--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: For purposes of the record, today is Wednesday, 28 April 1999. This is a sitting of the Amnesty Committee, held in the East London City Hall.

The Panel consists of myself, Denzil Potgieter, presiding with Advocates Bosman and Sandi.

We are about the hear the applications of the following applicants: Rhandile Bhayi, amnesty reference number AM 122/96; Jimmy Nokawusana, amnesty reference AM 1977/96; Mzuyanda Ntonga, amnesty reference AM 2018/96; Melunusi Nokawusana, amnesty reference AM 2009/96 and Bonekele Bhayi, amnesty reference AM 2770/96.

Just before I ask the parties to place themselves on record, just for the general information of those present, the headset would assist you to listen in to the testimony in a language which you are able to follow.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think Mr Kincaid, you can put yourself on record.

MR KINCAID: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, Members of the Committee, I appear for the applicants in the application. I have been instructed by the Legal Aid Board and will further the applications on their behalf.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Kincaid. Mr Clarke?

MR CLARKE: Thank you, Mr Chairman, respected Members, Jonathan Clarke, attorney with the firm Smith, Tabata, Loon and Conlin, King William's Town. I represent Mrs Anne Elizabeth Clackers, one of the victims who was attacked in one of the attacks that forms part of this application, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Clarke. Ms Patel?

MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson, Ramula Patel, Leader of Evidence. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Apart from Mrs Clackers, there is an indication in our papers that there are a few other victims or interested parties, who are not opposing the application. That is just for purposes of the record. Mr Kincaid, is there anything else that you want to place on record before you proceed the evidence?

MR KINCAID: No thank you, Mr Chairperson, I have filed supplementary affidavits on behalf of the applicants. I trust that they have been included in the application bundle and that you're in possession of those affidavits. I am in a position to lead the evidence of the first applicant in this matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Kincaid. Yes, we are in receipt of those supplementary affidavits. We thank you for that. Is it Mr Rhandile Bhayi?

MR KINCAID: Mr Chairman, I misled you when I said the first applicant, the first applicant, according to the application bundle I have, is one Bonekele Bhayi. It is misleading. I know when you set out the names of the applicants, you did it in more-or-less reverse order. The applicant I intend leading is application number 1977/96, it's Jimmy Nzunzima Nokawusana.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Kincaid. Mr Nokawusana, can you hear over the headphones, can you hear the translation?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. I want you to please stand to take the oath. Just give us your full names for the record.

NZUNZIMA JIMMY NOKAWUSANA: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Please sit down. Mr Kincaid?

EXAMINATION BY MR KINCAID: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

Mr Nokawusana, do you mind if I call you Jimmy?

MR NOKAWUSANA: No, I don't have a problem.

MR KINCAID: Jimmy, in June 1992, you and your fellow applicants were convicted of various offences, committed in the Stutterheim district ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: Could the speaker please speak closer to the mike.

MR KINCAID: Do I need to repeat that?

INTERPRETER: Yes, Sir.

MR KINCAID: In June of 1992, you and your fellow applicants were convicted of various criminal offences committed in the district of Stutterheim. It is in respect of those offences that we are here today. I must ask you, Jimmy, the charge sheet in 1992, alleged that you were a man of 26 years of age. At the time of the commission of the offence you would have been a younger man, is that correct?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, that is correct.

MR KINCAID: It appears to be common knowledge that conflict in the Eastern Cape went back well before 1990, that it had its origins prior to that. In about 1985, Jimmy, that's the time period that I'm going to be asking you about, you would have been a much younger man, Jimmy, is that correct?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, I was still very young.

MR KINCAID: Your fellow applicants are all still fairly young men, Jimmy, do you confirm that?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, that is true.

MR KINCAID: It appears as though the trend was that the youth of the day, and I'm talking now the day, at the beginning of the '90's, were at the forefront of the conflict, of the tension in Stutterheim, do you confirm that?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, that is correct.

MR KINCAID: Tell us about life as a young man in the Kabusi township where you live, Jimmy. What happened there, how did the youth see the events of that time period?

MR NOKAWUSANA: We used to view these events as the events that were disrupting our lives as the youth, to such an extent that I had to leave school, I was still schooling. I had to leave school because of those problems. One other thing that made us to experience trouble in our lives, it's because even in our residential area we were not very happy, more especially our parents, because every day we used to be affected by this teargas. That is what was disturbing us and we had to interfere, we saw us interfering in this.

MR KINCAID: You mentioned teargassing, what were the nature of these disruptions, how was your daily routine disturbed or affected by the tensions at the time?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Our daily life was, day and night we had to hold roadblocks on the bridge that was coming to our residential area, to try and prevent the police from coming in, the police that were harassing us with teargas. The reason behind all this was that there was a boycott at Stutterheim, and we were forced to keep peace and order in our residential area, as the youth.

MR KINCAID: Is it fair to say that the youth exercised a fair amount of authority and power in the Kabusi township where you lived?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, that is correct.

MR KINCAID: They fulfilled responsible positions? - you mentioned they set up roadblocks.

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, that is correct.

MR KINCAID: So for a young man to be living in that environment in the mid-'80's and the early '90's, what was called of them, what was expected of them was to show responsibility and to protect those of his community, would you agree with that?

MR NOKAWUSANA: A young man had to interfere to get involved in trying to keep peace and be in places where the roadblocks were. The youth was supposed part in each and everything that would lead to peace in the residential area.

MR KINCAID: Do you know why the youth became involved, why was it them, why did they involve themselves with these conflicts?

MR NOKAWUSANA: The reason was solely because what was happening in our residential area, there was an announcement from our leaders to embark on boycotts because there were discussions that were taking place between the mayor and the community. Mr Ferreira was a Mayor in town, but all those negotiations failed because they were about to try to get us schools, to build us schools and have running water and the shelter or house, because most of the people were squatting on other people's properties. But all those negotiations failed.

I was not in the forefront in those discussions because I was not in the leadership. All those affected us and another person who was always next to us, Mr Mfana. The youth was always affected all the time because this was also affecting the schools that is why the youth was also affected by this problem.

MR KINCAID: From what you say, it appears as though the youth of the day were very susceptible to influence from the leadership in the Stutterheim area, what was said by the leaders, what was ordered was generally carried out, would you agree with that?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, that is correct.

MR KINCAID: You speak of the leadership, now the leadership of what organisation are you referring to, Jimmy, who were the leaders? Were they politically aligned or were they just community leaders?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Those were political leaders, because we were under ANC at the time and even today we are still under the ANC. Mr Malgas was one of them, Mr Rhandile Manele and Mr Mambuku, Michael Mambuku.

MR KINCAID: Were these ANC Youth League leaders?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, that is correct.

MR KINCAID: Were you a member of the ANC Youth League, Jimmy, or were you a supporter?

MR NOKAWUSANA: I was a supporter.

MR KINCAID: Did you know what the official stance of the ANC Youth League was, what its political objectives were?

MR NOKAWUSANA: I did not know the objectives completely, I was not that much in this organisation, but because of the problems that were taking place in our residential area, I had to come closer to the organisation.

MR KINCAID: Jimmy, you've deposed to an affidavit in which you make mention of an alliance between the ANC Youth League and the United Democratic Front, are you, were you also a supporter of the United Democratic Front? Do you know that such an alliance existed?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, I have some knowledge concerning the two.

MR KINCAID: I'm just listening to you speak, Jimmy. It would appear you weren't completely au fait with what the objectives of the ANC or the UDF were at that time, and it's probably true to state that at that time both these parties weren't able to publicly espouse what their objectives were, they were still banned organisations. Can you just confirm that?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, that is correct.

MR KINCAID: What you tell the Committee is that you were a young man living in Kabusi township and that this community of yours was often attacked and raided by the Security Forces in Stutterheim at the time.

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, that is correct.

MR KINCAID: You spoke of teargassing, what happened there, what kind of conflict was there, what form did the violence take in the Kabusi township?

MR NOKAWUSANA: What was happening there, as I've already said there was a meeting between the Mayor of Tsumagala and the community. There was a misunderstanding because the people had their own grievances or demands. Due to the failure of those negotiations they announced a boycott. We had to embark on a boycott and we were forced to hold roadblocks to check on people who would go and buy privately. The others would wake up very early in the morning and go and buy some things. As the youth we had to go up there to the bridges and hold the roadblocks.

During those roadblocks the police realised that there was a roadblock and even the people were against these roadblocks told the police that they cannot buy anything because the youth is taking everything and destroying it. The police tried to disrupt our roadblocks on those bridges. That is when we realised that we were not safe, even on those bridges because it was easy for the police to come into our township and even arrest us.

MR KINCAID: I asked you what form did the violence take and you've mentioned specifically that there was teargassing, but were there other instances, other examples of violent intrusion in your life, other than teargassing and dispersing, breaking up roadblocks? - that you personally experienced.

MR NOKAWUSANA: They were shooting at us, they were also using firearms, except the teargas.

MR KINCAID: Okay. Jimmy, you've, in your application deposed to an affidavit in which you set out the background to the situation in Stutterheim at the time in which the offences were committed. Your affidavit contextualises your actions and you mention that in 1985 there was a call for a national consumer boycott and that in Stutterheim this call was enforced. Do you confirm that?

INTERPRETER: Excuse me, would the speaker please repeat the question.

MR KINCAID: I've asked Jimmy to confirm that the trouble in Stutterheim started as early as 1985, with a calling of a national consumer boycott.

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, that is true.

MR KINCAID: And you have mentioned in your testimony thus far, that the national consumer boycott resulted in people breaking the conditions of that boycott and purchasing from the businesses in Stutterheim and that necessitated the youth to set up what you called, roadblocks. Do you confirm that?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, I do confirm that.

MR KINCAID: 1985, Jimmy, from 1985 through to 1990, was there a Security Force presence maintained throughout?

MR NOKAWUSANA: No, that was not maintained throughout.

MR KINCAID: Why was it not necessary to maintain such a force in Stutterheim?

MR NOKAWUSANA: As from 1985, most people were arrested. People like Mr Mambuku and Mr Malgas were arrested and even though, the majority of the youth. People would just come in and make rounds and check the people who were inside and we had to leave the place, we had to run away and it became quiet thereafter. It resurfaced again in 1989.

MR KINCAID: And 1989, you mentioned a decision was taken to approach the town clerk of Stutterheim, Mr Ferreira, is that correct?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, that is correct.

MR KINCAID: What was the purpose of going to see Mr Ferreira?

MR NOKAWUSANA: The aim was to try and develop the living conditions because our residential area was more like a remote or rural area and the people who were owning their sites or properties, and most people were squatters in the other people's areas. The aim was to try and make the point that even the other people who did not have their own houses should get houses or get land.

MR KINCAID: Were you personally involved in the delegation which went to see Mr Ferreira?

MR NOKAWUSANA: No, I was not in the delegation.

MR KINCAID: What was the outcome of the meeting with Mr Ferreira, do you know?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, as I heard, it was announced that we should embark on the consumer boycott.

MR KINCAID: So Mr Ferreira was unwilling to accede to your requests and to provide you with more land and to improve your living conditions, is that correct?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, that is correct.

MR KINCAID: So once again the call was made to impose another consumer boycott in Stutterheim. Who made these decisions, Jimmy, who decided to impose the consumer boycotts?

MR NOKAWUSANA: That was the decision that was taken by the community or the residents.

MR KINCAID: And was this consumer boycott enforced?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes.

MR KINCAID: How did you enforce it?

MR NOKAWUSANA: The shops belonging to the whites who were in our town were boycotted, like the people were not to buy in their shops.

MR KINCAID: And did the people of the township go and purchase in the town of Stutterheim, or was it necessary for you once again to establish roadblocks?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, we had to establish the roadblocks because the people would go there secretly and do some shopping.

MR KINCAID: Did the establishment of the roadblocks create tension between the youth and the police at the time?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, that is correct.

MR KINCAID: Now we're talking about 1989, Jimmy. You said that there was no longer a strong Security Force presence in Stutterheim, but where there members of the Commando and the Army in Stutterheim at the time?

MR NOKAWUSANA: There were soldiers and policemen.

MR KINCAID: Can you describe what kind of confrontation there existed between the youth, who were enforcing the roadblocks, and the Security Forces?

MR NOKAWUSANA: The police would come and disperse the youth by shooting at us and the others would be arrested and be assaulted in the process.

MR KINCAID: Was there ever any loss of life in Stutterheim, Jimmy? - that you're aware of.

MR NOKAWUSANA: No.

MR KINCAID: That's a vaguely formulated question. I don't mean specifically loss of any of the youths of the township, but do you know whether there was loss of Security Force lives as a result of the conflict in Stutterheim?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, some soldiers, three soldiers died trying to disperse the roadblocks, trying to disperse the youth during the roadblocks.

MR KINCAID: How did they meet their death, how were they killed?

MR NOKAWUSANA: They were necklaced by the youth, that is using a tyre, burning tyre.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, Mr Kincaid, just for clarity, which year is this? You've mentioned '85 and '89, when did this happen, when were these three soldiers killed?

MR NOKAWUSANA: It was in 1989.

MR KINCAID: Jimmy, was this in consequence of the re-imposition of the consumer boycott that the soldiers lost their lives? In other words, did they lose their lives after the imposition of the consumer boycott?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, that is correct, it is solely because they were trying to disrupt the roadblocks that were established because of the consumer boycott.

MR KINCAID: Listening to your testimony Jimmy, it appears as though - I may have mentioned this before, that the principle actors in this conflict were yourselves, the youth of the township and the members of the Security Forces, is that correct?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, that is correct, we were the people who were involved because we were the people who were trying to maintain order, who were maintaining order in our residential area.

MR KINCAID: You were, at the cold face of the conflict, you were the first line of defence under attack?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, that is correct.

MR KINCAID: Tell the Committee about the farmers, Jimmy, how were the farmers involved, or were they involved in the Stutterheim conflict, in the Stutterheim tension?

MR NOKAWUSANA: The reason for the farmers to be affected, they are the people who are surrounding our rural area and therefore each and every thing that was taking place there, it's easy for them to see. Even our private meetings that we used to hold in our soccer grounds, they would phone the police and tell them where we were and the police would come.

The same farmers were also members of the Police Force and the Army. Sometimes the police would run after us and we would try and hide in their farms and these farmers would catch us and assault us and take us back to the police. Those were the reasons that made them to be affected.

We also wanted to have our own firearms or weapons to try and protect ourselves during the roadblocks, therefore we realised that we could get those weapons from the farmers and we also wanted to chase them away, to drive them away out of their farms.

MR KINCAID: So the farmers, when you say:

... are you conveying that they neighboured, the farmers neighboured the townships of Stutterheim?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, they are next to our place of residence and we buy milk from them.

MR KINCAID: So your testimony suggests that the perception was that the farmers were informing the Security Forces of your meetings in the township, that they were acting as the eyes and ears of the Security Forces, is that what you intend to convey?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, that is correct.

MR KINCAID: You mentioned that the farmers were also police, what makes you state that, what do you convey by that submission?

MR NOKAWUSANA: I am trying to say that they had a contribution in the Police Force because they were also working there in the police department, some of the farmers.

MR KINCAID: So they were commandos or police reservists, is that what your testimony is?

MR NOKAWUSANA: They were policemen, they were members of the Police Force.

MR KINCAID: Jimmy, in your affidavit you mention an event at the Matomela Church Hall in the township in Stutterheim, in December of 1989, can you recall the circumstances of that meeting or that event?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes.

MR KINCAID: Who called - what happened there, what was it, was it a meeting, was it a church service, what was the reason for the gathering?

MR NOKAWUSANA: We were at the roadblocks. As the youth we were called, we were summoned to the church hall. The church hall was full of people. We gathered there in the church hall. The people were coming bit by bit.

When the house was full - the house couldn't accommodate all the people because the hall was so small and the others were standing outside, the soldiers came driving their Casspirs and a lot of policemen and they told us to get inside the hall, all of us, but it was very difficult for us to do so because the hall was so small. They told us they were giving us only 15 minutes to disperse ...(intervention)

MR KINCAID: I'd like to lead you on this aspect of your evidence, so if I could just slow you down. I asked you why the meeting was called, do you know why the meeting was called?

MR NOKAWUSANA: I'm trying to get there. We ended up not getting the reason for the gathering because the soldiers used teargas to disperse the crowd.

MR KINCAID: Were there any prominent members of the community there or other leaders that had attended at the church that day?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, it was full and there were some leaders and even the Priests were there, church leaders were there.

MR KINCAID: Now you testified that whilst you were there the Security Forces arrived and told you to disperse, what happened Jimmy, carry on in your own words.

MR NOKAWUSANA: They came and they told us that they were giving us only 15 minutes to disperse. Just before that 15 minutes they shot at the hall and the hall was made of corrugated iron and the people were injured and we were so squashed that we couldn't even run away. The people were injured and they were taken to the hospital and they couldn't be admitted there, they were not welcome at the hospital. They were taken to King William's Town for treatment. We tried to prevent them, we pelted them with stones, trying to fight them. We tried to fight them using petrol bombs and we pelted them with stones.

MR KINCAID: You say that the church hall was fired on, did the Security Forces use live ammunition, what kind of ammunition was used in the shooting of the hall?

MR NOKAWUSANA: They were using the real ammunition, rubber bullets, teargas and there were bullets that were found on the scene after that. I don't know what happened to that case that was opened because even the bullets that were found at scene after this incident were kept, but I don't know what happened to the case itself, how far did it go.

MR KINCAID: The result was that people were injured, you testified, and those who were injured you say were refused admission to the Stutterheim hospital?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, that is correct.

MR KINCAID: Where had they to go to be admitted, do you know?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Some were assisted by the clinics that were in the community, others were sent to a hospital in King William's Town.

MR KINCAID: What did this make you feel, Jimmy, what kind of emotions did this act instil in you?

MR NOKAWUSANA: I am hurting, very hurting, because that was very painful. What was happening was very painful, but now I have found peace because after that everything went well.

MR KINCAID: So you say that the shooting at the church hall caused you emotional hurt, did it also cause you anger? Did it also provoke and make you very angry?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, that is correct.

MR KINCAID: What did the shooting at this church hall, if anything, what did it make you realise? Did you guys come to the realisation that you were very susceptible to the attacks of the Security Forces?

MR NOKAWUSANA: This whole incident of shooting made us to realise that we have nothing to use when it comes to protecting ourselves, and we realised that we have the sole responsibility as the youth of Kabusi. That is why I had to involve myself in trying to help contribute in the process of trying to protect our residential area.

MR KINCAID: Stones and petrol bombs, was that not enough to defend yourself, Jimmy? - against the Security Forces.

MR NOKAWUSANA: No, those were not sufficient.

MR KINCAID: What happened after the Matomela Hall shooting?

MR NOKAWUSANA: When we realised that we have managed to drive away the police with stones and petrol bombs, we later gathered and we were forced to go to a certain piece of ground that was called eSikhewini(?). We had to devise means to get weapons that could be used. This issue of the farmers that were in the neighbourhood came about and we realised that those were the people, that was the place that we can get the weapons from to try and protect ourselves.

MR KINCAID: Is your testimony that after the church hall shooting you were threatened with being removed to another locality from the Kabusi township? Did I understand your evidence to be that?

MR NOKAWUSANA: No, there's nothing like that.

MR KINCAID: Your evidence is that you realised that you had to arm yourselves and that the farmers were possessed of arms and so your attention turned to the farmers, is that your evidence?

INTERPRETER: Will the speaker please repeat the question?

MR KINCAID: I think you understood it, Ms Interpreter.

INTERPRETER: No, it was not complete, he said "yes" but the question was not complete because I did not get the last words.

MR KINCAID: Jimmy, you realised that you needed arms to defend yourselves and that the farmers were possessed of arms, they had the arms, is that your evidence?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, that is correct.

MR KINCAID: What would you have achieved by attacking the farmers or by, yes, by attacking the farmers?

MR NOKAWUSANA: We were going to get weapons that would be used to protect ourselves and even the farmers would vacate their place and we would even use their homes as our place of residence.

MR KINCAID: You'd also obviously have been removing support for the Security Forces? By taking away the farmers the Security Forces wouldn't have had the immediate support of the farmers. That is an objective you state in your affidavit, do you confirm that to have been such an objective?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, I do.

MR KINCAID: Now how did you go about persuading the farmers to vacate their farms?

MR NOKAWUSANA: We did it by going straight to them, to their houses.

MR KINCAID: Yes, please proceed. What did you do there?

MR NOKAWUSANA: When we got there we told them to leave, to vacate their place of residence. First of all when we had a meeting on that soccer ground we first wrote letters to them telling them to leave. They responded by saying they were not prepared to move. We decided to go straight there. Our aim was to get the arms and try to make them leave to go to stay in town where the other whites were staying.

MR KINCAID: Is your testimony that you by way of a written demand, advised the farmers that they should leave their farms and when they refused you then decided that you should go and forcefully oblige them to leave their farms?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, that is correct.

MR KINCAID: Now this decision to get the farmers to leave their farms, how did it come about, was it in consequence of a meeting, a gathering of the youth and who gave the order, who ordered or advised that such a course of conduct be pursued?

MR NOKAWUSANA: That came out at the meeting, that transpired at the meeting that we had. The person who brought about this plan was Mr Mfana Green.

MR KINCAID: This meeting, Jimmy, who attended it, what kind of, what type of the Kabusi residents attended this meeting? Was it the elder statesmen of the township or was it the prominent leaders of the township or was it the youth of the township, who attended this meeting when this decision was taken?

MR NOKAWUSANA: It was a youth meeting. It's the youth that took a decision. This happened on that particular day when this incident of the Matomela Hall happened.

MR KINCAID: And am I correct in saying it was the youth, Jimmy, because it was the youth that were involved in the actual struggle, the armed violent struggle with the Security Forces? It was their decision, they were the main actors in the tension, in the violence of the conflict with the Security Forces in the township?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, that is correct.

MR KINCAID: So the farmers refused to leave their farms, what happened in consequence of their refusal, was that the end of the matter or did the youth take further steps?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, that is correct.

MR KINCAID: Were further steps taken?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes.

MR KINCAID: Jimmy, these meetings that were held consequently on the shooting of the church hall, can you recall when these meetings were held?

ADV SANDI: Sorry, Mr Kincaid, you'll have to correct me if I am wrong in my understanding of his evidence. Did he talk about meetings in his evidence? I thought he was talking about a meeting at the soccer ground, where they had gathered after the shooting at the Matomela Hall.

MR KINCAID: Advocate Sandi, that's quite correct, he has testified that there was a meeting after the church hall shooting and when I asked of him what the response was when they were informed that the farmers weren't willing to leave their lands, he mentioned that another meeting was called.

So at this last meeting we're referring to now, after it was indicated the farmers were not going to accede to your written demand - first of all let me ask you, when did these meetings, consequent to the church hall shooting, take place? More-or-less when did this happen, can you recall the month and the year?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, I can still remember the year, but not the month - I mean the dates. The month was October, between, from August to October, August, October and December.

MR KINCAID: Those were the times of the meetings. When I led you I think I led that the church hall meeting was December of 1989, so what I want to know is, these two meetings that you held after it was decided to get the farmers off their land, was that still in the month of December and in the year of 1989 or was it later on?

MR NOKAWUSANA: They took place in 1989 and the others were before the incident of the church hall in 1989.

MR KINCAID: Okay, so these two meetings must have still been in 1989, so one must assume that it was towards the end of December 1989.

What transpired at the second meeting, when you were informed that the farmers weren't going to leave, what happened there, what was decided there?

MR NOKAWUSANA: The decision that was taken was that we should go to those farmers and explain to them that they should leave their homes and also get the arms. The aim was to threaten them to leave their places and get the arms in order to protect ourselves.

MR KINCAID: And this meeting, Jimmy, was it similarly attended by the youth of the townships?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, everyone, even the elderly people were there, they also attended the meeting.

MR KINCAID: Jimmy, you say that it was decided that the farmers were to be intimidated, but if necessary weapons were to be taken from them, was it envisaged that violence would be used in taking their meetings? Did the meeting foresee the possibility that those who went on these excursions would have to resort to violence to dispossess the farmers of their arms?

MR NOKAWUSANA: There was no plan in advance as to how to repossess the arms, we just took this whole thing easy and we just anticipated that they would just give us the weapons and leave. We did not have any plan in advance, any planning.

MR KINCAID: So did you foresee that you may have to use violence in taking the arms in advance?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, we did anticipate that.

MR KINCAID: Was the mandate given by this meeting, this community meeting, Jimmy, that you should kill the farmers or was your conduct to fall short of such a violent and drastic means?

MR NOKAWUSANA: There was no such a mandate to kill the farmers.

MR KINCAID: Were there any other specific details given? Who was elected, who was chosen to go and attack the farmers, how were you organised, were there leaders of the groups that went there? Were there any such details given to you by the meeting?

MR NOKAWUSANA: This information transpired during the roadblocks and we would just decide who takes this direction and who takes that, there was no specific detail as to what was going to happen.

MR KINCAID: Did you organise yourselves into groups?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, that is correct.

MR KINCAID: Mr Chairperson, I'm not quite sure what the habit of the Committee is, whether you intend taking the 11 o'clock adjournment.

CHAIRPERSON: Quarter past, eleven fifteen.

MR KINCAID: I'm indebted to you, Mr Chairman.

Now you've said on a number of occasions that the reason that you involved the farmers was to dispossess them of their firearms, to intimidate them off their lands and to remove them as a source of assistance to the Security Police. Do you confirm that?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, I do confirm that.

MR KINCAID: In June of 1992, Jimmy, you and your fellow applicants were convicted in the High Court of criminal acts arising out of what were essentially five different incidents, can you confirm that?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, I do confirm.

MR KINCAID: The first incident, Jimmy, concerned an attack on the farm of Mr Hansel, who lived on the farm Greenlands near Stutterheim. Can you tell the Committee how many of you were involved in the attack on the farm Greenlands?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, I can tell.

MR KINCAID: How many were involved, Jimmy?

MR NOKAWUSANA: It was quite a large number of us.

MR KINCAID: At the trial there were seven of you who stood arraigned in these charges. The group that attacked Mr Hansel, did it consist of more than just seven of you?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, the group was more than seven.

MR KINCAID: Can you give a number to this group Jimmy, more-or-less, I realise it happened a long time ago.

MR NOKAWUSANA: We were more than 50. It was quite a large number because we would relieve each group. We were making shifts, we were doing shifts. The others would go and sleep and the others would be on duty. That is when this idea of going to Mr Hansel's farm came.

MR KINCAID: Were some of your group involved with maintaining roadblocks, or the number of 50 that you mentioned, are you suggesting that all 50 attackers went to the farm Greenlands that night? Can you elaborate more on the shift system that was in place?

MR NOKAWUSANA: I think 30-something people went to Mr Hansel, but I cannot tell as to the exact number, but the house was not full. Mr Hansel's house was not full of us.

MR KINCAID: I see. Now you were there, Jimmy, is that correct? You were part of the group who attacked Mr Hansel?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, that is correct.

MR KINCAID: What was taken from Mr Hansel? Were you successful in attacking him and achieving the objectives of your mission?

MR NOKAWUSANA: We found a firearm and the arm uniform we took it and the boots that are used in the army, we took it with.

MR KINCAID: You found a firearm and you took his military uniform, what was the need for taking his military uniform?

MR NOKAWUSANA: We were going to wear this uniform so as to disguise when we meet with the other soldiers and that would make it easy for us to get at them.

MR KINCAID: You didn't kill Mr Hansel, Jimmy?

MR NOKAWUSANA: No, we did not kill him.

MR KINCAID: The judge found that Mr Hansel was assaulted and robbed of his shotgun and other items mentioned in an annexure to the charge sheet, Jimmy, which - if I may just take you through it. What was removed from Mr Hansel's farm residence was a shotgun with ammunition, also removed were a radio, an alarm clock, a wrist watch, four pairs of men's trousers, four pairs of men's shoes, three men's shirts, a tie, two double-bed sheets, a table cloth, two torches, keys, cheque book. Not all of these items, Jimmy, were weapons, some of them were just normal household contents. Can you first of all dispute that these items were in fact taken from Mr Hansel? Can you answer that question firstly, do we dispute that these items were taken?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, I will dispute that because I never saw anyone taking such items and I cannot say they were not taken because sometimes if there is a large group of people, people would steal privately without other people seeing, but on my side I did not see any such items being taken by the people.

MR KINCAID: So I understand your evidence to be that although you didn't see anyone take any of these items, other than the weapons, you can't dispute that someone of this large group of attackers may well have taken it? And what you tell the Committee is that you most definitely didn't take any of the items which were not weapons.

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, that is correct.

MR KINCAID: Mr Hansel, was he injured by you, Jimmy, did you injure him?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, I did hit him.

MR KINCAID: Why did you hit him, Jimmy?

MR NOKAWUSANA: It is because he was not willing to give us the weapons that we were looking for.

MR KINCAID: Is that the only reason why you hit him, Jimmy, it wasn't because of a hatred of Mr Hansel, it wasn't because of spite or ill will, was it Jimmy?

MR NOKAWUSANA: We did not have any hatred because he was such a good person and even in our community he was a favoured person.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, Mr Kincaid.

Can I ask you to explain that, what do you mean when you say:

MR KINCAID: Advocate Sandi, is that question directed to me or to the applicant?

ADV SANDI: To the applicant, sorry.

MR NOKAWUSANA: I mean that at least he was not against the people and we would even go to his farm and buy milk and he would even come to our community because he used to know people there.

ADV SANDI: How did you hit him?

MR NOKAWUSANA: I hit him with a fist, I even kicked him.

ADV SANDI: Thank you, Mr Kincaid.

MR KINCAID: Thank you, Advocate Sandi.

Where is the farm Greenlands, Jimmy, in relation to the Kabusi township?

MR NOKAWUSANA: It is just next to our residential area. The only - there's only a road, one road, the road to King William's Town that is between his farm and our residential area. It is so near.

MR KINCAID: Who took possession of the firearm, do you know - or let me ask you before you answer that, was there a leader of this group or was it pretty much a disorganised group of attackers? Was there a leadership within the group?

MR NOKAWUSANA: There was no leader, it was just disorganised, people would do as they please, but there was an instruction not to kill the farmers.

MR KINCAID: So that was the first incident, Jimmy. Do you know what became of the firearm that was robbed from Mr Hansel, was it used at all in the struggle against the Security Forces or was it used in other incident?

MR NOKAWUSANA: This firearm would be used during the other incident, even during the roadblocks we would use this firearm.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Kincaid, if I can just interrupt here. You asked a question: "Who took possession of the firearm", and then you interrupted yourself saying: "Let me first ask, was there a leader?" I don't think we got an answer to the question: "Who took possession of the firearm?"

MR KINCAID: I'm indebted to you, Advocate Bosman.

Jimmy, we haven't answered that question yet. After the firearm had been taken possession of, who did it, who took hold of the firearm, who had possession of the firearm?

MR NOKAWUSANA: As we were hitting Mr Hansel, he refused to give us the firearm. We took him and he showed us behind the wardrobe. Some took it. It looks like Mr Mzuyanda Ntonga was also there. He is the one who took this firearm behind the wardrobe.

MR KINCAID: Then I asked you whether you knew what subsequently became of the firearm, whether it was used in the defence against the Security Forces or whether it was used in the subsequent incidents. And your answer to that please, Jimmy.

MR NOKAWUSANA: The firearm was used to fight the Security Forces and this same firearm was used in the other incidents.

MR KINCAID: Mr Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, will that be convenient? We'll adjourn for 15 minutes.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nokawusana, I remind you that you are still under oath.

NZUNZIMA JIMMY NOKAWUSANA: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kincaid?

EXAMINATION BY MR KINCAID: (Cont)

Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

Mr Nokawusana, the second incident happened in February of 1990 and it involved an attack on Mr Cobus, who lived on the farm Sunrise, Stutterheim. Where was the farm Sunrise situated, Jimmy?

MR NOKAWUSANA: It was also near to our township. There was only one road and then you would get to the farm.

MR KINCAID: Were you involved, Jimmy, were you part of the group who attacked Mr Cobus?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, that is correct.

MR KINCAID: Once again, can you estimate how strong the group was, how many people were in the group?

MR NOKAWUSANA: I can estimate about 40 or 30.

MR KINCAID: It's common cause Jimmy that you were unsuccessful in your efforts at getting firearms at Mr Cobus' house.

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, that is correct.

MR KINCAID: Can you briefly describe, Jimmy, what happened there, how did the attack happen at Mr Cobus and can you say what your involvement was, what did you do in that attack?

MR NOKAWUSANA: When we arrived in that farm we stood there at the camp because we didn't know where the house was. We then went to ask from the people who were working at the farm, we asked the road or the way to the farmhouse.

MR KINCAID: Fine. Once you got to the farmhouse, what happened there? Did you gain access to the property, the house itself of Mr Cobus?

MR NOKAWUSANA: I would like to ask, are we talking about Mr Pretorius or who, because I don't clearly remember their names.

MR KINCAID: No, Mr Cobus, we're dealing with the Cobus incident, the farm Sunrise in Stutterheim. This incident does not involve the shooting of Joe Senti, this was the previous incident. Can you recall it?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, I can recall it.

MR KINCAID: Mr Cobus was shot, someone shot at Mr Cobus and injured him, can you recall the incident now?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, I do recall the incident.

MR KINCAID: Do you know who shot at Mr Cobus?

MR NOKAWUSANA: I don't know who shot him, but I heard that he was shot by the people who went there.

MR KINCAID: I take it from that response, Jimmy, that you had no hand in shooting Mr Cobus?

MR NOKAWUSANA: No, I didn't take part in the shooting.

MR KINCAID: And no weapons were found at his farm, you weren't able to get into his homestead and you were unable to find any weapons there, is that correct?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, that is correct.

MR KINCAID: Jimmy, once again, do you confirm that the reason for the attack on Mr Cobus' farmstead was so that you could arm yourselves as a group, so that you could get weapons, get his weapons and so that you could intimidate him and scare him off his land?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, that is correct.

MR KINCAID: You didn't bear Mr Cobus any ill-will or spite, Jimmy, there was nothing personal in your attack on him?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, that is correct, we didn't hate him, we just wanted weapons.

MR KINCAID: Coming now to the Pretorius incident, which happened on the farm Spes Bona, Jimmy. Can you recall that incident now? It was the occasion where Joe Senti was shot.

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, I can recall the incident.

MR KINCAID: Where was Spes Bona situated in relation to Stutterheim and its immediate vicinity?

MR NOKAWUSANA: It was far from Stutterheim, it was a walking distance.

MR KINCAID: Did it border on a township? Do you know whether the farm Spes Bona bordered on or neighboured a township?

MR NOKAWUSANA: The farm was not too far, but when you would leave, it was an hour, it took us an hour from the township to the farm, it was not too far.

MR KINCAID: To walk, I assume?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, that is correct.

MR KINCAID: Can you say how big the group was that attacked the Pretorius farm?

MR NOKAWUSANA: There were quite a lot of us.

MR KINCAID: Joe Senti was injured in the course of this attack and you testified earlier that you went to Joe Senti's house so that he could summons Mr Pretorius, do you confirm that now?

INTERPRETER: Can you please repeat the question, Sir.

MR KINCAID: Jimmy, you testified earlier that Joe Senti was attacked in this incident and that you'd gone to his house so that he could summons Mr Pretorius.

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, that is correct.

MR KINCAID: How did it come about that Joe Senti was injured?

MR NOKAWUSANA: We knocked at Mr Joe Senti's house and we asked him to open the door so that we could go in. We wanted to ask the route or the direction to the house. He was afraid, he did not want to open the door. We told him that we are comrades, we just wanted to know the direction to the house and he was scared, he didn't want to open the door.

We pleaded with him and we knocked at the windows because we wanted to explain to him that we were not there to attack him, we just wanted to know the direction to the farmhouse and we wanted to know whether the white man was there. He didn't want to open the door. His wife pleaded with him to open the door because she said that these people were comrades, they were not going to do anything to him.

He opened the door and he looked at us. He then closed the door again and he said that he was scared to open the door for us, he thought that we were soldiers. A shot then - we heard then a shot at the door, when he was closing the door.

MR KINCAID: Do you know who shot Joe Senti, Jimmy?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, it was - the shot came from the people that were with us.

MR KINCAID: Do you know who had the firearm which discharged the shot?

MR NOKAWUSANA: It was Mzuyanda Ntonga.

MR KINCAID: Did you ultimately meet Mr Pretorius that night, Jimmy?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, we met him, because what happened is, we managed to go inside Mr Joe Senti's house and he was shot in the arm, in the hand when he was trying to close the door. We apologised to him, we told him that he was shot by mistake, our intentions were not to shoot at him. We asked him to take us together with his wife to the farmhouse and we wanted to ask the white man to take him to the doctor or to the hospital because he was injured. That's how we met Mr Pretorius.

MR KINCAID: And what happened when you did meet Mr Pretorius?

MR NOKAWUSANA: We stood next to the gate and the lady that was with us called him and Mr Pretorius went out to meet with this lady. We were hiding ourselves behind this lady. When he was near I heard a shot and Mr Pretorius was hit. He was shot. We did not have a chance to speak to him because the police appeared during that time. We then ran away. So we didn't meet him the way we wanted to.

MR KINCAID: Do you know who shot Mr Pretorius, Jimmy?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes.

MR KINCAID: Was it Mr Mzuyanda Ntonga again?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, because he was the one who had a firearm.

MR KINCAID: Were there any others in the group who were armed with firearms?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, there were others who were armed.

MR KINCAID: With firearms?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, with firearms.

MR KINCAID: Is it true to say once again, Jimmy, that you were unable to get any firearms from Mr Pretorius?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, we didn't manage to get firearms from him.

MR KINCAID: Yes, we didn't manager to get firearms from him.

MR KINCAID: Was anything else taken from Mr Pretorius' homestead?

MR NOKAWUSANA: No, because we didn't get inside the house, we just stood outside because when we heard the shot we went to him and we hit him, we then ran away, we didn't go inside the house.

MR KINCAID: Once again Jimmy, can you tell the Committee that the attack on Mr Pretorius was not one motivated by spite or ill-will or any personal dislike of Mr Pretorius?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, that is correct.

MR KINCAID: And once again, was the objective in going to his home that of arming yourselves by robbing him of weapons and intimidating him from his land?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, that is correct.

MR KINCAID: Jimmy, Mrs Clackers, she owned a farm stall, a farm stall on the farm Endwill(?) Farm in the district of Stutterheim, do you know the farm, Jimmy?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, I do know the farm, but I didn't know it before.

MR KINCAID: Where is the farm Endwill in relation to the Kabusi township of Stutterheim?

MR NOKAWUSANA: It was quite far, but you could walk to the farm.

MR KINCAID: Yourself, your brother Melville and Mzuyanda Ntonga were convicted of robbing Mrs Clackers in her farm store on the farm Endwill in February of 1990, can you confirm that?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, that is correct.

MR KINCAID: Why was Mrs Clackers targeted, Jimmy, why did you decide that she should be the target of your attacks?

MR NOKAWUSANA: We didn't discuss it, we didn't conclude that we were going to attack her, it just appeared when we were embarked in a roadblock. Comrades came, they were travelling with a kombi and these comrades told us that there is a farm around where we can get firearms or weapons. That is how we went to her farm.

MR KINCAID: So you went to the farm Endwill, once again with the purpose of finding and robbing firearms, is that correct?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, that is so.

MR KINCAID: The judge found that three of you were involved in that attack and it was Mrs Clackers' evidence that three attackers came into the shop, can you tell the Committee how many people set out on that day in February to the farm Endwill, with the purpose and objective of attacking the farm and getting firearms?

MR NOKAWUSANA: This farm that you are referring to, I'm not sure whether I'm confusing this. As I've already said before I don't remember certain details, but now I can remember it. When you state three people, I thought that you are referring to the farm that was in Kei Road.

MR KINCAID: No, that is the final incident we'll come to. That is the incident involving Mrs Marulia. Mrs Clackers, Jimmy, traded on her farm.

MR NOKAWUSANA: I do remember that now. She had a shop and that farm was not far from us. I had a family or relatives that were staying there. I used to go and visit them.

MR KINCAID: Why did you decide to attack Mrs Clackers?

MR NOKAWUSANA: The reason was that there was consumer boycotts, we were not supposed to buy in shops that were owned by white people, and she opened her shop in Kologa and she would take things from town and take them to her shop and she would sell those stuff to the people. We had to go and close that shop because there was this consumer boycott.

MR KINCAID: And who was involved in the attack on Mrs Clackers? Is it correct that the judge found that it was yourself, your brother, Melville Nokawusana and Mzuyanda Ntonga, or were there others in the group as well?

MR NOKAWUSANA: No, it was only the three of us, but when we arrived at the shop there were people in the shop.

MR KINCAID: Jimmy, so if I understand your testimony correctly, it was to go and intimidate Mrs Clackers to force her to close her trading store and to stop supplying the people who were under Stutterheim consumer boycott, from buying from her?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, that is so.

MR KINCAID: Jimmy the charge sheet alleges that Mrs Clackers was robbed of a PM battery or batteries to the value of R44 and a bread knife and R50 in cash. You were convicted of that, as were two of your fellow applicants. Why were those items taken from Mrs Clackers?

MR NOKAWUSANA: I don't know whether those things were taken from her. I don't remember anybody taking such items, except maybe it might be people that we found in the shop when we arrived there.

MR KINCAID: I gather from that reply that you say that you did not rob her of money or batteries or a bread knife?

MR NOKAWUSANA: That is correct.

MR KINCAID: Jimmy, once again, the motivation for attacking Mrs Clackers was not because you harboured her ill-will or spite or had any malice towards her, it was not a personal attack on her? - motivated for those reason.

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, that is correct, we didn't hate the farmers because they were helping in that area.

MR KINCAID: Finally, Jimmy, the last incident for which you seek amnesty is the attack on Mrs Morilia who resided in the Kei Road area, on a farm Bushview. Do you recall that incident now?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, I do remember it, it was the incident that I thought you were referring to before. It was the one which I was confusing with the one I just testified about.

MR KINCAID: Jimmy, how many of you were involved in the attack on Mrs Morilia?

MR NOKAWUSANA: There were a lot of us, I think it was 40. I didn't notice how many we were, we were in a kombi and the kombi was full.

MR KINCAID: Did you travel there in one vehicle or did you have more than one vehicle conveying you all there?

MR NOKAWUSANA: It was one vehicle, one kombi.

MR KINCAID: Jimmy, the charge sheet alleged that Mrs Morilia was shot and injured and that from her home various items were stolen, were robbed and when one looks at the list of items taken from her home it appears as though you were successful in getting a .22 pistol and some ammunition, but other than those two items various other items of a normal common household nature were taken as well. There was a radio taken, there was a gas primus, there were sweets, there was cash, there was a bottle of cane and six sheets, a pair of gloves, a knife, an ice bucket, there was soup, there was mince, there was jelly, there were sweets. Now those items, Jimmy, are not in any way of a nature akin to weapons or arms, can you explain, do you know who took those other items from Mrs Morilia?

MR NOKAWUSANA: I don't know about these other items, I don't remember anybody taking such items. What I can remember is that we took the weapons and the bullets.

MR KINCAID: Speaking for yourself, Jimmy, are you able to tell the Committee that you didn't take anything which wasn't an arm or a weapon?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, that is correct.

MR KINCAID: Now who shot Mrs Morilia? The judge found that she was injured, she had been shot at, do you know who shot her?

MR NOKAWUSANA: She was shot by me.

MR KINCAID: With what did you shoot her, Jimmy?

MR NOKAWUSANA: I shot her by the first weapon that we found in Mr Cobus' house.

MR KINCAID: Mr Hansel's house.

MR NOKAWUSANA: Mr Hansel's house.

MR KINCAID: It was a shotgun?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes.

MR KINCAID: Jimmy, why did you shoot Mrs Morilia, why did you shoot her?

MR NOKAWUSANA: The reason for shooting her is because we were in her yard and I saw somebody in the window and I went to the front door. When I arrived there this person was opening the door and the dogs came out and they came towards me, so I tried to shoot these dogs and then the bullet hit to the door. That's how she was shot.

MR KINCAID: So you were aiming in the general direction of the door, is that what your testimony is?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, that is correct.

MR KINCAID: That is from where the dogs had come?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, the dogs were coming out of the door, she was opening the door for the dogs to go out.

MR KINCAID: Did you shoot at Mrs Morilia and did you attack Mrs Morilia for any reasons that were motivated by ill-will or spite or malice? Was there any personal reason why you wanted to shoot this old lady?

MR NOKAWUSANA: No, I didn't know her and this farm was quite far from where I was staying.

MR KINCAID: Once again, Jimmy, the purpose of attacking Mrs Morilia, was it to arm yourselves, to collect firearms, to arm yourselves?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, that is correct.

MR KINCAID: Shortly after the Morilia incident, Jimmy, you and your fellow applicants were arrested, do you know whether the youth of Stutterheim, the township youth of Stutterheim continued to attack the farmers and to intimidate them and frighten them from their lands, to rob them of their weapons, do you know whether those attacks continued, Jimmy?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, we did hear about such incidents when we were arrested, but because they were scared of being arrested, they stopped because some people were arrested and we would meet them in court and they would then be released. They were then scared, they didn't do that.

MR KINCAID: All these attacks, Jimmy, you've testified several times now that they were there so that you could have arms with which to defend yourselves against the Security Police. Did you out of any of these attacks, Jimmy, derive any personal economic benefit from these attacks on the various victims?

MR NOKAWUSANA: No, there was nothing else except the weapons and the military uniform, there was nothing else except those.

MR KINCAID: And can you say whether the weapons that you recovered from, that you took from the farmers, whether those weapons were in fact used in the struggle against the Security Force?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, they were used because the security people were afraid of going to the township.

MR KINCAID: Was there ever a report-back to any meeting, any gathering? After the various attacks on the farms, did you ever go back to a meeting or a gathering in the township and say: "This is what we've done, this is what we've achieved, here are the weapons"? Was there any such formal feedback or report-back?

MR NOKAWUSANA: No, there was no such meeting because we would get weapons and leave them when we were having a roadblock, so those weapons were scattered around the youth that was taking part in what was happening at the time. After that we then got arrested, after the Kei Road incident.

MR KINCAID: Jimmy, you've made a statement to a TRC Investigator, Mr Jabu, in July of last year, do you recall the occasion when you made that statement to him?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, I do recall.

MR KINCAID: And it wasn't made under oath, and that statement is essentially the same statement that you have repeated in an affidavit deposed to on the 20th of April of this year. I wish to refer you to paragraph 6 of your affidavit, Jimmy, and for the purpose of the record I wish you to confirm, if you're able, that what I'm about to read now is your personal sentiment.

Is that the apology you've made to the victims, of these various incidents we've canvassed in your testimony, Jimmy?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, that is correct.

MR KINCAID: Mr Chairperson, that is the applicant's evidence in chief.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Kincaid. Mr Clarke?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CLARKE: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Nokawu - may I call you Jimmy?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes.

MR CLARKE: What education, what formal education do you have, standard what?

MR NOKAWUSANA: I'm still studying inside prison, I'm doing standard 10.

MR CLARKE: Sorry, I believe my speaker's on the blink.

Educated to standard 10?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, I'm still doing standard 10.

MR CLARKE: Okay. Are you doing standard 10 in prison?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, that is correct.

MR CLARKE: And before you were imprisoned, what level of education did you reach?

MR NOKAWUSANA: I was doing standard three.

MR CLARKE: I see. And in what year did you leave school?

MR NOKAWUSANA: In 1980.

MR CLARKE: So you had approximately eight or nine years in civil society between when you left school and when these incidents occurred?

MR NOKAWUSANA: That is correct.

MR CLARKE: And in that time you formed opinions about what is wrong and what is right in civil life?

MR NOKAWUSANA: That is correct.

MR CLARKE: And understandably the political regime of the day was clearly something that was wrong and needed to be put right?

MR NOKAWUSANA: That is correct.

MR CLARKE: What were your attitudes about the wrongs and rights of thefts and robberies?

MR NOKAWUSANA: I didn't think about those things.

MR CLARKE: You didn't regard theft and robbery as something as being necessarily wrong or evil?

MR NOKAWUSANA: I took those as things that were not right, that were wrong.

MR CLARKE: Now you testified that you associated yourself with the youth league of the ANC and the movement of the day, which was the UDM, that is in 1989, is that correct?

MR NOKAWUSANA: That is correct.

MR CLARKE: Did you and your fellow comrades meet regularly and discuss and strategise?

MR NOKAWUSANA: I was not involved in leadership, I was staying at home, but what involved me was the boycott issue. That is how I got involved.

MR CLARKE: And you assisted in enforcing the boycott?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, I assisted.

MR CLARKE: Did you meet with your fellow comrades and regularly strategise on the ways and means of carrying out your boycott?

MR NOKAWUSANA: There were people who used to have such meetings to strategise about the boycott, but we were just the followers, we were just called when they were going to embark on the roadblocks. I didn't have knowledge about the strategies or what was going to be done to enforce the boycott, I was just following them, I was just joining at the roadblocks.

MR CLARKE: I see, just a foot-soldier. The leaders of your day who led you as, what I'll refer to as a foot-soldier, who particularly were they?

MR NOKAWUSANA: The person who was leading us was Mr Mfana Green, he was the one who would tell us all the details.

MR CLARKE: Was it under his instructions that you visited these various farmhouses and stores in the district?

MR NOKAWUSANA: No, it was not under his instructions, but those were instructions that we got from the, when we were embarking on the roadblocks.

MR CLARKE: Who did you receive those instructions from?

MR NOKAWUSANA: The decision was taken amongst us when we were embarked in the roadblocks, I was part of the people who took that decision, we'd discuss this and then take a decision.

MR CLARKE: I then understand that these were simply ad hoc decisions, decisions that you and your fellow roadblock activists carried out, following decisions made there and then.

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, we took those decisions there in the roadblocks.

MR CLARKE: Okay. So these specific decisions were not then under the direct control and patronage of Mr Green, Mr Mfana Green?

MR NOKAWUSANA: He was also there when we were taking those decisions, because we would discuss, everybody who was taking part in that would discuss this and then take a decision. He was part of that.

MR CLARKE: But the decisions were made by you there and then?

MR NOKAWUSANA: That is correct.

MR CLARKE: That is, the decisions to carry out these various attacks.

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, that is correct, the decisions would come out of the meetings that we would have there.

MR CLARKE: Right. My understanding was that the central thrust of the UDM decision and of the time was that there should an enforced consumer boycott.

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, that is correct.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, Mr Clarke, I think I've heard you referring to this as the UDM, I understand it's actually UDF and not UDM.

MR CLARKE: I beg your pardon. Thank you for pointing it out, Advocate Sandi. UDF, sorry, it slipped.

It occurred to me that there is an enormous - and this is a general comment that I'd like you to react to, an enormous gap between a consumer boycott of the white businesses in the village of Stutterheim and a series of attacks on old people and defenceless women, what is your response?

MR NOKAWUSANA: There is no gap there, these are connected because the reasons why attacked is because we wanted to get weapons so that we can defend ourselves when we were embarked in the roadblocks. This was connected to the consumer boycott.

MR CLARKE: Would the court just bear with me. The resolution to enforce the boycott, my instructions are that that boycott applied to white businesses in the village of Stutterheim, is that correct?

MR NOKAWUSANA: That is correct.

MR CLARKE: That is correct. Now Mrs Clackers resided and traded five or six kilometres out of town, was she subject to this boycott?

MR NOKAWUSANA: I don't clearly remember the names, unless if you can tell me the area.

MR CLARKE: Mrs Clackers was the lady that you attacked in her shop on the Kologa Road.

MR NOKAWUSANA: I do remember her now. Yes, this affected her because her shop was not too far from our area, it was a walking distance, we would walk to that area. It was not far. And there were people who were staying next, or near that area. So by opening that shop these people would go and buy in her shop.

MR CLARKE: Was she informed that the boycott was applicable to her?

MR NOKAWUSANA: I don't remember whether she was informed.

MR CLARKE: Did you play any part in having her informed?

MR NOKAWUSANA: No, we didn't get an instruction to go and tell the owners of the shops about the boycott.

MR CLARKE: I see. Now your evidence was that the residents in the area were to leave their farms and they were to be told their farms, is that how I understood you?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, that is correct.

MR CLARKE: And as you mentioned, it was for the three reasons that you, or that your legal representative advanced, to take away police support, to provide land for you and to provide firearms for you, is that correct?

MR NOKAWUSANA: That is correct.

MR CLARKE: Now do you recall making the statement with the assistance of your representative, that was circulated a few weeks ago or a week or two ago?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, I do recall.

MR CLARKE: I will read the second part of paragraph 4.4 to you, half way down the first paragraph:

Possibly the lady interpreter would like to interpret that portion first.

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, that is correct.

MR CLARKE: You remember that. Now did you seriously believe that by issuing a warning to these farmers, that they would walk off the farms and leave you with their firearms to go and fight this war?

MR NOKAWUSANA: We didn't want them to leave their firearms, we wanted them to leave that area because the police wouldn't be able to get to us or to see us when we were having our meetings, because they were helping the police and telling the police that we were in this direction or we went to the other direction. We were then going to get the land.

MR CLARKE: That's not what your statement says. Did you give Mrs Clackers any warning to get off the land?

MR NOKAWUSANA: I don't know because that didn't depend on us only because we were working as the community, so I don't know.

MR CLARKE: You don't know. Now as I understood your evidence, the purpose of your visit to Mrs Clackers was purely to tell her to stop trading, is that correct?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, and we also wanted a weapon.

MR CLARKE: I stand corrected, but I don't recall you stating that in your evidence-in-chief. Bear with me, Mr Chairman, please.

Do you recall the day of your particular visit to Mrs Clackers? - that is the shop, the lady sitting next to me, who traded on the Kologa Road.

MR NOKAWUSANA: No, I don't recall that particular day.

MR CLARKE: Do you recall the occasion when you went to the shop, the occasion that you were convicted for?

MR NOKAWUSANA: I used to go there to that shop when I used to visit my relatives, so I don't remember though the days.

MR CLARKE: You were convicted of having assaulted and robbed Mrs Clackers, do you recall the incident that gave rise to that conviction?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, I do.

MR CLARKE: Now what time of the day did you enter that shop?

MR NOKAWUSANA: I don't remember the time, but it was during the day.

MR CLARKE: ...(inaudible) during the day. And you stated that there were other people in the shop when you entered the shop, in your evidence-in-chief, is that correct?

MR NOKAWUSANA: That is correct.

MR CLARKE: Mrs Clackers will refute that, she will deny that, she will state that shortly after her husband had left for town, at 2 o'clock when she opened, one of the three of you entered the shop and no-one else was in the shop. Now is that not what you recollect?

MR NOKAWUSANA: No, I don't remember it that way because what I can remember is that there were people in the shop when we got there.

MR CLARKE: Which of the three of you entered the shop first?

MR NOKAWUSANA: I was the last one to go inside the shop out of the three that were with me.

MR CLARKE: What role did you play there?

MR NOKAWUSANA: When I got inside I told them we must hurry up, we must not waste time, because the police would arrive and we would be arrested. I then went to Mrs Clackers and I asked her why was she trading, because there was this consumer boycott we were not supposed to buy in the shops in town, why was she not closing the shop.

MR CLARKE: Yes. And what then happened?

MR NOKAWUSANA: I then got on top of the counter and I asked her why was she trading because she knew that we were not buying in the town. So it looked as if she was reaching for something under the counter, I thought that it was a firearm, I then told her to give me that firearm. We struggled and I went to the other side of the counter and the dogs came out, they wanted to bite me and my colleagues went in and there was that struggle, and the people who were inside the shop, I don't know what happened to them but some of them ran away. I don't know which direction they took.

MR CLARKE: Which of you entered the shop first?

MR NOKAWUSANA: I don't know whether it was Mzuyanda Ntonga or Melville, it was one of them because I was the last one to get into the shop.

MR CLARKE: Which of you was dressed with a balaclava to disguise your face?

MR NOKAWUSANA: We - nobody had a balaclava on, it was on the pocket because we, it was in my pocket. I was the one with the balaclava, but it was, I forgot it in my pocket when we went there.

MR CLARKE: Mrs Clackers will say that one of you was wearing a balaclava.

MR NOKAWUSANA: I don't think that we would wear a balaclava during the day. I don't think that that would happen, that one would wear a balaclava and the others would not do that.

MR CLARKE: You then manhandled her, one of the three of you, two of the three of you manhandled her, is that correct? - assaulted her.

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, we manhandled her, we didn't assault her. I was the one who was involved in the struggle with her because I told her to give me that firearm because it looked as if she was reaching for a firearm below the counter, so she wanted to go out of the door. I told her to give me that firearm. What I did is that she fell down because of that struggle between the two of us.

MR CLARKE: Do you recall - my instructions are that you demanded that the till be opened so that you could take the money, do you recall that?

MR NOKAWUSANA: No, I don't remember that. What happened is, she said that she would give us money and then she took off her panties and she told us to rape her and we told her that we were not there for those reasons.

MR CLARKE: Was this ever mentioned in any previous statement, this evidence, this rather shocking evidence that you're now advance?

MR NOKAWUSANA: No, because those details were not asked, if I was asked I would have told.

MR CLARKE: My instructions are that you wanted money, that you tried to force her to open the till, that eventually she pulled the till off the counter and it fell heavily on the floor. Do you not recall that?

MR NOKAWUSANA: I do recall something like that. She was the one who wanted to give us money. We told her that we didn't want money. We just thought that she was wasting time, she didn't want us maybe to get the firearm we were looking for.

MR CLARKE: Your evidence is that you, on your own explanation, that you entered the shop and simply told her she was to stop trading because she was breaking the boycott, is that the case?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, that is correct.

MR CLARKE: I suggest to you that it is a great deal more likely that this fracas took place because you were demanding something of her that she was unable to give you, which was money, that this was nothing more, nothing less than a common robbery.

MR NOKAWUSANA: We didn't got there - we didn't have intentions to rob, we didn't even go there for a firearm. The reason why I wanted a firearm is because she reached below the counter, I then thought that she was reaching for a firearm and that is why there was this struggle.

MR CLARKE: Was it only then that you thought it a good idea to demand a firearm of her, when you saw her reach under her counter?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, that is correct.

MR CLARKE: Before that you had no intention of collecting firearms from her?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, that is correct, because we didn't think that we'd get a firearm from her, we just thought about this issue of trading because there was this consumer boycott.

MR CLARKE: Now tell me, my - and I've lived in these parts for a long time, my understanding of a consumer boycott is that you persuade the consumers to stop buying from particular individuals, you thereby boycott them, is that not the position?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, that is so.

MR CLARKE: You persuade them by means fair or foul, that you go to the consumers, you don't go to the suppliers.

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, that is correct, but we would also go to certain shops and tell the owners not to sell anything to the consumers.

MR CLARKE: But that doesn't constitute a boycott, a boycott is the act of persuading consumers not to buy from identified shops.

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, it is like that, but what angered us is that she was trading in that area and those people were forced, she was forcing those people to buy in her shop because they were not allowed to buy in town.

MR CLARKE: How could she force people to buy, you tell me that.

MR NOKAWUSANA: Because her shop was opened and she knew that in town people were not supposed to buy in the shops. So because of that the people didn't bother to go to town to buy stuff, they would just buy in her shop.

MR CLARKE: You see I suggest to you that this explanation of imposing the consumer boycott is nothing more than a thin cover-up for what the Supreme Court, as it then was, correctly found, that you and your two accomplices were participants in a robbery.

MR NOKAWUSANA: I don't know anything about robbery.

MR CLARKE: Well that's I think incorrect, because you know lots about robbery, the court sent you to jail for a few years for that robbery. That further, if you had simply visited that shop to tell her to stop trading, the awful assault that was perpetrated on her would not have happened, she would have listened to you and you would have left the shop and that would have been the end of the exchange.

MR NOKAWUSANA: The mistake that she made was to reach under the counter because when she did that we thought that she was reaching for her firearm. We didn't go there to rob, we were just there to tell her and then leave.

MR CLARKE: Why should she have reason to, and why should you think that she had reason, to grope under a counter for a firearm after you had simply told her what you'd set out to tell her? There is just no reason, there's no justification for it.

MR NOKAWUSANA: There is a reason or a justification because we were there to tell her to close her shop.

MR CLARKE: The initial statement that you submitted with your application for amnesty, which was undersigned, stated that you had initially gone there to - sorry, Mr Chairman, this is at page 28 of your record, about three quarters of the way down, where the five incidents are referred to - the initial statement reads as follows:

That explanation there is a far cry from the explanation that you today offered the Committee, not so?

MR NOKAWUSANA: That is not so, this is the same explanation.

MR CLARKE: The explanation as I understood you today, was that you went there to tell her to observe a consumer boycott and when she stuck her hand under the counter you attacked her.

MR NOKAWUSANA: This is the same explanation, it's connected, because if she didn't reach under the counter we wouldn't demand weapons. And our intentions to go to her shop was to tell her to close the shop and if we would get a chance to get a firearm or ammunition we would then take those.

MR CLARKE: Just to rap up I would like to set out her version of events. She instructs me that at approximately 2 o'clock on this day, her husband had moments before set out on business to town, set out to town on business, that as she opened initially one of you entered the premises and asked her to get down a Makweta blanket from one of the top shelves. She told whichever one of you it was that, whichever one of the three of you it was, that Makweta blankets were all the same and that you would obviously know what a Makweta blanket looks like, if you want to buy one she will get one down for you. Moments thereafter the second accomplice entered the store with a balaclava on, got onto the counter and demanded a coke, a coca-cola drink. She then could clearly see that there was something drastic about to happen and started moving towards the door when a third person entered, who was by all appearances keeping guard. She was then assaulted, I mean strangled and struck with fists, choked and money was demanded. She indicated that she could not open her till. She then pulled the till - when one of you tried to open the till as well, she then pulled the till from the counter which was chest height, fell to the floor, it still wouldn't open. The noise attracted her 14-year-old son. The 14-year-old son caused the three of you to take fright, you stopped the attack and you ran away. Do you dispute that account of events?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, I dispute that when she says that the second person went in with a balaclava on. I was the one who had a balaclava in my pocket. I was the third one to go in the shop, so I dispute that.

MR CLARKE: She specifically denies that firearms were demanded of her and she specifically denies that there was any mention of the current consumer boycott.

MR NOKAWUSANA: That is what we told - that is what I told her when I went in the shop, because I was in a hurry. These people were in the shop and I was waiting for them outside. I thought that they would tell her that why was she operating in a shop. I then realised that they were not coming out. It was a long time. I just went in and told them that we must hurry up and go, and then I said to Mrs Clackers, why was she trading in her shop? I went next to her, she then reached for something under the counter. I was the third one to go in. The first two were already inside the shop. And the fact that we struggled because we wanted money and the till fell down, that is not like that. She is the one who told us that she would give us money. We saw that as just wasting time for us, we were in a hurry.

MR CLARKE: The nett result is that she absolutely denies that what you claim you were doing was an act associated with a political objective and asserts that this was an act of common law robbery. What do you say to that?

MR NOKAWUSANA: What I'm saying is, this was not something that we planned ourselves, this came about at the time of the boycott, that we must go and close shops, it is not because we wanted to rob. That is not like that.

MR CLARKE: The second and the final closing point she wishes to raise is that you've not made a full and a truthful disclosure of what happened on the day and accordingly that the Committee should, by reason of that, be precluded from granting the amnesty that you seek. What do you say to that?

MR NOKAWUSANA: I'm asking for forgiveness because those were not our aims. I didn't have anything against here. I'm also worried about things that happened at the time, things that affected a lot of people, that we're quite far from them. So I apologise and I would like her to listen to what I'm saying, the way I'm saying it.

MR CLARKE: Just to backtrack very briefly, and I'm virtually finished, Mr Chairman.

Before you entered the shop, did you wait there some time?

MR NOKAWUSANA: No, we didn't wait.

MR CLARKE: Did you see her husband setting off for town?

MR NOKAWUSANA: No, we didn't see him.

MR CLARKE: I see. Mr Chairman, if you'd bear with me. Mr Chairman, in all likelihood I'm finished. I take it you're taking your lunchtime recess now?

CHAIRPERSON: Well, what do you want to do, check your notes or are you not ...(intervention)

MR CLARKE: I beg your pardon. There are one or two minor issues. I'd like to raise them when we restart at 2 o'clock, but I promise I won't draw it out any longer.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. We'll take the luncheon adjournment and reconvene at 2 o'clock.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nokawusana, I remind you that you are still under oath.

NZUNZIMA JIMMY NOKAWUSANA: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Clarke, have you got any further questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CLARKE: (Cont)

Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have very few as I promised.

I would like to just clear up that sequence of events, according to my client, when the attack took place in her shop. I had put it to you that one of you who by your own admission appears to be you, grabbed her and manhandled her. My instructions are that she was throttled, she was - one of you grabbed her and squeezed her windpipe very viciously, was that you?

MR NOKAWUSANA: Yes, that is correct, I am the one who was mishandling her, but I did not strangle nor squeeze her windpipe.

MR CLARKE: Who did so?

MR NOKAWUSANA: I was the one who was wrestling with her, but I did not strangle her.

MR CLARKE: You must have seen who did so if you didn't do it, who was it?

MR NOKAWUSANA: I never saw a person who was doing that. When we left there I was the one who was wrestling with her.

MR CLARKE: She carried severe bruises on her throat for a number of months after this attack, which bore testimony to the viciousness of it. Who did it?

MR NOKAWUSANA: As I've already explained that we were wrestling, but I cannot remember myself strangling her.

MR CLARKE: If you didn't do it you must have seen who did do it because you were engaged with her in hand-to-hand combat.

MR NOKAWUSANA: I did not see anyone. I was the one who was wrestling with her, but if she says that I strangled her I am saying I did not do that, or perhaps if that happened, maybe I have forgotten about it.

MR CLARKE: Someone then approached from behind her with a knife, did you see that? One of the three of you approached her with a knife, about to stab her.

MR NOKAWUSANA: I cannot remember seeing anyone who approached from her back with a knife. There was confusion in the shop and the other people were hitting the dogs. Maybe it's a person who was just passing and who hit the dogs.

MR CLARKE: Because whoever it was, was about to stab her and then suddenly froze and desisted in this course of action and said they couldn't do it because they saw a ghost or an apparition and that caused them to stop. Did you see that?

MR NOKAWUSANA: No, I know nothing like a ghost, or I didn't see anything like a ghost.

MR CLARKE: Thank you, Mr Chairman, that's all I wanted to clear up.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Clarke. Mr Kincaid, it has been indicated to us that the other matter is ready to proceed and that the remaining cross-examination of your client might take a little bit of time. In the hope of being able to dispose of the other matter, we are at this stage going to ask for your matter to stand down and for us to try and complete the other matter and for us to proceed with your one once we are through with the other one. Would that be in order?

MR KINCAID: Mr Chairman, I'm at your disposal, I'm in your hands.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright. Mr Nokawusana, I just want to explain to you. We were originally going to start off with another matter which we also have to hear, but because of some difficulty, one of the interested parties who was coming from overseas and who was only going to arrive her around noon, we started off with your matter so that we don't waste any time, but in the meantime the other matter is ready to proceed. It is shorter than the matter that you're involved in and we are confident that we can dispose of it in a reasonable period of time. We have discussed that this morning with your lawyers and have given the indication that we will more than likely do this in the course of the afternoon.

The other matter is ready to proceed, so we are going to let your matter stand down. Ms Patel here still has some questions to ask of you, so we will, as soon as we've finished the other matter we will come back to your matter and we will then finish your evidence and we'll listen to your co-applicants in that application. So at this stage we are going to let you stand down to allow us an opportunity just to complete the other matter, then we'll come back to you.

MR KINCAID: May I be excused, Mr Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: And we'll excuse you as well, Mr Nokawusana.

MR CLARKE: Mr Chairman, can we safely take it that we won't be called again before tomorrow morning at nine?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, the indications are that that will be the case, but you know if needs be our staff can be in touch with you, but I think you can accept it at this stage. So we'll excuse you as well.

CHAIRPERSON: We proceed to hear the matter of Ian Ndzamela and Pumzile Mayapi. Just for the record, the next matter is the applications of I N Ndzamela, amnesty reference AM 5051/97 and P Mayapi, amnesty reference AM 5247/97.

Mr Ntanunu, do you want to go on record?

MR NTANUNU: Thank you, Honourable Chair. Before we start we would like to thank the Honourable Chair, together with the Members of the Panel for fitting us in. We also thank counsels for both the victims and applicants in the matter which has just been stood down.

Honourable Chair and Honourable Members, I have prepared here an affidavit which has been deposed to by Pumzile Mayapi, who is the applicant in this matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Can I just ask you to just hold there a bit. I just want first of all, just to put yourself on record and then I'll allow the other parties to go on record and then we can come back to the nitty gritty.

MR NTANUNU: Thank you very much, Honourable Chair. May I be on record that I appear for the two applicants herein, that is Pumzile Mayapi and Ndibulele Ndzamela. Thank you very much, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Ntanunu. Mr Jaco?

MR JACO: I am appearing for Mrs Ntakana.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it Mrs Ntakana?

MR JACO: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Miss Wild?

MS WILD: Thank you, Sir. I appear here for Miss Jessie Jade Hudson, who is the daughter of the late Mr Anthony Hudson. I'd just like to place on record the thanks that the family would like to give to the Commission for allowing them to attend and for also paying for their air tickets to enable them to be here. Ms Hudson is 17 years old, she'll be 18 in July. Thank you so much.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Wild. Ms Patel?

MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson, Ramula Patel, Leader of Evidence. I wish at this stage that I'm assisting Mrs Lillian Dlamini. Her late son, Wilfred Dlamini was a victim in this matter. And that at this stage there is no formal opposition, but the position may change later.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Patel, that is noted. Yes, Mr Ntanunu, now you can proceed.

MR NTANUNU: Thank you, Honourable Chair and Members of the Panel. This in an application of course in terms of the relevant Section 18 of the Reconciliation Act, and it is in respect of both Pumzile Mayapi and Ndibulele Ndzamela. There is an affidavit to which Pumzile Mayapi has deposed to. And for the sake of gravity and ...(indistinct), I would like perhaps to read that into the mike, into the record so that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I'm sorry, just to interrupt you, Mr Ntanunu. Are there two applications by two - sorry, two affidavits? I want to have them marked for the record, are there two of them?

MR NTANUNU: There are two affidavits, Honourable Chair, one by Pumzile Mayapi and a confirmatory affidavit by Ndibulele Ndzamela. So there are two, Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel, I assume that the parties have that.

MR NTANUNU: Yes, everybody has been placed ...

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. In that case we will mark the affidavit of Mr Mayapi as Exhibit A and that one of Mr Ndzamela as Exhibit B. You may proceed, Mr Ntanunu.

MR NTANUNU: Thank you, Honourable Chair. May I read the affidavit by Mayapi as it is?

MR NTANUNU: Thank you, Honourable Chair. May I just proceed to ask some questions from Mr Mayapi?

CHAIRPERSON: No, in fact I'll have to let him take the oath, but would you want to do that or would you want to proceed just to read the other affidavit also into the record? It's entirely up to you. If you want to proceed to Mr Mayapi, then I will let him take the oath.

MR NTANUNU: I think I'd better read the other affidavit of Ndzamela, Honourable Chair. Thank you very much for that. Honourable Chair and Honourable Members, there is also the confirmatory affidavit to which Ndzamela has deposed. Ndzamela is the one who has been mentioned in paragraph 4 of Mayapi's affidavit, Exhibit A. I will relate:

Those are the affidavits, Honourable Chair and Honourable Members, to which the two applicants have deposed.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Ntanunu. Before I proceed to let Mr Mayapi take the oath - Miss Patel, there are some other documents here, it just occurs to me now there is some statement which was made to the police and something else as well. Is this part of the record?

MS PATEL: Are you referring to the statements by other victims whom you've not managed to trace, Honourable Chairperson, is that what you are referring to?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I'll give you the names that I have here, but a Martha Boshoff and Wishlo Nowak. Is that supposed to be part of the papers or what?

MS PATEL: Yes, Honourable Chairperson, these are included mainly for the possibility, or for purposes of R&R on the possibilities of the case.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright, in that event then we are going to mark them as well, just not to get our lines crossed. I just want to see exactly what it is. Oh yes, there are three - yes, the two are affidavits and the other one seems to be a statement by Mrs Ntakana. We'll mark the affidavit of Martha Boshoff as Exhibit C and the affidavit of Wishlo Nowak as Exhibit D and the statement of Margaret Ntakana as Exhibit E. I assume that all the parties have copies of this in their possession. It might or might not be material.

Mr Ntanunu, do you want me to administer the oath to Mr Mayapi?

MR NTANUNU: Yes, please, Honourable Chair.

PUMZILE MAYAPI: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, please sit down. Yes, Mr

Ntanunu?

EXAMINATION BY MR NTANUNU: Thank you very much, Honourable Chair and Honourable Members of the Amnesty Committee.

Mr Mayapi, just some few things. In the affidavit to which you have deposed, we haven't talked about whether you later heard that there had in fact been an explosion or not, that it in fact did go off, can you comment on that?

MR MAYAPI: Will you please repeat your question, Sir.

MR NTANUNU: I was saying, in the affidavit to which you have deposed, there is no mention of you hearing that the limpet mines you put in the toilet in the casino did in fact explode as you had planned.

MR MAYAPI: It is true that no mention is made concerning that part in the affidavit, but about the explosion it was heard through the newspapers, that there was an explosion.

MR NTANUNU: Now you have indicated, Mr Mayapi, that you had placed the limpet mines, two limpet mines under a sewerage pipe, can you just perhaps tell the Honourable Amnesty Committee and everybody who is here, to whom, at what did you aim the said explosion of those mines? What did you have in particular, what did you have in mind in particular in placing those two mines under the pipe in that toilet?

MR MAYAPI: In this incident the purpose was to make a statement from our part as the freedom fighters. We wanted to make a statement to show that after all the events that took place before this explosion and the situation in the whole country. There was a need, as the ANC had instructed that the message that will come out of this battle should be heard in the whole country. That is why we had to embark on this plan of the Wild Coast Casino, to show the people that the ANC and MK are existing and they are alive and they do have the authority to respond or do something whenever necessary. Thank you.

MR NTANUNU: Okay, thank you. Now in your affidavit mention has been made of the fact that you were acting under the command, it was the command structure, and you've mentioned Mazibu Xgeza(?) as the person who was your commander. Now I'm not a military man and do not know the consequences or the roles insofar as carrying out of commands given to you by your commander. Can you just briefly tell the Honourable Amnesty Committee what one is supposed to do when he is in fact given a command of the nature you were given.

MR MAYAPI: First of all, if you join the military - I want to talk specifically about our own organisation, Umkhonto weSizwe, we were told that the military work, according to commands, we called those commands "the orders" in the army language. That is how the things are done once you are committed as a member of that army.

There is normally a hierarchy in the army you know, who is above you, up to the highest level of the hierarchy. You are a combatant, a disciplined one. You are obliged that if an order has been issued, you have to execute or carry out and do what it says. That is the procedure in the structure of the army.

MR NTANUNU: Thank you very much, Mr Mayapi. Just one last aspect. You have been informed that in the explosion ...(indistinct) a small boy of about 12 years, if I'm not making a mistake, passed away and further, that Mr Hudson who had apparently gone there as a visitor at ...(indistinct), also passed away, and further that there were some other people who were injured in the explosion in question. You heard that?

MR MAYAPI: Yes, that is correct, I heard about that.

MR NTANUNU: Now we have got amongst us here, I think the mother of the boy in question is around us here and also the doctors of Mr Hudson, who passed away in the incident, are also here and many other people who are related to those who passed away and also those who were injured. Now how do you feel and what can you say to them? How do you feel about all this and what can you say to them?

MR MAYAPI: First of all, I would like to thank you for this opportunity that was offered to me by the TRC, to create a situation whereby I could come and see the people who encountered a loss during this incident, so as to see them face to face and be able to say to them we humbly apologise about this. I'm so happy to see them. I haven't seen them before. I did not know them. I am asking for forgiveness from them and I know it's going to be difficult for them, but I am humbly requesting them to understand the situation that was prevailing at the time in South Africa, that it was a situation that was beyond description. I am certain that almost in each and every third family in South Africa, each and every third family has been affected by this conflict in South Africa.

I want to talk about this incident. Our mission was not aimed at them as families. As I've already explained, we did not even know them, but it was a situation that was prevailing at the time and that was beyond anyone's control. I will end there. I want to say to them I am asking for forgiveness.

MR NTANUNU: Now lastly, Mr Mayapi, is there anything perhaps which you would like to add on what you have deposed to in the affidavit and also what I've led you in?

MR MAYAPI: At the moment I think that there is nothing else that I would like to add, but if anyone would like to get any clarification concerning the affidavit, I will be willing to assist there. Thank you.

MR NTANUNU: Thank you, Honourable Chair, I think that is all in respect of Mr Mayapi.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Ntanunu.

Mr Mayapi, just for the record, you confirm the contents of your application and of Exhibit A, the affidavit as well?

MR MAYAPI: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Jaco, have you got any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JACO: Thank you, Mr Chairperson and Members of the Committee, I just have a few questions for Mr Mayapi.

Can you tell this Committee, Mr Mayapi, why did you choose the casino as your target?

MR MAYAPI: Thank you, Sir. First of all I would like this Committee to know that this incident took place in 1986, at a time that I am sure that everyone knows that a conflict between the freedom fighters, or liberation movements and the government was at a high level.

This took place at a time when the movement that was leading the battle of the South African freedom fighters said South Africa should be rendered ungovernable. That means that each and every institution that was seen as the ANC, as the extension of the oppressors in South Africa, that particular institution would automatically become a target. These gambling casinos, all of them - or let me talk about this one in particular. This was in the homeland of Transkei.

This casino was an ivory tower that was so clear that this casino of Wild Coast, its presence in that particular place made it possible that there would be complaints from the people who were residing there, that that casino was there without any consultation with the people or community.

Secondly, this casino was a place that was clear for one to see that it was there for people who would, during the battle in South Africa, who would ...(indistinct) for people to go there and relax, people who would go there and relax without knowing what was happening in this country. Even the people who were employed there were the people who were working under the extreme oppression. Even the few people who were offered jobs there were the people who were oppressed. That is why I say that under those circumstances it became clear that this particular casino, after grievances or complaints from the liberation movement, had become a target.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, Mr Jaco.

Mr Mayapi, in my reading of your affidavit, paragraph 6, I thought it was the decision of Mzizi Bilo Makwageza(?), that the casino should be bombed. Were you part of this decision?

MR MAYAPI: Let me respond like this. Yes, Mr Makwageza was a commander, as explained in my affidavit, but as a commander he would sometimes ask for other people's opinions as to how the target is. That is why I'm saying this is the definition that I had. Yes, the order was coming from Mr Makwageza, it's true.

MR JACO: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Now in paragraph 9 of your affidavit you state that your actions were committed with a political objective, can you explain that? What political objective did you want to achieve?

MR MAYAPI: As I've already explained, as the soldiers who were fighting for freedom it used to be our duty to make known that the organisation that is protecting the oppressed is existing. If there were complaints or if there are complaints from the people about this casino it became necessary to give support or power to the people who were there, that led to this type of an incident.

I can say that after this incident our objectives were fulfilled solely because even the workers in the casino after that stood up and their eyes were opened and they could see that they can get some assistance, because in the early '90's there was a great change as far as the workers were concerned in that particular casino.

MR JACO: Right. Again in your affidavit, paragraph 9, you state that there was no personal gain on your part, can you explain that, what do you mean by that?

MR MAYAPI: Yes, that is true. If we were involved in the battle fighting for freedom, we were there not expecting any personal gain, but we were doing this under the organisation which we knew was there for the needs of the people who were oppressed in South Africa.

MR JACO: Again in paragraph 6 of your affidavit you state that you acted under the command of the later Makwageza, is that correct?

MR MAYAPI: Yes, that is correct.

MR JACO: Can you tell this Committee what was this command?

MR MAYAPI: This command said something should take place at the Wild Coast Casino, in the sense that it should be known that there is someone who can listen to the complaints of the people, therefore limpet mines were to be used.

MR JACO: Thank you, that is all, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Wild(?), any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS WILD: Yes, thank you, Mr Chairman.

As I understand what you're saying the ANC viewed the Kerzner's casinos as a legitimate target, is that correct?

INTERPRETER: Will the speaker please repeat the question?

MS WILD: Yes. The ANC viewed Kerzner's casinos as a legitimate target, is that correct?

MR MAYAPI: Yes, that is correct.

MS WILD: They undoubtedly did so because they formed a very strong component of the economic viability of the homelands, is that correct?

INTERPRETER: Will the speaker please speak a bit slower so that the interpreter can interpret?

MS WILD: Is it correct that the casinos formed a very significant component of the economic viability of the homelands?

MR MAYAPI: I would like to disagree with that statement because in our opinion we saw it, we saw this casino as something that was there for the minority, more especially when it comes to the economy. The majority of the people, even the people who were staying nearer, there was nothing much that they were gaining by the existence of this casino.

MS WILD: Thank you. No, we're not at difference, what I'm trying to say to you is, it was a very important part of apartheid structure, in keeping the homelands alive, isn't that what the ANC believed? The casinos were a significant component of the homelands to keep apartheid alive by having the homelands, isn't that right?

MR MAYAPI: Yes, that is correct.

MS WILD: No with respect to the orders that you were given, did you have any opportunity to make input with regard to those orders or to refuse those orders?

MR MAYAPI: The time to make an input to say yes or no, you can get that opportunity in the sense that you are also a soldier, but as a human being you have an opportunity to use your own initiative, you can see that this unreasonable or this one is reasonable. You also get that kind of an opportunity.

MS WILD: Well having regard to that, wouldn't it have been more damaging to have made your presence felt and your organisation's message felt, by for example perpetrating a malicious injury to the property of the roulette wheels of the casino, which are very expensive components? Wouldn't that have been a far more appropriate thing to have done?

INTERPRETER: Will the speaker please repeat the question and will you please speak a bit slower.

MS WILD: I'm asking whether it would not have been more appropriate if one wished to achieve the objectives that were set about, to have destroyed the roulette wheel and perpetrated malicious injury to property at the casino than to have planted a bomb which injured civilians and which killed the late Mr Hudson, whose daughters I represent?

MR MAYAPI: The purpose was to destroy this casino building, but because of the weapons or instruments that we had we had to use this limpet mine and we had to place it in a place where we knew that at least that particular spot wouldn't be frequented by people. The aim was to destroy the building or the property of the casino, not the people. That is why had placed that limpet mine in that position.

MS WILD: I'd just like to direct to you the fact that I've spoken to Ms Hudson, she's the young lady who is sitting behind me here, she's 17. She never really knew her father, but she would like to thank you for being as frank as you have been and she'd like to indicate that she does feel willing to forgive you, that's at this stage you, she's hasn't heard your colleague yet. Thank you.

MR MAYAPI: Thank you. I am so thankful that she understands the fact that this was not aimed at her father.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Wild. Ms Patel, any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson, I will be brief.

Mr Mayapi, you state in paragraph 8.2 of your application, not of your application, sorry, of your supplementary affidavit, that the place was reconnoitred or:

Does "we" include you and who else?

MR MAYAPI: I am referring to myself, my colleague, Ndibulele and my late colleague China.

MS PATEL: On what basis was the toilet chosen as a spot on which to plant the bomb or the limpet mine?

MR MAYAPI: As I'm saying, after the reconnaissance was done we, during the reconnaissance we realised that at least this toilet was not as frequented, there was a great possibility that during the explosion there would be no-one in that toilet. There was that possibility.

Secondly, there was no other way of getting right into the casino as we were not workers or employers there. We wouldn't be seen in the other corners of this casino without being suspected.

MS PATEL: But this was a public toilet, Sir, on what basis do you say that there was no possibility that no-one would be in the toilet at the time that the bomb was predetermined to go off at? I mean you say you set the bomb, the time you left the bomb there was 7 o'clock and it was timed to go off three hours afterwards, which is 11 o'clock, which in terms of I guess casino operational times, it would still be fairly early and there would still be people around.

MR MAYAPI: That is why I say we made note, we reconnoitred the place and we realised that at least at about 10 o'clock the casino is not as busy as at 7 or 8 o'clock. That is what we learnt during the reconnaissance.

MS PATEL: Did you at the time when you placed the limpet mine, reconcile yourself with the possibility that people might be injured?

MR MAYAPI: Yes, it is so, there would be people there. I wish that you can understand this situation. Say for instance a person who is going to attack the police station, when he arrives there as a cadre of an organisation, when he gets in that police station and it so happens that unfortunately there are civilians who are there to lodge their complaints, they get affected. Shortly, or briefly I want to say it is not easy in a war situation to act with caution because it is a situation that is always full of uncertainty, you cannot be that accurate.

MS PATEL: Alright, thank you, Mr Mayapi. I just wish to inform you that the person whom I'm assisting at this hearing, Mrs Dlamini, is the mother of the caretaker of that specific part of the casino and it is a tragedy that the person or the people whom you say you had hoped to uplift, were in fact the victims of your act. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Patel. Has the Panel any questions? Mr Ntanunu, any re-examination?

MR NTANUNU: No re-examination, Mr Chairman, thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you want Mr Mayapi to be excused?

MR NTANUNU: No, Honourable Chair, I wouldn't like Mr Mayapi to be excused because I just want to Mr Ndzamela to take an oath and just lead him so that we get excused ...(indistinct)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I mean from the witness stand, for the moment.

MR NTANUNU: Oh, I understand.

CHAIRPERSON: I'll excuse him from the witness stand, not from the proceedings.

MR NTANUNU: Sorry, sorry, Mr Chair, yes of course, yes of course. Thank you, Honourable Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Then I will administer the oath to Mr Ndzamela. Can you please stand, Mr Ndzamela. Can you give your full names please?

IAN NDIBULELE NDZAMELA: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ntanunu, he's your witness.

EXAMINATION BY MR NTANUNU: Thank you, Honourable Chair.

Mr Ndzamela, there is an affidavit which I've read into the mike here and which has been marked Exhibit B. Now first of all, have you deposed to that affidavit?

MR NDZAMELA: Yes, that is correct.

MR NTANUNU: Now, in the affidavit in question you have in paragraph 3 in particular, and 4, mentioned that the whole affidavit of Mayapi has been read and interpreted to you and you confirm the contents thereof, is that the position?

MR NDZAMELA: Yes, that is correct.

MR NTANUNU: Now, you have heard some other things which were said by Mr Mayapi here, both at the time I was leading him and also at the time he was cross-examined by the counsels for the victims. You heard him?

MR NDZAMELA: Yes, that is so.

MR NTANUNU: Now, insofar as his replies to those questions are concerned, do you also align yourself with them?

MR NDZAMELA: Yes.

MR NTANUNU: Now I asked Mr Mayapi a question where I've asked him whether it has since come to his knowledge that a small child, a boy of about 12, in fact lost his life in the operation in question and also that those two girls who are seated over there also lost their father, you are also aware of that.

MR NDZAMELA: Yes, that is correct.

MR NTANUNU: Now it is a painful thing to lose a loved one, what do you say, what can you say to them?

MR NDZAMELA: I would like to apologise to them and I would like to add that we did not aim at certain people or certain families even though they were affected, so I'm sorry, I apologise for what happened.

MR NTANUNU: Lastly, are you pleading with the Honourable Amnesty Committee to grant you amnesty?

MR NDZAMELA: Yes, that is so.

MR NTANUNU: Is there perhaps anything which you'd like to add, which you feel has not been covered?

MR NDZAMELA: Yes, there is.

MR NTANUNU: Can you just add that?

MR NDZAMELA: What I would like to say is this. When this incident happened the political situation that existed at the time, I don't think it was clearly explained.

MR NTANUNU: I seem to having problems with my headphones, can you repeat what you have said, Mr Ndzamela. The other thing that I request of you is not to be fast please. Can you just repeat what you have said and not be fast.

MR NDZAMELA: What I'm saying is, the political situation at the time, I don't think it was explained clearly, so I would like to add on that point.

MR NTANUNU: Is that the only think you wanted to add?

MR NDZAMELA: Yes.

MR NTANUNU: Thank you, Honourable Chair, thank you, Honourable Members of the Committee, I think I'm through with this witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Ntanunu. Mr Jaco, any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JACO: Thank you, Mr Chairman, just one question of this applicant.

Mr Ndzamela, you are very brief in your affidavit, are you sure you have made a full disclosure of the events, in accordance with the Act?

MR NDZAMELA: Yes, that is correct.

MR JACO: You also confirm what we have been told by the first applicant in his affidavit, that is Mr Mayapi.

MR NDZAMELA: Yes, that is correct.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Jaco. Ms Wild, any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS WILD: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Ndzamela, Ms Hudson was a little distressed that you didn't in fact look at the girls, she wondered whether you could maybe look at them. She didn't feel that you'd maybe seen her in directing the remarks which you made.

MR NDZAMELA: Yes, I can. I don't have a problem, I can look at her.

MS WILD: And I take it that you do apologise to her as she understands?

MR NDZAMELA: Yes, I do apologise to her.

MS WILD: And in that regard I take it that you also request forgiveness, as your colleague did?

MR NDZAMELA: Yes, that is correct.

MS WILD: I'd like to indicate, Mr Chairman, and other members of the Committee, that Ms Hudson would like to forgive the second applicant as well. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Wild. We have noted. Ms Patel?

MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chair, I have no questions for this witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination, Mr Ntanunu?

MR NTANUNU: Thank you, Honourable Chair, no re-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jaco, have you got any evidence that you wish to lead?

MR JACO: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, there is no evidence, except that Mrs Ntakana, the one I'm representing, Mr Chairperson, wishes to state that she is forgiving the two applicants also. Thank you, that is all.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Jaco, we have noted the view of your client. Ms Wild, are you going to lead anything?

MS WILD: No, Mr Chairman, Members of the Committee, we won't be leading any evidence, we'd just like to place on record though that both the daughters of Mr Hudson, by virtue of the death of their father, suffered great financial difficulty and are now both orphans, having suffered the recent death of their mother and that it is from their position of suffering and hardship that they have suffered as a result of the loss of their father, that they forgive them.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Wild. Ms Patel?

MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson, I do not intend to call any witnesses, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Patel. Mr Ntanunu, any submissions?

MR NTANUNU ADDRESSES COMMITTEE: Yes, yes, Honourable Chair, with respect.

Honourable Chair and Honourable Members of the Amnesty Committee, I would move and request the Honourable Amnesty Committee to grant the application for the two applicants.

It is our full submission with respect, that the requirements of the Act in question have been in fact complied with. More particularly we submit that the operation and the bombing of the casino in question was in fact done with a political objective, which is in fact the requirement of the Act in question.

We also further submit with respect, Honourable Chair and Members, that the two applicants have in fact made a full, full disclosure of the events that took place on the day in question. I do not think whatsoever that there is anybody who can in fact doubt that. Much as I do not think that there is anybody who can doubt the political objectivity of the whole situation.

I many mention, Honourable Chair and Honourable Members of the Panel, that the applicants themselves have indicated to me personally that they are very, very much happy to be here today and they have been some problems with them because we had held the view that because of the fact that they've already been convicted and sentenced for this act, that then there was no need to appear and move the applications in terms of this Section 18, but when we discussed the matter we seemed to agree that this should be all, or added and this should be in fact a question of reconciliation and they are very, very glad to have been given the opportunity of actually seeing the relatives of the victims in question, to whom they have said before this Honourable Panel that they did not even know them, they did not know who were to be injured over there, but they are happy now to see them and they've even gone out of their way and also asked for pardon and also asked them to understand the circumstances that prevailed during those years and the whole thing and which I think has come from the counsels for the victims is very, very much understandable to them.

All in all, Honourable Chair and Honourable Members, our submission with respect is that we have complied with the provisions of the Act insofar as the requirements for the granting of applications are concerned, and we accordingly pray that the applications be granted. Thank you very much, Honourable Chair, thank you very much, Honourable Members.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Ntanunu. Mr Jaco, any submissions?

MR JACO: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, I have no further submissions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jaco, what was the position of your client, was he just a patrol of the casino at the time or what? What was his position, the late Mr Ntakana? Was he a patron, a customer, what was his position?

MR JACO: He was just a visitor, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And was he killed in the explosion?

MR JACO: Yes, he was killed in the explosion. ...(indistinct) Ntakana, a small child of 12 years, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, I see, no I've misunderstood. And he was visiting the casino you say, at the time?

MR JACO: He was visiting the casino. He was from the local vicinity and they used to visit the casino as small or young boys.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Wild, have you got any submissions?

MS WILD ADDRESSES COMMITTEE: Yes, thank you, Mr Chairman, Members of the Committee. The position with regard to Ms Hudson and her sister is as follows: They do not oppose the granting of amnesty, nor do they as such consent to it,

because that obviously falls within the prerogative of the Committee.

Their view is that they, well particularly Ms Jessie Hudson came to oppose this matter on the basis that on the face of it she was not satisfied that the statement simply on a piece of paper, that there was a political objective and she also wished to satisfy herself concerning the sincerity of the applicants and their way of being and she has satisfied herself about that, which is why she has been prepared, having heard them and listened to them, to in fact forgive them on the basis that they are being sincere, that they've come here in a genuine attempt to reconcile with the families of the victims.

So on that basis then, the application for amnesty is not opposed and having been satisfied with the sincerity of the applicants, as I've said, Ms Hudson has not difficulty, well she has difficulty, but she has no wish to withhold forgiveness from them, she wishes to forgive them, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you clients sisters, the daughters of the deceased?

MS WILD: Mr Chairman, my client is Ms Jessie Hudson, but her sister is present and they were both daughters of the deceased, who died as a result of very severe injuries sustained in the explosion. He was a visitor to the Wild Coast Hotel at the time.

CHAIRPERSON: And what is the name of her sister?

MS WILD: It's Tanya Hudson, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Wild.

MS WILD: ...(indistinct) just on her behalf, I would just like to thank the Committee and the Members of the Committee and the Institution of the Committee for permitting her to be present to also have the opportunity to see the applicants and to hear them, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that is noted. Ms Patel, have you got any submissions?

MS PATEL ADDRESSES COMMITTEE: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson, I wish to state that my client's position as I set it out at the commencement of the hearing remains. I accordingly have no further submissions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: And we had gathered from what you had put to the applicants, that it is Mrs Dlamini's late son who was the caretaker at the hotel complex?

MS PATEL: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Patel. Mr Ntanunu, I assume that you've got no further submissions?

MR NTANUNU: No further submissions, Honourable Chair, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you very much. Ms Patel, can you just get us Mrs Dlamini's full names.

MS PATEL: It's Lillian, Chairperson: L-I-L-L-I-A-N.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. We want to take just a brief to consider the matter and to formulate a decision. We will reconvene in a very short while. We will be ready to deliver our decision in this matter, so we will stand down for a short while and we will indicate to you when we are ready.

MS WILD: Mr Chairman, could I just ask something? Would it be possible please for us to be excused from the hearing because we come from Durban and we to. We will discover the outcome from your facilitators, if that would suite you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it appears as if there are no problems. Yes, if your clients are happy, we will certainly excuse them at this stage and then simply thank you Ms Wild for your assistance and thank your clients for their presence and for the attitude which they have expressed, which we have noted, and which in our view is something positive. Thank you.

We'll stand down for a short while.

This is the application for amnesty of Ian Ndibulele Ndzamela and Pumzile Mayapi, arising from an incident which occurred at the Wild Coast Casino at Mzamba on the 18th of April 1986.

We are proceeding to give an immediate decision in this matter, unlike in many other cases where it is necessary for us to take some time to consider the matter and release it at a subsequent stage, in view of the peculiar circumstances of this particular matter and for that reason we are according proceeding to give an immediate decision in the matter.

During the incident, which formed the subject matter of this application, the applicants caused two limpet mines to explode in one of the toilets, public toilets at the casino complex, which resulted in a number of deaths, injuries and damage to the complex. The applicants were eventually tried in the Transkei Supreme Court pursuant to the incident, where they were convicted of two counts of murder and one count of terrorism. Pursuant to this conviction they were initially sentenced to death, which sentence was subsequently commuted to one of 18 years imprisonment.

The applicants were eventually released in terms of the general amnesty for political prisoners which was granted during February of 1990, and they are consequently not presently serving any prison sentence arising from the incident.

There were three victims of the incident, who participated in these proceedings and who were all legally represented namely, Mrs Margaret Ntakana, who is the mother of the late Bhekinkhozi Ntakana, her 12 year old son who was a visitor to the casino complex and who was killed in the incident, he was an inhabitant of the area surrounding the casino, Jessie and Tanya, the daughters of the late Thomas Hudson, who was likewise killed in the incident and who was at the time a visitor to the hotel, Mrs Lillian Dlamini, the mother of the late Wilfred Dlamini who was a caretaker at the casino complex.

According to the applicants they were members of Umkhonto weSizwe, military wing of the African National Congress at the time, and they had committed the deed on the instructions of their then commander, the late Mzizi Makwageza. The objective which they were pursuing was to demonstrate the ability of Umkhonto weSizwe to retaliate to actions against its members and followers by the South African Security Forces, pursuant to the raid conducted by the South African Security Forces in Lesotho at the beginning of 1986.

They also indicated that at the time there were orders from the African National Congress to render South Africa ungovernable and to target all institutions which were regarded as extensions of the oppressor. The casino in question fell into the category. They indicated that they reconnoitred the casino before the attack and concluded that the toilet in question is the most suitable place to cause the explosion without exposing too many persons to injury. They however reconciled themselves to the possibility of death or injury resulting from the explosion. They placed the limpet mines in the toilet in question at approximately 19H00, and they set them to detonate three hours later, somewhere between 22 and 23H00 hours.

According to them the reconnaissance of the casino complex had led them to believe that at this time there would be the least possibility of the toilet being frequented by patrons of the complex. After having placed the limpet mines they departed before the explosion occurred, and they subsequently read about the explosion in the newspapers.

None of the victims who participated in the proceedings seriously opposed the applications and we have no reason to doubt the version which was presented to us by the applicants. In fact both the Hudson family and Mrs Ntakana have indicated during the proceedings, that they accept the apologies which the applicants made, that they are prepared to forgive the applicants for what they had done and that they do not oppose the applications.

Under those circumstances we are satisfied that the act was committed by the applicants in their capacity as Umkhonto weSizwe operatives, on the instructions of that organisation. The act is accordingly one associated with a political objective, as envisaged in Section 20 of Act 34 of 1995. We are also satisfied that the applicants have made a full disclosure as required by the Act.

In those circumstances the applicants are GRANTED AMNESTY in respect of the offences set out earlier in this decision, that is the two counts of murder and one count of terrorism.

In conclusion, we wish to point out that in our opinion the persons referred to above, who participated in these proceedings, as well as Martha Johanna Jacomina Boshoff and Wishlo Steven Nowak, are victims in the said act and they are referred for consideration in terms of Section 20.2.1 of the Act.

In conclusion, we wish to point out that this incident is a stark reminder of the price that many innocent people paid for the eventual solution of the political problem and conflict experienced in our country. We regard it as encouraging to have noted the positive attitude adopted by the victims in this matter and the reconciliation which was has been effected through these proceedings. Although in this context there has been no direct mention of the situation of Mrs Dlamini, we hope that she would find it possible to forgive the applicants and to find some peace of mind, in spite of the tragic loss of her son, who ought, as has been quite correctly indicated, to have been a beneficiary and not a victim of the actions of the applicants.

That is the Panel's decision in this matter.

We will now adjourn the proceedings until tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock. The representatives of Correctional Services appear not be present in the venue anymore at this stage, but can I just ask that it is conveyed to them that we intend to proceed with the previous matter that stood down, at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning and that we would rely on their co-operation to ensure that those applicants are brought timeously to the venue. We thank you very much. We are adjourned.