MR DLUDLA: Morning everybody. We proceed with our hearings this morning and I'm informed that the first matter that we'll be dealing with is the application of Mr Thulani Jerome Dludla. I'd at this stage kindly request the legal representatives to place themselves on record.

MR DEHAL: Thank you, Mr Chairperson. The name is Dehal, attorney from Dehal Incorporated, Durban. I represent the applicant in this matter and propose calling just the applicant. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Dehal.

MR PANDAY: Thank you, Mr Chair. The name is Mr Panday, I represent the families of the victims in the matter. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Panday.

MS THABETHE: Thank you, Mr Chair. My name is Thabile Thabethe, I'm the Evidence Leader for the TRC.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Thabethe.

THULANI JEROME DLUDLA: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Dehal?

EXAMINATION BY MR DEHAL: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

Mr Dludla, do you confirm that this application which I show to you for amnesty, completed in the Zulu language, pages 1 to 10 in the bundle, is indeed your application?

MR DLUDLA: Yes, it is.

MR DEHAL: The document you have before you, a statement of yours consisting of two pages, with you having crossed on the second page on the 1st of December 1999, is, you confirm, your statement in your application as a supplementary statement, correct?

MR DLUDLA: Yes, it is.

MR DEHAL: Mr Chairperson, I hand this statement in. I presume all the Members have copies. May I mark that Exhibit A?

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Dehal, this statement will be received as Exhibit A.

MR MALAN: Mr Dehal, just before you proceed. Neither the application nor the statement has been attested to. Can you just have him confirm the correctness, truthfulness of the contents.

MR DEHAL: Thank you, Sir.

Mr Dludla, the application for amnesty itself was completed by you, was it? This application that I ...(intervention)

MR DLUDLA: Yes, that's correct.

MR DEHAL: And do you confirm that the contents contained therein are indeed correct?

MR DLUDLA: Yes, I do.

MR DEHAL: Insofar as the statement placed before you is concerned, this two-paged statement, do you confirm that the cross thereon is yours?

MR DLUDLA: Yes, I do.

MR DEHAL: Do you confirm that the contents of the two-paged statement were formulated, recorded, on your instructions and are indeed correct in every respect?

MR DLUDLA: That is correct.

MR DEHAL: Thank you. Exhibit A then is your statement which reads briefly as follows. You are an adult male, you were born on the 29th of June '72, you're unmarried, you are currently detained at Serfontein Prison, with that prison number and that you were born and brought up in Matsha, Empangeni, correct?

MR DLUDLA: That is correct.

MR DEHAL: You first became a member of the ANC in 1990, you joined the ANC for the sole reason that they were fighting for human rights, equality and justice, you believed in the ANC and what they fought for, correct?

MR DLUDLA: That is correct.

MR DEHAL: During January of 1994, there was an ongoing violence between members of the IFP and the ANC in the Empangeni area. Around the beginning of January '94, you visited your girlfriend nearby, at approximately 5pm on that day, your friends who are also ANC members, had come to your girlfriend's house and informed you that you should go back home to Empangeni because great damage was there caused, correct?

MR DLUDLA: That is correct.

MR DEHAL: When you returned home you saw that your house was burnt down, you were informed that members of the community - sorry, informed by members of the community that your three sisters and niece were gunned down and burnt, correct?

MR DLUDLA: That is correct.

MR DEHAL: And on the day of the incident you were informed by Sipho Dlamini, that Vusimusi Lembethe killed your three sisters and your niece and burnt them down, correct?

MR DLUDLA: That is correct.

MR DEHAL: Then you say that this Vusimusi Lembethe belonged to the IFP and that you became angry at this as Vusimusi caused your sisters' death and you planned to kill him. You then purchased a 9mm rifle, decided to kill Vusimusi yourself and there was no need to tell anyone about this. You planned to go to his house in the morning to kill him, correct?

MR DLUDLA: That is correct.

MR DEHAL: Then on the next page in paragraph 8 you say, on the 30th of January '94, at approximately 11pm, you arrived at Vusimusi's house but the gate was locked, so you had to jump over the fence to get into the yard, you saw the door was open and you entered. You noticed that Vusimusi was in the dining-room, he was hiding at the side of the wall in the passage and you waited for Vusimusi to enter the passage. When he entered the passage you fired three shots at him, you fired two shots in the chest and one on his head, correct?

MR DLUDLA: That is correct.

MR DEHAL: Vusimusi then fell down, you stole his gun and you ran away.

MR DLUDLA: That is correct.

MR DEHAL: The following day you returned to work in Empangeni, to clean fridges and airconditioners. Many weeks later you were arrested by the police, and you now apply for amnesty for this act.

MR DLUDLA: That is correct.

MR DEHAL: You say that your sisters and Vusimusi died mainly because they belonged to opposing political parties, correct?

MR DLUDLA: That is correct.

MR DEHAL: You then say that you are deeply sorry for killing Vusimusi Lembethe, you apologise to his family. And that ends your statement. Is that correct?

MR DLUDLA: That is correct.

MR DEHAL: Mr Chairperson and Honourable Members, that is the statement. Before the matter proceeds and lest there be witnesses called and exhaustive cross-examination, I think it would be prudent for me to record at this stage that as his legal representative I've advised that he has grave difficulties on this application and I concede at this stage that this is not an application which I think merits the grant of amnesty. But because the motions had been formulated and proceeded with to this late stage, I out of respect to this Committee, decided to more fully record the statement in the format that we've done. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Dehal. Mr Panday, do you have any questions you'd like to put to the applicant?

MR PANDAY: Just a point of clarity, Mr Chairman. Mr Dehal has recorded that this is not an application that warrants the need for amnesty. Now if we could get more ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: We'll have to obviously consider it you know, that that’s Mr Dehal's expressed his opinion and I don't think it would be correct and proper for us now to express our opinion. We'll have to consider it at the end of the hearing, in the usual way.

MR PANDAY: Actually what I was putting to you, Mr Chairman, is that if we could get clarity that - you see the confusion is that it does not warrant any amnesty application. Now what I'd seek is that whether the legal representative is actually conceding that this is not an act of political aggression ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I think what you must do, Mr Panday, is just approach the matter as you normally would because you know we're not necessarily bound by any concessions, in one way or the other way.

MR PANDAY: As Mr Chairman pleases.

CHAIRPERSON: We take them into account, but we're not bound by that.

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

Mr Dludla, you confirmed that - well, do you confirm that the affidavit, the application that appears on page 11 to page 16, is the application that you had brought as your amnesty application?

MR MALAN: I don't think he can confirm that because you're referring to the translation. But you can accept that that is the office translation and unless the interpretation is in question, we can work on that basis.

MR PANDAY: Mr Dludla, why is it in your application for amnesty you did not mention that a niece was killed as well and only that your three sisters were killed?

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, while you're answering that, Mr Dludla, perhaps you could give the name of your niece.

MR DLUDLA: ...(no English interpretation). The child was still young, so I tend to forget the name.

MR PANDAY: Unfortunately I did not get the translation.

CHAIRPERSON: He said that "The child was still young, so I intend to forget her name."

MR PANDAY: And why did you not mention in your application initially, that your niece was killed as well?

MR DLUDLA: I thought I had included my niece there. I don't know how it came about that she was not mentioned.

MR PANDAY: Where was your niece living?

MR DLUDLA: She was my sister's child and she resided with them at home.

MR PANDAY: Now Mr Dludla, you mentioned that you were at your girlfriends house nearby, in Empangeni, how long were you at your girlfriend's house for? Were you living there?

MR DLUDLA: I did not reside there, I had gone there to visit.

MR PANDAY: And for how long did you go to visit her?

MR DLUDLA: On that day I went past my home and informed my sisters that I was going to the Ndlovu family and I was going to return only the following morning, but they were shot and killed the very same night when I was away.

MR PANDAY: Do you recall the day that your sisters were shot and killed?

MR DLUDLA: I cannot recall the date well because a long time has elapsed. I cannot recall the date.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it in 1994?

MR DLUDLA: Yes, it was in 1994, mid-year.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible - no microphone) on your application form you say it was on the 30th of January 1994, now you say it's mid-year. What is the situation? I'm referring to page 12 of the documents, paragraph 9(a)(2).

MR DLUDLA: It was the 30th of January. It's just that a long time has elapsed so I do not recall the ...(indistinct) very well.

MR PANDAY: Now Mr Dludla, ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: Just before you proceed, Mr Panday.

You killed, according to the record you killed Vusimusi on the 30th of January, did you kill him on the same day your sisters were killed?

MR DLUDLA: No, it was not the same day.

MR MALAN: How many days after?

MR DLUDLA: I think a week elapsed.

MR MALAN: Thank you, Mr Panday.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, why did you not kill him immediately, what were you waiting for?

MR DLUDLA: The reason why I did not take action on that day was I wanted to prepare for my sisters funeral and get it over and done with properly before planning this other mission.

MR PANDAY: Mr Dludla, do you know the Lembethe family?

MR DLUDLA: Yes, I know them, all of them.

MR PANDAY: How do you know them?

MR DLUDLA: I would say I grew up around them and in that way I knew them.

MR PANDAY: So it will be correct to assume that you were neighbours?

MR DLUDLA: Yes, we were neighbours, there was a just a small road separating the two families.

MR PANDAY: Would you agree that your sisters were also well-known to the family, to the Lembethe family?

MR DLUDLA: Yes, they did.

MR PANDAY: Now Mr Dludla, after having consulted with the family, my instructions are that the sisters that you refer to that were killed, were in fact, or rather only died or alternatively killed after the death of Vusimusi Lembethe.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, on that one as well - sorry, Mr Panday,

Before you answer Mr Dludla, I'd just like to refer you to page 30 of the documents, it's about line 13, when the judge at the trial was trying to work out or think what the motive might be, he said well -

Why I'm pointing this out is that it makes no mention to the killing of any sisters here, but only the burning of huts. Now Mr Panday has put it to you that your sisters died but only after the death of Mr Lembethe. What do you say to that?

MR DLUDLA: They are only telling him what they know and I am saying what I also know. I had no grudge against Vusi Lembethe. He would normally come to my home to drink and he is married to the - the woman that he is married to shares the same surname as my brother's wife, so they were very close.

MR PANDAY: Mr Dludla, if you maintain your sisters were killed by Vusimusi Lembethe, why did you not tell the court that your sisters were in fact murdered by Vusi Lembethe?

MR DLUDLA: I did not explain much in court because even the person who testified there, was unknown to me, but he claimed to know me.

MR PANDAY: Mr Dludla, did you testify in court?

MR DLUDLA: Yes, I did.

MR PANDAY: Now you testified in court that your hut was burnt, is that correct?

MR DLUDLA: Yes, I also mentioned it in court, that my house had been burnt down and my sisters had been shot.

MR PANDAY: Mr Dludla, I'm going to refer you to pages 30 to 31. Now these pages are copies of what transpired in court. I put it to you, had you mentioned about the deaths of your sisters, there would have been a recording of this and that you're actually in fact lying to this Commission that you mention this.

MR DLUDLA: I did mention it. I do not know why it was not recorded there. I even informed the investigator, Mr Xaba, he told me that he was not interested in the death of my sisters, but in that of Mr Lembethe. When I enquired about why he was not interested in that, because the very reason that prompted me to carry out that attack, was the death of my sisters. It puzzled me then that it was not mentioned in court because I had made it known.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Panday, if I could just ask a question.

Mr Dludla, you say that you grew up around the Lembethe family, you were on very close terms, your families were on very close terms with each other, why did you just accept what Sipho Dlamini told you, that Vusimusi Lembethe killed your sisters and then you just go and kill Lembethe? Why did you believe that he was the killer if you were on good terms with each other? Surely you should have found out first from Vusimusi himself.

MR DLUDLA: The reason why I believed Sipho Dlamini was because before his death, Vusimusi came to my home at about eight in the evening, we were watching TV at that time, when he entered he was carrying a knopkierie and an axe and he said our house was going to be burnt down. When I attempted to respond to him my brother stopped me and my brother and Vusi went out to speak privately outside, but my brother came back and informed me on what they had discussed. That is why I believed Sipho Dlamini when he came and told me this because my house had indeed been burnt down after he had said so. That was a week after he had come to our home to tell us this.

MR DEHAL: Sorry, whilst Mr Panday is getting ready, may I just also point out that it would appear this line of cross-examination may not be the only reason and line, for in the sentence on page 30 on line 6, the Honourable Judge says -

It would appear as though when he arrived at court he didn't give a full version. So to say that he lied in court would not be totally correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Dehal.

MR MALAN: The statement was that he lied to the Commission.

MR DEHAL: I see.

MR PANDAY: Now Mr Dludla, was Sipho Dlamini also an ANC supporter?

MR DLUDLA: Yes, he was an ANC supporter.

MR PANDAY: And for how long was he a supporter?

MR DLUDLA: I am not certain as to when he joined the ANC, because he does not reside very close to my home, he comes from an area called Mvamhlope(?).

MR PANDAY: Now Mr Dludla, what would you have done if somebody else had killed your sisters?

MR DLUDLA: For the reason that I did not have any knowledge to the contrary, had I received that information I would have thought that I'd made a mistake by killing Vusimusi Lembethe.

MR PANDAY: So is it possible that you would have killed any person that killed your sisters?

MR DLUDLA: It would not have mattered to which organisation that person belonged to, if he had killed my own blood I would have killed him too.

MR PANDAY: So Mr Dludla, based on what you said now, it is correct to assume that the only reason you killed Vusimusi Lembethe was not because he was IFP, because he you were told he killed your sisters, your three sisters you grew up with. Isn't that correct?

MR DLUDLA: Yes, that is what angered me.

MR PANDAY: So it was not because he was IFP?

MR DLUDLA: I had no problem with him being an IFP member. I was an ANC person, but I did not have a problem with it.

MR PANDAY: So in your affidavit, Exhibit A, when you mention that the reason your sisters were killed was because they belonged to opposing political parties, is incorrect, isn't that so?

MR DEHAL: No, the inference doesn't ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: He can answer. I know what you're saying, it actually came to my mind, but it's not an unfair question.

MR DEHAL: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: It's quite clear what the statement says. I think perhaps you should repeat the question.

MR PANDAY: Mr Dludla, I refer you to page 2 of your affidavit, Exhibit A ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I do agree with Mr Dehal, I think you're drawing the wrong conclusion because he says - that relates to the burning of the house rather than the killing of Vusimusi.

MR PANDAY: I take the point.

Now Mr Dludla, is it correct to assume that your sisters or the possible political affiliation of your sisters and the actions you took on the so-called person who killed your sisters, was not related?

MR DLUDLA: It was related because firstly, the house was burnt. At that time no-one was injured. On the second occasion that it was burnt, they were also killed and burnt.

MR PANDAY: Sorry, Mr Chairman, I'm having a terrible difficulty with the translation, there's a problem.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, if you could perhaps bring another headphone please. I've also known, Mr Panday, that sometimes it best - this instrument must be pointing there and as little interference with it or the cord.

MR PANDAY: Thank you. Mr Dludla, ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: His last answer was "On the first occasion the house was burnt, no-one was injured, on the second occasion that it was burnt my sisters were killed."

MR PANDAY: Mr Dludla, you mentioned earlier on that you would have killed anyone that killed your sisters ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Irrespective of what their political affiliation was, I think he said.

MR PANDAY: Sorry, Mr Chairman, I didn't hear you.

CHAIRPERSON: He said irrespective of what the killer's political affiliation might have been he would have killed the person who killed his sisters.

MR PANDAY: Now Mr Dludla, based on that reply of yours I put it to you that the only reason you went out to kill Vusimusi was not because it was political, it was because you were angered by the death of your sisters and that you decided to take revenge. Would you like to comment on that?

MR DEHAL: He's agreed with that, Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: He's said it in his application too, Mr Panday.

MR PANDAY: Mr Commissioner, the point I'm trying to make is that we merely reiterate that his entire action was not politically motivated.

CHAIRPERSON: He can answer that question.

MR DLUDLA: Please repeat that question.

CHAIRPERSON: We've already got the answer, I don't know if you want to drive the nail any further.

MR PANDAY: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I'll rest.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabethe?

MS THABETHE: No questions, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have any re-examination?

MR DEHAL: None at all.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan, do you have any questions?

MR MALAN: I just want to hear from you, Mr Dludla, do you have any idea why Vusimusi killed your sisters?

MR DLUDLA: The following day we discovered a lot of cartridges on the yard, they were R1, 9mm and G3 cartridges.

MR MALAN: My question is why would he have done it. If you were on good terms, the two families, why would Vusimusi have killed your sisters as you allege? Do you have any idea?

MR DLUDLA: I would not know the reason why, but I can only speculate that it was because of these opposing political views. Moreover, because he had once mentioned that the house was going to be burnt down.

MR MALAN: And he had no intention or threat of killing you, he never said he would be killing you?

MR DLUDLA: I learnt that there were people who had been sent to kill me. These were two Malodgwa sons, who are now deceased.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Malan, if I could just on that point.

You see we've got a statement before us on page 21 of the papers Mr Dludla, it's a statement made by Mashangase Ethel Lembethe who is the mother the deceased, Vusimusi Lembethe, and I'll just read to you from paragraph 4, which is what she says -

What do you say to that? That is what Mrs Lembethe says.

MR DLUDLA: Well I did have knowledge that Mr Lembethe was involved in the IFP, together with a Mr Mkletche(?), as well as his brother-in-law, Mr Ximba. He was also known as Ndini.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Malan.

MR MALAN: I just want to make sure. On page 15, question 10(d), and I'm reading from the translation there, you say you were defending yourself because you were going to be killed. Why did you say that? Can you read, Mr Dludla? - English.

MR DLUDLA: No.

MR MALAN: Well let me just give you the interpretation. You made this statement, according to the translator of your application, that you were defending yourself, apparently because you feared or expected that you would be the next, that you were going to be killed and one would assume, by Vusimusi. Do you have any comment on that?

MR DLUDLA: I have not received that knowledge that someone was going to kill me on that day, but I did know that there were people who were after me. To the extent that Nkosinathi Buthelezi, as well as Skakane were both attacked and Nkosinathi Buthelezi was killed. What we knew was that the targets that they were after were the Buthelezi, Skakane and myself. Therefore after the death of Nkosinathi Buthelezi, they were still looking for myself and Zaki Skakane.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Who was "they" that were looking for you?

MR DLUDLA: We did not know the specific people but we were of he opinion that they were IFP members. But the one person we knew that was burning people's houses was Mr Mkletche, but he had been driven out of the area because we had tried to attack him and he fled.

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

ADV SANDI: Where did you buy this firearm you used to kill the deceased?

MR DLUDLA: I had bought it from Mandene and brought it home because I worked in Mandene from 1993.

ADV SANDI: So when your sisters were killed you already had this firearm with you, is that what you mean?

MR DLUDLA: At the time that my sisters were killed I did have another firearm but the one that I'm speaking of I had already sold to somebody else.

ADV SANDI: Did you have a political objective for killing the deceased?

MR DLUDLA: With regard to that, I did not have a political objective because I did not have any quarrel or grudge with him, we were on very good terms because he and my brother were in-laws. So even when they had feasts I would go to their home. I was very close, I liked him very much.

ADV SANDI: Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Sandi. Mr Dehal, do you have any questions arising out of the questions that have been put by Members of the Committee?

MR DEHAL: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, none at all thank you.

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

MR PANDAY: No, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabethe?

MS THABETHE: No, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Dludla, that concludes your evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Dehal, are you leading any further evidence in this application?

MR DEHAL: No, that concludes the case for the applicant, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Panday?

MR PANDAY: In light of the applicant's concessions and confessions, I call no witnesses, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabethe?

MS THABETHE: No witnesses.

CHAIRPERSON: That then concludes the leading of evidence in this matter. We will now receive submissions. Mr Dehal?

MR DEHAL ADDRESSES: Thank you. Mr Chairperson, in view of my earlier concession, read in conjunction with the applicant's concession that there were no political motives, in response to Mr Sandi's question and read in conjunction with the fact that his testimony is clear on the basis that he would have killed almost any person who killed his sisters, I take the matter no further, I leave the matter in your respectful hands. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Dehal. Mr Panday?

MR PANDAY ADDRESSES: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Save to say that it's quite clear that the applicant's objective was not political, it can also be inferred that in terms of his disclosure he's not disclosed fully and as such he falls fatefully short of disclosing any reason as to why he should be granted amnesty.

It is my respectful submission that he is not a candidate to be granted amnesty as he does not comply with the requirements of the Section 20. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabethe?

MS THABETHE ADDRESSES: Thank you, Mr Chair. I think the applicant has made full disclosure to the effect that what he did was not political. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Any response, Mr Dehal?

MR DEHAL: None, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. We'll reserve our decision which will be handed down in the near future. Thank you very much.

MR DEHAL: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: We've been handed some documents for the next matter which we haven't read yet and it might be a good opportunity also just to take the short tea interval and then we'll resume in 15 minutes time. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, than you. We'll now commence with the application of Mr Anthony Sbonelo Ndlovu. As per usual I would like to ask the representatives kindly to place themselves on record.

MR DEHAL: Thank you, Mr Chairperson. I represent the applicant. I propose calling him only to testify. The name is Dehal from Dehal Incorporated, Durban. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Dehal.

MR PANDAY: Mr Chairman, the name is Panday, I represent the families of the victims.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Panday.

MS THABETHE: Thank you, Mr Chair. I'm Thabile Thabethe, the Evidence Leader, TRC.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Thabethe.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ndlovu, do you have any objections to taking the oath, or do you prefer to make an affirmation?

ANTHONY SBONELO NDLOVU: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Dehal?

EXAMINATION BY MR DEHAL: Thank you, Sir.

Mr Ndlovu, may I show to you this application contained in the bundle on pages 1 to 9, do you confirm that this is your application for amnesty?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, I do.

MR DEHAL: Was this application completed by yourself?

MR NDLOVU: Yes.

MR DEHAL: Are you in a position to confirm the translation thereof, have you been through it? These pages that I show to you, pages 10 to 15.

MR NDLOVU: Yes, I do.

MR DEHAL: Thank you. Now your application is for amnesty in regard to the murder of Victor, and that being the only count, but you say that you didn't kill him, when you arrived there, inasmuch as you intended to kill him, you found him dead, correct?

MR NDLOVU: That's correct.

MR DEHAL: Now I show to you your statement, do you confirm that this is your statement, formulated on your instructions by your attorney and you have signed it?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, I do.

CHAIRPERSON: That statement will be received as Exhibit A.

MR DEHAL: Thank you, Chair.

MR MALAN: May we just again have the confirmation for what it may be necessary, that the contents are true and correct.

MR DEHAL: Thank you.

Mr Ndlovu, do you confirm that the contents of this statement, all the details therein is correct?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, I do.

MR DEHAL: Thank you. Now if I may just take you through your statement. Firstly, you say that you're an adult male, your date of birth is the 28th of February '67, your level of education is standard eight, correct?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, it is so.

MR DEHAL: You say that during 1984 or 1985, you had joined the UDF, you were invited to join the UDF by friends. You all had discussions about policies and decided that this was the party you wished to join. In 1986 you trained at the Natal Mtubatuba Command as a soldier in the South African Defence Force, you were trained in the use of R4 rifles. You attended this training merely so that you could use the knowledge which you there obtained, to fight the struggle and the liberation of the oppressed people in this country, correct?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, that is correct.

MR DEHAL: You then add in paragraph 3, that in July 1989, at the time the offence was committed, you were a member of the UDF. And in paragraph 4, that you did not tell anyone because you were afraid that if the IFP knew that you were a UDF member, you would have been killed for that reason. Is that correct?

MR NDLOVU: That's correct.

MR DEHAL: You then add that you were working at the Rainbow Chicken with Victor Mtetwa, the deceased, who belonged to the IFP, correct is it?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, it is so.

MR DEHAL: In paragraph 6 you say an argument had broken out between yourself and Victor Mtetwa, who had called you an Indian Zulu (I-kulu), because you had curly hair. You were very offended by this word. You continued arguing. You threatened to kill him. On the same afternoon, being a Wednesday, Nduduzi Shelembe, Moli Zunda and Imkiteni had come to your house. You had informed them about the argument with Mr Victor Mtetwa and who had threatened to fire me - oh sorry, fire you, I think dismiss you from work because you told him that you wanted to kill him. You showed them your home-made ammunition. Your friend Shadala had volunteered to help you kill Victor Mtetwa, is that correct?

MR MALAN: Mr Dehal, sorry for interrupting, we went into a brief recess in order to be able to read this. Everyone had an opportunity to read it, Mr Panday had an opportunity to read it and consult. He has confirmed the correctness of each and every bit that's contained in this statement, it's really not necessary to read through it. It is part of the record, I would request you to simply highlight what you need to or add if there's anything not there, please.

MR DEHAL: Thank you, Sir.

Mr Ndlovu, in your application for amnesty, on page - well the Zulu aspect I think would be, perhaps I should get the English aspect first, on page 13 of the bundle in paragraph 10(b) which is contained on page 6 of the original documents, you mention that you were arrested, detained, shortly after the death of Victor and that you were badly treated whilst in detention. You say that the police arrested you and assaulted you every day. It was in 1989 during the state of emergency, that you did not admit to them that you had committed the crime, because had they known they would have simply killed you. You remember that?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, I do remember that.

MR DEHAL: Can you please tell this Committee a little bit about that detention under the state of emergency pursuant to this death of Victor and the difficulties you have, the assault on you.

MR MALAN: Sorry, what is the relevance of the assault?

MR DEHAL: Sorry, just to indicate I think more importantly because of these two statements that were received towards the end, the aspect that links him with the lady who was threatened. And there's a lady whom he will now speak about whose home he was taken to by the police.

MR MALAN: You may proceed.

MR NDLOVU: When I was arrested or maybe let me put it this way, do you want me to relate the story when I was arrested or must I begin from the beginning when I was still working?

MR DEHAL: No, sorry, deal only with the aspect relating to your arrest and where you were taken to a lady's home and the lady discovered that you were being assaulted etc.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps Mr Ndlovu if you can explain - as Mr Malan said, we are fully acquainted with what you have said in this statement which you made to Mr Dehal, copies of which are before us all, in which you set out the circumstances leading up to and including the death of Mr Victor Mtetwa. So now if you could just listen to the questions and then answer the questions and perhaps I'll ask Mr Dehal if he would kindly repeat that last question.

MR DEHAL: Certainly, thank you Sir.

Mr Ndlovu, you recall after the death of Victor Mtetwa, you were arrested by the police and held in captivity, do you remember that?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, I do remember that.

MR DEHAL: Do you recall that you were questioned about Victor's death, but you had not admitted it?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, I didn't admit because I was arrested at about past two to quarter to three. When I arrived in the custody they tied me in a bed, they left me there. And there was also a black policeman who was sleeping in that bed and they woke him up before they left. Before I was questioned the black policeman said to me I am also black, if you did commit this crime and if I do agree to these people that I had committed the crime, they will kill me. So he was advising me not to agree, or deny.

MR DEHAL: Yes, and just briefly, you have confirmed that your arrest - sorry, your assault during your captivity was intense, you were taken to different homes where you were assaulted. In the one case you went to a house where an old lady was present and she actually told the police to stop assaulting you. Do you remember that?

MR NDLOVU: I do remember that because on the night when I was arrested the police took me next to a dam in a place called Esinaymeni. They assaulted me and they continued to assault me until they took me to a place where Mabongi was staying.

The police were taking me to all these places without me pointing to the places and when we arrived and Mabongi's place we found a certain lady, it was at about past eleven, and the lady said to us "He just left after he heard the cars pull in outside". We left Mabongi's place and we went to Bhekisisa's place and they arrested Bhekisisa.

Before we arrived at Bhekisisa, we met Jabulani on the road, who is a brother of Mabongi. They chased him and they arrested him and they started assaulting him. They left him there after they assaulted him because they had discovered that it wasn't Mabongi, but his brother.

Bhekisisa, myself, were taken to a police van and also there was a Toyota Hi-Ace, which was white and green underneath. We were put in the Hi-Ace back or boot and one police said to Bhekisisa that I had agreed that we abducted Victor and we killed him. I realised then and there that the policeman was trying to manipulate Bhekisisa to agree and I told Bhekisisa that I didn't agree. And then the police started assaulting me. ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: May I interrupt, I'm sorry. Mr Dehal, will you please take control of your client and lead him on the relevant information related to his application, not what the police did, accusations of what he did or should have done. We need evidence of what he did in order to qualify for amnesty.

MR DEHAL: He embarked on a lengthy answer, I was hoping to interrupt him but I thought he would stop any moment.

You are not - sorry, you are presently in custody but not in regard to this offence, correct?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, that's correct.

MR DEHAL: In fact, relating to the death of Victor Mtetwa you were arrested and of course all that assault on you took place and then you were released and charges were withdrawn against you.

MR NDLOVU: Yes, that's correct.

MR DEHAL: And whilst you were in detention you were there in detention with Bhekisisa, but Bhekisisa remained behind and the charge had been pursued against him and you understand he's been convicted but you don't know quite of what, is that correct?

MR NDLOVU: No, he was not convicted.

MR DEHAL: I see, thank you.

Now the gentleman, Alfeus Mduduzi Mbanjwa, whose statement was just handed to us a short while ago, you do know him for you worked with him at the Rainbow Chicken Farm, is it?

CHAIRPERSON: Seeing that you've made reference to that statement, Mr Dehal, we'll refer to it as Exhibit B.

MR DEHAL: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: This is the hand-written statement by one, Alfeus Mduduzi Mbanjwa.

MR DEHAL: Thank you, Sir.

Firstly, Mr Ndlovu, you do know Mr Mbanjwa, don't you?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, I do know Mduduzi, but I know him as Mduduzi Shelembe, not Mduduzi Mbanjwa.

MR DEHAL: And you worked with him at Rainbow, did you?

MR NDLOVU: Yes.

MR DEHAL: You and Mduduzi were both UDF members, is that correct?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, that's correct.

MR DEHAL: Thank you. You haven't fully read this statement because it was just handed to us recently, but to the extent that I went through this with you relating to the deceased, Victor, being an IFP man, you and Mduduzi being UDF members and the political state that the country was in then, you confirm that as being correct, don't you?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, that is correct.

MR DEHAL: That is the evidence of the applicant, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just to fully understand you, Mr Dehal, is he confirming the statement of Mr Mbanjwa to be correct, or just certain aspects of it?

MR DEHAL: Perhaps just to rectify, the following is the problem.

CHAIRPERSON: You said you confirm aspects of the statement relating to Victor belonging to the IFP and him and Mbanjwa, also known to him, to the applicant, as Shelembe, being affiliated to the UDF?

MR DEHAL: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Just those aspects?

MR DEHAL: Correct. Sorry Sir, may I just also say that to the extent that he admits on those aspects, it's not as though he's denying the rest of it, it's just that we never had the time to properly go through it. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Panday?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PANDAY: Mr Ndlovu, how long did you work for Rainbow Chickens?

MR NDLOVU: I started working there in March 1988 up until July on the 25th of 1992.

MR PANDAY: Why did you stop working until July 1992?

MR NDLOVU: I was dismissed because of many sick leave forms which I've submitted to my employer.

MR PANDAY: And tell me the victim, Mr Mtetwa, he also worked at Rainbow Chickens, is that correct?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, that's correct.

MR PANDAY: Now was he superior to you in the job place?

MR NDLOVU: I will say he was superior but he was not my superior because he was in another department and I was in the dispensary department.

MR PANDAY: Now Mr Ndlovu, in Exhibit A of your application, on page 1 paragraph 6 you mention that there was a dispute or a problem between the two of you in that he called you an Indian Zulu (I-kulu), is that correct?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, that's correct.

MR PANDAY: Now was this more an insult to your person or to you personally, was this a personal insult?

MR NDLOVU: The name "koelie" was used by the IFP, insulting the ANC because they used to say that ANC members like to perm their hair. They were words which were used by IFP to insult ANC and also they were words which were used by ANC to insult IFP members.

MR PANDAY: Now were these words of such political power for you to threaten to kill the victim?

MR NDLOVU: It is not the words which would result in killing someone.

MR PANDAY: Now what would result in killing someone?

MR NDLOVU: Would you please repeat your question for me.

MR PANDAY: You said that the words won't result in killing someone, what would someone have to do for them to be killed?

MR DEHAL: I think it would be fair to ask him more pertinently "Why did you kill Mtetwa?", in this particular case, otherwise ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, because we know there's many things you know, love triangles, all sorts of motives and if he expresses and opinion it might not really be relevant to this matter.

MR PANDAY: I concede the point, Mr Chairman.

Mr Ndlovu, you threatened to kill Mr Mtetwa, because he called an Indian Zulu. Now it is my submission that this threat that you extended to him was more personal than political. Would you deny or confirm that?

MR DEHAL: Sorry, I'm not objecting to the question, I just think it's factually incorrect because the statement says in paragraph 7 - I think it's because I didn't read it, that my learned colleague is now confining it to the aspects I read. He says in the broader spectrum this had little to do with him, in paragraph 7 -

And then in paragraph 8 he says various political aspects had caused him to go against Victor Mtetwa. Thank you.

MR PANDAY: I think, Mr Chairman, if I may just respond. One has to look at his intent ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, you can ask the question. Mr Dehal was just pointing out that that was, I think - correct me if I'm wrong, that was the start of the problems between the two and then after that as set out in 7 and 8, he formulated further opinions about the deceased. But you can ask the question, Mr Panday.

MR PANDAY: I've forgotten my line of thought there, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: You were saying that the insult was personal rather than political.

MR PANDAY: Mr Ndlovu, the insult by him calling you Indian Zulu, is it correct that this was more a personal insult as opposed to being a political insult?

MR NDLOVU: What I can say is that one cannot be killed because he had insulted someone, but at the time everyone in Hammarsdale knew that those words were used among IFP insulting ANC, like we UDF members, we also had words which we used to insult IFP members. It was more than uttering those words, it was more political.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ndlovu, you also say in your statement that you kept your political affiliation a secret, is that correct? You said in paragraph 4 -

Why then do you think Mr Mtetwa called you I-kulu if he didn't know what your political affiliation was?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, he didn't know that I was UDF or ANC, but the way I was dressed and also the fact that I had permed my hair and also I had a ...(indistinct) and white takkies, we never fought before, but as soon as I approached there and he said to me am I also a "Koelie", and I told him that I didn't like those words and then he said to me that the way I am dressed, it tells him more about me and it also tells him that I am really a "Koelie".

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Mr Panday?

MR PANDAY: Now Mr Ndlovu, the reason I ask you these questions is because my instructions from the family are that the actual reason for the killing of Victor Mtetwa was due to a problem that stemmed at work and it was not because of him being an IFP, because they admit that he was an IFP, the family. It was the problem that you and he had at work and not political. Would you like to comment on that?

MR NDLOVU: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Please do.

MR NDLOVU: We didn't have any problems at work because I was far from his department. If I can estimate a distance between my department and his stores, first it's my department which is the dispensary and then stock control and then packaging ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think we need to know all the departments, but you say it was far away from you?

MR NDLOVU: ...(no English interpretation)

CHAIRPERSON: You didn't work in the same vicinity to each other, day in and day out? In the same office or in the same room.

MR NDLOVU: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Panday.

MR PANDAY: Now if you didn't work in close proximity, how was it possible for Victor Mtetwa to have contact with you and calling you names, how did this become possible?

MR NDLOVU: We were using the same buses and sometimes we will meet in the change rooms, even though he usually didn't use our change room, he was another change room which was a floor above.

MR PANDAY: Tell me, did he only call you an Indian Zulu once, or many times?

MR NDLOVU: It wasn't once because the problem started after he had called me names and then it went on until he started calling me UDF, and also myself I was calling him IFP. It went on. After I told him that I was going to kill him, he also told me that he was going to kill me as well.

MR PANDAY: So based on what you say to us now, that at the end of the day you wanted to kill him because of this name-calling and not because of the political problems that may have existed between the IFP and the ANC.

MR NDLOVU: No, it is not so.

MR PANDAY: So if this name-calling wasn't so important, why threaten to kill him in the first place?

MR NDLOVU: Would you please repeat your question.

CHAIRPERSON: The question was why did you threaten to kill him after he called you I-kulu. It's quite clear from your statement, Exhibit A, that when you argued after he called you I-kulu, at that stage, immediately then you threatened to kill him. That's paragraph 6 on page 1 -

Now Mr Panday is saying, if you now say that the words themselves weren't all that important in the overall scheme of things, he's asking you why did you actually threaten to kill him. - merely for uttering those words.

MR NDLOVU: I think I had already mentioned this before, that he had already described the way I had dressed ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we know why he called you that, but what Mr Panday wants to know is, why did you threaten to kill him because he called you I-kulu. Why did you threaten to kill him?

MR NDLOVU: Him as well, he did say he was going to kill me ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: You've said that, but what Mr Panday wants to know is why did you threaten to kill him. And he's suggesting to you, you threatened to kill him purely because he called you I-kulu, is that correct?

MR NDLOVU: I think I'm now confused in this questioning.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright, perhaps you can ask it again, try some other way.

MR PANDAY: Mr Ndlovu, I'm going to go through it slowly. Do you agree that the name Indian Zulu or I-kulu, you did not like that name? Do you agree?

MR NDLOVU: No.

MR PANDAY: Now Victor Mtetwa called you Indian Zulu, you did not like that, that is correct, right. Now you say that you did not think in the broader sense when you went to kill him and kidnap him, or kidnap him and kill him, that the word Indian Zulu was so important to kill someone. Do you agree with that?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, I did say so.

MR PANDAY: Now if the word Indian Zulu was not that important to kill someone, why did you threaten to kill Victor Mtetwa when he called you Indian Zulu?

MR NDLOVU: I did mention before that the word will not result to losing someone's life, but the problem between Victor and myself didn't end there, he went on describing my clothes. I didn't just say immediately after he called me an Indian Zulu, that I was going to kill him, but I did say on the same time as we were arguing that I was going to kill him.

MR PANDAY: And what else were you arguing about that you threatened to kill him?

MR NDLOVU: Honestly Victor was a Secretary of the IFP, even at work. And also there was a colleague of mine who was a member of UDF, whom police were always after him and they were not in good terms with Victor at all.

MR PANDAY: What did all of this have to do with killing Victor? The police were after your colleague, Victor wasn't after your colleague. Victor was only the Secretary of the IFP. Now what did this have to do with killing him?

MR NDLOVU: The person who had seen to it that police were after my friend, was Victor. This is what Victor himself said.

MR PANDAY: Now Mr Ndlovu, what was your role in the UDF, what position did you hold in the UDF?

MR NDLOVU: In the UDF the position that I held was to be an SDU. Because the reason we were trained was because Mr Archie Gumede had selected us and sent us for the training and some of us went to the training and we were trained and we came back to the community.

MR PANDAY: Now in the community when you came back, who was in charge of you?

CHAIRPERSON: Who was your commander in charge of you? Who did you report to, if anybody?

MR NDLOVU: The late Mandla Khanyile.

MR PANDAY: Now when did Mandla Khanyile die?

MR NDLOVU: If I'm not mistaken, I think towards the end of 1990, because when Mandla Khanyile was killed it was during the last violence of Hammarsdale.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just before you proceed, while you're on that point.

Are you saying then - sorry, when was Victor killed, what year was he killed? 1989?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, in 1989.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying that the ANC or UDF had Self Defence Units at that time?

MR NDLOVU: When Self Defence Units were launched as a Self Defence Unit, we had already had our Defence Unit inside the community, even though we were not calling it the Self Defence Unit before the actual Self Defence Unit.

MR PANDAY: Mr Ndlovu, you said that you were trained by the later Archie Gumede and you were sent to ...(intervention)

MR DEHAL: Selected by Mr Archie Gumede and sent ...

MR PANDAY: ... selected by Mr Archie Gumede and sent for training and you were already an SDU or a trained Self Defence Unit member. Now you said after that you were sent back to the area to protect the community. Now why is there a conflict in your evidence to say that the SDU was still to be formed in the area?

MR NDLOVU: The reason we met with Archie, in 1985 I was already a member of UDF and most people, more especially the youth, ran away because IFP members used to remove us from our homes and force us to go to rallies and meetings and I ran away and some of the youth ran away to Claremont.

And when we met in 1985, we used to meet in a certain house in Pinetown which was called Cosatu House. That's where I was told that we can put our applications so that we go to the military in 121 Battalion in Mtubatuba, and go and train there. And some of them joined power at Escom and they went there for training. They told us we can choose any of these military camps to go and train.

MR PANDAY: Mr Ndlovu, who gave the instruction to have Victor Mtetwa killed?

MR MALAN: Just before you proceed, please Mr Panday.

Mr Ndlovu, in your statement you say in paragraph 2, this is Annexure A, that you were trained in 1986 at the Mtubatuba Command as a soldier in the South African Defence Force, is that correct?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, that's correct.

MR MALAN: So you joined the Defence Force, is that correct? You became a member.

MR NDLOVU: No, I was not a member of the South African Defence Force. There were stages, recruitment and handling of firearms and all I did was to be trained on handling firearms or selection.

MR MALAN: You say you started in March '88 with Rainbow Chickens, where did you work before? Sorry, Mr Panday, I just want to get clarity on this issue.

MR NDLOVU: I never worked before.

CHAIRPERSON: How long were you associated with the South African Defence Force?

MR NDLOVU: I do not remember whether it was two weeks or more than two weeks. I think on my application it was written that on the 2nd of February, but then I received another one before the 2nd of February, that I should come on that 14th of July 1986. I left on the 12th of July, it was on a Sunday, and I started training on the Monday. I think it was on the 13th. I don't remember when I came back. That's when I came back.

MR MALAN: Why did they train you?

MR NDLOVU: Because we had requested that we needed to be trained and also I actually applied to work there, but my aim was not work there but to be trained.

MR MALAN: Who else went with you for training?

MR NDLOVU: No-one from Hammarsdale. Among the people whom I was with, there was no-one from Hammarsdale. On the 12th when I went there it was Mkhandu, Blackie, Makhati Mhlanga.

MR MALAN: Ja, no we don't need those names. Were they IFP supporters or ANC supporters?

MR NDLOVU: ANC. Nkambatini is my home and I was not from Hammarsdale ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: No, you don't have to answer things I'm not asking you, just answer my questions and when you've answered them you can stop talking. How were those people recruited? Did you apply for a job for the SADF, is that what you were telling us?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, I applied for a job.

MR MALAN: And they gave you a job?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, they did accept my application.

MR MALAN: And you were paid because you were now a soldier at the SADF.

MR NDLOVU: No.

MR MALAN: Now the other people - what did they train the people in, tell us a little bit about the nature of the training. Did they simply show you R4 rifles and tell you how to shoot? Is that your evidence? Or what did they do?

MR NDLOVU: When we arrived there we were divided and we were grouped into small groups of 40, 40, 40. I was under alphabet G and that alphabet G was Golf Company and A was Alpha. I was under G Group and it was the 40 of us. First days we were to see the doctor ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: Please listen to my question again. I simply asked you what did the training consist of, what did they teach you? Did they teach you to shoot, did they hand you a gun and show you how to shoot?

MR NDLOVU: I was taught to dismantle the gun.

MR MALAN: Yes, and what else?

MR NDLOVU: And also to carry heavy sacks and we went to the airport.

CHAIRPERSON: Did they teach you to shoot? To use a gun.

MR NDLOVU: Yes, they did.

MR MALAN: Now when was that done, on the first day, on the second day or after a month or after three months?

MR NDLOVU: During the first week. I think on Thursday, that's when they gave us the guns, on our fourth day there.

MR MALAN: Now how many months did you stay with them?

MR NDLOVU: I think it was about two weeks, between one week and two weeks.

MR MALAN: And then how did you leave, why did you leave after two weeks?

MR NDLOVU: I actually thought that I was well-trained.

CHAIRPERSON: What did you do, did you just leave yourself, just walk away from it, desert, or did they tell you to go or what - under what circumstances did you leave? That's what Mr Malan wants to know.

MR NDLOVU: I was not told. Usually they will tell us in the morning that if one didn't like to stay there anymore he can board one of the cars there and they will drop in town and they will give him a ticket and he can go back home.

MR MALAN: Then lastly. When Mr Gumede had you selected for training, why didn't you tell them that you had been trained?

MR NDLOVU: The only person who knew how to speak to Mr Gumede was Mandla Khanyile or among us we will send Mandla Khanyile to speak to Mr Gumede, but it wasn't any of us that can speak to Mr Gumede.

MR MALAN: Then on this point, you were asked in your amnesty application, questions 8(a) and (b), whether you were ever a member of the Security Forces, now you say you did take a job there, why didn't you tell us about this?

MR NDLOVU: When I was preparing my application I was being helped by a policeman and also the fact that I didn't even have the Force number because they didn't employ, they employed me and then I left before I qualified or before I started working for them. Therefore I didn't even have the Force number.

ADV SANDI: Just to come back to the realities of your application, Mr Ndlovu, tell us in a nutshell why was Mr Victor Mtetwa killed.

MR NDLOVU: The reason which led to the death of Victor Mtetwa was that he was the Secretary of the IFP and also that he was an informer of the police, informing about the UDF members.

ADV SANDI: How did you know that he was an informer of the police?

MR NDLOVU: I've mentioned before that there was a colleague of ours who had been chased by police all the time and he told me that Victor was an informer.

ADV SANDI: Did he tell you why he thought Victor was an informer?

MR NDLOVU: Would you please repeat your question.

ADV SANDI: That colleague of yours you've just talked about, did he tell you why he thought Victor was an informer?

MR NDLOVU: Even though we were close, myself and this colleague of mine, he told me outside work, not at work.

ADV SANDI: This colleague of yours, does he have a name, what is his name?

MR NDLOVU: Happy Dlomo(?)

ADV SANDI: Why did he think Victor Mtetwa was an informer?

MR NDLOVU: Happy was a guard or a security guard at work, he was responsible for searching us. When I started working in the Rainbow farm, he was already there and I didn't know that Happy was a trained UDF member. Even though I don't how IFP members contacted each other, but I knew that we as UDF members we didn't reveal openly but later I knew that Happy was a trained UDF member.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Panday?

MR PANDAY: Mr Ndlovu, before we went onto the lengthy testimony on your Defence Force application, it is correct that since 1985 you were a UDF member. Now you accept that the SADF was the then apartheid government's organisation, do you accept that?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, I do.

MR PANDAY: Now if you were against the government and the policies of the government which made you become a UDF supporter, why is it that you joined the SADF, which was a government organisation?

MR NDLOVU: The only objective was to be trained, not to become a soldier.

MR PANDAY: And isn't it correct that you could have been trained by Archie Gumede who was recruiting people for training?

CHAIRPERSON: I think on this, Mr Panday, we seem to wasting a very lot of time on this Defence Force. He said that they were told by people at Cosatu House to go and join and they obviously knew that this sort of system worked. You could go there for two weeks and get a free instruction on how to lug heavy weights and put arms together and shoot them. So they took use of that, then only after that Mr Gumede came. He didn't know when he went to the Defence Force that some time in the future he would be selected to do training anywhere else.

MR PANDAY: Mr Chairman, the point is that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Is it disputed that he went to the Defence Force?

MR PANDAY: Well one would dispute it in the sense, Mr Chairman, that he's an active UDF member since '84 ...(indistinct - no microphone)

MR MALAN: Your microphone.

MR PANDAY: ... being active from '84, he would have already known by now that you could have obtained training from the UDF itself. Now there's no basis for joining the SADF to substantiate.

CHAIRPERSON: Well he said that they were told at Cosatu in Pinetown to do that. You can argue that he was never a member of the Defence Force, if you feel that there's good argument for that.

MR DEHAL: And Mr Chairperson, there's no evidence to suggest that if you're a UDF member, however active, that you would know you can be recruited for training.

CHAIRPERSON: Anyway let's leave this for argument I think.

MR PANDAY: Mr Ndlovu, you mentioned that Mandla Khanyile was your commander, when the question was put to you, now for you to have gone and killed Victor Mtetwa, would he have to have given the instruction?

MR NDLOVU: Since there was Happy at work, I was going to tell Mandla about Victor because Mandla didn't know anything about Victor. Because the decision to kill Victor was not taken on the very same Tuesday when we argued.

MR PANDAY: Now did Mandla eventually decide that Victor must be killed?

MR NDLOVU: The decision that Victor should be killed was taken on Wednesday after I submitted my sick leave. On Tuesday I went to see the doctor, Dr Hitchcock and the following day, on Wednesday evening, because our shift was from five in the morning until two in the afternoon, Mduduzi Shelembe and Skadla Magubane and Mkipeni Moli Zuma, they came and these are the people who told me that at work Victor didn't report that I had submitted a sick leave, but he said that we ANC members were going to resign to just leave work, as I had already done.

MR PANDAY: Mr Ndlovu, my question to you is simply, did Mandla Khanyile make the decision to kill Victor Mtetwa? He was your commander, did he make the decision to kill Victor Mtetwa?

MR NDLOVU: Yes.

MR PANDAY: Now I'm going to refer you to Exhibit A, page 2. You say in paragraph 10, you mention that Victor was identified as a legitimate target. The comrades in the area decided on a plan to eliminate him. Who are the comrades you refer to?

MR NDLOVU: I'm referring to Mandla Khanyile and them.

MR PANDAY: Mandla Khanyile and who else?

MR NDLOVU: Mandla Khanyile, Mabongi, Thiza Ndlovu. After discussing the matter with these three I knew that the decision was taken and it was final.

MR PANDAY: And do you still maintain that the killing of Victor Mtetwa was because he was an IFP supporter and not that he insulted you?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, because he was a member of IFP and also he was an informer.

MR PANDAY: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have any questions, Ms Thabethe?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETHE: Yes, Mr Chair, I do, thanks.

Mr Ndlovu, as a point of clarification, on paragraph 6 you ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Of what, the application or the statement?

MS THABETHE: Of the name I-khula, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - no microphone)

MS THABETHE: Sorry Annexure A, sorry. Paragraph 6 of Annexure A, sorry Exhibit A. I realise on the second line there that is I-kula, Mr Chair, not I-kulu.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that I-kula?

MS THABETHE: Yes, Mr Chair.

MR DEHAL: My apologies.

MS THABETHE: No problem.

It's meaning is - it's a Zulu word for Indian, is that correct?

MR NDLOVU: Yes.

MS THABETHE: It doesn't mean Indian Zulu, correct?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, when one says I-kula, it means Indian.

MS THABETHE: Now you would agree with me that in the 1989s/'88, people used to be referred to as Indians or Coloureds when they had curly hair, because of the perm that was in fashion then.

MR NDLOVU: Yes.

MS THABETHE: Not necessarily because they belonged to ANC, correct?

MR NDLOVU: No, it is not so.

MS THABETHE: What do you mean ...(Zulu), are you agreeing with me?

MR NDLOVU: No, I disagree with you. The name I-kula was used by IFP members insulting members of the ANC.

MS THABETHE: I put it to you, Mr Ndlovu - this is just for clarification, I put it to you Mr Ndlovu, that the name I-kula or a Coloured person, was a name that was used for any person who had permed hair, irrespective of which political organisation he belonged to.

MR DEHAL: Mr Chairperson, I can't see on what basis this could be, there is no evidence ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Anyway she's put it - I think you put the point across that you've said that it is ...

MS THABETHE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I think we won't certainly be able to make a finding on this unless we get some sort of expert evidence on it. We as a Committee won't find one way or the other, it's the first time we know about it. But we know it's in dispute.

MS THABETHE: Mr Chair, it was just for clarification that I-kula was not a word that had any connotations to any political organisation.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, of which the applicant disagrees with you.

MR DEHAL: My only difficulty was that when she used the word "put", we all understand in rule of law, "put" is based on - when you put something it's based on evidence. I don't think Ms Thabethe has any evidence for it, nor is she an expert to testify in that regard. I understand it's clarity.

MS THABETHE: Mr Chair, I don't need to be an expert on this, I lived in KwaZulu Natal, I am talking about something I knew.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think if we can carry on with the cross-examination, we won't get into this debate now.

MS THABETHE: Thank you, Mr Chair.

In your evidence Mr Ndlovu, you've indicated that you were involved in the kidnapping of the deceased, is that correct, and not in the killing of the deceased?

MR NDLOVU: Yes.

MS THABETHE: Why were you not involved in - why didn't you participate in the killing of the deceased?

MR NDLOVU: In those circumstances I am actually blaming Mabongi, because at that time the police were already looking for Victor. When we left the area of Bhekisisa with Victor, Mabongi and then arrived with him in that house.

MS THABETHE: Maybe I didn't put my question correctly. You see in paragraph 9 of Exhibit A, you indicated you informed them that you wanted to kill Victor Mtetwa at the taxi rank, and then your evidence is that you abducted Victor Mtetwa. My question is - maybe let me start by asking, what was your intention when you abducted Victor Mtetwa?

MR NDLOVU: I was going to kill him but not there, I was going to take him to Pinetown and kill him in Pinetown. He was killed there before he arrived to Pinetown.

MS THABETHE: So would you say you are associating yourself with the killing that eventually took place, or you disassociate yourself?

MR NDLOVU: I do associate myself with everything because the people who actually killed him, they didn't know him, I'm the one who showed him to them.

MS THABETHE: Thank you - no, Mr Chair, I haven't finished.

I'm coming back to the implicated persons. The deceased was working with you, Fineas or Skadla was working with you, correct?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, that's correct.

MS THABETHE: Now Mduduzi Mbanjwa denies his involvement in the planning and in the killing of Victor. It's on paragraph 7 of Exhibit B, which is his statement. What is your response to that denial?

MR NDLOVU: ...(no English interpretation)

MS THABETHE: Sorry, it's my mistake, I mean Fineas Mbanjwa.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, also known as Mduduzi Shelembe to the applicant. He says in paragraph 7 of his statement -

That's what Mduduzi says. Whereas you in your application form for amnesty, page 14, paragraph 11(b) say in response to a question -

... you include Mduduzi Shelembe. He says he wasn't in any way involved, what do you say to that?

MR NDLOVU: Mduduzi was working in the receiving bay together with Moli, Zuma, Nkepeni. He's the one who brought all these other persons in my house on Wednesday.

CHAIRPERSON: So do you still maintain that he was involved in the planning of the murder of Victor? Because he says he wasn't.

MR NDLOVU: Yes, I still stand by that.

MS THABETHE: Also in his statement, Mr Mbanjwa indicates that the fact that the deceased was an IFP member and he was the Secretary of the IFP, was not an issue, they used to visit each other. How come was it an issue to you?

MR NDLOVU: Would you please repeat your question.

MS THABETHE: I'm saying, Mduduzi Mbanjwa who was also a UDF member like yourself, has given - in his affidavit he indicates that despite the fact that the deceased was an IFP member and the Secretary of the IFP, they still visited each other, there was no enmity between the two of them. My question is, how does it come about that that was an issue to you, when it wasn't an issue to another UDF member or other UDF members?

MR NDLOVU: Mduduzi is a resident in 1 and 2 and I'm a resident in 1 and 4, near Victor's place. I wouldn't link what he said and what he did ...(intervention)

MS THABETHE: Thank you, Mr Chair, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Also in his statement, Mr Mbanjwa whom you know as Shelembe, says that he was never your friend and he was never involved in any operations with you and that he didn't make friends with, who he refers to "youngsters", and he always associated himself with elderly people. That's paragraph 13 of his statement. He says he was never involved in any operations with you and you were not his friend, what do you say to that?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, he was not my friend but they came to my home, not because he was my friend, he only came to my home to report about what Victor had done at work, not that we were friends.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you finished, Ms Thabethe?

MS THABETHE: Yes, Mr Chair, thank you.

MR PANDAY: Mr Chairman, before Mr Dehal re-examines, if I may just put ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PANDAY: Mr Ndlovu, when Ms Thabethe, the Evidence Leader, put to you that I-kula referred to one who had a perm and that people should call them Indians, you denied that by saying no, it was a political connotation, is that correct? And not just ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, he agreed that it was with people who - it did refer to people who had perms in their hair, but he said it also had another connotation and the IFP used it as a form as insult. So he didn't deny what Ms Thabethe said about ...(intervention)

MR PANDAY: Mr Chairman, the point he made is that he took it in the sense to it have been a political connotation and ...(indistinct - no microphone) in question.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR PANDAY: Now Mr Ndlovu, you maintain that the word I-kula referred to your political affiliation, now my question to you is that in paragraph 7 of Exhibit A, line 1 reads as follows -

Now you firstly maintain that the word I-kula is of political connotation and that's why you took offense.

MR DEHAL: Sorry, can I just apologise, that's an error on the part of my draughting. I think just being an Indian myself, knowing ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: No, just a second, may he answer first and then ...

MR DEHAL: Well I thought myself duty bound to place what I consider.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying the drafting should be I-kula?

MR DEHAL: Indeed.

CHAIRPERSON: So we substitute the word "Indian" for "I-kula".

MR DEHAL: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think it is going to affect your question is it?

MR PANDAY: Mr Chairman, the problem we're going to have is that this entire dispute, the entire application brought, the issue that will decide on amnesty is whether the applicant acted politically or out of personal vendetta.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR PANDAY: Now my problem is that if we're going to continue correcting an affidavit which was sworn, attested and the truthfulness and correctness was attested to in the beginning of the Inquiry, and that is why Mr Chairman's brother, Mr Malan, asked that the correctness be attested to.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but I think you're misreading. My understanding was that the word, the Zulu word, correct me if I'm wrong, that the word I-kula means Indian. Now we have in paragraph 7, the English word Indian, is it not the same as I-kula?

MR PANDAY: That point is conceded, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: So that's what I'm saying, go ahead with your question, it makes no difference. If he wants to change the word Indian to mean I-kula, it's not going to change anything at all.

MR PANDAY: I concede, Mr Chairman, but my point wasn't going to revolve around the word Indian.

Now Mr Ndlovu, you maintain that the word I-kula you took political offense to the word, because it identified you as to which party you belonged, is that correct?

MR NDLOVU: I saw it as a political insult because we didn't just stop there, we argued further.

MR PANDAY: Then why in paragraph 7 do you merely indicate to me being called Indian was not an important factor?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, it wasn't such an important factor, but then it went on 'cause I also told him that why he must stop calling me I-kula and then he went on and said that because he had realised that I was ANC and also he had realised so because of my clothing.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Panday.

Now let's assume that he did say that, what's the problem with that? Weren't you proud of being ANC? Why should somebody who says you are ANC, make you want to kill him? If you are an ANC and you're proud of the fact that you're ANC, why would that make you want to kill him? If you went to somebody and said you're IFP and that person who you were speaking to was in fact IFP, why should that give him motive to kill you? I can't understand it.

MR NDLOVU: It was because at the time the UDF was in constant trouble. If they were to know that you were a UDF member, you'll be in trouble or maybe sometimes you'll be killed. That's why we all kept it as secret and we all knew that even if you were to be killed, you were not going to reveal other UDF members.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I understand now. What you're saying is that by him calling you an ANC, you took it to be some sort of implied threat against your safety.

MR NDLOVU: Yes, I mean that.

MR MALAN: Just before you proceed. And yet in the same paragraph you continue to say that with time you forgot about it and you ascribed it simply to his sense of immaturity. You don't say that this escalated, you say I forgot about it. Why did you say that? This is paragraph 7 of the statement that Mr Dehal drafted after having consulted with you.

CHAIRPERSON: Last sentence.

MR NDLOVU: Yes, I did put it out of my mind after that, but after a while it came back to me and I thought that he might kill me because at that time when we had that altercation no-one apologised to the other.

MR MALAN: Mr Panday?

MR PANDAY: Mr Ndlovu, tell me, when you were working at the Rainbow Chicken, did you have curly hair?

MR NDLOVU: My hair was permed at the time.

MR PANDAY: I put it to you that one, your political affiliation was a secret, nobody knew of it and two, that Mr Mtetwa was merely calling you an Indian because you had curly hair, a perm, and he himself didn't know that you were ANC, as you put it to this Commission.

MR NDLOVU: That is not correct.

MR PANDAY: Nothing further.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have any re-examination, Mr Dehal?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DEHAL: Yes, thank you Sir.

Mr Ndlovu, inasmuch as you have mentioned that you have forgotten the term I-kula as being defamatory and insulting and hurting to you, is it correct that in paragraph 8 of your statement - look at paragraph 8, Exhibit A, you say that -

MR NDLOVU: That is correct.

MR DEHAL: And then in our statement - just to deal with those, you say -

Do you remember that?

MR NDLOVU: That is correct.

MR DEHAL: And then what you mentioned about him being an informer, you deal with in the next sentence. You say -

That is correct.

MR DEHAL: And then most important you then say -

Do you remember saying that? Is that correct?

MR NDLOVU: That is correct.

MR DEHAL: And then you conclude in that paragraph saying that -

MR NDLOVU: That is correct.

MR DEHAL: You ascribe such deaths to Victor Mtetwa, or do you not?

MR NDLOVU: Some were killed because of him because of his place of employment he was able to move in that area where a few ANC people lived.

MR DEHAL: Yes, then in paragraph 10, the annunciation is that Victor Mtetwa was identified - do you see that, identified as a legitimate target and that the comrades in your area decided on a plan to eliminate him, is that correct?

MR PANDAY: Sorry, Mr Chairman, just a point of order here. I think what's being merely put before this Commission, what's in the affidavit, there's some direction in the re-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think this ...(intervention)

MR PANDAY: ...(indistinct - no microphone) matter any further.

MR DEHAL: Sorry, I gathered that but I'm leading up to something else, sorry.

And then under cross-examination you mentioned that the comrades here refers to Victor - sorry, Mandla Khanyile and two others. Do you remember that?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, I do.

MR DEHAL: So based on this, would you agree that the killing of Victor Mtetwa was not just because of the I-kula incident, that you had by then forgotten. The broader spectrum was that Victor Mtetwa was this activist in the IFP ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: ...(indistinct - no microphone) Alright, continue Mr Dehal.

MR DEHAL: No, sorry, I'm just reiterating his evidence, it's not my opinion, with respect.

MR MALAN: No, you ask him whether he agrees with you, I mean that was his statement, that's what he said.

MR DEHAL: No, there was - I'm re-examining, there was much cross-examination about, from Mr Panday particularly, that the death was purely as a result of the I-kula thing and I'm just ..(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, carry on, Mr Dehal.

MR DEHAL: Thank you, Sir.

Mr Ndlovu, the question is this, the killing of Victor Mtetwa was not purely because of the I-kula word, you had by then much forgotten about that and in the broader spectrum, Victor Mtetwa was an activist in the IFP, whose activity caused the deaths of many people, correct?

MR NDLOVU: That is correct.

MR DEHAL: Now arising from Ms Thabethe's questioning, if Victor Mtetwa was not killed that day and you were on your way to the room where you found his body, had you found him alive would you have killed him in the pursuance of your earlier decision to execute him?

MR NDLOVU: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just while you're on that, Mr Dehal.

You said in your evidence that your actual intention was to take him to Pinetown and kill him in Pinetown, that's what you said, yet in paragraph 9 of Exhibit A you say - and I'm reading the last sentence of that paragraph -

Why do you say in your statement you wanted to kill him at the taxi rank but in your evidence you say well, you wanted to take him to Pinetown?

MR NDLOVU: The taxi rank is in Pinetown because from work at Rainbow, he will travel to Pinetown and from there to Hammarsdale. Therefore we would have boarded the same taxi with him from Hammarsdale and attack him at Pinetown taxi rank.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, okay, thank you. Mr Dehal.

MR DEHAL: Thank you.

Mr Ndlovu, sorry I've got an interpreter behind me from my offices who told me that when you were questioned by Mr Panday about how would you have made contact with the deceased, Victor Mtetwa, you mentioned some things about change room which were interpreted, but in addition you said you also travelled with him in the same bus. Did you ever mention that, or am I incorrect? That part about the same bus was not interpreted, that's why I'm raising it with you.

MR NDLOVU: Will you please repeat that question.

MR DEHAL: Sorry, do you remember being questioned by Mr Panday about your version that you had not made contact with Victor Mtetwa because he worked a distance away from you within Rainbow, and how could he then have mentioned I-kula to you, you said well, you did make contact with him on occasions in the change room because you shared the same change room, remember that?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, I do remember.

MR DEHAL: Did you also travel on the same bus?

MR NDLOVU: We would use one car sometimes because there were many vehicles belonging to the company, so you could use any.

MR DEHAL: Yes. You were questioned at some length about how you got to know that Victor Mtetwa was indeed the IFP activist you say he was. Your answer was to the effect that you were informed about this and you dealt with Happy Dlomo, who was a UDF man and a security guard at Rainbow. Do you remember that?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, that is correct.

MR DEHAL: Now it is your evidence that you and the comrades in the UDF or SDU, had identified the deceased as a legitimate target, was there any intelligence gathering work done to establish the authenticity of this information that Victor Mtetwa was an informer, that he was an IFP Secretary and all the other aspects that you talked about, namely that Victor Mtetwa caused the deaths of various comrades etc?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, we did take action in that regard.

MR DEHAL: Sorry, bear with me Sir. That is all, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Malan, do you have any questions you'd like to ask?

MR MALAN: I will try and contain it to a few, Chair.

Mr Ndlovu, in your application on page 11 of the bundle, under 99(a)(iv), that's the bottom of the bundle, and I'm referring now to the translated version, you say -

Is that correct, did you highjack the taxis?

MR NDLOVU: That is correct.

MR MALAN: And you transferred him from one taxi to another by force you say, when read on page 12. Is that correct?

MR NDLOVU: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Now if you look at your statement Exhibit A, paragraph 13, at the bottom of page 2, you describe there in paragraph 12 how you waited. And 13 then you say when he boarded the taxi there was only place for him and you got to another taxi and you asked him to follow that taxi and then you say, the second-last line -

Is that true?

MR NDLOVU: That is true.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, so where ...

MR MALAN: Now which one is true, did you pay for the taxi or did you highjack the taxi? Or did you pay for the taxi after you had highjacked him? How do you explain this?

MR NDLOVU: The taxis were parked at the rank and I paid the driver for him to leave the taxi rank. We only highjacked the taxi when we came to a Masikane stop.

MR MALAN: Why did you pay for the first taxi?

MR NDLOVU: For the reason that he should leave the rank, because at that point there were many taxis parked there. And I had also informed him, lied to him, that the taxi that he was supposed to follow had my personal belongings in it.

MR MALAN: Can I take you back to your application. Your application form, you say -

This is question 9, page 11.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just before you proceed, Mr Malan.

What is Webber? Where is Webber?

MR DEHAL: May I help? It's a shopping centre.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Is that the shopping centre near the Rainbow Chicken Factory, Chicken works?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, it is.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Sorry, Mr Malan.

MR MALAN: You say that you - paragraph 9(a)(1), you abducted and killed Victor Mtetwa. Nature and particulars, you talk about the highjacking and the transferring by force and then under (b) you say -

Do you see that? You say -

... on page 13, and then you talk about the arrest and the assault and you couldn't admit. Nowhere do you say that you didn't actually kill him, or am I misreading it? Why did you not tell us in your application that you were not responsible in any direct way for the killing of Mtetwa?

MR NDLOVU: As I mentioned before, when I filled the form I was with a prison warder. I explained everything to him and he was the one who advised me on what to include in the form because the form itself was not very clear.

MR MALAN: Is your answer that the prison warder told you not to tell the Truth Commission that you did not physically kill Mtetwa? Is that what you're saying?

MR NDLOVU: No, he did not say so but I encountered(sic) the whole incident to him and because there was not enough space, the form did not have enough space, I did not include that, because I knew I would be granted an opportunity to come and explain it myself.

MR MALAN: There was circulated an investigation report and just for the record Chair, we may refer to this as Exhibit C.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that would be C.

MR MALAN: According to this report you were visited by an Investigator of the Amnesty Committee, Sheila Mkhize, did you receive such a visit?

MR NDLOVU: Yes.

MR MALAN: Did she ask you to make a statement, because she says she did?

MR NDLOVU: When she addressed me she informed me that I could opt whether I want to make a statement to her or either that I make one when I appear before this Committee.

MR MALAN: And then you did give an explanation to her, is that correct?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, I did.

MR MALAN: Now she reports that you said to her that you were at your place of residence when the victim was murdered and you did not know who the responsible person was. I refer you to the second page, it's the last sentence in paragraph 3 on the second page of this report. Did you tell her that you were at home and you don't know who killed Mtetwa, and if so, why?

MR NDLOVU: No, I did not tell her that. What I said to Ms Mkhize was that I was present when he was kidnapped and also when we got to the township and also from the spot where we were before he was taken to be killed.

MR MALAN: You said earlier that you wanted to kill him at the taxi rank, why didn't you kill him at the taxi rank when you got there?

MR NDLOVU: It was for the reason that he did not go to Pinetown because he tried to catch a taxi to Pinetown, but he did not get one, so he went to board a taxi to Mpumalanga Township.

MR MALAN: Yes, but I understood you to say that you intended killing him at the taxi rank, not on a taxi but at the rank. Wasn't that your decision? Isn't that what you said you wanted to do?

MR NDLOVU: Let me just explain. From the moment that he did not board the taxi to Pinetown, maybe you'll understand me better ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: Now I have read that, I have read that he waited for one taxi, the taxi didn't arrive, then he changed his route to Hammarsdale, you followed him. I know all that, but I'm saying in your statement you say -

Now I want to know what made you change your mind, not to kill him there?

CHAIRPERSON: In other words, why didn't you kill him at the taxi rank in Mpumalanga?

MR NDLOVU: We are known to a lot of people in Hammarsdale, but Pinetown is a big town and there aren't many people who know us. So after he had alighted from the taxi we would follow him and attack him there. But we are well-known in Hammarsdale.

MR MALAN: When you were questioned by Mr Panday about the reason for the killing of Victor Mtetwa, you said that he was IFP and that he was an informer to the police and that you were so told by another colleague of yours, the guard at the gate. I've forgot his name for the moment. Dlomo, the guard at the gate who searched you. In re-examination you were referred by Mr Dehal to paragraph 9 of your statement as additional reasons for killing Mtetwa.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - no microphone)

MR MALAN: Sorry, I - ja. It's not too clear, my copy. Paragraph 8. Where you said -

That was also under cross-examination tendered.

Now tell us about this. Who did he identify who got executed?

MR NDLOVU: It was Cebu. I do not know his surname, but he came from our area. As well as Happy Dlomo, who they could not successfully attack.

MR MALAN: Are these the only two?

MR NDLOVU: Yes.

MR MALAN: Right. Then you continue, you say he was an informer to the police, that you also said under cross-examination, and to his seniors in the IFP, one would have expected it. Then you've continue and you say -

The cause of death was -

Now you gave us only two names, who are the other in these "many"?

MR NDLOVU: These that I've mentioned were direct hits, but he was behind the attacks that were carried out in the township because he was the one person who was able to move around the township. He was the person central to IFP attacks on the township.

MR MALAN: May I just quickly take you back to the statement of Mr Mbanjwa or Shelembe, as you refer to him, who denies his involvement, where he says he regularly visited Victor Mtetwa, that he, Mbanjwa or Shelembe, was a UDF member, Mtetwa was an IFP member. Now why did he not live in constant fear? Is he lying when he says he visited Mtetwa?

MR NDLOVU: I cannot say it with certainty that he is lying because it is quite a distance from Mr Shelembe's home to Victor's house.

MR MALAN: He also says he never suspected Victor or being a perpetrator, or the perpetrators were later arrested he says. This is paragraph 6. He talks about the deaths. He never suspected Victor. Did you ever discuss this reign of terror of Victor Mtetwa with Shelembe?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, we did discuss it on a Wednesday with Mr Shelembe.

MR MALAN: Now why was he not scared of Mtetwa, why did he visit him?

MR NDLOVU: From what I heard from the Investigator, Ms Mkhize yesterday, she said Victor and then are afraid that they are going to be arrested or prosecuted. This statement by Mr Shelembe also puzzles me.

MR MALAN: Did you say you met Ms Mkhize yesterday?

MR NDLOVU: That's correct.

MR MALAN: Where was this meeting?

MR NDLOVU: Just outside.

MR MALAN: Alright. Thank you, Chair.

MR DEHAL: Sorry, may I just come in here.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Sandi?

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry.

MR DEHAL: ... at that stage. It comes to me that a great surprise that this meeting took place yesterday. I don't know how regular it is and I've never known of this ...(indistinct), thanks to Mr Malan that this has come up.

CHAIRPERSON: It says at the top, 24.11.99.

MR DEHAL: I notice that.

MR MALAN: Well to be fair to her again, she didn't refer to that aspect in her statement. I'm referring to Mbanjwa's statement, where I took that information from.

MR DEHAL: Yes.

MS THABETHE: Mr Chair, I also think maybe it - because Ms Mkhize was here yesterday, maybe it was a conversation between her, not necessarily for the record.

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

ADV SANDI: Yes, just one question from me, Mr Chairman, thank you.

At page 14 right on top, when answering the question which says -

You say -

Who were you congratulated by?

MR NDLOVU: I was congratulated by Mdudu Shelembe. It was Mr Mdudu Shelembe. At that point he also was grateful for the fact that I did not mention their names, him and Skadla, when I was being prosecuted.

ADV SANDI: Where and when was this?

MR NDLOVU: When I returned to work, after I had been in the holding cells. That is towards the end of 1989.

ADV SANDI: Who else was there when he congratulated you?

MR NDLOVU: I was welcomed generally at work, so I cannot remember who else was present, but at work they were very pleased with me because in court I denied even having committed the crime.

ADV SANDI: How did he express himself, what did he say when congratulating you?

MR NDLOVU: He called me an ANC comrade and mentioned that if more comrades were like me, the struggle would continue as it should.

ADV SANDI: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

In your statement, Exhibit B, you say that you learnt that Mabongi killed Victor, from where did you learn that?

MR NDLOVU: I learnt of it when I arrived at the scene where Victor had been killed.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you see Mabongi there?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, I found him next to the body.

CHAIRPERSON: And then also on page 15 of the bundle it says in response to a question, question 12(e), you know were you charged in a court etc? Offence in respect of which you were found guilty and sentenced, if applicable and say -

What do you mean by that? Is rape applicable in this matter at all, because I haven't heard anything to indicate that it is?

MR DEHAL: May I assist, Mr Chairperson, he's currently in custody on conviction on a count of rape.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, so this question shouldn't have been answered?

MR DEHAL: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright. Because it just says "if applicable". Thank you. Any questions arising, Mr Dehal?

MR DEHAL: None, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Panday?

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PANDAY: Just one, Mr Chairman. Just upon perusing Exhibit A, it's come to my ...

Mr Ndlovu, tell me which township do you live in?

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct) or now?

MR NDLOVU: Mpumalanga Township.

CHAIRPERSON: At the time, 1989, at the time of this incident.

MR NDLOVU: Mpumalanga Township.

MR PANDAY: And Victor Mtetwa, which township was he from?

MR NDLOVU: Woody Glen in Mpumalanga.

MR PANDAY: And is that close to you?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, it is.

MR PANDAY: Right. Now Mr Ndlovu, what I'm going to put to you is that, it is my submission that your entire action was personal for the simply reason that if one has to look at your affidavit, Exhibit A, and one has to go through the averments, you keep on referring to I did this I did that and only upon cross-examination that you start to implicate comrades and leaders. And I refer you to paragraph 9 of your affidavit, on page 2, where you mention that -

Now this seems to indicate that he didn't know what you were going to do with this pistol, but yet he was your leader. Can you comment on that? Can you give us the answer why you only refer to yourself and not the others in your affidavits?

MR NDLOVU: I'm explaining that Mandla had faith in us because we had been trained and also for the reason that I did not have complete faith in some of the comrades. I informed Mandla about everything before he even issued the weapon to me and he told me that I should not show this weapon to Mabongi because Mabongi himself did not ascribe to the policy of the organisation fully.

MR PANDAY: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabethe, any questions arising?

MS THABETHE: No, no questions, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Ndlovu, that concludes your testimony.

CHAIRPERSON: I think it would be an appropriate time to take the lunch adjournment now. Well, it's twenty past one, we'll take the lunch - unless you want to argue now beforehand. Mr Dehal?

MR DEHAL IN ARGUMENT: Thank you, Sir.

Mr Chairperson and Honourable Members, I submit respectfully that the applicant has complied with Section 20 of the Act and that he has shown his political lineage and despite thorough intense cross-examination, has not faltered in any material respect or at all, in regard to these two aspects, namely his political lineage and full disclosure.

We must look at his application against the background of what truly is the position and namely that he has not been convicted of this offence, he is not incarcerated because of that. In fact it so happens he's incarcerated because of another rape incident.

MR MALAN: Just for record purposes, as a matter of interest, for how long is he still due to be in prison, do you have any idea?

MR DEHAL: May I just find out quickly? Eight years as from 1996, April.

CHAIRPERSON: About five years.

MR DEHAL: Thank you.

So Mr Chairperson, there would be in the circumstances, no motive, no reason for him to lie, there is no adverse consequence in the event of the application for amnesty being refused. He's come to this forum out of his own volition, feeling a sense of guilt in the involvement of the death of Victor Mtetwa. Surely on his own version he's had a very active role to play. He appeared to have been the mastermind for the death of Victor Mtetwa. He orchestrated the death, he went to his senior, the command in chief, found a firearm, talked to the comrades, sought a decision and endeavoured to execute that decision. Unfortunately the deceased came to be killed before he got to the deceased. But his evidence is, with a ring of truth in it, that if the deceased was not executed ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: But I think also on his version there was a conspiracy to kill the deceased, which included Mabongi, and that conspiracy was carried out to the end and in fact Mabongi killed him. I think that makes him a perpetrator yes, on his version.

MR DEHAL: Indeed.

CHAIRPERSON: So we're looking at murder rather than just conspiracy. That's all I'm saying.

MR DEHAL: No doubt. Correctly taken, Mr Chair, it's murder by common purpose.

Mr Chairperson, my submission is that his political lineage is not to be tainted by the fact that he has now made open disclosure about the allegation that the deceased called him I-kula. Within the realm of the broader spectrum of the political gameplay, I-kula was a catalyst that gave rise to many other events. But I-kula, the term itself, wasn't the only basis which served for the applicant to execute a mental intention to kill Mtetwa and then to set the ball in motion to obtain a firearm, seek out Mtetwa and kill him.

I have seldom heard applicants in the nature of this application, who despite rigorous cross-examination has maintained his position. Where on occasions he was questioned about his colleague who has now made the statement which I dare say we all know has only now arrived before us, that statement of Mr Alfeus Mduduzi, two things arise. Mr Ndlovu the applicant, has not had time to reflect upon the contents of this statement or to doctor his version in order to better suit and taylor his own case. As originally submitted without any breaks when he testified, Mr Ndlovu had regard only to a given small aspects of these, confirmed those two aspects which Chair, you raised with me. And when subsequently on cross-examination on questions led by the Members of the Committee, he was questioned about aspects that appear anomalous, aspects that appear are contradictory, aspects that appear lastly in conflict with the material aspects of his own application. The applicant said yes, I don't doubt what Mr Mduduzi says, what he says is correct, but he says it for different reasons, I say it for other reasons. And he maintained that on and on. ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, before you proceed, Mr Dehal, I didn't know if I'd asked. Are you calling any witnesses, Mr Panday? I'm sorry.

MR PANDAY: No, no, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabethe?

MS THABETHE: No, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: I think when I was about to adjourn when we had finished his evidence, then it was decided to argue and I didn't put that and if you wish to call any witnesses, please feel free to do so. Thank you, you may continue.

MR DEHAL: Thank you, Chair.

Sorry, just two aspects in addition. The political lineage has not been contested at any level. There has been, as I said, aggressive ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it's never been suggested that he wasn't UDF or ANC aligned.

MR DEHAL: And additionally, the inference that his political association with the UDF/MK etc., was not - or sorry, may I put it differently, that the death of Mtetwa was not a political event, was never contested at any level, meritoriously or at all, with any weight.

CHAIRPERSON: It was contested quite vigorously by Mr Panday, who asserts that it was a personal grudge, the grudge arising from a work related incident.

MR DEHAL: Sorry, wrong choice or word, forgive me.

Indeed it was contested in cross-examination. My submission is that Mr Ndlovu has not in any way fallen under cross-examination on that point, he maintained his political aspect, he maintains that Mtetwa was killed as a result of a political agenda and it wasn't a personal grudge. He maintains this strongly, he asserts it correctly. And however much the cross-examination went in ...(indistinct) routes, he came back to the point that it was always a political agenda.

I think the repetitious cross-examination and various other questions about the I-kula aspect, brought out of context the general killing as per the evidence of Mr Ndlovu, he however took it out of that context but simply for the purpose of full disclosure, dealt with the I-kula aspect.

As to the full disclosure, my submission is that he's talked about I-kula, he's talked about his involvement in a matter in which he's been arrested, charges withdrawn, not convicted, he's come here of his own volition, on motive, no desire, no reason to lie, and has made full disclosure.

I could deal at great length in regard to each of the aspects dealt with in the evidence, but I think that's common cause. I leave that in your respectful hands. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Dehal. Mr Panday?

MR PANDAY IN ARGUMENT: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman, one wonders why the applicant would now come and seek amnesty, he's got nothing to loose, he's got nothing to worry about. I think one must take cognisance of the record, the charges were withdrawn. Withdrawn doesn't imply an acquittal, it is merely to state that until the State has further evidence, they may elect to charge the applicant further.

Now I think it has been established that the applicant has five years to complete his current sentence. The risk is that if in the event substantial evidence is now obtained, I think it is common cause that one knows that, and a charge of murder does not prescribe ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it's quite clear. I mean there's the possibility that charges could be laid at any time.

MR PANDAY: Yes, the charge for murder doesn't prescribe and by then this Commission would have seen its day and over, and what next to the applicant? He now faces a charge of murder.

It has been submitted that there has been no faulting of the applicant in terms of his evidence, in terms of him being politically motivated. That is correct, one may even accept that he was in the UDF, he was part of some struggle, but then the issue that was contested was, was his act against Victor Mtetwa, political or personal.

Now it is strange that he was the only UDF member who felt threatened, he was the only UDF member that realised of the attacks on other ANC members like UDF members. We've had a statement being submitted by a Mr Shelembe, as the applicant refers to, and he denies such activity. In fact he goes so bold as to say that there was a good relationship between the victim and himself ...(intervention

CHAIRPERSON: Why would Mabongi have killed the deceased?

MR PANDAY: Mabongi? Now that Mr Chairman, one can't seem to realise as to why he becomes the implicated person. As to why he carried out the act, one doesn't even know, he hasn't been convicted on this matter. There's no evidence to indicate that anyone has been convicted.

CHAIRPERSON: It doesn't seem like there's been - well there may have been a trial because he says that Bhekisisa was a acquitted but that might be a withdrawal or it might have been a trial.

MR PANDAY: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: But we've got none of that before us.

MR PANDAY: Now Mr Chairman, it's my respectful submission that whilst my learned friend Ms Thabethe, tried to give the Committee an indication as to what the word I-kula meant, it was vigorously opposed in that she may not be an expert. But one mustn't lose sight as to what the meaning of the word is.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I think it's quite clear, and I don't think it was disputed, I think it's quite clear that, and it's common cause that the word means, is used to refer to people with permy hair. Now we don't know whether some people might have used that word as a derogatory sense in a particular area or not. I mean a Pansy refers to a flower and if you use it, certain people use it in certain circumstances, it might not mean a flower but might be a derogatory word. You know what I mean?

MR PANDAY: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So it's common cause that what Ms Thabethe says is the meaning of the word, that is so. I don't know if Ms Thabethe or anyone here can say well, if that word was used in that context at that place, at that time, it was derogatory or not. That's what I meant by expert evidence as to the meaning.

MR PANDAY: I concede the point. But Mr Chairman, if one takes the word I-kula in context with the manner the applicant conducted his political association, he distinctly points out in Exhibit A, that his political affiliation was a secret. Now the only inference that can be drawn is that for one to have referred to him as, or used the word I-kula on him, would merely have referred to him as being Indian and not associating him with any political party. And it is quite evident from his affidavit, he continuously refers to I did this, I, and only upon cross-examination does he then seek to implicate others. To ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: He implicates others in his statement here, he says Mabongi killed him. In his application form he says, he implicates Mduduzi and all those people.

MR PANDAY: If I may rephrase that. He seems to ...(indistinct) that there people took the decision as to how or whether Victor Mtetwa would have to be killed and he implicates Mandla Khanyile and two others.

Now Mr Chairman, it is my submission, respectful submission that whilst one may not be able to contest that the applicant was a political activist, it is my respectful submission that his actions and the aggression directed towards Victor Mtetwa was not politically motivated and such was merely as a personal vendetta that carried through, and he now tries to use a political basis to seek amnesty, thereby safeguarding himself from future prosecution.

ADV SANDI: But where is the evidence as the basis for that submission?

MR PANDAY: Mr Chairman, it was submitted that the family is of the opinion that this was a personal vendetta. It was put to the accused and the accused in his paragraph 6, indicates that there was a personal, or a name-calling that had taken place, and maintains that this at first was not reason enough to kill someone. And it is subsequent to establishing the victim's political history that that actually led to his killing.

ADV SANDI: Ja, but isn't there a problem here because there was no evidence to that effect, evidence that was subjected to cross-examination? We only heard the evidence of the applicant.

MR PANDAY: I concede the point, Mr Chairman. But as I said it was put in that my instructions were and the families of the victims would not have been able to take it any further, but to merely ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: It's common cause that that word was used. I think that's common cause, the applicant admits it in fact. In fact it was raised by the applicant, the applicant introduces the word.

MR PANDAY: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabethe?

MS THABETHE: I have nothing further to add, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Dehal, any reply?

MR DEHAL IN REPLY: Just two things, Mr Chair. The statement of Mr Shelembe was simply handed in, no evidence was called in that regard. I submit the evidential weight to be attached to that statement, any aspects that arise, must be as minimal as any. It has not been tested. If Mr Shelembe were called I would have cross-examined him at length on aspects ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: We understand the evidential value of it, Mr Dehal.

MR DEHAL: Thank you. Likewise on that basis, it must be accepted that this application stands largely uncontested by evidential weight from the opposition, by respondents or witnesses called and therefore any objection is based purely on credibility emanating from cross-examination. To that extent that applicant's application remains, apart from cross-examination, uncontested.

I submit that the application has been well-founded, he has made a case and it should be granted. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. We'll reserve our decision in this matter and we hope, like the other matters, to get it out as soon as possible.

We will now take the lunch adjournment. And then after that, Ms Thabethe, we'll be commencing with the Khanyile matter?

MS THABETHE: Yes, Mr Chair.

MR DEHAL: Chair, may I seek an indulgence, it will take 30 seconds. I have two matters left. The Mafu matter, we have not received a bundle and the TRC and I ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think it's on our roll. As far as we know, we haven't received any bundles either. We're rapidly running out of time this week and even if we do receive a bundle, the chances of us getting to that matter seems to be remote.

MR DEHAL: The point that I wanted to make is that this Mafu matter is adjourned by agreement, to the 13th of December.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh is it?

MR DEHAL: And may I just raise this. Gebhu Ngubane, which is on the roll, unfortunately the problem here is that Mr Ngubane had arrived here on Monday, he has some financial problems ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Oh I heard about that, yes.

MR DEHAL: Now could I seek the indulgence to have this matter adjourned to the 13th and I'll talk to the TRC to try and get him available by the 13th.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think if - perhaps the best way would be to work with Ms Thabethe. I don't know what the situation is with the 13th. I know that that week is a short week in that there's a public holiday and then there's a recess after that. So I wouldn't like to order a postponement just for it to be crowded out. I don't know what the state of that roll is. I suggest if you just link up with Ms Thabethe and it may well be able to be set down. We as a Commission obviously would like the sooner the better, to get matters dealt with.

MR DEHAL: Thank you. Could I then be excused because that puts an end to all my matters?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Dehal. I'd like to thank you for your assistance in these matters.

MR PANDAY: Mr Chairman, I'm also involved in the two matters Mr Dehal has raised, but in the circumstances may I be excused until contacted by the TRC?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Panday, I'd also like to thank you very much for the assistance that you've rendered us during this week. Thank you.

We'll now take the lunch adjournment, half-an-hour?

MS THABETHE: Am I not excused?

CHAIRPERSON: No you're not excused, Ms Thabethe.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: We will now be dealing with the next application, that is the application of Mr Khanyile. I would just at this stage like to ask the legal representative kindly to place themselves on record.

MS PADIACHEY: Thank you, Mr Chairman. My name is Ms Padiachey and I represent the applicant. I will be calling the applicant only.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Padiachey.

MR HARKOO: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I am Raven Harkoo, I represent the victims, Sgt Nxumalo and Sgt Zwane.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Harkoo.

MS THABETHE: Thank you, Mr Chair. I am Thabile Thabethe, the Evidence Leader for the TRC. I'm also representing the implicated persons in this matter, they've asked me to assist them.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Thabethe.

FRANK BIGBOY KHANYILE: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Padiachey?

EXAMINATION BY MS PADIACHEY: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

Mr Khanyile, do you recall making an application for amnesty?

MR KHANYILE: Yes.

MS PADIACHEY: And is that the application that was made on the 8th of May 1997?

MR KHANYILE: Yes.

MS PADIACHEY: Mr Khanyile, I show you the application for amnesty, which is pages 1 to page 7, do you confirm having made this application?

MR KHANYILE: Yes.

MS PADIACHEY: And Mr Khanyile, I see that you've also made an affidavit. Do you confirm the contents of this affidavit, which is pages 8 and 9 of the bundle?

MR KHANYILE: Yes.

MS PADIACHEY: Do you confirm that this affidavit is true and correct and that you have not been influenced in making this affidavit?

MR KHANYILE: Yes.

MS PADIACHEY: Thank you, Mr Khanyile. Mr Khanyile, I refer you to this application that you've brought for amnesty and specifically with regards to the incident that you've referred to that occurred in October 1991, at a satellite station in Greytown. Do you recall this incident?

MR KHANYILE: Yes.

MS PADIACHEY: Mr Khanyile, can you perhaps inform the Committee your political affiliations at this time.

MR KHANYILE: I was a UDF supporter. In 1990 there was an ANC branch that was launched so I joined it.

MS PADIACHEY: And what position did you hold in this ANC branch?

MR KHANYILE: I was the Chairperson of the Youth League, ANC Youth League.

CHAIRPERSON: Was this in Greytown, Mr Khanyile?

MR KHANYILE: Yes, in Greytown.

MS PADIACHEY: And Mr Khanyile, at this time who was the Chairperson of the ANC branch for Greytown?

MR KHANYILE: Mr Solomon Mzolo. He's now deceased.

MS PADIACHEY: Mr Khanyile, I refer you to the incident that occurred in the Selagahle township of Greytown, and at the firing at the police station. Can you perhaps inform the Committee why this incident had occurred.

MR KHANYILE: There was ongoing conflict between the ANC and the IFP in Greytown. This continued, but it was discovered that the police aligned themselves to one side, that is the IFP.

MS PADIACHEY: Mr Khanyile, do you have proof or is it an allegation that the police was aligned to the IFP in Greytown at this time?

MR KHANYILE: We did have proof of that because when we were attacked by the IFP, they would be present but they would not be arrested.

MS PADIACHEY: Mr Khanyile, you have noted that there has been ongoing violence in Greytown at this stage, did you or any of your other comrades at this time do anything to assist or to hinder the violence in this area at this time?

MR KHANYILE: What we used to do was to protect our community which was dominated by the ANC.

MS PADIACHEY: Mr Khanyile, you've made this application for amnesty, has there been a criminal charge emanating from this application?

MR KHANYILE: No, I was never prosecuted, except for a firearm that was found in my possession and was confiscated.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, were you prosecuted for that, Mr Khanyile, and were you convicted and sentenced?

MR KHANYILE: I did appear in court for that offence but I was acquitted. It had been found at home.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, before you proceed, Ms Padiachey, if I could just as a question.

You said that you discovered that the police were aligning themselves with the IFP, what police are you talking about Mr Khanyile, are you talking about the South African Police or KwaZulu Police, or both?

MR KHANYILE: It was the SAP, but there were others who were reserves and belonged to the KwaZulu Police.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Padiachey, you may continue.

MS PADIACHEY: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

Mr Khanyile, you've indicated that you've been acquitted of possession of a firearm, is that correct?

MR KHANYILE: That's correct.

MS PADIACHEY: And during the course of making this application for amnesty, were you aware that there was no charges against you in this matter?

CHAIRPERSON: That is the attack on the police station.

MR KHANYILE: Please repeat your question.

MS PADIACHEY: Are you aware Mr Khanyile, that there have been no charges against you on the attack on the police station?

MR KHANYILE: Yes, I am.

MS PADIACHEY: And Mr Khanyile, why in fact did you make your application for amnesty?

MR KHANYILE: The reason why I submitted that application it's because of the situation from the area that I come from, also for the reason that I am remorseful for the act because it happened in the course of the political conflict between those two organisations.

MR MALAN: Sorry, may I ask, is it not also because of the fact that there was a call from leadership that you do make application, that everybody makes application if they had anything to tell?

MR KHANYILE: Yes, I was coming to that, that even in the media and everywhere else the leaders were calling for anyone who had committed a political offence, to come forward because it could be that you may be prosecuted later. That is what occurred to me, that I may also be later prosecuted in the Greytown area for that offence.

MS PADIACHEY: Thank you, Mr Khanyile. So would it be correct to say that you made this application of your own free will?

MR KHANYILE: That is correct.

MS PADIACHEY: Mr Khanyile, I refer you to the attack on the police substation, that is the South African Police sub-station in Greytown in October 1991. Were you - it is said from your affidavit that you were part of this incident, is that correct?

MR KHANYILE: That is correct.

MS PADIACHEY: And that you have shown remorse to the families, or you would like to inform the Committee that you in fact are seeking reconciliation with regards to this incident that has occurred. Is that correct?

MR KHANYILE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Could you tell us about the attack, who took part and how it went.

MR KHANYILE: During the fights that we had with the IFP, the police would be with the IFP and they would not even arrest them. At some point our Chairperson was attacked five times at his home.

After a while the Chairperson called a meeting of the youth and it was attended by boys only. He asked us if we are aware of the attacks that are being launched by the IFP, in collusion with the police because the IFP were never arrested and their cases were never followed up. The Chairperson then informed us that we should protect ourselves. And the police would be with the IFP and they would shoot at people in broad daylight.

After the meeting he called me and informed me that I should go keep guard because my home was close to the IFP stronghold, so he instructed me to go keep guard or go and keep watch over there. He said we should go and intimidate them or try to alarm them by going and shooting in their area because there had been information received to the effect that they came from that area to attack us. On another day we organised that we would go there and then shoot in their direction.

MS PADIACHEY: Mr Khanyile, when you and these other people had accompanied you to shoot at the substation in Greytown, what was your aim and what was your motive of going to shoot there, apart from explaining to them or trying to show them that you were still strong?

MR KHANYILE: We were following an instruction from the Chairperson that we should towards their direction, shoot at them to show them that the ANC are alive and well in the area. In that way they would be intimidated and they perhaps would stop their campaign of attacking us.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Khanyile, sorry to interrupt. Who selected that particular police station as a target?

MR KHANYILE: It was the Chairperson, Mr Mzolo.

CHAIRPERSON: He mentioned that there should be shooting at the police station?

MR KHANYILE: Yes, he said we should go shoot at that police station because information had come that the IFP warlords or some of the attackers came from the police station. Because that police station did not work as it should as an ordinary police station.

CHAIRPERSON: What were you armed with?

MR KHANYILE: We were armed with AK47 rifles. I was carrying an HMC.

CHAIRPERSON: HMC, that's a hand machine-gun?

MR KHANYILE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MS PADIACHEY: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

Mr Khanyile, when you attacked this police station and you had in your possession an HMC machine-gun, did you in fact shoot with this gun towards the police station?

MR KHANYILE: Yes, I did.

MS PADIACHEY: Are you aware of anyone being injured at this police station, whilst you were shooting?

MR KHANYILE: I did not know at the time, I only learnt of it after a few days, that somebody had been injured.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Ms Padiachey, just while we're on this.

So you went outside the police station and just shot at the building or did you go inside the police station and shoot at the people behind the charge desk, what was the situation, Mr Khanyile?

MR KHANYILE: The police station was next to the road, there was a house also nearby, that is where we were standing.

CHAIRPERSON: So you just shot from the outside, you shot at the police station building?

MR KHANYILE: Yes, we were outside in a house that we were hiding in and we were directing our shots towards a police vehicle that approached at that time, and also towards the building itself.

MS PADIACHEY: Mr Khanyile, this police station that you were firing at, was it a building made of bricks or was it made of, was it a caravan, a substation?

MR KHANYILE: It was made of something that looked like masonite.

CHAIRPERSON: A prefab building.

MR KHANYILE: Yes, I would say so.

MS PADIACHEY: Mr Khanyile, when you had fired at this police station, were shots being returned back to you?

MR KHANYILE: Yes, as we were firing we heard gunshots coming from the police station but then at the time we were fleeing. I did not know who was firing, whether it was the people who were in the vehicle or whether it was the people inside the building.

CHAIRPERSON: Was this during the daylight or was it night-time?

MR KHANYILE: It was at night.

MS PADIACHEY: And Mr Khanyile, when it was at night, how long do you think the shooting happened, how long did it occur, how long did it last?

MR KHANYILE: It was about 10pm, but we did not take long, it couldn't have been more than five minutes. Because we were on the alert that maybe some policeman could emerge from the building and start shooting at us.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you know any of those policemen personally, that may have been there or not or was it just an attack on a police station, or were you having any particular policemen in mind?

MR KHANYILE: Actually we had not intended the attack on a specific person but we were just shooting at the police because they also used to shoot at people in broad daylight.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Ms Padiachey.

Sorry, how large was your group that went to attack? How many - you say "we"?

MR KHANYILE: I think there were about four or five of us.

MR MALAN: Sorry, you gave the names of Buthelezi, Khune, Mgadi and Mzila and yourself, that's five.

MR KHANYILE: Yes.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MR KHANYILE: It was not all of us who were armed with a firearm, one person was not armed with such. If I'm not mistaken.

MR MALAN: And that was Mgadi, according to your statement.

MR KHANYILE: Yes.

MR MALAN: Yes, thank you.

MS PADIACHEY: Mr Khanyile, your attack on the police station and taking into account the violence in the Greytown at this stage, would you say that your attack was intentional and that you wanted to perhaps see that someone would be injured at that stage?

MR KHANYILE: It was not our intention to injure or to kill someone specifically, but it was to intimidate them and to make them aware that they ANC are alive and well. But somebody could have been injured because we were shooting in that direction.

MS PADIACHEY: Or someone could have died, you accepted that?

MR KHANYILE: Yes, it could have happened because that person would have been hit by a bullet, but it would not have been an intentional, our intention to go out and kill a specific person.

MR MALAN: Yes, thank you.

MS PADIACHEY: I have no further questions, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Padiachey. Mr Harkoo, do you have any questions you'd like to put to the applicant?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HARKOO: Yes, thank you.  Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Khanyile, you've mentioned that the attack was on the police station and that you were not sure whether the return of the shooting had come from the police vehicle or from people in the building.

MR KHANYILE: Yes.

MR HARKOO: You were aware that there were people in the building at that time, is that correct?

MR KHANYILE: There were people who resided at the police station, because there had been information to the effect that the police were harbouring IFP youths in there.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, when you went there Mr Khanyile, were the lights on, were there lights on or was it dark, as if it was either empty or if there were people inside, they were asleep?

MR KHANYILE: Some areas were lit and some were dark.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Harkoo.

MR HARKOO: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Khanyile, just to clarify the issue. This satellite police station, is it true that it was basically a full-fledged police station that was operating?

MR KHANYILE: I would not say that it was fully operational because for instance you could not lay charges there, they will tell you to go to town. They were there just to watch and guard over what was happening, that is the violence between the ANC and the IFP.

MR HARKOO: Yes, but there was a charge office there, isn't that so?

MR KHANYILE: Yes, there was.

MR HARKOO: And there were admin offices there as well, is that correct?

MR KHANYILE: I would say there were offices and there were people working in those offices and there were holding cells as well.

MR HARKOO: Yes, there were holding cells and there were also barracks where some of the policemen stay overnight, isn't that correct as well?

MR KHANYILE: I only learnt of the barracks now recently, but there would be police at the time. I do not know whether they slept there overnight or not.

MR HARKOO: You see, I'm trying to establish Mr Khanyile, precisely when this attack that you are referring to took place. My instructions are that in October '91, this police station was not completed at that stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, by that Mr Harkoo, what do you mean? It was there but they were still working on it or it was uninhabitable because it hadn't reached the stage of completion to be habitable? Do you have any detail on that or not?

MR HARKOO: My instructions Mr Chairman, is that the station was virtually completed but it was not operational. There was a bit finer finishes to be still done, like painting and so on, but it was not operational.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. What do you say to that, Mr Khanyile?

MR KHANYILE: I would not be in a position to really dispute that because I did not keep guard over what was happening, every detail that was happening in the police station. But there was a policeman at that station because there was a Sgt Mzolo who used to be there. When you came to the office to lay a charge, he would direct you to town. They also had a police flag. There were several offices and they had a dog unit as well. So I'm not in a position to dispute or admit to what he is saying.

MR HARKOO: Yes, you see my instructions Mr Khanyile, is that shortly thereafter, this particular police station was - although it was referred to as a satellite station, was in fact a full-fledged and operational police station. That was sometime in '92. Will that be correct?

MR KHANYILE: I am not in a position to say whether that is correct or not, but what I recall was that that police station had been set up to try and take action about the violence that was prevalent in the area.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Harkoo, if I may just intervene.

When did the attack take place?

MR KHANYILE: In 1991.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you remember the date?

MR KHANYILE: I do not remember the date but it was after the May 5 incident where there was a huge war between the ANC and the IFP in Greytown. On that day there was war and this attack was carried out in 1991. That is what I can remember.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I don't know - just looking at the file Mr Harkoo, just on this point, I see there's a Sgt Zwane who says that it took place on the 28th of October 1991 and then I see in another - that's on page 15, and then I see on another, somewhere else it says that "During April 1992 there was an attack on a police station but no-one was injured."

That might have been a different attack. That's page 17, also by Zwane.

MR HARKOO: Yes, Mr Chairman. I think for the record, the name is Harkoo, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm sorry, Harkoo. Sorry, Mr Harkoo. Yes, but the applicant says he's not sure but he says it was in 1991.

MR HARKOO: I'm trying to establish, Mr Chairman, precisely when the attack took place. The reason being is that there appears to have been - well my instructions are that there were in fact two attacks, one some time in October 1991, where my clients, the victims, were in fact injured at that attack and one ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: The April one where no-one was injured.

MR HARKOO: ... and the April one where no-one was injured. And also in '91 there were no arrests and at that point in time the station was not operational.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

You've heard that Mr Khanyile, apparently there were two attacks or at least two attacks that we know of on that police station, according to Mr Harkoo's instructions. One was in October '91 and one was in April '92. You don't know when you attacked whether you injured anybody or not. Mr Harkoo wants to establish exactly which attack you were involved in. How do you know that you were involved in the attack in which two people were injured, as you say in your application? Perhaps that might lead us to it.

MR HARKOO: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR KHANYILE: I was involved in the 1991 attack. I heard about the attack in 1992, because I was still the Chairperson of the Youth League at that time. But that 1992 incident is a separate incident that I was not involved in. The one that I was involved where I shot, was in 1991.

MR MALAN: May I just interrupt a moment. Mr Khanyile, will you have a look at page 2 of the bundle, which is your application which you confirmed. You look at 9(a)(ii). When you applied you said you think the date was '92, April or March. Isn't that more probable if you say the station was operational and you went there, there was a police flag and you could go there, there was a charge office, there were administration offices? Are you sure it was '91, couldn't it have been '92, as you originally told us?

MR KHANYILE: What I remember clearly, the incident that I was involved in is the one on which two persons were injured. It may be that I'm mistaking the date because of the time that has elapsed, but when I was involved in that attack two people were injured. It could be that I made a mistake when I wrote down the date but if the victims who were injured remember it as 1991, it must be.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it seems from the record - sorry, Mr Malan, from the record, page 20 which is a notification from the Greytown Police, that the October 91 incident in which Sgts Nxumalo and Zwane were injured. So think that's quite clear. Because they were injured in the October 1991 incident.

MR KHANYILE: Yes.

MR HARKOO: That is true, Mr Chairman, except that the remainder of the facts that I've looked at from the papers and from what has been said, appears to be consistent with the '92 attack.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, carry on Mr Harkoo, ask questions on it.

MR HARKOO: Mr Khanyile, whilst we're there on that issue of the date of the attack, you also mentioned on page 5 of the bundle that at that point in time, that the incident occurred around March or April 1992. So it was the second time that you've mentioned that. Is that correct?

MR KHANYILE: I will reiterate that I may have made a mistake because at the time that I made this application I was not in a state of good health, but the incident involving the two people who were injured had everything to do with me, I was involved in that incident. Maybe the 1992 that is recorded in the form is a mistake.

MR HARKOO: Okay. When did you hear of the two persons being injured? When did you get to know that there were two persons injured in the attack?

MR KHANYILE: Maybe on the following day. It was the following day in the afternoon. I heard that they were injured but they did not die.

MR HARKOO: You see when you were asked by Members of the Chair your reasons for your application, you mentioned that among other things, that you were remorseful and it was a call from leadership but also that you were concerned that you may be prosecuted. Is it not true that your main reason for your application is that you are concerned that you may be prosecuted now?

MR KHANYILE: There are many reasons that I can state before this Committee, but I will not touch on that because they do not link to my application. But as I said before, the leaders made that call to all the branches, that everyone who was involved in the violence of the past should come out and seek amnesty. They also explained that if you did not apply for amnesty, you could be in trouble if it is found out that you were involved in an offence.

Also I wanted to reconcile with the people who were injured on that day. I would like to meet them, reconcile, so that we can get on with our lives. And also be granted an opportunity to apologise to them, more so for the reason that they did not know who had committed that offence. I decided that I should come out because even where I come from I'm still not in a safe situation. That is why I also decided that I should come out in the open before maybe somebody else points a finger at me.

This is why I took this opportunity to come out in the open because the situation in Greytown was very bad. There were people who were killed in Greytown on the 5th of May, by the police, and no-one was arrested for that incident.

Even up to these days the police are not doing their job properly as they should. I would like to work with the police hand-in-hand to eradicate crime. That is the major reason why I am here. Being prosecuted is just one other reason that is not major, but I am here because I took part in the struggle and I should come out in the open. And this has been troubling me because I do not even go to church anymore because I know of these acts.

Sometimes I meet one of these persons and I talk to them and in the meanwhile they do not know that I am responsible for that attack on them. These are just the reasons that prompted me to come forward and state my role in the violence that was prevalent in 1992 in Greytown.

This is not a court of law, so I cannot state a lot of reasons why I come forward for amnesty. Three months ago I was nearly killed in Greytown for the reason that somebody alleged that I was a member of the UDM. So I know that I committed this crime and I should come forward and state my case.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Harkoo.

MR HARKOO: Whilst I appreciate the other reasons, it is also important that this Committee hears exactly what happened. Now what I want to ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: Mr Harkoo, may I just ask. Do you have any opposition to the application? You haven't given us an indication. Is the application being opposed?

MR HARKOO: My instructions, Members of the Chair, is that my clients would want to establish the extent to which the applicant is being truthful about the facts and then they would elect whether or not to give evidence in this matter.

MR MALAN: The reason why I'm asking this is, we have rather extensive information in the bundle, he has now extensively given information again, repeating and adding to what transpired and I don't want us unnecessarily to cover ground that will not have a bearing on the outcome of this application. If you would try to restrict then to what really is relevant, I'll appreciate it.

MR HARKOO: As you so please. I will just put now to the applicant what my clients have indicated to me.

Mr Khanyile, my instructions are that there were in fact only ...(indistinct) people at this satellite station ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I didn't get that, there was a cough. Two people or three people?

MR HARKOO: Sorry, I said three people. That was the two persons who were guarding the station at the time and the driver a police vehicle that came to fetch him and that at no stage did anybody fire back at those that attacked the station. What do you have to say to that?

MR KHANYILE: With regards to the number of the people at the police station, I do not bear knowledge thereto because I did not go inside. But I was just following the instructions from my commander, that is to go there, shoot at the police station for the purpose of intimidating them so that they do not continue with their campaign.

MR MALAN: And the second part of the question, of the statement for your comment, that there was no shooting back at you?

MR KHANYILE: I did hear shots and it was coming from the direction of the police station. There are houses that were close to the police station, but there was a sound of gunshots that came from the station, from the police station. That was the reason why we also started to flee. I cannot say if they were the ones who were actually doing the shooting, maybe there were other people in the vicinity of that police station, who could have been firing at us. But I did hear somebody returning fire in our direction.

MR HARKOO: Mr Khanyile, my instructions are also that there was nobody arrested in connection with this incident, what do you have to say to that?

MR MALAN: I think that's common cause, Mr Harkoo.

CHAIRPERSON: Was anyone arrested or not?

MR KHANYILE: No, no-one was arrested.

MR HARKOO: I have no further questions, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabethe, do you have any questions you'd like to ask?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETHE: Yes, Mr Chair, on behalf of the implicated persons.

Mr Khanyile, as I've indicated that I've got some instructions from implicated persons and some questions that I've been instructed to ask you. My first question is, you've indicated that Mr Mzolo instructed you, who was the Chairperson, my question is, did you relate well, were you in good terms with Mr Mzolo?

MR KHANYILE: We were on good terms with Mr Mzolo, but that finished in 1993 or 1994. It could be that you heard that from somebody who may have seen things differently, but at that time we were on good terms. And I'm aware of when that changed, our good relationship changed and why it happened.

MS THABETHE: Yes because my instructions are that you were not in good terms, but you've clarified that so I'll move on.

MR KHANYILE: They were just using that information because up to his death, people were saying that we are not on good terms. There are many issues relating to Mr Mzolo and the organisations that I do not want to get into. What I would like to concentrate on is the incident that happened at the police station.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we would also appreciate that but we're not stopping you from asking questions. The question was, at the time you were - the answer is, at the time you were on good terms with Mr Mzolo, that changed later.

MR KHANYILE: Yes, that was just before his death.

MS THABETHE: Let me move on. My other instructions are that you were not a well-known member of the ANC and also you were someone who was very much involved in criminal activities and you were in and out of jail. Would you like to comment on that?

MR KHANYILE: I will put it clearly that such talk does not trouble me because that is what they always say and I'm aware who the individuals ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but there's been that allegation, what do you say to it? That you were often in trouble with the law and you were in and out of jail and you were involved in criminal activities.

MR KHANYILE: What I can say is that it happens to anybody who is still growing up.

CHAIRPERSON: So you're not - I was just wanting to understand, you're not denying that?

MR KHANYILE: I was once arrested but it was not that I was in and out of prison.

MS THABETHE: Also, my instructions are that the people you claim that you were with, that is Jacob Buthelezi, John Khunene, and just for the record, Myboy Mgadi, his surname is not Mgadi but Xaba, X-a-b-a, and also Mlungisi Mzila, also his surname is not Mzila, it's Madlala, M-a-d-l-a-l-a. These people deny that they were there, they were involved in this incident. What is your comment to that?

MR KHANYILE: I will put it clearly, they are lying. I would not just pick on them and implicate them falsely. I have witnesses who can attest to the fact that they were present.

MS THABETHE: How were the people who were going to attack the police station, selected?

MR KHANYILE: Comrade Mzolo instructed me to target people and I then informed Jacob Buthelezi about this. That was after the meeting at Mr Mzolo's home. After I had informed him of the people I was going to take, he directed me to people who had firearms because the ones I had picked did not have firearms. And that is how we all went there.

MS THABETHE: My last question. I've also been instructed to find out from you that if all of you were involved in this incident, why didn't you inform your co-perpetrators that you had decided to apply for amnesty? That's a question I've been asked to ask you.

MR KHANYILE: I appreciate your question. The reason for not telling them was because I assumed that as loyal comrades they had every responsibility to do so because it was broadcast all over ...(intervention)

MS THABETHE: Can you slow down for the interpreter because what you are saying is important.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, you started talking while the translation was still on. Will you just repeat what you said.

MS THABETHE: No, I was asking him to slow down because what he's saying is important, that the interpreter is not catching up. Just for him to slow down.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, Mr Khanyile, you said that you assumed that as loyal comrades they would apply. Carry on.

MR KHANYILE: Yes, they did not need to be told by somebody else. I would also like to emphasise that when Mr Mzolo died in 1994, I was taken to comrade, that is myself and another comrade, on a voter registration course. When I returned from Johannesburg, Jacob Buthelezi and somebody else enquired as to why I was selected to go to Johannesburg because I was alleged to have killed Mr Mzolo for that position. So from that time onwards we were no longer on good terms. Everybody in the township knows that I am not on good terms with them and people are aware of the reasons thereof. I have been labelled many things, a UDM member and an informer. I know that I am now digressing from my application, but I was implicated in the death of Mzolo falsely.

Secondly, I was also labelled an informer for the same police station. That is, I had informed on the people who attacked the police station in 1992. And now I've been labelled a UDM member. These events all indicated to me that I should come to the Truth Commission because I am being implicated falsely for crimes that I have not done. There was even a threat of war at the township because of these issues I've just stated.

MR MALAN: You know I think it's clear, Mr Khanyile, at the time of your application the UDM was not existence yet, so that's not an issue.

MS THABETHE: Thank you, Mr Chair, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Thabethe. Ms Padiachey, do you have any re-examination?

MS PADIACHEY: No, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Sandi, any questions you'd like to ask?

ADV SANDI: No thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan, any questions you'd like to ask?

MR MALAN: No thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Khanyile, that then concludes your evidence in this matter, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Padiachey, you indicated earlier that you were only going to call Mr Khanyile, have you changed your mind?

MS PADIACHEY: No, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Harkoo, do you wish to call any witnesses?

MR HARKOO: No, I do not wish to.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabethe, do you wish to call any witnesses?

MS THABETHE: Just one, Mr Chair. I'm calling Jacob Buthelezi.

CHAIRPERSON: Could you make some arrangement for where he will be sitting. Perhaps it might be possible if Mr Harkoo could just move a bit to his right, bring up a chair and - we can get a chair from below there and then the witness that you will be calling can come and sit next to Ms Thabethe.

Ms Thabethe, which person are you calling?

MS THABETHE: I'm calling Jacob Buthelezi, he is one of the implicated persons, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

VUSIMUSI JACOB BUTHELEZI: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Buthelezi, what are your full names please?

MR BUTHELEZI: Vusimusi Jacob Buthelezi.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Thabethe.

EXAMINATION BY MS THABETHE: Thank you, Mr Chair.

Mr Buthelezi, do you know the applicant as a member of the ANC or a comrade?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes.

MS THABETHE: You heard what he says about the fact that you were involved in the attacking of a police satellite, what is your response to that?

MR BUTHELEZI: That is not true.

MS THABETHE: Why do you say this?

MR BUTHELEZI: For the reason that I was not present when the police station was attacked.

MS THABETHE: So why would he say you were there if you were not there?

MR BUTHELEZI: The information that the police station was going to be attacked was received by myself. I was with Johannes Nene, Mlungisi Madlala, Martin Mamabothe(?) and myself.

MS THABETHE: And what happened?

CHAIRPERSON: I mean he said he wasn't there and he only heard about it later. So what happened when?

MR MALAN: No, I thought he said - the translation said he received the information that it was to be attacked.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright.

MR MALAN: Can I just get clarity on this.

Did you have knowledge of a pending attack before the attack was executed?

MR BUTHELEZI: No, it was Mr Khanyile who informed us about it.

MS THABETHE: What did Mr Khanyile say to you?

MR BUTHELEZI: He came to the people I've just mentioned and he said we should go and attack the police station and we refused because we were keeping guard, then he left with some people, one of them was Geneza Zungu.

MS THABETHE: Are you in good terms with the applicant?

MR BUTHELEZI: We have never quarrelled.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, before you proceed, Ms Thabethe, if we could perhaps just clear up the one point.

When was this that you, you say Mr Khanyile came to you and said ... going to attack the police station and you refused. Can you remember the date? If you can't remember the date, can you remember the month and the year? If you can't remember the month, can you remember the year?

MR BUTHELEZI: I am not in a position to remember because the situation was such that we did not always keep in mind what was happening. There was too much happening in the township.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Thabethe?

MS THABETHE: Thank you, I have no further questions.

MR MALAN: Just before you - sorry, Chair.

You said you were with, if I heard you correct, Khunene, Madlala and Mamabothe. I didn't get a note of Mgade's real surname.

MR BUTHELEZI: Xaba.

MR MALAN: Who is this Madlala? Oh, that's Mzila. And Mamabothe, who is Mamabothe?

MR BUTHELEZI: Dumakude.

MS THABETHE: D-u-m-a-k-u-d-e.

MR MALAN: Who is he?

CHAIRPERSON: Who is Dumakude?

MR BUTHELEZI: We were sitting at his house when Mr Khanyile arrived.

MR MALAN: And you said he went with other people, do you know who the other people are, their names of the people that then went with the applicant?

MR BUTHELEZI: He was with one person, it was Geneza Zungu.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Padiachey, are there any questions you would like to put to Mr Buthelezi?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PADIACHEY: Mr Buthelezi, you've indicated that you do not know of the incident that has occurred, that the applicant has now made application for amnesty, that is correct?

CHAIRPERSON: He didn't quite say that, he said that he wasn't involved in it. He said that he was asked to go and attack but he refused. I don't know whether he knows that there was a subsequent attack or not but he didn't take part.

MR BUTHELEZI: That is true.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you later hear of an attack on a police station, after Mr Khanyile had spoken to you and you say he left with Zungu? Did you later receive a report that the police station had been attacked?

MR BUTHELEZI: I heard on the following day, because in the Greytown area there was a lot of gunshots that went off during the day, so I only heard about it the following morning.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Ms Padiachey.

MS PADIACHEY: Mr Buthelezi, this attack that you're referring to that you heard about, would this attack relate to the application that we have here before the Committee?

MR BUTHELEZI: Please repeat that question.

MS PADIACHEY: The attack that you are referring to that occurred, that you heard about from Mr Khanyile, would that attack be the same attack that we have here before the Amnesty Hearing?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, it is.

MR MALAN: I wonder, may I just ask.

Did you hear - when you hear about the attack, did you hear whether anybody was injured?

MR BUTHELEZI: No, I only heard about it recently when I received a letter of notification.

MR MALAN: So you never knew that - you did never know that somebody had been wounded?

MR BUTHELEZI: No.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MS PADIACHEY: I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Harkoo?

MR HARKOO: I have no questions, Mr Chairman, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan, any questions. Mr Sandi?

ADV SANDI: Is it the position here that you were not as such opposed to the attack that was being proposed to you by the applicant, it is just that you were occupied at the time, you could not go? You say you were busy watching some place. What is the position?

MR BUTHELEZI: We did not intend to attack people. In fact we were not even fighting with the IFP, they would just come and attack us and they would be transported by Hippos. But we were not ones to go out and launch attacks, we were just protecting our homes.

ADV SANDI: I don't understand you, what did you understand to be the position of your organisation regarding attacks on police stations or members of the Police Force?

MR BUTHELEZI: I did not know about that. Maybe it was discussed amongst Chairpersons.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Buthelezi, were you at the time that you say that Mr Khanyile spoke to you about going to attack, a member of the Youth League of the ANC?

MR BUTHELEZI: I was not in the Youth League because I was over age.

CHAIRPERSON: But you were a member of the ANC, or a supporter.

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, I was.

CHAIRPERSON: And Messrs Khunene, Xaba and Madladla, were they also members of the ANC? Were they comrades?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, we were.

CHAIRPERSON: Were any of them members of the Youth League?

MR BUTHELEZI: No, we were old.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying that in that area the ANC or UDF never at any stage launched an attack?

MR BUTHELEZI: No, we did not.

CHAIRPERSON: But we've heard today that the police station there was attacked at least twice, once by Mr Khanyile and then by some other persons unknown. Who do you think would have attacked the police station, if it wasn't ANC or UDF?

MR BUTHELEZI: I would not know because I and Mr Johannes Khunene were in his home because he had an AK47. We would be able to defend ourselves if people attacked us there.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you have an AK47 at your disposal?

MR BUTHELEZI: No, I was searched many times by the police but they never found a weapon on me.

CHAIRPERSON: No, that's not what I'm asking, I'm asking did you have one at your disposal, not whether you were ever caught with a gun.

MR BUTHELEZI: No.

CHAIRPERSON: And Khunene?

MR BUTHELEZI: That was the one AK47 that we trusted.

CHAIRPERSON: Are there any questions arising, Ms Padiachey, from questions that have been put by Members of the Panel, that you would like to ask?

MS PADIACHEY: No, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Harkoo, any questions arising?

MR HARKOO: I have no questions, Chairperson, thank you.

MS THABETHE: No questions, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: No questions arising. Sorry, I forgot to ask, any re-examination that you'd like to put?

MS THABETHE: No re-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Buthelezi, thank you, that concludes your testimony.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabethe, are you calling any further witnesses?

MS THABETHE: No, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that then the evidence in this matter. Ms Padiachey, do you have any submissions to make?

MS PADIACHEY IN ARGUMENT: Yes I do, Mr Chairperson.

Mr Chairperson, it has been stated here before the hearing that Mr Khanyile was involved in an incident that occurred in October 1991. He has stated that he has brought it to the attention of the TRC Hearing, purely on the basis that he wanted to live a truthful life and he wanted to, the community to know at large about the incident that had occurred.

It has been stated by the police that an incident did occur and that they did not know who the culprits were behind the incident. I wish to state that Mr Khanyile has shown that the incident did occur and that he together with other perpetrators were involved in this incident.

I wish also to say that Mr Khanyile's actions were not based purely on gain or out of personal malice, but because of the unrest in Greytown area at this particular time and that the ANC was being fought with by the IFP, who according to Mr Khanyile, was taking sides with the South African Police and the ANC at this time particularly thought that they should take a stand.

I submit that Mr Khanyile's application should be considered and I leave it in the hands of the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Harkoo.

MR HARKOO ADDRESS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

I do not have any submission as such to make, apart to mention that my clients, the victims, are present should Mr Khanyile wish to address them in any form. I leave the rest in the hands of the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

Mr Khanyile, you've heard that, that the two policemen who were injured in the attack are present and Mr Harkoo has indicated that if you wish to meet them, this might be a good opportunity to do so, when we're finished.

Do you have any further submissions?

MR HARKOO: No, thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabethe, do you have any submissions?

MS THABETHE IN ARGUMENT: Briefly, Mr Chair, thank you. I just want to put it on record as well again that the implicated persons deny their involvement in this incident. I can take this fact no further. It's also evident that subsequent to this incident there's been - or from the evidence of the applicant ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, because the applicant says that relationships have deteriorated to the extent of having broken down and Mr Buthelezi on the other hand says they've never had a problem.

MS THABETHE: Yes. Mr Chair, let me proceed. From the submissions of the ANC, it is evidence that it was the policy of the ANC to attack police stations because police stations were perceived as instruments of the apartheid government and they favoured the IFP. I won't dwell on that.

Mr Chair, ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: Sorry, that was not the police according to the submissions in '92, it was earlier. Or do you have other information, because in terms of their submissions I think it was the policy up to 1990, but it was not the policy subsequent to 1990. Certainly not.

MS THABETHE: Mr Chair, I don't have the submissions with me but I remember we had a matter on Monday, where a police station was attacked and I think the incident happened in 1994 and they referred to those submissions you know, so I'm not sure about the dates. But I know it was the policy of the ANC you know.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

MS THABETHE: Mr Chair, I just wanted to make another point as well, that I can't imagine why a person would attack a police station for any personal gain, yes. I just wanted to add that. So I leave it in the hands of the Committee to make a decision.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Thabethe. Do you have any response, Ms Padiachey?

MS PADIACHEY: No, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We will reserve our decision in this matter and hope to hand it down as soon as possible. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr Khanyile.

MS THABETHE: Thank you, Mr Chair. We're proceeding with the matter of Sosibo, which is the last matter on our roll for this week.

CHAIRPERSON: Can we have a five minute break, I think to stretch our legs and divorce our mind from the previous matter, so we can start with a slightly more fresh mind for the new matter. Thank you.

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

CHAIRPERSON: We'll now start with the next matter which is in fact our last matter on the roll, that is the application of Thandankosi Petros Sosibo. I'd ask the legal representatives to kindly place themselves on record.

MS PADIACHEY: Thank you, Mr Chairperson. My name is Ms Padiachey and I represent the applicant. The applicant will only be giving evidence today.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Padiachey.

MS REDDY: Mr Chairperson, I'm Ms Judy Reddy, appearing on behalf of the victims, namely Bongani Clephas Cele and Peaceland Lubanyana, who both will be testifying this evening.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Reddy. Ms Thabethe?

MS THABETHE: Thank you, Mr Chair. I am Thabile Thabethe, the Evidence Leader for the TRC.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

THANDANKOSI PETROS SOSIBO: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Padiachey?

EXAMINATION BY MS PADIACHEY: Thanks Mr Chairperson.

Mr Sosibo, do you confirm having made an application for amnesty on the 1st of May 1996?

MR SOSIBO: That is so.

MS PADIACHEY: And do you also confirm having made an affidavit which is on page 4 and 5 of the bundle?

MR SOSIBO: That is correct.

MS PADIACHEY: Mr Sosibo, I show you this application together with your affidavit, do you confirm the contents of it?

MR SOSIBO: Yes, I do.

MS PADIACHEY: And do you confirm that the information that you have made in this affidavit is true and correct?

MR SOSIBO: Yes.

MS PADIACHEY: Mr Sosibo, could you perhaps inform the Committee whether you've made this application yourself or did someone help you?

MR SOSIBO: I was by myself.

MS PADIACHEY: Thank you, Mr Sosibo. Mr Sosibo, it is alleged and it is proved that you are presently out of prison on a charge of murder and that you were sentenced to 15 years imprisonment on the 11th of November 1987, is that correct?

MR SOSIBO: That is correct.

MS PADIACHEY: And how long thereafter have you come out of prison?

MR SOSIBO: I was released in 1998.

MS PADIACHEY: Mr Sosibo, in this charge that you were convicted of - and you have subsequent to this conviction entered an application for amnesty, could you perhaps inform the Committee why you have done this?

MR SOSIBO: Yes, I can explain. The reason for the death of Mr Armstrong Cele was that there were many instances where he was discovered to be a member of the IFP. He was killed for the reason that he was one of the people who had harassed the community. He was implicated in the death of Nkosinathi Cele and he was also implicated in the damaging of my house, the intention of which was to kill me. For that reason I was convinced that he was an IFP member.

When Nkosinathi Cele was killed I was not really certain, I do not have enough proof of whether he was an IFP member or whether he worked for the police. I say this because he was present when Themba Cele was shot by the police.

And when he was implicated with Wellington Sabelo, who was a member of the KwaZulu legislature, I did not see him at my home but I saw him passing in a vehicle in which he was with Mr Wellington Sabelo and they were pointing at my home. I then realised that he was an IFP member. He also came to home leaving a message that he wanted to kill me after the death of Nkosinathi Cele.

CHAIRPERSON: At that time what was your political affiliation?

MR SOSIBO: I was a member of the UDF.

MS PADIACHEY: Mr Sosibo, at this stage when you were with the UDF, what was your position?

MR SOSIBO: I was the commander of the UDF in M-Section in Umlazi.

MS PADIACHEY: Thank you. And are you presently affiliated to which organisation?

MR SOSIBO: After my release from prison I contacted ANC members and informed them that I was going to abstain from politics for a while.

MS PADIACHEY: Now Mr Sosibo, you've brought this application for amnesty despite having been convicted for a charge of murder, can you perhaps inform the Committee why now you want to inform the Truth and Reconciliation Commission what the truth is about this incident that occurred.

MR SOSIBO: Briefly, the reason for appearing here is that although I have served my sentence, but I would be happy and I would appreciate to meet the family of Armstrong Cele, to apologise to them and explain the reason for his death, so that they also know the reasons behind his death because I am sure they never received full information as to the motive for killing him. I wanted to appear here so that I could explain the reasons for his death as well as apologise to them.

MS PADIACHEY: Mr Sosibo, at the time of this murder of Mr Cele, what was your instructions or what was your motive related to the murder?

MR SOSIBO: Our motive was that at that time it was clear that if we did not kill him we were going to lose many more UDF members in the area, because at the time the UDF was in the minority and IFP was the dominant party.

MS PADIACHEY: And Mr Sosibo, at this time would you say that your actions were unlawful, taking into account the unrest and the political situation of the country?

MR SOSIBO: Please repeat that question.

CHAIRPERSON: I think, Ms Padiachey, he's admitted to the killing, we can accept that it's unlawful. Whether he thinks it was justified in the circumstances, that's another thing but we can accept that it was unlawful. After all, he was convicted.

MS PADIACHEY: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

Mr Sosibo, you have alleged that you have served a sentence for this murder and that you've now brought this application to inform the family the truth regarding the murder of Mr Cele, and you have informed us that he had to have been killed because you were losing UDF members, is that correct?

MR SOSIBO: That is correct.

MS PADIACHEY: Would it also be correct to say that you sympathise with the family of the deceased and that you are remorseful for your actions?

MR SOSIBO: I am hurting very much for that offence because we were are in a different situation in the new South Africa today. I apologise deeply to the Cele family for what happened.

MS PADIACHEY: I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps if we could just briefly get a description of the actual killing, Ms Padiachey.

What role did you play in the actual killing of Mr Cele, Mr Sosibo?

MR SOSIBO: The role that I played was to douse him with petrol in his vehicle. I also put a tyre around his neck.

CHAIRPERSON: Was this - were you acting alone or was there a huge crowd there or was it you and a couple of others?

MR SOSIBO: I would say at the time I was not alone, I was in the company of other people. I would say there were maybe eight but there were other members of the community who did not participate in the actual killing.

CHAIRPERSON: And was the killing the result of a pre-planned ambush, or did it just happen by chance because you came across Mr Cele? What was the situation there?

MR SOSIBO: It was planned.

CHAIRPERSON: And we believe from the papers as well and from Ms Reddy saying that she also appears for another victim besides the Cele family, that somebody else was injured, what do you say about that?

MR SOSIBO: I can say I do have knowledge to the effect that somebody else was injured at that time but that person was not injured by myself. That is why I did not put in, or submit an application.

CHAIRPERSON: That was Mr Lubanyana.

MR SOSIBO: Yes, that was Mr Lubanyana.

CHAIRPERSON: Now from the papers it would appear that the vehicle in which Mr Cele was, was a truck carrying liquor, is that right?

MR SOSIBO: That is correct. He used to sell alcohol, liquor in the township and he would deliver these at different taverns. That was what we knew him to be doing, but after a while we discovered that he was involved in other covert operations in collusion with the IFP.

CHAIRPERSON: And then you poured petrol over this truck and that ultimately resulted in the truck being burnt out and ...

MR SOSIBO: I did douse Mr Cele with petrol after Mr Lubanyana was asked to leave the vehicle. because it was not our intention to injure or harm Mr Lubanyana, and he was innocent.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Reddy, do you have any questions you'd like to ask?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS REDDY: Thank you, Mr Chairperson. Yes, Mr Chairperson.

Which political organisation did you belong to in 1986?

MR SOSIBO: The UDF.

MS REDDY: Do you carry a membership card to support this submission of yours?

MR SOSIBO: I did have it at that time.

MS REDDY: Where is it now?

MR SOSIBO: Because of the situation at the time my home was damaged. I think it was burnt along with my home.

MR MALAN: May I just find out.

Which organisation were you a member of, which part of the UDF?

MR SOSIBO: I was in the Youth League.

MR MALAN: There was no Youth League in 1986, ANC was still banned, it was overseas. The UDF operated, ANC didn't operate. The UDF didn't have a Youth League, it some 6-or-800-or-1000 organisations affiliated to it. Were you a member of SOYCO or a member of COSAS or a member of the Council of Churches?

CHAIRPERSON: The membership of UDF was not individuals but rather organisations, it was an umbrella movement for a number of organisations and the individuals who belonged to it were members of the various organisation. So the UDF didn't issue membership to individuals but to organisations.

MR SOSIBO: I was in UDF under Miyole and we worked closely with the Council of Churches.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - no microphone) ... who worked with you?

MR SOSIBO: It was Miyole.

ADV SANDI: What is the name in full? Isn't that an abbreviation of some name?

MR SOSIBO: No, I did not know the full name.

ADV SANDI: Does it stand for anything?

MR MALAN: You were never a member of COSAS?

MR SOSIBO: I would not know.

MR MALAN: You were never a member of COSAS?

MR SOSIBO: No.

MR MALAN: And you say you're not a member of the African National Congress and you're not active.

MR SOSIBO: That's correct.

MR MALAN: May I just point you to - sorry for the interruption, Ms Reddy.

May I point to page 6 of the bundle, there seems to be an unsigned statement by Djokweni, saying that you were a member of COSAS in 1986, continuing to say in the next paragraph that since your release from prison you committed to the African National Congress. So that's wrong?

MR SOSIBO: To respond to that, it could be that the person who made the statement was senior to me with regards to positions, therefore he might have known better than I do. It could be that the organisation was under COSAS, but what I know is that I was a member of this Miyole organisation which operated in the Umlazi district.

MR MALAN: Do you know Djokweni?

MR SOSIBO: Yes, I know Mrs Djokweni.

MR MALAN: Did you ask him to confirm your membership? Do you know how this letter got to us?

MR SOSIBO: She's a person I worked with closely with regard to the political situation at Umlazi. On my return from prison I contacted her again. We had political discussions and we made some decisions.

MR MALAN: And you did say that after your release you told the ANC you would not be participating in politics. That was your evidence-in-chief.

MR SOSIBO: Yes, I did explain to some members of the ANC. There are some people who still regard me as a member of the ANC.

CHAIRPERSON: So from your answers it would seem that this letter on page 6 is totally incorrect.

MR SOSIBO: It could be true because the author of this statement could have been writing based on her knowledge because she was more senior in the organisation.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but we don't know what was in her mind, but from what you've told us, first of all you said you weren't a member of COSAS and then you said that when you got out of prison you pointedly said that you're not going to be active with the ANC. Now this letter says the opposite, so it must be wrong. Whatever her intentions were when she wrote it, it's not correct.

MR SOSIBO: That is why I'm explaining that this person was senior to me with regards to my COSAS membership. I was a member of the UDF. She had better knowledge of the umbrella body under which Miyole operated. As a senior person she must have had that knowledge that the organisation was under COSAS.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

MS REDDY: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

So besides this documentary affidavit that you submitted together with the amnesty bundle, there is no other written proof that you belonged to any political organisation. Would that be correct?

MR SOSIBO: I think that is so.

MS REDDY: So you would agree with me if I said we, the Members sitting on this Committee, would find it very difficult to believe you. And I say this because at your trial you said you were nowhere on the scene, and you went further to make a mockery of the justice system by bringing in an alibi to confirm same. So we just could be in the same kind of position what we are faced here with today.

MR SOSIBO: No, I would dispute that. The reason why I denied being present at the scene in court was because there was a lot of discrimination in court at the time. Therefore, I was not inclined to admit that I was present at the scene. It was not my intention that I die from being sentenced to death. I had preferred to die maybe from gunshot wounds rather than to be sentenced to death.

MS REDDY: But you would agree with me if I said this affidavit that you submitted is not correct because it's in ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, are you referring to page 6?

MS REDDY: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: That's not an affidavit, it's just a statement.

MS REDDY: Mr Chairperson, if you look on page 7, it is signed by the deponent.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but not before a Commissioner of Oaths.

MS REDDY: That's appreciated, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so it's just a statement, not an affidavit, it's not a sworn statement.

MS REDDY: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: And it's not from him, it's from Mrs ...(intervention)

MS REDDY: Yes, I do understand that, Commissioner.

How long were you a member of that group that you said you belonged to, prior to the killing in question?

MR SOSIBO: I think I joined the UDF in 1985. Mr Themba Cele was killed in 1986.

MS REDDY: I take you to page 4 of our bundle, para 3, the line where it says, and I quote -

You say you thought, what intelligence investigation did you do to find out whether your opinion was correct?

MR SOSIBO: There are no tangible steps that we took or maybe some proof or recorded proof that he was a member of the IFP, but it was his actions that convinced me that he was an IFP member.

MS REDDY: What actions, Mr Sosibo?

MR SOSIBO: What I can state clearly was that when comrade Nkosinathi Cele was killed, he was implicated to an extent that when the comrade was lying dead he kicked the body. I also saw him on another occasion with Mr Wellington Sabelo who was a member of the KwaZulu legislature and they were pointing towards my home.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it not alleged that Nkosinathi Cele had tried to rob Mr Cele or something of that nature?

MR SOSIBO: That was a statement made by the police and it was a way for them to protect themselves after they had shot Nkosinathi Cele.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, so are you saying that there wasn't any robbery, it's just a false allegation?

MR SOSIBO: Yes, I regard it as untrue that Nkosinathi Cele had attempted to rob Mr Cele, because they knew one another, because they shared the same surname.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but you see what I'm trying to get at is if Nkosinathi Cele - and I'm not saying he did, I don't know anything about it, but if Nkosinathi tried to rob Mr Cele and Mr Cele in that incident shot and killed him, or he was shot and killed during the attempted robbery, then that wouldn't necessarily mean that Mr Cele, your ultimate victim, was IFP, it was just a person involved in a robbery incident. And the fact that they're both Celes doesn't mean that they're not going to rob each other, because we know that one Cele killed another Cele. So if one can kill one, then another one can rob one, surely.

MR SOSIBO: Yes. As I have just explained, that could have been just a way of the police protecting themselves after they had shot Nkosinathi. Nkosinathi was a UDF member and there was no instruction or policy to the effect that UDF members should commit robberies. But when Mr Cele kicked Nkosinathi's body he did give us an impression that he might have been working with the IFP or the police.

We were not yet sure to which side he belonged, but after that incident, Mr Themba Cele continued with his actions. It became clear that he was a member of the IFP when he came to my home, that the one person that was still outstanding to be killed was me and after my death he would have fulfilled his ambition. When he came to my home he was in the company of other IFP members.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Ms Reddy.

MS REDDY: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

Did you know a Mr Nkosinathi Cele(?)

MR SOSIBO: Yes, I knew him very well.

MS REDDY: Did you share a close relationship?

MR SOSIBO: He was a comrade but he resided in a different section. But we did have contact because of the position that he held in the UDF.

MS REDDY: If I were to call him your close friend, would that be correct?

MR SOSIBO: I would not dispute it because if you are referring to a friend, yes that is somebody who is also your comrade because a comrade is somebody who is close to you, you work with closely.

MS REDDY: How long did you know him?

MR SOSIBO: If I'm not mistaken I had known him for about five to six years.

MS REDDY: You say Mr Cele, the deceased, came to your house several time when you were in Johannesburg, is that correct?

MR SOSIBO: That is correct.

MS REDDY: Okay. I put it to that Bongani Cele who is the brother of the deceased and the victim, Lubanyana, will state to this Committee that the deceased never came to your house, in fact the deceased didn't know you. What is your response thereto?

MR SOSIBO: If they were to say that I am not going to deny or agree with them because then they are trying to inform us that they were always with him, present wherever he went.

MS REDDY: You speak about individuals coming to your house and damaging your house, in your affidavit, page 4, para 3, line 5. Can you tell us the relevance as to that statement?

CHAIRPERSON: That statement says Mr Sosibo -

MR SOSIBO: Please repeat that.

MR MALAN: I think the question is really, you talk about the attacks on your home but you're not saying in your statement that Mr Cele was involved in these attacks. So the question is, why do you tell us about the attacks?

MR SOSIBO: I mentioned to the person who was taking the statement, that the reason for my home to be damaged and burnt and shot at was because I saw Mr Themba Cele pointing at my home as he passed in a vehicle, but at that time I did not connect that with anything. But after a few minutes that they had passed my house, people came to attack my home. That is why I say Mr Themba Cele played a role or was implicated in the damaging that was done to my home.

MR MALAN: Sorry, I'm not sure that I understand you. You didn't say that Cele passed your home, you say he came to your home while you were in Johannesburg. Are you now saying he also came to your home when you were there, or passed your home when you were present at home? Did you see Mr Cele at your home?

MR SOSIBO: I did see him passing, he was in a vehicle. When my home was attacked I did not see him, but when I saw a car passing and there were IFP people inside the vehicle, he was with them and after a short while IFP supporters came and destroyed my home.

MR MALAN: Are you saying Mr Cele was in this car?

MR SOSIBO: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Did you see him?

MR SOSIBO: Yes, I did.

MR MALAN: Where was he sitting?

MR SOSIBO: He was seated at the back.

MR MALAN: Did they just drive past or did he stop or how did you manage to see him? If a car drives by, that you recognise him at the back?

MR SOSIBO: From where I was you can see a vehicle approaching and at the time, because the situation was bad, we were alert of vehicles that approached or that came past. And when it passed it was watched closely because it approached driving very slowly passing my home. And as I stood there I was standing next to a parked vehicle and as I looked at this vehicle, I identified Mr Themba Cele and Mr Wellington Sabelo. They were in the company of other people whom I did not know.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Reddy.

MS REDDY: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

Are you telling me that pointing to your house makes the deceased responsible for the attack?

MR SOSIBO: Yes, that is what occurred to me, it was him and the people he was with.

MS REDDY: But besides that you don't have any direct proof thereto?

CHAIRPERSON: He did say that - just tell me if I'm correct, Mr Sosibo, that you said that Mr Cele actually came to your house one day with some other people and threatened that he was going to kill you.

MR SOSIBO: Yes, that is what I'm trying to explain to Ms Reddy. That after he had pointed at my home and also for the reason that he had come to my home and said this to my mother and he would threaten her, him together with the people he was with, that they were going to kill me wherever they found me.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, you say that threat was made to your mother?

MR SOSIBO: Yes, they would threaten my mother because she was the person who was almost always at home.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Reddy.

MS REDDY: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

Petros, you're application for amnesty is not properly filled out, a lot of questions have been left unanswered. Can you give us a reason for that?

MR MALAN: What you specifically referring to? Won't you be specific.

MS REDDY: Mr Chairperson, it's his application for amnesty, Form 1. If you look into the bundle, it's page 1.

CHAIRPERSON: For instance like names of victims?

MS REDDY: Mr Chairperson, it's a lot of substantial answers that goes to the heart(?) of this application. Like, was he a member of any organisation and so forth.

CHAIRPERSON: Basically what Ms Reddy's asking you, if you take a look at your application, Mr Sosibo, pages 1, 2 and 3, really all that is said in that particular application form is your name and address etc, that you belonged to the UDF, that you murdered -

... and that's all that is said, nothing else. There's no mention about Mr Cele and Mr Lubanyana or IFP or anything like that. And Ms Reddy's asking you, when you filled in this application form, why didn't you answer all the answers, some of which are very easy, like "What's the name of the victim?" You knew it was Mr Cele, why didn't you put it in. That sort of thing. That's the question asked by Ms Reddy.

MR SOSIBO: The reason for that was that I was expecting to be summoned before the Commission and answer questions myself as well as for the family of Mr Cele to be present, that they would hear of these answers from me.

CHAIRPERSON: So sorry, while we're here, I just want to get this clear. What are you applying for amnesty for, in respect of what are you applying? You've told us you're applying for amnesty in respect of the murder of Mr Cele, what about the injured person, Mr Lubanyana?

MR SOSIBO: I would say I would not be able to apply with regards to Mr Lubanyana, because I am only recounting on what I did, I cannot recount on what other people did.

CHAIRPERSON: But you were charged in the court of the attempted murder of Nkosinathi Peaceland Lubanyana, you were charged with that. Is that correct? I see here, page 9.

MR SOSIBO: What I was informed of in court was that I was being charged with the murder of Mr Themba Cele. I was not charged with attempting to murder Mr Lubanyana because if I remember correctly, Mr Lubanyana went to the police station in ChiChi in 1986, to an identity parade and he did not identify me.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I'm just reading from the judgment, Mr Sosibo. Let me tell you what is here.

MR SOSIBO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You were accused number three at the trial, according to page 8. If you take a look, charge one is the murder of Mr Cele, charge two is the attempted murder of Lubanyana. Now turn to page 22, it says -

So you were charged with the attempted murder but found not guilty of the attempted murder of Mr Lubanyana. Is that correct? So you were only convicted of the murder of Mr Cele.

MR SOSIBO: Yes, I was found guilty for murdering Mr Cele. I was not found guilty for the attempted murder on Mr Lubanyana. And the person in whose incident I played a role, was Mr Cele.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Reddy?

MS REDDY: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

One of the questions that was left unanswered in your application form is "Did you achieve your political objective?" Could you possibly answer that now?

MR SOSIBO: With regards to that I would say the death of Mr Cele would lead to a decrease of our members being killed, people such as myself as well, because had he not been killed I or other comrades would have died or would have been killed.

MS REDDY: But wasn't there quite a few members that belonged to the alleged IFP as you put it, to which the deceased also belonged to? And wouldn't it be correct if I said they could have come after you if it was not Mr Cele?

MR SOSIBO: On considering the situation that prevailed in our area our area was engulfed in violence, there may have been other IFP people living in the area, but this they did not publicise. Normally in N-Section you would not go public about your political status because it was dominated by the IFP.

It is possible that some members may have carried out their operations in other sections except to where they resided. That is why I think Mr Themba Cele was able to come to our own section and do and carry out whatever activities on behalf of the IFP.

MS REDDY: So are you telling me that Mr Cele was the only IFP member in your section?

MR SOSIBO: No, Mr Cele did not reside in our section, he came from another section which is not close to ours. I am trying to explain that he did this in public to us as UDF members. When he went to my home to inform them that he was going to kill me, he was doing that in public.

MR MALAN: Can you tell us why he said he would be killing you? He wasn't living in your area, why would he come several times telling mother he's going to kill you? Did he ever give a reason?

MR SOSIBO: At that time I was still young. The IFP would come to people's home and remove males from that home. Mr Cele would come to my home and inform my mother that "If your son continues to be a UDF member, we are going to kill him." It became clear to me that the reason why I was going to be killed was because of my membership to the UDF.

MR MALAN: But he didn't reside in your area, he didn't have any business there, he didn't live even close to you, but he takes the pains of getting there a number of occasions while you're in Johannesburg, simply to tell your mother that if he finds out that you're a UDF, he will kill you. Is that what you're saying?

MR SOSIBO: That is what I'm explaining.

MR MALAN: Why would he seek you out in a township where he has no interest, where he doesn't live?

MR SOSIBO: As I explained before, I am from N-Section at Umlazi but we were not attacked by people from that section, it would be people from other sections, from Section 17 which are not close to my section. Those are the people who would come to our own section to attack us and those were IFP members.

MR MALAN: Was N-Section UDF dominated?

MR SOSIBO: No, it was not dominated by the UDF, it was dominated by the IFP who would come to attack the comrades at N-Section.

MR MALAN: I thought you said that the IFP in N-Section wouldn't attack comrades in N-Section, only IFP comes from other sections to attack UDF in N-Section.

MR SOSIBO: Yes, that is what I said.

MR MALAN: And the information is that Cele came all by himself on several occasions, spoke to your mother and said that he was going to kill you if he finds out that you're UDF.

MR SOSIBO: He was not alone, he would be in the company of some people. Because as I also explained about the vehicle that he was in, he was also in the company of some people. So when they came to my home, he would not be alone. The reason why he was known or became known to my mother, was because he used to sell liquor and therefore it was easy for him to be identified.

MR MALAN: Was he selling liquor to your mother?

MR SOSIBO: No, he did not do so.

MR MALAN: To you?

MR SOSIBO: No, I do not drink alcohol.

MR MALAN: Now to who did he sell liquor? I mean what's the relevance of him selling liquor?

MR SOSIBO: He would be selling to the community in my section as well as in a section next to ours.

ADV SANDI: So how did he sell this liquor, would he go out to deliver the liquor to these people or would the prospective buyers come to his house to buy?

CHAIRPERSON: Or would he just drive around the streets in his lorry full of liquor and stop and sell it from his truck?

MR SOSIBO: He would sometimes alight from his vehicle when he went on his deliveries. In that way it was easy for people to get to know him.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Reddy.

MS REDDY: Mr Sosibo, I still didn't get a positive response to the question I asked. You just said to this Committee now that IFP members from other sections, belonging to the Umlazi district, would come to your district and attack you and my question in substance was, if it was not Mr Cele because he was now dead and you killed him because he was attacking your people in your section, it would have been another IFP member. So the problem was not cured, if it was not Mr Cele, it will be another IFP member from another district or wherever. That was the question that I needed you to respond to.

MR SOSIBO: What I would like to explain before the Committee is that when Mr Cele was identified as one of the IFP people, we regarded as one of the people who attacked us. I am not saying were he not absent or were he absent we would not have been attacked. I am saying that if such people had attacked us or had done what he did, the same decision could have been taken against them.

That is after he was implicated in the death of Nkosinathi Cele, as well him being implicated in the attack on my home after he had come there several times to intimidate them, telling them that I am going to be killed. That necessitated that I think about what steps should be taken against Mr Cele.

MS REDDY: Okay, I'm going to move on but I'm not really ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: Just before you move on, just a last question.

Why did you not tell us in your statement that Mr Cele said to your mother that he was going to kill you? You simply said that he enquired about you in your absence.

MR SOSIBO: The reason I didn't mention that I thought that if I had said he came to my house and since he was a member of IFP and I wasn't one, I thought the Committee was going to be interested in knowing why I took the actions that I took, like what I've said today. I thought I was going to be asked about that.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Reddy.

MR MALAN: That doesn't really satisfy me, but just let me get then to another question on the same score. In that same paragraph you never tell us that he was IFP, you said -

You weren't even sure, according to your affidavit.

CHAIRPERSON: That's the very first line of paragraph 3 of that statement.

MR SOSIBO: I was certain about his political affiliation after he had told my mother that he was going to kill me and also after he went past my home. But I thought that I was going to explain everything before this Committee like I'm explaining today.

MS REDDY: Like I was saying, I'm actually going to move on but I was not really satisfied with the response to my earlier question, and let me just continue. The deceased was robbed two times prior to his killing, are you aware of that?

MR SOSIBO: I didn't quite follow your questions, you said ...

CHAIRPERSON: The question was that the deceased, Mr Cele, was robbed twice before he was killed, do you know anything about that.

MR SOSIBO: I don't know anything about that because he was not my neighbour, therefore I wouldn't know what happened to his bottle store.

MS REDDY: I refer you to page 5 ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: Sorry, did you say you wouldn't know what happened to his bottle store? Which bottle store?

MR SOSIBO: I know that he was selling liquor but that he had a bottle store I don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but what Ms Reddy put to you is that Mr Cele was robbed twice before he was killed, do you know anything about it? Nothing about a bottle store or whatever. I mean if I'm a bottle store owner and I get robbed, it doesn't mean I'm getting robbed of liquor, somebody can rob me of my watch or my money.

MR SOSIBO: As I've already explained, I said I don't know if he was robbed or shoes or necklaces or a watch, I am not close and I was never close to him, therefore I don't know anything about it.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Reddy.

MS REDDY: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

I refer you to page 5, first paragraph where you say -

What do you mean when you say "betrayed"?

CHAIRPERSON: With this you're talking about Nkosinathi here? Is that right? ... talking about Nkosinathi. I know it's a bit confusing because they both had the surname Cele, but he's saying -

... he's talking about Nkosinathi Cele who he says the deceased, Mr Cele, kicked the body after he had been killed. So he's not talking about the deceased here, he's talking about his friend.

MS REDDY: Yes, Mr Chairperson, I do understand that, but I'm just a bit concerned when he says the word "betrayed". I'm talking about Mr Nkosinathi Cele, when he says he was betrayed. I was just want to know if the applicant can just tell us a little bit of what he means by betrayed because it's his statement that he made in his affidavit.

MR SOSIBO: When Nkosinathi Cele was shot in a school ground, Mr Cele the deceased, was there with the police and after he had been shot dead, Mr Themba Cele went to his body while his body was lying there and he kicked it and he was there with the police.

CHAIRPERSON: But what Ms Reddy's getting at is, if you take a look at page 5 Mr Sosibo, right on the top line you use the word "betrayed", now she wants to know why did you use that word "betrayed" because betrayed is normally a word used when two people who are loyal to each other and the one person then acts against his so-called comrade, that is a betrayal. When you get two enemies doing bad things to each other it's not really a betrayal. That's all she's asking. Did you use that word "betrayed", and if you did, why?

MR SOSIBO: We usually use the name betrayal when we say someone had sold someone out or to other people, I used the word betrayal because I was referring to Themba Cele, that he had sold him to the police, not that he had shot at him but the police had shot at him because Themba had already sold him to the police.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, carry on Ms Reddy.

MS REDDY: You also say in line 2 that -

Could you just explain to me what initiatives you're referring us to.

MR SOSIBO: Yes. We initiated this on our own as members of the UDF, because IFP were not going to tell us to go and attack him. We, members of the UDF, we decided that we should kill him after what he did to us.

MS REDDY: Who instructed you?

CHAIRPERSON: He said it was his own "We decided", he hasn't said - ask him if anyone instructed first.

MS REDDY: He says he - Mr Chairperson, he said "we", so I'm just asking whether it was ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Were you instructed at all by anyone? How did you get to the decision?

MR SOSIBO: I was the one who came with the suggestion after I realised Themba Cele's action. And as a commander at the time, I saw it a reason I should discuss this matter with other members of the UDF. We held a meeting, I called various members of UDF and we discussed about this. After the discussion we called a general meeting when supporters also came, UDF supporters, and they also had knowledge about Themba Cele's action after they had seen and some of them after they had heard about his actions. The community or supporters of UDF saw it that he wasn't a peaceful person because he was hunting UDF members, that's why we came to that decision.

MS REDDY: I understand when you said you actually didn't confess at your trial that you were responsible for the death of the deceased together with other members of your comrades, can you just tell me why you went further to bring an alibi to confirm your lie as such?

CHAIRPERSON: This is fairly - I mean if you go to court and you say "I deny I did it", the alibi is probably the most common of all the defences. If you say "I wasn't there", then obviously the State's going to ask "Well where were you?" - "Well I was at my granny's house watching TV" or whatever it is. I mean that's not - he brought up his alibi obviously to substantiate his lie that he wasn't there.

MS REDDY: Mr Chairperson, I actually appreciate that, but I just wanted to show the extent of his disrespect for the justice system and I'm going to go further in my question and you'd actually find out why I'm actually ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed.

MR SOSIBO: If I can comment on that statement. As the Judge has just explained this to you, one can commit a crime now and if I'm arrested or if that person is arrested, that person can - if that person denies that, that person can "I was with my friends" and I can also collaborate with my friends and ask them to agree with me and some of my friends can agree to do that on my behalf.

MR MALAN: And you can collaborate with your friend to confirm that you're now a member of the ANC, active, committed and that you're a member of COSAS.

MR SOSIBO: That will depend on the attorneys of the organisation. If the attorney can be able to lie before the court, they can do that, but what I know is that attorneys don't do that. And usually you use attorneys, organisational attorneys.

MR MALAN: Okay, no, I asked for that. I didn't really want an answer.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Reddy?

MS REDDY: Thank you.

Do you agree that only a short space of time elapsed from the time Nkosinathi was fatally wounded by the police in the line of duty, and the time that Themba Cele was actually killed?

CHAIRPERSON: So you're saying the space of time between the death?

MS REDDY: Ja, I just want him to actually ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: What was the space of time, do you know Mr Sosibo? From the time that Nkosinathi was killed and the time that Mr Cele was killed, what was the difference in time?

MR SOSIBO: I wouldn't be able to remember with certainty but what I can recall is that Themba Cele was killed on the 7th of August 1986, but I have a problem remembering when Nkosinathi Cele was killed.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but was it the day before, was it on the same day, was it a month before, was it two years before? If you could just give us some indication of the approximate time. What would you estimate, how long after Nkosinathi died did Themba Cele die?

MR SOSIBO: I will have a problem in estimating the time because I don't remember really. This happened in the '80s and now it's the '90s, it's a long time, I don't remember.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Ms Reddy.

MS REDDY: I appreciate what you're actually telling me, but I'm just going to assist you on that aspect by telling you it was on the 20th of June 1986 when your friend, Nkosinathi was actually killed and I would also submit that it was more-or-less a short space from the time he was killed and Mr Cele was actually killed. Why I'm actually telling you this is because it would seem very probable that the motive of killing the deceased was purely to avenge the death of one of your comrades, namely Nkosinathi Cele.

And further I'd submit that like you said in your evidence, that you shared a very close relationship with the deceased, that is Nkosinathi Cele, and it was a long time relationship, more-or-less five years if I'm correct, it's being very probable that that was a motive for the killing of the deceased, that is Mr Themba Cele, and not one of a political background.

MR SOSIBO: I would like to tell you that quite a number of comrades died and they were killed by members of IFP. I'm not going to say the killing of Mr Themba Cele was caused by the killing of Nkosinathi Cele. I wouldn't say that we were retaliating or it was a revenge, but the main reason was that he was found before or he was seen as someone who was supporting IFP ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I think you've told us. What you're doing is you're not agreeing with what's been put to you by Ms Reddy and you stand by your previous statement that he was perceived as IFP. We don't have to hear it all over again.

MR MALAN: I just want to ask you a question. You say at the bottom of page 4 of the bundle in that statement, that you don't believe the story of the alleged robbery. Now it has been put to you that there was a robbery and the police - well that at least is my deduction, that the police shot Nkosinathi after a robbery or attempted robbery on Themba Cele. Why don't you believe it?

MR SOSIBO: The reason I do not believe this is because it was not our policy as members of the UDF to rob people and also most comrades of the UDF were disciplined.

MR MALAN: Surely it's not the policy of any church to commit a crime but many of their members commit crimes, how can you say that Nkosinathi would not have robbed him? I don't want to know what the UDF policy is, why would Nkosinathi not have robbed him?

MR SOSIBO: As I have already explained that since it was not the policy of the UDF. Nkosinathi was the leader of the UDF at the time and I am certain that he cannot rob someone. That is why I'm certain that he didn't do that.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Reddy?

MS REDDY: Thank you, Mr Applicant for your evidence. No further questions, Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabethe, any questions you'd like to ask?

MS THABETHE: I was just checking my notes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: You haven't had time to do it.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETHE: I think most of the things have been covered, that's why I'm sort of checking.

I want to ask you about the meeting. You had indicated in your evidence that you called a meeting. Besides what you have given us, that Mr Cele the deceased, used to come to your place and demand that if you don't stop being a member of UDF you are going to die, what other reasons were put forward in the meeting that led to a decision that he should be killed? If there were any other reasons.

MR SOSIBO: There are not any other reasons except for those that I have already mentioned here.

MS THABETHE: Thank you Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Padiachey, do you have any re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MS PADIACHEY: Mr Chairperson, just a few questions to clarify certain issues.

Mr Sosibo, you indicated that you have been a UDF member and that you've joined somewhere around 1986, that is correct is it?

MR SOSIBO: I joined it in 1985.

MS PADIACHEY: And at this time of you joining the UDF, would you say that you were active in the struggle?

MR SOSIBO: Yes.

MS PADIACHEY: You've also indicated Mr Sosibo, that the UDF was the minority in the Umlazi township and that the IFP were the majority.

MR SOSIBO: Yes, it is true.

MS PADIACHEY: Would it then be correct to say that you together with other UDF members, were fearing the IFP members?

MR SOSIBO: I wouldn't say that we feared it and also I wouldn't say that we didn't fear it, what I can say is that IFP was the majority and also the atrocities they committed on us were more.

MS PADIACHEY: Mr Sosibo, your motive for killing Mr Themba Cele, was that because of the incident of him having killed Nkosinathi Cele, or was it the incident that related to he having made threats on your life?

MR SOSIBO: It is not because he had threatened to kill me, but it was because of quite a number of reasons, the murder of Nkosinathi Cele and him coming to my home and threatening that he was going to kill me and also he came with IFP members.

MS PADIACHEY: So would you say that you were scared and that you feared him?

MR SOSIBO: Yes, I was scared of him, I thought that he was going to send IFP members to kill me as it had happened when they tried even though they were unsuccessful.

MS PADIACHEY: I have no further questions, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Malan, any questions?

MR MALAN: You refer to your absence when you were in Johannesburg, when were you in Johannesburg and what for, what reason?

MR SOSIBO: ...(no English interpretation)

MR MALAN: Sorry, we're not getting any interpretation.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, if we can just get the interpretation please.

INTERPRETER: I went to Johannesburg ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, carry on Mr Sosibo.

MR SOSIBO: ... and I came back to Durban because it was about time coming home.

MR MALAN: Please listen to my question. When did you go to Johannesburg, what date, what month, for how long and when did you come back?

MR SOSIBO: I went in 1985 and I came back in 1986. I used to go to Johannesburg and come back - I usually went to Johannesburg and came back, but I never stayed there for quite a long time but when I came back for good it was in 1986.

ADV SANDI: Just on this. Sorry, Mr Malan. Sorry, just on this, maybe you'll be asking him a question on something else.

Did you have any special reason for going to Johannesburg?

MR SOSIBO: I was visiting my relative.

MR MALAN: So you went to Johannesburg in '95, you came back in '86. And it was while you were in Johannesburg that he enquired about you at your home with your mother?

MR SOSIBO: Yes, during that time.

MR MALAN: And it was then that he threatened that he would be killing you if he found you to be a UDF member.

MR SOSIBO: Yes.

MR MALAN: So since 1986 you've been back, you were back at Umlazi township?

MR SOSIBO: Yes, I came back.

MR MALAN: And the incident of the killing of Themba Cele was only in November 1987, is that correct?

MR SOSIBO: I don't quite understand when you're referring to his death in 1987.

MS THABETHE: August 1986.

CHAIRPERSON: It was the 7th of August 1986, according to the indictment.

MR MALAN: Sorry, I looked at your application where you gave a different here, the date of the incident. Then my apologies, August '96.

CHAIRPERSON: '86.

MR MALAN: August '86. When did you return from Johannesburg, can you remember the month?

MR SOSIBO: It is difficult for me to remember which month, but I do remember the year.

MR MALAN: Were you coming back to your home during '85 and '86 from Johannesburg with intervals or did you permanently stay up in Johannesburg?

MR SOSIBO: As I've already mentioned that I will go to Johannesburg and come back to Durban frequently.

MR MALAN: Then if you can just look at page 3, if you can just explain to me. The top of page 3 of the bundle you are asked whether you have benefited financially or otherwise and this is filled in -

CHAIRPERSON: And then "If so, give details" -

MR MALAN: It looks here as if you're telling us you were to be paid for the job but you were not eventually paid. What did you mean with this?

MR SOSIBO: This is a shock to me, I don't have any idea that I was going to be paid. I think this is an old statement.

MR MALAN: Yes, it is an old statement, it dates the 1st of May 1996, and it was put to you that it's your form, that you filled it out and you said you were giving us only limited information because you thought that you would be called to the Committee to give a full explanation and answer all the questions. So you had to give us very limited information in your understanding, which indeed you did, but you say -

And then (b), "Tell us about the benefits"

You say -

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Sosibo, you wrote this, what Mr Malan wants to know is, what does it mean, what did you intend to convey by writing these words.

MR SOSIBO: If I can explain there, I think I was mistaken. People who were promised money in order to come and testify in court against me, they were given money by the police, not me.

MR MALAN: The question is, is this what you wanted to tell us when you wrote this? Did you want to convey to us when you were asked -

You said -

You're asked about the justification in 10(b), you say nothing. You're asked in (c) whether you received any benefit, you say -

And then (d) you're asked -

And then you continue to say -

Now, are you telling us that you wanted us to understand from this that people who testified in court against you were paid to testify against you?

MR SOSIBO: I am certain that I was never promised money and I was never given money. I think the reason I put that thing there is because I knew that people who came and testified in my case, they were promised money and they were given money.

CHAIRPERSON: Well it's not uncommon for witnesses to get witness fees and their expenses paid, it happens quite often without it being suspicious.

MR MALAN: Sorry, that wasn't a question. Then the last reference again to page 4 at the bottom, you make the statement -

What do you mean with that? Simply because they had the same surname they wouldn't rob each other?

MR SOSIBO: Themba Cele would usually relate to Nkosinathi Cele's father, therefore they were not enemies with the family. I couldn't see Nkosinathi Cele robbing Themba Cele.

MR MALAN: Now if they were related and on good terms with the families, Themba being related to Nkosinathi's father, why can you see that Themba would have kicked the body of Nkosinathi? If they were on good terms, why would he have kicked the body of Nkosinathi Cele?

MR SOSIBO: We as comrades at the time we didn't see any need or we didn't even want to wait for Themba Cele to go to Nkosinathi Cele's father and apologise about what he did because he was working with the police and the police was always working together with the IFP. And when they killed Nkosinathi Cele, we realised that there was no relationship and what he did, kicking Nkosinathi Cele's body, was terrible in front of the people.

MR MALAN: Did you see it?

MR SOSIBO: Yes, I did.

MR MALAN: Then it appears that they weren't on that good a relationship, why would - is it not possible that Nkosinathi could have robbed him? If he would have kicked him, why would Nkosinathi not have robbed him? It doesn't look to me as if they had that great a relationship.

MR SOSIBO: This shocked us as comrades knowing Nkosinathi Cele very well and also, the fact that he did so confirmed that he was an IFP member. And Nkosinathi never told us that they was friction between him and Themba.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Sandi, any questions?

ADV SANDI: One question.

On the 20th of June 1986, that is the day Nkosinathi Cele was shot and killed by the police, do you know if there was a group that was involved with him in confronting Mr Themba Cele?

MR SOSIBO: You mean during his death?

ADV SANDI: Yes, on that day.

CHAIRPERSON: The 20th of June when Nkosinathi died, the question was, at that occasion was Mr Themba Cele confronted by a group of people?

MR SOSIBO: Yes, I will say so. After Nkosinathi had been shot, Themba Cele was confronted by a certain group which was present there because that's when the group realised that Themba Cele was working together with the police.

ADV SANDI: Yes. As far as you know, did the same group throw stones at Mr Themba Cele when they were confronting him, did they throw stones at him?

MR SOSIBO: After they've spoken to Mr Themba Cele I went and tried to save the body, Nkosinathi Cele's body, therefore I didn't see what happened.

ADV SANDI: Do you know if the same group threw stones at the police when they came with Mr Themba Cele?

MR SOSIBO: Yes, I heard about it.

ADV SANDI: Do you know if anyone from that group was charged with robbery or attempting to rob Mr Themba Cele?

MR SOSIBO: No, I have no idea about that.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thank you, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Just two very quick questions. When did you leave school, Mr Sosibo?

MR SOSIBO: If I'm not mistaken I think it was in 1984.

CHAIRPERSON: And after you left school did you study at any college or other institution?

MR SOSIBO: No, I didn't.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Any questions arising Ms Padiachey?

MS PADIACHEY: No questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Any questions arising, Ms Reddy?

MS REDDY: No, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabethe?

MS THABETHE: No questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Sosibo, that concludes your evidence but it doesn't conclude this matter.

CHAIRPERSON: I think we'll have to adjourn now, it's half past five, we've kept the people long over the time, for which we apologise and we thank them for staying on. What would be a convenient time to start tomorrow morning?

MS REDDY: Mr Chairperson, if I may submit, 9a.m.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you be here Ms Padiachey?

MS PADIACHEY: Mr Chairperson, I might have a problem, I do have a matter in court tomorrow.

CHAIRPERSON: We can't delay it, it's Friday, we've got to finish. There's no ways we can wait for the court in Durban to finish before we start, unless we finish now. We can't pick up a part-heard, I can assure you it's far more inconvenient for us to arrange a part-heard than for any court to arrange a part-heard, because we've got to get these Committees back together and we all go our different ways. So there's no ways we can wait for you to come back from court in Durban.

MS THABETHE: Unless we continue now, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. We'll take a five minutes break and then if you can - I'm sorry about this, but there's no ways we can not continue tomorrow, it's impossible.

MS REDDY: If I may just submit, Mr Chairperson, can't you actually get some other associate from your place of employment to do the civil case tomorrow? Because it is late and everybody is quite tired and I respectfully submit that it's not asking too much at this stage, bearing in consideration the circumstances we're placed in. It's been a long day.

MS PADIACHEY: Mr Chairperson, if I could just add, Ms Meersing from our offices is involved in a High Court matter and there's just me, the other person in the office and the Article Clerk is on course. That's the difficulty I have.

CHAIRPERSON: Because there's no ways we can - you see we've also only got a limited use of this hall tomorrow, we're told that in the afternoon the people need to sort it out for some function they're having here over the weekend, so we can't wait until the afternoon and we certainly can't pick up a part-heard, especially a part-heard of this nature when we're so close to finishing and the reason is because somebody wants to go to court the next day. It's not good enough.

MR MALAN: I think it just needs to be placed on record that this matter was originally set down for tomorrow and brought back to today so that we do not pick up the problem of a part-heard. When the instructions were initially given, it was on the basis of a Friday hearing.

CHAIRPERSON: I think what we'll do now is we'll take a short five minute break and we'll either continue, unless Ms Padiachey can in that time make some arrangement about her tomorrow obligations. But one this is we must finish this, we would hate to pick up a part-heard in this matter.

MS REDDY: Yes, Mr Chairperson, I appreciate what you've actually said but I also made prior arrangements to be present in Durban at six but if we have to really go on, then I have to actually cancel.

CHAIRPERSON: Well let's have this short adjournment, see what can be arranged, either to continue or to continue tomorrow but if we do continue tomorrow, that it be at 9 o'clock.

MS REDDY: Most definitely, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and not to wait for an indefinite time but nine. We'll take a short adjournment.

CHAIRPERSON: During the short adjournment very little was achieved actually because Ms Padiachey was not able to communicate with her office in Durban and therefore is not in a position to know what is happening with her matter in the - is it the Magistrate's Court, in the District Court. We've discussed the matter. This hearing of Mr Sosibo was set down initially for the 3rd of December, which is tomorrow and then it was only just through arrangements because we anticipated that we might only be able to have the use of this hall for a portion of the day tomorrow, not the whole day, that an arrangement was made earlier in the week to bring it forward until today because we were loathe to commence it tomorrow morning when it was set down, as that might have led to picking up a part-heard matter and that is why it was set down today rather than tomorrow. So it's absolutely imperative that we continue it tomorrow because if we do pick up a part-heard, as I alluded to earlier, it causes a huge inconvenience for the Commission, not only to get all the same lawyers back together on a particular date but also to get the Members of the Panel back together on a certain date because we don't sit together at every hearing, we split up and we keep changing Panels.

So Ms Padiachey, I'm afraid you'll have to make some arrangement about tomorrow to be here at 9 o'clock. We anticipate that this matter would be finished during the course of the morning even if it means delaying your case in Durban until after lunch.

MS PADIACHEY: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Just to indicate, I'm at the attorney in Pietermaritzburg, so I don't think that would be much inconvenience.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh okay, that might make it even easier to arrange, to continue your matter there in the court as soon as we've finished here. We can even start earlier than 9 o'clock if you wish, I don't know.

MS PADIACHEY: If I could please perhaps be given an indulgence to perhaps try and adjourn the matter that is set down for half past eight tomorrow morning.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS PADIACHEY: So I will try and be here by 9 o'clock.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Then we'll adjourn until 9 o'clock tomorrow and I'd just once again like to thank the people for working overtime tonight, I apologise for any inconvenience caused thereby.

So we'll then adjourn until nine tomorrow, when we'll continue.

So Mr Sosibo, if you can please be back here before 9 o'clock tomorrow. And Ms Reddy as well, with any witnesses, would you please be here by nine so we can start then and then release Ms Padiachey as soon as possible?

MS REDDY: As the Committee pleases.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll then adjourn until 9 o'clock.