--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: Good morning everybody. We continue our hearings today and the first matter on the roll for today are the amnesty applications of Messrs S. Mufamadi, M. Mayekiso and Jay Naidoo.

Before we commence, I would just like to briefly introduce the Panel to you. On my right is Judge John Motata, he is an Acting Judge, attached to the Transvaal Provincial Division of the High Court and he is a member of the Amnesty Committee. On my left is Mr Ntsiki Sandi. He is an Advocate and he hails from East London, he is also a member of the Amnesty Committee, and I am Selwyn Miller, a Judge of the High Court, and I am attached to the Transkei Division of the High Court.

Before we start, this matter was set down on Monday, but we couldn't proceed for certain technical reasons and it was being postponed until today, and I would just like to apologise for any inconvenience that was caused by the postponement. I can assure you it was not intentional.

These proceedings will be simultaneously translated and if you wish to benefit from the translation, I don't know what language the applicants will be testifying in, but if you wish to benefit from the translation, you must be in possession of one of these devices, which are available from the Sound Engineer.

I would request the legal representatives to kindly place themselves on record.

MR RADITAPOLE: I am Tefo Raditapole from Cheadle Thompson & Haysom Attorneys, and I appear on behalf of the applicants.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Raditapole.

MR MALOWA: I am Adv Malowa from Pretoria Bar, I am representing the victim.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Malowa.

MR MAPOMA: My name is Zuko Mapoma, I am the leader of evidence for the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mapoma. Mr Raditapole?

MR RADITAPOLE: Thank you Mr Chair. Mr Chair, as indicated the applicants will read into the record a joint submission, to be read by Mr Naidoo, after which I will make a number of submissions. That will be in the Panel's hands.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Thank you, Mr Naidoo will then be sworn in, we will convert this into a sworn statement?

JAYESALEEN NAIDOO: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Raditapole? Are you going to be reading from this statement that was handed to us earlier? We will call it Exhibit A. We can mark it Exhibit A, is everybody in possession of one?

EXAMINATION BY MR RADITAPOLE: Mr Chair, if I may propose, we do refer to another document as Exhibit A, could we call this Exhibit A1?

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly, A1, if that is what you want.

MR RADITAPOLE: Mr Naidoo, you have your statement in front of you, that has been handed to the Panel and to the other parties, could you take us through the statement which is a joint submission by all the applicants? Mr Chair, the statement will be confirmed by Mr Mufamadi and Mr Mayekiso.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think what is probably the best way to go about it, would be after Mr Naidoo has given his evidence, we swear in Mr Mufamadi and Mr Mayekiso and make them confirm it, and if they wish to add anything or say anything, then they may do so as well.

MR RADITAPOLE: As the Panel pleases.

MR NAIDOO: Thank you Mr Chair.

Our submission today is to apply for amnesty and to record our very sincere regret that Mr Maleka was a victim and was caught very much in a cross-fire of a war that the Apartheid State at that point, had been waging with great intensity against the mass democratic movement in general, but in particular quite a campaign against Cosatu. That is the period in which this whole incident did take place, it was never intended by us then or now, or in the future, to ever see Mr Maleka as an enemy. He was in our view, and for all intends and purposes, very much a pawn that had been used by the Apartheid State in a very sinister campaign to create an atmosphere of fear, of terror in which action would be taken against Cosatu, whether that was legal or illegal action.

We do however, concede that technically our conduct constituted unlawful and unintentional deprivation of Mr Maleka's freedom of movement, however our preoccupation at that point, was very much to exploit and expose the duplicity of the Apartheid Government which was talking the language of negotiations on one hand, but on the other hand fomenting third force violence against the progressive democratic movement, in order to weaken it in the negotiation process. This TRC process in itself, is very much a record of what was done in that period, prior and during to the negotiations process.

Therefore our application should be seen in the context of State sponsored violence against activists at the time, we regret the assault that took place against Mr Maleka and any damage he may have suffered as a consequence of that. We want to state that Cosatu was and still is pre-eminently a Trade Union organisation that is dedicated to the protection and defence of its members' interest and that its lifeblood in fact is the negotiations it conducts at the shop floor, industry bargaining counsel level and at a macro level, instructions that existed in the past, namely the National Manpower Commission, National Economic Forum and more recently now Nedlac.

Its success then and now was very much dependent on very democratic shop floor structures, shop-stewards elected on a regular basis with having both mandates in the negotiations with employers, and reporting back to the members. In fact, in that whole period and currently, we have been engaged in thousands of negotiations at a shop floor. At the time of this incident, Cosatu had built up quite a sophisticated organisation in spite of the repression of 1,2 million paid up members and organise into very strong national industrial unions.

At any one point in time, we had tens of thousands of trained shop-stewards. I am pointing out this to you, Mr Chair and Panel, that we would not take action that would jeopardise the very painstaking work we had done in building up an organisation such as that. But it was because we fought for democracy on the shop floor and we found it not just undesirable but impossible to separate ourselves from the broader struggle for freedom in our country, and we have never apologised for the stance, in fact it remains one of the proud moments in Cosatu's history and the history of this country, that we were one of the most organised and significant civil society organisations, that not just challenged the denial of human rights in that period, but will continue to exercise that right even today.

So, it was because of that position that the Apartheid State attempted to demonise both the leadership and the organisation and create this whole atmosphere of terror in which the organisation itself would be weakened. As we stated at the time, this approach was intended to either instigate, organise and foment violence against our personnel, our offices, our property, either through formal or unofficial random acts by its supporters.

We have as a record, handed in, but also in our submission at the TRC hearing on the role of business, documented close to 50 attacks on Cosatu and its affiliates in that period leading up to that hearing. It is quite clear that the State and its unofficial organs saw us as a very significant threat and to counter the growth, the Apartheid State began in earnest to orchestrate a campaign of violence against us, personnel and members were attacked, members were murdered, others detained, premises and property were sabotaged and destroyed, offices were subjected to search and seizure raids, meetings were disrupted, material confiscated, roadblocks set up to intercept members and these systematic attacks on Cosatu and affiliate offices, took place in many cases resulting in destruction of offices through firebombs, through grenade attacks and through vandalism.

The South African Police also used Emergency Regulations to make unnecessary and destructive interventions in the industrial relations issues. Strikes by affiliates in the period post-1987 such as the SARO and NUM strikes in 1987, were particularly hard hit.

Thousands of workers were dismissed and forced out of hostels, Cosatu House was raided in a military operation twice by Police and the Military, even using sniper riflemen. The streets outside our offices were almost barricaded by police on a daily basis, and workers and personnel there were being harassed. An incident that remains very clear in my mind, as to the position of the police in all of this period, was looking down from the 11th floor of the Cosatu building, the Headquarters, and seeing the police vans parked downstairs and one of them having an AWB sign drawn on its bonnet.

So, it is difficult for us to look back upon that time and fully comprehend the nature of the onslaught that was launched against Cosatu, and to understand the nature of the attacks, we refer to the list of attacks that we handed in to the Court during our trial, which is today Exhibit A in the amnesty hearing. One of the most well known attacks was the bombing of Cosatu House in 1987 by Vlakplaas operatives and both Eugene de Kock and others have applied for amnesty in this regard.

It is a matter of record that the police, the Minister of Police, Adriaan Vlok, personally praised de Kock and other Vlakplaas operatives for a mission that had been well accomplished, and again I can recall on the morning that they had bombed Cosatu Headquarters and effectively destroyed it and made it unusable, I was confronted by Security Police there with a warrant to seize certain newsletters that we had published, and when I remarked that it was ironical, they were doing this just as they had bombed our building, they threatened to arrest me for that.

On June the 9th, 1989, Cosatu was declared a restricted organisation, effectively preventing it from carrying out a range of activities, changes were being proposed to labour laws that will severely curtail our right to organise and demonstrate our opposition to either employers of the State, heavy penalties were proposed to emasculate the Trade Union movement and its ability to strike, and in fact the State in its legal position and through its propaganda machinery, especially the distribution of tens of thousands of dirty trick pamphlets and the SABC, began to argue that Cosatu was a legitimate target because of our perceived treasonous behaviour.

This was confirmed in two Commissions that sat in 1990, the one was the Harms Commission in which the former CCB operative Dirk Coetzee indicated that both the SADF and the SAP regarded Cosatu as a target for political violence and this was further confirmed in evidence given to the Hiemstra Commission, concerning the SADF's infiltration of the Jo'burg City Council and its intervention in the industrial relations arena.

In the period of 1990 and following the unbanning of the ANC, a spiral of violence in fact flared throughout the Reef townships, Cosatu on numerous occasions warned the police of intended attacks on its offices and personnel, no action was taken until to this day, we are still to see a successful prosecution of violent acts that were committed against Cosatu.

It was quite clear to Cosatu that we would have to take measures to protect ourselves and our members against State sanctioned violence, a particular spectre of violence was the appearance of sinister death squads, often made up of askaris who were the ANC guerrillas that had been turned by the Apartheid Security Forces. At the same time, there was a very real possibility for a negotiated settlement and Cosatu in its 1989 Congress supported the negotiations process, but also backed a mass based campaign of defiance to force the Apartheid State to negotiate in a bona fide way with the ANC.

We in fact released a number of our senior leaders including Sydney Mufamadi, my co-accused, Cyril Ramaphosa to participate and support the negotiations process. Other Cosatu cadres such as Sydney and Jehendra Naidoo became key negotiators around the Peace Accord. So Cosatu as an organisation had a very obvious programme that our greatest strength was at the point where we were operating in an environment of peace.

As an organisation, we would never do something that would provoke or foment violence, because that will have the opposite effect in terms of the functionality and success of our organisation.

So, while we voiced militant opposition to apartheid, and lack of worker rights on the shop floor, we have always sought to act in a disciplined, rational, non-violent manner that promoted the practice of democracy. It is against this background that the incident in respect of which we apply for amnesty, should be understood.

We apprehended Mr Maleka after he was seen to be behaving suspiciously outside the Cosatu offices. There was a reasonable response in view of the above context that I have painted. On being questioned, he revealed a two-way radio and photographs of Geraldine Fraser. She was then a senior official of the South African Communist Party and had recently returned from exile. She had in the previous few weeks experienced a high level of surveillance and indeed was fearful that at attempt were maybe made to harm her.

Mr Maleka claimed that his job was to report to a Security Policeman who was driving in the vicinity every time she left the building. That he had no identification on him and denied that he was a policeman, made us suspicious of his intention and those of his handlers. We ensured that Mr Maleka was then kept at our offices while a number of processes were put into place. A press conference was called, the ANC was asked to request authorities at a national level to investigate the incident, the Security Police at John Vorster Square was informed and requested to fetch him, once it was confirmed that he had in fact said he was a policeman.

It is common cause that the response of the police was to raid Cosatu's offices and to arrest ourselves. We were then charged with assault and kidnapping. In fact, the strange thing about the arrest is that Geraldine Fraser was in the company of us when we were arrested, police did not even give her a second glance. The fact of taking the time off to go and get warrants of arrest, not responding to an urgent activation of a special channel set up by the ANC and the fact that they knew from the beginning that Mr Maleka had been taken into our building, pointed to a lack of concern about the safety of Mr Maleka. In fact in our mind, it was simply to bloody Cosatu's nose and to embarrass the leadership. We did not assault Mr Maleka, nor were we present at any stage when he was assaulted, other than the incident when he was slapped in front of the press camera.

We however, acknowledge that he was assaulted. We extremely accept with the conduct of some of our members, even if we felt they were emotional about the actions of the Apartheid State, and its functionaries, who were the interface of its violent side against us, we warned the relevant Cosatu personnel to ensure his absolute safety. I even recall at the time, that the police even stated that they knew that we as the leadership were not involved, but if we were prepared to reveal the names of those that were involved, then they would be prepared to withdraw the charges against us as leaders.

We felt at that time, that as the leadership, we had to take the political responsibility for what had happened, and therefore declined to take up that offer. We do not have any direct knowledge of who participated in the assault, but we do know however, that there were two people associated with Cosatu, one employed, Lazarus Mawhela and the other Christopher Seopeseng, who was a Chairperson of our Education Committee, who were amongst the people who were present in that office when that assault took place.

It must be appreciated that the incident had stirred much excitement and consternation and that people were moving in and out of the office. The fact that we as leaders did not assault Mr Maleka was consistent with Cosatu's role in the endeavours for peace. The fact that he was placed in Sydney Mufamadi's office, who was then the Assistant General Secretary of Cosatu, that a press conference was called, that the ANC requested to intervene and the police called, is consistent with this.

Mr Maleka's testimony at the trial about me being present when he was assaulted, was wrong. We wish to reiterate that we believe that Mr Maleka is a victim of that unjust political system that existed at that point, and sought to deny the majority of people their birth right.

The fact that he suffered harm in some way, even in the context where we felt the life of Cosatu leaders and property were in danger, does not alter that fact. It is in that context that we regret and omission or commission on our part, which led to a situation in which Mr Maleka found himself at that point in time.

I thank you very much, Mr Chairperson, and Panel, for your attention in this matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Naidoo. Mr Raditapole?

MR RADITAPOLE: Mr Chair, perhaps Mr Mufamadi and Mr Mayekiso can be sworn in and ...

CHAIRPERSON: Let me just ask Mr Malowa if he has any questions to put to Mr Naidoo. Mr Malowa, do you have any questions that you would like to put to the applicant?

MR MALOWA: I don't have any questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma?

MR MAPOMA: None, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Judge Motata?

JUDGE MOTATA: Just clarification Chairperson. In your statement, in the submission, you have alluded to the fact that Cosatu operated or perceived to operate in a peaceful atmosphere. I want to get clarification, because there was this constant attack, that is the tenor of your submission from the, let's put it from the apartheid regime. Would I be correct to say the peaceful atmosphere you are speaking of, is the community of Cosatu, that is the 1,2 million people affiliated to Cosatu, not vis-à-vis the apartheid regime, would I be understanding you correctly?

MR NAIDOO: Yes, I think what we have sought to do in that whole period, particularly in the whole of the 1980's, is use every legal avenue to defend and advance the rights that we had and believed we had, as workers and as human beings.

It is in that context that in the debates that took place in the Trade Union movement at that time, that we argued for registration of unions, for the use of Industrial Councils and for recognition agreements that were negotiated at probably tens of thousands of work places.

So our entire relations with employers, all of that was regulated by agreements that we had reached, including using some of the laws that the Apartheid State had passed at that point in time. So for us, a very key element of Cosatu's strategy was to compel the State to introduce the type of legal framework within which we could conduct our activities in a peaceful way. Around collective bargaining, that certainly was a major success that we achieved in the 1980's, the whole period of the 1980's.

However, because Cosatu could not viably exist as a legitimate Trade Union movement without taking up the issues of workers outside of the factory floor, that brought us into direct conflict with the State. With the State on certain areas, there was co-operation, for example within the National Manpower Commission, but in relation to our political activity, the State saw us as a legitimate target. But they were constrained by the fact that we also were regulated and walking in terms of certain legislation that existed and so a lot of the action against us, by the State, was unofficial in terms of the violent side of that Apartheid State. So if you take the 50 attacks against us and our offices and personnel, and members, all of those were done by, outside of the formal structures in which we would then have engaged the State.

I would say that our view is that at every opportunity we saw to engage the State in a peaceful way, through existing structures or through negotiations with the employers, the State's reaction to that outside of those formal structures, was to create this environment and atmosphere where people felt it was legitimate to then go and bomb a Cosatu office, because a picture was painted of us out there, particularly on the SABC and through the media that we were demons, that we were terrorists, that we were allied to the ANC, we were communists, or we were terrorists.

I suppose for me, the issue was that in my statement the statement we have prepared, that we felt very strongly that if, wherever there was an opportunity to pursue peaceful non-violent action, we would advance that cause, but we also had to take some steps in terms of security to protect ourselves where we did perceive there was a threat against us. I am not sure if that answers the question.

JUDGE MOTATA: It does, thank you Mr Naidoo. Thank you Chairperson, I've got nothing further.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Sandi, do you have any questions that you would like to ask?

ADV SANDI: Not really a question Chairperson, but just to make absolutely sure what the position is in respect of offences. You are only seeking amnesty for the kidnapping and not the assault, because you were never involved in that, for that matter, I understood you to say that you did not associate yourselves with the assault that occurred at the time?

MR RADITAPOLE: Mr Chair, if I may, the history of this matter is that there were two court processes, in the Magistrate's court, the Regional Magistrate's court, the applicants were found guilty of both the charges of assault and kidnapping. The assault charge was later overturned in the Witwatersrand Local Division, and the kidnapping charge is pending before the Supreme Court of Appeals, pending the outcome of this application.

That is where the matter is at the moment.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Raditapole, the Exhibit A referred to in the statements, do you have that?

MR RADITAPOLE: The exhibit is available, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Page 18 and onwards? I just want it for record purposes for completeness, and then we will also note that Exhibit A1 which is a joint submission of the applicants, that the first person used at the bottom of page 3, is in fact Mr Naidoo, right on the last line?

MR RADITAPOLE: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any questions arising out of questions put by the Panel, Mr Raditapole?

MR RADITAPOLE: No Mr Chair, what I would just like to do in conclusion of this statement read out by Mr Naidoo, just to state that ...

JUDGE MOTATA: Before you do, Mr Raditapole, just for question of clarity here, a document has been handed up to us and it has got a number of descriptions, Exhibit A, B, what have you, and you look at the bundle as well, you have sight of page 18, it also has Annexure A, just for the question of numbering and our records being straight, how do we handle this?

MR RADITAPOLE: Mr Chair, as much as the contents of Exhibit A some of them have been included in the bundle, that we look at Exhibit A purely on its own, as a document that indicates, that lists the kinds of action that were taken against Cosatu. It is really, mainly, press clippings and a schedule that lists the 50, over 50 attacks that Mr Naidoo referred to.

CHAIRPERSON: It is merely part of the joint statement?

MR RADITAPOLE: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Naidoo, thank you, that concludes your testimony.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Raditapole?

MR RADITAPOLE: Mr Chair, if I may, just to conclude, to conclude the submission that has just been made, to state that the conduct of the applicants, with regard to Mr Maleka, we believe was proportional, quite reasonably proportional.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but I think let's just finish the testimony first as we said earlier, and then we can make submissions.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------SYDNEY MUFAMADI: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Raditapole?

EXAMINATION BY MR RADITAPOLE: Mr Mufamadi, you heard the joint submission read by Mr Naidoo, do you confirm the contents thereof?

MR MUFAMADI: Yes, I do.

MR RADITAPOLE: Is there anything else that you would like to add to that statement?

MR MUFAMADI: No, I have nothing at all to add to the statement Chairperson and Panel. I associate myself fully with everything that was read out of the statement, and the answers that were provided by Mr Naidoo to the questions that were subsequently asked.

I wish to place on record also once more, that we do regret the inconvenience that was caused to Mr Maleka, although we believe that he was doubly unfortunate, because he was placed in the unfortunate position where he met that unfortunate fate. I thank you.

MR RADITAPOLE: Thank you Mr Mufamadi.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR RADITAPOLE

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mufamadi. Mr Malowa, do you have any questions that you would like to ask?

MR MALOWA: No questions Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MAPOMA: Just one, Chairperson. Mr Mufamadi, there is a question I was supposed to put to Mr Naidoo, but I forgot. Perhaps you can answer it as well, during that period, the media and the publicity generally, gave an impression that Mr Maleka was rescued by the police during the raid that they did in the Cosatu Building, it gave an impression that had it not been for the intervention of the police, then anything could have happened to Mr Maleka, what is your comment on that?

MR MUFAMADI: Well, the police did not need to organise a big contingent and surround Cosatu House, or Cosatu offices when they were in fact asked to come and fetch Mr Maleka.

I think it was a waste of taxpayers' money for them to assemble as many people as they did, when in fact as I say, we invited them to come and fetch Mr Maleka.

MR MAPOMA: Thank you Chairperson, no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MAPOMA

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mapoma. Judge Motata, do you have any questions?

JUDGE MOTATA: I've got none, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Sandi?

ADV SANDI: No questions, thank you Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Mr Mufamadi, that concludes your testimony.

MR MUFAMADI: Thank you.

MOSES MAYEKISO: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Raditapole?

EXAMINATION BY MR RADITAPOLE: Mr Mayekiso, do you confirm the contents of the joint submission made by Mr Naidoo?

MR MAYEKISO: I do confirm the statement, the joint statement as read by Jay Naidoo and also reiterate the fact that the answers to questions answered by Jay Naidoo and Sydney Mufamadi.

MR RADITAPOLE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Malowa, any questions?

MR MALOWA: No questions Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma?

MR MAPOMA: I have no questions, Chairperson, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Judge Motata?

JUDGE MOTATA: None Chairperson, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Sandi?

ADV SANDI: Thank you, no questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mayekiso, thank you, that was very short and sweet, thank you very much, that concludes your testimony.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Raditapole, any further evidence?

MR RADITAPOLE: Mr Chair, just to wrap up the submissions, to make the point that the conduct of the applicants in relation...

CHAIRPERSON: I just want to find out whether there is any further evidence. No further evidence?

MR RADITAPOLE: Mr Chair, there is no further evidence, that is the evidence for the applicants.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malowa, any evidence to be led by you?

MR MALOWA: No, no evidence Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma, any further evidence?

MR MAPOMA: I have no further evidence, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Now, Mr Raditapole, you can make your submissions, thank you.

MR RADITAPOLE IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Chair, I apologise for jumping the gun.

CHAIRPERSON: Just sticking to procedures really.

MR RADITAPOLE: Mr Chair, just to wrap up the evidence, to state that the conduct of the applicants in relation to Mr Maleka was reasonable in the circumstances, that it was quite proportionate, proportional to the political objective that was sought to be achieved, namely the expose of the duplicity of the State at the time.

Having said that, then to submit that the applicants have complied with the requirements of the Act, that the offence to which ...

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, it is abundantly clear that the whole in ... (no microphone) ... political struggle that was carrying on at that stage, there is no doubt about that.

MR RADITAPOLE: That is correct Chair. So again the, and of course that relate to the conflicts of the past as required by the Act.

And to submit finally that the applicants have made a full disclosure of all the relevant facts and that accordingly the applicants are entitled to a favourable decision by the Committee, thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Malowa, do you have any submissions that you would like to make?

MR MALOWA IN ARGUMENT: That is correct Chair. My instruction by Mr Maleka is that he does not have, he doesn't oppose the application and he does not have an interest in this application, whether they are granted amnesty or not.

He wasn't even concerned whether they make a full disclosure of what had happened on that day. However, it is the duty of the Panel to make sure that there is a full disclosure that has been made in regard to the applicants' action.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we are bound by the provisions of the Act in the event of amnesty being granted, to express our opinion as to whether the victim is a victim as contemplated by the Act, and if so, to refer the matter to the Committee on Reparations and Rehabilitation for their consideration in terms of Section 22 of the Act. That is done as a matter of course.

Any further submissions?

MR MALOWA: No further thing to add on this.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Malowa. Mr Mapoma, do you wish to make any submissions?

MR MAPOMA: Thank you Chairperson, no submission, I will leave it in the hands of the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. As explained to Mr Raditapole, just before we started, we have a policy of handing down written decisions, I shall ensure that the decision is made as soon as possible, and a written decision will be handed down in the near future and in that regard, the decision is therefore reserved.

Mr Raditapole, I would like to thank you for your assistance, Mr Malowa, thank you, Mr Mapoma, thank you. That concludes the hearing, thank you very much.

MR RADITAPOLE: Thank you sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma, do you want to take a short adjournment now, or are you ready to proceed with the next matter?

MR MAPOMA: I will appreciate a short adjournment, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: We will take a short adjournment and reconvene as soon as you are ready, thank you.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We will now commence with the hearing of Mr L.K. Mthethwa, application number 6601/97.

I would at this stage request the legal representatives to place themselves on record.

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson and Honourable Committee Members, my name is Brian Koopedi, I appear before you on behalf of the applicant, Mr Mthethwa.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Koopedi.

MR MAPOMA: I am Zuko Mapoma, the leader of evidence, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mapoma. Mr Koopedi, you can call your applicant.

MR KOOPEDI: Just a second Chairperson, he seems to be having a problem with his headset.

CHAIRPERSON: Here comes the Technician. Mr Mapoma, will you be looking after the interests of the victims in this matter?

MR MAPOMA: Yes Chairperson, indeed. In fact I consulted with them, they are here, and I may at this point Chairperson, place it on record, that they have indicated that they are not opposed to the application.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mapoma. Mr Koopedi, I take it you will be calling the applicant.

MR KOOPEDI: That is indeed so Chairperson, we are ready to proceed, he is also ready to be sworn in, he will be testifying in Zulu, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Koopedi.

LAZARUS KHAZAMULA MTHETHWA: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Mr Koopedi?

EXAMINATION BY MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Mthethwa, is it correct that you are an applicant in this matter?

MR MTHETHWA: Yes, that is correct.

MR KOOPEDI: I am referring you to page 1 of the bundle of documents before this Honourable Committee, is this your application form?

MR MTHETHWA: Yes, that is correct.

MR KOOPEDI: On page 10 of the same bundle of documents is a signature appearing at the bottom of the page, is that your signature?

MR MTHETHWA: Yes, that is correct.

MR KOOPEDI: Is it correct that this application revolves or is an application for amnesty for the killing of one Alec Mashaba during September 1986?

MR MTHETHWA: Yes, that is correct.

MR KOOPEDI: At this time, were you a member of any political organisation?

MR MTHETHWA: That is correct.

MR KOOPEDI: What political organisation were you a member of?

MR MTHETHWA: Tembisa Youth Congress.

MR KOOPEDI: Did you have a leader at the Tembisa Youth Congress, did you have anyone who was your senior or your Commander in the Youth Congress?

MR MTHETHWA: Yes, there was Peter Chauke.

MR KOOPEDI: Would you take this Committee through the events that obtained on this day, where were you before Mr Mashaba was killed?

MR MTHETHWA: I was at home, Peter Chauke came with many comrades, they told me that they were coming from Welamlambo Section. Peter told me that there was a person who was killing the comrades and he was working, this person was also working with the police, whose name was Percy and then he was actually ordering me to go and look for this gentleman. I didn't have a problem, because he was my Commander.

We proceeded to the place. Peter stopped us on the way, next to a certain place where they had just been grass and shrubs, and then he told us to apply then the "roet", the black substance, the black substance, that we should apply it on our faces. After that he led us to the house. We got into the house, we went into the bedroom, we found the victim, we took him by force, all of us, and we were many there, and we found him asleep. He couldn't resist because we were so many. We overpowered him. We pulled him out of the house and we saw a woman following us, and I think that lady is here today, I think she is the mother to the deceased. But we didn't listen to her, we took him to Welamlambo Section and the comrades from Welamlambo took him to a certain forum and he was accused, after that he was killed.

I was also involved in the whole process and I witnessed the whole incident.

MR KOOPEDI: Now, what ...

JUDGE MOTATA: Just before you do Mr Koopedi, what do you mean that you were involved in this whole process after you reached Welamlambo Section?

MR MTHETHWA: When he was being questioned, I was involved, I was in the house with Peter Chauke and all the other comrades, the house was full of comrades. I was there during the questioning, because this was not our case, we didn't have much jurisdiction, we didn't have jurisdiction to voice our own opinions, because this was not our case.

CHAIRPERSON: What do you mean it wasn't your case, Mr Mthethwa?

MR MTHETHWA: The comrades who came with Peter Chauke and Peter Chauke told me to go and assist the comrades from Welamlambo. I was taking orders from the Commander, I would do as he told me. He told us not to say anything, not to contribute because this was not our case.

CHAIRPERSON: It was the case of the comrades from another Section or another area?

MR MTHETHWA: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I understand, thank you.

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson. After the case you said, that was held, that is after he was charged and he was then killed, what active role did you take, did you participate in, what active role did you do?

MR MTHETHWA: I was never involved in anything thereafter.

MR KOOPEDI: But you however associate yourself with everything that was being done there, the case, the killing?

MR MTHETHWA: Yes, that is correct.

MR KOOPEDI: What happened after he was killed?

MR MTHETHWA: We were arrested with the other comrades. I was granted bail after that, I realised the trouble that I was involved in and I decided to leave the country.

MR KOOPEDI: Where did you go to when you ran away?

MR MTHETHWA: I left for Mozambique and I joined Umkhonto weSizwe there.

MR KOOPEDI: Okay. Now, have you, did you ever apply for indemnity for this matter?

MR MTHETHWA: Yes, that is correct, I applied for indemnity after I came back to South Africa.

MR KOOPEDI: Were you granted this indemnity?

MR MTHETHWA: No, I never received a response because just after that, the TRC came into being and we were told to apply.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just one question Mr Koopedi, just for the record, it is apparent from the documents, the manner in which the deceased was killed, was this by the so-called necklacing method where he was burnt?

MR MTHETHWA: Yes, that is correct, he was brutally burnt in a necklacing style.

MR KOOPEDI: Did you receive any personal gain, any material personal gain for having involved yourself in this killing?

MR MTHETHWA: No, not at all. We were not working for any company, this was all politically motivated, so there were no benefits.

MR KOOPEDI: And what political motivation would you say you people had to have killed Alex Mashaba?

MR MTHETHWA: I am associating myself with politics, because this person was a police informer and he was actually an obstacle in our struggle and he was also involved in killing comrades, and we wouldn't achieve our goals as politicians in South Africa.

MR KOOPEDI: And you actually were told that he, that is the deceased, was this informer and the person who kills comrades. You did not have any personal proof of knowledge of that, is that correct?

MR MTHETHWA: Yes, that is correct, we didn't have any tangible proof, but we were told by Peter Chauke that this person was working with the police and he was involved in the killing of comrades, but myself, personally, I didn't have proof.

MR KOOPEDI: Have you told this Honourable Committee the whole truth, have you fully disclosed all the relevant facts related to this killing?

MR MTHETHWA: Yes, that is correct because I came here voluntarily, I decided to apply for amnesty, I am the one who is prepared to tell the truth, because I want the people to know the truth.

MR KOOPEDI: Now finally, is there anything you would wish to add to your testimony?

CHAIRPERSON: We are not getting any translation. We didn't receive any translation of that, I wonder if you could repeat what you have said, Mr Mthethwa?

MR MTHETHWA: At the moment we are in good terms with the victim's family. We are a very big family with them, and because of what happened, no one knew what was happening actually. I also want to apologise to them, because all this happened because of the political violence and the situation was very tense. At the moment, I do wish that such things should not happen again in the whole South Africa, thank you.

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, that is the evidence of the applicant, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Koopedi. Mr Mapoma, do you have any questions you would like to ask the applicant?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MAPOMA: Just a few Chairperson. Where was Peter Chauke residing at the time?

MR MTHETHWA: Peter Chauke was residing at Baxa Section, in my Section.

MR MAPOMA: Why do you say this case was a case of the comrades from another area, was he not from that area?

MR MTHETHWA: No, Peter Chauke was residing at Baxa Section, and he was my leader and there were also a comrade from Baxa Section, but on that particular day, he came with the comrades from Welalambo Section. That is why I said that this case was not for us, but I was just asked by Peter Chauke to assist and I couldn't say no.

CHAIRPERSON: Would it be correct, would I be correct if I say that the comrades from the other Section, Welalambo Section, wanted to get hold of the deceased who was in your area, and Chauke's area, but they couldn't do it themselves because of the protocol that existed, they had to go through the leader of the area in which the deceased was, which wasn't their area?

MR MTHETHWA: The rule was you wouldn't go to a particular Section without going via the leader of that particular Section.

CHAIRPERSON: And that is why Chauke got involved in it?

MR MTHETHWA: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma?

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

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. re-examination?

MR KOOPEDI: No re-examination, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Judge Motata, do you have any questions that you would like to put to the applicant?

JUDGE MOTATA: Just for clarification, when you state in your application that you are an MK member, you are not referring to the time when you belonged to the Tembisa Youth Congress, you are telling us about your status now or where you belong now?

CHAIRPERSON: Page 1, paragraph 7?

MR MTHETHWA: I think I made a mistake, but I thought I was saying, I think it is a mistake here, maybe they wanted to say I was belonging to a political organisation, so I wrote ANC or MK

JUDGE MOTATA: Thank you, no further questions Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Sandi, any questions that you would like to ask?

ADV SANDI: Yes, I do Chairperson, just one or two. Before this incident, did you know the deceased at all?

MR MTHETHWA: Yes, that is correct.

ADV SANDI: What did you know of him?

MR MTHETHWA: We used to go to school together, we used to go to school together at Savanna Section.

ADV SANDI: Did you personally believe that the deceased was an informer as it was being alleged by these comrades?

MR MTHETHWA: When you are in a group, it is very difficult to be independent in your thinking and beliefs, because there is also excitement and reality is blocked and you eventually become angry and thinking about this person that was being within the other people, that he is a sell-out, so all I can say is that anger overcame the independent thinking and beliefs, and therefore the situation was not as normal.

ADV SANDI: Were you angry?

MR MTHETHWA: Everyone in the group was very angry, we were ululating, we were doing everything.

ADV SANDI: What exactly was being alleged about the deceased, who was he alleged to have killed?

MR MTHETHWA: First of all he was labelled as an informer, secondly it was alleged that he had killed a certain comrades from Welamlambo Section, whose name was Sonnyboy. Those were the allegations.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mthethwa, the Tembisa Youth Congress, was that aligned to the ANC?

MR MTHETHWA: Yes, they would associate themselves with the ANC because most of the time they would bring the reports from the UDF.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Koopedi, do you have any questions arising out of questions that have been put by the Panel?

MR KOOPEDI: None, thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma?

MR MAPOMA: No questions Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mthethwa, thank you, that concludes your testimony.

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, there will be no further evidence, that concludes this case.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Koopedi. Mr Mapoma, any evidence from your side?

MR MAPOMA: No evidence Chairperson, except to point out that Mrs Betty Mashaba is the mother to the deceased person, and she is present at this hearing, she said she just wanted to be recognised as a victim in this matter. There is no other evidence that she can tender on the merits of the matter. Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mapoma. Mr Koopedi?

MR KOOPEDI IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Chairperson, I have a very brief submission.

Chairperson and Honourable Committee Members, it is my submission that the applicant before you has complied with the requirements of the Act for the granting of amnesty. My submission is that this applicant acted on the orders of his superior, Mr Chauke. It was explained to this applicant that the deceased was an informer and also a killer.

However, my submission is that even if this explanation was not given to him, but by virtue of having his superior ordering him to accompany them to go and assist the comrades from Welamlambo Section to capture the de ceased, my submission is that the applicant would have gone in any event, even if he was not afforded this application.

Finally, it is my submission that this applicant has given full disclosure on the basis of the facts, that were available to me, and my submission is that he has given full disclosure. He was not compelled to have applied for amnesty in this instance, but he did it on his own. Clearly there isn't any evidence that shows that there was any material gain that he obtained. Thank you Chairperson.

JUDGE MOTATA: Would the application, because he was removed from his house, also include either abduction or kidnapping?

MR KOOPEDI: That could be so, I believe it would include abduction or it would be any other crime that would flow from having killed this person, but yes, it would include the abduction, because as he stated in his evidence, the deceased did not wilfully accompany them, he was forced out of his bed, and the applicant says he was part of the group that dragged or pulled the deceased out of his bed.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Thank you Mr Koopedi. Mr Mapoma, do you wish to make any submissions?

MR MAPOMA: No submission Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. A written decision will be handed down in this matter as soon as possible, and the decision is accordingly reserved. Mr Koopedi, thank you for your assistance in this matter, Mr Mapoma, thank you. Thank you Mr Mthethwa, that concludes your hearing, a decision will be handed down in the near future.

Mr Mapoma, are we ready to proceed with the next matter, or do you want to have an adjournment?

MR MAPOMA: We are ready to proceed Chairperson, I would like to call Patrick Nhlanhla Modibedi Radebe.

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, may we be, may I be temporarily excused?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, certainly, thank you Mr Koopedi.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma, Mr Sandi does not have his bundle here, it is in the room I think. Thank you, we will now commence with the hearing of Mr P.N.M. Radebe. At this stage, I would request the legal representatives to kindly place themselves on record.

MS MAKHUBELE: I am Advocate T.A.N. Makhubele from the Pretoria Bar, representing the applicant, Patrick Radebe.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR NYAWUZA: I am O.P. Nyawuza from Johannesburg, representing P.G. Motaung, Christina Ntabiseng and Ntauleng's mother.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Nyawuza. Mr Mapoma?

MR MAPOMA: Thank you Mr Chairperson, Zuko Mapoma, Evidence Leader.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Yes, Ms Makhubele, you are going to be calling the applicant?

MS MAKHUBELE: Thank you Mr Chair, yes, I will lead the applicant.

PATRICK NHLANHLA RADEBE: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Makhubele.

EXAMINATION BY MS MAKHUBELE: Thank you. Mr Radebe, you are also known as Modibedi, that is your other surname?

MR RADEBE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: I see from the application form, Ms Makhubele, that he actually uses the name Modibedi as his surname? Which is the correct one to use, Radebe or Modibedi?

MR RADEBE: We can use Radebe, because I used to use the Modibedi surname, I now use Radebe.

CHAIRPERSON: It is not a question of what name you are using, we want to know what your legal, correct name is.

MR RADEBE: Radebe, Chairperson.

JUDGE MOTATA: So in other words we should call you Mr Nhlanhla Patrick Radebe?

MR RADEBE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: I noticed it has been pointed out to me, in your trial the name used was Modibedi? Was that an alias or just an assumed name by yourself?

MR RADEBE: That is correct Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Makhubele?

MS MAKHUBELE: Thank you Mr Chair. How old are you?

MR RADEBE: I am 29 years old.

MS MAKHUBELE: You reside at Sebokeng in the Vaal, Vereeniging area?

MR RADEBE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Radebe, if you could speak a little bit louder, because there are people sitting in the audience who would want to hear what you are saying.

MR RADEBE: Yes Chair.

MS MAKHUBELE: You are before this Committee for an incident which occurred on the 15th of October 1998 at Sebokeng, an incident for which you were ultimately convicted by the Court where you kidnapped and assaulted some people, is this correct?

MR RADEBE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, he also applies for, I see, robbery? Is that right, and public violence? Page 2 of the Bundle?

MS MAKHUBELE: You were ...

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, is that correct, is he also applying for robbery and public violence?

MR RADEBE: Yes, that is correct.

MS MAKHUBELE: Thank you Mr Chair. This incident occurred on the 15th of October 1998, can you tell ...

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, is it not 1988?

MS MAKHUBELE: 1988 yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You said 1998?

MS MAKHUBELE: I am sorry Chairperson. Can you tell this Committee whether at that time, you were a member of any political organisation and if so, your capacity in that organisation?

MR RADEBE: I was a member of COSAS and the ANC Youth League.

MS MAKHUBELE: Did you have any position there?

MR RADEBE: No, I was just an ordinary member.

MS MAKHUBELE: Can you describe the political situation, anything like unrest, violence at that time and the parties involved, or the people you were fighting against?

MR RADEBE: I will explain it this way. We had many informers in our area, other comrades also acted as informers against others. They were taking information from the organisation, to the Special Branch police.

As members of the organisation, we decided that we have to deal with such people, we have to discipline them.

MS MAKHUBELE: Who were the people identified as informers?

MR RADEBE: Those were the people who turned against the comrades in court, and they became State witnesses in court.

MS MAKHUBELE: Anyone in particular?

MR RADEBE: One of them was Ntabiseng, Baseka and Ntauleng.

MS MAKHUBELE: Who else?

MR RADEBE: I do not remember the others, but there were many.

MS MAKHUBELE: With reference to the incident for which you are before this Committee, are these the victims, the people you have mentioned?

MR RADEBE: That is correct.

MS MAKHUBELE: You mentioned Ntabiseng, Ntauleng and Baseka, there are three?

MR RADEBE: That is correct.

MS MAKHUBELE: How were you to deal with them?

MR RADEBE: We were to discipline them, that will depend on the type of discipline that we decide to ...

MS MAKHUBELE: Can you tell us what happened to them on the specific day, the 15th of October 1988?

MR RADEBE: On the 15th of October 1988, in Zone 14 in Sebokeng, we went to fetch them using a furniture van, we were taking them to Soweto, we were going to attend a night vigil of our comrades but unfortunately we could not reach the destination.

MS MAKHUBELE: Did these three people stay in one house?

MR RADEBE: No.

MS MAKHUBELE: Can you tell us how you took the first one, Ntabiseng from her home?

MR RADEBE: We fetched Ntauleng first, but she did not open for us.

MS MAKHUBELE: What did you do to her house or home?

MR RADEBE: They shouted and said they would call the police and we broke a few windows and we retreated.

MS MAKHUBELE: Before you proceed, you keep on saying we, with whom were you when you did these things?

MR RADEBE: We were eight in number.

MS MAKHUBELE: Can you specify names?

MR RADEBE: It was Terrence Mkwehli, Struggle Mokoena.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Terrence Mkwehli?

MS MAKHUBELE: Yes?

MR RADEBE: Struggle Mokoena, Josias Motlung, Vusi Motaung, Goodwill Masimola and Benni Jekelha.

MS MAKHUBELE: Are these the people who were your co-accused in the trial?

MR RADEBE: That is correct.

MS MAKHUBELE: So you did not manage to take Ntauleng our of her house, but you caused damage to her home?

MR RADEBE: That is correct.

ADV SANDI: What was the purpose of causing this damage to her home?

MR RADEBE: I did not see the person who actually broke the windows, I only saw the broken windows, while they were shouting that they will call the police.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

MS MAKHUBELE: Then you left, to whose home?

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry could you repeat your question please, your microphone was not on.

MS MAKHUBELE: After Ntauleng's home, which house did you proceed to?

MR RADEBE: We went to fetch Baseka.

MS MAKHUBELE: What happened there?

MR RADEBE: We knocked, pretending to be policemen and he opened the door. He was taken out by Terrence.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, before you proceed ...

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, when you talk about going and fetching Baseka, are you talking about Baseka George Motaung?

MR RADEBE: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MS MAKHUBELE: What was your role at his home?

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, was the microphone on?

MS MAKHUBELE: What was your role at Baseka's home?

MR RADEBE: Because we were many, I was not able to enter the house, but he was taken out by the other comrades.

MS MAKHUBELE: Did you see if any force was used on him?

MR RADEBE: I saw them dragging him outside, and they took him to the car. That is the only thing that I saw.

MS MAKHUBELE: And then, what happened next?

MR RADEBE: He managed to escape, we ran after him but we could not catch him.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, were you people in your sound and sober senses? I am just wondering how one man is being dragged out of his house by eight people, just manage to escape and none of you can catch him?

MR RADEBE: He was fighting while we were trying to force him into the van, that is how he managed to escape and we tried to run after him, but we could not manage to catch him.

MS MAKHUBELE: Proceed, where did you go to next?

MR RADEBE: We went to his neighbour, that is where Christina Mfolo stays.

MS MAKHUBELE: What happened there?

MR RADEBE: We knocked, pretending to be the police, and they opened the door. I don't know who dragged her from the bedroom, I only saw her in the kitchen. She was dragged out and taken to the car. She was forced into the car, in the front seat, and then we left to Soweto as we planned.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry before you proceed, Ms Makhubele, what was her name, you say Motiso Mfolo?

MR RADEBE: Christina Mfolo.

CHAIRPERSON: Christina Mfolo, is that the same as Christina Ntabiseng?

MR RADEBE: That is correct.

MS MAKHUBELE: Did you do any specific thing to her or at her home?

MR RADEBE: No, we did not do anything.

MS MAKHUBELE: I am referring to yourself, did you hold her, drag her, or did the knocking at her home?

MR RADEBE: No. The person who dragged her to the outside, was Struggle, I did nothing.

MS MAKHUBELE: Who was driving the vehicle?

MR RADEBE: That is Struggle Mokoena.

MS MAKHUBELE: Was she assaulted in any manner?

MR RADEBE: She was seated in the front seat, I was at the back of the van, so I did not see her being assaulted.

MS MAKHUBELE: You mentioned that you did not get to where you were going ultimately, what happened?

MR RADEBE: Somewhere in Soweto, I think that was around Dube, we were confronted by the police, but we did not stop and they chased us and they shot at us.

We ran away, so I don't know what happened thereafter.

MS MAKHUBELE: When the police shot at you, the only person amongst the three victims was Ntabiseng?

MR RADEBE: That is correct.

MS MAKHUBELE: You have heard during consultation when I informed you that Baseka has made a statement where he states that he was actually put in the truck and he was assaulted, he only escaped at the point where the police - where you met the police, what do you say?

MR RADEBE: That is not the truth.

MS MAKHUBELE: Is it possible like the situation of Ntabiseng, like you say he was seated on the front, that Baseka was also in the front and as such, you did not see him being assaulted?

MR RADEBE: No, the last time that I saw him was when he ran away and we could not manage to catch him.

MS MAKHUBELE: What were you going to do to Ntabiseng in Soweto?

MR RADEBE: That would depend on the discipline that we had decided then.

MS MAKHUBELE: What would you like to say to the people you kidnapped on that night, Ntauleng where you damaged the window panes at her home as well as George, who managed to escape and Ntabiseng who you ultimately took along to Soweto?

MR RADEBE: I would ask them to forgive me for what I did to them, but I did that under what was happening then. That is all I can say to them.

MS MAKHUBELE: How many, or rather, what was your sentence at the trial for this incident?

MR RADEBE: I was sentenced to seven years imprisonment.

MS MAKHUBELE: How many did you serve?

MR RADEBE: Two years and some few months, I don't remember the months.

MS MAKHUBELE: Evidence-in-chief.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Just before I ask Mr Nyawuza. If you turn to page 2 of the documents, it says here he is applying for amnesty for public violence, what does the public violence relate to?

MR RADEBE: When I refer to public violence it is because we were charged for this in court.

CHAIRPERSON: Does that relate to the incident that took place at the house where the windows were broken?

MR RADEBE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And it says kidnapping, okay, you have told us about that, assault, okay, you have told us about that, and then robbery, what, you haven't said anything about robbery to us yet?

MR RADEBE: It is because it was alleged that we robbed that car from the owner.

CHAIRPERSON: Which car?

MR RADEBE: That is the furniture van that we used to travel to Soweto.

CHAIRPERSON: It was alleged, what do you mean by that? Are you saying that you didn't do it, or what?

MR RADEBE: We took it by force from the owner.

CHAIRPERSON: What sort of vehicle was it?

MR RADEBE: It was a furniture van without a canopy at the back.

CHAIRPERSON: And who was the owner?

MR RADEBE: I don't know the owner.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you take it by force?

MR RADEBE: He was packing at a certain house in Zone 14. We took the keys from him and we took the van.

CHAIRPERSON: What did you do to the owner?

MR RADEBE: We did nothing to the owner.

CHAIRPERSON: What was the political motive in hijacking the van?

MR RADEBE: We took that van because it belonged to the whites, and we did not want to see the white's vehicles in the township.

CHAIRPERSON: Was the driver or the owner who you took the keys from, a white person?

MR RADEBE: No, the driver was a black person.

CHAIRPERSON: So, what was the name of the furniture company from whom it was stolen, who owned the van?

MR RADEBE: I do not remember the name of the furniture shop.

CHAIRPERSON: So how did you know that it belonged to the whites when you took it from a person who was not white?

MR RADEBE: We asked him about the car, because it was written that it belonged to a furniture company.

CHAIRPERSON: So you are saying the only reason you took the vehicle was because you thought it belonged to a white person?

MR RADEBE: Yes, it belonged to a white person.

CHAIRPERSON: That is the only reason why you took it?

MR RADEBE: It is because we wanted to use it.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, precisely, wanting to use it for your own purposes? Mr Nyawuza?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NYAWUZA: Thank you Chairperson and Honourable Committee Members. I would wish to put it on record that the victims, they advised me not to oppose amnesty. They feel it was, everything was done within the political turmoil that was prevalent at that time, but they would wish that I get a few answers from the applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly.

MR NYAWUZA: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Radebe, how many vans were used on this particular day, there were eight of you?

MR RADEBE: We used one van.

MR NYAWUZA: Isn't it correct that there were two vans involved, Mr Radebe?

MR RADEBE: That is not true.

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Radebe, my instructions are that Baseka was in the van that did not have a canopy and Ntabiseng was in the other van, in front, what is your comment on that?

MR RADEBE: I would only agree that Ntabiseng was in the van that I was travelling with, I don't know about the other van.

CHAIRPERSON: In the van which you were in, were all your seven comrades with you?

MR RADEBE: Yes, all of us were in that van.

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Radebe, do you know a guy by the name of Sixteen?

MR RADEBE: Yes, I know the name.

MR NYAWUZA: Will I be correct Mr Radebe if I say Sixteen was present on this particular day?

MR RADEBE: He was not amongst us.

MR NYAWUZA: Are you in essence Mr Radebe saying there was some other independent group or why are you saying he was not amongst you, are you saying he was not there?

MR RADEBE: He was not amongst the people I was with.

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Radebe, during your evidence-in-chief it emerges as if you did not have anything to do with the breaking or the getting into the house, tell me what you in particular did on this particular day, did you throw a stone, did you stab somebody, did you drag any person, what is it that you in particular, did on that particular day?

MR RADEBE: My role was to identify those people we were going to fetch, there was nothing else that I did.

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Radebe, let's now go back. You get into Ntauleng's yard and the occupants of the house do not open for you, how were you going to identify Ntauleng?

MR RADEBE: If they had opened the door, I would enter and identify Ntauleng.

MR NYAWUZA: And Mr Radebe, the occupants of the house do not open, the window panes are broken, are you saying you did not take a part in that?

MR RADEBE: No, I did not take part.

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Radebe, are you saying to this Committee today that you were not as agitated as your other comrades were, who went to an extent of breaking the window panes?

MR RADEBE: I was agitated, but I did not allow my emotions to control me to that extent of breaking the windows.

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Radebe, the window panes are broken at Ntauleng's house, you now go to Baseka's house. As the person who was supposed to identify Baseka, will I be correct to say that you were in front?

MR RADEBE: I was not in front. He was dragged by the people who were in front.

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Radebe, I haven't arrived yet at the dragging. You are from Ntauleng's house, you are now going to Baseka's home. The people that you are with, Mr Radebe, don't forget, do not know Baseka, you have to identify Baseka. Invariably you've got to be in front to be able to say "this is the guy that you are looking for"? Further, you stated that you knocked at the door, and then are you still saying that you were not in front, Mr Radebe?

MR RADEBE: I was not the only person who knew Ntauleng and Baseka, there was another guy also who knew them.

MR NYAWUZA: But your evidence today is that you were the person who was supposed to, you didn't tell us about the other guy who was supposed to identify these people, why not?

MR RADEBE: I was only referring to my role.

MR NYAWUZA: Okay, tell us then who identified Baseka, is it you or the other guy?

MR RADEBE: That was the other guy.

MR NYAWUZA: And where were you during that identification period?

MR RADEBE: I was outside.

MR NYAWUZA: Are you saying you never set foot inside Baseka's house?

MR RADEBE: No, I did not.

MR NYAWUZA: The assault, didn't you assault Baseka?

MR RADEBE: No, I did not.

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Radebe, my instructions are that you stabbed Baseka, what is your comment on that?

MR RADEBE: No, it is not true.

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Radebe, whilst on Baseka, you have this van, Baseka is dragged out of the house, invariably I believe he was also dragged from the yard into the van, can you tell us what ultimately, you are standing outside, you know, you are observing everything that is happening because according to your testimony you are not taking part in the assaulting, in the beating of Baseka, so I am inclined to believe that you were observing everything that happened. Baseka is dragged from the house, Baseka is taken to the van, what subsequently happened? Was he ultimately put into the back of the van or, you know, take us through that?

MR RADEBE: Yes, it is true, he was dragged to the van, that happened very quickly. He managed to escape from that van.

MR NYAWUZA: When did he manage to escape, Mr Radebe? Did he manage to escape after you had also found Ntabiseng and put her in front, when did he escape?

MR RADEBE: He was left with three people, while other people were at Ntabiseng's place. That is how he managed to escape.

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Radebe, there is eight of you, and a few is a relative term, what do you mean when you say when there were a few people, were there four people guarding Mr Motaung, Baseka or were there two people or were there six, what is a few?

MR RADEBE: If I am not mistaken, three people.

MR NYAWUZA: Are you saying the other five people went to Ntabiseng's place of residence, is that so?

MR RADEBE: That is correct.

MR NYAWUZA: Were you amongst the people that went to Ntabiseng's place?

MR RADEBE: That is correct.

MR NYAWUZA: Were you able to get - a follow up on that question, there is five of you, can you tell us the name of the people that you were with, that entered into Ntabiseng's place?

MR RADEBE: I was with Terrence, Struggle, Josias and Vusi Motaung.

MR NYAWUZA: So these were the five people that entered Ntabiseng's place of residence, is that so?

MR RADEBE: Before we entered at Ntabiseng's place, that is when they shouted and we ran away.

MR NYAWUZA: Who shouted and what were they shouting about?

MR RADEBE: Those three people who were with him, they were shouting that he is escaping.

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Radebe, on Baseka, I put it to you that my instructions are that Baseka was stabbed, assaulted, doused with petrol and made to lay at the back of that van, what is your comment?

MR RADEBE: No, I don't know that.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Nyawuza, were any of you armed with a knife?

MR RADEBE: No, we were not thugs, we did not have knifes.

CHAIRPERSON: Were any of you armed with a firearm?

MR RADEBE: No, we were not armed.

CHAIRPERSON: You see, why I ask is if I look at Mr Baseka George Motaung's statement on page 16, he says and I don't know if you can make a comment on it -

And then he says they drove, he talks about going along the Golden Highway until Johannesburg and he said he couldn't even walk, he tried to walk later, an fell.

MR RADEBE: No, I don't know this.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you dispute that?

MR RADEBE: Yes.

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Radebe, has your legal representative told you what you need to do here to get amnesty?

MR RADEBE: Yes, she told me.

MR NYAWUZA: Do you know that full disclosure is one of the requirements?

MR RADEBE: Yes.

MR NYAWUZA: Okay. I believe that after some of your comrades shouted and said Baseka is running away, you were part and parcel of the people that tried to chase after Baseka, is that right?

MR RADEBE: That is correct.

MR NYAWUZA: And you couldn't catch up with him, is that so?

MR RADEBE: That is correct.

MR NYAWUZA: And how many people did you assault at Baseka's home, did you assault Baseka alone or were there other people that were assaulted?

MR RADEBE: Only Baseka was dragged out of the house.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry were window panes broken at his house like he says in the statement?

MR RADEBE: No, that is not true.

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Radebe, my instructions are that window panes were broken at Baseka's house, his younger brother was attacked, his father was attacked, in fact his younger brother known as Rangwani had to undergo surgery because of the beating that he got on that particular day. What is your comment on that?

MR RADEBE: I know nothing about that.

MR NYAWUZA: The said Rangwani, I have requested that he avail himself today, I hope he is here, to confirm that he was assaulted on that particular day and he had to undergo surgery. Baseka's father was hacked above the right eye and he sustained an open wound? Your comment, Mr Radebe?

MR RADEBE: That is the first time that I learn about that, today.

Do you see that?

MR RADEBE: Yes, I do see.

JUDGE MOTATA: And further down he says, that would now be the fourth paragraph -

So the impression I get from the statement that is made, is that he did not escape whilst you were getting into Ntabiseng's place, he was in that van, and he escaped en route to Soweto?

MR RADEBE: No, that is not true.

JUDGE MOTATA: You may proceed, Mr Nyawuza.

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Radebe, I am going to revert back to the question that were asked by the Chairperson, were you in your sober senses on that particular day?

MR RADEBE: Yes.

MR NYAWUZA: Okay, Mr Radebe, let's now go to the last person to whose house you went, that is Ntabiseng. You run after Baseka, you cannot get hold of Baseka, you come back, what happened?

MR RADEBE: Then we went to Ntabiseng's place.

MR NYAWUZA: Got into the yard, did you break that door, did you break the windows, what happened?

MR RADEBE: We knocked at the door and they opened the door.

MR NYAWUZA: Who opened the door, Mr Radebe?

MR RADEBE: I do not remember, because all of us entered.

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Radebe, the door is a very small entrance that one can use, you cannot be eight of you going in at the same time. There's got to be one or two people going in at the same time? When did you get into the house, Mr Radebe?

MR RADEBE: I was the fourth person to enter.

MR NYAWUZA: And by the time that you entered, where was Ntabiseng?

MR RADEBE: I think she was in the dining-room because they were dragging her into the kitchen.

MR NYAWUZA: And you were not playing any part in the dragging and assaulting, Mr Radebe?

MR RADEBE: I also dragged her, but that is when we were outside.

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Radebe, do you remember me asking you about Sixteen?

MR RADEBE: Yes, I do remember.

MR NYAWUZA: Are you aware that I don't know Sixteen, I have never seen him?

MR RADEBE: Yes.

MR NYAWUZA: And I was told about Sixteen by Ntabiseng. My instructions, Mr Radebe is that Ntabiseng's uncle opened the door for you, Ntabiseng hid under the ward rove and you looked for her for some time, you couldn't find her, on your way when you were about to leave the house, Sixteen went into the bedroom, looked under the ward rove and said "here is this bitch, she is hiding", what is your comment on that, Mr Radebe?

MR RADEBE: No, Sixteen was not with us.

CHAIRPERSON: Sixteen, where do you know him from?

MR RADEBE: I knew him in 1986 while we were in detention.

CHAIRPERSON: Is he one of your comrades, was he a member of COSAS and the Youth League and that sort of thing?

MR RADEBE: He was just a thug.

CHAIRPERSON: A thug? So he wasn't one of your group, is that what you are saying?

MR RADEBE: Yes, I would say so.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nyawuza?

MR NYAWUZA: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Radebe, here are three people, Baseka, Ntabiseng and Ntauleng's mother, they were victims of an assault on a particular day when the house, Mrs - Ntauleng's mother's house was attacked, Baseka was beaten, stabbed, Ntabiseng was beaten and they come before the Truth Commission, they say "okay, we are aware that at the time there was this mishap, there was this problem between us and the comrades which we vigorously tried to address with them, that we did not testify against our own comrade of our own free volition, we were made to testify against him. We will come to the TRC Committee and say we forgive Mr Radebe, because we know he was acting within the prevalence of this violence at the time", they are seated here, they want to hear you tell the truth. Do you still think that if they feel you are not telling the truth, are they going to forgive you, are they going to say they are no longer opposing amnesty, Mr Radebe?

MR RADEBE: Well, I don't think so.

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Radebe, what is it that you stand to lose if you tell the truth because my instructions and what you are saying here, contradicts each other a lot?

CHAIRPERSON: You might as well add that the Panel aren't bound by the fact that a victim does not oppose an application, we've got to take a look at the criteria before we make a decision.

MR RADEBE: May you please repeat that question again?

MR NYAWUZA: My question is, you - people were victimised on a particular day, they come to the Committee they are saying "we don't have anything against you being granted amnesty", but they are seated there and they feel that you are not telling the truth, you are not talking about the stabbing, about the assault, in actual fact, on this particular day you were an angel, your duty was only to point out "this is the person who testified against us", are you saying, are they going to feel the same after you have given testimony after I cross-examined you, are they still going to say they would have wanted you to get amnesty for this?

MR RADEBE: What I am saying here today is what happened that day.

MR NYAWUZA: You said there was only one van involved, is that so?

MR RADEBE: That is correct.

MR NYAWUZA: My instructions are that there were two vans involved, the van that was in front had Ntabiseng in it, and the van that was behind the one that Ntabiseng in it, had Baseka, what is your comment on that?

MR RADEBE: I only know of one van.

MR NYAWUZA: And Mr Radebe, my instructions are that after you had got hold of Ntabiseng, both vans left Everton using the side that goes to, I don't know whether you call it Chinatown, but they are saying ...(indistinct) in their African language, that is the route that was used.

It is on that route that the car that Ntabiseng, managed to go through and the one behind, was spotted by the police officers, and they suspected something and in fact, Baseka was told not to do anything, and he jumped when he saw the hippo. All of you guys who were in that motor vehicle, escaped, but unfortunately, apparently one of you was arrested, my instructions are not clear as to who was arrested at the time. Are you, what is your comment on that?

MR RADEBE: Yes, it is true that one person was arrested, but that happened in Soweto.

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Radebe, Mr Motaung was part and parcel of you on that particular day, is that so?

MR RADEBE: Are you referring to Vusi Motaung?

MR NYAWUZA: Yes, Mr Radebe.

MR RADEBE: Yes, that is correct.

MR NYAWUZA: And we now, we have his affidavit, we have a statement, sorry, a statement by himself saying that Baseka escaped on your way to Soweto, so are you trying to tell us that your presence at Baseka was your way to Soweto?

MR RADEBE: That is what I said before, maybe he was unable to explain it clearly here in his statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you think of any reason Mr Radebe, why Mr Baseka should make a statement to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Investigator saying that he was stabbed, the windows at his house were broken, that he was beaten with the butt of a gun, that he had to receive hospital treatment after the incident, because of the injuries he sustained, can you think of any reason why he should come up with that version, which is entirely disputed by you even after you have been sentenced in respect of this incident and something that happened, that is in the past, can you think of any reason why he should be making up this version against you at this stage? You have already served your sentence, you are already out of prison for serving it?

MR RADEBE: It is the first time that I learnt about this, because he never said this, even in court during our trial. I don't know the reason why he is saying this today.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Nyawuza?

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Radebe, did Ntabiseng testify against your in your trial?

MR RADEBE: Yes, she did.

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Radebe, why would four people, Mr Vusi Motaung included, lie about your participation in this thing, in this, in what happened on this day?

MR RADEBE: I don't know the reason. It can also happen that he has forgotten what has happened on that day.

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Radebe, would he forget that at some stage you were on your way to Soweto with Baseka, I mean you went out to get these people and you found them, you know, it is something that one glorifies, "we have undertaken our duty fairly well", and I wouldn't forget if I was Mr Motaung, Vusi Motaung. What makes you think that he would forget such a thing?

MR RADEBE: Maybe he has made a mistaken when he was writing the statement, he must have forgotten some important issues.

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Radebe, to wrap up your evidence, did you assault anybody on this particular day?

MR RADEBE: No, I did not assault anybody.

MR NYAWUZA: Did you break any window on this particular day?

MR RADEBE: No, I did not break any window.

MR NYAWUZA: Will I be correct to say that you were the saint who didn't do a thing on this day?

MR RADEBE: I was not a saint on that day, because these people were supposed to be taken to Soweto, maybe I would have taken part in Soweto, if we had managed to arrive.

MR NYAWUZA: What is it that you intended doing to these people when you reached Soweto?

MR RADEBE: I have explained before that they were going to be disciplined, but that would depend on the type of discipline that would be meted against them.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Radebe, why take them to Soweto for that purpose, weren't you all from Sebokeng area?

MR RADEBE: We were taking them to Soweto because there was a night vigil there.

CHAIRPERSON: I just want to get this straight, you and the people that you were with, planned to go to Soweto to attend a night vigil, but you also, because you wanted to discipline these other people who had testified against one of your friends in a court case, you took them with you to Soweto, just because you were going to Soweto to attend the night vigil, is that the reason or was it necessary for them also to be disciplined by people who were in Soweto, that is what I am trying to find out?

MR RADEBE: No, it is because we were also going to the night vigil in Soweto.

CHAIRPERSON: Now these people that you were with, these other seven people, whose names you mentioned, were they members of COSAS and the Youth League, all of them?

MR RADEBE: Yes.

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Radebe, do you know a guy by the name of Dog?

MR RADEBE: Dog is my nickname.

MR NYAWUZA: Okay, Dog was your nickname? Where were you seated in the van that was going towards Soweto, were you seated in the back or in the front?

MR RADEBE: I was seated at the back.

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Radebe, why are my instructions that you were seated in front with Ntabiseng?

MR RADEBE: I was seated at the back.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, this is the furniture van with the flat back? So you were exposed to the elements outside?

MR RADEBE: Yes, that is correct Chair.

MR NYAWUZA: I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Nyawuza. Mr Mapoma, do you have any questions that you would like to put to the applicant?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MAPOMA: Yes Chairperson. Mr Radebe, I just want before I proceed, to get this clear from you, are you aware at all that even if you were a member of a political organisation and even if the victims do not oppose your application for amnesty, as long as you do not tell the truth in this hearing, you do not qualify for and you will not get amnesty, are you aware of that?

MR RADEBE: Yes, I do know.

MR MAPOMA: Okay. Let's start here. Is it your evidence that during 1988, you were a member of the ANC Youth League?

MR RADEBE: Correct Chairperson.

MR MAPOMA: Were you a card carrying member of the ANC Youth League then?

MR RADEBE: Yes, that is correct Chairperson.

MR MAPOMA: Are you sure?

MR RADEBE: I was a member, because at that time, political organisations were banned, I was not a card carrying member.

MR MAPOMA: Then why did you lie and say that you were a card carrying member of the ANC Youth League in 1988?

MR RADEBE: It is because we, all the time we were guided by the ANC.

MR MAPOMA: I thought during 1988 the youth were organised in South Africa, following the policies of the ANC, were members of the South African Youth Congress? I thought so, am I wrong?

MR RADEBE: I have stated earlier that I was a member of COSAS when I was a student. Then later I became a member of the ANC Youth League.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Mapoma, just to intervene, to get it on record, at that time you would have been almost 17 years of age, is that correct, at the time of the incident? I see from your form, your birthday was the 1st of November 1971 and this happened during October 1988, just before your 17th birthday, is that correct?

MR RADEBE: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Mapoma.

MR MAPOMA: Thank you Chairperson. I put it to you that during 1988 the ANC Youth League was not operating in South Africa, inside the country? What is your comment?

MR RADEBE: Perhaps I did not understand because I said that I was a member of COSAS, then I thought at the same time that I was a member of the ANC Youth League. As I was a young person at that time, I thought that I was a member of the ANC Youth League.

MR MAPOMA: Let's leave that point. Now, when you went to Baseka's home, were you in one group, all of you?

MR RADEBE: Yes, that is correct.

MR MAPOMA: And do I understand that that very same proceeded as that group, to Ntabiseng's home? Is that correct?

MR RADEBE: I said three people remained with Baseka, and the five of us went to Ntabiseng's place. They were neighbours, that is Baseka and Ntabiseng.

MR MAPOMA: At what stage did Baseka escape?

MR RADEBE: He escaped while we went to Ntabiseng's place.

CHAIRPERSON: I thought earlier in your evidence, and just correct me if I am mistaken, didn't you say that Baseka escaped as they were trying to push him into the vehicle, because you will recall I asked you whether you people were in your sound and sober senses when Baseka escaped as there were eight of you, he managed to escape and run away successfully from the eight of you and you said he escaped when he was being pushed into the vehicle. That is what you said earlier? What is the position?

JUDGE MOTATA: Actually before you respond, I have a note that he was fighting, while you were forcing him into the vehicle?

CHAIRPERSON: What is the position, did he escape while being forced into the vehicle or did he escape whilst he was being restrained near his house, when the other five of you went to the next door house, to get Ntabiseng, what is the position?

MR RADEBE: Yes, he was fighting back, because he was trying to disembark from the van. He was on the back of the van, and he was fighting, so I don't know whether when he escaped he was in the van or he was out of the van. I am not sure of that.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma?

MR MAPOMA: So is it your evidence now that when he escaped, you were not there in the group?

MR RADEBE: Yes, I was not with the group that was left with him.

JUDGE MOTATA: Mr Mapoma, just for me to interpose briefly, where was this van parked when Baseka was taken out of the house into the van, where was it parked in relation to the house of Baseka?

MR RADEBE: It was in front of the house.

MR MAPOMA: Thank you sir. When he escaped, that is Baseka, as you say, had you already gained access into Ntabiseng's home?

MR RADEBE: No, we were still knocking.

MR MAPOMA: And you saw him run away while you were still knocking at Ntabiseng's home, is that what you are saying?

MR RADEBE: Those people who were left with him shouted and said that he was escaping, and then we saw him escaping.

MR MAPOMA: So when Ntabiseng was taken out of his house, out of her house, Baseka had already run away, is that your evidence?

MR RADEBE: That is correct.

MR MAPOMA: And at that time, the members of your group, where were they, those who were left with Baseka, at Baseka's place, where were they now when you were gathered outside with Ntabiseng?

MR RADEBE: They had already joined us at Ntabiseng's place.

MR MAPOMA: So is it your evidence that at the time when Ntabiseng was taken out of the house, there was nobody at Baseka's place?

MR RADEBE: No, I don't remember that.

MR MAPOMA: I am asking this question because Ntabiseng in her evidence, I mean in her statement says that whilst she was - I just want to read it for you, on page 20 of the Bundle, paragraph 4, the last line she says -

MR RADEBE: I don't know that, because there was no fence between the two houses, that is Ntabiseng's place and Baseka's place.

MR MAPOMA: What is it that you don't know?

MR RADEBE: I do not understand your question.

MR MAPOMA: Your answer is that you don't know, the question was this is what Ntabiseng says, what do you say to the statement of Ntabiseng, is it correct or incorrect?

MR RADEBE: I am saying there was no other group at Baseka's place.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have any re-examination Ms MAKHUBELE?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MS MAKHUBELE: Yes, Honourable Chairperson. Do you know if any of your co-accused at the trial, Vusi ...(indistinct) Motaung in particular, has applied for amnesty?

MR RADEBE: Well, I don't know.

MS MAKHUBELE: There is no indication from the records, the Bundle, but can you tell us if you recall from the trial how many charges or counts of assault you were charged with, by saying how many people testified at the trial that you assaulted them, or were assaulted?

MR RADEBE: I only remember Ntabiseng, that was on assault.

MS MAKHUBELE: That is all?

MR RADEBE: That is all, yes.

MS MAKHUBELE: I have no further re-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Judge Motata, do you have any questions that you would like to put to the applicant?

JUDGE MOTATA: Just clarification, Chairperson, thank you. Mr Radebe, have regard to page 8 which is the typed version of your statement, contained on page 9, look at the seventh paragraph.

You say there -

and in your evidence you said that you were eight, oral evidence? Do you recall the precise number, or are you taking the number of the persons charged which would appear on page 28 of the Bundle?

MR RADEBE: I do not remember other people, but I take this number from the number of people I was charged with.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but then why did you in your statement say there were five of you and then you mention their names, you can see for yourself, it is there? Is that just an oversight?

JUDGE MOTATA: Because when you gave evidence, you even mentioned Mgwedi, you remembered precisely the people there, but in your statement Mgwedi does not appear?

MR RADEBE: I think it is a typing mistake here.

JUDGE MOTATA: Let's have regard to the written statement then. It commences on page 9 and if you go to page 10, that would be the third paragraph -

So it is a correct typing because it accords with the written version?

MR RADEBE: I did not write the statement, I think the person who was writing the statement for me, made a mistake.

JUDGE MOTATA: Is this not your handwriting, you asked somebody to write for you?

MR RADEBE: It was written by the Investigating Officer who came to me.

JUDGE MOTATA: What standard did you reach at school?

MR RADEBE: Standard 5.

JUDGE MOTATA: If you have regard to the statement by Baseka, I will find it shortly.

MR NYAWUZA: It is on page 16 of the Bundle.

CHAIRPERSON: Page 16?

JUDGE MOTATA: He says in the second paragraph -

how many cars were you using on that particular day or vehicles, to put it much better?

MR RADEBE: We used one car.

JUDGE MOTATA: And again I asked you this earlier, do you still disagree with Vusi when he says that would be on page 13, that Baseka escaped whilst you were on your way to Soweto because that is the person that you remember also in your statement, mentioning that Vusi was present when this incident occurred?

MR RADEBE: When Vusi was writing his statement, I was present. That is when the Investigating Officer was visiting us, it can be a mistake by the Investigating Officer.

JUDGE MOTATA: He also mentions five people, those are the people that you mention in your statement, that would be the second paragraph on page 13?

MR RADEBE: That is why I say it may be a typing machine because he was just asked to confirm or deny what I had already stated in my statement.

JUDGE MOTATA: Are you suggesting that these statements were taken when both of you were in the presence of each other?

MR RADEBE: Yes, I was present when we went to Vusi's work place.

JUDGE MOTATA: Now just lastly, on page 8 again, and I would refer you to paragraph 4 -

when you refer to "we smashed", who are you referring to because the impression that I am gaining is that you participated in the smashing of the window panes?

MR RADEBE: The reason why I say we smashed the windows is because we were many there, so I did not see who actually smashed the windows.

JUDGE MOTATA: You were eight according to your oral evidence, that is not a large group, was it? You were eight according to yourself? You are not talking of a more, or were there other people whom you cannot recall?

MR RADEBE: No, it is not so.

JUDGE MOTATA: So you mean the seven obscured your view or obstructed your view to see who actually smashed the window panes?

MR RADEBE: The only thing that I remember is that when these windows were smashed was at the time when we were leaving and the people were noisy, so I did not recognise who actually did it.

JUDGE MOTATA: So if I understood your evidence, oral evidence, it is that you were one of the two that had to point out these people, would I be right?

MR RADEBE: Yes.

JUDGE MOTATA: And if that happens, obviously you must be in front, because you must point out these people?

MR RADEBE: Yes, that is correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: And at these other places where the door was kicked and that kind of thing, did you see who did that, because you say you did nothing?

MR RADEBE: Like I said, the person who was leading the group when they went to Baseka's place was Struggle because he was the person who knew Baseka.

JUDGE MOTATA: Did he kick the door, was it Struggle who kicked the door?

MR RADEBE: No, we knocked pretending as policemen, but we knocked forcefully.

JUDGE MOTATA: Did you knock, you personally now, forcefully?

MR RADEBE: Yes, I was knocking at the other door.

JUDGE MOTATA: Now let's get the picture now, because when you say the other door, which door are you referring to? Didn't you people use one door where you knocked and gained entry?

MR RADEBE: We knocked as police, the other people were knocking at the door, others knocking at the windows, but they opened only one door, that is the kitchen door.

JUDGE MOTATA: Which door now, we know there is a front door and a kitchen door if I know the typical township house, which door did you use, the front door or the kitchen door?

MR RADEBE: We used the back door, that is the kitchen door.

JUDGE MOTATA: No, I don't mean entry, I mean the knocking, because you said others were knocking somewhere and you knocked at the kitchen door.

MR RADEBE: There is a door in the front, and the other one at the side. As we knocked at the front door, we also moved around to the other door.

JUDGE MOTATA: All of you?

MR RADEBE: We were not at one door at the same time.

JUDGE MOTATA: How many were at the kitchen door where you knocked?

MR RADEBE: I knocked at the dining-room door, but they opened the kitchen door at the back, that is the door which we used to get inside.

JUDGE MOTATA: How many were you who knocked in the front, on the front door?

MR RADEBE: We were two.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Judge Motata. Mr Sandi, do you have any questions?

ADV SANDI: Yes, just one question for clarification for me. You say Sixteen was a thug? Why was he in detention then, what had he been detained for?

MR RADEBE: He robbed the bakery.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Radebe who and how, who made the decision and how was the decision made to go and kidnap Ntabiseng Mfolo and Baseka and to go to the other house of Ntauleng?

MR RADEBE: Terrence Mkwehli was in the local structures, and he informed us about the decision that was taken at the meeting.

CHAIRPERSON: A meeting of what?

MR RADEBE: That was the COSAS meeting, because we were all students.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Ms Makhubele, do you have any questions arising out of questions that had been put by Members of the Panel?

MS MAKHUBELE: Nothing Honourable Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nyawuza, any questions arising?

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NYAWUZA: Yes, only one question. Mr Radebe, on your answer, your answer to Adv Sandi's question as to what was Sixteen arrested for, you said for the robbery of a bakery, was he the only person arrested or was he arrested with other people?

MR RADEBE: He was, I don't know the other people who were arrested with him, but we were detained, because we were comrades.

MR NYAWUZA: Was he also detained under the same Section as yourself?

MR RADEBE: We were not in the same cell, but we were at the same prison, but he was detained for robbing the bakery.

MR NYAWUZA: Wasn't he detained under Section 29 as yourself?

MR RADEBE: No, I don't remember so.

MR NYAWUZA: No further questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma, any questions arising?

MR MAPOMA: None Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Radebe, that concludes your testimony, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Makhubele, are you going to be calling any further witnesses?

MS MAKHUBELE: None Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nyawuza, do you intend to call any witnesses?

MR NYAWUZA: No, I am not going to call any witnesses, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma, are you going to be calling any witnesses?

MR MAPOMA: No Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you want, I see it is after one o'clock now, do you want to finish this matter now or do you want to address after lunch? Do you want to make submissions?

MS MAKHUBELE: I suggest we do so now Honourable Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, right. Thank you Ms Makhubele, if you can make your submissions please.

MS MAKHUBELE IN ARGUMENT: Honourable Chair and Committee Members, I just want to highlight because it appears at the end of the day that this would have an impact on whether he has disclosed or not, but I just wish to point out some differences in the statement of Baseka and Ntabiseng. When we look at the statement of Baseka, he says that he doesn't know what happened to Ntabiseng after he escaped, but on the same breath, it appears he was in a bakkie and Ntabiseng was also in a bakkie. ...

CHAIRPERSON: But it was clearly put that there were two vehicles?

MS MAKHUBELE: Yes, I am coming to that Honourable Chair. In his statement he mentions that there were four cars and a truck and I would imagine that when he says a bakkie, he is referring to the truck.

CHAIRPERSON: No, not necessarily. If there were two, we don't know the type of the other one, we know the one was a flat back truck?

MS MAKHUBELE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: My, yes, it could be. It needn't be, but it could be.

MS MAKHUBELE: Yes, but unfortunately we don't have his testimony where one would have had an opportunity to clarify the issues like this, Honourable Chair.

If Ntabiseng says that she, after she was forced in a bakkie, she doesn't know what happened to this Baseka, but Baseka says that he last saw Ntabiseng, he doesn't know what happened to Ntabiseng after he escaped. One would then imagine that at the place where he escaped, he was with Ntabiseng?

CHAIRPERSON: No, it was from Mr Nyawuza, he put it that the two vehicles were leaving Chinatown, passed Chinatown and the one went ahead and the police came and the people escaped near Everton, where Baseka escaped and the other one got through to near Dube? It wasn't the two vehicles at the same place, that was what was put by, although I know it is not evidence, but I mean what you are saying is wrong in accordance with what was put by Mr Nyawuza.

MS MAKHUBELE: Honourable Chair, what I am saying, I have taken from the statement, from his written statement, not the version put by Mr Nyawuza, I am taking it from the statement that he says:

which would mean that until he escaped, he could see or was with Ntabiseng in one car.

CHAIRPERSON: Not necessarily, yes, it might be.

MS MAKHUBELE: Might be, thank you Mr Chairman. Another thing is the version which has been put to the applicant that at Baseka's house or home, people were assaulted, his brother, his father, but unfortunately like I said before, his version differs with the applicant's and there is no way where one can test the version, because it is not even in his written statement. There is nothing in his written statement to suggest that any other person but himself, was assaulted at his place.

I know and understand and appreciate that it is not a criminal trial, but then this would at the end of the day impact on whether he has disclosed everything that happened on the day in question, because we do not even know from the Bundle whether he was charged with one assault or how many assaults Honourable Chair.

My submission is that the applicant has made a full disclosure and which in my opinion would be the only disputed requirement, and as such, that he should be granted amnesty. Thank you Honourable Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Makhubele. Mr Nyawuza, do you wish to make any submissions?

MR NYAWUZA IN ARGUMENT: Only three lines. Honourable Chair and Honourable Committee Members, our submission is that there hasn't been full disclosure, first in that a person who was arrested and served the same sentence with the applicant before this Committee, testified that, made a statement to the effect that the motor vehicle they were in, was going towards Soweto and that is disputed by the applicant.

There has just been so many contradictions and a lot has not been said by him. The evidence is on record. We submit that he should not be given amnesty. That is all that I can say on behalf of the victims.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Nyawuza. Mr Mapoma, do you wish to make any submissions?

MR MAPOMA IN ARGUMENT: Just a few Chairperson. On the question, on the issue which is quite disturbing Chairperson, that one of full disclosure.

The applicant gives an impression that he did not participate in the acts of assault, the smashing of the windows and the explanation that he has given as to why he did not participate, is that he did not want his emotions to overrun him. That gives an impression Chairperson, that those who did those things, were just overrun by emotions, otherwise that was not the plan.

That infers that he disassociates himself, he dissociates himself with those assaults as it is. One other thing, that is interestingly noteworthy in his evidence is that of all the persons who were forming that group, the actual persons who identified themselves as the actual perpetrators are Terrence and Struggle.

Those two, they are the only two whom he has mentioned, and they are not alive.

CHAIRPERSON: They are the only two that are dead now, as well, yes.

MR MAPOMA: Pardon Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: I say they are deceased now?

MR MAPOMA: Yes. Chairperson, it is my submission that that counts heavily against him as a credible person, as a credible witness to give, to make full disclosure before the Committee. That is all Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have any reply Ms Makhubele?

MS MAKHUBELE: None Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. We will hand down a written decision in this matter, as is our policy. Accordingly we reserve our decision, I would like to thank the legal representatives, Ms Makhubele for your assistance, Mr Nyawuza for yours, and Mr Mapoma for yours. Thank you. We will now take the lunch adjournment and then you can let us know when you are ready to - have you got another matter to go on with today?

MR MAPOMA: Yes Chairperson, the matter I would be calling after lunch is that of Buhali.

CHAIRPERSON: Buhali and Dube?

MR MAPOMA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We will now take the lunch adjournment, thank you.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We will now commence with the hearing of Messrs T.S. Buhali and J.I. Dube.

I would like the legal representatives to please place themselves on record.

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson, my name is Brian Koopedi, I appear before you on behalf of the two applicants, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Koopedi.

MR RICHARD: As the Chair pleases, Tony Richard, I appear for the victims who are listed on page 1.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Richard.

MR MAPOMA: Thank you Mr Chairperson, I am Zuko Mapoma, the Evidence Leader.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mapoma. Mr Koopedi?

MR RICHARD: Chairperson, as point in limine may I ...

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly.

MR RICHARD: When preparing for this matter, I had to consider page 8(b) of the Bundle and that relates to the second applicant's application, paragraph 9(a)(i) when describing the act for which he applies for amnesty, describes the bombing of Ellis Park Stadium and Witbank car bomb, also anything that might be brought against me which I might not remember.

Now, as I am involved for the victims of the Ellis Park matter, I can safely ensure the Committee that today the Ellis Park matter is not the one for which he is applying for amnesty. The Witbank, there is nothing in the Bundle which indicates anything to do with a car bomb in Witbank. Then I would refer the Committee to Section 20(2) which requires the applicant to disclose an act which constitutes an offence or a delict.

Since what is referred to in paragraph 9(a) is not before the Committee today, all that the applicant might be able to rely on, is his phrase "that might be brought against me which I might not remember". Now, in the matter of the African National Congress' general application, that point was clearly decided.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you've got to be specific?

MR RICHARD: He's got to be specific.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I have been involved in a number of hearings with this sort of situation, and there are various degrees of it, but certainly as it stands there, it is not sufficient, as it stands at page 8(b), it is far too wide.

MR RICHARD: There is nothing which even alludes to the other matter in the Bundle, whether it be the document appended to the ...

CHAIRPERSON: Well, perhaps if we can ask Mr Koopedi what is the applicant, and then I will revert back to you Mr Richard, I am not stopping you.

MR RICHARD: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: But it might be more meaningful if we hear first from Mr Koopedi as to precisely what Mr Dube is at this hearing applying for. We know that we are not dealing with the Ellis Park car bomb, because there has already been a long protracted hearing in respect of that matter, which I wasn't involved.

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson. The second applicant, Mr Dube, is applying for the three, that is in this hearing, he is applying for the three incidents that are before you.

CHAIRPERSON: The bombing of Zola municipal offices, the ambush of the police at Meadowlands and the ambush of a police vehicle at Mdeni as summarised on page 1?

MR KOOPEDI: That is so Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Now Mr Richard has made a point in limine about the, whether he has in fact applied for those and as you know, we, the Committee, you had a cut off date by which to apply for incidents. We can hear you on that.

Perhaps, let's hear Mr Richard finish his in limine objection, now that we know what the intention is. Mr Richard?

MR RICHARD: Thank you Chairperson. In the second applicant's, that is the application by Mr Dube, there is precisely no reference or allusion to the three acts described at page 1. It is impossible on any logical basis to import what is referred to on page 1, into pages 8(a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) and (g), which is Mr Dube's application. There is simply nothing there which has the vaguest of reference.

I ...(indistinct) the first applicant's application, that vague as it might be ...

CHAIRPERSON: There is specific mention of it.

MR RICHARD: There is specific.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and that is not a problem, the vagueness because we also know that certain application forms are filled in better than others, and as long as it is mentioned, we also take in the evidence at a hearing.

MR RICHARD: For those reasons, I make no reference to the first applicant's application.

CHAIRPERSON: But also, Mr Richard, very often and I don't see it here, is that there is a request for further particulars that is sent after the receipt of the application, by the Commission, to an applicant saying "precisely tell us what it is about, and who and where and why and what, the orders, etc, etc". You have seen hundreds of them, I am sure?

MR RICHARD: Yes, no certainly, there is no such document here.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And those, because if you take a look at the Section in the Act, it does say that an application form, that has been supplemented in that fashion is fine, because one of the duties of the Commission is to receive the form and to ask for further information, etc, but there is nothing like that.

MR RICHARD: I would go so far as to say if the applicant had put in a phrase which said "amnesty for shooting at policeman during the 1980's in Soweto or its environments", that might possibly have been enough to bring him in, to supplement it through particulars and oral evidence. But this one doesn't have the vaguest of references to anything.

What it might be is that the first applicant will in due course implicate the second applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: But that is as it stands in the document ...

MR RICHARD: It doesn't even do that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but even if one applicant implicates another, that then is an implicated person in terms of the Act.

MR RICHARD: Yes, so ...

CHAIRPERSON: That doesn't make him an applicant.

MR RICHARD: That means at best he might be an implicated person, but this application for the incidents under discussion, just doesn't disclose even the vaguest foundation of an application?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Koopedi?

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, I have heard what Mr Richard says and perhaps one needs to point out that this is not the first matter where there is an applicant who was very brief or vague in his application.

My submission is that if it pleases the Honourable Committee to allow Mr Dube to proceed, it will be clear from his evidence as to whether this Committee should consider him as having applied for these three incidents.

I would further ask that at the appropriate time, when we present submissions, this will be the time perhaps where I should argue as to whether he was, he is a proper applicant or not.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, because you know, as you know, our powers or jurisdiction if you prefer to use that word, are limited to the extent that they are conferred upon us in the Act, we are a creature of statute, we don't have any inherent jurisdiction.

There is nothing in the Act, I am just saying that if it is found that he hasn't applied, for us to condone, we don't have that type of power, even if we had want to, and sometimes I can assure you, we sometimes get extremely compelling cases which I am sure in most other forums could quite easily be condoned, but we cannot because of our limited powers in that regard.

So in other words we would have to be satisfied, certainly before we can make any decision relating to any amnesty application, that we have an application before us. You know, we might, it might be convenient to take a practical approach and hear the evidence just, and then make a decision later, but that is another matter, but we won't be able to condone something that ought to have been done by a certain ...

MR KOOPEDI: I concede that that is the case Chairperson, and ...

CHAIRPERSON: We can condone certain, small matter, a non-material non-compliance with the Act.

MR KOOPEDI: That is indeed so and in fact Chairperson, I will not, that is at the appropriate time, ask the Committee to condone an application that was not before and in fact, I can say now that my argument will be that he had in fact applied for these incidents. It may well be that he was very vague like in many other instances where there has been vague applications, but yes, if it pleases the Honourable Committee, I would ask that we proceed with the hearing and only at the appropriate time should we argue that the second applicant should be granted amnesty for this or not.

The other reason is that for purposes of completing and making a very coherent hearing in this matter, my submission is that the applicant should be given an opportunity to be heard as an applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma, do you have any submissions you would like to make?

MR MAPOMA: Yes Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you got any inside knowledge, is this Bundle complete, are there any other documents that might be around?

MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, let me start off by answering that one, I am not certain at this point whether there are some other documents other than these here, now, until I can find out from Cape Town.

I would propose to go on Chairperson, again and say that it is apparent, it is clear almost that the applicant, the application as it is now, on paragraph 9(a) of the applicant in question, is vague, but I will go on Chairperson to say that in cases of this nature, it does happen that we as the TRC would ask further particulars from the applicant and upon amplification of his application by the applicant, by furnishing those particulars requested, incidents like these would come up. Unfortunately that has not happened in this particular case.

CHAIRPERSON: It is quite surprising that it hasn't, because it looks like one that one would expect there to have been such a request.

MR MAPOMA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Because it does not contain much information at all on the form, does it?

MR MAPOMA: Yes, I must concede Chairperson, that from our side, that has not been done, but the point I am making then is that had that been done, and that would have been after the cut off date already, the Committee would in all probabilities be persuaded into hearing the application.

The point I am saying Chairperson is that applications are made vaguely sometimes, before the cut off date, and amplified later on, after the cut off date, where the incidents specifically do appear.

CHAIRPERSON: ... (microphone not on) ... taking a look at the papers before us, on what basis was it that Mr Dube was included in this hearing? I mean if people are sitting in Cape Town now, and they are setting down the hearings, how would it, how would they in Cape Town have linked Mr Dube's application to that of Mr Buhali's?

MR MAPOMA: Yes, I appreciate that Chairperson. Perhaps I may have to find out that one, but I just had the impression that he might have been implicated by the co-applicant, but ...

CHAIRPERSON: It doesn't seem to be, you see?

MR MAPOMA: Or the investigation report, perhaps brought a reference to that. I may have to find out from Cape Town.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, because ...

MR MAPOMA: Unfortunately this issue was not raised beforehand by Mr Richard, that he is going to make an issue of it, so that I could have, well beforehand, prepared this by getting to know that this issue is going to be raised.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, because it just seems strange how it got included here on this, unless somebody had some other knowledge that is not contained, which must have been the case, because it couldn't have just been by coincidence that a mistake was made, and it turned out like this?

MR MAPOMA: Yes, I may round up Chairperson, by saying that in the event of amplification of the application, it is not necessarily that it must be in writing, that the application may be amplified. The oral evidence as we may hear now, perhaps may shed some light in amplifying the application and specifying that which is vague here, and then that vagueness would be cured by this evidence in the circumstances.

Then, yes, so my argument is Chairperson, perhaps if the committee would hear the application, I mean the evidence of the applicant in question, then that may cure the vagueness of this paragraph.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, that we would have to consider, whether it is possible that it could be cured in that way. Have you got any reply at this stage, Mr Richard?

MR RICHARD: Yes, Chairperson. In reply, the point of further particulars, I do not see what particulars could have been requested of 9(a)(i) other than one which says "were you involved in these two 1987 incidents"?

Now if that request were made and an answer be given, after the cut off date, the application would still be fatally flawed, as the Chairperson has pointed out the Commission has no power to condone or accept a materially incorrect application, and I have been at pains to look through the co-applicant's application, there is simply no reference, that means when the matter was put on the roll today, whoever did, must have had some knowledge which does not appear before us, in which case, that knowledge is completely irrelevant, and is not admissible to this Commission.

I believe that it would be grossly irregular and I object to the application of the second applicant proceeding, I don't believe it is competent for him ex post facto to bring an application for amnesty, when there has been complete and absolute, in the absolute sense of the word, non-compliance with the formalities of the Act.

He is asking literally to bring an application for amnesty at this stage, which is clearly impossible, and that means to hear the evidence itself, would be irregular. T hank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Koopedi, your client Mr Dube, maybe Mr Richard will also be able to answer, was an applicant in the Ellis Park bombing matter?

MR KOOPEDI: Indeed he was, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: What is this Witbank car bomb, has there been a hearing about that one?

MR KOOPEDI: Yes, there has been Chairperson.

MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, sorry Chairperson, I may also as well point out that he has applied as well for the murder of Sicello Dhlomo and he was heard by the Committee on that, and a decision was granted on that application of the murder of Sicello Dhlomo and it does not appear here.

CHAIRPERSON: Stello who?

MR MAPOMA: Sicello Dhlomo.

CHAIRPERSON: Dhlomo?

MR MAPOMA: Yes Chairperson. Incidentally Mr Richard was appearing for the victims in that matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it the same form, do you know, can you recall Mr Richard?

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, if I may be of assistance, the Sicello Dhlomo matter was on a separate form and perhaps to answer the question which was asked as to how did anyone then decide to put Mr Dube's application in this Bundle, it is indeed correct Chairperson, that there is no letter that goes to any of the applicants for amplification, there is also not even a letter that you would see a memorandum, that you would see going to investigators to go and investigate, but it was known, that is within the Amnesty Committee circles, I think as early as 1998 or 1997 that Mr Dube is an applicant in this matter, from the investigations in that when the matter was investigated, the Investigator was in touch with the two applicants that are before you, and at that very time, it is the two applicants that also supplied the last two pages of the Bundle of documents which is the Bundle, the newspaper cuttings which are on the Bundle.

What I am actually saying is that they may not have been, that is in the Bundle, there is not a letter that indicates that "asked Dube this or this is Dube's response", but what I am saying is at a very early age, it was very clear and very obvious that Mr Dube is an applicant in the matter.

Perhaps just to add, he has not only applied for this incident or the Sicello Dhlomo matter, but he has applied for quite a number of incidents, and I would go back to my submission that it will perhaps be clear when he gives evidence, otherwise I am going to end up giving evidence for him, but it will perhaps be clear when he gives evidence, whether or not he had applied for this matter or whether or not he had an intention of applying for this matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we will take a short five minute adjournment, I would just like to discuss it with the Panel Members and we will let you know as soon as we are ready, it won't be long.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. During the time that we have been adjourned, we as a Panel have discussed the matter amongst ourselves, we have also discussed it with the legal representatives and also in fact, we have been communicating with our offices in Cape Town.

The difficulty that we have at this stage, is that the, it is our belief that the papers before us, in this matter, are nowhere near complete or sufficient. All we have is the couple of vaguely worded applications and statements from some of the victims and there is a couple of newspaper cuttings and a post-mortem report.

It is apparent from the little that is before us, that there must have been investigations to establish even that the attack on the one police van took place in Meadowlands because that is not even mentioned in the papers before us, where the attack took place, but it was established, so that must have come through some investigation, there must be other documents before us and we are of the view, particularly taking into account the fact that Mr Richard has made, raised a point in limine that we would only be in a position to deal with that point properly, once we have seen all the papers in this matter. We were also told by Cape Town that there is some sort of correspondence file which, none of which is before us and in order to handle this matter properly, we are of the view that those must be looked into.

If we proceed now, as we are, we do not think that the matter would be properly addressed and also in making a ruling on the objection raised by Mr Richard will in our view, be better addressed also having access to the full set of papers in this matter.

In the circumstances and I have mentioned this to the legal representatives, we have decided that this matter should be postponed, apparently the date the 10th of July is available because the Committee will be here for that week, the 10th to the 14th of July, which is not too far in the distance. It won't be exactly the same Panel, I am not sure what the Panel is on that day, save that I know that Judge Motata will be on it, but I don't know who the other people will be.

In the circumstances, we would adjourn the matter to the 10th of July which would be at this venue as well, the JISS Centre, and I must in so doing apologise profusely to the applicants, I know that the applicants from what Mr Koopedi has told us, have been here before even and I want to assure you that it is not a case of the Amnesty Committee trying to mess you around or not wanting to hear you, it is nothing like that at all. It is just an unfortunate set of circumstances and I would also like to apologise to the victims who have come here today, no doubt with expectations which are now not being fulfilled.

Please accept our apologies, but hopefully this matter will be able to be concluded when it is next set down. Is there anything you want to say Mr Koopedi or Mr Richard?

MR KOOPEDI: Nothing thank you Chairperson, thank you.

MR RICHARD: Nothing, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: We will accordingly postpone the matter then to the 10th of July 2000 at the JISS Centre.

Mr Mapoma, are there any other matters for today or are we going to deal with the other two tomorrow?

MR MAPOMA: Yes Chairperson, that is the roll for today.

CHAIRPERSON: We will do them tomorrow?

MR MAPOMA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So that is the roll for today?

MR MAPOMA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

MR RICHARD: As the Chair pleases.