--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: The date is the 1st of February 2000. The Panel who will sit to consider the application of Buthelezi, comprises myself, Judge Sisi Khampepe, on my right-hand side, Judge Motata, on my left-hand side Judge de Jager. I note that there are no legal representatives appearing on behalf of Mr Buthelezi, nor is Mr Steenkamp, who has just walked in.

ADV STEENKAMP: Madam Chair, I do apologise. We made arrangements yesterday with the Correctional Services to bring in Mr Buthelezi and I've just spoken to the legal representative, Mr Buthelezi is unfortunately not here yet.

There's another, Mr Tsotetsi, who was supposed to be here today as well, unfortunately he's not here yet as well. There are certain victims which are on their way. We've arranged for them to be here early this morning. I was informed this morning they can only be here round about nine to ten.

As far as I know all the legal representatives are here, except Ms Cambanis. I don't see Ms Cambanis here. We've checked, Ms Cambanis is not here yet. I've tried to contact here and her cellphone unfortunately is not able to work yet. We were here from early this morning. I notice that some of the applicants are here, one of the implicated parties is here as well. Mr Tsotetsi is coming from the Boksburg Prison, why he's not specifically here I unfortunately don't know, but Ms van der Westhuizen who is appearing for Mr Buthelezi is available.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp, which matter is on the roll for today's hearing, apart from the matter of Mr Buthelezi and Mr Benswana and Nqanda, who I am aware that they are both being represented by Ms Cambanis who has not yet arrived.

ADV STEENKAMP: Madam Chair, there's also the matter that's been rescheduled to the matter that's been scheduled to the 4th of the 5th of February 2000. I've made arrangements that this matter also be heard today. That's the matter of Makola and Mphanga, it's AM7675/97 and AM7127/97. The victim's lawyer is available, so is the victim, Mr Boy Skosana. The applicant Mr Padi, arrangements were made yesterday by the Evidence Analyst and by myself for Mr Padi to be here this morning. We've tried to contact him this morning, we're waiting for him. It's on short notice, but that is also scheduled now for today.

Then the matter of Benswana and Nqanda, as you indicated it's on the roll for today. And this matter we're waiting for the legal representative to get to the hearing. The Ngema family was not here yesterday, but I understand some of them have arrived just now.

Then there's a matter of, the Vanderbijlpark matter, Dube, Mokati and Mthembu matter. That matter is also on the roll for today.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Steenkamp, the all seem to be on the roll, but is there anything we could start with?

ADV STEENKAMP: Madam Chair, I see Ms Cambanis has just arrived. I take it we can start with her matter immediately then.

Madam Chair, I can just maybe indicate that the matter of Dube, Mokati, Mthembu, the victims are from Vanderbijlpark, they are here.

JUDGE DE JAGER: We've adjourned until 9 o'clock this morning and it's almost half past nine and we couldn't start with a single matter yet.

ADV STEENKAMP: Madam Chair, I take it now we can start immediately with the matter of Ms Cambanis.

CHAIRPERSON: That is if Ms Cambanis is ready to proceed immediately. Ms Cambanis, do you have any explanation to proffer to this Committee why you are late?

MS CAMBANIS: Madam Chair, I'm ready to commence. I do not know if the Prisons have brought the first applicant and I haven't seen the second applicant yet on my arrival, but if they are here I will be ready to commence immediately.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, can you give us any explanation why you are late?

MS CAMBANIS: Yes, Madam Chair, because I was told by Mr Steenkamp that my matter would start at 11 o'clock this morning, yesterday. We were scheduled and my colleague for the victims, I think, can confirm that we were told we were scheduled for 11 o'clock.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV STEENKAMP: Madam Chair, that is indeed correct. There was another matter that was supposed to be rolled and that is the matter of - the Buthelezi matter was originally scheduled for the first matter, but unfortunately we're not quite sure whether - Buthelezi is now here, I've just been indicated Buthelezi has just arrived.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Ms Cambanis, would you want to be heard then at 11 o'clock, as previously arranged with Mr Steenkamp, to enable you to quickly take further instructions in preparation for your hearing?

MS CAMBANIS: I would appreciate that, Madam Chair, if it is possible.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. In the meantime we'll commence with the matter that was initially scheduled to commence at 9 o'clock. Who are appearing for the matter in, in the Tsotetsi matter?

ADV STEENKAMP: In the Tsotetsi matter, Madam Chair, unfortunately we've made specific arrangements for Mr Tsotetsi to be here this morning at 8 o'clock, but I understand Mr Tsotetsi is not here yet. Ms Anina van der Westhuizen is appearing for Mr Buthelezi and I would submit, I would humbly ask Madam Chair, Honourable Members, if the Committee would indulge me five minutes so I can establish whether or not, at long last Mr Tsotetsi and the rest of the victims and the applicants are here.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV STEENKAMP: Unfortunately we're in the hands of Correctional Services.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Is Mr Buthelezi here?

ADV STEENKAMP: I think he has just arrived, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE DE JAGER: So then we'll proceed with the other one.

ADV STEENKAMP: We can then call immediately Mr Buthelezi, Madam Chair.

MS CAMBANIS: Madam Chair, may I be excused?

CHAIRPERSON: You may.

MS CAMBANIS: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp, who is appearing for Mr Buthelezi?

ADV STEENKAMP: Madam Chair, it's Ms van der Westhuizen.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Westhuizen, are you in a position to commence with that matter, or would you also want to have a very short adjournment?

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Madam Chair, I'm indeed in a position to commence. The applicant has just gone to the bathroom and I'm sure he'll be back, so it's mainly for him to come.

CHAIRPERSON: That is the kind of adjournment I was thinking of.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Maybe we should take a five minute adjournment.

CHAIRPERSON: Can we take a three minute adjournment.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Westhuizen, you are appearing for Mr Buthelezi.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Indeed so, Madam Chair. We are ready to proceed.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I was made to believe that Mr Shane was appearing on behalf of the victims, but I don't seem to see Mr Shane.

Mr Shane, we have already commenced these proceedings in your absence. I fortunately was privy to the fact that you are appearing for the victims. Will you kindly place yourself on the roll. - on record.

MR SHANE: Thank you, Madam Chair. The name is Lawly Shane, attorney from Johannesburg. I represent the victims, Mr and Mrs Gianini. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Steenkamp?

ADV STEENKAMP: Sorry, Madam Chair. My name is Steenkamp, I am the Evidence Leader in this matter. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Before we proceed with the evidence of Mr Buthelezi, may I appeal in the new century to Correctional Services, to please be punctual with the applicants from prison. This morning we were scheduled to commence at 9 o'clock. We have not been able to do so, not only in the matter of Mr Buthelezi, but in respect of all the applicants who are held in custody, because all the applicants held in custody were not brought to this hearing until five minutes ago. We'll really appeal to Correctional Services to accommodate us in order for these proceedings to proceed as speedily without wasting any second, which is very valuable to the Committee, by being punctual. We have previously requested them to be here at 8 o'clock. We'd again make that request and hope that it really will be acceded to. Thank you.

Ms van der Westhuizen.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to place on record that the applicant is applying for amnesty for the events which took place on the 24th of March 1991, and during which a robbery was committed as well as an assault on Mrs Gianini, and the possession of unlicensed arms and ammunition. Madam Chair, we will then proceed to call the applicant to testify. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Will he be testifying in Zulu?

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Zulu.

NORMAN BUTHELEZI: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: You may be seated. Duly sworn in.

EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Thank you.

Mr Buthelezi, where did you grow up?

MR BUTHELEZI: I grew up in KwaZulu Natal, in the town of Vryheid.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: And what educational level did you attain?

MR BUTHELEZI: Standard five.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: When did you decide to move to Johannesburg, and why?

MR BUTHELEZI: I took the decision in the 80s, the reason being that I no longer had money to go to school and I decided to go and look for a job.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: And did you succeed in that?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, I secured myself a job.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Where did you work and what work did you do?

MR BUTHELEZI: I was working at Metal Coat in Que(?), Johannesburg. I was a machine operator.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Now in the Johannesburg area, where did you reside?

MR BUTHELEZI: In Katlehong.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: What was your involvement with the IFP as such, when did you become part or a supporter of the IFP?

MR BUTHELEZI: I think it was around 1975 on the inception of this movement, when I was still back home and there was no other organisation at the time and that is when I got involved with the IFP, I became a follower.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: And after having moved to Johannesburg, did you formally join the IFP as a political party at some stage?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, because I think it was around 1990.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Can you describe to the Honourable Committee, the political situation or climate in the area where you resided. Let's refer to the time when you committed this crime, round about 1991.

MR BUTHELEZI:

...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Would you please slow down because your language or your evidence is being translated into several languages and we too are also taking notes of what you are saying.

MR BUTHELEZI:

...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: Please slow down. Would you please go a little bit slower.

CHAIRPERSON: Just go back to the evidence where you were saying he called you to the side, the six of you as the loyals, saying that you should go and pick up firearms.

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, he said we should go to Pretoria to collected these firearms, but there is one person who know the direction. I agreed.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Mr Buthelezi, can you remember the ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not activated.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Mr Buthelezi, do you remember the names, can you provide the names of the six who were called aside?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes. Titus Ngobese, Jabulani Ngcobe, Wilson - Jabulani Nkomo, Wilson Mtetwa, Conrad Buthelezi, as well as myself.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Who is the person who called you aside?

MR BUTHELEZI: Induna.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: What's his name?

MR BUTHELEZI: Jabulani Mtetwa.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Where was he residing at that time, can you still remember?

MR BUTHELEZI: He was residing at Zonkezizwe.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: What was his position within the IFP in Zonkezizwe at that time?

MR BUTHELEZI: He was a leader in charge of that area, under Inkatha.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Yes, you can proceed to tell what happened after that.

MR BUTHELEZI:

...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Please do not hurry, slow down.

MR BUTHELEZI:

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Before you proceed, who handed you these firearms?

MR BUTHELEZI: Induna.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: You may proceed.

MR BUTHELEZI:

We arrived at the place and upon arrival, as the place was pointed to us ..."

...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Who pointed the place?

MR BUTHELEZI: Conrad.

CHAIRPERSON: How did Conrad know the place?

MR BUTHELEZI: Induna told us that he's the one who was going to show us the direction because he was an employee there in the previous years.

CHAIRPERSON: You may continue.

MR BUTHELEZI:

CHAIRPERSON: Who are those, give us their names.

MR BUTHELEZI: Two Jabulani's, myself - or should I say I was with Conrad and the other one, Wilson Mtetwa was in the middle.

...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Can I interject? How do you know that Conrad was known to these people?

MR BUTHELEZI: They told us before we left, they told us there's somebody who knew the direction to the place.

CHAIRPERSON: Who told you, Induna?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You may continue.

MR BUTHELEZI:

...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: The witness said Conrad.

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes.

INTERPRETER: Thank you, Chair.

MR BUTHELEZI:

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Do you know of any jewellery that was taken from this house?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: To whom was that jewellery handed? Who amongst the group of you who were there in the house, who was carrying the jewellery?

MR BUTHELEZI: These were in the safe. I was carrying all the firearms as well as the jewellery. We had these wrapped in a sheet.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: When you went upstairs to the upper level of the house, were you searching in the cupboards or drawers?

MR BUTHELEZI: No, I did not search anywhere.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: The money that you refer to, the bank notes that you wrapped up in the sheet, where did that come from?

MR BUTHELEZI: From the safe.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: You can proceed.

MR BUTHELEZI:

...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: Sorry that I'm interrupting you. You took five firearms to ... and you mentioned a name, I couldn't catch the name.

MR BUTHELEZI: Peter Ndlela.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Thank you.

MR BUTHELEZI:

...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Which time are you talking about now? After how long had these people been arrested after you had carried out the robbery at the place where you had been referred to by Jabulani Mtetwa? It was the following day?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, it was the following day, the driver was arrested the following day.

CHAIRPERSON: Which driver are you talking about?

MR BUTHELEZI: Titus Ngobese.

CHAIRPERSON: You may continue.

MR BUTHELEZI:

...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: May I interrupt? I seem to be having technical problems with my headphone.

You may continue.

MR BUTHELEZI:

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Mr Buthelezi, can you explain why jewellery was taken from this house?

MR BUTHELEZI: We saw it as a vital source of cash because we wanted some money.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: You say that afterwards Induna Mtetwa paid you R200, was it discussed before you went to commit this robbery that you would receive any rewards or money?

MR BUTHELEZI: No, that was not discussed, he just got thrilled when we came back with so many firearms and I then requested him to compensate us, which he did.

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose, Ms van der Westhuizen, I might as well cover this point even before, to enable Mr Buthelezi to have synergy in his response.

What I want to know is, why should Mr Jabulani Mtetwa be excited when he saw you coming with this loot? He must have known the number of firearms that were kept in the house of Mr Gianini. In your evidence you said that you were told that there were lots of firearms and there was a lot of money which was being kept in these premises. So why should he be so thrilled to see you coming with so many firearms, as if that was not expected, as if you were expected to come with just a few firearms?

MR BUTHELEZI: It is because the mission was accomplished successfully as planned and he wanted to know whether there were any casualties and we said no. We only pointed out that only one person got hurt and he said "Not even a rape was committed?" We said "Yes, no rape was committed", and he was happy that we successfully carried out the mission.

CHAIRPERSON: Did the translation say rape or raid?

INTERPRETER: Rape.

CHAIRPERSON: Why would he have expected rape to be committed in the course of your robbery? Was it something that was usual when you had, or undertook such operations?

MR BUTHELEZI: No, it was the first mission. He was asking because he had warned us prior to our departure that we only had to secure the firearms as well as the money.

CHAIRPERSON: Was there any reason given to you why you should be warned not to commit rape, in an operation which was only intended to give you cash and weaponry?

MR BUTHELEZI: The reason all of the time was such that none among us did such a thing, so that we never made a mistake of doing that which he clearly warned against from the onset.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for your indulgence, Ms van der Westhuizen.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr Buthelezi, would you say that you - were you regarded as the leader of the group of people who went to commit this robbery?

INTERPRETER: May the question please be repeated.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Were you the leader of the group who went to commit this robbery?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, I would say that.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Now the owner and his wife, the people that you went to rob, did you see them before that day or was it the first time for you to see these people?

MR BUTHELEZI: I was seeing them for the first time on that day.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Do you know to whom Peter Ndlela gave the arms that he received to distribute?

MR BUTHELEZI: I wouldn't know.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Thank you, Honourable Chair, there's no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: What was the position of Peter Ndlela in your organisation?

MR BUTHELEZI: He was a committee member, working association with the Induna.

CHAIRPERSON: And where did he stay at the time when the firearms were handed over to him?

MR BUTHELEZI: He was residing at Zonkezizwe squatter camp.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Shane, do you have any questions to put to Mr Buthelezi?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR SHANE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr Buthelezi, talking about Peter Ndlela, is it correct that Peter Ndlela is your brother-in-law?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes.

MR SHANE: And is Peter Ndlela the person referred to in the judgment which is contained at page 38 of the bundle, Madam Chair"

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Last paragraph, Mr Shane? Are you referring to the last paragraph?

MR SHANE: The last paragraph, that is correct.

Now Mr Buthelezi, you have said that you were told by your Induna to get weapons, do you remember saying that?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes.

MR SHANE: That was before you committed, or before the robbery of these weapons took place.

MR BUTHELEZI: Would you please repeat the question.

MR SHANE: This happened, or the request for weapons came before the robbery and I just want to ask you, according to the Induna the weapons were needed for protection, is that correct?

MR BUTHELEZI: That is correct.

MR SHANE: Would you agree that it was an extremely urgent task that you had to get these weapons?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, I agree with you.

MR SHANE: Can you explain how come you took these weapons in March, but you only took them to Peter Ndlela during November, as he testified? That is according to what Peter Ndlela said.

MR BUTHELEZI: I took the firearms to Peter Ndlela, he is the one who knew people who were in need of firearms. At least that's what Induna said.

MR SHANE: Do you remember Peter Ndlela ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Shane, I don't think your question has been answered. Your question was, can he advance any reason why the robbery was committed in March, and the reason which has already been given was that the weapons were urgently needed for protection.

MR SHANE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: If the weapons were urgently needed for protection, this robber is committed in March, the weapons are however given to Peter Ndlela only in November, why was there such a long and unreasonable delay? Bearing in mind that you've already stated that these weapons were urgently needed for protection.

MR SHANE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

MR BUTHELEZI: Not a long time lapsed because I did explain earlier on that only the following day I took the firearms to Peter Ndlela. Peter Ndlela is the one who knew the people who needed these firearms.

MR SHANE: Do you remember that at your trial in 1993, Peter Ndlela testified as a witness?

MR BUTHELEZI: I recall that.

MR SHANE: Yes. And Peter at the time when he testified, was he high up in the hierarchy of the IFP, or don't you know?

MR BUTHELEZI: No, I don't know because I was in prison at the time and I never came out.

CHAIRPERSON: What relevance has that, Mr Shane?

MR SHANE: Well, Madam Chair, I just want to establish whether this was in fact a - the evidence seems that the firearms were handed in November and that evidence comes from Peter Ndlela. It seems ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Whether he was a high-ranking member or not, he was a witness and there's nothing to gainsay the fact that he was a member of the IFP.

MR SHANE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Is it correct that during your trial you never ever disputed the fact that the weapons were brought to Peter Ndlela during November?

MR BUTHELEZI: On rendering my testimony in court I disputed knowledge of the firearms.

MR SHANE: Yes. Now on of the complainants will testify that you never ever at any time during the course of the robbery, asked them for firearms, you only asked for money.

MR BUTHELEZI: I disagree with that.

MR SHANE: And the testimony will be that when you initially discovered a firearm in Mrs Gianini's handbag, you did not seek any more firearms.

MR BUTHELEZI: We continued looking for other firearms.

MR SHANE: Conrad Buthelezi, is he a relation of yours?

MR BUTHELEZI: No, we're only sharing a surname.

MR SHANE: Do you have any other brothers who were employed, or members of your family who were employed by Mr and Mrs Gianini?

MR BUTHELEZI: Not my brothers.

MR SHANE: Now in your application for amnesty you state that, and I refer to page 14, that's the typed bundle, the last paragraph you say -

Do you remember writing that?

MR BUTHELEZI: Somebody was writing on my behalf here because I cannot write English. I was talking in isiZulu and the person was taking down a statement.

MR SHANE: Yes. And you then signed afterwards, correct? Now is this - what I've read to you, is this what you told the person who was taking down your statement?

MR BUTHELEZI: I think the person didn't put it as I told him to.

MR SHANE: In other words what would you have told him to - I'm talking about the last paragraph. If your lawyer will show you that last paragraph, page 14 of the bundle.

MR BUTHELEZI: I cannot recall very well.

MR SHANE: Do you have children? Did you have children at the time?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Shane, may I interpose before you leave this point?

You say you did not hand down the information that is contained from page 11 up to page 12, you did not write this?

MR BUTHELEZI: I cannot recall the handwriting.

CHAIRPERSON: Whose handwriting is this? Is this not your handwriting?

MR BUTHELEZI: I requested someone in prison, somebody who could write English.

CHAIRPERSON: Is this not your handwriting, yes or no?

MR BUTHELEZI: No, I cannot recall.

MR SHANE: You say you cannot recall, but does that mean - is it possible that this what is contained on page 11 and 12, is your handwriting, could it be your handwriting and that you just can't remember?

MR BUTHELEZI: It is possible, it has been a very long time now, I cannot remember everything.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you write at all, Mr Buthelezi?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, I can write.

CHAIRPERSON: If you can write, why should you ask somebody else to write on your behalf?

MR BUTHELEZI: It's because I cannot write English.

CHAIRPERSON: Now why is it something that you cannot remember if this was ever written by you if you can't write English? Isn't is something that you can remember, if you indeed did not ...(indistinct) any information which is contained on page 11 and 12?

MR BUTHELEZI: It's because it has been a very long time. Yes, I do recall some of the things appearing in these pages.

CHAIRPERSON: With regard to the first application that you completed in October, which appears from page 1 up to page 7, did you complete this application yourself?

MR BUTHELEZI: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know who completed this on your behalf?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, I can recall.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you give us a name?

MR BUTHELEZI: Zweli Dlamini.

CHAIRPERSON: Was he also a person kept in custody with you at the time when you completed this application?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And the second application which you signed in December, that appears from page 8, who completed that on your behalf?

MR BUTHELEZI: If I recall very well, Douglas filled in this application on my behalf.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you give him the information which is contained also in that application form?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you had an occasion to go through both applications with your counsel?

MR BUTHELEZI: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Shane? Oh, before I hand over the ropes to you, Mr Shane - is the signature appearing on page 6 as well as the one appearing on page 10, your signature?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And the signature appearing on page 12, is that your signature as well?

MR BUTHELEZI: I cannot recall this signature because it is not the same as the others.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you sign the document that's contained on paragraph 11 and 12? That's something that should be within your personal knowledge, if you don't know it, who is going to know it? Because this forms part of the bundle of papers that are presented before us and there was no indication at the commencement of your hearing, that anything needed to be amended.

MR BUTHELEZI: Would you please repeat.

CHAIRPERSON: If you don't know whose signature that is, if you cannot remember whether that's your signature or not, who can be in a position to enlighten this Committee about whose signature that is? The documents which are before us are documents which are supposed to be used in support of your application and there has been no indication at the commencement of your hearing that anything needed to be amended in these documents, to indicate that the document as appearing on page 11 and 12, did not bear your signature. Or was it allegedly, or does it contain correct information?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You can't give an explanation? Because I do not understand what you are saying yes to.

MR BUTHELEZI: I am agreeing that no explanation was forthcoming about page 11 and 12. As for the signature, really I cannot recall, it has been a very long time now and the person who was taking down the statement, I cannot recall anymore. One person that I can still remember is Zweli Dlamini.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, which is quite strange, Mr Buthelezi. You see this document I would like to assume, was in response to an enquiry made by the offices of the Amnesty Committee, pursuant to the two applications that you had completed and sent to them, so it came much later than your application forms. You can however remember the names of the two people who assisted you in completing the application forms, you cannot however remember the one who assisted you in compiling the document that is before us, notwithstanding the fact that this document was compiled quite later than the two application forms before us.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Sorry, Mr Steenkamp could you perhaps assist. This document on page 11 and 12, have you got the original? If it came from prison surely it should have a stamp, a date stamp? Wasn't this directed to the Indemnity Committee, or was it addressed to us?

ADV STEENKAMP: Madam Chair, I think the document on page 11 says -

What happened ultimately, the office of the Amnesty Committee has asked for any information that could be taken and that included indemnity documentation. As far as I remember - as far as I can see, this must form part and parcel of his indemnity documents. I can be wrong however. But the original documents are not in our possession unfortunately. But these documents clearly have been taken after certain requests have been made to get information on this information. But this seems to be part and parcel of the indemnity documentation that was received by us. But clearly we don't have the original documents here and as far as I remember, after checking the documentation, we don't have the original of this document in our possession.

JUDGE MOTATA: But where did you get it from, when you say it now forms part of our documentation? Where did we get this document from?

ADV STEENKAMP: Initially, Madam Chair, during the starting, preparing this matter, we normally check all our sources and see if we can get any relevant information and this came up through our enquiries into the archival information, which used to be the Indemnity Board. This is where we got the information from. We received a lot of documentation, not only this, but on other applications as well, from the old Indemnity Board.

JUDGE MOTATA: Which were now forming part, that they should formally apply - I'm sorry, formally apply for amnesty to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission?

ADV STEENKAMP: Madam Chair, yes, that's how I understand it, this is exactly the position. These documents were included because at the stage we were of the opinion that these documents, the contents of these documents were actually relevant, that's why they were included in this application.

CHAIRPERSON: Let me understand you properly, Mr Steenkamp. This document was not obtained from Mr Buthelezi directly, pursuant to any enquiries that might have come from your office.

ADV STEENKAMP: That is indeed so, Madam Chair, but on the other side these documents were already in existence, they must have existed, but we didn't receive them from Mr Buthelezi, no.

CHAIRPERSON: So this document, it's possible that it was even made in 1992?

ADV STEENKAMP: It's possible, Madam Chair. Unfortunately I see there's no date stamp as well. What I suggest we can do, what I will do is see if we can find the original indemnity statement, at least the original, and see whether or not there was any date stamp on this because you see on page 12 unfortunately the page is cut there as well. But clearly on page 11 it says -

... and there's a case number there.

CHAIRPERSON: If that is so, then it would be incorrect to say that the document on page 11 and 12, was as a result of any kind of enquiries that you might have made in response to the written application of Mr Buthelezi.

ADV STEENKAMP: No, Madam Chair, you're correct, you're absolutely correct, you're right. But if I can just maybe say, the full indemnity file is not contained in this application as it is purely for logistical reason, but specifically ...(indistinct) the relevant section was included.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV STEENKAMP: But who the author of this specific information is, is not clear unfortunately.

CHAIRPERSON: So I think it is not unreasonable for Mr Buthelezi not to remember who signed this document, if it was probably prepared at his instance in 1990 to 1992, when both the first the Indemnity Act came into operation?

ADV STEENKAMP: That seems to be the case, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. We'll take that view, Mr Shane. It is not unreasonable for him to say he cannot remember who signed it.

MR SHANE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr Buthelezi, you already told the Committee that you do write, you can write.

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes.

MR SHANE: And is it correct that being in prison you write letters to your family?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes.

MR SHANE: Now does the handwriting on the letters - or let me just ask you, is this your handwriting? You should be able to ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Which letter are you referring to?

MR SHANE: I'm talking page 11 and 12.

CHAIRPERSON: Well he's already I think, responded to that question by saying ...(intervention)

MR SHANE: He doesn't know.

CHAIRPERSON: ... he cannot remember whether that's his handwriting, he thinks it's very unlikely because it's written in English.

MR SHANE: Yes. So is it correct from this, Mr Buthelezi, that you actually cannot recognise your handwriting?

MR BUTHELEZI: I can see my handwriting.

MR SHANE: And you know what is your handwriting and what is not your handwriting?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes.

MR SHANE: Right. Well ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Buthelezi, you had a look at all the documents being written in pen, did you take a pen in your hand and did you write anything apart from any signature on these documents?

MR BUTHELEZI: Could you have a look at it. Could you kindly show it to him? And you could even tell us whether you yourself signed at the bottom of the papers, or whether somebody else signed on your behalf.

CHAIRPERSON: You've already stated, Mr Buthelezi, that you signed both applications, the only signature that you couldn't remember was the signature which appears on page 11 and 12. And you've stated that you did not complete the application forms, both the one dated October '96 and the second application dated December 1996, and you gave us the names of the people who assisted you in completing those application forms. Is that not so?

MR BUTHELEZI: That is correct.

MR SHANE: Mr Buthelezi, I put it to you that this offence was not in any way committed for political, or for a political motive, but was committed because of what's stated in the last paragraph of what's contained on page 11 and 12, typed on page 14, and that it was for capital, it was for money because your family was experiencing grave hardship and in order to make(sic) that grave hardship that your family was suffering, you committed the offences for which you were convicted.

MR BUTHELEZI: That is not correct, I had been working for seven years prior to the commission of the crime.

JUDGE MOTATA: May I interpose, Mr Shane.

Mr Buthelezi, when this crime was committed, were you gainfully employed?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes.

JUDGE MOTATA: Thank you, Mr Shane.

MR SHANE: Madam Chair, I have no further questions to put to the applicant, I do wish to state that it is the wish of one of the victims, Mrs Kiarra Gianini, to testify.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we'll note that.

MR SHANE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp, do you have any questions to put to Mr Buthelezi?

ADV STEENKAMP: Nothing, thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Judge de Jager, do you have any questions to put to Mr Buthelezi?

JUDGE DE JAGER: No questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Judge Motata, do you have any questions to put to Mr Buthelezi?

JUDGE MOTATA: Just some clarification, Madam Chair, from the application forms themselves, the first and the second applications.

Mr Buthelezi, I see the application forms, the first on you said was filled in for you by Zweli Dlamini and the second by Douglas, did I hear you correctly in that respect?

MR BUTHELEZI: That is correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: And the one by Zweli Dlamini was some time in October 1996, and the second by Douglas, sometime in December 1996, that is two months apart.

MR BUTHELEZI: That is correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: Now both application forms are written in English, you can have a look at them, the questions there are in English. That is the questions asked.

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, I can see that.

JUDGE MOTATA: Let's start with the first one, did that Zweli Dlamini translate to you what the question sought from you meant?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes.

JUDGE MOTATA: And you would in turn give him an answer to that.

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, I would respond in isiZulu.

JUDGE MOTATA: And at the end of the entire completion of the form - let's start with Zweli Dlamini, did he read it back to you? That is, the answers you gave to the questions asked.

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes.

JUDGE MOTATA: Let's look at page 5 and look at 10(c), the question is -

... and the answer given there -

Do you see that?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes.

JUDGE MOTATA: And (d) says -

And -

Have a look at the document before you.

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, I can see that.

JUDGE MOTATA: And if you page to page 10 of the paginated papers, and now this is the application form filled on your behalf by Douglas, you are asked again the same question -

You say -

Do you see that?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes.

JUDGE MOTATA: And they say -

Your answer is -

MR BUTHELEZI: I would explain as I did earlier on. When we came back from the mission, our Induna was excited and I requested that he compensates us and we came back the following day, during which he gave us the money.

JUDGE MOTATA: But at that juncture you did not need money per se, you were worried about the protection you had to have against the attack from ANC, and you were gainfully employed then, you did not need money per se.

MR BUTHELEZI: That is correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: Now the jewellery - let's just leave the application form for a while, the jewellery, when you went to this farm you had knowledge that this person has weaponry on his farm or at his residence, is it not so? The information in your possession was that he has weaponry at his residential place.

MR BUTHELEZI: That is correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: And in the process you took jewellery, and if I understood you well in your evidence-in-chief, you suddenly saw this jewellery as a source of income to purchase more firearms.

MR BUTHELEZI: That is correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: Was that Inkatha policy that robberies should be committed and if so, also jewellery? Was it Inkatha policy?

MR BUTHELEZI: No, it was not policy, but that is something that was raised. We knew when we departed for the robbery, that the person owned a firm and we were likely to come across such things.

JUDGE MOTATA: Did I understand you correctly in your evidence-in-chief, that you were warned by Induna that you must just go for the firearms, did I hear you correctly? - before you departed for Nandine in Verwoerdburg.

MR BUTHELEZI: That is correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: Now why did you depart and take other things, for instance jewellery? Because you had instructions, specific instructions that you should take weaponry.

MR BUTHELEZI: I would explain again. It was mentioned earlier on, or this jewellery matter was raised earlier on, that is why we decided to take the jewellery.

JUDGE MOTATA: Raised earlier on, by whom?

MR BUTHELEZI: Induna himself, he is the one who knew that the white man owned a firm.

JUDGE MOTATA: Between the Induna and Conrad, who worked at the white man's firm?

MR BUTHELEZI: Conrad.

JUDGE MOTATA: And Conrad is the one who should know what is happening there, not the Induna. Couldn't that be reasonably so?

MR BUTHELEZI: I would not say because I did not receive any instructions from Conrad. I took it upon myself to come before this Committee to explain everything as it happened.

JUDGE MOTATA: Now according to your knowledge, Conrad, did he work at the residential place or the factory of the owner? Where did he work, where was he employed previously?

MR BUTHELEZI: I would not know, I just know that he was once an employee of the owner of the firm.

JUDGE MOTATA: Thank you, Madam Chair, I've got no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Judge Motata.

Mr Buthelezi, in response to an enquiry made by Judge Motata, you stated that you earlier on stated in your evidence-in-chief that the Induna had instructed you to go and collect firearms and jewellery, now I've been trying to check my note and to recollect your evidence and I recall your evidence pointedly on this issue, as having been confined to money and firearms.

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Am I correct therefore that in your evidence-in-chief you stated that you had been instructed by Jabulani Mtetwa, who was the Induna in your area, to go to the place of Mr Gianini, on information which he had obtained that you would be able to get firearms and money and your instructions were to go and rob Mr Gianini of the firearms which he knew to be keeping in his place, as well as the lots of money which according to the information given to you by Mr Gianini, was also found in - no, information given by Mr Mtetwa, would be found in Mr Gianini's house?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Now what I do not understand, and maybe you can help me with my little problem, is at what stage are you alleging that something was ever discussed by the Induna under whose instructions you were acting, that you had to rob the Gianini's of the jewellery? Because your evidence-in-chief did not touch on any instructions having been given to you by the Induna, with regard to the robbery pertaining to the jewellery.

MR BUTHELEZI: Induna told us - he had given us a briefing to the effect that everything that could help us raise some money and purchase some arms and ammunition we should bring back. I did explain this earlier on.

CHAIRPERSON: No, you did not according to your evidence ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: Sorry, I couldn't hear the translation.

INTERPRETER: He says the instruction was to the effect that they had to bring back everything that could help secure or raise some funds which would be used to purchase arms and ammunition.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Well if that is what you said in your evidence-in-chief, when you were giving evidence which explained the instructions of Mr Mtetwa, then I must have missed it. And it's the same situation with my two colleagues, we don't have that kind of evidence having come from you. If you then had to take anything that could be used for cash, was any attempt made to take movables, such as TVs or videos, in order to also sell those with a view of getting proceeds for your party?

MR BUTHELEZI: No, we did not because in our initial and last meeting that was not mentioned.

CHAIRPERSON: But I thought you were given a general instruction "get anything that will be capable of being reduced to cash". Isn't that what you've just said? And if that's what you were told, anything that could be reduced to cash is anything that is of value, like the TV, the VCR and such other related items. Why were they not taken, why did you confine yourself to jewellery as an item that could be reduced to cash?

MR BUTHELEZI: I took the jewellery and the firearms because they were in one place and it never occurred to me that I should take anything else.

CHAIRPERSON: You also led evidence to the effect that clothing and shoes were also removed from the house.

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it also part of the instruction received from Mr Mtetwa, the Induna, that such clothing and shoes specifically were to be removed?

MR BUTHELEZI: I for one did not even touch those things. As I explained earlier on that I took the firearms and wrapped them in a sheet, I could not have carried them unsecured. I am trying to explain the clothing problem. The clothing and the shoes were brought by my co-accused, I only took the jewellery and the firearms.

CHAIRPERSON: But were they not removed because of the instruction received from the Induna? Was it not part of the instruction?

MR BUTHELEZI: I asked my co-accused about the clothing and the explanation that I got was that the clothing was going to assist in purchasing ammunition.

CHAIRPERSON: And you were happy with the reason that was given by the people who were under your command, because you were the leader at the stage of the group that was in charge of this operation. Were you not? Isn't that what your evidence is?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, that is correct, I did accept the explanation, there was no way we could have taken back the clothing items. That is why we had to show all of this to the person who had instructed us.

CHAIRPERSON: In your opinion, was the removal of clothing and shoes part and parcel of the instruction given by Mr Mtetwa?

MR BUTHELEZI: No, I would say as far as the clothing items were concerned, no, they were not part of the instruction, that is why we decided to bring back everything to him.

CHAIRPERSON: Now you have already given testimony to the effect that the reason why this operation was embarked upon was because of the need to protect the members of the IFP against the onslaught from the ANC, and that the members needed firearms for such protection. Have I encapsulated your evidence in that regard correctly?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: What I do not understand, if that is your evidence, is why when you came back with 11 firearms, not all of them were distributed to the needy IFP members who were suffering this onslaught. One is familiar obviously with the conflict which was existing between the ANC and the IFP at that time, why then were all these firearms not immediately distributed amongst the supporters of the IFP? Why were you given five firearms after you had requested for some kind of compensation from Mr Mtetwa, instead of Mr Mtetwa being the Induna, distributing the firearms to the needy IFP supporters?

MR BUTHELEZI: The reason therefore is that we gave the firearms to Mr Mtetwa ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Please slow down so that everything can be interpreted.

MR BUTHELEZI: The reason is that I took the firearms to the person to whom I was responsible and if he told me to take some of the firearms and give them to whoever, I had to act accordingly and I cannot therefore account for what other things happened without my knowledge.

CHAIRPERSON: I had understood your evidence in that regard, to have been that you had indicated earlier on to the Induna that you needed five firearms to your neighbours. And the word you used here, and this is the word that I'm interested in, you used the word "neighbours", whereas what motivated this whole robbery was the need to protect and arm IFP supporters. You recall that part of your evidence?

MR BUTHELEZI: I recall that very well.

CHAIRPERSON: When the next day Mr Mtetwa gave you five firearms to give to your neighbours because earlier on you had indicated that they were in need of firearms.

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, the neighbours, even though I did not explain as to how they were my neighbours and he said I should take the firearms, give them to somebody who would in turn give them to his neighbours who were in need of these firearms. I also did mention that he said I was not going to get a firearm because I had one already.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't have that evidence, but that's not very material to me. Now you decided to give the firearms to Mr Peter Ndlela because he was a committee member, is that not so?

MR BUTHELEZI: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: What was the committee of, what was the role of that committee of which Mr Ndlela was a member?

MR BUTHELEZI: If there were meetings for example, Mr Ndlela was the one responsible for informing people who would in turn inform other people.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you say you had a fairly good relationship with Mr Ndlela, both as your colleague, comrade? You belonged to the same organisation and also belonged to the same committee, would you say your relationship with him was fairly good and courteous?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: He also was your brother-in-law.

MR BUTHELEZI: The relationship is such that I was in love with a girl residing in the same street as him, that is why we addressed each other as brothers-in-law.

CHAIRPERSON: If you state that you had such a cordial relationship with Mr Ndlela, can you attempt to advance any reason why he should give evidence which was incorrect with regard to when you gave him the firearms? In the criminal court trail, his evidence was that you gave him the firearms in November of 1991, approximately eight months after the robbery had been committed. In your evidence you have persisted that the firearms were given to him immediately after they were given to you by Mr Mtetwa. Bearing in mind that we know that Mr Mtetwa gave you the firearms the next day after this robbery had been committed. Can you advance any reason why he should give such an incorrect state of affairs if you had such a good relationship with him?

MR BUTHELEZI: I would explain this even though it might not be clear. Once a person is in trouble or once a person is facing criminal charges, it becomes easy for such a person to deny knowledge of such things or certain things. The reason is that once a person is in trouble, such a person would be evasive and as I am explaining that I gave these firearms to him and he spoke about a different period maybe because he knows that he made a mistake and - I guess that's the reason.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Did you know the five neighbours who were in need of such firearms, were they personally known to you?

MR BUTHELEZI: I knew only one of them.

CHAIRPERSON: And how did you come to know of his predicament, that he needed a firearm for protection for IFP purposes? By purposes I mean in relation to the ...(intervention)

MR BUTHELEZI: He was a neighbour of my girlfriend.

CHAIRPERSON: Now if you only knew of one person who needed a firearm for purposes of protecting himself against the ANC - and we take note of the conflict that existed between the ANC and the IFP, why then did you take five firearms to Ndlela to distribute to neighbours when you only knew of one person who was in need of a firearm?

MR BUTHELEZI: It is because Ndlela is the one who was given the responsibility of distributing the firearms, and I was only instructed to hand over these firearms to Ndlela. He is the one responsible for that.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying you were instructed to hand over the firearms to Ndlela? Did I understand you correctly?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And by being instructed you would refer to Mr Mtetwa, Jabulani Mtetwa, the Induna?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Now I have a problem with that evidence and maybe you can clarify it for me, your earlier evidence was to the effect that when you met Mr Jabulani Mtetwa the next day, he gave you five firearms to give to your neighbours because you had earlier on you had earlier on indicated to him that your neighbours were in need of such firearms. It was a result of your request to him that you were giving these firearms, it was not as though you were instructed to hand over the firearms to Ndlela. I did not understand your evidence to say that.

MR BUTHELEZI: That means it may not have been clear. I think the fault is with the interpreter who did not explain it clearly. I did explain that when the Induna gave me the firearms the following day, he said I should give them to Ndlela.

CHAIRPERSON: And it was not because you had earlier on indicated to the Induna that your neighbours were in need of firearms?

MR BUTHELEZI: No, I am talking about Ndlela's neighbours, not my neighbours.

CHAIRPERSON: Not your neighbours, but Ndlela's neighbours.

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: After you had given the firearms to Ndlela, did you find out between March and November, whether he had distributed the firearms to his neighbours? As you must have been interested in making sure that these people were properly protected.

MR BUTHELEZI: I could not have done that because Ndlela was my senior in rank. My Induna is the one who could have gone to Ndlela to pose such a question or make a follow-up. I could not have done that because I had my own firearm already and therefore I could not have gone to Ndlela to enquire about the firearms.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Were you given any reason by Mr Mtetwa why you were being made a middleman, why he was not able to hand over the firearms directly to Mr Ndlela, why you had to do the handing over of the firearms?

MR BUTHELEZI: No, I did not get any explanation.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Westhuizen, maybe this would be an appropriate time to adjourn. After we reconvene we will give you an opportunity to re-examine if you do have any re-examination. Will that be appropriate?

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll take a 15 minutes adjournment.

NORMAN BUTHELEZI: (s.u.o.)

MR BUTHELEZI: Not a single item was found in my possession.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Thank you, Honourable Chair, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Shane?

MR SHANE: I have nothing further, Honourable Chair. CHAIRPERSON: You were going to call in a witness.

MR SHANE: That is correct, Honourable Chair, Mrs Gianini. She is present, I wish to call her.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Westhuizen, that's the end of your application?

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: That's indeed so, Honourable Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Shane, is Mrs Gianini going to give her evidence under oath?

MR SHANE: She would like to according to my instructions, Honourable Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR SHANE: Can she sit next to me, Honourable Chair?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think they will have to arrange for the microphones. Maybe Mr Steenkamp can borrow you his. Ms Gianini, are you prepared to take an oath?

MS GIANINI: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: You may sit down, Ma'am. Mr Shane?

EXAMINATION BY MR SHANE: Mrs Gianini, this Committee is fully aware of the facts of the incident, can you in your words say why you feel the application should be refused, what is your feeling on that?

MS GIANINI: My personal feelings are that at no stage from when the people came to rob us at the house, at the start they found a handgun in my handbag and thereafter all of them, nobody in particular and everybody in general words were "Where is the safe with the big money, where is the jewellery?" They never ever asked for further firearms and to my knowledge they were content once they found mine and shortly thereafter they found a handgun of my husband's in his briefcase.

The objects that were taken from my house being jewellery, linen, clothing, briefcases full of documentation, personally I feel had nothing to do with politics, with the ANC or the IFP or any particular party at the time. I think it was purely robbery.

MR SHANE: Just one last question. The presence of a large amount of firearms at your residence, was that generally known to people or was that kept a secret?

MS GIANINI: It was not generally known to anybody. My staff at my office knew that I carried a handgun and that my husband carried a handgun, they were not aware of our collection of hunting rifles.

MR SHANE: So that was unknown to anyone.

MS GIANINI: It's not something that one would advertise around.

MR SHANE: Thank you. That is all, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Shane. Ms van der Westhuizen, do you have any questions to put to Ms Gianini?

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Thank you, Madam Chair. Indeed, just one aspect.

Mrs Gianini, your husband, Mr Antonio Gianini made an affidavit which is included, or the typed version thereof is included in the bundle and I would refer you to page 16 thereof and the top paragraph. I'll read this part out -

In the light of your evidence just given before this Committee, can you explain that your husband is stating under oath that the people, and specifically the applicant, is asking where is the safe with the big guns? Can you explain that?

MS GIANINI: I can explain that. Initially from when we entered and I had my head split open, we were separated, so I cannot swear under oath as to what my husband had said, but I can say what was said to me during the time that I had the people around myself.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Thank you, Madam Chair, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Steenkamp, do you have any questions to put to Ms Gianini?

ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you, Madam Chair, no questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Gianini for having come before this Committee to give this kind of evidence.

MS GIANINI: I thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Westhuizen, are we in a position to proceed to legal argument?

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Thank you, Madam Chair, I will be very brief, if that is acceptable to you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you are in control, you're handling Mr Buthelezi's application.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN IN ARGUMENT: Thank you, Madam Chair.

It is submitted that the applicant complied with all the formal requirements of the Act. He made full disclosure of all relevant facts to this Committee, he provided the Committee with the names of the people involved, he didn't try and water down his role that he played in the robbery, he admitted that he was so-to-say, the leader of the robbers who went out that night and that he was indeed also the person who assaulted Mrs Gianini. He further out of his own disclosed the fact that jewellery was also taken from this household.

On the aspect of whether he acted with a political objective, it is clear that apart from the R200 which was given to him by the Induna, he did not benefit. There were not any firearms or any items that were robbed found in his possession. There should also - the political climate in that area and the background should also be taken into account. It was a very violent time, there were a lot of attacks from various groups on each other and although it might not have been the official policy of the IFP to instruct its members or supporters to go and commit robberies of firearms etcetera, the situation on the ground was much different.

He testified that he received instructions from the Induna, Jabulani Mtetwa, if I'm not mistaken. And in this respect I would just refer to a document which is included in the bundle and that is an affidavit from an address visited. I would like to bring it under the Committee's attention that the address that was visited, for your easy reference, it's on page 28 ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: 28. I'm aware of it.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Now this affidavit is a by a Mason Mtetwa who resides at 438 Zonkezizwe township. It is clear from the two applications and the information given by the application that he stated that this Induna resided at 34 Zonkezizwe, so it seems that the wrong address was visited. But it's actually noteworthy to see that this person also knows a Jabulani Mtetwa, although we cannot say whether it's necessarily the same Induna.

Now there's also just the aspect of the evidence of Peter Ndlela at court where he testified that he received the firearms round about October ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: November.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: November, I beg your pardon. ... and that this offence was committed in March. I will submit on behalf of the application that it would not be so strange for a person who has just been found with unlicensed firearms to make, or to try and make his possession of the illegal firearm as short as possible. That was partially explained by the applicant or one of the reasons he said that can explain that difference. But what is however important is that Peter Ndlela actually confirms that - if you'll just grant me some indulgence, he confirms that a firearm was given to him by the applicant for self-protection, and that is at page 39 of the bundle. And I'll read it out -

I beg your pardon, I'll start from the start.

It is further submitted that although the applicant's evidence in certain aspects, seems to be vague or he seems to be uncertain, it should be kept in mind that this incident took place a number of years ago and it's therefore not strange that a person would not remember detail. Thank you, that's all.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms van der Westhuizen. We'll now give an opportunity to Mr Shane to respond.

MR SHANE IN ARGUMENT: I thank you, Madam Chair.

I submit with respect, that there has not been the establishment that the robbery was in the furtherance of a political act or to a further a political objective. And also, from the testimony, Madam Chair, I submit that there is also not a full disclosure. The applicant says the mission was in order to collect firearms, we don't need to argue on the political situation and whether there was a need for IFP supporters or members to protect themselves, that's not the issue.

I submit that the facts of this case, there were - the facts are, there were eleven firearms as well as jewellery and other good taken. Now we've heard the contradictions regarding the instructions from the Induna, Jabulani Mtetwa, and I submit that even these instructions as such, are in doubt.

If you look at the statement purportedly made by the applicant, which is on page 11 and 12, and which is typed on page 14, the applicant gives another reason as the conditions that him and his family found themselves in, generally the community found themselves in, which was clearly as a result of the past injustices. That is, I submit, the reason behind the applicant's action on the Gianini farm, to obtain whatever they could in order to get money in order to better their lives.

And I submit with respect Madam Chair, that in the circumstances, if we look at all the evidence given by the applicant, if we look at all the facts, all the circumstances, I submit with the greatest respect, that it hasn't been shown that the actions were in the furtherance of a political objective.

If there is anything further that you wish me to address you on, Madam Chair, I will do so gladly.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp?

ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you, Madam Chair, I have no further comment on that.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Westhuizen, what is your reply to the submission made by Mr Shane with regard to the statement that appears on page 11? This is the handwritten statement.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN IN REPLY: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, the origin of that statement seems at this stage to be unclear. The applicant actually testified - he looked at it, he said he cannot read - I beg your pardon, he cannot write English. The statement appears to be in English. If one also looks at the signature on the two applications, it's clear that the applicant has got a signature which he uses. From - although I also seem to have a cut off page, from page 11 and 12, it seems that the name Norman Buthelezi is only written. So I would submit with respect, that no regard should be given to page 11 and 12. Thank you, Honourable Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: With hindsight, shouldn't you have brought this to our attention even before we heard Mr Buthelezi? Because the documents before us do form part and parcel of the evidence, the totality of the evidence we at the end of the day have to evaluate and analyse?

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: That is indeed so, Madam Chair, that is a negligence on my part, for which I apologise.

CHAIRPERSON: For what it is worth, it would appear that this statement was made for purposes of an application for an indemnity, which application might have been made in terms of the Indemnity Act of 1990, or the Indemnity Act of 1992, we do not know. So it was an oversight on your part.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: That is indeed so.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. This concludes the application of Mr Norman Buthelezi. This Committee is going to reserve its decision in this application and we shall accordingly advise both Ms van der Westhuizen and Mr Shane in due course. We hope that we will be able to pronounce our decision in two week's time from today. We thank you for attending, Mr and Ms Gianini, we know it is not a pleasant thing to come and have your wounds reopened. We hope however, that your attendance here and the evidence that you have heard from Mr Buthelezi, will go a long way in assuaging your pain. We thank you.

You are excused.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Thank you.

ADV STEENKAMP: Madam Chair, I'm humbly asking if it's possible for just a two minute adjournment that we just maybe change seats for the next application, which will be application numbers 9000/97 and 9001/97, that being of applicants Benswana and Nqanda. The applicants and the victims are ready. I don't know if you want to just take a short, one or two minutes.

CHAIRPERSON: It looks like Ms Cambanis is already properly seated.

ADV STEENKAMP: Thanks, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: There is no need for an adjournment. Am I correct, Ms Cambanis?

MS CAMBANIS: Thank you, Chair, there is no need. Chairperson, the applicants would give ...(break in sound)

CHAIRPERSON: The Panel that sat in the Buthelezi matter will now sit to hear and consider the application of applicants, Michael Benswana and Raymond Nqanda. Will the legal representative of Mr Benswana and Nqanda kindly place herself on record.

MS CAMBANIS: Thank you, Chairperson. My name is Crystal Cambanis, an attorney appearing for both applicants, as well as the implicated persons namely, Ms Skosana and a Mr ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Nqati.

MS CAMBANIS: No, no, Your Worship, there's a Mr Mhlambi who is present. We're not sure why he has been called, but should the reason be revealed at some I will deal with it. He has a Section 19(4) notice, but we cannot trace his name.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr who?

MS CAMBANIS: Mhlambi if I ...

CHAIRPERSON: Can you just spell it for me.

MS CAMBANIS: M-h-l-a-m-b-i and his initials are S H. And he has received a Section 19(4) notice, he's been present yesterday and today. He cannot explain why ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Your microphone is off.

MS CAMBANIS: From the point of view of the applicants, we cannot explain why he has been summoned because he is not named by us as ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. From our reading of the papers we seem to be lost as to why Mr Mhlambi should be here, but maybe Mr Steenkamp will enlighten us further on that.

MS CAMBANIS: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: And for the victims?

MR NYAWUZA: Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is O P Nyawuza from O P Nyawuza Attorneys. I'm representing the victims in this instance.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr ?

MR NYAWUZA: N-y-a-w-u-z-a, initials O P. I'm representing the victims herein and we are going to call Izaia Ngema, who is the younger brother to the deceased and the wife to the deceased, Penduleni Ngema, who are present today.

CHAIRPERSON: Is this application opposed, Mr Nyawuza?

MR NYAWUZA: Yes, my instructions are to ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct) substantive issues.

MR NYAWUZA: Madam Chair, my instructions are to follow the proceedings and raise issues that will not be advanced by the applicants. If we feel that the applicants have complied with the requirements of the TRC, then we will withdraw our opposition to that. I've explained everything to the victims.

CHAIRPERSON: So you are on a watching brief?

MR NYAWUZA: Exactly.

CHAIRPERSON: And you will only oppose if your instructions at the end of the evidence of both Mr Benswana and Nqanda, is that there has not been compliance with the requirement of full disclosure.

MR NYAWUZA: That is so, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Steenkamp?

ADV STEENKAMP: Madam Chair, I'm the Evidence Leader. Madam Chair, I've picked up this Section 19(4) notice, it's actually - this person was not summonsed or subpoenaed to appear before the Amnesty Committee today. I've worked through all the documentation and it seems that nowhere as far as I can see in the documentation or even in the documents that were used for preparation, this individual's came up. What I think has happened, this is a notice that was actually originally sent out during November of last year for another hearing at the JISS Centre.

I didn't have the opportunity yet to speak to Mr Mhlambi, but the moment we have a break we'll speak to him because as far as I can see in this matter, Mr Mhlambi was only referred to in the killings of Mr - as an interested party in the killing of Ngema and the death of Mr Ntombela. So he was only notified as the interested party. Why exactly he was interested party during those times, I'm not quite sure.

It seems for this hearing however, he was not notified but subsequently he was notified, but not from my side. He was notified for a previous hearing, but not for this one. But the confusion in that case, I've already asked for an analyst to enlighten me as well as to why he was informed for the previous hearing and why is he actually here today. There's no specific reason for him to be notified. Nowhere in the documents is there any reference to him whatsoever.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, what you are saying in short, should we have Mr Mhlambi here being eminently represented by Ms Cambanis, or shouldn't we not have Mr Mhlambi appearing before this Committee at all in relation to this incident?

ADV STEENKAMP: Exactly, Madam Chair. It's very unclear for me as well why he was notified, even for the previous hearing, his name was never mentioned. I tried to clear it up with my learned colleague and she was also in the dark why he was notified as it is, as an interested party only.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Will you take the issue up with your office?

ADV STEENKAMP: I beg your pardon, Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON: Will you take the issue of Mhlambi up with your office, with regard to this Section 19(4) notice?

ADV STEENKAMP: Yes, Madam Chair, I'm already in the process of doing so, and I would like if there was any confusion or any difficulty for Mr Mhlambi, to apologise immediately without any due - for any inconvenience suffered by him or by his attorney.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Was Mr Sam Nqati notified, in terms of Section 19(4)?

ADV STEENKAMP: Madam Chair, all the other interested parties and implicated people were notified. I've checked this again with our Investigator who's responsible for this matter and our Analyst and all the relevant people were notified in this application, the only difficulty like I said, was the question of Mr Mhlambi, which I couldn't pick up anywhere in any documentation, any statements in our possession for the moment.

I've tried to clear with the applicants whether or not they will probably be mentioning his name somewhere in the application, which is probably not contained in the application, but the indication was that they will not mention him at all.

CHAIRPERSON: Has Mr Sam Nqati been notified?

ADV STEENKAMP: Yes, he was notified, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Ms Cambanis, are you acting for Mr Nqati?

MS CAMBANIS: I'm not, we do not know his whereabouts.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And was Mr Johnson Sivella also notified in terms of Section 19(4), Mr Steenkamp?

ADV STEENKAMP: Sorry Madam Chair, I missed that for the moment, I couldn't hear properly.

CHAIRPERSON: Johnson Sivella.

ADV STEENKAMP: Johnson Sivella, Madam Chair, was notified.

CHAIRPERSON: Was he?

ADV STEENKAMP: He was notified, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: According to your records, when was he notified?

ADV STEENKAMP: Madam Chair, as far as I can see he was notified for the previous hearing as well as for this one during January. I've got a fax to that extent. I can't seem to find it now, but I've checked ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Of 2000?

ADV STEENKAMP: If you'll bear with me for a moment ...

CHAIRPERSON: January of 2000?

ADV STEENKAMP: Yes, yes, Madam Chair, the specific date I've - but it was during January of this year. It was during January, Madam Chair, if I'm not mistaken I remember the date, I think it was the beginning of January, the 4th of the 5th of January, but I'll come back to that in a moment. I just want to see where - if the Committee could bear with me. Madam Chair, I can confirm it was in January, the specific date I don't have with me, but it was definitely in January, the first week of January.

CHAIRPERSON: You will try and locate a Return of Service, and then bring it to our attention in due course.

ADV STEENKAMP: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Cambanis, are you in a position to proceed with the evidence of one of your applicants?

MS CAMBANIS: I am, thank you, Honourable Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Which applicant will commence these proceedings?

MS CAMBANIS: We will begin with applicant first-named, Mr Michael Benswana, but Honourable Chair, may I interrupt myself, there's further documentation which I wish to hand in at the outset. Copies of these have been given to the Evidence Leader and to the representative for the victims previously. These documents were in fact sent to the Cape Town offices, it seems as though they haven't been distributed to the Committee. They are handed in terms of Section 19 of the Act. The first document is that of Ms Skosana, who is an implicated - who's implicated by the applicants as the overall Commander of the Self Defence Units in that area.

The second document is a "Further Particulars" made by the first applicant, Michael Benswana, in terms of Section 19. And the third document is a "Further Particulars" supplied by the second applicant in this matter. All the documents have been properly attested to.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS CAMBANIS: Honourable Chair, I would like direction relating to the affidavit of Ms Skosana. Honourable Chair, you will see at paragraph 8 of that document that she says she has been informed of her right to attend the hearing and to be represented, she waives such rights and submits this statement in her absence.

CHAIRPERSON: She is an implicated person.

MS CAMBANIS: She is, she's the Commander, the overall Commander.

CHAIRPERSON: She has exercised her right not to appear before the Committee.

MS CAMBANIS: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: But will in fact make an affidavit.

MS CAMBANIS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: That's in terms of Section 19(4).

MS CAMBANIS: In terms of Section 19. The direction I need is whether it is necessary for me to read the contents of this affidavit into the record. As I say, copies have been distributed to the relevant parties previously and they have had sight of it, so I'm not sure if it's necessary to read it.

CHAIRPERSON: I think we'll have to number the documents that have been handed up. Maybe let's start with the affidavit of Mr Benswana and probably have that as Exhibit A and the affidavit Mr Nqanda as Exhibit B, the affidavit of Ms Skosana as Exhibit C. There is no need for you to read it into the record, we actually have it and it is part of the record.

MS CAMBANIS: Thank you. Then in that case I beg leave to call the applicant, Michael Benswana, who will give his evidence in Xhosa.

MICHAEL BENSWANA: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Please be seated. You may proceed, Ms Cambanis.

EXAMINATION BY MS CAMBANIS: Thank you.

Mr Benswana, we have gone through your application which appears at page 1 to page 7 of the bundle, is that correct?

MR BENSWANA: That is correct.

MS CAMBANIS: At page 3 of your statement, at paragraph (b), in relation to that question you've answered -

At this stage do you have any further information regarding Mr Ngema? - since you made the application.

MR BENSWANA: That is correct.

MS CAMBANIS: What information do you have regarding Mr Ngema?

MR BENSWANA: All I can say is that on the 19th when Ngema died and Ntombela, they died because they were attacked by us, these two.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct) Mr Benswana. Is he responding to your question, Ms Cambanis, because ...(intervention)

MS CAMBANIS: No, I'm simply trying to establish that he ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Because he seems to be giving evidence now of an affidavit that he has not yet confirmed.

MS CAMBANIS: Is it correct Sir, that you have now been informed that Mr Ngema in fact is deceased?

MR BENSWANA: That is correct, I was told that.

MS CAMBANIS: And after that you say -

Is that in fact correct?

INTERPRETER: There's an interruption in the booth, just give us a second please.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(no English interpretation)

INTERPRETER: Ms Cambanis, please repeat your question.

MS CAMBANIS: Mr Benswana, you say that no property was damaged during this incident, is that correct?

MR BENSWANA: Yes, there was no property damaged at that time, it was just windows that were damaged, they were broken.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(no English interpretation)

MS CAMBANIS: I just take them as a light issue comparing to burning down the building, of destroying it.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS CAMBANIS: Mr Benswana, other than that we have gone through your application and do you confirm that the contents thereof is correct?

MR BENSWANA: That is correct.

MS CAMBANIS: And at page 6, is this that I'm showing you now, your signature?

MR BENSWANA: That is correct.

MS CAMBANIS: Mr Benswana, subsequent to that, is it correct that I consulted with you and took a further statement from you?

MR BENSWANA: That is correct.

MS CAMBANIS: And a further document was drawn up, which I'm showing to you now, which is marked Exhibit A and you have been taken through the contents of that document together with the annexures, which consist - Madam Chair, unfortunately I got it back to front, I put this ANC Second Submission before the main submission.

CHAIRPERSON: And it's not numbered.

MS CAMBANIS: And it's not numbered. I apologise, Honourable Chair. I apologise, page 5, 6 and 7 of that is in fact from the original ANC statement to the TRC and should have come before page 4 and 5, which is from the second submission.

CHAIRPERSON: They are actually numbered right at the bottom, that's 63, 64 and 65 should have actually preceded page 30 and 31.

MS CAMBANIS: It should have, yes.

Mr Benswana, is it correct that you have gone through page 1, 2 and 3 of your statement, as well as the annexures from the ANC Submissions to the TRC? Is that correct?

MR BENSWANA: That is correct, it's true.

MS CAMBANIS: And insofar as it concerns you, do you confirm that the contents of these Further Particulars are correct?

MR BENSWANA: That is correct.

MS CAMBANIS: And you have signed on each page, do you confirm that that is in fact your signature?

MR BENSWANA: That is correct.

MS CAMBANIS: Mr Benswana, do you - you've stated in your application that you did not receive any personal gain as a result of this attack, do you confirm this now to this Committee?

MR BENSWANA: That is correct.

MS CAMBANIS: Chair, that is all, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Nyawuza, do you have any questions to put to Mr Benswana?

MR NYAWUZA: Madam Chair, a few questions only.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NYAWUZA: Mr Benswana, on the night in question when Mr Ngema or the IFP, to put it more simpler terms, were attacked, how many were you?

MR BENSWANA: We were quite many.

MR NYAWUZA: Can you please give us an approximation, 20, 30, 500, 1000?

MR BENSWANA: We could have been 40 or so in number.

MR NYAWUZA: And who initiated this attack, who actually planned it?

MR BENSWANA: I initiated this because the main commander was not there during those days.

MR NYAWUZA: Meaning that you were second-in-command if the commander was not there.

MR BENSWANA: That is correct.

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Benswana, on page 63 of Exhibit A, there's a paragraph, a penultimate paragraph ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Page?

MR NYAWUZA: Page 63, Exhibit A.

... it starts with that.

MR NYAWUZA: I do not have that on my page 63, I have that as a "Verklaring van ..." ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: It's Exhibit A, your Exhibit A, that's under paragraph 6.2.9.1, dealing with "Community Self-Defence "Initiatives (Pre-1990)"

MR NYAWUZA: Sorry Chair, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: You are obviously aware, Mr Nyawuza, that - oh, yes.

MR NYAWUZA: Thank you, Madam Chair.

We're going to dwell more on that today, Mr Benswana. Mr Benswana, you state on page 5 of the bundle, at (b), that -

What is it that you decided, did you decide to attack the hostel or what?

MR BENSWANA: Which date are you referring to?

MR NYAWUZA: On page 5 of the bundle - if his legal rep can refer him to that page please, 11(b) of the bundle, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR NYAWUZA: 11(b) -

You state that -

My question is, what did you decide to do on that day?

MR BENSWANA: We took a decision after the 6th, after ANC members were killed.

MR NYAWUZA: I want the decision that you took, what decision did you take?

MR BENSWANA: After having been attacked by the IFP on the 6th and they killed two members, we tried to counter-attack, but we could not succeed because the Stability Unit members were around the hostel area ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Benswana, I'm going to interrupt you. We don't want to have lengthy proceedings unnecessarily. I hope, Mr Nyawuza, there is also the reason why you asking this question because I take it that you've read the documents.

MR NYAWUZA: Yes, I have read the documents, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Including Exhibit A.

Mr Benswana, what is being asked of you is a very simple question, very short, it requires a short response - what decision did you take on the 19th - between the 6th and the 19th of March 1994? We obviously are dealing with an attack here of Duduza hostel, so we don't want you to give us a very long history of what happened prior to you taking the decision, we want to find out the nature of the decision you took. You don't have to give us any background information. Do you understand?

MR BENSWANA: Yes, I understand.

CHAIRPERSON: Just give us the nature and the particulars of the decision you took between the 6th and the 19th of March, that's all.

MR BENSWANA: We took a decision - or rather, we gathered the Self Defence Unit's leaders and I told them that because the situation is ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: Could I try and assist you. Did you take a decision to attack Duduza hostel?

MR BENSWANA: Okay.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes, or no?

MR BENSWANA: Yes, we took the decision to attack.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you hear the question properly, Mr Benswana?

MR BENSWANA: Yes, I do understand the question.

CHAIRPERSON: But if you do, why you beat about the bush, why don't you just give us a precise answer, brief and to the point?

MR BENSWANA: We took a decision after the 6th and the decision was to attack the hostel.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR NYAWUZA: Madam Chair, if I were to address the Honourable Committee, there are some questions that I am going to ask to the applicants that are for the benefit of the victims. I heard Madam Chair saying haven't I read the documents, I have read documents Madam Chair, but I would wish the victims to get first-hand information from the applicants because initially I thought my learned fried was going to lead evidence on that, they were going to say whatever happened. So I'll have to extract the information from them for the benefit of the victims.

CHAIRPERSON: Let me consult my colleagues on that.

MR NYAWUZA: As it pleases.

CHAIRPERSON: Because you are aware that we are a very short-lived Committee and that's why we appreciate when counsel or when a legal representative comes before us and he or she has prepared a supplementary affidavit that deals with the issues that we at the end of the day have to consider and decide whether amnesty should be granted or refused.

We appreciate and are very sensitive to the plight of the victims who come to these hearings to listen to what happened. We obviously however, are aware that such victims have as a right been given legal representation.

The legal representatives are expected to explain to the victims the documents which are appearing before them, because if a witness has already confirmed an affidavit, there is no need to duplicate these proceedings by again re-gagitating (?) what is contained in the written documents before us. If we did that, this Committee would be here ad infinitum.

MR NYAWUZA: Madam Chair, as regards the explanation of the contents and the issue why we're here, everything has been explained to the victims, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Together with whatever is contained in the documents?

MR NYAWUZA: Yes, I read everything - I consulted with them this morning when they came, told them what we're here for, told them that if a, b and c are met, then they should know that d is going to follow and that and that. That has been explained to them, Madam Chair. So if this Committee rules in favour of us going through with the documents before us, the decision will bind me, the my clients will understand that this has been said. I will explain that further to them, that there was no need that we should duplicate the proceedings. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I really am bringing this to your attention without wanting to sound - and I never will be like that, I'm very sensitive to the plight of the victims, but one has to weigh that and balance that with the fact that this is a very short-lived Committee, we cannot allow a situation where we go back and re-visit that which has already been covered in the documents before us.

We expect counsel of the legal representatives to assist us in that regard by explaining to the victims, because they obviously will not be on the same wavelength with these proceedings unless any documentary evidence is explained to them. And any documentary evidence that's before us need not form part of the viva voce evidence, otherwise we can sit here forever and not complete these proceedings. I hope I'm just clear with regard to that point, Mr Nyawuza.

MR NYAWUZA: Yes, you're clear, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: You can cover anything that you want to cover to satisfy your watching brief on the fact that the applicants have not complied with the requirement of full disclosure.

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Benswana, on the particular day when you attacked the said Duduza hostel, what is it in actual fact that you did?

MR BENSWANA: On that day when we attacked Duduza, I was leading the SDUs and accompanied by Mr Nqanda. On our arrival there at that hostel, Nqanda he took a round about route to the hostel and I entered the hostel and I tried to take them out and they come towards the Nali Section.

Some came out and fought and firing at us, but we also managed to injure or hurt a few like Nomzana Ngema and some others that I do not know their names.

JUDGE MOTATA: What did you do, Mr Benswana?

MR BENSWANA: When they came out of the hostel I heard from inside that they had already gone out, therefore I went out and we caught Mr Ntombela and we fought with him and he was also fighting back, but ultimately we killed him. I was carrying a sword or a spear and I kept our(sic) stabbing as well and I was having a panga as well.

After he died, Ntombela, we pursued the others. We saw Ngema and we tried to capture him so that he shouldn't be able to run away. We left him lying there at that spot ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Benswana, we want to find out the details of your particular involvement. You and not the rest are applying for amnesty. We simply want you to give us details of what role you played. You haven't said much about the role you played in the killing of Mr Ntombela, and neither have you really done anything much more to enlighten us of how you participated in the injuries sustained by Mr Ngema, because at that time you didn't know that Mr Ngema had died. So go back to Mr Ntombela and tell us what role you personally had in his killing, what is it that you did.

JUDGE MOTATA: And don't come with that "we fought" because they were defending themselves, we want to know what you did with the sword you had in your possession.

MR BENSWANA: The sword that I had I used it to stab and I also used the panga ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Just commence with Mr Ntombela and tell us your involvement with Ntombela. What is it that you did, how you found Mr Ntombela, what ensued during the altercation.

MR BENSWANA: Okay. I'm trying to be brief ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: You can go into detail in this issue because you are actually telling about your actual role.

MR BENSWANA: Thank you, because I was just being disturbed by ...(no further interpretation)

What I did on my arrival at the hostel was to actually get them out of the hostel. They didn't use the doors, but they only came out through the windows. Some might have remained inside, but once the others left I went outside, once I heard that there's a lot outside already near the gate. And the others told me that there is a person that was sitting there, who was sitting near some shrub and I decided to go there and this man heard that I was coming and he decided to stand up ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Please take time because we are trying to interpret for you.

MR BENSWANA: When I arrived at that shrub where he was hiding behind or sitting next to it, he got up when he heard there was somebody approaching, and he had a sword. He was carrying two sharp objects, but I am not sure of the other object, but the one was definitely a sword and he tried to hit me.

He was taller than me and I tried to block the weapon that he was using and the other SDUs arrived at that moment and we overwhelmed him and I hit him with the panga at the back of his neck. There were many of us at that moment. I also tried to use the sword, but because of the confusion due to the big group, the other group members they finished him off and he fell to the ground.

CHAIRPERSON: Before you proceed ... Did you hit him with the sharp side of the panga or the blunt side of the panga?

MR BENSWANA: I used the sharp side of the panga because my aim was to kill him.

CHAIRPERSON: And how many blows did you deliver at the back of his head with your panga?

MR BENSWANA: I hit him once and I could not hit him once more because the other group arrived and we all used sharp objects and there was a possibility of hurting each other in the process, as a group.

CHAIRPERSON: When you say "we all used sharp objects", you are referring to your usage of the panga and nothing else, you personally only used a panga. Because your earlier evidence is that you were unable to lend anything with your sword.

MR BENSWANA: I only used the panga, I could not use the sword.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BENSWANA: The others beat him and he was left lying on the ground and we scouted to find the other people and we found ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: The others, what did they do to him?

MR BENSWANA: Are you referring to Ntombela?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BENSWANA: I didn't see anything else other than the fact that as soon as he lay on the ground I ran around to try and find the others.

CHAIRPERSON: Didn't they use any swords? Were there no further stabbings by the crowd on Ntombela, by means of swords or a sword?

MR BENSWANA: Yes, they stabbed him. We were many in number and it was at night, it was dark, but I don't know what kind of objects they had but we all had sharp objects.

When I was going back to the hostel I heard that there was - they showed me another person before I entered the building, but that man was already on the ground. The other group members had already caught this person and they killed him. And I returned to the hostel ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: What role did you have in the other person that you found lying down? Did you do anything?

MR BENSWANA: No, I did nothing to that person.

CHAIRPERSON: Now how did you establish that he had been killed by your comrades?

MR BENSWANA: I found him lying and I thought that he must have been dead.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BENSWANA: I entered and we were trying to open the doors and they switched off the lights when they saw us approaching and the doors were locked. We tried to enter the hostel, but we could not succeed in doing that. ...(intervention)

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Benswana - if I were to interject, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Benswana, I've heard you giving us this, but on page 2 of your application - could you have a look at page 2, the last paragraph.

You didn't mention anything of hitting him with a panga, but then you go on and say -

So who did you stab and who did you hit with the panga now?

MR BENSWANA: I hit him with the panga because ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: Who did you hit with the panga?

MR BENSWANA: Mr Ntombela.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Now why did you state here that you stabbed him with the assegai?

MR BENSWANA: Maybe it might have been a language confusion, but I had mentioned that - I did mention that I used a panga, but maybe the fact that I mentioned that I was carrying a sword might have led them to writing that I used a sword other than the panga.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And now you've told us you've done nothing to Ngema, but here you said you hit him with a panga.

MS CAMBANIS: No, he said that - no, he hasn't said that.

CHAIRPERSON: No, he has not yet come to Ngema. Yes, he hasn't yet given evidence about Ngema.

But if you say it was a problem of communication, what do you mean? Who completed this application form for you?

MR BENSWANA: A lady called Rene Groenewald completed the application form for me, she took down the statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Who is Ms Groenewald? Is she a member of your political organisation?

MR BENSWANA: I do not know her, I don't know where is she affiliated. I didn't ask her, but she just said she's coming from the TRC, on her arrived there, therefore I did not enquire as to whether, to which political group does she belong to. But she just came from the TRC she said.

CHAIRPERSON: When you were consulting with Ms Cambanis, did you explain to her the role you had in the killing of Mr Ntombela?

MR BENSWANA: Yes, I did mention it to her, but when she read the statement to me I realised that some of the issues were quite not concurring.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Did you explain to her that some of the issues covered in your written application did not properly and appropriately accord with the incident as you recalled it?

MR BENSWANA: The issues like the broken windows I did mention, but they were not written down. But I did not know whether to go ahead and mention it here because she hinted that it was not written in my statement and I've just mentioned it.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nyawuza, I think we interposed when you wanted to raise something, either with the Committee or with Mr Benswana.

MR NYAWUZA: Yes, I wanted to raise it with Mr Benswana.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may proceed and do that.

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Benswana, tell me, if we attend to the bundle from page 1 to 7 in your ...(indistinct), you said that you planned to attack IFP members at Duduza hostel, at 8, number 4, on page 2 of the bundle -

When you made this statement to this Rene Groenewald, did she have an interpreter who was going to interpret it back to you - to her actually?

MR BENSWANA: Yes, there was a Sotho interpreter.

MR NYAWUZA: And the Sotho interpreter was between you and Rene, he would say what you say to Rene in either English or Afrikaans and say it back to you in Xhosa, is that so?

MR BENSWANA: Yes, he was sitting between us and interpreting for me, but that person is Sotho-speaking, he does not know Xhosa well.

MR NYAWUZA: So are you telling this Committee that you were actually not happy with his interpretation, is that so?

MR BENSWANA: Yes, some of the issues he got right, issues like I'm the one who planned the attack after the 6th.

MR NYAWUZA: Did you know Mr Ntombela before?

MR BENSWANA: Yes.

MR NYAWUZA: How did you know him, where did you know him from?

MR BENSWANA: We were staying with him at the hostel.

MR NYAWUZA: So you were a resident of the hostel prior to this attack, is that so?

MR BENSWANA: That is correct.

MR NYAWUZA: If I may assume facts, you were on the opposite sides of the political organisation, is that so?

MR BENSWANA: That is correct.

MR NYAWUZA: And you ended up being chased out of the hostel, is that so?

MR BENSWANA: That is correct. They attacked us and killed other people, therefore we started to run away.

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Benswana, they attacked you in the hostel, you and who?

MR BENSWANA: Yes, they attacked me.

MR NYAWUZA: So you left the hostel.

MR BENSWANA: That's correct.

MR NYAWUZA: Where did you stay after you had left the hostel?

MR BENSWANA: I stayed in the township. The ANC tried to find us accommodation, the Duduza branch.

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Benswana, all along during this - before this attack, were you a member of the SDUs?

MR BENSWANA: That is correct.

MR NYAWUZA: So how were you operating from the hostel, if you were a member of the SDUs?

JUDGE MOTATA: Wouldn't there be two - before you do, wouldn't there be two attacks? Let's just be precise in this instance. He was attacked whilst he was staying at the hostel and there was this attack again. So let's just get clarity as to which attack we're talking about.

MR NYAWUZA: What I want to get out of Mr Benswana is when was he attacked, he as a member of the opposite political party of the Inkatha, so until he left. Because I'm trying to get at when the SDUs were formed and he became part thereof.

CHAIRPERSON: The SDU formation was in the '80s.

MR NYAWUZA: When he joined.

CHAIRPERSON: And this incident happened in 1994. So you are interested in his joining the SDUs, because they'd long been in existence.

MR NYAWUZA: Exactly, exactly. No, that's ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Benswana, the question - I think what is being sought out of you is, when were you attacked when you were ultimately driven out of the hostel.

MR BENSWANA: We were attacked on the 4th. It was on a Friday ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: 4th of what?

MR BENSWANA: The 4th of March.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. The attack that led to you leaving the hostel, that's the attack that Mr Nyawuza is referring to. The attack that led you to leave the hostel to seek refuge outside the hostel.

MR BENSWANA: It was on a Friday when ANC members who were residing at the hostels were attacked and on the Saturday we tried to invite the township committee to try and establish peace because some people were already in hospital, but nobody died in that incident.

CHAIRPERSON: When you were attacked on the 4th, was this the attack that led you to leaving the hostel and staying outside the hostel?

MR BENSWANA: No, I did not run away on the 4th.

CHAIRPERSON: When did you leave the hostel as result of you being attacked?

MR BENSWANA: I left the hostel on the 5th. I did not run away on the 4th, which was the day of the attack, I left on the 5th when I heard that I'm in the top list of the people who were being targeted.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and when did you become a member of the SDU?

MR BENSWANA: I joined the SDUs in 1993.

CHAIRPERSON: In the area around Duduza?

MR BENSWANA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Nyawuza.

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Benswana, during your evidence-in-chief you stated that somebody got up from the bush, there was a ...(Xhosa) as you put it, who was that person?

MR BENSWANA: It's Mr Ntombela.

MR NYAWUZA: You only saw him at that time, is it so? Was it - during that attack - let's got back to the attack, was it only during that time that you saw him, during that attack?

MR BENSWANA: I knew him before, but I did not know that that is the person who was hiding behind the shrub.

MR NYAWUZA: Ja, that is what I'm saying. I'm saying, when he stood up it's only then that you saw that this was Ntombela, is that so?

MR BENSWANA: I saw him when he was approaching me although it was bit dark at that spot.

MR NYAWUZA: And the person you're referring to in your amnesty application on page 2, getting out of window, who was he?

MR BENSWANA: It's Mr Ntombela who got out through the window and hid behind the shrub.

MR NYAWUZA: But you didn't say so in your testimony, we had to get that out of you, why?

MR BENSWANA:

MR BENSWANA: When I tried to explain I am told that I'm wasting time, that is why I do not mention all the facts.

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Benswana, isn't it that you were attacking a hostel which is densely populated, isn't it so?

MR BENSWANA: That is correct.

MR NYAWUZA: For how long had you been a hostel resident?

MR BENSWANA: I might have stayed at the hostel from 1991 or 1992, because I was running a business there.

MR NYAWUZA: Can you approximate as to how many people were resident at this hostel?

MR BENSWANA: I cannot do that because there were two hostels.

MR NYAWUZA: In the hostel that you were resident. Approximately how many, 50, 100 or so?

MR BENSWANA: The hostel I was residing at there were not many people there because it has a school called Rose View and there were also family units, but the block was just a very small block where I stayed.

MR NYAWUZA: Was this the same block that you attacked on this particular day?

MS CAMBANIS: Honourable Chair, may I please ask the relevance of this? If my learned friend would read, has read the papers, he will see that the sequence of events - if he can just be specific about times. By the time this attack takes place my client has already told the Committee that the ANC and non-aligned people had already vacated, that the hostel at that time was being inhabited by IFP aligned members or supporters. So at which time - what is the relevance, that's what I'm asking, to go on about when he's - he fled the hostel because of attacks by the IFP. That's on the papers, and I'm not sure what the relevance of this line is.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Nyawuza.

MR NYAWUZA: As it pleases the Honourable Committee. Madam Chair, what I'm trying to get at here is, during his testimony we were advised that about three people came out and some were asleep, so I wanted to know as when ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: About what?

MR NYAWUZA: Are only a few people - only a few people during the attack on this night. There's this one who got out through the window and there's the other one that he found lying. I want to come as to how many people in essence, did they attack on that day.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I don't think there was ...(intervention)

MS CAMBANIS: Well he can only ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ... any specific evidence as to the number of people who came out.

MR NYAWUZA: I'm trying to get at that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. There was no mention certainly of three people coming out of that hostel. In fact the evidence is that he was trying to get people, he was trying to lure people out of the hostel and that people came out, they didn't use doors, they used windows to get out of the hostel.

MR NYAWUZA: Madam Chair, I'm getting to that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS CAMBANIS: Honourable Chair, if that is the question, then I object. He's applying for his participation in the killing of Mr Ntombela and Mr Ngema, he can only give evidence about what he knows. Then the question should be "Who and how many people did you attack and what can you say about what your ...(inaudible)" ...(inaudible) ... what they did that night. Surely he can't have knowledge about what all the SDUs were doing in the hostel that night.

CHAIRPERSON: Isn't your question pertinently to the effect that how many people came out of the hostel during the attack?

MR NYAWUZA: Madam Chair, there's an affidavit by Tsele Skosana that refers to a certain Mr Mqati and this particular Mr Mqati, Tuseletso says on number 7, it's Exhibit C, Tuseletso says -

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, what has that to do with the question you've just posed to Mr Benswana?

MR NYAWUZA: Madam Speaker ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I'm not Madam Speaker.

MR NYAWUZA: Madam Chair, what we want to establish here is whether this was really politically motivated ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think you must confine yourself to establishing exactly that. Then get to the question which is going to elicit that kind of information. If you want to know how many people came out of the hostel, what has that to do with you being able to determine whether this was politically motivated or not?

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Benswana, was Mr Mqati present during the attack?

MR BENSWANA: Yes, he was there.

MR NYAWUZA: Regarding the attack, Mr Benswana, you stated that you attacked Mr Ntombela in the bushes. Did you attack any second person?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Ngema. That's the evidence before us.

MR NYAWUZA: Yes, Ma'am, and where and how did he attack him. I was coming to that aspect.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Let's just confine ourselves to what is sufficiently relevant.

The question which is being put to you is firstly, where did you attack Mr Ngema?

MR BENSWANA: He was at a bar that was nearby the hostel. There was a group that was already holding him there because they saw him running. They were busy hitting him or beating him up and that's when I joined in and we left him lying there.

CHAIRPERSON: When you say you then joined in, we want to know what exactly did you do when you joined in, what role did you have in his assault.

MR BENSWANA: I used a panga on him.

MR NYAWUZA: Where did you hit him?

MR BENSWANA: I hit him on his back. He was facing the direction of the bar.

MR NYAWUZA: No further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp.

ADV STEENKAMP: No, thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Judge de Jager.

JUDGE DE JAGER: At what stage did you use your sword, on who?

MR BENSWANA: I never used the sword, Sir.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Did you only hit with the panga?

MR BENSWANA: Yes, I mainly used the panga. It is very sharp.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And did you hit Mr Ntombela with the panga?

MR BENSWANA: That is so, Sir.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And you hit Mr Ngema with the panga.

MR BENSWANA: That is so, Sir.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Did you in fact notice that you've struck them and that you've injured them, both of them?

MR BENSWANA: Yes, I saw because I was hitting them with the intention of killing them.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Judge Motata?

JUDGE MOTATA: I've got nothing, Madam Chair, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you Tuseletso Skosana?

MR BENSWANA: Yes, she is my commander.

MR NYAWUZA: Where was he at the time of this incident?

MR BENSWANA: On that particular day or during that period he was not there. I have seen them in the past five days and I did report the fact that we are going to attack the hostel to him, or her, because he was not staying in Duduza at that time because he was working in the government and he was busy with the elections at that time.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Cambanis, do you have any re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MS CAMBANIS: Yes.

Mr Benswana, during the attack were you armed with both an assegai and a panga?

MR BENSWANA: That is correct, I was armed with both.

MS CAMBANIS: Do you remember exactly what you did with the assegai and the panga that night?

MR BENSWANA: I used the panga mainly, I was hitting with the panga.

MS CAMBANIS: Thank you, nothing further. That is the case for the first applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Benswana, you are excused as a witness.

CHAIRPERSON: I think this would be an appropriate time to have a lunch adjournment.

ADV STEENKAMP: Madam Chair, may I be so rude to interrupt. If possibly may I request, I've spoken to my learned colleague here, he's indicated to me that the second witness he's probably not going to ask any questions and I've got the position that one of the legal representatives in the Tsotetsi matter, it will be very difficult to come to the hearing tomorrow or so. If I may ask if this lunch can only be say for half-an-hour, if I may ask.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, if it will not inconvenience the prisoners.

ADV STEENKAMP: Ja, obviously.

CHAIRPERSON: If they are able to eat in a relaxed fashion and also if the victims would also have sufficient time to have their meals. Not that I'm being uncompassionate to legal representatives, but I think the main consideration will be given to those two categories. Will that be sufficient for the victims and the prisoners? Ms Cambanis? Mr Nyawuza?

MS CAMBANIS: We have no objection.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nyawuza?

MR NYAWUZA: I don't have an objection as well, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Will that be sufficient for your clients?

MS NYAWUZA: Yes.

ADV STEENKAMP: Obviously, Madam Chair, if it will not inconvenience yourselves as well, obviously.

CHAIRPERSON: No, we never are inconvenienced, we can even have five minutes lunch. We then adjourn and reconvene at half past one.

ADV STEENKAMP: I thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Cambanis.

MS CAMBANIS: Thank you. I beg leave to call the second applicant who will also testify in Xhosa.

RAYMOND NQANDA: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Please sit down, you have been sworn in. Ms Cambanis.

EXAMINATION BY MS CAMBANIS: Thank you, Chair.

Sir, you are the second applicant in this matter and you have completed the prescribed form for amnesty, which appears at page 8 to page 14 of the bundle, which we have gone through. Do you confirm that?

MR NQANDA: That is correct.

MS CAMBANIS: And the signature appearing on page 13 of that bundle, is that in fact your signature?

MR NQANDA: That is correct.

MS CAMBANIS: And do you confirm the contents of this application is correct?

MR NQANDA: That is correct.

MS CAMBANIS: And then we had subsequent consultations and further particulars were drawn up which are now before this Committee as Exhibit B, which consists of three pages of a statement, together with annexures from the submissions made by the ANC to the TRC. Do you confirm that we have gone through this statement and that it is your statement?

MR NQANDA: That is correct.

MS CAMBANIS: And the signature appearing at page 3, do you confirm that that is your signature?

MR NQANDA: That is correct.

MS CAMBANIS: And you confirm the contents of that?

MR NQANDA: That is correct.

MS CAMBANIS: Now Sir, in your application at page 12, paragraph (a), you spoke about a Mr Sam Nqati as being a leader, is that correct? - of the SDUs.

MR NQANDA: That is correct.

MS CAMBANIS: And subsequently to that you have heard the evidence of Mr Benswana, who says that he together with one White and a Mr - I beg your pardon, Mr Johnson Sivella, met to discuss this. What is your comment on that?

MR NQANDA: That is correct.

MS CAMBANIS: And do you know someone called Ms Skosana?

MR NQANDA: Yes, I know her.

MS CAMBANIS: Who is she?

MR NQANDA: She's Puseretso Skosana.

MS CAMBANIS: Yes, do you know what her position - do you know what she did at that time? Just tell the Committee who is she.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, is it a she?

MS CAMBANIS: It is a she. We're very happy to have a female commander.

MR NQANDA: She was an SDU Commander.

MS CAMBANIS: Yes. For which area?

MR NQANDA: In the Duduza area.

MS CAMBANIS: Sir, it's your evidence that at that time there was - this happened just before the run-up to the first general election in March 1994, is that correct?

MR NQANDA: That is correct.

MS CAMBANIS: And you in your statements have told the Committee that at that time there was a conflict between the ANC and the IFP in the area, is that correct?

MR NQANDA: That is correct.

MS CAMBANIS: And the people that were killed in this incident, you've told, is a Mr S Ngema, Mr L Mkhize and Mr Ntombela, is that correct?

MR NQANDA: That is correct.

MS CAMBANIS: And at page 75 of the bundle we have gone through that they were branch executive members of the IFP, is that correct? - or members of the IFP.

MR NQANDA: That is correct.

MS CAMBANIS: On the night of the attack, it is your evidence that you were armed with a kierie, is that correct?

MR NQANDA: That is correct.

MS CAMBANIS: What did you do with the kierie that night?

MR NQANDA: I used it to hit.

MS CAMBANIS: Who, Sir?

MR NQANDA: Because it was dark I could not see who exactly was I beating.

MS CAMBANIS: But where were you when you were using the kierie? At what place were you?

MR NQANDA: At the hostel.

MS CAMBANIS: And who stayed at the hostel?

MR NQANDA: It was IFP members residing there at the hostel.

MS CAMBANIS: So it is your evidence that you were attacking members of the IFP that night?

MR NQANDA: That is correct.

MS CAMBANIS: And did you receive any material benefit as a result of your participation in the attack that night? Were you paid?

MR NQANDA: No, I was never paid.

MS CAMBANIS: Thank you, Chair, that is all for this applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Nyawuza, any questions?

JUDGE MOTATA: Before then, Madam Chair, I just see the affidavit is signed -

MS CAMBANIS: The Commissioner of Oaths is the prison person who is available. I'll approach him afterwards and get him to rectify it was signed today by the Prison Service. I apologise.

CHAIRPERSON: He omitted to state the month.

MS CAMBANIS: Yes, I see that now, I'm sorry. He is present, he's from the Prison Service.

CHAIRPERSON: We can easily do that from here.

MS CAMBANIS: Thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't seem to have the original affidavit of Mr Nqanda, I have a copy.

MS CAMBANIS: Chair, I think I may - may I approach, I think I have it with me.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Thank you. Mr Nyawuza, do you have any questions to put to Mr Nqanda?

MR NYAWUZA: No, I don't have any questions, thank you.

ADV STEENKAMP: Neither have I, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Judge de Jager.

JUDGE DE JAGER: I see in the post-mortem report one of the deceased had a crushed skull, may that possibly have been caused by your participation, or did other people also use kieries?

MR NQANDA: It is possible because I was one of the people who beat him.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Judge Motata.

JUDGE MOTATA: Just one, thank you Madam Chair.

What was the light like when this attack took place at the hostel? Was there light?

MR NQANDA: It was dark.

JUDGE MOTATA: Thank you, Madam Chair, I've got no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know how many people you possibly might have hit with your kierie?

MR NQANDA: I did not count how many people did I manage to hit.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you hit quite a number of people with your kierie on that night?

MR NQANDA: That is so, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: How long would you say this incident lasted?

MR NQANDA: It could have been an hour or so.

CHAIRPERSON: And during that entire period you were using a kierie.

MR NQANDA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Cambanis, do you really want to re-examine?

MS CAMBANIS: No, I really don't, thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: You therefore close your case.

MS CAMBANIS: That is the case for the second applicant. Thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nyawuza.

MR NYAWUZA: As it please, Madam Chair. I'm would like to call on Mr Izaia Ngema, he's the younger brother to the deceased.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Before you do that, can I just ascertain from Ms Cambanis. Ms Cambanis, it has now been drawn to our attention that Mr Ngema died, did he die as a result of the injuries he sustained during this attack, or he died of something else?

MS CAMBANIS: Chair, the only - I don't know what the answer is, I'm assuming it was as a result of the injuries sustained on that night, because of his position and it's just - and what appears on page 75, what the position was.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Nyawuza, you may proceed. You now wish to call Mr?

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Izaia Ngema.

CHAIRPERSON: Izaia Ngema. In what language will Mr Ngema be testifying?

MR NYAWUZA: In Zulu, Madam Chair.

IZAIA NGEMA: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: You may be seated. Duly sworn in. Thank you, Mr Nyawuza, you may proceed.

EXAMINATION BY MR NYAWUZA: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr Ngema, how are you related to Sinda Mzikau Khulewa Ngema?

INTERPRETER: Would you please repeat the names.

MR NYAWUZA: Sinda Mzikau Khulewa Ngema.

MR NGEMA: He's my brother.

MR NYAWUZA: During 1994, March, where were you resident?

MR NGEMA: I was residing at Duduza.

MR NYAWUZA: Where in Duduza?

MR NGEMA: At the hostel.

MR NYAWUZA: Was Sinda Ngema also a resident of the same hostel?

MR NGEMA: That is correct.

MR NYAWUZA: Do you know of any conflict that was happening at the hostel during that time?

MR NGEMA: It was violence.

MR NYAWUZA: Who against who, Mr Ngema?

MR NGEMA: It was a conflict between the IFP and the ANC.

MR NYAWUZA: Do you perhaps know the applicants who are here today?

MR NGEMA: Yes, by sight I know them.

MR NYAWUZA: How do you know them by sight?

MR NGEMA: I only know them by sight.

MR NYAWUZA: Can you just tell this Committee where you saw them if you know them by sight.

MR NGEMA: I used to see them at the hostel.

MR NYAWUZA: Were they resident at the hostel or were they just visiting somebody at the hostel?

MR NGEMA: They were resident at the hostel.

MR NYAWUZA: Was there a conflict between the said applicants before this Committee today and the other inmates of the hostel?

MR NGEMA: No, the conflict only started during the violence, but I cannot recall them being in any conflict with some residents at the hostel.

MR NYAWUZA: So the conflict that you're referring this Committee to, did it include - was it affecting political organisations and not individuals?

MR NGEMA: It was a conflict that affected individuals politically speaking. I would say it was a conflict between the ANC and the IFP.

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Ngema, is it correct that this morning when I consulted with you, I explained to you the purpose of this hearing?

MR NGEMA: Would you please repeat.

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Ngema, is it correct that this morning when I consulted with you and your family members, I explained to you the purpose of this hearing?

MR NGEMA: Yes, you did explain.

MR NYAWUZA: And I even explained the effects thereof to you, is that so?

MR NGEMA: Yes.

MR NYAWUZA: The said applicants have given testimony that there was conflict between the IFP and the ANC ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: But that seems to be common cause because ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: That's his evidence, you are repeating his evidence.

JUDGE DE JAGER: ... he's telling us the same.

MR NYAWUZA: I'll withdraw that question, thank you.

So Mr Ngema, what can you say to what I have said, what is your feeling towards what I have said?

MR NGEMA: I would like to ask them questions as well as I can.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ngema, this process has been explained to you. Unfortunately this is not a forum to enable you to canvass questions outside the parameters of the issue that we as a Committee have to consider and decide whether or not to grant the applicants amnesty. Now the questions that can be put by you are questions that are (a) aimed at assisting us in deciding whether these applications have met the requirements that are set down by the Act.

Now if there are such questions, then we will allow you to put them through your attorney to the applicants, otherwise we know there are quite a number of questions that victims might wish to canvass with applicants, which have no bearing on a forum such as ours, unfortunately. In that case we usually expect counsel or the legal representative appearing for and on behalf of the applicants together with your lawyer, to try and discuss a way of trying to have some kind of mediation where you can ask such questions of the applicants which have no bearing on these proceedings and this usually happens behind closed doors and not in a forum such as this one.

Unfortunately, Mr Ngema, this is a legal process and these proceedings are conducted within the ambit of the quasi judicial forum. We only allow evidence that will enable us to evaluate the evidence given by the applicants with regard to whether they qualify for amnesty or not.

This is not being insensitive to the needs of the victim, to try and mediate with the applicants in situation where such mediation will benefit both parties, particularly the victims. And we expect the legal representatives to facilitate such a process the best way they can, but this is done not in a setting, in a formal setting such as this one. Do you understand?

MR NGEMA: Thank you, I understand.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR NGEMA: That means that I will withdraw my questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nyawuza, we will expect you to assist us as a Committee by explaining whether the questions that Mr Ngema wanted to pose to the applicants would have assisted us in deciding whether the applicants qualify for amnesty or not. And if those questions would not assist us in deciding the applications before us, we would really urge you and Ms Cambanis to facilitate a meeting, a mediatory meeting where - because now we have this novel opportunity of both applicants being here and the victims being present, to try and talk.

MR NYAWUZA: Thank you, Madam Chair. Can I ask him off record?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may.

MR NYAWUZA: Thank you, Madam Chair, for your indulgence. The question that he wanted to ask will not take us anywhere and will not help the Honourable Committee in any way.

CHAIRPERSON: We have become quite familiar with such situations. I hope this Committee is not going to be seen as insensitive, it's just that if we do not control and take charge of the proceedings, we are likely to really run havoc of what the real essence of this process is all about.

MR NYAWUZA: Yes, I'm aware Madam Chair, and thank you for that. It's been stressed numerously that ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR NYAWUZA: Madam Chair, I think he said that's his evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you propose - it's not your intention to call further witnesses?

MR NYAWUZA: Madam Chair, there is the wife who I think we'll have to - whether there's a need that I should call her - she actually wanted to address the applicants, but I don't know ...

CHAIRPERSON: It requires the mediation I have already suggested to you.

MR NYAWUZA: It requires the mediation, so we'll address them outside this room.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR NYAWUZA: Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: I am sure we can even facilitate if you should have problems with Ms Cambanis. We are here to try and make sure that parties reconcile. The amnesty process however is a difference process, it is a quasi judicial process.

MR NYAWUZA: Yes, Madam Chair. I think the Committee will realise in calling Mr Ngema here, the evidence that Mr Ngema led was that there was a conflict which ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we've heard that evidence loud and clear.

MR NYAWUZA: Okay, thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: It's as clear as our South African diamond.

Thank you, Mr Ngema, for having come forward to give this evidence. We share your pain, we understand what you must be going through. It is for that reason that we always specially show our gratitude to victims who come forward to be party to these proceedings, with the hope that by coming before this Committee they will be able to ameliorate their pains.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Cambanis, are we in a position to argue?

MS CAMBANIS IN ARGUMENT: Yes, Chair.

I submit on behalf of both applicants that they have complied with Section 20(a), (b) and (c) of the Act. The applicants on the prescribed forms are duly attested to and before you. The further particulars in terms of Section 19 are before you, duly attested and thus (a) is complied with.

Regarding full disclosure, there may be a suggestion that the first applicant, Mr Benswana, in being a little confused about the manner in which Mr Ntombela was assaulted and killed, may lead to a question of dishonesty. I submit that that is not so. He said that he was armed with an assegai and a panga of which he used mainly the panga. This is I submit, not what is meant by full disclosure, whether there is some contradiction or some confusion regarding the manner of the killing. He repeatedly told the Committee that his intention was to kill members of the IFP and that is what is meant by full disclosure. He is not a convicted man. He has come to this Committee to tell of his participation in that voluntarily, it is not for the purpose of being released from prison.

Similarly with the second applicant, full disclosure has been made, they have given the command structure, they have told who the overall commander is, who the members are who made the decision and they have admitted their involvement in the deaths of the seven members of the IFP.

The section (b) that is left, relating to an act associated with a political objective, Chairperson it is trite that there was a - that they qualify in terms of Section 20(a), as members of the SDUs aligned with the ANC ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: 20(2)(a).

MS CAMBANIS: 20(2)(a).

... that they are members of a publicly known organisation and that this act was carried out in furtherance of the political struggle waged between two publicly known liberation movements, namely the ANC and the IFP.

Regarding the Section 20(30, Your Worship, they've disclosed the motive as political - the context has been given on paper, Your Worship, it is prior to the election, it is a time when the IFP are not participating and there is intense conflict between those wishing to participate in the democratic election and those who do not want the participation. It takes place in that factual time of our history.

The repeated pattern of the nature of what was happening at the hostels is repeated here, it has been found in other Commissions. Where the modus operandi of the IFP was to take over hostels and use those as power-bases, that is I think been found in the TRC Report already, that that is part of our history and is now admitted as such. They did not do this without permission, it was done with the knowledge of their commander, Ms Skosana. She admits that it was within the policy of SDUs and what was happening in that area.

And they have - finally, Your Worship - I beg your pardon, Honourable Chairperson, given evidence that they did not get personal gain from this and there is no suggestion that they acted our of personal malice, ill-will or spite.

In consequence I submit that both qualified, have fulfilled the requirements of all the sections and must therefore be allowed amnesty. That is all, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nyawuza.

MR NYAWUZA IN ARGUMENT: Thank you, Madam Chair.

As I have stated initially, Madam Chair, that our instructions, my instructions were not to oppose the said application but to watch brief and what has transpired today before this hearing I've discussed with the affected family and we're happy that more of what wasn't known to them, came out today and even in the light of what Mr Ngema has testified before this hearing today, that there was in fact the political squabbling. And the family is satisfied that at least at last they now know who were involved in the killing of the husband and the brother and the son to the old man who is sitting at the back. So we don't have any objection to the two applicants being granted amnesty. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Ms Cambanis.

MS CAMBANIS: I have nothing further.

CHAIRPERSON: This brings us to the conclusion of the two applications. Before we state our position with regard to the decision, we would like again to express our gratitude to both the Ntombela and the Ngema family for have travelled all the way from Natal to participate in these proceedings in the spirit in which they have participated.

We hope, as already indicated by their legal representative, that indeed the evidence led before this Committee will assist them in trying to close a terrible chapter that has been staring at them for all these years, as today they know now how their loved ones were killed, why they were killed and they've been able to hear such information from the applicants, the perpetrators of the heinous deed.

We unfortunately will not be able to pronounce our decision on these applications, but we will do so on the 8th of February, and our decision will be communicated to both Ms Cambanis, representing both applicants, and Mr Nyawuza who is appearing for the Ngema and the Ntombela family.

This brings us to the close of our proceedings. We shall now proceed with the next application set down for hearing today.

MS CAMBANIS: Thank you, Chair. May we be excused?

CHAIRPERSON: You may be excused.

MR NYAWUZA: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Nyawuza.

ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you, Madam Chair. The next matter to be heard today is that of the application of Mr Koos Gahutla Tsotetsi. The application number Madam Chair will be 7974/97. Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Will the legal representatives appearing in the application of Mr Tsotetsi, kindly place themselves on record.

MS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE: As it pleases you, Madam Chair and Committee Members. This is an application for amnesty by Koos Gahutla Tsotetsi. Madam Chair, I have prepared an affidavit deposed to by the applicant himself - excuse me.

INTERPRETER: What language will the applicant use?

MS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE: The applicant is Sotho speaking.

INTERPRETER: Let the applicant switch to channel 3 for Sotho. Everything is in order, we can proceed.

MS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE: Madam Chair and Committee Members, I have already indicated that I have prepared an affidavit deposed to by the applicant, Gahutla Koos Tsotetsi. It has been duly attested by him and I wish to hand copies thereof - I've prepared three of them.

CHAIRPERSON: You haven't stated your name for the record.

MS MOLOISANE: My name is Moloisane L M.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

ADV STEENKAMP: Madam Chair, if I may just put the following on record. Indeed there were a number of other people implicated in this matter. We've checked and double-checked, none of the people who are implicated in this matter have applied for amnesty. We checked again yesterday. All those people who received notices according to Section 19(4), the majority of them, I think all of them, are still in prison. Some of them were here yesterday and there is one individual who is also an implicated person who has actually asked us to be present today. He is still present here today, one of the implicated people.

My information at this stage is that none of them are in the position at all, they want to have interest in this matter whatsoever. That's as far as the implicated persons is going.

Then there's the question of the two people who were identified as victims as indicated in the application, they were also served notices on the 17th of January this year, also as is customary to the head of the prison. I've already spoken to the investigating officer, they did receive these notices and none of them are interested to attend this hearing or to be part and parcel of it.

It was also indicated to me via my learned colleague, just for the record, that she also had the same information that none of these implicated people or the victims were interested to attend this hearing at this stage. Thank you, Madam Chair. Those Section 19(4)s are in my possession. Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. So you are saying Section 19(4) notices were served on the victims.

ADV STEENKAMP: Correct Madam Chair, as well as the implicated parties.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And we've got Return of Services as proof thereof.

ADV STEENKAMP: Yes, Madam Chair. All these documents not only were they orally confirmed but they were faxed and letters to the effect were received. And like I've said, we have spoken to the head of the prison as well, these documents were in actual fact served on the implicated persons as well as the victims.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I'm talking about the victims for now.

ADV STEENKAMP: Both the victims.

CHAIRPERSON: When were such notices served on the victims?

ADV STEENKAMP: It was the 17th of January, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And you were informed by the had of the prison on behalf of the victims, that they had no interest in attending these hearings.

ADV STEENKAMP: Correct, Madam Chair. The victims for the record are Mr Abraham Jeremiah van Rooyen and the other person, Mr Paledi Kopani.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV STEENKAMP: Sorry Madam Chair, I said the 17th - yes, it was served on the 17th of January this year. Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: You will in due course let us have your Return of Service.

ADV STEENKAMP: Yes, Madam Chair, I will do that.

CHAIRPERSON: And was a Section 19(4) served on Mr Buddu? He is an implicated person.

ADV STEENKAMP: Yes, Madam Chair, a document was served on Mr Buddu, the physical address - if you will bear with me, 9th Floor, Longbanks Building, Cnr of Bree and Rissik Street, Johannesburg.

CHAIRPERSON: We are aware that he's attending these proceedings.

ADV STEENKAMP: He is attending the hearing. He was here yesterday as well, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Ms Moloisane.

MS MOLOISANE: As it pleases the Committee, Madam Chair. I intend calling the applicant just to clarify certain issues, but as I have already handed in an affidavit deposed to by him, I beg leave to read the contents thereof into the record after he has been sworn in.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. You won't have to read it, we don't need you to do that. We take it that he has read the document, you will let him confirm and there is no need for you to read it out because it has already been read by him and Mr Steenkamp has read the affidavit as well.

Mr Tsotetsi - in what language is he going to testify?

MS MOLOISANE: In Sotho, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we are going to ask Judge Motata to swear you in. Will you please stand up.

JUDGE MOTATA: Please stand. Give us your full names.

KOOS GAHUTLA TSOTETSI: (sworn states)

JUDGE MOTATA: Thank you, please be seated.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Moloisane?

EXAMINATION BY MS MOLOISANE: Mr Tsotetsi, you have deposed to an affidavit which has been handed in to - which has just been handed in today, is that correct?

MR TSOTETSI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MS MOLOISANE: You fully understand the contents thereof, is that correct?

MR TSOTETSI: Correct, Chairperson.

MS MOLOISANE: Do you still adhere to the contents thereof? - to the correctness of the contents thereof.

MR TSOTETSI: Correct, Chairperson.

MS MOLOISANE: Now you also made an affidavit when you were applying for amnesty, is that also correct?

MR TSOTETSI: Correct, Chairperson.

MS MOLOISANE: Madam Chair, in this regard I refer this Honourable Committee to page 15 to 18 of the handwritten affidavit that was deposed to by Mr Tsotetsi.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS MOLOISANE: I just want you to clarify certain issues, Mr Tsotetsi. In paragraph 3 of this handwritten affidavit ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: That's page 15?

MS MOLOISANE: Page 15, paragraph 3.

You say - line 2 -

MR TSOTETSI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MS MOLOISANE: Now in the affidavit that you have handed in you have told this Committee that you heard from the prison warders that you were not going to be allowed to vote. Can you clarify us on this issue.

MR TSOTETSI: As I've already stated in my statement I learnt from the prison officials that we would not have the right to vote. On that particular day I heard from the radio that we would not have the right to vote, all people who were convicted for rape and robbery.

MS MOLOISANE: So what you are saying is that you first heard from the prison warders and then ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: I think that's not a material difference really, I think it's common cause that there was an announcement that people convicted of murder and rape didn't have the right to vote, and maybe other categories too.

MS MOLOISANE: As it pleases you Mr de Jager.

That is all - what is your general feeling about that hostage drama that took place at Boksburg Prison on the 18th of March? - your general feeling right now.

MR TSOTETSI: We did a terrible thing to hold prison officials hostage to fight for our rights to vote, as they are people like us.

MS MOLOISANE: And what can you say about that incident?

JUDGE MOTATA: I think he covered in 4.2 page 6 of the affidavit.

MS MOLOISANE: As it pleases you, Judge Motata. That is all, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp?

ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you, Madam Chair, I have no questions.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Were you a member of SAPOR?

MR TSOTETSI: That is correct, Chairperson, I was a member of SAPOR at the time when I was in prison.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Was that a political organisation?

MR TSOTETSI: It's the political organisation which fights for prisoner's rights.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes, but would that be a political organisation or a unit - was that a political organisation or an organisation fighting for the rights of prisoners, not minding whether they're IFP or NP or ANC at all?

MR TSOTETSI: It was an organisation which was helping prisoners.

CHAIRPERSON: To which political organisation were you affiliated at the time of you joining SAPOR?

MR TSOTETSI: Before I was a supporter of the ANC.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you no longer a supporter of the ANC now?

MR TSOTETSI: I'm still a supporter, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And when did you become a member of the ANC?

MR TSOTETSI: It's a long time, whilst I was still a student. It was somewhere around 1988 or '89.

CHAIRPERSON: How did you regard the association, if there was any, between the ANC and SAPOR?

MR TSOTETSI: ...(no English interpretation)

CHAIRPERSON: How did you regard the association if you think - was there, let me first ask you, in your opinion was there or has there ever been any association between the ANC as a political party to which you were a member, and SAPOR as an organisation to which you were a member by virtue of you being a prisoner?

MR TSOTETSI: I don't know, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Judge Motata?

JUDGE MOTATA: I've got no questions Madam Chair, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Ms Moloisane, do you intend to call any witness in support of Mr Tstoteti's application?

MS MOLOISANE: I intend calling Mr Golden Miles Buddu, Madam Chair, who is present now.

CHAIRPERSON: Now. I didn't ask if you intended to re-examine, I don't think there is anything for you to re-examine on.

MS MOLOISANE: Correct, Madam Chair, there's nothing in re-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: That concludes Mr Tsotetsi's evidence.

MS MOLOISANE: That concludes his evidence, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may proceed to call your next witness. Mr Tsotetsi, you may stand down as a witness.

MS MOLOISANE: At this stage Madam Chair, I beg leave to call Mr Golden Miles Buddu.

GOLDEN MILES BUDDU: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: You may sit down.

MR BUDDU: Thank you.

EXAMINATION BY MS MOLOISANE: Mr Buddu, is it correct that you were one of the founding members of an organisation known as SAPOR, South African Prisoners' Rights Organisation?

MR BUDDU: Yes, Ma'am.

MS MOLOISANE: Just to correct myself Madam Chair, I didn't say it correctly ...(intervention)

MR BUDDU: South African Prisoner's Organisation for Human Rights.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes.

MS MOLOISANE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Maybe we may just indicate, Ms Moloisane, what will be our difficulty. You obviously are aware of the requirement of Section 20 and the fact that Section 20(2), pertinently (a), requires an applicant to have been a member or a supporter of a publicly known political organisation or liberation movement and the applicant must have acted on behalf of or in support of such organisation or movement, bona fide in furtherance of a political struggle waged by such a publicly known organisation or liberation movement.

I think what we are going to expect of you is to show us how SAPOR - whether SAPOR can be taken as SAPOR as a publicly known political organisation, either on its own or by extension or by association.

MS MOLOISANE: As it pleases you, Madam Chair.

Now Mr Buddu, will you explain to this Committee what SAPOR stands for - we know, not the full name thereof, what it stands for.

MR BUDDU: Look, the South African Prisoners' Organisation for Human Rights is a human rights organisation fighting for the rights of detained persons, regardless of their political affiliation. Though I need to put on record here that since my release from prison in '91, the South African Prisoners' Organisation up to the elections of 1994, was perceived as ANC baby or brainchild. The reason why people associated SAPOR with the African National Congress was simply because of my dramatic and outstanding postures during protest marches, rallies, demonstrations initiated by the ANC. So in short, people positively associated us with the African National Congress, and I was then also a registered and signed up member of the ANC.

May I also put on record that when we engaged in SAPOR in a legitimate struggle towards outsing an illegitimate apartheid regime, we were fighting as prisoners, as detained persons, whether we were sentenced or not, for a little bit of acknowledgement, recognition, respect and after all we were fighting for our rights to be recognised as lawful citizens and owners of the land by casting our votes for organisations of our choice. And we were supported fully by all the progressive forces which was headed by the African National Congress.

MS MOLOISANE: What was your portfolio within the ranks of SAPOR?

MR BUDDU: I was the founder Member and then President, but my colleagues used to call me the supreme ruler.

MS MOLOISANE: Now after you release from prison in 1991, did you have any communication or constant liaison with prisoners throughout the country?

MR BUDDU: Yes, that I could only do through the mass media, both printed and electronic, that's TV, radio and the newspapers.

MS MOLOISANE: Now you have been called to come and testify in this amnesty application of Gahutla Komane - sorry, Gahutla Tsotetsi, and this application is a sequel to the events that took place on the 18th of March 1994, at Boksburg Prison. Will you just - is there anything that you know concerning this unrest that took place at Boksburg Prison on this particular day?

MR BUDDU: Of course, Ma'am.

MS MOLOISANE: Just briefly explain to this Committee what happened, the circumstances that led to the unrest.

MR BUDDU:

MS MOLOISANE: Now when you issued this call that prisoners should embark on a mass action in prisons, did you have any mandate from any political organisation?

MR BUDDU: Look, ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I don't understand the ambit of that question, Ms Moloisane, why should he have a mandate from any organisation, he was the founder of an organisation that was representing prisoners.

MS MOLOISANE: That is correct, Madam Chair. The witness ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Are you probably leading to something that we are not aware of?

MS MOLOISANE: No, Madam Chair. Maybe let me just clarify this. This witness earlier said SAPOR was aligned to the African National Congress ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Was perceived.

MS MOLOISANE: Was perceived, thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: SAPOR existed as a juristic entity.

MS MOLOISANE: As it pleases you, Madam Chair. I will leave it there, Madam Chair.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And he was seen as a supreme ruler, so he wouldn't ask permission from anybody.

MR BUDDU: Well that was not the case, Your Honour, this was a name that was nickname that was given to me in the corridors of power.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but you were the President of SAPOR.

MR BUDDU: Yes, so to speak.

MS MOLOISANE: You may proceed.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you were still in the business of asking him questions with a view of eliciting evidence from him.

MS MOLOISANE: Yes, Madam Chair, I earlier indicated that I leave this question of a mandate there and I want him to proceed with his evidence now. We have discussed this, he knows the ambit within which the evidence has to be led.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Buddu, are you in a position to proceed? I thought your counsel would lead you.

MR BUDDU: What I would like to add for the sake of the record, Your Honour, is that yes, it is true that in our announcement for the rolling mass action we never even thought about it, to say that some of the tactics will be taking hostage and possibly burning down the prisons because that was not only going to be suicidal, it was going to be irresponsible.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BUDDU: That is why I am saying when I gave the instruction for the taking of the hostage in Boksburg, it was done because I was kept abreast with the development of a certain situation at a certain prison. And I am aware of taking full responsibility for having given that instruction.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that instruction confined only to Boksburg Prison?

MR BUDDU: To be quite frank with you, the other instructions which I gave happened after the 27th of April 1994, because then the demand was different than the one prior to the elections of 1994.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think the ambit of my question was merely to ascertain whether the instruction that the mass action must also include the taking of hostages, whether that particular instruction was a general instruction that was given by you to all your members in all your prisons, or whether that specific instruction was only confined to the Boksburg Prison, of which Mr Tsotetsi is an inmate.

MR BUDDU: Comrade Chair, as I've earlier indicated, the reason why I gave the particular instruction at the respective institution was because I was kept abreast with the developments by our members and I was informed that Correctional officers didn't want to leave them alone peacefully exercising their right to protest.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BUDDU: The other instruction which I gave was in Modder B Prison, but as I said earlier on, was after the elections. Where I was informed, I was informed from other prisons throughout the country where inmates were given that right to peacefully protest without breaking down the prison or without burning anything. They were left in peace to peacefully toyi-toyi, chant slogans and so forth.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes. In short, Mr Buddu, this particular instruction was confined to Boksburg Prison because the warders or the prison authorities were refusing to give your members the right to peacefully protest.

MR BUDDU: Correctly so, Comrade Chairperson.

MS MOLOISANE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

If I have to make a follow-up on what Madam Chair has asked you, they were being denied the right to peacefully protest against the decision to deny them voting rights, is that not so?

MR BUDDU: Yes, Ma'am.

MS MOLOISANE: Now on this particular day, that is the 18th of March 1994, you were at some stage summoned or called to Boksburg Prison, is that not correct?

MR BUDDU: It is correct, Ma'am.

MS MOLOISANE: Just briefly explain to the Committee how it happened.

MR BUDDU:

MS MOLOISANE: And ultimately the prison inmates were granted the right to vote, to participate in the 1994 elections, is that correct?

MR BUDDU: That's correct, Ma'am.

MS MOLOISANE: That is the evidence, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Moloisane.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Could all the prisoners vote in the end?

MR BUDDU: Yes, what happened because of the dirty tricks of these architects, one could say, or so to speak, or apartheid, they gave an instruction at the eleventh hour that prisoners must vote. Now at the eleventh hour that message did filter throughout the country one, and if it did, Correctional officers with their own hidden agendas made sure that certain prisoners must vote and others must not vote. You know it all depended on the attitude of prison authorities at a particular institution at the time. But the instruction, Your Honour, overall was that the floodgates are opening that all prisoners must vote.

CHAIRPERSON: In your opinion, was the condition removed pursuant to an action such as the one embarked upon by Mr Tsotetsi?

MR BUDDU: Your Honour, you will have to ask that question all over again because I think in my own small little understanding, I have misunderstood you somewhere.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Do you think the right that was ultimately given to all prisoners in the country was so given as a result of an action embarked upon by people like Mr Tsotetsi?

MR BUDDU: I would say yes so, Your Honour, because it was because of this legitimate struggle which prisoners embarked on that in fact initiated liberation movements to press the outgoing apartheid regime to allow this category of human beings to vote because yes, they are citizens of this country and it was the first time in so many years that they would be given an opportunity to vote in their own country. Yes, I would say yes, yes.

JUDGE DE JAGER: It's not relevant for this application, but didn't we have a similar sort of problem before the last elections?

MR BUDDU: Yes, Your Honour we did, but this time because of the infrastructure which was put in place by a constitutional democracy, this is South Africa, a Constitutional Court where we instead of embarking on mass action, we went and studied the Constitution and the Constitution said yes, everybody is allowed to vote in this country and regardless of whether they are in prison or whether they are in the squatter camp or wherever. So it was not necessary for us to embark on any mass action.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you were however refused such a right on a technicality. I think it was infrastructural.

MR BUDDU: Is it now the 1999 elections?

CHAIRPERSON: The 199.. - no, the 1999 elections.

MR BUDDU: Yes, we were refused in the Supreme Court, but we went to the Constitutional Court and we won the case.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I have a problem, Mr Buddu let me be frank, in trying to see exactly where Mr Tsotetsi's application will fall in terms of Section 20(2) of the Act. You as the founder member and high-ranking member of SAPOR, would you say that you were regarded by the prisoners who were your members, as a political organisation?

MR BUDDU: Your Honour, that's somewhat a very tricky question. You see in the minds of the people, whether they were prisoners or not, here was an opportunity to vote of which they were deprived for many years and because of my association personally with a particular political organisation, it was obvious to these prisoners that I was pushing political agenda.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so what would be your short response to my question? Would you say that you were regarded or perceived by your members as a political organisation?

MR BUDDU: Yes, Ma'am.

CHAIRPERSON: As SAPOR.

MR BUDDU: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Why? Was it because SAPOR was the only vehicle that could transport the political needs of the prisoners who otherwise would not be in a position to engage in activities that would normally be embarked upon by people who were not incarcerated?

MR BUDDU: I would say yes, Ma'am, in the sense that - you see whether it was before or after the 1994 elections, it was not going to be fashionable for any political party to publicly come out and support these nasty categories of human being which are criminals.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. But I'm confining myself to the pre-election of 1994.

MR BUDDU: Yes, I do have press releases of particularly the ANC, where they supported us in our call for prisoners to vote. And in fact one could say we were a blessing in disguise because we could concentrate on this target group of prison - this target group which were prisoners, whilst the liberation movement could spend and waste most of their time addressing the civilians overall, so to speak, law-abiding citizens.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Can you estimate the total number of members that you had nationwide as SAPOR?

MR BUDDU: The population of prisoners has in the past five years increased drastically. One would of course estimate that then we had about 115, between 115-120 000 incarcerated persons, whether they were sentenced or unsentenced.

CHAIRPERSON: This is around March 1994?

MR BUDDU: '94.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And were they all - or, how many approximately were members of your organisation then?

MR BUDDU: Your Honour, you see the Department then was not as it was now, we had to operate like also an underground movement where inmates who had the guts, who were openly displaying their cards, they are card-carrying members as SAPOR, and those who didn't have the guts applied and kept their membership cards secretively with them and there were those who couldn't have access to us to join the organisation because of the apartheid regime didn't want to have anything to do with SAPOR, because they themselves perceived us as a political party or a human rights organisation with a hidden political agenda.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. But I mean I think Judge de Jager is merely interested in the total number of supporters you estimate in terms of support.

MR BUDDU: Your Honour, if you go back to 1994, pre the elections and you then recall the spread of our rolling mass action which was also coupled with violence, that was the number of our support.

CHAIRPERSON: This one?

MR BUDDU: Yes, we can't put it in numbers, but the response alone told me that we've got the support.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I thought the 115-120 000 was your estimate of the total support around South Africa that you had, am I correct?

MR BUDDU: Yes, yes, Ma'am.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Wasn't that the number of inmates in the 115 000 to 120 000 in 1994 round about?

MR BUDDU: No, no, that's not what I mean.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes. How many inmates were there round about in the prisons then?

MR BUDDU: You see Your Honour, if I have to estimate sentenced prisoners and unsentenced prisoners it would be a bit difficult, but for the sake of the record one needs to make this estimation because it's been requested by yourself. I estimate our support then between 110, 115 to 120 and the rest which remained maybe fall in the category of unsentenced prisoners because our support was not so massive amongst unsentenced prisoners you know.

CHAIRPERSON: One can understand why.

MR BUDDU: Yes. But also if I'm not mistaken I think the unsentenced prisoners, there was also a rumour that they won't vote, but they ended up voting because of the struggle which was initiated by us.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And did you membership include IFP members all across political lines?

MR BUDDU: Yes, Your Honour because when we called for the right to vote we said that the previous regime would allow convicted and unconvicted prisoners to vote for organisations of their own choices. But I must also add though that the ANC knew for a fact that the majority of prisoners will vote for them and that is exactly what happened.

CHAIRPERSON: You as SAPOR you were open to membership from all kinds of political parties or so-called liberation movements then.

MR BUDDU: Yes, Ma'am.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you never had any preclusions.

MR BUDDU: No, not at all.

CHAIRPERSON: As you were the only vehicle of people particularly who were sentenced.

MR BUDDU: Even those who were not sentenced, but some of them saw it not necessary to belong to a party because they presumed themselves as innocent.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes. And is that the reasons why you enjoyed more support those who were sentenced?

MR BUDDU: Yes, Ma'am.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Moloisane, I don't think there is a need for any re-examination.

MS MOLOISANE: As the Committee please, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it your intention to call for further testimony in support of Mr Tsotetsi's application?

MS MOLOISANE: Pardon, Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON: Is it your intention to call for more testimony in support of Mr Tsotetsi's application?

MS MOLOISANE: That is not my intention, Madam Chair, this concludes the case for Mr Tsotetsi's application.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Are you in a position to proceed to address us?

MR BUDDU: Comrade Chair, I think it's okay now. I ...(indistinct) it.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I'm talking to Ms Moloisane.

MR BUDDU: Sorry for that.

MS MOLOISANE: To address?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, to proceed to legal argument. Are you in a position to do that?

MS MOLOISANE: Yes, I'm in a position, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: That being so, Mr Buddu, we'll request you to step down. Thank you very much for appearing before us.

MR BUDDU: Thank you very much, Ma'am and the rest of the Panel.

MS MOLOISANE IN ARGUMENT: As it pleases you Madam Chair and Committee Members.

It is my humble submission that the applicant has made out a proper case to be granted amnesty in terms of Section 20 of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act of 1995.

Madam Chair and Committee Members, I will start with the provision of (1) of Section 20. I submit that the applicant has met all these requirements and that the holding of the hostages at Boksburg Prison on the 18th of March 1994, was done in compliance with orders issued by SAPOR and that the said mass action was aimed at achieving a political objective which in this instance was to be granted the right to vote, which is a very important political right.

Madam Chair and Committee Members, it is further my submission that the applicant has made a full disclosure of all the relevant facts that pertained to the said mass action, or rather to the holding of the hostages on that particular day.

Madam Chair and Committee Members, I also wish to submit that Mr Tsotetsi, the applicant, stated in paragraph 2 of his affidavit that he was an active supporter of the African National Congress. And Madam Chair, Section 20(2)(a) makes provision for a member or supporter of a publicly known political organisation ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: But he didn't act on their behalf or in their support in this instance, he acted as a supporter and on behalf of SAPOR

MS MOLOISANE: I fully agree with you, Committee Member, Mr de Jager. The last witness who testified, Mr Buddu, expressly told this Committee that SAPOR was perceived to be aligned to the ANC and coincidentally the applicant, Mr Tsotetsi, happened to an active supporter of the organisation. Although here ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct) perceptions, Ms Moloisane.

MS MOLOISANE: Pardon, Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON: Let's leave aside perceptions for now and concentrate on the factual evidence before us. Mr Tsotetsi was a member of the ANC, Mr Tsotetsi was incarcerated at the time, Mr Tsotetsi joined SAPOR and became a member of SAPOR. It is a fact that SAPOR instructed them to be part of this mass action, which mass action included the holding of hostages and it is as a result of the direct instruction by SAPOR that Mr Tsotetsi proceeded to act the way he did, which is an offence today for which he seeks amnesty. So as a fact before us, Mr Tsotetsi was acting on the instructions of SAPOR to participate in the mass action which included the holding of a hostage, as a fact.

Now let's leave perception. You can address us on that. What is your submission, would you submit to us that SAPOR can be defined as political organisation in terms of the Act? We know it represented quite a large number of inmates, so there can be no doubt that it was a public organisation. In my mind there is no doubt about that. A person who represents over a hundred thousand prisoners nationwide can never be said to be a private organisation.

Now I'm not worried about whether it was a private or otherwise organisation, the Act however requires us to take cognisance not of a public organisation, but of a public political organisation or liberation movement. Now what you have to submit before us is whether you would contend that SAPOR was in your submission, a public political organisation as defined in the Act.

MS MOLOISANE: Madam Chair and Committee Members, my contention is that SAPOR qualifies as a publicly known liberation movement in that it was catering for the needs and the interests, both political or otherwise, of the prisoners. And in that instance, Madam Chair and Committee Members, I submit that it clearly qualifies to be called a liberation movement.

CHAIRPERSON: Or a political organisation.

MS MOLOISANE: As it pleases you, Madam Chair.

And the fact that SAPOR stepped in when - or rather, the fact that SAPOR stepped in after an announcement had been made that prisoners in certain categories would not be allowed to cast their vote in the first historic democratic elections in this country, shows, clearly shows that SAPOR was a political organisation otherwise they wouldn't have stepped in, they had no reason to step in. And the fact on this particular day, that is on the 18th of March 1994, Mr Buddu, Mr Bennie Alexander of the Pan Africanist Congress of Azania and Mr Mac Maharaj of the ANC went to prison, to the Boksburg Prison to go and sort out this matter, clearly shows that this had something to do with a political objective. They had to go there - I mean, there is no reason why Mr Buddu had to take or to invite Mr Bennie Alexander and Mr Mac Maharaj who arrived before they could arrive there, or before them at prison.

The fact that I'm trying to drive home, the point I'm trying to drive home is that if SAPOR was not a political organisation, Mr Buddu would not have taken along Mr Alexander and Mr Maharaj with him to prison to go and address this whole issue surrounding the demands to be allowed - by the prisoners, to be allowed to cast their votes.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Do you know whether SAPOR had a Constitution?

MS MOLOISANE: Pardon?

JUDGE DE JAGER: Do you know whether SAPOR had a Constitution on paper?

MS MOLOISANE: As a fact, Mr Committee Member, I am aware that SAPOR has a Constitution and a physical address, that is their offices in Johannesburg. They operate as an organisation, it's a juristic ...(indistinct), a fully recognised one.

JUDGE DE JAGER: I've got no problem with that, but our only problem in this case, my only problem is whether SAPOR can be defined as a political, a known political organisation or liberation movement. And I would think that a Constitution could assist us in coming to a conclusion.

MS MOLOISANE: Unfortunately, Mr Committee Member, I'm not in a position to can give or disclose that Constitution at this stage unless ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. You will be in a position if you are requested as we will be requesting you to furnish us with some document.

MS MOLOISANE: I will try my best, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: As a result of what you are trying to submit to us.

MS MOLOISANE: I will try my best, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Your submission must be based on some documentary evidence.

MS MOLOISANE: I will try that, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you submit that SAPOR was waging a struggle against the State and anything that was seen to be associated or perceived to be associated with the State? Like the prisons for instance and the directive that came from Mr de Klerk that affected prisoners nationwide? In your submission would you contend that they were waging a struggle against the State, and if so, why?

MS MOLOISANE: In my submission Madam Chair and Committee Members, I wouldn't submit that SAPOR was waging a struggle against the State, I will rather submit that SAPOR was waging a struggle against injustices that were being committed against ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: By who? Committed by who?

MS MOLOISANE: Well because they are being incarcerated obviously they are waging that struggle against the Department of Correctional Services, but not really against the State as a whole.

CHAIRPERSON: But wouldn't you regard Correctional Services as being part of the State?

MS MOLOISANE: I do, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Wouldn't you interpret the word State to include Correctional Services?

MS MOLOISANE: I do, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: So why shouldn't you submit that they were waging a struggle against the State?

MS MOLOISANE: Thank you Madam Chair for that indulgence.

MR PRETORIUS: And that perhaps a right was being taken away by the State, either through the President or by the Correctional Services Department and that right was important to them, the right to vote.

MS MOLOISANE: That is my contention, Judge Motata.

And I further wish to submit that the right to vote was a very important one being a political right which every citizen has to enjoy.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Does that conclude your legal argument?

MS MOLOISANE: That concludes my legal argument, Madam Chair and Committee Members, thank you, unless if the Committee still wants to hear me on certain aspects.

CHAIRPERSON: We are going to request you to forward to this Committee through Mr Steenkamp by not later than Thursday this week, to give us a copy of the Constitution as at 1994.

MS MOLOISANE: I will try my best, Madam Chair and Committee Members. I will actually try to contact Mr Buddu this afternoon.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And Mr Steenkamp will then if possible, if you are not dealing with a bulky document will you please see to it that you give us three copies so that Mr Steenkamp can simply distribute the copies to the various Members of the Panel.

MS MOLOISANE: I will comply with your request, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. We'd like to have this Constitution I must stress, by Thursday because we hope to finish either on Thursday or at the latest on Friday, and after that this Committee will not be constituted as it is and we'd like to look at the Constitution whilst we are still constituted as we are, so that we can make some opinions about the Constitution in relation to the pertinent question we have raised with you regarding whether SAPOR can be regarded as a publicly known political organisation or liberation movement.

MS MOLOISANE: As it pleases you, Madam Chair and Committee Members. As I've already indicated I will be contacting Mr Buddu this afternoon immediately after the adjournment.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I think this brings us to the conclusion of the application of Mr Tsotetsi. Mr Steenkamp, are we in a position to proceed with another application?

ADV STEENKAMP: Madam Chair, unfortunately we had some difficulties for the matter - there are three matters standing down. The one of Vanderbijlpark, the attorney there, Mr Brian Koopedi unfortunately had - sorry Madam Chair, Mr Koopedi unfortunately had urgent arrangements this afternoon and he couldn't wait any longer. The victims are available. I've arranged with him that this matter be proceeded with early tomorrow morning, whatever time it suits the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Which matter is that one?

ADV STEENKAMP: That's the Vanderbijlpark matter, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV STEENKAMP: And then the other matter standing down which is a more bulky and I would suggest a more complicated matter, it's the Ngeni matter. I'm probably not pronouncing ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Ngubane.

ADV STEENKAMP: Ngubane. There is - the appeal record, I've got the appeal record from Bloemfontein. The attorneys are preparing it at this moment. And the last matter, Madam Chair, on the roll is a matter that we discussed just shortly and that's the matter where one of the applicants are currently in the Kruger National Park. He's a member of the military there. That's the matter of Mr Mokati.

My difficulty there is Madam Chair, on request we've tried all our means to make sure that this applicant be brought to the hearing either today or tomorrow. It is logistically probable to get him here tomorrow morning, but the legal representatives are not able to be available tomorrow morning and in the circumstances they've also been excused from attendance not to sit here until 5 o'clock. So I would suggest Madam Chair, that the roll for the day is complete and tomorrow morning we can start immediately with the Vanderbijlpark three, the matter where Mr Koopedi will be appearing.

CHAIRPERSON: That's the matter of Mr Mokati, Mthembu and Dube?

ADV STEENKAMP: Correct, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: That being so we are going to reserve our judgment in this matter, Ms Moloisane. We cannot even indicate how long we are going to do that, it is a matter that requires us to think about it, it requires some legal issues which are not the kind of issues that we deal with every day. We will however once our decision is ready, have our decision conveyed to you as soon as possible with obviously a view of you communicating with Mr Tsotetsi. Our office however in Cape Town will also communicate with the head of the prison where Mr Tsotetsi is being kept directly.

We thank you for the assistance you've rendered to this Committee. Mr Tsotetsi you are excused for the day.

MS MOLOISANE: Thank you Madam Chair and Committee Members.