay next to you?

MS NGOZO:   Since his birth, to date.

ADV STEENKAMP:   Do you know, the deceased, if there was any connection between the deceased and the applicant? Were they friends, or what was the situation?

MS NGOZO:   He grew in front of him. He grew up, in other words.

ADV STEENKAMP:   Am I right in saying you are opposing the application of the applicant, because you are of the view point that he’s not making a full disclosure. Am I right?

MS NGOZO:   Yes, I dispute all this, because he has not yet begin to tell the truth.

ADV STEENKAMP:   Now, in short, can you tell us why you’re saying that?

MS NGOZO:   First of all, he did not make mention of all the people he was with that day in question.

CHAIRPERSON:   Were you present?

MS NGOZO:   Yes I was present, but I did not see him when they shot him. I only met them as they were running away after the incident.

ADV STEENKAMP:   Can you maybe just give us the names of the other people that you’ve seen at the incident, at the time when he was killed? Can you maybe just relate the names to us?

MS NGOZO:   Yes. I can furnish you with the names. It was Dankiso, Siphiso who is in prison, Vusi as well is in prison, Oupa is in the residential areas at home, Mulefe is in prison as well.

ADV STEENKAMP:   Now you’ve heard the evidence of the applicant when he testified that, as far as he was concerned, the deceased was an informer for the internal stability unit. Do you have any comment on that?

MS NGOZO:   Yes, I would like to say something in relation to this. First of all, the reason why they labelled him as an informed. In 1992 Mulefe came to me together with my other brother, not the deceased. He said he will like us to talk to Auri and stop Auri, and I asked him as to what he has done. He said, in answering, he is one of the people rendering evidence with regard to the stolen car. A car that was stolen by Beki. I don’t know with other people, but he only mentioned Beki’s name to us. And I said to him, how can we possibly stop him because he works as a security man and we are not even present there. We have no idea and we bear no knowledge. And he said, please talk to him, they must never be convicted. These people, that is. And I spoke to Auri, and I asked him if he knew or bore any knowledge with regard to this, and Auri said, yes, he knew, and he was at work and there is no way he can withdraw or implement the request made by these gentlemen. This is not within him in other words. Mulefe left and came back again one day. The case was going on at the Court, about the stolen car.

ADV STEENKAMP:   The applicant before the Committee today was also present at the time in Court, and the case was proceeding?

MS NGOZO:   Yes.

ADV STEENKAMP:   In other words, was he actually charged with this incident?

MS NGOZO:   Beki was convicted. There was nothing emerging as such until their conviction. After that, after their conviction in other words, Mulefe came back once again and said, I previously requested you to speak or talk to your brother that my colleagues must not be convicted, but all of that was to no avail. And I answered him and said there was nothing we could do, this was not within us, and he was working as a security man and we are therefore ineffective in this.

In 1993 on the 20th of November he was killed, and was labelled as an informer of the police subsequently.

ADV STEENKAMP:   Do you think there was any political context or motivation for the killing of your brother, as far as you were concerned?

MS NGOZO:   I think this was a criminal act, because if it was political I don’t think he would have been killed since he was an ANC member.

ADV STEENKAMP:   Are you aware, was he ever involved in any political activity, in the specific area where he was staying?

MS NGOZO:   In Vosloorus where he resided I have no information pertaining to that because he was not living with us. He had his own house in Vosloorus. All I know is that he was an ANC member.

ADV STEENKAMP:   My last question to you. Is there anything else you would like to add to your testimony?

MS NGOZO:   In summing up this whole evidence, I have no forgiveness whatsoever, because I tried to plead with them. I even asked them if they, if he was owing them, and if that was the case I was prepared to pay and reimburse, but they killed him fatally and in a strange house. And they broke, and they damaged so much property in that house, and in summation I will say I have no forgiveness towards these gentlemen.

ADV STEENKAMP:   That will be the testimony.

CHAIRPERSON:   Do I understand your evidence correctly that you spoke to them before they killed your brother?

MS NGOZO:   Yes, I did speak to them before the incident.

CHAIRPERSON:   What did you ask them?

MS NGOZO:   Firstly, I asked why they were killing them. Then they said an informer must be killed. And I said, who did he inform on, then they said that’s none of my business, it had nothing to do with me. And I said please do not kill him, I will even give you money if this is what you need. I will even pay you instead of you killing him.

CHAIRPERSON:   At that time when you pleaded with them for his life, you were told that he was going to be killed because he was at least thought of as an informer?

MS NGOZO:   They told me at that point in time when I was talking to them.

CHAIRPERSON:   Mr Shane have you got any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR SHANE:   Just one Mr Chairman. Would you agree that there were, Mrs Thabatha, a lot of informers for the police at the time, in the township?

MS NGOZO:   No, I have no knowledge in as far as that is concerned.

MR SHANE:   Would you also agree that if a person was an informer, it is not something he would brag about or even let anybody know about, he would keep that a secret, so that if your late brother was in fact an informer for the internal stability unit it’s not something that you would have known about. He would have kept it secret from you like all informers did. Would you agree with me?

MS NGOZO:   I will like to reiterate the fact that I was not living with him. All I know is that he was a security man. As to his activities I bear no knowledge.

MR SHANE:   The applicant instructs me that he has no knowledge of any person Mulefe or Oupa, as mentioned by you.

MS NGOZO:   I have no amnesty, or I have no forgiveness for Tankiso because the one who was busy behind the location of the late, was Tankiso, he was the one behind them discovering or finding the late in the house.

MR SHANE:   The applicant also denies that he was ever charged with a stolen car, or knows anything, I’m talking from the applicant, not from any other person, but from the applicant, knows nothing about any stolen car as mentioned by yourself.

MS NGOZO:   With regards to the stolen car I did make mention of the fact that Beki was convicted. Mulefe knows everything. These ones only took part in his killing. The only question I have for them is that why did they kill him, because he never fought with them and there was no fight or battle between them. Why would they want to kill him, or why did they ever kill him?

MR SHANE:   He did already answer you that he believed your brother was an informer of the SADISU. That’s the answer.

CHAIRPERSON:   Mr Shane have you got any more questions? I’m asking you, not your client.

MR SHANE:   Mr Chairman I was just confirming with him whether he has, and he has nothing further. There’s nothing further for the witness.

ADV GCABASHE:   Did I understand you to say that this applicant was at the criminal trial? He attended the criminal trial concerning the theft of the motor vehicle?

MS NGOZO:   He was not there.

ADV GCABASHE:   Thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON:   Thank you.

ADV STEENKAMP:   May the witness be excused Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON:   Yes.

ADV STEENKAMP:   I’ll call no further witnesses, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON:   Your client is excused Mr Shane.

MR SHANE:   Thank you Mr Chairman. I can inform ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON:   Is that your lot for today?

MR SHANE:   That's all I have today. I have no more applicants that I can bring before you today. I hope to see what logistics are, but tomorrow.

CHAIRPERSON:   How many tomorrow?

MR SHANE:   Mr Chairman I have to see who’s going to come. Who’s going to get transport. I do have an applicant who is serving a sentence. I understand he’s only going to be brought on Monday. I have to try and obtain his papers, because he’s serving a sentence.

CHAIRPERSON:   I trust that you will have consulted with him before Monday.

MR SHANE:   I will be consulting with him at the prison, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON:   So in other words we’ll adjourn until tomorrow morning.

ADV STEENKAMP:   Mr Chairman unfortunately my learned colleagues informed my other learned colleagues who are present here that they will also only be able to proceed tomorrow, so for today I would adjourn. It’s in your hands.