--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: Good Morning. We want to start the proceedings. Just for the record it is Tuesday the 28th of September 1999. We are continuing with the sitting of the Amnesty Committee at the Jiss Centre in Johannesburg. The Panel is constituted as has been indicated on the record and we are continuing with the amnesty application of Mr Moele and this morning we will deal with the incident concerning the Ormonde police station.

Mr Smit is there anything that you want to put on record in respect of this incident, or do you want to proceed to present the evidence on that issues?

MR SMIT: Mr Chairman, I will proceed to present the evidence. As you will notice in this application it is Mr Moele as well as Maj Mametse, who are the applicants. Maybe I should just state at this stage, Maj Mametse has not arrived yet this morning. He yesterday mentioned to me that he had certain transport problems. I will start in the meantime with the evidence of Mr Moele and then hopefully Maj Mametse will arrive during the leading of Mr Moele's evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that's in order Mr Smit, we will carry on with Mr Moele, so as not to lose out on too much time and then once Mr Mametse is available, then we can take his testimony.

MR SMIT: As it pleases the Committee, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Do you want your client to be sworn in?

MR SMIT: Could I request so, Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well.

DANIEL MOELE: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Smit.

EXAMINATION BY MR SMIT: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Moele, you've previously testified in the other application that you, during 1993, were a member of the ANC and also the second in Command of the Katorus MK, is that correct?

MR MOELE: That is correct.

MR SMIT: Now during or on a specific date, the 27th of February 1993, you stated in an affidavit that you were involved in a robbery that took place at the Ormonde police station, is that correct?

MR MOELE: That is correct.

MR SMIT: Under whose command were you on that day?

MR MOELE: Under my Commander, Mr Mametse.

MR SMIT: And how many people were you when you went to rob the Ormonde police station?

MR MOELE: We were six.

MR SMIT: Was Maj Mametse one of these six people?

MR MOELE: That is correct.

MR SMIT: Can you remember the names of the others?

MR MOELE: Yes, I do. It was myself, Major Mametse, Sepiwhe Mukumo, Tommy Manyedza and one known as Sparkie and Comrade Makaula.

MR SMIT: Were all six of you members of the MK at that stage?

MR MOELE: Four of us were members of the MK and two were members of the SDU and there were three inside the country.

MR SMIT: Now do you know what the reason was for going to the police station to rob it? Why did you go there?

MR MOELE: The reason to rob the police station was to acquire firearms, especially the smaller firearms like pistols.

MR SMIT: What were you going to do with these pistols?

MR MOELE: Firstly because we had AK47 sub-machine guns, we needed the pistols for personal security and also to train SDU comrades with these firearms that we got inside the country, in South Africa.

MR SMIT: So if I understand you correctly, you wanted to distribute these pistols that you then obtained through the robbery to SDU members for them to utilise?

MR MOELE: That is correct.

MR SMIT: Okay. Could you explain to the Committee or tell the Committee, on the date of the attack, how you -who planned the attack? Let me get that first.

MR MOELE: Maj Mametse planned the attack with myself and one of us, Comrade Makaula.

MR SMIT: What were your instructions? What did you have to do during the attack?

MR MOELE: My instructions are like this. I was one of the persons who was supposed to penetrate into the police station and capture the firearms.

MR SMIT: Okay. When you arrived, how many of you entered the police station?

MR MOELE: When we arrived, we entered, four in number. Mr Mametse was left at the door and outside to be on the lookout for policemen or any other person. Myself and the other three, I was with the two of these four who were supposed to get guns from the policemen.

MR SMIT: Just to get the record straight, this was a satellite police station, it's one of the smaller stations, is that correct?

MR MOELE: That is correct.

MR SMIT: When you arrived, how many policemen were on duty inside the station?

MR MOELE: If I am not mistaken, there were three policemen.

MR SMIT: And the four of you entering, were you armed with firearms?

MR MOELE: We were armed with AK47s.

MR SMIT: Now when you entered, what happened inside?

MR MOELE: When we entered the police station, it so happened that one policeman got inside through a passage that led to where I didn't know. I followed the policeman and pointed the policeman with the firearm, told him that I would shoot at him or her if he would give me problems. We were there to collect the firearms, we're not there to kill them. I took a gun from him and I left him kneeling on the ground, on the floor.

MR SMIT: You've now stated that you said to the policeman, you are not there to kill. During the whole robbery were any shots fired by you or your comrades?

MR MOELE: No, we did not.

MR SMIT: Okay, if we can just proceed. After you had then taken the policeman's pistol, what did you then do?

MR MOELE: I left him there, having told the policeman that if he tried anything funny, we would shoot at the target, him or her and when I got back I found Comrade Dumi having opened the safe where the firearms were placed and I took two-way radios so that they could not use them, as we escape from that place.

MR SMIT: How many two-way radios did you take?

MR MOELE: I took two myself.

MR SMIT: And how many firearms did you yourself take?

MR MOELE: Personally, I took that pistol I got from the policeman I followed along the passage. Others were already taken by others who were in the police station when I followed this one who ran along the passage.

MR SMIT: Now except the two two-way radios that you took and the pistol, did you take anything else from any of the policemen in the station?

MR MOELE: No, Sir, I took nothing. Even to this policeman that I went to, I took nothing that belonged to him personally, but I took the service pistol.

MR SMIT: After you left the police station, did you count how many pistols in all were gathered by the lot of you?

MR MOELE: Yes, we did count them. We had three of them.

MR SMIT: So in total, three pistols were taken on that day?

MR MOELE: That is correct.

MR SMIT: And then also the two two-way radios?

MR MOELE: That is correct and boxes that pack the pistols and the manuals for using these pistols and cleaning instruments for these pistols.

MR SMIT: Did you take any ammunition?

MR MOELE: No, I do not remember anybody reporting that we took ammunition.

MR SMIT: Did you see if any of your comrades who penetrated the police station with you, if they took any personal effects of any of the policemen inside the police station?

MR MOELE: No, Sir, no one reported that he took anything besides the pistols and the manuals I referred to and the box that packs the pistols.

MR SMIT: When you left the police station, the policeman, the three that you saw, were they still inside the police station after you've now taken the guns?

MR MOELE: Yes, according to my knowledge they were left inside the police station.

MR SMIT: Were they standing around, or sitting, or did you order them to do anything else?

MR MOELE: The one that I followed along the passage, as I have said, I left him kneeling down. The others inside the police station were not standing up. I do not know whether they ordered them to lie down on the floor, but they were not standing up on their feet.

MR SMIT: Okay, these pistols and two-way radios that you now took from the police station, what were done with them after the robbery, do you know?

MR MOELE: We took them to the location. We trained the comrades to use the pistols that we found inside the country because we could not get others outside the country and this was done for them to know how to use these pistols when they bought them themselves and they were to be used for personal security around the location, because we could not carry machine guns or these long guns around the location duration the day and also when you go for meetings.

MR SMIT: Was you only objective when robbing the police station to obtain weapons for the SDU's or did you have another objective in specifically going for a satellite police station?

MR MOELE: Yes, I would say we needed to get the firearms to show that when we have planned our mission well, we could disarm the policemen without having fired a single shot. We had the knowledge that there are policemen who disliked the negotiations that were going on and we wanted to demonstrate that we also had the capability of unleashing violence, but to show our disciplined behaviour, we were not going to fire any shots when we robbed them.

MR SMIT: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Smit. Ms Vilakazi, have you got any questions?

MS VILAKAZI: I do have questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, just for the record, you're appearing on behalf of?

MS VILAKAZI: On behalf of the victims, Maj Mbhele, sorry Sgt Mbhele, Zulu and Molapi.

ADV DE JAGER: Thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VILAKAZI: Mr Moele, when you went to the Ormonde police station, how many of you went inside? You said there were six of you, but how many of you went inside the police station?

MR MOELE: I said that four of us got into the police station. Maj Mametse went inside and got outside as he was supposed to be on the lookout for policemen who might come in after we have entered, to alert us and to protect us. We went inside, all three of us.

MS VILAKAZI: So, in total four of you went inside, is that what you're saying?

MR MOELE: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: One of the four guarded at the door?

MR MOELE: Yes.

MS VILAKAZI: Did the three of you who went inside the police station, go all at the same time?

MR MOELE: We went inside the police station following each other. We got in through what I would call ...(indistinct), but a combination.

MS VILAKAZI: Do you remember who was at the front?

MR MOELE: I was the one leading these three. The one who was at the forefront was Mr Mametse, who went inside and got outside.

MS VILAKAZI: I'm talking about the three who went inside. Are you saying you were the one at the front?

MR MOELE: That is correct.

MS VILAKAZI: And then you found this policeman at the passage, is that correct?

MR MOELE: As we entered, I don't know whether this policeman saw that we had firearms, he was standing on his feet, entering along the passage that led to where I didn't know, but I followed the policeman along the passage.

MS VILAKAZI: From your explanation it means that the passage is away from the charge office where the other policemen were, is that correct?

MR MOELE: There is a door in the charge office like this one here of the Committee room here and then as we go through that door, there is a corridor that led to where I did not know.

MS VILAKAZI: So are you saying that the minutes that you spent in the police station, you were at the passage with that particular policeman? You didn't go into the charge area, the charge office area?

MR MOELE: I entered and I passed the charge office area and followed that policeman who went along the passage.

MS VILAKAZI: And then from the passage, after you had taken whatever it is you took from the policeman, what did you do? Where did you go?

MR MOELE: I went back to the charge office area. I found them having finished what they were there to do and I took the two-way radios which were on the chargers, they were being charged there.

MS VILAKAZI: And where were those two chargers, exactly where?

MR MOELE: Let me say the table in front here is the counter of the charge office area. There was a sort of a table or a shelf on the wall, that’s were the chargers were.

MS VILAKAZI: Did you have to go the other side of the counter to get the chargers?

MR MOELE: It is a passage next to the counter and they were just there on the wall and I came from within the police station, along this passage where I was and I didn't have to go around the counter to collect them.

ADV DE JAGER: It's not quite clear to me. Is this application opposed by you, or are you only wanting to get the true facts before us, or are your clients opposing the application?

MS VILAKAZI: Let me put it on record, Honourable Commissioner, that the applicants are not opposing the application per se, but there are some personal effects that were taken from them and they want those personal effects back.

ADV DE JAGER: Well, perhaps if you could put it quite straightforward to him and say "Well, we differ with this. In fact we don't agree that you only took the weapons." Put it to him straight away and let's hear what he says.

MS VILAKAZI: With due respect, Honourable Counsellor, I first wanted to establish as to the exact chain of events, because there is a possibility that the personal effects were taken by somebody other than the applicant himself, so I just wanted to establish that, because in the applicant's statement, he says no personal effects were taken. I just have to establish that.

ADV DE JAGER: And they can't recognise him today as the person who took the personal effects?

MS VILAKAZI: They cannot say with certainty exactly who did that.

ADV DE JAGER: Thank you.

MS VILAKAZI: Going back to our questions, Mr Moele. Now after you took, or at the time when you took the two-way radio stations, how far were you from the other policemen, the two other policemen?

MR MOELE: It is difficult to pin my position exactly at that time. About three or five metres, but it's very difficult for me to state exactly where I was at that time.

MS VILAKAZI: But can you say that you didn't go anywhere near them?

MR MOELE: Yes, I can say so.

MS VILAKAZI: You said that when you came back from the passage, after you had finished with the other policemen, you found that the safe was already opened. Are you still saying so?

MR MOELE: Yes, that is what I'm saying.

MS VILAKAZI: And had the pistols already been removed from the safe?

MR MOELE: Yes, they were already taken from the safe.

MS VILAKAZI: Can you speculate on how long it took you between when you entered, the three of you entered and when you came back into the common area? Can you just give us an indication of how long it took you?

MR MOELE: Although it would be difficult because I did not look at my watch, it was about three to five minutes. It was quite quick.

MS VILAKAZI: So for that 3 to 5 minutes, you cannot say exactly what happened in the common area, you can only talk about what happened when you were at the passage and when you went back there.

MR MOELE: That is how we operate. A person carries out what he must do.

MS VILAKAZI: Alright. Now you said that no personal effects were taken from the policemen in the station. Are you still saying that, despite the fact that you were not there at all relevant times?

MR MOELE: Yes, I'm saying personally I took no personal effects of any other person and even with that policeman, I took only a pistol and I'm still saying no-one reported to me or to the Commander that they took any personal effects of any other policeman at that police station.

ADV BOSMAN: May I just interrupt here please, Ms Vilakazi? If someone had reported to you that they had taken personal effects, what would your response to that have been?

MR MOELE: That would have been something the person did himself, the person would have shown lack of discipline and that would have amounted to undermining our intention through that operation we had to undertake there. A punishment would be lashed out at this person.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you, Ms Vilakazi, you may continue.

MS VILAKAZI: A follow-up on that question. Was it a known fact that you mete out punishment to ill-disciplined members?

MR MOELE: Yes, that is correct. Just like in any other establishment, we also would have disciplined such a member.

MS VILAKAZI: So, I'm putting it to you that it is possible that if not you, the other two comrades of yours could have taken the personal effects, and knowing that they would be punished, because that would be out of line with the operation, they may have decided to keep quiet. What is your comment on that?

MR MOELE: I'm also saying to you that the comrades in my company at that time, they are tried and tested cadres, they are very disciplined and if they don't report that they took any personal effects of policemen, then I also know for a fact that they never took any personal effects of any policeman.

MS VILAKAZI: Mr Moele, you cannot say you know, you can only believe that they did not take, you cannot say you know that they did not take anything. Can you respond to that?

MR MOELE: Because I did not see them, I cannot say I know, but I know them to be disciplined comrades who would have reported same to me if they took anything belonging to a policeman.

MS VILAKAZI: I'm putting it to you, that I'm going to call Constable Mbhele who is going to testify that his watch and wallet, Panasonic radio cassette player and some cassette tapes were taken from him. What is your comment on that?

MR MOELE: I would deny that. A radio cassette player is something that we would have seen, even though it was not reported to have been taken from him.

MS VILAKAZI: Constable Zulu is also going to testify that his watch and wallet were taken from him. What's your comment on that?

MR MOELE: As Deputy Commander, nobody reported to me that he took personal items of policemen, because I know there was no-one who was supposed to take a wristwatch or a cassette player of any other person at that station.

MS VILAKAZI: Why was it so?

MR MOELE: That was not the operation's objective or intention. That was a paramilitary operation which had a political orientation and we must have left a clear political message there, not a criminal message that must be left behind at that station.

MS VILAKAZI: So are you saying that taking the watches and wallets would have fallen outside the political operation?

MR MOELE: Yes, that would not show our intention of coming there with a political orientation of our operation, that would have been transgressing our instructions. We were not there to shoot at people and rob them of their personal items, we were there to take the police station property.

MS VILAKAZI: And then lastly, Const Molapi will also give testimony to the effect that his watch and money were also taken from him, what is your comment on that?

MR MOELE: I will deny that. Everything that was taken was reported to me or the Commander, even if it was only reported to the Commander, the Commander would inform me and a disciplinary action would be meted out against that comrade.

MS VILAKAZI: From what you're saying, you relied on what was disclosed, is that correct, as to what has been taken?

MR MOELE: Yes, that is what is known to them and that they must report same to me and the Commander also.

MS VILAKAZI: So none of you were searched?

MR MOELE: We did not have a reason to search any other person.

MS VILAKAZI: Okay, one last question, I hope this is the very last one. Two of the people that you were with were SDU members, they were not trained MK members, that's what you said.

MR MOELE: That is correct.

MS VILAKAZI: Did they also go into the police station?

MR MOELE: Only one of them got inside, the other one was the driver.

MS VILAKAZI: How well-known is he to you?

MR MOELE: Tommy Manyedza is well-known to me because he was our Commander's bodyguard.

MS VILAKAZI: So it's the same Tommy Manyedza who opened the safe and took the pistols from the safe?

MR MOELE: Yes, that's correct.

MS VILAKAZI: I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ma'am. Ms Lockhat any questions?

MS LOCKHAT: Yes, thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LOCKHAT: Mr Moele tell me how many arms did you personally possess?

CHAIRPERSON: Where? That day, or at what stage?

MS LOCKHAT: Just at that point in time.

CHAIRPERSON: When they executed the robbery?

MS LOCKHAT: Yes, and then just also before his arrest.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, when was he arrested?

MS LOCKHAT: It was ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: That same day, or what?

MS LOCKHAT: June, after the incident at the Transvaal Galvanised Company.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, was this - did this robbery precede ...(intervention)

MS LOCKHAT: Before. It was before. This happened ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: This one?

MS LOCKHAT: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh I see and they talk about February 1993.

MS LOCKHAT: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, do you follow Mr Moele? What weapons did you have when you went to rob the police station and also what weapons did you have when you were arrested eventually after that robbery at Galvanised ...(intervention)

MS LOCKHAT: Chairperson, just personal weapons, his own weapons, how many weapons did he have, not just for the robberies, but just generally that he had in his possession.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, perhaps Ms Lockhat we must just make it clear now. Do you mean you want to know whether he was in possession of an arsenal of weapons at the point when, in February, when this robbery happened? In general, not what he had on his person when he went into the ...(intervention)

MS LOCKHAT: That is as an individual, how many weapons did he personally have as an individual, as an MK?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but that's what I don't understand. On the scene or when, or where? On the scene of the robbery?

MS LOCKHAT: Just - it doesn't have to be on the scene of the robbery, I just want to know whether he had any other weapons.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh. Alright, alright. I hope you followed what was going on now, Mr Moele?

ADV DE JAGER: How many weapons did you have under your control, at your house or wherever you stayed, or did you carry along with you?

CHAIRPERSON: I had one pistol when I got arrested.

CHAIRPERSON: Now apart from that, did you possess any other weapons?

MR MOELE: There were weapons at the location but the Commander would deploy them to others. He would inform me if there was a necessity for me to use them.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so there was an arsenal of weapons, but those weapons were controlled by the Commander, by Mr Mametse, not by yourself?

MR MOELE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And he decided how to distribute those weapons and to whom?

MR MOELE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Ms Lockhat.

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you, Chairperson, and then just one last question. Mr Mametse says that there's a possibility that you could get integrated into the SADF or the SAPS. Do you see that as a possibility for your future?

MR MOELE: I see that as a possibility if I could get amnesty, but if I don't get amnesty, I would be a criminal. I think there's a possibility that I can be integrated into the Defence Force.

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you, Chairperson, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Lockhat. Has the Panel got any questions?

ADV DE JAGER: I would only want to comment actually and I would like to state that this is one of the rare cases that we've heard where no shots were fired, nobody was killed even after you've disarmed them, you didn't kill, because in many other cases police were disarmed and killed after they'd been disarmed.

ADV BOSMAN: May I just ask, in your evidence you said that you only wanted handguns, you were not interested in AK47s. Am I correct? Did I understand you correctly?

MR MOELE: Yes, we wanted pistols. If we could get the pump action firearms, we would also take them. We could not take pistols and leave them with R5 rifles, they would hit back at us.

ADV BOSMAN: Understandably, but do I understand your evidence correctly that your interest was in pistols because you did not have such a need for the AK47s? Your need was for pistols? Smaller guns, I think were the words that were used.

MR MOELE: At that time we had AK47s but we needed pistols at this particular point in time.

ADV BOSMAN: Why I'm asking you is that yesterday in the other incident which happened fairly soon after you said that you wanted the R10 000 to buy AK47s, now how did this need arise?

MR MOELE: The situation changed in July, if you can focus on this matter, on 27th of April, the date was set as such for the 1994 elections at Kempton Park and violence erupted in Katorus, to a point where we were forced to get machine firearms.

ADV BOSMAN: At the time when you needed the pistols, did you not have a need for firearms because there was violence in Katorus?

MR MOELE: Yes, but I have already stated that the pistols would be used to train the SDUs with the pistols that we got inside the country. Again I said you can defend yourself using a pistol whether you are two or three, even if you go for meetings, should there be a need for a specific activity.

ADV BOSMAN: And then just one more question, the two SDU members that went along with you, to which SDU did they belong?

MR MOELE: The members of the Vosloorus SDU, we stay with them at the location.

ADV BOSMAN: Vosloorus?

MR MOELE: That is correct, Vosloorus.

ADV BOSMAN: Did any of these SDU members accompany you when you went to rob the Transvaal Galvanised Company?

MR MOELE: No, Tommy was already deceased. He was shot by the police at the house and Sparkie was already deceased, he had a car accident.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Smit, any re-examination?

MR SMIT: I have no re-examination thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Yes, Mr Moele, you're excused. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Now has Mr Mametse arrived, or what?

MR SMIT: Indeed, Mr Chairman, Mr Mametse did arrive.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, are you able to, are you ready to proceed with his evidence, or do you need to speak to him, or what?

MR SMIT: Could I have a quick word with him? I have not had the opportunity this morning yet to speak to him. I would just like to clear something up if you'd give me 10 minutes, that would be sufficient. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we'll adjourn for ten minutes.

MR SMIT: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Smit, are you ready to proceed?

MR SMIT: I'm ready to proceed. I'm indebted to you, Mr Chairman, for the opportunity.

CHAIRPERSON: That's fine.

MR SMIT: I would then request that Mr Mametse be sworn in.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MOTSEPE EZEKIEL MAMETSE: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Smit.

EXAMINATION BY MR SMIT: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I might just indicate that Mr Mametse indicated that he wishes to testify in English.

Mr Mametse, you're presently 30 years old and a major in the South African National Defence Force, stationed at Nelspruit Headquarters, is that correct?

MR MAMETSE: Not correct. 38.

MR SMIT: 38 years old, yes, but stationed at Nelspruit as a Major in the army?

MR MAMETSE: Yes.

MR SMIT: During 1993 you were a member of the ANC is that correct?

MR MAMETSE: Yes.

MR SMIT: And there was evidence led by Mr Mohele that you were the Commander of MK in the sub-region Katorus, is that correct?

MR MAMETSE: Correct.

MR SMIT: Is it also correct that Mr Mohele was your second in Command?

MR MAMETSE: Correct.

MR SMIT: Now during 1993, specifically in February, you were involved in an armed robbery at the Ormonde Satellite Police Station, is that correct?

MR MAMETSE: Correct.

MR SMIT: Was Mr Mohele with you at that stage?

MR MAMETSE: Yes, he was.

MR SMIT: How many people were you, when you went to, well when you robbed the police station?

MR MAMETSE: Six.

MR SMIT: And what did you exactly do? You, yourself, now?

MR MAMETSE: Oh myself? Somebody went into the police station, somebody we were going with, went into the police station, I was immediately after him.

MR SMIT: Did you ...(intervention)

MR MAMETSE: And then ...(intervention)

MR SMIT: Carry on. Sorry.

MR MAMETSE: They went into the police station. I was immediately after him. He had a short conversation with the police. As he got out, he signalled to me. I got in, pointed the policeman with an AK and then the other people stormed in. Immediately they stormed in, each went to his target and I turned my back and looked outside, towards the outside.

MR SMIT: So you were keeping watch to the outside, is that correct?

MR MAMETSE: Yes, I was keeping a watch to the outside.

MR SMIT: Your objective when going to rob the police station, what was that?

MR MAMETSE: One of the objectives was to acquire handguns, short guns because the material that we had mostly consisted of AK47 and there was a need to have a short gun for personal protection, among other reasons.

MR SMIT: Was this for yourselves or for SDUs?

MR MAMETSE: Like I was saying, there are several reasons. Among them was to acquire personal weapons for personal security, short guns and then another reason was to, like we were saying, to change the balance of forces in the security establishment in the country. This was done after calls by several leaders of the African National Congress, I think it was a week or two after Harry Gwala was in the Vosloorus area, whereby he called strongly that there is a need to challenge the security establishment, to take the security of our community as our task, that should be wrestled away from the SAPS because they were SAP run.

There was this activity of the police being involved in third force activities, murdering communities, so there was that need at that time that the security situation should be wrestled out of the hands of the SAPS, the community should be responsible for their own security.

MR SMIT: Were you specifically instructed by Mr Harry Gwala to establish these units?

MR MAMETSE: I don't know if instructed would be an appropriate term. I would rather say he made a call.

MR SMIT: And this call, was it made during a rally or a meeting, or when was this made?

MR MAMETSE: It was made in a rally in a stadium and after it was made in an address to MK cadres only, by the same mentioned individual.

MR SMIT: So would I be correct in stating then that you decided to specifically go and rob the Ormonde police station because of this so-called instruction from Harry Gwala?

MR MAMETSE: Like I was saying, it's not a simple question, but that there are multiple factors that led to this, it is not only specifically this incident. The incident also transpired after we had handed a memorandum to the Station Commander of Vosloorus, indicating to him that if he does not call his policemen to task, then we'll have no option but to act against them in one way or the other. So it's not a question of only this question that Harry Gwala says this. There are multiple factors that led to this.

MR SMIT: Okay and if we can then concentrate again on the robbery at the police station, testimony was given by Mr Moele that firearms, pistols were indeed then taken there. Were these handed to yourself?

MR MAMETSE: Yes.

MR SMIT: And what was done with them? What did you do with them?

MR MAMETSE: Like I said initially, firstly for personal protection. Secondly for training the SDU's with these weapons because they were readily available weapons.

MR SMIT: So did you actually hand them to members of the SDUs to utilise?

MR MAMETSE: I did keep one for myself, like I said for personal protection and others were utilised in one way or the other, personal protection, training the SDUs. I think we should clarify this point when we're talking about the SDUs. The SDU is not an army, it is a loosely structured body and we must make a differentiation when we're talking about SDUs. If I have a certain quantity of armaments under my control, they belong to the SDUs. Self Defence Unit - exactly that, but it's not a military structure. Truly it was controlled by MK combatants but it could not function entirely as an army, I mean properly as an army. It was more loosely structured than an army.

CHAIRPERSON: In fact, Mr Mametse, the way I understood it was that this, the Self Defence Unit was really a community initiative and the input from ANC Umkhonto weSizwe was to make MK members available, to assist the communities in setting up these structures, so it was more a community initiative.

MR MAMETSE: Allow me to answer in this fashion. The first call I heard of about the creation of the SDU was directly from the ANC and I think that was round about 1989, so community structure yes, but the MK cadres had their express instruction to create the SDUs.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but it was not a structure that reported to MK or to the ANC, it was an initiative where the ANC possibly took the political initiative and the more high a profile sort of call for this initiative to be established, but the actual nitty gritty was really very much within the realm of the communities themselves.

MR MAMETSE: In our community SDUs differ from community to community but in our communities our SDU's reported directly to MK who had an office that was specifically for that purpose, 8 hour office, working office.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, in fact I understood that the SDU activities were roughly divided between call it a paramilitary side and a political side. The paramilitary side would be something which would reach MK through its MK members, be closely related to it, but the political leadership, the control and so on, very much emanated from persons within the community itself, in fact there were community structures that were established in order to deal the management and the control and so forth of SDU activities.

MR MAMETSE: To an extent, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Smit.

MR SMIT: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Mametse, just two aspects. Testimony was given by Mr Moele that during the robbery at the police station, no shots were fired. Can I then accept, was it an order by yourself that no violence was to be used?

MR MAMETSE: Yes, it was an express order.

MR SMIT: And you confirm that that indeed nothing violently was done there except the pointing of firearms at the policemen?

MR MAMETSE: No, nothing violent was done to the policemen.

MR SMIT: And then just one last aspect. Yesterday testimony was given by Mr Mohele, if the Committee would permit me just to confirm this, regarding a robbery at the Transvaal Galvanised Company where Mr Mohele was involved. He testified that you did not specifically instruct him to go to that specific company and rob them, but that he made that decision on his own. Would that be correct?

MR MAMETSE: Yes, correct.

MR SMIT: Did you specifically tell them, or him to gather funds for the purchase of weapons?

MR MAMETSE: Prior to the offence there were people who were selling firearms, AKs, 8 of them I think and some grenades. We did have an arsenal of AKs but then there was this danger that people were killing people in the community, this third force or whatever one may call it, if we don't acquire that, it's going to fall into their hands. I went to the Regional Office, explained the situation to them, unfortunately at that time I was informed that the budget, one two three, one two three, I don't know if maybe one could do it for a month or so until ...(indistinct) and I was given R3000 and the persons who were selling the firearms wanted to sell them en masse, did not want to sell them one one and they wanted R10 000 for all of it. I was provided with R3 000, that there are no immediate funds. We had a discussion with some MK people and yes I did say it, that we need to raise funds and to be frank, by raising funds, behind my mind I also knew that raising fund can be anything including armed robbery that he has committed.

MR SMIT: And just a last aspect. The Learned Committee had a question to Mr Moele just now regarding his integration into, a possible integration into the Defence Force or the SAPS, if he gets granted amnesty. You being a Major in the SANDF, can you elaborate on that, is there a possibility?

MR MAMETSE: Yes there is a very high possibility, in fact there is a likelihood that he can either be integrated into the police or the SANDF because he's entitled to, but now there is a problem if he's still in prison because the process is going to round up quickly and should the cut-off date of integration be completed, he's going to forfeit his right to integrate.

MR SMIT: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Smit. Ms Vilakazi, have you got any questions?

MS VILAKAZI: I do have a few questions, Honourable Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS VILAKAZI: Mr Mametse, going back to the day of the Ormonde police station robbery, you have testified that one of the 6 people you went with to the police station went in first and chatted to the police.

MR MAMETSE: Correct.

MS VILAKAZI: Who is that person?

MR MAMETSE: He is deceased now, Sparkie.

MS VILAKAZI: Do you know what he chatted to the police about?

MR MAMETSE: I don't know, I was out of earshot.

MS VILAKAZI: So you are not the one who went in first?

MR MAMETSE: No, no, I'm not the one who went in first.

MS VILAKAZI: Yes, but Mr Moele has testified that you are the one who went in first and then you signalled to them to come in.

MR MAMETSE: Okay, maybe let me explain it in this fashion. I said this person went in. He was going to check the coast, whether it's clear and he chatted to the policemen and as he went out, he signalled to me. I stormed in. I pointed the policemen. Moele followed me immediately.

MS VILAKAZI: Yes, but your version contradicts that of Mr Moele because he said that you are the one who went in to check the coast and then you signalled to them to come in.

MR MAMETSE: Let me repeat this again.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no, no, I don't think that was quite his testimony. It was not that Mr Mametse went to see if the coast is clear. As there - at the time when they entered in order to execute the robbery, Mr Mametse was the one who led, went inside and he followed. Mr Mametse looked around inside, went to stand guard at the door and then the three, Moele, the SDU member Tommy Manyedza and one of the MK people then executed the actual robbery inside the charge office.

MS VILAKAZI: I'm indebted to Your Worship for that. Mr Mametse, after the robbery, did you personally as the Commander, take stock of what has been robbed?

MR MAMETSE: Yes, I did.

MS VILAKAZI: And what did you find?

MR MAMETSE: Three pistols, magazines, cleaning kits, communication radios and a tape recorder.

MS VILAKAZI: What type of a tape recorder was it?

MR MAMETSE: A cheap stuff of a cheap broker, like these little cheap recorders.

MS VILAKAZI: Was it the type that is used, a personal tape recorder, not a ...(indistinct-talking simultaneously) tape recorder?

MR MAMETSE: Yes, exactly.

MS VILAKAZI: Now Mr Moele has vehemently denied that a tape recorder was taken. What's your comment on that?

MR MAMETSE: My comment on that is that possibly he did not see it, but I saw it.

MS VILAKAZI: Were you not in the same place when you took stock?

MR MAMETSE: Like we were saying, we were travelling in two cars and as we left the place, he got into the different car from which I got in and the tape recorder was in the car that I was in.

MS VILAKAZI: So where did you take stock? Did you take stock in the individual cars?

MR MAMETSE: I don't understand you when you say "take stock", it's not the question ...(intervention)

MS VILAKAZI: Just to check. To check was has been robbed.

MR MAMETSE: I see. Our specific objective there was to acquire handguns. We did that. That's what I was more concerned about. So taking stock, I took stock of the short guns, that what we went there for, that's what I took stock of.

MS VILAKAZI: Okay, but then the tape recorder was not part of your objectives.

MR MAMETSE: Definitely.

MS VILAKAZI: And you found it there.

MR MAMETSE: Definitely.

MS VILAKAZI: Do you know who took the tap recorder?

MR MAMETSE: I cannot say with certainty but one of the guys we were with.

MS VILAKAZI: Did you ask why the tape recorder was there?

MR MAMETSE: I saw no reason to.

MS VILAKAZI: But as the Commander, you knew what the objectives were and the tape recorder was definitely not part of what you were looking for, so why were you not concerned with it?

MR MAMETSE: In as far as I'm concerned, it was a side-line, petty issue.

MS VILAKAZI: So you were not interested in side-line petty issues?

MR MAMETSE: Not at all, not at all.

MS VILAKAZI: Is discipline not part of your duties as a Commander?

MR MAMETSE: I don't think there is any ill-discipline there, in as far as I'm concerned.

MS VILAKAZI: Besides ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Ms Vilakazi, did you question the communication radios that ...(intervention)

MR MAMETSE: Yes, I was concerned about the communication radios, of course.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it police issue?

MR MAMETSE: Yes, police issue.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright. Sorry.

MS VILAKAZI: Besides the tape recorder, what else did you find that was not supposed to be there?

MR MAMETSE: Nothing.

MS VILAKAZI: At the time of the robbery, you said that you waited at the door and you faced outside.

MR MAMETSE: Yes.

MS VILAKAZI: Are you telling the Committee that you did not see what actually happened inside?

MR MAMETSE: No.

MS VILAKAZI: Your focus was at all times outside?

MR MAMETSE: Yes.

MS VILAKAZI: Okay I have no further questions Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Vilakazi. Ms Lockhat, any questions?

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LOCKHAT: Mr Mametse, can you just tell us, who did you report to? Who was your head?

MR MAMETSE: To the PWV Regional Commander.

MS LOCKHAT: And who was there? Who was at the head there, at the PWV?

CHAIRPERSON: Viva, presently a Colonel in the army, I've forgotten his surname.

MS LOCKHAT: Because at page 36 of the bundle you say that higher authorities of MK and ANC SA knew and sanctioned these activities. Did you report to your Commander or anybody else of the higher authorities regarding to this act?

MR MAMETSE: Yes, I did.

MS LOCKHAT: And who did you report to?

MR MAMETSE: I reported to Oupa. Let me state this. I had expected that there would be an affidavit from the ANC office, because when the TRC investigators came to me, I informed them about this and I gave the contact number and I took it upon myself to telephone the higher authorities that the TRC investigators will be coming to them and they'll be required to testify to some things that, to the chain of command, that these actions that we undertook were reported and were done with the legitimate authorisation. I'm surprised that I don't see any affidavit coming from the ANC higher authorities.

MS LOCKHAT: Yes, we just have a statement where they confirm your membership, that's at page 33 that we have received from the ANC offices.

MR MAMETSE: No I'm talking about, I referred him specifically to Oupa who was the Chief of Staff of the PWV region and I phoned Oupa and he said he has no problem if these guys want an affidavit from him, he'll be glad to make it available to him.

MS LOCKHAT: Okay thanks, that's noted. Just one other issue. Were you responsible for obtaining the arms for your unit?

MR MAMETSE: Yes, I was.

MR LOCKHAT: And who did you obtain these arms from?

MR MAMETSE: Some acquired from the ANC, MK, the Chief of Staff PWV Region, Oupa Monareng. Some acquired like these pistols, from the police stations, some acquired by being bought, so we had various sources.

MS LOCKHAT: Then just one last question. You know that, I'm just going back to the previous incident, that is the armed robbery at Transvaal Galvanised Company. You know that armed robbery was not part of the policy of the ANC?

MR MAMETSE: Let me put it this way. When you're talking about the policy, immediately before the suspension of the arms struggle, it was an express order that every cadre who infiltrates the country, the money, operational funds that he's going to acquire, if they dry up he must make a plan, so when you're talking about policy, it is a very, it is not as straight-forward as all that. It was an express order from the highest leadership of the organisation, that if you infiltrate the country and the resources that you were being given from Lusaka or wherever, from Mozambique, from wherever you infiltrate that, if they dry up, make a plan. Even if the organisation at times did not state it on the paper, for propaganda purposes of course, but the reality of the situation was that these things happened.

MS LOCKHAT: So would you say that you would have, if you had known about this, the Galvanised Company incident, you would definitely have authorised that act?

MR MAMETSE: Definitely. Definitely.

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you, Chairperson, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

ADV DE JAGER: I understood you to say that he reported it back the galvanised, you reported back that these incidents happened, did you also report back about the robbery?

MR MAMETSE: Yes, I did.

ADV DE JAGER: And was the robbery approved?

MR MAMETSE: Like I was saying, I only knew about the robbery after it happened, what I did, I only reported about it, it cannot be approved when it has already been done.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes. Was it condoned then?

MR MAMETSE: Nothing was said about it.

CHAIRPERSON: In other words they didn't take disciplinary action against anybody?

MR MAMETSE: Not at all.

CHAIRPERSON: In any event it was an abortive robbery, there was no - it wasn't successful, in any case.

MR MAMETSE: Yes, it wasn't successful.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it was just an attempt.

MR MAMETSE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Smit ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, sorry, but you've also told us that you were ordered, if the money dried up, the resources, you should make a plan and did that include robbery?

MR MAMETSE: Yes. In fact, I don't know if it would be appropriate but okay, I won't mention names, but in fact at highest, at the National Executive, there were individuals who told you: "When you infiltrate the country, that you know that the ANC's not a government, there ere limited resources. Those resources in the country are resources of, are your resources. You are being deprived of your resources. So don't be over moralistic. Be realistic. You need it, it is there, you're justified to get it." At the highest level.

CHAIRPERSON: I think the term is repossess.

MR MAMETSE: Not really, not really repossess. No not really repossess. Repossess might be for individual benefit, which differs. For the progress sake of the organisation, if you have to do it, do it.

ADV DE JAGER: Would that include robbery of banks?

MR MAMETSE: Not with the express instruction that "go and rob a bank", but what I'm saying in essence is that I for a fact know that before the suspension of the struggle, operatives, for them to survive, they did organise money, in one way or the other. You had to have two cars, you had to have a safe-house which is different from the one you are staying at, with a car parked inside, with food inside, which would be different from the place you are staying in, which is a very expensive kind of a life and for the organisation to be able to - that cadres should operate effectively, it would have been impossible for the organisation, this is personal opinion, but what I'm saying in a sense is that at leadership level, it was said in front of 1000 people, a leader addressing 1000 people, soldiers: "look when you go home, one two three, one two three, one two three", so this should be understood in this context that such kind of a robbery at that point in time, from the reality of the situation that prevailed at that point in time, I'm talking about before the suspension of the arms struggle, we did not consider that as being a crime, we considered it as being legitimate and necessary actions for the progress of the struggle, so these, after the suspending of the arms struggle, what made that kind of a mentality maybe to continue, was the violence that was prevalent in our communities, that there is still a need for level of organisation.

ADV BOSMAN: When you say "we did not consider", do you mean the ANC and MK or do you mean MK, or do you mean the ANC?

MR MAMETSE: I said, leader at the highest level addressing soldiers, that means MK.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think the point of view of the ANC and MK was that you were engaged in a war. It was never recognised in, for obvious reasons, by the legal system here in the country, but that was your point of departure, that you were engaged in a war and it might even be recognised conduct within a war to commandeer resources.

MR MAMETSE: Exactly.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Smit.

MR SMIT: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Mametse, you are excused thank you.

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry Mr Mametse, only one thing. It wasn't put to you now, but it was put to the previous witnesses that I think in total it would be three watches and three wallets from the policemen present there, were also stolen, personal property. Could you comment on that?

MR MAMETSE: No, I can comment on nothing. Like I was saying, I was looking to the outside, so I did not see what transpired inside the police station, but like I was saying earlier, should I have discovered later that he has taken watches, I don't think I would have made a great deal about it. Maybe a slap on the shoulder, but I would not have considered it a very grave matter.

ADV DE JAGER: But that wasn't police property, it was the private property of the individual.

MR MAMETSE: Like we were saying, that these things should be viewed from the background. Internally, like I was saying, leaders like Harry Gwala came, openly stated ...(indistinct), policemen were very brutal towards us at that time, in fact two weeks before the action, they came to my home, harassed my family, a young boy of 21 burned at the fire armed to my mother, she got a heart attack. After the incident they got into the bedroom using a pick ...(indistinct) on the floor, instead of opening the wardrobe, the keys there on the wardrobe, they turned the wardrobe around, burned down the back of the wardrobe. Now what I'm saying is, I would have seen no reason, whereas when they get into my home they behave in this fashion and I should make an issue about the tape recorder. To be frank, I consider myself to have been very decent towards them.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Mametse. You're excused.

MR MAMETSE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Smit, does that conclude the case for the two applicants in respect of this particular incident?

MR SMIT: That indeed concludes this case.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Ms Vilakazi.

MS VILAKAZI: Thank you Honourable Chairperson. I have the three victims whom I'm representing present but for the sake of expediency I would call just one of them, unless the Panel feels that all of them should, because they would be saying one and the same thing.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no I don't think so, Ms Vilakazi and I'm not even sure whether this is strictly speaking in dispute but you know perhaps you must call one of them and he can say what went missing.

MS VILAKAZI: Okay, thanks Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Which of the three are you calling?

MS VILAKAZI: Zulu, not Zulu sorry, Mbhele.

CHAIRPERSON: Say again.

MS VILAKAZI: Constable Mbhele.

CHAIRPERSON: Mbhele?

MS VILAKAZI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

SIBUSISO JUSTICE MBHELE: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Vilakazi.

MS VILAKAZI: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

EXAMINATION BY MS VILAKAZI: Mr Mbhele, testimony has already been given with regard to the robbery, can you just confirm that you were there at the police station on the date of the robbery, without going into details?

MR MBHELE: Yes, I was there, I was in charge of the guys, we were working with them.

MS VILAKAZI: Who else was on duty on that day?

MR MBHELE: We were three. It was me, Zulu and Molapi.

MS VILAKAZI: And of the applicants who are applying for amnesty, did you see any of them at the police station on that day?

MR MBHELE: Really I cannot say he's the one who do this and all these things, I cannot remember, I cannot recall seeing them.

MS VILAKAZI: Okay, I would like you to put it on record that your instructions to me are that we are not opposing the application. Can you confirm that?

MR MBHELE: Definitely, I'm not opposing their amnesty, but I only want the truth from them.

MS VILAKAZI: Okay. Your only interest is with regard to the personal things that were taken from you, is that correct?

MR MBHELE: Yes, I'm also much concerned about that.

MS VILAKAZI: Can you tell the Committee what was taken from you?

MR MBHELE: It was a radio cassette, a Panasonic radio cassette, some few tapes, a wrist watch and R180, in a wallet.

MS VILAKAZI: How do you know that the amount in the wallet was R180?

MR MBHELE: Okay, it was the month end so the following Monday I was supposed to go and pay my account at Morkels, it's an instalment.

MS VILAKAZI: So your instalment was R180?

MR MBHELE: Definitely.

MS VILAKAZI: Okay. Do you know if anything was taken from the other police officers?

MR MBHELE: According to them, that's what they told me, that's what they told me, that there's also some cash missing from them.

MS VILAKAZI: At which stage was the, your cassette, watch and wallet taken from you?

MR MBHELE: It was taken while we were on the ground, lying on the ground, so while they were executing the robbery.

MS VILAKAZI: Did you see the person who searched you?

MR MBHELE: Not really.

MS VILAKAZI: Were you searched or did you, were you told to surrender them?

MR MBHELE: I was on the ground, facing down, so they searched me while I was facing downwards.

MS VILAKAZI: So you did not surrender anything personally?

MR MBHELE: No, not really personally.

MS VILAKAZI: So you did not see who took those things?

MR MBHELE: Yes, I didn't see anybody taking, I can't say this is the one who took this and this is the one who took that.

MS VILAKAZI: When you started with your testimony you said that you just wanted the truth from the applicants.

MR MBHELE: Definitely.

MS VILAKAZI: You listened to their testimony, is there anything that you feel has not been told which is, or which has been incorrectly put to the Committee?

MR MBHELE: Okay, can I briefly explain what happened? Is it okay?

MS VILAKAZI: Okay.

MR MBHELE: By that day, it was about Twenty-five to Eight in the evening.

ADV DE JAGER: Could you perhaps tell us whether you agree with what they've told us and if there are aspects where you disagree, tell us where you disagree, but you need not tell us everything that you agree, that they've already told us.

MR MBHELE: Okay. There were six inside, not four. That's the first thing I disagree with. So some of them were armed with a pistol, not only that there were AK47s also. And there was no passage there, it's just a room and a small cell just on the side of the room.

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, what was on the side of the room?

MR MBHELE: There is that small, there was that small sort of a cell, not really a cell, but a small, a toilet ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: A toilet?

MR MBHELE: More like a toilet, but it was a cell where we used to put some people being detained. That's all I can recall at this stage.

MS VILAKAZI: Is there anything else that you want the Committee to know?

MR MBHELE: Yes, after the robbery, okay what happened, I changed, my entire life changed. I have become now a violent person, ignorant, sometimes being even nasty to my kids at home and all those things.

ADV BOSMAN: Are you still in the police force?

MR MBHELE: Definitely, yes I'm still in the police. So the robbery entirely changed me, so, yet I'm coping but not very well at this stage. Up to now I'm not still okay.

ADV BOSMAN: Did you get any support, psychological counselling or anything from the police after this had happened?

MR MBHELE: Yes, they did ask me whether I do need some help. By that time I was okay, I said to them "No, it's alright".

ADV DE JAGER: And at this stage, are you still able to make use of that facility?

MR MBHELE: Not really because the time has passed already, so I might, this might come to my own expense.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there an available counselling service to the members of the South African Police Services?

MR MBHELE: I'm not too sure about that because lastly there was that support group that mainly deal with the victims of the rape and all those things, or the abused and all those things.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you attempted recently to go to use that?

MR MBHELE: Not really yet.

CHAIRPERSON: For your assistance? Shouldn't you consider doing that? It may be, I'm quite sure I'm speaking for my colleagues as well, it might be advisable for you to do that. If your outlook has changed, as you have sketched to us here, then it can only do good, if you were to approach the police facility and see. I'm quite sure that they can't raise an argument that it was after a certain period of time, your right of access lapses and if it's necessary, the Committee at least will have some infrastructure that could possibly write in support of such a ...(intervention)

MR MBHELE: I'll be very pleased.

ADV BOSMAN: May I ask what, do you know what the position is in regard to your colleagues? Has it affected their functioning in the police force at all?

MR MBHELE: Nobody has told me yet what had happened thereafter, or what effect did he suffer from.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, we know that you're working under stress, even today all the police and it wouldn't be to the advantage of the public if you're sort of violently minded, so we would really request you to see whether you can't get help and a real good policeman should be very, very patient, well we wish you all the good luck.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we need very many good policemen at this point.

MR MBHELE: Thanks.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Ms Vilakazi.

MS VILAKAZI: One last question. It has been testified that no shots were fired and in my instructions with you, you also confirmed that no shots were fired. Can you say that no amount of violence was used at all?

MR MBHELE: There was, there was because as we were lying on the floor I mean, I was kicked, booted.

MS VILAKAZI: Was it before or after you were disarmed?

MR MBHELE: After I was disarmed.

MS VILAKAZI: Do you have any idea how many pistols were taken from the police station?

MR MBHELE: It was - they took three which belonged to the State and my private one, it was the fourth one, so they took all four.

MS VILAKAZI: So they took four pistols?

MR MBHELE: Yes.

MS VILAKAZI: That will be all, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Vilakazi. Mr Smit, have you got any questions?

MR SMIT: I have no question thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Lockhat?

MS LOCKHAT: No, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And the Panel?

ADV BOSMAN: No, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: is there anything else that you wanted to add, Ms Vilakazi?

MS VILAKAZI: No, that will be the case for the victims.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Mr Mbhele, thank you very much. You've noted what we have said and your colleagues, I've gathered, are also present here, so they've also heard. So we wish you the best of luck.

MR MBHELE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You're excused.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Lockhat, I suppose you don't intend to lead any witnesses?

MS LOCKHAT: No, Chairperson, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Smit, in that case we have also the incident standing over since yesterday, so are you in a position to address us on both those two?

MR SMIT: I will be in a position, they're very closely linked, so it's not a problem.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR SMIT: May I then proceed?

MR SMIT IN ARGUMENT: As it pleases, Mr Chairman, the learned Committee.

First of all, if I can address you on the incident that was dealt with yesterday, the robbery at the Transvaal Galvanised Company, first of all my submission would be that this is clearly an instance where the applicant complies with everything necessary for amnesty.

It is obvious, well it is not opposed, it is further obvious that he was acting within the scope of, well as second in Command, his actions were to obtain funds to purchase weapons for distribution first of all in SDU's and further to purchase these, well to obtain the money to purchase the weapons to get them out of the hands of third force elements, as called, in the Vosloorus township and the area there, which at that stage was obviously in some tumult, due to the fact that the necessary policing was not done properly, that according to the evidence of the applicant as I understand it.

Therefore, I would submit that this puts him specifically in line, or if I can state it, that this puts a political objective there that shows that he was under instructions first of all to do this and that the objective then was political of nature, which then in my submission would be sufficient for the Panel to favourably grant him amnesty regarding that specific incident.

Regarding the second incident, the robbery at the Ormonde police station, both the applicants, I would submit, played open cards, their testimony was given properly. It is also obvious that they are both members of the ANC and were at that stage when the police station, satellite police station was robbed, that they did this with the purpose also of obtaining, it seems like it was a dual purpose, first of all to obtain hand guns for SDU members and secondly to make a point in saying that the policing in the area was not properly done.

First of all it was not very hard to rob a police station and secondly in the townships itself, the police were busy with activities that at that stage were not approved of by Umkhonto, if one can say it in that line. There is the aspect regarding their evidence of a contradiction, of a possible contradiction regarding the Panasonic radio that might have been or might not have been taken from the police station. I would submit that the explanation given by Mr Mametse that the radio might not have been seen by Mr Moele, is sufficient in this instance and would not in any event take the matter any further.

CHAIRPERSON: They're not applying for amnesty for that either.

MR SMIT: No, it's not amnesty it's just for the robbery ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Robbery of the weapons and the radios.

MR SMIT: And the two radios, indeed. So that would - it's not necessary to deal with that anymore.

Also the second incident, the robbery at the police station is not opposed and I would submit that there was a political objective, that it was done in line thereof and therefore request the Committee to also, in this instance, grant both of them amnesty regarding that incident. As it pleases.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Smit. Ms Vilakazi.

MS VILAKAZI IN ARGUMENT: As it pleases, Mr Chairperson.

Mr Chairperson, with regard to the Transvaal Galvanised Robbery, I do not have much to add to what Mr Smit has said, mainly because of the fact that Mr van der Walt, the victim in the incident, is not opposed to the application and he has said himself as a man of God he has been able to recover from the ordeal that he went through and that he holds no grudges.

My focus would then be on the Ormonde police station robbery. In as far as that is concerned, I would like to draw the attention of the Panel to the fact that the application was made with the intention of obtaining amnesty and therefore as one of the requirements of the Act, full disclosure had to be made. From the testimony of the two applicants, it is quite clear that whereas they have been willing to disclose some facts and to make a full disclosure with regard to those that they chose to disclose, they have not been fully honest. They have been economic with the truth with regards to other issues, specifically the issue relating to the robbery of the policemen themselves, of their personal effects.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, they're not asking for amnesty on that and so if they're, and they won't get amnesty on that, because they're not asking for amnesty on that, so your clients are not losing any of their rights.

MS VILAKAZI: May I respond in this fashion, Honourable Commissioner, that the process of reconciliation is not a one-sided process and although it is a fact that my clients have a right to take action against the applicants, but I do not think that it would be proper for the Committee to overlook the aspect of reparation which could also be coupled with the question of amnesty. I do not think that it would be proper for the Committee to disregard the fact that other facts which are also material to the application, material in regard to the question as to whether there has been full disclosure or not, the question as to whether there has been honesty of not, should be disregarded.

It is in that light that these facts are brought to the fore.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. No, no, we appreciate that very much. The point however is that in so far as these two applicants are concerned, Mr Mametse has disclosed the fact that the tape recorder was in fact amongst the items that were confiscated at the police station. The others, the watches, the monies and smaller items that you can put in your pocket, we can assume it was also taken there from your clients but that doesn't necessarily impact on the application of these two applicants.

There is no, to my mind, indication that Mr Moele for example, should have been aware of any of these other items and that, or likewise Mr Mametse, so that when it comes to full disclosure, you know, there has to be at least a basis upon which one is able to find that they must have known about this and they are lying about that, they are not telling the full truth of what happened there, but it doesn't appear to be that kind of case. It appears as if one can accept that those things were taken, but at the same time also, accept that apart from the tape recorder, these two applicants were not involved in that for one and secondly there's no particular reason why they should have been aware of those other things.

So that is the, that of course is the flip side of the coin that you have raised now. But we have your submissions on the full disclosure question.

MS VILAKAZI: Thank you, Mr Chairperson. In that light then, based on the honourable advice from your learned selves, I would then not pursue the matter further, save to request that perhaps my clients could be advised as to what measure they could take within the Act itself, not looking at the Amnesty Committee or the amnesty process only, but within the ambit of the entire Act, what measures could be taken with regard to recovering their possessions without having to incur expenses, legal expenses.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, there is the facility that still exists, although the Commission has gone into suspension, in regard to the reparations question. However, in so far as the application before us is concerned, which deals basically with the weapons and so on, possibly as we've already indicated, some assistance from our side to help the rendering of, you know, the necessary services to your clients, is possible. The other question is more of a moot point, which obviously will have to be considered, but it might be a bit problematic, although I don't want to express a firm view on that at this stage, but certainly in regard to assisting the psychological and other difficulties, that possibility does exist.

MS VILAKAZI: That would be my submission, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Vilakazi. Ms Lockhat, have you got any submissions?

MS LOCKHAT: No, I don't have, Chairperson, but if you feel I need to address you on a certain issue, I'll be willing to do so, but I think my learned colleagues addressed the issue at hand.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we always like to hear you Ms Lockhat, but if you're not assisting this time, we're not going to compel you.

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Smit, have you got anything else that you wanted to add?

MR SMIT: I have nothing else to add, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. That concludes the formal proceedings in respect of these two incidents. The Panel will consider the applications and will notify the parties as soon as the decision is available, mindful of the possible time pressure, particularly bearing in mind the situation of Mr Moele, we will endeavour to formulate a decision and make it available as soon as it's practically possible, but we will notify you.

MR SMIT: I'm indebted, Mr Chairman, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. It only remains for us, I think it concludes your business with us, both of you.

MR SMIT: That does.

CHAIRPERSON: In that event we want to thank you for your assistance which we appreciate and you're excused if you want to.

MR SMIT: Thank you so much.

MS VILAKAZI: Thank you.

MS LOCKHAT: Chairperson, the next matter on the roll is the killing of Mr Mojaji Pakati. The amnesty applicant is Mr Ntuli and if you so wish we could call the applicant now.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think we would like to do that. Perhaps we must just stand down for a moment so that you can just rearrange the situation. We'll stand down briefly.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------- ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: The next matter on the roll is that of Mhlangeni James Ntuli, reference number AM 1563/96. The Panel is constituted as has been indicated on the record. Mr Daniels, do you want to put yourself on record for the applicant?

MR DANIELS: Thank you, Mr Chairman and Members. I appear on behalf of the applicant in this application, M J Ntuli. This is an application for amnesty. The application was lodged by the applicant on the 20th of June 1996, that's contained in pages 1 to 3 of the bundle. The application is amplified by a request for further particulars on behalf of the Committee and the answer thereto contained in pages 4 to 6, I beg your pardon, pages 4 to 8 of the bundle.

At the outset might I just point out that Mr Ntuli was convicted of murder, also illegal possession of a firearm, the application for amnesty is only in respect of the conviction for murder.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

ADV DE JAGER: If I may inquire, why was the conviction for illegal possession of the firearm included?

MR DANIELS: Mr Chairman, the illegal possession of a firearm, I have not been able to take any instruction in that regard from my client. As far as I understand it and as far as I could glean from the record of the proceedings in the WLD in 1996, resulting in the conviction of Mr Ntuli's concern, the - if amnesty is granted in respect of the murder, Mr Ntuli's sentence in respect of the illegal possession of the firearm would in any event fall away. The sentences are being served concurrently in any event. He was sentenced to a lesser amount of, or a lesser period of time in respect of the illegal possession of the firearm and I don't think the facts would support an application for amnesty in respect of the illegal possession of the firearm.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DANIELS: I don't know whether we're at cross purposes.

ADV DE JAGER: I think it was, the firearm was used in fact in this so it formed part of the whole episode and even if the sentence has been served, it would be a previous conviction. I don't know whether he was advised about it. I see he's in prison, now I don't know whether he personally sort of applied and whether he was advised about the, and I thought I would only draw your attention to it.

MR DANIELS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Daniels, I don't want to sort of come in now unnecessarily, but you are aware of the fact that amnesty has the effect of expunging a record, in other ...(intervention)

MR DANIELS: I am aware of that.

ADV BOSMAN: You have considered that?

MR DANIELS: I have considered it, Mr Chairman. I have not prepared a written application over and above the initial application submitted by the applicant. My instructions are to lead the applicant in testifying in support of his application and I will then ask for my client to be sworn in, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Daniels. Just for the record, Ms Lockhat appears as the Leader of Evidence.

JAMES MHLANGENI NTULI: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Daniels.

MS LOCKHAT: Chairperson, if I can just come in here.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS LOCKHAT: I just want to just place on record that we have not managed to trace any of the victims in this matter and I just want to hand up a notice that we've placed in the Sowetan advertising for family members of the deceased to come forward, Chairperson, so if you like, I just want to hand this up. It's not included in the bundle, we just received it late today, so if you could call that Exhibit C.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Exhibit C you say?

MS LOCKHAT: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Have we already got two other exhibits?

MS LOCKHAT: We've got A and B, in our first matter, the killing of, the Makhanye matters, we have A and B, do you want me just to give it A.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no we'll mark the Exhibits for each one of these individually for each matter, so this one will be Exhibit A for this matter.

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright, that's the advertisement in the Sowetan and in the circumstances you are satisfied that we proceed to hear the application?

MS LOCKHAT: Yes, indeed Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we accept, then we will then proceed to hear the application. Mr Daniels.

MR DANIELS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Might I just enquire, if I understand it correctly, this advertisement is then Exhibit A?

CHAIRPERSON: That's right.

EXAMINATION BY MR DANIELS: Thank you. Mr Ntuli, in 1993 you were convicted of the murder of one Mr Mojaji Pakati and on 20 September 1993 you were sentenced to a term of 15 years in prison for this murder, is that correct?

MR NTULI: That is correct.

MR DANIELS: Mr Chairman, my client, just for sake of convenience refer to pages 13 to 22 being the Judgment by Judge Goldblatt in respect of the conviction and pages 23 to 26 in respect of the sentence passed in the WLD. You are still in prison Mr Ntuli and you're still serving this sentence, is that correct?

MR NTULI: Yes, I'm still serving the sentence.

MR DANIELS: Mr Ntuli, you do not dispute that you committed this murder and that you were convicted for this murder?

MR NTULI: No, I do not dispute it. Yes, I did kill him.

MR DANIELS: Thank you, Mr Ntuli. During the trial in 1993 in the Jo'burg High Court, you did not testify in your own defence, is that correct?

MR NTULI: That is correct, I did not testify, I denied any knowledge of the crime, in fact.

MR DANIELS: Can you tell this Commission, this Committee, I beg your pardon, can you tell this Committee why you did not testify?

MR NTULI: I did not testify because I thought that maybe I would be fortunate and not be convicted and therefore I asked my legal representative to speak on my behalf.

MR DANIELS: Mr Ntuli, can you tell the Chairman here why you shot Mr Pakati?

MR NTULI: I shot Mr Pakati because of his action that he had killed my brother for the reason that my brother was an IFP member and he was an ANC member and that is what prompted me to go out and kill him.

MR DANIELS: Can I just clarify this? When you say he was an ANC member, are you referring to Mr Pakati?

MR NTULI: That is correct.

MR DANIELS: Whilst your brother ...(intervention)

MR NTULI: He used to reside in the hostel, but because - but when the violence erupted and because the hostel was mainly IFP dominated, he left that hostel.

MR DANIELS: And you say that he killed your brother and your brother, you say, was a member of the IFP, the Inkatha Freedom Party?

MR NTULI: That is correct.

MR DANIELS: Now, I will return to the actual shooting in a moment or two Mr Ntuli, I just need to clarify one or two other aspects. At the time that you committed this murder, where did you stay? Where did you reside?

MR NTULI: At Chief, at Judge Goch hostel.

MR DANIELS: Was that in Jo'burg?

MR NTULI: That is correct.

MR DANIELS: And you are originally from Natal, is that correct?

MR NTULI: That is correct.

ADV BOSMAN: ...(indistinct - mike not on)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

ADV BOSMAN: Was this Goch hostel the one where your brother also resided prior to his death?

MR NTULI: No, he was at home.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

MR DANIELS: And at the time when this occurred, Mr Ntuli, in 1993, how long had you been staying in Johannesburg for?

MR NTULI: It had been a long time.

MR DANIELS: I will return to that in a second Mr Ntuli. At the time when you committed this murder, Mr Ntuli, what political party did you belong to?

MR NTULI: I am an IFP member.

MR DANIELS: And were you an IFP member from before the time when you committed this murder?

MR NTULI: That is correct. I had joined the IFP long ago, before 1991.

MR DANIELS: Did you hold any specific rank in the IFP Mr Ntuli, or were you simply a member?

MR NTULI: I was an ordinary member.

MR DANIELS: And your brother?

MR NTULI: My brother did have a position. He was involved in organising a number of things. He held a high position.

MR DANIELS: Is it accurate to say that your brother was a ranking official in the IFP?

MR NTULI: That is correct.

MR DANIELS: You testified a little bit earlier that Mr Pataki actually shot your brother, killed your brother, is that correct?

MR NTULI: That is correct. We did witness him doing this but there was nothing that we could do because he was armed.

MR DANIELS: Can you tell the Chairman when this happened and when I say this, I'm referring to the murder of your brother or the shooting of your brother.

MR NTULI: It was around 4 p.m. I think I made a mistake, it was 9 in the evening.

MR DANIELS: That's fine, Mr Ntuli. Can you give an indication in relation to the time when you shot Mr Pakati, how long before the time did he shoot your brother? Was it the same day or the same week, or a month before? Just a somewhat more accurate indication, not necessarily the time of day? A month perhaps and a year?

MR NTULI: My brother was killed in December and I shot Mr Pakati in January on the 24th.

MR DANIELS: So December 1992, is that correct?

MR NTULI: That is correct.

MR DANIELS: You say you witnessed this?

MR NTULI: That is correct.

MR DANIELS: Where did this happen?

MR NTULI: It was at home.

MR DANIELS: Where is that?

MR NTULI: It was in Natal.

MR DANIELS: And how did it come that you actually witnessed this happening?

MR NTULI: I did see it when he shot him, because he was close to me but I could not approach and assist because he was armed with a firearm.

ADV DE JAGER: Were you at home for holiday at that stage?

MR NTULI: I had gone home for a few days, in fact I was on a four days leave.

MR DANIELS: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Ntuli, can you tell the Honourable Chairman what the relationship between the Inkatha Freedom Party and the ANC was at the time when you shot Mr Pakati and at the time when your brother was shot? How did you see it?

MR NTULI: At the time when I shot him, there was nothing that emanated from that action.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, but I don't think, you're not following the question. The two parties, did they love each other, did they oppose each other? What was the relationship between the followers of the parties?

MR NTULI: There was fighting.

MR DANIELS: Did you as a member of the IFP regard the ANC as your enemy, Mr Ntuli?

MR NTULI: That is correct, I would say yes, they were enemies because by that time the hostel was only occupied by IFP members, those who supported the ANC had already left.

MR DANIELS: Did you become aware during your stay here in Jo'burg of hostilities between the ANC and the IFP, not only in Jo'burg and not only in the hostel, but generally speaking, whether it be in Natal or in the hostels or in the taxis or the trains, did you become aware of that?

MR NTULI: Yes, I would say I realised that because even at the hostel, the ANC had already moved out.

MR DANIELS: Mr Ntuli, did anyone in the IFP order you to shoot Mr Pakati or did you decide to do this yourself?

MR NTULI: It is something that was my own initiative because we were involved in a state of war and he had already killed my brother and he was certainly going to kill me next.

MR DANIELS: Did you regard the shooting of your brother as an act and a sign of hostility by Mr Pakati and by the ANC in general?

MR NTULI: That is so.

MR DANIELS: Mr Ntuli, did anyone assist you in shooting Mr Pakati?

MR NTULI: No, this is something I did on my own.

MR DANIELS: You were acting alone?

MR NTULI: Yes, I was.

MR DANIELS: Where did you get the revolver that you used to shoot Mr Pakati?

MR NTULI: It was acquired illegally.

MR DANIELS: Did you buy that revolver?

MR NTULI: That is so, I did buy it.

MR DANIELS: When you bought the revolver, did you buy it for the purpose of going to shoot Mr Pakati and if you didn't, for what purpose did you buy it?

MR NTULI: It was for protection.

MR DANIELS: Mr Ntuli, is it correct that you knew Mr Pakati from before this shooting incident took place?

MR NTULI: That is correct. We knew each other prior to the divisions that developed between the ANC and the IFP.

ADV DE JAGER: Did you grow up in the same vicinity? You were childhood acquaintances?

MR NTULI: We are neighbours.

MR DANIELS: And did you have first-hand knowledge of the fact that Mr Pakati was an ANC member?

MR NTULI: That is correct.

MR DANIELS: Do you know whether Mr Pakati was a ranking official in the ANC or was he just a member?

MR NTULI: I do not have knowledge of his position within the organisation, but I know that he was a member.

MR DANIELS: Mr Ntuli, after you shot Mr Pakati, did you remove anything from the body?

MR NTULI: No, I did not remove anything. The intention was just to get at him.

MR DANIELS: You didn't take anything?

MR NTULI: No.

MR DANIELS: Mr Ntuli, am I correct when I say that you wouldn't have shot Mr Pakati had he not killed your brother?

MR NTULI: No, I would have not shot at him.

MR DANIELS: If he hadn't shot your brother first?

MR NTULI: Yes, if he had not shot at him, I would not have done so.

MR DANIELS: And am I also correct when I say that in your understanding, Mr Pakati would never have shot your brother, had it not been for the relationship between the ANC and the IFP at this time?

MR NTULI: It would have not have happened.

MR DANIELS: The proposition is then correct to say that you regarded the ANC generally and ANC members more particularly as your enemies?

MR NTULI: It was a war situation and I would not regard any person as an enemy, but because of the war there was that enmity.

MR DANIELS: And as a result of this, you regarded the death of your brother as one of the many consequences of this war, is that correct?

MR NTULI: Yes, that is so correct.

MR DANIELS: Mr Pakati, I beg your pardon Mr Chairman, Mr Ntuli, how long have you been in prison for?

MR NTULI: I have been in prison for 6 years.

MR DANIELS: And have you ever been in prison for something else? Is this your first conviction?

MR NTULI: This is my first offence.

MR DANIELS: Thank you Mr Chairman, that is my application.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Daniels. Ms Lockhat, questions?

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you Chairperson.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Daniels shouldn't you perhaps let us know more about the actual circumstances of the killing? The real killing itself?

MR DANIELS: Mr Chairman, I'm in a position to lead evidence on that. I was not, I started out on the assumption that the actual killing and the circumstances surrounding it, would not be in dispute and I can say that my instructions are that the circumstances of the killing do accord in my client's instructions, exactly with the circumstances as in the High Court judgment, there is hardly any difference. I do not have a difficulty in leading that evidence, if that is required. I was simply, I'd omitted that, not for any other reason than to, in an attempt to really expedite the proceedings. I have no difficulty in presenting that evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you did refer to the two judgments, one on the merits and one on sentence.

MR DANIELS: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: When you led your client.

MR DANIELS: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: No, well let's see if there's anything in dispute really and then you could consider in re-examination whether you need to.

MR DANIELS: If there is something, I shall attend to it in re-examination, Mr Chairman, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Yes Ms Lockhat.

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you, Chairperson.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LOCKHAT: Mr Ntuli, tell me, you said you were an IFP member. Did you attend any meetings or rallies or anything in relation to IFP?

MR NTULI: Yes.

MS LOCKHAT: Would you say you were an active member, or were you just ...(intervention)

MR NTULI: I would attend meetings some times.

MS LOCKHAT: Let me just ask you one question in relation to your brother. Did Mr Pakati and your brother perhaps have any other altercation or quarrel besides your brother being an IFP that you know of?

MR NTULI: No, I did not know of any altercation.

MS LOCKHAT: And did you ask anybody why your brother was killed, what the reasons were?

MR NTULI: There was no - they did not have a quarrel before, there was no grudge between them, but it's just that when the violence started, Mr Pakati became an ANC member.

MS LOCKHAT: Was there any fighting at the hostel at that time when your brother died?

MR NTULI: At that time the hostel was quiet.

MS LOCKHAT: You also said that you thought that Mr Pakati was going to kill you next. Why do you say that?

MR NTULI: At that time, after he had killed my brother, he was then trying to get me as well, in fact we were after each other.

MS LOCKHAT: Can you elaborate on that? Can you tell us why? Did you say anything to him? Did anything occur, because you witnessed the killing, or why do you think?

MR NTULI: We did not have an altercation but it was just the political situation at the time.

MS LOCKHAT: Could it be possible that Mr Pakati thought that you were probably going to kill him because he killed your brother?

MR NTULI: He might have thought so because he also had intentions of killing me.

MS LOCKHAT: And how come Mr Pakati was also in Johannesburg area, the same time as you were? Wasn't he from Natal?

MR NTULI: We work here in Johannesburg.

MR DANIELS: Mr Chairman, if I might interpose for a second. I think the testimony was that Mr Pakati in fact at one stage, stayed in the same hostel here in Jo'burg and that I think the idea was then that the ANC members vacated the hostel and only the IFP, so I believe that it was testified that he did stay in Jo'burg.

MS LOCKHAT: I'm indebted to my colleague.

MR NTULI: Yes, he did reside at the hostel prior to the eruption of the violence.

MS LOCKHAT: And can you just explain to the Committee how you planned to kill Mr Pakati? How did you know where he was going to be on that particular day? What did you do to plan this murder?

MR NTULI: I was looking for him.

MS LOCKHAT: And then you eventually found him, followed him and killed him in Hillbrow, is that correct?

MR NTULI: Yes, I did look for him for some time and on the 24th I was fortunate to find him.

MS LOCKHAT: You did testify that you would not have killed Mr Pakati, if he did not kill your brother, is that correct?

MR NTULI: That is correct.

MS LOCKHAT: So I put it to you Mr Ntuli, that you actually killed Mr Pakati, solely for that purpose and solely for that reason and not for the reason being that he was an ANC member. Would you like to comment on that?

MR NTULI: I would say it was politically motivated because my brother was killed for political reasons and he would have killed me for political reasons as well.

MS LOCKHAT: I put it to you that you only killed him to revenge and avenge your brother's death and you don't have to comment on that. Chairperson, I have no further questions for this witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Lockhat.

MR NTULI: ...(no English interpretation)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, what is that?

MR NTULI: You may put it that way because he had killed my brother and he would have also killed me.

CHAIRPERSON: If you saw Mr Pakati kill another IFP member, forget about your brother, you saw him killing some other IFP members, what would you have done, if anything?

MR NTULI: Yes, I would have killed him because we were in a state of war.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Anything else from the Panel.

ADV BOSMAN: I have no question.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Daniels, any re-examination?

MR DANIELS: Mr Chairman at this stage I would ask your guidance in respect of the matter of the actual circumstances surrounding the shooting, whether it would be necessary for me to lead the evidence as far as that is concerned. I would submit that there's nothing particularly contentious that 's going to arise out of it, but I am prepared, I don't want it to rebound to the disadvantage of my client, to not present the evidence, but I submit that there isn't anything contentious, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well, you've already indicated that the circumstances on your instructions are as set out in the Judgments of the court.

MR DANIELS: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And it won't add anything further to that?

MR DANIELS: My instructions are that there's nothing to add and that also the circumstances as are set out in the respective judgments, are not being disputed by my client at all.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DANIELS: And on that basis, I don't have anything in ...(intervention)

MR NTULI: ...(no English interpretation)

MR DANIELS: I beg your pardon?

CHAIRPERSON: Just hear if the applicant wants to say anything, we might have interrupted him. Just ask him.

MR NTULI: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Daniels, he's now confirmed, or you confirmed actually that there's nothing in dispute here except the basis of the evidence as put forward in the Judgment and he didn't deny it, so we'll deal with the matter on that basis. Are you - I think that would be okay, but I would think you should perhaps consult with your client and explain to him about the possession of the firearm, because I don't know whether he understands that that's a previous conviction and it could be wiped out, if he would get amnesty.

MR DANIELS: If I might then ask for an indulgence of 5 minutes to just canvass this with my client, I'm quite satisfied that I have, but let me just make sure if it's in order that I can be indulged 5 minutes.

My final submission is literally going to be 5 minutes, if that long and I don't know whether this is perhaps a convenient time to take - I don't have a watch on me, unfortunately, whether it's convenient for the Committee to take the lunch adjournment.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, if you're going to - I assume you have already consulted with your client about the - because you have indicated to us that you have considered the question in response to Adv Bosman, that you have considered the question of the previous conviction, so one assumes that it won't take you very much longer to deal with whatever you want to deal with now. You say that your address is not particularly long.

MR DANIELS: No, I have a handful of submissions to make, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, then I would prefer that we allow you the opportunity to consult with your client and that we reconvene and we complete the matter.

MR DANIELS: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: So we'll stand down for a short while and you will indicate to us when you are ready.

MR DANIELS: I'm going to need 5 minutes.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

MR DANIELS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: What is the position?

MR DANIELS: Mr Chairman, I've taken instructions. Might I just for ease of reference, refer to pages 53 and 14 of the bundle?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DANIELS: The charges are set out there. Count 1 is the unlawful and wilful killing, obviously amnesty is sought for that. Count 2 is the attempted murder charge. Now Mr Ntuli was charged with that. The State did not seek a conviction on that and he wasn't convicted of that and then Count 3 and Count 4 relates to firstly the possession of a firearm and Count 4 possession of ammunition.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DANIELS: I have taken instructions and my client has clarified the position for me with a little bit of help from the Committee, I might add, but my instructions are then to amend my initial application, so as to include the unlawful possession. My understanding is that the Evidence Leader does not oppose this.

MS LOCKHAT: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Well what does he say in his form? What is your client for, for murder?

MR DANIELS: That is my understanding Mr Chairman.

ADV DE JAGER: Oh, murder and possession, page 3.

CHAIRPERSON: That's his convictions. He says that that is his ...(intervention)

MR DANIELS: If I might refer to paragraph 9(a)(i) on page 1.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DANIELS: I was guided by that initially, I must immediately say, I'm not entirely sure what the procedure is from now, whether a new application in this format has to be submitted, or whether this application, pages 1 to 3 of the bundle, could be amended at these proceedings.

ADV DE JAGER: You see Mr Daniels, I don't know, on page 4 we've got a, I don't know whether it's a separate form, it seems as though he's filed two applications.

MR DANIELS: It does seem like ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: They've got different numbers too.

MR DANIELS: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

ADV BOSMAN: And different handwritings.

MR DANIELS: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: On page 4, he is applying for murder, unlicensed firearm and ammunition and that was completed on the 12th of December 1996 while the other one was completed on the 20th of June 1996.

MR DANIELS: My understanding is that the application, the first application, the June application, if I could call it that, is in fact the correct application, that is just my understanding, but like I said, my client has now instructed me to in fact amend the application and to ask for the firearms and ammunition as well, or the unlawful possession as well. I'm sorry the situation is a bit confusing. I can't really add to any of this.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Did this incident happen in 1983? The killing? It seems to, on the judgment.

MR DANIELS: That is correct and that is what I looked, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So you might need to amend the paragraph 9 (a)(ii) as well. What is the status of the second form that we've got, because there he seemed to be referring to firearm and ammunition.

MR DANIELS: Mr Chairman, my understanding from the outset was that the first form was in fact the correct one, that is simply my understanding. I cannot really and neither can my client really explain the second form. I don't think it's really a position where my client completed the forms with legal counsel.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DANIELS: And I think that might perhaps explain a bit of the difficulty that we're faced with at the moment.

ADV DE JAGER: It might have been that he didn't receive an acknowledgement on the first one, for instance and then decided just before the cut-off date, to file another one, or he received perhaps advice to file another one.

MR DANIELS: That could certainly be an explanation. Mr Chairman, I don't know whether it is perhaps not the easiest solution, I don't know whether it can be allowed, to read these two forms and the two applications together for purposes of one application. I don't know whether, because obviously they relate to the same set of facts and the same circumstances, I don't know whether that would not make one's situation a little bit easier?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I assume it would be easier than applying for an amendment of the first form because if you want to amend in the sense of introducing the new offence, which is not disclosed in your original application, of course you can't do that.

MR DANIELS: I'm alive to the pitfalls, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so it might be in the interests of, better in the interests of your client if those could have been taken together., so there might be a misunderstanding, that the first one is the proper one.

MR DANIELS: And that that was amplified by the second one, perhaps.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes and that they should be read together.

ADV BOSMAN: Perhaps you could just establish whether it's indeed you client's signature on both forms and that would help and perhaps resolve the whole issue.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DANIELS: I'm sorry but I'm going to have to use the interpreter to just establish this.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DANIELS: Mr Ntuli, is this your signature? Mr Chairman, I'm referring to the second form, that is the numbered page 6 of the bundle. Is that you signature?

MR NTULI: Yes, that is so.

MR DANIELS: And I am now referring to the signature appearing on page 3, is that your signature? We just want to establish because they do not look the same.

MR NTULI: It is possible that it is me who signed on this particular form because I do not use the same signature all the time.

CHAIRPERSON: What are your instructions?

MR DANIELS: My instructions are that they are the same, Mr Chairman, they also, I've been faced with a similar difficulty in my application for legal aid for my client, that there were differences. There were also a number of forms to be completed and the signatures didn't correspond. I don't know whether you're prepared to accept that from me, or whether you want me to present evidence as regards the signatures. I don't know whether that would be necessary.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes, no, no, just what are you instructions in respect of the signatures? What did your client say now? I didn't listen to the - he's not giving evidence, he's only giving you instructions. My client indicates that they are the same and it's possible that he signed this because he says that he doesn't use the same signature always.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DANIELS: I don't know whether you're prepared to accept that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes and what are your instructions? Does your client wish the two forms to be taken together in the light of your original instructions that the first one is the proper one.

MR DANIELS: In light of my initial instructions that the first one is the proper one, I am taking it that my instructions are, in view of the fact that I need to apply for amnesty both in respect of the charges of murder and the charges in respect of the unlawful possession, that that is the only basis on which my client could get amnesty for the second, without formally amending it.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, now just ask him. Take instructions from him, ask him whether those, he's already identified the signatures, whether those are his two forms and whether he wants us to consider those two forms together?

MR DANIELS: I will do that, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And let the interpreter help you.

MR DANIELS: I will do that. Mr Ntuli, in the first form we ask for amnesty for, this is what I discussed with you there, for murder. Do you see?

MR NTULI: Yes.

MR DANIELS: and the second form, this form, you also talk about the firearm and the ammunition, do you see that?

MR NTULI: Yes.

MR DANIELS: So it's that the two forms differ in these respects.

MR NTULI: Yes.

MR DANIELS: Can we then, in order to apply for amnesty for the murder and for the firearms, can we read these two forms together, if they have both been completed by you?

MR NTULI: Yes.

MR DANIELS: My instructions are that we can read the two and I will ask that we read the two forms together for purposes of the application.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

MR DANIELS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. I assume that there can't be any objections to that Ms Lockhat?

MS LOCKHAT: No objections, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Yes, I think we've resolved the matter then.

MR DANIELS: I think so, thank you Mr Chairman, I'm indebted.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

ADV DE JAGER: And we've amended the date, because it's clearly the 23rd of January 1993 and not 1992.

MR DANIELS: Mr Chairman, on the basis of the evidence that was led and the fact that the evidence of the date of the incident wasn't disputed, I will ask that the date be amended. I don't know whether it's necessary to make formal application for amendment, but that is the date that supports the evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think you should. You're applying now to change the date from 1992 to 1993?

MR DANIELS: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Lockhat is there any objection to that?

MS LOCKHAT: No objections, Chairperson.

MR DANIELS: Once again, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Is there anything else that you wanted to add? Is that the case for your client?

MR DANIELS: As far as the actual application is concerned, that is my case Mr Chairman. I, save for a final submission or two, but no more evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes,

MR DANIELS: And no more amendments to any.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Ms Lockhat, have you got any evidence?

MS LOCKHAT: No, Chairperson. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Daniels have you got any submissions?

MR DANIELS: I do, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

MR DANIELS IN ARGUMENT: Mr Chairman and learned Members, my submission is that a case has been made out for amnesty to be granted in favour of the applicant as envisaged by the provisions of Section 20 of the Act.

The evidence placed before this Committee is, in a nutshell, the following. That at the time of the murder for which my client, the applicant, was convicted, the applicant was a member of the IFP. The deceased, Mr Pakati, was a member of the ANC. Immediately preceding this murder by the applicant, Pakati, the deceased murdered his brother who was at that stage, and that is the evidence, a ranking official of the IFP.

I submit that the applicant has made a full disclosure of all the facts and circumstances surrounding this murder and importantly, I submit that the applicant has established a political motive. Having said that, Mr Chairman, it's difficult to argue around the presence of a personal motive and more particularly a motive of revenge. I would however, submit that despite there being a personal motive involved in the matter, the act or the murder committed by the applicant cannot be divorced from the political climate at the time and I respectfully submit that such a personal motive, which most definitely was present, and cannot be disputed, can and did co-exist with a political motive seen in the larger political context of events at this time.

There are strong indicators of this political motive and of the political climate generally. The fact is that the applicant stayed in a hostel, inhabited exclusively by IFP members, he alluded to the fact that the ANC members and he mentions when the fighting started, in other words, in my submission, when the climate changed and when it became more aggressive, there was a definite segregation between the ANC and the IFP. He testified that he regarded the ANC as the enemy. He was a member of the IFP, he attended IFP meetings and as such, the murder of his brother and the personal motive that went with that, was in my submission, nothing more than the catalyst for what would under normal circumstances be a purely political act. It is underscored by his testimony, in so far as he says that had Pakati killed another IFP member and he was aware of that, he would have done the same.

I think, I beg your pardon, I submit that the absence of any other motive, once again seen in the political context and the political climate, strongly indicates political motive for purposes of this application. There was no peripheral criminal activity. Mr Ntuli did not commit a robbery. He didn't steal anything and his motive was, from the outset, to eliminate this member of the ANC. I submit that the fact that there was a political motive, I beg your pardon, a personal motive coupled with this, does not exclude a political motive and these two should co-exist and the one does not disqualify the other and I think for purposes of such an application, the distinction should be drawn to not make the mistake, with respect, to say that because any motive other than a purely political motive is present, that would exclude a political motive.

If Mr Ntuli committed a murder, coupled with a robbery or a theft or a car theft or whatever the case may be, I think that is a different situation than to say there was a political motive coupled with a personal motive.

I have no further submissions and I respectfully ask that the application be granted.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Daniels. Ms Lockhat, have you got any submissions?

MS LOCKHAT: Yes, thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS LOCKHAT IN ARGUMENT: Mr Ntuli states that he was an IFP member. We don't dispute that. He seemed like any other normal supporter, attending the meetings and rallies and so forth,

but it doesn't sound, on the facts before us, that he was really an active and strong supporter of the IFP. The fact that he had also known the deceased as well as his brother and they co-existed quite naturally with one another previously, is a factor we also have to take into account. The fact that he mentioned there was no violence at the time in the hostel when his brother died, we also have to take that into account, because if there was violence at that time between the IFP and the ANC one could understand that ...(intervention).

ADV DE JAGER: Wouldn't that be because the ANC moved out, so in the hostel there wasn't violence, because they were all IFP members staying there then?

MS LOCKHAT: That is possible, that's noted.

The other issue that we have to take into account is just the fact that the incidents occurred so closely to one another. The fact that the brother died December 1992 and then immediately in January 1993, when all of this was still very fresh with the applicant, it seemed that he had almost no choice but to go out and look and that's indeed what he did do. He admitted that he went out to search for the deceased, so and the fact that he said the deceased wanted to kill him, well it seemed more the other way round. He didn't mention of any attempts on the deceased to actually come out and search for him and attempt to kill him, but the applicant did the latter. He went out, searched for the deceased and killed him.

It is my submission, Chairperson, that the applicant killed Mr Pakati solely for the reason to avenge his brother's death and that is my submission Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Lockhat. Mr Daniels have you got anything else you want to add?

MR DANIELS IN REPLY: In response to what Ms Lockhat has said, Mr Chairman, perhaps just one aspect. To say that the applicant is not a strong or an active member of the IFP, I respectfully submit that that was in fact not the evidence. The amnesty proceedings are not reserved for high ranking officials, or certain denominations of officials of certain parties only. It is undisputed and with respect, indisputable. Mr Ntuli was a member at all relevant times of the IFP. I think it goes further than that. To say that he wasn't necessarily a ranking official, in my respectful submission, makes no difference. He stayed in a place where only IFP members stayed. Those were in fact ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, no Mr Daniels, I think the submission of Ms Lockhat relates to the motive for the killing. Her submission is that he's not such a strong IFP member that he would have been motivated through his membership and his active participation in IFP politics to have gone out to kill. She says that it was simply an avenge killing and it's in that context that she makes that submission. I think it goes without saying that there's no grading of membership, you are either a member or supporter and that's the only requirement in the Act.

MR DANIELS: As long as - I may have misunderstood, thank you, thank you Mr Chairman. I don't have any further submission.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Thank you. Yes, that concludes this matter. We will consider the application and formulate a decision and we will then notify all of the parties, once the decision is available. So we'll reserve the decision in this matter.

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: We will take the luncheon adjournment at this stage, but we wish to thank you Mr Daniels for your assistance in this matter.

MR DANIELS: Thank you, Mr Chairman, thank you for your assistance.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and if you so wish, then you can be excused.

MR DANIELS: I would appreciate it, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you very much. We will adjourn and we will reconvene at 2 o'clock.

CHAIRPERSON: The next matter is the amnesty application of Dennis Kgatitsoe, Amnesty Reference AM7727/97. Mr Mohlaba, do you want to put yourself on record on behalf of the applicant?

MR MOHLABA: Thank you Chairperson. My name is Buka Mohlaba. I'm appearing for the applicant from the firm Mohlaba, Moshoana Inc in Pretoria.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Mohlaba. And then Ms Lockhat.

MS LOCKHAT: My name is Ms Lockhat and I appear on behalf of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Lockhat. Yes Mr Mohlaba.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you, Chairperson.

DENNIS LUKAS MTO KGATITSOE: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mohlaba.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you Chairperson.

EXAMINATION BY MR MOHLABA: Mr Kgatitsoe, you are the applicant in this matter and you are presently serving a prison term, is that correct?

MR KGATITSOE: That is correct.

MR MOHLABA: And you are applying for amnesty for an offence of abduction, murder, robbery and malicious damage to property, is that correct?

MR KGATITSOE: That is correct.

MR MOHLABA: This is the incident related to the death of Marvin Binder, is that correct?

MR KGATITSOE: That is correct.

MR MOHLABA: You are applying for amnesty because these offences were committed by you with a political objective, is that correct?

MR KGATITSOE: That is correct.

MR MOHLABA: Did you, during the period November 1991 belong to a political organisation and if so, please tell us the organisation.

MR KGATITSOE: Yes, I was a member of the ANC Youth League.

MR MOHLABA: Before joining the ANC Youth League, were you active in politics and did you belong to any organisation or an institution?

MR KGATITSOE: I became active in politics since 1984. I was a member of the South African Youth Congress. Later on I joined ECSTOP in Johannesburg. When the ANC was unbanned in 1991, I joined the ANC Youth League.

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry to interrupt but there's something disturbing, a noise on, I don't know whether it affects the other members, but ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, my one's seems to be better. My one was like that earlier this morning, so I don't know, perhaps it's just your one.

INTERPRETER: Maybe we should switch some of the microphones, the sound might stop.

CHAIRPERSON: Switch on your mike Chris and see.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you, Chairperson, may I proceed?

CHAIRPERSON: Just give us a second. Okay, thank you.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you. Mr Kgatitsoe, the application form which appears on page 11 of the paginated bundle until page 16 thereof, page 17 there. Is that your application form?

MR KGATITSOE: Yes, that is correct.

MR MOHLABA: It has come to our attention that it was not attested to before a Commissioner of Oaths. Do you confirm the contents of this application form and to be binding on your conscience?

MR KGATITSOE: That is correct.

MR MOHLABA: The bundles which are before the Committee, in particular from page 20 until page 42, contain statements given by yourself and faxed to the Truth Commission, is that correct?

MR KGATITSOE: Yes, that is correct.

MR MOHLABA: And do you still confirm, or do you confirm that this information contained in these bundles is the truth?

MR KGATITSOE: That is correct.

MR MOHLABA: Before the commencement of the hearings this morning, a typed version of a declaration by Mogoro Seleburu was shown to you and you perused it, is that correct?

MR KGATITSOE: That is correct.

MR MOHLABA: Did you understand what was contained in this declaration?

MR KGATITSOE: Yes, after having read it, I understood it.

MR MOHLABA: It has been noticed that the information contained in this declaration is inconsistent with what is contained in your statement. Do you have a comment with regard to this statement of Mogoro Seleburu?

MR KGATITSOE: I also found out that the information contained therein is inconsistent with what I know. I cannot understand what went through his mind when he wrote this statement.

MR MOHLABA: So is this information incorrect? That is the information contained in the declaration by Seleburu?

MR KGATITSOE: It is totally incorrect.

MR MOHLABA: Could you perhaps refer us to the incorrect passages?

That is incorrect.

That is incorrect.

He was just my acquaintance all along.

MR MOHLABA: Let me interrupt you there. Maybe let me try and assist you Mr Kgatitsoe. Are you aware of a rally which was disrupted by AWB right-wingers in Ventersdorp on this particular day?

MR KGATITSOE: No, I do not know about that rally.

MR MOHLABA: It is stated here that you and Seleburu, you were angered by the disruption of the rally and during that time you went out to hunt for white people to attack them, is that correct?

MR KGATITSOE: That is not correct.

MR MOHLABA: The deceased person, Marvin Binder, where did you meet him on this date of his death?

MR KGATITSOE: I met him at Kagiso police station.

MR MOHLABA: And that was per arrangement, after you had phoned him, as you've indicated in your statement, is that correct?

MR KGATITSOE: That is correct.

MR MOHLABA: So you do not agree with the submissions by Mogoro Seleburu that you attacked Binder because he was a white man who was found at Ventersdorp at a particular moment, is that so?

MR KGATITSOE: Yes, I disagree with what Mogoro Seleburu says.

MR MOHLABA; Did you in any way benefit from, that is monetary, did you gain, did you derive any benefit, patrimonial benefit from the death of the deceased Binder?

MR KGATITSOE: There was nothing monetary that I received through the death of Marvin Binder.

MR MOHLABA: Is there anything you want to add to, in support of this application, other than what is already on paper?

MR KGATITSOE: What I wrote in these documents before us is what is known to me and I would not like to add to it any further.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you, Chairperson, that will conclude the evidence-in-chief.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mohlaba. Ms Lockhat, any questions?

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you, Chairperson.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LOCKHAT: Can you just explain to us how exactly did you come to meet Mr Binder? Can you just give us more details regarding that?

MR KGATITSOE: On the 12th day of May 1991, people were killed in Swaneville. Thereafter they were buried. Before they were buried, there were rumours or what I would call allegations that when the hostel dwellers attacked the residents of Swaneville, there were white people amongst the hostel dwellers who were assisting the very hostel dwellers, such allegations. Minutes after the attack I was there and I witnessed such things. The Youth League and some of our leaders, we embarked on a programme to revitalise the structures in Swaneville and give moral support to the community in Swaneville. I was amongst some of the volunteers who went to Swaneville. I met George Nawana in that process. Originally he resided at the hostel. However, he left the hostel in 1990, when conflict arose between what we would call Xhosas and the Zulus, so I came close to him because he used to disclose to me that there are whites who do come to the hostel.

The information that I got from George, I passed it to our leaders. Amongst some of the leaders that I passed this information to was Eric Ndleleni and Ms Mandisa Shikleka. They advised me that we must recruit George to join the ANC as he was not allied to any other political party. I therefore convinced George to join the ANC and he did. Together with George, myself and George, we visited the hostel, after we agreed, or rather let me say, I was assigned to infiltrate the hostel so as to expose elements behind the violence.

As we went to the hostel, that is where I met Mr Marvin Binder, who used to come to the hostel. I introduced myself to Mr Marvin Binder and he knew me as a hostel resident. That is how I came to know Mr Marvin Binder.

MS LOCKHAT: What was Mr Binder's role at the hostel? Did he bring any arms, ammunition, or can you just explain and expound more on that for us?

MR KGATITSOE: As he came to the hostel, at time he would come during the meetings, or he had a lot of friends at the hostel. I became his friend, a very close friend and he confided in me, so much that he would explain his role to me. Amongst some of the things that he did were facilitating between the hostel dwellers and the police officers. If there would be a search taken out at the hostel, or hostel dwellers have been disarmed at a road block, Marvin would make it a point that he collects the firearms taken from hostel dwellers, back to the hostel. The other role that he had, or which he told me and which I believed, is that the attacks, he contributed in carrying out attacks against the community together with the hostel residents.

INTERPRETER: Chairperson, may we ask Mr Kgatitsoe to stick to one medium of language in a sentence?

MS LOCKHAT: You said in your submission on page 22 that you planned this killing and that you also discussed the plan to kill Marvin Binder with Eric and he said you could go ahead to question Binder, but you went ahead and you killed Binder. Tell me, Mr Eric, who was he to you? Was he your Commander? Who was he?

MR KGATITSOE: I'm going to try and correct one thing. Eric never gave me a command to kill Mr Binder. As my Chairperson, he instructed me, or us, to infiltrate the hostel and we must expose some of the elements which are at the core of the violence that erupted there. Eric was my Chairperson.

MS LOCKHAT: And who was your Commander? I don't understand. Who was your direct Commander?

MR KGATITSOE: I did not take out my duties under any military operation, I functioned under the ANC Youth League and within the ANSIL, we did not have a command structures, we had secretaries and Chairpersons.

MS LOCKHAT: So then basically Eric was the Chairperson, so he was the head of ANSIL, is that right?

MR KGATITSOE: He was the interim Chairperson.

MS LOCKHAT: But he did give you the go-ahead to question Mr Binder?

MR KGATITSOE: Yes, that is correct.

MS LOCKHAT: And then, the killing of Mr Binder you said was never discussed with him and that is at page 22 of the bundle at paragraph 2, the last line of that paragraph. You say that the killing of Mr Binder was never discussed with him, why not?

MR KGATITSOE: The killing of Mr Binder was not the mandate I received from Eric. The reason being that the killing of Mr binder occurred after I have realised that Mr Binder will be dangerous to the ANC community and Swaneville community.

MS LOCKHAT: So why would he be dangerous?

MR KGATITSOE: On the day of his killing weapons were loaded, in his motor vehicle, except the weapons that he told us in his vehicle. He told me many a times previously as he related how they attacked even Swaneville on the 12th day of May and telling me also about his role. Before his killing, he was interrogated and he confessed. That is where I saw the potential he had for killing the ANC constituency or the community as such.

MS LOCKHAT: Would you say that Mr Binder was an IFP supporter or in favour of the IFP party?

MR KGATITSOE: I cannot say he was an IFP supporter, but I would say he worked hand in glove with the IFP. He worked for the then government. On the other hand he worked for the hostel residents.

MS LOCKHAT: So are you - just in relation to Mr Seleburu's declaration, he said that because of this mass meeting and so forth, you went out and you just got a white person, in a sense, and attacked him and killed him because he was white. Do you say that this Seleburu's statement is not true? Just explain to me if Seleburu knew Mr Binder, did he have any interaction with Mr Binder with you?

MR KGATITSOE: As I have already stated when I started, I cannot tell what went in Mr Seleburu's mind when he gave this statement. Firstly he does not know Mr Binder, he has never met Mr Binder and regarding this meeting or rally in Ventersdorp, I don't know where he takes it. Now, I'm a bit confused that Mr Seleburu must give such information because he did not know Mr Binder at all.

ADV DE JAGER: But wasn't he involved in the killing of Mr Binder?

MR KGATITSOE: He was not involved, he was not present.

MS LOCKHAT: If I could just assist the Committee with that. He was found in possession of some of the items, that is how he got arrested. Who planned this whole operation to kill Marvin Binder?

MR KGATITSOE: The operation to kill Mr Marvin Binder was not a planned operation, planned days before the day of his killing. After he had collected the firearms and the ammunition, as I have stated, that's where everything changed. Ultimately he was killed. That was not a thoroughly planned operation.

MS LOCKHAT: So were you with him when he collected these firearms and weapons?

MR KGATITSOE: Yes, I was with him.

MS LOCKHAT: So where did you get the weapons from? Where did you collect it from and from which person did you collect it from?

MR KGATITSOE: These weapons, there were two shoulder bags. We took them at a certain farm in Randfontein where we found two whites. One of them looked like Mr Swanepoel, the then title holder of Swaneville.

MS LOCKHAT: Was this the first time that you collected weapons with Mr Binder?

MR KGATITSOE: Yes, it was the first time.

MS LOCKHAT: Who arranged to meet Mr Binder? Why did you exactly arrange to meet him that night, the night when he was killed?

MR KGATITSOE: Yes, I made that arrangement.

MS LOCKHAT: Why did you make the arrangement? To do what? To meet with him, why?

MR KGATITSOE: That is what he initiated to me. He said: "On this day, you must phone me" and I phoned him and we arranged an appointment. On the day we met at a certain time, then I went to the ...(indistinct), I phoned him and he said we must meet at Kagiso police station. That is where we met. He is the one actually who initiated the appointment.

MS LOCKHAT: So you didn't know that he was going to collect these firearms, or did you?

MR KGATITSOE: No, I did not know.

MS LOCKHAT: And why do you think Mr Binder contacted you to go along with him? Did you - just explain your relationship in a sense, why did he have so much faith in you and trust in you to take you along to collect these weapons?

MR KGATITSOE: Mr Marvin Binder, I used to call him Mokoepa, that is his code name, Mokoepa, he was able to communicate with me in a different manner to whoever at the hostel. He knew that I was able to talk to him in English when, with other hostel residents, they needed an interpreter. He believed in me and he believed that I was a member of the IFP. That is how I convinced him so much that he could confide in me and that on this day in question, he made an appointment with me.

MS LOCKHAT: Do you know of any diamond smuggling of Mr Binder?

MR KGATITSOE: No, I do not know.

MS LOCKHAT: Did Mr Binder offer you any money to go with him to collect these firearms and these weapons?

MR KGATITSOE: No, he did not give me money.

MS LOCKHAT: Would you say that you were, can you say that you were a double agent at that time, or were you just under cover in a sense?

MR KGATITSOE: I do not know which term now to use. I can say I was operating under cover. I was not a double agent. I did not work for the IFP, I worked for the ANC, therefore I'm saying I worked underground.

MS LOCKHAT: Do you think that the Chairperson of ANSIL would have approved of you killing Mr Binder?

MR KGATITSOE: He would approve of that because I believed that as an obligation to me, for the ANC and how I would explain to him. At one stage I explained to him about Mr Binder's actions and he told me that such a person is dangerous and how he would tell us his sentiments. I think the Chairperson would agree to that.

MS LOCKHAT: Did you inform him that you killed Mr Binder after the incident?

MR KGATITSOE: Yes, I did inform him.

MS LOCKHAT: Was this before you were arrested?

MR KGATITSOE: Yes, this was before I got arrested.

MS LOCKHAT: Who were all the persons ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: And what did he say when you reported it to him?

MR KGATITSOE: This, I will put it in English: "This was long overdue."

MS LOCKHAT: Whilst you were undercover did you report back to ANSIL about the activities, your activities? Did you have regular report-backs?

MR KGATITSOE: Yes, I gave a feedback on my activities.

MS LOCKHAT: Was it once a week or can you just expand on that?

MR KGATITSOE: We did not have a time limitation. Any time at my disposal, when I would meet with Mr Binder at the hostel, when I come from the hostel I would report.

MS LOCKHAT: There were lots of things taken from Mr Binder as well. He had cash on him and his radio cassette player was taken, his battery cables, his gold watch, his wallet. Was this part of the operation?

MR KGATITSOE: That was not part of the operation.

MS LOCKHAT: Who took all these items from the deceased?

MR KGATITSOE: Actually we were two of us with George and most of the items, I saw them at the court, I was supposed to have received information from George as to what happened. Unfortunately we never had a discussion with George thereafter, but as far as I believe, if those things were taken, George might have told that he took such things.

MS LOCKHAT: Just mention the names of the people that were involved with you in the killing of Mr Binder.

MR KGATITSOE: George Abanawana.

MS LOCKHAT: Is that the only person?

MR KGATITSOE: Yes.

MS LOCKHAT: So the two were alone with Mr Binder and I assume, can you just explain to me how you killed him? Who did what?

MR KGATITSOE: From Randfontein he was forced to drive to Ventersdorp at a certain place. When we reached that place, at ...(indistinct) place, I had a 9mm pistol. We fastened his hands and we got a knife that was from his car and George had an axe. We were assaulting him and looking for information from him. When we parked the car, we fastened him to a pole and we started interrogating him. One of the questions that we asked him was that I knew he was a person who worked, why was he involved in such activities because he had a full-time job? The other question was, when I asked what was he doing with the weapons, he said they were going to be used for taking out attacks at Swaneville. That's where a twist of things took place, then we decided to kill him. I stabbed him. George hacked him with the axe. Although I cannot pin down what actually killed him, but I think the post mortem said the knife stab wound actually caused the death of Mr Marvin Binder.

MS LOCKHAT: So did you decide to stab him at that stage, or to kill him? Was it your decision?

MR KGATITSOE: Yes, I was killing him, that was my decision.

MS LOCKHAT: So while all of this took place, I assume you were in full contact with George as well at that point in time, you knew exactly what George was doing, isn't that so?

MR KGATITSOE: At that time I was concentrating on what Mr Binder was answering, his response to our questions. I was not that focused on George at that time.

MS LOCKHAT: Because I can't believe that you wouldn't have seen George removing the deceased's watch and the car battery and just everything, the radio and so forth. This must have happened over a couple of minutes at least.

MR KGATITSOE: If I could give a description of this place, maybe you would have a better picture of this place.

It's a place in the open veld, it's dark. The only source of light would be a motor vehicle headlights, but they were switched off. What took place in that dark place, I could not have seen. I may repeat and say, my attention was focused on Mr Binder as I took him as a dangerous person.

ADV DE JAGER: But if you focused on him, surely you must see if his watch is removed, his purse is taken out of his possession, then you must see that, if you focus on him?

MR KGATITSOE: That is why I say, while focusing on him, I never saw anything happening, but there were times when I had to go and re-park the car and I left George and then I would come back to him, but I wouldn't know what took place, but when we interrogated him and he gave us answers, I saw nothing like a wristwatch being removed or a wallet being taken out of his possession.

MS LOCKHAT: Did you say the items you only saw at court?

MR KGATITSOE: Some of them I saw at the court, but the battery and the FM or the radio cassette player, I saw them.

MS LOCKHAT: Yes, because you had them.

MR KGATITSOE: At the police station, when I saw them.

MS LOCKHAT: Also, how did Mr Seleburu get hold of all the items, who gave it to him?

MR KGATITSOE: When I talked to Mr Seleburu, he said he found these items with George.

MS LOCKHAT: Because, why I'm asking you this on page 56 of the judgment there's evidence that George had asked you at paragraph 15 - paragraph 10, he asked you: "Where did you find the radio and the loudspeakers?" and then you answered him that you found it and that you killed this white man and that's how you got hold of the radio and cassette player. Can you comment on that?

MR KGATITSOE: He was lying. George was not telling the truth.

MS LOCKHAT: So you're the only person telling the truth here? You don't have to comment on that.

Did you also - the deceased also had an amount of R660-00 on him. Do you know about that as well?

MR KGATITSOE: I do not know about that amount of money, I only heard from his wife at the court, when she stated same.

ADV DE JAGER: Were the deceased's clothes taken off before he was left there?

MR KGATITSOE: No.

MS LOCKHAT: Why did you burn out the deceased's car?

MR KGATITSOE: At Swaneville, there was a place that had lights on and the other part of Swaneville was dark. At the time when the possibility existed that the attack might be taken out against Swaneville, I decided that if we would set the car alight in that section that was not lit, that was dark, as such people would not have easy entry into Swaneville. On the other hand, we wanted to direct the attention of the police to the other side where we set the car alight.

MS LOCKHAT: Would you say today that the killing of Marvin Binder was necessary?

MR KGATITSOE: Yes, it was necessary.

MS LOCKHAT: Did the white people stop, you said there were lots of white people going into the hostel, did this deter any of the white people going into the hostel and associating with the hostel dwellers there?

MR KGATITSOE: The main reason was not to deter white people from coming at the hostel, but this was done in order to curb the violence and this we saw as being orchestrated by some of those who came to the hostel.

MS LOCKHAT: Would you say that Mr Binder worked hand-in-hand with the police?

MR KGATITSOE: Yes, according to what he told me and through his actions.

MS LOCKHAT: What did he tell you in relation to that?

MR KGATITSOE: At the time when we interacted with him, he related me about the 12th of May event in Swaneville, that how the residents of the hostel were taken to Swaneville and what was his disguise and he had an identity card of the police. Despite that, he was employed at a certain company.

MS LOCKHAT: You said that you didn't know of any of the articles that were taken and you saw it in court an so forth, but I see in the court judgment you had the gold watch on your own person and the wallet was found on you as well as R102-00. Can you comment on that? That's at page 63 of the bundle at paragraph 20.

MR KGATITSOE: I do not know whether I should take what was stated at court and agree with it. Firstly I had more than R2 000-00 in my possession when I was arrested. The evidence made by the police is fabricated and it was specifically against me. The court that made this judgment, made this judgment based on what did not exist. What was stated at court and the court's judgment is not the truth.

MS LOCKHAT: Didn't you also point out to Mr van Vuuren where the radio player was, or was that also fabrication?

MR KGATITSOE: I never pointed out where the radio was. During the interrogation, I pointed where Mr Binder was ultimately taken. Maybe just to add, Mr van Vuuren is a stranger to the truth.

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you Chairperson, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Lockhat. Has the Panel got any questions? Have you got any re-examination, Mr Mohlaba?

MR MOHLABA: None, Chairperson, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you got any other evidence that you intend leading Mr Mohlaba?

MR MOHLABA: No, Chairperson, that will conclude the evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the case for the applicant?

MR MOHLABA: That's correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Was there any investigation by our investigators about this matter?

MS LOCKHAT: Well the investigations there have been and that was the consultation with the accused number 2 which is Seleburu. Our Investigative Unit went there and they took that statement and then just in relation to getting confirmation from the ANC and getting the court judgement, that was the only ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: They didn't inquire at the police station for instance at Krugersdorp, whether they knew Binder, or what happened to his family?

MS LOCKHAT: I believe they did look for Mr Binder's wife, but we couldn't trace her and they also put an advert in the newspaper, which is contained in the notice bundle and we've had no response regarding the family of Mr Binder.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Is there anything else you want to put before us?

MS LOCKHAT: No, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Mohlaba, have you got any submissions?

MR MOHLABA: I have.

MR MOHLABA IN ARGUMENT: Briefly, Chairperson, I want to submit that the applicant is a candidate for amnesty. He needs to be granted amnesty on the basis that his application clearly sets out that these offences were committed with a political objective. There is however, Chairperson, surprisingly so, the submission by Seleburu and I just want to highlight that the declaration by Mogoro Seleburu is highly unlikely, we don't know what went into his mind but it does not even tie up with the evidence in court, like on page 81 of the bundle, there is an affidavit handed out to court about the pointing out and the applicant here pointed out the place next to a hardware, next to a police station in Kagiso, where he picked up the deceased, but Seleburu on the other hand, states in his declaration that they met Marvin Binder in town in Ventersdorp, so Chairperson, I want to submit that there has been full disclosure and the applicant should be granted amnesty. That's all, Chairperson, thank you.

ADV DE JAGER: But what's strange here, according to the applicant, Seleburu wasn't involved in the killing at all.

MR MOHLABA: Certainly that is what the applicant is saying and if I may even add, Chairperson, the role played by the key state witness who was a co-perpetrator of the applicant here, it has been highlighted and explained fully by the applicant and he does not want to attribute more blame to him because he's not here today. It would have been easier for the applicant here today to come and say that he took that watch, the wallet, I even reprimanded him about certain things, but he does not go as far as that.

ADV DE JAGER: No, the trouble I've got is, Seleburu states:

So why would he place himself in that position if in fact he wasn't there with the killing at all?

MR MOHLABA: Chairperson that is ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: He's not applying for amnesty, so that's not, couldn't be a reason that he wanted to ...(intervention)

MR MOHLABA: We do not know whether there is, we tried, I consulted with the applicant here. We tried to try and establish what could be the motive for putting himself on the scene of murder if he did not play that role at all and we just thought that maybe he has brought an amnesty application, we do not know, but he is still in custody and it would have been better if he was brought here to be questioned on his state of mind when he gave this declaration.

ADV DE JAGER: You see, I can't see why should he implicate himself to such an extent, saying that he was present when the man was killed, if he wasn't there at all.

MR MOHLABA: Chairperson, it could be that he realised that whatever he says, it does not put him in a better position. He has already been convicted. He is serving a prison term for that and whether he comes and gives evidence which will be favourable to the applicant, he may be ...(indistinct) that somebody qualifies for amnesty or he qualifies to launch an amnesty application and he does not fall within that category and he - it's just mere speculation, I cannot say, but the truth of the matter is that he played no role there, he was not party to this murder.

ADV DE JAGER: You see he also says that:

But on the other hand he says that:

And then he also says:

That was a fact, he was dumped there, wasn't he?

MR MOHLABA: Chairperson, there is evidence here by the, I mean in the trial court, by the co-perpetrator of the applicant here and that information may have been found there and another thing which I just want to highlight to the Committee is that the wife of Marvin Binder explained that she received a telephone call where they wanted to talk to the deceased and subsequently he told the wife that he's going out to meet somebody who was to sell him a camera and the applicant in his application ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: No, she said she had gone to meet somebody who previously sent, wanted to sell her, but it was about diamonds this time.

MR MOHLABA: No, the diamond thing, unless that has escaped me, the diamond issue is only raised on Seleburu's declaration. The wife of Marvin Binder is talking about meeting somebody who I had talked to you about with regard to the camera issue and the applicant in his application, he indicates in his supporting documents that in trying to infiltrate the hostel, he posed as somebody who is selling items such as cameras and so this issue of him going, the deceased going to see some diamonds and not being involved in any political activity as indicated by, as not being part of the AWB which disrupted the rally, ms something which remains a mystery to us, Chairperson.

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, I may be wrong, but didn't the wife say something about diamonds?

MS LOCKHAT: It's on page 52 of the bundle. It says, just, if I can just, paragraph 20 there:

and then she goes on that she had given her husband the money and so forth.

MR MOHLABA: Yes, Chairperson, that I had not noticed, but it does not change the complexion of the matter. The fact of the matter is that the deceased and the applicant here had interaction before. They had interacted. It's not that they just met in Ventersdorp at the street on a particular day and they decided to kill him because there was some rally which was disrupted, so the wife confirms that the deceased told him that this is the person who previously did something. "I'm going to meet somebody". So that suggests that there had been some sort of interaction, it's not something which happened abruptly.

ADV DE JAGER: But, did the applicant phone him?

MR MOHLABA: Yes, Chairperson, the applicant phoned him and used his code name, Snoopy and he said it's Snoopy calling, and he found a lady and then the lady called the deceased to the phone. They discussed and met at the police station.

ADV DE JAGER: And then the deceased said it's somebody phoning him about diamonds?

MR MOHLABA: That's what the wife is saying, yes.

ADV DE JAGER: He should meet them at Ventersdorp?

MR MOHLABA: I'm not certain about meeting at Ventersdorp, but that could be the case.

MS LOCKHAT: That is correct, it is Ventersdorp.

MR MOHLABA: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: You see, the other thing is, Seleburu also says:

So if Seleburu wasn't there, how would he have known about all this?

MR MOHLABA: Chairperson, according to the applicant Seleburu was not there and it will not have been difficult, it will not make our application worse or disqualify him to get an amnesty if he had been there with Seleburu.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, have you got any other submissions Mr Mohlaba?

MR MOHLABA: Chairperson, just to, lastly to mention that it was the applicant who has led them to Seleburu and this declaration of Seleburu was obtained after he has already given the sequence of events as they were unfolding on the date of the killing itself, so it's not something which was, his application and the supporting documents were not done to try and circumvent what Seleburu has stated on paper. Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Mohlaba. Any submissions Ms Lockhat?

MS LOCKHAT IN ARGUMENT: Thank you, Chairperson. While it is clear that the applicant does belong to a political party, we have confirmation in relation to that, according to the applicant's evidence, is that he had a relationship with Marvin Binder and that he informs the Commissioner, in a lengthy supplementary affidavit and stating that he provides the Commission with a long story of his involvement with this Marvin Binder, it is true that his issue regarding the telephone call is the same version as the wife's version, that he did receive that telephone call on that particular night. It seems that the deceased was somehow involved in some illegal activities, it is clear in relation to his wife even revealing the fact that he was going to get diamonds and so forth.

On the other hand you have Seleburu's statement, where he places himself at the scene of the incident. Where he says:

and he places himself right there. I don't know what - he had nothing to gain by doing that. He is also serving his prison sentence so it doesn't make sense for him to do that.

The applicant, on the other hand, denies all the allegations presented by Mr Seleburu for, well he gives a completely different version. According to Mr Seleburu there was this meeting they had and they went out basically just looking for a white person in the town to target and to kill and they were incited by this rally, but according to the applicant it's just a far-fetched story, so it's difficult to believe as to whose theory is the correct one. And then Seleburu, in the court judgment and as well as my questions I posed to the applicant in relation to the money and the gold watch, it seems that he's very evasive about that and it seemed very strange that he says it was only the two of them, himself and George at the incident, but he can't remember George ever taking off the watch or removing the car radio, the wallet etc. That seems a bit unbelievable that he did not witness any of this and seeing that he also informed us that his attention was on the deceased all the time. And then on the other hand, the police finds all these, the gold watch on him, which he, well up until now he denies and according to him everybody is not telling the truth and he's the only person that we should believe and he also take the policeman to Seleburu to tell them that he's got the radio player, he's the person where you can find it, so with all that kind of information and then he again says that someone strange, that doesn't even know Mr van Vuuren, is also concocting the story against him.

So in relation to that, it's just a pity that we don't have the deceased's wife here to give us more information regarding her husband's activities and whether he did go into the township and so forth and whether he had liaised with people and so forth.

So that is just my submission, that the applicant's version, we have his version and then we have the court records and ...(intervention).

ADV DE JAGER: What happened to George?

MS LOCKHAT: George was never charged with this offence. I'll just check whether we notified him. Can you just give me one second.

ADV DE JAGER: And in the statement, George doesn't figure either.

MS LOCKHAT: That's correct. According to the applicant, he also said that George really didn't get involved in this whole incident because he was on the side of the police in a sense and I don't know if maybe I'm, but that's the sense I got reading through the papers, that George was never charged because he knew or he was in cahoots with the police officers and investigating officers of this offence and therefore he was never charged, so in relation to George we also don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: What is the position with Seleburu?

MS LOCKHAT: Well Seleburu is, he's in prison at the moment serving sentence for this. We had notified him and he's at Rooigrond Prison, that's where he's at and I just checked with any of the police officers whether he's here, but he's not been requisitioned to come.

ADV DE JAGER: But George was actually involved, according to him, George was the person helping him to murder the man and not Seleburu.

MS LOCKHAT: That is correct. Maybe the applicant can help us here, whether he knows where George is or maybe if he can just, if he has any information regarding George.

MR MOHLABA: The last person, the applicant, saw George it was when he was a state witness in court and I believe that the court record or the police docket would contain his addresses.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mohlaba, did George deny being involved at all at the trial?

MR MOHLABA: George was not charged, he just turned up. They were arrested together. The applicant has seen him shortly after the arrest, but they were held in different cells and at the time of the trial, is when George appeared as a state witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I realise that, but his version at the trial, that he denied involvement, just this little bit that I looked at here, he seemed to have pushed the blame onto the applicant. He says he got some things at the applicant's house and he saw the bloodied clothes on his bed and all sorts of things, so it looks as if, from that little bit, it looks as if he says he knew nothing, he wasn't involved in the murder.

MR MOHLABA: That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Have you got any other submissions? Are you done?

MR MOHLABA: Certainly, I am done, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Have you got any further submissions Ms Lockhat?

MS LOCKHAT: No thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. We will have to consider this matter and perhaps we should indicate at this stage that we're simply reserving the judgment at this point and we'll take an opportunity to consider whether or not there is any useful purpose to be served by considering whether any of the other people who ostensibly seem to be involved in this matter ought to be presenting oral evidence or not, but for the moment we'll reserve the decision in the matter.

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I think that concludes the roll for today and the next matter that we have, we were told has been arranged for Thursday morning.

MS LOCKHAT: That is correct, Chairperson. I have just been asking everybody, ...(indistinct) if she can give me some feedback as to whether we could start tomorrow with some other matters that, where there are no victims, so I just want to, just give me one minute just to consult.

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly.

MS LOCKHAT: Chairperson, just to get back to - I was attempting to have the killing of Alfred Willow and the killing of Gideon Way, two different incidents, to have that tomorrow. We've consulted, we've spoken to the advocate involved and he said that he hasn't consulted with his clients yet. The one is in Vereeniging and the other one is in Pretoria. It's possible for us to requisition them for tomorrow, he said, but he would need to consult with them and he could be available after consultation with them at 12 o'clock, so I shall leave it in the Chairperson's hands to decide whether we should adjourn.

CHAIRPERSON: What difference is that going to make in terms of the overall situation here? We've made arrangements for Thursday and Friday, to hear matters on Thursday and Friday. Is that going to affect that arrangement at all? Are we still going to have to sit here in any case on Thursday and Friday?

MS LOCKHAT: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well.

ADV DE JAGER: If we would start say tomorrow afternoon 2 o'clock, we would be possibly in a position to finish on Thursday afternoon or Thursday evening?

CHAIRPERSON: Or is the arrangement ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: I mean, will it save a day or not?

MS LOCKHAT: It's a bit difficult to say because that Haggie Rand incident, that's the fifth one, there's quite a couple of victims there, that could take us a half a day or even longer, I concede, but that's also just one applicant, so it's possible that we could finish Friday morning maybe.

ADV BOSMAN: Is there any risk that if we stick to the schedule as it is, that we may not finish on Friday?

MS LOCKHAT: It could be possible. It's just the one incident, the Dlamini incident where there's a lot of killings, but it was random killings, but there are no victims as well, so either the matters could take - the Chidi matter, there's no judgment, there's no victims. You'll see the application is just six pages long for instance, so ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Which one is that? Is that the one that the advocate might be available some time tomorrow? Which one is that?

MS LOCKHAT: That's Advocate Leopeng in the Chidi matter and Mpofosi, two applicants. The Chidi matter is very quick, we could do that probably in an hour and the Willow matter could probably also be about a half a day, not even three hours.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I just, what I want to know is I mean, if we go through all these arrangements now and we're able to bring some of these matters forward to tomorrow, are we going to be able to do something substantial or is it something that we will come in and sit for half an hour and have to adjourn.

MS LOCKHAT: Unless we just leave it as it is and commence on Thursday again.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, because I mean I would be reluctant to reconvene all of this for one matter that will last us an hour, whatever, half an hour.

MS LOCKHAT: That does make sense Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Alright we'll have to look into the further conduct of this matter that's before us now, but for the moment we reserve the decision and we will be in touch with the parties. We'll then adjourn and we will reconvene on Thursday morning at let's call it 9 o'clock. We're adjourned.

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you, Chairperson.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS