--------------------------------------------------------------------------ON RESUMPTION:

CHAIRPERSON: Good morning. We want to start the proceedings. For the record, it is Tuesday the 3rd of October 2000. We are continuing with the amnesty hearing at the JISS Centre in Johannesburg.

The panel is constituted as it would be apparent from the record. The first matter before us this morning is the amnesty application of Mxolisi Kali. The amnesty reference number is AM7726/97. I am going to ask the parties to put themselves on record. Mr Nyawuza?

MR NYAWUZA: Thank you Chairperson and honourable Committee members. My name is Oupa Patrick Nyawuza, I am for the applicant. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Nyawuza. The Leader of Evidence?

MS MTANGA: Chairperson, I am Lulama Mtanga, the Evidence Leader for the Commission.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ma'am. Mr Nyawuza, is there anything that you want to put on record, or do you want to proceed to present your client's testimony?

MR NYAWUZA: Yes, we are ready to proceed.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Mr Kali, please just indicate whether you can hear the Interpreters on your headset?

MR KALI: Yes, I can.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Will you please stand to take the oath? Give your full names for the record?

MR KALI: Mxolisi Kali.

MXOLISI KALI: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Please be seated. Mr Nyawuza?

EXAMINATION BY MR NYAWUZA: Thank you Honourable Chair. Mr Kali, is it correct that you are applying for amnesty for kidnapping, possession of an unlicensed firearm and an assault on IFP members?

MR KALI: Yes, it is.

MR NYAWUZA: Is it further correct that you completed a form on the 10th of May 1997 and the signature on page 7 of the bundle, is yours?

MR KALI: Yes.

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Kali, briefly tell us about yourself (indistinct) the ANC?

MR KALI: I was born on the East-Rand in Katlehong. That is where I grew up and that is where I was attending school. In the early 1980's, I was still in Katlehong and that is when I started becoming active politically. I joined the Youth and also COSAS. At the time in the East-Rand, there was violence. We were the victims of that violence. That is when we decided to participate in different ways.

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Kali, did you at any stage train in the military wing of the ANC or what happened?

MR KALI: Yes, I was trained even though it was a crash course training.

MR NYAWUZA: When was that? Estimate Mr Kali, if you cannot remember the correct year.

MR KALI: It was in the late 1980's and early 1990's.

MR NYAWUZA: Were you trained in Katlehong or were you taken to some place where you were trained?

MR KALI: First time it was in Katlehong.

MR NYAWUZA: And then?

MR KALI: In the early 1990's, we were trained in different places, including in the Eastern Cape.

MR NYAWUZA: So you came back after your training, Mr Kali, and what happened?

CHAIRPERSON: Just a minute, just before you proceed to that Mr Nyawuza, can I just clarify this? Just going a little bit back, the violence that you spoke about in the early 1980's, we assume that is political violence that you are talking about?

MR KALI: It was a mixture of both, first it was the taxi violence and then political violence.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it the conflict in what was then called the East-Rand, involving hostel dwellers and residents of the townships, Vosloorus and those areas?

MR KALI: At first it was the police who were in the townships, they were fighting against the school children, and also the SADF were helping the police.

CHAIRPERSON: And the rest of the violence, what was the nature of that, the political violence?

MR KALI: Would you please repeat?

CHAIRPERSON: You say that one component of this was the presence of the Security Forces, was that the only nature of violence that we are talking about, or was there also violence between residents of the townships and people in the hostels?

MR KALI: The violence between the township residents and the hostel dwellers started in the early 1990's.

CHAIRPERSON: In response to what situation did you receive military training, a crash course? Did you follow that?

MR KALI: Early 1990's, that is when I received training.

CHAIRPERSON: In response to what particular situation?

MR KALI: When the townships residents and the hostel dwellers were fighting.

CHAIRPERSON: And in what capacity were you receiving training? As a member of the Self Defence Unit, as a member of Umkhonto weSizwe or any other structure?

MR KALI: Both.

CHAIRPERSON: Both? Do you mean both the Self Defence Unit and Umkhonto weSizwe?

MR KALI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Nyawuza, you may carry on.

MR NYAWUZA: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Kali, when you received training, military training as well as that, who was your Commander at the time?

MR KALI: Vusi Vilakazi was working in Katlehong.

MR NYAWUZA: What was his rank?

MR KALI: He was recruiting for MK.

MR NYAWUZA: And when were you specifically recruited into MK?

MR KALI: It was in 1989.

MR NYAWUZA: The conflict between the hostel dwellers and the township residents, what political affiliation were these two affiliated to? The conflict between the township residents and the hostel dwellers, emanated as per political affiliation. Who were, what were hostel dwellers affiliated to, what organisation were they affiliated to at that time, and what were most of the township residents affiliated to?

MR KALI: No one possessed any card at the time, but they belonged to the IFP.

MR NYAWUZA: What makes you say so, Mr Kali?

MR KALI: I am saying so because every time when they came to attack the residents of the township, they will sing IFP slogans.

MR NYAWUZA: So your growth within the MK and the ANC, Mr Kali, how long did it take you, where did you end up ultimately?

MR KALI: In 1991/1992 or between 1991 and 1992, SDUs were formed in Katlehong. This was in response, because people were being attacked in their houses during the night. The leadership of Katlehong formed SDUs. McBride approached me.

MR NYAWUZA: McBride who, Mr Kali?

MR KALI: Robert McBride approached me and an office was established in Katlehong, SDU office.

MR NYAWUZA: What was your rank Mr Kali?

MR KALI: I was a Commander at that time.

MR NYAWUZA: What were your tasks?

MR KALI: My task was to form SDUs and also for the SDUs to come and report back to me in that office.

MR NYAWUZA: Proceed.

MR KALI: I will take all those reports and go to the Regional Office, the ANC Regional Office in Johannesburg.

MR NYAWUZA: Who were you reporting to at the Regional Office?

MR KALI: There were three people whom I was reporting to in the Regional Office in Johannesburg, Robert McBride, Vusi Gunene and Mr Africa Khumalo.

MR NYAWUZA: Proceed Mr Kali.

MR KALI: Everything which was happening, we will take and report to the Regional Office, we will give them report as to who had been attacked and how many people had been injured or killed. Since I was the one who was in charge at the time, I was able to go to the Peace Desk Office which was situated in the Hospital.

MR NYAWUZA: Which hospital, Mr Kali?

MR KALI: Natalspruit Hospital.

MR NYAWUZA: And what would happen?

MR KALI: IFP and us would meet and talk or negotiate there.

MR NYAWUZA: In what year was that, Mr Kali?

MR KALI: Between 1992 and 1993.

MR NYAWUZA: So Mr Kali, how did it happen that you should be a VIP guard at some stage as I see from the bundle?

MR KALI: At about 1993 I was appointed to go and work in the Regional Office.

MR NYAWUZA: Was your rank still that of Commander at that time?

MR KALI: I wouldn't be able to put it clearly whether I was still a Commander or not, because we were all working.

MR NYAWUZA: Okay, what were your tasks then when you were taken to the Regional Office?

MR KALI: I was a security guard in the Regional Office, in the VIP Unit.

MR NYAWUZA: Who were you tasked to be a bodyguard of?

MR KALI: I wasn't a bodyguard as such, but we would go to a certain place if there would be an event and we would escort those VIP's.

MR NYAWUZA: What would you do if you went before a meeting, would it be to check the security of the area or what?

MR KALI: Yes.

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Kali, a certain event occurred apparently in April 1994, do you have any knowledge of that event?

MR KALI: Yes.

MR NYAWUZA: What happened?

MR KALI: It was on a Saturday afternoon, we were staying and guarding Court Holiday Inn. On that weekend I was off, I was going to go to the township. I took the clothes which I used to wear when I was working, I took them to my car. As I was about to leave the Regional Office, Mr Obed Bapela approached me, he requested me to accompany him to Alexander.

MR NYAWUZA: What mode of transport were you using, were you going to use his car or the organisation's car or your car?

MR KALI: In my ...

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, what did you say, your own car?

MR KALI: Mr Obed's car.

CHAIRPERSON: All right, now where was your car where you put the clothes in?

MR KALI: I left it in the office.

CHAIRPERSON: Where is that?

MR KALI: The ANC Regional Headquarters.

CHAIRPERSON: You left your car at the ANC Regional Office in Johannesburg?

MR KALI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: In Shell House?

MR KALI: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Where?

MR KALI: Lanset Hall in Jeppe Street.

CHAIRPERSON: And where precisely was this vehicle parked?

MR KALI: In the basement.

CHAIRPERSON: In the basement of that building?

MR KALI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Where the Regional Office was in?

MR KALI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: What was in the vehicle? You placed your clothing in there and what else was in the vehicle?

MR KALI: We were using that car and inside that car, there were ANC material, like the plaque cards and information about the ANC.

CHAIRPERSON: So the vehicle, it wasn't your personal property, if I understand you clearly?

MR KALI: It was my mother's car.

CHAIRPERSON: It was your mother's car and you say that "we were using the car", who are the "we"?

MR KALI: I will put it this way, at the time the ANC didn't have too many cars and too much money, therefore we were also helping out. If you had anything to help, you would help, therefore I was using the car for ANC purposes.

CHAIRPERSON: You were using it for ANC purposes quite frequently?

MR KALI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, what would you, would you travel around Johannesburg or the township or what? Where would you use the car?

MR KALI: Yes, I would use it around Johannesburg and the townships.

CHAIRPERSON: And you say that there were ANC material in the car, can you just give us some more information about that?

MR KALI: The car had ANC stickers and placards, one of those stickers were written "vote for the ANC, now is the time" and many others.

CHAIRPERSON: So, if one were to look at that car, where it was parked, would it have been apparent that apart from the fact that it was parked in the offices where the ANC is housed, would it be apparent from looking at the car, that this car is linked to the ANC?

MR KALI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: This material that you are talking about, placards and whatever else, would that have been visible from outside, from somebody, say somebody is standing next to the car, would you be able to see all these things?

MR KALI: Yes, one could see because the car was not tinted.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Sorry Mr Nyawuza.

MR NYAWUZA: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Kali, I believe in 1994 it was during the time of the elections, is that so?

MR KALI: Yes, it was a week before the elections.

MR NYAWUZA: It is during that period that attempts at the leadership were made, to kill the leadership, is that so?

MR KALI: Yes.

MR NYAWUZA: And is it further correct Mr Kali, that it is during this time that the Security Branch gets more involved in seeing to it that the leadership is not harmed in any way?

MR KALI: That is so.

MR NYAWUZA: Will I be further correct, Mr Kali, to state that it is during this period that a lot of information on security is exchanged amongst yourselves and some of it is documented, which document according to your instructions, were in the motor vehicle? Is that so?

MR KALI: It is so.

MR NYAWUZA: And Mr Kali, you have mentioned banners and the promotion, were there documents in the motor vehicle that related to the security at the time?

MR KALI: In my pocket, yes, there were such documents because, in my bag actually, there were documents because you see after each event, we had to submit a report to the office.

MR NYAWUZA: Did you get the stuff, or in fact, let me put it this way, let's go back to the Obed Bapela thing. Mr Kali, Obed Bapela requested you to accompany him to Alexander, you are using his motor vehicle, your motor vehicle is parked at the basement of the Regional Office in Jeppe Street, Lanset Hall. Did you go to Alexander in Mr Bapela's motor vehicle?

MR KALI: Yes.

MR NYAWUZA: When did you come back, Mr Kali, because according to the bundle your motor vehicle was broken into at Hillbrow?

MR KALI: Mr Bapela had a meeting in Alexander at the Recreation Centre. We went there and the meeting dissolved, but it was after my car had been broken into. I went to the office and before actually I accompanied Mr Bapela, I went to book a pump action firearm which I used to accompany him, and when I came back, I did not take it back to the office, because it was late. Later after I left the office, I was alone, I went into my car, drove to Fontana in Hillbrow to buy some food, that is the reason I went to Hillbrow, because many placed had been closed. I felt that I would not be able to get food at home.

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Kali, is it correct that Fontana is open for 24 hours?

MR KALI: Correct.

MR NYAWUZA: So you are telling this Committee that that is the reason you went to Hillbrow with your motor vehicle, that you knew that at least there is a shop during this time of the night that is open, that sells take-away food, is that right?

MR KALI: Yes, that is the reason, nothing else.

MR NYAWUZA: And you parked your motor vehicle in the street. Is it in front of Fontana or a few metres away from Fontana?

MR KALI: I parked it in another street, but not far away from the shop.

MR NYAWUZA: And at all material times, Mr Kali, your motor vehicle had these banners, these documents and these stickers that related to the motor vehicle being linked with the ANC, at that time, is that so?

MR KALI: That is correct.

MR NYAWUZA: You got into Fontana, Mr Kali, to buy food and I believe it is common cause that food was sold to you, and you went back to your motor vehicle. What is it that you found?

MR KALI: Upon arrival the middle window was open, that gave me a fright.

MR NYAWUZA: The middle window, Mr Kali, on the left hand side of the motor vehicle, or on the right hand side?

MR KALI: On the left hand side.

MR NYAWUZA: That would be the sliding door, is that so?

MR KALI: Yes, that is correct.

MR NYAWUZA: Okay, and what is it that you found to be missing in your motor vehicle, Mr Kali?

MR KALI: That is the direction from which I came, so I didn't have a chance to move towards the right side of the car. The door was open and what I saw upon arrival, you see, I had put the pump action gun below the seat.

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Kali, at the time that you were carrying this pump action gun, were you allowed to carry firearms publicly? Would you leave the ANC Headquarters carrying a firearm, was it legal to do so?

MR KALI: First of all, I would say there were licensed firearms and some of these firearms were not licensed.

MR NYAWUZA: And the unlicensed firearm Mr Kali, when were you allowed to carry them?

MR KALI: You see the ANC did not abruptly start owning unlicensed firearms, individuals within the ANC had unlicensed firearms, so we were carrying these firearms, but in my case, it was only later that I had a firearm. There is a friend of mine called Yster, who was killed at the office. He was a colleague of mine, and I decided at the time that I too should have a firearm, because Yster was shot right in front of the office, and I decided that my life too, was in danger. I had to have a firearm.

MR NYAWUZA: Did the leadership know of your carrying of an unlicensed firearm?

MR KALI: I would not say all of them knew, some of them, yes. I would be lying if I were to say all of them knew that I had an unlicensed firearm.

MR NYAWUZA: Would you say that was condoned within those that knew?

MR KALI: Yes.

MR NYAWUZA: Okay. Let's go back to the breaking in. So your motor vehicle had been broken in, what is it that was taken?

MR KALI: The vehicle had several things inside, clothing, linen, a uniform which I had brought from Orlando, placards and several other things, some of which I cannot recall.

MR NYAWUZA: Were the placards also taken?

MR KALI: Pamphlets, some pamphlets were taken, not placards. I did not make a count of it, but things that I found missing, were these small pamphlets.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, what kind of vehicle was this?

MR KALI: It was a microbus.

CHAIRPERSON: Were these items, were they on the seats or on the floor, or where were they, the clothing, linen, all these material?

MR KALI: Behind the back seat, that is where the linen and the placards were and the other, in the seats, that is where my clothing was placed.

ADV BOSMAN: But was it placed sort of openly or was it packed in a box or a bag or how was it placed in the vehicle?

MR KALI: The suit that I had was in a suit cover with other clothing and the boots were in a bag, and that was in the vehicle specifically for shoes. The one thing that was visible from outside the vehicle was the duvet, but the clothing itself were inside bags.

ADV BOSMAN: And the pamphlets?

MR KALI: Pamphlets were in the back of the vehicle and they were visible from outside.

MR NYAWUZA: Thank you. Mr Kali, you have mentioned a uniform. What kind of uniform was this, was it a police uniform, a military uniform or ...

MR KALI: A military uniform.

MR NYAWUZA: So was it also missing when you came back?

MR KALI: Yes, and I was not able to get the uniform ever, that is the uniform, radio and a bag, but yes, I did find the other things later on.

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Kali, your car had been broken in to, and you realised that a lot of items were missing. What steps did you take to see to it that this is addressed?

MR KALI: I went to the nearest satellite police station in Hillbrow, that is where I laid a charge. I secured a case number and then went back to the office to inform them about the incident.

MR NYAWUZA: Did you advise them that some of the material that had been taken from the motor vehicle related to the security issues that were there at the time?

MR KALI: Yes, correct.

MR NYAWUZA: And then, what happened Mr Kali, what is it that subsequently happened?

MR KALI: What do you mean, in relation to the work or the case?

MR NYAWUZA: In relation to the case, Mr Kali.

MR KALI: I went back to the township that evening, slept and the following day I came back to town. I went back to the police station in Hillbrow with my case number and I informed them about my concern and upon arrival, they showed me a heap of dockets saying that numerous people had lost their vehicles and my case was very trivial, and they said they were not going to help me there and then and I was concerned primarily about the information that was stolen from the vehicle.

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Kali, is it correct that amongst the documents that you lost, were your ID and your address where you stayed?

MR KALI: Yes, that is correct.

MR NYAWUZA: Did you think at the time that this would be, would have serious repercussions if members of a political party that were not in line with your policy at that time, would get hold thereof and eliminate you, would that be so?

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Nyawuza, are you not overstepping the mark a little bit in leading your witness?

MR NYAWUZA: I withdraw that question. Mr Kali, the information that you had lost, what is it that you thought would happen to you?

MR KALI: First of all, with reference to my residential address, the problem that I had now was that anybody who was after me, now had the information. That was my first concern. Secondly, I was concerned about information pertaining to my work, because there was a complete programme of where we were going to work and all the necessary venues that we were going to work at.

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Kali, you were shown a heap of dockets and told that your case was a trivial matter. What is it that you did then?

MR KALI: I asked them, I actually enquired from them whether I can take steps on my own to try and get hold of the lost properties. I was told that I was not able to do that. They told me that I can only do that if I spoke to some Reservist Sergeant who would possibly give me a chance to go and do an investigation on my own. After that, I went to the office and he was not there. I was informed he was coming the following day. When I came the following day, I found his assistant who wrote on a small piece of paper the name of the police to whom I was referred and his telephone numbers, and I enquired as to whether I could continue and he said "if you do that, you would be doing it on your own, but you still have to come back here and report" and he said "no problem, you can continue your investigation".

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Kali, at that time, you believed that the paper that you had been given gave you powers to effect a citizens' arrest, for want of a better word?

MR KALI: Yes, correct.

MR NYAWUZA: So, you left Hillbrow police station with this letter that you had been given by this chap and what happened then?

MR KALI: I went to work, that was during the course of the week. I would after work, go out and continue the investigation. Fortunately I came across one boy, one young man in Hillbrow, I spoke to him and enquired from him and he understood my case and indicated that Hillbrow was infested with crime. People were breaking into people's cars and I told him what things I lost in my car, and he promised to help should he come across those stolen things, and he would keep in touch with me, and we agreed upon a rendezvous.

MR NYAWUZA: Did you come back after you had left, did you come back to him?

MR KALI: Yes.

MR NYAWUZA: When was that and what happened?

MR KALI: This young man I met again, it could have been on Thursday or Friday, and he said there is one group that he suspected, because he saw them in possession of money that particular week. There are numerous boys or young men whom he saw in possession of money and he informed me that he saw somebody wearing something similar to the things that I described as having lost, but I could not find the young man that day and I left, so that on Saturday evening, that is when this whole thing happened. And then I went to the township and continued to use my vehicle and in the vehicle I put some clothes that were almost similar to the clothes that I had lost in the incident, linen and everything and then I went back to Hillbrow.

MR NYAWUZA: Were you using the same motor vehicle that had been broken into the previous time?

MR KALI: Yes.

MR NYAWUZA: Okay, proceed. I was in the company of Matau. We parked the vehicle on the same street where it had been broken into. We went to stand at a balcony of Kentucky and around twelve o'clock, as we were waiting there, I saw about four to five young men going down the street. As they were supposed to go passed the vehicle, they did not do that. That is when I looked very carefully. One of them was in possession of something that looked like a screwdriver, which he used to open the window. The window was opened, one of them got inside. That is when I realised that the car was being broken into. I went to the car and as I approached, the sliding door had already been opened and Temba, the one whom I grabbed first, was inside the car. The others upon seeing me, fled. Temba could not flee and I grabbed him. After closing the door, I started asking him questions and he said we should not beat him up, he will tell us who broke into the vehicle the previous week. Upon so saying, I concluded that indeed he knew something. He promised to tell us what happened. He said they are the ones who broke into the vehicle the previous week. I enquired what happened and he said they sold the clothing in Hillbrow and I said "all I wanted was the names of the people to whom these items were sold", he said the bag that was, that contained papers, was sold to a Mr Ngubane, who was working at a flat. He said the radio and speakers were sold to taxi people and some of the clothes were in the hotel where Mr Ngubane was working. That is where these boys, or these young men were tenants as well.

CHAIRPERSON: I forgot to ask you earlier, what happened to the shotgun that was in the vehicle?

MR KALI: I submitted it back to the office.

CHAIRPERSON: That was never stolen by these thieves?

MR KALI: No. And upon enquiring Temba about the shotgun, he said it was too big, it could have led to their arrest.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Kali, do I understand it correctly, that you left a shotgun and sensitive security material in a vehicle while you went out to buy food? Is that your evidence?

MR KALI: Yes, because I knew I was just going to buy some food and then leave, that was not common practice though.

ADV BOSMAN: Did you report to your leadership that you had left sensitive material and a shotgun in the vehicle and had gone out, and this was late at night, in Hillbrow?

MR KALI: Yes, I told them.

ADV BOSMAN: What was their response to that?

MR KALI: I cannot recall exactly what happened, but I remember I submitted the firearm immediately when I went back to the office.

ADV BOSMAN: Can you recall whom you told that you had also left sensitive security material and that it had been taken?

MR KALI: Yes, it was Frank who was working at the office that day.

ADV BOSMAN: Was he senior to you?

MR KALI: Correct.

ADV SANDI: Can you give us the full names of Frank? Frank, who is Frank?

MR KALI: Maybe somebody can help me out here.

CHAIRPERSON: Maybe Mr Nyawuza can get the information and submit it to later on, but carry on with your evidence.

MR KALI: Frank Radebe.

MR NYAWUZA: Proceed Mr Kali. You have Temba, Temba tells you that he will show you where the stuff is, what is it that you did now?

MR KALI: I accompanied him to the Hillbrow police station.

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Ngubane, what more did he tell you about Mr Ngubane?

MR KALI: He informed me that Mr Ngubane was an IFP member.

MR NYAWUZA: How did it happen that he should tell you?

MR KALI: I have no idea, but it looks like people like Temba were being used by people in Hillbrow, I don't know how, because when he explained about the uniform, he said their boss took the uniform saying that he was going to use it for robberies. So, I cannot say what was happening about them, because they were still young boys, but when he spoke about Mr Ngubane, saying he was an IFP member, that gave me a fright, and he also told me that their boss took the uniform and he wanted to use it for, or shall I say, in robberies.

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Kali, you proceeded with Temba to Hillbrow satellite police station. What is it that you had in mind when you went with Temba to this police station? Did you want to hand him in, or did you want to say "people, I have found a person who alleged that he and some accomplice broke into my car the other week, here is he, so see to it that justice is done?"

MR KALI: I took him to the police as somebody whom I found in my car. I went there to lay another charge against him. Fortunately he was linked in the previous case, but I took him back to the police station for laying yet another charge, this time against him, now that he had been found.

MR NYAWUZA: And what is it that transpired at the police station?

MR KALI: Upon our arrival at the police station, there were two policemen. I laid the charge and requested the police that Temba should accompany us to try and retrieve the other clothes. The police agreed and we left, but Temba took us to a wrong flat. We looked around and we did not find a thing. The police was angry and we took Temba again and the police arrested Temba and started assaulting Temba as to why he was not telling the truth.

MR NYAWUZA: So you did not assault Temba at that time?

MR KALI: No, I did not.

MR NYAWUZA: Okay, the police officer assaults Temba. What happened thereafter?

ADV SANDI: How was he assaulted?

MR KALI: There was an iron door, even though it was locked, they were together behind that door, but he was kicking him and assaulting him.

MR NYAWUZA: And then what happened after the assault?

MR KALI: Temba agreed to the police that he was going to take us to where Mr Ngubane was working. That is when the police said that he was not going to where Mr Ngubane was working, and we should take Temba and go there, because his shirt was full of blood stains.

MR NYAWUZA: This police officer, Mr Kali, was he the only person at the time at the police station or were there other police officers?

MR KALI: There were two.

MR NYAWUZA: Did you get any help from the other police officer?

MR KALI: No, the other one didn't even want to get involved, that is when I was suspicious because the other one wanted to help, but the other one didn't want to get involved at all.

MR NYAWUZA: Were these police officers aware, did they know more about Mr Ngubane?

MR KALI: I am not certain about this, but their behaviour made me suspicious. It raised questions as to why they didn't want to help. This was just my suspicion. The other one didn't want to get involved at all.

MR NYAWUZA: So you left with Temba, is that so?

MR KALI: Yes. When we arrived in the car Temba requested me that we should also take his other friend, who was also involved, we should go to where the friend was working. He was working in Boops. When we arrived at that night club called Boops, we went inside and we talked to the guy. As we were leaving, the manager had already called the police, as we were leaving that place, the police were right outside and the police wanted to find out as to what was happening. I gave them the paper which was given to me by the police from Hillbrow and then the police read it and left.

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Kali, when you left with Kali from the police station, did you assume that you are legally leaving with him with the consent of the police? What is it that went through your mind when you left with Temba?

MR KALI: I was a bit surprised because I would have expected the police to arrest a suspect. I cannot say the police trusted me, but this is what they did, they just gave Temba to me.

MR NYAWUZA: How did you see your action at the time, Mr Kali, did you see your action of going around with Temba, looking for other suspects as part of your investigations that had the police's blessing or something else? How did you see your action?

MR KALI: I would say I was investigating because at the time, I had two case numbers. When the police came outside that night club, and I explained to them and gave them that paper which I got from the other police station, they didn't arrest me, so I didn't think that I was doing anything wrong. That is why I continued with Temba, looking for other suspects.

MR NYAWUZA: So you give this police this paper and they just say to you "okay, go ahead and do whatever you are doing". Where did you go with Temba from the night club?

MR KALI: When we left that night club, we went to the place where Mr Ngubane was working.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you have Temba's friend with you as well?

MR KALI: Yes. When we arrived to Mr Ngubane's place of work, Temba approached Mr Ngubane and said to Mr Ngubane "this men are requesting for their possessions". Mr Ngubane said Temba mustn't be crazy. Then and there, I became suspicious. Temba didn't introduce any of us, he just requested for the clothing. That is when I started speaking to Mr Ngubane myself. I said "Mr Ngubane, Temba said my clothes were in his department and therefore I was requesting them", and Mr Ngubane said I mustn't be crazy.

MR NYAWUZA: At that time, did you have the room number of where Temba had stored the goods?

MR KALI: Temba did say it was in room number 310.

MR NYAWUZA: Did you go to room 310?

MR KALI: Mr Ngubane refused for us to go to room 310.

MR NYAWUZA: What kind of work was Mr Ngubane doing at this place?

MR KALI: He was the security guard. But later I discovered that he would allocate people in the different rooms.

MR NYAWUZA: So you couldn't go to a room without being given permission by Mr Ngubane, on that day?

MR KALI: Yes.

MR NYAWUZA: Okay, you are refused access to room 310, Mr Ngubane denies knowledge of anything that Temba says he has knowledge of. What happened then?

MR KALI: I had no other means to enter the hotel, therefore I left.

MR NYAWUZA: Where did you go, who did you leave with?

MR KALI: It was myself, Temba and Temba's friend. Temba also told me that there were other clothing which they have stolen from me, which were kept in Twilight Zone, where the street kids were staying. We went there as well and I explained to the woman I met there, and the woman said we can look around. We did and I didn't find anything. Then we left. At the time it was towards morning. We were tired and then I decided to go back to the office and rest. We went to the ANC offices, we stayed in the reception. The time was almost six o'clock in the morning. We stayed in the reception until eight o'clock in the morning, then we proceeded to the police station the following morning and we discovered that there were no, the policemen who were working the previous night, had already gone home. There were two policemen who were working during that day. When I explained to them that they should arrest Temba, they said to me they would never do that, they would never take someone who had been assaulted and put him in custody. I explained to them that Temba had said that he had sold the speakers which they have stolen from my car, to the taxi, to a certain taxi driver, and I explained to the police that I needed at least one police who would accompany me to this particular taxi driver, who had bought the speakers, and the police refused. That is when I realised that the police cannot help me. At that time I was young for someone to take me seriously. I went back to the ANC offices and requested Petrus Mkwanazi to accompany me, because he was senior to me and I thought that someone would understand him. We went to a certain flat and we entered. As we were entering to that flat, the speaker was there where Temba said it was. Mkwanazi explained to them that we were not there to fight anyone, we were there to take the speakers. The person who had bought the speakers said we could take the speakers, it means he had lost, because he had bought something which was stolen. We took the speaker back to the police station, we showed the police that we had found the speaker. We had found the speaker which we had requested them to accompany us, to help us find the speaker. The police said to us, "it means you are good investigators and good police, you can do this job well than us. You have recovered the speaker, then you can continue with the rest of the investigation". At that time it was during the day, on Sunday, and we went ahead with our investigation. We discovered the other boys who were with Temba when they broke into the car, and some of them were still wearing my clothes. We took these boys to the offices. In the office, we were in the reception. That is when we realised that the office was now crowded. In the afternoon we decided that we cannot keep them in the reception and I couldn't take them to the police station, because at the police station no one wanted to take them. I took them to the basement.

MR NYAWUZA: A lot of items were found. Did you find your military uniform?

MR KALI: No, I did not.

MR NYAWUZA: Did you find the documentation that was linked to the Security Branch?

MR KALI: No.

MR NYAWUZA: And all this time you knew Temba had taken you to Mr Ngubane, and it is your evidence that some boys had been apprehended that were involved. Was Mr Ngubane amongst the people that were apprehended on the Sunday?

MR KALI: No, at that time we had not found Mr Ngubane. He was off and he was not there during the day.

MR NYAWUZA: So you take these boys to the basement and what happened there?

MR KALI: We waited for Mr Ngubane because we knew that six o'clock he was going to come to work. His boss was not there, because I was told that this boss by the name of Rasta, he is the one who had taken my uniform. We started looking for Rasta at about four or five o'clock and we didn't find Rasta. At about six o'clock, we went to look for Mr Ngubane because he was supposed to come, to report on duty. We explained to Mr Ngubane, we were not now questioning him, but we were telling him. We told him that I had been there with Temba and his friend, that I wanted more information from him and he refused, now I was giving him the information. We explained to Mr Ngubane that we wanted the bag which had the pamphlets and that is when he started wanting to fight with us. We took Mr Ngubane by force this time, and put him inside the car, and then we left with him.

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Kali, you have stated in your evidence that some of these boys, when you apprehended them, they had your clothing on. What other clothing did the other boys have, besides the ones that had your clothing on? What kind of clothing were the others dressed in?

MR KALI: One boy had an ANC T-shirt, Mr Ngubane had a white shirt and a maroon jacket. Underneath the white shirt, there was a T-shirt, even though we didn't know what type of a T-shirt until we arrived with him in the office, that is when we saw that it was an IFP T-shirt underneath the shirt. That is when Mr Ngubane became a problem to us, because he didn't want to come up with the truth. All the boys were pointing at him, but he refused. At that time I didn't have all the information, but later when I went with the manager in that apartment where Mr Ngubane was working, the manager opened the door and we found those clothing, including the linen, the duvet which was stolen from me. Mr Ngubane knew all along about this, but just didn't want to cooperate. Now, Mr Ngubane was with us, but now we wanted to leave, we wanted to go and look for Rasta, his boss, and we realised that there were too many of these boys. We decided that we were going to leave some of them. There was a lift which had been broken or was not working, because if you were to enter, you would need someone to open it.

MR NYAWUZA: These people, you have been with these guys, Temba to be more specific, numerously to the ANC Regional Office. I mean on Saturday you were with him there and on Sunday you are with him there. Did the leadership know that you had Temba and these guys at the basemen? Did anybody know that, besides the leadership?

MR KALI: Before I can answer this question let me just explain one thing, I wasn't with Temba on Saturday. My contact with Temba on Saturday was very short. I was with Temba early hours of Sunday morning. We can count the Saturday out, because it was after midnight of Saturday, it was in the early hours of Sunday. During the day, when Temba was in the office, he was just sitting like everyone. I would say some saw, but they didn't know what was going on. Even though the leadership would have seen them, but they may not know what was going on.

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Ngubane's denial of his knowledge of these boys, what did that tell you? Did it tell you that he was trying to hide something or what was it that went through your mind when he denied knowledge of these boys?

MR KALI: I could tell that he just didn't want to come out with the truth because I didn't see any reason why he wouldn't tell the truth, that the boys came and sold the bag to him because he wasn't the one who was involved in the actual stealing.

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Kali, You realised that Mr Ngubane has got an IFP T-shirt, and at the time there was some conflict between the ANC and the IFP, what did you say, you know, amongst yourselves, the guys that you were with, regarding the T-shirt? Did you take Mr Ngubane on about the T-shirt, "you even have this thing", blah, blah, what is it that happened after you realised that Mr Ngubane had an IFP T-shirt on?

MR KALI: I felt that my life was threatened because all these boys were pointing at Mr Ngubane, and on the other hand, Mr Ngubane doesn't want to come out with the truth. I was scared.

MR NYAWUZA: You were scared and you said in Zulu that the problem started between you and Mr Ngubane. What problem?

MR KALI: Mr Ngubane was supposed to tell us as to what was going on. He didn't want to come out with the truth, but we could tell that he knew a lot.

MR NYAWUZA: So what measures did you take to make him talk?

MR KALI: He was assaulted.

MR NYAWUZA: Were you part of the people that assaulted Mr Ngubane, in that I would believe that you were agitated?

MR KALI: Yes, I was one of the people who assaulted him.

MR NYAWUZA: And did Mr Ngubane ultimately come out with the truth?

MR KALI: He was not in the office for a long time before the police arrived. We were questioning him, different things were happening at the same time. We left Mr Ngubane there because I had already made up my mind that if he wasn't coming out with the truth, I was going to go back with him to the police station. We left, looking for Rasta in the night clubs, but we didn't find him. I came back and my intention this time was to take them back to the police station, because we had enough evidence. Frank had requested me to accompany him to Soweto. I explained to Frank that I cannot go with him to Soweto because I was busy with this case. Frank said I was the only one that could accompany him, because he had problems in his girlfriend's place. Eventually I agreed to accompany Frank. When we arrived back to the office, after Soweto, we discovered that that boy who was to accompany them to find Rasta, had escaped and I only found out when I was reading his documents that he escaped after he requested them to go and buy food. He ran to the police. As I was preparing, back in the office, preparing to take them to the police, before I could take them, the police were in the building. That is when a fight broke, because we didn't want to let the police in. The police broke the gate and they came inside. We switched off the main switch of the building, there were no firing at each other, but what happened is that we eventually had all the police's firearms in our possession. Later we were told that we shouldn't fight with them, we should give the police their firearms back, and they can take these people back to the police station. We were not arrested. The following day we were requested to make statements and these statements are the statements which are in the bundles.

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Kali, most of your stuff apparently had been recovered, besides the military uniform and apparently the placards, I didn't hear you say anything about them. Upon your knowledge that Mr Ngubane was involved, what came to your mind? Did you think this thing had any political objective to it?

MR KALI: Yes, I would say so because the ANC and the IFP were not in good terms. We were political enemies. And also, what I can say is that during that time, in our offices many things happened. This happened after the march of the IFP and it also happened after the bomb which had exploded and the previous week, we were also attacked. We were driving an ANC kombi and it was attacked, that kombi. There were many of us in that kombi. Then there was another kombi which was driving on the left lane, we were on the right lane. As we were driving in Jeppe, to corner Troy, the kombi came straight and hit our kombi and our kombi turned over. As our kombi had been turned over, gunfire were heard. When police arrived, they didn't even want to hear from us, they arrested us. That is when I realised that I might be arrested since I had an unlicensed firearm, because we tried to explain to the police that somebody was shooting at us, not that we were shooting. I escaped and I went to the office, and the same day we were admitted in hospital. This happened after all these incidents, after a series of incidents. Since I am not a fortune teller, I couldn't tell whether breaking into my car was connected with all these series of incidents or not, but that is what I thought.

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Kali, would you say the political objectivity of the whole thing started when the car was broken into or after you had realised that Mr Ngubane was involved? When do you think the whole political attachment to the whole thing, started?

MR KALI: I would say I thought immediately after my car had been broken in, because that car looked like an ANC car. One could never tell it was just my car, therefore I would think anyone who would break into that car, would think of the ANC and not myself.

MR NYAWUZA: So, is it correct that you are applying for amnesty for the three offences that were previously mentioned, the possession of an unlicensed firearm, kidnapping and assault?

MR KALI: That is correct.

MR NYAWUZA: As regards kidnapping, Mr Kali, will I be correct in saying, I think I heard your testimony, were you saying that you were subsequently going to hand in the guys that you had apprehended, to the police?

MR KALI: When I was doing this, I didn't perceive any of my actions as wrong or illegal because I had been to the police, and whatever I was doing, I have been going back to the police and reporting back to them. Even in the office, I did explain to some as to what was going on, and even to the police themselves, I was updating them.

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Kali, what goes through your mind, what went through your mind when you found documents stolen, but not the pump action? What did that tell you?

MR KALI: That is when I realised that whoever broke into my car, wanted something crucial and very important because if it was a simple criminal, he would have stolen the gun, not the pamphlets and not the important documents. That is what went through my head, that the thief was not interested in the gun, rather was interested in the information.

MR NYAWUZA: Were the documents found?

MR KALI: No.

MR NYAWUZA: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Can I just ask you in regard to the one aspect that you touched upon. You said that you, you were explaining in the office what was happening. Did you explain that you were pursuing this matter and you were trying to recover whatever was taken, including the security documentation?

MR KALI: Yes, I did explain to them that I was trying to get back what had been stolen. What scared me most was that who had in his possession the pamphlets, that was one thing which was scaring me because among the boys whom we have apprehended, none of them had the pamphlets and Mr Ngubane didn't want to come out with the truth either.

CHAIRPERSON: Just to complete the aspect that I was touching on, what was the attitude of the people in the office? Did they order you to stop, did they tell you that you shouldn't be doing this or what was their attitude?

MR KALI: I wouldn't be able to remember the precise attitude, but what I can say is that no one said I should stop. Up until very late that day, they said the boys should be taken to the police station, because they couldn't keep them in the reception area. The person or whoever was present in the office, the leadership, they all saw this.

CHAIRPERSON: The people that you spoke with in the office, were they superior to you, in other words were they your superiors?

MR KALI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You say that some of the members of the leadership would have seen these people that were in the office?

MR KALI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Did any of them enquire as to what was happening?

MR KALI: Most of them knew about this, because I had already reported to them after my car had been broken into. Therefore what I did was to simply inform them that these were the boys who had broken into my car.

CHAIRPERSON: And specifically these members of the leadership that you are referring to, did they respond in any way to the situation?

MR KALI: I don't quite understand but what happened is that I did explain to them that these were the boys who broke in my car, and I explained to them that I was still looking for the pamphlets and documents which had been taken from my car. After that they didn't say anything.

CHAIRPERSON: They didn't say anything, they didn't tell you to do anything specifically, they didn't participate in this at all, but they also didn't intervene at all? They just did nothing, they just listened to your report, would I understand the position correctly?

MR KALI: No, they didn't. I will try and explain what exactly happened. It was the ANC culture that if someone had done something wrong, we would take that person and take them to the police, therefore I did explain to them that I had already taken these boys to the police and I also showed them the case number. That is why they were not scared of anything when I had these boys in the office.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Kali, I understood you to say that at some stage you were told to take them to the police, because there weren't enough room to keep them at the offices, isn't that so?

MR KALI: No, I am the one who decided to take them to the car.

ADV BOSMAN: Were you never told to take them to the police?

MR KALI: Late in the evening, I was told to take them to the police.

ADV BOSMAN: Is this before or after you had been to Frank's home in Soweto?

MR KALI: Yes.

ADV BOSMAN: No, it is not clear to me, was it before or after you had gone to Frank that you were told to take them to the police?

MR KALI: It was said so before I accompanied Frank to Soweto, and then I explained to the leadership that I was still looking for their boss, Rasta, who had the uniform and I was going to take all of them to the police station.

ADV BOSMAN: What was the urgency of going with Frank? The leadership had now told you that you must take them to the police, you didn't do this, you explained to them that you were still looking for Rasta, but in the meantime you decided to go with Frank. What was the urgency of this, you said he had problems with his girlfriend?

MR KALI: In fact, if I look at it now, I would say I made a mistake there, by accompanying Frank first because Frank's issue wasn't as urgent as this one. Frank requested me to accompany him, even though I tried to explain to Frank that this was urgent, but he said we will be back soon. And I agreed, and I think I made a mistake by agreeing.

ADV BOSMAN: What was the problem that Frank had, was it at all necessary, you are now engaged in a serious matter, you are looking for sensitive ANC material that has been stolen from your car, so what was so important about Frank that you decided to go with him instead of pursuing this issue which was very serious to your organisation? Can't you just tell us what the nature of Frank's problem was, can you remember?

MR KALI: Frank was staying with his girlfriend who was from Soweto, they were staying in Katlehong and they broke up and he went and stayed with another girlfriend, or a new girlfriend from Diepkloof, and then one day, as he was with his new girlfriend, the old girlfriend came and he had, or the girlfriend, the old girlfriend had burnt the new girlfriend with boiling water, and then the family now of the girlfriend had problems with Frank and I knew about this problem and the girlfriend's family. Therefore Frank requested me, since I had already explained to the family of the new girlfriend as to what exactly happened. That is why Frank persuaded me on that evening, to go with him. I was surprised when I was told that they had left this other boy, after he had requested them to go and buy food, that is how he escaped and went to the police.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. As you say you might or might not have erred in getting involved in this issue about the girlfriends. What I want to know is, after you explained to the leadership that you thought that you should be looking for the boss of Mr Ngubane, what was the attitude of the leadership? Were they satisfied with that, that you would return these people to the police once you had completed that angle of the matter, or what was their attitude? Did they tell you "look, forget about the boss, take them immediately", or what was their response?

MR KALI: When I told them one was missing, they did not indicate any problem, and when I told them that I was going out to look for Rasta and on finding him, I will take them all to the police station, nobody said "that is wrong, you should not do that, take them all to the police station now". When I said what I said, they had no problem with that and I indicated to them that upon finding Rasta, I will take them all to the police station, because I had no intention of keeping them there any further, because it was now late. I wanted to take them to the police station because now I had lost all hope of ever securing the lost documents.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We will take a brief adjournment for 15 minutes.

ON RESUMPTION:

MXOLISI KALI: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Mtanga, any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS MTANGA: I have a few questions Chairperson, to put to the applicant. Mr Kali, can you explain to the Committee how, when incidents like this one here, that is the focus of this application, when things like this happen in the office, how were they dealt with? Did you needed permission from your seniors to investigate or would you report and then let them deal with it, or you as a security person in charge or could you decide what to do? Did you have a discretion on what to do?

MR KALI: I don't know how to put it. Let me put it in such a way that I say the ANC in most instances was not operating along similar lines as government. They were able to delegate and you would come and report late. For example in the East-Rand whilst we were still in the East-Rand, each time there was a problem I would take it upon myself to solve the problem and report later. I don't know whether to call it a culture or what but there was this tendency that you would do something and let it pass, but in this particular instance I informed them about the whole situation and told them that I went to the police and got permission from the police, so that immediately I mentioned the police, nobody was upset about me having broken the law or anything like that. Even though the ANC was still not wholly accepted, but they were opposed to breaking the law.

MS MTANGA: Who was the person in charge of the Security Department in the Regional Office of the ANC at that time?

MR KALI: Mr Africa Khumalo.

MS MTANGA: Did you report to Mr Khumalo about what happened?

MR KALI: Yes.

MS MTANGA: What was his reaction or his response?

MR KALI: I cannot recall precisely, but what I did, I showed him this piece of paper from the police station indicating to him that I had laid a charge. I should also add that in most instances, in the past, you see, I cannot recall many of the things that happened in the past, you see everybody was busy and really there was no time for him to could sit down with me and discuss this. I too, was out doing my duties. In most instances, during the week and before that, I would come to work, normally after work, and I would do or continue with my investigations so that it would not interfere with my duties.

MS MTANGA: The persons that you had arrested, for how long were they kept in the ANC offices?

MR KALI: I don't know how to explain this. You see, I spent most of the time, or most of the time with Temba rather than with the other large group. I managed to secure Temba and the other one that I found at Boops. The other ones I found during the day, around one or two o'clock, and when I went to the basement ultimately, it was now in the evening, around six or seven o'clock. That was after I had left the office, went down to the basement and when they went to the office, they came there with Mr Ngubane. They did not go to the cage with Mr Ngubane, but they did not spend the whole day there, so that they did not spend the same time at the office.

MS MTANGA: Did you say Mr Khumalo was aware or may have been aware of the presence of Temba in the office, and later on, of the other group that amongst them was Mr Ngubane?

MR KALI: The office was not operating on Sundays, so I saw Mr Khumalo only late. I don't know whether he was aware of this during the day or not

MS MTANGA: Mr Khumalo gave a statement to the police just after this, on the day of the incident or just after the day of this incident stating that he had twice told you to take back, to take this youth to the police. Do you recall that, were you ever told by Mr Khumalo to take these people to the police?

MR KALI: I recall him telling me that at the basement, but I would say he only told me at the time when I saw him and that was late, he indicated that I should take them to the police. I explained to him what I was up to, but I cannot say that I defied him.

MS MTANGA: Thank you Chairperson. I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Mtanga. Panel, any questions?

ADV SANDI: Just on this very last one. Mr Khumalo told you to take these people to the police, why did you not adhere to that instruction then?

MR KALI: I will not say I did not follow instructions. I explained to him that I was only short of one person, Rasta, whom I was going out to look for. I did not refuse. Because now the problem that I was facing was that each time that I went to the police station, I did not get the assistance that I expected.

ADV SANDI: Did he accept the explanation that you had given him, that you were still short of this person, Rasta, and that you still had to look for him? Did Mr Khumalo accept that?

MR KALI: I would not say yes or no because he only left after having told me what to do. He was in a hurry for a meeting.

ADV SANDI: Let's go back to that piece of paper which you say you had from the police. What exactly did it say?

MR KALI: When I went to the police, I explained my problem to him and I enquired as to whether I can investigate the case on my own, and he said the only thing that he could do, was to state in his documents that I was in the office and I went there with a request to investigate the case myself. That I could only do, he said, if I was a reservist, provided they granted me permission to do that. I did not know how reservists operated and he said if the person who is in charge of reservists can give you permission, you can go ahead and do that. They gave me the letter, containing that indication.

When I produced the letter to the police, upon leaving Boops, he read the note with the stamp and he said nothing to that effect, so I don't know whether the note was giving me permission to go ahead, but at least it indicated that I went to the police and this is the kind of problem that I had.

ADV SANDI: When you spoke with Mr Khumalo and you told him that some items had been stolen from the vehicle, one of them being documents containing sensitive security information, what was his reaction? Would you say he was as concerned as you were about these security documents?

MR KALI: Yes, I did inform him about the pamphlets, but he did not present himself as a worried person.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Kali, perhaps on my colleague's question, you should distinguish between sensitive security information and pamphlets. They were not the same, or were they the same?

MR KALI: No, these are two different things. The important documents that I am talking about were the ones in the bag, for example they contained information about forthcoming meetings and they actually contained the programmes for meetings, etc. These are the things that I am talking about.

ADV SANDI: Did you tell Mr Khumalo that those were some of the documents that had been stolen in the car, documents setting out plans for meetings and places where such meetings were going to be held?

MR KALI: Yes, I did.

ADV SANDI: And when you testified in your evidence-in-chief you said you were very much concerned about the fact that these were some of the documents that had been stolen from the car, that feeling of yours, would you say Mr Khumalo shared it? Did he have the same feeling as you, pertaining specifically to those security related documents?

MR KALI: I am not in a position to pronounce on that. One other concern that I had in my mind, was the fact that some of the documents had my residential address and my ID. You see, the pamphlets pertaining to the organisation could have been, you know, handled in a different way because they could have rescheduled or do something else, but in my case, I was not in a position to provide security for my family. But the organisation could easily solve the security problem by rescheduling or doing something else. But in my case they could have easily gone to the same address and wipe out my family. That was my major concern.

You see, the security problem was not so much in my mind.

ADV SANDI: Should I understand you to say that you did not really have a detailed conversation with Mr Khumalo when you gave him this report, he was in a hurry and this was something like ten days before the elections, everyone was very busy? Is that the position here?

MR KALI: You see, I was not reporting to Mr Khumalo directly. I used to report to Frank directly. But this doesn't presuppose that I would not report to Mr Khumalo. I instead informed Frank in detail about what transpired. But at the time when I spoke to him, I did make indications, I don't know whether he had already had this information prior to my meeting him or not.

ADV SANDI: Thank you very much. Thank you Chair.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Kali, you have made several references to the leadership, that you reported to the leadership, leadership knew about it. Who are the people that you include in your reference to leadership that were there at the Regional Office? Is it only Frank and Mr Khumalo or were there others?

MR KALI: Yes, there are others.

ADV BOSMAN: Could you give us the names please?

MR KALI: Mr Robert McBride, Vusi Gunene as well as Mondle Gungebele.

ADV BOSMAN: And they were all there on the Sunday? On the Sunday of the incident?

MR KALI: They were not working on Sundays, but they would come and go.

ADV BOSMAN: On that Sunday of the incident, who were the leadership that you had been in contact with, who knew about this?

MR KALI: Before or actually on Sunday?

ADV BOSMAN: Only on the Sunday, you said leadership knew about this incident, they had more or less by implication authorised you to do what you did?

MR KALI: I did not say unequivocally that they authorised me, I informed them that my vehicle had been broken into and these are the people responsible. I went to the police station to lay the charge, etc. They were only appreciative of the fact that I went to the police station and I produced case numbers. I cannot say that they gave me that authorisation.

ADV BOSMAN: Let's try again. Just listen to my question. I understand that you had given this information to members of the leadership. I want to know, on the Sunday, who were the members of the leadership that you had given this information or part of this information, to?

MR KALI: Mr Khumalo and Robert McBride, Vusi Gunene also came. I cannot recall the names of the others.

ADV BOSMAN: Okay. Now, the sensitive information that you were referring to, I am just asking, didn't you carry this sort of information on your person, instead of letting it lay around, you were a trained man?

MR KALI: Yes, the information was always in my person, but that particular instance, it did not occur to me that in that split of a second or split of a minute, whilst I was in the shop, they could break into the vehicle. It just did not occur to me that on leaving Fontana, the car would have been broken into.

ADV BOSMAN: When you went to Ngubane's apartment where he worked, or the building where he worked, in your evidence-in-chief you said that you asked him about the items of clothing and linen that had been stolen. Didn't you raise the question of the documents that had been stolen, with him?

MR KALI: Yes, I did.

ADV BOSMAN: At what stage did you raise it with him?

MR KALI: Upon arrival, when we went to see him for the first time, that was on Sunday evening. That is at the time when I was in the company of Temba, when Temba said to Mr Ngubane, "these are the people, Mr Ngubane, give them the things" and he said we should not involve him, and I told him that the boys claim to have sold him bags containing, a bag containing papers, and he refused knowledge.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you. The reason why I ask the question was because in your evidence-in-chief you concentrated on the items that were stolen, you did not then mention the documents, in your conversation with Mr Ngubane.

MR KALI: My apology on that one, but I did enquire about the bag because he was the last person to be in possession of the bag. I indicated that I would have been pleased, had the boys said they burnt the contents of the bag, but they said they just gave the whole bag to Mr Ngubane.

ADV BOSMAN: Yes, and then there is just one other aspect that I would like to get clarity on. This is the chronological sequence of events. At what time did you and Frank go to Soweto?

MR KALI: It was on Sunday, in the evening.

ADV BOSMAN: More or less a time?

MR KALI: It could have been around seven, seven o'clock because we had just come back with Mr Ngubane, where he was working. They told us he starts work at six. We went to the Regional Office, spent some time at the reception and we went to Hillbrow to look for this other young man and on coming back, we then drove to Soweto. It could have been around seven o'clock, yes.

ADV BOSMAN: At what time did you last see Mr Khumalo?

MR KALI: Which Khumalo?

ADV BOSMAN: Your senior, Mr Khumalo who had told you to take the boys to the police station? Mr Africa Khumalo.

MR KALI: After telling me what to do, he left. That was just before I left for Soweto with Frank.

ADV BOSMAN: Right. Now, if I can just take you back, this is what has been concerning me all the time. Mr Khumalo told you to take them back to the police station, and thereafter you left with Frank. Are you sure of that now?

MR KALI: Yes, I would say so, even though I cannot recall exactly, but at least that is how it happened. Mr Khumalo told me what to do before I left for Soweto, that I am sure of.

ADV BOSMAN: Correct me if I am wrong, but my memory is that previously you said to me that you had made a mistake, Mr Khumalo told you to take them back after you came back with Frank?

MR KALI: That could have been a mistake on my part, because when we came back from Soweto with Frank, we found this other young men having fled, having gone to the police. When we came back from Soweto, we arrived at the same time as the police so that had I arrived earlier, I would have taken them to the police before the police arrived. We arrived at the same time as the police.

ADV BOSMAN: Just for clarity in my own mind, I am going to ask you a question which I have already asked you. I just want to ask you again to get the matter clear. Mr Khumalo tells you to take them to the police station, you told him that you were still going to look for Rasta and then you go off with Frank to Soweto, because he had a problem with his ex-girlfriend and his new girlfriend and the fact that the one had thrown boiling water at the other one. Now, once again, why was it so important for you to assist Frank with the personal problem, while you were under orders to wrap up this other situation now, and to get these young boys to the police station?

MR KALI: Yes, that gives me a problem, you know. I did indicate earlier on, before we adjourned, that I also had a problem with that. You see, I only came across this file yesterday. I only came across this bundle yesterday and when looking at this young man who fled to the police and our going to Soweto, that doesn't give me any satisfaction, it gives me suspicions instead, because they said this young man ran away. When I enquired from this young man, he says he informed the people who were escorting him, that he wanted to go and buy some food. I just had a problem with that, how could they let him loose and allow him to run away, because I was alone in this trying to gather information about this whole thing.

They allowed this young man to flee. You see, had I been present, I would have stopped and informed the police as he was running away, what that was all about, but they told me the young man had left with the police, that also confused me.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Kali, I think you have missed the import of my question, but I won't take it any further. My concern is that I don't understand why when you were involved in such a serious investigation, you went off to Soweto for a while without attending to that very serious problem where you had orders to return them to the police. But I won't take that any further, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination Mr Nyawuza?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR NYAWUZA: Only a few questions. Mr Kali, you are subsequently arrested, at some stage you are made to make statements, what was the attitude of the leadership, what is it that they said to you?

MR KALI: They said we were not going to be arrested, instead we were making warning statements, which warning statements are contained in the bundle, but finally I was told that I was going to be suspended and I spoke to the then Chairperson of the ANC, Tokyo Sexwale who said that matter was going to be addressed after the elections. We should, they advised me to admit wrong doing.

MR NYAWUZA: So you were asked to accept responsibility of this act by the leadership?

MR KALI: Correct.

MR NYAWUZA: No further questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

ADV SANDI: Sorry Chair, there is just one or two questions which I thought I would put to the applicant, just concerning the vehicle. Who was responsible for the general maintenance and upkeep of that vehicle, that kombi which you said belonged to your mother?

MR KALI: Myself.

ADV SANDI: If you took out ANC people for a trip, would you have to put in petrol?

MR KALI: No, the organisation took care of that.

ADV SANDI: The other thing which I think I should ask you, sometimes hierarchy, if there was any kind of hierarchy at all, just between yourself and Frank, was Mr Frank one of the people who could give you instructions?

MR KALI: Correct.

ADV SANDI: Now, when he asked you to accompany him to Soweto, did you regard that as, was that an instruction or a request, how did you understand it?

MR KALI: That was a request because he did not force me.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Kali, you are excused.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nyawuza, is there any other evidence?

MR NYAWUZA: Yes Chairperson, we would like to call Mr Robert McBride.

CHAIRPERSON: Can Mr McBride come forward. Let him sit where the applicant is sitting, behind that microphone there, then it is easier. Just ask your client to move.

MR NYAWUZA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr McBride, won't you remain standing whilst that microphone is on, so that we can just record you, you can just come a bit closer and just give your full names for the record.

MR McBRIDE: Robert John McBride.

ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: (affirm)

CHAIRPERSON: Please be seated. Mr Nyawuza?

EXAMINATION BY MR NYAWUZA: Mr McBride, how do you know the applicant before this Committee today?

MR McBRIDE: I met him at the end of 1992 or the beginning of 1993, whilst I was co-ordinating Defence Units on the East-Rand.

MR NYAWUZA: In what way did you meet him?

MR McBRIDE: I think at some stage the leadership, the local leadership, introduced me to him as one of the people who were assisting to a great deal in the defence of the communities, after attacks by Inkatha and other State surrogate forces.

MR NYAWUZA: What was your involvement in the whole thing?

MR McBRIDE: I would co-ordinate them, I drew up a Code of Conduct and I also supplied them with weapons on various occasions. Also I gave training and I assisted in tactics, in advising on tactics.

MR NYAWUZA: Was he one of the people that you trained?

MR McBRIDE: Yes, he was.

MR NYAWUZA: Would you tell us about him?

MR McBRIDE: Well, for me he was one of the most disciplined, brave and - I can say I was very impressed with him, to such an extent that it was I who introduced him to the Head of our Security, Mr Khumalo, Africa Khumalo, on the basis of him being brave, disciplined and willing to sacrifice himself.

MR NYAWUZA: There is testimony before this Committee that you were advised of the happenings of the 16th and 17th of April, were you so advised, Mr McBride?

MR McBRIDE: If I recall correctly, I was telephoned and I think I was at home, that there was some problem at the office. In fact I think I spoke to the applicant himself and I had asked him whether he had taken the people to the police station and he replied in the positive, "indeed so", and I asked him "did you have a CR number" and he said "yes, I have a CR number". And I said "look, I will come over immediately". Unfortunately by the time that I arrived at the office, the people, the police had arrived there already and had taken the people away. The reason why I was approached was that we had a data base on suspicious people and suspicious incidents, because I was the Head of the Peace Desk which monitored violence in the area. We also together with Mr Africa Khumalo who was our senior in Security, co-ordinated our information. We also did an investigation at some stage within Hillbrow itself, finding addresses of hit-squad members. That is why I was contacted, but unfortunately when I came there, the situation was over already.

MR NYAWUZA: And during the telephone call between yourself and the applicant, did you perhaps condone what he was saying, or did you agree with what he was doing at the time?

MR McBRIDE: Well, if I can recall correctly, I said to him "wait there, I am coming now, and I will come and assist." By implication, I didn't tell him to release them. I think in my own mind, if I can recall correctly, I wanted to question them myself, because we had been subject to a number of attacks prior to that, which clearly, we were being targeted.

MR NYAWUZA: Mr McBride, if you were in the same situation as the applicant, where there is information before you that one of the people that has been apprehended is an IFP member, what would you have done?

MR McBRIDE: I think before I answer directly, I must give you the context of what was happening. During that period, the IFP was first in elections then out of elections, then they were for peace, then they attacked us, and as far as I was concerned at that stage, the IFP was not only an opposition political party, it was an enemy of us and we had engaged in military activity against them and they had attacked communities that we defended.

If I heard it was an IFP person, I would want to know what was his business with our information. I wouldn't have even gone as far as going to the police, because I didn't trust the police in the first place. I have witnessed the police co-operating with Inkatha inner tracks on the East-Rand. So I mean the applicant must be commended for actually going, taking the time of actually going to the police. I think another aspect, we were in a state of limbo. Although there were some joint operations and operations between us and the police, we still saw the police as people to be suspicious of and in fact, our enemies. I wouldn't have gone so far.

MR NYAWUZA: If you were in the applicant's shoes, you go to the police station, you report that you car had been broken into, a very sensitive material has been taken and the police officer say to you "see to finish", what would you do?

MR McBRIDE: Well, I wouldn't be surprised that is the type of treatment that we received from the police then. I wouldn't have left the matter there, I would have investigated it myself, because the very likes of our leadership and our communities, which were loyal to us, were at stake. I wouldn't have left it there, I would have investigated it myself - probably in the same way as the applicant.

MR NYAWUZA: So Mr McBride, in essence you say what the applicant did was commissioned by the seniors to him in that you were one of them, is that so?

MR McBRIDE: Well, let me put it to you this way, I wouldn't have condemned his action. I know there exists a letter somewhere where the ANC says it didn't sanction, formally sanction the activities of the applicant, but that is just a technicality.

CHAIRPERSON: And seen from the perspective of the applicant himself, given this situation that obtained, he says that as far as he was concerned, there was implied authority? What would your comment be on that?

MR McBRIDE: Sorry, what I can say is that he would never act without any kind of order or sanction or go-ahead from the leadership. That is why I recommended him to work with Mr Khumalo. Mr Khumalo is very strict on discipline. The only people who worked with him were people who were disciplined. In fact that is what he sought from people, so he would never act out of his own.

So whether the sanction was implicit or explicit, is irrelevant. I know the applicant and I can say clearly that he acted in the full belief that he was doing the right thing.

MR NYAWUZA: To take the belief further, Mr McBride, would you state that by him having taken the people that he had apprehended to the Regional Offices of the ANC, would that a bearing on the implied authority?

MR McBRIDE: Well, it is a clear indication to me that he is taking him to the movement. If he wanted to do something out of personal reasons, he would take them to some dark corner, if he was that type of person, but he wasn't. He took them to the office and he phoned me.

MR NYAWUZA: Thank you Chairperson, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any questions, Ms Mtanga?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS MTANGA; Just one question Chairperson. Mr McBride, in the circumstances of this incident, would you say it would have been expected of the leadership in the office to have authorised Mr Kali to apprehend these people and bring them into the office?

MR McBRIDE: No, certainly not. We, it is expected of him yes, to take decisions on his own initiative, which is regarding the security of the organisation and of the communities that we protect. There was, in fact on many occasions I had taken decisions which I only reported afterwards, after taking those decisions. For example if, in those days, should we move weapons and units from one section to the other, I didn't have to go and report it to Tokyo, in fact if I did report to Tokyo, he would probably have told me "are you mad, I am busy now, why don't you take decisions on your own, you are on the ground". In the context, as we were all busy with our different departments, and it was a time of crisis and indeed madness in the country, it would not be expected of him to report on every single decision he takes in the field.

MS MTANGA: I have no further questions Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ma'am. Panel?

ADV BOSMAN: Mr McBride, the applicant testified to the effect that he was told to take responsibility for his actions and that the matter would be attended to after the elections?

MR McBRIDE: Yes, Ma'am, in fact I was present in a meeting between the applicant, myself and our leader from the province, Tokyo Sexwale, where I was told that the matter would be sorted out, in my presence, after the elections and he has to be the fall guy now and take responsibility. I was in that meeting. In fact his suspension was not even constitutional. The PEC of which I was a member, had to take the decision.

I raised the issue, but they said "we will sort it out after the election".

ADV BOSMAN: Was the matter ever sorted out?

MR McBRIDE: No, Ma'am. Sorry Ma'am, no Ma'am, it wasn't sorted out.

ADV BOSMAN: So has there never been any reference to it again?

MR McBRIDE: No, Ma'am, except on occasion I phoned Tokyo and I asked him "what is the situation" and he said I should contact the people at the office. Hence the letter that I think, must be in your bundle.

ADV BOSMAN: You have never followed it up?

MR McBRIDE: I followed it up, that is where the letter came about.

ADV BOSMAN: Yes, but I mean you never followed up the letter, you left it at that then?

MR McBRIDE: The letter, well, this is the next step after the letter, you see, the Truth Commission.

ADV BOSMAN: Okay, fine, but internally you did nothing?

MR McBRIDE: Well, I didn't, I didn't get the feeling that people had enough time or they were interested in assisting the applicant. He was one of the people that I worked with, we shared experiences together so I was not going to let him down, I was going to make sure that the process went the whole hog.

ADV BOSMAN: Maybe this is an unfair question of mine, and if you decline to answer it, I would understand. My perception now is that the applicant is being let down by the leadership of the ANC?

MR McBRIDE: Well, I think that is a fair comment to make, except that perhaps they were too busy in government and in the delivery of services. I, if I am still regarded as leadership, I haven't let him down. That is all I am interested in now.

ADV BOSMAN: Perhaps I didn't formulate my comment properly, at this stage, it is either the applicant wilfully disobeyed an order or that the leadership has let him down? It is either the one or the other, I haven't made up my mind about it?

MR McBRIDE: Let me take it a bit further, Ma'am. I think it is a bit of a sensitive question, because it involves people being held against their will. It can be classed in a similar situation as maybe what happenedPirieuatro, and hence it is a sensitive thing and people don't want to touch it and there is political profiles to uphold. For me, the truth is important and what is honourable, must be done. He was one of our best people, and he acted even though it might have been implicit, with authority of the organisation and his intentions were always honourable intentions. Maybe that is the reason why.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

ADV SANDI: I don't have a question, Mr Chairman, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination Mr Nyawuza?

MR NYAWUZA: No re-examination, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr McBride, you are excused, thank you.

MR McBRIDE: Thank you sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Anything else?

MR NYAWUZA: No, that would be the case for the applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Mtanga?

MS MTANGA: Chairperson, I intend to call Mr Africa Khumalo.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Khumalo? Can Mr Khumalo come forward and just take up a seat in front of one of these microphones on the left. Just switch it on as well, thank you. Can you give us your full names for the record, please?

MR KHUMALO: Oupa Shadrack Khumalo, also known as Africa.

OUPA SHADRACK KHUMALO: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Please be seated. Ms Mtanga?

EXAMINATION BY MS MTANGA: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Khumalo, can you explain to the Committee what was your position at the ANC Regional Office in 1994, when this incident took place?

MR KHUMALO: I was the Regional Head of the Department of Intelligence and Security of the ANC.

MS MTANGA: Was the applicant under your supervision?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, he was a member of that department.

MS MTANGA: On page 59 of the bundle, there is a statement made by you to the police in 1994, I would like you to have a look at it and confirm whether that is the statement that you made to the police? It is page 59 to 65, it is the full statement. Is that your signature on page 64?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, it is.

MS MTANGA: Mr Khumalo, I would like to refer you to that affidavit that you made to the police and together with the letter sent by the ANC to our office, where it stated that it regarded this incident as politically motivated, but it didn't sanction such an incident. I would like you to explain to the Committee what is your attitude as the person who Headed the Security of the ANC Regional Office at that time. What was your attitude towards the actions taken by the applicant in handling this incident?

MR KHUMALO: There is a problem here that I have with the letter where it says the leadership did not sanction it. The leadership has never been engaged in any operational matter. The member, his vehicle was broken into and he decided to report the matter to the police and the police did not take action, and he decided to act on his own. I think in as far as the action, there is nothing wrong that the member has done, except that he did not take those criminals to the police.

MS MTANGA: Mr Khumalo, in the light of the evidence of the applicant that he was under the impression that the police have allowed him, or had permitted him to apprehend the culprits, were you aware of that permission that he thought he had from the police?

MR KHUMALO: What has happened is this, that when I established the presence of these people in that cage, I immediately gave instructions that these people must be taken to the police and I immediately went to a meeting because I was there, I was attending a meeting at the Shell House, at that time.

MS MTANGA: In the events that you were aware that the applicant had this permission from the police, or he thought he had the permission from the police, would you have still demanded him to take these people to the police?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, because where my concern was is the fact that we had these people at our own offices, and when, later it was established that they are members of the IFP, or one of them was a member of the IFP, then that even raised more concerns in the sense that the security of the place is compromised.

MS MTANGA: According to the applicant you told him to take these people back to the police, at the time you told him this, that was about after seven o'clock or at about seven o'clock, and at this time you had been for a meeting?

MR KHUMALO: No, I don't think he is correct there, because I met, I think it was Jeff Kwembu, because I think it was around to seven, my meeting at Shell House was starting at seven, so I met Jeff Kwembu. I instructed, told, informed Jeff Kwembu to inform Mxolisi that he must take these people to the police. I think there is a mistake here, because at that time, I didn't meet him, he wasn't around the office at that time.

MS MTANGA: So you never specifically told him to take these people, you told somebody else to tell him?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, even for a second time, I spoke to I think it was Madiba, when I learnt that those people were still there.

MS MTANGA: Did the applicant personally report to you about the incident?

MR KHUMALO: That was after the police came to the building, that was the only time that we had the chance to talk about the incident.

ADV SANDI: Sorry Ms Mtanga, can I just for clarity, which Madiba is this? You have mentioned Madiba?

MR KHUMALO: No, not the former President. He was one of the members of the Security Department.

MS MTANGA: My last question to you Mr Khumalo, the fact that when you came back from the meeting, on your affidavit on page 61, paragraph 20, you indicate that you came back from the meeting at about quarter to eleven in the evening, and you still found these people locked up by the applicant? In the light of the instructions that you had given earlier on, did you regard this as a failure to obey your orders and instructions, as someone holding some authority in the office?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, that was my initial reaction, but when I got the explanation further from him, that there was one suspect, outstanding suspect that he was looking for, that his intention was to apprehend the last suspect and then to take all the suspects to the police, so when I arrived from Shell House, the police were already there.

MS MTANGA: My final question, I put a question to Mr McBride about the powers that you Security people had, did they rely on being given instructions or could they have, could they decide, did they have discretion to deal with situations as they saw fit, or what was the position?

MR KHUMALO: One of the things that we trained our members was to exercise, was to have initiatives. That, in any given situation, they must be able to take decisions, any operational decision they've got to take it without any reference to any senior person.

MS MTANGA: That is the end of my questions, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ma'am. Mr Nyawuza, any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NYAWUZA: Yes, only two

questions. Mr Khumalo, having been advised about the motor vehicle and some stuff that had been stolen from the motor vehicle, amongst which documents that related to the ANC's security movements, would you today regard that as a political objective, after having found out that one of the people that were involved in the whole thing, was an IFP member?

MR KHUMALO: Definitely. My concern came about later when we established that one of the fellows involved, was an IFP member, and considering that the vehicle that Mr Kali was driving, had ANC stickers around and those posters, it really became a concern that at the end, one of those people, yes, I think one, happened to be a member of the IFP.

MR NYAWUZA: The last question Mr Khumalo, would you have, would you today say that Mr Kali acted on implied authority, did he think that maybe he had been given authority by the leadership, amongst them, Mr Robert McBride when he did explain to them that this is the situation that I am in and I intend doing A, B, C and from there I will then take these guys back. Would you regard that as an authority that might have been implied by the leadership not taking action, not saying to him "don't do that, stop that and do A, B and C"?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, well, from his explanation of what the situation was, and the fact that he says that I am looking for this one suspect, one remaining suspect, the fact that nobody from the seniors or from the leadership, senior person like Mr McBride was also, who was also a member of the PEC then, without him saying "no, don't go", I would personally agree that there was some form of authority.

That is why at the beginning, my only concern was the issue of who sanctions, who gives authority on matters like this. You are faced with a situation, you take decisions, those decisions being right or wrong in that given situation. At the end of the day, whatever decision you sort of take, you are taking it on the positive side to achieve positive results, rather than wanting to impact negatively on that.

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Khumalo, you have known the applicant before the Committee today and I believe he was working under you. How would you rate him discipline wise?

MR KHUMALO: Mr Kali was one of the outstanding members of my Department. He was one individual that you could rely on, one individual that you could at any time of the day send within any situation and expect him to act responsibly.

MR NYAWUZA: The fact that Mr Kali would come and use his mother's motor vehicle, what did that tell you about him, what did that tell you about his allegiance to the movement?

MR KHUMALO: The man was committed to the just cause that we were engaged in, and that kind of commitment was also seen in the fact that we had a serious problem of vehicles at that point in time, that he would go to that extend to provide and assist his organisation with the family vehicle. That in itself describes the kind of person the applicant is, and his commitment to the cause of his organisation.

MR NYAWUZA: No further questions, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Just following up on what Mr Nyawuza asked you, Mr Khumalo, in these circumstances that prevailed here, would you have expected the applicant, given the way that you know him, would you have expected him to act in the best interest of the organisation and its security?

MR KHUMALO: Absolutely sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Does the panel have any other questions?

ADV BOSMAN: No questions, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination?

MS MTANGA: No Chairperson, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Khumalo, thank you very much, you are excused.

MR KHUMALO: Thank you honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Any other evidence that you are tendering?

MS MTANGA: No Chairperson, that is all from me.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Nyawuza, on the merits of the application?

MR NYAWUZA IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Chairperson. Chairperson and honourable Committee members, evidence is before us, this matter started off as a common criminal case, where somebody breaks into anybody's car, but if we take it further and look at the car that had been broken into, it was a very conspicuous car, it had all the emblems of the ANC, all the things pointed to the motor vehicle belonging to the ANC.

In accordance with the testimony of the applicant, whoever broke into that motor vehicle had something against the ANC. Even the documents that were taken from the said motor vehicle, were of a very sensitive nature. The applicant did not off hand take the matter into his own hand. He approached the authorities at the time, he went to the SAPS, got the case number, requested their assistance, but to no avail. He even had to for a few hours or days, request that he be enlisted as a reservist to see to it that justice is done, that the people that had broken into his motor vehicle, are brought to book. Further, he works in contact with the police, his investigations produce good and the fact, if the applicant was doing something that was not impliedly authorised by the leadership, Chairperson, he wouldn't have taken the people that he had apprehended to the Regional Headquarters of the ANC, he would have taken them somewhere else.

The evidence of Mr McBride speaks volumes about the applicant. The evidence of Mr Africa Khumalo says volumes as well about the applicant. The applicant was a very disciplined person, and whatever he did here, the fact that there is no disprove of the fact that he had two case numbers, that he had followed the law to the letter, shows that he did everything in order. We believe there was a political objective here in, in that one of the people that is subsequently apprehended by the applicant is an IFP member, and it is common cause that during the period, there was turmoil. There was conflict between the IFP and the ANC and that such sensitive documents had to disappear, it leads us to believing that yes, in fact, the IFP may to some extent have been involved.

That Mr Ngubane did not ultimately say yes, the documents were used here and there. We believe that there is full disclosure, the applicant does not deny having assaulted Mr Ngubane. The applicant does not deny having been part of the people that kidnapped Mr Ngubane. The applicant has not in his testimony denied that he had a firearm. He has disclosed everything before this Committee, in fact he even went a step further and said "I would wish the leadership to be here, to confirm that this is what happened". So I believe that he's got to be granted amnesty with the submission that he has made today. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Nyawuza. Any submissions, Ms Mtanga?

MS MTANGA: No Chairperson, I would like to leave this in your hands.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. That concludes the formal part of the application, the panel will consider the matter and we will endeavour to produce a decision on the matter as soon as circumstances permit that to happen, at which stage we will all of the parties with an interest in the matter, know of the outcome of the application.

Under those circumstances, the matter, the decision in the matter will be reserved. We thank you for your assistance Mr Nyawuza and you could be excused if you so wish.

MR NYAWUZA: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: We will take the lunch adjournment at this stage and we will reconvene then at two o'clock.

ON RESUMPTION:

CHAIRPERSON: Good afternoon. We are going to proceed. The next matter that we have on the roll concern the applications of Morris Kgoete, amnesty reference AM0145/96, Jeffrey Masuku, AM0169/96, Jacob Manasoe, AM1299/96 and Johannes Ntshabeleng, AM2982/96. The panel is constituted as would be apparent from the record. The Leader of Evidence remains, we are happy to say, Ms Mtanga. On behalf of the applicants, Mr Richard, please put yourself on the record.

MR RICHARD: I appear for the applicants, A.J. Richard.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Richard. And then on behalf of the interested parties, the victims?

MS VILAKAZI: L.E. Vilakazi, I appear on behalf of the victims.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ma'am. Mr Richard, is there anything that you are going to put on record or do you want to proceed with the evidence?

MR RICHARD: I will proceed to call the applicant. I call, I believe it is applicant number three, Mr Masuku, applicant number two, to give evidence first.

CHAIRPERSON: Number 2, very well.

MR RICHARD: The applicant has no objection to being sworn in.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. It is Mr Masuku. Will you please switch on your microphone and stand to take the oath.

JEFFREY MASUKU: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Please be seated. Mr Richard?

EXAMINATION BY MR RICHARD: As the Chairperson pleases. Mr Masuku, in your application for amnesty you give your place of birth as Tafelkop, is that not correct?

MR MASUKU: That is correct.

MR RICHARD: Now, tell me, in and during 1990, were you a supporter of any political organisation or party?

MR MASUKU: Yes, correct, Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: Which party was that?

MR MASUKU: The ANC, the Youth League.

MR RICHARD: Now when did you become associated with that organisation?

MR MASUKU: In 1987 I was a member of SAYCO and then when the ANC was unbanned, I became a member of the ANC Youth League.

MR RICHARD: For the sake of the record, what is SAYCO?

MR MASUKU: That is a Youth Organisation which represented the ANC whilst it was banned in South Africa. It was formed in 1987.

MR RICHARD: Now, what do you know about Self Defence Units, what are they?

MR MASUKU: It is one of the structures which were formed by the ANC Youth League with the intention to protect the community against crime, and again people who were against liberation movements like the ANC.

MR RICHARD: When you say protect the community against crime, what do you mean?

MR MASUKU: I am saying that people who were committing crimes against the community and again those people who were killing members and supporters of the ANC, the structure was formed to protect those people.

MR RICHARD: Were you ever associated with the Self Defence Units?

MR MASUKU: Yes, that is correct Chairperson, I was a member of the Self Defence Unit.

MR RICHARD: Where was this Unit operating?

MR MASUKU: It was operating in Mooihoek and Tsimanyane.

MR RICHARD: How many people were in the Unit?

MR MASUKU: I am not sure of the number Chairperson, but we were more than 50. Those were registered members of Self Defence Unit.

MR RICHARD: Now, you and three other applicants make application for amnesty. Were the other three applicants associated with the same Unit, the same organisation structure?

MR MASUKU: That is correct Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: When did you meet your other three co-applicants?

MR MASUKU: Do you mean before today or before the incident?

MR RICHARD: Before the incident?

MR MASUKU: I met with them early in 1992 when the ANC Youth League was formed.

MR RICHARD: In 1990 when?

MR MASUKU: In February 1990.

MR RICHARD: And were they also members of the ANC affiliated organisations?

MR MASUKU: Yes. That is correct Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: Now, what was your function within the Self Defence Unit, did you have any special position or status or office to execute?

MR MASUKU: I did not have a position in the structures, but I was just an ordinary member of the SDU. I did not have any office.

MR RICHARD: Now, in your papers you make reference to a comrade Mokoena. What were his full names?

MR MASUKU: It is comrade Kayne Mokoena.

MR RICHARD: Where did he come from?

MR MASUKU: He was a resident of Mooihoek.

MR RICHARD: And what did he do to make a living?

MR MASUKU: I did not know Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: Was he associated with taxi's or anything like that?

MR MASUKU: No Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: Now, was he politically affiliated to any organisation?

MR MASUKU: He was one of the supporters of the ANC and then again, he was one of the leaders of the community in Mooihoek.

MR RICHARD: You mentioned in your application that he died. When did he die?

MR MASUKU: Mr Mokoena did not die Chairperson, maybe we are talking about another person.

MR RICHARD: Somebody was killed by the name of Mokoena?

MR MASUKU: That is Mokoena, not Mokoena. That is Mokoena.

MR RICHARD: I apologise for my pronunciation. I will go through this again, comrade Mokoena, where did he come from, not Mokoena, Mokoena?

MR MASUKU: He is a resident of Mooihoek.

MR RICHARD: What political affiliation did he have?

MR MASUKU: ANC.

MR RICHARD: And what structures did he belong to?

MR MASUKU: He was a member of the ANC motherbody. He was one of the senior members within the ANC.

MR RICHARD: What sort of livelihood did he pursue?

MR MASUKU: He was a taxi owner.

MR RICHARD: Now, when did he die?

MR MASUKU: He died on the 10th of August 1990.

MR RICHARD: How was he killed?

MR MASUKU: He was killed on his way from Tafelkop to Mooihoek, he was attacked by the commuters in his taxi.

MR RICHARD: Did people know who killed him?

MR MASUKU: There were three suspects whose names were exposed, Philip Makofani, he is one of them and the other two suspects.

MR RICHARD: Now, you make mention in your application of taxi's and violence. In your Mooihoek, Tafelkop area, was taxi violence prevalent or hardly known?

MR MASUKU: Correct Chairperson, there was taxi violence.

MR RICHARD: How many incidents during 1990 were there that you can recall?

MR MASUKU: I remember of three incidents.

MR RICHARD: When were those incidents?

MR MASUKU: They happened before this particular incident that we are concerned with.

MR RICHARD: That is before the death of comrade Mokoena or was that one of the three incidents?

MR MASUKU: Correct Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: Now, against who was the violence perpetrated? Was it against the members of the ANC or any other political parties, the taxi violence?

MR MASUKU: It was against people who were taxi owners and many of them were members of the ANC, who were affected by the taxi violence.

MR RICHARD: When you use the word many, there were three incidents that you talk about, how many individuals were affected by the incidents?

MR MASUKU: In this three incidents which I have mentioned, three of them were members of the ANC, the victims were members of the ANC. Those are the ones that I remember.

MR RICHARD: Were there any other incidents of taxi violence where the victims weren't members of the ANC?

MR MASUKU: Correct Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: Does that mean yes or no?

MR MASUKU: Yes.

MR RICHARD: So there were incidents in your area where victims weren't members of the ANC in the taxi violence, have I understood your answer correctly?

MR MASUKU: That is correct Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: How many individuals would have been affected by those non-ANC victims?

MR MASUKU: I remember one incident where the victim was an ordinary citizen, was not affiliated to any political organisation.

MR RICHARD: When you describe the taxi industry in your papers, you made comments of who owned the taxi's. Who owned Mr Makena's taxi, your comrade who died?

INTERPRETER: Please repeat your question.

MR RICHARD: You made comment in your amnesty application of the ownership of taxi's. You give the impression that various people, other than the drivers of the taxi's, owned the taxi's. I take an example, Mr Mokoena who was killed, who owned his taxi, how did it work?

MR MASUKU: Mr Mokoena owned those taxi's. He had two, he had a panelvan and a microbus. They were his own.

MR RICHARD: Now how many other taxi's were operating in the area, were there lots or only a few?

MR MASUKU: I am not sure of the number, but there were more than 10 taxi's that operated in that route, including the one belonging to Mr Mokoena and Mr Mafehla and others.

MR RICHARD: Who do you think owned the majority of those taxi's?

MR MASUKU: In Mooihoek the person who owned the most taxi's was Mr Mokoena, because he owned two and others owned one each.

MR RICHARD: Do you think there were other nominees who owned taxi's, like policemen or white people or ...

MR MASUKU: That is correct Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: How many do you think were owned by people other than the taxi drivers in the area, working in the area?

MR MASUKU: From five to six taxi's, which I suspected that they are registered by people other than the people who seemed to own them. After a certain period, I would see them driving taxi's. I believe that those taxi's contributed to the taxi violence, because those people were involved in the taxi violence.

MR RICHARD: In what way did they contribute to the taxi violence?

MR MASUKU: The people who were killed in the taxi, during the taxi violence, were people who struggled to own those taxi's. The people who were involved in the taxi violence, whom we suspected that they were financed by other financiers, other than themselves. Mr Mokoena used that route for a long time, and the community knew him for a long time, that he is the main source of the transport services in the area. Then thereafter other people entered the industry, that is when the taxi violence started and people were shot whilst they were using those taxi's. We suspected that there are people who were used to kill members of the ANC who were helping the community with the transport services.

MR RICHARD: Now at page 43 of the bundle, in support of your application, you wrote out a long statement. The sentence, midway down the page reads -

Now, do you remember writing that sentence? The one that I have just read?

MR MASUKU: May you please repeat that sentence because I don't have page 43.

MR RICHARD: It starts here at page 43 -

there you say you suspected taxi owners to be in cahoots with the former government. You have given various statements so far, is this, are those the reasons why you believed that the taxi industry was in cahoots with the former government?

MR MASUKU: That is correct Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: Were there any other factors that led you to this belief?

MR MASUKU: Yes Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: What were they?

MR MASUKU: Other reasons which made me to suspect other taxi owners were in cahoots with the former government to kill other taxi owners, was that most of the taxi owners who were affected by the taxi violence, were, many of them were members of the ANC. And then again even people who were killed, are supporters of the ANC. That is why I suspected that those taxi owners were responsible for killings and the taxi violence, were in cahoots with the former government.

MR RICHARD: You were a member of the Self Defence Unit in the area, what did you see your function in relation to the taxi violence, as a member of the Self Defence Unit?

MR MASUKU: My duty was to make sure that the community, or rather that our community and particularly members and supporters of the ANC, are protected from the taxi violence, and when they commuted to work, they would travel safely. Then again the attackers of those members, are not tolerated.

MR RICHARD: What would you do to protect the community? What did you do to protect the ANC taxi drivers, physically, practically?

MR MASUKU: If it was known that a particular person was responsible, it was our duty as members of the Youth and particularly Self Defence Units, to search for that particular person and bring him or her before the community where he would be charged.

MR RICHARD: A different point, do you remember the name Joseph Pirie and Frans M. Magutla?

MR MASUKU: Yes, I do.

MR RICHARD: Who were they?

MR MASUKU: Joseph Pirie was the Commander of the Self Defence Unit in Mooihoek and Frank Magutla was a supporter of the ANC and again was a leader in the community and he was helping the Headman to resolve community issues.

MR RICHARD: Now, there was another man, Mr Frans Magadema, do you remember him?

MR MASUKU: Yes.

MR RICHARD: What did he, what was he in the community at the time?

MR MASUKU: He was one of Mr Matlala's assistants, he was a Headman at Mooihoek.

MR RICHARD: Were these people in authority over the Self Defence Unit of which you were a member?

MR MASUKU: Yes. They had control.

MR RICHARD: You mentioned that comrade Mokoena died on the 10th of August 1990?

MR MASUKU: That is correct.

MR RICHARD: After his death, what happened amongst the community? Did people discuss it, if so, when and where?

MR MASUKU: On the 12th of August 1990, it was a Sunday, it was in the afternoon, a meeting was called.

MR RICHARD: Who called the meeting?

MR MASUKU: The leaders of the community. It was Mr Kayne Mokoena, Mr Magutla, Mr Mahadima and Joseph Pirie and the place of the meeting was at Mr Matlala's residence. We were given a report at the meeting about comrade Makena's death and how he died. According to Mr Kayne Mokoena who was Chairing that meeting, because the Headman, Mr Magube was not present. He explained that Mokoena was killed when he was coming from work, he was killed at Moyideng and we managed to get the names of the suspected killers. Those who were suspected to have taken part in the killing of Mr Mokoena. The names that we received were Philip Makofani, Maredick, Samuel Motlala, the three of them resided at Moyideng. This information was passed over to comrade Pirie.

MR RICHARD: Were these three suspects a member of any political party?

MR MASUKU: I bear no knowledge of that, but they were not members of the ANC.

MR RICHARD: What did the meeting on the 12th, decide to do about them?

MR MASUKU: A decision was taken that the suspects be found and when they are found, they should come and appear before the meeting.

MR RICHARD: Sorry, carry on, I interrupted you, sorry.

MR MASUKU: They said we must inform Mr Magube as well that we managed to find the suspected people and we should not do anything before he was given the report.

MR RICHARD: Were you at the meeting?

MR MASUKU: I was present at the meeting on the 12th.

MR RICHARD: Were any of your co-applicants there on the 12th?

MR MASUKU: All of them were present.

MR RICHARD: And then, tell me was a certain Mr Philemon Masetla present as well?

MR MASUKU: He was present at the meeting.

MR RICHARD: Who is Philemon Masetla?

MR MASUKU: We also made an application for his death?

MR RICHARD: No, but what did he do at the time? How did he earn his living, what was Philemon Masetla, was he a butcher or a baker?

MR MASUKU: He had a pirate taxi, he was ranking.

MR RICHARD: Now, when I read that passage on page 43, I think it was, was he the pirate taxi owner that you were referring to?

MR MASUKU: That is correct.

MR RICHARD: Now, did anyone at that meeting on the 12th, point to Mr Philemon Masetla and say "you are implicated in Mr Makena's death"?

MR MASUKU: Nobody.

MR RICHARD: When did Mr Masetla become connected as a suspect?

MR MASUKU: After the three suspects were accosted, Philip Makofani and given information that they were hired by Mr Masetla to kill Mr Mokoena.

MR RICHARD: Who gave that, who received that information? Did you or somebody else?

MR MASUKU: The information was given to comrade Pirie who was the leader of the SDU.

MR RICHARD: Were you present when one of the suspects gave Mr Pirie that information?

MR MASUKU: I was not present.

MR RICHARD: When did you hear that that was the information that Mr Pirie had received?

MR MASUKU: We heard on the 15th of August.

MR RICHARD: When you say we heard, who is we, we is more than just you?

MR MASUKU: The people who attended the meeting on the 15th. There was another meeting held on the 15th. The intention of the meeting was to give a feedback about the search that was conducted on the night of the 12th.

MR RICHARD: Were you at that meeting?

MR MASUKU: On the 15th, yes.

MR RICHARD: Were your other co-applicants there as well?

MR MASUKU: Three were present, the fourth one joined later. We did not all arrive at the same time.

MR RICHARD: Who was the last to arrive?

MR MASUKU: That is Jacob Lesiba Manasoe.

MR RICHARD: Now, once Mr Pirie told you this is what he had been told by the three suspects, what did the meeting say?

MR MASUKU: We did not agree with what Mr Pirie was saying, not all of us agreed with what he was saying. It was then decided that we should go to a sangoma. That was the decision of the meeting, to go and get information about the suspects.

Three of the suspects whom we knew, or whom we suspected having taken part in the killing.

MR RICHARD: Who made the suggestion that a sangoma be consulted?

MR MASUKU: It is myself.

MR RICHARD: Was a sangoma consulted?

MR MASUKU: That is correct. We left for Tafelkop in search of Mr Ragetsu, who was one of the famous traditional doctors in the area and it was well known that he talks the truth. When we arrived his guards did not allow us to see him, even though we saw that he was present. We agreed and then we left. We left for Mrs Mapule Maludla's place and then she told us that she knew another sangoma and she took us to that sangoma.

MR RICHARD: Who spoke to that sangoma?

MR MASUKU: Comrade Joseph Pirie, Mrs Mapule Maludla, Mr Hendrik Mokoena, Mr Mokolo, that is (indistinct) father and several others, but we were not more than 10. That is those who went to talk to the sangoma.

MR RICHARD: Were you or any of the co-applicants with them when they talked to the sangoma?

MR MASUKU: No.

MR RICHARD: Where were you when they were talking to the sangoma?

MR MASUKU: We were left behind at the vehicles. Myself with Moses Gwete, we left for my aunt's place, together with Patrick Masetla. We went to my aunt's place to search for food.

MR RICHARD: Now tell me when the people came back from the sangoma, what did they tell you?

MR MASUKU: They did not tell us anything. Joseph Pirie said to us "let's get into the vehicles and leave". That is what we did without asking any questions.

MR RICHARD: And then what was the next instruction?

MR MASUKU: We arrived at Mooihoek and dashed straight to the school. When we arrived at the school, we were divided into groups. David Pirie took Mokoena and comrade (indistinct) got into another classroom. We knew them as leaders. The rest of us were left in the other room, and I left the room because it was very hot. After a few minutes I saw Mr Kayne Mokoena, Frans Magutla and Mr Moses Masetla. Mr Joseph Pirie came into the classroom where we were. We expected to hear what the sangoma had said and he explained to the people, he explained to all the comrades who were in the classroom that Mr Philemon Masetla was pointed out as the killer of comrade Mokoena. We were supposed to leave with him, that is the Youth, to go and get Mr Masetla from his home. We left with Mr Kayne Mokoena and Mr Masetla, for Mr Philemon Masetla's home. On our arrival ...

MR RICHARD: Just hold there, when you use the word we again, that is you and who else? Was it any of your co-applicants?

MR MASUKU: The co-accused were present when we left for Mr Masetla's place. All four of them were present.

MR RICHARD: Were all of you there to hear what was said when they came back to the classroom, that you should go and fetch Philemon Masetla?

MR MASUKU: That is correct.

MR RICHARD: Thank you, now carry on. You left the school, you and your co-applicants went with who?

MR MASUKU: We left with Mr Kayne Mokoena, Mr Mokoena and Mr Moses Masetla. When we arrived at the house of the late Mr Masetla, comrade Joseph Pirie told me that I should go and knock because they are somehow related. I knocked and after two minutes, a person responded from inside the house. It was Mr Philemon Masetla. He asked who I was and what I wanted. I told him that I was Jeffrey and I was looking for transport to take us to Moyideng. He complained about the petrol and I told him that I have with me a 20 litre full of petrol. I lied, so that he could get out of the house, and indeed he went out of the house. He went out of the house and he greeted us, he went to the car and he opened the bonnet. Johannes Ntshabeleng got hold of him, that is grabbed him. He was assisted by comrade Boetie Mashaba and Mr Hendrik Mokoena and Mokoena and Mishak Mahadima.

MR RICHARD: What happened to him, was he put anywhere, was he taken anywhere?

MR MASUKU: He shouted, he said "stop comrades, let me tell you the truth", and his wife got out of the house to see what was going on. As she looked very frightened, she didn't know what was happening because her husband was surrounded by many of the comrades. I was not far from his wife. The deceased was then taken to the school, accompanied by Mr Moses Masetla. His wife was chased back by Ms Lucky Mamashako and Ms Tandi Mogadisa. He was not assaulted, he was not insulted, because we were given instructions by the leaders of the community not to question him at all, or even to touch him. When we arrived at the school, he was taken to a classroom where the leaders were seated. Comrade (indistinct) and the group that went with to fetch Mr Philemon Masetla also got into the room. I was standing close to the window, I was not inside, but I could hear what was being discussed inside.

Mr Kayne Mokoena asked Mr Philemon Masetla whether he knew anything about the death of comrade Mokoena and whether it was true that he is responsible. He answered in the positive, he asked for forgiveness. That question was asked again by Mr Moses Masetla and he is also one of the Masetla family, he is the uncle. He responded to his question positively and said yes, he is responsible. Mr Frans Magutla and Mr Joseph Pirie, that is Mr Philemon Masetla, should be executed through the necklace style and nobody responded to that.

Mr Magutla went outside and he asked two of his sons Tabu Magutla and Patrick to bring petrol and a tyre. After half an hour to an hour, Mr Mokoena went outside the classroom with Philemon Masetla and other marshals, including Mr Moses Masetla. Mr Philemon Masetla was then taken, his hands were tied behind his back and he was taken to a mountain. I was present among the group that took him to the mountain. On the mountain he was tied to a tree, by comrade Johannes Ntshabeleng and Mr Hendrik Mokoena. They forced him to drink petrol and they hung a tyre on his neck, which was poured with petrol.

Comrade Ntshabeleng tried to light the match stick, but he could not succeed. Mr Mokoena tried the second time, and the fire did not light. Comrade Mayela lit the third one and that stick of matches managed to light the fire. As he was burning and shouting, we all left.

Mr Mokoena did not, he just stood and next to him the tyre had fallen. He took it back to the neck as he was screaming. I left with Morris Kgoete and Walter Mamayela. I asked them to go and spend the night with me at home, because I was very scared. I was scared after I saw what happened. Then we spent the night at home.

MR RICHARD: Tell me, what was Morris Kgoete doing when the petrol was being put into the tyre and the matches were being lit?

MR MASUKU: Morris Kgoete was not close to me, I did not see him at this time. I saw him as we ascended the mountain.

MR RICHARD: Did he assist in tying up the deceased or pouring the petrol or lighting the petrol?

MR MASUKU: He did not assist. He was not close to them, he was in the group of the people that were on the mountain.

MR RICHARD: And then, we have heard what you did, what did Jacob Manasoe do? What was he doing?

MR MASUKU: From the school, Jacob was among the leaders. I did not see what he did. I cannot give any evidence of what I saw him doing up to the mountain. I did not even see him doing anything on the mountain. I only saw him at the meeting when Mr Masetla was being charged.

MR RICHARD: Did he come to the mountain with you?

MR MASUKU: Yes.

MR RICHARD: Mr Ntshabeleng, we know that you have just testified that he lit the match?

MR MASUKU: That is correct, but the matches did not go on.

MR RICHARD: When you learnt that the deceased had hired somebody to kill one of your ANC comrades, that is Mr Mokoena, how did you see him? Did you see him as an ally or an enemy?

MR MASUKU: That is correct, I saw Mr Masetla as an enemy.

MR RICHARD: An enemy of what?

MR MASUKU: An enemy of our organisation, because the taxi owners that were being killed, were members of the ANC, and when he was implicated in the taxi violence, I saw him as an enemy who was intending to bring the name of the organisation into disrepute.

ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr Richard, if I can just ask the witness to explain something. You say the taxi owners who were being killed, were being members of the ANC. Now those who were killing them, were they members of any political organisation?

MR MASUKU: I mentioned earlier on that - our suspicions that these people were working with the previous government is because the people who were being killed, were members of the ANC. We did not have evidence though, which party they belonged to. There were structures around our area, structures like Mbokoto and their activities confirmed our suspicions that they were fighting members of the ANC. We did not have taxi violence in our area, and there were no new taxi's being introduced into the industry.

But after the killing of certain members of the ANC, we realised that they were being targeted.

ADV SANDI: Were there people who were members of Mbokoto who also owned taxi's?

MR MASUKU: In our district, no, there were not, but they were present in Tafelkop and in Denelton. Mr Mokoena and Mr Masetla, their taxi's were travelling from Tafelkop to Mooihoek, and the other three members who were killed, their taxi's were operating in the same manner, from Tafelkop to Moshaltwani, and the areas around.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Masuku, before you proceed, can you give us a better indication of where this Tafelkop and Mooihoek area is? Was it near one of the former homelands, was it near Pretoria, was it further north? Just give us a better indication.

MR MASUKU: They were in the northern province, they were falling under the former Lebowa government, from Mooihoek to Tafelkop, it could be plus minus 30 kilometres.

ADV BOSMAN: Was it part of Lebowa?

MR MASUKU: That is correct, it is part of Lebowa, Tafelkop and Semanyani were under the Lebowa government.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

MR RICHARD: Just to help the Committee, how far away from Groblersdal is Tafelkop?

MR MASUKU: It is plus minus 20 kilometres. It could be 50 kilometres from Mooihoek to Groblersdal.

MR RICHARD: Would you describe the area around Mooihoek and Tafelkop as rural, traditional areas?

MR MASUKU: It is a rural area, it is not an urban area.

MR RICHARD: It is also an area where you still have your (indistinct) and your indunas and your tribal structures, is that not correct?

MR MASUKU: That is correct.

MR RICHARD: And by 1990, the chieftains and the indunas and the councillors, which party did they in the main support, by 1990?

MR MASUKU: In our area the Headmen were supporting the ANC. There were other organisations though, the PAC which also had the supporters, but in our area the Headmen were the supporters of the ANC, many of them indeed.

MR RICHARD: Now, how did you think the ANC would benefit by the killing of Mr Philemon Masetla?

MR MASUKU: The killing of Mr Masetla was to send a message to those who were killing the members of the ANC that their actions would not be tolerated, and they were not accepted at all. It was to protect the members and the supporters of the ANC. It was the duty of the SDU.

MR RICHARD: Now in your application, you and your co-applicants used the word "revenge" and "avenge", the death of your comrade. What did you mean by that when you said "revenge" and "avenge", did you mean that you wanted to get some personal satisfaction from it, by killing the person you saw as the perpetrator of Mr Makena's death?

MR MASUKU: The two words were wrongly applied here. What we wanted to say was that everyone who kills or hurts the members of the ANC, will be brought before the ANC. The message was also sent to these people who were intending or who had intentions of weakening the ANC. The message was that they would be hurt if they continue with the criminal activities in the township or attacking the members of the ANC.

MR RICHARD: If one of your comrades in the SDU were killed, what did you in the SDUs think your obligations were in the situation?

MR MASUKU: Our duty would be to investigate as to who was responsible for the killing of the member of the ANC and the supporters of the ANC. Such people were supposed to be hunted down, be found and be brought before the community, and the community would in turn take a decision as to what to do with those people. The function of the SDU was not to prosecute or charge the criminals. Our duty was to apprehend them, present them before the leaders of the ANC.

Our communities were still functioning under the Headmen's laws, so we were not entitled at all to decide what to do with a captured perpetrator of violence.

MR RICHARD: Across the room you see the widow of the deceased. Do you have anything to say to the victims of the killing that you were party to?

MR MASUKU: I want to, I am grateful for the opportunity that the TRC offered me. I want to tell the wife to the deceased and the children, including Mr Masetla, that what happened, we had nothing personal about this family. I respected the late Mr Masetla, I experienced no problem against him.

If ever there is a room in their hearts, I am asking, and I repeat, I am asking them for forgiveness for what happened. I wish there was a way that the government would follow to see to it that his children are cared for, from the bottom of my heart I apologise to them.

If it is possible, if they find it in their hearts, let them please forgive me. I am not proud of what I did. The role that I played, does not make me proud and I am asking for forgiveness.

MR RICHARD: No further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Richard. Ms Vilakazi, any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VILAKAZI: Thank you Mr Chairperson, can I ask for just a few minutes to verify a few things? Thank you. Thank you Chairperson. Mr Masuku, in your evidence-in-chief right towards the end you mentioned that it was not your duty to execute perpetrators. Did I hear you correctly?

MR MASUKU: That is correct.

MS VILAKAZI: So yours was to bring the perpetrators before people who had the power to take whatever action, is that correct?

MR MASUKU: That is correct.

MS VILAKAZI: Now, on the meeting that was held on the 12th of August, the meeting that you referred to, was the Headman, (indistinct) present?

MR MASUKU: No. He was not present.

MS VILAKAZI: And then, on the 15th, the day on which the deceased was killed, was Headman (indistinct) present?

MR MASUKU: He was not present.

MS VILAKAZI: I want to refer you to your application which is on page 29, page 29 of the bundle. I will ask your legal representative to show it to you. Under paragraph 10(b) number 4, you said that the act was condoned by the entire SDUs together with the local Chiefs of the community, can you see that?

MR MASUKU: Yes.

MS VILAKAZI: How many Chiefs do you have in your community? Or let me say how many Chiefs did you have at that particular time?

MR MASUKU: It was only Mr Magube (indistinct) and he was operating under a Chief M.M. Matlala.

MS VILAKAZI: Was Chief M.M. Matlala present in the meeting of the 12th of August?

MR MASUKU: He was not present.

MS VILAKAZI: Was he present in the meeting of the 15th?

MR MASUKU: M.M. Matlala did not attend both the meetings, on the 12th and on the 15th.

MS VILAKAZI: Why do you say that the killing was condoned by the local Chiefs?

MR MASUKU: After our arrest, regarding Mr Masetla's killing, I met with Joseph Pirie when we left, when we went out and I explained to him our situation and he told me that he got the message that M.M. Matlala got a report or he heard what happened, and he was deeply disturbed that we were arrested. That is the Youth of the village. I asked him what was his reaction to that, he told me that he received the message that Mr Masetla was one of those people who killed comrade Mokoena.

He did not see us guilty in that regard. If the Chief or the Headman is against that, what they would do is they would call a meeting of the Chiefs and the perpetrators would be prosecuted for what they did, but that is why I am saying the act was condoned by the entire SDUs together with the local Chiefs. Their quietness, their not asking us what happened, and the fact that they did not call us to a Chief's Kraal for a meeting, was an indication that they accepted what we did.

MS VILAKAZI: If I understand you well, you did not have instructions from either Chief M.M. Matlala or Headman Magube to carry out the killing of the deceased, is that correct?

MR MASUKU: That is correct.

MS VILAKAZI: You only interpreted his action, the action of the Chief, M.M. Matlala by not summoning you to appear as condonation of what you did, is that correct?

MR MASUKU: Not their actions, I mentioned that after I was released on bail I met Pirie and I asked him what was happening regarding this whole matter. He told me that they had taken a message to the Chief about what happened in the village. He told me that the Chief said he didn't have a problem with this. Before Pirie could go to him, the Chief had already heard that Mr Masetla was one of the suspected people who took part in the killing of Mr Mokoena and the Chief knew about Mr Makena's death.

MS VILAKAZI: Do you know what the attitude of Headman Magube was, about the killing of Mr Masetla?

MR MASUKU: I do not know.

MS VILAKAZI: If you were not given instructions by either the Chief or the Headman to kill the deceased, who gave you instructions to kill the deceased?

MR MASUKU: Mr Frans Magutla. Mr Frans Magutla and Mr Kayne Mokoena on the 12th, they chaired a meeting in the place of an induna, because the induna was not present. On the 15th Mr Frans Magutla and Joseph Pirie took a decision that Mr Philemon Masetla should be killed.

MS VILAKAZI: In your evidence you made mention of the fact that on the 15th, while at the school, you went outside the classroom and you saw Kayne Mokoena, Frans Magutla and Moses Masetla. Did I hear you correctly?

MR MASUKU: Yes.

MS VILAKAZI: Where were these three people?

MR MASUKU: They were in another classroom, there were two classrooms. The three of them came and they got inside. They went into the classroom opposite to the classroom where we were.

MS VILAKAZI: I don't understand you clearly. Didn't you say that you went outside and you saw them outside the classroom that the group of people were in?

MR MASUKU: The Youth was inside a classroom where a meeting was held, when the meeting started before we left for Tafelkop. Mr Magutla, Mr Kayne Mokoena and Mr Moses Masetla and they were fetched before leaving for Tafelkop. I went outside because it was hot. When I stepped outside, I saw them outside. There were two classrooms opposite each other and they were towards the door of an empty classroom. That is where they held another meeting. It was the community leaders and the senior members of the ANC. At that time they were leaders.

MS VILAKAZI: Now, at that time when you saw the three men that you referred to, was it before or after the deceased was fetched from his home?

MR MASUKU: That was before the deceased was fetched.

MS VILAKAZI: Moses Masetla that you are referring to, is the gentleman next to me, not so?

MR MASUKU: That is correct.

MS VILAKAZI: What happened to him when the deceased was fetched from his home, do you know?

MR MASUKU: He left with the group.

MS VILAKAZI: My instructions are that Mr Moses Masetla was collected from his home and at that time, Mr Kayne Mokoena had been collected from his home as well and that after he, Mr Moses Masetla, was collected from his home, the mob proceeded straight to the house of the deceased?

MR MASUKU: He is telling the truth. They fetched him and brought him to the school. The groups were at school.

MS VILAKAZI: My instructions are that Moses Masetla, and that is what he is going to testify, that he was collected from his home and taken to the deceased's place, where the deceased was collected and it was only then that they proceeded to the school. What is your comment?

MR MASUKU: I do not agree with that. Before the deceased was fetched, I recall very well I saw Mr Masetla at the school with Kayne Mokoena.

MS VILAKAZI: In your evidence-in-chief you mentioned that you were informed by Mr Pirie, before we come to that, you mentioned that there are three people who were suspected of having killed Mr Mokoena, and you made mention of those suspects. Can you still remember that?

MR MASUKU: That is correct.

MS VILAKAZI: Those people, just a second Philip Makofani, Maredick and Samuel Motlala, is that correct?

MR MASUKU: It is Pomkomaradi and Samuel Motlala and Philip Makofani.

MS VILAKAZI: You went on in your evidence-in-chief and said that these three suspects informed Mr Pirie that they were sent by the deceased, Philemon Masetla to go and kill Mr Masetla. Can you recall that?

MR MASUKU: According to what I was told by Joseph Pirie, he said one of the three suspects, Philip Makofani informed him that Mr Philemon Masetla sent them to go and kill comrade Mokoena. That is what I heard from Joseph Pirie. That is what he told me.

MS VILAKAZI: When did Joseph Pirie tell you that?

MR MASUKU: Before the meeting of the 15th of August 1990, while we were still waiting for other comrades to arrive.

Do you remember when did you make the application for amnesty?

MR MASUKU: I do not recall the date quite well. I think I said in 1994, that was my first, and the second one was on the 20th of December 1996, the one that I am having a copy of in my hand. I sent the first application in 1994, it was about the Groote Schuur Minutes and on the 20th of December 1996, I sent this one to the TRC.

MS VILAKAZI: I want you to look at the affidavit that starts at page 48 of the bundle, up to page 55.

MR MASUKU: Yes?

MS VILAKAZI: Is that your affidavit?

MR MASUKU: That is correct.

MS VILAKAZI: Who wrote the affidavit?

MR MASUKU: It is myself.

MS VILAKAZI: I want to put it to you that in your entire affidavit, you did not mention the fact that one of the suspects mentioned to Mr Pirie that they were sent by the deceased to kill Mr Mokoena. What is your comment?

MR MASUKU: I wrote the affidavit based on what I saw happening. I was very cautious of including what I was told, it was my word against his. What would happen if he said "no, I never told you that", so I was actually writing what I saw in this application.

MS VILAKAZI: But you did not go to a sangoma, did you?

MR MASUKU: I went with them, but I did not get inside. I did not talk to the sangoma, I remained outside.

MS VILAKAZI: So, you don't know what the sangoma said, not so?

MR MASUKU: That is correct. I do not know what the sangoma told.

ADV SANDI: Why did you not get inside and hear what the sangoma had to say? Were you not interested to know who had killed this person?

MR MASUKU: After not getting hold of Mr Ragetsu, whom I believe would tell us the truth, I did, I don't have a very strong belief in the sangomas, I trusted only in that Ragetsu. After they refused us to see him, I noticed that the training of this other sangoma was of a lower standard compared to that of Mr Ragetsu, and truly speaking, after we were refused entry into Mr Ragetsu's place, I lost interest and then I did not have interest in the whole matter.

ADV SANDI: But you still continued, you got involved in the killing of this person on the basis of what had been said by a sangoma?

MR MASUKU: I got involved in this matter because of the meeting that I attended on the 15th. I did not take any part, except the part of deciding to go to a sangoma. That was the last part I played in this whole issue. I never took any part any further.

I only suggested that we should go to Ragetsu at Tafelkop and that is my involvement. That is my direct involvement, I had an input made on that meeting. That was the decision of the SDU.

ADV SANDI: Is that the meeting where you said Frans Magutla and Mokoena issued an order that Mr Masetla should be killed?

MR MASUKU: That is the meeting I am talking about.

ADV SANDI: Can you just explain to me, where did these two people get the authority to give such an order that someone should be killed?

MR MASUKU: They were given authority on the 12th by the members of the community. They ordered the SDUs of which I was part, they said if the killers of Mr Mokoena are found, they must be brought before the meeting. Joseph Pirie was the leader of the SDU. Frans Magutla was one of the Headman's assistance. Kayne Mokoena had been given authority to take a decision and Mr (indistinct) included, they were given the responsibility of taking a decision should the suspects be apprehended.

ADV SANDI: Thank you Ms Vilakazi.

ADV BOSMAN: May I just come in here, Mr Richard. Mr Masuku, did you believe that Mr Masetla had committed this crime?

MR MASUKU: I did not believe.

ADV BOSMAN: Did you say so to the community?

MR MASUKU: I did not tell the members of the community, but I did not believe.

ADV BOSMAN: Yes, on page 51 of your affidavit you say that you were shocked and out of words. It is at the last line of page 51. You say that you were "shocked and out of words when they said it was Mr Masetla". Why did you just keep quiet about it? Why didn't you express your opinion, because you participated in going to the community with this man, for him to be tried?

MR MASUKU: I grew up in Tafelkop and the comrades, that is the SDUs, had the responsibility of disciplining anybody who was acting against the ANC or anybody for that matter, who was involved in criminal activities. I was afraid that if I am the only person against everybody who was agreeing on one thing, I would be in trouble. I was still young, I did not have powers so to say.

I got shocked really and I kept quiet. What made me not to believe Mr Masetla was a killer, he was a respected man. I do not recall seeing or viewing him as a traitor. His family also, he was a family man, let me put it shortly in that way, he was a family man and I respected him. I respected him for what he was. I got shocked when I heard that he is responsible for Mr Makena's death. Even, you could ask me the same question today, you could ask me the same question today, "do you believe that he was responsible", and I would tell them "no, I do not believe that he was responsible".

ADV BOSMAN: Do you have any reason to believe that he belonged to another political party?

MR MASUKU: I do not have any reason to believe that.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: What was your response after Mr Masetla confessed?

MR MASUKU: When he agreed for the first time that he was responsible, I said to myself "maybe I did not hear quite well". With the little knowledge that I have, I know that if a person finds himself in danger, a person is bound to say anything, trying to protect himself. That was afterwards. I just concluded, he said that, he confessed that and he asked for forgiveness, trying to calm down the comrades. That is what I thought.

I thought maybe he, if he confessed, they would stop threatening him. I understood that he said yes and he was asking for forgiveness because everybody around there, was against him. That is my personal opinion.

CHAIRPERSON: Was there a member of his family that asked him for a second time whether he was responsible for this killing?

MR MASUKU: Mr Moses Masetla was present.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it a relative of the deceased?

MR MASUKU: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And did he ask him for the second time after he confessed, whether that was truly the case?

MR MASUKU: That is what I heard, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And then did he confess again or what did he do? After he was asked, did he confess again or what was his ...

MR MASUKU: After he confessed again, Mr Magutla and Mr Joseph Pirie took a decision that he should be killed, he should be necklaced.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Ms Vilakazi?

MS VILAKAZI: So from what you are saying, Mr Masuku, the confession by Mr Masetla came as a shock to you, not so?

MR MASUKU: That is correct.

MS VILAKAZI: And before his confession you had no reason to believe that he is the one who could have killed, or had anything to do with the death of Mr Mokoena, not so?

MR MASUKU: That is correct. Before confessing, yes, I did not believe. I had no reason to believe that he was the killer. It was just a suspicion, that is why I suggested that we should go to a sangoma. That is why I said to Joseph Pirie "let's go to a sangoma", because he said to me "one of the suspects told him that the person responsible for Mr Makena's death is Mr Masetla", that is why I said "let's go to a sangoma", because I believed from a sangoma we would get the truth. It was only Joseph Pirie’s words.

MS VILAKAZI: Yes, but even after the sangoma had said that Mr Masetla is the one who killed Mr Mokoena, you still did not believe that, not so, until such time that he made a confession?

MR MASUKU: That is correct. I did not hear the sangoma talking. Especially the fact that Joseph Pirie came to the meeting and told the meeting that Mr Masetla has been pointed out as the killer of Mr Mokoena. I was scared to be against him this time again.

MS VILAKAZI: Yes, but then you tricked Mr Philemon Masetla, the deceased, out of his house and yet you believed, you had no reason to suspect him? Why was that so?

MR MASUKU: I wanted to know the truth. His coming out of the house, that is my line, so that he could get out of the house. I thought they were going to question him and if he denies that, to let him go. I thought he would be given a chance to tell his side of the story, but after realising that was not a possibility, I felt guilty. Even today, I still feel guilty for having assisted in the capture of Mr Masetla.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you decided on your own to play this trick on the deceased?

MR MASUKU: Joseph Pirie said to me he cannot knock at his door, because he was a relative of his, and he said I should knock instead. Joseph Pirie was two or three metres away from me when I was knocking, he was not far from me.

CHAIRPERSON: If Pirie didn't tell you to do that, would you have done that out of your own or not?

MR MASUKU: No, I would have never done that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Vilakazi?

MS VILAKAZI: Did Mr Pirie made you to trick the deceased out of his house?

MR MASUKU: I would say he asked, he told me to knock and ask him to get out and say we were looking for transport, that is what he told me. Mr Masetla knew me to be an involved member of the SDU. Even on the day of taking a decision to look for the killers, he was present at that meeting.

MS VILAKAZI: I am putting it to you that Mr Moses Masetla, your evidence that Mr Moses Masetla asked the deceased to repeat his confession and he repeated the confession, is going to be denied by Mr Moses Masetla.

MR MASUKU: I do not agree with that. The co-applicants can testify to that effect. They were with Mr Masetla, Morris Kgoete and Jacob Manasoe, they were with Mr Masetla inside. I was outside at the door, I could hear what they were saying. He was present, even at the time of the questioning of the deceased.

He was the person to ask the deceased the last question, "is it true what they say you did".

MS VILAKAZI: Mr Moses Masetla will also testify that the deceased was never given an opportunity to say anything. What is your comment?

MR MASUKU: I don't understand. He was asked a question and he responded to the question. What opportunity was he not afforded? The opportunity to say yes, he committed the act or no, he did not?

MS VILAKAZI: Mr Moses Masetla is also going to testify that there was no political, or taxi violence around the area of Mooihoek at the time of the incident.

MR MASUKU: I do not agree with him. There are three taxi owners who were killed in three different times, not only in the Mooihoek district. One of them resided at Moshalatwani, the other one was from Mampogo, the other one was from Tafelkop. They were using one route, the same route as Mr Mokoena and Mr Masetla.

MS VILAKAZI: Mr Masetla will also testify that there were no taxi's which operated within the Mooihoek area?

MR MASUKU: That is correct, there were no taxi's within the Mooihoek, they would take passengers from Tsimanyane to town. The taxi's that were going to Tafelkop from Mooihoek were Mr Makena's taxi and Mr Philemon Masetla's taxi.

MS VILAKAZI: That will be all, Chairperson, thank you.

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

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS MTANGA: Yes Chairperson, thank you. Mr Masuku, on page 52 of the bundle from the second line of your affidavit, you stated that -

MR MASUKU: Yes, that is correct.

MS MTANGA: Do you know what these differences were between Mr Masetla, the late Mr Masetla and Mr Pirie?

MR MASUKU: He did not explain that to me.

MS MTANGA: You also mentioned that the reason for you to testify that there was a taxi violence, it was because there were three taxi owners who died prior to Mr Makena's death, am I correct?

MR MASUKU: That is correct.

MS MTANGA: And all these three taxi owners died in different areas, in three different areas, am I correct?

MR MASUKU: That is correct.

MS MTANGA: Can you give me the areas where these people came from, the taxi owners who died, where did they come from? You mentioned Tafelkop as one.

MR MASUKU: The other one was killed in Tafelkop, the other one in Moshalatwani and then the other one at Mampogo, excluding Mr Makena's death.

MS MTANGA: How far is Mampogo from your area, Mooihoek? How far is it?

MR MASUKU: It is less than 15 kilometres.

MS MTANGA: And the second place, I cannot pronounce the word, Moshalatwani? How far is that from Mooihoek?

MR MASUKU: Less than 10 kilometres from Mooihoek.

MS MTANGA: Did you have a group of SDUs operating in these two areas? Did you have members of the SDUs in Moshalatwani, and Mampogo?

MR MASUKU: In Tafelkop there was the SDU structures which operated at Tafelkop, and in Moshalatwani, Mampogo and Mooihoek, the same people were operating in those areas, excluding ourselves. We were operating at Moshalatwani and Mooihoek and Mampogo.

MS MTANGA: How did you know the political affiliations of the deceased taxi owners, the three people, how did you know what their political affiliations were, the three people?

MR MASUKU: I received information from Joseph Pirie. He informed us at the meeting. The incident of Mr Mokoena was not the first one, it was the fourth one and they had been reported to the police.

MS MTANGA: What did he say their political affiliation was, the three taxi owners who had died?

MR MASUKU: Yes, he mentioned the political affiliations of those taxi owners who were affected, that they were members of the ANC.

MS MTANGA: What was the position held by Mr Joseph Pirie in the ANC Youth League and the SDU, what was his position?

MR MASUKU: At the time, he was the Commander of the SDU in Mooihoek. And then again he was a member of the Executive in our district and (indistinct) was the Secretary. Joseph Pirie was an Executive member of the district.

MS MTANGA: How well did you know Mr Philemon Masetla?

MR MASUKU: What I know of Philemon Masetla was that he was a respected person. I never heard anything wrong about him, that was the first one which I heard about him. He was a middle class person and his family was living well. Those are the signs which made me to respect him.

MS MTANGA: Did you know anything about his political activities of affiliation?

MR MASUKU: No Chairperson, I did not know anything.

MS MTANGA: You earlier on testified that you had no reason to believe that he belonged to any political party, am I correct to say that, it was your belief at the time that he, you didn't believe that he belonged to any political party, am I correct?

MR MASUKU: I stated that I had no reason to believe that he has any relationship with any political party, but what I know is that he was not a member of the ANC because I had information, especially, Tsimanyane and Moshalatwani and Mampogo. I knew that he was not a member of the ANC.

MS MTANGA: Mr Masuku, I would like to understand from you, do you understand that for you to qualify for amnesty, the offence that you are applying for, must be directed at a political opponent? Are you aware of that?

MR MASUKU: Are you saying for me to get amnesty, it is that my actions should be directed to a person who is my political enemy or who is affiliated to a political party which is against the beliefs of the political party that I belong to? Yes, I do. But what I do not understand is that I do not have the information about the organisation, the political organisation that Mr Masetla belonged to, or which he worked under. That does not mean that he was not affiliated to a political party.

MS MTANGA: At the meeting that you had on the 15th of August, was the political affiliation of Mr Masetla not discussed by your comrades?

MR MASUKU: It was a meeting which was called by the community, it was not a meeting under the auspices of a political party, for example the ANC. They were calling each and every member of the community to attend the meeting.

MS MTANGA: If you had no reason to believe that Mr Masetla belonged to a political organisation that you could regard as an opponent to your organisation, the ANC, and if you also had no knowledge of him being involved in any political activities of any other political party, how do you regard your offences as political, because Mr Masetla in this circumstances, could not have been a political opponent?

MR MASUKU: The context of our offence and particularly in the duration of 1990 uprisings, the killing of a comrade was the responsibility of the Youth, to make sure that the perpetrators are arrested and brought to the community. Therefore our act was in the interest of the ANC, as we were ordered by our Commander, again who was the supporter and member and a leader of the ANC. We did not act on our own, we were acting in the interest of the organisation in terms of the order that we received.

Again I had no personal grudge against Mr Masetla and his family. The killing of Mr Masetla was not motivated by personal gain as an individual. That is why I am saying my act was politically motivated, I acted in the interest of the ANC as I was ordered by my Commander and the senior members of the ANC, who were at that moment the authority over me.

MS MTANGA: Mr Masuku, you were a member of the ANC Youth League and also a member of the SDU. Am I correct to say that even if, according to the way you operated in your area, under the ANC Youth League and SDUs, even if Mr Mokoena was killed by thugs, you would have still gone after those thugs and killed them, because they had killed a comrade, is that what you are telling the Committee?

MR MASUKU: The decision to kill Mr Mokoena was not my responsibility. What was to happen to Mr Mokoena, I did not play a part. If it was not Mr Mokoena but pure criminals, I do not know what would happen to those people.

It was Frans Magutla and Mokoena and Joseph Pirie, those are the ones who carried the responsibility to issue an instruction. What I was ordered to do was to trace people who were responsible for the death of Mr Mokoena and then for them to be brought before the meeting. That was the end all of my responsibility in this incident.

What was to happen thereafter, was the responsibility of those who were senior to me.

MS MTANGA: Mr Masuku, the meeting that you attended on the 12th of August, that is the first meeting, how many people attended that meeting?

MR MASUKU: There were more than 50, and those were community members, old people and members of the Youth.

MS MTANGA: Are you saying there were others and the Youth at the meeting?

MR MASUKU: That is correct.

MS MTANGA: What was your position in the ANC Youth League and the SDU at that time?

MR MASUKU: I was an ordinary member, I did not have any Executive position. I was only acting under orders then.

MS MTANGA: You know, Mr Masuku, I find it quite strange that in 1990 you were probably about 17 years old, and you were an ordinary member of the ANC Youth League and the SDUs, but you managed to convince a meeting of adults who were actually senior than you in the organisation, to consult a sangoma before they could make a decision as to who killed Mr Mokoena. How come you had that kind of an influence over the people?

MR MASUKU: On that day, during the 15th, anyone was allowed to speak his or her mind. For the fact that I questioned what was stated by Mr Pirie, the meeting had no direction, anyone could talk freely and then we had no progress. What was stated is that, Joseph Pirie stated that Mr Masetla is the one suspected to be the one responsible for the killing of Mr Mokoena. He received that information from one of the suspects, that is Mr Philip Makofani.

After seeing that no one questioned the reliability of what Mr Pirie said, I requested that a sangoma be consulted and no one questioned what I said. Everybody supported what I said. There is no reason which I would give that I had influence to the meeting. I was just an ordinary member.

CHAIRPERSON: You mean if anybody had made that suggestion, it would in all likelihood have been in favour with the meeting?

MR MASUKU: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Ms Mtanga?

MS MTANGA: Roughly how old was Joseph Pirie at the time of this incident?

MR MASUKU: I am not sure Chairperson, but he was an adult.

MS MTANGA: Would you say he was older than 25 at that time?

MR MASUKU: Yes, I believe he was about 25.

MS MTANGA: And Mokoena?

MR MASUKU: He was an adult, he was approximately about 40 years.

MS MTANGA: And Mr Magutla?

MR MASUKU: He was the same age with Mr Mokoena.

MS MTANGA: Mr Masuku, I am asking you the ages of these people because you seem to downplay the role that you played in this incident and secondly you seem to, you seem to rely a lot of what you said was authority at that time, whereas on the facts of this case, it appears to me that you were quite at the forefront of the group that led people to Mr Masetla's house.

How many people went to Mr Masetla's house when you went to fetch him?

MR MASUKU: That is correct, I was one of them.

MS MTANGA: How many people were there to fetch Mr Masetla?

MR MASUKU: I am not sure of the number of the people, but I think we were about, we were over 30.

MS MTANGA: And then out of 30 people, you were the one who went into the house to get Mr Masetla out of his house?

MR MASUKU: As I have already stated that Joseph Pirie is the one who requested of me, I was together with Joseph Pirie whilst questioning about the response of the sangoma. I was trying to find out as to whether, what he stated to the people, is based from what he learnt from the suspects, or what he learnt from the sangoma. Because he was in front, I was with him. If there was someone next to him then, he would have asked that person to knock at the door, and request Mr Masetla to get out of the house.

ADV SANDI: Sorry can I just ask a question here? You have stated quite categorically that this meeting of the 12th of August 1990 was a meeting of the community and not an ANC meeting. Are you aware of any reason why the ANC would not call a meeting of its own to discuss the problem if they were concerned about ANC affiliated taxi owners getting killed? Why would the ANC not call a meeting to discuss the problem?

MR MASUKU: Joseph Pirie came to the meeting to represent the ANC. The meeting was called for the community, by the community, but the death of Mr Mokoena was the lost of the entire community, not for the ANC alone. Therefore it was the responsibility of the induna and his assistants to report to the community about what happened.

Particularly the circumstances surrounding his death. It was therefore necessarily the responsibility of the ANC to call the meeting. As the induna was the leader of the community, therefore it was his responsibility to call that meeting. Members of the ANC came as part of the community to that particular meeting.

ADV SANDI: I thought you said that the induna and the Chief did not hold any portfolio in the ANC, they were just supporters or members of the ANC with no portfolio?

MR MASUKU: I don't have reasons for that. I would not testify to that, that they were just ordinary supporters of the ANC.

ADV SANDI: I understood you to say that the induna and the Chief were not holding any portfolios in the ANC structures, they were members?

MR MASUKU: I did not say that Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: What did you say? Did they hold portfolios in the ANC?

MR MASUKU: Chief M.M. Matlala was the member of Parliament then in Lebowa. The Executive members of the ANC whom I knew, he was not one of them. That is why I said I did not have information that they were supporters of the ANC.

ADV SANDI: What you have just said makes it even more interesting now. You say M.M. Matlala was a member of Parliament in Lebowa homeland. Wasn't the ANC opposed to those homelands? Wasn't the ANC opposed to those homelands?

MR MASUKU: Yes, any government which was an appendage of the nationalist government, central government and again Lebowa government was an appendage to the national government, therefore they were against it.

ADV SANDI: Surely he was not representing the ANC there, as a member of Parliament in that homeland structure?

MR MASUKU: Yes, he represented the community.

ADV SANDI: Did he hold any portfolio in the ANC as an organisation, such as a General Secretary, Treasurer, Chairperson or whatever?

MR MASUKU: No Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: Who was the Chairperson of the ANC in that area at that time?

MR MASUKU: Lot Magadi was the Chairperson of the ANC in the district. The Secretary was Mokolo Malabani.

ADV SANDI: But were those people whom you have just mentioned, were they involved in these meetings which subsequently led to the killing of Mr Masetla, they were not involved as I understand you?

MR MASUKU: Yes, they were present.

ADV SANDI: They were present on the 12th of August?

MR MASUKU: That is correct.

ADV SANDI: Did they also go along with the decision that Mr Masetla should be killed?

MR MASUKU: I did not see them personally stating their support, I would not say somebody agreed to that, but they were present, and then again they were part of the people who questioned Mr Masetla.

ADV SANDI: Were you able to establish in the end as to who was responsible for the killing of these taxi owners? You said three of them had been killed before Mr Mokoena was killed? Were you able to find out who was responsible for this?

MR MASUKU: We were not able to find out.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you got any other questions?

MS MTANGA: No questions, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: The panel then, I suppose Adv Sandi is done. Adv Bosman?

ADV BOSMAN: I understood you to say that Mr Pirie represented the ANC at these meetings?

MR MASUKU: Can you repeat the question again please.

ADV BOSMAN: I understood you to say that Mr Pirie was the representative of the ANC at the meetings? Is that correct?

MR MASUKU: The meeting of the 12th, Mr Joseph Pirie represented the ANC as the Commander of the ANC, of the SDU.

ADV BOSMAN: The Chairman of the ANC in the region and the Secretary, at which meeting were they?

MR MASUKU: They attended the meeting of the 15th. That is where I saw them.

ADV BOSMAN: And then Mr Mokoena, what was his position in the ANC?

MR MASUKU: The late comrade Mokoena?

ADV BOSMAN: Yes?

MR MASUKU: He was one of the Executive members who served together with Mr Magadi and Mr Malabani.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, I didn't exhaust my questions for the witness. Who organised your legal representation in court? Were you assisted in any way?

MR MASUKU: Yes, I was assisted. I was assisted by Mokono Malopani who organised a lawyer from Pietersburg.

ADV SANDI: When you were out on bail ...

MR MASUKU: That day the five of us were represented by that lawyer who was organised by Mr Malopani, from Pietersburg. That legal Counsel was organised by Magadi and Malopani from Pietersburg.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, just explain to me, who was Mr Malopani?

MR MASUKU: He is a District ANC Secretary.

ADV SANDI: And when you had to pay bail, just tell us how much was it and who paid for your bail, so that you could be out?

MR MASUKU: My bail was R100-00. It was paid by my mother.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You said that you were acting on orders of your Commander, is that Pirie or who are you referring to?

MR MASUKU: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, from what you perceived, how did Pirie regard the deceased? Did he regard him as a supporter of the ANC or how did he regard the deceased?

MR MASUKU: Do you mean Mokoena or Joseph Pirie?

CHAIRPERSON: Joseph Pirie’s perception of the deceased, Mr Masetla?

MR MASUKU: I do not have knowledge about his perception about the political affiliation of Mr Masetla.

CHAIRPERSON: From his conduct in this whole incident, did you get any impressions about his view of the deceased, whether Pirie regarded the deceased as a friend of the ANC or a supporter of the ANC or not?

MR MASUKU: According to Joseph Pirie’s actions, I could interpret that he regarded the deceased as an enemy of the ANC because of the allegation that he was involved in the killing of Mr Mokoena.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Richard, re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR RICHARD: Very few questions. Mr Masuku, would you please look at page 54 of the bundle, it is a long list of names. How many people on that list, are not, were not members of the ANC at the time in 1990? In other words who were not an ANC member on that list?

MR MASUKU: From this list, the people that I would say were not members of the ANC, is Mr Mukulo and his brother, but others were card carrying members of the ANC. I am not sure how many of them, but Mr Mukulo, the two Mukulo's, (indistinct) father and (indistinct) father, I am not sure whether they were members or just supporters of the ANC.

MR RICHARD: Were any of the people at that meeting, hostile and against the ANC?

MR MASUKU: No. Everybody who was at the meeting, supported the ANC. The two Mukulo's joined in because they were going to provide transport to Tafelkop. The people who were at the meeting, all came voluntarily, they were not forced in any way. They came voluntarily after it was announced that there would be a meeting at the school.

MR RICHARD: How old were you as at the 15th of August 1990?

MR MASUKU: I was 17 years old.

MR RICHARD: And how old were your co-applicants?

MR MASUKU: Myself and (indistinct) were 17 years old, that is Ndebele Ntshabeleng. We were of the same age. Jacob Manasoe was three years older than myself and Morris Kgoete, they were both three years older than us.

MR RICHARD: Now, did any of these people on this list, oppose the decision to necklace the deceased?

MR MASUKU: That is correct. Mr Frans Magutla and Joseph Pirie.

MR RICHARD: Listen to my question, did any of them say the deceased should not be necklaced?

MR MASUKU: No one on this list, sir. Even at the meeting, nobody stood against that.

MR RICHARD: Now, am I not correct in saying that all these people in fact were senior to you and older than you? Senior to you in the ANC and older than you in years at the time?

MR MASUKU: You are quite correct.

MR RICHARD: No further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Masuku, you are excused.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Richard?

MR RICHARD: It is that time of the day that normally the Department of Correctional Services start putting us under pressure to allow applicants to go back to prison. I don't know what the arrangements to day are?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I am not sure. I suppose they will object if they, or they will give an indication. Who is going to be your next applicant?

MR RICHARD: I was going to call Morris, the first applicant on the list.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, because I was assuming that once Mr Masuku had laid the basis, that there would be little need to repeat everything that is already placed before us, so I assumed that the rest of the applicants should be fairly quickly.

ON RESUMPTION:

MR RICHARD: Let me call the first applicant on the list.

CHAIRPERSON: Let him come. Mr Kgoete.

MR RICHARD: The applicant has no objection to taking the oath.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you Morris Kgoete?

MR KGOETE: That is correct.

MORRIS KGOETE: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed, Mr Richard.

EXAMINATION BY MR RICHARD: Thank you Chairperson. Did you listen to the evidence of the first applicant, Mr Jeffrey Masuku?

MR KGOETE: That is correct.

MR RICHARD: You heard him describe that you were present at two meetings, one on the 12th of August 1990 and a second on the 15th of August 1990?

MR KGOETE: That is correct.

MR RICHARD: Did he correctly describe what you were doing at those meetings?

MR KGOETE: That is correct.

MR RICHARD: Now, when the deceased was necklaced on the mountain, would you be a bit more precise, what did you do there?

MR KGOETE: Mr Magutla sent two of his children, Tabo and Patrick to fetch a tyre and petrol. They brought those and we left for the mountain. Mr Hendrik Mokoena and Mr Johannes Ntshabeleng and they had, they took Mr Masetla and they tied him to a tree. Mr Mokoena put a tyre on him and Mr Ntshabeleng made him to drink petrol.

Afterwards Ntshabeleng took a stick, trying to set him alight but he did not succeed. Ntshabeleng followed and he tried to light a stick. It did not, but the third one was successful, it was lit by Mr Mayela and he caught fire.

As he started running, we all ran away, retreated back. Hendrik Mokoena did not, he stood, he remained behind. When we left the mountain, he was remaining at the top.

MR RICHARD: Now, did you assist in tying the deceased to the tree or putting petrol on the tyre or making him drink petrol?

MR KGOETE: No, I did not do anything.

MR RICHARD: Did you know the deceased?

MR KGOETE: Yes.

MR RICHARD: What political affiliation if any, did the deceased have?

MR KGOETE: I do not know.

MR RICHARD: Now, were you a member of the ANC in 1990?

MR KGOETE: Yes.

MR RICHARD: And in fact, when had you joined the ANC?

MR KGOETE: In 1990, in January, I joined the Youth League.

MR RICHARD: Now, at the meeting on the 15th of August 1990, did you feel that the ANC had instructed you what to do with the deceased?

MR KGOETE: Yes.

MR RICHARD: And for the rest, do you confirm, do you agree with what the first witness said about the incident and your role in it?

MR KGOETE: That is correct.

MR RICHARD: To be very short, I am going to only go into taxi violence. Was there taxi violence in the Tafelkop, Mooihoek area in 1990, that you can remember?

MR KGOETE: Yes, there were people who were killed.

MR RICHARD: To what political party were the people killed, belonging? Do you remember?

MR KGOETE: Those I know are four, including Mr Mokoena, and they were members of the ANC.

MR RICHARD: Now, what did the SDUs think of taxi violence, did they have a point of view about it?

MR KGOETE: May you repeat your question please?

MR RICHARD: Did the people in the SDUs have a point in view about taxi violence?

MR KGOETE: This troubled us a lot, especially when we realised that members of the ANC were killed.

MR RICHARD: Did you discuss it?

MR KGOETE: When we first met, it was after the funeral of Mr Mokoena and our leaders told us that there is yet another member of the ANC who was killed. Before that three had been killed already, Mr Mokoena was the fourth one.

MR RICHARD: Now, did you believe that the taxi violence was simply competition for routes or whether it was political?

MR KGOETE: According to me it was a political issue. As far as I was concerned, members of the ANC were being killed. It was the party that I belonged to.

MR RICHARD: If you have a look at page 14, whose handwriting is that?

MR KGOETE: It is mine.

MR RICHARD: Now, at paragraph 4 there you say -

Why did you make that statement?

MR KGOETE: It was after we realised that members of the ANC who had taxi's, were killed. We thought that the government was supporting the taxi feud so that at the end, it would appear as if they were fighting for the routes.

MR RICHARD: At page 23 you say at paragraph 1 -

What decision did the Youth of Mooihoek take?

MR KGOETE: Among the Youth there were members, the leaders like Joseph Pirie and this is the kind of person whom we got instructions from most of the time.

MR RICHARD: In other words the Youth and the people who made the decisions, are the people who appear on page 54 if you have a look at the list?

MR KGOETE: That is correct.

MR RICHARD: You heard me ask the question, did any of those people listed on page 54, oppose the decision to kill the deceased?

MR KGOETE: Can you repeat your question please.

MR RICHARD: At the meeting on the evening of the 15th of August, did anyone disagree with the decision that the deceased should die?

MR KGOETE: Nobody.

MR RICHARD: Thank you, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Richard. Was Mr Moses Masetla, sitting over there, was he at the meeting of the 15th?

MR KGOETE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he participate in any way in the meeting?

MR KGOETE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: What did he do?

MR KGOETE: He asked the deceased whether it was true, he killed Mr Mokoena.

CHAIRPERSON: Was there any response?

MR KGOETE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: What was that?

MR KGOETE: He said yes, and I am asking for forgiveness.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Ms Vilakazi, questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VILAKAZI: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Mr Kgoete, when you were asked what specifically did you do when Mr Masetla was taken to the mountain, you said you did not do anything. Did I understand you well, that you did not do anything?

MR KGOETE: That is correct.

MS VILAKAZI: If you did not do anything, why are you applying for amnesty?

MR KGOETE: When we were in class during the questioning of Mr Masetla, as to whether what he did, I asked him a question, is it true that he was present or he played a role during the death of Mr Mokoena. He agreed that he was present.

MS VILAKAZI: So your only role was to ask that question, is that correct?

MR KGOETE: That is correct Chairperson.

MS VILAKAZI: Besides asking him a question, you did not do anything else?

MR KGOETE: No Chairperson, I did not do anything.

MS VILAKAZI: You were asked, reference was made to page 23 on the affidavit that you made in which you stated that "the local Chief Matlala gave permission to carry on with our mission". You were asked what permission was he given, you did not mention what Mr Matlala, what permission he gave you, you only mentioned that leaders like Mr Pirie gave instructions and you followed those instructions? Was there any permission given to you by Chief Matlala?

MR KGOETE: We did not speak to Chief Matlala, we, the only person we used to meet was the Headman. We met at the Chief's kraal or at the induna's kraal when we held our meetings.

MS VILAKAZI: So Chief Matlala did not give you any permission, is that correct?

MR KGOETE: We did not meet him.

MS VILAKAZI: And when you met the local Headman at the kraal, did he give you permission to do anything?

MR KGOETE: What we were told is that they found the suspects and therefore they should be brought to the Headman's kraal.

MS VILAKAZI: My question stands. Did Headman Matlala give you permission to do anything?

MR KGOETE: He did not say we should kill because he was not present, only his assistants were present.

MS VILAKAZI: I want to refer you to page 2 of the bundle, paragraph 10(b)(iv) says -

Which Chiefs were you referring to here?

MR KGOETE: Mr Mokoena was the assistant of the Headman. At that particular day he, he is the one who allowed us therefore to continue with this.

MS VILAKAZI: I refer you to page 4, the additional information. The ninth line from the bottom, the sentence starts with -

can you see that?

MR KGOETE: Yes, I do.

MS VILAKAZI: It says -

Why did you say that the Chief approved of the deeds, whereas on the other hand you said he never spoke to you?

MR KGOETE: In terms of our tradition, we don't meet the Chief, people are sent to him to convey any information that the community may have, and then they would go there and after agreeing with him, they would come back and report.

MS VILAKAZI: Now, do you have any reports that the Chief approved?

MR KGOETE: As his messengers came to report, they did not tell us that what we were doing, was wrong.

MS VILAKAZI: Who are the messengers that you are talking about?

MR KGOETE: If Samuel Mokoena was not present as the Headman, therefore he would be the one responsible. Mr Mokoena would be the one responsible to oversee what was happening, therefore he was present during this incident and at this meeting.

MS VILAKAZI: And when did Mr Mokoena tell you that the Chief approved?

MR KGOETE: Mr Mokoena did not inform us that the Chief did not, he did not tell us that we should continue or not continue during the meeting of the 12th, and then on the 15th, during that meeting, during the death of Mr Masetla, Mr Mokoena was present, and he did not say explicitly whether to continue or not to continue.

MS VILAKAZI: But you mentioned earlier that the messengers of the Chief conveyed the message that the Chief approved and when I asked you who were the messengers, you mentioned Mr Mokoena?

MR KGOETE: Yes.

MS VILAKAZI: Now, how can you say that you got the message that he approved, and at the same time you are saying Mr Mokoena did not say that the Chief either approved or did not approve?

CHAIRPERSON: He actually said Ms Vilakazi that the messengers didn't tell us that we were wrong.

MR KGOETE: They said that we may continue to search for the suspects.

MS VILAKAZI: So it is only an assumption that the Chief approved it, you don't know whether the Chief did approve or he did not approve, not so?

MR KGOETE: I agree that he gave us the permission.

ADV SANDI: Can I ask you to explain that, permission to do what? To search or to kill?

MR KGOETE: To search for the suspects.

ADV SANDI: And what about the killing?

MR KGOETE: The person who gave the permission, was Joseph.

MS VILAKAZI: Which Joseph are you talking about?

MR KGOETE: That is Joseph Pirie, he is the one who instructed us to kill Mr Masetla.

MS VILAKAZI: When Mr Magutla, the previous, the first applicant, Mr Masuku testified that Mr Magutla suggested that the deceased should be executed. Do you agree with that?

MR KGOETE: Yes.

MS VILAKAZI: And at the same time you are saying that Mr Pirie is the one who instructed you, can you explain that, that you killed the deceased?

MR KGOETE: That we should, that he should be killed in which method.

MS VILAKAZI: Who gave the instruction about the method that should be used?

MR KGOETE: That is Joseph Pirie.

MS VILAKAZI: Did you mention that in your application?

MR KGOETE: I just saw that he was one of the leaders.

MS VILAKAZI: I want to refer you again to page 9 and also on page 24. In all those pages, you repeated that the Chiefs approved of the deeds of the comrades. I am putting it to you, and I am speaking under correction, correct me if I am wrong, that it is not mentioned anywhere in your application that Mr Magutla gave the instruction that the deceased should be killed, and that Mr Pirie indicated how the deceased should be killed. Am I correct to say that?

MR KGOETE: Mr Magutla gave an order that his children should go and fetch petrol and a tyre, and then Mr Pirie ordered that he should be, the tyre should be put on his neck.

MS VILAKAZI: Is what you are saying now, indicated in your application?

MR RICHARD: I believe it is an unfair question, I don't believe the applicant has had a chance to restudy 100 pages of the volume.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. It is a matter of fact, it is either there or not there. Is it possible that it is not there?

MR RICHARD: It is possible.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it is a matter of fact, I mean, how far do you want to take it? Whether you have studied it, I have certainly not studied it, I don't think that there is time to put that now, so I think you must put what you want to put to him, so that he can respond.

MS VILAKAZI: I am putting it to you that in your application, you give an impression that the Chief approved of what you did and you do not indicate the role of, you don't indicate that you were instructed by Mr Pirie or, you were acting under instructions of Mr Pirie or Mr Magutla. What is your response?

MR KGOETE: We were not able to meet with the Chief, but in many instances we would be informed by Joseph Pirie, he would be the one who would relay messages or informations from the messenger or the Chief, that the Chief agrees to continue or not. Then we would just take it as he has stated it.

MS VILAKAZI: Was Chief Matlala affiliated to any political organisation according to your knowledge?

MR KGOETE: I would not know his membership, political membership, because I was not able to get into contact with him.

MS VILAKAZI: Do you recall ever seeing him in any of the ANC meetings?

MR KGOETE: I did not see him.

MS VILAKAZI: And what about Headman Matlala, did he belong to, according to your knowledge, did he belong to any political organisation?

MR KGOETE: I did not know. Again, I did not see him in any ANC meeting. I only saw him during the community meetings.

MS VILAKAZI: Did you attend the community meetings?

MR KGOETE: Yes, I attended the meeting of the 12th.

MS VILAKAZI: Was Headman Matlala present at that meeting?

MR KGOETE: He was not present. Do you mean the Chief or the induna?

MS VILAKAZI: I am talking about the induna Matlala?

MR KGOETE: Are you talking about the induna, Samuel, the Headman, Samuel or the Chief?

MS VILAKAZI: No, I am talking about Headman Samuel Matlala, was he present at the meeting of the 12th?

MR KGOETE: I am not able to recall as to whether he was present on the 12th.

MS VILAKAZI: Then you have just said that, you saw the Headman at meetings of the community and when I asked you which community meetings did you attend, you said on the 12th?

MR KGOETE: Yes.

MS VILAKAZI: Did you see Headman Matlala at that particular meeting or not?

MR KGOETE: On the 12th, he was present. On the 12th he was present.

MS VILAKAZI: When the deceased was fetched from his home, were you also present on the 15th that is?

MR KGOETE: Yes, I was.

MS VILAKAZI: Were you part of the group that went to his house?

MR KGOETE: Yes, I was.

MS VILAKAZI: The gentleman sitting next to me, Mr Moses Masetla, did you see him on that day?

MR KGOETE: Yes, I did.

MS VILAKAZI: Did you know him before that? Did you know when did he, was he part of the group that went to the house of the deceased Masetla?

MR KGOETE: I only saw him when Mr Masetla was brought to the meeting, but I did not see him on our way to Mr Masetla's house.

MS VILAKAZI: Mr Masetla is going to testify that he did not hear the deceased making any confession to killing Mr Mokoena. What is your comment?

MR KGOETE: That will be surprising because he is one of those who asked Mr Masetla as to whether he played a role in the death of Mr Mokoena. If he denies, I would be surprised.

MS VILAKAZI: I am also putting it to you that as Mr Masetla is going to testify, there was no taxi violence in that particular area where you lived?

MR KGOETE: I don't know, that would be his version of what was happening.

MS VILAKAZI: Do you know that there are people who were arrested and found guilty of killing Mr Mokoena, subsequent to the killing of Mr Masetla?

MR KGOETE: I learnt about one person.

MS VILAKAZI: Now what do you have to say about that, knowing that you took part in the killing of Mr Masetla and yet, there are people who were found guilty of having killed Mr Mokoena?

MR KGOETE: What I will say is that what happened. I asked for forgiveness for that, to him and to the entire family. Those who were arrested and charged, I did not know about them, and then that happened later, but we were informed earlier that he was responsible and then again, I questioned him about that, and then he confessed. I ask for forgiveness for what happened.

MS VILAKAZI: Do you realise now that Mr Masetla died for something that he did not do?

MR KGOETE: It is not that he did not do that, because he confessed that he was responsible. If it transpired that he was not responsible, it is, I am surprised to hear that.

MS VILAKAZI: He must have been scared at that time, not so?

MR KGOETE: I don't think that he was so frightened that he would agree for what he did not do, knowing that he did not kill him.

MS VILAKAZI: I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Mtanga?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS MTANGA: Mr Kgoete, on page 4 of your bundle you stated that the Masetla family was ex-communicated from the Mooihoek area, is this correct?

MR KGOETE: That is correct.

MS MTANGA: And then you further say that the police, the reason that you took this matter upon yourselves as comrades was because the police did not take any action against the deceased, even after concrete evidence was produced to them. Was this really done, did you ever approach the police or was this matter put to the police?

MR KGOETE: Days had passed and after Joseph Pirie reported to us that these people are involved in, the people who were involved in Mr Makena's killing are known, and the police knew everything but they were saying nothing really.

MS MTANGA: Who told the police?

MR KGOETE: I do not know who reported this matter to the police.

MS MTANGA: Do you know the person who has been convicted for killing Mr Mokoena?

MR KGOETE: Yes.

MS MTANGA: What was his political affiliation?

MR KGOETE: He lived quite far from me, so I would not know which political organisation he was affiliated to.

MS MTANGA: Were you amongst the people who went to see a sangoma after the meeting of the 12th of August?

MR KGOETE: Yes.

MS MTANGA: Were you present when the sangoma announced that Mr Masetla was responsible for the death of Mr Mokoena?

MR KGOETE: I was not.

MS MTANGA: Who told you about what the sangoma said?

MR KGOETE: Mr Joseph Pirie and, we went to see the sangoma at Tafelkop. At Tafelkop he did not say anything, he just said to us "get into the cars, we are going back". I asked him what the sangoma said, he did not respond. He said the feedback will be given already, when we are already in Mooihoek. The groups were then divided into classes and then Joseph Pirie informed us in the class. He said the person who knows about Mr Makena's killing, the person who killed Mr Mokoena is Mr Masetla.

MS MTANGA: When this was told to you, did you believe what the sangoma had said about Mr Masetla, did you really believe that he was correct when he said Mr Masetla had killed Mr Mokoena?

MR KGOETE: Yes, he ended up confessing that he took part. That was a final concrete to believe what was said.

MS MTANGA: Before Mr Masetla confessed to having killed Mr Mokoena, did you believe what the sangoma had said about Mr Masetla's involvement?

MR KGOETE: When, I did not know from Tafelkop until in Mooihoek what the sangoma revealed, who she said killed Mr Mokoena. We only learnt when we were at the school that the sangoma said the person who killed Mr Mokoena is this one. I asked then "is it true, do you know anything about Mr Makena's killing" and he responded.

MS MTANGA: When the group, when your group came back from the sangoma, did you proceed straight from the sangoma to fetch Mr Masetla or did you first go to the school, have a meeting and then went to fetch Mr Masetla, what was the sequence of events? Did you first hear he was the culprit or did you first fetch him and then get told that he was the culprit?

MR KGOETE: We left Tafelkop, we went to the school. We were told at the school that the, we were divided into a group, we were told a group from Tafelkop get into this class. Those who were left behind when we left for Tafelkop were in the other room. The other elderly men were woken up and we were then informed that the person who killed Mr Mokoena is Mr Masetla and he should be fetched. We went to fetch him.

MS MTANGA: My question is, at that time, at that point, when you were told that the person who had killed Mr Mokoena was Mr Masetla, that is before you went to fetch Mr Masetla, did you believe what the sangoma had said? Did you think or did you believe that he was correct to say, it could not be wrong by saying that Masetla was the person who had killed Mr Mokoena?

MR KGOETE: I had doubts when going to the sangoma, I did not believe he could be it.

MS MTANGA: So your, you only believed it when you heard Mr Masetla confess to it?

MR KGOETE: Plus what they reported back to us about the revelations of the sangoma.

MS MTANGA: When you came back from Mr Masetla's house with Mr Masetla, where did you take Mr Masetla to, from his house?

MR KGOETE: We took him to the school.

MS MTANGA: Was he inside the classroom or was he outside the classroom?

MR KGOETE: He went into the classroom.

MS MTANGA: And where were you at that time? Did you also go in or did you stay outside the classroom?

MR KGOETE: I went into the classroom.

MS MTANGA: Did you hear Mr Masetla confess to having killed Mr Mokoena?

MR KGOETE: Yes.

MS MTANGA: Who had asked him if he had killed Mr Mokoena?

MR KGOETE: I asked him and Mr Moses Masetla asked him the same question.

MS MTANGA: How many people asked him, besides yourself and Mr Moses Masetla?

MR KGOETE: I do not know about the others, I recall myself and Mr Moses Masetla asking.

MS MTANGA: I have no further questions, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Panel?

ADV SANDI: Do you know who attended the consultation if I may call it that, with the sangoma? It was Joseph Pirie and who else went inside the house to talk to the sangoma?

MR KGOETE: Hendrik Mokoena, Mapole Magutla and (indistinct). I do not recall the others.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

ADV BOSMAN: You knew that Mr - I am so sorry, I have just lost the name for the moment - you knew that the deceased was going to be killed?

MR KGOETE: When we were leaving for the mountain, it was only then that I knew that he was going to be killed.

ADV BOSMAN: And although you did nothing, you approved of the killing?

MR KGOETE: Because I went, yes.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?

MR RICHARD: The Committee has now just asked my last question, no further questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: You are excused, Mr Kgoete.

ON RESUMPTION:

CHAIRPERSON: Who is next?

MR RICHARD: Jacob Manasoe.

CHAIRPERSON: Who? Jacob Manasoe?

JACOB MANASOE: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Please be seated. Yes, Mr Richard?

EXAMINATION BY MR RICHARD: Thank you Mr Manasoe. Mr Manasoe, how old were you in 1990, August?

MR MANASOE: I was 19 years old.

MR RICHARD: And at that stage did you know the three applicants before the Committee today?

MR MANASOE: Yes, I knew them.

MR RICHARD: You have heard their evidence that all four of you were members of the ANC and the local Self Defence Unit, is that correct?

MR MANASOE: That is correct, sir.

MR RICHARD: You confirm that in and during August that year, there were a number of meetings principally those on the 12th and 15th of August and you were present at both of them?

MR MANASOE: I agree that there was a meeting on the 12th, I was present at that meeting, and on the 15th, there was a meeting, I attended the meeting, but late.

MR RICHARD: Now, did you know the deceased, Philemon Masetla?

MR MANASOE: I knew him.

MR RICHARD: Now, do you remember what political party he belonged to, if any?

MR MANASOE: I do not recall him being a member of a political organisation.

MR RICHARD: But for the rest, you have heard the evidence that has been given today by the first witness and the second witness, is that correct, you have heard what they have said?

MR MANASOE: I heard what they said, yes, it is a correct evidence.

MR RICHARD: And you confirm what they said and what they said about your involvement?

MR MANASOE: That is correct.

MR RICHARD: Now, when you remember the deceased and you remember what happened on the 15th of August, in your heart of hearts did you believe that he was an enemy of the liberation struggle?

MR MANASOE: Yes.

MR RICHARD: And you agree with the reasons that your two previous co-applicants had given, for why you hold that belief?

MR MANASOE: Yes, I agree with those.

MR RICHARD: Now, I submitted to the two previous witnesses, page 54. Can you have a look at the names on the page? Now you remember what the previous witnesses have said about them, that all these people were in effect ANC supporters, they were all senior to you, both in age and in status within the party, and they were all agreed that the deceased should be necklaced, do you agree with what was said?

MR MANASOE: Not all of them were senior to us, but they did agree that the deceased should be necklaced. They were members of the ANC.

MR RICHARD: How many were not senior to you in age?

MR MANASOE: Six.

MR RICHARD: My learned colleague on behalf of the implicated people, not on behalf of the victims, seeks to distance the Headman and the Chiefs from what happened. Now, you have also heard your other two co-applicants' answers that how the Chiefs might not have been present, their representatives were present at the meeting, do you agree that the Chief's representatives were present at the meetings?

MR MANASOE: That is true, the Chief had his representatives.

MR RICHARD: And would you also agree or disagree with the statement that if a meeting was going to take a decision to do something that the Chief did not approve of, or the Headman did not approve of, the messenger, the representative would be expected and required to tell the meeting what the Chief's attitude was, or otherwise he would not be doing his job?

MR MANASOE: Yes, if the Chief was not satisfied with the decision, he would convey the message.

MR RICHARD: And I put it very specifically, if at a meeting something as serious as the death of a member of the community is being discussed, if the Chief's representative at that meeting knew that the Chief disagreed with that decision, the messenger had a positive obligation and duty to tell that meeting what the Chief's opinion was, and if he failed to tell the meeting what the Chief's opinion was, he would be in very, very big trouble?

MR MANASOE: Yes, the Chief's representative has to come and tell us. If he is not present, he must have his assistant giving us a feedback.

MR RICHARD: At these meetings during August 1990, at no stage ever did any of the Chief's messengers or representatives ever say that the Chiefs objected to what was happening?

MR MANASOE: Nobody.

MR RICHARD: Do you know the gentleman across the room there?

MR MANASOE: I know him.

MR RICHARD: What are his names?

MR MANASOE: I know his surname, I know him as Ntate Masetla.

MR RICHARD: What is his relationship to the victim of the necklacing?

MR MANASOE: I do not know how are they related, but what I know is that their surnames are the same.

MR RICHARD: At the meeting on the 15th of August 1990, did you ever see that gentleman across the room, questioning the deceased?

MR MANASOE: I saw the gentleman at the meeting, I did not hear him ask a question. The person I did hear asking questions is Kgoete and Abednego and Pirie. Those are the people I heard asking questions.

MR RICHARD: What were the questions that they asked of the deceased?

MR MANASOE: They wanted to know whether he was involved in the killing of Mokoena.

MR RICHARD: What was Philemon Masetla's answer?

MR MANASOE: He agreed that he killed him.

MR RICHARD: Did he explain why and how?

MR MANASOE: He did not explain because after agreeing that he killed him, there was no time to ask other questions. We were told that we should all leave and take him to the mountain.

MR RICHARD: Were you a member of the group that took him to the mountain?

MR MANASOE: I was present.

MR RICHARD: Did you help by tying the deceased to the tree or pouring petrol, or what, or lighting the petrol or making him drink petrol?

MR MANASOE: I did not help as far as those activities are concerned.

MR RICHARD: Did you try to stop anyone doing anything?

MR MANASOE: I did not try to stop them from doing that.

MR RICHARD: And when he was burnt to death, did you agree that he should be burnt to death for causing the death of the comrade?

MR MANASOE: Yes. I agreed to his death, because that was the agreement, everybody who was going to kill any of our members or a member of the community, such a person should be acted against. There was no way of stopping the activities that were taking place, that is the killing of this man.

MR RICHARD: As I hear what you confirm, you believed that the deceased Philemon Masetla had killed one of your fellow ANC members, is that not correct?

MR MANASOE: That is correct, I believed so.

MR RICHARD: It is also correct that you believed that he was an enemy of the struggle for those reasons?

MR MANASOE: I believed so, yes.

MR RICHARD: It follows that because you confirmed the previous two witnesses' evidence, you believed that the taxi violence in your area was politically motivated?

MR MANASOE: I do believe there was a taxi violence in our area, yes.

MR RICHARD: It is going to be suggested that there was no taxi violence in the Mooihoek, Tafelkop area in 1990. What is your answer to that question?

MR MANASOE: There was a taxi violence, I know two people who died in the taxi violence.

MR RICHARD: Now, to which political party did the two people you know, belong?

MR MANASOE: They were members of the ANC Youth League.

MR RICHARD: Forgive me Chairperson, but I believe that I have covered it, but I will just make sure, and at all material times you were a member of the SDU and the ANC and the Youth League?

MR MANASOE: Yes.

MR RICHARD: No further questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Vilakazi, questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VILAKAZI: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Manasoe, about the issue of taxi's. First let me ask you, did you live in the Mooihoek area or where did you live at the time of the incident?

MR MANASOE: I was staying at Mooihoek.

MS VILAKAZI: Do you know how many taxi's there were in Mooihoek?

MR MANASOE: I am not sure of the number of taxi's that there were at Mooihoek, I am not sure of the number.

MS VILAKAZI: What would you say that there more than five for example?

MR MANASOE: I am not sure Chairperson. In Mooihoek I remember of two and at Tsimanyane I remember of two taxi's. Those are the four taxi's that I knew.

MS VILAKAZI: Do you know if those taxi's were licensed or not?

MR MANASOE: I was not sure.

MS VILAKAZI: I want to refer you to page 63 of the bundle. In the second paragraph, number 3, first let me ask you, who wrote, is this your, part of your application, this page 63 part of your application?

MR MANASOE: That is correct Chairperson.

MS VILAKAZI: Whose handwriting is on this page?

MR MANASOE: That is myself.

MS VILAKAZI: And the name at the bottom, Jacob Lesiba Manasoe, is that you who wrote that name?

MR MANASOE: That is correct, I am Jacob Lesiba Manasoe.

MS VILAKAZI: Now going back to point 3 in paragraph 2, you say -

Do you see that?

MR MANASOE: I do.

MS VILAKAZI: Now why do you say the government issued unlimited licensed, do you know how many licences were issued?

MR MANASOE: I am not sure of the number, there were many taxi's in our area and our neighbouring areas. They had many taxi's there. That is why I wrote the statement in this way.

MS VILAKAZI: But you have just alluded to the fact that you didn't know whether the taxi's that you knew of in the area, were licensed or not, not so?

MR MANASOE: I was not sure as to whether the taxi's which were operating there, were licensed taxi's or not. But the taxi's which were in our surrounding areas, were many. In Mooihoek the taxi's were not many.

MS VILAKAZI: Now, how do you connect the taxi's, the issuing of unlimited licences by the former government and the taxi violence if there wasn't any taxi violence that took place in your area?

MR MANASOE: I associated that because people were killed. After that, cases were opened. The people who were responsible for the killings were still operating in that area until the day when Mr Mokoena was murdered. That is then when we had already formed SDUs and we were able to take an action.

MS VILAKAZI: But you don't know for a fact whether those taxi's were licensed or not? Not so?

MR MANASOE: Yes, I did not have that information.

MS VILAKAZI: And then in number 4 you said -

MR MANASOE: Yes.

MS VILAKAZI: Who are the non-blacks who ordered the killing of poor passengers?

MR MANASOE: In that statement I wrote that taxi's were many in the surrounding areas. Where there were many, there are people whom you would be able to observe that they are just loitering around, then after a short period, you will see them all in new taxi's, therefore we had suspicions that perhaps there are people who are owning these taxi's and probably white people. Many taxi's who were owned by those kind of people, were from town.

MS VILAKAZI: I am putting it to you that there was no taxi violence in your area, what is your comment?

CHAIRPERSON: Do you agree or disagree? Don't tell us, don't repeat your evidence please.

MR MANASOE: I do not agree.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Vilakazi?

MS VILAKAZI: All right. Still on page 63, right at the top, you said -

what concrete evidence was produced against the deceased?

MR MANASOE: We were informed that the deceased was the one responsible for the killing of Mr Mokoena. We were told by people who were our leaders that therefore we would not believe that they were lying to us. They were our leaders and therefore what they were telling us, was the truth. Therefore we were told by Mr Pirie, he informed us about that in a meeting, that Mr Masetla was responsible for the murder of Mr Mokoena.

MS VILAKAZI: In which meeting did Mr Pirie say that Mr Masetla is the one responsible for Mr Makena's death?

MR MANASOE: On the 12th there was a meeting and then in that meeting, the decision was taken that we should go to a place called Moyideng to look for suspects who were part, they were hired by Mr Masetla. We went there to search for those suspects at night. We did not find them, and the following day there was a meeting. We, it was explained to us, it is then that other men informed us that if we found those people, we should go and call them and those people should be killed. Then there was a meeting after that meeting, then after that meeting, the meeting on the 15th was held.

MS VILAKAZI: Are you saying that the information that Mr Masetla is the one responsible for Mr Makena's death, was given in the meeting of the 12th?

MR MANASOE: Not on the 12th. Not on the 12th.

MS VILAKAZI: The question still remains, in which meeting was the information given that it is Mr Masetla who was responsible for Makena's death?

MR MANASOE: There was another meeting after the meeting on the 12th, after the 12th, there was a meeting, then on that particular night we went to a particular place to look for those people. When we returned, we returned at dawn. Then we were instructed to go home to go and wash. We left and then when we returned, we received information that one of those people is among us, but we were not given that it is Mr Masetla. We were only informed that he is amongst us.

Then there was a meeting on the 15th. I did not know what happened at that meeting, because I arrived late. When I arrived, I saw people assembled at the school and they were singing. I entered. Around one o'clock, midnight, two vans arrived. People disembarked from those vans and then Mr Pirie came to the class which we assembled in. He came and said he wanted members of the SDUs, all of us should go to a particular class which was opposite to that one. We left that particular class and went to another class. We were told that Mr Masetla is the one who has killed Mr Mokoena and that we should go and fetch him, but before we had to, there were men who were leaders of the community. They told us when we found Mr Masetla, we should inform them first. I was sent to go and fetch him. I went together with Mishak. We called Mr Mokoena, we found Mr Mokoena and he told us that he would follow us. We left, then we went to Mr Masetla, who is sitting next to you. I knocked at the door, then he asked me, he wanted to find out about my identity, I told him that I am Jackie, then he asked me what I wanted. I told him that I was sent by the comrades in regard to the earlier instruction, that if we found the person responsible for the killing of Mr Mokoena, we should come and fetch them. He told me that he would follow me, then I went to the school and informed the meeting that I informed those men and that they said that they would be coming. We waited for them to arrive and then they did, later. That is Mr Mokoena and Mr Masetla arrived at the meeting. Mr Magutla was present at the meeting, and I did not know who went to inform him. We were told that we should go, all of us, to Mr Masetla's place. We went there. When we arrived there ...

CHAIRPERSON: I am going to interrupt you, Mr Manasoe, don't repeat the whole story. I think you have responded to the question, it was disclosed that Mr Masetla was supposed to be the killer. Yes?

MS VILAKAZI: Okay, so if I understand you well, you only knew at the meeting on the 15th that Mr Masetla, the deceased, is the one who is responsible for the death, is that correct?

MR MANASOE: On the 15th, that is when I knew when I was told directly in a class, and then he, in the way he responded to the questions asked.

MS VILAKAZI: Do you know anything about the story of the sangoma?

MR MANASOE: I know nothing about the sangoma.

MS VILAKAZI: When Mr Masetla was, the deceased, when he was asked whether he killed Mr Mokoena, where were you, were you in the classroom or outside the classroom?

CHAIRPERSON: Or were you at the meeting or not at the meeting?

MR MANASOE: At the time when he was asked that question, I was in that classroom.

MS VILAKAZI: So you heard his response, not so?

MR MANASOE: I did Chairperson.

MS VILAKAZI: You said Mr Moses Masetla, sitting next to me, you did not hear Moses Masetla ask the deceased whether he killed Mr Mokoena or not?

MR MANASOE: I did not hear him ask him a question.

MS VILAKAZI: But you would have heard him if he had asked that question, not so?

CHAIRPERSON: If you were present at the meeting at the time when he asked the question, bearing in mind that you came late?

MR MANASOE: The time when he was asking questions, I was there. It is possible that he asked a question and I did not hear him, but I have no recollection hearing him asking a question.

MS VILAKAZI: Okay. I would like to refer you to page 65 of the bundle, under Section B, number 11. In response to the request for your justification regarding the offence, your response was "I was misled by the leaders of our ANC Youth League Branch in Mooihoek". Why do you say you were misled?

MR MANASOE: For me to say I was lied to, it is because we killed a person, and after he was killed, there was nothing better which happened. The only thing that happened is that I was sent to prison. That is why I stated this in my statement.

MS VILAKAZI: Which ANC Youth League leaders are you referring to here, the ones who misled you, who are they?

MR MANASOE: Those people like Mr Pirie, he is one of them and Abednego was one of them. Those are the people who gave orders in many instances.

MS VILAKAZI: Was Mr Pirie part of the Youth League?

MR MANASOE: And then again he was the Commander of the SDU.

MS VILAKAZI: Yes, but my question is, was he a member of the Youth League?

MR MANASOE: Yes.

MS VILAKAZI: Okay. Do you also believe that the Chief approved of your activities?

MR MANASOE: I believed so.

MS VILAKAZI: Why did you believe so?

MR MANASOE: The reason for my belief is that if he did not agree, the Headman could have told us that the Chief is not in agreement with us.

MS VILAKAZI: In the same breath, if the Chief did not, was concerned about the killing of people in his area, he would have called a meeting to discuss this, not so?

MR MANASOE: Sorry?

MS VILAKAZI: I am saying in the same breath, if the Chief was concerned about the killing of people in his area, he would have called a meeting to discuss that, not so?

MR MANASOE: It is not so, because we were not, he did not call us, but only the Headman did after the killing.

MS VILAKAZI: Before the killing, did the Chief call a meeting to discuss, before the killing of Mr Masetla, did the Chief call a meeting to discuss or to indicate his concern about the killing of people in the area?

MR MANASOE: The Chief did not call a meeting, but the meetings were called by the Headman.

MS VILAKAZI: Which meeting was called by the Headman?

MR MANASOE: The meeting which was called by the Headman was on a particular day, though I don't remember the date correctly, but after the meeting of the 12th, there was a meeting which was called by the Headman.

MS VILAKAZI: In that meeting, did the question of the killing of Mr Mokoena, was it discussed?

MR MANASOE: I am not sure of the content of that meeting, because I was not present, but I knew about that meeting, and I was working.

MS VILAKAZI: Do you know if Headman Matlala gave permission for the killing of Mr Masetla?

MR MANASOE: I do not know. I do not know.

MS VILAKAZI: Okay. Now, you stated on page 62 that the Chief of the community in line number seven from the bottom, "the Chief of the community approved the deeds of the comrades and ex-communicated the families of the deceased from the community". Why do you say the families of the deceased were ex-communicated?

MR MANASOE: I do not remember the dates, but they were ex-communicated from the community, then I received the information that they were ex-communicated from our parents. As to whether that was, that order was from the Chief or the Headman, I didn't know, but I observed when they removed themselves from the community and it was spoken about in the community.

MS VILAKAZI: I am putting it to you that the immediate family of the deceased, that is Mrs Masetla and her children, moved away from the place out of their, it was their own decision, they were not forced to move. You cannot dispute that, can you?

MR MANASOE: I would not dispute that, because I did not know the true facts as to whether they were ex-communicated, but I was informed that they were.

MS VILAKAZI: And Mr Moses Masetla, the relative of the deceased, still lives in that area? Do you know that?

MR MANASOE: I do not know. But when I, before I was imprisoned, he was there, but I don't know for sure that he is currently in that community, but before I left, he was still staying there.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Mtanga?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS MTANGA: I have a few questions, Chairperson. Mr Manasoe, you have testified that you only knew of two taxi's that were operating in your area, that is Mooihoek, am I correct?

MR MANASOE: Yes, that is correct, I knew of two taxi's which operated in our area, Mooihoek.

MS MTANGA: Who were the owners of these taxi's?

MR MANASOE: The one belonged to Mr Mokoena and the other one belonged to Mr Masetla. Those are the taxi's I knew.

MS MTANGA: At the time of the killing of Mr Mokoena, do you know for how long had the two taxi's been operating in your area? For how long, was it for a year, for more than a year or for more than two years, more than three years?

MR MANASOE: I am not sure of the duration, but they operated for a longer time before the incident.

MS MTANGA: Okay. So when in your application on page 63 under the points that you highlight, when at number 3 you state that the former government issued unlimited licences to cause chaos in the black communities, how did this affect the two taxi's that were operating in Mooihoek, whom you say had been operating for quite a long time?

MR MANASOE: For me to state that the former government issues many licences, fewer licences, the main reason was that the surrounding areas, that is where taxi's are active, there was violence in those surrounding areas, therefore I thought that that was the reason which caused the taxi violence and then again, this affected the two taxi owners in our area, that is Mooihoek.

MS MTANGA: What type of taxi's were owned by Mr Mokoena and Mr Masetla, was it kombis or just ordinary vehicles, bakkies?

MR MANASOE: Mr Mokoena had a kombi and a private car. Mr Masetla had a panelvan, so he was using that as a taxi.

MS MTANGA: Did you at any time suspect Mr Masetla of not being the owner of the taxi that he was using?

MR MANASOE: Then I did not have a suspicion, before there was confusion.

MS MTANGA: Did you later have the suspicion that he didn't own the taxi that he was using?

MR MANASOE: Yes, that is correct Chairperson.

MS MTANGA: How did you come to suspect that he didn't own the taxi? What was the basis of your suspicion?

MR MANASOE: I started knowing him being unemployed, he was selling alcohol, not of much quantities, that is why I suspected that he is not the owner of that taxi.

MS MTANGA: So you are saying Mr Masetla was selling alcohol?

MR MANASOE: Yes.

MS MTANGA: Are you also aware that he was selling vegetables?

MR MANASOE: I did not know about vegetables.

MS MTANGA: And as you know, he was also involved in the taxi business, so he had three types of businesses, if I may put it to you. Did you know that he had three types of businesses that he was running, even though he was not employed?

MR MANASOE: I only know about alcohol and then later I knew about the taxi operation.

MS MTANGA: Was Mr Mokoena employed?

MR MANASOE: Mr Mokoena was not employed.

ADV BOSMAN: He was obviously self-employed, Ms Mtanga.

MS MTANGA: Did you also suspect him as not owning his kombi?

MR MANASOE: I did not have suspicions, because when I started knowing him, he was driving the Peugeot sedan. Then thereafter, he had another car which was not in order, then he used that car later.

MS MTANGA: At the time he was driving the Peugeot, did he also have the kombi that he was using for ranking?

MR MANASOE: He was using the Peugeot as a taxi.

MS MTANGA: I have no further questions Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Panel?

ADV SANDI: Just one question from me Chair. Who was the Chairman at the meeting of the 12th of August?

MR MANASOE: I am not able to recollect the Chairperson of the meeting on the 12th, but I think it is Mr Mokoena and Mr Magutla.

ADV SANDI: And at the meeting of the 15th, who was the Chairman there?

MR MANASOE: On the 15th, I arrived late. I did not know who was the Chairperson of the meeting. I arrived there and people were just singing.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Don't repeat it.

ADV SANDI: What were they singing, what were they saying as they were singing?

MR MANASOE: They were chanting freedom songs.

ADV SANDI: Can you explain why you did not suspect that Mr Mokoena who was unemployed, in the same way as Mr Masetla, why did you not suspect that he didn't own the vehicle he was using as a taxi?

MR MANASOE: Mr Mokoena was the person I knew him very well, more than Mr Masetla, I started knowing him using that Peugeot as a taxi. That is why I did not have that suspicion. The started using that Peugeot before there were many taxi's. I grew up seeing him using that Peugeot as a taxi.

ADV SANDI: Why did you not think that Mr Masetla, because he was selling alcohol, would have been able to raise some money and buy another vehicle to use as a taxi?

MR MANASOE: The duration he spent for selling alcohol, raised suspicion. Even the quantity of the alcohol he sold, gave a suspicion that he would be able to raise enough money to buy a taxi.

ADV SANDI: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?

MR RICHARD: No questions in re-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: You are excused, Mr Manasoe.

ON RESUMPTION:

CHAIRPERSON: Do you want to lead the evidence of the last applicant, I assume? Mr Ntshabeleng. Just swop around there please. Are your full names Johannes Ntshabeleng?

MR NTSHABELENG: Correct chairperson.

JOHANNES NTSHABELENG: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Please be seated. Mr Richard?

EXAMINATION BY MR RICHARD: Thank you Chairperson. Sir, I am correct, you have been present here all day and you have heard the previous two, three applicants give evidence? Did you hear them give evidence, the three applicants that gave evidence?

MR NTSHABELENG: That is correct.

MR RICHARD: Did you hear what they said and understand or pay attention?

MR NTSHABELENG: I did Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: Very well. Do you confirm what they said?

MR NTSHABELENG: I do Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: Is there anything that you disagree with about what they said about what you did, they did, in connection with this incident?

MR NTSHABELENG: Please repeat your question.

MR RICHARD: Is there anything that you disagree with about what they said about this incident, about what you did, they did, what happened?

MR NTSHABELENG: No, there is nothing that I disagree with from their evidence.

MR RICHARD: So very briefly, to sum it up, you confirm that at the time of the killing of Philemon Masetla, you were a member of the ANC, a member of the Self Defence Unit in Mooihoek?

MR NTSHABELENG: That is correct.

MR RICHARD: And you also confirm that there was taxi violence in and around that area at the time?

MR NTSHABELENG: Correct Chairperson, not inside Mooihoek, but in areas like Tafelkop and other surrounding areas, in Mampogo as it has been stated by my co-applicants.

MR RICHARD: Now, what was Mr Mokoena in the ANC?

MR NTSHABELENG: If I remember well he was a Youth member of the organisation in our area.

MR RICHARD: And it is correct that he was killed in taxi violence?

MR NTSHABELENG: Yes.

MR RICHARD: And your, you saw his killing as an act which was in opposition to the ANC and its struggle?

MR NTSHABELENG: Yes, because as members of the SDUs, if one of us was killed or if one of the members of the SDUs or ANC or ANC Youth League was killed, therefore I would see that the people responsible are against the activities of the ANC.

MR RICHARD: I have said quite a lot about this list of names which I have at page 54. You have heard the evidence of the three other applicants that almost all of those people are ANC members and supporters and affiliates?

MR NTSHABELENG: Yes, I agree with that statement, except the two Mokolo's because I was not sure as to whether they were members of any political party, because they only came there because we requested transport from them.

MR RICHARD: Now, that meeting is the meeting at which it was decided that the deceased, Philemon Masetla should be killed?

MR NTSHABELENG: That is correct.

MR RICHARD: How old were you at that meeting, at that time?

MR NTSHABELENG: I was going to turn 17, I was about 16 and a few months.

MR RICHARD: Now, what I have said to the other witnesses is then more true for you, that the various people on this list were mostly senior and of much greater stature to you in the ANC, they were in charge of you?

MR NTSHABELENG: As I have already explained and my co-applicants have stated that we were members of the ANC Youth League, there were people who were senior to us, both in age and in their role within the organisation.

MR RICHARD: Well, to skip through the stuff that you have already confirmed and to go to the mountain. Let me ask this question, were you on the mountain when the man was burnt?

MR NTSHABELENG: Yes, I went there.

MR RICHARD: Did you help in lighting the petrol?

MR NTSHABELENG: Firstly I tried to tie the deceased on the tree and then again forced him to drink petrol. I was instructed to do so.

MR RICHARD: Now, are you ready?

MR NTSHABELENG: Yes, I am.

MR RICHARD: To go back a bit, were you at the meeting when the deceased was questioned?

MR NTSHABELENG: That is correct.

MR RICHARD: Who questioned the deceased?

MR NTSHABELENG: If I remember well, I did ask a question and Mr Masetla asked a question. Mr Magutla, if I am not making a mistake.

MR RICHARD: Which Mr Masetla asked a question?

MR NTSHABELENG: I am not sure as to whether he was the brother or the one who is in front of me.

MR RICHARD: The one in front of you or somebody else?

MR NTSHABELENG: This is the one who is in front of me, who asked the question.

MR RICHARD: What question did he ask of the deceased?

MR NTSHABELENG: He asked the deceased as to whether he was responsible for the killing of Mr Mokoena, then he replied by saying that he was responsible.

MR RICHARD: Did Mr Masetla, the person that you are looking at across the room right now, do anything at all to stop what was happening or to prevent the meeting deciding to feed petrol to Philemon Masetla, to tie him to a tree, cover him in petrol and light him?

MR NTSHABELENG: No, I don't remember telling us to stop doing that because I didn't see him when we went to the mountain.

MR RICHARD: But you saw him at the meeting?

MR NTSHABELENG: Yes, I saw him in the meeting.

MR RICHARD: At the meeting he did nothing to try and persuade people to stop doing what they were doing?

MR NTSHABELENG: No.

MR RICHARD: Now, Chairperson, no further questions at this stage, I am just repeating matters that he has confirmed.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you. Cross-examination Ms Vilakazi?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VILAKAZI; Thank you Mr Chairperson. Mr Ntshabeleng, who ordered you to kill the deceased, to necklace the deceased?

MR NTSHABELENG: Mr Joseph Pirie as our leader gave us an instruction.

MS VILAKAZI: I want to refer you to your application on page 75. In response to a question on 11(A), in response to the question were the acts committed in the execution of an order, you response is "the African National Congress Youth League, SDU", can you see that?

MR NTSHABELENG: Yes.

MS VILAKAZI: Can I ask your legal representative to assist you.

MR RICHARD: He's got the document in front of him, page 75, paragraph 11(A).

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on Ms Vilakazi, what is the question?

MS VILAKAZI: Now, on page 80 of the bundle, question 10(a) "state political objective sought to be achieved", your response is "Chief instructed us to commit murder".

On page 81, the continuation of that question, (b) your response is -

MR NTSHABELENG: As it has been explained already by my co-applicants, there were people who were taking our messages to the Chief's kraal, because we were too little (indistinct) we had to tell them what they were supposed to pass on to the Chief. If there was anything that the Chief wanted to know, the Chief would tell induna Matlala and induna Matlala would tell us. If Headman Matlala was not present, he had his assistants. We were not directly involved with the Chief, but he had his own people to assist him.

MS VILAKAZI: Did the Chief instruct you to murder as you wrote in your affidavit?

MR NTSHABELENG: Not directly, but I should say indirectly because he sent his messengers to give us a message.

MS VILAKAZI: Which messengers are you talking about?

MR NTSHABELENG: People like Mr Mokoena, Mr Magutla, those are the people who were close to the Chief's kraal. These are the people who were transferring the message, communicating the message to the Chief's kraal.

MS VILAKAZI: But when I asked you, my first question, who instructed you to kill, you said it was Mr Pirie?

MR NTSHABELENG: Yes, he gave me the instruction when we were at school, by that time, so that is why I said he gave me the instruction. He is the one who gave me the straight instruction, not like the Headman.

MS VILAKAZI: On page 85, in response to the further particulars that were required by the TRC, under question 1, on page 85, under question 1, point 5 the question was "who gave the orders in the SDU" and your response was -

MR NTSHABELENG: No, this thing I didn't write by myself, I asked my fellow prisoner to write for me please, so he didn't understand what I said maybe because Mr Tsukudo, he told me that there was a meeting in the Headman's place, so I went there. Maybe this is a mistake that the fellow ...

MS VILAKAZI: Are you saying that the responses to the request for further particulars was not written by you?

MR NTSHABELENG: This second question, I asked someone to write for me, because I was a little bit confused. At that time I was sick in the prison, so I didn't have time to write, and this thing was given to me in a short space, so I had to return it back to the TRC.

MS VILAKAZI: I want to understand you clearly. Who wrote the information on page 85, up to page 86 of the bundle?

MR NTSHABELENG: If I remember well, I have just said now, there at the prison I asked a fellow inmate to write for me please, but the first one, if I am not mistaken, the first one was written by me and the others were written by my co-applicant.

MS VILAKAZI: Are you saying these two pages were not written by the same person?

MR NTSHABELENG: No, let me see, where is that?

MS VILAKAZI: I am referring specifically to pages 85 and 86.

MR NTSHABELENG: This one was written by the same fellow prisoner.

CHAIRPERSON: What is your response, Mr Ntshabeleng?

MR NTSHABELENG: My response is that I am asking for forgiveness from the family of Mr Masetla and members of his family about what happened. This was an awful deed that ended up taking a life of a family member and we appear before this Committee today to ask for forgiveness.

MR RICHARD: May I suggest you repeat the question?

MS VILAKAZI: Yes, I understand that you feel bad, but the question is, the information on pages 85 and 86, who wrote that information?

MR NTSHABELENG: As I mentioned, I asked a fellow inmate to help me, to write it, because I was a little confused and sick inside the prison.

MS VILAKAZI: So the whole information was written by your fellow inmate, is that what you are saying?

MR NTSHABELENG: Yes, I asked him to help me to write this, because I couldn't write this.

MS VILAKAZI: Did you read this before signing?

MR NTSHABELENG: Not really, I just took some time and there and then ...

MS VILAKAZI: Can you explain why you did not write yourself?

MR NTSHABELENG: Because - should I carry on?

MS VILAKAZI: Yes please.

MR NTSHABELENG: I have explained already that I was sick and I was not sure of my handwriting and you know, corresponding with the TRC, one needs to have a clear handwriting, so that they can read something that is clearly written on paper, not to think of what was being said here. That is why I asked somebody to write on my behalf.

MS VILAKAZI: Okay, I have no further questions, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Mtanga?

MS MTANGA: I have no questions, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Panel?

ADV SANDI: No questions, Chairperson thank you.

ADV BOSMAN: I have no questions, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination?

MR RICHARD: No re-examination, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ntshabeleng, you are excused. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the case for the applicants, Mr Richard?

MR RICHARD: That is the case.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Vilakazi, are you tendering any evidence?

MS VILAKAZI: Yes, honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Who is it?

MS VILAKAZI: I call Mr Moses Masetla.

CHAIRPERSON: Just give him a microphone please.

MS VILAKAZI: The witness does not have an objection to taking the oath.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Masetla, please stand. Are your full names Moses Masetla?

MR MASETLA: That is correct.

MOSES MASETLA: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Please sit down. Yes Ms Vilakazi?

EXAMINATION BY MS VILAKAZI: Mr Masetla, can you explain to the Committee the relationship between yourself and the deceased, Philemon? The relationship between yourself and Philemon Masetla?

MR MASETLA: Philemon Masetla is my brother's child.

MS VILAKAZI: On the day that he was killed, were you present?

MR MASETLA: I was present, they came to wake me up.

MS VILAKAZI: Who came to wake you up, do you remember?

MR MASETLA: I remember Manasoe came to wake me up.

MS VILAKAZI: Manasoe, you mean the applicant who has just testified?

MR MASETLA: Yes.

MS VILAKAZI: Who else was there, do you remember, was he the only one?

MR MASETLA: I asked who he was, and he said he was Manasoe. The others I did not know, they were many and they were all boys, young boys, but I managed to know Manasoe. He told me "I am Manasoe" and I woke up, I opened.

MS VILAKAZI: Okay. At the time when you were woken up at your home, or do you know a person called Joseph Pirie?

MR MASETLA: Yes.

MS VILAKAZI: Was he present at the time when you were collected from your home?

MR MASETLA: I did not see him because it was at night.

MS VILAKAZI: Are you able to tell roughly how many people were there?

MR MASETLA: There were many, but I would not be able to count really, it was at night. There were many, it was just a group of young boys. I cannot tell really how many they were, it was at night.

MS VILAKAZI: So you only see young boys, you didn't see any elderly people in the group, is that correct?

MR MASETLA: The elderly person I saw was Mr Mokoena.

MS VILAKAZI: And then, what happened thereafter?

MR MASETLA: They went to the deceased's house to fetch him. They did not have any time to talk to me and they just took me and as I was standing, they did their things. I did nothing. Mr Mokoena was with me, he was quiet at all times, he did not say anything. Even when they fetched him, we went to the school and then they started asking him "did you do it" and he did not respond, because many people asked him really.

MS VILAKAZI: Okay, let me stop you just there. Now, you - did I hear you correctly to say that you, after you were collected then you went to the deceased's place?

MR MASETLA: Yes, we went to the deceased's place.

MS VILAKAZI: Did you not go to the school first and then to the deceased's place?

MR MASETLA: No. We were supposed to be at school, then we met with Mr Mokoena. Mr Mokoena, his son was pushing him saying "go", then we were not even at the school. We went to the school after they had been to his house.

MS VILAKAZI: When you say his house, who are you referring to?

MR MASETLA: From the deceased's house.

MS VILAKAZI: Okay. Now, three of the applicants have testified that while you were in a classroom, the deceased confessed that he killed, or agreed that he killed Mr Mokoena. Is that information correct?

MR MASETLA: That is not the truth. I have never heard him saying that. I did not hear him confessing that he did that. I don't want to give evidence to what I don't know.

MS VILAKAZI: Did you ask the deceased if he is the one who killed Mr Mokoena?

MR MASETLA: I did not say a word. They woke me up, we just left from my house, we did not talk. I never uttered a word about everything that was happening.

MS VILAKAZI: Not even in the classroom, is that what you are saying?

MR MASETLA: I did not utter a word, I only asked "who are you", and they said, they responded and said "wake up, they want you at school", that was the last time I opened my mouth.

CHAIRPERSON: Did they ask you any questions?

MR MASETLA: They did not ask me anything.

CHAIRPERSON: And you never participated in any of this?

MR MASETLA: There is no part I took. They just took me as I was from my house, but I saw Mr Mokoena who was driven to the school with me. His son was actually driving him and he wanted to go back, but his son did not allow him, he pushed him forward. That is what I saw. I could not recognise the others, because it was at night.

CHAIRPERSON: Didn't you ask what was going on, "why are you here in the middle of the night, what do you want from me, what is happening here, why are you accusing this man, he is an innocent man", you did nothing?

MR MASETLA: I was afraid to even ask, everybody was asleep, I was the only one woken up in my area and that surprised me really. I did not say anything.

CHAIRPERSON: When this bunch of children come and they wake you up and they take you to the school in the middle of the night, and there you just stand the whole time? They don't ask you anything, you don't say anything, how did you get away from the school?

MR MASETLA: Yes, I managed to be at the school, because I was being pushed.

CHAIRPERSON: How did you get away from the school, if you got away from the school?

MR MASETLA: I don't know how it came about that I left the school. Everybody stood up and they walked away. Myself and Mr Mokoena just stood still. We didn't go anywhere, there was nothing to say to them really.

CHAIRPERSON: But you must have at some stage, you must have left the school, or what?

MR MASETLA: When they left the school, I also left for my home. Magadi was at school, he was just sent to the school, but I don't know what brought him to the school. After the incident at the school, when they left for that place, I went home.

CHAIRPERSON: And then, what did you do?

MR MASETLA: When I arrived at home?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR MASETLA: As I was sitting, I saw the nephew of the deceased came running, saying "they have killed my uncle", they did not give anybody a chance to talk, they did not waste any time. They asked you a question in movement. When I arrived at home, it was not after quite a long time when the nephew came to say "they have killed my uncle".

CHAIRPERSON: Didn't you go to the police?

MR MASETLA: We went to the foreman, the policeman had already been called. The hospital was far, I don't know who went to the hospital to call the police, but I was just surprised to see the police arriving.

CHAIRPERSON: So you went, you basically went home and you sat at home and what else did you do?

MR MASETLA: I did not do anything, I just stayed there until the police arrived.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, yes, Ms Vilakazi?

MS VILAKAZI: Now, Mr Masetla, if you had anything to say at the time when you were taken by the group, would you have been able to say anything to them?

MR MASETLA: They were not going to give me an opportunity to say a word. There was no time to utter a word. Even the deceased, there was no time to open his mouth. This happened in no time. I did not hear many things that they are saying they had spoken. What they are saying is new to me.

MS VILAKAZI: Now, did at any time during the process when you were marched to the school, and even at the school, did you have any reason to believe that Mr Mokoena was part of the group of youngsters and that he was their leader?

MR MASETLA: I would not know, it was at night when I met him after I had been woken from my house. Now I don't know whether he was involved with these youngsters or not. I was only surprised to be woken up from my house.

MS VILAKAZI: Did you see him giving any instructions?

MR MASETLA: He did not say a word. I saw him but his son was pushing him, he wanted to move back, but his son was pushing him forward. Whether he uttered a word, I do not know. I did not hear a word. I will not give evidence about what I did not see or hear.

MS VILAKAZI: Now you have also heard the applicants testifying that there was taxi violence in the area, in your area, what is your comment about that?

MR MASETLA: I do not know about a taxi violence. Where I live, I had never experienced any taxi violence. I don't know about other areas surrounding our area. Again, I will not testify to what I do not know.

MS VILAKAZI: And it has also been suggested that the family of the deceased was ex-communicated from the community. Was that the position?

MR MASETLA: There is nothing like that. They voluntarily left their place. The other one went to Tafelkop, nobody chased them away, they voluntarily left. I was the one left behind. I just remained behind, because I wanted to.

MS VILAKAZI: Now mention has also been made of the Chief's messengers. Who, do you know who the Chief's messengers are?

MR MASETLA: I do not know them. Matlala was the King's messenger and anything that was being discussed, would be discussed among all of us, but we were not able to take any decision on our own. That is new to me. The decisions were taken by the Chief.

MS VILAKAZI: You have just referred to Matlala. I want you to be specific because we have Chief Matlala and the Headman Matlala. Which Matlala were you referring to?

MR MASETLA: Makobe is the right-hand of the Chief. If there is anything troubling us in the village, we go to him and if it is too difficult for us to handle, we all gather at the Chief's kraal to address the Chief, but Makobe Matlala was the foreman. If there was an incident and we cannot resolve it, he would take it to the Chief. The way they put it, no that is not the right version.

MS VILAKAZI: Was Mr Mokoena the Chief's messenger?

MR MASETLA: I do not know. I knew the right-hand of the Chief to be Makobe Matlala. I don't know whether the Chief had appointed Mokoena, but had it been the situation, the Chief would have informed all his subjects in writing. I don't know anything about him.

MS VILAKAZI: How long have you been staying in Mooihoek?

MR MASETLA: I arrived in Mooihoek in 1972. It was in 1972.

MS VILAKAZI: And you have been staying in that area all the time, is that so?

MR MASETLA: I, yes, I have been living there. Many people, all of these people who committed this act, found us already there, they came after us.

MS VILAKAZI: Now were you actively involved in the community matters?

MR MASETLA: I don't understand your question.

MS VILAKAZI: Did you take part in the activities of the community?

MR MASETLA: Activities such as?

MS VILAKAZI: Like, if there are meetings called by the Chief or the representative of the Chief, would you take part in those?

MR MASETLA: When the Chief has written a letter, give it to the foreman, the foreman would call us and say "listen, here is a letter from the Chief, the Chief wants to meet us". I won't have an option, I would go in such a case to listen to what the Chief has to say.

MS VILAKAZI: Then meetings that were arranged by the messenger of the Chiefs, did you attend them?

MR MASETLA: Everybody in the village would be called to this kind of a meeting, and he has to tell us what the Chief wants to see us about.

MS VILAKAZI: Do you know of any meeting that was called, okay, let me just be specific. The meeting that was held on the 12th of August, do you know about that meeting, the community meeting?

MR MASETLA: I know people were at the kraal.

MS VILAKAZI: Was it, what kind of meeting was it? Was it a community meeting, was it a political meeting, a meeting of a political organisation?

MR MASETLA: It was a meeting of the community.

MS VILAKAZI: Did you attend that meeting?

MR MASETLA: I went to that meeting.

MS VILAKAZI: Was the death of Mr Mokoena discussed in that particular meeting?

MR MASETLA: Yes, it was discussed, they wanted to know who killed Mokoena, and that matter was left there, saying that they would go to a sangoma to find out. That was the only time we heard of that issue.

MS VILAKAZI: Okay, it has already been testified that information was given in the meeting of the 15th, that the sangoma pointed out the deceased as the one who was responsible for Mr Makena's death. Did you attend that meeting of the 15th?

MR MASETLA: I know nothing about what you have just mentioned. I don't want to come here and tell lies. I was not present in that meeting, I do not know anything. Even the organisers of the meeting, I do not know who they are, they know.

MS VILAKAZI: But do you know if there was such a meeting?

MR MASETLA: I don't know. I have never seen that at the kraal. Maybe I was not present.

MS VILAKAZI: How did the deceased earn his living?

MR MASETLA: The deceased came home after retirement.

CHAIRPERSON: Just repeat that, I didn't hear you properly, Mr Interpreter?

INTERPRETER: The deceased came home after retirement.

CHAIRPERSON: After retirement? Thank you. Ms Vilakazi?

MS VILAKAZI: Did he run any business, the deceased?

MR MASETLA: He was selling vegetables and then he was using, I didn't know as to whether he was using the van as a taxi or not, because I did not know that he was operating a taxi business. I knew him being a seller of vegetables.

MS VILAKAZI: Now, would you say that the business that he was running of selling vegetables, was thriving so much that he could buy that van?

MR MASETLA: He did not use the money from the vegetable business to buy the van, he used his retirement benefits to buy a van. He did not use the money from the vegetable business to buy the van, he bought that van after receiving his fringe benefits.

MS VILAKAZI: How many taxi's were there in Mooihoek?

MR MASETLA: I would not know how many there were, because Mokoena had a Peugeot and another car. He did not have a microbus or a kombi.

MS VILAKAZI: Besides those of Mokoena, were there other taxi's?

MR MASETLA: Those who were there, they were taking the Marble Hall route and even today they are still there. They were not many. They were using the Marble Hall route.

MS VILAKAZI: Did you use the taxi's to commute as well?

MR MASETLA: You mean going to Marble Hall or other places? I used to board taxi's when I go to Marble Hall and other places.

MS VILAKAZI: Did you have a car at that time, or any time before that?

MR MASETLA: Yes, I had a car then.

MS VILAKAZI: That will be all, thank you Mr Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VILAKAZI

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Richard, any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RICHARD: Yes Chairperson, not many though. Sir, are you aware, sorry let me start at the beginning. Have you applied for amnesty for this incident? Yes or no? Have you applied for amnesty for your role in the death of the deceased?

MR MASETLA: Amnesty for what?

MR RICHARD: Amnesty for the death of the late Philemon Masetla?

MR MASETLA: I did not play a role in Philemon Masetla's death. I was woken up from home, that is my relative.

MR RICHARD: The question I asked, the question I asked was simply yes or no, I didn't ask for a long answer, because the proposition I put to you goes this way. If the version that the four people next to me give me, is correct, and if their version as to who else was at the meeting on the 15th is also correct, you were as much a role-player in the death of the deceased as anyone else? Are you aware of that?

MR MASETLA: If the law says that, I will accept that, but I did not go there to go and take part. Which means I was forced to take part.

MR RICHARD: Thank you, so your version is that you were forced to take part?

MR MASETLA: Correct Chairperson, I was forced. It is clear that I was forced.

MR RICHARD: But nonetheless, forced you might be, was it true that under the pressure of the moment, as the applicants say, you did speak to the deceased?

MR MASETLA: You mean at the time when he was questioned?

MR RICHARD: Yes?

MR MASETLA: I did not say anything, I was silent all the time. I did not say anything to him, there is nothing I said to him. I was surprised and I did not say anything.

MR RICHARD: Now, in what way were you forced?

MR MASETLA: I was forced by those who were making me too march, they were pushing us.

MR RICHARD: What would have happened to you if you had said "no, I don't want to come along"?

MR MASETLA: I was scared that they would burn me or so. I knew that they were burning people.

MR RICHARD: How many other people were burnt?

MR MASETLA: You mean in our area?

MR RICHARD: Yes?

MR MASETLA: Three other people whom I heard of, were burnt, that includes my brother.

MR RICHARD: So you were scared of the crowd?

MR MASETLA: Yes. I thought they were going to burn me also. Why did they wake me up early in the morning, they were supposed to come during the day.

MR RICHARD: Now, did you know the death of the late Mr Mokoena, that is the ANC taxi driver?

MR MASETLA: I knew nothing about his death, I only learnt that he was killed on his way from Tafelkop. I only heard that he was killed on his way from Tafelkop, but I know nothing about how and I have nothing to testify about that.

MR RICHARD: Did you go to the meeting on the 12th of August 1990?

MR MASETLA: Yes, I was present in that meeting. But I did not know the intention of that meeting, I only responded to the bell.

MR RICHARD: Did you go to the meeting on the 15th?

MR MASETLA: I did not know about that.

MR RICHARD: You were woken up and taken there, did you go there, yes or no did not go to the meeting of the 15th, because I did not know about that one.

MR RICHARD: I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Richard. Mr Masetla, was the deceased involved in selling liquor?

MR MASETLA: I would not know because he was drinking alcohol, but I did not know as to whether he was selling alcohol because I did not observe that. He liked the association of his friends there, therefore, every time when I visited him, I saw him drinking, but I did not know that he was selling.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know the applicants, the four applicants for amnesty?

MR MASETLA: I know them all.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you ever had any problems with them at about the time when this incident took place?

MR MASETLA: I did not experience any personal problems with any of them. Particularly Mr Manasoe, I know him as a kind person, I was surprised to see that he was involved in that. He is very quiet. I was surprised by what he did.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Thank you. Does the panel have other questions?

ADV BOSMAN: No questions, thank you.

ADV SANDI: Yes, I do have. Mr Masetla, did you ever see Mr Matlala at any meeting which discussed the death of Mokoena?

MR MASETLA: It seems he was present at the meeting of the 12th.

ADV SANDI: What was his role there if he had any?

MR MASETLA: Usually when we were at the Chief's kraal, he would not say anything, he would just sit there and listen to what people were asking. We were discussing the death of this person, and thereafter they went out to go and find out as to who was responsible for the death of that person.

ADV SANDI: At that meeting, did Matlala convey anything from the Chief? Did he say the Chief had anything to say about the death of Mokoena?

MR MASETLA: No, he did not say anything.

ADV SANDI: Do you know of any taxi violence in the neighbouring residential areas of Mooihoek, the place where this incident happened?

MR MASETLA: I only know about one incident of taxi violence, which is further down from where the Chief was staying, within our Chief's district. I observed that because they killed one person from Tsimanyane who was a taxi driver. That is the only incident which I can relate to a taxi violence.

ADV SANDI: Do you know if there were any rumours or suspicions that were going around about the death of Mokoena?

MR MASETLA: There could have been there, I would not dispute that fact. That is why I said on the 12th they wanted to find out who was responsible for the death of Mr Mokoena, but I did not get an explanation as to who was responsible. I only know now that Mr Masetla was responsible for his death, after he had been killed.

And then for the fact that they consulted the sangoma, I did not know about that one.

ADV SANDI: Did you know what the relationship was like between Mr Mokoena and Mr Masetla, the late?

MR MASETLA: I would not know for sure, but I believed they did not have a dispute because Mr Mokoena was not far from my area, then I did not observe any dispute between them. I would not know, I would not know but I only saw that Mr Mokoena had his own car and Mr Masetla had his own car. I did not know whether there was a problem between them.

ADV SANDI: Did you know if Mr Mokoena was a supporter or member of the ANC?

MR MASETLA: I know nothing about that.

ADV SANDI: Do you know who was friends with him, people who were close to him in the area?

MR MASETLA: I don't know his friends, or associates, I only know him as my neighbour. He was not troublesome.

ADV SANDI: Do you know of any people who were close to Mr Masetla, the late, who were friends with him, your brother's son?

MR MASETLA: I would not know them all, I know his neighbour, that is the one I saw them visiting each other. I think they were of equal age, but I did not know of any other.

ADV SANDI: How would you describe the relationship between yourself, how intimate were you to the late Mr Masetla? Were you very close to him as a relative?

MR MASETLA: He is my brother's son, then if there is anything the issue, I would tell him and if he knows of any family issue, he would come and tell me. He is my brother's son, I don't know how to explain it.

ADV SANDI: Yes, were you so close to him that if there were people who were after his blood, people who wanted to attack him, he would have told you about that? Is that the position?

MR MASETLA: Yes, he could have told me. He would not keep quiet, he would tell me if there are people who were after his blood.

ADV SANDI: What do you think would have been the reason for these young men to take you to this gathering, because at the end of the day you had no role to play, you had nothing to do there, you were just there? Why do you think they took you there, forcing you to come along with them?

MR MASETLA: I did not know because they woke me up at night, whilst I was asleep. I did not know who had the intention to wake me up. I was woken up in the middle of the night. I did not think of anything, I was surprised when I was woken up.

ADV SANDI: That nephew you say, came to tell you that "they have killed my uncle", where was he coming from? Was he one of the people who were at the meeting where the deceased was being questioned?

MR MASETLA: They brought all Youth within the community. Even though others did not attend the meetings, but they were forced to come and attend the meeting.

ADV SANDI: Are you saying that your nephew was one of the people who had been forced to come to the meeting where the deceased was being questioned?

MR MASETLA: On that particular day, he was present in the classroom, together with others.

ADV SANDI: You say you attended the meeting of the 12th, because you were attending to a bell. Who was ringing, whose bell was this, who was ringing this bell?

MR MASETLA: The meeting of the 12 was attended at the Headman's kraal. If there is anything which is not familiar, happening within the community, then there would be a bell rung at the Chief's kraal so that everybody would respond do that and come and attend the meeting, to find out what is happening. Other meetings which were not called by the Chief or the Headman, I would not know about those, and I did not attend those meetings.

ADV SANDI: Finally, at this meeting of the 12th of August 1990, the question of the death of Mr Mokoena, was it the only issue that was discussed there, or was it one of the issues that came up for discussion?

MR MASETLA: They were surprised by the death of Mr Mokoena, so I did not hear about any other item on the agenda. They only discussed about the death of Mr Mokoena, and thereafter they decided they would go and find out who was responsible.

ADV SANDI: One last, last question. Do you know if the Chief, Chief Matlala was a member of the ANC at that time?

MR MASETLA: Do you mean M.M. Matlala?

ADV SANDI: M.M. Matlala, yes.

MR MASETLA: I would not be able to verify as to whether he was a member of the ANC, I only know him as the Chief. I would be lying if I knew his political affiliation.

ADV SANDI: And Mr Mokoena, do you know if he was a member of the ANC?

MR MASETLA: I did not know as to whether he was affiliated to the ANC. He would be the one who would respond to the question as to whether he was a card-carrying member or not, but I did not know.

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

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Masetla, was the issue of political affiliation of anybody discussed at the meeting of the 12th?

MR MASETLA: The only one I saw there was Mr Magadi and it has been said here that he was a member of the ANC. That is the only one that I saw there, and I did not see Mr Malopani because there were many people, maybe I am not able to recollect as to whether I saw him or not, but I saw Mr Magadi there.

ADV BOSMAN: But what I really want to know is was there any suggestion that Mr Mokoena was killed for political reasons, at this meeting?

MR MASETLA: I do not know. I would not testify to that, because I do not know.

ADV BOSMAN: And just one matter that I would like you to clarify for me. Was Mr Masetla an old man or was he a young man, because you said he was your brother's son and you said he had retired, so I am confused.

MR MASETLA: Mr Masetla is the first born of my elder brother, he was a little bit old.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

MR MASETLA: He had a wife and he was married.

ADV SANDI: Thank you Chair, just one question. Do you know if Mbokoto had any profile in that area?

MR MASETLA: I know nothing about Mbokoto, I only heard about it, I don't know anything about Mbokoto, because I was not a taxi owner.

ADV SANDI: You mean you heard for the first time about Mbokoto today?

MR MASETLA: I only heard people talking about Mbokoto, I only know Mbokoto in the Ndebele area, in the Groblersdal area.

ADV SANDI: Thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: I didn't ask you if you had any questions, I do it now.

MS MTANGA: I have no questions, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MS VILAKAZI: Mr Masetla, I just want you to clarify a few things. When the legal representative of the applicants said that you took part and you said you were forced, I want you to clarify this. Did you take part in the killing of Mr Masetla, the deceased?

MR MASETLA: They forced me to go to the school, I did not take part. I did not utter a word, they took me from home, they pushed me to their meeting and I said nothing. There is no part at all that I took. I want to reiterate that I did not utter a word, they never heard my voice. It is a surprise really to claim that they asked me a question. I was quiet of surprise. I never said anything.

MS VILAKAZI: So the part that you say you were forced to take, you only mean about your presence at that place?

MR MASETLA: That is correct, and to go to the deceased's place to fetch him from his home. When they woke him up, I was just standing there, looking with surprise. It was at night, I don't know who knocked at the door.

MS VILAKAZI: Now, the gathering that took place at the school on the night on which the deceased was killed, do you consider that to be a meeting?

MR MASETLA: They were asking him questions as he was standing, it was not a meeting really, it was just a quick, quick thing. There were no long talks, nobody was afforded an opportunity to say anything. He was taken from the house and he was not asked anything. They just proceeded to the school.

MS VILAKAZI: No further questions, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Masetla, you are excused, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you got other evidence that you are tendering, Ms Vilakazi?

MS VILAKAZI: Chairperson, I have a submission of the ...

CHAIRPERSON: An affidavit from Mrs Helen Masetla. We've got that before us.

MS VILAKAZI: May I read it into the record to form part of the ...

CHAIRPERSON: It is not necessary, Ms Vilakazi.

MS VILAKAZI: In that event, that would close the case for the victims.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We receive the affidavit of Mrs Helen Manapo Masetla, dated the 3rd of October 2000, as Exhibit A. Ms Mtanga, are you tendering any evidence?

MS MTANGA: No Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Richard, have you got submissions on the merits of your client's application?

MR RICHARD IN ARGUMENT: I have submissions, thank you Chairperson. The first issue that I will address is the value of the last witness' evidence. My submission is that it is patently of very little value and not believable. The man is an implicated person, not a victim. There is cogent, credible evidence about his participation in a necklacing, for which he has not applied for amnesty.

If there is a motive for him to lie and not to make a full disclosure, that is it. We need speculate no further. As a witness he was obviously entirely unsatisfactory, he was contradictory, vague and in fact by the end of listening to him, one hardly knew which meetings he had attended or not.

In the circumstances I say the only thing to do with his evidence is to disregard it in its totality. The evidence, evidential value of the affidavit handed in, is also of no other relevance, other than it qualifies the maker of the affidavit to be classified as a victim.

That means what we have to consider is the bundle and the evidence of the four applicants. Section 20 of the Act as application, there is no dispute about whether the application complies with the requirements of the Act, and the next issue is whether there has been full disclosure of all relevant facts.

It is my submission that the four applicants candidly and openly revealed and gave particular detail of all relevant factors of their participation in what was a dreadful transaction, and they certainly cannot be faulted for either giving dishonest evidence or failing to disclosure material and relevant facts.

The next is the substance of the ac, the murder which constitutes a crime. The facts are straightforward. We start with the first death and that is of Mokoena on the 10th of August. It is unchallenged that he was a member of the ANC and a taxi driver. He was killed while operating his taxi. The inevitable began, the question, are taxi killings political acts?

In this regard I need only refer the Committee to the test which while being critical, is subjective. What did the applicants perceive. They perceived the killing of one of their comrades as a political deed. They had their reasons which were cogent and coherent as to why they saw taxi violence as political and when a competitor killed their comrade, I don't believe it can be argued that their belief that the killing is political, is unreasonable or incoherent or not a belief that could be held after critical self-evaluation.

Then, the next thing. The identification of who killed their comrade. The evidence of all four applicants is that the deceased who they killed, confessed. I don't believe that the evidence of the last witness, that of the implicated person, is of any merit. It does not go anywhere to establishing that the four applicants were dishonest or lied. Their evidence is that their victim killed their comrade. We now have a double relationship going on. First of all the killing of their comrade is seen as political and secondly, they have the confession of their victim. In the circumstances, it is quite plain that the person that they proceeded to kill, was perceived on an honest and bona fide basis to be a political opponent.

It is common cause that at the time, taxi violence was perceived to be of a political nature and be a product of the meddling of the then regime, that various parties were manipulating the situation. Those factors come from other hearings.

Then, as to what the particular applicants did and the test of proportionality, on their evidence, and there is no reason to doubt it, they were not the principal perpetrators. In fact, they were all minors, under the age of 21 who did nothing more than associate themselves with the murderous crowd and therefore in accordance with the law of the time, join in common purpose and therefore were guilty of the murder.

Certainly, the sentences that they received were heavy, 12 and 15 years, but in relation for sentences for common purpose, I need only remind the Committee that not that long ago death sentences were the norm for common purpose, so that sentences in no way impact on the real participation of the applicants in the crime.

To say that their participation was disproportionate, would be incorrect in this situation. In fact, as I have already submitted, they did nothing besides join the crowd. That the killing would be seen as an act which would further the interests of the ANC is also apparent. Persons who killed ANC supporters, were opponents of the ANC and it doesn't take a profound intellect to take it to the next step, and therefore they should be eliminated.

In the circumstances to sum up, my argument is that the applicants have complied with the Act, their act was patently political and in the furtherance of the objects of the ANC which was then a recognised political party at the time, and not disproportionate. They have therefore satisfied the requirements of the Act and are entitled to amnesty. As the Committee pleases.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Vilakazi, submissions?

MS VILAKAZI IN ARGUMENT; Thank you honourable Chairperson. I would just address two issues that were raised by my learned colleague, Mr Richard. Firstly that the witness, Mr Moses Masetla, is an implicated person. Supposing that the version of the applicants is to be accepted, there is nothing in their version to suggest in the least that Mr Masetla was a co-perpetrator because from their version and from the version of three of the applicants, the only thing that was mentioned in relation to Mr Masetla was that he asked the deceased if he killed Mr Mokoena.

The same version also indicates that he was asking that question out of a surprise, after the deceased made that particular confession. Now, I submit that there is nothing in the circumstances that would make Mr Masetla to be an implicated person in this particular matter because asking a simple question, under the circumstances that were outlined by the applicants from their version, does not tie the witness to the actions of the group. There is no indication of any common purpose for that matter, between himself and the rest of the group.

It has also been suggested that Mr Masetla was contradicting himself and he was vague. To the contrary I would submit that the evidence of Mr Masetla can be relied upon. Mr Masetla proved to be a very credible witness. In any instance where he was, he did not know of anything, he would readily concede to that.

If he was not sure of anything, he would say that he was not sure. He did not go all out of his way to implicate the applicants and to try and make himself, to convince the panel to agree, to accept his evidence. Where he was not sure, he would say that he was not sure. That is not an action, I submit, of a person who would lie.

There is, having said that, there is no basis on which Mr Masetla would lie. He does not have grounds to lie. He only told what he knew. What he did not know, he did not tell to the Committee, so it is really unfair to label him as a person who lied.

The reference to the aspect of meetings, my learned colleague said that Mr Masetla contradicted himself, he said he attended the meeting of the 15th, then he did not attend. I think in the re-examination it was made very clear. Mr Masetla did not consider that gathering of the 15th as a meeting. Under those circumstances you cannot say that he contradicted himself.

I submit that he is a credible witness and his testimony should be accepted for what it purports to be. If there is any reason for anyone in these proceedings to tell a lie, the question is who stands to benefit from telling lies? Mr Masetla will not benefit anything. The applicants are faced, they are in custody, they have criminal records against their names, even after serving their sentences, they would remain with those records.

So if there is any person who stands to benefit from lies, it would be the applicants and not Mr Masetla. Now, the version that was given by the applicants, considering that there are four applicants who are applying for amnesty for the same incident, it is not inconceivable that they may have discussed the version and went over the version to make sure that it correlates. Even if one looks at the manner in which the questions were asked in the forms, to a very large extent, the same types of answers were given.

The fact that, the possibility that the applicants discussed the matter and decided on a version that they were to give, cannot be excluded. Apart from the version of the applicants, there is no other version which has been put before the Court, or evidence which has been put before the Court to support the claim of the applicants.

The applicants say that they acted under the instructions and they want the Committee to believe that the instructions came from people who were in the leadership of the ANC. But then, no support of their application is included in the bundle. None of the leaders were called in to support the claim of the applicants. The Committee only has to rely on the word of the applicants that they were given instructions by the leaders in the ANC.

With regard to whether or not there was a political objective, my submission is that if the subjective test is to be applied to determine whether a political objective existed or not, then that would create problems that anyone who believed, even if there was no reason to believe that there was a political objective, would then have to be considered to have acted with a political objective.

I think the belief that there was or there was no political objective, should be a reasonable one. I disagree with my learned colleague that what the applicants perceived, should be regarded as proof that there was a political, should be accepted as an indication of a political objective.

Apart from that, I would leave it to the Committee to make a proper finding. I would just add that the family of the deceased, Mr Masetla, should be declared victims in terms of Section 20(2) of the Act.

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

MS MTANGA: I have no submissions, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Do you want to add anything further, Mr Richard? Thank you very much. That concludes the hearing part of this matter, which has been quite an extensive one. By the nature of things, the panel would need some time to prepare a decision in the matter. It is not possible to decide the matter immediately. We will therefore reserve the decision in the matter, and we will let you know as soon as the decision has been made.

We always endeavour to do that as soon as the circumstances permit us to do so. This will be no exception. We had a long session, I want to thank the legal representatives for their assistance in this matter and for their preparedness to assist us in disposing of the matter. We have sat long beyond traditional sitting hours, I must hasten to add that that is nothing new in this process unfortunately.

It is not, in that regard it is not akin to what normally happens in our courts. We are often called upon at some expense, personal and otherwise, to endeavour to meet the needs of the process and the needs of everybody else, although these are things that are very easily overlooked when people comment on this process, but we are also getting used to that.

We thank you for your assistance, we thank you for your patience, also for the interested people, the members of the public, families, those other people with an interest in this matter, we thank you for having come and having attended and having sat through a very, very long session.

We have noted that. We will under those circumstances adjourn the proceedings and we will reconvene tomorrow morning at half past nine in this venue. We are adjourned. Yes, I am just reminded to also thank the members of the Correctional Services for your assistance and your ability to at least make yourselves available. Thank you very much, it is appreciated. We are adjourned.