CHAIRPERSON: Good morning everybody. Today we have only one application before us, the application of T S Buhali and J I Dube. The Panel which will hear this application is consisting of myself, Motata, as the Chairperson, and on my right I have my brother Judge de Jager from the TPD and on my left I have Adv Bosman, who is a true South African, because depending on her whims on that day, she would reside anywhere, but she is a South African. I would request the legal representatives to place themselves on record.

MR KOOPEDI: I am Brian Koopedi. I'm appearing for the two applicants before you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Before I invite the other legal representatives, I see here I have somewhat confusion that I have Mshibe or Bugazi, or Buhali but I'm advised that there has been a change of surname. What is the actual surname?

MR BUHALI: It's Buhali.

CHAIRPERSON: Pardon?

MR BUHALI: Buhali.

CHAIRPERSON: Buhali? Thank you. Mr Richard, I'm sorry, you may.

MR RICHARD: Thank you Chairperson. Tony Richard, Johannesburg. I appear for the victims.

CHAIRPERSON: There are apparently three incidents which we would be dealing with, for which incident are your victims?

MR MAPOMA: Sorry Chairperson, may I place my name on the record as well?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MAPOMA: I'm Zuko Mapoma, the Leader of Evidence. Thank you.

MR RICHARD: Thank you Chairperson. The victims beside me are those who were at the ambush of a police vehicle at Meadowlands in January 1988, that's the item 2 on page 1 of the bundle.

CHAIRPERSON: Could we, whilst we are at it, get their full names?

MR RICHARD: What are your full names?

MR RAMETSI: Edward Rametsi.

MR MANGOANE: Fanie Mangoane.

MS KGWEDI: Agnes Kgwedi.

MR RICHARD: Agnes?

MS KGWEDI: Kgwedi.

MR RICHARD: Kgwedi, K-G-W-E-D-I. Thank you.

ADV BOSMAN: What is the position with Sergeant Kekane, is he not one of your clients?

MR RICHARD: Sergeant Kekane is no longer a policeman and he is not here today.

ADV BOSMAN: Was he notified though because I mean if he's not a policeman, he's still a victim.

MR RICHARD: According to his former colleague next to me, he didn't receive a notice, but I haven't investigated, I can't speak as to whether he did or didn't get - as to whether a notice was or was not sent.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma, will you assist us in that regard in respect of Mr Kekane?

MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, the notices were sent to all the victims who could be identifiable and Mr Kekane is one of those victims.

JUDGE DE JAGER: To which address?

MR MAPOMA: I will have to find out what the address is, I don't have it off-hand.

CHAIRPERSON: I have a notice in my bundle that there's a summary page 1 of the paginated papers that four victims have been identified, but we don't have addresses on those incidents.

MR MAPOMA: Yes, Chairperson, the address which appears on the notice is SAPS Meadowlands Police Station, Soweto and this notice is dated the 12th of June 2000, in fact together with other notices.

CHAIRPERSON: So it's obvious that he did not get the notice unless the police station has his forwarding address.

MR MAPOMA: The notice, Chairperson, of Mr Rametsi who is here, was served on SAPS Meadowlands Police Station as well. He is here.

CHAIRPERSON: Fanie Mangoane?

MR MAPOMA: And that of Inspector Mangoane was served as SAPS Meadowlands Police Station, he is also here.

CHAIRPERSON: Agnes Kgwedi?

MR MAPOMA: Ms Kgwedi, it was served on, the address which appears is 211 C Zone 2, Meadowlands Soweto.

JUDGE DE JAGER: So the only one causing problems is Kekane.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma, who served the notices? How was service effected?

MR MAPOMA: The notices were faxed to the police station, Chairperson, the Meadowlands Police Station, as it appears here.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's look at Ms Agnes Kgwedi, how was it effected?

MR MAPOMA: Can I just get an explanation from the Investigator? What I have just received from Mr Calitz is that these notices were faxed to the Johannesburg office for service and then he served these notices to the Police Station but he was advised that Mr Kekane is no longer at the Meadowlands Police Station and he did not get the forwarding address for him and therefore he could not serve it to him.

CHAIRPERSON: But he remains a victim then in that instance.

MR MAPOMA: Precisely, yes, Chairperson.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Perhaps his ex-colleagues could tell us but it seems as though Kekane wasn't injured.

MR RICHARD: Chairperson from Mr Rametsi next to me, I'm told that Sgt Kekane left Meadowlands Police in mid-year last year, 1998, two years ago and he was slightly injured, not seriously injured.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Could they assist us in getting his address?

MR RICHARD: I have asked while we were inquiring. Let me reconfirm what I was told, no one knows - it is confirmed, they do not know his new address.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But surely the Police Force should have a forwarding address. Wouldn't he be entitled to a pension? Wouldn't he ...

MR RICHARD: I've just been informed that he was discharged by reason of being medically unfit. I would assume that the South African Police Services do have a forwarding address, but what would be incorrect to say is that the two members of the South African Police Services next to me would know of it. Somewhere in the administration of the police, I must assume they do know where he is.

CHAIRPERSON: We will proceed with the hearing and direct that he be traced and that he would be given thereafter a transcript of this hearing for his response before we give our decision. Mr Koopedi.

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson. We are ready to begin Chairperson, with Mr Buhali.

TSHEPO STANLEY BUHALI: (affirmed states)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Koopedi.

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson.

EXAMINATION BY MR KOOPEDI: Mr Buhali is it correct that you are an incident - you are an applicant in these three incidents? Chairperson the incidents being referred to appear on page 1 being the bombing of the Zola Municipal Offices, the ambush of a police vehicle at Meadowlands in January 1988,

that was carrying police personnel and the ambush of a police vehicle at Emdeni, April/May 1988.

JUDGE DE JAGER: ...(indistinct) ambush of a police vehicle in January, what's the first one.

MR KOOPEDI: 1988 in Meadowlands Chairperson. The last incident will be the ambush of - it's actually a Municipal Police Vehicle at Emdeni.

JUDGE DE JAGER: When was that?

MR KOOPEDI: That could be April or May 1988.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And where did this take place?

MR KOOPEDI: It took place at Emdeni. Emdeni is in Soweto Chairperson.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Could they perhaps give us more particulars, where, in which street, or whatever?

MR KOOPEDI: There are no streets at Emdeni, there are no street names, but they showed the Investigator the place.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Right, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed.

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Buhali, I am showing to you page 2 of the bundle of documents. Is this your application form?

MR BUHALI: Yes, it is.

MR KOOPEDI: Now on page 7 of the same bundle there is a signature appearing just above the words Deponent, is this your signature?

MR BUHALI: Yes, it is.

MR KOOPEDI: Now Mr Buhali, when these incidents occurred, were you a member of a political organisation?

MR BUHALI: Yes.

MR KOOPEDI: What organisation?

MR BUHALI: By then I was a member of the Soweto Youth Congress which was affiliated to the South African Youth Congress, SACO, which was under the banner of UDF and I was also a member of the underground of Umkhonto weSizwe.

MR KOOPEDI: Now would I be correct to say Umkhonto weSizwe is the military wing of the African National Congress?

MR BUHALI: Yes.

MR KOOPEDI: Now did you receive any military training?

MR BUHALI: Yes I did, inside the country, by then.

MR KOOPEDI: Who trained you?

MR BUHALI: I was trained by John Dube.

MR KOOPEDI: Is that you co-applicant in this matter?

MR BUHALI: Yes.

MR KOOPEDI: Okay. Now let us move to the incidents and briefly tell this Honourable Committee about your involvement in the bombing of the Zola Municipal Offices.

JUDGE DE JAGER: How far did you advance in school?

MR KOOPEDI: I went up to matric.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Before 1988?

MR BUHALI: Yes.

MR KOOPEDI; Would you briefly take this Committee through what happened in the bombing of the Zola Municipal Office?

MR BUHALI: Okay.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Ja. For what time did you set the time devices?

MR BUHALI: Say again.

JUDGE DE JAGER; For what time did you set the timing devices to cause the explosions?

MR BUHALI: We used the red and led plates because they are identified, they are marked in colours.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes, but for what time did you set the explosions?

MR BUHALI: Sir, I cannot say for what time because they are Russian made and they are made in such a way that they respond to the Russian temperature which is cold, but the timing cannot be exact in Africa because it's a bit warmer, but it's about 1 hour.

CHAIRPERSON: You have referred several times to we, who are you referring to when you say we?

MR BUHALI: I'm referring to myself and my Commander John Dube.

CHAIRPERSON: Only the two of you?

MR BUHALI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you may proceed.

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson. Was there an explosion at the Zola Municipal offices?

MR BUHALI: Yes, there was.

MR KOOPEDI: Do you know if anyone was injured?

MR BUHALI: I'm not sure.

MR KOOPEDI: Okay. The next incident where you were involved, is the ambush of a police vehicle at Meadowlands, that should be around January 1988. Can you briefly tell this Committee what your involvement was in this matter?

MR BUHALI: Okay.

MR KOOPEDI: Okay, now the last incident. There was an ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: Before proceeding to the last incident, who were involved in this attack, you and the Commander and the driver?

MR BUHALI: Yes.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Nobody else?

MR BUHALI: No.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And the driver was the same one that, in the previous one and who is deceased now?

MR BUHALI: Yes.

MR KOOPEDI: There was an ambush on a municipal police vehicle at Emdeni where you were also involved. Could you briefly tell this Committee what your involvement was in this matter?

MR BUHALI:

MR KOOPEDI: Now, in this incident, do you know if anyone was injured?

MR BUHALI: I don't know, Sir.

MR KOOPEDI: Can you remember what time was that?

MR BUHALI: It must be - it must have been around eleven or twelve at night.

MR KOOPEDI: At night?

MR BUHALI: Yes.

MR KOOPEDI: Okay. Now is there any other thing you would want to add to your testimony? Any other thing ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: ...was it round about? Which time of the year? What was the date?

MR BUHALI: Sir, I don't remember the date exactly.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes, approximately?

MR BUHALI: It must have been around April/May, that is a rough estimation.

JUDGE DE JAGER: April/May 19?

MR BUHALI: 88.

MR KOOPEDI: I was asking you if there is any other thing you would want to add to what you've just said, which took place? Any other thing you'd want this Honourable Committee to know of or hear?

MR BUHALI: Not at this stage.

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, that will be the evidence-in-chief of this applicant. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Koopedi. Mr Richard, any cross-examination?

MR RICHARD: Yes, Chairperson.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RICHARD: Sir, the incident where I am involved is the Meadowlands Police Station. Now how many of you conducted the reconnaissance of the police station?

MR BUHALI: We were three.

MR RICHARD: Now did all three of you work at the same time or did you go there individually alone?

MR BUHALI: We worked at the same time.

MR RICHARD: Now you say the reconnaissance went on for a week, how many hours a day did you spend observing the police station?

MR BUHALI: We would spend about 30 minutes to one hour roughly.

MR RICHARD: Each day or every second day?

MR BUHALI: Each day.

MR RICHARD: Now, when you chose to reconnoitre the police station, whose decision was it that it be the police?

MR BUHALI: My Commander's decision.

MR RICHARD: Did you discuss why?

MR BUHALI: Yes.

MR RICHARD: What reasons did he give you why it should be the police station?

MR BUHALI: Because it was a legitimate target.

MR RICHARD: Did you discuss the question of people getting hurt in crossfire, innocent bystanders?

MR BUHALI: Yes.

MR RICHARD: And what decisions were made to limit the risk to civilians?

MR BUHALI: That is why it was, the mission was done at night whereby the movement of civilians is not, there are not many civilians around the area.

MR RICHARD: Now you say this BMW was a stolen vehicle. Was it the only vehicle that you had available to you?

MR BUHALI: For the mission, yes.

MR RICHARD: Did you ever use a kombi?

MR BUHALI: No.

MR RICHARD: Because in the papers, the victims' statements speak of a kombi and a BMW.

MR BUHALI: I don't know where they get the kombi from.

MR RICHARD: Was there a kombi in your immediate vicinity?

MR BUHALI: I don't know. I don't remember one, seeing one.

MR RICHARD: Now, please describe the vehicle that came out of the Meadowlands Police Station.

MR BUHALI: Describe it, how?

MR RICHARD: What sort of car, what make was it, what colour was it? You say it was a police van. How do you know it was a police van?

MR BUHALI: It was a police van because it had police writing and the police badge and it was a van.

MR RICHARD: My clients say that it was not a marked vehicle.

MR BUHALI: Then how did we know that it was a police vehicle if it was not marked, how did we know?

MR RICHARD: Now, I asked you the question, what colour was the vehicle?

MR BUHALI: Because it was at night I'm not sure if it was white or yellow.

MR RICHARD: Did it have any other characteristic markings on it to identify it as a police vehicle?

MR BUHALI: Yes.

MR RICHARD: What were those?

MR BUHALI: The canopy.

MR RICHARD: The canopy?

MR BUHALI: Yes.

MR RICHARD: How does the canopy ...(indistinct)

MR BUHALI: Police vehicle, the canopy has got a, what do they call it, mesh wire, yes.

MR RICHARD: In other words, what you're saying is the back part of the vehicle is designed for a purpose. What purpose is it designed for?

MR BUHALI: I don't know. I don't design vehicles for police.

MR RICHARD: Well you saw it, I didn't see it. What was it's purpose?

MR BUHALI: Which purpose, Sir?

MR RICHARD: You saw a vehicle.

MR BUHALI: Yes.

MR RICHARD: And you say it was specially designed, its canopy, for the police, now please tell me exactly for what use it was designed.

CHAIRPERSON: Would that be in his personal knowledge? Because he said, purpose, though I heard that, but if he say it's got a canopy and mesh wire, if we get the purpose would it serve any purpose for this hearing even to say it should be within his knowledge because his evidence is that they targeted a police vehicle, he has identified the police vehicle, the canopy and the mesh wire, I don't think the purpose will take us any further.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But isn't it common cause that he attacked a police vehicle, a police van?

MR RICHARD: In the even the target selection was accurate, it was a police van with policemen in it, but my instructions are that it was not marked.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Well, suppose it wasn't marked is it really material if we're in agreement that there was an attack, it was an attack on the police vehicles, your clients were injured in this attack, whether it was a yellow or a green or a black vehicle, would that make any difference really?

MR RICHARD: In the event, one of the occupants of the vehicle, was not a policeman. He is described as an informer. That individual was badly injured and has suffered permanent brain damage and the relevance is that what were police vehicles used for? They were used to transport prisoners, members of the public and police.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Well as far as I could gather, it's common cause, it's not denied that this private individual, if he was a private individual, was in the van and he was injured.

MR RICHARD: I don't believe it's in dispute, but I'll leave that point and I'll continue. Now how many of you fired on the police vehicle?

MR BUHALI: Two.

MR RICHARD: And who were they?

MR BUHALI: Myself and my Commander.

MR RICHARD: Who gave the order to fire?

MR BUHALI: The Commander.

MR RICHARD: What firearm did he use?

MR BUHALI: Say again.

MR RICHARD: What sort of firearm did he use?

MR BUHALI: Who?

MR RICHARD: Your Commander.

MR BUHALI: An AK47 and he had a pistol with him as well.

MR RICHARD: Now ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: Sorry. So he had an AK and a pistol, or did he only have the pistol?

MR BUHALI: I was not looking at him at the time because I was firing. With him - what I had it's an AK47, I don't know if he used the pistol as well because there was noise.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes, so he had an AK and a pistol, but you wouldn't know which one he used?

MR BUHALI: Yes.

JUDGE DE JAGER: So you had at least two AKs in your possession?

MR BUHALI: Yes.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And the driver, was he armed?

MR BUHALI: Yes.

JUDGE DE JAGER: With what?

MR BUHALI: With an AK.

JUDGE DE JAGER: With an AK. So you had three AKs in the vehicle or even, I don't know maybe more, but at least three?

MR BUHALI: Yes.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And a pistol?

MR BUHALI: yes.

MR RICHARD: Now, nonetheless, your Commander did fire at this vehicle, you saw him fire shots at the police vehicle?

MR BUHALI: Yes.

MR RICHARD: Now before the fire fight started, you were following this vehicle as I understood your evidence-in-chief.

MR BUHALI: Yes.

MR RICHARD: After it stopped, did you see people get out of the vehicle?

MR BUHALI: Yes.

MR RICHARD: Did you wait for them to leave the vehicle before opening fire?

MR BUHALI: No.

MR RICHARD: In other words you did not give them an opportunity to leave your target?

MR BUHALI: What do you mean?

JUDGE DE JAGER: Weren't they the targets?

MR RICHARD: What was your target, the vehicle or the people?

MR BUHALI: The people.

MR RICHARD: Bear with me, I'm all but complete.

ADV BOSMAN: You intended to kill these people?

MR BUHALI: Yes.

MR RICHARD: Thank you for the indulgence. From the time that the police vehicle left the police station to the time that you shot at the people, did it stop at all?

MR BUHALI: Did it do what?

MR RICHARD: Did it - before you attacked the people in the police van while you were following it, did it stop and go again, or did it go directly to the place where the attack happened? How many houses did it go past?

MR BUHALI: No, from the police station, we attacked it at its very first stop.

MR RICHARD: I put it to you that your version is incorrect, the way the attack happened was that the vehicle went to a number of places, you came across it and then attacked it, what do you say?

MR BUHALI: I disagree.

MR RICHARD: No further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Richard. Mr Mapoma any questions?

MR MAPOMA: Just a few, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MAPOMA: Regarding the Meadowlands, the police van attack, you said it was of great political importance that you hit them at the gate where they were, what do you mean by that?

MR BUHALI: For us it was of great political importance because it was going to show that even the Security Forces are vulnerable, even at their own bases.

MR MAPOMA: Thank you Chairperson, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination Mr Koopedi?

MR KOOPEDI: Nothing in re-examination thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Judge de Jager?

JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Buhali, why didn't you give us full particulars in your application about these incidents?

MR BUHALI: Which full particulars?

JUDGE DE JAGER: For instance, let's have a look, 11(b), well first (a):

and you said:

Why didn't you give the name to us?

MR BUHALI: When the thing of the TRC started, first I was not fully briefed as to what is going to happen considering the TRC and when I made the application I had not met my Commander then because I did not know his address.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But you've known his name.

MR BUHALI: Yes.

JUDGE DE JAGER: So you could have given his name. Why didn't you give his name? It's requested here in the papers?

MR BUHALI: I was going to discuss it with him first.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Why? Because it's your application, you know you should make a full disclosure and it's asked here specifically and you're an educated person.

MR BUHALI: That's why I'm saying, Sir, I did not know at the time of my application as to what is going to happen with the TRC, so I didn't want to implicate him.

JUDGE DE JAGER: When did you apply for amnesty?

MR BUHALI: I don't remember.

JUDGE DE JAGER: I see we haven't got the date on this one. It was received 12 December 1996.

MR BUHALI: Yes.

JUDGE DE JAGER: So that was at that stage I think the last day on which you could apply for amnesty before the date was extended later.

MR BUHALI: No, I applied before that date. ...(indistinct) Commissioner of Oaths.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Well the Commissioner of Oaths stated it's been signed before him on the 12th of December.

MR MAPOMA: Just to assist my colleague, we received this application at our offices on the 15th February 1996, faxed at 11.42.

JUDGE DE JAGER: That may be from Jo'burg to ...

MR MAPOMA: To Cape Town.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Ja, but it's been handed in at Jo'burg office ...(indistinct) Yes, but still, could you explain why you didn't name your persons involved with you or the person who has given you the order?

MR BUHALI: I said, Sir, I did not want to implicate him, because I did not at the time, I did not understand fully what the purpose of the TRC was.

JUDGE DE JAGER: So at that stage you didn't want to make a full disclosure?

MR BUHALI: Yes.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And it's the same as far as paragraph 9(a) is concerned, where it's asked:

MR BUHALI: Yes.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And when did you decide to make a full disclosure?

MR BUHALI: It was later explained to me by some of our comrades as to what is the purpose exactly of the TRC and I received a letter from Cape Town that I should give further details.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Well the trouble is I don't see that you've responded to that letter and I don't even see the letter in the bundle here, but you say you received a letter?

MR BUHALI: Yes, I responded.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And you responded to it?

MR BUHALI: Yes, I faxed it.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Is there any explanation Mr Mapoma why it's not in the bundle?

MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, I have no explanation, all I have with me is the correspondence file, that is our working file, which was used by our evidence analyst, Mr Tofile and that letter is not here, so I can't offer an explanation.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Ja. Thank you. Can you perhaps indicate when you sent this letter, or replied to the letter? When did you receive it and when did you reply?

MR BUHALI: I don't remember when I replied, but I replied.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Was it during this year?

MR BUHALI: No, maybe 97 or 98, somewhere there.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Maybe there could have been a confusion because of your change of name, your surname.

MR BUHALI: No, Sir, because in that fax that I faxed I even mentioned that my surname has changed from Mshibe to Buhali, that's why it is reflected on the bundle.

JUDGE DE JAGER: I see. Right, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Adv Bosman.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Buhali, in the attack on the Zolo police offices, what was your intention? Was it also to kill the policemen at the police offices, or was it simply to cause damage to it?

MR BUHALI: Yes, it was to cause damage to the infrastructure.

ADV BOSMAN: So your application here does not relate to any attempted murder if there were people there, it was not your intention to kill any of them?

MR BUHALI: Yes.

ADV BOSMAN: The limpet mines, I take it, were not legally in your possession so are you also applying for the unlawful possession of explosives, which is a crime which you, according to my reading of your evidence, committed.

MR BUHALI: Yes.

ADV BOSMAN: Then in so far as the attack on the Meadowlands Police Station is concerned, the intention there was you said that you fired shots at the front windscreen - no wait a minute, I have the wrong paragraph, just one moment. It was Emdeni. What was your intention there, was it simply to damage the vehicle or ...

MR BUHALI: Where?

ADV BOSMAN: Meadowlands. Did you intend to damage the vehicle, or did you intend to kill?

MR BUHALI: I did not say I fired at the front windscreen at Meadowlands.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no where my colleague has corrected herself, now she is speaking of Meadowlands.

MR BUHALI: Okay.

ADV BOSMAN: In the three - let's just take the three incidents. In the first incident, your intention was to kill.

MR BUHALI: The first one?

ADV BOSMAN: Yes.

MR BUHALI: The first one ...(intervention)

ADV BOSMAN: the intention was - I'm sorry, I've got myself confused here. The first one was Zolo police offices ...(intervention)

MR BUHALI: Municipal offices.

ADV BOSMAN: Municipal offices. Your intention was to cause damage and it was related to the whole boycott, rent boycott, you wanted to show your disapproval of that.

MR BUHALI: Yes.

ADV BOSMAN: The next incident was at Meadowlands Police Station.

MR BUHALI: Yes.

ADV BOSMAN: And there your intention, when they drove out in the vehicle, your intention was to kill?

MR BUHALI: Was to kill the personnel.

ADV BOSMAN: Right. And at Emdeni?

MR BUHALI: To kill the personnel.

ADV BOSMAN: The intention was to kill. And in all three incidents, you were in possession of either, illegally in possession of explosives or of the firearms which you had enumerated?

MR BUHALI: Yes.

ADV BOSMAN: And they were also illegal firearms?

MR BUHALI: Yes.

ADV BOSMAN: Right. Thank you very much. Thank you Chairperson.

JUDGE DE JAGER: In the last, the Emdeni one, did you only fire one shot?

MR BUHALI: No, several.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Several?

MR BUHALI: Ja.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Automatic?

MR BUHALI: Automatic fire, yes.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes. And the vehicle didn't stop? It didn't come to a stop?

MR BUHALI: It passed, but it came to a stop some few metres away.

JUDGE DE JAGER: In passing you, could you see whether you in fact hit the windscreen?

MR BUHALI: Yes.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Do you think it's probable, or improbable that a people or a person would have been injured or even killed?

MR BUHALI: I think so, it's probable.

JUDGE DE JAGER: You haven't seen anything in the newspapers about it at the time?

MR BUHALI: Then when we bought the newspaper, the newspaper report said six people were in hospital, the police.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Six police were in hospital?

MR BUHALI: Yes.

JUDGE DE JAGER: You don't know where those police were stationed?

MR BUHALI: I don't know Sir.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Did they report about any person dying in that incident?

MR BUHALI: No, the newspaper did not report of the death.

JUDGE DE JAGER: You've seen, I think it's page 33 in the bundle, a newspaper report relating to the 14th of December, it seems, 1987, was handed to the Amnesty representative by your co-applicant where it was stated that a few police people were killed there. This is not the incident you're referring to?

MR BUHALI: No, it's not.

JUDGE DE JAGER: You had no further knowledge of this incident, never heard anything further about it?

MR BUHALI: Which one?

JUDGE DE JAGER: This Emdeni incident? If I could refer ...(indistinct)

MR BUHALI: No, I have no further knowledge.

JUDGE DE JAGER: You don't know whether the injured people in hospital survived, or didn't survive?

MR BUHALI: I don't know, Sir.

JUDGE DE JAGER: This vehicle that you shot at, was it a kombi, or what kind of vehicle was it?

MR BUHALI: It was a van.

JUDGE DE JAGER: A van.

MR BUHALI: Yes.

JUDGE DE JAGER: So some people must have been sitting at the back, if six people were injured?

MR BUHALI: Yes.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Was it also a canopy on?

MR BUHALI: Yes, it had a canopy.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Ja. On passing you, did you, while it was passing you, did you continue shooting?

MR BUHALI: No.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And you didn't - you saw it stopping and then you sort of fled?

MR BUHALI: Yes.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Koopedi, anything arising from the questions from the Panel?

MR KOOPEDI: Nothing arising, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Richard, anything arising?

MR RICHARD: Nothing further.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma.

MR MAPOMA: Yes, Chairperson, about the disclosure.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MAPOMA: Is it correct that you did meet with the Investigator of the TRC after you had already applied for amnesty?

MR BUHALI: Yes.

MR MAPOMA: And you had interviews with him regarding this incident?

MR BUHALI: Yes.

MR MAPOMA: Did you tell him that your Commander was Mr Dube?

MR BUHALI: Yes.

MR MAPOMA: When you were asked before you said in your application for amnesty you did not mention Dube because you did not meet with him and you were not aware whether he had applied for amnesty of not.

MR BUHALI: Yes.

MR MAPOMA: Now when you had this interview with the TRC Investigator, had you already met with Mr Dube?

MR BUHALI: Yes.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Was this interview on the 17th of May this year, about a month or two ago, after the postponement of the previous hearing?

MR BUHALI: I'm not sure if that is - there are other reports before that.

MR MAPOMA: When exactly did you meet with the Investigator of the TRC?

JUDGE DE JAGER: It must have been on the 22nd of April.

MR BUHALI: I think it's last year, last year, early, I don't remember.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Ja, it must be 22nd of April, at least, 1991, because then you pointed out certain things.

MR BUHALI: Yes.

MR MAPOMA: Now at that time when you were discussing, when you were interviewed by the Investigator, you said you had already met with Dube.

MR BUHALI: Yes.

MR MAPOMA: And had he confirmed with you as to whether he has applied for amnesty or not in respect of those incidents?

MR BUHALI: He said to me, I do not remember writing them, mentioning them down, but in his application he indicated that he is applying for other incidents that he might not remember because as a Commander he was involved in many incidents because he had several units in the Witwatersrand area.

MR MAPOMA: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Buhali.

MR KOOPEDI: That is indeed his application Chairperson, we intend calling no further witnesses, or people to give evidence. With the Committee's permission, may I call the second applicant, Mr Dube?

MR RICHARD: At this juncture Chairperson, ...

CHAIRPERSON: May I just complete this one? I'll give you an opportunity. Mr Buhali thank you, that concludes your evidence, you are excused.

MR RICHARD: Thank you Chairperson. At this juncture it is appropriate for me to record that I persist with my objections to the second applicant being called. At the last hearing two weeks ago, I addressed a different Committee at length as to why I believe there is no amnesty application at all before this Committee.

Mr Dube's application, such as it is, makes no reference directly or indirectly or however vaguely to the instance that we've heard today. In other words, it is fatally defective if he intends to apply for amnesty for this incident.

The Act is clear and imperative. The applicant is obliged to, in terms of 20, disclose in his application an act which constitutes an offence or delict. No such act is disclosed at all.

Mr Dube's application refers to Ellis Park and Witbank Car Bombs and then makes an almost unintelligible illusion, which I will read:

General applications of this nature have been dealt with before and have been held to be incorrect and not to be in compliance with the Act.

Now in anticipation of what might be argued, I have thought and had put to me the situation where, in an application such as the one that we are dealing with, but after the cut-off date for amnesties, an Investigator goes and makes contact with a person and then whether by way of a request for further particulars to the application or by way of investigation or obtaining comments from an implicated person, then gets information about an event for which amnesty might have been applied for. In that situation my argument is the same, it is then too late and to allow particularity of an act to come into an application that way would be absurd, it would in fact be a method whereby applicants would be allowed to bring in applications for amnesty after the cut-off date.

It has also been often pointed out and I simply make mention again, that there is no provision in this Act for a Committee to condone non-compliance or excuse it and I believe it would be purposeless to hear Mr Dube and I persist in the objection as argued last time. I believe I don't really need to have to re-argue it further.

CHAIRPERSON: I think I can only ask you this question then. If somebody submits his application on the last day and further particularity is sought after the cut-off date, would such particularity which is given not form part of the application?

MR RICHARD: ...(indistinct) May I proceed? Thank you. My question is further particularity to what? I did not bring a similar objection to Mr Buhali's application. In that application, Mr Buhali, cursory and incomplete and superficial as it is, referred to three events, bombing of the Zolo Municipal Offices, attack on the SAP van and then again he gives dates. I'll refer the Committee to paragraph 9(a)(i), (ii) and (iii). Now clearly there if further particularity had been requested, there was something to ask about. However, in the second applicant's situation, that of Mr Dube, there is nothing to which further particulars can possibly be asked. There's no logical nexus between anything else I can, might not remember and what is a request for further particulars. Further particulars are further, not new particulars and in this case: "Sorry Sir, I must now remind you of something you forgot about, now give me particulars", it's too late, no more and that means there is no application at law before this Committee.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Suppose I were to ask for amnesty and I would only say let's ..., I'm asking for amnesty for anything that might be brought against me I might not remember. That was all that was stated in this application. Could that be considered to be an application?

MR RICHARD: If that was all, I would maintain that there is no application, that it should have been summarily sent back and advice would have said: "Failure to comply with the Act", which means that there is no application to consider.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Would it serve any purpose of asking particulars about something that clearly he stated: "I can't remember"?

MR RICHARD: It's an impossibility to ask particulars of a man who says: "I don't know what to say because I don't remember", to what you ask. Do you say: "Sorry I must remind you, now I want particulars", that's putting words in his mouth, that's creating an allegation to which you want particulars. I'm aware this is not a High Court pleading where the standards of tolerance may be very different, but there is a limit.

ADV BOSMAN: Are you suggesting we are more or less tolerant, Mr Richard?

MR RICHARD: I beg pardon, more or less?

ADV BOSMAN: Are you suggesting we are more tolerant than the High Court, or less tolerant?

MR RICHARD: I have the experience that the tolerance is much higher here than in the High Court and in fact, if this were a High Court, I don't believe I would have to argue what I have had to argue now. I think the applicants will have had great difficulty even beginning.

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

MR RICHARD: But as I said, in deference to the first applicant, there is at least something to hang something on. I can criticise it for non-disclosure, I can criticise the level of full and relevant particulars, I can launch many attacks, but at least there was something on which he could give evidence. On the second applicant's application, I don't believe it's permissible for him now to sit in front of the Committee and in fact start making an application. The fact that he's implicated is another matter that we should bear in mind. At law, I don't believe I would have any difficulty in establishing that the second applicant is not entitled to the protection afforded by the Act constituting the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. I believe that if he were allowed to proceed to give evidence, implicating himself in attempted murder at least, without the protection of the Act, it would be incorrect. I don't think there's any basis on which that evidence could be regarded as the evidence of an applicant in an application and to prejudice him, the prejudice to the second applicant by proceeding to give evidence, could be very severe. I leave it in the hands of the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Koopedi.

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson I have on a previous occasion argued why Mr Dube is an applicant. I was just on the verge of reiterating what I said earlier. However, Mr Dube has indicated to me that he urgently needs to give me further instructions on this matter. If it may please the Honourable Committee, I'll ask for a very short indulgence so that I can take these instructions before I respond to my Learned Colleague's argument and the application or "insistment".

CHAIRPERSON: ... (indistinct) take a short adjournment.

MR KOOPEDI: A very short one.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll give you that.

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you very much Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: We suggest that we have gone well past teatime. Could we just take the tea adjournment as well.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Koopedi, you said before you reply or answer to the objection you were going to take instructions from client, have you done so?

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson. I have done so and Chairperson I believe Mr Richard will be pleased to hear that my client has instructed me to withdraw his application. He does not wish to proceed with the application anymore. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: I hope you are not disadvantaged because I saw you taking notes profusely, Mr Mapoma. It is not ...(indistinct)

MR MAPOMA: Yes, Chairperson, I had thought that I would have to apply my mind heavily, but I appreciate this.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Koopedi, only to make it clear for the record, he's not withdrawing his whole application, he's withdrawing the application concerning these incidents?

MR KOOPEDI: That is indeed so, Chairperson and perhaps I should mention that on the application form, the application form before you he has referred to a number of incidents. I must say that the Witbank matter has proceeded, has been finalised. The Ellis Park matter I believe should be finalised, but there are certain hitches to it, so he's not withdrawing on any of those, only on these three incidents which would be, yes, the mentioned three incidents.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Ja, no I only want to - you know confusion could arise at the office, we must make it clear.

MR KOOPEDI: Ja.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you going to call any further evidence?

MR KOOPEDI: No, Chairperson, in the light of this development, that is the application before you and the only application that we're proceeding with and for which I'm ready to make submissions, would be the application of Mr Buhali.

CHAIRPERSON: Before you make submissions, I don't know what Mr Richard proposes to do. ...(indistinct)

MR RICHARD: No evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma.

MR MAPOMA: No evidence, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I suppose this is the appropriate time to make submissions.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Could we perhaps find out, Mr Richard, are you opposing the application or what's the position?

MR RICHARD: My clients' instructions are that they still are not content that there has been a full disclosure of all relevant facts and on that basis they persist in their opposition.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Because it seems as though your clients want to say something, I don't know whether they want to instruct you to tell us any ...

MR RICHARD: No, I have no problem in saying what the situation is. We have an interesting situation where one applicant has today implicated someone who wanted to be a co-applicant in respect of the particular incidents. I have letters here available to me to show that Mrs Kgwedi's husband is now a mental patient as a result of the injuries sustained and the instructions ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, in respect of the full disclosure. In respect of the full disclosure not ...

JUDGE DE JAGER: We've only got one application before us at this stage. In connection with the application before us.

MR RICHARD: So the disputes about the particulars of the incident are that if my clients were to give evidence, which they, on my advice, have not, they would say that they saw the vehicle which attacked them, coming from the opposite direction not from behind, they would say that the vehicle was accompanied by a kombi and not alone, but it doesn't take us any further.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Ja, so that's not the evidence before us as far as this application is concerned.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Koopedi, obviously we'll start with you.

MR KOOPEDI IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Chairperson, Honourable Committee Members. Before you is an application, a normal application by applicant Stanley Buhali. He's applying for the three incidents which are mentioned on page 1 of your bundle of documents. It is my submission Chairperson that for these incidents to have occurred, there are other crimes, so to speak, that were committed, which would be possession of illegal AK47s, the ammunition that would go with it, possession

of a limpet mine, although this has not been like specifically mentioned as incidents.

Chairperson, Honourable Committee Members, it is my submission that the applicant has complied with the requirement of full disclosure. Chairperson, this applicant told you that when he completed his application form, he wasn't sure basically what is it that he was doing. He wasn't even sure why and where would the process of the TRC go, but he eventually got to know what it means. On his free will, on his volition, when he was writing a letter unfortunately that has not been put before you, it's not in the bundle of documents, but however, an enquiry was sent to him, he responded to that inquiry fully, Chairperson. Later he was interviewed by the Investigator. He also responded fully. He also went out with the Investigator to point out the places where these incidents occurred. He also went and did a newspaper search, found certain newspaper clippings, unfortunately one of the newspaper clippings is not relevant for our purposes today. However, on that regard or on that score, Chairperson, my submission is that there has never been any better full disclosure, Chairperson. This applicant fully disclosed all the relevant facts in this matter.

In as far as the attack on the police vehicle in Meadowlands, it is clear from the documents that are in the bundle that a police vehicle was attacked. It is also clear from the papers that are before you that this police vehicle had SAP registration number on it, that's what the statements say on the bundle and my submission is there that this applicant attacked a police vehicle, Chairperson, even if my learned friend sought to dispute, that this was an unmarked vehicle.

It is also clear, Chairperson, that there was no material benefit for this applicant, for him to have participated in these actions and finally I submit, Chairperson, that the incidents and the attacks, were purely politically motivated, there was no other reason that the applicant could have involved himself in this incident. It was unfortunate that the victims served the Police Force which were seen as the security or the power behind the Government of the day and the applicant's political organisation or the organisation to which he told he belonged to, had labelled people such as the victims as targets and it is purely on that basis that he acted. Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Koopedi. Mr Richard.

MR RICHARD IN ARGUMENT: On the question of full disclosure, I refer the Committee to Section 20(1)(c). The application as originally filed is significant by its noon disclosure of anything. To argue that that application at that stage made full disclosure of all relevant facts, is impossible. However, as has often been argued, Section 20(1)(i) doesn't

define at what point the applicant should have made full disclosure. However, the point is made that on a different construction of the Act, it is argued that it was incumbent on the applicant to make a disclosure properly in his original application.

With regard to the question of the political motive and objective, as contemplated in (ii), I don't believe any point will be served by going into the background of all the other hearings. At that stage in 1988 members of the South African Police were seen by the liberation movements as legitimate targets and vice versa. I leave it in the hands of the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma.

MR MAPOMA IN ARGUMENT: Chairperson, on this point of full disclosure, I agree with Mr Richard when he says that the Act does not specify at what point full disclosure must be made. I submit Chairperson it would be illogical if the applicant would be expected to make that full disclosure in the application, it would be unnecessary then to go for public hearing, because everything would have been disclosed in the application form.

It is my submission therefore Chairperson that the balance of convenience is that the full disclosure test must be made at the time when the application is heard by the Committee. Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mapoma. Any reply Mr Koopedi?

MR KOOPEDI: No reply Chairperson, because I seem to hear that everybody's agreeing with me that there was full disclosure in this matter, which was my problem. Thank you Chairperson.

JUDGE DE JAGER: ...(indistinct - mike not on) late.

MR KOOPEDI: I don't know if you can say late, Chairperson, because the Act doesn't say what is late, what is early, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: This bring us to the conclusion of this application of Mr T S Buhali. Firstly I wish to thank the legal representatives who participated in the hearing of this application namely Messrs Koopedi, Richard and Mapoma. We thank you for the valuable assistance you have rendered to us. As we are required to give a written decision, our decision would therefore be reserved and hope to be given in the near future in writing. Mr Buhali you would be advised by Mr Koopedi, because we'll send the decision directly to him.

I wish to thank, because this not only concludes the hearing of the application of Mr Buhali, but it brings us to the conclusion of the hearings we had at this centre. We often thank the Interpreters last, but I want today to start with them. Thank you for your valuable assistance. Sound technician, thank you very much. The people of JISS, thank you very much for all you have done for us and like during tea I was disorientated, I thought it's lunch, in anticipation of the nice food we are served with, I thought it was lunch time.

Thank you to all and our archives have got good cassettes. He's unfailingly doing it with all his passion. We thank you very much, that whoever would speak about the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, you would be better exposed to that, because it was not only the Amnesty Committee but also the HRV, so he knows more than even this Committee, other than Judge de Jager.

Thank you to everybody. And now lastly, because I wanted to concentrate on them, that is the victims Rametsi, Mangoane and Ms Kgwedi, we are indebted to you to come to this hearing. We know this happened approximately twelve years ago. You wanted to forget about that incident where your loved ones were injured and more particularly, Raymond, who is brain damaged, we say you now know fully why that happened. We had this conflict in the past that somewhat people think that the conflict was between black and white, but those employed by the State came across the firing line. We say, but it has made us a better society today, or hopefully make us a better society. We say you go back and now put this incident behind you because you have faced the people or the person who says why he did it and now you can rub your wounds or some ointment and put it to rest, but we must say this to you, we are very grateful that you had the courage to face the person who fired at you. Thank you very much for that.

We adjourn. Finally we adjourn for this week and we give everybody, Mapoma, my Interpreters, my Sound Technician, our archives man a long weekend. They can resume duties on Monday. Joe, unfortunately I can't give you shorter days, but thank you very much, you know we must be honest and this is what we say amongst ourselves, that is the Committee Members, that where Joe is your Logistic Officer, things run smoothly and you have proved that once more and I'm looking forward to the 17th to come back to you. I hope you are still the Logistics Officer. We should buy you a present. We're thanking you too much I think, you've become somewhat bored, don't you?

Thank you everybody.