AMNESTY HEARING

--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: Good day to you all. This is going to be our first sitting at this venue, wherein we are going to hear and consider applications of people who are convicted and are applying for various offences, which they allege they committed whilst they were members of the Self Defence Unit.

The first application we are going to consider, is the application of Gladwell Selahle. Before we commence, I want to introduce the panel that will be sitting this week. On my right hand side, I have Adv Francis Bosman, on my left hand side, I have the Attorney of the Supreme Court, Mr Ilan Lax and my name is Sisi Khampepe, I am Chairing these proceedings.

We would like to convey our apologies to you for having kept you waiting for so long. As you are aware, we always have teething problems when we start our hearings, particularly because we have to rely on various role players, being able to enable our proceedings to start timeously.

We up to now are still waiting for some of the applicants, that we were due to hear this morning, which still have to come from places like Boksburg and Leeukop prison. They still haven't come. We have now decided to proceed with the application of Mr Gladwell Selahle, to try and make up for the lost time that we have already suffered this morning.

We would like to extend our appreciation to Mr Mohlaba who is representing the applicants who have yet to be brought here by Correctional Services, thank you very much Mr Mohlaba.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you Chair. Lady Chair, the applicant Mr Selahle, wishes to testify in Sotho.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Selahle, are you going to take an oath?

MR SELAHLE: Yes, that is correct.

GLADWELL SELAHLE: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: You may sit down.

EXAMINATION BY MR MOHLABA: Thank you Chair. Mr Selahle, were you born at Boksburg during 1972, on the 9th of July, is that correct?

MR SELAHLE: That is correct.

MR MOHLABA: You are the applicant in this matter and you are applying for amnesty in respect of a murder offence where Joseph Mkhabela was killed on the 16th of March 1994, is that correct?

MR SELAHLE: That is correct.

MR MOHLABA: Is it correct that you were arrested, tried and convicted of this offence and other offences which include robbery, unlawful possession of a firearm and unlawful possession of ammunition, is that correct?

MR SELAHLE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Wasn't he convicted of theft?

MR MOHLABA: Yes, it would appear Mr Selahle, that you were also convicted of theft of R50-00 as opposed to robbery, is that correct?

MR SELAHLE: That is correct.

MR MOHLABA: You are however applying amnesty in respect of an offence of murder only, is that correct?

MR SELAHLE: That is correct.

MR MOHLABA: And the basis on which you are applying for amnesty is that this offence or murder was committed by yourself while furthering the aims or the objectives of a political organisation, is that correct?

MR SELAHLE: That is correct.

MR MOHLABA: Did you during the period of March 1994, belong to any political organisation?

MR SELAHLE: That is correct.

MR MOHLABA: Can you tell the Committee the name of the organisation?

MR SELAHLE: I was a member of the ANC Youth League and a member of the Self Defence Unit.

MR MOHLABA: Can you explain fully with clear details, how you joined the SDU's, how you were recruited in if ever you were recruited and the roles which you played?

MR SELAHLE: I was recruited by Samuel Mabutsha, who was an MK. It was during the time of the unrest in the township, people were being killed, and he explained to us that people are being killed, let us form an SDU and protect the community. That is how I joined the SDU.

MR MOHLABA: Can you explain with full details whether you went any training after you were recruited, explain precisely the roles you played if you underwent any training and what was the responsibilities or your duties which you were to carry out as a member of the SDU?

MR SELAHLE: Yes, we were trained by Samuel Mabutsha, our duty was to defend the community.

MR MOHLABA: Defending the community against who?

MR SELAHLE: Against the people who were attacking the community. We had to see to it that these people are fought back when they come to attack.

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose Mr Mohlaba? Maybe if you led him in your questioning without expecting him to give us details, he will probably give you more details, instead of asking him pregnant questions, you confine him to specific questions with a view obviously of trying to elicit the kind of evidence that you want him to give.

I would want to know, he says he was recruited by Samuel Mabutsha who was an MK member. When was he recruited? When were you recruited by Mr Mabutsha?

MR SELAHLE: It was in 1992.

CHAIRPERSON: And where was Mr Mabutsha staying then?

MR SELAHLE: He resided in Vosloorus.

CHAIRPERSON: And when you say you were trained by him, what kind of training did you get?

MR SELAHLE: He taught us to take cover and he taught us how to shoot. He would take us to the Vosloorus stadium at times, and show us how these things worked.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you using arms in your training?

MR SELAHLE: We did not use them.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed Mr Mohlaba, sorry for intervening.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you Chair, that was quite helpful. You are telling this Committee of us, were you recruited with other people and are you suggesting that you underwent training with other people, is that correct?

MR SELAHLE: It was not only myself, it was quite a number of us.

MR MOHLABA: Do you know where Samuel Mabutsha is today?

MR SELAHLE: Yes, I do.

MR MOHLABA: Can you tell the Committee?

MR SELAHLE: Samuel Mabutsha passed away in 1993, on the 27th of December.

MR MOHLABA: Can you take us through this offence of, through the murder of Joseph Mkhabela? How was this murder planned, and executed and who took part in such planning? Tell us precisely the roles you played therein.

MR SELAHLE: One day we went to fetch the bullets from the hostel. When we went out of the hostel, we met Joseph Mkhabela, he was together with the other two. They were running into the hostel, in possession of firearms.

During our stay in the hostel, we heard gunshots outside, now when we went out, we saw them running into the hostel. We just passed each other and when we were outside the hostel, we saw a taxi parked outside, people were shot and we asked those people what happened, and they told us that they did not know.

They said people shot at them and they ran into the hostel. We told them yes, we saw three people running into the hostel.

MR LAX: Can you just slow down a little bit please. There are two things that you have to remember, one, we are trying to write down your evidence, and make a few notes, but number two, the Interpreters are also having to translate everything you say.

If you could just slow down a tiny bit, it would really help us.

MR SELAHLE: Do I have to start from scratch?

MR LAX: No, carry on from where you saw the taxi outside, there were people injured, just carry on from there.

MR SELAHLE: Yes, there was a taxi parked outside, people were shot at and we asked these people what happened and they told us that they do not know what happened. What they saw was three people who ran into the hostel.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Selahle, you are still giving your evidence at a pace which will not enable the members of the Committee to take note of what you are saying.

MR SELAHLE: Sorry, okay. There was a taxi parked outside, and people were shot in that taxi. I asked the comrades who were with me what do we do now, and can we go down and organise other comrades and tell them what happened.

We went to Tanzania Section and the comrades had already received the report about a taxi that had been shot at, and we explained to them that yes, we saw the taxi and we met the people.

And the people who might have done this, ran into the hostel. The comrades said we should stand on our feet, we shouldn't let this unattended. People will still be killed continuously.

What we were supposed to do was to find those people. That is where Simon Mkhabela gets into this whole picture.

MR MOHLABA: Yes, you may proceed and tell this Committee until the moment when Mkhabela was killed.

MR SELAHLE: Yes, we decided that these people must be accosted, I think it was after three weeks when we had finished our patrol in the morning, and the comrade who was with me, his name is Titus, he wanted to go home. He left and came back after a few minutes.

When he came back, he had a gas cylinder, he told us that he was going to refill the gas cylinder and he asked us to go with him. We said no, we can't, go and when you come back, you will get us here.

Titus came back running, he said come, come and see. We asked him what was happening, and he said no, do not ask, come let's go. He told us that I saw a person whom we met on that day when the people were shot. Yes, when we arrived at the firms we found Joseph Mkhabela. We discussed this issue with the comrades about what we will do with him, how we will approach him.

CHAIRPERSON: Where did you find Mr Mkhabela? I think the interpretation referred to a firm, what do you mean by that?

MR SELAHLE: Next to the township, there are small development corporations, that is where we found Mr Mkhabela. When we found him, we organised as to how we would approach him.

He got out, he jumped into a kombi and the kombi drove out of the firms. One of the comrades suggested that we leave him, we would find him some other time. What we would do, we would take the registration numbers and trace who the owner of the kombi was. That is how Joseph Mkhabela left.

On the 16th, we were from a memorial service. It was roundabout half past four to five o'clock, it was a large group of comrades. When we were at the corner of Roets Drive and Moagi, we separated with comrades. Others were going to their Sections and we were going to our Section.

The comrades from Tanzania Section were eight in number. While we were still waiting for the cars so that we can cross the road, that kombi approached. It drove passed us, comrade Veli noticed and he said comrades, this is the kombi that we had been looking for, and we said what should we do now, now that the kombi is here?

One comrade said we cannot leave this person alone, we want to know who he is. The kombi stopped at a distance, off loading the people. The comrades said this is a very good chance of getting hold of this driver, and I said to them it won't help us to go and talk to that driver, because no one of us is armed.

One comrade said don't worry, I have a gun with me and can we wait for him to off load the people first and thereafter we would go and talk to him. I asked comrade Titus, I told comrade Titus to go and reconnoitre, to go and see as to whether he is the same person whom he saw. Titus went close to the kombi and he came back.

He said comrades, this is the person that we are looking for.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Selahle, I am finding it so difficult to keep up with the pace at which you are giving your evidence. For the last time, I am going to request you, we would like you to give your evidence at a pace at which we can be able to also write down what you are saying.

It is also important for the Translator to pick up each and every word you give in evidence, which you are giving in Sotho, and translate it into English. You therefore are doing yourself a disservice if you speak at a pace which disadvantages him from being able to translate your evidence appropriately word for word.

Do you understand?

MR SELAHLE: I understand.

CHAIRPERSON: I am also finding it difficult to comprehend your evidence, because you are putting in people's names, you are putting in information which to me, is out of context with what you are applying for. Mr Mohlaba, we would request you to take charge of Mr Selahle's evidence, by giving him direction and where his evidence, I think does not give particulars, we would want you to stop him in order to make sure that he gives those particulars.

It will fast track these proceedings, we won't have to be coming back to his evidence in chief, in order to fill in the holes that appear to be going bigger and bigger as he proceeds to give his evidence.

He has referred to Titus, we don't know who this Titus is, we don't know that he was a member of this particular Unit. He speaks of Sections, he has spoken of Tanzania Section, we don't know whether that is the Unit where Mr Selahle operated from, whether he belonged to the Tanzania Section Unit. We really want to get the evidence that will enable us to proceed and we don't have to come back when we ask him from the bench to fill in those details.

I think it really simply protracts these proceedings.

MR MOHLABA: I am indebted to the Chair. Mr Selahle, can I just take you back, you have mentioned of going to the hostel to collect bullets. Where were you collecting these bullets from and what was the purpose for this trip?

MR SELAHLE: Comrade Peter and comrade Titus arrived on the 25th of January, it was in the morning and they told me that they were going to see a certain comrade at Eastfield and they were going to fetch bullets from him.

We left then for Eastfield, we did not get hold of comrade Lloyd. Instead of going back, there was another comrade called Paul. They suggested that we go to him, because he might be of assistance.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mohlaba, please come to our rescue. Now we are being given a litany of names, we don't know of what relevance these names are, it is Peter, it is Titus, there are so many names. We don't know in what context.

I thought you wanted to know, he had spoken about bullets being obtained from the hostel and you wanted to know why they had gone to collect bullets from that hostel. We don't know why Mr Selahle is giving these various names, in what respect do they impinge on the question that you have put to him?

MR SELAHLE: Can I carry on?

CHAIRPERSON: The people that you have mentioned, Peter, Titus and them, that they arrived on the 25th of January and told you that they were going to fetch, Eastfield, that they were going to Eastfield, who are they? Are they the members of your Unit?

MR SELAHLE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: What were they going to do at Eastfield?

MR SELAHLE: They were going to see Lloyd concerning the bullets.

CHAIRPERSON: In your evidence you mentioned that one day you went to look for bullets at the hostel.

MR SELAHLE: Yes. Paul is one comrade we found at the hostel, and he told us that he did not have, we went to find bullets from Paul, he said he did not have, but there is someone in the hostel whom we can see in connection with bullets.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you still remember the question that were asked by your lawyer?

MR SELAHLE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you remember?

MR SELAHLE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: What was the question?

MR SELAHLE: The question was who did we go to fetch bullets from the hostel and for what reason did we go and fetch those bullets.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you now answer that question, that question only?

MR SELAHLE: Truly speaking, I did not know that person but we needed the bullets. We had firearms and we were short of ammunition.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed Mr Mohlaba, just try and confine him to responding to questions being put to him.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you Chair. Mr Selahle, I want you to tell us about, if you want to give us names, give us names of people who were involved in the planning and the subsequent killing of Joseph Mkhabela - who was involved in this planning, if you want to give us their names?

MR SELAHLE: There was Lawrence Makgabe, there was Mohapi Mokgatsametso.

MR LAX: Can you just spell those names for us please, either Mr Interpreter or somebody else? Lawrence, what was his surname?

MR SELAHLE: Lawrence Makgabe and the other one was Mohapi, that is the name, Mokgatsametso. There was Tsepo Moloi, Joseph Lehlarelo and Veli Nkosi. There was Fanyana, I have forgotten his surname. That is all.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying these are the people who planned the killing of Mr Mkhabela?

MR SELAHLE: That is correct. Myself included and Peter Tsiani and Titus. We came together, all of us, and planned this.

CHAIRPERSON: When did this planning take place?

MR SELAHLE: It was on the same day when we went to fetch the bullets - when the people were killed.

CHAIRPERSON: When was that?

MR SELAHLE: It was on the 25th of January 1994.

CHAIRPERSON: Where were you when you planned?

MR SELAHLE: We were at Tanzania Section.

CHAIRPERSON: What were the details of your plan?

MR SELAHLE: We planned that these people must be accosted and after that, we would then proceed with the work.

MR LAX: What was the work?

MR SELAHLE: The elimination of Joseph Mkhabela. It was not only him, but the three that we met, Joseph Mkhabela is the first one we met, before we could meet the others.

CHAIRPERSON: What do you mean by saying you planned that they must be accosted? Who is they?

MR SELAHLE: The people who shot the passengers in the taxi.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you know them?

MR SELAHLE: We saw them.

CHAIRPERSON: Had you seen them before?

MR SELAHLE: It was our first time to see them after this incident.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you see them shooting the people inside the kombi?

MR SELAHLE: No, we did not see them. We saw them after they had finished doing it.

CHAIRPERSON: How do you know that they had done it?

MR SELAHLE: When we moved out of the hostel, there was a kombi parked outside and people were shot in that taxi. We asked these people at the taxi what happened, and they told us that they did not know what happened, they only saw a taxi being shot at and afterwards people ran towards the hostel.

Those are the people we have met, so we concluded they were the people who shot at the taxi.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Mohlaba, you are still dealing with the planning of Mr Mkhabela's killing. You may proceed.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you Chair. You have mentioned names of people who took part in the planning of the death of Mr Mkhabela and you also mentioned something about you coming from a memorial service. Were you in the company of all those people whom you have mentioned?

MR SELAHLE: That is correct.

MR MOHLABA: And can you continue and explain how Mkhabela was killed and the steps taken by you and other comrades who were in your company?

MR SELAHLE: On the day of Mkhabela's killing, I have already indicated that we were from a memorial service. We were waiting for the traffic to pass so that we could cross the road, and the kombi that we saw, was the one who took Mkhabela and it stopped a little distance from us.

CHAIRPERSON: May I interrupt, you say the kombi that you saw, was the one that took Mkhabela and that was the end of your testimony. It doesn't make sense.

The kombi that you saw was the one that had taken Mkhabela from where and when was that?

MR SELAHLE: This is a kombi that was driven by Mkhabela.

CHAIRPERSON: So it is not the kombi that had taken Mkhabela, you mean it is the kombi that was driven by Mr Mkhabela?

MR SELAHLE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: In your earlier testimony again you gave evidence that would suggest that Mr Mkhabela did not drive the kombi, and that is the evidence that related to when ...

MR SELAHLE: I did explain he was the driver of the kombi from the firms. We saw him the first time in the firms.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I was still telling you our difficulty with your evidence, either that or your evidence has not been properly translated to us.

Your earlier evidence suggested that Mr Mkhabela was driven from the firm and that is why you could not proceed to do something about him, when you identified him at the firm. Do you remember when you said something about having followed Mr Mkhabela and having seen him in a firm?

MR SELAHLE: I still remember that. That is what I am trying to explain, maybe it was not properly interpreted to you.

When we arrived at the firms, we were still discussing as to how we would approach this person, and at the same time, Mr Mkhabela got into the kombi and the same kombi drove out and we were still planning as to how we would approach him.

CHAIRPERSON: When you say he got into the kombi, do you mean he got into the driver's seat and drove the kombi?

MR SELAHLE: That is correct, he was the driver of the kombi, he was alone in the kombi.

CHAIRPERSON: You see the way you had given your evidence, it had not given us that impression, but you are now saying that he was the driver then, when you saw him?

MR SELAHLE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mohlaba, you probably will come to assistance if we would like to protect our Translators. We don't want them to be blamed for wrong translation when they in fact have not done so.

You speak Sotho, you are sitting next to Mr Selahle, and if you hear that there is a wrong translation, won't you please just bring it to our attention. Unfortunately I cannot understand what he says because he is not speaking loud enough for me to be able to follow his evidence in Sotho as well as getting the translation in English, but if you really are also of the opinion that there is something wrong with the translation, please bring it to our attention.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you Chair. You were still explaining how Mkhabela was killed. The Chair has clarified the question of who was the driver of that kombi, it appears that Mkhabela was driving that kombi, is that correct?

MR SELAHLE: That is correct.

MR MOHLABA: Can you proceed and explain what happened next?

MR SELAHLE: This kombi was driven by Mkhabela, it drove passed us, it stopped at a distance, it is a taxi, so it was off loading the people.

The comrades said we have been looking for this person for quite a long time, there he is, what do we do now and I said to them it won't help to go and accost him now, because we do not have guns with us. Peter said I do have a gun and I said to him, fine, does anyone have a note so that I can go to him and ask for change and the one with the gun would then come and do his work.

I then left with a R50-00 note that I got from comrade Veli and I went to him and I asked for change. While he was preparing the change, Peter came and he shot at Mkhabela and we ran off.

As we were running away, I got arrested.

MR MOHLABA: You are now mentioning the name Peter. Is Peter one of the people who you have mentioned, that is you have mentioned Lawrence, you have mentioned Mohapi, you have mentioned Tsepo, you have mentioned Joseph, you have mentioned Veli and you mentioned Fanyana and Titus. Is Peter one of these people?

MR LAX: He mentioned Peter Tsiani Mr Mohlaba.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you, thank you Chair. And after Peter had shot at Mkhabela, what happened next?

MR SELAHLE: We were running away and I got arrested on the same day.

MR MOHLABA: Who arrested you, did somebody run after you and arrest you, can you give us more details? When were you arrested, while you persuade while you were running away or this arrest followed some days after the incident, can you explain in full details?

MR SELAHLE: There was no one running after us after we had done this offence.

The police just told me to stop and I stopped. The one got out of the car and he asked me where the gun was, and I told him that I did not have a gun. He searched me and he did not find a gun. They arrested me.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it on the say day of Mr Mkhabela's shooting, that was the question?

MR SELAHLE: It was on the same day.

MR MOHLABA: It would appear that when you stood trial for this very offence ...

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mohlaba, I don't want to interfere with your evidence in chief, but shouldn't you exhaust this question before you proceed to something else. You wanted to find out how long after the incident he was arrested, he says it was on the same day, but how long after the incident had occurred, was he arrested? He hasn't responded to that question.

He was arrested the same day, was it a few minutes, was it a few hours, was it after some time after the incident had occurred that he was arrested?

MR SELAHLE: I was arrested a few minutes after this incident, it was not even five minutes.

CHAIRPERSON: What time of the day did you ...

MR SELAHLE: It was about, I do not remember the time well, but it was something to five.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you. You have mentioned that Peter is the person who pulled the trigger and shot at Mkhabela, is that correct?

MR SELAHLE: That is correct.

MR MOHLABA: Did you mention this before in your trial?

MR SELAHLE: I did not mention it.

MR MOHLABA: Is there any reason why you did not tell the Court that it was in fact Peter who pulled the trigger and killed Mkhabela?

MR SELAHLE: Yes, when we operated and one comrade got arrested, he was not supposed to reveal other names. You had to sacrifice so that other comrades could continue with the struggle.

MR MOHLABA: You also mentioned that the R50-00 which you had in your hand when you approached Mkhabela was given to you by one of your comrades there, is that correct?

MR SELAHLE: That is correct.

MR MOHLABA: And was that ever mentioned to the trial Court when you stood trial?

MR SELAHLE: I did not mention it.

MR MOHLABA: Can you explain what you said to the Court with regard to the R50-00?

MR SELAHLE: I was asked whether I was the person who had a R50-00 note, I said yes but that I was given this note, this R50-00 by one comrade, I did not mention that.

I did not mention other comrades as well who were involved in this incident.

MR MOHLABA: There is a mention in the court record that, if the Chair can bear with me, apparently your version to the Court was that you had some money which you wanted to change because you were to collect some children. Is this what you mentioned to the Court?

MR SELAHLE: That is what I told the Court, but it was not the truth.

MR MOHLABA: So what you are saying to this Commission is that some of your version, some of the aspects which you have mentioned to the Court, was in fact a lie, is that correct?

MR SELAHLE: That is correct.

MR MOHLABA: Any reason why you lied to the Court?

MR SELAHLE: The reason was that I was fighting for my survival. Had I told the Court who was with me, it was going to be clear that there were many of us in this incident.

I just told the Court that I was alone when this incident happened.

MR MOHLABA: Let me take you through your application form.

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose Mr Mohlaba. Are you saying if you had told the truth of what had happened, which I would presume would include the fact that, fundamentally the fact that the killing of Mr Mkhabela was not criminal, but was politically motivated, more people would have been arrested in particular the members of your Unit that you have already enumerated?

MR SELAHLE: Can you please repeat the question, I did not quite understand it.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying that had you told the Court the truth that Mr Mkhabela's killing had been planned by you as SDU members, and was politically motivated and was not just a criminal act, more people would have been arrested and those would have included the members of your Unit that you have enumerated before this Committee today?

MR SELAHLE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Proceed Mr Mohlaba.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you Chair. Let me take you through your application form. I refer the Committee to page 46 of the paginated bundle, paragraph 11(b). You were asked to give amongst other things, names and addresses of a person who approved or gave orders and there is a mention there of comrade Skananda, Bongani Christopher Khumalo, and it would appear that there is also a signature of this person appearing on that paragraph. Is that correct?

MR SELAHLE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mohlaba, won't you please just tell us how you know that there is a signature of Mr Skananda appearing on the application? That evidence has not been placed before us?

MR MOHLABA: Thank you Chair, I am unable to say that, but there is in fact a signature next to a date, almost at the foot of the application form.

CHAIRPERSON: Won't you just put it to Mr Selahle, find out whose signature that is without leading him?

MR MOHLABA: Thank you Chair. Do you, Mr Selahle, see the signature?

CHAIRPERSON: Whose signature appears next to MK? Whose signature appears next to the words MK?

MR SELAHLE: It is Commander Skananda's signature.

CHAIRPERSON: How did it get to your application form?

MR SELAHLE: I heard long before about this name and I met him in prison, he was assisting us when we filled these forms in, that is how his signature appeared on that page.

CHAIRPERSON: You say you had heard about him, but you had never met him until when he came to the prison to assist in the completion of the application form?

MR SELAHLE: I met him in prison. He was also serving a sentence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but I thought he was the one who, I thought you say in your application form, you were under his command?

MR SELAHLE: I have explained that I heard from my Commander about Commander Skananda.

CHAIRPERSON: In your application form in response to a question under paragraph 11(b), which sought to elicit the name of the person who had approved the order for you to commit the act for which you are applying for amnesty, you say it was Commander Skananda and that you were under his command?

How did you know that he had given an order when you had never met him?

MR SELAHLE: I was still going to that point of how I met Commander Skananda. When we filled in these forms, I asked Commander Skananda and he told us that it is not a problem, he would take the responsibility, even though we discussed this issue with the comrades.

He was very close with Mabutsha, that is how his name appears in these forms.

CHAIRPERSON: I cannot understand what you mean by saying that Skananda said he would take the responsibility. Did he say he would take the responsibility of being a Commander when he never was a Commander of your Unit?

MR SELAHLE: Skananda was a Commander, but at the time of committing this offence, he did not command us. In prison, when we were filling in these forms, he was there and he told us that he knew Commander Mabutsha and he told us that it was not a problem to fill in this question, he would take responsibility, even though he was not involved.

It is only because he knew our Commander Mabutsha that he came to our assistance.

CHAIRPERSON: Why didn't you put in the name of your Commander? Why was it difficult for you to put in the name of your Commander Mabutsha?

MR SELAHLE: I think I stated before, that he is the person who recruited us. At the time of this incident, he had already died. That was on the 27th of December 1993 and this incident occurred on the 16th of March 1994.

CHAIRPERSON: What you are actually saying to this Committee is that the killing of Mr Mkhabela was not committed as a result of any order having come from any Commander and definitely not from Skananda?

MR SELAHLE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Who was the Commander if there was any, of your Unit?

MR SELAHLE: Mabutsha had already died, his assistant was Joseph Lehlarelo, he is the person with whom we were operating.

CHAIRPERSON: And by March 1994, did you regard Joseph Lehlarelo as having been a Commander of your Unit?

MR SELAHLE: Mabutsha trusted him a lot. When we were supposed to engage in activities, we were supposed to meet him first.

CHAIRPERSON: No, answer my question and just confine your responses to the question I have put to you. Did you regard Mr Joseph Lehlarelo as having been your Commander in March 1994 and particularly by the 16th of March 1994?

MR SELAHLE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Did every member of your Unit regard him as your Commander?

MR SELAHLE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: To your knowledge, when do you think he assumed command of your Unit, was it immediately after the death of Mr Mabutsha?

MR SELAHLE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. You may proceed Mr Mohlaba. Obviously you note the concern one has when it comes to this portion of his evidence and hopefully you will deal with it extensively.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you Chair. Do you Mr Selahle, know where Joseph is presently?

MR SELAHLE: Joseph Lehlarelo is in the army.

MR MOHLABA: When you completed this application form, were you assisted by somebody throughout or you were only joined by comrade Skananda who assisted you with regard to this paragraph only?

MR SELAHLE: Comrade Skananda assisted us with the filling of these forms.

MR MOHLABA: And is it your handwriting which appears on the other paragraphs, I would note here that at the foot of paragraph 11, there are two distinct handwritings here, and do you confirm the rest of the handwriting to be yours? Did you complete it in your own hand or did you ask somebody to do it for you?

MR SELAHLE: The handwriting is mine, sir.

MR MOHLABA: How did comrade Skananda assist you, was he dictating answers to be put on this particular form or just tell us how it happened? Did you complete this form at your own, and where you had problems, consulted with comrade Skananda? Just explain what happened?

MR SELAHLE: I filled this form myself. As I was going through and did not understand something, I would stop and ask him if he would explain to me what was required of me.

MR MOHLABA: Is there any reason why the name of Joseph was not inserted in this paragraph?

MR SELAHLE: Sorry, I do not understand your question sir.

MR MOHLABA: Joseph who was at the time of this incident, your Commander, do you know of any reason why you omitted to put, to insert his name here?

MR SELAHLE: When we planned the murder of this person, it was all of us, not only him. He is not the person who said go and do it, all of us were together, planning it.

He was taking part as all other members of the group.

MR MOHLABA: So in other words you all contributed to this planning of the death of Mr Mkhabela, without anyone giving your orders specifically, you didn't have a superior who ordered you to go and carry out that transaction, is that correct?

MR SELAHLE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: May we ascertain Mr Mohlaba, what standard did you achieve at school Mr Selahle?

MR SELAHLE: I passed standard 9 and I did not continue to matric.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and when you completed this application form, did you understand, I see it is completed in English, this is an English application form, did you understand the questions which were being asked of you? Did you fully understand?

MR SELAHLE: I said I filled the form where I understood it. Where I did not understand, I asked Skananda as to what was happening and he would explain exactly what was needed, what was required of me.

CHAIRPERSON: In other words you did not fully understand the questions that were being asked of you, in order to complete the application form properly?

MR SELAHLE: I did not understand some of the questions. Those questions which I did not understand, I referred to Skananda and he assisted me.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you recall which questions you did not understand?

MR SELAHLE: The question about nature and particulars, I did not understand that, he assisted me.

MR MOHLABA: If I may interpose, that refers to paragraph 9(a)(v) on page 43 of the paginated document.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And did he then dictate to you, I was still going on but I wanted to allow the sound of the car to go passed, did he then dictate to you what you had to put under that paragraph?

MR SELAHLE: He was telling me how I should write it.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR SELAHLE: The question is written in English and I can understand English, I can write it, but where I could not get the questions clearly, he would ask me in Sotho what was asked of me and then I would tell him, and he would say that in English.

CHAIRPERSON: He then dictated to you what you had to put down in respect of those paragraphs you did not understand, yes or no?

MR SELAHLE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed to identify also other paragraphs you did not understand and to which you had Skananda to assist you.

MR SELAHLE: Justification regarding such acts or omission or offences associated with a political objective.

These are the questions he helped me with.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And you have already identified paragraph 11(b) as having been completed with his assistance and that is when he said he is prepared to assume responsibility?

MR SELAHLE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he assist you to complete paragraph 11(a)?

MR SELAHLE: He assisted with paragraph 11(a) as well.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there anything else? Have you identified all the paragraphs now in respect of which you were assisted by Skananda?

MR SELAHLE: I am satisfied I mentioned them all.

CHAIRPERSON: Did the Commander of the prison advise you that the Amnesty Committee had prescribed regulations in terms of which you could have been legally assisted if you so requested, through him, which legal assistance would have enabled you to complete your application form?

MR SELAHLE: They did not tell us anything. Had they told us, I would not have requested Skananda to assist me in the filling of these forms. They just gave us these forms and said fill these forms in.

CHAIRPERSON: So when you were in fact given an application form for amnesty, that important information about you being able to get legal assistance if you so requested, was not conveyed to you by the Commander?

MR SELAHLE: We were not fed that information.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed Mr Mohlaba.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you Chair. So the last question I posed to you, you are saying that you did not mention a Commander because everybody in your Unit had participated in this planning of the death of Mkhabela, is that correct?

MR SELAHLE: That is correct.

MR MOHLABA: Can you, you have also been convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm and having perused the court record, it appears that there is evidence that you threw away an object which was apparently a firearm while you were running away. Did you do that?

MR SELAHLE: That is not correct.

MR MOHLABA: On this particular day, were you in possession of a firearm or ammunition?

MR SELAHLE: I did not have anything.

MR MOHLABA: So, it is your case that you were falsely implicated on these two counts of possession of a firearm and ammunition?

MR SELAHLE: That is correct.

MR MOHLABA: And that is the reason that you are not applying amnesty for those offences, because you did not carry out those deeds, is that correct?

MR SELAHLE: That is correct.

MR MOHLABA: Did you know the deceased's surname, that is Mkhabela, to be Mkhabela at the time of you planning his death or you only knew him by sight?

MR SELAHLE: We only knew him by sight, it was during the trial when I came to know about his name.

MR MOHLABA: Do you Mr Selahle, have anything to say to the Committee or the family of the victim in support of your application for amnesty?

CHAIRPERSON: Before he proceeds to do that Mr Mohlaba, do you not intend to deal with his response to the political objective which was sought to be achieved, specifically by killing Mr Mkhabela, which has not been fully and appropriately dealt with so far?

MR MOHLABA: Thank you Chair, I am indebted to the Chair. Mr Selahle, when you planned the killing of Mr Mkhabela, what did you seek to achieve, what would the death of Mkhabela do to - well, what would you achieve in his death?

MR SELAHLE: We wanted peace to reign in the township. People were killed every day and when we discussed, we discovered that Mr Mkhabela was involved in the killing of people.

MR MOHLABA: In paragraph 9(a) of your application form, that is page 43 of the bundle, (i), you were asked to state the act or omission and in response to that, you inserted ...

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mohlaba, I think I am actually having an incomplete response. My note reads we wanted peace to reign in the township. When we discovered that Mr Mkhabela was involved in the killing of people, I suppose Mr Selahle wanted to go on to tell us what, when they discovered that he was involved in the killing of the people in the township, what is it that they to do. Am I right? Am I right Mr Translator that I think he fell short of completing his sentence there?

INTERPRETER: Chairperson, the answer was when we discussed, we discovered that Mkhabela was one of the people who was involved, who were involved in the killing of the community.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, what did then happen when they discovered that he was involved in the killing of members of that community?

MR SELAHLE: We then decided to take an action in the aim of stopping these killings. The only way of stopping these killings, was to kill anyone who was killing the members of the community. Thank you Mr Mohlaba, you may proceed.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: If you feel that your client has fully exhausted his justification for the killing of course.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you Chair. So is this your case, Mr Selahle, that in killing Mkhabela, the community would enjoy some peace and tranquillity, is that correct?

MR SELAHLE: That is correct.

MR MOHLABA: May I take you to paragraph 9(a) of your application form, (i), that is page 43 of the bundle, you were asked to state an act or omission and in response thereto, you mention murder of an IFP member. Is that correct?

MR SELAHLE: That is correct.

MR MOHLABA: Why did you assume that Mkhabela was a member of the IFP?

MR LAX: Well, did he assume Mr Mohlaba, I mean really, you are putting the words in his mouth in that instance, in not a very positive way?

MR MOHLABA: Thank you Chair, why did you say that the person who was murdered, was an IFP member?

MR SELAHLE: When I arrived at the police station after I was arrested, I heard the police talking amongst themselves that a person had been shot and he is a member of the IFP and there was a possibility that there could be unrest in the township. That is how I got this information.

ADV BOSMAN: But before the incident, how did you assume he was an IFP member if you did? Before the arrest?

MR SELAHLE: I did not know that he was a member of the IFP before I was arrested.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mohlaba, I must express my concern at the way in which you are leading evidence which might actually be to the detriment of your client.

It is of utmost importance that I think everyone who appears before us, has read the Act and really, comprehends the application of his client and lead that evidence that will advance his client's application for amnesty.

To this extent, it is of utmost importance that that evidence should connect the state of mind of an applicant at the time of committing an offence, to the conflict that we are dealing with. Up to now, there has been no such connection.

No evidence has been led as to why Mr Mkhabela once he was seen shooting at people in a kombi, by amongst others your client, he then thought those people were being shot within the context of the political conflict that we all know existed in this township.

We would have wanted you to have led that kind of evidence at the time when he was describing that shooting.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you Chair. Mr Selahle, may I take you back to the, amongst other things, the reason why you joined the SDU's yourself, what was happening in the townships then, at the township where you were staying, that is in Vosloorus?

MR SELAHLE: The township was engulfed in violence. The members of the IFP were attacking the townships. When Commander Mabutsha approached me with the aim of joining the Self Defence Unit, I agreed. We had to fight against those people.

MR MOHLABA: Are you able to know who was fighting who, was this violence concentrated in particular Sections of the township, did you find people in the township fighting amongst themselves or were people in a certain area of the township fighting people in another area, can you just explain fully.

MR SELAHLE: The people from the hostels, in most cases, would come and fight the people in the township. We felt that it was necessary to fight back. The people we were hoping would assist us, did not assist us.

We then formed the SDU's and fight those people who were fighting the members of the community.

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose, the people that you alleged to have been staying in hostels and were fighting the residents in your township, did you perceive them to have belonged to any political organisation?

MR SELAHLE: The situation was like this in Vosloorus, the people who were from kwaZulu Natal who were not members of the ANC, had left the hostels. Those who were left in the hostels, were the supporters and the members of the IFP.

CHAIRPERSON: May you repeat your translation.

INTERPRETER: The people from kwaZulu Natal who were the supporters of the ANC, had left the hostel, those who were left behind were either members or supporters of the IFP.

CHAIRPERSON: Those who were left behind in the hostels, were perceived to members of the IFP by the township residents, is that your evidence?

MR SELAHLE: I explained that members and supporters of IFP were left behind in the hostels. Those who were not the supporters, had left the hostels.

CHAIRPERSON: If I put a question to you that wants to elicit a yes or a no, I will appreciate if you can just say yes or no without having to repeat yourself.

What made you think that Mr Mkhabela stayed in that hostel? We have no such evidence before us here?

MR SELAHLE: I got this information from the police station when I was arrested. Even at the trial it was indicated that he stayed in the hostel. On the day of this incident, they were running into the hostel.

CHAIRPERSON: I am going to stop you. I don't want any evidence about what information you obtained after your arrest, I want information about your state of mind at the time when you committed the offence. Do we understand each other?

MR SELAHLE: Yes, we do understand each other.

CHAIRPERSON: The information that you obtained after the offence had been committed, is of no relevance to us. We cannot use it in deciding whether to grant you amnesty or not.

I am going to repeat my question again, what made you think that Mr Mkhabela stayed at a hostel?

MR SELAHLE: After they committed their offence, they ran towards the hostel, and everybody who hid in the hostel was a member and a supporter of the IFP.

That is what convinced me that these were the members of the IFP who committed this act.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you see them getting into the hostel or you saw them running towards the hostel?

MR SELAHLE: We were inside the hostel trying to get out of the hostel, and they came into the hostel, running. We were going out, they were getting in.

CHAIRPERSON: Now you have just given evidence that the people who were in the hostel, were all perceived to be IFP members because those who had earlier on stayed in that hostel, and were ANC members, had moved out and that only IFP members resided in that hostel.

How did it come that you should go into the same hostel when you definitely were not an IFP person?

MR SELAHLE: I think I explained that we ended up at the hostel because of Paul. Paul told us that there was someone he knew in the hostel, that is how we got into the hostel.

We told him that we would not get in, you get in. He said no problem, let us all get in.

CHAIRPERSON: I just want to understand that piece of evidence properly. Are you saying that comrade Paul said you must get into this IFP hostel to obtain bullets from IFP members?

MR SELAHLE: Paul was not going to state that we were the ones looking for the bullets, it would appear that he was the one looking for the bullets and we ended up going together to the hostel.

CHAIRPERSON: And Paul was an ANC or an IFP member, what political organisation did he belong to?

MR SELAHLE: He was a member of the PAC.

CHAIRPERSON: And what role did he have to play in this whole bullet obtaining story? Was he facilitating your obtaining ammunition from IFP members?

MR SELAHLE: He told us that he knew someone, they were assisting each other, I don't know how they assisted each other. He said if we go to that person, he would assist us.

We then left together. If we were on our own, we would not have gone. We only went there because Paul knew someone inside.

CHAIRPERSON: What I cannot find conceivable is you going into an IFP stronghold, to get assistance even with the assistance of Paul, who was a member of the PAC. What made you to go to such measures?

MR SELAHLE: I already indicated that Paul told us that he had a link with the people inside, and we told him that we would not get in. He told us that there was no problem as long as we were in his company we would get in.

Had we been on our own, we would not have gone in there. Now, we went there because of Paul, the people in the hostel knew him.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it normal for your Units not necessarily yours specifically, to obtain ammunition from the members of the IFP?

MR SELAHLE: It was not normal.

CHAIRPERSON: In your case, why did you do it?

MR SELAHLE: I have explained that we went to Eastfield to Lloyd, we did not find Lloyd and I said to the comrades, let's go to Paul, he might assist us.

When we got to him, he said he did not have the bullets, but there was someone he knew who would help us with the bullets, and we left together with him to the hostel.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mohlaba, I think this is an appropriate time to take a lunch adjournment. We will adjourn for lunch and we will resume at two o'clock. Thank you.

ON RESUMPTION:

CHAIRPERSON: ... as well as having to wait for the Evidence Leader. When we have given a directive that we are going to commence proceedings at a particular hour, we would appreciate if everybody would cooperate in ensuring that we commence at a time that we have directed that the proceedings should commence.

If Ms Thabete or the legal representatives of the applicants concerned in any matter, have problems with the time indicated for recommencement of a hearing, they should please bring those problems to the attention of the Committee before it adjourns, otherwise we would want everybody to be here at a time that the Committee would have directed the proceedings should recommence.

I hope we won't have to be saddled with those unnecessary problems as we proceed the next few days for these applications.

GLADWELL SELAHLE: (still under oath)

MR MOHLABA: Thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: When we adjourned, you were still busy with your evidence in chief. You may proceed sir.

EXAMINATION BY MR MOHLABA: (continued) Thank you Chair, may I just apologise for this delay and wish to indicate that it was not intended to irritate the Chair.

Mr Selahle, you have mentioned while you were being examined by the Chair here, that it only came to your attention or to your knowledge that Joseph Mkhabela was an IFP member after you had been arrested.

If I understood you correctly, it is that you did not know his political affiliation at the time of the planning of his death, is that correct?

MR SELAHLE: That is correct.

MR MOHLABA: Are you able to say to this Commission why was Mkhabela targeted and subsequently killed as he was?

MR SELAHLE: On the day of the incident, which is the 25th, we went out of the hostel and the people were shot and we enquired from those who were at the scene as to what happened, and they told us that they had been shot and they gave us the description of the people we met entering the hostel, that is where we decided that these people should be accosted.

It so happened that the first one we accosted, was Mkhabela.

MR MOHLABA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I am going to ask Mr Interpreter, whether the applicant is in fact saying the intention was to confront with a view of grabbing Mr Mkhabela or the applicant is actually saying the intention was to go and kill Mr Mkhabela.

INTERPRETER: Chairperson, the response to the question was that they went out because they had to accost him, they had to catch him, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Maybe we need to get clarity from Mr Selahle.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Selahle, what did you intend to do to Mr Mkhabela once he was identified as being amongst the persons who had shot at the occupants of the taxi? Was your intention simply to go confront him, just to go and grab him, or was it your intention to kill him?

MR SELAHLE: Our intention was to eliminate him.

CHAIRPERSON: The reason why I am asking this is because your evidence has been alluding to the work accosting, and not to the work elimination.

MR SELAHLE: Maybe you did not understand me well, because I said earlier on we had to accost these people and eliminate them.

CHAIRPERSON: Well maybe if we had not heard me well, make sure that we hear you better by using the right words because we do not hear you, it is the Interpreter who hears you and he is translating directly what you are saying to him. I know some of the words that are used in the African language, have a different meaning when translated into English.

Try and not use a word that would suggest that your intention was to grab, confront, but try to use a word in Sotho that would give an indication that your intention was really to kill, okay?

MR SELAHLE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: So you were still explaining that on the 25th, this is the 25th of January you are referring to.

MR SELAHLE: That is correct, 1994.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, now will you continue to explain what you wanted to say then about the 25th of January?

MR SELAHLE: This is the day of the incident, the passengers got shot, it was in the morning and we came together as comrades and we decided that these people should be found and killed.

MR MOHLABA: Where were people shot?

MR SELAHLE: It was at M.C. Porter Drive, they were the passengers going to work in a taxi.

MR MOHLABA: How did you come to learn about this shooting and how soon after the shooting did you get the information about this shooting?

MR SELAHLE: Can you repeat your question please?

CHAIRPERSON: How did you learn about the people who had shot at the taxi?

MR SELAHLE: It was when we went out of the hostel, there was a taxi outside parking, and the place was full of people, we also went to enquire as to what happened and we found people shot. That is when I first knew of this incident.

CHAIRPERSON: Wasn't your earlier evidence that you had actually seen people running towards the hostel whilst you were also in the hostel yourself?

MR SELAHLE: That is what I said.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it not your earlier evidence that you then made enquiries from people who were next to the scene of the shooting and these people advised you that the shooting had been done by the people who had run towards the hostel and then you then deduced that it must be the people that you had seen running towards the hostel whilst you were there, and which people were armed at the time of you seeing them running towards the hostel? Is that still your evidence?

MR SELAHLE: That is what I said.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV BOSMAN: May I just enquire, how much time did you have to observe the people who were running towards the hostel?

MR SELAHLE: We did not have time, if I may give a distance at the door, right at the back, it was where they were coming and we were just here, next to the camera. We saw them as they were approaching.

What made us pay attention to them is the way they were carrying their firearms. That actually attracted our eyes and we concentrated on them.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you Mr Mohlaba.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you. Where did you go next, did you go to the scene where the actual shooting took place, that is where people were shot at and what did you find there if you ever went there?

MR SELAHLE: There was a taxi parked there, people were shot, six of them were dead and the others were injured.

MR MOHLABA: Did you establish from the scene there how these people were shot and who has shot them? Did you try and do any enquiries?

CHAIRPERSON: I think we have covered that part of the evidence Mr Mohlaba. It is his earlier evidence that they described the people who had done the shooting and from that, he was able to deduce that it must be the same people that he had seen running towards the hostel.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you Chair. So you, having deduced that the deceased as you then identified him, was one of the people who ran into the hostel, holding a firearm and having concluded that he is the person who has taken part in the killing of the six people as you have mentioned here, how did you regard him?

Did you regard him as the enemy of the community or what was your interpretation of the whole event?

MR SELAHLE: Yes, I regarded him as the enemy of the community.

MR MOHLABA: You were at that time a member of the SDU which was established to protect the community from such attacks, is that correct?

MR SELAHLE: That is correct.

MR MOHLABA: So, is it your case that the killing of the deceased, Joseph Mkhabela, was in the interest of the community which you were protecting as a member of the SDU?

MR LAX: You know Mr Mohlaba, you realise that this evidence that you are eliciting from this applicant in the light of the sort of leading questions that you are asking, have no probative value whatsoever. If you are going to lead him in this fashion, you are going to leave us with no valuable evidence upon which to rely.

Please, I have asked you before, try not to put the words in his mouth, but try to ask the question in such a way that the evidence we glean from what he says, is valuable to us.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you. Mr Selahle, what did you seek to achieve, what goal did you achieve in killing, in planning the death of Mkhabela and his subsequent death?

CHAIRPERSON: He has already responded to that question Mr Mohlaba, I will not allow that.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you Chair. Mr Selahle, in conclusion, lastly, do you have anything to mention to the Commission in support of your application?

MR SELAHLE: Yes, I want to say to the Committee people were being killed every day and this disturbed me quite a lot.

I had this love for our people and I deemed it necessary to work together with the SDU to protect the community so that we can protect them against those people who were using force against them.

I am sorry for what I did, I am asking amnesty for what I did.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mohlaba. Mr Selahle, before we lose the sense of your evidence, may I just put certain questions to you in order to get clarity on what you have testified.

Were there frequent shootings of passengers in the taxi's in your township?

MR SELAHLE: This is, such incidents happened once after a long time. It did not frequent the township.

CHAIRPERSON: You mean you were therefore mistaken, in your concluding evidence you say you did what you did because there were such shootings which were occurring quite frequently as it were? Were you mistaken when you said that or you don't understand my question?

MR SELAHLE: I do understand your question, yes, people were being killed but most of the attacks, people would be shot at when they are at the night vigils, when they are at the parks, when they are in taverns.

The shooting of a taxi was not a usual thing to see.

CHAIRPERSON: Now if that is so, what made you think that the people who had shot the taxi, were the enemies of the community?

MR SELAHLE: Can you please repeat your question?

CHAIRPERSON: Let me tell you what you said first, and then put my question thereafter. You have testified that the reason why you shot at Mr Mkhabela was because you regarded the people who had shot at the taxi on the 25th of January, as being the enemy or enemies of your community.

My question which follows from that is why did you think that the people who had shot at the taxi on the 25th of January, were the enemies of the community?

MR SELAHLE: It was clear from what they did on the 25th, that they were the enemy.

Had we left them, people were still going to die. They were a threat to the community.

CHAIRPERSON: How were they a threat to the community, just from one single incident of a taxi shooting, you then deduced that they must be enemies?

MR SELAHLE: We did not know when first did they start shooting at the people. We did not trust them at all because of the deaths within the community.

We saw it necessary not to leave them alone because the community would not be safe at all. We just realised that leaving them alone, would not solve the problem.

CHAIRPERSON: How did you put the shooting to be associated with the conflict that had engulfed your township during that time, that we are all aware did occur? Do you get the ambit of my question?

MR SELAHLE: Maybe if you rephrase the question, I would understand it.

CHAIRPERSON: There was conflict in your township?

MR SELAHLE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: As a result of which there was a lot of violence?

MR SELAHLE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: People were being killed?

MR SELAHLE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And the killing emanated from that conflict?

MR SELAHLE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: It was as a result of that that SDU's were formed?

MR SELAHLE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: But the killing was seen to be coming from two groups.

MR SELAHLE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: From the community, the residents in the township?

MR SELAHLE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And the hostel dwellers?

MR SELAHLE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: There was a perception that the residents were ANC members and those who stayed in the hostel, were IFP members?

MR SELAHLE: I would say that, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And in your evidence you have indeed supported, but only partly that perception by saying all members who were staying, who were ANC members, all people who were ANC members who had been staying in the hostels, had moved out of the hostels and only IFP members, or perceived IFP members, remained in the hostels?

MR SELAHLE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: That being so, what did you make of the people you had seen running towards the hostel after you had been told by some of the people who had sustained injuries at the scene of the shooting, that the people who had done the shooting, had been carrying firearm and had run towards the direction of the hostel?

What did you make of those people, what did you think they were members of if you did have any opinion about that at all? I want your opinion, not anyone else's opinion.

I want what came to your mind.

MR SELAHLE: I just saw them as dangerous people, dangerous to the community. That is why I joined when it was decided that they should be found and killed.

CHAIRPERSON: What did you make of their probable political affiliation? Did you think this was politically related?

MR SELAHLE: I associated that with politics.

CHAIRPERSON: Why?

MR SELAHLE: It was not simple for the residents of the township to commit such an act and run into the hostel. The people who were capable of doing such acts, were those who lived in the hostel, the people who were against the community.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you have IFP members who owned taxi's in your township?

MR SELAHLE: Yes, they were there.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Thabete, do you have any questions to put to Mr Selahle?

MS THABETE: Just one aspect Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed to put any questions in respect of that aspect.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETE: Thank you. Mr Selahle, in your understanding, can you briefly explain what did you think the role of SDU members was in the community?

MR SELAHLE: I do not understand the question, can you please repeat it?

MS THABETE: What did you understand the role of SDU members to be as an SDU member in the community?

MR SELAHLE: The role was to defend the African masses against the enemy.

MS THABETE: Who was the enemy in your understanding?

MR SELAHLE: The members of the IFP who were attacking us. At some instances, there were gangsters working together with the members of the IFP, harassing the community.

They are the ones who were directing the attacks to the community, thus I refer to them as enemies of the community.

MS THABETE: So are you saying those were the only group or people you identified as enemies, there were no other groups that you identified as enemies?

MR SELAHLE: I think I mentioned that they were collaborating with the gangsters. The gangsters were in support of the IFP. We regarded them as enemies.

MS THABETE: My last question to you is, how then did you as SDU members identify such enemies, was it people who committed criminal acts, was it people who committed political acts, or both? How did you identify those enemies?

MR LAX: Are you trying to say how did you differentiate between those enemies?

MS THABETE: Yes. I think what I want to ascertain is they knew that they had an enemy to attack or to protect against the community, how would they identify those people as enemies from what they did? That is what I am trying to ascertain.

CHAIRPERSON: Hasn't he covered that Ms Thabete, because in his evidence in chief he said the fact that they had attacked a taxi, killed and injured the passengers therein, made them the enemies of the community at least in respect of this incident?

MS THABETE: Madam Chair, I was asking a general question, then I was going to be more specific.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed.

MS THABETE: Mr Selahle, how did you as SDU members identify who the enemy was?

MR SELAHLE: We identified them by their actions against the community.

MS THABETE: Which were?

MR SELAHLE: Attacking the community, killing the members of the community. That in itself was a clear indication that they were the enemy.

MS THABETE: So would you say what Mr Mkhabela and the other guy did, is what you identified as part of your role in protecting the community?

MR SELAHLE: That is what I would say.

MS THABETE: No further questions Madam Chair, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much Ms Thabete. Ms Bosman?

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Selahle, was Paul against them?

MR SELAHLE: He was not, he was a member of the PAC.

ADV BOSMAN: And the PAC and the IFP were they not opposed to each other in the community?

MR SELAHLE: They were not. Members of the IFP were fighting the members of the ANC, the conflict did not include members of the PAC.

They were against the followers of the ANC.

ADV BOSMAN: Were there no PAC members in the SDU's?

MR SELAHLE: We had a few of them, not many.

ADV BOSMAN: Was Paul a member of the SDU?

MR SELAHLE: He was not.

ADV BOSMAN: What was the basis of the friendship or relationship between you and Paul?

MR SELAHLE: We did not have any friendship with Paul, we were operating with other members of the PAC and that is how we came to know about Paul.

When we wanted bullets and firearms, they would refer us to him. We were not so close to him.

ADV BOSMAN: Where is Peter today, the one who fired the shot?

MR SELAHLE: It was after two weeks of my arrest, that he died.

ADV BOSMAN: Why did you not in your form, application form, state that Peter who had fired the shot, was the one who fired the shot and that he is now deceased?

MR SELAHLE: I am the only person who was arrested, and I was prepared to take all the blame. I was not prepared to take everything out.

ADV BOSMAN: Yes, but Peter was dead, so there would be no blame that would have any effect on him?

MR SELAHLE: I don't seem to understand you.

ADV BOSMAN: Is it correct that at the time when you filled out this application form, Peter was already dead?

MR SELAHLE: That is correct.

ADV BOSMAN: So if you had mentioned that he had fired the shot, what blame could have attached to him then, what could have happened to him, if you told the truth?

MR SELAHLE: Yes, you are correct, he was already dead.

ADV BOSMAN: When you filled out this application, did you understand that you were to tell the truth?

MR SELAHLE: Yes. That is why I am here, I am here to tell you the truth of what happened on that day.

ADV BOSMAN: No, but that is not my question, my question is when you filled out the form, did you understand that you have to put the truth in the form?

MR SELAHLE: Yes, I knew that.

ADV BOSMAN: But the impression from the form is that you killed the deceased, is that right?

MR SELAHLE: Yes, the form says so, but it is not me. I was with those people when the deceased was killed.

ADV BOSMAN: Why did you only mention the names of people who are deceased, it worries me a bit?

Why did you only mention names of people who are deceased, Mr Mabutsha and Mr Skananda are both deceased. You mentioned names, but only names of deceased persons?

MR SELAHLE: I told you who Skananda is, Peter died in 1994 and Mabutsha also died.

ADV BOSMAN: And another matter which I am not clear on is you said in your evidence that you did not have much time to observe the people who ran into the hostel, you also mentioned that they were quite a distance away and now you kill a person after almost two months. How sure were you that it was the right person?

MR SELAHLE: We saw them and the description that we were given, corresponded with the people we saw. That is why we killed him.

ADV BOSMAN: What description were you given, in what regard, in what way were they described, in relation to what?

MR SELAHLE: How they were clothed. They were wearing jackets and overalls and then the three people we saw, were wearing the same clothes as described.

ADV BOSMAN: Are you telling the Committee that two months after the incident, Mr Mkhabela was wearing the same clothes that he had been wearing on the day that he ran into the hostel?

MR SELAHLE: That is not so. It was our third time to see him. We were going to eliminate him when we met him for the second time, and we did not succeed, but the third time we did succeed.

ADV BOSMAN: All right, the second time you saw him, was he wearing the same clothes?

MR SELAHLE: No.

ADV BOSMAN: So how did you recognise him?

MR SELAHLE: We saw them when we were moving out of the hostel and then they re getting in. They did not cover their faces. We saw their faces and we managed to see their faces.

ADV BOSMAN: Are you now telling us that you recognised them from both their clothes, the description and their faces?

MR SELAHLE: We saw them on the faces and the description of clothes that we were given, matched their clothing.

ADV BOSMAN: Tell me was their blood on your clothes when you were arrested?

MR SELAHLE: Yes, my T-shirt had blood.

ADV BOSMAN: Where did this blood come from?

MR SELAHLE: From the deceased, when you are shot at, I was outside at the door. He was handing me the change. Because of the close range, the blood spilt onto me.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Interpreter, I didn't quite get that, because of the ....

MR SELAHLE: Because of the close range, the blood spilt onto me.

ADV BOSMAN: Spilt? Did you tell your sister that you had been assaulted?

MR SELAHLE: I told her.

ADV BOSMAN: Who assaulted you?

MR SELAHLE: The police t the police station.

ADV BOSMAN: Did you tell anybody that the blood was from the assault?

MR SELAHLE: I never told anybody that.

ADV BOSMAN: Madam Chair for the record, it does say in the judgement that it could have been from the assault, he didn't in fact tell anybody that. I don't want to prejudice him with my question.

Just one more question, where was Peter in relation to you when he shot the deceased?

MR SELAHLE: I stated that I went to the driver's side at the window, and Peter approached behind me and he pointed a gun and shot at the driver.

ADV BOSMAN: Yes, but he must have been to your side, either to the left or to the right, do you know where he was?

MR SELAHLE: He was on the left side.

ADV BOSMAN: There was evidence given at the trial, that the person who shot him, must have been very close to the deceased. This is on page 61 of the proceedings.

Mr Mohlaba, if you could perhaps just indicate that to your client, it is in Afrikaans.

I shall try to just translate it, the third line from the bottom of page 61, it is page 55 the record, do you have it? Paginated page 61.

Do you have the bundle Mr Mohlaba, do you have page 61?

MR MOHLABA: Certainly page 61 in my bundle, it is ...

ADV BOSMAN: Three lines from the bottom of the page, it says the would was inflicted at a very close range according to Dr Bekker, that is the medical Doctor who had drafted the, who had done the autopsy, at a range of approximately 10 centimetres and then it proceeds to say any person who had stood to the left of the accused, that is now the applicant here, it says any person to the left of the accused, would probably have had much difficulty in getting so close to the deceased without having to push the accused, that is the applicant, away.

Do you understand what I have just read from the record Mr Selahle?

MR SELAHLE: I do understand that.

ADV BOSMAN: Can you at all comment on that?

MR SELAHLE: I stated before that I was very close to the driver, and he approached, he forced his hand and he shot. I was standing straight, opposite the window.

He came close to me, he was very close to me.

ADV BOSMAN: Did you see Peter's hand?

MR SELAHLE: Yes, he stood next to me but because I was almost covering the whole window, he stretched his hand and shot at him.

ADV BOSMAN: Did he touch you?

MR SELAHLE: Who?

ADV BOSMAN: Did he touch you when he shot, Peter?

MR SELAHLE: Who?

ADV BOSMAN: Did Peter touch you when he shot? Did he touch you with his arm or his hand?

MR SELAHLE: He did not, when I saw him approaching, I shifted I thought he would stand next to me, but he was not that close and I shifted and he stretched his hand and shot.

ADV BOSMAN: How far away from the deceased was his hand, did you see?

MR SELAHLE: It was not far. It was myself, Mr Mohlaba here ...

CHAIRPERSON: Did you understand what he was saying because he was now speaking away from the microphone?

INTERPRETER: Chairperson, the Interpreters did not get that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Will you repeat what you said, the description of where Peter ... (tape ends) ... try and make sure that you don't speak away from the microphone, because when you do that, the Translators are unable to pick up what you are saying.

MR SELAHLE: As Mr Mohlaba is sitting just here, I stood next to Mr Mohlaba, Peter approached from behind and I stood a little bit back and he stretched his hand, he shot at him.

When he shot at him, he was facing at me but his hand, facing the deceased and he shot him to the head.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lax, do you have any questions to put to Mr Selahle?

MR LAX: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Selahle, I just want to take you back to the incident which gave rise to this whole state of affairs coming about.

Did I understand you correctly that you said you went to the scene where this taxi had been shot, you saw that there were six people dead and a number of others were injured there, is that right?

MR SELAHLE: That is correct.

MR LAX: And you then asked those people who were there for a description of who had attacked them?

MR SELAHLE: We asked those people what happened and they gave us the description, they told us the people who committed this act, were clothed in such a way and they ran to this direction.

MR LAX: You see in your first part of your evidence, you said that when you got to the taxi and you asked the people what had happened, they didn't know what had happened. That was your earliest evidence?

MR SELAHLE: Yes, that is what I told you.

MR LAX: Well then if they did not know what had happened, how could they describe the attackers to you?

MR SELAHLE: Maybe you did not understand me. We did not ask the - the taxi was parked outside and there were spectators, the people who came to watch what was happening, we asked them, those who were watching and they told us what happened. We did not speak to the people in the taxi. We actually enquired from the people who were standing around, watching.

MR LAX: Yes, wasn't the taxi at a four way stop some distance from the hostel?

MR SELAHLE: You are correct.

MR LAX: You must have arrived there some time after this had happened?

MR SELAHLE: That is correct.

MR LAX: Now, a whole lot of people were gathered there and the people who were gathered there said to you, gave you a description?

MR SELAHLE: That is correct.

MR LAX: Right, well, that is not what you said in your earlier evidence? Who were the people in the taxi, did you know them, did you identify them?

MR SELAHLE: I did not know them. They were passengers going to work in the morning.

MR LAX: From where, do you know?

MR SELAHLE: From the township. They were from the township.

MR LAX: How do you know that if you didn't find out who they were?

MR SELAHLE: It was in the morning and everybody who goes to work, would stand there to catch taxi's, so they were going to work.

MR LAX: How do you know they weren't from the hostel, it was right next to the hostel? They may have been hostel dwellers in that taxi for all you knew, you don't know who they were, isn't that so?

MR SELAHLE: Can you repeat your question.

MR LAX: How do you know they weren't hostel dwellers in that taxi who were shot at? You didn't find out who they were, they could have just as easily have been hostel dwellers, this was right next to the hostel, isn't that so?

MR SELAHLE: Had they been hostel dwellers, we would have not find their family members at the scene. Some of the people at the scene were crying and I knew them from the township.

That is why I am saying they were from the township, going to work.

MR LAX: Well, if you knew them from the township, then you would have known who those people were and you have just said you didn't know who they were?

MR SELAHLE: It might happen sir, that I don't know you, but I know your children.

That is why I am saying there were children around who came from the township, they were crying. We know them, they are from the township, so we concluded that because they were crying, there family members were there and they were from the township.

MR LAX: But then you would describe me as somebody's parents, someone you know's parent, isn't that right?

MR SELAHLE: I would say that.

MR LAX: And you didn't? I am going to move on in any event. The other two people that ran into the hostel with this deceased, there were three of them, right?

MR SELAHLE: Yes, they were three.

MR LAX: Who were they?

MR SELAHLE: I indicated earlier on that we did not know Mkhabela himself, we only came to know him after he was killed. But we were looking for the three of them, but the first one we got hold of, was Mkhabela and I was arrested immediately after this incident.

MR LAX: You don't seem to have taken any steps to try and identify the other two, to try and apprehend the other two?

MR SELAHLE: We did not even take steps to apprehend Mkhabela. It was our first time to see them, and after quite some time we met him a second time at the firms, and on the 16th, we apprehended him.

But our main aim was to get the three of them together, but it happened that we first got hold of Mkhabela.

MR LAX: After the first time you saw Mkhabela in his taxi, and you made a note of the number plate and so on, do you remember that was your evidence?

MR SELAHLE: I remember that.

MR LAX: Did you ever see that taxi involved in any other violence of any description?

MR SELAHLE: We went to the firms, thinking that Mkhabela had walked to the firms. To our surprise, he was in a taxi, that is when we decided to take the taxi registrations, to trace it.

CHAIRPERSON: Just answer the question, listen to the question and confine your responses to the question being put to you.

Mr Lax is going to put the question again to you and confine your response only and only to what the question requires of you. If you are unable to do so, just give an indication that you are unable to respond, instead of responding incorrectly.

MR LAX: The question was very simple, I reminded you that you had identified this kombi, that you had taken down its registration number, do you remember that?

MR SELAHLE: Yes, I remember that.

MR LAX: The question was, after that, did you ever see this kombi which you had now identified, involved in any violence?

MR SELAHLE: No.

MR LAX: Did you ever see the man described as Mkhabela, involved in any other violence from the time of this incident till the time you killed him?

MR SELAHLE: No.

MR LAX: Do you not think that this incident might have been taxi violence, as opposed to political violence?

CHAIRPERSON: Before you proceed, maybe Mr Lax needs to clarify what exactly he means by that.

MR LAX: I mean competition between different taxi owners, as opposed to a political attack per se.

CHAIRPERSON: You mean the shooting on the 25th of January could have been as a result of a taxi competition between taxi owners?

MR LAX: Exactly, correct. Correct.

MR SELAHLE: Even if it was a competition between the taxi owners, it had no right to include the community.

If it was the competition, it would have been ...

CHAIRPERSON: Just listen to the question and confine your responses to the question being posed to you. Did you think that the shooting on the 25th of January could have been associated with the wars, the taxi wars that you and I are aware of?

MR LAX: The question was, was it not possible that it might have been?

CHAIRPERSON: Is it possible that that shooting could have been taxi war related as opposed to a shooting that could have been from one organisation against the members of the community?

MR SELAHLE: I really do not know.

MR LAX: Well, your earlier answer was that even if it was, it shouldn't have been allowed to happen, isn't that right?

MR SELAHLE: That is what I said.

CHAIRPERSON: You retracted from that. No, I think I made you to retract from that, because I didn't think you were responding to the question that was put to you.

You can't make your comment on what you have been made by the Chair to retract from.

MR SELAHLE: Can I carry on to what I wanted to say?

CHAIRPERSON: With my Committee member's indulgence, I just wanted to proceed to find out when you say you can't have an opinion whether the shooting of the 25th of January could have been taxi war related or could have been conflict related, that is the conflict that had engulfed the township. Why do you say you couldn't have known that, had there been any wars between two opposing taxi organisations in your community, I mean in your area at that time, around January 1994?

MR SELAHLE: What convinced us that it was not a taxi war, was the shooting of people. Had it been a fight between taxi owners, it would have included and involved taxi drivers and taxi owners only.

We were convinced that it was not a taxi feud, it was directed to the community.

CHAIRPERSON: You know Mr Selahle, it will do you a world of good, if you did not understand a question, you requested a question to be repeated or if you really did not understand the ambit of the question, you requested the person who posed the question, to simplify it for you, so that you can respond appropriately to questions being put to you.

You have not responded to my question. My question is have there been taxi wars at the time of this incident, that is the 25th of January 1994 that you were aware of, in your area?

MR SELAHLE: No, there was no taxi war.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Lax, you may proceed.

MR LAX: Thank you Chairperson. Did I hear you correctly that the deceased was busy giving you back the change that he had made up for you at the time he was shot?

MR SELAHLE: He was counting it, preparing it for me.

MR LAX: But earlier this afternoon, after lunch, you specifically said that he was giving you the change that he had made up?

MR SELAHLE: He was preparing the change for me.

MR LAX: No, there is a big difference Mr Interpreter, between giving him the change and preparing the change. He went to him, he asked him to make the change. The man then made the change, his evidence earlier this afternoon was that the man was giving me the change at the time he was shot.

MR SELAHLE: It must be the Interpreter's fault, I said this person while he was preparing the change for me, he was shot at.

MR LAX: How did the R50-00 note get full of blood?

MR SELAHLE: The witness is demonstrating as I put my hand like this on the window, he was preparing the change and when he was shot at, the blood spilled.

MR LAX: So you never gave him the R50-00 note, it was still in your own hand?

MR SELAHLE: It was still in my hand.

MR LAX: You see the State witnesses at the trial said that they saw you reach into the car, reach into the vehicle and grab something out of the vehicle.

MR SELAHLE: That is not true.

MR LAX: They also said there was nobody else next to you at the car.

MR SELAHLE: The people who arrested me, arrived after this incident. They did not witness the incident from the beginning, they only came on later.

MR LAX: They say they were witnessing the whole incident, you didn't see them? How do you know they weren't witnessing it?

MR SELAHLE: I am saying it is not true. They say they saw me with a gun, and I did not have a gun. That is why I am saying to you they were trying to frame me, they wanted me inside. They did not see what happened.

MR LAX: I didn't understand your answer when asked why did you not say in this application that Peter was the one who shot this person dead.

MR SELAHLE: Yes, I did not mention Peter.

MR LAX: I am trying to understand why did you not mention Peter. Why didn't you say here - you knew you had to tell the truth, is that correct?

MR SELAHLE: That is correct.

MR LAX: So why didn't you tell the truth?

MR SELAHLE: I knew that I would come today before you and tell you the truth. That is what I am doing now.

MR LAX: It still doesn't explain why you didn't tell the truth in this piece of paper that we have here, that you signed as the truth. What reason were you hiding, what were you hiding, what were your intentions? What were you afraid of?

MR SELAHLE: I was not hiding anything. I am saying I did not state Peter's name knowing that today I would sit here and tell you truth of what happened.

MR LAX: So you can't give any explanation for why you lied in this form when you knew you were supposed to tell us the truth?

CHAIRPERSON: I wouldn't think it is a lie, I think it is an omission. He omitted to say something, and that is, that wouldn't be tantamount to a lie Mr Lax?

MR LAX: Yes, fair enough Chairperson. You can't explain why you didn't say who actually killed the deceased?

MR SELAHLE: I have no reason.

MR LAX: Now, one of these questions asks you who commanded you to do this thing, you understand there is that question in this form?

MR SELAHLE: I saw the question.

MR LAX: In relation to that question, you answered under the command of Commander Skananda, we provided protection to the defenceless and then you wrote yes, I do admit that the SDU's, they were commanded by me. That is your handwriting, right?

MR SELAHLE: That is my handwriting, but the signature that appears there, is Skananda's.

MR LAX: Yes. But of course, that wasn't the truth, was it?

MR SELAHLE: You did not understand me. I told you how this paragraph got in there.

We initiated this as comrades, Commander Skananda I met in prison. The question was put who ordered this offence, and I told him that nobody in the group ordered this offence, we, all of us took the initiative and that is how his name appears here. It is an initiative from all of us.

MR LAX: The simple question is to say that this was under the command of Skananda, is not the truth and you knew that? Isn't that so?

MR SELAHLE: That is so.

MR LAX: Why didn't you tell the truth in relation to who commanded this thing? If nobody commanded it, why didn't you tell the truth and say we all commanded it? Do you understand my question?

MR SELAHLE: I explained to Commander Skananda about our initiative and he said to us, it would not be a problem to admit and take responsibility and say he took an order.

I asked him whether I would not meet difficulties with this form when he fills it this way and he told me no. He told me that he would take the responsibility and write this paragraph here.

MR LAX: It is a simple question, you knew that that wasn't the truth, correct?

MR SELAHLE: That is correct.

MR LAX: But because he said you should do it that way, you did it that way?

MR SELAHLE: That is correct. I think I told you already that I did not understand some of the questions and he assisted with the filling of such questions.

Because I had no knowledge of how to fill some of the questions, I would not refuse his assistance. I told him that we took an initiative, all of us, and he told us to forget about the initiative part, he would take the responsibility and say he was the Commander.

MR LAX: So you understood that that was a lie because he told you to forget about the truth, he is taking responsibility?

MR SELAHLE: Yes.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Selahle, Mr Lax asked you a question which is really important and it worries me particularly in relation to applicants like yourself, who have no access to legal representation whilst completing your application forms, because you are in jail.

The question was why did you not disclose in your application form, Peter's participation in the killing of Mr Mkhabela and his participation is important as you know, because he is the one who pulled the trigger that resulted in Mr Mkhabela's death? He went on to say what were you afraid of when not disclosing Peter's name in your application form.

When looking at the application form, what I note is that in fact you have said nothing about this incident at all, not even about your own participation. This is one of those application forms which should have been invited from the Amnesty Committee's side, a request for further particulars, because it disclosed nothing about the offence for which you are seeking amnesty.

Do you concede that there is very little, even about your own participation in this application form?

MR SELAHLE: Yes, I concede to that.

CHAIRPERSON: So it is not an omission of Peter's role in the killing of Mr Mkhabela?

MR SELAHLE: It is not an omission, he is the one who pulled the trigger.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you said very little even about your own participation? Was Mr Skananda the only person you could rely upon in assisting you to complete this application form?

MR SELAHLE: Most of the times when we met as comrades, he would sit with us. He was very near on the day of filling these forms. I am not surprised today to see so many mistakes.

I was just convinced that Skananda had knowledge, because the Prison Services did not do anything for us.

CHAIRPERSON: Was he the only person that you could rely upon at that time, in completing your application form, yes or no?

MR SELAHLE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Did the ANC not assist any of you prisoners that you are aware of, in completing such application forms?

MR SELAHLE: No one in Medium B was assisted by the ANC, it is Skananda who assisted us.

CHAIRPERSON: And this Skananda assisted you also in his capacity as a prisoner, isn't it?

MR SELAHLE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you given a copy of the Act called the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act by the Prison Authorities?

MR SELAHLE: We were not given such a copy.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you not advised that your application had to comply with particular or certain provisions of that Act by Prison Authorities.

MR SELAHLE: We were not told anything, they just gave us forms. They said they are amnesty application forms, we should see as to how to go about filling them.

CHAIRPERSON: You therefore did not know what requirements you had to satisfy in order for your application to succeed?

MR SELAHLE: Yes, we did not know.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did Skananda sign this application form, did he give you a reason? His signature appears on page 46 under paragraph 11(b).

Did he tell you why he had to sign that portion of the application?

MR SELAHLE: He did not tell me, he said it is because he agrees with what stands on this paragraph, he would then sign to verify that he stands by this paragraph.

That is what he told me.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Mohlaba, emanating from the questions posed by this Committee, do you have any re-examination?

MR MOHLABA: No Madam Chair, only to clarify one aspect. It is not in the form of re-examination. It was suggested by Adv Bosman that the applicant strangely mentioned names of people who has passed away and also talked of Skananda. I just want to indicate to the Chair that we do not have evidence that Skananda has passed away and that should not be the case.

CHAIRPERSON: You are saying the applicant is not aware that Skananda has passed away, if he has indeed passed away, those are not your instructions? The applicant is not aware that Mr Skananda is now dead?

MR MOHLABA: Certainly Madam Chair, he is not aware of that fact and I myself, carry a knowledge that Skananda was alive during December last year, I saw him myself.

CHAIRPERSON: I appreciate your bringing it to our attention Mr Mohlaba, but it is an issue that really should be appropriately brought during your legal address.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you Chairperson. That is all from my side.

CHAIRPERSON: That being the case Mr Mohlaba, do you propose to call further witnesses in support of Mr Selahle's application?

MR MOHLABA: No thank you Madam Chairperson, I have no other witnesses to call.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Ms Thabete?

MS THABETE: No witnesses to call Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Was the Section 19(4) notice served on the relatives of Mr Mkhabela?

MS THABETE: Madam Chair, according to the report that we have from the Investigators, notice was going to be served on the 4th of February 1999, that is the report that I have with me, but I can't say for sure, for certain that it was served.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabete, I was under the impression that a Section 19(4) notice was indeed served on the relatives of Mr Mkhabela otherwise I wouldn't have allowed these proceedings to proceed and I was asking this by way of introducing that kind of evidence formally to this Committee, so that that notice can be in fact handed up to the Committee as an Exhibit.

MS THABETE: Madam Chair, it was served.

CHAIRPERSON: Can it be handed up as an Exhibit?

MS THABETE: Certainly.

CHAIRPERSON: It will be Exhibit B and the applicant's documents will be Exhibit A.

According to the notice, when was it served on the relatives?

MS THABETE: On the 4th of February 1999.

CHAIRPERSON: And from the notice, to whom was it served?

MS THABETE: It reflects that it was served on a Mr Mkhabela. I would have to ascertain the first name from our Investigator, Ms Sally Seale. It looks like she served it herself.

CHAIRPERSON: Will you please ascertain the name of the person to whom it was served and the nature of the relationship he or she has with the deceased, Mr Mkhabela?

MS THABETE: I beg your pardon Madam Chair, it says at the bottom, I served, or - this is from Sally Seale, I served the original of this notice on the witness named in such a notice as C. Mkhabela, being it is not clear whether, no, I can't read this handwriting, I will have to confirm with Ms Sally Seale.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, will you please do so, so that I think for the purposes of the record, we can have that information properly reflected on the record.

MS THABETE: Certainly Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: And also will you ascertain whether it was ever the intention of the relatives to attend these proceedings and to oppose this application?

MS THABETE: I will do that Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: In view of the problems that are being experienced by Ms Thabete, with regard to the content of the notice, we will take a short adjournment of about five minutes, to enable Ms Thabete to communicate with the Investigator who attended to the service of that notice, so that we can have full information as to the nature of the relationship to whom the notice was served, and the full particulars of the person to whom such notice was served and whether it was ever an indication of the deceased's family, to oppose this application or not.

If it is not their intention to oppose this application, Mr Mohlaba, I would expect you to address us immediately after Ms Thabete has put that information on record.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Whereafter we, I don't know whether we shall be in a position to proceed with the next applicant in this hearing, seeing that the time is almost four o'clock and we really are at the hands of the Department of Correctional Services, and whilst talking about the Department of Correctional Services, can we for the record, state our serious displeasure at the manner in which the Department of Correctional is treating the applicants who are appearing before us, by not providing them with food when they know that it is an obligation to so provide such applicants with food.

We cannot proceed in any hearing with witnesses who have not been given what is fundamental, like food and can we also stress and request Correctional Services to try and make sure that applicants who are due to be heard during this week, do arrive timeously to enable our hearings to start promptly at nine o'clock every day.

We will take a five minute adjournment.

ON RESUMPTION:

MR MOHLABA IN ARGUMENT: May I then be at liberty to conclude that it is of common cause that the applicant was in fact a member of the SDU's and further it is common cause ...

CHAIRPERSON: How is it common cause, shouldn't you tell us why you think we should accept that he was a member, it is not common cause? It is common cause that there were units called Self Defence Units, and that is to the extent of which issues are common cause. As to whether indeed the applicant was such a member, it is something that you have to satisfy us.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you Chair. Madam Chairperson, the applicant has explained and testified before this Committee that he was recruited into the SDU's, that he has undergone some crash training courses and that he was also a member of the ANC Youth League, and I submit that that piece of evidence should be accepted.

It is common knowledge Madam Chairperson, that the SDU's were establishments of the African National Congress. It is also common knowledge that the East Rand during the period on which the offence for which the applicant is applying for amnesty, was committed, the East Rand, there was a conflict, people were getting killed in the East Rand and it has been testified here by the applicant that it is on that basis that he joined the SDU's.

The mandate which they SDU's had, in particular the Unit in which he was operating within, was to protect the community against attacks. Madam Chairperson, the state of mind of the applicant at the time of the event, that is the killing of Mr Mkhabela, is of primary importance for the Chair to decide on whether the applicant does qualify for amnesty or not, as opposed I submit Madam Chairperson, to the state of mind of the victim.

I submit Madam Chair ...

CHAIRPERSON: Even if it was of such importance, we wouldn't have been able to have been aware of what his state of mind was, he is dead, isn't he?

MR MOHLABA: Certainly, the victim is dead. The point which I however wish to bring forward is the fact that the victim belonged to a political organisation, which is not known or did not belong to any political organisation.

It is not of much relevance towards deciding the state of mind of the applicant. The political objective or the political goal which needs to be proved, it is the political objective or goal which the applicant sought to achieve in engaging himself in a particular act.

CHAIRPERSON: I do not understand that kind of argument. Why shouldn't it be important for us to be convinced that a victim belonged to a political organisation in order to have a nexus between his membership to a particular organisation and the objective which was sought to be achieved by an applicant?

MR MOHLABA: The objective which the applicant sought to achieve, Madam Chair, was to protect the community against attacks, and he has mentioned himself, that this attack was coming from the IFP, the attacks were coming also from, he mentioned criminal elements, gangsters.

It is also common knowledge Madam Chairperson, that there was the so-called Third Force elements, which was also responsible for fermenting violence. The mandate of the applicant and the Unit of the SDU's under which he was serving, was to protect the community. It was not very clear to them that you protect the community against the attack, by a particular political organisation, or by a particular gangster, but it has become common knowledge that these political organisations, as well, were in fact responsible for that.

I am arguing along that line Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: I am no longer going to intervene in your argument, but I will draw your attention to ... (tape ends) ... the activities of the SDU's and the attacks that the SDU's directed against certain parties in particular. I would find it strange if you were to continue to argue on the basis that the mandate of the SDU was wide, you just attack any person because they are mandate, in as much as the activities were wide and the mandate was very specific.

They were to defend the community against attacks perceived to be coming from a certain political organisation and affiliates to that political organisation, that was perceived to be attacking the residents and the residents were perceived to be belonging to a particular organisation.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you Madam Chair, I am indebted to the Chair.

Madam Chair, it has been mentioned here, the manner in which the killing of Mkhabela was planned. The applicant has mentioned that on that particular morning, he went to the hostel with some of his other comrades and as he was getting out of the hostel, he has seen a person who turned up to be Mkhabela, heading towards the hostel.

He even mentioned even if it was not very clear, that it was known that people who did not belong to a particular organisation, the IFP, were out of the hostel, they were not residents of the hostel. The people who he met while he was leaving the hostel, entering the hostel, were people who were armed.

He subsequently established that there was an attack on the people who were commuters in a taxi. As part of the SDU's, it was discussed that an action needed to be taken.

Madam Chair, I would want to submit that the mere fact that these attackers were hiding, or were going into the hostel shortly after the attack, would only suggest that this attack was done by the hostel dwellers, was carried out by the hostel dwellers.

It has also been known to him and his fellow comrades, that the hostel dwellers were at war with the community.

CHAIRPERSON: But you will recall his evidence is that this was the first time a taxi had been attacked and why if that is so, would he then by implication, think that the attack by people perceived to be hostel dwellers, should be conflict related, that is should be something that was between the fighting between the ANC and the IFP?

MR MOHLABA: Thank you Chair. With regard to that aspect, that question was posed to him, and his explanation was that people who were lamenting next to the dead people, were people who were not hostel dwellers, they were people from the community, who appeared to have lost their loved ones.

He indicated himself that he did not know the victims, but the nature of the reaction by the immediate community there, suggested that those were members of the community and ...

CHAIRPERSON: You see my problem is that his testimony is that it was not usual for the attacks launched by hostel dwellers against the township residents, to be in the form of attacking taxi's, that was not usual. That was the first incident where in such an attack had been launched, that is an attack on a taxi with passengers inside.

But there were occurrences of attacks, but not taxi's. Why would he believe that this attack would still be the same as the attacks which had been directed at persons who were not in taxi's?

MR MOHLABA: Madam Chair, he explained further that he linked this attack to the taxi occupants, to the people who rushed into the hostel and hostel dwellers having been perceived as people who are carrying out acts of terror against the community. He linked this incident to other incidents of attacks in taverns in the community, or any other form which the hostel dwellers were, any other form of attack which were perceived to have been carried out by these hostel dwellers. That is how that gets to be linked.

Further Chair, I would want to concede that the applicant in giving his evidence, it came in a haphazard way. He was very fast to a certain extent and he could not contain himself to a particular issue and hence it has resulted in the delay in this proceedings.

However Madam Chair, I want to submit that the way in which this evidence was tendered, wasn't in any way intended by the applicant to conceal certain facts, nor was it intended to deceive the Committee in any other fashion, but it was just the way in which the lack of sophistication on the part of the applicant.

Further this links to the question of the application form itself. The application form, even the Chair has commented that it gives very little, to give an indication what transaction was he involved in, until today when he came and painted a picture of the role which he has played in the planning and killing of Mr Mkhabela.

MR LAX: Sorry, just to intervene Mr Mohlaba. You keep saying in the planning and killing, there was no planning. There was no planning whatsoever. They didn't plan this thing, it was pure fortuitous that they happened to see him there on that day.

MR MOHLABA: There is evidence Madam Chair, that when the deceased was seen leaving at the factory units, or at the firms as it was mentioned, he was identified to be this deceased, who was linked to, who was identified at the scene, who was seen running into the hostel after the shooting of the taxi and then the registration letters and numbers of the vehicle in which he was travelling in, were jotted down.

I would call that planning, because there was a pursuit of looking for this vehicle and there is also evidence that R50-00 was given to him by one of his comrades and I don't know whether the planning will be to stretch it further.

CHAIRPERSON: I think you will be stretching it further, if you had to include the R50-00. I think it is something that happened on the spur of the moment. It was decided there and then when they recognised that the person who was driving the kombi, is the same person that they had, they thought was responsible for the shooting on the 25th of January.

It was a spur of the moment thing, I wouldn't call that planning and the way I understood Mr Selahle's evidence was the other way around. If there was any planning, the planning took place immediately after the 25th of January and definitely preceded the identification of Mr Mkhabela by Titus. If you could allude to a plan, you could allude to a plan before the second sighting of Mr Mkhabela by Titus because the evidence of Selahle is that after they had witnessed the running into the hostel of the three men, who were armed with AK47's, they went to the scene, spoke to people who gave an explanation and from which it could then be deduced that the three persons they had seen running into the hostel, must be responsible for the shooting.

They then went back and that is when they decided that they will have to get to the whereabouts of the three persons, with a view of making sure that they get, they got eliminated and he kept on using the word accosting and I had to get clarity on what he meant by the use of the word accosting.

If there was any plan, if you want to put in any plan, I think that plan could be put in respect of the facts as I had described, which emanated from Mr Selahle's evidence, which definitely precedes the identification of Mr Mkhabela at a factory, by one Titus.

MR LAX: If I could just add one last thing, at best it was a decision taken to eliminate this man, but that is hardly a plan? They didn't sit down and say you go down those roads on these days, you go down these roads on those days, there was no systematic approach to finding the man?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you Chair, I am indebted to the Chair and ...

CHAIRPERSON: Do you agree with that?

MR MOHLABA: I agree, it was just an unfortunate choice of expression on my part, it is more of a decision, it is something to go by.

CHAIRPERSON: If you don't agree with us, I think it is within your ambit to convince us you are correct in pursuing your line of address. We are not here to tell you how you should address us. We just want to make sure that we understand the evidence before us, the way your address is going.

If you feel that we do not understand it the way in which you led, because you led the applicant, I think you can still argue against us.

MR MOHLABA: I will certainly agree with the Chair that it will be stretch it a bit further, if one was to talk of planning under the circumstances.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MOHLABA: Going back to that aspect Madam Chair, I was saying that I concede that the evidence of Mr Selahle with regard to the sequence of events, was not very coherent. It was coming in a haphazard fashion, and I submit that the manner in which this was tendered, should not be construed by this Committee as an intention on his part, to deceive or to withhold certain information.

As questions were getting put to him, more details of the event were given to the Chair. Further, that links to his application form. It is silent about the role which he has played in the killing of Mr Mkhabela, nor does it mention anything about the person who has pulled the trigger.

It does not mention about the decision, it does not mention anything about the decision taken to eliminate Mr Mkhabela. As the Chair has correctly indicated that this is an aspect which left the application to be bare to such an extent that it necessitated a request for further particulars from the part of the TRC.

CHAIRPERSON: But you can't blame us because I have blamed myself. I think we have to share the responsibility. It is also I think, it is something that lay within your provence to have come here this morning with a properly supplemented affidavit that would have obviated the problems that we are faced with, which you are exceeding to, the haphazard fashion in which the applicant has given his testimony.

Had we had a properly prepared supplemented affidavit of the applicant, we would not be sitting with this problem. I am sure we would even have curtailed this proceedings because we have had to go back to the evidence which if we had been sitting with a supplemented affidavit, we would not have had to.

MR MOHLABA: Certainly Chair, it was not an endeavour on my part to put blame on the Commission, however, I wanted to advance an argument that such failure to give certain information, it was not something which was intended by the applicant to withhold this information so as not to pass the disclosure test.

CHAIRPERSON: We are satisfied with that, you need not address us further on that.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: I was just however, making an observation that had you also come with a properly supplemented affidavit, I think this problem would not have been there.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you Chair, I am indebted to the Chair.

The applicant has also indicated at one stage, that he was assisted by one comrade Skananda in completing this form. He mentioned that certain aspects, he did not understand at all and he approached his comrade Skananda to assist him in completing those sections.

He further mentioned that he got no assistance at all from the Correctional Services, nor was he armed with a copy of the relevant legislation which deals with this aspect.

It became apparent that on his application form, there was some entries which was made by another person, not himself, other than those of the Commissioner of Oaths, and it turned up to be the righting of his comrade Skananda.

He came and told this Committee that in fact Skananda did not command him, did not give him certain orders with regard to this transaction.

MR LAX: He didn't come and tell us that, it was prized out of him with all due respect Mr Mohlaba. You didn't lead him on that aspect yourself. You didn't say to him there is a mistake here, can you explain to the Committee why this mistake occurred and what is the correct version?

You didn't do that when you led him in the first instance. So to say that he wilfully told us that, is hardly an appropriate address.

MR MOHLABA: I did not mention that he wilfully came and said that in chief, but it was mentioned by him while under oath, when questions were posed to him.

MR LAX: That goes without saying. It was part of his testimony in totality, but move on, let's not worry about it. Carry on, I am sorry I interrupted you.

CHAIRPERSON: I would have imagined that you would argue against what Mr Lax is saying to you, it was mentioned by him in his evidence in chief, after you had referred him to paragraph 11(b), that is how I recall the evidence.

I think I recall the evidence very, very well. I would have expected you to have corrected Mr Lax, who is wrong in saying this was not mentioned by the applicant in his evidence in chief. Don't you recall the evidence that you were leading Mr Mohlaba?

You are here to protect the interest of the applicant, and I would expect you to do your utmost to do that, to make sure that your presence and your representation, advances the granting of amnesty to the applicant.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you Madam Chair, I am indebted to the Chair, however, it was my line of argument that whether that answer came or was solicited by means of questions which were put to the applicant, it was not in conflict of what he had said earlier, and therefore will form part of his evidence.

It is on those basis that I omitted to take issue with the incorrect submission made by ...

CHAIRPERSON: You had taken issue, this is what I am saying to you. You did do that during his evidence in chief, whilst you were leading him.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you Chair. Yes, I was still saying that he mentioned that he did not get orders from Skananda, he met him in prison and he said I am prepared to take responsibility for that.

Madam Chair, it would have been very easy if the applicant wanted to create a particular impression that orders were given to him by Skananda to come and say that in fact, yes, Skananda gave me these orders. I have interacted with him before, but he does not come and tell that and I will say that that should come as a compliment on his part, that it only suggests that he tells the truth. He does not go beyond the truth.

CHAIRPERSON: In as much as I would like to agree with you, why would it have been easier for him to maintain that version? Why do you think it would have been easy for him to maintain that version that Skananda gave him orders, and that Skananda was his Commander.

MR MOHLABA: Because he would want to accord with his application form, and come and say to this Committee that my application form carries this information and I am here to corroborate it. This is the truth.

CHAIRPERSON: You are aware obviously that we investigate all applications that come before us?

MR MOHLABA: Certainly I am aware of it.

CHAIRPERSON: And during the course of our investigations, we would have I think found out whether indeed this Skananda was or was not the Commander, so it would not have been that easy for the applicant just to name a name for the sake of naming and hoping that that would carry weight in his application.

That name will have to be investigated, and would have had to serve notice on Mr Skananda in terms of Section 19(4) as an implicated person and Mr Skananda might actually come here and tell a different story. I wouldn't say it is that easy to name Skananda and maintain the version that he is a Commander and hope that your application will simply succeed, simply because you have given a name.

MR MOHLABA: Certainly Chair, I agree with the Chair. It may not be within the applicant's knowledge that certain investigations are being done, notwithstanding that, he may not be aware that investigations are being done, he did not want to come and tender evidence which is not the truth, just to corroborate information which are in his form.

I submit that giving that information as he did here, shall be attributed to honesty as opposed to dishonesty on his part.

CHAIRPERSON: I wouldn't ascribe it to anything, and I would prefer to leave it that way. Had Mr Skananda indeed had been dead, and was that within the knowledge of the applicant, and he came here with the evidence saying that I know that Skananda is dead, however, I am now saying in as much as I said that in my application, that is in fact not so, then I would definitely say he is being honest, because he knows there is no way we can gain say what he says, because the person so implicated, has passed away.

I don't think it is a point that needs to be belaboured that much.

Can I just ask you something whilst we are on this point. Can one not assume that the fact that Skananda completed or advised the applicant to insert the fact that he was the Commander of the SDU, is not intended to suggest that Skananda was the overall Commander of the SDU's in the township?

MR MOHLABA: Madam Chair, it was mentioned here that his name has been mentioned but applicant never met with Skananda. As we don't have evidence to that effect, one can assume that the applicant was at liberty to discuss and agree to be assisted by a person who is just a co-inmate in prison without any suspicion. One may assume that is because this name was not being heard for the first time.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you may proceed Mr Mohlaba.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you Chair. The last aspect of my address Madam Chair, it is the question of compliance with the Act with regard to the application form, and it was entangled in my previous address when I was dealing with the haphazardness of the evidence which was tendered here, and I would submit that the application form as it is, together with the evidence subsequently tendered, is able to shed and give some light to the Committee about the actual involvement of the applicant.

The omission to state certain things in the application form, should be condoned. Finally I would submit that the applicant has proved the, has complied with the Act in so far as the application form is concerned, supplemented by the subsequent oral evidence which was tendered here in that it is clear that there was a political objective which sought to be achieved by him in carrying out the act and that there was full disclosure of all relevant facts.

Consequently I submit that the applicant has passed the test and I request the Chair to grant him amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabete?

MS THABETE IN ARGUMENT: Madam Chair and members of the Committee, without repeating what has already been said, my opinion, or I am of the view that notwithstanding the omissions that the applicant has made in his application, it does appear, I mean the political objective does appear from his application.

For example in page 43 he says the act was committed in the struggle of large oppressed community, of a country, South Africa. He does highlight the violence during the 1990's even though he doesn't specify the actual incident that he committed.

Without repeating what my colleague has said, I would have no objection is amnesty is granted. I don't know whether the Committee would like me to address them on a certain aspect, because I am avoiding repeating what my learned colleague has said.

Also, when looking at the independent Board of Enquiry which the Committee has copies of, and my learned friend also have copies of, I don't know, I stand to be corrected, but from the way I heard the applicant's evidence to be, he didn't say that there weren't taxi attacks that occurred in the area, he just said that they did not occur all the time, or they scarcely occurred, I don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: Let me correct you. He was very specific, this was the first incident that he knew of.

MS THABETE: I stand to be corrected, but from reading the Independent Board of Inquiry, there was on page 38 ...

CHAIRPERSON: Where is that, is that part of the record before us? I have not heard Mr Mohlaba introducing that document to enable us to consider it, when we will decide whether to grant or deny his client amnesty.

MS THABETE: Well Madam Chair, I don't know whether I am breaking the laws of evidence, but I was under the impression that the Committee members have got a copy and I have given a copy to my colleague as well, hence I am referring to it.

CHAIRPERSON: I would have expected if there was going to be a reference to that document, for proper indeed, proper rules of procedure to have been followed by properly introducing that document. I would have expected Mr Mohlaba to have done that or you to have done that. You must have known that you would rely on that document?

MS THABETE: Madam Chair, I am not relying on it as such, but I was just highlighting that there was taxi violence in the Vosloorus area and I was just highlighting that by referring to this, but my submission is that I wouldn't have any objections if amnesty is granted.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you think any weight should be attached to the way in which Mr Selahle's application was completed, having regard to the fact that he completed his application whilst he was in prison?

MS THABETE: Madam Chair, my opinion would be he completed the form without any proper legal representation. I would suggest that not too much weight should be attached, more especially because he does highlight the political conflict that occurred within the area even though he does not specify what his role was when Mr Mkhabela was killed.

CHAIRPERSON: But where do you deduce that from, that he highlights the political conflict that occurred within the period in which the application relates? Are you saying you glean that from the application? I have not been able to glean anything from the application.

MS THABETE: Madam Chair, when you look at page 43 of the application, he speaks, he talks about the fact that the act, which is of course the murder of an IFP member as he puts it, was committed in the struggle of a large oppressed community of South Africa, since from 1990 during the violence, he became a member of the SDU providing protection to the large defenceless community.

I think that he shows that there was political violence and as a result, he decided to become a member of the SDU. And further, he talks about the fact that political objectives was going to be achieved, it was to provide protection, so that they could reach a goal first. He talks about the fact that there was a need to protect the community at that stage.

MR LAX: Ms Thabete, are these not Skananda's words as he has told us? He didn't even understand the question, Skananda told him what to write there, in both those places.

We can't rely on this, what is written here as his words?

MS THABETE: I am indebted to you.

CHAIRPERSON: I think in so far as this application is concerned, we can only rely on what has been stated during viva voce evidence and nothing more, is it not so?

It is one of those applications where it is an unfortunate situation that matters are set down, when the application form does not contain any information at all about the offence for which amnesty is being sought by an applicant and no blame can be and should be attached to an applicant, particularly because he is in custody and he is unable to seek any assistance from any person other than his inmates, who are prisoners and know nothing about what the Act requires, with regard to having to qualify for amnesty.

MS THABETE: I agree with that Madam Chair, but we didn't end there, even though we didn't seek further particulars from the applicant himself. We had requested our Investigators to investigate into the matter and find out the precise facts of what occurred during this day.

We've got that report with us, hence we saw it fit to set it down for a hearing, based on our Investigators' report on what took place on that day.

MR LAX: With respect Ms Thabete, that report isn't worth the paper it is written on. It is merely a repeat of what the applicant might say in his application, there is no evidence of any other investigation into the matter.

MS THABETE: Sorry.

MR LAX: I am just saying there is no evidence of any other investigation that they conducted from that report, but I think we are wasting time on this issue, personally.

CHAIRPERSON: Does that conclude your address Ms Thabete?

MS THABETE: It does, Madam Chair. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Mr Mohlaba and Ms Thabete, this brings us to the conclusion of Mr Selahle's application.

We will pronounce our decision in respect of this matter, tomorrow morning. I thank you for your assistance.

The next matter to be heard Ms Thabete is which matter?

MS THABETE: Madam Chair, I am told by my learned colleague that it will be Sandile B. Garani.

CHAIRPERSON: There seems to be a very serious interference. And after Garani which matter will you proceed to?

MS THABETE: And we hope, Madam Chair, I would suggest that we proceed with the applicants who are in Leeukop prison thereafter, that is Mr Mukokwana and Mr Mahlagaza, and thereafter Mr Mahlangu if time permits.

CHAIRPERSON: May we request the members of Correctional Services to please ensure that Mr Garani, Mr Mukokwana and Mr Mahlagaza are brought here by half past eight tomorrow morning, to enable these proceedings to commence at exactly nine o'clock.

I am told that Mr Garani is in fact not in custody, so may we therefore address our request only in respect of Mr Mukokwana and Mr Mahlagaza who are presently being held at Leeukop prison.

We have been advised this morning, that both applicants did not arrive timeously and further, that our Investigators were given problems by the Prison Authority at Leeukop when they attempted to have access with a view of facilitating these proceedings.

If that is so, may we appeal to Prison Authorities to cooperate with our Investigators, because we have a very short lifespan as a Committee and we cannot be saddled with problems which are being presented by Prison Authorities in denying investigations to be carried out by our Investigative Unit, which will enable us to proceed with these applications, without any hinderance.

I hope our request will be acceded to by the persons concerned. Thank you very much. We will then adjourn until tomorrow morning.